(Campaign Life Coalition) — Are you still struggling to wrap your head around why Canadians just voted to re-elect a Liberal government back into power after nearly a decade of destructive policies and scandals?

Many pro-lifers are feeling the same way, which is why we had to dig into the details, and now…

We’re pleased to share with you the most comprehensive analysis of what happened in the April 28th federal election, how it impacts the pro-life and family movement, and insights into the Liberal Party’s shocking resurrection from the electoral grave.

As recently as January 5th, the pro-abortion Liberals were expected to collapse to a mere 35 seats owing to the high cost of groceries, the housing crisis, the tent cities and drug crisis, extreme wokeism and other problems that developed under Liberal management.

At the same time, Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives were projected to win as many as 238 seats.

Top line results: the script flipped

After the polls closed however, the Mark Carney Liberals ended up with a strong minority government of 168 seats. The Poilievre Conservatives got 144 seats and were once again relegated to the Opposition.

Shockingly, Poilievre lost his own seat in Carleton, as did Jagmeet Singh.

The NDP socialists were reduced to a mere 7 MPs, while the Bloc won 23 (down from 35), and the Greens were cut in half to a single seat.

Although the 24-seat difference between Liberals and Conservatives was significant, the race was a lot closer in terms of popular vote, with 43.7% for team Carney and 41.3% for team Poilievre, a difference of just 2.4%.

However, popular vote doesn’t translate into more seats if those votes are not in the right ridings.

Later on in this article, I’ll address the debate now raging within Conservative circles about whether Pierre Poilievre ran a lousy campaign or an excellent one, along with calls for him to step down as leader.

First however, I’ll address the good and bad news from this election, starting with the bad…

Prime Minister Carney = hard times ahead

We anticipate the Carney Liberal government will make life extremely difficult for pro-life and pro-family Canadians… not to mention unborn babies. Let me explain…

One of his first actions as interim PM was allocating more than $2 million in taxpayer money, right before the election, to finance various LGBT activist groups across the country, and by extension, finance their war on children and parents.

As an aside, some of that money probably came back to the Liberal Party in the form of maximum personal campaign contributions from the employees of those groups, as well as direct and indirect campaign support made possible with the cash influx.

This is a “kickback” type of scheme that the U.S. Democrat Party has mastered, and I have no doubt that the Carney Liberals employed it, too.

Carney was militantly pro-abortion on the campaign trail, expressing his “unreserved” support for preborn child murder. He pledged to provide “permanent” taxpayer funding for abortion so that it can “always” continue domestically and abroad.

READ: Mark Carney’s election platform promises there will ‘always be funding’ for abortion

Carney also vowed to provide sterilizing puberty blockers and sex-change surgeries to children “without exception,” as “a fundamental right,” and implied he would even fight Alberta’s legislative ban on child sex changes.

READ: Mark Carney vows to provide sterilizing puberty blockers to children ‘without exception’

His anti-life views raise grave concerns as we face a looming March 2027 deadline when access to euthanasia is set to automatically expand for the sole reason of mental illness. How do we even begin to persuade a death cult devotee like Carney to stop its implementation? And yet, that’ll be our challenge.

Carney is likely to go hard on censorship, too….

The reason we suspect this is because in the short time since Carney’s arrival, numerous ethical, financial, and national security scandals have already raised their ugly heads but were quickly suppressed by the legacy media.

For this reason, I anticipate Carney will move quickly to resurrect the internet censorship and “hate speech” bills that died when Trudeau prorogued parliament.

In this way, incriminating stories about him can be censored as “misinformation.”

Those who expose facts that makes Liberals look bad can be targeted with lawfare-type of “hate speech” complaints by their army of Liberal-funded NGOs.

Now, the good news… pro-life MPs increased in number!

Although, we ended up with another pro-death prime minister, there was positive news with respect to the election of pro-life candidates.

All 36 of the incumbent Conservative MPs that CLC endorsed… got re-elected!

On top of that, six new CLC-endorsed Conservative candidates were elected for the first time as members of parliament, for a total of 42 pro-life MPs.

This is welcome news for two important reasons…

First, there’s strength in numbers. The larger the pro-life caucus in parliament, the more they can encourage one another to stand for what’s right.

Secondly, growth in the electoral success of pro-life candidates shatters the false narrative perpetuated by the media and red Tory advisors that, “being pro-life causes you to lose elections.”

Clearly it does not.

These candidates were openly pro-life, and they won.

Smashing that myth is all the more essential since we’ve learned from internal party sources that, to save themselves, the red Tories inside Poilievre’s camp considered the idea of pinning the stunning Conservative Party defeat on – wait for it… social conservatives!

That’s right…

Even though the Conservative platform barely contained any hint of socially conservative policies!

They also want you to forget the fact that Poilievre is a social liberal who took every opportunity on the campaign trail to profess his love for abortion and homosexuality!

Therefore, the victory of these 42 pro-life MPs is valuable indeed to prevent the red Tories from being able to transfer the blame for their own failings onto the shoulders of so-cons.

Smaller parties proclaimed the pro-life message

CLC is grateful to the three smaller parties which ran a good number of pro-life candidates in this federal election.

We were able to endorse 28 candidates from the Christian Heritage Party. The CHP is 100% aligned with CLC’s mission and values, so our hats off to the party and its leader Rod Taylor who works tirelessly to advocate for the sanctity of life and the natural family!

While Maxime Bernier’s Peoples Party of Canada supports abortion with restrictions, the PPC ran 57 pro-life candidates that were green lit by CLC, and during the campaign, Bernier did challenge both Carney and Poilievre on their extreme positions of abortion on demand, up till birth.

And finally, an even newer party that is explicitly pro-life and pro-family, the United Party of Canada, ran 16 candidates across the country, ten of which we were able to endorse. This party was led by Grant Abraham, a pro-lifer who ran for the CPC leadership back in 2022, but was disqualified for being too socially conservative.

Grant’s principal campaign messages included pledges to “ban gender ideology,” “end abortion” and “end MAID.”

CLC is very proud of Grant’s campaign and the 3.1% of the popular vote he received in the riding of Ponoka-Didsbury. It’s especially impressive given that the UPC is a new, start-up party.

When will the next federal election be?

With a fragile minority Liberal government, Canadians could be back at the polls again within 2 years.

However, if Carney persuades either the NDP or the Bloc Quebecois to back him again on confidence motions, like the NDP did the past 4 years, the Liberals could hang onto power until 2029.

That’s long enough for this pro-death, anti-freedom, Liberal regime to destroy our already struggling nation, so we should pray for an early election.

Did Poilievre run a disastrous election campaign?

Within party circles and in media discussions, it is a hot debate as to whether Pierre Poilievre ran a spectacular campaign or a disastrous one.

Poilievre intends to stay on as leader even though he lost his seat in parliament.

In fact, the Conservative Party announced that the MP for Battle River-Crowfoot, Damien Kurek, is going to resign his safe Alberta seat in order to allow Poilievre to re-enter parliament by running in a by-election.

Poilievre is fighting for his political life by arguing that his leadership campaign gave the party a record number of votes (more than 8 million) and a 41.3% share of the popular vote not seen by Conservatives since 1988. Additionally, the CPC picked up 24 seats.

The “Poilievre as hero” camp is suggesting the Carney victory was unavoidable, not at all Pierre’s fault, and that it was Trump’s tariffs and 51st state comments alone which gave new life to the Liberals – not a lack of vision or miss-step on the part of Poilievre.

Furthermore, they’re arguing the Conservatives would’ve still won if only the NDP vote hadn’t collapsed, moving left wing voters over to the Liberal column.

Those who say Poilievre was a failure and needs to be replaced argue that he totally bumbled a double-digit lead and, unforgivably, allowed the Liberals to come back from the political grave.

They say he ran a terrible campaign which snatched defeat from the jaws of certain victory.

Which of these is the truth?

I’ll analyze the question from a mathematical and strategic perspective in a moment, but first, I have to make something clear from CLC’s point of view as a pro-life organization.

For starters, Poilievre is not the moral leader Canada needs.

During this election he championed both abortion and euthanasia as “a right.”

READ: Pierre Poilievre’s election platform pledges to uphold abortion until birth in Canada

That’s not leadership.

That’s called darkening the soul of a nation.

Now, back to the question of whether Poilievre ran an excellent political campaign or a terrible one. I’ll also answer the question, “Could he have done anything differently that would’ve prevented a Carney win?”

Are you wondering what this has to do with the pro-life mission, and why I’m dealing with it?

Quite a lot actually, but you’ll have to keep reading to the end to understand why.

Mishandled the Donald Trump situation

I believe Poilievre handled the Trump tariff threat totally wrong. He fumbled the ball and missed an opportunity to hang Trump’s threats around the Liberals’ neck, like a giant, stinking albatross.

A simple 2-part strategy was available to Poilievre that he should have, but did not employ, to leverage the Trump situation in the Conservative Party’s electoral favour.

This approach would have finished off the Liberals while setting the table to make a trade deal that would be fair for Canada.

PART ONE

Poilievre should’ve been diplomatic with Trump by promising to stop the flow of fentanyl and illegal aliens into America across the Canadian border, in exchange for a good trade deal, while helping Canadians to understand that solving the fentanyl/border problem was in Canada’s best interests, too.

READ: Why is Trump threatening Canada? There’s more to it than you’d think

After all, Canadian investigative journalist Sam Cooper wrote an entire book proving that Canada has become one of the largest fentanyl production and export hubs in the world.

PART TWO

Blame the Liberals relentlessly for Trump’s threats.

Poilievre should’ve been on the air waves and social media, unceasingly stating that the source of Trump’s threats was in fact the last ten years of failed public policy on drugs, borders, and the economy.

He should have made the simple (and truthful) case that Trump’s tariff threat and mocking 51st state comments were only made because the President perceived (accurately) that the Liberals had weakened Canada economically, made it crime-ridden, and therefore, it was vulnerable to his economic pressure and humiliation.

Poilievre did the exact opposite of this two-part strategy!

First, he virtually ignored Trump’s stated justification for the threats — concern about Canada’s fentanyl and border security crisis. Poilievre brushed them aside, calling his tariffs “totally unjustified”.

Trump had handed the Conservative leader a gift!

It was an opportunity to educate Canadians on the little-known fact that under the Liberal government’s watch, Canada became a major fentanyl production and export hub, and that Trudeau had allowed Chinese drug gangs and Mexican cartels to set up shop and run the transnational fentanyl trade from here.

These revelations would have inflicted mortal wounds on the Liberal Party.

Secondly, Poilievre attacked Trump relentlessly and blamed him for this conflict (instead of the Liberals).

In fact, Poilievre made Trudeau and Carney look good by repeating all their talking points about “dollar-for-dollar retaliation.” That sent the message to the voting public that the Liberals must really be doing an excellent job!

“Hey, even the Conservatives are following their lead!” was the impression Poilievre left with the public.

Essentially, Poilievre rehabilitated the Liberal Party by indirectly sending voters the message that they’re the ones you need in tough times.

This was a gigantic mistake by Poilievre which breathed new life into the dead-and-buried Liberals.

So, in this respect, I think it’s fair to say that Poilievre “blew the double-digit lead” over the Libs.

Had he hung the tariffs and 51st state comments directly around Carney’s neck and focused his attacks on the Liberals instead of Trump, I believe the Conservatives would have won the election.

Poilievre snatched defeat from the jaws of victory because he wanted to “play it safe” and just copy the Liberals.

Instead, he could have followed Premier Danielle Smith’s lead by engaging in diplomacy, but he and his advisors obviously feared that would be riskier than just repeating the Liberal narrative because the media might attack Poilievre as being “friendly” with Trump.

Clearly, he made the wrong call as evidenced by the fact that today, Carney is Prime Minister.

Same poor judgment on Trump threat as so-con issues

Why do I bother spending any time on this as part a “pro-life analysis” of the election?

It’s because this go-to, “Let’s play it safe” approach of his red Tory advisors like Jenny Byrne is the exact same reason he copied the Liberals’ abortion policy, their pro-LGBT policy, and now, as of this 2025 campaign, their euthanasia policy (which Poilievre called a “right” last month for the first time ever).

Recall that for the first 17 years of his political career, Poilievre identified as pro-life and supported traditional marriage. His voting record was unblemished throughout those nearly two decades.

Then, along came a leadership race in 2020 in which Poilievre was considering running. So, he decided to “play it safe” and remake himself as “pro-choice” and pro-homosexual marriage.

That’s not true leadership.

It’s being an unprincipled weathervane that goes wherever the political winds seem to be pushing at the moment.

Poilievre did achieve some impressive things

It wouldn’t be fair to only criticize the Conservative leader for his mistakes.

The “keep Poilievre” camp is correct in saying that he scored some impressive and historic achievements.

For example, under his leadership in this election:

• The number of Conservative votes increased by 2.3 million, a whopping 40% uptick over the party’s votes in the 2021 election.
• The party’s share of the popular vote, at 41.3%, represents a level of support not seen for Conservatives since 1988. The last three federal elections saw the Conservative Party stuck between 31% – 34%.
• The Conservative Party of Canada was remade into the party of the working class and young people. Poilievre’s well-crafted messaging on cost of living, inflation, taxes, stopping crime, and achieving home ownership was effective in establishing the Conservatives as the party of the middle class, and the Liberals as the party of corporate elites and millionaires.
• A blue wave was seen in different regions of the country previously dominated by Liberals, like BC and the 905-area code outside Toronto.

How a more socially conservative platform could’ve won

On gender ideology

I think the “play it safe” philosophy of Poilievre and his top adviser, Jennie Byrne, cost the Conservatives the election.

They were too scared to run on legislation to ban biological males from competing in female sports, even though they knew it was a winning issue that their base wanted (and even passed as official party policy during the last convention). This idea is supported by most Canadians too.

If Poilievre had made this a central plank of his campaign platform and spoken about it incessantly to highlight the difference between his party and the pro-gender ideology Liberals, I believe we’d be addressing him as “Prime Minister” today, even with the miss-step on Trump.

On abortion

Poilievre spent so much time reacting to attacks from Liberals on abortion, and promising to never get in the way of killing babies in the womb.

This approach did not win him any votes.

Those who love abortion are already owned by the Libs and NDP.

Can you imagine, however, if Poilievre, instead of always being a punching bag on this issue, decided to go on offense instead?

What if he turned the question around and attacked Carney for supporting abortion right up to the moment of birth? After all, that’s officially the Liberal Party position!

What would have happened if Poilievre challenged Carney with the following question in a debate:

Mr. Carney, you support abortion right up to the moment of birth, isn’t that true? You believe that abortions should be legal when the baby is fully formed and five minutes away from being delivered, don’t you?

The Liberals are so ideologically locked into this death cult that they wouldn’t be able to give an answer that doesn’t sound like they support abortion up till birth.

It would make Carney look like a blood thirsty ghoul, and the majority of Canadians would be repulsed.

It would also supercharge the CPC’s so-con base, bring out religious Canadians who tend not to vote because they perceive no moral difference between the parties, and win over a lot more of the PPC supporters who are pro-life.

My point here is that for Conservatives to win, they need to appeal to the entire electorate…. including the large segment of social conservatives.

As I’ve demonstrated with the two examples above, it’s not that difficult to do, especially for someone with Mr. Poilievre’s advanced level rhetorical and debating skills.

Rigging of nominations: Another factor in 2025 election defeat

Did you know that in 100 or more Conservative Party electoral district associations, that’s almost one-third of all the ridings, Poilievre and his advisors like Jenny Byrne appointed candidates instead of holding nomination elections?

They literally denied thousands of grassroots party members their right to vote for the candidate of their choice, after having paid $15 for a membership.

Hundreds of nomination candidates who’d worked hard, in some cases longer than 1-1/2 years selling CPC memberships, were either disqualified without reason, pressured to drop out, or else faced the indignity of being told that the party would be appointing the leader’s preferred choice instead of holding a vote.

For example, this undemocratic appointment process took place in Kitchener—Conestoga where the appointed CPC candidate lost by a mere 522 votes.

It happened in Richmond East—Steveston where the Liberals won by a small margin of 1,110 votes.

It also happened in Brampton East where the Libs won by 1,885 votes and the candidate who had been unfairly disqualified from seeking the Conservative nomination, ran for the PPC, in protest, and obtained 2,305 votes – more than enough to cause the Conservatives to lose.

This anti-democratic action potentially cost the Conservative Party numerous seats in close ridings where disaffected grassroots members and candidates stayed home on E-day, out of disgust with the rigged appointment.

READ: Poilievre’s Conservatives reject yet another pro-family, pro-life candidate

Even if disaffected members did the minimum of casting a ballot for the appointed candidate, they might have lacked the necessary enthusiasm to go the extra mile of dragging their friends and members of their church to come out and vote.

They might’ve also lacked the necessary motivation to volunteer, as they did in past elections.

I believe the multiplier effect on suppressed Conservative Party votes could be quite large.

Even though the Tories obtained a record number of votes this election, the fact is there could have been many more if not for rigging.

Cumulative effect of poor decisions

This election, there were a lot of races narrowly lost by Conservative candidates.

I submit that if the party hadn’t insulted so many of its grassroots members by stealing their democratic right to vote for the person of their choice, and if Poilievre had campaigned aggressively, every day, on banning biological males from female sports, the Conservatives would have won.

For example, below is a sample path to victory.

It’s a list of 14 ridings narrowly won by Libs that could’ve potentially gone Conservative if voters had seen Poilievre leading strongly on the gender ideology issue, and in ridings like Kitchener—Conestoga and Richmond East—Steveston, if Poilievre hadn’t conducted voter suppression on his own base by rigging the nomination to appoint his preferred candidate.

• Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, Libs won by 12 votes

• Kitchener—Conestoga, Libs won by 522

• Brampton Centre, Libs by 611

• Brampton North—Caledon, Libs by 650

• Kelowna, Libs by 1,077

• Richmond East—Steveston, Libs by 1,100

• Cumberland—Colchester, Libs by 1,248

• Nipissing—Timiskaming, Libs by 1,259

• Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Libs by 1,548

• Sault Ste. Marie—Algoma, Libs by 1,623

• Fleetwood—Port Kells, Libs by 1,800

• Brampton East, Libs by 1,885

• Burnaby Central, Libs by 1907

• Port Moody—Coquitlam, Libs by 1,996

If the above races had gone Conservative, it would’ve bumped them up to 158 seats and dropped the Liberals down to 154 seats, thus securing a minority government for the CPC.

Will Conservatives learn for #Elxn46?

There’s a good chance Poilievre will survive the calls for him to be replaced as Leader.

If he doesn’t want to risk suffering another disastrous loss to the next scandal-plagued, down-in-the-polls, Liberal government, here’s my free advice to him:

1. No more appointing candidates, ever. Allow free and fair nomination elections in every riding, including those with incumbent MPs.

2. Pledge to ban biological males from female sports and campaign aggressively on it, drawing away Liberal, NDP and Green voters who also believe gender ideology is out of control.

3. Go after the Carney Liberals on their abortion-extremism. Be the first to attack. Don’t wait to be attacked.

4. Fire Jennie Byrne, Michael Crase and all the advisors who gave you the bad advice that cost your party this election.

We apologize for the length of this analysis but hope it has been informative.

Reprinted with permission Campaign Life Coalition.