A THESISSumo TO TM€ COUXoE OF GRADUATE DIES AH0 RE SE ARC^ THROWH IVE DEPARTMENT OC POLmCAL SCIENCEW PARTIAL CULFILMENT OF TM€ REQuIREMENTS FOR THE IkMEE Of Mml'ER ff ARTS AT Tm ~NN€~ÈQcT~(W HnNosoR National Library Bibliothèque nationale 1+1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellïingtm OnawaON K1AM OitawaON K1AW canada canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive Licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de rnicrofiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial exîracts fkom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ~thococningoi8newmillcnnnwn,manyresearchpa@cbwill endeavow to examine how œftain aspech d liwül change in orde to da@ Co new and exciling timer. This Projed has &bmpted to do just Iha by exrimining the relevanct, of tb Parliamen(8fy Legislatue in Canada from the point of viw of legislaton. In order to @n mmry ~BSOUT~Spaeining to (he question we suveyd and interviewed the Jegislaton themselves to oMain iMimt into the cunent state of legislalum. Chapter One details the me#hodokgy behîrd these sunfep md interviews. Many respondents ofleried Lheir personalised acmmb of time spent within îegisktww and thi8 WB cdMd to fonn the amdusions whid,appem~IhoîwtdWadoamnt Chapter (wo amtains the necessary examination of the litereture availabie on what othm had to say about the staie d lwislatures in Vie past. This information was gamred frm the myriad d academic writings on the subjed of legislatures in generd. to more detailed acmunts of reforming Vie funaions and structures of legislahnes as well as mmentaries on issÿes pertaining to ûehaviour of eleded Members. Chapter three examines whether a not simply reforming the ment system of parliarnentary legislatures in Canada wili render the institution relevant in a new millemim. Chapter four goes on to disaios the ExeaRive Dominance of legislatues as well as the tradition of party discipline and whether or not this tradition hinders the gr& and relevance of legislatures in the Mure. The fows then shifts !O Question Psnod and decan>rn in legislatures. The apparent increased breakdown in deaxum in legislatues would seem to contribute to a Minein the relevance of the institution as presently constituted. A kief discussion d how these issw relate to the Muni of legislatures in Canada, as portrayed by the respondents, concludes the body of the thesis.

iii research team and its diredœ, Dr. C. Lloyd Brown-Joh. The support and dedication of ail team membem made it possible fkx this projed to see fniitiorr. To Brown-John; yarr guidance and support wefe ahivays appreciated and have helped me realise many goals. I thank yai. Secondly, I would like to thaak oie Department of Political Scienœ at the University d Winâsor and its mmy great faculty mmbers. Likdse, I am grateful to Barbara and VaMe in the Mœd political scieme for al1 of their help in answering questions and generally for 'taking care of hrsiness', but oveml fa meking my timesragnalr8~krsdresddl Thirdly, to Tarn and Scott*, Uuks fa Wng me in' and allowing me aie opportunity to camplete VW projed whole-heaftedly. I know you realise how important this accomplishment is and your support throogh to its completion will be appreciated and remernbered always! Finally, I muid like to than& Frank Giannetta. you supported me and encouraged me until the final draA was printed and al1 was said and do ne... and you didn't even say '1 told you so'. Theamey mwîts were aMined as pmt dapint Mort damsew& team undei the diredion of Dr.C.Lbyd Brown-John. The team consisted d Meny Herpa. Nicole liemecher, Ryan Flamqan. Andrew Crago and mysel(. AH memkws assisted in the meai-on and implernentation d the survey. Upon the initial retwn of the que~tion~res,it was realised that much valuab data had been acaimulated and it was then that the effort was made 10 incorporate this data into a fmlcontext. Thus the workings d this Paper. which waiid not have bem possible without the orrgoing assistance d al1 members af the researdi team and its diredm I wcwid like to thank the directior and the mernbers of Vie team for their dedicatiorr andhadworkingez(ing(hesuveysaltothemernbecai. lt~niywaratea, effort! Likewise, I would like to extend rny gratitude to Of. BtomçJohn and Vie mernbers of the team for allowing me to code and analyse the data obtained for the purpose of this Paper. The information obtanied from the interviews has also contributed greatly to this Paper. For mis I owe my gratitude to Andrew Crago and Ryan Flannagan in particular for their cornpaniwhip and dedication mile conducting the interviews. Further, to those who allamû us to interview them, each of whom shared their perronal experienœs and opinions of the various Canadian Legislatues, are greatly appreciated and w-ll be remembered ahys. I would also like to ackndedge the contribution of tiNo key people in the completion of this projed; Dr. Gordon Olafson of the Faculty of Human Kinetics and Professor Robert Krause. I thank you for coming on board early in the propct and for your cornmitment in its final stages. As I embark upon an lnternship at the Ontario Legislature, I will take al1 that I have leamed from this experience and use it to broaden my perspective as I get a fint hand opportunity to experience the Canadian Parliamentary Tradition in action. Brandy Millet CHAPTERFOUR EXECUTIVEDOMINANCE AND PARTYDISCIPLINE FIGURE4-1

Chapter Five QUESTIONPERIOD AND DECORUM

Oage 44

Oage 49

APPENDIX A page 52

page 53

APPENDIX C page 54

APPENDIX D page 57

APPENDIX E page 58

page 59 APPENOIX A - COVWLûtter The Fuhrn of Legisbbrms(?):A Müemîum Researdi Pw APPENOlX B - Survey Questions Page One - Questions 1-5 Page fwo - Questioris 6.9 Page Three - Question 10 APPENOlX C - Schedule of Suvey Adivity APPENOlX O - Press Release APPENDIX E - Interview Questions

vii ENTERINGA NEW MILLENNIUM: OOES THE PARUAMENTARYLEGISLATURE IN CANADACONTINUE 10 HAVE RELEVANCE? CHAPTERONE Entering a new millennium, does the Parliamentary legislature in Canada matter anymore? It is a boiâ question. Indeed, how can one question the relevanœ of an institution that has existed within Canada with relatively little dissension for over a Century? The Canadian Political Science Association's Annual Meeting in Ottawa in June of 1998 did. The question - uAre Legislatures still relevant?' came up in general discussions at this meeting and has since been the motivation for this Paper. In the past, researchers have addressed such issues as the professionalisation of the legislature (fleming 1997; White 1989; Mezey 1979; Olsen 1983); the evolution of the functions of legislatures (Fleming 1997; White 1989; Docherty 1998; Atkinson and Jackson 1980; Schaffer 1998); and the premise of the "decline of parliament" (Schaffer 1998; Olsen 1983; Sundquist 1981). More recently, questions about the publics' confidence in politicians. govemments. and even democracy have been raised (Mancuso et al.. 1998; Putnam et al.. 2000; The Eax~omkt Ju!~17,1999). There ceitainly is not a lack of research on legislatures and the focuses range from bmad themes of govemance (Atkinson and Jackson 1980: Fox and White 1991; Franks 1985; Lembruch 1979), to details of the functions of iegisiatures (White 1391; Wheare 1963; Fleming 1997; Franks 1985; Atkinson and Jackson 1980), and to the cornpetence of provincial Cabinets (White.1998). Despite the myriad of questions posed about legislatures, few have endeavoured to question the continued relevance of the institution wlhin Canada. The reason for this, simply put, may be because there has never been a need to raise the question until now. There has never been a 'crisis" situation which provoked any type of mass protest against the institution of legislatures in general within Canada. so why question its relevance? To Say Why not?" may not suffice for the particular purpose of this Paper. Likewise, it should be noted that by questioning the relevance of Parliamentary Legislatures within Canada. does not imply an assurnption that they Aib&meW~lhatir~IheWsol~'legirl~~~ hypothesir. ir wt#her or no( an institution al Govemment aeated in ün!~le Centwyanddevdoped inthe 19ttiCeritwy. mllymatfemin~2lrtCaihxi) This Papw will not an- to Mer an abmativb. or 'bette& systm or inr(itritionsl stnraure of govemnent for Caneda a ib prwinœs. Nor will it etlempt to snelyrs the history of rs(omi that hes transpired in resped to variou8 legirlahires thrwghout Canada It will address the continued relevanoe d the Parliammtary tradition d tb Legidature within Canada by &Wng upai the opnions d Legislators from aaoss aie country, as l~co~dedin responbes to a airvey supplemented by personal interviews'.

Several Mernbers of the Provincial Legislaüve ~ssernblid(MU'S) end a sampte d Federal Memben of ~ar(iamen?(MP's) were mailed qUBSfimires- Several fmer and inarmbent membeir of the Ontario Legislalure and Federal Parliament were on the same theme,'do legislatues Wefl.Valuable insights were gained from the personal experieces and perspectives of the interviewees. Thir information proved invaluable to the disassion end will be incorporated latw into the Paper. Likewise, a Merature search was coriduded, in wder to assess bath the validity d pasing thir question and if, in fact, similaf re+eardihad been dcme previousfy. lhere appears to be no recenî data which addresses the issue of Vw, continued relevance of legislatures in canada.' Hcwever, literatwe available on legislatures and legislative procedures is abundant The content of much of this iiterature was produœd by academics as opposed to wtrat we. the research team.

1 For the aurvey and kit- qus?hm,ree Appendor 8 and Appenda C respectiudy. 2 Unfortunute&, Quebec )nd to be axduded from énib maümg due to the then aiment Provinad dsctian. Tb Territories were also exduded ftom oiigroup. A totd d 514 questionnaire8 mre sent to mwû ProHnOll MLA's from nine of me ?en provinces and two Temitoriss. See 1- 1-1 on page 6 for a detdled &eakdown of the survey adMy. 3 A tobl d 93 questiondres wre sent to Federd Membem of Marnerit, from al prouin- and partisr, mdu4nig Quebec rnd (ne Territonm. 1 There ie -me flerature on me '&ienc)r of legidaturer res: Mer (1998). desaibeastheprlmeyaoww-thekgishtmttmmhs. Tlmlittmtumnvkw sugoested a need far anothw dimension. Iha d th. repmmWonaI conparnt d Canadien legislahirer. Thur, îhe su~eyVistrummt wsr derrigned in ueh a me~srsoaslofoarrmlhirenrhperücukr,~wisplacedm~~ side of legislatus. 7hernainfoa.a afaiisPapeiwill remah Wfindingrdthe wrvey(nwt8 MyintrodUCBd above.' The resulh d the ~8vieral71 intM8ws (ha wre conducted with fonner and incumbent members al the Ontario anâ National Legisletwes wül also be inaqmabd. The -y wsderigied t~ explare a Uigk question - Vw, televrma, d legidaturer in Canadri, hm the point of view d legislatom. The objetAh wsr to min îb d b@i&uson isaues rmng the media. The approach of sending aie queaiornaires directly to various MW's and MP'r was intended to generate primary source data. Outlined blow w the objedives of the survey, as well as a kief explanatiori of the appach takm. The initial expectations and Usequent rewb d the wrvey will be dis- in greater detail as well. THE COMR LETTER

THEFUTURE ûF LMISUTURES(?): A MIUNNIUM RESEARCH~ECT

A covering letter (Appendix A) waa induded in the mailing. A total d 514 provincial and a sample of 53 federal legisbtm wen, suvsysd. Thus a total d 607 questionnaires were sent. The questionnaire was designed to be infoml yet informative. and still to the point. It was hoped that this informal but direct approach, would induce candid opinions from the members of legislatues. Likewise, it was meant to encourage legislative members to express candi views from a strictly persanal perspective. This was the penpedive that ive were seeking. The cover letter provided an explanation d the purpose of the projec2 as well as a basic outlin8 of the information we were Mingto gain from the urvey. ln accordance with the ethical rquirernents of amventional social rezlemm, m*pientsw#ir~(himyOOmmenfst#ypmvldsdwa#ranin strialyconlidenüiil. HoweMl,w~~moppamityfathemta~ the use d any information lhey might provide. In doing 80. wr, weatm aMe to ~airintentknsforttwweduehdataFiwrdly,twwsmirmoppahn~fa the mqnmdmts Co main th0 hfmmüon end aegregate date thet m, derived. THE SURVEY C~EST~NNURE PAGEONE - QuEsno~~ONE nmxw Fm P~eonedthew(=~ndixB)wesdesi~ma baiehmarkforsubsequen(~isdrespon~8~.Pagemwasgeneral)rintended to mafplegislators to focus upa, lhemselves and their persmal edioM and ccmmmbtob~dahrrThir..Cliarmpifltecidederm'~. Tm is, itwsr hoy#d thff by bdÎiÎi alla qucwt;onnafn wnh a pwwml-8, reqmndmtsmxiMbeinducedtofoerrsrscep(ivelyupai~~dthe questionnaire. Page one cmsisted d five pmlWlliMhe4larûc' questions. The f rst question asked the respondent to esümate percenteger d time allocated to variais aspects of their wwk and leisure. This series d questions elx, sougM to establish whether the respocident was an ûpp~sitionMember or a Gwemment Member. Another sedion sought inlomzation on party affiliation and mitteew cabinet experience. We also asked for their total number of years of legislative emenœ and level d satisfadim in ternis of aieif malcam. The scale empwed for this question mnged liPm very saWied ta very uirstisTi For the purpose of this Paper, only the data obtained regarding each mernbers' time allocations will be i~ated.Infomiatian in resped to party sîatus and position was not coded for the purpow of thisstudy and has been used mereîy as a referenœ point. Mile it wodd have ben u~efulto melate responses by province and region. the fiml pauccty of responses seriously preduded any meaningful cwrelations. While it was interesthg to note the differenœs and simiiarities that occurred among the responses from the various provinces and between the two ievels d govemment, this data was not iricwporated inthefnstma~krUmiMonrdthirPapœ.l7m~stillrsMnr~ asa~iôeto~wrhidrwillrmdtobe~krthoMus.Thelbardlhir Paperirtbemittmr~~that~Medtheprsporideccna,dIh. questionnaim. h addition, iawienn -8 have been inaqxmted. QUES~KHJIWREPAGE T~W-QUES?IONS SX'T)(ROUOH NINE Questions six through nine wefe apen endd sding kief, yet perrauil opinions and obmations, bmlegislative mpadmt~.ï"bUI g~esti~~$a#lt views on iegislaüve domi;behaviour d eieded Yi legislaturss; ex- dominance d -; end, public d party discipline. 'Ih.rcr Eau areas were oonsidered to be repr8s8nfative- d issues facing legislatures in Ceiiede today, and wm derivmd hm the li(emhm mvkw.' ResQondents also wm

~Medto idew themaelver and to be quoted. Details drawn from men responses wfll be addmsd later. QUESTIONNATREPAOE THREE - QUESTIONNUMBER TEN Question number ten aJmluded the wrvey by addessing. ultimately, the essential foais d the plojec!. H msisted d two parts: (a) 'do Legislatwes - as presently constituted - continue to have relevamer; and, (b) opinions wen, requested of reJpondents regarding what îhey believed caild be &ne to enhance the position of îegisfators in the puMic pdicy process. Respondents were also given the oppottmity to oommerit upm c(her relaed wbm. Nmidenüncaion and the option to be quoted, again, were provided. Question nwnber ten was designed to encowage a more detailed response than the four preceding questions. Indeed, a full page was provided for the response, thereby allowing respondents to go into greater detan end maps adûress additicml issues within that response. EXPECTATI~NS Open%ndsd questions were ernployed in order to encourage a more personal and open dialogue for respondents. The survey was designed with an expectation of gaining relevant information from a distinct and valid perspective. Questions were not designed with a predetemiined objective - that is. it was mt intended to obtain information that would lead to a definitive conclusion as to the relevance of iegislatures perse, but rather to provide the basis for the formation of a subsequent hypothesis regarding the Mure of Legislatures within Canada. Thus, in every respect. this was a preliminary study. The total number of questionnaires mailed out was 607 (see TaMe 1-1). Ideally, every elected member of every legislature in Canada would have received a questionnaire. However, for many reasons, this was ~t possible.' Those who were sent the survey included all memben of onfy eight of the ten provincial legislatures. with a sample of 59 drawn from Ontario. and 93 Mernbecs of Parliament. Those selected fimaie federal level consisted of a simple randorn representation from al1 ten provinces and both territories The final mailing totaled 607 questionnaires, as detailed below in Table 1-1. TABLE1-1 TABLEOF SURVN RESPONSEACTMTV . 1 Province 1 # of Elected # of Surveys # of Surveys Return Rate Legislators A Sent Retumed per Province . B.C. 75 75 9 12% Alberta 83 7 8.43% Saskatchewan 58 8 13.79% Manitoba 57 6 10.52% Ontario 59 16 27.1% New Brunswick 55 5 9.09% Newfoundland 48 3 6.25% Nova Scotia 52 6 1 1.53% P.E.I. 27 5 18.51% Federal 30 1 93 8 8.6% 4 TOTALS - 886 607 73 12% ..-

For provincial legislatures a request for a list of constituency and legislative addresses for ali Members was sent to the Office of the Premier. Initially, six of the

7 The major constraints were insuMent funding and provincial ekctions. in Quebec during the survey, and in Newfoundland just after questionnaires were mailed. Funding limitations precluded significant fdlow-up reminders. ton provinces mspmdd pmtnptly- Thma edditiorur1 proviriosr, Queôec, Onlerk, and New BnmSWjd( mpondd quiddy eller a secod min&. Only British Columbia Liled to respond. ro mv~ltelephorio œlb w W to the Ornos d the Premier wiwe, eventualty, we were irdomd thet to obtein the lilwe could appiy under the Provinciel Freedom d Infomatim Ad. Everituelly. Vie lis2 mir o#ained from üm Omoe d rie Le@sMiveSpeaksr. ThPremWs Oliice has nenr repiied to the request. The questionnaires were sent out with ple-gaid remenvelopes, to which theoretiCeny,(here~smF#melmeensEade(emiiningIt#nwtionr,afran~m, the response ariginated. The only indication of wtm was Mingthe suvey was povided by the member l (s)he chose to indude e wm, snd fmm the postmark mm-. (Fœawwnroikdurvsy~,pk.w*lo~ixC.) As with any project d this magnitude, anticipated response rates were diniailt to assess. The literature review generally suegested, based upon limited e~hœs.that a high response rate was not to be errpeded. We felt thet a responseretebetween209Cend30Wwaildbecaisideredamlandanythirig beyond 3036 would have been considerml a 'great suodesdl'. THERESQOCISE RAfE In order to achieve an anticipated rate d retum, a total d approximatety 120 - 200 questionnaires wwld have to have been completed end retwned. Unfortunately a total Of Qnly 73 completed questionnaires wem retwned, for a respawe rate of epproMrrWety 12%. In Vie absence Oi Sunifwiding foc maiid reminders, we tried both telephone and email to party caucus chairs asking them to remind Uleir memben. and by issuing a media press release on the proje we hoped to spur sume respdmes.' Responses were collated, and e general theme for each question began to emerge. It was apparent from the beginning of data collation that an effort should be made to incorporate this data into a more fonnal context, hence, this ~aper.'

8 For a copy of the Press Rdease, see Appmdn O. Unfortunatety, fun& wu#nd mitfurther punuit of thi particular mmod of follow-up. 9 The survq dafa unl be prcsenW further in subiequent chafln. 10 See Appenda E for a $ample of me questbns pddunng the inteniicriuir. 4 1 I Whto thank And:ew Cr- and Ryari Ftririagan for thgr zmsktmce utâ ampniofdip ustii)e mnducting these mtsruieiiin. Parbdar gratitude goer tD î?yan f&nnsgan who contaded thc mtdeums and coorâinaîed the inteMew schebule. See Agpccidx C for thir whedub. A review d the litera(uo on the topic d legislaûses. generally, 'the relevanœ of bgidatummis pmumsd wittiin the amtex! d each attempt to ~~ tho lalirt tnnd a amêwersy rumndng legislatum. Thur. the litenbre gemdy mggpsts üme decr arear: 1) the need, and sriggestions, foi pocedval rieliom,s (L.vy and Mite 1888. Sudgu# 1981; Atkinrai and &dacm 1980. Cairtmy 1985; Fox adWb 1991; Whib 1989); 2) the dominance of legislatufes by the Executive and the pubiic's perceplion d pedy discipîii (Whib 1889,1998; Dodmiy lm?; Nabn 1987; Loew#ibscg 1971; Kilgour et s/. 1994; Mamo d d. 1998; -hi 1998; flie Bmodst 1998; Savoie, 1999; Putnam 1000); 3) the puôîicar perceptions d behaviou and deconm in legisla!was(Mmur0~.1.1~;Lighl.l~m-1998;Rann- .-- -a - Remmendations for refmaf legislatues and analyaes of past altmpb and efforts et refam implemen(aüaci are reoaWrng themes. There haa bea an inaeased focus upon the behaviour of dected mpmsmMives in the legislatum (Mancuso et d. lm). The media has been anrikRed responsibiiii for sensationalisation of su& behaviar, howevw, (hir issue cmœm pm#ems within legislatures and is therefore an issue pertaining to the continued relevame of the institution. Legislators who responded to au weys afro expseâ strong feelings about legislative deCorum. thus it smmd appropriate to ackhss this tapic. When Vie literature foaises upcm Vie issue d Executive Dorninmœ of legislatures, there is an implication that this has an affect on the fundjolls of legislatures (Savoie,l999;50). The issue of Ex-ive Dominance unquestiaiably relates to the relevanœ of legislatuesaas it is an issue mth which legislatas are faced. Likewise, it would appar that party discipline has becorne vexathus in the public mind and regrettabiy, literature is lacking in regard to public perceptions of mis entremhed Parliamentary pradice. Respondents were provided a modest opportunity to comment upon the preceding issues within the questionnaire. As will be demonstrated later, the overwhelming consensus among legislative respondmts was that legislatwes are still relevant even given ümsbo~menüariedcaicanr.Fi~~,wsrhalltumtoakklummary d the existing litwaûm as liela?es to îe@slaue rslomi and the hiuo prwediirg ïssms. Roawt Fleming hsr produced eleven editio(1s d Flemi1)~3CblmcWn LegMatums. The priposo of these volumss mimtha d a pn'msry resouœ for Ihose ergé~ingin researdl on legislatwes in Canade. Fleming is m adequate fadual refm;it is is the for fa'...vitalinformation am... how Canadien legislatures operate... and [for] changes in seleded aspeds af iegidative instihrtionr ovei timw(Ffeming 1987. -3. But, he doeo nOt Pddress issuesofvieones. On the olher hand, Graham me, a Wing eqmrt on Iegblatures,

~tM~~ri.nlevanti~tn ~~~fura.A. .. Mical Analysis, (1989). White arllined his position: 7he wispoken premise wdedying this book is that parliaments rnatteî (1989. vN). What is interesting about this approach is that despite criticisma and negaüve assessmmts d legislatures îhat are hiohlighted Uiroughout his book, White süll stresses his ad

Bntish Parliament Relevan! to this discussion, however, is his work: Parliament in Pefspedive (1987), Mi& was a res~o~eto m epparenl genefsl consensua th&, '...the institution is oeen as being, at bd, mqinel and, et dangerously imkvant.....' (1W7, 1) Naton is aiocal d this supmlicial ~rdthereaneridenti(terwhath9ksmrlok~~pciobleWn-. - 'the sfudy of Parliament' (1987, 2). He argues th& papular widespread aiücisms

.. .providing in both tistorical and inte~~sori a distorted picture d what Parliament has done and cen do. Wtwe have today are ma0 aporopnately ideritified as rnisconœptiorib d Paiiimmt. rnismnceptions tha! have givm rise to presaipüons for change that are nd mly not neœssary kit potentially dangerais (1987.2). Norton seeks to 'dear upw these misconceptions and to provide an altemative perspective of Paliament. Norton's is jwt orw, example of the type of refom assessrnent and rtietoric within the literature, that is, to aduiowlw the view that legislatures are irrelevant end theri seek to disprove the notion. Nthough Norton focuses mainly on the British Parfiament. his approach can be applied to Parliamentary legislatures in general. In his adysis, Norton offers three main aitiasms that are derived from the l'rtmture. These same criticisrns have alto emerged in other legislatures (Norton 19872-5; %team 1963; Loewenberg 1971; Jordan and Richaidson 1987). Norton ideritifiês three comrnon critia'sms of the literature. First is the 'decline of Parliament' heading that is commonly used in referenœ to the relationship of Parliament to the Executive and the making of public polîcy (1907. 2). The mxt aiacism Norta, HeMies is th@ notion tM Padinwnt Ir wdmr

Norton atm b thet, as a body for irM&ng pibli Wtcy and (br aigagkrg public wppœt, Parliament is not only leM Mecüve than it was ptwmed to k in the 19* Cenbry, but alro is leu Mecüve ümothw national assemblbs in the Western wwld (1987,4). In order to put these criüasm into a dearer mext it is to

toappmep#kpdider; to--; to--; a to approve revenue raiting (Le. : taxation); and a to enforceacÉouitability. Brown-John argues Viat um misunderstand legislatins when we presune thern to be adualty engaged in designing and constniding lam. Legislaures epprove laws as the cons(nNts of aüiers. soch as the Exeaiüve and the kreaucr- (1993. 8468). if legidatures are publicly perceiwd to be ineffective. weak or even imefevant, it is because there is insuniaent widespreed appmiation d (heir fundamerital robs. Michael Atkinson and Robert Jacksm (1980) in The Canadan Lbqislative System, andude their examination of Canadien kgislatorer with suggesüomkr refomi. They identrfy three main objectives d reform: To irnprove the linkages within the legislative system; To iwease the policyrnaking role of the individual MP within Ih8 legislative systern; end To enhance the image of Parliament in the mas public (1980. f93). Such suggestions for refom are widespread within the literature. However, these cornmon themes strongly suggest the need fcr further resejrch and a broader perspective on parliamentary legislatures. For example. in ths prcgaœ to the secorid edition, the authors note that many changes have ommtd in

1 As rderred ta by Norton (1987) et page 3. Canadian legjdaturw simthsypmpawdafirst rdtkndthir Wh1914. TheyOOndubeby '...e~on~roriQnal~~I&snd~~ caU Fa 'mmeping drorig.r' (9gBO. x). Howwver, üme dom mt appear to be my sUen'-ngcharigrr'suggestedinthorwnraddiüon.therebybeviigthe readeiw~thno~irifomrationmgmfing~verefonrrir. 10 miterate, this lit- m'ewwggests the need Lo look beyaid th. oflen routine. oventatd epproach that is so apparmf m meny kgide(ivs proposais set forth in the litwature. Atkinm and Jackson fw example. do mt elaborete a hypothdse any probabk reasms fa the faiks d their preliened refomis to be implemen3ed. lnstead. they dmply rdrmth& origkial (1974) assertions d how and why their relOmu shwîâ be edopted (1gBO.rsO). TM âoesmtooribikl~qwltrbüubro(kn(M~~lminrd.unt,m does it reinfocce any wai th& fegidatwes are a an, winghekvrn Likewise. (t#ir daims do not reprerent the 'mly' example d 'riefonns igmmû within the literature. Thus, despite numerous 0th discussims which have uffwed sirnilar or dmng pians for refaming legislatues, the apparent need for refm rerely addresses dearly why such reforms are so vitally necessary. other (han Men loosely foMded daims that irnplementation wouid contribute to the improvemesit of iegisîatures. May it then k, infmed, mtwithstanding, that legislatues min relevant in the eyea d Viese pmselytising researchers and Vius their & b suggest wide sweeping refomn? îf legislaturer am in weh bad shape as to warrant widespread calls fa refm- calls thet have dominated every as- af the litereture frorn the 1960s thfwgh to the 1990s - then it mwld seem logid ta question the very relevance of Parliamentary legislatraes as we move into the 21st Centuy. One variation in research on legislatures mesin the fmof q~tioning stability and change within the context of demoaatic de. Fw example. William Schaffer's, Polit&/ Change in Norway (1998), follam'ng a bief re-hashing d the 'dedine of parliament' premise raidby many authors over time (Wherim, 1963; Rokkan, lm;Loewenberg, 1971; Lehmbnich, 1977&1979; Sund~~ist,1981; Hamison, 19ed; Coomkr, 1862; Jordui mû R#urdiar. la*. scMir (H parti- am in fcid relevant Md net thir knowlw ir 2, be uuiemîood throughout ths reminder d hb Malysis -ng wilhh the demamtk COI1Sext d the Norwegian Puüamcnt Pmb Hsment, SchafW aiat perliaments, ....have not reoovmd (iom dedin fa tb simple rsewn thet üwy mve never h dedine in Ih iht pleg' (19Q6. 5). Statements such es this tded (he ovemhelming. but UlddCSfBfed. consaitur within the litmature. M legislatufes an, in fed rdevent Untartunatety, apparently mdespread perceptions d Canedians do mt relled ümse smümenb as expfeSSBd in the literature (Menama et a/. 1990; Fnrkr 1965; Couhy 198s; Dodierty 1997). TbWW0~dminmk@Whrkanra7idlopid reœntly (Mamso et d. WQû). ïha appmnî HKxeaa~d dwshre bng&e, 'cheap shots'. end the overaH hdc of mmseems to be the soie OOrtfed d the thirty-second ne- clips of Question Phod to which Ceiadiens are exposcrd. It is bue that sudi coverage is mainly a produc! d the mediri. howevef. it wodd seem Mat public perception is gray ifluend by #m herin~d such dipcs. Sinœ the aûvent of cameras within Canadian kgid-. many obmm appear to agee arat behavioor has chenged, indd, if nd dbdvely wwrened. It is this behaviour to Midi the pubiic is and consequently. whidi shapes opniais of the electœat8, and towixd polirtics (Putmm et ai. 2000; Charîîcm and Baker 1894; Laghi 1996; Manam d d. 1998). Question P&od within Canadian legislatwes has been desuibed as '...a free-wtieeling Mair with tremendous spontaneity and vitalityd The main t@cs of discussion are usually those which appear on the fht pages of national newspapers or national ditions of the evening television nem. Most quesüons are what Franks (1985) terms as being of Vie, 'Have yw stoQped beating your wife yetr vanety. Wth such drarnatic content hitting the front pages of

2 As refened to by Saaller (1996). 3 At referreâ ta by Norton (1987). 4 From Frank, C.E-8 (1885). as quoted in Fox and White (1991) p.424. mpepwt. A Ir littie won& that C.ndisnr view kgiàausr sa plrcer whm demmia lacking? Question Period is intended to provide a forum for the opposition to pose questions to respwible Ministem. Unfocturately, thir tim is melikdy to to emberrass the Gomment bebm television cemerais and wbsequent 'media xnims'. h response, a Gwemment aRen attempds to '...giw es good es it gets.' (Fox and Whi 1991,424). This behavbut is what the public sees and upon these viewa, they appear to fmtheii opinions. Thur, 1 public Opnon ie premised mainly rpon the anüa duing Question Period, it WOU# be easy to conclude that Iitüe is mpliMin legidahrres and that 2My are mt as reIevmtaslheyw#sa#,h~h~pe&. Fortviatdy. this is not the reafity d legislatues. Question Perkd ir aily a minor part of the routine activities d Canadian legislatm. What the public does not fully tee w apprdate is the myrïad of oWhrndions perlomed by legislaton - some of which ocair within a legislatua. Unfutuoately. 1 is precisely this lack of information thet has pleced legislatues in such apparent disrepute with Uie general public. But, if Question Pefiod is widely pecceived to themselves may have becorne vidim to resulting prblic perceptions. This apparent misinformation may appear to be a pmMm in itsetf, however it could be a problem which could k interpreted to thmaten ais continued de- of Parliamentary legislatwes within Canada. Pwhps aie best solution to this apparent dilemma might be the education of the general public in respect to Vie reality of the nndions of legislatutes. However, this wouiâ man exposing the 'average Otizen' to Me reality af issues like Executive Dominance of the legislature and Uie intflcaàes of the pubiic palicy proœss. How coutd such evolving and cornplex subpds be explained if the intention were to educate and disam rnisconoeptiorrs about legislatures?

5 The behaviour of Reform Party MP Daql Simon (Okanogan-Shuswap)in me House of Commorrr - ho rolled up his sleeves, wugM to physicaliy uttack a Government Mmôer of the House - in the HOUK - was both reprehensible and indicative d why Canadiens remto iack resQsd far Parliament legislatweshsgrom,.vaifulhw~inreœnt~.Asatdsr(ido pubfished in 1994 illustrate this dohotomy. Issues like üm Executive Dominano of legisleturer and p8rty dicciplii am @me examples of pacücer a conventions which may have gone awry in tho puMic eye [Chadton & evku lm. 191208). as will be discussed in the fdlwing chaptem. Litemtm abandr ai such topia, yet m ta* solution, have been forthcoming. Evidence of this lies in the faa that -y ref~rmpropoMb; Execuüve Dominence d legidaturer and party discïpîim; and a mümd bi.eekdownhw-d-,rs-Mrol~ymdieh the reality of MS~ legislatures (Savoie, 1899). The apparent mit d a cynicism by the pubiic msy not be Mty ~anantd.Wheüm not it ir i'produd d the pressmreally is not the issue Mm. The continied eril~~emerrtof paty discipline and Executive Dominanœ d legislatufes thmaten Mrlegitimacy (Savoie. 1990)- Wther or not the public aûmmfedges (his threat remains to bi, seen. Likewise, the &en volatile behaviw of hilemben during Question Period can greatly amtribute to public cynicism. The available litetatub daes mt acknowledge the seriousness d these issms in the many recomrnendations & reform. Pemaps it is time the literatue addrsssed mae than popder rdomi proposels. IParliamentary institutions, as presently anstituted, are appamdy failing to meet even the slightest of refm pr~positions,then what does the future hold for these institutions? Those who do so are correct to question not only the validity, but the relevance of legislatures in Cenada. The temainder of this Paper will focus on this issue. ûrw wcy to &em the issu@ of th amtbxi reIev~llcdd the Pariiementery kgisiative rydrn in CPMda ia to kok tû refam. There hevb been many qaid. end ml ro Qnnd, ruegesüonr fa reforming mpm% d Canadian legidaCures ovei the yeen (WfW 1989; Fox and White 1891; Lorwdnb.rg 1971; Aa

' The opinions and $taternent6 tha huve been quoted dirdy from the questionnaire rnâ interview responses will spQear in italics throughod the Papsr. Many respondents wished to temain anonymous and thus, al! quotetions derrvd hmthe smmy and mteruiew responscr wiH rwnanonymour. system of fmpwüand regreæritation to impmm the cpality d opi#n d represenglion ri legisfatrres. Finelfy, inae~sedrecarne to modem 1aûnobgy prompted many resporidecrb to comment on the Min, d legislahrer md how Vi.i~usedt~car#Wlegislihirermon,releWmb

one or two changes which wwld improve the day-today work d legirlatums, many respondents su~gestedthat a mare definitive calendar be set for legiskitive sittings. Namaliy, legidatwes meet at least 8nnUany. A genael tub ir thst fegislatwes meet in the spring, keak fa mmw, and dit again in the faIl, far as this relates to the continuecl relevance of iegidatures, the kgislaüve calendar pbys an interesting mie. Time devoted to sitüng and addmssing the business d the legisiahrre. is aitical. On average. most d the provincial Legislatures and the federal House of Commons sit for less than twenty weeks each yeat. The number of weeks does Vary per session and per legislatue, however the general pradise Eeems to be th& most legislatures sit for iess thm hatf a year. The remainder oî Members' tirne is spent in mstituency offices, in cornmittee meetings. and generelly attending to business outside of the legi slature. iAihefi asked to identffy the ag~roximate percent- d @me the respndent actually spent sitting in ttie legislature versus tim spent on constituants' concems end other business refating direcüy to hislher mnstituency, the Members responses were generally fairly consistant *th a few exœptions (see Table 3-l).' Saskatchewan MLA's seem 10 spend more time in the legislatute while ther counterparts in Alberta are almost never in the legislature. Ontario seems to be fast approaching Alberta's diminished legislative role. Petbaps, as White (1998) has suggested, this refleds the tendency of

The numbso in the table dirsctly reflect the responsés of the survey partiapants. Where the tdals do not add up to an even one hundred per artt, is a resuR of rounding. tikewise, the 'dhetf degory in the table is It is true that these nurnbers reRed ody the perceptions d Mernbefs who participated in the stuây, however a 6ignficant inference regarding Vie relevance of legislatures can be drawn. Table 3-1 illustrates that the average time spent sitting in the legislature is 25%, compared to the cornbined average of 41 % of the Members' time which is spent on matten direaly conceming axistituents and Vie wnstituency. This exernpliçies the tendency of the Member to place anstituent a sum of several other categoflcs (eg: tima sperit -ng to consütusricy. time spefit on personal business, etc.) to reflect the rœnaining perœntage of lh M«nW tima

19 seMces abovm time rpcwil ritting in th. kgirbbrir. Th raaso~may vry. Howevw, for 2b pupose al (hir Paper, lhis Momiaoar ortainly ruggesb th.1 Members fed htthe ôushss owiduded in the kgisiahires ir less rie)evarlt or pdiücally -hg thsn mtituemy mattcn But aui that rieneds a JmQk tnHsm - Members are ~I8C1edby theif ~~ and, thur, in lrrps measwe mir suoeess de9ends upm whether tt#y en, 8em as tepresentab'ves who car8 abarl. and work for, WranuMwmy and its nrsiderits. hhny Members egreed that they bel their 'best m.or 'most satiwng 8ocomPW,ments as eMW IHsmberSm have ocMsd outside of îblegidstus and thet mir rde Min the legislahm hed no W mngupon thair foie and achievements outside VH) legislatm. Lücewise, the majaity d f8-s wh~ statedtMthykltthdrrd.rdin(knnorhYr~w#minimrlwœm. s -.:fi-. backbmchm. David Oocherty (1997) di& .lhis problem in tir book, hk Smith Goes fo Ottawa: Ubin '17re House Of Cornrt~~,~. Upon ar~Mngat the legislatue, the newfy dded Member quiddy realistu the limited influence and pawer slhe has to M8d change. Even in the name d the people, the bad

In lime for the 1999 ôntario provincial eledian, the number of seats in the legislature was reduœâ from 130 to 103, resulting in 27 fewer Memben. Many respondents and interviewees expressal conœm about the mseqwnoes of representational reûudions for 0ntario4

'There is no magic number for what is the proper amounf [skj of seats... instead legisatums funcbon on a balancre.

' The gbbal budget is the mony, or %Mg&', allocafd to each offiaal party by Vie legislaturs to provide for support SM,research, poiling. mailing pamphlets, and gmml opsrating errperisê~. 4 The surveys and interviews wwe aloompleted priw to the June, 1999, provincial electiorr. Whdb~hOnterkbatxMn~d1Yihpwl b8/8=, b&anrsntYy h Onmo, b M Ynbahtm-' This sentiment enomiarr sœpüdrn abml (h. retevanœ of fegislaturer. Almart a! af the commmts rd opinhm -hg thr rsdudion of seatr (in Ontano or, in ml),refieded cmmWmcy-based axwams müw than a focus on Ihe M8ds such mdwthm mey h8ve m the kgïsle(uo as M institution. In other w#ds, with a hmMmbr4onstiuent ratio, ho ospcitiea of both the Member and the Constituents to intend am reduced pmpmkmWy. This is a significant question fa which w, have no data brl it b omb which œrtainly requires Mt examination in the Mure- The question powd to fhe vanais intervieweer incpired as to the quwd reQresentetion PemgrrightMJyro,e~iy~relemd(oaocutiore

Ontario Govemrnent Bad

Likewise. an opposition Member fmm the Ontario legislaure argued that. 'The decforal systern must be changed frwn t5mt past the pst to one that includes proportional mpresentation. * Many respondents argued that the airrent system of voting does not adequately provide the opportunity to successfully represent one's constituency within the legislatue. The ainenl system generally was viewed by respondents as a hindrmœ to effective governing and representation. causes. Michad Cassidy (1995) qUes the late William hine's f979 beatirs that a

Cassidy believes Viat if this was tfue in 1979. then it is even more tNe May. Howevw, h# argument is restrided to the eneds that the efBdoral systm h.s on the îegitimecy of the Canadian poiitical system. Cassidy ofkm fitlk assistanœ however, in adrqhaw adoption d a system a( proportional

However. the diffiwlties d moving towards a ~iorialrepresmtatioci electwal system wwld be justïïed if the resuit was e House of Gommons (or a provincial legislature) Mich mspublidy perœived as more legitirnate because it refledeâ more equitably the politicel ~ampositimof the couitry W the provincer, end, therefae, was more -able to Canadians. Many of those interviewed rdeded upon these representational inequities, 'Members are evw incmasyngbecause of the mp. by pop. system... if is Ihe Iarpe numbbr of 4isialOlS that has led to the psent system. ft may sente govemment dl,but X is quesîr;Onabk if d serves repfesenfative demracy wlt." Thus, if the current system d representation within legislatures is not the best once again. appear to have leaned toward the midusion that legisiatwes are not as relevant as they shwld be for Canadians. However. as Cassidy

Parliament is the central institution of Canada's fmof dernouatic governmeot. and the eledcwal system plays a aitical role in aeating the hamewrk within which foa~~on th0 apparent Mec3 gtobelisaüon has had upon represmWm. There have been several technicd aiterations mich faQlitate the msnrier in which affected Ihe way Memben represent thei amtitumts. One ser# Minister in thetederelkgi~IatmBdQ#W1~~~..~~k,a~~ staff and kchmbgy..' This statement is hdicative of Vie overail sentiment that technologiœl advancements have impmed the legistators abitity to &dive(y comrnunicate not only with their adtwnts but with experts anâ other legislatom. However, it remains just as nnportant to have 'a humn inkrlaœ' with which to communicate. Many of those intewiewed Memd viem regarding technologid globalisation sirnilar to those Morespmded to the survey. It is sïgnificant that legislators recognise the potential af tedndogy and the inaeaîed eneds thet this type d gbbalisation has upon thei prospective rdes as legistators becau- the 'human interface', or face-to-faœ ooritact of Members end constituent$ remains a necessary mponent of Bfl8djve represeotation. An inaeased reliance on technologicai modes of mmmunication mld in fad hinder this relationship if not utilised effecüvely. With the advent of the Internet, elBCfTonic mail (e-mail), cd! wntres and even the mass media, legislatures have undergone significant transitions in the form of information techndogies. It is within this amof refomi th& the only signifîcantly positive comments were reported from legislators who parüapated in the study. Many believed that the use of information technology in legislabres is synonymouî with a successful me. The use of information tednoloq The fdIwng is a sample d (he myporitive and optirnistic awnmmb obtained fmm respondents in resped to the fihm of legislabres arising from the

'You canl @ad e-mail eny faster than you can a Mer, but it speeds up the process of travelling.'

'Techmbgy means Mer aimmuniCaLLEOnsS This may even lead to the bwW federalist' wéw! Techndogy is mmof a mat@ mw Wh qlobalisatiw - ten pars ago it was more of a hh-rah' attitude. ' The final quotation reflects the belief tha technological globalisation has only recently brougM both legislatues and legislatas from around the woc# much closer in terms both of consultation and goveming. Ou respondents' comments also suggest that techmbgical globalisation has potential to inaease the relevance of legislatwes as forums for govemance.

The many cornments received regarding refm of legislatures were generally in accord with refoms identifid in the literatum on legidatures and Ironically. althwgh mst reJpondenls mm, meprepared to challenge the relevance of legislatufes in tmsd lheir traditional des Lhey ais0 foresaw a greater relevance in the futue arising from, and linked to, the capaaties both d legislaton and their consütwnts to more effecüvely interad If legidatures are deficient as 'legislatues* a law making bodies and the role of eleded Memben. especialty oppoQiüon MemkKs, has been diminiahed, (here still seems to be en abunâance d optirnism foc the legidatds tale as a Wge between govemment and constituent$. That this bndging rde may be enhanced in amsequenœ of greater. mutual acoess to a 'globalised teduidogy' suggests a Mghter and 'relevant' Mure for legislatures and Wir eleded Mernb. Meny obsenrers have argued that Exmhm dominance of Pdiamentsry legisfatures has beame far too pervasive in the public pdii pmam (Aairsai and Jadoon 1980; Jadriori mâ Conlin 1994; Fox mâ Wh* 1991; Kibw et el. 1894; Savoie lm). The consequeme, it is aSSBCted, has been a diminrrbion d the rde of legislatum. The issue d Exeaitive dominence is unquesüon&îy related to the very relevanœ d legislatures. The 'Executive', consists of the Premier end hi- Cabinet at the provincial leva. and (ho Rime Minister and tisiher Cabine( at the federal leuel. Each member of the Exeaitive is afiwded acoess ta several staff memben end Ministerial tesomas. Cdlectivdy, they constitute a sigiiillcai(partd~willbtemiedm~~em~th.~inderd this Pm. A dominant Exeaitive is an i~ mth which Iegidators cre faced on a daily basis. Many observen (Aainson and 1980; Jackson md Con& 1994; Fox and White 1991; Kiîgour et a/. 1994) allege that Executive dominame is ocie consequeme of Vie resûïdive pradises emerging from strong paty disciplim. Oespite the capaaty of Members to think fa Ihernselves. restridims placed on their legislative voting suggests a untrary amlusion. Resped and confidena, in Parliament has been dedining (Cassidy 1995). People wlho spoke to the Spicer Commission urggested an aney d remdies, (indudihg propcxbnd representation); al1 were grounded in the desire for a more responsive, open and accauntable political system (Cassidy 1995). Recalling a definition of accountability provided by Brown-John (1993), 8acwuntabi/#y = enbrried mponsibilrtv: party discipline couM be vieweâ as Vie pracüse of such. Reflecüng upon Brown-John's assessrnent of the fwictions of legiklatures, '..JO approve public policies; to approe expend#utes; to approve revenue raising (faxaiion); ancf do hoM govemment's aaountabk' (1993). 1 is œrtainly apparent that legislatures are not responsiMe for Vie creation d public poliaes and conesponding laws but merely for the approval of same. Cmsequently. if such appmval is dominated by a single agent within the legislature - the Johnson (1977) ob~ervexithet in the pPilicnwmtey systm, 'it is almost alweyr the Govemment alone. parüwlariy wlm it has a mejaity mandate, that dives public policy and public spending'.

initiation Hi a Parfiamentary pdiW system, it wdd m to folkw (M par(y discipline waild seldorn allow for a Private hbmbw to Myvote on mort ExeaniM rpareaed pdiQm and leg-slatiori. Pdi(ial ps(ies have dmonrtnited an ovemt#lming capauty to discipline Membem vvho have the bmdty to vy dramaticaiiy from the party line.' As a main issue facing legislm today, riespondents were asked to "expiou pwr opinkm mgarrding ln. app.~tinawseû dominance of kgislatums by fhe Fuecuüve? Respanses reîûected a division that 68% d legislaton who responded, were in agreement with the daim that EreaRive dominance d legislatures has becorno too pervasive. and 32% expressd opposition to this daim. Closer andysis d the SOUW of the responses found that an equad distribution d Govemment and aQpositim Members reqmdd to

Executive daninance of legislatures ha$ becorne too pewasive Mile 5ô% d Govemrnent Members did not agree. Of the opposition Members' responses. 91 5% agreeâ white only 8.5% did not Figure 41 illustrates the dineriences in the responses. Clearly a certain degree of bias, ernerges hm this data. Respondents' affiliations either as Governrnent or opposition Members, cast quite different

' The examplo of lbrmsr lederal Liberal MP John Nuntiata, fornier Rafom UP Jake Hoeppnu, and foma Progressive Co-e MP Oavld Kdgour - ail apelled Rom auars - are stark remindem of Party Discipline. Atkinson and Jadmn suggest that a main oôpd~eof legislatues shouid be to inaease Vie policymaking deof the ind~dwlMP(P) minthe legisfative systern (1980, 193). Many survey responses retkted Ulis same sentiment in ternis of expressions of concem about the prominence of the Execuîive vis-d-vis legislatures, 'The dominanœ d Cabinet wnhin the kgislaturie is unavoidable, the de d other legislaton can be enhanced &y 171éChanisms such as Ptivate Membm' days.' According to many respondents, both Govemment and opposition beckbenchers Men los8 interest when they are exduded too den from policy making deàsions. This helps explain. to meexten!, much of the teridency d respocidents to foais on constituency semces as noted in the previais chaptet. Althargh processes are in place in many legislatures to provide fa Private hnôm' bills, the proa#s ir limited. AA kgWaUe8 pcwmit fairly innoaiars. or clearly a sensiMe idam.' or minate with u Govemment bad

A sutmrdinate niorking gmup usually created by the Lqislative Assembly fmm am- its m memben. As thet parent body, the House may ctraose to refw (or nmmit")certain business - proposecl kgislation, estimates, qxsial studies, etc. - for more detaiiûd review and public input in the unaller, representative and les$ fomal fowm of a legisbtne camrnittee. hearings cadwted by legislative ammittees provide an important opgortunity for intemsded graips, individuals and organisations io expess their opinions and participas in bmulating public pdicy. At ths erid d lheu mw)C ammm rnemben report mir findings and rscommed&ms lo üm Hou- for its amsideration? Generally this description captures the esseme 01 legislative cornmittees awoss Canada. Respondents who addresred Viis aspect of legislatufes hoped that increased reliance upon the cornmittee system wwld lessen the dominance over the policy making proœss by the Exewlive. Cabinet was even refemed to as 'a cornmittee of ifs own* by one respondent.

A classic Private Member's bill was that which changed Me name of oie Crown's airlifte, TramCanada prline, to krCanada. This explanaüon of mmeeswas taken from the Cornmitlm page of the Ontario Legislaive Assmbly website, URL w.onUa.a. One may ako find dctailul dscriptiom of Standing ConrnMees, Selcct Cornmittees, Corrvniüee of üw Whole House and JMOCConmittas rt this site. Vdng Csanrt 8s merely on *mm- d Gorrnnrnt my be mair idealthanibiSrlic,giv~thepowwc.b.iahsr~mdropdicydibCi~ Howevef, sewril fmpmses e>cpre~Iho Mmto moM ta ml kmasd consukation proœw via the ammittee systm, 8s this rnight lessen th dominance d the Execuüve ovei the poi'i mdring pmess. This may not be likely reality as vir(ualy al1 Cornmittees are chairied by Govment memkwr. thernselves hoping their cornmittee wwk will provo them to be Cabinet materil One rnernber noted. '. ..my Ministem ttrmwh Ihe mmittee proces wiil Iisfen and mcm-, OR6n @ng mrh cwnmr'iyee tscmnm- and Wt, mm havethe~cutanddriedpnkbmmvZteeu1prrC' AslongasCabint does appropriate conwltaüon before Mnging fbmd legidaticn and take it d to c~mrnitbofoi adeque(8 inpril üm 'Exea#he d th. kgislatum could be avoided. Hcnmver, as om member W. '..Be wmM Gowmnmd shuns oonsuttaîim and phrs to bdf ttrmugh tMr leprslalion. ïhey hem m resped Ibr Ihe cornmittee procless.' This. dortunabeiy is the mlity d ths legislative mmRtee system - Cabinet does not - and is not required to - consdl with IegWative comrnittw prior to making pdicy decisiais. Furthem. legislatures have been peripheralised by Govemnent initiated staMes containing vast OrderirGounul powers and, thus. regdations (Savoie. 1999). There was a significarit consensus ammg respondents regarding increased use d OrderinCoundl regdation by Isgislative ExeaRives to suppl- the pdicy making pcoarss. Regulaüon makine. rather ümpropo~ing legislatïï has becorne the focus of Cabinet. One mernber feH that as a result, '-.Mnisters are now being given powers not heM by Cabinet even? The alann about this trend towards more 'govemment by regulatiocr' came mainly from the 16 Ontario respondents. The consensus among respondentr from Ontario, b&~ govemment and opposition members. was îhat, *Govemments have us& th& rnaprities in the kgislatures to transfer poww away bmthe legislatums Ib Cabinet. It is far easier for bureaucracy to deal mlt, Cabinet then to deel with the /egis/ature.' individual Ministem - Um ExBCUfjVB - are drawing mae and more eu(haity W~Y from legidatwes by msuive kgidaüve deiegatianr d mhdty beii rammd through cornpliant legidahms. It WWM sem lhat the mgutatory ability d Cabinet is being used do wch m extent that the pwar of the legislahire is being usurpeû. Therefwe. legislatures realy are not negssary fa govemments to be able to advana, theif pdicy agendas. In ûntmb in pafticulaf. the aiment govemment actually raisd taxes by regulatianf In order to achieve the Govemmenf's policy agends. kgislatim (W. MsBüI 1603 cm be rarnmed through the legislatum with neither eff8dive debate na any alteralkn what~08~81.Sudl 'rcmrob kgitioci rOUfi* cmtiinr broed dekgiitionr d disaetionary authority to Ministem. Once appnned by legislatum. Ministar and îheir senior officiais then have vas1 aualonty (D make regulations. Some of this legislation even contains 'Privative Clauses' which pwpoft to deny the Courts jurisdiction to review desions of the MiNster or hiîlher o(liQals. The controversial Bill 160 was argued dearly to k in violation d established parliamentary prinuples, yet the delegation of regilation making disaetion won over parliamentary, and possibly even constitutional pnhcipfes. tt is tnie that the British Parliamentary systern d Executive govemment adopted in Canada. does put a great deal of painer in the hands d Cabinet 8nd leaves a diminished mie for legislatufes. Legislatvsr ere only as elledive as the perscins and politid parties which ocwpy the^ cdtedive seab. This leads to another issue facing legislators and their stmggle against Exeurlive dominance of legislatures - the entrenched pradise of party diaplim. The British Parliammtary process, as pradised in Great Bntain might serve to show an alternative where voting is far iess rigid. Examples from the Canadian federal govemment dernonstrate the punitive conseqwnœ of Viase who diaose to vote diflermtl?, as was the case with B~IIc~I

' Bill 16û was a significant rc4efinWn of the role of muniâpal schod boards to aJiow the provinaal povemment to eoiled rhdtaxes. Refer once again to footnote number one, with examples of expuisions from three feûerai parbes. Whenq~8~tionedrbartth.ancanovsrth.nokdpenydrcipim. responwswemrnixed- Sune~~thitIh.~systm d 'toeing the party lind dcm a gmê bssmiœ to demoaicy. Likewise, th. need fa legislatom to edhero to pmty bsaplirm Wied rtetemenb lik f mdy dst$*@ineJINnnJ the Rxwrvd ploociessirwr d any gmp - m,abotQinels, minotities, indïviduaMy... R b O MnL? Ihe CanediM PBritiemtaty system.' ConverWy. severelo(her~e~theviewfh8tcaucwis~ place to overcome disaapmbs end mach mprornises as 'members ere frae to speak oui in caucus end it b hem dhd lhby ain open& dehb issues' -. miteapparent pemptbm d party discipline as a ngid mâ restnc(m, pradise Viet has caisequences Ib (hose who fail to mped paty lin@. resporirbntrmodsmrypailivrnd~ccnn~Monthm75%d respondents ?hat cuan ir üm pîaœ for discamion d bills and pmspedve policy ideas. Likewis8. eeiproximately ûû96 expres$ed the view poli?ia, ir a Yeem rpoiY the t#rers is collective md murt spbgk as a unitecl voiœ in order to be vkwed as 8n M8Ctne and legiümate opposition and even pcospective new Govemment by the public. The view that the airrent parîy systern provides stability and continurty was suggested by several respondmts from both opposition and govmment parties. tt was the Qenerd mnsensus amno these membem that the party systern is important to the su~vaiof demoaacy. and therefore. some party discipline must exist Little else can be deduœd the respanderits pertaining to per(y dixiplinû because thow who supported this pradise simply animied tkP support for the current system of party disciphne. What is Kiteresting is the scattered views of several govemment and opposition respondents from auoss the country. The notion that eadi member is deded to reprerrent the ppleand to take a stand on issues that affed the mstituency is readily submerged when discussion of party discipline arises. Respanses from the frst question pertaining to 'tirne devoted to wwk in the legishture venus time davoted to wwk reiterated Ws WW when adied wtionr -ning to ai. pmctise d peity discipline. Themejaityd(he~Ibvdîhatpaîybrapiiibirfeda

to be their first prionty, evm over foîbuirig pafty linet. people wboileclW

the dilemma,

The party whip is the membr of the party who maintains party discipline. In greater detail. the duties of the wh~are to ensure the presenœ of psv!y memben in the îegislahrre or at ammittee meetingr and ?O mintain adeqUBte representation should a vote be Md. The whip a!= arrmges the business d his or her party in the house, usually in consultation with other party whips and infms party rnembers of forthcoming business.' In no ordinary tans, the whip is as its naine implies, thus keeping the Memben in line. One respondmt acknowledged the powerful consequences of the party whip if party lines are not adhered to, '... sometimes there is a pmto pay - it may mt be di& but it œrfainly can be subUe.'

7 Taken lrom the Glossary d the Ontano Legislativt hmbtywebsite as Qted abm. It ia bw, thrt Carreda's awrent sy8tem d Perliigmmmœû requires the Govemmeri( h power to maintain the and oonliw of majority of Membm of ib legislatue. This notion is a simple justific8fjon fa party dscipiine. In ordei to maintain such suppat th@ Executive must remin willing to use masures that cm be seen. et tim. or harsh. A1 retleded in üm responses of legislaton. ttiere are two dear sides îo this aigument In a 1994 debate (Cmand Baker 1994) enWed 'Sharld party disapline be re(axecV these hnro opposing views were clearly enmciafed. The ies' team afgueâ thal relaxed party dscipline wId advena, the cause of demaaacy and provide better representaüon for idfidual cautituents (Jadwm mâ Conlin, 199)). Tb 'no' side mntered that the weakening d party âisdpline wwld give Canade an Americarrstyîe systm in which spedd interert qaqr, not elected omQalr, would cmb'oi ouf Iegidaove representative8 (mr.I ai. 1894). These arguments have been cleerrly reiterated by ouf reqmdents, tius suggesüng lhat Executive dominana, d legislatures and party disciplin, in fad may be major contributors to impressiw of demeased relevance of legislatwes. ff adhenng to party discipline. is the 'only waf to eff8djvely operate legislatures in Canada, as so many respondents suggested, then 1 is imperasve that there be masures taken to educate the piblic about cauws, ceuais meetings, and the prindpies of a cauais mam. ln order to render parîy disupline less vexatious, public perceptions must b acknowledged accordingly. Surely party members can and do think for themsdves kit -y are errpeded to behave aaording to insotutional expedations. Such expectations indude the adherence to party diepline. Likewise, institutional expedations indude adhenng to certain niles of condud within IegWatures. but do not seem to include such strict denouncaments thet are in place for keaking party line, fa a breakdown in deconim within legislatures. if aie adherence to instituüonal expectations is required within legislatures to render their continuecl relevance, then the public outbreaks within legislatures by several rnembers, have only added to the mtinued xeptiùsm of the public regarding legislatures in Canada. The fdlowing Chapter willaddress this concem. l'Pte beheviou d mcMlberr in kgidatwes aaom Cenab har beame a media evenC An appard inaesse in us0 of abusive Imgwge and an overd dedineindecorum~lohirve~mtheriso8i~~adveci(altde~ cameras within legislatues. The camer~.it is alle$ed. is mpmsibie foi the change in memben' conduet. Many mey r-s atüibuted the dedim in legislative decorurn to the use al television cameras within legisiatuies. Most respondentt agreed that elTecüveiy, beheviou has mxsened. partiarlarly duirtg Question Period. The ruvsy quesüumaires sougM thperronel opinion8 al legislatas concerning this apparent gmhg lad< of deconirn. Not surpdsngly, one hwidied per cerd of rerpondents qped thet üme ir romfoi improvemmt insd&irb@daWedrcaiunb~. Public perceptions d wslatwes am signilicantly shaped by ocamrwicer ddng daily Question Period Onen ümse make the front page d the newspqw and fit neaüy as the thirty seoond time dot betweeri the sports and the weather on the nightiy television news. Sudi detached bits of *informationaare oRen featured more for th& shodc value thm for their informative cociterit. Outhmts and insuits that have been shouted out during Question Pdod suggest a breakdami in the deccKum al a legislatue. Regmttably, these pieces of 'news' do not depict a deer pichnt of reality end d what goes on in Canadian legislatues. \Nhether it ir duvig Question Period or m commîttes meeting, television cameras offen tend to record damatic disniptions rat)rer lhan routine business. Public perception is shaped accordingly. Question Period is intended to provide a fmm for the opposition parlies to pose pmbing questions to Ministen. Mile this does mallyOCUN, oflm it can also result in an embanassing dispby of hed

when the mapnty of proM811i8 cmœming the appsenl breakdawn in denmm of

opportintty for (he wwst behaviow minlegidahreo. ûf those who ciled Question Pwid as a specilic amd concem,seml respondents believed that therein deaxum Sun- its wont akise. However,

'M's unlbrtunete that pwpk heu8 ltnned th& attitudes on the televised questkm peMmaterial.. .decorum very seldom breaks am, in wrHww. ' 7 agree. buî genefaRy this on& OC~CII~Sdu- queslion period when the cams am on.' 'In our bgislature, QuesbQn Period is Me 'made Ibr N exdement. During the balanœ of Ehe day, deconrm breaks ckwn only on ocaisbn.' 'The Weatm8of Quesüon Penod is caused by memben Naying tbf the televi90n camera. ' 'The televised QuesWn PenW po- of &gislatutes is patt re~~,part theatm.' Mat the public sees most of the tirne is tasd on îhe pdikal theatre mat Question Pkn'od has h?mme." 9W~rrbsrwne~~~~aylothe~in~~bsam,~~~* 8~dthis~~hOueSbOn~~-~isaneedIbma~I~~ br the peopeopk and ndjW [as] a me& euwt' '. . .et the same tim, a bl of lhis [public cocicem] cwnes sbidly IhM> the Ibb-cu~mqn~~~Mud,doudebaiiehwyEivilandasemsWoîbn ~~. '

breakdami m deaxum ocamd only as a di- result of live telension covwage mina Mislative Chamber. Memberr playing to the cameras is an al1 too frequent Main. UMmately, most respmdmts aqeed htthe most awnmon televisd antics of Question Period material only. Respondents seem justifiably

be less Mention to media sensaüo~lisaîiond exchanges duing Question Period. Hawever Viis is not the reality of the situation. The apparent flagrant abuse of 'fim speech' duing Question Perîod may be cause for public axioem. sbïls d pren'ous ages- II seems personal altecks an? more the 'mm8than eloquent remarks thet play on ouf English language.' Likewise, another member observed, No bnger ïs the abiliîy d en individual to speak ekquently Ibr extended periods of tjmgiven value. A sound byte, a quip. 8 flippant #mark, a eWe, am ah Hat qoes cm in the leglslatum becauss of HanSCVLj, mm, and the tektdsd h?gisiatums. ' As noted. 100W of the resporikmts the(, for whatever nsrorr, Canadians shaJtd be owioemed abut the behaviour d aieir eîeded repTeSBnf8fiVes. Manqiro ef a.'s (1998) sfudy on ethicel behaviour of elecded MicialsadddydknradenliileHona,Wt,publicirrotvqtdarrld

the Speaker. Fewer than 9% of the responderits ackmhdedged the depîayd by the Speaker when a breakdoum in deawwn oaurs. lt ir the Speakefs respomibitii to uphdd niles d proceaire and to ensura that the business d the House is camied out in an orderly manner. The Speaker is eleded by sll Mernben d a îegisiature to fufil thit rda HCIW~W~as one member ohm,

It carld be argoed that more respec3 fof the institirtiorr mô procedues b required. As noted earlier, Members am requimd to behave acarding to instiMional expedations. This wouiâ appear to make the Speakers' job much easier. Nwertheless, the Speaker is solely responsible for the deconim within a legislature. it is much too simple b say mat. Yhe Speaker shouM dean up decorum and language l this is an issue. ' The question remaim whether this is really wi!hh the Speakers capacity. An interesting canparison was drawn by one respondent, uRio depided the Speaker as akin to a rubstiMe teacher with no conW amidst a dass of grade six students (Vie Membeo d the house). One extreme suggestion for hddiw the Speaker acawntabie for a lack of deconim heated edmges. tf th. Speaker is able to canbol a legislatue and presme Pdiamentsy

An attempt to ducete the generel Wlic or, matten axiamiiig legisistust may help to ameliorate dedining public perceptions of the institraai of Parliament. €ducation of the public, inded, was one d the mmary goab d bringing legislatutes to life via live television merage d such events as Question Period, legidaüve vota, and the mdirig d petitionr in legislatues. The federd Pariiammtary broadcast chanmi (CPAC) and Vw, variws provincial legislaüve chmnels do nd edit material as is th mfor private media. Thrs. public eaicaoai may not be adequately mvedvia television. Ib precedng respaises suggest, puôîic perceptions am shpeuj by the media's plmyd d events in legidatures. And, an important factor to consider is that, despite what

One of our resgaridents suggested mat, Vt shouid be part of îbnna! ducation to help students undentand the value of debate and of the pen. DeGo~rn and mutual respect cauM impmve - but educaüon wauld Mpto emgnise the value of ouf democratic tredihn.' Suggesting that the public needs to be educated regarding the value d Canada's demwatic tradition is pefhaps a cause for concem in itsetf. if this treation indudeo a la& of demm in legislatures then perhaps the institution is nat as

To reiterate, '%nten'ng the new rniliennium, does the Parliamentary Legislatum in Canada continue to have relevanœ?" The preponderanœ of views derived from interview and survey responses suggest that the answer to this query is, simply stated, ies'. Wah the coming of a new millenniurn, many research pmjects will seek to examine how certain aspects of life will change in order to adapt to new and exciting times. This Project attempted to do just that by examining the relevance of the Paciiamentary Legislature in Canada fmrn the perspective of legislators. Primary data obtained from the survey and interviews provided significant support for a conclusion as to the continued relevance of the institution. Indeed, there is a place for the Parliamentary legislahire in Canada's future. To question its place however, this Paper serves as a mere starting point in tbis area of research. Indeed, while the data obtained was pertinent to this study, it is certainly valuable for future research regarding the Mure of the Parliamentary tradition of legislatures in Canada. The many legislative reform proposals: the issue of Executive Dominance of legislatures; the apparent rigidity of party discipline and a continued breakdown in the deconim of legislatures, are issues that persist for most contemporaiy Canadian legislatures. The apparent result of a growing public cynicism by the public may not be fully warranted. Whether or not it is a 'product of the press" really is not the issue herein. The continued enforcement of party discipline and growing Executive Dominance of Iegislatures threaten their very legitimacy. Whether or not the public acknowledges this threat remains to be seen. Likewise, the often volatile behaviour of Memben dunng Question Period can greatly contnbute to public cynicism. The available literature does not fufly engage the seriousness of these issues in the many suggestions for refom. This Paper, however. addressed more than popular reform proposals. The 'decline of Parliament' trend, that is commonly suggested in reference to the relationship of Parliament to the Executive and thus, the making of public policy, is a reasonably accurate assessrnent of the direction legislatures are headed in Mure. However. oorrtrary to negaüve connofations associated with mis pmjeded trend, this 'decline' does not entail the end of Parliament as il is presentiy constituted. it merely implies that certain accepted noms are being alterd or replaced by different and evolving practices. For instance. the increased dependence on information technology that is taking Canadian kgislatures into the next millennium suggests a markedly redefined relationship between legislators. their constituents and legislatures. As a body for influencing public policy and for engaging public support, actually Parliament is not less effective than it was presumeâ to be in the 19" Century (Norton. 1987). Inâeed, the use of infomation technology has potential to render Parliamentary legislatures in Canada more relevant as their capacities to reflect greater consultation and communication prospet. Future advancements in technology are sure to influence and in fad enhance the procedures of legislatufes and ultimately, the outputs of Iegislatures as well. BrownJohn's (1993) identification of the Parliamentary requirement for dired accountability leads to the identification of the four key roles of legislatures: to approve public policies; to approve expenditures; to approve revenue raising (Le.: taxation); and, to enforce accountability. Brown-John argues that we misunderstand legislatures when we presume thern to be actually engaged in designing and constructing laws. Legislatures approve laws as the constructs of others, such as the Executive and the bureaucracy (1993, 64- 68). The advent of a new rnillennium will not see any significant changes to these key roles. Therefore, the role of Parliamentary legislatures in Canada remains just as relevant today and into the future. as identified in the functions above. as they will in future. Further, if legislatures are publicly perceived to be ineffective. weak or even irrelevant, it is because there is insufficient widespread appreciation of their fundamental roles and not because they are irrelevant as policy review and accountability institutions. Should these roles change, then the question of the relevance of the institution could righffully be applied. Perhaps the last words shouid be left to those from whom we solidteci views on the relevame of legislatures. the elected memben themseives. The folbwing comments are hm the sunrey and interview respondents. They suggest widespread support for the continued relevance of legislatures in Canada. +egislatums ceriainly continue to haw relevance. In every session d ihe legislature 1 see bills which affect - in fundamental or subtîe ways- Ihe lives of my constituents. "

Teslegislatures am relevant, if for no other mason than there does not seem to be a better attemative. '

4 would not consider any other aitemative. '

Westill have one of the best systems. "

'This is the hub of democmtic govemanœ. Wnhout legislatures. power wwM tke to large c91porate entities and for the wealytriest and most hîYu8ntiat In sockty.'

+egislatures are needed now for a different function than a century ago. "

Tegislatures are vety relevant, who speaks for the people in your constituency if you do not? Who would debate and pmpose legis!ation? Plan budgets? Who wouM develop social pmgrams for the bene@ of al1 people? Who wouM lead in the developing of a carhg and compassionate society? Business? Not likely. "

"les we continue to have relevance, as long as we (Members) continue to amuît with public, to question decisions and are lislened to and are listening. "

"ln a democmtic systern legislatures am always relevant. "

"7her-emay be fluctuations in the public's view of their effectiveness, but legislatums are an essential element of our system. "

"Legislatures are the fundamental tool used by modem dernocracies. "

"Legislatores are essential to the pmper funclonjing of dernocracy. We would have a lot worse [sic] govemments without them. "

"Legislatures are still relevant for providing a forum to our political process, and for holding the govemment of the day accountable. "

"Yes legislatures are relevant, especially if you consider the aftematives. " Tes, legidatums still have relevanœ but -Ire need to understand fuly that daity decisions dont get made them. tt is sülf a gmat baim for broad pub& pdicy debates.'

"Definite& the kgislaturres continue to have relevanœ.'

"1 believe that legislatures am more representative, more evenly balanced, more transparent than any pend in histoty. mey are more relevant and 1 believe more effective than at any timin the pst."

"Legislatures do have relevance. We am fuly accountable to our eledors. '

"Yes 1 feel stmngly that indeed legislatures am wry relevant in today's wolld. '

"Legislafures have gmat relevanœ as thrwgh this body our rigMs as Canadians for freedom of speech and democacy are asserted. '

"Legislatures am more necessary ihan ever, you've got to keep this conœmed group of people elecfed to work full time. " 'Yes - legislatures are still very much relevant. Govemrnent is about people connecting with people. "

Wes, legislatutes have an even greater mle in the Mure. '

"Of course they are, they are an essential part of the leadership process. '

In aggregate these often disparate comments refiect an ovemhelming consensus among our respondents that legislatures are relevant and will remain as such well into the future. Despite criticisms and suggestions for improving the current systems across Canada, those who responded indicated their overall support for the current system of Parliamentary Legislatures that exist within Canada. We sought to answer no other questions in this study. If Parliarnentary institutions, as presently constiiuted. are apparently failing to meet even the slightest hint of refonn, then what does the Mure hoid for these institutions? The possibilities may not be endless but they are many. Future research in the areas listed above will lead to more definitive conclusions regarding the continued relevance of Parliamentary institutions. The role a Govemment backbencher plays in contrast to that of an opposition member varies significantly. This relationship could be examined in order to provide a mmdefinitive accaunt of the penpedives of legislators. The issue of Executive Dominance may be expandeci to indude an examination of the reiationship between the number of membem in a legislature and the size of the Cabinet and how this relationship affects the relevanœ of legislatures. Likewise, the pracüse of party discipline could be examined hmthe point of view of opposition members versus govemrnent members. Question Period and its association with lagging deconim could prove ta be hazardous to the continued relevanœ of the inst'iion. A stronger emphasis on public education conceming the Canadian Parliamentary tradition is needed in order to decipher the myths from the reality of the daily occurrences within Canadian legislatures. What initiatives will be undertaken by legislators to ensure that the apparent misinformation provided by the media is countered with education? To be more specific, hem are some probable and fniifful areas for further research arising from this thesis: Candidate selection processes - if constituency service is so important it would be useful ta examine the qualifications and even the personalrty of the candidate. a The "dernocratic deficit" - how is representation affected if the number of seatç is reduced or increased in a legislature? The primary role of an elected member - is the members' job to provide public policy input/output or to simply ad as a representative within the constituency. Opposition rnembers versus Govemment members - Govemment access to caucus input and the lack of same for opposition members; newer, younger Cabinet Ministers and their lack of legislative (and opposition) experienœs.

Ultimately, the tools and trademarks of Canadian legislatures will change over tirne. Indeed, it is within these changes that the institution will endure and even prosper. Atkinson, Michael M. and Robert J. Jackson. (1980). (Zd ed.). me Canadhn Legislaüve Syshm. Toronto: Gage Publishing Limited.

Brown-John. C.L. (1 993). 'Accountability Re-Revisited". Opdlmum. Vo1.23 #4 pp.64-68.

Cassidy. Michael. (1995). 'How PR Would lmprove Canada's Electoral System". Pditics: Canada. Paul Fox anâ Graham White (eds.) Canada: McGraw- Hill Ryerson Ltd.

Charlton. Mark and Paul Barker, (eds.). (1 994). (2d ed.). Cnrsscumnts Contemporary Poliücal Issuas. Canada: Nelson Canada.

Clarke, Harold D. Richard G. Price and Robert Krause. (1975). 'Constituency Service Among Canadian Provincial Legislators: Basic Findings and a Test of Three Hypotheses.' Canadhn Journal of PolMcd Scknce. VIII. 110.4 December 1975.

Coombes. O. (1 982). Repntenfative Govemmenf and Economic Power. London: Heinemann.

Courtney, J.C., (ed.). (1985). The Canadian House of Commons: Essays in Honour of Nonnsn Warû. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

Docherty, David C. (1997). Mr. Smith Goes To Ottawa: Li& in The House of Commons. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Economist, The (1999). 'Politics Met 1s There a Crisis?" Vo1.352 (#8128), July 17, pp. 49-58.

Fleming Robert J. and J.E. Glenn eds. Fleming's Canadian Legislatures 1997, Eleventh Edition. (1997). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Fox, Paul W. and Graham White, (eds.). (1991). Politics: Canada SevenUI Edition. Canada: McGraw, Hill, Ryerson Limited.

Franks, C.E.S. (1985). 'Question Period and Debate in the House." In 77te Cansdian House of Commons: Essays in Honour of Norman Ward. J-C. Courtney (ed.) Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

Harrison, Reginald J. (1 980). PIuraIism and Corporatism: The Political Evolution of Modern bemocracies. London: George Allen 8 Unwin. Jackson, Robert J. and Paul Conlin. (1994). The lmperative of Party Oiscipline in the Canadian Political System.' In Croorcunrmt~Conhmporrry Po/i#cal Issues Second Edidlon. Mark Charlton and Paul Batker eds. Canada: Nelson Canada.

Johnson, Neville (1977). In Search of the Conslltution: Refleetlons on Sfah and Society in Britrin. London: Methuen.

Jordan, A.G. and J.J. Richardson. (1987). Brloth Politics and fhe Policy Process. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Kilgour, David et al. (1994). Should Party Discipline Be Relaxecl?- In Crosscumnfs Conhmpomty PoIiticaI Issues Second EdItlon. Ma* Charlton and Paul Barker eds. Canada: Nelson Canada.

Laghi, Brian. (1998). 'Politicians' pwleges fuel public discontent.. .'. Th. Gloôe a MN. Odober 17.1998. Page A1 1.

Lehmbruch, Gerhard. (1977). 'Liberal Corporatism and Party Government.' Compamtivo PoIitical Studies 1 O:W -126. - (1 979). 'Liberal Corporatism and Party Govemment.' In: Phillipe C. Schmitter and Gerhard Lembruch eds. Tmnds Toward Cotporatlst Intemedation. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.

Levy, Gary and Graham White (eds.) (1989). Provincial and Teniforial Legislafures In Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Loewenberg, Gehard. (1971). Modem Padhments: Change or ûecline? Chicago: Aldine Atherton.

Mancuso, Maureen et a/. (1998). A Quesuon of Efhics Canadians Speak Ouf. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Norton, Philip. (1987). Parliement in Perspective. UK: University of Hull Press.

Putnam, Robert et a/. (forthcoming 2000). Matis Troubling the Tn'taterel Dernocracles. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Rokkan, Stein. (1 966). 'Norway: Numerical Democracy and Corporate Pluralism". In: Robert Da hl ed . Political Opposition in Western Dernocracies. New Haven: Yale University Press. Savoie. Daniel J. (1999). Gavemin@Fmm 1no C.nb.: Th.ConcenZmLlon of Power in anadtan PolMIcs. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Schaffer. William R. (1998). PolMcail Change In Nom.y. Columbus OH: Ohio State University Pmss.

Sundquist, James L. (1981). me Dedine and Resurgence of Congms. Washington OC.: Brookings Institution.

Usher, Dan. (1998). The Colour of the Judges Eyes: Efficiency as a Criterion for the Legislature and the Courts." Discussion Paper #969. Kingston. ON: Queen's University. tnstitute for Economic Research.

Wheare. K.C. (1963). Leglslatums. New York: Oxford University Prass.

White. Graham. (19û9). Th. On- Legislatum: A Polidcal Analysls. Toronto: University of Toronto Pm.

(ed.) (1997). (5* ed.). Tne Govemment and Politics ot Ontario. Tomnto: University of Toronto Press Inc.

(1998). 'Shorter Measures: The Changing Ministerial Career in Canada." Canadian Public Administration. 41 (3). pp.369-394.

Following are the provincial URL locations that were referenced:

Alberta www.gov.ab.ca Northwest Territories www.gov.nt.ca British Columbia www.gov. bcca Ontario www.gov.on.ca Manitoba www.gov.mb.ca Prince Edward Island www.gov.pe.ca New Brunswick www.gov.nb.ca Saskatchewan www.gov.sk.ca Newfoundland & Labrador www.gov.nf.ca Yukon www.gov.yk.ca Nova Scotia www.gov.ns.ca

?ml: (554 2534232 M.WI - FA%: 11@[email protected]~ €mail: I-.ca THE NTUïW OF LECISLATURES(?): a Millciinium RCKIrtb hoj& A SERIES OF QUESTIONS FOR LAW MAKERS,

an aitemative or Wrway witû wWtbt business of the peopk crin bt conducted? WHY ARE YOU ASKING ME THESE OUESTION? As la Ekctcd Manber of r Lcpidaturt you ue one of tûc fkw peopk wdl placed in tbc "hot-scatw so-tbr@ ta comment up& Lcgitlatum and bow tky hmctioi, adrhit tbq do and do we-tbt tupaytr-ntlly nccd th? CANT YOU GET TsaS RMATION IN A LIBRARY? Not~!Tnw,~œr~bodyoficrdcmichttrraPrr. . 0.~butWe8n tru;ngtotng~tborcofyaiiwbrrirQV+ctfyOvdvcdmtbttradcri~iderrd conuaeats wbicb might-ody migût!-bdp Cudims mrp out a fiitum for fegislrtive Iaw makimg. AM I DOiNG SOMEBODY'S HOMEWORK FOR THEM? Absolukly Not! 'Ilit Qucra'on-ue kgblrturea stiU rdtvant?-crrmc up at tâe Cm8di.n Politid Scicnœ Association's Annd Meeting in Ottawa in June 1998. 1 bdicvt tbe question desenes consi&ration .ad tbcm is ody ooe wry to uwwer it& opidoar from kaowkdgtabk peopk such as curreat kgislators urd former kgislrtors. You ppkut tbe wrts.

COMMEN'IS 1 PROVIDE OR THE %ATAw GENERATED?

Weii, ne uic absolutdv aot noinn- to do uivthinn with it unlas you amx. First, rrw statisticrl data becomcs 'iggregitt datawand that W simply anonymous (eg. 9 orit of 10 ûcn&~ surveycd prcferred rubbtr cernent). Eowever, severai questions rsk you for short or cvcn extended written coaunents. You May bc Quoted onl~if vou and indicate ~ouragrccmeat. Tbis ia NOT an atttmpt to tmbunss, unmuk or otberwise rndign uiyôody. We adyour vdued and coasidcred vicws and opinions. Without your views we CM oaly speeuhte. CAN 1 OBTNN THE INFORMATION AND AGGREGATE DATA YOU PEOPLE DERIVE? Absolutdy. Nrturdy, if a pcrsoa does oot wisb his or ber name rttacbtd to comments you may receive thtm but tbey will moaymous. in tact, we'd love to shur our hndings with you in a quiet-perbrps, on-the-record mmner. WHO'S DOCNG TRIS PROSECT ANYWAY? My nimc is Lloyd Brown-John. I'm a Profkssor of Politid Science and hblic Administration rt the Uqiversity of Windsor. I'm in the 31- ytuof my profission and I've publishtd a pik of stuff. Ibave four students working with me and Irathcr boptbey wiil kYa something about research and about kgislatures.

Chcers L.B.J.

THIS IS A QUESTIONNAIRE. IT IS AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE SOM€ INFORMATION ABOUT LEGISLATURES FROM LEGISLATORS. IT WIU TM€ ABOUT 10 TO 15 MINUTES OF YOUR TlME TO COMPLETE. PLEASE HEL? US TO HEW YOU AND OTHER CANADIANS. PLEASE 00 YOUR UTMOST TO COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAlRE AND RETURN IT IN THE PREISTAMPED ENVELOPE (The stamps will go ta children).

1. lyou hrd to Estimate (or, Guessünut61) mughly how an rnmge Lsgislrthisww*- week is allocritsd, what PERCENTAGES d your tirne wouM be detvodsd to: lime Aetualty Sitting in the Legislrturs?: %; lime Attending Legislativa Cornmittee Meetings?: 96;

Time Devoted to Consütuents' Concems?:

time ûevoted to Constituency Business?: 96;

Time Devoted to Manrging your own Pemonal and Family Lifu?: %; Anything we Forgot "Time-wise"?: %. 2. Cornmittees of the Legislature of which You am: i): A Membec

ii): ChairlDeputy Chair:

3. Are You a Member of an Opposition Caucus ; or, a Govemment Caucus ? Party: 3 Cabinet Ministec 3

4. What is the TOTAL Number of Years that You have been a Member of the Legislature?: Very Unsatisfkû: :

THE NEXT SERlES OF QUESTIONS ARE SHORT, WRITTEN, ANSWERS.

6. Badupon your experïecct in the Legklature, what dnab ritedon would you make to imumve the day4o4.y work of- hgidaîurs? k ümta r abntkri you'd consider?

4 May we quote you? YES: O NO: O Nam:

7. In a recent.book by Maureen Wncuso Guel h Univ) et al Se: Globe & Mail, 17 0ct19ûJ provides ovennhelmr evidence(h rt 8anadians am conœ a the behaviourofeîecteâte tese ALin iegisktuiw, abusive ia urwR&iZEms, pot inciuding Mr. tlln&n!) mon1 ,mcheehotingn~ck d decomm, etc. rom your as r kO~Syour your pcmonrl obtervrtionr?

PkrrCoiiÉlmi.onRe~ May we quote you? YES: NO: O

Future of kgislatures - 2 pk..rCocr(hiralRYvrw~ May we quote you? YES: O NO: O

9. Party discipline h.r benvexatious in th.publk mind: Why can't Membec. think for thetmelve~?~What are your vie-?

May we quote you? YES: 0 NO: 0

Future of hgislaturcr - 3 The Future of Legirlahna (3) : A Milknnium -h Projœt Dirador: Or. C. Lloyd BiownJohn, O.putmont d P0iitit.l SeWha. Univscrity of Widuar, WINDSOR, Ontario WB 3?4

10. U)timrbdyw,~dotrœtwo~3= a) Do Legislrhims-as presenüy con-nue to have rekvrnce?; and, b) InYourOpiniorr,HChrtmn kdoneto.n~nœCh.~d~kg~ in the public policy pmcuss? Your vkws and cmments on this-and rny otW related subject (m. proCsdurisi, pmœsws) would ba wdcom. May we quote you? ES: 0 NO: 0

Si vous prWdmz une version francaise, demander, S.V.P.

Future of Legislaturer - 4

Fimt mail out d wrvey's !O Provincial MU'S.

Mail out canpleted. Total d 614 suwefs sent to Provincial MLA's throughaR the provim. exduding Quebec (due to the pending provincial electim). Total of 93 survey's were sent to Federal MP's, (induditg Bloc MP's). Grand total of survey's mailed = (107. First peniaral interview - via telephone with Jam Stewat, MP (Liber& - Brant). First minder via telephone to Party L-s requesting them to remind their members to fiIl out the questionnaire.

Deœrnber 19th Retums numbered at SO!

January 8th Interview with Pat Hoy. MPP (Liberal - Essex-Kent). Interview with Bruce Crozier, MW(Liberal - Essex).

January 9th Interview with The Honourable Herb Gray, Oeputy Prime Minister, (Liberal - Windsor). January 12th Interview with Remo Mancini, former MPP (Liberal - Windsor).

January 18th Interview with Bill Wrye, former MPP (Liberal -Windsor).

January 25th lnterview with Susan Whelan, MP (Liberat - Essex-Windsor). Einail reminders sent ta party/caucus leaders.

January 29th Interview with Wayne Lassard MPP (NDP - Windsor). Interview with The Honourable Senator Eugene Whelan, P.C.

lnterview with Owight Duncan. MPP (Liberal - Windsor).

As of February 15th To!al number of retums = 73 questionnaires British Columbia Al- Sas~tl Manitoba Ontario New Ekunswidr Newfoundbnd Nova P.E.I. Fedetaî

+~overnmentMambers am coded with an eva, digit ie: O1 002; O1 0M.-

*'0ppositioo Members are coded with odd digb: ie: O1 001 ; 01 003...

Ta Fihvc ef LegbIrimu (?) : A MmeMiam Racrrrb Prajec! PRESS RELEASE Windsor, Oatuio. Do Canadian îegistatum mitter? 15 Marcb 1999

throughocit the Fall of 1- a group d senior stdents, uid.r hculty supervision at th. ünhnnity d Windsor. unbrtod< an axaminrition to assas8 üœ reievance d Palnrmenhry kghirtums in Camda at bOth Mnl and provimirl kvels. ïb pjectms ôescrümd as a uMIIknniumResearch becauci it ms aimd 8t nwhgIh. WC.OC erriding into th. 21a -. Red- in numbersdbg&î(rthn ...b and thus, dekobd mm-, wasas~bcusofttie~ Concerns have bem wiâely expmssed about what h described as rt# dernocntSt âeWV rrising from the mductiori of kgislrtiM seab rrisinq from the greaternombsrd~ntrw)rowillûe~nt6dbyWrrnd WaAmijor focusofthePmj.dwas th.r(lbcttM.uchchang.bhr~on~a~i(yd(h. individual Clnadhm to be hrdby th+k govemmnt mp~- Sewbd prwhchl ud nathal political krâers have erpc#ud pri(bmncr forwhrLk~n~mpopdht"gou#mrnt~mrdsrnrpocirib(lWyol~ officiais to t)#lr comthents. th. pmhwm argues üut translates into batbr âemocrrcy. ln OlIkr to evrfuate the e- of kgislaüve rwbucturing a two üemd apprrioch was taken in the Research Pro- Fi&, a brkf, open+ded sunmy wrs sent to 93 mmbers of the Houn of Commorrr in Ottrwa, and 514 Mernbem of provincial Legidrtums acmss Canada. Second, r series of interviews with cunient and former elecoed memberi of legislaîums wsris compikd. In principie, kgis&tums proviâe voter, with r merni of rccess to government institutions. Csgidrtumsallow those who lack resoumes an opportunïty to have tbir voices heard. Unfortunately, it apgsrm th& many emdmpremmtatives are unconcerned the future and sCRckncy of kgiisatums. Of the fiil7 su- sant r mete 75 have been returntd within 3 months. This is a mturn mte of 12.4% and is, for all inbsnts rrrd purposes, an i~ckquaturate of response. Politicirns periodically declam thrt the public is not interested or even abusive of them. Yet, the response to r short sunrey on the future of kgislatures suggests that they have little concern about legislatures or, perhrps even, the people thay represent The Project results suggest that pemaps the biggest chalknge for the futurs of legislatures is often the ekcted membem themselves.

For Comment and Contact: Dr. Uoyd BrownJohn, Department of Political Science, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario.

Tel: (519) 2534232 Ext. 2359 FAX: 519.973.7094 Email: [email protected] APPEMaiX E THE FüTüRE Of CEGISCAl'URE#?) A YUNNIUIY RESEARCH PROJECT

2. Does the hndion of 'representation' in the legislature, as we have corne to know it, have a Mue in the riew milleruriun?

4. Does the qudity of mpresentatiwi depend on whether you are a govemment or opposition membet?

5. Are legislatures as necessary today given îhe predominance of media coverage? Is Uie media doing the joô the legislators used to do?

6. Given the extent to which govemments and pditical parties rely on public opinion poiling. are Jegislators being bypassed?

7. Given the extent to whidi govemments use advertising to explain or 'sell' their prograrns. are legislators still necessary to interpret govemment programs for their constituents?

8. When we look at some of the changes made to the procedures of legislatures and parliament to make them more effiaent and facilitate the business of govemment, how mght we facilitate the mle of the private rnember? Have we facilitated the role of the member, or simply improved the effiuency of Cabinet's management of the legislature? BRANDY MILLERWAS ~ORNIN BRANTFORD ONTARIO IN 1975. SHE GRAMIATED FRW ST.JOHN'S CdCLEGE IN BWOROIN 1994. SHE AIENE0THE UNIVERSITYOF O~AWAFOR TWO VEARS WHERE SHE STUMED POUT~CAL SCIENCE. UPON

TRANSFERRlNG TO THE UNNERSC~YOF: WINOSOR N 1996, yE EARNU) HER ~ACHELOR Of ARTS DEG-E IN #KITICAL SCIENCE IN 1998. BRANDY CONnNUED HER -VON AT THE UNNERS~~Yûf WINDSOR,AND COMPCETED THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A MASTER OF ARTS OEGREE IN #)UflCAL SCIENCE IN 1999. UPON COMPLETION OF MESE EQUEEWs, 8RAeioY WlCL €MmLlPON A CEGISUTNE INTERNSHlP AT TliE oeicTAR10LEGISlA~.