Many Canadians are disturbed at what they perceive as distortion in their political party leaders' rhetoric about, and policies on, tackling the democratic deficit. That there is such a deficit has been admitted. Two glaring examples are the electoral and appointment systems as applied to the House of Commons and to the Canadian Senate.

Under the first-past-the-post electoral system, minority parties are permanently denied representation in the Commons based on the percentage of votes they gain.

Under the system of appointments to the Senate in the hands of one man, there is a total absence of democracy.

Party leaders decry the democratic deficit, but continue to nurture it within their own parties. Nowhere is this more apparent than in their approach to the issue of same-sex unions being accorded the status of "marriages".

From the Prime Minister there is equivocation. His 39 ministers "must vote" as he dictates. Never mind their moral values or religious beliefs, they "must bow" to his wishes. Otherwise, out they go.

He will "allow" his backbenchers a free vote.

This is tackling the democratic deficit? On a matter of conscience? It is absurd.

And how free is "free"? Ask the chairman of the Canada-Ireland parliamentary committee. The chairman is a backbencher and is against same sex "marriage". The Prime Minister is "fighting mad" for it. The chairman was conveniently overlooked when the membership of a delegation to visit Ireland was announced, despite the fact that he has years of experience in issues affecting Ireland, particularly the intricacies of the current peace process.

Then there is the Leader of the New Democratic Party. His dictatorial edict removes all doubt on the issue. All the members of his party "must" vote as he has decided, or face the consequences. At the same time he chides the Prime Minister for not allowing all his members, ministers included, a free vote.

This is tackling the democratic deficit? On a matter of conscience? It is absurd.

The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, a title not much in vogue in present times, has taken a personal stance on the issue and seeks "to persuade" the members of his party to share that stand. Herding felines would be an easier task.

The Bloc Quebecois Leader's stance is a throwback to the French Revolution and its call for Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, high-sounding words, but where is the equality in his own party? Equality in parroting his words?

Dictators come in all shapes and sizes. One place where they should not be encouraged is Canada, where the democratic deficit is already far too large.

The next King of Canada should not be overlooked in this debate. He is a divorced man and is about to marry a divorcee. If he were a homosexual and "married" a homosexual, would Canada have two kings? With a hey and a ho, and a hey nonny no!

--30--