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
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).