EDITORIAL – Sadly, it’s time for Justin Trudeau to take a long walk in the snow
Soon-to-be Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (right) is interviewed by Kamloops radio journalist Bob Egby in the late 1960s.
An editorial by Mel Rothenburger.
THERE’S A 60-PERCENT CHANCE of snow in Ottawa on Friday. That’s the day Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is expected to announce a major shuffle in his cabinet.
It’s been a little over 40 years since the PM’s father Pierre took his famous walk in the snow, deciding at the end of it to quit politics for good. Justin has never reached the levels of respect and international notoriety that Pierre did, despite his good looks and somewhat flamboyant style.
Now, he has to make a decision about his own future. Many, including some within his own Liberal caucus, insist it’s time for him to go. It probably is.
Should he resign, making way for a successor to fight the next federal election, it won’t make much difference to the fate of the Liberal party. We’re in an era of conservatism and isolationism, of “us first.” The Trudeau brand of liberal policies and easy spending are done, at least for now.
With the tyrant from south of the border poised for a second term in office, the next four years aren’t going to be easy. Donald Trump is likely to be joined soon on the world stage by Pierre Poilievre, who is now assumed to become Canada’s next prime minister.
Some believe Poilievre is more qualified to stand up to Trump — or to get along with him — than Justin is. Maybe they’re right, but it’s not an appealing scenario.
One of the few things Justin Trudeau still has going for him is that he’s not Poilievre, nor is he any of the others. His party’s policies still reflect the ambitions of middle-class Canadians, but his flagrant spending and frequent scandals (the latest being his screw-up with Chrystia Freeland’s departure as finance minister) have become too much to put up with.
It’s a sad reflection of his status in the minds of Canadians when they’d rather have Pierre Poilievre as their leader.
The world is going to hell and neither of them is fit to lead us through it. If only Pierre was still with us… now there was a man to defend our vaunted Canadian values, who would not shrink in the presence of a bully, whether it be Putin or Trump.
“Just watch me,” he’d say. But he knew when his time was over. His son needs to come to the same realization, to know when to take his own walk in the snow.
Mel Rothenburger is a former regular contributor to CFJC-TV and CBC radio, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a recipient of the Jack Webster Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award, and a Webster Foundation Commentator of the Year finalist. He has served as mayor of Kamloops, school board chair and TNRD director, and is a retired daily newspaper editor. He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
it would be wise to read Mac Gordon’s quoted statistics showing Trump vs Harris. They were not DECISIVE percentage of the vote! Hah! All of the media commentary lamenting the raw deal that “Saint” Chrystia Freeland got from Trudeau might remember just who has been the FINANCE MINISTER during the last several years — yes, indeed it was Chrystia herself. Was it time for her to move on, or to be moved on to another ministry? And why not? The size of the deficit and indeed the finances are HER responsibility. Did her and Trudeau have words on the topic? No doubt, but that’s how it goes. If indeed the positions were reversed and she were the PM giving him (as Finance Guru) a hard time, would we be whining on his behalf? Politics is a tough game. …..
And for those folks ready to turf the Liberals and possibly along with them the NDP to embrace Conservative Pierre Polievre, I give my head many many sad shakes as I remind them of what happened to Canada under another such Conservative named Stephen Harper. A time of severe program/budget cutting that hurt many Canadians. I might remind those of us Canadians that are upset about the Liberal’s spending to think what that spending actually encompassed. Yah, remember the $225 (approx) that we received during Covid (or was it after?). Seniors have also received other small amounts — all of it is helpful. One must remember that many of us who are retired now did so after working for 45 to 50 years. During those years significant taxes were paid on the many goods and services we consumed – as well as paying Income Taxes. Why is it that the relatively small ‘gifts’ paid to folks in their elder years are begrudged by the so called ‘political pundits’ (I make that to mean ‘those wishing to stir up sh…….”.
I would be interested in a total political upset – that is – Not Conservative and Not Liberal — BUT an NDP Government would be interesting change. But, wait a minute! Didn’t we just have a Liberal-NDP ‘not’ Coalition? That worked well enough for us Canadians to get National Dental Care and National Pharmacare (yes, BC already has that!). Oh and does one care to think that some of the money I saved on my recent Dentist’s (under the new Federal Dental Care Card I have) visit add to the much lamented Federal Deficit?
When one chooses to rant and rave about deficits and politics, we need to remember who is responsible for what, and just what we as individual people have gained during the Liberals’ time in office (yes, mistakes were made, but we still got something for our money) — whereas a PP / Harper style of cuts and balanced budgets means a lean MEAN machine (yes, machines have NO heart: a balanced budget has no heart). Time to read some Canadian history – see what past Prime Ministers have taken from us when they balance budgets (yes, Liberal PMs as well as Conservative ones: remember Paul Martin & how he slashed the deficit?
Another thing to remember from the past and how our personal relationship with “balanced budgets” could have affected our lives if indeed we practiced such a goal. If we had a balanced budget in our individual lives, many of us would not use credit cards, Lines of Credit, or have Mortgages. Yes, the monthly payments might be considered (when added up) to equal a balanced month of debt management, but without the ability to run ‘a deficit’ (meaning we would not complete payment of our above mentioned Credit vehicles for many many months or years). What would this do to our country’s economy?
So, individual Canadians practice DEFICIT FINANCING that very often does not get reduced as we originally planned. That’s because like Governments, we continue with needing to get more goods and services in order to survive. Our needs usually exceed our ability to pay as we originally planned. I have worked in the Financial Planning industry for some years and I can vouch that most folks fit into this category. Those who are totally debt free are older adults and usually it’s because they’ve sold their principal asset: their home.
Canada, however, does not have a home to sell so it continues to add to the deficit while it gives Canadians a variety of benefits very often keeping them from abject poverty via better (not excessive, but better) Pensions or Guaranteed Incomes. Giving those desperately needing “a hand up” (not a handout) often is what keeps them in their own homes and able to frugally buy groceries.
LikeLike
I’m just mad these jerks have given us such a garbage choice.
LikeLike
The choice was not theirs we voted for them so there is some blame pointing at us and others who voted for them. Hitler did not just walk in he was voted in. Lets not point fingers at Justin and Freeland there is some responsibility on us to read and be informed.
LikeLike
Trump received 49.9% of the popular vote to 48.4% for Harris, this 1.5% more votes is what you’re calling a decisive margin, really? This was the 4th closest presidential elections in the past 136 years in regards to popular vote, only Kennedy in ’60, Nixon in ’68 and Bush Jr in 2000 were closer. You just called the 4th closest election in the past 34 elections decisive. Sir, may I be so bold as to suggest that wherever you are getting your news from you need to change the channel.
LikeLike
In the US, as in Canada, popular vote does not equate to Electoral College votes/seats in parliament. Trump won 312 electoral college votes, Harris 226. ( The Associated Press)
LikeLike
“US voters spoke loud and clear for change”, 49.9% to 48.4% is not loud and clear. Voters don’t vote for the electoral college, they vote for the candidate and as far as candidates go it was the 4th closest in the past 136 yrs.
LikeLike
Ken you are correct
Political parties in each state typically nominate a slate of electors at their state conventions or through some other method decided by the party. These individuals are often party activists or leaders chosen for their loyalty to the party or candidate. Voting for Electors: On Election Day, when voters go to the polls, they’re technically voting for these electors. The names of the electors might not appear on the ballot; instead, voters choose the presidential candidate, and by doing so, they’re selecting that candidate’s slate of electors.
LikeLike
Popular vote per state sure does equate to Electoral College votes. Its like in Canada if you win all the small population constitencies you get more MP’s in Parliament. You can win the popular vote in BC for example but not the number of MP’s that ones political Party sends to Ottawa. In most states, the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state gets all of that state’s electoral votes. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, use a different system where electoral votes can be split based on the vote in congressional districts and the statewide vote
Because of this system, it’s possible for a candidate to win the popular vote nationwide but lose the Electoral College vote, and thus the presidency. This has happened several times in U.S. history, including in the elections of 2000 and 2016.
LikeLike
Dudes lost his family, lost his party, lost his country, next week is both Christmas and his birthday and he’s got no one to share it with, and I thought I had it bad. I can’t see him lasting much longer as the revolt is starting to snowball, I’m sure caucus has reminded him of 1993.
LikeLike
Both in Canada and USA popular vote sometimes matters sometimes it does not. In both countries you can win the popular vote but lose the election. Clinton lost in 2016. Popular vote was 65.8 M, ECV was 227. Trump popular vote was 62.8 M ECV was 304 Voters cast their ballots for a slate of electors: When people vote in a presidential election, they are technically voting for a slate of electors who are pledged to support a particular presidential candidate. These electors are part of the Electoral College
LikeLike
Some may argue though that those vaunted Canadian values are just “colonialism” and “culturally insensitive” stuff. Justin himself may be one of those “arguing” about that.
LikeLike
sadly, I agree.
LikeLike
Justin Trudeau was never fit to be PM. His time in office has been pretty much non-stop lies, deceit, corruption, abuse of process, and out-of-control spending from the day his government took office. He was elected on a lie, as he never intended to “run modest deficits with a return to balance.” He blew through a large surplus in his first year, and then just kept on going, with never a thought to future consequences. Canada has become a joke on the global stage, because no one takes him seriously. Why would they? I’m not a big Trump fan, but he was re-elected by a decisive margin, the US voters spoke loud and clear for change, despite having a pretty good idea what they would be getting. I hope Canadians take the same stance at the first opportunity. I believe Pierre Poilievre will be a breath of fresh air compared to 9+ years of the lunacy we have endured.
LikeLike