We Won (Barry Campbell)
What Happened?
In the years leading up to the current Federal election, there has been increasing concern about covert foreign election interference from China or Russia. As it turns out, the most malign influence on Canada’s 2025 election was overt and from our erstwhile ally to the south! In the lead up to and during the Campaign there was a direct line between President Trump’s ongoing threats to Canada’s sovereignty and support for the Liberals. In fact, the polls started to drift away from the Conservatives while the unpopular Justin Trudeau was still Prime Minister. By the time Mark Carney took over as Leader, the Conservative lead over the Liberals had been halved. Each time Trump said “51st State” or ” tariffs” voters moved to the Liberals.
Party strategists argue over and try to shape “the ballot question”- what will be on people’s minds when they vote? This is key to the election outcome. The Conservatives hoped that the ballot question would be: “Isn’t it time for a change after 10 years of Liberal rule?”. The Liberals hoped the question would be: “Who has the experience to stand up to Trump?”.
The Conservative Leader, Pierre Poilievre, unable to compete with Mark Carney’s qualifications, asserted throughout the Campaign that Mark Carney was disqualified to lead the country because of his role as an economic advisor to the free-spending Liberals.
When it was clear that the ballot question was about Trump, the Conservatives could not credibly pivot to fight the Liberals over that question. They thought it better to lock in their base by doubling down on crime and fear that the base responded to. That was understandable. What is incomprehensible given the antipathy of Canadians to Trump, is that the Conservative Leader continued to channel Trump with visits to “beautiful” factories and boasting about crowd size. The Conservatives were not helped by the defection of the Progressive Conservative Premiers Tim Houston (Nova Scotia) and Doug Ford (Ontario). Ford vowed neutrality in the Federal race while his key advisor trashed the federal Conservative’s senior election strategist. Perhaps Ontario Premier Ford dreams of being the Federal Tory Leader one day and then Prime Minister. The “in-fighting” we witnessed was more typical of Liberals (e.g. the Chretien/Martin fight) but Liberals did it more quietly.
In the end, in an extraordinary march forward from near oblivion a few months ago, the Carney-led Liberals triumphed in the Election winning a near majority in the House of Commons. But the Election outcome was not determined solely by the fight between the Liberals and Conservatives. In the end Liberals and Conservatives came very close to each other in the popular vote – 43.7 per cent for the Liberals and 41.3 per cent for the Conservatives. It was the collapse of the Bloc in Quebec and the destruction of the NDP in Ontario and British Columbia and where those voters went that settled what happened.
It has been said Quebecers may want a free and independent Quebec but in a strong and united Canada! Quebecers voted in record numbers for Carney to keep Canada strong and keep Trump at bay. In that fight the Bloc had nothing to offer. Quebecers are always the most strategic voters in Canada.
The NDP got squeezed with little to offer since, frustratingly for them, their support for the Liberal minority over the last two years gave Liberals the bragging rights for a number of NDP initiatives. Liberals are clever that way. The result was that the NDP was obliterated, losing Officials Party Status in the House of Commons and the budget that goes with it.
Some other observations:
- With the Conservatives getting more than 40 per cent of the popular vote (very close to the Liberals), Poilievre’s focus on affordability, crime, immigration etc. resonated with many young voters, according to our favourite pollster, Greg Lyle of Innovative Research. He also points out that older voters were more worried about the Trump threat and voted Liberal. These demographics may not auger well for Liberals in the future.
- NDP voters in the industrial heartlands of Ontario voted Conservative this time. This is similar to the blue-collar migration from the Democratic Party to Trump in the US. (For the Liberals, seat losses in Ontario were made up by a good showing in Quebec.) In British Columbia it was different – NDP votes went to Liberals in some cases and Conservatives candidates in others.
- Once again, Liberals were almost shut out of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Alberta Premier threatened to call a vote to separate if, once again, central Canada and Quebec decided the election. Although she has tempered the rhetoric recently, “Western alienation” is a real thing for some, and the Liberals will need to be attentive to it. Although responding to Alberta’s grievances (as described by their Premier) is as confounding as dealing with Quebec separatists because the grievances are a mix of the real and the imagined.
What’s next?
A challenge for Carney will be to craft a Cabinet to meet this moment. New faces are a necessity for their talent and so that voters see that this is not another term of the Trudeau government. But every Prime Minister, especially one who burst on the scene so suddenly, has debts to pay. There were those who were quick to support him or delivered leadership votes, volunteers and organization. There are also regional considerations and gender ones as well. Cabinet making is messy. There will be many disappointed MPs.
The Liberals fell short of a majority in the House of Commons and will need to find a few allies to support the Government’s agenda and pass vital measures. None of the Opposition Partys will want to trigger an election as they are all dejected and spent. The Liberals’ options are:
- Brazen it out daring Opposition Parties to force another election. This means having to bargain on every vote starting with the Budget. Cost: On-going disruption and the government could fall on any day if someone doesn’t count noses properly (just ask former PM Joe Clark). Probability: Low.
- Build a coalition with the Bloc to support the Government (for a year?) to get through the trade and tariff challenge. Cost: Multiple concessions to Quebec on a range of things and it would be anathema to many Canadians to give the separatist party any role in the Government of the country they want to destroy. Probability: Zero.
- A deal with the NDP (7 seats) and Greens (1 seat). Both have a big incentive to support the Government to avoid irrelevance. Cost: Moderate as the Liberals have more to offer them than they can offer back. Probability: High.
- A grand coalition with the Conservatives or even a “National Government” to address the trade and tariff crisis. Cost: Credibility for both Partys. Probability: Zero.
- Find a few MPs from any of the other Parties to “cross the floor” and give the Liberals the majority. They only need 3-4 to cross over. It would be regarded as treachery by the Party they would leave behind (and perhaps those who voted for them), but it was good enough for Winston Churchill to do it twice! Cost: Little. Probability: High.
Parliament will be called back May 27th. The Throne Speech and this Government’s first Budget will not be hard to write. The themes and programmatic elements are to be found in the Canada Strong Campaign platform document with few additional bells and whistles. There is work to do to build reliance not just talk about it, stand up to Trump (any day will do) and play a key role in the international “coalition of the willing” coming together to build the new world trading order without the United States.
Still, Canada will have to find some accommodation with the US. For Canada, geography is destiny. We co-habit this Continent with the US and we will have to find a way to re-build trust on the road to what Carney called “a trade and security deal” but with a reliable partner. That could take a while.
Governing is about choosing. There are tough choices to make. We wish the Prime Minister well.
Barry Campbell
We Lost (Paul Brown)
We lost. As a Conservative that summation of a federal campaign happens too often. This time the loss can be traced to a two-month period starting in January: Trump was sworn in as President and attacked Canada and other American trading partners; Canadians rediscovered their nationalism in a way not seen since 1967; and Justin Trudeau resigned starting a Liberal leadership race that was really a coronation.
Throughout that entire two-month period Pierre Poilievre disappeared from mainstream media. The only place he could be found, laying out well considered policy speeches, was on YouTube. While it’s easy to blame the media (and I could write a whole piece on the liberal media herd mentality), the fault must be borne by the Conservative campaign. While Pierre Poilievre was flawless in securing more support and seats – he didn’t have a bad day on the campaign trail – a flawed strategy in the face of a changing political environment and an inability to build political alliances within the conservative family ultimately cost the Conservatives the election.
Trump’s attacks on Canada meant that the Canadian media was gleefully part of the American Trump story. Merely putting Trump’s name and the word tariff in a headline guaranteed lots of clicks, and Canadian commentators relished being part of the American media circus. Who cared about a Conservative leader few in the media liked and his message of accountability. The media didn’t want to look backwards, particularly since they had been cheerleaders for the misguided Trudeau. Better a shiny new Liberal leader who fit the Trump storyline and stoked Canadian’s fears. The synergy between the American and Canadian media establishment was complete when Chrystia Freeland began showing up on US news and entertainment shows.
On the other side, the Grits jettisoned many of their policy positions like so much junk that they were. Just like the late 1990s the Grits had no problem adopting Conservative policy if it meant electoral victory. Back then it was the GST, free trade and fiscal restraint; now it was masquerading like they were pro pipeline and now opposed to their beloved carbon and capital gains taxes. Once Justin was safely hidden at the closest Canadian Tire, the Liberals were ready to run.
At one point in the campaign Pierre Poilievre delivered a speech next to a statue of Sir John A. MacDonald, Canada’s first Prime Minister and the founder of the Conservative Party. Looking back, it would have been wise to have taken that statue to every campaign stop to remind Canadians that the Conservatives were campaigning to restore what had been lost over the past decade when Liberals managed to destroy our globally admired immigration system, failed to support the natural resource sector that was critical to Canada’s economic success, succumbed to every trendy attack on Canadian values, were unwilling to address a growing problem with crime, and aligned with some of the worst excesses at the UN. Unfortunately, the Conservative campaign couldn’t quite link the lost decade with a positive and uplifting message to restore both Canadian values and Canadian history. This cost us votes with critical ‘switcher’ voters in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia. Yes, these voters tended to be older, but they were also old-line English Canadians who found more comfort with Carney than Poilievre.
At the end of the day, there were lots of Canadians who were looking for change, and in some ridings like my own Eglinton Lawrence, a traditionally Liberal riding going back 60 years, we had record numbers of people voting Conservative and lost by less than 900 votes. Indeed, the Conservative’s near record high national percentage of support (except Quebec) shows that Poilievre and his message was winning over voters, just not enough to offset the historic NDP collapse. Indeed, in the final week, when Trump fears receded, Conservative strategy and the leader’s delivery, came together for some impressive results. But, alas, not a win.
Until Pierre Poilievre finds a riding to facilitate his return to Parliament (the listing of 91 names on the ballot in his riding is a scandal for another day), the party will likely be led in the House of Commons by Deputy Leader, Melissa Lantsman and assisted in French by Pierre-Paul Hus. As Poilievre stated in his concession speech, the Conservatives “will work with the Prime Minister and all parties with the common goal of defending Canada’s interests and getting a new trade deal that puts these tariffs behind us while protecting our sovereignty and the Canadian people.”
My guess is that the Conservatives, under Pierre Poilievre, will do what we did after our loss in 2004, look for ways to bring together all sides of the Canadian conservative movement. Recognizing that in Canada, unlike the US, the hard core conservative philosophical vote is relatively small. To win we need those who are conservative by temperament and economic philosophy; people from a variety of backgrounds and beliefs but united by Canadian values and history; and those from all walks of life. Such a strategy has a history of success whether the leader was Brian Mulroney or Stephen Harper. This loss may remind some in my party that winning federal elections is better than winning internal party debates.
Paul Brown