By Lori Turnbull

May 2, 2025

One of the most impactful results of Election 2025 is that Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre lost his Ottawa-area riding of Carleton. He is still the leader of the party and many Conservatives, both within and outside the party caucus, have publicly indicated their support for his continuation in that role. But some are acknowledging that something needs to change.

In practical terms, Poilievre now has a path to be the one doing the changing. On Friday, in his first post-election news conference, Prime Minister Mark Carney said he would not delay calling a byelection to enable Poilievre to re-enter the House. Immediately after that statement, the Conservative Party announced that Alberta MP Damien Kurek would resign his Battle River-Crowfoot seat to make room for Poilievre.

Meanwhile, someone will have to take over the role of interim leader of the Official Opposition in Poilievre’s absence, which will change the power dynamics and give the party a new face. Those who have leadership aspirations would be wise to organize now, while Poilievre is vulnerable.

As the various factions within the party representing the range of views on Poilievre’s future jockey for narrative space, the campaign post-mortems continue.

Poilievre’s loss in Carleton is a problem the party didn’t need but it also creates an opportunity, if he wants it, for Poilievre to press “reset” on some aspects of his approach.

There are several factors that likely contributed to Poilievre’s loss.

First, the riding itself was different. This is the first general election since the new electoral boundaries took effect in 2024. The riding of Carleton now includes new communities and voters, which made the return of the incumbent less of a certainty.

Second, word on the street is that many residents of the Ottawa-area riding were not impressed by Poilievre’s coziness with the Freedom Convoy in 2022. The Convoy occupied the streets of downtown Ottawa for weeks, shutting down businesses, preventing people from getting to work, and keeping local residents up all night by blaring the horns on their trucks constantly.

Poilievre was torn between building an alliance with a political movement that would likely be inclined to vote Conservative — if their “F%^k Trudeau” signs were any indication of their partisan leanings — and defending the interests of his constituents, many of whom are public servants who work downtown. His defeat was likely at least partly attributable to this tension.

Third, the national campaign was all about Poilievre. From the beginning, the central campaign dissuaded Conservative candidates from speaking to the media. Many Conservative candidates did not participate in their local all-candidates debates. The idea, presumably, was to put the spotlight on Poilievre and let him be the face and voice of the campaign, with no room for error or deviation. The singular focus on Poilievre made it very difficult for him to spend enough time in his own riding.

As the various factions within the party representing the range of views on Poilievre’s future jockey for narrative space, the campaign post-mortems continue.

Fourth, the Liberals targeted this riding. They wanted to knock Poilievre out and made it a project. Liberal candidate and soon-to-be MP Bruce Fanjoy had been working the riding for two years. His win was decisive. He beat Poilievre by 4315 votes.

Though he lost his riding, Poilievre led the Conservatives to one of the most impressive showings the party has ever seen. They won 41.3% of the popular vote, which would normally be enough to form a majority government, and they increased their seat count by 24 seats to 144. Particularly striking was their result in Ontario: Canada’s largest and most populous province was predicted to be a big win for the Liberals, but the Conservatives won 44% of the vote and added 16 seats. Poilievre and his team deserve much credit for this.

However, from about the midpoint in the campaign, there was criticism from within the Conservative movement about the executive of the Conservative campaign. Senior strategist Kory Teneycke, who managed Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s last two campaigns, accused Poilievre and his team of “campaign malpractice” by refusing to pivot messaging to more closely align with the priorities of Canadians. He predicted that this approach would cost them the election.

Any election loss triggers both a leadership review (this is part of the Conservative Party constitution) and a post-mortem analysis of where things went wrong. These reflections will no doubt take into consideration the interventions of Donald Trump, which clearly boosted the electoral prospects of Liberal leader Mark Carney, and the departure of Justin Trudeau, around whom the Conservative campaign had been built since Poilievre became leader.

But in the days following the election, during which Poilievre himself has been uncharacteristically but understandably silent, others are discussing his approach to communication and relationship-building as a potential hindrance to the party’s fortunes. Even among those who support him and want him to carry on as leader, there are admissions that something needs to change. In an interview with CBC’s David Cochrane, Conservative MP Chris d’Entremont, the only Conservative to win a seat in Nova Scotia, expressed his support for Poilievre but signaled agreement with the sentiment in Cochrane’s question: “If you stick with the leader, do you stick with the leadership style?”

Progressive Conservative Premier Tim Houston of Nova Scotia, who takes pains to distance himself from Poilievre within the broader Conservative tent, said that the federal party has some “soul-searching” to do following their loss. He explained that the federal Conservatives, in his view, are “very good at pushing people away, not so good at pulling people in.” Bob Fife from The Globe and Mail told Cochrane in a different interview that Conservative MPs had told him of their difficulties going door to door and having constituents tell them: “We like some of the policies you’re doing but we think your leader’s a dick.”

Poilievre has always approached his parliamentary role with a great deal of confidence. Sometimes he went overboard, as he did in April of last year when he got kicked out of the House for calling Prime Minister Trudeau a “wacko.” But losing his riding will be a humbling experience that might give him pause to consider pressing the reset button on his communications style. It will be difficult for him to continue his caustic demeanor and heavy-handed approach to caucus management now that he’s not in caucus himself.

When Parliament returns, the mood is likely to be very different than it was when the House last met in the fall. Canadians expect cooperation between parties to deal with the unique challenges we face and will have no patience for the toxicity-filled exchanges that dominated the last parliamentary session. Even if he does come back via by-election, it will be up to Poilievre to determine whether he’ll show up differently than before.

Policy Columnist Lori Turnbull is a professor in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University.