The most controversial statement of the federal election so far was uttered before the campaign even started — not by a federal politician, but the premier of Alberta.
In an interview taped on March 8 with a right-wing American media outlet, Danielle Smith said that, while there would always be disagreements, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre would be “very much in sync with … the new direction in America” and that Canada and the United States would “have a great relationship” for as long as Poilievre and Donald Trump were in office.
“If we do have Pierre as our prime minister, then I think there’s a number of things that we could do together,” Smith said. “Pierre believes in development, he believes in low-cost energy, he believes that we need to have low taxes, doesn’t believe in any of the woke stuff that we’ve seen taking over our politics for the last five years.”
Liberals have, for months, been trying to link Poilievre and Trump, either substantively or stylistically — Chrystia Freeland, for instance, used the term “maple syrup MAGA” to describe the Conservatives last fall. And so Smith’s comments — which only came to wider attention last weekend — were a gift to the governing party.
Standing in front of Rideau Hall on Sunday, Mark Carney said Canadians would have to decide “whether they want a government that is unifying, standing up for Canada and is taking focused action to build a better economy” or whether they “want division and Americanism.”
“That’s what Mr. Poilievre seems to be offering,” Carney said. “Just endorsed by the premier of Alberta.”
‘Knock it off,’ Poilievre tells Trump on tariffs
Last month when Trump himself said that Poilievre was “not MAGA” (referring to his Make America Great Again movement), Poilievre was quick to note the comment. But the Conservative leader has avoided offering a direct rebuttal of Smith’s analysis.
“People are free to make their own comments,” he said on Monday, before arguing that he would present the strongest response to Trump’s threats.
As recently as a few months ago, any similarities between Poilievre and Trump might not have seemed to matter. It at least didn’t appear that the Conservative leader’s loud populism and aggressive tactics were imperilling the Conservative Party’s chances of forming government.
But this past Wednesday night, a Conservative strategist made the same comparison that Smith did — only this time as a lament.
“He looks too much like Trump. He sounds too much like Trump. He uses the lexicon of Trump,” Kory Teneycke, who managed the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party’s campaign earlier this year, told an audience in Toronto.
Canadian politicians accusing each other of importing “American-style” politics is nothing new. But to some degree or another, this federal election is actually about the American president. And Trump is a very different kind of political figure.
As people, Trump and Poilievre have some obvious differences.
But 55 per cent of respondents to a recent survey by Abacus Data said they thought Poilievre would have either strongly or somewhat supported Trump in the last American presidential election.And it’s not hard to see how Canadians might have come to that conclusion (above and beyond simply connecting Canadian Conservatives with U.S. Republicans).
“Trump and Poilievre are primarily similar when it comes to the populist nature of their communication styles,” says Emily Laxer, director of the Observatory of Populism in Canada at York University. “Both seek popularity and votes by framing politics as a zero-sum battle between corrupt, self-interested elites and a hard-working, embattled people.”
Poilievre initially embraced the self-described “Freedom Convoy” and he has vowed to defeat the “gatekeepers” who are apparently standing in the way of Canadians prospering. He has said he’d fire the governor of the Bank of Canada, defund the CBC and invoke the notwithstanding clause to override judicial rulings against his attempts to impose harsher sentences on those convicted of committing crimes.
One of Poilievre’s slogans — “Canada First” — echoes Trump’s own talk of putting “America first.” He uses “woke” as an all-purpose pejorative and says he is on the side of “common sense.” He has toyed with conspiracy theories and said he would ban his ministers from attending the World Economic Forum.
Poilievre thrives on conflict and has attacked major media outlets and accused them of being in league with the Liberal government. He also took to describing Liberal policies as “wacko” (after being ejected from the House of Commons for using that word to describe the prime minister).
As Laxer notes, Poilievre and Trump share a fondness for derisive nicknames (“Trust Fund Trudeau,” “Sellout Singh,” “Carbon Tax Carney”). Stewart Prest, a lecturer in political science at the University of British Columbia, notes that both Poilievre and Trump have promoted the idea of national restoration.
(Poilievre has also accused Justin Trudeau of pushing a “radical ideology” on gender and has previously promised to withhold federal funding from universities that do not adequately uphold freedom of speech — two issues that have animated Republican politics in the United States.)
In the early days of this campaign, Poilievre seemed to want to recalibrate his public presentation. He was, for instance, noticeably cordial with reporters on Sunday. But he also accused the Liberals of promoting a “radical, post-national, borderless and globalist ideology.”
At Issue | Trump throws a tariff grenade into the election campaign
“I think one way to think about the core of the similarity is that they both naturally frame politics in terms that we might describe as right-of-centre populist,” Prest says. “And so they both swim in that same political sea, if you like.”
There are nonetheless significant differences between Poilievre and Trump.
Poilievre is not running a nativist campaign against immigration, nor has he refused to acknowledge the results of last election or incited a violent insurrection (though Poilievre did recently question the turnout in the Liberal leadership race). He has not denied the reality of climate change, nor is he threatening to rip up Canada’s free-trade deals or abandon Ukraine.
Smith’s statement that Poilievre is “in sync” with “the new direction in America” might raise a few questions for the Conservative leader.
While Poilievre has argued he would present the strongest response to Trump because Liberal policies have weakened the country, Liberals have been suggesting that Poilievre’s similarities with Trump mean he won’t be able to stand up to the American president. And while Poilievre has pointed to Trump’s claim that he would rather negotiate with a Liberal, Smith’s comments arguably bolster the Liberal view.
On a larger scale, Smith’s comments could raise the question of whether Poilievre might be more open to a greater level of continued integration with the United States than Carney’s Liberals would be — and the two leaders’ comments this week hint at differing views on that question.
Lastly, there is the question of how Poilievre would govern and whether it would bear any resemblance to Trump’s administration.
Eric Merkley, an assistant professor in political science at the University of Toronto, says that while “there are some stylistic similarities between Poilievre’s approach and MAGA politics,” he thinks “Poilievre will almost certainly govern as a rather normal Conservative — if a more overtly partisan one than we might be used to.”
Where some Canadians might see a version of what Trump represents, perhaps others see a disruptor who will usefully shake up the status quo.
On the other hand, the Liberals also aren’t the first to question Poilievre’s style. During the Conservative leadership race in 2022, Jean Charest, the former Quebec premier, criticized Poilievre’s attacks on the Bank of Canada — and in doing so, he echoed concerns that former auditor general Sheila Fraser had raised eight years earlier when Poilievre criticized the chief electoral officer at the time.
“We cannot afford to have any leader who goes out there and deliberately undermines the confidence in institutions,” Charest said. “Conservatives do not do that.”
Poilievre could conceivably try to explain exactly how he differs from Trump and which parts of Trumpism he rejects. But some portion of Conservative voters may still feel positively toward Trump — 31 per cent of Conservative supporters had a positive impression of the president when Abacus Data surveyed Canadians in February, though David Coletto of Abacus says new polling to be published this weekend will show that number has dropped to 22 per cent.
Ultimately, Poilievre might be judged on his own words, merits and record, regardless of comparisons.
Six months ago, Poilievre seemed to be riding a populist wave to the prime minister’s office. And while he still might win power, right now that wave is being undercut by the spectre and reality of the world’s most powerful populist.
