Exploring the Role of ‘Legislators’ in Canada: Do Members of Parliament Influence Policy?

Abstract

In Canada, the decline of parliament and the dominance of the executive have received much scholarly attention. Meanwhile, the legislative and policy roles of Members of Parliament have generally been viewed as negligible. This study suggests that such roles may in fact be much more significant than previously believed, in part due to endogenous rule changes governing Private Members' Business over the past 25 years. Evidence is provided suggesting not only that MPs are generally more successful at getting legislation passed in recent years, but also that they appear to be able to influence government policy ‘indirectly’ through their participation in Private Members' Business.

Keywords:

• Canada
• Member of Parliament
• influence
• legislator
• Private Members' Business
• policy

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professors Stuart Soroka, Richard Schultz, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Amanda Bittner. Each provided valuable feedback and encouragement on earlier versions of this research. Thanks are also due to Rodney Doody for research assistance and, finally, the author would like to thank the Journal's anonymous reviewers who provided important criticism and direction for strengthening this research. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Canadian Political Science Association annual conference in Saskatoon, SK, 2007.

Notes

The debate regarding ‘parliamentarians’ versus ‘legislators’ may simply be one of semantics and preferences. Patterson and Mughan state: ‘Representative assemblies are best known to Europeans as parliaments and best known to Americans as legislatures. The names may be used interchangeably, although there are those who insist on a distinction – that parliaments' members are expected only to talk, whereas members of legislatures really make laws. Of course, the plain truth is that both parliaments and legislatures, as they may be known, are variously enmeshed in lawmaking and they exercise a variety of distinctive powers’ (Patterson and Mughan 1999, p. ix).

The probability of passing a single bill has been likened by some MPs to that of winning the lottery (Keyes 1997).

See for example Blidook (2007), who argues that certain types of PMB participation may be a form of electioneering.

Wawro's ‘legislative entrepreneurs’ is specific to legislators, while Kingdon's term is meant to be inclusive of all potential policy actors.

In cases where the government loses a battle with the legislature, it may still get its way in terms of what policy it executes, but it must expend additional resources in doing so. An example of this is the recent passing of Private Members' Bill C-288 (Kyoto Protocol) during the 39th Parliament, in which Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez attempted to force the governing Conservatives to continue a policy adopted during the previous parliament in which the Liberals had governed. The Conservatives did not act on the successful bill, but the case did receive a good deal of attention and it did appear to put the government on the defensive.

Certainly, cases such as C-288 (see note 5) may very well seem adversarial in nature. However, positions taken by MPs do not need to attack the government's position on a given topic, and may even seem complementary in nature.

Bills that propose the spending of money are not prohibited, but they do require a Royal Recommendation which is obtained from the Governor General and which has traditionally been given only for Government Bills. In 1994, the rules of procedure were changed, allowing Private Members' Bills to call for spending so long as the Royal Recommendation was attained before third reading, whereas previously it had been required at introduction (Marleau and Montpetit 2000, pp. 897–898). In 1995, the recommendation was given for spending provisions in Private Members' Bill C-216 (Keyes 1997).

Canada's Library of Parliament provided the necessary data for calculating counts of bills. The data for motions were compiled by the author. This calculation combines the 2nd and 3rd sessions of the 37th Parliament as a single session, because all items introduced in the 2nd session were carried over into the 3rd session. If the sessions are split and the average is calculated based on all introduced items, the average is 281 for bills and 462 for motions. If the average is calculated with split sessions, and only newly introduced items in the 3rd session, the average per session is 227 for bills and 362 for motions.

The current system for numbering Private Members' Bills, which begins with C-201, was not implemented until the 1970s.

C.E.S. Franks refers to this case as one of the most significant regarding PMB introductions (Canadian Study of Parliament Group 1992, p. 10).

Franks (Canadian Study of Parliament Group 1992, p. 14) notes that this vote was a matter of party policy for the NDP, and therefore not a free vote for those members.

The proportion of total introduced bills and motions that are actually passed (not including riding name changes) has fluctuated between approximately 1 and 3 per cent since the 35th Parliament. This is not necessarily a good indication of overall success, as many MPs introduce large numbers of bills and/or motions clearly with no intention that most of them could ever possibly be debated, much less passed (the maximum number of introduced bills in a single parliamentary session is 52, while for motions the maximum is 66). The success rate for items that actually reach debate is approximately 11 per cent for bills and approximately 16 per cent for motions over this period.

In 2002 a committee was charged with debating, and proposing changes to, the current and future role of PMB (see Adams et al. 2002). Many of the MPs on this committee expressed a strong desire to see more items debated and passed. These most recent rule changes were the result of these deliberations.

This is an increase of 26 per cent, though it should also be noted that the number of MPs also increased by approximately 10 per cent (incrementally over the period), and that the number of participants in a given session is slightly affected by the length of the parliamentary session. As both the periods in question had some shorter and longer sessions, and as a majority of items tend to be introduced nearer the beginning of the session, this is not expected to affect the comparison made significantly.

Face-to-face interviews were conducted in late 2006 with eight Liberal MPs, four Conservative MPs, three NDP MPs, and one BQ MP. The longest serving MP was first elected in 1979, while the shortest serving MPs (three) were first elected in 2004. Two MPs were female. All had been eligible for PMB participation at some point during their careers.

Bills for constituency name changes are not included because these bills are introduced relatively often and have a success rate that is much higher than all other bills generally.

Third readings of the House of Commons, rather than Royal Assent, are analysed here because the House lacks the power to affect either readings of bills in the Senate or Royal Assent.

Another two bills received third reading in the 2nd session, but failed to make it through the Senate during the 3rd session, and therefore died with the end of the parliament.

Asterisks in search terms permit variations in the ending of these search terms, i.e. ‘member∗’ could produce results including ‘members’ or ‘member's’.

All items are listed on the government's website: http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills.asp?Language=E

Legislative Summaries are available for about half of all introduced Government Bills.

One way that this could happen would be that a separate independent variable is actually influencing the introduction of both the PMB and Government Bill. For example, increased public preference for a given policy might lead both an MP and the government to introduce similar items.

C-259 An Act to Amend the Excise Tax Act (Elimination of Excise Tax on Jewellery), introduced by John Duncan (Conservative), and C-331 An Act to Acknowledge that Persons of Ukrainian Origin were Interned in Canada during the First World War and to Provide for Recognition of this Event, introduced by Inky Mark (Conservative) were also included in the budget bill (C-43) during the 38th Parliament, but both had received Royal Assent earlier during the same parliament.

MPs considered to have a close association to the current Conservative government include MPs that have sat previously as members of the Progressive Conservative, Reform, or Canadian Alliance caucuses. The Progressive Conservative Party and Canadian Alliance Party merged to become the Conservative Party in 2003.

Note that the item had only been introduced and was not placed on the Order of Precedence to be debated.

The reference used here is for the sole purpose of describing the terminology used in the motion that passed in the House of Commons. It is meant neither to affirm nor to deny its applicability to historical events.

See note 5.

See note 3. It is also notable that, in the MP interview quotations provided earlier in this article, both Karen Redman and Roy Cullen refer to the ‘glory’ of passing one's own bill. It has also been suggested earlier that there is the possibility of electoral benefit through ‘credit-claiming’ (Mayhew 1974) when legislation is passed.