On this morning's Bill Good show - right wing talk-back radio here in Vancouver - Mr. Good wonders aloud where all the good folks from Vancouver-Kingsway are on the potential defeat of the Harper government by a coalition. Good implies there may be some sort of double standard in the comparing today's community response to that over David Emerson jumping from Liberal to Conservative parties less than 24 hours after the ballots were counted.

Before responding to Good's challenge, let me first turn the question around.

Where were you, Bill Good, when Emerson ignored the will of the people here?

I'll answer for Good: You were silent on the issue. Sure, the Emerson affair made for good copy on the more pedestrian CTV nightly news show you anchor, but it was clear from your ongoing commentary on talk radio that you never took the side of real democracy and indeed in later times you expressed nothing but support for Emerson.

As for where voters here are on the issue, I imagine there are a mixed range of thoughts and emotions, many of which are bound to be as ill-informed as is clearly in evidence all across this country. The parties, and fairly we can single out the Conservatives especially, are further confusing the public with overheated rhetoric and misinformation as to the nature of our parliamentary system of governance.

Speaking personally, not as a spokesperson for the Campaign to De-Elect David Emerson, I opposed what Emerson did not because he had no right to do it as an MP (he did have the right) but because he violated the trust of voters. Had he sat as a CPC back bencher and voted along the same lines as he had as a Liberal, I'd have had much less of an argument with him. However by accepting a cabinet position, Emerson was duty bound to work against the very campaign platform he was elected upon, and that is a breach of trust. I support anti-floor crossing legislation because more often than not floor-crossing results in such undemocratic flip flops.

As for the current drama, it would be helpful if the media could at least de-mystify the proceedings. What is being proposed is entirely democratic - a majority of members in the House of Commons are not Conservative Party MPs, and they represent a majority of Canadians who elected them from across the country. Thus from a democratic principles perspective, it is easy to support the right of the opposition parties to try to form a government, whether one agrees with the outcome or not.

Whether now is the time for such a move, and whether such a coalition can ultimately be successful in delivering positive results for Canada, are entirely different questions.

When the furore in Ottawa has died, and when the economic issues facing the country have been well addressed, parliamentarians and Canadians should return their attention to one of the root problems in our country: Our first past the post electoral system. In the past my traditionalist tendencies have prevented me from accepting it was time to change our antiquated electoral system based on plurality voting. I'm not so hesitant these days.

RallyForCanada.ca, a site rallying those opposed to the coalition agreement entered into by the opposition parties, is the brain child of prolific blogger Stephen Taylor, a Conservative mouthpiece who works for the (Preston) Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

I posted the following on Mr. Taylor's site in response to his announcement of the RallyForCanada.ca site:

Stephen - do you only support "democracy" when it threatens the party's position in parliament?

I don't recall you speaking up at all when Stephen Harper authorized and entered into secret negotiations with David Emerson to overturn the votes of Vancouver-Kingsway residents. Emerson was in talks with Harper's representative less than 24 hours after the ballots were counted.

And did you moan for democracy when Stephen Harper broke his own law in calling for an election, purely for partisan political advantage, more than a year in advance of what his own law set out as the lawful fixed election date? No, I don't believe you did.

Apparently being a "fellow" at the Manning Centre for Building Democracy has nothing at all to do with actually building, or respecting, democracy. Michael Watkins, December 2, 2008

I'm a former Progressive Conservative and former Conservative Party member who left the party as a result of the attack on democracy Stephen Harper made right here in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway. Despite starting out well with a call for Emerson to run in a by-election (which of course would never happen), Taylor goes on to make the same sort of mealy mouth ends justify the means argument most Conservatives uttered in response to l'affair Emerson. Not one of them stood up for democracy. Most were afraid to utter a word lest Stephen Harper or his goons lash out. They still are, albeit Harper's vaunted grip on the party may be cracking ever so slightly.

Sadly I've not run into very many Conservatives who take democracy as a principle seriously. You've got to fight for democracy even when it hurts your team, if the principle is to mean anything.

Perhaps they don't teach that lesson at the (Preston) Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

According to a ruling, Democracy Watch's September 26th federal court application challenging the legality of the current election will not be heard by the court prior to the election. A motion had been filed by the organization to expedite the case.

The application will proceed through the court's regular schedule, advises Democracy Watch in a news release.

To voters everywhere in the country, the case should be seen as open and shut: The Prime Minister broke his own law. The details of Bill C-16, An act to amend the Canada Elections Act (assented to on May 3rd 2007), are straightforward:

56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.

(2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

As I've noted previously, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is breaking his own law using the broadest interpretation of the loophole he ensured was in the legislation. A more proper view of the matter can be found in the affidavits supplied with Democracy Watch's application. I'll cite just one as an example, University of Ottawa Professor of Law Errol Mendes:

5.1 The Prime Minister undermined both the letter and the spirit of Section 56.1 of the Canada Elections Act when he advised the Governor General on September 7, 2008 to dissolve Parliament over a year before the October 19, 2009 fixed election date.

The professor continues:

As Parliament was not sitting, there was no loss of confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister can not claim that by meeting the opposition party leaders outside the House and by their refusal to commit to not opposing him in the House of Commons until a certain date he has satisfied the spirit and the letter of the fixed elections law. Affidavit of Errol P. Mendes

There can be no doubt that Stephen Joseph Harper has broken the law of the land, a law which he and his party pushed to enact. Mr. Harper's party, and each of the founding parties and their modern day predecessors have claimed to want to seek an improved democratic system, yet this very election is evidence that what they claim is not met by their actions. In other words a fraud has been committed upon the Canadian public where that which was sold - a promise - was done so on false premises.

A government which so openly—brazenly in fact—breaks the very laws it makes is a government that cannot be trusted to uphold any law. Such a government does not deserve the confidence of the people of this country.

Stephen Harper is betting that Canadians are ignorant of the facts or are otherwise pre-occupied, such that they will collectively and meaningfully muster sufficient recognition of his transgressions against the public trust, at least not in time for the vote on October 14. Lets prove him wrong.

See also: DUFF CONACHER ET AL v. THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA ET AL

Green leader allowed into debates, networks confirm (Sept. 10 2008, CBC)

Green Leader Elizabeth May will be allowed into the federal leaders' debates, Canada's main broadcast networks confirmed on Wednesday. The news came after Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Jack Layton indicated earlier on Wednesday that they no longer oppose May's participation in the debates on Oct. 1 and Oct. 2.

This election just got interesting.

Winners: Canadians, your voices were heard for a change. Well done. Losers: Jack Layton and Stephen Harper. Duceppe too but he barely counts any more.

I am not a Green party member, nor a member of any party at this time. Even if I were affiliated elsewhere I'm confident that in the interest of a more wholesome democracy, I would call upon every Canadian, regardless of political affiliation, to demand Green Party leader Elizabeth May included in this election's Leader debates. This country needs more democracy and its the right thing to do.

If you want to take action, sign this on-line petition.

Here's a party that ran candidates in every riding in the country and received almost 700,000 votes in the last election. Including Quebeckers, who have the regional Bloc to mess up statistics, one of every twenty-two voters voted green in the last election. Excluding la belle province that ratio is even higher. They came closer to winning seats than they ever have. The Green Party jumped over a significant hurdle, earning sufficient votes to earn them a spot among the other large parties whereby they receive public funding based on the number of votes received. Climate change and environmentalism clearly is in the public eye in a way that it has never been before, and they have always been there to champion the issue.

I think their case for inclusion was more than strong enough on its own, and didn't require the stunt (which I do not support) leader Elizabeth May pulled last week in convincing ousted former Liberal West Vancouver Sunshine Coast MP Blair Wilson (who hasn't a hope of being re-elected) to become the Green Party's "first" MP on the eve of an election.

Media reports indicate that the broadcast consortium which runs the debate decided against including May because of threats from Stephen Harper and Jack Layton that they'd pull out. Broadcasters claim they bowed to pressure from the Conservatives and NDP as they didn't want to air a debate between only May and Dion.

"There's been no new party elected to the House of Commons since the last election, and one of the people who wanted to participate in the debate is supporting one of the others for prime minister," said Layton, referring to May's endorsement of Dion. "The networks decided they will stick with the old rules and we support that, had they not so decided we would have had to go back and think about what all that means." Jack Layton

"We said we would not accept the invitation to participate because the Greens did not have an elected member of Parliament", said Brad Lavigne, NDP spokesperson.

Duceppe was happy with the outcome, claiming "the rules are the rules". Only there are no rules - the consortium makes its own rules up. Harper claimed May could not participate because she was in effect another Liberal candidate, which is rubbish. The Liberals have as much to fear from May and the Greens as any party. Even if it were true, in past years we did in fact see two "conservative" parties in debates. The Reform and Progressive Conservatives both had leaders in debate; the Canadian Alliance and PC's likewise. Reform had Preston Manning in debate when they had only one MP, Deborah Gray, which is all the more galling because like the Bloc at the time Reform was a regional party that did not run across the country.

Whether one agrees with the Blair Wilson floor crossing or not, he was still an elected MP when he joined the Greens. The Bloc earned their first invite to the debate in exactly the same way.

Imagine that, the media being pushed around by Harper and Layton. Ridiculous! The media have sufficient influence and power to make sure that Harper and Layton's non-attendance is a non-starter. With every reporter in the country hounding Harper and Layton "what are you afraid of" there is no way either would be able to take a pass on the debate without serious risk to their campaigns.

An election should expose Canadians to the broadest diversity of ideas. Greens have paid their dues. We, the public, are paying them to exist, like we pay all major parties. Lets see what they have to say.

Public backlash could make this undemocratic exclusion from the debates go away. Start your non-polluting alternative-energy engines... go!

PS: My sense is that public backlash might hurt some parties electorally if they don't allow May into the debates. Times seem to be changing.