January 14, 2010

A much-diminished Parliament?

By Alison Loat

MPs are spending a lot less time in Parliament, and according to Queen’s professor Ned Franks, this is a fact that long pre-dated the latest prorogue.

Franks has spent over 40 years researching Parliament, and at a recent conference in honour of political scientist Peter Aucoin he had occasion to reflect on his observations on the institution in a paper called "The Functioning of the Present-Day Canadian House of Commons."

Overall, Frank's view is that a series of changes in recent years have left us with a much-diminished Parliament, particularly compared to 40 years ago.

One indicator of this is the reduction in the average days per calendar year that the House of Commons sits. Over the past 30 years Parliament's sitting days have gone down 36%. Here are Franks' numbers:

*From 1969-1973, Parliament sat an average of 163 days/year
*1974-1978, 156 days/year
*1980-1983, 139 days/year
*1984-1988, 163 days/year
*1989-1993, 115 days/year
*1994-1998, 124 days/year
*1999-2003, 115 days/year

From 2004-2008, the numbers was 105 days/year. Maclean's blogger Aaron Wherry estimates we're on track for 114 days this year.

Although elections definitely influence this (the House sits, on average, for seven fewer weeks when there's an election), if prorogation becomes an annual event, numbers could drop even more.

Like everything in politics, life is always more complicated than it seems. While we like to think MPs are lounging on a beach somewhere, the truth is that they have at least two jobs: the one in the House of Commons and the one in their ridings. If the trends Franks highlights continue, however, they suggest the House of Commons part will continue to be an increasingly smaller part of their job.

LABELS: , , ,

Comments (3) Permanent link to this post

Comments

Comments

Alison

March 5, 2010 20:45 PM

Tyler, great questions.  I've done my best to respond to them in this post: http://bit.ly/8BN0HQ

It also reminded me that I need to put up your voting comments, which I will do.  My absent mind!

Alison

Tyler Shandro

March 5, 2010 20:45 PM

Can you really compare 2004-2008? There were three elections during those years, so obviously the median would be lower during that period. Like in 1974, 1979, 1993 and 1997 (which sat for 117 days, 94 days, 77 days and 93 days, respectively).

The website for the House of Commons only keeps numbers to 1968. Is there a way of determining numbers for previous Parliaments?

Also, I have trouble accepting that this is some type of a trend. There are years in which there were no election, where Parliament sat for a very short period of time, like 1967 (118 days), 1971 (93 days), 1989 (116 days), 1991 (118 days) and 1992 (111 days).

Samara

October 3, 2010 23:11 PM

Samara's top 10 blogs this year (so far)

Samara's top 10 blogs this year (so far)

Add comment




biuquote
Loading