Harper's 2008 election call to be challenged

[Dave_ON]

Saw this article on the CBC and it caught my eye.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/08/...#socialcomments

Sure it was hypocritical of Mr. Harper to call an election when it was politically expedient of him to do so; but illegal? I sincerely doubt that. Yes while in all technicality there is formally a law on the books that states elections must occur every 4 years on October 19th but that is not enshrined in the constitution and is therefore subject to repeal/being ignored by whichever party is in power. Essentially it is a sham law that was enacted to give the illusion that Mr. Harper made good on his 2006 election promise.

I don't know what this group democracy watch is trying to achieve really or how the court will even rule on the matter. I suppose the point is moot these many months hence. What will they do if the court does in fact find Harper to have violated this law?

For those of you who may not be aware of the situation as soon as the '08 election was called this group filed their case immediately. The court however ruled that they would not have sufficient time to hear the case prior to the election so they ruled to hear it after the fact. It has just now managed to makes its way through the red tape of our system in time for the 2009 election.

[jdobbin]

Sure it was hypocritical of Mr. Harper to call an election when it was politically expedient of him to do so; but illegal? I sincerely doubt that. Yes while in all technicality there is formally a law on the books that states elections must occur every 4 years on October 19th but that is not enshrined in the constitution and is therefore subject to repeal/being ignored by whichever party is in power. Essentially it is a sham law that was enacted to give the illusion that Mr. Harper made good on his 2006 election promise.

What will be interesting is the government arguing that the law allows for an election call anytime the prime minister wants it.

[Dave_ON]

Indeed, I always find it interesting that Mr. Harper's reforms always stop short of constitutional reform and therefore lack any real substance. Surely he is aware that he cannot unilaterally enact fundamental changes to the country without opening the constitution. Why then does he continue to promise to make changes he really can't. The better question is, why are most people gullible enough to believe the government actually has the power to make them?

[ToadBrother]

Indeed, I always find it interesting that Mr. Harper's reforms always stop short of constitutional reform and therefore lack any real substance. Surely he is aware that he cannot unilaterally enact fundamental changes to the country without opening the constitution. Why then does he continue to promise to make changes he really can't. The better question is, why are most people gullible enough to believe the government actually has the power to make them?

Chretien wasn't much different when he "lent" Federal veto powers to the Provinces.

The fact is that there's about as much chance of the government opening the Constitution as seeing Harper dance into the House in a too-too singing "I'm A Little Teacup". Since Mulroney's utter failures, I suspect it will be a generation or more before anyone is brave or crazy enough to even whisper it.

[g_bambino]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/08/...#socialcomments

I don't know what this group democracy watch is trying to achieve really or how the court will even rule on the matter. I suppose the point is moot these many months hence. What will they do if the court does in fact find Harper to have violated this law?

What a horrendously written article. The PM doesn't make legislation, nor does he have terms in office, and the legislation in question has nothing to do with the Prime Minister. When will Canadians stop trying to mash some grotesque, Americanised carbuncle onto their system of government?

Perhaps these baseless misconceptions are what drive such waste of time challenges as the one being made by Democracy Watch. Unless lying has suddenly become illegal, and therefore Rob Nicholson could be charged for such an offence, DW has no case what-so-ever; the law reducing the maximum life of parliament from 5 years to 4 explicitly states that the law has no effect on the Governor General's powers to dissolve parliament and drop the writs of election. As this is generally done only on the advice of the Prime Minister, as others have noted here already, the legislation was essentially pointless.

[daniel]

...Why then does he continue to promise to make changes he really can't. The better question is, why are most people gullible enough to believe the government actually has the power to make them?

Because those 6s sound bites sound good to the ears. And spending a minute to explain why they are wrong lose the voters' interest.

... The PM doesn't make legislation, nor does he have terms in office...

Not since he broke his own law last year by calling an election.

Edited September 8, 2009 by daniel

[g_bambino]

Not since he broke his own law last year by calling an election.

Er, no... it's actually never. This isn't a republic with presidential terms.

[Fortunata]

Harper is very good at throwing out bones. The people think there is meat on that bone but under close scrutiny, no meat ... just optics. You really can fool some people all of the time.

[Dave_ON]

Interesting update to the article which answers my earlier question about what the point of all of this is.

Conacher suggested that if the Federal Court rules against the Tories, some groups could launch a class-action lawsuit against the Conservative party to recoup the costs of the $350-million election and try and force the party to put the money back in the public coffers.

Not that I think the fed court will rule against the CPC but if they do, $350-million is a chunk of change. I know the CPC's pockets are deep but I doubt they're that deep.

[fellowtraveller]

Conacher suggested that if the Federal Court rules against the Tories, some groups could launch a class-action lawsuit against the Conservative party to recoup the costs of the $350-million election and try and force the party to put the money back in the public coffers

Thank goodness for these 'groups' who are looking out for us little guys.

Any news on their suit to recover all those hundreds of millions dished out to Liberal Party supporters in Adscam? They must be all over that one too.....

[Topaz]

In the Commons, it is not true that anyone can say anything, even a lie and get away from it? I've watched some of the Tories come and out and lie and the Tories said in return of the opposition who opposited them, to step outside and say it, and say they are lying. I believe Ken Dryden did. Never got sued. The Tories are too inexperience, immature and act like a teen with a credit card and all taxpapers are paying for it. You wouldn't let your teen keep the credit card , why let the Tories stay in power?

[Keepitsimple]

The Federal Court will dismiss it as frivolous - but perhaps they won't use exactly those words.

[ToadBrother]

The Federal Court will dismiss it as frivolous - but perhaps they won't use exactly those words.

They should. It's as idiotic as the law itself.

[g_bambino]

In the Commons, it is not true that anyone can say anything, even a lie and get away from it?

Yes; you're referring to parliamentary privilege.

[Dave_ON]

The Federal Court will dismiss it as frivolous - but perhaps they won't use exactly those words.

I doubt they'd dismiss it as frivolous. They'd likely be more inclined to cite the constitution which states an election needs to occur no more than 5 years after the previous one.

As I mentioned the fixed election law didn't really change anything. It's a facade of electoral reform. The GG is not constrained by it and the PM can still request her to dissolve parliament at his whim. It failed to address the issue it was intended to address, namely calling snap elections when it's politically expedient.

[jdobbin]

The Federal Court will dismiss it as frivolous - but perhaps they won't use exactly those words.

Perhaps they will comment that the term limits law is frivolous as well.

[capricorn]

From the OP link.

Conacher suggested that if the Federal Court rules against the Tories, some groups could launch a class-action lawsuit against the Conservative party to recoup the costs of the $350-million election and try and force the party to put the money back in the public coffers.

I know Democracy Watch used Adscam to raise funds for their cause. I also recall they used Adscam for a campaign to "clean up government". But I can't recall DW demanding that the Liberals pay back the money they stole from taxpayers but now they advocate the Conservatives pay back the cost of an election in the event they lose in court. Interesting that.

[Smallc]

The Liberals did pay back the money that came to them as a result of adscam. It worked out to just over $1M.

[capricorn]

It worked out to just over $1M.

:lol:

[Smallc]

The Liberal party didn't get most of the money and you know that. The Liberal party itself actually seems to have had very little to do with the scandal. It was perpetrated by a few people and there was no proven political involvement of any real substance. We can't go around pretending things happened one way just because we wish they would have.

[noahbody]

The Liberal party didn't get most of the money and you know that. The Liberal party itself actually seems to have had very little to do with the scandal. It was perpetrated by a few people and there was no proven political involvement of any real substance. We can't go around pretending things happened one way just because we wish they would have.

My favourite jewel of the Gomery Inquiry was when a party fundraiser was asked about meetings in the PMO and she couldn't remember who she met with.

Couldn't find a citation on that, but here's a few for you to jog your memory:

Guite also claimed ad contracts were routinely handed out to reward ad agencies that did election work for the Liberals.

"It was politically driven," he said, explaining that he was constantly being told to help out the party's friends, such as ad executive Jacques Corriveau.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Jacques Corriveau said Friday that he heard through contacts that the federal government was keen to spend money in Quebec after the close referendum in 1995, making him privy to an initiative that even cabinet ministers later claimed ignorance of.

He could not say specifically how he learned that the federal spigot was being opened, showing in his second day of testimony at the Gomery inquiry the same spotty memory on display Thursday...

Inquiry counsel Bernard Roy asked why Mr. Corriveau's recollections “seemed sharper” when he reminisced about his career and trips to Italy in the 1960s. “I was curious why your memory fails you on more recent events.”

“I can explain,” Mr. Corriveau replied.

“I know a person very close to me who suffers from Alzheimer's and I am conscious of that problem. I am 72, I had an important operation, four hours and a half of anesthesia. It can have an impact. In my entourage people realize that problem.”

A reporter who later buttonholed him in a hallway asked Mr. Corriveau whether he had Alzheimer's. “No,” he said.

Corriveau may not remember much, but other witnesses remember what we got for our money:

close friend of Jean Chrétien did no work for the nearly $6-million he raked in through sponsorship deals, thanks to bogus, unverified invoices, the Gomery inquiry heard yesterday. http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/004176.html

Brault revealed that he cut a deal with Corriveau in the spring of 1998 to return to the Liberal party 10 per cent of the 12 per cent commission fees he charged on sponsorship contracts. These "IOUs," he said, were masked through false invoices...

Brault also testified that Gaby Chrétien, Jean Chrétien's older brother, asked him to donate $4,000 to the federal Liberals. Brault presumes this money went to a Liberal candidate, Yolande Thibault, in Saint-Lambert, on Montreal's south shore, who was defeated in the 2004 federal election. The inquiry turned up a $4,000 cheque made out to Gaby Chrétien by Groupaction for "professional fees." http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupact..._testimony.html

[Keepitsimple]

Brault also testified that Gaby Chrétien, Jean Chrétien's older brother, asked him to donate $4,000 to the federal Liberals. Brault presumes this money went to a Liberal candidate, Yolande Thibault, in Saint-Lambert, on Montreal's south shore, who was defeated in the 2004 federal election. The inquiry turned up a $4,000 cheque made out to Gaby Chrétien by Groupaction for "professional fees."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupact..._testimony.html

That's one of the pieces that remarkably, really didn't get a whole bunch of media play. It's almost inconceivable that Jean Chetien didn't know that his brother was getting paid under the table. Imagine - the Prime Minister's brother! But of course, Jean Chretien says "I know nutting". Is it any wonder Canadians will not let Adscam go?

Edited September 9, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Molly]

Won't let it go? They let it go some time ago.

How often do you raise the subject that you get any more welcoming response than an eye-roll? It's yesterdays news, flogged to irrelevancy....

just like the fixed term law, and the cynical way in which the very guys who proclaimed it the best thing since sliced bread, immediately thumbed their noses at it, stopping only to piously revise their description of its intent.

[Argus]

Thank goodness for these 'groups' who are looking out for us little guys.

Yeah, right. This smells to me like nothing more than a publicity stunt by the group in question. They know they have no hope of winning this "lawsuit" but it will probably raise their profile and thus get them more donations.

I hope the government demands, in its response, that this group pay the full legal costs of all parties involved, as well as all court costs.

If they want to advertise, let them pay for it.

[Argus]

The Liberal party didn't get most of the money and you know that. The Liberal party itself actually seems to have had very little to do with the scandal. It was perpetrated by a few people and there was no proven political involvement of any real substance.

Absolute blind loyalty might be a good thing in a dog, but one would hope for better from humans.

There is NO way that this expensive scheme could have continued without protection from the PMO. Senior civil servants testified as such. The minister himself (how quickly you forget Gagliano) couldn't have defended it, as his own senior deputy minister went to the privy council office with complaints. Only the PMO could have kept this abortion of a program running.

The fact no one confessed is hardly cause to believe there was no political involvement.