Is a Prime Minister Poilievre fit for purpose in the 21st century?

This year, almost half the planet’s population will be involved in elections, some more democratic than others. Given the multiple challenges humanity now faces—accelerated global warming, some 50 destructive wars, unprecedented migration, economic uncertainties, and social disruption—the stakes couldn’t be higher. Though our federal elections are only scheduled for October 2025, this year in Canada will still be a highly politicized one, with both major political parties jockeying for positions that will produce an electoral mandate to structure Canadian society in accordance with their core political, economic, and social beliefs. Though hopefully not with the extreme intensity of our southern neighbour—no Conservative supporter has yet decapitated his father because he happened to be an employee of Canada’s federal government—passions will be high, with the very sustainability of our democratic nation at an apparent crossroads. While today’s polls suggest that Pierre Poilievre and his Conservative Party may indeed replace an unpopular Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, aside from Poilievre's endless criticisms of the PM’s every move and the picture he paints of a dysfunctional Canada today, there is little we know about the specific policies that a prime minister Poilievre would pursue. Beyond the standard conservative bromides of smaller government, more privatization of public services, reduced taxes on the wealthy, and “drill, drill, drill,” he has revealed little. Like former United States president Donald Trump and so many nationalist populists before him, Poilievre is appealing to people’s fears, their emotions, and baser instincts rather than describing the specific policies he would apply to alleviate the hardship of alienated citizens. And it is this absence of transparency that makes him such a risk, especially when the possibility of a second disruptive Trump presidency looms south of the border. Beyond the generalities, how can we best discern what a Poilievre government might do for Canada in the 21st century? Joseph Ingram is a fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. Photograph courtesy of Joseph Ingram Given the closeness of Poilievre to former prime minister Stephen Harper and the International Democracy Union (IDU)—of which Harper is the chair—an article that Harper published in 2018 based on his book Right Here, Right Now is highly revealing in that it clearly frames what Poilievre’s inherited “populist conservatism” would seek to build through economic and social policy. At the heart of the approach is a vigorous rejection of “globalism” as an organizing principle for 21st century governance. In Harper’s view and indeed in the view of the IDU, it is globalization—not new technologies and industrial robotization—that has produced post-industrial decline and social and economic hardship in western democratic societies, while simultaneously benefitting China and numerous emerging economies in the Global South (as if that were a bad thing). Instead of supporting what he considers as “notional” global interests, Canada and other western democracies should be relentlessly pursuing their own narrow interests, a sentiment he considers both “normal and positive.” These national interests should be based on “enduring values,” or what Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy government and IDU members identify as being “God, nation, family”—ironically, the values often invoked by Russian President Vladimir Putin to justify his criminal invasion of Ukraine, and the incarceration of Russia’s political opposition. While advocating for a strong nation state—Harper often referred to Canada as a “warrior nation”—that he declares to be a desirable “fact,” Harper conveniently forgets that human civilization has now evolved to a point where the 400-year-old Westphalian concept of nationalism is becoming less fit for purpose. From cave-dwelling extended families of 10,000 years ago, to village communities, city states, kingdoms, to nation states, human governance has evolved in response to threats and economic imperatives. With today’s most severe threats both existential and increasingly global in nature, and with economic prosperity on the line, strategically targeted research and development can no longer be left primarily to the “corporate social responsibility” of the private sector as advocated both by Poilievre and his ideological mentor Harper. Instead, Canadian government policy needs to be leading efforts to strengthen multilateral institutions and a rules-based international order, while enhancing the role of science in shaping domestic and foreign policy. Rather than regressing back to Harper’s narrow “enduring national values,” Canadian policy should be reflecting and promoting the core universal values embodied in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. These are values that reflect the profound changes affecting both human civilization and the natural environment on which we depend for our survival, including strengthened public education that incorporates principles of global citizenship. What Harper conveniently omits as “fact” is that growing inequality and alienation in Canada and elsewhere is a direct consequence of conservative “trickle-down” economic policies initiated almost four decades ago by the United Kingdom’s then-prime minister Margaret Thatcher and then-U.S. president Ronald Reagan. Poilievre has hinted that he would be guided by much the same philosophy. What Harper failed to acknowledge was that smaller government and fiscal austerity produced privatization of public services resulting in both fewer and less regulated health-care services, reduced funding for public education resulting in deteriorating academic performance, and widening income and mobility gaps between the wealthy urban-based “elites” and poorer marginalized majorities. Nowhere, however, could Harper’s populist nationalism be more exposed as empty and “notional” than in his support for Britain asserting its nationalist identity through Brexit. Today, following more than a decade of conservative policy “facts,” the U.K. is more unequal and divided than ever, with astronomic levels of poverty producing amongst the poorest public health outcomes in Europe. Moreover, contrary to Harper’s rosy predictions for the split, polls reveal that a substantial percentage of Brexit voters have developed buyer’s remorse, and would today vote to remain within the multinational European Union. Most alarming, however, is that Poilievre’s Conservative Party and Harper’s IDU seem to forget that global warming is also a “fact” caused by the production and use of fossil fuels, which must be resolved globally. They forget that international trade is a “fact” that must be regulated by the World Trade Organization. They forget that global debt crises are “facts” with financial ramifications that must be addressed by international financial institutions and governments, as must national balance of payments crises. And they forget that growing inequality and declining social mobility are “facts” produced by trickle-down economics, regressive fiscal policies reducing taxes on the wealthy, financing fewer public services, and neutering organized labour. These are the realities that Poilievre has failed to acknowledge publicly. Although Trudeau’s government has also fallen short in applying a policy mix fit for purpose in today’s Canada, are Canadians prepared to accept the risk of a Harper-lite in Poilievre as prime minister? Joseph Ingram is a fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, a former president of the North-South Institute, and a former special representative of the World Bank to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. The Hill Times

Is a Prime Minister Poilievre fit for purpose in the 21st century?

It may be instructive to look at what Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s predecessor Stephen Harper has said to glean what Poilievre’s inherited ‘populist conservatism’ would seek to build through economic and social policy.

Time for a shift: Canada must treat Alzheimer’s like other progressive diseases

Canada faces a cybersecurity crisis with critical infrastructure at risk

Let Ukraine strike back

Who’s standing up to the danger of World War III?

The sad saga of Afghan-Canadian military advisers

Between wars and fears of fascism in the U.S., there’s plenty to be scared about

What becomes of Canada’s role in solving global crises if Donald Trump is re-elected?

A glimmer of hope for Canadian global leadership?

Israel’s war in Gaza: an object lesson for democracies?

Poilievre’s cheap shot at CP journalist has not gone unnoticed

COP28 is an opportunity for Canadian global leadership

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Is a Prime Minister Poilievre fit for purpose in the 21st century?

It may be instructive to look at what Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s predecessor Stephen Harper has said to glean what Poilievre’s inherited ‘populist conservatism’ would seek to build through economic and social policy.

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter