What’s the point of a legislature that doesn’t sit?

May 7, 2011  Paul Willcocks

And since the 2009 election – two years, in which most working British Columbians have put in 472 days on the job – the legislature has been in session for 90 days. MLAs found their way back to the legislature last week. It might have been tricky for some. There have only been four sitting days in the past 10 months. 

We're a month into the fiscal year, and the government has already spent some $3 billion. But the budget hasn't even been reviewed by MLAs. What's the point of budget debate after the money is spent? And Clark is shutting down the legislature June 2, after just 20 sitting days. But is that a $100,000 a year job?  Except the committees don't meet. There's a legislative committee on health, for example. But the MLAs haven't met to do any work since 2006. I can think of about 20 issues the committee could have explored. But real, important work has been neglected. MLAs used to send more time in the legislature - about 76 days a year through the 1990s, compared with 45 days in the last two years.It's the premier's decision to sideline the committees. But MLAs take the insult. It's the same for the education committee, which also has been inactive for five years. MLAs could also be working in legislative committees, examining important issues. MLAs are still working when the legislature isn't sitting. They deal with constituents' issues and go to meetings. The caucuses talk about strategy and issues. More sitting days isn't automatically a good thing, of course. There's no sense having MLAs fill time or pass unnecessary laws. (more)