Elections Canada has long enjoyed an outstanding national and international reputation.

Nearly ninety years ago, it was established as a non-partisan entity that reported directly to Parliament. Its purpose was and continues to be the prevention of partisan manipulation and abuse of the electoral system by government and opposition parties.

Since the 1970s, Elections Canada has been a world-respected mentor for emerging democracies in the impartial management of elections, providing technical assistance and professional support. International agencies and the United Nations regularly request its services, expertise and counsel.

Between 1990 and 2004 alone, it was involved in more than 300 democratic development missions in about 80 countries.Stephen Harper’s government has elected (no pun intended) to assault this image of impartial professionalism. The Prime Minister has characterized Elections Canada as unfair and partial. His party has decided to sue the Agency.

The issue - an “in and out” financing scheme that the Conservative Party of Canada used to generate a $1.8 million over-spend in the 2006 election.Here’s how it worked. The National Conservative Party would send money to its local riding associations. Within hours, the riding associations would return the money to the Party’s national media-buying agency for the purchase of television advertising time.

The television time was then used to broadcast nationally-produced, nationally-messaged commercials. The (supposedly) locally financed media purchases caused the Conservative Party to exceed their national spending limits by the $1.8 million. To compound the issue, local candidates claimed the advertising expenditures as local expenses, hoping to have the Federal Government return the money to their respective campaign accounts.

In other words, you and I, as Canadian taxpayers were asked to finance the Conservative Party’s over-spend. Elections Canada correctly refused to reimburse the Party. It’s been reported that candidates, who were called by Elections Canada for information about their campaign expenses, were told by Party lawyers to stonewall the Agency.

The Conservative Party then declared war on Elections Canada and is suing the Agency to recover the “in and out” funds. Harper has done this kind of thing before. Recall his vendetta against the non-partisan, long-serving civil servant head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Linda J. Keen who refused to bend to his will. He fired her just hours before she was to testify at a parliamentary committee.

In some respects, the law-suit should not be surprising. Lawsuits have become the way of Conservatives. In the past, Harper has threatened to sue Stéphane Dion.

Remember Brian Mulroney’s infamous airbus lawsuit. He recently sued the Honorable Robert G. Thibault to silence his questions on the Karlheinze Schreiber affair. Canada’s Ethics Commissioner (appointed by Mulroney) has ruled that Thibault can no longer pursue Mulroney because the lawsuit gives him a personal interest in the outcome. Stephen Harper would have us believe that Elections Canada’s credibility is suspect and faulty even though it provides the legitimacy and credibility that governs the Canadian electoral process.

What kind of a government would attack its own independent agencies?

How did we get to this unhappy state of affairs where public servants are sued for making judgments that the law requires of them?

It appears that implicit understandings that used to characterize the relationship between politicians and public servants are being challenged by Mr. Harper and his lawsuit.Not long ago it would have been unimaginable for the RCMP to raid the headquarters of a national political party, especially the governing party. They have done so in search of evidence from the Conservative Party to support the investigation of Elections Canada.

We have a potentially stolen election (in 2006) if the transactions are proven to be illegal and the result is an over-expenditure of funds. What then? The Elections Act covers everything from the details newspapers must report about the methodology of polls they publish during election campaigns, to how much they can spend in an election.

Elections Canada can annul an election result but can it do so two years after the fact and what are the implications of annulment? With the Mulroney and Harper lawsuits, we have entered an era of legal (read American) intimidation where laws, judges and prosecutors determine what used to be political outcomes. This could well be at a cost to our democracy.

In a world of litigation, issues once resolved behind the scenes by people and parliamentary debate give way to legal argument and the economics of legal staying power. However, in the court of public opinion, the Conservatives may have lost this case.

A recent survey reveals that nearly six in 10 Canadians side with Elections Canada against the Conservatives. Stephen Harper would have them believe that Election Canada’s credibility is suspect and faulty.

Canadians don’t believe him.