Relaxing party discipline is the reform Parliament must have

Start talking about parliamentary reform at a cocktail party and watch everyone melt away. But despite being an eye-glazing topic, there are good reasons why Canadians should take interest.

The Liberal government proposes changes to House of Commons procedures to create “greater accountability” and to “empower members to more fully participate in the legislative process.”

Proposals include setting aside one day a week for questions directed at the prime minister and streamlining procedures.

If greater accountability and empowerment of MPs is the goal, the government is going about it in the wrong way.

In a majority situation, there are few devices to trip up the government. One is question period, which, unfortunately, is regarded by most Canadians as an unseemly display of childish behaviour.

Question period is the most powerful instrument of accountability in our system. The prime minister and cabinet must justify their actions on a daily basis. Unlike other jurisdictions, they get no advance warning about what might be lobbed at them. To garner attention, opposition parties often have to resort to behaviour that they find distasteful.

Another major part of an opposition MP’s job is to examine legislation in committees. This is where the government wants to “streamline” proceedings by limiting intervention by members to 10 minutes.

Dictatorships run like well-oiled machines, but democracy is messy and inefficient.

Time is of the utmost importance for the government as it strives to get bills through Parliament expeditiously. The opposition, on the other hand, tries to slow the process. They’re buying time to ensure their amendments and objections are considered.

The procedural reform proposals being made by the Liberals would hamper efforts to buy time.

As well, discussion about party discipline, which is extremely rigid in Canada, is conspicuously absent from the government’s proposals. Yet in their election platform two short years ago, the Liberals promised free votes for their MPs. It would be a huge step forward to loosen party discipline.

In the United Kingdom, a “threeline whip” specifies how MPs are expected to vote. Three lines signals MPs must attend and vote along party lines; two lines provide MPs with flexibility; and one line frees them to vote as they choose.

And even when a three-line whip is in effect, British MPs sometimes defy their party leadership. In 2011, 81 Conservatives voted for a motion calling for the Brexit referendum despite instructions to the contrary.

MPs are sometimes compared to performing seals, banging their flippers on their desks to express approval and voting as they’re told. Given the wealth of expertise and experience among MPs, it’s tragic they’re unable to put their skills to use.

Party discipline allows governments to maintain majority support in the House and remain in office. However, it wouldn’t be disastrous if some MPs were able to break ranks, on either side of the House.

Our winner-takes-all electoral system can create majority governments with a minority of the votes. These governments then purport to speak for everyone, ignoring opposition voices, and refusing to co-operate and collaborate across the aisle.

If party discipline were relaxed, it would dent the iron control of a majority government, forcing it to behave in a less autocratic manner. What better way to “empower members to more fully participate in the legislative process?”

Parliamentary reform may not be sexy, but it’s the next best thing to electoral reform.

Doreen Barrie is an adjunct assistant professor of political science at the University of Calgary.