In 2002, the esteemed political strategist John Duffy published Fights of Our Lives, an analysis of five key Canadian elections that involved “a great fight over a pivotal issue and yielded a nation-altering result.”
Duffy, who passed away three years ago this March, focused on five elections that took place between 1896 and 1988. The 1988 campaign, Duffy writes, turned on the “momentous issue” of whether Canada should pursue free trade with the U.S. The Progressive Conservatives, led by then prime minister Brian Mulroney, championed free trade; the Liberals under John Turner vigorously opposed it.
If Duffy were alive to produce an addendum to his book 25-years on, it seems likely the forthcoming election would be featured.
Perhaps ironically, free trade is again one of the central issues of today’s campaign. Only this time, the underlying assumption of all parties is that free trade is a good thing. The key question is which leader and party are best able to restore or disentangle Canada’s trade — and other — ties with the U.S.
President Donald Trump’s threatened tariffs, if implemented, would materially hurt the Canadian economy. But Trump may lack the resolve to carry through with many of his threats, particularly as the costs of his actions start to be felt by American voters, businesses and markets.
However, no matter the tariff outcome, it has become abundantly clear that Canada must make major changes to its own policies to leave itself less exposed to a single partner in the future.
Thus, the leader we elect on April 28 is likely to have long-term, nation-altering effects on Canada, regardless of the ultimate actions of the Trump administration. Many of these changes will, we hope, reshape Canada into a more productive, more prosperous and more resilient country.
There could be, for example, lasting changes to Canada’s internal economy, including fewer interprovincial trade barriers and a better framework for completing cross-country rail and pipeline projects.
It could mean diversified trade relationships, as well as the physical infrastructure — such as LNG export facilities — to facilitate global trade of our resources and products.
And it could mean a better resourced military that meets its international defence commitments and contributes more on the world stage.
At Canadian Affairs, we will not be offering an endorsement of any party. We are a non-partisan outlet, full stop.
But we will be producing a series of articles that provide a substantive look at the parties’ positions on these key issues. This will include pieces on the parties’ respective positions on defence, energy and the economy.
And we will not stop there. The domestic issues that dominated voters’ concerns before Trump’s reelection have been temporarily eclipsed, but not resolved. As an Abacus Data poll released March 25 shows, cost of living remains the top concern of voters under the age of 59 by a significant margin. For those 60 and older, Canada’s response to the Trump administration is the key issue.
We commit to offering readers a look at the parties’ positions on a range of domestic issues, including their stances on the cost of living, drug policy and crime, and major social programs such as subsidized child care and Old Age Security.
Our team, which is spread across Canada, also plans to offer on-the-ground reporting of key election dynamics in their regions.
Our hope is that our political leaders are brave enough to present Canadians with real policy choices — just as Mulroney and Turner did in 1988.
So far, we have seen little evidence of this from Canada’s new prime minister and Liberal leader, Mark Carney. Carney has matched the Conservative positions on the consumer carbon tax and proposed capital gains tax increase.
Meanwhile, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre seems to have recently adopted the same strategy, coming over to the Liberal position on dental care and pharmacare.
As our Saturday feature explores, the parties’ income tax policies are virtually the same — and neither are especially inspiring.
If the two frontrunners eliminate all meaningful policy differences between them, this will be a lost opportunity for Canada — and misunderstands the true nature of leadership. Leadership necessarily involves presenting followers with a vision.
To use Duffy’s words, Canada is facing momentous issues, with real challenges and opportunities ahead. The Liberals and Conservatives have long stood for different ideals, with attendant differences in their policies. Now is not the time to hide those differences, but rather to present voters with a vision for how their parties’ ideals and principles are best suited for this historic moment.
