Why neither Carney nor Poilievre is rushing towards a snap election

For all the talk of a spring federal election, the case for one is arguably weaker than it appears. Yes, Canada feels like it’s already in campaign mode. The ruling Liberals are riding high in the polls. Donald Trump is once again sowing anxiety among Canadians. Floor crossings, including Matt Jeneroux’s move this week, have only added to the fever. In politics, momentum carries gravitational pull. But gravity is not destiny. And in this case, the risks of misfiring prematurely may be too high for Prime Minister Mark Carney. “I’m still skeptical about this idea,” said Lisa Young, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary. “Poll results can melt away. There can be backlash against governments that are seen to be cynically calling elections.” We don’t have to reach far for precedent. House functioning, voters fickle In 2021, Justin Trudeau called an early election from a position of relative strength. The Liberals were benefiting from the broad approval of their early pandemic response. The opposition was fragmented. A majority appeared within reach. It didn’t materialize. The result was essentially a re-run of the previous Parliament, with an involuntary dose of voter irritation about being sent back to the polls in the middle of a public health crisis—a political booster shot that didn’t move the needle for any party. The risk today is similar. An early writ may look like a strategic opportunity. But voters are often allergic to the perception of opportunism. And like 2021, the current Parliament is not paralyzed. The government appears to retain the confidence of the House. The Conservatives are not aggressively forcing a non-confidence showdown. In fact, as Young and others have noted, cooperation currently makes strategic sense for the opposition leader. “There’s lots of upside in sort of being cooperative, being seen to be constructive,” she told The Hub. “It gives Pierre Poilievre time to try to create a persona for himself as a future prime minister.” That logic cuts both ways. Both leaders find leverage in uncertainty For the Conservatives, cooperation buys time. They can avoid the risk of being painted as obstructionists during what the Liberals frame as a period of national vulnerability. It allows them to focus on economic anxiety rather than parliamentary gamesmanship. And if an election does come, Poilievre can argue it was the Liberals’ choice, not his. “If an election was called, they might be able to turn the ballot question into—why are we having an election?” said Young. “There’s no certainty about that,” she said. The incentives for Carney to hold off are just as compelling. The same math used to justify calling an election to win three extra seats can be used just as effectively against it. Nothing is guaranteed. Any pollster will tell you voters are fickle. And that precarious near-majority position may be more politically useful than it appears, particularly given how far this government has already shifted from the Trudeau era without triggering internal fracture. Being just shy of a majority allows Carney to whip his caucus effectively as a centrist. It gives him a built-in explanation for ideological compromise. “They’ve got nowhere to go,” Young said of the more progressive Liberal MPs. “It makes it easier for Carney to pursue a basically Progressive Conservative policy agenda.” If there’s griping from the left flank of his caucus, Carney can point to the House numbers and say that’s what he needs to keep the Conservatives on side. In a majority government, that argument disappears and every choice becomes fully owned. GG would comply So what would actually happen if Carney decided to pull the trigger? The answer might be less dramatic than the chatter suggests. Carleton University’s expert on the Westminster system, Philippe Lagassé, is clear. “Constitutionally, the Governor General would be bound to accept the request, since many months have passed since the election and there isn’t a viable alternative government in the Commons,” he wrote in an email. “The GG might push back privately and ask for a rationale, but she would have to accept if the PM insisted on requesting it.” There is historical precedent for vice-regal refusal—most notably the King-Byng Affair of 1926—but that episode hinged on the presence of a plausible alternative government prepared to attempt to command confidence. No such alternative appears to exist today. “In theory, the prime minister might choose to walk back the request or reconsider it, if the GG was strongly opposed,” Lagassé explained. “But there would be few grounds to reject the request outright, which would normally lead the PM to resign. So, the GG would need to be quite constrained unless a viable government presented itself.” The controversy, he added, would be predictable—around how Mary Simon should reject the request, or that Carney shouldn’t have the power to make such a move. “Critics would point to the fixed date election. In the end, though, it would be up to the voters to decide whether the PM should be punished for an election without a formal loss of confidence.” The “fun factor” And then there is the mood. American political journalist David Plotz has long argued that one underrated indicator in politics is which side appears to be having more fun. Campaigns are brutal, and governing is hard. But the party that looks energized, confident, and slightly amused by events often has an edge over the one that looks tense and defensive. Not long ago, Poilievre had that swagger. During Trudeau’s final stretch, he appeared buoyant—needling the prime minister and rallying the Conservative base with slogans and applause lines. But the fun factor now seems to have tilted back to the Liberal Party since Carney’s last-minute resuscitation act. “Mark Carney seems to really be enjoying governing,” Young said. “He’s a man with a sense of mission, and he clearly has a plan that he’s acting on. As long as he can get things through the House, why would he deviate from that?” That doesn’t mean Conservatives are floundering. “I’ll bet they’re fundraising like crazy,” Young mused. “‘Those perfidious Liberals, you can never trust them. They might call an election. You’d better send us some money,’ right?” In other words, even uncertainty has value. Why gamble now? Right now, both Carney and Poilievre benefit from letting uncertainty linger. Which is precisely why skeptics don’t see any reason for a snap election in the immediate future. There is no confidence crisis. No viable alternative government. No constitutional pressure forcing a decision. Carney has leverage over his caucus, room to govern, and polling momentum that does not demand immediate conversion into a mandate. Politics, like gambling, rewards patience as much as bravado. You don’t push your chips forward simply because the cards look good. You do it when the odds compel you. At the moment, the odds are looking pretty comfortable rather than desperate. Even real gamblers agree it’s better to hold off.