It was supposed to be Pierre Poilievre’s election to lose. Canada’s Conservative Party leader had built a commanding lead in the polls for over a year by relentlessly hammering the Liberal government on affordability, housing, and economic mismanagement. After nearly a decade of Justin Trudeau’s leadership, the public appetite for change was palpable. Poilievre, with his sharp populist rhetoric and anti-establishment messaging, positioned himself as the antidote to years of perceived Liberal excess. Even those skeptical of his style began to see his ascent as inevitable. His path to power was open, barring some unforeseen political earthquake.
Then Donald Trump opened his mouth.
During a campaign stop in 2024, President Trump floated the idea of slapping tariffs on Canadian goods in a speech meant to rally his base in the United States. He spoke of unfair trade practices, hinted at resurrecting protectionist policies, and emphasized putting America first, even if that meant punishing its closest allies. The rhetoric was nothing new. What was new was how forcefully he enacted this promise upon taking office. In his second term, Trump has escalated these measures, implementing a 25% tariff on most Canadian imports, including sectors like lumber and dairy, and a 10% tariff on Canadian energy exports such as oil and gas. These actions have reignited trade tensions and prompted retaliatory measures from Canada. But this time, the context is different, and the consequences may be far more profound, especially for Canada.
With the stroke of a pen, Trump has altered the political landscape in Canada, a move that was not anticipated. What was meant to be a display of strength for American voters has become a liability for Poilievre. The notion that a U.S. president targeted Canadian industry with tariffs has forced Canadians to confront a question they hadn’t seriously considered in years. Who can be trusted to defend this country’s economy on the global stage?
For a long time, Poilievre benefited from the belief that he could harness populist anger without embracing the most chaotic aspects of Trumpism. His message was focused domestically: inflation, cost of living, housing shortages, and government overreach. He promised competence and order, framed himself as a defender of the working and middle classes, and cultivated an image of someone who would restore common sense to government. However, Trump’s return to the presidency and his aggressive trade policies have put Poilievre in a bind.
Suddenly, the similarities between his populist style and Trump’s substance are under a magnifying glass. His critics are asking whether he can truly be trusted to stand up to a powerful American president. Worse, Poilievre’s past reluctance to condemn Trump’s more controversial positions exposes him to the charge that he is too ideologically close to an erratic and dangerous figure. For many Canadians, that proximity feels less like principled pragmatism and more like complicity.
And into that opening step, Mark Carney.
Now leading the Liberal Party following Trump’s departure, Carney has stepped out of the shadows and into the spotlight of Canadian politics. Long considered the ghost candidate, a figure of immense stature whose potential leadership was often discussed in hushed tones, Carney brings gravitas rooted in his tenure as governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. His rise marks a return to substance in a political era dominated by performance. Carney’s public remarks remain deliberate and assured, a stark contrast to the theatrical aggression that has defined much of recent political discourse. Where others posture, Carney explains. Where others provoke, he stabilizes. In ordinary times, that might seem like a weakness. In uncertain ones, it defines leadership.
As Canada heads towards an election on April 28th, Trump’s renewed hostility toward Canada changed the electoral equation. Carney is very aware of this, which is why he called this election.
Suddenly, the question isn’t just about affordability, housing, or fatigue with Trudeau. It becomes a question about global steadiness, about who can navigate Canada through four more years of unpredictable and possibly damaging American policy. And Carney, a man who has advised international financial institutions and stabilized economies during the 2008 financial crisis and Brexit, begins looking qualified and essential.
The irony is that this turn of events was entirely avoidable. All Trump had to do was leave Canada out of his stump speech and or not make good on his promised tariffs. It wasn't even at the top of his promises of deliverables to his base. Had he ignored it, Poilievre likely would have remained on a smooth path to power. The electorate was already skeptical of Trudeau’s government. Additionally, The Liberals had become mired in the consequences of long incumbency, ethics scandals, policy drift, and a sense of fatigue. Poilievre didn’t need help. He needed space.
Instead, Trump couldn't resist prodding Canada. Instinctively, Trump's remarks have triggered a protective reflex in Canada. Canadians may vehemently disagree on domestic issues, but the idea of being bullied by a foreign leader, especially one as unpopular in Canada as Trump, can unite them. This reframes the election from a national referendum on Liberal missteps to a question of sovereignty and dignity. In this context, Carney emerges as the man of the hour not because he seeks it but because the circumstances demand it.
For Trump this is a mistake. By undercutting Poilievre, Trump may have cost himself a rare ideological ally in the Western world, one who could have been far more amenable to his trade proposals. Poilievre’s economic nationalism, skepticism of global elites, and focus on deregulation meant he likely would have pursued a more U.S.-friendly approach to trade, willing to negotiate bilateral deals and soften Canada’s stance on American tariffs in exchange for political capital. Now, Trump faces the prospect of dealing with Mark Carney, whose campaign is already heavily focused on opposing Trump’s trade policies. Carney has made it clear that he will vehemently resist any efforts to impose tariffs on Canadian goods, positioning himself as a defender of free trade and international cooperation. With his extensive background in global finance and his reputation as a steady hand, Carney is poised to oppose Trump’s trade agenda and actively lead global opposition to it. In trying to punish Canada for domestic gain, Trump may have ensured a Canadian government that will challenge him at every turn, from trade talks to climate policy to global economic forums. It’s a self-inflicted geopolitical setback.
In the end, Pierre Poilievre might not lose because of anything he said or did. He might lose because of what someone else said about Canada. And that someone was Donald Trump.
Add comment
Comments