Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, who trail 20 points behind the Conservatives in voting intentions, have set themselves the goal of reducing the gap by five points by the summer. To achieve this, they are counting in particular on the right to abortion. In a context where this right is diminishing in the United States, they are trying to convince Canadians that they will pay the price of a similar setback if the Conservatives are brought to power here.
The liberal troops therefore broadly underlined the sponsorship by MP Arnold Viersen of a petition deploring that 98% of abortions are carried out “for reasons of social or personal convenience” and demanding legislative supervision of this procedure. Who cares if this petition only got 47 signatures. Mr. Viersen is a known pro-lifer and the liberals want us to know it.
Mr. Viersen tabled the petition two days before the annual pro-life march and the Trudeau government arranged for its pharmacare bill to be voted on that same week. The report? He promised that the first medicines offered free would be those against diabetes and… contraceptives. As the conservatives voted against the establishment of this new program estimated at 400 million per year, the liberals allow themselves to assert that they are opposed to abortions AND ways to prevent them!
However, it will not be tomorrow that Canadian women will be paid for an IUD by Ottawa. The bill has not yet completed its parliamentary journey and it does not create any programs. He is only inviting the government to negotiate an agreement with the provinces. There is no guarantee of results. In addition, in Quebec, all the medications promised by Ottawa are already covered by the public plan (except insulin pumps, which Quebec wants to remedy).
It is not insignificant that it was Leah Taylor Roy who wrote to Mr. Poilievre to deplore that her party “is inspired by the American extreme right” on this issue. She represents an Ontario riding that Liberals and Conservatives have exchanged since 2015, each time by margins of barely a thousand votes. She will be at the forefront of the announced electoral massacre.
Pierre Poilievre may claim to be pro-choice and promise not to legislate on abortion, but doubt remains, because he has never committed to preventing his backbenchers from doing so. However, in 2008, it was one of those who managed to get a bill passed in the Commons making the fetus a full-fledged victim when a pregnant woman is attacked. Almost all Conservatives voted for it, including Mr. Poilievre. There were fears that this would lead to the granting of rights to fetuses.
The Liberals are therefore exploiting this vagueness, just as they are exploiting Pierre Poilievre’s desire to use the notwithstanding clause to shield some of his laws. What if he used it to suspend other rights, including abortion? A spokesperson sent a statement saying the clause would not be used in this way, but since the chief won’t say so himself, speculation continues.
Siamese adversaries
On the NDP side, it feels so threatened by the Conservative Party that it now borrows even its rhetoric. Thus, if Pierre Poilievre constantly speaks of the “expensive coalition” or of Justin Trudeau who “is not worth the cost”, Jagmeet Singh now emphasizes the “price of Pierre”. This price, according to him, will be the end of (not yet) free contraceptives, reduced-price daycare places and subsidized dental care.
Jagmeet Singh (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press Archives)
It has often been written: in the West where there is a very strong populist background, voters go from blue to orange, hence the similarities in the speech of these two parties, although they are diametrically opposed. Mr. Singh is now considering abolishing the carbon tax that Mr. Poilievre managed to demonize, while the Conservative leader also recently attacked the big bosses of Canada Inc. In an open letter, he called on them to fire all their lobbyists. “You will get nothing from me unless you first convince the people [du bien-fondé de vos demandes]“, he wrote.
We should be wary of any politician promising to only act on what citizens have an opinion on. There is a range of issues that are misunderstood by the public and require state intervention. Tax rules are a good example. Many people did not understand the proposed change to capital gains. (In fact, when the firm Abacus asked whether doctors should be exempted, the most popular response, at 31%, was to have no opinion.) It is not the tax rate that increases from 50% to 66.7%, but the inclusion rate, i.e. the portion of the gains generated which are added to the individual’s income to be taxed at the rate applying to him.
Pierre Poilievre refuses to say whether he will keep this change. Because. Despite his new proletarian discourse apparently hostile to big capital, his party remains sympathetic to the concerns of the business community. And this business community is opposed to reform. Mr. Poilievre therefore first affirmed that he did not have to react to each new liberal “utopia”. He then lied, stating that “it was taken out of the budget.” It’s wrong. The government simply wants to isolate this element in a separate future bill, in order to shine the spotlight on the Conservatives.
New Democrats and Liberals are arguing over the prospect of unmasking the Conservative leader. They want to present him as the enemy of the middle class, the one who refuses to pay the bill for a social safety net extended by the richest. However, this only proves one thing: that it is this hated adversary who now dictates the parameters of public debate.
