Informed decisions lay at the heart of democracy

Before we start, can we agree on this basic statement: Elected officials are accountable to the public.

In a nutshell, isn’t that what democracy comes down to?

We think so, and that’s why Niagara’s daily newspapers polled board members at the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority for their views on climate change.

Specifically, we asked if they accept or reject peerreviewed scientific studies that show human-created CO2 emissions are driving climate change.

Remember, this is a conservation authority. Its core functions are directly related to science and the environment. It matters what board members think.

So it was disappointing when Pelham regional Coun. Diana Huson, who at the time we asked, was NPCA board vice-chair, responded to the question this way:

“I will note a concern as to what appears to be an effort to influence the upcoming election at our (annual general meeting). I am very concerned about how this has impacted our democratic process,” she wrote in an email.

It’s important to note, our survey was sent out several days before the board was to elect a new chair and vice-chair at the meeting.

When should the question have been asked? The idea that asking questions about candidates’ views prior to a vote subverts democracy is plain nonsense. To make an informed decision, those voting need to know where candidates stand.

In her response, Huson asked if the papers were “taking a political stance as to whom should be the chair of the NPCA?”

For the record, we weren’t. Our newspapers cover the NPCA regardless of who is on the board and by whom it is led. Same for city councils and regional councils. We don’t endorse candidates.

This started in early January when a new Niagara chapter of a parents’ climate advocacy group called For Our Kids issued an open letter directed at West Lincoln Mayor Dave Bylsma.

The group called for Bylsma to either resign as NPCA chair or quit his role as president of the Christian Heritage Party, which officially labels the climate crisis as “phoney.”

The criticism wasn’t new; Bylsma has been knocked for his stance previously on social media.

In an interview earlier this month, Bylsma clarified, saying he believes the climate is changing and work needs to be done to adapt to it. However, he said, he does reject the scientific consensus that human activity is to blame.

Rather, he said, other circumstances like fluctuations in the sun, the cutting of trees and natural events such as volcanoes are the major contributors.

Which brings us back to the survey of NPCA board members..

All but five of the 21 board members responded. Huson’s response was disconcerting. So was a tweet put out, and later deleted, by NPCA spokeswoman Genevieve-Renee Bisson where she called the timing of the question problematic.

“Maybe you would have had more responses had you not asked these personal questions the week before the election when it could be seen as an attempt to influence the vote? Just a thought,” she wrote.

As it turns out, neither Huson nor Bylsma were re-elected to their roles.

Elected officials do not live in a bubble. The decisions they make matter, which is why it is useful to know their opinions on certain subjects before they are put in a position to make those decisions.

There is nothing inappropriate in asking them a question as it relates to their jobs. That’s democracy.