Good governance

It’s quiet, deep in the background, and the provincial Tories haven’t gotten much credit for it.

But every legislative session since the Progressive Conservatives came to power, they’ve trundled a few major renovations in legislation through the House of Assembly — changes that bring this province into line with other Canadian jurisdictions, or that update laws that have been in place in this province since the 1970s or 1960s.

There’s the Health and Protection of Animals Act and the new Children and Youth Care and Protection Act in the last session, and before that, the Condominiums Act. The Chartered Accountants Act.

Already this session, there’s one: on Thursday, the province introduced a new Correctional Services Act, a piece of legislation meant to take over where the 1969 Prisons Act and the 1975 Corrections Act left off.

Among other things, the law will: set clear guidelines on the use of force by correctional officers and the circumstances under which force can be used; set up a new disciplinary process for prisoners (including independent arbiters to review punishment for violations); and set clear rules and guidelines for searching inmates, visitors and staff.

It also adds a legislative framework for newer programs. As Justice Minister Felix Collins put it in a news release, “I am also pleased to be able to, through the new act, ensure the maintenance of the already diverse programming we currently offer in our provincial institutions for aboriginal and female offenders, as well as those affected by mental health issues.”

It must have felt passing strange to Collins to say those words in the same week he came under fire for rejecting a report that criticized the treatment of inmates who’d been prescribed medication for mental health issues.

It also won’t make the major changes that are needed in this province’s prison system, including the biggest change of all: a replacement for Her Majesty’s Penitentiary.

But, unlike some of the flashier election-platform issues, as this bill goes through the House of Assembly, opposition critics will suggest possible practical changes. Collins will consider the alterations suggested by those opposition critics, explaining his rationale for accepting them or not.

It tends to be reasonable, sensible, almost non-political debate, where politicians talk about the possible pitfalls legal changes might create, and ways to avoid them.

It isn’t flashy, it generally garners far less attention that the slagging match of the day, and it’s hardly likely to get a political party even one single vote.

But it’s necessary, and it’s the cornerstone of good government. Critics might say that this is what governments are supposed to do — and they’d be right. The problem is that we often don’t see enough of it being done.

We could use a lot more of it — and the clear, co-operative procedure that pieces of legislation like this usually follow — and a lot less name-calling.