Singh won’t bring down Trudeau. Why?

Liberals’ partner is in a tough spot, accused of setting its own agenda before democracy

OTTAWA There’s a key argument behind the way the New Democrats have approached the foreign interference saga that has hung over Ottawa for months: they think Canadians are worried about threats to democracy, but believe they want dental care a lot more.

“One of the things I’m constantly reminded of when I return back to my constituency is the things that seem like the most urgent and important topics of the day in Ottawa mean absolutely nothing to my constituents,” Hamilton Centre New Democratic MP Matthew Green told the Star.

Indeed, the party says it’s heard, through daily donor and voter outreach programs, that the issue of foreign meddling in Canadian elections is simply not resonating across the country.

Polling data appears to bear that out.

According to new numbers from Abacus Data shared exclusively with the Star, just seven per cent of Canadians said they were very familiar with special rapporteur David Johnston’s report that recommended against a public inquiry into the situation, compared to 34 per cent who said they had never heard of the report before being surveyed.

The findings, pulled from a survey of 1,750 adults conducted May 2529, also indicate that foreign interference doesn’t rank among Canadians’ top concerns. Seventy-eight per cent of respondents said cost of living was one of their top three issues, followed by health care at 57 per cent and housing at 42 per cent. Interference threats posed by China and Russia, meanwhile, were a priority issue for only 10 per cent of respondents.

Liberals ignore opposition demands

That doesn’t mean the NDP, which is propping up the minority Liberals in a governing agreement that could hold until 2025, aren’t condemning Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s handling of media reports chronicling Beijing’s attempted interference in Canadian democratic affairs. For one, the Liberals have continued to ignore opposition demands to launch a public inquiry after Johnston ruled it out.

“I think the Liberal government is failing in its mandate as a government to take seriously the threats that are in front of us,” said Green, who sits on the House of Commons ethics committee studying the allegations.

Nevertheless, those warring beliefs have left the Liberals’ governing partner in a prickly political tangle: Should the New Democrats heed their critics, exit the deal and potentially bring down the government if they truly believe Trudeau is fumbling the file? Or should they stay the course and fulfil the governing pact’s 27 policy goals they say are the more pressing issues for Canadians?

Part of what complicates the NDP’s response is that tackling foreign threats to democratic institutions is not one of the issues enshrined in the deal. And the story of foreign meddling in Canadian elections is shrouded in so many unknowns, it’s hard to be sure what move to make next.

“I think if you had to go to the voters and say, ‘Yeah, we abandoned dental care, we abandoned pharmacare, we abandoned all of these things that we promised you we would do, because we think there might be possibly something going on here that isn’t great,’ I’m not sure that would fly with a lot of people,” said a senior NDP source, who spoke to the Star on the condition they not be named.

Gun bill taught NDP a lesson

But the last time the New Democrats felt restless about their relationship with the Liberals, they learned a lesson: it’s possible to stand your ground, reach a compromise, and avert the nuclear option.

That was over some poorly communicated amendments regarding the government’s firearms bill, which involved sweeping changes that the NDP and other opposition parties staunchly opposed. Instead of collapsing the supply-and-confidence deal over the issue, which also fell outside the scope of the agreement, the New Democrats say they went back to the drawing board — and wound up with an approach with which they could live.

It’s a lesson the party is applying once again — and it says it’s already seeing signs the tactic is working.

“The only thing that works in these kinds of situations is you’re persistent, and you don’t give up, and you play the long game, and you present your evidence, and you keep making your demands,” the NDP source said.

The party is quick to point to how it was one the earliest voices to demand Trudeau call a public inquiry. When the Liberals attempted to block the prime minister’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, from appearing before a parliamentary committee studying the matter, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh sided with the Conservatives to compel her to testify. And when Johnston recommended against a public inquiry, citing the sensitive nature of the intelligence involved, the NDP was behind an opposition-backed motion calling for him to stand aside and for the Liberals to announce a public probe once and for all.

Then, late Friday, Johnston announced he was leaving his post,

owing to the “highly partisan atmosphere” surrounding his appointment. He also asked the prime minister to consult the opposition to identify new candidates.

“I'm not shocked. I think this was going to be the conclusion,” the source said, adding that the passage of the party’s non-binding motion signalled “the beginning of the end” for the special rapporteur.

Even so, the party’s strategy has opened it up to criticism, particularly from the Conservatives, who argue the NDP is putting its own interests and its relationship with the Liberals before safeguarding democracy.

“It puts them in a bind, because of course, they are enabling the Liberal government to not call a public inquiry by keeping them in power and refusing to pull their support,” said Karl Bélanger, president of Traxxion Strategies and a former NDP national director.

“The danger lies in when people are so fed up with the Liberal party, the Liberal brand, and Justin Trudeau, that they’re going to start to blame the NDP for enabling them. We have not reached that point … but if we reach it, then it is possible that the NDP could go down with the Titanic.”

What’s more, the party has flipflopped on its initial messaging that it believed Johnston was the right choice to investigate the allegations, as other opposition parties jumped on his perceived ties to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and the current prime minister. Singh eventually called Johnston “tone-deaf” — after promising he wouldn’t disrespect the special rapporteur — for choosing not to step aside after the NDP’s motion passed. When Johnston did stand down, Singh said he “always thought that Mr. Johnston is an honourable man.”

The party has also expressed serious concerns that the lawyer Johnston retained for his work is too closely affiliated with the Liberal party, while brushing off questions that Brian Topp, who worked for the NDP’s counterparts in two provinces and once sought leadership of the federal party, also advised Johnston.

“For the first time for a lot of these

members, who have never been close to governing, they are feeling the vitriol that you get when you govern,” said a senior government source close to the deal.

“That has, I think, sometimes caused them to maybe shift off a more reasonable position,” said the source, who spoke to the Star on the condition they not be named.

That doesn’t mean tension and frustration are currently erupting behind the scenes for both parties, who continue to insist that their agreement is working as planned and that the issue of foreign interference has not shaken its foundations.

Still, the government source acknowledged “things got pretty heated” around procedural squabbles over Telford’s committee appearance, and that the NDP’s current position on Johnston is “incorrect” and “unfortunate.”

The senior NDP source said pulling out of the deal over the situation has yet to be put on the table in a “serious” way.

“That tool is a tool you get to use once,” he source said. “It’s not a tool you get to pull out every week … so you have to be pretty serious about it.”

‘‘ One of the things I’m constantly reminded of when I return back to my constituency is the things that seem like the most urgent and important topics of the day in Ottawa mean absolutely nothing to my constituents.

MATTHEW GREEN

NEW DEMOCRATIC MP

NDP denies financial troubles

The party has also rebuffed any suggestion it could be seeking to avoid an election because it’s not in a financial position to mount a federal campaign. The deputy national director, Jesse Calvert, told the Star it was “on track to complete its debt obligations” from the previous election and was “ready to fight an election whenever one comes.”

But the notion the party has been presented a “false dichotomy” of only two paths forward is something Green rejects, even as he sees his party’s options narrowing.

“Absent of pulling our support and calling a confidence vote and having the government fall tomorrow, I’m not sure what more we could do in this situation,” he admitted. “We recognize it’s not politically popular on either side.”

Yet he agrees that taking that step in the name of a public inquiry is simply too extreme. “This supply agreement is not us playing roulette with Parliament.”