Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
Sixth Canadian Regional Parliamentary Seminar, Ottawa, November 26, 1980, 137
pp.
For the past half-dozen years, the Canadian
Regional Parliamentary Seminar has provided a forum for legislators to compare
and evaluate their institutional and procedural differences. It is the kind of
service which goes largely unnoticed by the general public, and may not always
be appreciated by the majority of (non-participating) politicians who are the
ultimate beneficiaries of the Seminar's discussions.
The Agenda for the 1980 Seminar covered
several areas familiar to those concerned with the overall issue of making the
elected representative as efficient as possible in his job: "Conceptions
of a Parliamentarian's Role," "The Parliamentarian and his
Riding," "The Parliamentarian and the Media" and so on.
Transcripts of verbal proceedings are not
the most engrossing of reading matter, nor are they the easiest material to
evaluate. Certainly, the cold print does little to convey the atmosphere of the
presentations and debates and, of course, nothing of the more informal, and
perhaps more important lunchtime and coffee break conversations is included in
the formal record of the Seminar.
However, it is evident that at times the
contentiousness of several subject areas did manage to engage the feelings of
the Seminar's participants to a degree which is evident in the transcript. This
was particularly so in the session devoted to The Parliamentarian and the
Media. Surprisingly, given the nature of the Seminar, and the aims of these
sessions, rather more heat than light was generated by the exchanges between
the questioners and the panel of journalists. It was sadly evident that the
flippancy of the newsmen – with the notable exception of W.A. Wilson – was
matched by the petulance of several questioners. The media (and why were there
no broadcast journalists on the panel?) have grave faults in their approach to
the coverage of politics and politicians, but improvement in their performance
is not effected by the tiresome grumbling of the "we wuz misquoted"
variety indulged in by too many politicians.
With regard to those old staples of the
Parliamentary Seminar, "Conceptions of a Parliamentarian's Role,"
"The Parliamentarian as Legislator," and What Can Be Done to Improve
the Parliamentarian's Effectiveness?" those in charge of unzipping the
legislatures' pocket books should long ago have taken the loud and frequent
hints emanating from the Parliamentary Seminar, as well as from individual
legislators, journalists and political scientists throughout Canada. The effort
involved in representing the people and legislating for them const Itutes a
fulltime job: it may even be a profession. Legislatures should at least provide
sufficient scope and institutional support facilities to enable politicians to
function as efficiently in their workplace as hockey players and chiropodists
do in theirs. There have been vast improvements in most Canadian legislatures
in the past two decades, but the process could go much further and not only in
the area of providing funds for research and travel by MPs and MLAs.
Legislatures, especially the Parliament of Canada, should be preparing the
people they serve for the undoubted changes our society will face in the next
few years, and the money required to professionalize the legislators'
workplaces given the present size of federal and provincial budgets would be
piddling compared to the amounts spent on even minor government programmes, and
much easier to justify before the public than increases in the salaries of MPs
and MLAs.
An area in which legislators should be given
much more scope is that of committee work. Several participants in the Sixth
Seminar made the point that relaxation of party discipline in committee would
be a valuable and even creative development. Indeed, it already occurs in
several legislatures and participants reported no serious injury to the vital
principle of party discipline. Giving committees their head in formulating and
investigating public policy would be a vital step in bringing legislatures into
line with the demands on government in the closing years of this complex
century.
An important point was raised by Mr John
Butt of the Newfoundland House of Assembly, and by the journalist Mr W.A.
Wilson: the legislator's role is changing in ways largely beyond his control,
because of a transformation in the interests and priorities of people in a
rapidly-evolving society. As Wilson pointed out, many of today's major public
concerns the environment, the changing position of women, consumerism developed
outside the political process, but very much in the public eye. He might have
pointed out, however, that legislatures have had their role in responding to
these concerns. Legislatures with adequate facilities, and parties prepared to
let up on party discipline in certain circumstances might even have a role to
play in anticipating what the media can merely chronicle. Wilson's remarks
supported those of John Butt: in the complex process by which public concerns
are reflected in, or turned into government policy, legislatures today have
many more competitors for attention than in previous years. As Butt says
"As an input channel ... Parliament today is in competition with many
other institutions, such as interest groups and parties, the media, and the
bureaucracy. Indeed, I certainly feel that these people have as much input into
Cabinet-made decisions as private members..." (p. 35)
The contributions to the Seminar of two
former party leaders, Mr T.C. Douglas and M r Robert Stanfield, area rueful
reminder of how much Parliament is diminished by their retirement. It is not
just by legislative performance or electoral victories that politicians are
remembered. The fundamental decency of these two men is evident in their
contributions to the Seminar; their humanity should stand as a perpetual rebuke
to those who would prefer to elevate partisanship above principle or the public
good.
Finally, while the Canadian Regional
Parliamentary Seminar needs no strained justification for its existence – its
value as a forum for informed debate is self-evident – the form in which this
latest Seminar is presented to the interested reader is less easy to justify.
When verbal proceedings are printed, they become part of a permanent and
usually public record. There is no excuse for the disgracefully sloppy standard
of proof-reading evident in this transcript: even the words of "O
Canada" manage to suffer from copyediting barbarism (p. 19). The
readership of this volume may not be large, but an organization such as the
Canadian Parliamentary Association should treat those readers with somewhat
more respect. The only redeeming factor in the proof-reading is that those
dozens of errors are sprinkled with admirable impartiality between both
official languages.
George Kerr, Professor School of Journalism, University of
Western Ontario