Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Nick Falvo lists ten things to know about social programs in Canada. And Mike Crawley offers a painful example of Ontario's social safety net and employment law both falling short, as injured workers are forced to go to work even when ill or injured in the absence of paid sick leave.

- David Cay Johnston writes that while corporate tax slashing won't do anything to boost the U.S.' economy, it may do plenty to undercut businesses who have planned based on tax rates as they stand.

- Make Votes Matter makes the case for UK Labour to push for proportional representation - including by pointing out how it leads to a more fair and equal society. And Fair Vote Canada is pushing for an NDP-Green agreement on electoral reform in British Columbia.

- Meanwhile, Ethan Cox discusses what should an obvious choice facing B.C.'s Greens in deciding between giving voters the change they want, and owning another term of Christy Clark's corporatism as usual. And Vaughn Palmer notes that Clark is the most important loser from yesterday's election.

- Finally, Daphne White interviews George Lakoff about the importance of fitting political messages into frames which will resonate with voters.

On non-answers

There are some questions that can reasonably be left unanswered before election day.

The Prime Minister's willingness (or lack thereof) to accept Canada's constitutional means of transferring power is not one of them.

Good on Terry Milewski for challenging Stephen Harper to make it absolutely clear whether or not he'll accept the Governor General's authority to ask another party to form government. And as long as Harper refuses to answer, we have to assume the worst as to how far Harper is willing to go - and how much damage he's prepared to do - in clinging to power regardless of the will of Canada's voters and elected representatives.

Update: After serving as one of the Cons' chief cheerleaders through most of the campaign, even John Ivison can't help but to see serious problems in both Harper's evasion and his party's attempt to intimidate Milewski and the rest of the media:

CBC Television’s Terry Milewski asked whether Mr. Harper would respect the Governor-General’s decision, if he called on a second-placed party to form government after a Conservative minority was brought down. The Prime Minister said he wasn’t going to speculate on what might happen after the election, despite the fact his whole campaign has been based on conjecture about what might happen post May 2. Mr. Milewski accused the Conservative leader of ducking the question and repeatedly asked him to answer. By this point, the assembled partisans felt it their duty to jump in for their man. “Shut down the CBC,” shouted one man. Another behind Mr. Harper was screaming, gesticulating and visibly upset. To be fair to Mr. Harper, he gestured for calm and maintained his composure. In days gone by, he would have responded to such a challenge by attacking the source.

Quite why the press conference needed to be held in front of a hostile crowd is not clear, unless it was an attempt to intimidate journalists. Other parties hold the presser in a separate room after the event.

Party spindoctors suggest Mr. Harper likes the visuals of being surrounded by supporters but it lends the appearance of a lynch mob when the inevitable happens. One suspects the visuals of this morning’s episode will be replayed on newscasts across the country and confirm many people’s impressions of the Conservative Party as the home of anger, intolerance and blind partisanship.

Update II: Mark Kennedy nicely summarizes the stakes:

His refusal to answer the question Saturday raises fundamental questions about whether Harper might provoke a constitutional crisis in the wake of an election.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Open questions

Now that the NDP is reaching levels of popular support that make a change in government look highly plausible, it's about time to double back to some of the more serious questions about what Stephen Harper might seek to do to stay in power after an election that doesn't go his way.

If he's determined to cling to power and continues to believe that he can get away with absolutely any level of damage to Canada's democratic system that suits his purposes, Harper holds plenty of cards regardless of how Monday's vote actually turns out. He'll technically remain Prime Minister either until he resigns to create a vacancy in the office, or until a non-confidence vote is held. He can put off the latter possibility by refusing to allow Parliament to sit for up to twelve months from the date of the previous dissolution. (Indeed, I'm not entirely sure what the remedy would be if Harper were to breach even that minimal requirement.) And even if he allows a new government to be sworn in, he can prevent it from passing any legislation by continuing to whip his majority in the Senate.

So while I wouldn't expect an answer from Harper anytime soon, now would seem to be the time to start asking some pointed questions about what will happen if the election results aren't to the Cons' liking.

First, will Harper resign as Prime Minister if his party fails to secure the largest number of seats in the House of Commons? (Actually, this would seem to be something less than a clear requirement to the extent there's some prospect of his finding support among other parties - but if the answer is "no", then based on Harper's rhetoric about the most seats being the measure of victory then it makes for the first clear indication that all bets are off as to what he'll do to stay in power.)

Second, will Harper summon Parliament to meet at some point before the last possible moment - and allow it to vote on his Throne Speech - even if the likely result is a non-confidence vote against his government?

Third, does Harper plan to comply with the instructions of the Governor General rather than threatening to take a case "to the people" if his attempts to shut down democratic voting mechanisms are overruled?

And finally, if another government takes power, will Harper order his Senators to allow it to pass legislation which receives the approval of the House of Commons?

Needless to say, in any remotely functional democracy the answer should be a clear "yes" to the latter three questions. But there's plenty of reason for concern that Harper will see matters differently.

Update: Turns out I'm not the only one asking these types of questions, and Tom Flanagan offers some theories in response to John Duffy:

If a single party wins more seats than the Conservatives, I think Mr. Harper, based on his statements, will announce his resignation as prime minister. If the Conservatives win a plurality but not a majority, he will carry on as prime minister and try to bring in a budget fairly quickly. If he is defeated in the House, he could (1) offer his resignation as Prime Minister to the Governor General, thereby allowing the latter to ask the leader of the Opposition to form a government; (2) resign as PM and also as party leader, opening up the possibility that the Governor General might ask an interim Conservative leader chosen by caucus to form a government; (3) ask for another election, as Mackenzie King did in 1926. If the GG refused that request, I imagine Mr. Harper would then resign as King did, and the GG would try to find someone else to form a government. I don't foresee anyone challenging the GG's authority with an appeal to the Queen, or ruling by decree. I don't think we will reenact “State of Siege.”

Needless to say I'd hope he's right. But until Harper himself starts answering, there's still reason to wonder whether Flanagan is being optimistic based on the Harper he knew rather than the one who's already shut down Parliament once to avoid losing power.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

On confirmation

I've always been sympathetic to the argument that Michaelle Jean could justify keeping fairly quiet about the 2008 coalition showdown on the basis that it's the job of the politicians involved rather than the GG to argue the constitutional points in public.

But it's certainly a plus to see David Johnston explicitly confirming that he doesn't buy the Cons' attacks on the concept of a coalition government. And hopefully we'll find out before long how his acceptance of multi-party cooperation plays out in practice.

Or to put it another way...

...maybe David Johnston is right that he shouldn't serve as referee in the sense of calling penalties on every single play in Canadian politics.

But if Stephen Harper's tenure has taught us anything, surely we've learned that he's not above claiming that he's entitled to an extra down after failing on a third down gamble. And if Johnston thinks his job is merely to suggest that Harper respect the game rather than enforcing a change of possession, then the ball may stay in Conservative hands long after they've lost the right to control it under Canadian rules.

Inadvisable

Not surprisingly, we won't find out exactly how David Johnston will handle any disputes over Stephen Harper's habit of shutting down democratic institutions until the next time it happens. But there looks to be reason for concern based on his interview today:

For David Johnston, the governor-general is not a referee who makes calls on every play in the game, he says, but a thoughtful, apolitical adviser with a keen appreciation for Canada's political history.

In order for his advice to be heard and heeded, he says he needs to maintain a solid relationship with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“It does require a rapport of a kind, between the prime minister and the cabinet and the governor-general,” Mr. Johnston said in a wide-ranging interview at Rideau Hall with The Canadian Press on Wednesday.

Mr. Harper needs the governor-general's approval to prorogue Parliament or call an election. Mr. Johnston would also have to decide whether a coalition could form government, if Mr. Harper were to lose the confidence of the House.
...
The inherent instability of minority government, along with Mr. Harper's track record of prorogation, will almost certainly mean Mr. Johnston can count on having to make tough calls in the months to come.

“I think the value that the governor-general can provide to our parliamentary system is the governor-general is outside of politics, is someone objective, one would expect would have a long-term view of the country and its values,” Mr. Johnston said.

“And I would hope that Mr. Harper and his colleagues would find my views on that helpful from time to time.”

Now, it should go without saying that Harper isn't lacking for advisers already. And if he was interested in listening to input from experts who do have Canada's long-term values and interests in mind, he wouldn't have chosen to set up the echo chamber that currently surrounds him.

Which means that the most important part of the GG's role (at least as matters stand now) would seem to be the "referee" element that Johnston is looking to downplay, rather than anything to do with dispensing "views" alone. And the more Johnston sees his role as merely involving suggestions rather than exercises of authority, the more likely the Cons are to be able to keep on walking over the institution.

And that danger is all the more obvious given that Johnston also looks to be setting up a fairly close relationship with the government - explicitly stating his intention to build "rapport" with cabinet ministers who wouldn't have seem to have any reason to deal directly with the GG except to be sworn in. In contrast, he's apparently left any mention of opposition leaders or parties out of his perceived job description.

Again, it remains to be seen how Johnston will actually exercise (or not exercise) his reserve powers in practice. But his stance today looks to make for a worrisome pairing with a government that's pushed the boundaries of executive control at every turn - and may have much to do with why Harper decided to appoint him in the first place.

On preconditions

I don't think there's much room for disagreement with the consensus that David Johnston is as positive a nominee for Governor-General as we could hope for. But it's worth a reminder that he's been put in the position by a Prime Minister who's made a public spectacle of demanding that potential public officials commit to supporting his political interests before they're appointed - however unenforceable those promises turn out to be.

So now would be the time to ask: did Harper ask for and receive any pledges from Johnston about future decisions before appointing him as the Governor-General who may determine the fate of his government?

(Edit: fixed wording.)