Jean Chrétien has held his own, but this cannot be the campaign he was hoping for when he stood against a backdrop of turning maples on the grounds of Rideau Hall last month to announce his bid for a third mandate from the people. “I enter this campaign taking nothing for granted,” he said gravely that sunny day. “I enter it with great humility, but also with convictions and confidence.” Four weeks later, the leaves have all fallen, the light is no longer so golden, and the Prime Minister has absorbed more than a campaigns worth of hard blows. He has been accused of caring more about pedophiles than children. He has been charged with abusing his office to funnel a government business loan into his riding. His hold on the loyalty of his own party—among MPs he has given two majorities and is in good shape to deliver another one on Nov. 27—has been increasingly called into question.
Do not expect Stockwell Day, though, to spare a moment of sympathy for his adversary. Day waded into his first national election aiming to capitalize on the energy, youth and wit that had vaulted him over Preston Manning early last summer to grab the Canadian Alliance leadership. Instead, he has been forced onto the defensive over many of the same issues that undermined Manning as leader of the Alliance's predecessor, the Reform party. Day has had to fend off allegations that he has a hidden agenda to scrap universal health care. He has struggled to explain a policy that would force a national referendum on abortion—or any other issue—if an undetermined number of Canadians signed a petition. And, finally, he has had to explain that as a conservative Christian he believes there is at least as much evidence for creationism as there is for Darwin's theory of evolution.
Pity the undecided voter trying to peer through the thick haze of acrimony to get a clear view of the combatants. Chris Baker, vice-president of Environics Research Group, says the difficulty in sorting out the substance of the contest from its angry rhetoric may explain why there has been so little movement in popular opinion since the campaign began. Last week, an Environics poll put Liberal support at 46 per cent, almost unchanged from the week before the campaign began. Similarly, the Alliance stood at 23 per cent, a scant two points below where the party stood when the whole thing started. “Of the Liberals there’s a perception of arrogance, and of the Alliance a perception of ignorance,” said Bill Neville, head of University of Manitoba’s political studies department. “Given those perceptions, it has been difficult for either side to make the case for itself.”
There are, of course, more than two sides. In Quebec, where the election has its own distinct dynamic, the Bloc Québécois has pulled even with the Liberals at 43 per cent in the latest Environics poll, climbing five points in the province since
early November, as the Liberals slipped by the same amount. But the
national Conservative and NDP campaigns seem bogged down. Despite a
bravura debate performance by Joe Clark, the Tories are mired at 10 per
cent, while the New Democrats, at nine per cent, have failed to gain
ground on Alexa McDonough's message that only the NDP can safeguard
universal health care. Last week, Clark dropped all pretense of aiming
to win, appealing instead for voters to choose him over Day to lead the
opposition. “If Mr. Chrétien's party gets elected again, and they might,”
he pleaded, “who do you think would be better to hold them to account
on the floor of the House of Commons?”
Still, the defining choice for many Canadians is between Chrétien and Day. And, perhaps surprisingly, behind the thick smoke of the negative campaign war, both have managed to cobble together substantive platforms. After starting off with a thin policy blueprint, blandly titled A Time for Change, the Alliance fleshed out its tax and spending prescriptions last week by releasing a full review of their costs by outside economists. As for the Liberals, their Red Book III platform pamphlet, while much less hefty than the versions released for the 1993 and 1997 elections, has to be considered in tandem with the much more detailed mini-budget released just before the election call by Finance Minister Paul Martin.
The two sides argue over bottom lines. But taking their claims at face value, here’s what is being put in front of voters. The Liberals would ramp up federal spending from $119.7 billion next year to $129.6 billion in the third year of a new mandate. The Alliance would move from a slightly more modest $115.7 billion in spending next year to $123.2 billion three years after forming its first administration. On taxes, over the same period, the Liberals would allow the government’s total revenues to rise from $175.2 billion to $187.2, while the Alliance would let the tax haul grow only from $174 billion to $176 billion. Taken together, the tax and spending proposals suggest broad directions. The Liberals propose to let spending and taxes creep up, but only in line with overall economic expansion. The Alliance proposes to restrict both in order to see the size of government decline as a share of a growing economy.
No surprises there—the Alliance wants leaner government, the Liberals like it at about its current heft. These preferences have policy implications more pointed than overall spending and taxation levels. Take the two parties’ approaches to economic development. Chrétien spent much of the campaign touring factories supported by federal grants and loans, touring Liberal faith in government as “a force for good.” Day vowed that an Alliance government would get out of the free market's way, cutting out all “corporate welfare.” That would mean the end of regional development agencies, especially the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, which now spends up to $350 million a year. The Alliance’s alternative, according to its official briefing book for candidates: “Tax cuts for everyone, not subsidies to the friends of politicians.”
There is not much doubt about whose friends the Alliance has in mind.
Day is running not so much on his ideological preference for less
government as on his specific distaste for the way Chrétien governs.
“Anytime somebody accumulates that much power,” Day said of Chrétien in
one of his most explosive campaign speeches, “we know that it tends to
have a corrupting influence on that individual.” The Alliance has made
much of the millions in federal loans and grants that have flowed into
Chrétien’s Quebec riding of Saint-Maurice. Chrétien admitted last week
that he successfully lobbied the head of the federal Business
Development Bank of Canada to lend money to the owner of Auberge Grand-Mère, a Shawinigan hotel of
which Chrétien was once part-owner. Day responded by accusing the Prime
Minister of “an abuse of power,” and went so far as to call on the RCMP
to investigate what, “according to the Criminal Code, would be an item
of corruption” (Clark also said the Mounties should look into the
matter). But the Alliance leader is apparently offended by more than
Chrétien's dealings with small-time businessmen in his home town. Day
slyly referred in one speech to the “power corporation” within Chrétien's
office—a clear allusion to the Prime Minister's close links to Power
Corp. The Montreal conglomerate is headed by André Desmarais, Chrétien's
son-in-law, and its executive vice-president is John Rae, Chrétien's top
Day’s decision to take a shot at the Power Corp. connection reflects the
wide gap between the Liberal and Alliance political cultures. Chrétien,
for all his folksiness, has for decades moved in Canadian Establishment
circles, from which he draws his loyal coterie of advisers. Day,
despite a stint as Alberta’s treasurer—a position of no small
clout—remains a distrustful, at times disdainful, outsider. So are his
closest confidants. In fact, Day grew up largely in Montreal and Ottawa,
and attended Ashbury College, the tony private school in Ottawa’s leafy
Rockcliffe Park neighborhood. But he got his taste for politics as a
champion of private Christian schools in Bentley, Alta., in the early
1980s, before winning a provincial seat in 1986, and then emerging as a
star in Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s Tory government.
Proud as Day is of those Alberta roots—both in the evangelical Christian
community and the Klein cabinet—they have repeatedly put him on the
defensive. First, the Liberals took aim at the Alberta government’s
controversial Bill 11, which permitted a greater role for private
health-care companies in the province. “In Alberta,” claimed a
hard-hitting Liberal TV ad, “Stockwell Day helped impose a law that
opens the door to U.S.-style private health care.” Day exploded,
demanding the ad be withdrawn. The Liberals kept it on the air. (The
party did tinker with it to correct the suggestion that the ad’s main
message was in fact quoted from an article in The Globe and Mail; in
reality, the text was written by the Liberal advertising team.) Perhaps
even more problematic for Day was a CBC TV documentary, aired last week
on The National, that explored his Christian conservatism, including his
belief in creationism. Day argued that he should not have to explain
tenets of his faith, but he did issue a statement confirming that he
holds “there is scientific support for both creationism and evolution.”
Day has spent too many of his campaign news conferences back on his
heels, defending his policies and personal inclinations. But when he
gets in front of a crowd—and he has been drawing big ones across
Canada—he delivers speeches from the balls of his feet, making the best
of his agile wit and flair for scorching oratory. Chrétien, by contrast,
has not been mounting a vintage run on the hustings. On his better
days, he can sometimes deliver the goods, drawing energy from partisan
crowds. But too often, he seems unsure of what points to hit hardest. Is
this a campaign about the Liberal record? Is it about the future? Is
it about keeping Day at bay? Too many Canadians, including many
Liberals, suspect it is really about Chrétien scoring a third
consecutive majority. “Chrétien is gambling that he can fool enough
people to sneak in his personal, petty little thing,” Day told Maclean's.
“Which is a three-peat.”
Chrétien's top strategists insist this campaign could have been about much more—if only the haranguing would stop. But the charge that Day's team is solely to blame for the low tone was a hard sell last week. In a furious outburst at a Toronto Liberal rally, Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan slammed the Alliance as a haven for “Holocaust deniers, prominent bigots and racists.” Caplan cited Doug Christie, a Victoria lawyer who has represented those who deny the Nazis killed six million Jews during the Second World War, as an Alliance supporter. In fact, Christie was barred from joining the Alliance. “This is a new low in the level of attack ads, personal attacks and scare tactics,” Day fumed. “Jean Chrétien, call off your dogs.” But the Prime Minister seemed to back Caplan rather than muzzle her. “When you are a party with a clear right-wing agenda,” he said, “you end up with the support of that type.”
If Chrétien was not in a mood to tone things down, it might be because he carries fresh wounds of his own. Day has taken a hard line late in the campaign trying to paint the Liberals as soft on criminals—sex offenders in particular. He has assailed Chrétien for failing to invoke the so-called notwithstanding clause to overturn a B.C. court decision that found that the federal law banning the possession of child pornography violated the right of free expression. (The federal government appealed the decision and is now waiting for a Supreme Court of Canada ruling.) “I’m glad to see tonight you’re putting the rights of pedophiles over the rights of children,” Day said in a vitriolic exchange with Chrétien on the issue during the English-language leaders’ debate. And Day tried to capitalize on the arrest last week of Peter Whitmore, a convicted child molester who was caught with a 13-year-old boy in a Toronto hotel room after his release last month from jail. It was, he claimed, fresh evidence of a lax Liberal approach to criminal justice.
With the campaign ricocheting from accusations of antisemitism one day to charges of corruption the next, it’s no wonder the public isn’t warming up to either of the two main leaders. The polling firm Compas reports that outside the Alliance hotbeds of British Columbia and Alberta, voters rate Day as less truthful now than they did when the election was called. Chrétien's honesty rating has also slipped during the campaign. Both leaders were also rated in the survey as more arrogant than they were at the campaigns outset.
Such findings may be more worrisome for Day than for Chrétien. Conventional wisdom in Canadian politics is that incumbent leaders who start high in the polls must expect to slide during campaigns. Their challengers, though, are supposed to grow in stature as more voters get to know them. But Day appears to have succeeded only in solidifying his base—not broadening his appeal. “The quarter of the electorate that supports the Alliance is now rock solid—diamond solid,” says Compas president Conrad Winn. “But everyone else is more suspicious.”
Wary as many voters may be of Day, there’s no sign that they are feeling renewed enthusiasm for Chrétien. The sheer immobility of the polling numbers amazes Environics’ pollster Baker: “This is one of the weirdest elections I’ve ever seen.” Chrétien, though, has seen just about everything before: this is his 12th run for federal office. He knows that if this campaign holds steady, he will get his majority on Nov. 27— perhaps paving the way for a graceful resignation from office midway through a new mandate, as he hinted last week. Day can read the polls, too. For him, a holding pattern this week means being relegated to clinging to the western strongholds he was elected to push the Alliance beyond. It means no breakthrough— or not much of one—in Ontario. That sets the stage for a final week of Campaign 2000 that may have its surprises, but is likely to follow a predictable pattern. Day must run hard and loud. Chrétien will stay careful and quiet. Many voters may look on and wonder what it has all been about.—to have your say on the election www.macleans.ca
TRACKING THE PARTIES
Findings are based on a tracking survey using a minimum of 250 interviews each day polling was conducted (latest results, Nov. 8-14, collected from a total of 1,835 nightly tracking interviews).
- To find out what riding you’re in, go to the Elections Canada Web site at www.elections.ca and type in your postal code.
- If you are not on the voters list and have not received a voter information card in the mail, get in touch with the returning officer for your riding. Contact numbers are posted on the Elections Canada Web site, or call 1-800-463-6868.
- If you are going to be away on voting day, you can cast your ballot at an advance poll (dates and places will be indicated on your voter information card). If you cannot vote at an advance poll, contact your local returning officer to register for voting by special ballot. You must do so by 6 p.m. on Nov. 21.
Answers to other questions are available at the Elections Canada Web site.
A VARIED LAND
Diversity is a Canadian hallmark-one also reflected in the country's 301 federal constituencies. Some riding facts:
Most voters: Calgary Centre-83,749
Least voters: Nunavut-17,397
Largest by area: Nunavut-3,117,463 square kilometers
Smallest: Laurier-Sainte-Marie (Quebec)-nine square kilometers
Most ethnically homogeneous: Bonavista-Trinity-Conception
Least ethnically homogeneous: Edmonton Center-East
Most residents with a university degree: St. Paul’s (Ontario)
Fewest residents with a university degree: Berthier-Montcalm (Quebec)
Highest unemployment: Bonavista-Trinity-Conception
Lowest unemployment: Lisgar-Marquette (Manitoba)
Highest percentage of immigrants: Davenport (Ontario)
Lowest percentage of immigrants: Matapedia-Matane (Quebec)
Largest number of votes ever won in a single riding: 63,049, by Liberal Maurice J. Moreau in York-Scarborough (Ontario) in the 1963 election
Number of federal ridings in Canada’s first general election, 1867:181 (John A. Macdonald’s Liberal-Conservative party won a majority of 100 seats)
THE HEALTH DEBATE
In the great debate over two-tier health care, one fact all too often overlooked is that private clinics already exist in a number of Canadian provinces. Some, such as Ontario’s 55-year-old Shouldice Hospital Ltd. for hernias, operate within the confines of the Canada Health Act. Others, though, are the object of controversy—and became even more so last week when Prime Minister Jean Chrétien threatened to cut transfer payments to Alberta, Quebec and any other province that allows private, for-profit clinics to charge for necessary services such as magnetic resonance imaging scans to diagnose injury and disease.
Chrétien's threat brought howls of protest—Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe derided the Prime Minister for posturing as a savior of medicare, while his government’s budget cuts helped spawn private clinics. Quebec, for example, has seven private MRI clinics, with at least two more in the works (Alberta has five, while private MRI clinics also exist in British Columbia and Ontario). In Quebec hospitals, patients can wait up to 18 months for an MRI, but in a private clinic, it only takes a few days to get an appointment and results—for a cost of about $600. In the end, Chrétien acknowledged that the federal government bore some responsibility for the health-care crisis, but remained firm in his threat to crack down on provinces that he says contravene the Canada Health Act.
A CLASH OF CULTURES
The battle between the Liberals and the Canadian Alliance is as much a clash of political cultures as it is of ideologies. While Jean Chrétien and Stockwell Day both lay claim to off-the-beaten-track political roots—the Prime Minister in the pulp and paper towns of Quebec's St-Maurice River Valley and the Alliance leader in the cattle and oil country around Red Deer, Alta.— that’s where the similarities end. Consider their educational backgrounds. Day enrolled briefly at the University of Victoria, but dropped out. Chrétien graduated from Laval University’s law school, a traditional training ground for Quebec’s political class.
The contrast extends to their advisers. Chrétien's have impeccable establishment credentials. His senior campaign strategist is John Rae, son of a diplomat, graduate of prestigious Queen’s University and now executive vice-president of Montreal’s Power Corporation of Canada. Senior policy adviser Eddie Goldenberg is the son of a prominent Montreal labor lawyer, a graduate of McGill University and a founding partner of Ottawa office of influential law firm Lang Michener.
Day’s top campaign strategist is Rod Love, who dropped out of political science studies at the University of Calgary in 1980 to help Ralph Klein, the future Alberta premier, launch his political career by running for mayor of Calgary. And Day’s most influential policy adviser is Calgary MP Jason Kenney, who grew up mainly in tiny Wilcox, Sask., where his father ran a Catholic boys school, and went on to study humanities in the United States at the University of San Francisco—a neoconservative hotbed that is a far cry from the usual finishing schools for Canada’s political power brokers.
AT THE TOP
How are the leaders of the five main parties expected to fare in their own ridings? Maclean’s offers a prognosis:
Jean Chrétien - Saint-Maurice, Que.
Expected to win, and generous helpings of Liberal government cash haven’t hurt. But the Bloc Québécois’s François Marchand has put up a spirited fight-while provincially the BQ has been running neck and neck with the Liberals.
Stockwell Day - Okanagan-Coquihalla, B.C.
No contest. No Liberal or Tory candidate opposed him in his Sept. 11 by-election and Day will probably walk away with this one. They loved the wet suit.
Joe Clark - Calgary Centre, Alta.
High Noon in Stampede City, trailed both the Alliance and Liberal candidates for much of the campaign. But a strong performance in the leaders’ debate may have given the Tory leader some much-needed momentum.
Alexa McDonough - Halifax, N.S.
A tough slog, but the NDP leader is expected to keep her seat. Other New Democrats may not be as lucky.
Gilles Duceppe - Laurier-Ste-Marie, Que.
The BQ leader is generally acknowledged to have run a stronger provincial campaign than three years ago. Besides, he won by more than 15,000 votes over the Liberal runner-up in 1997. Need we say more?
TAKING A STAND
What the parties have said about major issues:
HEALTH: Would increase provincial transfers by $21.1 billion over five years.
TAXES: Would cut $100 billion over five years.
LAW AND ORDER: Would add specific offenses against children, such as criminal child neglect, to the Criminal Code.
SOCIAL PROGRAMS: Would raise the maximum Canada child tax benefit from $2,056 to more than $2,500 by July 2004.
HEALTH: Promises an extra $400 million in its first year-and would negotiate five-year funding pacts with the provinces
TAXES: Platform calls for $125 billion to be slashed over five years.
LAW AND ORDER: Calls for lifetime supervision of repeat violent or sexual offenders.
SOCIAL PROGRAMS: Intends to provide a $3,000-per-year deduction for each child.
HEALTH: Would add an extra $510 million in their first year-and guarantee stable funding after that.
TAXES: Would cut $56 billion over five years.
LAW AND ORDER: Would eliminate conditional sentencing for crimes involving sex or violence.
HEALTH: Intends to add an extra $18.4 billion over the next five years-funding that would also cover home care and pharmacare.
TAXES: Would ensure that anyone with income of less than $15,000 pays no federal tax.
LAW AND ORDER: Would invest in facilities and programs for high-risk youth.
HEALTH: Would index transfer payments to inflation rate-and allow provinces to use the extra cash for their needs.
TAXES: Plans to cut taxes by $73.4 billion over five years for families earning less than $80,000 per year.
LAW AND ORDER: Wants to make it an offense to belong to a criminal organization such as a motorcycle gang.
Would provide more generous access to Employment Insurance for youth, seasonal workers and women.