March 7, 2010

Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m pleased to rise in this House and speak to Bill 7, the Election Statutes Amendment Act. I’ve organized my comments today into three parts. First, I want to discuss our province’s current democratic deficit, and then I want to discuss how Bill 7 attempts to address this deficit. Finally, I’ll suggest some additions to Bill 7 with an amendment that would work to improve our democracy and improve this bill, Bill 7, as we move forward.

Mr. Chair, Alberta has a rich and proud history of producing great men and women to champion the democratic causes of Senate reform, government accountability, and women’s rights, just to name a few. It’s a history that we can all be proud of. Sadly, however, as a province we have failed to show leadership on this issue in recent years. Politics in our province has evolved into a process that is almost completely undemocratic.

For example, there are very few, if any, real free votes in the Legislature. The Premier and a small group of mostly unelected government officials make almost every decision on virtually every issue in government. The peoples’ elected MLAs, on the other hand, generally have little, if any, real input into the decisions that impact the lives of those they represent. If an MLA contradicts the party line, he or she is sanctioned and disciplined. We saw this with the Member for Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo. We saw it also with the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. Most MLAs, I would say, if not all, on that side of the House know that what I am saying is true. This democratic deficit is bad enough, but it has been made worse by a lack of transparency and accountability by our current government. Government documents are difficult and expensive to publicly access. Cabinet sets its salaries behind closed doors. Billion-dollar government contracts are awarded without tender, as in Bill 50. Approval for infrastructure projects is often politicized. Budget deficits and other important financial information is underreported. And a culture of fear and intimidation keeps potential whistle-blowers from stepping forward.

Mr. Chairman, I left the PC Party for many reasons, but none were larger than this: the current state of our democracy is unacceptable. It is shameful. It is a mockery of the sacrifices that have been shed in its defence, and it must change, either by this government or, if they are unwilling, the Wildrose will happily take up the cause. Predictably, this lack of democracy and transparency has resulted in poor government policies, exceptionally low voter turnout, almost universal cynicism towards elected officials, and a feeling that the average Albertan has no voice or influence on issues that affect them personally. When only two in five people choose to vote in an election, you know we have a very, very big problem. I am assuming Bill 7 is an attempt to address this issue. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, it doesn’t do so very well at all. It tinkers with the system. There are some improvements, no doubt. But it leaves out all of the important things that could really make a difference in returning our province to a strong, democratic jurisdiction. I expected more out of this Minister of Justice, and so did Albertans. What we got was very, very disappointing, in my view, with this bill. One of the left-out recommendations was that of fixed election dates. Our neighbours to the west, in British Columbia, have a fixed election date law. They have been followed by Ontario and Newfoundland, and now many others are contemplating it as well. Our government? Not a chance. Apparently, this government does not see the need for fixed election dates. Apparently, they think it’s fair for a sitting government to be able to plan for an election to the very hour it is held but to allow the opposition parties to be kept in the dark. They don’t see a problem with that. How pathetic that they would be so worried about maintaining a tactical advantage over the opposition for their own good rather than levelling the playing field for the sake of a more democratic province. The Chief Electoral Officer also made a recommendation to prohibit government departmental advertising during elections. Obviously, having the multimillion-dollar Public Affairs Bureau working 24/7 to flood the airwaves with ads and communications that make the governing party look good is another unfair advantage the government has over opposition parties during elections. I guess this advantage is also too difficult for the government to give up. Then there is the long list of democratic reforms the Wildrose Alliance would suggest be added to this bill to strengthen our democracy. We would institute fixed election dates not only for general elections but also for Senate elections. We would implement direct democracy legislation enshrining voter recall and citizen initiated referenda. We would restore the role of an elected MLA by mandating that all votes, every single one, in the Legislature and caucus be free and transparently reported to the public: no more fear, no more intimidation and decision-making behind closed doors, just total transparency and accountability. Our democracy is hurting, Mr. Chair. The government can deny it all they want. They can justify their actions until they’re blue in the face, but it matters not. They know what we all know: our democracy needs an overhaul. Alberta is the home of Senator Bert Brown, that courageous man and constituent of mine who plowed “triple-E” into his wheat field to help inspire a movement that is only now being realized. This is the home of Preston Manning, a man decades ahead of his time and one of this nation’s greatest ever defenders of the wisdom and democratic rights of the common man. This is the home of the Famous Five – Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby, and Nellie McClung – who stood up against what was then the conventional democratic wisdom that only men should be able to vote. Their brave stand altered the course of history for the betterment of our province and for our nation. Ours is a legacy to be proud of, Mr. Chair.

It is time this PC government either commit to follow our province’s tradition of democratic pioneering or continue on their present downward course towards replacement by a new group of elected representatives who will. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would propose the following amendment. I believe you have the copies. Would you like me to wait?

The Chair: Yes, hon. member. Wait for the pages to distribute the amendment. This amendment is now known as A1. Hon. Member for Airdrie-Chestermere, please continue on amendment A1.

Mr. Anderson: I’ll read the amendment into the record. I would like to introduce to the House an amendment. I propose that section 89 be amended to change the proposed section 44.1(1)(g) of the Election Statutes Amendment Act by striking out subclause (iv). What this amendment is intended to do, Mr. Chair – again, right now the government departments are allowed to advertise during an election period, so they can put out into the public airwaves and on television and in the newspaper all of the great things and the great announcements on infrastructure and things like that that obviously always seem to come right before elections. Usually they’re reannouncements of things that have already been announced.

In any event, I will say that this is definitely not the only government in this land, this nation of ours, that does this, but it sure doesn’t make it right. It doesn’t seem right to me that you can have a government basically spending, frankly, millions of dollars on saying how great the government that was just in power preceding that election writ being dropped is. I just don’t think that that is a proper use of taxpayer funds. It gives an unfair advantage to the sitting government. We’re really only talking about four weeks here. Surely the government can wait on trying to promote what it’s doing for Albertans for four weeks while the parties debate the issues and Albertans are discussing the issues.

We have all these campaign finance laws. They’re good laws, and we should respect them. This is almost a little bit of a loophole, so I would hope that we could end that practice as we move forward. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: The hon. Solicitor General.

Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The hon. member raised a number of issues in his speech prior to tabling this amendment, as did the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek, a number of problems with the bill. Now we have before us an amendment. It escapes me, I suppose, as to how this amendment fixes some of those issues. I wanted to read into the record some of the issues the member alluded to and my concerns with them.

First of all, the member and also the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek talked about fixed election dates. The Member for Calgary Fish-Creek talked about these being very effective in reference to fixed election dates with municipal elections. I wonder if the hon. member would care to share with us exactly how they’re being effective because no evidence or numbers were provided in either her speech or in the hon. member’s speech. Maybe we might want to do that by comparing, say, the voter turnout in the last municipal election to the nearest provincial election. You know, that might be a useful statistic to compare. I don’t think that “our neighbours have one” is a very compelling argument for why we should have a fixed election date.

It’s amusing that the hon. member mentioned the great, great people that have gone further nationally in politics in our country. I’ve got to tell him that I don’t think I’d agree with the list. He did mention one of them that went off to Ottawa that was going to install fixed election dates. I’m wondering if he could share with the House how that turned out.

The Member for Calgary-Fish Creek talked about: no constituent has ever said that we should have more MLAs in our province.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Back to that, I don’t doubt for a second that the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek works very hard to represent her constituents, but I’m not at all surprised that they haven’t ever asked her for more MLAs or asked her to represent to our government we should have more MLAs. I can tell this hon. member that, in all honesty, my constituents have, and it’s not just because of my performance as an MLA; it is because it is very hard to represent one’s constituency in certain constituencies. For me to travel from my home in Peace River, never mind getting to my home in Peace River from Edmonton, for a meeting in Rainbow Lake is a 900 kilometre round trip. If I go to Zama, it’s about a 750 kilometre round trip; 150 kilometres of that is gravel road. It’s hard. My constituents are concerned about representation at Edmonton, and I’m glad we’re adding more MLAs.

I want to correct, I think, a misstatement on the part of that member. He talked about cabinet setting salaries behind closed doors. I think he should visit the legislative act and understand the terms of reference of the Members’ Services Committee. The cabinet salaries are set by the Members’ Services Committee. They’re right in the members’ services handbook. He may want to look that up.

The last one. You know, plucking some of the democratic tools here, we talked about voter recall. First of all, that has been tried and I think in many instances proven ineffective or unworkable. It was another one of the promises of one of those guys that we sent to Ottawa that the member mentioned. I just wonder: if we were to implement such a thing in Alberta, would that apply to members who – I don’t know – cross the floor, for example? Just wondering.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: The hon. Member for Airdrie-Chestermere, responding to those points.

Mr. Anderson: Thank you. I thank the Solicitor General for his comments. You know, I don’t dispute that he’s a good MLA. I know he’s a good MLA. He works very hard for his constituents. He’s a very good minister. I’ve always found him to be a competent and articulate member of this House. I don’t think that the view of not having more MLAs has anything to do with whether he’s doing a good job or not. Some people would say that we need to readjust the boundaries and try to stick as close as we can to one person, one vote, but that’s a back-and-forth argument. I see there are good arguments on both sides. I definitely would say that to you. With regard to voter recall, you know, and citizens’ initiatives I think that they’re definitely worth a try doing. I don’t think that we should look at the California model, where you get 2 per cent of voters on a petition and you can get a citizens’ initiative on a ballot. Then you get, like, 20 things on a ballot. I agree that no one wants that type of circus. But I think that if you increase that to 10, 15, or even 20 per cent, if there was really an issue that was just burning Albertans – it was just driving them nuts, and the government wasn’t responding to it – they could organize and bring that forward. I think that that’s a worthy goal. It would be another way of bringing people into the process.

With regard to my own floor-crossing, I feel that an MLA is accountable to his constituents first and foremost, and I felt that I could represent them and their interests better in opposition. But I’ll tell you right now that I have no problem going on the record and saying that if the Premier would like to pick a date, sometime in the fall or whenever, I would be more than happy to step down a month before that election date and hold a by-election any day, any time. He picks, and I will step down the day before the writ is dropped as long as we can come to an agreement. The reason I wouldn’t want to step down is because that would leave my – I mean, I know the government, surely, would not hold an election in Airdrie-Chestermere, definitely not right now. They would like to probably draw that out for six months. If they were to hold it right now, I’m very sure what the result would be. I don’t think that’s very fair. But if the Premier and the government feel that they would like to take me up on that, by all means just name the date. I’ll step down a month before, and we’ll have an election. I’d love to do it, just would welcome the challenge.

I would also say that the reason voter recall is important is because, look, we all need to be accountable to our constituents. Every one of us needs to be, between elections as well as every four years. I don’t think anybody in this Chamber would be recalled right now because we don’t have any criminals among us that I know of. We don’t have people that are, you know, doing things that are just ridiculous, et cetera. Well, maybe ridiculous policy wise but not in their personal affairs. I would say that I think that people would survive. Anyway, that’s just my response to the hon. minister on those points.

Video:

Alberta's Democratic Deficit (Part 1)
Dim lights

Alberta's Democratic Deficit (Part 2)
Dim lights

April 20, 2010

Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Bill 7, the Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, is all about the democratic process and about how we can make our democracy more transparent, make it stronger, make it more fair. I understand that, and I do actually applaud the government on several of the amendments in the bill as I think they are a step in the right direction. Of course, there are many things that we think are omitted. In order to put that into context, I feel that it is necessary to talk a little bit about the state of our democracy from my perspective. I know very clearly that there are hon. members of this Assembly that will disagree with my assessment of the state of our democracy. That’s fair. Thankfully, we have a democracy that we can debate in and that we can have differences of opinion in, and this is all good.

There are things that I do not think are very healthy in our democratic system, and there are things that need to be addressed. I felt so strongly about that, Mr. Chair, that I left the governing PC caucus and became a member of the Wildrose Alliance caucus a few short months ago. I did not do this on a whim. It’s something I thought about very deeply, and it was, without doubt, the hardest, most difficult decision in a lot of ways that I’ve ever had to make.

I wanted to comment on that, and I wanted to talk about that in order that I could put on the record for this Assembly and for people listening and for my constituents the reasons why I made the decision that I did. This, of course, will set the context for the rest of the discussion, the points that I want to bring up later on Bill 7. With that, I’m going to read excerpts from my statement on why I made the decision that I did three short months ago so that we can better understand some of the flaws that I think should be addressed in Bill 7 and should be addressed as we move forward as a Legislature. So here we go.

As has been reported, I have made the decision to join the Wildrose Alliance [caucus and] Party.

Leaving the PC Party was a very difficult decision for me and my family. We value the friendships we have with many of our former caucus colleagues, party members and their families, and know that some may feel upset with [this] decision. Ultimately, however, my political loyalties reside with the people of . . . Alberta and especially with those in the constituency of Airdrie-Chestermere who elected me to represent them. And it is principally to all of those that I wish to explain my decision to cross the floor.

Most Albertans will be disappointed to know that [in my view] politics in our province has evolved into a process that is almost completely undemocratic. Not only are there [rarely] free votes in the Legislature, there are very few free votes [from my point of view] 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 [in my experience] generally have little, if any, real input into the [major] decisions that impact the lives of their constituents.

Final government decisions are highly influenced by the Premier’s chief-of-staff . . . This unelected [government appointee] is now paid more than the Premier (nearly $400,000 per year) and has effectively been given the power to override the views of the elected caucus [in some situations]. As a result, [Albertans] essentially have governance [at times] by bureaucratic fiat rather than by [the people’s] democratically elected representatives. Predictably, this undemocratic system has resulted in policies that are contrary to the small-c conservative sensibilities of most Albertans. From massive royalty hikes on our energy entrepreneurs, to awarding untendered transmission line contracts worth billions of dollars, [to the return to debt financing], to failing to protect the rights of free speech of our citizens, to behind-closed-doors salary increases, to the highly questionable $2 billion carbon capture and storage experiment (I could go on) – the advice and words of warning from many caucus MLAs have been largely ignored and dismissed, and extremely poor policy decisions have resulted.

Equally disturbing is that [the Premier and his inner circle] considers it a serious offence if elected MLAs speak up publicly for their constituents. By way of example, [the hon. Member for Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo], a former Cabinet Minister . . . Was ejected from . . . caucus . . . for simply speaking up [on behalf of] his most vulnerable constituents.

In response to publicly suggesting the need for improved fiscal responsibility, I and [some of] the other so-called “Fiscal Seven” had our positions within government [at the time] threatened . . . Even behind closed doors, MLAs who contradict the . . . Chief of staff, the Premier, or a prominent Minister [in my experience were] often derided, shouted down, and threatened with having their political careers limited in some fashion.

Simply put, [it is my belief that] our system of governance has become entirely dysfunctional and is not something I can continue to be part of. Over the past two years, I committed myself to trying to make a positive impact within the government caucus [by advocating for the views and needs of my constituents, both in private and in public]. This is what the citizens of Alberta pay me to do.

That is what my constituents expect of me. I believe that defending poor public policy that has been developed by a small band of [largely] out-of-touch government appointees [and insiders, would be a poor investment of my life and of taxpayers’ money.] I . . . entered public life to try to make a difference for our province. I believe, with the right leadership, Alberta can become an example to the world of the unparalleled success that [comes from] protecting economic and individual freedoms, adhering to principles of fiscal and personal responsibility and remaining true to authentic democratic values.

These are principles I believe in. They are also principles held by the majority of my constituents who entrusted me with the honour of representing them. I have therefore determined that I will support the political party that best reflects and respects those principles. In the Wildrose Alliance, I see a party which understands [and a caucus which understands] that the role of elected representatives is to vote in the best interests of their constituents, rather than to inform constituents of their [political] party’s talking points. I see in [the Wildrose leader] Danielle Smith a leader who is articulate, competent and committed to the modern, small-c conservative principles that I and the majority of my constituents hold dear.And it is for [this reason] that I have decided to leave the Alberta PC Party [and caucus] and join Danielle Smith’s Wildrose Alliance.

I, again, Mr. Chair, feel that this is an extremely important decision that I had to make. There were many that felt when I crossed the floor that I should resign and a by-election should be held in my constituency. I considered that a lot, and of course I’ve issued a challenge to the governing caucus, to the Premier, on that matter, which I’ll talk about in a second. I wanted to address why – and this actually directly affects Bill 7, the Election Statutes Amendment Act – our system needs a little bit of work and why we’ve kind of gotten the role of an elected representative mixed up and turned around a little bit. So I again would read into the record excerpts of a piece entitled: why a by-election would not be in the best interests of my constituents. I will let them decide whether to agree with it or not.

Last week [at the time] I decided to leave the PC Party and join the Wildrose Alliance. As I explained in my public statement, I did this because I feel by doing so I will be able to more effectively represent and advocate for the needs and views of my constituents. I did not make this decision in isolation. Over the past six months alone, I have had many hundreds of active PC Party members express to me that they had completely lost confidence in the current government. A significant number of these encouraged me to consider a different party affiliation – one that would more closely reflect small-c conservative values.

In the first two days after publicly announcing my decision, I received over 500 emails and phone calls from constituents on this matter. The vast majority of these have expressed agreement with my decision. Extensive polling conducted in the constituency over the last week has confirmed this overwhelming support.

However, some of those who do not support my decision have suggested that I should resign my seat and hold a by-election. Others feel I should sit as an Independent until the next election is called.I carefully considered both of these options in the days and weeks leading up to my decision to cross the floor and came to the firm conclusion that both options were unacceptable. I wish to explain this conclusion.

On one level, I would be happy to contest a by-election. As stated earlier, constituent feedback and polling point to the likelihood of an overwhelming Wildrose Alliance victory should such an election be called.

The problem is that if I were to resign my seat, election law states that a by-election would not need to be called for 6 months. Assuming the Premier would likely delay the date as long as possible in hopes of recovering his Party’s failing popularity [in this area], this would mean my constituents would be left without an MLA for 6 months. I receive hundreds of inquiries each week from constituents with a diverse range of concerns, varying from needing to access programs for the disabled to providing input for a Government Bill before the Legislature. To deny my constituents this representation (especially during the critical spring budget session of the Legislature) would be undemocratic and irresponsible.

I also felt that sitting as an Independent would be a mistake. My job is to represent the needs and views of my constituents in the most effective way possible. As an Independent, I would not have the opportunity to ask daily questions in question period. I would have less government resources at my disposal to fight for the infrastructure, policies and other initiatives those I represent wish me to advocate for. I therefore determined this option would also not be in my constituents’ best interests.

And that brings me to my last, and potentially, most important point. As I’ve explained, one of the key reasons for my leaving the PC Party was due to the unacceptable concentration of decision making power in the Premier’s small (and largely unelected) inner circle. It is a widely accepted and unfortunate fact that Canada’s Premiers and Prime Ministers hold more executive power than almost any comparable elected office in the world; even more than the Office of the President of the United States [for example].

We saw this power used a few months ago when the Premier ejected [the hon. Member for Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo] from caucus for simply defending the needs of his senior constituents. On this basis, it would appear that the government feels that kicking out an elected MLA against his will (and without a vote by caucus) is democratic, but an MLA voluntarily leaving his Party in order to better represent his constituents is not.

One of the few checks on the power of the Premier’s Office is the ability of an elected MLA to leave the caucus and sit with another party that better reflects the views and desires of his constituents. Whether it be incompetence, a lack of democracy, repeated poor policy decisions [or any other reason], an elected representative in our system needs to be able to say to the government, “You have failed my constituents – and on their behalf, I will sit with another group that allows me to better represent their rights and their views.”

Under our system, we elect individuals, not political parties, to represent our interests in government. And representing my constituents’ interests above that of a party is precisely why I have made the decision to cross the floor to the Wildrose Alliance. Mr. Chairman, those are a couple of the statements that were made after that difficult decision, and I felt that they needed to be put on the record just so that there was a record of why I conducted the activity and why I did what I did.

Since that time, of course, there have been government members, specifically ministers, that have again asked that I run in a by-election. So my final piece – and, I’m sure, thankfully, for many of you – is my challenge to the Premier on that. I’ll leave with this, and we can move on to fixed election dates and other fun things.

My Challenge to the Premier.

Democracy in our province is hurting.

[In the] last election Alberta had the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. There is almost universal cynicism towards elected officials and their intentions [which is unfortunate and untrue.] And there is a prevailing feeling that the average Albertan has no voice or influence on the provincial issues that affect them personally. We need democratic renewal in the worst way.

A couple of months ago I crossed the floor to Danielle Smith’s Wildrose Alliance – a party I feel will, if elected by Albertans, usher in an unprecedented wave of democratic reform and government transparency. Although I am confident the vast majority of my constituents support my decision to cross the floor, several individuals (including Cabinet Ministers in [the Premier’s] government) have challenged me to step down and run in a by-election.

Initially, I chose not to do so because it would mean leaving my riding (the second most populous in Alberta) without representation for 6 months; and frankly, because I think an MLA should be able, on behalf of his constituents, to leave a party that [he or she feels] is incompetent and failing those that MLA represents. That said, I wish to issue a challenge to the Premier and his government should they feel so strongly about the need for a by-election.

I will agree to resign and hold a by-election under the following conditions:

First, so we don’t waste taxpayer money, the Premier needs to announce the by-election on the same day as municipal elections to be held this fall (Oct. 18th). I will resign my seat exactly one day prior to the Premier dropping the election writ (this date must also be mutually agreed to) so he can call the election under current by-election law.

Second, in order that Alberta retains full Senate representation in Ottawa starting in 2011 when Senator Tommy Banks retires, the Premier must call for a Senate election on that same day (Oct. 18th). This will also save taxpayer money. So far the Premier has refused to commit to Senate elections in the fall which means Albertans will be underrepresented starting in 2011 – this is unacceptable; and

Lastly, we need to start addressing the democratic deficit in this province. I would therefore request the Premier fix an exact election date in 2012 (whatever date he wants is fine). I’ll give the Premier until the end of spring session to take me up on this deal – so he’s got [a lot] of time to think about it. Hopefully, at least some good for our democracy (i.e. Senate elections and fixed election dates) will come of this.

Mr. Chair, I thank you for this opportunity to put these things on the record. I know that they’re not the easiest things for some people in this Chamber to listen to, so I do thank the members opposite for grinning and bearing it. They are things I feel very passionately about.

It should be noted, too, that despite all that has been said in this Chamber back and forth and despite what many people may believe, I actually do have a great deal of respect for members opposite and members of all parties as I believe that we are here for the right reasons by and large. We’re here to try to make a difference for Albertans and for our constituents. Although I do not agree with the methods employed by the government at this time – I don’t condone them – and I think they are out of touch and they need to improve in the way that they conduct our democracy, I don’t for a minute want anyone to feel that I think of them as any lesser people or anything like that. I know they’re here for the right reasons and they’re good folks, even the hon. minister over there, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, although it’s a little shaky from time to time. With that, I will sit down, and we can get back to the debate on Bill 7.

Thank you.

Video:

Making the Democratic Process More Transparent (Part 1)
Dim lights

Making the Democratic Process More Transparent (Part 2)
Dim lights  

Part 2

Mr. Anderson: Yeah, on the bill. I wanted to talk a little bit about: we’ve heard a lot of comments over what would improve our democracy the most. Everyone knows that we have a 40 per cent voter turnout roughly, and I don’t think anyone is proud of that number. I don’t think you can blame it on one or two or three or even four things. There are numerous reasons why we have such a low voter turnout.

I’ve also noticed that there’s really a disconnect. I mean, many people in this Chamber had the opportunity to have dinner tonight with some young Albertans. You know, you talk with these young people. They’re so engaged in the democratic process, and they’re so excited to be there. It’s just a breath of fresh air. But they’re the exceptions to the general rule. Generally, when you talk to young Albertans or any Albertans about democracy and about politics and that sort of thing, their eyes kind of glaze over.

There’s also a lot of cynicism towards politicians. You know what? Some of that is earned. No doubt about it. Some of it isn’t earned, though. I mean, some of it is just simply not true. No one in here is corrupt or is taking money under the table. I sure hope not. I sure don’t suspect anyone is. Maybe that’s naïveté on my part, but I don’t think that’s the case. I hope it’s not. People don’t understand that the average person going into public life really does just want to contribute to their society and to contribute to their community and to their province and to their country.

We’ve got to start thinking about what would engage Albertans. What would get Albertans excited about democracy again? There are all kinds of gimmicks that we can throw out there, you know, like you see in the States, Rock the Vote and all these funny things. I think there’s a fundamental underlying problem, and it’s one of many. I don’t think this is a panacea. This isn’t going to solve everything. But if there was one thing that we could do in this Legislature that I think would contribute the most to getting Albertans engaged in the democratic process and giving them more faith in our democratic process, it would be the concept of enshrining mandatory free votes on all legislation and restoring the rightful role of an elected member to represent his constituents first and foremost over any other consideration. Party line, all these things: none of these things would matter as much as just representing your constituents on a base level.

When you go in and you vote on a bill in the Legislature, it should be because you honestly believe as an MLA that that is in your constituents’ best interests and it’s what they want, or if they’re not engaged and they don’t understand, you’ve analyzed the problem for them and you think that this is what they would want if they had analyzed it and done the background work on it. When we go into the House, that’s all we should think about. We shouldn’t think about what the party talking points are or anything like that. We shouldn’t think about anything other than what is in our constituents’ best interests.

People always say: well, okay, that sounds really great. Right? Everybody believes: yeah, sure, an MLA should be his or her constituents’ voice to Edmonton, not their party’s or Edmonton’s voice to his or her constituents. I think everyone believes that or thinks that that’s how it should work, but in fact it doesn’t. We all know this in this Chamber. Everyone knows this, that that’s not how it works. I mean, sure, there’s no doubt that many MLAs in the governing caucus and otherwise go and in caucus and behind closed doors and in private meetings and these sorts of things advocate for a viewpoint of their constituents. There’s no doubt that that happens.

Absolutely. But at the end of the day when they go into the House and actually put a vote down, actually stand up and vote on something or say yea or nay on something, they are essentially voting the party line. They are essentially voting what their party wants them to do, and then they’re given talking points to take back and explain it to their constituents.

This isn’t just Alberta in our country. This unfortunately is the case across Canada federally. We have an opportunity in this province. I mean, I look at some of the members over there, and I know that they’re reform minded, that they want to change the system. I know that. I’ve had discussions into the wee hours of the morning with many of them on how we could make democracy stronger here and really get constituents engaged and totally reform the system so that we had free votes and representatives were empowered to represent their constituents first and foremost above any consideration. There’s such an opportunity over there to do that, to spearhead that change, because the governing caucus does have a massive majority right now: 68 seats.

I tell you, if they would enshrine free votes as a mandatory staple of Alberta politics in the Legislature, I believe that the electorate would reward them handsomely for doing that. Sure, does it cede a little bit of power from the Premier’s office? Obviously, it does. The Premier still has lots of power in that situation, lots of things that the executive does still and has the power over, but yeah, there’s no doubt that the Premier and the cabinet would lose a little bit of power. They’d have to go do their groundwork. They’d have to go out there and have a good ground game and convince MLAs that this is the way it needs to work and that this is why it benefits the various constituencies, et cetera, et cetera. They would have to do that. If people believed that they were sending somebody to Edmonton that first and foremost had their interests top of mind when they voted on a bill or when they voted in any committee, if that is what they thought they were voting for, I really think that would improve our democracy greatly. People would actually believe that they were voting for something. They would actually examine the policies of the individual candidates and look at their resumés and look at their track record.

I mean, when I was a government member – I’ll just use myself as an example; I won’t use any of the government members – how on earth would my constituents know how I voted in caucus on Bill 50, for example? They all know now, but how would they know that? They couldn’t possibly know it because I wouldn’t be allowed to go out and tell them how I voted on it, and I certainly wouldn’t be able to vote against the bill because it was decided in caucus otherwise. In some cases it is decided in the Premier’s office otherwise. I just think that it’s wrong.

Every election you should go into that election as an incumbent and be able to put your record before the people and say: “This is how I voted on a bill or on a motion or whatever. This is what I did.

Yeah, I know that’s what the party was saying and that’s what the Premier was saying, but I voted this way.” If we did that, I really think that the reverence for democracy and the opinion about elected officials would be greatly increased. Right now, unfortunately, it’s just not the case. No one knows how their MLA votes on things. I mean, there are people in every party that range on the spectrum. Obviously, we have different opinions on things, and we’ve voted against each other on a couple of things.

Mr. Hinman: Which one, for example?

Mr. Anderson: Well, don’t even get me started. In the governing caucus, I mean, there are people that are very conservative, absolute small “c” fiscal conservatives. Then there are others that, frankly, in any other province would be Liberals or New Democrats. It’s a huge spectrum. I know. I was two years in that party. It’s a huge spectrum. It’s a big tent, as they say, and that’s fine. I personally think that you can make a tent so big that eventually you don’t stand for anything, but that’s a debate for another day.

The point is that if I’m somebody in Edmonton – I don’t know. Just pick a riding anywhere. I don’t want to pick on anybody. If I’m a constituent in Edmonton-Whatever and my Tory MLA is running in another election as an incumbent, how the heck do I know what that Tory MLA voted on? I know what the party’s record is. I know what the Premier’s agenda is. That’s pretty clear in the media. The Premier and his cabinet, obviously, are on the record on virtually everything, but how do I know what that individual MLA advocated for? Caucus meetings aren’t published. The votes in caucus aren’t published. The results from votes aren’t published. I mean, you can’t have democracy without transparency and accountability. You just can’t do it. You can’t have it as strong as it should be anyway. I just really believe, you know, very strongly that if we empowered the individual MLA and we made sure that every vote they took was on the record – it doesn’t mean every discussion has to be on the record. I realize that in order to get things done, you’ve got to have private discussions and private debates. I get that. But at the end of the day an MLA has to cast a vote, and when they cast that vote, the only thing on their mind should be that after getting all the evidence together, after hearing from the Premier and the cabinet and the caucus and the opposition parties and my constituents and reading the research and doing all these things, this is the conclusion that I think is in the best interests of my constituents, not what’s in the best interest of my party or what’s in the best interest of me personally, politically, or in the best interest of anything or in the interest of caucus solidarity or any of these other funny excuses that we use but just in the interests of my constituents.

If we could do that, if we could restore that level of trust with the electorate as elected officials, I really think that things would change. Albertans would get more involved because they would know they could go to an individual MLA and could advocate to that MLA. You know what? Your individual constituents would actually feel that they could sway your mind, and maybe they could, and you could take that message to Edmonton. But right now it doesn’t work that way. Why bother to go see your MLA? I mean, sure, you can go and talk. But I know how these things work.

Constituents come in, they go and talk, the well-meaning MLA goes and tries to find the minister or brings it up in caucus, but it’s so busy, and it gets swept under the rug. There’s not really time to debate it, and all kinds of things happen. In my view, it’s just not true democracy.

Again, I don’t blame the governing party for it. It’s the way our system is set up in Canada, frankly. But that doesn’t mean we need to always have it this way. You know, some people say: “Well, how would you do this? How would you enshrine mandatory free votes? You know, you can’t have the government fall. Right? The government might fall. If somebody votes against the government’s budget in their own party and the party falls, then you call an election. That’s no good. So you’ve got to have whipped caucus votes, party line votes.”

Well, you know what? I look at Quebec. They have a constitution, and their constitution, unless it conflicts with the federal constitution, takes precedence and is the binding law. Well, why don’t we start looking at maybe an Alberta constitution? Why don’t we start thinking about enshrining mandatory free votes in Alberta so that just because a government loses a vote on a bill, that doesn’t trigger an automatic election? You have to have a vote of non-confidence that is completely separate and stand-alone in order for the government to fall. In other words, opposition parties and government members can vote on something, can vote on an issue according to what they think their constituents want, and if the bill doesn’t pass or if it’s not going to pass, then the government and the opposition parties have to go back and make it work until it’s got the majority of free votes in the House. That way the government won’t feel threatened that: oh, we’ve got to pass it or our government will fall. I think it’ll make for better legislation. I really do. Again, I think it will re-engage Albertans a lot more.

If we enshrine that principle in the constitution, in an Alberta constitution, I think it’s sound to say that that would override any conventions that might be in place and that it would be allowed and would be constitutional and would be democratic. There’s no reason why we have to continue to use the exact same system in the exact same way that’s been around for 200, 300 years if you go back to, you know, talking about the Westminster system. We can change it. We can evolve – it is possible – and we should. I mean, we can set our own course in democracy, and we should.

We’ve got some great minds in this House from all parties, so let’s put them together, and let’s figure out a way to make mandatory free votes something that Alberta pioneers. We could do that. I’m really convinced of that. People say: well, if you have mandatory free votes, then situations might occur where you might break the budget. In other words, you have a budget set, and then someone brings a bill and through horse-trading, et cetera, you have another monetary bill that comes forward, and all of a sudden you’ve broken the budget and you’ve, you know, screwed up everything and, oh, the whole system would fall apart.

Well, that’s again easily solved. It’s called pay-as-you-go legislation. It’s been implemented in many different places, of course, the United States being the foremost before the current administration. During the Clinton years they had pay-as-you-go legislation. If a new initiative came forward and was passed by a free vote in the House, if it cost something, it would have to be offset by a corresponding tax increase or cut to some other program area. Of course, that kept the pork barrel and the horse-trading and all that in check, and as you know, they ran huge surpluses during the Clinton administration. That was mostly from 1994. You had a Democratic President and a Republican Congress that came together and actually got something done on that front and controlled their spending.

You know, the little things that people say: oh, we can’t have free votes because of X. There are ways that we can institute a system that would allow for these free votes without mass chaos or huge spending increases or governments falling every five minutes. I mean, we can do that, and I think that the people of Alberta would want us to do that.

It’s something I feel very passionate about, obviously, and it’s one of the reasons I left the government caucus. I didn’t feel that this principle was top of mind. In fact, I didn’t think at the time that it was anywhere close to top of mind. I feel that now that I’m in opposition I have the ability to advocate very freely the viewpoints of my constituents. I feel my constituents want this. I bet you most of our constituents want this. Sure, it’s not their number one concern. I understand that. A lot of times people, especially our constituents because they’re not in the process and they don’t understand government like the people in this House do, know the system is broken, but they just can’t put their finger on it. If you ask them, they know something is wrong, that something just doesn’t feel right about this system. We’ve got to be big enough and smart enough to realize why certain things are broken. What’s wrong with the system?

I think that, honestly, the reason why people feel their vote has absolutely no bearing whatsoever is because when they go into a voting booth, they know full well that even if they really like the local MLA or they don’t like him or they like somebody, it doesn’t matter because it’s all going to come down to what the leader of the party says. Period. That’s all that’s going to matter. That, essentially, disenfranchises them, and in fact I would say that it disenfranchises all Albertans. It disenfranchises them all except for the ones that live in Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville. Those are the only ones, Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville,where the MLA really, honestly does have a huge say in what laws are passed and in what things happen.

There are a few other cabinet ministers where that would be the case as well, but the vast majority – the vast majority – of MLAs have very little input. Sure, they have a little. You know, they can suggest, but at the end of the day, if they don’t vote along the party lines, they’re punished in some way and in some fashion, and that’s just the way it is. We saw that with the hon. Member for Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo, and we’ve all seen it in the internal party politics and internal party discipline that occurs on that side of the House and that, I’m sure, occurs in all kinds of parties across Canada. We have a chance to change it. We’ve got the minds in here to do it. We have a lot of new MLAs in here that have only been on the job for a couple of years, and I think we even have a few of the veterans. You know, they’ve been around. I think there are some reform-minded people among our veteran bench as well. Why don’t we get together and actually re-engage Albertans, restore the role of the MLA, restore the role of the elected representative? If we do that, I really believe democracy in Alberta will be stronger than it has ever been in the recent past.

Thank you.

Video:

Making the Democratic Process More Transparent (Part 3)
Dim lights

Making the Democratic Process More Transparent (Part 4)
Dim lights

Part 3

Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to touch on, since this is the last opportunity to speak to this bill – and I’ve talked, obviously, a lot about the different aspects of democracy that I’m concerned about. But there are a few points, almost a laundry list – well, five or six things – I just wanted to comment on briefly. I really do feel that as we go forward with this bill and with other bills, we need to be looking at these issues.

I want to first just quickly talk about the Public Accounts issue. If we’re going to have a functioning democracy where there’s accountability in this Legislature, we need to make sure that we have a transparent and accountable Public Accounts Committee. What went on there, with the hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed being given, essentially, veto power, having to sign off on every committee move, is not appropriate, Mr. Speaker.

The Wildrose wants to be on the record for that. I hope that in the coming days that will be reversed. There should be broad powers. I can’t tell you how many times – and I’ve only been in opposition for one session – I’ve asked for documents from departments, and I’ve gotten a snow job on it. You know, “We can’t do it for this reason,“ or they just ignore the request. It’s just wrong. We’ve got to be able to hold the government to account. The government has all the resources in the world to defend their decisions and to defend their budget.

As an opposition and on behalf of the Official Opposition, I guess, I would say that all we’re asking for is the ability to summon the documents that we need to see in order to hold the government to account. If they’re making good decisions, if they’re making decisions that don’t have ulterior motives, they should be able to put those documents on the table, and we should be able to summon witnesses and documents. The chair, which is a member of the Official Opposition, should be able to ask for those documents, and they should be given, plain and simple, unless there’s a national or provincial security issue or whatever. Those are the only times where they shouldn’t be given, especially to members of the committee. That’s one thing I wanted to get on the record.

If we’re going to improve our democracy going forward, it can’t just start at Bill 7 and end at Bill 7. We’ve got to make sure that that harmful decision is reversed. The second point. I want to be fair to the Deputy Premier. He’s been listening throughout this discussion, and, you know, he’s been very thoughtful as he’s been listening. I want to be on the record as saying, though – and it could have been anyone: the Deputy Premier, the Premier, any of the government cabinet ministers – that I do not believe that it is right for a government to on behalf of the government caucus submit what they feel the electoral boundary should be changed to to what is supposed to be a nonpartisan commission. That is just wrong.

It’s one thing for an individual MLA or a party constituency association or someone else to do it, but when the government does it, when it comes from the office of the Premier or the Deputy Premier or a high-ranking minister, that puts undue influence, in my view, on that boundary commission. They are extremely compromised right now. You know, it’s easy to say: oh, it’s just a submission. It’s not just a submission. It’s a submission from the people that appointed them.

Again, this was a decision of government, you know, and I feel that it should be corrected, that it should be withdrawn. The commission should be allowed to do its work without having that pressure of having to deal with this submission. It’s not right. It shouldn’t happen. I mean, in my electoral boundary, for example, in Airdrie-Chestermere, it’s quite funny. Foothills-RockyView now starts on the west, Mr. Speaker. It goes to Airdrie. It’s cut in half by Airdrie-Chestermere and Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Then it actually starts again on the west. In other words, it’s cut into two completely separate land masses without any kind of continuous border. That’s what they’re suggesting. I had a reporter tell me: oh, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anything like that before. Well, he’s right. It’s because it hasn’t happened before. These are some really silly things.

We’ve done the analysis on Calgary-Glenmore. They’ve added polls that went Liberal in the last election and taken away Conservative ones. I understand, you know, that we all want to do well for our different constituencies, and we all want to be re-elected, but it is absolutely wrong for the government on behalf of government to do this. I really hope that the government will reconsider taking that off the table and making it absolutely, abundantly clear to this commission that there’s no pressure whatsoever to implement the changes that they’re proposing because it’s not right, and it’s undemocratic.

Thirdly, opposition caucus allowance. Right now the New Democrats, with two seats, have what’s called a leader’s allowance. It’s not a leader’s allowance; it’s a caucus allowance. It’s used for caucus research. It’s used for caucus activities. The NDP gets it; the Wildrose, with three members, doesn’t get it. It’s so difficult. We have two researchers. I’ve got to tell you that every day I’m here, I’m up till 1 or 2 in the morning, trying to work through everything that’s going on, trying to research the bills and look at it because we just do not have what we need to put a support staff together.

Again, the pattern here is democracy and a little bit of the lack thereof. All we’re asking is that we be treated the same as our New Democratic friends so that we can put the resources – they have eight or nine staff; we have four. Two of them are assistants for three people, and then we have two researchers. It’s so difficult to do this. I mean, I’m not trying to cry anyone a river. I’m just saying that if we’re going to be able to do our job as an opposition, which is to research the bills and research the background information on those bills, we need to be able to have the ability to hire people to help us do that. If the government members think that some of our arguments are off base, well, then hopefully these researchers can help us to have arguments that they feel are better.

The point is that we’ve got to be able to have those resources available to us and be treated at least as fairly as the NDP caucus. It’s only democratic. It’s only fair. We’ll talk about that in Members’ Services Committee, but I wanted to get that on the record since we’re about to close for the session.

I also want to make sure, going to the bill, that we need to be very, very, very careful when we start playing around with electronic voting. That is a very dangerous thing to do. I’m, obviously, one of the youngest members of this Assembly – I think third youngest – and I understand the need to be proactive with new media and new technologies. I get that. But there has got to be a paper trail. There have got to be scrutineers. There’s got to be a way to verify voting. If we allow it to go to electronic voting, yeah, you know what? The first, the second, the third time might go well, but it’s just a matter of time before some really smart guy who is corrupt – and I’m sure no one in this room would think about doing it, but there are people out there that have no problem looking into ways to rig elections and to do different things that would bring our democracy, frankly, down. That is a slippery slope that we’ve got to be very, very careful of, and I sure hope that the hon. members opposite will not consider moving in that direction as we go forward.

On the issue of government advertising during an election, which is in Bill 7, again, I think that we need to start looking at making sure that the government, other than for public health emergencies and other emergencies, should not be able to advertise during an election period. That’s not the place for the government to be spending government resources telling Albertans how great a job they’re doing. It’s not just this government that does it; governments across this country do it. It doesn’t make it right. Again, we need to be leaders on this, and we can start in this House and make sure that we lead by example, that the government doesn’t advertise during elections.

Finally, the concept of fixed election dates. It’s not the cure-all. It’s not the thing that’s going to make it so that we have 70 per cent voting or 80 per cent voting turnout. It’s not going to cure all ills, for sure. But it’s not democratic. It just simply is not democratic. Everyone here knows it’s not democratic. The government has total control on when they call it. They can prepare for it. They can roll out their programs all in line with it. The opposition can be caught completely flat footed. Of course, we do our best. All the opposition parties always do. But when I was in government, I advocated strongly for this, and I know there are members over there that believe in this, that in order to have a truly democratic election race, there has got to be a fixed election date. It is just not fair. It’s too rigged in one direction if we don’t do that, or too biased to the governing party if we don’t do that. It’s just the right thing to do. You know what? It’s not as convenient for the government, for sure. That’s life. But it’s the right thing to do.

You know, Alberta has been a leader on so many different things that haven’t been convenient: reforming our financial affairs in the early ’90s to mid-90s, where we went from a province on the verge of insolvency, frankly, to one that got out of the mess and started to save for a time. Now we’ve fallen back into the same traps again, but the leadership we showed as a province in the ’90s, for that period of time, was something that spread to the rest of Canada and became, actually, the de facto way that governments ran their finances. We can do that with democracy. We can do it with fixed election dates, we can do it with making sure that the opposition is given the resources that they need to be effective, and we can do it by what I talked about earlier, which is enshrining free votes as an absolute staple of our democratic system to restore the role of MLAs.

There are some good things in this bill, Bill 7. There are things that are being left out that should be in there. But at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we have come up short with this bill, by and large. We can do way more. In the next year and a half or two years or – who knows? – six months or a year before the next election, whenever that is, I just hope that the MLAs, some of the more reform-minded MLAs in this government, whoever they may be, can really sit down and try to push the agenda of democratic reform so that they can leave that as a legacy.

Frankly, I think the voters will reward them for it. This is not in the Wildrose’s best interests for them to do this. But if they would show forethought and the pioneering spirit on the issues of democratic reform, I believe the people of Alberta would reward them handsomely for doing so. I really do. So I hope they do it because it’s the right thing to do, and it will make us a stronger democracy as we go forward.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Assembly for their time.

Video:

Making the Democratic Process More Transparent (Part 5)
Dim lights

Making the Democratic Process More Transparent (Part 6)
Dim lights