Is your MP an independent thinker or a party hack?

[Topaz]

It is especially stringent on cabinet ministers,unlike ordinary caucus members who have some flexibility.

My MP ,Michael Chong was a cabinet member. Even if you disagree with him you must admire the stance he took as a member of the Harper government. He was a cabinet minister and he resigned his cabinet post on a point of principal . That to me was courageous and one of the finest moments in democracy and self esteem.He still sits in caucus and as I told him ,he will always be able to face his mirror and see the reflection of an noble,honest and honhourable man. .

I agree with you and I remember Michael Chong voting against the Quebec was a nation within a nation. I'm not sure that was a smart move for Harper to make, because, now we have the Bloc always standing up referring to Quebec as the nation and not part of Canada.

[Topaz]

I know in my area our MP had meetings with a certain group and had petitions to take back to Ottawa and when it came for a vote on this particular subject he voted AGAINST his community! Of course, those people who signed those petitions were angry and swore to vote against him in the next election. The Tories causus reminds me of those bobble dolls that are in the rear window of cars. When ever Harper stands up in QP and says anything, there they are shaking their heads up and down up and down!

[Wild Bill]

Reform laid this all out 20 years ago! I'm surprised that no one has mentioned it. Once again, it makes me wonder why Manning ever bothered.

Reform recognized that although our system was modeled on that of Great Britain it had one important difference. Every Bill in the House was treated as one of non-confidence! That meant that parties had to practice ruthless solidarity on every vote or run the risk of it being defeated and causing a new election.

There was no good reason as to why it was this way. In Britain it had been recognized that only the most important Bills, like money bills or those declared to be confidence motions would be treated as such. MPs of all parties can and do vote both for and against their party's position all the time, with impunity.

This is true of most parliamentary democracies, such as Australia, most Commonwealth countries and the USA. Canada virtually stands alone as a parliament where solidarity is practiced on everything, down to the type of doughnuts ordered for meetings!

Reform found this to be against their principle of MPs representing their constituents first and their party second. They never did get the chance to work out how to practically poll the people in their ridings to get a consensus on issues but they did at least recognize it was worth the attempt and most of them tried to get a feel for their riding's interests as best they could.

Reform also found that there was no real rule in Parliament that things HAD to be that way! It was just long standing custom that no one ever cared to do anything about. They found that all that would be needed would be for any party upon assuming the role of ruling party to open Parliament with a simple Motion stating that during that Parliament only Bills specifically designated as confidence motions would be treated as such, which would mean that MPs would be free to vote against their party with no fear of bringing their own government down.

For whatever reasons the other parties were all rabidly against the very idea! However, the concept did raise some interest amongst ordinary citizens, who liked the populist aspects of it. Bills like the first Liberal same sex marriage Motion brought the idea to a head. Many Liberal MPs had said during debate that they were against the idea. Many were under strong pressures from their constituents, particularly in strongly Roman Catholic ridings in Quebec, since the Catholic church was adamantly against the Bill.

Yet when the Bill came to a vote, the Liberal party whipped their MPs into voting for it. Those of us who watched it on TV saw many Liberal MPs standing to vote Yes with tears of anguish in their eyes. It was obvious that they were only doing it because their Party had forced them.

It's also interesting that Harper has not bothered advancing this notion. Possibly it's because a minority situation makes it less likely to fly anyway. It would be interesting to watch what he does if he ever gets a majority. Given that the other parties seem to have an obvious preference for central control I doubt if any of them would ever become a champion.

Still, Reform did accomplish one slight change in how things work, even if it's really only cosmetic. It's common today on a very contentious issue for a party to announce it would allow its members to vote freely but only after the Whip had done a quick nose count and was sure that the vote would go the way the party actually wanted. This means that a private member can get credit for introducing a Bill from his constituents, vote for it and maybe even get a few others to vote with him, but of course the Bill would never actually pass, leaving his Party happy! The Party can claim credit for allowing a free vote without the fear of the Bill actually passing!

Sadly, how truly Canadian!

Edited May 9, 2010 by Wild Bill

[ToadBrother]

Reform recognized that although our system was modeled on that of Great Britain it had one important difference. Every Bill in the House was treated as one of non-confidence! That meant that parties had to practice ruthless solidarity on every vote or run the risk of it being defeated and causing a new election.

Not all bills are confidence motions. Where did you get that idea?

This is true of most parliamentary democracies, such as Australia, most Commonwealth countries and the USA. Canada virtually stands alone as a parliament where solidarity is practiced on everything, down to the type of doughnuts ordered for meetings!

Every Westminster-based system does have confidence motions which, if they lead to defeat, lead to the defeat of the Government. As to the United States, it's a completely different system, so the comparisons are absurd.

But perhaps you could demonstrate your point by showing the number of confidence motions that go through our Parliament and other Westminster-styled systems.

And remember it is the government that decides what is and what is not a confidence motion, and so far as I'm aware, in every single Commonwealth realm, the government retains that power.

Reform also found that there was no real rule in Parliament that things HAD to be that way! It was just long standing custom that no one ever cared to do anything about. They found that all that would be needed would be for any party upon assuming the role of ruling party to open Parliament with a simple Motion stating that during that Parliament only Bills specifically designated as confidence motions would be treated as such, which would mean that MPs would be free to vote against their party with no fear of bringing their own government down.

This is absurd. That the government names what it feels are confidence measures or not (well, almost, the Throne Speech is always a confidence motion everywhere in the Commonwealth) is part of the unwritten constitution.

You think too much of Reform and know too little about our system, I think.

[Wild Bill]

Not all bills are confidence motions. Where did you get that idea?

This is absurd. That the government names what it feels are confidence measures or not (well, almost, the Throne Speech is always a confidence motion everywhere in the Commonwealth) is part of the unwritten constitution.

You think too much of Reform and know too little about our system, I think.

Not arguing with you about the situation today, TB. I'm talking about over 20 years ago! The situation today is more flexible BECAUSE of Reform!

http://openparliament.ca/hansards/1079/187/

"6:05 p.m.

The House resumed, from April 18, 1994, consideration of the motion:

Non-Confidence Motions

Private Members' Business

May 25th, 1994 / 6:05 p.m.

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should permit Members of the House of Commons to fully represent their constituents' views on the government's legislative program and spending plans by adopting the position that the defeat of any government measure, including a spending measure, shall not automatically mean the defeat of the government unless followed by the adoption of a formal motion."

"Deborah Grey Beaver River, AB

This whole thing deals with the idea of free votes and I would like to preface my remarks by saying something that probably all of us in this House know, and that is that Canadians are seeking dynamic and constructive change in their political institutions. Canadians are asking for political representatives who will listen to them-it would be a marvellous change to have political people listen rather than talk all the time-who will consult with them, who will respond to them, and then will come to Parliament and represent their views."

"Non-Confidence Motions

Private Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gaston Leroux Richmond—Wolfe, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the motion standing before us which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should permit Members of the House of Commons to fully represent their constituents' views on the government's legislative program and spending plans by adopting the position that the defeat of any government measure, including a spending measure, shall not automatically mean the defeat of the government unless followed by the adoption of a formal motion."

This link to Hansard explains it better than I can. I admit that I was not aware that things had progressed so far today. Still, I stand by the idea that it was not always so and that Reform was the prime agent of change. What's more, the situation today is still a LONG way from the free vote situation of many other parliamentary democracies!

Edited May 9, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Smallc]

The idea that money bills shouldn't be bills of confidence is absurd. The government must be held accountable for its spending.

[ToadBrother]

This link to Hansard explains it better than I can. I admit that I was not aware that things had progressed so far today. Still, I stand by the idea that it was not always so and that Reform was the prime agent of change. What's more, the situation today is still a LONG way from the free vote situation of many other parliamentary democracies!

Which still doesn't state that all bills that went through the House were confidence motions. To be honest, save in the rare case of a minority government, it's irrelevant whether a motion is a confidence motion or not. And most certainly supply bills are still confidence motions, that's why Iggy ordered his troops to not show up when the last budget was being voted on so that the Tories would have a majority in the House.

[Moonbox]

But I do believe he deserves my vote as an independent thinker. He is not a party hack thats for sure. Although I no longer a party member for several reasons I will continue to support my M.P. Michael Chong.

Hey neighbour

I was going to bring up this example as well but you beat me to it.

I admire Michael Chong's principled stance. His popularity increased because of it. He was immensely popular prior to that choice, however, and I believe his situation was rather unique because of that. If the CPC would have disciplined him, he could have easily won as an independent and Harper would have one seat less than he does today.

Most MP's, however, have much more precarious holds on their seats and as such can't afford to be such free thinkers.

[Muddy]

Hey neighbour

I was going to bring up this example as well but you beat me to it.

I admire Michael Chong's principled stance. His popularity increased because of it. He was immensely popular prior to that choice, however, and I believe his situation was rather unique because of that. If the CPC would have disciplined him, he could have easily won as an independent and Harper would have one seat less than he does today.

Most MP's, however, have much more precarious holds on their seats and as such can't afford to be such free thinkers.

What surprised me was that he came from the PC Party side and not Reform. He acted like a Reformer should have. I am surprised that Harper has not brought him back into cabinet. After all Harper`s routes from Reform days encouraged independent thinking like Chong`s. Maybe someday this CP outfit will recognize greatness within their ranks.

Till then I am homeless politically.

[Wild Bill]

What surprised me was that he came from the PC Party side and not Reform. He acted like a Reformer should have. I am surprised that Harper has not brought him back into cabinet. After all Harper`s routes from Reform days encouraged independent thinking like Chong`s. Maybe someday this CP outfit will recognize greatness within their ranks.

Till then I am homeless politically.

Yeah, I'm with you, Muddy! It's bad enough that Harper rules his caucus like a dictator. What makes it worse is that not only does this stifle any free thought but it also means that it's almost impossible to develop a possible future successor candidate!

Harper may be leaving his party in bad shape when the day comes that he decides to step down.

Meanwhile, I really miss the Rhino Party! If they were still around at least I would have had ONE alternative! I still remember their campaign plan to drop the CN Tower along the ground and use the elevators for rapid transit!

At least as practical as Dion's "Green Shift" and much more amusing!

Edited May 10, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Argus]

Which still doesn't state that all bills that went through the House were confidence motions.

That was not the statement. The statement was that almost every bill through the house is whipped. Ie, there are virtually no free votes, whether it is a money bill, confidence motion, private members bill or whatever. You vote how the party orders you to vote on everything that comes up.

[Argus]

Yeah, I'm with you, Muddy! It's bad enough that Harper rules his caucus like a dictator.

If Harper is a dictator what does that make Layton?

I mean, you can at least have different opinions on important social issues like gay rights, abortion and the death penalty if you're a tory. If you're a member of Jack's caucus even that's not allowed.

[Wild Bill]

If Harper is a dictator what does that make Layton?

I mean, you can at least have different opinions on important social issues like gay rights, abortion and the death penalty if you're a tory. If you're a member of Jack's caucus even that's not allowed.

Who cares about Layton? He's not an alternative for my vote so he is not relevant.

Harper matters because he is my ONLY choice! Not an inspired choice or even a good fit for my populist leanings. Certainly not representative of my Libertarian, or at least Classic Liberal, tastes.

No, he is my only choice because the others are so much worse that I can't even consider them! Still, if I give him my vote I feel the right to criticize him and his party.

Oh well, as I keep saying, I'm not dead yet! I may get a chance to vote for someone I APPROVE before I die!

[Uncle 3 dogs]

Really? I think it has everything to do with our system. It is after all based on the same system as the UK. You know the one, it created politicians for life in the House of Lords. On the tax payers dime no less.

The system needs much work to bring it into the current age. Party hacks are the bane of our existence, they scream against the reality of democracy.

In all other professions we value experience. Why do you want, apparently, only single term amateurs in parliament?

Edited May 15, 2010 by Uncle 3 dogs

[Machjo]

What surprised me was that he came from the PC Party side and not Reform. He acted like a Reformer should have. I am surprised that Harper has not brought him back into cabinet. After all Harper`s routes from Reform days encouraged independent thinking like Chong`s. Maybe someday this CP outfit will recognize greatness within their ranks.

Till then I am homeless politically.

Don't feel so alone. I'm an independent too. I guess forming an Independents Party would be a bit of an oxymoron, but I guess that's what we are. We may be left or right or anywhere in between, but we're all sick of partisanship.

[Moonlight Graham]

Unless your MP is the party's leader or an independent, they are a party hack. This is the way the House seems to function, and i don't see this changing any time soon. Paul Martin tried to loosen party discipline when he was PM, but he wasn't around long lol.

Any MP can be an independent thinker, they just can't act publicly on those thoughts . An MP can rarely do or say anything publicly that goes against the party line. This is one of the biggest flaws of the Canadian system. I admire the U.S. system for the fact that MP's can vote and speak independently on behalf of their constituents, not the party. However, MP's towing the party line is in large part a result of having responsible government, which is something i admire about the Canadian system over the U.S. system because we can bring down a corrupt government so much easier than in the U.S.

So strong party discipline is a double-edged sword i guess. But overall, i think its undemocratic.