They belief that Canada's Democracy is broken has been growing. It is not merely a matter of position; where the party(ies) presently out of power decry the abuses of government, that a few short years ago could be heard from those members presently going about abusing said government. I do think Canada's democracy is going through a period of decline; it is decades old and has not yet reach its apogee. What it isn't is broken. It is rather like a clock that runs too fast or too slow, it must be periodically reset, but still tells time after a fashion. The clock is not broken, it runs according to its specifications, but the tolerances are a bit wide.
Our Parliament is similar. It functions according to its laws and traditions or specifications and tolerances. In our case the tolerances are getting too wide and the effect is a Parliament functioning in a degraded fashion.
We can remedy the problem by adjusting the rules and traditions upon which Parliament functions. What does Canada's government look like?
In Canada the head of Government is Queen Elizabeth the Second, represented in Canada by the Governor General. Some of the powers of the Governor General are the signing of legislation, appointing Prime minister. At the next level we have the executive branch made up of the Prime minster and Cabinet drawn usually from the House of commons. The PM and cabinet propose laws and policy. The Legislative Branch which is an elective House of Commons and an appointed Senate. Here is where the the proposed laws are discussed debated and passed. The Judicial Branch makes up the third piece. The purpose of the this branch is ensure that that legislation conforms to to the constitution.
Ideally the system is bound together with checks and balances regulating the exercise of power. Abuses are prevented or mitigated and eventually reversed by competing branches of government. In reality checks and balances have a more voluntary or at best a time delay quality.
So how do we come to the place where the average citizen feel that government is broken? That is firmly rooted in the nature of our parliamentary system, Majority and to a small extent Minority governments. The House of Commons is where legislation is debated, passed or defeated. The Senate plays a part in legislation but as an appointed body its role is restricted; it can and has defeated legislation but usually it may consents to pass legislation whole or with some amendments; usually suggested by the PM. Legislation is passed on a straight up and down vote; so a Majority government should have no trouble passing legislation.
In a Majority government the Loyal Opposition can do little to stop legislation, they may delay it for a a time but can not defeat it. Governments knowing they have no substantial problems passing their agenda will work with Opposition parties to reduce rancor and make for smother passage of Bills. If they don't the tools available to the Opposition are to galvanize the public by exposing through debate, flaws in the proposed laws and shame if a piece of legislation is egregiousness. The only hope is to scare the Government or government MPs by way of future electoral defeat into altering or scraping a Bill. The Courts can act only after a law is passed so its effect is limited; though if consulted ahead of time by Government they can offer their private opinion on whether such and such a provision is legal. The only other check on the Majority government is the Governor General. Here we again come up against the nature of Appointment over elected official. The GG has the powers to prevent but will not by tradition use those powers. The GG takes "advice" from the PM, suggesting choice but effectively a PM's "advice" is an order.
Our Democracy is a combination of legal frameworks, what is allowed and Traditional and Conventions what is done. The abuses we complain about today follow not from legal changes but from the alteration of convention. That is conventions on the part of Government. Recent examples include prorogation of government to avoid accountability. Prorogation occurs at the end of a Governments legislative agenda. It has only one purpose to the reset of parliament. Harper has used it to avoid answering to the House. There is now law against using prorogation this way but it is clearly not the intended purpose. That is a convention. The GG was given "advice" by the PM to prorogue, and acting within convention did so.
Convention is malleable. Any PM with sufficient cause or bravery will overturn convention, at need. They can do so and remain safely within the legal frame work. The problem is that the other elements of our Democracy can't or won't alter their actions in response to the Executive. The GG should have and would have been with their rights to deny prorogation, as it was intended for a purpose other than ending a completed legislative session. But it didn't happen, the PM violated convention but the GG didn't.
Our Democracy works according to its framework but because it leans heavily on convention is open to abuse. The checks and balances are not effective because they are either elective or or effectively non existent. The parliament of Canada is not broken, it is working but as with the slow clock with too wide a set a tolerances.
It is my feeling that the necessary step is a reduction in convention; it is an unreliable check. Codify in law the powers and procedures of government and reduce as much as is reasonable and possible, the role played by convention.
No comments:
Post a Comment