So when the government breaks the law, especially those laws which it is responsible for enacting, there is no other way to describe the conduct other than to say it is a most serious and hypocritical breach of public trust. After all, if government is not expected to obey the law, why should Canadians obey it?
In an epoch where broken promises by elected officials are seemingly accepted as the norm, Canada’s Federal Conservatives arguably stretched the bounds of immorality to a whole new level when they apparently broke their own election law in 2008.
On May 3rd, 2007 Bill C-16 received royal assent. It introduced the following amendment to Canada’s Election Act:
“…a general election must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following a previous general election, with the first general election to be held on Monday, October 19, 2009”.
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&document=amendc16&dir=leg/fel&lang=e
According to the Library of Parliament, Legislative Summaries:
Fixed election dates are part of a general package of measures designed…to make Parliament more accountable and democratic. Part of the reason that this issue has been embraced by many people is that it is seen as a way of counteracting the pervasive cynicism that exists towards politics and politicians. It is also perhaps – like many proposals that involve direct democracy, with which it is often linked – reflective of the American influence on Canadian political institutions and practices.
The argument is that fixed election dates would remove an unfair advantage that the government possesses in being able to decide on the date for an election. It would create a level playing field for all participants in the electoral process, by removing the uncertainty and perceived bias in favour of the governing party. This would facilitate planning for election officials, as well as political parties and candidates. It is also argued that, indirectly, fixed election dates would help relax party discipline and allow freer votes, as the Prime Minister and cabinet would no longer be able to use the threat of an election to keep their caucus in line. At the same time, by ensuring that an election could be held earlier in the event that the government clearly did not have the support of the majority of the House of Commons, the concept of confidence that underlies the parliamentary system of government would be preserved.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/Bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c16&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1
Of course, in 2008, the Harper government forced voters to the polls in what lawyer Peter Rosenthal charitably characterized as “the most unfair snap election in Canadian history”.
http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=1971675
I say Mr. Rosenthal’s characterization is “charitable” because the adjective “unfair” simply fails to properly convey the reality that what the government did was arguably illegal and in stark contravention to the very purpose underlying the Bill C-16 amendment to Canada’s Election Act.
The government defends these allegations, saying the Governor General calls elections, not the Prime Minister. In my mind, however, this is a distinction without a difference; for it matters not whether the convention is that the Prime Minister can ask the Governor General to dissolve parliament and call an election, or whether the Governor General simply does so on his or her own motion, the bottom line is, somebody in government broke the law.
Arguably, the Prime Minister is a “party” to breaking his own election law because he asked the Governor General to declare an election. He effectively asked the Governor General to break the law. The Governor General is guilty of breaking the law, because she ought to have declined on grounds that the law says she has no authority in the circumstances to accede to the Prime Minister’s request. She ought to have said something along the lines of: “Mr. Harper, I simply can’t do what you ask because Canada’s Election Act says I can’t do it. See you in October 2009”.
In Canada, it is reasonable to expect the highest level of integrity on the part of our government. After all, we entrust government officials to effectively govern. This means managing our money, appointing qualified people to assist in managing our society and properly managing our relations abroad. If the government cannot be entrusted to at the very minimum take the high road with respect to the laws of this land, then how can it be entrusted to manage anything in our society?
When government breaks the law, a most troubling question is left begging: how do we have trust in anything the government does? How do we trust that it spends our money wisely? How do we trust that it appoints judges and other officials on merit? How do we trust its judgment in awarding government contracts? How do we trust the laws it seeks to enact?
Simply stated, when government breaks the law, we can't trust it. Good thing Mr. Harper hasn't passed minimum sentences or abrogated conditional sentence orders for contravening the Elections Act!
David G. Chow
Calgary Criminal Lawyer
www.calgarydefence.com
No comments:
Post a Comment