There's been a lot of angst over the state of Parliament this past week, leading some to wonder what it might take to fix it—or if it can be fixed at all. Maybe it's time to pause and ask what, exactly, we really expect from parliamentary reform.For several decades the PMO has been clawing power away from Parliament. That much is clear. Many people think it's time Parliament took that power back and exercised it from the Commons, the way it once did. This is less clear.To see why, let's take a quick look at two key stages in the policy process: policy development and the legislative process.In the first one, officials provide confidential policy advice to the minister, who then presents his/her preferred options to cabinet. Once the final choice has been made, a bill is drafted.In the second stage, the minister tables the bill in the House and public debate begins, led by the opposition. Concerns are aired and amendments considered. Finally, the bill is passed and sent to the Senate.In fact, lots of policymaking no longer works this way. These days, the first stage often includes a public process that may involve stakeholders, other governments and even the general public, especially through social media.Jason Kenney is a good example. When he was Minister of Citizenship and Immigration he was constantly traveling the country and engaging new Canadians on the issues. This, in turn, shaped much of the thinking on his immigration bill.A couple of decades ago, this would have been rare, if not unthinkable. In those days, policy development was mainly a discussion between officials, the minister and cabinet—and it all happened behind closed doors.But times have changed. Public engagement is now common in governments around the world. Citizens and stakeholders want a say on issues they care about and governments are increasingly willing to oblige them.As a result, ministers today are often more concerned about this stage than the legislative stage. They work hard to ensure agreement and support among key stakeholders and to make sure public debate doesn't turn against them.By the time a bill goes before Parliament, promises and compromises have often been made and deals struck. This, in turn, makes amendments at the legislative stage far riskier than they used to be. In the past, a minister only had to go back to cabinet to approve changes. Now such changes could unravel agreements or understandings with the public.My point here is that the Executive's concerns over parliamentary reform are genuine. Ministers don't want to find themselves managing two separate processes that could compete with one another. They know public engagement is here to stay and so freeing up Parliament to play the role it once did could lead to deadlock and paralysis. Are they right?Clearly, the Harper government thinks so. It doesn't hesitate to use its majority to control Parliament. And let's be frank. It is not hard to see why a Liberal or NDP majority government might take a similar view, once in power.The question no one is asking, however, is whether there is a way to reconcile public engagement with Parliament's traditional role as the leader of public debate. I think there may be and it combines Kenney's approach with that of the traditional public service.Why not ask parliamentary committees to play a direct role in policy development by acting as “facilitators” of public dialogue, much as Kenney did with New Canadians?These committees would be very different from legislative committees. After all, policy development is a different task. Their role would be to explore and propose policy options to the minister, much as the public service did in an earlier era, except now these options would be publicly vetted and sanctioned.Committee events would steer a middle path between stodgy hearings and raucous town halls. MPs would be trained in modern facilitation techniques and learn to use them to promote disciplined public dialogue, aimed at helping participants articulate, exchange, examine, discuss and consolidate their views.Unlike the closed-door processes of the past, this kind of policy development would be highly transparent. The public would feel some real ownership of it and a direct connection with MPs and Parliament that lead it. Smart ministers would quickly see the advantages of having the legitimacy of such a process behind their decisions. But there would still be lots of room for them to make choices.Nor would opposition parties have to worry about being co-opted into a “government agenda.” House Leaders could work together to identify issues where parties are open to a “bottom-up” approach to policymaking. They would draft the mandate for these committees and define the process. Where deep ideological or other differences exist, conventional parliamentary debate would continue.Of course, in the end, success would hinge on the MPs. They would have to be willing to act as facilitators rather than advocates; develop new skills to lead such dialogue; and work with MPs from other parties in a non-partisan way. But committees have an impressive history of successful cooperation. And helping people and organizations participate in real policy dialogue should be a natural and rewarding role for any MP.Finally, this scenario has an intriguing coda. Justin Trudeau's decision to cut caucus ties with Liberal senators (originally proposed by Tom Mulcair), and to create a new arm's length appointment process, may be a game-changer for the Senate.As I've argued elsewhere, a non-partisan Senate populated with highly qualified nominees might finally become a place of sober second thought. It could also be a very timely counterpart for this new committee process.In conclusion, we can't make Parliament into the institution it once was. For better or worse, things have moved on. While lots of things not discussed here are still possible, the Harper government has shown little interest in any of them.As for the proposal here, there may be an historic opportunity for a new and more visionary prime minster to lead both of these Houses out of the wilderness and launch them on a new journey.I don't know where this would end, but I, for one, would count it as a major victory for parliamentary reform.Dr. Don Lenihan is an internationally recognized expert on democracy, public engagement, accountability and service delivery. Since 2009, he has been Senior Associate at Canada's Public Policy Forum in Ottawa. From October 2013 to April 2014, Don served as Chair of the Ontario Open Government Engagement Team. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan