Kenney shouldn’t boot mlas for fighting lockdowns
IN THE END NOBODY DIED, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF SOME RETIREES. — COSH
When the opposition isn’t accusing Alberta Premier Jason Kenney of being a dictator, it is demanding that he act like one by booting from caucus two backbenchers who are critical of the government’s COVID-19 policies. Not for being critical in the way the NDP is, of course, but for opposing health restrictions.
This is the same NDP that has called Kenney “the most undemocratic premier” in Alberta’s history and has accused him of multiple power grabs. yet somehow, squashing dissent from backbenchers is acceptable.
Allowing members of the legislative assembly — yes, even united Conservative Party members — to speak their minds, whether it falls in line with what the leader wants or not, ought to be defended not stamped out, lest we finally do away with the charade that the legislature is useful for anything and close it down altogether.
MLAS Angela Pitt and drew barnes have joined a group of mostly conservative politicians called the end the Lockdowns National Caucus, which argues that “lockdowns cause more harm than the virus and must be brought to an end.” The group calls for “focused protection for the most vulnerable,” while allowing much of society to get back to normal, a position that many doctors hold.
For that, the Calgary Herald reported Wednesday, NDP health critic david Shepherd has called for barnes and Pitt to be removed from caucus. “He needs to show leadership and take direct action in disciplining these MLAS,” Shepherd said.
Kenney says his government gives MLAS “a wider latitude” to speak publicly than other governments, though the premier’s motivations may not be entirely pure and principled. He is facing increasing challenges from the more conservative factions of his coalition and booting barnes, in particular, could lead to more direct challenges to his leadership. It’s unfortunate that in Canada, allowing dissent is immediately seen as weakness.
To be clear, allowing the virus to run rampant would be devastating. The best way to protect the vulnerable is to contain the spread elsewhere in the community. but while the initial lockdown measures in the spring were clearly warranted given the novelty of the virus, it is a complete failure on the part of the Alberta government, as it is on the part of governments elsewhere, that a year into the pandemic, the only tool being used to any effect is intrusive health measures that cause harm to people and businesses.
The virus spread quickly through Alberta in the fall but the UCP government had not built up testing and tracing capacity to levels necessary to contain it. It was only last month that Alberta hired enough people to track the number of new cases in a given day. So, yes, shutting restaurants, effectively outlawing private gatherings and limiting retail capacity were needed to slow COVID in Alberta.
but opposing policies, even good or necessary policies, shouldn’t be a source of such controversy.
It would be one thing if barnes and Pitt were spreading any number of the wild conspiracy theories that have taken hold about the virus or vaccines, but arguing against health restrictions that infringe on people’s rights shouldn’t be beyond the pale of acceptable debate. (barnes did falsely claim that coronavirus testing is only 50 per cent accurate, but later apologized.)
If it were a member of cabinet who was opposing the government’s health measures, claims of eroding public trust would be more credible. In Alberta, as in other Westminster systems, backbenchers from the governing party have no more authority than MLAS from other parties.
Of course, expecting members of cabinet to support the government publicly is reasonable, but a more confident country would permit backbenchers more freedom. In Canada, deviation from party discipline is seen as evidence of government ineptitude, and something to be extinguished. Those who stray from party lines are viewed as malcontents. Any consideration that they might be representing their constituents is dismissed as laughable or naive.
Political parties in Canada are nothing if not wedded — completely and utterly — to orthodoxy, but it isn’t the orthodoxy of conservatism or liberalism, it’s the orthodoxy of loyalty to the leader.
In other countries, straying from the party line happens regularly. In the united Kingdom, MPS for the governing party are encouraged to vote with cabinet, but are only expected to do so in the most important votes, such as motions of confidence. In the united States, the hyper-partisanship seen in Congress recently is a relatively new development, but even now it isn’t absolute and house members and senators still vote against their party from time to time, even if it is becoming less common.
What’s different about Canada is how small the legislatures are, especially at the provincial level. An MLA in a caucus of 62 people can be more easily controlled than if it were a caucus of over 260, which is how many government MPS there are in the u.k. Smaller legislatures also make cabinet positions seem more attainable, and could encourage docility as a way to seek promotion.
until Canada’s legislatures grow enough, in size as well as maturity, partisanship will be what rules us.