by Patrick Baud
Associate Director of Research,
University of Toronto Model Parliament
The French have ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’, the Americans ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. The British have no equivalent. How fitting that the métis nation of Canada should have its own, deeply moderate, formula, ‘peace, order and good government’. Fitting too is that the phrase is not inscribed on the arched entrances to civic buildings, but instead can be found in section 91 of the British North America Act of 1867.
Many, including, most recently, John Ralston Saul, have meditated the meaning of this phrase. Some see it as the summation of the Tory ideals that informed the Fathers of Confederation, typical of the Canada that George Grant wanted so desperately to keep independent of the liberal behemoth to the south. This interpretation is entertaining, but perhaps too blunt.
It is significant that neither the American nor French motto include the idea of the good. So long as the government can guarantee the essential rights spelled out in these phrases, the social good must follow, goes the thinking. Not so in Canada. Not only must government maintain peace and order, but it must also be good. Too much emphasis has been placed on how this phrase is emblematic of how deferential and docile Canadian political culture is; too little on how this idea of ‘good’ could be used to renew confidence and trust in key public institutions.
Political reforms in Canada, the story usually goes, come before similar reforms in Britain, but after those in the United States. There are of course numerous examples to the contrary and Canada’s lag vis-à-vis legislative reforms in the US could be attributed to the Tory conservatism of the Westminster system compared to the American republican system.
When the Harper Conservatives swept to power in the wake of the Sponsorship Scandal, they vowed that they would forever sever the cozy links between consultants, lobbyists and pollsters and their friends in the government. They centralized control over budgets and introduced strict accountability rules that prohibited new program spending without arduous application procedures. While these reforms were certainly long overdue, they have stifled the creativity of bureaucrats, paradoxical though that may sound, to invent new approaches to Canada’s most serious social ills.
Common wisdom about social engineering divides approaches to system design into carrots and sticks. The Accountability Act and the other reforms that accompanied it are a giant stick. Sticks look scary, but they create their own moral hazards. While some will be more careful with their spending lest they suffer the blow of the stick, others will continue trying to improve their services through research and development and will be punished for careless misuse of public funds.
This disincentive for innovation is dangerous and unhealthy. Post-Sponsorship reforms have made it unsafe to stray from the status quo. While no great policy failures have yet emerged as a result, it is a safe bet to say that they soon will, especially in the area of climate change, but also economic stimulus. Any party with aspirations of forming a majority after the next election ought to carefully consider how it could introduce small, but effective reforms which promote accountability and transparency.
First, strengthen the powers of the independent officers of Parliament, such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer and Auditor-General. These officers should be made truly independent and their budget should be established according to clear and public conventions which stipulate the non-interference of politicians.
Second, increase the parliamentary research budget of MPs and Senators. Our representatives should be able to commission good, independent research into areas of concern to them and their constituency. This would not only improve the quality of parliamentary debate by providing MPs and Senators more information about the issues at hand, but would help bolster their independence from their political parties, whose research bureaus are design to pump out nothing but the party line.
Third, increase the power of committees to subpoena witnesses on the issues they consider. Bureaucrats, including deputy and assistant deputy ministers should be subject to close scrutiny by MPs and Senators. For sensitive agencies, such as the Communications Security Establishment or the RCMP, judicial review panels based on the Security Oversight Review Committee (CSIS’ watchdog) should be established.
These reforms will allow legislators to have a hand in ensuring that the Canadian government stays true to the ‘good’. Unless a party is willing to introduce such comprehensive reforms to the way Parliament does its business, it is unlikely that the bureaucracy will be any more accountable or responsible. Instead, ‘accountability’ legislation will prevent Canada’s policy leaders from designing new and innovative programs to combat Canada’s greatest social ills.
A good government requires an active and autonomous legislative branch. Canadians should demand no less.
Luke Savage and Patrick are currently planning a study of options for democratic and parliamentary reforms entitled ‘A Model Parliament’. Ideas and questions are welcome at patrick.baud@utoronto.ca.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 at 7:32 am and is filed under Governance.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
[...] article was republished, under the same title, with a few changes on July 22 on the University of Toronto [...]