This week, Parliamentarians celebrated 150 years of the first sitting of Canada’s parliament. This important time in Canadian history prompts a need to take this time to both celebrate all that our nation has accomplished and to reflect on the how the rules and procedures preserve the very democracy that Canadians enjoy today.

Though I will not argue against the value of change, I will argue that we must tread lightly when it comes to discussions concerning the modernization of Canada’s parliament and to the democratic system that we enjoy. We must look to the ways in which the tradition of our institutional practices and procedures is preserved, not for dissention to progress, but to protect the system upon which we are built and to ensure that these changes will not overhaul our system entirely.

Talk of change seems to be imminent in discussions throughout Parliament. Every day, we see proposed changes to government projects, funding, administration, and as of recently, changes to modernize the practices of the House and Senate, accordingly. While change often means a new beginning and a new chapter, we must not veer so far in the direction of change without being certain that it is what is best for our parliamentary democracy.

Our system is recognized globally for excellent government and diligent work of our Parliamentarians, across all party lines. While I’m not one to shy away from voicing my opinion on current government policy, I am not so closed that I cannot recognize that there are important efforts being taken to work for Canadians. But these talks of modernization concern me. Though efforts to modernize or revolutionize parliamentary practices seem progressive and necessary in retrospect, if not carefully thought out and meticulously implemented, may threaten the very foundations upon which we are built.

At this point, we must truly ask ourselves what it is that we are trying to change. Our system has served our country well, and I am concerned that talks of the idea of modernization and change serve a glittering beacon for some redefined Parliament, but one that we have not clearly defined. When we think of change as a new chapter, but risk starting an entirely new book if we are not careful.

The interest on this issue came from a proposal to modernize debate in the Senate. There has been pressure to remove the process of adjourning debate to move to a committee that would pre-decide on the schedule of debate. Senator Larry Smith, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, gave a speech this week on these modernization efforts, and argued that these changes to remove the privilege of the public to interact with parliamentarians by listening to thoughtful debate and having the opportunity to comment on its timing is fundamental to our democracy. It protects the privilege of the system, which in order to remain effective, must be preserved.

Since election of the Trudeau government 2015, there has been continuous pressure to change the system, with the creation of new constructs, groups, titles and a fundamental disregard for the traditions that have served our country well for 150 years. We see modernization as a tool for negotiation and as a promise for a hopeful and more prosperous future. I don’t see the current proposals in the same light. I see them as a kind of revolutionary change to process that lacks transparency and purpose that truly serves Canadians. I see a government acting in their own conscience, serving their own needs, and manipulating our system.

An overhaul is a change to our democracy as it changes the very means that we operate. The future of our system is now dependent on the pretence of “modernization”. We are now facing a pressure to choose our path: to preserve the deeply held traditions or parliament or adhere to certain pressures to remove various processes that build the foundations of our democracy.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedoms of Canadians to thought, belief, opinion and expression, the freedom to communicate, and the freedom to a democratic society. Part of preserving these freedoms is to preserve the very Constitution upon which we are built and to tread lightly when considering modernizing the administration of our institution. When arguing both for and against these efforts to modernize our parliamentary system, we must first respect our democracy enough to consider how these changes will alter the very system upon which we are built. Is the fundamental challenge being posed on whether or not we can embrace and accept our freedom, or is it an excuse for something more? There will always be pressure to change and modernize in an effort to improve our parliament, but this pressure should not outweigh the necessity to protect our democracy.

RP