Eliminate political parties. Rotate committee chairs. Randomize Commons seating assignments — or place MPs by name, not party.

And rather than drop Fridays from the House sitting schedule for a four-day parliamentary work week, why not add a half-day shift on Saturdays as well?

Those are just a few of the suggestions that Green Party Leader Elizabeth May makes in her response to Government House Leader Bardish Chagger’s controversial “discussion paper.”

In the 12-page submission released on Monday, May (who, as leader of a party without official status, is subject to the same rules as independent members) challenges the rationale for the “recalibration” of the Commons standing orders — specifically, “to balance the desire of the minority’s right to be heard with the majority’s duty to pass its legislation,” according to Chagger’s discussion paper.

“This characterization sounds fair and reasonable, but, in reality, it is appalling,” May concludes.

“What is being proposed is that Parliament is all about the executive pressing through an agenda as long as the minority has its chance to squawk a bit.”

Instead, May urges the Liberals to take another look at the findings of the Vox Pop Labs online survey that capped off public consultations on electoral reform — which, she notes, determined that 70 per cent of respondents “do not want one big party making all the decisions” but would prefer a system “in which a number of smaller parties worked together, even if it takes longer.”

That, May suggests, “puts in doubt the underlying assumption of the government discussion paper that the Liberals have a mandate to ‘modernize’ Parliament to make majority decisions faster.”

With that in mind, May rejects out of hand the most contentious recommendations in Chagger’s paper — including imposing more time limits on debate both in the House and in committee and rejigging routine proceedings to make it more difficult for opposition parties to delay or pre-empt government business.

But she supports the idea of giving the Speaker the power to divide unwieldy omnibus bills to send to specialized committees, and also seems enthusiastic about the prospect of codifying — and limiting the potential abuse of — prorogation.

As for the idea of moving to a four-day work week, she offers an alternate approach: six days a week for three weeks at a stretch, followed by three weeks in the riding — “a work cycle similar to Atlantic Canada workers in Fort McMurray,” she notes.

“It is clear that a well-intentioned proposal to eliminate Friday sittings is seen by the public as an attempt to shirk our work,” she acknowledges.

“MPs and many journalists will know that is not true, but it is too easy a target in the age of ‘gotcha’ politics. No one will think MPs are shirking if we work a 6-day parliamentary schedule.”

Although not officially a member of the House affairs committee, May is expected to be at the table when the stand-off over the discussion paper resumes later today.

But unlike her opposition colleagues, May, at least, seems to be ready to keep an open mind — not necessarily about the government’s ideas, mind you, but about its ostensible openness to counter-arguments.

“My own view is that we need not read ill-intention into the draft discussion paper and process,” she concludes.

“I take the Government House Leader at her word. This was a trial balloon. It is now a burst balloon, but it got the discussion going. Let’s move to the next steps, and with good will on all sides, let’s start down the road to significant reforms.”

Read the discussion paper here:

Reforming the Standing Orders of the House of Commons