As Canada heads toward the 2025 federal election, voters are faced with a critical question: which political party truly represents the interests of everyday Canadians? From rising housing costs and affordability concerns to growing tensions in foreign policy and the need to unite a divided country—there’s no shortage of issues to consider.
In this post, I take a closer look at the platforms of the Liberal Party under Mark Carney, the Conservative Party led by Pierre Poilievre, and Jagmeet Singh’s NDP—not just based on what they say, but on what Canada truly needs right now. If you’re concerned about things like economic independence, Quebec unity, spending taxpayer money responsibly, and protecting Canadian values at home and abroad, this breakdown is for you.
Before we begin just a quick reminder that the views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and are based on personal research, interpretation of public policy, and current events at the time of writing. This article is intended for informational and discussion purposes only and does not constitute professional, legal, or political advice. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult official sources or qualified professionals before making any decisions related to voting or political engagement.
The author is not affiliated with any political party or campaign and has no financial interest in the outcome of the election.
Let’s look at what each party’s platform looks like:
Liberal Platform:
Liberal leader Mark Carney has positioned himself as a man of expertise, experience, and economic pragmatism—but throughout the recent federal debate, his positions left more questions than answers. One of the most noticeable issues is how often Carney seems to shift his views depending on who’s in front of him.
Take his stance on U.S. relations. He initially supported strategic counter-tariffs against Donald Trump’s aggressive trade policies, only to later backpedal during the same debate. He cited the size of the U.S. economy as a reason Canada shouldn’t retaliate dollar-for-dollar. This kind of indecision feels like an attempt to play both sides, and in international politics, that’s a dangerous game. With someone like Trump, subtlety and strategy matter. He is like fire—you don’t fight fire with fire, you fight it with water. What I’ve come to realize is that Trump responds well to praise and respect. Confronting him with counter-tariffs or aggressive retaliation will only escalate the situation and make things worse.
On domestic economic matters, the Liberals did score a notable policy win. They recently worked with all provinces to establish a single, unified national economy, eliminating many of the interprovincial trade barriers that previously made Canada feel like 13 separate economies. Starting July 1, this agreement is expected to reduce costs and streamline business operations across the country. It’s a significant achievement—but it doesn’t erase ongoing frustrations. Ontario’s auto sector received $2 billion in federal support, while Quebec, which is dealing with $2 billion in U.S. tariffs on lumber, got nothing comparable. This regional imbalance has created tension, especially as Quebec already enjoys legal autonomy in areas like environmental assessments. The Trudeau-Carney team’s failure to ensure fairness has deepened interprovincial divides.
The cost of living—especially housing—remains a top issue for Canadians. Carney’s plan promises to double the pace of housing construction, relying on modular, prefabricated homes built with Canadian lumber and workers. He wants to increase financing for housing developers by $25 billion, invest $10 billion into deeply affordable homes, and reduce development charges by half. The aim is also to lower building costs and emissions by 20 percent while potentially reducing taxes for first-time homebuyers. On paper, it all sounds ambitious. But these promises are eerily similar to what Justin Trudeau put forward in 2015, 2019, and 2021. Carney’s only defense is that he’s not Trudeau—yet he served as Trudeau’s economic advisor when those same promises fell flat. In fact, in 2021, Carney publicly stated that inflation would be a sign of “economic progress” and supported printing more money to fuel growth as per the Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre. That attitude directly contributed to the inflation crisis that hit Canadians between 2022 and 2024, making him look less like a pragmatist and more like a liability.
Carney also prides himself on being a crisis manager and seasoned negotiator, but those credentials were challenged in the debate. Quebec’s leader Yves-François Blanchet questioned what Carney actually accomplished. He opposed Brexit, but it happened anyway. There’s no clear example of any major negotiation he led to success. And most concerning of all is his track record with Brookfield Asset Management. As chair, he oversaw decisions to invest in affordable housing across Canadian cities—only for rents in those properties to be jacked up. When asked whether he would disclose his assets, Carney refused to give a clear answer. Instead, he claimed that he acted with integrity and in the best interest of shareholders. But Canadians struggling with housing might see that as prioritizing profit over people.
Then there’s the carbon tax. Although the Liberals temporarily slashed it under public pressure, they left it fully intact in law. That raises a big red flag. If the tax still exists on paper, what’s to stop them from bringing it back quietly after the election? Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has warned of exactly that. Canadians could soon be facing rising heating and gas bills again, despite all the promises of affordability.
The Liberals have also promised to reduce the growth of operational and program spending from 9% annually to just 2%. That sounds fiscally responsible, but the NDP argues it will result in a $43 billion cut—mostly from health care, a sector that’s already stretched thin. In short, what looks like belt-tightening could actually be service slashing.
Carney’s broader plan for growth seems to lean heavily on the Century Initiative, a controversial vision to grow Canada’s population to 100 million by the year 2100. The Liberals have not denied their support for this idea, which promotes immigration as the main driver of economic expansion. Supporters say a larger population would boost economic activity, support innovation, and help fund programs like pensions. But critics warn that without proper infrastructure—especially in housing, transportation, and healthcare—this growth will only increase pressure on already fragile systems. It could lead to higher living costs, overcrowding, and even social instability if integration isn’t managed carefully. Some also worry that this strategy reflects a kind of corporate worldview: one focused on perpetual growth, even if it makes life harder for the average Canadian.
On foreign policy, Mark Carney emphasizes strengthening ties with “like-minded nations” and reducing Canada’s dependency on the United States. He has pledged continued support for Ukraine through the supply of decommissioned military equipment and humanitarian aid. However, his positions raise concerns. While taking a firm stance against China—calling it one of Canada’s greatest threats—he has also expressed hostility toward Iran and notably refused to label the ongoing situation in Gaza as a “genocide.” Though this may appear diplomatic, it invites serious questions: if a leader is unwilling to speak uncomfortable truths due to financial or media pressures, how can Canadians trust him to take principled stands on other critical issues?
Reducing dependence on the U.S. would require bold leadership and an economic strategy independent of powerful lobbying and syndicated interests—something Carney, with deep ties to global financial institutions, may struggle to deliver. His vision of partnering with “like-minded” countries is also questionable, as geopolitical alliances often shift. After all, the U.S. was once considered a close and reliable ally—until the Trump administration blindsided Canada with punitive tariffs.
Long story short, one thing is clear: Canadians do not want their tax dollars funding another unjustified war—like those in Iraq or Syria—or getting caught in economically harmful trade disputes, particularly with major players like China.
So a truly independent and balanced foreign policy remains a key concern under Mark Carney’s leadership.
In the end, Carney speaks the language of results—metrics, key performance indicators, and long-term strategy. But beneath the polished exterior lies a recycled Liberal playbook. His record as Trudeau’s economic advisor during a time of runaway inflation weakens his credibility. His refusal to be fully transparent about his financial ties, his vague foreign policy positions, and his unoriginal housing plan all raise doubts. Canadians are left wondering if Mark Carney represents real change—or just a new face for the same old story.
Conservative Platform:
Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader, has positioned himself as a man of action and economic liberation, championing tax relief and energy independence as the cornerstone of his strategy to revive Canada’s economy. He’s quick to point fingers at the Liberal decade-long tenure, asking Canadians whether they feel any more financially secure than they did ten years ago. Do groceries cost less? Is housing easier to afford? If the answer is no, then Poilievre argues it’s time for real change.
One of the boldest elements of his platform is centered around unleashing Canada’s resource potential. Poilievre promises to impose strategic counter-tariffs that target the U.S. with minimal blowback to Canada, aiming to negotiate from a position of strength rather than submission. He argues this strength can only come by ramping up domestic energy production. He claims that by becoming energy self-sufficient and exporting Canadian oil and gas to global markets—particularly Europe—we can generate $500 billion in new revenue. Yet critics question the long-term value of such investments. Given the global transition toward clean energy, how impactful will these fossil fuel-focused projects be in 20 years when they’re finally operational? It’s also worth noting that while he lambasts the Liberals for not building pipelines, they did complete the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX), which significantly boosted oil export capacity (more than 50%).
On housing and affordability, Pierre Poilievre is proposing a multi-pronged strategy: eliminating federal sales taxes on new homes, selling federal land for residential development, and incentivizing municipalities to reduce construction-related taxes—claims that could lower the price of a new home by up to $100,000. However, his focus on new homes raises concerns. Construction takes time, and by the time these homes are completed, population growth could drive demand even higher, potentially offsetting any affordability gains.
Moreover, even with a $100,000 price drop, many Canadians may still be priced out. If a home falls from $1.5 million to $1.4 million, how many first-time buyers can realistically afford to purchase—and maintain—it? Yet, his plan leaves key gaps. Unlike the NDP, the Conservatives have not proposed any restrictions on large corporations purchasing these newly built homes. Without such safeguards, there’s a real risk that these properties could be snapped up by corporate investors looking to turn a profit—rather than serving the Canadians who need affordable housing the most. And while his rhetoric is strong, Poilievre’s past record on housing leadership has faced scrutiny, casting doubt on whether his plan will deliver real results for everyday Canadians.
As a housing minister under Stephen Harper, he was accused of only facilitating the construction of six affordable homes by NDP, which Poilievre claimed to be 200,000 (most likely including non-affordable homes).
That said, to end on a positive note, Poilievre’s pledge to train 350,000 young tradespeople could help accelerate construction and create new job opportunities—particularly for those seeking work in the skilled trades and general labour sectors.
Other than that, Poilievre sees tax cuts as a direct way to relieve family stress. His party proposes a 15% income tax cut for average workers and working seniors—potentially saving couples up to $2,000. But the NDP has criticized this approach, pointing out that the savings could be offset by cuts to essential services like pharmacare, dental care, and child care. Poilievre’s platform is undoubtedly aggressive on deregulation and spending control, but it leaves unanswered questions about the long-term social cost of slashing government services.
On public safety, Poilievre pushes for tougher consequences. His plan calls for life sentences for human traffickers, fentanyl smugglers, and repeat violent offenders. The “three strikes” model he proposes would mean a lifetime sentence after three convictions. He wants mass murderers off the streets permanently, citing examples like the lenient sentence given to a man who murdered five worshippers in a mosque. His message is clear: Canada’s streets are unsafe because of a broken bail system—specifically Bill C-75, which the Liberals supported. The Conservatives argue that their opponents are protecting criminals under the guise of rehabilitation.
In contrast, the NDP disputes this narrative, emphasizing the need for greater investment in mental health services, community supports, and efforts to curb the illegal flow of firearms across the border. Both the NDP and Liberals warn that harsh bail laws could pose a threat to civil liberties and be weaponized for political purposes. As an example, we can point to the recent events in the United States, where university students are facing prosecution for pro-Palestinian humanitarian activism.
Internationally, Poilievre remains committed to supporting Ukraine. He also supports shipping Canadian natural gas to Europe to reduce Russian energy influence. However, when it came to the crisis in Gaza, his response was shameful but not unexpected. This time, however, he went one step further and wanted to cut UNRWA aid as well — a stance that drew sharp criticism from NDP and raised doubts about his moral clarity in many of our mind.
His views on immigration are practical. He wants immigration numbers to be aligned with available housing and jobs, not based on arbitrary quotas or long-term demographic projections like the Liberals.
Finally, on defense, he vows to rise Canada’s military spending to meet NATO’s 2% GDP target. While this would enhance Canada’s global standing, some caution that a rapid military buildup could raise eyebrows in Washington, reminiscent of the arms race tensions that defined early 20th-century geopolitics. Though based on Canada’s current military strength that may take a while to happen.
In essence, Poilievre is betting on a leaner, tougher, more autonomous Canada. He wants to cut taxes, empower local builders, punish criminals harshly, and stand firm on the world stage. But while his plans are clear-cut, they may lack the nuance necessary for an increasingly complex global and domestic landscape.
Given the global shift toward cleaner energy, the Conservative Party’s push to expand oil and gas pipelines raises questions about long-term sustainability. While the intent is to stimulate economic growth and secure Canada’s energy supply, it may be at odds with broader trends. As countries ramp up investments in renewables, electric vehicles, and green infrastructure, demand for fossil fuels is expected to decline steadily over the next two decades. Major economies like the EU, China, and even the U.S. are targeting net-zero emissions by mid-century, and that momentum is hard to ignore.
Pipelines, by nature, are long-term infrastructure projects with high upfront costs and multi-decade lifespans. If oil and gas demand significantly drops within 15–20 years—as many forecasts suggest—these projects could become stranded assets, no longer profitable or useful. That means taxpayers and governments may be left holding the bill for outdated infrastructure.
Furthermore, while pipeline expansion may bring short-term jobs and revenue, critics argue that Canada should be investing more heavily in renewable energy development, energy storage, and transition strategies that align with future global demand—not past energy paradigms.
So while the Conservative plan might address current supply and economic pressures, its long-term realism is debatable. The key challenge is balancing immediate economic benefits with future-proof energy policy.
NDP Platform:
Jagmeet Singh’s NDP is positioning itself as the party of working people, advocating for bold economic reform, social justice, and long-overdue independence from U.S. influence. Singh believes that the United States has repeatedly betrayed Canada’s trust—particularly when it comes to trade and tariffs—and that Canada must begin to chart its own path, economically and politically.
One of the biggest concerns for the NDP is how free trade agreements and protectionist U.S. policies have gutted Canada’s manufacturing base, especially in steel, aluminum, and auto. Singh sees this as proof that economic dependency on the U.S. has weakened Canada. His solution is to build resilience domestically—starting with housing, healthcare, and job security. He supports creating an east-west power grid to better connect the provinces and avoid reliance on U.S. infrastructure. This is part of a broader strategy to unify Canada economically while reducing foreign dependency.
In terms of housing and affordability, the NDP platform is unapologetically populist. The party wants to lower utility and grocery bills, ban corporate landlords from scooping up affordable housing, and ensure that homes are priced within reach of average Canadians. While Conservatives focus on increasing supply and Liberals on modular innovation, the NDP is concerned with stopping financial speculation and curbing profiteering. Singh also proposes price caps on essential goods, arguing that corporations should not be allowed to rake in billions while ordinary families are skipping meals to pay rent.
One of the NDP’s more unique ideas is a GST holiday during the holiday season, giving consumers a break at the cash register. While this may offer short-term relief, economists are divided on whether such a policy would fuel inflation by boosting demand. The NDP, however, views it as an immediate win for working families, especially in contrast to the other parties, which have opposed the measure.
Healthcare is another cornerstone of the NDP platform. Singh’s party is committed to implementing universal pharmacare and child care, emphasizing these programs as human rights rather than luxuries. However, even Singh admits that this could push up inflation in the short term—particularly if not matched with structural reforms in supply chains and labor markets. Still, he argues the long-term cost of inaction—rising healthcare inequality and deepening poverty—is far worse.
When it comes to public safety, the NDP takes a drastically different approach from the Conservatives. Rather than focusing solely on punishment, Singh wants to address the root causes of crime. This includes better mental health services, more community investment, and support for Indigenous policing in Indigenous communities. He strongly opposes the privatization of healthcare and believes public systems must be strengthened—not sold off to private bidders.
Jagmeet Singh’s stance on Gaza is also noteworthy. Unlike other party leaders, Singh has explicitly called the situation a genocide. He has condemned Canadian arms shipments to Israel and argued that public funds should never be used to support weapons deployed against innocent civilians—especially children. This moral clarity has resonated strongly with younger and more progressive voters, positioning Singh as the only federal leader willing to stand up to powerful lobbies and syndicates. His approach suggests a commitment to steering Canada toward a more independent foreign and economic policy, less entangled with U.S. influence.
However, not all aspects of the NDP platform are bulletproof. The sheer level of government spending proposed—on housing, food regulation, healthcare, and public safety—raises questions about inflation and long-term sustainability. Critics argue that without a clear plan to grow GDP alongside spending, the NDP risks worsening the very affordability crisis it seeks to solve.
Ultimately, the NDP offers a vision grounded in fairness, justice, and equity. Singh’s message is simple: the economy should work for the many, not the few. Whether that message translates into effective governance remains the central question for voters.
Summary:
Mark Carney – Liberals
Carney is polished, experienced in global finance, and presents himself as the adult in the room. His platform is detailed and data-driven. He’s pushing for population growth and long-term economic reform, and his housing plan sounds ambitious. But there are red flags. Many of his ideas are recycled Liberal promises. His past role in Trudeau’s inflation crisis makes him seem out of touch. He’s vague on Gaza, vague on his personal investments, and evasive when pressed. He might be the candidate of the establishment—but right now, Canadians seem fed up with the establishment. He offers stability, but not necessarily trust or innovation.
Pierre Poilievre – Conservatives
Poilievre is direct and focused. He wants to reduce bureaucracy, cut housing red tape, scrap the carbon tax, and unleash the private sector to get things moving again. His economic messaging is clear: fewer taxes, more jobs, more homes. On foreign policy, he’s more hawkish and pro-West, and he avoids ambiguity. His biggest asset is urgency—he’s focused on “getting things done.” But he also walks a fine line with populism, and his aggressive tone may polarize voters. Critics argue his plan lacks social depth—on healthcare, Indigenous affairs, and climate. Still, if your top priority is job creation and affordability in the short term, he offers the fastest, clearest path.
Jagmeet Singh – NDP
Singh is bold, principled, and very different. He’s the only one who called Gaza a genocide. He wants to raise EI, ban corporate landlords, cap grocery prices, and invest in pharmacare and child care. His heart is clearly with workers and marginalized communities. But his plans are expensive, and economists warn they could fuel inflation even further. His focus on de-linking from the U.S. and pushing economic independence is appealing to some, but could also slow growth or spark trade friction. He’s the most morally consistent candidate—but also the riskiest in terms of immediate economic outcomes.
Conclusion
Personal Viewpoint: What Canada Needs Right Now
In my personal opinion, Canada’s priority should be to unite its provinces to form a stronger economic front—especially in the face of rising tariffs. In this regard, the Liberal Party has been doing commendable work in recent months, helping provinces coordinate and respond strategically to external economic pressures.
At the core, we need to rebuild an independent economy—one that is less vulnerable to foreign shocks, yet open to smart trade.
Entering into a trade war with China would be counterproductive, as it would severely disrupt our import-dependent sectors. However, we must actively explore new export markets to reduce our reliance on any single partner and maintain a balanced trade profile.
Another critical concern is how we allocate taxpayer dollars.
Too often, we see funds diverted toward foreign entanglements rather than domestic needs.
Take Syria, for example—we spent resources participating in conflict that contributed to the destruction of civilian areas, only to later sponsor refugees from that same region. This cycle is both ethically questionable and economically inefficient.
There’s also a troubling pattern in our immigration and asylum policy: we sometimes prioritize asylum for individuals with controversial or criminal backgrounds, while turning away law-abiding international students—individuals who contribute to our communities and economy. These types of systemic contradictions are missing from the mainstream political conversation.
Equally important is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which must remain central in any policy debate. From bail reform to public safety, we must ensure that civil liberties are not sacrificed under the guise of law and order.
In the short term, especially during economic uncertainty, Employment Insurance (EI) is critical—and among all parties, only the NDP seems genuinely focused on enhancing it. This is a practical lifeline for many Canadians right now.
That said, the Conservatives’ development proposals are heavily skewed toward long-term growth. While they may help in the future, they offer little immediate relief for Canadians struggling today. On the other hand, the NDP’s aggressive spending raises valid concerns—particularly around inflation and fiscal sustainability.
Who would I prefer to be the next prime minister?
Canada is at a crossroads. We need leadership that can balance immediate relief with long-term vision, prioritize domestic stability, and push for an independent and principled foreign policy—without becoming entangled in ideological extremes or geopolitical traps.
Based on the above data and research my first choice would be NDP, and then the Liberals. Here are my reasons:
National Unity:
One of the biggest concerns I have is how to unify Canada as a one trade nation.
Quebec’s discontent with Mark Carney was very clear during the national debate. This can pose a significant challenge for his ability to unify provinces going forward. Quebec has long been wary of federal leadership that doesn’t align with its interests, particularly on issues like language, culture, and provincial autonomy. Carney’s prior actions may not resonate well with voters in Quebec.
In contrary, NDP has a much better relationship with Quebec, especially due to their focus on progressive policies that resonate with many Quebecers, including those related to healthcare, workers’ rights, and climate change. Historically, the NDP has done well in Quebec, and their policies are generally well-received by the province’s left-wing voters.
Trade Relations & Economic Independence:
Both NDP and Liberals are focusing on ethical foreign policy, protecting local jobs, and building relationships with nations in alignment with Canadian values. Their focus on domestic investments could help reduce reliance on foreign markets. However what gives NDP an edge is Singh’s clear moral stance on global issues (e.g., Gaza) that aligns with our concern for principled leadership and ethical use of taxpayer funds.
Spending Priorities
It is true that NDP’s spending plans raise concerns about inflation and fiscal sustainability, but their focus on EI and domestic policy like healthcare, housing, and mental health supports, and childcare are more aligned with our short-term priorities. For next few years Canadian economy is expected to suffer from US tariff. If we can survive it now, we might have a chance to flourish in the future, which will help us strengthen Canadian sovereignty.
Immigration & Asylum Policy:
The Liberals’ approach to asylum seekers is often criticized for prioritizing those with questionable backgrounds, while NDP’s focus on fairness and skilled immigrants may be more aligned with your views on who should benefit from Canada’s immigration system.
Watch full debate below
What do you think?
Do you agree or disagree with my view? Let me know in the comments below!
Also, if you liked this post soooo much that it took your breath away and now you really want to stay in touch with us for future content, then feel free to subscribe to our newsletters! It will help us keep you updated on our recent posts!
Have a wonderful day ahead!
