Yes, Stephen Harper can run for office. Sheesh.
There’s often a silly season that erupts at the start of an election campaign. The parties haven’t released their platforms yet, the issues aren’t usually defined, and the conversation starts to turn on the damndest things.
Which I think is why there was a flurry on Twitter today—including a few people I follow—about whether Stephen Harper is legally barred from running for office, based on a blog post that claimed:
- The House of Commons has found Stephen Harper guilty of contempt of Parliament.
- Contempt of Parliament is an election-related crime.
- Under the Canada Elections Act, individuals found guilty of election-related crimes can’t be an MP for five to seven years after conviction.
If you’re convinced that Stephen Harper is taking Canada in the wrong direction, then this probably sounds pretty damned appealing. But it ought to ring some alarm bells. And before you reach for the “retweet” button, maybe you want to check the source.
Because every single point they make is wrong. Bearing in mind that I’m not a lawyer, here we go:
- Stephen Harper wasn’t “found guilty” of anything. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs found (PDF) that the government was in contempt of Parliament, in a report where neither Harper’s name nor the phrase “Prime Minister” appears even once. The House of Commons then voted on a non-confidence motion and the government was defeated.
- Contempt of Parliament isn’t an election-related crime. (It isn’t a crime at all.) You won’t find it anywhere in the Canada Elections Act or the Criminal Code. (You can, however, find a reference in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which makes it clear that any misconduct can be deemed to be contempt and that it’s up to the House of Commons to decide how to punish it.)
- The Canada Elections Act is actually very specific about which offenses bar someone from office. They range from publishing a false statement of withdrawal of candidate to trying to vote more than once… but they don’t include contempt of Parliament.
It’s easy to find examples of MPs who have been found directly, personally in contempt of Parliament—Ian Waddell, for example, who was found in contempt in 1991 for touching the Mace but who ran in the 1993 federal election.
And it’s not like this is a slip-up from a normally authoritative source. The blog making this claim also has some other fringe views—including the belief that the recent earthquake in Japan was deliberately caused by the U.S. government.
None of this information is hard to find. And the blog’s idiosyncratic viewpoint isn’t exactly concealed from view.
If you’re one of the people who retweeted this, please: a little due diligence goes a long way, and can keep you from forwarding this kind of misinformed idiocy. And it can keep us talking about the stuff that matters—like the Harper government’s appalling environmental record, or the actual substance of their contempt for Parliament—instead of easily-debunked distractions like this.







