Calling an early election was part of Mark Carney’s plan

Election time has come once again! On March 23, nine days after being sworn in as our new prime minister, Mark Carney advised Canada’s governor general to dissolve Parliament and drop the writ.

Election day has been set for April 28, six months before the fixed date in October. So far, the campaign has been dominated by what I call the “American Question” — how Canada must handle this Trump administration and its at-larger relationship with the U.S. from this point on.

It certainly is a subject that cannot go unaddressed, and circumstances have conspired to force the issue without further delay. The circumstances in question being the two-fold fact that Carney is currently popular and the opposition parties were going to trigger an election anyway.

Carney’s popularity is the result of Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump. Trudeau’s unpopularity was one of several factors that would have definitely led the Liberal Party to electoral defeat had he remained in charge. The fact that Carney was not a caucus or cabinet member of any of the Trudeau ministries was not lost on the party members who overwhelmingly chose him to be their new leader.

Trump has spooked the populace with annexation rhetoric and protectionist tariffs, prompting a desire for a response which reaffirms our national sovereignty. Carney has been able to navigate these fluxes in such a way that has revitalized a political party that was once on the brink of destruction.

As it should be common knowledge by now, the opposition parties — namely the Bloc Québécois, Conservatives, and New Democrats — were all prepared to trigger an election as early as last December. Had Trudeau not resigned and prorogued Parliament for the leadership race, the House would have reconvened, the government would be defeated in a confidence vote, an election would have been triggered, a Conservative government would be elected, and Pierre Poilievre would be the prime minister.

Objectively speaking, Carney made the strategic choice in calling for the writ to be dropped. He could either call an election on his terms or attend a session of Parliament where an election would have been called on his opponents’ terms.

The outcome is the same, but only one choice allows for at least a chance at having an advantage from the outset and Carney has the two advantages already discussed. His lack of direct association with Trudeau and Trump’s threatening stature (which negatively impacted Poilievre’s standing by some degree of association) has allowed the Liberals to outpace the Tories in polling.

Furthermore, by opting for April 28 as election day rather than May 5, thereby making the campaign period five weeks long as opposed to six, Carney is able to more effectively capitalize on his post-leadership convention victory popularity. Dropping the writ sooner lets him campaign in the afterglow while it is still there.

The leaders’ debate is set to take place on April 17 at 7:00 pm EST, and there is a non-zero chance that a poor performance will undo the Grits’ dominant lead. Carney has never held elected office while Poilievre is a seasoned politician of over 20 years.

If there is ever a time to reverse fortunes in the Tories’ favour, it would be at the debate lectern. Likewise, it is up to Carney to ensure that all the upper-hands he has are wielded effectively.

The outcome of this election will, perhaps, be of greater significance than the last two were. Outside factors have a hand in colouring this perception as much as domestic affairs do. Nevertheless, it is one to keep tabs on if only to see whether or not Carney’s choice will pay off.