Scholars Portal PDF Export
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Everything old is new again: observations on Parliamentary reform Author(s) Axworthy, Tom ; Canadian Electronic Library (Firm) ; Queen's University (Kingston, Ont.). Centre for the Study of Democracy Imprint Kingston, Ont. : Centre for the Study of Democracy, 2008 Extent 1 electronic text (129 p.) Topic JL Subject(s) Canada. Parliament -- Reform Language English ISBN Permalink http://books.scholarsportal.info/viewdoc.html?id=381636 Pages 1 to 129 EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN: Observations on Parliamentary Reform Thomas S. Axworthy April 2008 Funding for this study provided by: EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN: Observations on Parliamentary Reform ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 RECOMMENDATIONS – SUMMARY 6 Efficiency 6 Scrutiny 6 Education 7 Constituency Service 7 Legislation 8 PREFACE BY THOMAS S. AXWORTHY 9 First Glimpse of Parliament 10 Parties and Politicians 15 Political Motivations 23 The Almighty PMO 26 Minority Governments 28 The 24‐Hour News Cycle 31 International Comparisons 33 Preface Conclusion 37 MAIN REPORT 38 Introduction 38 The Classical Tradition 39 The Trudeau Balance 45 The Parliament We Want 54 International Lessons 64 Conclusion 70 25 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORMING PARLIAMENT 72 APPENDIX 1: INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS ON EXPERTISE AND STAFF RESOURCES IN PARLIAMENT 78 Introduction 78 Methods 81 A) Legislative/Library Research Services 82 Conclusions and Recommendations: Legislative/Library Research Services 89 B) Committee Support 92 Conclusions and recommendations: Committee Support 103 C) Budget Research 103 Conclusions and recommendations: Budget Research 105 D) Constituency Services/Office Staff 106 Conclusions and recommendations: Constituency Services/Office Staff 112 E) Partisan Research 116 Conclusions and recommendations: Partisan Research 120 Summary of conclusion and recommendations: Appendix 1 120 APPENDIX 2: HISTORY OF RECENT PARLIAMENTARY REFORM STUDIES IN CANADA 121 ENDNOTES 128 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was greatly assisted by a grant from the Aurea Foundation, and we wish to thank them for their generous support. We are especially indebted to Peter Munk, the founder of the Aurea Foundation, and Alan Gottlieb, its chair, for making the Centre for the Study of Democracy one of the beneficiaries of the Foundation’s first grants. I want to thank the Fellows and Research Assistants of the Centre for the Study of Democracy: Julie Burch, Valerie Ashford, Lara Fitzgerald-Husek, Nicholas Fogg, Callan Burgess, Erin Pleet, Dave Donovan, Mathew Johnson and Alex Derry for helping to carry out interviews and research in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Peter MacLeod, a Fellow of our Centre, not only assisted with his expert knowledge of how constituency offices could better be used (which is reflected in our recommendations), but he also drew up an interesting survey design for a longitudinal research project measuring the expectations and activities of Canadian Members or Parliament over time (see Appendix 4). This study was based on secondary sources, interviews, and personal reflection, but an ongoing longitudinal study of Canadian parliamentarians would be a very useful research undertaking. Most of all, I want to thank the men and women who contributed to our work by agreeing to be interviewed and by commenting on various drafts. David Walker, a former MP, Gerald Schmitz, a principal analyst in the Parliamentary Information and Research Service of the Library of Parliament, Sheila Gervais, former executive director of the Liberal Party, and Tom Robson, a government relations specialist with the Portland Group, made useful comments on particular sections. Alison Loat, Arthur Milnes and Christopher McCreery gave very detailed comments to improve an early draft. Three fellows of the Centre, former MPs William Knight and Douglas Rowland, and Robert Miller, President of the Parliamentary Centre, also reviewed the text and made valuable suggestions. The study was officially launched at a roundtable held at Queen’s University on April 23, 2008. We benefited from the insight and comments of panels on the Media and Parliament and the Party System and Parliament. Three distinguished academics, and members of CSD’s Advisory Committee, John Meisel, Hugh Thorburn and Ronald Watts attended and provided valuable critiques. One important point to note is that both the panels members and the academics at the event criticized the paper for being too complacent about the current situation in Parliament. The consensus was that Parliament’s reputation has suffered a real decline and that it has become irrelevant to the needs of many Canadians. See Appendix 4 – “Summary of April 23, 2008 Roundtable on Release of Paper”, for a detailed account of presentations and discussions. I also want to especially acknowledge Professor C.E.S. Franks of Queen’s University, also a Fellow of our Centre, who has been educating me about Parliament since I was a graduate student, and who is still engaged in that never-ending task. Thomas S. Axworthy April 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Across twenty years of significant cultural, economic and political change two of Canada's foremost scholars and observers of parliament offer the same encouraging conclusion: the institution at the heart of Canadian federal democracy deserves our confidence. And at the core of their observations lies a powerful truth: times change, but Parliament remains constant in its ability to adapt. This report begins by affirming the similar views of both Franks and Smith (see sidebars). These views, however, were strongly contested at the roundtable launching "Despite its faults, the Parliamentary the study; the consensus from that discussion was the system in Canada works better than the literature would lead one to believe." Parliament’s reputation has recently suffered a real decline and that it has become out of touch with the needs of many C.E.S. Franks, Parliament of Canada, 1987. Canadian (see appendix 4 for a summary of this discussion). The argument of this report is that Parliament is far more effective than it sometimes appears from any single vantage point, and recent changes in Canadian society do challenge the institution in new ways. There are, however, opportunities for improvement, which are presented in the 25 recommendations below. Canada’s Parliament is an executive-centred, party-dominated, adversarial-minded, multi-tasked institution. It has had these characteristics for a long time, yet it has always succeeded in adapting well enough to keep up with the changing demands of markedly different eras. Reform of parliament, therefore, is part of a continuous and honourable tradition. In effect, parliamentary democracies are always in the midst of reform, and while our system of government may look as immovable and unchanging as the stones of the Peace Tower, it is in fact, and by design, in a state of constant evolution. The history of parliamentary reform in the past generation offers many examples of good practice that remain relevant today, and these innovations, plus recent reports by Members of Parliament (MPs) from all parties — especially “The Parliament We Want” report of 2003 — point the way toward a timely reform agenda. As the “Canada has a better House of 2003 report recommended, and as the international scan of Commons than its critics allow, and even perhaps than there are theories to legislative practice reviewed in this study confirms, two of the explain it”. main requirements are: 1) to enhance the ability of David E. Smith, 2007. parliamentary committees and individual MPs and Senators to call on specialized, non-partisan research expertise located in the Library of Parliament and, 2) to create, within the Library, a new Parliamentary Office of Citizen Engagement to assist committees in reaching out to, and learning from, Canadian citizens. Therefore, although Parliament is strong, it could still be much-improved. But in comparison to Parliament, which works better than its critics allege, the weakest link in our political system is the performance of Canadian parties as policy, research, and thinking institutions. This deficiency affects not only Parliament, but also every other part of our political system. Canadian parties must create research foundations, and therefore a core recommendation of this report is that a portion of the existing public subsidy for party operations should be dedicated to funding such research work. 5 Walter Bagehot, in his classic book, The English Constitution, described the five roles of Parliament: Efficiency, Scrutiny, Education, Constituency Service, and Legislation. These purposes are as valid today as they were in 1867, and the recommendations below have been organized according to Bagehot’s categories. RECOMMENDATIONS – SUMMARY Efficiency 1. In any reforms that are undertaken, the powers of the Prime Minister should not be weakened so much that Parliament loses its guiding hand. 2. Chairs of committees must balance the interests of their party against the primary need to have committees operating fairly and effectively. Committees making special inquiries need flexibility to allow coherent and sustained questioning of witnesses. If partisan disputes completely stalemate a committee, the dispute should be adjudicated by the Speaker. 3. Parliamentary Secretaries should be selected with the same care as choosing Ministers. Scrutiny 4. In addition to the central role of the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) in assisting parliamentarians to understand the assumptions behind