“Buzzwords, dog whistles and careless attacks”: The Political Boxing Match between Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre
Trudeau greeting Poilievre at the House of Commons on September 15, 2022 (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
By Hyunwook Justin Lee ‘26
Canada’s Liberal Party has been in power since 2015. Since then, it has gone through tumultuous times, most notably the COVID-19 pandemic, but it has had to fight an uphill battle since then as inflation increased, climate change worsened, and Trudeau’s personal issues arose. Although it has managed to eke out a victory in both the 2019 and 2021 federal elections despite losing the popular vote to the Conservative party in both elections, the upcoming election in a few years time remains more unpredictable than ever.
This uncertainty is exacerbated by the recent election of Pierre Poilievre as the leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of the Official Opposition in the Canadian Parliament in September 2022. Poilievre, who has served as Cabinet Minister under the Stephen Harper administration and Member of Parliament since 2004, is regarded as a “breath of fresh air” to many Canadians who feel that the Liberal government has made the country worse—across all spectra, including social policy and economics. Justin Trudeau, Canada’s 23rd and current Prime Minister, whose approval rating has been steadily declining since his election, clearly recognizes Poilievre as the greatest threat to his hopes of re-election come 2025, which makes the clash between the two a political boxing match to look out for.
Though political debate is often characterized as either personal bullying and name-calling or an echo chamber of repetitive yet unrealized promises by many, there is credit to give to both Trudeau and Poilievre in their political debates so far. Yes, the sample size is quite small with just three encounters between the two in the Canadian Parliament, but if they can continue to deliver the good aspects they have shown so far, it will have many benefits for both parties—Liberal and Conservative alike—and also the general Canadian population. Ottawa hasn't seen such a rivalry before: one where the two sides are evenly matched, yet they still do not resort to baseless accusations. Fruitful and engaging political debates are arguably the best method in reducing the so-pertinent political apathy in society; interactions like those between Trudeau and Poilievre work to bring politics closer to citizens because they deliver valid critics while adding the entertainment of two massive political figures who both definitely have things to lose during the debate. Trudeau vs. Poilievre is not your normal Parliamentary debate where either one can just brush off the other’s critics or simply resort to blind accusations. Trudeau has his fourth term at stake, and his time is running out to prove to Canadian citizens that the last eight years under him has actually improved Canada compared to the Conservative Party dominated era of the 2000s and early 2010s. Poilievre has the chip on his shoulder from his Conservative supporters who view him as the figure that could finally open a new chapter for the Party, one different from their boring, old-head image that has continued under Harper, Scheer, and O’Toole that cost the Party not only federal elections but also their publicity.
Poilievre, since easily winning the Conservative Party election, has brought forth 51 critics and 20 associate critics to attack Trudeau’s 38 cabinet ministers. This brings life to the Conservative Party, while at the same time improving Poilievre’s standing within the party. Poilievre, also, has brought heavy yet valid pressure against the current Liberal-NDP coalition regarding the affordability crisis that gets worse by day. Housing prices, grocery prices, gas, and inflation in general have been worsening, and frankly, the Liberal-NDP coalition has not produced tangible results to improve the daily lives of Canadians. Putting this pressure on the Trudeau government is a valid line of attack, and it is something Poilievre is not going to let Trudeau get by with his promises and contingency plans—and rightfully so. The average rent for all property types in August 2022 rose by 11.1% compared to 2021, and young Canadians are being affected by this the most; current wage levels are not enough to cover student debt and the rising costs of living in most Canadian cities. These also happen to be the largest supporter base of the Liberal party since Trudeau was elected in 2015. Although an argument could be made that the rising inflation levels are due to more global factors rather than the Government’s actions, they are clearly unhappy with the Trudeau’s government’s failure, and Poilievre’s criticism resonates with them. Poilievre’s well-spoken nature and his spontaneity in speeches and questions are the very things the Conservative party needed if they even wanted a shot at taking Ottawa back from Trudeau and the Liberal party for the first time since 2015. And he showed that he has the oratory abilities of a strong leader during these debates, much more effectively than O’Toole or Scheer.
And Trudeau, who has been heavily criticized in the past for avoiding questions and beating around the bush to answer only parts of the questions presented to him during these question periods, is showing improvement on his part as well. He hasn’t been stammering and hasn’t had to refer to his cheat sheet as much compared to the past; furthermore, his spontaneity, in criticizing Poilievre about his endorsement of BitCoin in April before the crypto crash, adds the much needed character to Trudeau’s parliamentary performance. His engagement with Poilievre and the Conservative party’s fairly legitimate criticism is better, and this renewed attitude will be a positive look for the voters when they evaluate Trudeau as a leader.
Alas, these debates have not been all filled with good things from both sides. Poilievre’s opening jab towards Trudeau about attending the Queen’s funeral then the United Nations General Assembly is a far-fetched attempt at criticizing Trudeau’s commitment because at the end of the day, both of these tasks are the Prime Minister’s responsibilities. With these points, he attempts to paint a picture of Trudeau as a distant and indifferent leader, which may be a valid line of analysis had there been adequate and appropriate evidence instead of the strawmanned version Poilievre pursued. It is a weak point that tries to weaken Trudeau’s ethos, and one that does not make sense. Furthermore, Poilievre’s plan to eliminate the carbon tax and cancel the increases to Employment Insurance (EI) and Canada Pension Plan (CPP) premiums will have long-term consequences, and it represents the Conservative Party’s trend to simply do the opposite of what the Liberals are doing, while portraying themselves as the better party. Canada’s commitment to producing clean energy and decreasing carbon emissions will be critical to the country’s and the world’s plan to combat climate change, and increasing the premiums to EI and CPP premiums, although its effects may not be visible short term, will provide better security to retired Canadians in the future.
Trudeau is not free from criticism regarding his debate either. During their third faceoff on October 6, Trudeau called on Poilievre to publicly apologize for the tags that were used for the Conservative Party’s YouTube channel, “MGTOW,” which stands for “Men Going Their Own Way,” an online movement that existed on Reddit until it was removed in 2021. Global News, a Canadian news source, had reported that this tag appeared on 50 of Poilievre’s most recent YouTube videos. Trudeau chastised Poilievre for “purposefully using his videos to appeal to far-right, misogynistic online movements.” Did this movement contain elements of misogyny? Yes. Would it be an overgeneralization to deem the entire movement as an “anti-women [movement]...[with] devastating real-life consequences?” Maybe—but this is not to say that this movement was legitimate or that there’s nothing wrong with Poilievre using these tags in his videos. The problem with this, rather, is that it is another one of those attacks with buzzwords without sufficient evidence to back it up.
Evidence shows that these tags were recycled for different videos, meaning that the tags were simply copied and pasted without much care. These tags could have been automatically generated or simply put on by the marketing software they used for its popularity (the term was extremely popular back in 2017 and 2018, even more so than the “MeToo” tag). In other words, as the program optimized the video’s outreach capacities, it may have automatically generated the tag. Regardless, the Conservative party should be criticized for its carelessness about their YouTube videos—however, to extend this to frame Poilievre as a misogynist is where the problem lies. Not only was Poilievre not in power back when the tags were first generated, but there is also no evidence that suggests Poilievre was a part of this action. To group Poilievre with this scandal is a strawmanned attempt by Trudeau to weaken Poilievre’s ethos, much too similar to Poilievre’s jabs about his justified absence from Canada.
To wit, the three initial encounters between Trudeau and Poilievre offer much to Canadian citizens. It had its moments of valuable political discourse, but it also had its moments showcasing the remnants of insults and strawmanned arguments so common in politics. Canada is at a crossroads. The support for the Liberal Party is constantly decreasing, Conservatism and the Conservative Party are on their rise, and climate change and inflation continue to hurt Canadian citizens. Trudeau himself spoke how “Buzzwords, dog whistles and careless attacks don’t add up to a plan for Canadians,” and this message should be in the hearts of both Trudeau and Poilievre and both the LIberal and Conservative Party. Canadian politics and parliamentary debates have to stop being a slugfest of personal insults and quips; yes, it’s good to add personality to politics, but it is imperative to stay on course and debate politics, not people. The ongoing political boxing match will be interesting to watch. But whether it will finally produce something to progress Canada into a better direction or produce the same-old constant bickering will be up to the two leaders of their respective parties.