It may say as much about how the world has evolved since 2015 as about where Justin Trudeau is in the life of his prime ministership that our Liberal scribe, John Delacourt, can file a Trudeau piece and every line seems to contain fresh insight. Amid endemic COVID, post-transitory inflation, a war on democracy, an unhinged Putin and a new Poilievre across the aisle, what’s up with Justin Trudeau these days? Read on…

John Delacourt

In Canadian politics — specifically how it is discussed and debated within the Ottawa bubble — there are perennial long-lead stories that surface in the longeurs between budgets, contentious votes and sundry scandals, regardless of who’s in power. There’s the perennial, trans-partisan first-lady-and-infidelity trope, the “Et tu, Brute?” meeting among caucus malcontents plotting a leadership coup, and the secrets-of-Versailles tales of Governors-General carrying on imperiously and breaking the house china. 

These plot lines are carved in stone, it seems, like the gargoyles adorning the Peace Tower. When newsrooms weren’t as desperately under-resourced as they are now, reporters lowest on the totem pole would be sent out to investigate these will-of-the-wispy rumours, camping out in bars, chasing down the usual MPs with loose lips who might have a ship or two they’d like to sink.

The one variation the Trudeau government has added to this stock of almost-true stories in recent years is the “Walk in the snow: will he or won’t he?” canard. In the weeks that have followed Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative leadership victory, you could draw a map of concentric circles starting from the corner of Sparks and Metcalfe, and the farther out you traced it, all the way to the corner tables of say, Mamma Theresa’s, the more you’d overhear this conjecture once again.

But the thing is, the closer you get to the centre, the less you hear it. From those who actually meet with Justin Trudeau and have conversations in preparation for the next campaign (yes, they still happen, despite how distant a prospect it might be on anyone’s calendar), there is no indication that the prime minister is somehow disengaging or reflecting on succession planning. If anything, “dialed-in” and focused is how he’s described by those in the room with him. And those close to Poilievre will even concede the PM is a formidable, seemingly tireless campaigner when he’s out on the road — so perhaps it isn’t a great idea to get him out there while he’s still showing up for work.

The compelling question might simply be why these rumours persist of some imminent resignation, especially when a clear, stark, partisan divide is emerging with the ascent of Poilievre’s star in the parliamentary firmament — however virtual or hybrid Parliament might remain in the months ahead. 

One reason might be that the prime minister has been stepping back from being the public point man on every file. Prior to the last campaign, there were critics — and I count myself among them — who were wondering why the PM wasn’t giving more air time to the considerable talent within his cabinet. That seems a distant memory given, say, the import of Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland’s October 11th speech at Washington’s Brookings Institution, the energy – and air miles –  François Phillipe Champagne has brought to his industry and innovation files and the profile and leadership Mélanie Joly and Anita Anand have taken at Foreign Affairs and Defence in response to what EU High Representative Josep Borell, in a significant speech of his own recently, called the “messy multipolarity” of crises the world is facing – not least with Russia and Ukraine. In a variation of the “Et tu, Brute” theme, the conjecture remains that these star turns from cabinet are also driven by leadership aspirations.

And yet, taken together, Freeland’s and Borell’s speeches might provide the best context for why the prime minister might not have been sitting back, watching YouTube videos on cryptocurrency late into the evening like the new leader of the opposition, and looking for investment opportunities with his government pension. There’s not a lot of down time when the world is on fire; the challenges of the pandemic created crises that were normally administered by cities and provinces, while at the same time he has been caught on the other side of the vise by issues that transcend what individual governments can control, never mind solve – from supply chain snarls to extreme weather events to the complex theatres of conflict that have emerged throughout the world. Perhaps we shouldn’t have mistaken Trudeau’s closed office door for quiet quitting; it is more likely, similar to many of us, he’s just been Zoom-called relentlessly over the last three years.

Yet, if he’s still very much in the driver’s seat, what does he make of this new opposition leader revving his engines so noisily? And how do he and his Liberal team counter this perceived surge in interest and approval of what Poilievre and his reinvigorated shadow cabinet seem to be enjoying among Canadians – if the snapshot polls are to be believed?

What those close to the PM will tell you is that, no, contrary to some reports that Trudeau is either dismissive of the new leader or cynically relying on scare tactics with Canadians, he takes Poilievre seriously. He views him as an effective communicator who’s honed his rhetorical cut- and-thrust as an attack dog for Stephen Harper, the eminence grise of the kind of divisive politics that never said no to a rousing Niqab ban or a roundhouse rabbit punch on centrist voices within his own party. To bemoan the fact that there is an appetite for this kind of Wrestlemania politics, (especially among male voters – a lingering issue for Liberals) is to shake your fist at the weather.

The challenge that momentum for Poilievre presents is not going to get solved in a couple of months for the Liberals, as they’ll openly admit. But it would be a mistake to shift their focus, they believe, and focus on Poilievre alone and his more controversial, clickbait pronouncements on the Bank of Canada or cryptocurrency investment strategies. As Trudeau’s speech to his own caucus on Parliament’s return made clear, the focus remains on Canadians — and only 14 percent of them are actually on Twitter, we shouldn’t forget. 

The Liberals are also focused on the tangibles. You could call it the anti-air war. The GST rebate, the new dental care bill, the money saved each month in the bank account that the child care agreement has made possible — these are longer-term dividends for political capital that put trust in ordinary Canadians’ ability to pause, reflect, have an adult conversation with their spouses or themselves about whether actions actually matter more than bluster and rage farming. Trudeau’s team is betting that once there’s some policy actually on the table, and Canadians start to get a sense of what Poilievre’s offering, it’ll taste a lot like Grandpa’s, warmed-over Milton Friedman casserole of supply side economics.

This is not to say Trudeau and his team don’t see some glaring issues that have to be addressed, if Canadians are to sum up the Liberal years and ask themselves if they’ve earned another mandate. The question of basic service delivery, post-pandemic – with passport offices, with your-call-is-important-to-us delays with Revenue Canada, and with front-line health care, most importantly – is perceived as a question of serious, decisive leadership at the top. To suggest that Canadians should take a look at what other G20 countries are going through on these same fronts is to look for cold comfort ahead of a wintry economic forecast; you may be right but no one cares. Canadians want these everyday issues fixed, and every day that they’re not is a good day for the opposition. No one knows this more than Trudeau himself.

But don’t expect Trudeau the aging boxer to come out of his corner swinging and playing into the kind of UFC-in-the-House, politics of spectacle Poilievre’s invigorated team would relish. He’s older – we all are after our lockdown years – and he’s faced a tsunami of big world problems that no one could have ever imagined in that brief era of sunny ways that seems a lifetime ago. 

There may be an argument to be made that Liberals should not put such trust in the better angels of our nature, given what can seem mounting evidence to the contrary — now submitted, by the way, to the inquiry into the occupation of Ottawa by truck drivers last February. Yet elections, when they come, are rarely, if ever, rational, and this kind of trust might just be the radical proposition that catches fire.  

Contributing Writer John Delacourt, former Director of Research for the Liberal Party of Canada, is Senior Vice President of Counsel Public Affairs, based in Ottawa. He is also the author of several novels.