Poilievre’s simplistic bluster a desperate bid for attention in a serious moment for nation

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s suggestion that Mark Carney needs more “backbone” to negotiate with Donald Trump would be easier to take seriously if anyone had actually figured out how to negotiate with the U.S. president.

They haven’t.

Not Canada. Not Mexico. Not the European Union. Not Japan. Not South Korea. And, at times, not even the senior officials working inside Trump’s own administration.

There is, however, an obvious political reason for Poilievre to be making the argument now, which he did in a recent letter to the prime minister.

His polling numbers are awful, his personal popularity has declined and he needs to find a way to regain political relevance.

The political environment is not particularly favourable to him right now, and the Trump trade dispute gives him an opportunity to create a sharper contrast with the prime minister: portray Carney as too willing to compromise with Washington while presenting himself as the tougher defender of Canadian interests.

The problem is that toughness and leverage are not the same thing.

Poilievre and his Canada-U.S. relations critic, Shuvaloy Majumdar, are accusing Carney of making too many concessions to the Trump administration and arguing that the time for giving ground is over.

They point to Carney’s decision to scrap Canada’s digital services tax, remove counter-tariffs and reach an agreement involving toll revenue from the Gordie Howe International Bridge connecting Windsor and Detroit.

There is a legitimate argument to be made about those decisions.

The government should be held accountable for every concession it makes. Canadians deserve to know what Canada is giving up, what it is receiving in return and why the government believes the trade-off is in the national interest.

There is a big difference between arguing that Carney made the wrong decision in a particular negotiation and suggesting that the broader problem is that he simply needs to be tougher.

But there is a big difference between arguing that Carney made the wrong decision in a particular negotiation and suggesting that the broader problem is that he simply needs to be tougher.

That is where the “backbone” argument falls apart.

It assumes the outcome of these negotiations depends largely on the temperament of the Canadian prime minister, as though Trump is waiting for Canada to finally show enough resolve before deciding to offer a reasonable deal.

Trump doesn’t operate that way.

The president has repeatedly demonstrated that his approach to trade is unpredictable. Tariffs are threatened, imposed, delayed and increased. Deadlines shift. Agreements are reopened. Demands change. Positions that appear settled can suddenly be unsettled.

Canada can say no to a demand. It can retaliate with tariffs. It can threaten to walk away. It can offer concessions in exchange for something it considers more valuable.

None of those choices guarantees what Trump will do next. He could back down. He could escalate. He could make another demand.

He could reopen an issue that everyone thought had been settled. Or he could change his position entirely.

Canada can say no to a demand. It can retaliate with tariffs. It can threaten to walk away. It can offer concessions in exchange for something it considers more valuable. None of those choices guarantees what Trump will do next.

That is not a failure of Canadian backbone. It is the reality of dealing with an unstable American president who has made unpredictability part of his negotiating approach.

If there were a reliable formula for dealing with Trump, other governments would have discovered it. They haven’t.

Even senior Trump officials have sometimes found themselves explaining or clarifying what the president meant after he announced a new tariff or changed his position.

The notion that Canada simply needs a tougher negotiator therefore offers a remarkably easy answer to an exceptionally difficult problem.

The notion that Canada simply needs a tougher negotiator therefore offers a remarkably easy answer to an exceptionally difficult problem.

Canada’s trade team is returning to Washington this week for another round of talks, with an Aug. 19 deadline approaching that could see tariffs of 50 per cent imposed on a range of Canadian exports.

Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc and chief negotiator Janice Charette are dealing with existing sectoral tariffs, newly threatened duties and the future of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement.

The stakes are enormous.

Canadian manufacturers, farmers, energy producers and other businesses are deeply integrated into the American economy. A prolonged trade conflict would threaten jobs, disrupt supply chains and increase costs.

That is why Carney’s government should face serious scrutiny.

If it makes a concession, it should explain why. Canadians should know what they receive in return and why the government believes the concession is necessary.

And if Washington demands something that is fundamentally against Canada’s interests, the government should be prepared to walk away. But none of that requires pretending that toughness alone will produce a better outcome.

What, exactly, would Poilievre do differently? Would he refuse every concession? Would he impose more counter-tariffs? Would he walk away from negotiations?

What, exactly, would Poilievre do differently? Would he refuse every concession? Would he impose more counter-tariffs? Would he walk away from negotiations?

Every option has consequences. That is the part of the debate that is often lost in opposition politics.

Nobody wants Canada pushed around by Washington. Nobody wants Canadian workers losing their jobs because of American tariffs. Canadians understandably want their government to defend the country’s interests.

Diversify export markets, strengthen domestic industries, improve infrastructure, build resilient supply chains and maintain credible retaliatory measures.

And keep negotiating.

Because Canada cannot simply decide that its relationship with its largest trading partner no longer matters. The goal should be to maximize Canada’s leverage while reducing its vulnerability.

That is a much more complicated task than telling the prime minister to show some backbone.

tom.brodbeck@freepress.mb.ca