The walls are closing in on Justin Trudeau

A confluence of events within the past month have laid to bare the unraveling of Justin Trudeau's political career, leaving no viable path for recovery at this late stage.

The signs of desperation are mounting.

Upon the latest revelations that a secret group of Liberal MPs intend to formally demand the resignation of their leader Justin Trudeau at a caucus meeting scheduled for this Wednesday, Trudeau has since responded with alarming and reckless efforts to divert the public's attention away from the brewing revolt within his caucus.

Consider the specific incidents that have followed mere days after it became public knowledge of the internal challenges to Trudeau's leadership:

• Trudeau re-ignited a diplomatic conflict with India, by holding a press conference on Thanksgiving Day to announce the expulsion of India’s High Commissioner and five other diplomats following allegations that the Indian government were responsible for the murders of Sikh activists within Canada. Meanwhile, India continues to counter that the Trudeau government has failed to provide any tangible proof behind its claims. When pressed by journalists to comment instead on the issues within his Liberal caucus, Trudeau retorted, “There will be a time to talk about internal party intrigue at another moment.”

• Called upon to testify as the last witness during the Hogue Commission proceedings, Trudeau used the forum to drop an explosive and unsolicited accusation that some former and current Conservatives are implicated in foreign interference. In contrast to his previous testimonies in other public inquiries, Trudeau was noticeably more charged and partisan, attempting to slander his primary opponent while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the very troubling elements of foreign interference that exist within his own ranks, which is what prompted the need for a public inquiry in the first place.

• It was announced that another four cabinet ministers would be resigning and not seeking re-election, a coordinated move that could be interpreted as a possible carrot for those disgruntled Liberal MPs who have been previously overlooked for a promotion, in an effort to buy their silence and quell the internal threat to Trudeau's leadership.

The timing of all these occurences cannot be chalked up as simple coincidences, but rather demonstrative of an aging government and its prime minister desperate to cling both to relevance and its weakening grip on power.

It is also telling that a number of Liberal MPs (a speculated range between 20-40) would prefer to give Trudeau the proverbial boot without an obvious successor. Despite acknowledging the risks associated in ousting Trudeau without a clear replacement, Liberal MP Sean Casey also pointed out, “the upside of having a new leader is significantly higher than if he stays.”

For a leader who has incurred countless controversies, embarrassments, and scandals over the past nine years, it would be natural to ponder why only now does it seems that Trudeau may be reaching the end stage of his tenure? While the economic landscape and cost of living crisis provides a necessary backdrop for such analyses, it has been a string of events within the last month which have truly signalled the eventual downfall of Trudeau and his government.

Entrenched polling and by-election politics

Consistent throughout all national public opinion polls for well over the past year, the Conservatives have maintained a commanding lead over the Liberals, upwards of a 20 point advantage. Furthermore, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre continues to lead Trudeau in the metrics for “preferred prime minister,” while the Liberals have now slipped to third place in polling outside Quebec.

Meager attempts by the Trudeau Liberals to stem the tide have not been successful, clearly denoting a strong desire for change, a phenomenon that has become insurmountable for Trudeau to contend with as the long-tenured incumbent.

Yet, in listening to Trudeau following the shocking by-election loss in Toronto-St. Paul's in June, he insisted that while Canadians are upset, they are not in a “decision-making mode,” suggesting when the time comes for Canadians to choose in a general election with real consequences, the threat of the alternative will compel Canadians to come back to the Liberals.

Then the unthinkable happened - the Trudeau Liberals lost the Montreal by-election of LaSalle-Émard-Verdun last month. In a riding considered a Liberal stronghold for decades, and once held by former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, a loss to the separatist Bloc Quebecois in the predominantly anglophone riding can only be construed as an outright repudiation of the Trudeau brand.

On a related note, in the run-up to the vote in Montreal, the party had even avoided imagery of Trudeau on its signage to mitigate the impact of his unpopularity, but to no avail. The message sent was undeniable.

Coupled with the by-election loss in downtown Toronto, the loss in Montreal cemented the impression that so long as Trudeau remains at the helm, the Liberal Party can no longer count on any “safe seats,” leaving it vulnerable to contest the next general election, while fueling the anxiety now seen throughout the Liberal backbench.

The end of the Supply and Confidence Agreement

In reading the polling data, it was also clear to the NDP that their returns for supporting the minority Liberals over the past two years in exchange for key NDP policy priorities (dental care, pharmacare, etc.) were stagnant at best. The NDP were becoming inextricably linked with the Liberals, leaving Poilievre and his Conservatives as the only prospective option for change amongst voters.

This reality began manifesting itself in the Winnipeg by-election of Elmood-Transcona, the NDP equivalent to what Toronto-St. Paul’s and LaSalle-Émard-Verdun meant for the Liberals. With the vote drawing near, and the Conservatives looking primed for the upset victory in the traditional NDP riding, leader Jagmeet Singh announced he was pulling out of the Supply and Confidence Agreement with Trudeau, in an effort to separate his party from the Liberals in the mind of voters. The unforeseen action eventually netted Singh a crucial victory in the riding.

But what it also represented was the elimination of the de facto majority the Liberals enjoyed under the blanket of the agreement, reverting the House of Commons back to a conventional minority government, whereby the governing party requires the support of other parties on a vote by vote basis.

And judging from the subsequent reactions by Liberals ranging from shocked to disappointed, it is evident they were not anticipating Singh ending the agreement prematurely, as the party was likely banking on the agreement’s runway until June 2025 for more favourable economic conditions in advance of an eventual vote slated for October 2025.

In other words, Trudeau no longer has the luxury of time to contemplate long-term strategic goals, which could have included a standard months-long leadership contest to replace him, as he ceases to have full control over his political destiny, and is now partially dependent on the whims of the opposition parties.

Recalibrated approach of the opposition parties in the House of Commons

Following the demise of the Supply and Confidence Agreement, the Conservatives have been emboldened to try taking down the Trudeau government, vowing to use all of their opposition day motions to test the confidence of the House for this government, while at the same time testing the will of the NDP and Bloc Quebecois in doing the same. This alone underscores the precariousness of the new parliamentary reality for Trudeau's political standing.

But to the Liberals’ credit, they have called the opposition parties’ bluff, most notably the NDP, by front-loading some of the opposition day motions in the parliamentary calendar for this fall sitting, and thus far, the tactic has proven effective, as both the NDP and Bloc had not supported the Tories’ first two non-confidence motions.

For the Conservatives, this presents a win-win situation. Should the other opposition parties support their non-confidence motion, the Trudeau government falls. If the other parties vote against the motions, as they have so far, it gives the Conservatives political ammunition to continue tying the NDP and Bloc with the unpopular Liberals for propping them up.

As for the Bloc Quebecois, leader Yves Francois Blanchet has attempted to hold the Trudeau Liberals ransom by providing a specific list of demands in exchange for their continued support. In particular, raising Old Age Security (OAS) payments for those seniors aged 65-74, to match the previously increased levels of those 75 and over.

Despite Blanchet's declaration of an October 29th deadline to have his demands met, the Liberals have already balked at the request, as it would only deepen the structural deficit, and given the Trudeau Liberals have already been defined as poor fiscal managers, caving into the request would do little to dispel from that reputation. Again, the Liberals are daring the Bloc to bring it all down. Buoyed by the Montreal by-election result and comfortably leading in the polls within Quebec, it would be difficult to see the Bloc Quebecois not follow through on their threat.

This leaves the NDP as the wild card. Singh still appears motivated to prop up the Trudeau Liberals, primarily for his stated aversion to the Conservatives, along with the fact that triggering an election would likely nullify any remaining parliamentary influence the NDP currently holds, as borne out by the polling.

But what could also be motivating the NDP’s reluctance might be the current provincial election campaigns happening in British Columbia (Oct. 18), New Brunswick (Oct. 21), and Saskatchewan (Oct 28). The NDP are the only federal party formally linked in their constitution with the provincial party, meaning volunteers and resources are shared at both levels, and given the closeness of these provincial races, Singh does not want to appear as pillaging from the provincial battles to help a seemingly futile federal campaign.

Once the provincial campaigns ends, perhaps there could be more of an appetite from the NDP to finally have their actions match their words, but so far Singh has only committed to looking at each vote on its own merits.

What does this all mean for Trudeau?

The Liberal caucus meeting this Wednesday will be the first confrontational test for Trudeau's political future. Failing any traction on those efforts though, October 29th becomes the next date to watch, as it will leave both the Bloc and NDP theoretically freed to embrace the prospect of triggering an election with a vote of non-confidence, as explained in this analysis. The pressure will ramp up for all concerned.

Luckily for Trudeau, the House is currently embroiled in a procedural impasse pertaining to the government’s refusal to release documents related to impropriety with the Sustainable Development Fund, effectively freezing all parliamentary business at the moment. However, the opposition parties, in theory, could agree to collectively resolve the impasse, if they were united in their intent to trigger an election. After all, running against Trudeau ahead of any possible leadership change will be a critical part of the calculus moving forward for the opposition parties.

With the current trajectory, it is not surprising to see cabinet ministers step away in the dying days of any government, but it is something else entirely to witness orchestrated efforts from within to remove a leader. As alluded to earlier, it is unclear how successful this clandestine attempt will be. What is equally unclear are the reasons why Trudeau feels Canadians should reward him with a rarified fourth term, particularly when contrasted with Poilievre's populous messaging that has resonated with nearly every demographic across the Canadian electorate on the salient issues affecting them.

One way or another, whether it is initiated from within or steered by the opposition, the end appears to be coming for Trudeau. It is only Trudeau who stands defiantly against the inevitable.

As previously highlighted, his defiance is dangerously marked by a willingness to politicize, bribe, and compromise anything to remain in power. That said, it is worth reflecting on his father Pierre Elliott Trudeau's infamous reciting of Plato, when he said, “men who want very badly to lead the country shouldn't be trusted.” In the absence of any reasonable justification for staying on as leader when everything around him suggests it is time to go, it would seem at this late stage Pierre Trudeau's statement is eerily applicable to the case of his own son.