Poilievre makes the pivot on Trump, but repudiates Carney’s foreign policy

Open this photo in gallery:

There were two speeches inside the speech on Canada-U.S. relations that Pierre Poilievre gave Thursday. One was intended to make him sound like a grown-up. The other was to make him sound different than Mark Carney.

The first part was the kind of political repositioning that Mr. Poilievre has long needed.

The second part was a repudiation of Mr. Carney’s grand statements that the old relationship with the U.S. – and the rules-based global order – is over. The Conservative Leader argued that Canada’s future is inseparable from the U.S.

Both parts were big deals for Mr. Poilievre.

Canada should not declare ‘permanent rupture’ with U.S., Poilievre says

Amid all the angst over Donald Trump and his trade war, the Conservative Leader has been more or less absent on a set of issues that are at or near the top of Canadians’ concerns.

Thursday was the day for Mr. Poilievre’s long-awaited (and noticeably nervous) reboot in a speech in Toronto to the Economic Club of Canada.

He called out Mr. Trump – at least to say that the President’s view that Canada takes advantage of the U.S. on trade is “wrong.” He said calling Canada the 51st state is unacceptable. He even pledged unity over the review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement and proposed an all-party committee about it.

It was delivered in reasoned tones, quoting Marcus Aurelius instead of rhyming off slogans, and the point of it was to make Mr. Poilievre look more like a leader with gravitas.

Andrew Coyne: Smith and Poilievre find someone to blame for their problems: immigrants

In some ways, he sounded a lot like Mr. Carney: He argued, as the PM has, that Canada can’t control U.S. politics so it has to focus on what it can control at home, and build its strength. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Poilievre argued that Mr. Carney isn’t getting that done – but the concept was similar.

This was Mr. Poilievre finally getting on the Canada-U.S. playing field and, in particular, picking a bone with Mr. Trump.

Will it go far enough to match the Canadian mood? No.

Mr. Poilievre emphasized that Canada has to approach relations with a level head rather than emotion, and when moderator and former Conservative cabinet minister Lisa Raitt asked him why he isn’t angrier, he said, “Well, because, what would that do?”

It’s true that anger won’t cancel tariffs, of course, but you can bet that many Canadians would like Mr. Poilievre to be at least half as angry about Mr. Trump as he is about, say, carbon taxes.

But it was the second part of Mr. Poilievre’s speech that marked new ground – and a very different view of the U.S., and the world, than Mr. Carney’s.

Campbell Clark: A chance for Poilievre to flip the Trump script

At the core was the suggestion that Mr. Carney’s declaration that Mr. Trump represents a rupture in relations – rather than a transition – is irresponsible.

“Canada’s prosperity and security are inseparable from a stable relationship with the United States,” Mr. Poilievre said. “And that is why we should not declare a permanent rupture with our biggest customer and closest neighbour, in favour of a strategic partnership for a new world order with Beijing.”

Now, Mr. Carney didn’t really call for substituting the U.S. relationship with the People’s Republic of China. But there is a different diagnosis between the Prime Minister who says the old relationship with the U.S. is over and an opposition leader who says the country’s future is inseparable from the U.S.

It wasn’t simply that Mr. Poilievre emphasized that Canada has a lot of goodwill in the United States and ordinary Americans are not our adversaries. There was an implicit suggestion that one day, the old relationship will be back.

Opinion: Why Carney must go to India (and other countries that are not the U.S.)

Mr. Poilievre’s strategy is expanding Canada-U.S. co-operation as a bargaining chip to bring back free trade: The U.S can have access to Canadian critical minerals, but only if they eliminate tariffs, and Canada would secure its Arctic to strengthen its “leverage” as an ally.

It was a speech that implied broader rejection of the foreign-policy diagnosis that Mr. Carney outlined in Davos in January – and explicitly dismissed the Prime Minister’s call for middle powers such as Canada to build alliances to cope with coercion by the U.S. and China.

All that was new ground for Mr. Poilievre, a leader who has never been comfortable with foreign policy and has rarely said much about it.

The first part of his speech was about getting onto that stage. The second, like it or lump it, gave the Conservatives a new approach to the world that opens up a difference with Mr. Carney’s government.