Canada’s most consequential election is on the horizon

The contest that resulted in Mark Carney becoming the leader of the Liberal Party and the next prime minister of Canada has turned out to be a dull fait accompli. Chrystia Freeland, the once-reliable confidante and trusted deputy prime minister of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, played the role of Judas in the drama that appeared to inevitably result in Carney's persuasive coronation on Sunday evening.

Trudeau was forced to admit the obvious: Canada's prince charming was no longer a prince or, at least, that charming. Her unexpected resignation as finance minister tipped a wounded and unpopular prime minister over the edge of the parliamentary edge. Instead, Trudeau was viewed as a loser and a liability who needed to be replaced quickly to prevent what appeared to be a historic shellacking by Conservative Party chief Pierre Poilievre on Liberals. She badly miscalculated if Freeland believed that her deliberate betrayal would be rewarded and propel the former foreign minister into the prime minister's office. Many of her cabinet and caucus colleagues abandoned her and rushed to Carney's side eagerly.

The fact that Freeland only received slightly more than 8% of the votes cast for her on the first ballot confirmed her humiliation. Still, Liberals will probably be thankful to Freeland for starting the chain of events that eventually saved the party's chances of continuing to do what they believe to be their almost divine right: govern Canada without being stopped by irritating opposition parties. The Liberal Party was not “reinvented” in any way by Carney's significant and anticipated victory. Rather, it was in line with its ruthless practice of disposing of today's failures in favor of tomorrow's hero in order to preserve their prestigious positions and, more importantly,

power. An extraordinary new drama is about to begin. It's possible that it will be the most important federal election in Canada's relatively short history. Carney, a former central banker, is expected to visit Governor General Mary Simon shortly after he takes office and set off a national vote. The question "Who will save Canada from Donald Trump's fever dream of annexing America's resource-rich northern neighbour into,

officially, the union as its 51st state" ought to be framed as the one and perhaps only issue that will, barring the unexpected, dominate the campaign. Poilievre appeared well-positioned to become prime minister with a majority similar to that of a tsunami before the erratic US president's imperial plans became shockingly clear. Poilievre had framed the upcoming election as a choice between Canada's "broken" present, created 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, using his characteristic coarse, go-for-the-jugular style.

It was effective. That is, that is, until Trump returned to the Oval Office and focused on a “junior partner” that had forged closer ties with the world's most powerful economy for generations despite repeated and studied warnings. The defining dilemma facing Canadians had also changed abruptly: the question was no longer whether the country had a future at all but rather what kind of future it would shape. Poilievre's and the Conservative Party's popularity has plummeted as a result of the seismic shift, while Liberals have resurrected their on-life support fortunes by criticizing Poilievre for being "angry," "divisive," and incapable of challenging Trump, their "mentor." In his acceptance speech, Carney emphasized the stinging point. Carney stated, "Pierre Poilievre's plan will leave us divided and ready to be conquered,

because a person who worships Donald Trump will kneel before him, not stand up to him." Whether it's fair or not, Poilievre has given his critics a lot of ammunition with which to take advantage of this vicious line of attack. With the exception of the individuals who were singled out, Poilievre and his shadow cabinet have taken pleasure in engaging in the kind of charged, character-assassination rhetoric that was almost a mirror image of Trump's corrosive ugliness and crassness. The party's plans to "fix" a "broken Canada" were also a copy of Trump's isolated "America first" strategy: cut immigration, reward "hard work" while reducing the "welfare state," demonize the press, and eliminate freedom of speech, which suffocated "wokeness" and the prevailing "cancel culture." When he celebrated the occupation of Canada's quiet capital, Ottawa, by a far-right mob of MAGA-flag-waving truckers and their burn-it-down confederates who held the city and nation hostage for weeks, "Timbit Trump," as Poilievre's detractors have recently used to describe him, gave tangible expression to his attraction to and affinity for politics in the style of Trump. Poilievre may not be able to shake the undeniable and uncharitable associations and connections—in words, deeds,

and temperament—to a president who is determined to use economic coercion to force Canada to comply with his whims and demands. A recent public opinion poll that, if accurate, reveals that, rather than rejecting Trump's adventurism, an alarming 18 percent of Poilievre's Tory supporters admitted that they wanted Canada's confederation dissolved in order to join the United States as its 51st state has made that already difficult job even more difficult. Of course, Poilievre has denied being Trump's obedient poodle, and the Conservatives have launched a vehement counteroffensive in which they question Carney's loyalty to Canada. Conservative television ads claim that Carney approved Brookfield Asset Management (BAM), one of Canada's largest publicly traded companies, moving the company's headquarters from Toronto to "Donald Trump's hometown,"

New York City. After he resigned as chair in January, Carney has played down his part in that decision, insisting that the BAM board made the official decision. However, according to company records, the move was approved by the board in October 2024, and shareholders confirmed the decision at a meeting in late January. It's possible that the Liberals have lost steam. Whether Carney or Poilievre can convince enough Canadians that they are the maple-leaf-draped incarnation of Captain Canada will likely determine who wins. Poilievre cannot and should not be underestimated, despite the difficulties he faces. He has spent much of his adult life perfecting his ability to effectively convey a straightforward message with conviction and sincerity. Carney is not a politician who works in retail. He is a technocrat by nature and disposition, but he lacks the appealing ability to combine straightforward speech with a welcome dose of approachable charisma. The outcome of a battle between Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney over the soul of an anxious nation that is deeply concerned about the future may determine Canada's fate.

The author's opinions in this article do not necessarily represent Al Jazeera's editorial stance.