Phendrana Drifts

In what may be the death knell for this blog I’ve decided to start a new blog – AlbertaVote.ca – about the upcoming provincial election. Here’s my post on why:

Getting off the pot and into a blog

I left partisan politics a couple of years ago, right around the time of the coalition discussion in Ottawa and the global economic downturn. You can listen to much of my rationale on The Unknown Studio’s podcast on the topic where Dave Cournoyer and I were guests but the shortest way I can explain it is that I was at a point where I had to choose where to put my political energy and partisanship no longer was rewarding. Do not get me wrong, a lot of people whom I like and even love dearly devote countless hours and dollars to partisan causes and I applaud their efforts, indeed your democracy would not work at all without their passion and participation. It was far more personal than any general disgust with the system or a specific party. I felt I had better things to do, better ways to be heard and so rather than hang around, I got off the proverbial pot.

And I haven’t regretted it one minute – at least until the other day. Having fought two provincial election campaigns I recognized the tell-tale signs that the next one had begun, and I was on the outside.

I still have a passion for politics, a keen interest, some training and a day job that means I have to pay attention anyway so I thought I needed to channel that into something. This blog is that something.

I’m not sure where it is going to go, but I do know it is going to focus on the next provincial election, and the many political moves that will happen between now and then. I’m going to endeavour to make the posts of a reasonable quality and provide as much context to what is going on and how it relates to the coming polling day where we elect our provincial government.

What I cannot promise is to be free of bias. I will try and be upfront with any biases I might have and present you the information, news and subtext from my perspective, and try and point interested readers in additional places to find more information. You should be judge – and you will be, one way or the other, come Spring 2012 if not sooner. I also can’t promise freedom from run-on sentences. I’m notorious for it and albertavote.ca does not have an editor.

If you have any thoughts share them in the comments section, drop me a line at duncan@phendrana.ca or send them to @phendrana and @albertavote over Twitter.

This is the first election in many Albertans’ lifetime whose conclusion isn’t essentially foretold. The first since I’ve left junior high. I’m excited to see where it takes us and I hope you are too.

Premier Ed Stelmach unveiled his hotly anticipated cabinet shuffle this afternoon – although I haven’t decided whether “hotly” is hyperbole or not… my world certainly watched with interest and I hit refresh a couple of times on my browser. Typically I describe these events as inside ball, mostly of interest only to a few inside the Legislature and to those who have something at stake within an individual department or attached to an individual MLA. This one was different as it was seen as the response to the declining poll numbers of the governing party and the sort of ennui that seems to have taken over government. In an environment where the mainstream and social media of Alberta (and perhaps the population in general, who knows…) seem to be clamoring for change, how was does this “compassionate” cabinet shuffle breakdown?

Biggest Surprise
This is not as large a shuffle as I was expecting and was made out to be – only three Ministers sent to the backbench. I was suggesting as many as 10 – and fewer departments too. The size of the cabinet remains at 24 and there is even now one more Parliamentary Assistant. 20 Ministers got to keep a portfolio, and half got to keep the same job.

I think the biggest surprise on an individual was that Doug Griffiths wasn’t made a minister, and in fact was turfed from being a Parliamentary Assistant. He was put on Treasury Board, and I can’t speak too much on whether that is a lateral move or a demotion. I believe Doug Griffiths is a phenomenal talent and it is a shame he wasn’t promoted. The same could be said of Parliamentary Assistants Diana McQueen and Fred Horne – all three have the talent to be fantastic ministers.

For me personally I was most surprised that Doug Horner wasn’t moved because that was all the scuttlebutt of yesterday and I work in post-secondary education – in fact, he got a nice promotion as Deputy Premier and Minister Liaison for the Canadian Armed Forces. Does that mean he is the Provincial Minister of Defence?

Change
By the numbers, this cabinet retains 20 of 23 members (excluding the Premier) – or 87% of its old membership. It leaves 10 in the same portfolio.

Like I said above, this cabinet has more in common with the last cabinet than it has changes. Our new cabinet ministers are Frank Oberle, the past Party Whip and MLA for Peace River; Jonathan Denis from Calgary-Egmont; and Thomas Lukaszuk, MLA for Edmonton-Castle-Downs. Ten ministers were also shuffled around, with Ted Morton to Finance, Ron Liepert to Energy and Gene Zwozdesky to Health likely to be seen as the most prominent. Both Denis and Lukaszuk were Parliamentary Assistants, so with the two spots they free up, the loss of Doug Griffiths and David Xiao from the PA ranks and the creation of a new Parliamentary Assistant we have five new PAs: Greg Weadick, Teresa Woo-Paw, Cal Dallas, Fred Horne and Jeff Johnson.

George Groeneveld, Janis Tarchuk and Fred Lindsay were the only cabinet ministers to lose their jobs entirely, and David Xiao and Doug Griffiths as mentioned above lose their spots as Parliamentary Assistants. I think it is important to note that Groeneveld and Lindsay were two of the seven MLAs who backed Stelmach as leader from the start – I don’t know if this portends anything, just a good-to-know fact.

Winners and Losers
Hard to say – and partly I do not know how to weigh certain ministries vis-a-vis their old ones. Like was Liepert promoted or demoted? I would say that was lateral. Also, I do not know how to value Parliamentary Assistanceships vis-a-vis Treasury Board etc. But some today were winners:

Doug Horner: By virtue of adding Deputy Premier to his business card, he grows in stock and is now second in order of precedence. Definitely a gain.

Gene Zwozdesky: He has touched the portfolio before as Assistant Minister of Health but the promotion to the big and difficult portfolio has to be seen as a win.

Ted Morton: From all accounts he performed admirably in Sustainable Resource Development and is given a top visible job as Finance, although it remains to be seen if the true power still lies with Lloyd Snelgrove.

Lindsay Blackett: By virtue of staying in his job after what I consider to be a terrible performance as Minister of Culture and Community Spirit, Blackett gets to call today a win.

New ministers: Oberle, Denis and Lukaszuk are the obvious winners as newly minted Ministers.

Staff in the Legislature: Obviously the Premier wasn’t lying when he said it was important to take into account the political staffers who work for Ministers, as the majority will at worst have to move desks and learn new files.

The losers:

Groeneveld, Tarchuk and Lindsay: These three stop being honourable when the new cabinet is sworn in – at least on letterhead. Media suggests Groeneveld and Lindsay got moved out as they may not be running next election and are comfortable making room for others, and as for Tarchuk, her time in Children’s Services was not good.

Griffiths, McQueen and Horne: Honestly I thought all three of these individuals would have been made Ministers.

Evans? Knight?: I have no idea how they see their moves, perhaps they don’t see them as demotions. Evans in International and Intergovernmental Relations makes sense if she will get the London job the media speculated on and Knight should do fine in Sustainable Resource Development.

Geography
The new Ministers come from Peace River, Calgary and Edmonton and the departing Ministers come from rural-ish Alberta (although Tarchuk might be identified as a Calgary-area MLA as might Groeneveld) tipping the balance slightly north and slightly urban. Geography is a fairly touchy subject in cabinet-making, but I suspect this is considered a wash more or less. Although on second thought, with the Deputy Premier now coming from the Edmonton bedroom community area as well, maybe Calgary loses a little.

Diversity
No new women, one woman dropped from cabinet, and all six who lose or gain ministerial positions are white – disappointing the gender balance wasn’t maintained or improved, but it is a shame political life isn’t more welcoming for women in general.

Leftover Questions
Will Morton and Snelgrove have the same relationship as Iris Evans did with Lloyd? Who between those two will actually control what is spent in this province, or can raise taxes?

Will the appointment of Morton be enough to prove to fiscal and social conservatives that the PCs are the best small-c conservative option in the province?

Will Ron Liepert fix whatever was broken in Energy? Will Gene Zwozdesky fix whatever was broken in Health?

I guess Lukaszuk’s private members bill to stop floor-crossing will die unless he finds another MLA to pick it up, as he will stop being a backbencher.

Will the losers of this shuffle flee to the Wildrose? Will voters?

Yesterday’s defection of Rob Anderson and Heather Forsyth sent a lovely ripple through Alberta’s political scene yesterday and ensured the first day back for many in the Legislature and beyond was at least interesting. As many have noted, including the Premier’s office, this is not a total surprise but has certainly set the tone for the new year and it likely is not the tone Premier Ed Stelmach was hoping for.

I for one would not be shocked if this was only the beginning of a few more defections, as there are bound to be hurt egos in the upcoming cabinet shuffle and government revenues force a difficult budget to be tabled in February. If this is going to be a semi-regular occurrence, it will bring up a few questions around floor crossing, indeed questioning the motives and legitimacy of Forsyth and Anderson’s decision has already begun. You can read Chris Labossiere’s take here, the quote from the Airdrie-Chestermere PC Association’s here as well as Brian Mason calling for a by-election at iNews 880.

And they are important questions to ask, although admittedly when a Progressive Conservative or a New Democrat does it, it rings a little hollow. The Tories certainly didn’t force Stan Woloshyn, Gene Zwozdesky or Julius Yanikowsky to run in a by-election when they crossed the floor, and if a Tory went over to the Mason’s New Democrats we would be far more concerned about the impending end of the world to worry ourselves over a by-election. But in a electoral atmosphere dominated by partisan parties and especially their leaders it is a fair statement that most people vote for the party or the leader, and the MLA or MP are kind of a secondary thought. So if a member changes parties mid-stream, shouldn’t they go back to the polls? I don’t think so.

I am fan of floor crossing – for selfish and less selfish reasons. Selfishly, I think they are cool. They liven things up. They make politics more interesting and they offer a glimpse of personalities and undercurrents that focusing exclusively on leaders does not. It helps keep the system dynamic and responsive, and while it can heavily politicize government as well , it does make for interesting reading on Monday morning. I’ve blogged a little about it before, but clearly I’m a fan.

Less selfishly, it curbs the power of the executive in our system to dominate the legislative branch. And to be clear, the executive in the form of the cabinet and especially the first minister dominates our system. Rob Anderson reflected on his time in the PC caucus and said “elected MLAs generally have little, if any, real input into the decisions that impact the lives of their constituents,” but neat part of floor crossing is that it proves that wrong. Making the decision he has Anderson has guaranteed that his actions will have an impact on the decision-making process and the minds of unelected advisors to the Premier.

The voters in Calgary-Fish Creek and Airdrie-Chestermere will get their chance to pass judgment on yesterday’s floor crossing soon enough, 2012 if not sooner. And if the opening week of 2010 is any indication, a lot will happen between now and then.

Postscript: Paul Stanway from Premier Stelmach’s office said “It’s not that unexpected,” when asked about the poll numbers that put the Wildrose Alliance way ahead last month. On the defections yesterday he said “We’ve known this was going to happen.” Umm… kind of odd sound bytes, don’t you think? Not the quotes expected from the Premier or from the office of the leader of the dominant party in Alberta. You would think if the Premier’s office can see it coming, they might do something about it…

The ancient Chinese curse always seemed to be an illusion here in Alberta, the closer we got to compelling and genuinely interesting times in provincial (or even provincially-local federal) politics, in reality the further away we got. Whether it was the minor drop in PC support in 2004, the PC leadership race in 2006 or the election in 2008, the closer we traveled towards change in Alberta politics the more like a mirage it seemed. Well to take the metaphor a little further we may be a lot closer to the oasis, or we may be at yet another hiccup in Alberta politics that has no bearing on the grand political story of our province.

I’m referring to the ongoing rise of the Wildrose Alliance here in Alberta. A recent poll places them in first place province-wide, and there is no denying they have a level of momentum an opposition party hasn’t enjoyed until the Liberals in 1993 or beyond. Other bloggers have covered the specifics of the poll – daveberta, Brian Dell and Ken Chapman – and I don’t want to rehash the territory that they’ve covered.

But there is the distinct chance that now we have entered a period of distinct (and dare I say refreshing) uncertainty. I have no idea what will happen – these numbers show Albertans are willing to entertain the end of the PC dynasty but given the utter absence of any solid or realistic policy on the part of the Wildrose Alliance (Brian Dell’s commentary aside – he has great policy ideas, but aren’t reflected in the terrible Alliance policy book) this likely represents little more than an expression of Albertans dissatisfaction with the status quo. But what could happen? Without copping out and saying anything could happen (which is certainly correct – but also would mean I wouldn’t have a post to write) I’ll speculate on six possibilities for the next two years culminating in the spring 2012 election.

1. Hi, I’m Alberta politics and I’m boring. Nothing happens, at least not in the grand sense. The Progressive Conservatives under Premier Stelmach win the election in 2012 after a period of relatively responsible governing with a couple of gems to show off as accomplishments. As many know I’m a fan of Stelmach’s governing from Dec. ’06 to Apr. ’08 – and I can see him returning to those kinds of accomplishments – steady progress on a series of fronts. The thing is, I think he’s been governing this way since April 2008 as well, just with a certain lack of accomplishments to point to. Fast forward to 2012 the message has to be a return to prosperity but with Premier Stelmach being the one at the helm when we left prosperity that message will ring much more hollow than when Premier Klein was able to paint the Getty administration as the bad guy in the scenario rather than Stelmach who will have no bad guy in his tale. That said, I still think this is the most likely of the six, just not the certainty as before.

2. My Premier is hotter than your Premier. Danielle Smith has captured all sorts of momentum and interest, and strangely without really saying a whole lot that would define her. Which is ok, because I still can’t tell you what Dr. Kevin Taft stood for other than it being time for something and he was leader of the official opposition for five years. But in the next two years she could build a party of good candidates, good policy, good organization and good fundraising that is able to compete for the crown. The Wildrose Alliance wins in 2012 by stealing the majority of disaffected PC voters, a lot like Reform took federal PC voters in 1993. The thing is… I don’t think Alberta is that right-wing. Wildrose has a long way to go before they resemble anything centrist and they don’t appear to have any desire to go that way. So if this scenario is to come true one of two things will have to happen: either I have to be wrong about how right-wing Alberta is or the Wildrose Alliance will have to moderate, moderate, moderate. The problem is I’m often wrong. Imagine a provincial government further to the social and fiscal right than the present government provincially or federally. As it stands, I think this is the second most likely scenario.

3. The King is dead. Long live the King! The Alberta PCs are masters of reinvention and they could do it again. I think it would be risky. I think it would be a sign party insiders and other people of power believe the end is nigh for the dynasty and only by removing the leader can they hope to compete in 2012. This scenario isn’t exclusive of all the other scenarios mind you, but for sake of projecting to the 2012 election this would assume the reinvented PC party wins the 2012 election and continues on as government. The natural question would be who leads this party and does the party swing right, left or other… I could speculate on the names of the new leader or premier but that would just serve to stir the pot. Would they go right or left – well that depends, who is more likely to vote for this revitalized PC party who presently wouldn’t – someone from the 35% Wildrose camp or someone from the 25% Liberal? I think the answer is from the right.

4. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The “progressives” of Alberta unite. And the 23 of them go out and find another 150,000 ordinary Albertans to join them. This option, like the other three described above, is well underway. Renew Alberta launches their website tomorrow and there are plenty of centrists and lefties that are fairly disappointed with the status quo. As the Tories and WAP split the right and the Liberals and NDP are either sentenced to further obscurity or actually endorse a unified progressive option this becomes a possibility. Enough so to form government? Well there is a reason I put it as fourth. Although a leader like Dave Bronconnier or a Anne McLellan could change that.

5. If Bob Rae once became Premier of Ontario, I guess Premier Swann is possible… The division among the right and two years of disastrous governing by the Tories leads to… a Liberal government. Similar to the scenario above except using one of the mainstream parties from Alberta’s left – but the thing is I think it is a virtual impossibility. I include it here partly that this scenario will drive some of the actions of Alberta’s political actors and remains a major barrier to the united progressives scenario coming true. Such a scenario would mean the Liberals would have to accomplish those same four objectives I listed for the Wildrose, good candidates, good policy, good organization and good fundraising. And the thing is, they’ve failed at all four of those goals for nearly a century.

6. Minority. Determining the likelihood of this in any real terms involves math and I’m not in the mood. But given our reluctance to leave first past the post and the way the Alberta elections and geographic distribution of votes goes down I think this isn’t as likely as majority government. The list of considerations would all be post-2012 but I can certainly see the Tories and/or WAP propping up the other in power before I see many other scenarios. In the event the Tories lose government there will be a difficult period of self-reflection for that party and one which I believe will kill the party itself, which leads me to my final prediction.

Regardless of which of the six scenarios I’ve laid out you think is most likely, I do think this all paints a specific picture for the current governing party – this is win or die. The PC party is not likely to take opposition well, and unless a left of centre party is the one that takes the Premier’s chair it is hard to imagine the money and volunteers that focus their efforts on the PC party staying past 2012. Much like the PC / Liberal supporters in Saskatchewan or the Social Credit / right-of-centre people in British Columbia or the Social Credit supporters in the Alberta of old, the PCs will take a mortal blow if scenario #2 or maybe most variants of scenario #6 as well a good chance under the united progressive government or a Liberal government the PCs will sit in opposition, and without the levers of power and the promise of government they will discover that their political muscle without those goodies have atrophied to the point of obsolescence and that 40 years in power has meant they stand for shockingly little beyond relatively good governance and staying in power. Of course, if they win, then this becomes another chapter that is almost boilerplate in our political history – Alberta political dynasty briefly threatened by crazies, government comes up with new shiny thing, crazies go away, victory is had and spoils divided, repeat.

I remember listening to a Progressive Conservative campaign official explain to the CBC that his party had rules surrounding a leadership review in the event of defeat in the general election. He was obviously frustrated by the reporter’s transparent tactics to get him to say something about the Ed Stelmach’s chances in the event of Kevin Taft becoming Premier. I have to admit, I was really just doing my best not to laugh. The interview finally ended with the answer that in the event that Premier Stelmach was successful on election day there would be a vote on a leadership race at the second AGM following the election and that the Premier and his team were focused on winning the trust of Albertans for another term.

A week later Premier Stelmach won a landslide. And I never thought about the reporter’s weird questions until recently.

Legend has it that Ralph Klein’s review vote after his first election was done by voice on the floor – I honestly can’t say as I was 13 and not present. I was present for the last two, in 2002 and the last acrimonious one in 2006, and neither was conducted from the floor. I will however be absent for the one in Red Deer in November. But I can’t help wondering how it will go and what will happen.

I have a prediction, but admittedly my political spidey-sense has taken a severe hit since the second week of the 2008 Alberta election (at which time I was predicting 62 Tory seats when all sorts and sundry were suggesting I was far too positive on the PC’s chances – by the fourth week most knew it would be a blowout). I thought the CPC would do better in Quebec. I thought Dave Taylor would win the Liberal leadership race. I thought Bob Rae would win the other Liberal Leadership race. I thought Diane Colley-Urquart would win in Calgary-Glenmore. So with those caveats, I am going to predict that Premier Stelmach will win his vote next weekend, and by a margin of around 80%.

Why? Two reasons. First, the partisan crowd attending the AGM will not be predisposed to voting for a leadership race – it doesn’t serve their best interests. And second, the powers that are aligning against Stelmach pale in comparison to those coming to bat for the Premier.

Looking at the first reason, those who typically shell out the $400 plus to go to Tory AGM are highly partisan people, individuals with a history with the PC party and will be thinking principally of what works best for that party and its caucus when they cast their vote. This certainly does not describe all who will attend and I do not mean to paint all attendees with that brush. Also, I do not want to paint the picture of an army of mindless automatons – I think the vote will be cast with a great deal of thought. Unlike 2006, Premier Stelmach is very much intending to serve as party leader during the next election – and that is a big change. Delegates in 2006 needed more than a sort of ennui about Ralph Klein’s leadership, and the announcement that he wasn’t going to run in 2008 was it. It made sense to around 45% of delegates that if Klein wasn’t going to run, let’s get it over with and give the new girl or guy a chance to put forward a vision before going to the polls.

If the PCs reject Premier Stelmach next weekend and throw the government into a leadership race the risks grow – especially if the new leader fails to capture the imagination of the Alberta public, media and influential class. The government’s plan, such as it is, will be thrown into doubt not just until a new leader comes to power but quite possibly until the next election. Perhaps even more importantly, if you assume the amount of money that gets donated to political ends in Alberta is a zero sum game then a leadership race will divide the available donations even further, with most continuing to go to the Conservative Party of Canada, some going to the Wildrose Alliance, a smattering elsewhere and the rest divided among the leadership candidates, and very little going to main party. The entry fee to enter the leadership race may mitigate that, but running a leadership race with 100,000 plus votes is an expensive proposition as well. Finally, if you’re a sitting PC MLA, a likely candidate or a devoted campaign worker for the expected 2012 election you have to be thinking that Ed Stelmach has to be a serious liability before you would surrender a bunch of political energy towards a leadership race. Dumping Ed Stelmach risks leaving the PC party exhausted come election time. All of these considerations beyond the ordinary pettiness of politics has to be rolling through the minds of delegates in Red Deer and I think the likely conclusion for most will be to cast a ballot in support of the Premier.

Also, and it may seem remote now after Calgary-Glenmore, but Ed Stelmach destroyed the competition in the last election. There are thousands of parents of the PC victory in March 2008 but a lot of that credit has to go to the leader. He’s a winner, and that pronouncement may be more a sign of the dearth of political energy in the province than the political acumen of Ed Stelmach, all the same he’s a guy who got it done last time out at the polls. And that also has to be weighing on the mind of delegates in Red Deer.

My second reason, the circumstances and “sides” of the vote being unevenly aligned for rather than against the Premier is something that Ralph Klein did not have on his side in 2006. Those who have come out publicly in support of the Premier include both the powerful and unlikely: Peter Lougheed, Rod Love, Jim Dinning and the person who I believe has the most of all to gain from a Stelmach loss, Dr. Ted Morton.

Against the Premier we have a much more motley and distant cast of characters, Ernie Isley, Alan Hallman and the only major name of the bunch beyond the obvious people from other parties, former Premier Ralph Klein. Admittedly, Klein is not actually encouraging delegates to cast out Premier Stelmach, but his comments to the media are a big reason that the media continues to harbour the idea that the Premier might lose in Red Deer.

Of course, I could be wrong. I’m fairly peeved about Bill 44, enough so that I’d have trouble if I were a delegate reconciling my feelings about that stupid piece of legislation and my thoughts towards the government. And I know more than enough people peeved about our decent back into deficit budgeting. Interesting times. But in Alberta politics since the ascendancy of Earnest Manning if you had bet only on the most boring outcomes of all political events in our province you would be rich. And metaphorically, that’s what I am doing – the most boring outcome of next weekend will be Premier Stelmach winning a healthy endorsement and the real showdown will be in 2012 with the Premier placing his record of returning to surpluses from deficit (and he better accomplish this, because if he can’t I don’t know what he presents to the electorate) against the dynamism of Danielle Smith and whatever it is that the Liberals and New Democrats try and bring to the table.

I have been an active participant in Alberta’s political process for 12 years but increasingly I am one of a few who volunteer for a candidate, take an active interest in politics or even cast a ballot. Many among my generation and younger increasingly see the political process as lacking integrity, fairness and legitimacy. The important work that the Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission is doing goes right to the heart of these issues, and many eyes will look on your work in the next two provincial elections and decide whether they see a corrupt, unfair and gerrymandered electoral system or the work of a group of people to end the mistakes of the past and create an electoral map that guarantees that every vote will count and be considered equally.

I understand the limits of your mandate and what the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act will allow, and while the five Albertans who sit on the commission alone cannot change the problems with our democracy and the lack of engagement I urge you to consider making our electoral map fairer. The most important consideration of redrawing our electoral map must be “the requirement for effective representation as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Right now the disparity between electoral divisions is atrocious. My own constituency of Edmonton-Meadowlark has a population close to the provincial average, 38,434 compared to the average of 37,820. My vote however is worth nearly half as much as a vote cast in Dunvegan-Central Peace, with a population of 23,649. Going to extremes would take Calgary-North West, with 60,511 people – nearly three times as many as Dunvegan-Central Peace, but leaving aside extremes there are clear trends – votes cast in Calgary. Edmonton and their bedroom communities count less than a vote cast elsewhere. This disparity breeds cynicism.

How to reconcile this? I urge that the commission:

• Recommend electoral divisions that are within plus or minus 5% of the provincial average;
• Recommend that the Edmonton metropolitan area receive 25 electoral divisions, commensurate with their current population; and
• Recommend that the Calgary metropolitan area receive 26 electoral divisions, commensurate with their current population.

Calgary and Edmonton along with their surrounding bedroom communities make up 57% of our province – and it is growing. I believe this is the first rough calculation many Albertans will do when looking at the work of your commission. In my time in our political process, I have heard countless recriminations from Albertans saying our system is corrupt and unfairly penalizes Calgary and Edmonton because of who we vote for – my assurances that the system is in fact fair and representational hinges on you.

Agree? Disagree? Don’t just tell me – tell the Electoral Boundaries Commission! You can e-mail them at info@altaebc.ab.ca.

daveberta is already talking about this and I’m sure more will be shortly. Naturally, most are focusing on the geography of the decisions that are about to be made and I certainly think how to distribute the seats, whether there 83 of them, 87 of them or even 60 of them is a vital debate, and one that will hopefully get the discussion it deserves. But before that comes the magic number, and I don’t think that 87 is it.

Edmonton has 12 councilors (along with the mayor) to represent some 752,000 people, with each councilor representing 63,000 people starting in 2010 – until then they share wards with another councilor, meaning Don Iveson works hard to represent some 125,000 people. My MP, the Honourable Rona Ambrose, has to work a little harder, as she represents 128,000 people and doesn’t have a ward mate to help out. So why is it that the average Alberta MLA need only represent 43,765 people? When we move to 87 that number will drop to 41,753. Why does the City of Edmonton have 12 councilors and 8 MPs (who also represent Sherwood Park, St. Albert and Spruce Grove) but an amazing 18 MLAs?

A Legislature needs to be a certain size in order to function – that much is obvious. If we’re dividing Canada’s provincial legislatures into three sizes – small, medium and large – we have four small legislatures in the three territories and Prince Edward Island, between 18 and 27. Even at those low amounts, MLAs represent a very small number of people – between 1,850 and 5,200 people a piece. But that comes out of necessity, as the average Alberta MLA represents more people than the entire population of the Yukon. We need at least around 20 MLAs to even carry on the basic function of a parliamentary democracy. Indeed, 20 makes it difficult, hence the medium legislatures.

Newfoundland (48), Nova Scotia (52), New Brunswick (55), Manitoba (57), Saskatchewan (58) all have medium legislatures. They have enough MLAs to form functioning caucuses for both the government and opposition and have enough members to make a cabinet and shadow cabinet. It would be fair to say that somewhere between 45 and 60 is the base level a legislature should be if it has the population to support and justify it. After all, if Nunavut had 60 MLAs each would represent 526 people which is smaller than my graduating class in high school.

Then we come to the large legislatures (according to the arbitrary Duncan scale of Canadian provincial legislature sizes) – British Columbia (79 – soon to be 85), Alberta (83), Ontario (107) and Québec (125). Of these four, Alberta has the smallest population of 3.6 million compared to 4.4 million in BC, 7.8 million in Québec and 13 million in Ontario. An Ontario MPP represents 121,300 people, a Québec MNA represents 62,250 people and currently BC MLAs represent 60,000 people. I’m not advocating for each Alberta MLA to have an average constituency size of 120,000 but if they only represented 60,000 then we would have a functioning legislature of 65 MLAs. Lots of space for debate and diversity. Alas, the number of proponents of reducing the size of the legislature I suspect are going to have their voices drowned out. Too bad.

UPDATE: It would seem BC’s legislature is growing to 85 on Tuesday, giving a BC MLA an average of 52,000 constituents.