“Poilievre’s cheap shot at CP journalist has not gone unnoticed.” “Pierre Poilievre’s mouth just opened the door to a Liberal comeback.” “Liberals accuse Poilievre of ‘riling up’ Canadians in border crash comments.”

In the words of Florida Panthers Head Coach Paul Maurice, “Everybody just breathe! I feel like you people have been here.”

We have been here before. Almost every Prime Minister, Minister and Leader of the Opposition has gotten into a heated exchange with the media. To be fair, some of the media coverage and commentary has been balanced. Some have pointed out that the Rainbow Bridge issue was one of a few minor missteps; others have pointed out that Canadians may not put up with Poilievre’s combative nature for long.

But make no mistake: there are plenty of folks in the media and political actors – the Liberals chief among them—who want Poilievre to be fighting the media constantly. Not only does the conflict represent the potential revival of a struggling industry, but successfully labelling Poilievre the Trump of the North is the only hope the Liberals have of halting his momentum.

Did Poilievre need to use the word terrorism in his question to the Prime Minister? I guess not. Is it customary for the Leader of the Official Opposition to ask the Prime Minister to update the House of Commons on an evolving situation? Yes. Did it appear to be a very serious situation that could involve a terrorist act? Yes. The Prime Minister even took the time to explain that he needed to leave the Question Period to work on this “very serious situation.”

Everybody just breathe. The hysteria has caused us to miss some important observations about Poilievre’s comments that warrant further exploration.

First, it is unlike Poilievre to put himself in a situation to be attacked. In the past, when I worked with him, Poilievre has shown extreme caution about saying anything factually incorrect. He has considered all the facts before speaking, not just for accuracy but also to ensure his political opponents cannot twist his comments. Language matters when you want to become Prime Minister, as does being thoughtful and considering all variables before communicating. Why, then, did Poilievre give the Liberals an opportunity to criticize two of his best communication qualities as a leader? Well, it could be that, unlike the past 18 months, Poilievre is becoming more scripted. It’s still the Poilievre tone and communication style, but perhaps others around him have more input about the issues he communicates and how he executes.

This leads me to my second point. If my theory about input on Poilievre’s communications is true, then perhaps it shows that he is learning to become a different type of leader. A smart friend on Parliament Hill always told me, “Pierre is a General. But he only knows how to lead from the front. He doesn’t know how to lead from behind.” If he is allowing more input on his communications approach, perhaps he’s learning to accept a little less control day-to-day. A lead-from-behind approach would be invaluable for Poilievre as Prime Minister, given the number and complexity of the policy commitments he has made. He will need a team and can’t do it alone.

Finally, Poilievre rightly assigns responsibility and action to the government in his question to the Prime Minister while using his political slogan “Bring it Home.” Typically, these lob questions are a bit more straightforward, like, “Can the Prime Minister update the House on the situation?” The choice of language in this case is an example of the prevailing wisdom around Poilievre that you should never stop attacking the government. To some, it’s not good enough for Conservatives to be the beneficiaries of a government that avoids responsibility and fails to act. Instead, these Conservatives believe that the Official Opposition must be the driving force behind exposing these failures. It is not good enough to win; you must win the right way as a principled Conservative. Examples of this approach are found throughout the mandates of various Conservative leaders. Some examples that come to mind include the Summer Jobs Attestation, the abandoned motion condemning extremism in India, and the 2019 National Campaign’s environmental policy.

I know somewhere a Conservative is rolling their eyes reading this. After all, politics is 300 per cent less complicated than my analysis above suggests. But just breathe. Politics is more fun when we analyze it as extensively as we do the National Hockey League.

Jake Enwright is the Vice President of Government Relations and Public Affairs for Syntax Strategic and former senior advisor for previous leaders of the Conservative Party of Canada.