Why Singh Had to Do It

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has thrown the first punch of the next federal election campaign, and it landed squarely on Justin Trudeau’s jaw.

Claiming that the Liberals have “let people down” and are “too weak” and “too selfish” to stop the surging Conservatives, Singh cancelled the Supply and Confidence Agreement with the minority Liberal government.

With little advance warning, Singh told Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that he was “ripping up” the agreement that has brought stability to the government since 2022. The deal was set to expire in June 2025.

The timing of Singh’s campaign-style announcement is telling. It comes just a week before the return of Parliament, as well as two important byelections in which the NDP is competitive.

The prime minister’s reaction to Singh’s decision was defensive, if not dismissive. Making clear that he hopes it won’t lead to an election before the fixed date of October 2025, Trudeau had this to say on CTV:

“I’m not focused on politics. I’ll let other parties focus on politics. I’m focused on actually delivering things that Canadians told me this summer they need.”

By comparison to Trudeau’s hike up the high road, Pierre Poilievre waded into the NDP’s news with political elbows high. Calling Singh’s decision to abandon the deal with the Liberals a “stunt,” Poilievre said at a press conference in Nanaimo.

“My message to sellout Singh is this: If you’re serious about ending your costly carbon tax coalition with Trudeau, then commit today to voting for a carbon tax election at the earliest confidence vote in the House of Commons.”

Singh’s inevitable decision

No one should be surprised by what Singh has done and how he chose to do it. NDP labour critic Mathew Green telegraphed publicly that his party had to have “tough conversations” about the deal with the Liberals — including the possibility of opting out of it.

Towards the end of a dull summer of barbecue politics, Singh’s decision to scuttle the agreement to support the Liberals caught many people off guard. But the reality is that this decision was inevitable, and, from a political point of view, well-advised.

The crux of the deal was simple. The minority Liberals could govern without the threat of the government falling on a non-confidence vote. In return, some of the NDP’s key priorities would be advanced by the government. Classic quid pro quo politics.

To a degree, the arrangement worked. The Liberals got to govern for two years without fear of being taken down, and the NDP saw action on several of their issues, including dental care, pharmacare and banning replacement workers during strikes at federally regulated workplaces.

But the deal was a flop at the political box office for the NDP. Instead of getting credit for pushing the Trudeau government on key, progressive issues, the party saw its popularity decline.

Some pollsters have projected that the NDP will win fewer seats at the next election than they did in 2021. The lesson seems to be this: Trudeau and the Liberals are so deeply unpopular with Canadians in almost every region in the country, that anyone seen as propping them up damages their own brand — no matter how noble their reason for doing so.

Pollster and data-scientist Nik Nanos said that the NDP have not benefited from the deal, noting that the party ranks lower in the polls than the embattled Liberals.

“Maybe it’s a moral victory from a policy perspective, but it sure isn’t a political victory in terms of gains in ballot support for the New Democrats,” he told CTV.

Poilievre’s attacks on NDP will rise

So what will happen when MPs get back to work? Thomas Hobbes may well have penned the best description of what the fall session of Parliament will be like: “Nasty, brutish and short.”

Back in 1651, when the political philosopher wrote those famous words, he was describing what human life would be like without government.

Canadians are about to discover the reality Hobbes described in his masterpiece, Leviathan. When the House of Commons resumes, politics, not government, will be the name of the game.

The big question is who will be able to choreograph political events to their advantage with an election now looming potentially sooner than the fixed date of October 2025?

For the Conservatives and Pierre Poilievre, the goal is crystal clear. Force an election as soon as possible to take advantage of a substantial and consistent double-digit lead in the polls. If they can bring the government down quickly, they get the ultimate plum — solid majority government, if the polls over the last year have it right.

But a key feature of the fall session from Poilievre’s point of view is the need to attack the NDP as vigorously as he attacks the government. That process has already begun, with the CPC running an ad attacking the NDP for supporting the Liberals.

Why the need to attack New Democrats? There is wide agreement that the next election will be all about change. Singh is trying to convince voters that, with the Liberals exhausted after nine years in power, the NDP can be that change agent. Poilievre will counter that potential political threat by doing everything he can to tie the NDP to the Liberals at every turn.

For the embattled Liberals, who have been stewing in ghastly poll numbers for a year, the goal is the opposite of the Conservatives. Hang on to power as long as possible, and hope for a reversal of their currently moribund political fortunes. If Justin Trudeau is sincere and not bluffing about leading the party into the next election, that is the best the Liberals can do.

But it appears to be a losing proposition. In the critical byelection in Lasalle-Emard-Verdun, the place is awash in election signs. As reported by the Globe and Mail, the one face not on Liberal campaign signs is Justin Trudeau’s. The usual rule in election politics is follow the leader, not hide him.

Singh’s delicate predicament

But the leader to watch as the House of Commons reconvenes is the leader with the most precarious task in front of him — Jagmeet Singh.

After clearly saying that the Trudeau government can’t be the change agent that Canadians want, doesn’t deserve to stay in power and has to go, will he continue to support the Liberals? Or as Pierre Poilievre puts it, will Singh put his party’s votes where his messaging is?

Singh risks being caught in the crossfire from the Liberals on one side and the Conservatives on the other.

If he brings the government down, the Liberals will accuse him of abandoning traditional NDP values to stand and vote with the Conservatives.

If he continues to vote with Trudeau, Poilievre and the Conservatives will accuse Singh of being a hypocrite, who is still doing the government’s bidding — with or without a formal agreement.

And this isn’t an academic exercise. You can count on the Conservatives to introduce a motion of non-confidence as early as possible after Parliament resumes.

Time will tell how badly Jagmeet Singh wants to distance himself from the Liberals. But every time he votes to keep the current government in power, Pierre Poilievre will remind Canadians that the Conservative Party of Canada is the only real agent of change.

Given Liberal lethargy, Conservative aggressiveness and the NDP’s predicament, it is hard to see how Canada makes it all the way to next fall before a trip to the polls.