What if Pierre Poilievre manages to eke out a win despite what polls are saying?

If Poilievre manages to defy the polls and pull out a win, Canada risks entering negotiations with Trump led by a leader untested in international diplomacy and viewed as too similar to the US president . . . Trump’s tariffs and annexation rhetoric demand a prime minister with global credibility who can unify Canadians – qualities which Poilievre does not embody.

 

By Fareed Khan

 

As Canada barrels toward the federal election on April 28, the Liberal Party, led by Mark Carney, continues to hold a lead in the polls over Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives, with margins ranging from a razor-thin two points to a commanding eight depending on the poll. Yet, with less than ten days until voting day, the question looms – what if the polls are wrong, and Poilievre defies expectations to secure a Conservative victory, perhaps a minority government?

If a career politician like Poilievre becomes prime minister, what would this mean for Canada’s ability to confront US President Donald Trump’s tariff threats and provocative musings about annexing Canada? More critically, is Poilievre the right leader for this moment of crisis, or does Canada need someone like Carney – a proven economic steward with global credibility? The Conservatives’ decision to trot out former Prime Minister Stephen Harper for a campaign ad, an unprecedented move, adds another layer of intrigue. Does this signal desperation, and will Harper’s 2015 electoral drubbing haunt or help Poilievre’s campaign?

Polls are snapshots, not prophecies. History is littered with examples of polls that upended expectations. In Canada’s 2015 election, early campaign polls showed a race between the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party (NDP) vying to form government but by the end it was the Liberals who overcame the odds to form a majority as voters rallied against Harper’s decade-long tenure.

Internationally, the 2016 US presidential election saw Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump in nearly every major poll, yet Trump’s victory exposed the limitations of polling methodologies, particularly in capturing turnout and late-deciding voters.

Similarly, the UK’s 2016 Brexit referendum confounded pollsters who underestimated the “Leave” vote. These missteps often stem from flawed assumptions about voter turnout, sampling biases, or the “shy voter” effect, where supporters of controversial candidates under report their intentions to pollsters.

In the 2025 federal election, Canadian polls face unique challenges. The Angus Reid Institute notes that while Liberals lead with 43-46% vote intention, Conservative voters are more committed, with 72% firmly decided compared to 51% of Liberal supporters. This softer Liberal base could falter if turnout is not as high as expected or if strategic voters, assuming a Liberal win, opt to vote for smaller parties like the NDP or Greens.

Record advance voting – nearly two million ballots cast on the first day of advanced polling – suggests high voter engagement, with high turnout favouring progressive parties historically. Yet, as seen in 2015, late-breaking issues or campaign missteps can shift momentum. The Abacus poll showing a narrowing Liberal lead (two points) contrasts with Nanos’ post-debate eight-point Liberal edge, highlighting the volatility of voter sentiment.

The wild card in this election is Donald Trump. His 25% tariffs on Canadian imports and annexation threats have dominated the campaign, fuelling a wave of Canadian nationalism that has buoyed Carney’s Liberals. Polls have consistently shown Carney as the preferred leader to handle Trump on trade, tariff issues, and annexation threats. Poilievre’s “Canada First” rhetoric, echoing Trump’s “America First” mantra, has alienated voters wary of US-style populism. If voters prioritize sovereignty and economic stability, Carney’s lead is likely to hold. But if cost-of-living concerns – where Poilievre holds a slight edge – take precedence, the Conservatives could capitalize.

Poilievre’s political career offers little evidence that he’s equipped to navigate Canada through the existential crisis it is facing. At 45, he is a career politician who has never held a job outside politics. After graduating from university with a Bachelor's degree, he joined Stockwell Day’s Canadian Alliance party as a political assistant, and then managed to take a seat from a long time Liberal MP in Ottawa in the 2004 federal election, entering Parliament at the age of 24. Under Stephen Harper, Poilievre served as a loyal attack dog, known for aggressive partisanship rather than substantive policy achievements. His 2008 comments questioning the work ethic of Indigenous residential school survivors – made on the eve of Harper’s formal apology – drew widespread condemnation, requiring a swift apology. These remarks, resurfacing in 2025, underscore Poilievre’s tendency to be divisive rather than a unifier, a liability when Canada needs to stand united against external threats.

As Conservative leader since 2022, Poilievre has adopted populist tactics similar to those used by Donald Trump, decrying “woke ideology” and promising to defund the CBC, fire the Bank of Canada governor, ban ministers from attending the World Economic Forum, and deport Canadians who don't have citizenship status if they participated in pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide demonstrations, under the guise of fighting antisemitism.

His pledge to end “woke” influence in science funding, made in a March 2025 speech, alarmed researchers and portends purges of researchers similar to what is happening at US agencies to those who don't toe Trump's ideological line. Such policies risk alienating international partners and undermining Canada’s credibility in global forums, where cooperation is vital.

Poilievre’s pivot to to address foreign policy vis-a-vis the US, forced by Trump’s threats, has been clumsy. His campaign has struggled to distance him from comparisons to the US president, with party staff confiscating MAGA hats at campaign rallies to avoid media scrutiny. These efforts are even more critical to Poilievre's campaign given the results of an Ipsos poll which showed that 43% of Canadians believe that Poilievre would “roll over” to Trump’s demands, nearly double the 22% who said the same of Carney.

Poilievre’s lack of international experience is also a glaring weakness in the current scenario. Unlike Carney, who navigated the 2008 global financial crises in Canada and post Brexit instability in the United Kingdom, Poilievre has no track record in high-stakes diplomacy or international finance. His “Canada First” slogan, while appealing to his base, lacks the substance needed to convey to Canadians that he would be able to renegotiate trade agreements or rally allies against US tariffs. A Poilievre victory, especially if it results in a minority government, could leave Canada vulnerable, with a leader untested in global arenas and distrusted by a majority of voters on the defining issue of dealing with Donald Trump.

Carney is the antithesis of Poilievre, the literal adult in the room when compared to the Conservative leader. A former governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013) and the Bank of England (2013-2020), Carney was a pivotal player steering Canada through the 2008 financial crisis and the UK through Brexit’s economic turbulence. His global stature – evidenced by his roles in the G20 and the Financial Stability Board – makes him uniquely suited to lead Canada through Trump’s trade war. Carney’s first speech as prime minister, calling Trump’s annexation threats “crazy” and vowing Canada would “never” become the 51st state, resonated with voters, and helped to boost Liberal support from a dismal low of 16% in January under Trudeau to 46% in March. His approval rating, at 48% with only 30% disapproval, is far better than Poilievre’s 39% favourability against 49% unfavourability.

Carney’s economic expertise will be critical as Trump’s tariffs threaten to significantly cut Canada’s economic growth, per OECD forecasts. At 45% voter support as the best leader to grow the economy (versus Poilievre’s 31%) the numbers reflect public confidence in his ability to stabilize markets and negotiate with the US.  Also, Carney’s relationships with global leaders and institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization would provide Canada with someone able to leverage international relationships to build coalitions against US aggression. Poilievre, by contrast, has no such network, and his populist rhetoric, which is too similar to Trump's, risks isolating Canada when unity is paramount. Carney’s calm, measured demeanour, as demonstrated in his campaign speeches and during the leader’s debates, seems to play well to many voters who see him as the ideal person to captain Canada through a storm, and contrasts with Poilievre’s aggressive and combative style, which an overwhelming percentage of Canadians dislike.

Which may be why the Conservatives enlisted former prime minister Harper for a campaign ad (an unprecedented move). While both the Liberals and Conservatives have used former prime ministers to rally the troops at major campaign event, no Canadian party has previously brought a former prime minister out of retirement for such a major role in an election campaign in the modern era. Harper remains influential in Conservative circles but carries baggage from his decade in power and his 2015 defeat, when Trudeau’s Liberals crushed the Conservatives, reducing them from a majority government to opposition status with 99 seats. Harper’s endorsement aims to shore up Poilievre’s base and attempts to appeal to other voters, but will it play well to those who are undecided? His nearly ten-minute introductory speech at a massive Alberta rally framed Poilievre as the heir to his legacy, emphasizing fiscal discipline and energy policy.

However, this move reeks of desperation. The Conservatives, reeling from a polling slide, where they led the Liberals by up to 20 points a few months ago to now falling behind by up to eight points, are likely hoping that Harper’s gravitas can reverse their fortunes. Yet, Harper’s 2015 loss, driven by voter fatigue and controversies like muzzling of government workers, refusing to bring in Syrian refugees, and policies targeting Canadian Muslims under the guise of national security, may remind Canadians of a divisive era. His endorsement could alienate moderates and urban voters in Ontario and Quebec, where the Liberals lead by a healthy margin, even as it energizes an already committed base in the Tory’s prairie stronghold. Given Poilievre’s struggle to redefine his image amid comparisons to Trump, Harper’s cameo risks reinforcing perceptions of a backward-looking campaign, trying to recapture the magic that allowed Harper to win a majority in 2011.

If Poilievre manages to defy the polls and pull out a win, Canada risks entering negotiations with Trump led by someone untested in international diplomacy, viewed as too similar to the US president, and echoing his political ideology. A minority government (which is most likely if Poilievre wins), reliant on smaller parties to govern, could further weaken Canada's ability to project strength during negotiations with the US.

Trump’s tariffs and annexation rhetoric demand a prime minister with global credibility who can unify Canadians – qualities which Poilievre does not embody. While he campaigns on defending Canadian interests, in government Poilievre could prioritize implementing populist polices domestically to appease his base over a concerted focus on international trade and fighting tariffs, which would jeopardize Canada’s sovereignty and economic resilience.

Canada faces a defining moment in this election. Carney’s proven track record in the world of banking and finance, international respect, and willingness to take the reigns of leadership at a critical moment, make him the preferred choice of many Canadians to face off against Trump and defend Canada’s interests. Poilievre’s divisive political persona, lack of global experience, and no significant domestic achievements other than winning the leadership of the Conservative Party, render him ill-suited to lead Canada in this crisis. As voters head to the polls, they must weigh whether a career politician with no real world experience can rise to the occasion at this moment in history, or if Canada needs a statesman and finance leader like Carney to secure its future. The only poll that matters is on April 28.  For the sake of Canada's future, let’s hope voters choose wisely at this inflection point in Canadian history.

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.