Disturbing Growth in Prime Minister's Powers

14 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2010-03-09 23:39

Aaron.Broad

To my fellow Canadians:

What is happening in Canadian federal politics at present is much larger than it appears. If leaked documents and interviews about the Afghan detainee affair are to be believed, then the government is guilty of war crimes. While this alone is troubling, there is yet an even larger issue at play here than has or has not the government committed war crimes? --One which threatens the very fabric of our Parliamentary democracy: There is currently, according to the Prime Minister, no way in which Parliament can rightfully determine whether war crimes have been committed or not due to national security concerns in revealing all available evidence. This inability of Parliament in the majority to have any powers over the Prime Minister, follows a pattern during this government, and is of a much more pressing concern than even them having possibly violated the Geneva Conventions. The perceived powers of this Prime Minister are without precedent, and require immediate reversal for the continued survival of our democracy.

Through his actions on the detainee issue, and actions taken on previous threats to his government, the Prime Minister appears to be attempting to establish by precedent the supreme and unitary executive power of the Prime Minister’s Office. The Prime Minister first prorogued Parliament during non-confidence of the house in 2008. At the time, he referred to the majority of the MPs as being members of a coupe d’état when they declared non-confidence in his government and demanded to form a coalition. In the following year, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament again under shifting explanations, and during a parliamentary investigation of possible war crimes by his government. Now, under a new parliamentary session, the Prime Minister is continuing to stall said investigation, by refusing to reveal key documents to Parliament in unredacted form. He is requesting that there be a possible election if the Opposition cares about the issue. In all of these actions lies a common thread: the Prime Minister is demonstrating his perceived superiority of his office to Parliament. Yet, under word of law of our parliamentary system, the parliament is to be supreme to the PMO.

These actions cannot be allowed to stand. If the Prime Minister succeeds in withholding documents from Parliament into the next election, whether he wins or loses that election he will have succeeded in setting a new precedent for the powers of a Prime Minister’s Office. As seen from recent history in the United States, powers demanded by the executive under one party are seldom returned by the following government, even when said government campaigns on undoing these powers.

Power is corrupting and hard for men to resist. If the so-called war on terrorism continues, or the economic situation deteriorates into civil strife, a future Prime Minister may again prorogue Parliament with or without the confidence of Parliament. A future Prime Minister may also conduct any operations he or she arbitrarily deems vital national security in total secrecy from Parliament, claiming they have no legal obligation to reveal them.

All Canadians must demand a full public inquiry into the detainee affair, with parameters set by the majority of Parliament. Not only must this be done, to rein in one Prime Minister who has gone rogue, but to prevent any future Conservative/Liberal/NDP/Green Prime Minister from sharing in the perceived powers of this Prime Minister through the awful precedent he has set.

Issues Pages:

Politics in Canada

Civil Liberties Watch

Afghanistan

Wed, 2010-03-10 13:01

Sean in Ottawa

I think you frame the problem accurately-- therefore perhaps there should be an inquiry in to the power of the PMO to determine if it is evolving in a less democratic direction. I agree that this is an issue seperate from the detainee issue and worthy of its own terms of reference.

Wed, 2010-03-10 18:46

Frmrsldr

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think you frame the problem accurately-- therefore perhaps there should be an inquiry in to the power of the PMO to determine if it is evolving in a less democratic direction. I agree that this is an issue seperate from the detainee issue and worthy of its own terms of reference.

Torturegate, and to a lesser extent the 2008 prorogation (the 2009 prorogue was an attempt to dodge the Torturegate bullet), are the focal points that have brought the Canadian public's attention to the battle of supremacy: Prime Minister or Parliament?

If democracy is to be saved in Canada, Parliament must win this battle. Parliament must be unyielding in its resistance to extending the powers of the Prime Minister.

In my view here are some changes that need to be made:

1. I'm not big on this notion of powers that are either retained or lost through precedent and priviledge according to Common Law ideas in the BNA. This may require amendments to the Constitution to clarify and delineate powers and prevent the "corruption" or illegal assumption of powers.

2. Eliminate the office/position of Governor General. Parliament, Canada's Chief Justice, the Speaker of the House and the Prime Minister can perform the various appropriate functions.

3. Reform the Senate: Make it Elected, Equal and Effective. I'm big on 'checks and balances' in government and would rather have them than not have them.

4. Reform Canada's voting system. Give Canada a Proportional Representative voting system.

Wed, 2010-03-10 23:12

Doug

Frmrsldr wrote:

Torturegate, and to a lesser extent the 2008 prorogation (the 2009 prorogue was an attempt to dodge the Torturegate bullet), are the focal points that have brought the Canadian public's attention to the battle of supremacy: Prime Minister or Parliament?

Parliament lost and it happened well before Stephen Harper was Conservative leader, let alone Prime Minister. He's by no means guiltless by making it worse but the ascendancy of the PMO and other central agencies happened over the previous 25 years.

Wed, 2010-03-10 23:15

bagkitty

Frmrsldr wrote:

[...]

3. Reform the Senate: Make it Elected, Equal and Effective. I'm big on 'checks and balances' in government and would rather have them than not have them.[...]

If you are going to go for a tripe E Sentate, then you better demand the the Commons be strictly rep by pop, rep to be determined by PR or not.

Thu, 2010-03-11 01:35

Frmrsldr

Doug wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Torturegate, and to a lesser extent the 2008 prorogation (the 2009 prorogue was an attempt to dodge the Torturegate bullet), are the focal points that have brought the Canadian public's attention to the battle of supremacy: Prime Minister or Parliament?

Parliament lost and it happened well before Stephen Harper was Conservative leader, let alone Prime Minister. He's by no means guiltless by making it worse but the ascendancy of the PMO and other central agencies happened over the previous 25 years.

Harper is definitely the most recent cause of the erosion of the powers of Parliament, that trend having been started by PET (Pierre Eliot Trudeau). "Lost" is too definitve a word. The erosion of the powers of Parliament is ongoing and needs to be (and can be) reversed by Parliament.

Thu, 2010-03-11 02:05

Frmrsldr

bagkitty wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

[...]

3. Reform the Senate: Make it Elected, Equal and Effective. I'm big on 'checks and balances' in government and would rather have them than not have them.[...]

If you are going to go for a tripe E Sentate, then you better demand the the Commons be strictly rep by pop, rep to be determined by PR or not.

I'll go with that. At the risk of offending fellow babblers, I also like the way the U.S. has their Senate set up and would like to see a Canadian "tripple E" Senate reformed this way; A hybrid of guaranteed number of Senators and "Rep. by Pop":

Every Province and Territory votes for a guaranteed 1 (or a fixed number of) Senator. After that, the number of Senators is based on the most recent population census. The Province or Territory that has the lowest population votes for an additional Senator. Based on this, each Province and Territory votes for a minimum of two Senators. After that, whatever the appropriate proportion of additional population each Province or Territory has above the least populated Province or Territory, votes for an appropriately greater number of Senators.

That sounds equal and effective to me

I like a Proportional Representation voting system because I am sick of parties sometimes getting only 30 something or 20 something percentage of the vote yet, because they are the party that singley received the most votes, forms the government. I also don't like how in this First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system, even though Canada is nominally called a "democracy", if you live in what I call a Conservative "burned over rotten pocket borough" where a Con MP (no matter who or what runs) is 'guaranteed' (based on historical voting patterns and the political ideology of the majority of those who vote in the riding) to get elected, but voted for a candidate of another party who did not get elected, then your vote is essentially wasted.

Fri, 2010-03-12 15:41

bagkitty

Frmsldr:

I think you are confusing the terms equal and equitable. I think what is called for is a wider discussion on the principles that are needed for totally restructuring Parliament... both Commns and Senate, and I don't see how one of the two houses can be restructured while the other is ignored. There was a lengthy thread (a two parter... "Principles Electoral Reformers Can Agree On") that I was following with growing dismay because it very quickly became a discussion not much more than a discussion of the mechanics of implementing PR in the Commons.

There is still a need for the basic principles to be agreed upon. Off the top of my head I think there are at least three -- 1) Rep by pop... that each individual vote should be (roughly) of equal value, 2) proportionality of outcome... we are working with a party system, and the results should (roughly) reflect this, 3) There must be some recognition of provincial or regional interests... some sort of rough equality amongs them -- that most people would tend to agree with, and at least one that most babblers would support -- that there is a need for the representatives to reflect the electorate (that women, FNs, lingustic groups etc. should be in the legislature (roughly) in proportion the makeup of the population.

Once we have agreed on the principles that should be deciding the restructuring of Parliament, then maybe it is time to start talking about the mechanics... and whether or not we address all these principles in a unicameral legislature or if we need a bicameral model. Until then, attempts to propose models to restructure either house are going to founder on the rocks... and we are going to continue to be facing a Parliament where none of the principles are well served -- that we will continue to be saddled with a Parliament that reflects the horse-trading between a bunch of old white guys who were protecting their little regional interests about a century and a half ago.

Fri, 2010-03-12 22:25

Frmrsldr

Bagkitty, you're going much farther than I.

By proposing reform of the Senate, it places a check on the Prime Minister because it takes away the priviledge of the PM appointing (stacking) the Senate. I only offered rep. by pop. When it comes to representing women, visible minorities and the cultural makeup of Canada that can only be done by the government encouraging such persons to run for office and (possibly) setting quotas.

By proposing PR, it eliminates the "winner takes all" scenario that FPTP yields and thus prevents PMs - even though they are the head of a minority government - acting like they are the head of a majority government. PR makes coalition governments more likely and if a PM or head of state wishes to remain in their position, it behooves them to cooperate as they can be easily replaced - and it often doesn't have to be through another election.

Tue, 2010-03-16 14:56

#10

bagkitty

Frmrsldr wrote:

Bagkitty, you're going much farther than I.

Well come along for the ride... let's go a lot further.

There is a great deal of discontent over our present system... for most here on babble it seems to focus primarily on what I referred to as the value of "proportionality of outcome" - (and the way in which elections are not resulting in a government that comes even close to representing the results of the vote) but get outside of the partisan circles and the other two values (rep by pop, and regional (provincial) interests) come into play... that rep by pop seems to be thrown to the wayside in favour of maintaining regional interests that are based on formulas that are outdated, and dominate both houses is more than a mild annoyance to those who notice that the utility of their vote is so much less than in other areas of the country, and rightly so, why is the vote of someone living in Brampton "worth" so much less than that of a voter in Summerside? -- and at the same time, I can see regions (provinces) having totally legitimate historical concerns that they will be swamped by a strict rep by pop model. Personally, I have a hard time seeing how the tension between rep by pop and regional interests can be balanced in a unicameral system, and this is causing me to rethink the long-standing NDP call to totally abolish the senate...

As for the fourth "value" I talked about, that the representatives themselves should reflect the makeup of the electorate, I think there is more than one way of addressing it - we have the New Zealand model to contemplate, and it can also be tackled by the parties themselves... especially if we employ some of the PR models (MMP) -- the composition of the "lists" is under party control, and they can take this fourth value into account when selecting who is to occupy the distributed seats... and I think parties committed to a reformed PR system should be addressing this issue now, and not just amongst themselves, but bringing it into the public discourse and generating interest in the electorate as a whole. (That this tool would be available is one of the reasons I personally prefer MMP models over STV).

Tue, 2010-03-16 19:06

#11

remind

That there is a disturbing growth in the powers of the PMO, is why people need to contact their MP's about voting for legistlative control of prorogation that the NDP are s[ear heading on Opposition Day,

Tue, 2010-03-23 19:27

#12

bagkitty

My goodness, even the Globe and Mail is recognizing the imbalance. (and such pretty charts to go along with it)

Wed, 2010-03-24 09:17

#13

Caissa

Given our Federal System any PR in the H of C would have to be counted provincial and assigned as such. I doubt the smaller provinces would give up their constituionally guaranteed minimum number of seats in the House. The Senate was designed based on regional representation. Go to an equal Senate would not be a hard sell in the provinces with few seats. Might be a harder sell in Ont and Qc which have 48 seats between them.

Wed, 2010-03-24 14:16

#14

Frmrsldr

Caissa wrote:

Given our Federal System any PR in the H of C would have to be counted provincial and assigned as such. I doubt the smaller provinces would give up their constituionally guaranteed minimum number of seats in the House. The Senate was designed based on regional representation. Go to an equal Senate would not be a hard sell in the provinces with few seats. Might be a harder sell in Ont and Qc which have 48 seats between them.

What Ontario and Quebec lose in the Senate, they retain in a Rep. by Pop. House. What the smaller provinces and territories lose in the House, they gain in the Senate. I think it makes Parliament more fair and effective.