Adopting the Reform Act measures

It isn't controversial and it's past time we adopted measures to reinforce a leader's accountability to caucus.

With Parliament set to begin Monday and our first caucus meeting this Sunday, reporters are asking about our thoughts on the Reform Act.

It isn’t a particularly interesting debate from my perspective, but I’ve supported the measures in the past, will do so again, and thought it might be useful to explain why.

First, to start, the Reform Act requires our caucus to vote on whether to adopt four different measures. Each of the four votes is to be recorded, majority rules, and the caucus chair is to inform the Speaker of the outcome of each vote.

Second, the measures have nothing to do with any individual leader. Recently, Prime Minister Carney secured an overwhelming mandate from Liberal members. Adopting these measures has nothing to do with him or his mandate, just as my support for the Reform Act measures in past Parliaments had nothing to do with Justin Trudeau.

Third, there’s a defined process throughout that’s useful to understand at the outset: 1) the caucus chair receives a written notice signed by at least 20% of the members of caucus; and this prompts 2) a secret ballot vote, whereby majority rules.

With that context in mind, let’s turn to the four measures.

Leadership review - subsections 49.5(1) to (3)

How it works: subsections (1) to (2) enable caucus to call a leadership review (a process to endorse or replace the leader) via the defined process (again, written notice from 20% of members and then a majority decision via secret ballot vote).

Subsection (3) requires the caucus chair to make the written notice public immediately upon receiving it.

Analysis: This is the section that generates all of the media attention but it isn’t particularly controversial. The leader - whoever that is - should be accountable to caucus. It’s as simple as that. And if a leader can’t command support from the majority of caucus, the writing is on the wall already.

The immediate public disclosure requirement seems gratuitous and likely to prompt a media frenzy, but it’s not a fatal flaw and leaks would take care of that anyway from what I saw last year.

Interim leader - subsection 49.5(4) and section 49.6

How it works: subsection 49.5(4) enables caucus, via secret ballot vote, to appoint an interim leader should the vote for a leadership review be a success. Section 49.6 allows for the same should the current leader die or resign.

Analysis: Again, this is straightforward and non-controversial. Party members ultimately determine the permanent leader, while caucus elects the interim leader.

Election and removal of chair - section 49.4

How it works: section 49.4 provides for a secret ballot vote to select a caucus chair after every election and that the chair shall only be removed via the defined process.

Analysis: Straightforward and non-controversial.

Expulsion and readmission of caucus member - sections 49.2 and 49.3

How it works: section 49.2 provides that a member may only be expelled from caucus via the defined process. Section 49.3 provides that an expelled member may be readmitted to caucus upon their re-election as a named party candidate or via the same defined process.

Analysis: This measure doesn’t generate the news coverage, but it’s actually the most challenging. On the one hand, MPs should be free to voice concerns without reprisal and the leader shouldn’t have unfettered power to expel caucus members. On the other hand, there are important conduct-related reasons to expel members (sexual assault and harassment, for example) for which the defined process is lacking.

I would prefer a clear alternative process for dealing with conduct-related cases but otherwise default to caucus as a general rule.

And that’s it. That’s the Reform Act in a nutshell.