Pierre Poilievre’s problem with the truth

For a guy who likes to invoke George Orwell, Pierre Poilievre doesn’t seem to have paid very close attention to what he actually wrote. His willingness to weaponize obvious misinformation, like a chart he shared on social media suggesting Justin Trudeau was elected in late 2014 (rather than late 2015), is reminiscent of one of the most famous lines from 1984. “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

The idea that Justin Trudeau’s election in late 2015 is somehow responsible for the economic impact of the massive collapse in oil prices that happened a year earlier — and was driven by a decision made in Saudi Arabia — is a pretty obvious example of spurious correlation, and one Conservatives have been trading in for years now. But sharing a chart that falsely indicates Trudeau was elected in late 2014, as Poilievre did, is a whole different level of deceit. The fact that he did it more than once, despite being called out for the obvious falsehood, shows just how little he cares about the truth. 

Misrepresentations are nothing new for Poilievre, mind you. If anything, he’s built the massive lead his party enjoys in the polls on the back of his concerted campaign to confuse Canadians about why they’re paying higher prices for things like groceries and energy. But this particular abuse of the truth is so obvious, so flagrant, and so utterly pointless that it’s worth thinking a little longer about what it says. 

After all, it’s not like he needs this chart to validate his economic case against the Trudeau government. It’s a fact that our economy has underperformed the United States since Trudeau was actually elected, a reality that is heavily informed by both the American economy’s greater exposure to the tech sector and our own over-reliance on oil and gas. Did Poilievre share the chart because he didn’t care about the obvious falsehood at the heart of it, or because he didn’t care enough to notice it? 

Maybe it’s tempting to dismiss this as the typical nonsense you find on social media these days. But Poilievre’s little jab at Trudeau actually raises a much bigger question: Is he really the person we want to represent our interests in dealing with the Trump administration? Even if the next federal election doesn’t happen until October 2025, that would leave three full years — including the inevitable renegotiation of the USMCA agreement in 2026 — with Poilievre and the Conservatives at the helm. 

The early signs here aren’t exactly encouraging — not, at least, if you care about things like Canada’s ability to resist the gravitational pull of Trump’s black hole of bullshit. He essentially accepted the premise of Trump’s tariff argument, which is that it was being used to pressure Canada to tighten its border and prevent the flow of drugs and migrants to the United States. Standing in front of a placard saying, “fix the broken border,” Poilievre suggested that “the reality is that [Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau has lost control of the deficit, of immigration and of our border.” 

The facts tell a different story here, as they often do with Poilievre’s statements about Trudeau. Last year, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the northern border of the United States accounted for 0.08 per cent of all fentanyl seizures. The previous year, it was even lower at just 0.02 per cent of all fentanyl seizures. And while irregular border crossings from Canada have risen in recent years, the direction of flow could easily switch with the Trump administration’s plans to deport millions of illegal migrants. Then, there’s the issue of guns, which are being smuggled into Canada from America in huge volumes. As Toronto Police Service spokesperson Stephanie Sayer told Postmedia, “Of the crime guns seized this year that have been successfully sourced, 84 per cent came from the United States.”

Canada can, and probably should, dedicate more resources to its side of the border, especially when it comes to intercepting the flow of American guns. It might also want to reverse the cuts that the last Conservative government made to the Canada Border Services Agency in 2012. But we’d do well to remember that Trump’s entire tariff threat is premised on the falsehood that Canada is somehow responsible for its fentanyl problem. Rolling over on this one, as Poilievre seemed almost anxious to do, will only invite other falsehoods about our country — and other threats against it. 

This is the real risk of a Poilievre government, one that has multiplied in scale with Trump on his way to the White House. His utter indifference to the truth, and his willingness to weaponize deceit for his own purposes, are traits he clearly shares with Trump. But they will not endear him to the U.S. president, and they will not spare us from his administration’s inevitable wrath. Surrender, after all, doesn’t deter a bully — it encourages him. And every concession to deceit, no matter how small, makes the bigger lies that much easier to get away with. 

The best way to protect our cultural and political sovereignty right now is by defending reality, inconvenient as it may seem at times. With Trump in power and our social media overlords increasingly unwilling to do anything to stop the spread of falsehoods and conspiracies on their platforms, we are well and truly on our own here. Our government — indeed, all of our governments — have to step up. 

That’s because it’s not just our commodity exports or national GDP that’s at risk in these negotiations. It’s also our integrity — and maybe even existence — as a country and people. As Yale historian Timothy Snyder first noted back in 2016, “to abandon facts is to abandon freedom.” If Poilievre cares as much about freedom as he says, he’ll stop aiding and abetting Trump’s lies about Canada. Better yet, he’ll start telling the truth.