judgments,” Blaikie said. “The people who voted for me don’t have the time to do all that. That is what I am paid to do.… [My constituents] will hold me accountable at elections and in between with their input with letters of criticism or support.” And Paddy Torsney, a former Liberal MP for Burlington, said, “I think my job was to provide leadership. Not just reflect the discussion, but also to lead the discussion. And I think that is where people get caught up in ‘No, my job is to do exactly what those people say.’ … No, you’re actually sending me there to think and bring more information back, too.”
The majority of Conservative MPs, in contrast, approached their roles as delegates. Loyola Hearn describes the job in terms very similar to the word’s definition. “[Voters] 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,” Hearn said. “All of [the constituents] can’t be up there, so you’re the messenger. That’s the job you have.… You are the representative for the people in Ottawa, not Ottawa’s representative to the people.”
Some Liberals shared this view. Take, for example, the Waterloo-area MP Andrew Telegdi, who described his job this way: “MPs should be in Ottawa to represent their constituents.… Actually I found that quite attractive in the ReformParty when they first got elected, and that was the message that they came through with. That’s how they saw the role of a Member of Parliament.”
Other MPs admitted that their sense of the job changed with time. “Well, certainly in the early days [of Reform] we made quite a show of saying that we were there to represent the constituency in Ottawa, not the other way around,” said Conservative B.C. MP Chuck Strahl. “In the early days it was certainly aggressively constituency-based. You represent your constituency views to Ottawa, and even in the party you subsumed your own ideas.” But in time he warmed to the value of the trustee approach. “It’s not about getting goodies for the riding, it’s about doing the right thing, and ‘you know we expect you to go back there and do the right thing, not the party thing and not the expedient thing and not the politically correct thing, but tell it like it is on behalf of all of us.’ ”
A more nuanced view was to interpret an MP’s purpose as neither trustee nor delegate, but as seeking to balance the two. Several described the tension between reflecting constituents’ views and leading the way toward or developing a broader view. “I knew I had to represent the voices of my constituents whether I agreed or not,” said NDP Penny Priddy. “[But] it didn’t mean I championed those causes.”
At times, our former MPs expressed resentment toward 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,” said Liberal MP John Godfrey. “I am not there as some kind of thoughtless representation of local views. Theyhave chosen me and I have got to apply my best judgment to the situation and it may not always be popular with the constituents; but after all, if they wanted to have a popularity contest or they wanted to poll, they wouldn’t need an MP. I mean you’re actually voting for a person who is going to have to give it their best judgment.”
When constituents’ views on an issue are divided, or when the views of a particular riding run counter to the prevailing interests or opinions across the country, an MP faces the thorny problem of which viewpoint to represent. As an MP, are you representing the people in your riding who voted for you? Are you representing all
The majority of Conservative MPs, in contrast, approached their roles as delegates. Loyola Hearn describes the job in terms very similar to the word’s definition. “[Voters] 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,” Hearn said. “All of [the constituents] can’t be up there, so you’re the messenger. That’s the job you have.… You are the representative for the people in Ottawa, not Ottawa’s representative to the people.”
Some Liberals shared this view. Take, for example, the Waterloo-area MP Andrew Telegdi, who described his job this way: “MPs should be in Ottawa to represent their constituents.… Actually I found that quite attractive in the ReformParty when they first got elected, and that was the message that they came through with. That’s how they saw the role of a Member of Parliament.”
Other MPs admitted that their sense of the job changed with time. “Well, certainly in the early days [of Reform] we made quite a show of saying that we were there to represent the constituency in Ottawa, not the other way around,” said Conservative B.C. MP Chuck Strahl. “In the early days it was certainly aggressively constituency-based. You represent your constituency views to Ottawa, and even in the party you subsumed your own ideas.” But in time he warmed to the value of the trustee approach. “It’s not about getting goodies for the riding, it’s about doing the right thing, and ‘you know we expect you to go back there and do the right thing, not the party thing and not the expedient thing and not the politically correct thing, but tell it like it is on behalf of all of us.’ ”
A more nuanced view was to interpret an MP’s purpose as neither trustee nor delegate, but as seeking to balance the two. Several described the tension between reflecting constituents’ views and leading the way toward or developing a broader view. “I knew I had to represent the voices of my constituents whether I agreed or not,” said NDP Penny Priddy. “[But] it didn’t mean I championed those causes.”
At times, our former MPs expressed resentment toward 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,” said Liberal MP John Godfrey. “I am not there as some kind of thoughtless representation of local views. Theyhave chosen me and I have got to apply my best judgment to the situation and it may not always be popular with the constituents; but after all, if they wanted to have a popularity contest or they wanted to poll, they wouldn’t need an MP. I mean you’re actually voting for a person who is going to have to give it their best judgment.”
When constituents’ views on an issue are divided, or when the views of a particular riding run counter to the prevailing interests or opinions across the country, an MP faces the thorny problem of which viewpoint to represent. As an MP, are you representing the people in your riding who voted for you? Are you representing all
Similar Books
