Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 30th, 2014

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I looked at the Canadian model. Firstly and foremostly, I looked at the way our great parliaments of the 1840s, 1850s, and beyond—well into the 20th century—operated.

We invented something unique here in Canada. We often forget that even though we consider ourselves a young country, we are in fact the third oldest continuous democracy in the world, and we invented something quite unique here in this country, first in legislatures in the colonies, such as Nova Scotia, and later here in the united Province of Canada in the 1840s. That concept was the concept of responsible government, a very simple concept that the Governor in Council was no longer accountable to London for his or her decision-making, but rather to the elected legislature.

The ideas in this bill are based on that very foundational concept of responsible governments. I think we have strayed from some of those basic principles, and the bill is an attempt to restore some of those foundational ideas in our parliamentary system of government.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

One of the problems from the beginning, as some of my colleagues have pointed out but I'd like to point out again, is that there seemed to be a disequilibrium between the selection of a leader of the party within Parliament itself and the removal of one. The party has its process by which to choose a leader, and it's a very long one. It involves a lot of people, of the citizenry, but the removal of one requires few.

That obvious became a problem for all the major parties, and even the minor parties, for that matter. What are your thoughts on that?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this. I didn't have enough time in response to Mr. Blake's question to fully address it.

The power for caucuses of the House of Commons to review the leader currently exists, in my view. The problem is that these rules have never been written down on paper, and so they are opaque and generally unavailable to members, because of a great deal of confusion about what the exact process is.

There are many examples to prove that the convention exists, because of the behaviour of actors in our political system. We can look to provinces in which, just in the last 12 months, this power of caucus to review the leader has been executed.

Premier Dunderdale was premier at the beginning of this year; she no longer is because of such action. Premier Alison Redford was premier at the beginning of this year; she no longer is because of caucus action. Mr. Hudak, leader of the official opposition, is no longer leader of the official opposition because of caucus action. So at the provincial level we've had numerous examples in recent months.

At the federal level we've also had examples in recent years. Mr. Dion was replaced by Mr. Ignatieff between two general elections through the actions of caucus and other actors.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

We're now seeing the same played out in Manitoba.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

That's right; we're now seeing the same issue play out in Manitoba.

Even O'Brien and Bosc, the bible of parliamentary procedure, makes reference to the fact that in the absence of a leader of the official opposition, it is up to caucus to select the new leader of the official opposition.

So there is long precedent in Canada to demonstrate that caucuses currently have the power to review the leader. Here is the central problem. The central problem is that we have yet to clarify these rules in writing, and as a result there's a great deal of opacity—and this is vitally important—because the corollary to the removal of a party leader is the election of the interim leader.

In a democracy, few things are more important than how power transitions. We don't live in an absolute monarchy, wherein it transitions through hereditary means; we don't live in a dictatorship, wherein it transitions through the will of the leader. We live in a democracy, wherein we need great clarity and transparency on transitions in power.

I put to members of caucus that, in the event that a head of government were, heaven forbid, suddenly to die or suddenly become incapacitated or suddenly resign from office, the next day the Governor General would need to appoint a new head of government. Currently, the way that process is to take place within party caucuses and within the House of Commons in general amongst leading parliamentarians is not as clear as it should be. So we also need to clarify the rules concerning the election of the interim leader, because as I said before, in a democracy few things are more important than how power transitions in between elections.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

Thank you, Mr. Simms.

We'll go to a four-minute round.

Mr. Richards, you're starting off this one.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you. I have another question I want to move to, but actually I want to pick up on the conversation that was just happening.

You mentioned a number of examples of leaders being removed in provinces. I could add a couple to that list that we've seen in the Parliament of Canada in the last couple of decades as well, with a couple of different political parties that were able to remove their leaders.

Now, I may be mistaken, but I don't think in any of those cases there was any prescriptive legislation that provided for it to happen; it just happened generically. It was able to happen because the support wasn't there for the leader any longer.

Am I mistaken in that?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

No, that's correct. We inherited in 1867 a constitution that was partially written and partially unwritten, and much of the way we operate here is based on unwritten conventions.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

So given the fact that this was able to happen without legislation being in place, what are your thoughts on that? Could we not continue the situation as it is now?

I'll add a second part to that question as well. Obviously in most if not all of those cases—and this goes back to what we were talking about earlier—the fact is that there is some accountability of the leader to caucus and some accountability to the party membership. The leader is leader of both the caucus and the party. It goes back to that whole principle that in most if not all of those cases, the majority of caucus and the party membership would I think have held the same views, that it was time for the leader to go. They lined up.

Of course, there could be instances in which that wouldn't be the case. My only concern—and I want to hear your thoughts on it—is that in that case the onus is put far more strongly onto the caucus.

Now, if their views were to differ from those of the party leadership, do you have concerns that the difference would then remove power from the party members as a result?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you.

In response to the first part of your question, which is that the current rules, being unwritten, are used from time to time, I would say that the problem with the nature of the unwritten rules we have today is that there's a great deal of confusion as to how they are to be used, because there is a lack of clarity about the details of how they are to be used. As a result, a leadership crisis tends to be a drawn-out affair in the Canadian system.

We're seeing, for example, recent cases in the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba that have put the efficient functioning of the administration of the government into question, and instead of being a swift affair dealt with in a matter of days, the resolution of such a situation tends to be long and drawn-out. I think that is a direct result of the opacity of these unwritten rules.

In response to the second part of your question, which concerns the role of caucus and the role of the party, I would say that the party still has tremendous powers. It still would elect the permanent leader of the party, and caucus members would be accountable for their actions, because the bill is specific, along with the changes that I proposed on September 11, that members vote for or against these rules in a recorded manner. So they could be held accountable not only by their constituents, but also by party members in their riding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

We'll move to Madame Latendresse for four minutes, please.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chong, thank you for being here today to speak to your bill, which contains a number of interesting elements. In fact, I've already talked about it in the House.

We have numerous questions for you today. Although more specific, my first question is along the same lines as what Mr. Richards was saying.

Every two years, all the members of our party must vote on the leadership. We have to say whether our leader is doing a good job and should continue leading the party. Just since 2011, we have done that twice: in 2011, for Mr. Layton, and in 2013, for Mr. Mulcair.

If we record in writing the rules so that a caucus can decide whether or not to hold a review process, how would it be possible to reconcile a situation where the members of the party expressed overall satisfaction with their leader but the caucus did not agree?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

It's very important to understand that our political system is such that two types of parties exist: the one that exists outside Parliament and the one inside Parliament. Today, in Canada, that is the reason why the one outside Parliament is not in the House.

I think that fact is really important to acknowledge. These two parties operate in parallel. The registered political party does not exist within the halls of Parliament. That's why we have ethics commissioners and strict rules about using parliamentary resources for the purposes for the party outside Parliament, the registered political party.

We have parties within Parliament that do not exist outside of Parliament; these are the recognized parties in the House of Commons recognized under the Parliament of Canada Act, and we use public money to fund these parties for partisan purposes. But they are two separate, parallel sets of parties. I think the bill simply acknowledges that the second of these two parties, that is the party within Parliament, has a unique role to play in our system, has unique rights, and that this role and those rights need to be clarified in writing.

The two work in concert with each other, so I think both parties would and do have the right to review the leader. The bill is silent about the election of the permanent leader of the registered political party and, in effect, by being silent ensures that the current practice in Canada of having members of a registered political party, either through a convention or through “one member, one vote” or through a variety of mechanisms, still has the right to elect the permanent leader of a party and have that leader installed as the leader of the party within Parliament.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

If I understand correctly, this can easily be applied to the system of parties inside Parliament. Right now, a party has to have 12 MPs in order to be recognized in the House. Do you think there's a way to adjust the rules you're proposing?

As far as very small parties go, for example, a party with 12 MPs, only 3 would be needed to call for a leadership review, as you propose. Do you think an adjustment could be made for a case such as that?

We all belong to fairly sizable parties, which is why we can understand the rules you are talking about. But what would you propose in the case of very small parties?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

It is for that reason that, on September 11, I proposed that the rules around conducting a party leadership review not be mandatory.

It's the choice of each caucus to decide what rules they would implement or how. Caucuses that have only twelve members would be able to adopt a modified version of the rule that would take into account their unique circumstances.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

I just have one last thing. I mentioned that there was a question I had intended to ask in the last round and I want to get to that. I think that's the remainder of what I have to ask today, Mr. Chong.

I wonder whether you have had any discussions with political party officials. Obviously, at the heart of some of the questions we've been having an exchange on is the balance between the caucus and the party in some of these changes. So I'm curious about whether you've had conversations with executives of the various political parties to gauge their thoughts about whether they would have concerns with respect to what any of these changes would do? Obviously they're representatives of the memberships of the political party, so they have concerns about anything it would—probably inadvertently, I assume—do to remove any power from them and, therefore, through them from the members.

Have you, further than that, even beyond the executives or presidents of parties, had any conversations at a policy convention level or any kind of level whereby the members have had a chance to have their say, from the various political parties, on what they think about the proposals?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you for asking the question.

I've consulted widely with members from various political parties, including members of the Conservative Party of Canada. I spoke extensively with dozens and dozens of members of that party over a number of years about this bill and the contents of this bill, including members of the Conservative Party of Canada's National Council.

With respect to the second part of your question, I have supported these initiatives at national conventions of the Conservative Party of Canada for more than a decade. Numerous attempts have been made to introduce motions amending the party's national constitution. In some cases those motions have not made it to the floor of the national convention because of the process that was put in place; in other cases they did make it to the floor, but in one case there were some procedural difficulties.

So this is a bill that came out of many discussions with many people of the Conservative Party, including former leaders of the party.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I can appreciate that you have had a lot of discussions with many people and have done a lot of work, and we all appreciate the amount of effort and study you've put into it.

I have one last question. Do you feel, as witnesses before this committee, that representatives of the political parties would be a good set of witnesses for us?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I think people who have been politically involved would be very cogent witnesses. I think it would be very important to have somebody from the Manning Centre appear here to speak to this bill. Preston Manning was a person who long fought for the principles on which this bill is based. Dave Quist, the vice-president of the Manning institute, would, I think, make an excellent witness.

I think former parliamentarians such as Monte Solberg and Peter Milliken would also be excellent witnesses to appear in front of this committee.

So yes, I think people who have political experience—who have first-hand political experience, who have held elected office—would be incredibly important.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

What about specifically the idea of somebody who is actually a representative, whether it be the president of each party...would that particular individual for each party be helpful?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I think, if it's the committee's wish to hear from the presidents of the respective parties in respect of the nomination provisions in the bill, that it would be very helpful.

In respect of the provisions concerning the Parliament of Canada Act, I think the witnesses would be more appropriate if they had held elected office.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have a government spot next.

Seeing nobody, I'll go to Madame Latendresse for four minutes, please.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

No. It's Mr. Scott.