Trudeau tries to avoid scrutiny

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals want to change the rules so they spend less time answering questions in Parliament. It flies in the face of their promises about openness, and Canadians should be concerned. The rules of the House of Commons might seem arcane and even boring to most people, but they determine how laws are made and how the government gets scrutinized. That matters.

The most controversial proposal is to get rid of Friday half-day sittings of the house. That means one fewer question period when the other parties could hold the government’s feet to the fire.

In a move that belies the prime minister’s “sunny ways,” the government suggested that if the other parties want to keep the Friday sitting, it could become a full day instead of a half day. That sounds like blackmail, because MPs need Friday afternoons to travel back to their constituencies and hear voters’ concerns.

Another government idea is to have only one day a week for prime minister’s questions, which suggests he might not be around for question periods on the other days.

Other reforms would include extending the time the government has to answer written questions from MPs, preventing filibustering and allowing debate and study of omnibus bills, which is contrary to Liberal promises.

The prime minister is not alone in his apparent frustration with the workings of our elected representatives, and the annoyance of having to answer so many questions. B.C. Premier Christy Clark has displayed such an aversion that she summons the legislature as rarely as possible.

The government argues that it is trying to make the House of Commons less subject to partisan fighting. With changes such as scheduling times for debate on bills, the debates could be more civilized and constructive.

But, of course, the schedule would be set by the government, and the changes would reduce the ability of the opposition parties to make a lot of noise when they think things are going off the rails.

Trudeau said the government is “always looking for ways to make the workings of this House more efficient.”

All Canadians can applaud reforms that keep MPs from needlessly wasting time that could be spend in productively doing the people’s business. The suggestion of bringing electronic voting to the house is one such improvement.

But too many of the other changes seem to be less about efficiency than with reducing the opposition to and scrutiny of the government’s agenda.

It’s true that spending time answering questions and justifying government decisions can be inefficient, but then many important aspects of democracy are inefficient. It’s a price we have to be willing to pay.

As with all parties that move from opposition to government, the Liberals are changing their attitudes as the reality of governing settles in. That includes doing things for which they would have excoriated Stephen Harper when he was prime minister.

They should try harder to hang onto the ideals that they espoused during the campaign and that helped get them elected.