I've written a lot about Pierre Poilievre lately. That's because he's clearly not prime ministerial material. But, more than that, he carries the disease which threatens to take down the republic to our south. Michael Harris writes:
He started out as Stephen Harper’s attack-trained chihuahua, tugging at every enemy pant-leg in sight. Now he is the demander-in-chief of the official opposition, partly because his old boss and current mentor endorsed his bid for the Conservative leadership.
Each day in QP, this life-long politician chivvies the prime minister over alleged shortcomings, often of a personal nature. Whether the subject is invoking the Emergencies Act during the laughably named Freedom Convoy, China’s attempted interference in Canadian elections, the cost of a hotel room to attend the Queen’s funeral, or donations to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, the goal is always the same: make Trudeau wear it.
Poilievre does that by using every controversy to portray the PM as the spoiled brat of privilege who lies to Canadians, has a broad dictatorial streak, is possibly a traitor, and probably corrupt. Poilievre’s specialty is not holding the PM to account on government policy. It is holding him to account on vacations—even when those vacations have been okayed by the ethics commissioner.
Unfortunately, there are lots of us who carry the same disease:
We have become a slagging society, thanks in part to Twitter. There are a lot of people who get a kick out of seeing public people flamed for their real and imagined sins and misdemeanours. The truth used to reside in a nuance. Now it lives in a well-turned or memorable insult, or even baseless allegation.
Roasting people is getting to be big business, as criminal defendant/candidate Donald Trump proves every time he opens his mouth, or takes to “Truth” Social. He specializes in bumper-sticker bombast. So when Poilievre calls Trudeau a “freeloader” for staying with a friend in Jamaica while on vacation, those who don’t like the PM cheer, chortle, and chastise. And the usual suspects in the conservative media provide the echo-chamber.
Consider Trudeau's recent vacation:
By Poilievre-logic, which is a lot like Marjorie Taylor Greene-logic, the PM got what amounted to an $80,000 freebie—the usual cost of staying at the best accommodation in the luxury resort owned by his friend. And since that same wealthy friend made a sizeable donation to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau foundation, Poilievre scented something redolent of rotting fish.
It is true that the Jamaica trip cost Canadians a pot of money, mostly to provide security and Privy Council support for the PM while he was out of the country. But that is true of every prime minister who travels abroad on either business or pleasure.
A case in point: when Stephen Harper was prime minister, his 2012 official visit to India cost Canadian taxpayers $1.2 million. Most of that was accounted for by the $1,061,448 it cost to ship the PM’s armour-plated limousines to India in a Canadian Forces C-177 Globemaster. As if the Indian government didn’t have VIP limousines. When the undigested nutritional matter hit the fan over those jaw-dropping costs, Harper punted: the Mounties made him do it.
Then there is the friendship issue regarding the Jamaica junket. Poilievre says that by accepting Green’s hospitality, the PM handed him an IOU, which by the way is a slander on both men. There is zero proof that Green was grooming Trudeau for a payback, or that Trudeau was looking for a holiday handout. If there were, it would be a different story.
What about the donation to the Trudeau Foundation?
For starters, a contribution to his father’s foundation is not walking-around money for Justin Trudeau. Donations are used to fund public interest research and education, including granting 20 doctoral scholarships a year. The money Andrew and Alexander Green donated was used to establish the Mary-Jean Mitchell Green Scholarship, an endowment in memory of their mother.
Secondly, Trudeau has repeatedly told the House in QP that he hasn’t been involved, either directly or indirectly, with the foundation for 10 years. The tradition in the House is that MPs are assumed to be telling the truth in their answers. Poilievre continues to scorn the PM’s answer, saying that it is not credible because Trudeau’s brother, Alexandre, is heavily involved in the foundation’s work. Bottom line? If Poilievre is calling the PM a liar, it’s time to produce the evidence. And if he doesn’t have the evidence, it’s time to set up another straw man.
Poilievre is a piece of work -- a vile piece of work.
Image: The Hill Times
