The Shotgun Blog
« One more reason to dump on Morgentaler and the UWO | Main | Hey, Ho! Shapiro must go! »
Friday, June 17, 2005
Taking the fun out of bribery
Ontario MP Helena Guergis has a neat idea that might make any would-be Betraying Belindas think twice in the future:
Guergis Wants By-election When MP Changes Party
Ottawa – To protect the best interests and intentions of constituents, a by-election should be held soon after a Member of Parliament crosses the floor to join another party, says Simcoe-Grey MP Helena Guergis.
Today in the House of Commons, Guergis and co-sponsor Joe Preston, MP for Elgin-Middlesex-London, tabled a Private Members Bill that if passed, would result in a by-election being called 35 days after an MP has switched parties.
“This Bill is about making politicians accountable to their constituents,” said Guergis.
“If an MP switches sides of the House mid-term, the constituents of that riding should have the opportunity to express their opinion.”
The Bill would require an MP to sit as an independent for 35 days after leaving the political party to which that member belonged when elected to the House of Commons. After that time the seat shall be vacated and a by-election called with the vacating member able to run under the name of a different party or as an independent.
This would make it more risky for MPs taking bribes to switch parties since, as we saw last election, most floorcrossers end up being defeated once constituents get the opportunity to punish them for their betrayal. The idea makes a lot of sense. Which of course means it'll never pass.
Posted by Kevin Libin on June 17, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83449da1153ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Taking the fun out of bribery:
Comments
Check out the bill being offered by NDP MP Peter Stoffer.
http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/086141.php
Same sort of deal. Already passed first reading.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. | 2005-06-17 11:49:42 AM
I see the rationale behind this, but are do we really want to undermine the traditional rationale for Parliament? Parliament ought to be a place for debate- and if we close off the possibility of Parliamentarians being convinced, we undermine that.
This would also reinforce the already malignant view that MPs should be merely ciphers, proxies for their constituents. If we want a proxy Parliament, there are better ways to do it than the British system, which is designed to promote the kind of representation Burke spoke of.
Finally, it sounds as if this proposal would increase the power of the parties over their members, as the parties could essentially kick a member out of the party AND out of Parliament.
Posted by: Matthew | 2005-06-17 12:23:31 PM
The bill is only common sense and the one written by Peter Stoffer is too. The defection of the Cons. BS gal changed the course of history in this country and cost Canadian citizens billions of dollars since her traitor actions have allowed the Liberano/NDP left wing wackos to go on a spending spree that could bankrupt the country.
The defection of BS had wider reprecussions than Canadians could ever imagine - I am sorry to say. I remember looking at her when she decieded to run for leader of the Conservative party and thinking that she looked like Madame Poison. She had no credability as a politician with her big pie, or as a person - she came accross as a painted prima donna to me. Barbie with money. I was sorry that Peter fell for the plastic version of glamour and money; he found out the hard way that she was an empty shell. There is more to be said about the other plasic bags that went for the traitors 'white feather' - Kieth Martin, Psecalito (spelled wrong, he was 'plastic too, from the beginning and the people who elected him did not elect the person, they voted for the party), Mr. Matthews (what has he done for his constituants since he 'moved), the klennex (Scottie) has actually changed his personality since he 'moved', he used to make some pretty principled arguments, (how would a constituant feel that had voted for the personality they thought he had?), Mr Bryden was always in the 'wrong' party on the 'wrong' side but he had no credability if a person ever listened to some of his nasty speeches. The only 'principled' defection to another side has been Mrs. Anne Cools, a Senetor. She is honorable because she really believed in what she did, she could not ever have defected for a reward because the Conservatives are a opposition party with no bait but Principles. The by-election plan is such an obvious solution to end this kind of personal gain corruption that it is almost a 'no brainer'.
Posted by: Jema54 | 2005-06-17 12:50:12 PM
Brian: well put. The repurcussions of such a bill are the exact opposite of what is needed. We need greater independence of individual MPs, not less. On the surface, forcing a by-election seems to be a good measure, but the implication is a strengthening of the hold of the party whip over individual MPs. We need to reduce the negative incentives of going against the party rather than increase them.
Posted by: Strong and Free in AB | 2005-06-17 1:56:14 PM
Uh, Brian, just because somebody posts here doesn't mean they're necessarily replying to you. These are discussion threads. Please don't assume everyone is looking for a debate—or that they're even paying attention to what you have to say.
Posted by: Kevin Libin | 2005-06-17 1:56:55 PM
If someone is elected under a party banner, they have no right to stand in parliament for another party. What if the Liberals ran fifteen candidates in Alberta under the Conservative banner, and then they all switched to Liberal as soon as parliament sat?
In many cases MP's are elected because they won the nomination for their particular party. No MP should be completely "independent" from the people who elected them.
If Guergis and Preston's bill doesn't pass, it will be interesting to see the arguments of those who oppose it.
Posted by: EBD | 2005-06-17 2:13:47 PM
Brian,
Tyranny? Give me a break!
First, an MP doesn't have to leave a party to be 'independent', just allow free votes on everything and we're all set.
(Actually, to not have free votes, like in Canada, results in the MPs acting as mere 'vote cattle'. And it also is a limitation of the MP's freedom of expression - something which is all too common in Canada.)
Second, if a would-be MP wants to be truly independent, run as an independent.
Third, the bill (I assume) applies to MPs leaving their party, not to situations when the MP is excluded by the party.
Fourth, if an MP does decide to leave the party, and if he/she is competent and did what he/she did for a good reason, he/she will easily be re-elected.
It is lot more like tyranny with the current situation, where bribary and corruption is ok, and the voters have absolutely no say in the matter.
Finally, the bill should be amended to include also the institution of an easy to use MP recall procedure. That would hold MPs accountable for their actions.
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2005-06-17 2:30:35 PM
Stoffer's version of the bill is sounder, as there would be a by-election only if a MP joins a new party, not if he sits as an Independent.
Posted by: Laurent | 2005-06-17 2:35:52 PM
Brian,
Re: "the people who nominated them and voted for them would have been as dumb as those people who voted for Belinda to be the leader of the CPC"
Not at all, these people would likely just have assumed that the MPs had some integrity (which sounds like a reasonable assumption).
But they don't (at least many of them), hence the need for some changes in Canada's incredibly dysfunctional and corrupt political system.
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2005-06-17 2:38:50 PM
Brian: "Where in parliamentary procedure are MPs forbidden from voting freely? Are you talking about Canada?"
So you're telling me that every Cabinet Minister is a strong supporter of SSM? You've interviewed them all and confirmed that, have you?
And every NDP MP was happy to support Martin's gov't in the non-confidence votes in May? Did you look at Broadbent's face? He did not look very happy, at all.
Have you been paying attention?
Posted by: Candace | 2005-06-17 3:28:13 PM
I like the idea of a party swapper going back for an immediate mandate from the constituents and sit as an indi until the vote is counted...this makes the assumption the constituency has been cheated by buying one brand and the label comes off to reveal another brand after you buy it.
It ignores the fact some bought the goods because of what they are not the package or brand....case in point: Chuck Cadman.
I think the hassel of an open by election after a party defection is good in principle to make it more difficult to entice defection but this will only slow it down
I think a better change in the elector rules would be to make the defector sit as an independent until the next regular general election. If you represent yourself as a member of a party then change that is an open breach of public trust and undemocratic. Floor crossing should be outlawed.
Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2005-06-17 3:32:47 PM
I agree with this legislation in principle - as well as the argument that member autonomy is secure through their constitutional right to abstain from, or vote against their party if they feel strongly enough about an issue.
Bottom line is this: When candidates run under a party banner, they are entering into a contract with their constituants. The party platform outlines what the electorate is purportedly voting for. If the member chooses to leave that party platform and embrace a competing one, they should have an obligation to go back to the electorate and convince them of the wisdom of their about face.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-06-17 3:48:22 PM
Sorry I ruffled your feathers Brian. I did not ignore your comments because I had started my post before your post had appeared, I had to do something else before I finished writing. You have a reasonable argument and I can see your side - if a MP is not in a party that allows free votes. If an M.P. leaves the party he/she represents he/she should justify that 'move' to the people he/she represents. It is then up to the voters to do something about it if they do not agree with the M.P. The voters should have access to a recall mechanism that is easy to use.
The M.Ps who left the Alliance Party and went over to the P.C. Party have been exonerated by their employers (Constituants) because of Stephen Harper and Peter McKay. Personally, I had always liked the PC members but I did not like or respect Joe Clark. I like Stockwell Day but many Conservatives did not think he was a good leader and after the MSM assination of his character it was difficult to believe the Party had a future. If those M.P.s had been forced to call an election in their Constituancies, I don't know what would have happened; I know that many members were very angry and we might have lost everything with 5 vote splits. We might have lost many good M.P.s also - it would have been a Conservative disaster!! This is a good point that you have brought up and I had not really been thinking of that side of the issue when I wrote that rant. I was just thinking about BS and the klennex. Thank-you for the 'reality check'. There are always two sides for every argument and you stated the other side with authority.
Posted by: Jema54 | 2005-06-17 4:03:57 PM
Please remember, everyone, that for the longest time in Canada it was convention that anyone appointed to cabinet automatically resigned their seat and contested an immediate byelection in order to prove that they had the total confidence of their constituency.
Posted by: Mike Jenkinson | 2005-06-17 4:12:50 PM
"The candidate runs in the election. The candidate comes first, and the party affiltian is secondary or incidental." Brian O'Neill
Brian,
I generally agree with your views but on this one you are not only wrong but out to lunch - as the above quote shows.
Although some people vote for the individual, the vast majority (over 90% IMHO ) understand, as is the fact, that the average M.P. is but a cog in the wheel. They therefore vote party.
This legislation will never pass because it would reduce the ability of the Natural Governing Party to use the instruments of the state for their own crass purposes.It is disappointing that every last conservative would not realize this.)
A recent example of the misuse of the instruments of the state by the NGP was the Prime Minister commanding the resources of the state (the CBC etc) not to discuss an issue concerning the state, but one concerning the fortunes of his political party. It is supremely ironic that Martin's abuse of power went unnoticed by the boobs in MSM and the public at large at the very time that what caused the P.M. to abuse his power was the concern, resulting from the revelations of the Gomery Inquiry, over his party's abuse of power. ( Brian, if you want to be an effective conservative you must not only be twice as smart -like Kate- as the average liberal but be able to think outside the liberal MSM box.
The proposed legislation is a good idea. It, however, should be amended to provide that any M.P who has crossed the floor and been appointed to cabinet within 30 days of her defection- and who has laughably claimed that she acted on principle- should be removed from office and should be declared as ineligible to hold ANY public office during her lifetime on three grounds:
1.for lacking even the minimal amount of integrity and honesty required of a public servant; and
2. for grossly insulting the intelligence of the public, if not the intelligence of the average MSM pundit.
3.accepting a bribe
Posted by: Terry Gain | 2005-06-17 5:09:14 PM
I support the requirement for an M.P. to have to run in a by-election if he/she crosses the floor to join another party. A large majority of Canadians vote on the basis that they support the policies or leader of the party represented by the M.P. not on the personal positions taken by that individual candidate. Those voters lose their "voice" in Parliament as a result of an M.P.'s decision to cross the floor.
It's a no brainer. Require a by-election!
Posted by: Two Cents | 2005-06-17 5:24:08 PM
Is this a fly swatter at the rich, in general?
Should I resign because i'm rich and inexperienced, and perceived as a bimbo whore?
NO!!
I support the legislation on humanitarian grounds and the pies incresing size, and for phisical activity.
thankyou.~~bej
Posted by: bejlinda | 2005-06-17 6:33:23 PM
The danger in this legislation is the unintended consequences causing MPs that want to dissent to toe the party line irregardless because they cannot afford not to do so. For good or for worse, the Westminster system is based on members representing constituents, not representing parties. The intentions are clearly in the right direction but that doesn't mean the legislation will do what it is hoped it will.
Posted by: Strong and Free in AB | 2005-06-17 6:57:43 PM
Brian O'Neill,
I take back my earlier comment that I generally agreed with your views. I must have been confusing you with someone else. I don't generally agree with people who display an abundant lack of any sense of humour and who are quite frankly hysterical. I'm insane because I disagree with you? Get a grip.
Incidentally you've been caught using a modo ellipsis. You purport to quote me thusly:
: "The proposed legislation...should be amended to provide that any M.P who has crossed the floor and been appointed to cabinet within 30 days of her defection...should be removed from office and should be declared as ineligible to hold ANY public office during her lifetime."
In fact you omitted the words:.." and who has laughably claimed that she acted on principle"...
which words render inapplicable your far fetched scenario of the retired general crossing the floor.
The next time you are proven wrong take it with a bit of humility and class; otherwise you will resemble a hysterical and dishonest leftist.
Posted by: Terry Gain | 2005-06-17 7:13:04 PM
It used to be the rule in Canada,
- and still is in the UK I believe-
that if a MP changes parties or
becomes an independent -- fine,
but if that MP is to take a cabinet post
he must first be re-elected in a by-election
(or general election)
The rule should be restored.
The reason for it should be clear
considering the Belinda example.
We have a 500+ year set of Parliamentary
tradition which we don't know and thus
are doomed to re-invent.
Wes
Wes
Posted by: Wes Warner | 2005-06-17 7:57:07 PM
Brian,
If a person has never been betrayed then it is impossible to contemplate the outrage felt by a person who is betrayed. Before you get angry at all of us because we don't feel like addressing the Westminister by-lines, line by line, think about betrayal in the raw form: Judas and Jesus Christ, William Wallace and Scottish Aristocrates, Socrates and the Demos, Cicero and the Senate, Poland and England, France and Russia in WWII, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Conference at Yalta (giving Russia these countries), - people without Priciple who 'move' to enrich themselves by selling out their own team. These people are NOT entitled to a 'seat' in a toilet. My 'relaxed opinion' has limits!! What about Honor and Honesty and Integrety? The Liberanos are under a cloud of criminal activities, they have been stealing from their employers,the people of Canada, the people of Canada elected BS as a Conservative to speak up, in their own intrest, to address the public theft. How could it be tolerated that their elected M.P. joins the crooks?!!
Posted by: Jema54 | 2005-06-17 8:08:51 PM
1. "Honor (sic) and integrety (sic) can't be legislated.
2. People should choose more wisely." Brian O'Neill
Brian,
Regarding 1. No, but we can have rules that do not allow people to benefit by behaving dishonestly and without integrity - like running for and getting elected as a Conservative and then accepting a bribe from the Liberals to cross the floor. You may not feel betrayed but if I had voted for B.S. because she ran as a Conservative (and there was little else to recommend her) I would definitely feel betrayed.
2. As to your second point if you were a Conservative in B.S.'s riding how do you choose more wisely than voting for the person running for your party.
Brian , I suggest you take a break and learn to think strategically (learn to think like a Liberal). Helena's proposal is a good one. It is sound public policy and would benefit the Conservatives. Your opposition to this proposal is baffling.
Your ideas as to why people vote are all wet. Have you never canvassed? If you aren't prepared to acknowledge that M.P.s are elected primarily on the strength of their party and they have little personal power outside the party I don't know how you can contribute to this discussion.
Posted by: Terry Gain | 2005-06-17 10:16:41 PM
Although Brian is a little brisk with his criticism he does make a good point.
This legislation will be a hamper to free votes , the party whips will have too much power
and independent minded MP's will lose their's.
For every BS there is another MP who crosses the floor for principle and this bill will hamper that.
I realize people are righteously pissed at BS
but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
She will get her comeupance.
Just consider the law of unintended consequences
Posted by: Quidnunc Savant | 2005-06-17 11:20:41 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.