We have fixed election dates laws for a reason, until we don’t
In 2003, I was elected to Queen’s Park as part of a government promising fixed election dates. Ontarians would now know that each election would be held four years from the last one.
I privately disagreed.
The idea seemed crazy. Why would you tie the hands of a government and prevent them from calling a snap election to take advantage of a surge in popularity or the Opposition in disarray? Not only did it make no political sense, it sounded downright American.
Despite my misgivings, I voted for the measure and gradually started to realize the idea had benefits. Governments could simply focus on getting the job done. They didn’t have to spend hours wondering whether “now” was the time for a quick election. The public service was able to develop and implement measures under a clear and stable timeline and could effectively plan for a transition of government.
Finally, the type of speculation that wastes so much time in politics would be deprived of at least one topic: the words “we can’t move forward because I heard from a reliable source that we’re going to have an election,” would thankfully no longer be uttered.
And let’s face it, it was fair to voters. Although we weren’t first, Ontario was one of the pioneers in implementing fixed election dates. Over the next decade, most other Canadian governments would pass similar measures, including the Harper government.
“Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage,” Harper explained. “They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody.”
And for those who worried that we were becoming too American, there was some fine print to offer comfort. Although the various laws laid out the time frame for elections to be called, they all anticipated that if circumstances warranted, you could still call an early election.
In short, these laws weren’t laws at all. They were glorified guidelines. And so it began.
In September 2008, Canadians watched then-prime minister Harper break his own law and call an early election. Pauline Marois followed suit in Quebec a few years later. Both maintained that their respective parliaments had become “unworkable” and they could no longer govern effectively.
The idea of a need for more stability may sound familiar. It’s the excuse the New Brunswick Conservatives recently used to ignore their own fixed election laws to call an early pandemic election.
Asimilar excuse was used by the NDP government in British Columbia when they also ignored their own law and called a snap election for late October. As Premier John Horgan explained, waiting until the fixed date would only “create uncertainty and instability.”
There is a way to fix things. The United Kingdom has a clever mechanism. Under their fixed election rules, governments can call an early election only if they lose a confidence vote or if a super majority of MPs, representing twothirds of the seats in the Commons, agree to an early vote.
Would Canadians support such tough measures? It’s difficult to say.
It is a shame, however, that a measure meant to strengthen democracy has turned into a bit of a joke that will only get worse if both Ontario and the federal government decide to go to the polls early. We may well decide that fixed election dates are not for us. But that should be a conscious decision by voters instead of one imposed on us by law-breaking politicians.