Tag Archives: #Friday March

Par­lia­men­tary law bars Harper from re-election. Found guilty of a cul­ture of abuse of Parliament:

On Fri­day March 25, 2011 the Cana­dian House of Com­mons found Prime Min­is­ter Stephen Harper guilty of con­tempt of Par­lia­ment. Accord­ing to par­lia­men­tary law, con­tempt of par­lia­ment is a fed­eral crime. Being that Harper has been found guilty of a crime Harper is barred from seek­ing re-election on May 2, 2011. No fed­eral gov­ern­ment or cab­i­net min­is­ter has ever been found in con­tempt before.

The vote by the Cana­dian House of Com­mons is very much the same as an impeach­ment of the pres­i­dent of the United States of Amer­ica. In the US if a pres­i­dent or US law­maker is impeached (a for­mal process in which an offi­cial is accused of unlaw­ful activ­ity) that per­son is removed from office and can­not run for office again. Richard Nixon avoided a vote of impeach­ment by resign­ing as pres­i­dent. Harper was essen­tially impeached from the gov­ern­ment of Canada for the fed­eral crime of con­tempt of Par­lia­ment. As a direct result of the House of Com­mons vote the Harper gov­ern­ment was dis­solved. As Stephen Harper was found guilty of unlaw­ful activ­i­ties he is no longer deemed fit to be the Prime Min­is­ter of Canada and an elec­tion was called to chose a new leader.

If Stephen Harper has been found guilty of the fed­eral crime of con­tempt of Par­lia­ment why is he run­ning again for the same office that he was removed from? Par­lia­men­tary law bars Harper from run­ning again in the upcom­ing elec­tion. Under the Con­sti­tu­tion Act, 1867, Par­lia­ment is empow­ered to deter­mine the qual­i­fi­ca­tions of mem­bers of the House of Com­mons. The present qual­i­fi­ca­tions are out­lined in the Canada Elec­tions Act, which was passed in 2000. The acts bars indi­vid­u­als found guilty of election-related crimes and are pro­hib­ited from becom­ing mem­bers for five years (in some cases, seven years) after con­vic­tion. The House of Com­mons voted unan­i­mously to judge Stephen Harper on election-related (par­lia­ment) crimes and declared Harper guilty of the crim­i­nal charge of con­tempt of par­lia­ment. The House of Com­mons vote handed Harper a guilty con­vic­tion and as pun­ish­ment for his crime his lead­er­ship was imme­di­ately stripped.

The prime min­is­ter of a minor­ity gov­ern­ment only holds his or her office as long as the “con­fi­dence of the house” is main­tained. If mem­bers of the lower house lose faith in the leader for what­ever rea­son, they can call a vote of no con­fi­dence and force the PM to resign. Such a vote of no con­fi­dence was made against Stephen Harper on Fri­day March 25, 2011. That vote not only declared that Stephen Harper no longer had the con­fi­dence of the house but the house also found Stephen Harper guilty of the seri­ous crim­i­nal offense of con­tempt of par­lia­ment. Con­tempt of Par­lia­ment is the crime of obstruct­ing the par­lia­ment in the car­ry­ing out of its func­tions, or of hin­der­ing any Mem­ber of Par­lia­ment in the per­for­mance of his or her duties.

The high­est duty of a Prime Min­is­ter of Par­lia­ment is to uphold the Con­sti­tu­tion of Canada, which includes the rights and priv­i­leges of the House of Com­mons and the duties owed to the Queen’s rep­re­sen­ta­tive in Canada. Stephen Harper keeps on fail­ing in his duties on both counts as evi­denced by 2 con­sec­u­tive pro­ro­ga­tion of Par­lia­ment. Stephen Harper forced the Queen’s rep­re­sen­ta­tive to dis­solve Par­lia­ment just so the Con­ser­v­a­tives could avoid los­ing a vote of con­fi­dence in the House of Commons.

The first unde­mo­c­ra­tic shut down of Par­lia­ment by Stephen Harper was clearly to avoid the scrutiny of a House of Com­mons com­mit­tee over the mount­ing evi­dence of will­ful com­plic­ity by the Harper gov­ern­ment over the trans­fer of Afghan detainees to a sub­stan­tial risk of tor­ture. This is a war crime and one of the most seri­ous alle­ga­tions any gov­ern­ment has faced in the his­tory of Canada. Stephen Harper did every­thing pos­si­ble to hide from a vote of con­fi­dence, and on Dec. 4, 2008 Stephen Harper uni­lat­er­ally shut down Par­lia­ment. The Gov­er­nor Gen­eral had lit­tle option but to grant the unde­mo­c­ra­tic request to avoid a polit­i­cal cri­sis in Canada. It had put her into an unten­able position.

There was no prece­dent in any par­lia­men­tary democ­racy any­where in the world where a demo­c­ra­tic par­lia­ment was shut down to hide from a vote of con­fi­dence. It opened the door for other abuses of the rights and priv­i­leges of the major­ity of Mem­bers of Par­lia­ment elected by Cana­di­ans. Harper has went through that door again. This time the Gov­er­nor Gen­eral did not even merit a per­sonal visit by Stephen Harper to be told to shut down Par­lia­ment until early March. Respect, even for the Queen’s rep­re­sen­ta­tive, by Stephen Harper is in short supply.

This unde­mo­c­ra­tic crim­i­nal behav­ior by Stephen Harper is another piece of evi­dence of a major shift in Cana­dian con­sti­tu­tional democ­racy tak­ing shape. First, there was the uncon­sti­tu­tional behav­ior of the Harper gov­ern­ment to deny the com­mit­tee uncen­sored doc­u­ments despite a sub­poena by the House of Com­mons. Sec­ondly, there was the Harper ordered boy­cott of the com­mit­tee by the Con­ser­v­a­tive MPs at the com­mit­tee. Thirdly, we saw the forced adjourn­ment of the Mil­i­tary Police Com­plaints Com­mis­sion inquiry of the Stephen Harper’s com­plic­ity in tor­ture and the Stephen Harper fir­ing of its chief inves­ti­ga­tor, Peter Tins­ley. This com­mis­sion, a quasi-judicial tri­bunal has been stymied in its attempt to deter­mine the truth over the detainee trans­fer issue. Finally, there was the unprece­dented attempts by Stephen Harper to slan­der Richard Colvin, a senior Cana­dian diplo­mat who was a key wit­ness in the Cana­dian Afghan detainee issue, for just doing his job of speak­ing truth to power and then accus­ing any­body who sup­ports him of either being Tal­iban dupes or under­min­ing our brave Cana­dian mil­i­tary heroes.

These are seri­ous exam­ples of abuse of exec­u­tive power over Par­lia­ment, the Gov­er­nor Gen­eral, the pub­lic ser­vice and ulti­mately the Cana­dian vot­ers who elected MPs to make Par­lia­ment work. There is only one per­son who is respon­si­ble for and has been found guilty of such abuse of power, for such dis­dain towards the author­ity of the people’s par­lia­ment, for such dis­re­spect towards the Cana­dian peo­ple and for total dis­re­gard for the rule of law. His name is Stephen Harper.