Politics of Fear: May and Pednault Escalate, Call For “War Cabinet”

At a time when diplomatic restraint and measured responses are most needed, Green Party co-leaders Elizabeth May and Jonathan Pedneault have instead emerged as the loudest voices of escalation in Canada. Their latest press conference, which was ostensibly about promoting national unity in the face of Donald Trump’s aggressive trade stance, was laced with warlike rhetoric and an implicit demand that all Canadian political parties fall in line behind their aggressive approach.

This kind of fear-driven politics is dangerous. It amplifies tensions, leaves no room for dissent, and paves the way for reckless decision-making that could lead Canada down a path of unnecessary conflict. The Green Party leadership is not only misrepresenting the situation as an existential crisis but is also proposing responses that are far more radical and militaristic than any other party.

Pednault did not speak a single word at the press conference but nodded in agreement as May spoke at length. 

From Trade Dispute to War Rhetoric

The reality is that Donald Trump’s tariffs and annexation rhetoric, while aggressive and harmful, remain economic and political in nature. Yet, rather than advocating for diplomatic solutions, May and Pedneault have framed the situation as if Canada is facing an imminent military invasion. Their proposal for a “war cabinet,” which May justified by citing historical wartime governance, is an outright escalation.

The term “war cabinet” itself is a deliberate and provocative choice. Such a body is typically formed in times of actual military conflict, yet the Greens are applying it to a trade dispute—a move that grossly misrepresents the situation. This framing pressures other political leaders to accept a highly militarized response rather than pursuing negotiation, economic countermeasures, or multilateral diplomacy.

Militarized and Combative Language

May’s speech was riddled with confrontational and fear-inducing rhetoric. Here are some of the most glaring examples:

These comments do not foster unity; they incite fear and division. While it is necessary to take Trump’s rhetoric seriously, it is reckless and irresponsible to portray Canada as being on the verge of an actual war.

The Most Militaristic Stance of Any Canadian Party

Ironically, the Green Party—historically associated with non-violence and diplomacy—is now the most hawkish among Canada’s political parties. Neither the Liberals, Conservatives, nor the NDP have adopted language as escalatory as May and Pedneault’s. The Green Party leadership is actively pushing for:

• A wartime governance model (the war cabinet), which is historically reserved for actual armed conflict.
• Pre-emptive military preparedness measures.
• A total political consensus on their approach, leaving no room for alternative strategies.

Even Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives, while critical of the Trudeau government’s handling of trade disputes, have not gone so far as to frame the current situation as requiring a wartime response. The Greens, in contrast, are demanding a united front behind the most extreme response on the political spectrum.

The Risks of This Escalatory Rhetoric

The consequences of May and Pedneault’s rhetoric are profound:

1. It eliminates diplomatic flexibility. By framing this as an existential crisis, the Green Party is making it politically difficult for Canada to engage in negotiations with the U.S. without appearing weak.
2. It breeds internal division. Calling for a “war cabinet” and demanding that all political leaders fall in line leaves no space for disagreement or alternative approaches.
3. It fosters a climate of fear. The Green Party leadership is making Canadians feel as though their sovereignty is on the brink of collapse, despite the fact that no military action has taken place.
4. It sets a dangerous precedent. If economic disputes are treated as military conflicts, future trade disputes could escalate beyond what is necessary, leading to real conflict.

Demanding Agreement While Promoting Division

May and Pedneault have positioned themselves as the only voices that should be heard on this issue. They are demanding absolute unity—while simultaneously being the most divisive and militant voices in the conversation. This is not leadership; it is political fearmongering.

Furthermore, their approach is reminiscent of their broader authoritarian tendencies within the Green Party. As previously covered, Jonathan Pedneault has shown a willingness to silence dissent and call for the restriction of free speech, particularly when it comes to political discourse on Canada’s sovereignty. Now, the Green Party leadership is attempting to silence political opposition by framing any disagreement as a betrayal of national unity.

Conclusion: A Reckless and Dangerous Strategy

Elizabeth May and Jonathan Pedneault have abandoned the Green Party’s traditional commitment to diplomacy and peace in favor of escalatory rhetoric and warlike posturing. They are misleading Canadians into believing that economic threats are equivalent to military ones, and they are demanding unquestioning support for the most extreme response proposed by any Canadian party.

Canada needs level-headed leadership—not war cabinets for trade disputes, not rhetoric that makes diplomacy impossible, and certainly not a political strategy that thrives on fear and coercion. The Green Party’s leadership must be held accountable for its reckless approach, and Canadians should demand a response based on rational diplomacy and strategic restraint rather than militarized panic.