Bait and switch – Canadians voted for a Liberal “elbows up” PM in 2025 but got a conservative appeaser instead

Climate change policy rollback, deference to the US, tough on crime legislation, reduced social spending, are all hallmarks of a right wing Conservative government. 

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can be found on Substack.

In the 2025 federal election campaign, Canadians were told they were choosing stability. They were told that Mark Carney, the newly minted Liberal leader, would be the steady, progressive hand needed to navigate Donald Trump’s tariff war. They were told that the Liberals remained the sensible alternative to Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives. They believed Liberal campaign messaging and gave Mark Carney a very strong minority mandate, which he turned into a majority with Conservative floor crossings and by-election wins.

Almost fifteen months later, Canadians must accept a stark and unsettling reality.  The man they elected to lead Canada is not governing as a Liberal at all. Instead, he is steering the country in a distinctly conservative direction—at times even more aggressively than former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. The bait and switch could not be clearer, and the evidence is everywhere.

Carney’s most dramatic right‑turn came with the cancellation of the consumer carbon tax—a key Liberal climate change policy. In March 2025, his government announced that the federal fuel charge would be set to zero as of April 1, 2025, and legislation would follow to permanently repeal the consumer carbon‑pricing framework. The Bank of Canada confirmed that the removal of the carbon tax would lower consumer prices and reduce inflation for a year—an admission that the move was more about inflation optics, rather than meaningful climate policy.

This was not a minor recalibration. It was the dismantling of the central pillar of Canada’s climate architecture, a policy the Liberals had defended all the way to the Supreme Court under the government of Justin Trudeau. In addition to removing the consumer carbon tax, industrial carbon pricing was weakened and stretched out, further reducing Canada’s already modest climate ambition. Progressive nations—Norway, Finland, Denmark—are accelerating climate action. Under Carney, Canada is accelerating emissions.

The same pattern of retreat appears in Carney’s handling of Donald Trump. In trade negotiations, where Canada has given concession after concession, receiving little in return.

The Digital Services Tax (DST), a 3% levy on tech giants like Amazon, Meta, and Google, was rescinded in June 2025 specifically “to advance broader trade negotiations with the United States.” Analysts noted that the repeal came under intense US pressure, effectively subordinating Canadian tax sovereignty to American demands.

Then came the rollback of streaming levies. In 2026, Carney intervened to reverse a CRTC decision requiring foreign streaming platforms to devote 15% of Canadian revenues to Canadian and Indigenous content. His government ordered the regulator to retreat, framing the reversal as an affordability measure while signalling a new direction that sharply reduced obligations for US streaming giants.

Next, Carney eliminated almost all retaliatory counter‑tariffs on US goods, while US tariffs on Canadian exports remained firmly in place. This unilateral de‑escalation relieved pressure on American exporters without securing reciprocal relief for Canadians.  Additionally, instead of forcing a resolution on steel and aluminum tariffs, Carney’s government settled into a defensive posture, extending tariff‑rate quotas (TRQs) until the end of June 2027,and normalizing a regime shaped by US Section 232 tariffs of 50%.

The pattern is unmistakable.Trump threatens, Carney retreats and concedes. The “steady hand” has looked more like chronic concession.

Domestically, Carney has pushed the Liberals even further right. His criminal justice agenda looks like it was crafted by Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives, who have made “tough on crime” a major plank in their election platforms for several elections. The Bail and Sentencing Reform Act (Bill C‑14) introduced over 80 changes to federal law, explicitly making bail stricter and sentencing tougher, in line with Conservative demands. The government proudly declared that “Canada’s new government promised stricter bail laws and tougher sentencing laws. That promise is now law.”

Reverse‑onus provisions, mandatory consecutive sentences, expanded aggravating factors—these are not progressive reforms. They are punitive escalations that mirror Harper‑era ideology. A progressive government would have focused on restorative justice and decarceration, but Carney chose the opposite.

On social policy, the Carney’s rightward drift continued. While the Canadian Dental Care Plan is expanding, with projected benefits funding rising to $3.4 billion in 2026‑27, pharmacare is being quietly starved. The Spring 2026 Economic Update announced bilateral health funding falling from $4.3 billion in 2025‑26 to $3.1 billion in 2027‑28, with no new money for additional pharmacare agreements. Analysts warn that Ottawa appears poised to let existing agreements expire without renewal—effectively halting national pharmacare.

This is textbook austerity where a popular flagship program is preserved while other deeper structural reforms are allowed to wither.

Carney’s rhetoric about “tough decisions” only reinforces the shift. Combined with the removal of the consumer carbon tax—which disproportionately benefits higher‑income households that consume more fossil fuels—the government’s affordability agenda skews toward those already better off.  Under his policies inequality is magnified, not reduced.

Internationally, Canada’s standing is slipping. The 2026 World Happiness Report places Canada 25th, down from 18th the previous year and far below its ranking a decade ago.  When countries like Kosovo, Mexico and Costa Rica (which ranked 4th) rank higher that is a signal that something very wrong. Nordic countries dominate the top of the index, reflecting strong social support, equality, and robust welfare states. Canada’s slide was not inevitable. It is the result of political choices that erode social protections and weaken progressive policy.

On corruption, democracy, and rule‑of‑law indices, Canada now sits in the middle of the advanced‑democracy pack rather than at its leading edge. Carney’s willingness to weaken climate policy, stall pharmacare, and harden criminal justice only accelerates the drift away from the Nordic model Canada once aspired to.

When Carney’s record is placed beside Stephen Harper’s, the similarities are striking. Climate rollback. Deference to Washington. Tough‑on‑crime legislation. Selective social spending. This is not a centrist Liberal government nudged slightly right by circumstance. It is a right‑of‑centre government wearing a red Liberal coat.

Under Carney the Liberal brand has become political misrepresentation—fine‑wine packaging around vinegar‑grade policy. Canadians voted for a progressive alternative to Poilievre. Instead, they got Harperism in red.

For Canadians who still believe in robust climate action, universal pharmacare, civil liberties, and a foreign policy grounded in human rights, the conclusion is unavoidable: the Liberals under Mark Carney are no longer a progressive vehicle. The only national party articulating a coherent left‑of‑centre program is the NDP under Avi Lewis, whose platform aligns far more closely with the Nordic benchmarks of social democracy than anything coming out of Carney’s PMO.

If Canadians truly wanted a Conservative government, they could have voted for Pierre Poilievre. Instead, they voted Liberal—and got a Conservative prime minister. That is the essence of the bait and switch. And unless progressive voters break with the Carney Liberals, Canada’s slide away from justice‑oriented, egalitarian politics will only deepen.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Carney should know that appeasement never works when dealing with a bully like Trump

Bullies like Trump exploit perceived weakness because their goal is not mutual benefit but dominance . . . History offers stark warnings about the dangers of appeasing coercive actors. 

 
By Fareed Khan

 

Yesterday the Canadian government announced it would remove retaliatory tariffs on US goods compliant with the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), a move framed as an effort to reset stalled trade negotiations with the United States. Prime Minister Mark Carney described this as a strategic shift, likening it to a hockey game where Canada moves from “elbows up” to deft stick handling. Yet, this decision reeks of appeasement—a concession to Donald Trump, a president who has relentlessly bullied Canada with escalating tariffs and provocative rhetoric about annexing it as the 51st state. 

History and psychological studies warn us that appeasing bullies rarely ends well, and Canada’s current path risks repeating the mistakes of those who have caved to coercion before. By softening its stance, Canada is not outmanoeuvring a bully, it is inviting further aggression from a leader with a well-documented history of breaking promises and exploiting perceived weakness.

The psychology of bullies: Why appeasement fails

Psychological studies on bullying provide a clear framework for understanding Trump’s tactics and why appeasement is doomed to fail. Bullies thrive on power imbalances, using intimidation to assert dominance and extract concessions. According to the American Psychological Association bullies target those who display submissive behaviours, interpreting acquiescence as an invitation for further aggression. Appeasement, far from de-escalating conflict, signals to the bully that their tactics are effective, encouraging escalation.

This dynamic is evident in Trump’s trade war. After Canada imposed retaliatory tariffs on US goods in response to Trump’s 25% tariffs on Canadian exports (and 10% on energy), Trump raised the stakes, increasing tariffs to 35% on non-CUSMA-compliant goods and 50% on steel, aluminum, and copper. Canada’s decision to lift tariffs on CUSMA-compliant goods, while maintaining levies on key sectors like steel and autos, appears conciliatory—a move that risks emboldening Trump to push for more concessions.

Bullies like Trump exploit perceived weakness because their goal is not mutual benefit but dominance. A 2020 study in Personality and Individual Differences noted that individuals with narcissistic traits—such as grandiosity and a need for admiration—often engage in bullying to maintain control and suppress challenges to their authority. Trump’s public persona, marked by boastful rhetoric and personal attacks, aligns with this profile. His repeated references to Canada as a potential 51st state and his dismissal of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a mere “governor” reflect a desire to humiliate and subordinate, not negotiate as equals. Canada’s tariff rollback, intended to foster dialogue, may instead signal to Trump that Canada is willing to bend under pressure, inviting further demands.

Historical lessons: The perils of appeasement

History offers stark warnings about the dangers of appeasing coercive actors. The most infamous example is the 1938 Munich Agreement, where Britain and France allowed Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in hopes of securing “peace in our time.” This concession, driven by the desire to avoid conflict, emboldened Adolf Hitler, who interpreted it as a sign of weakness. Within a year, Germany occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland, triggering World War II. The lesson is clear: appeasing a bully who seeks dominance does not lead to peace but to escalation.