
How far-right ideas in Canada are working their way into mainstream politics
The fortunes of the Conservative Party and its leader Pierre Poilievre in Canada's April 2025 election seemed to have shifted dramatically after United States President Donald Trump called for Canada to become the 51st state.
Political pundits regarded Mark Carney and the Liberal Party's victory - along with the failure of Poilievre to retain his own seat - as a "Trump slump" and a repudiation of both Trump's and Poilievre's style of politics.
But is that an accurate assessment? The Conservative Party received its largest vote share since Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Exit polling data suggested stronger support for the Conservative Party among people aged 18-34 than among people aged 55 and older.
Although Trump has said Poilievre is "not a MAGA guy," some political analysts have likened the rhetoric of Poilievre and other Canadian Conservatives to American Republicans who lean towards far-right Christian nationalist politics..
As an inter-religious humanities scholar of the U.S. far right, I have observed alarming parallels between the rise of the far right in mainstream politics in the U.S. and the scene in Canada.
Read more: A 'Trump slump' has lifted the left in Canada and now Australia - what are the lessons for NZ?
In the U.S., both scholars and news media have been highlighting the connections between far-right Christian ideology and politics.
Trump's first presidential term ended with the Jan. 6, 2021 violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. Scholars like Matthew Taylor, author of The Violent Take it by Force , have pointed to Christian nationalism and other far-right ideologies as factors that motivated the rioters.
In February 2025, Trump appointed televangelist Paula White-Cain to head the newly created White House Faith Office. White-Cain's appointment followed an executive order establishing a task force to eradicate anti-Christian bias.
Thea appointment adds to the the narrative that U.S. Christians are facing persecution, a refrain since at least the 1970s and heightened during Barack Obama's presidency. Scholars have linked the assertion that "Christianity is under attack" to the rise of Christian nationalism in mainstream politics.
Read more: Trump may have emboldened hate in Canada, but it was already here
American sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry define Christian nationalism as "a cultural framework that blurs distinctions between Christian identity and American identity, viewing the two as closely related and seeking to enhance and preserve their union."
It's tempting to read "Christian idenity" and "American identity" and assume it does not affect Canada.
But Christian nationalist ideologies were present during the so-called Freedom Convoy in Ottawa in 2022. According to Canadian scholars, national identity is blurred in online spaces, allowing U.S. nationalist ideals to take hold in Canada.]
Christian nationalism is not synonymous with Christianity or any specific branch of Christianity, like evangelical Christianity.
According to U.S. sociologist Daniel Miller, Christian nationalism is not a set list of ideological or religious beliefs. Instead, Miller says, Christian nationalism emerges when people identify with "a very narrow, idealized prototype of the 'real or 'authentic' American."
He says two mechanisms connect people to Christian nationalism. The first is perceived loss of power by the people who historically held power. This is known as a "power devaluation crisis." The second is a narrative of decline - known as a a "declensionist narrative" - which asserts that American society has declined since the 1960s and needs repair and reclamation.
Poilievre is not open about his religion and does not call for Canada to be a Christian nation. But whether Poilievre intends to stir up Christian nationalists, some of his rhetoric has indicated support for the classic definitions of Christian nationalism.
According to Miller, support for Christian nationalism is not always direct. It can be activated by stoking a crisis of lost power, like the decline of the "traditional" family or by asserting a narrative of decline, like "Canada is broken."
For example, Poilievre's 2025 campaign mobilized both of the narrative mechanisms that attract Christian nationalist mentioned by sociologists: a power devaluation crisis and the narrative of decline.
In the lead-up to his 2025 campaign, Poilievre repeatedly called Canada "broken.". He cited increased crime, addiction, high grocery prices and more as evidence of Canada's brokenness, accusing the Liberal government of erasing Canada's past.
When Poilievre calls Canada "broken," it affirms the world view of Christian nationalists.
Another strategy Poilievre reportedly adopted from Trump was his work to court conservative Christians.
In an 2024 interview with The Tyee , religious right scholar Carmen Celestini of Waterloo University said Poilievre had "ramped up" his presence at churches. Additionally, The Globe and Mail reported there were fewer photos ops of Poilievre visiting mosques in 2024.
Of course, visits to churches are not enough to signal alignment with Christian nationalists. And Poilievre has not espoused any Christian evangelical ideals in any public speech.
But it's still important for Canadians to remain alert about Christian nationalists and their ambitions to become part of mainstream politics.
A study from the U.S. has linked the rise in Christian nationalist ideologies to attacks on religious minorities. The 2024 qualitative data from the study indicates that when politicians rhetorically supported Christian nationalist values, there was a increased violence against minority groups.
According to Statistics Canada, the violent crime rate in Canada rose 13 per cent from 2021-2022.. Police-reported hate crimes increased 32 per cent from 2022 to 2023. Crimes targeting religion rose 67 per cent in 2023, primarily targeting Jewish and Muslim communities.
While I know of no studies showing the rise of the far right is directly leading to violence in Canada, Canadians should be aware of the pattern in the U.S. Research shows that growing Christian nationalists and far-right world views south of the border are, in fact, connected to a rise in violence.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Canada Standard
37 minutes ago
- Canada Standard
Wildfires Push Climate Onto the Agenda as G7 Leaders Meet in Alberta
With the G7 leaders' summit due to descend on Kananaskis, Alberta June 15-17, questions are swirling about what Canada can accomplish with this year's G7 presidency and how agreement is possible with Donald Trump in the room-while swirling smoke from a devastating Prairie wildfire season helps bring climate change back onto the leaders' agenda. Now in its 50th year, the G7 brings together the leaders of seven of the world's biggest economies plus the European Union in what is described as a "forum for co-operation, stability, and shared prosperity." The leaders' summit each year is meant to end with a consensus statement of all the countries. But community voices on everything from climate change to international finance and justice have rarely been satisfied with the outcome. Much of the news analysis leading up to this year's event has cast the G7 as a diminished institution, reduced to handshakes, photo ops, and carefully-worded generalities that are the most the countries can agree to. Coming into this year's summit, the G7's "legitimacy is hanging by a thread. Its promises have fallen flat, its unity is strained, and its moral voice is fading fast," retired civil servant Bhagwant Sandhu writes for The Hill Times. "Originally conceived as a multilateral pact among Western democracies to steward global economic control, the G7 was never intended to serve the desires of its most powerful-and now unpredictable and illiberal-member: the United States," he adds. "The group's initial goals have been obscured by authoritarianism, unilateral action, and creeping militarization." That leaves Prime Minister Mark Carney with a choice, Sandhu says. "Canada can, of course, preside over the usual choreography of communiques and handshakes-or try something more ambitious: restore the G7 to its founding mission." Carney's office kicked off that discussion June 7 with a list of the three "core missions" the PM will pursue in his role as G7 president, all "anchored in building stronger economies"-the same priority, CBC points out, that he has brought to the domestic scene in Canada. The list includes: "Protecting our communities and the world" by "strengthening peace and security, countering foreign interference and transnational crime, and improving joint responses to wildfires"; View our latest digests Building energy security and speeding up the "digital transition" by fortifying critical mineral supply chains and using technologies like artificial intelligence to spur economic growth; Investing in stronger infrastructure, creating higher-paying jobs, and fostering "dynamic", competitive markets for business. But much of the attention so far has been on the chaos Trump will bring to the table, just as he did in 2018 when Canada last hosted the G7 in Charlevoix, Quebec. Then, as now, U.S. tariffs were at the centre of the discussion, and Trump issued two angry tweets pulling the U.S. out of the leaders' final communique, just hours after countries had signed off on the text. "A show of unity on big geopolitical problems that holds longer than a few hours after President Donald Trump's participation will be seen as success after the American president in 2018 blew up a fragile consensus even before he left the last Canada-hosted G7 in Charlevoix, Que., later angrily insulting then-prime minister and G7 host Justin Trudeau," writes Toronto Star Ottawa bureau chief Tonda McCharles. This time around, "a key performance indicator for the summit will [be] getting something down that all leaders can agree upon that will also include the U.S.-and that will be a challenge," Deanna Horton, a diplomat who served twice in the Canadian embassy in Washington, told The Hill Times. On June 11, McCharles reported that organizers of this year's summit are not looking for a final communique that represents a consensus of all G7 members. "Instead, G7 host Carney is expected to issue a G7 chair's statement and the closed-door high-stakes sessions that could nevertheless produce some heated discussions will be summarized in documents likely to be so whitewashed of the juicy bits, that they could almost be written in advance." The Star has details on how the Summit agenda is likely to play out. Carney has also stirred controversy with the list of "middle power" countries he's invited to the summit. In addition to the leaders of Ukraine, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, and South Korea, the list includes Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose government has been linked to acts of murder and extortion on Canadian soil, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has been connected to human rights crackdowns, mistreatment of migrants, and the 2018 murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Meanwhile, Carney's plan for the summit makes scant direct reference to past G7 commitments in areas like power sector decarbonization, methane controls, forest and land degradation, and elimination of fossil fuel subsidies-a promise the countries made in 2016 and were supposed to deliver on by this year. "Its climate commitments remain stalled, and the vaunted $600-billion infrastructure pledge to the Global South-first announced in 2021 as the 'Build Back Better World' initiative-has been more frequently rebranded and re-announced than realized," Sandhu writes for The Hill Times. Moreover, "the G7 has yet to fulfill its decades-old promise to allocate 0.7% of each member's gross national income to humanitarian aid. At the start of the 2023 Hiroshima summit, it was still short by a staggering US$4.49-trillion. More troubling still, members like the United Kingdom have diverted aid funds from humanitarian crises to finance NATO expansions, raising serious questions about the group's priorities." In a release this week, Oxfam warned the G7 is in the midst of its biggest-ever foreign aid cut. The member countries, which account for three-quarters of the world's official development assistance, are on track to cut their aid budgets 28% in 2026 compared to 2024 levels, the organization said. "Rather than breaking from the Trump administration's cruel dismantling of USAID and other U.S. foreign assistance, G7 countries like the UK, Germany, and France are instead following the same path, slashing aid with brutal measures that will cost millions of lives," said Oxfam International Executive Director Amitabh Behar. "The G7's retreat from the world is unprecedented and couldn't come at a worse time, with hunger, poverty, and climate harm intensifying. The G7 cannot claim to build bridges on one hand while tearing them down with the other." Meanwhile, in a G7 agenda stripped bare of any language that could rile up a volatile U.S. president, author Arno Kopecky says the massive wildfires covering swaths of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia are playing into Canadian officials' plan for keeping climate change in the conversation. When officials first began planning the meeting last year, "Canada's Liberal government wanted the G7 to discuss climate change (the host nation sets the summit agenda), but what if Donald Trump was there as President?" Kopecky writes for the Globe and Mail. "This was no abstract worry either: the day before Jasper caught fire, Joe Biden had dropped out of the presidential race, and the Democrats' prospects looked dismal." Officials "knew that if they start with the standard stuff on climate change, Donald Trump and his people would get out their red pens and just say 'no way,'" John Kirton, founding director of the G7 Research Group, told Kopecky. "So then, what is your strategy? And wildfires was the answer." The difference, Kopecky writes, is that while Trump refuses to listen to climate science, he's seen a rash of wildfires since he returned to the White House in January, and his country is now receiving smoke from the blazes in Canada. "So Donald Trump's got a reason to be seen to be doing something about it," Kirton said. It also "speaks volumes" that the energy security section of the G7 agenda talks about artificial intelligence, but makes no reference to oil and gas, Kopecky writes. Source: The Energy Mix


Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
BANGKOK (AP) — Australia's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time,' saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. 'I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy. The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China.


Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Continued failure to consult on uranium exploration a harmful mistake: Mi'kmaw Chiefs
HALIFAX – Nova Scotia's continued failure to consult with First Nations on uranium exploration is a mistake that will further erode the province's relationship with Mi'kmaq communities, says the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaw Chiefs and a lawyer from Sipekne'katik First Nation. Pictou Landing First Nation Chief Tamara Young said the Mi'kmaq people were neither consulted nor notified when Nova Scotia introduced then passed a bill that opens the province up to potential uranium mining and fracking. 'The lack of consultation is unacceptable and goes against the UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples),' Young said in a statement to The Canadian Press on Wednesday. The assembly has said they will continue to oppose both uranium exploration and hydraulic fracturing until their environmental concerns have been addressed. The provincial government added uranium to its list of priority critical minerals May 14, and it issued a request for exploration proposals for three sites with known deposits of the heavy metal. Interested companies had until Wednesday to submit their proposals. Premier Tim Houston has said the legislative changes are needed to help the province withstand economic challenges from American tariffs. 'We recognize there are international pressures and influences affecting our economy, but any resource development in Mi'kma'ki must include our consent and participation as we are the rightful owners of these lands, waters and resources,' Young said in the statement, speaking as co-lead of the environment, energy and mines portfolio on behalf of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaw Chiefs. Rosalie Francis, a Mi'kmaq lawyer whose firm is based out of Sipekne'katik First Nation, said the province risks further damaging their relationship with Mi'kmaq communities and sabotaging the potential uranium industry by failing to consult adequately and early. 'By choosing not to consult, it scares away investors, destroys the relationship and gets us back to starting at zero,' Francis said in an interview Tuesday. 'It all comes down to trust, and this completely diminishes any kind of trust that's essential to the relationship between the first for the Mi'kmaq and the province.' Nova Scotia has opened up three plots of land for uranium project proposals: an 80-hectare site in Louisville in Pictou County; a 64-hectare site in East Dalhousie in Annapolis County; and a 2,300-hectare site in Millet Brook in Hants County. Much of this is on private land. The government has previously said companies selected by the province would have to seek permission from landowners to explore. However, Section 26 of the province's Mineral Resources Act allows the natural resources minister to intervene if there is a stalemate. A spokesperson with the Department of Natural Resources said if a company decides it wants to develop a mine on one of these sites, then there is duty to consult with Mi'kmaq communities. Francis said that position is backwards, and is not in line with case law on the matter. 'It's been clear that duty to consult begins when, in the minds of government, they're anticipating activity that will affect rights,' Francis said, adding that should happen before a company has made a decision on the site. The lawyer said it would appear the province has not learned from the fall out of the Alton Gas cavern project, which was officially scrapped in fall 2021. The Alberta energy company abandoned its plan to create huge salt caverns north of Halifax to store natural gas more than 13 years after starting construction. The company said at the time the project experienced challenges and delays, referring to opposition the project faced from Indigenous protesters and allies who opposed the company's plan to remove large, underground salt deposits by flushing them out with water from the nearby Shubenacadie River. The plan also called for dumping the leftover brine into the tidal river, where it would flow into the Bay of Fundy. In March 2020, a decision by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ordered the province to resume consultations with Sipekne'katik First Nation on the matter and determined the former environment minister was wrong when she concluded the province had adequately consulted with the First nation about the project. 'The province should have walked away from that decision and said: 'OK, lesson learned.' The project never went forward. All the gas investors looked at it and said: 'This is just a mess now. Let's just walk away,'' Francis said. The lawyer said it will be telling in the coming weeks if the province chooses to engage with Mi'kmaq communities or 'if the province will march along in the same way it did before.' 'Either we'll have a success story or we'll have another Alton Gas play out,' she said. Shiri Pasternak, a criminology professor at Toronto Metropolitan University and co-investigator of a research project called Infrastructure Beyond Extractivism, said the situation in Nova Scotia mirrors the expedited extraction movement that's happening across the country. 'What's happening to the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia is really proliferating as an attack on Indigenous and environmental rights across the country right now,' she said in an interview Tuesday. Pasternak said Nova Scotia is one of several provinces working to speed up extraction and development projects — moves that are supported by the federal government. 'We have this sweep of fast-tracked legislation and policy changes to the Environment Assessment Act, both provincially in Nova Scotia and in other places, but also federally in terms of the Impact Assessment Act in order to expedite development and extraction — most of which will be against the desires and the consent of Indigenous people across the country.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 12, 2025.