If Chong’s Reform Act were in place in BC, would Adrian Dix be Premier today?

Lots of the debate around Michael Chong’s proposed Reform Act to, among other things, allow a federal parliamentary caucus to fire the party leader, has taken place in the abstract. We need to do something, it’s better than nothing, you're with reform or you're with the terrorists, and so forth. Let’s take it into the real world though. If Chong’s legislation was in place in British Columbia, who would be Premier today: Christy Clark, the NDP's Adrian Dix, or some other BC Liberal?

That’s the question I found myself mulling in a Courtenay, BC Dairy Queen over Christmas, as I read the Times Colonist’s year-end interview with Clark while enjoying a chicken strip basket. While Clark is now triumphantly in the driver’s seat after an unexpected majority victory in last year’s election, her pre-election position was tenuous at best.

She won the leadership in 2011 on the third ballot with 52 per cent of the vote over Kevin Falcon. While she may have enjoyed a measure of support from BC Liberal party membership, she inherited a decidedly skeptical caucus from Gordon Campbell – just one sitting MLA had supported her leadership campaign, and he wasn’t exactly one of the heavyweights.

Clark was very limited in her freedom of movement as Premier, with a caucus that hadn’t supported her, was skeptical of her political acumen after a stint on the sidelines in talk radio, and didn’t think she could lead them to re-election. Losing caucus support was constantly a very real concern, and reports of caucus rumbling and possible revolt were frequent.

She hints at the difficulty of the situation in the Times Colonist piece:

Beset by a cantankerous cast of Liberal MLAs, some of whom worked to undermine her leadership, Clark started the year struggling to pass her spring legislation.

One of her most trusted lieutenants was forced to resign in an ethnic outreach scandal, and Clark seemed dogged by several months of bad news, apologies and barely concealed infighting.

“It’s like you are lost in the woods and you get up and you think, ‘OK, the only way I’m going to get to where I need to go is by walking. I’m not exactly sure I’m going in the right direction, but I am going to keep moving, damn it.’ So there were a few days like that.”

Half the caucus wasn’t convinced she had the right plan to win the May provincial election, Clark now admits.

“There were some days I was being pretty publicly attacked by our own caucus members,” she said.

“Some of them seemed to want to get rid of me more than they wanted to get rid of the NDP. That’s not easy to deal with.”

We know how the story ended, of course. She put together a team and strategy, recruited new candidates, called an election, ran a strong, aggressive campaign, benefited from a shaky NDP performance, and won a majority that surprised the hell out of nearly everybody.

However, what if Chong’s Reform Act had been in place in BC, and that restless BC Liberal caucus had the ability to a) trigger a caucus vote on her leadership with 15 per cent signing a petition b) fire her with a majority vote? How would the story have played out then?

Given the restlessness within that caucus – focused on their own re-election concerns and having wanted someone else for leader -- there’s a very good chance it would have gotten cold feet at some point between her February 2011 election as leader and the May 2013 election, I’d put the odds at better than even that they’d have fired Clark and put someone else up as leader. Even putting it to a vote in the first place – the 15 per cent threshold would have been laughably easy to meet – would have undoubtedly leaked, and would likely have been fatal to her premiership.

As it turns out, while the caucus Clark inherited from Campbell may have had its doubts about her, British Columbians obviously felt otherwise, giving her a strengthened majority. And her vision and campaign style was key to that victory. How would the election have gone if the Campbell caucus had replaced her with someone more to their liking? We’ll never know, but with where the polls were going in, it could well have been the NDP’s Dix doing those year-end interviews.

To bring it back around to Chong’s Reform Act, I think what this shows is that caucus doesn’t always know best. The caucus perspective tends to be insular, and focused on things that don’t necessarily mirror the concerns of the public – will I get re-elected, who will give me a cabinet or critic portfolio. Party leaders are elected by a broader constituency with a broader perspective – party members – and that’s a positive thing. Would it have been democratic for the caucus to fire the leader elected by party members? In hindsight, it certainly would have been electorally foolish.

When they elected Clark as leader, party members obviously saw something different on the ground than most of the caucus saw from Victoria, and that was vindicated in last May’s election in a big way.

So let’s be careful before we jump into bed with the first piece of parliamentary reform that comes along, and instead consider how it’s likely to play out in the real world. Because we may not like how it would.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

My problems with Chong’s Reform Act and my own preferences for reform

Having finally gotten around to reading Michael Chong’smuch-ballyhooed Reform Act, which is being pushed by the media pundit class with a fervor that would make most partisans blush, I feel that, while well-intentioned, what the act proposes is flawed and suffers from a narrowness of view that has trouble looking south of the Queensway.

The act deals primarily with four things: the ability of the caucus to fire the leader, the nomination process (ending the ability of the leader to veto a candidacy by refusing to sign their nomination papers), the removal of MPs from caucus, and the election of the caucus chair. I support the last one, so I’ll instead focus on the first three.

Nomination of candidates

With regards to nominations, the act would create the position of “nomination officer” who would be elected by the riding association to oversee the nomination of a candidate. The riding association would set the time and date for the nomination contest, and the nomination officer would report the name of the party’s nominee to Elections Canada, thus eliminating the ability of the party leader to effectively veto a nominated candidate by refusing to endorse them to Elections Canada.

This sounds good from a distance, as for all parties the nomination process is a serious mess, open to abuse by party officials who can seek to influence the outcome by setting timelines that favour certain candidates or refusing to “greenlight” the candidacy of others. I’m not wholly opposed to removing the formal veto, although I don’t recall the last time it was used and, in the today rare instance of a single-issue takeover of a contest, it may be nice to have. Nevertheless, we can probably lose it.

However, the Chong solution is trading one set of problems for another. Unsurprisingly for a caucus-driven proposal, it would serve to entrench the position of incumbent MPs at the expense of a more open nomination. All parties have a range of riding associations across the country, from the non-existent and dormant, to the open and inclusive, to the ones ran as closed-shops, tightly controlled by an incumbent MP or a past MP or other prospective future nomination candidate.

By and large, his proposal would merely shift the tinkering and jury-rigging of the nomination process from the hands of the leader and his or her appointees to the MP or one prospective candidate that controls the riding association. That may be an improvement for the MP, who can better ensure their nomination is safe, not just from the party leader but from other challengers, but it’s not an improvement for an open and transparent nomination process nor for the party members and citizens of the riding at large.

Firing the leader

The part of Chong’s bill that has gotten the most attention is giving caucus the formal ability to fire the leader that was duly elected by the party’s members (and, in the case of the Liberals, its supporters). It would allow for 15 per cent of caucus members to trigger a vote of confidence in the leader by the caucus, with a majority vote firing the leader and triggering a leadership race, with the interim leader to be selected by the caucus.

I have serious problems with this proposal and, like its solution to nomination contests, its bias is that it ignores the party membership and focuses solely on the prerogative of the caucus. The leader is not elected by the caucus; the leader is elected by and derives its mandate from the party membership (and supporters). This includes the caucus members, but also party members across the country. Caucus members have an influential voice in any leadership contest, but they have one vote, just like any other member. Such a reform would make more sense in the context of the leader being directly elected by caucus itself, but that reform is not on the table and is a bad idea for a whole other column’s worth of reasons.

As proposed, this reform is an anti-democratic usurping of the rights and prerogatives of the party membership that is far more representative of the nation than any parliamentary caucus. If the proposal was to make it easier for the party membership (which, again, includes caucus members) to trigger a leadership review, I’d be open to debating that. But allowing tens of caucus members to override the wishes of tens of thousands of party members is a non-starter for me.

Also easy to overlook here is that this bill would give the right to select the interim leader to the caucus. Today, in the case of the Liberal Party, for example, while the advice of caucus is sought and is undoubtedly highly influential, it is the national board of the party – elected by and answerable to the party membership – that selects the interim leader. This was the case when Bob Rae took over for Michael Ignatieff. While it’s unlikely the caucus choice would not be accepted unless the circumstances were extraordinary, I don’t support this change.

Removal of MPs from caucus

Today, by convention, removing an MP from caucus is essentially the prerogative of the party leader. Chong’s bill would instead rest that power with the caucus. The only way an MP could be removed from caucus would be by a majority vote of the caucus, a process that can be triggered by the request of 15 per cent of the caucus.

I’m not as wholly opposed to this reform as I am to the two above, but I’m not sold yet either. In my view, removal from caucus should only happen in extreme circumstances, when a member has acted or voted contrary to a fundamentally-held principle of the party, on an issue the caucus itself has agreed by majority vote is a matter of confidence. Such occasions should be rare, but they do exist: it’s easier to get elected under a party banner, but it also means sharing a few certain core principles of what that party and its candidates and members stand for. These should be known going in and, if you can’t agree, maybe you’re running for the wrong party. I want MPs free to speak and vote as they wish on 99 per cent of issues but, if you’re going to represent a party, you do need to share its values, and not just view it as a convenient banner to get elected under.

So in essence I guess I’m likely fine with this one, although I do still feel a certain weariness for reasons I’m unable to articulate.

My own thoughts on reform

Allow me to offer a few possible alternative proposals for reform as a jumping-off point for discussion that may more effectively address some of the wider issues Chong’s Reform Act seeks to address.

On nomination reform, there are two ways we could go.

• Within the party system, it could be mandated that nominations for all ridings open on a pre-determined and publicly known date, with set deadlines flowing backward from that date for membership cutoff, approval as a nomination candidate, submission of nomination papers, and so on. In combination with the removal of the leader veto with the creation of the nomination officer as envisioned by Chong, and a transparent process for approval as a candidate, this would remove the ability of the party leadership (as today) or the MP or possible candidate that controls the riding association (as under Chong’s proposal) to manipulate the process for a favoured candidate. Everyone would have a level playing-field under which to contest the nomination.

•  If we want to think bigger, we could move to an Elections Canada-run primary system for nomination races, where every resident of the riding has the option to register as a supporter of a party and vote in only one nomination race, which could all happen at the same time on a pre-determined and known timeline similar to that outlined above, but ran by Elections Canada to ensure transparency and fairness. My concern with this scenario is the dilution of the privileges of party membership, similar to the concerns I expressed when the Liberals debated the issue in the leadership selection context in 2012.

Both scenarios address the core issue Chong sought to address – leaders keeping caucus members under the whip by threatening to veto their nominations – without having the side-effect, as his proposal does, of making it more difficult for members/citizens to exercise their democratic prerogative to nominate another candidate for the next election.

On the issue of caucus firing the leader, I’m less inclined to propose radical reform because I fundamentally oppose what Chong is proposing to do. As mentioned, the caucus doesn’t elect the leader, the membership (and supporters) do, and caucus should not have the right to overrule the democratically expressed will of the membership by fiat. We members would like to reserve that right for ourselves. If caucus members don’t like that, perhaps they should consider how they’re going to get re-elected without thousands of loyal volunteers to knock on doors, stuff envelopes and make donations. Chong’s bill shows a pretty fundamental disrespect for the party loyalists, volunteers and workers without whom they would not be in Parliament. The party is bigger than just the caucus.

While the ability to fire the leader must remain with the membership, I would be open to considering making it easier to trigger a leadership review vote. Currently, in the case of the Liberals, a leadership endorsement vote is held with every member having the option to vote as part of the process of selecting delegates to the first biennial after an election in which the party did not form government.

As far as I’d be willing to consider going towards what Chong proposes is to allow a majority vote of caucus to trigger a leadership endorsement vote by the membership of the party. If the leader is endorsed, the leader stays on. If the leader is not endorsed, a leadership race is triggered. And, of course, the leader could chose to quit having lost the support of caucus, triggering a leadership race. But the ultimate power should rest with the party membership, not with caucus. If you’re a caucus member that doesn’t like the leader the party membership wants, maybe you’re in the wrong party, or need to accept that in a democracy you don't always get your way.

It’s not all about Parliament Hill

I’ve gone on too long already, so I’ll leave the need to think beyond Ottawa when it comes to political reforms for a future post. Instead, I’ll just close by saying I do support reforms to empower individual MPs, to allow them to speak to constituency concerns and stray from the party line when it’s not on an issue of fundamental principle. When considering how to accomplish such goals though, we can’t merely look at Parliament Hill, at MPs and leaders, in isolation.

Party leaders and MPs are (unless they’re independents) members of a political party. Parties include a leader, they include (hopefully) caucus members, and they include members (and even supporters). They’re all united by common goals, and a common idea and vision, and by policies they come together to debate and discuss and then go forward and support. The party doesn’t exist just on Parliament Hill – it exists right across the country, and any reform worth considering will acknowledge this.

I want to devolve power in our political system. But I don’t see a devolution from the party leader to the caucus as a particularly desirable step forward – instead, I want it devolved to the party membership itself, whether it’s picking our nomination candidates and our leader, or developing our election platform. 

If MPs have a stronger mandate from their party membership and local residents they’ll be able to exercise more independence from the party leadership, while still recognizing there are issues that bind all party members together.

That’s the kind of reform I could get behind. In the mean time, while I understand the desire for change in many quarters, that doesn't mean we should blindly hop in the first piece of reform that comes along. And far from behind an imperfect step forward, this bill seems like an ill-advised step in the wrong direction.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Duffy drama obscures a concerning rift on sovereignty in Harper cabinet

While yesterday's press conference by Mike Duffy's lawyer further ensnaring the Prime Minister's Office (beyond the departed Nigel Wright) into the Senate expense drama and Stephen Harper's transparent evasions in question period will dominate today's clips and political chatter, it's obscuring a more serious and concerning issue: an apparent rift in Harper's cabinet over sovereignty.

At issue is Bill 99 which, in essence, was the Quebec government's response to the federal Liberal government's Clarity Act, which sought to lay out the terms under which the federal government would consider a vote on succession by a province. Bill 99 essentially rejected the Clarity act and was challenged in the courts, a process which is just picking up steam now, many years later. For all the background on this, please read this post by Paul Wells.

As Wells notes, the federal government has decided to intervene in this case with its own brief, largely supporting the position of the last Liberal government as expressed in the Clarity Act. However, at least one Quebec member of the Harper government appears offside with this position: Denis Lebel.

 Lebel was being asked about a court case over secession rules in which the feds are siding against the Quebec government. 

A Montreal radio host repeatedly asked Lebel, who was trying to change the subject, whether as a Quebecer he believed 50 per cent plus one was enough. 

Finally, Lebel bit at one point, when he was asked whether he considered 50 per cent plus one "clear" enough: "We've always said we'd leave that to Quebecers but, yes, it is for me," he said. 

Lebel's comments were quickly disvowed by the Prime Minister's Office, which noted curtly that "the position of the Federal Government is reflected in the factum submitted to the court last week."

Lebel isn't just another member of the Conservative caucus though. If so, while his opinion would be unfortunate, his veering from the government line would be noteable, but not troubling. But Lebel is in cabinet, and is Harper's senior minister for Quebec. As such, he is required to represent the government line in the province, or resign from cabinet. Michael Chong had to take the same step for a less serious transgression than this.

The government cannot be of two positions when it comes to as serious an issue as the unity of the country. Lebel needs to resign from cabinet or Harper needs to fire him. Chong took the honourable path; we'll see what Lebel does.

Perhaps Lebel could join the NDP, as they also have no problem with breaking up Canada on a slim vote of 50 per cent plus one.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Do we need Michael Chong to reform the At Issue panel?

On Thursday evening I was on a United flight somewhere over south-western Ontario, so I couldn't watch the week's At Issue panel on CBC's The National. I could read the transcript though, which is often more amusing than the live video anyways.

It seems on Thursday Chantal Hebert and Andrew Coyne really went at it over the Maclean's Quebec corruption issue. And understandably so, given where each of them is coming from.

As I read the transcript though, I was reminded of a bit they used to do on the Daily Show: great moments in punditry as read by children. They would take a particularly ridiculous segment from Crossfire or one of those shows, give the transcripts to children, and have them read it out. It really seemed to add a certain perspective.

I think this exchange between Coyne and Hebert would be a really good fit for a punditry as read by children segment:

ANDREW COYNE ("MACLEAN'S"):

... But to suggest this is some sort of beyond the pale and an assault on Quebecers' dignity or that it has no foundation, as Chantal said, I just think does not itself have any foundation.

CHANTAL HÉBERT ("TORONTO STAR"):

Well, you… then I guess the onus…

ANDREW COYNE ("MACLEAN'S"):

Hang on, let me finish, please. Let me finish, please. Let me finish, please.

CHANTAL HÉBERT ("TORONTO STAR"):

No, no, but the onus is…

ANDREW COYNE ("MACLEAN'S"):

I'm sorry, I'm going to finish.

PETER MANSBRIDGE (HOST):

One at a time, one at a time.

CHANTAL HÉBERT ("TORONTO STAR"):

No, no, no, no. You've had the stage all week.

ANDREW COYNE ("MACLEAN'S"):

I'm going to finish. I'm going to finish, Chantal, I'm going to finish...

Somehow I think reading this exchange in transcript-form really underlines the absurdity. And where's Michael Chong when you need him? Clearly we need comprehensive reforms to bringing civility back to the at issue panel!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper’s Quebec constitutional foray, and where’s Rona?

I find it interesting that this…

The Harper government is telling Quebec that if the Conservatives win a majority in the next election, they will look to reopen the Constitution and give more meaning to their recognition of Quebeckers as a nation.

Emphasizing the Conservative receptiveness to “Quebec's historical demands,” Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn raised the possibility of winning 30 to 40 seats in the province, up from the current 11.

“The recognition of the Quebec nation within Canada allows us to think that we can put some meat around it, and that a majority government is more able to do a number of things, while being respectful of all of the provinces,” Mr. Blackburn said in an interview.

…comes just a few days after this:

Mr. Dion also appointed Gerard Kennedy, who will run in a Toronto riding in the next election, as intergovernmental affairs critic. It is a potentially contentious move because Mr. Kennedy, who threw his delegate support behind Mr. Dion in the December, 2006, leadership contest, had not backed the idea of the Québécois as a nation within Canada.

I suppose the timing could be coincidental, but I suspect it’s not. It will be interesting to hear Gerard’s first public comments on this. And speaking of intergovernmental affairs, interesting that the Conservative minister, Rona Ambrose, is no where to be heard from in this story. Instead it’s a senior Quebec minister, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, making the comments.

I wonder if Blackburn gave Ambrose a courtesy phone call? Hopefully Rona keeps her mouth shut; we all remember what happened to her predecessor when Harper first brought-up this Quebec as nation nonsense:

The federal Parliament formally recognized Quebecers as a "nation united within Canada" Monday night, but it came with a high cost for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who suffered his first resignation from cabinet over the divisive move.

Michael Chong, the minister of intergovernmental affairs and sport, prefaced his resignation by telling reporters he continued to have faith in the government, the Conservative party and the prime minister. But he charged Harper's recognition of Quebecers as a "nation united within Canada" smacked of what he called "ethnic nationalism."

"The reason why I got involved in politics is my belief in this nation we call Canada. I believe in this great country of ours and I believe in one nation, undivided," he said. "This is a fundamental principle for me, not something on which I can or will compromise. Not now, not ever."

While Michael made a move of principle, opting to resign when he was cut-out of a matter squarely within his ministerial responsibilities and asked to defend a position he disagreed with, I suspect Rona will want to keep the car and driver instead. And it’s not like she hasn’t been busy.

Why, look at these media releases for 2008:



Well, maybe 2007 was a busier year:


OK, well, maybe not. It’s probable telling though whose picture is on the front page of the ministry Web site, and whose is not:


Maybe some enterprising member of the parliamentary press gallery will track down Michael Chong down in the hallways and ask him for his thoughts on Blackburn's promise. Anyone?

Anyway, back to the Conservatives; constitutional musings , which have generated quite a bit of blogsphere reaction. I thought the nation motion in 2006 was supposed to be the end of it, was that not what Harper told us? I think the only person that wanted to re-open the constitution for this, at least back then, was Michael Ignatieff.

Anyway, even if I favoured putting this in the constitution, and I don’t, it would never work. You couldn’t do just this one thing. You need to get the other provinces to support it. You can ask them to give this to Quebec and ignore the Senate inequality concerns of the West, the seat distribution concerns of Ontario, and other issues. We’d quickly get bogged down again in the constitutional moray and that’s not the priority of Canadians.

This is all just politics, of course: the Conservatives sense Liberal weakness in Quebec, and they’re looking to gain ground. It’s a continuation of their fighting with the BQ for the soft nationalist vote. It’s akin to Russian roulette though, because every vote Harper gains in Quebec by pandering to soft-nationalists is going to cost him one in the West. And that’s if he can convince Quebecers he’s serious. The BQ and PQ are going to constantly be moving the goalposts, and will use any failure to meet them as a betrayal of Quebecers, stoking the separatist fires.

And whatever Harper does, they’ll just raise the stakes higher. We saw that in 2006 with the nation motion. Duceppe was pleased as punch with how it played out, and his next demand was ok great, now let’s constitutionalize it. Now that Harper is doing that, I wonder what the next demand will be?

To square the circle, frankly I’m glad Gerard Kennedy, with his lack of support for the nation motion, is now our intergovernmental affairs guy. I think he’s actually the right person for us on this file.

We can’t compete with the BQ and the PQ for the soft-nationalist vote in Quebec. But there is an opening in Quebec, and in the rest of Canada, to be the strong federalist champion. It has been a traditional Liberal role, but it’s one we’ve gotten away from since the aborted Paul Martin era began. Let’s pick that federalist mantle up again.

If we do we’re appealing to a segment of Quebec the other parties are ignoring, and a segment that actually thinks positively of Stephane Dion. We need to get those voters back; if we do we’ll hold our own there. And we’ll gain ground across the rest of Canada as well.

We’ll have to wait and see what play gets called though. It's not without risk, but as Warren says it could galvanize the party. So for god's sake, don't wuss-out yet again.

Anyway, I leave you with these comments from Stephane Dion the leadership candidate on this issue back in 2006:

"People are all mixed up about this." Dion says. "It’s a very interesting discussion at a seminar of political science, but the moment you talk about putting that in the Constitution and you blame the other candidates for being afraid to raise the issue, then legitimate questions come: If you are a nation, what am I, mashed potato?"
--
"Now all of a sudden, the burden of proof is back on our shoulders. We need to deliver this mysterious constitutional change that will change Canada into a Federation of Nirvana through a magic word that everybody would agree upon. It will not work. Keep the burden of proof on the separatists."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers