From the Editor: Is this an election that no party wins?

Michael Regenstreif

By Michael Regenstreif

Editor

As Jason Moscovitz notes below, the October 28 issue of the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin goes to press before the October 21 federal election – so I’m writing this column before we know the actual results.

However, if the latest polls are close to being accurate, the results of this election might well be as un-decisive as the results of Israel’s two 2019 elections. As I write, more than a month after Israelis voted on September 17, a governing coalition is still not in place there.

A poll analysis site I’ve followed throughout the campaign is www.338Canada.com and its latest projection suggests the Liberal and Conservative parties are virtually tied with both in the range of taking about 132 seats. The strength of both major parties has diminished during the campaign while the New Democratic Party (NDP) and Bloc Québécois (BQ) have each gained significant strength.

With the possibility of up to six parties electing MPs, and the further possibility of one or two independent members, we may see a situation like Israel’s in which neither of the major parties has enough potential support in a minority Parliament to effectively govern.

How did we get to this possible situation? Here are some of the contributing factors.

While Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s personal brand was already wounded before the start of the campaign from various broken promises, from mixed messages on environmental and Indigenous issues, and from the SNC-Lavalin scandal, it took a major hit a week after the writ dropped with the revelation that Trudeau, as an adult, had foolishly donned blackface and brownface makeup on at least three occasions. Any ordinary candidate for Parliament would surely have been dropped by their party if such a revelation had surfaced during the campaign.

Meanwhile it came to light that Conservative leader Andrew Scheer holds dual American and Canadian citizenship. That probably wouldn’t have been too significant an issue except for the fact that in 2005 Scheer himself raised the issue of then-governor general Michaëlle Jean’s dual citizenship, and because in past election campaigns the Conservatives attacked then-Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and then-NDP leader Tom Mulcair for their dual citizenships. While Scheer now says he’s begun the process of renouncing his American citizenship, he was a member of Parliament for 15 years – and served as speaker of the House of Commons for more than four of those years – without ever revealing his dual citizenship.

There is no doubt that the NDP’s growing strength outside Quebec can be attributed to frustrations with the Trudeau Liberals and to strong performances by NDP leader Jagmeet Singh in the debates and on the hustings, and to his grace under fire from racist attacks.

In Quebec, the rise of the BQ – which 338Canada predicts will win about 35 seats, up from 10 in 2015 – can be at least partially explained by support among francophone voters for Quebec’s Bill 21 banning certain civil servants from wearing religious symbols, including Jewish kippahs, Sikh turbans and Muslim hijabs. While the Liberals remain strong in multicultural Montreal, the BQ seems set to take most of the francophone ridings off the island of Montreal. The BQ has promised to protect Bill 21 from federal interference.

Speaking personally, the response to Bill 21 – which achieves its goals by use of the notwithstanding clause to override the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – by all of the federal leaders has been highly disappointing. While Trudeau, Scheer, Singh and Green Party leader Elizabeth May have all expressed opposition to Bill 21, only Trudeau will say that the federal government “might” intervene in a court case against it. Even Trudeau’s “might” is a weak response. As I noted in my August 19 column, the phrase “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” is merely an empty platitude when one province can get away with removing Charter rights from certain targeted minorities.

Of course, the polls might be wrong and we might see a strong minority or even a majority government emerge after October 21. A better bet, though, is another election sooner than later (with the possibility that one or more of the parties has a new leader).

Ideas and Impressions: Truth is not a campaign-winning formula

Jason Moscovitz

By Jason Moscovitz

This issue of the Ottawa Jewish Bulletin went to press before the October 21 federal election. So, as I write, I don’t yet know who won. What I do know is how incredible a campaign it was. Doing politics was always hard, but in today’s lightning fast world of information flow, it’s just plain crazy.

In our political galaxy, incumbent prime ministers face the toughest task in the supercharged world of elections. In recent decades, both Conservative and Liberal prime ministers have needed to defend their records, and they’ve needed to defend their mishaps and blunders in office.

And while campaigns are like the finals of a blood sport, those involved love doing it and no one loves the action more than the leaders themselves. They believe they were born to campaign, that no one does it better, and after a big electoral win, they believe they are invincible.

A campaign is like a freedom ride from the restraint and reality of governing. In a campaign, politicians, as we’ve just witnessed, promise the sun and the moon while acknowledging the deficit will go up further before it comes down. Damn the deficit, Trudeau and the Liberals set the tone for making promises. The others were eager to follow.

The fiscal looseness of the campaign was striking. Day after day, there were more announcements of costly promises. And the usually more fiscally conservative Conservatives joined the spending spree to keep pace.

Creating a blueprint on how to make life better for middle class Canadians is noble – but over-extending promises is not. Getting elected is the easy part. Governing gets to be not so much fun when there is not enough money to fulfil promises made.

So while political leaders love to roll up their sleeves and campaign, they play a dangerous game. Because politicians make promises to win, no one should ever wonder why voters are cynical about politics. Promising too many beneficial tax changes is questionable, as thoughtful as the promises may be. There is something about political life that is not always rational. Ego trips can often hinder straight thinking.

For more than the past half-century, from John Diefenbaker to Justin Trudeau, those who won majority governments got intoxicated by what they thought was the love voters had for them. Diefenbaker, Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien all got hit by the same victory fever. Stephen Harper got it too, although his blandness served as cover. But rest assured, in the end, ego drove them all.

After a big impressive win, leaders believe they can convince voters of virtually anything. In an election campaign, they believe the mere sweetness of their voices making nice promises is enough to keep them in power. Hiding the truth is also part of it. Hiding Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s existence was Andrew Scheer’s best Houdini act.

Sadly, being forthright and honest has limited place in the world of election campaigns. The truth is not a winner. I once asked a prominent politician why he and his party wouldn’t discuss certain parts of their agenda.

“If we ever told the people of Canada what we were going to do, we would never get elected,” was his cynical response.

I can remember a Conservative prime minister who falsely promised not to cut old age security payments, just as I remember a Liberal prime minister who promised to “kill the Goods and Services tax.” More recently, we all remember Justin Trudeau promising his government would bring in long talked about electoral reform. But once in power, he slammed the door shut and did nothing.

Do they think people are dumb?

The answer is they just desperately want and need their votes. Talk is cheap. Delivering is hard and expensive.

We all grow up believing that speaking the truth is key to being a responsible respected person. Somehow, though, that rule doesn’t apply in the political world. Saying what needs to be said in order to win is such short sighted thinking – but they don’t care.

It’s time to stop being naive. It’s time to get with the program. It’s time to lower expectations on the truth. It’s time to grow up.

And it’s time to admit to myself that the political world I saw idealistically is an allusion.