Which version of election history will prevail?
On Nov. 8, 1965, Canadians voted in a federal election for the fifth time in eight years. They re-elected Lester Pearson and the Liberals with a plurality and only three more seats than they had won in 1963.
Fundamentally, the country left things as they were. “The major issue of the campaign seemed to be whether or not Canada needed a majority government,” wrote political scientist Richard Van Loon in 1970. “It was an issue which apparently failed to quicken the pulse of Canadians.”
On July 8, 1974, Canadians voted in a federal election for the third time in six years. Like 1965, the Liberals were seeking a majority two years after having been reduced to a minority government.
This time the Liberals, led by Pierre Trudeau, won a majority. They did what Pearson could not do in 1965: convince Canadians to restore the mandate they'd won in 1968 and lost in 1972, when they were nearly defeated.
Faced with a choice in 1965 and 1974, the country decided both times to rehire the government, with different levels of enthusiasm and different consequences.
With another minority in 1965, Pearson continued successfully to lay the architecture of the social welfare state. With a majority in 1974, Trudeau struggled with wage and price controls and René Lévesque's separatist government, elected in 1976.
So, when Canadians vote on Sept. 20 for the third time in almost six years, what will they do? Restore the majority that Justin Trudeau won in 2015? Renew the minority they gave him in 2019? Or elect another party?
As always, the past clarifies the present. It may tell us something about the future, too.
Like Pearson in 1965, Justin Trudeau has called an election solely because he thinks he can win a majority. Pearson was persuaded of the same. There was no public demand for an election and no ostensible need for one then or now; it was — and is — a power play, pure and simple.
While Parliament was toxic, poisoned by the antipathy between Pearson and John Diefenbaker, the Liberals had had a highly productive two years between 1963 and 1965. They lowered taxes, raised family allowances and student loans, introduced universal health care, created a new flag.
They governed with 128 seats — four short of a majority in a House of Commons of 265 seats — aided by the New Democrats, with 17 seats.
The Liberals had no real trouble passing their program. They were tightly aligned with the NDP, whose leader, Tommy Douglas, had pioneered medicare and old-age pensions, now embraced by the Liberals. The parties even mused about a merger.
The same realpolitik is at play today. For the last two years, the NDP has reliably supported the Liberals, providing the votes to secure COVID relief and other social commitments. The Liberals did not need the Greens or the Bloc Québécois to legislate.
And they could have continued this way for another two years.
The same was true in 1974. The Liberals had 109 seats, only two more than the Conservatives, but the New Democrats had 31 seats.
With their help, Trudeau tacked left, creating Petro-canada and the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
They could have kept governing, too. Yet they were rewarded for calling an election.
In the 2021 election, Canadians will have voted for the third time in six years. It isn't that unusual. An early call violates the spirit of fixed election dates, but that's the parliamentary system.
The argument for an election has some merit. If the government is going to embrace unprecedented spending, Canadians should approve. If it is going to champion vaccine and mask mandates, Canadians should approve, especially in a pandemic extending years, not months.
If the Liberals can make these the ballot questions, the election will look like 1974 (though expect the party's popularity to drop before it rises). If they cannot make these questions urgent, it will be 1965 for them — or worse.