Who’s Accountable to Whom?
The following is reprinted from an article written by Michael Byers and appearing in The Tyee on January 26, 2012.
I reprint the sections in which the author Michael Myers discusses with a German colleague the Canadian Parliamentary system vis a vis that of the German Reichstag. For the full article link here:
A View from the Reichstag: Who’s Accountable to Whom?
During a coffee break, a constitutional law professor quizzed me about Canada: “Is it true that your government has been shutting down Parliament?”
“Only temporarily,” I replied, explaining that Canadian prime ministers are entitled to ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. Stephen Harper first did so in Dec. 2008, in order to avoid losing a fiscal vote and thus his government. He did so again in Dec. 2009, in order to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of documents relating to the practice of transferring detainees to possible torture in Afghanistan. In both instances, the Governor General granted his request.
Nevertheless, Harper’s actions caused concern at home and abroad. As The Economist magazine observed on the second occasion, “The danger in allowing the prime minister to end discussion any time he chooses is that it makes Parliament accountable to him rather than the other way around.”
My German colleague seemed to share that view: “Didn’t the Canadian Parliament respond by declaring the government in contempt?”
“Not exactly,” I replied. The contempt of parliament ruling came later, in March 2011, after the government refused to provide MPs with detailed cost estimates for its crime bills. And while no other government in the Commonwealth had ever been found in contempt, Harper cavalierly downplayed the importance of the ruling, saying: “You win some, you lose some.”
Indeed, his Conservatives won a majority in the election that followed, which suggests that most Canadians were not particularly bothered by the finding of contempt.
“The real surprise,” I explained, “is that Harper does not appear satisfied with the extensive powers that are normally available to a majority government.”
I tell my German colleague about the government’s practice of invoking closure, with a frequency never before seen in Canada, to prevent elected MPs from debating major legislation such as the omnibus crime bill and a bill that will add dozens of new seats to the Commons.
About how, increasingly, the government moves the business of parliamentary committees behind closed doors, so that it can conceal embarrassing documents and reject witnesses proposed by opposition parties without fear of public censure.
Warning, with a smile
Finally, I explain how the Federal Court ruled in Dec. 2011 that a bill to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board was illegal because it violated a statutory requirement to poll wheat farmers first. No matter: the government adopted the bill anyway.
This led Peter Russell, the doyen of Canadian constitutional law, to warn: “Canadians should understand that at stake here is not just a technical point of law, but the integrity of parliamentary government.”
At this point, a wry smile crosses the German professor’s face.
“Professor Russell is right,” he says. “It’s all about understanding. Here in Germany, we sometimes learn our lessons too late.
While we are certainly no where near being turned into a dictatorship and the current government could fall (and will likely fall) in the next election, it is possible that several precedents will have been set by the current government that will be hard to dismantle.
We should all be concerned when any of our governing parties choose to disregard the building blocks of our parliamentary system.
For Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives, far to many blocks are being pulled from the foundation.
Harold McNeill
Reference: Who’s Accountable to Whom?
(676)
Trackback from your site.