On disruption

There's little doubt that Chrystia Freeland's resignation from the federal cabinet (with associated spillover effects) has managed to earn the notice of even those largely disconnected from politics. And while the most common reaction seems to have been to wait for something more to happen internally among the Libs, a few commentators including Karl Nerenberg, Steve Burgess, and Aaron Wherry have offered some view as to what might come next.

But it's worth discussing the reality that both the stakes involved and the range of potential outcomes extend far beyond the realm of Liberal personality politics.  

Keep in mind that the last two Canadian federal elections have involved a consistent state of stalemate. The Libs lost their majority in 2019, but maintained enough seats to stay in power with other parties' support; the Cons perceived possibilities of taking power, but instead plateaued in terms of both vote share and seats. And a two-year stint of minority government led only to a virtually identical result in 2021, as Libs focused on holding power, Cons determined to seize it through reflexive criticism, and an NDP looking to secure benefits through legislative concessions in a minority Parliament all ended up stuck roughly where they started. 

After three more years of the same dynamic in Parliament, however, the positioning of the national parties has stabilized at a rather different level - with the NDP nearly catching up to a sinking Lib vote share. And Trudeau's past ability to hold the line in close two-party races in the past offers no reason to think he can suddenly overcome the weight of baked-in public disapproval and massive support deficits - particularly without some plan to do anything differently other than cribbing from Doug Ford's Book of Temporary Giveaways. (On that front, the familiar calls for every other party to sacrifice their own interests to rally behind a Prime Minister who's hemorrhaging support in his own caucus are particularly laughable.)

But there are opportunities to shift the foundations of the parties' current positions. And while Trudeau may be able to influence which ones are able to proceed, there's potential for a shift to happen without his acquiescence. 

From the Libs' standpoint, a leadership race would shift the party from being focused on defending (or seeking to topple) a single insular leader, to having multiple leadership candidates pursuing a broad-based outreach program with an obvious incentive to bring in new members and supporters. And if it's true that Trudeau lacks a path to build support at this stage, a leadership race would quickly sort out who's capable of offering greater growth potential. 

Of course, the downside for the Libs is that the leadership voters' assessment might not match that of the general public. But the fact that's the worst possible outcome of electing a new leader only serves to demonstrate how little there is to gain sticking with the status quo: the worst-case scenario in trying someone new is the same electoral wipeout that looks unavoidable under Trudeau. 

Meanwhile, the NDP has an opportunity to take on a new role which might lead to much greater heights than its current position holding the balance of power in Parliament. 

If Trudeau does announce his departure, a caretaker Lib government wouldn't likely be in any position to meet any demands for improved legislation. Which means that the NDP would need to treat its legislative accomplishments as having been locked in for the next campaign, and turn toward another primary focus of activity and engagement while the Libs are focused on their leadership election. 

On that front, Charlie Angus has already received plenty of well-deserved attention for his challenges to the impending Trump regime (and its bootlickers among the Poilievre Cons). 

But when Trump actually takes power and begins his campaign of state repression against both political opponents and members of out-groups, many people will have reason to look for a resistance party in Canada. And the NDP should generally have a clear path to establish itself as both the Parliamentary voice and the organizing hub for people on both sides of the border who have reason to fear the worst of Trump and his government. 

Importantly, that opening will arise no matter what Trudeau decides to do. If he stays in place, his choice to bend the knee at Mar-a-Lago - together with Freeland's declaration that he's failing to react to the Trump threat - will make it difficult for him to try to claim the title for himself. And while leadership contestants may look to take anti-Trump rhetorical positions, the fact that they'll be focused primarily on their own vote counts would limit their effectiveness in achieving substantive results. 

In the end, there can't be any serious doubt among Canadian progressives that something needs to change before a federal election in 2025. And the best-case scenario would see two reinvigorated and viable challengers to Poilievre's assumed ascension to power.