Recently, the relevance and role of elected MPs has been called into question. The alleged lack of influence has been attributed to a democratic deficit which stands in the way of their desire to carry out a mean- ingful and active role on behalf of their constituents and in contributing to the policy process. As an elected member of Parliament for over 35 years, most of which spent as a back- bencher, I find these allegations to be inaccurate at best and quite possibly dangerous to the health of our democracy.
Simply put, I would argue that it does all sitting MPs a disservice to suggest they are currently not performing a useful function. It also serves to heighten the growing cyn- icism of the general public about elected officeholders. Last but not least, while there may well be a genuine need for reform of some of the rules and procedures of Parliament, the use of the term ”œdemocratic deficit” creates a false impression, suggesting as it does that somehow the current situation with elected MPs is somehow undemocratic.
There are already many means and opportunities under the present system for MPs to perform a constructive role at various levels of the parliamentary process, and I would like to outline some of them. First, however, I feel it is important to note that the simultaneous calls by would-be reformers for more research funding for MPs is also unwarranted. The budget currently allocated to each MP is large enough to permit the hiring of a research assistant. Many MPs do so, but others do not. Those who do hire a researcher are able to acquire knowledge related to their personal areas of inter- est or committee duties, which makes them more effective in Parliament and in caucus.
In addition, substantial funds are already allocated by Parliament for the operation of research services for each recognized political party, thus permitting all backbenchers access to specialized researchers to assist them on issues of interest to their party. Finally, the Library of Parliament’s Research Branch offers non-partisan research services to all MPs on a wide range of policy areas. If knowledge is a form of power, one has to recognize that access to knowledge of good quality is already available to the average MP. Whether an MP makes good use of this access is another question. Figures compiled by the Library of Parliament suggest the availability of these services has gone unnoticed by some.
Turning to the opportunities available to MPs to inter- vene at many levels of the parliamentary process, we can begin with the one-minute allocation of time in the House where an MP can make a statement on any topic of his/her choice. This happens daily dur- ing the fifteen minutes preceding ques- tion period (QP), probably the best-attended event of the day. It allows all backbench MPs including those on the government side, to bring issues to the attention of the executive in a high- ly public manner. As for question peri- od itself, while opposition parties have the lion’s share of questions, it is also true that the government MPs are given up to three slots daily for asking ques- tions. It may come as a surprise to some to learn that frequently in recent months, the three slots were rarely filled by government backbenchers.
When it comes to debates in the House on government bills, except for a few active members, it must be said that on the government side, the lack of interest and spotty attendance in recent years ”” be it at second reading, report stage, or third reading ”” has been simply remarkable. This phenomenon is partly due to the lack of media coverage and interest in what is said in the House during debates, although this is arguably a more significant aspect of the process than QP. To make things worse, the qual- ity of debates has declined over the years. Spontaneous speeches are now rare, replaced on the government side by departmentally written, sanitized texts which at times simply ignore criticism and objections rather than addressing and refuting them. Even more important is the almost total lack of exchange of views and ideas between members on opposite sides of the House. Compared to debates thirty years ago or to the calibre of debate in the British and American legis- latures, this lacuna is particularly striking.
We come now to probably the most rewarding and meaningful activ- ity of parliamentarians, their role as legislators in the standing committees. It is here that, in a less partisan atmos- phere than in the House, all MPs have an opportunity to roll up their sleeves and perform a fine role in the legisla- tive process. MPs can call witnesses, experts and government officials. MPs can examine at length each clause of a bill, seek legal advice from the govern- ment and outside, and even ask for specific studies. And, of course, they can move motions to amend the bill. Thus many bills have been amended as a result of the work by MPs at commit- tee. A recent example is the changes made to the species as risk bill as a result of the work of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.
When the clause by clause study is completed, the bill travels back to the House for ”œreport stage.” At this stage the government of the day expresses support or displeasure with the amend- ments reported by the committee. True, the government can remove amend- ments partially or ”œin toto,” but often negations take place on the most con- troversial points between committee members and the government, to improve the overall calibre of the bill. Bills which in very recent times were amended in committee on the initiative of MPs acting on their own include: Bill C-23 (the sex offender registry), Bill C-26 (anti-terrorism), Bill C-6 (specific claims resolution), Bill C-49 (elections) and Bill C-9 (to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act).
The inner workings of government
Keep track of who’s doing what to get federal policy made. In The Functionary.
The Functionary
Our newsletter about the public service.
Nominated for a Digital Publishing Award.
Another area for creative activity for MPs in committee is the writing of reports on the initiative of committee members, not the government. Com- mittees have actually succeeded in per- suading the government to act in some policy areas on the basis of their reports.
For example, many would argue the report of the Environment and Sustain- able Development Committee on pesti- cides (”œMaking the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the Environ- ment”) was instrumental in motivating the government to introduce long- over-due legislation on pesticides. There is also the possibility of creating special committees to examine new and emerg- ing issues, such as those established by Prime Minister Trudeau on visible minorities, the disabled, and aboriginal self government, all of which led to leg- islation and even the creation of specific programs or a department.
MPs have also the power to intro- duce their own legislation in the form of private members’ bills. Often the idea proposed in the bill is adopted by gov- ernments, the classic example being Jean Chrétien’s private member’s bill propos- ing in the early sixties the renaming of Trans Canada Airlines to Air Canada. More recently, there is Svend Robinson’s Bill C-250 (inclusion of sexual orienta- tion in the Criminal Code), Bill C-260 (fire-safe cigarettes), Bill C-459 (establish- ment of Holocaust memorial day), and Bill C-227 (national day of remembrance of the Battle of Vimy Ridge).
Then you have the broad range of parliamentary associations that offer MPs considerable scope for engaging, at the international level, in an exchange of views and promotion of ideas with their parliamentary col- leagues in other parts of the world. Very concrete initiatives can and have resulted from inter-parliamentary exchanges, in the form of proposals for trade, disar- mament, and cultural, environmental, anti-cor- ruption and human rights initiatives aimed at serving the public interest at the international and national levels.
In short, I am con- vinced that individual MPs are already in the position to make a dif- ference and to participate in many ways in the policy process. The limi- tations that some perceive are fre- quently self-imposed. This is not to suggest that there is no need for the rules and procedures of the legisla- ture to be updated or modernized. Many progressive and reasonable suggestions have been made which are worthy of serious consideration. What is unfortunate is that the legit- imate desire for improvements to the legislative process has been sub- sumed within such inflammatory discourse about a democratic deficit, leading many Canadians to further question the credibility of one of the finest parliamentary systems.
