The Reform Act 2013 -- MP Michael Chong

[On Guard for Thee]

Here's my reform act: we select a logger and a fisherman from BC, then a miner and a farmer from the prairies, also a couple of business men and maple syrup producers from Ontario and Quebec, boat builders and federal experts from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and then some more fishermen again from the east coast, an Inuit hunter, and an Inuit artist, and we drag them all kicking and screaming into a building in Ottawa and announce to them them that like it or not they are now the government so get to work.

OK, it's a bit goofy,but I remind you of what Plato said: "those who seek power are not worthy of it"

[scribblet]

Daniel Dicken has some good questions and valid points, certainly worth a read.

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2013/12/a-first-look-at-reform-act.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DanielDickin+%28Daniel+Dickin%29

The Reform Act places a lot of emphasis on EDA-elected nomination officers. Just think about it: the authority of Thomas Mulcair, Justin Trudeau, and Stephen Harper and their headquarters staff to choose their 308 (or 338 in 2015) candidates would be suddenly delegated to 308 (or 338) nominations officers.

[Mighty AC]

I don't think allowing a riding to choose it's own candidate is a problem.

[PIK]

Watching ezra last nite and he said he read it and he said you only need 15% of the mp 's to do it and in justin's case that is 5 MP'S and I think he said they can then put in thier own interm leader. And then justin get 4 mp's to back him and they do it again. And if this was a lib doing it the media would be saying very little. .By going what ezra said this is very stupid.

Edited December 5, 2013 by PIK

[Wilber]

Watching ezra last nite and he said he read it and he said you only need 15% of the mp 's to do it and in justin's case that is 5 MP'S and I think he said they can then put in thier own interm leader. And then justin get 4 mp's to back him and they do it again. And if this was a lib doing it the media would be saying very little. .By going what ezra said this is very stupid.

Under the British system 15% can trigger a confidence vote, they can't replace anyone. A majority is required to replace a leader.

[jacee]

Daniel Dicken has some good questions and valid points, certainly worth a read.

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2013/12/a-first-look-at-reform-act.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DanielDickin+%28Daniel+Dickin%29

The Reform Act places a lot of emphasis on EDA-elected nomination officers. Just think about it: the authority of Thomas Mulcair, Justin Trudeau, and Stephen Harper and their headquarters staff to choose their 308 (or 338 in 2015) candidates would be suddenly delegated to 308 (or 338) nominations officers.

Dickin's only concerned about the power and success of 'the Party', not the confidence of the people for their government.

I think people are more concerned about reducing the power of 'the Party' and increasing the accountability of MP's to the local constituents.

In my view, the immediate necessity is to take away the power that the Party leaders have assumed to 'whip' MP's (ie, threaten them with job loss) into voting lock-step with the party line. That's accomplished by removing the leaders' veto over local nominations.

It may require some adjustments in screening candidates at the local level. I think that's preferable to the current full control by the national Party/leader.

It's a beginning to democratic reform.

A majority government leader with total control over MP's votes is a one man government with no checks and balances on his absolute authority.

That may appeal to those who prefer an authoritarian 'business' model of government, but it isn't democracy.

.

Edited December 5, 2013 by jacee

[g_bambino]

Watching ezra last nite and he said he read it and he said you only need 15% of the mp 's to do it and in justin's case that is 5 MP'S and I think he said they can then put in thier own interm leader. And then justin get 4 mp's to back him and they do it again... By going what ezra said this is very stupid.

Well, because 15% may be a little low doesn't make the whole proposal stupid. Bills get reformed--hopefully improved--as they move through parliament; that's what parliament is for.

[g_bambino]

In my view, the immediate necessity is to take away the power that the Party leaders have assumed to 'whip' MP's (ie, threaten them with job loss) into voting lock-step with the party line. That's accomplished by removing the leaders' veto over local nominations.

How? Regardless of how the candidate for MP was nominated, it's once the MP is an MP that the party leader can whip him or her.

A majority government leader with total control over MP's votes is a one man government with no checks and balances on his absolute authority.

Not absolute authority. But too much, yes. Or, at least, too much without enough democratic accountability to affect how it's wielded. Right now, almost all the limits there are are legal--constitutional--enforcable only by the governor general or monarch and only in the most dire circumstances because both are unelected; they're a last resort.

[cybercoma]

Chong's bill doesn't allow the MPs to replace the leader, btw. Just to recall him. They don't get to pick the new one. Or so I'm hearing through the Twitterverse.

[PIK]

Chong's bill doesn't allow the MPs to replace the leader, btw. Just to recall him. They don't get to pick the new one. Or so I'm hearing through the Twitterverse.

Watch ezra and listen to how he explains it and he said he read it. Maybe I heard him wrong on that one.

[jacee]

In my view, the immediate necessity is to take away the power that the Party leaders have assumed to 'whip' MP's (ie, threaten them with job loss) into voting lock-step with the party line. That's accomplished by removing the leaders' veto over local nominations.

How? Regardless of how the candidate for MP was nominated, it's once the MP is an MP that the party leader can whip him or her.

The leaders can only 'whip' MP's by threatening to veto an MP's nomination for the next election. That's how they are intimidated into voting the 'Party line'. Whether it's spoken out loud or not, the MP's all know that's how the 'whip' comes down on them if they dare to oppose their leader.

Not absolute authority. But too much, yes. Or, at least, too much without enough democratic accountability to affect how it's wielded. Right now, almost all the limits there are are legal--constitutional--enforcable only by the governor general or monarch and only in the most dire circumstances because both are unelected; they're a last resort.

I think we need better ongoing checks and balances than that.

As a point of interest, the fact that the Governor General is official Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is also a check on the power of the PM, in case he tries to use the military against us.

.

Edited December 5, 2013 by jacee

[PIK]

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

[jacee]

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

Did Canadians en masse appeal to the GG?

We do have to get off our butts and protest if we want action.

.

[PIK]

Did Canadians en masse appeal to the GG?

We do have to get off our butts and protest if we want action.

.

Then we should forget about this petty politics with the senate and we all should be in TO protesting the REAL SLEAZE AND SLIME that is going on by the ONT libs, a real scandal that affects real people. Not this stupid BS about 90g's and who knew what.

[jacee]

You go pik.

[cybercoma]

Watch ezra and listen to how he explains it and he said he read it. Maybe I heard him wrong on that one.

I don't watch or listen to a damn thing Ezra Levant says.

[Smallc]

I was going to say, you'd probably learn more watching a blank TV screen.

[Bryan]

I don't watch or listen to a damn thing Ezra Levant says.

Your loss. He's one of the smartest guys on Canadian TV right now. His presentation is crude, no doubt, but he does his research. He's far more informed than all of the talking heads at CBC combined.

[jacee]

I was going to say, you'd probably learn more watching a blank TV screen.

I second that.

[cybercoma]

Your loss. He's one of the smartest guys on Canadian TV right now. His presentation is crude, no doubt, but he does his research. He's far more informed than all of the talking heads at CBC combined.

I'll take your comments under advisement.

[jacee]

MP's rebel against THE 'WHIP'

Johnathan Kay

More than ever, backbench MPs truly do feel like trained seals, my colleague Jonathan Kay argues. Conservative MPs cant even talk to a reporter (let alone Tweet candidly) before getting their talking points cleared by the PMO.

Chris Selley

Some of Mr. Chongs Reform Act makes perfect sense. Requiring the leaders signoff on candidates is an invitation to abuse, and was only instituted under Canadian election law in 1970. Get rid of it.

http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/12/04/chris-selley-the-case-against-michael-chongs-reforms

Andrew Coyne

Conversely, the power to expel a member from caucus, or to prevent him from standing at the next election, has given leaders enormous, indeed existential leverage over members of caucus.

http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/11/29/andrew-coyne-reform-act-bill-would-change-canadas-parliament-forever

Michael Chong

" If you know that the leader may not sign your papers in the next election or may in fact kick you out of caucus, thats going to colour your judgment about whether or not youre going to support the party line on a particular vote.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/12/02/who-is-michael-chong-and-what-does-he-want-to-do-with-our-parliament/

Somebody pointed out that this is a rebellion of all MP's against all party leaders, and the vote may be 304-4 ... or the leaders will take one for the team and go along.

.

Edited December 6, 2013 by jacee

[Moonlight Graham]

This bill seems like a very good idea and I support it. Even if this passes, the party leaders and especially the PM will still have far too much power for any sane democracy to put up with. I hope this is just the beginning.

MP's rebel against THE 'WHIP'...

Somebody pointed out that this is a rebellion of all MP's against all party leaders, and the vote may be 304-4 ... or the leaders will take one for the team and go along.
.

It certainly won't be that much of a landslide since party leaders can still strongly whip MP's, even if the rules of this bill were already law. From Chong:

"If this bill is adopted and these reforms are put into place, we will still have immensely powerful prime ministers, and immensely powerful party leaders. The prime minister appoints members of the Cabinet, appoints all the deputy ministers, appoints thousands of other people to various positions throughout the government of Canada. The prime minister and his House leadership, along with the House leadership of the other parliamentary parties, still decide committee membership, whose offices are where, who gets to sit where. They still hold an incredibly powerful whip. All this bill does is rebalance a little bit of the power back towards the legislature."

[Moonlight Graham]

A very important point made by Chong:

And I think it’s clear that the balance has shifted in favour of caucus leadership away from caucus members. That has weakened the connection that Canadians have with their local member of Parliament.

Here’s why that’s so important. In many other systems of government, citizens exercise three franchises, three votes, at the federal or national level of government. They vote for a head of state, such as a president. They vote for a member of the upper chamber of their legislature such as a senator. And they vote for a member of their lower chamber, such as a Congressman or Congresswoman. So when they have grievances, when they need assistance, they want their views and aspirations to be heard, they have three avenues through which they can pursue their democratic rights.

In Canada, Canadian citizens have one franchise, one vote, to exercise at the federal level. And that is a vote for their local member of Parliament. And they rightfully expect that that member of Parliament be able to respond to their needs and aspirations. This bill rebalances the power of the House in a way that ensures that members have greater degree of autonomy within the party system to represent their constituents.

[eyeball]

This bill seems like a very good idea and I support it. Even if this passes, the party leaders and especially the PM will still have far too much power for any sane democracy to put up with. I hope this is just the beginning.

It certainly won't be that much of a landslide since party leaders can still strongly whip MP's, even if the rules of this bill were already law. From Chong:

"If this bill is adopted and these reforms are put into place, we will still have immensely powerful prime ministers, and immensely powerful party leaders. The prime minister appoints members of the Cabinet, appoints all the deputy ministers, appoints thousands of other people to various positions throughout the government of Canada. The prime minister and his House leadership, along with the House leadership of the other parliamentary parties, still decide committee membership, whose offices are where, who gets to sit where. They still hold an incredibly powerful whip. All this bill does is rebalance a little bit of the power back towards the legislature."

...just the beginning...

At this rate some of us might get to see this change take place in our lifetimes, but I expect our grand-kids will be well into their dotage by the time the next wave of change sweeps the country. Hang on, it could get rough.

I'm reminded of how my anti-virus program occasionally asks me "Did you feel that? We just boosted your computers performance". Oooh, I'm all a quiver.

Edited December 6, 2013 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

Somebody pointed out that this is a rebellion of all MP's against all party leaders, and the vote may be 304-4 ... or the leaders will take one for the team and go along.

.

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