Shortly after 1 a.m. this past Tuesday, Mark Carney took to the stage at Ottawa’s Old Civic Centre—the same hockey arena where John Turner was elected Liberal leader in 1984, the last time the Liberals attempted to replace a member of the Trudeau family—and promised that his work would be guided by the “strong Canadian values” of humility, ambition, and unity. This is the time to be bold and to confront this crisis with the overwhelming positive force of a united Canada, he stated.
With his remarkable victory, Carney capped what may be the most remarkable four-month period in the history of Canadian politics: an incredible sequence of events that began, remarkably, on the morning of December 16.
When the country woke up that day, Justin Trudeau was still prime minister, Joe Biden was still president of the United States, Donald Trump’s comments about Canada becoming the 51st state were still considered a joke, and Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives held a 21-point lead over the Liberals in opinion polls.
Trudeau’s Liberals were on track to be not only replaced, but swept off the electoral map by Poilievre, a populist conservative armed with a corrosive aggression who promised to do things very differently.
That December day, Liberal Chrystia Freeland called the prime minister to announce that she was resigning as finance minister. Trudeau announced his intention to resign on January 6. Ten days later, Carney, a political novice, ran to replace him. Four days later, Trump returned to the White House.
Less than two weeks later, the new president launched a trade war against Canada. Five days later, Trudeau declared before a Toronto audience what many Canadians had already feared: that Trump’s statements that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state were no joke.
On March 9, Carney was elected leader of the Liberal Party. On March 23, he asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament to hold a new election. Thirty-six days later, Carney has won his own term, and this dizzying whirlwind of history has produced an exceptionally divided result, which can only underscore the challenges that await the country and the prime minister once the election campaign is over.
Liberals and Conservatives obtained more than 40 percent of the vote
Measured in terms of the popular vote, this would be the Liberals’ best result since 1980. With 43.5 percent, Carney surpasses the results obtained by the Liberals under Jean Chrétien or Justin Trudeau, even when they won majorities in the House of Commons.
It has been 25 years since any party in Canada reached 40 percent of the vote. But on Monday night, surprisingly, the Liberals and Conservatives surpassed that threshold.
At 41 percent, the Conservatives’ share of the popular vote would be the highest in the party’s 20-year history—two points more than Stephen Harper’s Conservatives earned when they won a majority in 2011—and the best result for any center-right federal party since 1988.
The last time two parties each won more than 40 percent of the popular vote was in 1930, when Richard Bedford Bennett’s Conservatives defeated Mackenzie King’s Liberals.
Poilievre loses his seat in another election defeat
A defeated but defiant Poilievre told his supporters shortly after midnight on April 28 that they had much to celebrate tonight. He also admitted that he was aware that we were not there yet, a final statement no doubt intended to justify his intentions to continue as leader of the Conservative Party.
We know that change is necessary, but it’s difficult to achieve, Poilievre said. It takes time, it takes work, and that’s why we must learn the lessons from tonight so we can achieve an even better result the next time Canadians decide the country’s future.
Compared to their 2021 result, the Conservatives made significant gains, both in votes and seats. In a normal election, 41% of the vote would have been expected to translate into a majority of seats.
But compared to the Conservatives’ situation just four months ago, when they had more than 20% support ahead of the Liberals, this election result is also an incredible debacle.
At various points during the campaign, the argument was made that Poilievre should change course. And perhaps the Conservative leader could have focused more of his rhetorical energy and political agenda on addressing the threat posed by Trump. But if Poilievre’s problem was deeper than that—if it was about who he is, how he conducts politics, and how similar it is to Trumpism—his real ability to change course was limited.
As this campaign drew to a close, the most telling sign of how things were going for the Conservative Party was Poilievre’s absence from the party’s final television ads: a tacit admission that the man the Conservatives wanted as prime minister was unpalatable to the voters the party needed to win over.
In its latest pre-election survey, Abacus Data found that 44% of Canadians had a negative opinion of Poilievre, compared to 41% who had a positive opinion. The Angus Reid Institute found an even more negative opinion of the Conservative leader: 57% of respondents said they had an unfavorable opinion, while 38% had a favorable opinion.
The 2025 election became a clear and binary choice between Poilievre and Carney—to the detriment of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois—and Poilievre lost.
The Conservatives can argue that they were simply unlucky and are now well positioned to win the next election; in fact, Poilievre’s speech Monday night, in which he theoretically conceded defeat, sounded more like an attempt to position himself for the next election campaign, theoretically in four years.
If the Liberals achieve only a minority government, something that remains undetermined as vote counting continues in some ridings, the next election could be held sooner rather than later. But it will be difficult for Poilievre to stay in office if the Liberals manage to secure a majority government.
Either way, if Poilievre intends to remain leader, he will now have to find a new seat; Liberal candidate Bruce Fanjoy ousted the Conservative leader from Carleton, a district Poilievre had held for 20 years.
Now the hard part begins
Having campaigned on the promise of leading the country through the crisis caused by the Trump administration’s economic attacks, Carney now faces the considerable challenge of delivering on his promises.
Early Tuesday morning, Carney warned that the coming days and months will be difficult and will require some sacrifices. But he promised to fight, build, and think and act big.
From day one, Carney has been a leader in a crisis. And the magnitude of the Trump crisis may only just be beginning to dawn. But the new prime minister may now have a rare opportunity to unite the country around action.
Regardless of whether the Liberals ultimately secure a majority or minority government in the House of Commons, Carney faces the unusual task of governing a country in which more than 40% of voters cast ballots for the party that will be the official opposition.
In his speech to Liberal supporters, Carney acknowledged that millions of our fellow citizens preferred a different outcome. Carney contrasted the unity of Canadians with the divisions prevailing in the United States, but that unity could be tested again.
Before Freeland called Trudeau to announce her resignation, thereby changing the course of Canadian history, the prevailing crisis was the so-called cost of living crisis. Inflation had wreaked havoc. Housing was unaffordable. Economists and business groups were also concerned about the country’s per capita GDP.
Time had also worn down the Trudeau government; they had reached a point where most governments struggle to win re-election. But beyond the public’s widespread weariness with Trudeau, the Liberals were also struggling to deliver on the promise of economic and financial security, something Trudeau himself understood as a promise that must be fulfilled if progressives and liberals were to stem the rising tide of populism.
Carney breathed new life and new leadership into the Liberal Party. And Trump gave Carney a moment that seemed made for him. The reward is the opportunity and responsibility to address crises both old and new.
