Canada’s New Government: Carney's Rejection of Trudeau's Legacy

Borrowing Stephen Harper’s old slogan “Canada’s New Government,” this administration presents itself as a new regime—a repositioned center-right force retooled for post‑Trudeau anxieties.

Jun 09, 2025

On April 28, 2025, Canadians elected Mark Carney’s Liberal Party to a fourth consecutive term—but this was far more than a continuation of Justin Trudeau’s government. Though the parliamentary caucus remains largely unchanged, Carney’s leadership shakeup enabled the Liberals to reinvent themselves. Borrowing Stephen Harper’s old slogan “Canada’s New Government,” this administration presents itself as a new regime—a repositioned center-right force retooled for post‑Trudeau anxieties.

At the heart of this transformation is a powerful emotional current: a widespread anti‑Trudeau hatred. Columnist Jen Gerson describes it as a visceral disdain that cuts across political lines, and Matt Gurney warns that the country will take years to “bleed off” that emotion. Against that backdrop, the Liberals deftly recalibrated their messaging by replacing Trudeau with a technocratic outsider, reframing federal power in a way that resonates with many provinces’ pro‑economy, business‑friendly priorities.

At the same time, Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives—who seemed poised to capitalize on anti‑Trudeau sentiment—found themselves trapped in authoritarian populist rhetoric and issues that overplayed right‑wing alignment with former U.S. President Donald Trump. Despite winning over 40 percent of the vote and boosting their seat count to 144, the CPC failed to present a broadly appealing alternative. This sets the stage for Carney’s government: a Liberal cabinet that is new in tone, direction, and policy—poised to govern from the right of Trudeau’s legacy.

By replacing Trudeau with Carney, the Liberals opened a pathway to reposition themselves radically. Trudeau's departure, driven by pandemic fatigue and increasing public frustration, signaled the end of a polarizing but stagnant era. Carney’s landslide victory for party leadership—accepting approximately 86 percent of the internal vote—served as a reset button. This transition was not cosmetic. Carney, a former central bank governor known for fiscal technocracy, is a stark contrast to Trudeau’s charismatic, celebrity‑style persona. That contrast gave the Liberals license to rebrand themselves as a fresh, re‑centered government—appealing to both centrist and conservative voters who felt alienated by the previous administration.

The defining dynamic of this election was emotional intensity, not ideology. Jen Gerson calls it “powerful anti‑Trudeau hatred,” and Matt Gurney cautions that it will take years for Canada to “bleed off” that sentiment. Instead of rational assessments of policy, many voters were driven by visceral frustration. Polling supports this narrative. EKOS describes a “deepened polarization” in which distrust and fatigue topped voter concerns—not detailed policy platforms . A notable parallel was how Canadians reacted emotionally to threats from former U.S. President Trump—like proposed tariffs, mockery about making Canada the 51st state, and angry rhetoric—all of which triggered a surge of nationalism in response

This emotional climate had two major campaign effects. It initially drove conservative voters toward Poilievre, fueling his pre-election lead. It also forced the Liberals under new leadership to distance themselves sharply from Trudeau. Carney’s emergence became essential, as carrying on under Trudeau would have confirmed voters’ emotional backlash, but Carney’s leadership reset allowed the Liberals to channel that emotion into a rebirth rather than a rejection. This was not simply voter exhaustion or weariness. Commentators and pollsters indicate it was more a visceral purge of the Trudeau-era style—a powerful emotional turning point that reshaped the campaign narrative and expectations.

The Conservatives should have emerged louder and stronger in the wake of Trudeau’s departure. Instead, Pierre Poilievre entrenched the CPC in the lane of authoritarian populism, undermining their electoral potential. Riding a previous 27‑point lead in certain polls, the final result—144 seats—fell disappointingly short of expectations. Poilievre’s campaign was characterized by symbolic missteps that undermined his credibility. His 2023 apple‑eating moment and post-election coffee‑drinking video emblemized his character issues. More damaging, CPC maintained a murky stance on Donald Trump: they displayed indifference to Trump’s tariffs, gave no convincing pushback on cross‑border annexation rhetoric, and seemed content not to engage with Canada‑U.S. trade friction, afraid that would divide their base. Polling trends reveal a steady decline in CPC support since the election, underscoring their inability to broaden appeal beyond the hard-core base. As The Star reports, insiders acknowledged Poilievre had “lost the middle” and failed to project seriousness needed for governance.

While the Conservatives captured a historic 40 percent of the vote—the best showing for the party since Brian Mulroney’s 1988 majority victory—their base was simply not enough. They failed to secure the broader coalition required to form government; suburban moderates and former Liberal swing voters were turned off by the CPC’s Trump‑like alignment.

On June 2, Carney summoned all 10 provincial premiers to Saskatoon with a clear mandate to fast-track nation-building. He proposed slashing the major project approval process from up to 10 years down to two, under a “national interest” designation. The response was strong praise from prairie leaders like Alberta’s Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe, and Ontario’s Doug Ford called the summit “the best in a decade.” This “Santa‑Claus approach,” as Ford called it, offering tangible benefits and global ambition, echoed Brian Mulroney’s approach with the First Ministers than Trudeau’s.

Carney’s domestic playbook is unmistakably energy-centered. He’s courting oil industry leaders with talks of pipelines, carbon-capture investment, and fed-backed support—what the Financial Times dubs a “grand bargain” to bolster the oil patch while exporting resilience to U.S. tariffs Alberta continues to call for a pipeline to the West Coast, something the British Columbia government has resisted. Indigenous groups have also signaled concern over fast-tracked approvals.

Carney killed the consumer carbon tax via order-in-council effective April 1—without waiting on Parliament. Unlike Trudeau’s ambitious but politically costly climate agenda, Carney is signaling a sharp pivot: economic growth at the expense of climate optics, again echoing conservative priorities that sit uneasily with environmentalists.

On June 3, the government tabled the Strong Borders Act, a sweeping border-control bill that expands Coast Guard authority, creates new mail search powers, tightens asylum eligibility, and boosts intelligence-sharing with U.S. agencies. Supporters frame it as a necessary response to fentanyl smuggling; critics—including NDP MP Jenny Kwan—see it as a rights-threatening echo of Trump-era policing. The bill’s omnibus nature and perceived overreach point to a political calculus: deliver on security messaging to conservative voters weakened by Poilievre’s populist collapse.

Carney’s Oval Office visit on May 6 was billed as a reset. Trump backed off tariff threats and the “51st‑state” rhetoric; Carney retorted, “We’re not for sale, ever” Post-meeting, Reuters confirmed that both leaders agreed to begin renegotiating a Canada–U.S. trade deal Canada is exploring involvement in Trump’s $175 billion “Golden Dome” missile-defense network, complicated by Trump’s suggestion that Canada would pay $61 billion toward the program as a price for participating as an independent nation. While Carney avoided pinning down figures, surveys show nearly two-thirds of Canadians oppose joining the program, as it is only a political gesture rather than a serious tangible defense mechanism. Even Financial Times contributor Howard Radley warned that participation might compromise Canada’s sovereignty and offer limited benefits.

The renewed U.S. relationship includes enhanced North American cooperation built on defense spending—Carney is reportedly accelerating investments in Arctic military infrastructure, over-the-horizon radars, and NATO commitments. A Washington Post analysis forecasts a $4 billion radar investment in Australia plus higher Arctic base funding. Though still below NATO’s 2% threshold, let alone a potential 5% level, Canada’s military rises are designed to assert sovereign strength amid rising geopolitical uncertainty.

Carney leveraged pageantry for symbolism: in a first since 1977, King Charles III delivered the Canadian throne speech on May 27, using royal gravitas to assert sovereignty aligned against U.S. annexation and pressure. The pageantry—uniformed guards, bilingual speech, “True North is indeed strong and free”—was widely interpreted as a strategic message to Trump. Quebec’s Bloc Québécois denounced it as “disrespectful,” and boycotted the speech, pushing the monarch-as-foreign interference narrative. But nationally, polls show heightened support—83% of Canadians care little for the monarchy day to day, yet the symbolism rallied public unity.

In a savvy procedural move, Carney engineered the throne speech’s passage without a recorded vote, defanging opposition threats to defeat it. As editorialists noted, the spectacle served not only aesthetic or narrative purposes but also procedural dominance—setting an agenda without challenge.

With Canada hosting the G7 in Kananaskis this summer, Carney has an opportunity to amplify his rebranded agenda. The summit is expected to underline shared values—sovereignty, economic diversification, defense credibility, and “energy resilience.” Attracting EU, British, and like-minded leaders amid U.S. tensions will boost the image of a Canada “open for business, strong at home” on a pipeline-written, NATO-backed stage.

This platform allows Carney to reinforce his myth: a new Liberal administration that speaks to the West’s energy hinterlands, national security hawks, and trade realists. He’ll finalize the fast-track infrastructure plan post-G7, aiming to show results. And bilateral talks with Trump and Starmer scheduled shortly after—plus guest national addresses—will extend his global stature. Canada’s new brand will thus be both outward-facing and regionally satisfying.

Though the Liberal brand endured a fourth term, Canada has effectively entered a new political regime. Carney’s combination of emotional branding, domestic recalibration, sovereign signaling, and theatrical symbolism signals a post‑Trudeau Liberal Party that is more conservative, is more interventionist domestically, and more outwardly assertive—yet still rooted in federal prudence.

In Orwell’s Animal Farm, the pigs justify their power by claiming they are the only ones protecting the farm from human return. Carney’s rhetoric mirrors this: his administration is portrayed as the sole barrier between Canada and Trumpist authoritarian populism embodied by Poilievre’s CPC. By positioning himself as the pragmatic shepherd, Carney inoculates his conservative-leaning agenda from scrutiny—emphasizing existential threat over policy debate.

From fast‑tracked energy projects and border-security legislation to theatrical monarchy‑backed rebukes of external threats and strategic defense posture, Carney’s government is not merely reshuffling the old guard—it is constructing a new paradigm. The keystone? A narrative that Canada has been reborn: neither Trudeau’s continuation nor Poilievre’s populism. Instead, it is a Canada “strong and new”—ideal for an era of global unpredictability and domestic polarization.

Mark Carney has adeptly positioned himself as the "anti-Trudeau," presenting a stark contrast to his predecessor's policies and leadership style. Through strategic domestic initiatives and a recalibrated foreign policy, Carney aims to redefine Canada's political landscape. While he has successfully garnered support from various provinces and sectors, the true test will be whether Canadians find his approach sustainable and beneficial in the long term. As the political narrative unfolds, only time will reveal if Carney's vision aligns with the nation's evolving needs and aspirations

Canadians may have looked at Trudeau and thought, “he’s the problem, it’s him”—but only time will tell whether it becomes, “It must be exhausting always rooting for the anti‑Trudeau.”

References:

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2025/06/06/carney-trump-immigration-canada-fentanyl-border-250867

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c15nped8znko

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-keeping-alberta-in-the-maple-leaf-fold-carneys-playbook-for-unity

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/politics-border-bill-blowback-and-santa-carney-transcript-1.7553098

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-smith-premiers-pipeline-analysis-1.7551307

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-trump-direct-talks-trade-tariffs-1.7553306

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/premiers-meeting-prime-minister-carney-major-projects-1.7549577

https://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2025/05/historic-election-concludes-amid-deepened-polarization/

https://www.ft.com/content/56aca5a4-a54c-4882-9501-106861430530

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-carney-canada-us-trade-strategy-shifting/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-mark-carney-is-moonshot-prime-minister-for-better-or-for-worse/