Comment 107207

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted December 18, 2014 at 18:06:56

Campaign promises are nice, but the ones that carry weight are made by a sitting majority government. Parliament is dissolved for the purposes of holding an election, muting if not mooting the value of policy commitments made during the writ period.

This was further underlined by the Ontario Superior Court in January 2005:


An Ontario Superior Court judge has absolved Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty of breaking an elaborately signed contract promising not to raise or create new taxes, saying anyone who believes a campaign promise is naive about the democratic system.

If anyone who voted for a politician based on a particular promise later were to go to court alleging a breached contract, "our system of government would be rendered dysfunctional. This would hinder, if not paralyze, the parliamentary system," Mr. Justice Paul Rouleau said.

The judge was ruling on a request from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to quash the Liberals' new health premium on the grounds that it broke an election promise.

"Imposing a duty of care in the circumstances such as exist in the present case would have a chilling effect and would interfere with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty," he said. "To allow claims for negligent representation to be made based on these would raise the spectre of unlimited liability to an indeterminate class.

theglobeandmail.com/news/national/politicians-promises-not-set-in-stone-court-says/article1114002/


Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds