The role of the whip in the Westminster parliamentary system.

• Author: Weekes, Randy
• Position: Report

In July 2010, twenty-six participants from fourteen Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Branches, participated in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Whips Network in Hunter Valley, New South Wales. The idea came from Australia and the workshop was developed in consultation with the Whips from the Australian Parliament. In this article one of the Canadian participants outlines the topics discussed and the recommendations of the workshop.

**********

At the outset let me note that the role of whip is as diverse as the people and the countries in the Commonwealth. There are whips that do the job of both caucus chair and whips. Some of them also do the job as House leader or parts of the House leader job, and even some of the jobs that our leader would do is left up to the whip. When I refer to whips, I am referring to the general term of whip because the job description varies from legislature to legislature, from country to country. In our system in Saskatchewan our caucus chair attends cabinet meetings and I do not. But in Great Britain, they do not have a caucus chair and their whip fulfills both those roles. That individual attends cabinet meetings.

Government whips in some legislatures discuss the proposed program of business with opposition whips, who will share opposition proposed terms of business. A large amount of the whip's time can be spent managing priorities, particularly as frontbenchers may consider that their business is most pressing. In some parliaments a House business committee or similar body controls the scheduling of business.

In Saskatchewan we have a house business meeting. It is chaired by the house leader, attended by the caucus chair and the whip and our deputies and any staff that is required. We really map out the day and then we take our recommendations to caucus later in the day to get final approval.

The whip has to look after finding speakers for debates. In Saskatchewan only the opposition members speak to adjourned debates, and also in estimates and in committees. Government members are encouraged to speak to the Throne Speech reply and to the reply to the Budget. But other than that, government members are basically silent, and it is by design, or by tradition. Government members certainly have the ability or the right to speak but generally, the opposition feels that would be taking time away from them in adjourned debates. So other than the minister bringing first reading when the bill is outlined, the rest of the time is left to the opposition members.

Some presiding officers do have the ability to limit speeches to a certain time. In scheduling speakers for debates, while it can be important to manage the time available and limit speeches, it is also sometimes important for whips to encourage members to participate. In several jurisdictions whips keep a tally of members asking questions or participating in debates. Members who do not participate as fully as others are encouraged and even coaxed into making a contribution.

Again, adjourned debate lengths and individual speech lengths differ widely among the parliaments. It is important to provide opportunities for private members to make contributions relating to their electorates and other local issues. Generally all members can speak to the Throne Speech and the Budget debate.

Divisions and Voting

In many parties votes are decided in the party room, although there may be free votes on certain matters. That is the way we do it in Saskatchewan, as well. Items of conscience or items that are predetermined by caucus or the leader cannot fall into the category of free votes, but otherwise, generally, parties vote the party line.

Unless a member announces that they will not be voting with the party they are expected to vote as agreed. A crucial factor for such a system is the size of the group. Can all members fit into the caucus room to...