Suddenly, MPs are behaving like grown-ups
(not a headline I would expect to see in Canada)
Bill C-5 is one of the most controversial laws Parliament has adopted in a decade. Its passage in the House of Commons was also notable for bringing about one of the most welcome moments seen in Parliament over the same period. But we’ll get to that.
Bill C-5, or at least Part 2 of it – the Building Canada Act – gives the government the unilateral power to override or suspend federal laws that would otherwise delay the rapid implementation of infrastructure and energy projects deemed by cabinet to be in the national interest. (Part 1 of Bill C-5 is an entirely non-controversial act to reduce federal interprovincial trade barriers.)
It follows through on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s election promise to counter the U.S. trade war on Canada by (sort of) releasing the economy from its regulatory chains.
As we’ve already said, letting cabinet decide which projects are in the national interest is problematic. Canada’s economy needs Ottawa to get out of its way, not perch itself on its shoulder and pick winners and losers, and then set aside regulations for the lucky few. Better to get rid of the regulations altogether and let the market decide.
That critique aside, lost in the drama of Bill C-5 was an important and hopeful moment only mentioned in passing in news reports.
It came on June 20, when the House of Commons adopted the bill and Mr. Carney crossed the floor to shake hands with Conservative Parliamentary Leader Andrew Scheer and Deputy Leader Melissa Lantsman.
After 10 years of unrelenting partisanship, acrimony and division, here were leaders of the two parties that dominate Parliament cordially acknowledging the swift passage of legislation deemed urgent.
(The bill went on to the Senate where it was adopted without amendment; it became law on June 26.)
This is the Parliament that Canadians want to see, a place where MPs respect each other rather than erode the institution by turning into a content studio for creating snarky partisan social media posts and decontextualized attack ads.
A Parliament where parties make the compromises needed to achieve consensus on important legislation, and which is not merely an arena where political games are won or lost.
Bill C-5 was an example of Parliament’s better angels at work, from the day it was tabled on June 6 to the day it was acknowledged with a handshake.
Yes, the Carney Liberals tightly controlled debate on the legislation in order to rush its passage through the House before the summer break on June 20.
But debate still did occur, and the Liberals accepted a number of key amendments that will make the government act more transparently.
For instance, the government will have to inform the public how and why a project was deemed in the national interest, and explain the normal regulatory process that would have been followed had that not been the case.
As well, the government agreed to remove the Indian Act from the schedule of federal laws that it can override.
These and other improvements to the law demonstrate that, when MPs and their party bosses set aside rank partisanship, they can get things done.
This new willingness to play nice resurfaced last week, when Mr. Carney called a by-election in the Alberta riding of Battle River-Crowfoot in order to allow Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader who lost his seat in the April 28 general election, to run for office and get back into the House.
Mr. Carney called the by-election quickly, instead of playing games and leaving the Conservatives dangling.
We admit that there are caveats to the example of Bill C-5. Its goal aligned with the political agendas of both the Liberals and the Conservatives, making cooperation mutually beneficial. And a single handshake doesn’t herald a lasting new era of adult cooperation in the House of Commons.
But it has been so bad for so long in Ottawa that any hopeful signs of maturity are enticing.
Canadians want and need to see more cooperation and mutual respect between parties, and a laying down of rhetorical arms, in the name of the country’s interests.
Forceful debate and partisanship are always welcome in a parliamentary democracy, but a bitter fracturing along political lines that makes enemies of opposing parties and erases civility is not. Just look south for proof of that.
theglobeandmail.com |
