Federal election date change: Public service, or self-service?

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 21/05/2024 (530 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

If providing certainty to voters and opposition parties is the intended purpose of laws governing fixed election dates, it misses the mark.

That’s because ruling parties can exercise clauses or amend legislation to suit their own purposes. It happens so frequently that voters would be right in thinking that fixed election date rules aren’t worth the paper they’re printed upon.

Setting an election date has always been high drama here in Manitoba, with some chagrin still in the air about Brian Pallister’s decision to call an early election in the fall of 2019. People viewed it, rightfully so, as self-serving, and their displeasure was likely the main reason the October 2023 election date was not adjusted.

Why give voters one more reason to be angry at a down-in-the-polls government?

So it’s a bit of a head-scratcher that the federal Liberals are changing the date of the next federal election by seven days. Instead of it being on Oct. 20, 2025, they recently introduced legislative amendments to switch it to Oct. 27.

Why go through the hassle of risking public scorn to move an election by seven days?

It’s an interesting question, and one that garners varying answers.

The official government word, according to Democratic Institutions Minister Dominic LeBlanc, is that the new date will avoid holding an election on the same day as Diwali, a Hindu religious festival. This festival occurs each autumn and runs for five consecutive days, with the main holiday occurring on the third day. In 2025, that date happens to be on Oct. 20.

Additionally, the minister offered that the new date would ensure it doesn’t run concurrent with a municipal election in Alberta.

Come again? I’ve never heard of a federal election date switching to accommodate candidates vying to become a town reeve or city councillor, but maybe this is the Liberals trying out a softer, more conciliatory approach with Albertans.

Many people aren’t buying it, including the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF). Looking beyond government’s stated reasoning, a delay in the election of seven days ensures that 80 MPs elected in 2019 can rest assured that, if defeated in 2025, they would still receive a full pension.

That’s because MPs must serve six years to achieve pension eligibility, and the anniversary date for the class of 2019 is Oct. 21, 2025, one day after the original election date. A new date ensures these 80 MPs slide under the wire to achieve eligibility. This includes 32 Conservative MPs, 22 Liberals, six NDPs, and 20 Bloc Québécois.

According to the CTF, this move could add up to $120 million in pension payouts if these MPs are defeated in 2025.

While it’s unlikely all of them will lose their seats in 2025, the manoeuvre does cast shade on government and respective politicians.

Of the Manitoba MPs in the class of 2019, there are four: Raquel Dancho (Kildonan-St. Paul), Marty Morantz (Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley), and Dan Mazier (Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa) with the Conservatives, and Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre) with the NDP.

None of these four opposition MPs were likely consulted on the Liberal legislative changes, nor are any of them likely worried about it. Dancho is on a pretty solid path to winning her seat again and is undoubtedly one of the up-and-comers who will likely get tapped for cabinet should the Conservatives win government. Morantz is in a tighter seat, but the last thing on his mind would be his pension, considering he donated his entire city council severance to the Bruce Oake Foundation. He’s not in Ottawa for the money.

And barring any massive disruption, I can’t see either Mazier or Gazan losing their seats.

Apart from Winnipeg South Centre (Ben Carr) and Portage-Lisgar (Branden Leslie), all other Manitoba seats are held by incumbents who’ve passed their six-year anniversary. There’s one vacancy in Elmwood-Transcona with a byelection forthcoming, but when Daniel Blaikie vacated the seat earlier this year to go work for the provincial NDP government, he did so with a full pension intact after serving eight-plus years.

All that to say, changing an election date that will ultimately benefit MPs and their pensions is unhelpful in lowering voter skepticism and overall disdain for politicians. Even though I don’t recall any of our Manitoba MPs advocating for this change, they stand to get painted with the same brush of cynicism.

At a time of declining voter turnout, this is a step in the wrong direction for democracy, and certainly a risky move for an unpopular government.

Rochelle Squires is a recovering politician after 71/2 years in the Manitoba legislature. She is a political and social commentator whose column appears Tuesdays.

rochelle@rochellesquires.ca