• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

alberta mla's told they can't vote on bill

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    alberta mla's told they can't vote on bill

    Some MLAs told to bow out of Alberta agriculture vote
    Rural sector links may be deemed conflict
    By Renata D'Aliesio, Calgary HeraldMay 28, 2009 7:19 AMBe the first to post a comment
    Alberta's ethics commissioner Neil Wilkinson has directed MLAs to recuse themselves from debating and voting on a contentious agricultural bill if they have financial stakes in related businesses.

    The Stelmach government has faced heat from some corners of rural Alberta over its Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Act. The proposed legislation would allow farmers to demand the return of mandatory fees paid to fund commissions that research, market and lobby on their behalf.

    Affected farmers and commissions include beef, pork, lamb and potato growers.

    Wilkinson initially gave all MLAs approval to debate and vote on Bill 43. However, after reviewing its contents, he has advised politicians that if they have private interests in these four impacted agricultural sectors, they--or their family members -- stand to financially benefit from the legislation's passage, potentially violating the Conflicts of Interest Act.

    Wilkinson, appointed last October, isn't certain how many MLAs will be impacted by his directive.

    "The MLAs have the responsibility themselves to look at that and decide for themselves if there's a conflict of interest or not," he said Wednesday. "If for some reason they do make a mistake, then there can be a request for an investigation."

    The ethics commissioner ruling is expected to affect several Conservative MLAs with strong farming ties, including Agriculture Minister George Groeneveld and Premier Ed Stelmach, who no longer raises cattle, but has family members who do.

    Speaker Ken Kowalski has asked MLAs to declare their private interest when the proposed legislation is raised again in the assembly.

    Wilkinson's decision took Groeneveld by surprise. The agriculture minister said he's concerned about the ripple effect the directive could have on future bills.

    "We're trying to figure out where the ethics commissioner is coming from on this," Groeneveld said. "We're having some meetings because it's put the rural people in kind of a difficult position right now, so we'll just kind of see how this plays out."

    Liberal MLA Kevin Taft, the party's agriculture critic, considers Wilkinson's ruling precedent-setting.

    "Historically, agriculture has been off limits for conflict of interest," Taft said. "I hope in the longer term, it's an important precedent for defining genuine conflict of interest when it comes to farm policy."

    Taft, though, expressed some regret about the ethics ruling fallout.

    "It gives them an out-of-jail free card for evading a recorded vote, so their voters won't know how they vote."

    Some agricultural organizations are lobbying the government to quash the bill.

    Edzo Kok, executive director of the Potato Growers of Alberta, said the organization is funded solely by levies collected from potato producers, and any loss of revenue will hurt.

    He suggested potato producers have been unfairly caught up in legislation meant for cattle ranchers.

    "We're very disappointed with the government for not allowing the democratic process to take place that is in place today," Kok said.

    rdaliesio@theherald.canwest.com

    #2
    This will be interesting for our lobby efforts no matter which side you are on. Could be a real can of worms down the road.

    Comment


      #3
      This is absolutely ridiculous. What this boils down to is someone thinks rural MLAs should not be allowed to vote on what is essentially a rural issue and now can't because they might sell one of the commodities in question? How then I wonder, was the MAPA passed in the first place? Clearly most people do not understand the issue here. It appears the only people really concerned ( at least by all the BS in the papers) are certain individuals collecting per diems and some of the employees of the respective organizations. If this is a tactic dreamed up by one of the affected commodity groups it only goes to demonstrate what lengths some people will go to to holp onto their little power trip. Totally unblievable. Producers best interests are really at heart here.....

      Comment


        #4
        I believe this ruling will be appealed because it has wide reaching connotations and the gov't can't really allow this to happen I should think but if it holds it sets a very interesting precedent in Alberta.

        Comment


          #5
          One way to avoid setting a precedent would be to delay third reading on Bill 43. Or just let Bill 43 die.

          Hey...why not let producers decide the check off issue themselves through a plebiscite. Now that would be radical wouldn't it.

          There are lots of MLAs who are not happy with Bill 43 and have not been able to speak out because of pressure from within. If I had to make a guess who raised the issue with the Ethics Commissioner it would be one or more of the MLAs.

          You can read the Conflict of Interest Act (unfortunately the latest version is not online) at:

          http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-c-23/45816/rsa-2000-c-c-23.html#history

          Comment


            #6
            Had another thought on this yesterday, with the Tory majority now this bill can pass the rural MLAs who had the most heat to feel over it can now recuse themselves and shrug it off because they "couldn't" vote. I would have to think a certain MLA who has some pretty close ties to the ABP is breathing easier today after this suggestion.

            Comment


              #7
              That could very well be. But why not just let the sucker die. Allow Alberta Beef, Alberta Pork, Lamb and Potatoes a producer vote on the check off through a plebiscite. The Government has a graceful out here(OK not all that graceful) but they should take it.

              I am hearing some rumours that the Government is starting to figure out Alberta voters are POd at a lot of what has been going on since the Provincial election. The next few days will tell...third reading on Bill 43 has been rescheduled for June 2. Better to let it die.

              I was at a focus group meeting last night. Not to do about beef it was about energy transmission lines. Boy is everyone mad at this Government. I mean old time rock solid die hard Conservatives can't wait until these guys are turfed. Seems like the only ones happy with the Stelmach Government right now is the NFU and big feedlots (and aren't those strange bed fellows). Those two groups together do not represent enough votes for the Conservatives to win the next election.

              Comment


                #8
                Ho,ho you're full of it today farmers_son. "Only the big feedlots and the NFU" indeed. In your dreams maybe, PC support is rock solid in red-neck Alberta. And how many NFU members do you think vote PC in Alberta anyway?

                Comment


                  #9
                  What ever happens with the bill will happen whether they step back or not. You bring another interesting point to the table fs. Not to hijack this tread but it is related. How can we find or create a "common sense" party that could gain traction in this province? Each of the alternate parties have planks in their respective platforms that kill the marriage for most small c conservatives and after all the disappointment and mad rhetoric is over they will mark their x for the conservatives. What we need is a sensible alternative that believes in less Government and understands the relationship between rights and privileges. Having said all of that on the issue at hand I still hear of lots of support for allowing the government to give us the choice of whether to pay the tax or not. The plebiscite idea was soundly rejected by the ABP until word of this bill and our MLA's are duly elected. You talk of ABP's list of members but never mention that membership is Mandatory. If stepping back and plebiscite is what happens OK but I am fine this way. By the way, I am not a big feeder nor a member of NFU.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    It is an interesting decision for sure.
                    Does that mean MLA's who are landowners
                    can't vote on the land use framework?
                    Or that MLA's who hold shares in oil
                    comanies can no longer vote on Tar
                    Sands, Coal bed methane or other
                    development?
                    I think that the members are duly
                    elected (OK maybe not always duly) to
                    represent their constituents with some
                    semblance of professionalism and common
                    sense. I would fully expect an MLA to
                    vote to their personal detriment on a
                    specific issue if in fact it benefited
                    the constituency or the province as a
                    whole.
                    This recent logic should also mean that
                    only rural MLAs are allowed to vote on
                    issues affecting Calgary and Edmonton.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      It is an interesting decision for sure.
                      Does that mean MLA's who are landowners
                      can't vote on the land use framework?
                      Or that MLA's who hold shares in oil
                      comanies can no longer vote on Tar
                      Sands, Coal bed methane or other
                      development?
                      I think that the members are duly
                      elected (OK maybe not always duly) to
                      represent their constituents with some
                      semblance of professionalism and common
                      sense. I would fully expect an MLA to
                      vote to their personal detriment on a
                      specific issue if in fact it benefited
                      the constituency or the province as a
                      whole.
                      This recent logic should also mean that
                      only rural MLAs are allowed to vote on
                      issues affecting Calgary and Edmonton.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        If you eat you are involved in Agriculture.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I would agree Sean, this is a very strange one for the ethics commissioner to intervene in. Not like any of the MLAs with farming relatives are going to get rich by withholding their $3 levy on their cattle sales. Certainly on other issues - energy, development projects etc the stakes have been a lot higher.

                          All this yapping the ABP has been doing, "speaking for the average producer" really is a bunch of crap. It's another case of instructions coming from above ie the directors as to what producers want. Never mind the phoney issue of a plebiscite - how about asking producers what they want before launching a several hundred thousand dollar campaign of opposition to this bill. We've had what now? 2 or 3 mailouts from ABP about this? why didn't they incorporate a simple tick box question on the back regarding the refundable levy? Are you in favour yes/no - based on that ABP might know what producers really wanted.
                          My guess is considerably less than thirty percent would have been returned - probably split roughly 50:50 in favor/against. 70%-80% would end up in the dustbin from producers either uninterested or couldn't care less about the ABP or the issue. Rather like attendance at ABP fall producer meetings - rather like anything else political in this province really.

                          Comment

                          • Reply to this Thread
                          • Return to Topic List
                          Working...