FIRST off, and just to be clear, Mr. Editor, as you know, I was not PC'd last week. No, I was not subject to political correction and neither was I punked. But for a little fun for a change, how about a $100.00 cash prize to the person who can figure out exactly what "PC" does mean? The winner will be chosen at random in the event of more than one correct guess. One clue: it has absolutely nothing to do with my new duties as JB the MP and JP.

It was my colleague Louise Jackson who got me motivated this week. Louise is just back from one of those grand annual CPA conferences. CPA? Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. This one was half-way around the world in New Delhi, India.

Mrs. Jackson shared the agenda with me on her return - for reasons that will soon become clear - along with reports of some of the topics which were discussed, which were enough to make a grown parliamentary-man weep. For joy.

There was an update on Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures - you remember them don't you? They were a serious set of recommendations which were finalised by a high-powered CPA group which met here, in Bermuda, at the Bermuda College, and which I have highlighted in this column on more than one occasion.

The recommended benchmarks were extolled by the Speaker for India - now I imagine that his is a right challenging job - who led the discussion over there.

He reminded delegates that: "The success of democracy depends greatly on the ability of a political system to preserve and promote public good, instill an element of inclusiveness in policy-making and enable the welfare of all its citizens."

I know, I know, they're just words and you've heard them all before. But in some places, and for some people, they have real meaning. The Indian Speaker deplored the emergence of what he described as "several unhealthy practices which are detrimental to democracy." He listed some of them: disruption in parliamentary proceedings; intolerance of political dissent and opposition; unethical conduct and corrupt practices; lack of transparency and accountability; electoral malpractices; and inadequate internal democracy within political parties.

Any of them sound familiar to you, Mr. Editor? How about relevant?

Believe it or not the Speaker there talked in terms of parliamentarians as custodians of the trust and interests of the people they serve.

Unfortunately, he said, "what we find is an increasingly alienated and disillusioned body of people around us, especially the younger generation, who tend to question the very relevance of democracy. As a result, our democratic institutions are facing the growing risk of a trust deficit".

What is needed, the Speaker went on to say, are "credible mechanisms to exercise oversight functions in a meaningful and efficacious manner. In this regard, amongst other things, we need to ensure that our oversight committees are broad-based in terms of rules and representation, providing sufficient opportunities for the member of the ruling party and the Opposition to involve themselves purposefully in their work."

Incidentally, they just don't talk the talk over there. The CPA delegates also learned that last year India's Parliament expelled ten of its Members "for their indulgence in activities untenable to a people's representative".

I imagine the Speaker there would find Bermuda quite quaint - but hopelessly out of date.

Just the subjects alone, of some of the other conference workshops, speak volumes of the direction in which other countries are headed - and in which Bermuda is lagging behind:

l Parliamentary practice and procedure: need for reforms to secure greater executive accountability;

l The role, rights and responsibilities of the Opposition;

l Strengthening financial scrutiny; and

l The right to recall as a strategy for enforcing greater accountability of parliaments of the people.

Recall? What? My MP? Yes, absolutely. The arguments for and against appear to have been fairly put, according to the reports of the discussions published in the Conference newsletter:

FOR: a potent democratic tool which can enthuse voters with the kind of activism that that is necessary for holding public office-holders accountable for acts of commission and omission during their term of office rather than remotely, as is the case, once every four or five years, at the time of a general election.

AGAINST: a potent political tool which could potentially weaken the fabric and practice of representative government as members might become utterly distracted and subject to politically-motivated vicissitudes, taking short-term rather than long-term views of what is in the best interests of the country.

What did the Conference decide? Refer it to a committee for further study: that old stand- by where many an idea has gone to die.

It is, of course, precisely what the Progressive Labour Party Government did here in response to proposals for reform in the House on the Hill. Sent it to the Rules and Privileges committee of which the Speaker is the chairman but the PLP has the majority of members. My recollection is that the committee has but met once or twice and decided diddly.

So we remain pretty backward here, sadly, in the oldest parliament in the western hemisphere outside the U.K. - looking and acting like it too.

We still don't have:

l A modern Question Period by which the Premier and Ministers are accountable for their Government's positions on the issues if the day;

l A beefed-up Public Accounts Committee to provide for greater and more frequent scrutiny of Government spending;

l A more active and committed network of bi-partisan committees researching and holding the Government to account on major community issues like health care , pensions and education (Heck, the PLP couldn't even establish the select committee which they had proposed and voted on, to study the Hopkins Report and its recommendations - and a valuable four months have already been lost. Perhaps deliberately, Mr. Editor?); and,

l Making all meetings of committees open to the public.

These are pretty standard elsewhere.

What we need here in Bermuda is the political will to effect the necessary reform - and here comes the commercial folks - that will require a change in Government.

Deja view again

OKAY, okay, enough already. I admit, Mr. Editor, that I do tend to go on about the need for parliamentary reform. But here's a couple of real, live examples of how it could help in the way we manage the country's business. Two recent and topical pieces of legislation come to mind.

First, those recent amendments to the Immigration and Protection Act: You may recall that the public were told the law was being changed to crackdown on "fronting", the widely-suspected practice whereby Bermudians were purchasing properties for non-Bermudians. Unlawfully. No problem there. But then it subsequently emerges that the law has been drafted in such a way so as to restrict the rights of purchase by Bermudians who happen to married to non-Bermudians.

These couples are going to be limited to the purchase of one property - and even then the licence under which they hold the property will restrict what they can or cannot do with the property - until the non-Bermudian spouse acquires status.

Riddle me this, Mr. Editor: Since when had these purchases become such a problem that our Government had to crackdown on Bermudians married to non-Bermudians? And this in the so-called year of the family? In case the Government has forgotten these are married couples who have something other than just a commercial relationship. Excuse me, but they also happen to be raising Bermudian families.

But I digress.

The other point to which I wanted to draw attention was how such far-reaching and important pieces of legislation can make its way through Parliament, up and down the Hill, without the public knowing the full import of what's proposed.

There ought to be a legislative committee, comprised of members from both sides, who get to call upon the policy-makers and the drafters of Bills to explain precisely what is proposed, and the why, and the how. The meetings would be open to the press and the public.

Think about this: here it is some four months after passage that the necessary guidelines on how the amendments will be applied, are about to be published.

Secondly, Mr. Editor, you might also say it's déjà vu all over again with the draft Workforce Equity Act. While it has been made available for advance review (and that principle is a good thing) the fact remains that there is no formal mechanism in place for open discussion.

Consultation should not be a private affair behind closed doors - or just for comment back and forth through the news media and on blogs.

There is a vacuum that can be filled by a legislative committee of the House - a kind of ways and means committee, by which for all of us can be let in on the conversations as well as afforded the opportunity to hear arguments, pro and con, and to decide for ourselves.

If you consider what was promised by CURE in its most recent annual report, and what has now been delivered in draft form, the early disconnect and discord is not surprising.

This is what we were told in the 2006-2007 Annual Report under Project Schedule:

"New legislative proposals will potentially require that all employers document anti-discrimination policies that ensure equal opportunity, fair and equal access to employment opportunities in Bermuda.

The new laws would require all employers to indicate what policies and practices they have in place to eliminate racism, promote Bermudians with an emphasis on historically-disadvantaged people and to commit to anti-racism practice. The new legislative proposals essentially make certain recommendations of CURE's Code of Practice, legally binding."

The early reviews tend to confirm that what has been drafted is something different, profoundly different in fact. It proposes a legislative scheme of employment equity that will not be available to all. Even the Deputy Premier, the No. 2 person in the Cabinet, recognized the point when she was reported in the daily, as having observed that the draft Act - and I quote - "goes against the discriminative legislation."

We can only wait to see where the Progressive Labour Party Government is going to go on this.

Go figure

PUZZLING as it may be, Mr. Editor, and continuing with the theme, riddle me these too:

l How is that a Government which claims to be committed to Bermudianisation and to training ends up advertising in a Canadian newspaper, The Toronto Star (see ad above), for an Assistant Mechanical Engineer and Motor Vehicle Mechanic?

l Or that we have a Government-sponsored NDC drug conference in which delegates are told that workplace drug testing works, yet we cannot get our PLP Government to follow suit and join us with voluntary, random drug-testing of Parliamentarians?

l Finally, whatever the C stands for in CITV, it isn't for compulsory, thankfully ¿ and it isn't for charter either. I mean wouldn't it be nice if there was Charter under which this station operated so that we knew the conditions under which this Government-funded, Government-run station will operate?

I mean those are millions of the taxpayer's dollars they are spending and, so far, we haven't seen anything to suggest this operation will be even remotely independent.

We can only presume that the employees there will do what they are told. By their political bosses. Or else.

P.S. Mr. Editor, those who want to have a crack at the puzzle should send their suggestions to jbarrittibl.bm. Entries must be in by midnight Sunday the 14th.

I will pick the best answer if there is no correct entry. We'll announce the winner next week. Family, friends and colleagues are ineligible and the usual cereal box restrictions apply etc. etc.