On March 23, newly minted Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced snap elections for April 28, kicking off a contest to determine Canada’s future at a critical juncture. The election pits the incumbent Liberal Party, which has received a second wind since January in part due to tariffs and political threats from the United States, against the Conservative Party under the leadership of “Canada First” politician Pierre Poilievre. No matter the outcome, however, the next leader of Canada will inherit a tense relationship with the United States, public pressure to deliver economic gains, and an increasingly fraught global security environment that impinges upon Canada’s sovereignty.
Q1: New Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called snap elections—what happens now?
A1: After winning the Liberal Party’s leadership race on March 9, Mark Carney, now prime minister, decided to call a snap election. After just 10 days as prime minister, Carney seeks to take advantage of the Liberal Party’s improved polling numbers and to win a mandate of his own. It is also likely that Carney wagered that it is better to call elections on his terms than to wait for a no-confidence vote in Canada’s Parliament, which had been prorogued since early January as a result of the Liberal Party’s leadership race.
The elections are now set for April 28, 2025, sending parties sprinting for the finish in a quick 37-day election—the minimum required by law. Governed by the Westminster, first-past-the-post system, 343 individual elections in districts (“ridings” in Canadian parlance) will take place across the country. Given the close polling numbers between the Liberal and Conservative parties, the election appears to be a toss-up.
Q2: What are the main issues in the election, and how have these issues evolved over the last few months?
A2: The election was going to be about domestic issues, the economy, inflation and taxes, housing prices, immigration, healthcare, and crime. Poilievre had been hammering the Liberals on these topics for the past year, very effectively, as reflected in the Conservatives’ massive 24-point poll lead prior to the January 6 announcement that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would step down.
However, President Trump’s tariff threats and musings about annexation, along with Carney’s appearance on the scene, are having a profound effect on the election and its likely outcome. Carney, who was not part of the unpopular Trudeau government, has quickly disavowed some of his predecessor’s signature policies (like eliminating most of the carbon tax and reversing the capital gains increase) and moved the party to the center. He reduced the size of the Cabinet and lowered the profile of progressive files, like disabilities, women, and gender equality, by subsuming them into other ministries. He has promised to “spend less and invest more.” Poilievre, who had spent the last year getting ready for a campaign against Trudeau by painting a dismal picture of the Liberal record and saying “everything is broken” in the country, now has to pivot and find an effective message against Carney.
Yet during his first speech of the campaign, Poilievre stuck to familiar ground, highlighting what he saw as the Trudeau years’ failures—soaring housing and food costs, 2 million Canadians relying on food banks, rising crime, stalled resource development, half a trillion dollars spent in the United States, and growing dependence on Canada’s southern neighbor. He tried to paint Carney as the heir to the Trudeau years, even though he was never part of the government. Poilievre said he would cut taxes, build homes, lock up criminals, secure the border, and unlock natural resources. At a subsequent rally, he promised a 15.00 percent to 12.75 percent income tax reduction. Poilievre has also promised to repeal the carbon tax in its entirety, which would go further than Carney.
Playing to his strength, Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, said in his speech announcing the election that his government would fix the economy. He touted the accomplishments of his 10-day old government, including boosting Canada’s defenses with new radars acquired from Australia, strengthening a defense relationship with France and the United Kingdom, negotiating a new trade agreement with the European Union to support Canadian businesses, ending the carbon tax on consumers and farmers, reversing the increase in the capital gains tax, promising to eliminate barriers to interprovincial trade, and working to unlock the country’s energy and critical minerals potential with new trade corridors— among other issues.
While the domestic issues both leaders outlined will be an integral part of their campaigns, how to deal effectively with the unpredictable U.S. president overshadows all other electoral issues. Campaigning on that question is inextricably intertwined with discussions around how to make Canada resilient to tariffs, growing and diversifying the economy, securing Canada’s borders, and strengthening the country’s defense capabilities, including in the Arctic. Both leading candidates are wrapping themselves in the flag, with the Liberals using the slogan “Canada Strong” and the Conservatives “Canada First” (though it echoes President Trump’s “America First” policy). The Liberals are leaning into a resurgent nationalism visible in “Elbows Up” rallies, a hockey term, which are occurring across the country to show strength and defiance in the face of President Trump’s threats. Both firmly affirm that they will stand up to President Trump, while to some extent touting similar solutions to his threats. The election will hinge on who Canadians think has the experience and temperament to effectively confront the U.S. president.
Q3: The polls have tightened considerably since former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stepped aside—what are the most likely outcomes?
A3: A CSIS paper published the day after Trudeau announced he would resign explained that there was a 98 percent probability that the Conservative Party of Canada would form the next government had an election occurred at that time. They would have won in a landslide, obtaining between 206 and 244 seats to the Liberals’ 29–57 in the 343-seat lower house. Since then, there has been a seismic shift in the polls as a result of Trudeau stepping down and President Trump’s threats. As of March 25, two days after the election was called, the Liberal Party, which had been all but left for dead, was projected to win a majority with 183 seats to the Conservatives’ 130 (their current numbers in parliament stand at 152–120). The Liberals have momentum and a slight lead in aggregate polls with 39.6 percent support versus 37.3 percent for the Conservatives, with the difference in the seat projection being the result of Canada’s first-past-the-post system. The current third party in parliament, the New Democratic Party, which had propped up Trudeau’s minority Liberal government, could be significantly reduced, down to 4 seats from 24, making the separatist Bloc Québécois the third force in parliament at 24 seats.
Q4: What does the election mean for the future of North America and U.S.-Canada relations?
A4: U.S.-Canada relations are at a critical juncture. While the two countries remain close neighbors and allies with deeply integrated supply chains, the Trump administration’s rhetoric, particularly its allusions to territorial expansion and incorporation of Canada as the “51st state,” has shaken Canadian foreign policy assumptions to their core. While pronouncements of the death of the U.S.-Canada alliance remain much exaggerated, the next prime minister will inherit a relationship that may need to learn how to crawl again before it can walk.
Accordingly, the main challenges the next prime minister will face with respect to the U.S.-Canada relationship will likely remain the same in either a Carney or Poilievre government. Some of the key grievances espoused by the Trump administration on trade imbalances, the flow of fentanyl, migration, and Canada’s laggard defense spending will not go away with a change of government. Some points of departure may include the role of Canada’s allies in Europe, with whom Carney is more likely to find common cause, and countering organized crime and drug trafficking, where Poilievre is liable to make a stronger push under his “Stop the Crime” pledge. But beyond these divisions, there is reason to believe that the tenor of U.S.-Canada negotiations could change dramatically after April 28.
So far, the sparring between Washington and Ottawa has largely taken place under a lame duck Trudeau administration and an atmosphere of deep political uncertainty in Canada. By contrast, the winner of the election will enter office with a fresh political mandate and strong public pressure to resolve the dispute with Canada’s southern neighbor without caving. This could give Canada a stronger hand to play in negotiations with the United States over hot-button issues like trade, border security, and defense spending. Mark Carney has already expressed that he is willing to negotiate with President Trump, but only “on our terms as a sovereign country, not as what [Trump] pretends we are.” Poilievre has found himself in a difficult position, ideologically closer to Trump than his opponent, but still needing to defend Canada’s sovereignty and dignity. He may thus seek to avoid being seen as overly conciliatory to Trump. However, ensuring that an insistence upon respectful dealings does not breed further tension will be a difficult line to tread.
Christopher Hernandez-Roy is the deputy director and senior fellow of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Ryan C. Berg is director of the Americas Program and head of the Future of Venezuela Initiative at CSIS. Henry Ziemer is an associate fellow with the Americas Program at CSIS.
