An illegal election?

Further to Prof Mendes opinion, unlike most “Laws” C-16 does not proscribe penalties or restrictions in the event the “Law is Transgressed”.

The only censure possible for “Breaking the Law” rests with the electorate who, by the very circumstances of the law being broken, are asked to confirm or reject through the ballot box the Governing Party who has broken the law.

What relief could Mendes seek if he were to proceed as suggested? Nothing restricts the PM from requesting a writ be dropped. If the GG refuses to accept that advice, nothing prevents the PM from resigning office; there are NO MECHANISMS TO FORCE a Government to remain in power against its wishes.

Faced with these two outcomes, the GG may invite another Party to form a Government or she may decide to accept the PM’s advice to call an election.

So returning to Mendes dilemma, he would need to convince Federal Court that a Government, once summoned by GG to form a Government, is prevented from ever resigning save for the circumstances of a vote of non-confidence or the expiration of the term envisioned by C-16. Further Mendes would need to convince a court that the electorate should be denied their right to pass judgement on the decision of the Government to advance the date of an election before that specified in the C-16 regulations. For the courts to issue an injunction against the proceeding of the election requested in contravention of C-16, Mendes would need to demonstrate the irreparable harm that may be suffered by the electorate should the election proceed in advance of the date specified by C-16. The remedies he would seek would need to include enjoining Elections Canada from preparing for or holding the election on the “early” date specified by the GG.

I doubt the courts will want to go fishing in these waters but if they do, I suspect PMSH will relish the opportunity to deal with this type of development.

Mr. Coyne.

The Official Opposition in Canada constantly threatens to defeat the government then runs away from every vote. In the meantime, opposition parties use their majority on parliamentary committies such as the ethics committee to only ask their witnesses to appear, but block witnesses that the Conservatives wish to invite. Do you consider this fair and appropriate? Is this not ‘disfunctional’?

The fixed elections date bill can only be truly applied to a majority government which has control of the House and the parliamentary committes. By its very nature, a minority parliament makes a fixed election law redundant.
You apparently think that opposition parties should have carte blanche to conduct themselves however they want in a minority parliament, yet you expect the government to be impotent in regards to any response.

Using Errol Mendes as a reference is certainly questionable. This well-known Liberal apologist and financial backer should not be portrayed as as an expert since he is primarily concerned with supporting the Liberal agenda. He is not credible-period!

Mr. Cicero, the current government of Canada makes motions on any of its bills Confidence motions, thereby stifling any true debate or compromise to be had one them. They clog committees with a book of dirty tricks which includes the chair of the Procedure and House Affairs committee hiding from his job as chair because he does not agree with the democratic principle of “majority rule”.

In addition, the current government made no mention, nor does the bill itself mention, any reference to it applying only in majority governments. In fact, their frequent references as to how the Bill allows for loss of confidence to occur shows that they were very aware that it would also apply during periods of Minority governments.

I do not argue that the conservatives will be breaking the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law and their stated intent of the law certainly did include both minority and majority governments. That they have changed their minds now when it is politically expedient shows that once again the Conservatives are no better, nor different, from the Liberals — with the exception that the Conservatives promised they would be.

This is whining, I know…

But everyone that is thinking about this issue now, knows that we are being ‘hood-winked’ here. We all of Canada’s big guns, politically speaking providing commentary on this topic.

We have Mr. Harper attempting avoid parliament.

This is just dis-honest. Is there not some way to just deal with this dishonesty. Set aside the technical aspects of this issue and deal with Mr. Harper’s complete disregard for Canadians?

The expectant answer will be have an election and this leaves an unpleasant taste in our collective mouths.

Ridiculous. Usually you’re bang on Mr. Coyne but not this time.

The law was always intended to take the power out of the PM’s hand in a majority. There’s a clause right in the law that still give the GG the power to dissolve and it was specifically put in ther for minority situations.

Honestly, this isn’t that complicated. It’s time for an election, the House and the Committees are a joke and all parties are to blame. Legislation directly related to the throne speech (that passed) is going nowhere thanks to the Senate and this is the longest serving minority in history.

Don’t buy the Liberal talking points Mr. Coyne.

With respect to the contention that the prof having been Privy Council and not PMO and therefore impartial, consider – hired by Martin, fired by Harper.

If the conservatives want to avoid parliament under their own rule I think the opposition should facilitate that…… an opposition coalition of the Libs, Dippers and (and now a less than desirable, but still) Green….a coalition would potentially be stronger then the non-majority majority approach has been and Canadians might get more of the parliament and government they want (emphasis on collaboration over contestation)….

I think that the opposition parties could hammer out at least a short-term 6-12 month feasible policy agenda… the environment; restoring some of the ongoing Harper arts cuts; undoing some earlier Harper cuts including the court challenges program; reversing the movement to industry self-reg in food inspections; fortifying Insite and a broader economic strategy that balances growth and human interest; setting out an agenda for aiding Aboriginal people (perhaps restoring the Kelowna accord; etc. etc…..

in the absence of this we are destined to be in the exact same place the morning after the election…the margins will be about the same…and unless Mr Harper has been sitting on a well-developed agenda Parliament will still be focused on bickering on the same menial issues with the same narcissistic personality wars at play….I think this would be the most beneficial for Canadian democratic governance.

Geiseric the Lame – I was of course referring to the power to call an election when the situation suits the PM in a majority. Taking that power away from the PM (in a majority) is the ENTIRE point of the fixed election act.

seaandthemountains – a Lib, Green and NDP coalition would be 126 seats, 1 less than the CPC. Even if they could form a majority together with an opposition coalition there would be little chance of it happening let alone when the coalition would still be the 2nd biggest party in the House. I’m not sure what the GG’s justification would be for allowing such an unusual move considering that this is the longest lasting minority ever.

Layton would never agree to it. It would be his demise.

oops, wrong blog -

If Layton hasn’t learned by now that sidedeals aren’t worth the bother he’s thicker than I thought. He’s not feeding the Conservatives, he’s attacking the Liberals. It’s what he does.

Pete, that’s crap.
There are limited opportunities for parliament to declare that it does not have confidence in the government, even in a minority parliament. Why do you think Mr. Harper was so incensed when Martin wouldn’t leave on his say-so? I mean.. other than it being Harper and his say-so..