A bill to stop stuffing bills

With every passing day, we stumble one step closer to the day when a vote on a private member’s bill in the House of Commons will decide the fate of the long-gun registry.

It’s an interesting example of how one member of the House can bring forward legislation that would — if brought forward by the Harper government — probably fail, but now stands a clear-cut chance of going ahead.

Think what you like about the registry, you still have to admit that it’s an interesting legislative David-and-Goliath process — an individual leading the way where a government might otherwise fear to tread. (Leave aside the fact for the moment that the individual might well be acting on government instructions.)

Well, if there are other individual members of Parliament out there who are looking at windmills to tilt at, I’ve got a suggestion.

Last spring, the Harper Conservatives trundled a massive budget implementation bill into the House. The bill was classed as a confidence motion, so its defeat would have meant an election.

It was 880 pages long, and, as National Post columnist John Ivison pointed out at the time, in page count was equal to half of the entire legislative output of the House of Commons in 2009.

It was so long — and so contentious — because it was a kitchen sink budget. It didn’t just implement budgetary changes, it also made it possible for the government to waive environmental assessments for some federal projects, to toughen sentences for some crimes by changing the definition of what constitutes serious crimes, to allow for the selloff of Atomic Energy, to change the Bank Act and the Canada Post Act, and the list goes on.

In other words, to approve a bunch of legislation that, on its own, probably wouldn’t have gotten through a House of Commons under a minority government.

Because everyone was skittish about the political risks of a sudden election, the budget basically charged through the Commons with little or no clause by clause discussion.

Now, one thing that you can say about the Harper Tories is that, if they see that something works to their advantage, they tend to go whole hog. If the political situation is similar next spring, prepare for an even bulkier budget, with even more sideline issues packed in. Chances are, if it turns out that budget-stuffing works as well this year, the government will probably try to find a way to pack every piece of its legislation agenda into the budget sausage casing.

We’re not the only jurisdiction where obese budgets are a problem.

In the United States, it goes to extremes, where individual congressmen and senators lard up major bills with all kinds of sideline riders that promise porkbarrel projects for their own areas. It’s the perfect example of doing through the back door what would be unacceptable through the front.

And that’s not anything close to reasonable government — it’s just stuffing a turkey until the poor sad bird finally explodes from the internal pressure.

So here’s an idea for a private member’s bill: why doesn’t some enterprising member of Parliament draft a private member’s bill that would require legislation to be simple and to the point, and address only one issue or piece of legislation at a time? If a budget required multiple changes to existing legislation, those changes could be dealt with separately. And if issues had nothing to do with the budget, they couldn’t be crammed in under the same marquee.

You could call it the Honesty Bill or the Truth in Legislation Bill or pretty much anything you like — and, if at some later date, a government that actually represented a majority of Canadians wanted to change the rules again, they could.

It would end the all-or-nothing game of chicken, and what’s fast becoming the tyranny of the minority.

I bet there would be much less argument about whether that private member’s bill could pass.

Russell Wangersky is The Telegram’s editorial page editor,. He can be contacted by e-mail at rwanger@thetelegram.com.