German lesson

Coalition shows how government could work in Canada

The Trudeau government has always been uninterested in Parliament, perhaps even a little afraid of it.

This was true even when they had a majority, and became more visible in their first minority. They have shrunk the number of sitting days to a ridiculous level this year — prior to this week, the House had not sat since June.

It is partly why they have such a thin legislative legacy after six years in power, and why they consistently get in so much trouble trying to do end runs around parliamentary oversight. The endless battle over access to documents surrounding the dismissal of two Chinese scientists from a Canadian government lab is just the latest in a long series of similar time-wasting foolishnesses.

Trudeau is a weak performer in the House, too often overacting with too little candour over even the most trivial issues. House management has wavered between surly and obdurate. The government could now be well-served by Mark Holland — its first House leader to have the skills and the cross-party respect to find necessary compromises — if they let him.

All these weaknesses were on display in one of the most vacuous throne speeches in recent memory. A cut-and-paste of old campaign literature and previous speeches, it was thinly glued together by the usual hyperbolic rhetoric typical of this government — one that obsesses over presentation, and much less over policy and legislative performance.

There were a few signals of change and substance. Perhaps the most surprising was the hint of a new China policy, teased in the use of the American frame, “an Indo-Pacific strategy,” their euphemism for an anti-China alliance.

Four bills are to be resurrected in the 15 remaining sitting days in 2021. Given their track record, it seems highly unlikely they will pass in the next three weeks. When the House eventually returns — on the last day of January! — more valuable House time will be needed to complete even this thin agenda. This dilatory approach to governing by legislation, adopted by a legislature, is a legacy of the Harper years — one that the Liberals have, perhaps not surprisingly, found irresistibly tempting. One of its products, however, is foolishly contentious committees where partisan battles over commas are not uncommon; cross-party bargains are rare and high school-level procedural wrangles are routine.

Germany, another large, contentious federal democracy, had its latest election a week after ours. This week, their new released a 177-page set of specific policy pledges, with detailed agendas and time frames. It included such eyebrow-raising commitments as raising the minimum wage to the equivalent of $17.00; a cap on yearly rent increases of 3.65 per cent; and a costed plan to build 400,000 new homes and apartments, 25 per cent of which will be publicly funded.

The new German coalition used the time between election day and this week to hammer out a strong and united government, drawn from both left and right. The political union displayed ambition, coherence and policy competence at its launch, and has since unveiled an impressive climate and global policy framework. The new government took office during one of the worst crises faced by Germany since the war: a nearly out-of-control pandemic, with the country reeling from the highest case count in Western Europe today.

What did our lone governing party do during those same weeks? They were clearly not drafting legislation, nor working out the details of a three-year time frame on COVID, climate or housing. They did play a few flirtatious games with their possible political partners, but never with much seriousness or determination, apparently.

One other distinction in the German approach to parliamentary democracy is, however, very un-Canadian: that 177-page government agenda now goes to each party’s membership for a vote. This government would faint at such a revolutionary nonsense.

Trudeau is a weak performer in the House, too often overacting with too little candour.

ROBIN SEARS