LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Running a tight ship would seem a positive thing for a political leader.

Premier Rachel Notley is the unabashed central focus for the party's hopes and she commands a rare degree of personal loyalty.

The Alberta NDP has a reputation for unity.  After so many decades in the political wilderness, the opportunity to form a government afforded by the 2015 election created a glow of well-being for the party and its happy band of MLAs.

Party conventions are love-ins.  Debate of resolutions end in unanimous votes.  Nominations for the candidates for the upcoming provincial election have been one-contender acclamations.

So the blistering attack on the premier's office and caucus operations by backbench Calgary East MLA Robyn Luff this week was a hand grenade detonated below decks.

The fact that she named the premier in her press release on her grievances was the real shocker.

"Under Rachel Notley's leadership, every power that MLAs are supposed to have to be able to represent their constituents in the legislature has been taken away or denied from the start," thundered Luff.

She argued the questions backbenchers ask in the legislature are written by cabinet minister offices.  She said backbenchers statements are curtailed and edited by caucus officials and their social media expression is curtailed.  She said there is a "culture of fear and intimidation that leads to MLAs being unable to properly represent their constituents in the legislature."

In protest, she said she would not attend the legislature, a decision that doesn't come without a penalty — after 10 days out of the House, MLAs lose $100 per day from their indemnity allowance and $50 from their expense allowance.  In a not too surprising development, the NDP caucus has voted, unanimously of course, to turf Luff from their ranks.

Luff says she won't switch to another party and won't go back to the legislature.  She had already announced in September that she doesn't plan to run in the spring election.

So is this a big reveal of dissension in the ranks?  Will there be more defections?  Or is Luff's frustration an extreme version of the restiveness all backbenchers feel at some point about party discipline and efforts to stay on message and presenting a unified image.

The source of Luff's discontent is becoming more clear as events unfold.  Luff was more specific about her complaints in a public letter released after being tossed from caucus.

"For instance we were told that if we had any information on opposition members who had behaved inappropriately towards women that it was best not to go public with it because our party wasn't completely without fault on the matter," she wrote.

That remark brought a swift response, with Health Minister Sarah Hoffman quickly protesting that the government doesn't tolerate sexual harassment or assault and she's unaware of any such directive.

"When Jagmeet Singh was in town we got a text message saying not to be photographed with him," said Luff.

Given the state of the relationship between provincial and federal leaders right now, that might be true, conceded Hoffman.

More telling are her complaints about being stymied in her efforts to get her own constituents' concerns to the front of the government agenda.  She wants a review of the Mobile Home Site Tenancies Act to protect people in her riding having problems with their landlords.  She wants more Early Learning Screening for the kids in her constituency.  And she would have liked a study on the implementation of the province's carbon levy.

Like every backbencher ever, she would like to be heard by the leadership in her caucus.  She wants to prove she's working for her constituents but that just doesn't fit the government's immediate agenda.

In an interview with CBC radio Tuesday afternoon, Luff said she doesn't like "constantly being told exactly what to do all the time."

She went on to admit that she's sure all parties impose the same sort of restrictions on backbench MLAs.

And then she dropped the most surprising remark of all.

"I think the NDP is the best choice for Albertans moving forward."

But of course Luff's protest could have done damage to the party she claims to still support.

UCP Leader Jason Kenney isn't wading into the fray so far.  "It's a dispute between one member and their caucus," he said.

But Alberta Party house leader Greg Clark gleefully went there, voicing the doubts that Luff's broadsides have left hanging in the minds of voters.

"How can Albertans or those who work in the public service, have faith in the anti-bullying policies that are in place when your own government doesn't seem to play by the same rules?"

Photo Credit: The Province

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


In the past week, we've heard two separate complaints about how Cabinets are chosen once in response to Doug Ford's first Cabinet shuffle in the wake of a sudden resignation, the other as part of Alberta MLA Robyn Luff's expulsion from the province's NDP caucus.  In both cases, you have sitting members of legislatures complaining about how Cabinets are formed, and the amount of control that first ministers have when it comes to who gets to be a minister in any particular government.  The problem with their complaints, however, is that they miss some of the fundamental aspects of how our system works.

In her post-expulsion press release, Luff made a number of very valid points about the way in which Westminster parliaments and legislatures are being run, especially around message discipline and some of the strong-arm tactics that are used to keep elected members in line.  But she also made one particular suggestion that was entirely, for lack of a better term, crazy-pants:

I believe there needs to be a transparent process for hiring cabinet ministers.  Given that I have been told qualifications and skills have nothing to do with being appointed to cabinet, and that a way leaders control MLAs is that they decide who is promoted, if there were an independent panel that interviewed and chose Ministers from the pool of elected MLAs it would serve to both remove power from the Premier and to have the most qualified elected officials serving the people of Alberta.

First of all, the notion of merit in Cabinet appointments should be unpacked, because there is a pervasive notion that someone's pre-political expertise should qualify them for Cabinet in one way or another.  This can be problematic, however, because it can set up some wrong-headed expectations.  For example, the health minister shouldn't necessarily be a doctor, nor should the defence minister be a veteran in part because it can expose ministers to capture by their stakeholders.  It can help, mind you, and we've had successful ministers who have hailed from their professions but we've also had some real duds.  I think in particular of Gordon O'Connor, whose previous military experience was hailed when he was made defence minister, but as a Cold War general responsible for the war in Afghanistan, he made a number of procurement choices that were geared toward the Cold War rather than a counter-insurgency.  That was clearly a problem.  (The exception is that by law, the Attorney General must be a lawyer because they are also responsible for providing legal counsel to Cabinet).

Cabinet, in our system, is very much about managerial competence.  It's about overseeing a department, and deciding on what advice the non-partisan civil service provides that your government will follow, and to oversee implementation.  Above all, it's to be the person responsible for that department to the legislature or Parliament, the face of accountability.  Whether an MP or MLA has the ability to be accountable is as much an important consideration for the job as is one's academic or professional credentials.

We should also not forget that a Cabinet post is also a very political one, and while there is a certain amount of reward that is associated with handing out positions, we have to also remember that in the Canadian contexts, we have internalized a number of factors into how Cabinets are constructed.  While at the federal level, federalism is an important aspect that has been essential to the nation-building character of the ministry since Confederation, there are nevertheless regional dynamics within provinces that demand representation as well.  Diversity, whether linguistic, gender, or ethno-cultural is important for symbolic reasons as well as the fact that diverse management makes better decisions.  This has been proven in the corporate world, and it's true in politics.  We also know that when corporate boards insist that they're hiring on "merit," diversity gets ignored, which is why we have more legislation coming into force around the country that forces boards to increase diversity or explain why they haven't.

Beyond this, we have to also understand that there needs to be a high level of trust involved in the selection of Cabinet ministers because of the demands of Cabinet solidarity and Cabinet confidence.  These are sacrosanct principles in our system of government, and it's extremely important to ensure that you have a Cabinet that can speak with a single voice in public.  Opening up selection to some kind of "open" process would also presume that it becomes difficult to remove ministers as well, which can undermine those same principles of solidarity and confidence, especially if you develop rivals within the system.  Which isn't to suggest, of course, that we've been free of Cabinet rivalries, because Trudeau/Turner/Chrétien/Martin were a dynasty of Cabinet rivalries and successors which has been exacerbated by our bastardized system of leadership selection, but we also have to remember that in the UK and Australia, rivalries within Cabinet have toppled prime ministers.  And while federal politics can impose a certain level of maturity on this process, not every province is as capable of this.

The final point to make here is that a first minister, be it a premier or a prime minister, is responsible for the affairs of government.  The ability to pick and choose Cabinet ministers keeps the accountability centred on him or her, and that is extremely important for our system of government.  If we turn that power over to some independent panel, as Luff suggests, we not only undermine the ability to hold a first minister to account, we're also obliterating our own ability to be self-governing.  It becomes yet another situation where we might as well shrug and say "Well, we gave Responsible Government the college try and it hasn't taken," and then let the Queen pick Cabinet ministers once again.  I'm not sure that anyone wants this, so we need to remind ourselves that there is a purpose as to why first ministers have this power.  Yes, it lets them assert power over their caucus, but it is also incumbent upon backbenchers to exercise their duties rather than sucking up in the hopes of a Cabinet appointment that will never come.  Luff tried to exercise her duties and was punished, but it remains up to voters to judge Rachel Notley for it, as the accountability rests on her shoulders.

Photo Credit: The Atlantic

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


 

If you were to tell me that a former cabinet minister under Stephen Harper would be embroiled in a sex scandal this year, the last person I would guess is ex-Treasury Board President Tony Clement, who despite being married with three children always looks like he needs sex explained to him.  Yet, here we are.

Says Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, who initially accepted Clement's resignation from his justice critic portfolio and a number of committee roles, only to boot him from caucus after talk of a pattern emerged: "I don't know that too many people would have to be told not to share explicit images and videos with people that you haven't met, but obviously this is a terrible decision."

No bloody kidding.  But I'm sure there's a perfectly logical explanation for Clement doing who knows what on video (pray we never find out) because some online rando asked him to.  Maybe his judgment was clouded by grief for the widow who offered to deposit her recently deceased husband's billions into his account earlier that day.  Or maybe he was just happy that someone was interested after all those Instagram likes got him nowhere.

Either way, sending graphic content of oneself over the internet to a complete stranger is best avoided.  Better to send graphic content to people you've met before.  Multiple people.  People who work with you, or even for you, every day.  People who haven't asked for it, and therefore can't possibly be trying to extort you.  Oh, wait.

Does it sound like I'm enjoying this?  Perhaps I am, the way one might enjoy a video of someone trying to steal a salmon from a bear.  In the #MeToo era, it takes effort to commit such thunderingly obvious "lapses."  But since Scheer is very busy posing for ads for his new personal injury law firm,  I'll provide politicians and their staffers with some incredibly rudimentary tips on how not to be made to resign because of an errant wang.

  • Do not have sex with anyone except your spouse, long-term partner, or trusted friend with benefits.
  • If you insist on having sex with anyone who does not meet one of the above criteria, make sure they have as much to lose as you do if anyone ever finds out.
  • Do not take photos or videos of your genitals.
  • All sex must be consensual.  Informed consent is undermined, if not outright negated, if your partner is significantly younger than you (half your age plus seven is a good rule of thumb, and only if this sum is over 16), physically or mentally incapacitated (including by the influence of alcohol or narcotics), or in your employ.
  • Do not send e-mails, text messages, or any other form of recorded communication that is sexual in nature to anyone who meets any of the above criteria.
  • Do not make fleeting comments of a sexual nature to any of those same people.
  • Short of handshakes, high-fives, hugs, and cheek-kisses, do not make any physical contact with any of those same people.
  • Seriously, do not take photos or videos of your genitals.
  • Do not have any interactions of a sexual nature with a person you have never met face-to-face.
  • Do not have any interactions of a sexual nature with anyone while conducting government business at home or abroad.
  • Do not have any interactions of a sexual nature in exchange for money, access, or information.
  • I really cannot stress this enough: DO NOT take photos or videos of your genitals.
  • Do not store any images or messages of a sexual nature on your government-issued computer or other electronic device.
  • Do not access pornography websites using your government-issued computer or other electronic device.
  • Do not access erotic fanfiction using your government-issued computer or other electronic device.
  • Especially the weird stuff.  Apparently there's a subgenre of fanfic involving anthropomorphized birds.
  • DO NOT TAKE PHOTOS OR VIDEOS OF YOUR GENITALS.
  • Do not visit a strip club, sex toy shop, or social gathering where strippers and/or sex toys are present, unless you can be certain that no one present or passing by will recognize you.  (Spoiler: You can't.)
  • If all else fails, pretend you don't have a sex drive at all.  The public would prefer you didn't.
  • THOSE THINGS NEVER DISAPPEAR.
  • AND YOU ARE ALMOST 60 YEARS OLD.  YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS.
  • DON'T DO IT.  EVER. 

Written by Jess Morgan

 

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.