What to make of Alberta Party agriculture policy?

I would like to applaud the Alberta Party for being open and transparent by not only live broadcasting their AGM, but for leaving the videos available for all to see.

Unfortunately though, I do have to question the transparency of some of their policies. I don’t get me wrong, this is not a problem unique to them; all parties are subject to this. In many respects it boils down to human nature. We all have preconceived ideas on what certain words mean. When words are strung together as policy, we envision different outcomes from them based on what we personally believe the implications to be.

In my opinion policies should be as clear and concise as possible. Certainly, not everyone will agree the policies and that’s why the various parties (and supporters) debate the merits of particular policies. What really muddies these waters though is when a policy says one thing and the members of the party who approved the policy don’t even agree on what it really means.  This is in essence was came out of a debate on Twitter last night.

I was watching (and/or listening) to the video segment from the Alberta Party AGM on agriculture policy.  At the conclusion of passing the various AG policies, a question was asked about how urban candidates would discuss the agriculture policy at the doors. I was taken aback when I heard someone say “the consequence of what we have voted for … are policies that restrict urban sprawl by preventing the movement of farmland to be sold to developers.” This is paraphrased; you can hear the exact wording here at the 1:30:40 mark.

My immediate interpretation based on that statement was; Alberta Party would restrict farmers whose land borders on cities from selling their land to developers. But let’s be honest; that would be an absurd policy. 

I noted that Danielle Klooster was on Twitter. She is the Alberta Party candidate for Innisfail – Sylvan Lake, a predominantly rural constituency. She was also at the AGM and spoke to a number of the policies. Who better to ask for a clarification of what I had just heard. You can see the conversation string here. 

Basically she says “restrict” is not the right word. And goes onto say there needs to be a balance of what’s best and fair. Remember this is their policy that they hope to enact if elected. It would be the government deciding what is best and fair; thus interfering on who the private landowner could sell to.

Then Chris Labossiere, past-president of the Alberta Party, came into the conversation. Twitter stream.  He says regarding the policy it’s an “INCENTIVE to find a way for farmers to get the value of their land.”  By this time I’ve located their written policy proposals so I can read the exact policy in question. It reads as follows:

Be it resolved that the Alberta Party will work with the agricultural community to help develop initiatives that facilitate the continuing availability of farmland in Alberta through succession strategies, the promotion of initiatives to increase farm income, and to bring new farmers into the industry.

I point out to Chris that the policy has no mention of land value. Of course he asks “Then where did you get that idea from?” Well, let’s see, the initial comment I heard in the video, Danielle referred to it and so did Chris himself.   That’s about when Chris lost it and responded with this. You can click on image to enlarge.

Rereading the policy now it’s really not clear on the definition of farm income. Granted the first thing that pops to mind is revenue from the sale of product; but really it could be revenue from the sale of land as well.

I’ve gone back to the video to locate where the policy was discussed to get a clearer picture of the intent of what looks like to be a benign policy. Surprisingly there was no debate on it. Simply commentary from Michael Walters, Alberta Party candidate for Edmonton – Rutherford.  (Who the Liberal party recently tried to woo over) You can hear the policy read out at the 1:08:35 mark,  Michaels comments and then the quick successful vote passing it into their policy platform.

I’ve listened to it several times and I’m no closer to understanding what they really mean to accomplish with this policy.

Is anyone clear on it? I would love to hear what you think; especially Alberta Party members who will be conveying this to Albertans.

Collection of Alberta Party Tweets

The Alberta Party is really racking up some Twitter gems. I figured would be best to save them before they get lost in the twittersphere.

From Tammy Maloney Alberta Party Calgary-North Hill CA President.

As her Twitter profile states... "Alberta Party's values are a reflection of my own"

A supporter from Edmonton.

I guess leaders are open game for personal attacks. Heck, no need to argue policy that way. After I challenged him on this comment, he removed it.


The Alberta Party says they "don't like labels". They are neither left nor right. Despite that, they label everyone else and are quick to point out why you won't "fit in with them". Ken Chapman, who used to be a policy analyst with the PC's and is now the is the Alberta Party's biggest cheerleader of slapping labels on everyone else.

When it comes to the Wildrose Alliance, Ken also likes to play the "hidden agenda" card. Too many examples of that for me to narrow it to just one... Again, they claim to be "doing politics differently"; but this is the oldest tack employed by the left side of the spectrum.


The Alberta Party also claims to be "forward" thinking. Yet, they are quick to point out other people's pasts. I'm at a loss to explain why they do this, we all come from somewhere.  This from Jeremy Barretto, he is on the Calgary Buffalo CA and Alberta Party’s Environmental Policy Committee.

He is referring to my husband in that post. Ironically, Cory spent more time as a Director on the board of the Alberta Party than he did leading the AIP.

This young man came to Twitter with such an innocent question.

...and the response he got from Elaine Christel Hyshka, Alberta Party, VP Communications Policy.

For those of you who don't know, my handle on Twitter is @Jaanikka. Plus it was re-tweeted by several other Alberta Party members, supporters, etc over the following days.

It's not often I let crap get to me, but I did. And that just resulted in them figuratively talking behind my back. As see in this comment from Marc Doll of the Alberta Party Calgary Currie CA:

... Mentioning by my first name, but not with @ my twitter name.

Since then Chris LaBossiere (Alberta Party President) has apologized for Christel's lowbrow remark, though at the time I thought the comment was from a member, not their VP of Communications Policy!!

Needless to say I had a good laugh when she tweeted this tonight.....

The old quote "if you’re going to talk the talk, you’ve got to walk the walk" comes to mind on so many things the Alberta professes.

Happy Birthday to my blog

Okay, it was actually yesterday that this blog turned 2, but I had other things on my mind. LOL

Though it has gone through some dry spells, overall it has been a great experience. It has allowed me to vent, share, instigate, laugh, interact and even make new friends; some cyber and some in real life.

My list (in the right panel >>>>>>) of blogs I enjoy has grown from the original five. Recent additions include: Alex Abboud, Chris LaBossiere, Alain Saffel, DJ Kelly and just today the Best Political Team.

It's been a blast. Thanks to all my readers, lurkers and commenters...even the Anon ones.

The devil's in the details

An online description of what “the devil's in the details” means:

Some people say that the devil's in the details when they examine a contract or agreement. Generally, the agreement looks reasonable at first glance, but a closer examination of the terms and small print reveals a problem. People who routinely sign such agreements usually learn to look them over very carefully, looking for the snag or issue which might ultimately make the deal untenable.

The saying crossed my mind as I pondered the response from the Alberta Party President, Mr. Charles Relland. He says the motion that was passed was this:

Whereas the Constitution can only really be applicable to our Party after we sustain some growth, to work in practice, (and the Party, since 2005 is trying to follow it in principle), we have to admit to ourselves that we have to concentrate on growth with our secondary objective [that] of making the Constitution workable…"

Okay, that part is just fluff, but I do totally agree with it.

And
“… That the Provincial Board may make any operational policy, between General Assemblies, to regulate the provincial affairs of the Party, including, but not limited to the bylaws and sections of the Party Constitution…"

This is the portion that apparently gave the Alberta Party board full power to change the constitution.

From what I have been able to garner they have changed the following things:

Article 1(b) which is the principles, has been removed entirely and replaced with the Renew Alberta principles.

Article 5 a) i) & ii) Which outlines qualifications for board members, has either been amended or eliminated altogether.

Article 5 m) which refers to only “vacant” board positions being eligible for “appointments” has, in all likelihood been removed.

Article 8: (g) which refers to how policy is established has presumably been changed to give the board full control of polices. Thus they have now been “suspended”.

Article 12 (b) which refers to the notice for calling for amendments to the constitution. This has likely been removed since that decision making process is now in the hands of the Alberta Party board.

I could on, but I think you get the idea and it is, IMO, Article 12 (CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS) that is the devil in the details.

The motion Charles indicates has “passed” has a huge impact on the intent of the entire document. And if the board has the power to change it; in theory it could change every time they meet.

Chris LaBossiere tells us:

“...they (the Alberta Party) also recognized that if they wanted to break out as a mainstream party, may have to make changes to their policies and constitution as required, and in between annual meetings. These changes could be made by the Board of Directors as seen fit, and then ratified at the next AGM”.

I will concede that I can see the application of this to policies. Things happen and a party needs to be able to respond. The constitution though, is quite a different matter.

Plus the board is proceeding as if they have been ratified? What if they are not ratified? Do they “undo” everything they have done in the meantime?

For clarity to readers, I have posted the latest copy of the Alberta Party Constitution that I could readily get my hands on.


In Alberta all political parties registered with Elections Alberta are also registered as a Society.

The Alberta Party is registered as a society under the name of “The Alberta Party Political Association”. Their society registry certificate # is 05033XXXXX. Due to this, they (like all parties), are governed by the Society’s Act.


This is what the Act has to say about changing the bylaws (constitution).

Rescission, etc. of bylaws
15(1) The bylaws of a society shall not be rescinded, altered or added to except by special resolution of the society.

Okay, so what’s a special resolution?

Definitions
1 In this Act,
(d) “special resolution” means
(i) a resolution passed
(A) at a general meeting of which not less than 21 days’ notice specifying the intention to propose the resolution has been duly given, and
(B) by the vote of not less than 75% of those members who, if entitled to do so, vote in person or by proxy,
(ii) a resolution proposed and passed as a special resolution at a general meeting of which less than 21 days notice has been given, if all the members entitled to attend and vote at the general meeting so agree, or
(iii) a resolution consented to in writing by all the members who would have been entitled at a general meeting to vote on the resolution

I believe they followed all the requirements of this (and their own constitution) leading up to their October 2009 AGM and passed the resolution Charles has provided.

So what’s next then?

Rescission, etc. of bylaws
15(2) No rescission or alteration of or addition to a bylaw has effect until it has been registered by the Registrar.

Hhmm, okay we’re going to have to presume they have filed the resolution with the Society’s Registrar and that brings us to the third requirement.

Rescission, etc. of bylaws
15(3) If the Registrar is of the opinion that a bylaw is not in accordance with the application for incorporation or that it contains anything contrary to law, the Registrar shall refuse to register it.

The reference to bylaws under the Application section is:

Application for incorporation(4) The bylaws that accompany the application shall contain provisions for all the following matters:
(h) the manner of making, altering and rescinding bylaws;

This is the part that really twists the brain. Because the resolution Charles has outlined (as required in (h) of application) would appear to be totally contradictory to section 15(1) of the Act and to the Acts’ definition of “special resolution”. (in green above)

His resolution gives full power to the board to basically do whatever they see fit to the constitution. A very top down and undemocratic scenario with zero input from members. In essence it removes the provision for “special resolutions” as defined by the Act.

The Society’s Act, on the other hand, would appear to protect the interests of members by keeping them involved in the process and sets out minimum requirements as to notice, methods, etc.

I find it a little difficult to believe the Registrar would accept a resolution that appears to run polar opposite to the Act itself.

Let me be very clear, I am not a lawyer; the above is purely an observation on my part. I simply enjoy exploring complex details and how things all fit together.

It must be the .......

Chris LaBossiere enters the fray

Chris LaBossiere has responded to my blog on his blog.

He is looking for an apology of sorts. I will for a couple of things.

First my tone; I tend to be a straight shooting, no bullshit type of person. I understand that comes off as abrasive and is often misinterpreted, so I do apologize for that.

Second; that I referred to their tactics being a case of naivety. This came about when a commenter referred to the happenings as skullduggery. Which I thought was a bit harsh, as I truly didn’t think anyone was trying to deliberately sabotage the party. So I opted to use the word naïve. I do apologize for this as well.

He points to me having previously held positions with the WAP, as if that somehow has something to do with what I was blogging about. About the only relevance that it has is that through my past experience, I have exposure to the meaning and ramifications of a party constitution.

He says I have been throwing some mud. I can see how it might be seen that way, but really I was trying to shed some light on a serious issue. And as it has (NOW) been revealed; the constitution, the very backbone of the party, has indeed been changed significantly. Would this have been revealed without my commentary? Are members ever going to get a copy of this amended constitution?

A great deal of this could have been avoided by the party posting its constitution on their website like every other party does and as Charles himself had written in October how important this is.

And about Charles….I find it very fascinating that his comment was posted from the same IP as Chris’ recent comment.

Chris, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this and not make a mountain out of molehill. Clearly Charles sent you an email and asked you to post it in my comment section. However, I am a little disappointed that Charles did not simply email me directly; or that you didn’t post in your own name communicating his email.

Edited to add: On Twitter Chris is also trying to twist this as a “WAP misinformation campaign”.
Sorry to disappoint the WAP detractors; but the WAP has absolutely ZERO to do with this. It’s just lil’ol me typing away on an otherwise boring weekend; trying to get to the bottom of some very bizarre switch-a-roos.