PM Harper Claims Parliamentary Immunity in a Law Suit Against Him as Conservative Party Leader!

OK this is going too far! Prime Minister Harper has crossed the line and thrown his personal responsibility and reputation for accountability and transparency out the window. The irony of the circumstances under which “our” Prime Minister is using this device is as breathtaking as is the arrogance of the Right Honourable man’s actions in the first place and in the trial tactics.

The Globe and Mail is reporting that Prime Minister Harper, the leader of our nation, has invoked parliamentary immunity to “extricate (himself) from the matter.” The “matter” is a “tangle of court cases” brought against him and the Cons over an “agreement” (the existence of which is in dispute) that saw Ottawa South nominated candidate Alan Riddell “step aside” in exchange for the Harper Cons repayment of his “election expenses” (the payment of which is apparently still outstanding)

Why was Riddell sidelined you ask? Well so the Cons could replace him with the Adscam poster-boy, Gomery whistle blower and the epitome of how the Cons were going to be cleaning up corruption in government, Mr. Alan Cutler. Cutler lost. Too bad!

The PM’s parliamentary privilege is being invoked in a personal libel action against Stephen Harper and a Con Party President NOT the Prime Minister. The tactics being used by the Cons are somewhere between Monty Python and the Sopranos for ridiculousness, especially if you are Canada’s New Government. You know them as the new kids on the block who are all about the Accountability and the cleaning up of government corruption guys. Spare us the histrionics and hypocrisy Mr. Prime Minister.

There is a culture that has emerged in the CPC. It is not only from this incident. There were similar pay offs in the nominations of Stockwell Day, and the replacement of Ezra Levant, the former self-styled “Stockaholic” fan of the former leader of the Alliance Party. He “volunteered” to step aside for expenses so the newly minded party leader, Stephen Harper, could run in 2002 in Calgary Southwest. Then we have the courts setting aside the Conservative nomination of Rob Anders in Calgary West – twice - for breaches of its own processes and rules.

The RCMP recently decided that certain “new evidence” uncovered in the Day nomination fiasco was not new after all. They said had it all along and decided not to investigate further if this payment scheme was evidence of a Criminal Code violation. You ready for more irony gentle reader. Minister Day is currently the RCMP’s boss. You would have thought that the Mounties would have had another police service conduct the further investigation under the circumstances right? Dreamer! Who needs the appearance of justice when you are the corruption killers? When you are the Cons?


There is a place for privilege and immunity but that goes to the Office of Prime Minister not to the Leader of a political party, as appears to be the case here. The G&M story quotes Mr. Riddell’s lawyer saying if the immunity is applicable to Harper in this case, the legal actions can’t proceed “…until the government fall and an election is called – or possibly until parliament is prorogued.”

I will follow this matter carefully and post on it as it develops. In the meantime let’s hope for principles of democracy and fairness and transparency and accountability will be honoured by the Harper government. And lets watch this carefully since it is an opportunity for citizens to judge the quality of character and capacity for governance of the current minority government and its leader…and our pro tem Prime Minister.

The Cons ought to be providing a full public disclosure as a matter of course just so we ordinary little-people citizens can come to an informed decision if we can trust these people to represent and govern us.

I am ready for an election. I have at least made up my mind of who not to vote for at least. I will be watching for the evidence the true character and the capacity for governance of the other political options very carefully.

RCMP Decide Stockwell Day's Nomination Payoff is Still OK

The RCMP have decided not to investigate further into criminal wrong doing around the $50,000.00 payment made to a former candidate so their boss, the HONOURABLE Stockwell Day, could run in a by-election in 2000 as the new Reform Party Leader.

This may be the right thing to do but will Canadians trust the process, the people involved and the decision not to proceed? The official reason seems to be there is no new evidence. Let’s face it this is their boss they have been investigating. It is not a position the RCMP can look good in, regardless of their decision. They should have had another law enforcement group do this revisit of the investigation, for the sake of Day, their own credibility and integrity and for the sake public’s trust and confidence in the RCMP… which is the real test in such matters.

One has to wonder why that never happened because the RCMP brass may have just squandering the last remaining bits of its credibility. The RCMP have not been the most credible of organizations as of last with the resignation of the former Commissioner over the Arar dealings, the allegations and conflicting testimony on allegation of pension funds misuse and nepotism by senior officials. And then we have their celebrated political interference in the last election when the made a public announcement about the Income Trust investigation. That was arguably the ultimate non-issue that showed no political wrongdoing months later but the damage was done and it helped tip the scales that finally put Harper in office.

We have this all in the context of the recent court orders for a new nomination process in Calgary West over the “Affair Anders.” – who is running for the nomination again . The first instance and appeal decision both concluded finding wrongdoing by the Keystone Kons in how they manipulated the Anders nomination process. The news reports are that the Kons are is still thinking of appealing their Alberta Court of Appeal loss. Does that mean Harpers Kons are seriously thinking of applying for eave to appeal to the Supreme Court on this?

Give it up already. The Supreme Court has serious business to attend to. That should not include nurturing the hubris of the Kons of Calgary West.

I bet the discussions over late night beers in the PMO are putting this all together. they must be concluding that as soon as they get their police representatives appointed along with “their guys” to the Judicial Review Committees, then the "appropriate" recommendations for judicial appointment will be forthcoming. They will then be able to ensure that they will have a free hand on these matters. Never again will they be embarrassed or bound by the rule of law or have to suffer or even tolerate an independent judiciary. Then they can stop the “meddling” around issues of fairness and transparency in their party nomination processes.

Democracy? We don't need no stinkin' democracy!

These are scary people.

Appeal Court Confirms Ander's Conservative Nomination "Improper"

UPDATE: April 22, 2007 - Don Martin comments on Rob Anders in the Calgary Herald.


Rob Anders has to be re-nominated in Calgary West if he want to run in the next election. This time the nomination has to be for real! The Appeal Court upheld the original Queens Bench judgment that overturned Anders “unanimous nomination” for the Cons (no pun in ended) in Calgary West.

Anders lost – democracy rules.

Certain "party persons" who were found not to be acting appropriately are now resigning from their Calgary West CPC constituency posts. The whole messy business has to be done over and done fairly this time. The CPC better hope for its own integrity that Anders loses this nomination - but in a fair fight this time.

It is now proven that the Conservative Party of Canada, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, can’t even run a fair and open simple single constituency nomination – even amongst their own party membership. This is nothing short of a wanton disrespect for democracy given the facts surrounding the Anders' so-called nomination.

The utter hubris of the argument Anders offered during the appeal is absolutely breath taking. Media reports say:
"...a lawyer for Anders argued that the MP would suffer irreparable harm if he had to fight a new nomination race in the wake of his disputed acclamation last summer. "He cannot fairly and effectively fight a new nomination battle while performing his duties as a sitting MP in a minority government.,"

The powers that were in Calgary West seemed to think rules are for little people and not the powerful people. How far does this reprehensible attitude prevail in the rest of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Why, with this now proven deplorable behaviour and this insufficient set of attitudes and values, would we risk entrusting these kinds of politicians with our consent to govern us. How can we expect them to respect and protect the rights and privileges of all Canadian citizens when they do not even do it for their own party faithful?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is There a Pattern Forming Around the Harper Cons?

I hear the CPC is appealing the Court decision overturning the Rob Anders nomination in Calgary West. There is an interesting pattern that is forming here for the Conservative Party of Canada what with the events around Anders, Day and the last Ottawa race for mayor candidate involvement. Altogether they are either under investigation, pending investigation or under appeal from the courts. Real confidence and trust building events don’t you think?

I wonder who Harper called first tonight to congratulate them on the results of the Quebec election. My money is on Dumont first and Charest next. More on the Quebec election and what it means for Canada in a posting tomorrow.

Looks to me it is very much like a result that is close to what M. Leger said Quebecers wanted. they effectively have Dumont’s leadership, Charest’s MNAs and Boisclair’s policy.

I am glad Charest survived, party-wise and personally. It was nip and tuck for sure…on both counts.

Ander's Nomination Ouster by the Courts for Breach of Party Rules

Ok on the Ander’s case and the courts setting aside his acclamation nomination, I have read the judgment and it speaks for itself. Some of you will not want to read it all but your roles as responsible and engage citizens will push you to do so. It is an interesting legal analysis but a very important decision and the facts shows how political party processes can be used to create unfair and incorrect results.

We all need to be vigilant to better understand how Mr. Anders "nomination" unfolded and who was involved and how they conducted themselves. Constant vigilance is the cost of freedom.

Council for the Party also was the person who defended Stockwell Day in Alberta when he defamed a Red Deer lawyer and school trustee. Defending that case on behalf of Mr. Day, now a Minister in the Harper government apparently cost the Alberta taxpayers over a $1M in legal fees and costs. It became the subject of a review of the government of Alberta’s risk management system. A review that I did along with my consulting firm for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and the Speaker of the Alberta Legislature at the time.

The bottom line of that review and the Court’s decision on this nomination process for Mr. Anders confirms the first and most cardinal rule for citizens in a democracy…Be careful who you elect!

Courts Kill Rob Anders Conservative Acclamation Nomination in Calgary

I will do a more thorough posting on the Rob Anders court decision over his recent Conservative constituency nomination process in Calgary West once the decision is on line and I have read it. That should be early next week I expect. In the meantime media reports do not auger well for the CPC in being an open and transparent organization.

Political parties have so much influence on our politics in so many ways, it was nice to see a group of party members take their complaints about the propriety of the Anders acclamation nomination to the Courts for rulings. Political parties are so very unrepresentative of the general population and are too often run like private clubs, especially at the constituency level.

They should be, and be seen, more as fundamental democratic institutions and therefore they must have more transparency and accountability then currently is the case. This is a glaring democratic deficit in our system that may need a culture shift towards more citizen engagement instead of a strictly legislated solution.

The Anders “acclamation nomination” reported comments from the Court decision underscores this need as Judge Hawco says:

“The party did not follow its own rules with respect to setting the date for the nomination meeting or with respect to conducting a fair and effective candidate selection process,”
“I am satisfied that the decision of the panel was not correct and that its decision must there be set aside. As a result, the acclamation of Mr. Anders also must be set aside and a new nomination meeting and process must be set in place.”

At least the Judge didn't say "they broke every rule in the book" although I have not yet read the decision so I can't say what the full implication of this judgement is yet. If this Party cannot be fair and reasonable within its own ranks to its own members, can we trust them to be fair and reasonable to dissenters? Can we trust them to be fair and resonable at all especially since they want to rig the judicial selection process in order to politicize the courts? They disbanded the Court Challenges Program because they could not see any reason why a government would pay for lawyers so people could challenge them on Constitutional and other issues. That attitude is dangerous to democracy and devastating to dissent.

Is that the kind of party and the kind of elected representatives we want in a free and open democracy? Is this the kind of political culture that Canadians will consent to be governed by? Character counts. Quality character and a competence to govern for the benefit of the people is not being well demonstrated by the Harper Cons these days. Instead we see the Harper Cons overwhelmingly preoccupied with positioning for power.

Good government is about meeting the needs and preserving the rights of the citizens’ and not about partisan pandering for power Mr. Prime Minister. Good governance starts at the political party level. I expect Leader Harper will want to be sure this nomination mess in Calgary West is cleaned up and quickly.