Five things to look for in Canada's election

Canada's general election campaign is underway, a 36-day sprint taking place in unprecedented circumstances. Voters will be mulling which party should govern the country just as the US - its neighbour and largest economic partner - launches a trade war and President Donald Trump muses about making Canada the 51st US state. Domestic issues like housing and immigration will still be important, of course, but for the first time in decades, Canadians will also be grappling with fundamental questions about the country's future when they head to the ballot box on 28 April. Here are five things to watch as the campaign unfolds.
The Trump effect
The ties between Canada and the US have been remarkably strong - until now. The neighbours share deeply integrated economies, a long-standing security partnership and the longest "undefended" border in the world. So when President Donald Trump says he wants to use "economic force" against Canada, calls the border an "artificially drawn line" and imposes tariffs on imported goods, it marks a profound shift in the relationship between the two allies. "It is impossible to overstate the impact of the president's actions on Canadian politics, on Canadian psyche, on Canadian business," said Marci Surkes, chief strategy officer at public affairs firm Compass Rose and a former policy director to ex-prime minister Justin Trudeau. That means this general election is as much about the US's relationship with Canada as it is about domestic policies within Canada itself.On Sunday, all the party leaders focused their campaign launch messages heavily on the US threats. What Trump says and does over the next few weeks will inevitably factor into the race. On April 2, for example, in just the second week of campaigning, the White House is expected to announce more global tariffs. His interventions have already reshaped politics in Canada, helping transform what seemed like a certain Conservative victory into a too-close-to-call battle with the Liberals.The US president weighed in recently, telling Fox News host Laura Ingraham - without naming either major party leader - that the Conservative is "stupidly, no friend of mine" and that it may be "easier to deal actually with a Liberal". Ultimately, he added, who wins "doesn't matter to me at all".Who's who in Canada's federal election
Which leader will stand up to Trump?
Canadians know their next PM will have no choice but to deal with Donald Trump.So the question on many voters' minds is: Who can most capably handle the unpredictable US president? The contest essentially boils down to two men: Liberal Mark Carney and Conservative Pierre Poilievre. Two other major parties will be contesting seats in Parliament - the left-leaning New Democrats (NDP) and the the Bloc Québécois - but Canadians have historically elected Conservative or Liberal governments.The Green Party and the People's Party of Canada are also in the race. Carney and Poilievre have very different resumes. Carney is a former central banker who is new to politics - after taking over from Justin Trudeau, he became the first prime minister in Canada never elected to Parliament. He brings experience on the world stage but lacks time spent in the cut and thrust of political campaigning, and will get his first real test in this general election. If the Liberals fail to win the election, he could have the shortest tenure of any PM in the country's history.Poilievre, 45, became party leader in 2022. First elected to the House of Commons at age 25, he has two decades of experience in federal politics, including time in cabinet, and is known for his political acumen.He was quick to highlight the pain that inflation was inflicting on Canadian families, and capitalise on the broader anger at Trudeau and the Liberals on issues like immigration.His tag line "Canada is broken" has in recent weeks become "Canada first". The shift in message from a country in decline to one of patriotism and strength comes as he tries to portray himself as able to stand up to Trump. He is "the consummate retail politician", Ms Surkes said, but "suffers from having - right now - a brand and a narrative that no longer fits the moment".
Who can present a compelling vision for Canada?
This election is about the big, national questions: Canada's sovereignty and what the country must do to face an uncertain future with uncertain allies. It's the first time in decades that an election is not focused mostly on domestic issues, said Ms Surkes. She pointed to the 1988 election, when Canada's relationship with the US was also at the centre of debate as the country mulled joining the North American Free Trade Agreement, a trade pact that was the precursor to the current trilateral USMCA. "The same types of questions were being asked in terms of whether there would be a forfeiture of Canadian sovereignty, economic sovereignty, economic independence," she said. This time, both parties are pushing a vision of growth - building much-needed housing, moving forward on major energy and resource projects, and bolstering Canada's defence capabilities.
They each speak of being willing to retaliate as Canada best can against US tariffs.So where are the differences?Carney, who has moved the Liberals more towards the political centre as he sought to distance himself from Trudeau's record. He has promised to "spend less and invest more" and to boost capital investments in things like housing, and military infrastructure and computing resources. Poilievre, a fiscal hawk, is taking a small government approach by focusing on cutting red tape and taxes to boost industry and spur infrastructure investment and home building. The Conservatives have also focused more sharply on issues like crime.
Cost of living concerns haven't gone away
The major domestic concerns that Canadians have had in recent years - affordability, housing, healthcare - remain. But pollster David Coletto, CEO of Abacus Data, said they have been subsumed by the "existential threat" of the trade war with the US. Two words - Trump and tariffs - "sum up the psyche of the country right now", he said. He adds: "Even if the cost of living is still the top issue, it may not be as powerful a motivator to drive voting behavior." So the parties will need to come up with convincing policies to address these concerns - but frame them in the context of the wider economic threat.The Trump levies on Canada's exports, the uncertainty caused by their on-again-off-again nature, and Canada's C$60bn in counter tariffs, are already being felt by businesses and communities across the country. This week, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development more than halved its growth outlook for Canada this year and next due to the growing tariff threat.
Will the election stay too close to call?
National opinion polls have seen a stunning reversal in recent weeks, with the Conservatives losing the 20-point lead they had over the Liberals for the better part of a year. As the race officially begins, it's a toss-up. Mr Coletto said three factors led to the "perfect storm" in polling: the resignation of the deeply unpopular Trudeau, the Liberal leadership race which that sparked, and the return of Donald Trump to the White House.The latter was by far the main driver "fundamentally shifting the trajectory of Canadian politics", he said.Both candidates now are trying to "bring their enemies to the battlefield", he added - Carney is seeking to paint Poilievre as a "Trump-light", while Poilievre suggests Carney is "just like Justin". Both campaigns have some natural advantages, he said.
The Conservatives have "an animated base who desperately want a change in government", along with a well-funded political machine. The Liberals currently "have the advantage on narrative" that has helped shift the polls more in their favour. The other two official parties - the NDP and the Bloc - have both seen their popularity diminish. The left-leaning NDP, which had 24 seats at dissolution, helped prop up the Liberal minority government in recent years in exchange for support for progressive policies like dental care for low-income Canadians. But leader Jagmeet Singh has been pushing hard against Carney, seeking to frame him as someone who will "protect billionaires and big business". Bloc leader Blanchet said on Sunday he would fight for Quebec companies and workers struggling under US tariffs, especially in the aluminium industry. One issue may cause fireworks in the campaign - an east-west energy pipeline. Western Canada is keen to build more capacity to gets its product to market, but the infrastructure in widely opposed in the province.
As Canada gears up for an election this year, the BBC wants to hear from voters across the country. Tell us here if you would like to be part of our coverage.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

NBC News

32 minutes ago

• NBC News

Iran strikes push Vance, a foreign intervention skeptic, into the role of salesman

When he endorsed Donald Trump's 2024 presidential bid, then-Sen. JD Vance framed his support around a simple idea: Trump had started no wars in his first term. Now serving as his vice president, Vance is being called on to make a more complicated case in defense of Trump's decision Saturday to drop bombs on nuclear enrichment sites in Iran. Vance was by Trump's side in the White House Situation Room during the strikes, and at the televised address to announce them. And the next morning, he appeared on two Sunday news shows to answer for the United States' direct plunge into a conflict between Israel and Iran. The U.S., Vance asserted on NBC News' ' Meet the Press,' was not at war with Iran but, rather, with Iran's nuclear weapons program. Diplomacy, Vance added, 'was never given a real chance by the Iranians.' And on ABC's ' This Week,' Vance argued that Trump's contention that Iran's nuclear capabilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated' was not meaningfully different from a tamer characterization in The New York Times that the program had been 'severely damaged.' Vance's salesmanship Sunday — amplified along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio's by the White House's rapid response team in a stream of clips posted on social media — was not out of line with some of his more hawkish statements on Iran. But his TV appearances were also meant to reassure others who, like Vance, have been broadly skeptical of or opposed to foreign intervention. 'I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East,' Vance said on 'Meet the Press.' 'I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then, we had dumb presidents, and now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America's national security objectives.' A clash with Iran, Vance added, 'is not going to be some long, drawn out thing. We've got in, we've done the job of setting their nuclear program back. We're going to now work to permanently dismantle that nuclear program over the coming years, and that is what the president has set out to do. Simple principle: Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.' Vance 'was selected to be VP in part for situations exactly like this,' said a person close to Trump's team who was granted anonymity to share internal thinking. 'The president has total trust in his ability to effectively communicate the administration's message, especially in hostile territory, in a manner that can bring his coalition together, instead of dividing it,' this person added. A divided coalition has been a concern inside Trump world since Israel launched air strikes against Iran last week, prompting retaliation from Iran — and fears that the U.S. would soon become more directly involved in the conflict. Many influential figures in Trump's MAGA movement, from former Trump adviser Steve Bannon to young right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, have strong isolationist or anti-intervention views and popular platforms from which to share them. Vance himself has been a tip of the spear for such positions, which he articulated in the January 2023 guest column he wrote to endorse Trump in the Wall Street Journal. Several people in Trump's orbit have cited that endorsement, which came at a low moment in Trump's 2024 campaign, as a key building block in a relationship that blossomed into the vice presidency. 'In Mr. Trump's four years in office, he started no wars despite enormous pressure from his own party and even members of his own administration,' Vance wrote in the column, which appeared online under the headline 'Trump's Best Foreign Policy? Not Starting Any Wars.' 'Not starting wars is perhaps a low bar, but that's a reflection of the hawkishness of Mr. Trump's predecessors and the foreign-policy establishment they slavishly followed,' Vance added. That worldview, held by Vance and others, was at the time particularly potent given far-right opposition to U.S. intervention in Russia's war against Ukraine. But those close to Vance note that he has over time applied a more nuanced thinking toward Iran. Speaking last year on a show hosted by Morgan Ortagus, a foreign policy operative who has served Trump as a deputy special presidential envoy to the Middle East, Vance called for an 'aggressive' approach to ensure that Iran does not develop or deploy a nuclear weapon. 'And if, God forbid, they get there, then I think you have to be willing to take some extreme steps — if they're going to be effective — to ensure that they don't have a broader nuclear capability, that they can't launch nuclear missiles all over the Middle East or even all over the world,' Vance said in the interview. 'I think we have to be aggressive with this, and I come at this from a position of some restraint in foreign policy. I think war often leads to unintended consequences but preventing Iran from getting a bomb — really, really important.' In a Fox News interview during last year's Republican National Convention, Vance held up Trump's first term drone attack that killed Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani as an example of smart leadership. 'A lot of people recognize that we need to do something with Iran, but not these weak little bombing runs,' Vance told host Sean Hannity. 'If you're going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard. And that's what he did when he took out Soleimani.' More recently, at last month's Munich Leaders Conference in Washington, Vance described Iran's nuclear program as a tipping point. 'We really think that if the Iran domino falls, you're going to see nuclear proliferation all over the Middle East,' Vance said. 'That's very bad for us. It's very bad for our friends. And it's something that we don't think can happen.' Last week, as anticipation of U.S. intervention grew, Vance used his personal X account to issue a 374-word preemptive defense of whatever Trump might decide to do with Iran. The president, Vance wrote, 'has earned some trust on this issue. And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus.'

Economist

35 minutes ago

• Economist

The American attacks allow Netanyahu to end the wars with Iran and in Gaza, says his predecessor

THE AMERICAN attacks on Iran's three nuclear sites mark a dramatic escalation in the conflict that began on June 13th with the Israeli assault on Iran. President Donald Trump, in his characteristically unpredictable fashion, resolved to undertake an action he had eschewed for years, both during his first term in office and in recent months, despite making repeated threats against Iran.

The Guardian

an hour ago

• The Guardian

How the carefully planned US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities unfolded

Late on Friday night, eight US B-2 bombers took off from Whiteman air force base in Missouri and turned westwards towards the Pacific. Amateur flight trackers plotted their progress on social media as the black flying-wing warplanes joined up mid-air with refuelling tankers and checked in with air traffic controllers once they had reached the open ocean. The movement of the B-2 bombers towards the US Pacific base on Guam triggered speculation that Donald Trump was arranging pieces on the board before a decision on whether to join Israel in bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. On Thursday, Trump had let it be known that he would make that decision over the following two weeks, suggesting a window remained open for some last-ditch diplomatic alternative to war. He angrily denied a Wall Street Journal report that he had already approved a strike plan. The British, French and German foreign ministers seized the opportunity to meet their Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, for talks in Geneva on Friday but to little or no avail. Trump himself was characteristically dismissive of European efforts. 'Nah, they didn't help,' he told journalists. We know now that and the B-2 flights over the Pacific were part of the same elaborate ruse to ensure Iran was off its guard and looking the wrong way, and that the president's declared two-week diplomatic window was likely to be part of the same ploy. The Pentagon described the eight bombers that were spotted flying west as a decoy, a deception effort known only to an extremely small number of planners and leaders in Washington and at central command headquarters in Tampa, Florida. As they were tracked across the western states and then the Pacific, another seven B-2s took off from Whiteman base and headed in the opposite direction – eastwards. These seven planes made no communications with each other or with the ground as they crossed America and flew unnoticed over the Atlantic. The planes and their two-pilot crews flew all day and into Saturday night, refuelled mid-air along the way by tankers that had been deployed to Europe over the previous week. The careful orchestration and prepositioning, some of it predating the Israeli surprise attack on Iran on 13 June, raises questions over how early Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu decided to join forces to go to war against Iran, and over how much of the US president's professed interest in a diplomatic solution, and apparent effort to discourage an Israeli attack, was all part of the charade. As far back as May, during a visit to Doha, Trump went out of his way to denigrate the B-2's design, declaring 'I'm not a huge believer in stealth', because it made for an 'ugly plane'. By the time the flight of seven of these ugly planes arrived in the Middle East at the eastern edge of the Mediterranean, it was midnight local time on Saturday. The mission they had been assigned was codenamed Midnight Hammer, and to carry it out the bombers were joined by an escort of US fighter jets, surveillance and reconnaissance planes deployed in the region earlier – 125 aircraft in all. Together they flew on eastwards, with hardly a word exchanged between the pilots, to maintain the all-enveloping secrecy surrounding the operation. At the same time as the warplanes reached the Lebanese coast, a US submarine loitering somewhere in the Arabian Sea launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, synchronised to reach their targets in Iran at the same time the bombers arrived. The Tomahawks flew low over the Gulf of Oman and up over south-east Iran as seven B-2s and their accompanying fighters crossed Lebanon, Syria and Iraq (according to a map provided by the Pentagon on Sunday) and entered Iran from the north-west at about 1.30am local time. The chair of the US joint chiefs of staff, Dan Caine, described the whole operation as 'a complex, tightly timed manoeuvre requiring exact synchronisation across multiple platforms in a narrow piece of airspace, all done with minimal communications'. The primary target was the farthest north, near the Shia religious centre of Qom, the underground enrichment facility at Fordow, generally thought impregnable to every conventional weapon with the possible exception of America's biggest bomb, the 30,000lb (13,500kg) GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator. The seven B-2s approaching from the north were each carrying two of them. The second target was Natanz, Iran's first enrichment facility, and the third was a complex of facilities outside the ancient city of Isfahan, which is linked to other parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, and which had already been partly damaged by Israeli bombing. Before the bombers arrived at these targets, according to Caine's account, their fighter escort swept the area for any sign of Iranian warplanes, released decoys and opened fire on air defence sites on the ground. Apparently, there was no return fire. The Pentagon was 'unaware of any shots fired at the US strike package'. Iran's defensive shield had been flattened over the preceding week by relentless Israeli sorties. The bombers struck between 2.10am and 2.35am Iranian time, the Pentagon said, hitting Fordow at 'several aim points'. It was the first time the enormous GBU-57 bunker-busting bomb had been used in a US operation. It is unclear how many of the total of 14 were dropped on Natanz or Isfahan. The Tomahawk missiles fired by the navy were all aimed at Isfahan, Caine said, and landed slightly after the other two facilities were struck. The US warplanes turned around and headed back the way they had come, leaving Iranian airspace at 3am. By that time, reports had surfaced on Iranian media of explosions in the region of the nuclear facilities, and a quarter hour later, Trump confirmed the operation in the way he has made most of his presidential announcements – on his private online platform, Truth Social, complete with key words in all-capitals. 'A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow,' Trump wrote. 'All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' Addressing the nation a little later on television, Trump said the targets had been 'totally and completely obliterated', a claim that was modified over the course of Sunday to 'severely damaged'. The president appealed once more for Iran to sue for peace, which he has made clear would involve a surrender of all its nuclear programme. The message was repeated by other members of the administration throughout the day. Midnight Hammer would be a one-off US intervention, as long as Iran did not try to fire back and complied with the terms laid down by him and Netanyahu. Any retaliation, Trump said, returning to all caps on Truth Social, would be met with 'FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT'. By the end of Sunday, however, there was no sign of compliance from Tehran. Araghchi, vowed that Midnight Hammer would have 'everlasting consequences' adding that Iran reserved the right to 'all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people'. Iran played down the impact of the US bombs, saying that the country's reserves of high-enriched uranium had been removed from Fordow long before, and all the damage inflicted could be repaired. On Sunday morning, Iran launched a new salvo of missiles at Israel, one of which flattened most of a city block in north Tel Aviv. By the end of the day, Iran's parliament had approved a bill calling for the closing of the strait of Hormuz, the gateway to the Persian Gulf, through which over a fifth of the world's oil needs flows daily. Iran's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, warned that the US must 'receive a response' to its attacks. Tehran has previously threatened to target US bases spread across eight countries in the region, if the US were to join the Israeli attacks. In reality, its military capabilities are constrained by the withering attacks of the past 10 days, but late on Sunday the regime was saying it would explore all its options, while making clear that submission was not one of them.