NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh began 2024 by propping up Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s minority government. He is ending the year calling for Trudeau’s resignation.
Singh's gradual effort to limit his alliance with the Liberals hastened this week after Trudeau's finance minister quit, plunging the government into more political chaos and raising questions about whether Trudeau can even stay on as prime minister much longer.
But Singh is still not putting any kind of timeline on when his party will join the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois to defeat the government and trigger an election.
After Chrystia Freeland's sudden departure — a move blamed entirely on Trudeau who told her he she would be replaced as finance minister — Singh said it is time for Trudeau to resign. But when asked if that means his party will vote non-confidence in the government at the next opportunity, he said only "all options are on the table."
The Canadian Press sat down with Singh for a year end interview on Dec. 10, before Freeland’s resignation changed the course of Canadian politics. In the conversation he laid out his thinking about why he has supported the Liberals to date, and what happens next.
“The choice in the next election is going to come down to the Liberals have let people down, people don't want to give them another chance, so it's going to be between Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, who want to cut the things you need, or new Democrats who want to make your life more affordable. That choice is going to be real,” Singh said.
The supply and confidence agreement Singh made with Trudeau in 2022 was to see the NDP support the Liberals on key votes in exchange for the Liberals acting on NDP priorities like dental care and pharmacare.
Singh pulled the NDP out of that deal in September saying that the Liberals are “too beholden to corporate interests” after ordering binding arbitration in rail and airline job action over the summer. But the NDP has since supported the Liberals through three non-confidence votes initiated by the Conservatives.
Each decision is weighed on a vote-by-vote basis, according to Singh, who said he considers the same thing each time a confidence question comes before the House.
“I think about the people in this country, and I think about how I can do as much as possible as I'm in the position I am to help them out. That's like my No. 1 question,” Singh said.
“Will this help people? Will this make their life better? Will it make their life more affordable? These are the things that drive me. How do I use a position I've been honoured with to give people a break, to give people some help? That's my focus.”
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been pressuring Singh to join him in bringing down the government for most of the fall. The day after Freeland's departure from cabinet Poilievre repeated that call, asking Singh to vote non-confidence “as soon as legally possible."
Poilievre has a commanding lead in public opinion polls, which have placed the Conservatives a solid 20 points ahead of both the Liberals and the NDP for much of the year.
Singh is not naive to this fact, telling NDP staffers from across the country last month that they are in for a tough fight next year whenever the election happens. By law it has to be before the end of October 2025, but could happen earlier if opposition parties vote the government down in the House of Commons.
A Dec. 17 poll from Abacus Data suggests the NDP do enjoy more support than the Liberals outside of Ontario and Quebec.
Part of this fight will include trying to break through Conservative rhetoric linking the NDP to the Liberals due to the supply and confidence agreement, and NDP support for the governing party in the months after.
Despite those things, Singh does not think people too closely associate his party with the Liberals.
“I think people get the difference, as much as Conservatives want to lie,” Singh said.
“(The Liberals) had the power of government. What we did is we used the power that we had to force them to do things, to get things done for people. We're going to continue to do that,” Singh said.
One of the final planks in the now torn up supply and confidence agreement was the passage of legislation to establish a single-payer pharmacare system.
The version that received royal assent earlier this year promises to cover most diabetes medication and contraceptives, but first provinces need to negotiate deals with Ottawa.
“So, we've seen some interest and provinces are pretty close to signing deals, like B.C. is just about there, Manitoba is showing interest. We know there's some Atlantic provinces. I want to see as many provinces as possible get this benefit so people are living better with this help,” Singh said.
Poilievre has called the pharmacare idea “radical” and said it would prevent people from using their private drug plans.
When asked if he is holding off on triggering an election until at least some deals are in place, the NDP leader went on the offensive.
“I think Poilievre has been really clear, and this is a choice that people have to make. He wants to cut pharmacare. He doesn't want people to get free birth control. He doesn't want people to get free diabetes medication. He doesn't think they're worth it. I think those people are worth it,” Singh said.
The current domestic political turmoil is being spurred by an even greater threat to Canada from south of the border: president-elect Donald Trump’s promised 25 per cent tariff on Canadian goods.
Originally this threat was made based on Trump's musings about illegal immigration and drug trafficking at the northern border, but Trump has since suggested the United States is “subsidizing” Canada when it comes to trade.
Trump has taken to referring to the prime minister as "Governor Trudeau" of "the 51st state."
While the Canadian government has not overtly promised retaliatory tariffs, Freeland said premiers have suggested some options, including duties on critical minerals after her last meeting with them.
Singh firmly believes Canada should enact retaliatory tariffs, as it did in the last Trump presidency when Trump imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum. Singh calls Trump's tactics "economic bullying."
“We need to make sure that they know there's a cost to taking on Canada. It's going to hurt their economy as much as it's going to hurt us, so we have to be ready for that fight. We have to fight to protect Canadian jobs. We have to fight like hell and show that we're serious about fighting. I think that’s the only way you can take on a bully,” Singh said.
As Canada prepares for an increasingly confrontational geopolitical stage next year, 2024 has been characterized by increased security threats for politicians in Canada, including Singh himself.
Earlier this year, Singh had an altercation with a couple of protesters on Parliament Hill. This in part led to increased security on the precinct where access near West Block is restricted to the general public.
This is not unique to Ottawa, as MPs from all parties have reported an increase in threats and vandalism at constituency offices.
Entering public life is never without risk, but Singh says the current atmosphere is making it more difficult to find people willing to put their names forward.
Twenty of the NDP's 25 sitting MPs are currently intending to run again, but the party has nominated just 40 additional candidates. There will be 343 seats to fill in the House of Commons.
“I am worried about the climate of politics where you shouldn't have to be ready to fight back against bullying and be ready to stand up to these kind of folks just to enter into the world of politics,” Singh said.
“I think about particularly women, maybe some folks that might be a bit more marginalized or vulnerable, that we would benefit from them being elected and representing their communities but are nervous to get into politics because they feel it's not safe because of the attacks and harassment.”
While Singh said he’ll leave security solutions to experts in that field, his solution for fellow politicians taps into the spirit of the holiday season. He says that while disagreement is healthy, it comes down to MPs to take a stand, tone down the rhetoric and say these kinds of threats and intimidation aren’t acceptable.
