The Globe and Mail - 19.10.2019

SATURDAY,OCTOBER19,2019 | THEGLOBEANDMAIL O OPINION | O 7

The former leader of the Sas-

katchewanPartyisnoWestern

separatist. But “I hear from peo-

ple all the time who are ques-

tioning the relation the West has

with the rest of the federation.”

And if a hung Parliament leav-

es the NDP, and possibly the

Green Party, demanding even

greater restrictions on petroleum

production in exchange for their

support, anger in Alberta and

Saskatchewan could combust.

The third divide is not region-

al, but generational. Young vot-

ers turned out en masse in 2015

in support of Justin Trudeau’s

message of hope and change,

driving turnout to levels not seen

since the early 1990s.

But purchasing a pipeline,

backtracking on promises of

electoral reform, making little

progress on Indigenous issues,

forcing two powerful women,

one of them Indigenous, out of

the caucus over the SNC-Lavalin

affair, has shaken the confidence

of younger votersin thisgovern-

ment. The revelation at the be-

ginning of the campaign that Mr.

Trudeau once liked to dress up in

blackface only made things

worse, says Ms. Asalya, of the

Newcomer Students’ Association

at Ryerson. “I think many of

them are very disappointed.”

Jagmeet Singh’s NDP has prof-

ited from their disaffection. But

Paul Kershaw says he believes

the national political parties still

underinvest in priorities for

younger voters, privileging older

voters more in policy choices.

“That’s because millennials may

have the numbers, but their

turnout rates are still not as high

as that of the aging population,”

says the political scientist at the

University of British Columbia

and founder of Generation

Squeeze, which promotes youth

participation in politics.

A political party that truly em-

braced the concerns of younger

voters, he says, would tax proper-

ty more heavily, reflecting the

good fortune of older voters who

got into the housing market

when homes were more afforda-

ble. A government with intergen-

erational consciousness would

not accumulate debt that young-

er voters must one day pay off in

order to improve services for ol-

der voters, while underinvesting

in child care, parental leave and

other policies that matter to the

generation raising young chil-

dren.

The Liberals, NDP and the

Greens all propose to provide in-

creased income security for an

aging population, including

some form of pharmacare, a so-

cial service disproportionately

used by older voters, to be paid

for from young workers’ taxes.

But the Conservatives are no

better, Prof. Kershaw adds, with

their reluctance to confront glob-

al warming, “which young peo-

ple see as an existential crisis.”

One solution to the problem

of intergenerational inequity

would be moving to proportional

representation, since progressiv-

es outnumber conservatives

among younger voters, but their

vote is split among the Greens,

NDP and Liberals. Mr. Trudeau’s

broken promise to end the first-

past-the-post voting system es-

pecially rankles.

But PR could also lead to the

rise of anti-immigrant MPs. Max-

ime Bernier’s People’s Party ap-

pears to have fizzled, but another

leader and another party might

do better. Some polls now sug-

gest that a majority of Canadians

would like to see fewer immi-

grants coming into Canada.

So what happens after Oct. 21?

Unless voters shift decisively in

the coming days, no party is ex-

pected to win a majority of seats,

leaving both the Liberals and the

Conservatives scrambling to find

the votes needed to survive a

Throne Speech.

That may mean, in exchange

for Bloc support, promising even

greater autonomy for Quebec in

the spheres of immigration, taxa-

tion and culture, along witha

promise to drop any thought of

joining the Bill 21 court chal-

lenge.

It might also mean abandon-

ing the Trans Mountain pipeline

as a condition for NDP or Green

support. If that happens, Mr. Wall

fears for the future of the West

inside Canada.

And the NDP and Greens may

well compel the Liberals to intro-

duce PR legislation as a condi-

tion for their support.

Canada remains a far more

stable, open, tolerant and out-

ward-looking country than

America under Donald Trump or

Europe in an era of rising nati-

vism. Unemployment here is low,

the economy and population are

both growing. Most Western na-

tions would give anything for the

social stability Canadians enjoy.

But regional tensions are on

the rise. And now the genera-

tional divide threatens to es-

trange older Canadians from

younger.

Which party is more likely to

unite Canadians, and which to di-

vide? That’s something to keep

in mind when you vote.

PHOTOILLUSTRATION:BRYANGEE.SOURCEIMAGES:THECANADIANPRESS,REUTERS.

Canadaremains

afarmorestable,

open,tolerantand

outward-looking

countrythanAmerica

underDonaldTrumpor

Europeinaneraof

risingnativism....

Butregionaltensionsare

ontherise.Andnow

thegenerationaldivide

threatenstoestrange

olderCanadiansfrom

younger.

institutions. We established the

role of the auditor-general in

1880, and in 1920, we became the

first country to have a chief elec-

toral officer. We have established

faith in our Supreme Court, in the

freedom of our press to denounce

problems that they see, and in en-

suring a functioning Parliament

that has a loyal official opposi-

tion. And we have strengthened

democracy by making it easier for

its lifeblood – voter turnout – to

flow, having safely liberated the

vote through mail-in votes and

advance polls. These have mea-

surably improved turnout.

But it’s still up to individual

Canadians to understand what

you get by voting: a buy-in to the

results, a re-commitment to par-

ticipating in a broader society, a

progressive regime of rights and

freedoms, and at its core, the right

to self-actualize under optimal

conditions. In places such as Rus-

sia or China, where authority has

wide-ranging repressive powers

and is not accountable, people

are ultimately prevented from

freely achieving their full poten-

tial. These things are so much

more vital than a scrap of paper

might otherwise seem, and indi-

viduals must communicate them

just as much as they must use

them.

Through these core pillars, and

a free, fair and well-run process,

we’re able to achieve something

elemental: that our electoral

process and our democracy is le-

gitimate, and so is thegovern-

ment that results. It allows us to

consent and buy into whatever

happens, ensuring the fabric of

our country persists.

But things can easily tear away.

One way is through declining vot-

er turnout. After all, if you don’t

vote, you don’t fundamentally

understand that you’re part of a

society. You become a bit of a

leech: You get all the attractive

benefits of a democracy, but do

none of the work required to

maintain the institutions that

support them. Right now, we sim-

ply have too many people not vot-

ing. (In the 2015 federal election,

voter turnout was 68.3 per cent.)

We also slip if we see our repre-

sentation become limited. I was a

lowly Treasury Board secretariat

during Lester B. Pearson’s time as

prime minister, and he would

struggle with ministers suddenly

announcing bills without his of-

fice’s foreknowledge. So when

Pierre Elliott Trudeau succeeded

him as PM, he took aim at the dis-

cord, ensuring everything ran

through his office so he knew

what was going on. This was born

from noble intentions. But those

who gain power are not eager to

voluntarily give it up, nor do they

tend to resist the temptation to

acquire more. It was one small

step from knowing what’s going

on to controlling what’s going on,

and ever since, federal MPs and

their provincial counterparts

have been defanged across party

lines, told to toe the leaders’ line

or risk not having their nomina-

tion papers signed in the next

election, or not being picked for a

salary-bumping promotion.

These local representatives wind

up parroting talking points in-

stead of considering the best in-

terests of the Canadians who vot-

ed for them. Our MPs must be em-

powered again.

Technology and social media

have also made it easier for for-

eign countries to interfere with

our elections – an issue since time

immemorial. But if social-media

companies insist on disrupting or

circumventing laws that are on

the books, we cannot allow them

to run roughshod. These compa-

nies must be subject to the law, no

matter the pain. Corporations ex-

ist to serve our purposes, not the

other way around; we invented

them and they cannot invent us.

Unaddressed, these three is-

sues threaten our democracy and

make it easier to forget how

quickly it can fall apart. They can

make us forget that, fundamen-

tally, democracy must be based in

the reasonableness of people.

I remember that, when Elec-

tions Canada would return to a

country to assist with an election,

even staffers in Foreign Affairs

would wonder why that was nec-

essary. Didn’t we already provide

democracy?

The answer lies in what the

woman I met in Hungary knew in

her bones: Democracy requires a

few generations to take root, so

that the supporting pillars can be-

come sturdy and turn a golden

idea into a standing temple. Trag-

ically, Hungary didn’t get the time

it needed. Viktor Orban – a promi-

nent pro-democracy advocate

from that 1989 revolution – has

been Prime Minister for nearlya

decade, and has turned the coun-

try toward authoritarianism us-

ing propagandist state-run out-

lets, legislation that undermines

opposition parties, and attacks

on the rule of law. In 2018, the Or-

ban government overturned

Hungary’s Supreme Court so it

could get the judgments it want-

ed. The tanks may not be rolling

in, but brick-by-brick, the institu-

tions supporting Hungary’s once-

optimistic democracy have crum-

bled.

Even well-mortared brick can

succumb to attacks, especially

when we remember that a full

right to vote is less than a century

old here. So when you vote on

Oct. 21, remind yourself – and oth-

ers – that every trip to the ballot

box is a necessary repair to the

walls we have in place, and a pow-

erful testament to what we’re de-

fending.

INCANADA,WERISKITALLWHENWEFORGETTHAT

stitutions.Butinthefaceofforeignthreatsanddigitaldisruption,weneedtounderstandthatwecanstillloseitall