“Pierre Poilievre needs to be careful with his rhetoric”: Carol Off on her new book, At a Loss for Words

Over her 16 years hosting CBC Radio One’s As It Happens, jour­nalist Carol Off has had a front­-row seat to the corridors of power in Canada and the US. She’s inter­viewed hundreds of politicians and observed the growing polarization and hostility of political discourse. In her new book, At a Loss for Words, Off analyzes six terms—freedom, democracy, truth, woke, choice and taxes—and how their meanings have been twisted. She spoke to us about life in the age of rage, the value of a Canadian perspective and how Toronto can be a model for the world.

How did you get the idea for this book? It began when I was working at As it Happens. I started noticing a communication breakdown, where people weren’t just disagreeing with their opponents—they had really begun to hate them. I’d seen this with conservative American politicians and members of Stephen Harper’s govern­ment, but it hit home with the Freedom Convoy. I thought, Is this the new reality? Is it being stirred by something or someone?

And you decided to attack the problem through an analysis of language? That’s my business! It seemed to me that we didn’t agree on the terms we were talk­ing about. Even basic terms like “truth” were turned upside-­down when Donald Trump’s administration started talking about “alternative facts.” If we can’t agree on what’s true, then we can’t trust each other, and if we can’t trust each other, we can’t have a society.

Related: Tanya Talaga on her new book, The Knowing

You’re a Canadian writing largely about American issues. Does that give you a useful perspective? Absolutely. I’ve been watching the US from the outside for my entire career. As Cana­dians, we have a huge vested interest in the US. We’re so close to each other yet so dif­ferent in many ways. It gives us a level of insight that even Europeans don’t have.

Canada may be about to make Pierre Poilievre—a guy who marched with the Freedom Convoy—its prime minister. Should we be worried about a similar populist shift here? There’s really no comparing Pierre Poilievre with Donald Trump. Poilievre is nowhere near as dangerous. But he does use the language of populism—us versus them narratives, railing against “gate­keepers,” turning against journalists and intellectuals—which is how modern authoritarian regimes start. I don’t know whether Poilievre subscribes to those ideas or just sees the rhetoric as a path to power. But he needs to be careful about where that rhetoric goes. After a certain point, he may not be able to control it.

At one point, you discuss the danger of fascism while pointing out how the term has been misused. Were you constantly second-guessing yourself? The most difficult and important thing was settling on a clear idea of every term I used, which required a lot of etymo­logical research. As I found out, the fascist regimes of the 20th century started mak­ing use of rhetoric long before they actually took power. They stirred up anger and division so people would buy in to their messaging. I think we’re in the very early stages of this in Canada. We need a clear idea of what we want our language in politics to be, otherwise it could take us down a dark path.

How is Toronto doing at speaking a common language? Toronto doesn’t have a common language because it has so many of them. That’s what I love most about it. There’s a grow­ing fear outside the city that we’re too diverse, which I think is being fed by those who want to break down the sense of plurality and tolerance that Toronto rep­resents. What we have is a model for the world, and we need to protect it.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.