If taking the measure of the candidates competing to become prime minister is any litmus, then Canada is a pedestrian nation.
Now, before Canadian readers, in particular, begin howling in indignation or accuse me of defaming such a lovely country filled with such lovely people, that, I assure you, is not my uncharitable intent.
My aim here is to reveal to an international audience how transparently unserious – and in, one case, sinister – are the “leaders” vying to win a federal election on September 20 to steer that, of course, a lovely country filled with lovely people.
I will begin with the incumbent: Justin Trudeau. Faithful readers of this column should by now, be familiar with my antipathy towards Trudeau – whom I have previously described as the Willy Wonka of Canadian politics.
Every disparaging word I have written about Trudeau’s disingenuous, the vacuous core has been confirmed by his selfish decision to call an early election that only he, and his equally myopic advisers, thought necessary in the midst of a resurgent pandemic.
Trudeau has built a hollow identity as a progressive, even altruistic, politician who was motivated solely by the national interest, and not the pursuit of any petty, parochial political dividend.
So, less than two years into a minority government, Trudeau’s abiding hubris and the Liberal Party’s genetically programmed thirst for unrestrained power meant quickly sacrificing the national interest to satisfy the pursuit of a petty, parochial, political dividend – a majority.
Trudeau has tried to disguise his eager pursuit of that petty, parochial, political dividend by framing this election as a referendum on his handling of a pandemic that, guess what, stubbornly remains a pandemic.
Stripped of Trudeau’s banal, rhetorical shuffle, the “referendum” is this narcissist’s code for finding out whether Canadians still love him. That, ultimately, is what this gratuitous election is about.
Trudeau’s performance during the campaign has been signature Trudeau: a daily diet of trite bromides delivered with the sincerity of a garden gnome, coupled, lately, with calculated flashes of a juvenile martyrdom complex triggered by a roving, gravel-hurling band of irritating imbeciles who believe vaccines are the devil’s brew.
In any event, for someone who claims to have the welfare of Canadians ever close to his intuitive and sensitive bosom, Trudeau may have miscalculated badly and, as a result, sealed his suddenly uncertain political fate.
If public opinion polls are an accurate gauge, most Canadians are still preoccupied with the pressing day-to-day matters of life (and death) in the midst of a lethal pandemic to be bothered with Trudeau’s manufactured “referendum”.
Apparently, less than a week from election day, not enough Canadians are in love with Trudeau to quench his rank, greedy yearning for a majority government.
I suspect that if Trudeau returns to the status quo in Parliament, he, like his father, will, after a little reflection, take a walk – literally and figuratively. (In early 1984, Pierre Trudeau announced he was resigning as prime minister after an evening constitutional through an Ottawa snowstorm.)
Then, the perpetually effervescent heir apparent, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland – who much of the political press gush over like starry-eyed K-Pop groupies – will assume the job she has had not-so-quiet designs on for some time. Freeland will, no doubt, be celebrated by her giddy fans in the fourth estate for restoring long-absent “gravitas” to the prime minister’s office. Oh, the irony.
Another prevailing possibility is that Conservative leader, Erin O’Toole, ekes out an improbable victory.
