An anonymous commentator over at CalgaryGrit responded to Dan’s feeling that if the current governing Cons. has no confidence in Elections Canada, then officials will either resign or get fired (Linda Keen’ed was his apt description). That commentator made some excellent points why this wouldn’t happen, and they bear repeating here:
Under s. 13 of the Canada Elections Act, the House of Commons appoints the Chief Electoral Officer by resolution. The CEO may only be removed for cause by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons. In other words, the Governor in Council has no power to remove the CEO, for cause or otherwise. Only the Governor General, on the advice of Parliament, has that power. The Commissioner is appointed by the CEO pursuant to s. 509 of the Canada Elections Act. As it is the role of the Commissioner to ensure the Act is enforced, I doubt anyone other than the CEO could remove the Commissioner, and then only for cause. So, it is irrelevant insofar as the CEO or Commissioner’s security of tenure is concerned that the government has voted no confidence. What is important is that the CEO retains the confidence of Parliament, which he has.
That commentator then makes an interesting follow-up -Â what really matters is what happens next:
What happens if and when the Conservative lose a court case on this. What happens if their judicial review application gets dismissed? What happens if the Conservative Fund or the Conservative Party gets charged with and convicted of an offence? Will they then vote no confidence in the courts? It is one thing for the government to vote no confidence in the institution that runs elections. It is another thing entirely for the government to essentially deny the legitimacy of the institution that enforces the constitution and the rule of law.
A couple of good questions by that anonymous commenter - I wish I could give that person more credit for some excellent well thought out points, but turning those comments into a blogpost for greater read distribution will have to do for now.
Essentially, what you’re seeing with the Tories voting no-confidence in Elections Canada, which in the words of the Toronto Star, was the Conservatives launching “an all-out assault on Elections Canada’s credibility”, (not to mention Harper mouthpiece spokesperson Dimitri Soudras expressing confidence in the Elections Canada Act, but not the ruling of Elections Canada against the Conservatives) is an attempt to get their Conservative base voters outraged, as well as try to convince voters that Elections Canada holds a bias against them. They wish to discredit a federal agency here in Canada that has a lot of credibility elsewhere in the world.
For now however, there will be no reprisals against Elections Canada by Harper seeking vengeance on an agency that has called them out on circumventing spending rules, or for past grudges that Harper may hold against EC when it comes to third-party advertising (which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Elections Canada’s favour). The very act as related above guarantees their independence.
This behaviour by the Cons. is all about trying to portray themselves as the poor picked on victim in this case. Attacking the workings of government and the federal agencies independence who put natural checks on the government from within is also what is at work here.
Very Republican like, I should say. Nixon and Bush Jr must be proud of their neo-conservative Canadian disciples.
All joking about Canada’s Illegitimate
Government aside, we would do well to remember that “the government”, in fact, voted in support of Elections Canada because a majority of MPs did, just as any legislation that’s passed in the commons still requires a majority of votes. In this context, “the government” and “the governing party” aren’t synonymous as much as that may annoy the Conservatives.