By Alex Marland
Some people have a greater awareness of how government works, or of what democracy entails. The following primer about the nuts and bolts of politics and public administration is offered to assist readers with their comprehension of democratic government in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Context
In many ways, Newfoundland and Labrador’s democracy is outstanding, given the relative accessibility of the political elite and the government’s general responsiveness to public demands. It has come a long way from the political corruption and dire financial circumstances that led to protestors storming the Colonial Building in 1932 and ultimately the Commission of Government era, a period from 1934 to 1949 that entailed a ruling council comprised of a governor, three British commissioners, and three Newfoundland commissioners. Elections were put on hold throughout that period — an unusual case of the people’s elected representatives voluntarily relinquishing democratic government. It would be misguided to assume that the prospects of bankruptcy, or the reasons for it, were all that was wrong.
The Commission observed many embedded problems with governance such as the expectation of religious discrimination in the setting of electoral districts, in making appointments to cabinet, and during hiring in the public service. In the ensuing decades, power was concentrated in Premier Joey Smallwood and the provincial Liberal Party, and it is widely understood that he operated a “one-man government.”2 Other charismatic men — principally Brian Peckford, Clyde Wells, Brian Tobin, and Danny Williams — followed suit. The influence of religious institutions persisted well into the
1990s, with churches administering the denominational school system, a matter that was settled after two divisive referendums. Government is now a large, professional organization compared with its former self, and yet chronic challenges persist.
In other ways, Newfoundland and Labrador’s system of government is sorely in need of repair. In recent years considerable political and financial instability has constituted problems with the system itself, rather than with
any given individual(s). It is a vicious circle: electors reward leaders who respond to public demands, yet short-term thinking results in inefficiencies and inequity, leading to crisis and civil unrest. The upheaval undermines public confidence in government institutions and political leaders. And these are only the big-picture issues that the public knows about!
Warning: Democracy Is Messy
Reformers should bear in mind that everyone seems to love democracy and despise politics. A large gap exists between expectations for democracy and the realities of what it delivers. A sizable number of citizens are disengaged, with many Canadians seeing themselves as outsiders. As much as people might like the idealism of democracy, the struggle for power and influence inevitably results in a clash of opposing interests and frustration with systems and processes.
At the simplest level, a democratic system of government involves little more than the following: non-violent elections, a legitimate choice of options, citizens having the ability to determine who should be in power, and voters electing people to represent them in a legislature. Since Newfoundland and Labrador joined Canada in 1949, provincial elections have been held every four years or so as citizens elect people to represent them in the House of Assembly, from which an executive is formed. The province’s election campaigns may get heated, but they are bloodless affairs, and when a change of government occurs it is a peaceful transition. This does not necessarily mean that smooth governing will result, as captured by the brilliant title of Telegram reporter James McLeod’s book, Turmoil as Usual, within which he summarizes absurd situations that contributed to the latest bout of political instability.
Is democracy as we experience it really the best that Newfoundland and Labrador can do? Are our democratic expectations practical and grounded? The truth is that democracy is highly problematic wherever it is practised. While few citizens are familiar with the theories of democracy in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Hobbes, among others, much can be learned from them, as well as comparatively newer material and ways of thinking. Readers of classical and more recent theorists quickly learn democracy can be messy. The problems are nicely captured by Winston Churchill’s famous quip that democracy is the worst form of government — except for all the others. It is better than the alternative of authoritarianism or totalitarianism, but again, it is messy, as American political scientist John Mueller emphasizes:
. . . democracy has characteristically produced societies that have been humane, flexible, productive, and vigorous, and
under this system leaders have somehow emerged who — at least in comparison with your average string of kings or czars or dictators — have generally been responsive, responsible, able, and dedicated. On the other hand, democracy didn’t come out looking the way many theorists and idealists imagined it could or should. It has been characterized by
a great deal of unsightly and factionalized squabbling by self-interested, short-sighted people and groups, and its
policy outcomes have often been the result of a notably unequal contest over who could most adroitly pressure and
manipulate the system. Even more distressingly, the citizenry seems disinclined to display anything remotely resembling
the deliberative qualities many theorists have been inclined to see as a central requirement for the system to work properly.
Indeed, far from becoming the attentive, if unpolished, public policy wonks espoused in many of the theories and images,
real people in real democracies often display an almost monumental lack of political interest and knowledge. . . . But it must be acknowledged that democracy is, and always will be, distressingly messy, clumsy and disorderly, and that in it
people are permitted loudly and irritatingly to voice opinions that are clearly erroneous and even dangerous. Moreover,
decision making in democracies is often muddled, incoherent, and slow, and the results are sometimes exasperatingly foolish, short-sighted, irrational, and incoherent.
There is also widespread disagreement among scholars and citizens about the determinants and forms of democracy, as well as the many variables involved with good governance. For example, some of the contributors in this volume point to the importance of increased education and decolonization in providing the foundation for a better democracy. However, international research finds statistical evidence that a more vibrant democratic ethos is most strongly correlated with a higher standard of living, as measured through economic indicators such as per capita GDP. On this basis, the idealism of The Democracy Cookbook must be weighed against pragmatism and the need for strong leadership to achieve the art of the possible.
Who Are the Main Public Officials in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Descriptions of a democratic system typically emphasize institutions, namely the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Instead, let us begin by identifying who the key political actors are, and situate where
they fit within the government system.9 The provincial system’s key actors are identified in Figure 3.1 and are described below.
Newfoundland and Labrador’s system of parliamentary government revolves around the ability of citizens to elect representatives. A Member of the House of Assembly (MHA) is one of 40 people elected to the provincial legislature, which is located in the Confederation Building in St. John’s. Each MHA represents the residents who live in one of the 40 constituencies drawn on an electoral map of the province. There are 36 ridings on the Island of Newfoundland and four in Labrador.
All systems for electing representatives are problematic. The single-member plurality method of electing MHAs is routinely criticized. The candidate with the highest number of votes wins the seat, in a method commonly known as first-past-the-post — similar to how a racehorse who crosses the finish line first is the winner, except that in this electoral system there is no reward for placing second. To some, this creates a problem when a number of close races are won by the same party and weaker parties are shut out. As a result, the governing party tends to be over-represented in the House of Assembly and opposition parties are under-represented, particularly small parties whose support is spread across many electoral districts. Supporters count stability and simplicity among the strengths of the first-past-
the-post system. A further issue is that the composition of the legislature, as elsewhere in Canada, is not sufficiently representative of the socio-demographic characteristics of those being governed. Though things have been improving, most obviously women have been under-represented in the House of Assembly, as well as in the executive branch and the judiciary.
Another important aspect of elections is party finance. The rules for donating monies to political parties or candidates, and how money is spent by them and by others (e.g., interest groups, businesses, labour unions, private individuals), have been changing in other provinces. In Newfoundland and Labrador the political parties have displayed little interest in discussing reform, which is exactly why it must be discussed.
Most candidates and MHAs are affiliated with one of three provincial political parties: the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party (NDP), or the Progressive Conservative (PC) Party. Since 1949, provincial governance has alternated between the Liberals and PCs, with the NDP perpetually the third party. An outsider might think that the PCs are right-wing (i.e., supporters of small government and traditional values), the NDP left-wing (i.e., advocates of big government and progressive values), with the Liberals straddling the political centre. In fact, by national standards, all three parties are more likely to huddle to the centre/centre-left on the ideological spectrum. The politics of Newfoundland and Labrador is a mix of traditional and socially progressive values, and above all resistance to free market forces in favour of big government, particularly if that involves securing funding from Ottawa. In many ways, the province’s politics are a homogeneous monolith, such that “it is often difficult to distinguish Newfoundland parties in policy space.” Where the parties differ is their relationship with their federal cousins. The Liberals and NDP are deeply connected to the national parties that bear the same name, which means they share resources and often copy federal party policies, to the point that the provincial party is almost an arm of the national counterpart. Conversely, the Conservative Party of Canada, as constituted in 2004, has no formalized link with any provincial political party and some of its libertarian policies are shunned in Canada’s easternmost province. Certainly there are connections between it and the provincial PC Party, but these are not as strong as federal–provincial connections among the other parties.
Whatever their party, members who are elected to represent an urbanized area such as St. John’s are likely to represent the highest number of constituents. MHAs in rural areas, particularly Labrador, have fewer constituents spread across a large land mass. On the floor of the House of Assembly, members are seated together by political party. Those with additional responsibilities, such as party leaders and ministers, are seated at the front of their respective groupings. Those with the least responsibility are seated behind them and are thus known as backbenchers. The role of an MHA is varied but typically involves helping constituents get access to government services, attending local events, listening to
concerns, delivering statements in the House of Assembly, voting on bills, and communicating through the media. A constituency assistant helps each MHA with electoral district issues and sometimes works out of a constituency office in the riding.
Electing people to the House of Assembly is designed to ensure that the delegates of the King or Queen of Canada do not make government decisions without considering the views of the people. The Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador is the person appointed at the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada to represent the Crown’s interests in the province. At a glance, the position hearkens to the British governor who oversaw the earlier Commission of Government. A lieutenant governor holds formal powers of appointing a premier to recommend a cabinet, granting royal assent so that a bill may become law, assenting to the decisions of the cabinet to create Orders of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, proroguing a session of the legislature, and signing a writ of election. The Canadian custom is that lieutenant governors rubber-stamp what is asked, and rise above political debate by concentrating on ceremonial duties. This includes reading the Speech from the Throne, handing out awards and medals, and hosting an annual tea party that is
open to the public at Government House in St. John’s.
The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is appointed by the lieutenant governor to head up the government, based on which party controls the most seats in the legislature. This occurs after a general election, unless a premier leaves the office before then, prompting the appointment of a successor. The premier is also the leader of the political party that controls the House of Assembly, and he or she, therefore, is expected to be an MHA. This individual alone recommends who to appoint to cabinet, who to demote, and who to shuffle out. Thus, it is foremost the premier who steers the shape and direction of government, with the support of political staff in the Premier’s Office, who are partisan appointments. Political power is primarily concentrated in this single individual, both a strength and weakness of parliamentary models of democracy.
The Premier’s Office also has access to astute non-partisans in the Cabinet Secretariat and Communications Branch, among others. The most senior public servant is the Clerk of the Executive Council, who serves at the pleasure of the premier and is in constant contact with senior officials throughout government. The clerk navigates implementation of the premier’s political agenda as well as requests emanating from departments.
A cabinet minister is a person appointed to be a member of the Executive Council of government. All ministers are members of the party that controls the legislature and almost always are MHAs. Ministers are assigned responsibility for portfolios, including a government department and/or government agencies. This means that they spend time overseeing
their department while also having a presence in the legislature and dealing with constituent concerns. Their oversight of a department is much more hands-on than is the case with an arm’s-length agency such as a Crown corporation, which faces competitive pressures in a private-sector marketplace.
Collectively, as a cabinet, ministers make broad decisions, whether in cabinet committees or in full cabinet meetings. Individually, as ministers, they are responsible for their own portfolios. As a group they are faced with balancing the needs of the province as a whole with the needs of their political party. By convention ministers must publicly support each other and vote with the government or else they must resign from cabinet. An outcome of the cabinet being embedded in the legislature is that this instills strict party discipline on backbenchers in the governing party, who
are expected to vote with the government. Each minister is supported by political staff and by non-partisan public servants in the department. Just as the premier works with the clerk of the Executive Council, a minister works with a deputy minister, who is the deputy head of the respective department. The clerk and deputy ministers (DMs) carry out their duties in a non-partisan manner, though to what extent they are apolitical depends on the individual. Both the clerk and DMs are accountable ultimately to the premier rather than to a minister.
A parliamentary secretary is an MHA with the governing party who is appointed to assist a cabinet minister with select duties. Serving in this role is often perceived as training ground for a future cabinet appointment. On the opposite side of the House is the Leader of the Official Opposition. This is the leader of the political party that has the second-most seats in the House of Assembly. The position, while significant, does not hold much legislative power because the party is not in charge of the government. However, as the premier’s main critic including during Question Period, the opposition leader and the official opposition as a whole can complicate the ability of the governing party to advance an agenda.
Business in the House is moderated by the Speaker, an MHA who is usually a member of the governing party. The speaker does not vote except in the event of a tie. To manage daily activities, each party designates an MHA as their House Leader to negotiate proceedings, which tend to be directed by the government House Leader. Opposition MHAs assume critic
portfolios to counter or shadow government ministers. Members on both sides of the House participate in various legislative committees to closely examine government business. Far too often the Committee of the Whole is used, a form of committee that includes all MHAs except the speaker, who simply exits the chamber so that it may be chaired by the deputy speaker.
An important principle of democratic governance is the rule of law. This means that power cannot be used in an arbitrary fashion. The highest law of the land in Newfoundland and Labrador is the Constitution of Canada, which outlines the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments, and which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada, which is located in Ottawa, is the top court in the country and is entrusted to be the final judge or arbiter on legal disputes and interpretations of national significance. In St. John’s, the Supreme Court
of Newfoundland and Labrador considers civil cases and criminal matters, and listens to appeals. Judges have considerable power, yet the province’s process for appointing lawyers to the bench is somewhat opaque. As well,
the mechanisms to hold them to account do not involve public input even when there is public outcry over decisions.
The power of politicians and the public service in Newfoundland and Labrador is structured and constrained by the federal Constitution. For instance, if a bill is passed by a majority in the House of Assembly, and then signed into law by the lieutenant governor, the courts may nevertheless strike down the legislation if it is deemed to be unconstitutional. Reforming the Constitution is a topic that prime ministers have been unwilling to tackle since the failure of two divisive constitutional accords and two Quebec separation referendums in the late twentieth century.
How the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Is Organized
The main actors in each of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government contribute to making and interpreting decisions about public policies. In various ways this includes laws, practices, regulations, standards, and other legal instruments. A key difference between the federal and provincial levels of government is that there is only one legislative chamber in Newfoundland and Labrador, whereas the Parliament of Canada in Ottawa is comprised of the House of Commons and the Senate. Legislation moves comparatively swiftly through the House of Assembly due to the
underutilized nature of review committees, under-resourced opposition parties, limited journalistic scrutiny, and a slew of other factors. Legislative business can nevertheless take quite some time to move through cabinet, then through the House, and then potentially on to the lieutenant governor for signature.
When trying to determine how much power a governing party has, the first thing to identify is not the party’s standing in public opinion polls, but rather whether the party has a majority of seats in the House of Assembly. If so, the premier and cabinet can advance an agenda with confidence that it will be supported by enough MHAs to win a vote. Majority governments are prevalent in Newfoundland and Labrador, adding to the power that is concentrated in the Premier’s Office. The main alternatives are a coalition government (the formal working union of two or more political parties that
control the legislature, which then have a role within cabinet) or a minority government (whereby the premier’s party does not control the legislature and has to negotiate with other parties in order to remain in office). Coalition governments are rare in Canada, in part a function of the electoral system and political culture. Minority governments are reasonably common across the country. They are unusual in Newfoundland and Labrador, which had a single brief experience with minority government in the early 1970s as the era of Joey Smallwood government came to an end.
The House of Assembly precinct is also a bit odd in that it is nestled within a government building that employs public servants. More significantly, the Premier’s Office and a number of ministers’ offices are in that same edifice. Thus, while the legislative branch is meant to hold the executive branch to account, there is symbolism in the fusion of these organs of government into the same space. The precinct includes the press gallery, an area reserved for accredited journalists. Conversely, Crown corporations are situated in independent buildings.
Democracy is embodied in the premier and ministers overseeing the bureaucracy. They seek to implement their election agenda and generally act as the people’s representatives among the permanent public service. These politicians take credit for good news announcements and they bear the brunt of criticism when controversy arises. Unlike them, a public servant is not elected, typically has job security, and is not the public “face” of the department. Many if not most are hired through the merit principle, which is to say that individuals deemed the best candidates in publicly advertised job competitions are generally the ones hired. Public servants are non-partisan and follow a working premise that they should provide frank advice to ministers and loyally implement whatever a minister decides, within the boundaries of the law. They tend to have specialized training, finely honed skill sets, institutional memory, and, above all, a respect for following a chain of command and formalized process mechanisms. By comparison, their political masters may have no training in the departmental area whatsoever and an impatient desire to implement decisions quickly. But what a minister
does have is the legitimate authority to make decisions. Moreover, a minister and political staff are highly in tune with political realities. It is common for public servants to become frustrated by the political agenda being pursued by cabinet or the lack of resources allocated to a file. Other times a department may find itself the centre of public attention and
pressured to take action. No matter what the circumstance, a public servant is expected to separate personal political opinion from a duty to carry out directives. This long-standing principle is itself subject to question, given the
importance of protecting whistleblowers, another area of reform that has been slow to emerge in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Across Canada, the size of provincial governments has been growing, which in large part is a reflection of the expanding importance of health care and education in particular — both of which are assigned as a provincial responsibility by the Constitution. Another major area of provincial jurisdiction is non-renewable natural resources. Other responsibilities
include lands, licensing, some forms of taxation, and overseeing municipalities. At any given time the number and names of departments and agencies vary. Among the most prominent are health, finance, education, natural resources, justice, and public works. Others ebb and flow, such as environment or tourism, and the federal government plays varying
roles in some areas, such as the fishery. A reader interested in the latest configuration of government departments need only visit the relevant area of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador website.
Space prevents a deeper discussion about public administration and politics in the province; for a good overview, see work by Christopher Dunn and the publications of the 2003 Royal Commission on Renewing an Strengthening Our Place in Canada (2003). Historical perspective is also instructive, such as publications authored by Sean Cadigan, Henry Bertram Mayo, Susan McCorquodale, and S.J.R. Noel. Equally, to get a sense of the problems that result when transparency is lacking in political decision-making, a reader might consult the 2007 report of the Review Commission
on Constituency Allowances and Related Matters. While there is little point in fixating on singular events, it is worth pointing out that even though institutional reforms contribute to better governance, bad habits are prone to creep back.
How the Government Decides
So how is government policy formulated? Primarily through the implementation of the governing party’s election platform. Those promises are formalized in the Speech from the Throne, which is prepared by the governing party and read by the lieutenant governor on the floor of the House of Assembly. The speech is peppered with “My government will
. . .” statements that provide direction to the public service about the government’s immediate agenda. At the start of every fiscal year, roughly in March or April, the finance minister delivers a budget that identifies how the government proposes to raise and spend money. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 provide a snapshot of where the government obtains its revenues
and where the money goes. The budget tends to be the centrepiece of implementing aspects of the election platform and Throne Speech, though it may equally adapt to emerging political circumstances. The budget must be supported by a majority of MHAs; otherwise, the government falls and there must be a general election. Time is devoted to MHAs debating the budget and reviewing financial estimates. Other routine activities in the legislature include debates over issues of the day during Question Period and the introduction of new bills. The cycle repeats itself each year, with the
House meeting roughly in March, April, May, November, and December — a bit more in years when there is urgent business and quite a bit less in election years.
Issues in the news are more likely to command political attention, to enter what is known as the public policy cycle, and to get on the public agenda. Within the government there are many instruments used to manage information flow. Chief among them is a memorandum to cabinet, which is advanced by a minister to request that cabinet authorize a course
of action. A cabinet memo applies all sorts of policy lenses on proposed actions to help ministers consider a plethora of perspectives. When submitted to cabinet it is normally referred to a committee of ministers, which invokes review by staff in the Cabinet Secretariat. This process brings a government-wide perspective to departmental initiatives. Government announcements are formally communicated through news releases and speeches. Increasingly, the government is availing of communications technology, such as social media and so-called “open government” to
make information publicly available online. Other matters occur behind closed doors and go undocumented, such as meetings between ministers and interest group leaders.
Communications technology is at the heart of reasons why traditional ways of governing suddenly seem outdated. It is one thing to be able to get a minister to respond to public concerns on local call-in radio programming, a phenomenon more prevalent in Newfoundland and Labrador than in other provinces. It is quite another to exchange information around the world in real time via Internet-enabled portable devices. Media elites no longer act as gatekeepers who control what information can be circulated, though government elites continue to spin messages and obscure information. The tiniest of details are now pounced upon in the online public square. Events in remote areas of the province can be documented by citizens who have the technological means to share their stories. Interest group leaders can quickly co-ordinate a public protest. Journalists tweeting news and public opinion polls act as barometers of the public mood. Even so, traditional television news still dominates, though the intersection with Internet video means that exposure to local media and engagement in local public affairs are changing.
A strong, vibrant democratic society is characterized by pluralism — the “marketplace of ideas,” to use a long-standing expression featured in VOCM radio’s promotion of its call-in shows. Information about government should be publicly available and the public should welcome spirited conversations about a full range of policy options. An ideal democracy
would treat its citizens reasonably equally and welcome competing points of view. In such a society, coffee houses and talk radio shows, as well as public consultation forums and the Twitterverse, should engage the public towards coming up with thoughtful solutions to public problems. Citizens and their leaders should be sufficiently open-minded to consider new ways of doing things and to balance compromise with bold decision-making.
Reforming Democratic Governance in Newfoundland and Labrador
Is democratic governance working for Newfoundland and Labrador? Is it the best it could be? What is the ideal process for premiers, ministers, and MHAs to make decisions on behalf of the public, particularly when those decisions are difficult and potentially unpopular? These are questions without definitive answers.
Echoing themes of their federal counterparts’ interest in promoting democratic reform, a core plank of the provincial Liberals’ election platform in 2015 was better government through “openness, transparency and accountability.” On the surface, some themes were alternately well intentioned or mostly campaign rhetoric, such as a pledge to “respect” the House of Assembly, to “encourage co-operation,” and to “respect diversity.” Specific promises included creating a non-partisan Independent Appointments Commission; amending the House of Assembly Act to set a schedule for House sittings; reforming the standing orders of the House; implementing “family-friendly policies” to support gender diversity in the workforce; discontinuing the salary top-up for parliamentary secretaries; and regularly holding town halls across the province. Others were less concrete, such as a pledge to “make better use of existing committees” and a commitment “to open communication, consultation, and collaboration with Aboriginal communities.” Moreover, the platform was silent on many aspects of democratic reform. By comparison, the federal Liberals proposed action on electoral reform, free votes by parliamentarians, leaders’ debates, government advertising, judicial appointments, officers of the legislature, omnibus bills, parliamentary committees, political financing, Question Period, greater diversity and engagement in government, and more.
The Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador left open these possibilities by promising to create a committee on democratic reform that would be comprised of MHAs from all three political parties in the legislature. A Stronger Tomorrow: Our Five Point Plan states:
A New Liberal Government will form an all-party committee on democratic reform. This committee will consult extensively with the public to gather perspectives on democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador, and make recommendations for ways to improve. The committee will consider a number of options to improve democracy, such as changing or broadening methods of voting to increase participation in elections, reforming campaign finance laws to cover leadership contests, and requiring provincial parties to report their finances on a bi-annual basis.
Aspects of the election platform were formalized in mandate letters from the premier to ministers. The minister responsible for the Office of Public Engagement was directed to “host regular engagement activities including town hall meetings in communities throughout the province and use technology to expand the options to participate.” The government House Leader was instructed to “modernize the province’s legislative process and engage elected representatives from all political parties” and to “make better use of existing committees and seek opportunities for
further nonpartisan cooperation, including establishing legislative review committees to review proposed legislation.”
Most significantly, the House Leader was expected to “Bring a resolution to the House of Assembly to establish an All Party Committee on Democratic Reform” (emphasis added). While the March 2016 Speech from the Throne further formalized some commitments, such as creating the Independent Appointments Commission, it did not mention the all-party committee on democratic reform. Nor did the 2017 Throne Speech.
In the current context a barrier to change is limited resources. Deep research is required on the scale of the aforementioned Review Commission on Constituency Allowances and Related Matters, commonly known as the Green Report after its namesake, Judge Derek Green. The constituency allowance scandal involved a systemic misappropriation of funds allocated to MHAs for work-related expenses. Thanks to the Green Report, considerable reforms to the internal financial management of the House of Assembly were implemented, through the creation of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act (2007). After the reforms, Newfoundland and Labrador became a model for legislatures in Nova Scotia, the United Kingdom, and the Parliament of Canada when those institutions were embroiled in similar scandal. “For true transparency and openness, the House of Commons should follow Newfoundland’s
example,” concluded parliamentary scholar C.E.S. Franks. More recently, Rob Antle, a seasoned journalist who followed the constituency scandal, observed that “the current system is working” in the province because the Act required transparency of otherwise hidden political decisions. Those reforms are evidence that high standards of professionalism and open government are possible.
Meaningful democratic reform is possible no matter what the financial circumstances of the province. We must not be satisfied with Churchill’s notion that democracy is automatically better than the alternatives. Improvements must constantly be made for that to ring true.
