Pierre Poilievre may have been acclaimed as leader of the Conservative Party, particularly for his outspokenness, but once elected he quickly transformed into a laconic party leader. Parliamentary issues are obviously debated. But others, led by conservative provinces on issues of federal impact, are all deliberately ignored. A strategy that the troops of Pierre Poilievre accept for the moment, but which cannot last indefinitely.
The contrast is such that the approach is not in doubt. For nearly three months to the day, Chief Poilievre has been saying as little as possible, limiting his interventions almost solely to the issue of inflation, letting his team comment on the rest, and thus making sure to avoid criticism or run the risk of being accused later of backtracking.
It must be said that Pierre Poilievre is preparing to face a major first test with the by-election next Monday in Mississauga—Lakeshore. A typical suburban Toronto riding, like the ones the Conservatives will need to win in the next federal election if they are to hope to unseat Justin Trudeau’s government. The last time the Conservative Party was elected there was in 2011, when Stephen Harper won his only majority mandate.
Pierre Poilievre may therefore have kept silent while waiting for this election. But the Canadian situation means that this silence is becoming more and more delicate. The majority of provinces are currently led by conservative or right-wing prime ministers. And three of them claim more sovereignty or powers in Ottawa, while a third is accused of disregarding the rights of Francophones.
So many issues that voters and political supporters might expect an aspiring prime minister to comment on. Pierre Poilievre, however, did not breathe a word about any of them.
Conservative strategists agree that the next federal election will not be about these issues anyway. However, they are divided on whether the leader can refrain from saying anything until then.
A void filled by others
Since nature abhors a vacuum, the Conservative Party runs the risk, by remaining silent, “of being a victim by association in public opinion”, notes Marc-André Leclerc, who was chief of staff to the former leader Andrew Scheer. Justin Trudeau’s Liberals have already begun to define the Conservatives and decide their own positions on certain issues. “It is very difficult to get out of this narrative frame, once it has been established in people’s minds”, adds another strategist, who preferred to speak anonymously.
Pierre Poilievre would benefit, according to her and Mr. Leclerc, to speak “as soon as possible”. Because these contentious issues are multiplying, and the chief’s silences are accumulating.
The federal Conservatives thus avoided commenting on the Sovereignty Act tabled by Danielle Smith in Alberta. In Saskatchewan, Scott Moe presented his own watered-down version, with equally autonomist goals. François Legault has not given up on demanding full powers, or at the very least greater control, in immigration. And Blaine Higgs succeeded in enraging francophones beyond the borders of New Brunswick.
The former strategist Yan Plante still sees no urgency in Pierre Poilievre throwing himself into the fray. “It’s a bear trap. He does not gain much by going to comment. »
The Conservatives have been close to François Legault’s Coalition avenir Québec in recent years, but Mr. Poilievre is betting big on the votes of cultural communities and therefore does not necessarily have any advantage in getting involved in this Quebec debate. Especially since the tacit support of Mr. Legault did not deliver better electoral results in the federal ballot.
In Alberta, although no federal Conservative MP has supported Danielle Smith’s candidacy for the leadership of her United Conservative Party, disavowing her law would amount to disavowing the feeling of alienation shared by a majority of Albertans. And the election next May risks sealing the fate of Mme Smith, and his law, before a federal leader had to deal with it.
Pierre Poilievre’s team therefore persists in saying publicly that these are all provincial issues that belong to the provinces concerned. ” We observe. We take note. But for the rest, we don’t need to go any further for the moment, ”repeated the Quebec lieutenant, Pierre Paul-Hus.
An electoral and loyalty test
The next few months will tell if Pierre Poilievre was only waiting for Monday’s by-election before regaining his former eloquence.
The expected return this winter of a new convoy of demonstrators to Ottawa may also force him to decide, after having avoided the subject for months. Will the leader support this second protest, when a majority of Canadians support the Trudeau government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to get rid of the first occupation? Or will he deny the protesters this time, while running the risk of offending some of his own supporters? It’s a safe bet that the chef will choose the first option.
But in the meantime, on the provincial fronts, the more time passes, the more Pierre Poilievre exposes himself to it not only his rivals who fill his silences, but also his own elected officials.
With a decisive victory in the leadership of his party, Pierre Poilievre has free rein, and his team trusts him. However, if he fails to win the election in Mississauga—Lakeshore, the discipline of his troops could well be eroded. And the leader could have to answer for the exits of his own deputies, after having imposed silence on them precisely to avoid the tumult.