So-called media “experts” are clueless
Posted in Politics on January 3rd, 2010 by Sacha PeterArticle: Annual proroguing idea would erode Parliament: experts
The analysis given by the Ottawa-based group called the Public Policy Forum is terrible. In it, the salient points given by David Mitchell is the following:
The government’s use of prorogation shows it believes Parliament has become an “inconvenience” that needs to be managed, rather than an essential part of the democratic process, says Mitchell.
“For those Canadians who care about parliamentary democracy and about the vitality of our democracy, and who believe in the openness and transparency of government, they should be concerned about this,” Mitchell said.
“Because if this becomes a regular occurrence, where Parliament is prorogued at the will and convenience of the government of the day, whoever that government is, then it really raises questions about the utility and the relevance of Parliament itself,” he continued.
“And that’s troubling for anyone who cares about it.”
An annual proroguing would also raise issues of efficiency, Mitchell added. Since legislation has to start again from scratch at the beginning of each session, the legislative process would no doubt slow down.
…
“It’s not easy to see how this can work,” says David Mitchell, president of the Ottawa-based Public Policy Forum. “It raises the question: Why do we have a Parliament?”
The reason why we have a parliament is to pass supply, which is the allocation of government expenditures to capital and operational components of the various ministries. That’s it. Everything else is secondary.
Without supply, the government cannot operate. In theory, the government can operate by just passing a supply bill and proroguing immediately after it has obtained royal assent and then convene Parliament under a year later to have supply passed again.
Since Parliament is not operating, opposition MPs will have to determine whether this is sufficient for them to force an election by denying the government supply.
What I find incredibly ironic is that the opposition is complaining that proroguing is “anti-democratic”, but in reality, if they are really opposed to the government’s agenda, then having Parliament prorogued is the best result since no legislation can pass.
Ultimately what counts is the passage of supply, and we will be seeing that (transparent) debate take place in March.
Doesn’t the opposition have an oversight role not limited to what the government is proposing to pass? From what I understand, the opposition is not limited to what kind of questions they can ask during question period …
Putting aside the theoretical technicalities of how our parliamentary system is designed, as a citizen, I want my member of parliament holding my government accountable. Just showing up to vote on matters of “supply” is not good enough. I want my question period back, thank you very much ;)
The purpose and basic responsibility of Parliament is to pass supply so that government may run.
Canadians’ expectations of Parliamentarians is that they be working to improve government policy.
Proroguing is not anti-democratic; rather, it fails to address issues of policy further to funding operation, which is integral to good government.
I agree that in a sense the opposition benefits by having government legislation that they oppose taken down, but if you are supporting the legislation that likely would have been passed should the session not have been abruptly concluded, you would be disappointed that an opportunity for improvement has not been used, even if this responsibility is secondary.
Jamil, if Parliament is prorogued then there is no proposed legislation to pass… MP’s can hold the government accountable by talking to the public or media (e.g. on this very issue), and the people ultimately determine accountability in an election.
I am actually surprised how a lot of people don’t like voting – it is the only way people keep elected officials accountable, yet whenever the spectre of an election comes up, there is always the cry of “we don’t want an election”. All political parties over the past minority governments (since 2004) have played this game. Minority governments are the most sensitive to public feedback and we’ve probably had more accountability in the past 5 years of government (starting from the Paul Martin minority) than we had in the previous 25.
Sorry man, your partisanship is showing.
Harper didn’t like the things were going and shut down Parliament. Not good enough. Yes, democracy is a pain in the ass and question period can be annoying, but you can’t be democratically accountable when you send the peoples reps home.