Comment: Canada undergoes a political reconfiguration

By John H. Redekop

Canada's new prime minister, Conservative leader Stephen Harper. Photo: Trevor Lum.

Historic

Four realities make this election historic. First, Canada is at an ethical crossroads and the voters, it seems to me, have chosen a higher ethic, one encompassing public accountability, campaigning techniques and especially social policies.

Second, it's historic because, with Parti Quebecois support now down from 49 to 42 percent, it has probably halted growing separatist sentiments in Quebec. Separatism has taken a major hit.

Third, it is historic because, for the first time in several decades, Canada has two national parties. Among other desirable consequences this means that Quebec voters likely will be less tempted to turn to a separatist party to register displeasure with Ottawa. In fact, the Conservatives may be the new broker which can keep English and French united.

And fourth, with its entrenched western base, with its recapturing of many traditional Conservative seats in rural Ontario and with its major new inroads in Quebec, the Conservatives may have replaced the Liberals as Canada's dominant party. With 36 percent voter support and 124 Conservative MPs, admittedly only a slim minority, the Tories may have reconfigured Canada's political landscape.

Unfortunately, for the first time since Confederation, there will be no cabinet members from Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver. That's truly remarkable. Although aware that at least a Conservative minority was widely predicted, that's the option which voters in those cities chose.

The Conservatives began the campaign as underdogs. Why did they win?

'Culture of entitlement'

The Liberal loss can be attributed to many factors. Clearly Adscam and the long list of other boondoggles had a major impact. The mid-campaign RCMP income trust investigation added fuel to that fire. Auditor-General Sheila Fraser's assertion that some Liberal Party agents and their associates "broke every rule in the book" left its mark. Her further conclusion that "a culture of entitlement" -- amply documented -- had taken hold during recent Liberal administrations, also cut a wide swath.

Prime Minister Martin's sharp drop in credibility became a major factor. For example, in 1999 he and all his Liberal cabinet associates asserted in Parliament that traditional marriage is "a central and important institution," that it must be defined as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others," and that the Liberal government would undertake all necessary measures to preserve that situation and that policy.

During this campaign, however, Prime Minister Martin and his associates had the audacity to describe as far right extremists any Conservatives who dared to speak as the Liberal leaders spoke so convincingly in 1999.

Paul Martin insisted that he was defending "Canadian values" when he championed his radical same-sex marriage policy. The fact of the matter is that when his government last year introduced Bill C-38, an Environics poll revealed that 67 percent of Canadians actually disagreed with its far-reaching contents.

Patronage

Liberal credibility took many other hits. Instead of reducing the "democratic deficit," as Prime Minster Martin had promised in the 2004 campaign, he actually added to it by inaction, by a raft of dubious patronage appointments, by continuation of partisan Senate appointments and by denying cabinet members freedom in a 'free' Commons vote. The shameful use of the infamous 'soldiers in the streets' ad, which deliberately misrepresented Stephen Harper's promise to establish small military assistance bases near Canada's large cities, also triggered anger.

Paul Martin's public criticism of President Bush and the U.S. for not ratifying the Kyoto Accord reeked of hypocrisy. Not only is the Canadian record in limiting the increase of greenhouse gases twice as bad as that of the U.S., but the Liberal government has budgeted about a billion dollars a year to buy clean air credits from some less polluting countries. Such purchases would keep Canada under ever-rising 'Canadian' pollution limits while pollution actually increased. Most Canadian voters do not fall for the line that signing Kyoto is more important than actually controlling pollution.

Health care was a major issue in this campaign. The Liberals, and especially the NDP, campaigned vigorously against the supposed Conservative threat to public health care. But the real issue was not whether there should be a universal health care program, which all parties supported, but whether the private sector should be involved in the delivery of such care. Despite widespread European evidence for the success of such a policy, Stephen Harper was relentlessly criticized for allowing space for private delivery of the public service.

Both Paul Martin and Jack Layton seemed to ignore the COMPAS poll on January 15. Only 18 percent of respondents said that they would support a party which prohibited 'non-governmental care' and 71 percent agreed with the Supreme Court decision which opened the door to private medical insurance in Quebec. Also, 76 percent would encourage people facing long waits to seek treatment outside the public system.

Grossly misleading

The absurd Liberal banning of all handguns was grossly misleading. Aside from some licensed exceptions, handguns have been banned in Canada since 1934; also, guns used by criminals have generally been stolen and are generally unlicensed, a situation not likely to change. And, most importantly, the banning of guns can only be done by provincial governments. At least two -- Alberta and Saskatchewan -- promptly announced that they would not participate in Martin's planned program. For that reason alone, the Martin policy collapsed -- although the Prime Minister continued trumpeting it.

Martin made much of his state-run, supposedly 'universal' day-care program. But, even after some years of implementation, it would have provided for only 30 percent of pre-school children. Martin assumed widespread support; but polling showed that almost 90 percent of Canadians preferred care-giving by a parent or other relative rather than by state-run institutions. In addition, Canadians, remembering the billion-dollars expended in the futile gun-registry initiative, are wary of funding another huge federal bureaucracy.

Much was also made of Paul Martin's defense of supposed 'Canadian values' concerning abortion. Again, we encounter distortion and dissonance. The Environics people reported last October that 60 percent of Canadians, including 64 percent of women, want the Canadian government to introduce laws to protect the unborn. Only one-third supported the present policy.

Moreover, the vast majority do not support the brutality of partial-birth abortions and want them ended. Yet even a hint by a Conservative candidate or anyone else favoring any restriction makes such a person, according to the Liberals, a dangerous right wing extremist.

Ethically challenged

The Liberal campaign was the most ethically challenged I have witnessed in more than 40 years of observing Canadian elections. Paul Martin's principles, established during his time as a successful finance minister, "evaporated in the wind of political expediency," as the Vancouver Sun aptly put it.

As the campaign progressed, Martin seemed to lose his ethical moorings. Instead of focusing on issues, he concentrated increasingly on demonizing Stephen Harper. By dismissing other leaders and parties as serious political actors, by treating them with disdain and derision, Paul Martin actually weakened democracy. The acceptance by all serious party leaders of several legitimate parties striving to become the government by appealing to the electorate lies at the heart of a mature democracy. This stance requires mutual respect.

At times the Liberal campaign descended into outright dishonesty. For example, one of the infamous attack ads referred to "lots of late-night secret meetings" between Harper and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe. The fact of the matter is that Harper, not a late-night person, had no such meetings with Duceppe.

Paul Martin has said that when he enters the House of Commons he leaves his Roman Catholic ethical convictions at the door. The result, of course, is morally inconsistent ethical gear shifting. Stephen Harper, on the other hand, sees matters differently.

Writing in the January/February issue of Faith Today, he states: "It is perfectly legitimate for citizens and legislators to take into account their own deeply held faith convictions in developing public policy, provided that people remain open to the faith and philosophical perspectives of others." Not surprisingly, Harper invites people in all faith communities "to call for moral consensus to be reflected in civil law" on issues "like the definition of marriage."

Faith-inspired leaders

Harper is, of course, correct. Faith-inspired leaders and voters can achieve moral progress. Great strides in social legislation have been achieved when lawmakers such as William Wilberforce, backed by committed voters and enlightened pressure groups, brought their ethical convictions to bear on the political issues of the day.

Further, at a time when legislators and courts seem increasingly inclined to restrict religious freedom, Stephen Harper states in the same article that "Government must respect these [religious] convictions and not attempt to interfere in the free public expression of religious belief. Sadly, freedom of religion has come under attack in recent years." He adds, "A Conservative government will be vigilant to ensure that freedom of religion is protected in Canada." Given the political and judicial climate of the last several decades, these words are a very welcome breath of fresh air.

There are four other major reasons the Conservatives won.

First, the carefully crafted policy-a-day strategy which Stephen Harper followed, especially in December, convinced many voters that the new Conservatives had developed a sensible, moderate set of policies. Second, Harper focused on issues, and did not personally attack Martin or Layton. This made him appear responsible, mature -- and even prime ministerial.

Third, while the Liberal campaign was repeatedly derailed by assorted gaffes, the Conservatives managed to avoid such pitfalls. Fourth, Harper's improved public persona and presentation, together with the passage of time and the delivery of a relatively moderate platform early in the campaign, created a situation in which the Liberals' scare-mongering did not carry the day. Although Martin's propaganda assault was apparently again believed by many Ontario voters, it had much less impact nationally than it did in 2004.

Kingdom representatives

A significant number of new MPs are professing Christians. Given the political climate of the day, the moral issues facing Parliament, and the constant media scrutiny, these MPs will have to tread very carefully. The following guidelines, in addition to the usual expectations we have of all politicians, may be useful as these Kingdom representatives make their presence felt in the country's top political arena:

1. Even when not consciously presented as being Christian, the evangelical MP's values, behaviour and statements are advertisements for Christianity and are constantly under scrutiny. Lamentable standards in any of these areas reflects negatively on all Christians.
2. Evangelical MPs, because of the compassionate thrust of the Christian Gospel, will do their best to support policies which help the needy and the economically marginalized people. Such a stance will encompass both governmental and private assistance.
3. Because truly Christian politicians do not leave their ethical convictions at the door, they will always support policies which promote justice.
4. Evangelical MPs need to refrain from behaving badly anywhere -- but especially in the House of Commons, during Question Period. Christian MPs should follow the examples of Robert Thompson and Jake Epp who were highly respected by all colleagues because they were always Christian gentlemen. I have been embarrassed by unchristian behavior by some Christian MPs. Such representatives need to remember that a 'Christian yahoo' is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.
5. Finally, God's expectation of godly people is no different for elected politicians than for other Kingdom citizens. The ethical requirements are constant.

John H. Redekop is adjunct professor of political science at Trinity Western University.