Back in November, on the occasion of what would have been Winston Churchill’s 149th birthday, federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre posted the following video tribute:
Being a bit obsessed with Second World War history myself (as readers of my columns will know), his post got me thinking: what if Pierre Poilievre had been Canadian prime minister back then? I’ve been musing on the subject ever since, most recently after finishing Erik Larson’s gripping book The Splendid and the Vile about Churchill’s first year of premiership during the Blitz. Larson chronicles the kind of leadership it took to rally the British public during the months of aerial bombardment; what was needed to steel people’s morale and press them into collective service as thousands of lives were lost and homes destroyed, and facing a likely invasion.
Back then in Canada, we had a majority Liberal government, with the Conservative Party serving as the official Opposition. In that role, the Conservatives critiqued the government and sought to hold it to account. They did not, however, critique the government for engaging in the war, but rather, for failing to sufficiently prosecute the fight.
So, consider this thought experiment: as another existential and civilizational threat barrels down upon us, what would Conservative leadership look and sound like? Poilievre’s Conservative Party is a far different beast than your grandparents’ Conservatives, and Poilievre is no Winston Churchill.
If today’s Conservatives had been leading Canada at the outbreak of the Second World War, and judging from their response to the climate crisis, their languid reaction to the dominoes of falling countries in Europe might have sounded something like this: “Yes, we agree the Nazis are bad guys, but the situation is not an emergency. Nor is this really Canada’s fight — we are only a small country, after all. If people want to volunteer to fight, go ahead; we won’t block you (except, like Danielle Smith’s war on renewables, when we do). But we don’t intend to spend ‘taxpayers’ money on this, nor do we think individual households should be required to do their bit, nor do we have plans to mass produce what is needed to meet this threat, nor for that matter will we regulate any kind of action. But if you want to equip yourself with what is needed to protect your family, we will approve it. We do, of course, accept that the threat is real, even if exaggerated and its cause in dispute.”
(We got a taste of how such an approach would have gone a few years before the Second World War because that’s pretty much how the Canadian government dealt with the volunteer Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion — the Canadians who went to fight the fascists in the Spanish Civil War. They lost.)
In the face of today’s emergency — as fire, floods, drought and deadly heat waves become the norm and food and water systems wrestle with escalating disruptions — Poilievre insists he does have a plan: “Technology, not taxes.” And who doesn’t love a catchy alliteration?
But let’s be clear — slogans are not going to win the battle for our lives. We need it all! The mass production and deployment of the technology required to rapidly decarbonize and electrify our society; taxes on pollution, wealth and windfall profits to finance the transition; strong and near-term regulations that will require the conversion to renewables and prohibit the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure; mammoth support for our allies abroad to aid them in the just transition ahead (borders on a map won’t stop deadly pollution); and audacious new public programs that will invite this generation to rally in our collective defence. None of which is gonna happen through the putative prime minister’s best wishes. Poilievre’s policy-by-sound-bite will doom decisive action.
Much ink has been spilled about Poilievre’s campaign to “axe the [carbon] tax.” But let there be no doubt: he’s not just gunning for carbon pricing (ironically, a small-c conservative, market-based approach to climate policy). He’s going after the whole package — the oil and gas emissions cap, zero-emission vehicle regulations, clean electricity regulations, the Sustainable Jobs Act — effectively every piece of climate policy won over the last 10 years will be out the window under a Poilievre government, taking with it any progress that has been made to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Poilievre is telling us who he is — a servant of the oil and gas industry. Just when it is finally clear to most Canadians that the continued burning of fossil fuels is threatening all we hold dear, he is declaring himself a handmaiden to the arsonists, proclaiming his intention to expand oilsands and liquified natural gas (LNG) production, and to build pipelines in every direction, free from regulatory restrictions.
Poilievre is a populist, but a phoney defender of ordinary people. In truth, Poilievre is running interference for the most profitable corporations in human history. Already, the oil company executives are choosing to rag the puck on emission reduction investments in anticipation of their man being elected PM. He doesn’t care about workers; his wilful rejection of just transition in the face of a global energy shift means he is content to consign fossil fuel workers to the tumult of the market and the scrap heap of history. His rejection of a windfall profits tax on multinational fossil fuel corporations and their wealthy shareholders tells you whose side he’s really on (although on this score, he shares an ignominious distinction with the Liberals).
Far from being a protector of our kids (back in the day, a foundational conservative value), Poilievre is a danger to them. His approach to this crisis would condemn our children and grandchildren to a hellscape. He is a tool of a fossil fuel industry that has spent millions denying and delaying the urgent need for climate action — an industry that wishes ill for our children in the name of grotesque profits for a wealthy few.
The federal Conservative leader is a parent of two young children. As a parent myself, I feel a little sorry for the guy. A couple decades from now, when his kids ask how he used his national platform during this vital decade, he is going to feel great shame.
There are modern-day Conservative leaders who have understood the climate crisis. Brian Mulroney did. As CNO columnist Barry Saxifrage recently wrote, since 1990, both the U.K. and Germany have dramatically outperformed Canada in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and much of that happened under conservative governments in those countries.
But, alas, Poilievre’s Conservatives are another matter. Today’s Conservatives are not the kind of people you want leading in an emergency. They are a death cult.
Today’s Conservatives not fit to lead in an emergency
13
0
19.04.2024
Back in November, on the occasion of what would have been Winston Churchill’s 149th birthday, federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre posted the following video tribute:
Being a bit obsessed with Second World War history myself (as readers of my columns will know), his post got me thinking: what if Pierre Poilievre had been Canadian prime minister back then? I’ve been musing on the subject ever since, most recently after finishing Erik Larson’s gripping book The Splendid and the Vile about Churchill’s first year of premiership during the Blitz. Larson chronicles the kind of leadership it took to rally the British public during the months of aerial bombardment; what was needed to steel people’s morale and press them into collective service as thousands of lives were lost and homes destroyed, and facing a likely invasion.
Back then in Canada, we had a majority Liberal government, with the Conservative Party serving as the official Opposition. In that role, the Conservatives critiqued the government and sought to hold it to account. They did not, however, critique the government for engaging in the war, but rather, for failing to sufficiently prosecute the fight.
So, consider this thought experiment: as another existential and civilizational threat barrels down upon us, what would Conservative leadership look and sound like? Poilievre’s Conservative Party is a far different beast than your grandparents’ Conservatives, and Poilievre is no Winston Churchill.
If today’s Conservatives had been leading Canada at the outbreak of the Second World War, and judging from their response to the climate crisis, their languid reaction to the dominoes of falling........
© National Observer
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
