Opinion: Conservatives persist with cute legislative tricks, while the government tries to run a country
Open this photo in gallery:
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, left, and Prime Minister Mark Carney during question period on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Sept. 15.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
In another life, Pierre Poilievre would have been a lawyer.
The Conservative Leader is very good at creating a narrative, at prosecuting his case, and at setting traps for wayward leaders of other parties. He did that roughly one year ago, when he used the exact words articulated by then-NDP leader Jagmeet Singh when he walked away from the supply-and-confidence agreement to craft a non-confidence motion against the Liberal government.
The trap was that Mr. Singh and his party could either vote for the motion, triggering an election they didn’t want, or vote against it, effectively repudiating Mr. Singh’s own words. The NDP chose the latter, but the greater effect was negligible: Mr. Singh’s reputation was already in the dumps by then.
Mr. Poilievre is now one year older but perhaps little wiser, as his party persists with the same cute legislative tricks that make his supporters smile, but feed the perception of unseriousness that cost his party the last election. That perception also explains why Mr. Poilievre’s personal support trails more than 20 points behind Mr. Carney’s, though support for the parties is effectively tied.
Liberals to vote against Tory pipeline motion, calling it cheap stunt
On Tuesday, the Conservatives tabled a motion using the exact language from the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed last month by Mr. Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. The motion called on parliamentarians to “support the construction of one or more pipelines enabling the export of at least one million barrels a day of low-emission Alberta bitumen” and mentioned the duty to consult with Indigenous peoples, but its initial version stripped out all of the environmental conditions laid out in the original MOU.
The Conservatives subsequently amended the motion to include some – but not all – of those environmental conditions, leaving just enough out to lay the foundations for the trap: if the Liberals supported the motion, they risked being accused of forsaking the climate conditions that make a new pipeline palatable to much of their base and beyond. If they rejected the motion, the Conservatives would accuse them of not actually supporting a new pipeline for Canada. In the end, the Liberals went with the second option.
So what does this grand vote now reveal about the likelihood of a pipeline being built in Canada? Well, nothing.
The Conservatives will insist the exercise has exposed the Liberals’ ambivalence about a pipeline, but anyone with a pulse was already able to infer that from the resignation of Steven Guilbeault from cabinet, the outward opposition from some Liberal MPs, the reported friction within the Liberal caucus, and Mr. Carney’s waffling about the MOU creating “necessary conditions, but not sufficient conditions” for a pipeline. The vote does provide fresh fundraising fodder for the Conservatives, however, and a new talking point about the Liberals “voted against a pipeline” that will surely persist into the New Year.
Opinion: It’s turning-point time for the Conservatives and NDP – but don’t expect much
That might sow a little confusion among casual political observers, the majority of whom reported some awareness of the MOU immediately after it was signed. But those inclined to dig deeper will quickly learn that this was a stunt, which will not help Mr. Poilievre’s reputational problem – and especially not when the Premier of Alberta, of all people, is smiling next to Mr. Carney and expressing her optimism about a pipeline. The whole endeavour makes it look as though Mr. Poilievre is playing games, while Mr. Carney is trying to run a country.
To be fair to Mr. Poilievre, it is very hard to oppose a government that is broadly pursuing actions that your party would otherwise support, such as cutting taxes and cutting pipeline deals with Alberta. But sometimes the best thing to do when your opponents are fighting among themselves and exposing their own vulnerabilities is to stand back and let them.
Calgary Liberal MP Corey Hogan characterized the Conservatives’ gimmick and Mr. Carney’s subsequent reaction by saying, “The Prime Minister is a serious man for a serious moment, and the Leader of the Opposition is not.” Conservatives might not like that, but polling shows that Canadians broadly agree with Mr. Hogan’s assessment.
As long as it looks as though Mr. Carney is committed to building a pipeline (and we’re talking about perceptions here), the Conservatives cannot win on the file. They can try setting traps, or exposing the fine print, or exploiting divisions within caucus, but there is a greater risk in the Conservatives making themselves look petty or amateurish than there is in changing the public’s perception of Mr. Carney’s commitment to nation-building projects.
The Prime Minister coming out and saying “I support a pipeline” will always register louder than whatever noise the Conservatives try to make. The career politician ought to know that after 20 years in the game. Oh well; there’s always law.
