Parliament’s latest sitting ended with a flurry of bills passing the House of Commons, raising concerns about whether the government is using its newfound majority to limit scrutiny.
In the final two weeks before Parliament rose for the summer, 18 bills received royal assent and became law.
In several cases, the government shortened debate in the House of Commons, including debate on controversial bills.
Conservative MP Tom Kmiec expressed concerns about the process in his Substack column.
The pace and process by which the bills passed reflect a “growing culture of secrecy as well as the diminishing reflex that public scrutiny is a good thing,” Kmiec wrote.
Pundits voiced similar concerns.
Longtime political columnist Chantal Hebert said it is concerning that a government would “force feed” legislation through the House of Commons, especially since the Liberals did not receive their majority government through a general election.
This could lead to poor relationships with other political parties and poor legislation, she said on CBC’s At Issue panel. “No legislation that is brought in a hurry is perfect.”
Her co-panellist, Althia Raj, agreed. “We have never seen anything like this, ever.”
Political scientists say these tactics are concerning, but the greater problem is how common they are.
These methods are “hardly unprecedented,” said Emmett Macfarlane, a political science professor at the University of Waterloo.
“The fact that it’s relatively normal doesn’t make it acceptable from a democratic perspective,” he said. “It’s no mistake that sometimes the bills that are being pushed through at the end of a sitting are among the more controversial bills.”
Majority impact
In April, the Liberals secured a majority following three byelection wins and five floor crossings.
Prime Minister Mark Carney had said the government would not change the structure of House of Commons committees to give the government a majority on them. But in late April, the Liberals and NDP passed a motion giving the Liberals a majority on committees.
The Liberals’ majority has also impacted debates in the House of Commons.
The government introduced motions to limit debate on significant pieces of legislation, including a controversial bill about hate speech and hate crimes.
The government introduced similar motions for bills about bail reform, domestic violence offences, election interference and establishing the Build Canada Homes agency. All of these bills became law at the end of the Parliamentary sitting.
The government also used motions to force bills through committee.
It did this with Bill C-30, omnibus legislation that introduced a major overhaul to Canada’s pesticides laws, Canadian Affairs reported this week.
It also did this with Bill C-22, a bill that would increase the ability of law enforcement agencies to access digital communications for the purpose of investigations. That bill is now before the Senate and is not yet law.
Bill C-22 needs careful study, says Andrea Lawlor, a political science professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.
“There’s really no good moment to force legislation through,” she said.
“But [it] seems like there are some very salient policy issues that may not have received the type of scrutiny that Canadians would feel comfortable with.”
Private committees
However, governments can have good reasons to limit debate.
“We cannot have endless scrutiny of bills,” said Lawlor. “Government business has to get done.”
The Opposition can also purposely slow down debate so the government cannot pursue its priorities, says Macfarlane.
“If we completely stripped governments of any way to advance legislation and to end debate in some circumstances, then you could really bring things to a crawl,” he said.
But Canadians should be concerned about a lack of transparency at committee meetings, Macfarlane says. In committees, MPs hear from experts about potential legislation and can recommend changes to legislation.
Committee meetings are usually public. But Macfarlane says he is concerned by more committee meetings happening in-camera, which means they are not public.
In his Substack column, Tory MP Kmiec also expressed concern about private committee meetings and the Liberals cutting debate short in committees.
The “common thread” in all these instances was money, he wrote.
“The debates that ended up behind closed doors, or cut short, were the ones probing how public money was spent.”
He listed several examples of projects that were shielded from scrutiny, including a reportedly $6.6-billion Benefits Delivery Modernization project and a $300-million program to modernize prescriptions.
Committee meetings should be public by “default,” Macfarlane said, except for matters of national security or if privacy is essential for MPs to reach a compromise.
Committees are “where the real work happens,” he said.
Governments should not act as if they have to pass legislation before a summer break, says Lawlor.
Legislation only dies if Parliament is dissolved. Parliament could easily resume debate in the fall, instead of speedily passing bills through.
“There is sometimes value in taking the time to reflect upon whether the considerations that can be resolved through legislation are being adequately addressed,” she said.
