Justin Trudeau understands the value of surprises. He likes to create dramatic moments that get everybody talking about him and what he’s done.

We first saw this back in January 2014, when, as the rookie leader of the third party, he unilaterally expelled all of his senators from the Liberal caucus, doing more to reform the Senate in an afternoon than Stephen Harper ever managed to do.

Later that year, he surprised everybody again when he held a news conference to suspend two MPs who had been privately accused of behaving inappropriately with two NDP MPs. Again, he looked like a leader, dealing decisively with a problem and setting a high standard of behaviour for his team.

He was less successful in 2015 when he showed up in the National Press Theatre with Conservative MP Eve Adams by his side, having lured her away from the Tories and having convinced her to run for him — provided, of course, that she could win a nomination battle in Toronto. (She couldn’t.)

This week he surprised everyone again, this time by announcing that he will force the provinces to put a price on carbon emissions if they don’t play nice with Environment Minister Catherine McKenna and agree to do so voluntarily.

The only problem with this surprise was that the provincial environment ministers were meeting with McKenna in Montreal at the very moment Trudeau was serving notice on them. They objected strenuously to Trudeau’s ultimatum. Several of them immediately stormed out of the meeting, stopping only long enough at the nearest microphone to denounce Trudeau’s manoeuvre as a despicable betrayal.

“The level of disrespect shown by the prime minister and his government today is stunning,” said Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, who later threatened to block Trudeau’s plan with a lawsuit.

The Liberals think that there was little point in trying to work co-operatively with Wall on climate issues because Wall doesn’t want to reduce carbon emissions by putting a price on carbon. Even if Trudeau had written his plan in icing on a Saskatoon-berry pie, Wall still would have turned up his nose.

Like the previous federal Conservative government, Wall seems to represent the view held by some fossil fuel companies — that climate change likely isn’t caused by carbon emissions, but even if it is we shouldn’t do anything about it, since little Canada can’t have much impact on global emissions and we’d be certain to lose revenue and jobs.

The Liberals are likely happy that the Conservative attacks are so overwrought that they can safely be ignored, but it would be better for everyone if they were asking more substantive questions. The Liberals are likely happy that the Conservative attacks are so overwrought that they can safely be ignored, but it would be better for everyone if they were asking more substantive questions.

That seems to also be the view of Calgary MP Michelle Rempel, who took to Twitter to attack Telus and other companies that support Trudeau’s carbon plan.

When the Conservatives select a new leader in the spring we’ll have a better fix on how they’ll handle this issue going forward. For the moment, however, the Wall-Rempel approach of aggressive rejection doesn’t seem to be getting as much traction as it might — and the Liberals ended the week thinking things had gone fairly well for them.

Most Canadians think we should do something about climate change, and Trudeau is still so popular that voters are inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. After a long and uneventful honeymoon, voters now expect him to do things. This carbon plan is a thing.

It seems sensible enough, in large part because it allows the provinces to design and implement their own schemes and then spend the money they collect however they wish.

And the recent Conservative record on climate change is so bad that any Tory criticism is suspect. The previous government did everything it could to scuttle progress on the climate file, promising regulations that never appeared and doing their best to block international agreements.

Their critiques of this plan so far rest on Chicken Little scenarios that bear next to no resemblance to what is actually being proposed.

The Liberals are likely happy that the Conservative attacks are so overwrought that they can safely be ignored, but it would be better for everyone if they were asking more substantive questions.

Trade is critical to Canada. We export a lot of energy, food and building products, and produce a lot of carbon doing so. If our competitors, in particular U.S. jurisdictions, allow companies to pollute freely, do we risk driving Canadian firms out of business? Is the government taking steps to make sure that Canadian industries and jobs are ready for the change?

This is an opportunity for the Tories. They can win support by making a pocketbook argument against the carbon tax. In Ontario, where the Liberals have reduced emissions by getting rid of coal, Premier Kathleen Wynne is paying a steep political price for expensive electricity.

Over time, a sustained argument about government policies that take money out of the pockets of struggling families can undercut a government, particularly if members of that government seem to spend too freely.

To make that argument more effective, though, the Conservatives probably should avoid looking like climate-change-denying astroturfers.

In Australia in 2014, Tony Abbott led an effective election campaign against that country’s carbon tax and then scrapped it. Canadian Conservatives may be tempted to do the same thing here, but that would seem to go against the trend in public opinion, in Canada and elsewhere.

They would be smarter to follow in the footsteps of Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown, who accepts carbon pricing in principle but is working to skewer Wynne over her record on electricity.

The good news for the federal Tories is that they don’t have to rush to decide. The Wall-Trudeau feud is going to play out over many months, and Trudeau, who had the advantage of surprise this week, won’t have it for long.

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.