The Reform Act 2013 -- MP Michael Chong

[Moonlight Graham]

Mulcair and May have already said they would vote in favour of the legislation.

Trudeau voiced support for it also, on Twitter. As for Mulcair:

NDP reform critic Craig Scott said he will personally support the bill and MPs in his party will be allowed a free vote on the legislation.

I think one of the main points of this bill is that it shouldn't matter much what Mulcair thinks of bills much more than other MP's in his party. How ironic would it be though if one of the parties whipped their members on his bill? I think this bill has a good chance of passing because Harper probably hates this bill but can't do much about it or else faces a mutiny.

[scribblet]

There's a piece here in a local rag that expresses my sentiments on some of the issues.

http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/2013/12/05/chong-idea-a-misuse-of-parliaments-power

His party has a constitution that gives veto power over candidates to a National Candidate Selection Committee. The constitution has an amending formula, 50% plus one.

Chong can take his idea to the membership at a national convention and put it to a vote. If more than half the members want to take back local control of the nomination process, they will.

Some variation on that system is true for each national party, and each can make the same choice, or not.

That would be true reform, from the ground up. Chong’s proposed Reform Bill is as top down as it gets. It is also a misuse of the power of Parliament.

[Smallc]

Yeah...well, the sentiments are wrong.

[Wilber]

There's a piece here in a local rag that expresses my sentiments on some of the issues.

http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/2013/12/05/chong-idea-a-misuse-of-parliaments-power

It seems you would rather have that power invested in a bunch of unelected members of a political party instead of the peoples elected representatives.

I disagree with those sentiments.

[g_bambino]

The leaders can only 'whip' MP's by threatening to veto an MP's nomination for the next election.

No, leaders can also deny MPs any chance of getting into Cabinet or any other important positions and eject them from caucus altogether.

[g_bambino]

Did that stop trudeau from putting troops on our streets with guns?

"Our streets"? You make it sound like the whole country was made subject to martial law.

Anyway, troops were first out on the streets of Montreal at the unanimous request of Quebec's political party leaders, per the National Defence Act. Then, at the urging of the Mayor of Montreal and the Quebec Cabinet, the federal Crown-in-Council declared a state of apprehended insurrection under the War Measures Act. It was all entirely legal, meaning your retort above is inapplicable.

[g_bambino]

A very important point made by Chong:

I think a lot of what he says there is misguided and thus misleading to others (electing everyone and everything isn't an ideal), but I can't disagree at all with most of the final paragraph.

[cybercoma]

No, leaders can also deny MPs any chance of getting into Cabinet or any other important positions and eject them from caucus altogether.

Which is why it makes sense that MPs can deny the leader his/her cabinet position by voting together. It prevents someone from running away with power. Jeffrey Simpson shed a lot of light on the consolidation of power in the PMO in his book The Friendly Dictatorship, so I find it kind of ironic that he's vocally against reform now.

[jacee]

Maclean's POLL: Do-you-support-michael-chongs-reform-act?

Currently 75% say 'yes', 10% 'no'.

I admit I'm surprised at how quickly and completely Canadians are embracing the idea of reducing the power of the PM and returning more independence to elected MP's.

.

[g_bambino]

Which is why it makes sense that MPs can deny the leader his/her cabinet position by voting together. It prevents someone from running away with power.

An article in the National Post yesterday (I think) spelled out just how many people in a prime minister's caucus can benefit financially, in one way or another, from sucking up to the PM; it was around half.

Jeffrey Simpson shed a lot of light on the consolidation of power in the PMO in his book The Friendly Dictatorship, so I find it kind of ironic that he's vocally against reform now.

I've always found Simpson to be a bit of a dolt.

[brian66]

The current reform proposal is window dressing. They need to give the power back to the grassroots and not the caucus. They should also include recall powers. An interesting article by Dale Smith talking about the reforms.

http://looniepolitics.com/rent-tories-liberal-supporters-death-accountability/

[scribblet]

Agree we should go back to grassroots power and not the caucus. Warren Kinsella the Liberal attack dog doesn't like it, I'm a bit surprised, he says.

Essentially, he wants to denude party leaders of their ability to be, you know, leaders.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/12/06/michael-chongs-private-members-bill-to-denude-leaders-is-most-unlikeable

[Mighty AC]

It does give candidate selection powers back to the grassroots. After that it steals a little power from the PMO and gives it back to our representatives. It is a representative democracy after all...and they are they people that work directly with the leader. If fine with the power structure proposed by the bill, but what happens when a party only has a handful of elected members? Should 2 or 3 MPs be able to force a leadership changes?

[Wilber]

For Kinsella to say that Chong has nothing to lose by standing up in caucus and asking for a leadership review, when that leader has the power of life and death within that caucus, is ingenuous at best.

I would say that if a party only has 5 members and three of them want a leadership change, there is probably a reason they need a change.

[g_bambino]

They need to give the power back to the grassroots and not the caucus.

The diminishment of MPs is exactly what's taken power from the grassroots.

[cybercoma]

It does give candidate selection powers back to the grassroots. After that it steals a little power from the PMO and gives it back to our representatives. It is a representative democracy after all...and they are they people that work directly with the leader. If fine with the power structure proposed by the bill, but what happens when a party only has a handful of elected members? Should 2 or 3 MPs be able to force a leadership changes?

I think people are blissfully ignoring that the "grassroots" are non-partisan. Once an MP is elected he or she represents all of his or her constituents, not just the ones that voted for him or her.

[brian66]

We can debate the merits of the specifics within Chong's proposals, however we also need to get back to the basics and have a Speaker who will enforce the rules. An example should be the UK model where the Speaker is not afraid to kick someone out for poor behaviour and makes sure the questions are relevant. We have gone down hill with pizza and Santa.

http://looniepolitics.com/bashful-speaker-scheer-helps-one/

[nocentre53]

I can see the value of political parties as like minded people with shared values who believe that public policy should be shaped in a certain way to achieve certain goals.As a Means to an End this is natural.

However I have seen political parties regardless of name and country of origin,become an End rather than a Means.When the "Party" and perpetuating itself in power become the End,then good public policy becomes largely irrelevant.Party members allegedly represent their constituency,but in reality owe their allegiance to the Party: if they step out of line,they will be thrown out.Thus the "other guys" (rival parties) become their focus: not governing sensibly.This is where we have flagrant abuse of power and the breakdown of true representative democracy.

Too much power is concentrated in The Leader and his Executive (caucus/cabinet).The ordinary member is there to make a lot of noise,warm their seat and vote as they are told to.

So,yes I can see MP Chong's reasoning to balance out the uneven power distribution between the rank and file and the Executive and Chief.

[WWWTT]

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.

You really don't know how political parties work in tandem with riding associations do you?

Usually the party has final say in approving the candidate.(or some other loop hole)

Also, in strong party ridings, the party has their "Santa's little helper" on the executive reporting back getting ready for the AGM and/or nomination meeting.

Recruiting 100+ fresh new members eligible to vote in a nomination meeting for the sole purpose to mutiny in an already party strong riding is a lot easier said then done!

This is actually one of the better bills I have seen in a long time!

But I think it will get shot down real fast because the brown nosers outweigh the ones with an actual backbone!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

If fine with the power structure proposed by the bill, but what happens when a party only has a handful of elected members? Should 2 or 3 MPs be able to force a leadership changes?

Theoretical proposal with no footing in reality.

If a party is that slim, why would they further degenerate their chances?

WWWTT

[jacee]

Theoretical proposal with no footing in reality.

If a party is that slim, why would they further degenerate their chances?

WWWTT

In a functioning government, such details can be refined in committee so it works.

In the Harper government, all changes are voted down.

Did you hear Harper's MP's couldn't even vote to correct a grammatical error?

[AlienB]

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.

This is just hilarious, there is something called a confidence vote.

Why make a law to limit power you already have?

It is basically trying to legitimize the powers that the Governor General already has. The PM can be replaced at anytime. The PM has no term. Only governments have terms.

These are just perversions to provide privileges that don't already exist.

It looks all dandy but the fact is, they already have those powers. They could pass a motion to achieve as much.

The act actually doesn't "limit power" it actually serves to create a case for how the role of the PM works, as opposed to the broad capacities of the house to vote in confidence or not. The GG is left to determine the course of action. In some respect what it does is limits the power of the governor general, not the PM.

Edited December 22, 2013 by AlienB

[Wilber]

This is more about increasing the freedom of MP's to act according to their constituents wishes and their own conscience than it is about limiting the PM's powers. Right now they have none if they wish to remain in caucus.

[AlienB]

This is more about increasing the freedom of MP's to act according to their constituents wishes and their own conscience than it is about limiting the PM's powers. Right now they have none if they wish to remain in caucus.

Well leave caucus if you arn't a member.

If I'm not mistaken normally there is a leadership convention for party's and confidence votes for governments.

caucus has nothing to do with parliament other than perversions that have been grafted by partisan corruptions and de facto function, as opposed to de jure realities.

Edited December 22, 2013 by AlienB

[Wilber]

Well leave caucus if you arn't a member.

If I'm not mistaken normally there is a leadership convention for party's and confidence votes for governments.

caucus has nothing to do with parliament other than perversions that have been grafted by partisan corruptions and de facto function, as opposed to de jure realities.

A bunch of unelected party members choose a leader that has the power of political life and death over the people's elected representatives. That is perverted.

Confidence votes for governments have nothing to do with this.