Can Justin Rebuild his Popularity?

August 18, 2022

Politicians don’t go in elections to lose. It’s possible in three years that current low poll standings for Liberals against Conservatives and Justin’s personal popularity remain low. If Poliviere wins as CPC leader and finds a way to appeal to urban and suburban Canadians, then Justin Trudeau may not want to drag his party to defeat. This would lead to a leadership race and a new face for the party top take on Poliviere.

This scenario is by no means certain, but it will be talked about as will a PM tired of being blamed for every ill to beset Canada, a recession, and the endless threats and attacks coming at him from so many quarters in the era of social media. His all may just wear him down and lead to the understandable “time to spend more time with family” familiar explanation. 


A big caveat is that this will not happen if Justin finds his way to rebuild the popularity he enjoyed in the 2015 election and the “sunny ways” that followed his victory. Part of this popularity related to the ease with which he related to Canadians.

 

It was an attractive image which we saw again recently when he attended events at the Calgary Stampede. Coverage offered photos that captured a politician who always seems to draw genuine joy from talking to ordinary Canadians. It felt like the Trudeau of the 2015 campaign when he was casual and straight. Accessibility was so important to his appeal and the contrast with the hard, unapproachable Stephen Harper played greatly to his advantage. His communication style, in that campaign and particularly in the debates, was relaxed and relatable.

 

Unfortunately, we have become inured to a more formal rehearsed style since the last election. Perhaps a decision was made that serious pandemic and serious economic times demanded serious delivery.  Even the “I feel your pain” messages seemed, at times, to lack authenticity or a genuine sense of connection that was Trudeau’s strength. There’s a gulf between that stiff overly formal style, which is at odds with his more natural casual communication style. At times, he sounds as if he is giving instructions to a school assembly rather than informing, updating, and relating to Canadians.   If style trumps message, then those communications fail.

 

The opposition is ramping up its attacks using Trump style tactics, a grass roots, casual and direct approach unfiltered by traditional media to engage with populist ideas that aren’t always based on fact. Attention spans are short. People are listening and not checking their facts, or are deeply suspicious of conventional media sources. In the mass anxiety of inflation, they want politicians to talk to them on their media about their concerns in their language.

 

But surely, he’s also been Prime Minister for long enough to initiate real dialogue with the country. He would do well to consider shifting away from his overly formal style and find one that allows him to talk directly about the serious issues we all face. 

 

This would involve a technical fix not beyond the skill set he and his team possess. A more likeable PM that doesn’t sound like an elite would find a response for sure, and it would be noticed.

 

The other strategy which is very hard for politicians to adopt but shows honesty with the public is to admit that there is no quick fix to some of the huge issues which beset Canada and much of the world. There are simply hills that are not worth dying on. Inflation may indeed be one of them. 

 

Finally, there are now polling indications that Trudeau is seen as a more desirable Prime Minister than Poliviere. The latter with nothing to lose at this point is a glib performer who has provided Liberal election campaign planners with a treasure trove of bizarre video material which, negatively presented, can turn off many Canadians. 

 

These are the factors weighing even now in the PM0 that make the earlier scenarios we put forward somewhat less likely. But beware, the current political climate is more polarized and fraught than ever thanks to social media, the influence of Trump style politics and other factors.  Canadian politics is on a downward spiral. There will be more potential candidates looking at politics in horror and not putting their names forward, and many Liberals will decide not to run again. It’s too nasty and even dangerous. Ask former Liberal Minister Catherine McKenna who decided not to run again to spend time with her family. She was bullied in the House and her riding office vandalized.

 

To review, there are many question marks and several viable scenarios for Justin Trudeau leading to the next election. We feel his communication style needs a remake. That could rebuild his popularity as well as Canadians taking a closer look at Poliviere and perhaps with the help of negative Liberal ads seeing Justin as a more desirable mainstream leader. All we voters can do is stay tuned - it will be a bumpy ride.

 

Written by Patrick Gossage and Karen Gordon. Patrick Gossage is a veteran political commentator and former Press secretary to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Karen Gordon is a well-known critic, writer, broadcaster, media strategist and trainer.

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

Well-meaning Assault Weapons Ban and Buyback victim of poor timing and major opposition

By Patrick Gossage • April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.

Two Opposites – Mark Carney and Donald Trump

By Patrick Gossage • March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts