“A far more serious threat to Parliament than declining decorum is simply that the over eight million words accumulated over a year of debate may not really matter because Parliament itself doesn’t really matter,” says a report by democracy think tank Samara, called Lost in Translation or Just Lost?: Canadians’ Priorities and the House of Commons.
The report, released Feb. 4, studies whether Canadians’ priorities match what goes on in the House of Commons, what it calls “the heart of Canada’s democratic life.” Samara studied 54 days of House debates, almost 3.7 million words in three different time frames—March 5 to April 5 (“March”), May 14 to June 15 (“May/June) and Sept. 20 to Oct. 20 (“October”), which equalled 40 per cent of when the House was in session. Samara then compared the data to polling it conducted about which issues Canadians felt were most important. As such, there were 18 “policy headings” which were coded for various words to see whether these interests were reflected in House debates.
Some of the policy headings included: aboriginal relations; economy and government fiscal health; crime; education; energy; environment; food industry; health care; immigration; political participation; social programs; religion; and foreign policy and defence. The report found that while Canadians don’t believe MPs are talking about their issues, “Parliament is actually aligned with Canadians’ interests, albeit weakly.”
Lost in Translation studies six areas of House “venues” where MPs have opportunities to raise their constituents’ interests. They are: government business, oral questions (or, the 45-minute daily Question Period), private members’ business, routine proceedings, Members’ statements and other. “A pattern emerges: the venues in which MPs best reflect the priorities of Canadians are those where political parties exert the least influence over the MPs,” the report says. “In the end, there seems to be a disconnect between what’s happening in the House of Commons and what Canadians believe is happening—something is ‘lost in translation.’”
In each of the three periods studied, Canadians said that “economy, taxes and government fiscal health” was their number one priority, followed by health care; social programs; jobs, labour and unemployment; environment; education; crime and justice system; immigration and “other,” which corresponded to all the issues for which less than one per cent of the respondents said the issue was important to them (for example, aboriginal relations, transportation and foreign policy). The breakdown of what was discussed in the House, however, was: jobs, labour and unemployment; economy, taxes and government fiscal health; immigration; crime and justice system; financial system and investment; transportation; health care; and trade. Memorial University professor Kelly Blidook worked with Samara to develop an “alignment score” with -100 meaning none of Canadians’ interests were reflected in the House, and a +100 meaning Canadians’ priorities reflected perfectly in the House of Commons. The result was 38.
“Many Canadians have significant doubts about the political system’s ability to respond to their interests and priorities,” the report says. However, “when the Hansard results are compared to Canadians’ priorities, three observations stand out. First, there is greater alignment between the issues Canadians care about and the issues discussed in the House than Canadians’ perceptions may suggest. In fact, the alignment measure is positive, and consistently so. Second, the venues where parties exert less control are more closely aligned with Canadians’ priorities. Finally, there are differences among the parties, where the combined expressions of MPs within a given party are more representative of Canadian interests than those of other parties.”
The report found alignment very low during QP, and that government business “closely matches the overall alignment measure for the House of Commons—which is not wholly surprising since this venue comprises the bulk of the House’s agenda.”
The report found that during MPs Statements (Standing Order 31) and routine proceedings, priorities aligned the most. “Both venues share a common characteristic: MPs have greater autonomy over what they say, with less party scripting and influence in those venues. The policy stakes, after all, are relatively lower as the venues do not see the passage of legislation,” Lost in Translation says. “Private members’ business’s average score lands in-between that of the other venues. As a means for MPs to pursue their preferred issues, it clearly has potential for alignment.”
The problem, Samara says, is that political party influence is now encroaching on these two venues, which is creating a more difficult environment for MPs to truly reflect their constituents’ priorities. The report says that while there’s optimism that MPs and Canadians can be more aligned, “the venues with greater party influence are pulling the alignment scores down. This observation relates to comments made by MPs and political observers that partisan attacks are serving as substitutes for policy discussion or debate, or curtailing the preferences of MPs in both the issues they raise and how they raise them.” For example, Members’ statements have been used to increasingly attack other parties instead of congratulating constituents or speaking about an issue important to an MP’s riding. Between 1994 and 2006, “statements with a primary purpose to attack another party or praise the speaker’s own party” was at 14 per cent. After 2006, it increased to 24 per cent.
“MPs themselves acknowledge this trend,” the report says. “According to a former MP, the growing pressure on MPs to deliver a party message is palpable: ‘The staff got their direction from the Prime Minister’s Office, so I assume from the PM himself, to become much more partisan in Members’ Statements. ... It really got over the top, way over the top.’”
In addition, Lost in Translation notes other impediments to aligning interests in and outside of the House. Private members business, in which backbench MPs have two hours in a Parliament to discuss anything they want, is becoming more of a focus group for government. “One MP, appointed as critic by her party, claimed that a great deal of the legislation she managed was, in fact, ‘government feelers’ disguised as private members’ bills,” the report says, noting also that even with government legislation, debate is routinely being shut down using time allocation motions and closure. In the periods studied, Samara found 10 instances of time allocation and two closure motions. “The increased use of this mechanism without the support of both sides of the House may unfortunately trade quality of representation for efficiency. Moreover, the majority government of the 41st Parliament is well on its way to surpassing the rate at which time allocation is imposed compared to previous majority governments dating back to 1971 when it was first used.”
In addition, MPs spend most of their time outside of the House chamber—in committees, in other meetings with stakeholders, at receptions, in caucus, their offices, or travelling. Samara says MPs have regularly described the chamber as a “ghost-town” because quorum is 25 MPs and party whips have their MPs on a rotational ‘House duty.’
“As one MP observed, ‘They’re there [in the House chamber] because they have to be. There are very few Members who are there because they want to be,’” the report says, adding that one former government House leader described the House as having a monopoly on “waste of time.” Samara says this is not because debate is confrontational, but because the debates don’t mean anything.
On a party basis, the report found that the NDP had the highest average for aligning Canadians’ interests with House debate. The NDP alignment average was almost more than the Parliamentary average alignment score. In second was the Conservative Party, followed by the Liberal Party.
Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said last November that the House chamber is “a kind of empty, pointless debating chamber because it’s all stitched up in advance by party leaders,” Samara notes, adding that “the actual debate has little meaning.”
As a result, Samara suggests that Parliament has become irrelevant. “The House is not designed for dialogue and cross-partisan discussions,” the report says. “While Parliament is meant to be the country’s centre for democratic debate, Canada faces a fundamental problem that ‘decisions are made elsewhere and then imposed on this place.’”
Samara makes three suggestions on how to improve the House’s relevancy to Canadians. The first, which it recognizes will likely not happen, is that parties should “offer up some of their powers to the MPs.” Secondly, MPs could simply stand up for themselves and refuse to participate in pure partisan politics. And thirdly, Standing Orders, or the House rules, could be changed “to enforce a more open debate.” When it spoke to former MPs, Samara says they felt that the second option was the “right one” to change the debating environment. “Change must come from within, among MPs, even in the face of punishment,” Lost in Translation says. “Most immediately, it involves MPs standing up to party leaders together.” Some MPs told Samara that while some do stand up for themselves, party leaders will “always find people who wanted to be up on television.”
This, Samara says, is not good for democracy.
“The body of evidence Samara has been gathering from exit interviews with former MPs, focus groups with a diverse group of Canadians and national public opinion research, suggests that the Commons is not currently set up to allow Canadians to see the full range of what actually happens in their democracy— either within the House walls, or beyond them. This may be leading to some of the disillusionment people report,” says Lost in Translation. “This troubling reality calls for a bigger check-up on our Parliament.”
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: Bea Vongdouangchanh
No comments:
Post a Comment