Experts: Gov. Gen. could reject Harper's bid for election.

This is from the Vancouver Sun.
Maybe Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean should and could reject Harper's request but she is a dutiful Gov. Gen. and will do as Harper says. This is the same Gov. Gen. who awarded our chief soldier General Natynczyk a medal for serving the Americans in Iraq, a war in which Canadians were not supposed to be involved. Here is what was said when Harper introduced his fixed election date bill:
What we have is a situation where the prime minister is able to chose the date of the election, not based necessarily on the best interests of the county but on the best interests of his or her own political party. I believe Bill C-16 would address those concerns," Nicholson said at the time. "The prime minister will live by the law and spirit of this particular piece of legislation."

Nicholson was dead wrong. Harper will live neither by the law nor the spirit of the legislation. He will do whatever he thinks is in the interest of his party even though it be in opposition to his own legislation.

Friday » September 5 » 2008

Gov. Gen. could reject Harper's bid for election: experts

Mike Blanchfield
Canwest News Service
Friday, September 05, 2008
OTTAWA - Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean should consider rejecting Stephen Harper's request to dissolve Parliament and call a federal election because he is violating his own fixed-election date law, a constitutional expert and a public policy watchdog say.
"If she goes along with him, she, in a sense, is supporting his violation of the law," said Michael Behiels, a constitutional political historian at the University of Ottawa. "You're putting the Governor General into a situation that you should never put the Governor General in."
Duff Conacher, head of the citizen advocacy group Democracy Watch, said that Harper "has absolutely no evidence" to present to Jean that the Commons lacks confidence in the current government and should be dissolved.
"She should say, 'demonstrate that the House of Commons doesn't have confidence in the Conservative government.' The Governor General should just turn the prime minister back and say, 'No, I'm sorry, open the House and show.'"
Because the Conservatives have not lost a confidence vote, Behiels and Conacher argue that Harper is violating his new fixed-election law, passed in May 2006. The law was designed to prevent what they say Harper is now doing: using his position as prime minister to arbitrarily call an election at the most strategically advantageous time.
Others disagree, saying the new law gives Harper enough legal leeway to visit Rideau Hall on Sunday morning to seek the end of Canada's 39th Parliament, one of the longest running minority governments at two years and seven months.
Bill C-16, which amended the Elections Act, set October 2009 as the next federal election date. But it does contain a clause that gives the Governor General the right to dissolve Parliament if the government does not retain its confidence.
The new fixed-rate law does raise broader questions: why are we having an election now? And what is the long-term implication for Harper if the result is another minority government?
Jack Granatstein, York University's professor emeritus of history, has a simple answer for the "why now" question: "Because Harper thinks he can win. That's why. And he's right."
Harper may be violating the spirit of his fixed-rate law, but not the letter of it, Granatstein argues, making it unlikely the prime minister will suffer the wrath of voters.
"The principle of a fixed election date is that the government does not use its position . . . to tip the scales in its favour. It's clear Harper is trying to do that," he explains.
"On the other hand, a minority Parliament usually doesn't last anywhere near as long as ours."
Harper has governed nearly twice as long as the one year and four months that the preceding Paul Martin Liberal minority lasted.
Aside from an actual victory by Stephane Dion and the Liberal party, Granatstein predicts that voters will not punish Harper if he is able to build a bigger minority or achieve his much-coveted majority.
"If it turns out to be a doppelganger for this Parliament, people will be reasonably upset."
Then-prime minister Jean Chretien had a year and a half left to govern when he called a snap election in 2000 before Stockwell Day, leader of the then-new Canadian Alliance, was able to find his footing.
Voters ultimately rewarded Chretien for that piece of political opportunism, giving the Liberals an extra 15 seats and a larger majority government.
But with the passage of C-16, Behiels and Conacher say Harper is now on the wrong side of the law. They say the recent meetings he held with opposition leaders, which led him to conclude Parliament was dysfunctional, simply do not meet the constitutional test for calling an election.
"He tried to embarrass them, humiliate them. How would she (Jean) know they're not willing to co-operate? Why should she take his word for it?" asks Behiels.
"He's showing he's manipulative, that he thinks he's above the law."
Conacher says Harper's gamble violates the spirit of the law, along with his broader promises to make government more accountable and transparent.
He points to the rationale behind the fixed-date law that then-government House leader Rob Nicholson offered the Commons in September 2006.
"What we have is a situation where the prime minister is able to chose the date of the election, not based necessarily on the best interests of the county but on the best interests of his or her own political party. I believe Bill C-16 would address those concerns," Nicholson said at the time. "The prime minister will live by the law and spirit of this particular piece of legislation."
Conacher said an election now would help Harper avoid some potentially embarrassing developments in the weeks ahead. These include a further inquiry into the Conservatives' "in-and-out" 2006 campaign fundraising practice that Elections Canada said was illegal; a further airing of the Maxime Bernier-Julie Couillard affair; and a possible Commons committee probe into whether the Conservatives tried to bribe independent MP Chuck Cadman for his vote to help them defeat the Martin Liberals in 2005.
Rideau Hall declined a request for comment on Sunday's meeting.
© Canwest News Service 2008

.