Where Have the Reformers Gone?--An Open Letter to Jay Hill

Dear Mr. Hill,

I have always been encouraged by your efforts to communicate effectively with your constituents and your attempts to explain the policies and practices of the Conservative Party. I write to you today, however, because I have become increasingly discouraged by your active role in the Conservative Party’s strict enforcement of party discipline and the hampering of MP’s ability to faithfully represent their constituents. In particular, I am worried by the recent reports of your hand in the manipulation of Parliamentary committees and your attempts to silence those who might disagree with the positions of the Conservative Party.

I understand that as Chief Government Whip you spend a great deal of your time and energy ensuring that Conservative MPs are present and voting in line with the wishes of the Prime Minister. Your position in Ottawa makes you responsible for pressuring MPs into towing the Conservative Party line and threatens them with diminished status within the party if they step out of line.

However, recent reports show that you presented Conservative chairs of Commons committees with top-down direction on how to make certain that your party’s agenda was tightly followed. These Conservative chairs were encouraged to interrupt or walk out of meetings and systematically block the work of MPs from other parties. It appears, therefore, that the Conservative Party is not only enforcing strong party discipline, but also seeking to tightly control the Commons committees—one of the very few places in Ottawa where there has traditionally been less concern for partisan bickering and more weight placed upon the truly important issues. Now, it appears that your excessive partisanship is fueling more division between MPs and more distraction from the important issues.

This top-down control within the Conservative Party is very troubling. It is troubling because it does not allow MPs to faithfully and accurately represent their constituents when in Ottawa. Instead, MPs must be very careful to walk in step with the Conservative Party leadership and vote precisely how the Conservative Party leadership tells them to vote. Further, it is even more troubling that you represented us as a member of the Reform Party for a number of years—a party that strongly criticized the Liberals for not allowing MPs to truly represent their constituents in the House of Commons. Indeed, when it was the official opposition, the Reform Party wrote a draft bill that reflected this principled opposition to excessive party discipline. It stated, “In order to better represent the interests of their constituents, the Members of the House of Commons shall be entitled to vote for or against all Bills and motions and all amendments to Bills and motions free of party discipline….” As a former Reformer turned Green, I am concerned that you have abandoned this important and principled policy in favour of political power and prestige.

During his years in the Reform Party, Preston Manning was very upset by the excessive partisanship of party whips. He spoke of the control a whip such as yourself has over MPs and how corrosive this can be within our democracy. For example, he said, “The occupants of these seats are not speaking on behalf of constituents, but are representing the view held by their party. These MPs are bound by the discipline of their party to present the party's point of view. That is how things like the GST get shoved through in spite of massive popular opposition.” It seems Mr. Manning’s warning hold true today more than ever.

I fear you have abandoned this vital Reform policy that was essential for the representation of westerners in Ottawa and the health of Canada’s democracy. Therefore, I ask that you please describe your duties as the enforcer of strong party discipline, clarify your part in the top-down control of Parliamentary committees, and explain how this role within the Harper government could be understood to be in keeping with the Reform tradition.

Sincerely,

Jared Giesbrecht
Green Party Candidate Elect
Prince George – Peace River

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We may not always free MPs to put riding interest first.

Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
While in a partyless society we would hope that each MP would concern herself with the interests and views of her riding, yet even then we would insist that the interests of teh country and the planet have to take precedence over the views of the riding, and even take precedence over the opinions of the EDA executive.

Not all decisons should be made at the riding level. Rather we have political parties to focus country wide attention on issues of concern to all of us, and to all the earth,. We would not wish to imply that the Green Party will never impose party discipline to achieve Green objectives.

More directly we do support the premise that a political party should impose party discipline after the caucus has deliberated and come to a near-concensus position. We should be extremely cautious of imposing a doctrine approved by a simple majority. The risk that we are on the wrong track is too great when there is not a prepondrance of opinion. Even when there is a preponderance of opinion we should still seek out the reasons behind a minority opinion. Minorities too can be right.

THe cabinet (or Shadow Cabinet will have a powerful influence. They should not allow themselves to ride roughshod over a caucus minority opinion, attempting to suppress its expression. But cabinet or shadow cabinet should be expected to call for a vote if it appears that the caucus will otherwise be deadlocked despite a solid near concensus.

From outside of a caucus it is very difficult to know whether anyone is riding roughshod over minority opinions. We should leave it to caucus members to complain of that. But in politically loaded comittees, parties often get no better than they give.

Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)

Preston Manning would be ashamed

Well put, Jared.

I disagreed politically with the Reform Party, but I respectfully disagreed with them. Preston Manning is an honourable man who truly believes in grassroots democracy. He and Stephen Harper strongly disagreed on this subject, with Harper believing Preston was naive to have so much faith in common citizens. I assume that Preston Manning would be ashamed of Harper's style of governance.

*********************
Jay Fitzsimmons
Ottawa Centre, ON

********************* Jay Fitzsimmons Ottawa Centre