Main Page

Churchilliad
Online Index

"THE GOVERNMENT
 IS THE SERVANT
 OF THE PEOPLE
 AND NOT ITS MASTER"

Winston Churchill
Oslo 1948

Reviewing the Role of the MPP

By Philip Bousquet

Volume 15 Issue 1 Winter 2003

“Inevitably perhaps, the competing responsibilities of MPs do not assist them in the task of coping with the large and complex burden of legislative business. We believe nonetheless that there is considerable scope for some members to concentrate more fully and more critically on the legislative process and for there to be amongst the mix of members some who have appropriate expertise and temperament to undertake the grinding and often unnoticed slog of improving the quality of our laws. For on those laws depend the legal foundation and economic and social balance of our society.”

- Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System (UK 1998), Chaired by
the late Rt. Hon. Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

Each parliament has its own history, its own conventions and its own approach to reform.

The institution evolves through a continual interplay of electoral results, government initiatives, opposition scrutiny and public response.  Central to this process is the elected member who represents his or her riding and votes on the business that is brought before the House.  The member expresses either approval or disapproval on behalf of her constituents and she serves a fundamental role in advancing our democracy. 

On occasion, a parliament may choose to undertake a formal review of its own role and conduct. The scope of such studies may vary, however, the significance of the process cannot be understated, as a parliament must evolve in order to remain effective. Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs) at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario recently conducted such a review and I hope that this brief summary will be of interest to our readers. 

Mandate and schedule

In October 2001, the Ontario Legislature unanimously agreed to initiate a review of the role of the private member. The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly was assigned the task of inquiring into and reporting on “parliamentary reforms that will improve democracy and enhance accountability”.  This review would take place in two phases: (i) reforms that would expand the use of technology in the House and its committees; and (ii) reforms that would enhance the role of private members.  This article will summarize the second phase of the review.

From the outset, committee members realized that some comparative analysis would assist their work. Early into the review, the committee conducted research into the current state of parliaments.  Members visited and met with officials from the United Kingdom Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, and the National Assembly for Wales.  The committee also sought the advice of officials with the Canadian Parliament, and with the National Assembly of Quebec.  In the spring of 2002, the committee discussed the role of private members with academics who have researched and written on this subject.  Their presentations are discussed below.

Ideas considered  

In his presentation to the committee, Professor Graham White of the University of Toronto sets out several underlying premises to his recommendations for parliamentary reform.  He begins with an acknowledgement that “the legislature is a political place” where differences are debated by the members. As such, any attempt to reform the institution should take into account the political nature of its role.

Secondly, Professor White speaks to the need for balance: “On the one hand, the government must have the ability to govern effectively without undue delay or obstruction, but, on the other hand, the legislature has a duty to hold the government to account and to maximize democratic involvement in governing processes.”  His third premise is that, given the demands on the institution, MPPs should concentrate on those areas “where the possibilities for improvement and success lie.”  Professor White’s suggestion is that accountability should be the focus of this effort. Finally, he says, “the most promising possibilities for significant reform and for a meaningful role for the private members” may be found in the legislative committee system.

Professor White then offers a number of observations and proposals for consideration by the committee. Among them are the following:

·         There are too few elected members to adequately staff the legislative committees

·         The standing orders formally recognize political parties ahead of private members

·         Major bills should receive more public scrutiny through the committee process

·         More opportunities should be provided for consideration of private members’ bills

·         Committees should have additional authority to review draft regulations, public appointments and federal – provincial agreements

Following his presentation, Dr. White responded to questions and comments from the MPPs. During the discussion, he spoke to the democratic role served by members and by the public that they represent: “Sometimes the price of having a legislature and a democratic system is lots of people need to have their say”. In the case of public hearings, such open dialogue with elected members may play a part in “legitimizing the process and combating the cynicism that the public has about politics.”

Professor David Docherty of Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo also appeared before the committee to present his recommendations and to answer questions from the MPPs.  Professor Docherty begins his remarks with a review of the MPP’s role which may be summarized as a “legislation function” (examining, supporting, opposing, and amending legislation), a “scrutiny” or “accountability” function and, of course, the “representation function” (which may extend beyond the geographic limits of one’s own constituency).

In his presentation, Dr. Docherty emphasizes that he recognizes how difficult it is to be an MPP. Elected members work long hours and have many competing demands on their time. These facts come into play when considering reforms that would enhance the role of the private member.

Professor Docherty believes “Ontario is well served” by its committees.  While he acknowledges that there is “room for debate about the extent of public hearings,” Ontario does have a well-developed committee system that supports the democratic process.

Among his suggestions are the following: 

* Legislation should be more frequently referred to committee in advance of the second reading stage (and, in some cases, in advance of introduction)
* Committees should draft their own legislation in response to input received during public hearings
* Private members’ bills that have been reviewed at committee and reported back to the House should more frequently receive a third reading debate and a vote.

During the subsequent discussion with committee members, Professor Docherty stated that, among other reasons, the emphasis on Cabinet has contributed to the loss of the sense “that being a parliamentarian is a noble goal.”  Perhaps the work of this committee will contribute towards the restoration of the public’s regard for the role of the MPP.

In the next issue

As C.E.S. Franks wrote in The Parliament of Canada (1987), “Reforms that are not solidly grounded in reality are not likely to succeed.”  In the next issue of Churchilliad, we will look at what reforms are being proposed by the committee.

Committee Hansard can be accessed through the Ontario Legislature’s main website: http://www.ontla.on.ca/index.htm

Read Role of the MPP - Part 2

________________________________________

Philip Bousquet is a member of the Parliamentary Democracy Initiatives committee

Photo credit: Legislative Assembly of Ontario