Proud of Canadians

I’m proud of Canadians. Even the politicians. This federal election campaign has been unusually substantive, marked by a tone of seriousness and purpose. Canadians, in turn, have responded with unprecedented numbers turning out for advanced polling. There’s a sense of civic engagement in the air that we haven’t seen since 1988—when Canadian sovereignty was also on the ballot, in the form of the proposed free trade agreement with the United States.

That fall, I had just returned from a year of graduate studies in Switzerland, after three years studying political science at McGill. I decided it was time to get real-world political experience, and a friend of my mother’s connected me with a Liberal candidate running on the South Shore of Montreal. Like him, I opposed the free trade deal. It wasn’t that I was against trade; I believed in international commerce. But I felt there needed to be safeguards. The fear, widely shared at the time, was that free trade with the U.S. would make us culturally, politically, and economically dependent on the ravenous giant to our south.

Thirty-seven years later, that fear seems less like paranoia and more like prophecy.

In 1988, both major parties offered versions of Canadian nationalism. Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives argued optimistically that Canada was ready to compete with the world, including the U.S., and that free trade would unleash our economic potential. The Liberals, under John Turner, argued defensively that the deal would lead to irreversible changes we’d be unable to resist—pressures that would compromise our sovereignty, culture, and policy independence. Both messages, in their own way, were nationalistic. One was hopeful; the other, cautionary. The hopeful one won by a landslide.

As it turns out, both were also right. In the decades that followed, Canada experienced growth and prosperity—but also wage stagnation, cultural dilution, and a deepening economic dependency on the U.S.

Today’s election feels like the inverse of 1988. Once again, Canadian sovereignty is part of the national conversation, but this time the threat isn’t a trade deal—it’s the political chaos seeping northward from the United States. And it has had a galvanizing effect. All of our major party leaders, regardless of ideology, have been forced by circumstance to strike a more unifying, forward-looking tone. This is how political leaders should behave: trying to build broad support by offering hopeful visions, not seeking power by dividing their opponents. This campaign is about how to make Canada stronger, more resilient, and fairer—not about who to blame for what’s broken.

That’s a sign of democratic health. The surest symptom of democratic decay is when politicians focus on wedge issues, stoke grievance, and pander to fear. Canadians, to their credit, seem unwilling to go down that road.

That’s why, I believe, Pierre Poilievre’s once-ascendant campaign has faltered. He built his brand around anger and antagonism. That approach resonated briefly, but when the national mood shifted—when Canadians began to look for hope—he couldn’t shift with it. Mark Carney, by contrast, has offered a consistently optimistic, constructive message. That positivity may well be the secret sauce of his continued success. Poilievre has tried to soften his tone in recent weeks, but it doesn’t come naturally to him, and it shows.

Voting should not just be a civic duty. It should be a hopeful act—a declaration that the future can be better, and that we can build it together. Politicians who trade in anger and cynicism don’t deserve to lead. And when they do win, as we’ve seen in the United States, the consequences can be catastrophic.

This election, Canadians appear to be choosing differently. That gives me hope—not just for the outcome, but for the country itself.