Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:30:17.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adaptation of Parliamentary Processes to the Modern State*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

J. A. Corry
J. A. Corry*
Affiliation:
Queen's University
Get access

Extract

Adaption of Canadian parliamentary processes to the conditions of the modern state must aim at two objectives not easily reconcilable and not easily pursued at one and the same time. First, it is vital that we enable the Government to govern. Governing now involves a large annual volume of new and amending legislation, the devising of complex taxation measures for raising some $4 billion a year from the reluctant taxpayer, and the appropriation of this vast sum to the various items of expenditure. A very large portion of the time of the House of Commons is therefore needed for Government business.

Second, it is equally vital to ensure effective responsibility of the Government to our elected representatives, to make it reasonably possible for the House of Commons to understand general Government policy as well as specific proposals for legislation, and to grasp the reasons why this policy and these measures are held to be necessary in the national interest. In addition, because the numerous policies being administered from day to day are more important than the new policies being proposed for adoption at any given time, it is necessary for the House to be able to learn enough about the actual running of the great business of the government of Canada to conduct an intelligent audit of the ramified activities of government. A large part of the time of the House is needed for these purposes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 1954 , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in London, June 3, 1953.

References

1 Canada, House of Commons Debates (1942), vol. III, p. 2774.Google Scholar

2 For these and other suggested changes, see Hopkins, E. R. (formerly deputy clerk of the House of Commons), “Streamlining Parliament,” Canadian Banker, vol. 60, no. 2, spring, 1953, 37–48 Google Scholar, which is heavily relied on in this paper.

3 For support of this view in relation to the British House of Commons and for an illuminating comparison with the French and American standing committees, see D. W. Brogan, “Comparison with American and French Parliamentary Systems”; in Campion, Lord et al., Parliament: A Survey (London, 1952), 72–88.Google Scholar