Preamble: In 2001, British Columbia became the first province in Canada to adopt legislation setting provincial election dates, and in 2005, it was the first province to hold an election on a set date.

The federal government and Ontario, Newfoundland/Labrador, PEI, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan have since adopted similar legislation, setting a four-year timeframe for elections (the month varies).  This is similar to what is already in place for municipal elections in Manitoba and many other jurisdictions.

Resolution: That the Government of Manitoba:

a) amend the Legislative Assembly Act to set elections so that they occur on a fixed date every four years, preferably on the second Tuesday in May, notwithstanding successful non-confidence votes; and

b) make a provision, should there be a conflict with a day of cultural or religious significance or a federal election, for the Chief Election Officer to recommend an alternate polling day.

Resolution Report: 

MCC Advocacy (additions since last report are in italics):

May 21, 2008: An MCC ‘Inside the Chamber’ Web Story entitled “IT HAPPENED AT THE AGM: PART 3 – MCC Announces Resolutions For 2008-2009″ provided access to each and every Resolution passed at the AGM. Notice of this story was circulated through the MCC e-Omnibus which is sent to all MCC members, Media and Government.

May 26, 2008: The MCC presented both a written and oral presentation to the Law Amendments Review Committee on Bill 37 ‘The Lobbyist Registration Act & Amendments to the Elections Act, the Election Finances Act, the Legislative Assembly Act & the Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act.’ The submission both reproduced and echoed the MCC’s Resolution on this matter.

June 4, 2008: For the first time ever the MCC made available its handbook on ‘Policies & Resolutions’ which contains Resolutions in one handy format. An MCC ‘Inside the Chamber’ Web Story entitled “MCC Releases Policy Handbook” announced this initiative. Notice of this story was circulated through the MCC e-Omnibus which is sent to all MCC members, Media and Government.

June 4, 2008: An MCC ‘Inside the Chamber’ Web Story entitled “MCC Makes Elections Submission” provided access to the MCC’s submission and the Resolution on this matter. For the first time ever the web coverage included MCC TV video commentary from the MCC at the legislature. Notice of this story was circulated through the MCC e-Omnibus which is sent to all MCC members, Media and Government.

June 6, 2008: Resolution books were sent to every MLA and every Member of Parliament that hails from Manitoba.

October 2, 2008: Forwarded a Resolution report to the local chamber that sponsored this Resolution seeking input as to how this issue can move forward.

October 20, 2008: The 2008 third quarter edition of the Focus mentioned this Resolution in its report on the MCC AGM. The Focus magazine goes out to 10,000 businesses and community leaders across Manitoba.

Developments (additions since last report are in italics):

May 13, 2008: The Winnipeg Free Press included an Op-Ed by Hugh McFadyen, Leader of the Official Opposition, entitled “Bill 37 defies basic principles of democracy”. That Op-Ed included the following: 

Contrary to the NDP spin, Bill 37 leaves the call of Manitoba’s next election at the which, of the premier. Only after the next provincial election does the bill unreservedly set dates for subsequent elections. We have been calling for set election dates, but the goal of certainty for Manitobans has been lost because Gary Doer refuses to give up his power to call the next election whenever it suits him.

June 7, 2008: A Winnipeg Free Press article by Bruce Owen entitled “Hog-ban stinks, farmers tell committee: Marathon hearing gives angry producers their 10 minutes to vent” reports that the Bill affecting this matter has been put over to the fall and will be passed into law by October 9, 2008.

The article suggests the Bill may be amended to address concerns from the Progressive Conservatives on party advertising.  

July 11, 2008: The Winnipeg Free Press contained the following:

Premier Gary Doer says he’s willing to consider moving Manitoba’s set election date from the spring to the fall.

That could mean Manitobans will go to the polls in October of 2011 instead of June 14 of that year.

Speaking after a committee meeting Thursday where MLAs quizzed the province’s election officials on new election legislation, Doer said he’s open to critics who say a June vote is tricky for farmers and students and could be kiboshed by floods and forest fires.

But Doer has traditionally called elections in the spring and has always said four years is the ideal time between votes.

….

Chief Electoral Officer Richard Balasko told the committee that eight jurisdictions in Canada have fixed election dates and most are in October.

August 21, 2008: Denis Smith, Professor emeritus of political science, wrote a commentary for the Globe and Mail entitled “Is the fix in on fixed election law?: The PM can always wield the big club.”

The piece was on the federal election law and included the following: 

MPs from all parties supported the bill, although a few opposition members doubted that it would achieve its purpose. The catch was in the first clause: ‘Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor-General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor-General’s discretion.’ Since the Governor-General acts only on the advice of the prime minister, if the power of dissolution is unchanged, the prime minister’s power to choose an election date short of the new four-year limit also is unchanged. Liberal MP Marlene Jennings put the criticism most bluntly: The bill was ‘clearly duplicitous’; the government was simply ‘trying to blow sand in our eyes.’

The government responded with vehement denial. The theoretical power of dissolution might remain, but the bill was a solemn declaration of Stephen Harper’s intent. ‘This Prime Minister,’ Mr. Nicholson insisted, ‘will live by the law and the spirit of this particular piece of legislation.’ Another Conservative MP declared that Mr. Harper was giving up a power ‘that past prime ministers … have used like a club.’ Months earlier, the Prime Minister himself told the House that ‘the government is clear that it will not be seeking an early election. At any time, Parliament can defeat the government and provoke an early election, if that is what the opposition irresponsibly chooses to do.’

The government’s refrain echoed repeatedly until earlier this year. There is a fixed election date in October of 2009; the Prime Minister is bound to respect that date (in honour if not in law, since the terms of the act seem self-contradictory); meantime, Parliament must get on with its work.

Now, something seems to have changed. Is there a decent way for the Prime Minister to slide away from that commitment? In April, the government whip, Jay Hill, gave warning that if Mr. Harper decides to call an election because Parliament has become ‘dysfunctional,’ he will give ample notice. ‘If Parliament was not functioning well, that would show a lack of confidence in the government. It’s a no-brainer that we’d have to go to the people to try and settle it.’

Last week, the Prime Minister confirmed that the key to the use of his power would be parliamentary ‘dysfunction.’ And who would make that ruling? ‘Quite frankly,’ Mr. Harper tells us, ‘I’m going to have to make a judgment in the next little while as to whether or not this Parliament can function productively.’

What frustrates the Prime Minister is that he now wants an end to the life of a tiresome Parliament but can’t be sure that the Liberals will join the other opposition parties to ensure it. In Mr. Harper’s words, Stéphane Dion ’says he doesn’t support the government but won’t say, you know, whether he will defeat us or not. I don’t think that’s a tenable situation.’ As they tease one another in their war of words, both leaders may now see advantage in forcing the other into an election – without quite wanting to say that openly.

So the fixed election law – which the government probably introduced with half-innocent good intent in its early months of power – has become an awkward burden for the Prime Minister. Mr. Dion’s erratic conduct on confidence votes has riled Mr. Harper. Does that justify the Prime Minister in violating the spirit of the election law?

The Governor-General, no doubt, is taking fresh advice on that question from her constitutional advisers. Could she reject the Prime Minister’s advice to dissolve Parliament without a government defeat? Does the new law make any difference? There is only one answer: Despite the law, she would be obliged to do what the Prime Minister asks. She has no power, in this situation, to challenge the political judgment or the moral subtlety of the Prime Minister. Mr. Harper, like other prime ministers before him, can still wield the big club. The new law is a nullity without prime ministerial self-restraint.

Interestingly enough, Manitoba’s Bill 37, “The Lobbyists Registration Act And Amendments To The Elections Act, The Elections Finances Act, The Legislative Assembly Act And The Legislative Assembly Management Commission Act”, has a similar provision:

Powers of Lieutenant Governor preserved

49.1(1)      Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Lieutenant Governor, including the power to dissolve the Legislature at the Lieutenant Governor’s discretion.”

September 6, 2008: A Winnipeg Free Press Op-Ed by Gerald Heckman entitled “The Governor General can say ‘No’” included the following:

In an essay in the Aug. 30 edition of the Globe and Mail, Osgoode Hall Law School Dean Patrick Monahan argued that Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean would be obliged to dissolve Parliament if called upon by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to do so.

It is true that responsible government requires the Governor General to follow lawful and constitutional advice tendered by cabinet (and the prime minister as head of cabinet) but only so long as it enjoys the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons. Dean Monahan acknowledges that governor general Lord Byng’s refusal in 1926 to grant a dissolution requested by Liberal prime minister Mackenzie King means that the Governor General may have a ‘reserve power’ entitling her in similar circumstances to refuse a prime minister’s request for an election.

However, he suggests that the circumstances today are different. First, Monahan argues that ‘there can be no doubt that (Prime Minister Harper) still enjoys the confidence of the House…’ In contrast, he states, King likely no longer enjoyed the confidence of the House, since he was virtually certain to be defeated on an impending confidence vote.

In fact, there is nothing to say that Prime Minister Harper still enjoys the confidence of the House. The only way to be certain is for the House to reconvene in the fall. Moreover, Prime Minister Harper’s own approach is essentially based on the assumption that he no longer has the confidence of the House. He will be seeking dissolution on the basis that the opposition parties wish to defeat his government as soon as Parliament resumes.

Strangely, this seems to mean that if the Governor General believes the Prime Minister’s assertion that he has lost confidence she should deny his request for an election, but if she doesn’t believe him she should accept his request.     

September 22, 2008: In an issue of Maclean’s Magazine, Stephen Harper explained his logic in calling an election in the face of fixed term election legislation. In part, he stated as follows:

I guess I didn’t anticipate we’d get to a stage where the opposition might neither defeat us nor actually allow us to govern. And that was the situation I saw developing and we could not allow. And when I met with the opposition leaders, it was plain to me that that’s exactly where they were headed. And you know, they’re not really complaining about an election, they’re just complaining about me calling it so they can score some points on it. But none of them has any intention of letting the government do anything. We can’t run the country that way. Our system can’t operate like that. And as I say, my defence is, you know if we were doing a snap election, they would have some real complaints. But we telegraphed this for weeks, gave them every opportunity to send different signals, and they didn’t. Look, I would say that in the context of a majority, there’s no excuse for calling an election other than the fixed election date. But we’re not in that situation, and we were simply in a situation where we had to use our better judgment.

October 9, 2008: The following amendment to The Elections Act received royal assent:

“Powers of Lieutenant Governor preserved

49.1(1)     Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Lieutenant Governor, including the power to dissolve the Legislature at the Lieutenant Governor’s discretion.

General election on first Tuesday in October

49.1(2)     Subject to subsection (1) and section 51.1,

(a) a general election must be held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011, unless a general election has been held between the coming into force of this section and October 3, 2011; and

(b) thereafter, a general election must be held on the first Tuesday in October in the fourth calendar year after election day for the last general election.

 c) Current Status (additions since last report are in italics):

 January 27, 2009: This Resolution has been successfully resolved.