The rules of the game (another modest proposal)


With the resignation of Jean Lapierre and the defection of Wajid Khan to the Conservatives, the liberals have been reduced to 100 seats, effectively giving the NDP the balance of power in the minority Parliament. So now we are going to see if Harper and Layton can find enough common ground to significantly delay the next federal election.

Khan was in the unusual position of serving as an advisor to the Prime Minister on the mid east and Afghanistan. He was allowed to do so last summer by acting Liberal leader Bill Graham. The new leader of the Liberals, Stéphane Dion, asked Khan to end the relationship and instead the Toronto area MP "crossed the floor."

Editorials and opposition politicians have been saying that Khan has betrayed his constituents by joining a party he opposed when he was elected. They want him to sit as an independent or resign, past precedents notwithstanding, and have called for the rules of the House of Commons to be changed to require this. That seems reasonable to me.

However if the rules are going to be changed I have a suggestion of my own, also turning current practice on its head. One of the reasons our party system bothers me so much is that politicians act as if loyalty to the party is more important than the responsibilities parliamentarians have to all of their constituents, most of whom usually didn't vote for them or their respective parties.

So I would like to suggest that if a government should fall on a vote of non confidence the MPs should be required to agree on a new Prime Minister and cabinet. Should they be unable to do so then an election would be called, and the sitting members forbidden from running for the next term. Do the job or move aside.

Harper should never have been allowed to form a government without some representation in cabinet from the other parties. What's the point in having a multi-party system if it can't produce coalitions?

Posted: Thu - January 11, 2007 at 06:33 PM          

©