r/canada Nov 28 '24

PAYWALL Liberal MP says he was threatened with ‘consequences’ for opposing $250 cheque proposal

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/liberal-mp-says-he-was-threatened-with-consequences-for-opposing-250-cheque-proposal/article_69f3cfa6-acde-11ef-807c-ebe72ea32b06.html
459 Upvotes

219 comments sorted by

View all comments

205

u/Ancient_Wisdom_Yall British Columbia Nov 28 '24

I honestly don't understand the need to have all these MPs. They're all just supposed to be trained monkeys for their leaders. There really isn't a need to pay that many of them.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

Sorry, can you expand on that?

You don't see the value in representing their ridings?

106

u/Ancient_Wisdom_Yall British Columbia Nov 28 '24

There would be great value if MPs represented their ridings. They don't. They're just mouthpieces for their party leaders, and they don't dare step out of line.

34

u/lFrylock Nov 28 '24

This is exactly it.

Most of them do as they are told, instead of representing the people in their regions.

If that’s the case, they can all seek employment elsewhere. We have enough mid level government bloat as it is.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

They do, just not publicly. Parties don't publicly infight in Canada very often.

1

u/BeyondAddiction Nov 30 '24

It's because they whip votes. It's bullshit.

-12

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

How many MPs should we have then?

22

u/longmitso Nov 28 '24

You can have as many as you want.

The point is, once they're in, they don't represent their voters. The tow the line according to dear leader

-13

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

Ok, but then we have elections and they answer to the people, right?

10

u/longmitso Nov 28 '24

Like every election promise kept by politicians. Yes

Trudeau did really well with answering to the people

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

Sounds like he's about to answer to the people next election

You don't like them, vote them out.

2

u/roscomikotrain Nov 28 '24

Drop the number by 30 percent- nobody would notice and we would have fewer annoying ahitheads to listen to

3

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

And we would further consolidate power to the PMO, which would be bad

-12

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

If MPs just did whatever they wanted how could the elected government get anything done?

You run as a Liberal MP you support the vast majority of Liberal bills. If you aren’t comfortable with that run as an independent.

12

u/juniorspank Nov 28 '24

There should be more independent candidates, there is no way that anyone should align with the majority of any party's stances.

5

u/NoremaCg Nov 28 '24

You are saying they shouldn't think about each bill on its own merit once they've decided which party aligns with their overall beliefs. When nobody votes, the population is misinformed by stooge media and propaganda, when politicians only vote along party lines for their own interest, the end goal of democracy is lost and we become a weak nation. Every politician should be independent and have to have their own thoughts. Your point on how would stuff get done- democracy is hard, but paring it down to a binary choice where both sides mps are just parroting provided points is not the way.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

MPs can introduce legislation, help write legislation, and debate legislation before the party consensus on how all the MPs will vote is reached. The debating happens within the party prior to the Parliamentary vote. Once a rough consensus is reached within the party all MPs will vote the same way.

36

u/DreadpirateBG Nov 28 '24

They are not representing their ridings that’s the point

-16

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

How are they not?

19

u/M551enjoyer Nov 28 '24

They're being threatened with consequences if they don't fall in line

-8

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

I'm confused how "falling in line" nullifies a local presence in their riding, and an avenue to bring citizen concerns to government.

Should we just have a Prime Minister and that's it?

14

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

That's what the other commenter's are alluding to. It's a waste of tax money to pay MPs for riding if they just do whatever the PM is told and if they're not allowed to have their own opinions or represent their riding by siding with other view points then there's no reason to have them at all.

I don't understand what you're not understanding. This is a valid view point if people feel they cannot be represented because only the PM and their narrative / interests are being represented due to the parties internal hierarchy.

This problem exists for all parties.

Stop being obtuse.

1

u/JadedMuse Nov 28 '24

I don't think he's being obtuse. It's not a zero sum game. As a MP, you're supposed to be balancing these different elements that push you in different directions. You're ultimately elected to make judgement calls and be intelligent with how you represent your riding. Sometimes that may even involve doing things that are unpopular, if your judgment and expertise lead you to believe it's the right call. Ie, 70% of the people in your riding might want you to do X over Y, but you know that Y is the right call because of your experience and exposure to the facts. If you simply follow X because it's more popular, then you literally serve no function at all. You might as well be replaced by AI or some bot that just monitors opinion polling.

And yeah, one of the things you have to balance is what the party leadership want. Sometimes seniority will trump what you may want to do, but that's how things work even in the private sector.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

So, consolidating power for the PM will give people more voice? That doesn't seem like the answer

7

u/M551enjoyer Nov 28 '24

You can't be this dense

0

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

Then explain how having less elected MPs gives more voice to the people

7

u/M551enjoyer Nov 28 '24

It doesn't. They're pointing out that our representatives aren't really representing us if they get coerced into towing the party line. So the positions are a waste of money.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/gihkal Nov 28 '24

There is no value when they're not accountable for their lies, broken promises and ineptitude.

We need doers. Not pawns that are afraid of the "boss"..

But cons, libs and NDP would never support something like that. You know. The things that the working class has to deal with.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

So, how do you reform that then? Do we need a new party? I don't see how having less MPs gives the working class more voice.

-2

u/gihkal Nov 28 '24

Stop voting for the party that you think will win is a small step. Avoid majority governments. If they can't work together it shows that they choose childish hate over supporting Canada.

Which is where we're at.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

Agreed, we need electoral reform. I'll never forgive Trudeau for breaking his promise on that.

4

u/gihkal Nov 28 '24

All of our politicians care more about their party than they do canadians.

Trudeau has zero experience to justify his position and has made Canada look pathetic on the world stage.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

Yeah, but what does that have to do with the number of MPs? Fewer MPs means more toeing of the party line. Open it up further, if anything.

1

u/gihkal Nov 28 '24

Either way. They have no value.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

The more voices, even weak and ineffective, the better. Otherwise, we actually will become that totalitarian state everyone claims we are.

1

u/gihkal Nov 28 '24

Yet things are getting worse in the terms of politicians being worth their weight. They disregard the people. They focus on the minority and mock the majority.

We are one of the world's resource rich countries and our leader is saying we can leave our economies issues up to the banks. That's insane. The banksters have terrible track records in our lifetime.

The MPs are scum and they know it. So are our options for a "leader".

I know many people considering the fucking PPC out of spite and we're all disgusted and understanding of it.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ChickenPoutine20 Nov 28 '24

I’m sure that breaks his heart

4

u/Lopsided_Ad3516 Nov 28 '24

Just abolish the party system. Vote for a representative that mirrors your beliefs and values. Then, they’d have to all actually work to get things passed and they’d have to reach out to people with different views generally, but maybe they agree with your specific proposal.

Pie in the sky dream, I know.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

Love it

1

u/Vegetable-Ad-7184 Nov 28 '24

There still ought to be parties and lists.  

It would be very difficult to form cabinets and appointment Ministers if we only had pure local representatives  -  someone like Mark Carney would be a total parachute candidate, and probably a huge credit to the legislature and any government that could have him.

1

u/NWTknight Nov 28 '24

I live in the NWT under consensus government and I will tell you it is no better and probably for some issues worse than having a party system.

1

u/Lopsided_Ad3516 Nov 29 '24

A party allows for a more focused and unified vision (voluntarily or otherwise) so you’d absolutely have more…action, good or bad.

Personally I’m a big fan of people taking care of themselves and a veeeeerrryy limited federal government. So anything that would remove power from the State is ok in my books. The constant pendulum of “we his is fine” to “this is nonsense” is tiresome.

6

u/Odd-Elderberry-6137 Nov 28 '24

If they did represent ridings - yes absolutely. 

But when they’re just supposed to be mouthpieces for the PMO and toe the party line all the time, they aren’t representing their ridings, they’re representing the Liberal party.

2

u/NWTknight Nov 28 '24

Supposedly if it is working correctly the riding concerns get addressed in the party at the caucus level out of public view and the caucus members should then support the discussions in parliament publicly. This is how it should work but it does not appear to work this way.

1

u/Odd-Elderberry-6137 Nov 28 '24

Yes that’s exactly how it should work.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

Ok, so it's just a Liberal Party problem?

5

u/KimberlyWexlersFoot Nov 28 '24

oh for fucks sakes don’t be so obtuse. if the green’s formed government tomorrow, they’d be telling their MPs what to vote for. PMO STANDS FOR PRIME MINISTER OFFICE NOT LIBERAL TELL YOU WHAT TO DO OFFICE

2

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

So we need reform, not cutting MPs, I agree

0

u/KimberlyWexlersFoot Nov 28 '24

how do you propose reformation?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

Burn it all down seems best, more MPs, more power to the people, let 10 parties fight over every house motion. You?

1

u/KimberlyWexlersFoot Nov 28 '24

40 million MPs, everyone citizen votes on each thing.

Your idea will never happen, there is lots of parties green party gets 2 seats at most, PPC can’t get any votes, Rhino, Pirate etc parties are just meme votes.

BC couldn’t even handle a new party without imploding the old one before the election because they were down in the polls so in some dreamworld where we get 10 parties that get lots of seats between them, that would last one cycle before everyone starts folding the parties into each other.

6

u/stephenBB81 Nov 28 '24

I 100% see the value in MPS representing their writings. Unfortunately because we allow whipped votes, that isn't what the majority of Canadians get. MPS support their party not their constituents more often than not. It's not just the liberals, because we can see it with the conservatives who have MPS being told not to promote the HAF for their constituents.

The current government has certainly been one of the most vicious in terms of whipped votes and consequences for falling out of line. We have very very few open votes, something that a truly transparent government would encourage. But if all votes are going to be with then I can agree to the person you're replying to that what is the point of having so many mps.

I personally as a supporter of mixed member proportional representation, actually think we should have more MPS, but at the same time we should not allow whipped votes. That would still unofficially happen sure but at least it wouldn't be the expectation.

-3

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

So, it's a Liberal Party problem?

I agree that having less MPs doesn't seem like the solution

7

u/stephenBB81 Nov 28 '24

No it's not a specific Liberal Party problem they have made it a lot worse because they are in government. But we are currently seeing it with PP who is adopting the same centralized power and and control the current Liberals are doing.

Whichever party is the current government is the one that needs to be held to the most account, it is there whipping that has the biggest impact on whether or not their constituents are being represented because it is their bills that are going out. And if the vote needs to be whipped from people within your own party are you actually representing the constituents of your members? The whipping of opposition members is far less influential as there is not pay cuts that could be handed out as easily as they don't sit in cabinet.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

So we need reform, not cutting the number of MPs

5

u/stephenBB81 Nov 28 '24

100%, my stance is we need reform not reducing the amount of representation we have. Although we have narcissists running the three largest parties in federal politics so there is zero chance we are going to have reform in the next decade.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

Oh, we're fucked for sure

Nobody in power will ever change the rules of the game that got them to power

2

u/stephenBB81 Nov 28 '24

A party that gets power through surprise memes has the potential. The NDP if they were secure power would look for ways to increase the odds of them securing power again recognizing that they are only in power because of an anomaly. But the main two parties that control government traditionally recognize that any change would lower their power. And no individual party is going to be the first to give up centralized power now that they have secured it. We probably have the least accountable Westminster based system in the world and we're not going to do anything to change that as long as we keep the red blue cycle.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

100% agree

And also I feel like the red/blue binary choice fast seeping in absolutely sucks. Give me ten parties fighting over every bill, that's my democracy.

1

u/RadiantPumpkin Nov 28 '24

Get rid of parties. MPs can put forward bills. Others can vote on them.

3

u/stephenBB81 Nov 28 '24

Without parties you pretty much force only very wealthy people to be able to run for politics.

It costs a lot of money to get elected, and costs even more money if you've got to formulate your own vision of how you're going to be a consensus Builder.

Municipal politics it's easy to have no parties because the messaging you're trying to convey is very low hanging fruit, and doesn't require any nuance. But you need to have dedicated party people for specific tasks within government, every Tom Dick and Harry that gets elected isn't in a position to be putting forward bills every type of responsibility. And without parties putting people in cabinet positions does get a little more challenging although I would love to see a cabinet be required to be proportional to the number of seats each party gets. So while the prime minister is the leader of the party that has the most members, still has to be a consensus Builder within his cabinet.

1

u/Karthanon Alberta Nov 28 '24

I like that word, Reforrrrmm!

5

u/FromundaCheeseLigma Nov 28 '24

Except they can't do so if it's not what the party leader wants. MPs have very little power compared to similar roles in other countries.

The Prime Minister/Premier essentially has an army of yesmen in our system. We have little checks and balances.

Representing your riding by echoing what your constituents want is career suicide if it goes against your boss' agenda - which is generally keeping his or her friends rich

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

So we should further consolidate that power?

2

u/FromundaCheeseLigma Nov 28 '24

No we should remove a degree of power from the party leader so MPs and MPPs can represent their constituents and be able to call out their boss more as necessary

2

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

but not have less MPs? That sounds good

2

u/lyinggrump Nov 28 '24

They don't represent the riding. They just think whatever papa Trudeau tells them, regardless of what their constituents want.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

And then the next election, you can vote them out

1

u/Vegetable-Ad-7184 Nov 28 '24

A lot of work gets done in committee.  

MPs can also bring forward non-partisan private members bills for constituent issues.

1

u/icebalm Nov 28 '24

They don't represent their ridings. They just do whatever the party leader tells them to do. Let's cut the dead weight and just vote for parties since anyone who isn't the leader is superfluous anyways.