Prime Minister Stephen Harper's apparent plan to call a general election this coming week, in defiance of the government's own legislation fixing October, 2009, as the date of the next federal election, has triggered a good deal of controversy this past week.
A number of commentators have argued that calling an election without waiting for the House of Commons to reconvene on Sept. 15 would violate established constitutional conventions or norms. Some have even claimed that the election call would be illegal, in light of the government's fixed-election date legislation, and suggested that the Governor-General, Michaelle Jean, should carefully consider whether she should accept the Prime Minister's request.
In fact, while the Prime Minister's election gambit may violate political commitments, it is perfectly consistent with constitutional norms and practices, and would not violate the fixed-date election legislation.
The first point to recognize is that, under Westminster-style parliamentary systems such as our own, a prime minister has virtually absolute discretion to determine the date of a general election. While the formal legal power to trigger an election rests in the hands of the governor-general, there is a firm constitutional requirement that she will exercise her powers only on the advice of the prime minister.
Thus when the prime minister asks the governor-general to dissolve Parliament and fix the date of the election, the governor-general is expected to automatically grant the request without making an independent assessment of its merits.
It has been suggested that there may be exceptional circumstances in which a governor-general might be justified in exercising a "reserve power" and refusing to grant a prime minister's request for a dissolution.
For example, in her 2006 memoir Heart Matters, Adrienne Clarkson, the former governor-general, revealed that in 2005 she would have refused a request for a dissolution from Paul Martin, if he had made the request within six months of the previous election. Ms. Clarkson claimed that "to put the Canadian people through an election before six months would have been irresponsible, and in that case I would have decided in favour of the good of the Canadian people and denied dissolution."
Ms. Clarkson reported that she had formulated this six-month principle on the basis of the opinions of "constitutional experts whom I consulted regularly." Yet the constitutional basis for the principle seems unsound, since it is surely for the elected prime minister, and not the unelected governor-general, to decide what is in the best interests of the Canadian people.
Ms. Clarkson's constitutional advice suggesting that a government must wait six months before seeking a dissolution was likely based on the celebrated "King-Byng" incident of 1926, the only time in Canadian history where a governor-general refused the request of a prime minister to dissolve Parliament. Mackenzie King's minority government had been in office for a little more than six months when, facing likely defeat on a vote of confidence, he asked Governor-General Byng to dissolve Parliament and fix an election date. Byng refused and, instead, called upon the leader of the Opposition, Arthur Meighen, to form a government.
Constitutional scholars have long debated whether Lord Byng acted properly in refusing the prime minister's request. But a number of quite distinctive circumstances prevailed in June, 1926, none of which is present today.
First, the prime minister was seeking a second election within a span of about six months, having previously sought and been granted a dissolution that led to the election of November, 1925. Second, it was virtually certain that King was about to be defeated on a confidence vote, which suggested that he no longer enjoyed the confidence of the House of Commons. On this basis, the governor-general might have regarded it as appropriate to refuse the prime minister's advice, since the governor-general is only required to follow advice from a first minister who has the support of the House.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Conservatives under Arthur Meighen had in fact won significantly more seats than King's Liberals in the 1925 election and were just eight seats short of a majority, but King had continued to govern with the support of the Progressives. Thus Meighen could plausibly claim that he should be given the opportunity to form a government before another election. (In fact, Meighen's government was defeated within days of taking office, triggering the election of September, 1926, which returned King to office.)
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has set October 14 as the date for the 40th Canadian federal election. The Prime Minister met with Governor General Michaëlle Jean at her official residence of Rideau Hall today to request that the 39th Parliament of Canada be dissolved. The Queen's representative agreed to drop the writ and hold the election on Harper's recommended date.

Throughout the duration of Harper's minority parliament, there have been several times where an election call had been predicted, but it managed to survive longer than any true minority government in Canadian history, despite having the smallest relative caucus. Nevertheless, today's announcement has been a near-certainty for the past week, and each party has already begun campaigning and putting up signs. The Conservatives began airing TV advertisements before the official election call was made.

After meeting individually with the leaders of the three other parties represented in the House of Commons, Harper said that he does not have confidence in the ability of the Parliament to continue to work. After each of his meetings at 24 Sussex Drive, opposition leaders emerged saying that Harper was intent on calling an election and had already decided that there could be no common ground with opposition parties. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe said after his August 29 meeting with the Prime Minister that "instead of making efforts to try finding solutions in the best interest of the population, he wants an election in the best interest of his party". Over the course of this past Parliament, the governing Conservatives rarely found compromises with the other parties, and his small caucus has survived largely because the Liberal Party chose to abstain from crucial bills rather than vote against them.

The move is somewhat unusual. While minority governments rarely last long in Canada a request for the dissolution of Parliament is normally not made until the government is defeated on a motion of confidence by the opposition parties. The move is also unusual because it appears to violate a law passed by Harper himself; Bill C-16 of the first session set fixed election dates for federal elections, reading "each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election". Under the law, the next election was not to be held until October 19, 2009; however, the government has stated that the bill was never intended to be used in minority parliaments. Harper argues, however, that the parliament could no longer function and opposition parties intended to defeat the government. With that rationale, Governor General Jean had little choice but to follow her prime minister's advice.

A recent poll conducted by Ipsos Reid for CanWest News Service reported that half of all the 1,003 Canadians surveyed said Harper would make the best Prime Minister, with New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton at 31%, and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion at 20%. NDP leader Jack Layton is at 38% support for being "sincerely committed to dealing with global warming," with Dion at 30%, and Harper last at 27%. "If this election is going to be a referendum on leadership, Stephen Harper has a heck of an advantage," says Ipsos Reid president Darrell Bricker. He also says Dion has to "to rough up Stephen Harper a bit" if he wants to win the election.

Harper is also at 50% for being the best to lead in tough economic times, 47% for having "what is takes" to lead the country, and 43% for "a vision of Canada that you can support."

The Conservatives currently hold 127 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, up from 124 at the last election, while the Liberals hold 95 seats, down from 103.  Recent polls show the Conservatives polling at 37% support among voters, just below the 40% usually required to form a majority government.