As Prime Minister, Stephen Harper's second-biggest mistake was to legislate fixed election dates, thereby transferring the power to call an election before October of next year to the opposition parties. His biggest mistake would be to renege on a public inquiry into the Schreiber-Mulroney affair, an option he seemed to be contemplating in year-end interviews.
In politics, what goes around sometimes comes around: Mr. Harper quit the Progressive Conservatives in reaction to Brian Mulroney's policies, and he had nothing to do with the malodorous events of the mid-1980s. His problem is that the two Right Honourables have since been photographed in each other's company often enough to have made it attractive for opposition politicians – and the Ottawa press gallery – to look into the cash payments to Mr. Mulroney that they had managed to overlook for years. And a fixed election date, a legacy of Mr. Harper's Reform years, has made his predicament more confounding.
There's much to be said for grafting this particular Americanism onto our British parliamentary system – provided you're in opposition and likely to remain there. This explains why the Progressive Conservatives never adopted the idea until Joe Clark began the unity flirt with dissident Canadian Alliance MPs. For his part, Mr. Harper had suggested as far back as 1997 that the Reform Party and the Tories make electoral reform Proposition 1 of their joint platform.
As head of the National Citizens Coalition, Mr. Harper condemned Jean Chrétien for calling the 2000 election only 31/2 years into his mandate. After taking over the Alliance leadership from Stockwell Day, he challenged Paul Martin to prove his commitment to eliminating the “democratic deficit” by instituting fixed election dates. And on April 1, 2004, as the new Conservative leader of the Official Opposition, Mr. Harper moved Bill C-512, which would have provided for fixed election dates.
After the 2006 election, Mr. Harper got the job done – and thereby blew his chance to do to Stéphane Dion what Mr. Chrétien had done to Mr. Day. A man of principle? Perhaps. A good sport? Maybe. But, as matters now stand, Mr. Harper has effectively given the Official Opposition the power to call the next election.
All of last fall's talk about the Prime Minister engineering the defeat of his own government was just that. Successful politicians are loath to take even mildly unpopular planks into an election campaign and, as it turned out, it would have taken an anathema for the Liberals to topple the government. Some say the polls weren't pointing toward a Conservative majority, but the Liberals have watched as Mr. Harper's numbers have turned worse. And you can bet that all their talk of Canadians not wanting an election will evaporate as soon as polls indicate they can win; given Mr. Harper's tendentious relations with the media, few commentators, including those who have consistently warned or implored him not to precipitate an election, will ask what else has changed.
Although the Tories are banking on making Mr. Dion the issue in the next election, Liberals could again “persuade” their chief to abstain on the budget and have sufficient time before October of 2009 to replace the damaged goods with a new leader. With the Canadian economy already weakening, the Americans could slide into a recession and take us with them. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty shot his fiscal wad last fall, and the cupboard is now bare. The situation in Pakistan could deteriorate, adding another complication to our engagement in Afghanistan. And Quebec, with its first minority government since 1878, further increases Mr. Harper's known unknowns.
Having seen what the Gomery commission did to the Liberals in 2006, it's understandable that Mr. Harper is hoping that David Johnston will recommend against holding a public inquiry into the Schreiber-Mulroney affair when he reports next week. In fact, the Prime Minister has no option other than to pursue the truth. And he'd be wise to give the impression of doing so energetically. Were he to renege, the House ethics committee – with its considerable powers and under opposition control – would become the centre of attention for those who want answers. Liberals, meanwhile, would be watching the polls, looking for the first opportunity to restore the natural governing party to its rightful place in the political firmament.
