The longest election campaign in modern Canadian history is almost over. Seventy-eight days. It began with the three major parties only a few percentage points apart. It will end, polls say, at least between the Conservatives and the Liberals, just as close.
The campaign's course was set in its first debate on Aug. 6. Stephen Harper was solid; Tom Mulcair reassuring; Justin Trudeau dogged; Elizabeth May feisty. Each was as each wanted to be. Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau had the most to prove, and for them it wasn't first of all about scoring debating points. It was to have Canadians at debate's end say, "Yes, I could see him as my prime minister." To many who watched, each met this hardest test, and in doing so, took away Mr. Harper's easiest path to victory.
That the campaign would continue this way was confirmed three weeks later when, on Aug. 27, Mr. Trudeau announced that a Liberal government would run a deficit in its first three years in power – and the sky didn't fall. What to the media earlier was a position that seemed political suicide, in its proclaimed reality seemed not so unthinkable. And in taking that position, Mr. Trudeau gave himself fiscal freedom to propose, and Mr. Harper and Mr. Mulcair ammunition to attack.
Each leader made gaffes, or said things the others tried to make into gaffes. Each made daily announcements of more and more exciting things in their platform. Yet even for those paying attention, it became hard to tell who promised what, and impossible to know whether what each promised was better or worse than the others.
The many debates that followed gave Canadians a chance to see the three main contenders in the same room at the same time, mano a mano a mano. Yet political leaders have become so adept at slipping trouble, so able to fill time even when their mind goes blank, that debates have become occasions where thousands of words are spoken all to convey an impression, not to reveal differences on issues. In a debate, there's no time for issues or vision. Details sound little more than he said/she said. For a party leader, start into a vision and see how far you get before ding, the moderator interrupts if your opponents haven't interrupted you first, as you would interrupt them. Yet if few voters watch debates, they matter, as word, spread by media and public chatter, generates an accepted belief as to how each did. The first debate of this campaign established; the others confirmed. This election was going to be close.
The election was supposed to be about the middle class. About inequality. About possibility, about hope, about all Canadians having a chance at a good, fulfilling future. That's how it started, and about which party – with what package of programs and policies, and with what level of purpose and ambition – is best able to deliver it. So early in the campaign the parties proclaimed the middle class as their priority, made their announcements, and now all these days later it is absolutely unclear if the policies and purposes committed to come anywhere near the conviction expressed, let alone what is necessary to meet the middle class's and the country's needs.
Once this election became a horse race, it ceased to be about anything else. It was about tactics and strategy. Its story was its closeness.
Until the niqab. Even more so, until it became about Quebec, which might seem the same thing, but isn't. Most Quebeckers haven't believed strongly in any federal party for decades. In the 1990s, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois split the province's seats because Quebeckers were split on whether more could be gained by having an elected member advocating for Quebec from inside the government, or opposing from the outside – not out of any great belief in either party. This was tactics, not dedication. Then the Liberals floundered, culminating with the Gomery Commission inquiry, the Conservatives won some seats, became the government, thought they were on their way, then floundered too. Then in the 2011 election, the Liberals and Bloc thought they would pick up the Conservatives' pieces, and Quebeckers decided instead it was ABAOY, "Anybody But All Of You," and voted NDP. Then the NDP mistook number of seats won for belief in party as the others had done, discovering its harsh truth only a few weeks ago when many Quebeckers, opposing the party's position on the niqab, abandoned it. The three-party deadlock now appears broken; yet what this will mean on election day, and after, is very unclear.
Throughout the campaign, Mr. Harper has shown himself confident and comfortable with his record, his reasons and himself, and after 10 years in power appears not too tired from the fight for the fight ahead.
Mr. Mulcair has been mostly calm and composed, and except when he tried too hard not to be "angry Tom" and, with his almost-grin, became "unctuous Tom," has been in command of himself and what he wants to say.
Mr. Trudeau has been irrepressible. In debates, he has been like a dog biting the pant legs of his opponents, unwilling to let anything go. Yet the coherence of his message has been in his energy, his eagerness, his manner. His father, cool, cerebral, above the fray; the son, willing to get his nose busted up.
On Tuesday, we will have a Conservative or an NDP or a Liberal government. Stephen Harper or Tom Mulcair or Justin Trudeau will be our prime minister. When we vote on Monday, it will be less a referendum on the visions of the leaders and their parties, and more a referendum on the state of mind of the Canadian people. As Canadians, on Oct. 19, 2015, and for the future, as our prime minister are we looking for the known, the fighter or the optimist?