In recent years I have developed the practice of voting NDP provincially and Liberal federally. The federal choice arises largely from the Liberal candidate being the only one that has a chance of defeating the Conservative in my Calgary riding.

This year, with Pierre Poilievre providing an even greater than usual urgency to reject the Conservatives, I again voted Liberal. The Liberal candidate lost, nonetheless I was delighted with the overall election result. The Liberals won a near-majority government and Mark Carney makes for an exceptional leader.

Unfortunately the NDP paid a heavy price for the victory with thousands of their supporters voting Liberal primarily for the same reason I do routinely—to shut out the Conservatives.

I’m comfortable voting Liberal, but not so comfortable voting strategically. I would prefer being able to vote NDP and have my vote count even if that candidate lost, but of course our voting system precludes that very democratic outcome.

In any case, strategic voting was a major part of this year’s election and resulted in much more of a two-party system with a greatly diminished NDP.

While I generally support much of what Carney’s government is doing, I also see a need for a strong NDP. This is due in no small part because so much of what the Liberals are doing the official opposition, the Conservatives, have little incentive to oppose. Indeed, their policies often coincide.

Consider, for example, the cuts—in both taxes and spending. The first order of business for the new Liberal government was a middle-class tax cut. This was understandable in a time when cost of living is a major issue. But it is also at a time when the government has promised to increase defence spending to five percent of GDP and spend much more on badly needed housing.

So where is the money to come from? Partly at least by cutting spending. Government departments are being asked to reduce program spending by 7.5 percent. We are told social programs like dental care, early childhood education, daycare and transfers to the provinces “would not be touched,” but we need a strong opposition to ensure they aren’t.

Carney’s One Canadian Economy Act, an important measure for facilitating inter-provincial trade and the building of major projects, nonetheless has aspects that bear watching. For example, the Act gives cabinet the right to alter the operation of laws duly passed by Parliament, including outright exemption. Cabinet, in other words, could usurp the rights of Parliament. This is open for abuse as we see in the U.S. where the president now routinely assumes rights constitutionally allocated to Congress.

Furthermore, while the Act states that the government is committed to “upholding rigorous standards with respect to environmental protection,” it nonetheless allows cabinet to exempt projects from environmental legislation. Carney brings strong environmental references from his time in industry, but has been less than clear as to how he intends to achieve our 2030 climate targets. This becomes troublesome as those targets slip further out of reach. Again, we need an environmentally-committed opposition to hold the government’s feet to the fire.

We also need at least one political party committed to ensuring that as the government focusses on Trump-proofing the country, it doesn’t overlook those who are hardest hit by Trump’s tariffs, i.e. those in lower-wage jobs in manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade. The income gap, the difference in the share of disposable income between households in the top 40 per cent and bottom 40 per cent of income distribution, rose to its highest on record early this year.

A Conservative opposition is not about to oppose tax cuts or less spending on social program or rushing environmental reviews of mega projects. They will quibble over details and demand even more cuts while attacking climate action in the bargain.

Lawyer Kate Kempton, speaking on behalf of First Nations, said about the One Canadian Economy Act and similar legislation by the provinces, “These laws were brought in to address the threats from the Trump administration, but they were instructed in a way that we become what we are threatened by. We become the very thing we say we’re fighting against. We become a place of not caring about human rights and environmental protections.”

Perhaps Ms. Kempton is being too pessimistic about the legislation, but her concern about sacrificing what is best in this country in a panic to defeat Trumpist aggression is well founded. A strong progressive alternative is needed to help ensure that doesn’t happen. And that means a strong NDP.