How do the main parties compare on these issues?

The debate over the carbon tax will amount to a duel between the Conservatives and the Liberals during the campaign, with the other parties fading into the background. The Conservatives will take every opportunity to hammer away at their message - that the carbon tax is a Liberal tax grab. Watch for Alberta Premier Jason Kenney to hit the trail to help carry that message for his federal counterparts, as the most vocal of the premiers challenging the constitutionality of the tax in court.

The anti-carbon tax assault fits well into the Tory campaign message of anxiety and affordability — assuming they can frame is as yet another tax that is hurting Canadians.

Justin Trudeau and his Liberals will argue that putting a price on carbon is one of the best ways to reduce emissions and will point to the rebate system they say will leave most Canadians better off, even with the carbon tax pushing up the price of gas and home heating. But that’s not an easy calculation to break down for voters. which may hurt Trudeau as he tries to campaign for re-election on what’s been billed as one of the most ambitious carbon pricing programs in the world.

The Canada Child Benefit is arguably the Liberals’ most successful policy achievement. The Bank of Canada says it boosted the economy overall and Statistics Canada says it lifted almost 300,000 children out of poverty. The benefit replaced a number of targeted tax credits brought in by the Harper Conservatives. Both the NDP and the Conservatives have said they have no plans to get rid of it — but that won’t stop the Liberals from citing it as an example of what their government has done to help families care for their children.

While the issue of child care comes up in every election, it hasn’t been shown to move votes significantly in one direction or another. A key theme of this election so far has been affordability and quality of life. Child care fits into that theme neatly, but regional differences make imposing national policies difficult.

The number of Canadian children aged five or younger participating in child care services is just below 60 per cent, Statistics Canada reported in April. In Quebec, where the provincial government mandates a single flat fee for children in most child care centres, almost 80 per cent of children are enrolled in child care services. Nationally, about one third of parents report difficulty in finding child care spaces, but only about one in ten parents say that has prompted them to change their work schedules. If parents’ struggles to obtain child care amount more to inconvenience than hardship, the issue may not move many votes. But elections have a way of unexpectedly making some issues pop; only time will tell if child care hits the headlines this time.

With the effects of climate change top-of-mind for many voters, particularly younger ones, three left-leaning parties - the Liberals, the NDP and the Greens - will be talking climate a lot during this election. The Liberals are hampered by a spotty record: they’ll have to defend their decision to buy an oil pipeline and explain how that squares with their promise to respect the Paris accord pledge to meet and exceed a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions - a target the government’s own reports show it is short of meeting. The Conservatives also have promised to respect the Paris Accord - without providing specifics - but they’re less keen to talk climate. They will concentrate their efforts on blasting the Liberal government’s carbon tax.

Maxime Bernier’s right-wing People’s Party of Canada is the outlier - the only party that disputes the science saying that human activity is the cause of climate change. Bernier’s challenge is to be heard when his party’s support is hovering at only three per cent.

The gap between the Liberals and Conservatives on this file was reduced when Scheer moved away from his promise to balance the budget in two years. But the Liberals will still try to frame the debate as one between continued spending and cuts, in part by focusing on what is happening at the provincial level. In Ontario, Premier Doug Ford's government has triggered significant controversy as it tries to follow through on a campaign commitment to balance its budget. That example will not go unmentioned. Both the Liberals and Conservatives will face some pressure to fit any further tax breaks into their fiscal models. Meanwhile, the Liberal government's willingness to continue running deficits may give the New Democrats and Greens more room to promise new spending, a significant departure from where the budget debate stood in 2015.

With the contenders in this election falling over one another in an effort to convince voters they are the best option to make life more affordable for families, it should be no surprise that all of the major parties are offering some kind of break on the cost of university.

The interesting difference seems to be in the way these breaks have been targeted. The NDP and the Greens want to scrap college and university tuition altogether. It is a proposal that is likely to appeal both to parents who help pay for their children to attend post-secondary institutions and the students who pay for part or all of their education themselves.

The Conservatives’ decision to boost the Registered Education Savings Plan, however, is more likely to appeal to parents who use that program as a way to save for their children’s education over a ten-to-15 year period. For parents in this position, it will make a difference.

The Liberals’ proposal to introduce initiatives that, like the Greens and NDP, will appeal to both parents and students. Ensuring that students can take advantage of policy proposals is key, considering the potential the student demographic can offer parties. In the 2015 election, voter turnout among 18- to-24 year olds increased 12 points, from 55 per cent in 2011 to 67 per cent. That voting cohort, in turn, rose from an estimated 1.15 million votes cast in 2011 to 1.7 million votes cast in 2015. If that number holds, there are more than half a million votes up for grabs. If it increases further, voters in this age group could determine a great deal.

While carbon pricing and the continued viability of the oilsands have seemed like the most dominant environmental-related issues in this campaign, the parties have also revealed policies targeting other aspects of the natural world.

Canada is endowed with many ecological riches, and the Liberals, NDP and Greens have all set targets to protect more of the country’s land and water habitats. Planting more trees, which are widely acknowledged as excellent at carbon sequestration, has also emerged as a shared promise.

Even before the election began, there was growing interest in reducing plastic, which can end up in landfill, in our waterways and, infamously, in shipping containers sent to Malaysia and the Philippines. The major parties have all pledged to address the problem of plastic use in some form or another.

Since the Polytechnique massacre of 1989, the Liberal Party has presented itself as a champion of gun control. It introduced the long-gun registry, forcing owners of shotguns to register their firearms with the government (a non-restricted Ruger Mini-14 was used at Polytechnique). The move was championed by urban gun activists (especially in Montreal) but reviled by many rural voters, who tend to see guns merely as tools for protecting property and subsistence hunting.

Many of the two million Canadians who own firearms have been faithful supporters of the Conservative Party ever since former prime minister Stephen Harper scrapped that registry and relaxed some gun transport laws. To address an alarming spike in gun violence, the Tories have promised a tough-on-crime agenda focused on sending more gang members to prison for longer.

The Liberal Party backed away from a national handgun ban after a government-commissioned report found Canadians are decidedly split on the idea. But to appeal to gun control advocates, the party has promised a re-elected Liberal government would instead ban semi-automatic assault-style firearms like those used in recent shootings. They've also ruled out restoring the long-gun registry.

Polls show health care is a top-of-mind issue for Canadian voters, but that doesn’t often translate into a ballot box question during elections. That could change this year. Federal party leaders are putting health care front and centre ⁠— and some are taking what many see as the next step by promising a pharmacare program.

The NDP, Liberals and Greens have proposed national pharmacare plans that they promise to bring in on different timetables and for different audiences. Trudeau has pledged $6 billion over four years as a down payment on a national pharmacare plan, but has not said how much the federal government will ultimately stump up for the program. Dr. Eric Hoskins, chair of the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare has said the $6 billion is not enough. The NDP say they’ll implement the program next year at a cost of $10 billion, but both leaders will have to talk to the provinces first because they are the level of government that implements health programs.

Liberals have promised pharmacare in the past but it has yet to materialize. If a significant number of voters decide they want a pharmacare plan this time, it will likely come down to who can deliver a policy they can actually fund. Both the NDP and the Greens also want to implement dental care plans. These big spends will require a convincing argument when it comes to getting Canadians to believe the parties can deliver on their whole suite of health promises.

While the big economic indicators suggest the economy is doing well, there is plenty of evidence showing the wealth being created is not translating into improved housing options for Canadians, especially in large cities with hot real estate markets. A Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report found that someone working full time at minimum wage could only afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment in three per cent of Canadian neighbourhoods - despite declining poverty rates and strong job creation.

There is a danger for incumbent governments when the economy is doing well but ordinary citizens feel they are not sharing in that prosperity. The Liberals seem aware of this; they’ve been touting their national housing strategy targeting first-time buyers with subsidies and renters with investments in affordable housing. Still, there remains room for the opposition parties to attack the government over onerous restrictions on the first-time buyer program and a rollout of affordable housing investments that may be taking longer than those on the poverty line can afford to wait.

The Liberals will be relying on the positive headlines coming out of a series of recent housing announcements and new construction to counter those narratives as opposition parties make the affordability of day-to-day life central to their campaigns.

A heart-wrenching photo of a drowned three-year-old Syrian refugee made international headlines in 2015 — and shifted the focus of Canada’s federal election campaign. The death of young Alan Kurdi, a symbol of the desperate plight of global migrants, prompted Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau to promise to bring in 25,000 refugees in mere months if he became prime minister.

That pledge was met and exceeded (a few months late) and the project seemed to galvanize Canadians across the country.

Four years on, though, that goodwill appears to have waned in some quarters. Immigration talk has moved from the international refugee crisis to a more domestic debate — about the thousands of asylum seekers that have streamed into Canada from the U.S. outside of official border crossings.

The Conservatives have accused the Liberals of losing control of the immigration system, while the NDP and Green Party say Trudeau has turned Canada’s back on the world’s most vulnerable.

Rising anti-immigrant rhetoric from the U.S. and Europe has also seeped into Canada, and the fledgling People’s Party of Canada is pushing some hot buttons - calling for an end to “extreme multiculturalism” and “mass immigration” and for a fence at the border.

All this is leading up to divisive campaign debates on immigration across the country.

Canada’s relationship with Indigenous people rarely gets top billing in a party’s election platform. Traditionally, political parties don’t see a lot of votes to be gained by wading into the thorny issue. And First Nation people typically haven’t turned out in large numbers to vote.

The relationship between the federal government and Indigenous Canadians hit a low point during the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, triggering a mass movement called Idle No More which flared across the country. Frustration with Harper triggered a spike in First Nation voting, affecting the outcome in a number of ridings in 2015.

When Justin Trudeau took office he said no relationship was more important to his government than the Crown-Indigenous relationship, and he committed to pursuing reconciliation. His promise to put Indigenous rights into law failed, but he has made good so far on his promise to reduce the number of on-reserve long-term boil water advisories.

Trudeau also named former First Nation leader Jody Wilson-Raybould to be his attorney general — a pivotal portfolio on the Indigenous rights front. That relationship fell apart during the SNC-Lavalin affair, which soured some First Nation leaders on the Liberals.

As the roiling controversy over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project shows, all Canadian governments have to face the reality of Indigenous rights. Any party seeking to lead Canada needs to deal with the relationship — because getting it wrong can bring their best-laid plans screeching to a halt.

The economy recorded a job surge last month ⁠— 81,100 net new ⁠— and August’s unemployment rate stayed at 5.7 per cent, close to a four-decade low. Expect the Liberals to take credit for those numbers and for Canada’s economic success compared to other G7 nations.

Expect the Conservatives to argue that people in resource sectors ⁠— especially in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador ⁠— are suffering due to Liberal neglect of the resource economy. And the Conservatives will also say the overall jobs numbers don’t express how Canadians experience the economy ⁠— that too many people worry about making ends meet.

New Democrats will go into the campaign saying they’re the only ones looking out for the average worker. Once upon a time, the NDP could count on organized labour's unwavering support; it's been a long time since there's been any guarantee of that. Still, the United Steelworkers recently threw themselves behind the NDP and accused the Liberals of failing workers while going to the wall to help big corporations.

Jobs ⁠— and the wider question of whether Canadians are ahead or behind after four years of a Liberal government ⁠— will be central themes in this election. They could even become the ballot questions.

The parties see economic anxiety as one of the key themes of this election. Overall employment numbers remain strong but, for many, work feels more precarious and uncertain than ever.

Take Canada’s manufacturing sector: it accounts for about a third of the country’s economic activity, contributing to nearly five million jobs. But it’s evolving fast, and politicians lack easy solutions. Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence threaten the jobs of unskilled workers, while skilled labour shortages hold businesses back and the growth of contract work means fewer people are protected by union membership or enjoy a full-time job with benefits and a pension. Organized labour remains a factor in Canadian politics ⁠— and the NDP can’t necessarily count on the union vote.

The Liberals ⁠— and the Conservatives before them ⁠— argued exports would grow Canada's economy. But who's ready to trade more? The American economy is sputtering, China is proving to be an unreliable partner, and the British and Europeans are struggling with their own relationship.

And governments that do too much to protect industry from trade threats like tariffs risk being accused of illegal subsidies, which can provoke even more trade disputes. So while the economy outside of the energy sector has put up strong numbers lately, uncertainty still lurks around the corner.

The Liberals had hoped this saga would be finished by the time an election was called but, like much of the trade negotiation process, things haven't gone exactly as planned. Canada is waiting for U.S. lawmakers to approve the three-way trade agreement before ratifying the pact here. If they’re re-elected, the Liberals will continue to wait and watch what happens in the U.S. before making their next move. If the Conservatives win the election, they’re also expected to pass the agreement as-is. Sources say that while the Conservatives think the Liberal government did a poor job of negotiating, the party recognizes there would be great economic uncertainty if the deal were to be reopened. So the Conservatives may complain, but they'll pass the deal.

The NDP is the wild card in this situation. The party has called for the agreement to be reopened to make changes to the way drug price regulations are set and ensure lower drug prices.

The country's oil and gas sector is facing a serious pipeline capacity crunch, with all of the major export projects beset by delays. The Western Canadian economy has suffered serious damage as a result.

In a time of heightened Western Canadian political alienation, the Liberal government bought the Trans Mountain expansion project from its original proponent in an attempt to overcome legal and political roadblocks and appease the oilpatch. Since then, the government has worked to sell the purchase as a way to cut the record-setting levels of oil now transported by rail (a shipping method that comes with risks of its own, as the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster demonstrated) and to open up new markets for our energy products beyond the U.S.

The purchase has hurt the party with some segments of the electorate who care deeply about what some have called a climate change "crisis." The NDP and Greens called the purchase a questionable use of taxpayer funds by a party that claims to be a champion of the environment. In B.C., where the expanded pipeline will terminate in Burnaby, the Green Party has eaten away at Liberal support and has moved up in the polls.

The Conservatives maintain the Liberals are unsympathetic to the oil and gas sector. They cite the decisions to kill the Northern Gateway pipeline project, ban oil tankers off the northern B.C. coast and push through a controversial overhaul of the environmental assessment regime as examples of Liberal indifference toward the oilpatch. They say only a Conservative government can stop the government's "assault" on the energy sector.

Seniors have traditionally been counted on as a reliable cohort of voters, and as such, a population block political parties have been keen to target with policy proposals. While this has been the historical pattern in Canada, the uptick in participation from younger voters in the 2015 general election may be beginning to challenge this orthodoxy.

According to Statistics Canada, the 2011 federal election saw voter turnout among Canadians aged 18 to 24 come in at 55 per cent. That same year voters aged 65 to 74 had a voter turnout almost 30 points higher at 84 per cent. Elections Canada estimates that translated into 1.15 million 18 to 24 year olds casting a ballot in that election compared with 1.91 million aged 64 to 74.

But in the 2015 election something changed. Voter turnout among the younger group of voters jumped 12 points to 67 per cent while voter participation among 65 to 74 year olds rose only slightly to 86 per cent. Practically that means an estimated 1.7 million younger voters cast a ballot last time compared with 2.5 million older voters. It’s still a big difference, but the younger cohort of voters still has room to grow while the 65 to 74 year old age group already has the highest voter turnout in the country.

The affordability of everyday life has so far been the grandest theme stretching across all of the major political parties. As the campaigns continue it is likely that we will see those affordability promises targeting both age groups as parties try to attract votes with policies that appeal to seniors on the one hand, such as pharmacare, and younger voters on the other hand, such as first-time homebuyer incentives.

Small business owners head to the polls this year with a number of items on their wish lists, including a reprieve from planned increases to CPP premiums, a steady or lower small business tax rate and changes to reforms that eliminated income-splitting. Given the tight labour market, many want breaks on Employment Insurance payments to offset the cost of training employees. Among undecided voters, 58 per cent say taxes are a top issue this election.

Although indicators like record-low unemployment are pointing to a strong economy overall, small business owners will look to elect a government that can steer them through possible bumps in the road ahead, stemming from broader issues like global trade disputes. Of course, tensions still lurk between these owners and the Liberals, after their proposed tax reforms in 2017 caused a showdown and forced them to rethink parts of the proposal to soften its impact.

Conservatives will tell voters the Liberals' serial deficits will force a future government to cut services or raise taxes to make up the difference. While Leader Andrew Scheer has promised to balance the budget within five years, up from his earlier deadline of two, the parliamentary budget officer predicts the party's "universal tax cut" will mean roughly $6 billion less a year in federal revenue. So far, Scheer has said cancelling $1.5 billion in corporate handouts and finding another $1.5 billion by slashing foreign aid by 25 per cent, will be part of what the Conservatives would do to offset that universal tax cut and other spending promises they've made. But that only brings the party half way there, and the lack of specificity about which corporate handouts would go has made some critics skeptical.

Meanwhile, the Liberals ⁠— who turned a promise to run small deficits into a winning election strategy in 2015, and then ran much higher deficits in four successive years ⁠— argue that as long as deficits shrink as a portion of the economy each year, there's nothing to worry about. Economic growth is the key to that strategy ⁠— just one recession could ruin it.

The NDP has vowed to tax the super-rich, target capital gains and take on tax cheats in multiple election campaigns; this election is no different.

The Green Party is aiming for an entire tax system overhaul, looking to establish an arms-length Federal Tax Commission. In the meantime, the party would go after companies that use offshore tax havens, raise the corporate tax rate to 21%, tax transnational e-commerce corporations in Canada, put a surtax on bank profits, and impose a 0.2% financial transaction tax on the finance sector. Considering the major ⁠— and expensive ⁠— campaign promises the Greens are committing to, the party is counting on increased tax revenue to pay for them. But it also argues the tax burden is not fairly distributed now and that needs to change.

Every government over the past two decades has offered voters tax cuts in some form ⁠— either a large-impact income tax cut or boutique tax credits. The challenge facing voters is to weigh which of the promised plans benefit them most ⁠— and how much that factors into their vote.

It's no secret many Canadians feel they pay too much for their internet and mobile phone plans. It's also no surprise most of the federal parties are indicating in some fashion they see lowering telecom bills as a priority.

But Canadians have heard it all before. For more than a decade, parties in power have pledged to bring more competition into the telecom market and reduce rates. According to data commissioned by the federal government, Canadians still pay some of the highest cellular rates in the world. And a recent CRTC decision that would help reduce internet costs for consumers is facing opposition from ⁠— and could be appealed by ⁠— Canada's major telecoms.

So when it comes to election promises involving telecom costs, many Canadians may not be won over ⁠— until their bills actually come down.

Affordability is a big issue for swing voters ⁠— especially in Metro Vancouver and the Greater Toronto Area, where sky-high housing costs and transit go hand in hand. These voters are often younger, live outside of the city (because they can’t afford to own downtown) and spend hours in transit every day on buses and trains that don’t always run smoothly.

Scheer has said he would give priority to infrastructure projects that reduce commute times. He’s promised bigger roads, such as the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project in Vancouver. He’s also made commitments on transit, such as prioritizing the Ontario Line in Toronto. Targeting commuters helps Scheer demonstrate that he can deliver policy that appeals to both the residents of the suburbs around Toronto and Vancouver and younger voters who rely on public transportation. Not to be outdone, Trudeau has pledged $3 billion annually towards public transit and the Canada Infrastructure Bank is already committed to funding public transportation projects in Toronto, Montréal and Quebec City.

While the issue of transportation has not become a hot issue for any party, it has overlapped with both affordability and climate change initiatives when it does come up. That has metastasized in the form of initiatives that give transit users a tax credit or boost the sale and affordability of electric cars, or promote bicycles. As climate continues to be a major issue in this campaign, voters should not be surprised to see other policy initiatives being crafted using a climate friendly mold.