Candidates Roman Baber, left, Pierre Poilievre and Jean Charest, right, are taking part in the French-language Conservative Leadership Debate in Laval, Que., May 25. Ryan Remiorz / The Canadian Press
If there was one message that Jean Charest wanted to convey, it was the one he left at the last minute of the last debate scheduled in the Conservative leadership campaign. Let’s call it “Stop Pierre”.
It was in what may be called the territory of Mr. Charest, Laval, Que., In the French-language Conservative Leadership Debate. But it is a good bet that he will repeat it in English, elsewhere.
The dynamic is clear now: Pierre Poilievre is the favorite, campaigning with a populist appeal, opposition to vaccine warrants, support for the convoy of truckers and the promise to fire the “guardians”. Mr. Charest is chasing.
So he closed the last debate with a warning that the Conservative Party cannot give in to a politician whom he more or less called a yahoo with deficiencies of judgment and a “pseudo-American.” He could also have called Mr. Poilievre Donald Trump.
“The question we have is very serious,” Mr. Charest. “In the Conservative Party, will we take the path of American-style politics, will we attack politics, politics where we face one group against another, politics where we make slogans and every answer is an elusive one?
“Or will we do Canadian politics for Canadians? That’s the option I’m offering: not to be a pseudo-American. That’s not what we want as a country. We want a leader who is able to unite the party and have judgment. , that it does not send signals about conspiracy theories, that it goes into theories about the Bank of Canada or bitcoin “.
In fact, it is an admission that Mr. Poilievre is winning, and a call to stop him. And it is based on the hope that some conservatives are beginning to think that Mr. Poilievre has taken the populist turn a couple of turns too far, in an erratic judgment.
It looks like a long shot. Mr. Poilievre also focuses on concerns related to the cost of living. His support for the convoy of truckers, and the visceral frustration he represented, impacted the party. It pushed him to favorite status. But Mr. Charest was heating up a key issue.
In the last debate, in Edmonton two weeks ago, Mr. Poilievre pledged to fire the governor of the Bank of Canada, and faced widespread criticism. On Wednesday, Mr. Charest mocked Mr. Poilievre was not going to repeat that. And while support for truck convoys is often applauded by the Conservative crowd, Mr. Charest intensified his criticism of Mr. Polievre and the locks.
Perhaps this was easier in a debate in Quebec, where Mr. Charest was easily the best speaker in his native language and where his contingent of supporters was the largest and strongest. But Mr. Poilievre also had an important group and was the only other candidate really able to keep up with French.
Mr. Poilievre put his own hands on it, responding to Mr. Charest on illegal blockades claiming former Quebec prime minister lacks credibility over law and order, referring to Charbonneau Commission, which investigated allegations of corruption in Quebec, even in provincial government Mr. Charest directed.
And judging by the French-language debate, these two were where the list of viable candidates ends.
Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown managed to pressure Mr Poilievre with terrier-like attacks, but he did so in French which was awkward and, as Mr Poilievre pointed out. Poilievre, seemed to be Mr. Charest.
The other three candidates – Leslyn Lewis, Scott Aitchison and Roman Baber – struggled to do much more than read statements.
Some of them tried to mix it with two controversial laws in Quebec: Law 21, which prohibits many officials from wearing religious symbols, and Law 96, the new language law that has angered the English-speaking community in Quebec. . But they could not corner Mr. Charest, and especially Mr. Poilievre, to say much about them.
One might have expected the debate to deepen on these things. Bill 96 has just been passed. Clearly, there are conservatives who want to see their party take a stronger stand against the bill, but they are popular in Quebec.
Mr. Aitchison issued a statement before the debate saying that both laws violate the rights of minorities and that he would work with Quebecers to get them repealed. Mr. Baber and Mr. Brown argued that the laws violate the rights of Quebecers and said they would seek legal action against them.
But Mr. Poilievre was not taking this issue seriously. He said he was against Law 21, but would not challenge it in court. He did not take a position on Bill 96. Charest, who opposed Bill 21, said the federal government should give its opinion on both if they are challenged in the Supreme Court. But after the debate, he declined to say whether he believes Bill 96 violates the rights of minorities. “It will be a matter for the courts to consider,” he said.
For subscribers: Get exclusive news and policy analysis sign up for the Politics Briefing.