Maybe the Dingo Ate Your Speech
I don't think the Supreme Court has ever considered any duly passed Act of Parliament to be a gimmick. They are not going to find the law invalid. The question under dispute will be if it applies during minority governments and lacking an explicit exemption it will take a convincing argument to show that.
I would go further than Democracy Watch in my argument - they gran an "understood" exemption in cases of motions of non-confidence. I would argue that even in those cases an election should only be held if no one is able to form a government that has the confidence opf the House.
So here's the thing: if you're not a big fan of the Harper Cons, shouldn't this be seen as a great 'win-win' situation for the opposition?
As we head into another election, Harper and the Cons will be seen in one of two ways:
1. Contempt for the court's decision that they broke the law, again showing that they have a general contempt for Canadian legislators, defying any reason why they should be trusted with writing the law of the land.
2. Found guilty of breaking their own law, which would result in what? The Cons having to pay back the $300 million that Canadian taxpayers had to spend on the last election?
Yeah, what's the penalty for breaking this law anyway? Harper's on the hook he crafted.
Commenting by HaloScan
