Murphy’s Logic: Analysis, debate and scrutiny are good for democracy

Steve Murphy discusses how supermajority governments can impact debate and democracy.

Most people don’t pay much attention to what goes on in their provincial legislature until it affects them in a way they don’t like.

About the only part of the daily proceedings that gets any attention is Question Period, where sparks sometimes fly in a way that makes for good TV or clickbait.

That’s too bad.

Although the process of making and passing laws can be tedious (someone once compared it to making sausage, but I digress), it is both important and valuable. It creates not only a forum for critical analysis and debate by members of the opposition, but it also provides a rare opportunity for members of the public to let their opinions be known in committee hearings, in time to effect real change in the laws being proposed.

That’s particularly important when a government has a large majority – and doesn’t require the consent or support of members of the opposition to do anything.

As is the case in Nova Scotia.

Tim Houston’s PCs have a supermajority. With more than two-thirds of the seats in the legislature, the government can change the house rules without the support of the other parties. Again, that may sound like more boring, inside-baseball stuff, but it profoundly affects the actual function of democracy.

A good example can be found in the most recent, most brief session of the Nova Scotia legislature; it was only eight days long and highlighted by a cumbersome omnibus bill that changed several laws in one fell swoop.

Premier Houston says it was efficient. But such productivity at the expense of thoughtful analysis, debate and public scrutiny isn’t in the public interest, which needs to remain the mission and mandate of our legislatures, even if the public isn’t always paying attention.