Review of Necessary Democratic Processes as Ministerial Responsibility Shifts: Experts

OTTAWA – One of the longest running filibusters for House of Commons committees in the last 10 years was the recent marathon attempt by the Liberals to stop the prime minister’s chief of staff from testifying about foreign interference.

Throughout February and March, government members of the House affairs and procedure committee argued that Katie Telford should answer questions because of her ministerial responsibility: the idea that it is up to ministers, including the prime minister, to speak for of your files, staff and departments

“This is essentially the way the executive is held accountable,” said Lori Turnbull, director of Dalhousie University’s school of public administration.

Telford finally agreed to testify sometime this week, after mounting pressure from conservatives, who were supported by the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois.

That ended about 24 hours of liberal deadlock that lasted through several committee meetings. According to data from the Library of Parliament and the Directorate of Legislative Committees and Services, he was the fourth longest filibuster in the last decade of House committees.

Both Liberal and Conservative governments have used ministerial responsibility to prevent their staff from testifying before committees.

The idea is based on the notion that ministers run the show. But Alex Marland, a professor of political science at Memorial University of Newfoundland, said staff have absorbed new powers, and in some cases even removed ministers from what they’re doing.

“The system was not designed to have people unelected, appointed, involved in politics and deeply embedded in government, sometimes exercising the authority of cabinets,” said Marland, who researches political communication.

He believes the change requires a review of Canada’s democratic processes.

“Public service has grown a lot and has changed a lot in society,” he said.

“We really need to be able to handle the recommendations better to make the public service and the system of government as strong as possible.”

Staff often use social media to amplify government messages, becoming public figures in their own right, Marland said, and sometimes engaging in the political fray.

“I think that many times they are the ones who set the course of the government, or it is perceived that they are. And that’s what happens with politics, a lot of times it’s the idea that perception is reality,” Marland said.

“If… all of us think that these staff members have all this power, then it is only natural that we would expect some degree of accountability somewhere. And the minister is not always in the best position to do it.

It has become quite common for government staff to testify in committees, although that is a departure from the way Westminster Parliament systems normally work. Telford herself has appeared before, as have the chiefs of staff for former Conservative Prime Ministers Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney.

Like Telford, staff members are often invited to government committee meetings, a practice once off limits to unelected chiefs of staff.

“Now there’s a pack of them” taking notes, monitoring what lawmakers say and who disagrees with the leader, Marland said.

“The political personnel were not there before. This is a perfect example of how things have changed.”

Ministers also remain in office despite inappropriate behavior, Turnbull said, another way ministerial responsibility has shifted.

He pointed to International Trade Minister Mary Ng, who last year violated federal ethics rules after failing to recuse herself from a decision to award her friend a government contract.

“Now there’s a tendency to say, ‘Let’s see if we can get through this. Let’s just ignore this and maybe it will go away’ instead of sending that signal and taking that step of a minister leaving the cabinet because the minister made a mistake,” Turnbull said.

“If the prime minister wants the minister in the job, the minister stays in the job.”

Turnbull said there should be a full public inquiry into the integrity and health of Canada’s democracy.

“I think as the days go by, we have a greater need for a critical conversation about how democracy works or doesn’t work,” he said. “And foreign interference is only part of it.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published on April 9, 2023.

SHARE: