Liberals under Trudeau have long abandoned being Canada's natural governing party: Now what?

Much has been made about the extent to which Canada's political discourse has been polarized these days, particularly embodied by the two leading figures now battling for control of our country's future direction, Justin Trudeau on the left and now Pierre Poilievre on the right.

Poilievre's recent ascension to the helm of the Conservative Party of Canada has been met with equal parts excitement and dread, with those on the right believing he is a liberator from an increasingly interventionist state, while others on the left see his leadership as a direct threat to our institutions with imprudent policy proposals, ill-suited for governance.

Irrespective of which lens you view this outcome, one thing cannot be in dispute, Poilievre's decisive arrival is a consequence of where Trudeau has taken both the Liberal Party and the country. This is to say, the prospect of a seemingly polarizing option only becomes more accepted when responding to a seemingly polarizing government. As the adage goes, with every action there is an equal and opposing reaction.

While some pundits have expressed justifiable consternation with Poilievre's fomenting of existing anger within the populace, perhaps greater focus ought to be paid to why the anger exists at all. On that note, it behooves Liberals to exercise their own level of introspection for its role in today's political and economic environment, and to realize that it has abandoned its historical approach to governance once marked by trusted fiscal stewardship and the preservation of our national unity, all in service of a leader who operates solely for the sake of political expedience, consequences be damned.

The Liberal Party of Canada has historically prided itself as being the “natural governing party,” and it is easy to see why - beyond having been the governing party for two-thirds of the twentieth century, the party has generally been adept at embracing the periodic expansion of the social welfare state, while simultaneously placing equal importance for strong fiscal management. The moniker has also been predicated along Canada's traditional lines of support, where the New Democratic Party (NDP) have normally courted the working class vote by virtue of its grassroots Prairie origins, while the establishment Conservative Party have typically catered to the interests of the business sector, thereby placing the Liberals in a theoretical and pragmatic middle-ground, adaptable to speak to a plurality of interests. All of this electoral posturing had changed in 2015.

Federal elections were increasingly understood to be contested by striking the right balance between social progressivism and fiscal conservatism, yet this enduring political understanding was shaken to its core when the Trudeau Liberals boldly offered budget deficits for three straight years, amongst its many policy proposals intended to essentially outflank the NDP on the left, following their own paradigm shift to the centre in the 2015 federal election campaign. It is interesting to note that Trudeau's promise of deficit spending also came with the declaration that there would be an eventual return to balance by the end of the first term, demonstrating there was still a need to register with Canadians some semblance of fiscal competence.

Seven years later, the Trudeau Liberals have continued to govern with soaring deficits matched only by its soaring platitudes, alongside the now soaring cost of living, without a hint of ever returning to a balanced budget. While some may argue the COVID-19 pandemic forced spending levels to exceed the norm, it is worth remembering that prior to the pandemic, the Fraser Institute had published a report calculating that Trudeau had raised the debt level higher than any other Prime Minister outside of a world war or recession, making him a historical outlier in questionably placing the country in a vulnerable economic position to respond to an unexpected crisis, which eventually turned out to be the case.

Ushering in new emergency benefits during the onset of the global pandemic was an applauded and vital maneuver, but unfortunately even within the scope of the pandemic, the Trudeau Liberals had far exceeded what was necessary according to most economists, as reported by Bloomberg. Ironically, and perhaps even strategically, the Office of the Auditor General has continually lacked sufficient resources from the federal government to audit all of these spending measures. This has prompted calls for a Public Inquiry into the Trudeau Liberals' pandemic response, where Canadians could be staggered to learn of more possible scandals under the veil of pandemic support, as was evidenced by the WE Charity fiasco.

Yet with all of this spending, do Canadians believe they are materially better off as a result? Recent polling by Abacus Data revealed only a mere 33% of Canadians believe the country was heading in the right direction, a stinging indictment at this juncture for what has been unrelenting fiscal stimulus. Targeted spending that makes an appreciable difference in the lives of Canadians is understandable, but spending as a broad-based, one-track solution to every issue facing the country is lazy, irresponsible, and demonstrably incompetent, which only serves to burden future generations.

Though fiscal mismanagement has been one aspect where the Liberals led by Trudeau have departed in approach from most of his predecessors, the other unforgivable aspect has been a complete disregard for national unity implications, while pursuing what is most expedient for the maintenance of power.

Starting with Alberta, the United Conservative Party (UCP) leadership candidate Danielle Smith has vowed to implement the “Alberta Sovereignty Act” upon her becoming Premier, as a response to what is seen as the Trudeau Liberals' environmental agenda encroaching on resource development and economic enrichment for the province. Despite endless platitudes of a “just transition” from oil to alternatives without a tangible plan, the Trudeau Liberals' indifference to the stated plight of the province has not helped quell the anger. With negligible support for Liberals in the province, these concerns and corresponding push for “sovereignty” are dangerously dismissed by Trudeau, and only serves to exacerbate the constitutional tensions.

When looking at Quebec, Francois Legault's push for French language protection with Bill 96 not only infringes on English speaking minority rights, but even more astoundingly, purports to unilaterally amend the Canadian Constitution to declare Quebec a “nation.” Unlike Alberta where support is barren for the Liberals, appeasement is the order of the day in this case, since a significant chunk of Trudeau's support derives from Quebec. To that end, Trudeau committed the unthinkable by affirming Quebec's ability to move in this direction unilaterally, rather than standing up for the Constitution with a possible reference to the Supreme Court to challenge it.

This stands in stark contrast to his own father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who spoke out vehemently against the inclusion of a “distinct society” clause within the Meech Lake Accord, fearing it would imbue special powers to the province of Quebec to enforce that distinctiveness - in effect, destabilizing the constitutional order. It is worth noting that Trudeau's intervention was also against the popular sentiment at that time.

For Justin Trudeau to sit passively with Quebec's incremental approach to a de facto separation, or a more blatant one being proposed in Alberta, reveals a crude political calculus devoid of any concern for protecting the Constitution, which can only be regarded as a betrayal to the historical responsibilities of promoting and enforcing national unity, as has been the preoccupation with every other Liberal Prime Minister.

To bring the analysis back to the alternatives, Poilievre has been no better, having been disturbingly silent on Bill 96 and Smith's Sovereignty Act, not to mention a general lightness on detailed policy prescriptions to address the multitude of issues plaguing this country aside from “removing the gatekeepers,” though that is not an unexpected tactic outside of an election cycle. Nonetheless, his messaging on the Trudeau Liberals' economic mismanagement has been resonating, as shown by current polling data, and it appears some Liberals are taking notice.

While recently signed agreements for a National Childcare Program and a recorded budget surplus in the last fiscal quarter may help to politically dispel the notion that not all is lost with the Liberal brand, nevertheless the calls for a return to centrist, responsible governance will only grow louder the more polarized the options may appear on the electoral menu.

On that score, Liberals must ask themselves if Justin Trudeau is still the appropriate flag-bearer for the Liberal Party moving forward. Based on Trudeau's aforementioned record of mishandling economic and intergovernmental affairs, along with an invariable accumulation of political baggage over extended terms in office, the answer should be no.

Only the giants of Canadian political history, John A. MacDonald and Wilfrid Laurier were able to successfully grab a fourth consecutive mandate, and it would be sheer hubris to think Justin Trudeau would find himself in such company, given what has transpired under his premiership and continued drop in popular support with each ensuing election.

Therefore, it would only be prudent for the party to ponder whether it would be better served with a new leader capable of reorienting the Liberals back to its traditional centrists roots, where most Canadians are waiting to see a return of any party daring to call itself a “natural governing” one, in a climate of escalating polarization.