by MPs have three main duties: legislating in Parliament, representing their riding and political party, and serving their constituents’ needs. BUT….
Whether or not an MP or other representative has an obligation to reply to their constituents’ messages…a good question!!
In fact, a court case back in 2009 saw a constituent claiming that his MP hadn’t done enough to help him — she’d eventually stopped responding to his letters. The judge returned a ruling that MPs have ‘no duty to their constituents’.!! (Thank goodness this was a British case…. but……does it not have effect here in Canada? One has to
wonder!! It appears that it does…please read on!)
Is my request (supported with VALIDATION) to correct a critical operational management deficiency by the Federal Government in power (defective risk management causing financial/economic and social damages to the citizens of Canada,) exempt the Official Opposition Party from considering corrective active (received from a Canadian citizen,) at its discretion and in particular ignoring such request?
Another question…. Should citizens have to resort to “litigation” to have proper representation by both the Federal Government and more importantly by the official opposition party whose role IS to keep the government accountable? (There is professional/legal argument that the “Official Opposition Party” members (or any MP) are acting in a fiduciary position with respect to representing a constituent (and/or a citizen) but why should the financial cost and inconvenience fall on the shoulder of the innocent citizen who needs protection from these “institutions”?
While the position of the Auditor General concentrates on the stewardship or financial “accountability” by the Government in power there is absolutely no recourse whatsoever for defective or complete lack of representation by the ‘Official Opposition” in discharging any matter that appears that fiduciary relationship may be present to
citizens at large. The election (or re-election process is completely inadequate in correcting the noted situation.)
Furthermore, it is quite evident that the political party system (opposition parties) form what are known as “Shadow Cabinets,” which mirror Cabinet.
Shadow ministers (generally referred to as opposition critics) supposedly hold the government to account, offering alternative policy, and expressing their party’s position and message. This has absolutely nothing to do with continuing (current) valid citizen complaints, validated observations left unattended by these self-serving “opposition parties” …hence the “gap” to be filled by an ombudsman to satisfy valid citizens’ complaints and observations.
The volume of validated information and observations submitted to the Prime Minister by myself and supported with extensive evidence has been totally ignored by first, the Prime Minister, secondly by a responsible PC “shadow cabinet minister” and lastly by the Leader of the Official Opposition; none of whom had the courtesy (and more probable, lacked the necessary technical knowledge) of even responding with exception of acknowledging receipt of the representations.
The corrective action requested from the official opposition Party was to request the involvement of the Auditor General in the process of reviewing my submission; the position would undoubtedly have the technical expertise to evaluate the submission and respond with direction to the government for corrective action indicated in my
submission.
The lack of proactive risk management by the Trudeau government has been ignored by the PC “Official Opposition” even though it has been totally informed by myself of the issues and supported with validation (some 25 “Exhibits” as you will note from the submission to PM Trudeau).
The attempts to have the Official Opposition involved in this matter are graphically demonstrated below:
(To be noted the Federal Government has not structured an “ombudsman” concept but some individual Federal Government departments have. The CRA is one of those departments).
Look above this to the Queen’s Privy Council and their oath… they are basically a mafia and they probably laugh at us all thinking there is anything resembling a democracy in Canada.
https://indiemediaeastcoastcanada.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-privy-council-oath-monarchy-mafia.html
Resorting to litigation to have proper representation by a provincial MLA or Federal MP will not result in anything positive. Refer to the Littlechild case in Alberta , whereby an Albert MP, LittleChild, was taken to court by his constituents who claimed that the MP failed to represent their views on proposed GST legislation.
The judge struck down the case citing that the court is not the place to bring those concerns, but they can exercise their voice through their vote.
The judge also went on to say: “ I know of no
legal duty on an elected representative at any level of government to
consult with his constituents or determine their views. While such an
obligation may generally be considered desirable, there is no legal
requirement. I adopt the quotation from the trial in the Roman Corporation
case, where he said:
“It is of the essence of our parliament system of government that our
elected representatives should be able to perform their duties courageously
and resolutely in what they consider to be the best interests of Canada,
free from any worry of being called to account anywhere except in
parliament.”
No surprise, Wilfrid. Spent years qualifying in strategic risk management for international business, ethics and practice, due diligence and scenarios planning risk management for research commercialization. This has been a key weakness in Canada’s China Policy for decades.
Trudeau government doesn’t seem to hire people with the necessary qualifications in finance or international trade to mitigate risk even at the ministerial levels. That would prevent the endless pork barrels of borrowed tax dollars such as seen with We Charity, SNC Lavalin, EDC, and other federal commercial corporations. Trudeau’s friends since high school also seem under endowed with ERM qualifications.
Solid risk management would prevent NYC ENGOs or groups like UN, World Economic Forum or the Davos group from occupying or taking over federal departments such as Canada’s DFAIT. Any qualified christian white male peoplekind who point out these deficiencies in ERM are likely called “born racists.” Otoole seems quite weak on China policy as well. Probably doesn’t want to be called a “born racist.”
Until the Supreme Court or specific legislation deals with this matter, I prefer to take into consideration Lindsay Aagaard’s (a lawyer and Public Policy Professional) analysis as an expressed need for effecting “fiduciary duty” and to finalizing the question; not a lower court to the Supreme Court whose decision is not definity by any means on this issue.
“They have no legal requirement to consult with voters. They are accountable to Parliament.” – Court of Queen’s Bench Alberta
Here is additional supportive rationale for CHANGE… which is the real issue that I have raised (…other citizens need to “speak out”) which is also what I have done!
Wilfred J Pelletier CPA CMA; FMA