The most important election ever?

I just want to feel safe with what is going on. I just want some reassurance and I don’t want to be worried all the time. - CTV Ottawa News Streeter from 23 March 2025

Many people have a tendency to label things as “the most important”, “the greatest”, etc. This phenomenon isn’t exclusive to the young but is more prevalent with younger people. But often what this really means is that the individual hasn’t experienced a comparable situation and has no point of comparison.

When Star Wars arrived in theatres in 1977 (No George - I will never call it “Episode IV - A New Hope”!) it was, from my eight year old perspective, the best movie ever. I’m sure I believed there had never been nor would ever be a better movie. However my Dad was less than impressed by my enthusiastic endorsement upon returning home. In part because space-westerns weren’t to his taste. But also because he had a broader perspective and more context.

Is the upcoming Canadian federal election the most important in our history? Probably not. The elections of 1867 (the first national election, which featured an anti-Confederation party) or 1917 (which saw the victory of the pro-conscription Unionist party) could be seen as more impactful. But going back a hundred years to a country in a fundamentally different state of existence and debating the relative significance of events is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Source: Éric Grenier, The Writ/Library and Archives Canada

But I do believe that this election is the most significant in my lifetime and likely since the Second World War. Although the 1988 election in which free trade was the central debate is a contender, I see this one as even more critical to Canada’s future.

• Canada’s economy is stagnant. Average annual GDP growth 2015-2023 was 1.6% but that included a boost from unsustainable immigration levels. Growth in our real GDP per capita for the last decade has been 1.7% (2nd last in the OECD ahead of Luxemburg). Canada’s GDP per capita is $54K (above Mississippi, the lowest in the USA). In December 2024 servicing our national debt consumed 10.8% of annual national revenue. 43% of Canadians aged 18-34 are open to Canada joining the USA which seems to be heavily influenced by cost of living and housing affordability.

• While I do not believe Donald Trump is going to roll tanks across the 49th parallel, we are under economic assault from the world’s largest economy which is also our closest trading partner. Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs launched but then largely paused this month could tank the US economy and trigger a global recession. Due to Justin Trudeau’s desire to hold onto power, we are now in an election at a time of economic uncertainty and heightened tension within the country.

• Despite a recent surge, pride in Canada has been in steady decline. The MeToo and BlackLivesMatter movements crossed the border from the USA and were embraced by the progressive movement in Canada. The 2021 claim of unmarked (often called “mass”) graves at the site of the former Kamloops residential school became a social panic. Despite there being no graves confirmed to date, this resulted in a rise of anti-colonialist sentiment, the renaming of institutions and infrastructure, as well as the destruction and removal of statues.

• While separatist sentiment is currently on the decline in Quebec (I argue due to Donald Trump), discontent has been rising in the west. In the past three elections Alberta and Saskatchewan have voted heavily Conservative but the Liberal Party has formed government each time. Add to that the hostility of Trudeau’s Liberals towards the resource industries which fuel those economies and you have a recipe for frustration. It isn’t surprising that interest in joining the USA runs highest among western conservative voters.

• The 2021 federal election brought the threat of foreign interference to the public’s attention. Due to Trudeau’s attempts to ignore the issue, the public inquiry eventually created only released its final report on 28 January of this year¹ and, as a result, this hasn’t received the public attention it deserves. We are now into another federal election not having publicly addressed problems identified in the last election. This leaves this election open to online conspiracy theories.

• Government subsidies for our media have exploded which raises questions about their independence. This isn’t just about the CBC. Qualified media can receive funds from the Canada Periodical Fund, Canada Media Fund, Local Journalism Initiative, and tax relief via the Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit. In 2023 the result was an estimated “50 percent wage subsidy on journalist salaries up to $85,000”. As of March, $100M from Google is added to the pot via the Canadian Journalism Collective (the product of the Online New Act). At minimum the optics are bad and a concern when trust in media is already low.

Yes, the outcome of this election will have a major impact on our future.

So - where do the parties stand? Here is my take in order of current seat projections.

The Liberal Party

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. - Groucho Marx

Regardless of what you think of Mark Carney or the Liberals, the story of their rebound in the polls since December will be taught in Canadian political science classes and used as an example by pundits for decades. But we don’t yet know the moral of the story, and it likely won’t be written until the 28th of April.

In part, it is a story of transformation and the fluidity of public perception. The “New Liberals” under Carney’s leadership immediately zeroed out the consumer carbon tax, reversed their position on the capital gains exemption (previously a critical issue of “fairness”), and is now (apparently) supportive of resource extraction.

While parties invariably shift their positions over time and often change tactics coming into an election, these are flip-flops on a scale I’ve never seen before. It appears that Carney is campaigning against Trudeau’s legacy as much as against Pierre Poilievre.

This should raise a question about trust. After years of high spending, investment-killing regulatory and taxation policies, unsustainable immigration levels, a lack of focus on our military capabilities and defence commitments, and embracing divisive social issues, can the Liberal Party truly change overnight? 87% (20 of 23) members of the Cabinet appointed before the election call were from Trudeau’s cabinet. Are we to believe that all these senior members of the party were against Trudeau’s policies but unable to sway him? Or did one talk with Carney made them see how wrong they had been?

If anyone can turn Liberal Party culture around it would in theory be Carney, having won 86% of the vote in the leadership contest. But are the “New Liberals” truly reflective of the values of Mark Carney? He was sufficiently aligned with Trudeau to advise him on the economy and was, by all reports, being courted as Finance Minister. He has been a leading figure in finance-led climate initiatives: he was the UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, led the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, and was Co-Chair of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. In his 2021 book Value(s): Building a Better World for All he “praises carbon pricing and, yes, he thinks that much of the oil still in the ground should remain there”.

Thus far Carney has successfully cultivated the air of a statesman. However there are cracks in in this persona.

He doesn’t seem to have a great deal of concern for the spirit of the democratic process, such as the “Caretaker Convention” that a government without the confidence of the House is not supposed to do anything more than the essentials and shouldn’t tie the hands of whoever is the next Prime Minister. Typically this kicks in when the writ is dropped for an election. But with a new unelected PM and the House prorogued the Caretaker Convention should apply. However Carney quickly violated that Convention:

• On 16 March he invited Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to the G7 summit in June. This is obviously a highly political action. Should the Liberals not win the upcoming election, the next PM could be faced with a difficult choice - retain the invitation or disinvite Zelenskyy.

• The day before the election call the Health Minister announced an expansion of the national dental insurance program. Canadians aged 55 to 64 can apply starting on 1 May (three days after the election!). Such an announcement a day before an election call would be pretty atrocious under normal circumstances. But as Carney has never tested the confidence of the House this is outrageous.

Will Carney be able to transition from the C-suite to the political arena? How will he adapt to parliamentary debate and being questioned by the press? Time will tell, but the shine seems to be coming off the apple regarding his relationship with the press:

• In January James Snell, a member of the Alberta Legislature Press Gallery, was removed from Carney’s leadership campaign announcement despite having registered to attend. Most Canadian media didn’t seem to care; presumably because he works for the Western Standard.

• More recently his responses to Rosemary Barton from the CBC and Stephanie Levitz from the Globe and Mail regarding potential conflict of interest raised eyebrows. Not only did he not answer the question, but his responses were rather testy, and he told Barton to “look inside herself”.

Carney’s decision to support Paul Chiang despite him suggesting people claim China's bounty on a Conservative candidate was mind boggling. Aside from the obvious issue with the suggestion, did anyone mention to Carney the detention of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, the foreign interference inquiry, or the execution of four Canadians in China earlier this year?

Lastly, a phrase was used in his exchange with Rosemary Barton that caught my attention “you are starting from a prior of conflict and ill will”. “A prior” is a concept used in Bayesian reasoning². I had a Michael Ignatieff flashback when I saw the piece. I actually liked Ignatieff. But he led the Liberals to their worst defeat ever, securing only 34 seats and was criticized for behaving too much like a university professor (which he was) and failing to connect with voters. It will be interesting to see if Carney can adjust his delivery or if he will continue to sound like a technocrat. He does have a habit of sounding stuck-up on occasion.

“Yes, Canada, the Liberal Party is united and strong, and ready to fight to build an even better country. Everything in my life has prepared me for this moment.” - Mark Carney's victory speech after winning Liberal leadership

The Conservative Party

It’s the economy, stupid. - American Democratic strategist James Carville, 1992

The specter of Trump and the meteoric rise of the Liberals have changed the battlefield for the election. Trump or the Economy and Change? I don’t think this needs to be, or in fact should be, an either/or choice. But thus far the Conservatives haven’t successfully made that case.

In addition to the matter of the central election question, Poilievre has made some missteps and is to a degree reaping what he has sown in terms of public perception.

The swing towards the Liberals shortly after Trudeau announced his resignation tells me I’m not alone in finding Poilievre’s default attack dog style off-putting. The 18 months of high Conservative polling weren’t due to people falling in love with Poilievre; they just disliked Trudeau more. Replace Trudeau and the Conservatives’ advantage evaporated. I’ve found his tone in recent policy announcements much more positive. But he is fighting against his own brand. It is going to take time (and consistency) to mitigate this and a short election campaign doesn’t provide much time to do so.

Poilievre has been tarred by the Liberals (and many media outlets) as Trump-like (“Maple MAGA”, etc). It is a frankly foolish comparison on substance. But on style and tone it rings true. For example, “Sellout Singh” sounds awfully similar to “Sleepy Joe”, and I personally found trying to label Carney as “Sneaky” rather cringy. He needs to avoid at all costs Trump-like messaging which the Liberals can use, and that left wing media will highlight as it fits with their bias.

The decision not to provide transportation for journalists during the election (which their outlets pay for) was an own goal.

• This is something a front runner can get away with. But Poilievre isn’t the front runner anymore. If he wanted to get his message out he would have been better off with members of the Ottawa Press Gallery following him around. Instead Carney is getting all the attention as he responds to Trump’s stunts.

• It just looks Trump-y. It just feels too much like Trump kicking the Associated Press out of the White House press pool for not calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. No Poilievre isn’t excluding the media from anything, just not providing transportation. But this is about perception: style and gut response.

Danielle Smith isn’t helping. This isn’t Poilievre’s fault, but he needs to get her (and others in the conservative sphere) to “mind their knitting” to quote Peter MacKay for a few more weeks³. Or at least strongly state that the person in question isn’t speaking for him if any issues come up. The optics are horrible. Preston Mannings’ recent comments on the risk of western alienation (which Poilievre did disagreed with) weren’t helpful either.

I think he’s doing an ok job on responding to Trump’s tariffs. Here Carney has a clear advantage as PM. I’m not certain what our media expects Poilievre to do: call Trump insulting names? Not a good idea. But he certainly shouldn’t be concerned about rebutting Trump or talking about guns flowing across the boarder, etc. Is a CPC supporter who likes Trump (and presumably hates the Liberals) going to stay home or throw away their vote on the People’s Party of Canada? A few perhaps, but there are a lot more voters to be gained than lost by pushing back on Trump.

Most importantly I think he needs to make the case that this election isn’t about either Trump or the Economy; it is about both. No PM can control Trump. Canadian counter tariffs, while they can have some value, are not going to bring America to its knees. The damage to be done to the American economy will be done by Trump’s tariffs. It is unsatisfying but the key question is: When does the American electorate (and Republicans who want to get re-elected in the future) say “enough”?

What is under Canada’s control is creating a healthy economy which can withstand the impact of Trump’s tariffs. It has been estimated that just eliminating interprovincial trade barriers would offset the impact of tariffs on the Canadian economy. Those barriers aren’t the fault of the Liberals, but this shows what our economy is capable of under the right conditions. However, a decade under the Liberals has created a stagnant economy. While Carney has copied several pages from the Conservative’s playbook, Poilievre still has credibility on the economy and cost of living. However Carney as PM has a clear lead on Trump. Thus my prescription for what ails the CPC campaign is:

• Continue to focus on the cost of living and building the economy but present it in Trump wrapping paper. Addressing tariffs needs to be consistently linked to invigorating the economy.

• Ask the question - after a decade of policies which got the county into this state, is the Liberal Party’s deathbed conversion to the centre and being pro-growth credible?

The Bloc Québécois/Quebec

Quebecers: Vive le Canada libre!
Yves-François Blanchet: Merde…

Each region of Canada is somewhat different. But Quebec’s political culture is one I don’t pretend to fully understand and they periodically surprise me. However, it seems pretty clear based on the timing that the BQ’s drop and the Liberals’ corresponding rise in the polls is a function of the Trump Effect.

BQ support started to drop as Trudeau announced his resignation and the Liberal numbers started trending up shortly thereafter; well before Carney was chosen as leader or was even really known by Quebecers. This occurred as Trump’s rhetoric amped up and correlated with a reported rise in patriotic sentiment in Quebec.

When times are good and things seem stable, people feel safe to consider radical change. The essence of Quebec separatism is “the grass is greener on the other side”; all the good stuff can be maintained and you can do even better on your own. But when you are suddenly faced with the reality of a hostile neighbour on your border which has an economy approximately 50 times larger and a population about 35 times larger than yours, going it on your own doesn’t look so attractive. The Liberals have a long time presence in Quebec and are the preferred defenders of Quebec-in-Canada.

There you have my amateur psychologist explanation for recent changes in the Quebec political landscape.

However Quebec has a unique dynamic. Rarely in modern times has a politician attained the job of PM without a substantial connection to Quebec⁴. But during this election Quebecers will only have non-Quebec options for PM. While the more Liberal friendly media hasn’t made a big deal out of it, Carney’s French has been criticized. Will this put Quebecer’s off? Will Carney be able to hold his own in the one French language debate?

The long term question is: will the Trump Effect be generational, resulting in a reduction in separatist sentiment for years? That is a question for another day.

The New Democratic Party

Rufus (Chris Rock): So what do we do now?
Metatron (Alan Rickman): Well, I say we get drunk, because I'm all out of ideas.
- Dogma (1999)

The NDP’s support has been stagnant for the last four years. During the 2021 election the party received 17.8% of the vote and since then their polling support has, until recently, stayed in the 17%-19% range. I really thought that the Supply and Confidence Agreement with the Liberals would have paid off for them to some degree. Probably a good thing I’m not a political strategist, I guess.

Perhaps Jagmeet Singh’s problem was that the Trudeau Liberals were effectively the NDP anyway. Most NDP supporters realized that Singh never got Trudeau to do anything that Trudeau wasn’t very happy to do? And the rest were unhappy that Singh propped up the Trudeau government so long?

I don’t see the drop in NDP support as typical strategic voting to keep the Conservatives out. Like the BQ, their support was unchanged in the face of the rise in CPC support and started to drop well before an election was called. But the dip in support does line up well with Trump’s tariff threats and talk of the 51st State.

I don’t expect the attraction of socialism to disappear in Canada. But I can’t help but notice that, in a time of economic crisis, voters aren’t turning to the NDP. And the party that they are turning to (the Liberals) have suddenly stopped talking and acting like the NDP and are apparently using transcripts of Poilievre’s speeches to draft their policy announcements. Things that make you go hmmmm.

The impact of Trump’s tariffs may give the NDP a bit of a boost as it provides Singh the platform to advocate for workers and support programs. Based on the numbers, Poilievre should be hoping for a resurgence of socialist/progressive sentiment. As long as NDP voters are standing behind the Liberals to protect them from Trump, the CPC is in trouble.

The Green Party

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through. - General Melchett (Stephen Fry), Blackadder Goes Forth

Nothing to see here. But you have to appreciate dedication.

Based on the polls the Green Party Caucus will continue to be unable to have a proper Euchre game. They should probably take up Crazy 8s. Or perhaps Solitaire.

Going Forward

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
- The Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear, Dune (1965)

This was shaping up to be a Change Election until December, however Trump’s tariff threats and rhetoric about Canada has turned this into a Reassurance Election. And it is pretty clear who most people find reassuring.

This recent political shift would make a fascinating psychological study. Nothing the Liberals or the Conservatives have done in the last 2-3 months can rationally account for the dramatic shift in the polls. What we are seeing is an example of panic and resulting risk aversion. However, people don’t make wise decisions when they are afraid.

As we count down to an election which will have significant consequences for the country, there are some questions I’d like to ask of those now climbing aboard the Liberal bandwagon.

In what way are the economic policies and the tariff response proposals of the two parties substantially different? Tax cuts, streamlining resource development, support for seniors. If you picked a random item from the platform of either the Liberals or the Conservatives do you think the average voter could confidently say whose policy proposal it was? Or would it be the political equivalent of the Pepsi Challenge?

In a period of days Carney reconceived the Liberal Party as a centrist party which has been described as Conservative in many ways. My question for those who find the “New Liberals” appealing is - is this credible? Are Carney’s promises on taxation and economic growth now in anyway consistent with his historic positions? After over a decade of the Liberals shifting far to the left of centre on economic and social issues, does this deathbed conversion of the party ring true?

Carney has consistently polled more favourably than Poilievre regarding dealing with Trump. And I’ll freely admit that his resume includes some impressive experience. However, I’d like someone to give me a “for instance” or two regarding just how they see this advantage working. Is Carney uniquely positioned to put forth a compelling economic argument and convince Trump that his tariff-based trade strategy is flawed? Will he get him into a logical full nelson and force him to concede that unilaterally breaking trade agreements is a bad idea? Trump seems to be immune to such tactics.

Poilievre has been criticized for the last couple of years for saying “Canada is broken”. I’m not a fan of the tone myself. However that doesn’t mean he is wrong. But many imply (and some will say explicitly) that this means he hates Canada. If your doctor diagnosed you with cancer or advised you that you were obese, would you conclude that your doctor hates you? If he or she then recommended chemotherapy or prescribed a diet and excise regime, would you consider this “flip-flopping”?

Most importantly, when you vote are you voting for your own comfort or are you thinking about the generation now starting out? In times of uncertainly people often seek comfort in the status quo and the Liberals are the status quo. If you aren’t concerned about getting a job, the cost of rent, or buying a house, chances are you have generally been doing ok for the last decade. Currently you are probably very concerned about Trump’s impact on the stock market. To what degree do the prospects of those seeking jobs and the opportunity to secure a future for themselves enter into your considerations?

Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts on the subject. I hope you found them useful.

1. Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions - Final Report

2. A “Prior” is the probability that you assign to something being true before you incorporate new information. More information.

3. There is an argument that Smith should be representing Alberta’s interests. And yes, going on CNN or MSNBC would accomplish nothing. Those who watch Fox and Breitbart are the people you want to influence. But most people don’t get that and politics is about perception.

4. Since 1968 only two party leaders not representing a Quebec riding have won a general election to get the job of Prime Minister: Joe Clark and Stephen Harper.