Dear Editor:
What I find remarkable – and deeply concerning – is how unserious Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and his associates appear in the face of the unprecedented challenges posed by Donald Trump and his enablers. Commenting on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s haircut? Really, Mr. Poilievre? Far more relevant is your track record of MAGA-style populism and oil-patch scripted spin on climate change.
Poilievre now accuses Carney of using Trump and his tariffs to “distract” Canadians. This is disingenuous. Canadians are certainly distracted, but not by Carney or his hair. Is Poilievre suggesting that we ignore the immediate threat posed by our southern neighbour’s erratic and belligerent behaviour? Danielle Smith, having already drawn the obvious and favorable comparison between Poilievre and Trump, now yucks it up in Florida with conservative “influencer” Ben Shapiro, discussing how Canada needs to elect “solid allies” of the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, Preston Manning chooses this moment to emerge from retirement and revive the tired spectre of “western secession,” perhaps dreaming of Greater Montana. And Stephen Harper questions Carney’s qualifications, as though the former head of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England attained those appointments by accident. The undertone of desperation is difficult to ignore.
As he veers from Plan A to Plan B to Plan C it is increasingly obvious that Poilievre is ill-prepared to lead in these perilous times. His recently unveiled policy proposals resemble reflexive, impromptu tinkering rather than carefully reasoned strategy.
As a parliamentarian, Poilievre’s only significant legislative achievement remains the Fair Elections Act passed by the Harper government over a decade ago. And what evidence is there that Poilievre’s newly combative tone will earn respect – or positive results – from a belligerent White House led by Trump?
By contrast, Wellington-Halton Hills MP Michael Chong offers a more reassuring seriousness in both tone and substance. He has shown he possesses a deeper, more nuanced and pragmatic grasp of foreign affairs, the environment, and economics.
But he is not the leader of his party – and that is the problem. In our parliamentary democracy, party leadership matters. The proverbial buck stops in the prime minister’s office. The tone set by the prime minister resonates both at home and abroad.
Looking ahead, that tone must be serious and resolute – and our leadership, as prepared, knowledgeable and experienced as possible.
Jonathan Schmidt,
Elora