In August 2025, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre’s victory in the Battle River–Crowfoot by-election with more than 80% of the vote has been interpreted not only as a personal political comeback but also as a critical turning point that could reshape Canada’s domestic politics and its approach to foreign policy. This result followed Poilievre’s loss of his long-held constituency in the April 2025 federal election, which had left him without a parliamentary seat as party leader. The resignation of the sitting MP vacated the seat and gave Poilievre the opportunity to re-enter Parliament.[i]
Poilievre’s return to Parliament has been a significant step in enabling him to fulfill his responsibilities as Leader of the Official Opposition, since it has restored his capacity to participate in question-and-answer sessions in the House of Commons and directly interact with Prime Minister Mark Carney and cabinet ministers. This development can be seen as a reconfiguration that directly supports the functionality of parliamentary oversight. The political context of the election encompasses complex dimensions in terms of economic policy, trade policies, and institutional checks and balances. In his post-election speeches, Poilievre heavily criticized the government on issues such as budget deficits, inflation, and Canada–U.S. relations—criticisms that directly targeted tariffs, the government’s economic management, and public confidence.[ii]
The Liberal Party currently holds a minority government, which means that it must rely on the support of smaller parties to maintain confidence. This balance of power increases the opposition’s capacity to use inquiries, criticism, and opposition blocs more effectively in the legislative process, thereby dynamizing agenda-setting mechanisms. Public opinion polls indicate that while the Liberal Party enjoys around 44% general support, the Conservatives are at approximately 33%. However, Poilievre’s return to Parliament may trigger internal party restructuring and shifts in voter dynamics. Analysts emphasize that Poilievre must draw strategic lessons from his electoral defeat, reassert his leadership skills, and articulate a clear vision of governance as an alternative to the incumbents.[iii]
The democratic structures surrounding the election process are also noteworthy. Civil movements such as the Longest Ballot Committee introduced a critical challenge to the electoral system by allowing hundreds of candidates to enter the race, which in turn required the use of special hand-written ballots. These technical measures necessitate a renewed evaluation of the delicate balance between democratic participation and the functioning of electoral administration.[iv]
Poilievre’s political persona, his popularity in the public sphere, and the ongoing leadership review within the party will be decisive factors in the coming period. Some polls show that Poilievre faces limitations in terms of broad public support, with high levels of unfavorable perception among certain demographic groups. This could deepen debates over leadership legitimacy and internal party cohesion.[v]
The implications of this by-election extend beyond domestic politics, with potential effects on Canada–U.S. trade relations. On the U.S. side, tariff policies and the broader context of trade wars are pushing Canada to strategically reassess its economic orientation. The Carney government, in response to rising U.S. tariffs, has considered counter-tariff measures and policies to support domestic producers, while also seeking to reduce vulnerabilities through economic diversification, the promotion of free internal trade across federal layers, and investment in infrastructure.[vi]
In contrast, Poilievre approached these trade conflicts critically during his campaign, advancing a “Canada First” vision of economic nationalism. His proposals included reciprocal tariff responses, renewed negotiations on energy exports to the United States, and tax reductions. Some of his public rhetoric reflected a strong stance on Canadian sovereignty, potentially providing strategic bargaining chips in international markets.
These developments present an important case study in the interplay between domestic political actors and foreign policy, as well as in the balance between the executive and Parliament. Poilievre’s return to Parliament could strengthen oversight mechanisms over government foreign and economic policy decisions, while simultaneously creating uncertainty abroad regarding Canada’s political stability and policy consistency. In particular, the forthcoming trade negotiations with the U.S., the mutual impacts of tariff policies, and the redefinition of Canada’s bargaining power will be shaped both by domestic political challenges and by international diplomatic discourse.
At the same time, this transformation process brings to the fore institutional issues such as the evolution of opposition in parliamentary democracy, intra-party democracy, the broadening of the electoral base, and the re-establishment of leadership legitimacy. In the long term, whether Poilievre can pass his leadership review, expand his party’s representation among diverse voter groups, and adapt to shifts in voter preferences amid economic uncertainty will be critical variables shaping the future direction of Canadian politics. The impact of these variables on foreign policy will require evaluation not only in terms of the trajectory of trade negotiations, but also in relation to Canada’s international image, its vulnerabilities, and its credibility with strategic partners.
In this regard, the by-election result can be considered not merely as the return of one political figure to Parliament, but as a restructuring process with real potential consequences for Canada’s domestic and foreign policy architecture. While the government is expected to take steps to reduce economic vulnerabilities, ensure stability in trade negotiations, and balance parliamentary oversight, Poilievre’s opposition is likely to track the process through harsher criticism, thereby energizing law-making processes and exerting strategic accountability pressure on the government. This case provides a concrete example of how domestic political actors, institutions, and public opinion can influence decision-making in the sphere of foreign policy.
[i] “Canada opposition leader Poilievre wins seat, to take on Carney over tariffs”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-opposition-leader-poilievre-wins-seat-take-carney-over-tariffs-2025-08-19/, (Access Date: 20.08.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] “Conservative leader runs for safe seat in parliament after Canada election defeat”, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/18/pierre-poilievre-parliament-election, (Access Date: 20.08.2025).
[v] “Poilievre’s back, but 5 more fights could define his future”, Politico, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/19/pierre-poilievre-mark-carney-canada-prime-minister-election-00513944, (Access Date: 20.08.2025).
[vi] “Poilievre finds key back to the House in his home province”, The Hill Times, https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2025/08/20/poilievre-finds-key-back-to-the-house-in-his-home-province/469913/, (Access Date: 20.08.2025).
