Dear editor,
Mr. Harper claims that the Opposition has caused four expensive, unnecessary elections in the last seven years. Let’s look at the facts.
In 2004, the first of the four elections, Mr. Martin called an election, as is usual and legitimate after the appointment of a new prime minister.
In 2006, Harper and the other Opposition leaders precipitated an election by voting against the Liberal government on a motion of non-confidence.
In 2008, Harper alone called an early election in hope of a majority government and in contravention of his own fixed-date election law; apparently he had left sufficient legal loopholes (intentional or not) to disregard his own law. It appears a Harper promise is a promise made with his fingers crossed behind his back.
In 2011, most pundits considered Harper oh-so-cunning by putting the NDP in the position of having to vote against the budget, thus causing an election where he could once again seek a majority government.
I myself was phoned four times in February/March with a request for money for the so-called supportive services for Stephen Harper — and they were not expecting an early election?
The contempt of Parliament decision Harper was unable to delay, but predictably he barefacedly blamed the Opposition for being power-hungry partisans for supporting the charge. Is this analogous to a criminal accusing the jury of being prejudiced or what?
For the record, it was Mr. Milliken, the highly respected and longest-serving Speaker of the House, who brought the charges against the Harper government, not the Opposition. It is interesting to note that in the U.S. the last president to suffer impeachment, similar to our Contempt of Parliament, was Tricky-Dick Nixon.
Harper has been instrumental in causing three of the last four elections, but, as in other issues, experiences no shame whatsoever in distorting history and indulging himself in character assassination so as to villify those who oppose him.
John Keats,
Courtenay