All MP's have by custom 'special rights of privilege' as parliamentarians - one of which - historically has been their 'right' to cross the floor without seeking the consent of the very electorate that put them in public office. So in my view it is dubious that MP's as a whole are going to vote to curtail their rights - or their salaries for that matter...in fact as a 'class' they seek to entrench and enlarge the scope of their rights.
On the other side - are the citizens of Canada who to have rights, constitutional rights and common-law rights - which in my mind 'compete' with the rights of MP's. The most fundamental and priceless right is the right of citizenship - a basic right without which a person is stateless, without rights - excepting those guaranteed by international law - which are difficult to enforce.
So what then are the rights of citizens? Section. 3 of the Charter speaks of Citizen Democratic rights - and as a consequence Elections Canada set up all sorts of 'rules and regulations' so that citizens can exercise their electoral rights in a fair, transparent, accountable and 'equal' way. {Although many would say that FPTP system does not provide for the equality of votes. but that is another discussion). Then there are Charter s. 7 'liberty' rights. Surely a vital liberty is 'political liberty', the right of citizens to choose their representative in this 'representative form' of Canadian democracy, and to have, in my view, that 'choice' confirmed and respected in law.
From whence do these 'rights' now enshrined in the Charter come from? They arise from the sea of common-law and constitutional tradition, which in my view are the basis for concepts such as 'fundamental justice' which is the 'background page' upon which the 'rights' enshrined in the Charter are written. Indeed the Magna Carta, the first English law to circumscribe the law of Kings and clarify other 'common-laws' over property, civil rights, etc. is such an example. In my view, it is from this 'area' of law...that citizens ought to rely upon to curtail the rights of the Executive Branch of government and 'parliamentarians' in their democratic favour. They might as well too look to s. 26 of the Charter which makes provision for the existence of other rights', that are not thusfar enshrined within the Charter.
Then one must ask did Mr.; Emerson's action's breach the 'legitimate expectations' of the Vancouver-Kingsway electorate? After all he campaigned as a Liberal, presented himself as a Liberal, and it is on the basis that citizens had a 'legitimate expectation' that he would sit as Liberal if elected. By crossing the floor, he, in my view breached that legal bundle of rights contained with the doctrine of law know as 'legitimate expectation’, and perhaps also even the 'doctrine of fairness.' One can therefore assert that it is these aforementioned bundle of citizen rights that compete with, and potentially are capable of balancing the rights of parliamentarians and Kings in the PMO and Premier’s offices across this land.
The only defence that Emerson seems to have is 'the tradition of rights that allows parliamentarians to cross the floor without again seeking the consent of their constituents.
But Emerson crossed the floor as a "candidate-elect', he was not, and is not yet sworn into being a member of the new parliament and thus it might be argued that his 'parliamentary rights', even though he is now a Minister of the Crown were not triggered, and that at the time that he crossed he had no 'legal right' to do so.
Finally, let me say, if the citizens of Canada aspire to improve the low-level democracy of Canada, to clean up the corruption, to curtail the elitist King-like privileges of the PMO, the Premiers and to make MP's more accountable, in a sense to expand the 'bundle of democracy rights' attached to our citizenship...we must, each of us, Stand Up for Democracy. We must be willing to put our energy, minds, hearts, and money in defending our democratic rights. We must be prepared to go to the courts to spend our money for our legal defence in the hope that the courts of this land will protect us from the excesses of government.
We must in the end, likely organize ourselves, as I have said before, into a 'constitutional constituent assembly' to rewrite the rules under which we wish ourselves to be governed. Indeed, it is because citizens have 'fundamental justice and 'political liberty rights' 'that 'sovereignty' itself is embedded within the citizens of this country and not the Crown, the Ministers, the party hacks, the corrupt politicians who utilize the existing rules to serve their narrow interests and that of Capital. Citizens, in my view need not only to vent their anger, write their articles, and continue to put the 'heat' on, they must be prepared to assert the defence of their rights in the courts of this land.
They must, in a sense overcome the ‘internalized oppression’ of apathy, individuality, fear, self-cherishing, and alienation which prevents the possibility of them rising as ‘new men & women’ of confidence, courage, commitment, concern, indeed love for one another, and willingness to act in solidarity with others to create and defend a ‘participative democracy’ that embodies new rules that curtail privilege, entitlement, corruption and is capable of wresting control of this ‘sovereign’ country away from Capital and continentalists who seeks its integration with the United States.
Personally, I am willing, with others, to advance this matter in the courts. What I require are electorate from Vancouver-Kingsway willing to step forward as 'Plaintiffs". What is required is a 'team' of very able persons who will carry out specific job responsibilities with high integrity and competency, with no expectation of ‘reward’ to themselves. What are also required, are monies to do the job properly. I can be contacted via this site by email. My law office number is 604-684-4446. Who else will Stand with me? Perhaps it is you, and you, and you, and together in solidarity we can overcome this burden that casts a dark shadow over this land. Indeed, acting in solidarity we can reinvigorate and expand citizen democratic rights, the very democracy upon which our lives and future generations will depend. That will then be a wonderful legacy to our children.
Peter Dimitrov, bcpolitics.ca
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on February 14, 2006]
The defeated NDP candidate, and former MP of the riding, is Ian Waddell, also a lawyer. He was on BCTV soon after, showing the Conflict of Interest report on the Grewal-Dosanjh affair, where it was marked out on the sheet that had it been proven that PM Martin, or Dosanjh, offered a promotion to Grewal for crossing the floor, it would have constituted a conflict, but there was no proof.
On the other hand, since this sordid affair started, it has been repeatedly claimed both by Harper, and by Emerson, including last night on BCTV, that he was offered the ministership for jumping. With the Grewal judgment setting the recent precedent, this proves self admitted bribery and obvious conflict, without any lenghty rigmarole .
When Waddell was on TV, he claimed that if a conflict is proven, it could cost not only Emerson, but also Harper his seat.
Not being a legal eagle I have no idea, whether this is true, or how it could be enforced, but I hope Peter will follow it up with Waddell and make an airtight case of it, if possible, even before the session starts in April.
But then, as I wrote before, Emerson has a PhD in "market economics", which means that everything is supposed to be up for sale to the highest bidder. Denying this right for the demands of the "discipline of the competitive market equilibrium", may force all good economists to throw fits , which could result in a major drop in "productivity" figures. And we can't allow anything like that to happen (-:)
Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.
Why CAP is not all over the place regarding this issue? Connie was a candidate for that riding. Now is the chance for CAP to get known and yet... not a word from them! Does CAP endorses Hemerson's move and what Harper is doing? Come on CAP, move on this one and you might just get some coverage that you are looking for... be aggressive, be all over the place, fight for us.
the irony of these words aside, Ray, it is anexcelent idea.
I seem to remember Peter being blind sided in the political area so he has first hand experience that is useful.
This is a real opertunity for the people of Canada to mount a campaign. a test case if you will
I'm in
Dio
---
Nothing in this World makes People so Afraid as the Influence of an Independant Minded Individual.
Attrib. Al EINSTEIN
<br />
Saturday, February 11 2006 @ 10:45 PM MST <br />
<br />
CAP Leader Opinion on the Emerson Defection<br />
Contributed by: whelan costen<br />
<br />
Connie Fogal, Leader, CAP/PAC Canadian Action Party/parti action Canadienne Letter to the Editor or Opinion Editor February 09, 2006 The ease with which the Conservatives and the Liberals can move across the floor to cabinet positions from each other (Conservative Stronach to the Liberals and Liberal emerson to the Conservatives) or the NDP can jump party leadership for promise of cabinet posts (Ujal Dosangh from NDP premier to Liberal federal cabinet post, or Bob Rae, former NDP premier now touted as federal Liberal party leadership contender) proves there is no difference in the real agenda of the leadership of the established parties. The leadership with power in government or party looks for MP's of whatever stripe (even unelected persons such as Fortier from Quebec) who share a common agenda abandoning the public interest . Unfortunately, some such oriented persons, unelected or currently elected, exist in and control all the major parties, Liberal,Conservative, NDP, Bloq Quebecois. <br />
<br />
The emerson defection illustrates that Canada's seat of power is driven by an agenda for North American corporate rule. The public interest and the public good interfere with that agenda. emerson was one of three cabinet ministers Paul Martin appointed in March 2005 to implement the agenda of the corporate driven North American task force to restructure Canada into a North American corporate driven regime along with the USA and Mexico. (The other two, McLellan and Pettigrew were defeated.) emerson has important familiarity with the implementation process. His presence for continuity is essential. Corporate driven politicians have no loyalty to the public good, nor to an electoral constituency, nor to a party, nor to a nation, only to power and greed for a select few, including themselves. The Canadian electorate instinctively knows something is very wrong at the helm. That is why we elected another minority government. A petition currently circulating to recall emerson is an important beginning to re assert the public good as Canada's driving force. Please sign the petition if you believe that politicians must be accountable to the citizens who elected them. <a href="http://www.PetitionOnline.com/RDE/">http://www.PetitionOnline.com/RDE/</a> Signed by Constance (Connie) Fogal, Leader, Canadian Action Party. -- CANADIAN ACTION PARTY/PARTI ACTION CANADIENNE LEADER, CONSTANCE (Connie) FOGAL <a href="http://www.canadianactionparty.ca">www.canadianactionparty.ca</a> Telephone Connie Fogal at: 604 872 2128 [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on February 12, 2006]<p>---<br>Nothing in this World makes People so Afraid as the Influence of an Independant Minded Individual.<br />
Attrib. Al EINSTEIN
What I am saying is that they are not all over the place making things happen. Connie is the leader of CAP and was a candidate in that riding, yet no significant actions taken but just to report a petition and the same old same old CAP platform retorque.
Election campain is over. Now is the time for action CAP. Get on the street Connie, let yourself heard. The NDP is taking the lead role in this story. They will submit "THEIR" private bill against such move. We all know that Harper will eventually put that sort of bill on the floor.
To my view, CAP is really not doing much regarding this issue (and the other regarding Senate and that anglo-guy appointed to the Francophonie... CAP might loose more follower because of this.
More on this later...
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?
I am sure you would get at least one picture in a news paper if you would "stood outside the media rooms buck naked screaming, covered in icecream, waving balloons and giving out suckers". Write a good letter and pass it along your Davids about Goliath (alias Harper's Conservatives and whom they represent) and ask them to spread the word... it is a better start than just pointing to a petition that will lead nowhere. The point is, take some significant action or at least one good one and people might join the team or at least not be tempted to leave the boat. At least try to be a little noisier than the Greens (which we have not heard of).
I also got to agree with Cathrine,the public has got to get involved in politics.One individual yelling and screaming might get some press,but that is all.If 500,000 Canadians said that Emerson must step down,he would have NO CHOICE!
I will repeat again;It is frustrating to try and explain what is happening in this country to individuals who have never heard of NAFTA!I mean adults with educations,not school kids.The government knows the public is fast asleep and does not care about anything except shopping,cell phones,SUVs,and TV.If the public refuses to stand up can you really blame the pols for doing what they want?Imagine what they must think of the public.With all the shit flying around,not a peep!The public has the ultimate power,but refuse to exercise it.I think CAP is doing a good job with the resources they have.But they need the public!!!!!!
How do we wake the public up?I don't know.
wrote - which is only part one. Comments can been summarized as:
1. supportive, would like to see clarification, expansion and protection of
citizen democratic rights.
2. it wasn't the best thing to do---BUT Emerson is the best guy for the job,
he is a brilliant economic thinker - tough luck for the voters.
3. Citizens don't have rights --parliamentarians do...my legal arguments
haven't got a hope in hell of winning in court...but no alternative or better
legal arguments were presented. This essentially is the "very restrictive/
conservative view" of these matters...likely held by many
parliamentarians...they have all the rights...and citizens be dammed. Of
course I have never said winning would be easy...in fact it may be next to
impossible..but it is incumbent on one to 1) at least make the legal-
philosophical argument in favor of citizen rights, and (2) if there is genuine
interest & genuine support to have the matter clarified/adjudicated in the
courts so--then, at least parliamentarians & citizens will exactly
know where they stand and why. Either 'tradition' prevails and it is the end of
history as far as democratic evolution in Canada, or the constitution and
Charter provide for a 'break from tradition', for evolution.
Lasly I want to say, there have been response from the media to me -public
broadcasting and the Corporate media - and thusfar, despite their requests I
have resisted appearing on their shows. Why? --because as a 'class", and with
very few exceptions, they have a history of 'framing the debate', of granting
only a few minutes within a very tight 'framework', of minimizing, of
distorting, confusing the issues, concealing the truth, of bias towards Capital
and Continentalism, elitism, unfairness, the list goes on. Their 'culpability' in
undermining sovereignty and democracy in Canada is deserving of many
books, indeed the whole field of 'critical media' studies is devoted to
that...but neither the media, nor the parliamentarians who grant them virtual
monopoly rights over public airways 'really get it'. Perhaps ViveleCanada
readers/participants do. So there is an update for you all.
Dear John H
I’d like to apply for a job as a Cabinet Minister. I can take direction. I will gladly join any political party, change my diet, comply with any dress code, subscribe to any periodical; attend any church; and see it your way at all times. That new guy you hired had promised to be your worst nightmare when he was a Liberal and he sure was right.
You must know by now that you can’t trust him to stay loyal to any particular point of view. In his new portfolio, will he do the right thing for Canada or what’s right for him?
I wasn’t elected to anything, but, you have others in the Cabinet that will relate to that. You can trust me to do the right thing for you and only you, honest!
John R
Legal or not, litigation gets much press and sometimes is the force that drives effective political attacks. For example, from the right, the “fudgit budget” litigation in BC.
Hoperfully you will be able to find the people you need in the riding in question. And though I am far removed from Vancouver, living in the interior of B.C., do feel free to tap me for some cash at the appropriate time.
You and I have discussed this previously, of course, and you are well aware of my view, of what has to be watched for here, for what this may be the signal of The "system rulers" certainly want to return to clear majority governance, for the "stability" it provides. Which is code speak for a business/corporate friendly government that has the parliamentary power to proceed with the neoconservative agenda, along its many fronts of social policy, and deep integration of our economic, political and military policy, under the guise of "harmonization", into those of the Neocon USA. Only increasingly, I think, the indicators are that for a very long time at least, if ever again, as has been the situation in Bitish Columbia for a very long time already, that this may only ever be possible again with the emergence of some form of Grand Alliance between the Liberals and Conservatives. And indeed, in the right/left division currently manifest within the defeated Federal Liberal Party, this may well be the yet un-openly spoken issue, or one of them, yet confined to the backroom, driving the wedge of division there. (For it has been clear for awhile now, even before the recent election, that there are deep divisions exerting their acrid influence upon the hallowed halls and political health of that ancient ruling institution.)
And Emerson himself may well be the early indication of that process within the Liberal Party, and the direction it may be about to move in, with him being the pointman indicator of what is to come.
We shall have to see, of course,but our suspicions should be aroused, especially those of us who have witnessed a very similar process emerge and root itself in B.C., with the current Liberal/Conservative/Social Credit rump/ Reform Party Alliance, dressed up in drag as the B.C. Liberal Party under Gordon Campbell.
In any case, my friend, this kind of a thing as you propose would be useful on a number of fronts, but especially it stands to send the signal I think, that an opposition to this kind of anti=democratic maneuvering, and playing fast and loose with the democratically determined intentions of the Canadian electorate, is likewise generating a serious opposition, even in the courts, or starting in the courts, and proceeding wherever, hopefully, future development may lead.
Regards, Peter. Again, if I can help, let me know. be it whatever I might from my remote location.
up this afternoon (Sun., 19 Feb) and speak about the case coast-
to-coast.
Although the topic is mildly stated as "When is it acceptable to
change sides?" it's obviously based upon the David Emerson
case, which is about a lot more than merely changing sides. Plus:
Stephen Harper has much to answer for, too, in this Emerson
transaction.
It should be a hot discussion. I hope you'll be right in the midst of it.
Coyote too! Everybody! Good luck!