The Most Pivotal Election in Canada’s History is Approaching | Opinions

The contest that saw Mark Carney emerge as the Liberal Party leader and soon-to-be Prime Minister of Canada turned out to be a predictable and uneventful affair.

The drama that inevitably led to Carney’s persuasive coronation on Sunday evening began late last December when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s once-trusted confidante and deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, played the role of Judas.

Her unexpected resignation as finance minister pushed a wounded and unpopular prime minister – both within his own restless caucus and outside it – over the parliamentary edge, forcing Trudeau to admit the obvious: Canada’s “prince charming” was no longer a prince, nor, apparently, that charming.

Trudeau was instead seen as a loser and a liability who needed to be replaced quickly to save the Liberals, if possible, from what appeared to be a historic defeat at the hands of Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre.

If Freeland thought her premeditated betrayal would be rewarded and catapult her, a former foreign minister, into the prime minister’s office, she miscalculated – badly.

She was abandoned by many of her cabinet and caucus colleagues, who flocked to Carney’s side in droves. Freeland’s humiliation was confirmed when she received just over eight percent of the votes on the first ballot.

Still, I suppose, the Liberals will be grateful to Freeland for triggering the domino-like events that ultimately salvaged the party’s chances to continue doing what they believe is their almost divine right: governing Canada, unhindered by pesky opposition parties.

Carney’s anticipated and decisive victory was not a “reinvention” of the Liberal Party. Rather, it was in keeping with its ruthless tradition of discarding yesterday’s failures in favor of tomorrow’s savior, all to hold onto their prestigious jobs and, more importantly, power.

Now, a new and extraordinary drama is about to unfold – one that may well constitute the most consequential federal election in Canada’s relatively young history.

Shortly after being sworn in as prime minister, Carney, a former central banker, is expected to visit Governor General Mary Simon and call a national election.

The one – perhaps only – issue that will dominate the campaign, barring unforeseen events, can be framed as a question: Who will save Canada from Donald Trump’s fever dream of annexing America’s resource-rich northern neighbor and officially making it the 51st state of the union?

Until the mercurial U.S. president’s imperial ambitions came into shocking focus, Poilievre appeared comfortably poised to become prime minister with a landslide majority.

With his signature coarse, aggressive style, Poilievre had framed the upcoming election as a choice between Canada’s “broken” present – shaped by an exhausted, out-of-touch Liberal Party – and a prosperous, even egalitarian, future where “left-behind” Canadians could share in the country’s abundant wealth and promise.

It was working.

That is, until Trump returned to the Oval Office and set his quixotic, stiff-tariff-imposing sights on a “junior partner” that had – despite repeated and studied warnings – forged, for generations, closer ties with the world’s most powerful economy.

Suddenly, the political calculus changed, and so did the defining question facing Canadians: The issue was no longer what kind of future the country would shape but whether the country had a future at all.

This seismic shift has seen the Conservative Party’s and Poilievre’s popularity plummet, while the Liberals have resurrected their fortunes by attacking Poilievre’s “angry” and “divisive” rhetoric and portraying him as incapable and unwilling to stand up to his “mentor” – Trump.

Carney drove this point home in his acceptance speech.

“Pierre Poilievre’s plan will leave us divided and ready to be conquered, because a person who worships at the altar of Donald Trump will kneel before him, not stand up to him,” Carney said.

Fair or not, Poilievre has given his critics ample ammunition to exploit this caustic line of attack.

Poilievre and his shadow cabinet have reveled in using the kind of charged, character-assassination rhetoric that was – aside from the targets – a near-verbatim reflection of Trump’s corrosive crassness and ugliness.

His party’s prescriptions to “fix” a “broken Canada” were also a facsimile of Trump’s insular, “America first” playbook – slash the “size and waste” of government, reduce immigration, reward “hard work” while cutting the “welfare state,” demonize the press, and stamp out freedom-of-speech-stifling “wokeness” and “cancel culture.”

“Timbit Trump” – as Poilievre’s detractors have branded him – gave tangible expression to his affinity for Trumpian-style politics when he celebrated the occupation of Canada’s sedate capital, Ottawa, by a far-right mob of MAGA-flag-waving truckers and their burn-it-down allies who held the city and nation hostage for weeks.

Try as he might, Poilievre may not be able to shake the undeniable and unflattering associations – in words, deeds, and temperament – with a president intent on forcing Canada to capitulate to his whims and demands through economic coercion.

That already difficult task has been made harder by a recent public opinion poll that, if accurate, reveals that rather than rejecting Trump’s adventurism, an alarming 18 percent of Tory supporters led by Poilievre admitted they wanted Canada’s confederation dissolved in order to join the United States as its 51st state.

Of course, Poilievre has rejected accusations that he is Trump’s obedient poodle, and the Conservatives have launched a searing counteroffensive questioning Carney’s loyalty to Canada.

Conservative-produced TV ads claim that while Carney was board chairman of one of Canada’s largest publicly traded companies, Brookfield Asset Management (BAM), he approved moving the firm’s head office from Toronto to “Donald Trump’s hometown” – New York City.

Carney has downplayed his role in that decision, insisting it was formally made by the BAM board after he resigned as chair in January.

However, reportedly, company documents show the board approved the move in October 2024, and the decision was affirmed by shareholders at a meeting in late January.

The Liberals’ momentum may have stalled.

Who will prevail will likely be determined by whether Carney or Poilievre can convince enough Canadians that they are the maple-leaf-flag-draped embodiment of Captain Canada.

Although he faces challenges, Poilievre cannot and should not be underestimated. He has devoted much of his adult life to honing his skills to deliver a simple, clear message with a convincing measure of conviction and sincerity.

Carney is not a retail politician. By nature and disposition, he is a technocrat who lacks the ability to combine plain speaking with an inviting dose of charisma.

Canada’s fate may rest on the outcome of the battle between Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney over the soul of an anxious nation deeply worried about what comes next.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.