My favor to you

I read the election platforms, so you don't have to

One of the features of the 2025 election campaign has been an abandonment of the party platform as campaign device. The parties have released platforms, but only towards the end of the campaign – even after advance polling had begun. The platforms are also shorter than in past elections and have not been aggressively promoted.

If you are reading this post, you owe me a favor. I’ve read the platforms of the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP so that you don’t have to.

Let’s start with the similarities between the Liberals and Conservatives.

Both parties promise to stand up to Donald Trump, strengthen our armed forces, cut personal income taxes, reform immigration, build more homes, and make getting on and off Prince Edward Island cheaper. There are differences of detail between the two parties, but the similarities are much more pronounced than these differences.

Another interesting area of agreement is immigration. Consider these two preamble sentences:

[Someone’s] reckless and unsustainable immigration surge overwhelmed Canadian housing and healthcare services.

[Someone] has let immigration levels grow at a rapid and unsustainable pace, with our housing and social infrastructure failing to absorb all the people arriving.

Can you tell which statement was made by the Liberals and which was made by the Conservatives?

I thought not.

The only clue is that the first statement identified the “someone” as the Liberals while the second “someone” was “the previous government.” Both parties promise to fix the mess by putting some caps on immigration and removing barriers to successful integration into Canadian society with measures such as easier recognition of foreign educational and experience credentials.

National Infrastructure

Both parties promise economic growth through infrastructure investments. But there are differences here. Most of the Liberal commitments focus on moving people within Canada while the Conservatives place more focus on moving commodities to the ocean for export. Liberals promise high-speed passenger rail and. Conservatives promise pipelines and port facilities.

The Conservatives are very precise about which major infrastructure projects they commit to getting done. It’s an impressive, ambitious, and doable list that would significantly improve Canada’s economy. The Liberals, well, are trickier. The Liberals have a platform section titled “Nation-Building Projects”. They then mention half a dozen major projects that “COULD” (emphasis added) happen. But “COULD” is not a commitment. The Liberals go on say what they “WILL” do. It’s a short list:

· Make bridge tolls and ferry charges to Prince Edward Island “more affordable.”

· “Build high-speed rail that connects communities between Windsor and Québec City”.

· “Direct the Canadian Transportation Agency to develop a plan to address persistent complaints about accessibility on aircraft and other modes of transportation.”

I’m not joking. The Liberals make three specific commitments described as “nation-building projects.” Only one actually deals with building anything. The other two may be laudable in their own right, but no matter how hard I squint, I cannot envision them as a “nation-building project.”

Energy

Both the Liberals and Conservatives promise to make Canada an Energy Superpower. However, they present very different visions. We can start with word-count analysis.

The Conservative platform contains the word “energy” 10 times. The Liberals flood the zone by mentioning “energy 26 times.

But here’s what’s interesting.

The Liberals don’t use the word “pipeline.” Not once. The word “oil” is used three times. The first usage is a vague reference when talking about job. The second mention comes when the Liberals promise to “achieve our climate goals including through enhanced oil and gas methane regulations.” The third mention comes in their fiscal discussion appendix when the Liberal explain away declining “capital formation” (i.e. investment) in Canada over the last decade by attributing it to a drop in world commodity prices (including oil) in 2014.

For the Liberals, becoming an energy superpower means solar and wind energy. Most of all, it means “clean energy.” In the Liberal platform, almost every use of the word “energy” is written as “clean energy.” In fact, the Liberals use the word “clean” even more often than they use the word “energy.” (39 times) If cleanliness is next to godliness, the Liberals are shooting for sainthood.

The Conservative’s use the word “clean” only 11 times. The words “wind” and “solar” don’t appear in the Conservative platform. Instead, they commit to specific regulatory reforms, a national energy corridor, and a list of energy export projects (mostly LNG) that they will get moving.

On energy, the contrast between Liberal and conservatives is stark. Liberals promise us more regulation and windmills. Conservatives promise pipelines and jobs.

Economic growth

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are promising to focus on encouraging investment and economic growth.

Let’s compare them on one aspect of tax policy – capital gains taxes.

The Liberal platform states that:

As one of his first acts as Prime Minister, Mark Carney announced that Canada will cancel the proposed hike in the capital gains inclusion rate, because we recognize the vital role that builders, investors, and small businesses play in creating a strong economy.

It’s something only the Liberals could pull off with a straight face. They are running on a platform plank promising not to do what they said they would do. It’s a smaller version of them bragging about eliminating the consumer carbon tax.

The Conservatives also promise not to raise the capital gains tax. Unlike the Liberals, they’ve been consistent on this. The Conservatives are also promising something interesting – that the existing capital gains tax not be assessed if the gain is promptly re-invested in Canadian enterprises. They are prioritizing longer term economic growth over short-term government revenues without attempting to micro-manage where investors should invest.

While both the Liberals and Conservatives are making a virtue of growth, the NDP is proposing to actively punish and discourage capital accumulation with a wealth tax on people with “extreme wealth.” The NDP defines “extreme wealth” as starting at $10 million. With this, someone with an average sized farm (in Saskatchewan) or a typical business owner employing from 75 to 100 workers would be categorized as having “extreme wealth” and forced to pay $100,000 in a wealth tax in addition to their income tax and whether or not they had any profits.

Fiscal Implications

Both the Liberals and Conservatives are engaging in fiscal irresponsible electoral pandering by promising cuts to personal income taxes at a time when the federal government is already running a huge deficit and when both are promising (often needed) new spending. I won’t do a deep dive into the specifics of their plans since the obfuscates the big picture: both parties are making promises that – if kept – will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. As far as I can tell, the Liberals are worse than the Conservatives for their use of the government credit card, but “worse” does not change “bad.”

Since both parties are engaged in this cynical game of buying your votes with your grandchildren’s money, I must assume they are responding to public demand as expressed in their internal polling and focus groups. I think that both parties know better – but they also know Canadians insist on getting more from government than they willing to pay for. I can (and will) criticize the politicians for going along with this, but that’s democracy. Both parties are giving us what we want. The shame is on us.

Crime

Both the Liberals and Conservatives have a “tough-on-crime” platform section. There is overlap. For example, both parties agree that bail for those accused of some crimes should be tougher to get. As someone who has spent a lot of time looking at governmental crime policy (my Ph.D. Dissertation was on the Harper government’s criminal justice program), I have to say that the Conservative platform is more detailed, thoughtful, and nuanced.

There are some interesting little nuggets in the Conservative platform. For example, they Conservatives say that people convicted of “no-body” homicides (ones in which the killer destroys or hides the body of the victim) should not be eligible for parole until they reveal where the body is or what became of it. This approach has been used in some American states and has resulted in killers – after years of strenuous denial of guilt – suddenly remembering where they buried the body when coming up for parole eligibility. This is niche commitment that does not affect many people – but those who are affected (family members of the murdered, missing person) are affected a lot. It’s the kind of commitment that won’t move votes and is not normally in a party election platform. Its presence suggests that someone in the Conservative party apparatus cares deeply and has thought a lot about criminal justice issues.

On the other hand, the Liberal criminal justice platform planks show signs of being a hasty add-on. The Liberals platform focusses on car theft much more than other crimes (one bullet reads, “Toughen sentencing guidelines so they are stricter for repeat offenders of car theft, as well as violent and organized crimes.”) It’s interesting that car theft leads – with “violent and organized crimes” being the afterthought. I suspect the reason is that there was a surge in car thefts in Toronto and Montral. It got a lot of media play, so that’s likely what was top-of-mind for the platform writers when they were told to stick in something about crime.

The other area of Liberal crime focus is to trot out more gun-control measures. The one that made me chuckle the most was a commitment to “Continue to implement an efficient gun buyback program for assault-style firearms.” That’s a howler. The Liberal government announced it’s buyback program on May 1, 2020 (saying it would be completed in two years). In the 1,819 days since the buyback was announced, not a single gun has been bought back because the Liberal government has been unable to figure out how to administer the thing. Not one. Now they are promising to “continue” the “efficient” program. Whoever wrote this platform section showcased their ignorance.

And now the NDP

I’ve focused on a head-to-head comparison between Liberals and Conservatives to this point. I decided to treat the NDP separately for a few reasons.

One is logistical. While the main parties allow their platform to be downloaded in a pdf (making reading easier and things like word searchers possible), the NDP did not appear to take this small step in making their platform an easily digestible package. Instead, they have a series of pop-ups to talk about individual commitments. It is a format that is both annoying and hinders a reader’s ability to view the thing as an – well – platform.

But my main observation of the NDP platform is that much of their platform could have been written by St. Thomas Acquinas. He argued that responding to market forces (i.e. raising prices in times of high demand or shortages) was immoral and fraudulent. A “just price” should be imposed on all sellers. Fast forward 750 years and we have the NDP promoting this medieval economic theory. Thus, the NDP promises caps on grocery prices to prevent greedy grocery store executives from raising prices. The NDP’s central response to the housing shortage seems to be the imposition of national rent controls to protect renters from “greedy landlords. It’s just Acquinas’s “just price” using bigger words.

Sigh.

It’s kind of depressing to see that my old party subscribing to economic theories developed in the 13^th century. Economists get a lot wrong – but the discipline has advanced our knowledge of how to create prosperity over the since the time of the crusades. Someone should get the NDP platform writers a library card.

The Bottom Line

It’s hard to know how seriously to take these platforms given the way all parties hid them by late release and underwhelming efforts at promotion. It’s actually too bad. Both the Liberals and Conservatives have thoughtful positions on immigration, housing, and national defense. On these issues – in the platforms – I’d be happy to see either party’s plans implemented. At the same time, I shudder at both parties’ fiscal plans.

In the end, there appears to be two major points of divide between the Liberals and Conservatives.

The first is on energy. While both parties talk of making Canada an “energy superpower”, they are proposing very different paths. Wind and solar versus oil and gas. It presents a real choice so I will not weigh in with my own preferences except to note that the Conservative approach is more aligned with becoming an actual “energy superpower” because the form of energy they are promoting is exportable. The Liberal plan, at best, is a plan for self-sufficiency. That may be all people want, but it does self-sufficiency is different than being a “superpower”.

The other issue is credibility.

Both parties are campaigning as opposition parties. Both are running against the record of the Trudeau government.

But over the past decade, one party was in government and one in opposition.

The Carney Liberals are running against the record of the Trudeau Liberals. If you arrived from Mars and were handed a copy of the Liberal platform, it would be almost impossible to discern that this was the platform of the incumbent party. There is vigorous criticism of the Trudeau government, but no acknowledgement that they are criticizing their own record. Instead, the condemnations are of the “previous government.”

Here is one example.

In May of 2024 (less than a year ago), a Conservative MP asked that the carbon tax on gasoline be suspended for a few months so families could better afford to go to national parks or visit grandparents. Health Minister Mark Holland replied:

“What is the cost? It is to give up the future of the planet! Kids do not have to worry about climate change. They do not have to worry about taking action on the planet. They can enjoy their 10 hours in the car and let the planet burn.”

That was then and this is now. The Liberal platform explains:

“On April 1, gas prices went down for tens of millions of Canadians. That’s because, as his very first act as Prime Minister, Mark Carney cancelled the consumer carbon tax. Cancelling the consumer carbon tax was the first step in ensuring that Canadians can keep more of their hard-earned money.”

Well then.

Less than a year ago, the Liberals were claiming that a two-month holiday on collecting one part of the carbon tax would cause the planet to burn.

Today, when asking for your vote “cancelling” the tax – presumably permanently and for a much wider range of goods – is just described as helping Canadians keep their hard-earned money.

Does this mean the planet will burn so the Liberals can win an election? Or does it mean that the planet was not in imminent danger of burning?

Lawyers love doing cross examination live witnesses who gave one version of events to police and a different version on the witness stand. They pose the question:

Were you lying then or lying now?

It’s a question that Canadians should be asking the Liberals.