|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
 |
|
news > Challenge to misuse of P.M.'s power applauded Challenge to misuse of P.M.'s power applaudedSeptember 30 , 2008 Newmarket, Ontario- The intent of the fixed election date law has been broken in both spirit and law. The Progressive Canadian Party fully supports the actions of Democracy Watch in bringing the Prime Minister and his Party before the Courts. The intent of the law was to bring predictability into our system of governance. Canadian law is based on precedent. His action in advising the Governor General to call a General Election when there had been no vote of non-confidence, when the House of Commons was not in session, and on the eve of three by-elections sets an unacceptable precedent both for all fixed election date statutes, not just the Federal. Hon. Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) next intervention on Monday, September 18, 2006 when moving second reading of Bill C-16 “An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act,” stated that: "The Prime Minister has to retain his prerogative to advise dissolution to allow for situations when the government loses the confidence of the House. That has to be there. This is a fundamental principle of our system of responsible government." This "fundamental principle" was broken. Nicholson was asked: "will the government House leader clearly state that the royal prerogative, which entails the Prime Minister going to the Governor General to call an election even if a confidence vote is not lost, will stay in place and there will still be an election when the Prime Minister chooses it?" Nicholson's response was: "This Prime Minister will live by the law and spirit of this particular piece of legislation. He and this government are driving this democratic reform. . . . This bill is an expression of how the House intends to conduct itself." Less than two years later the intent of the Prime Minister and his Party was not to conduct itself by the law and its spirit. While the spirit of the law according to Nicholson was that: " Instead of the governing party having the advantage of determining when the next election will take place and being the single party that may know for up to several months when it will occur, all parties would be on an equal footing," the Prime Minister’s actions were taken to provide advantage to the governing party. The "in and out scheme" being inoperable and with a surplus of funds available a campaign attacking the character of the Leader of the Opposition was initiated months before the calling of the election. Seeing a tool available in the ability to send out material through members mailings at no cost to the party, partisan documents were printed and mailed at public expense. In some cases individual households received a dozen invitations to return a questionnaire, not to the M.P. under whose name it was sent but to CRG-Government Caucus Services. The names could then be entered into the party computer database. By-elections were called first in three constituencies and then later in a fourth: a strategy to fool the other parties and the general public into arriving at the conclusion no general election was in the offing. What has occurred is precisely what the then Minister of Democratic Reform stated Bill C-16 was to prevent: " a situation where the prime minister is able to choose the date of the election, not based necessarily on the best interests of the country but on the best interests of his or her political party. " Despite assurances from the Minister the passage of the Bill has not provided for "greater fairness in election campaigns, greater transparency and predictability." Has the intent of the Act been broken? The Minister gave the assurance that "The bill does not in any way change the requirement that the government must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. Moreover, all the conventions regarding the loss of confidence remain intact," yet Stephen Harper called the election now underway without having lost a vote of confidence in the House, after having maximized use of his parties financial superiority, misusing the privileges of his Members of Parliament, and leading opposition parties and the electorate to believe no general election was in the offing. Democracy Watch's challenge places the decision as to whether this precedent is acceptable in the hands of the courts. For more information or to request an interview, please contact: |
 |