Harper’s snap election call heads to Federal Court
The Federal Court of Canada is to hear arguments against the election call last fall by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Democracy Watch, a citizens group that monitors ethics in government, is scheduled to argue before the court on Sept. 8 that Mr. Harper violated his own legislation by calling the election before he’d served four years in office.
A Federal Court prothonotary ruled Oct. 3 – in the midst of the campaign – that there was not enough time for a judge to hear the case before the election 11 days later.
Democracy Watch was seeking an order that the decision to dissolve Parliament and call an election violated new measures in the Canada Elections Act.
The group says Bill C-16 set fixed election dates every four years unless a minority government like Harper’s is defeated by a non-confidence vote.
Democracy Watch is seeking a ruling that Parliament’s dissolution and the election call were illegal in hopes that would prohibit future political manoeuvring and manipulation.
[More]
Popularity: 34% [?]
Male, retired and the rest is of little interest to anyone. The site keeps me busy and if it helps others to stay abreast of daily events then my time is well spent.
stageleft Says:
“Ethics” and “government” in the same sentence….. funny ain’t it?
DW has set an ambitious goal if they want to “prohibit future political manoeuvring and manipulation“… and even if they do get a ruling they like you can be sure that every party in the House will support legislation that gets them around it because political parties are all about manipulation.
The party in power uses it to stay in power, and the Opposition uses it to try and gain power — why otherwise intelligent people willingly and knowingly support such conduct and behaviour remains a mystery to me.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
MaryT Says:
The set election date just gave the opposition permission to act like fools, oppose everything without reading it, invent scandals, collect their paycheques, increase their pensions, get their 1.95/vote and to hell with trying to co-operate with the govt. They yelled, 60% voted against them, forgetting that over 60% voted against every opposition party, and that only 28 MPs are there with a majority.
Let’s have set election dates, but amend the bill to include, no confidence votes be banned.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
stageleft:. life on the left side : Dear Democracy Watch Says:
[...] h/t Jacks Newswatch ] Tech Tags: Canada Canadian+politics Democracy+Watch Bill+C-16 political+process party+politics [...]
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
beentheredonethat Says:
So where were these pathetic double standard whiners when Chretien was calling elections years before it was necessary and he had a majority? What a bunch of hypocrits.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 7:09 pm
stageleft Says:
@MaryT: Have you really thought that through? Are you gonna ban minority governments as well? How many minority governments do you think would pass budgets in any sort of timely manner if they were not confidence motions?
@beentheredonethat: I guess you forgot that Bill C-16, nor anything remotely like it, existed when Chretien was making his advantageous election calls ‘eh? But if we ignore that inconvient little tib-bit of factual information, on what legal basis could they have launched their suit?
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
beentheredonethat Says:
Actually I didn’t forget about Bill C-16 at all. The truth of the matter is, and you know it as well as anybody else or at least you should, that this group of disgruntled misfits would not be complaining if it had been the Liberals instead of the Conservatives so stop pretending otherwise. They’re agenda driven hypocrits plain and simple and the left fits them like a glove and vice versa. They compliment each other nicely.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Lee Says:
BTDT, well said.
In my last year in High School, i took a course called “Logic”, in which we had to use “reason” to propagate various ideas.
Its really too bad they dont teach that course anymore.
But then, i have been told that my education happened during the dark ages. My bad.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 9:44 pm
stageleft Says:
@beentheredonethat: Have you bothered to check out who Democracy Watch is? …. I’m guessing the answer to that question is no.
“Democracy Watch is a non-profit, non-partisan Canadian organization that opened its doors in October 1993 and launched its first campaign in April 1994.”
… let me see….. who was Prime Minister in 1994 ——- could it have been Jean Chretien? They’ve also got uncomplementary things about Martin they want looked into, and AdSCAM.They are calling for inquiries into questionable government practices going back some 15 years.
Did I guess right? You only think you know who they are because of their current action?
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Mac Says:
The thing which Democracy Watch does best is promote Democracy Watch… very necessary to pay the bills… and if they happen to do any good after that, it’s only coincidental. Like most such groups, they have a vested interest in avoiding solutions to problems since their stock-in-trade is complaining. So they mostly do silly things like writing up press releases denouncing policies.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 10:58 pm
DWT Says:
I contacted Duff at Democracy Watch two years ago, and asked him when he was going to begin “looking into” all of the Chretien irregularities – the golf course sale, the hotel loan, Adscam, the BDBC, etc. His response was that it was “too far in the past”, and therefore not worth pursuing.
I agree with Mac, DW is out for DW, as since I sent him one email, I have had non-stop requests for financial support.
Posted on June 24th, 2009 at 12:04 am
CRB Says:
Since when did Duff Conacher become a group? Only in his own little mind! Give us a break Duff – go away.
Posted on June 24th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Pat Says:
My understanding of the fixed election dates were for the purposes of avoiding the snap elections by Majorities, a la Cruton, and not for minorities which by and large are controlled by the Confidence votes. The situation of a Majority being able to call the election when ever it wishes is a truly unfair proposition, and that was the purpose of the legislation.
The case in question was a necessary thing to do and one that led up to the attempted coup by the Three Amigos. Parliament at that point WAS in gridlock and nothing was getting done, except finalizing the coup plans which came next.
Posted on June 24th, 2009 at 1:18 am
UV Says:
This and the many other flip flops is hurting the Federal Conservatives.
Posted on June 24th, 2009 at 6:57 am
beentheredonethat Says:
It takes more than for any special interest group to just attach the word ‘democracy’ to their handle to make me a believer stageleft.
Posted on June 24th, 2009 at 7:32 am
FredR Says:
Exactly WHERE in the bill does it prohibit MINORITY governments from falling? Can someone please point that out to me? I can’t find it. This bill was enacted to prevent MAJORITY governments from arbitrarily chosing a date when to hold the next election (like a certain former PM Jean Chretien was wont to do – whenever he judged the opposition was at its weakest); but MINORITY governments are another issue altogether.
If the opposition can’t stomach the ruling party, it’s within their rights to collapse the government on a vote of confidence. If the ruling party cannot push through any legislation they feel is important, they, in turn can proclaim that they no longer have the support of parliament. In which case it’s up the Governor General to decide whether to hand over power to the opposition or call another election. Sound familiar?
So why is it that leftards and the MSM refuse to understand this? Too busy reading up on the gossip south of the border? If the Federal Court doesn’t throw this case out, they will show themselves as partisans interfering with Canadian politics, not defending it.
Posted on June 24th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Jack Says:
It’s not there, Fred. The change was made to prevent another Chretien from pulling a swifty. It has nothing to do with minority governments, only majority ones.
I wil also note you are wrong regarding the power of the GG. She has no say regarding who takes power. The PM speaks — she obeys. That’s just the way it is and Harper didn’t do that.
A Liberal did long ago.
Point: He can call an election whenever he wants because he is in a minority situation. Are you ready for that?
Heh…
Posted on June 24th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Cunctator Says:
Jack, I’m sorry but you do not accurately portray the constitution. The PM is the GG’s political advisor and only he can recommend a course of action. However, the GG retains the authority to accept or reject that advice. She certainly had the authority to select another individual to try to form a government with a majority of support in the HofC. That is the way our parliamentary government is supposed to function. That is how parliament retains the power to make or unmake governments. Harper, unfortunately, refused to abide by that ages-old rule, the GG is a political neophyte, and an extremely dangerous precedent has been established — confidence votes no longer matter. We all lost.
Posted on June 24th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Duff Conacher Says:
Hello all,
To clarify a few things that have been inaccurately stated in many of the posts in response to this article:
- Democracy Watch is strictly non-partisan, and has criticized parties of all political stripes across Canada if they have failed to uphold or advocate good government and corporate responsibility principles (and praised parties of all stripes when they have upheld these principles) — all you have to do is click on the links on Democracy Watch’s homepage and you will see that clearly (with many more details if you simply search for each party’s name on the site);
- if Democracy Watch really fit in a glove with the left, why would it have given the federal Conservatives the best grade on their 2006 election platform? — See details at:
http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsJan1806.html
- don’t know who DWT is but s/he is incorrect that I said to him/her that the Chrétien situations occurred too long ago to be looked into (I would have said that it will be difficult to look into them given they occurred long ago, as we are learning with the Mulroney-Schreiber situation) — again, just click on the links on the Democracy Watch homepage and you will see that Democracy Watch’s position is that many past situations still need investigating — specifically the link that takes you to this webpage:
http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsNov0707.html
- and also look at the following news release, which you will see summarizes a court ruling against a Liberal lobbyist and Liberal Cabinet minister, and and contains a link to 5 past complaints against Chrétien, Martin, Allan Rock, John Manley and Sheila Copps that Democracy Watch is still pushing the Commissioner of Lobbying to investigate and rule on:
http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsMar1709.html
- neither the federal Conservatives, nor any other federal party, ever mentioned that Bill C-16 fixed election dates only for majority governments, not for minority governments — Prime Minister Harper made that up in September 2008 to attempt to justify his snap election call
- the measures in Bill C-16 are not completely clear, but what is clear is what the federal Conservatives said the bill meant when it was being reviewed by Parliament (they said the measures prohibit any Prime Minister from going to the Governor General and advising the GG to dissolve Parliament and call an election before a vote of non-confidence against the government occurs in the House of Commons) — Democracy Watch’s court case is serving the public interest of have a court ruling on whether or not the measures fix federal election dates — if the measures did fix election dates, then PM Harper broke the law — if the measures do not fix election dates, then PM Harper broke his 2006 election promise to fix election dates
- a court case against Jean Chrétien’s snap election calls in 1997 and 2000 was not possible, as stageleft notes, because the fixed election date measures in the Canada Elections Act did not exist at the time (they were added by the federal Conservatives Bill C-16, which became law in May 2007)
- finally, for a discussion/debate to be reasonable, everyone participating must stick to facts and logical arguments — does anyone who commented on this blog entry by Jack really believe that the many false claims, slanderous comments, and illogical points made in many of the responses are reasonable? let alone constructive? — of course you can always disagree with the actions and proposals of Democracy Watch, but if your disagreement is not based on what Democracy Watch is actually doing, or has actually done, or is actually proposing, then your disagreement is not based in reality, is irresponsible, and is destructive to democratic discussion
- I welcome responses to the above — hopefully they will be factual and logical
Hope this helps.
Take care and bye for now,
Duff Conacher, Coordinator
Democracy Watch
Posted on June 29th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Mac Says:
Thanks for dropping by, Duff. If you read through the assorted comments, you’ll find my thoughts were comment #9 and I stand by them.
In fact, by coming here and dropping links to your website as well as encouraging everyone to come and read/search your website, you’re doing exactly what I said you’re best at doing: promoting Democracy Watch… an excellent means of keeping your name and your organization in the news which, coincidentally, keeps the donations flowing.
If I were in your shoes, I would be doing much the same since I like to have a roof over my head and food on the table… but don’t pretend you’re doing any of us a favour by bringing a law suit about Bill C-16. All you’re doing is costing us tax slaves more in lawyers and court costs. Excuse me if I don’t feel all warm and fuzzy about that.
Tell me… is there any evidence whatsoever that you’ve ever done a scrap of good for Canadians? So far, I’ve never seen any such but hope springs eternal. In fact, as I stated above, you have a vested interest in NOT finding solutions since your “stock & trade” is complaining… Solving problems would make your “job” harder.
Posted on June 29th, 2009 at 5:33 pm