Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Thursday, June 13, 2013

MPs can vote to suspend two Tory MPs without Speaker tabling letters from Elections Canada in Commons, says former House law clerk

PARLIAMENT HILL—The past law clerk to the House of Commons says MPs can vote to suspend two Conservative MPs for failing to comply with a request from Chief Electoral Office Marc Mayrand to correct their campaign returns from the 2011 general election—which would put their campaign expenses several thousand dollars over their Elections Canada limits—regardless of whether House Speaker Andrew Scheer tables letters from Mr. Mayrand alerting him to the fact that the MPs are in breach of the Canada Elections Act.

“Nothing stops the house from entertaining a motion to suspend these two,” former law clerk Rob Walsh told The Hill Times on Tuesday. “What we’re talking about is the Speaker hasn’t tabled the letters; that doesn’t mean the House can’t entertain a motion to suspend these two.”

“The House can suspend a Member for whatever the hell it wants to suspend a Member for,” Mr. Walsh said an interview.

He said also, however, that the letters Mr. Mayrand sent to Mr. Scheer (Regina-Qu’Appelle, Sask.) last month, but which Mr. Scheer did not disclose until a news report about their existence early last week, would provide the Commons with a formal and legal basis to begin a debate and vote on suspension proceedings.

The question, which Mr. Scheer is considering in his Speaker’s chambers following interventions last week and this week by opposition MPs citing a breach of Parliamentary privilege, hinges in part on the fact that Conservative MP James Bezan (Selkirk-Interlake, Man.) and Conservative MP Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, Man.) resisted Elections Canada efforts for the expense report amendments for two years before finally going to court to fight them after Mr. Mayrand informed Mr. Scheer about the standoff in mid-May.

“A privilege matter of the House can suspend a Member for whatever reason it wants to, but assuming the House wants to act in an intelligent and lawful manner, yes, this letter would be a triggering event for the House to turn its attention to the idea of suspending these two Members, as the act requires,” said Mr. Walsh.

Mr. Mayrand informed Mr. Scheer in writing that Mr. Bezan and Ms. Glover had failed, after repeated efforts, to correct their federal election campaign returns by increasing the value of permanently-placed billboards promoting the MPs that were kept up during the 2011 election, and, in Mr. Bezan’s case, that were also maintained during the previous two federal elections in 2006 and 2008.

Arthur Hamilton, the Conservative Party of Canada lawyer, who is representing the two MPs in their dealings with Elections Canada and in correspondence with Mr. Scheer, has told Mr. Scheer the dispute centres on differences of  “interpretation” over the value of the billboards, and, in Ms. Glover’s case, also the value of a riding association website used to raise funds during her campaign.

Mr. Arthur has also argued that since the two MPs have served notice they are challenging the Elections Canada assessment of the expenses in the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, a section of the Elections Act stipulating the MPs may not sit or vote in the Commons until the comply with the demand for corrected returns would not apply until the court cases are heard.

But Liberal MP Scott Andrews (Avalon, Nfld.) has asked Mr. Scheer for a ruling on claim that the privileges of MPs would be breached if they are not allowed to vote on a motion proposing to suspend Ms. Glover and Mr. Bezan, regardless of their appeal to the Manitoba courts, and argues as well that Mr. Scheer should table the letters from Mr. Mayrand, which would allow MPs to begin any suspension proceedings.

“This goes to the heart of our democracy,” Mr. Andrews argued. “The fact that we are all elected to this place on the same footing, by the same rules, and on an even playing field for all, provides for a fair election to the House of Commons.”

“If Elections Canada, our independent elections agency, determines that rules have not been followed or have been broken, there are consequences; those consequences are that those Members do not deserve the right to sit or vote in this House as Members,” Mr. Andrews said.

NDP MP Craig Scott (Toronto-Danforth, Ont.) intervened in the House Chamber to add the NDP position on the privilege motion from Mr. Andrews. Mr. Scott, a law professor who articled as a law clerk at the Supreme Court of Canada and helped write South Africa's post-apartheid constitution, left wiggle room for Mr. Scheer to come up with a compromise, in consideration of the court appeals the MPs have launched.

 But Mr. Scott, who personally researched Speaker's rulings back to the 19th century as he prepared his intervention, nonetheless, argued that “as a general rule, formal suspension should be carried out with the House” when the chief electoral officer informs the Speaker, and thus the Commons, about actions that call for suspension.

“We would note that the Members for Saint-Boniface and Selkirk-Interlake have interacted for two years with the chief electoral officer in a manner that, quite frankly, does not suggest a great urge to cooperate with the chief electoral officer,” Mr. Scott said in a 50-minute speech about the question of privilege and the details of the cases.

“It is generally recognized that the practice of Elections Canada is to give candidates, official agents and parties the benefit of the doubt and to do what I can to assist these actors to be in compliance with the act, yet this situation has dragged on for two years, with the two Members of Parliament, our colleagues, advancing interpretation of the expenses sections of the act that, as far as we know, not other candidates, official agents, or parties have had difficulty complying with,” Mr. Scott said.

Mr. Walsh noted Mr. Scheer had earlier indicated, prior to the points raised by Mr. Andrews and Mr. Scott, that he would wait until after the court cases before taking any action.

“The point being, I suppose, I’m speculating here, that if the courts were to decide that the CEO [chief electoral officer] was incorrect and somehow had misinterpreted the section, or whatever, then suspension by the House would have been done wrongly, and would have interfered with the proceedings of the House, in the sense it would have denied the House and the constituents of those two Members, representation on a vote or a debate,” Mr. Walsh said.

Despite the court action and the Elections Act stipulation that Ms. Glover should be suspended from voting and sitting in Parliament, at least until a judge rules on her appeal of the Elections Canada ruling on election expenses, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, Ont.) named Ms. Glover on Tuesday to a panel of five MPs, including three Conservative MPs and two opposition MPs, that will screen candidates to fill an approaching vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada.

Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author:  TIM NAUMETZ

No comments:

Post a Comment