Trudeau’s not-so-firm defining principles

Grandstanding act has simply worn thin

All politicians make promises they can’t, won’t or never intended to keep. In that the Trudeau Liberals are no different to any government before them. But they do hold a special place for loudly declaiming fundamental principles they can’t, won’t or have no intention of observing. This week alone we have had two glaring examples.

During a 2015 leaders’ debate, Justin Trudeau directed one of his patented moralisms at then-prime minister Stephen Harper.

“A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. And you devalue the citizenship of every Canadian in this place and in this country when you break down and make it conditional for anyone,” he said in moral outrage at Tory treatment of accused terrorists.

Then along came Jack Letts, “Jihadi Jack,” relieved of his British citizenship in a last-minute move by the departing U.K. prime minister Theresa May, leaving Canada as his only potential refuge. So of course, Trudeau moved quickly to ensure Letts got all the rights, protections and assistance due a Canadian citizen abroad, right?

Not even close. Despite several attempts to extract a coherent position from the prime minister, Trudeau hemmed, hawed, dodged and weaved, resolutely refusing to give a straight answer.

While Andrew Scheer made clear he would “not lift a finger” to let Letts into Canada, Trudeau couldn’t explain why this Canadian isn’t as Canadian as other Canadians, or offer anything close to a cogent explanation of how the government plans to handle the situation.

While still struggling with that problem, Trudeau ran up against another.