海角社区官网

The foundation of Liberal Leader Mark Carney’s election victory will be based on the perception that he was the leader best able to stand up to Donald Trump鈥檚 threat to our economy and sovereignty and his promise to begin negotiations over proposed tariffs on Canada as soon as the election is over. While he has probably been wise not to engage the chaotic President south of the border to this point, this confrontation can no longer be avoided.

But he has also said that any negotiations would have to be based on strength and the use of 鈥渙verwhelming force.鈥� More than a campaign promise, this means Carney will need to have a publicized plan in place before he and the U.S. president sit down. To deal from strength, his opening gambit must be that Canada can survive and maybe even thrive without reaching accommodation with the U.S. In other words, to get the deal he wants, he must be prepared to walk away from the one that is offered.

This tactic unto itself, is bound to create controversy. Is it smart to confront the mercurial Trump with such 鈥渙verwhelming force鈥�? Is it realistic to think that we will be able to pivot away from America and both diversify our trade to other markets and at the same time become more domestically self-sufficient?

For some it will be comforting that we are now in an environment that is at least concrete and immediate and no longer ill-defined and abstract. For others, the very immediacy of either succeeding or failing to reach a deal will be terrifying. Either way it will be bumpy.

What if there’s a minority government?

But what if聽鈥� as happened in the recent Ontario election聽鈥� NDP incumbents prove to be surprisingly resilient and are able to hold on to most of their seats; or the BQ鈥檚 regionally-skewed support base means that their losses in province-wide support are not sufficiently large to swing seats they won by huge margins in 2021? In this scenario, the Liberals are not able gain the 12 seats they need to form a majority and will be forced to seek a partner or partners in Parliament if they are going to be able to advance their agenda.

The first casualty of being forced to accommodate a parliamentary partner will be to compromise the 鈥渟trength鈥� they might otherwise have been able to project if they had received a stronger mandate.聽

So who might that partner or partners be?

We saw how well the previous supply and confidence agreement worked out for the NDP, so we shouldn鈥檛 be surprised if they take a pass on this possibility in the next Parliament (or even if they end up having enough seats to make a difference in a minority scenario). We also know that while the BQ may embrace a very different vision of the nation, they are always quite prepared to negotiate and even 鈥減artner鈥� with federalist parties. The problem is that their criteria for assessing any deal is very narrow and unwavering 鈥� namely, 鈥渋s it good for Quebec?鈥�. Full stop.

Considering sentiment in the Prairies right now, the possibility of a fourth Liberal term聽鈥� this time forged with a party dedicated to advancing the interests of Quebec and only Quebec聽鈥� stands to produce yet another headwind for the Liberals that would聽both dilute their main focus on Canada-US relations and add a whole new dimension of tensions to federal-provincial relations.

There is also the possibility that the polls might have underestimated the motivation of certain segments of the population who turn out and vote in unprecedented numbers (as we have already seen in the advance polls).

What if the Conservative Party pulls off a surprise win?

If the Conservative Party and Pierre Poilievre won a majority,聽it might look like the proverbial dog who caught the car: Justin Trudeau is gone; the carbon tax has been axed; the “lost Liberal decade” is over. What鈥檚 left? They have options: they could focus on inflation, but they might want to talk to Donald Trump before making any promises on that front. They could set out to build the 3.5 million homes that CMHC says Canada will need to close 鈥渢he housing supply gap鈥� necessary to reach 2004 levels of affordability 鈥� but even if they could accomplish this Herculean task, the housing authority claims it will take until 2030 to accomplish. Or they could start imposing concurrent or mandatory sentencing on criminals聽鈥� but don鈥檛 expect the Supreme Court to sit idly by in the face of this attempt. In this scenario, Poliviere鈥檚 campaign strategy would have been successful, but leaves a barren agenda going forward.聽

The fact would remain that, regardless of what their campaign slogans might have been or what their priorities might be, Prime Minister Poilievre and his new government are going to have to deal with Donald Trump and his tariffs.

A job without precedent

This would be a job without precedent for Pierre Poilievre.

Unlike Mark Carney, he can鈥檛 pick up a phone and call some old buddies from the Davos Forum to seek out their advice, and he has no experience sitting around a table with world leaders to make decisions of global consequence. He does, however, have former Prime Minister Stephen Harper in his court and can draw on past colleagues from their ten years in government to tap into their experience and connections. There is a remarkably professional civil service at his disposal in Ottawa who genuinely believe in non-partisan public service 鈥� but he would have to abandon his life-long suspicion of these 鈥渆lites鈥� if he is going to mobilize their talent and expertise.

He could also fail to meet the hurdle of majority government but still win the most seats. Given the distance between the Conservatives and the NDP and the diametrically opposed differences between the BQ and his western base however, it might prove impossible for Poilievre to forge a coalition with either minority party and Carney and the Liberals could be asked to form a government even if they won fewer seats.

If this should occur or if he loses outright, then Mr. Poilievre might also be well advised to start looking over his shoulder.

What about the leaders who don’t win?聽聽

Having presided over the loss of a 25 point advantage in the polls over the course of a mere four months, expect there to be recrimination within the Conservative ranks that would probably be even more vocal and public than his predecessors, Andrew Scheer and Erin O鈥橳oole faced when they fell short. Given the unprecedented聽鈥� and unseemly 鈥� attack on the Conservative鈥檚 strategy by Doug Ford鈥檚 right-hand man, Kory Teneycke, mid-way into the campaign, don鈥檛 be surprised if there is an heir apparent in the wings, hiding in plain sight, ready to lead this coup.

As for Jagmeet Singh and the NDP, they might pull off the same incumbent surprise we witnessed recently in Ontario, but if not聽鈥� and especially if they fail to win at least 12 seats and so lose official party status聽鈥� their leader may not be long on the federal stage either.聽His party will probably go through a period of intense introspection that could even include an examination of their 64-year existence.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, the party that is least likely to be affected by the election outcome is the BQ. Given their narrow ambition and laser-like focus, they will probably continue their mission, even if 鈥� as expected聽鈥� their seat count is diminished considerably.

A wise mentor once cautioned me, 鈥淚f you make a prediction, its best if you don鈥檛 place a date on it.鈥�

No one can predict with certainty what will happen once the polls close. But I am pretty confident that, while April 29^th might be the end of our 45th election campaign, it will also mark the start of an entirely new and uncharted journey for Canada and Canadians.