Meet the candidates who want to oust Steven Guilbeault from Parliament
OTTAWA – Danielle Smith and Nimâ Machouf have very little in common. In fact, they may only share one thing: their dislike for federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault.
On the one hand, the premier of Alberta has repeatedly expressed her annoyance with the man who, according to her, 'has a deranged vendetta against Alberta' and who once suggested to American polemist Tucker Carlson to put Guilbeault in his 'crosshairs'.
On the other hand, Machouf, who is a scientist and was at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic, is the NDP candidate trying to oust Guilbeault from Parliament.
Machouf has been canvassing for nearly a year, after being nominated in May 2024.
On the ground, people have been sharing their concerns with her, which echo those of most Canadians: cost of living, housing, the tariffs and jobs in an uncertain economy.
The environment is also on the minds of Quebecers and Machouf's belief that Guilbeault hasn't been strident enough on this file would surely find disagreement from the premier of Alberta.
Six years after first running for Parliament, the man who once climbed the CN tower to unfurled a banner that read 'Canada and Bush Climate Killers', who was a Greenpeace activist, and then the face of Equiterre in Quebec, is now the minister of a government that bought a pipeline in Western Canada, that authorized the Bay du Nord Development Project in the Atlantic Ocean, and that ultimately recognized that the consumer carbon tax was a failure.
'There is a lot of disappointment about what he has accomplished and what he has not accomplished,' said Machouf in an interview with National Post.
'Each time, people saw that ultimately economic imperatives weighed more heavily, it would seem, for the minister of the environment than health and environmental imperatives,' she added.
However, he may not stay in that portfolio for long. According to multiple media reports, Guilbeault could be moved to another portfolio in incoming prime minister Mark Carney's first cabinet. Guilbeault's office declined an interview request for this story but did confirm that he will run for re-election.
Guilbeault expected to be shuffled out of post as Carney attempts break from Trudeau era
Guilbeault, the carbon tax's staunchest defender, admits it could be 'replaced'
Contrary to the criticism levelled at him by Smith and other Albertans, Guilbeault is not criticized in his Montreal riding for his overzealousness, but rather for his lack of results on environmental issues.
Welcome to Laurier-Sainte-Marie, the downtown Montreal riding represented for over 20 years by former Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe and by the NDP for eight years before Guilbeault's election in 2019.
It is a francophone riding where single people outnumber couples and families, where driving is often a nightmare, and where the left prevails over the right.
It's a riding where the Bloc hopes to elect the historian and author Emmanuel Lapierre to reclaim this long-cherished riding.
His leader, Yves-Francois Blanchet, and many others in the riding have suggested this week that the population might ask themselves a couple of questions about their Liberal MP before election day.
'Indeed, local issues are going to be very, very important. We have major challenges in terms of social housing, homelessness and culture too,' said Lapierre.
But whether Lapierre or Machouf could beat an MP elected with 43 per cent of the vote in 2019 and 39 per cent in 2021 is another question.
In December and early January, Laurier-Sainte-Marie was almost locked for the NDP and Machouf was leading with about 35 per cent according to the polling aggregator 338Canada.
Philippe J. Fournier, head of the polling aggregator, said the situation has since reversed in the MP's favour.
'If the Bloc Quebecois is not in the mid 30s, but in the mid 20s in Quebec, and we know that the Bloc Quebecois is lower in Montreal than the rest of Quebec, add to this, the NDP having big problems throughout Canada since the new year, it would really surprise me if Guilbeault were to lose this election,' said Fournier.
'And I would not have told you that in January.'
But pollsters are clear about the Liberals' recent surge in the polls: this is a very volatile environment for political parties.
'I mean, it's clear that the polls are unfavourable at the moment, with a good margin,' said Lapierre. 'So, I see this race as someone who goes to meet Quebecers, who takes their pulse and listens to their concerns, and I'm going to try as best I can to carry their voice.'
Machouf, who increased her support in the riding in 2021 to finish 9 points behind Guilbeault, believes that this time around, everything will go well. While projections show her trailing the minister by nearly 20 points, she hopes that progressives will switch their vote in her favour this time around.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives have no chance in this riding. Even though Guilbeault has become one of their main targets, some Conservatives hope he will win back his seat and continue to be their party's punching bag. After all, it's not every day that a Greenpeace activist sits at the cabinet table.
National Post
atrepanier@postmedia.com
Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what's really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Cuomo, Mamdani neck and neck in final NYC mayoral poll
New York Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani has effectively drawn even with former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor and surpasses him in the final round of a ranked-choice simulation, according to a new poll released Monday. In a final survey of the race from Emerson College Polling/PIX11/The Hill, Cuomo led Mamdani 35 percent to 32 percent overall, which is within the poll's margin of error. New York City Comptroller Brad Lander came in at 13 percent, followed by City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams at 8% and former Comptroller Scott Stringer at 3 percent. Four percent of voters were undecided. But the survey also allowed respondents to rank their top choices. In the first round of voting, Cuomo led Mamdani 36 percent to 34 percent. In the eighth round of voting, once all the other candidates were eliminated, Mamdani came out on top, beating Cuomo 52 percent to 48 percent. New York City uses a ranked-choice voting system for its mayoral primary, meaning voters are able to select their top five candidates in order of preference. If no candidate surpasses 50 percent in the first round of voting, the candidate who's last is eliminated and their votes are redistributed to the other candidates according to how they ranked their other choices. The latest findings point to continued momentum for Mamdani, a democratic socialist who has emerged as the leading progressive choice in the Democratic race to succeed Mayor Eric Adams (D), who is running as an independent. In the last Emerson College Polling/PIX11/The Hill survey, taken in May, Cuomo led Mamdani 35 percent to 23 percent. 'Over five months, Mamdani's support has surged from 1% to 32%, while Cuomo finishes near where he began,' said Spencer Kimball, Emerson College Polling's executive director. 'In the ranked-choice simulation, Mamdani gains 18 points compared to Cuomo's 12, putting him ahead in the final round for the first time in an Emerson poll.' The survey is the latest to point to a close race as voters head to the polls on Tuesday. A Marist poll released last week found Cuomo leading Mamdani in the seventh round of voting, 55 percent to 45 percent. Cuomo has been the clear favorite as Democrats look to oust Adams, who was the subject of a federal corruption case that was eventually dropped by the Justice Department, drawing accusations that the mayor had sought to curry favor with President Trump. A win by Cuomo this week would represent a stunning resurgence for the former governor, who resigned from his job as the Empire State's top executive in 2021 amid sexual harassment allegations and a brewing scandal involving accusations that his administration concealed nursing home deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even with his baggage, Cuomo has earned the backing of many notable figures in the Democratic Party, most recently Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the influential Black Congressional Caucus member. And while Mamdani has emerged as the clear progressive favorite, scoring the endorsement of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), he has also drawn criticism from the establishment. Last week, The New York Times editorial board urged voters not to support Mamdani despite pledging not to endorse in local elections. The Emerson College Polling/PIX11/The Hill survey was conducted from June 18 to June 20 with a sample size of 833 likely voters and a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent. The first round of ranked-choice voting was conducted with a sample size of 800 likely voters and a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percent. The final round was conducted with 729 voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percent.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Dan Tully: I trust my fellow service members will abide by the Constitution
Having served as a captain and judge advocate in the Army Reserve, graduated from Stanford Law School and deployed overseas in Iraq, I have thought deeply about military command and the obligations incurred by swearing an oath to the Constitution. These concerns weigh especially heavily as President Donald Trump deploys active-duty military members as a show of force against peaceful demonstrations in Los Angeles and potentially here in Chicago. I want my fellow citizens to know something important. I trust the common sense and decency of my fellow American service members. I have served alongside them, some who consider themselves to be MAGA Republicans. I know they understand how grave and serious it would be to use force against their countrymen and countrywomen. Let me explain why. All service members swear an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' Enlisted service members continue swearing to 'obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,' expressly conditioned by, 'according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).' With that condition, the enlisted oath is not absolute; if an order is unlawful, an enlisted service member is responsible not to obey. The obedience language is absent from the officer oath. Instead, officers swear to 'well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.' In short, while all members of the military must act in accordance with the UCMJ, each officer must exercise an even higher level of responsibility, remaining loyal not to a president but to the Constitution. No service member should ever follow a clearly unlawful command, especially when that command is to harm unarmed, peaceful citizens of their own country. It is infuriating that we are even in this situation. Trump doesn't care about members of the military, referring to fallen soldiers as 'suckers' and 'losers' for not escaping their obligations as he did during the Vietnam War. He denigrates the records of patriots such as the late U.S. Sen. John McCain, degrading his war hero status. He has saddled them with an incompetent secretary of defense in Pete Hegseth. Most dangerously, Trump intentionally disregards centuries of the military's most essential tradition of nonpartisanship, eroding American faith in our most trusted institution. What troubles many of us in the military — something I would advise my fellow soldiers and commanders to consider — is the terrifying prospect of an unlawful order coming down from this reckless president. Trump has openly mused about service members using lethal force to control protesters, portraying them as domestic enemies of the Constitution. In fact, it's the opposite: The protesters are exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and assembly in support of the 14th Amendment rights of people being kidnapped and deported without due process. To the extent that there have been acts of violence and vandalism in the vicinity of the protests, those acts are unlawful. Police in our cities are fully capable of addressing the situation. Protests — even ones that include civil disobedience — should not be met with violence unless there is no other option available. But this president believes violence against our citizens is an acceptable first choice because he doesn't value the rule of law or, by his own admission, his duty to uphold our Constitution. American military members are trained and proficient at understanding the conditions under which it is lawful to use force in the heat and exercise of war. They are taught to obey the chain of command, especially on a battlefield. Unit cohesion and effectiveness depend on the obedience of orders. But a service member is not a robot, blindly obligated to fulfill a command received from a superior with no application of context or thought. Especially if that command is given outside the theater of war, with no imminent danger to personnel, and even more so when present on the streets of an American city where the people those soldiers swore to defend are petitioning the actions of their government. American soldiers have misused lethal force in the past, and they have faced consequences. Second Lt. William L. Calley Jr. was convicted by court martial of the premeditated murder of 22 Vietnamese in the famous My Lai massacre. He was convicted because the threshold for disobeying an order is, according to the Manual for Military Courts-Martial and case law, 'a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.' With a president so intent on sowing chaos every day, it must be a difficult position for the American troops who have deployed to Los Angeles and are rumored to be on their way to other cities. But Americans stand up to do what's right in difficult moments all the time. We must not forget that there are numerous institutions available to us all to safeguard our rights. Our military, state and federal criminal justice systems are populated with true patriots who believe in the rule of law. This is, ultimately, why I trust that our service members will do the right thing when the time comes. They have been trained well, and they know their obligations to their country. I have sworn an oath to the Constitution three times — as a lawyer, an Army officer and a federal civil servant. The Constitution is not a suggestion; it is the supreme law of the land. Even if our president won't abide by it, I trust my fellow service members will.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: How could anyone describe Donald Trump's presidency as successful?
Conservative political activist Charlie Kirk stated that a major split among MAGA could 'disrupt our momentum and our insanely successful Presidency.' I do not know what world he lives in. I don't know of anyone who would describe Donald Trump's presidency in those terms. Rather, I see and hear all but the few who are still trying to rally around this divisive, corrupt, inept, lying, felonious, cruel, finger-pointing, bigoted, sloppy man, to name only a few characteristics. I am feeling truly frightened and agitated. He has embarrassed and disappointed us time and again. He has created a nation and, yes, a world, of people who seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid but don't realize it. Some of us cling to the thought of righting things again in the future — truly making American values a source of pride and leadership that bring respect and calm to ourselves and each other. Albeit, hope is waning. Projection abounds as some people point fingers and assign blame to others when in reality the blame belongs to those projectors. And they know it. They just dig in their heels hoping our existing president will actually deliver on something, anything, of which to be proud. Supplying Israel with more money and arms ain't it, and under our watch, we contribute to wars and even more division among us. When are the followers going to recognize and admit to having backed the wrong horse?China relishes an Iran with nuclear weapons so they both can intimidate and dominate the Gulf States and the West to allow oil to freely flow to energy-dependent China. The U.S. with Israel's help must forcibly neutralize Iran's Fordo underground nuclear site, thereby removing Iranian intimidation goals and starving China's oil hunger while giving the Iranian opposition courage to accomplish a regime change from within. The world must not be threatened by the duplicitous and diabolical tyrants with nuclear weapons and a ballistic missile voters backed Donald Trump in 2024 because he pledged to put 'America First,' believing he would bring peace through strength to the Middle East. Thus, it's hardly surprising that the incipient conflict with Iran has caused a rift within President Trump's base. Already many of the leading lights of the MAGA movement, both in and out of government, have broken openly with the president. Never before has MAGA looked so close to fragmenting altogether. Iran is not currently in active pursuit of a nuclear weapon, which Trump's own intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, reaffirmed barely three months ago. As such, the Iranian nuclear 'threat' should be seen for what it is: an almost comically flimsy pretext for military intervention. In this perilous hour, our nation faces two vital questions: Will the perceived threat of a nuclear Iran really push Trump to war? If yes, will the American public go along with it? There are many factors standing in the way of war at this time. For starters, the administration simply has not done the preliminary work needed to build support for it. When the George W. Bush administration decided to test conclusions with Iraq in 2003, it didn't simply announce plans to invade. It took months of convincing Congress and the public of the need for intervention, laying out the case and presenting intelligence and analysis (some of it, admittedly, inaccurate). No such effort is being made with Iran, despite the overwhelmingly negative public reaction. The idea of sending thousands of soldiers into a country of 90 million people on the slim pretext of destroying a (mostly imagined) nuclear weapons program would be a tough sell even under favorable political and strategic conditions. In this particular case — with no clear war aims, no credible casus belli, and none of the preplanning and operational preparation required to mount an invasion — it's unlikely to fly with a war-weary (and war-wary) American public. The political will for such an undertaking simply is not there. Should the Trump administration actually go through with a quixotic invasion effort, the cost in blood and treasure would doubtless drive a permanent wedge within the MAGA movement. The president must decide whether a war of choice is really worth the price of fragmenting both the movement he built and the support base on which he that time President Donald Trump shared highly sensitive intelligence with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the Oval Office? You can bet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remembers. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Netanyahu hid their plans for their recent successful military strikes against their adversaries from the U.S. president. Smart cookies. Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are 'smart cookies,' according to our kowtowing president. Now all the smart cookies will keep their plans of attack to themselves while our incompetent boobs share sensitive military strike details on Signal chat texts with their family members and a surprised Atlantic reporter. Our president no longer wants the United States to be the world's leader in defending democracy. He's too busy dismantling ours (and golfing).I have worked for 50 years in rural Honduras, getting to know those whom President Donald Trump calls 'animals,' 'rapists' and 'murderers.' I fear that the president does not understand who these people are or why they come to our country. Most would rather stay home among family and friends. They cannot do so because American CEOs and politicians have together created trade policies that impoverished their country. When I started working in Honduras in the 1970s, many rural people grew their own food, especially corn, selling surpluses to buy necessities. They were poor but relatively self-sufficient. There were few signs of malnutrition. In 2004, Honduras signed on to the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which promised expanded opportunities to sell Honduran exports in the U.S. Instead, the country was flooded with cheap U.S. government-subsidized agricultural products. Imported crops, including corn, were now cheaper than locally grown equivalents. Unable to compete, farmers lost their lands. The jobs available in multinational factories paid little and were too few to meet the needs of the growing number of displaced people. Currently, 63% of Hondurans live in poverty; 1 in 4 children younger than 5 are malnourished. Unable to feed themselves or find work at home, Hondurans seek employment in the country whose trade policies impoverished them. Traveling north is dangerous. Since 1998, at least 8,000 migrants died on the U.S. southern border; more perished on the journey to that crossing. Those who made it live in the shadows, working low-paid jobs harvesting our crops, landscaping our yards and building our homes. Immigrants who are undocumented also commit crimes at much lower rates than citizens. One powerful reason is that they come here to earn money, most of which is sent home to support their families and keep their children in school. Committing crimes would only draw attention to them, speed their deportation and ruin their families. Some immigrants do commit crimes. The great crime, however, is perpetrated by politicians and business leaders who created a system that greatly advantages corporations over people. That system drives immigrants northward not to cause us harm, but because they have no choice. Blaming these new arrivals for risking all for the families is cruel and media should be focusing on why Immigration and Customs Enforcement enforcers are being attacked. Could it be that the majority of Americans don't want inhumane treatment of those who are being apprehended? ICE agents can mistreat those they arrest, but those who interfere with such type of treatment are subject to arrest?U.S. Rep. Jesús 'Chuy' García could not be more wrong in his stance on the remittance tax ('Trump's remittance tax is a cruel double-tax on immigrant's dignity,' June 19). If you earn the money in the United States, it should stay here and benefit our economy and our companies. Without this money, other countries would be forced to do better by their people. We're not talking about a small sum. Remittances to just Mexico were more than $64 billion in 2024. Workers who come here need to come here because they yearn to be Americans, not just for using us as their piggybank. I believe it's one of the primary reasons we have so many immigrants who do not assimilate. They see the U.S. as a temporary fix for their financial troubles and never plan to stay in the first place. The tax should be is in response to the letter from Dick DeForte ('Show soldiers respect,' June 20) in which he takes exception to the Tribune providing front-page coverage of the 'un-American' protesters on June 14 and Section 2 coverage of the Army parade of the same day. I was one of those 'un-American' protesters exercising their First Amendment rights in a peaceful manner. I am an Army veteran, and I took great offense to President Donald Trump staging an Army parade that was nothing more than an ego trip for someone who avoided military service and who has nothing but contempt for the political climate encourages extremism, both to the far right and to the far left, and neither functions well in our system of democracy. Our nation was founded on compromise. It took until 1789 to adopt an acceptable compromise solution among the original states and then to build and adopt our Constitution. The only way it got done was through reasonable compromise between reasonable people. Both our far right and our far left today regard their views as the only 'correct' ones for our nation, and they are so different that any compromise is unacceptable to them. This has developed into continuous swings and the attendant turmoil we have today. Neither side is doing any favors for our democracy. What both parties need is moderate leaders and candidates who can work across the aisle and can compromise to come up with reasonable solutions to our issues. Ideally, both sides would experience equal discomfort with any resolution, but the majority of us would find it acceptable. Hopefully, we would also be more stable than today. It's time for moderation. It's time to abandon the idea that your ideas are the only acceptable ones. It's time to recognize the foundation of an effective democracy and begin working together to find reasonable-compromise solutions. Our democracy depends upon my opinion, America was always . Our new directive should be 'Make America .' When you think about the majority of people in the United States as being middle class and lower class, our goal should be to make life for the ones who are part of the growth we've already experienced. This group is the reason why we can produce what we do already. Part of this success has been global trade and immigrants who bring their own talents and personalities to the American table. America is like a mural in which each piece creates a mosaic that is unique in the world. Keeping that mural from disintegrating means affordable housing for all, sustainable wages, and global empathy and compassion, and keeping the world safe through research, communication and environmental security. Everything will fall into place, and all those pieces will become even more beautiful and .
