Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

This is not a drill. Unless it's a drill. But it isn't. Probably.

by Paul Wells on Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:30pm - 0 Comments

So I had a chat today with somebody familiar with the thinking of the Prime Minister, and this person said this business of Stephen Harper preparing to call an election instead of waiting for the opposition is serious.

What follows has been reported by others in recent days, but I kind of needed to hear it myself before I’d believe it. I now believe it.

The prime minister has concluded that governing in the current environment is “like swimming in molasses,” I’m told. (Questions about why this would be the PM’s perception now when it wasn’t, as far as anybody was hearing, his perception the last time Parliament was actually sitting are perfectly valid.)

Stephen Harper has decided there’s no way the opposition parties will allow the government to stay there until October, 2009. So he figures he might as well cut all this short. To make sure his perception is accurate he is seeking meetings with the opposition leaders soon. (“We’re not talking weeks here.”) The goal: to see whether Harper can cobble together some deliverable legislative agenda that gets him to Christmas. Essentially he needs one opposition leader to promise, under mutually acceptable circumstances, to refrain from voting non-confidence.

Short of that, he will decide to ask the Governor General for dissolution and an election. (The fixed-election-date act begins by stating that nothing in the act detracts from the GG’s ability to dissolve Parliament at any moment. Which it would sort of have to, because anything that did try to detract from that ability would be unconstitutional on its face.) My very strong conviction is that, more than two and a half years having elapsed since the last election, the GG would have no basis to deny dissolution and an election.

The political cost of passing a doofus-brained fixed-election act and then abandoning it as soon as the going got a little rough would remain. I have no idea how to estimate that cost.

Once he decided elections were inevitable before Christmas, Harper would be inclined to call the election before the Commons reconvened in September — because, I was told, the opposition would later ask why he bothered to sit the House if he was just going to dissolve it soon after.

So there you have it. Unless one of the opposition leaders pulls a rabbit out of his hat during these meetings with Harper, we would seem to be heading toward an election writ drop within the next few weeks. I would not altogether rule out the idea that Harper would drop the writ before the Sept. 8 by-elections.

I hate election speculation when it detracts from coverage of real things. The odd weak moment aside, I have largely abstained from the last couple of rounds of election hysteria. But I am now planning, and encouraging my colleagues to plan, on the assumption that a general election campaign will begin in September.

Bookmark and Share
  • Sophie

    Nice, Paul.

  • bk

    Ryan writes: “But here’s what I don’t understand: Being defeated in Parliament is SO EASY. It comes with no political cost and can even be a benefit if the specific issue is chosen carefully enough. Why would the PM not do that?”

    Umm, they’ve been trying that for the better part of a year now and the Libs keep abstaining.

    But if they want control of the process … couldn’t the Government tell Conservative backbenchers to vote against some sort of confidence vote? Simply declare some trivial vote to be a confidence vote (and I recognize the problem in that), see to it the Bloc and NDP are onside, and go forth.

  • john g

    bk, that would be seen as even more cynical and manipulative of the process than Harper simply dropping the writ himself.

  • http://bcinto.blogspot.com BCer in Toronto

    Umm, they’ve been trying that for the better part of a year now and the Libs keep abstaining.

    Actually, if they’d really wanted to be defeated they’d have been defeated long ago. But they didn’t want to be. Look at each of the big confidence matters, like the budget: carefully crafted to allow the Liberals just enough wiggle room to swallow it and say well, it doesn’t suck too bad.

    If Harper had really wanted to be defeated, we’d have seen a poison pill, something the Liberals would never have been able to let through. But we didn’t. No one has actually wanted an election, they just wanted to say they wanted an election. And the Liberal abstainers have been letting them have their cake and eat it too, which is really the only thing to do with cake if you think about it.

  • Steve W

    Somebody help me. Why does Harper think parliament is so dysfunctional? If he can pass the legislation he wants without any inconvenient noise from the Liberals, what’s the big deal?

    The only thing I can think of is that maybe there is some legislation he wants to pass that would be unpopular with the Liberals *and* the electorate, and he needs a majority to ensure the latter group doesn’t kick the Conservatives out while he gets on with passing that legislation.

    I tend to oversimplify things. Am I wrong?

    If they actually have conservative agenda, I’d hate to think it needs to be snuck in. Canadian voters are adults. If the government is going to do some serious cutting we should have some say in it. Maybe he has no confidence in his team’s ability to get a conservative message out in a rational and sensible way. Maybe his cabinet is full of religious nutbars lacking any understanding of economics. Maybe.

  • Biffin

    Harper is a blundering, power-hungry freak of nature. For all the scandals, screw-ups and mis-steps, there are at least 5 percolating just under the surface. The in and out hearings, the Cadman affair, the food recall that highlights the Cons’ agenda…these will get more play as the days go by.

    Force an election and those are perhaps shelved for the moment or at least receive less attention.

    Add in the fact that it grates on mascara boy to no end that he doesn’t hold all the cards and wouldn’t be able to dictate the timing of an election without the idiocy of breaking his own law and it’s obvious why he’s choosing this path.

  • Lord Kitchener’s Own

    Brad,

    I agree with what you’re saying about the notion of conventions being, well, conventions, but I also believe that the convention is basically that the GG does whatever the Prime Minister recommends. I’d say that’s pretty well established given that the GG has only refused a PM’s request to dissolve Parliament in order to invite another Party to form a government (the most controversial move by a GG in the history of the nation). ONCE in our history. And that one instance involved a government that had only been in power for mere months and was (it could be argued) only seeking to dissolve Parliament in order to avoid a motion of censure in Parliament; and, in that instance, the subsequent government formed by the main opposition was IMMEDIATELY defeated on a motion of confidence (so outraged were the other parties at what had just happened) which forced the GG to… dissolve Parliament. (And, of course, subsequent to all of this, the role of the GG was redefined to make the GG a representative of the Sovereign, not the British government, so controversial were the implications of the GG’s single refusal to follow the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister).

    So, as for following convention, I’d say it’s pretty well established that the “convention” is for the GG to do whatever the PM asks.

    Now as you say: “So, what has changed? The law. The law basically says that there will be an election every 4th October starting in 2009.” True. Except right before that the law basically says “nothing in this law changes the role of the Governor General”. When I read “Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.” nowhere do I get the sense that the subsequent section COULD, let alone SHOULD have any effect whatsoever on the constitutional conventions surrounding the role of the GG.

    However, yes, I suppose the GG could decide to use the amended law as an excuse to refuse to dissolve Parliament in contravention of constitutional convention, despite the fact that the law explicitly states that nothing in it is meant to affect the powers of the Governor General. I mean, there’s a list of things as long as my arm that the GG could theoretically do, that no modern GG would ever even attempt. She could veto bills passed by Parliament. She could appoint anyone she wanted to the Senate, or the Supreme court of Canada. In theory (this one’s even more of a stretch) she could issue orders directly to our military.

    However, constitutional conventions constrain her, and I don’t see how any rational person could argue that a law that begins with the words Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General could even theoretically alter that.

  • Paul Wells

    I must admit I am rather fond of “mascara boy” as an epithet. What could compare? Paunchy McVest? IcanTakeapunch Shakesdaughtershand?

  • Steve W

    Biffin, I was hoping for something more intelligent than that. Didn’t you read the part about voters being adults?

  • Wayne

    Personally I think that Harper has made a move that is known in chess as a pawn in passing! As there is nothing worse than near the end of summer an opposition leader getting a lot of press and you are only a few points ahead in the polls therefore you change the channel by proposing something just a little outrageous and that you know will change the channel allowing you to keep your opponents on their back feet and get everyone talking most especially if it something you know that the media and pundits will drive your opponents crazy with endless scenarios and questions keeping them off base and if I am correct it certainly seems to be working, of course you can’t make this move if your opponent was weak enough to allow you to at the beginning as this is a counter move.

  • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

    Biffin I am curious why you think food recall highlights Con agenda. With bureaucrats in charge of food safety it has taken them two months since the first death to maybe identify the source, they are not sure it’s Maple Lead yet, and we only heard about tainted food for the first time a couple of days ago. I think this incident outlines perfectly the incompetence of government to do anything right. It would be impossible for a private company to do worse.

    Steve W What legislation can Harper propose that would not turn off his supporters or all canadians but would be enough for Liberals to get a backbone. If the Liberals didn’t vote against the immigration bill which passed in the spring, they are clearly waiting until they think they can win election and everything else is irrelevant.

  • T. Thwim

    Just an odd thought, but what happens if the election is called now. According to the very specific text of the bill “each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.”

    So. Say we go to the polls in November 2008. What happens come October 19th, 2009? Is another election mandated by this law?

    Could this be the scheme? He won’t break it by going to the GG early, because it says she’s not limited, but whoever gets elected after that has to have a second election in less than a year? Has their polling dropped enough that they think they’ll wind up giving the Liberal’s about a year of minority government.. just enough to take the hit for the troubles the economy is heading through.. and then dive back in?

  • T. Thwim

    jwl: Please. You have zero proof that a private company would do any better, and wouldn’t just try to hide the problem.

  • john g

    Fisher Cutbait

  • boudica

    “they are not sure it’s Maple Lead yet, and we only heard about tainted food for the first time a couple of days ago. I think this incident outlines perfectly the incompetence of government to do anything right. It would be impossible for a private company to do worse.”

    jwl, the reason why it took so long for the alarm bells to ring is because it takes that long for the symptoms to manifest themselves. You and I could have been infected as far back as end of June and we would only now be experiencing any malaise.

  • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

    Boudica

    An elderly women died in June from listeriosis, if that is not a symptom manifesting itself I don’t know what is. The elderly women could have got the disease sometime in April according to you so we could have possibly tainted food for sale for 4/5 months and we only heard about it a couple of days ago. That doesn’t make me feel better.

  • boudica

    jwl, why don’t you read up on this before commenting…

    “TIMELINE: Symptoms usually appear within two to 30 days, and up to 90 days after consuming contaminated food, according to Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Average incubation period is three weeks, says Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.”

    http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-bGDKdUG3u68Uo8JMs4Ni49vWDw

  • Lord Kitchener’s Own

    Brad,

    As for this though: “can you think of a logically consistent rationale for a PM to ask for dissolution that would be consistent with the text and spirit of the amended Elections Act?” well, no, I can’t. On that point I agree. The Prime Minister asking for a dissolution of Parliament would be COMPLETELY against not only the spirit of the law, but the Prime Minister’s and his cabinet’s explicitly stated interpretation of the spirit of the law. I can’t see any way that the PM could ask for a dissolution of Parliament (without first losing a vote of confidence in the House) which would be remotely consistent with the government’s own explanation of the spirit of the fixed election dates law.

    However, (and it’s a big however) there’s absolutely nothing in the law that would prevent the PM from completely ignoring it’s spirit (as Marlene Jennings said of the change in the law, it’s “completely duplicitous in that it was sold as setting fixed election dates when in fact in reality it does nothing of the sort.

    So no, there’s no way the PM can dissolve Parliament that’s within the (government’s own interpretation of) the spirit of the law. However, the PM is legally bound by the LETTER of the law (and only “morally” bound by its spirit) and the GG is bound by constitutional convention. So if the PM decides to ignore the spirit of the law, there’s really nothing that can be done about that. That’s what’s so clever about the new law. It doesn’t actually change anything whatsoever, but it allowed the government to act as though they were making some big fundamental change.

    It’s a brilliant law right up to the point that the government proves that it doesn’t actually do anything.

  • boudica

    ” I can’t see any way that the PM could ask for a dissolution of Parliament (without first losing a vote of confidence in the House) which would be remotely consistent with the government’s own explanation of the spirit of the fixed election dates law.”

    Which bring us to the important question: why do it when the political cost is so obvious?

    No one with a brain buys into that whole “dysfunction” argument. The CPC’s own talking points contradict the Prime Minister. They are, after all, faced with a weak opposition and have a de fact government, right?

    Why would Harper do this?

  • Biffin

    jwl,

    It’s a fine line between causing panic and accurately pinpointing where the outbreak is originating from. Shrieking “outbreak” before there are any details behind the warnings would hardly be wise.

    The leaked memo highlights the Con agenda. It almost sounds like a tired cliche but Harper keeps perpetuating it: the Cons are following the Bush neo-Cons’playbook.

    Anyone who has read “Fast Food Nation” will recognize the similarities between the changes made in the U.S. regarding food safety during the Reagan years and accelerated by Bush and what the Cons want to do.

    Wells: More so than not rolling off the tongue, it’s probably not accurate. I now realize Harper’s choice in cosmetics is probably eye-liner and not mascara.

    As for “Paunchy McVest,” going after Harper’s wife is even lower than I would stoop.

  • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

    Boudica

    How does your link prove what I wrote is wrong?

    From a story in today’s Globe:

    “Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health confirmed the first death was that of an elderly woman in Hamilton, who died in June of listeriosis as a result of eating food contaminated by Listeria monocytogenes, a food-borne bacterium that can cause serious illness in pregnant women and the elderly.”

    The woman died in June and the contamination period means that she could have eaten the bad meat sometime in April/May and we are only hearing about this now. CFIA has known there was a problem since June and they have still not yet conclusively found the source of contamination.

  • boudica

    jwl, I don’t want to continue with the off-topic but there are some basic epidemiology practices that are hard to accomplish with a single subject, let alone a dead one. With such a long gestation period, working from patient zero all the way back to its source takes a long while.

    Your argument that a private company would have done a better job is based on nothing more than your ideology.

    If anything, a private corp would find itself in an inevitable conflict of interest between the public good and their shareholder’s wallets.

    While I have to believe that most companies would do the right thing, history shows that too many wouldn’t.

  • Mike T.

    The GGs power to dissolve parliament isn’t exercised by convention but through the constitution itself (s. 50). A federal statute purporting to affect his/her authority in that regard has no effect.

    The only question of convention is whether the GG may ignore the wishes of the prime minister. Both sides have been argued. (I believe it would not violate convention, and that if a convention exists it is merely that the power must be exercised only in the most extreme circumstances). it is incredibly unlikely that a GG would enforce a statute fixing election dates over the direction of a prime minister advising her to the contrary.

  • Lord Kitchener’s Own

    T. Thwim,

    I think your point illustrates nicely how the PM dissolving Parliament would violate the spirit of the law (and almost the letter) since the law EXPLICITLY states that “the first general election after this section comes into force [will be] held on Monday, October 19, 2009″. So, being that if the PM dissolves Parliament before then the first election after that section coming into force would NOT happen on Monday October 19th, 2009, that shows pretty clearly that such a dissolution of Parliament violates the spirit of the law.

    However, as odd as it is, when you ask this “So. Say we go to the polls in November 2008. What happens come October 19th, 2009? Is another election mandated by this law?” you’ve missed something. The act does say “each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009“. So if you focus on what I have in bold, then it’s clear that an earlier dissolution of Parliament would invalidate the law’s (explicitly) stated intention that the first election following the passage of the bill be held on October 19th, 2009, short of thhe loss of a vote of confidence (which makes one think there MUST, in any circumstance, be an election on October 19th, 2009, since that date is explicitly mentioned). However, the law also states that it’s the FIRST election following the passage of the bill that is to be held on October 19th, 2009. If the PM decides to ignore the spirit of his own law, then the FIRST election after the passage of the bill would NOT, in fact, occur on October 19th, 2009. However, the law does not explicitly state a date for the SECOND election following the passage of the bill, so once the first post-amendment election happens, the October 19th, 2009 date becomes totally irrelevant. Which is passing strange given that the date is explicitly mentioned in the bill, but that’s the case nonetheless I believe. The problem, I think, is that the Tories put an explicit fixed date for the next election in the law, never once thinking the opposition might actually let them govern until that date. And now, they’re not so sure they want to govern until that date, but if they want to avoid it they have to violate the spirit of their own law (or force a loss on a vote of confidence)!

    Of course, the larger point is that the beginning of subsection 2 (where that explicit date is laid out) says that the entire subsection – everything surrounding that date – is “Subject to subsection (1)”. And, as I think I’ve explained, “Subsection 1″ basically (though more subtly) says “feel free to ignore everything else in this section of the law, since it is constitutionally meaningless tripe”.

  • http://cork2toronto.blogspot.com Mark Dowling

    “We’ve already seen what happens when a GG refused to dissolve Parliament and call an election: the King-Byng affair.”

    I think the difference there is that Byng could not point to a statute “fixing election dates”. However Jean is hobbled by being unelected.

    There would be a stronger case were the position of Head of State elected for her to exercise personal discretion and call for an alternative government to be formed if a PM insisted on resigning in the face of a refusal to dissolve.

    Certainly I think a HoS would be on solid ground to observe that to dissolve a parliament made dysfunctional by the PM’s minions would be rewarding bad behaviour.

    Andrew Potter’s post on this is dumb. S.4.1 doesn’t FIX parliamentary lengths, it CAPS them. Hardly the same thing.

From Macleans