Amid the debate chaos, we finally got a glimpse at Poilievre's climate policy

Coming amid a campaign that has avoided the topic at the best of times, it’s no big surprise that climate change was not the major story to come out of the leaders’ debates in Montreal this week. 

Nor was Poilievre’s performance the breakout story, though Canadians did see a softer-than-usual version of the Conservative leader come to the brink of tears in his emotional closing address on the second night. 

No, the main drama of the whole affair had nothing to do with the four leaders on stage, and instead revolved around journalism – or rather, “media”: it was the hijacking of the post-debate scrums by Rebel News.

It began Wednesday morning, hours before the first debate began, when the debate  commission announced that Rebel News would grant five of Rebel’s employees access to question the leaders following the debate. (Most news organizations, including this one, are only allowed one journalist each). Rebel News had sued the commission after they were initially denied, and the commission granted them access in order to avoid a court injunction.

It came out later that Rebel News Network Ltd, owned by Rebel founder Ezra Levant — as well as ForCanada, another group he runs — had registered as a third party for this election campaign, an official status that allows them to fundraise and spend money on advertising for the Conservative party. That means Rebel was not operating as a journalistic outfit, but rather a partisan advocacy group, which should have disqualified them from entering the scrum at all under Canada’s election rules. Unfortunately the Electoral commission didn’t learn Rebel was operating as a third party until it was too late. One hint may have been the truck ForCanada owns that was circulating outside displaying anti-Carney attack ads. 

After the French-language debate, Rebel staff got more questions than anyone else. They asked questions like “how many genders are there?” of Mark Carney, whose daughter has received gender-affirming care, or asking the leaders to condemn “Christophobia” that is ostensibly sweeping Canada. After Singh refused to answer any of their questions, Poilievre – having promised just moments earlier on stage to defund the CBC – praised the Rebel, promised he would always answer their questions, and declared himself to be the greatest champion of press freedom among all four leaders.

That was the first night, and the worst was yet to come. At the English debate Thursday night, at least a dozen Rebel-affiliated personalities somehow got into the press pit at Maison Radio-Canada, where the debates were being held. This created tensions on all sides, culminating in a shouting match between Ezra Levant and some of the commissioners; other Rebel staff tried to push their way into the middle of live CBC broadcasts, until the whole tumult became so great that security called off the second night’s post-debate scrum altogether like parents making good on their threat to turn this whole car around. 

The outrage of the journalists who delivered the post-event commentary — suddenly deprived of the opportunity to ask leaders a single question on the most important and widely viewed event of this election — was palpable. What the long-term repercussions of it all will be for Rebel, and for the debates commission, remains to be seen.

I’m one of the people who had been hoping to ask a question regarding a glaring hole in this campaign so far.I’ve been following his campaign around the country, and not once has the subject of climate change come up. That includes the eight press conferences I’ve been to, in which Poilievre’s own people get to choose who asks the questions (and it’s never been me).That made this debate the forum where Canadians got their first, fleeting glimpse of the Conservative leader’s thoughts on climate policy since the start of this campaign – and probably the last.

From what we learned in Montreal, the Conservatives’ climate policy consists of a single plank: exporting more natural gas.

“Mr. Poilievre, where does fighting climate change land on your list of priorities when it comes to expanding energy opportunities in this country?” asked Steve Paikin, the host of Thursday night’s English debate, during the Energy and Climate section.

“It lands within our priorities of bringing home jobs while bringing down emissions around the world,” Poilievre replied. “My plan will be to approve, for example, natural gas liquefaction and export. If we sent our gas to India, for example, to displace half of their demand for electricity, we could reduce emissions by 2.5 billion tonnes, which is three times the total emissions of Canada.”

That was the same response he gave in the previous night’s French debate, when Poilievre was asked how he intended to reduce Canadian emissions in light of his promise to eliminate the industrial carbon tax. Then, too, he pointed to the potential for Canadian natural gas to displace coal in India.

Poilievre cited a 2024 report by the National Bank of Canada as his source for this argument. It’s based on a kernel of truth: natural gas does burn about 50 per cent cleaner than coal. In fact, Alberta recently cut its own emissions in half by making that very substitution. 

So does that mean Canadians can avoid reducing our own emissions by ramping up fossil fuel exports? Not at all. 

For one thing, there’s no evidence that India wants Canadian LNG. That country’s renewable sector is exploding, led by their enormous solar resource. And while the south Asian giant is also increasing gas consumption, that demand is more than covered by a global LNG supply glut. The only calls for Canadian gas to replace Indian coal seem to be coming from Canadian gas producers.

But even if Poilievre magically built out the gargantuan infrastructure required to replace India’s entire coal consumption with our gas, Canada’s carbon footprint would remain unchanged. Why? Because under the rules of the Paris Agreement, emissions are counted in the country where that gas is burned. That means India would get the credit for switching off coal, not us.

Is Poilievre aware of this? Does he actually care about Canadian emissions beyond their utility as a talking point for LNG exports? Would he even keep us in the Paris Agreement? We don’t know, because Poilievre never says and wasn’t asked. 

In fact, the only other substantive question he had to answer on climate policy during the two debates was whether he would ignore First Nations’ or provincial opposition to a pipeline should he fail to obtain their consent. 

“If they refuse, what do you do?” asked Patrice Roy, the French-language moderator.

“Refuse?” Poilievre asked. “Are you saying across the board?”

“Yes, we’ve seen this,” Roy said. 

“Well, there are others who will be in favour of it,” Poilievre said. Citing the Northern Gateway Pipeline Proposal, Poilievre then claimed that 80 per cent of First Nations along the pipeline route had been in favour of that project, “and in a case like that I think the majority rules.” 

More than 60 nations along the pipeline and coastal tanker route signed the “Save the Fraser Declaration,” which stated “We will not allow the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, or similar Tar Sands projects, to cross our lands, territories and watersheds.” In the end, it was a 2016 federal court ruling that First Nations hadn’t been properly consulted that killed the project.

Northern Gateway is just one of the pipelines Poilievre has vowed to revive as prime minister. His clarity on that all but guarantees a fresh wave of social unrest and legal battles should Conservatives form the next government.

As we enter the final stretch of a campaign marked by Poilievre’s refusal to acknowledge or even discuss climate change, that may be all the clarity we get.