It's a good question. First, a few facts. To begin, we'll borrow from Ned Franks again, who shows
here that, on average between 1945 and 2008, 37% of MPs after an election were new. More recently, that number has gone down (in 2008 it was just under 22%) but the trend is by no means straight. For example, after the 1993 election over 72% of MPs were new. In 1980 it was about 23%, in 1949 it was almost 48%.*
We know a bit about why and the reasons behind it. The first is retirement. On average, about 12% of MPs choose not to run again, which accounts for about one-third of the turnover.**
Two profs at Memorial researched voluntary turnover and found a few things. MPs with narrow victories are less likely to run again, as are those who live far from Ottawa. Quebec MPs are also more prone to turn over, perhaps because of the call to provincial politics is stronger there.
Above all, though, their research suggests that those who come to Ottawa wanting to impact public policies tend to be twice as likely to leave as those who primarily want to serve their constituents or view themselves as members of their party.
The second, and bigger reasons is electoral defeat. On average, one-quarter of MPs lose their election.** I've not seen an analysis of this, but anecdotally MPs tell me that their personal profile gets one about 5-8% of their votes - the rest is due to perceptions of the party and the leader.
So if we think turnover is a problem, we can do one of two things. First, is discourage retirement. If the Memorial profs are correct, this'll require either a small country (!) or more power to individual MPs (which has been the
direction of much of Parliamentary reform in the last generation) or some other change in party management. The provision of pensions after 6 years of service probably don't help either if you want to get people to stick around.
A second, and more powerful, route is to reduce electoral turnover. This is where it gets tricky and pretty undesirable, frankly. We could gerrymander ridings, like in the U.S., so they're safer. We could have fewer elections. We could brainwash voters.....
So is it a problem? Maybe, maybe not. It's a good thing to have fresh minds and a comparatively open political system. Furthermore, it's unclear how realistically we can change it even if we wanted to (although better HR management in politics would be a most welcome change). To paraphrase a
wiser observer than myself, I guess the real question is whether our Parliament is too transient to properly do its job.
** Again, depends on the year. See
Franks page 6.
Labels: Andrew Potter, featured, Kelly Blidook, Kerby Matthews, Memorial University, MPs, Ned Franks, Ottawa Citizen, Parliament
Not only is our Parliament sitting less, but it’s passing fewer bills too.
According to Queen’s professor Ned Franks, a smaller and smaller percentage of bills receive royal assent (Parliamentary lingo for becoming law). Sixty years ago, more than 96% of legislation received royal assent. During the last Parliament, it was just over 53%. While it hasn't been a consistent downward climb, it has trended in that direction:
- During the King-St. Laurent governments (1945-57), 94.6% of bills received royal assent
- Diefenbaker (1957-1963), 89.7%
- Pearson (1963-1968), 86%
- Trudeau (1968-1979), 68.2%
- Trudeau (1980-1984), 77.6%
- Mulroney (1984-1993), 83.2%
- Chretien (1993-2004), 69.2%
- Martin (2004-2005), 58.8%
- Harper (2006-2008), 53.2%
Franks isn't sure we know why this is. Perhaps there was a stronger societal consensus in the post-war years than today, or a stronger sense of national vision. The shifting political focus to the provinces may also play a part. Maybe the legislation itself is poorly crafted and rightfully hasn't been passed. Perhaps the growth in omnibus bills are forced through quickly, while a number of small, more irrelevant pieces of legislation die on the vine.
Nor is it entirely clear if this is a bad thing. There are good reasons, particularly for minority Parliaments, to reject proposals they don't see fit. The challenge for all governments, Franks notes, is to "persuade Canadians that the legislation it proposes is good for them and the country. Parliament, and voters as well, have had their doubts on this score in recent years."
So maybe it comes down to that vision thing.
P.S. Thanks to Maclean's reporter Aaron Wherry for helping inspire this blog's title.
Labels: Aaron Wherry, featured, Ned Franks, Parliament, political leadership
MPs are spending a lot less time in Parliament, and according to Queen’s professor Ned Franks, this is a fact that long pre-dated the latest prorogue.
Franks has spent over 40 years researching Parliament, and at a recent conference in honour of political scientist Peter Aucoin he had occasion to reflect on his observations on the institution in a paper called “The Functioning of the Present-Day Canadian House of Commons.”
Overall, Frank’s view is that a series of changes in recent years have left us with a much-diminished Parliament, particularly compared to 40 years ago.
One indicator of this is the reduction in the average days per calendar year that the House of Commons sits. Over the past 30 years Parliament’s sitting days have gone down 36%. Here are Franks' numbers:
*From 1969-1973, Parliament sat an average of 163 days/year
*1974-1978, 156 days/year
*1980-1983, 139 days/year
*1984-1988, 163 days/year
*1989-1993, 115 days/year
*1994-1998, 124 days/year
*1999-2003, 115 days/year
From 2004-2008, the numbers was 105 days/year. Maclean's blogger Aaron Wherry estimates we're on track for 114 days this year.
Although elections definitely influence this (the House sits, on average, for seven fewer weeks when there's an election), if prorogation becomes an annual event, numbers could drop even more.
Like everything in politics, life is always more complicated than it seems. While we like to think MPs are lounging on a beach somewhere, the truth is that they have at least two jobs: the one in the House of Commons and the one in their ridings. If the trends Franks highlights continue, however, they suggest the House of Commons part will continue to be an increasingly smaller part of their job.
Labels: Aaron Wherry, featured, Ned Franks, Parliament, political leadership
Thanks to
Aaron Wherry for drawing attention to
this panel on our current Parliament, featuring The Star's Susan Delacourt, The Globe's Jeffrey Simpson and Rick Salutin, Queen's professor Ned Franks and the University of Saskatchewan's Janice MacKinnon, and moderated by The Agenda's Steve Paikin.
If you don't want to spend 35 minutes watching, you can read Simpson take
here and Salutin's
here. Delacourt's
blog is required reading for Ottawa-watchers, and here's
a little 101 on minority parliaments by Franks.
Labels: Aaron Wherry, featured, Janice MacKinnon, Jeffrey Simpson, Ned Franks, Rick Salutin, Steve Paikin, Susan Delacourt, The Agenda