By Larry Kazdan

What if we abolished Canada’s federal parliament? After all, does it not duplicate the legislatures already found in every province?

Without a federal parliament, the federal bureaucracy could be slashed as programs would be limited to those agreed by all provincial representatives and funded by voluntary contributions according to provincial GDP. Ontario and Quebec would have a veto over major projects. Disputes between provinces could be adjudicated by a non-mandatory national court to which the provinces could apply, or not. The federal army would be dissolved and replaced by provincial militias. Under such a new constitution which replaces the federal government with a deliberative forum of sovereign provinces, would you recognize Canada and would there be peace, order, and good government?

What if the European Union had never created a European Parliament? After World War II, millions of Europe’s most productive young men and women had been killed, cities and infrastructure had been destroyed, huge debts were amassed, and ancient enmities still endured. But starting with the goal of “ever closer union”, Europe transformed itself into a community with open borders, a common currency, a large trading bloc, and a shared identity among today’s citizens who nonetheless retain unique national characteristics and cultural traditions.

The Europeans started with a seed that they nurtured—an assembly drawn from parliamentarians of member countries. Originally advisory in nature, this body was given legislative powers and converted to direct elections in 1979. During the period of “Eurosclerosis” in the 1980s, this European Parliament played a key role in prodding decision-makers to overcome constitutional logjams. Through its questionings and special commissions, the EP kept bureaucrats and member governments on their toes, shined light on backroom processes, and provided mechanisms whereby citizens and nongovernmental organizations could have direct influence. Without the help of a European Parliament, the economic, social, and security advantages so compelling in attracting 27 states to the EU—and there are seven more currently waiting in line for admission—might never have materialized.

What if we created a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly that would begin the transformation of the UN from a deliberative forum into a global community? A UNPA could start as an advisory body—a watchdog with moral clout—that reviews the activities of the UN system, spurs needed reforms, and nurtures a sense of global solidarity. Unlike current ambassadors to the United Nations, UNPA parliamentarians could not be fired by governments, would be accountable to citizens, and would be mandated to act according to conscience and the common good.

A UNPA could be created as a subsidiary body by the General Assembly under Article 22 of the Charter of the United Nations, without the approval of the Security Council and without reforming the charter. Until direct elections can be held worldwide, national parliaments could elect MPs to the UNPA according to party ratio. This would mirror the evolution of the European Parliament, where national parliaments served as “electoral colleges” in the parliament’s early years. Over time, the UNPA could gradually accrue co-decision powers over the the UN budget, the election of the secretary general, and the adoption of UN resolutions.

Since 2007, an international appeal for such an assembly has been endorsed by over 680 current national parliamentarians from 92 countries encompassing all the world’s major regions. The campaign is also supported by many prominent Canadians, including John Turner, Lloyd Axworthy, Flora MacDonald, Ed Broadbent, and Elizabeth May.

As currently constituted, the UN churns out much talk and files many reports. The addition of a democratic parliamentary body would give the UN more legitimacy to act at a time when millions of lives are at stake and Earth’s future is at risk.

Larry Kazdan is a council member of the World Federalist Movement-Canada.