Sounds Like Party Politics As Usual To Me
Progressive Conservative Party MLA Rob Anderson crosses floor and sits with the Wildrose Alliance Party stating
Not only are there rarely free votes in the Legislature, there are very few free votes in caucus. Virtually all legislation is created and developed by various unelected government appointees with direction from the Premier and a small cadre of Cabinet Ministers whose distinguishing attribute is unconditional allegiance to their Leader. All other elected MLAs generally have little, if any, real input into the decisions that impact the lives of their constituents.
Sounds pretty much like how any political party operates to me.
Dear Rob,
Things may be different, at least for a little while, in the Wildrose Alliance Party but if it succeeds in growing passed a dozen MLA’s or so you’ll soon find yourself in an exact replica of the boat you’re currently abandoning.
Sorry to burst your bubble but that’s how party politics works – at all levels of government.
Yer buddy
stageleft
So he’s moving even further to the right because that’s where he’ll find democracy? BwaaaaHaaaHaaa! Best one I heard all day!
Has anybody else noticed that Alberta Conservatives look kind of… inbred…?
@sooey –
You need a visual for that, sooey. That one on the right sure looks a little chromosomally deficient. Then again, it could just be the booze.
I was referring to the Government, actually, and the people on the street interviewees, and most of the rest of Alberta, now that I really stop and think about it. But those two have to rate up there with Tea Bagger levels of stupid if they think that defecting to a Party that is to the Right of the Alberta Conservative Party is going to lead to more freedom. Unless by freedom they mean stupid.
Crash course on AB politics. PC party is probably more liberal than the liberals, at least lately. (Similar to the BC Liberal party being conservatives in disguise.) The Wildrose Alliance is not, actually, that far right, it’s more that the PCs have drifted waaaay left and are now pulling hard right in all the wrong places (like closing beds at Alberta Hospital, which is, I think, the only hospital with a pure focus on mental health issues, including forensic versions).
You guys have a problem with Harper proroguing and cancelling what, about 15 days of parliament? Well, another primer on why Albertan conservatives don’t see this as a big deal. Thanks to Ralph and his massive majorities, the AB leg sits for about 6 or 8 weeks A YEAR. (There are about 10 opposition MLAs, 12 now, so quite toothless.)
I expect we’ll see a bloodless coup over the next few months (eg massive floor crossings). After all, Albertans can handle paying attention to provincial politics for a while, but not long enough to wait for the scheduled 2012 election (fixed election dates).
As I was pointing out to my niece last night, AB, the “most conservative” government in Canada, has more daycare subsidies, tax breaks for the working poor, general subsidies etc. than any other province, so before everyone starts bashing my poor province as uberconservative etc etc etc I’d suggest some homework be done.
We have LESS private inroads into our healthcare than Quebec, that uberliberal province.
We don’t have $5/day daycare for everyone who can get on the list, rich/middle class/poor alike, instead we provide all sorts of subsidies that decrease as your salary increases, so the subsidized daycare goes to those who really can’t afford to pay for it on their own, unlike Quebec. There is also a subsidy available to those working shiftwork of up to I think an additional (above and beyond any other subsidy received) $300/month, and it can be paid to a relative that cares for your children (i.e. doesn’t have to be “licensed”).
We have massive taxbreaks across the board that, while they certainly benefit the rich, ALSO benefit the poor. For example, as a single mother I can claim my daughter as a spouse, so have to earn over $33-34k before I pay a cent of AB taxes. In addition, low income families that don’t have daycare costs still receive a subsidy for children (depending again on income level).
We have rent subsidies for low income families (earning under, I think, $43k or something like that).
If your utilities are about to be cut off, the province will pay them for you on either an emergency basis (once for “free” as in no payback required) or ongoing (where you commit to repay when your circumstances improve).
If you are about to be evicted for nonpayment of rent, the province will pay your rent debt off (although if you earn more than the 43k or whatever the threshold is, this is on an emergency basis.
We have no sales tax (other than the GST), which means the dollars of low income families go further here than they do in any other province.
So… this uberconservative province actually has some pretty liberal programs, and have had them for quite some time. As for the Wildrose Alliance Party being super conservative, you may want to check out their site. The only reason they have any credibility right now is because the uber-right leader was dumped and replaced with a right-of-centre leader (a couple of months ago).
Oh. Re the environment. We don’t allow the dumping of raw sewage into our waters, unlike BC and Nova Scotia. We have industry-leading landfills that capture the methane gasses produced and use them productively (even though they tend to run at a loss). Our recycling programs are certainly better than those in BC (speaking from personal knowledge) and may well lead the pack in the rest of the country. The province is investing, quite heavily, in carbon capture and/or sequestration technologies. Companies exploiting the oilsands have to return the land to its original state when complete (and yes, parts of the early minesites are in full remediation mode as we speak).
How’s the shutting down of those coal-fired electrical plants going in Ontario?
Sorry, C.: I stopped reading at the second sentence when you characterized shutting down mental health services and hospitals as “leftist.”
@everyone: ….. and absolutely none of that changes the fact that as soon as there are more Wildrose Alliance MLA’s than can comfortable sit around Danielle Smiths coffee table for a causus meeting the usual party rules of sit down, shut up, do as you are told, and vote how and when told to do so, will be imposed on them.
All political parties engage in the practice, what makes anyone in their right mind think the WAP will be any different?
I guess they think the current federal government emerged from the old Soviet Union and not Alberta to hear those nutters go on about freedom.
I stopped reading at the second sentence when you characterized shutting down mental health services and hospitals as “leftist.”
Perhaps you should try a re-read, because that is not what Candace said.
Peter, you are quite right. Candace, my apologies. I will resume reading until I get stuck again.
I get stuck at the fact that only thing that can bring out Albertans to say anything about the federal democracy that the rest of us have to live with is when you brush against their thin skins. And even then, all you’re treated to is a lecture on local politics and culture I have never cared about, with a repetition of long-standing grievances involving the East (which represents 60% of the Canadian population) thrown in for good measure.
Now, if you don’t mind, I have some coal-fired electrical plants to shut down (*rolls eyes*).
Ti-Guy “…lecture on local politics and culture I have never cared about…” – well, when blanket statements are made about how overly-conservative and right wing Alberta is as a province, I think I have the right to set the record straight, no? And I don’t think I made any statements about long-standing grievances involving the East, did I? If you’re referring to my throw-away line about Ontario’s coal-fired electrical plants, keep in mind that Ontario’s premier was dissing the oilsands on the world stage recently, in a rather holier-than-thou manner. People in glass houses, etc.
Balb – hopefully you didn’t get stuck anywhere?
Oh, and SL, sadly I’m as cynical as you are re the likelihood of “politics as usual” occurring around the 10-12 MLA mark. PM Martin demonstrated how cohesive a gov’t comes off when there isn’t any kind of party discipline, and Harper & Chretien are examples of the other extreme. Whatever happened to happy medium?
Maybe, and probably well before I started following politics, there may have been a time of “happy medium” – but if there ever was it’s now long gone. MP’s and MLA’s from all political parties go to their seats and, like the good little foot soldiers they are, perform their primary duty as proxy votes for the party leader, with the consequences of not doing so being banishment from caucus.
This will not change until the party system as we know it dies the death it so richly deserves.
keep in mind that Ontario’s premier was dissing the oilsands on the world stage recently
He’s not exactly alone in doing that, Candace. Although what motivates particular politicians to say anything is always mystifying. I’m pretty sure, by the way, that the Ontario government would shut down the coal-fired electrical plants if alternatives were available/affordable.
By the way, I couldn’t care less what the oil sands exploitation do to the territory of Alberta. I do care how the oil companies are financing the climate-change denial campaign (and other public policy issues being addressed by Western based ‘think tanks’), how oil wealth is distorting Canada’s entire economy by transforming our currency into a petro-dollar, and only lastly about its contribution to green house gases. I’ve given up lamenting how Alberta (unlike Norway) squandered the oil wealth (long after the NEP was cancelled), which, although located physically in the province and legitimately under the management of its residents, is a resource that belongs to *all* Canadians, as all natural resources do.
SL – “This will not change until the party system as we know it dies the death it so richly deserves. ”
What’s the alternative? Is there a system somewhere that isn’t like this when it comes to politics that doesn’t require party members to be in lockstep with the party? And how would it work if all 308 MPs marched to their own drummer?
@Candace: How about we take away the party leaders power to expel a member from caucus and return that power to the riding association s/he was selected by?
How about we take away the party leaders power to parachute favoured candidates into ridings so that power rests solely with the riding association.
How about we see if the party leadership has any actual leadership ability and let them convince their caucus that their plan is good instead of simply forcing it on them at the point of an expulsion from caucus order? …. because after all, if you can’t sell the people who are on your team on the idea how good an idea can it really be?
Look south of the border Candace, when was the last time you heard of an elected member of either of their houses being kicked out of the party for not following the party line?
Sorry, that sort of mass lack of cooperation is so highly unlikely that it isn’t a realistic consideration.
Candace wrote
” And how would it work if all 308 MPs marched to their own drummer?”
If the drummer was the MP’s constituency, it might work very well.
Democracy might break out all over the place
Perhaps there would be a period of adjustment during which we hoi polloi realized that we have no one else to blame but ourselves.
Might be a good idea to retain an appointed Senate for a while.
It could act, as designed, to check the exuberant and imprudent will of the electorate with sober second thought.
which, although located physically in the province and legitimately under the management of its residents, is a resource that belongs to *all* Canadians, as all natural resources do.
This is news. Was that something the Fathers of Confederation agreed upon and forgot to put in writing? And why do people who argue that constitutional fantasy always illustrate it with Albertan oil? Never B.C. timber, Ontario minerals or Quebec hydro, always Albertan oil.
SL – “How about we take away the party leaders power to expel a member from caucus and return that power to the riding association s/he was selected by?”
I believe that’s currently dictated by the various party constitutions, no? And the Reform party was reviled over their recall initiative (which would have returned that power to the ridings), so good luck with selling that (although I’d happily buy it). (I must confess to “signing” the referendum of 22 Minutes requiring that Stockwell change his first name to Doris, but I DID like that concept!)
I’m with you on the parachuting of candidates into ridings and/or leadership roles. Candidates should be selected by their constituents (and this is mostly true of the CPC except I can’t figure out WHY Rob Anders is still an MP as he’s not widely liked in his riding and I seem to recall Harper getting involved somehow when his riding tried to push for a contest prior to the last election – fuzzy on the details but I remember it being a serious WTF moment for me. And HAVING a contest in the first place was what pi$$ed Chuck Cadman – and his riding – off.)
“ook south of the border” – but they end up with 5,000 page bills in order to get everyone’s buyin. Not sure I’d want to trade our dysfunction for theirs.
Doug – realistically, with a large proportion of the population having access to the internet, why COULDN’T we have direct input at a relatively low cost (hey, all those poll apps are free to bloggers, why not to MPs?)
@Candace (re I believe that’s currently dictated by the various party constitutions, no?): To the best of my knowledge the party leader decides if a member is going to be booted from caucus.
Better the dysfunction you’re familiar with than the dysfunction you’re not? You’d rather keep the dog and pony show we have now where a nation runs around pretending that their elected representatives represent them instead of the party leader?
I get really (and I do mean really) frustrated with the whole…. “oh, oh, but what if what we end up with turns out worse than we’ve got!?!?” idea – just exactly how much of a sham has this whole thing got to become before people are willing to take a few risks and change it?
stageleft
Would you expand on your idea of direct democracy and in particular how it would operate in Canada? Perhaps in a separate post.
I’m inclined to think that a representative democracy, with the representatives in constant dialogue with their constituents as Candace suggests, would be a more practicable approach.
“Better the dysfunction you’re familiar with than the dysfunction you’re not?” My point is that we ARE familiar with representational democracy as demonstrated south of the border. The bulk of the Acts I’ve looked up take up a few pages (except budgets, of course). Our Parliament doesn’t do “ear marks” etc although certainly amendments to proposed legislation do happen on a regular basis.
I’m pretty sure that all party constitutions state that the leader can punt someone from caucus, as I’ve seen all 3 of the national parties do it in the past couple of years (remember the NDP punting the MP from Winnipeg that, what, abstained on a vote – I think it was the SSM vote and she was voting based on feedback from her constituents). Garth got punted from the CPC (did Bill Casey, too, over a budget vote?). Sheila Copps was punted by Martin.
“oh, oh, but what if what we end up with turns out worse than we’ve got!?!?” – I didn’t say that, I just said I wouldn’t want to trade our dysfunction for their lobby-driven one that results in unreadable bills.
I would LOVE to see some changes made, and not just to my favorite hobbyhorse, the Senate (of course, one of the more popular arguments I’ve seen against elected senators is Evil Harper’s desire to make our democracy US Lite). Why CAN’T we vote electronically? If Revenue Canada can ensure my tax return goes through the ethernets into their computer without interference, why can’t Elections Canada do the same with my vote? And if they could, why couldn’t I vote, or at least provide an opinion, on major pieces of legislation? Even if all that accomplished was a tally in parliamentary voting records showing that an MP voted FOR something that 53% of his responding constituents were against, wouldn’t that be a major blow FOR transparency?
There is no reason other than the obvious – they don’t actually care what you think except during an election Candace, none of them.
“they don’t actually care what you think” – that’s not true! The admin assistants that respond to my emails are always very polite and appreciative. You are such a cynic.
Was that something the Fathers of Confederation agreed upon and forgot to put in writing?
The principle that the natural resources of a sovereign nation are the *property* of its people is well-established, you selectively-argumentative dullard. How that plays out in reality is not always clear, however.
Never B.C. timber, Ontario minerals or Quebec hydro, always Albertan oil.
Did I suggest it was any different in those instances? However, in the case of Quebec hydro, it’s the water resources that belong to the people, not necessarily the dams, the machinery, or the distribution networks. The unique place that a strategic resource such as fossil fuel occupies in our economy is the reason why it’s probably discussed so often, one would imagine.
The real test of that particular property right, Peter, is that there’s nothing preventing any Canadian citizen from moving to Alberta and enjoying the benefits of that particular resource (something non-Canadians have no right to). What motivated me to write that is that, increasingly, that’s the only way to balance out the negative “externalities” that I listed above that the rest of us are saddled with.
Ti-Guy, I think a little constitutional law 101 would be in order. Canadian citizens own nothing wherever they live. Resources within provinical boundaries belong to Her Majesty in right of the province, which also exercises total jurisdiction over their disposition and management. In the North and offshore, they belong to Her Majesty in right of the Canada, which exercises the same powers. The only nebulous (i.e. legally ill-defined) exceptions are on aboriginal lands covered by treaties or agreements, which, again, are owned by no aboriginal person. In other words, everything is owned by government.
For a card-carrying anti-American, you sure are quick to shout “We the People…”. But, hey, I’m willing to sell you my share of Saskatchewan’s potash reserves for a song, provided you move fast.
That you would confuse the Crown with the government surprises me not one bit. That you are having difficulty with the concept of ownership does, however.
What or who exactly “the Crown” represents these days is a useful discussion, but not one that causes me much confusion when it comes to the ownership of natural resources withing the boundaries of a sovereign nation, even in the ambiguous case of aboriginal lands (whose resources belong to them, unequivocally…but you can’t say that, because ultimately, they have a better claim to *all* of it, than any of us do).
For a card-carrying anti-American, you sure are quick to shout “We the People…”.
It’s probably the amnesia with respect to the meaning of that and other concepts articulated at the founding of that great republic and/or their cynical, self-serving re-interpretation that causes me to be more anti-American than anything else.
Only an American could think that referring legally to a Canadian government as Her Majesty in Right of Canada (or a province) is a confusion. Hey, I do realize change/reform is an ongoing process, but it doesn’t arrive magically from warm and fuzzy resolutions from the latest Liberal Party Convention.
Interesting rhetorical choice, Peter. If I cared where you’re heading with that, I’d be mildly offended or amused (or possibly both). Since I never have, I’ll just appreciate it for its attempt at Conservative passion, that, much to my shame, I quite often mistake as peevishness.
I don’t believe for a second that you feel shame.
Ti-Guy, Peter is basically correct that resources such as Crown lands and minerals belong to the province concerned, not to the nation as a whole. This was not the case for Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta until 1930, when each of these provinces negotiated a Natural Resources Transfer Agreement with the federal government. As a result Crown or public lands were transferred from federal government control to each province with some exceptions such as Indian reserves and national parks. One of the reasons for the strong feelings in Alberta while the NEP was being negotiated and fought over was this feeling that Alberta had been treated as a colony until 1930.
Different provinces have had different regulations for minerals, but in the prairie provinces most subsurface rights belong to the province unless the lands involved were homesteaded or sold before late 1887 (when an order in council was passed reserving subsurface rights from certificates of title). Before that the federal government was figuring out how to organize the lands it was about to open for homesteading; and it settled on making a division between surface and subsurface rights.
But I agree with you that the Alberta government has given away our oil cheap and cheated the people of Alberta.
Screw the people of Alberta. Nobody’s got a gun to their heads forcing them to vote Conservative. We should sue them for negligent voting.
Don’t sue me – I vote against the bums, and have helped elect a Liberal MLA (not that it does that much good, but the Conservative monolith is starting to show cracks)
Hey – forget the liberals. You should start a Progressive Conservative Party out in Alberta, Holly Stick. I bet the cracks would really start showing!
Ti-Guy, Peter is basically correct that resources such as Crown lands and minerals belong to the province concerned…
Their “ownership” has never been explicitly established in any law or in the body of jurisprudence other than that of “land” belonging to the province (this is the reason for the Conservatives wanting to open the Constitution to establish ‘property rights’). The disposition (exploitation and management) of renewable and non-renewable resources found on or under that land has had a different history throughout the country depending on the period in which that became an issue for any part of Canada, both pre- and post-Confederation.. The convention that “ownership” rests with “the sovereign” is one that predates Confederation and one that continues to haunt us as we decide what ‘the Crown’ means for people now. Property rights have no real meaning outside of social convention, despite what others (libertarians, usually) assert.
The principle that natural resources belong to the people of a sovereign nation is well-established in international law, however.
I’m not arguing for any change, by the way. I simply brought up that point to highlight how the exploitation of a particular resource is conferring benefits exclusively to one class of Canadians while the disadvantages are being born by those who are not.
And before anyone brings up “transfer payments.” Remember…I’m an Ontarian. No province has been more screwed by that program than we have.
I don’t believe for a second that you feel shame.
Your lack of faith disturbs me…
Ti-Guy, the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements are part of Canadian law and they transferred resources as well as land to the prairie provinces. The other provinces entered Confederation as provinces, so they already controlled their Crown lands and resources, but the prairie provinces started as territories; and even after they became provinces their lands and resources were controlled by the federal government until 1930 (I’m not sure how it worked for Manitoba).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Transfer_Acts
International law is irrelevant; Canadian land laws developed separately, in order to deal with the settlement of the prairies. Our land laws come out of our history. The US does not have the distinction between surface and subsurface rights that Canada has.
“The Crown” in Canada basically refers to either the federal government or any provincial government; so you get law cases involving, for instance, the Crown in Right of Canada, or the Crown in Right of Alberta. I’m not sure if governments are seen to hold public lands in trust; in the case of Indian Reserves, the federal government does hold the reserve land in trust for the First Nation.