Apr 03 2009
MP’s Should be Heard
In the Chatham-Kent area, I’m saying area because over the years the riding boundaries have changed many times. There have been many citizens who have ran for political office from school boards to Federal Government. Most ran because they thought they could make a difference. Of course there are some who run for selfish reasons.
I always find it interesting that candidates always say that they will stand up for the voters, that their voice will be heard. Generally that’s true on local school boards and in Municipal Government. Not so much in Provincial and Federal Governments.
We have had Doctors, business owners, farmers, teachers, lawyers, university educated and high school run. All brought value to the table. We may agree or disagree on their or their parties positions. We may have thought they were the best candidate but didn’t like their party or the leader of their party. We may have liked the party but not the candidate.
It must be a huge shock to find out when candidates get elected that if they are on the governments backbench that they are told what to say, when to say it, and that the leaders office provides your speaking notes. To some extent that applies to the opposition members as well although there is more of an effort to include new Members.
It’s time to rethink how parliament functions after all everyone was elected to represent a riding. We should have a system that allows Members the right to speak up on issues that affect their riding negativly regardless of party affiliation. They should be able to vote in the best interest of the riding or province or country without threats of sanction or expulsion from the party caucus. The opposition parties should be able to move admendments that would improve a piece of legislation with out the threat of an election. But it seems that it’s power that they seek not good government.
Check the comment section on election costs. A reader brought my attention to the amount of money the candidates can spend on elections at the local level. Currently candidates can spend up to $79,000 and if they receive 10% of the vote they get back 60% of their expenses. That means the tax payers are on the hook for $47,400. Many candidates run a campaign on less than $30,000 so why can’t everyone do that and save tax payer dollars.
I believe we can have a more effective Government by allowing full participation of elected Members. If we start looking for small savings they will add up and become a substantial amount over time.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:11 am
I’ve been reading “Losing Confidence: Power, Politics, and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy”, by E. May. Whether or not you are a fan of the Green Party, you will probably appreciate how she outlines how we got from “there to here”, about the history of our parliamentary democracy and first-past-the-post elections. One of the chapters very nicely discusses how MP’s used to ALL be independents with no party affiliation and with an equal voice, and how they have changed over recent years to silent backbenchers forced to toe the party line. How it happened and who did what is all included and documented.
Here’s a quote from the book, which speaks to this topic and hails back to the topic on the necessity of political parties.
“If I were inventing democracy from scratch I would not have invented political parties. In their current form, at their worst they represent an impediment to independent thought. Mindless partisanship insists on a team mentality. My team versus your team - at all times and in all circumstances. Political parties began innocently enough, but they are hardly an integral part of the business of democracy. The party system elevates the “leader” above the collective members of Parliament. And it shifts the focus of elections from who is the best candidate in a local area to who might be thte best prime minister. In 1861 when John Stuart Mill wrote “Considerations on Representative Government”, he did not even mention their existence. Political parties are not referred to in the Canadian Consitution, and until the 1960s, ballots did not identify to which political party a candidate belonged. Canadians voted for individuals. The role of parties was initially so minor that MPs moved from allegiance to allegiance. Sir John A. Macdonald referred to MPs as “loose fish”. Like many fish these days, independent-minded MPs are an endangered species.”
June 4th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
When I began reading your article, I was at first a bit dismayed for the reason that you said that local federal and provincial candidates say they will stick up for our community on issues. However, when I continued reading, I realized that it is the system itself that you were after, not the individuals. I agree, and I think that with the current system, it is very difficult for individual members to stick up for their riding, or go against the status quo. However, I question what the alternatives are: In the US, all I seem to hear about is lobbying and clauses on bills that have nothing to do with its original intention. What would be the result, if, at the provincial and federal level, politicians could be swayed one way or another on every vote? I also believe in the idea of representative democracy, and in that I mean that we are putting our trust in someone to make government decisions for us, which includes the party they represent. When we elect a Conservative MP, we know that the leader is Stephen Harper, and we should have an idea of the kinds of choices that will be made at that level.
To say that our local representative does not have any say in decisions that are made is also an exaggeration. Much of the real work going into the formation of bills is done at the committee level, not right down on the House floor. It is there that our local voices can be heard.
I can’t say I agree with the level of influence that we are having at the federal level right now, but democracy rules and our MP is the one who was chosen by the people. If you want Conservative, that’s what you get.
Democracy also rules at the federal level as well: What I mean is that what may not be a positive for the community, may be beneficial to others in this country. Think of the Atlantic Accords. These are the things that keep a country as massive and diverse as ours, together and fair.
-Thanks