THE MP EXIT INTERVIEW REPORTS #3 “ It ’s My Party”: Parliamentary Dysfunction Reconsidered The third in a series of reports exploring political leadership in Canada A INTRODUCTION B CHAPTER ONE: THE PRACTICE OF POLITICS C CHAPTER TWO: YOU CALL THIS A PARTY? D THE CONSEQUENCES E ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS NAMES OF PARTICIPATING MPS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A INTRODUCTION - 2 Introduction he resounding lament from the press and elsewhere is that Canada’s Parliament is broken. The floor of the House of Commons more Toften resembles a schoolyard than a chamber of public debate. Prime Ministers’ Offices, and their unelected staff, wield much of the decision making power. Polls indicate citizens feel poorly represented by their elected officials, or have chosen to tune out altogether. Commentators point to a variety of factors This report is the third in a series sharing the behind these problems. They include weak stories and advice of 65 former Parliamentarians or outdated rules governing Question Period, who recently left public life, each of whom dedi- overly restrictive access to information, media cated an average of nearly ten and a half years coverage that focuses too heavily on personality to being the bridge between Canadians and their and conflict, and an electoral system that doesn’t government. properly represent Canadians. The first report, The Accidental Citizen?, Yet when we asked those on the front lines detailed the MPs’ backgrounds and paths to poli- of Canadian democracy—Members of Parlia- tics. The second, Welcome to Parliament: A Job ment—they pointed their fingers in a different With No Description, described the MPs’ initial direction. To them, it is often the way political orientation to Ottawa and the varied ways in parties manage themselves, their members and which they described the essential role of an MP. their work that really drives the contemporary This report picks up where the last left off, dysfunction facing Canadian politics. examining the MPs’ reflections on how they spent their time in Ottawa. A INTRODUCTION - 3 wo overriding trends emerged from from the public gaze? And if the MPs were so Tthese reflections, raising provocative embarrassed by the behaviour on display in the and important questions for the health of our House of Commons, why didn’t they do some- democracy. thing to change it? First, what the MPs described as their “real work” was done away from the public spotlight in The MPs insisted they did their best work— the more private spaces of Parliament. In fact, the collaborating across parties, debating and MPs told us that the politics most commonly seen advancing policy, and bringing local issues by the public—that which took place on the floor to the national stage—in the less publicized of the House of Commons—did little to advance venue of committees and the private anything constructive. Instead, the MPs insisted they did their best space of caucus. work—collaborating across parties, debating and advancing policy, and bringing local issues to the This leads to the second major trend: the national stage—in the less publicized venue of consistent observation from the MPs that the committees and the private space of caucus. greatest frustrations they faced during their polit- Furthermore, the MPs claimed to be embar- ical careers came from within their own political rassed by the public displays of politics in the party. Although our interviews did not specifi- House of Commons, saying they misrepresented cally ask about political parties, time after time their work. Many blamed this behaviour for the MPs articulated how decisions from their contributing to a growing sense of political disaf- parties’ leadership were often viewed as opaque, fection among Canadians. They were frustrated arbitrary and even unprofessional, and how their with the public performance of their parties, and parties’ demands often ran counter to the MPs’ said it led them to pursue their goals elsewhere, desires to practice politics in a constructive way. away from the public and media gaze. While these interviews were intended to explore the lives of Members of Parliament, The MPs told us that the politics much of what we heard actually reflected being most commonly seen by the public— a Member of a Party. Indeed, the uneasy rela- that which took place on the floor of the House tionship between the MPs and the management of Commons—did little to advance anything of their political parties resembled the relation- ship between the local owner of a national fran- constructive. chise and its corporate management. In fact, this tension is one of the central themes running The MPs’ insistence that important work was through Samara’s MP exit interview project as a done only in private raises some serious ques- whole. tions for Canadian democracy and citizens’ ability As we will discuss in greater detail in Chapter to engage with it. 2, the MPs consistently pointed to their parties’ After all, how are Canadians to observe and management practices, and the incentives and understand the work of their elected representa- punishments the parties put in place, as signifi- tives—to say nothing of their ability to hold them cant obstacles to advancing the “real work” of accountable—if all the “real work” is done away Parliament. While a certain amount of friction in A INTRODUCTION - 4 the relationship between MPs and their parties is membership—claim that the party leadership unavoidable, it would appear that little is done to pushes them away from constructive politics, manage, never mind mitigate, the tension. is it any wonder that so many Canadians also turn away? While these interviews were intended to If what the MPs told us is true, and our political parties do play a role in the dysfunction explore the lives of Members of Parliament, of Canadian politics, then it follows that they much of what we heard actually reflected also have a role to play in helping to overcome it. being a Member of a Party. Political parties serve at least four critical functions in our democracy: engaging citizens Democracy relies on citizen engagement to in politics, selecting candidates for elected office, thrive, but if MPs themselves are disenchanted aggregating policy perspectives and contesting with their own parties, then it should come as elections. It may well be time to discuss ways no surprise when citizens also choose to opt to revitalize our political parties, recognizing out. After all, if MPs—who arguably benefit the integral role they play in Canadian more than any other citizen from political party democracy. BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVIEWS During the fall and winter of 2009-10, Samara—a communications technology had begun to take charitable organization that studies citizen hold. This report should be read with this context engagement with Canada’s democracy—undertook in mind. the first-ever series of exit interviews with former The personal reflections of these MPs contributed MPs to seek their reflections on their experience different and often more detailed information and to provide advice on what can be improved for than that provided by polls, surveys or media future Parliamentarians and in the service of all commentary. We were able to conduct these inter- Canadians. views almost entirely in person, and often in the This project began when Samara’s co-founders, homes or communities of participating MPs, thanks Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan, learned that to introductions from the Canadian Association of exit interviews, common in many organizations, Former Parliamentarians. The former Parliamen- had never been undertaken systematically in one of tarians generously gave their time, allowed us to the most important workplaces in our country—the record the interviews and granted us permission Parliament of Canada. to use the information to advance public under- standing of Canadian politics and political culture. This report is the shared narrative of the 65 former Members of Parliament we interviewed. The MPs We approach this work as documentarians, come from all regions of the country, and all reporting on how the MPs described their feelings political parties represented in Parliament. Many and beliefs. Memories are often coloured by the served during a transformative time in our political passage of time and personal interpretations of history: when the Bloc Québécois, the Reform Party events and experiences; we assume that the testi- and the merged Conservative Party of Canada rose monies of the participating MPs are no different. as important players on the national stage. Each In many ways, these subjective reflections on the MP served in at least one minority Parliament, experiences of these MPs provide some of the most and during a time when changes in media and illuminating insights into Canadian politics. 65 FORMER PARLIAMENTARIANS WERE INTERVIEWED FOR THIS PROJECT. THEY LEFT PUBLIC LIFE DURING OR JUST AFTER THE 38TH AND 39TH PARLIAMENTS, WHICH SAT FROM 2004 TO 2008. The average age at which the 11% are immigrants. 86% of the MPs have at least The MPs held a variety of MPs entered federal office was one college or university degree. legislative roles, and many held 46.8 years. The median age 41% represented urban Nearly half have more than more than one. One served as was 48 years. ridings, 23% suburban and one degree. Prime Minister. 31% were Cabi- 36% rural or remote. net Ministers and 35% were The MPs’ average tenure was 57% of the MPs left politics due Parliamentary Secretaries. 65% held a critic portfolio. 58% 10.3 years. Their median tenure 82% indicated English as to retirement and 43% left as chaired at least one committee. was 12.3 years. their preferred language. the result of electoral defeat. 18% indicated French. 22% are female. REGIONS REPRESENTED BY THOSE INTERVIEWED MPS’ PARTY AFFILIATION AT THE TIME THEY LEFT OFFICE 37% Ontario 54% Liberal 22% Quebec 23% Conservative 12% British Columbia 14% Bloc Québécois 11% Atlantic Canada 8% NDP 9% Alberta 1% Green 9% The Prairies This mirrors almost perfectly the distribution of This group is more heavily weighted to the Liberals the Canadian population.