Canada’s Political Garden Needs Tending

Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.

HERE'S MY TAKE

This week’s Insights forgoes our usual format to focus on the results and implications of Monday’s Canadian election.

If the Canadian political scene can be likened to a garden, the scene after the 45th general election needs some attention. It seems to be withering, not flourishing. Pollster Darrell Bricker says the election result leaves us with “more questions than answers” with a realignment “driven not by unity, but by fracture.” Most noticeable are the branches felled by the recent lightning storm of the Trump declaration of economic war, but those only cover a more complicated understory. There’s a fair bit of work to do before this garden will again flourish.

Gardens are a collection of individual plants. While we tend to notice their relationship to each other, we can sometimes forget that each needs individual attention and a unique care plan in order to be (or stay) healthy.

Whither the Liberals?

Considering where public support for his party was as recently as four months ago, winning a fourth-in-a-row Liberal mandate is probably enough to grant Prime Minister Mark Carney political green thumb status despite his newness to politics. His party increased its seats in the House of Commons from 160 to 169 and saw its popular vote grow from 32.6 percent in the 2021 election to 43.7 percent in the 2025 election. The government side of the Commons is the most dominant plant in Canada’s political garden, but its present blooms mask some real challenges it is facing.

The most obvious challenge comes from the urgency of the current issues the government faces. There is uncertainty about the extent to which we’ll continue to see left-leaning social policies, given the momentum set by the previous three Liberal terms’ focus on culture at the expense of economics. If Mr. Carney is to be judged by his reputation and writings, such as his book Values: Building a Better World for All, he will continue to govern by prioritizing internationalism through global institutions with a definite left-of-centre flavour. However, his campaign platform struck a different tone. His political opponents called him a hypocrite for his decision as Chair of Brookfield Corporation to relocate the company’s head office to the United States, the use of offshore tax havens to evade Canadian taxes for Brookfield investments, and the construction of pipelines abroad. But, what if these were evidence of Mr. Carney’s pragmatism that made immediate choices in the short-term interest of his shareholders? Despite his writings, the Liberal platform commitments included limiting carbon taxes to corporations and not raising capital gains taxes, focusing on “building, baby, building” housing and energy infrastructure, and broadening markets for Canadian energy resources. For many Canadians, these ideas reflected a less ideological approach than that of the Liberal government he inherited and even advised.

One presumes that, being just three seats short of a parliamentary majority, it will be relatively straightforward for the Liberal government to survive a couple of years before facing the electorate again. But keep in mind that the majority of the caucus signed up for politics explicitly supporting the carbon tax and opposing the expansion of energy infrastructure. Maintaining caucus unity, even when you have some of the perques of power to distribute, isn’t simple. And when it comes to getting that majority government in the future, Liberals know that the unique conditions of this election campaign all worked in favour of Mr. Carney. In 2025, he came across as fresh in comparison to Justin Trudeau, Donald Trump’s musings and election interference gave him a perfect campaign theme, and the NDP and Bloc Québécois vote collapse provided a strategic opportunity. The next election is unlikely to have those factors and will presumably be further complicated by the baggage that comes with governing. So, Liberal MPs’ future political careers may not be as stable as they might appear today.

Whither the NDP?

The NDP’s parliamentary caucus ended the 2025 campaign at about a third of the size it had at the start of the campaign. Observers now wonder about the party’s ultimate survival. The implications involve much more than the party itself and will affect the political garden as a whole.

Optimistic New Democrats insist that NDP voters have temporarily lent their votes to the Liberals for the election in order to address the threat posed by US President Trump and the perceived threat of a potential Prime Minister Pierre Poilievre. While certainly the loss of party status and resources is inconvenient, they point to NDP provincial governments in BC and Manitoba, along with official opposition status in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, as a sign of party resilience.

There’s another take. By wielding power, the Liberal Party could become significantly more attractive to former New Democrat voters as a vehicle for implementing a left-wing agenda. Additionally, many blue-collar NDP supporters have shifted to the Conservatives, which have focused on affordability and grassroots issues. If supporting a Liberal government to prevent the rise of a Conservative one was enough for NDP leader Jagmeet Singh for three years, it’s hard to argue in the next election that NDP voters shouldn’t also do the same thing.

It’s too early to conclude whether the NDP will recover. After all, it took over a decade after their similar 1993 defeat to get back to its previous competitive level. We may be seeing the beginning of two-party dominance in Canada’s national politics. The implications go well beyond the NDP. Approximately 10 percent more Canadians identify as ideologically left-wing/progressive than those who identify as right-wing/conservative. Notably, a good proportion of the 38 percent identifying as “centrist” probably feel more comfortable with the left than the right, given various other factors. The space that the NDP occupies (or not) in the political garden has profound implications for other species, especially for the Conservatives' ability to compete for government.

Whither the Conservatives?

Before the Conservatives start thinking about their ability to compete in the next election, they have some cleanup work to do. Leader Pierre Poilievre's failure to win his seat in Parliament and the inability to translate last year’s high-water mark of popular support into a government raise significant questions. The critique of the campaign strategy started before the ballots were cast. One does not have to go far to hear rumblings of complaint about the leader-centred strategy, Mr. Poilievre’s willingness to override the choices of local membership with his own imposed candidates, and his combative approach that has ignored sitting Progressive Conservative premiers, such as Ontario’s Doug Ford and Nova Scotia’s Tim Houston. When you argue for “boots not suits,” is it a surprise that tie-wearing voters conclude that their vote isn’t your priority? It’s hardly a surprise that many previous Conservative voters (especially the older and female demographics) decided that Mr. Carney deserved their vote more than Mr. Poilievre.

Internal Conservative processes will need to address these problems. For now, it appears Mr. Poilievre has sufficient support and control over the party apparatus to continue as leader. He does have the argument in his favour that the Conservatives gained 26 more seats in the Commons, increased their popular vote to 41.6 percent, and essentially forced the Liberals to turf Prime Minister Trudeau and partially reverse course on the carbon tax. That may have earned him a second election to compete for the job of prime minister. Counter to the narrative that Mr. Poilievre “blew a 25-point lead,” the actual votes received were only a couple of percentage points behind the polling highs of last summer and a record high for the modern Conservative Party. They exceeded even the 2011 results that produced a majority government for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Successful modern political campaigns involve strategy, policy, and leadership. The Liberals succeeded in eliminating policy as a difference in this campaign, erasing most of the meaningful distinctions between themselves and the Conservatives on the key issues for the ordinary voter. (This is not to ignore some significant differences that exist between the two platforms, but apart from policy wonks whose votes aren’t up for grabs, few regular voters would be able to identify them.) The Conservatives' strategy was to define the ballot question as a referendum on past Liberal policies by calling for “change” and arguing against a “fourth Liberal term.” The Liberals simply focused on leadership. Recognizing the votes had a net negative view of Mr. Poilievre and a net positive view of Mr. Carney, the Liberals won by turning the election into a job interview to determine who would best negotiate with US President Trump. Mr. Carney’s personality and resume ultimately prevailed.

One presumes that Mr. Poilievre will have to make some adjustments in his approach to maintain his party’s support. The Conservative caucus used its power to oust his predecessor after the last election, and the party requires a leadership review vote at its next convention. But that may not be as easy as it seems. Mr. Poilievre’s strength lies in his perceived authenticity; therefore, while a humbler approach and adaptation of leadership tactics may be desirable, they will only be effective to the extent that they are genuine.

Having the Conservative flower bloom and dominate in the Canadian political garden will require not only enough size (getting enough votes) but also position (getting them in the right places). Ian Brodie, a former chief of staff to Prime Minister Harper, published a significant analysis this week (partly behind a paywall) in which he reflected on the strategic changes Mr. Harper made between the 2004 and 2006 elections, which included an overhaul of the team, tactically working with other opposition parties, and working differently with the various sub-streams of his party to build a more effective coalition.

Whither the economy?

I’ve made passing references to US President Trump, and to be clear, reworking the Canada-United States economic and security relationship will be hugely consequential. But let’s leave the garden metaphor for a moment and consider a card game. In dealing with President Trump, it is more important to have a strong hand than just to be a skilled player. During the election, Mr. Carney presented himself as our most skilled negotiator. Well, those negotiations began this week. It is more important to focus on what is in Canada’s control (the cards he has to play) rather than his record as a player, given what the United States could do to us with the cards in its hands. Canada is the ninth or tenth largest economy in the world (depending on how you measure it) with an enviable reserve of energy resources that the business community has described as a “sleeping economic giant.” Removing internal trade barriers and advancing other economic initiatives, such as a version of the Conservative election proposal to reinvest capital gains taxes in Canadian companies, and Prime Minister Carney’s election-night recommitment to “build, build, build” seem like low-hanging fruit. But we’ve heard it all before. Will the words turn into action? Will the action occur quickly enough to strengthen our negotiating position with the United States, thereby enabling a deal that mitigates the negative impacts of the change in American trade priorities and policies?

Whither the country?

Back to the garden metaphor, we’ll need to keep our political garden intact through unity. There are rumblings, especially in Quebec and western Canada, about building fences to reshape the garden. Polls suggest that in 2026, Quebec will elect a Parti Québécois government which promises a separation referendum “sooner than we think.” The past six months should teach us not to rely on present polls to predict events a year or two hence. While I won’t pretend to understand the dynamics of Quebec politics, most who do seem to be skeptical that such a referendum would succeed.

It’s in Alberta where the separation talk seems most intense and Premier Danielle Smith set the stage this week for a possible independence referendum. Former opposition and Reform Party leader Preston Manning has been warning that the Western response to the Liberal election win would involve a new consideration of “independence-oriented proposals.” This week, Mr. Manning announced that he was working on a “Canada West Assembly” to deliberate on next steps. Jason Kenney, a former federal cabinet minister and Alberta premier, acknowledged that “resentment and anxiety in Alberta are a very real thing,” but he dismissed separation talk as a counterproductive “fringe movement.”

Each of these movements has its dynamics and momentum, and how Prime Minister Carney responds and is seen to respond to them is crucial. But even if neither independence movement is successful on its own, their confluence may lead to a restructuring of the federal-provincial arrangements just as the 1985-1995 decade resulted in a national political focus on constitutional conferences rather than on legislatures. So, we may be in for an era of discussing and restructuring the national arrangements. I’ve no space here, but rethinking the arrangements of some of our political institutions, whose flaws have become obvious, is a complicated but essential subtext for those discussions.

Whither Christian influence?

This newsletter is written with an explicit intention of providing resources for faith and public life. To clarify, my understanding of Christian influence in the public square centres on promoting justice for all. All issues are of concern to Christians, not just specific moral issues or those that directly impact their particular faith communities. However, justice for all does encompass some significant problems that did not receive much attention during the election campaign. Canada’s euthanasia laws are set to extend eligibility for premature death to those suffering solely from mental illness in March of 2027. While noble words and even legislation have been passed, meaningful implementation has not taken place in a manner that addresses the significant needs of our neighbours in mental and emotional distress. The irresponsible recommendations of a parliamentary committee regarding the removal of the advancement of religion as a basis for charitable status; the refusal to meaningfully discuss Canada’s anti-semitism crisis, or the deafening silence regarding church burnings—the list of issues that come very close to home is a long one and for the most part ignored.

The health of the garden comes from the combined health of the individual plants. Healthy politics requires healthy component institutions. 

Canada hired a new lead gardener this week, but it’s essential to remember that maintaining the garden is a shared responsibility among all Canadians. The good news is that 19.5 million Canadians (over 68 percent of those eligible) voted this week, indicating a significant level of concern. Successful gardening isn’t just about paying attention to the election campaign theatre that occurs every few years. It involves getting our hands dirty in between, watering the political plants, and pulling the weeds that threaten the garden. That’s work that involves getting on our knees as well. Especially for Christians, it’s essential to combine our political activity with a prayerful dependence on God to protect and bless Canada’s political garden.

These are stormy times. The future is uncertain and storms easily damage parts of the garden. Still, there is good reason to pray and work, trusting that our withering political plants may soon flourish to form a much more delightful picture than the one we see today. As the fourth verse of O Canada, penned by Robert Weir in 1908, says so beautifully:

Ruler Supreme, Who hearest humble prayer,
Hold our dominion within Thy loving care.
Help us to find, O God, in Thee
A lasting, rich reward,
As waiting for the Better Day,
We ever stand on guard.

O Canada! We stand on guard for thee.

Til next week.