Jesse Kline: Jagmeet Singh was the author of his own demise
Article content
Article content
Singh was speaking about the third non-confidence motion the Conservatives had introduced to try to bring down the deeply unpopular government of Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau. Despite ending his party's confidence-and-supply agreement with the Liberals in September, Singh accused the Tories of 'playing games' and pledged to continue propping up the government. As it turns out, Singh might not have been playing the game, but that doesn't mean the game wasn't being played.
Article content
While the government had survived confidence motions on Sept. 25 and Oct. 1, the Dec. 9 vote was different because the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of it, after Trudeau failed to acquiesce to an ultimatum issued by the party. Had the Bloc and NDP voted for the motion, the government would have fallen and we would likely be in a much different situation today.
Article content
Article content
At the time, Singh took a lot of flack, especially from conservatives, for continuing to prop up a government whose policies he clearly didn't support. But from Singh's perspective, the decision made perfect sense. After all, the NDP has never had as much influence over government policy as it did while the confidence-and-supply deal was in place between March 2022 and September 2024.
Article content
Singh knew that when an election was eventually called, he would be able to go to his voters and say that the NDP finally achieved real-world results on issues like pharmacare and socialized dental care. But he also knew that if Canadians went to the polls right away, the Conservatives, who were then leading both the Liberals and New Democrats by more than 20 points, would likely have formed government.
Article content
Article content
If that had happened, Singh would have lost all his power. Even if the Conservatives had been held to a minority, it's unlikely that the NDP wouldn't have had much sway over the government, as there are few issues that free-market Tories and socialist Dippers agree on. As Singh told the media at the time, he was worried that the Conservatives would cut the very programs he had fought so hard to get the Liberals to enact.
Article content
Article content
From an ideological perspective, Singh's calculus thus made perfect sense. And perhaps, despite announcing his resignation on election night, the NDP leader will be able to sleep soundly believing he will someday be remembered as the Tommy Douglas of tooth decay.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
With Ottawa promising bail reform, what's driving the debate?
OTTAWA – Premiers are putting pressure on Ottawa to implement tougher bail rules. With the federal government expected to table bail reform legislation in the fall, critics are expressing worries already about Ottawa's plans. So what's driving the debate on bail reform? What the government has promised During this spring's federal election, the Liberals promised to 'move aggressively' to implement stricter bail laws by introducing a reverse onus for a number of offences. A reverse onus moves the burden of proof from the prosecutor to the accused — meaning they would have to justify being granted bail. The Criminal Code already has a reverse onus for bail in place for many serious offences, including murder. The Liberals would add new offences to that list, including car thefts involving violence or those conducted for a criminal organization, and home invasions and some human trafficking and smuggling offences. Justice Minister Sean Fraser told The Canadian Press he plans to bring forward a crime bill in the fall. It's not clear what will be in it — Fraser said the government will consider including additional reforms but 'at minimum' it will implement the crime policies the Liberals promised during the election. Didn't the Liberals already reform bail? Yes, through amendments to the Criminal Code in 2023. They expanded reverse onus bail provisions to include more firearms and weapons offences, and more crimes involving intimate partner violence. In 2019, the government established a reverse onus for those charged with a violent offence involving an intimate partner if they have a prior conviction for a similar offence. The 2023 amendments followed calls from provincial premiers and police chiefs for the federal government to bring in stricter bail rules for repeat violent offenders. It followed some high-profile cases — including that of Ontario Provincial Police Const. Greg Pierzchala, who was killed while responding to a vehicle in a ditch. In 2024, Ontario police associations called for further reform, saying there are many cases 'of accused persons out on bail who are rearrested shortly after being granted bail,' including some that don't make the news. They said the public 'expects that in the name of public safety, violent and repeat offenders will not be released on bail unless there is a compelling reason and a sensible plan to ensure that they are not at risk of reoffending while awaiting trial.' Pressure from the premiers Premiers said earlier this month they expect the federal government to follow through with its promised reforms. At a press conference following a premiers' meeting in Huntsville, Ont., last week, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said the provincial leaders 'talked about the need for real bail reform that keeps criminals behind bars and keeps our communities safe.' He said the premiers would be holding Prime Minister Mark Carney 'accountable' for delivering 'full-fledged' and not 'half-baked' reform. Ford said he'd 'love to see mandatory sentencing so when someone breaks into your home, puts a gun to your head, terrorizes your neighbourhood,' that person doesn't 'get out on bail after being out on bail … five times.' The federal government is responsible for setting bail laws under the Criminal Code, but provincial and territorial governments prosecute most criminal offences, conduct bail hearings and enforce bail conditions. A spokesperson for Fraser said the federal government is 'working with provinces and territories to reform bail and sentencing, with a focus on repeat, violent offenders. This was a key topic at the recent First Ministers' Meeting, and minister Fraser has made it a top priority.' Why is bail such a hot political issue? The Conservative party has long campaigned on a promise of 'jail not bail' and has accused the Liberals of being 'soft' on crime and of implementing 'catch and release' policies. During the recent federal election, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre campaigned heavily on crime and said he would prohibit those convicted of three serious offences from getting bail. Anthony Doob, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto's Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal studies, said calls to toughen up bail law are based on the false assumption that large numbers of dangerous people are being released. 'Of course, the ones we hear about in particular are the ones who committed a serious and a violent offence,' he said. 'So we are hearing about those cases. But the assumption that we have a lenient system is questioned by the fact that 80 per cent of our prisoners in Ontario, in the provincial prisons … are now awaiting trial.' Calls to make bail tougher to get are bad policy but easy politics, he argued, because politicians can always point to someone who committed a crime while on bail. 'If you're going to be detaining another hundred people or a few hundred people in order to reduce the likelihood that one person is going to commit another offence, I think we should be a little bit cautious,' he said. What are the concerns about tougher bail rules? Shakir Rahim, director of the criminal justice program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said that approximately 70 per cent of those in provincial remand centres are waiting for trial — up from about 20 per cent in 1982. The consequence of tougher bail rules is that they erode 'what is a core safeguard of liberty for the innocent,' he said. 'In an environment where we have record levels of bail being denied, and we have further erosions, whether through reverse onus provisions or otherwise, we really dilute the strength of that protection.' Rahim said there is a trend toward 'immediately' viewing people who have been arrested 'as guilty of it, or talked about in that way,' even though only half of cases in Canada result in criminal convictions. 'The more people that you deny bail to, it is a foreseen consequence that some of those people will have been factually innocent,' he said. Rahim said provincial jails are overcrowded, with conditions that include 23-hour-a-day lockdowns and a lack of medical care. 'When you take people and you deny them bail, it can be up to 30 months before they have their day in court,' he said. 'So one of the issues that we're concerned about is people feeling the pressure to plead guilty to certain offences just to get out of the terrible conditions that they are subject to.' Catherine Latimer, executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada, said pretrial detention rates are 'way too high.' That is 'the canary in the coal mine to suggest your system is really seriously flawed … It's not enough to think that the answer is to put more people in there by using more reverse onus provisions.' Latimer said 'we haven't even analyzed whether the last set of reverse onus provisions have done anything.' In 2023, when the federal government introduced the previous bail reform legislation, then-justice minister Arif Virani called on provinces and territories to collect better data on bail and share that with the federal government. Rahim said we don't have any data about the number of people who reoffend while out on bail, or whether they're ultimately found guilty. 'So how can we know about … the state of the bail system, about whether reverse onuses or other policy changes work, without this information?' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 30, 2025.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
The clock is ticking on tariff negotiations
Opinion It's T minus one. As in, tariffs minus one. Or Trump minus one. Or maybe even TACO minus one. Only time — precious little time — will tell. ADRIAN WYLD / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES Prime Minister Mark Carney On Aug. 1, the Trump administration has said its self-imposed range of tariffs on myriad foreign countries — including Canada — will come into effect. (Unless it turns out to be TACO minus one — U.S. President Donald Trump has backtracked so many times on announced tariffs that he's earned the nickname 'TACO,' an acronym for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.') For Canada, that would mean a 35 per cent tariff on products not detailed in the USMCA trade deal, as well as the continuation of tariffs on aluminum, steel and automobiles, and a new copper tariff that also would come into effect on Friday. Prime Minister Mark Carney has said the negotiations between Canada and the U.S. are in an 'intense phase.' Meanwhile, the Opposition Conservatives have complained that Canada is being left behind as others reach deals with the U.S. But at least two of those deals seem to be running into confusion and contrary claims — especially because they aren't on paper yet. Trump claimed that the government of Japan bought its way into lower tariffs — going from 25 per cent to 15 per cent — by agreeing to invest US$550 billion in the U.S., an investment that Trump says would see the U.S. government get 90 per cent of the profits. Japan says it made no such offer, that if anything, the suggestions was for 'up to' US$550 billion with no set amount, and that profits from any Japanese investment would be paid on a proportional basis, based on how much each party invested. Japanese officials have also said there is no written agreement, and that there would not be one based on Trump's terms. Meanwhile, a widely heralded deal with the European Union is also hitting the shoals of Trump exaggeration: numbers on the purchase of energy by EU member states have been questioned by the EU and it now appears that all EU members will vote on a prospective deal, while Trump characterized it as a historic complete package. The EU and the U.S. also have conflicting impressions about tariffs on pharmaceuticals, tariffs on steel and aluminum, investment in U.S. companies by the EU, and purchases of U.S. weapons. For example, the U.S. version is that the EU will buy U.S. weapons, while the EU says absolutely no such commitment was made — or could be made, as military procurement is determined by individual member countries. The U.S. also claims that the EU has promised to make a range of regulatory changes to benefit U.S. exports of food and agricultural products, along with changes to financial and tax barriers on digital industries. The EU says that's a hard no — 'We're not moving on our regulations. We're not moving on our rules. We're not moving on the system that we built up over many decades that our citizens trust,' Olaf Gill, the EU Commission's spokesperson for trade said. 'That will not form part of this agreement with the U.S.' Weekday Evenings Today's must-read stories and a roundup of the day's headlines, delivered every evening. So it's all clear as mud. And what happens next for Canada? We'll find out, perhaps, on Friday. But more than anything else, move slowly and deliberately and in a calculated way, don't get rushed into a bad deal, and keep in mind that any deal is open to President Trump's penchant for exaggeration and fabrication. And for his unmatched ability to fail to live up to a signed commitment. And that's for the short term. The long term? Find new global customers. Ones that can be counted on to make an honestly negotiated deal and stick to it.
CBC
5 hours ago
- CBC
Province to inject $200M to electrify LNG project near Kitimat
The province has announced it will be subsidizing the electrification of the Cedar LNG project in northwest B.C. Premier David Eby says the LNG sector could inject billions into the economy and help Canada become an energy superpower. But as CBC's Katie DeRosa reports, the Green Party is accusing the NDP government of "greenwashing."
