[Winnipegger]

This doesn't deal with any party's campaign this election, but it does deal with how our federal government works. So I'm posting it here.

We have had a growing problem with devolution of the authority of Parliament into the hands of the Prime Minister. Once upon a time the parties in Canada had caucus select their leader. This is not just a party thing, because the leader of the party with the most members elected to the House of Commons is usually the Prime Minister. Usually; not always. At some point, parties changed to select their leader by a leadership convention. This may appear to give more power to average party members, but the problem is then how do you remove that individual when he or she screws up? Brian Mulroney is the most stark example. Another issue regards selection of ministers. In practice the Prime Ministers selects ministers. The literal wording of the constitution says the Governor General can select anyone he/she chooses to be Prime Minister, or any of the Ministers, Canadian tradition is that the PM selects Ministers. If the PM depends on caucus for his job, then selecting which of those caucus members gets to be a Minister is a matter of negotiation. And if the PM tries to rule with an iron fist, not even allowing caucus members to raise a policy issue at a caucus meeting, then caucus members can remove that individual from their party leadership. Since Canadian tradition is that the leader of the party with the most MPs in the House is PM, that effectively removes the PM from office.

Oh, do you want me to relate a story from a certain MP about not being allowed to raise an issue in caucus meetings?

During the 2006 federal election, the Conservative candidate in my riding said during an all-candidates debate that her party lets members vote their conscience. They're only forced to vote with the party on money bills. She didn't say why, but failure of a money bill is considered a non-confidence vote, forcing an election. However, since then the Conservative party has tightly whipped all their votes. All parties have a problem with this; prior to the 2006 election the NDP MP for the northern-most riding in Manitoba voted the way her constituents demanded, not the party line. It wasn't a money bill. Jack Layton revoked her nomination, she ran as an independent in 2006, splitting the NDP vote. This resulted in the Liberal candidate winning. I'm saying all parties whip their vote far too often, not letting elected MPs represent the voters who elected them.

My understanding is that the method of selecting the party leader was changed by Pierre Trudeau. The problem of centralization of power in the PM started with him; however, I argue certain other party leaders demonstrate why this practice just isn't working. One simple fix is to restore selection of the leader to caucus.

So, I would like to hear your views. Options:

• Leave it as it is. We stumbled along so far, we'll continue as is.
• Restore selection of the leader to caucus.
• Select the leader by a convention (as it is now) but give caucus authority to call a leadership convention.
• Create a process where party members themselves can recall their party leader. If you chose this one, please elaborate how it would work.

Ps. I'm not a candidate.