Adopting the Reform Act at the beginning of Parliament would be a useful tool in making MP’s
accountable, protect MP’s who speak out, make a healthier internal culture where debate is possible without punishment. MP expulsions rules should be clarified and transparent since that is an elected official. It would go along way in restoring public trust in the party’s democracy so as there isn’t an imbalance of power. If it helps prevent the type of party antics that has MP’s running to media, and pulling et tu Brute style conspiracies, and party breakdowns. That was embarrassing 😳
Hi Nate , I agree we need to re-instate Leadership Review but it meds to go back to the Liberal Membership. We always had Leadership Review at National Conventions . The Party Members need to
Would like the Liberal Party's Constitution modified to require a vote to see if the membership wants a leadership referendum, in set circumstances, such as yhose where there is a minority and/or fewer elected members.
Felt like forever getting Trudeau out, and the membership seemed to be way ahead of the caucus with regard for the need to change. Personally felt removal came about 6 years too late, after the debacles of 2019.
I disagree substantially with this contention: "Party members ultimately determine the permanent leader, while caucus elects the interim leader."
In my view, party members should have no direct say in who the party leader is. To do so cuts directly against the fine balance of power that defines a Westminster parliamentary system.
The underlying premise of the system is that the leadership (and especially the Prime Minister, who along with Cabinet exercises de facto executive authority on behalf of the monarch) wields immense authority, but can be removed by a simple majority vote at any time. In the case of the government, this can be done by a simple majority vote of the House of Commons, as we saw when the House voted no confidence in the government in 2011 (later, we saw it when the Parliament of British Columbia voted no confidence in the government in 2017). But party leaders also exercise substantial authority over their caucuses; why should they not be subject to the same delicate balance? Putting the power to select the leader in the hands of party members creates a situation in which MPs will be reluctant to remove the leader because it will be seen as going against the membership, which is a matter currently at issue, from what I have been given to understand, with the Conservative Party, where some MPs are uneasy with Mr. Poilievre's leadership, especially given his failure to form government after the recent election, or even win his own seat of Carleton, but may not want to remove him if the membership is still behind him at the next leadership review.
Another example where we saw this was with Jagmeet Singh shortly after he became leader of the New Democratic Party. Before he was even an MP, he removed David Christopherson as a Commons committee vice-chair for voting in favour of a Conservative motion against the Liberal proposal to bar Canada Summer Jobs Grant funds from being used for positions that would involve advocacy against abortion, and it was likely only the fact that he wasn't yet an MP that gave NDP MPs enough leverage to revolt and demand Mr. Christopherson's reinstatement as all he had done was vote his conscience on a matter of conscience. (As I recall, Scott Simms also voted in favour of that Opposition motion and was similarly removed from a committee chairmanship, but unlike with Mr. Christopherson Liberal MPs did not demand his reinstatement; John McKay, meanwhile, had been advised to be absent for the vote.)
The proper role of party members is to select local candidates (and, if we ever adopt a system of proportional representation, as I believe we should, and if it involves predetermined lists, though I believe it should not, as I would favour a system similar to that of Baden-Würrtemberg prior to its recent reforms, except that it would involve a two-vote system, rather than a one-vote system, determining said lists), and those local candidates who are successful are then responsible for selecting the party leader. The loss of autonomy for individual MPs and especially the concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office can be traced to the rise of televised leadership conventions in Canada, right around when Pierre Trudeau became leader of the Liberal Party, intended to provide the same glamour and spectacle as Presidential nominating conventions in the United States, when party members, rather than MPs (including, at the time, Senators), became responsible for selecting party leaders. If we truly wish to restore the autonomy of local MPs and restore the proper balance between party members, elected representatives, and party leaders, then we must restore the balance whereby party leaders wield immense power within the party but can lose that power extremely readily, with leaders unable to wield the claim of "the members chose me, how dare you oppose me" against their caucus.
We see this causing issues for parties in other ways, as well. Consider the current state of the Alberta New Democratic Party, which after the resignation of Rachel Notley as leader saw the selection of former Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi as leader, despite all of his opponents being sitting MLAs and Mr. Nenshi not holding a seat. Despite the vacancy in Edmonton-Strathcona following Ms. Notley's resignation as MLA, Danielle Smith has refused to call a by-election in a manner any more timely than, it seems, is strictly required by law, and meanwhile United Conservative MLAs have been regularly noting that Nenshi is not present in the legislature. Similarly at the federal level, it is hardly implausible that the NDP could again select as leader someone who is not an MP (of their last five permanent leaders, three, Alexa McDonough, Jack Layton, and Jagmeet Singh, were not MPs upon being selected; Audrey McLaughlin and Thomas Mulcair were; even Tommy Douglas was not an MP when he was chosen as the party's first leader) despite there being no remotely safe seat in which such a candidate could run in a by-election given recent results (unlike Mr. Poilievre, who is almost certain to be returned to the Commons from Battle River-Crowfoot in a few months' time), which could hamper the party's ability to function in the House of Commons (to the extent that they are able to at all, even if they can negotiate for official party status given that even just their seven MPs' votes would be sufficient to pass Government legislation in this hung Parliament).
Party members have the responsibility of selecting local candidates, and also possibly approving the party platform. MPs have the responsibility of selecting party leaders. Disrupt this balance, and leaders wield their power without an effective check from their caucuses, as we have seen for over half a century now.
A party that is, as William Hague observed of the UK Conservatives, "an absolute monarchy moderated by regicide" (or, as David Cameron said, "interrupted by incredibly violent bouts" in toppling its leaders) may not be an especially good system, but like representative democracy itself, it is the worst of all systems except for all the others. We have tried the others; we should return to the system that was proven to work until, due in part to the cultural influence of the United States, we moved away from it, to our great detriment.
(I've also seen it noted that this is part of the reason for the dysfunction in the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta prior to 2015. The party members in general were relatively moderate, but those sufficiently involved in the party to attend local nominating meetings were more conservative. Consequently, party leaders, and this was most exemplified by Alison Redford, tended to be from the party's moderate wing, while MLAs tended to be from the party's conservative wing, leading to tensions and restiveness between leader and caucus.)
Thanks for that. It's time to revise the current dictatorship into democracy. It's one of the greatest flaws in our governance process; even before PR.
Some day I would like to hear why you weren't selected for caucus.
I expect you'll find that it was in large part because Nate is from over-represnted groups (male and Toronto based), but it did leave open the question for myself and others as to why newly elected and ethically challenged Evan Solomon, with little to no relevant experience, got the new AI portfolio. Because he sells art to Carney?
Wasn't Carney's smartest move imho, and quite disappointing for a guy who indicated he was all business.
I'm strongly in favor of adopting all measures of the Reform Act.
Trump's antics in America reveal the dangers of vesting excessive power in a single officeholder, even when that officeholder has a democratic mandate.
In theory, parliamentary systems like ours should be more resilient against these dangers than presidential systems. However, over the years the Canadian system has drifted far from its roots, with too much power vested in the Prime Minister and party leaders and too little power held by individual MPs.
I don't see voting to adopt the Act as a reflection on Mark Carney's virtues as a leader. Instead, adopting the Reform Act is a small but important step towards restoring true parliamentary democracy.
I would go so far as to say that adoption of the measures of the Reform Act should be mandatory to be considered an official parliamentary party, with committee seats, funding and debate time in the Commons all contingent upon it, with the possible exception of the expulsion measures (some changes may be necessary there), with the further addition that the party leader must be selected by the caucus and not by the party members.
Otherwise, they can sit as a bunch of independent MPs. (This has precedent! After the 1921 election, the Progressive Party elected 58 MPs, more than the Conservative Party's 49, but chose not to organise as a parliamentary caucus to the extent that would be necessary for their leader, Thomas Crerar, to be Leader of the Opposition, leaving that role instead to Conservative leader Arthur Meighen, once he had entered the Commons again in a by-election in Grenville, after losing his seat of Portage la Prairie in the general election.)
Also, the dangers of vesting executive power in a single officeholder are magnified by the democratic mandate, because, as Plato observed millennia ago, democracy easily leads to tyranny (how dare you oppose me when the people chose me, I have a mandate from them to do whatever I please, also I have an angry, violent mob behind me, that sort of thing). The separation of de jure executive power (held by the monarch) and de facto executive power (held by Cabinet, accountable to Parliament; you may rightly point out David Lloyd George's observation that legislative oversight of the executive is a "polite fiction") is a key feature of a parliamentary constitutional monarchy that checks this trend toward tyranny, because the person with the legal authority to wield executive power has no democratic legitimacy with which to do so, and the body with the democratic legitimacy to wield executive power has no legal authority with which to do so (formally the monarch acts on the advice of Cabinet; Cabinet does not act on its own; similarly the monarch's legislative power is exercised by formally assenting to and promulgating laws upon approval by Parliament, and only those laws).
It appears to be a case of resentment from an individual who did not receive the position he believed he was entitled to. The membership has overwhelmingly expressed support for the newly elected leader. At this point, the priority should be fostering party unity and focusing on the work ahead. Rather than suggesting internal dissatisfaction, members should rally behind the leader chosen through the democratic process. The role of caucus members is not to determine who they believe is unsuitable for cabinet; that responsibility lies solely with the leader. Remember… Canadians are watching. The leader is responsible to Canadians.
Could you do one for misinformation, obfuscation and lies in web, print, radio, television and government as well? Combined with exclusion of foreign ownership from our media? So many bad faith actors making money from
Misinformation. It’s destroying our democracy! I’s sign that immediately too!
Thrilled to see the Reform Act coming into play. Fixes a hole in the Liberal Constitution, which I'd argue needs fixing too.
Not sure why anyone would find the Reform Act to be in the least bit controversial - about time!
Adopting the Reform Act at the beginning of Parliament would be a useful tool in making MP’s
accountable, protect MP’s who speak out, make a healthier internal culture where debate is possible without punishment. MP expulsions rules should be clarified and transparent since that is an elected official. It would go along way in restoring public trust in the party’s democracy so as there isn’t an imbalance of power. If it helps prevent the type of party antics that has MP’s running to media, and pulling et tu Brute style conspiracies, and party breakdowns. That was embarrassing 😳
Hi Nate , I agree we need to re-instate Leadership Review but it meds to go back to the Liberal Membership. We always had Leadership Review at National Conventions . The Party Members need to
Vote .
The caucus would simply trigger the review in this case, the ultimate decision on the permanent leader rests with the members.
Would like the Liberal Party's Constitution modified to require a vote to see if the membership wants a leadership referendum, in set circumstances, such as yhose where there is a minority and/or fewer elected members.
Felt like forever getting Trudeau out, and the membership seemed to be way ahead of the caucus with regard for the need to change. Personally felt removal came about 6 years too late, after the debacles of 2019.
I disagree substantially with this contention: "Party members ultimately determine the permanent leader, while caucus elects the interim leader."
In my view, party members should have no direct say in who the party leader is. To do so cuts directly against the fine balance of power that defines a Westminster parliamentary system.
The underlying premise of the system is that the leadership (and especially the Prime Minister, who along with Cabinet exercises de facto executive authority on behalf of the monarch) wields immense authority, but can be removed by a simple majority vote at any time. In the case of the government, this can be done by a simple majority vote of the House of Commons, as we saw when the House voted no confidence in the government in 2011 (later, we saw it when the Parliament of British Columbia voted no confidence in the government in 2017). But party leaders also exercise substantial authority over their caucuses; why should they not be subject to the same delicate balance? Putting the power to select the leader in the hands of party members creates a situation in which MPs will be reluctant to remove the leader because it will be seen as going against the membership, which is a matter currently at issue, from what I have been given to understand, with the Conservative Party, where some MPs are uneasy with Mr. Poilievre's leadership, especially given his failure to form government after the recent election, or even win his own seat of Carleton, but may not want to remove him if the membership is still behind him at the next leadership review.
Another example where we saw this was with Jagmeet Singh shortly after he became leader of the New Democratic Party. Before he was even an MP, he removed David Christopherson as a Commons committee vice-chair for voting in favour of a Conservative motion against the Liberal proposal to bar Canada Summer Jobs Grant funds from being used for positions that would involve advocacy against abortion, and it was likely only the fact that he wasn't yet an MP that gave NDP MPs enough leverage to revolt and demand Mr. Christopherson's reinstatement as all he had done was vote his conscience on a matter of conscience. (As I recall, Scott Simms also voted in favour of that Opposition motion and was similarly removed from a committee chairmanship, but unlike with Mr. Christopherson Liberal MPs did not demand his reinstatement; John McKay, meanwhile, had been advised to be absent for the vote.)
The proper role of party members is to select local candidates (and, if we ever adopt a system of proportional representation, as I believe we should, and if it involves predetermined lists, though I believe it should not, as I would favour a system similar to that of Baden-Würrtemberg prior to its recent reforms, except that it would involve a two-vote system, rather than a one-vote system, determining said lists), and those local candidates who are successful are then responsible for selecting the party leader. The loss of autonomy for individual MPs and especially the concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office can be traced to the rise of televised leadership conventions in Canada, right around when Pierre Trudeau became leader of the Liberal Party, intended to provide the same glamour and spectacle as Presidential nominating conventions in the United States, when party members, rather than MPs (including, at the time, Senators), became responsible for selecting party leaders. If we truly wish to restore the autonomy of local MPs and restore the proper balance between party members, elected representatives, and party leaders, then we must restore the balance whereby party leaders wield immense power within the party but can lose that power extremely readily, with leaders unable to wield the claim of "the members chose me, how dare you oppose me" against their caucus.
We see this causing issues for parties in other ways, as well. Consider the current state of the Alberta New Democratic Party, which after the resignation of Rachel Notley as leader saw the selection of former Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi as leader, despite all of his opponents being sitting MLAs and Mr. Nenshi not holding a seat. Despite the vacancy in Edmonton-Strathcona following Ms. Notley's resignation as MLA, Danielle Smith has refused to call a by-election in a manner any more timely than, it seems, is strictly required by law, and meanwhile United Conservative MLAs have been regularly noting that Nenshi is not present in the legislature. Similarly at the federal level, it is hardly implausible that the NDP could again select as leader someone who is not an MP (of their last five permanent leaders, three, Alexa McDonough, Jack Layton, and Jagmeet Singh, were not MPs upon being selected; Audrey McLaughlin and Thomas Mulcair were; even Tommy Douglas was not an MP when he was chosen as the party's first leader) despite there being no remotely safe seat in which such a candidate could run in a by-election given recent results (unlike Mr. Poilievre, who is almost certain to be returned to the Commons from Battle River-Crowfoot in a few months' time), which could hamper the party's ability to function in the House of Commons (to the extent that they are able to at all, even if they can negotiate for official party status given that even just their seven MPs' votes would be sufficient to pass Government legislation in this hung Parliament).
Party members have the responsibility of selecting local candidates, and also possibly approving the party platform. MPs have the responsibility of selecting party leaders. Disrupt this balance, and leaders wield their power without an effective check from their caucuses, as we have seen for over half a century now.
A party that is, as William Hague observed of the UK Conservatives, "an absolute monarchy moderated by regicide" (or, as David Cameron said, "interrupted by incredibly violent bouts" in toppling its leaders) may not be an especially good system, but like representative democracy itself, it is the worst of all systems except for all the others. We have tried the others; we should return to the system that was proven to work until, due in part to the cultural influence of the United States, we moved away from it, to our great detriment.
(I've also seen it noted that this is part of the reason for the dysfunction in the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta prior to 2015. The party members in general were relatively moderate, but those sufficiently involved in the party to attend local nominating meetings were more conservative. Consequently, party leaders, and this was most exemplified by Alison Redford, tended to be from the party's moderate wing, while MLAs tended to be from the party's conservative wing, leading to tensions and restiveness between leader and caucus.)
Thanks for that. It's time to revise the current dictatorship into democracy. It's one of the greatest flaws in our governance process; even before PR.
Some day I would like to hear why you weren't selected for caucus.
I expect you'll find that it was in large part because Nate is from over-represnted groups (male and Toronto based), but it did leave open the question for myself and others as to why newly elected and ethically challenged Evan Solomon, with little to no relevant experience, got the new AI portfolio. Because he sells art to Carney?
Wasn't Carney's smartest move imho, and quite disappointing for a guy who indicated he was all business.
Sounds reasonable. Do the other Parties have similar processes
The Conservatives only I think.
I'm strongly in favor of adopting all measures of the Reform Act.
Trump's antics in America reveal the dangers of vesting excessive power in a single officeholder, even when that officeholder has a democratic mandate.
In theory, parliamentary systems like ours should be more resilient against these dangers than presidential systems. However, over the years the Canadian system has drifted far from its roots, with too much power vested in the Prime Minister and party leaders and too little power held by individual MPs.
I don't see voting to adopt the Act as a reflection on Mark Carney's virtues as a leader. Instead, adopting the Reform Act is a small but important step towards restoring true parliamentary democracy.
I would go so far as to say that adoption of the measures of the Reform Act should be mandatory to be considered an official parliamentary party, with committee seats, funding and debate time in the Commons all contingent upon it, with the possible exception of the expulsion measures (some changes may be necessary there), with the further addition that the party leader must be selected by the caucus and not by the party members.
Otherwise, they can sit as a bunch of independent MPs. (This has precedent! After the 1921 election, the Progressive Party elected 58 MPs, more than the Conservative Party's 49, but chose not to organise as a parliamentary caucus to the extent that would be necessary for their leader, Thomas Crerar, to be Leader of the Opposition, leaving that role instead to Conservative leader Arthur Meighen, once he had entered the Commons again in a by-election in Grenville, after losing his seat of Portage la Prairie in the general election.)
Also, the dangers of vesting executive power in a single officeholder are magnified by the democratic mandate, because, as Plato observed millennia ago, democracy easily leads to tyranny (how dare you oppose me when the people chose me, I have a mandate from them to do whatever I please, also I have an angry, violent mob behind me, that sort of thing). The separation of de jure executive power (held by the monarch) and de facto executive power (held by Cabinet, accountable to Parliament; you may rightly point out David Lloyd George's observation that legislative oversight of the executive is a "polite fiction") is a key feature of a parliamentary constitutional monarchy that checks this trend toward tyranny, because the person with the legal authority to wield executive power has no democratic legitimacy with which to do so, and the body with the democratic legitimacy to wield executive power has no legal authority with which to do so (formally the monarch acts on the advice of Cabinet; Cabinet does not act on its own; similarly the monarch's legislative power is exercised by formally assenting to and promulgating laws upon approval by Parliament, and only those laws).
It appears to be a case of resentment from an individual who did not receive the position he believed he was entitled to. The membership has overwhelmingly expressed support for the newly elected leader. At this point, the priority should be fostering party unity and focusing on the work ahead. Rather than suggesting internal dissatisfaction, members should rally behind the leader chosen through the democratic process. The role of caucus members is not to determine who they believe is unsuitable for cabinet; that responsibility lies solely with the leader. Remember… Canadians are watching. The leader is responsible to Canadians.
Thank you for the information. Appreciate it.
Could you do one for misinformation, obfuscation and lies in web, print, radio, television and government as well? Combined with exclusion of foreign ownership from our media? So many bad faith actors making money from
Misinformation. It’s destroying our democracy! I’s sign that immediately too!