5.1.4 Degradation of Democratic Process

Introduction

The testimony of Hon. Nadine Wilson, a sitting member of the Saskatchewan Legislature, underscores the profound democratic deficiencies that characterized Saskatchewan’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Representing the riding of Saskatchewan-Rivers North, Nadine Wilson’s testified how the decision-making process during the pandemic was centralized within a small group of individuals, effectively bypassing the province’s democratic institutions and excluding elected representatives from critical discussions.

Witness Testimony

Hon. Nadine Wilson, MLA Saskatchewan

Nadine Wilson is a sitting member of the Saskatchewan Legislature representing the riding of Saskatchewan-Rivers North. She was first elected to the legislature in 2007 as a member of the Saskatchewan Party, which in 2007 formed the government under premier Brad Wall. She was Legislative Secretary to two premiers, as well as Provincial Secretary to the Province of Saskatchewan, and was previously deputy speaker of the Saskatchewan Legislature. Prior to her career as an MLA she was a twice-elected municipal reeve.

When the pandemic began she was a member of the ruling Saskatchewan party and a member of caucus.

She left the Saskatchewan Party when the party chose to censor anyone criticizing the pandemic mandates. She also refused to reveal her vaccine status within caucus because her medical status was private health information. She further stated that the premier coerced members to get vaccinated.

Ms. Wilson testified that she asked the premier of Saskatchewan, how the mandates were established, as there had been no debate or discussion held in the legislature or in caucus. She did not believe that cabinet had a debate on the mandates. She testified that Premier Moe stated that he had met with two other premiers and the prime minister and that they had decided that the mandates would be enforced in Saskatchewan.

The lack of discussion or debate amongst the people’s elected representatives violated any democratic process that involved the elected representatives. This is especially troubling given the profound nature of the mandates and measures that were imposed.

She observed severe concerns being raised by the people of Saskatchewan, and during the crisis of the pandemic, many MLAs refused to interact with or answer questions from their electorate. MLAs closed their offices so citizens had no one with whom to speak.

Ms. Wilson kept her office open during the pandemic and had to hire additional staff. She spoke about the many phone calls she received from residents who were terrified, considering suicide, or considering leaving Canada. She said that during the pandemic, fear was paramount in the minds of citizens.

In November of 2022, she started the Saskatchewan United Party.

She spoke about how religious freedom in Canada was eliminated under the use of emergency declarations and executive orders.

She testified that power was concentrated in a small group that included un-elected officials.

She believed that the province had an emergency plan but ignored it throughout the emergency. She stated there was no discussion of the emergency plan, and MLAs were instructed not to speak to the public health officials.

She asked the government about COVID detention centres, and she could not get an answer from the government.

The elected officials were not provided with any additional medical information, research, or other information to permit them to make informed decisions on behalf of their constituents, nor were they even consulted by the premier.

Discussion of Witness Testimony

When the pandemic began, Wilson, a member of the ruling Saskatchewan Party, found herself at odds with the party’s approach to handling the crisis. She left the party after it censored any criticism of the pandemic mandates and coerced members to disclose their vaccination status, which was unprecedented breach of privacy and personal health information. Her attempts to understand how mandates were established revealed a startling lack of transparency: Premier Scott Moe informed her that decisions were made in meetings with other premiers and the prime minister, with no debate or discussion in the legislature or caucus.

This concentration of power not only sidelined the democratic process but also ignored the voices of the elected representatives who are meant to serve the interests of their constituents. The absence of legislative debate on mandates—despite their profound impact on daily life—meant that policies were implemented without the scrutiny and input that a democratic process demands.

Wilson’ s account highlighted the severe disconnect between the government and the people it is meant to serve. Many members of the Legislative Assembly closed their offices and avoided interaction with the public, which left citizens without recourse or representation during a time of crisis.

Wilson, contrastingly, kept her office open. She was inundated with calls from terrified constituents; some were considering suicide or leaving Canada due to the fear and uncertainty propagated by the government’s measures and the media. Her actions underscore the essential role that elected representatives play in providing support and transparency during crises—roles that were largely abandoned by her colleagues.

The situation was further exacerbated by the elimination of religious freedoms under emergency declarations and executive orders, and the concentration of power among a small group of unelected officials. The provincial emergency plan, which should have guided the response, was seemingly ignored, and elected officials were discouraged from engaging with public health officials. This lack of engagement and information-sharing left MLAs ill-equipped to make informed decisions or to effectively represent their constituents.

Wilson’s experience speaks to a broader issue of governance and accountability. The lack of a democratic process and the exclusion of elected representatives from decision-making during the pandemic not only undermined public trust but also led to policies that were implemented without sufficient oversight or consideration of their broader impacts. This testimony calls for a re-evaluation of how emergency powers are exercised and highlights the need for greater transparency and inclusion of elected officials in decision-making processes in order to ensure that the principles of democracy are upheld, even in times of crisis.

Ignoring the Democratic Process in Times of Emergency

The testimony of Hon. Nadine Wilson, MLA for Saskatchewan-Rivers North, illuminates the critical dangers of sidelining the democratic process during emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Her account reveals that crucial decisions were made by a small group of leaders without the involvement or oversight of the legislative body. This lack of democratic engagement resulted in a series of profound and potentially damaging consequences for the people of Saskatchewan.

Lack of Alternative Options and Limited Consideration of Consequences

In a democratic society, policy decisions, especially those as impactful as pandemic mandates, are expected to be subject to rigorous debate and scrutiny. Such a process ensures that multiple perspectives are considered, potential consequences are thoroughly evaluated, and a range of alternative options are explored. However, Wilson’s testimony underscores that no such debate occurred within the Saskatchewan Legislature or even within the ruling party’s caucus. Decisions were made in closed meetings involving a small circle of officials that included the premier and a few other premiers alongside the prime minister, without input from other elected representatives.

This exclusionary approach meant that no alternative strategies were discussed. The lack of a comprehensive deliberation process limited the consideration of potential consequences, both intended and unintended, of the mandates. For instance, the impacts on mental health, economic stability, and civil liberties were not adequately weighed against the public health benefits of the mandates. The failure to explore alternative measures or more balanced approaches likely exacerbated the negative effects on the populace.

Exclusion of Emergency Measures Personnel

The exclusion of designated emergency measures personnel from the decision-making process further highlights the flawed approach taken. These personnel are typically trained and prepared to manage crises through established protocols and strategies. Ignoring their expertise and bypassing the provincial emergency plan, as noted by Wilson, resulted in a response that lacked the comprehensive planning and coordination necessary for effective crisis management. This not only undermined the efficacy of the response but also eroded public trust in the government’s ability to handle emergencies competently.

Risk of Totalitarian Measures and Erosion of Democracy

Wilson’s testimony also serves as a stark reminder of how quickly totalitarian measures can be implemented under the guise of emergency response. The concentration of power in the hands of a few, the suppression of dissent within the ruling party, and the use of executive orders to enforce mandates without legislative oversight are all hallmarks of authoritarian governance. These actions bypassed the checks and balances that are fundamental to a functioning democracy.

The risk of such measures to democracy cannot be overstated. When elected representatives are excluded from critical decision-making processes, it undermines the very principles of representative democracy. The people’s voice, which is supposed to be channeled through their elected officials, is effectively silenced. This can lead to widespread disillusionment with the democratic process, decreasing public engagement and trust in government institutions.

Moreover, the use of emergency powers without adequate oversight sets a dangerous precedent. It normalizes the idea that in times of crisis, democratic norms and processes can be suspended. This can pave the way for future abuses of power, where governments might invoke emergencies to implement controversial policies without democratic scrutiny. The erosion of civil liberties, as seen with the suppression of religious freedoms and forced medical measures, further illustrates the potential for such powers to be misused.

The perils of ignoring the democratic process in times of emergency are manifold. The testimony of Hon. Nadine Wilson highlighted how the lack of debate and exclusion of elected representatives and emergency personnel led to unconsidered consequences and ineffective policies. More critically, it demonstrates the fragility of democratic institutions when faced with crises and the ease with which totalitarian measures can be introduced. To safeguard democracy it is imperative to maintain that even in emergencies, decisions are made transparently, inclusively, and with rigorous oversight. This approach not only upholds democratic values but also leads to more effective and equitable crisis management.

Recommendations

To ensure that the democratic process is upheld during future emergencies and to prevent the centralization of decision-making power, the following measures are recommended:

1. Strengthening Legislative Oversight

Recommendation: Mandatory Legislative Review of Emergency Measures

• Implementation: Introduce laws requiring that all emergency measures be subject to review and approval by the legislature within a specified time frame (e.g., 30 days). This requires that elected representatives have a say in the implementation of any significant mandates.

• Rationale: Legislative review ensures that emergency measures are debated, alternatives are considered, and the potential consequences are thoroughly evaluated, thereby upholding democratic principles.

Recommendation: Establish a Permanent Emergency Oversight Committee

• Implementation: Create a permanent bipartisan committee within the legislature specifically tasked with overseeing emergency responses. This committee should have the authority to call for hearings, review evidence, and make recommendations.

• Rationale: A dedicated oversight committee can provide continuous monitoring and ensure transparency and accountability in the management of emergencies.

2. Enhancing Transparency and Public Communication

Recommendation: Public Disclosure of Decision-Making Processes

• Implementation: Require that all decisions made during emergencies be documented and publicly available. This includes meeting minutes, the rationale for decisions, and the data and evidence used to support them.

• Rationale: Transparency in decision-making builds public trust and provides policies based on sound scientific evidence and democratic principles.

Recommendation: Regular Public Briefings and Updates

• Implementation: Mandate regular public briefings by government officials and public health authorities during emergencies. These briefings should provide clear information on the situation, the measures being taken, and the reasons behind them.

• Rationale: Regular updates keep the public informed, reduce uncertainty and fear, and enhance the legitimacy of the measures being implemented.

3. Protecting Individual Rights and Freedoms

Recommendation: Uphold Privacy and Informed Consent

• Implementation: Strengthen privacy laws to assure individuals’ health information remains confidential and that any medical interventions require Informed Consent. Any exceptions must be clearly justified and subject to review.

• Rationale: Protecting individual rights ensures that emergency measures do not infringe upon personal freedoms and maintains public trust in the health system.

Recommendation: Safeguard Religious and Civil Liberties

• Implementation: Enact protections to ensure that emergency measures do not disproportionately impact religious practices or civil liberties. Any restrictions must be necessary, proportionate, and subject to judicial review.

• Rationale: Safeguarding these freedoms requires emergency measures to respect fundamental rights and prevent overreach by the government.

4. Inclusive Decision-Making and Consultation

Recommendation: Involve Emergency Measures Personnel and Experts

• Implementation: Ensure that emergency response plans are developed and implemented in consultation with designated emergency measures personnel and a broad range of experts that includes public health professionals, ethicists, and legal scholars.

• Rationale: Involving a diverse group of experts ensures that emergency responses are well-rounded, scientifically sound, and ethically justified.

Recommendation: Encourage Public Participation and Feedback

• Implementation: Create mechanisms for public input and feedback on emergency measures. This can include public consultations, surveys, and forums where citizens can voice their concerns and suggestions.

• Rationale: Public participation enhances the legitimacy of emergency measures and certifies that they are responsive to the needs and values of the community.

Recommendation: Require all government offices to remain open during a crisis.

• Implementation: Legislate that government offices, especially the offices of elected representatives remain open and accessible to the public during emergency situations.

• Rationale: The experience described by Hon. Nadine Wilson presents a situation where the government and the people’s representatives closed their offices during the crisis and the people had no means of contacting them. This not only removed access to the elected representatives, but served to magnify the public’s terror during an unprecedented time. 

5. Preparedness and Education

Recommendation: Develop and Regularly Update Emergency Plans

• Implementation: Develop comprehensive emergency plans that are regularly updated and tested through simulations and drills. These plans should include clear protocols for decision-making, communication, and the protection of rights.

• Rationale: Having a well-prepared and regularly updated plan necessitates that responses are swift, effective, and respect democratic principles.

Recommendation: Educate Public Officials and the Public on Democratic Processes

• Implementation: Provide training for public officials on upholding democratic principles during emergencies. Conduct public education campaigns to inform citizens about their rights and the importance of maintaining democratic processes.

• Rationale: Educating both officials and the public fosters a culture of democracy and ensures that emergency measures are implemented and received in a manner that respects democratic norms.

By implementing these recommendations, we can ensure that the democratic process is upheld during future emergencies. Strengthening legislative oversight, enhancing transparency, protecting individual rights, fostering inclusive decision-making, and prioritizing preparedness and education will help prevent the centralization of power and maintain public trust in government actions. These measures are essential to safeguarding democracy and ensuring that responses to emergencies are both effective and respectful of fundamental rights and freedoms.