Elected officials must have right to speak up
Regardless of how lowly, it is the duty of all elected politicians to speak up on behalf of voters.
Really, we should all believe we are guaranteed that right to speak up without fear of reprisal. Of course, this is a notion that sometimes works better in theory than in practice.
For example, there is caucus solidarity that expects backbenchers to toe the mark. You virtually never hear anyone in government speak out against government policy — even if they don't support that policy.
Remember the stone silence from Saskatchewan Conservative MPS after their party won the 2006 federal election and their newly elected prime minister Stephen Harper abandoned his election promise to remove natural resource revenue from the equalization formula?
Remember how Saskatchewan was promised an extra $800 million a year? Remember how we've heard nothing from Andrew Scheer and others since then?
That said, one still would expect politicians from one level of government to be able to freely speak on behalf of their voters on the effect of policies levelled by another level of government. One might think that right would be a given, but, again, things gets complicated rather quickly.
Consider the recent case — one that surely doesn't seem to be an isolated one — of a school board trustee asking for anonymity to freely express concern over the way the Sask. Party government had given school trustees “24 hours to say yes or no” to the new multi-year funding agreement for education spending.
Even more disconcerting than the issue is the notion that local school trustees felt intimidated criticizing the higher level of government that provides school funding. If this is where we're now at, we've arrived at a place we shouldn't be.
After all, Premier Scott Moe rightly believes it's his right to provide unfettered criticism of the federal Liberal government. In fact, he clearly felt “Freedom Convoy” supporters had that same right — regardless of how they chose to speak up.
So shouldn't school trustees have that same freedom?
The problem, however, is those elected to local school boards or municipal governments aren't career professional politicians. They earn their living elsewhere and may have to weigh the personal consequences — not to mention consequences for the school division funded by the province.
Perhaps the “threats,” as characterized by NDP education critic Matt Love in the assembly Tuesday, were overstating things. In the rotunda, Love amended his accusation to “pressure.” But one can surely see why a lowly trustee (or perhaps several) might not want to be seen as overly critical of the provincial government. It's even more evident after Education Minister Jeremy Cockrill's condescending response in the chamber:
“Are we actually standing on the floor of this house debating some anonymous person who made a comment to the Leader-post?” Cockrill roared. Yeah, we are.
And, pardon my bias, but I think I will go with the credibility of a source in a newspaper that's been around for 141 years versus a rookie minister yet to produce the “tens of thousands” of people who supposedly demanded they implement something like the pronoun bill.
Then again, Cockrill may have an unusual view as to whose voices should be heard and whose should be stifled.
Suggesting they were being disruptive and even threatening, Cockrill called the RCMP to his constituency office last Friday to remove constituents staging a “sit-in” on education policy. Were they threatening?
Well, the video shows at least one of the many older people there was brandishing wool and knitting needles. Neither she nor anyone else was charged. The minister needs to explore the fundamental premise that a voter has a right to be heard. He's about to ask to be re-elected. He is going to hear from a few of them.
In fact, the duty of politicians to speak up is only exceeded by the rights of voters to speak up against them.
That's something politicians should think about before their next glib response ... or perhaps before calling the cops.