There are any number of pressing matters that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Official Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre could have debated on Tuesday.
The sorry prospects for Canada’s economic growth. The continuing housing crisis. The lack of opportunities for Indigenous youth. The dilapidated state of national defence. Or, if you’d like, the Conservatives’ growing enthusiasm for using the notwithstanding clause.
Instead, the two leaders chose to trade frat-boy calibre insults. The House of Commons descended into chaos, sped along by the ineptitude of Speaker Greg Fergus.
The worst tendencies of both leaders were on display. Mr. Trudeau indulged his habit of throwing around charges of racism when in a tight political spot, accusing Mr. Poilievre of “actively courting the support of groups with white nationalist views.” It’s a transparent attempt to dent the Conservative Leader’s popularity by painting him as a dangerous extremist.
Meanwhile, Mr. Poilievre let loose his nasty streak, starting with calling Mr. Trudeau “the guy who spent the first half of his adult life as a practising racist.” That earned an admonishment from Mr. Fergus.
Then Mr. Trudeau condemned Mr. Poilievre’s “shameful, spineless leadership.” Mr. Fergus told the Prime Minister to withdraw the remark, but first took the time to eject a Conservative MP from the House for the day for heckling him.
And then Mr. Poilievre called the Liberal Leader a “wacko,” a cartoonish insult that nevertheless evidently transgresses the boundaries of parliamentary language. The Conservative Leader withdrew the word, but not his entire statement. And on that fine distinction, he got the boot from the House, with the remaining Conservative caucus walking out shortly thereafter.
There are several overlapping failures at work. The most obvious is that of the Speaker, who lost control of the House on Tuesday. The Speaker, like Caesar’s wife, must be seen to be above reproach: an elected MP from the governing party who nevertheless must be non-partisan. Mr. Fergus’s rocky tenure to date underscores the lack of wisdom in electing a noted partisan voice to such a role.
It was entirely predictable that the Conservatives would use their ejection as social-media and fundraising fodder. A Speaker with better judgment would have avoided being so obviously wrong-footed.
But the bigger failures are those of Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Poilievre, who both see the nation’s concerns and interests as something less important than the need to cater to their party’s bases.
No, it should not be shocking that politicians commit politics. And it is equally unremarkable that ministers dodge, duck and weave during Question Period. But Mr. Trudeau was up to more than that on Tuesday (and on Wednesday, for that matter). The Liberals are trailing badly in the polls, losing more ground even after the spending spree of the April budget. Their one hope is to disqualify Mr. Poilievre by linking – they would say exposing – him to fanatics.
As ever, Mr. Poilievre is willing to fight fire with a flamethrower, and never mind what burns as a result. It is not enough to criticize Mr. Trudeau’s policy on allowing a trial decriminalization of hard drugs in British Columbia. No, the Prime Minister must also be accused of allowing those drugs to kill British Columbians. Mr. Trudeau is not just wrong, according to the Conservative Leader: he is a wacko, an extremist and a radical.
Both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Poilievre portray the other not just as an opponent, but as an enemy.
Canada deserves better, from both men. The country faces enormous challenges. Economic growth is lagging, and younger Canadians face the prospect of a life less prosperous than their parents. National defence has been allowed to decay. The cracks in health care grow wider every day.
Instead of forceful debate of these issues, the country gets antics and name-calling, and a toxic House of Commons. How is a millennial couple struggling to buy a home helped by wild accusations from Mr. Trudeau? How is someone in an hours-long line at a hospital assisted when Mr. Poilievre rails on?
The answer is obvious. And so is the peril. The House of Commons, and those who sit in it, risk becoming irrelevances to the problems facing Canadians.