Saving the House of Commons (II)

Further to this, Mark Jarvis chimes in via email with some of the other ideas discussed in Democratizing the Constitution.

-Adopt legislation limiting the size of ministries to a maximum of 25 individuals and the number of parliamentary secretaries to eight.

-Use secret preferential ballots to allow committee members to select Commons’ committee chairs for the duration of the parliamentary session.

-Adopt a set schedule for opposition days in the House that cannot be unilaterally altered by the government.

-Reduce the partisan political staff complement on Parliament Hill by 50 percent.

-Restore the power of party caucuses to dismiss the party leader.

-Remove the party leader’s power to approve or reject party candidates for election in each riding.

That last one goes hand in hand with amending the Elections Act. It also fits with what I tend to think should be the focus right now: changes that can be made with (reasonably straightforward) legislation and amendment. And, as noted by a few readers, I’d add one other: changing the guidelines to allow for CPAC to show more than the individual speaking. In the interests of objectivity, assigning television directors to show a “televised Hansard” makes a certain sense, but, at the very least, stationary cameras should be setup that feed live shots of the government and opposition sides to CPAC’s website. You shouldn’t have to go to the House of Commons to see what goes on there.




Browse

Saving the House of Commons (II)

  1. Does the fact the Liberals were reduced to 34 seats have anything to do with your newfound belief that the HoC is broken Wherry? Or have you secretly believed this for a while and just kept quite about it because you were holding out hope that the Liberals would be back in power soon?
     
    Funny how lefties suddenly think the game is broken and unfair now that they are on the losing side.

    • Ad hominem fallacy.

  2. I’m gonna nitpick again here.

    ‘Adopt legislation limiting the size of ministries to a maximum of 25 individuals and the number of parliamentary secretaries to eight.’

    Who cares how many ministries there are? Let each government, each prime minister, arrange their ministries the way they see fit, and the way they believe will work best. You need flexibility, don’t you? This seems like overly restrictive.

    ‘Reduce the partisan political staff complement on Parliament Hill by 50 percent.’

    That would be GREAT. Good luck enforcing it, though.

    ‘Restore the power of party caucuses to dismiss the party leader.’

    They never lost it. Ask Stockwell Day circa 2001.

    • Couldn’t the political staff complement be limited by limiting the maximum amount of funding that a political party can receive, from any source?

      If ‘we’ aren’t comfortable limiting total personal donations beyond the current individual limits, certainly ‘we’ could at least limit the total amount of taxpayer dollars that are given to a political party in a calendar year.

      Put the parties on a financial diet.

Sign in to comment.