No one can deny that Canada is at a fork in the road. The country's most crucial general election is set to take place on April 28.
I am Canadian, and proudly so. I have spent a career championing leadership that blends empathy, evidence, purpose, and a touch of moral duty.
Over the years, I've assisted organizations, penned books, and advised leaders about the cultural influence of ethical governance and sound management principles.
Elections are no different: the leader we pick sets the tone of our collective enterprise—our national culture, whatever country you live in.
For me, it's Canada.
Below are five arguments grounded in leadership strategy and principles—my line of work—including recent evidence and social realities. Think of them as five reasons that nudge Canadians to hold on to what they do best—acting as a caring country that balances enterprise with community and empathic citizenship.
Leadership Over Rhetoric
Slogans or cheap attacks do not sway me. Instead, I look for leadership steadiness when times are bumpy.
The global economy is experiencing instability, Canadian families are struggling with their monthly expenses, and certain U.S. politicians are criticizing Canada's sovereignty.
The last thing Canada needs is a government that bangs on about "freedom," "hope," and "change" and fails to back it up with a leadership plan that isn't simply, "We'll do what they didn't."
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney—former Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor—recently said, "Canadians know that negativity isn't strength; they know that negativity won't pay the rent or mortgage. Negativity won't bring down the price of groceries, and it won't win a trade war." He has consistently pointed out that hostile rhetoric is not a way to lead.
On the other hand, Canada's Conservative Party under Pierre Poilievre continues to flirt with rhetorical grenades—sound bites that rile up pockets of frustration but rarely deliver real solutions. ("Sneaky Carney" is but one example.)
Governing, like leadership, however, also demands more than stirring speeches. It requires leaders to face crises with clarity, not reactionary flourishes that feel closer to "MAGA-light" theatrics.
Leadership is more than a microphone and the pulpit to bully. Leadership involves entering tense negotiations without alienating partners or damaging relationships. It's about empathy, not ego.
At the risk of stating the obvious, trade wars, border issues, and inflation do not get solved with swagger, hubris, and the put-down of a political opponent by infantile name-calling.
Like all acts of good leadership, it requires professionalism, civility, openness to change, and collaboration.
Protecting Social Programs
Social programs like Canada's $10-a-day childcare or universal healthcare aren't just budget items; they are part of the country's DNA.
Whenever I talk to managers about workplace culture, I emphasize being on the lookout for the subtle signals that shape their employees' loyalty and well-being. Any government sets that tone nationally for its citizens. If Ottawa decides childcare is negotiable, what happens to families with two kids at home and ballooning grocery costs?
They slip further down the slope of financial distress.
The Liberals have championed childcare reforms precisely because working parents need tangible support, not watery promises. Poilievre's refusal to clarify whether he would keep or shelve the $10-a-day program is concerning. The same can be said for his wishy-washy answer to refusing his security clearance as leader of the opposition.
Uncertainty kills trust.
Having run several global and large teams in my day, I know how a lack of clarity paralyzes morale and undercuts an individual or team's performance. When applied to a whole country, I find that even more worrisome.
Granted, no government is perfect. However, in leadership terms, a short list of results—like new childcare agreements, dental care, or infrastructure funding—will always beat someone chest-thumping about "cutting taxes for everyone" or incessantly applying the blame game.
Standing Up to the Threats
U.S. President Trump has repeatedly threatened Canada's sovereignty. He has lobbed multiple insults at the country and various political leaders. Trump has claimed he would economically "break" the country into becoming the 51st state if it did not bend on tariffs and other demands.
It's a repeated line of thinking from a president who seems intent on punishing a country for being its closest ally and longtime friend.
In uncertain times like these, do Canadian citizens want to align themselves with a leader who won't even allow reporters onto the party's campaign plane?
Prime Minister Carney did not mince words when he addressed Trump's statements: "We will never, ever, in any way, shape, or form, be a part of the United States. America is not Canada," he said.
On the Conservative side, I see too much tiptoeing, perhaps an attempt to emulate certain "America First" styles. At best, it's a weak imitation that fails to show how Canada can protect its sovereign interests.
At worst, it invites deeper meddling in Canada's national affairs. If an organizational leader gave the competitor's big boss a free pass to run the show, I'd call it a terrible strategy.
That same logic should apply at a national scale, regardless of your country.
Cost-of-Living Conundrum
Employees are human. There are day-to-day realities like bills, children, aging parents, and so on. As a leader, you cannot build an organization by ignoring the daily realities of your employees. A country, like Canada, is no different. Canadians continue to feel squeezed by grocery bills, housing prices, and other cost-of-living realities.
Poilievre's approach?
He claims the Liberal government is to blame for just about everything—fuel prices, mortgages, grocery markups—but he does not convincingly articulate how broad tax cuts or other programs will fix structural issues.
I believe in sensible tax policies, sure. But the cost-of-living crisis requires a team-of-teams approach—a collaboration among provinces, banks, retailers, and, yes, the federal government. It's no time to employ the 100% blame game.
In leadership terms, it's the difference between diagnosing the root cause or loudly shouting about the symptoms.
A CEO who understands supply chain vulnerabilities will ask others for feedback and, ideally, invest in end-to-end solutions to improve its bottom line. That makes sense.
A prime minister who is aware of how inflation hits families will listen to the feedback of citizens and then invest in direct relief and policy levers. Ideally, they collaborate with various stakeholders along the way.
That makes sense, too.
Culture and Leadership
How I coach and teach organizations and leaders on culture is the bulk of my work.
Rather obviously, I have found that if the tone at the top is fear-mongering, scapegoating, or hostility, that negativity seeps down into every branch and unit of the organization. If senior leaders rule by fear and pressure, the organization gets enveloped by anxiety and underwhelming performance.
You see backstabbing between departments, cynicism in staff, and well-meaning and high-performing team members eventually will leave.
Nationally, a leadership style that mimics "MAGA" postures (or even "MAGA-light") can carve up communities and pit region against region or demographic against demographic.
The Liberals, for all their flaws, have consistently championed an inclusive culture. They have staked out positions that welcome diversity of thought and background.
That's also how innovation thrives in the workplace and where tolerance can foster community bonds across an entire country.
Canada is not known for rampant division or hateful rhetoric. It is known for unity in the face of crisis and for bridging differences through that intangible Canadian courtesy. We get our "elbows up" only when it's necessary.
Canada can keep it that way if it chooses leadership that operates with humility rather than bombast. A strong organizational culture always starts with constructive dialogue—whether you're running a Fortune 500 firm or a G7 nation like Canada.
Fomenting anger might produce short-term headlines. But what about the long term? It's toxic and not what makes Canada the country it is today.
What's Next for Canada?
Ultimately, any general election will shape a country's future, as clearly as a CEO shapes a company's strategy and future profitability.
Come April 28, Canadians have a decision to make that concerns the character of the country's leadership on the world stage, let alone within its domestic state of affairs.
Canada can extend the style it is known for—focused on unity, social support, sovereignty, and real solutions to kitchen-table worries—or take a leap toward a harsher, more divisive approach that flirts with the chaos seen in certain pockets of America today.
From my vantage point, it's not a difficult call.
Having studied organizations and advised leaders for over two decades, I see better odds for stable, empathetic, purpose-driven governance.
I've always said leadership is about choosing the well-being of the many over the noise of the few.
On April 28, Canada should choose a future that stays true to the country's sense of balance, community, and progress.
That points directly to a decision that is not hard to make at all.
