For all the money and privilege he was handed by his parents, Donald Trump’s most valuable inheritance might be his instinctive ability to detect and expose weakness in others. He’s used it to devastating effect on any number of political foes in his own country, from former opponents like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz to his own vice-president, JD Vance. Now, with his threat to impose a 25 per cent tariff on all Canadian exports on his first day back in office, he’s exposing the weakness of Conservatives north of the border as well.
The last time Trump came for Canada, savvy countermeasures targeted the constituencies of key allies, like a tariff on bourbon that struck at Senate leader Mitch McConnell’s home state of Kentucky. But this time, rather than aligning behind a “Team Canada” strategy to deal with the threat, Canada’s Conservative premiers and politicians have rushed to the nearest media platform to pledge their fealty to Trump. And if they have to sacrifice the country’s best interests in order to protect the oil and gas industry and harm their political opponents? Well, just watch them.
Trump’s tariff threat was premised on the idea that “drugs, in particular fentanyl,” and “illegal aliens” are entering the U.S. via Canada. Rather than pushing back, the Conservatives piled on. Alberta premier Danielle Smith opened the bidding last night with a social media post declaring that the Trump administration “has valid concerns related to illegal activities at our shared border.” True to form, she blamed the Trudeau government for everything, suggesting that it needed to “work with the incoming administration to resolve these issues immediately.”
Former CPC leader Erin O’Toole raised the ante in his own social media offering by suggesting that “first, we should offer to help finance the Keystone XL pipeline.” Ontario premier Doug Ford offered his own take on obsequiousness by placing an American flag in the background of his presser on the tariffs. As Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne asked rhetorically, “Why not put a white flag up while you’re at it?”
Pierre Poilievre, meanwhile, decided this was yet another opportunity to advance his pre-existing policy priorities and blame the federal government for everything bad happening in the country. Our economy, he said, “is teetering on the brink of collapse,” and we need to come to terms with our “unprecedented weakness.” As far as negotiating strategies go, this is a new one.
But Poilievre isn’t actually interested in negotiating successfully with the Trump administration right now. He’s far more invested in weaponizing the negotiations against his Liberal opponents. “Justin Trudeau must put partisanship aside,” he said in a hilarious moment of unintentional irony, “not just for Team Canada, but for the sake of our people, and fully reverse his liberalization of drugs. Ban them, prosecute those who traffic against them, secure our borders against the illegal importation of fentanyl ingredients.”
Never mind, for the moment, that his statement acknowledges that said ingredients are, in fact, illegal, or that the Trudeau government hasn’t decriminalized fentanyl. Reversing the so-called liberalization of drugs — which, presumably, also includes its legalization of marijuana — would do exactly nothing about the volumes of fentanyl being moved across the US border. And, of course, the Trump administration just nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for the role of Health and Human Services secretary, someone who just happens to be a big proponent of liberalizing the treatment of marijuana and psychedelics.
But this was far from the only bias Poilievre wanted to re-confirm. When pressed about the need for a united front on this issue, he decided it would be better to talk about the importance of the oil and gas sector. “What we actually need to do is stand up for our economy by axing taxes, unleashing free enterprise, and having a massive boom in our energy and resource production.”
If anything, this is a plan to piss off the Trump administration — and Trump in particular. He has been clear about his interest in increasing American oil and gas production in pursuit of both energy independence and “energy dominance”. A massive boom in Canada’s oil and gas output would directly threaten both of those things, along with harming the American oil and gas industry that donated so heavily to Trump’s campaign. It’s almost like he hasn’t thought this position through fully.
Then again, that’s the essence of Poilievre’s approach to politics: shoot first, aim second. His decision to opt for noisy point-scoring over quiet diplomacy is yet another reminder for the Liberal government that this round of negotiations with the Trump administration won’t be the same as the first. They cannot, and should not, expect the sort of cross-partisan unity that defined their attempts to save NAFTA from the Trump team’s paranoid mercantilism.
“I only care about Canada,” Poilievre said during his scrum. “I want to put Canada first.” If only that were true of both him and his fellow Conservatives. Instead, it seems like they’ve decided it’s every man and woman for themselves, especially if it means they can advance their pre-existing agendas around energy and climate change. If there’s one silver lining here it’s in Trump’s ability to serve as a mirror of others, one that exposes the depth and content of their character. We’d do well to take a hard look at what it’s saying about the people who want to lead us.
Comments
You're right that super-excited conservatives up here, a.k.a. "da boys" are being outed now for what they've always been-- fully Trump-adjacent, i.e. appallingly unscrupulous power mongers righteously reclaiming the status quo of male hegemony (their natural birthright after all) and unfettered capitalism!
Or rather they certainly SHOULD be outed with Poilievre mortifyingly saying "Canada FIRST" out loud while Smith, (apparently planning to attend his inauguration, utter fool of a cheerleader for the aforementioned that she unfailingly IS) is parroting his nonsense about our border.
Speaking of power mongering, it's now incumbent upon ALL the progressive parties, i.e. the sane adults and genuine, good faith actors (not the psycho, destructive "faith" behind Project 2025 either) who supposedly care about more than THEIR own power to declare themselves as the actual MAJORITY in this country, and as serious "players" by FINALLY pulling that waiting rabbit out of the hat in all its fluffy, white, show-stealing glory.
The time has come to turn the tide of being victims of the "divide and conquer while being unmitigated, lying asshole scumbags while casually dismantling civilization as we have known it," and actually TRUMP da boys once and for all.
Hahahaha! I've seen/heard Danielle called a lot of things, but "male" is a new one!!!
I don't think it's foolish for her to cheer Pierre on: they are, after all, on the same side, and on the same team. And if elected, he has the power to help her get exactly what she wants. Forest fires in Banff, just like in Jasper, anyone?
And just as a note, virtually everyone considers him/herself to be amongst the sane ones ... and also more intelligent than average.
Most of the people I've known who lap up propaganda of all sorts also consider themselves to be sceptics; so there ya go!
Difficult to understand your sanguinity I've gotta say, but what's your point anyway?
I didn't call Denial/Danielle "male," I called her just another utter fool of a cheerleader for the guys, as in "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
Women are often political placeholders when such a male-centric party as the Reform cons screw up more than usual like they did under Kenney, especially when the evangelicals who found him far TOO reasonable during covid need to be placated. Who better than a radio talk show host?
I remember during that debate between her and Rachel Notley where Smith's gift of gab left Rachel struggling about WHICH outrage to even focus on. Like David Climenhaga said, no one "floods the zone with bullshit" better than Smith.
And just because everyone considers themselves sane and/or more intelligent than average doesn't mean they all qualify, does it? Same with "lapping up propaganda."
Bothsidesism has truly sunk in at all levels it seems.
A cogent comment on many of us. We're often much less progressive in practice than we are in rhetoric...........and too many of us will likely vote for PP in the months ahead, without much recognition of how dangerously superficial he is when it comes to the very real problems we face.
We all need to let go of the anger and the arrogance. Relearn how to discuss real issues civilly, by presenting evidence and connecting dots. Name calling and dismissive language doesn't help. Real intelligence can tell the difference between propaganda and evidence.
We likely all could use a refresher course on civil discourse...but then various forms of denial makes signing up for that unlikely.
Oh, and Andrew Coyne? Pffffttttt, you're outed too along with the Globe and Mail; you had your chance to be credible, you even had an old-school platform and you totally blew it. We see you.
Unfortunately you're FAR from alone; David Frum, wannabe sage, jumps to mind, and every single person or organization that STILL skews right, period.
Behold Canada's Regressive Conservative leaders in full flight!
PP would be the first to capitulate to Trump and get us a bad deal because he wouldn't want to anger his hero. The conservatives only care about themselves and their rich friends. No different than south of the border with the Republicans.
They also don't want government to work as that would ruin their entire platform that everything is broken. The liberals have their work cut out for them. They need to unite with Mexico and others to show a united front. Otherwise Trump who is a zero sum and divide/conquer negotiator, will destroy our economy.
There are too many glaring omissions in this piece.
The most obvious is that Trump targeted Mexico with identical tariffs and is particularly obsessed with the US southern border, much more than the northern. His comments about drugs etc. crossing into his Holy Land to corrupt the purity of his people refers mainly to the border he failed to close when given the chance last time.
The next big omission was the very intelligent response by the Mexican president. She called out the huge numbers of US made guns that arrive in her country illegally, and corrected Trump's lies about the actual numbers of migrants and the successful efforts her nation has done to tame the flow. Others have reiterared that the migrants coming out of Central America are on the move to escape conditions that were, in part, created by US policies of interference years ago.
Yet another omission is the fact that today's North American trade agreement is Trump's trade agreement. He dramatically trashed the original NAFTA and started bullying Canada and Mexico to renegotiate it on his terms. Trudeau et al were at their best back then and wheeled and dealed with purpose -- often through individual red states instead of Trump -- and gave up very little. Essentially, NAFTA was slightly tweaked then renamed, and Trump took credit for a 'major overhaul' while Trudeau and Freeland (who the US negotiators disliked for being too tough for a woman, or something like that) smiled in the background knowing our trading industries were safe for the time being.
Still another omission was to avoid exploring the effects of 25% tariffs, especially in Trump's own economy. There are some very quick responses out there by all kinds of economically informed folks online that detail what Canadian and Mexican products will see price inflation and how sudden price hikes will ripple through the US economy. The biggie in American eyes is food from Mexico, and analysts foresee great inflationary trends throughout the entire food sector. People voted for Trump because they were "concerned about food prices and Trump is a business man who will fix it..."
Well, there's lots of videos out there on voter regret, it's a trend called FAFO (Fuck Around and Find Out). They are about to find out how stupid they actually are.
When it comes to dealing with an incompetent Trump administration we have a federal team in place that has lots of experience. The other team are all about capitulating as soon as humanly possible. Poilievre is a son of Trump. He thinks and speaks in all caps headlines and multiple exclamation marks, but when you look for the follow up essay with all the details, there are only blank pages with a couple if cartoon doodles. Cardboard character with no content.
By our next federal election we'll have a pretty clear idea how bad Trump will be this time. And also who is most competent to deal with him.
"Glaring omissions in this piece?" Unfair criticism I thought, usually Geoffrey's go-to....
Perhaps "an incomplete piece of journalism" would be tamer. Nonetheless....
I think you may be criticizing this article for not being another article that you'd prefer. The topic, as I understood it, was Pierre Poilievre's approach to Trump's promised changes....and to some degree, other conservatives like O'Toole, chiming in on behalf of the Fossil Fuel industry.
I think Max made it quite clear that PP's positions are taken on ideological grounds....which means that often he doesn't do his research. It matters greatly that we be clear:
We may have a bit of a fifth column in Canada........and that fifth column might be the Conservative party. It's a nice little preview for all of us: If we like what Trump is planning...why not get on board and vote for the party that will 'break with their country'....and join the looting???
Well, if we have the stamina to keep abreast of Pierre's 'big ideas' perhaps we'll realize what a thin gruel he is actually dishing up for our future. Not being able to realize that it might be precisely our 'oil and gas sector' that Trump is intent on disadvantaging....so America can achieve energy dominance by fracking their own lands to death.......says something pretty frightening....and comic.....about PP's approach to politics.
Sure, Albertan's may be more than willing to sacrifice the future of their land and water for continuing in situ mining and massive fracking....but does an America first administration want that? It could well be more profitable for them to make Alberta bitumen more expensive and initiate a more rapid sacrifice of American lands.
America First........or Canada First for that matter, becomes moot when such fantasies of dominance depend on ramping up Fossil Fuels. To ensure a liveable planet for our children, we need to go in the opposite direction. Could it be that Trudeau hatred is a manufactured phenomenon, directed by the Fossil Fuel industry?
God help us all if drill baby drill is going to replace the science of Climate Change. But we'd be fools to imagine Poilievre has anything more substantive in mind. It's way past time more of us woke up to the truths extreme weather is bringing around the world.
Brushing up on systems theory, and how fast a stable system can collapse once a certain point is reached, wouldn't hurt either....everything assuredly isn't broken in Canada. But once we cross that threshold, the collapse will be global, American dominance no protection of western privilege.
We aren't broken yet...but give PP and his backers a chance. We soon could be.