Poilievre's reality check on Canada-US relations

Thoughts on our geographic constraints

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre responded to Prime Minister Carney’s Davos speech yesterday. Paul Wells was kind enough to post Poilievre’s remarks here.

Poilievre’s statement is a reality check. For all the talk of diversification away from the United States, whether economically or militarily, Canada is in North America. We are where we are, geographically speaking, and it’s best to acknowledge that fact. Canada can reduce its exposure and vulnerability to American coercion, but we can’t sever ties. Poilievre therefore suggests that we do our best to deal with our mercurial neighbour, in hopes that we can repair the relationship when things calm down. In his words:

“We should continue to work with allies within the U.S. that are outside of the administration to minimize the damage until the larger relationship can one day be repaired.”

I get that a lot of Canadians don’t want to hear what Poilievre is saying. Seeing the breakdown of liberal democracy in the United States, the utter failure of its hallowed separation of powers, ICE’s brutality and violation of fundamental rights, and perhaps most jarring, the paralysis of the American political class in the face of all of this, it’s understandable that Canadians want to cut off as many ties as possible.

Yet the underlying reality of our situation remains: we still trade massively with the United States, we’re militarily enmeshed and dependent on American intelligence, and again, we’re not leaving the continent. Several academics and observers have been stressing this fact since Trump’s return, but their voices have been drowned out by the patriotic fervour.

Taking a longer view of American history, we also have to recognize that the country was born a slave-owning state, fought a civil war that never really ended politically and culturally, and denied Black Americans their fundamental rights and freedoms well into the second half of the 20th Century, often violently. We’re seeing a side of the United States that’s always been there, but that was kept contained by countervailing forces in past decades. That pattern will likely repeat itself.

What am I suggesting? That we accept that we’re already the 51st state and make the most of that reality? No. I get that there are some who think that way, but we mustn’t resign ourselves to that fate. Canadians don’t want to be Americans for a reason --ok, many, many reasons. We’re a different country with values that are often fundamentally at odds with those of our southern neighbour. Indeed, currently our values are in open conflict with those of the White House and the MAGA movement. We shouldn’t give into subservience or vassalage.

Instead, Canada should become more self-reliant and resilient, both economically and on the national security front. We should be better placed to defend and protect ourselves without American assistance, whether offered or imposed. If the United States wants the defence of the continent to remain a binational endeavour, then it must be a co-equal partnership, even if it will never be so in reality given the disparity in population and wealth. We should be building coalitions and institutions with other liberal democracies in this increasingly illiberal world. We should only fight and die for liberal democratic goals, never out of followership or coercion. I know liberal democracies look like a dying breed, but that’s all the more reason to band together.

But let’s be honest with ourselves: we’re still going to be in the American orbit, working and trading closely with the United States, and relying on a lot of military capabilities, intelligence, and technology from down south.

I know what you’re thinking: the Carney doctrine aims to do exactly what I’m suggesting. I agree, but I’m seeing a lot of wish-casting around how much of a shift Carney’s speech represents.

Here’s my point: Poilievre’s corrective reveals how the doctrine will likely be implemented in practice. The geographic pull of the United States won’t let up, and it’ll limit how far we can go on our own and for how long. My read is that Carney and Poilievre basically agree on what needs to be done, though they’re emphasizing different things. Poilievre is showing us a different side of the same coin, one many don’t want to see.

Finally, there’s an old saying we all know: good fences make good neighbours. We let our fence rot over the decades because our much wealthier neighbour seemed like a pretty good guy. He plowed our shared driveway, ran the homeowners’ association, and hosted great BBQs. He put up with our smugness, our weed smoke, and the fact that we were slow to mow our lawn. These days, though, he’s arguing about the property line, hitting on our spouse, and letting his dog bite our kid. Since he’s not moving and neither are we, it’s time to rebuild the fence. He may or may not get over whatever he’s going through, but we still have to live next to him.