CKNW Editorial
for December 12, 2001

Am I the only one that cares that we no longer even have the appearance of a parliamentary democracy in this country?

Let's take a look at what we supposedly developed over the years.
Parliament came into being for one main purpose - to vote money so the government, then the King, could govern. It developed other less important roles, such as deciding rules by which we govern ourselves but in the beginning it was money. Over time, by reason of strenuous efforts, the King became merely a figurehead so parliament's job was to vote money for the government … which, by that time, had become Members of Parliament who formed a government to do the King's business subject to the whim of the parliament that put them there. That was called "responsible government", meaning that the government was "responsible to", beholden to if you will, the Commons whence they sprang.

In the early years the government would present to the Commons their demands for money and the Commons would deliberate, debate and vote on the matter. From there it was a short step to presenting, instead of a lump sum demand, a budget for approval. The reason for this was obvious - the members of parliament, before they gave the government any money, wanted to see how it was to be spent. Over time the budget was presented to the Commons as departmental estimates. In other words the money the government demanded from the Commons for the next fiscal year was divided into the various departments so the Commons, thence the people, could see where the government proposed to spend the tax money raised. The procedure that developed was that once the government had presented its estimates the House would resolve itself into a committee of the whole, as it was called, whereupon each item of each minister's budget, called a vote, would be, if desired, examined. When these estimates were passed, the budget would be passed and the government would have its money or what is called "supply".

As governments and affairs became more complex, the practice developed that the commons would break down into a number of committees to examine individual minister's estimates instead of having the entire commons saddled with that time consuming practice.

One thing, however, was sacred. Governments, except in true emergencies, didn't spend money that parliament had not authorized. Every year there would be a demand for money put to the Commons by the government, every year "supply", either as demands or as amended would be considered, voted upon and, if appropriate, passed.

As the years passed, the House of Commons lost its power over the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Through use of a number of sticks and carrots, the Prime Minister became the absolute dictator. The government was no longer in fact "responsible" to the Commons – indeed one could make the case that now it was the other way around. Even then, for awhile even the Federal Liberals went through the motions. While they chipped away at the process by doing a lot of spending off budget through crown organizations, they still played the game by putting forth an annual budget and seeking the Commons consent even though they knew that the MPs, being trained seals, would do what they were told.
There were 635 days between the day before yesterday's budget and the one before. For nearly two years there were no budget debates.

Back to where we started. The fundamental purpose of a parliament is to vote money for the government to run public affairs. It has taken on other tasks over the years but the only essential one, the entire basis of the system, is that the citizen could control the government by controlling its revenues.

The power of the purse now rests exclusively in the Prime Minister’s office. How can that have happened?

It’s happened because the government members are political whores. In their hands they have great powers but they have bartered them away for money, privileges and the hope of advancement.

I’m most disappointed in Stephen Owen. When his boss, the Justice Minister, tabled her terrorism legislation it was to Owen she turned for a scholarly dissertation on the need for Parliament to sometimes pass draconian legislation. It is Mr Owen who has been the Ombudsman in BC., a job for which, one would think, a knowledge of and affection for the parliamentary system was a condition precedent to the job. Not a peep out of Mr Owen and the castrating of Parliament … not a peep out of the lot of them. All our Liberal MPs have seen the fundamental purpose of parliament smashed before their very eyes and have done and said nothing.

So there we have it. A House of Commons that no longer has any control whatever on how the government behaves - a House of Commons that no longer even goes through the motions of control.

In the past I have compared our system to that of Poland during the communist era. But in fact it is worse. At least in Poland they pretended to be democratic.
We don't even do that any more in Ottawa. We have an absolute dictatorship that does just as the dictator pleases

And we just roll on, apparently uncaring, in a national trance.