Prerogatives continue to exist, however, only to the extent that they have not been disrupted by statute. Although Judge Iacobucci's advice may be helpful in resolving some aspects of this dispute, what the circumstances require is that Parliament take immediate measures to control the exercise of prerogative power, using statute. This realm of unfettered discretion must be made accountable to the people and their representatives. It is not often that Parliament can acquire this authority in the face of an intransigent prime minister. With Mr. Harper's party in the minority, however, the House of Commons can enact a special statute directing disclosure of these documents, even under certain conditions, and so control the prerogative in this instance.
It also is an opportune moment for the House to consider limiting, even abolishing, the balance of prerogative powers that are exercised almost exclusively by prime minister and cabinet. This is what the British House of Commons select committee on public administration recommended in 2004 and the House of Lords recommended in respect of the prerogative of deploying troops in 2006.
A bill regulating the exercise of a prime minister's power to recommend prorogation or dissolution to the governor-general is a more delicate constitutional matter, but deserves serious consideration as well.
All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
On opportune moments
David Schneiderman weighs in on the options available to the opposition parties if they're able to agree that Parliamentary supremacy is worth affirming:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment