Pierre Poilievre is doing his best to repair Canada

What are the key differences between Carney's and Poilievre's views on the Canada-U.S. relationship, and what policy implications do they suggest? The article mentions public opinion shifting against closer ties with the U.S. Why is this happening, and what risks does it pose for Poilievre's approach? Poilievre says repair, not rupture, is the path forward for Canada–U.S. Pierre Poilievre’s trip to the United States this week was notable not only for its symbolism but for its substance. He used the occasion to mount a respectful yet firm challenge to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s thesis that the Canada–U.S. relationship has undergone an irreparable “rupture.” That argument, first articulated by Carney at the World Economic Forum, has begun to shape Canadian public policy. It rests on the premise that Trump’s threats and provocations have fundamentally altered the bilateral relationship and therefore require Canada to rethink both its economic ties and its broader place in the world. The removal of tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles is one example of Carney’s rupture paradigm. Poilievre’s intervention amounts to a rejection of that premise. His argument isn’t that Trump’s actions or rhetoric are benign. He was clear in a series of interviews and speeches that they’re wrong and counterproductive. But he cautions against overinterpreting them or Trump’s presidency itself. The Canada-U.S. relationship transcends a particular moment or president. It’s durably rooted in historic ties, a shared culture, and the overwhelming logic of mutually beneficial exchange. In Poilievre’s New York City speech, he presented the relationship as a modern illustration of Adam Smith’s profound insights about the mutual gains from trade. Our exchange is voluntary, by and large free from government distortions, and genuinely positive-sum. Even the power of the U.S. president cannot overcome the powerful diktats of these market forces. Sean Speer’s Weekly Wrap analyzes Pierre Poilievre’s recent trip to the United States and his efforts to reinforce Canada-U.S. relations. Poilievre challenges the notion, popularized by Mark Carney, that the relationship has suffered an irreparable “rupture” due to Trump’s actions. He argues that the enduring ties, shared culture, and mutually beneficial trade between the two countries outweigh any temporary political tensions. Poilievre advocates for renewal and deeper cooperation, particularly as the U.S. seeks to counter China’s influence. He contrasts this with the idea of diversification, which he deems unrealistic, referencing the failed “Third Option” strategy. While acknowledging shifting public opinion and anti-American sentiment, Poilievre emphasizes the long-term benefits of a strong Canada-U.S. partnership. The Canada-U.S. relationship transcends a particular moment or president. It’s durably rooted in historic ties, a shared culture, and the overwhelming logic of mutually beneficial exchange. The appropriate policy response, then, isn’t rupture but renewal: a doubling down on the strengths that have made the relationship so successful. As he emphasized in New York, the Canada–U.S. relationship will remain not only our most important bilateral partnership, but one of the most consequential economic and security relationships in the world. Comments (9) Steve Thomas 21 Mar 2026 @ 8:04 am It has puzzled me from the beginning that people left the Conservatives because of the things Trump has said. I believe that it has to be a phenomenon of low information voters who only hear the Liberal interpretations of Trump-speak and not the actual meanings. At it’s core, Trump’s position is that we are bad partners because of weak borders and security and we are freeloading on US defense. Who could argue that this is untrue? It’s true that a more neighborly delivery of the message would have been better, but it is no less true, and the friendly delivery has failed to elicit any meaningful results for decades. Then we have an election in which one party has security, border control and trad diversification as a platform priority another has essentially status quo and throws a couple of bones at the eleventh hour against their own agenda. How is it that people choose the second to shepherd us through a challenging time? Help me make sense of it. What are the key differences between Carney's and Poilievre's views on the Canada-U.S. relationship, and what policy implications do they suggest? The article mentions public opinion shifting against closer ties with the U.S. Why is this happening, and what risks does it pose for Poilievre's approach? How does Poilievre frame the economic benefits of the Canada-U.S. relationship, and why does he believe it's crucial for both countries' future? Indeed, if anything, the current geopolitical context strengthens the case for closer co-operation. As the United States deepens its economic and strategic competition with China, Canada’s role as a stable, resource-rich, and proximate partner becomes more important. From critical minerals to energy to advanced manufacturing inputs, Canada is uniquely positioned to support American production and, in doing so, reinforce continental resilience. The appropriate policy response, then, isn’t rupture but repair: a doubling down on the strengths that have made the relationship so successful. This contrast between rupture and repair reflects two competing visions of Canada’s place in the world. Carney’s view leans toward diversification and distance. Poilievre’s is more grounded in realism—recognizing both the limits of Canada’s alternatives and the enduring advantages of continental integration. As Poilievre put it plainly, the idea that Canada can meaningfully replace U.S. trade with other markets is unserious. History bears this out. The Trudeau government’s “Third Option” strategy in the 1970s sought to diversify away from the United States and ultimately failed. As a result, the Macdonald Royal Commission and subsequently Brian Mulroney’s government arrived at the inevitable conclusion that freer trade with the U.S. was ultimately in the interests of both countries. Yet Poilievre’s position isn’t without political risk. Public opinion has markedly shifted over the past year. Polls now suggest that a majority of Canadians are open to walking away from the USMCA, driven by legitimate offence to Trump and a deeper strain of anti-American sentiment. In that environment, arguing for closer ties requires political courage. But it’s also a test of leadership. The question isn’t simply what Canadians feel in a moment of rightful frustration, but what course best serves their long-term interests. On that front, Poilievre is making a necessary and serious argument. As he emphasized in New York, the Canada–U.S. relationship will remain not only our most important bilateral partnership, but one of the most consequential economic and security relationships in the world. Both countries have a shared interest in ensuring that it endures well beyond Trump’s presidency. Poilievre’s own political future may depend, in part, on whether he can persuade Canadians of that simple yet important truth: Even in difficult moments, friendship is better than rupture. Get ready for AI to dominate our politics For now, artificial intelligence still occupies a somewhat curious place in our politics. It’s increasingly understood to be transformative and yet its political salience remains relatively muted. It hasn’t yet crossed the threshold from elite conversations into the wider public. My working hypothesis, however, is that this won’t last. By the end of the year, AI will move from a technocratic concern to a dominant political issue. This week’s release of the Trump administration’s new AI policy framework should accelerate that shift. It is, in many respects, a serious and well-conceived document. It reflects a clear understanding of both AI’s commercial dynamics and its growing military and geopolitical significance. More importantly, it sets out a coherent theory of how governments ought to approach a general-purpose technology. At the commercial level, the framework is notably permissive. It rejects precautionary regulation and instead emphasizes experimentation, scale, and diffusion. The underlying logic is that AI, like earlier foundational technologies, should be broadly deployed and only constrained where there’s a clear case for intervention. In this sense, it’s closer to a classical liberal model of“permissionless innovation” than to the more interventionist instincts taking hold in Europe. Yet it would be a mistake to describe the framework as simply laissez-faire. Where national security is concerned, it’s much more nuanced. The document treats AI as a core strategic asset in the United States’ long-term competition with China. It calls for accelerated investment in compute, energy, and data infrastructure, and it situates commercial AI development squarely within the country’s defence and intelligence capabilities. This must be understood as a form of economic statecraft: light-touch on civilian deployment, but ultimately developmental when it comes to national power. That hybrid model stands in contrast not only to Europe’s more precautionary approach, but also to Canada’s emerging emphasis on“digital sovereignty.” The former risks constraining innovation through ex ante regulation. The latter risks confusing autonomy with self-sufficiency in a domain where scale and integration are decisive advantages. The American framework, by comparison, is arguably more pragmatic. It recognizes that AI is both an engine of economic growth and an instrument of geopolitical competition, and it aligns policy accordingly. Its biggest weakness, however, is what it leaves underdeveloped. Despite growing evidence that AI may drive significant labour displacement—particularly in white-collar occupations—the framework largely treats workforce adjustment as a secondary concern. Vice President JD Vance’s pro-worker rhetoric in a major AI speech at a Paris conference last year was politically astute. But if governments are serious about accelerating AI adoption, they must also be serious about proactively preparing for the transition for workers and communities. This, it must be emphasized, doesn’t mean adopting Europe’s precautionary model. But it does mean that AI accelerationists must be prudent. Political license will be essential to sustaining an innovation-first strategy. The release of a sophisticated American framework also puts an onus on the Carney government to finalize its own AI strategy. It may not yet be facing public pressure or widespread scrutiny. But that window is no doubt closing. Mark my words: we’ll soon forget there was a time when AI wasn’t one of the most pressing political issues of our era. Sean Speer is The Hub’s Editor-at-Large. He is also a university lecturer at the University of Toronto and Carleton University, as well as a think-tank scholar and columnist. He previously served as a senior economic adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Comments (9) It has puzzled me from the beginning that people left the Conservatives because of the things Trump has said. I believe that it has to be a phenomenon of low information voters who only hear the Liberal interpretations of Trump-speak and not the actual meanings. At it’s core, Trump’s position is that we are bad partners because of weak borders and security and we are freeloading on US defense. Who could argue that this is untrue? It’s true that a more neighborly delivery of the message would have been better, but it is no less true, and the friendly delivery has failed to elicit any meaningful results for decades. Then we have an election in which one party has security, border control and trad diversification as a platform priority another has essentially status quo and throws a couple of bones at the eleventh hour against their own agenda. How is it that people choose the second to shepherd us through a challenging time? Help me make sense of it.