{"id":1203,"date":"2014-09-11T13:09:23","date_gmt":"2014-09-11T13:09:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/?p=1203"},"modified":"2015-11-21T03:05:09","modified_gmt":"2015-11-21T03:05:09","slug":"more-mps-means-fewer-trained-seals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/more-mps-means-fewer-trained-seals\/","title":{"rendered":"More MPs Means Fewer Trained Seals"},"content":{"rendered":"
This article originally appeared in Huffington Post Canada<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n When the Conservatives were in opposition, they frequently chastised the governing Liberals for ruling their backbencher MPs with an iron fist. Most if not all votes were whipped, which meant that, in a majority government, the position of the Prime Minister and his inner Cabinet invariably became the law of the land.<\/p>\n
\nSince the Conservatives have come to power, that same trend has unfortunately continued and a number of small-c conservative MPs have begun to voice their disapproval. The latest to do so is Brent Rathgeber, who was elected to Parliament as a Conservative in 2008 and subsequently became an independent in 2013 over what he referred to as the Conservative’s lack of commitment to “open government.” Mr. Rathgeber has written a book on the topic entitled Irresponsible Government: The Decline of Parliamentary Democracy in Canada, and recently published an excerpt <\/a>in the National Post.<\/p>\n
\nThe gist of Rathgeber’s argument is that Members of Parliament are part of the legislative, not the executive, branch of the state. They are not part of the Government of Canada; they are elected to represent their constituents. As such, they should be free to vote independently on all but “three line whips” (such as confidence votes), which may mean voting against the government on occasion.<\/p>\n
\nCanadians tend to think of the “separation of powers” as being an American concept. In fact, the very same ideal is embedded in the Canadian Constitution, albeit in a less rigid form. The Constitution Act, 1867 separates the powers of the “Executive,” “Legislative” and “Judicature” in a similar fashion to the Constitution of the United States. The big difference of course is that as a matter of constitutional convention, the Prime Minister, who is also a Member of Parliament, acts as the de facto head of government and appoints other Members to form part of his governing Cabinet.<\/p>\n
\nThe convention of appointing the Cabinet from members of the legislature should not, in theory, undermine the entire separation of powers since the majority of MPs do not form part of the executive branch. In practice, however, it is not only the Cabinet who are expected to vote in lockstep with the government, but ordinary backbencher MPs as well.<\/p>\n