Vive Le Canada - Is There a Legal Case Against David Emerson?

Is There a Legal Case Against David Emerson?
Contributed by: PatriotPete

It is now becoming evident that David Emerson's actions have support, amongst some within his constituency, within the Conservative Party, but especially within Corporate Canada. Nonetheless I hazard to assert that the majority of ordinary Canadians across the political spectrum think that his actions were an absolute betrayal of those who supported his campaign and those who voted for him.

Unlike many I am not optimistic that if the 'public keeps the heat on' we may see him resign or an improvement in electoral ethics originating from the House of Commons. The NDP's referral of this matter to the Ethics Commission will not result in a quick remedy and neither will it be decided in a fair and non-biased manner. What we do need is more heat -continual heat - and in my view part of that must be a court application to have this matter adjudicated.

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]