II. Accountability in the New Canadian Minority Parliament
The federal Canadian parliament that opened in October 2004 offers
yet another breakthrough opportunity in public accountability. This
is because the government is in a minority situation. Noting the
healthcare example, the opposition political parties can decide
to install, for the first time in Canada's parliamentary history,
reasonable standards for the executive government's public answering
to the House of Commons. This is because they have the combined
votes to do it.
Their voting power can also cause the reporting standards for the
executive government to be statutory. No governing party would invite
a confidence vote by saying in effect that they did not want parliamentarians
and citizens better informed and having a valid base for confidence
and trust in the government.
But opposition Members of Parliament must themselves want adequate
public accountability, and thus far they have shown no inclination
to go beyond their ritual rhetorical questions in the House of Commons
or overcome partisanship in their committees to deal with a nonpartisan
answering obligation.
As one example, the federal Conservative party's recent election
platform offered better accountability. But the party defined it
principally as having the Auditor General do more -- a totally wrong
notion of government accountability.
Key issues for accountability in the new parliament are set out
in the article: "Public Accountability
in a Minority Government" in the Autumn 2004 issue of Canadian
Parliamentary Review, published in October 2004 and received
by all federal and provincial elected representatives. The article
is reprinted here with permission. The three issue areas dealt with
in the article are accountability for management control in government,
accountability for government policy intentions and the need for
a federal government Public Accountability Act.
|