Political pollsters will tell you that voters, especially Canadian voters, rarely cast their ballots on foreign policy. That may be true in the strictest sense. Indeed, cost of living remains the top issue for most, while a narrow fixation on Donald Trump preoccupies the rest.
But the feelings underlying those issue drivers signal a readiness, maybe even a yearning, for political leadership that meets Canadians’ feelings of precarity with a strong plan for the future, one which understands we live in an interconnected world that extends well beyond our borders, whether we like it or not.
As our governing Liberals grapple with this reality, presenting a mess of foreign policy contradictions, Conservatives can’t afford to wait to develop a more coherent framework. Pierre Poilievre’s clear defence of NATO amidst Trump’s Greenland obsession is a strong start.
An updated conservative vision for Canada’s role in the world would offer much-needed contrast with Mark Carney’s often indiscernible guiding principles, give clarity and context for thinking about how to deal with a rapidly changing United States, and (perhaps most importantly) provide the leadership needed to bring together a very diverse and always at-risk-of-splintering ideological movement, including the newly skeptical and isolation-curious.
Amid great geopolitical upheaval, absent any clear programmatic vision, Canadians are left consuming spasmodic foreign policy positioning via ministerial statements, prime ministerial travel itineraries, contentless bilateral MOUs, and occasional principled pronouncements, often undermined by contradictory actions.
Carney began his political career by indulging the narrowness of the emotional Canadian reaction to Trump, only to then, a few months later, drop the Canada-U.S. problem from his priority list all together, prioritizing at times a Euro-centric values-based liberal internationalism, and at other times—such as this week in China—an economically-motivated but woefully naïve free trade orthodoxy, both of which turn a blind eye to all kinds of hard truths, hinging on a dated, long-since-undermined “rules-based order.”
Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party need a clear and updated foreign policy plan. While cost of living dominates voter concerns, the underlying feelings of precarity signal a desire for leadership that addresses Canada’s interconnected global reality. The current Liberal government’s foreign policy is contradictory and lacking a coherent framework. There is an argument for an updated Conservative vision, drawing lessons from Stephen Harper’s past approach but adapted for current geopolitical shifts, which could offer a much-needed alternative, particularly regarding Canada-U.S. relations. This would also help unite a diverse Conservative movement and position them as a government-in-waiting.
Should foreign policy be a bigger focus for Canadian voters?
What is the biggest challenge for Pierre Poilievre in developing a foreign policy?
How does Canada's relationship with the U.S. impact its foreign policy?
Comments (18)
Thank you for raising the question of coherence in Canada’s foreign policy at a moment when uncertainty is plainly reshaping public expectations. The concern that Canadians want steadier leadership in an unsettled world is well taken, and it is fair to ask whether the signals coming from Ottawa always add up to a single, easily grasped doctrine.
Still, the charge of poor governance rests on a demanding standard that risks mistaking adaptation for confusion. Over the past several years, Canada has maintained core commitments that are not trivial or spasmodic: sustained support for Ukraine alongside allies, continuity within NATO including increased defence spending pledges, the negotiation and implementation of major trade agreements such as CETA and CPTPP, and an active role in managing tensions with both the United States and China without a dramatic rupture in either relationship. These choices reflect an effort to hedge in a fragmented international system rather than to pursue a single grand theory. Critics may argue that hedging lacks moral clarity or strategic boldness, but the counterpoint is that middle powers with deep economic exposure often govern best by preserving room to maneuver rather than by declaring rigid alignments that events can quickly overtake.
The handling of the United States illustrates this tension most clearly. It is true that Canada has explored diversification and values based diplomacy while also seeking pragmatic engagement with Washington and Beijing. Yet the underlying economic reality has not been denied in policy. The United States remains Canada’s largest trading partner by an overwhelming margin, and this has been reflected in sustained diplomatic investment, regulatory cooperation, and crisis management even when rhetoric has cooled. One can reasonably argue that messaging could be clearer, or that tradeoffs should be stated more bluntly to voters. But it is equally plausible to see recent policy as an attempt to manage dependence without pretending it can be wished away. A more declarative approach might satisfy a desire for certainty, yet it would also carry risks that critics themselves acknowledge, particularly for a country whose prosperity depends on stability more than on display.