Justin Should Leave, But Probably Won’t

Patrick Gossage • June 4, 2024

Before I join the raft of pundits calling for Trudeau to abandon the Liberal ship and let another leader hopefully prevent it from sinking, I feel it is worth remembering that politicians are human beings with genuine feelings. These emotions may play a larger role in his ultimate decision than we think.

I had a unique and very moving personal glimpse of his normally controlled father’s feelings bursting forth as we walked together to his final news conference following his 1979 defeat. I looked over and he was crying! Clearly facing the end of the position that had been so important to him for so long deeply affected him.


This must be the kind of reflection that keeps his son awake at night. The part of the job he loves and is good at - retail politics, glad-handing, charming a crowd – he can still do it. Like his dad, he loves the perks of traveling abroad in his own plane and hob knobbing with other world leaders. He is now a senior member of the club. Give up all that? Plus, he loves a good fight and is convinced he can beat Poliviere and prove everyone wrong who thinks he is past his prime.


On the other hand, he must be deeply affected by the constant bombardment of criticism and blatant hate that rains on him in the digital age from a gazillion negative voices, not to mention the ferocity of protests that dog his public appearances.

The intense polarization between the parties and its manifestation in the disgusting accusatory tone in the House to which Justin himself contributes his share can’t be shrugged off. Dead are the “sunny days” of the year or two after the 2015 election, and he must regret that deeply. They are not coming back.


Nor is the convincing Trudeau of the daily TV appearances during the pandemic. He is now overexposed, fronting unconvincingly the slew of policies which attempt unsuccessfully to boost the Liberal’s popularity. He seems to be unable to face his own overstatement of his endless claims to be working for the middle class and his defaulting to “we are continuing to…” in answer to just about any question about helping Canadians cope with dire economic times. He must know that his government cannot really significantly improve the sad economic situation that so many face. His real accomplishments, like the generous child benefit, are far behind him. Boasting about things done many years ago simply does not fly.

The other facet of his life that must cause him sadness is his marriage. It certainly affected his father after we announced the separation from Margaret in 1977, his funk lasted many months. There is some evidence that Justin too was in funk in the slowness of he and his people addressing the economic situation affecting so many Canadians in the very time after his wife left him and took up with somebody else. The talented opinion columnist Andrew Phillips in the Star recently wrote, “…maybe the ‘boss’ lost focus at exactly the wrong moment for the future of his government and party.”


So, the “I’ve had enough and need to focus on my kids” argument must weigh on him. And as I wrote some time ago, the worst scenario for any politician is to go into an election knowing you will lose. Is that really to be the end of Justin Trudeau? And the serious downsizing of the Liberal party with him. Or will his self-confidence, hubris and conviction he is doing the right

thing for Canada convince him to fight to the end. Moreover, many Liberals still think he is the best one to beat Pierre Poliviere. Will these factors trump all the evidence I have advanced that could have him make way for a new leader. Whatever, the decision will be an emotional not a rational one.



Stay tuned, time is running out.

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

A couple in matching formalwear walks the red carpet, surrounded by photographers and camera flashes.
By Patrick Gossage August 11, 2026
Watching cringeworthy video of our former PM’s hand on popstars Katy Perry’s bum at the Tribeca film festival gave me pause about who our former leader had become.
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.
More Posts