Opinion: With Trudeau and his Finance Minister at war, it’s clear: this government is done #CanadaFinance

When Chrystia Freeland rises in the House Monday to deliver the Fall Economic Statement – if she does – the country will be presented with a remarkable and disturbing sight.

The Finance Minister will read out a document that it is now known she does not agree with, charting an economic course she does not believe in, and that will repudiate promises to which she nailed her credibility just eight months ago.

After which, Justin Trudeau will in all probability fire her.

I don’t know who leaked to The Globe and Mail earlier this week that the Prime Minister and his Finance Minister were at odds – specifically, over the big spending increases the Prime Minister, or his officials, have ordered up in a desperate bid to save their government, including the notorious GST holiday and the $250 cheques.

Possibly it was people in the Finance Minister’s camp, in the hopes, perhaps, that by so doing they could get the PMO to back off or at least shift the blame for the coming fiasco: a deficit for the fiscal year ending last March of a size hitherto not even guessed at – not the $40-billion projected in the last budget, nor even the $47-billion projected by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, but as much as $60-billion – with another whopper to follow.

Who can say? (Reporters, wisely, do not reveal their sources to opinion columnists.) But if the leak did come out of Finance, it may explain the leak that followed, which was clearly from the Prime Minister’s Office: that Mr. Trudeau has renewed his courtship with Mark Carney, the former Bank of Canada governor, to join the cabinet, in the only position he is understood to be willing to take: Finance Minister.

Prime ministers have imposed policies on their finance ministers before, but have generally kept it under wraps. (Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin hated each other, but ensured there was “no daylight” between them on policy until the very end.) Finance ministers have had to recant budgets or mini-budgets, but usually not until after they have been released.

Certainly I can think of no finance minister before who has been the subject of hostile press briefings by the Prime Minister’s Office on the very eve of a particularly crucial economic statement, or who has been forced to mouth words to which she is plainly opposed as her final act before being dismissed.

But then, Ms. Freeland should be used to this sort of humiliation by now. It was back in July that reports emerged that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, had lost faith in the Finance Minister’s communications abilities – communications being this government’s highest objective, and the sole responsibility allowed most ministers – confirmed by the Prime Minister’s conspicuous failure to restate his confidence in her as Finance Minister.

There followed the bizarre appointment of Mr. Carney as the chair of a task force on the economy, reporting not to the Prime Minister, but to the leader of the Liberal Party (you may have heard of him: chap named Justin Trudeau). From that moment on, it may perhaps have been appropriate to refer to Ms. Freeland as the FMINO: Finance Minister in Name Only.

Still, this disastrous week marks a turning point, the moment at which this government crossed from desperation into dysfunction. It cannot be allowed to continue. The principle of parliamentary responsibility requires that all members of cabinet, let alone the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, be publicly on the same page when it comes to the policies for which they are collectively accountable.

There can be no question of ministers winking to the gallery, as if to say “don’t blame me, I had my people tell the press I was against it” while retaining their posts. Neither is it permissible that there should be, as it were, two finance ministers – three, counting the Prime Minister; four, counting Ms. Telford.

Something, or somebody, has to give. Ms. Freeland should have had the self-respect to resign long ago: if not because she had lost the confidence of Ms. Telford – sorry, I meant the Prime Minister – then because of her serial inability to abide by even the undemanding fiscal targets she has set for herself.

But that would still leave in place a Prime Minister, and a government, that are clearly reeling: trailing in the polls by historic margins, divided amongst themselves and uncertain how to proceed. Policy has now reached the spaghetti strategy stage: toss something at the wall and hope that it sticks. Yet nothing has – not the GST holiday, not the capital gains tax hike in last spring’s budget, not the massive cabinet shuffle of the year before. If anything the Liberals have fallen farther behind.

Ordinarily that would be something for the government to endure. But the cost to the country, as the government staggers from crisis to crisis, is mounting.

The Prime Minister spent the summer hiding from his own caucus, for fear of allowing the MPs opposed to his leadership to combine forces. He has spent the fall effectively boycotting Parliament, rather than release the documents Parliament has demanded to see in the matter of yet another cronyism scandal – this time involving Sustainable Development Technology Canada, a federal agency – of a kind that seem to crop up routinely under this government.

Meantime, the country is in increasing peril. It isn’t just a matter of the government’s rapidly deteriorating financial situation, or the reckless arrogance with which it has been shovelling money out the door, in the apparent belief that its continuation in power is so vital to the nation that it is entitled to spend whatever it takes to ensure that it stays there.

But on top of that we are about to face an administration in the United States that seems determined to do maximum harm to this country: not only the 25 per cent tariff that has excited so much comment – an act of economic war – but the massive wave of undocumented immigrants who may be already coming our way, seeking refuge from the internment camps Donald Trump’s officials are preparing for them.

Plus whatever other torments the incoming president, who appears to covet Canadian resources in a quite personal way, can devise. The threat is real, and goes far beyond anything imaginable under any previous president. Put it this way: the chances that Russia and/or China might attempt some territorial incursion in our North must now be considered very seriously. Until lately we might have assumed they would be hindered by the prospect of U.S. retaliation. Are we so sure that President Trump would not be more likely to join in?

To deal with these and other threats – climate change, rebuilding our military, the collapse of our health care system and overarching all, the productivity crisis – will require boldness, foresight and ingenuity. Most of all, it requires strength and unity – in the country, ideally, but certainly in its government. Otherwise Mr. Trump will pick us apart, playing province against province, party against party, minister against minister.

This government is neither strong nor unified. It is barely hanging on, scraping through one vote to another in Parliament, despised by much of the public, with a leader who cannot be sure of the support even of his own caucus. I say again: this cannot go on. If Mr. Trudeau will not step down, his caucus should remove him. And if the Liberals shrink from that task, then it is time for the NDP to fulfill its responsibilities, and vote no confidence in the government.

Whichever party is in government, whoever leads that government, they must seek and obtain a fresh mandate from the people. Perhaps the Liberals can persuade the public they should be returned to power, notwithstanding their government’s many and significant failures: on the economy, on housing, on immigration, on managing the nation’s finances, on ethics in public office and more. Perhaps Mr. Trudeau can be the leader under whom they win that new mandate. Stranger things have happened.

But while it is open to debate who should win the election, that there needs to be an election is no longer in doubt. This government has reached the end of its useful life. An election would not just be an opportunity to rally the country behind a new – or renewed – government, but to debate how best to approach the challenges that confront us, notably Mr. Trump.

That issue – how to deal with a president who, for the first time, represents a significant threat to the country – will most likely dominate the campaign. It is a legitimate issue over which to hold an election. Each of the parties, and each of the leaders, can make a case that they have the right mix of policies and personal qualities to defend our interests, and our values.

But it must be soon. It cannot wait until October: as if the country could endure another 10 months of indecision, internal divisions, short-term expedients and general mucking about. While it would be illegitimate, if not illegal, for the government to call a snap election, against the wishes of the opposition parties – that is the point of the fixed-date election law – the government is always obliged to command the confidence of the House. The onus, then, is on the Opposition, specifically the NDP, on whose support the government has relied until now, to bring on its defeat.

The hour is late. The situation is dire. The country’s impatience is palpable. It is time for everyone to put country before party, and take their case to the people.