1 week Ago
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and Liberal Leader Mark Carney talk following the English-language federal leaders' debate in Montreal, on April 17. Each party's approach carries its own set of risks. Christopher Katsarov/Reuters With the policy platforms they released in the final leg of the federal election campaign, Liberal Leader Mark Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre have asked Canadians to take quite different leaps of faith on Monday, when it comes to how they will reorient this country’s economy for a new era in which the United States has ceased to be a reliable trading partner or ally.
It’s not just a matter of ideological differences. Although those certainly exist – including in Mr. Poilievre’s greater enthusiasm for tax cuts, Mr.
Carney’s stronger inclination toward interventionist spending, and perhaps most sharply in the Liberals remaining much more committed to the low-carbon energy transition – President Donald Trump’s threats have brought them directionally closer to each other than would otherwise be the case. But with the notable exception of fast-tracking the approvals of energy and infrastructure projects, for which the two leaders have outlined similar objectives, the greater contrast is in the extent to which they’ve chosen to lay out detailed strategies for industries pivotal to Canada’s economic sovereignty. And each approach carries its own set of risks.
A voter’s guide to Canada’s (potential) economic future Mr. Carney , despite having been Liberal Leader for less than two months, during a period of extreme turbulence, has provided a level of comprehensiveness seemingly aimed at suggesting that he has an answer for everything (other than how to restrain spending to limit deficit growth, which both leaders have been vague about). That includes new program plans for almost any sector that’s under threat from the U.
S. , or has unrealized potential, or both. His package of policies for the automotive industry, for instance, would include a $2-billion fund primarily aimed at boosting the domestic content of vehicles assembled here.
For agri-food, it includes a $200-million fund to get more products processed here, an expansion of loan guarantees for farmers, and a new financing stream through the Canada Infrastructure Bank. For tech, an expansion of research and development tax credits, the introduction of flow-through shares for startups, the creation of a Canada patent box to protect intellectual property, and a new tax credit for artificial-intelligence deployment. That’s not to mention big bets seemingly aimed to bolster multiple sectors at once, mostly strikingly $25-billion in financing for prefabricated housing.
Or a new $25-billion export credit facility, and $5-billion in funding to improve trade infrastructure. The big question in all this – aside from the merits of the industrial policies themselves, of which there are dozens more, alongside similarly detailed plans for social policy and defence – is about whether government can operate with far greater capacity than at any time in memory. Party platforms: Compare pledges on major issues from Trump to housing Swift implementation of multiple programs at once has hardly been Ottawa’s calling card, nor has making new and existing policies fit together in ways industry can easily navigate.
So, to believe in Mr. Carney’s economic agenda, voters need to be confident he would avoid every decision getting bogged down in the Prime Minister’s Office; that his ministers would be empowered to drive their own files; most dauntingly, that the bureaucracy would be overhauled to push everything through faster. In other words, they need to buy his fundamental pitch that he’s capable of operating with much greater businesslike efficiency than his predecessor, Justin Trudeau.
The calculus with Mr. Poilievre’s agenda is very different, because it leaves much more to the imagination. The Conservative platform does include some major proposals to boost economic resilience and competitiveness, perhaps most significantly a pledge to waive capital-gains tax for any proceeds from asset sales that were reinvested in Canada.
But it is much less prescriptive, sector-by-sector. To a point, that’s a reflection of Mr. Poilievre’s lesser enthusiasm for program spending, and greater faith that businesses will do best if government gets out of their way.
But it’s also a matter of the Conservatives seemingly making the choice to not publicly lock themselves into too many plans before forming government, as evidenced by the platform saying little even about industries that would likely be among their priorities. From taxes to housing, here’s what each major party is promising for your finances That includes the tech sector, the only direct mention of which is a pledge to cut more than $2-billion in existing AI funding, despite many of its leaders lining up behind Mr. Poilievre.
While the industry could be among the beneficiaries of his capital-gains move, that seems unlikely to be his whole strategy for it. Agriculture, another obvious priority given its vulnerability to Mr. Trump’s trade war and potential for increased overseas exports, plus strong Conservative support from farmers, similarly gets little platform mention other than a pledge to stop foreign purchases of farmland.
The auto industry gets more attention, including a promise to waive the GST on sales of domestically made vehicles and some targeted relief financing as long as U.S. tariffs are in place.
But there’s less hand-tipping than from the Liberals on any longer-term efforts to restructure it. On trade infrastructure, the Conservative platform gets a bit deeper into the weeds, such as a pledge to help port expansions by changing financing rules. But it also makes no mention of the Infrastructure Bank, leaving open the question of its future, after Mr.
Poilievre previously said he’d abolish it. And one of his more sweeping proposals to help multiple industries at once – a task force with a cross-section of sectoral representatives, to redesign the tax code to make it fairer and simpler – seems purposely open-ended about what measures it would produce. The sum effect is that Mr.
Poilievre would have more room to make policy plans without being constrained by as long a list of election commitments. That could be helpful in some ways, given the need to be nimble amid rapidly changing global economic circumstances. But it also requires more trust that he either has actionable plans in his back pocket or can quickly come up with them.
So, if Mr. Carney’s platform demands faith in his ability to follow through, Mr. Poilievre’s requires greater trust in his judgment about what makes sense to begin with.
Neither is easy to place a bet on, since neither leader has yet been tested in the Prime Minister’s Office. But at the outset, they would enter the job with different sorts of mandates, and different types of challenges in making good on voters’ trust..
