MONTREAL—Unless the prime minister jumps the gun on his own election law, Canadians are exactly a year away this weekend from having to decide who of Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair will head the next federal government.

Those who are looking to buy change up front will do so by supporting one of the opposition parties.

There is no doubt that a stand-alone Liberal or NDP government or a combination of both parties in a coalition government or a minority rule arrangement would bring different priorities and a different approach to policy-making.

In contrast with the ruling Conservatives, both main opposition parties believe in the virtues of an activist federal government.

But history suggests that returning Harper to power could result in even more radical change. Here is why.

By the time Canada next goes to the polls the prime minister will have been in power for almost a decade.

It is reasonable to assume that this would be Harper’s last kick at the election can.

If he is re-elected for a fourth mandate — at the head of a majority government — the Conservative leader will return to office in the relative certainty that he will never have to face voters again.

On the first day of that mandate Harper would have little left to prove to anyone except to those who will write the history of his era in power.

Pierre Trudeau found himself in the same enviable position after his 1980 victory.

So did Jean Chrétien over the year that he spent in office after he set an official date for his retirement in the summer of 2002.

Liberated from having to worry about re-election both of those prime ministers spent those final months and years burnishing a legacy — and using all the considerable powers at their disposal to do so.

After his 1980 victory, Pierre Trudeau pursued his objective of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms with a vengeance.

He dared the provinces to take him on in a national referendum over his plan to patriate the Constitution and went ahead with that project without the support of the Quebec government.

He unilaterally imposed controversial energy rules on Alberta.

He spent months travelling the planet on a self-appointed international peace mission.

Jean Chrétien’s last year in office was equally rich in deathbed initiatives.

The prime minister resisted American and domestic pressures to embark on the Iraq war.

He committed Canada to the Kyoto protocol on climate change (even as his government had taken no substantial steps to live up to the obligations he was taking on.)

He stared down the Liberal establishment to change the rules that govern the financing of political parties and ban corporate and union donations. For better or for worse, that measure profoundly altered Canada’s political culture.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

At the dawn of a fresh and last mandate, Harper would not lack for unfinished business to attend to.

The list includes:

A Senate in dire need of fixing after it has emerged as a major thorn in his government’s side.

An on-again-off-again battle of wills with a Supreme Court whose chief justice would be up for replacement.

A possible SCOC ruling forcing Parliament to allow assisted suicide and euthanasia, or use the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to maintain the status quo.

A stalled pro-pipeline agenda that this prime minister has bet his economic legacy on. There are extraordinary constitutional powers that a federal government could consider to try to override provincial and local opposition to the pipeline projects.

There is also the matter of the combat role that Harper has committed Canada to in the international fight against Islamic State extremists.

In this, he enjoys the support of a majority of Canadians. But that is predicated on the premise that Canada’s engagement will not lead to its participation in a ground war.

Many experts believe that position is unsustainable. Were he free of electoral considerations, would Harper be more open to their arguments?

It is a given that much transformative change will be on offer in next year’s election but perhaps none more transformative than the re-election of the man who has already been in power for the past decade.

-30-

Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

Read more about: