John Ibbitson and Ministerial Responsibility

So John Ibbitson thinks Peter MacKay will survive. We will agree to disagree.

Far more disturbing, he also believes that

"Ministerial responsibility" is an anachronistic phrase that used to hold cabinet ministers responsible for whatever goes on in their department. It lost any meaning back in 1991, when then-foreign minister Joe Clark refused to resign over the al Mashat affair, blaming his staff for the arrival of Iraq's former U.S. ambassador as an immigrant, with inside help.

The doctrine of ministerial responsibility does not suggest that ministers should step aside or otherwise fall on their sword every time an official screws up. What it does mean is that Ministers are accountable to the House for the operations of their department. And where a minister is found to be directly implicated in misdeeds or coverups of misdeeds there is an expectation that the minister will step aside until she or he is cleared, if this is to be.

Far from being an anachronism, this doctrine is the very core of our parliamentary democracy. Though it is unfortunately often honored more in the breach, it is nontheless about the only bulwark we have against an executive (i.e. prime minister) with dictitorial powers. To suggest, as Ibbitson does, that a minister is only as responsible as a prime minister deems them to be may describe an unfortunate outcome in a particular case but not the way democratic accountability is meant to work.

Shame on him. He knows better.