When Government House leader Bardish Chagger published her discussion paper on reforming the House of Commons, the Official Opposition was willing to have a discussion. I am always open to having a thoughtful conversation with my counterpart.

However, within an hour of the paper’s release, Scott Simms, a Liberal member of the committee charged with deciding the parameters of that conversation, changed the rules of engagement by submitting a closure motion, ending the discussion on the discussion paper. Al Capone said it best: “You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.”

Minister Chagger’s “kind words” suggest that the House reduce the time and ability it currently enjoys to hold the government to account. It does this by, among other things, eliminating Friday sittings, reducing to one day the prime minister’s obligation to answer questions in the House, imposing automatic time allocation on all bills and destroying the flexibility of committee work through the imposition of closure rules at committee.

These measures go against fundamental principles of Parliament. The fourth edition of Bourinot’s Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, published in 1916, talks about the cardinal principle that underlines all parliamentary rules and constitutional provisions. It states that when burdens are to be imposed on the people, “every opportunity must be given for free and frequent discussions, so that Parliament may not, by sudden and hasty votes, incur any expenses, or be induced to approve of measures, which may entail heavy and lasting burthens upon the country.”

The government’s proposals upset the balance of power between it and the opposition — a balance that is essential to an effective democratic legislative body. The government’s proposals upset the balance of power between it and the opposition — a balance that is essential to an effective democratic legislative body.

This principle is as valid today as it was in 1916. It is referenced in our modern procedural manual, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice-Second Edition.

And the government’s proposals are one-sided. They favour the government and upset the balance of power between it and the opposition — a balance that is essential to an effective democratic legislative body.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Plenty of distinguished parliamentarians have repeatedly underscored this very point.

John Fraser, former Speaker of the House of Commons: “It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view. Sooner or later every issue must be decided and the decision will be taken by a majority. Rules of procedure protect both the minority and the majority.”

Prime Minister John Diefenbaker: “If Parliament is to be preserved as a living institution, His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends.”

Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson: “In national politics during the years when I was in the government, I watched the Opposition perform their duty vigorously and industriously, with courage and determination. They rightly insisted on their right to oppose, attack and criticize, to engage in that cut and thrust of debate, so often and so strongly recommended by those concerned with the vigour and health of Parliament and the health of democracy.”

And finally, New Democrat Stanley Knowles: “The opposition has only the rules for its protection, hence the authorities on parliamentary process emphasize the great importance to the opposition of the only protection it has, the protection of the rules. Only by according such rights to the opposition is it possible to achieve anything even approaching equality of strength between the two sides.”

The government is threatening to change all that through the proposals in Minister Chagger’s paper. That is why the opposition is vehemently opposing the minister’s reforms and the way she is handling the “conversation”.

A good approach to getting back on track and improving the way Parliament functions would be for the Liberals to withdraw their closure motion at committee and agree to pursue parliamentary reform in the traditional way — by consensus.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.