Is Pierre Poilievre too ‘in sync’ with Donald Trump?

The most controversial statement of federal elections so far was pronounced before the campaign began, nor by a federal politician, but Alberta’s prime minister.

In a interview Recorded on March 8 with an American media out of the right, Danielle Smith said that, although there would always be disagreements, the conservative leader Pierre Poilievre would be “very synchronized with … the new direction in the United States” and that Canada and the United States “would have a great relationship” while Pailievre and Donald Trump were in office.

“If we have Pierre as our prime minister, then I think there are a number of things we could do together,” said Smith. “Pierre believes in development, he believes in low -cost energy, he thinks we need to have low taxes, he does not believe in any of the things we have seen our policy for the past five years.”

The liberals, for months, have been trying to link Poilievre and Trump, either substantially or stylistic (Chrystia Freeland, for example, used the term “Arce Maga syrup” to describe the conservatives the past fall. And thus, Smith’s comments, which only caught more attention last weekend, were a gift for the governing party.

In front of Rideau Hall on Sunday, Mark Carney said that the Canadians would have to decide “if they want a government to join, defend Canada and be taking measures focused to build a better economy” or if “they want division and Americanism.”

“That is what Mr. Poilievre seems to be offering,” said Carney. “Only backed by Alberta Prime Minister.”

Last month when Trump himself saying that Pailievre was “no magic” note The comment. But the conservative leader has avoided offering a direct refutation of Smith’s analysis.

“People are free to make their own comments,” saying On Monday, before arguing that he would present the strongest response to Trump’s threats.

A few months ago, any similarities between Pailievre and Trump may not have seemed to import. At least it didn’t seem like the The strong populism of the conservative leader and aggressive tactics were imposing the chances of the conservative party to form the government.

But last Wednesday night, a conservative strategist made the same comparison that Smith did, only this time regret.

“It looks too much like Trump. It looks too much like Trump. Use Trump’s lexicon,” Kory Teneycke, who managed the campaign of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party earlier this year, He told a audience in Toronto.

Canadian politicians who accuse each other of importing the “American style” policy is nothing new. But to some extent or another, this federal election is about the US President. And Trump is a very different type of political figure.

The similarities and differences

As people, Trump and Poilievre have some obvious differences.

But 55 percent of respondents to a recent survey by Abacus data They said Pailievre would have strongly supported Trump in the latest US presidential elections. And it is not difficult to see how Canadians could have reached that conclusion (beyond simply connecting Canadian conservatives with US Republicans).

“Trump and Pailievre are mainly similar when it comes to the populist nature of their communication styles,” says Emily Laxer, director of the Populism Observatory in Canada at the University of York. “Both seek popularity and votes when they frame politics and a zero sum battle between corrupt and interested elites and working and conflict people.”

Pailievre initially covered The self -denominated “convoy of freedom” and he has promised to defeat the “guardians” who apparently stand in the path of the Canadians who thrive. He has said that he would fire the governor of the Bank of Canada, disbursed the CBC and invoke the clause despite canceling judicial decisions against their attempts to impose harder sentences to those convicted of committing crimes.

One of Poilievre’s slogans, “Canada first”, echoes Trump’s own talk to put “America first.” He uses “awake“Like a pejorative for all use and says it is on the side of”common sense.” He has Played With conspiracy theories and said it would prohibit its ministers from attending the World Economic Forum.

Pailievre prosper in conflict And it has attacked The main media and accused them of being in the league with the liberal government. He also took describe liberal policies such as “Wacko” (after being expelled from the House of Commons for using that word to describe the Prime Minister).

As Laxer, Pailievre and Trump points out, they share a fan of mocking nicknames (“Trudeau Fund”, “Selout Singh”, “Carbon Tax Carney”). Stewart Pers, Professor of Political Science at British Columbia University, points out that both Pailievre and Trump have promoted the idea of ​​national restoration.

(Pailievre also accused Justin Trudeau to push a “Radical ideology“On gender and has previously promised to retain federal funds from universities that do not properly maintain freedom of expression, two issues that have encouraged republican politics in the United States).

In the first days of this campaign, Pailievre seemed to want to emphasize its public presentation. It was, for example, notably cordial with journalists on Sunday. But he also accused the liberals of promoting a “radical, postnational ideology, without borders and globalist.”

Look | Trump’s automotive rates return to the electoral campaign:

In question | Trump launches a rates grenade to the electoral campaign

In question this week: federal campaigns are forced to pivot while the president of the United States, Donald Trump, leaves new tariff threats. Party leaders defend their political vulnerabilities. And several liberals change their minds on not running again.

“I think that a way of thinking about the core of similarity is that both naturally frame politics in terms that we could describe as populists of the center’s right,” says Perst. “And so they both swim in that same political sea, if you want.”

Nevertheless significant differences between Poilievre and Trump.

Pailievre is not directing a nativist campaign against immigration, nor has he refused to recognize the results of the last choice or prompted a violent insurrection (although Pailievre did it recently ask participation in the liberal leadership career). He has not denied the reality of climate change, or threatens to destroy Canada’s free trade agreements or abandon Ukraine.

The questions raised by Smith’s comments

Smith’s statement that Pailievre is “synchronized” with “The New Direction in America” ​​could ask some questions for the conservative leader.

While Pailievre has argued that 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 that he will not be able to face the US president. And although Pailievre has pointed out Trump’s statement that he would prefer to negotiate with a liberal, Smith’s comments possibly reinforce the liberal vision.

On a larger scale, Smith’s comments could raise the question of whether Poilievre could be more open to a higher level of continuous integration with the United States than Carney liberals, and the Comments from two leaders this week Suggestion in different points of view about that question.

Finally, there is the question of how Pailievre would rule and if it would resemble the Trump administration.

Eric Merkley, an assistant professor in Political Science at Toronto, says that although “there are some stylistic similarities between the Poilievre approach and the magician policy,” think “Pailievre almost surely will govern as a rather normal conservative, if it is more openly partisan than we could be accustomed.”

Where some Canadians could see a version of what Trump represents, maybe others see a disruptor who will use the status quo usefully shake.

On the other hand, the liberals are not the first to question Pailievre’s style. During the conservative leadership career in 2022, Jean Charest, the former Quebec prime minister, criticized Pailievre’s attacks against the Bank of Canada, and in doing so, he echoed the concerns that former Attorney General Sheila Fraser had raised eight years before when Pailievre criticized the main electoral officer at the time.

“We cannot afford to have any leader who deliberately leaves and undermines confidence in institutions,” Charest said. “Conservatives don’t do that.”

Pailievre could try to explain exactly how Trump differs and what parts of Trumpism reject. But a part of conservative voters can still feel positively towards Trump: 31 percent of conservative supporters had a positive impression of the president when Abacus’s data surveyed the Canadians in February, although David Coletto de Abacus says that the new surveys that will be published this weekend will show that the number has fallen to 22 percent.

Ultimately, Pailievre could be judged by his own words, merits and records, regardless of comparisons.

Six months ago, Pailievre seemed to be riding a populist wave to the prime minister’s office. And although he could still gain power, at this time that Wave is being undermined by the spectrum and reality of the most powerful populist in the world.