Canada's next federal election promises to be among the great clashes in our electoral history

With only a handful of Question Period exchanges in the House of Commons, it is already clear the tone and tenor of the clashes between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre will continue to be unlike anything we have seen in Canadian politics.

The latest example of this confrontation was on full display last Thursday, with Trudeau condemning Poilievre for courting misogynistic groups and extremists elements via his YouTube channel, while the condemnation was returned in equal measure by Poilievre referring to Trudeau's treatment of women in the Liberal caucus and his history with blackface.

Putting aside the fact this type of squabble only serves to debase our political discourse, especially at a time when real attention ought to be paid to the host of issues currently plaguing this country, there is also a palpable sense on both sides of the parliamentary aisle that the political stakes have been raised dramatically for both parties.

The Trudeau Liberals have been governing for seven years now, and a party in power that long begins approaching their “best before” date. Most incumbent governments are not immune from this phenomenon, as messaging becomes stale, policies have already been enacted, and alongside the accumulation of political baggage that comes with extended time in office, people simply begin looking for alternatives. In other words, the Trudeau Liberals are becoming increasingly vulnerable.

The Liberals' electoral challenges are compounded by the arrival of their toughest opponent yet in Poilievre. Unlike Andrew Scheer or Erin O'Toole before him, Poilievre is a skilled communicator, fluently bilingual, had galvanized the majority of the Conservative base in his bid to be leader, and has the unique branding of being an Ontario MP, with Western roots, and a Francophone name, denoting a cross-country appeal. On the surface, it may seem like a formidable presentation, and one the Conservatives are desperately hoping is the recipe to ending their repeated electoral misfortunes. Yet dogging his candidacy has been his flirtations with the Freedom Convoy, conspiracy theorists, and now the latest issue being the hidden misogyny tag on his social media platform.

The desperation of both parties wanting to change the script is further heightened by what seems to be a mutual level of disdain between the two leaders, not seen since Mackenzie King and Arthur Meighen. Poilievre and Trudeau see each other as an existential threat to the country, setting the stage for an electoral contest to be among the most exciting and consequential in our history.

The late John Duffy, notable Canadian political strategist and author, wrote one of the foremost texts about federal election campaigns called Fight of Our Lives: Elections, Leadership and the Making of Canada (2002), which chronicled the five most important elections since Confederation.

In Duffy's words, our most historically significant election campaigns were marked by three main criteria:

“The first of these criteria is a good fight that could go either way between strong competitors.”

“The second criterion is that the election must resolve some nation-shaking question.”

“Finally, a great election has to represent a milestone in the development of our political process, in the way we reach our electoral decisions.”

In utilizing Duffy's framework in assessing what defines a great election, the eventual Trudeau/Poilievre contest has the makings of meeting the necessary criteria to potentially stand with the other great election campaigns in Canadian political history.

Criteria # 1: Strong competitors

All prominent public opinion polls have shown to varying degrees the Conservatives leading the Liberals since early August. For example, the latest Angus Reid poll has the Conservatives opening up a full 7 points over the Liberals, 37% to 30%, which is beyond the margin of error of 2-3%. Generally, when a political party elects a new leader, there is usually a bump in public support, so in some ways these early polling trends should not be that surprising. But those larger margins do underscore that the Trudeau Liberals are indeed encountering a real threat to their grip on power, with Liberal backbench MPs echoing those concerns.

In some ways, Trudeau is confronting a leader with similarities: commanding fidelity of the party base via a first ballot leadership win, remaking the party in the leader's own image, a penchant for sloganeering (Poilievre's “making Canada the freest country on earth” vs Trudeau's “working for the middle class and those working hard to join it”), and an overt enthusiasm for the cut-and-thrust of debate.

But unique to Poilievre is being the first leader to have entirely side-stepped any engagement with the media, preferring to use his mastery of social media to get his messaging out. The results, at least in the context of the Conservative leadership race, showed in the drawing of huge crowds, raising more money than any other leadership candidate of any party in history, while also having signed up more members to the party than the entire membership base that voted for Trudeau as Liberal leader in 2013.

Much of this was achieved by being an agenda setter, railing against the Liberals' handling of the economy, having coined terms such as “Justinflation,” and forecasting some of the economic issues long before most prognosticators were wise to it, giving him ownership of the ongoing narrative now being reflective in the polling.

But make no mistake, Trudeau has a bastion of support that has now established him as being a third term Prime Minister, joining the likes of Jean Chretien and Stephen Harper as recent leaders to do so, which is not an insignificant feat, though he did lose the popular vote in the last two elections.

For all his failings, real or perceived, it cannot be denied that Trudeau is a natural campaigner, seemingly most at ease stumping on the campaign trail than with the daily trudges of governance.

While his political veneer has been wearing thin with continued years in office, producing unshakeable impressions of his persona, there is also something about this particular Prime Minister that sees him enduring through several scandals and mismanagement, when any one of those previous transgressions would have brought down most other governments. Some may attribute this to an insulation bias from the mainstream media, while others would claim he holds a certain je ne sais quoi in electoral politics, but regardless of the reasons, this fact alone demonstrates that he is a survivor and cannot be underestimated.

However, the chances of Trudeau winning a fourth consecutive election is also a highly improbable task, for most leaders anyway, which sets the stage for an intriguing matchup, whereby both competitors provide compelling enough rationale for being victorious over the other in the next election.

Criteria #2: The nation-shaking question

Barring an unforeseen cataclysmic matter, the issue facing Canadians in the next election will invariably be the state of our federation, insofar as how much more Canadians can tolerate or financially afford the costly federal incursions into provincial administration. Examples of this would be the policy on carbon taxing, a national dental care program, and the looming prospect of a pharmacare program, all in the face of a collapsing health care sector, while severely lacking provincial buy-in.

The Trudeau Liberals have practiced a paternalistic version of asymmetrical federalism. That is to say, the federal government's efforts to impose its pan-Canadian agenda on some provinces, while passively allowing some other provinces to pursue their own goals, has created an inconsistent and unpredictable approach to intergovernmental affairs and overall governance.

To best illustrate this in practice, Quebec is permitted to pursue unconstitutional bills to enforce its cultural identity without any resistance from Ottawa, but Alberta, Saskatchewan, and most recently Nova Scotia have all been slapped down by the federal government on their own proposal to combat climate change, with the federal Liberals insisting a carbon tax/price mechanism is the only permissible option.

Even Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador Andrew Furey has requested an exemption from carbon pricing on all fuels, including home heating, because of the cost of living crisis for his people, but it has fallen on deaf ears. The Trudeau Liberals are intent on staying the course with its signature policy, despite the pervasive economic struggles, and people are starting to feel it.

In the case of Poilievre, he fundamentally believes in classic liberalism, freedom from unduly state intervention and economic empowerment to make one's own decisions. The proposal to eliminate the carbon tax, for example, is emblematic of this line of thinking, as for him it interferes in one’s ability to make a living, while encroaching on provinces' ability to determine what is best for its inhabitants. However, what Poilievre intends to do to respond to the larger tensions in our federation is largely unknown. His devotion in getting rid of the carbon tax may not be enough to save the federation, but it may help him win the next election.

Some believe the carbon tax was already litigated in the last two elections with Canadians largely supporting it, but frankly, there was not a cost of living crisis during those campaigns, and so if the economic downturn continues, this will be the truest test of the viability of carbon pricing for Canadians struggling to keep afloat - and to the larger point, whether Canadians want to continue having an activist government overseeing an increased decentralization of our federation, directly or indirectly, despite mounting financial costs to both the state and its citizenry.

Criteria #3: Milestone development in our electoral decision-making

The Canadian electorate has never been presented with a more polarizing political environment, with either party having their entrenched support (Tories in Western Canada and Liberals in Downtown Toronto/Montreal), and only catering to those pockets of support, leaving in between a broad swath of the populace without a palatable option to consider.

For instance, many see this latest iteration of the Conservatives as a party harbouring conspiracy theories and intolerable views: anti-abortion, anti-vaccine, anti-state, pro-Convoy, and a proclivity for cutting social programs in the guise of fiscal prudence.

The Trudeau Liberals, on the other hand, are seen to have an obsession with identity politics, over-reliance on symbolism over substance, and reckless financial management, all of which has dampened overall support, as shown in the last federal election, where they garnered the lowest popular vote, 32%, to ever form a government.

Yet the unwavering support of downtown Toronto and Montreal for the Liberals, and the Tories' sweep of the West, incidentally only furthers the polarizing effect, and is what keeps this electoral calculus from ever changing, with some suggesting Canada may routinely elect minority governments from hereon in.

Though it would stand to reason that appealing to the center of the political spectrum would pay the most dividends for either leader, this does not seem to be in the cards. To break this perpetual deadlock, Conservative strategist Kory Teneycke has suggested that Poilievre's strategy is to target from the pool of those who were accustomed to supporting more left-leaning parties, such as newcomers (by proposing fast-tracking accreditation processes for immigrant professionals), trade unionists (the promise of building various infrastructure) and most especially millenials (emphasizing the housing issue), who have been disillusioned by the false promise of Trudeau's progressive politics, seeking a change in government to address their plight.

And if early polling numbers are to be believed and to persist, Poilievre's attempt to redraw the traditional lines of support will represent a colossal paradigm shift in our federal politics, redefining how we come to our electoral decisions, thereby satisfying Duffy's third criteria for a consequential election.

All of this said, the Liberals still have their Supply-and-Confidence Agreement with the NDP that is slated to keep Trudeau in power through to 2025 (though the average lifespan of a minority parliament is 18 to 24 months), meaning many things can still happen between now and the next election. Until then, what Canadians can count on in the continuous battle between Trudeau and Poilievre are the hallmarks of what will be a historically noteworthy election.