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.

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

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…

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.

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. 

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.