Well, it’s all over but the naval gazing. No political party got what they wanted. The Liberal Party under Mark Carney fell just short of the majority they coveted and were expected to get. The Conservatives, with Pierre Poilievre, failed to win government, and the New Democrats, under Jagmeet Singh, got thrown to the side of the road.
So, what happened?
Pierre Poilievre campaigned on the need for change, and clearly, most Canadians, with the largest turnout for a federal election in many years, wanted change, too. For some of them, getting rid of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was change enough. A larger factor, however, is that during the election campaign, many Canadians saw Mark Carney, rather than Pierre Poilievre, as that agent for change.
They saw positive signs in his election platform, that he would move the Liberal Party away from the clutches of the far left, and back to its traditional place on the centre left of the political spectrum. They liked his non-confrontational style and partly because of this, they believed him best suited to deal with job number one and that is the threats to Canada from the Trump Administration in the United States.
In what was essentially a two-party, two-person race, Canadians did not give the Carney Liberals the strong mandate they wanted, but they did choose Carney, the new guy on the political block, over the devil they knew.
With a strong minority, my view is that the Carney Government should act like they have a majority. Barring some kind of catastrophe, no other minority party in the House of Commons, including the Conservatives, is going to force an election in the foreseeable future, and if they do, they will pay a huge price at the polls.
Canada needs strong leadership now, more so than in a long while. Although somewhat narrowly, Canadians have chosen Mark Carney to be that leader. He needs to be able to exercise that mandate without being held hostage by the NDP or the Bloc Québécois.
One of the strange outcomes of this national election is that the political party that came second won more seats than parties in previous elections needed to form a majority government in Canada.
Pierre Poilievre and his Conservative Party increased their seat count in Parliament considerably, and they also increased their popular vote across the country. Poilievre deserves credit for that. It may even allow him to hang on to his leadership in spite of a Tory penchant to scrap leaders who miss winning the big prize.
Poilievre has made it clear that he intends to stay on as Conservative Leader and a Conservative member in Alberta has already agreed to step aside in a safe riding to get him a seat in Parliament.
Whether that happens or not depends first on his elected caucus. That may not be a slam dunk for Poilievre because, thanks to Tory MP Michael Chong, who sponsored caucus reform legislation, the caucus will have the opportunity to vote in a secret ballot as to whether they want him to continue as leader.
Most, if not all, elected Conservatives are publicly supporting Poilievre. With the option of a secret ballot, another outcome could well be achieved behind closed doors.
Why?
Because this election was lost for the Conservatives by Pierre Poilievre and his campaign team and not by anyone else. Once the campaign was in full swing, almost every poll showed that Poilievre was the problem. Many people, at doors across the country, said they liked the Conservative Party platform but could not vote for its leader. He was seen to be too negative, far too confrontational, misogynous, and a little too much like Donald Trump.
Obviously, Poilievre’s own campaign people finally saw this as their last two weeks of ads completely ignored Poilievre.
The Montreal Gazette recently had a headline that read, “Elections aren’t for second place. Poilievre has to go.” I am not sure that I agree with that across the board, but in this instance, I do.
It is Pierre Poilievre who lost the election for the Conservatives, and he should pay the price for that, although there still may be enough alt-right Conservatives in the Tory caucus to see that he doesn’t. It is my belief that if Erin O’Toole remained as Conservative Leader after the 2021 election, the Conservatives today would have a majority government. Those Conservatives who can now decide who their leader will be going forward need to think about that.
Also, given the immediate challenges we now face from our neighbour to the south, is Pierre Poilievre the appropriate person to lead His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition?
In a recent newspaper article, Robin Sears, a former colleague of mine and a political pundit, said this: “At a moment when the federal government is going to war with a powerful and determined enemy, Poilievre’s parliamentary tactics – denounce, delay and paralyze – would be welcome fodder for U.S. President Donald Trump. He is a man experienced at sowing and reaping the rewards from a divided enemy… Trump is a master at divide and conquer.”
And so, the question to those who will determine Mr. Poilievre’s fate is, can a leopard change its spots?
Turning locally, it should not surprise anyone that incumbent Scott Aitchison was re-elected for his third term in the House of Commons (I believe he is now eligible for a pension.)
Aitchison is well known throughout Parry Sound-Muskoka, and he has done his homework. His riding also, with a few exceptions, has a history of Conservative representation. Aitchison ran a strong campaign and was rewarded by many of his constituents. It seems apparent now that Scott Aitchison’s clear victory last Monday was due, at least in part, to his ability to get his supporters to the polls.
I imagine, however, that Aitchison was a little more concerned about this election than he was about the previous two. The Liberal candidate in Parry Sound-Muskoka was Geordie Sabbagh. Unlike Scott Aitchison, he had almost no name recognition until shortly before the election was called. This was made more difficult for him by some municipalities in the riding prohibiting election signs on public property.
Nevertheless, Sabbagh also ran a strong campaign. In fact, his vote count of 27,656 was higher than Scott Aitchison’s vote count in both the 2019 and 2021 elections. My guess is that we will see more of Geordie Sabbagh in the future.
Briefly, a couple of other reflections from this election.
Watching the results last Monday, it was hard to miss the smirks on the biased faces of CBC anchors as they realized Pierre Poilievre would not be around to defund their network, which badly needs reform to deal with their rank partisanship.
Lastly, I predict Green Party Leader Elizabeth May will become Speaker of the House of Commons in the next parliamentary session. With results as they were, I would be surprised if any other party would be willing to lose a vote to the speakership. May ran for it last time and didn’t make it. I suspect she will this time unless, of course, Carney puts her in his cabinet.
The election is over, and Canadians have made their decision about who should lead them. The proof in the pudding, however, will be in concrete results, beginning with dealing with threats from the Trump Administration and then bringing a more moderate and positive approach to challenges facing our country.
That is what Canadians expect and now it is time to deliver.
Hugh Mackenzie
Hugh Mackenzie has held elected office as a trustee on the Muskoka Board of Education, a Huntsville councillor, a District councillor, and mayor of Huntsville. He has also served as chairman of the District of Muskoka and as chief of staff to former premier of Ontario, Frank Miller.
Hugh has also served on a number of provincial, federal and local boards, including chair of the Ontario Health Disciplines Board, vice-chair of the Ontario Family Health Network, vice-chair of the Ontario Election Finance Commission, and board member of Roy Thomson Hall, the National Theatre School of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Canada. Locally, he has served as president of the Huntsville Rotary Club, chair of Huntsville District Memorial Hospital, chair of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation, president of Huntsville Festival of the Arts, and board member of Community Living Huntsville.
In business, Hugh Mackenzie has a background in radio and newspaper publishing. He was also a founding partner and CEO of Enterprise Canada, a national public affairs and strategic communications firm established in 1986.
Currently, Hugh is president of C3 Digital Media Inc., the parent company of Doppler Online, and he enjoys writing commentary for Huntsville Doppler.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
I am looking forward to country being led by somebody who is not a career politician, but by someone who actually knows a thing or two about the mechanics of global economics and finances. I could not see the same expertise and qualifications in any of the other candidates for the job. Donald Trump has shown that he doesn’t posses enough knowledge or intelligence and ability to successfully run his own businesses, let alone the complex ramifications of USA’s international trade relations. It would be beneficial if he, Donald Trump, would consider counsel of someone who knows what is at stake.
It is not too often that I agree with Mr. Mackenzie. I’m glad to see such a sober reflection.
It seems that Pierre Poilievre has brought in a lot of new voters to his party at the same time as alienating a lot of traditional Conservatives, who must have been feeling homeless for a few years. It is not just his unlike ability and negative leadership during the campaign that is the problem. I wonder if his caucus members played any genuine part in how the party acted in the House. We the voters who pay them rather large salaries want more effective problem solving and collaboration, not endless unconstructive bickering and stunts. Especially now. I heard Scott Aitchison comment on the need for a more collaborative approach, but he also said he continues to support Mr Poilievre. I have little hope of this collaboration happening as I recently heard Andrew Scheer, Poilievre’s right hand man saying he expects PM Carney to come back from his Trump meeting today having had tariffs removed. I could almost see a menacing glint in his eye.More of the attack dogs to come.I think it would have been a different Canada if Scott Aitchison had been elected Conservative leader.
Thank you Hugh for a good discussion. Unfortunately, I do am disappointed that the party did not step up to the plate and recognise that snappy slogans and pushing a personal line were not acceptable
This is so unfair. I hope the Conservative Party will show some leadership and discuss the leadership and loss of the election.
May the electors of Battle River think deeply and question if they wish to be represented by an “Angry Man” Who should get some outside real life experience and ” buy a nice house on a nice street with a real mortgage.”
My sorrow to a MP who worked hard to win his riding and now must walk away. How about waiting a year and decide what the party looks like and acts like.
A conservative for many years but could not support the leadership
Hugh a very good piece of journalism i am confused by a few comments especially John Davis so off the wall PP is no more a conservative than Justin was a scholar lmao, his comments sounded like typical ramblings of a defeated campaign, Mark Carney was our best option going forward with this Ass from the South
The election draws some parallels to our annual spring event, we call the Stanley Cup playoffs. We know when they start that there will be winners and losers. We don’t expect that all the losers will dismiss their coaches and any players that just didn’t play up to par, when we were expecting spectacular results. Just as in politics, when the playoffs come we don’t expect miracles even though we may wish for them. We certainly don’t expect long time Leaf fans to suddenly support the Tampa Bay team, and yet in politics that is exactly what happened. According to you Hugh, the Liberals have made a huge shift to the centre away from the left and yet the far left NDP, and Greens immediately jumped ship along with a number of long time Conservatives. This begs the question,, how did the hated and feared Poilievre attract so many new voters, winning so many new seats?
Anyone who follows politics knows polls go up and down. Look how much those numbers changed in the last week of the campaign. Carney was going to sweep Ontario a week out. That never happened. The longer the election went the narrower the polls became.
Carney won the fear that he used to win had not gone away. In fact with the Conservatives loss, there are probably more fearful in this country today than before the election.
The pictures of food bank lines that were misrepresented as Liberal’s lining up to see Carney, have not gotten any shorter. Interest rates aren’t falling. Thanks to Trump gas prices have. Housing starts still seem to be going down not up, our GDP is going down not up. The election is over, the fear that gave Carney a win, is not.
Carney has painted us all a very beautiful picture, filled with higher debt and even more government spending. Time for him and his old caucus to stand together, wave their magic wands and make everything sparkle.
No matter who had won the election many of these concerns needed to be faced. Carney now has his hand on rudder, we all hope him well in navigating this ship to many new ports.
The second round of the Playoffs are about to begin, the coach needs to get above average production out of his team to progress any further, PM Carney is in the same position, hang on to your seats, the pucks is about to drop.
There is always a possibility that elected members from other parties could “cross the floor” and join the liberals. Carney said he won’t make a deal with the NDP but he might convert some of them. I agree with your comment on the CBC staff.
Hugh Mackenzie: At present I find it tough to be a small ‘c’ conservative. One who just watched the pod perform a mass beaching. The Liberals realised that with Trudeau as leader, they were about to crash and burn. The cry went up and the man finally stepped down.
I think I read somewhere that at the time the Conservatives had a 27 point lead. But they were mesmerized by the number and even when they began to notice the tail-lights on the bus carrying the Liberals to Ottawa, nobody, but nobody, even wondered aloud: “Is it getting dusty back here?”
I wonder if anyone did say something. They had to have noticed. Even Pierre must have noticed that with Trudeau gone, his rhetoric was null and void. A 27 point lead was melting away like a snowball in hell. I was as glad to be free of “Axe the Tax” as I was pleased to see Trudeau gone.
You feel that PM Carney should lead as if he had a majority. I hope that he leads as if the entire house is on the same side. That opinions are important. And our parliament should respond as a unit. As if on a war footing. Because this is serious.
I wonder if Pierre Poilievre can exist in such an environment. With no one to harass he’s ineffective. I hope that mass beaching doesn’t happen twice. For gosh sake people, you are supposed to be our voice in parliament. Why didn’t the Conservatives say something with 20 or 10 points still to go!! Will they now?
The man needs to join Trudeau on a beach somewhere.
I am writing in response to Hugh Mackenzie’s thoughtful opinion piece on the outcome of Canada’s recent election. He is right: Canadians were ready for change — but not just change in name. Canadians chose real, constructive leadership over chaos and division.
Pierre Poilievre campaigned on anger and confrontation. While he increased Conservative seats, he also made himself the reason millions of Canadians refused to trust the Conservative Party with government. Canadians rejected a style of politics that thrives on rage clickbait, imported culture wars, and deliberate division. That rejection was not narrow — it was decisive.
Recognizing the dangerous moment we are in — with the looming return of Donald Trump, the risk of new tariffs, and threats to Canada’s economic future — Canadians chose Mark Carney’s steady, practical, global-minded leadership. Protecting our prosperity means expanding global trade beyond the United States, strengthening alliances, and investing in national resilience. Canadians chose unity, stability, and hope over outrage and fear. Carney’s platform — restoring stability, rebuilding partnerships, and defending Canadian democracy — is exactly what this moment demands.
It’s not just that Poilievre lost the election. It’s that the angry, cynical style of politics he championed lost. Canadians sent a clear message: leadership must build, not tear down. Prosperity, democracy, and unity are not accidents — they are choices we must make and protect every day.
I also appreciate Mr. Mackenzie’s observation about Geordie Sabbagh’s strong campaign in Parry Sound–Muskoka. His strong showing reflects a growing movement of voters who want respectful leadership and serious solutions — and I believe we will be hearing more from him.
I agree with Mr. Mackenzie that the Carney government should lead with strength. Canadians expect action, stability, and serious nation-building — not endless division. That is the real mandate voters delivered.
Finally, while the Conservative Party ponders its leadership, they would do well to remember: winning votes with rage is not winning trust. And without trust, there can be no lasting victory in Canada. I sincerely hope the Conservative Party chooses to return to the middle, because the angry right-wing version of conservatism we see today is not what most conservative voters want — and it is not what Canada needs.
Lisa Brooks
Thanks for a pretty well-balanced summary, Hugh.
Despite following a pattern of short-lived Conservative leaders, Pierre Poilievre is determined to hold onto power after his election loss. Unlike his predecessors, Andrew Scheer and Erin O’Toole, who won the popular vote but lost the seat count, Poilievre lost both — along with his own long-held seat. Still, he claimed some wins in his concession speech, highlighting a 41.3% popular vote — the party’s best since 1988 — and an increased seat count.
Poilievre deserves the internal criticism he faces for squandering a historic lead and failing to adapt to changing circumstances.. His personal unpopularity is a major liability, with voters reportedly liking the party’s policies but rejecting him as its leader. High-profile rifts with Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Nova Scotia’s Tim Houston seem t underscore that the man is just not likeable.
He needs to be dumped. His combative, populist style a la Trump is out of step with a Canadian political climate that clearly favour competence and diplomacy, as exemplified by Prime Minister Mark Carney.
Surely, many in the party realize that change is needed for the Conservatives to finally win an election. I’m pretty happy to see him stay on because I think it will strengthen the Liberal’s position but I can’t believe that the CPC doesn’t know that it can’t win with him.
I agree with most of your points and you stayed objective for each candidate. I disagree with the CBC being subjective. I have watched Power and Politics and similar CBC shows and I find them to be very objective while covering all major parties equally. We need the CBC and professional journalism more than ever. Sometimes, there is foul play. In those instances (I’m thinking about the trucker convoy days), calling out the truth is simply calling out the truth. It’s not biased. Maybe handing out coffee and donuts to the trucker convoy people cost Poilievre his seat in the Ottawa area. Just wondering.
Mr. Mackenzie, a reasonable summary.
I can’t help but wonder if siding with the mischief makers during the Ottawa Convoy invasion at least helped in PP’s downfall in his Ottawa riding. Rural Alberta riding will definitely embrace him.
Meanwhile in Alberta, we watch Danielle Smith (dare I say, Quisling?) distract from her corruption allegations, by fanning flames of separatism, aligning with US Republican party. The continued stick in east-west politics.
I also wonder if the myth of the American cowboy, rugged individualism, self-made-man syndrome has been a bit tarnished. I hope it has.
If I was younger and could choose an area of study to pursue in earnest, it would be to examine the differences in immigrant experiences from early to mid-last century across Canada. I wonder how different interpretations of those experiences affected Tommy Douglas and Preston Manning – differences in how immigrants were expected to make their way in the world.
I don’t suppose anyone but myself would be interested. However, the ethos of “pull yourselves up by the bootstraps, no one is there to help you” and “help your neighbour survive in community/do unto others as you would have them do unto you” I suggest may lay at the roots of some of the resulting political/societal movements.
If any of you readers could recommend books on the above subject, I would love to hear from you.
Thank you for reading.