October 27, 2008: Observations from the election that was

By Michael Regenstreif

In the headline and introduction to the column below, Alan Echenberg suggests nothing too much changed in the Sukkot election that Prime Minister Stephen Harper insisted was needed a year in advance of the fixed election date – that his government passed – despite the fact that the Conservative government had yet to lose the confidence of Parliament.

The party standings remain the same as before the election, but the dynamics are somewhat different. Harper’s Conservatives and Jack Layton’s New Democratic Party (NDP) increased their numbers in the House of Commons with the Bloc Québécois down marginally and the Liberals down big-time. After the last election, the Liberals could have combined with either the Bloc or the NDP to bring down the government – which, of course, they never did – but all three opposition parties will now have to combine to accomplish that. None will be in any hurry.

Harper said he called the election because Parliament had become dysfunctional. Hardly. The Liberals bent over backwards, from the time of the last election in 2006, to allow him to get anything he wanted passed in the House. And, if certain committees weren’t functioning properly, it was generally because of Conservative obstructionism that he could have ended with a snap of his fingers.

The reason Harper called the election was he read the polls and thought the time was ripe to lock in a majority before the looming economic downturn hit. The economic downturn hit faster and harder than expected and he blew his majority by alienating Quebec voters over petty cuts that hit hard at the province’s identity politics.

Heading into the election campaign, the Conservatives were poised for big seat gains at the expense of the Bloc. After passing the recognition that the Québécois form a nation – which is not the same as saying that Quebecers form a nation – and seeing support for Quebec separatism fall to historic lows, Harper had pretty much pushed the Bloc into electoral irrelevance. But then he got petty over a few million dollars in arts cuts that may have played well to his unwavering base in Alberta, but which people in Quebec saw as an assault on their culture. Voilà, the Bloc day was saved and the Conservative majority was gone.

Speaking of the Conservative base in Alberta, the NDP broke through there capturing the former Tory stronghold of Edmonton-Strathcona. This is on top of the party’s retaining Outremont, the former Liberal stronghold in Montreal that Thomas Mulcair captured in a by-election last year. That the NDP actually won seats in Alberta and Quebec is remarkable.

In Ottawa, not one seat changed hands with Conservative, Liberal and NDP incumbents winning seemingly easy re-election in neighbouring ridings. I suspect that the local strength of opposition MPs like Paul Dewar in Ottawa Centre and David McGuinty in Ottawa South and government-side members like John Baird in Ottawa West-Nepean and Pierre Poilievre in Nepean-Carleton had as much to do with their victories as the national campaigns of their parties.

Over the past couple of years, there was speculation that Harper’s unwavering support for Israel would lead many Canadian Jews to swing their traditionally Liberal votes to the Tories. That seems to have been the case in Thornhill, a suburban Toronto-area riding that is home to the largest proportion of Jewish voters in Ontario. Liberal Susan Kadis, who is Jewish and who won the riding with big majorities in 2004 and 2006, was overtaken by Conservative Peter Kent, a well-known broadcaster.

That Liberal-to-Conservative swing among Jewish voters didn’t come close to unseating Liberal Irwin Cotler in the Montreal riding of Mount Royal, the Quebec riding with the highest proportion of Jewish voters. Despite a majority that fell 10 percentage points to 55.7 from 65.6 in 2006, Cotler still finished more than 10,000 votes ahead of Conservative Rafael Tzoubari, his Israeli-born challenger.

Alan Echenberg notes that the Liberals are broke and can’t afford another divisive leadership race. But, even if they can’t afford it, they’re going to have one. Despite increasingly diminished returns in the past three elections, the Liberals still consider themselves a party of power and, after their showing on election night, it is obvious that the earnest Stéphane Dion would either step down or be forced out in a leadership review next May.

One thing that made this election historic was that only 59.1 per cent of Canadians voted; the lowest voter turnout in a federal general election since Confederation. More people couldn’t be bothered to vote – or, in effect, said none of the above – than voted for any party. That’s something all of the parties need to think about before the next election.

 

October 13, 2008: Conservatives, Liberals do differ on Iranian threat

By Michael Regenstreif

Three pages of this edition of the Bulletin are devoted to coverage of the Jewish Federation of Ottawa’s Communications and Community Relations Committee’s roundtable discussions with the three major federal political parties on three major issues of concern to the Jewish community.

We were aware that, because of the timing of the election call, the short campaign and the Sukkot election date, most members of the community will have voted before having an opportunity to read this edition of the Bulletin. That’s why we announced last issue that the coverage would be posted at ottawajewishbulletin.com as soon as possible, and before voting opened in the advance polls. I hope you had a chance to read the coverage online before heading to the polls.

What Canada should do vis-à-vis the threat posed to the world, and in particular to Israel, by Iran’s quest for nuclear weapon capability, especially in light of the incitement to genocide by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was one of the major topics of discussion.

I’ll get back to the Ottawa candidates’ responses to the issue in a moment, but how meshugah is Ahmadinejad? The logic of his nuclear quest and the threats implicit in his anti-Israel incitements suggest he’d use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.

Ahmadinejad wants to destroy Israel because he sees himself as the great champion of the Palestinians. The Iranian regime, as we know, sponsors Hamas and Hezbollah. The thing is, though, if, God forbid, there were a nuclear attack on Israel and Ahmadinejad was successful in killing all the Jews in the Holy Land, it would also wipe out the Israeli Arabs, the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, and those in the Hezbollah strongholds of Southern Lebanon.

That Ahmadinejad is some champion. He’ll save the Palestinians from the Israelis by wiping out the Palestinians.

But Ahmadinejad’s grandiose talk of wiping Israel off the map is probably not the most likely danger posed by a nuclear Iran. Ahmadinejad knows that an Iranian nuclear attack against Israel would be met in kind by Western nuclear powers. The more likely danger is that the Iranian regime would supply something like a dirty little nuclear bomb in a suitcase to one or more of its terrorist clients.

That kind of danger is not limited to Israel. A suitcase attack could strike anywhere and dwarf the effects of 9/11.

The candidates from all three parties spoke of the need for sanctions against the Iranian regime.

Paul Dewar, the NDP incumbent in Ottawa Centre, talked about how the sanctions needed to be real, not just “paper tiger” sanctions that target future investment in Iran while ignoring ongoing economic ties with the Iranian regime.

John Baird, the Conservative incumbent in Ottawa West-Nepean and a minister in the Harper government, talked about the need for tough sanctions but said he couldn’t commit the government to a course of action.

David Pratt, the former Liberal cabinet minister running against Baird, talked about the need to prevent a nuclear confrontation in the Middle East.

A particularly interesting moment in the meeting with the Liberal candidates came when they were asked if there were policy differences between the Liberals and Conservatives on the Iran issue. Pratt explained that, while their differences were great on domestic issues, there was less room for any differences on such international issues.

I wondered, at that moment, if Pratt was aware of the work of Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, his former cabinet colleague, on the Iran dossier; that is, his efforts to convince Western governments, including Canada’s, to bring Ahmadinejad to international justice for his incitement to genocide. Cotler introduced a bill in Parliament last year calling for Ahmadinejad to be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court for inciting genocide. The bill was rejected by the Conservatives.

The day before the Federation meeting with the two Liberal candidates in Ottawa, Cotler spoke at the massive anti-Ahmadinejad rally in New York and called for the Iranian president to be brought to justice.

The day after the meeting, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion spoke to a Jewish audience in Winnipeg and attacked the Conservative government for rejecting Cotler’s approach. And, in a campaign debate with a Conservative candidate in Montreal, Cotler attacked the Harper government asking, “Why are there four Canadian trade commissioners in Iran right now promoting trade with Iran?”

Clearly, there are policy differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives on the Iran issue. It would appear that the local Liberal candidates did not research that, or were not well briefed, before coming to a meeting where it was bound to be a major topic of discussion.