Lessons for Justin from his late father
LIBERAL MINORITY EERILY SIMILAR TO THE ELDER TRUDEAU’S ’72 PARLIAMENT
Still reeling from an electoral humbling that sliced his majority government down to a minority, Pierre Trudeau learned one lesson in particular from what he called his “half-loss” in the 1972 election.
To win again, he had to shake his propensity for cautious nuance and lean into left-wing populism.
The elder Trudeau came to power in 1968 as a darling of the left but progressives were soon dismayed by how conservatively he governed. Whether it was the October Crisis or just Trudeau’s natural tendency toward caution, disappointed left-leaning voters looked to the NDP in 1972.
Pierre Trudeau had been vocally opposed to offering “goodies” from public coffers for electoral gains but now he was a convert to the cause. His government would be a rambunctious, big-spending machine designed to buy back the hearts of Canadians.
Just like the election campaign, the minority situation that Justin Trudeau’s Liberals find themselves in is eerily similar to his father’s 1972 government. Whether the minority government that lasted from late 1972 to mid1974 can offer a blueprint is less obvious.
The nationwide frenzy of spending announcements this summer shows the contemporary Liberals have never been shy about “goodies,” and the fiscal outlook in the country is wildly different than in the 1970s.
Although there was deep economic uncertainty and a burgeoning inflation problem in 1972, the government was running a surplus, in stark contrast to the current outlook which shows deficits as far as the eye can see. Even the belt-tightening Conservative plan couldn’t see a return to balance before year five of a fiscal program that the Liberals derided during the campaign as a program of austerity.
The 1973 budget was designed to attract the support of the NDP, which would have to vote with the Liberals to keep the confidence of the House. But it was also the beginning of an 18-month Liberal campaign to win back a majority.
According to John English’s biography of Pierre Trudeau, the budget meant more than 750,000 Canadians would no longer have to pay any income tax at all, and featured a “reduction in the personal tax rate, increased personal exemptions (and) higher old age pensions.”
It was a budget that turned the previous year’s $100-million surplus into a projected $1.3-billion deficit, which the finance department later tabulated as a $2-billion deficit. English described the stimulative deficit as a key precedent for Canada, making it a forerunner of the current Liberal deficits.
It’s true that Pierre Trudeau had to satisfy the demands of the NDP to stay in power, but it also unlocked some of Trudeau’s own primal spending urges, which he believed was the key ingredient in regaining a majority.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has been upfront about the priorities he’ll bring to negotiations with Justin Trudeau, which include a universal pharmacare and dental plan, more money for housing, waiving student loan interest, ending subsidies for oil companies, a super-wealth tax and a reduction in cellphone bills.
Some of Singh’s priorities, including the pharmacare policy, are bigger, pricier versions of the Liberal plan that the NDP wants delivered sooner.
The same free-spending dynamic after the 1972 election exacerbated a long-running feud between the finance department and leftist members of Trudeau’s government.
And although the fiscally conservative Finance Minister John Turner and his department lost many battles with the newly-populist Pierre Trudeau, they did win a big battle over the guaranteed minimum income that progressives in the party desired.
Trudeau was warned by Finance that the cupboards were bare and he told boosters of the expensive idea that although he leans left on these issues he “would rather be a little bit more cautious.” Turner would eventually resign, though, feeling unappreciated by his boss.
Perhaps the most significant decision influenced by the NDP wasn’t a financial issue at all, but a foreign policy one. In early 1973, the House of Commons voted to condemn the American bombing of Hanoi, enraging then U.S. President Richard Nixon.
Pierre Trudeau’s relations with Nixon were always frosty, but this brought about a deep freeze. Trudeau wrote Nixon a letter explaining his political position, but it was disregarded.
Anyone looking for a modern-day parallel doesn’t have to look far. On the campaign trail, Singh openly wished for U.S. President Donald Trump to be impeached and then doubled-down the next day. If Trump targets Canada again, like he did with the NAFTA renegotiation and steel tariffs, he will be dealing with a prime minister who requires support from a man who has openly questioned the president’s legitimacy.
Minority governments have a rough shelf-life of 1824 months and Pierre Trudeau’s was no different.
As inflation continued to spook people, especially the Liberals in power, Trudeau unleashed a budget in 1974 that was conspicuously absent many items the NDP had demanded in exchange for its support. Soon, the opposition parties brought down the government, sending Canadians to the polls on July 8, 1974. Notably, the 1974 budget, when the Liberals were back in power with a majority, juiced program spending by 30 per cent.
Trudeau feigned fury at the defeat of his government, English writes in his biography, but he would later admit that he engineered it, eager to get back on the campaign trail to secure a new mandate.
Justin Trudeau has a stronger minority than his father had, and it would take a combined effort from the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to defeat him with a vote of no confidence.
Canadians may want to forget about elections for a while, but if Justin Trudeau is following the 1972 roadmap that’s all he’ll be thinking about. And the balance sheet might be the first clue.