A much-diminished Parliament? (II)

Not only is our Parliament sitting less, but it's passing fewer bills too.

According to Queen's professor Ned Franks, a smaller and smaller percentage of bills receive royal assent (Parliamentary lingo for becoming law). Sixty years ago, more than 96% of legislation received royal assent. During the last Parliament, it was just over 53%. While it hasn't been a consistent downward climb, it has trended in that direction:

• During the King-St. Laurent governments (1945-57), 94.6% of bills received royal assent
• Diefenbaker (1957-1963), 89.7%
• Pearson (1963-1968), 86%
• Trudeau (1968-1979), 68.2%
• Trudeau (1980-1984), 77.6%
• Mulroney (1984-1993), 83.2%
• Chretien (1993-2004), 69.2%
• Martin (2004-2005), 58.8%
• Harper (2006-2008), 53.2%

Franks isn't sure we know why this is. Perhaps there was a stronger societal consensus in the post-war years than today, or a stronger sense of national vision. The shifting political focus to the provinces may also play a part. Maybe the legislation itself is poorly crafted and rightfully hasn't been passed. Perhaps the growth in omnibus bills are forced through quickly, while a number of small, more irrelevant pieces of legislation die on the vine.

Nor is it entirely clear if this is a bad thing. There are good reasons, particularly for minority Parliaments, to reject proposals they don't see fit. The challenge for all governments, Franks notes, is to "persuade Canadians that the legislation it proposes is good for them and the country. Parliament, and voters as well, have had their doubts on this score in recent years."

So maybe it comes down to that vision thing.

P.S. Thanks to Maclean's reporter Aaron Wherry for helping inspire this blog's title.