The Canadian federal election of October 14, 2008 was not slated to take place until 2009 according to legislation. Although blasted by many as an illegal call, clearly it was a convenient change for the Prime Minister. What was unclear to many outsiders was to what extent inside members of the Conservative party participated in the decision to change. It was hardly surprising that Canadian voters were irritated by the shift, particularly when Mr. Harper let it be known that he expected to achieve only a minority government - his second consecutive one. A multimillion dollar campaign fund allowed for the preparation, many months before the election, of a vast supply of hostile media advertisements attacking the opposition parties. Especially repugnant and unforgivable, as the campaign got underway, were personal attacks on the leader of the Liberal party. This seemed to turn the voters' irritation to disgust for a time until many of the electorate seemed to join in the game of bullying the underdogs. It was not surprising that Stéphane Dion was forced to announce after the election that he was stepping down; a rumour mill suggested that Stephen Harper's imperfections might land him in the same boat.

What turned out to be the lowest voter turnout ever cannot all be attributed to the fact that hundreds of thousands of bloggers were said to be exchanging, around the clock, perhaps millions of messages - information from the too numerous daily polls, chatter, nonsense - about the main candi-dates and their campaigns. As a result, might they have been too wrapped up in their blogging to take time out to vote? Perhaps some of them, but another far more plausible explanation is that the low turnout was due to voter apathy and disinterest fuelled by negative media coverage and, especially, distracting news from the outside.

The U.S. presidential election had extensive media reportage in Canada, at least equal to that of the Canadian election. Several televised debates between the candidates for president and vice-president seemed to generate greater interest and excitement among the Canadian public, in sharp contrast to having the five Canadian party leaders struggling, often at the same time, to make their points in a single programmed debate. It seemed that Canada's shift to a presidential style system did not work readily when debating in a multi-party campaign. In the Canadian debate, the party leaders' discussions of their political platforms were raucous, hard to control, and time allotments were too short. Very noticeable in the case of Mr. Dion's carbon tax proposal was its great complexity for the electorate, which led to his dropping it. It seemed to derive from strategic cunning that the expected winner of the election, Mr. Harper, produced his party's platform only a week before the vote.

The scary international economic/credit crisis, which developed weeks before the election, with its worldwide and long-term repercussions, also helped to turn the attention of Canadian voters from the election. This accentuated the voters' already strong opposition to tax increases, without which the delivery of more and better essential human services could not be assured. Even so, the leader of the NDP, Jack Layton, enumerated specific proposals to ensure the health and welfare of low and middle-income individuals and families. Doing so gained support and added seats to his caucus. The other incumbents had little or nothing to contribute in this regard with the exception of Elizabeth May of the Green Party.

What should we now expect of our second-in-a-row minority Conservative government? We do not need slow incrementalism that is devoted to tax cuts and leaves us with the status quo, but legisla-tion that pushes vigorously for a rebuilt civil society in Canada. This should not start with the rich and powerful nor be aimed at building more prisons for youthful offenders as Mr. Harper proposes. Our efforts should be concentrated, as a first order of business, on the already disadvantaged and vulnerable: those living in poverty, on low incomes, in need of adequate food, clothing, shelter, family and child care, health care and prevention of illness, and environmental protection.

If it has the will, a minority government should be quite capable of making true social justice a reality for everyone in Canada.