Professional Documents
Culture Documents
May 28, 2010 - Letter MSC
May 28, 2010 - Letter MSC
#502A, Legislature Annex #A210, 1600 – 90 Avenue SW
9718 – 107 Street Calgary, AB T2V 5A8
Edmonton, AB T5K 1E4
Tel: (780) 638‐3504 Tel: (403) 216‐5421
Fax: (780) 638‐3506 Fax: (403) 216‐5423
Paul Hinman
Calgary‐Glenmore Constituency
Acting Leader for the Wildrose Alliance Caucus in all matters pertaining to the
Legislative Assembly of Alberta
May 28, 2010
Dear Members of the Members’ Services Committee:
In the letter you received from me in advance of the April 26, 2010 meeting of the Member Services
Committee (MSC), and in our presentation at that meeting, you will recall that I outlined the history of
the Alberta Legislature’s well established practise of providing full research and communications funding
to caucus parties regardless of their size. What was in 1986 called an “opposition caucus allowance” has
now come to be called a “Leader’s Office Allowance,” but the function of it – supporting opposition
caucuses in their vital democratic role – has never changed. The Speaker (and Chair of the Member’s
Services Committee) responded to our request in January that he could not grant us this funding, saying
instead that it would have to be decided by this committee. We have been looking forward to his
invitation to take up the issue with this committee since that time.
In this letter we will follow up on some of the points raised in the last meeting.
Status of Leader
As we noted in the last meeting, no party has ever had any part of their funding contingent on whether
their party leader was elected or not. We can find no grounds in either the motions or debates from this
committee for the interpretation that this is relevant to a caucus’ funding. In our system there will
inevitably be cases where a caucus is led by an interim or acting leader when a leader resigns or after a
non‐MLA wins a party’s leadership. Caucus funding cannot be predicated upon something as fluid as
this. There has never been a motion passed by this committee that in any way suggests that it should
be.
In fact, as the Clerk’s presentation from last meeting made clear, there are a number of cases in our
history where caucuses have been led in the legislature by someone who is not the leader of the party:
never has this caused discrimination against a caucus in terms of budget. The most germane precedent
for our situation was when Grant Mitchell stepped down as Liberal leader. Not only did the Liberal
caucus continue to receive its full funding, but Howard Sapers was immediately granted the leader’s
stipend (the latter which the Wildrose Alliance is not requesting at this time given we are not an official
party of 4 or more MLAs). This situation did not change even after Nancy Macbeth was selected as their
new party leader, despite the fact that on the date she became leader she was not an elected MLA.
We also noted the cases where an NDP caucus of two continued to receive its full caucus allowance
(including the ‘leader’s allowance’) when it did not have a party leader elected to the house (1982,
2000). It is worth adding that should the Committee decide against our request, it will create a perverse
incentive for small parties to select new leaders only from their existing stock of MLAs for fear of losing
their legislative resources. Again, this would set an undemocratic precedent.
It is also impossible to establish legitimate grounds for insisting that a legislative leader also be a party
leader without forming the logical conclusion that this legislative allowance is intended to subsidize
party activities (which is, of course, illegal under our laws). It would, in effect, mean that a strictly party
activity (selecting a party leader) would affect purely legislative activities and budgets. As this Chair and
Legislative Assembly Office staff spend a great deal of time and effort separating party and legislative
activities, it seems completely illogical to deny caucus funding based on the outcome of a political party
decision. I, as Acting Leader for the Wildrose Alliance Caucus in all things pertaining to the Legislative
Assembly of Alberta, have all the same legislative duties demanded of the leader of the NDP in leading
his caucus, and therefore should be entitled to the same support from the legislature for the same.
Budget
Last meeting the issue of whether additional caucus funding should be provided given that Budget 2010
had already been passed was raised by the member from Leduc‐Beaumont‐Devon. Let it first be
pointed out that our caucus grew to three members on January 4, 2010. In that same month, two letters
were sent to the Chair of the MSC requesting full caucus funding. The Chair, in a letter dated February
1, 2010, denied the request for increased funding, but stated he was “prepared to convene a meeting of
the committee at the appropriate time to provide (the WRA caucus) with the opportunity to make the
case to the committee.” Needless to say, our caucus was denied that meeting prior to the passage of
Budget 2010. It is unfair for government members of the MSC to suggest that increasing our caucus
funding in this situation would be difficult given that Budget 2010 had already passed, given that a
meeting pre‐Budget 2010 was not granted when asked for. I would also remind committee members
that they are paid $1000 a month to sit on the MSC committee. I would hope that meeting once a
month, especially when there are outstanding and pressing matters to attend to, is not too much to
expect by our caucus or by Alberta taxpayers.
Furthermore, as we have been reminded again recently with Mr. Dave Taylor’s change of status, MLAs
who become independents do not need to wait for a new budget or a MSC meeting to receive the
support they need to function in the legislature. When members become independent, they are
immediately allotted an amount of $96,000 (pro‐rated) on top of the $67,000 given to each member for
administrative support. This $96,000 for Mr. Taylor was additional funding granted post passage of
Budget 2010 (the Liberals did not lose any caucus research/communications funding as a result of Mr.
Taylor’s departure). Again, this additional funding was granted seamlessly between budgets without a
special meeting of the MSC or a supplementary estimate. Should the LAO, for some reason, not be able
to find the relatively modest amount we are requesting, a minor supplementary estimate would not
seem inappropriate for the sake of democratic fairness.
Principles
As so many members of this committee have maintained through the last three decades, the key
principle at play here that needs to be upheld is that a healthy opposition is essential to a strong and
functioning democracy. In our unicameral parliamentary system this is especially true, since the only
institutional oversight of government is that which is provided by opposition parties. This is why so
many provincial legislatures and our federal parliament give funding to opposition caucuses, and do not
raise artificial barriers (such as whether the party leader is presently an MLA or not) to disqualify some
parties and not others.
In the political landscape today, there is no question that there are four parties in Alberta. It seems only
proper that each of them receive fair and equitable funding in our legislature; to have the third largest
party receive considerably less than the fourth largest party is simply not appropriate. Albertans will
recognize this and denying our claim will reflect poorly upon this committee.
Given that there are no grounds for discriminating against a caucus based on whether their party leader
happens to be elected at any given time, we are confident that this committee will support a motion to
grant the Wildrose Alliance caucus funding equal to that which the NDP caucus receives at this present
time.
The question we are especially interested in seeking the guidance of this committee on is that of the
retroactivity of the funding. Normally, funding follows immediately upon parliamentary changes, as
when a member announces independence. There is a case to be made that caucus funding should be
granted retroactively to either the date the caucus grew to three; the date our first letter was sent to
the Chair; the earliest date the committee meeting could have been held; or the date of the last meeting
when the matter was not given priority and time ran out. We propose that the funding should be
retroactive to the MSC meeting of April 26, 2010, as it is not acceptable that the committee allowed the
only time‐sensitive matter on the agenda to be pushed to the end of the agenda.
Thank‐you for your consideration of these matters.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Mr. Paul Hinman
MLA, Calgary‐Glenmore
Acting Leader for the Wildrose Alliance Caucus in all matters pertaining to the Legislative Assembly of
Alberta
c.c. Premier Ed Stelmach