Power Struggles in Parliament: Testimony from Former Federal Parliamentarians
The actions of politicians have a profound impact on democracy, and the experience of Canadian MPs highlights major challenges related to hyper-partisanship and the concentration of executive power. Since 2008, the Samara Centre for Democracy has gathered testimonies from over 160 former parliamentarians, shedding light on the evolving role of MPs and the obstacles to balanced governance. Interviewed Members of Parliament in the context of the Samara Centre’s MP Exit Interview Project express growing concerns about the dominance of partisan interests over their parliamentary functions, limiting their autonomy and ability to represent citizens. To address these issues, several reforms are proposed: countering toxic behavior, strengthening the role of the caucus, fostering multi party cooperation and establishing permanent constituency offices. These changes aim to create a more dynamic and inclusive democracy.
Politicians’ actions have a significant impact on the growth or failure of a democracy. In Canada’s current political arena, solidarity and deference are more important than debate and accountability toward citizens.
Since 2008, the Samara Centre for Democracy has been studying the experience of former federal Members of Parliament (MPs) as part of the MP Exit Interview project.1 To date, more than 160 Members have been interviewed as part of this first-ever series of interviews with Canadian parliamentarians. Their stories have been shared in many publications and featured in two podcast series, “Humans of the House”2 and “Les Personnages de la Chambre.”3
In the latter podcast, former Liberal MPs Linda Lapointe, Rémi Massé and Jean-Claude Poissant, former NDP MPs Guy Caron and Matthew Dubé, and former Conservative MP Stephen Blaney share their personal experiences and stories. When analyzing the interviews, common concerns were raised with respect to growing partisanship. The effects of hyper-partisanship and the priority given to party needs interfered with their parliamentary work.
The degree of autonomy between the executive and legislative branches
One observation shared by the former parliamentarians is that the concentration of executive power within their party had an impact on their level of autonomy. They are all concerned about how the legislative work of MPs is carried out and perceived.
Guy Caron (New Democratic Party, Rimouski- Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Quebec, 2011– 2019) maintains that the executive branch, regardless of the party, holds too much power:
That’s clear … I don’t see the point of Parliament now. We have governments that have been acting like monarchs for four years, who could not care less about the position. We have oppositions that only aim to win 24-hour cycles. There’s no more reflection, no raising the level of debate, so we’re assuming that citizens cannot understand more sophisticated, more reasoned debates. It’s good that we have people who are intelligent and who are willing, but those who are and who want to make their mark through individual perspectives are absorbed or rejected. [translation]
According to Rémi Massé (Liberal Party, Avignon— La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, Quebec, 2015–2019), his proximity with his peers and the prime minister had a significant impact on his success:
The concentration of power is a reality in Ottawa. So, in order to break through that concentration, you obviously need to be well connected with people around the prime minister, for example, to be able to have an influence. So, it’s definitely a challenge. [translation]
Stephen Blaney (Conservative Party, Bellechasse— Les Etchemins—Lévis, Quebec, 2006–2021) suggested that greater autonomy would enhance cohesion between the party and constituents:
At times, I might have wished that parliamentarians, MPs, among others, had more autonomy. But at the same time, there needs to be a balance in relation to a political party’s political cohesion. It’s a delicate balance, but there’s certainly a strong trend toward a form of centralization of executive power that somewhat reduces the scope of MPs, elected officials … An elected official’s greatest power is advocating for the interests of their constituencies to political entities, rather than the other way around … The work of an MP involves seizing opportunities and ensuring that government policies have positive spin-offs for their constituency. [translation]
These interview excerpts highlight MPs’ concerns about the way in which Parliament operates and, in particular, about how party politics has come to dominate their capacities. While MPs are mandated to represent their constituents, power struggles force them to focus largely on their party’s priorities. Matthew Dubé (New Democratic Party, Beloeil— Chambly, Quebec, 2011–2019) explains how this has a detrimental effect on them:
What I find toxic is 1) The lack of decorum, because we’re seeing less decorum in the House of Commons. Everyone talks about it. 2) The lack of rigour. We are no longer interested in being able to promote the truth, we just want to advance an argument that supports the party’s position. [translation]
The lack of civility among elected officials has been growing, along with the level of abuse experienced by politicians online. The SAMbot project4 shows how online spaces have become a breeding ground for toxic behaviour. Although a telephone helpline was created for local elected officials in Quebec5 to provide mental health support to parliamentarians and their families, calls are being made for legislative measures.
Political charades from the parliamentary machine
In theory, committees are a place where titles and party membership are left at the door and where true collaboration can flourish. In practice, the parliamentary system has changed significantly over time, and this is no longer the case. According to Caron, some prescribed duties undermine parliamentary democracy:
My biggest disappointment was the committees and seeing how much the committees have been distorted … The committees’ role is to ensure government accountability, regardless of the political parties represented. This is no longer the case. It has become an extension of the partisanship of the House of Commons. And for me, this is one of the things that fundamentally undermines parliamentary democracy … I feel that I have wasted a lot of time on matters that were essential. Question Periods, committees, although the committees are so partisan that even if we had important issues to address, they were bypassed. It was ridiculous. I would like to see all the issues that fall within hyper-partisanship … for me, it was a waste of time. [translation]
He is not alone in saying that he has wasted a lot of time on these issues that were essential. Similarly, Rémi Massé agreed that, in its current form, the Question Period does not work:
It’s the most visible period to show Canadians what democracy is, and it’s a sorry and highly unproductive spectacle. Nothing forces the questions to be relevant and nothing forces the answers to be related to the questions asked. [translation]
Meanwhile, Stephen Blaney explained that what surprised him “is that we do realize that the work of a parliamentarian is carried out within a rather imposing structure.” [translation] He mentioned that parliamentarians are expected to be fully up to speed on day one. Mr. Blaney listed the elements he believed were so imposing:
… The legislative process, the work of parliamentary committees, the adoption of policies and the barrage of news that sometimes drives the political agenda, and at the same time, the implementation of these political measures by the bureaucratic apparatus of course requires the adoption of laws and regulations, and then the machines, the departments, the various departments concerned need to respond. It’s a machine, an apparatus that is, I would say, extremely quick and efficient and at the same time extremely slow and somewhat, or perhaps not, ossified. [translation]
The system’s impact on parliamentarians’ commitment to their constituencies
The pressure placed on MPs to remain loyal to the party creates tension between their responsibilities to their constituents and their party. An important yet imposing duty for parliamentarians is managing their local offices. The former MPs described the difficulties encountered setting up constituency offices and getting them up and running after being elected for the first time, including location and hiring staff.
Matthew Dubé believes that “a lot of the work done by Members goes unnoticed” [translation] in terms of managing constituency offices. Not only is this task underestimated, but the level of support also varies from one constituency to another. Given the size of his riding, Rémi Massé had three regional offices. According to Stephen Blaney, “every elected official has a lot of latitude in how they manage their constituency office. And there is no real standard for how a constituency office should operate, or for relations with constituents.” [translation] The absence of strong central coordination or directives to ensure the transition between incoming and outgoing MPs reflects the fact that these offices are simply not equipped to provide equitable public service.6
The former MPs interviewed were engaged, thoughtful and public-minded representatives. Their thoughts on the flaws in the parliamentary system need to be examined. Canadians are bearing witness to the effects of those practices on declining voter turnout rates7 and the erosion of trust in government institutions.8
Moving toward a better policy
Parliamentarians must serve as a reliable, dynamic and bidirectional link between citizens and their governments. There are ways to achieve this.
- Countering toxic behaviour: Any abuse against a political leader must be considered an attack on Canadian democracy and should not be tolerated. Such behaviour disrupts political conversations and prevents people from entering politics.
- Strengthening caucus rather than the leader’s office: Members want to see the centre of power move from the political parties to the MPs themselves. They want the parties to have less control over parliamentary functions such as the Question Period and committees.
- Creating multiparty opportunities: Formal opportunities to establish multiparty cooperation, such as committees, are likely to be tarnished by partisanship and serious competition in rare cases.
- Creating permanent constituency offices: The establishment of permanent offices could address the issues raised by the MPs interviewed. These offices would be centrally managed by the nonpartisan House of Commons, rather than MPs receiving budgets from the House of Commons and having to open offices themselves.
Canadians have to believe that politics is worth their time. What message does it send if MPs are questioning the value of the time spent on the prescribed duties of their work?
Notes
1. “MP Exit Interview.” Samara Centre for Democracy. URL: www.samaracentre.ca/initiatives/project-mp-exit-interviews
2.“Humans of the House Podcast.” Samara Centre for Democracy. URL: https://www.samaracentre.ca/ podcasts/humans-of-the-house-podcast
3. “Les Personnages de la Chambre: une baladodiffusion.” Samara Centre for Democracy. URL: https://www.samaracentre.ca/podcasts/les-personnages-de-la-chambre-une-baladodiffusion
4.“SAMbot.” Samara Centre for Democracy. URL: www.samaracentre.ca/initiatives/sambot
5. Patrice Bergeron “Quebec launches helpline, looks for other ways to stop politicians from quitting.” CityNews, February 28, 2024. URL: https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/02/28/quebec-helpline-politicians/
6. Marc-Antoine Leblanc. “Travailler dans un bureau de circonscription : entre aide psychologique et politique.” Radio Canada, June 25, 2023. URL: https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1990877/politique-provincial-psychologie-depute-bureau
7. Yvon Larose. “La fatigue de l’électeur.” ULaval Nouvelles, May 24, 2024. URL: https://nouvelles.ulaval.ca/2024/05/24/la-fatigue-de-lelecteur-a:25da28e5-ee67-4a3f-9785-b614c8999b91
8. Nathalie Collard. “Nos services publics sont-ils cassés?” La Presse, October 29, 2023. URL: https://www.lapresse.ca/contexte/nos-services-publics-sont-ils-casses/2023-10-29/mauvais-services-confiance-a-la-baisse.php