In addition to Question Period and policy debates, the House of Commons is also where Members of Parliament come together to vote on the laws that govern the country. Many MPs, however, criticized the voting process in the House of Commons, often because their positions on decisions were largely formulated by their party’s leadership. Sometimes these positions were determined in consultation with MPs during caucus meetings, but not always. Voting procedures were also viewed by many as confusing and overly time-consuming.
The Canadian parliamentary system has a tradition of strict party discipline, meaning that for the majority of votes in the House of Commons, MPs vote with their political party. Party leaders enforce this discipline so they can be as certain as possible about whether legislation will pass a vote. It also helps the public hold parties to account at election time: if all members of a party vote in a particular way, then the party’s positions are ostensibly clearer to the electorate.
Voting records indicate that most MPs vote with their party nearly all of the time, so it was a surprise how many MPs emphasized the times they didn’t agree with their party. Frequently, these disagreements were over questions of morality, such as same sex marriage.
One MP recalled how difficult a particular vote was for him, and other members of his party. “There was a pounding in caucus. We had to vote for this. And I did. I shouldn’t have. But I saw people who were much more committed to [the issue] than I, getting up to vote and crying because they had to vote for it,” he said.
Most MPs described not really understanding how a party’s position on most issues was determined. “Virtually all MPs, with the exception of maybe the whips, go into the House of Commons with a bill and 18 to 20 amendments, and don’t have a damned clue of what the amendments say,” said one MP.
Furthermore, many said it was impossible to keep track of the bills on which they were
called to vote. “I hate to tell you how many bills I had very little idea what I was voting on. That’s not necessarily my weakness, that’s just the reality,” one MP said.
Even those closer to the centre of power, such as cabinet ministers, described discomfort at the voting procedure, even while recognizing the compromises required. “I remember that there were bills that I was thinking ‘Why the heck am I standing up on that?’ because I didn’t necessarily believe [in the party’s position]. But you’re in the government, and you vote with your government,” one former cabinet minister said.
While some recognized the importance of the traditional voting procedure, whereby each MP must stand and signal their vote, many Parliamentarians said they’d happily abandon this tradition for a more efficient approach.
Some went so far as to argue that the voting process interfered with more important work. One MP recalled having to cancel committee consultations in Montreal to return to Ottawa for a possible vote. “We were holding hearings across the country, and had witnesses scheduled. Suddenly we have to get people back to Ottawa. We don’t know if there is or isn’t going to be a vote, but there might be, so we [had to] interrupt work for an important cultural and economic institution, and it may be all for nothing,” she said.
One MP recalled being part of a delegation to Mongolia studying the effectiveness of their electronic voting system. “They were still in the chamber. But their electronic capacity allowed much more voting on sub-clauses. With capacity to break up legislation into minor parts, we could vote on all the sub-clauses,” he said. Many other MPs recommended electronic or remote voting, which would free them up from attendance in the House altogether.