Watching the leaders' debates during the recent federal election, Mr. Speaker, I was struck by one overwhelming thought: that I didn't trust any of the men shrieking, casting aspersions, and grinning at one another. I was overwhelmed by the extent to which they (with the possible exception of Gilles Duceppe, such exception to be explained away momentarily) so clearly cared more about power than about principle, more about image than about discourse. With such options from which to choose a head of government, is it any wonder that our representative democracy is broken?

And broken it is. Partisan political motivation is evident behind every bill the government introduces. Polling numbers are publicly cited as reason enough to shy away from particularily daring courses of action. MPs begin to believe that they were elected to represent their constituents within the party caucus, rather than in the House of Commons itself. These cynical realities manifest themselves in the public consciousness, and voter turnout and other forms of public participation in the process suffer accordingly. And, contrary to what the Martin/Harper types would have you believe, it's not broken because party leaderships don't declare enough free votes. Contrary to what the Layton/Harris types would have you believe, it's not broken because the first past the post electoral system effectively means that most Canadians are unrepresented in the House of Commons. It's broken because the people who have been allowed into the positions of real power - the party leaders and the Machiavellian human infrastructures that sustain them - are there only because they have proven masters at the pursuit of power.

What's the difference between twenty independent MPs and twenty MPs organized into a caucus? The independent MPs will be better able to represent their constituencies on an individual basis. They will be better able to ensure a free and public exchange of ideas. But the caucus will be better able to exert its will in parliamentary debate - it will be better able to achieve power. Never doubt, then, that parties exist solely for the pursuit of power. And if that is the party's sole purpose, every move the party makes, including the selection of a leader, will be calculated to gain power for that party.

It seems so clear now - Paul Martin, during his fifteen year campaign for the Liberal leadership, saw his stock rise not on the basis ideas brought forwards (if he ever has brought forward an idea in public life, his advisers have ensured that it wasn't allowed into the public eye), but on the basis of expected future electoral performance. In Alberta, Ralph Klein's leadership is questioned within the party not when he begins his descent into madness, but when it becomes apparent that his party is likely to lose seats in the next election. Jack Layton is coronated NDP leader not because he is his party's leading luminary, but because he is well-dressed and urbane, and this is supposed to help him connect with that mythical beast, the Canadian voter. Parties make decisions calculated to gain and keep power.

(The exception to this, as noted above, is the Bloc Québecois, which knows that it will never attain power, and doesn't require the rigid party discipline or the cynical machinations of the other parties. Indeed, the Bloc probably could exist quite comfortably as a collection of independents. It's no coincidence that Duceppe was the only trustworthy party leader during the last election.)

And if party leaders hold the power in the Canadian system, and if party leaders are selected solely on the basis of their ability to attain and retain power, our country is being run by men conditioned to view power as the end, rather than the means. Politics become, to quote an old adage, the clash of interests masquerading as the contest of principles. This is the root problem with Western representative democracies, and proportional representation, by formalizing the power of the party over the power of the individual representative, only exacerbates it. The only thing that can save representative democracy is the election to the House of Commons a majority of MPs committed to something more noble than Power, Party, and Leader. Otherwise, power remains in the hands of the leaders, in whose hearts and minds it is also dominant.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable Member can now see that this talk of non-partisan politics is not the idealized ramblings of a few hacks permanently confined to the ivory towers, but rather the conscious and pragmatic recognition of the reality of the situation and what it will take to change it. Is the idea feasible? Can Canadians be made to see the light and elect MPs on the basis of what they believe rather than on the basis of the colour of their pinney? Can MPs be made to vote on the basis of their constituents' interests, rather than on the basis of their leaders'? Perhaps, as the Honourable Member suggests, this is not feasible. But if this be the case, let recognition of this always be accompanied by the sad realization that representative democracy can never be anything more than the least flawed of all structures.

I take a more optimistic standpoint. In student politics, in municipal politics, and even in the governance of not-for-profits - in short, wherever the stakes are too low for the power mongers to bother organizing - non-partisan politics work. Where the attainment of power requires nothing more than the simple vote of confidence of the people in whose name the power is to be exercised, it's not party leaders who get in. When seating plans are not decided on the basis of team colour, decisions aren't made on that basis either. The same could happen at higher levels.

There is hope, and shame on the Honourable Member for trying to eradicate it.