Voting in Cabinet a good idea?

[Machjo]

With all the talk of Cabinet's power of secrecy, I was wondering, if we were to allow Cabinet to keep that power, if it would be a good idea to have Parliament elect the Cabinet. Here's how I could see it happening:

Once a year, Parliament votes on an open ballot for let's say at least nine members of what we might call a Parliamentary Assembly. Each MP would receive a blank ballot and write in the names of nine MPs he'd like to see on that assembly. The ballots are tallied, and the nine with the most votes form that assembly. The members of this assembly would be free to choose the positions of PM and Cabinet Members among themselves.

Your thoughts on something like this?

 

[DaSleeper]

I have always thought that orders-in-council gave too much power to the prime minister, since he appoints the cabinet they will vote his way, then only the G.G. can stop it.
I think "Orders-in-Council should only be used in emergency, when the prime minister can't call a full parliamentary vote.
It has been misused in the past....
I'm not sure if an election of the cabinet by Parliament would help.
I will wait for other comments.....there is surely some reasoning out there that I haven't thought of before I make up my mind on your poll.

 

[Machjo]

One thing this would likely do is encourage the formation of non-partisan Cabinets as it would raise the possibility that Cabinet could end up with a mixture of the most trustworthy MPs from all Parties.

Of course this would eliminate the traditional concept of an official opposition.

 

[FiveParadox]

It would not be possible to completely do away with routine Orders in Council; these are used daily to perform the day-to-day operations of Her Majesty’s Government for Canada, and the public service and departments of our Government would not be able to function without their continued use. (To bring the appointment of every assistant deputy head of a department to the Parliament of Canada would mean that our representatives would actually get very little of public substance done.)

Though Parliament may not have a direct say in every act of the Government, the fact remains that by virtue of the confidence convention, Parliament nonetheless remains the highest authority in Canada and has supremacy over the Government. It would be asking for disaster to have a ministry hobbled-together by the House of Commons. A reasonable alternative that I would recommend is for the leader of each party to be selected not by its national membership, but by its elected caucus in the House of Commons.

Our current system has the prime minister running a one-man-show in Government; by having the party leader elected by that party’s members of the House of Commons ensures that the party leader must treat each member with respect and take advantage of the full talents of the party, and not just those of the party leader. It would make for a much stronger Government, and it would give ministers the power that our system intended for them to have. The prime minister would now be a “first among equals”, leading a group of leaders of ministries, not just talking heads for the prime minister. If a prime minister were to act overtly dictatorial over the policies of Government, a caucus revolt would result in the forced resignation of the prime minister and a change in leadership.

 

[Machjo]

It would not be possible to completely do away with routine Orders in Council; these are used daily to perform the day-to-day operations of Her Majesty’s Government for Canada, and the public service and departments of our Government would not be able to function without their continued use. (To bring the appointment of every assistant deputy head of a department to the Parliament of Canada would mean that our representatives would actually get very little of public substance done.)

Though Parliament may not have a direct say in every act of the Government, the fact remains that by virtue of the confidence convention, Parliament nonetheless remains the highest authority in Canada and has supremacy over the Government. It would be asking for disaster to have a ministry hobbled-together by the House of Commons. A reasonable alternative that I would recommend is for the leader of each party to be selected not by its national membership, but by its elected caucus in the House of Commons.

Our current system has the prime minister running a one-man-show in Government; by having the party leader elected by that party’s members of the House of Commons ensures that the party leader must treat each member with respect and take advantage of the full talents of the party, and not just those of the party leader. It would make for a much stronger Government, and it would give ministers the power that our system intended for them to have. The prime minister would now be a “first among equals”, leading a group of leaders of ministries, not just talking heads for the prime minister. If a prime minister were to act overtly dictatorial over the policies of Government, a caucus revolt would result in the forced resignation of the prime minister and a change in leadership.

I agree that Parliament could not run everything. However, having Cabinet elected once a year by the House also ensures that independent candidates have an equal say, thus making the PM not first among equal in his party, but in Parliament.

What you're proposing still ensures power is centralized within political parties rather than the House as a whole.
Even an elected Cabinet could still have Orders in council, no?

 

[FiveParadox]

It most certainly would; but as the prime minister would no longer have the power to recommend the appointment or dismissal of the ministers he leads, it would actually render the position of prime minister completely irrelevant. The position would no longer serve a constitutional purpose, as power would be evenly distributed between the ministers. (Let’s remember that the role of the prime minister is not actually legislated anywhere, it exists solely by constitutional convention; changes such as this have the power to render conventions deprecated.) You could have situations where ministers can’t even agree on a course of action to take, with each minister employing procedural tactics against the others. I don’t think that this would do anything to reduce partisanship in the House or to decentralise power.

 

[Machjo]

It most certainly would; but as the prime minister would no longer have the power to recommend the appointment or dismissal of the ministers he leads, it would actually render the position of prime minister completely irrelevant. The position would no longer serve a constitutional purpose, as power would be evenly distributed between the ministers. (Let’s remember that the role of the prime minister is not actually legislated anywhere, it exists solely by constitutional convention; changes such as this have the power to render conventions deprecated.) You could have situations where ministers can’t even agree on a course of action to take, with each minister employing procedural tactics against the others. I don’t think that this would do anything to reduce partisanship in the House or to decentralise power.

If this eliminates the position of Prime Minister, then perhaps when a decision must be made that involves the entire cabinet, a simple rule could be that they must vote on it with either 5 or a simple majority, whichever is the greater of the two, carries the vote.