TORONTO – It has always been thus in a democratic environment: you are given the privilege to make decisions and are held accountable for your actions. Not in this election, apparently. The former Prime Minister, incredibly reviled by the public and his own party, has deprived the public of the opportunity to sentence him to the ignominy of defeat at the polls. He vacated his office as it became clear that citizens and governments across the country regarded him as a lightning rod for all things toxic. Public opinion polls suggested the death knell for his party. 

Those same polls now indicate a more “competitive electoral outcome”. The flood of government relations reps paid to spout a positive spin favourable to their Party have been inundating political talk shows. Even the usually supine “Liberal strategists” gloat, on air, that the departure of their leader has lifted the pall of darkness and despair justifiably hovering over their Party and shifted the burden of proper performance onto the shoulders of the Opposition. If so, it would represent a novel twist on the concept of obligation and responsibility.

Someone must answer for all the policies and initiatives the Government has been proposing, implementing and promoting in the face of contrary positions espoused by their own members, economic theory and national cohesion. Opposition Parties and the new Prime Minister are now both singing from the same song book in promising to reverse virtually all the Government’s divisive, if not equally noxious, socially damaging policies.

Prime Minister Carney has had the public stage all to himself in the last week, as he has used his office to maximum political advantage, to paint himself as an international statesman. Good for him – good tactics. Pierre Polievre, countered with some substantive policy addressing the shortfalls in quality human resources and mobility. Jagmeet Singh’s NDP, caught by surprise, or so it seems, continue their downward disastrous slide.

We should not look for any quick change in tactics. The country seems to have been won over to the concept that there is only one issue in this election: Donald Trump’s existential threat to Canadian sovereignty – economic warfare. It is not all bad news. Political leaders, at all levels of government, claim to have discovered that we need to eliminate tariffs and non-tariff obstacles to inter-provincial trade, if we hope to replace the USA market. They insist that they are proceeding with plans to address this, on an urgent basis, after the election. It might help, a little.

But some provinces are already “walking back” their enthusiasm for that initiative. In any event, as valuable as it may be, it is unlikely to make a significant impact on the over $500 billion in exports to the USA subject to the 25% tariff threatened for April 2. That would be about $125 billion disincentive to Americans currently importing our products and an equal amount we would charge on our consumers if we follow through with retaliatory measures.

How did we get into this mess?