Canadians head to the polls in just a few days—on April 28, 2025. I mention the year because, if we operated like the U.S., our next federal election wouldn’t happen for nearly two more years. But Canada and the U.S. differ—dramatically—in this and so many other ways.
You might wonder why I’m bringing up the United States in a blog post about the Canadian election. The reason is simple: what the American president has recently said and done—challenging Canada’s independence, existence, and sovereignty—has had an outsized impact on Canadian politics and identity.
Many Canadians are offended, angry, and fed up with how we’ve been treated. That frustration has led to a staggering 85% of Canadians boycotting American products and a 70% drop in travel to the U.S. The president’s decision to abandon decades of trade norms—imposing tariffs that violate the very agreement he himself negotiated and signed—crossed a line for many of us.
That said, there’s also value in looking south—not for guidance, but for cautionary lessons. Federal elections, after all, are defining moments. And the U.S. just lived through one that most Americans—regardless of how they voted—now view as a profound mistake. A loyal minority remains in denial, but the consequences of that choice are now undeniable—and they’re rippling outward, reaching us and pretty well every other country too except Russia.
I believe the most important aspect of an election isn’t the party or even the policies—because policies can shift or evaporate. What doesn’t change is the leader: their character, their credentials, their experience, and their behavior. That’s what endures. And that’s where our focus should be.
Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada (left) and Pierre Poilievre, Conservative Party Leader (Right)
LESSONS FROM THE U.S. ELECTION
What can Canada learn from the U.S. election fiasco? Plenty. Chief among them is this sobering fact: 38% of eligible Americans didn’t vote—and many who stayed home did so not out of apathy, but because they were dissatisfied with the Democratic candidate.
That candidate, Kamala Harris, is—on paper and in practice—a highly qualified, accomplished leader. She holds a bachelor’s degree in political science and economics from Howard University and a Juris Doctor from the University of California UC Hastings College of Law. Her resume includes roles as District Attorney, Attorney General of California, U.S. Senator, and Vice President. She is intelligent, capable, and deeply experienced.
Yet, many voters—especially younger and progressive ones—couldn’t bring themselves to support her. That had consequences. Donald J. Trump won the election by a razor-thin margin of just 1.5%, far from the “landslide” he later claimed. So, what are Trump’s credentials? A bachelor’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, where he has falsely claimed to have graduated at the top of his class. In reality, he never made the Dean’s List, and one professor even described him as the worst student he ever taught—hinting he may have needed help to graduate at all.
Trump inherited over $400 million from his father, burned through it with failed ventures, and oversaw six corporate bankruptcies. He built his persona on reality TV and has since performed that version of himself—“successful businessman”—to the public. But the record tells a different story.
So why did many Americans vote for him? Because they bought into the promises: to reduce inflation, cut costs, and create jobs. But now, in office, he’s doing the opposite—increasing financial instability, increasing costs, slashing jobs. Voters were also drawn to his populist persona: the name-calling, the “America First” rhetoric, the war on the press, the false claims that only he could “make America great again.” He painted the country as broken and himself as the only one who could fix it.
Had more voters looked beyond the theatrics—and read books like The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, where 37 mental health professionals warn of his behavior and fitness for office—they might have seen the deeper risk. Not just policy disagreements, but profound concerns about character, credibility, and judgment.
how do Canada’s leaders compare?
Pierre Poilievre
Given that we were just talking about Trump, let’s begin with the candidate who, for much of the past two years, styled himself as a Canadian Trump-in-waiting—Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party and head of the Official Opposition. Poilievre studied Trump’s 2016 rise closely and began adopting his playbook: name-calling, falsehoods about his opponents, branding himself a champion of the “common people” against “elites,” and pushing the slogan “Canada First.” He portrayed the country as being in crisis and presented himself as the only one who could make Canada great again. Like Trump, he repeatedly attacked the press, labeled criticism as “fake news,” and even vowed to defund the CBC.
This Trumpian approach initially worked well for Poilievre—until Trump turned on Canada. His hostile rhetoric, including talk of making Canada the 51st state and other inflammatory statements, provoked a near-universal backlash here. Canadians responded with overwhelming patriotism, proudly affirming our sovereignty and rejecting the type of politics and behavior Trump represents. Suddenly, Poilievre’s alignment with Trump looked not strategic, but toxic. And yet, he hasn’t—and perhaps can’t—fully distance himself from Trumpism, as a significant portion of his base still supports it.
So what are Poilievre’s credentials to lead Canada? He holds a bachelor’s degree in international relations from the University of Calgary and has spent his entire career in politics. That alone would be a concern, but more troubling is his legislative record. Over two decades in Parliament, he’s consistently voted against transformative social programs—including the Canada Child Benefit, national $10-a-day childcare, dental care for low-income families, school food programs, and the First Home Savings Account. Environmentally, his record is even more stark: Poilievre has voted against nearly 400 climate protection measures and supported just 13. He’s blocked efforts to ensure clean drinking water for First Nations communities and opposed holding polluting corporations accountable. His voting pattern is not just regressive—it’s actively damaging to the future of this country.
Mark Carney
Contrast that with Mark Carney, who recently won the Liberal leadership race by a significant margin and, by virtue of the Liberals’ current governing position, is now serving as Prime Minister. His leadership arrives at a time of incredible global disruption, with Canada’s economic security and sovereignty directly threatened by a newly emboldened Trump administration. But Carney is perhaps the most uniquely qualified Canadian ever to step into the role at such a time. With an economics degree from Harvard (magna cum laude) and a doctorate in economics from Oxford, Carney combines world-class academic credentials with a lifetime of practical, international leadership. He held senior roles at Goldman Sachs across four global capitals before becoming Governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England—steering both countries through major financial crises: the 2008 crash and the fallout from Brexit.
Now, as Prime Minister, Carney is already demonstrating calm, intelligent leadership amid Trump’s aggressive tariffs and attacks on our sovereignty. He’s not only respected here in Canada—he’s deeply respected abroad. As the former UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and Vice Chair of ESG Investing at Brookfield Asset Management, Carney has built bridges with global decision-makers who matter most. While other leaders are retreating into nationalism, Carney is building global partnerships—anchored in innovation, sustainability, and long-term thinking.
In his timely book Value(s): Building a Better World for All, Carney makes a compelling case for integrating economic value with social and environmental values. As he puts it: we all know the value of Amazon—the company—but only know the value of amazon—the rainforest—when it’s destroyed for grazing land. We too often ignore the true value of things like the amazon until it’s gone. Carney is that rare leader who effectively speaks both the language of markets and the language of moral leadership. Under his leadership, Canada can become a global model for what responsible, future-ready governance looks like.
Your Ballot, Our Future
As you’ve seen from my past writing, I believe leadership is everything. I abhor bullies. I reject performative politics and careless leaders. And I celebrate courageous, even audacious, values-based leadership that dares to imagine and realize a better world. Yes, specific issues matter—but the character of the leader matters more. It’s what shapes everything else. To illustrate the difference between the two leaders, watch this interview with Pierre Poilievre and this one with Mark Carney. I think the choice is clear.
I’ve heard many of my Conservative friends echo what I heard from my Republican friends south of the border before their last election—words that many of them now regret. So I want to speak directly to those of you who are still undecided ahead of Canada’s election on April 28. Please: don’t vote based on promises or what your friends are saying. Vote based on your trust in character. Vote for leadership you believe will make this country stronger, fairer, and more resilient in an increasingly dangerous world. I agree that it’s time for a change in Canada—and Mark Carney is the change we need!
If more Americans had done that, the entire world would be in a better place right now.
Thank you for reading—and if you’d like to talk about any of this, I’d be happy to chat.