Conservatives need to find the moderate middle

They won’t win by preaching to the converted

The conservative movement in Canada is facing a come-to-Jesus moment. Its relevance as a credible alternative to progressive parties hangs in the balance.

The problem is most obvious on the federal stage. Faced with a once-highly unpopular Liberal government under Justin Trudeau, the Conservatives looked destined for power. Instead, their fortunes have reversed dramatically.

Fewer than four in 10 Canadians now view Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre positively, and only about one in five would prefer him as prime minister over Mark Carney. The polling aggregator 338Canada recently projected that an election held under those conditions would produce 222 Liberal seats and just 84 Conservative seats.

The Liberals swept three byelections last Monday, including Chicoutimi–Le Fjord, Que., which the Conservatives had held through four consecutive elections.

Is anyone seeing a pattern here?

It would be easy to conclude that Canadians simply aren’t conservative enough for today’s Conservative parties. Except there is one rather large problem with that argument: Canadians keep electing conservative governments.

Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador have Progressive Conservative governments. Alberta is governed by the United Conservatives, Saskatchewan by the Saskatchewan Party and Quebec by the Coalition Avenir Québec.

So conservatism itself clearly isn’t the problem.

The more interesting question is why some versions of conservatism continue to win while others struggle to broaden their appeal.

Most Canadians approve of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s handling of the trade dispute with Donald Trump’s administration. What is perhaps more revealing is how many Canadians have little confidence that Poilievre would do as well or better.

Trump changed the political environment almost overnight.

Poilievre built much of his appeal during the Trudeau years around frustration with government, institutions and elites. His slogans were memorable and his attacks relentless. When Canadians were angry about inflation, housing, immigration and a government that appeared exhausted, that approach worked remarkably well.

Then Trump imposed punishing tariffs and again talked about making Canada the 51st state.

Suddenly Canadians weren’t thinking only about what was wrong with their country. They were thinking about what was worth defending.

Poilievre has struggled to adjust. A political style built to channel anger at Trudeau has proved less effective against Carney at a time when voters appear to be looking for stability and competence.

The question is whether Poilievre is the only Conservative leader facing this problem. He isn’t.

In Alberta and British Columbia, conservative leaders face versions of the same challenge.

In Alberta, Premier Danielle Smith has increasingly pushed political fights over immigration, private health care and Alberta’s place within Canada. That approach may appeal to part of the conservative base, but it makes it harder for Smith to reach beyond it.

Her approval rating fell to an all-time low of 39 per cent in polling released by the Angus Reid Institute in June 2026. More than half of Albertans surveyed disapproved of her performance, including 46 per cent who strongly disapproved.

In British Columbia, Conservative Leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay faces an even more immediate problem. Her party has lost nine MLAs from its ranks, while chief of staff Chris Delaney has also quit.

Findlay has generated controversy with decisions such as directing senior staff and MLAs to stop using the term “First Nations” in favour of terms including “Indian,” and hiring Apollo Chung, a former executive director of Alberta’s separatist Republican Party, to her staff.

Different provinces. Different leaders. Different circumstances. But the political problem is remarkably similar.

In each case, they are increasingly speaking to voters who already agree with them rather than building the larger coalitions they need to govern.

That matters because Canadians are hardly allergic to conservative ideas.

Environics research has long found Canadians to be fiscally cautious while remaining socially liberal: secular, tolerant of differences and strongly committed to social equality.

That helps explain why Canadians can worry about deficits, taxes and the size of government while remaining deeply attached to publicly funded health care and social programs.

In short, our conservatism comes with a heart.

Canada’s most successful conservative politicians have traditionally understood that combination. They haven’t necessarily been timid or centrist. They have understood that winning requires adding voters rather than simply exciting those already on their side.

For a time, Poilievre appeared to be building just such a coalition.

He successfully tapped into genuine frustrations, particularly among younger Canadians struggling with housing costs and a sense that the economic system was working against them. His criticism of Canada’s rapid population growth also connected with legitimate concerns about whether housing and infrastructure could keep pace.

But identifying a problem is only the beginning of politics. Eventually voters want to know what you intend to do about it.

And that is where anger reaches its limit.

Carney’s success doesn’t prove that Canadians have suddenly become Liberals. His appeal may suggest almost the opposite. Fiscal caution, institutional stability and an emphasis on competence were once comfortably at home in Progressive Conservative politics.

That should worry Conservatives far more than another bad poll.

The Conservatives need voters who want lower taxes and those who depend on public health care. They need Canadians who want immigration reduced and immigrants who have made Canada their home. They need westerners angry with Ottawa and Canadians who became more patriotic when Trump started threatening the country.

Those people aren’t necessarily ideological opposites. In Canada, they often live on the same street.

That is the moderate middle Conservatives need to rediscover. It isn’t Liberal-lite. It’s the peculiarly Canadian mix of conservative instincts and communal values that has elected conservative governments for generations.

If Conservatives want to regain power federally, or win a swing province such as B.C., they have to speak to Canadians as they are, not as true-blue conservatives wish they would be.

At the federal level, that means asking an uncomfortable question about Poilievre: Can he adjust his approach enough to win back the moderate voters who have moved away from him?

If he can, he should.

If he can’t, Conservatives will eventually have to find someone who can.

Canadians deserve—nay, need—a conservative alternative to the party in power. But Conservatives won’t become that alternative by speaking more loudly to people who already support them.

They have to give the rest of Canada a reason to join them.

Doug Firby is an award-winning editorial writer with over four decades of experience working for newspapers, magazines and online publications in Ontario and western Canada. Previously, he served as Editorial Page Editor at the Calgary Herald.