CANADIANS CAN HAVE A STRONGER, BETTER PARLIAMENT I was pleasantly surprised by the reactions to a blog I wrote last week about democratic and parliamentary reform. There seems to be some public appetite to make this an issue in this year’s federal election. I hope so. One technical, but crucial aspect of such reform would be Parliament’s control over the public purse. Stretching back to the Magna Carta in 1215, the original purpose of Parliament was to limit the power of the King to raise and spend money arbitrarily. This fundamental principle has been obscured over time. And most recently, Parliament’s supposed “control” over public finances has been thoroughly undermined by an all-too-powerful Prime Minister’s office which treats the House of Commons as nothing more than a ceremonial nuisance. This needs to change. Justin Trudeau, our National Liberal Caucus and last February’s National Policy Convention of the Liberal Party of Canada have advanced several ideas which could help re-balance financial authority within the government and the Parliament of Canada. To start with, MPs must be more than mindless rubber-stamps for the government. They must be the authentic voices of their constituents in Ottawa, and not just mouthpieces for the Prime Minister back home in their ridings. They need more freedom to vote on issues before the House as they deem proper, and they need to assume greater individual responsibility for the decisions they make. There should be a deadline date early each year for the presentation in Parliament of the government’s budget. The annual vote-in-principle on whether the House approves the overall economic policy of the government would need to be a “whipped” vote of confidence upon which the government would stand or fall, but many of the sub-votes on budgetary details need not be “confidence” issues. For example, why shouldn’t a government backbencher be free to vote against excessive, tax-paid government advertising, or in favour of greater support for veterans? The way in which the government reports to Parliament before-the-fact on how it plans to spend public money in the year to come (known as the “Estimates”), and after-the-fact on how it has spent public money in the year just past (known as the “Public Accounts”) must be clarified. Right now, the Estimates and the Public Accounts are presented using two entirely different accounting systems. This makes it virtually impossible to “follow the money”. So the government can easily scoop funding intended for border security and use it instead for pointless gazebos in Muskoka. A billion dollars approved for veterans or community infrastructure can never actually get invested as Parliament intended. And $3-billion in spending on national security can get “lost” altogether. More clarity and transparency are essential for true accountability. In addition to consistent reporting and accounting, the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer needs to be strengthened with adequate resources and genuine independence. The government should be required to seek Parliament’s approval before it undertakes any new borrowing. The use of “omnibus” legislation needs to be severely restricted. And with each new law the government tables in Parliament, it should also table a costing analysis. Above all else, individual MPs must do their homework and do it well. New rules can make sure better financial information is available. But there is no substitute for MPs performing the diligent scrutiny they were elected to do.
Posted on: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:28:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015