T oo often in politics, principle is the hapless victim of expediency. In the struggle to pry Afghanistan documents from Stephen Harper's grasp, principle never had a chance.

Paying former Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci up to $600 an hour to review thousands of files is a shrewd solution to a vexing problem. It buys Conservatives time at public expense and adds the patina of Iacobucci's lustrous reputation to an otherwise shabby effort to wrap Afghan prisoner abuse documents in a national security blanket.

But the Iacobucci appointment carries other, more profound implications for this country's deconstructing democracy. Most significantly, it chips more from the cornerstone principle that the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament.

In England, that test of wills was resolved in Parliament's favour when King Charles I was beheaded in 1649. In 21st century-Canada the same effect is achieved more civilly and with less bloodshed when a prime minister loses Commons support.

Twice in a little over a year, MPs put this country on that course. Twice the Prime Minister has thwarted their will by padlocking Parliament.

Conservatives consider both qualified successes. One saved the government from a fatally flawed coalition, the other put on hold the rising threat that Parliament would find the Prime Minister in contempt for ignoring its majority December vote demanding the documents be released.

For opposition parties, there's a catch in that apparent humiliation: It serves Harper surprisingly well. Conservatives would almost certainly consider censure a loss of confidence, plunging the country into an election fought, at least in part, over the red herring issue of support for the troops.

Opposition parties don't want to go into a campaign defending their patriotism. So it's extremely unlikely that an NDP effort to reinforce Parliament's supremacy, or a less well-known, lone-wolf effort by one Liberal MP, will gain the needed traction.

In one way, that's a shame. A loss of Commons confidence is the appropriate response when a prime minister tries to seize powers that once belonged to monarchs.

In another, it's simply pragmatic. Even if the government falls over disregard for democratic principle, the central election issues will be leadership, jobs and the economy. On those, wobbly Liberals are in no hurry to test their strength.

Iacobucci's appointment reflects that dynamic. It's a fig leaf that lets Liberals in particular ignore naked acceptance of the Prime Minister's refusal to bow to Parliament.

Whatever purpose it serves, Iacobucci's review is not an inquiry. Stripped of spin, he's on the payroll to provide the most prestigious legal advice possible to a justice minister already insisting that releasing uncensored documents would damage national interests.

Lost in Rob Nicholson's rationale is that voters send representatives to Parliament to protect those same interests.

It's MPs, not the prime minister or his cabinet, who decide what is acceptable to Canadians and their decision can't be reached wisely in an information dark hole.

True, opposition parties are prone to partisan politicking. But so, too, are those in power. If parliamentarians can't be trusted to protect Canada's interests then the country and its democracy are far down a slippery slope.

Prime Ministers since Pierre Trudeau have methodically shifted authority into their own hands. One by one, principles have been sacrificed to expediency and precedents set.

By ducking the responsibility to hold Harper accountable for what happened in Afghanistan on his watch, Parliament is allowing the Prime Minister to drift that much further beyond its oversight, discipline and control.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

James Travers' column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

Read more about: