The Conservatives seem to have adjusted to life in opposition with admirable speed, doing a good job of digging up expense stories to embarrass the Liberals, establishing a line of attack they likely will continue until at least the next election.

The latest nugget the Tory researchers have dug up was revealed Tuesday during question period, when Conservative MP Blaine Calkins repeatedly asked the Liberals to explain $1.1 million in moving expenses for political staffers, including one payment of $126,000 to an unnamed staffer in the prime minister’s office.

The Conservatives, brimming with righteous indignation, applauded Calkins as he accused the Liberals of lining their own pockets with these mysteriously large payments, and mockingly applauded Liberal House Leader Bardish Chagger when she responded with boilerplate about how “Canadians expect public resources to be used responsibly and economically.”

Chagger told Calkins that the government is “open and transparent” and the money was spent in accordance with the rules; she did not, however, say who got how much for what.

So on Tuesday evening, the lobbyists, reporters, idlers and staffers refreshing themselves and enjoying unseasonably warm weather at outdoor cafe tables in downtown Ottawa were free to gossip about who likely got how much.

It’s the kind of puzzle people like to ponder, and we will get an answer eventually — when the gossips figure it out, or when the government comes to its senses and answers the perfectly reasonable questions it’s been avoiding, or when access-to-information requests eventually reveal the names.

Until then, the Conservatives are free to speculate — as they did in the House on Wednesday, asking if the recipient of $126,000 was someone close to Trudeau himself. If it is — if, for example, it’s Trudeau’s old college friend, principal secretary Gerry Butts, or chief of staff Katie Telford — this could turn into a bit of a nosebleed. Nobody but Sophie is closer to Trudeau than these people, and the Conservatives would dearly love to be able to tag them with an expense that seems excessive to most Canadians.

The Conservatives are right to see opportunity here, and if the Liberals aren’t nervous about it now, they’re being foolish. Liberals have a brand problem with this stuff. The Conservatives are right to see opportunity here, and if the Liberals aren’t nervous about it now, they’re being foolish. Liberals have a brand problem with this stuff.

This is solid ground for Conservatives. In government, they had a pretty good track record of controlling expenses by their team members. Stephen Harper made an example of Bev Oda, whose $16 orange juice made ugly headlines, and he cut his own future pension by $57,000 a year.

People elected Harper to control spending, though, and then elected Trudeau to increase spending. So it’s normal for the Liberals to take a more worldly view of these things, and you can make a good argument that it’s silly to spend too much energy focusing on small sums while ignoring big ones.

But the Conservatives are right to see opportunity here, and if the Liberals aren’t nervous about it now, they’re being foolish. Senior staffers set the tone for the government. If they’re not seen as careful stewards of the public purse, why should their underlings?

And the Liberals have a brand problem with this stuff. At the end of the Paul Martin era, the government seemed to spend half its time either defending Liberals who had pocketed excessive amounts while following the rules, or prosecuting others who had pocketed excessive amounts while not following the rules. This led to a lot of nasty in-fighting within the party as people in the second category lawyered up and tried to find ways of damaging people in the first category.

The Conservatives seemed to know that rules are not necessarily the best way of deciding whether a particular aide should get to bill the government $126,000 for a move. The Tories say they capped the amount that staffers could get at a much lower rate, likely because nobody wanted to anger the boss. That’s not a rule. It’s judgment.

The Conservatives already have embarrassed the government by digging up files showing that Environment Minister Catherine McKenna and Health Minister Jane Philpott approved spending they then struggled to explain.

The Liberals have to carefully manage this kind of concern. Until this week they did so, and they have refrained from the kind of ugly counterattack that the Conservatives routinely employed.

On Tuesday, for instance, would-be future Alberta premier Jason Kenney made an appearance in the House to ask a question in which he managed to attack Rachel Notley.

Kenney, the former president of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, has been criss-crossing Alberta all summer trying to win the leadership of the Progressive Conservatives while still cashing his MP paycheques — which looks fairly bad, particularly for a politician who seeks to portray himself as a friend to the taxpayer.

The Liberals, under attack for their own spending, resisted the urge to respond by pointing at Kenney. They are low-key in the House, trying to keep question period from producing drama — a contrast to the nasty antics of the previous government in the House.

And the prime minister can afford to let the opposition land some unanswered blows. He has the best approval rating in memory. He is a star wherever he goes, a media darling from Beijing to New York.

At the moment, Trudeau can spare the Tories some ammunition. He would be wise, though, to make sure he doesn’t give them too much.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.