Why the ruling on backbench MPS is a hollow victory
This week, the Speaker of the House of Commons affirmed what we should have known all along: If Members of Parliament rise to speak in the Commons, they can be recognized by the Speaker and can make statements. Likewise, in Question Period. An MP who rises to her feet, catches the Speaker’s eye and is recognized can then question a minister. The lists of speakers provided by party whips are not and were never definitive.
This affirmation is being hailed as a victory for backbench MPs of all parties. If it is a victory, it is a hollow one.
This ruling has two consequences. Theoretically, it means backbenchers are empowered to speak and ask questions on issues that matter to them, and not only those approved by their party whips. Practically, this is an invitation for free-thinking MPs to identify themselves, set aside their ambitions and settle in to their backbench seats for a long time.
It’s a hollow victory because it does not address the actual problems that beset our MPs, problems that almost all exist outside of the Commons. These problems begin with nominations and end with the removal of leaders. In between, the media and the rest of the punditocracy does as much as it can to make the problems worse.
This all began by accident. In 1970, Parliament decided that it was high time to regulate campaign spending at both the national and the riding levels. This regulation would ask parties and candidates to account for their spending, which would also be capped. The idea was to level the playing field among candidates and introduce much needed transparency into political campaigns.
It was good policy, but there was a rub. Before this, party labels did not appear on ballots. Candidates ran as representatives of a party, but not in any legal sense. Since there were occasional cases of two candidates in a riding both claiming to represent the same party, a practical question was raised: How could the spending by each party’s candidates be tracked if we did not know who were the actual candidates? The solution was to have party leaders sign off on candidacies, officially identifying their party’s representative.
It perhaps took party leaders some time to realize the power this gave them, but they are unlikely to forget it now. Since party leaders sign off on candidates, they can also refuse candidates by declining to sign their nomination papers. There is no legal mechanism for locally-selected candidates to overcome this prerogative. Sitting MPs are subject to this signature at every election.
As a consequence, MPs serve not only at the pleasure of their electorate but also of their leader.
That MPs work beneath the thumbs of their leaders would be less objectionable if they had some counterweight. In other Westminster-style democracies, the counterweight is obvious: leaders serve at the pleasure of their caucus.
In Canada, we have delegated the right to remove leaders to party members, that small class of Canadians who pay a pittance each year to carry a party’s card. From time to time, a small minority of them will trek off to a hockey arena to decide whether to renew their leader’s mandate. They are accountable to no one. It should be no surprise, then, that the leaders they affirm are equally free of accountability.
The neutering of our MPs as freethinking, independent representatives begins with their nominations and it ends with their inability to keep their leaders in check. In the meantime, the media and the punditocracy do what they can to remind MPs of their diminished role.
Consider the conflagration that preceded this week’s ruling by Speaker Andrew Scheer. A small number of Conservative MPs claimed their rights to speak in Parliament and to introduce private bills and motions was being curtailed by their party leadership. It almost certainly was. Was there outrage? Surely, this was another example of Stephen Harper exerting his iron grip on his caucus.
There was some anger, to be sure, but there was just as much guffawing and as many furrowed brows over the wish of these MPs to discuss abortion. Never mind that the Supreme Court has invited Parliament to legislate on this matter. And never mind that any other number of irrelevant, narrowly-sliced issues are discussed in Parliament every day. These MPs wished to discuss an issue their party leadership and the media have deemed out of bounds.
Rather than defend the rights of MPs to bring their views into debate and to eventually have them put to a vote, we are subjected to commentary that the prime minister needs to exercise more control over his caucus. We are told that MPs should be allowed to speak, but perhaps not on this issue. What other issues are off limits remains to be seen.
MPs come to Ottawa understanding that they serve at the pleasure of their leader. Those same leaders act virtually free of constraints. When MPs assert their rights, it is portrayed as a party in disarray and as leaders losing control when in fact it is actually parliamentary democracy in action. Acknowledging that MPs can rise to their feet and be recognized to speak without their party’s approval is surely a gain for our Parliament. But it will move our democracy only an inch rather than a mile if we do not equally free MPs from the things that keep them off their feet.