In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

New Challenges to Parliament: Arguing Over Wine Lists on the Titanic? JOHN MEISEL The arresting image of our subtitle is taken from a comment in C.E.S. Franks' perceptive essay on "Procedural Reform in the Legislative Process,"I where it refers only to the subject of his paper. Professor Franks may, however, be too cautious: there are those who are inclined to go beyond people to whom merely ''worrying about parliamentary procedure is something like arguing over wine lists on the Titanic'' and who in equally scathing terms dismiss the whole subject of Parliament. The legislative process, in this view, and the other contributions of Parliament, have become marginal and insignificant in comparison with the impact of the bureaucracy and the cabinet's executive role. But even when one takes a less negative line, one cannot escape the sense that Parliament confronts so many difficulties that its usefulness in Canada needs to be examined and debated. There is nothing new, of course, in the idea that Parliament and hence parliamentary government are in trouble. If the Ottoman Empire was seen, at one time, as the Sick Man of Europe, Parliament Hill has more recently, and locally, become identified as one of the trouble zones of Canada. Among the most frequently cited causes of its malaise are the numerous consequences of the enormous expansion of governmental activities; the latter's mind-boggling complexity; the rise in number, influence, and ubiquity of interest groups; the explosive increase in the number and power ofcivil servants, and shortcomings in the rules of procedure which allow too much leeway to -the executive.2 Without detracting from the pervasive impact of these factors on the governmental process 18 in Canada generally, and on Parliament in particular , we here focus on some other, largely neglected , challenges to Parliament's capacity to function effectively. In so doing, we assume that a healthy legislature in our system must be able to perform at least three functions: (1) to debate and pass the necessary legislative program and so to contribute to the quality of laws; (2) to act as a watchdog and constraint on the executive; and (3) to assist the public in gaining a view and some understanding of the governmental process and of the issues with which it must deal. Among the circumstances, not mentioned so far, which actually or potentially impede Parliament 's capacity to perform these tasks, at least ten claim our attention. Some are related to longterm , irreversible developments, to which Parliament will have to adjust if it is to escape from their malignant effects. Others are not necessarily enduring and are in part the result of the particular nature of current political struggles and of contemporary party life.3 They may disappear in due course because of changing circumstances or because of the re-assertion, on the part of politicians , of the much-needed willingness to remove them. It is significant that very few of them are likely to be affected by the nu.merous constitutional reforms lately under discussion, which, for the most part, focus on the Upper House and neglect the Commons.4 Short-run Factors (1) Plebiscitarian democracy. We shall see below that among the long-term challenges to Parliament are fundamental changes in communications. One possible application of the new technology is the wiring of each home for purposes of instant consultation on any issue in need of governmental decision. It is now technically possible for anyone to be equipped at home, or anywhere else for that matter, with the means enabling him or her to obtain such information as might be needed (or as the government may be willing to provide - clearly not at all the same thing) about a question on which (s)he could then be consulted through a referendum. The latter can be effected through the transmission of "votes" directly from each home to a Revue d'etudes canadiennes Vol. 14, No. 2 (Ete 1979 Summer) central counting agency. Some social scientists imbued with a simple head-counting conception of democracy have proposed this means of popular consultation many years ago. Technological changes make this one-time utopian (nightmarish?) way of reaching decisions a feasible...

pdf

Share