Conservative democratic reform critic Scott Reid knew something was up last Wednesday when he got a note from Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef. A torn sheet of paper bore a message asking whether they could talk, and he'd already noticed her talking to his NDP counterpart, Nathan Cullen. Reid also spotted Monsef's parliamentary secretary Mark Holland chatting with Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.
Less than a week later, the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Green Party voted in favour of the NDP motion to create a committee to study electoral reform, breaking a procedural logjam. The House leaders have two weeks to set up a House committee to study reform options, which likely will be struck in the two weeks before the House rises for the summer.
It had a been a bad few weeks for the government, starting with a near-loss when the opposition forced a Monday morning vote on a government bill that had the Liberals scrambling to attend and culminating in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's repeated apologies for dragging a male MP to his seat, accidentally elbowing a female MP in the process. That kerfuffle inadvertently delayed debate on the government's assisted dying legislation by a full day. In the middle, the Liberals gave notice of an unprecedented motion that would have given them total control of the Commons agenda until they rose for the summer.
The honeymoon, it seemed, was over for the Liberals. They were supposed to be different: all about sunny ways and respect for Parliament. But the narrative had changed.
Fortunately for the new government, the NDP provided them their off-ramp. Cullen had an electoral reform motion on the order paper, waiting to be called up when the New Democrats had their next opposition day (a day the government schedules for one of the non-governing parties to decide what will be debated). The government had a similar motion to create a Liberal-dominated committee, but hadn't called it for debate amid criticism they would control the resulting report. Parliament couldn't start examining electoral reform options until they voted to set up the committee. In the government's words, they were stuck debating process. And the longer it dragged on, the more Monsef was criticized for how she handled the issue.
"We actually did a couple of media searches to find one story on any news outlet, any television, radio show, to say this is good, what they proposed. Couldn't find one," Cullen said.
A win for the Liberals
The Liberals had indicated about a week earlier that they might be willing to change course and support the NDP's proposed committee composition, which had the opposition outnumbering the government. The agreement started to come together early last week when the Liberals asked whether they would be open to amendments. The NDP also went to the Conservatives, who promised their own amendment but didn't deliver. The government scheduled the NDP opposition day as the talks started.
The NDP and Liberals locked down their agreement about half an hour before Cullen stood up to speak to his motion. The Conservatives were furious, calling it a backroom deal.
When Monsef and Reid did chat the day before, it took less than five minutes, Reid says, including small talk about Monsef having missed a beer tasting event hosted by Reid the night before. Then she asked Reid whether the Conservatives would vote for the NDP motion and, if not, what kind of amendments would make the motion acceptable to the Conservatives. "At no point did she say, 'the reason I'm asking is I'm thinking of putting in an amendment to the NDP motion.' And certainly not, 'and here it is,' or anything like that," Reid said.
It's a small step on the road to electoral reform, but collaborating with the NDP on the committee structure gave the Liberals a sorely needed win.
It also put them back on narrative. Cullen gave them credit for working with the opposition, and Trudeau took advantage of the moment to distinguish the Liberals from the former Conservative government.
"We heard the opposition’s concerns, that we were perhaps behaving in a way that was resembling more the previous government than the kind of approach and tone that we promised throughout the electoral campaign," he said. "It is with great pleasure that we demonstrate today that, no, we are serious when we talk about respecting all 338 members of the House."
Conservatives fear committee will shield Liberals from criticism
While Monsef and Holland handled the discussions, they kept Trudeau informed of their plan. The Prime Minister's Office felt a collaboration was the best option given the fall-out from their original electoral reform committee motion. Another option was to pull their motion and table a new one, which could have resulted in two or three days of debate. There was a risk they would have to invoke closure on their democratic reform motion, which wasn't a palatable option. Backing the NDP motion saved them time, since they had to have an opposition day anyway, and kept the rest of their agenda on track.
Co-operating on the electoral reform motion didn't help the government with the rest of its pre-summer push - they still missed the deadline for their assisted dying legislation, for example - but it recovered a file on which they'd been losing ground.
Even amid the co-operation, there remain politics to be played. The Conservatives predict the government will use the committee as cover even if they ignore its findings, as they did with the special committee on assisted dying. The Liberals say they were hoping for unanimity and blame the Conservatives for not wanting to participate.
"I think [The Conservatives] made a calculated risk that we weren't going to be as flexible as we were and decided to sit it out," said a Liberal familiar with the talks, speaking on background.
"Whether or not that decision is because they want to try to do everything they can to show that the process isn't legitimate, so they don't want to help it look legitimate in any way, I don't know."
The committee must report back by Dec. 1.
