Keep climate a national priority — donate today
Just weeks ago, Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative victory seemed inevitable. But now, with Mark Carney in the race and Donald Trump’s chaotic influence, the Liberals are surging. What once looked like a Conservative landslide has become an unpredictable contest.
For those of us fighting for climate action, affordable housing and workers’ rights, this shift is both an opportunity and a warning. It improves our chances of stopping Poilievre’s hard-right agenda, but also increases the risk of a Liberal sweep that wipes out progressive incumbents and hands Carney 100 per cent of the power with less than 40 per cent of the vote.
Beating Poilievre is critical. But what happens next is just as important.
Lessons from 2015: Winning an election vs. winning change
In 2015, on federal election night, I was in the CTV studio when Megan Leslie — a progressive champion in what we assumed was a safe NDP seat — lost in Halifax. She was the first of many progressive incumbents who fell across the country as the Liberals secured a majority before BC had even finished voting. On my way to our volunteer party, I remember Justin Trudeau’s voice crackling over the radio: “Sunny ways, my friends, sunny ways.”
At the time, I was running Vote Together, Leadnow’s strategic voting campaign to defeat Stephen Harper. That night was a hard-won victory for the broader movement working to end a decade of Conservative rule.
But many assumed that simply changing government would naturally lead to progress. At Leadnow, we fell into that trap too, trusting that polite engagement in the Liberals’ consultations would be enough to make Trudeau fix the system that made strategic voting necessary in the first place. He had repeatedly promised that “2015 would be the last election under first-past-the-post” but, without mass pressure to hold him to it, that promise crumbled.
Today, the stakes are high again. Stopping Poilievre is urgent, but it’s not enough to just win an election. To build a more resilient Canada, we have to tackle the root causes of disillusionment and economic instability that fuel right-wing populism. That means fighting for stronger democratic institutions and a strong, independent, fair and decarbonized economy funded through taxes on the ultrarich and mega-corporations.
This moment is also an opportunity to grow the progressive tent, not just in reaction to the threat of Poilievre or Trump, but because their rise has revealed just how vulnerable our system is. If we want to push back against fascism and economic nationalism, we need to offer more than resistance. We need a bold economic alternative rooted in real opportunity, secure jobs and public investment in the things that actually make life better.
Carney won’t deliver that on his own. We’ll have to fight for it.
Adjusting the strategy for progressives
With the Liberals surging, we need to consider and mitigate the risks of unchecked Liberal power. That means electing champions on the inside and building pressure from the outside. In some ridings, the priority is clear: stopping Poilievre’s Conservatives. But in others, where they aren’t a threat, we need to elect MPs who can hold a Liberal (or Conservative) government accountable. In the last Parliament, these MPs used their leverage to secure wins such as national dental care, pharmacare and a one-way arms embargo on Israel.
Unfortunately, today’s so-called “strategic voting” tools almost always tell people to vote Liberal because they’re projecting national and regional polling trends onto riding-level outcomes. This risks ousting progressive champion incumbents and leaving Carney unchecked in Parliament.
Real strategic voting should focus on local conditions, which is why the Vote Together campaign mapped past results onto new riding boundaries, crowdfunded riding-level polls and turned people out to support whichever candidate could beat the Conservatives. While Elections Canada’s changed regulations make accurate riding-level polls rare, past results can still guide us, and we can turn out to support real champions across the country. Fighting for champions in Parliament means more than just voting — it means organizing, volunteering and donating to key races, even outside our own ridings.
Nationally, we need Carney to defeat Poilievre’s far-right agenda, but we also need to push him to make and deliver on ambitious promises. After Trudeau’s 2015 victory, he went to the Paris climate talks and declared, “Canada is back!” Then, he approved Trans Mountain and eventually bought the pipeline when Kinder Morgan pulled out. A Carney-led government could follow the same playbook, talking a big game about standing up to Trump while making decisions that deepen inequality, fuel the climate crisis and leave working people behind. That’s why we need to push him now — and keep pushing if he wins.
The work doesn’t end on election night
We’re in a crisis. With the US now in chaos, people are clinging to stability, and that’s fueling the Liberal surge we’re seeing now. Voters are defaulting to the party they see as the safest alternative to Poilievre, with the best leader to stand up to the US.
But we can’t mistake stability for progress. A Liberal landslide that wipes out progressive voices could leave us with a government that prioritizes tax cuts or deficit reduction over public investment, repeating the 1990s-style austerity that deepened inequality and gutted public services. And if we wait for a prime minister to save us, we’ll get the same broken promises that have fueled economic strain, housing chaos and climate disasters.
If we let that happen, it won’t just potentially mean four years of disappointment. It will set the stage for something even worse than Poilievre’s return when we next cast our ballots.
This election is about more than who forms the government. It’s about whether we end up with a parliament that rubber-stamps decisions or one that fights rising authoritarianism, economic coercion and climate collapse.
The answer isn’t up to Carney or Poilievre. It’s up to us. And it depends on how we organize — before, during and after election day.
Amara Possian is the Canada Team Lead at 350.org, a global climate justice organization.
For those of us fighting for climate action, affordable housing and workers’ rights, Mark Carney's lead in the polls is an opportunity and a warning, writes
Comments
I believe that unlike Justine Trudeau, Mark Carney will be different in what he says and what will be accomplished. Though climate change followers fear climate change will take a back seat, I think Carney will follow a balanced approach. With the Orange Sphincter causing global chaos, Carney knows you can't just cut off oil & gas, there is still a need to support the industry while the clean energy transition happens. So yes, that could mean an energy corridor within Canada to break our integration and vulnerability with USA policy and unhinged presidents.
Our economy resilience is very important and if we end up in a bad recession, climate change will be in the back seat as Canadians struggle to make ends meet. The hope is that Carney will use a balance approach to ensure our economy doesn't tank and continue with the clean energy transition.
Time will tell.
I would want to say there's a good deal of distance between "just cutting off oil and gas" and "spending untold billions to build a bunch of new pipelines" which seems to be what you're advocating here. Even on a strictly "conventional economic thinking" basis, building new oil and gas infrastructure is stupid--the energy transition is happening whether we like it or not, and whether North America participates or not. The demand will not be there by the time such new infrastructure is completed.
So if we're going to spend money we should spend it on electricity grids and renewables and so forth. It makes far better environmental and survival sense, but also better economic sense. Oil propagandists are seizing on the crisis to re-peddle the same old false narratives that will make them money; it's what they do. If we buy their bullshit, it will be their profit and our loss.
I am not so sure any pipelines would get built, this topic has come up multiple times, the consensus is that there is no appetite by oil & gas or Canadians to do so. I think however, if a pipeline is built, oil & gas should pay for it, not taxpayers.
I don’t disagree, but please don’t confuse how our electoral system works with how governing is done. The line about having 100% of the power with 40% of the vote is just how our system works, how a multi-party system has to work. There is no logic in this statement in that you can never have a government that represents the views of all Canadians. Even within 40% there will be a multitude of views and disagreements.
So, no matter what government there is, if you want something tackled, get involved.
So, you've never heard of proportional representation?
I’ll start by offering kudos for the following phrase:
“That night was a hard-won victory for the broader movement working to end a decade of Conservative rule.”
It is so often the case that celebratory rhetoric, even from ENGOs, subtly suggests that the speaker’s effort/ organization was the sole reason for success. It was such a welcome change to read the above sentence. [For the record, I, too, was disappointed that Megan Leslie was swept away, as were all NDP incumbents down east in 2015.]
One should note that this rush to Carney is a threat response. Such responses are not always logical, let alone nuanced or even in the interests of the threatened. E.g. Megan Leslie seemed to me to be doing great work but was collateral damage in a “sunny ways” threat response to Harper. E.g. the rise of Trump, also, was a threat response. One must therefore look a little deeper.
Neoliberalism – search for and adopt a definition that works for you – has been blamed for the rise of Trump by knowledgeable people well-placed to make the case. For examples:
1. Joseph Stiglitz. https://www.google.com/search?q=stiglitz+Trump+and+neoliberalism
2. Quinn Slobodian. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22quinn+slobodian%22+trump+neoliberali…+
3. Wendy Brown. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22wendy+brown%22+neoliberalism+trump
4. Jeffrey Sachs. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22jeffrey+sachs%22+neoliberalism+trump
For an incisive primer on neoliberalism, I recommend starting with a George Monbiot column, and his concise [4-hr audiobook] book: “The Invisible Doctrine”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/neoliberalsim-don…
Returning to our immediate situation, the question I have – and I start by unreservedly stating my preference for Mark Carney as PM over Pierre Poilievre – is where Carney sits vis-à-vis neoliberalism, generally, and the relative value to society of democracy, the state and corporations, specifically. That remains a complete mystery to me. I want, for example, to see an activist state with an engaged civil service in the service of enhancing the quality of our society and, specifically, subordinating private interest; i.e. corporations serve the public interest and not the reverse.
"Carbon Capture Carney" has now done and said enough in public to be able to answer your question. As PM, he immediately removed the new capital gains tax, stating he wants to reward entrepreneurs (and many other millionaires in the wash). He has repeatedly stated that his plan is all about "investing" in private sector industry and reducing costs as well as "red tape" (you know, those pesky annoyances like environmental protections and workers rights). He may still support some social programs/services, however whenever he speaks, I hear a core ideology continuing to support our failed neo-liberal global economic system. Oh ya, he has repeatedly demonstrated his undying support for his hometown's oil & gas industry. That's enough for me to believe that it will be the same ole Libs - Lip service and baby steps towards democracy and fighting climate change, overwhelmed by massive public funding of oil & gas (and other extractive industries). With Petro Pete or Carbon Capture Carney at the helm of a majority government, we will continue to live in an unnecessary petro-state!
I agree with other comments concerning 'neoliberalism' and it's influenced on global economic affairs.
I think it would be informative to see an article on the number and names (some will be numbers) of foreign companies in Canada, including land owners. It would also be informative to see the number of monopolies and the brands they own. (A number of monopolies are Canadian.) This info followed by suggested government Policies to restrict this practice and encourage Canadian competition in our economy.