March 29, 2025
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
April 28 is officially federal election day in Canada. By all indications, the type of election campaign we’ve been watching for the last week isn’t the one we were expecting back in January. But let’s not count our chickens before they hatch. This campaign may still change. More importantly, could its results expose faultlines in Canada that many would rather sweep under the rug?
Even Canadians who only casually follow political news will be familiar with how we got here. Over two years, the Conservatives, under Pierre Poilievre's leadership, built a substantial polling lead. Entering 2025, the nearly universal expectation was that the next election would result in a majority Conservative government. Canadians were seeking change, and a fourth Liberal term seemed almost unimaginable regardless of who led that party. However, the resignation of Prime Minister Trudeau on January 6, followed by a six-week Liberal leadership race that selected Mark Carney, a five-day transition period, and a nine-day prime ministership, has changed everything. After some Liberal policy flip-flops and in the face of a massive trade war launched by US President Trump, most Canadians seem to be in the mood for stability and experience. And with the Liberals adopting various Conservative policy positions, the change between the two offerings isn’t as stark. Current polls now project a fourth majority Liberal government. History reminds us that sudden poll shifts can work both ways, and “events, dear boy, events” influence trajectories. Still, while it’s hardly a sure thing, the consensus seems to be that, right now, Mr. Carney will still be prime minister after April 28.
In the meantime, here are four things I’ll be paying attention to as the campaign unfolds.
April 2 is when US tariffs on the automotive industry, announced on Wednesday, are set to start. (I do note, however, that previously announced tariff dates were January 20, February 3, March 3, and March 12, all of which were either implemented, amended, withdrawn, or delayed.) Voters are carefully watching how Canadian leaders are responding to this challenge. Most agree that the Liberal lead is based on the perception, supported by polling, that Mr. Carney has the best resume to handle US President Trump. The current challenge, however, relies not on a resume but on real-time decision-making. The management of this issue will give voters a case study of the approaches each leader takes, and given that media coverage will depict Mr. Carney taking action as the sitting prime minister, while Mr. Pollievre will likely be shown only discussing issues, this gives Mr. Carney an advantage. The debate about Mr. Carney’s role in working with the Harper government during the 2008 fiscal crisis will be overshadowed by how he handles this one. His actions (or lack thereof) will have real-time consequences and are bound to disappoint some.
April 16 and 17 are the dates for the French and English federal leaders’ debates. Debates seldom yield defining moments. On occasion, though, they do result in phrases like “you had an option, sir” and “math is difficult” becoming part of our political lexicon. That said, it is unprecedented for an incumbent prime minister to be relatively unknown to the electorate, untested as a political debater, and required to debate in his second language with limited fluency, which critics claim he is trying to conceal. While most voters do not regularly follow political news, a significant number pay at least some attention to the debates—likely watching only a portion and relying on post-debate coverage to form their conclusions—which means these events can heavily influence their impressions of the leaders. These voters are also among the more likely “vote switchers,” whose ballots can swing an election’s outcome.
External events affect election campaigns, as we saw with the 2015 photo of the washed-up body of Alan Kurdi on a Turkish beach. This campaign faces two anticipated events in the form of debates, which would be very significant for federal party leaders. I’m sure their teams are planning how to manage them, since they could significantly reshape the election narrative.
In my lifetime, the NDP usually gets between 15 and 20 percent of the popular vote in general elections. There are, though, two notable exceptions: 1993, where 6.9 percent support resulted in nine seats, and 2000, where 8.5 percent support got them 13 seats in Parliament. Most current polls show NDP support in single digits. There is much discussion about NDP vote efficiency. Some have pointed out that in the recent Ontario election, the provincial NDP turned an 18.5 percent popular vote into 27 seats (in a 124-seat legislature) while the Liberals converted 30 percent of the vote into only 14 seats. Still, it’s equally likely that the NDP’s weakness will transform many three-way races into two-way races, giving the Liberals a distinct advantage over the Conservatives. Particularly in suburban ridings in many of Canada’s larger cities, it’s challenging to predict Conservative seat gains without the NDP significantly increasing their support from current levels. The basic mathematics of vote splitting suggests that unless the NDP pulls more support from the Liberals, the Liberals will be able to get more votes than the Conservatives in these ridings.
While political about-faces are not uncommon in Canadian politics, they typically happen after a campaign when an elected government reveals it cannot fulfill its promises because it’s discovered a reality far different or worse than anticipated during the campaign. What’s unusual about this campaign is that the Liberals have made a reversal of their own signature policies—such as the consumer carbon tax, increases to the capital gains tax, and initiatives to build pipelines—a hallmark of their platform. The pragmatism of these decisions is evident to all. While it is credible to believe that Mr. Carney views capital gains taxes differently than Mr. Trudeau, it is less believable for Mr. Carney, who has authored books detailing his climate concerns and has served as the United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, to persuade Canadians that the Liberal carbon tax policy reversal is anything other than crass electioneering.
Authenticity becomes a secondary issue if the ballot question remains solely focused on leadership and who can best manage US President Trump and the tariff crisis. However, if the campaign shifts to emphasize affordability and revitalizing the Canadian economy as a response to the crisis, there will inevitably be questions about whether the Liberals can genuinely present a policy platform for a fourth term that directly reverses and contradicts their first three terms. The answers to those questions will affect voters’ perceptions of authenticity and credibility.
Today, there is much discussion about the need for patriotism, a united “Team Canada” approach to addressing the United States’ tariff challenges, and the importance of prioritizing the overall good of the country over sectoral or regional self-interest. Many paint Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, particularly, as a villain in this context due to her comments in US media, which conflict with many of the talking points of federal officials and the other premiers.
There are certainly questions about political judgement and prudence regarding some aspects of this. Still, I am struck by the nearly universal mainstream condemnation from central Canadian voices directed at Ms. Smith. There is precious little acknowledgment of how much her advocacy may reflect the views of her constituents. Ms. Smith has always been a leader who elicits polarized reactions, yet her approval rating remains at 47% (effectively unchanged since March 2023). Anecdotally, the Albertan leaders I speak with are intensifying their criticism of the rest of Canada, and even those who question the wisdom of their premier’s strategies are growing increasingly frustrated with the rest of the country’s reflexive vilification of Alberta. This week, the Toronto Star editorialized that Ms. Smith’s tactics were “undermining the national interest” and dismissed “the litany of grievances, some of which have no apparent bearing on the crisis at hand.” Many Western Canadians find this reaction insulting and further evidence that central Canadian elites are not taking their interests and concerns seriously.
All of this reminds me of the surprise that pundits experienced after the 2016 US presidential election when Donald Trump won despite pundits’ assurances that this would never happen. Subsequent analysis indicated that Mr. Trump did not cause sentiments as much as expose existing feelings that mainstream media and punditry hadn’t acknowledged. The election exposed as much as it decided things.
So, does this election and its aftermath have similar potential for Canada? Carleton University political scientist André Turcotte suggested in The Hub that Albertans’ skepticism about confederation is more intense than Quebec’s separatism. The answer to both concerns appears not in separation, but in a different federalist arrangement. So far, there is little evidence of Canadians seriously engaging with these broader concerns. With still thirty days remaining, much can change, yet a nagging part of me wonders whether April 28 will reveal as much as it answers regarding the significant issues facing Canadians.
WHAT I’M READING
Enforcing Secularism
Quebec Education Minister Bernard Drainville has proposed Bill 94, extending the province's ban on religious symbols to nearly all public school sector staff and volunteers interacting with students. These expanding secularism rules (which reportedly extend as far as preventing schools from renting facilities to any religious group off-hours) follow a critical government report documenting cases of hardline Islamic infiltration in several Quebec schools. The response seems like an overreach. However, it does highlight the difficulty of navigating between affirming the legitimate religious neutrality of state institutions and wisely defending religious freedom.
Tourist Trump Slump
The New York Times headline writers used “Trump Slump” to describe an adjustment in US tourism projections for 2025 from a 9 percent increase to a 5 percent decline in response to various American government policies. In February, border crossings from Canada into the United States declined by 24 percent compared to the previous year. By some estimates, that could mean an $18 billion loss for the US tourism industry.
Who Pays Whom for the News?
Just in time for the federal election campaign, the Canadian Journalism Collective is delivering its first funding distribution, as mandated by the Online News Act—$17.25 million dollars to “eligible news businesses” by the end of April. The Hub has received its more than $22,000 piece of the pie, but in keeping with its desire to stay clear of the “sordid mess” of media subsidies, it’s donating the whole amount to the March of Dimes. Meanwhile, the failure of historic business models to provide media organizations with news-gathering capacity has hurt media coverage for some time. Long-time journalist and media executive Peter Menzies has been a thoughtful observer of these trends. On his Substack (among other places; he’s ubiquitous these days), he has been providing useful day-by-day analysis on how this is affecting news coverage in general and election coverage in particular. He makes the important distinction between support for media that goes directly to producers instead of support that incentivizes consumers in their media choices. While on the topic, I was concerned about Quebec media outlet TVA requesting political leaders pony up a $75,000 fee to participate in their now-cancelled debate. While the coverage rightly focused on Mr. Carney’s initial agreement and subsequent withdrawal from the debate, the “pay to play” model being proposed certainly raised additional concerns.
Help Us Understand Loneliness
My colleagues are surveying how churches are responding to the loneliness crisis in North America. I invite readers who might also be in the leadership of their church to visit CardusIsolationSurvey.com and take 15 minutes or so to help us get a sense of what is happening across the country. Of course, I’d also encourage other readers who are connected to a church to pass along that website to their own church’s leadership.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
So, Where Was That Car Built?
The supply chains involved in auto production are much more complicated than most realize. News coverage this week has helped clarify that various auto parts cross the Canada-US border multiple times before a car is assembled. Visual Capitalist provided an interesting breakdown by brand, whereas the New York Times reports that Canada is actually third in providing parts for cars imported into the United States (measured by dollar value) behind Mexico and Japan.
TAKE IT TO-GO
Knock Your Sox Off
It won’t knock your socks off to learn that Insights is not a newsletter specializing in style commentary. Still, footwear came to mind as I glanced at Major League Baseball’s preseason rankings, which reminded me that sox are so important that two teams have made it part of their name. The stories regarding Chicago’s baseball team converting its identity from the Cornhuskers to the White Sox in 1901 and Boston turning from the Doves to the Red Sox in 1907 aren’t particularly compelling. However, the whimsical style statements and cuts of socks replacing the greys and blues are a relatively recent matter. There are at least sixteen types of sock cuts available on the market. I’m not sure, now that Justin Trudeau has retired, how socks will feature in the election but do note that “Canada is not for sale” socks are now on the market.
This sock talk brings to mind the 2016 Olympics in which American tennis player Jack Sock won bronze in doubles and gold in mixed doubles. No one expected a man named Sock to win a singles competition. Anyone who does laundry regularly knows that singles and socks are never a winning combination.
Admittedly, none of these puns are heel-arious, but I’m not going to get cold feet and abandon this endeavour. For you to be left without a Take It to Go just wouldn’t be right. But before my editors put their foot down, I will end it here, wishing you a good week and looking forward to putting my best foot forward in your inbox next Saturday morning.
Until then.