By J. André Faust (March 30, 2025)
In a recent online exchange, I found myself in a multi-person thread that illustrates just how challenging, and revealing, public discourse can be in a politically polarized environment. The conversation began with a discussion on the ideological convergence between two prominent Canadian political figures and quickly evolved into a spirited exchange on cooperation with the United States, immigration policy, drug crises, and media trust.
Original Facebook Post Context
J. André Faust's Post
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?
Canada’s major political leaders seem to be circling back to the ideological middle, where the Progressive Conservatives once held ground. Is this a pragmatic pivot to win votes, or the rebirth of centrist governance?
Participant C:
You have to ask?
J. André Faust:
In the world of politics, the impossible can morph into the possible.
Erin O'Toole, leader of the Conservative Party of Canada from August 2020 to February 2022, attempted to shift the party toward a more centrist position, closer to the tradition of the former Progressive Conservative party. This strategic pivot included moderate stances on climate change, LGBTQ+ rights, and labor issues, which he hoped would broaden the party’s appeal beyond its Western and social conservative base.
However, this ideological repositioning sparked internal tensions, especially among the more socially conservative and Western populist factions of the party. His attempts to modernize the party and present a more moderate image were viewed by some within the party as a betrayal of core conservative values.
The internal backlash led to a caucus vote in February 2022, in which 62 of 119 Conservative MPs voted to remove him as leader, effectively ending his leadership.
Since Carney won the leadership and became Prime Minister, Poilievre has moved toward the center — not just slightly, but significantly, realigning the Conservative Party to resemble the former Progressive Conservatives. What’s interesting is that the centrist position O’Toole once took, which ultimately benefited Poilievre, is now the very ideological path Poilievre appears to be adopting.
Conversation Highlights
Participant A:
What's going on is - Our Politicians are coming to their senses and realizing that we are a population of 40 million versus the US which is a population of 340 Million. We have very little military as compared to the US which is a military superpower.
FINALLY - Our political leaders are coming to the REALITY of the situation - and are thus FINALLY willing to do the right thing - CO-OPERATE with the US and do the things we already NEEDED to do here in Canada even before Trump ever got into office.
At least that is what I hope is going on; because elbows up and all the other STUFF is only going to make matters worse for us. It is MUCH BETTER to Co-Operate for the good and benefit of BOTH Countries versus trying to fight the US - which will not work.
J. André Faust:
The size and power imbalance between Canada and the U.S. is real, and I agree that cooperation, when it’s mutual and constructive, can be beneficial for both countries.
That said, giving in to demands, especially when they’re one-sided, doesn’t always lead to a better outcome. There’s a big difference between strategic cooperation and just being submissive.
From Trump’s point of view, everything seems to be positioned as a zero-sum game, all wins for the U.S.; often at the expense of others. That’s not really cooperation; that’s control. If Canada adapts without setting clear boundaries, we risk being drawn into a game where we’re not really at the table, just reacting to the moves.
It’s not about going elbows-up unnecessarily, but I think it’s fair to ask: cooperation on whose terms?
Participant A:
I don't see it the way the vast majority of Canadians are, and have been, seeing the situation.
I don't see co-operating with Trump on the issues he has pointed out that needed to be addressed in Canada - as kissing the ring, or capitulating or any of the other jargon that's been being used.
I see the issues Trump points out as VALID concerns for Canada and the well being of our Country and its Citizens.
- Securing our border - Yes, should have been done long ago
- Dealing with the hard drug crisis - Yes, should have been done long ago and should never have happened to begin with
- Dealing with mass immigration - Yes, should have never been allowed to happen and needs to be addressed
- Strengthening our military - Yes, should have been happening all the long
In my opinion - Our so-called Leaders ought to have just ADMITTED that yes, Canada has all those issues. Next - How can we work together to solve them. WIN-WIN
But no, our politicians got their ass up in the air and Canadians all rallied around them - we are going to fight the USA LOL
Yup...okay...if you say so.
J. André Faust:
I agree that issues like border security, drug trafficking, and defense spending are real concerns and not just political talking points. These are serious challenges that affect both countries.
But just to clarify, when you mentioned the drug crisis, were you referring to drugs coming into Canada, or flowing into the U.S.? I ask because U.S. border stats show that even with intense enforcement, only a fraction of fentanyl gets intercepted, and the U.S. still struggles with domestic addiction and demand. So I’m not sure tougher border controls alone solve the root issue.
I think where I get cautious is when valid concerns become framed as justification for one-sided pressure. Cooperation should mean shared responsibility, not just adjusting to U.S. demands.
That’s why I brought up the shift in ideology — when both major Canadian parties start aligning more with Trump-era tactics, I think it’s worth asking: are we cooperating, or just adapting to power?
Participant A:
The drugs crisis is, as you pointed out, on both sides of borders. We can thank JT and Biden for that situation. Our drug policies here in Canada have aided and abetted the current hard drug crisis we see all across this Country...
Canada has been in denial of the noted issues and continued and continue to deny them even after Trump pointed them out. STUPID move.
So, I think it is possible that they clued in - IF the US wanted to take us over, guess what, IT COULD. In all seriousness - what could we do? Fight them with our military? Yea, okay.
Participant B:
So one percent of the drugs is our problem when what percentage of illegal guns come from where would you say? Trump signed a trade deal years ago, did he not? The best one ever. What has he done for anyone but himself?
Participant A:
LOL I never said I supported Trump! I am just stating what I see in an objective view of things is all. Calm down lol
Participant B:
No, my information on the drugs crossing the border comes from an American news outlet—Fox News, I do believe. lol So you never answered one question I asked about guns. Why trust Americans?
Participant A:
Right on.
J. André Faust:
It’s important to separate the principle of immigration from how it’s been implemented.
Canada’s recent increase in immigration wasn’t some reckless “open borders” policy — it was a response to very real labour shortages and economic pressures. The issue isn’t that too many people came; it’s that the infrastructure wasn’t scaled to support them. That’s a planning failure, not a policy failure in principle.
Participant D:
It's just to get votes under false pretenses
Participant E:
With any foresight at all, party leaders will anticipate there may emerge the necessity of a united front administration, as the Greenlandic parties did last week. With that in mind, vital avenues between them need to be opened, just in case.
J. André Faust:
That’s a very thoughtful observation, and I agree. If current trends continue, we may be heading toward a political climate where traditional adversaries need to collaborate on core issues for the national interest.
That’s partly why I brought up the ideological convergence: when both major parties begin gravitating toward a shared Progressive Conservative legacy, it creates a kind of philosophical bridge, or at least the potential for one. Opening those avenues now, even quietly, could prove vital later if external pressures or crises demand a unified response.
History shows that divided governments can become liabilities in uncertain times, and Greenland’s recent example is a reminder of what proactive cooperation can look like.
The Clash of Frames
This exchange involved:
- Myself – offering a strategic, systems-level approach grounded in political and economic reasoning.
- Participant A – introducing a populist and emotionally charged critique of Canadian leadership and immigration policies.
- Participant B – countering Participant A’s comments with sharp criticism and a dose of moral outrage.
- Participant C – offering a brief yet cynical dismissal.
- Participant D – questioning the motives of political centrism as vote-seeking.
- Participant E – presenting a thoughtful, long-range perspective, referencing coalition governance in Greenland.
Strategy in Practice
In my replies, I made a point to:
- Validate legitimate concerns (e.g., drug trafficking, infrastructure strain).
- Reframe the immigration discussion as a labor and economic strategy, while acknowledging the real logistical failures in infrastructure and planning.
- Avoid falling into emotional or partisan language, even when confronted with inflammatory rhetoric.
Final Thoughts
This thread serves as a case study in managing disagreement without shutting down discourse. In a time when online conversations often devolve into echo chambers or shouting matches, it’s possible to stay engaged, strategic, and solution-oriented — even when others are not.
The goal isn't always to win the argument. Sometimes, it's to hold space for a better one.