Peter Milliken addresses why elections matter

Mar 11, 2015

By Jonathan Davies

Former Parliamentary House Speaker and longtime Kingston MP Peter Milliken was in Sydenham Sunday to speak to a group, primarily Liberal party members from the riding, receiving plenty of questions and insights from those in attendance. Milliken's address was introduced by Federal Liberal candidate for Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, Philippe Archambault.

The event was entitled “Why elections matter: Being citizens in a healthy democracy,” and covered topics ranging from the growing mismatch between issues raised in parliament and the actual concerns of constituents; to the increased use of “in camera” sessions, which limit public access to parliamentary discussions, including recommendations by experts on a given issue; to the role that media plays in bringing the grit of legislative negotiations to the public in an honest and thorough form.

The discussion had a partisan flavour to it, and Milliken was not shy about condemning the Harper government, charging that they have despoiled question period of its substance and forced opposition parties to follow its format: ask a scripted question that the party has approved and is of general, national interest, and respond with an attack.

Whichever party or parties is most to blame for the current state of parliamentary discourse may not be the point so much as what this means for democracy. As Milliken put it, the public lost interest.

“Diversity made the House of Commons a more effective place,” he said.

Voter apathy may be further stoked by the fact that the media has not been reliable in reporting a comprehensive picture of legislative developments. The Harper government has been criticized for its engagement with media. Milliken suggested that news organizations critical of the government are restricted from attending press conferences.

His comments recall NDP MP Charlie Angus' lament that Harper “ran on a campaign of open and accountable government [only to then] bar access to the doors.” Or, as University of Alberta academic Graham Darling writes, “Mr. Harper has not placed any legal restrictions on what can be published, but he has limited what information is given to the press and has restricted the opportunities the press has to gather information.”

As for the use of “in camera” sessions, Milliken noted that for any detailed study of a public bill, there is little reason to hold discussions in camera unless there is sensitive information, such as details related to state security. The practice, in his view, had come to be used too liberally in recent years.

Finally, the infamous omnibus bill, where various disparate pieces of legislation may be bundled together, was discussed as an item that could be used more judiciously, and thereby more democratically. Milliken suggested that the House of Commons could adopt rules around ensuring that no bill could adopt more than a given number of statutes unless all of the statutes were related to a single subject.

Partisan interests aside, the takeaway from Sunday's gathering was the importance of citizens following politics, and engaging through party involvement as a means of combating apathy.

This, Milliken noted, was especially true for getting younger people involved in politics (it should be noted that among the politically-savvy attendees, few were under 50 and no younger voters attended.)

“Get them to participate in the election doing canvassing...if you get somebody who's keen and doing it, he or she can go to friends and tell them. Once they learn how to do it, they enjoy it and it's terrific.”