John Ivison of the National Post has reignited an important conversation about the nature of our parliamentary institutions.  As somebody who has both studied parliament and sat as a member of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, this is something I’ve thought about for quite some time.

The trouble with the argument of parliament’s decline is that the selective evidence points to a specific conclusion: that is, the centre is too powerful, and the individual MP is irrelevant.

The evidence we use in our evaluation often pertains to how many non-government bills are passed or how many government bills are significantly altered, if not defeated.  When these are the tests of whether parliament itself is relevant, it leads to a self-fulfilling conclusion.

It has always been the case that the government controls the legislature and most legislation that passes the House originates from the government.  There are constitutional and parliamentary reasons for this (i.e. confidence, responsible government, ministerial responsibility) that form the backbone of our system of government.

In addition, there are constitutional and parliamentary reasons for the opposition not to get its way with legislation.  We institutionalize a “Loyal Opposition” so that parliament can protect the fundamental freedom of opposing government and free speech.

While Canadians go about their daily lives, our parliamentarians carry out this proposing and opposing exercise on our behalf.  And, when both sides do a really good job of it, journalists pay attention.

Let’s take Bill C-51 as an example.  The story told to us is that parliament is in decline because Harper is unreasonably not listening to the opposition’s objections and he shuts down dissent.  What a dictator, they say!  We said the same thing of Chrétien and other prime ministers too.

Did anybody stop to think that the opposition might not want Harper to amend the legislation?  After spending 3 and a half years telling Canadians the PM  is unreasonable and shuts down dissent, how would the opposition deal with Harper suddenly sounding reasonable 6 months before an election?  It would contradict the opposition’s entire narrative.

Despite the lack of forthcoming amendment on C-51, the opposition may well consider this episode a win, not because they got what they wanted but because we’re talking about their dissent, and that dissent is gaining traction in the minds of Canadians.

The power of individual MPs has been said to be greatly diminished.  It’s an argument that ignores the reality that MPs make of this situation what they wish.  Parliament is where the magic happens, and as such, the media are present to write a good story.   Capable MPs use their communication skills to weigh in on any topic.  Good ones happen to get a bigger slice of the action, and excellent ones can often operate with very little oversight from the centre.  More careful MPs will wait for approved talking points before making comments, and get agitated when they aren’t available quickly enough.  Some other MPs don’t happen to care much about using other people’s thoughts and thus don’t get to say much at all.  Yet, we treat parliamentarians as a homogeneous group, when in reality they are asymmetrical in terms of ability on different metrics.

Remember, nothing compels the MP to do anything other than what their conscience tells them.  They can vote for or against anything, but they have to weigh that enormous responsibility with their desire to be re-elected and to have a seat at the table in caucus and cabinet.

While the MP has the responsibility to be re-elected, the leader is entrusted by their party to lead the team to government.  Edmund Burke, one of the great parliamentary thinkers of the 18th century called this deliberation between local and national interests a central tenet of our parliamentary system.  Parliamentarians voting on legislation constantly think about how a particular vote will play out in their own ridings.  Weekly caucus meetings readily display this deliberation.  Leaders do sometimes bend on account of concerns raised in caucus.

The point is that our national interests are debated in parliament, and only a small fraction of these matters make it into law.  What becomes law will satisfy some people, and agitate others. The collection of these matters becomes the focus of the next election, and ultimately the people get to choose who earns a mandate to implement their agenda.  Today’s dissent could be tomorrow’s law.  Today’s law could fuel tomorrow’s dissent.  This, in the end, is parliament – and it works!