Canada can't impeach scandal-plagued PM Trudeau, but Liberal Party sort of can
Legal precedent shows LPC's National Board of Directors has authority to request review of unrepresentative leadership, party member argues
By Elbert King Paul
I am a registered Liberal and former director and chair of the audit committee of the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada, a former partner of a major national accounting firm, and I have served seven leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada, including four Prime Ministers.
In his Pulitzer Prize nominated book, Watergate: A New History, American reporter Garrett Graff recounts how the staunch Republican Barry Goldstein ultimately reached a point of worrying aloud to the Christian Science Monitor “about how the president’s scandals compounded and reinforced doubt that Nixon could be trusted.”
I would argue that even within my Liberal Party significant numbers have reached a similar mental place although perhaps without loudly worrying about our current leader.
I would also argue that history has demonstrated that what ruins a nation like Canada is the hubris/pride of a leader like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. We are reminded of the ancient saying:
“The pride of your heart has deceived you … you who say to yourself … ‘Who can bring me down to the ground?”
The unwillingness of the Prime Minister to resign as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) represents a clear and present danger to the unity of Canada and has contributed to the serious decline of the Party on the provincial and federal scene.
I would assert that a contributing factor to this decline is that a significant portion of the Canadian people is alienated from the existing leadership of the Party.
In addition, they sense that the LPC mechanism for the review and modification of leadership is not responsive to the political, economic, and general well-being of Canadians.
There is no doubt that the LPC needs to face up to the reality of these facts.
One of the most important elements of a leadership situation is the style of the leader.
His style is not how the leader thinks he behaves in the situation, but how others perceive his behavior.
For example, if others think that the leader is proud and lacking in integrity and judgment, it makes little difference whether the leader thinks he is open and democratic because others will behave according to how they perceive his behavior.
A negative perception of the leader on the part of the Canadian public, together with the increasing concern over the ineffectiveness of the Liberal Party’s mechanism to alter that leadership, represents one of the major political obstacles we face.
As clearly demonstrated in recent Abacus Data polling, there is significant concern over the issue of leadership. It becomes urgent for the National Board of Directors of the LPC to consider its role in the leadership process.
In my opinion, it was the intent of the constitution and the setting up of the National Board of Directors, to make the LPC a national body characterized by the diversity which represents the Canadian community.
As a result of this broad-based representation, Canadians, and Liberals in particular, look to the National Board of Directors to fulfill its responsibility to carry out the aims and purposes of the LPC in all of Canada.
Accordingly, in its role in the leadership review process at this time, one course of action would be for the National Board of Directors to request the resignation of the leader of the party.
This action is required since time is of the essence in facilitating the effective transition involved in a leadership change. Failure to implement an early transition will only increase anxiety as there is a growing concern over our continuing leadership.
I would argue that a request for the leader’s resignation is provided for in the constitution under Section 17a and the preamble, as one of the objectives is to ensure the total representation of Canada being involved in the assessment and modification of the leadership.
The National Board of Directors, as a microcosm of diversity, should therefore come to terms with its national responsibilities.
Alternatively, if the Prime Minister refuses to submit his resignation, they could call for a leadership review before the next election.
This is notwithstanding that Section 47(a) of the LPC Constitution stipulates that there is no mechanism for review of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s leadership before the election.
I am aware that there is a legal precedent for my interpretation.
Specifically, I possess written confirmation of this precedent, dated Monday, October 31, 1983, and addressed to me from the former LPC President, Hon. Iona V. Campagnolo.
This letter came from Campagnolo after confirmation of my interpretation from two members of the LPC Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee.
The National Board of Directors of the LPC has the authority and responsibility to urgently address the predicament of a nation divided by the failed leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Elbert King Paul is a CPA — CA and member of the Liberal Party of Canada
Nice try. The LPC doesn't get to sit in their hands, mouths shut, for 9 years while the Little Potato dismantles this country, them waltz in at the 9th hour and appoint a new, unelected, leader. No. I'm afraid the entire Liberal caucus deserves to spent the next 9 years in the same mini van that carried Kathleen Wynne, and her entire team, out of the Ontario legislature. Ideally, after this next election, Canadians will see plainly what the Liberal party truly represents - greed for power at any cost - and endeavor to ensure they never form government again. To hell with you and your board of directors.
The thrust of the authors argument is that the Liberals need to get rid of Trudeau to save their party. While I will not argue that Trudeau is a terrible leader and prime minister, I cannot see the point of saving the Liberal party of Canada. From the Mark Norman affair (a deliberate attempt at pork barrel crony capitalism) to SNC (a deliberate attempt to subvert the law) to the current Chinese interference campaign, the Liberal government, and Liberal supporters have actively worked to use devious and dishonest means to better themselves and line the pockets of their friends. Bill Morneau left when he realized that fiscal responsibility was frowned upon, and JWR left when she wasn't allowed to uphold the law. The remainder of the caucus is equally dishonest, inept and imcompetent. Christia Freeland is an economically illiterate finance minister, and Melanie Joly a foreign affairs minister happy to play footsie with anti-semites and terrorists. The bobbleheads have happily nodded along for 9 years with this excruciating devotion to culture wars and climate change. Re-useable shopping bags are worse for the environment than plastic, EV's are miles away from "zero emission" (but I guess upstream/downstream only applies to oil pipelines, right?), and a plastic straw trucked to an urban landfill will not end up in a sea turtle's nose. Foolish, ideologically driven nonsense that flies in the face of any decent research and is economically suicidal. Trudeau is a terrible leader of a terrible group of people who went along with it all. If you DON'T support a particular party, I can understand that. But how does anybody actually support the Liberal Party of Canada and campaign for their continued existence. We can't be rid of them soon enough.