MPs shouldn’t fear reform

Conservative MP Michael Chong has opened the door to political reform that could restore the balance between our elected representatives and the powerful prime minister. Whatever one thinks of the proposals, there is no question this is a debate worth having, and it is good to see parliamentarians fully engaged.

In the end, this debate will be more of a journey of discovery for MPs than anything else because it will tell us what they are made of, and importantly, how they see themselves. Although there is certainly nothing wrong with vigorous debate — and this bill might even be improved by amendments — we hope they have the courage to embrace reform.

Chong’s bill, tabled in the House Tuesday, would do three things: Ensure control of party nominations by local riding associations, not party leaders; strengthen party caucuses into decision-making bodies; and give caucus members the power to trigger a leadership review. In essence, Chong’s bill, if passed, could strengthen grassroots democracy, restore the supremacy of the caucus — if not Parliament — and curb the power of the prime minister. Chong’s reforms would be a radical departure from what Canada has known for roughly 40 years, and it could alter politics as we know it today. Prime ministers have become very powerful over the last few decades. What’s particularly pernicious about this power is that much of it has come to reside in the hands of a few shadowy strategists and advisers who issue fiats and run roughshod over elected representatives. A democracy should have appropriate checks on executive power. The fact that this comes as a private member’s bill from within the Conservative caucus has allowed MPs to discuss the ideas in it with fewer talking points and insults.

But support from the likes of former prime minister Joe Clark, Senator Hugh Segal and a slew of MPs across the political spectrum does not mean the proposed bill is perfect. Empowering local ridings is a great idea, but those ridings also have a responsibility to the party. How do we get that balance right? Most commenters accept, to some extent, the idea that caucus should be able to trigger a leadership review in a parliamentary system. Unlike a president, the prime minister is not directly elected, and is accountable to the people through Parliament. But what that ought to look like in practice — and especially in law — is certainly arguable by reasonable people. If caucus can remove a leader even if the party at large disagrees, should it take only a 15 per cent vote to trigger a review, and 50 per cent vote of the caucus to remove the leader? The Reform Act forces Canadians to take a look at our conceptions of representative democracy and the party system — in itself, a healthy exercise.

Giving more power to any of the elements in the system — MPs, party members, leaders — necessarily takes some power away from others. There might be no perfect mix, but the goal should be a system that gives the most power possible to citizens themselves and the people they elect.

Others worry that allowing local ridings to have a final say on nominations could foist an unsuitable candidate on a party.

There is no question the House of Commons could work better than it does now. Chong says he is open to “constructive amendments,” and we hope MPs will come to this debate with open minds and constructive proposals to create a better system.

And good for Michael Chong, for making the country have this conversation.