A question that journalists, pundits, and politicos like to ask each other during federal elections is which past campaign does the current one resemble most.
Because 2025 will be a very consequential election, the 1988 free trade campaign often comes up as a point of comparison—and for good reason.
But I’d argue that 1984 is the closer parallel.
That campaign had more of a sense that the ground was shifting—that a new economic framework was beginning to take shape. Much like the way things feel today.
And I’m not talking about the political outcome.
By the early 1980s, the country had been battered by years of stagflation, high unemployment, and labour unrest. Canadians had grown disillusioned with top-down fixes like wage and price controls and national energy programs.
The 1984 campaign marked the end of that postwar consensus around government intervention in the economy. It rewrote the fiscal rulebook, moving Canada away from a spend-heavy, deficit-tolerant mindset toward one that prioritized restraint. It also marked the beginning of a shift toward market liberalism and deeper economic integration with the United States that set the tone not just for Brian Mulroney’s government, but for the Liberal governments of the 1990s and 2000s, Stephen Harper after that, and even the first half of Justin Trudeau’s tenure.
1984 was the turning point.
Today, it feels like we’re at another turning point. And the rich irony is that we seem to be looping back to the 1984 debate, as if caught in some kind of time inversion straight out of a Christopher Nolan movie.
Canada is pulling back from U.S.-centric trade dependence and reasserting a version of economic self-sufficiency—echoing some of the pre-1984 instincts we thought we’d left behind.
Both Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and Liberal leader Mark Carney appear to share a desire to reshape the country’s economy to one that is more resilient, more self-sufficient, and less vulnerable.
Both are leaning into rhetoric that underscores a more nationalistic stance, adopting slogans such as “Canada Strong” for the Liberals and “Canada First” for the Conservatives.
Carney is promising an “All-in Canada” approach to economic policy, emphasizing state intervention to advance the national interest. He’s proposed using government resources—and a dose of counter protectionism—to reinvent two major sectors: autos and housing.
Poilievre, for his part, is offering his own version of self-sufficiency, rooted in resource nationalism and a drive to supercharge Canada’s competitiveness through tax cuts, deregulation, and policies aimed at repatriating capital.
I’d hesitate to divide their approaches along neat ideological lines.
While Carney talks about putting some distance between Canada and the U.S., he also argues for deepening ties with what remains of the rules-based global economic order, minus the United States. If economic nationalism stands in opposition to globalization, Carney isn’t a traditional economic nationalist.
Poilievre, meanwhile, is a strong advocate of free trade and markets, but his worldview is less idealistic and more zero-sum. His vision is of a Canada that competes aggressively on the global stage in a non-cooperative world, placing Canadian economic interests above international norms. It’s more realism than idealism.
Still, even if the lines are muddied, there are some clear points of contrast.
Poilievre’s focus is on unleashing markets, boosting resource exports, and making Canada a more competitive destination for capital. At its core, it’s a gamble on private enterprise.
For Carney, industrial policy is a cornerstone of what he’s calling a “strategic autonomy” approach—a buzzword more commonly used in European policy circles. He sees government as a proactive architect, shaping key industries to safeguard Canada’s independence. A government-led reimagining of the economy.
On balance, it’s a tougher policy environment for Poilievre, whose approach is rooted in the very paradigm that’s now under pressure.
He remains committed to free markets and is a strong proponent of deregulation, smaller government, lower taxes, and debt reduction. These are all hallmarks of the previous era. Carney is more lukewarm on all of the above.
If you were to (very simplistically) group the tools available to government into three sets—pro-market reforms like deregulation and tax cuts, industrial strategies like targeted subsidies, and full use of the government’s balance sheet—Poilievre is, for now, largely drawing from just deregulation and tax cuts, while Carney is trying to play in all three.
In fact, Poilievre touts the consistency of his approach as a strength, which he sees as principled at a time when voters may be looking for more reaction. (It’s no coincidence Carney talks about taking action with “purpose and force.”)
“I’ve said exactly the same thing for the last 10 years,” Poilievre told reporters. “And it turns out the things we must do to counter Donald Trump are all the things I said we should be doing even before he threatened tariffs.”
Poilievre is betting that a pro-investment platform will unleash the capital spending needed to transform Canada’s economy. That’s a big if in a world marked by uncertainty. His measures may be necessary—but perhaps not sufficient.
Here’s my humble advice to him. Industrial policy may be a bridge too far, but there could be room to consider a more ambitious fiscal backstop to drive private investment forward. It’s a big moment.
Carney’s approach, too, is filled with risks. There’s a reason Canada moved away from the interventionist playbook of the 1960s and ‘70s. State-led efforts can bloat costs, distort incentives, and dull competitiveness.
Once in a generation, we get an election where we reimagine the kind of economy we want. Let’s hope our presumptive PMs choose wisely.
Theo Argitis is The Hub's Editor-at-Large for economics and business. Theo has been a journalist for the better part of three decades, spending much of his…
