After Strong Start in Canada Campaign, New Democrats Appear to Fade
|
Version 0 of 1. MONTREAL — When the campaign for Canada’s federal elections began in August, all indicators seemed aligned for Tom Mulcair and his New Democratic Party. Historically a distant third in Parliament, the New Democrats led in many polls. The party’s profile had risen in May after its Alberta arm ended four decades of Conservative rule in that province, the stronghold of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. But as Monday’s vote approaches, the prospect that Mr. Mulcair, 60, will lead the New Democrats, a left-of-center party founded partly by organized labor 54 years ago, to power for the first time has faded. If the effort fails, there will be no single cause to blame. Justin Trudeau, in his election debut as Liberal leader, has run an unexpectedly strong campaign, and Mr. Harper has made the veils worn by Muslim women a potent issue. And many say Mr. Mulcair seems uncomfortable at times on the trail. Then there is the argument that the party’s initial optimism rested on false hopes. Richard Johnston, a political scientist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, attributed the New Democrats’ rise in the polls not to Mr. Mulcair but to the provincial leader Rachel Notley’s victory in Alberta in May. “There was an artificiality to it, a defiance of gravity,” Professor Johnston said, suggesting that the poll numbers had reflected Ms. Notley’s popularity with voters. Party leaders “overestimated their own strength.” Mr. Mulcair’s plan was to expand on the party’s record showing in the 2011 federal elections. In what became known as the orange wave, after the party’s color, the New Democrats — who had held just one Quebec seat in the House of Commons, Mr. Mulcair’s — captured 59. For the first time, the party held the second-largest number of seats in the House of Commons, the lower chamber of Parliament, making it the official opposition. The sweep partly reflected a loss of interest in other parties, particularly the separatist Bloc Québécois, among Quebecers beyond Montreal. But it was also attributed to the personal appeal of Jack Layton, then the New Democratic leader. In 2011, Mr. Layton charmed Quebec during an appearance on an exceptionally popular weekly French-language talk show. Three months after the vote, he died from an undisclosed illness at the age of 61. Mr. Mulcair has spent much of this election in Mr. Layton’s shadow. As Schwartz’s, a deli that is a Montreal institution, prepared to host a photo opportunity for Mr. Mulcair this month, the conversation was focused more on Mr. Layton. One waiter gestured toward the table where he had served Mr. Layton during the previous election and recalled receiving a $20 tip. “It’s too bad he had to die,” he said. Mr. Mulcair, an English-speaking Quebecer like Mr. Layton, is no stranger in his home province. A lawyer, he spent his early career as a bureaucrat in Quebec’s provincial government and later worked for Alliance Quebec, an English speakers’ advocacy group. He moved into politics with the Quebec Liberal Party. Estranged from the federal Liberal Party, its members covered the political spectrum but were united by their opposition to separatism. John Parisella, a former provincial Liberal organizer and adviser in Quebec, was part of a group that recruited Mr. Mulcair into politics in 1994. He said Mr. Mulcair’s ideological leanings were not obvious. Rather, he said, “he’s a man who revels in content.” In 2006, as the province’s environment minister, Mr. Mulcair refused to endorse a plan by Premier Jean Charest to sell part of a provincial park to a developer. Mr. Mulcair then abruptly quit the cabinet. Once out of politics, Mr. Mulcair shopped around. He almost joined the environmental practice of a large law firm, he said in an interview, “which would have paid me a heck of a lot more than politics.” But then, Mr. Mulcair said, his wife, Catherine Pinhas, asked, “Are you sure you’re finished with politics?” Mr. Mulcair held talks with federal Conservatives, an episode he glosses over given the bad blood between that party and the New Democrats. His wife sealed the deal with the New Democrats after they dined with Mr. Layton and his wife, Olivia Chow. Mr. Mulcair found himself in a party that has sometimes favored debate and policy idealism over political expediency. “It was a massive cultural change,” he said. “It was endless rounds of discussion, whereas the Quebec Liberal Party was a very old, structured party, very top-down. I had several years to learn from the best, from Jack.” However, Mr. Mulcair is unlikely to be mistaken for his jovial mentor, who was known as Happy Jack and, in Quebec, Bon Jack. Earlier this year, Mr. Mulcair was praised for his effectiveness at grilling the government in Parliament over a scandal involving Conservative senators’ expenses. But the confidence he has displayed while going after Mr. Harper often eludes him while campaigning. Between questions at town hall-style events, he often stands dead still and unsmiling, nervously fidgeting the fingers of whichever hand is not holding a microphone. His sometimes prosecutorial style, effective in the House of Commons, can give his speeches a whiff of meanness, adding to his unwanted nickname, Angry Tom. Compounding matters, Mr. Mulcair’s graying beard and bulky torso do not compare favorably with Mr. Trudeau’s athletic good looks. Professor Johnston said Mr. Mulcair’s wooden campaign style had the unfortunate effect of obscuring his intelligence and diligence. (Mr. Mulcair wrote an autobiography, spurning a ghostwriter, mainly on a BlackBerry.) “I never liked Jack Layton; I thought he was a fraud,” Professor Johnston said. “Tom Mulcair is the real deal. He’s just not a very interesting real deal.” Antonia Maioni, a political scientist at McGill University in Montreal, said Mr. Mulcair may also have gone overboard in his effort to erase the stereotype of the New Democrats as a far-left party. In 2013, under Mr. Mulcair, the party voted to remove all references to socialism from its constitution, the party’s guiding principles. “He did not run as bold a campaign as anticipated and seemed hesitant from the first day,” she wrote in an email. “Part of it was, I think, to present the reassuring image of a middle-of-the-road leader, rather than the feisty persona he was often associated with.” Echoing Mr. Harper’s platform, Mr. Mulcair vowed not to run budget deficits. Mr. Trudeau swiftly outflanked him on the left by saying he would run comparatively small deficits to fund infrastructure projects as a way of reversing Canada’s economic sluggishness, a product of the global collapse in oil prices. “I don’t think it’s a left-wing value to say you’re going to run deficits,” Mr. Mulcair said. “In normal times, there’s no reason for the government not to balance the books.” Even critics of Mr. Mulcair, however, give him credit for strongly opposing Mr. Harper’s insistence on banning Muslim women from wearing the face veils known as niqabs during citizenship ceremonies, an executive order that has been overturned twice in court. Polls suggest that most voters in French-speaking Quebec — France also has laws banning face veils — are with the prime minister on that issue, although it remains unclear if the New Democrats are in danger of losing a significant number of seats in the province. Mr. Mulcair is also the only one of the three leaders to reject the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the largest regional trade pact in history: a position, he mentions during campaign stops, that he announced before the American presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton did. As to be expected, Mr. Mulcair was dismissive of polls during an interview. He said his realization that there were “big battles that had to be waged to do the right thing” was what “animates me, gives me that fire in my belly.” “And as I like to joke,” he said, “some of us have more belly than others, so I’ve got more fire.” |