As Andrew Coyne of Macleans' Magazine notes, the issue of the transfer of Afghan detainees could be exposing a powerful debate between the powers of Parliament ( House of Commons & Senate) and the Crown (Prime Minister & Cabinet). The all-party House of Commons Parliamentary Committee (Military Police Complaints Commission [MPCC]) seeks documents the Prime Minister and Cabinet have heavily censored, thereby preventing the House of Commons Committee from being able to do its job and advise Parliament on the issue of Canadian tranfers of Afghan detainees. The Government (Prime Minister & Cabinet) have defended their position by stating that the censored portions have been blacked out for reasons of national security. Not only this, the government has effectively shut down the ability of the Committee to investigate further.
The controversey sets in as the constant hammering of this multi-party committee on the reputation of the government was proving to be a political liability for the Conservatives. Support for the government was dropping in public opinion polls primarily due to this issue.
Read Coyne's article and decide which side in the debate should be supported: Parliament or the Crown?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Minor gripe: The crown is functionally a part of parliament, rather than a seperate entity. This illustrates the concept of the constitutional fusion of powers versus the institutional seperation of powers we are so familiar with due to our southern neighbour.
ReplyDeleteParliament = Crown + House + Senate.
Agreed, Andrew. Perhaps a more nuanced yet more accurate question could focus on shifting relational thresholds within that fusion. Is Coyne attempting to cultivate impressions of severance between Parliament and Crown for reasons of editorial provocation?
ReplyDelete