The 2025 election was strange. The Liberals won another minority government pulling the proverbial rabbit out of a hat, when just a few months previously it was headed for certain defeat. To accomplish this feat the Liberals were assisted by a number of lucky breaks together with some serious mistakes made by the Conservatives.
The Liberals’ Lucky Breaks
- Trump Interference
The Liberals were fortunate that U.S. President Donald Trump interfered in the election by announcing his preference for Carney. Trump is also threatening heavy tariffs on Canadian exports and is repeatedly referring to Canada as the “51st U.S. state.” This posturing by Trump caused fear and anxiety among some Canadians, especially those in Quebec who believed that Quebec would lose its language and culture rights if Canada was absorbed into the U.S. For example, at the launching of the election campaign, the Bloc Quebecois (BQ) was far in the lead over the Liberals in Quebec, but when the election ended, after a recount, the Liberals held 44 of Quebec’s 78 seats, with the Bloc Quebecois (BQ) winning only 22 seats. The Liberals had effectively used the “Trump card” throughout the election campaign promoting Carney’s academic credentials and his financial and economic experience as the necessary tool to protect Canada from Trump. Some Canadians outside of Quebec also feared for Canada’s future and were willing to vote for Carney by overlooking Carney’s shady past. This included Carney’s habitual lying, his failures in the U.K. as Governor of the Bank of England which left that country in economic distress, his shoddy financial dealings (offshore investments to avoid taxes), and his willingness to align himself with Communist China despite its proven intervention in Canada’s elections.
It is also curious that Trump gave tacit, if not outright explicit support for Carney who is closely involved with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and who had close associations with world globalists and their agenda, which Trump detested. There are at least two plausible explanations for Trump’s puzzling endorsement of Carney. The first is that Trump believed that Carney’s obsession with climate change will destroy Canada’s economy, particularly the oil and gas industry, which will reduce international investment in Canada. This would weaken Canada economically resulting in Trump having the upper hand in trade negotiations with Canada. Another explanation, which was given little mention during the election, was the favour owed by Trump to Carney for Carney’s refusing, as Chairman of Brookfield Asset Management, to cooperate with the U.S. Senate Finance Committee’s investigation into a deal between Brookfield and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
In regard to the complex business deal, Jared Kushner’s real estate firm had been in deep financial difficulty because of an outstanding mortgage owed on an office tower in Manhattan, New York. In 2018, before Carney became Chairman, Brookfield came to Kushner’s rescue with a 99-year lease on the property for US$1.2 billion. For reasons known only to Brookfield and Kushner, the full lease price was paid upfront, rather than by annual rental payments. During the timeframe in which this deal was put together, Kushner was serving as a White House senior advisor to Trump, which included aspects of the Trump administration’s Middle East policy, including relations with Qatar. Interestingly, at the same time, Brookfield’s second-largest stakeholder was Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund which would have been involved in financing the billion-dollar rental payment for Kushner.
During Carney’s tenure as Chairman, Brookfield twice declined to answer questions or provide information regarding the nature and substance of the Brookfield investment or the possible knowledge that Qatar may have had regarding the parties involved in the deal. Carney’s stonewalling during his testimony before the Committee protected the Trump family’s reputation and finances.
- The Collapse of the NDP
The NDP vote collapsed in the election, falling from 25 seats to only 7 seats. This was an unmitigated disaster for the party, as 12 seats are required for a party to be officially recognized in Parliament. The loss of party status means that the NDP does not receive funding for its operations and research, will not have certainty to be appointed to Parliamentary committees, and will have little opportunity to speak during Question Period in the House of Commons. Much of the failure of the NDP was due to its leader, Jagmeet Singh. It is not unkind, but accurate, to say that Singh was a grievous failure as leader. This was due to two major factors: Singh’s inability to connect with the public and the party members. The NDP’s purpose, which was developed by its predecessor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), a democratic socialist political party, founded in 1932, was to represent the blue-collar worker, the poor and the vulnerable. In contrast, Singh, privately wealthy, strode around in his $1000 suits, Rolex watches and drove a Maserati. He was only interested in promoting progressive policies such as transgenderism and green energy. Singh loathed the Conservatives as exemplified by his continued support of the Liberals even after he terminated the Supply-and-Confidence agreement with Trudeau Liberals in September 2024. Singh could not abide the Conservatives forming a government should a non-confidence motion against the Liberals be successful. Further, Trudeau had moved the Liberal party further to the left which perfectly suited Singh. NDP voters could see little difference between the two parties, and their votes flooded to the Liberals during the election. This prevented the usual split between the left-wing parties (Liberals, NDP) which had, in the past, benefitted the Conservatives.
The Conservative Party’s Mistakes During the Election
The Conservative Party has been successful in expanding its reach by gaining the support of the working-class and new immigrants (east Asian, Chinese and Middle East newcomers). As a result, Conservatives gained seats in the former NDP strongholds of Hamilton, Windsor and Durham Region. Also, millennials appear to have abandoned the Liberals and are shifting their support to the Conservatives.
Unfortunately, this shift was not sufficient for the Conservatives to win the election. This is due to the fact that the party made some serious mistakes during the election. These included: Poilievre’s failure to vigorously address Donald Trump; his failure to engage with social media outlets such as Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan, and his failure to re-engage with Jordan Peterson, to get his message out to a much wider audience than what legacy media can reach; his failure to object to transgenders destroying women’s sports; his failure to clearly stand for parents’ rights with respect to their children’s education, health and safely; his failure to defend freedom of speech and a truly free press; his adamant support for abortion; and his failure to object to the horrors of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). Even the legacy media was raising concerns about MAiD. Poilievre falsely referred to abortion and MAiD as “rights”, which is totally not the case in Canadian law.
Prior to the election, Poilievre boldly spoke out against illegal drugs, the presence of uncontrolled crime, the insanity of the carbon tax and the demands for renewable energy (wind and solar). During the election, however, Poilievre appeared less outspoken, less forthright and more timid. An explanation for this change may have been caused by the poor direction from his Red Tory advisors. The latter included the National Campaign Manager, Jenni Byrne, a pro-abortion, feminist Red Tory. Ms Byrne is a voice from a past era, who has long overstayed her “best before” date. She and other Red Tory advisors caused Poilievre to follow a safe Red Tory agenda which had been promoted by previous Conservative leaders such as Erin O’Toole. That is, Poilievre persistently talked about the safe issues of housing, inflation, the carbon tax, but did not support prolife issues.
The Conservatives have lost yet another election because they refused to move forward with the changing times. Why has the Conservative party failed to have a genuine Conservative as leader to confidently and manfully stride forward defending life, family and faith, without weak knees, ignoring the Red Tory’s claims that these issues are politically toxic? The claim that “social conservative” issues are “toxic” is completely incorrect as evidenced by the election of 46 prolife MPs. The Conservative party continues to be an enfeebled pink reflection of the Liberal party. It did not help the party when Ontario Premier, Doug Ford, an uncertain Conservative, continually criticized Poilievre during the campaign.
What Happens Next?
The honest response to the question “What is going to happen next” is that nobody knows. The Liberals won 170 seats but could be down one seat when one of its MPs is chosen as speaker. In order to have a majority, the Liberals require 172 seats which means they are now 2 seats short. Consequently, it must seek support from either the 22-member BQ or the 7-member NDP caucus. The BQ is always unpredictable since it is only interested in gaining advantages for Quebec. Further, the party is facing financial difficulties and will not want to trigger an election anytime soon. As a result, it will likely support the Liberals on all issues that call for a vote of confidence in the government. The 7-member NDP caucus will also likely support the Liberals. To do so, however, they will likely require that the Liberals provide them with party status or perhaps include the NDP in the cabinet, which effectively would provide a coalition government. As a result, it is possible that the Liberals will remain in power for the full four years of office.
Politics, however, is full of surprises and we cannot predict with certainty what lies ahead. Based on what we know at the present, the situation for the prolife/family cause does not look positive. On the other hand, the Liberals face massive challenges: Trump’s demands, an ever-increasing national debt, a stagnant economy, demands from Alberta, which if they are not met, may lead to a constitutional crisis. Further, the Liberal party itself is not healthy, as it has become not a national, but a regional party representing mostly eastern Canada. The Liberals have not been politically successful in western Canada since 1949. Also, the Liberal seats in the last election were mainly obtained in the three major cities of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. The Liberal party has lost the blue-collar vote, the vote of new Canadians and rural voters. New Canadians find some Liberal social policies objectionable, such as harm reduction policies for drugs and the failure to keep repeat offenders incarcerated. According to David Colette of Abacus Data Polling “[New Canadians] value family, faith, entrepreneurship and community order.” He went on to say, “For many, the Liberals’ progressive stances on gender, parental rights, and criminal justice reform felt out of touch.” It is apparent this loss of support has largely been due to the Liberals’ progressive policies. Typically, minority governments remain in power for approximately fifteen months. It is always possible, therefore, that a situation may arise which will lead to the defeat of the Liberals. In the meantime, as always, the prolife/family cause will continue to be an active voice in Canadian politics.