Here's why dumping the carbon tax or capital gains tax changes won't be enough for the Liberals.

Why the problem facing the Liberals runs deeper - it's about motivation and intention, not just policy.

I was on CTV’s Question Period last weekend talking about the Liberal leadership race and what I thought the Liberals would need to do to change their fortunes. That conversation sparked this piece.

One of the consistent findings we’ve seen in our polling over the past few years is that many Canadians came to see Justin Trudeau’s government as out of touch with their everyday realities. It wasn’t just a matter of disliking certain policies. People grew increasingly frustrated that the prime minister seemed unable—or unwilling—to acknowledge that some of his government’s decisions were contributing to their own economic and social anxieties.

In other words, it was a question of fundamental intent: Did the Trudeau government truly prioritize the average Canadian’s challenges, or was it driven by an agenda that overlooked how those policies were received and experienced?

Those perceptions form the backdrop of the race to replace Justin Trudeau in the Liberal Party. Mark Carney, Karina Gould, and Chrystia Freeland have all suggested changes—or outright reversals—to policies seen as core Trudeau priorities. From pausing or eliminating the consumer carbon tax to rolling back the changes to capital gains tax introduced in the last budget, the candidates appear to be signaling an openness to recalibrate Liberal policy - some argue pulling the party back to the centre (Is there even a centre?). On the surface, that’s a logical step. As our poll for The Logic finds, Canadians have grown weary of some of these policies, particularly as they continue to grapple with inflation, housing affordability, and broader economic uncertainty.

But a deeper question remains: Will retreats from core Trudeau policies be enough?

According to our data at Abacus, a significant block of voters wants more than a few new talking points and symbolic gestures. They want to see that the next prime minister understands what they’re going through and has motivations that diverge from the perceived paternalism of the Trudeau era. Simply hitting pause on the carbon tax or reversing some capital gains changes might alleviate specific concerns, but that alone won’t convince voters the new leader truly empathizes with them—or is fundamentally different from the prime minister they want replaced.

Indeed, what Canadians tell me in focus groups and our surveys is that they felt the Trudeau government often talked about helping the middle class, while seemingly ignoring practical costs facing families, small business owners, and young people. Whether that perception is entirely fair or not, it’s widespread.

From western provinces that felt alienated by environmental policies that seemed disconnected from their local economies, to urban Millennials and Zoomers burdened by ever-rising housing costs, many Canadians came away convinced that the government wasn’t listening. Crucially, it’s not just about feeling heard on a policy-by-policy basis; it’s also about trusting that those in power share core motivations about fairness, affordability, and opportunity.

Look at voter reactions to the consumer carbon tax. While most Canadians say they believe in taking action on climate change, they also question whether the policy was structured in a way that made sense amid an affordability crisis. When we surveyed Canadians on cost pressures, the carbon tax repeatedly surfaced as a symbolic issue: a prime example of Ottawa pushing a policy that may have laudable goals but feels misaligned with people’s daily struggles. In that context, if Gould, Carney, or Freeland merely announce a pause or revision of the tax but fail to connect with voters on a deeper level—demonstrating they’ve learned from past mistakes and empathize with people’s financial anxieties—then any policy adjustment risks being dismissed as a political tactic rather than a true shift in direction.

Chrystia Freeland’s case is instructive here. She’s indicated she would roll back the capital gains tax changes introduced in her own budget when she served as finance minister. On one hand, that’s a clear break from a Trudeau-era policy. On the other, it opens up questions: Why was it introduced in the first place, and does this reversal represent an actual change in approach or just an acknowledgment that it wasn’t politically palatable? She argues that Donald Trump changes everything, but there was still close to a 50/50 chance Trump would become President back when she introduced the measures in the spring and continue to advocate for them after he was elected in November.

Voters who feel burned by the Trudeau government might be skeptical, reasoning that if the core motivations remain the same—perceptions that it’s heavy on ideology and light on listening—nothing fundamental has really changed.

That’s why, from my perspective, the next Liberal leader needs to demonstrate not only a willingness to shift policy but also to pivot on how they understand, communicate with, and respond to Canadians. It’s no longer enough to say, “We hear you,” and then carry on largely unchanged.

Our data show that voters are seeking tangible evidence of empathy—something beyond political slogans. That evidence might look like proactively engaging with communities bearing the greatest cost pressures, reflecting their input in specific policy details, and proving a genuine openness to recalibrate when evidence suggests a policy creates unintended harm.

Ultimately, the challenge for Carney, Gould, or Freeland is to convince Canadians that their government will do more than adjust the sails on a predetermined route—it will actually chart a new course.

Retreating from some of Trudeau’s policies may give them room to maneuver, but it won’t automatically repair Canadians’ trust. That trust will hinge on whether the next prime minister can demonstrate different fundamental motivations: a readiness to listen, acknowledge missteps, and craft policies that feel less like top-down pronouncements and more like thoughtful responses to Canadians’ real and pressing concerns.

The response to Donald Trump provides a clear opportunity. Will consumer impacts be front and centre? Can they demonstrate a more empathetic response than what the Conservatives or NDP will offer?

From what our surveys consistently tell us, voters are less interested in ideological purity than in feeling that their government is on their side. In the end, the key question is whether these leadership hopefuls can prove they’ve learned from Trudeau’s missteps—and not just by offering policy changes, but by embodying a different attitude toward governance and the lived experiences of Canadians.

For those looking for a meaningful break from the Trudeau era, it is that personal and political shift, rather than a few high-profile policy reversals, that will resonate most in the next election.