WE ‘scandal’ doesn’t have the firepower to take down the PM

HALIFAX—Justin Trudeau breezed through the rumble in the House Finance Committee last week, even though his professional detractors, and some of the sheep in the media flock, saw doom and gloom for Mr. Sunny Ways. Some commentators have even gone so far as to suggest that the Liberal Party is falling apart, and may soon turn on the man who led them out of the political wilderness in 2015. They might be right. Trudeau has found himself in the middle of more than a few political dust-devils, and one or two genuine Category-5 hurricanes. In certain matters, this PM is attracted to impulsive bungling like iron filings to a magnet. That free trip to a billionaire’s island showed the PM’s snotty, entitled side—and a stupendous lack of judgment. The SNC-Lavalin affair was an Exocet Missile amidships for Trudeau’s much ballyhooed feminism, not to mention the independence of the justice system. Two good women and cabinet ministers were tossed overboard, when it should have been their dodgy captain who got dunked. Katie Telford, chief of staff to the prime minister, pictured on July 30, 2020, when she testified virtually before the House Finance Committee. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade But here’s why I think the WE “scandal” hasn’t got the firepower to take out the PM, or trigger a mutiny in the ranks. If the opposition’s best punch is a damning report from the ethics commissioner (and they might well get one in the WE affair), we already have the evidence of how little that means. Despite being cited by the ethics commissioner for hobnobbing with the Aga Khan and meddling in the administration of justice, Trudeau won the next election. True, he lost his majority government, but he wasn’t made to walk the plank. For the most part, being found to be in conflict of interest in politics is more like jay-walking than grand theft. As I have noted before in this space, it is not that sleazy politics aren’t poison to a democracy. They are. But if we really cared about ethics in government, the penalties would be serious for breaking the rules. As it is, they are risible. A small fine, and a dash of public shaming in a bureaucrat’s report that will possibly be read by friends and near relatives. Being found to be in conflict of interest is a little like talking in class; you go to the corner for some quiet time, and maybe they send a note home to your mother. Otherwise, not much else happens. Our pretend commitment to ethics in government is matched by the public’s pretend outrage over misbehaving politicians. Conservative finance critic Pierre Poilievre, pictured in this file photograph, led the virtual grilling of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over the WE Charity scandal when he appeared in front of the House Finance Committee on July 30. That scandal alone won't be enough for Canadians to dismiss Mr. Trudeau's Liberal party, writes Michael Harris. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade A recent Angus Reid Institute poll nailed that odd fact. While three in five Canadians felt that the WE Scandal was a “serious and significant one”, 56 per cent in the same poll said it would not threaten the viability of Trudeau’s minority government. If it’s serious and significant, then how can a majority of those polled also think it won’t hurt the government? Simple: because ethics in government is just not a top of mind issue for them, but rather an emotional holdover from their mostly forgotten Sunday School days. According to Angus Reid, a measly 16 per cent of Canadians choose ethics and corruption as one of their top three issues facing the country. This equals the number who said the same thing during the SNC-Lavalin scandal in 2019. As the poll put it, “Canadians core priorities continue to be the Covid-19 response, economy, and health care.” Which is why that prickle pear of the CPC, Pierre Poilievre, is barking up the wrong tree. Poilievre is shocked and appalled by something that engages the priorities of just a tiny portion of the Canadian electorate. He also continues to confuse bellicose rudeness with being a relentless inquisitor. Trudeau meanwhile is taking action on the pandemic, the economy, and health care. In other words, he is getting the big shapes right, or mostly right, and connecting with his fellow citizens, while his critics continue to yodel down the well. Incidentally, the public has a handy way of punishing the current PM without dumping him. They give him a scolding in his personal approval rating, which has dipped 11 points since May. But a majority of respondents say that the WE Affair will have a minor impact, or no impact at all, on Trudeau’s minority government. Several other polls show that the Liberals remain the solid odds-on favourite to win either a majority or minority government if the Writ were to drop now, the Tories' We-We-Weing notwithstanding. Part of the reason for that is the country’s basic approval of how the Liberals have handled the Covid-19 pandemic, the issue of the century. Canada looks like it’s being run by Mr. Spock, unlike the U.S., where the Mad Hatter is stumbling around the bridge for a few more episodes of Lost in Space before Americans lower the electoral boom. But part of it is also a certain enduring queasiness about getting ethical complaints from the Conservatives. This was the party whose leader, Stephen Harper, was found in contempt of Parliament. Several senior Conservatives were central players in election expenses frauds. One of them, Dean del Mastro went to jail for cheating on his election expenses. Peter MacKay, now in the running to lead the party, never did level with Canadians about the true costs of the ruinously expensive F-35 fighter jet—he preferred posing in the cockpit of a cardboard replica. Pierre Poilievre himself fronted the infamous Fair Elections Act, a piece of legislation designed to suppress, not expand, voting in Canada. And remember the 2015 Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, a legislative venture so noxious that it sent Chris Alexander and Kellie Leitch, along with the entire Harper government, into political oblivion. That said, all of this could change, depending on how the WE Affair develops. If, for example, it were to turn into a criminal investigation that unearthed crimes, all bets would be off on the Liberals winning a third federal election in a row. When it comes to real scandals, you need DNA on the dress, money in a Swiss bank account, or a tape-recording of evil doers. So far, WE has no killer evidence. Pierre Poilievre giving the stink eye to the PM on TV is a poor substitute. Michael Harris is an award-winning journalist and author. The Hill Times

WE ‘scandal’ doesn’t have the firepower to take down the PM

When it comes to real scandals, you need DNA on the dress, money in a Swiss bank account, or a tape-recording of evil doers. So far, WE has no killer evidence. Pierre Poilievre giving the stink eye to the PM on TV is a poor substitute.

Canada’s aging crisis and a call for reform in eldercare

As COP29 wraps up, will Canada finally stop funding fossils this fall?

Addressing the threat of antimicrobial resistance

The wisdom of Homer Simpson and Aaron Sorkin

Climate finance should target resilient food systems

Trump’s ‘America First’ plans may undermine global trade

Buckle up, U.S. politics is on one wild ride before Americans choose their next president

Federal politics has entered a ‘none-of-the-above’ phase

Trudeau should proactively release all details he submitted to ethics commissioner prior to Jamaica trip’s approval

Why Poilievre doesn’t deserve the 17 per cent lead in the polls

Poilievre riding anti-Trudeau tide

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

WE ‘scandal’ doesn’t have the firepower to take down the PM

When it comes to real scandals, you need DNA on the dress, money in a Swiss bank account, or a tape-recording of evil doers. So far, WE has no killer evidence. Pierre Poilievre giving the stink eye to the PM on TV is a poor substitute.

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter