There is a special kind of cynicism reserved for balanced budget legislation.  Whenever proposed, critics are quick to point out how ineffectual the legislation actually is since a government that can’t live with the law can simply change it.

I thank these critics for uttering that which is clearly obvious:  A parliament can make any law that a future parliament can change. That, in essence, is a basic tenet of parliamentary democracy.

The oddity of the comment rests in the fact that this very point applies to virtually every law passed by parliament and virtually every program enacted by government.  If you don’t like mandatory minimum sentences, the next parliament can change them.  If you find issues with drug laws, propose and debate that change.  Governments set up programs and can stop, increase, or decrease funding for them whenever they wish.  But, for some reason, we reserve the special criticism of changing laws we don’t like for balanced budget legislation as if that fact alone should be reason enough not to pursue it.

Others say that the law is purely symbolic, and there is some truth to this point.  However, there are lots of things our legislatures do that are purely symbolic.  For example, the government motion on extending the mission against ISIL was a symbolic gesture, one that sought parliament’s support when that support was not necessary to carry out the operations.  The wonder of that symbolism, though it may have been subsumed by the issue itself, is that the government deserves some praise for having that debate in parliament.  That’s where it should take place.

Getting back to the balanced budget bill, it is absolutely true that this bill can be changed and is symbolic of a government that wants to assert fiscal discipline, but the wonder of the bill is what it does for parliament’s relevance.  Our parliamentarians are about to debate legislation that would compel government’s to be mindful of the public purse.  It is arguably one of the government’s fiduciary duties and time will be set aside for MPs to debate it.

If a future government does not live up to the legislation, the legislation will outline the government’s obligation to inform parliament either by outlining unexpected revenue shortfalls or by changing the law it cannot live by.  Either way, it is MPs that will be debating these matters in parliament.

For all the flack we have been hearing for years about how parliament is failing to become relevant, this bill is another nod in the direction that parliament is important.  Fiscal matters deserve parliament’s attention.  Austerity has serious implications. So do compounding deficits.  I’d like to hear what our MPs have to say about it.