Parliament has been back in session for just two weeks in this New Year, and already there's a chorus of complaints about how the place operates -- or fails to operate.
Some people focus on the lack of decorum among MPs, especially during the daily Question Period, and no doubt the tone during that intensely partisan 45-minutes should be improved. But based on personal experience in the House of Commons stretching back to 1974, I believe the bad behaviour is a symptom of what's wrong, not the cause of it.
To fix the malaise eroding our democracy, Canadians need a rich combination of party, electoral and Parliamentary reforms. Here are a few suggestions to contribute to a debate on this topic which I hope will become irresistible.
First at the level of political parties, as suggested by Justin Trudeau and others in the Liberal leadership campaign, the Leader needs to exercise less control over who can be selected as candidates by local riding associations. As long as a constituency organization is "in good standing" as a viable entity, and as long as the process of candidate selection is democratic and fair, the Leader should not appoint candidates contrary to constituency wishes.
Next, once in Parliament, MPs should be free to vote on most matters as their conscience and judgment dictate. They should not be "whipped" by the Leader's office to toe-the-line on virtually everything, as seems to be the case today. Questions of true "confidence" -- where losing a vote means the government falls and an election ensues -- should be restricted to a few fundamental situations pertaining to the Throne Speech and the Budget. Otherwise, MPs should think for themselves, make their own decisions and be accountable for them.
Ministers wanting to advance policy initiatives should be required to convince not only Cabinet colleagues, but also backbenchers. They should not simply rely on the Whip to enforce support -- they should earn it by merit.
House of Commons control over public spending must be enhanced. The government should be required to produce its budget before a certain deadline every year -- maybe February 21. Departmental spending Estimates should be based on the most recent figures contained in that budget, not year-old data. MPs should feel free to question and vote against individual spending items in the Estimates (like tax-paid government advertising, for example). And government borrowing plans should require specific approval by Parliament every year.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer should be established as an independent Officer of Parliament with the authority and resources such work requires.
Restrictions are needed on the use of ancient but recently-abused Parliamentary tools such as Omnibus Bills, Closure Motions to terminate debates, and Prorogation. They have their place, but should be confined to their original purpose and intent.
Every Standing Committee of the House of Commons should be required to receive, debate and vote on every Motion in public, not in secret as is now too often the case.
Elections Canada needs greater capacity to supervise elections effectively, investigate crimes like telephone fraud and voter suppression, and prosecute offences in a timely manner, before another election rolls around.
It also goes without saying that the process for re-drawing constituency boundaries must be reinforced as independent of partisan influence. Recent Conservative chicanery using robocalls to pervert the process is contemptible.
Canadians need to have an adult conversation about voting systems that are better than our current "first-past-the-post" regime where the winner often gets a majority of seats with only a small minority of the votes cast.
Some form of Proportional Representation is suggested by some, and that deserves careful examination. Another alternative is a Preferential Ballot, where voters indicate not only their first choice, but also their second and third choices too, and the counting keeps going until one candidate gets more than 50 per cent support.
A common characteristic of many of these ideas is a power shift -- less control in the hands of the Prime Minister and Party bosses, more control in the hands of ordinary Canadians and individual MPs.
The result will be more individual responsibility and accountability. The quality of local candidates will become vital -- there will be little room for the so-called "door knobs" or "trained seals." Voting will actually matter. Democracy will be enhanced.
These are just a few ideas to make the point that we're not stuck without alternatives. Mediocrity is not inevitable. If Canadians really want a better system, it can be achieved. But it will take persistent hard work to get there!
Follow Ralph Goodale on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@RalphGoodale
And I agree with everything in this article.
But it needs to be said that the Liberal Party of Canada, who ruled for 34 of the last 50 years, not only didn't help the process, but is responsible for a large part of it.
So why am I not convinced of the sincerity of this road to Damascus conversion???
I have emailed LPC candidates on more than one occasion asking them what they believes the PURPOSE of the Liberal Party of Canada is. I've never a had a reply. So here I am again on the Soapbox. :-)
The LPC has multiple purposes in its Charter. None of which make much sense.
Allow me to share my definition of purpose.
Purpose is a definitive statement about the difference an organization is trying to make in the world. It’s not about policies, it’s what you stand for.
Having clarity about the ultimate purpose of the time and energy an organization spends doing what it is doing is the cornerstone of a culture of purpose.
It should be what drives everything an organization does. It’s their reason for being that goes beyond winning elections and implementing policies. Having a clear, concise and easily articulated purpose always results in making life better for everyone. In the case of the LPC, it’s about making life better for ‘all’ Canadians.
If the LPC had a purpose and could articulate it with clarity and passion, then everything would make more sense and everything would flow. Certainly, it would give the LPC a big leg up on the opposition parties since neither the CPC, NDP and even Greens have a clear, concise and easily understood purpose.
I think Canadians want capable representation and for our MP and government to act in the best interests of our society. One look at the House from the gallery indicates this is not necessarily the case. Parliament is supposed to be a check and balance on government not an opportunity to grandstand or catch up on your signings. To say they are acting in the best interests of Canada is a bit of a stretch.
Perhaps it is time that each MP arrived in Ottawa carrying the weight of their voters. You may represent the Liberal party but your riding cast 50,000 votes so you cast that number on any parliamentary vote. If 30,000 voters within your riding did not vote in the last election well, that is 30,000 fewer votes cast by you, as MP, until the next election. It would then be in the interests of each party to maximize voter participation and perhaps begin a swing of attention towards the voters rather than the party.
Of course it would also make the MP without a clue but with 70,000 votes unduly influential.
That tweak involves one thing, moving to a second ballot system whenever a clear majority winner is not chosen by voters on the initial ballot.
When no clear majority win occurs on the first ballot, a second ballot should occur in 7 days. Only the names of the two candidates with the highest number of votes appear on that 2nd ballot & all electors vote again.
From that 2nd vote you have your clear majority winner as chosen by the people. Yes it costs more money. It also solves the current problem with an Equality based solution, one that ensures every voter has one vote & that every vote cast is of exact equal value. PR & Preferential ballot systems remove Equality from the election process.
A side affect of a 2nd ballot FPTP system is it increases voter turnout. Which equals a more involved electorate, isn't that what everyone keeps saying we need?
The system that you're describing is essentially the same as what is being used in France, btw. For the most part, it works okay, although if there are very large splits in the vote, you can occasionally get a situation where the choice is between a fairly radical fringe party and a slightly less radical fringe party in the second ballot. It's hard to do worse than what we have right now, of course...
In that PR system mentioned with 1st, 2nd & 3rd choices each voters ballot is not equal in value. That's the fundamental problem with all PR systems, they remove Equality from the electoral system.
One person, one vote is the only Equality base voting system.