Article content continued

The obvious cautions against broad reforms also apply: many of the alternatives would add a degree of complication into the electoral system; they could introduce obstacles to smooth governance; they could cement a succession of milquetoast compromise parties in power, rather than offering voters (to borrow a phrase) real change at election time.

Still, this is a useful debate to have; for this alone the Liberals deserve to be commended. And there are other unequivocally good ideas in their plan, many of which would address some of the more outstanding complaints about how the country has been governed, especially under the Harper Conservatives.

The Liberals have promised open and transparent government data, greater independence for parliamentary officers, more free votes in Parliament and a re-formatted Question Period that would demand more accountability from government ministers, including a British-style prime minister’s Question Period.

Yes, some skepticism is warranted here, considering the party’s shaky relationship with “open nominations”; the leaders’ commitment to free votes likewise squares awkwardly with his refusal to allow the same on issues of conscience like abortion.

There are also ideas in the Liberals’ plan that deserve open derision. Among them, the party’s plan to restore Canada Post home delivery — a popular promise that ignores shifting economic and practical realities. The proposed requirement that all Supreme Court of Canada judges be bilingual would effectively shut out Western Canada from the bench. And the flat declaration that all future Liberal cabinets would have an equal number of men and women — no matter how many of either sex are elected, or what their relative talent and experience — places gender parity ahead of merit. The country can ill afford this tokenism. Why not simply affirm his intent to hire the best people for the job?