Parliamentary reform: where we've been and where we might be going.

• Author: Blidook, Kelly
• Position: Roundtable - Conference notes

In May 2015, the Canadian Study of Parliament Group held a conference in Ottawa to discuss parliamentary reform initiatives of the past, present and future. In this roundtable, some of the presenters from that conference discuss reforms from recent history and the prospects for change in parliament in the near term and whether they are optimistic or pessimistic that positive change will occur.

CPR: The Canadian Study of Parliament Group's conference programme was loosely structured on where we've been, where we are now and where we're going, and I'd like to adopt a similar structure here. Can you tell us a bit about how parliament has changed and evolved over the past 20 to 30 years?

JS: With respect to the House committee system, things started out, post-McGrath Report, with very high expectations and high engagement of many of the MPs, especially some of the committee chairs. But it evolved in the direction of diminishing enthusiasm, and the replacement of some of the early elements of what looked like the beginning of a cross-party working culture in some of the committees with activity more consistently based on party lines. I think this happened partly because the governments of the day discovered they were less enthusiastic about these new committees than they might have expected to be. The MPs liked them but the governments found that they tended to become allied with stakeholders and develop more and more ambitious proposals without paying due heed to money. As budgets were constrained through the 80s and into the 90s I think governments began to view them as a bit of a thorn in their side. That may explain why the formal government responses were frequently ambiguous. The committees were left wondering if the governments were actually doing anything because the committees had recommended it. The ambiguous responses from governments have been a chronic source of the complaint from the MPs and I think the basic lesson here is that the procedural reform doesn't really change the distribution of political power or the incentives that influence how governments and parliamentarians behave. We should really think of it more as a kind of good management for parliament. If you think of the committees that way, I think they actually have accomplished some very useful things, but they haven't really changed in any fundamental way relationships in parliament or how parliament works.

PT: If I could just add to that. This question made me think back to Kelly's conference presentation on private members' business. To be honest, the message I took away from your presentation was quite similar to what Jack was describing--that once governments come to realize that a change may have made a difference, it comes to be exploited for partisan ends. When you started seeing more and more hand-out bills being given by the party it kind of took away the meaning of the reform. It was just private members' bills being government bills or opposition bills by other means. The question is whether changing the procedure actually changes the culture if you still have the colonization of all these reforms by the old partisan cut and thrust.

KB: I wanted to make a similar point. The sorts of reforms that happened in Private Members' business were similarly coming out of the McGrath report. The basic idea was to give MPs more space in which to make proposals and to ensure those proposals would actually come to a vote, whereas earlier private member bills had to be determined to be votable. This built up to the point where MPs could present as many bills as they wanted and everything was votable. In fact, in some cases we saw some MPs later lamenting this change because it could be used for partisan purposes. My research showed that in the interim we actually saw what looked like helpful changes. MPs were coming up with proposals and they were getting the opportunity to lobby and gain support for their proposals. In some cases the laws being passed were having an effect on what the government was proposing--either an indirect or direct effect. It seemed like MPs were directly building on what the department was doing. But the story ends in much the same way as Jack's does because of the power of party leaders, the nature of the MPs requiring party leader support to remain in caucus and to be nominated for upcoming elections, et cetera. These are the sorts of levers that I think ultimately really speak to the power of each member within parliament. Until those levers are changed, I think what we saw in terms of private members' business was that power did seem to shift a little bit in the short term, but in the long term parties were in a perfect position to use these changes to their own ends. We saw far more bills the party wanted to have proposed and they tended to be passed by the governing parties.

GL: My overall feeling is quite optimistic after years of gloom and doom about parliament. The main reason is a change in attitude which has to precede reform. And I think this is best exemplified in an article published in a 2008 article in the Canadian Parliamentary Review by (former NDP MP) Bill Blaikie. He said, "Parliament is very much driven by the sense of revenge--you exaggerated what we did so now we're going to exaggerate what you did. What is needed and what is missing is a sense of forgiveness." The first indication that we may have made a step towards that sense of forgiveness was in the last week of the election campaign when (Liberal leader) Justin Trudeau gave a speech in Ottawa. In front of a cheering crowd he said, "the Conservatives are not our enemies they are our neighbors." If that carries over into the new parliament then I think reform can really happen and we can have a much healthier parliament.

JS: I have a rejoinder to that. I hate to sound like a jaded old man, but we've been through this before. It seems after every election there's an idealistic cohort of MPs that assume that since they, in contrast to all of the previous MPs, are pure of heart and honourable of intention, it's going to make a difference. And then it all melts away. Changes of attitude collide with realities that haven't gone away. It seems to me, as political scientists we have to ask who's got the power, why do they have the power, and what are the incentives likely to influence what they will do with the power. I don't really think that any of that has changed. Although I certainly would agree with Gary that it is immensely healthy and refreshing to have these new cohorts coming in with a little bit more energy and a little bit more optimism about parliament.

GL: These positive statements are not just coming from newly elected members where, I agree with Jack, there will always be some disillusionment that sets in. This is coming from the Prime Minister and the Government House Leader.

KB: At the end of the day I wonder if what we're going to have are cabinet ministers with bigger smiles as they answer questions, or are we going to see differences in terms of outcomes. We're simply a little too early in the game to really know if that's where we're going. I would be flabbergasted to find that suddenly MPs have a little more space and time for their Private Members' Business in this new parliament, but if it happens I will be happily surprised. But, my guess would be the trajectory on this particular area would be difficult to reverse.

PT: If I could bring a practical example from the current situation. One of the things Gary and I have talked about is the Liberal suggestion to remove the vote of parliamentary secretaries from committees. Many initially thought that that must be just an odd way of saying they would remove parliamentary secretaries from committees. Instead, they still send the parliamentary secretary to advance the government's position. It's one of these reforms whereby you can say that you have done something but if the practical effect is still to have someone there carrying the torch for the government and also keeping an eye on the government members, then it appears good but the proof is not necessarily in the pudding into how it will change in practice. It's just very strange that despite all the talk about empowering backbench...