CHELSEA, QUE—The new Pierre Poilievre—humbled, grateful, more collaborative—actually sounds a lot like the old Pierre Poilievre once the initial niceties and the pro-forma nods to past imperfections are dispensed with. 

After winning the byelection in Battle River-Crowfoot, Alta., on Aug. 18, the Conservative leader thanked his supporters, and expressed his humility and willingness to work with any party on mutual goals. But still, he wasted no time in lambasting Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government in the same old cadence, but with a few new targets.

“Over the last 10 years, Liberal policies have sent crime, immigration, housing costs and inflation spiralling out of control,” declared the resurrected Poilievre. And, after Carney’s 157 days in office, “they have only gotten worse.” The prime minister “sent everyone home for a summer vacation. … inflation is up, elbows are down,” and so on.

It is a familiar river of words, an echo of fast-receding federal election campaign rhetoric, but also redolent of the opposition leader’s entire life in politics. It is actually hard to listen to—much less absorb—and not only for non-Conservatives. It is generic, banal, repetitive, and often misleading—an AI readout based on a close study of decades of conservative political speeches, dating back to former United States president Ronald Reagan’s time.

All politicians—including Carney—parrot focus-grouped lines and grand promises, polished to a high sheen through repetition. 

“Canada Strong,” “Trump wants to break us, so he can own us,” “We will build one Canadian economy, not 13.” True or not, these phrases become trite with overuse.

Unlike Carney, however, who continues to intersperse the partisan boiler-plate statements with often detailed answers to media questions and flashes of disarming wit, Poilievre sounds as if every word he utters is rehearsed right down to the alliterative flow: “Humility and hard work,” “loyalty and love.” Expect to hear more of that. (Former prime minister Justin Trudeau with his “hope and hard work” line was similarly afflicted.)

As for Poilievre’s new era of collaboration—“we will work with anyone from any party”—there are a few caveats, starting with the complete gutting of any Trudeau-era environmental protections. 

Poilievre is proposing a “Canada Sovereignty Act,” which would “legalize” pipelines, LNG plants, and new mining plays. He has said he would also ditch the industrial carbon tax, the EV mandate, the West Coast tanker ban; and he would allow Alberta to increase oil and gas production, thereby increasing greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing so dramatically to climate crises this summer. 

He won’t find any dance partners for this waltz of destruction in the House of Commons—certainly not the Bloc Québécois, and who else is there? 

But with Poilievre, the point is to create trouble, and not to accomplish anything beyond his own re-election. Never has been, never will be.

If his rhetoric is basically tweaked but unchanged, so is the playbook. In the last Parliament, Poilievre succeeded in turning public opinion against the mildly-effective federal carbon tax, with a thoroughly dishonest and relentlessly-rhyming campaign, which was aided by rising prices and economic uncertainty rooted in much larger issues. 

In one of his first initiatives as prime minister, Carney “axed the tax.” 

That worked, so Poilievre is re-upping the tactic. Only this time, the target is EVs. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so on-brand for Poilievre. The EV mandate is hardly a top-of-mind issue in a country facing a hostile trading partner, a housing shortage, and an increasingly expensive and damaging climate crisis. But it suits Poilievre, plays to his base, and inflames divisions that he hopes will help his political prospects.

“How many came here in their electric car today?” he asked the crowd in Battle River-Crowfoot in his victory speech, with that crowing, self-satisfied grin. 

He then laid out the justification for his next contribution to Canadian public life, which is putting us in the back seat in the coming global transition to cleaner cars. 

The EV mandate, Poilievre said “is a direct attack on rural life,” that will “wipe out our auto sector” and ban the purchase of the big trucks on which farmers and other rural Canadians depend. He further suggested the federal government would issue a $20,000-per-vehicle “tax” on dealers selling gas-powered cars above their quota, distorting a complicated formula.

Fly-by distortion is his special skill, however, and it takes a moment to sort the truth from the spin. The EV mandate, approved by the Trudeau government, says 20 per cent of new cars sold in 2026 must be EVs. This leaves 80 per cent of the new fleet for those who need or prefer gas-powered vehicles, not to mention a continuing market for used gas cars. That EV quota rises to 60 per cent by 2030, with 100 per cent of new cars to be zero-emission by 2035.

No one will be “forced” to buy an EV, but, ideally, there would be more affordable models available. It would be years before gas-powered vehicles are entirely phased out. By then, EV technology should have evolved to deal with the main current disadvantages: lack of charging options outside of urban areas and higher cost. (The Chinese, who lead the world in zero-emission vehicles, have recently developed an affordable EV that fully charges in five minutes.)

Independent of Poilievre’s bluster, the mandate is probably already doomed—or at least delayed—by the arrival of the big-oil enabler, United States President Donald Trump; the North American industry’s inability so far to produce affordable EVs; and various governments’ sluggishness in building public charging infrastructure. 

While Europe and Asia move rapidly to a cleaner transportation network, North America is stuck in a ditch and probably will be until Trump is gone. So Poilievre is tilting at windmills, which he also doesn’t like.

Carney may once again pull the rug from under Poilievre by pausing the EV mandate or modifying it to meet current realities, under pressure as he is from the North American auto sector, which was all in on electrification only a couple of years ago. This will not please environmentalists, but, given their almost complete absence from Parliament, it should not hurt Carney immediately.

Carney’s limpness on green issues is another story for another day, but Poilievre is unlikely to offer any serious, fact-based critiques of the government’s shortcomings on this or any issue. The opposition leader is a glib man, playing in the shallows, following a shop-worn script. Always has been, always will be.

Susan Riley is a veteran political columnist who writes regularly for The Hill Times.

The Hill Times

 

See all stories BY SUSAN RILEY