The Reform Act 2013 -- MP Michael Chong

[g_bambino]

Not if you can't grasp the purpose of a citizen's assembly.

The purpose of a citizen's assembly is an irrelevant distraction. You said a group of randomly selected people would be accountable to "the system". Explain how.

[Wilber]

Seems to me the present system is one that is stacked by the party leader, or in other words, our present system. Seems to me, a system that gave MP's more latitude would be one that is far more difficult to "stack". The present system gives a party leader a huge ability to divide and conquer resulting in Parliament being the tool of the PMO, rather than the other way around. I think it would be healthier if governments were held on accountable on an on going basis, rather than just during next scandal.

I think that if MP's did have more power, people might pay more attention to who they were actually voting for. A little less tendency to hold ones nose while making the X perhaps..

[eyeball]

The purpose of a citizen's assembly is an irrelevant distraction..

Are you sure you just don't hate the idea?

Edited December 4, 2013 by eyeball

[jacee]

Now, if the goal is to make MPs more independent and to give them some meaningful power... I think the very first thing that should be looked at is the idea of "whipped" votes. Party members should in all cases be free to vote according to their own principles / the will of their constituents, rather than being told how to vote by their party leaders.

That's exactly what one element of this bill addresses, by removing the ability of party leaders to veto riding nominations.

MP's are supposed to be nominated by their local riding association so they remain accountable ONLY to their riding, not to party leaders.

Party leaders can 'whip' (intimidate) MP's into

voting the way they want ONLY because they can threaten MP's that they won't approve their nomination for the next election. IE, party leaders can and do threaten MP's with dismissal at election time if they don't toe the party line.

That's not the way it's supposed to be. It's a perversion of the system and it undermines the democratic accountability and independence of MP's.

Removing the ability party leaders have acquired to veto candidate nominations would return the independence of MP's to vote with their conscience on behalf of their local constituents.

This is THE most important element of the bill.

Edited December 4, 2013 by jacee

[g_bambino]

Are you sure you just don't hate the idea?

I can hate your idea of replacing parliament with a randomly selected group of people as the body to whom the prime minister is ultimately responsible because its inexplicable, strongly suggesting its unworkable. But, I've been giving you plenty of opportunities to help me avoid having to make that conclusion.

[jacee]

I totaly agree with this. A Canadian PM has far too much power over the people's elected representatives. If a government can't convnce its own caucus, it should be rethinking its policy, not beating its own members with a stick.

Well put, Wilber!

.

[jacee]

The purpose of a citizen's assembly is an irrelevant distraction..

Are you sure you just don't hate the idea?

I like the idea of a nonpartisan/multipartisan citizens' assembly or forum of some kind. The availability of the internet now opens up a lot of possibilities for better citizen input and influence. It would need to be carefully designed so it doesn't get co-opted and undermined by the voracious party machines. Random selection - like juries - is a good idea that needs some development.

That's something that could be pursued by a group of interested people, but that's not what is on the table right now.

What we have is an opportunity to make some adjustments to the current system to take some power and accountability away from the PMO and put it back at the local level.

It would be an improvement.

Edited December 4, 2013 by jacee

[Keepitsimple]

Now, if the goal is to make MPs more independent and to give them some meaningful power... I think the very first thing that should be looked at is the idea of "whipped" votes. Party members should in all cases be free to vote according to their own principles / the will of their constituents, rather than being told how to vote by their party leaders.

But....there's the law of unintended consequences. When a party's power is centralized in one province - and MPs vote to please their constituents, you can have one or two provinces having undue influence over important National issues. Think back to the Chretien Liberal majorities with 100 seats in Ontario....or before that, Mulroney with all of Quebec. Even today, the NDP has it's power base in Quebec. Without some form of whip, we may not have today's ban on Capital Punishment, or Gay Marriage, or our current status quo on abortion.

So....used properly and very rarely, whipped votes have their place but defining "properly" and "rarely" would be a challenge.

[g_bambino]

It would be an improvement.

How? What makes it worth overturning responsible government?

[g_bambino]

When a party's power is centralized in one province - and MPs vote to please their constituents, you can have one or two provinces having undue influence over important National issues..

That's what the Senate is supposed to coutner.

[eyeball]

How? What makes it worth overturning responsible government?

I thought we were talking about overturning irresponsible PMs?

[jacee]

How? What makes it worth overturning responsible government?

It's not overturning responsible government, but returning to responsible government.

The massive centralized power now wielded by the PM was never intended for our system, and has undermined our responsible government.

We need it back.

.

[Keepitsimple]

That's what the Senate is supposed to coutner.

Exactly right.......

[cybercoma]

Do you know what a coup is?

It's when democratically elected representatives of a population have a democratic vote on leadership. That's a coup.

[cybercoma]

If a prorogation or dissolution of parliament is called before the bill passes the Senate, the bill will die regardless of what the majority of the Senate thinks of it.

To my understanding prorogation won't kill it, only dissolution.

[cybercoma]

Exactly right.......

Which contradicts your previous post that suggests Parliament is unworkable.

[Smallc]

To my understanding prorogation won't kill it, only dissolution.

As I understand it, prorogation would kill it.

[g_bambino]

It's not overturning responsible government, but returning to responsible government.

I don't think you quite grasp what responsible government is. It is having the government accountable to the House of Commons, the members of which are accountable to the electorate. A randomly chosen "citizens' assembly" is responsible to nobody.

[g_bambino]

It's when democratically elected representatives of a population have a democratic vote on leadership. That's a coup.

Well, that is what Harper said and he will stand for no less than his devout followers saying what the leader says!

[jacee]

I don't think you quite grasp what responsible government is. It is having the government accountable to the House of Commons, the members of which are accountable to the electorate. A randomly chosen "citizens' assembly" is responsible to nobody.

Sorry, the thread is about Chong's bill. I thought you were referring to that.

A citizens assembly is an interesting concept to consider and develop, but not part of the matter currently under consideration.

I would suggest a new thread to fully discuss the idea of a citizens assembly.

.

[eyeball]

I don't think you quite grasp what responsible government is.

This coming from someone who doesn't quite grasp what a citizen's assembly is.

I guess there's mealy mouths and then there's also mealy ears where pretending you don't understand something is just as distracting.

[g_bambino]

I guess there's mealy mouths and then there's also mealy ears where pretending you don't understand something is just as distracting.

And then there's people who divert discussion off on tangents and make passive-aggressive attacks when they're publicly embarassed by their failure to explain how their own proposal would work.

[jacee]

This coming from someone who doesn't quite grasp what a citizen's assembly is.

How about starting a new thread to present the concept and have the discussion?

It deserves it.

.

[August1991]

Delete

Edited December 5, 2013 by August1991

[eyeball]

How about starting a new thread to present the concept and have the discussion?

It deserves it.

.

Probably not a bad idea although the task at hand could be accomplished by a CA for reasons that clearly jibe with the goals stated in Chong's proposal. A solution outlined in a editorial linked to 3 or 4 pages ago in this thread (by Hudson) also suggests the process be placed in the hands of the public so as to ensure participants are beholden to no one and is as neutral as politically possible.

What the Canadian political system actually needs is what Canadians constantly tell the pollsters they want -- a comprehensive weakening of Ottawa's smothering party system, full stop. My favoured method of achieving this, as I outlined in a previous column, would be to turn Canada's parties into open, public utilities rather than closed, private corporations, and thereby grant all citizens -- not just card-carrying "party members" -- the right to vote in their local MP nomination elections and national party leadership races, just as Americans do in Congressional and presidential primaries. If the goal is to liberate MPs from the party bosses while also ensuring those party bosses are democratically accountable, this strikes me as the most sensible solution -- simply remove the partisan middlemen between our politicians and the public they serve, not merely swap one style of middleman for another, as Mr. Chong suggests.