The 2025 Federal Election takes place amid global turmoil. U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats to Canadian sovereignty have been shocking. His punishing tariffs threaten Canada’s political and economic security. The rule of law in international affairs is threatened. U.S. actions have destabilized many international organizations, including the United Nations (UN). International environmental cooperation is in retreat. The future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is very much in doubt. A dangerous international arms race is underway.
These developments have profound implications for Canada’s role in the world. Because of this, foreign policy has featured prominently in the federal election campaign. In this essay, I analyze the newly released Liberal and Conservative platforms from a foreign policy perspective. While there are areas where differences are smaller, especially on Canada-U.S. relations, National Defence, and the Arctic, the platforms differ dramatically on other critical issues. The Liberal plan supports an active Canadian role in preserving international order. The Conservative platform takes a much narrower view of Canada’s global interests.
Smaller Differences: Canada-U.S. Relations, National Defence and the Arctic
Canada-U.S. relations have been a dominant issue during the election campaign. The Liberals pledge to maintain tariffs on the U.S. for “as long as necessary.” Carney plans to begin negotiations on a new economic and security relationship with the U.S. In negotiations, Canada’s system of supply-management would be off the table. The Tories would renegotiate the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) on an accelerated timeline, hoping for a pause in tariffs while negotiations are ongoing. Both leaders emphasize strengthening inter-provincial trade and diversifying Canada’s export markets.
The main difference between the two leaders on Canada-U.S. relations has been more one of tone than of substance. Prime Minister Carney has been more strident in his rhetoric. “The old relationship we had with the United States…is over,” declared the prime minister. The strength of Carney’s statements is unsurprising given polling numbers suggesting Canadians view the Liberal Party as best qualified to respond to the Trump threat. Many Canadian Conservatives are sympathetic to Trump’s Republican party, leading Poilievre to adopt a more cautious tone.
On Defence and the Arctic, a Liberal government would exceed NATO’s 2 percent target for defence spending before 2030. The Liberal plan includes enhancing Arctic security and better supporting members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Canada would buy new submarines and icebreakers. Carney would expand Canada’s fleet of aerial and underwater drones and bolster the mandate of the Canadian Coast Guard. The Conservative platform promises to reach NATO’s target by 2030. Spending focuses on the Arctic, including opening a new naval base in Churchill and purchasing icebreakers. The Conservatives promise to build a new military base in Iqaluit.
While there are areas where the differences between the two platforms are smaller, these are two very different visions for Canada’s role in the world. The Liberal plan envisions Canadian global leadership and activism. In a turbulent world, the Liberals seek to reinforce multilateral institutions and the rules-based international order. The Conservative platform turns inward.
Larger Differences: Global Relations, Multilateralism, and Environment
The platforms diverge significantly in their approaches to international issues and multilateralism. The Liberal plan includes a more detailed and expansive vision for Canada’s role in the world. The Grits call for a full foreign policy review and plan to restore Canada’s diplomatic presence abroad. The platform references the United Nations, the Commonwealth of Nations, and La Francophonie as important venues for Canadian diplomacy. The Liberal platform highlights Canada’s interests in strengthening international cooperation. Under the Liberals, Canada would support Ukraine, maintain international humanitarian assistance, and continue the government’s international climate finance programs. A Liberal government would boost support for achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and leverage Canada’s G7 presidency to protect the rules-based international order.
A Liberal government would meet Canada’s net-zero emissions target. Though it eliminated the consumer carbon tax, the party plans to maintain it for industrial polluters. Carney has noted that continued action on climate change is a necessary condition for accessing key export markets, including those within the European Union. At the same time, rhetoric around making Canada a conventional energy superpower could slow emissions reductions. The Liberal platform endorses the “30×30” international target for protecting nature and pledges to implement the Montréal-Kunming Global Biodiversity Framework.
The Conservative platform takes a more skeptical attitude toward Canada’s global engagement. Unlike previous Progressive Conservative governments, including those of John Diefenbaker, Joe Clark, and Brian Mulroney, Poilievre’s Conservatives would step back from the world. The platform emphasizes opposition to “hostile” regimes. A Conservative government would cut the international assistance budget substantially, as well as de-fund the UN Relief and Works Agency and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. “Global bureaucracies” would be defunded under the Conservative plan. While the plan stops short of pulling Canada out of the UN, an idea endorsed by one prominent Conservative MP, the platform implies that Canadian support for the world organization would be limited and conditional. In this regard, there are similarities between the Conservative platform and the policies of U.S. Republicans under Donald Trump.
While the Conservatives plan to “axe” both the consumer and industrial carbon tax, they pledge nevertheless to protect the environment. The platform promises to safeguard Canada’s land, water, wildlife, and air. This would include the creation of an Outdoor Heritage Fund to support fishing, hunting, and conservation. On emissions reductions, the platform proposes to reduce emissions chiefly by exporting Canada’s “cleaner” resources and technologies to other countries. A Conservative government would incentivize green technologies. The plan contains no specific reference to whether the government would meet Canada’s international climate obligations. On the surface, this seems doubtful.
Analysis
While there are areas where the differences between the two platforms are smaller, these are two very different visions for Canada’s role in the world. The Liberal plan envisions Canadian global leadership and activism. In a turbulent world, the Liberals seek to reinforce multilateral institutions and the rules-based international order. The Conservative platform turns inward. The Conservatives view of Canada’s international interests is quite limited and focused on the short term. If implemented, it would result in a stunning and historic Canadian retreat from global engagement. Under the Conservative plan, Canada would reinforce many of the global dynamics leading to a more divided and dangerous world. It is reminiscent of Canada’s interwar isolationism.
Whichever government is elected on 28 April, they will face a perilous national and international environment. In addition to threats to its sovereignty, Canada is divided. Western alienation is growing. National unity concerns will need to be top of mind for Canada’s next government. This dynamic will affect Canada’s global engagement, especially on climate action. The new government will need to work hard to nurture greater national consensus on Canada’s role in the world, especially within international institutions. A country that is divided at home cannot lead abroad. At the same time, in a dangerous international environment, the national interest—rather than ideology—must guide policy. Canadian interests are not served by withdrawing from the world. Canadians are vitally interested in helping to preserve a world where the rule of law prevails over the rule of force in international affairs.