Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025
He’s not dead yet, folks. After months of increasingly dire public opinion polls, Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party of Canada are finally showing a political pulse. After Pierre Poilievre’s lousy week in mid-November, highlighted by a conspicuously obnoxious confrontation with a journalist and his party’s nonsensical opposition to a Ukraine-Canada free trade deal, I wrote that it might eventually be seen as a turning point.
Well, as I like to say in situations like this: Ahem.
This new Abacus Data poll shows Liberal support snapping back and Poilievre’s negatives on the rise. “It appears that the Conservatives and Pierre Poilievre have made themselves less acceptable to these past Liberal supporters over the past few weeks and may have even alienated a small portion of their own past supporters, pushing most back into the Liberal fold,” Abacus Data CEO David Coletto said on Twitter.
Poilievre’s recent shenanigans in the House of Commons, which included his party voting repeatedly against the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, aren’t likely to help his numbers here. Neither will recent news of the federal government’s deal with Google on Bill C-18, or the growing international trail of evidence behind the Indian government’s involvement in extrajudicial killings in Canada and illegitimate involvement in our democracy. One by one, the issues that Poilievre had been stacking up against the Liberal government are starting to backfire.
Even housing, which has looked like Poilievre’s ace in the hole with young people for a while now, is starting to turn in favour of the government. No, Housing Minister Sean Fraser won’t have single-handedly made homes affordable for young people by 2025, but it will be increasingly difficult to ignore progress being made on that front. For example, as housing expert Mike Moffatt noted, his recent decision to reintroduce the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s catalogue of housing designs “has the potential to be massively beneficial.”
Fraser may not be moving mountains yet with his seemingly endless schedule of funding announcements and regulatory changes, but he’s definitely moving the needle. How far he can get it to budge, and how clearly young Canadians see that, will weigh heavily on the next election’s outcome.
So, too, of course, will inflation. With each new batch of monthly data, it becomes increasingly clear the worst of the inflationary crisis is behind us and central banks around the world will start cutting interest rates as soon as early next year. The president of the New York Federal Reserve, for example, thinks the United States will hit its two per cent inflation target by 2025 — and as the United States goes, so does Canada. By the time we’re in a federal election, the affordability issues top of mind for so many Canadians may have eased significantly as interest rates for mortgages and lines of credit drop precipitously.
What might that leave as ground over which the election will be fought? Climate, for one, especially if the election is held at the tail end of another smoky summer. Trust might be another battleground, and Poilievre is vulnerable here, given his previous dalliances with far-right influencers and personalities who more mainstream Canadians find hard to stomach. And, of course, there’s always the possibility of another Trump administration, which would upend the political table in ways we still can’t quite (or don’t want to) fathom.
None of this is to suggest that a Liberal comeback is a safe bet, much less a sure thing. But there are historical parallels that show it’s far from impossible. In both 2007 and 2011, Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario Liberals were well behind the opposition PCs in pre-election polls and still won both handily. In 2013, the BC Liberal Party’s Christy Clark was down by 15 points and ended up winning by four. And, of course, Trudeau’s father was actually defeated in an election in 1979 before coming back the following year and winning a crushing majority. Campaigns do matter, and more so in Canada than it might seem.
In the months leading up to the next election, expect the Trudeau Liberals to channel legendary strategist Keith Davey’s famous line that helped pull both his dad and McGuinty out of the political ditch. “Don’t compare me to the almighty,” it advises. “Compare me to the alternative.”
So long as that alternative is a guy who takes cryptocurrency more seriously than climate change and talks about foreign policy like he’s Neville Chamberlain, the Trudeau Liberals will have a fighting chance.
Comments
For me, Pierre Poilievre was never an option and other friends of mine have seen the light and no longer see Pierre as a viable leader. I have long argued that Pierre, even as the finance critic MP, was clearly economically illiterate and shown that even more recently in his behavior in the House of Commons. I see Pierre as typical snake oil salesman with no redeeming values.
After all, how can Canadians support the CPC who refuse to acknowledge that climate change is real, a party leader who's "axe the tax" campaign is designed to mislead Canadians of the true facts. A party that obstructs and grandstands in the House of Commons to amuse their far-right base. A party that blames Trudeau for everything regardless of the issue and spreads disinformation about the economy, inflation, housing and other issues facing not just Canada, but many other G7 countries.
I am still not sure that Justin Trudeau should continue to lead the Liberal party any longer, but certainly would not support the CPC given their policies and behaviors. Maybe Trudeau has seen the light and understands he needs to change and listen more to Canadians. But also, do a better job at educating Canadians to policies and programs designed to help them and challenge Pierre Poilievre more as he spreads disinformation about government programs.
I've noticed a big uptick in the social media comments by the convoy and its supporters recently. A visit to the Ottawa Police Services post on hate crimes and on auto theft in recent days is a good example. I do not know if it is part of some kind of strategy or not, but normally the OPS allows no or extremely limited comments on its posts. The service left those two posts open for some reason, and the convoy has flocked there. I wish moderate Canadians would roll their sleeves up and fight back more often in those comment sections, or at the very least read them to be reminded of the confidence and determination that part of the population has. Poilievre's pandering to them is a low point in our history.
Yes, it has been like that with social media for some time, but certainly worse at times than others. Possible OPS left them there on purpose (honey pot) to collect a list of social media accounts to monitor, as the convoy supporters are up to something these days. What is also funny at times, as one of them does something illegal and then brags about it on their social media account, basically incriminating themselves in the process and leads to an arrest :)
What is even worse is Pierre Poilievre supported 3rd party social media accounts that push his disinformation and conspiracy nonsense. We know these exist, but it is difficult to tie him directly to them, but pretty clear he has a hand in the propaganda they push.
Responding to social media posts of the convoy clowns is like trying to walk directly into category 5 hurricane winds to cross the road. No matter the facts presented, if they feel it negates their argument, they just start to throw insults and harass you in their posts, call you a communist, Libtard or snowflake. I guess it means they have nothing to counter your argument or facts presented, that challenges their disinformation or conspiracy nonsense. Maybe they feel threatened because they are being challenged to prove their point and have nothing to back it up. They even blame the media as propaganda, if their point is proven false, which is funny given, most of large media outlets are own by right-wing Postmedia.
I guess I'm hurricane-proof. I am not trying to change hearts and minds. I am there to play with them and fight with them. I get a kick out of it, but I'm also fascinated that most moderates and progressives just let the convoy types say whatever the hell they want. Moderates and progressives, for the most part, just don't have the guts for street fighting. Too bad.
Well, I hope you're right.
We also need a Canadian electorate which is educated enough to sift through all the misinformation and disinformation on social media. This is what worries me most, that many people won't have the discernment to recognize the lies or mistruths that politicians tell them. Education is so important. Looking to the south, it's really quite shocking that so many Americans still support Trump, despite all the indictments, court cases, lies and illegal activities.
BTW, in my view the BC Liberals did not have the same political values as the Federal Liberals. They were basically a reincarnation of the Social Credit Party. Its new incarnation is BC United.
I hope the article is revised to be accurate about the BC Liberals. It is misleading at present.
I feel that Canadians who are concerned about the misinformation on social media have a duty to stand up to that misinformation. It is not to change the minds of the people who spread the misinformation; that is a fool's errand. It is to show everyone watching, again and again and again and into infinity, that there is a thing called objective reality. We are way too polite and have to get over ourselves and fight.
One theory is that having the word "Liberals" in their handle eased the conscience of some BC voters enough to vote for them. The reality is that conservative Social Creditors agreed to the name change because they had to form a coalition with a couple of original BC Liberal Party members to win against the NDP, and the name change was one condition. In actual fact, the tired old Socreds had run out of credit with the BC electorate and a name change was refreshing, like a wolf changing its coat to sheepskin.
Leadership quality had a lot to do with their downfall. Gordon Campbell had hard edges and ended his career as premier with the help of his mug shot making the front pages for a DUI arrest while on vacation in Hawaii.
Christy Clark lost office after just one term mainly because she took childishly biased revenge on Metro Vancouver after losing her chosen Point Grey riding to a newbie, none other than the NDP's David Eby, forcing her to move house to win a safe seat 350 km away in West Kelowna.
She picked on the Metro in several ways, including an unnecessary transit funding referendum while all other cities got no strings funding, and by continually badmouthing Metro mayors with dripping condescension. There were lots of other violations of public trust, most involving cash for access and $20,000 a plate lunches with foreign real estate developers just when housing prices skyrocketed.
As the result, she lost nine big city ridings in the next election. Good riddance. The irony is that David Eby is now premier and his rating is high so far.
I've said for a long time that Trudeau might not be in as much trouble as it seems just because as Canadians start to get a good look at who they'd have for a PM if they dump Trudeau, they will increasingly notice what a nasty little dweeb Poilievre is. The man is extremely unappealing, somehow managing to be vicious and hostile but still feel weak.
And he has no head for policy, so he ends up with either no policy or policies that just track his unpleasant personality rather than any real goals. Back in the day, Stephen Harper successfully managed to always be the "smartest guy in the room"--by making sure his rooms were populated with potted plants. Pierre Poilievre is one of the potted plants he surrounded himself with. Now, being stupid doesn't stop Donald Trump, but Donald Trump has a weird sort of charisma--I hate him instinctively, but right wingers LIKE his kind of blowhard. Even if Poilievre had as much cunning as Trump, which I don't think he does, his charisma is negative.
Overall, going into a campaign Poilievre is a significant liability for the Conservatives. Doesn't mean they will necessarily lose; they have some significant assets (money, media support, the resources of right wing Christianity) and the Liberals have some significant liabilities of their own. But Poilievre makes it harder for them to win.
One sort of asset Poilievre has is his aggressive opportunism. He jumps on opportunities and pushes them hard. But he's overaggressive, overconfident. He jumps on EVERYTHING that looks like it could be an opportunity, and sometimes it isn't and he looks like a total turd. If I were the Liberals I would try to figure some bait to dangle that could lure him into screwing up, like leaving an apparent opening in a swordfight so you can riposte when he goes for it.
Speaking of opportunism, it could be that Poilievre jumped on the Ukraine-bashing bandwagon and forgot there are between two and three million Canadians of Ukrainian heritage in Canada, predominantly in big blue conservative Prairie provinces. Oops.
Ya. I was getting worried we wold have to give all this up.
20 year high inflation.
5% interest rates, and climbing.
Housing unaffordable for young families.
Taxed to death.
1 in 7 families needing help from food banks.
50+ first nations still without clean water.
No progress on missing aboriginal women.
No progress on unidentified graves at residential schools.
$1.2 trillion in debt.
Our per capita GDP is falling.
More money spent on interest than on healthcare.
An opioid epidemic in every city.
Rising crime in every urban centre.
Foreign interference in our elections.
6 ethics violations.
A standing ovation for a Nazi in the House of commons.
Hundreds of millions of dollars unaccounted for.
We're te butt of jokes around the world.
Our once great institutions, like the military and the RCMP have been gutted.
Little of what you said was real in the first place.
Most of what remains has nothing to do with the Liberal party.
The couple that remain after that cannot be solved without serious market interventions of the sort the Conservatives would never contemplate; you'd need a far left party to do anything about them, not a bunch of pseudo-free-market oligarch-worshipers.
"Taxed to death."
Oh puleese read some history or do some research before you write comments. Back before Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher and co, i.e 1970's:
The TOP TAX RATE in Canada was in excess of 70% and there was no 50% capital gains tax exemption [until 1972].
young people could afford houses and rent,
there were no homeless camps,
there was no opioid crisis,
GDP was rising,
university tuition was low,
there were no international students paying our university bills,
there was no health care crisis, etc, etc ...
Can you see the connection there between the decrease in tax revenues and the rise of social insecurity?
Can you see the connection to the 'financialization of everything" and downward social trends?
Can you see why the rich are getting even richer and the poor getting evicted?
It's still early days, but now is the time for the federal Liberals to work harder on the housing file. Looking to BC for policy clues is wise.
It's true that the BC NDP government under David Eby is forcing a radical and necessary shift in province-wide urban zoning that will ultimately result in a meaningful boost in housing supply, hopefully sensitive to urban design at the neighbourhood level and with far better funding for public transit.
Metro Vancouver has severe constraints by dint of geography and large protected agricultural areas. Land supply onstraints in my view contributed massively to the housing affordability crisis along with exclusionary zoning protecting sprawl. The single family detached house on large lot model became obsolete under these constraints long ago, and this political effort only recognizes the reality that has been present for a generation already.
The LPC would be smart to glean what they can from the BC shift. Partnering with cooperating cities to more generously fund transit projects around similar zoning for transit corridor densification would offer the feds flexibility to go around provincial governments, mainly by offering carrots instead of sticks.
This is also an opportunity for the feds to start building affordable rentals and subsidized coops in the same corridors, like a package deal with individual cities. They need to plan for intransigent provincial governments. At least larger amounts of exclusive federal funding for sustainable urbanism will allow provinces to save their money.
More direct federal funding for heat pumps and energy conservation upgrades will also have a positive impact at the local level, and that neatly connects to direct funding of renewable power projects at the national scale.
According to Max Fawcett, no one has pumped more federal subsidies into Big Oil interests than the LPC under Trudeau Jr. And there rests a funding source for some of the above iniatives. The Libs could divert funds without advertising it, to build better cities and clean electricity with a full advertising campaign just before the next election.
Poilievre would be caught with his pants down. Again.
Boy, thats relief. I thought we might have to give all the up!
20 year high inflation.
5% interest rates, and climbing.
Housing unaffordable for young families.
Taxed to death.
1 in 7 families needing help from food banks.
50+ first nations still without clean water.
No progress on missing aboriginal women.
No progress on unidentified graves at residential schools.
$1.2 trillion in debt.
Our per capita GDP is falling.
More money spent on interest than on healthcare.
An opioid epidemic in every city.
Rising crime in every urban centre.
Foreign interference in our elections.
6 ethics violations.
A standing ovation for a Nazi in the House of commons.
Hundreds of millions of dollars unaccounted for.
We're te butt of jokes around the world.
Our once great institutions, like the military and the RCMP have been gutted.
Boy, thats relief. I thought we might have to give all the up!
20 year high inflation.
5% interest rates, and climbing.
Housing unaffordable for young families.
Taxed to death.
1 in 7 families needing help from food banks.
50+ first nations still without clean water.
No progress on missing aboriginal women.
No progress on unidentified graves at residential schools.
$1.2 trillion in debt.
Our per capita GDP is falling.
More money spent on interest than on healthcare.
An opioid epidemic in every city.
Rising crime in every urban centre.
Foreign interference in our elections.
6 ethics violations.
A standing ovation for a Nazi in the House of commons.
Hundreds of millions of dollars unaccounted for.
We're te butt of jokes around the world.
Our once great institutions, like the military and the RCMP have been gutted.
Sheesh, Van Den Bosch, how many times did you repeat the same utter nonsense?
It doesn't work with progressives, but repetition, even (or especially) of lies, does work with conservatives, and is an effective tactic in misinformation and disinformation.
I am really looking forward to the Liberal Housing Ministers catalogue of prefab homes to get this housing issue addressed. I think it is a good idea, quick to build and affordable, and we looked at them a few years back and might revisit the idea. I am just really concerned with this wanting to hacking and slashing and axing of every social program policy of the CPC. The anti climate mitigation is also a major concern.
Just my oppinion.
Question about the prefab homes idea:
How many companies are there in Canada that make these units?
Sounds like a good business investment!