The Canadian Prime Minister is defending the right of one of his party’s candidates in the upcoming federal election to oppose the construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline. Yet to ensure the pipeline is built, the government bought the company planning to build it. It seems strange therefore that a party candidate would oppose one of the central planks of its economic platform – and that the Prime Minister would allow such dissent.

Embracing different perspectives? in the governing Liberal Party?

That might be a surprise to a couple of former cabinet ministers recently kicked out of the Liberal caucus for differing views on whether the government should allow a major company to escape prosecution for alleged illegal practices. In that case it appeared  differing viewpoints were not welcome.

When the PM was in opposition, and in his early time in office, he was widely considered to be anti-pipeline. He portrays himself as an environmentalist, and most of that ilk aren’t thrilled with fossil fuel extraction and burning.

So it makes sense he would allow a candidate who goes against government policy but holds views similar to those personally held by the PM. It allows him to polish his environmentalist credentials, while admitting the economic reality that Canada needs pipelines. That way he can say he is open  to differing viewpoints. But he doesn’t extend that right to other issues.

He has been very clear that those holding pro-life views need not apply to be Liberal candidates. He thinks (mistakenly) that abortion is a constitutional right. You can be a pro-choice Liberal. Those who hold a pro-life position need not apply.

Apparently the PM believes that differing viewpoints are a good thing. Except when he disagrees with those viewpoints.

Does that fall under the definition we started with today?