As a young boy, I reserved a special place in hell for whichever ad executive decided it was time to launch the “back to school” marketing blitz in the midst of my carefree late summer.
The reminder was, in a word, unwelcome.
So, at the risk of being “that guy” for Canada’s Members of Parliament and their hardworking staff, let me join the “back to Parliament” commentary train for Ottawa’s upcoming fall session, which kicks off Sept. 15.
But this is no preview.
It’s a definitive position: that success for Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre will have absolutely nothing to do with their strengths — and everything to do with how they choose to address their weaknesses.
The strengths of both leaders are as familiar as they are formidable.
For Poilievre, it’s the simple fact that — after his recent byelection victory — he’s back on familiar territory. A consummate parliamentarian, the House of Commons has been his proving ground since he was barely old enough to rent a car. For Carney, it’s technocratic competence. A globally respected economist and former central banker, he exudes credibility. His reputation precedes him.
But these strengths are not revelations. They’re priced in.
As a result, there’s precious little upside in flexing a muscle everyone already knows you have. Public opinion won’t swing wildly when Poilievre delivers another biting performance in the House of Commons. No pundit will be floored by reports that Carney walks into a policy briefing and knows more than the people doing the briefing.
These aren’t plot twists. The characters are fully formed. The narrative is already established.
All of which only serves to underline where real ground is to be gained — and therefore where the battle is to be won: in addressing their weaknesses.
And that is not simply because these flaws exist. It’s because politics ensures they will be hunted, highlighted, and hung around your neck. It’s not personal or especially malicious. It’s the job.
Carney’s Weakness
Following an election, particularly when it comes to attacking a newly formed government, there’s a ritualistic quality to the Opposition’s work. It thrives on the power of contrast — between what was promised in lofty campaign speeches and what actually materializes in the stark realities of government.
And, for most new prime ministers, it’s this spectre of specific unkept promise that poses the greatest vulnerability.
Not for this one.
Mark Carney wasn’t elected on specific promises from a detailed policy menu. He was elected on a generic promise. To turn the page — decisively — from the Trudeau era. Where Justin Trudeau offered idealism and improvisation, Carney promised seriousness and stability. Where Trudeau was all gesture, Carney would be all execution.
But the problem with running on competence is that you have to deliver it — fast. And competence, by definition, is measurable. It invites hard benchmarks: economic performance, public service efficiency, international credibility, and fiscal stewardship.
Unfortunately, Carney has inherited a country with falling GDP per capita, mounting fiscal pressure, and a possibly soon-to-be-torn-up CUSMA deal. Not to mention: a youth employment crisis and a public sector facing deep cuts.
The problem isn’t just that these expectations will go unmet. It’s that the expectations were abstract — and the disappointments will be concrete.
Inaction or incrementalism will feel like betrayal. And that gap could prove devastating if he doesn’t find a way to fill it quickly.
Poilievre’s Weakness
Poilievre’s weakness is the one shared by most Opposition leaders: the perception they’re simply not ready to be prime minister.
But in his case, the challenge is more specific — and more challenging. Poilievre was chosen by his party for a very specific task: defeat Justin Trudeau. But that job changed. Therefore, he must evolve to effectively fill it.
This is where opposition leadership becomes harder. It’s about tone, not volume. He must begin to sound like a prime minister. And that requires an entirely new approach.
A Conservative leadership review in January will bookend this upcoming parliamentary session.
Between now and then, Poilievre doesn’t just need the party to get a bump in the polls — he needs to start winning on personal leadership metrics: favourability, temperament, and trust.
Ultimately, success for either leader won’t hinge on flexing the strengths everyone already knows. It will depend on how effectively they recognize — and improve upon — their weaknesses.
That’s where the real contest lies. And that’s what this Parliament will test.
