Donald Trump’s latest musings about annexing Canada have put Canadian right-wing populists in an awkward position. As Pierre Poilievre and Doug Ford embrace nationalistic rhetoric, they’re also hedging their bets to keep trade and defense ties intact.
It’s a complicated time to be a certain kind of conservative in Canada. For years, many Canadian right wingers have considered themselves supporters of Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans. Ontario premier Doug Ford even referred to himself as an “unwavering” supporter of Trump. This dynamic has always been tricky to navigate, as Canadian identity — to the extent it exists — is deeply bound up with being “not American” while harboring an insecure yearning to be noticed by the United States.
But now, as Trump talks of annexing Canada with “economic force” and making it the fifty-first state — just as Canadians prepare for a probable spring election, quite a time to get noticed — the institutional right north of the forty-ninth parallel is walking a much finer line.
Mainstream conservative politicians have been quick to dismiss Trump’s remarks about making Canada a California North. Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre stated emphatically on X/Twitter that “Canada will never be the 51st state. Period. We are a great and independent country.” He also says he’ll “put Canada first” — whatever that means.
Meanwhile, Doug Ford, that unwavering Trumper, has threatened to cut off energy exports from Ontario to the US if Trump goes ahead with his tariff threat. Ford, too, says Canada “isn’t for sale.”
Conservatives Are Playing Games Within Games
While conservatives drape themselves in the flag and stand up for Canada’s sovereignty, they’re also playing a second-order game, recognizing that Canada can’t afford to decouple all that much from the United States. That means that whatever tough talk and familiar tones of Tory nationalism we may hear, things are more complicated than the sloganeering.
While Ford threatens to cut off energy exports, he’s also proposing an energy alliance between the US and Canada as part of a unity effort. He calls it — quite seriously — “Fortress Am-Can,” with America no doubt carefully placed ahead of Canada in the portmanteau. Ford pitches this as a strategic partnership, benefiting both nations, “powered by Am-Can energy of every type that’s produced, consumed and creates jobs in every region of both countries.” Ford characterizes the alliance as a way to strengthen Canada and the United States’ position against global rivals, particularly China.
Trump, for his part, appears to see little need for cooperation. “We don’t need their fuel, we don’t need their energy, we don’t need their oil and gas — we don’t need anything that they have.” Viewing trade through a zero-sum, mercantilist lens, Trump sees Canada’s trade surplus as a subsidy from the US. In a press conference, Trump claimed to have told Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that if Canada can’t exist without that surplus, it should become the fifty-first state.
Ironically, some Canadians might argue this has been the de facto case for decades, particularly since the free-trade agreements of the 1980s, when Canada was often described as a “branch plant” of the United States.
Poilievre is playing his own subtle game managing conservative support for Trump, Canada’s dependence on the US, and his own need to evoke nationalist fervor ahead of the upcoming election. His strategy is to stand up for Canada by blaming Trudeau and his government for making Canada weak and opening it up to threats from Trump. Instead, Poilievre plans on making Canada strong and secure, he says. Naturally.
Talking Tough but Staying the Course
Poilievre’s statement on X/Twitter asserted that, as prime minister, he “will rebuild our military and take back control of the border to secure both Canada and the US. We will take back control of our Arctic to keep Russia and China out.” He emphasized Canadian cooperation with the United States, reminding readers that Canada joined the fight against al-Qaeda, traded energy “well below market prices,” and bought “hundreds of billions of dollars of American goods.”
Poilievre also claimed that the Liberals and Canada’s left-leaning New Democratic Party, which he lumps together as one and the same, were “weak and pathetic” and “failed to make these obvious points” to the US. That’s untrue. Indeed, the Liberals have pursued this strategy for years. And it more or less worked the last time around with Trump. But this time seems set to play out differently, with Trump’s trade deficit and tariff obsession cranked way up.
In his posts and press conferences, Poilievre has occasionally tipped his hand, just as Ford did with his groveling energy plan. The Conservative solution to managing the awkwardness of standing up for Canadian sovereignty against Trump without dooming the country is to talk a big game but ultimately roll over and show the US Canada’s belly.
Conservatives are unlikely to look to Beijing or elsewhere to increase diversification in trade — or, especially, security — arrangements. Displays of national pride and defiance may be politically necessary, but they are largely ceremonial. In the end, the playbook is the same no matter who governs: emphasize deep economic ties, shared military goals, and mutual interests, then negotiate the best deal possible.
In this sense, a Conservative government under Poilievre wouldn’t be much different than the Liberals. Without a willingness to rethink the deeply integrated relationship with the US — resulting from a free-trade agreement that sends most Canadian exports south and a shared defense framework — the cycle of dependency and concession will continue.
What might change, however, is the tone of Canadian conservative populism. Recently steeped in cross-border right-wing comradery, it may evolve into a distinct form of domestic nationalism, where the border takes precedence over ideological alignment.
A Familiar Struggle
Group psychology being what it is, threats to Canada from the US will no doubt shift allegiances for some, triggering an in-group impulse to fall back on nationalist sentiments. This will almost certainly revive the Canadian tradition of defining the country as, first and foremost, not America. That will include Conservatives who, when push comes to shove, will affirm their loyalty to the maple leaf over the stars and stripes. They’ll remain conservatives; they’ll just make it clear they prefer a distinctly Canadian variety over any notions of joining the United States.
Poilievre and every other federal politician with plans to succeed in Canadian politics will keep talking a big game against the threat of American imperial interests, economic or otherwise, but, in the end, will happily turn around and deal. This is a strategy that could well include giveaways on trade, border security, and defense to meet Trump’s demands.
The thing for Canadians to watch in the coming months isn’t rhetoric, but policy. Politicians will say what they have to say to project an image they expect will play well with their supporters and, more broadly, the country. But that doesn’t mean they won’t make concessions to remain in power and preserve Canada’s relationship with the United States. In that sense, the current crisis is a variation on a theme that goes back centuries and is, indeed, very Canadian.