Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The House: Other ideas

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:21am - 50 Comments

In writing about the House of Commons, I touched on one idea for reform: amending the Elections Act to take away the party leader’s say over who can and cannot run under a party’s banner, but that was just one of several suggestions I heard in talking with MPs for the piece.

Herein, a brief overview of what else could be done.

1. Committees. For starters, the chairs of committees could be selected by a vote of the House of Commons. Additionally, committees could be given a greater role in the formation of legislation. At present, bills are debated and voted on and then, if approved in that vote at second reading, referred to committee for further study.  Under one proposal I heard, committees could be asked to study an issue from the outset. If, for instance, the Minister of Finance wanted to introduce a tax on chocolate milk consumption, he could ask the finance committee to study the issue and report back with proposals. The minister could then use that report to craft legislation, which would then be introduced in the House for debate. Instead of the minister taking sole ownership for the bill, ownership would conceivably be shared. At the very least, MPs would have a more direct say in the legislation.

2. The Speaker. The argument here is that the House needs a more authoritarian Speaker: either because the Speaker is more willing to exert power or because the House is willing to allow him or her such power. Imagine, for instance, that the Speaker could or would demand that a particular minister answer a question asked, so that if, say, the Government House leader stood to respond to a question asked of the International Cooperation Minister, the Speaker could or would stand and demand that the latter answer. Imagine even if the Speaker could determine whether a question had actually been answered and, if not, demand a more direct response.

3. Caucus. At present, each party’s caucus—the party’s elected MPs—have no direct say over who leads the party. It is probably untenable at this point, perhaps even undesirable, to give caucuses the sole power to choose leaders, but they could be given the power to dismiss leaders. Like amending the Elections Act, this would shift some of the power back to the average MP.

4. Proportional representation. A bit of a hobby horse for some people, but consider it from one perspective. If we moved to a system whereby MPs were still elected for ridings, but a certain number, say 100, were elected via proportional representation, would those 100 MPs, free of constituency work, have more time for House debate and committee work? Could they be given particular responsibilities for House debate and committee work?

Tags: , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • kay

    Some interesting ideas here – definitely worth exploring.

  • Livebloggin Junkie

    1. Good idea
    2. More power to enforce decorum and demand quality heckling but having the speaker decide what constituts the 'right' or sufficent answer would be patronizing at best and abused at worst
    3. Caucus has the power to do this if they truly want. Nothing shortens a leaders life like a caucus revolt, just ask Stock Day
    4. Two-tiered MP's might not be a good idea.

    But good idea or bad idea aside, any thoughts on how one of these ideas could actually happen. Take the one about changing the elections act to remove party leader sig for example. Which MP would propose and pursue a private members bill? Which party would include that in its platform?

  • Be_rad

    The history of Parliament, going back to the Magna Carta, has always been about money. MPs no longer seem to have the mechanisms they need to have an impact on the purse.

    MPs are not chosen by their local constituency members because of their independent take on public policy, therefore they have no independent legitimacy on policy. Leaders set policy by fiat, after consulting their hired advisors. While the leader cannot be completely fettered by decisions taken at a conference, because it precludes compromise and changing circumstances, their caucus members have no credibility based on their selection. Teh party selection process needs to be improved.

    • Be_rad

      I tried to edit, but the system wouldn't allow it.

      I meant to say that leaders who diverge from party posiitons or adopt new positions, should at least need to consult caucus. However, since the selection process for caucus is so weak and consituency associations typically represent such a small proprtion of electors, it's hard to say just how legitimate their policy creds are.

  • Thwim

    The third suggestion doesn't strike me as a good one. Because it'd just drive party leaders to be absolutely sure that the people they allow to become candidates aren't going to be ones that will say anything against them. It would tend to cement our current problems with MPs being mere echo chambers, not break them up.

    And as for proportional representation, there's no reason to eliminate MPs being elected from ridings while having the entire house be proportionally represented. My proportional riding-percentage system, for instance, can handle it.. (but it has some other problems in trade-off.)

    • EeeOar

      I was also a little disappointed that the PR option was framed in the "If you head towards PR you can't have MPs directly elected by constituents" manner.

      Yes, some PR systems work off of party lists, so that folks could end up with an MP assigned to them. But many other PR systems manage to achieve a better balance between PR and direct elections. The STV system provides a balance as does ranked ballots. And technically ranked ballots is STV with one member elected per riding.

  • madeyoulook

    (LOSS OF) PARTY LEADER'S VETO OVER A CANDIDATE: Sounds good, but there needs to be some mechanism to prevent one (or two or several) riding associations from "going rogue" or getting infiltrated by saboteurs, leading to the nomination of candidates who don't share the party's objectives, or, worse, are enemy plants. Maybe a party's executive committee gets the final vote of approval? But that might still risk excessive influence from a leader. My main point: this is way less simple than it sounds.

    • Thwim

      You're assuming that a riding association goes so rogue as to both nominate and elect a "saboteur" candidate.. at what point can we declare it's sabotage vs a simple change in the desires of the riding membership?

      That said, what if candidates can only be nominated by the party HQ, or by riding association members who voted in the last candidate election? That would at least make any "sabotage" a long term affair, giving the party time to deal with it.

    • Jenn_

      I agree with you–how about that being something caucus has control over? I just say that because a party's executive committee isn't elected I don't think. Just to loop back to democracy I mean.

      • madeyoulook

        That would be a major problem for the Green Party.

        • Jenn_

          Well, true, but even the Greens have a shadow cabinet. Can't they do it? Yes, I don't know how you'd word that into an elections law, either.

    • EeeOar

      The party leader (or party HQ) could be given a limited number of vetoes….say 5% of seats, so 15 vetoes. They would be used the same way that the TV lawyers use a limited number of vetoes when selecting jury members from jury pools.

      So the party has the ability to eliminate the worst of the worst but can't force the entire caucus to toe the line. I suppose HQ could wield the limited number of vetoes with an effect greater than the actual number of vetoes available…….

  • madeyoulook

    COMMITTEES TO PONTIFICATE ON ISSUES WITHOUT ANY LEGISLATION BEFORE THEM: Isn't that what Senators often do? Don't some House committees also do that already?

  • W.B.

    Is there any support for thr idea of random sitting of MP's in the chamber?

    • http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

      A solid suggestion. I'm being serious, here; wouldn't it be great if Harper had to sit right next to Ignatieff?

    • Thwim

      Eh?

      What do you mean exactly? What comes to mind is taking a random subset of the elected MPs, and letting them be the only ones that get to sit and vote in the chamber? Or are you suggesting something like doing away with elections altogether and have who the MPs are simply being randomized selection from the Canadian public?

      Either way.. I don't think that'd work terribly well.

  • madeyoulook

    A MORE AUTHORITARIAN SPEAKER: Also sounds nice, but unless we kidnap a Supreme Court Justice and hand the job to him or her, this will expose the MP-who-becomes-Speaker to even greater partisan temptations, or at least the accusations of unfair partisanship in judging the quality of responses in QP. In the current House, it will be too easy to accuse Speaker Milliken of being unfairly harsh; in future majority Houses, it will be too easy to accuse the Speaker of being unfairly tolerant.

    • Mike T.

      In fact, why not give the position to an esteemed parliamentarian from a completely different commonwealth country?

      • sourstud

        Like Michael Ignatieff? :)

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      it will be too easy to accuse Speaker Milliken of being unfairly harsh

      I'm trying to imagine a universe in which anything that Speaker Miliken has done or is likely to do in the future could be described as "too harsh".

      Nope. Can't do it.

      Miliken has all of the harshness of your average substitute teacher.

  • madeyoulook

    PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION: A bit of a departure from the other suggestions, given the overall impact it would have on the makeup of our basic structure of governance. But as to the more-loosely-affiliated-MPs-to-do-committee-work promotion: Egads! Do we really want MORE of them?

  • Thwim

    Whatever happened to the idea of letting the cameras roam freely? Or an even better thought.. have each seat with a web-cam viewer, so that any person can see a live feed of any seat/MP through the gov't web-site.

    I think MPs knowing that their actions could be being scrutinized by their constituents at any time might go a long distance not only to making MPs act with sufficient decorum, but also wanting to show their constituents that they're active and doing something for them.

    Hell, make it so that the camera automatically records whenever the MP speaks, and let any member of the public have access to that recording to be used in whatever.. positive or negative campaign adverts, parody, who cares. They're public figures, right? Well, let's take'em public.

  • tobyornotoby

    It would be difficult to put the evils back in the box, but there is a lot to admire in the NWT's Legislative Assembly. At least attempting to be non-partisan (some federal party affiliation occurs) and consensus building, allows the election of the government leader by the members which removes a lot of the rancour and deletory effects of party discipline. Does seem to create a bit of the parochialism of the municipal ward system, but that's hardly missing from current H of C.

  • Thwim

    Okay, I'm confused.. how on earth does that help give individual MPs more say in parliament? It might reduce the cat-calling a bit, but to be honest I doubt even that. It's not like most of an MP's time is actually spent in their green chair.

    • pulex

      It wouldn't, but I've seen it floated before as one of the ideas to improve decorum in the house as well as potentially reduce partisanship a little by increasing the cross-caucus contact between MPs.

      • Thwim

        Meh. Strikes me as a solution proposed by people who's only active following of politics is whatever the 6pm news throws out. After all, we've got lots of photos, even here on Macleans, of different MPs getting together for various parties etc. The idea that they maintain completely separate camps after hours just doesn't hold a lot of water.

        But thanks for the answer!

        • EeeOar

          I like the random seating idea…..it's one that I use at work meetings that I attend, both internal meetings with other departments and meetings involving external companies; instead of lining up in an us against them lineup across the board room table I'll sit amongst the representatives of the other department or company.

          On a related note, I remember reading or hearing somewhere that in years past MPs were way more likely to share accommodations in Ottawa, and it often ended up that MPs from different regions (and even parties??) shared, so that they actually "had" to fraternize with "the other side", with the obvious side effects.

  • Andrew (not PorC)

    My suggestion would be to codify candidate selection in the Elections Act to make members of parties members of the local riding association, have that be open to every resident of the riding, and standardized, open nominations and selections within each riding. The party would reserve the right to reject that candidate, but could not then run another candidate in their place. This prevents saboteurs while stopping the party from parachuting candidates against the wishes of the riding.

    Secondly, leaders should probably be selected by caucus. If the PM is to have democratic legitimacy, it makes it simpler if that legitimacy flowed from the elected representatives. Parties are free to use whatever internal mechanism they like to select leaders, including astrology, random number generators, etc. There's nothing inherently democratic about it. The only democratic legitimacy we have comes through Parliament and the House of Commons.

    I don't think the proportional representation proposal is necessary. I think it'd be a decent idea for the Senate if it were to be reformed (I'm not optimistic). I think Alternative Vote for MP elections has more potential.

    The committee and Speaker suggestions are interesting and worth exploration.

    • Thwim

      So if the HQ rejects a candidate, and then can't substitute a candidate.. does that riding association have to live without a candidate, or go back to the drawing board? Because I can see this winding up in a never-ending stalemate of "saboteurs" vs HQ.

      (Incidentally, I quote saboteurs, because they could simply be people who have a different vision than the HQ wants to accept, without wanting to sabotage anything)

      • Andrew (not PorC)

        I'd lean toward them not running a candidate in the next election. This is a bit of a MAD scenario, so it shouldn't occur too often. It would be an event that would attract national attention. I suppose the riding association could propose a new candidate–I'm not sure how this could be abused but I suspect it might be.

        • Thwim

          Except doesn't this mean the saboteurs win? After all, they wouldn't even need to worry about getting their "plant" candidate elected. Simply getting him through the riding nomination process means the party is without a candidate in that riding for the election.

          • Andrew (not PorC)

            I'm skeptical that saboteurs would even happen. How often do Democrats successfully select bogus candidates in Republican primaries and vice versa? And surely, if one were selected, then rejected, the local party support base would be mobilized to ensure a more suitable candidate was selected in the next round of nominations. If a party had such weak support in an area that its riding association could successfully be captured and held by malicious forces, it's not likely that party is in contention in the riding anyway. But, this doesn't strike me as a likely scenario.

            More likely, a party would want to veto candidates who are sincerely supported by the locals, but for whatever reason (social views, 'shady' past, whatever) not someone they'd want to associate with. I think the riding association should trump the party brass. The rejected candidate can run as an independent. If they win, perhaps the party would re-evaluate their position, and perhaps not.

          • Thwim

            I agree with your first point.. which leads to the question, why bother giving the HQ a veto in the first place?

          • Andrew (not PorC)

            Parties will effectively retain such a veto anyway if they have any control over their caucus membership. As such, parties should have the right to refuse candidates they would not allow in their caucus. The rest of the scheme is to ensure that this veto is not used to force associations to nominate the party's preferred candidate. If the party has something to lose by vetoing, that power will likely be used sparingly.

    • EeeOar

      Blue skying here……

      First, I've always struggled with the claim that the party list based PR systems are "so bad" because they take away the right of voters to select the candidate of their choice. Yet really, how much better is the current system, where a very small number of people (the riding executives, party constituency associations and party HQ) get to pre-select the candidate…..basically saying "Here, we have selected this person as the CPC or LPC or whatever candidate……if you want to vote CPC you'll have to vote for him/her…..

      Second, one of the features that I've really come to like about STV, is that it allows people who want to vote for a particular party, but do NOT want to support the person put forward by the party can achieve both goals…..

      So, combining those two ideas, why not allow – no, force – each party to make room for 3 candidates in each riding. Now the nomination meeting would need to put forward the top three contestants. This would blunt hijacked nomination meetings – sure the skillful, determined person will still be able to bus in instant party members, but to what end? – they will only get one of the three spots, and then all voters in the riding will get to say yea or nay to that candidate while still voting for the party that they support.

      Remember, if you don't like this idea and wish to return it, I'll only be able to refund you the price charged. ;-)

  • eveflow

    It doesn't matter what you do to the process, as long as Stephen Harper is the PM nothing will change. Perhaps the media will grow a backbone and stand up to this pathetic Sith once and for all.

    He is the biggest detriment to our Democratic system and until that changes, shifting chairs on a sinking ship is a wasts of time.

    Oh where have you gone Fourth Estate? Where has your backbone gone? Why all the yellow journalism?

    Stand up for Canada and don't let this cowardly weasel bully you around no more!

    • Mike T.

      I do think that better politicians would be better than different rules.

    • tobyornotoby

      This is what opposition parties always want us to believe, including the Conservatives when they were the Official Opposition. I agree that some parties and leaders have been worse than others, but there is a (growing) structural problem with the executive usurping the powers of the legislative body whether we have Liberals or Conservatives or anyone else doing it.

      Notice that the current Official Opposition raises questions of privilege and access to information as bad Conservative behaviour, but never proposes structural change to prevent a government from doing that? Never proposes an alternative to the failed Accountability Act that prevent subsequent governments from doing likewise? That's because they hope to be similarly unimpeded once they return to their rightful place as Canada's natural governing party,

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    More importantly, isn't the party's selection of their leader (or decision that it's time for their leader to go) an issue for the PARTY? I'm not sure how an internal party matter like that could even be legislated.

    • madeyoulook

      You could have the leader of the party as a separate position from the party's caucus parliamentary leader.

  • Mr. King

    1. This just sounds like make-work for MPs. Studying an issue in detail for the purpose of making recommendations for legislative change is important work — which is rightfully handled by professionals in the civil service.

    From John Pepall's book, Against Reform:

    "In June [2005], … the [Commons Agriculture Commitee], … unanimously added this amendment to a bill before it: No person shall market an agricultural product that has a dairy term on the label if the agricultural product is intended as a substitute for a dairy product.

    "The intent may have been good or bad. The drafting was bad. It would ban products with recipes on the package saying add milk or add butter. … The commitee acted in ignorance of the conflicting interests affected, without understanding the implications of the language it adopted, and possibly with a push from the dairy lobby — none of which would have happened if the government had not dropped its whip in the hope of making MPs feel better. In October a senior bureaucrat had to explain to the commitee what it had done. The legislation, otherwise uncontroversial and worthy, died at the dissolution of Parliament."

  • Mr. King

    2. If MPs want a tough, hard-edged speaker, there is nothing preventing them from electing one or pressuring Milliken into being one.

    3. As others have noted, MPs already have this power.

    4. Two different classes of MP is just one of the many ways proportional representation is a bad idea.

    Thwim's suggestion I like, though.

  • Stewart_Smith

    I have argued before that flowing money through the riding associations and as a result making the central party beholden to those associations is the easiest route to balancing the power. (For example, all of the $/vote could flow through the ridings, or only allow the large tax deduction for funds that go to a local association.)

    If the above was done, then you could continue to allow the leader to vet individual candidates, because they would certainly be much more sensitive to local wishes.

    I suspect that the above would even clean up some of the advertising. I suspect that out in the country their are lots of political supporters who are embarrassed by the type of political ads that are produced centrally, and frankly would not be willing to pay for them.

    • Thwim

      This possibility has already been handled by internal mechanisms within the party though. Consider that the CPC nomination papers which you have to submit to the party leader to be considered as a candidate, now stipulate that you automatically agree to whatever Party HQ decides to do with your riding funds for campaign expenses.

      • Stewart_Smith

        I understand, but making such agreements illegal is fairly easy. Indeed, if the riding executive was held legally accountable for all funds that flow through the riding, and if the executive was accountable to the riding membership then candidates would not be able to sign such an agreement since they would lack authority.

        • Livebloggin Junkie

          "making such agreements illegal is fairly easy"

          I think your 'flow-through' idea is really good but I question the 'fairly easy' part.
          How do we incentivize politicians to change a system that currently suits them (or that they think suits them)?

          • Stewart_Smith

            If the fiduciary responsibility lies with the riding executive acting as a Board then each of those individuals will be aware that they have a personal responsibility that all funds are spent according to the executive's mandate, including those that are channeled up to the central party. Once the local ridings start thinking of it as "their" money the accountability of the central party apparatus to its membership would go way up.

            Currently, in many ridings it is not necessary for the incumbent to keep the local riding association happy. Giving the local association the purse strings would empower local leaders tremendously and force all candidates to pay attention to their concerns.

            The drawback to my scheme is that it will could lead to pork barreling such as we see south of the border.

  • madeyoulook

    By the way, Aaron, I thank you for your lengthy essay on the HoC, and for this developing conversation.

  • http://FairVote.Ca Wayne Smith

    The purpose of list MPs in a mixed system is to correct the distortions in representation introduced by winner-take-all voting. As seen in Germany, where the the mixed member proportional system was invented, and in New Zealand, where it was copied, some list MPs may indeed be "unpolitical" policy experts who take the larger national view, but their main job is to represent voters for their party in areas where the party did not win seats. They tend to have constituency offices and spend their time much the way the riding MPs do. Indeed, the voters tend not to distinguish between riding and list MPs. The upshot is that, instead of a single MP, every voter ends up with an MP from each of the main parties, and all the main parties have MPs from every part of the country.

  • http://twitter.com/RamaraMan @RamaraMan

    MPs at any time should be able to sack their leader. Current PM Julia Gillard ousted Kevin Rudd this way in 2010 because Mr. Rudd was not listening to his caucus. The Aussie Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott got the position the same way. ______Let's have a proportionally elected Senate based on the popular vote from each general election. It's a sham that the PM still has the ability to appoint persons to the Senate whose only loyalty lies with the person who appointed them!

Previous

Next

From Macleans