Month: August 2025

As a young boy, I reserved a special place in hell for whichever ad executive decided it was time to launch the “back to school” marketing blitz in the midst of my carefree late summer.

The reminder was, in a word, unwelcome.

So, at the risk of being “that guy” for Canada’s Members of Parliament and their hardworking staff, let me join the “back to Parliament” commentary train for Ottawa’s upcoming fall session, which kicks off Sept. 15.

But this is no preview.

It’s a definitive position: that success for Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre will have absolutely nothing to do with their strengths — and everything to do with how they choose to address their weaknesses.

The strengths of both leaders are as familiar as they are formidable.

For Poilievre, it’s the simple fact that — after his recent byelection victory — he’s back on familiar territory. A consummate parliamentarian, the House of Commons has been his proving ground since he was barely old enough to rent a car. For Carney, it’s technocratic competence. A globally respected economist and former central banker, he exudes credibility. His reputation precedes him.

But these strengths are not revelations. They’re priced in.

As a result, there’s precious little upside in flexing a muscle everyone already knows you have. Public opinion won’t swing wildly when Poilievre delivers another biting performance in the House of Commons. No pundit will be floored by reports that Carney walks into a policy briefing and knows more than the people doing the briefing.

These aren’t plot twists. The characters are fully formed. The narrative is already established.

All of which only serves to underline where real ground is to be gained — and therefore where the battle is to be won: in addressing their weaknesses.

And that is not simply because these flaws exist. It’s because politics ensures they will be hunted, highlighted, and hung around your neck. It’s not personal or especially malicious. It’s the job.

Carney’s Weakness

Following an election, particularly when it comes to attacking a newly formed government, there’s a ritualistic quality to the Opposition’s work. It thrives on the power of contrast — between what was promised in lofty campaign speeches and what actually materializes in the stark realities of government.

And, for most new prime ministers, it’s this spectre of specific unkept promise that poses the greatest vulnerability.

Not for this one.

Mark Carney wasn’t elected on specific promises from a detailed policy menu. He was elected on a generic promise. To turn the page — decisively — from the Trudeau era. Where Justin Trudeau offered idealism and improvisation, Carney promised seriousness and stability. Where Trudeau was all gesture, Carney would be all execution.

But the problem with running on competence is that you have to deliver it — fast. And competence, by definition, is measurable. It invites hard benchmarks: economic performance, public service efficiency, international credibility, and fiscal stewardship.

Unfortunately, Carney has inherited a country with falling GDP per capita, mounting fiscal pressure, and a possibly soon-to-be-torn-up CUSMA deal. Not to mention: a youth employment crisis and a public sector facing deep cuts.

The problem isn’t just that these expectations will go unmet. It’s that the expectations were abstract — and the disappointments will be concrete.

Inaction or incrementalism will feel like betrayal. And that gap could prove devastating if he doesn’t find a way to fill it quickly.

Poilievre’s Weakness

Poilievre’s weakness is the one shared by most Opposition leaders: the perception they’re simply not ready to be prime minister.

But in his case, the challenge is more specific — and more challenging. Poilievre was chosen by his party for a very specific task: defeat Justin Trudeau. But that job changed. Therefore, he must evolve to effectively fill it.

This is where opposition leadership becomes harder. It’s about tone, not volume. He must begin to sound like a prime minister. And that requires an entirely new approach.

A Conservative leadership review in January will bookend this upcoming parliamentary session.

Between now and then, Poilievre doesn’t just need the party to get a bump in the polls — he needs to start winning on personal leadership metrics: favourability, temperament, and trust.

Ultimately, success for either leader won’t hinge on flexing the strengths everyone already knows. It will depend on how effectively they recognize — and improve upon — their weaknesses.

That’s where the real contest lies. And that’s what this Parliament will test.

Ottawa’s new trade minister, Maninder Sidhu, recently told The Canadian Press his phone has been ringing off the hook with opportunities.

He shared that he’s looking to strike new deals in South America, Southeast Asia, Africa and beyond.

He added that he plans to visit Brazil to revive trade talks there.

He noted that Canada is considering “sector-specific agreements” with other countries — instead of broad, catch-all trade deals that span multiple industries — and, in his words: “We are getting very creative in how we can open up more doors.”

You can’t fault the ambition because it follows the watchword that’s been on the lips of every political talking head and economist since before Donald Trump was reinaugurated this past January: diversification.

There’s just one problem.

The entire GDP of the countries — and even continents — Sidhu is focused on barely register compared to the market gravity of the true economic superpowers: India, China, and the United States.

This isn’t to say the strategy is misguided or unworthy. And it’s not to suggest Sidhu is neglecting the bigger players — India and China are clearly on his radar (Canada-U. S. trade falls under Dominic LeBlanc’s file).

But it is to say we cannot afford to fixate on the margins while the main event goes ignored.

What most commentators have missed in the endless autopsy of Canada’s stalled negotiations with the U.S. is this: the reason the talks are incomplete is because Donald Trump is still busy with China and India.

And there’s a reason he’s handling those first.

They are the high-stakes tables. The upside is bigger. The downside is riskier. And in any negotiation, you deal with the main course before you turn to the side dishes.

Of course, Canada can’t pretend to be the entrée. We don’t have the same leverage or flexibility as the U.S. when it comes to sequencing trade priorities. But that doesn’t mean we get to ignore the fundamentals either.

We must prioritize re-engagement with China and India — not only because of their scale, but because they are the key counterweights to the American market.

While we’ve made meaningful diplomatic and economic strides with Europe, we’ve placed far too little strategic focus on the two economies that matter enormously to our long-term diversification.

With China, we remain locked in a tit-for-tat trade war. In March, Beijing retaliated against Canadian tariffs on electric vehicles, steel, and aluminum by slapping new duties on our agricultural exports.

With India, we remain in diplomatic purgatory following the fallout from an alleged assassination on Canadian soil. Yes, security talks have restarted. Yes, Modi accepted Mark Carney’s invitation to the G7 in Alberta. Yes, the ice is thawing — but the waters are still far too cold.

But now we share something in common. Thanks to India’s deepening trade with Russia, they too have landed in Trump’s crosshairs — facing a 50 per cent tariff on Indian goods. And last month, despite years of diplomatic overtures to position India as a strategic counterweight to China, Trump dismissed their economy as “dead.”

In other words, opportunity knocks.

So, the bottom line is this: Canada simply cannot afford to be out of sync with the world’s largest trading powers.

No trade trip to South America — valuable though it may be — can come anywhere close to filling that gap.

Let me be clear: this is not a dismissal of South America or the Global South. Those relationships matter. Sector-specific agreements in emerging markets are worthwhile and necessary. Nor is it to suggest we can take our eye off the United States — our largest trading partner and the bedrock of our integrated economy. With CUSMA up for review in 2026, every step we take now must be calculated to ensure Canada heads into those negotiations from a position of strength.

But if we’re going to “get creative” about opening doors, let’s start with the ones that matter most.

Because no matter how many side doors we manage to pry open, if the front gates to the likes of Beijing and New Delhi remain closed — our economy will miss out on the growth and scale only those markets can offer.

For both Carney and Poilievre, success has nothing to do with their strengths and everything to do with their weaknesses

Canada must redouble efforts to secure trade agreements with China and India in response to escalating U.S. tariffs