"Reformers believe that the duty of elected members to their constituents should come before their obligation to their party."
– 56 Reasons Why You Should Support the Reform Party of Canada
Hello Stephen Harper! Do you remember drafting and supporting this statement? The principle of a more open government, not just allowing but obligating members to represent their constituents, was one of the founding principles of the Reform Party of Canada, of which Prime Minister Stephen Harper was one of the leading organizers.
So what has happened to our democratic principles, not just in Parliament but also in our Alberta Legislature over the past several years? In the Alberta Legislature under the recently departed Premier Klein, there was much more open communication. Premier Klein especially was very outspoken. I’m not sure if it was on behalf of his constituents, but he certainly was candid in his remarks.
In the last Legislature under both premiers Stelmach and Redford I personally was often branded a maverick for my frequent attempts to speak on behalf of constituents, on both mundane as well as controversial subjects. In my very first month I introduced a Private Members Bill on fixed elections, which I was told quite directly to withdraw because the premier did not support it. Later when I found that the premier had not issued the directive to withdraw the bill – it was his henchmen – I resisted and stood by my rights. It was introduced but on the direction of the party whip was hoisted in second reading and died on the order paper. Ironically, most of the principles in that bill have now been adopted.
So where is this all going? What is the purpose of a Private Members Bill, or a non-government resolution? Neither expresses the opinion of the government or holds the government to account. Are backbenchers elected to be puppets for the leader? Are the benevolent dictatorships in our houses of parliament just the tip of the iceberg? Are we destined to be governed by a small select group of insiders, or worse yet by a caucus of one? Why do we stand back and allow a single individual to have so much control over our destiny? Is this democracy?
It is interesting to compare our system with that of our neighbour to the south. I was amazed in the new year’s debate on the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’ in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives that there was no party discipline. Each senator/representative voted his conscience, or more likely expressed the voice of lobbyists, resulting in absolute chaos in a crisis situation. Surely there must be room for a happy medium between the U.S. free-vote system and our whipped control of even the most mundane issues.
I have always felt that it was a responsibility of elected leaders to speak out on issues and express ideas on even the most controversial subjects in order to stimulate debate and encourage meaningful discussion. But that does not seem to be the case anymore. Leaders are ostracized for speaking out and debate is stifled. That, in my opinion, is not healthy; we need more openness and freedom of expression at all levels. Like they say, there is no such thing as a dumb question. If one person questions something, there are bound to be others who have the same concerns. It seems that municipal government remains the only bastion of democracy in Canada!
Ken Allred is a former alderman and MLA for St. Albert.
