John Ivison: Starkly different reactions by Carney and Poilievre to Venezuela are revealing

It seems clear that there was great excitement in the Poilievre household on Saturday morning, as news of the surgical strike by U.S. special forces in Venezuela filtered through.

Pierre Poilievre’s wife, Anaida, is Venezuelan, and like many of her fellow citizens, she likely rejoiced in the arrest and deportation of the illegitimate president Nicolás Maduro.

By 9:36 a.m. the Conservative leader had posted on social media his congratulations to American President Donald Trump for arresting the “narco-terrorist and socialist dictator.”

“The legitimate winner of the most recent Venezuelan election, Edmundo González should take office, along with the courageous hero of the Venezuelan people, (opposition leader) Maria Corina Machado,” he said. “Down with socialism, long live freedom.”

At that moment, it was a reasonable position for a Canadian political leader to take. The U.S. intervention could not be justified under international law as a targeted action during an armed conflict, as the killing of Osama Bin Laden was. But the case for self-defence, or even “the responsibility to protect” principle meant it was in a legal grey area — provided the Americans swiftly made clear their intentions to extricate themselves and let the Venezuelans get on with determining their own future.

However, that is not what happened. At his , Trump said the U.S. will run Venezuela for the foreseeable future. He was asked about a role for Machado, who was banned from running in the 2024 presidential election but who has led the struggle for democracy in the face of Maduro’s increasing authoritarianism. “I think it would be very tough for her to be leader. She doesn’t have the support or respect of the country,” he said, in the face of all the evidence of her popular legitimacy to the contrary.

U.S. officials briefed journalists in Washington that Machado does not have the operational capacity to command power in Venezuela, in particular when it comes to the military.

That argument held a modicum of validity … right up to the point the Washington Post reported on Monday that sources close to the White House said Trump’s disenchantment with Machado stemmed from her decision to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, an award the president coveted. “If she had turned it down and said: ‘I can’t accept it because it’s Donald Trump’s’, she’d be president of Venezuela today,” one source told the Post.

Instead, the Americans are banking on Delcy Rodriguez, the vice-president who is complicit in many of Maduro’s crimes, but who has been named interim president by the country’s Supreme Court.

As usual, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was deployed in Trump’s wake to handle manure management.  He said the Trump Administration wants to see a “transition to democracy” but is more concerned with “co-operation” and “compliance” in the next two to three months.

Poilievre’s hasty endorsement of Trump’s actions was given cover on social media by some people as simply offering support for the Venezuelan people.

But we live in a world where two seemingly contradictory things can be true at the same time.

You can be glad to see the back of Maduro and also deeply uneasy about Trump’s resurrection of Teddy Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which justified U.S. intervention in the hemisphere.

Royce Koop, a political scientist at the University of Manitoba, posted that Poilievre (and NDP interim leader, Don Davies) both took firm stances on the Venezuelan action. (Davies had condemned the abduction.)

“In democracy, politicians should provide clear, responsible positions for voters to choose between. That’s what Poilievre and Davies did…(while Prime Minister) Mark Carney and (Foreign Affairs Minister) Anita Anand tried to ‘both-sides’ the issue. It was embarrassing,” he said.

The Conservative leader’s stance is clear, but whether it is responsible, or more importantly for his party, popular, is another matter.

Trump was explicit that U.S. oil companies will be expected to have unfettered access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. That is probably not good news for the discounted oil price that Canada receives for its heavy crude, though resource experts like Heather Exner-Pirot urged calm. “Capital is cowardly and shy. I don’t think Venezuela will be a particularly attractive destination for a while,” based on its reputation for corruption, nationalization and infrastructure problems, she said.

Exner-Pirot, the director of energy issues at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, pointed out that most Canadian oil goes to Midwest refineries, not the Gulf, where oil will face competition from any surge in Venezuelan crude.

But Trump’s actions in Latin America have made it obvious that he is deadly serious about living up to the strategy outlined in the recent national security plan that threatens to limit the sovereignty of all countries in the Western Hemisphere, including Canada.

On Sunday’s short flight from Washington to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump told reporters that Venezuela was “sick” and needed U.S. support. He said Colombia is also sick, “run by a sick man (Gustavo Petro) who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States. He’s not going to be doing it very long.”

He added that “you have got to do something with Mexico” and reiterated his comments that the U.S. needs Greenland for its national security. “We’ll worry about Greenland in about two months. (There are) Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. Denmark is not going to be able to do it. Do you know what Denmark did recently to beef up its national security? They added one more dog sled. It’s true,” he said.

In an editorial at the weekend, the Globe and Mail called the consequences of the Venezuelan action “a national emergency” for Canada.

That is as reflexive as Poilievre’s early morning cheerleading.

But it is a timely reminder of the urgent need to build an oil pipeline, further diversify trade partnerships and constitute a robust military that is not wholly reliant on the U.S.

You can be glad to see the back of Maduro and also deeply uneasy about Trump’s resurrection of Teddy Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine

Carney didn’t issue a statement until Saturday evening, and it was pretty weak sauce, even as it pointed out that the United States cannot act with impunity because the rules of international law and multilateralism should still apply.

Carney posted again on social media on Sunday that Canada has not recognized Maduro’s “illegitimate” regime since it stole the election in 2018. He said he spoke with Machado and reiterated that Canada supports a “negotiated, Venezuelan-led transition,” anchored in the sovereign right of the people to decide their own future.

Trump will hold such niceties in low regard, despite calling Carney “a world-class leader” at their White House meeting in October.

Trump sees himself as a sheriff, imposing rough justice when he deems it’s required.

But at the very least, Carney has made clear Canada will not be deputized in such vigilantism.

In very large measure, Carney won the 2025 election because voters thought he would handle Trump better than Poilievre could. The U.S. president is considered “dangerous” by four out of five Canadians, and Canadians’ confidence in him to do the right thing in international relations is bumping along new lows, according to Pew Research, which has tracked such things for more than two decades.

Some might praise the Conservative leader for having provided “a clear, responsible” position on Trump’s latest adventure, but cheerleading before all the facts were in is unlikely to improve the perception that he often gets the big things wrong.

National Post

jivison@criffel.ca