Any good political strategist knows that it is essential to prevent his party from jumping too early in the voting intentions. With the wind in his sails, carried by the thirst for a change of government, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre should try not to shoot himself in the foot. However, by exhibiting his aggressive nature and his aversion to contradiction on every platform, Mr. Poilievre is doing the exact opposite. Because, beyond a simple character trait that is off-putting to some voters, the intimidation that the leader and his inner circle are engaging in reveals a flawed and worrying perception of democratic balance.
That his alarmist speech is peppered with inaccuracies and insults aimed at his political opponents is one thing, as regrettable as it is. It does a disservice to political debate, as he demonstrated again on Thursday. But that the Conservative leader gratuitously attacks the experts who defend the approaches he strives to denounce in order to silence them is another.
The latest example came from his spokesperson, Sebastian Skamski, who targeted Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario CEO Doris Grinspun, who was speaking out on CBC about the province’s announced closure of supervised drug consumption sites. Skamski posted a scornful tweet that denigrates, with a video excerpt from the interview, a “so-called expert” who, like other “CRAZY experts,” defends the Justin Trudeau government’s approach to public health.
The Conservative spokesman’s inelegant outrage has been viewed more than half a million times on the X network. The platform only brings together a tiny fraction of the population, and the debates there are most often crude and sterile, both on the right and the left. But Mr. Skamski’s “excessive verbiage” has even been denounced by the former communications director for former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Andrew MacDougall.
The Harper government was not particularly receptive to critical opinions expressed by academics, scientists or civil servants. The approach of the Poilievre team – because its subordinates do not act without having seen their leader do the same – is however more personal and pernicious. Criticism is not simply dismissed, those who express it are also vilified.
An economics professor was attacked by Conservatives in the Commons for co-signing a letter debunking carbon pricing in Canada. A doctor suffered the same fate, via press release. She was accused of lying to a parliamentary committee about the diversion of the safe supply of opioids from addicts to teenagers. (The doctor had argued there was no evidence, but had also agreed at a community meeting that it was possible.) The doctor, deeply shaken to see her photo circulating online alongside a noose, told the Toronto Star that she feared reprisals if the Conservatives were elected to government.
In June, MP Michael Barrett gave a disturbing taste of this when he introduced a bill proposing a minimum six-month jail term for perjury in Parliament. Anyone found in contempt could face a maximum fine of $50,000.
Seeing a political party so easily distort the words of their colleagues, what experts or community representatives would dare to venture into parliamentary minefield? However, the exhaustive study of public policies cannot do without consulting them. Whatever Pierre Poilievre may think, no government has the gift of legislative clairvoyance. Quite the contrary.
At the end of a summer that its leader spent partly crisscrossing Quebec, the Conservative Party (PC) has ultimately not benefited from a new surge in popularity, hovering for a year around the 23% attributed to it by the latest Léger poll. A support rate higher than the votes collected by the PC for the past 13 years, but which remains hampered by the apprehension of some Quebecers towards it.
The intimidation of specialists, but also of senators, and the trivialization of insults against federal rivals and mayors described as “incompetent” do nothing to reassure them.
Between heated debate and contempt, there is a step that Mr. Poilievre — who aspires to be Prime Minister, it must be remembered — should refrain from taking with both feet.
The Conservative leader may be making eyes at Quebec, but he does not see his chances of gaining access to government as linked to it. A victory, even a majority one, could very well come through the rest of Canada alone.
The fracture between Mr. Poilievre and Quebec, however perfectly bilingual the Conservative leader may be, is beginning to consolidate.