While there has been a great deal of commentary about this unnecessary election which resolved nothing, it is not the first time that an election failed to produce much change. A good example occurred back in the mid-1960s with the Liberal Government of Lester Pearson. He had won a minority government in 1963, with 129 seats, with the Conservative Opposition having 93 seats. When the Liberals sought re-election in 1965, they ended up with another minority – and 131 seats – while the Conservatives won 97 seats
It is worth noting that those five years of Liberal minority government produced some of the most progressive legislation in Canadian history including universal health care and the Canada Pension Plan. Since 10 of the past 20 federal elections have produced minority governments, we are hardly in an unusual situation and, indeed, some commentators have interpreted the results to mean that Canadians were content with such an arrangement.
Many have expressed indignation that the Prime Minister would call an election primarily because he thought that he could win a majority. While I would agree that the election call was selfish and ill-timed (in the midst of the pandemic), I have studied Canadian politics for over 50 years and have never found a situation in which a Prime Minister (or Premier) decided to call an election because they thought the time was right for the government to do poorly.
What about the Fixed Term of Office?
Some have also criticized the Liberals for calling the recent election when the federal government (as is the case with most provinces) is supposed to serve for a fixed four year term. There have been suggestions that we tighten up the legislation that imposes the four year term, but how that could be done remains a mystery to me. Our system of responsible government is based on the fundamental principle that a governing party only stays in power while it enjoys the confidence of the House of Commons. We don’t directly elect a government; we elect a House of Commons and it decides who governs – even if that choice is usually obvious based on the party standings. So whether it was fully understood or not, when we adopted a fixed term of office it came with an inherent conflict with our principle of responsible government.
To make matters more confusing, one year after the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper passed legislation establishing the fixed four year term, the Prime Minister triggered an election in 2008 on the grounds that Parliament had become “dysfunctional.” Had the government been defeated in the House, Harper would have had grounds for seeking a new mandate; indeed would have been obliged to do so according to the principle of responsible government. But with the new fixed term, Harper’s claim that Parliament had become dysfunctional was irrelevant and could not justify the calling of an election. And yet, inexplicably, the Federal Court of Canada upheld that action in a decision on November 7, 2008.
If We Don’t Have a Fixed Term, Could We Work Together to Fix the Country
So, we have a fixed term of office that was introduced to prevent governments from calling an early election when the timing might be to their advantage – except that a court ruling in 2008 has left us with a situation in which governments continue to go to the polls when they think the timing is right. Under the circumstances, perhaps the best we can hope for is that the federal parties will find ways to work together constructively in addressing the many challenges that currently face our country.