A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
Commentary by John Ibbitson in the Globe:
Fatal cuts to law panel deeply ideological
JOHN IBBITSON
The news release said the government was reducing funding for the Law Commission of Canada. What it did not say was that the funding was being reduced to zero.
Officials at the commission were given the news on Monday, without any prior consultation. Since the federal government is the sole source of the commission's funding, the Law Commission of Canada will cease to exist within the next three months.
For more than 30 years, the commission (previously known as the Law Reform Commission) has been advising the federal government on issues of justice and society. Its mandate is -- or was -- to look beyond the day-to-day workings of the Canadian justice system, to advise on emerging trends, systemic weaknesses, international comparisons. Most civilized countries have one.
But the Tory cuts, though fiscally responsible, are also intensely ideological, aimed at eliminating agencies and programs that are at odds with the political philosophy of the governing party.
And the Law Commission has long annoyed conservative critics, who believe its investigations are often skewed in favour of the left. (The commission is currently preparing reports on globalization and the law and on indigenous legal traditions.)
The Mulroney government axed the commission in 1972; the Chrétien government revived it in 1997; the Harper government is axing it again.
But this is about more than Tory chagrin at activist interpretations of the law. The Law Commission reports to Parliament, through the Minister of Justice. The 1997 act is specific: "The Commission is ultimately accountable, through the Minister of Justice, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs."
By eliminating the commission's funding, the Conservative government is strangling an agency it dislikes, without consulting Parliament, through fiscal trickery and sleight of hand.
"What they're trying to do is kill off an agency of Parliament indirectly, which they dare not do directly -- namely, by putting a bill before Parliament to repeal the Law Commission of Canada Act," Roderick Macdonald, a former chairman of the commission, protests.
Certain parliamentary agencies, such as the Auditor-General and the Ethics Commissioner, report directly to the House of Commons through the Speaker. Others, such as Crown corporations, submit reports to the government, which then tables them in Parliament.
The Law Commission is probably closer to the latter category than the former. Ned Franks, professor emeritus at Queen's University and a leading authority on Parliament, believes the government is within its legal rights to cut funding.
"It is one of the unreformed parts of the Canadian parliamentary system," he said yesterday, that governments can interfere with entities that have a parliamentary mandate without first consulting Parliament. But he was utterly contemptuous of the Justice Department's assertion that it was not shutting down the commission, just eliminating funding for it. "It's just playing with words to say that this isn't abolishing the agency."
The Harper government's actions in this matter are unconscionable. If Justice Minister Vic Toews is unhappy with the sort of work that the Law Commission is doing, he has the authority to direct it to do other work.
If the government believes the commission has outlived its usefulness -- an official speaking on background said the commission's work can be better handled in-house -- then it should ask Parliament to repeal the act that created the commission.
But the Conservatives know they would lose that vote. That is why they are using this chicanery. The commission's budget is a paltry $3.2-million. Everyone who believes that Canada -- with its tradition of French and English jurisprudence -- needs an arm's-length agency to research and report on issues confronting the justice system should make their displeasure known.
And it is past time for a rule that prohibits a government from gutting the funding of an agency mandated by Parliament without Parliament's consent.
jibbitson@globeandmail.com
AoD
Fatal cuts to law panel deeply ideological
JOHN IBBITSON
The news release said the government was reducing funding for the Law Commission of Canada. What it did not say was that the funding was being reduced to zero.
Officials at the commission were given the news on Monday, without any prior consultation. Since the federal government is the sole source of the commission's funding, the Law Commission of Canada will cease to exist within the next three months.
For more than 30 years, the commission (previously known as the Law Reform Commission) has been advising the federal government on issues of justice and society. Its mandate is -- or was -- to look beyond the day-to-day workings of the Canadian justice system, to advise on emerging trends, systemic weaknesses, international comparisons. Most civilized countries have one.
But the Tory cuts, though fiscally responsible, are also intensely ideological, aimed at eliminating agencies and programs that are at odds with the political philosophy of the governing party.
And the Law Commission has long annoyed conservative critics, who believe its investigations are often skewed in favour of the left. (The commission is currently preparing reports on globalization and the law and on indigenous legal traditions.)
The Mulroney government axed the commission in 1972; the Chrétien government revived it in 1997; the Harper government is axing it again.
But this is about more than Tory chagrin at activist interpretations of the law. The Law Commission reports to Parliament, through the Minister of Justice. The 1997 act is specific: "The Commission is ultimately accountable, through the Minister of Justice, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs."
By eliminating the commission's funding, the Conservative government is strangling an agency it dislikes, without consulting Parliament, through fiscal trickery and sleight of hand.
"What they're trying to do is kill off an agency of Parliament indirectly, which they dare not do directly -- namely, by putting a bill before Parliament to repeal the Law Commission of Canada Act," Roderick Macdonald, a former chairman of the commission, protests.
Certain parliamentary agencies, such as the Auditor-General and the Ethics Commissioner, report directly to the House of Commons through the Speaker. Others, such as Crown corporations, submit reports to the government, which then tables them in Parliament.
The Law Commission is probably closer to the latter category than the former. Ned Franks, professor emeritus at Queen's University and a leading authority on Parliament, believes the government is within its legal rights to cut funding.
"It is one of the unreformed parts of the Canadian parliamentary system," he said yesterday, that governments can interfere with entities that have a parliamentary mandate without first consulting Parliament. But he was utterly contemptuous of the Justice Department's assertion that it was not shutting down the commission, just eliminating funding for it. "It's just playing with words to say that this isn't abolishing the agency."
The Harper government's actions in this matter are unconscionable. If Justice Minister Vic Toews is unhappy with the sort of work that the Law Commission is doing, he has the authority to direct it to do other work.
If the government believes the commission has outlived its usefulness -- an official speaking on background said the commission's work can be better handled in-house -- then it should ask Parliament to repeal the act that created the commission.
But the Conservatives know they would lose that vote. That is why they are using this chicanery. The commission's budget is a paltry $3.2-million. Everyone who believes that Canada -- with its tradition of French and English jurisprudence -- needs an arm's-length agency to research and report on issues confronting the justice system should make their displeasure known.
And it is past time for a rule that prohibits a government from gutting the funding of an agency mandated by Parliament without Parliament's consent.
jibbitson@globeandmail.com
AoD