Qutsmarting the PM on Parliamentary Reform One of Paul Martin’s biggest campaign promises during the last election was his solemn vow to make parliamentary one of the top—if not THE top—priorities of his government. If elected, Paul pledged he would address the growing “democratic deficit” in the House of Commons, empower individual MPs, and generally rejuve- nate parliament from its Chretien-era role as a mindless rubber stamp on the Prime Minister’s decrees. Now, after many months of squabbling and backpedaling, it appears as if we’re finally on the verge of getting some major parliamentary reforms passed. Except Paul’s not the one doing them. As of late, the leaders of Canada’s three main opposition parties, Monsieurs Harper, Duceppe, and Layton, have joined forces and are collective- ly demanding the PM and Governor General make some major changes to the way our parlia- ment works, or face the consequences. Normally the threats of the opposition parties would fall on the Prime Minister’s deaf ears, but because of the current minority government situation, it looks like Paul might have no choice but to listen up. The biggest reforms the leaders are asking for include granting parliament the power to approve treaties and authorize Canadian troop deployment, giving the opposition parties the right to propose amendments to the govern- ment’s throne speech, and allowing the opposition to be consulted before the House of Commons is “dissolved.” This last proposal is by far the most interest- ing. ’ve long been deeply critical of the stupid way in which our country’s system of govern- ment currently determines election dates. Either the Prime Minister decides unilaterally, schedul- ing a date most convenient to him, or the election comes at some random time, initiated by the Prime Minister’s party losing a vote in the House. When minority governments occur, the Prime Minister can often lose a vote pretty quick- ly, which means it’s been common to have an election less than a year after the previous one. The alternative system the opposition leaders have proposed is letting themselves collectively determine if an election should be held in the wake of a defeated vote—and only if the vote is on a matter involving the budget or the throne speech. All other defeated votes would just be regarded as business as usual. In an ideal world we'd have none of this nonsense at all, and just have set election dates occurring at regular inter- vals. But this compromise is the next best thing. As can be expected, praise for the reforms has not been universal. Along with the predictable condemnations from the Liberal Party (who only favour reform until they get in power), many talking heads and self-proclaimed “experts” in the media have been condemning the plan as “unconstitutional.” Political pundit Anthony and less attention. of December 7th. it seems every year the anniversary of 9-11 gets less I hope it doesn't go the way What, Labor Day? SOPuGEMber a2/A00u ane HMC J.J. McCullough, OP Columnist Westell had a big editorial on the CBC in which he denounced the opposition proposals, saying they “would amount to tossing out the Constitution.” He complains that the leaders are suffering from fantasies that Canada operates under a US-style, compromise-driven govern- ment, but in reality it is the pundits like him, who complain about “unconstitutional” behaviour, who ate the ones confusing a US-style govern- ment with our own system. Canada’s constitution, to be blunt, is a vague and barely readable document that’s composed almost entirely of outdated and irrelevant acts of the UK Parliament. Almost 90 percent of our government operates on pure “constitutional convention,” that is to say non-codified political parliamentary traditions that we only obey because that’s what they do in Britain (19th cen- tury Britain that is. Modern Britain has reformed far beyond our tired customs). The fans of the status quo always love to drag out the grim accu- sation of something violating “the constitution” whenever parliamentary reforms are proposed. Such moves are essentially an exploitation of the ignorance most Canadians have towards our own system of government, and make even the mildest reforms sound like illegal power-grabs to the uninformed. Our constitution is not like the US constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is certainly relevant, but the vast majority of the document could be abolished tomorrow and few would notice or care. What the opposition leaders want is not to violate the “constitution” but rather overturn some of the outdated which continue to straightjacket our parliamentary democracy with absurd rules and traditions. A convention is by definition not a law. Until we can learn to ignore the hysterical chorus of pundits and academics who treat every nonsensi- cal tradition of the British parliamentary system as if it’s a sacred act of God we cannot dare tamper with, we'll be stuck with this flawed sys- tem and its “democratic deficits” forever. “conventions”