Michael Taube: Liberal self-interest underlies criticism of Poilievre's stance on Ukraine

Article content

We expect our political leaders to tackle important issues, take particular stances and make those positions clear to the public. Their opponents and critics will often criticize these positions and present different viewpoints. That’s how we build and maintain public discourse and intelligent debate in a democratic society.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

Michael Taube: Liberal self-interest underlies criticism of Poilievre's stance on Ukraine Back to video

Yet, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are doing the exact opposite by ignoring or disregarding Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s clear positions about Russia and Ukraine. If you look closely at the breadcrumb trail, you will discover the federal government’s strategy has no merit.

The wheels were set in motion (again) after Toronto Star deputy Ottawa bureau chief Stephanie Levitz’s exclusive story on March 5. Three Conservative MPs — James Bezan, Tom Kmiec and Shuvaloy Majumdar — attended a Feb. 25 townhall meeting in Etobicoke, Ont. They were “confronted by criticism Poilievre is missing in action on the Ukraine file and that when he does show up, he only delivers partisan talking points,” Levitz reported. There was also frustration that the term “Nazi” was repeatedly used in Tory criticism of Second World War veteran Yaroslav Hunka’s controversial invitation to Parliament.

“You’re alienating the Ukrainian support, absolutely, no doubt about it,” one participant reportedly remarked. “And I know that today you are explaining, and as you know, when you’re explaining, you’re not winning.” Another man suggested “the cheap attack on the Ukrainian community because the guy was a Nazi reflected very poorly on you guys, and reflected extremely poorly on Ukrainian kids all over Canada who are starting to be called Nazis in school … I’d ask you guys never to do it again, because you’re gonna lose our support completely.”

Liberal MPs and party supporters circulated Levitz’s article almost on cue. To them, it was an example of escalating tensions between Poilievre, the Conservative party and Ukrainian Canadian voters.

Or was it?

Laryssa Waler, former executive director of policy for Ontario Premier Doug Ford, posted on X on March 6 that “I *actually* was at the roundtable and townhall … between the two events, the meetings were very productive, fulsome and resulted in stronger ties between those who attended and members of the Conservative caucus. In fact, many said it was the best political meetings they had ever attended.”

Waler also made this observation. “I’m so tired of specific Liberals desperately trying to drive political wedges between the Ukrainian community and the Conservative party. They’re doing it because they don’t care about Ukraine as much as they do scoring political points. It’s desperate but more than that — it’s hurtful to the cause they’re pretending to defend.” She’s right. Considering some of the negative remarks made at the townhall, it’s also not impossible to believe this could have been part of a much larger campaign.

Let’s focus on what we do know.

In spite of hurt feelings among some Ukrainian Canadians, there’s nothing wrong with Poilievre repeatedly calling Hunka, an actual Nazi, a Nazi. As for criticism of Conservative MPs explaining party policies at the townhall, that’s actually the purpose of holding these types of events.

Contrary to popular Liberal belief, Poilievre has been supportive of Ukraine and has spoken out against the tyranny of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Here are a few examples.

“I condemn Vladimir Putin’s aggression against Ukraine,” he stated on Feb. 23, 2022. “Ukrainians are fighting for Europe and for us, and it’s time we stand with them. Today, I call for the following practical steps to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression.”

On Ukrainian Independence Day on Aug. 24, 2023, he issued a statement that said in part, “In 1991, after decades of Soviet socialism, oppression, mistreatment and subjugation, Ukrainians shrugged off their chains and voted to take control of their destiny … Canadians also recognize Ukraine’s historic struggle against an aggressor who, for centuries, has attempted to deny Ukrainian nationhood and suffocate their culture.”

He also made this strongly worded Feb. 24 post on X: “It’s been two years since Ukraine woke up to the evil of an unprovoked full-scale invasion from Vladimir Putin. With unshakeable resolve and determination, Ukrainian people have fought back. They haven’t given up, and neither will we. Canada will always stand with Ukraine in the fight for freedom & democracy against Putin’s tyranny.”

Missing in action, you say? Partisan talking points, you suggest? I think not.

Yet the Liberals keep suggesting otherwise, albeit for partisan reasons.

Poilievre and the Conservatives unanimously rejected a bill updating the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement last November. Why? One provision included a commitment to “promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks.” Poilievre said he’s “against putting a carbon tax into any trade agreement” and it “speaks to how pathologically obsessed Trudeau is with the carbon tax … while the knife is at the throat of Ukrainians, he would use that to impose his carbon tax ideology on those poor people.”

What would even possess Trudeau and the Liberals to consider imposing a carbon tax on Ukraine when this nation is at war? The focus should be on helping the Ukrainians in their fight against Putin’s Russia and rebuilding this suffering nation.

Poilievre made a principled decision to oppose the PM’s inane inclusion of carbon pricing in this trade agreement. It’s woke nonsense, and he and his party weren’t going to back it. This doesn’t even slightly reflect on his long-standing support for Ukraine — and long-standing rejection of Russia’s illegal invasion. That’s abundantly clear, too.

National Post