Ontario's snap election: 'mandates', the caretaker convention, and democratic norms

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has been accused of violating the caretaker convention by making bold policy decisions during the election campaign period.

The caretaker convention is a binding political (as distinct from legally-enforceable) rule that sitting governments must operate by a principle of restraint after the legislature is dissolved. This means - generally - that they cannot implement new policies that would bind potential successors, or pursue a partisan agenda (something the bureaucracy is careful to monitor). Government continues, and so the normal day-to-day business of service delivery, etc. goes on. But the government is effectively put into cruise control for the duration of the election period, and up until either re-election or a new government is sworn in.

In a recent post on the federal context, Philippe Lagassé reminds us that the caretaker convention “isn't meant to hobble the Canadian government during crises and emergencies. It's designed to give ministers the discretion they need to act when Canadians are in danger, including from economic threats.” Governments are free to respond under urgent circumstances. This should generally be done in consultation with the opposition parties, where possible, and decisions can be made when urgency requires.

Even with those parameters in mind, it is not always easy to determine whether certain government activities are ‘appropriate’ under the convention. On social media I’ve seen some people suggest that Ford’s announcement to scrap the province’s deal with Starlink (Elon Musk’s satellite internet company) was a violation of the convention. But as a response to Trump’s tariff threat - a genuine economic emergency - convention is arguably on Ford’s side, and in this specific instance is only strengthened by the fact that the opposition had called for precisely this action. (With Trump’s pause on the tariff plan, Ford has reversed his cancellation of the Starlink deal, and I’ll leave it to readers to assess whether that’s a terrible move).

A more challenging example comes from a few days ago, when the opposition parties claimed Ford’s planned trips to the US to lobby about Trump’s tariff plan is a violation of the convention. Ford’s response suggests he is not approaching the situation with the idea of restraint in mind: “"I'll still be Premier every single day," Ford said last Friday. "I'll be talking to our ministers. We'll be getting policies out there."”

As with the Starlink decision, given the urgency of the tariff threats at stake one might think the general rules surrounding the convention are on Ford’s side. But there are two aspects to this specific situation that speak against Ford’s actions under the convention. The first and most damning is that he has rejected out of hand the idea of cooperation with the opposition parties. Given that there are no plausible barriers to interparty cooperation on this file, this goes directly against the convention. The other wrinkle is Ford’s intentions to have the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party pay for the trips, something that in fact counters Ford’s claim this is properly government business.

Conventions are, at the end of the day, only enforced by politics, and usually by the public’s reaction. Whatever we might hope about civics and strong democratic norms, at the end of the day, the arcane nature of this ‘controversy’ will likely escape public attention.

But the questions surrounding the caretaker convention nonetheless expose the broader democratic norms at stake. Ford’s unilateralism severely undercuts his justification for the snap election. He has claimed he needs a new ‘mandate’ to address Trump’s economic threats. His decisions and behaviour taken over the last few days show what an empty rationale this is: he enjoyed a majority government, with a firm grip on the legislature. He faced no ‘mandate’-based restrictions; indeed, the proof of this is that even in the midst of an election campaign where he is supposed to be acting with restraint and working with the opposition he has demonstrated a completely free hand. (Here’s an older post of Lagassé’s on the problems of ‘mandate talk’ in Canada’s political system).

If it is difficult to say whether Ford is clearly violating the caretaker convention, it is far less difficult to point out that his election call was made only in his narrow partisan electoral interests. An engaged citizenry might see this treatment of democratic norms and respond accordingly. What the people of Ontario might do, on the other hand, is far less certain.