“There
is no evidence of government conspiracy ... I don't agree with what
they say in the report." This statement is printed on the back cover
of Peter Desbarats's 1997 book, Somalia Cover-Up: A
Commissioner's Journal, and the words belong to former Liberal
minister of defence Art Eggleton. I had this book in my hands while
I was watching Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's lecture on TV
about the torture in Afghanistan and his condemnation of Prime
Minister Stephen Harper's government for the secrecy with which he
was dealing with the Afghan issue.
I
don't agree with the way the government is handling the Afghan
issue. More openness would be appropriate and welcomed by all
Canadians. At the same time, I'm tired of the phony attitude by the
opposition trying to make us believe that what we are witnessing
today is something very serious and highly undemocratic.
This
is a tempest in a teapot.
Our
electoral system elects the members of the House without reflecting
the will of the majority of Canadians.
Our
Parliamentary system creates a four-year dictatorship that
concentrates unlimited power in the hands of one person.
What
this government is doing is no different from what many other
governments did in the past.
Let
me start from the first point.
Whenever
we elect our Members of Parliament with the majority electoral
system, we will never have real democratic representation in the
House. In 1997, Jean Chrétien won 156 seats in the House, which is
52 per cent of the total seats, while he won only 38 per cent of the
popular vote. In 2000, he won 57.1 per cent of the seats with only
40 per cent support. Even Brian Mulroney who in 1984 won 211 seats
(74.8 per cent of the House) obtained only 50.03 per cent of the
popular vote. The reason we choose the majority system instead of
the proportional representation system is because we want to make
sure the country has stable leadership for four years.
At
the present time, with a minority government, we have the worst of
both: we give up some of our democratic rights without enjoying a
stable government.
But
that's not all. Our Parliamentary system creates four-year
dictatorships that concentrate a lot of power in the hands of one
person: the Prime Minister. He controls the government, the caucus
and Parliament. This is different from the American system where the
power of the president is seriously tamed by the power of the U.S.
Congress. Furthermore, the two year renewal of 50 per cent of the
members of Congress, gives continuity to the administration and, at
the same time, the possibility to revoke the majority to a president
whose job is not liked.
Alexis
De Tocqueville, in his book Democracy in America, writes that
Thomas Jefferson and others "concentrated all the executive power of
the nation in one hand ... and gave a lot of power to the president,
but they removed from him any will to use it."
In
Canada there is none of this. The Prime Minister, often surrounded
by non-elected individuals, with the help of a not very democratic
electoral system, has all the power he wants without any real
control.
We
have a less democratic electoral system, but in return get more
stability in government. Unfortunately, at the present, we have the
worst of both: less democracy and no stability.
All
governments have at a certain point in time done exactly what the
Harper government is doing and, we can rest assured they will do so
in the future once a party wins a majority.
Pierre
Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act, despite Parliament. Then NDP
leader Tommy Douglas said, "The government, I submit, is using a
sledgehammer to crack a peanut." But Trudeau went ahead anyway
because he had a majority in the House even though he had only 45.37
per cent of the Canadian vote.
Going
back to the Somalia scandal, in September 1995, CBC Radio reporter
Michael McAuliffe was given altered documents from the government.
In November of 1995 McAuliffe reported "on alteration and
destruction of documents" at the Department of National Defence
headquarters.
On
Jan. 10, 1997, the Chrétien government asked the Somalia Inquiry,
headed by Desbarats, to close shop by the end of March, shortly
before the election. The inquiry submitted the report on June 30.
For the government "There is no cover-up. I don't know what you
referred to," Chrétien told The Toronto Sun in 1997.
I'm
not saying that he or other governments were wrong in cutting short
the inquiry and to move on. After all, Chrétien might have thought
that the point was made and going further would have destroyed the
credibility of the entire army because of the actions of a few bad
apples.
But
who's to say the documents the bureaucrats are now withholding from
Parliament—because the blacking out of the documents is done by them
not by the politicians—will not unnecessarily embarrass some of our
NATO allies?
What's
the difference between the present situation and others in the past?
Why are we screaming from the top of our lungs about the excessive
power in the hands of a Prime Minister when this is the essence of
our Parliamentary
system?
