Proposed Amendments to Canadian Elections and Parliamentary Proceedings

Source:
Andrew Coyne, Michael Chong
The Canadian Press

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com%2F2013%2F11%2F29%2Fandrew-coyne-reform-act-bill-would-change-canadas-parliament-forever

The Reform Act 2013. “An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (reforms)

-recasts the relationship between party leaders and caucuses.
The balance of power would shift to MPs and riding associations, and away from the leaders.

In brief, the bill would do three things:

1. the party leader serves only with the confidence of caucus. A leadership review vote could be triggered at any time on the receipt of written notice bearing the signatures of at least 15% of the members of caucus. A majority of caucus, voting by secret ballot, would be sufficient to remove the leader, and begin the process of selecting a new one.

2. Caucus to decide whether an MP should be permitted to sit amongst their number. A vote to expel (or to readmit) would be held under the same rules as a leadership review: 15% of caucus to trigger, 50% plus one to decide. A member would also be readmitted automatically on being re-elected to the House under the party banner. In other words, membership in caucus would no longer simply be up to the leader to decide.

3. The required endorsement for a candidate would come from a “nomination officer,” elected by the members of the riding association. In other words, the riding association, and not the leader, would decide who its nominee was. There would be no leader’s veto.

Currently 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.  Henceforth, party leaders would serve at the pleasure of caucus, and not the other way around. Leaders would still be powerful — in the case of the prime minister, immensely powerful. They just would not be all-powerful. The current power given to Canadian party leaders to decide the fate of every candidate or member is one that, to my knowledge, exists in no other parliamentary system.

The convention that party leaders must maintain the confidence of caucus at all times may have fallen into disuse in Canada, but it remains very much in force in other parliamentary democracies —  Likewise,

The bill will go too far for some tastes, not far enough for others. For example, some might object to entrenching the powers of caucus in law, rather than leaving these to each party to decide — though, given the centrality of caucus as a parliamentary, and not just a party institution, this might equally be defended. Others might prefer that caucus were given the power, not just to remove leaders, but to elect them — though I suspect the preferences of caucus members, given their new powers, would be of huge, if not overwhelming importance in any alternate process.



That’s leaders, plural. This is a challenge for members of all parties, not just the Conservatives. If the Reform Act is to have any hope of passing, MPs will have to learn to cooperate across party lines. They’re not used to doing that, and in any case will live in fear of the whips.

Some may even prefer the security of jumping to the leader’s tune to the responsibility of thinking and acting for themselves — or rather, for the people they are supposed to represent.

So they will need encouragement from members of the voting public. Long shot though it is, this is the best chance for meaningful reform of Parliament we are likely to have for many years. The question every MP should be obliged to answer between now and next spring, when the bill comes to a vote, is: will you support the Reform Act? And if not, why should we support you?