Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has created a great deal of political capital for himself by harnessing the immense frustration of a Canadian public that has been battered by years of COVID restrictions and the continuing supply-chain induced inflation that followed. That is all fair game in the rough and tumble of politics, but the Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition has a distressing disposition to stoke divisions and incite fear, rather than seeking to bring people together.
Striking while the iron is hot for political gain is one thing, jumping to conclusions is quite another. Mr. Poilievre stood in the House recently to grill the prime minister about what he quite plainly characterized as “a terrorist attack,” jumping the gun when no credible source, government or otherwise, had identified it as such.
Called on his impetuous line of questioning, the honourable thing to do would have been to own up to the gaff, apologize and move on. Instead, the man who would be prime minister doubled down in true Trumpist style to lay the blame at the feet of “media sources.” Going on to add even more “fake news” gas on the fire by claiming it was CTV that made the characterization—he probably should have checked—the CTV report he was fingering actually came out well before his question to the prime minister.
Certainly, US sources were already characterizing the incident as being a terrorist attack, but police and governments alike shied away from labelling it as such. In an abundance of prudence, security was increased at likely terrorist targets, but no official source had decided that was the case. In the end, it became clear that the incident that killed two people at the Rainbow Bridge was not terrorism related.
There is a great deal of leeway available to a politician who is not in government, but when you are the leader of the Official Opposition, you are also a leader in waiting, and how you perform in that role speaks to what kind of leader you are.
Now, there is little traction to be had in calling any politician a “liar” as most of the electorate unfortunately think they can tell when a particular politician is lying by whether or not their lips are moving—but it is the knee jerk assumption behind Mr. Poilievre’s line of questioning that is of particular concern.
It was not necessary to stoke fear and division by using the loaded terms of “terrorism” or “terrorist act” to elicit the answers Canadians needed to hear. Leaders who jump to conclusions without a solid basis from which to act are, quite simply—not leaders.
Governments in power are generally fired rather than an alternative being elected—and the 2025 election is Mr. Poilievre’s to lose at this point in the polls. The governing Liberals and the current prime minister may have years of missteps to answer for, some fair, some not, but there is still plenty of time for Canadian voters to consider whether a judicious application of a clothespin is called for come October 2025.
Hubris is a dangerous master, and the current Leader of the Official Opposition would do well to think more before he speaks—an expensive image refit can only go so far.
Caution is the very foundation of peace, order and good government.
