Parliament's return next week gives the Liberals the chance to implement their platform commitment to “give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons” by making free votes “standard practice”. But before we get too excited about our new-found influence, we should read the fine print. The term free vote is relatively straightforward. During a free vote a member of Parliament can vote against his or her party's position without fear of reprisal. The opposite is a whipped vote where, regardless of their personal beliefs, MPs are expected to vote along government lines. We are told that free votes are good things. They recognize that MPs are independent, thoughtful players in our political system and allows them to exercise their best judgment on behalf of their constituents. We are also told that free votes help rebalance the power structure on Parliament Hill. Instead of the “kids in short pants” from the Prime Minister's Office calling the shots, free votes give MPs the final word on what legislation proceeds. But is all this really what the federal Liberals are offering? The most common free votes are on so-called conscience issues where MPs are allowed to vote according to their most deeply held values and beliefs. Here the Liberal plan begins to tarnish a bit. On abortion for example, the prime minister has been clear that regardless of their beliefs, all Liberal MPs must always vote along pro-choice lines. What about physician-assisted dying? Although no decision appears to have been made, the Liberals have said that they won't allow free votes on any issues related to freedoms guaranteed under the Charter of Rights. As the current debate stems from a Charter decision by the Supreme Court, a whipped vote appears possible. Then there is the question of giving MPs more power. Under the new system, won't backbenchers be able to force the government's hand by threatening to vote against a particular measure? Not exactly. According to the Liberal plan, government MPs will be expected to toe the line when it comes to votes related to platform commitments as well as confidence votes — like those on the budget. On the one hand, this makes sense. Every Liberal candidate ran on the party platform and governments should be able to count on the support of their backbench to survive. On the other hand, this exception takes many important votes off the table. We may also see the Prime Minister's Office become very adept at linking many measures to the platform, no matter how tangential. Election promises can also look very different when fleshed out in actual legislation. For example, although it is true that every Liberal candidate supported electoral reform during the recent election, none had any idea what form it would take. Yet they will all be presumably forced to vote in favour of any changes simply because it was a platform commitment. Admittedly, there is still a significant body of legislation that could be subject to a free vote under the Liberal plan. But it is also important to realize that free votes don't always result in sweetness and light. Governing is about making tough choices. From time to time backbenchers are called upon to support controversial measures against the interests of their constituents because it is the right thing to do for the country as a whole. As someone who served in the Ontario legislature, I actually welcomed whipped votes in these circumstances. When folks back home realized that you had little choice but to support the government, they tended to be more understanding. In those rare instances when a government colleague did break ranks, all it did was put the rest of us in an awkward spot — the same way that free votes will. And then there is the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups. Parliament Hill is crawling with folks trying to find any point of leverage to influence a particular initiative. And although it is common for these folks to try to sway the backbench, they also recognize that government MPs ultimately have to vote with the government.  Not any more. How vulnerable will our members of Parliament be in the new system? Will we see American-style campaigns targeting individual members in an effort to get them to vote against the government? How much time and energy will those in charge have to devote to trying to reassure backbench MPs that it is OK to not exercise their new-found freedom? It may take a special kind of contrarian to oppose free votes, but don't get me wrong. I welcome any initiative that gives MPs a more meaningful voice in government decision-making. All I am suggesting is that the Liberal plan may not be all that it's cracked up to be. John Milloy is a former Ontario cabinet minister who served as MPP for Kitchener Centre from 2003 to 2014.  Prior to that, he worked on Parliament Hill, including five years in the office of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. He is currently the Co-director of the Centre for Public Ethics and Assistant Professor of Public Ethics at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, and the inaugural Practitioner in Residence in Wilfrid Laurier University's Political Science department. He is also a lecturer in the University of Waterloo's Master of Public Service Program. John can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on twitter at: @John_Milloy.