The Purpose of Parliament

MR. JUPP: My Lord Bishop, My Lord Justice, distinguished guests and members of the Empire Club of Canada, we are happy to have with us today a visit from one of the most interesting political personalities of the day, Edmond Davie Fulton, M.P. The fact that he is with us at a time when our political ear is more acutely tuned than usual to the political situation does us no harm and I am sure does him no harm either. We are particularly glad also to have him as a visitor from British Columbia where he was born on March 10, 1916, at Kamloops, the son of Frederick John Fulton, K.C., and Winifred M. Davie. His grandfather, A. E. B. Davie, and great uncle, Theodore Davie, were premiers of B.C., the latter being appointed Chief Justice of B.C. in 1896. This explains his middle name and I am sure that you will agree that it is most important that he should be known as Davie Fulton.

He was educated at St. Michael's School, Victoria, and Kamloops High School, and he obtained the degree of B.A. at the University of British Columbia after which he was elected a Rhodes scholar in 1936 and attended St. John's College, Oxford, from 1937 to 1939 where he also earned the degree of B.A.

He is married to a Winnipeg girl and has three daughters and he is a barrister and solicitor, partner in the legal firm of Fulton, Morley, Verchers & Rogers, Kamloops, B.C.

We welcome him also for his distinguished career in the Canadian army in which he served with the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada and H.Q. is the Canadian Division. After the war he transferred to the reserve of officers with the rank of Major.

His activities outside of politics include membership in the Senate of the University of British Columbia for four 3-year terms in 1948-1951-1954-1957. He was elected to the House of Commons in 1945 and shortly afterwards became President of the Young Progressive-Conservatives of Canada for the years 1946-9. He was re-elected at the general elections of 1949 and 1953 to represent Kamloops. He will speak to us today about the purpose of parliament. Mr. Fulton.

MR. E. DAVIE FULTON: It may well seem to you to be of the nature of an exercise in the obvious to discuss the purpose of Parliament with you today. Particularly will this seem to be so when I say that, in order to discuss it, we have to define what we mean by that purpose. The idea of Parliament Js so well known to everyone, and everyone has his own ideas, which he more or less takes for granted, of why Parliament exists and what purpose it is supposed to serve.

In a phrase, and the generally accepted phrase, Parliament exists in order to ensure and to preserve the system of Parliamentary responsible Government.

There is one word that is the key to the whole purpose, and that word, I fear, is often used without being fully understood. That is the word "responsible". What do we mean when we say that the purpose of parliament is to ensure responsible Government?

It is essential to remember that our system of Government is not just a system of Parliamentary Government: in fact it is not, strictly speaking, a Government by Parliament at all. It is a system of Government by an executive responsible to Parliament, properly described in the phrase Parliamentary responsible Government. The whole function and purpose of Parliament, in fact, is not to govern but to hold the Government responsible, in the sense of being accountable for all its acts and proposals to the people through their Parliament.

Unless Parliament does this, it fails in its duty to itself and in its obligation to the people who elected it for that purpose. In order, therefore, to assess the question of whether Parliament is discharging its function it is necessary to examine the extent to which it is in fact holding the Government responsible or accountable to it. And it is this question that I should like to discuss with you.

The reason why I should like to discuss this question here today, in this season and before this audience, is because I believe there are disturbing signs of a misunderstanding as to what are in fact the purposes and functions of Parliament. In what I have to say I shall, of course, be expressing my views throughout entirely on an individual basis. I shall be discussing them from the point of view of a practising politician. But in exactly the same sense that Clemenceau uttered the famous sentence that war is too important to a nation to be entrusted exclusively to the Generals, so I believe that politics is too important, and the operation, meaning and function of Parliament is too vital to the welfare of our nation to be regarded as a matter of concern only to those who sit in it. It is essential that you in this audience, and the very much wider field of Canadians generally with whom you come in contact and upon whom you may have some influence, should be concerned to understand and insist upon the correct functioning of Parliament. It is with that thought in mind that I venture upon this discussion with you today.

In order to determine the nature and meaning of the purpose of Parliament, it is helpful to take a brief look at the development of the institution itself. And here as in so many other matters, it is necessary, if we are to understand our own position, to go back to the history of the constitutional development of the British people; for by our own decision, taken here in Canada at the time of the birth of our nation and maintained ever since, we specifically adopted "a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom". So an understanding of how Parliament there came to occupy the position it does will help us to assess the position and functioning of our own Parliament.

Without going into too much detail, it can be said that Parliament as we know it came into existence as the means by which the people--the Commons--curbed the abuse of power by the Crown. It must be remembered, of course, that the Commons then was not the people in the sense that we think of that word today--there was no universal suffrage in those days. But the whole history of the original development of Parliament was the history of the struggle between the executive government, in those days vested almost personally in the Crown, and those whom he governed. The King asserted the absolute right to govern, to legislate, to tax and to spend, as he saw fit. The Commons asserted the right to be consulted on any such measures before they became law or were acted on.

The long struggle, as we all know, resulted in eventual victory for the Commons. The King still governs, but now only with the consent of his people. The form is so customary today, so comfortable, that we come dangerously close to forgetting that it was won only by unceasing and unremitting struggle. Even after the formal establishment of a Parliament, with a Ministry in Parliament, there was a continuing struggle between the King's party--the Ministers and their immediate supporters--and what might roughly be called the People's party. The former sought constantly to by-pass and circumvent the Parliament, the latter fought to ensure that the form of responsibility and Parliamentary control should be no meaningless ritual but an actual fact. This was no mere Parliamentary jockeying, no matter of manoeuvring for the sake of impressing the public: it was a grim and earnest struggle, attended on occasion by considerable bloodshed.

The results of that long struggle are today embodied in the sentence which now introduces every piece of legislation which comes out of Parliament. Every one, whether it be a bill dealing with some general subject, a bill authorizing the imposition of a tax, or a bill authorizing the spending of your money, commences with these' words:

"Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows."

What we should never forget is that these words are there because of the unremitting struggle between popular power and executive power.

There is one other significant feature of responsible government which takes its form and meaning from the history of the development of the Parliamentary process. It is this: that government in Canada is responsible first to Parliament, and in the fullest sense of the word is responsible only through Parliament to the people. It is true that ultimate popular power, as distinct from executive power, rests with the people; but the historical fact is that the cause of popular power was won for the people by Parliament. And this power is exercised on behalf of the people by Parliament. It is in this sense that the first responsibility of government is to Parliament, and the first duty of Parliament is to hold the Government responsible.

Some words of a great Parliamentarian and a great interpreter of the popular will may serve to emphasize this point. Writing in the North American Review in the year 1878, Gladstone said as follows:

"It is a cardinal axiom of the modern British Constitution that the House of Commons is the greatest of the powers of the state. It might, by a base subserviency, fling itself at the feet of a Monarch or a Minister . . . The Commons are armed with ample powers of self defence. If they use their powers properly, they can only be mastered by a recurrence to the people, and the way in which the appeal takes effect is by the choice of another House of Commons more agreeable to the national temper. Thus the sole appeal from the verdict of the House is a rightful appeal to those from whom it received its commission."

Now the reason I have reviewed this historical development is because it establishes two features of Parliament which I believe it is essential to understand and keep always in mind if we are to discuss intelligently the purpose of Parliament.

The first is that Parliament exists for the purpose of controlling the executive, of holding it accountable and responsible in the fullest sense. The executive--the government--has power; it must have power and it must exercise that power if government is to be carried on. But it is as true today as it was when Lord Acton first said it, that all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Parliament then is the means by which, under our system, the people have been and are able to ensure that government is made responsive and responsible to the public good rather than to the wishes and ambitions of an unfettered authority.

The second feature is that Parliament is a representative institution to which the people have entrusted the task of acting for them with respect to this matter of controlling and giving consent to the proposals of the executive. Government under our system is by King-in-Parliament. It is Parliament's assent that is required before any measure can become law, not any direct or collective assent by the people. That means that, in the same measure as Parliament's first duty is to hold the government responsible, so the Government's first and strict responsibility is to Parliament. In essence, therefore, a government must first submit itself and its proposals to the verdict of Parliament, and accept that verdict and its consequences. It is irresponsibility to seek to by-pass or avoid such a verdict.

With these principles in mind--or rather facts, as I would prefer to call them--we can now take a look at the questions I really came here to discuss: is Parliament fulfilling its purpose? If it is not, what is the cause of the defect? And what remedies might be suggested? First, then, we must look at the question of whether Parliament is really performing its function of holding the government strictly accountable. Here I believe it can and must be said that there are many thoughtful Canadians who are concerned over the apparent ability of governments to ride roughshod over opposition, who ask whether Parliament really does hold the government responsible--and even some who may subscribe to the view expressed by one prominent member of one government in Canada that "If we want to get away with it, who is there to stop us?" Certainly when, as happened in the debate on the Pipeline Bill last year, 3 out of 7 of the clauses of a bill involving a potential commitment of $200 million of taxpayers' money were carried with a maximum of 45 seconds discussion, every second of that time being occupied by the Minister in charge--certainly when these things happen, one is entitled to question whether Parliament is actually exercising or able to exercise that function of holding the government accountable in the sense of having to explain and justify its proposals.

In taking a critical look at this situation, however, while as a partisan I might be inclined--and indeed was so inclined--to lay the blame exclusively in one quarter (and after all even politicians must accept responsibility for their political conduct!) nevertheless I do frankly confess that there are those who feel that there is here no problem, and that such a course and such a trend carries no blame for those who adopted it, but on the contrary only for those who opposed and criticized it.

It is this divergence of opinion as to the functions and duties of Parliament, that we find the nub of the problem. I venture to suggest that if that attitude of mind were to prevail generally in Canada it would mean we are failing to understand what Parliament is for and about, and if we misunderstand it then we are in danger of casting away all that Parliament has stood for and could mean.

The attitude of mind I refer to is one that has two manifestations. The first is, that it is the duty of members of a legislature on the government side to accept uncritically the proposals which the administration introduces, simply because the Government has introduced them and therefore they must be good. The second is, that no matter how strong may be the criticisms advanced against the merits of a proposal, no matter how sincere and deep rooted may be the opposition to the principle, this is of no account provided the majority is pledged to it and willing to vote it through.

Now there may be some justification for the second view as a matter of argument, for certainly democracy is based on majority rule. But there can be no rational justification for the first, for it is surely not based on either logic or intuition. Yet it is unfortunate to have to record that in recent years both views have been urged, and urged seriously, both in and out of the House of Commons, as a basis for accepting legislation. I respect the sincerity with which the view may be held, but it is surely open to suggest that it denotes an erroneous concept of the very nature and purposes of Parliament so fundamental as to require immediate and serious discussion.

Now the point of departure here is, I believe, that :neither view could ever be seriously advanced if there was a true appreciation of the position in which both historical development and inescapable duty places a Member of Parliament. That position is, that he is there as one whose instinctive approach to every proposal should be one of critical wariness. He should, in my view, remember the tradition to which he is heir, he should remember the temptations to which power exposes all men. He should remember that the first duty is to hold the Government accountable, and that the consent referred to in the introductory words to every statute which I have quoted, implies an acquiescence given after being convinced by argument and logic. It implies an act of reason, not an act of faith.

I can well imagine that at this point many will say that I must be frustrated indeed if I expect to see in any Parliament government supporters assisting in bringing down the government! Others may suggest that such an approach invites chaos and instability such as has beset France in recent years. Of course I am aware of these factors, and do not suggest for a moment that it should `; ever become normal, or even expected, that government supporters in any parliament should carry things, except in extreme and rare cases, to the point of voting against the ministry. But I am seriously suggesting that, somewhere short of this it is not only desirable but even essential that there be a critical attitude of mind which will cast at least a pale shadow of the spirit of those Parliaments which first challenged and eventually subdued executive power to the collective authority of the people.

Of course everyone realizes, that, in the end there will nearly always be a majority supporting the Ministry. Otherwise the Ministry falls. Parliament particularly, and our own political system generally, is organized on the party basis to ensure that we shall be able to have a government which can say it commands the confidence of a majority in the House.

But to command the general support of a majority should not be to require the elimination of individual reason. This, Mr. Chairman, I believe with all my heart, must be accepted by all governments and all parties in every Parliament if responsible government is to mean anything. In his interesting and valuable contribution to "A Survey of Parliament" the late L. S. Amery discusses what he calls this misconception regarding the meaning of majority decision and majority rule:

"Decision by majority is not an absolute and unquestionable principle. Our Constitution, to use Burke's phrase, 'is something more than a problem in arithmetic'. There is no divine right of a mere numerical majority ... any more than of Kings . . . When it comes to legislation it is of the very essence of our conception of the reign of law that it should not be regarded as a mere emanation of the will of the government, but as something accepted by the nation as a whole . . . The requisite of consent for changing the law.... is the root from which sprang our whole Parliamentary system ... The idea that a majority, just because it a majority, is entitled to pass, without full discussion, what legislation it pleases, regardless of the extent of the changes involved or of the intensity of the opposition to them the idea, in fact that majority edicts are the same thing as laws--is wholly alien to the spirit of the Constitution".

It is thus seen that the merits and acceptability of issues are not really settled by the mere process of counting noses, to borrow an expression recently and unfortunately used by the present Prime Minister, and to suggest that they are surely completely to misunderstand the nature and meaning of the Parliamentary process. But insofar as this attitude may reflect public opinion generally, then it is necessary to carry the discussion outside into that forum. For it is only if there is a general understanding on the part of all our people of the nature of Parliament, and the demand that there be a critical attitude towards the executive on the part of their representatives generally in Parliament, that the health and strength of Parliament will survive, its function and purpose be fulfilled, and the abuse of power be curtailed.

There is another authoritative statement of what Parliament is, or should be, with relation to this question of its function of holding the Government responsible that I should like to lay before you. Lest I be accused of partiality, let me quote to you a most eminent Canadian Liberal statesman, the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. Speaking of Parliament in 1932, he used the following words:

"The first duty of Parliament is to remain a Parliament, not to become a subservient and ornamental body. . . . It is the will of Parliament, not that of the Government, that is the will of the nation. . . . The sovereignty of the people is delegated to Parliament, not to the executive, and when I say "Parliament" it means the authority as well as the majority in Parliament".

On the premises which I have outlined, and on the authorities which I have referred to, you will probably have been able to guess that to my first question--Is Parliament fulfilling its purposes?--I must give the answer no, Parliament has not been able to do so in recent years in all respects. Parliament has not been able to hold the Government fully responsible or accountable in every way and on all occasions. To the second question I posed earlier--If not, wherein lies the defects?--I would give the answer: in the attitude of mind that says that majority opinion is all that counts, that the merits of an issue are to be settled by weight of numbers and not of argument, and that therefore Parliamentary debate is something to be endured but not seriously regarded.

In all this, you will appreciate that we are talking about trends and dangers, not inevitable results. I do not believe that Parliament is irretrievably doomed, or that we have lost forever that sense of tradition which made Parliament what it is. It is proper to suggest, however, that things could be better and that Parliament could be healthier--and that is where I come to my third question: what can be done to remedy the situation?

The answer to this question, of course, depends upon what it is we want to do. My position is that what we must do is restore the sense of conflict between Parliament and executive, restore reality and vitality to the process of Parliamentary debate and discussion, to get back to the situation where consent means reconciliation of conflicting views rather than the imposition of decision by weight of numbers; in short, to implement the word "responsible" in its full meaning.

But in thus suggesting that people should expect of their Parliament a more critical and independent examination of Government proposals by all Members, and a stricter adherence to the principle of responsibility and accountability of Government, it would be unrealistic not to recognize that the people desire--and indeed orderly Government itself requires--that there be some system which will provide a reasonable certainty and continuity. The problem therefore seems to be that most difficult one of reconciling a reasonable certainty of outcome with the opportunity for critical examination and the expression of conflicting opinions.

To a large extent, of course, this problem has been grappled with and met by the development of the formal system of Government and Opposition. To the Opposition has been allocated specifically the role of criticizing the Government's proposals. But is this alone sufficient to maintain the curbs on Government power? Grave doubts are expressed in many quarters as to whether, with the increase in the volume and complexity of Government business, the specialist knowledge now necessary even to understand, let alone to solve the problems now being dealt with in Parliament, we shall be able to achieve that balance and maintain full responsibility without certain changes in policy and attitudes both inside and outside Parliament.

There is first of all the vital matter of obtaining information. No Government can be held fully accountable unless full information as to its acts and proposals is made available. There are various ways in which this can be done--and refused. The most important of these is by Committees. But it is an unfortunate fact that too many of these Committees are at present the victims of the state of mind I have already referred to, and tend to be regarded at best as mere convenient methods of speeding Government's proposals into final legislative form, or at worst as means of protecting the administration rather than exposing it.

Nowhere is this more important than in the Estimates Committee. It is perfectly obvious that it is impossible for the whole House of 265 Members to examine adequately the details of spending the vast sum of over $5 billion annually, spread as it is over more than 40 departments and agencies. Yet it is one of Parliament's primary duties to scrutinize proposals for spending the public money. And so after many years of urging, an Estimates Committee was finally established three years ago.

But unfortunately the same attitude of mind governs this Committee, and we find that instead of being given a free hand to investigate, it is allowed to examine only those items of spending which the Government refers to it, that it has no nower to conduct an independent inquiry or to call for witnesses and evidence. The Minister of a department under investigation is virtually in full charge, sitting at the right hand of the Chairman and deciding upon who shall answer questions, so that only the information he decides shall be given is made available.

This is not the case in the United Kingdom, where their Estimates Committee has full power to decide what items it will examine and to call and question whatever witnesses it may determine. No Minister sits on the Committee or intervenes in any way in the making of those decisions.

Another most important feature that is lacking in our Parliament is what might be called any sort of safety valve. I have already agreed that the function of opposing and of possibly defeating the Government is officially that of the Opposition, and that to expect Members of the Government Party to help in the defeat of the Government is asking far too much! But within these limits it is, I believe, still proper to suggest that private Members of the majority Party, as Commoners, must be free to accept their responsibility of taking full share in the business of holding the Government responsible. A method of enabling Members generally to criticize and object without going so far as to be pledged to defeat or vote against the Government would, by providing a "safety valve", go a long way towards enabling majority Members to exercise their most important role as Commoners; the restraint of the power of the executive.

Nothing so emboldens an executive as the knowledge that they are able to count on the unthinking and almost unspeaking support of a given number at any time; nothing would contribute more to making them responsive than the knowledge they might be called to account at any time by any Member or group of Members--including their own. The British House has provided two main forms of "safety valve"--the right to raise any matter for half an hour at the time of daily adjournment, and the opportunity to raise matters more formally but still quickly on a motion signed by a specified number of Members. By this process there is given considerable relief from the otherwise severe but probably necessary restriction imposed by the rules on freedom of debate. Such means, resorted to with a refreshing frequency by Government Members as well, have been most salutary there in enforcing an account, and often a revision, of Government policy. Some such device would, I believe, be a salutary weapon in the Canadian House of Commons.

There are other changes which might be mentioned which would be helpful--some in, some outside the House. It is and has long been my personal view that a change is desirable in our system of appointing Speakers, so that there will be guaranteed a permanent and non-partisan occupant of that high and important office. This is a view I held and expressed long before the events of last year.

Then too it must be realized that our rules of debate were designed for the situation, and worked best, when a strong Government is opposed by a united and strong Opposition, not a multiplicity of Parties such as there is now.

The restoration of the two-Party system, with the alternative Party occupying the Government benches with rather greater frequency than has been the case in this generation, would do much to restore to Parliament that vigour and certainty which is its glory. That, however, is a reform which is in the hands of the people outside of Parliament. It is one in which I have a more than passing personal interest--but in view of the imminence of an event in which an appeal is now being made to the Canadian people to take advantage of their golden opportunity to bring about that particular reform, it would be impossible to discuss it without political overtones more appropriate to another type of forum!

Seriously however, it must be admitted that the future of Parliament does rest in the hands of the people themselves, and will be determined by their attitude and actions. I do not mean this in the sense only that it depends on the political affiliations of those whom they send there, but in the sense of what our people themselves think of the purpose of Parliament and what they expect in that regard from those whom they send to represent them. Parliament will in the long run reflect the attitude and thinking of those who elect it, particularly with respect to its own rights, privileges and purposes. It is for that reason I have discussed its purpose with this audience here today.

Parliament has a high and noble purpose. It is to ensure that every law shall conform as far as possible to what is desirable not only for the promotion of material welfare but also to serve and advance moral and ethical standards. This it does, this it can only do, by debate, discussion and examination. Since virtually exclusive power to initiate proposals rests with the executive, Parliament must not only have, but must exercise, the full right and function of calling that executive to account. At its highest point, this function, this principle of responsibility, is best exemplified when it is freely given and fully accepted.

Let me apply words of Mr. Amery's, in the articles already referred to, to our own position:

"The word responsibility has . . . two senses. It connotes not only accountability to an outside or final authority. It also connotes a state of mind, which weights the consequences of action and then acts, irrespective it may be, of the concurrence or approval of others. It is the strength of our Constitutional system that it encourages and fosters responsibility in that higher sense. A Canadian Government is not merely responsible to those who have appointed it or keep it in office in the sense in which an agent is responsible to his principal. It is an independent body which on taking office assumes the responsibility of leading and directing Parliament and the nation in accordance with its own judgment and convictions. Members of Parliament are no mere delegates of their constituents, but, as Burks pointed out, representatives of the nation, responsible in the last resort, to their own conscience".

If, bearing these words in mind, you and thousands others like you across the length and breadth of this land will insist first, that Members of Parliament be men and women who will be responsible in that sense, and second, that they preserve and exercise the right of holding the Government responsible to them, for which purpose you send them there, we can then be sure that Parliament will continue in the future as it has in the past, as both the promoter of our welfare and the effective guardian of our liberties.

THANKS OF THE MEETING were expressed by T. H. Howse, a Past-President of the Club.