At the time this article was written Bob
Andrew was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan.
In October 1979 a seminar was held at
Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario, dealing with a general overview of committee
structures in the Parliamentary process. Delegates representing Great Britain,
United States, West Germany, Trinidad & Tobago, Ghana, Jamaica, St.
Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, Belize, as well as each of the jurisdictions of Canada,
were in attendance. Below is a summary of some of the principles advanced by
the various participants.
The seminar opened with an address by George
Cunningham, MP, British House of Commons. He cautioned participants against
trying to superimpose the methods of one parliament or legislature on that of
another, since the differences of size, customs, constitution, among other
factors simply prevent that from being done. Yet, similar problems do exist
that by and large are common to all. Democratically elected governments have
all experienced a power shift away from the Legislative to the Executive branch
of Government. The question then arises as to how elected representatives,
"... who are necessarily amateurs and not experts" can control the
complexities of modern government and the expertise of the civil service. As a
result, parliamentary legislatures have sought help through the vehicle of the
Parliamentary Committee.
Cunningham strongly advanced the argument as
to the general approach that elected members must take on committees in order
for real change to take place.
"...I don't believe that any parliament
can work unless the member, however he was elected, however much party
affiliation played in his election, behaves very, independently of his party –
you can say that parliamentary democracy always lies in trust with the
backbenchers on the government side of the House .... and unless they are
prepared to give Ministers hell, to disagree with them, to vote against them,
you might as well lock the doors, pack the place up and all go home.... There
are parliaments where I understand it is unheard of for a member of Party X to
vote against the accepted line of Party X. I think that is dereliction of
duty...".
He went on to criticize the argument often
advanced that the government Member should rather "fight his case in
caucus." He did not wish to go into the merits of that argument other than
to say that it didn't have any merits whatsoever. The net effect is that by
silencing a minority within the government party, you have effectively turned a
minority position into a majority position. He challenged the participants to
find a workable system:
"I don't want a parliament of
independent members, but a parliament of party members who are
independent-minded, robust, unbullyable and unbuyable. Somewhere in that grey
area is the right formula, the right means of behaviour for having a properly
responsive parliament. Only then are you giving the public, the individuals and
the organizations a real voice."
Applying these principles to committee work
he suggested:
"(1) The committee should be there to
elucidate for the whole House, rather than simply state a party's positions,
c.f. the other party;
(2) Inefficiency and waste must be attacked
when it exists in the government of one's own party just as vigorously as when
it exists in the other party;
(3) The members must be prepared to carry
their criticism to a vote for when a member is prepared to use the ultimate
deterrent he will probably find out that he doesn't actually need to use it;
(4) That committee members to be effective
must do their homework, regardless of the amount of staff at their
disposal."
Premier Richard Hatfield stimulated debate
with his comments on "Parliamentary Committees and the Executive The Other
Side of the Coin." He cautioned legislators not to get caught up in the
rush to be full time legislators and thereby lose the most important contact
with the people. He suggested that there is a danger in that parliamentary
committees can become full time exercises, with full time staffs resulting in
an unfortunate encouragement to become subservient to the Parliamentary milieu,
and that they can turn into "narrow-minded, self-conscious and
self-serving institutions."
This position drew almost immediate response
from Mark MacGuigan, MP, who suggested that perhaps the Executive was the one
that was most threatened by fulltime parliamentarians and not the public. This
view was endorsed by Mr. Baah from Ghana.
"The Executive is full time. You can't
have one person doing a long distance marathon and another person going 100
yards if the two parties are going to keep up with each other. I think the real
problem is "how" in the modern parliament system. How do we make it
possible for the legislature to keep up to the executive so that the executive
simply doesn't go off on its own without any checks? This is the real
problem."
Mr. Cherniak, MLA (Manitoba) agreed with
Premier Hatfield that the legislatures should not sit all year around because
it is important that elected representatives have contact with the people, but
that there should be more committee work in effect making the elected
representatives a full time occupation. He went on to advocate that these
inter-sessional committees be special committees to investigate special
concerns and problems.
Peter Dobell suggested that the reason
committees have become increasingly more important is that it provides a
vehicle by which members can become more informed. Further, he said:
"...it seems to me what distinguishes
the professional bureaucrat from the professional politician is the bureaucrat
does not have the connection with the country, and does not have the same
political judgment. Therefore, the advice these two groups give is
different."
He further suggested that it is important
that a government not simply seek advice from caucus committees, but rather
should encourage parliamentary committees to be the source of some of their
advice. He went on to say that the committee system must provide a vehicle not
only to allow the gathering of the advice but also a follow up procedure to
ensure that it is not simply falling on deaf ears.
Kenneth Baker, Conservative MP from Great
Britain, explained the recent moves toward more effective committee work in the
U.K. brought about as a result of a new administration. He compared the various
groups that advocated differing changes. First of all, he suggested that in
other parliamentary systems, the party managers (Executive branch) wanted
changes that would speed up the process of the Bills and other proceedings in
the House. The young, perhaps romantic members, somehow wanted a vehicle so
that a more effective way could be found to scrutinize government and
parliamentary expenditures and to attack the imbalance between the executive
and legislative branches.
Baker advised that the U.K. has moved to
adopt subject committees or department committees, wherein the 15 or 18
important areas are identified and the committees structured to shadow those
departments, primarily in estimates and subject matters, but not Bills. That
part of the parliamentary process is to be handled by a special bills
committee. Primarily he echoed the views expressed by many legislators at this
conference that estimates must be approached in a far different manner if we
are to do the job of controlling the purse strings of government. Estimates
committees must rather than being a forum for political rhetoric be a place
where the question is put what are the objectives of the program? Is this the
most effective way to handle that problem and the most efficient way to expend
public money for that purpose? Baker further joined the voice of many who
called for extra pay for committee chairmen in order to encourage more in depth
work by the committees.
Dr. Walter Kravitz, a recognized specialist
in the American committee system, addressed the meeting and attempted to
explain the complexities of the American committee work and to perhaps put to
rest some of the misconceptions held in Canada about that system.
First of all, he made it very clear that to
appreciate the American system, you must first appreciate how and why it
developed, the kind of population it serves, and the customs of the country as
they relate to government. The President is independent of the Legislature and
isolated from that institution. The checks and balances of the American system
are very distinct and therefore their committees reflect that marked
difference. Under a parliamentary system "Government" has come to
mean the Cabinet, a "Leader's Committee of Parliament." In the
U.S.A., Government still means the whole process. Political parties do not mean
the same thing. In Canada, he said, you people think that the political party
must be ideologically cohesive, that it must be centralized, disciplined and
always follow its leadership. In the U.S.A., they believe no such thing.
In the United States it is the committee
with rather vast resources of people and money that has kept the Legislative
Branch at least on a par with the Executive Branch supplying the expertise, if
you like. Committee members that rise to the top have long tenure. It is not a
question in the United States as to whether or not they need staffs for their
committees, rather it is how much do they need?
The seminar next heard from Mr. J.J.
Macdonell, Auditor General of Canada. The topic dealt with the Public Accounts
Committee and the relationship of that committee with the Auditor General's
Office. Mr. Macdonell somewhat stunned the public of Canada a few years ago
with his famous statement:
"... I am deeply concerned that
Parliament and indeed the Government has lost, or is close to losing, effective
control of the public purse."
He then expanded upon his views as to what
was necessary to bring about change necessary to stop that trend. Much of that,
of course, was beyond the scope of committee, per se, and obviously a study in
itself. He did however encourage Public Accounts Committees and recognized the
need for research and co-operation with the Auditor General.
Mr. Benno Friesen, MP addressed the seminar
with proposals advanced by a recent Canadian Parliamentary committee study of
committees. He advocated the abolition of unlimited substitution so as to avoid
problems with poor attendance and to not allow the Whip a vehicle by which to
get a member off of the committee that was obstructing the orderly passage of
the business. As well, he advised against a system that is in practise in
Ottawa of the Estimates being automatically passed after the lapse of a certain
period of time.
Mr. Donald MacDonald, (MPP, (NDP), of the
Ontario Legislature and Chairman of the Committee on Ontario Hydro explained to
the seminar the workings of that committee and how it had tackled a very
involved problem area of nuclear development. In particular, he spoke on the
use of expert staff to help perform the rather complex investigative undertaking.
This committee, perhaps more than any other committee on the Canadian political
scene, has developed a quasi-judicial style, an attraction for the media and a
vehicle by which the public can become involved. In short, many associated it
with the American style of committee.
Peter Dobell's comments followed outlining
again where he thought the systems should be moving towards. He felt that the
chairman was, in fact, more important than the staff. That in many committees,
the chairman acts like a Speaker, but he said, " ... the chairman should
be leading the inquiry. He may be assisted by staff but the leadership must
come from the elected chairman of the committee." Dobell further disagreed
with the practice of Ontario Hydro Committee of allowing the staff to question
witnesses.
The seminar closed on a rather humorous
address by Dr. James Boren, author of When in Doubt, Mumble, who made reference
to the week's seminar on committees as follows:
But I thought that I was going to become a
part of a movement to put creative non-responsiveness into its proper place, to
help implement the spirit of bold irresolution. But when I arrived, I found
that you were discussing committee process as a means of making government more
effective, as a means of making it more responsive, as a means of giving
participation to the public, of looking at opportunities for redress of various
types of grievances. I found that you were moving in the wrong direction. I
urge you to recant and to recognize that the creative status quo should be the
goal that we all should seek. You should learn to apply the principles of
dynamic inaction, and that is doing nothing but doing it with a certain style.
The recent Federal Election and its resulting
polarization between East and West creates a further challenge to the
development of our parliamentary system. We hear many now advocating various
forms of proportional representation. I am concerned that this will further
erode the already weak legislative branch of government. The new legislators
under this system will be nothing more than "Super hacks", indebted
to the party leaders for their position, with an inside track for cabinet
should their party form the government or be part of a coalition. That will not
satisfy regional differences but will drive them further apart. I believe we
must seek ;~ closer balance between the Legislative and Executive branches of
government if we are to have true representation at our national level. Legislative
committees with a high profile, more staff and research is undoubtedly one
important mode by which we can move in that direction. However Canadian
legislators must have the independence and the determination to effect that
change, because the Executive Branch clearly will not voluntarily reduce its
influence. I wonder if legislators have the will?
A complete transcript of the discussions
will be made available to all delegates who participated in the Seminar, as
well as to all Branch Secretaries and Canadian Parliamentary Libraries.