So, the newly re-elected government wants Parliament to act collectively instead of combatively in an effort to ward off the economic tsunami sweeping over Canada and almost everywhere else. Sound good? What could be better than MPs working together for the common good instead of growling and snapping at each other?
Yes, it sounds good. But it isn't good. Parliament has not evolved from its medieval origins to become a good neighbour club. From the beginning, it has been intended to be a place of combat. So much so that, centuries ago, the Speaker was given the protection of a mace. It is now carried ceremoniously in the daily Speaker's Parade, but its presence on the Clerk's table is a visible sign of the Speaker's authority to maintain order in a chamber that can burst into fury at any moment. And for centuries, the aisle between the government and the opposition has been made at least two swords length in width so that unwary honourable members might not find themselves struck down without warning.
But what is the relevance of those historical curios now? No one has ever seen the mace used to club an obstreperous parliamentarian. MPs don't carry anything more threatening than a flask. So what do those features of long ago have to do with the 21st century?
The relevance of Parliament's being divided between government and opposition is as vital as ever. Everything else may have changed since the Middle Ages when Parliament was born, but human nature hasn't. Whether MPs are from the Toronto area or the Far North, they're still susceptible to serving self-interest.
The purpose of the opposition is to prevent the government and its supporters from using their near-absolute power to govern that way. It cannot be done by sweetness and light. It demands that the opposition have adequate access to information and adequate opportunity to articulate its critical analysis of government proposals - especially when the government doesn't want the opposition parties to be in the know.
That means politics has to be war. It means we, the public, are served best when our parliamentary representatives keep each other honest, making all aware they are living on a firing line where battle is done every day.
So nothing constructive may be achieved because MPs are playing "cops and robbers"? Just the opposite. A government's best line of defence is legislation that will serve the common good. Opposition parties are doing their job best when they shed light on potential harm that government policies can do. As Mackenzie King, Canada's longest-serving prime minister, argued: "A government's first duty is to prevent bad things from happening." It's the opposition's first duty, too.
If MPs were all saints, a parliamentary collectivity might serve the common good. But MPs are fallen sinners as much as the voters who elected them. So no government can be moral enough to rule without facing an opposition that is ready to oppose.
Medieval English kings found that out when they wanted to impose new taxes so they could fight more wars with France. Parliament would usually approve the taxes the king needed, but not before the king had heard the people's grievances.
Basically, that's Parliament's duty now. The government can expect to finance its programs after the House of Commons passes a budget that includes taxes. But first it has to listen to the opposition. Parliament works best for us when the government proposes and the opposition exposes. That's just being realistic about human nature.
Reginald Stackhouse is principal emeritus and research professor at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto.
