The clearest attempt at a line of demarcation during Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s speech on Canada-United States relations was an apparent rejoinder to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s insistence that a “rupture” has occurred.

Quoting a John F. Kennedy hymn about the geography, history, economics and necessity that have brought Canada and the U.S. ever closer, Poilievre said the former president’s “insight captures a reality deeper than any temporary dispute.”

“Canada’s prosperity and security are inseparable from a stable relationship with the United States,” Poilievre said at the Economic Club of Canada last week. “And that is why we should not declare a permanent rupture with our biggest customer and closest neighbour in favor of a strategic partnership for a new world order with Beijing.”

Had he been in the audience, the prime minister might have fairly protested that he never said Canada doesn’t need a stable relationship with the United States, nor suggested that Canada should swap out its entire trade and security relationship with the United States “in favour of” a new relationship with China.

In that respect, Poilievre might be accused of swinging at a straw man. 

But Carney has said Canada’s “old relationship” with the United States is “over.” And it’s possible Poilievre sees things differently — a difference that first seemed to emerge during last year’s election campaign.

That line of demarcation for Carney was drawn last spring. 

Carney said the United States was not only an “ally” but “our most important security ally.” But, he said, “part of what our relationship has been based … has been a degree of integration between our economies, our trade becoming closer and closer together.”

And that, he repeated, is “over.”

Poilievre did not directly dispute those comments last week. But at a couple points he seemed to want to draw a distinction between the current occupant of the White House and the broader Canada-U.S. relationship.

Poilievre’s view of Canada-U.S. relations?

Canada and the United States, Poilievre said, “have built probably the greatest partnership any two countries have ever built in the history of the world.” And that partnership “remains profoundly in the interests” of both countries. 

“It’s important to distinguish between governments and people. Politicians come and go. People remain,” Poilievre said. “The miner in Appalachia, the energy worker in Texas, the engineer in California — they do not wake up every day asking how they can stick it to the Canadians.” 

That seems plausible. A recent survey by Abacus Data, for instance, found that 64 per cent of Americans had a positive view of Canada. And Poilievre’s adjacent point was that Canada should still seek out and nurture allies within the United States.

But some of those miners, energy workers and engineers nonetheless voted for Donald Trump. And some of them probably still support him.

“At the end of the day, President Trump will be in the position for the next three years,” Poilievre said during a question-and-answer session after his speech. “We have a relationship with the United States of America that is centuries old. And it will survive centuries later. So we have to keep our mind on the long-term interest of our country and focus on the things that will protect the jobs and livelihoods of the people here in Canada.”

Assuming American democratic institutions and traditions hold, Trump won’t be president after January 2029. And it’s at least plausible that the next president will take a less adversarial approach toward Canada.

But even if Trump moves on, how much can Canadians count on Trumpism being a passing fad?

“The return of an America First Republican to the White House would clearly demonstrate to all of the other states of the West that the political system in the United States can no longer be trusted to dependably produce the same kind of government that it did between 1945 and 2016,” Kim Nossal, the Canadian foreign policy scholar, argued in his 2023 book Canada Alone.

Re-learning how to live with the U.S.

Poilievre is certainly on to something when he says “geography is the most permanent factor in international relations.” For one thing, that helps explain why Canada probably won’t be joining the European Union.

Geography presumably means the United States will continue to be Canada’s largest trading partner. And it likely makes the case for continued co-operation on continental defence. 

Broadly speaking, Carney and Poilievre are also still talking about many of the same things: diversifying trade, increasing military capacity, strengthening the Canadian economy. 

But within and around those parameters there is perhaps still room to make different decisions about Canada’s relationship with the United States.

Last month, Carney announced a new auto strategy that included a break from the United States on vehicle emissions standards, possible incentives for manufacturers who build cars in Canada and an allowance for the import of some Chinese EVs — moves that seemed to at least hedge against American threats.

In his remarks last week, Poilievre said he would be willing to sacrifice Chinese EV imports in exchange for a “tariff-free auto pact” with the United States.

Carney has suggested he’s concerned about how much of Canada’s defence spending goes to American firms. In his recent speech, Poilievre suggested he would use a commitment to purchase American equipment as leverage in trade talks. 

Whatever his misgivings about declaring a “rupture” with the United States, Poilievre dedicated a portion of his speech to the need for digital sovereignty. And the Conservative proposed measures to protect intellectual property developed in Canada. 

But advocates for digital sovereignty seem to have much more expansive things in mind. How ambitious are Poilievre or Carney willing to be?

A full discussion of sovereignty would likely not end there. What about cultural sovereignty? Or food sovereignty?

In his widely lauded Davos speech, Carney said countries “cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.”

Such words seemingly put an onus on the prime minister to, as much as possible, reduce the potential sources of subordination. But geography being what it is, there is also some need to find a way to live with the United States, however one views that country’s future.

The real debate in Canadian politics for the foreseeable future might be how our leaders propose to balance and pursue those imperatives.