You likely noticed the fuss kicked up by Saskatoon Humboldt MP Brad Trost over the "ironclad" discipline demanded by the federal governments like Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative regime.
From one perspective, one has to admire Trost's pluck. He clearly speaks the truth when it comes to this particular administration having little tolerance for caucus members that speak out of turn. The mere mention of this as a problem will likely mean a dead end for Trost's career _ not that it was going anywhere fast, anyway.
Less admirable, however, is the sense you get that this particular MP really wants this because he is more eager to express his own views than the concerns of his constituents.
Trost has become known as a strong advocate for social conservative issues including ending abortion and Planned Parenthood funding overseas and opposing gay rights issues. Admittedly, one should never criticize a politician - or anyone - for their strong personal beliefs. But, ironically, Trost has had little trouble voicing his opinion these issues. Where we haven't heard much from him are on the issues more critical to the broader swath of voters that selected him to represent them in Ottawa.
For instance, Trost was one the harshest critics of the former Liberal regime when it refused to remove energy resource revenue from the equalization formula. He once said in his MP's newsletter that Saskatoon could build 26 overpasses with the approximate $800 million a year Saskatchewan would gain if non-resource revenues were excluded.
The Conservatives promised to do precisely that in the 2006 federal election campaign, but quickly broke their campaign pledge. But did we hear a single word from Trost or any of the province's 12 Conservative MPs on their government's unwillingness to keep their promise?
And what did Trost have to say when Australian mining giant BHP Billiton was attempting to take over PotashCorp? When Premier Brad Wall was begging for federal MP help, Trost said he didn't know what Brad Wall wants.
So maybe we need to ask Trost why he truly wants to be unburdened by his shackles of silence? Is he just interested in further pushing his own hobbyhorse issues that Harper doesn't to stifle because they cost the Conservatives votes elsewhere in Canada? Or after a six-year-gag order imposed by the Harper government, does he finally recognize the importance of speaking up on behalf of constituents?
Well, one good way to find out would be if Trost started by demanding clarity and fairness on federal government's intentions on public pensions.
Exactly what changes the Harper government is contemplating is the critical question. Perhaps they really don't go much further than increasing the collection age to 67 from 65 years although even that is a serious issue meritorious of debate.
What is evident, however, is this government is in a big hurry to make these changes to happen. Mere days after musing in Davos, Switzerland about the cost of social programs on European economies and the need for pension reform in Canada, Harper's government was already moving to limit debate on a pension reform bill.
Less evident, however, is whether such changes are needed.
Yes, voices like the C.D. Howe Institute projects a possible unfunded liability of $2.8 trillion, largely based on fewer working children paying for more aging baby-boomer parents at the current level of benefits. But other research right from Harper's own government suggests Canada's pension system is in far better shape than pensions in European nations. In fact, an analysis from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank says: "Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its public pension schemes."
So if Trost and others are sincere about wanting the right to speak up, perhaps the best place to start would be this pension debate.
Murray Mandryk has been covering provincial politics for over 15 years.
