Many of the MPs to whom we spoke described their role in ways that correlated with two classic competing definitions of a political representative’s role: what political scientists refer to as trustees (representatives who follow their own understanding of the best action to pursue) and delegates (representatives who follow the expressed preferences of their constituents).
Unlike the other groups described in this report, the philosophers’ views on the role of an MP correlated somewhat with political affiliation. There was no clear majority of trustees or delegates among Parliamentarians from the Liberals, New Democrats or the Bloc Québécois. Each of those parties had MPs in both groups. Yet while several Conservative MPs described themselves as trustees, the overwhelming majority indicated that they approached their role as delegates.
The majority of MPs who defined their roles in philosophical terms described themselves as trustees, elected by the public to use their own judgment in making decisions. One Liberal claimed, “I am not there as some kind of thoughtless representation of local views. [Voters] have chosen me and I have to apply my best judgment to the situation. It may not always be popular with the constituents, but if they wanted a popularity contest or poll, they wouldn’t need an MP.”
A New Democrat described it this way, “My job as an MP was to do the thinking and the listening at the committee hearings and the meetings — albeit out of a certain perspective that I was up-front about when I ran — and then to make judgments. [My constituents] will hold me accountable at elections and in between with their input with letters of criticism or support.”
A smaller number of MPs described themselves as delegates, viewing their role as the representatives of their constituents above all else. “They select you to be their representative in Ottawa, to speak for them, to vote on legislation and, in some cases, to develop legislation that they feel is wanted. Basically to work [for their interests] and to deliver for them whatever benefits might flow,” said one Conservative MP. “MPs should be in Ottawa to represent their constituents,” said a Liberal MP.
Others described themselves primarily as delegates, but expanded the description beyond simply representing their constituents’ views. “The purpose of an MP is to facilitate the opportunity for the people who you represent to be engaged in the public enterprise,” one MP said.
A more common view described the purpose of an MP not as a trustee or a delegate, but as someone whose job it was to balance the two.
Several described the tension between reflecting constituents’ views and leading the way towards or developing a broader view. “My job was to provide leadership. Not just to reflect the discussion, but also to lead the discussion,” said one Liberal MP. “I knew I had to represent the voices of my constituents whether I agreed or not... [but] it didn’t mean I championed those causes,” said a New Democrat.
At times, the MPs expressed resentment for colleagues who viewed the role differently. One MP suggested that those who viewed themselves solely as delegates didn’t fully appreciate their job. “You’re not running for councillor. You’re not the alderman here. You are the ambassador to Ottawa,” the MP said.
Others expressed similar resentment toward those who failed to stay close to those who elected them. “I’ve seen too many people change. You go to Ottawa, and you’re the guy next door, and then [you come home and] you’re [an important person] who doesn’t know anybody,” one MP said. Another argued that MPs quickly fall out of touch with their communities and begin to believe their own rhetoric. “Politicians have become too removed from their own constituents,” he declared.