The Reform Act 2013 -- MP Michael Chong

[TimG]

Many have talked of changing our system.

All of the proposals are a lot worse than we already have.

This bill by MP Michael Chong is something I can support:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/28/backbenchers-conservatives_n_4358073.html?utm_hp_ref=canada

It takes the power away from the party leader and puts it in the hand of the elected MPs.

[Argus]

So wait, a party holds a big, fancy, expensive convention, thousands of people vote for a party leaders, and then a few dozen caucus members think otherwise and they're supposed to count for more?

[cybercoma]

So wait, a party holds a big, fancy, expensive convention, thousands of people vote for a party leaders, and then a few dozen caucus members think otherwise and they're supposed to count for more?

Yes. Don't like the caucus members' say? Vote for different people in your riding association.

[Argus]

Yes. Don't like the caucus members' say? Vote for different people in your riding association.

That shows a vast ignorance of how things work in Canadian political parties.

The fact is the vast majority of caucus members are from safe ridings where whoever gets appointed candidate for a particular party is virtually certain to be elected. As to who gets appointed, what often happens is a certain person will 'rush' the riding association, bringing in 100 or so new people whose only interest is to vote for that person as candidate, then leave.

So you get a bunch of people of no particular talent, intelligence or ability, many of whom got elected simply by recruiting people from their church, temple or ethnic association to plunk down $10 to vote them as candidate, and this should overrided an election involving thousands of party members?

Really? The party is the membership, all those people who donate money and time and effort on behalf of that party, not a few score scheming MPs unhappy about not being appointed to cabinet.

[TimG]

As to who gets appointed, what often happens is a certain person will 'rush' the riding association, bringing in 100 or so new people whose only interest is to vote for that person as candidate, then leave.

You do bring up a good point. These rules were brought into place because single issue yahoos (e.g. anti-abortion) would flood a riding association, get elected and then proceed to embarrass the party while riding its coat-tails.

I was more interested in breaking the power of the PMO and I think making PMs accountable to elected MPs is the best way to do that. This is the way it works in England and Australia so it is not as if this is a grand experiment.

[Argus]

You do bring up a good point. These rules were brought into place because single issue yahoos (e.g. anti-abortion) would flood a riding association, get elected and then proceed to embarrass the party while riding its coat-tails.

I was more interested in breaking the power of the PMO and I think making PMs accountable to elected MPs is the best way to do that. This is the way it works in England and Australia so it is not as if this is a grand experiment.

The difference is that in those places there is no convention as such. The party membership does not get to vote. Only sitting MPs vote for their leader. That is less democratic, though it would make the PM more interested in currying favor with MPs. So you have to ask, should the party leader be eager to please the sitting MPs - many of whom did nothing much to attain their seats - or to the general party membership. The idea now is that the party convention draws up policies and positions and elects the leaders. Then people can choose to run for MPs, but of course, must support the party's position. There are inevitable drawbacks to this but I think it is more democratic. Now you could have more frequent leadership reviews, but if there was more of an interest in free votes in parliament I would think it would be up to the party members to decide they wanted that.

It really boils down to, did Joe Smith, MP, get elected as Joe Smith, or as the bland, faceless nonentity who happened to be holding the party's banner in that riding. For the most part, it's the latter.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Argus

[jacee]

Many have talked of changing our system.

All of the proposals are a lot worse than we already have.

This bill by MP Michael Chong is something I can support:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/28/backbenchers-conservatives_n_4358073.html?utm_hp_ref=canada

It takes the power away from the party leader and puts it in the hand of the elected MPs.

Great idea!

I love that backbenchers are taking some of the power back from the PMO.

Edited November 30, 2013 by jacee

[jacee]

So wait, a party holds a big, fancy, expensive convention, thousands of people vote for a party leaders, and then a few dozen caucus members think otherwise and they're supposed to count for more?

Is this better?

PMO dictates that Conservatives in committees must veto any changes proposed by the opposition, so ...

When the NDP proposed an amendment to a bill to correct a grammar error this winter, the Conservative majority on the committee vetoed it because the suggestion came from the opposition.

That's the ridiculous scope of Harper's control freakiness. MP's can't even correct a grammar error!

What are we paying them for?

.

[cybercoma]

Argus, check out this book review. If you still feel the same way about this whole situation, then there's not much else I can say to persuade you.

http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2012/06/keeping-party-leaders-honest/

In Canada leaders have long been chosen by the party at large, either in delegated conventions or by mass membership voting. At the end, a leader is chosen by an electorate that instantly dissolves, leaving the new boss formally accountable to no one. Until the next slow, expensive race develops, probably years in the future, party and leader are effectively fused.

Edited November 30, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

It comes down to one thing, accountability. After the convention, the leader is accountable to nobody until the next leadership convention or election many years later. Bear in mind a leader does not have to sit in parliament to be PM either. Instead, we elect MPs to represent us and the party leaders should be accountable to our representatives.

Edited November 30, 2013 by cybercoma

[TimG]

I like that we can have a government that is in charge for 4 years and does need to haggle (read: hand out pork) to get every bill through parliament. But we still need some form of accountability that is more frequent than once every 4 years. Empowering MPs in the way the system was designed is one way to do it. A compromise would simply trigger a leadership convention - i.e. MPs can vote out a PM and nominate an interim leader but the new leader can only be chosen by the party members.

Edited November 30, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

I like that we can have a government that is in charge for 4 years and does need to haggle (read: hand out pork) to get every bill through parliament. But we still need some form of accountability that is more frequent than once every 4 years. Empowering MPs in the way the system was designed is one way to do it. A compromise would simply trigger a leadership convention - i.e. MPs can vote out a PM and nominate an interim leader but the new leader can only be chosen by the party members.

From mlw:

http://mapleleafweb.com/features/parliamentary-government-canada-basic-organization-and-practices

Second, and more importantly, the executive branch is completely dependent upon the legislative branch for its authority. The Prime Minister and Cabinet cannot decide the direction of government or administer enacted laws if it does not enjoy the continual support of the majority of members in the House of Commons. If the executive loses majority support in the legislature, then typically the government will fall, and elections will be held to select a new executive.

But when the MP's are all party-whipped all the time on the PM's orders under threat, government is no longer functioning 'as designed', and the PM is accountable to no one.

[scribblet]

That shows a vast ignorance of how things work in Canadian political parties.

The fact is the vast majority of caucus members are from safe ridings where whoever gets appointed candidate for a particular party is virtually certain to be elected. As to who gets appointed, what often happens is a certain person will 'rush' the riding association, bringing in 100 or so new people whose only interest is to vote for that person as candidate, then leave.

So you get a bunch of people of no particular talent, intelligence or ability, many of whom got elected simply by recruiting people from their church, temple or ethnic association to plunk down $10 to vote them as candidate, and this should overrided an election involving thousands of party members?

......................

I can confirm that. Not only recruit people from their houses of worship etc. but from out of riding. There were pages of them in my riding but the deadlines and time constraints didn't allow us to verify them all until it was over. Fortunately the guy didn't win.

I also remember years ago Art Hanger's riding have the same problem only much bigger. If it were not for the fact that something like 5 Sikhs were running which divided the vote, Art would've lost the nomination. Later it was found that something like 7,000 names were from out of riding.

It is not a well thought out amendment that does not have the support of the party membership. A resolution proposing some of this change was defeated at the last convention.

Edited November 30, 2013 by scribblet

[Argus]

Argus, check out this book review. If you still feel the same way about this whole situation, then there's not much else I can say to persuade you.

http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2012/06/keeping-party-leaders-honest/

I don't think what happens in the UK or Australia is anything for us to envy. It's certainly true that the PM and his office have too much power. I don't dispute that. I also think individual MPs ought to be more responsible to their constituents rather than the PMO. I just don't think having caucus overrule the party membership is the way to do that.

Perhaps what would be more democratic would be if, as they're choosing the leader the party chooses a sort of permanent body whose task is to see to it that the leader holds to the policies and platform as approved by the membership. If he fails to do so he could be removed and someone else appointed by the committee after party-wide consultations. At the same time, this committee could be tasked with overseeing caucus members to ensure they do the same, removing the party leader's responsibility in that area.

But again, if you want individual caucus members to have more power than that should be put to the membership to define. Should members be able to vote against the party, or even speak out against the party when their constituents disagree with part policy? Or perhaps when their riding association does? If the party makes the decision then sure. But again, remember these people are the party's banner carriers, and have, for the most part, no individual authority, no ability to get elected except as the party's representative.

[scribblet]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/30/michael-chong-stephen-harper_n_4364964.html

According to this, the NDP may not support it, haven't heard about the Liberals yet.

[Argus]

From mlw:

http://mapleleafweb.com/features/parliamentary-government-canada-basic-organization-and-practices

Second, and more importantly, the executive branch is completely dependent upon the legislative branch for its authority. The Prime Minister and Cabinet cannot decide the direction of government or administer enacted laws if it does not enjoy the continual support of the majority of members in the House of Commons. If the executive loses majority support in the legislature, then typically the government will fall, and elections will be held to select a new executive.

But when the MP's are all party-whipped all the time on the PM's orders under threat, government is no longer functioning 'as designed', and the PM is accountable to no one.

The design is nice in theory but non-functional in the real world. Virtually none of the individual MPs can survive an election on their own. There are a few noted personalities, but for the most part they are anonymous drones to their constituents, simply representatives of the party they choose to support. People might technically be voting for the individual since that is how our system works, but they usually know nothing about that individual, nor care to. They are voting for the party. So if these individual MPs rebel against the party leader and start causing difficulties the party will not let them run again under their banner and they'll be gone in the next election.

[Argus]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/30/michael-chong-stephen-harper_n_4364964.html

According to this, the NDP may not support it, haven't heard about the Liberals yet.

The problems the bill aims to fix — such as curbing the control of party leaders over their MPs — are only found in the Conservative caucus, Edmonton NDP MP Linda Duncan told The Huffington Post Canada.

LOL. The NDP is the most tightly whipped group of sheep in parliament! You can't even THINK about anything that goes against party policy! No, it doesn't matter what your constituents think or want or say, or your personal conscience! Vote how we say or get out!

[cybercoma]

Argus, you had a very valid criticism earlier, which I think is a problem that needs to be overcome for all of this to work. The point you made was that some people bring in a bunch of people to the riding association and get nominated by fudging the votes this way. I would love to think about ways to make this better. Perhaps have Elections Canada more involved in policing riding nominations. I don't know. But thinking about it. This was a great point that you raised.

[cybercoma]

The problems the bill aims to fix — such as curbing the control of party leaders over their MPs — are only found in the Conservative caucus, Edmonton NDP MP Linda Duncan told The Huffington Post Canada.

LOL. The NDP is the most tightly whipped group of sheep in parliament! You can't even THINK about anything that goes against party policy! No, it doesn't matter what your constituents think or want or say, or your personal conscience! Vote how we say or get out!

Let's not sit here and pretend that any one party is worse than another for whipping votes because they all do it. The problem with the CPC is what Sachs wrote about in his article in the Citizen. Everything an MP does, everything a riding association does, has to be vetted by the PMO. They're only allowed to read the PMO's talking points. It's not just whipped votes in the house. It's the fact that the MPs in the Conservative Party have absolutely no autonomy. Everything they say and do is dictated by the unelected staffers in the PMO and that's the real threat to democracy. MPs can't even stand up and read letters from their constituents without it being vetted by the unelected offices. They're given talking points that they must recite. They don't even get their own time to speak in the house for threat of losing party affiliation. That's a damn shame. Edited December 1, 2013 by cybercoma

[Argus]

Argus, you had a very valid criticism earlier, which I think is a problem that needs to be overcome for all of this to work. The point you made was that some people bring in a bunch of people to the riding association and get nominated by fudging the votes this way. I would love to think about ways to make this better. Perhaps have Elections Canada more involved in policing riding nominations. I don't know. But thinking about it. This was a great point that you raised.

Any attempt at a renewed democracy and more power for MPs has to start with riding associations. They choose who the candidate will be for their party, and in the majority of ridings, in fact, they basically choose who the MP will be. Oh yes, there'll be a general vote but in safe seats, and most seats are safe, that's almost a formality. For all practical purposes the riding associations choose the MPs. It behooves us to do our best to ensure those riding associations are relatively free from bias in the choosing. So I, for example, would make it impossible for new members to vote on candidates until after the election following the date they joined. You should have to be a member in good standing for some time, including attending meetings, in order to vote. Merely plunking down $10 and doing nothing more should not get you a vote in who becomes MP.

[Argus]

Let's not sit here and pretend that any one party is worse than another for whipping votes because they all do it. The problem with the CPC is what Sachs wrote about in his article in the Citizen. Everything an MP does, everything a riding association does, has to be vetted by the PMO. They're only allowed to read the PMO's talking points. It's not just whipped votes in the house. It's the fact that the MPs in the Conservative Party have absolutely no autonomy. Everything they say and do is dictated by the unelected staffers in the PMO and that's the real threat to democracy. MPs can't even stand up and read letters from their constituents without it being vetted by the unelected offices. They're given talking points that they must recite. They don't even get their own time to speak in the house for threat of losing party affiliation. That's a damn shame.

In a lot of ways I agree. However, as long as MPs are nobodies (as Trudeau put it) and largely unknown to their own constituents, they're going to be beholden to the party for re-election.

And the media is largely responsible for a lot of this. They delight in finding one member, or better yet, cabinet minister, putting a different spin on something than another. If the PM says something and some cabinet minister says the opposite it will be headline news across the country. As for comittees, as I previously noted, the party can't rely on a lot of these people to ask intelligent (read politically aware) questions which will do what the party wants. Some of these MPs are politically ignorant morons. Does the party want, as an example, one of their committee members, in questioning someone on a matter of public health, to veer off into long-winded complaints about the murder of the unborn? Likely not! Does it want some ethnic MP who only got elected because he got enough of his temple members in to vote for him to start ranting about the member of some other religion? All this control is based on a lack of confidence in the MPs. Oh, sure, some of them are sharp and politically aware, but we saw what happens to those who aren't back when the Reform Party came to Ottawa. The media had a field day with them, asking dangerous, leading questions, trying to get them to say something which was, or could be spun as outrageous. Those who are inexperienced or lacking quickness of thought can easily fall into such traps. None of the parties wants to see that happen, particularly the Conservatives.

[eyeball]

It behooves us to do our best to ensure those riding associations are relatively free from bias in the choosing.

I think you could achieve a lot more success at avoiding the pitfalls of biases by employing randomly chosen constituents assemblies.

We could likewise perform much of the Senate's role with citizen's assemblies, chosen much like a jury and in which responsibility for better governance is placed where it belongs, with the people being governed.

Edited December 1, 2013 by eyeball

[scribblet]

Other than hysterical headlines and media opinions is there any proof or hard data to support the assertion that PMs have abused the signing process? The Elections Act has required the signature since the 60s. Usually the PM’s signature is just the end of a along process which includes vetting by the Candidates Nomination Committee. I wouldn’t make a generalized statement about how well equipped they are to ask questions either.

[g_bambino]

So you have to ask, should the party leader be eager to please the sitting MPs - many of whom did nothing much to attain their seats - or to the general party membership.

The better question is: should party politics trump national politics? I'd say no; I find it bizarre that people somehow believe it's more democratic to have the prime minister responsible to a relatively small and politically uniform group--the membership of the prime minister's party--only at the time of the leadership convention and thereafter to nobody until the subsequent general election, whenever that may be, rather than at all times to the elected representatives of the voting population--our MPs in parliament.

[ed.: +]

Edited December 2, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Everything an MP does, everything a riding association does, has to be vetted by the PMO. They're only allowed to read the PMO's talking points. It's not just whipped votes in the house. It's the fact that the MPs in the Conservative Party have absolutely no autonomy. Everything they say and do is dictated by the unelected staffers in the PMO and that's the real threat to democracy. MPs can't even stand up and read letters from their constituents without it being vetted by the unelected offices... That's a damn shame.

Mm, indeed.