When proportional representation (PR) is presented as an alternative to our badly flawed first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system, defenders of the status quo invariably fall back on one argument. PR, they insist, forces citizens to vote for parties rather than candidates and they lose the close relationship of a representative to his/her constituents.

That is true for some forms of PR, but other forms allow for choice of candidates, and in fact can achieve a closer relationship between representative and constituents than FPTP. In any case, representatives generally show much greater fealty to their party and their leader than they do to their constituents.

We recently saw an excellent example of this from Conservative MPs. A number had been advocating on behalf of municipalities in their ridings who wanted to obtain funds through the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF). The HAF provides incentive funding for local governments to increase the housing supply by developing “affordable, diverse and climate-resilient communities.” It gives municipalities the opportunity to build housing-related infrastructure in ways that best suits their community’s needs.

An MP would be remiss if he/she didn’t help their local governments take advantage of an opportunity to provide more housing in the midst of the current housing crisis. However their supreme leader disagrees. Mr. Poilievre has threatened to terminate the HAF if he becomes prime minister and introduce his own housing policy—abolishing the GST on sales of new homes under $1 million.

Poilievre’s proposal would only contribute to one form of housing; the HAF enables a variety. In Calgary, for instance, it will support the conversion of surplus office space to residential units; in Edmonton it will help homeowners integrate secondary suites; in Clearwater B.C. it will contribute to building a 100-bed seniors’ centre; and so on.

Nonetheless, the leader has instructed his “common sense Conservative” MPs not to promote the HAF. His office named and shamed those who did and forced them to renege on their commitments to mayors in their ridings.

The MPs have toed the line. None of those named are speaking publicly although some have complained privately. One Conservative source told Radio-Canada “It’s extremely frustrating, MPs are being stopped from helping their cities for partisan reasons.”

This is in keeping with the tyrannical way Poilievre rules his party. According to what one Conservative source told the CBC in confidence, “Everybody is being watched. What we say, what we do, who we talk to. We’re told not to fraternize with MPs from the other parties.” Apparently even journalists’ scrums with Conservative MPs are monitored by press secretaries from Poilievre’s office. Those who don’t adequately parrot the party line are punished by, for instance, losing their speaking time. According to another CBC source, Some MPs feel they come to caucus “to be told what to do and what to think” by the leader.

So the leader spoke and the MPs duly shelved their constituents’ best interests. A long list of local governments with housing challenges and a long list of housing projects could pay the price.

Poilievre has at least accomplished one thing with his iron hand. He has laid to rest the argument that the FPTP voting system maintains a strong relationship between representatives and their constituents.