Last year’s parliamentary session was among the least productive in Canadian political history. Parliament sat fewer days and passed fewer laws than ever before. A series of pseudo-scandals culminating in the Guergis-Jaffer affair monopolized the parliamentary calendar and further diminished the already low esteem in which Canadians hold their representatives. The government introduced several important bills, including one reforming the refugee claims system and another creating a new complaints review system for the RCMP, but did so too early in the parliamentary session for them to be debated. The bills that parliament did pass were passed without much debate and not enough information for the scrutiny we expect of parliament.
Unless there is an election this fall, which seems increasingly improbable, this year will not likely be any more productive. Indeed, if the opposition takes a more combative tack, something which Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff finally seems prepared to do, this year may be even less productive as every folly and gaffe on the part of the government is transformed into the day’s political ammunition. Normally, having an active opposition would be mark of a healthy parliament, but the Canadian political situation is so dysfunctional that a stronger opposition might actually make it worse.
This unusual situation is not, as some have snidely suggested, the result of there being no real problems for parliament to deal with. True, Canada is faring far better economically than Britain or the United States, but this is not to say that there are no major issues, economic or otherwise, that we need parliament to address. Parliament will not and cannot solve every problem in Canada, but there are some on which only it can act. Unfortunately, these tend to be controversial and intractable questions. That is not reason enough for parliament, especially when no party holds a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, to abdicate this high responsibility.
Indeed, the onus of ensuring that parliament can effectively address the issues facing Canada is not solely on the government, as some commentators seem to believe, but also on the opposition. There have been a few moments in the past year when the opposition took seriously its shared responsibility to govern in times of minority parliament to strike deals with the government. This it did when it reached an agreement with the government on proposed reforms to the refugee claims system, which were introduced in a bill shortly before the House rose in May.
The opposition, especially the Liberals, fear cooperating too often with the government because they believe that it might make them appear weak and make it harder for voters to distinguish them from the Conservatives come election time. This fear is not unjustified, but it should be balanced with the competing responsibility of the opposition to Canadians in a minority parliament to ensure that the business of parliament gets done. This does not mean that they should acquiesce to every request made of them by the government, but that they should use their position to ensure that the bills adopted are as good as they can be.
Unfortunately, Canadians are not used to this kind of wheeling and dealing between parties because we have relatively little experience with minority governments and even less with coalitions. Minority parliaments require a much greater political maturity on the part of both government and opposition than do majority parliaments. There is currently an unprecedented maturity deficit in parliament combined with one of the most dysfunctional minority governments in Canadian history, in terms of its willingness to cooperate with the opposition.
And all of this despite the fact that parliament will face some pressing questions this fall including Canada’s ballooning budget deficit, proposed changes to the oversight of the RCMP, and the prime minister’s plans for asserting Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. First will be the long gun registry, which a private member’s bill supported by the government proposes to abolish. Though it seems that it will be narrowly defeated, further challenges on gun control in Canada are sure to come. Yet the government seems unprepared for a real debate on the issue and the opposition chronically incapable of responding and defining its own gun control agenda. Presently, New Democratic leader Jack Layton claims to have secured enough votes of rural NDP MPs to defeat the bill, but the vote will likely be very close.
To be sure, the opposition alone cannot transform parliament, but it is certainly capable of more than what it has been doing. The government is unlikely to improve its behaviour and cannot easily be forced to do so. Instead, it is up to the opposition to out-govern the government so that it can persuade Canadians that it can deliver on its agenda in the next election.
