On Friday, Newmarket Aurora Liberal MP Belinda Stronach sent a discussion paper to party members recommending "in future caucus members vote for a 'slate' of colleagues whom they feel should be appointed to cabinet, with the party leader then appointing those selected by caucus to particular portfolios." And, yesterday, Northwest Territories Premier Joe Handley - whose legislature uses a somewhat similar cabinet selection system - told Public Eye Radio he "likes" Ms. Stronach's proposal. Said Premier Handley, "I think it would reinforce people's commitment to the party more than the present system where they're beholden to one individual who is the leader of the party because he has the ability to determine their future" by choosing who gets into cabinet and who doesn't. "So this system that we have (in the Northwest Territories) is much less likely to become autocratic."

The premier then added "The difficulty with the present way of selecting cabinet ministers (federally)...is that it really, for a lot of backbench members, leaves them without much of a role. If they had to select from among their colleagues the cabinet ministers - the same as in our case - they would have some ownership for it. They would have some ability to be able to call cabinet ministers into caucus and have a chat with them about their performance or their position on a particular issue. So I think it gives regular members a more significant role." The following is a complete copy of the relevant portion of Ms. Stronach's discussion paper.

***

(2) Caucus Election of Ministers and Critics

Next, when it comes to selection of cabinet ministers or opposition critics, who also provide leadership for the Party, I again believe the grassroots strategy can also be applied. I recommend that in future caucus members vote for a “slate” of colleagues whom they feel should be appointed to cabinet, with the party leader then appointing those selected by caucus to particular portfolios.

This process - which is not just about 'caucus politics' - will create a much closer partnership between leader and caucus. It will also ensure that ministers or opposition critics remain connected to caucus and answerable to caucus members - the representatives of the people, the 'grassroots' - because they owe their status to a democratic process and the on-going support of the caucus.

Successive Balloting and Balanced Selection

Under this method our party leader would continue to allocate the portfolios or critics positions among those Members chosen by caucus. The process could start with a full caucus meeting held for the purpose of selecting nominees. The party leader would stipulate how many positions are to be filled. Then, any Members not wishing to serve in cabinet or in an Opposition critic position could remove their names from the list of caucus members in the running. Balloting would then proceed to select, one by one, from among the remaining eligible and interested Members, those who had majority caucus support to be in cabinet or a critics position. Further rounds of balloting could continue, when the Party is in office, to select those who would be appointed as parliamentary secretaries.

Some might feel that rules for such balloting would have to specify that all regions of the country be represented, or that measures be put in place to ensure female and minority representation. I do not believe this is necessary. Caucus members have a self-interest in seeing that the cabinet or shadow cabinet will be acceptable to the country, because their own re-election depends on it. Electing an all-male cabinet, or an all Ontario cabinet, for example, is improbable if not even impossible from people already in a diverse caucus who want the public to favour their selection and support it. I doubt specific guidelines are needed because an unwritten self-regulating ordinance would apply. Politicians are astute - as demonstrated in the balancing of considerations when electing the Speaker of the House of Commons.

A New Standard of Democratic Accountability

This caucus-based selection process could be repeated annually, at the start of each summer. If caucus decided to replace two or three ministers by other MPs considered more capable or deserving, the leader would then reallocate portfolios well in advance of the return of Parliament in the fall. This would enable a new degree of accountability. It would create a continuous fine-tuning of the senior spokespersons for the Party.

Not only would the party leader still designate which individuals (from among those elected by caucus) would hold particular portfolios, but he or she would retain the right as leader to remove a particular individual from his or her portfolio where circumstances warranted. In the event of such a departure, or a resignation or death of a Minister, the caucus would elect one MP from among its number to fill the vacancy.

This step will take us a long way in democratizing the Liberal Party in its behaviour in Ottawa. It would empower backbenchers. It would free the party leader from the pressures and obligations of deciding who specifically should be in cabinet. It would establish a far more powerful form of accountability and responsibility between backbenchers and cabinet ministers.

Effectiveness and Good Sense of Elected Representatives

To have caucus members more involved in selecting the cabinet-level leadership of the Party is not an alien idea. In the legislature of the Northwest Territories, individual members elect from among themselves the government leader, and those who will hold cabinet portfolios. In such a selection process, the benefits of collective wisdom can be exercised, and accountability and responsibility are diffused among elected representatives who in turn have to answer to their constituents for whoever is in cabinet and the decisions he or she may have taken. In Australia and New Zealand, which operate a parliamentary system similar to ours, the sitting members of the Labour Party elect the members of their cabinets.

Here in Canada since 1988, as already noted, we have witnessed a process of MPs electing the Speaker of the Commons. This experience shows how beneficial this similar, more democratic approach can be when applied to another aspect of selection from among MPs for important public offices.