Tory MP questions party lines

cybercoma · February 1, 2012

Looks like Trost has an agenda, but he's not the only one. Three other Conservative MPs supported his statements. Less than a year with his majority and Harper already has the Reformer wolves circling. He better throw them some meat before things get ugly.

http://www.canada.com/news/Conservative+take+issue+with+funding+safe+abortion+advocate/6080804/story.html

"People have asked how funding IPPF squares with the repeated statement that Canada will not fund abortion internationally," Saskatchewan Conservative MP Brad Trost said in a statement on his website on Sept. 28.
"Considering that promoting abortion internationally is central to the identity of IPPF, this sort of political hairsplitting only seems to make sense in the Ottawa bubble. This is a position I totally reject."

Wild Bill · February 1, 2012

Looks like Trost has an agenda, but he's not the only one. Three other Conservative MPs supported his statements. Less than a year with his majority and Harper already has the Reformer wolves circling. He better throw them some meat before things get ugly.

http://www.canada.com/news/Conservative+take+issue+with+funding+safe+abortion+advocate/6080804/story.html

Yes, he should! Like it or not, one should never forget that when the old PCs and the Reform/Alliance merged, there were almost NO PCs left! Their percentage of the party membership was mice nuts in comparison.

Harper has been following a policy of taking his Reform support for granted and appealing to what was left of the old PC support to "put him over the top" and win power. It worked of course. His majority is testament to that. However, it leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of what is likely the majority of his party and its support base.

Remember, at the time of the party's merger Reform had won Official Opposition status with a healthy number of seats. Their growth rate had been such that it was clear they represented a large enough percentage of the popular vote to have a good chance of taking power in another election or two.

The only reason Reform merged with the PCs was impatience! They were frustrated with the fight and didn't want to wait another 10 years to win power. They thought that by adding the PC numbers they would get a quick shot at the brass ring.

If there had been no merger the PCs would have gone the way of the dodo. Never forget that! The math is so obvious that it cannot be denied.

So I hope you weren't trying to imply that the Reform portion of the Tory party is just a bunch of insignificant whiners who should be ignored. The whiners are the old PCs, who have been given a FAR better channel to Harper's ear than they deserve for their numbers!

The tail is wagging the dog! That might be good politics and give Harper the Prime Ministership, but as I said, it has left a bitter taste in the mouths of a majority of his support.

I'm not sure if Harper realizes just how fragile his base actually is. If another alternative like Reform came out of the wilderness perhaps 80% of his support would drop the CPC like a package of hamburger left out in the sun on the picnic table all day! Clearly, he thinks that if the Reform element has no alternative but to vote CPC they will be forced to stay with him.

That is EXACTLY what the PCs of the Mulroney/Campbell thought and look what happened then!

scribblet · February 1, 2012

Yes, he should! Like it or not, one should never forget that when the old PCs and the Reform/Alliance merged, there were almost NO PCs left! Their percentage of the party membership was mice nuts in comparison.

-------------------------

I'm not sure about that, when the Alliance merged with the PCs there were just as many PCs in the new united party as Reform, and a majority of PCs voted for the merger also. In fact, although my memory is shaky it was more like the PCs swallowing Reform.

Having said that, there are very few ex Reform MPs in parliament now, no where near enough to hijack legislation and so on. Of course, they and any others have as much right to a voice in our democracy.

Wild Bill · February 1, 2012

I'm not sure about that, when the Alliance merged with the PCs there were just as many PCs in the new united party as Reform, and a majority of PCs voted for the merger also. In fact, although my memory is shaky it was more like the PCs swallowing Reform.

Having said that, there are very few ex Reform MPs in parliament now, no where near enough to hijack legislation and so on. Of course, they and any others have as much right to a voice in our democracy.

Well Scrib, I just spent some time googling and you'd almost think the numbers at the time of the merger are a state secret! I just couldn't find the specifics I wanted. Maybe it's a conspiracy!

Still, at the time of the 2000 election I know that Joe Clark managed to bring his party back to official status, from only 2 seats to 12! I know that at their peak, before the Stockwell Day fiasco, Reform as Opposition held 66 seats and peaked at 30.5% of the popular vote.

The intriguing thing was that except for Clark's 'pity win' in Calgary, the PCs had been virtually erased in Western Canada. The Tories held a lock on the Maritimes, although of course there is a much smaller population there.

I know from a personal position of visibility back then that Reform's popular vote in Ontario was as high as the PCs, although that was only a million or so each. Both parties had little to speak of in Quebec.

I also know that the PCs, while perhaps having a large membership on paper, were so broke they couldn't have afforded doughnuts for a meeting! The papers used to joke about it!

So it was hardly an equal share type of merger, in terms of money or people. Plus, Reform had grown so fast because it acquired virtually all of the PCs privates,corporals and sargeants, who did all the riding work. The PCs found themselves a small group of generals with no army!

Therefore, I stand by my opinion. You have picked at my model but my point still stands!

scribblet · February 1, 2012

Well Scrib, I just spent some time googling and you'd almost think the numbers at the time of the merger are a state secret! I just couldn't find the specifics I wanted. Maybe it's a conspiracy!

------------------------------

I know from a personal position of visibility back then that Reform's popular vote in Ontario was as high as the PCs, although that was only a million or so each. Both parties had little to speak of in Quebec.

I also know that the PCs, while perhaps having a large membership on paper, were so broke they couldn't have afforded doughnuts for a meeting! The papers used to joke about it!

So it was hardly an equal share type of merger, in terms of money or people. Plus, Reform had grown so fast because it acquired virtually all of the PCs privates,corporals and sargeants, who did all the riding work. The PCs found themselves a small group of generals with no army!

Therefore, I stand by my opinion. You have picked at my model but my point still stands!

As far as ex Reform members I count 7 including PM Harper, I could've missed some, not sure.

I agree about the money part, as Reform and now CPC always have been better at getting individual donations, I guess we differ on some of what happened, at the time of the merger I was on the riding board, and I do remember the first couple of meetings after the merger and being very careful about equal time for all members. Our board was 50/50 at the time with the past conservative president, retaining that position. Can't speak for all of course, but my remembering is such that it seemed to me to be more of a 50/50, at least in bodies and merging of policies.

Wild Bill · February 1, 2012

Can't speak for all of course, but my remembering is such that it seemed to me to be more of a 50/50, at least in bodies and merging of policies.

Merging of policies? Forgive me for asking Scrib, but are there ANY Reform policies left? Either core policies or even trivial ones?

Topaz · February 1, 2012

How, then, would consitutents know which way their MP (who may or may not be a minister) was going to vote or had voted on a particular bill? What would be the point of party platforms if members could simply vote as they personally pleased?

There's a relatively simple way to increase prime ministerial accountability that doesn't involve changing the constitution or parliamentary procedure: Have the caucus choose the party leader; or, at least, make it far more influential in the selection. Because the party leaders are presently selected by the party membership at large, they owe nothing to, and thus fear nothing from, their caucuses. Compare that to the UK and Australia, where multiple prime ministers have been brought down by MPs from their own parties.

Yeah, I see your point, then just let them vote freely and the leader can't do anything about it. Besides, it would be very rarely that MP's vote against their leader.

Evening Star · February 1, 2012

How, then, would consitutents know which way their MP (who may or may not be a minister) was going to vote or had voted on a particular bill? What would be the point of party platforms if members could simply vote as they personally pleased?

There's a relatively simple way to increase prime ministerial accountability that doesn't involve changing the constitution or parliamentary procedure: Have the caucus choose the party leader; or, at least, make it far more influential in the selection. Because the party leaders are presently selected by the party membership at large, they owe nothing to, and thus fear nothing from, their caucuses. Compare that to the UK and Australia, where multiple prime ministers have been brought down by MPs from their own parties.

Excellent idea. But to be precise, party leaders are actually chosen by paying delegates from the party, not the membership at large, right?

punked · February 1, 2012

Well Scrib, I just spent some time googling and you'd almost think the numbers at the time of the merger are a state secret! I just couldn't find the specifics I wanted. Maybe it's a conspiracy!

Still, at the time of the 2000 election I know that Joe Clark managed to bring his party back to official status, from only 2 seats to 12! I know that at their peak, before the Stockwell Day fiasco, Reform as Opposition held 66 seats and peaked at 30.5% of the popular vote.

The intriguing thing was that except for Clark's 'pity win' in Calgary, the PCs had been virtually erased in Western Canada. The Tories held a lock on the Maritimes, although of course there is a much smaller population there.

I know from a personal position of visibility back then that Reform's popular vote in Ontario was as high as the PCs, although that was only a million or so each. Both parties had little to speak of in Quebec.

I also know that the PCs, while perhaps having a large membership on paper, were so broke they couldn't have afforded doughnuts for a meeting! The papers used to joke about it!

So it was hardly an equal share type of merger, in terms of money or people. Plus, Reform had grown so fast because it acquired virtually all of the PCs privates,corporals and sargeants, who did all the riding work. The PCs found themselves a small group of generals with no army!

Therefore, I stand by my opinion. You have picked at my model but my point still stands!

The PCs never lost party status. As long as you got 12 MPs or 6 Senators (this is the key for the Libs and Cons cause they never lose party status) you got it.

scribblet · February 2, 2012

Merging of policies? Forgive me for asking Scrib, but are there ANY Reform policies left? Either core policies or even trivial ones?

Merging of policies was an overstatement I admit which does speak to the issue of the Tories more or less taking over Reform as far as I know there are very few if any, core Reform policies left, although Reform of the Senate was one which we might see partly come to fruition.

Would that we had more referenda on major issues.

punked · February 2, 2012

Merging of policies was an overstatement I admit which does speak to the issue of the Tories more or less taking over Reform as far as I know there are very few if any, core Reform policies left, although Reform of the Senate was one which we might see partly come to fruition.

Would that we had more referenda on major issues.

It is true on the Reform, PC merger the Reform got screwed.

Wild Bill · February 2, 2012

The PCs never lost party status. As long as you got 12 MPs or 6 Senators (this is the key for the Libs and Cons cause they never lose party status) you got it.

What are you talking about? Google up their loss in the Kim Campbell election.

They won only 2 seats!

punked · February 2, 2012

What are you talking about? Google up their loss in the Kim Campbell election.

They won only 2 seats!

Doesn't matter they had more then 6 senators so they never lost party status. Get with the program my friend the deck is stacked against third parties we don't live in a country where the rules are equal.

mentalfloss · February 2, 2012

The question of free speech in this case ultimately comes down to consequence of the whip.

MP's who really care about pertinent issues would vote for what they believe in, regardless of what kind of fancy bonuses or pre-paid flights they could stand to benefit from.

Edited February 2, 2012 by mentalfloss

cybercoma · February 2, 2012

The question of free speech in this case ultimately comes down to consequence of the whip.

MP's who really care about pertinent issues would vote for what they believe in, regardless of what kind of fancy bonuses or pre-paid flights they could stand to benefit from.

Why would you want MPs voting for what they believe in? Should they not represent their constituents?

fellowtraveller · February 2, 2012

Doesn't matter they had more then 6 senators so they never lost party status. Get with the program my friend the deck is stacked against third parties we don't live in a country where the rules are equal.

The rules apply to all parties, not just the NDP, Libs or Cons.

The reason the NDP do not have any Senators is pretty straightforward: they have never been the government, and they favour abolition of the Senate so would refuse any appointments. Their choice, not the fault of the rules they choose to choose.. Shrug.

g_bambino · February 2, 2012

[T]he NDP... refuse any appointments. Their choice, not the fault of the rules they choose to choose.

Precisely.

Wild Bill · February 2, 2012

Doesn't matter they had more then 6 senators so they never lost party status. Get with the program my friend the deck is stacked against third parties we don't live in a country where the rules are equal.

Well, I've never heard that before! I heard a great deal of whining from the PCs at the time over no longer having official party status. I heard voices crying that they should be given status out of some kind of pity!

Plus we have this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Canada

"Kim Campbell, who led the party into the disastrous election of 1993. The Progressive Conservatives went from being the majority party to holding only two seats in the House of Commons, which was not enough to maintain official party status despite garnering 16% of the popular vote. It was the worst defeat ever suffered for a governing party at the federal level; "

"Campbell herself was defeated, as was every member of the Cabinet except Jean Charest, whom Campbell had defeated in the election to succeed Mulroney. Campbell resigned as party leader in December, and Charest, as the only remaining member of the previous Cabinet, was quickly appointed interim leader and confirmed in the post in 1995. Charest led the party back to official party status in the 1997 election winning 20 seats, with the exception of one seat in Ontario, the rest of the seats were all in the Maritimes and Quebec. However, the PCs never won more than 20 seats again, and only two west of Quebec (not counting by-elections and switches from other parties)."

It's a shame you weren't there at the time. You could have explained to Parliament how they were all wrong!

cybercoma · February 2, 2012

The House and Senate are separate. The PCs lost official party status in the House, but retained it in the Senate.

Wild Bill · February 2, 2012

The House and Senate are separate. The PCs lost official party status in the House, but retained it in the Senate.

I wasn't aware there WERE official parties in the Senate!

Have you a cite or too to prove this? I'm not saying you just plucked it out of your butt CC but I would like something to back it up!

punked · February 2, 2012

Again they maintained official party status because they had more then 6 senators. The only thing they lost in the house was the ability to ask question during question period. They got to keep so many research staff and the other things that comes with party status because of their members in the Senate. It wasn't like when the NDP lost party status and actually lost research staff and funding the PCs got to keep the perks that comes with official party status because of their Senators. All they lost was the ability to ask questions during question period. Big deal Lets not pretend it was something super terrible.

BTW I was there at that time and I was there when the NDP actually lost party status.

Edited February 2, 2012 by punked

cybercoma · February 2, 2012

This is from Parliamentary Procedures.

The Parliament of Canada Act and the By‑laws of the Board of Internal Economy (the administrative governing body of the House of Commons) make a distinction between political parties which are recognized in the House of Commons and those with fewer than 12 sitting Members. With regard to financial benefits, the Parliament of Canada Act provides additional allowances to the Leader, the Whip, the Deputy Whip, the House Leader, the Deputy House Leader, and the Chair of the Caucus of a party that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons.[177] The Board of Internal Economy also provides financial support to the caucus research units of recognized parties, again defined as parties with a membership of at least 12 Members.[178] With regard to procedure, recognized parties are also extended certain considerations,[179] though the definition of what constitutes a recognized party is not as clear in this case as it is with financial benefits. Since the Standing Orders have never provided a definition for recognized parties, Speakers have relied on practice or a decision by the House.[180] However, in recent practice, a procedural interpretation of the definition recognized party has come to mean any party with 12 or more Members in the House.[181]
http://www.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/Document.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&sbdid=73CC891E-0676-4773-850B-CCDCB472AD8C&sbpid=BE842475-5632-4969-835B-FC015CE50169#7812C0E9-95D3-4766-AB6D-B630AE857AC6

The PCs lost "Official Party Status" according to Parliamentary procedure. CBC corroborates that claim:

With only two seats, those of Sherbrooke, Quebec's Jean Charest and Saint John, N.B.'s Elsie Wayne, the Conservatives lost official party status. A party must have at least 12 members in the House of Commons to be granted official party status which allows for speaking privileges and funding allowances.
...

The Progressive Conservatives regained official party status in 1997.

From "Did You Know?" section at http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/prime_ministers/clips/12984/

If you check the Wiki on Official Party Status, it also mentions that these are not laws that are set in stone, but rules laid out by the houses themselves:

Rules on official party status are not laws, but are internal rules governing the legislature. Therefore, the members of a legislature may, if they choose, pass a motion to dispense with the rules and grant official status to parties that would otherwise fail to qualify. There are many examples of this practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_party_status

Each house has its own rules, agreed upon in that house. The provinces follow their own separate set of rules that are also agreed upon in their legislatures.

Again from the Wiki:

In the Senate, a party must have five seats and must be registered by Elections Canada. Once the party has been recognized in the Senate, it retains its status even if it becomes deregistered, so long as it keeps at least five seats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_party_status

So you're both right and you're both wrong. Hug and make up.

Edited February 2, 2012 by cybercoma

punked · February 3, 2012

Hug. Although I still fail to see how what I said is wrong.

Evening Star · February 3, 2012

Why would you want MPs voting for what they believe in? Should they not represent their constituents?

Actually, I think MPs should exercise some independence. Most people can't keep up with all the information on every issue so it makes sense that they elect someone whom they trust to be capable of handling that responsibility on their behalf without needing to consult the public every single time. I am 100% fine with responsible, as opposed to strictly representative, democracy. My issue is just that MPs, the officials who are actually elected directly by constituents for this purpose, are not even really able to do that most of the time in our system: they just have to vote along party lines.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Evening Star

Sign In

Tory MP questions party lines

Recommended Posts

cybercoma

Wild Bill

scribblet

Wild Bill

scribblet

Wild Bill

Topaz

Evening Star

punked

scribblet

punked

Wild Bill

punked

mentalfloss

cybercoma

fellowtraveller

g_bambino

Wild Bill

cybercoma

Wild Bill

punked

cybercoma

punked

Evening Star

Join the conversation

Tell a friend

Member Statistics

Recent Achievements

Recently Browsing

Forums

Browse

Activity

My Activity Streams