An ironic approach

It’s good news for the project of democratic renewal that the Liberal government has abandoned the most controversial and misguided elements of its proposed package of parliamentary reforms. The remaining parts of the plan are largely sensible and should pass. But the Liberals should not, as they are now threatening to do, force through these welcome democratic reforms by undemocratic means.

The government deserves credit for listening to the critics, the Star among them, who expressed concern that many of the proposals it floated in March would have weakened, not strengthened, our democracy. These reforms would have made it easier for government to govern, but harder for Parliament to hold government to account.

A proposal to limit debate by strictly scheduling the stages of a bill’s passage, for instance, would likely have increased expediency, but at what cost to democracy? Same goes for measures that would have eliminated opposition filibustering and removed other tools for delaying government legislation or alerting the public to problems. These changes would have been particularly problematic in a democracy such as ours, where, when the government has a majority, the opposition has few tools as it is.

So it was encouraging to see the government back off these proposals this week, especially as the package that remains is largely to the good. A measure that would allow the Speaker to hive off portions of omnibus bills, for instance, would remove one of the government’s most powerful shields against scrutiny, as would new rules governing parliamentary prorogation. A proposal to dedicate one day a week of question period to interrogating the prime minister, as the British House of Commons does, would also be welcome, as long as the PM shows up on most other days, too.

These reforms would go a long way toward addressing the democratic gaps in our parliamentary procedures exposed with particular clarity by the Harper government at its most autocratic. Yet, in its approach to passing the reforms, the government seems sadly set on undermining the very principles the proposals espouse.

House Leader Bardish Chagger said on Monday that the government will use so-called time allocation, a tool to curtail debate, to push through the package before the House rises in June. Such an approach can be legitimately used when the opposition seems intent on keeping government from acting in the public interest, especially where there’s some urgency. But, as it limits parliamentary, and thus public, scrutiny, it should be seen a last resort, not least when the proposals in question affect the functioning of Parliament itself.

In this case, there is no urgency. While opposition parties have said they will use all the tools at their disposal to delay passage of the rule changes, the key measures, on omnibus bills and prorogation, could be informally adopted by the government now. That is, it could decide to act is as if the rules were already in place.

If the prime minister wants to ensure these reforms survive a change of government, as he claims, there is no better guarantee than substantial cross-party support. The Liberals should do all they can to earn it. The government is not yet two years into its mandate; the rules have plenty of time to pass. Justin Trudeau should not treat our democracy lightly as he seeks to enrich it.

The Liberals should not force through democratic reforms by undemocratic means