| Speech by Roger Gallaway, M.P. Gallaway.R@parl.gc.ca Meeting of the Financial Management Institute Ottawa, October 22, 2002 It is my pleasure to be here today to talk to you about that institution up the street, one of the few institutions in this country the inmates like to think they are running. I stand before you today as one of the 301 inhabitants of that place called the House of Commons; that peculiar chambre that some Canadians regard with awe and others with disgust. Finally, I am here, to explain the inexplicable, describe the indescribable and make some sense of that place called Parliament. The questions of the day being: how does it work? And, how should it be changed? Where is the government in the context of Parliament? Let me start by rhetorically asking: what is Parliament? The answer to that can be numerical: it includes 407 people. It is, in fact, 3 entities, the first and most important being the Crown, our Sovereign the Queen; the second and third being the Senate and the House of Commons of which there are 105 and 301 members respectively. Parliament the institution had evolved over many hundreds of years in Great Britain and our version of it is that which was created by the British North America Act of 1867 and has changed by other constitutional documents, several of which have passed in the last century. Alright, you know all this - you took it in grade ten. So allow me to talk of what you did not take in grade ten and tell you that the authority of Parliament is enormous, omnipotent, vast and yes, perhaps frightening. Yet, it is a system into which there are certain checks and balances which can work, but allow me to submit to you, is profoundly broken at the moment. The Sovereign, the Queen, is the most important part of our system. She is the authority under which all acts are carried out by ministers in exercising certain prerogative powers and it is she who must consent before bills of the two chambres of Parliament become law. Quite simply put, it is essential to remember that 400 years ago English monarchs had absolute and unquestioned authority. The King (or Queen) could do no wrong. What was communicated by the Crown by royal proclamation, issuance of writs, or even spoken was, by definition, the law. Events in the social evolution of that country required the King seek advice from others, a council of state which later evolved into the House of Lords. As wealth and influence percolated to the non-titled or non-gentrified classes, the House of Commons came into existence. In the 17th century the relationship between and amongst the Crown (King), the House of Lords and the Commons reached a crisis. The King was issuing royal warrants to raise taxes; he needed more money to fight France. The Commons was raising a ruckus (is there anything new in this?) and the King arrested the Speaker of the House of Commons because, in the most basic terms, certain commoners were resisting the King’s need for cash. The ensuing crisis was resolved with the passage of the Bill of Rights of 1689, a law which cast the preliminary balance between the Monarch and the Commons and Lords. It was the foot in the door for the House of Commons in terms of that chambre’s control of the public purse. It was the beginning of the delegation of the King’s power to Parliament. In the ensuing 100 years, Reform bills were brought forward that truly saw the rise of the House of Commons as the place, the body, which would temper any unilateral acts of the sovereign. Yet, in the 19th century, more tensions arose between the Lords and the Commons. Questions concerning how the oldest son of a lord, a person who would be entitled in the future to sit in the House of Lords, could himself be elected to the House of Commons were argued. In 1837, a book entitled, The Law of Parliament as it relates to the power and privileges of the Commons’ House, stated the four principles of responsible and representative government. It was a statement of the evolution of Parliamentary democracy. First: “The first duty of the House of Commons is to guard the rights, privileges and interests of that state they represent.” Second: “Members of the House are to be elected from those amongst us.” Third: “The House of Commons can have no right to diminish their own power.” Fourth: “Parliament is the highest court.” Flash forward 30 years from these 4 principles. It is 1867 and Canada is created. It was, in fact, a creation of the people of Upper and Lower Canada. The Confederation debates of 1865 and 66 clearly indicate that the British gave to us a system, although modelled on theirs, was believed to be best suited for this big country with few people. We were given our version of the House of Lords, the Senate, and the lower chamber, the Commons. Most importantly, both chambres and their occupants were given the same powers and immunities that were vested in the British Parliament as of July 1, 1867. There was never to be any doubt as to how the system would work and the relative powers of each component of Parliament. What is certain is we adopted the British Parliament as our Parliament and were to have responsible and representative government. Now that I’ve given you this extreme Reader’s Digest version of what Parliament is. I turn now to that subset of Parliament, that particular grouping of people called “the government”. Who are they? How do they work? Better still, how did they get there? Our forming of government is, to an outsider, bizarre. You vote for a local person as your Member of Parliament at the polls yet you end up with a prime minister you could not directly select. Once an election is concluded and the chief returning officer certifies the riding results, the leader of the party with the most MP’s is asked by the Sovereign (as represented by the Governor General) to form the government. Of course, 99% of Canadians were not involved in selecting the party leader but we’ll leave that alone for now. The prime minister, as the so called first amongst equals, has absolute authority and right to select his cabinet, those people who are the temporal political heads of departments of government from time to time serving at the pleasure of the prime minister. The cabinet is the government; it is the executive wing of Canada and acts for and in the name of Her Majesty. Remember, this prime minister has followed some (not all) general rules in constituting his cabinet. Matters of regions of the country, gender, family compacts and personal political ties are the major factors. The cabinet, the executive, has the right, power and authority to sign treaties, prosecute cases, acquire goods, regulate immigration and the armed forces etc., etc. The cabinet has assumed the role of King. It controls the departments of government and everything that occurs in them, it “regulates” the expenditure of money allotted by Parliament, it controls the legislative agenda, it controls appointments. But it cannot pass laws. That right and authority is vested in the legislative branch the House of Commons and the Senate which is by definition everyone who is not in cabinet. Allow me to, based on this simple model of executive and legislative branches of governance flashback to 1867. Sir John A. McDonald, having the most support (greatest number of MP’s in the House) is asked by the Crown, (the governor general) to form the government. He selects a cabinet of 10 (the country was much smaller and simpler then). In the House and Senate there are those who support Sir John; that is government MP’s and Senators and those who do not, they being led by Alexander McKenzie. There were no parliamentary committees, no Privy Council Office, no Prime Minister’s Office and the entire civil service was housed in the West Block. When members arrived in Ottawa, then not an easy place to access, they were there for the duration of the sitting, perhaps a stretch of a couple of months. The sittings of Parliament opened with a Speech from the Throne delivered by the Governor General, a lesser royal son of Queen Victoria, followed by debates on reply from the Speech to the Throne. It was the same as we have seen in recent days. Any similarities to today’s Parliament end there. In 1867, the House was filled with MP’s who were generally limited in education, less worldly or outward looking, and largely parochial. The Senate, on the other hand was the educated class, the well travelled, urbane and sophisticated. If anything, they were our gentry who were to represent regional interests in the country and be a brake on the political impulse of the House of Commons. Senators had societal respect and support. MP’s had localized political support. Bills introduced in the House were brought forward by respective ministers who stayed in the chambre and debated the merits of the proposed law. Speeches were not, pre-written. In fact they were forbidden. The House was a place where bills were passed based on logical and rhetorical persuasion, not coercion. There was but one committee of the House, the committee of the whole. After second reading debate, witnesses would appear at the bar of the House to be questioned by any member. After that process, amendments might be proposed and debated and voted upon. The House would resume for third reading debate and vote at which time it would be forwarded to the Senate for a similar process. Assuming the Senate would pass it as is, the Governor General would later appear in the Senate to give royal assent - that is - the bill would now become law. Historians of Parliament note that the institution remained the same until the early post-war years, the late 40’s and 50’s. At that point, we, as a country, were more politically independent of Britain, the post-war challenges, the growth in population, our expanded role as a sovereign nation, our identity as a “player” in the League of Nations, all put pressure on an enlarged and more complex form of governance. An expanded Department of Veteran’s Affairs, an energized Department of External Affairs, an enlarged and emerging industrial capacity, the export of agricultural goods - we had changed, been transformed by our experience and contribution during the second war. There was much more for the federal government to oversee and regulate. Government, in the generic sense, was growing. What emerged through the 50’s and 60’s is the “model” (and I stress model) under which we operate today. Government today works, on paper and theoretically this way: The prime minister and his cabinet as the executive are vested with the day to day administration of government departments. The legislative branch is represented by the House of Commons and Senate. Government bills are introduced in the House usually by a kick off speech of 20 minutes by the responsible minister. That minister will read a speech prepared within the department represented by that minister. That minister, the one responsible for the bill will leave the House after that speech never to be seen again in the chambre on the subject of that bill. Debate will begin. Ordinary government MP’s will sing the virtues of the proposed law by reading speeches prepared by staff in the responsible Minister’s office. Opposition members will state their party’s position, usually the assigned critics for each department leading off the debate. In certain cases they will read a prepared speech while in other cases they speak without notes. After an agreed upon period of debate the bill will be voted upon, an indication of agreement in principle, and sent to the responsible committee for “study”. Study or examination involves having witnesses who will speak for and against certain aspects of the bill. The committee can amend it and return it to the House for report stage and third reading debate which means more MP’s reading speeches by 24 year-old ministerial assistants. Excuse me if I speak cynically. However the fact is there is little real debate in the House. Standing Committees came into existence simply because the volume of legislation demanded closer scrutiny which could not be accomplished by the House sitting as a committee of the whole. With the rise of committees came a parallel rise in the office of the prime minister, the offices of ministers and growth in the Privy Council Office. The PMO is an acronym for the real power of government. To this point I have described the mechanisms of our government as it was intended to work. Now let me state how it really works. Ministers are, generally speaking, present to make day to day decisions in the administration of their departments. Every department has a deputy minister appointed by - you guessed it- the PMO. The deputy minister is the hands-on administrator who is involved in all aspects of operations. The Minister is politically responsible in the House - he or she is accountable to the political machinery of the House for the actions of the department AND any legislation brought forward. The Privy Council Office is the keeper of cabinet records, the overseer of cabinet decisions, the advisory body to the prime minister. The Privy Council is not the cabinet. It was in the 16th century the body of advisors selected by the King to offer advice, council and direction. Originally one need not be a member of the Commons or Lords (in Canada the Senate) to be a privy councillor. Today, the Hon. Lorne Nystrom, an NDP member, is the only privy councillor sitting in the opposition who has never been in government. Today the Privy Council is largely an honorary title and plays a ceremonial role. The Privy Council Office is, at last estimate, 700 strong, giving advice to the cabinet from a perspective of expertise in policy. The Privy Council Office, (and you will hear from a representative of that office in the next hour) represents a body of experts to give advice to cabinet. Ministers and their deputies preside over all aspects of departments. The legislative wing and its committees are to be a counter balance to the various departments. You ask and rightly so: with government members reading pre-fabricated speeches in support of legislation, how can this be? The simple answer is: it is not. The system is broken. There is or has not been in the past 9 years a counterbalance. Canada, since its creation, was to have a representative and responsible form of government. Quite simply, it does not. Representative government requires those elected from amongst us engage their public, their constituents, in ascertaining their views on legislation and generally taking that position to Ottawa. Responsible government requires MP’s to guard the rights, privileges and interests of those they represent - their constituents. These two principles have been shunted away by the powers of the PMO. First, a real life example, one in which I have real and intimate knowledge and experience. In November 1997, both the House and Senate, by resolution of each chambre, formed a special joint committee of both chambres to study custody and access of children of divorce. This committee, a creature of both Houses of Parliament, was allotted a budget of $500,000 to travel, hold meetings across the country, listen to experts, listen to those in the system, listen to anyone who wishes to appear before it and prepare a report with recommendations for change. The Committee heard from 550 groups and individuals over the course of several months in cities across the country. It had record numbers of people turning out to observe. It heard witnesses, met for months after and proceeded to table its report in both the House and Senate. It received massive press coverage and its report, when presented, received widespread editorial and public support. The then Minister of Justice accepted the Committee’s report and signalled its recommendations would be enacted after talks with the provinces. In fact, it would take 3 years to effect this. A subsequent throne speech also promised to carry those changes forward into law. The people’s representatives in the legislative branch had engaged the public and it appeared the executive would follow those recommendations. What was known throughout the committee process was the Department of Justice had a representative present at all hearings and in conversations with committee members in hotel meeting rooms across the country, it was evident this bureaucrat was opposed to legislative change. What subsequently transpired was the bureaucrats announced they would hold their own public hearings and also make recommendations for change. Remarkably the bureaucracy was allotted 1.5 million dollars to hold hearings at which at which only invited witnesses could attend. Quite remarkably, the bureaucrats recommended the status quo. What is wrong with this? Civil servants are, quite bluntly, in place to administer the law. Yet we are now in a scenario where civil servants are engaging selected public in political discourse, having witnesses and weighing their views to determine the policy framework for the law. The civil service were playing politician. They had stepped outside their role to hold public discussion and the Minister sat idly by despite protests to stop. Under such unchecked actions, representative government is on the edge of disappearing. That is but one example; there are countless more. Let me briefly examine responsible government. Our system was designed to ensure that the roles of the executive and legislative branches should “jealously” guard their respective roles. The legislative branch must call the executive to account for policy as reflected in legislation AND in day to day actions in the operations of departments. What has in fact happened is quite the opposite. First, policy formulation is largely now a bureaucratically driven process. Sometimes that can be beneficial particularly when the subject matter is of a very technical nature. Yet technical matters can only be adequately addressed when there is truly expertise in government departments. The debacle around Kyoto is, in my opinion, proof positive that even very complex policy items should be left to MP’s who understand the true implications. A good example of unchecked policy nonsense becoming law is the federal gun registry, a piece of legislation I today regrettably supported. As a policy framework the objectives of that bill were handed over holus bolus to the “experts” at the federal Firearms Centre. For 85 million dollars, according to the testimony of departmental experts, a gun registry would be put in place that would trace the flow of guns in Canada. This would be a real check on the flow of weapons to those with criminal tendencies. Several years and perhaps one billion dollars later the bill is a shambles - it is a joke. You in this room know something about financial projections, flow sheets, costing and estimates. Can you imagine being out on an estimate by 1250% or twelve and a half times wrong? Do you not reasonably think there should be some repercussions for those who devised and promoted this policy and law? I can only tell you that nothing has occurred while crime rates involving guns remain the same. Another expensive dismal failure that came from a top down expert driven policy based law. Is it any wonder Canadians, and I count you among the sceptics, question just what and how this can be? What happened to the legislative branch checks on the executive legislative agenda? The answer is simple. There was virtually none when the gun bill passed. There is virtually none today. Members have little input on policy and virtually no impact on legislation. Most government members have little idea how to oppose bad legislation. I ask you (and do not expect an answer): What is responsible in that? Let me conclude by saying that a great change is about to sweep over the House of Commons and the operations of government. Yesterday, Paul Martin addressed the issue commonly referred to as the democratic deficit. I have described to you today how that deficit has grown over the past and how, sadly, government and Parliament is working today. Allow me to say that I arrived in the House of Commons 9 years ago and have been known to believe my opinion has some merit, some worth or value above that of a bureaucrat. I have been called a rebel, a maverick, a disturber and any number of names because I have, as a government member, dared to express a view opposite to that of the government. I have campaigned for Senate reform in western Canada, called on several Ministers to resign for failure to follow Parliamentary convention and rules, and voted against government bills. This I have done not to be obstinate or difficult. Rather I have done so because I believe the government is sometimes wrong. Some of you may have read Paul Martin’s six-point plan for reform of the House of Commons. As one person who had a hand in drawing that reform package, I fully support unequivocally all he said. We must return the Parliament and government to that jealous relationship where Members of Parliament represent those who elected them, where they can vote their best judgement on legislation and where Parliament is truly the highest court. What has been proposed is that the person who is elected MP wherever you live will have a real and active role in forming the policies and laws of this country. What is being proposed is a reinvigoration of the House of Commons as the democratic focal point of governance and the Member of Parliament as the lynchpin in the process, the link between you and the government. We are now very close to a time where the House of Commons is being assigned its role of as the house of government. We are now returning to a Bill of Rights for the House of Commons. The power of the PMO is about to be diminished and returned to those for whom you vote. In closing, the House is poised to be the focal point where the country takes control of its destiny and a common agenda is set. As a country, real debate must take place before vital decisions are made. This must happen and it must be in that place where I reside, the House of Commons. |