Vancouver Province
for January 17, 2002

If there is one thing Canadians coast to coast must agree upon it’s that they’ve utterly lost the House of Commons. Members of Parliament, on the government side particularly, do precisely as they are told. From the time we nominate candidates, if we’re members of a party, on, we are participating in a gigantic fraud called the Canadian system of governance. All power, every last soupcon, is exercised by the Prime Minister as advised by shadowy appointed hacks. Even the RCMP, the world recognized symbol of Canada, is now under the political control of Mr Chretien. The MP has no power – it follows, then, that neither does the citizen.

What can be done?

Nothing – unless the House of Commons, with hitherto undetected moral fibre, rises to the occasion and takes its powers back.

To accomplish a Commons coup d’etat is simplicity itself. No constitutional amendments are required. It only takes one statutory amendment and two Commons rules.

Let me quickly run by two of the steps so I can deal with the third.

The Canada Election Act must be amended so that a party leader no longer can prevent a duly nominated candidate from running on the party ticket.

Commons rules must be amended so that only backbenchers can name members of Committees and so chairmen are selected by the Committee itself.

Now let’s talk about something radical – although when you think about it, it’s hard to believe that a secret ballot in what’s supposed to be a democracy could be labeled "radical". I propose this – upon the vote of 30% of the House of Commons, any vote taken shall be by secret ballot.

Think of what this would mean. The end of strict party discipline, no less than that.

The usual objection is "I want to know how my MP voted". Think how ridiculous that objection is. You know how your MP is going to vote – as he is told. Every single time he will toe the line. If he doesn’t he’ll be tossed out of caucus strictly on the leader’s say-so.

Think what the advantage would be. The rule would never have to be used, for what government would dare bring in legislation that its members, despite of their assurances in caucus, could privately consider, on the basis of their own good judgment, their conscience and – are you ready for this – the interests and wishes of their constituents?

Why 30%? It’s just taken out of the air. It must be less than 50% or the purpose would be defeated. If it’s much less than 30% it might not be used thoughtfully.

Why do we so fear a secret ballot? Because we want Parliament’s business done out in the open? This is precisely the way that can be accomplished. The government’s business today is not even done behind cabinet closed doors much less by parliament but out of the Prime Minister’s Office. The potential for a secret ballot in the House of Commons would mean that legislation must be thoroughly aired by the government caucus before being tabled in the House in order that their loyalty can be counted upon. Because the government would court defeat of any measure not first fully tested in principle by caucus it would mean that better legislation would get to the floor of the Commons.

I would go further. The Commons, which formally recognizes political parties, should require that before any member is expelled by his caucus, he have a full caucus hearing and, again, a secret ballot.

The secret ballot – hasn’t its time come for the MP as well as the voter?