Here we go again. Another Poilievre "re-set" is underway.
This time, he's Serious!!! Calm!!! Statesman-like!!! Thoughtful!!!The occasion was a speech in Toronto to the Economic Club of Canada on Thursday.
The At Issue panel starts talking about it at the 8:20 mark:
TLDW -
Raj: "good speech, good politics...need to focus on the relationship but this too shall pass. We need to use our leverage... Mark Carney has failed to live up to his promises..."
Hebert: "a lot of Canadians have made up their minds about Poilievre... but its good news about not giving away the country. He's playing the long game, that I'm a serious person, going on trips outside the country..."
Coyne: "it depends on the follow-up...it was a change in tone, it was statesman-like after a week of demagoguery on the refugee file...more emphasis on getting successful trade negotiations...he's overestimating our trade advantages..."
The CPAC panel says: Poilievre is being naive about what the trade relationship will be with the US.
Butts makes a good point here:
In his substack, Paul Wells writes Building the stockpile Meet the new, calmer Pierre Poilievre
I thought this was a particularly stupid idea:
TLDW -
Raj: "good speech, good politics...need to focus on the relationship but this too shall pass. We need to use our leverage... Mark Carney has failed to live up to his promises..."
Hebert: "a lot of Canadians have made up their minds about Poilievre... but its good news about not giving away the country. He's playing the long game, that I'm a serious person, going on trips outside the country..."
Coyne: "it depends on the follow-up...it was a change in tone, it was statesman-like after a week of demagoguery on the refugee file...more emphasis on getting successful trade negotiations...he's overestimating our trade advantages..."
The CPAC panel says: Poilievre is being naive about what the trade relationship will be with the US.
After outlining his plan to counter Trump, Poilievre promises tariff-free trade and cross-party cooperation. Our panel debates whether that’s realistic or a credibility risk. Full panel: youtu.be/MKzp10ADkRU
— CPAC TV (@cpac.ca) February 26, 2026 at 6:11 PM
[image or embed]
Butts makes a good point here:
In his substack, Paul Wells writes Building the stockpile Meet the new, calmer Pierre Poilievre
....Poilievre is clearly more adamant about preserving the traditional Canada-US relationship than Carney, and more optimistic about his chances of doing that. “Canada’s prosperity and security are inseparable from a stable relationship with the United States,” he said. And: “Geography is the most permanent factor in international relations. No country can call a realtor and relocate.”At his inFocus substack, pollster David Coletto writes Poilievre's treatment for uncertainty? Results over outrage. In his speech at the Economic Club of Canada, Pierre Poilievre attempts a shift from grievance to statecraft, arguing that Canada’s confidence abroad depends on its strength at home.
How does that play out into policy differences? Well, Poilievre is calling for “a relaunch of the Keystone XL pipeline,” which would deliver even more Canadian oil into the American heartland. But sometimes, so is Carney.
I was struck by Poilievre’s notion of a “strategic reserve of energy and critical minerals, hosted in Canada under Canadian control, so we can sign an agreement with our American friends that would give them access to those minerals only at commercial prices and only if they keep our relationship tariff-free.” I’m really not sure how that would work, and I’m really not sure that the prospect of access to such a stockpile would make Donald Trump fall out of love with tariffs. But the questions aren’t only about Poilievre: The Carney government announced plans to “stockpile critical minerals” four months ago, albeit with different ends in mind.
The Toronto Conservatives who made up most of the crowd around me in the Toronto hotel ballroom to hear Poilievre’s speech were perhaps most encouraged by a few tonal decisions he made. Me barely mentioned Mark Carney, and mostly only in passing, rather than launching extended harangues against the Liberals. He seemed at last to understand that not all voters are interested in electing the most gleeful scrapper. The realization comes late, but as the saying goes, better than never.
...There is also a quieter strategic layer to this.More comments:
In an environment where the Liberals currently hold a clear lead, as optimism improves, and the government’s approval rating improves to its highest level since Prime Minister Carney took office, an early election would likely end in defeat, ending Poilievre’s political career.
By proposing an All-Party CUSMA Working Group and signaling cooperation where Canada’s interests are advanced, Poilievre is only positioning himself as responsible and constructive while also trying to take away Carney’s justification for an early election.
That framing lands in a very specific moment.
Our latest tracking, which will be released shortly, shows a country that is cautious but not despondent. Canadians remain deeply pessimistic about the world and about the direction of the United States. But they are more balanced about Canada itself than they were through much of 2024 and 2025. Government approval is above 50 percent. The Liberals hold a clear national lead and, importantly, an edge among those most certain to vote.
At the same time, the Conservative advantage on cost of living and the economy has narrowed significantly. The Liberals have closed that gap. And on dealing with the Trump administration, the Liberals continue to hold a very large advantage.
Poilievre’s speech feels like an attempt to move the conversation away from who can best manage Trump and toward who can best strengthen Canada. That is a frame he may be able to compete on. On dealing with Trump, he will always lose against Carney.
Whether that repositioning works depends on what voters see as the core problem. If the anxiety Canadians feel is primarily about external risk, Carney still benefits. If they come to see that anxiety as a reflection of domestic weakness, then Poilievre is offering a different kind of answer.
Not outrage. Not rupture. Strength and urgency.
And in this political moment, urgent strength at home may be the argument he believes gives him the time and space to rebuild momentum. We’ll see whether Canadians agree.
Damn why did no one else think of that www.cbc.ca/news/politic...
— Andrew Kurjata (@akurjata.ca) February 26, 2026 at 10:09 PM
[image or embed]
View on Threads
View on Threads
I thought this was a particularly stupid idea:
As Coyne said, pissing off China again in exchange for mythical Trump promises might play well with the business people of southern Ontario, but its not going to benefit the other parts of the country. Our exports to China would again be cut off if Canada again puts high tariffs on Chinese EVs.View on Threads
All in all, I thought the speech was basically a pander to the Trump administration - Poilievre pretends that Trump and all the make-weights who surround him are just serious, reasonable people who will be quite willing to make a serious, reasonable trade deal with Canada as long as we don't insult them or call them names or keep on making deals with other countries.
Poilievre didn't use the words "hissy fit" but that's exactly what he meant.
And I anticipate Poilievre's "wise statesman" schtick isn't going to last very long.
He's going on a trip to the UK and to Germany, which gives him ample opportunity to be photographed meeting with some of Europe's craziest far-right politicians.
That's if he even knows who they are - after all, Poilievre still doesn't have that security clearance.
Here's a map for reference:
No comments:
Post a Comment