As Canada prepares for a pivotal federal election, the country’s two frontrunners vying to become prime minister are offering sharply divergent approaches to economic growth, public spending, and fiscal responsibility. For Canadian businesses navigating a period marked by global uncertainty and domestic affordability concerns, the choices laid out in the Liberal and Conservative platforms will shape the operating environment for years to come.

Fiscal frameworks: Different approaches to growth and deficits

Liberal Leader Mark Carney has proposed a $130 billion investment plan aimed at what he calls a “once-in-a-generation economic reset.” His platform, Canada Strong, emphasizes capital investments in housing, defence, and strategic industries. Carney projects a gradual narrowing of the deficit to $220 million by 2028-29, supported by cost savings and temporary tariff revenues.

“This is a plan that meets that moment in a way that is very prudent with peoples’ hard-earned tax dollars but bold in terms of where this country can go,” Carney said.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, by contrast, is pledging $75 billion in tax cuts and $56 billion in spending reductions, focusing on reducing what he describes as government inefficiencies. The Conservative plan, Canada First for a Change, anticipates a $14.1 billion deficit in 2028-29, offset partly by a forecasted $21 billion in annual revenue from stronger economic growth.

“Let’s cut the fat, not the frontline services Canadians rely on,” reads the Conservative platform.

Tax and regulatory policy: Incentives vs. restraint

From a business perspective, taxation and regulatory reform are among the most critical areas of contrast.

The Liberals propose a cut to the lowest personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%, representing a $22 billion commitment. There are no major corporate tax changes in the platform.
The Conservatives propose a wider tax reform agenda, including broad-based tax relief, a “Taxpayer Protection Act” to prevent tax increases without a referendum, and a regulatory reset aimed at streamlining federal oversight.

Spending plans: Public investment vs. efficiency gains

Both parties support increased defence spending to meet NATO targets by 2030, but otherwise prioritize different areas.

The Liberal platform includes:

$22 billion over four years for housing construction and incentives
$18 billion in defence upgrades
$2 billion for a Strategic Response Fund focused on the auto sector
Repurposing buildings for housing, and investments in critical minerals and domestic manufacturing

The Liberals argue these public investments will drive long-term productivity and support strategic sectors.

The Conservative platform proposes:

Spending restraint via civil service attrition and consultant reductions
Infrastructure investments such as northern military bases and Arctic roads
No new large-scale social programs, with some reallocation from areas like foreign aid and public broadcasting

The Conservatives argue that economic growth will be more effectively achieved through private-sector-led expansion and a more efficient federal footprint.

Trade, industry and strategic assets

Both platforms respond to ongoing trade risks, particularly from U.S. policy shifts.

The Liberals propose using tariff revenues to support affected Canadian businesses and strengthening the Investment Canada Act to guard against foreign takeovers of key industries.

The Conservatives do not outline new trade-specific subsidies, but emphasize supply chain resilience, a domestic-first approach to manufacturing, and a focus on reducing bureaucratic delays for business.

On strategic resources, both parties highlight Canada’s role in critical minerals, but differ in how they aim to harness it: the Liberals through public incentives and partnerships, the Conservatives through deregulation and investment attraction.

Carney, Poilievre trade barbs

Meanwhile, Liberal leader Mark Carney criticized the Conservative plan’s economic assumptions, arguing they rely on “best-case scenarios” that may not hold under continued geopolitical instability.

“If we made the assumptions that the Conservatives did about growth in our platform, we’d be in a fiscal surplus in five years,” Carney said. “These numbers are a joke.”

Poilievre maintained that fiscal discipline and regulatory reform are the best tools to support long-term prosperity: “Your tax dollars are precious... under this bloated Liberal government, inflationary spending keeps going up while services keep getting worse.”

In response to the Liberal platform, Poilievre said: “Yesterday, we learned that Mark Carney is far more costly than Justin Trudeau. … Mr. Carney released a platform with $130 billion more spending than Justin Trudeau had already planned to introduce. So think this through.”

He added: “I think we all know that Liberal math doesn’t add up.”

Abacus polling shows 45% of decided voters think the Carney-led Liberals are best suited to handle the impact of Trump’s decisions on Canada, compared to 33% for the Conservatives and 5% for the NDP.

On the federal deficit and debt, the Conservatives lead slightly with 38%, just ahead of the Liberals at 37%, while the NDP trails at 7%. When it comes to growing the economy, 41% prefer the Liberals, 36% the Conservatives, and 6% the NDP. However, on reducing the cost of living, 36% chose the Conservatives, 29% the Liberals, and 14% the NDP.

The non-random online survey has a comparable margin of error of ±2.3 points, 19 times out of 20.

Impacts for citizens, businesses

The next government will face an economy at a turning point, marked by inflation, global uncertainty, and rapid technological change — issues felt daily in living costs, business competitiveness, and job stability. This election is not just about leaders or parties; it’s about choosing the kind of economy Canadians want. The Liberal and Conservative platforms offer starkly different paths: one focused on public investment, the other on private sector-driven growth. At stake is the country’s economic direction and future prosperity.