Carney’s Narrow Victory: A Mandate on the Edge/Elezioni canadesi: Le spaccature dietro la vittoria

Canada chooses stability—but not without reservations/Il Canada sceglie la stabilità — ma non senza riserve

Mark Carney secures a historic fourth term for the Liberals, but faces deep challenges: growing youth support for Conservatives, rising Western alienation, and lingering distrust in Liberal governance

A Win Against the Odds

Carney has won—long live Carney. The current Canadian Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader has pulled off what just three months ago was widely seen as Mission Impossible: securing a fourth consecutive term in government for the Liberals. He fell just short of winning an outright majority in the House of Commons, a result that would have spared him the need to negotiate with the progressive New Democratic Party (NDP) or the Bloc Québécois (BQ) for the external support required to govern with a minority. However, Canadian parliamentary practice and institutional convention hold that a government which wins an election should not be obstructed merely because it lacks a majority. Voters are unlikely to forgive any party that topples a government on a whim or for purely political gain. In short, the party that wins the election earns the right to govern—even without an absolute majority in Parliament. And Mark Carney will govern, and he will therefore be able to follow through on the political promises made during the election campaign, namely to fight hard against threats coming from south of the border. Both those to the national economy – with tariffs on cars, aluminum, steel, and fertilizers – and those to the very autonomy of the nation, with Trump's idea of turning Canada into the 51st state of the Union.

Conservative Surge: A Warning Beneath the Surface

However, as existential as it may be, the challenge posed by the United States is not the only one on which the reconfirmed Prime Minister will have to focus. Carney would do well not to ignore several signals emerging from the election results—all pointing to the strong support garnered by the Conservatives. It had been 40 years—since Brian Mulroney’s 1988 victory—that the Conservative Party had not achieved such a resounding result at the polls. Not even during the golden age of Steven Harper – the Conservative Prime Minister who remained in power for ten years (2006-2015) with three consecutive governments, the last of which, in 2011, was a majority government – did the party exceed the 40% threshold of the popular vote. It was, in fact, the First Past the Post system and the collapse of the party furthest to the left of the political spectrum (NDP), with the absorption of its voters, that handed Carney victory and the right to govern. What should concern Carney more than the size of the Conservative vote itself—which trailed the Liberal vote by a narrow 2.5%—is its concentration within a specific demographic group and its geographic distribution across the Federation.

The Youth Shift: A Conservative Future?

Let's start with the former. While impossible to validate through the electoral vote, which is obviously anonymous, the latest data on Canadians' political preferences by age group clearly indicate that the Conservatives are now the party of choice for younger voters. A Nanos Research poll (see Table 1) conducted just before the election showed that 49.3% of voters aged 18 to 34—the so-called Gen Z and younger Millennials—support the Conservative Party, compared to 30% who favor the Liberals.

Table 1.

This marks a reversal from previous years, when younger voters tended to side with progressive parties. The survey outlines a predominantly male demographic, but with a strong female presence, and an ethnic diversity representative of the Canadian mosaic.

Generational Cynicism and the Liberal Brand

The reason why Trump's threats were not enough to sway these voters toward the candidate who objectively appears to be best equipped to counter them may lie in the intricacies of generational psychology. Or perhaps it can be found more prosaically in the demands for opportunities raised by this demographic: finding a good job, an affordable home, the ability to start a family, and aspiring to a sense of stability. Those same opportunities that baby boomers, who flocked en masse to Carney's call, enjoyed, seized and exploited, and are now asking to see protected. Try explaining to these young people that everything they hope for can only be achieved if the foundations of an independent nation are secured, not held hostage by an overbearing neighbor with whom it will be difficult to rebuild the trust that existed before Trump, even after the current occupant of the White House has left office. “All parties wanted to fight Trump. We all know that the way to do it is to make the country grow,” says Lionel, a 23-year-old engineering student at the University of Victoria, “and in that regard, apart from a few differences, the Liberal and Conservative parties' recipes weren't that different.” What he adds next clearly reveals the extent of the damage inflicted on the Liberal brand by a decade of Trudeau governments, at least from the perspective of this demographic group: “And why should we trust the Liberals more than Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives? We grew up immersed in Trudeau's policies, we see their effects on our daily lives. Why should I think that anything would change with Carney? He may be different, but the party—and those he will inevitably have to rely on, especially since he is new to politics—is the same." It's a sentiment echoed by Micah, 22, also a university student studying psychology at the University of British Columbia: “We’ve been watching as the cost of living and housing prices steadily rise during our lifetime and under Trudeau’s leadership it didn’t seem like the Liberal party had any intentions on making our future affordable.” What is striking is that these young people almost seem to harbor regret for having been pushed toward the very direction they ultimately chose: “It’s a bit of a tough spot because so many of us were raised to care about the environment and certain human rights issues,” Micah continues, “but in times of economic uncertainty like this people are pushing those issues aside. Maybe the hope was that a different party in control would create more change, even if their values are somewhat misaligned with many in my generation’s.” In other words, the issue is once again one of credibility: “Carney seemed best equipped to stand up to Trump, at least in his interviews. But it wasn’t enough to break through the worry that Carney would just be a continuation of Trudeau.” Of course, there are also Lionel and Micah's peers who have put these doubts aside: “Pierre Poilievre’s plan actually looked quite good on the surface. His focus on putting Canada first and investing in Canadian infrastructure, sounded like a strong idea,” says Ross, 22, an economics major at the University of British Columbia, “However, the reality is that Canada is not well-suited for such an approach at this time, especially with the economic pressures we’re facing from the United States. Additionally, his promises to cut funding to social services and healthcare seem reckless, in my opinion. Carney comes across as a pragmatic and steady leader with the expertise needed to guide Canada through this economic uncertainty.” Yet his concluding sentence adds an unexpected nuance to his words: “In many ways, Carney is ironically the more ‘conservative’ choice.”

Pierre Poilievre (middle) with two young supporters.

Geography of Discontent: Canada’s Divided Map

Turning our attention to the geographical distribution of the vote, the Liberals remain the dominant force in Ontario, the country's economic powerhouse, winning 60% of the seats available and inflicting a symbolic humiliation on Poilievre, who lost his seat in Ottawa. But in Alberta—the province that, thanks to its mineral and oil resources, is a key player in the national economy—the Conservatives won a landslide victory, taking 85% of the seats. The blue wall (blue being the colour of the Conservatives) stretches into neighbouring Saskatchewan, where the southern region—home to the Prairie farmers who, along with those in Manitoba, make Canada something of a breadbasket to the world— is held entirely by Conservatives. What's more, Alberta already has a history of tensions with the federal government, as it feels disadvantaged in favour of the other provinces. Brian Gould, CEO of Aspen Leaf Energy, a fracking company operating in the historic Leduc oil field, couldn't sum it up better: "I don't think we're getting a fair deal: there's a widespread sense of bitterness among us. Everything we earn extra ends up being sucked elsewhere. It's like we're feeding the cow here, but all the milk goes east." It is no coincidence that Alberta has Canada's most Trump-like premier, Danielle Smith, who has never explicitly spoken of separation from Canada but has introduced legislation – called the “Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act” – that allows the province to refuse to apply federal laws or policies deemed harmful to Alberta's interests. All this while a Pollara survey conducted just over a month ago confirmed that one-fifth of residents in Alberta and Saskatchewan would favour separation from the Federation or, alternatively, union with the United States (see Table 2). This is a scenario that the prime minister of a state that already has to juggle the peculiarities of French-speaking Quebec and, occasionally, its separatist tendencies, cannot afford to take lightly.

Table 2.

A Mandate with Strings Attached

Obviously, Carney's first concern now is – and it couldn't be otherwise – to follow up on his election slogan: “Fight, Protect, Build” – Fight Trump, Protect Canadians, Build a strong Canada independent from the United States. But in doing so, it would be wise not to forget that a significant portion of the electorate who naturally represent the country’s future regards him with considerable mistrust, and that a not-insignificant part of the Federation sees him as the embodiment of a centralist and predatory power. And he would do well to remember that a significant share of those who voted for him did so by forcing themselves to overlook the past decade—and went to the polls holding their noses. One more disappointment under the Liberal banner, and a sweeping Conservative victory would be inevitable. The only question would be what kind of Conservatives would take power—and it wouldn’t necessarily be the relatively palatable version represented by the current Poilievre.

Attenzione! La versione italiana di questo articolo è stata pubblicata nella newsletter Appunti di Stefano Feltri, con cui Canadiensis collabora.