Progressive Policy Canada

Parliamentary reform -- first of a series....

Relatively modest reform of the committee system in the House of Commons and one radical new idea -- parliamentary approval of certain key international government appointees -- could give Canadians what they desire; more control of the international decisions affecting their lives.

Much of the debate about Canada's participation in international trade and investment agreements and its official role in international institutions like the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund is misdirected. That Canada must be involved in the negotiation and implementation of trade and investment agreements that will materially affect the country is a given. It is equally obvious that Canada should play an aggressive role in the multi-lateral financial institutions set up in the wake of World War Two. It is not the existence of, nor the desirability of, multi-lateral international institutions and agreements that should trouble Canadians, it is the lack of democratic accountability which has left voters and citizens more and more distant from the institutions and decisions that affect their lives.

Consider this scenario: a voter concerned about the effect of an international trade agreement on Canadian labour and environmental standards casts a vote in a federal election. More likely than not, the citizen will cast a vote for an opposition Member of Parliament (MP), since Canadian federal governments are invariably formed by a party receiving significantly less than 50% of the popular vote. It is highly unlikely that the MP will ever be in a position to even remotely influence the government's stance in a trade negotiation. If the voter has elected a government backbench MP, chances of real influence are greater but still remote by anyone's reckoning. Even an MP highly motivated by international issues will likely find him or herself stymied by a lack of input into international policy decisions. Soon, the voter, disenchanted by what he/she perceives to be government inattention to international labour and environmental issues, turns to an activist organization that seems to be "doing something".

The scenario above is common in Canada. Many of the people who find themselves on the streets protesting, or, at least, sympathizing with the protesters, are increasingly frustrated by the disconnection they feel from decisions made in faraway capitals by government appointees with little connection to Canada's elected institutions.

When the Prime Minister names a person to represent Canada's interests within an international institution, say as Canada's permanent representative to the WTO or as a director of the World Bank, his nomination will receive no meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. Appointments are not vetted nor approved by Canada's parliament -- MPs don't even have the guarantee of a committee meeting to discuss the nominee's credentials or his/her opinions about Canada's international interests. Some MPs may hold highly contrived "consultations" and constituency meetings to give the impression of true democratic accountability but, bluntly put, democratic accountability in Canada consists of a once in four or five year chance to "pass judgement" on the incumbent government - a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs in a sophisticated and globalized world where information is available to almost all citizens at the touch of a button.

There are many ways to address this democratic deficit (proportional representation and Senate reform come to mind), but one of the most effective, meaningful and achievable solutions is to introduce several modest parliamentary reforms. Imagine a scenario where Canada's trade negotiators are forced to explain and justify their actions to an all-party committee (perhaps chaired by an opposition MP) of the House of Commons - a scenario where that committee would genuinely consult with Canadians before during and after negotiations. Imagine the government having to submit its nominations for WTO representative to an all-party committee which uses free votes to confirm or deny the appointment.

Why are Canadian Parliamentary committees virtually powerless? Is it a necessary part of the Westminster parliamentary tradition that legislative committees be dominated by the government? Why do committee votes always reflect party divisions and why does party discipline extend to the committees? After all, it is highly unlikely that a government would be forced to resign after losing a vote in committee.

Key international positions - particularly those where the nominee should be a representative of Canada's interests and not just the interests of the government of the day - should be vetted and approved by a special committee of MPs who would compete vigorously for this coveted job. Canadian voters might stand up and take more notice if they thought that their humble MP would be helping to choose Canada's next representative to the UN, World Bank or WTO.

Parliamentary committees should also be given more power to vet and approve certain key international treaties. Special committees could be struck, perhaps chaired by an opposition MP or constituted without a government majority, which would be charged with consulting broadly and voting on key components of the treaty. The committee, in a special vote, would also vote up or down on the final treaty. The committee's vote would not be a confidence vote, in other words, the government would not be forced to resign after a no vote, but if the Parliament decided to override a no vote in this committee, the treaty would have to go back to a reconstituted committee for more consultations and another vote. In other words, the full Parliament, with its government majority, would still have the final say but it would override the committee's vote and public opinion at its peril.

These changes in procedure would not irreparably harm our Parliamentary tradition but they would dramatically improve the lot of the Canadian voter. Some of the helplessness and powerlessness so evident in many of the anti-globalization protests would be addressed by genuine democratic input into decisions affecting everyone's future.