Majority governments are able to propose any number of bills before Parliament and have them adopted – thanks to their majority, of course. This in itself isn’t alarming.

However, it is necessary to make the distinction between putting one’s imprint on the country’s laws by using one’s majority, and using it to steer clear of in-depth debates, crucial to the healthy running of a democracy.

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have recently celebrated the first anniversary of their majority. Not surprisingly, the government has availed itself of this majority to pass a number of legislative measures that have been close to their heart for a long while. The demise of the long-gun registry, for example, and several measures concerning criminality – all of which are in a way, its trademark.

We can’t therefore be surprised by the sort of legislative measures proposed by the federal government. Several people see this as an abuse of power by the government, based on its status in the House of Commons, but it isn’t the case.

Some of the measures in the legislative program were introduced when the Harper government was a minority. We can’t ignore the fact that the Conservatives had made a clean breast of their ideological orientation long ago. And that is certainly the case when it comes to measures regarding law and order and environmental assessment processes for major projects, among others.

But again, when it comes to the present government, it is not necessarily what it does that bothers some, but the way it decides to go about it.

For example, the government has decided to make use of its proposed budget implementation bill by adding to it a bunch of miscellaneous legislative measures, focusing on employment, growth, sustainable wealth. Officially called the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, this is a massive project drawn on, so it seems, as a sort of legislative tote bag encompassing a large number of measures that have nothing to do with the budget or any other sort of fiscal measures.

In fact, the bill swaddles 69 Canadian laws. It ends Canadian Kyoto agreements, modifies fisheries laws and brings in new measures concerning the environmental assessments, to mention but a few.

This is, of course, a risky approach. If the federal government isn’t careful, it could easily give the impression that this is a government that doesn’t leave much room for debate in legislative matters. Often, this kind of message leaves the population believing that the government has something to hide. That it is trying to pull a fast one.

For now, and with another three years to go, it seems clear that the government thinks that this kind of stuff is far from Canadians’ daily preoccupations. And if we consider the storminess of economic and social situations other countries are facing, the federal conservatives surely feel that the country’s relative tranquility will be enough to make light of such minor legislative irritants.

In a way, this is a politically savvy approach. It’s always better to dish up the most unpopular measures in the first two years of a mandate. Next year should tell a little bit more of the tale.

Translation Monique Kroeger