Last month the prime minister went city-hopping through Canada making a $10 a day child care deal with British Columbia and another one in Newfoundland and Labrador soon after and billions more to address the shortfalls in N.L.’s Muskrat Falls. Earlier in the month Trudeau stole the spotlight from Alberta’s premiere when he announced the approval of Calgary’s Green LRT project to the tune of $1.5 billion for the federal portion.
Just last week the Liberal government made nine separate funding announcements in one day.
It’s time we all admit an election is coming.
This should not be surprising given our parliamentary system, a system wherein historically a prime minister could call an election at any time within their five-year mandate. A tool used by governments in the past to take advantage of their popularity, or in the case of a minority, roll the dice on getting a majority.
In 2006, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper made his pitch to update the Elections Act: “Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage,” he said at the time. By 2007, the Conservatives passed Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act which officially put an end to this sort of electioneering by implementing fixed election dates except in the case of a vote of non-confidence.
Harper’s Tories had always been a party that supported a fairer democracy. For years they ran on changing the Senate from a system of partisan patronage to an elected one.
But promises for a fairer, more ethical democracy fall by the wayside after a party comes into power. The Harper conservatives gave up on a democratic Senate and spent their 10 years in power packing it with conservative partisans.
In 2009, the same year that the fixed elections came into effect, Harper prorogued parliament in order to prevent a vote of non-confidence.
Other than a few OpEds, there has been a lack of reporting on Trudeau’s use of taxpayer funds to prop up the Liberal record in the lead-up to our rumoured election.
The Trudeau Liberals haven’t been as blatant as Harper, who in the lead up to an election spent $26 million taxpayer dollars telling us about all the amazing things they have done with our money, under the moniker Canada’s Economic Action Plan.
In one of the more shocking examples, the Conservative party spent $2.5 million promoting the Canada Jobs Grant, which didn’t even exist yet.
While, for the time being, the use of taxpayer funds to promote incumbent governments is a question of ethics, there are legal limits on spending and the length of an election.
This is in contrast to the United States which has turned election campaigns into sporting events starting two years out, floating possible candidates more than a year before there is even a whiff of a primary.
Not in Canada, though. Once an election is called, it must be a minimum of 36 days to a maximum of 50 days.
As a result of fixed election dates, parties actively spend whatever they can prior to the dissolution of parliament when official campaign funding limits come into effect.
The Elections Modernization Act of 2018 codified “Pre-election campaigning” proscribing set limits on spending in the lead-up to an official election. Which works well with a fixed election date and campaign that can start no more than 50 days prior.
Therefore, the rumoured election is a loophole around spending limits. With the start date of an election officially uncertain, there can be no “pre-election campaign” period. Parties are free to spend or campaign as they see fit. Which is exactly what is happening.
The Liberals are using tax dollars to make announcement after announcement and sign juicy deals wherever they can. Conservatives are raiding bursting party coffers to spend on ad blitzes because the normal rules don’t apply.
Over the last 15 years, both the Conservatives and Liberals have passed laws to improve fairness in our democracy, and both have chosen to ignore those rules as soon as they become inconvenient.
The system ought to be fair by imposing spending limits and containing the whole process to a specified period of time. When it is not, it can cause cynicism and lead to complaints that it is rigged, which can lead to apathy and low voter turnout, the mark of an unhealthy democracy.
Jorge Maria
