Wednesday, April 13, 2005
In defense of David Kilgour
I'll be honest: I don't understand the level of ichor people seem to be feeling towards the poor guy these days. I mean, consider the following, from a recent Edmonton Journal editorial:
Yes, you read that right: the right thing. Suddenly, according to what was once the best daily in Canada, adhering to the dictates of your party over both those of your conscience and those of your constituents is the right thing. And to think, all this time I've been saying that MPs' tendencies to do so was what was wrong with the system.
It gets better:
Ignoring the Journal editorial board's apparent inability to distinguish between 134 votes and a margin of 134 votes, I rather object to the insinuation that's being made in the above paragraph. While it's true that he only won by 134 votes last time around, and while it's equally true that he came out (rightly) against the gun registry, the cause and effect implied by the Journal didn't exist. Or, rather, it did, but in reverse: Kilgour's inconsistency with the Liberal platform isn't what caused him to win by *only* 134 votes, it's what caused him to *win* by only 134 votes. His margin decreased not because the voters in his riding suddenly objected to his tendency to speak his mind even when it contradicted the mind (if you'll pardon the expression) of the day's Liberal leader, but rather because his riding's boundaries were adjusted to exclude a portion of the City of Edmonton that had been in his old riding (Edmonton-Southeast) and to include several areas outside of Edmonton, chiefly Beaumont. This shift of urban to non-urban had the automatic effect of making the riding less friendly to *any* Liberal.
Oh, but there's more:
Besides the fact that this sentence neatly sums up the bulk of what I hate about partisan politics, it's just plain not accurate in Kilgour's case. Alberta is so unfriendly to the federal Liberals that no Liberal can be elected unless he/she transcends party loyalties. Anne McLellan does so by virtue of being perceived as a heavy-hitter and therefore a useful advocate for her riding. David Kilgour does so (did so, rather) by being known more for his own beliefs and record than for that of his party. Certainly, he also pulled in the votes that would go to any candidate with the label "Liberal" after her/his name, but in Alberta that's just not that big a bloc. The voters of Edmonton-Millwoods-Beaumont voted Kilgour last time, not Liberal.
So if we accept that he's not breaking faith with his constituents by sitting, for the time being, as an independent (and if we do not accept this, we should go back an reread the first part of my post until we do), the question remains: shameless opportunism or principled stand?
To answer that question, let's begin by looking at Kilgour's past record. When he left the Tories in 1991, it was not of his own volition: he was kicked out after voting against the government's GST Bill, which was, unquestionably, not supported by either Kilgour's constituents or his conscience. Even after this vote, however, he stood prepared to stay in an increasingly unpopular P.C. caucus if it would have him (which, as it turned out, it wouldn't). That was not opportunism, except insofar as currying favour with one's constituents by voting that way they want you to is opportunism.
This time, things are different. This time, he left the Liberals voluntarily. And if it were simply a matter of adscam-breaks-Kilgour-flees, then maybe this would look like opportunism. But Kilgour has long been on the record as opposing at least ten points of government policy (most recently on February 8, when he sent a letter outlining his concerns to the Prime Minister). They are as follows:
1. Gay marriage: David Kilgour is against gay marriage, while government policy supports it.
2. Legalization of Marijuana: David Kilgour is against, government policy is for.
3. Air India Bombing: David Kilgour wants a public inquiry. The government has refused to order one.
4. Aid to Beef Farmers: David Kilgour feels that federal assistance has been insufficient.
5. Whistle-blower Protection: David Kilgour feels that federal legislation protecting whistle-blowers should be strengthened. The government has shown little or no inclination to do so.
6. Splitting of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The government is going ahead with this split (to separate policy and trade divisions) despite the House of Commons' defeat of the enabling legislation. David Kilgour considers this offensive.
7. Darfur: David Kilgour feels that Canada should play an integral role in ending this crises, through the provision of soldiers to any international force. The government has committed 31 peacekeepers.
8. Zimbabwe: David Kilgour feels that the government has been too reluctant to condemn what he calls "completely unfair" elections.
9. Foreign Aid: The government current allocates funds totaling less than 0.05% of the GDP to foreign aid. David Kilgour supports the allocation of at least 0.7% of the GDP to this purpose.
10. Suspension of the Project Facility Fund: David Kilgour opposes the government decision to suspend funding to NGOs from this fund.
Beyond this, he feels that standards of ethical conduct have been falling with successive Liberal governments. In short, he doesn't have confidence in the government. As such, it stands to reason that he cannot continue to sit in a caucus whose primary function is to uphold the government on confidence motions. I should think that's self-evident.
But back over to the Journal:
Ah, yes, "politics is a team game" - that favourite retort of those too intellectually lazy to substantiate arguments with more than slogans. But even if politics *is* a team sport, what do you do when you don't believe that your team is serving the best interests of your constituents? I should think that you change teams.
So good on you, David: you're wrong on gay marriage and pot, but I hope you get back in anyway. The absence of more MPs with your attitude towards party loyalty is the greatest single obstacle to democracy in Canada today.
|
I'll be honest: I don't understand the level of ichor people seem to be feeling towards the poor guy these days. I mean, consider the following, from a recent Edmonton Journal editorial:
If he can't bring himself to do the right thing and fight for his party, as loyal Liberals will, then he should take the only other honourable option and get out of politics all together.
Yes, you read that right: the right thing. Suddenly, according to what was once the best daily in Canada, adhering to the dictates of your party over both those of your conscience and those of your constituents is the right thing. And to think, all this time I've been saying that MPs' tendencies to do so was what was wrong with the system.
It gets better:
In the last days of the June 2004 campaign. . . Kilgour suddenly came out swinging against the gun registry, a central Liberal policy. His voters registered some discontent in that vote. Kilgour squeaked by with only 134 votes.
Ignoring the Journal editorial board's apparent inability to distinguish between 134 votes and a margin of 134 votes, I rather object to the insinuation that's being made in the above paragraph. While it's true that he only won by 134 votes last time around, and while it's equally true that he came out (rightly) against the gun registry, the cause and effect implied by the Journal didn't exist. Or, rather, it did, but in reverse: Kilgour's inconsistency with the Liberal platform isn't what caused him to win by *only* 134 votes, it's what caused him to *win* by only 134 votes. His margin decreased not because the voters in his riding suddenly objected to his tendency to speak his mind even when it contradicted the mind (if you'll pardon the expression) of the day's Liberal leader, but rather because his riding's boundaries were adjusted to exclude a portion of the City of Edmonton that had been in his old riding (Edmonton-Southeast) and to include several areas outside of Edmonton, chiefly Beaumont. This shift of urban to non-urban had the automatic effect of making the riding less friendly to *any* Liberal.
Oh, but there's more:
Switching sides in a fundamental sense breaks faith with electors who voted for the party as much as for the MP's personal representation.
Besides the fact that this sentence neatly sums up the bulk of what I hate about partisan politics, it's just plain not accurate in Kilgour's case. Alberta is so unfriendly to the federal Liberals that no Liberal can be elected unless he/she transcends party loyalties. Anne McLellan does so by virtue of being perceived as a heavy-hitter and therefore a useful advocate for her riding. David Kilgour does so (did so, rather) by being known more for his own beliefs and record than for that of his party. Certainly, he also pulled in the votes that would go to any candidate with the label "Liberal" after her/his name, but in Alberta that's just not that big a bloc. The voters of Edmonton-Millwoods-Beaumont voted Kilgour last time, not Liberal.
So if we accept that he's not breaking faith with his constituents by sitting, for the time being, as an independent (and if we do not accept this, we should go back an reread the first part of my post until we do), the question remains: shameless opportunism or principled stand?
To answer that question, let's begin by looking at Kilgour's past record. When he left the Tories in 1991, it was not of his own volition: he was kicked out after voting against the government's GST Bill, which was, unquestionably, not supported by either Kilgour's constituents or his conscience. Even after this vote, however, he stood prepared to stay in an increasingly unpopular P.C. caucus if it would have him (which, as it turned out, it wouldn't). That was not opportunism, except insofar as currying favour with one's constituents by voting that way they want you to is opportunism.
This time, things are different. This time, he left the Liberals voluntarily. And if it were simply a matter of adscam-breaks-Kilgour-flees, then maybe this would look like opportunism. But Kilgour has long been on the record as opposing at least ten points of government policy (most recently on February 8, when he sent a letter outlining his concerns to the Prime Minister). They are as follows:
1. Gay marriage: David Kilgour is against gay marriage, while government policy supports it.
2. Legalization of Marijuana: David Kilgour is against, government policy is for.
3. Air India Bombing: David Kilgour wants a public inquiry. The government has refused to order one.
4. Aid to Beef Farmers: David Kilgour feels that federal assistance has been insufficient.
5. Whistle-blower Protection: David Kilgour feels that federal legislation protecting whistle-blowers should be strengthened. The government has shown little or no inclination to do so.
6. Splitting of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The government is going ahead with this split (to separate policy and trade divisions) despite the House of Commons' defeat of the enabling legislation. David Kilgour considers this offensive.
7. Darfur: David Kilgour feels that Canada should play an integral role in ending this crises, through the provision of soldiers to any international force. The government has committed 31 peacekeepers.
8. Zimbabwe: David Kilgour feels that the government has been too reluctant to condemn what he calls "completely unfair" elections.
9. Foreign Aid: The government current allocates funds totaling less than 0.05% of the GDP to foreign aid. David Kilgour supports the allocation of at least 0.7% of the GDP to this purpose.
10. Suspension of the Project Facility Fund: David Kilgour opposes the government decision to suspend funding to NGOs from this fund.
Beyond this, he feels that standards of ethical conduct have been falling with successive Liberal governments. In short, he doesn't have confidence in the government. As such, it stands to reason that he cannot continue to sit in a caucus whose primary function is to uphold the government on confidence motions. I should think that's self-evident.
But back over to the Journal:
Kilgour's seeming inability to play on any team is getting tiresome and unproductive.
Ah, yes, "politics is a team game" - that favourite retort of those too intellectually lazy to substantiate arguments with more than slogans. But even if politics *is* a team sport, what do you do when you don't believe that your team is serving the best interests of your constituents? I should think that you change teams.
So good on you, David: you're wrong on gay marriage and pot, but I hope you get back in anyway. The absence of more MPs with your attitude towards party loyalty is the greatest single obstacle to democracy in Canada today.
