Article content continued

For example, the first version of the act would have removed the right of a party leader to sign nomination papers, which would have reduced the fears MPs had of being summarily dismissed if they failed to step in line with the leaders’ wishes.

Under the amended version, the act simply transfers that power to someone else. Someone who could very well be the leader’s chief of staff, for example.

The Reform Act is littered with these kinds of amendments: cues that cement in legislation some of the most broken parts of our systems of leadership selection. It writes party business into statute. Worst of all, in its attempts to try to codify rules on how a caucus could overturn a leader, it raises the bar on those challenges, making it even harder for a caucus to kick a bad premier or Prime Minister from his or her role.

Take the tale of Alison Redford, for example, who was pushed to resign in the face of a caucus revolt. A similar gong show was on display in Manitoba with Greg Selinger. In each of those cases, a small number of MLAs who gathered enough intestinal fortitude to face the media spotlight was enough to push for change (or at least an attempt to in Manitoba). Chong’s bill sets a higher bar that insulates the leader.

It passed because it’s a political syllogism: There’s a problem with our democracy and something should be done; this is something, therefore we should do this.

Chong insists that the Senate do their duty – and pass the bill, citing the broad support that it received in the Commons. He says that the bill doesn’t affect senators, but he’s wrong – tucked away in it is a provision that would legislate that caucus is only made up of MPs. One can imagine why senators – particularly Conservative ones – are anxious about such a provision after Justin Trudeau exiled Liberal senators from his caucus.