The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Pierre Poilievre, spent a very bad week trying to explain, in vain, his eagerness to be alarmed by a terrorist attack that was not a terrorist attack at the Niagara border crossing Falls. And this was not his only recourse in recent days to disinformation and intimidation, which have become a tool of response to criticism that is a little too frequent for an aspiring prime minister.
Conservatives categorically reject any comparison with their Republican neighbors south of the border. They should, however, be careful to avoid betraying themselves by multiplying gestures and outings that are worryingly close to it.
Rather than admitting that he had relied on the Fox News network to raise concerns in the House about a terrorist attack on the Canadian-American border, Pierre Poilievre chose to place the responsibility on “media reports” and on a message from CTV News on social network
The problem is that CTV only mentioned the terrorist theory 15 minutes after Mr. Poilievre’s conjectures in the Commons. And this false explanation was brandished by the Conservative leader in a heated exchange — and marked with contempt — with a journalist from The Canadian Press in Toronto who dared to do her job and ask him if it had been responsible on his part to talk about terrorism before the Canadian or American authorities make a decision.
In no time, the exchange was broadcast on social networks, like others before it, by the leader’s entourage, who attacked the “journalists” (the quotation marks are theirs), their “biased questions” and their “low deeds” (these other quotes are ours).
What better way to mobilize the troops? And too bad for public confidence, already exhausted, in this fourth power and pillar of democracy.
The tactic was the same to attack two independent senators who adjourned the debate on a private member’s bill, C-234, which would extend the carbon tax exemption to the agricultural sector.
The parliamentary leader and former Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, published on X an image that looks like a wanted poster displaying the photo of the senators as well as the telephone number and email address of their office. Their deputies were inundated. One of them, Bernadette Clement, was the target of a threat considered serious enough for Cornwall police to recommend she leave her home. Mr. Scheer, as a former Speaker of the Commons, cannot pretend to ignore the real risks weighing on the security of parliamentarians. Such a lack of kindness is unjustifiable.
This is the same Conservative Party which, last year, ordered its members to flood the office of MP Alain Rayes, who was leaving its ranks, with calls. Bullying seems anchored there as new modus operandi.
Untruths too. To justify why his caucus opposed last Tuesday the adoption of the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, Pierre Poilievre this time cited the unacceptable promotion of carbon pricing in his eyes.
However, the text of the agreement specifies that no provision authorizes one of the countries to impose its own environmental laws on the other. What’s more, Ukraine has already had a modest carbon tax since 2011 in the hope of joining the European Union. Rarely, even its embassy took the liberty of publicly rectifying the facts. This certainly reflects kyiv’s concern to see Canada’s unanimous support for Ukraine crumbling, as in the American Congress.
The Conservatives’ ideological stubbornness against carbon pricing blinds them to the point that they intimidate two legislators and turn their backs on a democratic ally fighting the Russian invasion. There really would be a case for a little discernment.
Pierre Poilievre is leading the polls, taking advantage of the electorate’s fatigue with the Liberals. But the third of voters who do not support the Liberals and half of the New Democrats confess that they could still resign themselves to voting for Justin Trudeau if the specter of the election of a Poilievre government seemed too worrying to them.
By reconnecting with his first combative and vengeful reflexes, Mr. Poilievre rekindles these fears among voters who try as best they can to see in him a responsible politician worthy of the position of prime minister which he hopes to inherit, and no longer a pugnacious populist. controversial ideas and practices.
The Liberals are making a mistake by simply banking on this conservative scarecrow to hope to remain in power in two years. But Mr. Poilievre does the same if he thinks he can do anything because of voters’ disaffection with Justin Trudeau. One or the other will have to convince Quebecers and Canadians that they have more to offer. Voters deserve better than voting out of spite.