|
COPYRIGHT 2005 Canadian Parliamentary Association
Westminster style government is steeped in a thousand year tradition. Many of the processes originate in historical rights or reactions to external events rather than as conscious decisions. Ontario shares this long parliamentary history but over the last few decades, the province has undergone a number of radical changes. These have, in turn, altered the operation and political culture of the Legislative Assembly. This article will discuss changes in Ontario's Parliament since 1985 and reactions to those changes. It will also suggest ways to improve the work of the Legislature.
**********
After the American Revolution, United Empire Loyalists fled to the British colony of Canada. They brought with them ideas about English representative government and set up a colonial government similar to that found in London. The government in Upper Canada (now Ontario) consisted of a governor, an appointed Legislative Council, and an elected Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Council and the governor (advised by a group known as the Family Compact) had most of the political power. In fact, it was the excesses of the Family Compact that led to the 1837 Rebellion and the introduction of responsible government.
The establishment of responsible government in the 1840s required that the executive (the Prime Minister and his Cabinet) are responsible to the elected Legislative Assembly. They must govern from within the House and with the permission of the House. For Upper Canada, this was a watershed moment. For the first time, the Legislative Assembly had the legitimate right to hold the government to account and to run the affairs of the colony effectively.
Responsible government also means that Parliament has four major functions.
* To form a government;
* To fund the government;
* To have a government-in-waiting;
* To hold the government to account.
It is these tasks--all performed within a parliamentary setting--that require rules to govern the processes of the House. The rules are found mainly in the Standing Orders.
In the last century Ontario had a reputation for "boring politics", mainly because of the 42 year rule of the Tories starting in 1943. However the 1985 Liberal/NDP accord brought down this government and set in motion a number of procedural and behavioural changes that have given the Assembly a reputation for boisterous and raucous behaviour.
The Hung Parliament of 1985
Elections do not come much closer than Ontario's in 1985. Frank Miller's Progressive Conservative government squeaked by with 52 seats in the then-125 seat Legislature. The Liberal Party, led by David Peterson, won 48 seats, while the New Democratic Party of Bob Rae earned 25 seats. The Conservatives had just watched their most beloved leader--Bill Davis--retire at the height of his popularity. They had governed the province for more than 42 years and believed as Bob Rae--and many others--said, that government was theirs "by divine right." (1) This minority government was a blow to the party.
The Opposition, however, had not really won the election. They were in the same spot they were in 1975 and 1977; they could bring down the government or they could allow the Conservatives to continue to govern. Unlike the Davis minorities, however, Miller's government had lost the popular vote and held power by the slimmest of margins. It is not hard to understand why the two Opposition parties reached an agreement. (2) By the beginning of July, the parties switched sides in the House. The Liberals with help from the NDP moved to the Government benches and the Conservatives became the Official Opposition.
These facts are actually less important than they seem on the surface. Minority governments are notoriously unstable and the Liberal/NDP accord only had a shelf life of two years. More important, however, was the cultural shift that the new Parliament underwent in those first two years. Interviews with Norm Sterling, the longest-serving Progressive Conservative MPP, indicate that the nature of the hung Parliament made sure that the government could not just "forge ahead" with its plans. In fact, Peterson's minority government had to negotiate with the Opposition parties to make changes to the Standing Orders. (3)
Many of the changes were "housekeeping" in nature, but there were some significant reforms to the way the House does its business such as:
* Ending evening sittings;
* Dedicated time for Private Members' Business on Thursday morning;
* Responses to Ministerial Statements;
* Member's Statements;
* Order of Oral Questions (4)
These changes came about as a result of give and take between the parties but benefited the Opposition more than the Government. All of a sudden, private members had time specifically allocated to deal with Private Member's Bills. They were also able to take ninety seconds to address any issue they liked in a ten-minute period called "Member's Statements." As the Speaker said on the first day of use:
Members' statements give a private member, other than a party leader or a minister, an opportunity to make a statement of up to...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
