We can always hope.
I want to get back to this discussion paper by Mr. Robert Stanfield that's been raised. In it he talks about some of the challenges, some of the concerns, of backbenchers. Again, it's coming from the perspective of party leadership; he never served as a backbencher himself but he was acknowledging the challenge of dealing with a caucus, dealing with backbenchers and that doing so is practically a full-time job. And that's where we begin our discussion about Frank McKenna, for example, and situations in which there was very little opposition. Here I look at past Canadian parliaments. The current Parliament has a relatively large majority—nothing rivalling the Mulroney or Diefenbaker majorities, but certainly a large caucus that has to be acknowledged, that has to be dealt with, that has to be encouraged in some ways to participate as part of the government caucus—and the opposition caucus as well. Opposition party leaders have a duty to their own caucus to ensure that things operate efficiently on their side of things.
Looking through some of the commentary and discussion that Mr. Stanfield presents, he talks a little bit about the family, about a parliamentarian's family and the challenge that has for the execution of an MP's duties. He talks about that influences the effectiveness of an MP and makes the following point:
I have known long-time parliamentarians who have expressed very deep regret that their children have grown up without getting to know them.
And he makes a suggestion:
At the very least, legislatures should make generous travel provisions for their members and spouses. I think they should also give some help towards a second home. It does not have to be a castle but it might provide some tangible assistance in helping a member of the legislature keep in touch, not only with his spouse but with his children. That is not an easy thing to do even with help, but I think it is a very important aspect for the peace of mind of a member.
Certainly that's an acknowledgement of some of the changes that have taken place since that was written. We do have a temporary secondary residence allowance. We do have travel points for family members. I think it's a generous system. I do not begrudge any of that. I think it's very generous and I appreciate the support we are given. It does allow us to spend more time with our families than we might otherwise have been able to do without these provisions.
I do appreciate that and I think Mr. Christopherson in the previous intervention noted one of the challenges with the way it's set up, the way it's reported in terms of family members and actually acts as a hindrance to members bringing family members to Ottawa because it's then reported publicly. It artificially increases an MP's travel budget—especially those who come from farther way—which is then publicly reported.
I know that on my part, if I were to drive back and forth to Ottawa, which I often do, it doesn't cost me a travel point for my family members. They all go in the same vehicle. It's one travel point, and I get reimbursed for mileage. It doesn't publicly show as an added expense beyond the relatively small expense that I'm reimbursed for as a travel claim.
For a member from elsewhere in Canada who has to fly his family members—Mr. Bagnell, for example, and you too, Mr. Chair—I I suspect that the tickets are rather expensive Air Canada, First Air, or Northern Air ones that get reimbursed. That would publicly show for any members of your family who may come with you as well. So it does act, I would say, as an unintended hindrance to families.
I think that's one area that would be worthwhile to reconsider. I think there are ways that such travel could be reported, perhaps collectively or by province or by region or by caucus, rather than by individual member, which I do think acts as a deterrent to some members.
There are a few other things that I find interesting in Mr. Stanfield's suggestions. He talked a little bit about the conflicted role that we often find ourselves in as parliamentarians in serving both in this place in Ottawa but also in our ridings, and that tension and back and forth that we have to deal with.
We really have two jobs, two positions, or roles of service: first, here in this House, undertaking our parliamentary functions; and second, in our ridings, performing the service function, the community function, in terms both of case work and working with constituents. We also have the public function: attending events, bringing greetings to community events, and supporting community events. There's a back and forth that we're constantly having to deal with.
I think it goes a step further. Mr. Stanfield doesn't discuss this, but I think it's relevant: the tension in the way we undertake our parliamentary duties here.
Many of us try to reflect the views of our constituents, and that is certainly our role, our job. It's tough often to determine where our constituents stand on a given matter. I try as best I can to solicit feedback from my constituents, whether through social media—Facebook or Twitter—or through householders and ten percenters, trying to get feedback so that I know where my constituents stand on an issue and can report accordingly.
But it's a challenge. It's a challenge for us to report to our constituents, to reflect their views here in this place, when we can't always be entirely sure where they stand. That's often why we end up taking the cues from our party, from our whips, to determine where we stand on a given matter.
From time to time this committee has heard references to Sir Edmund Burke, a great British thinker whom I've read a little bit, but there is no question that Mr. Stanfield also cites him. He starts with this:
Perhaps I could just conclude with a few words about attitudes of members towards their profession. For one thing I have always believed that Edmund Burke was right when he said, in the eighteenth century, that a member of parliament is a representative of his constituents but that he should exercise his own judgment as to what is in the public interest even though he may differ to some extent on a particular question. On the other hand, it is quite possible for a member of Parliament to get so far out of step from public opinion that a sense of alienation develops between constituents and members, and between the people of a province or the people of the country, and their legislature or parliament. For example, during the last decade here in Ottawa, the official languages bill was not universally understood or supported across the country. Many members of parliament supported that bill at the time, knowing that if a poll were taken, the majority of their constituents were against it, at least until it was further explained to them.
I think we often find this situation in Parliament in our discussions on any number of matters, and often on serious questions of conscience that our House has debated over the years. Capital punishment is probably one of them. I'm sure if we were to—