Stephen Harper is hoping the election will come down to a single question: Whose hands do you want on the tiller of state? But Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has other plans. If things go her way, the campaign will be a replay of the last Ontario election—and that would be good news for Justin Trudeau. At a Canada 2020 luncheon in Ottawa last Tuesday, Wynne was remarkably outspoken about the election. She called on the federal government to ramp up infrastructure spending and challenged the party leaders to debate this in the campaign. At present, total investment is about 3.5% of GDP, most of which comes from the provinces. Wynne says this should rise to about 5%, with the feds picking up the difference—some $30 billion a year. While some commentators seized on the size of her Ask (I'll come back to this), others were puzzled by the focus of her speech. “Why infrastructure?” they asked. “This won't resonate with ordinary Canadians.” I think this misses her point, which wasn't really about infrastructure, so much as investment. (While Wynne mentioned the former 26 times, she used the latter as a verb or noun over 50 times.) Investment is an idea that does resonate with Canadians—or at least with Ontarians, as Wynne so clearly showed in the Ontario election. It is worth recalling how that played out. Opposition Leader Tim Hudak positioned himself as a hard-headed manager who promised to downsize government and balance the budget, come hell or high water. Wynne responded with an ambitious plan to invest in Ontario and Ontarians. Infrastructure was key. The campaign was praised by all sides for having offered Ontarians a clear choice between two very different leadership styles and economic visions for the future. (NDP leader Andrea Horwath staked out a position that left her largely on the sidelines.) To many people's surprise, Ontarians rejected Hudak's claim that Wynne was engaged in reckless spending, and agreed that such investments were necessary and reasonable. What does this mean for Trudeau? Harper's “firm hand on the tiller” metaphor conjures up a picture of him as an experienced and trustworthy manager. It is a powerful image and, to his credit, he's got a lot of people repeating this line. By contrast, on leadership and the economy, Trudeau lacks a clear identity. People still aren't sure who he is and that makes him vulnerable to the charge that he lacks experience. But if he can't play the experience card the way Harper can, Trudeau can position himself as “the man with the new ideas.” His promises to invest in innovation, infrastructure and education aim at exactly this. As a result, when the Liberal Platform is released, we can expect Harper to attack him in pretty much the same way Hudak attacked Wynne. And like her, Trudeau will have to convince people that such investments are reasonable and necessary. No one knows how this will play out, but events are conspiring to help Trudeau. Harper's “firm hand on the tiller” story could be in trouble. It was supposed to be set against a booming oil economy, a new free trade agreement with Europe and, of course, a balanced budget. All that has changed. Plummeting oil prices have dashed Harper's plan to make Canada an energy superpower. CETA looks more uncertain by the day. Even the balanced budget is in question. Or worse, it is starting to sound like a strange obsession. The moral is that, while experience is usually an asset, it can become a liability—a euphemism for people who have past their prime. Can Trudeau make this stick to Harper? Maybe, but to do so he needs to repeat Wynne's magic in Ontario and get Canadians behind the idea of investment. He needs to consolidate his identity as the new man with new ideas. The good news for Trudeau is that the election will likely be decided in Ontario and he could hardly have a better ally. From this viewpoint, Wynne's infrastructure speech was less a challenge to the federal government than a safe way to get the national conversation on investment started. Even arch-conservatives agree that the state has responsibilities here. The premiers can't be far behind. They will be happy to play along and report on how Canada's infrastructure is crumbling; and Wynne's speech makes it easy for them to join her call for a new infrastructure partnership with Ottawa. Conveniently, they will be meeting in Ottawa on January 30th. We will likely hear more. So, lastly, what should we make of the size of Wynne's Ask? I doubt any of the premiers—including Wynne—seriously think any prime minister will shell out $30 billion a year for infrastructure. But by opening this discussion with a high bid, Wynne leaves lots of room for her colleagues to look moderate and reasonable by joining in with more modest proposals. More importantly, she leaves space for Trudeau to come back with a responsible counteroffer that makes him look both experienced and prime ministerial. Wynne's speech was eloquent on the role of the famous trio of John Robarts, Jean Lesage and Lester Pearson, whose leadership in the 1960s was instrumental in building Canada's social union. One could almost hear her thinking: “…and now it is time for a new trio of Kathleen Wynne, Philippe Couillard and Justin Trudeau.” We shall see.Dr. Don Lenihan is Senior Associate, Policy and Engagement, at Canada 2020, Canada's leading, independent progressive think-tank. Don is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and Open Government. His recent projects include chairing an expert group on citizen engagement for the UN and the OECD; and chairing the Ontario Open Government Engagement Team. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan