Need to Know: The Liberals are ensnared by dirty politics

Welcome to Need to Know, The Hub’s roundup of experts and insiders providing insights into the federal election stories, policy announcements, and campaign developments Canadians need to be keeping an eye on.

The Liberals’ cynical brand of politics is nothing new—and Carney clearly doesn’t care about accountability

By Kelden Formosa, a political commentator and an elementary school teacher in Calgary

The Liberal Party has always done a good job creating a vague sense that they’re the proverbial “adults in the room,” more technocrats than politicians, above the fray, distinct from the Conservatives with their ideological fixations. To people who’ve seen the Liberal machine up close, this is laughable—just ask Jody Wilson-Raybould.

But Mark Carney was installed as leader because he is the ultimate avatar of that sense. The blue suit, the calming tone—maybe he actually was a non-ideological “above politics” leader for whom many centrist Canadians pine.

So it’s a real mistake that his Liberal Party was caught engaging in the dirtiest, most cynical, least “good government” style campaigning. The details include Liberal staffers planting campaign buttons with Trump-style messaging at a conservative conference, meant to draw an association between the Canadian Right and the MAGA movement down south. And it’s to the credit of CBC journalist Kate McKenna that she broke the story on Sunday and followed up with a question on it yesterday.

But this shouldn’t be a one-day story. It goes to the core of the case that the Carney Liberals are making in this election. So journalists should keep asking questions. Sure, Carney says he didn’t know about it, but did he give approval, tacit or otherwise, for dirty tricks? If it wasn’t Carney, who in Liberal HQ approved? Why doesn’t he make the campaign directors take responsibility and resign? Why are they importing American culture issues into Canadian politics, all the while claiming to deplore “American-style” political and social influence? Most importantly: why is the Liberal Party stirring up division, not just going after opposing candidates, but trying to misleadingly smear ordinary volunteers and supporters?

That’s not good government, it’s the worst kind of partisanship, the sort that justifies mistreatment and lying for partisan advantage. Carney promised better, but his party clearly hasn’t changed—and in foregoing the opportunity to insist on real accountability and instead simply “reassigning” the campaign staffers responsible, it doesn’t appear he is intent on making it.

Yes, it’s true: cutting the carbon tax has lowered the price at the pumps

By Trevor Tombe, professor of economics at the University of Calgary and a research fellow at The School of Public Policy

The Hub had a fascinating conversation last Friday between Rudyard Griffiths, Sean Speer, and David Coletto as part of its daily election series. David shared some interesting new polling from his firm, Abacus Data, on the end of Canada’s consumer carbon tax—and who voters think should get the credit.

Of course, Mark Carney literally signed the order. But it followed intense pressure from opposition leader Pierre Poilievre, who could reasonably claim ultimate responsibility.^{1Another possibility: the real death blow came from former prime minister Trudeau, in a decision made nearly two years ago.}

So who got the credit? In Coletto’s poll—and readers should take a moment to watch the full discussion themselves—55 percent named Carney, while 28 percent credited Poilievre. Interestingly (though predictably), party lines matter. Among Conservatives, 62 percent credited Poilievre. Among Liberals, 83 percent credited Carney.

But one result stood out to me: most people know gas prices dropped, and nearly everyone linked it to the tax cut.

And they were right. The tax change did lower prices. But as any economist will tell you, that isn’t guaranteed. Who ultimately bears the burden of a tax isn’t always obvious and depends on how markets respond. Perhaps gasoline stations, to increase their margins, wouldn’t lower prices as much as the tax cut, as some (including Alberta’s premier) have been concerned. And global forces matter too. Disruptive policy decisions by U.S. President Trump have raised the odds of a global recession, which lowered oil prices and drove down gas prices—so voters might mistakenly credit Ottawa’s tax change for price drops caused by global forces.

But with two weeks now following the tax cut, we’re now in a good position to measure the effect. The approach is simple: the federal carbon tax didn’t apply in every province—British Columbia and Quebec have their own systems. B.C. scrapped its tax at the same time as Ottawa, but Quebec kept its system in place. That gives us a useful control. Global factors affect Quebec and the rest of Canada similarly, so any difference between the two should therefore reflect the carbon tax cut.

And that’s exactly what we’re seeing.

As of April 11, prices across the rest of Canada were 21 cents per litre lower than they would have been had they followed Quebec’s pattern. That means the entire tax change was felt by consumers in the form of lower prices.^{2The carbon tax removal represents roughly an 18-cent per litre drop in the tax, which is also subject to GST or HST, depending on the province. A full pass-through would mean a 20 to 21 cent per litre drop in pump prices.}

So, while political views may differ around who gets the credit, the many voters who said the carbon tax cut lowered prices were right—and thanks to solid data and a simple comparison, we can show exactly how much.

Mark Carney’s election opportunism 

By Royce Koop, professor of political science at the University of Manitoba

In 2008, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper went to Governor General Michaëlle Jean to request a prorogation of Parliament. The request was made in order to avoid a vote of non-confidence in the House of Commons from the combined Opposition parties. Jean accepted Harper’s request. Prorogation saved Harper’s minority government, as the proposed coalition of Liberals, New Democrats, and Bloquistes quickly fell in on itself.

Harper’s prorogation led to a great deal of rending of garments and gnashing of teeth in the Canadian political science community. This was because the prorogation was seen to be an abuse of power, and a tipping point after years of allegedly dictatorial power by Harper.

This culminated in a book which argued that prorogation and similar behaviours demonstrated how the prime minister had effectively seized the powers of the Governor General, making the role far more powerful than it should be. One concern was that the increasing power of the prime minister made it easier for people in that role to avoid accountability and help their own re-election. The book won the Donner Prize and was the basis for much discussion in seminars in the years ahead.

One hopes the Liberal Party’s abuse of power and conventions will be similarly examined if Mark Carney wins the upcoming federal election. I’m talking, of course, about the ability of the prime minister to request a dissolution and plunge the country into an election campaign at the moment of his choosing.

The incumbent Liberal government had been so unpopular for so long under the leadership of Justin Trudeau that it was hard to imagine the party ever bouncing back. But that’s precisely what happened after Carney was selected as the new leader. With a fresh face and a seeming crisis in the form of Donald Trump’s tariffs, Carney took the plunge and called an election.

What kind of a democracy just passively accepts a situation where a government can cling to power for years while it languishes in the cellar of public opinion, then immediately calls an election the moment it rebounds in the polls? Fixed date election legislation was supposed to address precisely this problem. But the rules have no teeth, so politicians regularly ignore them, and the prime minister can call elections whenever it suits him.

Carney’s conduct in the campaign has amplified the undemocratic character of his decision. The goal appears to be to limit Canadians’ exposure to the candidate. Carney called one of the shortest campaign periods in Canadian history. Further, he has suspended his campaign no fewer than three times to address developments related to Trump, limiting the extent to which Canadians can assess him.

One would think that, in a democracy, the voters would be given the fullest possible opportunity to get to know and assess the candidates for the most powerful political position in the country. Carney’s original decision to call the election and his subsequent behaviour in the campaign suggest that he is trying to pull a fast one on Canadians.

I wonder if any political scientists will write a book about it?

Canadians are beavers—and should be proud of it

By Andy Crooks, a retired lawyer and current writer

The American eagle soars. The Russian bear growls and slashes. The British lion roars; it is the king. The French, a chicken.

Each nation has an animal that reflects its character.

But Canada has the best: the best animal and the best representation of national character.

The beaver is industrious; it works constantly. It is the engineer of the forest, bending its environment to provide a habitable home in a harsh world. It alters the landscape to provide food, protection, and safety.

The beaver is a family creature. It meets and mates, and then the beaver couple works to build a safe and secure home to raise their litter of babies.

It is not a violent little fellow. It rarely attacks, and its most ferocious move in normal times is to slap its tail to warn other beavers and dive underwater.

But if you corner it, watch out. One hundred fifty pounds of teeth and claws come at you like a whirling dervish. Sharp teeth for cutting wood become sharp instruments of damage.

The beaver is Canadian, and Canadians are beavers. We build transcontinental railways, great pipelines, dams, and roads. We carve out homes in the challenging climate and terrain of our northern lands. With industry and engineering prowess, we push Mother Nature back to raise our families.

We are peaceful until you force us, then look out as we showed at Vimy, Ortona, Antwerp, and Juno Beach. Angry and armed, we are ferocious. We get the job done, then put down our weapons and get back to work.

Eagles, bears, and lions are all good. But for me, the beaver is best.