Thirty questions to ask before proceeding with the Reform Act

Michael Chong and the unraveling of the system

by Aaron Wherry

In an interview with Andrew Coyne, Michael Chong appeals to the wisdom of the local party member, but on the actual mechanics of removing the party leader’s endorsement from the legislated qualifications to run under a party banner, Tim Harper and Paul Wells note practical questions.

Chong’s bill has other provisions designed to free the back bench. One would have party candidates named by riding associations without any need for the leader to sign their papers. This assumes, as Tim Harper has pointed out,  that parties will have 338 healthy riding associations, which would seriously be a novelty. The effect of requiring 338 healthy riding associations will be to impose a very steep cost of entry for new parties. And if the riding associations aren’t healthy then special-interest groups will have fun stacking them, as pro-life groups did with the Liberal party 20-odd years ago. That adventure led to an earlier reform: giving the Liberal leader, fellow named Chrétien, the power to appoint candidates. Reforms tend to replace problems with different problems.

Meanwhile, Paul Adams points to our complicated relationship with political parties and Chris Selley goes directly at our current Parliamentarians to wonder why we even need the Reform Act.

It’s true only because they accept it as such. MPs can do whatever they like along such lines with no immediate fear of losing their annual $160,200. They fear the leader’s wrath, of course. But their power is far from theoretical. Never mind the fact that — again — parties can write whatever rules they wish in their own constitutions. If 15% of the Conservative caucus decided tomorrow they’d had enough of Stephen Harper, he would have a very non-theoretical problem: If he booted them all out of caucus, he’d be a minority Prime Minister.

It’s all reminiscent of a great line from The Simpsons, in which two laissez-faire parents complain to a doctor about their out-of-control son: “We’ve tried nothing, and we’re all out of ideas.” Some of Mr. Chong’s Reform Act makes perfect sense. Requiring the leader’s signoff on candidates is an invitation to abuse, and was only instituted under Canadian election law in 1970. Get rid of it. But on the bigger issues, MPs should try rediscovering their principles before resorting to legislation that the jurisdictions they claim to want to emulate — the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand — curiously don’t seem to require.

Assessing the merits of the Reform Act might first require unraveling how the system works now and why. Before we initiate change, we might need to make sure we understand what we presently have.

Any investigation of the political system is complicated by the fact that the best witnesses—MPs, party officials, party members—are also subjects of the inquiry, but we need to understand their experiences to sort through what we have and why we have what we have.

So what is the current state of affairs at the riding level for each of the major parties? What would change if the Reform Act was implemented? What would have to change?

How do MPs feel about their current lot? Do they feel they have enough independence and freedom to act and speak and express themselves?

How are issues hashed out within party caucuses? What goes on behind caucus doors before a party position on a piece of legislation is decided? How often has an MP wished he or she might’ve voted differently on a piece of legislation?

How do MPs interact with their leaders, whips or the officials around the party leadership? What sort of requests and demands are made of MPs by party leaders or whips or the officials around the party leadership? How often do MPs agree to those requests or demands? Do they do so happily? If not, how are they persuaded? What precise powers do party leaders have to convince reluctant MPs? What are the rewards and punishments that guide the behaviour of MPs?

What sort of control is exerted over Question Period? What sort of control is exerted over the time reserved for statements by members? What about House debate? What about committee proceedings? What about private member’s business? How is that control exerted?

What sort of control is exerted over party nominations? How is that control exerted?

Is control a necessary part of modern politics? Is control something that voters reward?

Does the system we have basically work? If not, in what ways does it fail?

What does an individual understand about the system before seeking office? What, if anything, about that understanding changes in the first year after arriving in Ottawa? What, if anything, about that understanding changes after being in Ottawa for four or five years?

We all have basic assumptions about how it all works. Part of the debate now has to be about sorting out precisely how the system actually works.




Browse

Thirty questions to ask before proceeding with the Reform Act

  1. These are very good questions….the fact is, the more I read the Reform Bill Chong proposes, the more uncomfortable I get with it. There are a great deal of things that an MP can do now to exert independence and a great many things that can be changed by any party to its constitution to shore up what is missing.

    IF any MP feels the need to exert independence….well, they simply need the courage to use the tools they have now. You can’t legislate a backbone…..

    I can’ t help but think that Chong’s reforms are a whole lot of nothing that will be enforced by no one. BUT if enforced will plunge parties into endless cycles of self-examination and leadership reviews…..when in reality, they are being paid to work as MPs (ideally the campaigning should stop the day after an election in other words)

    • You note that parties could change their constitution, but I’ve always felt that it is the parties that are the problem. A political party doesn’t have any incentive to change its constitution to give MPs more power since it is the party that is losing that power.

      • A good point in favour of Chong’s bill, or a version of it then?

        • I’m in favour of Chong’s bill (or some version of it). I also agree with people who suggest that it is unlikely to be a panacea. However it seems to me that unless we think that our current system is working (I don’t) or that Chong’s bill will make it worse (again, I don’t) then it is something we should support.

          • Coyne’s column brilliantly made your point. I particularly liked his swipe at our tendency toward national inertia[ politically at least]

            “All anyone needs to know in this country is that a reform or innovation of some kind has been proposed to come up with a hundred reasons to reject it, on the principle made famous by F. M. Cornford: that nothing should ever be done for the first time.”

  2. I’m getting the sense that one’s appraisal of these suggested changes comes down to two things.

    How important to do we think parties are to our democracy? And, what’s the appropriate balance between efficient stability and creative chaos in the House?

    • I think that parties are very important to our democracy, but mostly in the sense that they are a very important reason why our democracy doesn’t work.

  3. “How are issues hashed out within party caucuses? What goes on behind caucus doors before a party position on a piece of legislation is decided?”

    amazon ca – Most research into leadership has presented leaders as heroic, charismatic and transformational ‘visionaries’. The leader, whether in business, politics or any other field, is the most important factor in determining whether organizations succeed or fail. Indeed, despite the fundamental mistakes which have, arguably, directly led to global economic recession, it is often still taken for granted that transformational leadership is a good thing, and that leaders should have much more power than followers to decide what needs to be done.

    The Dark Side of Transformational Leadership confronts this orthodoxy by illustrating how such approaches can encourage narcissism, megalomania and poor decision-making on the part of leaders, at great expense to those organizations they are there to serve.

    • Now you’re posting book blurbs? Does this mean you’ve finally exhausted Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations and you’re now poaching irrelevant plugs from book promos and dust jackets?

  4. Sigh…i guess we have to since it seems to be the Canadian way, but i get a sense the perfect badly wants to strangle the good in its cradle here.

  5. People hears reform, democracy, transparency and get really excited until they read the fine print. Chong’s bill is not doable, a giant leap backwards for democracy.

  6. The root of the problem stems back to party politics. Political parties may be needed to inform the voting public about who is who and what they stand for but once the election is over, so is the party influence. Who pays an MP’s salary? End of argument!

    There is a Grass Roots organization forming http://mympaccountable.blogspot.com Make My MP Accountable whose goal is to lessen the power of the party and have MPs accountable to their constituency by contract.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *