Clear Full Forecast

The Written Word: Rafe Mair September 10th

By Prince George - Peace River M.P. Jay Hill

Monday, September 10, 2007 03:43 AM

The NDP in April 1973 brought in the Agricultural Land Reserve which, despite the huge protests of the day, has never been repealed notwithstanding the fact that many Socred MLAs in the Bill Bennett government thought it should be abolished. It’s also survived the right-wing Campbell government. It’s not surprising, then, that NDPers are very proud of their creation. Certainly NDP MLA Michael Sather is proud of it and has put his principles clearly before the NDP caucus saying he will vote against the ratification of the Tsawwassen treaty, recently concluded, where 200 hectares will be taken out of the ALR to be used as the band wishes. For his act of lese majeste Mr. Sather has been tossed out of caucus.
If an MLA can’t vote his conscience, especially on matters where he’s standing up for a personal and party principle, one has to conclude that electing MLAs – and MPs for that matter - is a waste of time and money. I include MPs because a few months ago Conservative MP John Cummins, a former commercial fisherman, was tossed of the Standing Committee on Fisheries for criticizing the governments new Fisheries Act. What’s the point of putting a man on a committee for his expertise and the moment he utilizes it, he’s fired?
The Sather case is an ill-disguised move by NDP leader Carole James to show tough leadership in the wake of her appalling leadership over the entire issue of the “Gateway Project.” Unwilling to offend natives or her supporters who support the Gateway project MS James opted to withdraw from the field of battle.
One can understand why a government backbencher would be censured for voting in such a way as to put his government in jeopardy but it’s very difficult to understand how an act of independence which does no harm except to embarrass the leader should call for the political version of capital punishment.
    
Previous Story - Next Story

Email Email | Print Print | Share on Facebook Facebook | Tweet! Twitter | Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 03:43 AM in Views by Prince George - Peace River M.P. Jay Hill

Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Comment Posted by: ammonra on September 10 2007 8:58 AM
He was not expelled from caucus, he got a temporary suspended. This was announced before the vote, so it means he is getting a minor slap on the wrist, with tacit permission. Live in the real world, Rafe.
Comment Posted by: Parrothead on September 10 2007 6:08 PM
Maybe so, but the MLA/MP should still be able to speak his/her mind and follow the wishes of the constiuents rather than that of just the leader.
Comment Posted by: camoose on September 10 2007 10:17 PM
Anyone remember what happened to Paul nettleton under the direction of the Great Gordo? To sit in his party you must not under any circumstances voice an opinion of your own. It appears only the script supplied by the spin doctors is approved. I do believe that every political party is guilty of this type of behavior. Why bother having an election if your MP/MLA can't express an opinion? Nuff said.
Comment Posted by: Chadermando on September 11 2007 1:00 AM
What is horrendous is what Ontario is about to vote on for their electoral change on October 10th. A system that would further entrench party insider control over elected representation.

The Ontario system will see a party list allowing for the party insiders to appoint 1/3 of the Ontario legislature completely sidestepping direct voter participation in democracy. Furthermore they will allow for any supporter of donkey sex 3% extreme minority fringe party to gain power through party nomination list based on the aggregate vote total for the whole province, thereby encouraging fringe divisive issue related parties that take advantage of fear based politics to attain their 3% voter support needed to represent the whole province as a sitting MLA’s (4 minimum) in the Ontario legislature.

The Ontario plan is the complete opposite of the voter empowering 50% majority required system of direct voter influenced through STV stakeholder representative system known as the BC-STV to be voted on here in BC. The BC-STV does not empower the parties to appoint (as in the case of Ontario), and BC-STV does not encourage fear based fringe politics, but rather consensus based positive politics. The Ontario plan is highly restrictive to the independent MLA where as the BC-STV seems almost designed to favour the independent MLA. Two systems at complete opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of party control.

This is a prime example of why Carol James does not support BC-STV.