On January 16th, 2025, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation as head of the Liberal Party. Canada Institute Global Fellows offer their perspectives bellow on what this pivotal moment means for Canadian policy and politics. From reflections on Trudeau's legacy to the challenges and opportunities awaiting his successor, this series explores the implications for governance, party dynamics, and Canada's position on the global stage.

The Climate Policy Legacy Of Justin Trudeau

Barry Rabe

Global Fellow, Canada Institute

Canada has long struggled to adopt, implement, and sustain federal policies to achieve significant greenhouse gas reductions. Bursts of action plans and voluntary initiatives have come and gone, giving little indication that Canada was prepared to lead international efforts to minimize future climate harm.

That track record began to change when Justin Trudeau took office. His work included a Canadian endorsement of the Paris Agreement (2016) and the Kigali Amendment to phase down hydrofluorocarbons (2017), as well as charter membership in the Global Methane Pledge (2021).  Further global engagement was backed by new domestic policies, including a flagship carbon pricing program with separate components for fossil fuel consumption and industrial emissions.  Regulatory steps ensued, aiming to reduce methane releases from oil and gas operations and navigate far-reaching reductions in cooling sector hydrofluorocarbons.

These policies have thus far proven durable, creating a global perception that Canada was embracing a leadership role in these areas. However, none of this was seamless, and controversies have since ensued over such issues such as the increasing or adjusting the carbon price and proposed emission caps on fossil fuel production. There were also growing asymmetries with the United States, given its enduring opposition to any domestic carbon price (unique among G7 nations) and mounting energy nationalism backed by far-reaching domestic clean energy subsidies.

Trudeau will depart as the first Canadian Prime Minister to leave such a large set of domestic and global climate policy commitments in place, at a point where external pressures on Canada take two forms. On the one hand, the United States, appears poised under a new President and Congress to reverse or weaken many recent domestic and global climate initiatives in favor of maximum oil and gas production and export while also flexing its tariff powers, including potential applications to trade partners with weaker carbon emission intensity records.

On the other hand, the European Union and the United Kingdom have maintained their far-reaching climate commitments, including robust pricing regimes. They are finalizing plans for carbon border adjustment mechanisms applied to trade partners lacking carbon pricing and strong carbon emissions intensity records. The EU is extending this approach to methane emissions as it weighs its options for replacing Russian gas supplies, and Asian nations express growing interest in importing fossil fuels with minimal methane waste.   

The United States has highly uneven carbon and methane policy records and may soon repeat recent patterns whereby incoming Presidents reverse climate actions taken by immediate predecessors. In contrast, Canada has a serious domestic carbon price and an increasingly strong track record in implementing methane reduction policy and achieving comparatively low methane loss rates. 

Going forward, the future Canadian government will need to consider these new Trudeau-era domestic and global policy commitments in outlining its climate policy agenda. Will it aim for global leadership, prefer to lag, or occupy the middle of the pack?

Trudeau’s Legacy: Shunning Canada’s Resource Wealth Instead of Leveraging It

Heather Exner-Pirot

Global Fellow, Canada Institute and Polar Institute

Imagine becoming the leader of Canada. A country with over a century’s worth of reserves of uranium, oil, and natural gas. A leading exporter of grains, oilseed and clean hydroelectricity. A landscape rich in critical materials needed for the energy transition and defense supply chains alike. Covered in the world’s largest intact forest, able to supply lumber for millions of new homes and buildings. Then imagine you use your power to subdue resource development in Canada instead of bolster it. That is Justin Trudeau’s legacy. 

The nation of Canada was built on its resource economy. It started with the fur trade, then moved to the settling of land for agricultural purposes. The 20^th century, with its many wars and population booms, created demand for Canadian minerals. In recent years, the oilsands and the hundreds of billions of barrels they contain were unlocked.

For many in the Laurentian elite, this status – a hewer of wood and hauler of water – has been a source of embarrassment. Tired of being a country cousin, urban progressives in Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal preferred a version of Canada that was built on a knowledge economy: good, clean, white-collar jobs with computers and office buildings. “My predecessor wanted you to know Canada for its resources. I want you to know Canadians because of our resourcefulness,” Trudeau told his audience in Davos in 2016.

Many Canadians have been bewildered by this, not only because it was economically harmful, but because Canada’s resource abundance is so obviously the source of its soft and hard power, it’s standing in the world.  

This was laid out starkly in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine with its ensuing energy and food crises and China’s weaponization of critical mineral supply chains. Canada’s allies wanted to know more about its resources. The answer too often was yes, we have everything you need. But no, we can’t get them to you anytime soon. 

Canada’s unwillingness to meet its military spending commitments aggravated fellow NATO members. But the inability to sell the energy and minerals needed by our allies to reduce their dependence on our adversaries reeked of incompetence.

Trudeau’s ideology saw resource extraction and industrial farming not as fundamentals needed for a functioning society but as luxuries, conditional on meeting what were often economically uncompetitive, or even impossible, standards. Canada’s immense oil wealth was seen as an environmental liability, a demon to be exorcised. 

Needless to say, this went against the prevailing attitudes of the oil-rich west, and it sparked cultural and regional divisions in Canada the likes of which, it must be acknowledged, pop up between Alberta and Ottawa every generation or so.

Trump, perhaps seeing a window of opportunity, has called for making Canada the 51st state. Is it a coincidence that the US is eyeing Canada more seriously as its own oil riches, procured from prolific shale basins, look to ultimately decline? The American energy dominance agenda relies to no small extent on Canada. 

One thing is certain. North America is rich in energy and resources. This is not a trivial advantage in 2025. Ultimately, realpolitik will push Canada to leverage its resource strengths rather than suppress them and the US to secure access to Canadian resources rather than tariff them. Let prosperity and security afforded by our natural abundance be our legacy. 

The Future Of National School Food Programming In Canada And The USA

Gisèle Yasmeen

Global Fellow, Canada Institute

While the US has had federally mandated school food programs since 1946, after decades of grassroots advocacy, the Government of Canada only announced modest funding of CAD $1Billion over five years for a National School Food Program in the 2024 budget. This is chump change in comparison to the $30 billion over five years and $9.2 billion annually thereafter announced in the 2021 federal budget for daycare. However, it’s still significant given the implications for child nutrition, reducing hunger and relieving pressure on family budgets. Not to mention, it’s a motherhood issue, garnering support across party lines. By jumping in late, Canada was able to “leapfrog” and commit to principles to avoid the pitfalls that emerged south of the border such as catering to industry interests and targeting low-income children resulting in stigmatization. 

Since announcing the funding and accompanying policy, four provinces have signed on beginning with Newfoundland, followed by Manitoba and then Canada's largest and smallest provinces, namely Ontario and Prince Edward Island. We’ve got six provinces and three territories to go. What might happen in the wake of an election and likely victory of the Tories? I predict business as usual with the remaining provinces and territories signing on. The low cost comes with good optics and outcomes, when well designed and executed. 

However, a tariff war and crackdown on immigration - both legal and otherwise - could have devastating impacts on school food programming in both countries given the direct link to the cost of food. This could result in lower quality, highly processed food being served, which will aggravate the already skyrocketing level of diet related disease. As for school food in the US, analysts suggest that Trump supporters favor targeting delivery of feeding programs to low income students. This would roll back the clock across the country.

What exactly happens on social policy in Canada will depend on whether we have a majority government or not and who will hold the balance of power if a minority government is elected. In the case of the much bigger ticket Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care system announced in Budget 2021, all the provinces and territories signed on within a year. Daycare advocates, inspired by Québec’s program, can take credit for influencing the federal Liberals to act, with the New Democrats holding the balance of power.

The same dynamic is at play with respect to the new school food program. It’s unlikely that the federal Tories will dismantle the program given what has happened in the past at the provincial level. When Rachel Notley’s NDP government was defeated by the United Conservative Party in 2019, the school food funding her government put in place survived. This is no doubt related to the commitment of people working on the ground to deliver a patchwork of programs across the country. The school food file is an interesting and important one to keep tabs on as we collectively navigate tricky political waters. 

Trudeau's Resignation Leaves Canada Vulnerable To An Ambitious United States

Xavier Delgado

Senior Program Associate, Canada Institute

On January 20, the contrast between the strength of political leadership in the United States and Canada will be stark. In Washington, President Trump will return to the White House with a sweeping mandate delivered by the second-highest popular vote tally in US history and supported by a Republican-controlled Congress. In Ottawa, Prime Minister Trudeau will oversee the final days of his minority government until his Liberal Party chooses a new leader, who is then expected to be thrown into an early election when the opposition parties vote to bring down the government.

Conventional wisdom in the United States says that the first 100 days of a president’s term are the most efficient. While the timeframe is somewhat arbitrary, there is no doubt that new administrations use early momentum to address some of their most important priorities. In the President Trump’s case, this could include imposing his promised 25% universal tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports – he promised as much on Truth Social in November.

If Parliament reconvenes as expected on March 24 and the government falls the following day on March 25, the earliest possible election would be April 30. In that timeline, Canada would be led by a lame duck prime minister for just over two months and in an election period for the remaining 37 of the Trump Administration’s first 100 days in office. While the government will maintain its ability to enact retaliatory tariffs during the period of prorogation, the lack of a clear long-term vision for Canada-US relations, inward focus on domestic electoral politics, and inability to debate and pass legislation will render Ottawa vulnerable.

For President Trump, who plans to extract concessions from Canada – namely higher spending on border security and a reduction to the United States’ trade deficit– through “economic force,” those 100 days of instability provide a window to take control of Canada-US relations set his priorities atop the bilateral agenda before a new prime minister takes office.

There are factors on both sides of the border that could hinder those efforts. Slim majorities in both chambers of US Congress mean that a handful of Republican lawmakers can block legislation and Trudeau, despite his numbered days in office, can use the powers of his premiership to push back against the Trump administration without having to worry about his own political future. Still, the leverage between the two countries will lean heavily towards the United States for the coming months.

It is worth noting that Prime Minister Trudeau’s decision to announce his resignation was driven by domestic considerations, specifically a caucus revolt that would have made it difficult to govern for the next ten months. However, through the lens of Canada’s relationship with its most important ally, it could hardly have happened at a more inconvenient time.

Trudeau’s Legacy: Support For Ukraine

Richard M. Sanders

Global Fellow, Canada Institute

On foreign policy, Justin Trudeau is likely to be remembered for his strong, consistent support for Ukraine following Russia’s invasion. In the immediate aftermath, he denounced Russia’s “unwarranted aggression,” and committed Canada to work closely with NATO and other allies “to collectively respond to these reckless and dangerous acts.”

Under Trudeau’s leadership, Canada has vigorously acted to maintain sanctions on Russia in conjunction with its allies. Immediately following the invasion, it sanctioned a range of elites and close associates of Putin’s regime, including members of the State Duma, the Security Council, and Putin’s inner circle. It also sanctioned financial, defense, and energy entities that provided support for the invasion.

As time went on, Canada imposed other measures, including new export controls on shipments of items to Russia (and Belarus), sanctions on entities engaged in disinformation, Russian steel and aluminum imports, and diamond imports. They also joined their allies in imposing a price cap on Russian petroleum. Canada has since sanctioned individuals and entities involved in the theft of Ukrainian cultural property and individuals involved in the violation of human rights during Russia’s invasion.

Canada has acted to support Ukraine’s struggle to defend itself, building on assistance that it had earlier provided. Their commitment to contribute CAN$ 4.5 billion in military assistance through 2029, which covers a broad range of material and training, also includes air defense, ammunition, artillery, field equipment and clothing, imagery, communications infrastructure, Zodiac boats, Leopard main battle tanks, armored vehicles, and unmanned aircraft systems (drones).

The country has also provided training to 5000 members of Ukraine’s armed forces in both basic and specialized military skills, such as combat engineering and combat medical skills. The Canadian Air Force assisted in the delivery of both Canadian and allied equipment to Ukraine. 

In addition to its work with Ukraine itself, Canada under Trudeau has supported NATO allies in the Baltic through its participation in the Enhanced Forward Presence program which began in 2017, with Canada providing the headquarters company for NATO forces stationed in Latvia.  It has increased its presence, which now numbers around 1000 soldiers and could go up further to 2200 by 2026.

What will happen to Canada’s commitment to Ukraine and European security in the post-Trudeau era?  Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has been a strong supporter of Ukraine (although he opposed a Canada-Ukraine trade agreement because of its language that promoted the creation of a carbon tax). However, the real question for Trudeau’s successor will be how to react to shifting U.S. policies once Trump retakes office.  Will Canada maintain its policy of strong assistance, or will it ratchet back if the United States does so, too?

Whatever the future holds, Justin Trudeau’s support for Ukraine will be a significant part of his foreign policy record.  Indeed, to paraphrase another prime minister whose country eventually tired of his leadership, it may have been his finest hour.

Canada Must Take An All-Of-Society Approach In This Moment 

Danielle Goldfarb

Global Fellow, Canada Institute

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau just announced that he will resign once a new Liberal Party leader is chosen during a months-long leadership process. With a federal election also due this year, Canada faces the prospect of multiple prime ministers in 2025 alone. 

At a moment when Canada faces President Trump’s 25 percent tariff threats, the country lacks both stable leadership and a unified response. As a small, open economy that depends on access to the US market to maintain and grow its citizens’ living standards, this is an acute crisis. 

At this moment, Canadian leaders must adopt a whole-of-society response to protect its interests. As Roy Norton points out, only Americans can convince President Trump that tariffs against Canada are a bad idea. Canadian businesses and community leaders need to mobilize their US counterparts, and ask them to speak to US decision-makers across all levels of government. Same with provincial government leaders, think tanks, and all parts of Canadian civil society.

The core message is clear: we make things together. Almost two-thirds of Canadian exports to the US and half of US exports to Canada are intermediate inputs in integrated supply chains. Tariffs will reduce GDP and increase consumer prices in both countries. When Canada retaliates on US exports to Canada—as it will—the impacts will be harsher. 

Canada should use an all-of-society approach not only for defense but to advance shared positive interests. One example is mobilizing US counterparts to advance digital and AI-enabled trade. Dramatic recent advances in AI—from the ability to translate seamlessly between languages to understanding context in product descriptions to analyzing images—reduce trade frictions and create new trade possibilities. Many of these were impossible with traditional software just a few years ago. This could advance both Canadian and US economic interests.