Nomination Paper In Canada
Legislative authority on the nomination papers that have to be signed by the party leader
In Canada, people can easily become MP or MLA of a riding as long as they are 18 years and older and a Canadian citizen. Despite of this two requirement is met, the one who wish to run for MP or MLA have to file the nomination paper in order to become a candidate that have to be signed by the party leader if a candidate want to have a political affiliation. Furthermore, under Canada Election Act section 66 (1) (a) (v) state that “A nomination paper shall be in the prescribed form and include a statement under oath by the prospective candidate of the name of the political party that has endorsed the prospective candidate or, if none, the prospective candidate’s choice to either have the word “independent” or no designation of political affiliation under his or her name in election documents” (march 4,2016); and the “Nomination Paper of a candidate who has the endorsement of a political party and who wishes the name of that party to be printed on the ballot paper must be accompanied by a written instrument …show more content…
signed by the leader of the party (or, at a general election only, by the authorized representative of the leader of the party)” (June, 2016). If a candidate who is running does not want to affiliate with a political party and want to run as a independent, a candidate does not have to worry about the sign of the leader in the nomination paper; however, the people who is independent hardly get elected as a MP or MLA if the candidate is already well known in that particular riding that they run.
By looking at the Canada Election Act, the leader have legislative power to decide who is running as a candidate in one particular riding if the candidate want to affiliate with a political party.
How this authority of the leader impacts the behavior of candidates and MPs?
For the candidate to become a MP of the particular party in their riding, they need the signature of the party leader on the nomination paper in order to become candidate of that party that candidate chooses. This is closely related to the party discipline which is the basic operating principle of “elective parliamentary chambers and this discipline allows the legislature to operate effectively, ensures stability of government and eliminates suspense from parliamentary votes” according to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
Party discipline ensures that individuals members behave and vote as part of a group rather than as individuals. As the word discipline implies, those who do not vote with their party risk punishment; these consequences vary considerably which involve “mild rebuke, reduced chances of promotion within party ranks or indeed demotion, and the most extreme, expulsion from the party.” Jonathan Malloy suggest that Canada have a strong discipline:
The Canadian House of Commons features institutional practices that entrench party whips’ power more than in, for example, its British counterpart. The Canadian House has never had a system of line whips indicating the relative significance of votes and the consequences of dissent – a structural feature that at least implicitly accommodates the possibility of dissent from the party line. Instead, every legislative vote is considered at least nominally to be a vote of confidence in the government, although only some votes are explicitly designated as such. The proceedings of the House and its committees are predicated exclusively on party.
The party whip act according to the party leader order to control the MP so that their opportunities to ask questions or participate in debates are controlled, giving the Speaker no discretion to recognize members not on the parties’ approved lists. In failure to obey the party whips, they will get discipline by the party which the party leader will not sign the nomination paper in next turn or kick out of the party which influence the behavior of the candidate and MPs. The discipline effect the candidate behavior to change their opinion on the issue that was decided by their party leader despite of the fact that candidate different view point of this particular issue.
Is this positive or negative in a democracy?
The power that party leader has over the candidate and MPs has been view negatively in public opinion because of party discipline. The candidate or MPs can not voice out their opinion that conflict with the freedom of speech in the Charter which is opposite to the democracy that people value. For example, Kim Mackrael report that when ”Bruce Hyer voted in favour of abolishing the long-gun registry, the Thunder Bay-Superior North MP knew there would be consequences and he had to quit the caucus soon after.” Many of the MPs blame the system that require their leader approval before they can run in that party. Mr. Hyer said “The leaders use this as a sword of Damocles over MPs’ heads: ‘Behave and obey … or we won’t sign your [nomination] papers,’ ” which represent the negative aspect of this party discipline system.
However, In order to accomplish something, the party need to be united which has to have some kind of system to unite within their party.
If individual voice out their opinion individually there will be no order in the House of Commons and difficult to accomplish their party engender and will not have clear “distinction between the government and the opposition in Parliament” . The role of party discipline allows the legislature to “operate effectively, ensures stability of government and eliminates suspense from parliamentary votes” according to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. In “Canadian Parliamentary Review – Article,” John Reid, an ardent supporter of party discipline, argue that “under our system of responsible government, the public at an election has great power to make decisions which give them ability to vote effectively results from party
discipline.”
The Canadian parliamentarians face this dilemma between the position of their party and their personal belief and their accountability to their constituency because of the party discipline. Although they can use the private members’ bills to promote their personal belief that is not strongly conflict with their party, the private members’ bill have low success rate. Some of the MPs are studying the proposals for parliamentary reform which hopefully include this issue regarding the party discipline.
In Canada, people can easily become MP or MLA of a riding as long as they are 18 years and older and a Canadian citizen. Despite of this two requirement is met, the one who wish to run for MP or MLA have to file the nomination paper in order to become a candidate that have to be signed by the party leader if a candidate want to have a political affiliation. Furthermore, under Canada Election Act section 66 (1) (a) (v) state that “A nomination paper shall be in the prescribed form and include a statement under oath by the prospective candidate of the name of the political party that has endorsed the prospective candidate or, if none, the prospective candidate’s choice to either have the word “independent” or no designation of political affiliation under his or her name in election documents” (march 4,2016); and the “Nomination Paper of a candidate who has the endorsement of a political party and who wishes the name of that party to be printed on the ballot paper must be accompanied by a written instrument …show more content…
signed by the leader of the party (or, at a general election only, by the authorized representative of the leader of the party)” (June, 2016). If a candidate who is running does not want to affiliate with a political party and want to run as a independent, a candidate does not have to worry about the sign of the leader in the nomination paper; however, the people who is independent hardly get elected as a MP or MLA if the candidate is already well known in that particular riding that they run.
By looking at the Canada Election Act, the leader have legislative power to decide who is running as a candidate in one particular riding if the candidate want to affiliate with a political party.
How this authority of the leader impacts the behavior of candidates and MPs?
For the candidate to become a MP of the particular party in their riding, they need the signature of the party leader on the nomination paper in order to become candidate of that party that candidate chooses. This is closely related to the party discipline which is the basic operating principle of “elective parliamentary chambers and this discipline allows the legislature to operate effectively, ensures stability of government and eliminates suspense from parliamentary votes” according to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
Party discipline ensures that individuals members behave and vote as part of a group rather than as individuals. As the word discipline implies, those who do not vote with their party risk punishment; these consequences vary considerably which involve “mild rebuke, reduced chances of promotion within party ranks or indeed demotion, and the most extreme, expulsion from the party.” Jonathan Malloy suggest that Canada have a strong discipline:
The Canadian House of Commons features institutional practices that entrench party whips’ power more than in, for example, its British counterpart. The Canadian House has never had a system of line whips indicating the relative significance of votes and the consequences of dissent – a structural feature that at least implicitly accommodates the possibility of dissent from the party line. Instead, every legislative vote is considered at least nominally to be a vote of confidence in the government, although only some votes are explicitly designated as such. The proceedings of the House and its committees are predicated exclusively on party.
The party whip act according to the party leader order to control the MP so that their opportunities to ask questions or participate in debates are controlled, giving the Speaker no discretion to recognize members not on the parties’ approved lists. In failure to obey the party whips, they will get discipline by the party which the party leader will not sign the nomination paper in next turn or kick out of the party which influence the behavior of the candidate and MPs. The discipline effect the candidate behavior to change their opinion on the issue that was decided by their party leader despite of the fact that candidate different view point of this particular issue.
Is this positive or negative in a democracy?
The power that party leader has over the candidate and MPs has been view negatively in public opinion because of party discipline. The candidate or MPs can not voice out their opinion that conflict with the freedom of speech in the Charter which is opposite to the democracy that people value. For example, Kim Mackrael report that when ”Bruce Hyer voted in favour of abolishing the long-gun registry, the Thunder Bay-Superior North MP knew there would be consequences and he had to quit the caucus soon after.” Many of the MPs blame the system that require their leader approval before they can run in that party. Mr. Hyer said “The leaders use this as a sword of Damocles over MPs’ heads: ‘Behave and obey … or we won’t sign your [nomination] papers,’ ” which represent the negative aspect of this party discipline system.
However, In order to accomplish something, the party need to be united which has to have some kind of system to unite within their party.
If individual voice out their opinion individually there will be no order in the House of Commons and difficult to accomplish their party engender and will not have clear “distinction between the government and the opposition in Parliament” . The role of party discipline allows the legislature to “operate effectively, ensures stability of government and eliminates suspense from parliamentary votes” according to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. In “Canadian Parliamentary Review – Article,” John Reid, an ardent supporter of party discipline, argue that “under our system of responsible government, the public at an election has great power to make decisions which give them ability to vote effectively results from party
discipline.”
The Canadian parliamentarians face this dilemma between the position of their party and their personal belief and their accountability to their constituency because of the party discipline. Although they can use the private members’ bills to promote their personal belief that is not strongly conflict with their party, the private members’ bill have low success rate. Some of the MPs are studying the proposals for parliamentary reform which hopefully include this issue regarding the party discipline.