The Reform Act 2013 -- MP Michael Chong

[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.

No, it is about legitimizing the current extortion conducted by the party. MP's have free votes. If you don't want to follow the party rules don't follow the party rules, start your own party. The bill is nonsense to be in parliament. This bill is trying to determine how political parties run themselves, and that is nonsense. People should be able to freely associate and as long as those associations live up to mortmain and corporate ethics then there is no legal issue. If it ain't against the law there shouldn't be laws forcing private parties how to act and carry on their business.

However if there is any extortion ongoing then that is criminal, look up extortion in the criminal code. If the court system wasn't so corrupt in Canada then there would be protections from extorting MPs.

None the less if you don't want to follow party rules start your own party such as the Free Conservatives of Canada. Or join the Social Party, a party that is libertarian and respects individuals rights to self determination so long as it doesnt violate others fundamental personal freedoms

EXTORTION

6. (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.

If it ain't extortion who cares, you want change in how your party operates change how the party operates. You don't have voice in your party but want to run it, the choice is obvious, start your own party cause the one you are in isn't.

The cabinet soildarity principle is fairly well established but we must realize ultimately it is the crown that appoints cabinet, and that mechanism is by who is selected as prime minister through conventions that have long existed, is there a reason why the convention should turn the PM into a second speaker of the house to be voted up and down at the floors wishes? Generally speaking the PM has higher standing but all P.C. privy counsellors have direct input into privy council and thus the office of PM. However we know how this thing works.

This is basically I want to be in the party but don't want to follow its rules. The issue is not how the party is run, the issue is that you support a party, even today that runs itself that way.

The real solution is to say I am out if you don't do it this way. That is all there is to it.

However in Machevellian prose it is obvious some stooge will just take your place if there are party supporters out there who don't agree with or don't hear your reasons. But if that is the case you were a stooge to begin with.

None the less, hopefully things sort out but the fact you are still in if the conduct of the party is contemptuous means you are supporting the wrong party.

Edited December 22, 2013 by AlienB

[Wilber]

COERCION

The practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force, and describes a set of various different similar types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response.

On Edit:

Representative Democracy: I elect you to act in my and the country's interests.

Canadian Democracy: I elect you to take orders from that guy.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Wilber

[AlienB]

I did have a second thought on this just now, that sure if the objective is to stop the behaviour from happening then yes it is a foot in the door to stop corrupt dictatorships, although I don't agree with the practice in principle the objective is merited.

I think Anne Frank would agree, and that STOP HARPER girl.

Where was Michael Chong when she was getting booted from Parliament? Huh? Is it too late, and then they came for you?

And people say she was in University. there is probably some young girl in the middle of the Ottawa River with cement shoes for all we know!

But saying what a party can do and letting members of the party decide who PM is by legislation.

Its like saying MY PARTY is a DICTATORSHIP, can we not all agree that it will be an Oligarchy?

Can we not have multiple tyrants instead of just one?

What is the commons again? It establishes the case that that is how PM is suppose to be appointed, no no, you don't let the majority or major party decide who is PM, that is the role of parliament, and that is what the confidence vote is for.

If you are part of a party that says you can't cast your own vote or you are out of the party.. that is your own damn fault for joining it if you don't want to be a stooge Mr. Chong.

Cast your own vote and instead of going to Caucus go door to door in your own riding with that time saved where you would just be nodding your head and trying to angle yourself to but level.

Maybe you and Mr. Trudeau could cast up a Merry old time, people run him not the other way around. You might be able to get support from your fans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bf9lUdRWFA

Edited December 23, 2013 by AlienB

[Wilber]

What is the commons again? It establishes the case that that is how PM is suppose to be appointed, no no, you don't let the majority or major party decide who is PM, that is the role of parliament, and that is what the confidence vote is for.

Nonsense. A confidence vote is on parliament's confidence in the government, not to decide who is the prime minister.

If you are part of a party that says you can't cast your own vote or you are out of the party.. that is your own damn fault for joining it if you don't want to be a stooge Mr. Chong.

In Canada, it means you are in a political system that puts all the power in the hands of one member, elected in one constituency. That is the reality of our system and what Chong wants to limit. I applaud him. The sooner the better. As I have said before, if a government can't convince its own members, it should be rethinking its policy, not beating them over the head with a stick. That is a failure in leadership, not a palace revolt.

[g_bambino]

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

The bill doesn't propose to limit anything except the party leaders' control over their MPs; in essence, its intent is to return us to the way our parliament used to function.

Confidence votes decide the prime minister (to put it very simply), not a party leader. In a majority parliament, MPs in the governing party are not going to vote non-confidence in the sitting prime minister, since, while they may be able to put their collective confidence behind another individual (whom the governor general would then appoint as PM), they will still have the same, now-ex-prime-minister as party leader, there until the next leadership convention, which happens whenever the leader says so. That means, in a subsequent election, the governing party's MPs who decide to run will rely on the approval of the very person they voted out of the prime minister's office. It would also likely be unworkable to have the prime minister and the leader of the governing party be two different (and probably, by that point, adversarial) people.

Chong's bill keeps the positions of prime minister and party leader fused.

[g_bambino]

This bill is trying to determine how political parties run themselves, and that is nonsense.

But not all the other laws that tell organisations--unions, corporations, charities--how to run themselves aren't?

The cabinet soildarity principle is fairly well established but we must realize ultimately it is the crown that appoints cabinet, and that mechanism is by who is selected as prime minister through conventions that have long existed.

Isn't it obvious the conventions around parliamentary confidence have been pushed over 40 or 50 years into obscurity? Responsible government is pretty well the convention that makes our system of governance democratic and it has been eroded, the consequence of changes and rules implemented elsewhere, mostly within political parties. The governor general may still only appoint as prime minister the individual the majority of the House of Commons has granted its confidence, but, in a majority parliament, that individual is then essentially accountable in no way to the legislature for the advice he gives to the monarch or her representative, because he faces next to no threat from his MPs. It's no dictatorship--contrary to what the hyperbolic like to say--but responsible government is diminished and so is representative democracy.

[ed.: +]

Edited December 24, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

A confidence vote is on parliament's confidence in the government, not to decide who is the prime minister.

Well, that's pretty well one and the same thing; all the other ministers in Cabinet are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister, not parliament.

[Wilber]

Well, that's pretty well one and the same thing; all the other ministers in Cabinet are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister, not parliament.

Except you know that it isn't. When has a confidence vote In Parliament ever changed a PM other than by forcing an election?

[WWWTT]

Well, that's pretty well one and the same thing; all the other ministers in Cabinet are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister, not parliament.

This comment doesn't make sense?

A confidence vote is in the government, not the PM.

Cretein has stepped down, McGuinty and Mulroney and other leaders where appointed through the process of convention, then given the royal blessings from the appropriate Queens rep.

WWWTT

[moonraker]

We could do away with the partisanship in parliament very simply. It would also solve the problem of the "whip" vote. I personally believe that Canada is no longer a democracy. Any system of government where a small few people can have a large say in government policy is no democracy. That's essentially what the whip vote is. The leadership of the governing party is really in control. Not the individual MPs or their constituents. We should abolish the parties. No more "whip" votes, no more party-centric scandals. The MP's once elected can draw names from within their numbers or perhaps vote to determine who holds the PMO and the various other portfolios of ministries. No more massive campaign funding scandals.

Also the wage of the members should be directly linked to an index based on the incomes of the average canadian. Nobpdy should be able to give themselves a raise at the expense of taxpayers without having earned it first.

[Topaz]

Michael Chong's Reform Act, which takes some of the power from the leaders of the party will probably die in the senate. My thoughts at the time when it passed in the House was Harper will try and stop it in the senate and it looks like its going to be even though most Canadians are for it. Before anyone says Harper has no power over the senate, we know different. http://www.canada.com/news/national/Andrew+Coyne+Senate+will+quietly+allow+popular+Reform/11047834/story.html

[cybercoma]

Chong insists that he fully supports Harper, so I can't see him getting turfed after this passes.

Here's what I do see happening. The bill passes through the House, but gets held up in the Senate and an election will be called before it receives royal assent. And the bill dies.

Harper campaigns on a promise for democratic reform, due to the manufactured scandals in the senate with the coup de grace of killing this reform bill by their slow processing of it (organized by the PMO of course).

In other words, promise to put out fires you've started to win the election.

[Topaz]

Lets see if Bill C-51, the terrorists bill passes and how fast these senators would pass a Bill for increase in pay! If the Reform Act isn't pass, every voter should be very peeved at this government!