IIt's raining in Ottawa It's cold as I write this. Now is not the best time to play chicken with the future of the country, but here we are. The budget will be adopted tomorrow, and rumors in the press suggest that the government may fail it. Opposition parties weighing your options. Everyone is making demands, but there is no ideal world, no theodicy in which all the pressures, tensions and contradictions can be resolved – lower and higher taxes, more and less spending on social programs, government intervention in the fight against the climate crisis and government abandonment of this role. In short, something has to give. So far no one seems to want to be a giver.
The parties, or a sufficient number of them, can agree on their lowest reasonable offers and counteroffers and reach an agreement or not. This could be a close call. The Liberals are so close to a majority in the House of Commons that just a few months ago press statements assured us that Prime Minister Mark Carney had a working, functional or actual majority. Now we all hope that enough members of Parliament will get time off to feign a cold (there's always something going on), skip the vote, and abandon the winter elections in the cold and darkness, amid economic attacks from the world hegemon who happens to be our neighbor and main trading partner.
Fred Delorey, who knows a lot about political maneuvers and party machinations, writes that we are really heading towards elections. He makes a compelling case, especially regarding the New Democratic Party, which is in the middle of a leadership election. He argues that the party could increase seats in the elections, given their strong position, and at least they will be able to reset. He believes liberals will have a chance to win the war over rigging what the election is and who rigged it. Is it the majority they see above the snowdrifts? Conservatives cannot vote for this budget and expect to be left waiting for the government. The Green Party (one seat) opposes fossil fuel subsidies. Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois is making big pension demands that the Liberals are unable to meet.
Delorey makes a strong case for holding elections, but I'm not convinced. Philippe Fournier's polling aggregator 338Canada shows the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives by two points, give or take four points. So, it's somebody's ball game, meaning elections are risky. The NDP slightly outperformed their election numbers last spring, but they're not exactly flush with cash, and rumors of a possible snap election in British Columbia must have party stalwarts doing the math. A polarized race may leave them more or less where they are now. Two big losses in a row, and this is a trend.
If the Conservatives go to the polls before Pierre Poilievre's leadership review and lose, it would likely be the end of the leader's tenure, although he could face defeat anyway. There's no reason to believe that the election won't play out like previous ones, with Carney as a hopeful father telling the country about a scary, changing world. Whether this conversation is fake (I think it is, at least in part) is irrelevant. Again, risky business.
If you were a wise bettor considering betting on the outcome of a hypothetical, snap winter election, you wouldn't do it. First, see above: this is a close ball game. Secondly, who knows who the public will blame for an election right before Christmas, when snow falls and the cozy feeling of Christmas is interrupted, among other things, policy.
Put a gun to my head, I bet we won't have elections. This is too risky for anyone and the timing is as bad as it can be, both due to the season and the domestic and international pressures Canada faces, including recession risk and President Donald Trump. We have things to do. The Liberals should pick a partner – I'd recommend the NDP – and compromise until they get the votes. We might even come out of this mess with something good, as we often do in minority parliaments where the NDP influences the government.
As far as I can tell, no one really wants elections yet. However, I'm worried that we might end up in Guns of August situation in which the warring parties – or rather, political parties – mobilize for elections, despite the fact that no one wants them or knows why they are necessary. Once a movement begins in politics, it can become as self-justifying as it is irrational and farcical. Misunderstandings and robberies abound. How is that Death of Stalinbut not ha ha funny.
It's a good thing that governments in Canada collapse if they can't pass a budget. This is far preferable to a presidential-congressional system such as the United States, where gridlock and government shutdowns can occur. In Canada, the government is regularly examined and if it cannot maintain the confidence of the legislature, a new ministry is appointed or elections are held. But this Parliament has just begun and we should give it a little more time. Let's say not until next fall.
By the fall, the NDP will have a leader, Poilevre will pass the leadership test or not, and the Liberals will be looking for a stronger majority – either against Poilevre or with the disarrayed Conservative Party. By then, we will either have made a deal (or deals) with Trump, or we will realize that a stable and lasting peace with him is impossible and adjust our expectations accordingly. By then, a truly dysfunctional parliament, if that is what he insists on, will be a lost cause.
In the meantime, each side must be willing to, as I like to say, add a little water to their Niagara or Okanagan wine and get the budget passed. No party would like it, and no party must love it. But each party must admit that allowing an autumn vote is not in the interests of the country and is too risky for the parties themselves. This development suggests that the parties may be thinking beyond their navel, which may take them more than halfway there, but for now I'm an optimist.
Adapted from “Will Canada have a surprise election at Christmas this year?David MoscropSubstack). Reprinted with permission of the author.
