In the longest federal election campaign in a quarter of a century, Canadians have heard about ethics and accountability. They have heard about values and vision. They have heard about debt relief and tax relief, health care and child care, trust and trusts. They have heard about corruption in Montreal and murder in Toronto.

This is the rhythm of campaigns. In the 1980s, elections were largely about inflation, interest rates and unemployment. In the 1990s, they were largely about deficits, cutbacks and austerity. Sometimes there is a captivating issue or idea — conscription in 1917, the monarchy in 1926, John Diefenbaker’s Northern Vision in 1958, Pierre Trudeau’s Just Society in 1968 — but usually politicians talk to our pockets.

Surprisingly, though, this campaign has not been about jobs, other than the Liberals boasting how many there are today. It hasn’t been about taxes, other than the Conservatives promising, most forcefully, to lower them. And it hasn’t been about spending, other than the New Democrats declaring that we need more of it.

It may be the hollow of winter, but this is a long, languid season of affluence and fortune in Canada. We are warmed by a rising stock market, a surging currency, exports of oil and gas, full employment and a burgeoning treasury. Indeed, Canadians have never had it so good. This is why, in this election of 2006, the economy has taken a holiday.

Like elections of the recent past, in which tired governments have asked for another mandate (the Liberals in 1957, 1979 and 1984; the Conservatives in 1962 and 1993), this contest is more about competence, honesty and leadership. At its core, it is about the siren song of change — and whether prosperous, contented people are agitated enough about their tainted government to put their faith in the hands of an Opposition led by an untested, unlikable leader.

Beyond the big issues, however, there is always what is not discussed in campaigns. When former Conservative prime minister Kim Campbell declared famously in 1993 that elections are not the time to debate public policy, she was pilloried by her critics, but she wasn’t wrong; in the heat of a campaign, issues of complexity and import are rarely addressed.

For example, foreign policy is almost always ignored on the hustings. Beyond the debate over accepting U.S. nuclear missiles in 1963 or the free trade agreement with the U.S. in 1988, Canadians have not thought what they do abroad important enough to make it an issue.

This is extraordinary in the world’s second-largest country, a member of the G-8 and every other major international body, a long-standing peacekeeper, mediator and donor. It is even more extraordinary in a country that earns 40% of its wealth from trade and spends some $14 billion a year on defence.

Yet there has been no debate over why Canada has soldiers in Afghanistan, an expensive and extended commitment that is turning deadly. There has been no discussion of the government’s renunciation of its long-standing promise to spend 0.7% of GDP on international aid — a goal every government has embraced since 1969. There hasn’t been a word about Darfur, where genocide continues, or Iraq, where we have committed treasure (but not blood), nor the reform of the United Nations, in which we have played a leading role.

Relations with the U.S. have intruded upon the campaign, but the leaders are loath to discuss what is next in our relations with our neighbours — what some call “the big idea” of greater continental integration.

And that is just the beginning of what we aren’t discussing. Some issues seem too sensitive. Medicare is motherhood, so no one really wants to address the growth of private clinics. We spend billions trying to improve the lives of Aboriginal peoples, but no one asks whether encouraging them to stay on reserves is sustainable.

We face new tensions in Confederation over Alberta’s new wealth and Quebec’s old aspirations, but we avoid discussing those, too. We should be examining a realignment of powers between the centre and the provinces, and asking why we don’t have a national securities regulator or real free trade within Canada. The reason is that the provinces oppose both, and no party wants to offend them.

We are failing to meet the requirements of the Kyoto accord, but the main parties outsource the environment to the Green Party. We waste energy unconscionably, but we won’t discuss a national conservation program.

@page_break@A policy on high-speed rail between our big cities has no takers among our leaders. The greying of Canada — or the fact that our population is aging — sparks few thoughts. The absence of national education standards, endangering international competitiveness, brings a shrug. Our flagging productivity is an unproductive conversation.

More issues you won’t hear about? The divide between urban and rural Canada. The decline in civic involvement. The urgency of electoral reform. The erosion of volunteerism. The growing poverty among new Canadians.

This comes as a surprise? It shouldn’t. As Campbell said, elections aren’t the time to discuss serious issues. IE



Andrew Cohen is a professor of journalism and international relations at Carleton University in Ottawa. He can be reached at andrew_cohen@carleton.ca.