Since his Liberals formed a minority government after the federal election last spring, Prime Minister Mark Carney has been a peripatetic one-man band. He has travelled the globe almost non-stop, signing deals and drumming up business for Canadian products in a relentless effort to diversify the country’s trade in the face of the increasingly hostile acts of our neighbour to the south. No one could deny that he has been both diligent and effective in this role.
At the same time, on the home front, the Liberals have been hammering home the idea of “Canada Strong.” In every political speech, and in widely aired advertisements, the Carney Liberals have made it clear they are planning to undertake ‘generational change’ and initiate massive building projects reminiscent of the St Lawrence Seaway and the Trans Canada highway in order to secure our economic future. And here, too, no one could dispute the large number of projects they have outlined or the ambitious breadth of their agenda.
Moreover Carney himself has continued to post a personal approval-rating lead of twenty points over his primary opponent, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.
So why should there be any reason for Liberals to worry?
True, they only have a minority in the House of Commons, still shy at least two seats of the majority that would give them some stability. But this is not really a problem. Barring an accident, like Joe Clark’s inability to count in 1979, there are going to be a sufficient number of convenient opposition MP absences or outright votes of support to keep the government in power for the foreseeable future. (Remember the hilarious image of two Conservative MPs sheepishly coming into the House after a confidence vote was defeated last fall, claiming their voting apps had malfunctioned when everyone knew it was really a deliberate move to provide extra insurance that the vote was indeed defeated?)[i] Simply put, no one wants an election so soon after the last one. So, again, why worry?
The answer lies, first, in the other numbers pollsters have been reporting over the past eight months. While Carney personally has consistently led Poilievre by a healthy margin, the Liberals have remained barely two or three points ahead of the Conservatives in national polls for months, and in some cases have appeared to be almost tied for support. Put another way, the Liberal Party did not make any gains since last year’s spring election, despite all this significant and highly visible level of activity on the part of Carney and his government. They held their ground but made no inroads with the voters they need to attract to obtain a majority.
Other polling data explain why this is the case. There are, in effect, two very different sets of voters. The numbers have made it increasingly clear that the division is tied to the cost-of-living issues the Conservatives have been highlighting before, during and since that election, which did, after all, secure them a record 41% of the national vote. Put another way, the Liberals have been focused on the broadly-based issues of economic development in the long-term, while a significant percentage of Canadians have been focused on the immediate and narrow problems of housing affordability and food security in the short term. And it is not at all clear to this set of voters how undertaking the construction of pipelines, ports and defence infrastructure in the north will help them personally in the here and now, if at all.
Nor has it been clear to them that the sacrifices the Liberals have said may be necessary to achieve their objectives will be shared equally by all Canadians. Quite the contrary. Polls consistently demonstrate the Liberals’ support is greatest among the financially secure and older Canadians, while low income Canadians, the precariously employed and younger generations are highly skeptical this will be the case.
As this space has argued for some time,[ii] the Carney Liberals had not addressed this polarization of public opinion in any significant fashion since the election, and indeed rarely seemed to be aware that it was an issue, at least in terms of their public communications strategy. And it was this failure to communicate their recognition of these very real concerns that arguably was the principal reason for their failure to make more progress with any voters in the second set, not all of whom are part of the Conservative bedrock base, and many of whom do not like Pierre Poilievre.
This communications failure, in turn, could be attributed in large measure to the fact that the Carney cabinet, and PMO, is comprised overwhelmingly of so-called “business” Liberals, or those on the right wing of the party. In one sense this is hardly surprising, given Carney’s own background and expertise, and the importance of the economic and fiscal issues that face the country. Clearly his credentials were a key reason for him to be successful in turning the party’s fortunes around so dramatically last April. And clearly, as an outsider to both the party and politics in general, he would want to surround himself with individuals he knows and whose competence he trusts to get the job done.
At the same time, one of the most fundamental and longstanding aspects of successive, and successful, Liberal governments, has been the ability to maintain a healthy balance between the business wing and the “social” Liberal or progressive left wing of the party. Yet there are virtually no prominent social Liberals in the Carney cabinet. This lacuna has meant an absence of input around the cabinet table to draw attention to relevant issues that are not part of the primary economic agenda. This lacuna has also meant there are no well-known, credible spokespersons to be the face of the progressive element of the government in public communications. It has meant that the defence of the government’s environment and sustainable development, immigration, health care, and labour policies, for example, has been left to relative unknowns, several of whom were only elected for the first time in 2025.
It is hardly an accident, then, that while Conservative fortunes remained stalled over the last eight months, the NDP – despite being leaderless and virtually silenced in the House of Commons due to its lack of party status – nevertheless had been slowly creeping up in national polling numbers. From a dismal 6% in the 2025 election, they had been projected as high as 10-12% support in various polls by early January, while the other progressive party, the Greens, had been pegged at 3%, up from 1% in the last federal election.
But what a difference two weeks has made. More recent polls first showed a modest uptick in Liberal support and then, as of January 28th, a striking increase. The highly anticipated Leger national poll released that morning showed a stunning surge in Liberal support, with the party clearly in majority territory if an election were to be held immediately. At 47%, the poll shows the Liberals are now some 9 points ahead of the Conservatives, who remain mired at the same 38% they have garnered for months. The difference? Declining support for the NDP and Greens, who are now back down to 5% and 1% respectively. [iii]
What does this tell us? As pollsters such as Eric Grenier and Philippe Fournier conclude, the Liberals’ gain is due primarily to Canadians’ increased confidence in the government and its policies. Put another way, support for Carney as leader has always been high, and although support for Poilievre remains low, it has not affected the Conservative Party’s support levels, so leadership has already been factored into voter intentions for some time and cannot account for the surge. Similarly, the public’s concern over the actions of Donald Trump may have been slightly raised due to his recent round of wild threats and accusations, but here, too, the Liberals were already the recipients of voter confidence in dealing with the deranged American president, and in most analysts’ opinion this so-called “Greenland effect” could not account for such a significant increase in Liberal support.
So what happened? I argue there are three significant events that contributed to the Liberal surge, all of which highlighted the importance of the Liberals’ progressive wing.
First, the prime minister gave a widely praised speech at the Davos conference of the World Economic Forum on January 20th, a speech that received a standing ovation and clearly resonated with attendees, European and western political elites and a significant swath of Canadians.[iv] No doubt national pride over the positive reception of the speech played a part for some, as did Carney’s clear-eyed analysis of the current situation and its causes. But another aspect of the speech struck a particular chord with many Canadians as well, and should be highlighted.
Specifically, the speech outlined Canadian values and beliefs, something Carney had not spoken about much, if at all, since the Liberal leadership race. For example, he emphasized the role of middle powers in promoting those types of values:
“I also submit to you that other countries, particularly middle powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that
embodies our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states…
and then he underlined the importance of pursuing those values strategically:
our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed “values-based realism” — or, to put another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic. Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter and respect for human rights.
Whether intentionally or not, Carney’s comments also dove-tailed nicely with a speech given earlier at Davos by former Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau, who emphasized the importance of “soft power” (and Canada’s lead role in that regard in the past), in a presentation that was also well-received by attendees, although less noted by Canadian media.
Many pollsters have correctly connected the uptick in Liberal support to positive coverage of the prime minister’s Davos speech, albeit for a variety of reasons, but that speech alone was not likely to be the sole cause of the major surge found in the latest Leger poll. Instead, it is important to note that the prime minister deliberately continued to build on the momentum and content of that speech once he returned home, effectively reinforcing the positive image of the Davos foundational speech and allowing him to further emphasize Canadian values and beliefs.
In a landmark address in Quebec City on January 22, almost immediately after his return from Davos, Carney did just that. But this time he was more specific about the links between Canadian values and Canadian identity, and spent further time outlining the longstanding practice of successive Canadian governments in translating those values into concrete programs for citizens. Entitled “Building Canada Together,”[v] Carney’s speech once again identified values such as diversity, fairness and inclusivity, but then went on to demonstrate how those values have been institutionalized by successive Liberal governments, creating a wide range of social programs designed to ensure equality of opportunity and social cohesion.
From the initial programs of the welfare state (such as employment insurance, pensions, welfare, health care, support for higher education and equalization), to the introduction of second generation social architecture (such as the Canada Child Benefit, national childcare, pharmacare and dental programs), and from official bilingualism and multiculturalism to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, indigenous reconciliation and support for the LGBTQ+ community, there was virtually no stone left unturned in Carney’s list of programs that are the direct result of those values. Nor did he fail to point out that it was Liberal governments that initiated them.
Carney also noted some additional contributions made by his own government in its short time in office, (which have been little recognized and poorly communicated), including a reduction in income tax for low and middle income Canadians, the launch of a program to automatically ensure vulnerable low income Canadians receive federal benefits to which they are entitled, and the decision to make the National School Lunch Program permanent.
Perhaps even more importantly, Carney highlighted how the introduction of such programs has produced a Canadian political culture that is very distinctive from that of the United States. In what was clearly a direct rejoinder to the American president’s earlier claim that “Canada lives because of the United States”, the prime minister declared:
Canada and the United States have built a remarkable partnership in the economy, in security, and in a rich cultural exchange. But Canada doesn’t “live because of the United States.” Canada thrives because we are Canadian…we are masters in our own house….We choose Canada.
Unlike his Davos remarks, the prime minister’s Quebec City speech was broadcast live on national television and segments were re-broadcast repeatedly over the next several days along with considerable print media coverage, ensuring that a much larger group of Canadians were aware of specific details in its content. Although the speech garnered some criticism in Quebec for its historical analysis, (a problematic critique led by PQ leader Plamondon in typical overwrought fashion)[vi] the overwhelming response to the prime minister’s address was positive.
In addition, Carney’s clarion call for national unity based on these shared values and beliefs was then backed up almost immediately by his government’s announcement of a suite of concrete measures that epitomize both those values and the Liberal approach to implementing them, in this case to address affordability issues. These included:
- a five-year increase in the GST credit for low income families, (the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit), estimated to provide relief to more than 12 million Canadians
- the allocation of $500 million from the government’s Strategic Response Fund to help food suppliers “expand capacity and increase productivity,” in which “food businesses looking to make capital investments to help strengthen their supply chains can apply to have some of those costs covered by the fund.”[vii]
- a $150-million Food Security Fund that will help small- and medium-sized businesses to expand greenhouses and abattoirs, and strengthen food supply chains.
- A $20 million grant to the Local Food Infrastructure Fund to ease the pressure on food banks.
In short, these measures are a classic and pragmatic Liberal package. At one and the same time they have addressed the major cost-of-living issue in a targeted and reasonable fashion while also taking evidence-based measures to remedy underlying causes of the problem related to the food production chain.
The positive response to these various initiatives by public and private sector interests has also likely contributed to the increased support for Carney’s government, and rewarded the Liberals for their serious, if belated, efforts to regain credibility among progressive voters. Although there is still a definite need for more visible and publicly known progressive faces on the Liberal front benches, (the painful image of Carney himself making these announcements in a grocery store should be sufficient incentive), it is clear that the prime minister and his advisers have come to recognize that they cannot successfully operate as a government by focusing on economic policy – or their right wing — alone.
The Davos speech began the move to include Canadian progressive values and beliefs, a move that has now been reinforced through the Quebec speech and these specific new policy measures. Taken together, this new emphasis on the importance of Canadian values and their impact of government programs has allowed the Liberals to provide more citizens with a persuasive rationale for supporting the government’s economic policies. And by highlighting the presence of their progressive left wing, and renewing a degree of balance between the two wings of the party, they have also fuelled the rise in Liberal fortunes.
[i] https://www.facebook.com/groups/CforBetterGovernment/posts/24324905310517180/
[ii] https://brookejeffrey.ca/selling-canada-strong-to-canadians-in-2026-are-we-all-in-this-together/
[iii] https://www.338canada.ca/p/leger-liberals-surge-to-majority
[iv] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/world-leaders-react-carney-speech-9.7056702
[v] See full text here: https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/speeches/2026/01/22/building-canada-together-prime-minister-carney-delivers-remarks-citadelle
[vi] It should be noted that, while response to the speech was positive elsewhere, the immediate reaction of Quebec’s political elite, and most notably PQ leader Plamondon, was highly critical. This response, politically motivated and driven by the current turbulent political situation in Quebec in the run up to the next provincial election, deserves a separate commentary. Nevertheless it is important to note that this criticism is based on interpretations of historical events, and in no way represents a rejection of the underlying theme of values and beliefs.
[vii] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-gst-affordability-measures-9.7060907
