Recent polls predict if an election were held tomorrow, the Conservatives would have a good chance of securing Ottawa with a strong majority. Canadians may still head to the polls before the new year, but since December elections are rare (the last was held in 1921) and the Governor General must dissolve Parliament at least one month before election day, such an election would likely have to be called by Halloween. A January vote is also technically possible, but unlikely with the Olympics starting Feb. 12. Any time after that is open season.
In short, the opposition parties have a chance to change their fortunes. This change is by no means inevitable—in fact, it’s unlikely—but it is possible.
There are a number of strategies open to the opposition. They could position themselves as prudent fiscal managers and defend their economic record while bemoaning the rate with which the government has contributed to the national debt. This would be a refrain in Canadian politics, and while this strategy may be the one that comes most naturally to a political elite accustomed to mudslinging rather than reasoned debate, it is by no means the only option.
Indeed, the opposition would be well advised to end the recapitulations of what this or that government did or did not do. This country does not need more of the same old blame game. It is toxic and stifles creativity. It closes the doors that it should open and only lets in the people who are willing to sink to that level. Public debate should cultivate our collective instincts, not lower them.
The opposition can talk all they want about their record, leadership, and Canada’s place in the world. They can talk about the values that should animate and stimulate this country’s common projects: equality, fairness, justice, sustainability. They can argue about who has more respect for what traditions or who was more corrupt than whom. And so they should. Corruption should be tirelessly fought against and traditions respected and valued. But no one can build a country on those values alone.
Neither Michael Ignatieff nor Jack Layton are used to this kind of politics, which is both more constructive and forward-thinking than the kind that we seem to have settled for. Canadians certainly are not. But it’s what we should come to expect from our leaders. They can make such a commitment only if we give them the tools they need to do so.
Our leaders can do their best only if they are supported by autonomous and independent parliamentarians who sit in committees empowered to oversee what they do. Our parliamentarians can only do so if they in turn are freed from the shackles of strict party discipline. Parliament is meant to represent our diversity of origin and opinion. It is meant to be a place where Canadians can talk to each other, whether they were born in Glace Bay, Iqualuit, Vancouver, or Hong Kong. But parliament is also meant to be a place where we as Canadians come together to get things done, and become united.
