Canada's experience reminds us of the power of parliament

On the face of it, this weekend’s Canadian election is interesting yet unremarkable but Dr Andrew Banfield from the ANU’s Australian National Internship Program (ANIP) suggests, on closer inspection, the reason for the election merits some attention: a contempt of parliament charge.

Quietly over the weekend, another election is under way. Canada is once again in the midst of a federal election after the opposition parties brought down Stephen Harper's Conservative Government.

On the face of it, this is interesting but unremarkable. Another minority parliament brought to an end by opposition parties that no longer had confidence in the Government. But on closer inspection, the reason for the election merits some attention: a contempt of parliament charge.

Contempt of parliament, like contempt of court, occurs when an individual interferes with parliament carrying out its functions. Such interference can include willfully misleading parliamentary committees, refusing to testify or produce documents, or attempting to influence an MP through some nefarious means.

In some jurisdictions, the power to find someone in contempt of parliament is laid out in the constitution. as it is in Canada. In other jurisdictions, contempt of parliament is laid out in statutes such as Australia's Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. No matter where the power is found, such charges are rare in all parliamentary jurisdictions.

In Canada, for example, there are only five cases of parliamentary contempt in 144 years of constitutional history. Usually such cases are resolved with an apology to Parliament or a resignation. What makes this case more remarkable is that this is the first time a Westminster parliamentary government has fallen on a contempt of parliament charge. Ever.

So how does a rare stroke of history bring down a government? The story began on March 9, 2011, when the Speaker of the House, Peter Milliken, issued a report dealing with not one, but two, possible charges of contempt.

The first potential charge was levelled at the minister responsible for the Canadian International Aid Agency, Bev Oda.  It stems from a 2009 decision to cut funding to a church-backed aid group, KAIROS. Documents show that funding was approved by the aid agency, and it was alleged that Oda directed her staff to add the word "not" to the "recommended for funding" line.

This literary addition led to the approved request for funding being ignored. When asked about the handwritten insertion, Oda told parliament that she did not know who made the change.

Opposition MPs on the House of Commons foreign affairs committee requested that the Speaker rule on the possible contempt of parliament against Oda.

The Speaker ruled that "on its face", the minister's statements had caused confusion.  Oda replied to the House that she was ready to answer the confusion at a special House of Commons committee meeting.

The committee process never proceeded far enough to find Oda in contempt.
The second charge of contempt is the one that eventually brought down the Conservatives. Milliken ruled that the federal cabinet could be in contempt of Parliament for not disclosing the cost of sweeping anticrime legislation, or being forthright about the cost of the new F-35 fighter jets (yes, the same jets that Australia is waiting for).

The Speaker concluded, "[T]here's no doubt the order to produce documents is not being fully complied with, and this is a serious matter that goes the heart of the House's undoubted role in holding the government to account."  After the Speaker's ruling, the House voted to send his report to the procedure and House affairs committee for an investigation of the contempt charge. The committee reported back to Parliament on March 21, and ruled that the Conservative government was in contempt of parliament.  The finding of the committee led to a non-confidence motion being introduced on March 25.

The motion, tabled by the Official Opposition Liberals and supported by the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democrats, simply read, "That the House agrees with the finding of the standing committee on procedure and House affairs that the government is in contempt of Parliament, which is unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history, and consequently, the House has lost confidence in the government."

The motion was passed by 156 votes to 145, making Harper's Conservatives only the sixth Canadian Government to be defeated on anon-confidence motion. So what can we learn from all of this? This episode serves as a useful reminder that Parliament remains the most powerful institution in the land. It's a lesson that is too often ignored, or indeed mocked. It reminds us that it is parliament that makes government and, in this case, breaks governments too.

It's also a reminder that opposition members are supposed to be a check on the excesses of government, and hold their feet to the fire.

Finally, it's a welcome reminder that every once in a while parliamentarians can make a real difference in how we're governed and it's not all about sound bites and Question Time theatrics. Canada will have a new government on May 2. To those new members: remember what triggered this election and beware the power of parliament.

For more information:
    Australian National Internship Program
    School of Politics and International Relations
    Research School of Social Sciences