In the world of Canadian politics, a curious phenomenon has been unfolding in the House of Commons. MPs, it seems, are passing bills without the need for an official vote, and this practice is becoming increasingly common.
The 'On Division' Conundrum
Passing legislation 'on division' is a strategy that allows MPs to approve bills without recording their individual support or dissent. It's a convenient way for parties to avoid a headcount, especially when there's disagreement but no desire to create a formal record of it.
"On division means the room agrees the motion can pass, even if not everyone is in favour," explains Peter Van Loan, a former government House leader. This approach lets the government have its way without a formal vote, while the opposition can claim they were against it without taking the risk of bringing down the government.
A Look at the Numbers
An analysis of parliamentary journals over two decades reveals an interesting trend. Since the start of the current session, half of the bills that reached the third reading stage in the House passed without a consensus or headcount. This is a significant increase compared to previous parliaments.
During Justin Trudeau's first minority government, a large portion of the session was dominated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The House operated in a hybrid form, and many bills were passed on division to quickly enact benefits for Canadians affected by health restrictions.
However, even then, only about a quarter of the bills passed at the third reading stage did so without a standing vote.
The Current Landscape
The current makeup of the House of Commons provides some context. The Liberals are just a few seats shy of a majority, relying on support from other parties to pass their agenda. Two notable bills that passed the third reading on division were the Budget Implementation Act and the supplementary estimates, both of which were confidence votes.
If a headcount had been taken and the Liberals lost, it could have triggered a government fall and an election. This is a risky move, and it's no surprise that parties are opting for the 'on division' approach to avoid such scenarios.
The Opposition's Perspective
Elizabeth May, the Green Party Leader, has been vocal about her objection to this practice. She calls it an "abuse of parliamentary democracy," arguing that it prevents her from registering her opposition in a recorded vote, especially on confidence matters.
"As long as the Bloc Québécois, Liberals, and Conservatives are aligned, it bulldozes right through," she said.
A Broader Perspective
The use of 'on division' passage can be a useful tool, especially when a committee is voting on a bill line-by-line before sending it back to the House. It allows for a more efficient process and can prevent unnecessary delays.
However, it also raises questions about the transparency and accountability of our democratic process. With this practice becoming more frequent, it's essential to consider the implications for our parliamentary system and the representation of diverse viewpoints.
Conclusion
The increasing use of 'on division' voting in the House of Commons is a fascinating development, offering a glimpse into the strategic maneuvering of our political parties. While it may provide a convenient solution in the short term, it also highlights the need for a deeper conversation about the health of our democracy and the importance of every vote.
