Disgruntled Liberal MPs reportedly give Trudeau until October 28 to step down

Liberal MPs reportedly gave Trudeau a letter this week demanding he step down as party leader or face undisclosed consequences from within his own caucus.

Discontented Liberals have reportedly given Prime Minister Justin Trudeau until October 28 to step down as Liberal Party leader before they take action to force the issue.

During a widely anticipated October 23 Liberal caucus meeting, Liberal MPs gave Trudeau a letter demanding his resignation by next week, according to information shared by Liberal MPs with the National Post.

“The letter—which two MPs confirmed did not include the signatures of those who signed— recognized Trudeau’s accomplishments in office, but said MPs felt compelled to share feedback from constituents and asked that he respond positively to the call for him to step down,” the report stated.

During the three-and-a-half-hour caucus meeting, around 60 MPs addressed their fellow Liberals, about half of whom are said to have called for Trudeau to step down.

According to the National Post, the Liberal letter gives Trudeau until October 28 to resign but does not specific what the consequences will be if the prime minister declines to do so.

The October deadline comes after 20 Liberals had signed a letter to call on Trudeau to be removed as leader of the Liberal Party following two disastrous by-election results in “safe” ridings in Toronto and Montreal.  

While none of the Liberals would publicly disclose what was said at the meeting, New Brunswick MP Wayne Long, who recently called for Trudeau’s resignation, hinted that the discussion included the possibility of Trudeau stepping down.

“In my nine years, I have not seen a more open, honest, frank and direct meeting between members of Parliament and the prime minister. I’ve not seen anything like that,” he said.

“My hope is that the prime minister has cause for reflection on what MPs said,” Long continued. “What he does with that message and how he processes that message and how he moves forward with that message is really up to him.”

In addition to the October deadline, others have begun to publicly decry Trudeau’s leadership and call for his resignation. Earlier this week, Liberal MP Sean Casey of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, told CBC News that Trudeau’s time as leader has ended, making him the second MP in a week to make such a declaration. 

“My job has always been to project the voice of the people I represent in Ottawa, to be Charlottetown’s representative in Ottawa, and not the reverse,” he said. “And the message that I’ve been getting loud and clear and more and more strongly as time goes by is that it’s time for him to go. And I agree.”  

Casey’s statement echoes Montreal Liberal MP Anthony Housefather who told CTV News that it is time for the Liberal Party to discuss who will lead them into the 2025 election.   

“I support whoever is leader in my party at all times,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a robust caucus discussion about who the best person to lead us in the next election is, and that discussion should happen in caucus. It shouldn’t happen in the media.”  

Calls for Trudeau’s resignation come on top of the numerous Liberal MPs, including former cabinet ministers, who have vacated their seats or who have announced that they will not be running for re-election.  

In addition to calls from the political class for Trudeau’s resignation, or at the very least their distancing themselves from his leadership, Canadian citizens have also had enough of the prime minister’s rule over the country.

Polls continue to uncover the upset of Canadians toward the current government, whether it be the 70 percent who believe the country is “broke,” or the majority of citizens who report being worse off financially since Trudeau took office.      

Additional polls show that the scandal-plagued government has sent the Liberals into a nosedive with no end in sight, with a September poll showing that the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre would win a landslide majority government were an election held today. 

Related Topics:#ClareMarieMerkowsky #JustinTrudeau #LifeSiteNews feature LiberalMP's MP'sDemandTrudeauResign

Up Next

Premier Smith hammers Liberal government for ‘slightly’ reducing immigration

Don't Miss

Hundreds of thousands of migrants are being held in southern Mexico until US Election Day

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

How Christianity Remade the World

Business / 1 hour ago

Taxpayers release Naughty and Nice List

Business / 16 hours ago

Biden announces massive new climate goals in final weeks, despite looming Trump takeover

Business

Canada’s chief actuary fails to estimate Alberta’s share of CPP assets

Published on December 23, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Each Albertan would save up to $2,850 in 2027—the first year of the hypothetical Alberta plan—while retaining the same benefits as the CPP. Meanwhile, the basic CPP contribution rate for the rest of Canada would increase to 10.36 per cent.

Despite a new report from Canada’s chief actuary about Alberta’s potential plan to leave the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and start its own separate provincial pension plan, Albertans still don’t have an official estimate from Ottawa about Alberta’s share of CPP assets.

The actuary analyzed how the division of assets might be calculated, but did not provide specific numbers.

Yet according to a report commissioned by the Smith government and released last year, Alberta’s share of CPP assets totalled an estimated $334 billion—more than half the value of total CPP assets. Based on that number, if Alberta left the CPP, Albertans would pay a contribution rate of 5.91 per cent for a new CPP-like provincial program (a significant reduction from the current 9.9 per cent CPP rate deducted from their paycheques). As a result, each Albertan would save up to $2,850 in 2027—the first year of the hypothetical Alberta plan—while retaining the same benefits as the CPP. Meanwhile, the basic CPP contribution rate for the rest of Canada would increase to 10.36 per cent.

Why would Albertans pay less under a provincial plan?

Because Alberta has a comparatively younger population (i.e. more workers vs. retirees), higher average incomes and higher levels of employment (i.e. higher level of premiums paid into the fund). As such, Albertans collectively pay significantly more into the CPP than retirees in Alberta receive in benefits. Simply put, under a provincial plan, Albertans would pay less and receive the same benefits.

Some critics, however, dispute the estimated share of Alberta’s CPP assets (again, $334 billion—more than half the value of total CPP assets) in the Smith government’s report, and claim the estimate understates the report’s contribution rate for a new Alberta pension plan and overestimates the new CPP rate without Alberta.

Which takes us back to the new report from Canada’s chief actuary, which was supposed to provide its own estimate of Alberta’s share of the assets. Unfortunately, it did not.

But there are other rate estimates out there, based on various assumptions. According to a 2019 analysis published by the Fraser Institute, the contribution rate for a new separate CPP-like program in Alberta could be as low as 5.85 per cent, while AIMCo’s 2019 estimate was 7.21 per cent (and possibly as low as 6.85 per cent). And University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe has pegged Alberta’s hypothetical rate at 8.2 per cent.

While the actuary in Ottawa failed to provide any numbers, one thing’s for certain—according to the available estimates, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate in a separate provincial pension plan while CPP contributions for the rest of Canada (excluding Quebec) would likely increase.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Business

For the record—former finance minister did not keep Canada’s ‘fiscal powder dry’

Published on December 23, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen

In case you haven’t heard, Chrystia Freeland resigned from cabinet on Monday. Reportedly, the straw that broke the camel’s back was Prime Minister Trudeau’s plan to send all Canadians earning up to $150,000 a onetime $250 tax “rebate.” In her resignation letter, Freeland seemingly took aim at this ill-advised waste of money by noting “costly political gimmicks.” She could not have been more right, as my colleagues and I have written here, here and elsewhere.

Indeed, Freeland was right to excoriate the government for a onetime rebate cheque that would do nothing to help Canada’s long-term economic growth prospects, but her reasoning was curious given her record in office. She wrote that such gimmicks were unwise because Canada must keep its “fiscal powder dry” given the possibility of trade disputes with the United States.

Again, to a large extent Freeland’s logic is sound. Emergencies come up from time to time, and governments should be particularly frugal with public dollars during non-emergency periods so money is available when hard times come.

For example, the federal government’s generally restrained approach to spending during the 1990s and 2000s was an important reason Canada went into the pandemic with its books in better shape than most other countries. This is an example of how keeping “fiscal powder dry” can help a government be ready when emergencies strike.

However, much of the sentiment in Freeland’s resignation letter does not match her record as finance minister.

Of course, during the pandemic and its immediate aftermath, it’s understandable that the federal government ran large deficits. However, several years have now past and the Trudeau government has run large continuous deficits. This year, the government forecasts a $48.3 billion deficit, which is larger than the $40 billion target the government had previously set.

A finance minister committed to keeping Canada’s fiscal powder dry would have pushed for balanced budgets so Ottawa could start shrinking the massive debt burden accumulated during COVID. Instead, deficits persisted and debt has continued to climb. As a result, federal debt may spike beyond levels reached during the pandemic if another emergency strikes.

Minister Freeland’s reported decision to oppose the planned $250 onetime tax rebates is commendable. But we should be cautious not to rewrite history. Despite Freeland’s stated desire to keep Canada’s “fiscal powder dry,” this was not the story of her tenure as finance minister. Instead, the story is one of continuous deficits and growing debt, which have hurt Canada’s capacity to withstand the next fiscal emergency whenever it does arrive.