Meet Canada’s Next Prime Minister — the ‘Libertarian-Minded’ Pierre Poilievre

With Justin Trudeau stepping down, Canada is entering a turbulent political season. Parliament has been prorogued until March 24, giving time for Trudeau’s Liberal Party to select a new leader. The new leader will become Prime Minister as leader of the party in government, but will then likely lose a non-confidence vote in the House of Commons, triggering an election. Since the Conservatives currently have a commanding lead in the polls, it is widely expected that Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre will win the election and become Prime Minister.

Given this situation, there is increasing curiosity about who Poilievre is and what he stands for. What’s his vision for Canada, and how might that shape the future of this country?

A Libertarian Prime Minister?
Born in Calgary, Alberta, in 1979, Pierre Poilievre has been involved in politics nearly his entire life. After earning a BA in international relations at the University of Calgary, he went on to become a Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) in 2004 at the age of 25. He has worked as an MP ever since, slowly climbing the Party ladder, becoming leader in 2022.

Poilievre’s political philosophy is essentially conservative, but what makes him unusual is that he also has a considerable libertarian streak—a rare quality in the upper echelons of Canadian politics.

In his teens he read Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom, a book he later cited as “seminal” to his political thinking. As a second-year undergraduate in 1999, he was a finalist in the national “As Prime Minister, I Would…” essay contest, winning $10,000 and a four-month internship at Magna International. His entry, “Building Canada Through Freedom,” spells out his principles—and his ambitions—in no uncertain terms:

Therefore, as Prime Minister, what I would do to improve living standards is not nearly as important as what I would not do. As Prime Minister, I would relinquish to citizens as much of my social, political, and economic control as possible, leaving people to cultivate their own personal prosperity and to govern their own affairs as directly as possible.

His focus on liberty has continued throughout his career. He described himself as “libertarian-minded” to media outlets when he first became an MP in 2004 and is regularly criticized by those on the left for viewing free markets favorably and government intervention with suspicion. “All political stripes have housing villains, which typically fit our pre-set views on the world,” wrote Kofi Hope for the Toronto Star in 2022. “Poilievre as [sic] a libertarian, so government is the villain.”

Poilievre’s pro-freedom credentials were further underscored when he was interviewed on Robert Breedlove’s podcast in 2022. During their conversation, Poilievre told Breedlove he was a regular listener and fan of the show. This in itself is revealing: Breedlove is a Bitcoiner, a self-described “Freedom Maximalist,” and an influential figure in the modern liberty movement.

Poilievre went on to reference “one of my favorite economists, Thomas Sowell,” and specifically cited Sowell’s famous “first lesson” quote: “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

Canada at a Crossroads
Poilievre’s rise comes at a time when Canada is facing an identity crisis. For nearly ten years, Canada under Trudeau has been Woke Central—progressive in almost every sense of the word, and proud of it. Poilievre has been a vocal opponent of this approach, not only in its economic aspects but also on the cultural front.

But there’s another side of Canada as well, and it shows itself in movements like the trucker convoy. This is the side that still has some connection to classical liberal ideals, a side that believes (at least relatively) in free speech, free markets, and fiscal responsibility. Though this group is somewhat eclectic and has never been completely dominant, their influence could be felt in the Harper government (2006–2015) and the Chrétien government (1993–2003).

There’s also an increasing segment of the Canadian population that is composed of recent immigrants, many of whom are still primarily concerned with the political issues of the countries they came from. It’s hard to overstate just how multicultural Canada has become—and the volume of recent immigration has become a flashpoint of political debate. Poilievre’s stance on the immigration issue is somewhere in the center, and, as is common for politicians, seems to fluctuate depending on who he’s talking to.

With Trudeau departing, Canadians are asking ourselves, really for the first time in a decade, whether we like the progressive national identity we’ve adopted or whether it’s time for a change. We know what Canada under Justin Trudeau looked like and what it stood for. It’s a lot less clear what Canada represents in 2025.

Poilievre is tapping into the classical liberal side of the Canadian identity. He has been especially focused on his plan to “Axe the Carbon Tax,” referring to a divisive carbon tax-and-rebate program introduced by the Liberals in 2019 as part of their climate agenda.

But while he will likely succeed in rolling back the carbon tax, there is reason to doubt that he will be able to make any sizable pro-freedom changes.

The Despotism of Public Opinion
Poilievre may be libertarian-minded at heart, but most Canadian voters are not. Thus, if he wants to get elected, he needs to present Canadians with a considerably moderated version of his ideas, and that’s exactly what he’s been doing. In his mind, presumably, it’s better to get elected on a moderate platform than campaign on what he actually believes and lose in a landslide.

Unfortunately, even if this strategy works and he becomes Prime Minister, he will be severely limited in his ability to make any meaningful changes, because he will almost certainly be ousted from power should he ever try to do so.

There’s an interesting lesson here about power. While it’s easy to think that the person in charge can do whatever they want within constitutional limits, the fact is that they are always beholden to the will of the majority. And as Ludwig von Mises argued—echoing Étienne de la Boétie and David Hume—this isn’t just true of democracies; it’s true of all systems of government. Political “might” always rests, not on force, but on opinion. If a ruler won’t exercise power in a way that comports with public opinion, they are quickly replaced by someone who will—violently, if necessary.

Mises spells out the startling implication in his 1957 book Theory and History:

If public opinion is ultimately responsible for the structure of government, it is also the agency that determines whether there is freedom or bondage. There is virtually only one factor that has the power to make people unfree—tyrannical public opinion. The struggle for freedom is ultimately not resistance to autocrats or oligarchs but resistance to the despotism of public opinion.

Poilievre may want to move Canada in a free market, classical liberal direction. He may have great intentions for removing government regulations in both the economic and social spheres. But the problem is that Canadian public opinion is still thoroughly statist.

For example, healthcare is largely controlled by the government, and many Canadians like it that way. In a 2023 study asking people their views on private healthcare, the respondents fell into three groups—39% were “Public Health Purists,” 33% were “Curious but Hesitant,” and 28% were “​​Private Care Proponents.” That last cohort may sound encouraging to those who would like more market choices, but keep in mind that the vast majority of them are simply interested in a hybrid public-private model. Support for a complete laissez-faire approach in healthcare is undoubtedly less than 1%. Even Poilievre, for all his free market rhetoric, would likely balk at such a suggestion.

So while the anticipated Poilievre era will likely be better than the Trudeau era (a low bar if there ever was one), we shouldn’t get our hopes up about the country radically turning around. As long as public opinion has the same statist fundamentals, marginal policy tweaks will be the only thing that is politically feasible. And marginal tweaks will only lead to marginally better outcomes.

It would be great to axe the carbon tax, but Canada needs more than Poilievre’s Axe; it needs Milei’s Chainsaw.

This piece originally was posted by the Foundation for Economic Education.