Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

Our freedoms of belief, conscience expression, and thought are of little value if they do not lead to robust public debate on all issues relevant to our society


Political parties are intent on using pollsters, and focus groups, to measure the mood of the public and intently scrutinize results to see how it might affect policies they adopt.  Fair enough … governments and opposition parties are elected to serve the people, but with 338 elected members in the House of Commons, one would expect that they have a finger on the pulse of the public they serve.  However, we should be wary of political parties being heavily influenced by polling results, rather then listening to their representatives.

That leads to a second problem … risk aversion. Political parties are wary of any policy or political decision that might cost them support and votes. One group they are concerned with though are the voices of lobbyists and pressure groups – the ones that do not represent mainstream society. Their fear of minorities leads to risk aversion and increases paralysis. The reverse is also true as politicians seem to be serving the interests of minorities rather than the mainstream.

The third indicator is a universal fear of controversy, which leads to censorship; controversial issues are shunned. When Liberal backbencher Iqra Khalid tabled motion M-103 (the anti-islamophobia motion) many were surprised that the Liberal Party came out in full support.  The Motion was controversial and had stirred considerable debate in the media, and in public. As long as the motion was before the House of Commons, controversy would continue. By supporting the motion and getting it passed, the government effectively stifled debate and is under no obligation to act on the Motion. The Motion will now gather dust.

The same tactic was used to deal with pipeline construction. Energy East was choked off by the government continually raising the bar for construction approval. Eventually investors and contractors withdrew, tired of silly games and took billion in investments with them. Trans Mountain proved more difficult, so the government bought it.  Now it seems there is no visible plan for completing the extension, or for removing the regulatory chaos that led to frivolous law suits and legal chaos.     


The forth factor is a ‘them and us’ mentality, where copious energy and time is devoted to battling other political parties rather than serving the public. Governments are secretive, pretending that they are plotting again their opponents. They have forgotten that they are in the legislature, or parliament to represent Canadians, not to play war games with one another.   

Our freedoms of belief, conscience, expression and thought are of little value if they do not lead to robust public debate on all issues relevant to our society. No one, nor any group should be able to dominate debate and discussion of any issue.

That is of particular significance in our legislatures and parliament. Every MLA, MNA, MP and MPP must have a full voice in his or her party, and in the legislature or parliament they are elected to. That is why they are there … to represent the people who elected them, not to carry out the plans of the governing cabinet or party officials. They exist to guard against legislation which is not in the interests of all Canadians, and to offer better solutions to problems our governments face.

There can be no back-benchers in a democratic government. If we allow division of representatives, we fail democracy. Appointment to a cabinet post is not an appointment to power; it is an appointment to specific responsibility in governance along with the duties and accountability for that office.

Forming a government does not include a Royal prerogative. We took care of that nonsense 800 years ago with enactment of the Magna Carta.

John Feldsted
Political Consultant & Strategist
Winnipeg, Manitoba

Comments

  1. I only disagree with the 'Magna Carta' line. The nobility managed to get a meagre bit of power away from the king and to this day, we still work to pay a monarch. Our freedom is far from carrying the guarantees of our southern neighbours. That said, we have the ability to shrug off the chains, just not the determination.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We still work to pay the government for sure -- and it's more and more every year. That's because the majority don't want to shrug off their chains -- or at least they don't understand and realize that the more they demand of government, the more they'll take from us in taxes and fees.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

RCMP gag order comes after BC NDP catch heat for diverted safe supply (Northern Beat)

In the wake of several high-profile police drug seizures of suspected safer supply that put the BC NDP government on the defensive last month, BC RCMP “E” division issued a gag order on detachments, directing them to run all communications on “hot button” public safety issues through headquarters in the lead-up to the provincial election. “It is very clear we are in a pre-election time period and the topic of ‘public safety’ is very much an issue that governments and voters are discussing,” writes a senior RCMP communications official in an email dated Mar. 11 in what appears to have gone out to all BC RCMP detachments . . . . CLICK HERE for the full story

KRUGELL: BC NDP turns its attention from BC United to BC Conservatives

The BC NDP turning its attention, from BC United, to BC Conservatives was reported over the weekend from a variety of sources. It is the result of the surge in the BC Conservative's polling numbers and the subsequent collapse of BC United. The NDP has largely ignored the BC Conservatives, instead they opt to talk about issues directly or attack their old foes BC United. Practical politics says that parties closer to the centre tend to ultimately prevail over the long haul. They do wane but often make comebacks. A good example is the federal Liberals going from third party to government in 2015. Centrism has a lot of appeal on voting day. The NDP shifting its fire from United to Conservative is a reflection of reality. BC United did buy advertising online and radio over the last few months. Did that shift the polls back to them? Nope. The reality is today, the BC Conservatives are the party of the Opposition, and day by day the Conservatives are looking like a party not ready to fig

Baldrey: 2024 meets 1991? How B.C. election history could repeat itself (Times Colonist)

NOTE ... not the original image from Keith Baldrey's op/ed 1991 BC general election -- Wikipedia   A veteran NDP cabinet minister stopped me in the legislature hallway last week and revealed what he thinks is the biggest vulnerability facing his government in the fall provincial election. It’s not housing, health care, affordability or any of the other hot button issues identified by pollsters. "I think we are way too complacent,” he told me. “Too many people on our side think winning elections are easy.” He referenced the 1991 election campaign as something that could repeat itself. What was supposed to be an easy NDP victory then almost turned into an upset win for the fledgling BC Liberal Party. Indeed, the parallels between that campaign and the coming fall contest are striking ... CLICK HERE for the full story

Labels

Show more