Canadians will go to the polls on April 28 to choose a new government after a 36-day election campaign. Governor-General Mary Simon signed the election writ yesterday following a meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney.
Earnscliffe Insights Election Report
Welcome to our weekly Earnscliffe Insights Election Report, which will be published every Friday going forward throughout the campaign. Get it straight to your inbox!
Several of us at Earnscliffe have spent earlier careers deeply involved in election campaigns – doing communications in war rooms, advising on campaign planes and buses, helping leaders with debate preparation and writing their campaign speeches.
Based on these many years of experience, we’ll be going behind the headlines in this campaign to analyse:
- How the parties are defining the ballot question, their advertising strategies and spends, and what they are doing on the digital and social media fronts.
- Where the leaders are looking for support and why, and the nexus between policy and leadership.
- How third parties and civil society groups are attempting to animate the campaign and influence the ballot choices of Canadians.
- And a look at the public pulse with our bi-weekly omnibus public opinion poll that tracks what Canadians are thinking about the most important issues facing the country.
The context for Election 2025
It’s not an overstatement to say this election will be like no other in our country’s history. It comes at a time of unprecedented political change and economic turmoil caused by a set of relentless and existential threats against Canada by U.S. President Donald Trump.
Less than three months ago, this was slated to be a classic “Time for a change” election battle among the parties. As 2025 began, after nine years in office, the governing Liberals were led by a hugely unpopular Justin Trudeau. Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives had a lead in the polls of more than 20 percentage points and appeared to be headed for a smashing victory, but then Canada’s political landscape was turned upside down.
On January 6, Justin Trudeau indicated he would resign as Liberal leader and called a leadership contest to choose his successor. The leadership was won by international economist Mark Carney, the only person ever to head two G7 countries’ central banks. After he became Prime Minister, his first decision was to end consumer carbon pricing, effectively depriving Poilievre of his most potent criticism of the Liberals.
South of the border, after being sworn in as President in January, Donald Trump threatened, then started a trade war with Canada, which will likely cost thousands of Canadian jobs. In addition, he has repeatedly and aggressively challenged Canadian sovereignty and talked of using economic measures to impoverish the country to force Canada to become the 51st state. With Canadians’ security blanket of bilateral free trade with the United States ripped away, the resulting anxiety and defiance against the Trump threats have touched off an unprecedented surge of Canadian nationalism and patriotism.
What do the polls say?
According to Canada338, which averages all Canadian public polls, the political developments since the turn of the year have significantly impacted public opinion.
On January 6, 2025, the day Justin Trudeau announced his pending resignation, the Conservatives had the support of 43% of Canadians, followed by the Liberals at 20%, the NDP at 18%. As of March 20, Canada338 has the Conservatives and Liberals now in a dead heat at 38%, and the NDP down to 11%, with some polls now showing the Liberals in the lead.
In Quebec, the Liberals have reversed the lead held by the Bloc Quebecois in early January, and are now at 36%, with the Bloc at 28%, the Conservatives at 23% and the NDP trailing at 7%.
These volatile polling results indicate the extent to which the Trudeau resignation, Carney’s election as leader and the Trump trade threats have transformed Canadian public opinion. The massive Conservative lead has disappeared, and they are now tied in public support with the Liberals under Mark Carney. In addition, the NDP have dropped precipitously since the turn of the year, from their usual range of 18%-22% over previous months to the level of 9%-13% in current polls.
Several influences are at play in the collapse of NDP support. The Trump threats appear to have created a new electoral dynamic in which the election is increasingly seen as a binary choice between the Liberals and Conservatives, and such polarization tends to crowd out third parties. Clearly, the Liberal gains since the turn of the year have come at the expense of both the Conservatives and the NDP. In addition, some potential NDP voters may also be deciding to vote strategically to block the Conservatives from forming government. As in many elections, the NDP now faces the challenge of broadening its potential tent of support to avoid a “wasted vote” mindset among voters.
The NDP collapse is also bad news for the Conservatives. In many constituencies in English-speaking Canada, they depend on a strong NDP to split the progressive vote by taking votes from the Liberals to enable Conservative candidates to come up the middle to take seats. With the NDP now at or close to single digits in public support, there will be far fewer ridings in which this is the case.
How to interpret conflicting polls
Allan Gregg, the noted pollster and Earnscliffe Principal, has two mantras: “Believe in your data, even if it makes you cry”, and “If you can’t tell which poll to trust, don’t trust any of them”.
The past three months have seen significant variability in the polls: a huge Conservative lead, diminishing Conservative support, a dead heat between the Conservatives and Liberals, a slight or strong lead for the Liberals, and everything between these extremes. While several trends are apparent in these results, what should we make of the polls when they disagree with each other?
Despite the seemingly wide array of simultaneous horse race standings, there is nevertheless consensus on what is changing in the numbers. All agree that the large lead Conservatives had long held is gone. Several studies demonstrate that this shift is linked to the three massive changes in the political environment noted earlier: Trudeau’s departure, Mark Carney’s becoming Liberal leader and Prime Minister and Trump’s trade war with Canada and his threats of annexation.
We can agree that public opinion is in flux and what we are seeing is a measure of rapidly shifting fortunes between the parties. But in a period of volatile changes in public opinion, it may be more helpful to focus on the trend of each specific polling company. Currently, the differences between them are so striking that they can distract from what is generally a similarity in trend.
In addition, it’s clear that opinions are very soft at the moment – voters certainly have not had much time to get to know Mark Carney and the roller-coaster of the Trump threats can make something highly stressful one day and much less so then next. Soft opinion is malleable, changeable opinion. So, expect changes in polls, but do try not to compare Tuesday’s release from one company with Wednesday’s release from another without knowing the story each company is seeing. We seem to be living an odd moment of disagreement on party standings, but agreement on trends.
The ballot question
The most important task of a party leader in a national election is creating the ballot question. It’s each leader’s key differentiator from the others and is also the strategic phrase that features the “big issue” of the campaign and frames the choice the voters will make on election day.
As 2025 began, Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives had developed a killer ballot question with all the ingredients for a smashing victory. It enabled the bundling of the one big issue with all the others and was an instantly recognizable call to key constituencies: “Axe the tax. Build the homes. Fix the budget. Stop the crime.” But the Trudeau resignation, Carney’s ascension, the end of the carbon tax and the Trump threats have changed all that. Poilievre has attempted to pivot and adapt to the new circumstances, but he has appeared uncomfortable and unsure of himself as he seeks a new narrative that will connect with voters in the changed political environment.
Elections campaigns are usually about the past and the future – the record of the current government versus the alternative offering change and possibility. In 2025, the election will first and foremost be about the present, leading to the following ballot question: “Who is the leader best equipped to protect Canadian sovereignty and negotiate with President Trump?”
Since that question obviously plays to Mark Carney’s strengths, the Liberals will emphasize his government and private sector experience and his expertise against Pierre Poilievre’s more limited background. We can expect attack strategies will be played out, with the Conservatives painting Carney as “Just like Justin” and the Liberals arguing that Poilievre is a “Mini Trump.”
Speaking in Ottawa last Friday, Poilievre presented his alternative: “Do we want a fourth term of Liberals who block resources, tax the people, drive up our costs, unleash crime in our community and make us weak and defenceless facing the Americans, or do we want to place Canada first for a change?”
As the campaign progresses and the layers of these duelling ballot questions are peeled back, more substantive questions will emerge for all parties to answer:
- Do you favour dollar for dollar retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. or is there a limit on how far you will go?
- When and how will you achieve the NATO 2% defence spending target? Will you raise Canada’s spending target higher?
- With rules-based international diplomacy and our most important trade relationship in doubt, how will you develop new trade and security partners and with whom?
- Given current high deficits and rising debt, how will you cut taxes as you have promised, while diversifying the economy, investing in growth to solve Canada’s flagging productivity record, helping workers potentially hurt by Trump’s tariffs, and building out east-west energy and internal trade corridors?
The Caretaker Convention and Canada-U.S. relations
The rules that define the limitations on what a government can and cannot do during the election period are called the “Caretaker Convention”. The convention is not legislative in nature; instead, it is a protocol that defines acceptable behaviours for the government and cabinet within the writ period covering an election.
The caretaker period runs from when a government loses a vote of non-confidence in the House or when Parliament has been dissolved until when an election result returning an incumbent government is clear, or until a new government is sworn in.
The Caretaker Convention covering the 2021 election noted its rules do not prevent the government from addressing the “routine” and “necessary business” of government during the writ period. In addition, “In the event of emergencies, such as natural disasters, the government must have a free hand to take appropriate action to ensure that the public interest, notably the safety and security of Canadians, is preserved.”
During a caretaker period, government action should be restricted to matters that are:
- “Routine, or
- Non-controversial, or
- Urgent and in the public interest, or
- Reversible by a new government without undue cost or disruption or agreed to by opposition parties (in those cases where consultation is appropriate.”
While ministers remain in place for the purpose of departmental duties during the election period, they must “defer to the maximum extent possible such matters as appointments, policy decisions, new spending or other initiatives, announcements, negotiations or consultations, non-routine contracts and grants and contributions.” Ministers are also required to “avoid participating in high-profile government-related domestic and international events, including federal/provincial/territorial events, international visits, and the signing of treaties and agreements.”
The 2021 Caretaker Convention specified some important exceptions to these rules:
- “In the case of a significant international or domestic event where the failure to have the Prime Minister or a minister comment would do damage to Canadian interests or prestige.
- For greater clarity, there may be compelling reasons for continued participation by ministers and/or officials in specific activities such as treaty negotiations. For example, when negotiations are at a critical juncture with timelines beyond Canada’s control, the failure to participate in ongoing negotiations during the caretaker period could negatively impact Canada’s interests. Under such conditions, a compelling case may be made for ongoing efforts to protect Canada’s interests. Irreversible steps such as ratification should be avoided during this caretaker period.”
These exceptions to the Caretaker Convention are important given the ongoing turmoil in Canada-U.S. relations. It is likely that some or all of the following U.S. tariffs will be launched during the election period:
- Trump’s one-month exemption for tariffs on Canadian autos entering the United States ends on April 5. So does the exemption on Canadian goods going into the U.S. that are “USMCA-compliant. Trump has repeatedly said that the reprieve will end on April 2.
- The U.S. has promised to announce a single, country-specific tariff rate for each of its trading partners on April 2. His Treasury Secretary has said the U.S. will then give the countries an opportunity to avoid the levies by lowering their own tariffs or addressing other American grievances.
Since these events will fall in the election period, government responses will likely need to be accommodated within the caretaker convention.
Insights in this piece contributed by Geoff Norquay.
