Democratic deficit: citizens entrust their sovereignty to Members of Parliament to act on their behalf. However, over the last few decades, the power of MPs has been slowly whittled away to the point where their relevance is being questioned. (Parliament).

One billion dollars is a lot of money to lose track of; but, that's the amount Canada's new firearms registry will end up costing. (If a billion loonies were placed side by side, they would stretch from Ottawa to Saskatoon, or from Winnipeg to Fredericton.) The original cost estimate, when the program was approved by Parliament in 1995, was two million dollars. The five-hundred-fold leap in costs was kept secret from Parliament; it only came to light in December 2002 when Auditor-General Sheila Fraser released her annual report.

Ms. Fraser put her finger on the major concern: "The issue here is not gun control," the Auditor-General wrote, "And, it's not even astronomical cost overruns, although those are serious. What's really inexcusable is that Parliament was in the dark."

Canadians send their Members of Parliament to Ottawa to work on their behalf; to enact laws for the benefit of all citizens and to keep a close watch on how taxpayers' money is spent. However, if MPs are being deliberately misled they can't do their jobs. And, there's strong evidence that Canadians are coming to believe that Parliament is no longer relevant to their lives. The number of people turning out to vote in federal elections has been steadily declining by 2.7% per election since the 1950s. There was a sudden plunge of 5% in voter turnout for the 2000 election.

The Department of Justice operates the gun registry, and Sheila Fraser says it concealed $700 million in cost overruns from the House of Commons committee responsible for overseeing it. John Ibbitson writing in The Globe and Mail was angry: "From the very beginning, the Justice Department and the government itself used every conceivable means to hide many of the cost overruns, deceiving the House of Commons in order to prevent it from exercising its right to scrutinize and criticize government expenditures."

This is just the latest in a long series of events that have steadily undermined the sovereignty of Members of Parliament.

In 1969, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau talked about the status of backbench MPs: "When they get home, when they get out of Parliament, when they are fifty yards from Parliament Hill, they are no longer honourable members, they are just nobodies." Today, many political scientists say backbench MPs are nobodies even on Parliament Hill.

Under Prime Ministers Trudeau (1968-1984), Brian Mulroney (1984-1993), and Jean Chretien (1993-present), power has gradually been concentrated into the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). In the fall of 2000, the Public Policy Forum carried out a survey of senior people in government and industry. The survey uncovered a belief "that the Prime Minister's Office and cabinet ministers have the most influence over government decision making, and that the influence of Members of the House of Commons is declining."

Commenting on the survey, University of Moncton political science professor Donald Savoie was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen as saying, "This continues the disturbing trend of concentrating more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. According to that study, there are about 100 people who have all the power."

Mr. Savoie is author of the 1999 book Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics. He worries about the health of a democracy when un-elected men and women behind the scenes wield more influence on legislation than MPs.

National Post Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife wrote in October 2000 that there is a "decline in Parliament due to the domination by the Prime Minister's Office, Cabinet, and an unchecked bureaucracy."

Progressive Conservative House Leader MP Peter MacKay has condemned the centralization of power within the PMO. "This is a terrible thing for democracy. It emasculates democracy when you marginalize individual members that have been democratically elected. Power is taken away from the entire Parliament and completely centralized in one person."

Even one of Canada's most highly respected government officials is concerned. Former Clerk of the Privy Council, Gordon Robertson, was quoted in 2001 in The Hill Times as saying the federal government has become an "elected dictatorship."

Just as earlier prime ministers have done, Mr. Chretien controls his Liberal Members of Parliament through party discipline. Elected Liberals must vote in the House of Commons according to the wishes of the prime minister. If they behave themselves and vote as they are told, MPs are rewarded with appointments. They are given jobs on the most important committees. Some become parliamentary secretaries (assistants to ministers). The select few who display the greatest loyalty to the prime minister are rewarded by being made cabinet ministers.

MPs who defy the prime minister are, to quote long-time political journalist Hugh Winsor, "Stripped of their committee assignments, lose out on foreign trips, or get their pet projects put on ice." At worst, the prime minister refuses to sign their nomination papers for election. This means they cannot run for election under their party's banner thereby reducing their chances of returning to Parliament to nil. The vast majority of backbench MPs don't like this system. In 2001, a survey of Members of Parliament was taken to get their views on reform. Members were asked if they wanted more freedom to vote on issues according to their consciences or the wishes of their constituents; they overwhelmingly said yes. Among Liberal MPs, there was 80% support for greater voting freedom, while 95% of opposition Members supported such a move.

But surely, the government can't govern if it keeps losing votes in the House of Commons? Surprisingly, that 2001 survey found this might not be the case.

Here's what Wilfrid Laurier University political science professor David C. Docherty wrote about the survey of parliamentarians: "Less than 10% of respondents indicated government could only lose one or two votes before having to call an election. A little over a third indicated the government could continue to govern but would be viewed as much weaker. Nearly 60% said that as long as these bills were not considered matters of confidence, government could lose many votes and not be seen as weak."

Prime Minister Jean Chretien has concentrated power in the PMO more than his predecessors. There was a fair amount of grumbling and even a small revolt (THE PM GIVETH) about this in the fall of 2002.

The Throne Speech is delivered at the start of each session of Parliament and it lays out the government's agenda. The Throne Speech of September 2002 was crafted almost entirely inside the Prime Minister's Office. Elected MPs from Mr. Chretien's Liberal caucus had virtually no input and, for most, the first they knew of its contents was when it was read by Governor General Adrienne Clarkson.

Reg Alcock, Liberal MP for Winnipeg South, expressed the feeling of many of his colleagues. He said the lack of input into the Throne Speech "just underscores one more time the attitude of this particular prime minister to his caucus. It's too bad. It's a shame."

The person thought most likely to succeed Mr. Chretien has said he intends to change matters. MP Paul Martin has proposed:

* Loosening party voting discipline on many votes in Parliament;

* Giving committees more power to shape legislation before it receives approval in principle from the House of Commons;

* Making it possible for all Private Members' Bills to have an adequate hearing;

* Relaxing the total control of the Prime Minister in the make up of parliamentary committees;

* Committees be allowed to review, although not block, appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada and other senior positions; and,

* Appointing an independent ethics commissioner, reporting directly to Parliament, to oversee the behaviour of Cabinet Ministers and MPs.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. A number of suggestions have been made about how to increase the power of backbench MPs. Rank the following according to how effective you think they might be in correcting the "democratic deficit:" (a) Prime ministers be limited to two consecutive terms in office; (b) Elections be held on a fixed schedule (this was put in place in British Columbia in 2001); (c) The entire governing caucus be involved in the appointing of cabinet ministers (this is now done in Australia and New Zealand); (d) Members of Parliament be given greater freedom to vote according to the wishes of their constituents; (e) Parliamentary committees be given the power to advise on or even approve senior Prime Ministerial appointments such as judges, ambassadors, and Senators.

2. A group called the Law-Abiding Unregistered Firearms Association (LUFA) is leading the fight against the federal government's firearms registry. LUFA says its mission is "To promote the return to real democracy in Canada and put the power of government back in the hands of the people." The group is advising its members not to register their firearms and for those who have already registered to burn their registration documents. This kind of civil disobedience has a long history and crops up when citizens feel their government has enacted unjust laws. Through discussion, decide whether or not the registration of firearms is an issue that merits civil disobedience.

FACT FILE

A poll in 2000 conducted by the Institute for Research on Public Policy found 82% of respondents say if MPs were guided by their conscience and constituents rather than by their leaders, the quality of federal legislation would improve.

TRUST DEFICIT

When asked "How much do you trust government to do the right thing" 59% of Canadians answered "just about always" or "most of the time," in 1969.

It's a different story today. Responding to the same question in 2000, only 30% of Canadians said "just about always," or "most of the time."

Also, less than one in four Canadians believes that government policy reflects the interests of the general public.

THE PM GIVETH

Among the prime minister's many privileges is the right to appoint without consultation or fear of being overruled:

* The Governor-General

* Lieutenant-Governors

* Supreme Court Judges

* Trial and Appeal Justices of the Federal Court of Canada 

* Chief Justices of the highest provincial courts

* Senators

* Cabinet Ministers

* Parliamentary Secretaries

* Clerk of the Privy Council

* Deputy Ministers

* Governor and Board Members of the Bank of Canada 

* Privacy Commissioner

* Information Commissioner

* President Chair, and Board Members of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 

* President Chair, and Board Members of all other Crown Corporations

* Commissioner of the RCMP

* Chief of Defence Staff

* Ambassadors

* All Staff in the Prime Minister's Office

Websites

Institute for Research on Public Policy--http://www.irpp.org/po/index.htm

Law-Abiding Unregistered Firearms Association--http://www.lufa.ca/

Public Policy Forum--http://www.ppforum.com/

RELATED ARTICLE: Backbench revolt.

In November 2002, Liberal backbenchers voted with the opposition to change the rules by which committee chairs are put in place. The newspapers carried the story at the top of their front pages. It may seem a lot of fuss over a pretty obscure matter, but the revolt is the first sign that the previously unchallenged and almost total power of the Prime Minister is threatened.

The Canadian Alliance had put a motion before the House of Commons that, if passed, would allow the members of Parliamentary committees to decide by secret ballot who among them should be the Chair. In the past, the prime minister had the sole power to hire and fire committee chairs. As with other prime ministers, Jean Chretien has used this power to reward supporters and punish enemies. Prime Minister Chretien did not want to lose this powerful tool. He tried to persuade his Liberal caucus to vote against the Alliance motion. But, 56 Liberals voted with the opposition and the grip of the Prime Ministers Office on Parliament was loosened just a little bit.