daveberta.ca - Alberta Politics and Elections

The results of the Alberta Liberal leadership contest have been released and David Swann was selected on the first ballot. Here is the vote breakdown:

Congrats to Calgary-Mountain View MLA David Swann who, depending how you look at it, now has either the privilege or misfortune of becoming leader of the Alberta Liberal Party and Alberta’s Official Opposition in our Legislature.

More commentary: Can David Swann change politics in Alberta?

In preparation for this weekend’s incredibly low-key Alberta Liberal leadership announcement, SEE Magazine covers the contest in this week’s issue – including an article from yours truly.

As well-intentioned as Mo Elsalhy, David Swann, and Dave Taylor may be, I believe the low amount of interest in this race says as much about the state of political engagement in Alberta as it does about state of any one party. With voter-turnout having dropped in the 40% range in the last election, it is clear that none of our current politicians or political parties are successfully connecting with Albertans on a meaningful level.

With the three leadership candidates only able to attract 6,000 Albertans to participate by taking out Liberal memberships, it is yet to be seen whether any of these men can successfully transform Alberta’s official opposition Liberals into a competitive alternative to the long-governing Progressive Conservative establishment.

I will be posting the results of this race as they are released tomorrow (December 13, 2008) at 2:00 p.m. (first ballot) and 2:30 p.m. (second ballot).

It’s being reported that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is preparing to open a floodgate of Senate appointment before Christmas.

There are 18 vacancies in the 105-seat Senate and Harper will try to fill as many of those slots as quickly as possible in order to put them out of reach of a Liberal-NDP coalition.

Moves like these make it hard to believe that Harper was one of the original Reform Party Members of Parliament, a Party that had the creation of a Triple E Senate as one of its key principals. Though the Conservatives previously introduced moderate Senate Reform legislation, it died when Harper asked the Governor General to dissolve parliament and call the October 14, 2008 election. The 2008 Conservative election platform (pdf) stated that:

…Stephen Harper believe[s] that the current Senate must be either reformed or abolished. An unelected Senate should not be able to block the will of the elected House in the 21st century.

Principals, promises to Canadians (and to God) aside, it would be an understandable political maneuver on Harper’s part, as Liberal Senate-appointees currently number 58 to the Conservatives’ 20, but it raises some serious questions about what other principals and promises Harper is willing to toss aside in the name of politics. It makes me struggle to see how Harper’s power play politics differ from those of former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, whom some nicknamed the Friendly Dictator.

It’s likely the case that many Canadians didn’t even notice, but provinces with current Senate vacancies include Newfoundland and Labrador (1), New Brunswick (2), Nova Scotia (3), Prince Edward Island (1), Quebec (4), Ontario (2), Yukon (1), Saskatchewan (1), British Columbia (3).

Will Canadians bare witness to a Chretien- or Pierre Trudeau-style series of appointments? Who would find themselves on Stephen Harper’s Christmas Senate wish list? John Reynolds in British Columbia? Michel Fortier or Mario Dumont in Quebec? Doug Finley or Ernie Eves in Ontario? Bernard Lord in New Brunswick? Loyola Hearn in Newfoundland and Labrador? Or will Harper surprise Canadians by appointing a broad range of independent-thinkers with political inclinations?

Or maybe Harper will go super-unconventional and appoint Julie Couillard, Leonard Cohen, Alanis Morissette, Donald Sutherland, and Don Iveson.

In the 21st century, it’s hard to believe that an antiquated 19th century institution such as Canada’s appointed Senate has succeeded in surviving.

(h/t @davidakin)

How do you compete for public attention against an industry that spends millions of dollars on lobbyists and spin advertising?

Well, this is a good start:

(h/t desmogblog)

Putting all of the pro- and anti-coalition rhetoric aside, I am sincerely hoping that the situation in Ottawa over the past two weeks spurns some serious national debate about parliamentary democracy in Canada, and more specifically, the separation of powers in our system of government.

Anyone who pays attention to Canadian politics (both federal and provincial) should have no problem recognizing the political authority held by the executive (cabinet) over the elected legislatures (MPs, MLA, etc). The ability of the Prime Minister to request the Governor General to prorogue Parliament raises some concerning questions about the power that the occupant of Prime Minister’s Office holds in our system of parliamentary democracy.

It’s not a radical concept that executive should govern at the behest of the elected legislature, not vice-versa, and the executive branch should never have the ability to shut down an entire house of elected representatives; this is undemocratic at the core. Though Prime Minister Stephen Harper was perfectly within his legal right to request the proroguement, this move highlights the critical flaws within our system and political culture that allowed and accepted this move.

Though the proroguing of Parliament will likely create short-term stability in Ottawa, Canadians should be concerned about the long-term repercussions of this move. By requesting the Governor General prorogue parliament, Harper was able to avoid facing an unfavourable vote by our elected representatives in the House of Commons. Will this clear the way for future Prime Ministers or Premiers to effectively shut down the elected legislatures when things aren’t going their way? Will it marginalize the already marginalized culture of independent thought and actions in the backbenches of our House of Commons?

This is only one of the ways in which the essence of our parliamentary system needs a complete overhaul, and creating clear separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches — allowing checks and balances that help keep each branch accountable — would be an excellent point to begin a national debate.

Last week, a friend (h/t A.A.) sent me an article on this topic from one of the key players in government today. Then President of the National Citizens’ Coalition Stephen Harper made a similar argument for government reform in a May 2001 article in the Alberta Report:

Anyway, the question is: how do we fix the system? Over the years we’ve proposed many solutions: free votes, direct democracy, Senate reform, and on and on. But since no one in Ottawa seems to be listening, Link asked me to come up with a new one.

So how about this: why haven’t any of the advocates of so-called “parliamentary reform” suggested that the essence of the parliamentary system itself needs to be fixed? By this I mean disconnecting the executive (cabinet) and legislative branches of government. Maybe what Canada needs is a system that separates the two branches of government along the lines of the American model,

To some, any such suggestion is an attack on Canada’s British tradition of parliamentary government. I believe they are mistaken. Indeed, in British history the legislative branch of government evolved as a separate and essential check on the unbridled power of the Crown. The original concept of executive “responsibility” to the legislature was not a complete fusing of the branches because, until at least the early part of the 20th century, the concept of an impotent Crown (if one defines this as not just the monarch, but her wider family and segment of society) was unthinkable.

Just as importantly, it was inconceivable to British voters that members of their legislature (let alone the cabinet) might one day become mere “voting machines” for a single first minister, a man deriving his power from an institution (the party) operating largely outside of Parliament.

See more anti-coalition photos on Flickr.

“I think an awful lot of Canadians will be disappointed in all federal politicians for what’s been going on.”

NDP MP Peter Stoffer on CBCs The National

See more pro-coalition photos on Flickr.

If there’s one thing we Canadians can be proud of, it’s how this past week’s situation in Ottawa is being portraying in the international media that matters.

Excellent.

There have been some predictions that the Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc Quebecois may spurn a resurgent Western separatism movement, but before we start posting Alberta Sheriffs at the Saskatchewan border, I suggest we take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

If you’re an Albertan suffering from Ottawa-alienation, you are probably not as alone as you think — because it’s hard to argue that Canadians living from coast to coast aren’t feeling the exact same way — something deeply reflected in the dropping voter turnout and political engagement levels across the country.

I’m not sure I’ve ever felt particularly represented by any of the parties in Ottawa, but I don’t feel this is because I was born and raised in Alberta. The insulated political bubble in which Ottawa’s political culture exists draws in politicians from across regional and party-lines, and it will only change when Canadians from across the country begin to take their responsibilities as citizens seriously. More Canadians need to become active citizens and demand more than political maneuvers and spin from their elected representatives, whether they be Conservative, Liberal, NDP, or BQ.

I support progressive politics in Canada, but truth be told, I have about as much trust in Stephane Dion and Jack Layton as I do in Stephen Harper, and that’s not much. As I previously wrote, I hope that the long-term silver lining of this situation will help end of the extreme partisanship and negative politics brought to Ottawa by Harper and Tom Flanagan. By playing politics too fast and too loose, Harper’s Conservatives killed any real chance of forming positive working relationships with the three other parties. By the time the Conservatives backtracked on the more unpopular moves, it had become unreasonable to believe that the other parties in the House of Commons could still work with a political party that publicly held their eradication at the core of its political, and apparently legislative, agenda.

Finally, I thought that Chris Labossiere at A Rich Full Life presented some pretty thoughtful points about his frustrations with Canadian parliamentary culture (and I agree):

“I don’t know enough about a Parliamentary Democracy to debate the nuances, but what I do know is that it punishes moderate, progressive thinking. We buy the nonsense that we must vote along party lines. Firstly at our riding level, but our whole system actually chastises MP’s & MLA’s who deviate from the party line. The whole system is set to punish those who may want to walk their own talk. Unlike the American system, where a party faithful can object to the party line for their constituents, we never let that happen. How can the shining stars ever rise out of the mix to make a name for themselves if they have to pretend to believe that everything their party believes in is gospel. The moderates are lost in the fray. The visionaries threaten the status-quo and for that they must be punished. Most great ones simply don’t bother, and continue to be great in their industry, profession or calling.“