What I would say is that I think there are some extremely valuable things that Parliament does that I, as a citizen, value and that no other institution does. I don't think there's any other institution that does it like Parliament, scanning across the whole horizon of government actively looking for issues that warrant public attention and debate for one reason or another. That's valuable.
Basically, an awful lot of what government does is pretty routine, and neither Parliament nor citizens really need to know about it. Citizens will probably never invest the time to do that.
What we need is an institution that is vigilant and sufficiently engaged in governance that it can find those things that need to get further attention. I think that's where Parliament does very valuable work, and we should be thinking about how we could help it do that better.
That's where I come back to the information availability—possibly a database-type proposal.
The second point in the question was whether the Westminster model is outdated. It's very hard to say, frankly.
I think we need to appreciate the merits of the Westminster model, and not dilute it by sliding in congressional elements here and there. I think the expectations around our standing committees bordered on that at an earlier point. Ideas about empowering committees to reallocate a certain portion of funding, for example, go in that same direction.
You have to ask yourself, does that not muddy what is now a relatively clear line of accountability between the government that does these things and Parliament that holds them accountable? Furthermore, if you had 20 standing committees reallocating 10% or 5% here or there in an uncoordinated way, would you actually have better government, and would it even be more democratic?
Personally, I'm skeptical about all of those things. I think that while it is imperfect, our Westminster model has some very important advantages that we need to preserve.