(Hon. Rob Nicholson (then-Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform), speaking in the House of Commons on September 18, 2006 about the fixed election date measures in Bill C-16, which became law on May 3, 2007)
Last year, Harper walked up to the Governor General, and asked for Parliament to be dissolved. Parliament wasn't even in session. No non-confidence vote had been held.
Harper got his wish, and we found ourselves in a general election. $300 million later, it ended with much the same result it started with.
Was the election legal? Strange as it may seem, it is convention that the Governor General agree to any such request by the Prime Minister, even without a non-confidence vote. Conventions are considered constitutional, though they are not codified; however, Harper, with much fanfare, had previously passed though Parliament a fixed-term election statute forbidding the calling of an election prior to the end of a term unless a non-confidence vote occurred.
The problem is, 'convention' is a constitutional issue, and if Harper followed convention, than an Act of Parliament cannot override it. The problem likely isn't that the law was broken, the problem likely is that Parliament passed an unconstitutional law. An Act of Parliament cannot amend the powers of the Head of State. It is likewise unlikely that the convention Harper used to approach the Governor General can be amended either.
Yes, of course Harper knew this when he crafted the fixed term election law.
Democracy Watch has taken the matter to Federal court and has argued for Harper's election call to be found illegal. Win or lose, Democracy Watch has an interesting angle to play:
"If Democracy Watch wins, the Federal Court will rule that Prime Minister Harper is a dishonest lawbreaker because he gave false reasons for calling the snap federal election last September in violation of his own fixed-election-date law. If Democracy Watch loses, the court will rule that Prime Minister Harper is a dishonest promise-breaker because he failed to keep his 2006 election promise to pass a law fixing election dates," said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Impressive as this is, I expect failure. I suspect the judge will rule in the government's favour for reasons stated above, and for all the posturing of Democracy Watch, Harper's rebuttal -- if he even bothers -- will be to say "The court agreed with me, of course." Harper will not bother to explain why the law he pushed was ineffective. He'll ignore that, and will simply press that the courts sided with him (those damn liberal judges...). Forevermore, those will be Harper's words, long after Democracy Watch's PR on this issue quickly fades.
I think it likely that Democracy Watch will fail, and we'll lose another piece in our arsenal: the plausible, though not that defensible, claim that Harper violated the law when he called the 2008 election.
Hopefully, the Judge rules against Harper. But I think it would have been better if this had stayed out of the courts.
h/t to Five of Five
5 comments:
It amazes me that the media continue to pay attention to this crackpot "citizen's group".
Did every opposition leader state they were going to defeat the CPC Fall legislative agenda in front of cameras exiting their meeting with the PM?
Are you suggestin the GG upon advice of the PM is a stooge only?
Did the GG have public statements to support the PM that the opposition withdrew it confidence?
Here I am arguing that Harper's actions were likely constitutional and that the law isn't because it limits the GG's powers, and this is what I get.
Of course, the decision was all Harper's to go to the GG and there was still no non-confidence vote. The law Harper promoted and passed requires an election be called based upon a term limit expiration unless Parliament passes a vote of non-confidence.
We all know that Harper can go and dissolve Parliament on a whim.
Why not ask the GG why she agreed? Oh, right. We aren't entitled to any transparency there.
My point was that Democracy Watch is wasting its time. But then again, the "organization" is simply devoted to getting Duff airtime as opposed to doing anything constructive.
I wasn't on about you, Mark.
I've never read in too deeply into what Democracy Watch does, why or for whom.
Post a Comment