Dem
47
GOP
53
We were paying such close attention to the election in Hungary that we neglected to talk about results much closer to home (well, closer to home for Z, L and A, at least). In short, there were three special elections in Canada over the weekend, to fill seats in three vacant ridings. PM Mark Carney, who has approval ratings (58% to 70%) that U.S. presidents can only dream of these days, saw his Liberal Party win all three seats easily. That's a big deal, because it takes the Liberals to 174 seats of the 343 in the House of Commons. That's 50.7%, or a majority, which means Carney can pass legislation without needing anyone to cross the aisle, and also means his hold on power is pretty much secure for at least a few years.
At this point, we'd like to turn it over to reader B.S. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, who, despite their initials, wrote us a very helpful breakdown of what happened and (appropriately for this site) the implications therein for the U.S.:
I wanted to take a moment to chime in from north of the 49th parallel (actually, slightly above the 45th parallel, because the 49th parallel only kicks in west of Ontario) around Mark Carney's Liberal government attaining a majority government more than a year after being elected to a minority. Carney is the first prime minister to move to a majority from a minority without an intervening general election. This feat has been accomplished through three victories in by-elections (think special elections, American friends) in ridings (districts) in the Toronto and Montreal suburbs. But in reality, it was accomplished by the Carney government attracting five floor crossers in 5 months.
Floor crossings are not particularly uncommon in Canadian history, with one of the more famous, and hilarious, defections being that of Belinda Stronach in 2005. But what is uncommon is the speed with which Carney has plucked away members of other parties, picking up four from the right-wing Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) and one from the left-wing New Democratic Party. Outside of wartime, five defections to the government in 5 months is unheard of in Canadian history (excepting when the Anti-Confederation Party decided to stop existing when they realized Confederation wasn't going away, back in 1870). But, as (Z) will assuredly concur, weird things happen early in political systems before norms are established.
This has ramifications for American readers in a few ways. First, it indicates the decline of the Trump-aligned leader of the CPC, Pierre Poilievre. Poilievre was, as late as December 2024, assumed to be the next Prime Minister and was well ahead in the polls. But the declaration of trade war by Donald Trump, resignation of Justin Trudeau, and Trudeau's replacement with former Banks of Canada and England head Mark Carney caused Canadians to re-evaluate Poilievre. By the time the election happened, Poilievre had become so unpopular that he and his party lost an election that four months previous was a "sure thing," and Poilievre lost his seat outside Ottawa, and had to seek a safe seat in Alberta instead.
Poilievre has sunk in the polls over the past year, both on the critical "best candidate for Prime Minister" question as well as the general polls for vote selection. He recently won an 87% approval from his party at a mandatory review, but with four MPs leaving the party publicly and upwards of nine more being rumored to be considering making the jump, it seems the Conservatives are falling apart at the seams. With a majority secured, it seems that Canada can be assured that there will be no Conservative government until after Donald Trump is out of office, as our next mandatory election is in 2029. This means Trump has lost the potential for a partner north of the border who would surrender to his more outrageous demands, and showcases the weakness of his brand internationally. It also indicates that Canadians are digging in with their resistance to Trump's America, with border crossings continuing to plummet year over year and with Canadian purchase boycotts of Made in America goods continuing. I note above that the floor-crossings are unheard of outside of wartime, but Trump's tariffs are a declaration of economic war that has caused, unbidden, the most serious economic challenges here since the dot-com crisis.
Second, Carney has explicitly campaigned on uncoupling Canada's economy from the United States. To do this he has created a Major Projects Office, preparing to inject large amounts of money into projects that will increase our economic independence. The first of those received their cash promise this week: a massive expansion of the Port of Montreal. Ships loaded in Montreal are generally not heading to New York or Houston; highways and railways are more efficient. Those ships are heading to Europe. Similarly, a new LNG port in British Columbia will be sending Canadian natural gas to the energy hungry markets of Asia, rather than the United States. Further investments are generally in resource extraction, opening untapped areas in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Northern Ontario to get the raw resources needed to build modern society. Two years ago, those minerals would be generally bound for American markets. Now they're heading to Berlin and Bucharest; Seoul and Taipei. Carney's majority is a rejection of the previous economic order.
Finally, Carney's victory is a tacit acceptance of Canada's increased military spending. Though admittedly some of it is via accounting tricks, Canada hit the 2% GDP target for NATO spending recently. This will include massive spending on new equipment—fifteen Type-26 destroyers, twelve submarines most notably—and increasing the sizes of Canadian Forces bases. For a country that has traditionally shied away from military spending due to our participation in NATO and NORAD, this is a huge investment in a world where we can't rely on the United States anymore.
In short, Mark Carney has campaigned and governed primarily on the prospect of getting out from under America's thumb, and as a result, he has attracted members of opposing parties who support that economic and political goal (and some who are put off by their former party leadership). It isn't that we don't want to be friends with America anymore, it's that we can't trust you not to blow up the relationship every few years. Our friends in Europe and Asia are more appealing—and even China looks more stable now. Sorry aboot that, eh?
Thanks for the analysis, B.S.! We are always glad to hear from our Canadian readers. At least, the ones who aren't hosers. (Z)