In this month’s American Review of Canadian Studies, a couple of American academics take a look at the voting patterns in Canada’s House of Commons for the 2005 vote on same-sex marriage. The trio of academics concluded that voting patterns on Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act were special, even rare, because of “unusually strong evidence of constituency characteristics influencing the voting behavior of MPs.”
The final vote in the House of Commons — I remember sitting in the Press Gallery above the Speaker’s Chair watching the historic tally — went 158 to 133 in favour of the bill. Prime Minister Paul Martin had asked his cabinet to vote for this government bill but otherwise let his Liberal caucus vote as they saw fit. One minister, Joe Comuzzi of Thunder Bay, Ont. who, like Martin, was a Roman Catholic could not support the bill and left the cabinet as a result.
For the political scientists this vote was
…a relatively rare opportunity to consider the political, partisan, personal, and constituency factors that influence parliamentary decisions on a divisive morality-based issue.
While there have been a few empirical studies of Canadian parliamentary free votes published over the last decade, the center of gravity in Canada has shifted markedly. In addition to calls by the governing Conservative Party for more transparency in Parliament to permit greater accountability to constituents, scholars of the Canadian Parliament have also been increasingly vocal for reform, suggesting that cabinets relax party confidence and make greater use of free votes. Although free votes are votes in which the party whips are relaxed, thereby allowing members the opportunity to vote according to their personal consciences, it is entirely conceivable that the personal responsibility for voting on a divisive issue like same-sex marriage would make some members feel vulnerable to their constituents’ pressures to support one side or another (as members of Congress in the United States feel, where all votes are “free”). Instead of voting their personal consciences on free votes, members may instead be giving greater weight to the interests of their constituents. Until now, however, evidence that MPs would vote their constituencies’ interests on an issue of “symbolic pain” has been lacking.”
How might this study inform our current yearning for Parliamentary reform? The academics theorize that:
… relaxed parliamentary discipline might encourage greater personal responsibility to the electorate. Evidence of concern for constituency-over-conscience would signal a shift in the nature of representation in Canada, moving from a trustee-based notion of representation (in which representatives are expected to vote according to their best judgments) toward a more populist notion (where representatives are expected to express the interests of their constituents, like in the United States).
You’ll have to read the piece for their methodology but here’s the conclusion:
There is robust evidence that when they cast their votes MPs paid at least some heed to the nature of their constituencies. While party, cabinet status, and (to a lesser extent) personal factors continued to influence the vote, so too did constituency pressures.
Some notes from the piece:
- “…most of the MPs’ individual qualities played only a minor role in voting decisions on the same-sex marriage bill.
- “MPs representing ridings with larger Francophone communities were significantly more likely to vote in favor of the samesex marriage law than were their otherwise similarly situated colleagues.”
- MPs in “ridings of higher class, status, and education” were more likely to vote in favour same-sex marriage. “This finding provides further evidence of progressive cultural attitudes among wealthier, highly educated elites.”
- I would not have believed this conclusion based on my own personal, anecdotal experience but the academics believe there is some empirical evidence to “suggest that a religious-secular divide, similar to the one so prominent in the United States, is also present in Canada.”
- “First-term Conservatives were significantly more likely to support the unofficial party line than their veteran co-partisans.” In fact, it’s been my experience that first-term Conservative MPs are the most highly-disciplined, discreet, and acquiescent group of MPs any PM has ever been blessed with ever. The U.S. acadmics, though, note that in 2005, the Conservative Party was still very much a work in progress and, unlike in 2011, the Progressive Conservative and Reform roots were still very evident: “The real issue for Conservative MPs was that more experienced MPs were the ones to vote independently. While MPs in their first term (especially those harboring aspirations to move up the ranks) tend to be more dependent upon the party for resources, we also take this finding as evidence that the new crop of Conservatives tend to be more in line, ideologically, with the Harper wing of the party than veteran MPs who may disagree with the current direction of the party.
- “Any number of studies have also shown that both the public and many political elites believe that Canadian party cohesion is too strong, that there should be more free votes, and that in such free votes MPs should pay more attention to the policy preferences of their constituents. [P]revious studies had found scant evidence that such abstract notions of democratic accountability had much impact on actual voting behavior. Perhaps the findings reported here provide some early evidence that the populist rhetoric in Canada has become more central to the country’s political debate and truly begun to have more than mere rhetorical effect. As our results demonstrate, the effects of this populist rhetoric were felt not just by the political right (which has been most vocal in favor of populist accountability). Instead the brunt of the constituency effects was felt by the Liberal Party, which of the four parties saw the most MPs within their ranks voting their constituencies.”
Now, speaking of the Liberal Party, I wonder if finding and committing to free votes on all matters but those where the government might fall might be a way for the party to rejuvenate itself and, possibly, the House of Commons. Particularly in this, the 41st Parliament where the Conservatives have a majority, what would it hurt the Liberal caucus to declare that on every vote, its MPs will vote as they see fit, with an eye towards their constituents. So what, then, if one a given vote 10 Liberals vote one way, 10 vote another and 10 abstain. They could say they are not sheep told when to jump by their leadership but instead vote as principled representatives of their constituents. I’m certain I’m naive in proposing this but perhaps the idea could catch on with other parties.
In any event: As the Liberals look for a new leader, new policies and new way of going about the business of the nation, they have the freedom that comes with being the the third party to try out such interesting experiments and return to the kind of voting we have not seen in the House of Commons since the passage of Bill C-38 in the 38th Parliament.
A note on the vote itself: Most Liberal MPs at the time voted for the bill but many voted against. Among those Liberal MPs still in the House of Commons who voted against same-sex marriage: Rodger Cuzner, Jim Karygiannis, Lawrence MacAulay, John McKay, Massimo Pacetti, Francis Scarpaleggia, and Scott Simms.
Most Conservatives, including then Opposition Leader Stephen Harper, voted against same-sex marriage but a handful were in favour. Among current MPs they include: Gerald Keddy and Heritage Minister James Moore.
The NDP, if I recall correctly, were whipped and were told by their leader, Jack Layton, to vote in favour. Only Bev Desjarlais disobeyed this whip; lost a critic’s job and subsequently quit. Joe Comartin and Charlie Angus, both of whom are Roman Catholic, voted in favour despite (if memory serves) some intense pressure from church leaders in their ridings. (Feel free to do my homework for me and pass along some links to articles at the time:) )
The Bloc Quebecois was not whipped but all but a handful voted in favour of the act. Two of the four BQ MPs in the House now were there for that vote and both Louis Plamondon and André Bellavance voted in favour.