The dangerous allure of a snap election

Liberals likely won’t pull trigger, but will they regret it later?

The journalist Susan Delacourt raised eyebrows recently with a column floating the possibility of a summer election. It wasn’t clear what set her off — it would rather fly in the face of federal legislation fixing Oct. 21, 2019 as the date, among other objections — aside from the mounting threat to the country’s well-being posed by Donald Trump.

Delacourt could imagine the Liberals seeking to capitalize on the “rare moment of Canadian unity” in defiance of Trump’s attacks. It would be, she suggested, “a 21st century version” of the 1988 free trade election, “with everyone on the same side this time.” On the other hand, for the political scientist Don Lenihan — her husband, as it happens — an election would be a forum to debate differing approaches to the rogue U.S. president. In either case the idea would be to arm the government with a fresh mandate, as Lenihan writes, “to deal with what is arguably the most important issue of their term: managing Donald Trump.”

It’s not going to happen. It shouldn’t happen: there may be a loophole in the fixed-date legislation that permits it (as its author, Stephen Harper, was the first to exploit), but governments are obliged to respect the spirit of the law, not just the letter. Anyway, even if the Liberals were tempted, they could hardly be unaware that such a gambit could as easily blow up in their face. The track record of governments that call snap elections is decidedly mixed. And an entire campaign centred on who could utter the most bellicose rhetoric about Trump? Shudder.

Still … there are other reasons a governing party, surveying the political landscape over the next year and a bit, might see the logic in going to the people now, rather than later — not as a matter of seizing opportunity, but of avoiding danger.

As it is, the Liberals are down to just 35 per cent in the polls, their once insurmountable lead reduced to nothing, after an annus horribilis that included ethical controversies over the prime minister’s holidays with the Aga Khan and the finance minister’s undeclared shareholdings; the storm over the small business tax reforms; and the India trip.

But the last 12 months, bad as it was, may turn out to have been a walk in the park compared to the months to come; whatever losses the Liberals would suffer if an election were held today might look mild compared to the carnage 16 months from now. Consider the several simultaneous messes they have on their hands, in the shadow of an approaching election.

There is first the Trans Mountain pipeline, now the property of the federal government after last month’s agreement to buy it from Kinder Morgan. The justification for the deal was that the political risk had become too much for a private firm to bear. But in assuming the risk the government may well have increased it.

Government ministers have de- clared several times that “the pipeline will be built.” They haven’t said when. The protesters waiting to throw their bodies in front of bulldozers are still waiting; construction is on hold. But the protesters know that, when and if construction proceeds, it will not be some faceless Texas-based corporation they are up against, but nervous Liberal MPs seeking reelection. That can only embolden them.

Are the Grits really prepared to stick it out while night after night the news shows scenes of bloodied college kids and Aboriginal elders being led away? Or do they delay, and look weak, while the costs of the project — which a majority of both Canadians and British Columbians want built — mount? Either way, the potential for disaster is great.

Second, there is the carbon tax. With the election of Doug Ford’s Conservatives in Ontario, and the likely election next spring of the United Conservative Party in Alberta, the Liberals will soon face the combined opposition of at least three governments representing half the country’s population. Saskatchewan and Alberta would be writeoffs for the Liberals in any event. But Ontario: that’s Grit heartland.

To meet its Jan. 1, 2019, deadline, the Trudeau government will have to impose a carbon tax on the citizens of Ontario over the objections of its freshly elected government — nervy, with an election looming. Yes, it has also signalled it will compensate them in some fashion for the extra costs of the tax. Will that be enough? Maybe.

Third, there remains the problem of Trump. As it is, Trump is slowly sucking the life out of the Canadian economy, not only with the tariffs he has imposed but, even more, with the tariffs he might impose. Just his threatened 25 per cent tariff on imports of Canadian-built autos would likely be enough to pitch us into a recession. To say nothing of the impact of a collapse of the NAFTA talks.

It isn’t just the threat of a new tariff wall that is a lure to businesses to locate south of the border: so are Trump’s tax cuts. While the Trudeau government has been quick to respond to the first, it seems indifferent to the second, even in the face of a slowing economy and cratering investment intentions. Perhaps the Liberals would have more room to cut taxes had they not chosen to drive the budget into deficit. What the deficit might be in a recession one can only imagine.

There are more potential land mines out there: a renewed surge of asylum seekers at the border; the probable replacement of the Liberal government in Quebec with the rightish Coalition Avenir Québec in this fall’s election; whatever snafus may attend the implementation of legalized pot. But holy moly — any one of pipeline, carbon tax or Trump would be enough to throw most governments. And they have to nail all three. In an election year.

If you were in government, wouldn’t you prefer to get the election out of the way first? Again, I very much doubt they will. But wistful Liberals might one day wish they had.

LAST 12 MONTHS MAY TURN OUT TO HAVE BEEN A WALK IN PARK.