PDF
Pierrette Venne, M.P.
Since the spring of 2002, four
of the 38 MPs who were elected as Bloquistes on November 27, 2000, have ceased
to be members of the Bloc Québécois caucus. Two of them, Michel Bellehumeur and
Stéphan Tremblay, tried their luck in provincial by-elections, while Ghislain
Lebel had to resign from the caucus after a run-in with the sacred rules of
party discipline. More recently, Pierre Brien also jumped ship to join the
Action Démocratique du Québec.
These departures led me to
reflect at length on the role of a Member of parliament in our parliamentary
system. I have come to the conclusion that, more often than not, we MPs are
just a kind of “potted palm,” decorating the background while the party
leaders, ministers and others take the foreground. Freedom of speech and
freedom of thought have become forbidden ideas that no longer have a place in
our democratic institutions. Party discipline rules! Even though it is
difficult to question the status quo, it must be done so that ideas can
progress. MPs must be able to express points of view that differ from their
party’s official position, without attracting bolts of lightning from above.
At this time, our
parliamentary system suffers from a serious democracy deficit, since MPs are
hobbled in their freedom of expression. Certainly, party affiliation implies
respect for a basic philosophy and some degree of unity. Nevertheless, when
issues do not involve the essential principles of a party, MPs should be free
to speak and vote according to their own consciences. The heavy shackles of
party discipline—a plague that afflicts all parties—only support the general
public’s cynicism about politicians.
But why are MPs so docile and
submissive? The rewards they receive, such as the chance to travel abroad and
prominent positions in the party hierarchy, including, in the latter case, a
nice increase in pay, must have something to do with it. It is easy to understand
that those who conform to the wishes of the establishment find they can get
closer to the leadership of the party. Would a code of ethics for party leaders
be the remedy for this abuse of power?
With its new ethics bill, the
government believes it will be able to restore the former glory of our
institution. Aside from the occasional case of driving under the influence, it
is rather rare for scandals to involve backbench MPs. As a general rule, it is
cabinet ministers who end up on the front pages. And yet, all parliamentarians,
from ordinary MPs to ministers, are now subject to the same rules. Moreover,
considering the Prime Minister’s nonchalant attitude to the scandals involving
him and his ministers, the new ethics rules we have been promised do not seem
very credible. But how could it be otherwise? Stuck in the role of potted palm,
or rubber stamp, excluded from the corridors of power, and moreover, with no
resources and no discretionary allowance to spend, an MP—even if he or she were
the most immoral being on the face of the earth—would have trouble violating
any rules. In this context is it really necessary to table a draft bill to
establish a Code of Ethics for Parliamentarians? I think not. It is only
an exercise in government image-polishing, trying to divert attention from
their permanent crisis, and making themselves feel better about their past
scandals.
And with respect to ordinary
MPs, the new measures are completely pointless, since there are already many
rules governing our behaviour. One only need think of the Parliament of
Canada Act, which devotes one entire section to conflicts of interest and
another to giving the Board of Internal Economy the responsibility to settle
financial and administrative problems involving MPs. The Board has the power to
govern MPs’ use of the funds, goods, services and space provided to carry out
our parliamentary duties. Moreover, administrative rules impose certain
restrictions, making it impossible for the MP to enter into contracts for
employment, purchase of goods, services or provision of space with a member of
his or her family. There is also the Canada Elections Act, which
regulates the financing of parties and candidates and now, the Prime Minister
is about to give us new and more restrictive regulations on the financing of
federal political parties. In addition, the Criminal Code punishes
corruption by a maximum sentence of 14 years. Finally, the most coercive of all
these rules of conduct is undoubtedly that of party discipline, since it acts
as a frame of reference for rewards and punishments. This last item does pose a
serious problem. Its effectiveness—or rather its ineffectiveness, since it
denies a fundamental principle of democracy, namely, the free championing of
ideas—is dependent on the ideals of a small, often unelected group that
gravitates around the leader. In the current state of affairs, the new code of
ethics could have been limited to apply to just a few people and called the Code
of Ethics for Tyrants.
Here is a very concrete example of MPs’ servility
toward their leaders. For many years, parliamentarians have gone through sham
elections when choosing the chair and vice-chair of each parliamentary
committee. Despite the provisions of the Standing Orders of the House of
Commons, the chairs and vice-chairs were not elected, but rather appointed by a
motion as dictated by the Prime Minister’s office, and all the party leaders
required their members to play the game. So it is not astonishing that certain
backbench Liberal MPs went along with the Official Opposition’s proposal to
hold a secret ballot to truly elect committee officers, in opposition to the
recommendations of their leader, Jean Chrétien, thus provoking considerable
commotion within all the parties.
As we saw then, some of the potted
palms can get up and walk. If they were really aware of the important role they
could play if they assumed their full responsibilities as MPs, they would
finally get the respect they deserve and a parliamentary revolution would take
place. When it is a question of reforming institutions, as is now being done in
Quebec, there is a total lack of understanding of the whole issue. The issue is
not institutional order, but the kind of relationships prevailing within each
party. The institution is not operating the way it should for one and only one
reason: the actors cannot play their roles freely. The political parties are no
longer the rainbow coalitions the Bloc once was. They have become the
antithesis of democracy, that is, monarchies with the leaders as kings and the
MPs their subjects, or perhaps armies where soldiers must carry out the
generals’ orders without disputes or questions.
Questions of ethics go well
beyond the application of a code of ethics for parliamentarians. First and
foremost, it is a question of integrity, a value that ought to be intrinsic to
the individual and not dependent on the existence of a Code and a Commissioner.
This, of course, is a very utopian statement. Unfortunately, in an environment
where power is strongly concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, it
appears that, for the Prime Minister, the ministers and the party leaders, the
absence of a real will to overcome the democracy gap must be offset by
multiplying the numbers of rules and codes. Thus, someone is trying to fool the
MPs by leading them to believe that, because they are subject to punishment,
they have a certain amount of free will. But when our only purpose is to stand
at the back of the stage and to vote mechanically as the leader wishes, do we
really need a code of ethics? The answer is obvious.
|