Does representative democracy threaten national security?

Has Canada been complicit in the torture of Afghan prisoners? This is the question at the heart of an ongoing parliamentary drama. It is a question with fundamental implications for Canada’s compliance with international law and respect for human rights. This saga has also raised important questions about transparency and accountability.

Since allegations of torture were raised in November, Parliament has attempted to shed light on the situation and determine exactly what the actions of Canada’s military were and how decisions made by the federal government contributed to these actions. The House of Commons Special Committee on Afghanistan has taken a leadership role in this investigative effort.

In December, frustrated by a lack of transparency from the government, the House of Commons passed a motion calling on the government to release unredacted documents to allow Parliament to determine whether Afghan prisoners captured by Canadians and turned over to Afghan custody had been tortured and what the government’s response to the issue had been.

That same day, the House of Commons closed for its Christmas break. During the break, Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament for a two-month period, a move many critics saw as an attempt to shut down debate over torture in Afghanistan.

Fast forward two months, and there were still no documents produced as Parliament resumed in March. The government commissioned former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci to sort through documents provided by the government and determine which ones could be released to opposition Members of Parliament without compromising public safety. The opposition says this is not enough, as Iacobucci will not have the power to discover new evidence or subpoena documents not provided to him by the government.

So two weeks ago, each of the opposition parties called upon the Speaker of the House of Commons, Peter Milliken, to rule the government in violation of parliamentary privilege for not abiding by Parliament’s call to provide uncensored documents. Milliken’s ruling is expected some time this week.

Last week, the government offered the House of Commons documents that were heavily censored, and did not include all of the documents that the House had requested.

The government has consistently argued that it cannot produce the unredacted documents that the House of Commons has called for because to do so would create national security risks. The debate has thus become one of national security versus accountability.

In the name of national security, nations and their governments can commit many unjust and anti-democratic acts. Human rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and even liberty of the person can be curbed. Think of the Japanese internment camps during World War II, or in our own time, the Safe Third Country Act. It is dangerous to let national security be our sole guide: this is a national security that can erode our soul and our search for justice.

But in this case, national security is also a red herring. There are ways for the opposition members of Parliament to be enabled to hold the government to account without compromising national security. Security checks, secrecy oaths, in camera meetings, and reports not fully made public are a few ways that information could be shared with MPs without making the information fully public.

The real question is whether or not the role and responsibility of Parliament to hold the government accountable will be respected.

Accountability is a core principle of democracy. Without the light of day being shone on all government decisions and actions, how can Canadians know what is being done in our name? We should be very concerned if people are being abused, unjustly treated and stripped of their dignity because of actions and decisions made in the name of Canada. Instead, the representatives of the Canadian people, Members of Parliament, are being told they have no right to know. In effect, we as Canadian citizens are being told we have no right to know.

Accountability is also a core principle of public justice. CPJ’s public justice framework highlights the responsibility to protect the dignity of all human beings, to promote the common good, to eliminate injustice wherever it exists and to repair harm whenever we can. If we don’t know what the actions of the government are, how can we be sure it meets the basic standard of doing justice and promoting the dignity of people created in the image of God? How can we hold the government to account?

Accountability is necessary for doing justice and loving our neighbour. The government should respect the role of Parliament as representatives of the Canadian people, and practice accountability. Representative democracy is no threat to national security.