Harper to prorogue Parliament: He is not Impeded by Democracy
How long will Canadians be prepared for the sake of avoiding an election to allow an unethical government which has engaged in fraudulent practices, and evasive techniques, and unscrupulous actions, govern. How much longer will a compliant Governor General support such practices, techniques and action? The Governor General erred twice in dissolving and proroguing Parliament, (under Article VI) of her Letters Patent. Now she must correctly use her residual powers under Article V – to remove Harper from office, and call upon the Opposition Parties to govern.
GOVERNOR GENERAL MISUSED TWO OF HER POWERS UNDER ARTICLE VI
THE GOVERNOR GENERAL, UNDER ARTICLE VI, HAS CORRECTLY PERFORMED HER ROLE OF SUMMONING, BUT INCORRECTLY PERFORMED HER RESIDUAL ROLE OF DISSOLVING AND PROROGUING PARLIAMENT;VI. ³AND WE DO FURTHER AUTHORIZE AND EMPOWER OUR GOVERNOR GENERAL TO EXERCISE ALL POWERS LAWFULLY BELONGING TO US IN RESPECT OF SUMMONING, PROROGUING OR DISSOLVING THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA.²
Not only has he demonstrated the fundamental constitutional flaws in Canada but he has also caused Canada to become an international pariah; from his failure to adopt in 2007 the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to his abyssmal record on the issue of climate change.
GOVERNOR GENERAL MUST CORRECTLY USE HER RESIDUAL POWERS UNDER ARTICLE V OF HER LETTERS PATENT.
It is now time to exercise correctly her residual power under Article V.
V.>²AND WE DO FURTHER AUTHORIZE AND EMPOWER OUR GOVERNOR GENERAL, SO FAR AS WE LAWFULLY MAY, UPON SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO HIM APPEARING, TO REMOVE FROM HIS OFFICE, OR TO SUSPEND FROM THE EXERCISE OF THE SAME, ANY PERSON EXERCISING ANY OFFICE WITHIN CANADA, UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF ANY COMMISSION OR WARRANT GRANTED, OR WHICH MAY BE GRANTED, BY US IN OUR NAME OR UNDER OUR AUTHORITY.<³
Was there another reason for calling a quick election? Was it that with an election there would be the dissolution of the Parliamentary Ethics Committee that was investigating the Conservative violation of the Elections Act in the 2006 election? Serious questions arise about the condoning of potentially fraudulent election practices, the reneging of responsibility by the Governor General; the disregarding, by the media, of this issue during the election; and the legitimacy of Harper speaking on behalf of Canada with less than 40% support of the population..
DELIBERATIONS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ETHICS COMMITTEE IN THE HEARINGS IN AUGUST, 2008
There is not doubt that the public interest would certainly be served by exposing the fraudulent practice used by the Conservatives in the 2006 election. On August 14, 2008, at the Parliamentary Committee it was revealed that there is sufficient evidence that this practice occurred and that the practice was condoned by the Conservative Party. One Conservative witness even referred to the scheme as being a creative fund-raising scheme benefiting in the long- range the Conservative Party. The success of the case against the Conservatives depends on the willingness of the Conservative candidates to be forthright, and given that many of them have refused to even honour summons issued by the Parliamentary Committee. [although presumably a summons from the Public Prosecution might not be as easy to disregard].
WITNESSES: Chantal Proulx and Don Beardall from the Office of the Public Prosecution of Canada
PAT MARTIN from the NDP raised a serious question about the potential that the case before the Office of the Public Prosecution might not even be resolved before the next election (either before, in 2008, or on the fixed election date in 2009), and that the Conservatives could even adopt the same in<–and<–out funding scheme in the next election. In response to his question, the witnesses from the Office of the Public Prosecutor indicated that there was no guarantee that the case would be heard before the next election.