Political Parties

The Opposition in the Canadian House of Commons: Role, Structure, and Powers

Jay Makarenko — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:32:54 -0700

The opposition is an important element of the Canadian parliamentary tradition and the day-to-day operation of government. This article examines the role, structure and powers of the opposition in Canada’s premier national legislature, the House of Commons. This includes discussions of the basic nature of opposition politics, the powers of the opposition in the House, the role of the Official Opposition (as a component of the opposition), and the disadvantages faced by the opposition in its relationship with the government.

Introduction to Opposition Politics in Canada

What is the opposition and what does it do?

Powers of the Opposition in the House of Commons

How does the House opposition “oppose” the government?

The Official Opposition in the House of Commons

Overview of the Official Opposition and the Opposition Leader

Limits on the Opposition in the House of Commons

Can the House opposition effectively oppose the government?

Sources and Links to Further Information

Lists of article sources and links to more on this topic

Introduction to Opposition Politics in Canada

What is the opposition and what does it do?

Parliamentary System and the Opposition

Opposition politics in Canada stems from the nation’s basic parliamentary system of government. Central to this system is the specific way governments (that is, the Prime Minister and Cabinet) are chosen. In Canada, citizens do not directly elect their Prime Minister. Instead, citizens elect representatives to the House of Commons, who then select a Prime Minister from amongst themselves. Who becomes Prime Minister and forms the government thus depends on who can muster the most support amongst members of the House.

This process of choosing a Prime Minister operates within a strict political party system. Elected representatives in the House usually belong to a federal political party, such as the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada or the New Democratic Party of Canada. In selecting who will become Prime Minister and form the government, elected representatives usually support the leader of the political party to which they belong. As such, who becomes Prime Minister, and forms the government, depends on which political party has the most elected members in the House.

For more information on Canada’s parliamentary system:

Mapleleafweb: Parliamentary Government in Canada: Basic Organization and Practices

The House of Commons, therefore, is divided along an important line. On the one hand, there is the government side. This includes the Prime Minister, his/her Cabinet ministers, and all those other members of the legislature who share party allegiance with the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In the 39th Parliament, for example, the Conservative Party of Canada formed the government side in the House.

On the other hand, there is the opposition side (also referred to as the “opposition” or the “opposition parties”). This includes all those representatives in the House who belong to political parties not in government. In the 39th Parliament, this included those representatives belonging to the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois.

The Opposition’s Basic Function

Under Canada’s parliamentary system, the basic function of the opposition is to oppose the government on a day-to-day basis (hence, the term “opposition”). In this role, the opposition takes on an adversarial role vis-à-vis the government. This includes routinely criticizing government legislation and actions, as well as providing the Canadian public with alternative policies. In some cases, the opposition may even organize to bring down the government, by voting against key pieces of government legislation, such as the annual budget (this is formally referred to as a vote of non-confidence).

See the Powers of the Opposition in the House of Commons section of this article for more information on precisely how the opposition may oppose the government.

In theory, then, the opposition acts as a check on the government’s power. In practice, however, it can usually do little more than criticize and attempt to publicly embarrass the government. This is due to the level of control the government has over the parliamentary process, as well as the prevalence of majority governments in Canadian politics, which enable the governing political party to dominate votes in the House.

See the Limits on the Opposition in the House of Commons section of this article for more on the opposition’s ability to act as a check on government power.

The Opposition versus the Official Opposition

In Canadian politics, one often hears the terms “opposition” and “Official Opposition.” What is the difference? As stated above, the “opposition” refers to all those elected representatives in the House who belong to political parties not in government. The title of “Official Opposition,” by contrast, is reserved for the largest of these opposition parties; that is, the opposition party that has the most representatives in the House. In the 39th Parliament, for example, the Liberal Party of Canada was the largest political party not in government, and thus became the Official Opposition.

While the Official Opposition receives certain special privileges, it does not have any formal authority over the other opposition parties in the House.

See The Official Opposition in the House of Commons section of this article for more on the role and powers of the Official Opposition.

Powers of the Opposition in the House of Commons

How does the House opposition “oppose” the government?

Questioning and Debating the Government

As discussed above, the opposition criticizes government actions and policies, and offers alternatives to the general public. In this context, the opposition is given several opportunities to question and debate the government.

One of most important of these is Question Period, which is officially referred to as “Oral Questions.” During each sitting day of the House of Commons – that is, days in which members of the House convene to discuss business and vote on legislation – 45 minutes is allotted for Question Period. The opposition can use this time to pose questions to the government and to state any criticisms they might have regarding the government’s actions and policies. The government, in turn, is given a chance to respond to these opposition questions and criticisms. These exchanges are typically very adversarial and often lack substantive political debate. The opposition will often attempt to trip up the government into making statements that will make it look bad in public, while the government will often respond in a manner that sidesteps the opposition’s questions. Moreover, Question Period can also involve personal attacks between opposition and government members, as well as heckling on both sides.

In addition to Question Period, the opposition may also debate the government during readings of proposed bills in the House. Before any piece of legislation (or “bill”) becomes law, it must undergo several stages of debate (or “readings”) in the House. During these readings, opposition members are usually given an opportunity to debate the government on the merits or weaknesses of the proposed legislation. In some cases, this may involve opposition members criticizing bills proposed by the government; in other cases it may involve supporting bills proposed by the opposition itself.

Opposition members may also regularly criticize the government in informal “media scrums” that occur outside of the chamber after a sitting of the House. During these scrums, members of the opposition make statements directly to reporters about House business and the conduct of the government, and also address questions posed to them by the media.

Finally, in organizing their questioning of the government, opposition parties often form shadow cabinets, where opposition spokespersons are responsible for criticizing specific cabinet ministries or portfolios. There will be, for example, a recognized opposition critic for national defence, foreign policy, finance, and so forth. Each opposition party usually forms its own shadow cabinet.

Introducing Legislation in the House

Opposition members also have the power to introduce legislation for consideration by the House of Commons through private members’ bills. Members of the House not in Cabinet are referred to as “private members” – hence the term “private members’ bill.” This includes members of opposition parties, independent members (members that do not belong to a political party), and government backbenchers (members that belong to the governing political party but who are not in Cabinet).

Normally, private members’ bills may include any sort of legislation except those dealing with the appropriation of public revenues or taxation. These financial bills may only be introduced by the government; that is, by the Prime Minister or a Cabinet minister. In some rare cases, however, a private member may get special permission to introduce a piece of legislation dealing with government finances.

Like any legislation introduced in the House of Commons, private members’ bills go through the normal legislative cycle. In order for them to become law, they must go through several readings and debates within the House. A private members’ bill may also be given to a parliamentary committee for more detailed review. Finally, the bill must be formally approved in both the House and the Senate, as well as receive Royal Assent (approval from the Monarchy or his/her representative, the Governor General).

For more information on private member’s bills:

Opposition Days in the House

Opposition members also have the opportunity to influence the formulation of laws and policies during Opposition Days in the House of Commons (also referred to as “Supply Days”). Normally, the government controls the House’s daily agenda, including what motions will be discussed and voted upon by all members. During Opposition Days, however, opposition motions have precedence over government motions. As such, opposition members can effectively control the House’s agenda (hence the term “Opposition Days”). This power to control the agenda, however, does not mean that opposition motions will be passed, it simply means that the opposition members are able to control what motions will be discussed and voted upon.

Opposition Days are another holdover from the British or Westminster parliamentary system. Originally, Opposition Days were associated with debates over “supply” and were held prior to the release of budget estimates – hence the interchangeable “Supply Days” moniker. They were created so that opposition members could advance ideas for what should, and should not, be funded by the government. In more recent years, Opposition Days have become known as opportunities for opposition members to draw attention to issues and policy positions the government would not normally discuss.

Votes of Non-Confidence

One of the opposition’s most important powers is the ability to undertake votes of non-confidence against the government. Central to Canada’s parliamentary system is the requirement that the government maintain the support (or “confidence”) of the House. This support, or lack thereof, is regularly expressed through votes in the House. If a majority of House members vote against a key piece of government legislation, such as the annual budget, then one would say the government has lost the confidence of the House. This usually results in the fall of the government and a general election being held to elect a new government. Opposition members may also initiate a vote of non-confidence by simply introducing a motion declaring the House no longer supports the government, which is then voted upon by all members of the House.

Normally, the governing political party has a clear majority in the House, meaning that more than 50 percent of the members of the House belong to the same political party as the Prime Minister and Cabinet (this is referred to as a “majority government”). In these cases, votes of non-confidence are very difficult for the opposition to orchestrate. The Prime Minister can simply use party discipline to ensure that all of his/her party’s members vote in favour of key pieces of government legislation or against opposition motions of non-confidence.

In minority governments, however, votes of non-confidence are a much more powerful tool for the opposition. This is because the government only has a minority (less than 50 percent) of the members in the House. As such, the opposition parties can work together to vote down a key piece of government legislation or to pass a vote of non-confidence against the government. In order to protect themselves against votes of non-confidence, minority governments will often work closely with one or more of the opposition parties to ensure that proposed legislation will be acceptable to them, and that they will support it when it comes time to vote in the House.

Parliamentary Committees

Another way in which the opposition may influence legislation and policy is through the parliamentary committee system. The House of Commons has committees made up by members from all political parties; however, they are usually administered and controlled by the members in the governing political party. The purpose of these committees is to review proposed legislation and government actions, and to offer advice on how to strengthen them.

Parliamentary committees do not have the power to force the government to change legislation it proposes. It may only make suggestions, which the government is free to heed or ignore. This is not to suggest that the government will never listen to parliamentary committees, but simply that it is not required to do so. In cases of minority governments, however, the work of parliamentary committees can become much more significant. This is because the governing political party alone does not have enough members in the House to pass legislation, but must rely on the support from one or more opposition parties. As such, it may take seriously the suggestions made by opposition members in parliamentary committees as a way of ensuring that government legislation will be passed when it reaches a final vote in the House.

The Official Opposition in the House of Commons

Overview of the Official Opposition and the Opposition Leader

Who Forms the Official Opposition?

Opposition politics in Canada is also characterized by the existence of an Official Opposition. As stated earlier, the title “Official Opposition” is usually given to the largest opposition party. Following the 2006 Canadian federal election, for example, there were three parties in opposition: the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, and the Bloc Québécois. Of those three opposition parties, the Liberals had the most seats in the House of Commons, and were thereby recognized as the House’s Official Opposition.

It is important to note, however, that a political party can refuse the title of Official Opposition, in which case the next largest opposition party takes on the role. This occurred in 1921 when the Progressive Party of Canada (a distinct party, separate from the Conservative Party at the time) was the largest opposition party, but turned down the chance to form the Official Opposition. Consequently, the Conservative Party, the next largest opposition party, assumed the role.

The Official Opposition’s Function

The Official Opposition’s function is to take the lead in holding the government accountable for its actions and policies. The Official Opposition does not have authority over the other opposition parties, nor does it control their criticisms of the government. Instead, opposition parties (whether they are the Official Opposition or not) usually review and attack the government independently. The notion of “taking the lead” here simply means that the Official Opposition is often given the first and most extensive opportunity to criticize government policies and actions. This is facilitated through the granting of special rights and privileges to the Official Opposition over other opposition parties (see below).

Another important role of the Official Opposition is to take on the image of “government in waiting,” by presenting itself to the public as a viable alternative to the government of the day. The Official Opposition will usually advocate a set of policies which are significantly different from those of the government. Moreover, key members of the Official Opposition, such as the Leader and senior party members, will often present themselves as government leaders in waiting, ready to take over as Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers should the current government fall.

The Official Opposition’s Special Privileges

The Official Opposition is granted special rights and privileges above those granted to other opposition parties.

First, the leader of the political party that forms the Official Opposition is formally recognized as the “Leader of the Opposition” (or “Opposition Leader”). Following the 2006 general election, for example, the Liberal Party became the Official Opposition. As a result, the leader of the Liberal Party becomes the Leader of the Opposition. The position of Opposition Leader was first officially recognized in Canada in 1905, when the occupant of that position was granted a salary equal to that of a Cabinet minister. Although the function of the Opposition Leader is not governed by statute, the role is officially recognized in the procedures of the House of Commons.

The Opposition Leader does enjoy certain privileges, which are not extended to other opposition party leaders. S/he has special status at official functions and in parliamentary ceremonies, as well as international standing with foreign governments; foreign dignitaries will often meet with the Opposition Leader during state visits to Canada. In addition to a salary and expense allowance as a Member of Parliament, the Opposition Leader receives other perks, such as a car allowance and an official residence in Ottawa, which is referred to as Stornoway. The Opposition Leader, like the Prime Minister, also receives a large staff and offices in the House of Commons, which other opposition party leaders do not receive.

During Question Period, the Official Opposition is permitted to ask more questions of the government more often. The Opposition Leader gets to question the government first, and the Official Opposition’s questions usually come before those of any other opposition party. Moreover, the Official Opposition receives more funding than any other opposition party, which enables it to better organize its opposition to the government.

One of the greatest assets of being the Official Opposition is the accompanying publicity that such prominence affords. The Official Opposition and the Opposition Leader usually draw large and regular media and public attention. This, in turn, enables the party and its leader to keep a high public profile, and to more effectively communicate to the public its policies and criticisms of the government. Other opposition parties, especially those with limited members in the House, often struggle to draw public attention.

Limits on the Opposition in the House of Commons

Can the House opposition effectively oppose the government?

To say that that the adversarial relationship between the government and the opposition is a fair fight would be an exaggeration; this is particularly the case when there is a majority (as opposed to a minority) government. This section examines some of the advantages enjoyed by the government, and disadvantages faced by the opposition, in their relationship.

Government Power over the Parliamentary Process

One key disadvantage the opposition faces is the government’s control over the parliamentary process. For example, with the exception of those limited times and days set aside for the opposition parties, the government controls the parliamentary timetable. As such, the government dictates what sorts of motions and bills the House will hear, debate and vote upon. Moreover, through the use of certain parliamentary powers, such as closure, the government can limit parliamentary debate. This is a particularly powerful tool for the government when it holds a majority in the House because it can close debate, and then use its majority to quickly pass or defeat a motion or bill. Furthermore, as the government has power over key positions in parliamentary committees, it is often able to control the outcomes of the committee process. In addition, the government can simply disregard any advice or conclusions offered by a committee if it so chooses.

Government Access to Departments and Ministries

Another disadvantage faced by the opposition stems from the government’s access to its department and ministries. As the head of the executive branch of government, the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers have unlimited access to the staff, resources, and knowledge of their governmental departments and ministers. Moreover, the government can use these large resources when dealing with the criticisms and questions posed by the opposition parties, either in the House or publicly through the media. While opposition parties are provided with publicly funded staff and resources for their own partisan activities (and can also draw on their own internal funds and staff), these never come close to the resources at the disposal of government.

Fragmentation of the Opposition in the House

Making matters even more difficult for the opposition is the reality that very little solidarity exists between the opposition parties when opposing the government in the House. Each opposition party is its own entity, with its own policies, ideologies, members, and leaders. This, in turn, can degrade cooperation between opposition parties, and even create outright inter-party conflict within the opposition. For example, during the Liberal governments of the 1990s and 2000s, the opposition comprised two right-of-centre conservative parties (which often fought between themselves), a left-wing social democratic party, and a Quebec regional party whose primary purpose was to promote Quebec independence from Canada. As such, there was very little common ground between the opposition parties, and these parties often vigorously opposed one another on key policy questions.

By contrast, the government (particularly in the case of a majority government) is a single political party, which is usually very manageable through party discipline. As such, the government can present itself as a united and focused front against the opposition parties, and attempt to take advantage of sharp disagreements and conflicts within the opposition.

It is important to note, however, that circumstances can arise in which the governing political party becomes fragmented itself, with particular individuals or groups within the party fighting for control over leadership or party policy. This, in turn, can leave the government open to manipulation by the opposition parties, especially if the opposition can introduce legislation or raise the public profile on issues that will cause a wedge between members of the government. One recent example of this sort of fragmentation was the later stages of Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s tenure, in which the governing Liberal Party was highly divided over the rivalry between Prime Minister Chrétien and the Finance Minister Paul Martin.

Competition with Other Political Actors

Not only does the opposition often face fragmentation within its ranks, it also has to compete with other political actors in society in its opposition to government. Modern Canadian democracy is characterized by the existence of a wide range of well-organized and financed interest groups, lobby and advocacy organizations, and research institutes. These actors, moreover, regularly engage in the activity of publicly criticizing the government and offering alternative public policy choices. In doing so, they will frequently offer well articulated and publicized reports and public policy statements. Opposition parties can find it difficult to compete in this environment, and have their voice and ideas heard above the general hubbub of other political actors.

Sources and Links to Further Information

Lists of article sources and links to more on this topic

Sources Used for this Article

Jackson, R. & Jackson, D. Politics in Canada: Culture, Institutions, Behaviour and Public Policy, 6th Edition. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc., 2006.
Dyck, R. Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches, 3rd Edition. Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Thomson Learning., 2000.
“Supply Periods.” Parliament of Canada. March 2006. 31 October 2007. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_d_supplyperiods-e.htm>
“Types of Bills.” Parliament of Canada. March 2006. 31 October 2007. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_d_typesbills-e.htm>
“Private Members’ Bills - Notice, Introduction and First Reading.” Parliament of Canada. May 2007. 31 October 2007. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_d_privatemembersbillsnoticeintroduction1read-e.htm>
“Questions.” House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2000 Edition). 31 October 2007. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch11&Seq=2&Lang=E>

Links to More Information

2006 Alberta Progressive Conservative Leadership Race

Denise Brennan — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:00:00 -0700

On December 2, 2006, Alberta Progressive Conservative Party members selected Ed Stelmach as their new party leader and as the new Premier of Alberta. Stelmach replaced the retiring Ralph Klein, who held those roles for 13 years. Premier Stelmach won the leadership after two rounds of voting, defeating frontrunners Jim Dinning and Ted Morton. This article provides an overview of the leadership selection process, events, and results.

Events Leading up to the PC Party Leadership Contest

Background events leading to the leadership race

The Progressive Conservative Leadership Selection Process

How Does the Alberta PC Party Choose Its Leader?

Quick Guide to Voting for the Leader of the PC Party

How to guide for voting in the Progressive Conservatives leadership election

Candidates Running For the Leadership of the Progressive Conservatives

Background on the candidates and their policy platforms

Alberta Progressive Conservative Leadership Campaign News

A survey of current news, polls and issues surrounding the campaign

Results of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Leadership Contest

Highlights and winners of the votes

Source & Links for Further Information

List of Internet links for further information on the Progressive Conservative Leadership Race

Events Leading to the PC Party Leadership Election

Background events prefacing the leadership race

On November 25, 2006 and December 2, 2006, the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta (PCAA) held an election to choose a new party leader. The leadership contest arose due to the resignation of Party Leader (and Premier) Ralph Klein on September 20, 2006. Klein remained in office until the party chose a new leader. Ed Stelmach became Alberta’s 13th Premier.

March 2006 leadership vote

On March 14, 2006, Ralph Klein, who had been Premier of Alberta for 13 years, announced his intention to resign on October 31, 2007. Klein indicated he would remain Premier until a new leader was selected in a 2008 leadership contest. Some PC Party members regarded a two-year delay in replacing Klein as party leader unfavourably. In addition, Klein’s announcement that cabinet ministers who wished to run for the leadership would have to give up their cabinet posts by June 1, 2006 was not well received. Lyle Oberg, then Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation, was angered by this request. He also expressed concern about the toll a prolonged leadership race could have on the PC government’s ability to deal with billions in energy revenues that were in the provincial treasury. Oberg voiced his concerns over the leadership process and told his constituents in Brooks, Alberta that he would urge delegates at the March 31, 2006 leadership review not to support Klein. On March 23, 2006, Oberg’s comments resulted in a demotion from cabinet (with the possibility of returning after a six-month hiatus) and his indefinite suspension from the PC caucus. He later apologized for his remarks, saying they were made in the heat of the moment.

PC Mandatory Leadership Review

On March 31, 2006, a mandatory party leadership review was held. Party delegates voted on the question of whether Klein should continue as party leader. Prior to the leadership review, Klein had stated he would resign as leader in short order if he did not receive a “substantial majority” on this vote. When the vote was held and the results were tallied, Klein received 55.4 percent well below his personal threshold of a “substantial majority” of support. A few days later, Klein announced he would write a letter to party officials in September asking them to commence plans for finding the party’s next leader. He stated that a new leader would likely be chosen in October or November of 2006, and that he would leave office shortly thereafter. On September 20, 2006, Klein officially announced his resignation, triggering the race for the next leader of the PC party, and by extension, the race for the Premier of Alberta.

Implications for the Alberta Cabinet

Following Klein’s original announcement that he intended to leave office, he requested that all cabinet members interested in running for the leadership resign and move to the back bench by June 1, 2006. Although the request was not unprecedented, it was controversial considering the Premier’s lengthy departure timeline. Klein subsequently explained that his request to have cabinet ministers resign was intended to create a level playing field for all candidates. He also sought to limit the ability of any members of his cabinet team, who were also leadership candidates, to make decisions or statements that could affect the government in the interim.

The Progressive Conservative Leadership Selection Process

How Does the Alberta PC Party Choose Its Leader?

The Voting Format

The format for the 2006 leadership selection was identical to the leadership selection held in 1992. Each party member had one vote; the top three leadership candidates from the first round advanced to the second round of voting. To win, a candidate needed to receive 50 percent (plus one vote) of total party member votes on the first ballot, cast on November, 25, 2006. If no clear winner was determined (with no candidate receiving 50 percent plus one), candidates were ranked in a preferential ballot on December 2, 2006. All voters ranked the three candidates in order of preference; the candidate who earned 50 percent plus one of the No. 1 rankings won. If there was still no clear winner after this second round, the candidate with the fewest votes dropped off the ballot and his/her votes were transferred, in order of the previously stated preferences, to the remaining two candidates. A winner would then be declared.

Voter Eligibility

Any Canadian citizen and Alberta resident over age 16 can vote, as long as s/he is a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. Each voter cast a paper ballot in his/her riding; the Party operated one polling station in each urban riding in the province, and enough in rural ridings to ensure access for all party members. Memberships were available to non-members for five dollars until the final balloting in the selection process (including at polling stations on both days and in between polling days).

Candidate Eligibility

To be declared a candidate in the PC leadership race, prospective leadership contenders had to complete and return nomination papers to the Party’s offices by October 16, 2006. Candidates were also required to deliver a $15,000 non-refundable deposit, as well as a petition with 500 names of supporting party members.

Leadership Race Timeline

March 14, 2006: Premier Ralph Klein announced his intention to tender his resignation on October 31, 2007, but remain in office until early 2008.
March 15: Klein ordered cabinet members who intended to run in the leadership election to resign from cabinet by June 1, 2006.
March 31: Members of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party voted in a secret ballot on Klein’s leadership. Klein suggested he would resign immediately if he did not receive a “substantial majority” in the leadership review. The Premier received 55.4 percent of the vote. He requested time to decide whether to submit his resignation.
April 4: Klein announced he would write a letter to party officials requesting that they commence a leadership election. He stated his expectation that a new leader will be chosen by October or November 2006, and that he would leave office in December.
August 17: Klein confirmed his plan to tender his resignation as Party Leader on (or around) September 14, and resign as the MLA for Calgary-Elbow upon leaving office as Premier.
September 20: Klein announced his resignation as party leader. The Progressive Conservative leadership race officially began.
October 16: Leadership candidate nominations closed at 5PM MST.
November 25: First ballot in the leadership selection process occurred. Polls opened between 9AM and 7PM MST.
December 2, 2006: The second ballot of the leadership election took place. Polls opened from 9AM to 7PM MST.

Quick Guide to Voting for the Leader of the PC Party

How to guide for voting in the Progressive Conservatives leadership election

Polling Stations

Each urban riding had one polling station and there were enough polling stations in rural ridings to ensure convenient access. Polling stations were open from 9AM to 7PM MST on Saturday, November 25, 2006, and again on Saturday, December 2, 2006. At the polling station, voters were asked to present a party membership card and two pieces of identification, including one with a photo, to verify residency within the constituency. The following is a list of eligible identification (including but not limited to):

Driver's licence
Canadian passport
Citizenship card
Social Insurance card
Student ID
Utility bill
Property tax bill
Automobile insurance card.

Voters may be asked to provide proof of age and evidence of citizenship.

Advance Polls

Advance polls were held prior to each voting day. An eligible voter unable to vote on Polling Day, or who for religious reasons wished not to vote on a Saturday, cast a ballot at an Advance Poll. Advance Polls were held on Monday, November 20, 2006 from 5PM to 9PM MST, and on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 from 5PM to 9PM MST.

Candidates Running for Leadership of the Progressive Conservatives

Background on the candidates and their policy platforms

Declared Candidates

Candidates wishing to run in the PC leadership race had to submit nomination papers to the Progressive Conservative Party offices by October 16, 2006. There were eight candidates officially declared. Each candidate's biographical information is provided along with brief policy platform overviews for each candidate concerning the following ‘hot topics’: energy and resources, the environment, and health care.

Jim Dinning

Jim Dinning is the former Treasurer of Alberta. Born in Edmonton in 1952, he attended Queen’s University, graduating with a Bachelor of Commerce in 1974 and a Masters in Public Administration in 1977. Upon graduation, Dinning worked as an assistant in the Cabinet Office in Edmonton and then served as Cabinet committee secretary. From 1979 to 1982 he served as executive assistant to Provincial Treasurer Lou Hyndman. In 1984, Dinning was appointed Alberta’s youngest deputy minister in the Alberta department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. He first sought elected office in 1986, winning the riding of Calgary-Shaw in that year's provincial general election. He was appointed Minister of Community and Occupation Health in June 1986 and two years later he was appointed Minister of Education. In 1992, Dinning was appointed Provincial Treasurer by newly installed Premier Ralph Klein. In 1997, he was given the Distinguished Service Award by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta, in recognition of his leadership in improving Alberta’s financial affairs. Dinning elected to leave politics that same year and joined TransAlta Corporation where he served as Senior Vice-President and subsequently, Executive Vice-President from 1998 to 2004. Dinning is currently married to Evelyn Main. He has four children from his first marriage.

Policy Platform

Energy & Resources:

Put limits on growth in the booming oil sands region of northeastern Alberta;
Invest part of Alberta’s resource revenues in permanent funding for a sustainable water-use strategy, especially in the oil sands region;
Press the oil industry to upgrade more of the oil sands' output in Alberta, rather than shipping it to the US; and
Oil processing in Alberta should be a condition of project approval.

Environment

Make it a requirement for wise environmental stewardship as a non-negotiable condition for doing business in Alberta;
Set aggressive targets (within 18 months) for reducing emissions and developing incentives and regulations to ensure those targets are met;
Develop environmental technologies in Alberta and licence those technologies to the rest of the world, including technologies that address global warming, such as clean coal, carbon capture and sequestration, and alternative energies and biofuels;
Protect the water supply and enhance water quality;
Manage urban sprawl and its impact on traffic and congestion; and
Protect and enhance Alberta’s wilderness, provincial parks, and wildlife.

Health Care

Give the province’s nine regions more power to make changes to improve health care delivery, rather than relying solely on systemic changes in the Third Way plan (an initiative aimed at reforming the health care system by, in part, incorporating select private health care measures into the public system);
Exhaust all options for strengthening the public system before looking beyond it for solutions;
Continue to challenge health regions to find the most efficient and best ways of eliminating bottlenecks and constraining costs;
Address shortages of doctors, nurses and other health providers, especially in rural areas; and
Pursue innovative and practical ideas within the public health system – ideas such as primary health care, managing chronic illnesses, and establishing electronic health records.

Victor Doerksen

Victor Doerksen was born on November 25, 1953 in Bassano, Alberta and grew up in Linden, Alberta. He became a certified general accountant (CGA) in 1980, complementing his previous education as a computer analyst/programmer. Doerksen then served as a credit officer with the Federal Business Development Bank, and as a comptroller for a private business. He subsequently joined the Bank of Montreal in 1982; during his 12-year tenure with the bank he progressed to the position of senior manager, and worked in Brandon and Winnipeg (Manitoba), and Edmonton and Red Deer (Alberta). He was honoured by the CGA Association in 1998 with a fellowship award in recognition of his commitment of service to the community, and to the CGAA. He began his political life in 1993 when he was elected MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) for Red Deer-South. As MLA he served on the implementation team on Accountability in Education, the Task Force on the Young Offenders Act, the Monitoring Enforcement and Access Committee, and the Task Force on Eye Care Services. In March 2001, Doerksen was appointed as Minister of Innovation and Science and reappointed to this position in November 2004. Doerksen lives in Red Deer with his wife Doris. They have four grown children.

Policy Platform

Health Care/Energy & Resources

Create a $25 billion health care trust that would generate money to pay for future medicare costs, with 25 percent of Alberta’s total energy royalties going into the new trust until it reaches $25 billion.

Social Services

Implement a new $300 million Child Care Option program, designed to directly provide parents with $100 per month for each child under six years of age;
Include a new element under the Child Health Care Benefit to provide low-income parents with the opportunity to enroll their children in sports and recreation programs; and
Increase non-refundable tax credits for those providing elder care, in addition to increasing said amount to equal that of the basic personal amount.

Dave Hancock

Dave Hancock was born in Fort Resolution, NWT on August 10, 1955, lived in Hazelton, BC, and then moved to Fort Vermilion, Alberta. He moved to Edmonton in 1972 where he received his law degree from the University of Alberta and was a partner at Matheson and Company, Barristers and Solicitors, before entering politics. Hancock served as Regional Director (1974-76), Youth President (1974-76) and President (1990-92) of the Progressive Conservative Party. As Party President he chaired the 1992 Leadership Selection Process, steering the party to changes that included using a one-member one-vote system (the one-member-one-vote principle allows direct participation by granting each party member one vote in the leadership selection). He has held the posts of Government House Leader, Vice Chair of the Standing Policy Committee on Education and Employment, and member of the Agenda and Priorities Committee and Treasury Board. He also chaired the government’s Strategic Planning Committee, which developed a renewed vision and 20-year plan for Alberta. First elected in 1997, Hancock is currently serving his third term as Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) for Edmonton-Whitemud. He has previously served as Minister of Advanced Education, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, and Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs.

Policy Platform

Energy& Resources

Work with industry to set appropriate targets and standards;
Work with municipalities and communities on a regional basis to encourage resource and service sharing and cooperation;
Impose stricter enforcement and penalties for breaches of environmental responsibilities; and
Adopt new building and construction standards to reduce energy demands.

Environment

Refresh and update the Clean Air Strategy by developing public awareness and using an accountability framework to hold accountable those responsible for clean air;
Establish the Water for Life Strategy as a government priority to ensure the short-term value of the resource being extracted is not considered without devoting appropriate attention to the long-term impact on the water supply;
Implement the Land Use Strategy to ensure the long-term viability of the land in every part of Alberta; and
Provide leadership to the world by developing and exporting new technologies in areas related to climate change and emissions.

Health Care

Spur competition and innovation by improving accountability through the publication of real, standardized performance measures across Alberta which are reported to the public;
Support the health regions in improving access and productivity overall, and especially in the areas of primary care and ‘advanced access’ re-engineering of referral to specialty services;
Ensure all health care professionals, including nurses, pharmacists, and optometrists, are allowed to practice to the full extent of their training and capability (and to take responsibility accordingly); and
Ensure post-secondary institutions are working with the health community so Alberta is training the people needed to fully staff the health care system, especially in smaller communities and in hard-to-recruit disciplines.

Education

Implement an Alberta post-secondary single point-of-access for students, enabling them to apply for their programs by electronically submitting one application and one fee. Applicants who qualify will be advised of the options available for the programs they desire so that they can prioritize their access choice and be assured of admission to a program within Alberta;
Access to post-secondary education, and that post-secondary institutions are "thirsty" for students – recruiting actively and promoting high school completion and transition to post-secondary studies;
Fulfill the commitment made to create 60,000 new spaces for Alberta students, ensuring that spaces are available in programs in high demand by students and the workplace (e.g., health care); and
Work with stakeholders to drive an initiative to fund Alberta resident students’ first-year tuition for PSE (no matter whether it's college, trade school, technical institute, art college or university) immediately following high school completion. Such a policy will be a strong incentive for students to complete high school (thus raising our completion rates) and effectively cut the tuition cost of a four-year degree by 20 percent. Post-secondary graduates will receive a tuition rebate upon completion of their post-secondary program.

Gary McPherson

Gary McPherson was born in Edson, Alberta but has lived in Edmonton since 1955. For 20 years he served as President of the Canadian Wheelchair Sports Association (CWSA). McPherson has been recognized for his work with numerous awards and has been inducted into both the Edmonton and Alberta Sports Halls of Fame. On November 16, 1995 he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Laws Degree by the University of Alberta for his contribution to the community. McPherson served for 10 years as Chairman of the Premier's Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities providing advice to the Government of Alberta. Currently, he is Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship (CCSE) in the Faculty of Business at the University of Alberta. He is also an adjunct professor, as well as a special lecturer and advisor in the Faculty of Physical Education & Recreation. McPherson is married to Valerie Kamitomo; they have two teenaged children.

Policy Platform

Energy & Resources

Levy a reasonable royalty on the extraction and sale of the oil sand resources;
Develop a strategy for the longer term development of Alberta’s oil sands by seeking a resolution to establish a panel under the auspices of the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) consisting of five or six knowledgeable people with the authority to: a) define the specific issues/problems to be dealt with in planning oil sands development; b) hold a series of public (and possibly private) meetings to provide interested parties with the opportunity to present their views; and c) develop and present a plan of action for approving and regulating the orderly construction and operation of major oil sands projects to the Alberta government; and
Enact and enforce strict environmental guidelines respecting the construction and operation of an oil sands project to deal with the disposal of solid and liquid wastes, the reclamation of mined lands, the discharge of gaseous effluents, and the use/recycling of river waters.

Environment

Implement the Alberta Foundation for the Environment (AFE), which will result in the creation of new knowledge-based and "value-added" applied environmental technologies that can be utilized in Alberta and marketed worldwide in conjunction with private businesses; and
Seed the (AFE) with up to $300 million dollars of provincial funding, and seek similar federal monies and contributions from private industry to emphasize, expedite, and strengthen research and the commercialization of products that will enhance air quality, water usage, and interaction with natural resource extraction.

Health Care

Take a bold, new and proactive approach to facilitating healthy lifestyles and providing relevant information that will enable most Albertans to take personal responsibility as it relates to their overall individual health;
Focus efforts on proactive health and self-responsibility and, in the process, begin to elevate the importance of healthy living options and alternatives; and
Take care of the immediate issues that affect Albertans with respect to their personal pain and suffering, such as waiting lists for hip and knee replacements.

Ted Morton

Ted Morton obtained his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Colorado College in 1971, his Master of Arts in Political Science from the University of Toronto in 1975, and his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Toronto in 1981. He was an instructor at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts, from 1978 to 1981. From 1981 to 2004 he was a professor with the University of Calgary and a visiting professor with a number of other institutions. In 2001, he served as the Director of Policy and Research with the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition, Parliament of Canada. In 1998, Dr. Morton was elected as a Senator-in-waiting in Alberta’s second-ever senate election. Throughout his working life he has received several career awards and distinctions; he has also published numerous articles, in addition to editing, authoring, and co-authoring several books. He and his wife Bambi have three children.

Policy Platform

Energy & Resources

Saving 30 percent of non-renewable resource revenues and redressing oil and gas royalty rates.

Environment

Proclaim new Land Use Framework that protects Mountain Parks and Eastern Slopes;
Protect wildlife, end out-of-season hunting and fishing, repeal Métis Harvesting Agreement; and
Compensate landowners for wildlife habitat preservation.

Health Care

Supplement existing universal system with private insurance;
Reduce wait times and allow private clinics to deliver some services; and
Ensure Emergency Room accountability.

Other Issues

Increase Alberta’s clout by using full extent of constitutional powers on issues such as health, law, labour, and the environment;
Guide and manage Alberta’s full growth potential with a pension plan, police force, and made-in-Alberta immigration priorities; and
A re-introduction of Bill 208, allowing clergy members and marriage commissioners to choose to refuse to marry same-sex couples.

Mark Norris

Mark Norris was born in Edmonton in 1962. He earned a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia before beginning his business and professional career in Edmonton. In 1990, he purchased the family business (advertising and sign manufacturing) running it for nine years, before selling it to Pattison Outdoor Advertising in 1999. Over the years he has been involved in the volunteer sector, supporting and founding several community organizations (Founder, Tri-ing for Kids Triathlon Event; Founder, Mark Norris Rotary Invitational Golf Tournament; Supporter, Junior Achievement). Norris entered provincial politics in 2001, standing for election in the riding of Edmonton-McClung. After winning his seat he subsequently served as the Minister of Economic Development, responsible for Tourism and Industry, from 2001 to 2004. Mike Norris and his wife Veronica have two children.

Policy Platform

Energy & Resources

Manage Alberta’s abundant and varied energy resources and maintain a competitive royalty and regulatory regime;
Create a Ministry of Energy and Oil Sands with a responsibility to work closely with other departments on environmental, infrastructure, and community challenges in northeastern Alberta (the department would be mandated to increase value-added energy development in the province); and
Aggressively protect Alberta’s natural resources from federal intrusions.

Environment

Implement the Water for Life strategy to ensure a safe drinking water supply, healthy aquatic ecosystems, and reliable water supplies for a sustainable economy;
Improve Alberta’s monitoring and knowledge about water resources and groundwater mapping;
Expand the responsibilities of the Alberta Environment Department to include a greater role in integrating economic, resource, and environmental policy; and
Adjust Alberta Environment’s business plan so that recommendations on key issues are brought forward on a timely basis.

Health Care

Ensure health care partners are accountable for health and financial outcomes, review the management system to ensure every dollar that should be spent on front-line care is actually being spent there and not on overlapping management systems;
Review the RHA structure and delivery models to ensure efficient service delivery;
Conduct a review of the electronic health record system and ensure the system is cost-effective and that patient confidentiality is not violated;
Further extend the diagnostic and treatment centre clinic model, working effectively in Calgary, to other areas;
Consider locating medi-centres near major emergency wards so that Albertans can get proper service at the appropriate place without long waits; and
Review the $3.5 billion capital plan for health care to ensure the right facility is being built in the right place.

Lyle Oberg

Lyle Oberg was born and raised in Forestburg, Alberta. He graduated from the University of Alberta in 1983 after completing his pre-med studies in Red Deer. He practiced medicine for 10 years as a family physician and general practitioner before making the transition to politics. He won a seat in the Alberta Legislature as MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) for Strathmore-Brooks, a riding he continues to represent today. He currently sits as an Independent (not affiliated with any political party), having been expelled by the PC Party caucus in the spring of 2006. Oberg has held several cabinet appointments including Minister of Family and Social Services (1997-99), Minister of Learning (1999-2004), and Minister of Infrastructure & Transportation (November 2004-March, 2006). Over the years he has been involved in key initiatives which include championing the identification and prevention of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and leading the initiative with other prairie provinces; establishing Alberta’s first Public-Private Partnership (P3), the Anthony Henday Freeway in Edmonton; delivering the Oberg Report on Health Care 1995; and, developing a new funding framework for the K-12 education system, allowing flexibility and including a set of accountabilities for boards. Oberg and his wife Evelyn have four children.

Policy Platform

Energy & Resources

Allocate two percent of all existing energy royalties collected to be returned back to the contributing communities for local infrastructure improvements;
Require Alberta Finance to prepare and release annually, to Albertans, 25-year projections for synthetic crude oil and bitumen royalties, so that Albertans know what they can expect to receive in economic rent from their stake in the oil sands and bitumen resources;
As of January 1, 2008, proceed with the anticipated termination of temporary royalty programs introduced in the 1980s and early 1990s to stimulate investment and stem the effects of low energy prices; and
Increase funding to Alberta’s Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA) to $10 million annually, thereby enabling it to more adequately perform its functions of soliciting, listening to, and analyzing consumer concerns, and providing advice and guidance to stakeholders including government, regulators, and utilities.

Environment

Push for Alberta to invest some of its current royalties into an endowment fund for the development of transitional energy technologies including the development of a viable bio-fuels production chain, which would help grain farmers and protect the environment at the same time;
Make mapping Alberta’s water aquifers a high priority and develop a management plan to ensure all Alberta industries and future generations will have access to clean, safe, and affordable water; and
Ensure the quality or safety of Alberta’s drinking water by enhanced monitoring and investments in technology and infrastructure for water treatment and waste water management on a regional basis throughout the province.

Health Care

As a basic principle of good health care practice, treatment must be guaranteed by the Government of Alberta within a medically acceptable timeframe for a wide range of procedures;
Protect the integrity and quality of the public system by requiring doctors to devote a minimum of 75 percent of their time to the public system;
The health care system must focus on patient needs to enable Albertans to select the timing and the type of treatment they want;
The Alberta Initiative for Health Care Improvement would set aside $50 million to reach out to front-line health care practitioners across the spectrum of traditional and alternative medicine to examine how best to improve health care delivery; and
Eliminate health care premiums through a phased-out approach, supplanting that fiscal source with general revenues derived from a more efficient health delivery and patient choice system.

Ed Stelmach

Ed Stelmach was born and raised in the Lamont area of Alberta. While studying pre-law at the University of Alberta in 1973, a family tragedy forced Stelmach to postpone his university education and return to run the family farm. In 1986, Stelmach was elected as representative in his county; one year later he was appointed Reeve. Stelmach served as the County's representative on the local school district, and as the regional representative on the Alberta Health Unit Association of Alberta. He also served on the board of the Lamont Health Care Centre from 1986 to 1993. In 1993, Stelmach won the Progressive Conservative nomination for Vegreville-Viking. During his term as MLA he was appointed Chair of the Alberta Agriculture Research Institute. He also served as the Deputy Whip, and then as Government Caucus Whip in 1995, which led to four consecutive cabinet appointments: Minister of Agriculture (1997-99), Minister of Infrastructure (1999-2001), Minister of Transportation (2001-04), and Minister of International and Intergovernmental Affairs (2004-06). In March 2006, Stelmach resigned from cabinet to enter the leadership contest. Stelmach and his wife Marie have four grown children.

Policy Platform

Energy & Resources

Invest the resource revenues of oil and gas so that future generations will not be as dependent on selling non-renewable resources;
Immediately conduct a public, transparent review of the royalty regime to ensure Albertans are getting their fair share of the resources they own; and
Implement an investment plan for resource royalties that creates an Alberta-funded and secure Alberta Pension Plan, through fiscal discipline and low and fair taxes.

Environment

Improve quality of life by protecting the environment, reducing emissions, and ensuring a sustainable safe water supply; and
Plan for existing and new provincial parks.

Health care

Unite health professionals to improve the publicly funded health system; and
Take better care of seniors, including expanding long-term care and improving standards of care.

Other Issues:

Increase accessibility to post-secondary education and reduce costs for students by expanding the system of colleges and technical institutions and establishing satellite campuses in new locations.

Alberta Progressive Conservative Leadership Campaign News

A survey of current news, polls and issues surrounding the campaign

Opinion Polls

According to a Leger Marketing poll completed for the Calgary Herald on October 30, 2006, Jim Dinning led the race with support from 23 percent of respondents self-declared as PC party supporters (and 18 percent of the 900 Albertans surveyed). Lyle Oberg was the second-place candidate with support from 16 percent of respondents self-declared as PC party supporters (and 14 percent of the 900 Albertans surveyed). Ted Morton received the support of six percent of party supporters, while the rest had the support of four percent or fewer party supporters. However, at that point the race was far from over as 35 percent of self-declared PC supporters remained undecided (the number of undecided PC supporters fell from 45 percent in August 2006). A note of caution: self-identified PC party supporters are not necessarily the same people who voted in the leadership contest. Furthermore, these types of all member vote leadership contests reward the selling of memberships and mobilizing people to vote. All of the campaigns were busy recruiting new party members – their success in doing may have helped determine the outcome. The poll, conducted between October 23 and 30 2006, interviewed 900 Albertans; of the 900 surveyed, 476 identified themselves as PC party supporters. The margin of error for a sample of this size is ± 3.3 percent, 19 times out of 20; and the margin of error for the sample of self-declared PC Party supporters is ± 4.5 percent, 19 times out of 20.

Election Hot Topics

With eight candidates in the race for leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, and ultimately the job of Premier of Alberta, debates on policy were crucial in differentiating each candidate's position. As can be expected, the development of a long-term strategy for natural resources revenues was a hot topic in the leadership race. Reforming the health care system and protecting Alberta’s environment also garnered significant attention.

Investing Natural Resource Revenue: The Oil Sands

Alberta’s oil sands represent 54 percent of Alberta's total oil production and, one-third of all oil produced in Canada. The oil sands contain deposits of bitumen, a heavy black oil that must be rigorously refined and then converted to crude oil to produce gasoline and diesel fuels. At the time of the leadership race more than 2,700 oil sands lease agreements were in place in Alberta, leaving another 70 percent available for exploration and leasing. Thus, it was not surprising that leadership candidates focused on how, if elected, they would invest revenue from Alberta’s energy industry.

Management of the oil sands industry was also a key leadership contest issue. Several candidates indicated that, if selected, they would impose new regulations on oil sands development, such as making large oil companies upgrade raw oil in Alberta, rather than doing so abroad. Other candidates, meanwhile, promised to review royalty rates, as many Albertans felt the rates at the time did not fairly compensate them for the development of the province’s oil sands resources. Overall, the issue of investing revenues and regulating Alberta’s oil sands industry played a central role in the race.

Protecting the Environment

The energy sector is closely tied to many of the environmental issues that challenge the province. Consequently, the environment featured prominently in this leadership contest. Alberta’s oil sands, while prosperous for the region, are Canada’s top source of greenhouse gas emissions, and are potentially damaging to the environment. Candidates faced the task of explaining how they would deal with balancing the economic benefits of oil sands development with the environmental repercussions of mining. Proposed solutions included imposing stricter environmental regulations, slowing development in the northern part of Alberta, and investing in revenues in clean energy research.

Access to Health Care

For many Albertans, especially senior citizens, the issue of access to timely medical procedures is an important policy debate. Accordingly, most of the candidates in the race focused, to a large extent, on health care system reforms. Prior to announcing his retirement, Premier Ralph Klein had advocated for a “Third Way,” an initiative aimed at reforming the health care system by, in part, incorporating select private health care measures into the public system. Such measures include allowing use of secondary insurance to cover treatments from podiatrists and chiropractors, or permitting patients to pay extra to upgrade their hospital rooms or surgical procedures. Health care reform was a pressing leadership issue that continued to play out as the race wound down for the late November vote.

Alberta’s Place in Canada

In 2001, the National Post published a letter written by several prominent Alberta Conservatives (including now Prime Minister Stephen Harper and PC leadership candidate Ted Morton), advising Alberta Premier Ralph Klein to withdraw the province from many federal programs. The letter recommended several measures to put an economic and political firewall around the province to limit the extent to which the federal government could encroach upon Alberta’s provincial jurisdiction:

Replace the Canada Pension Plan with a provincial pension plan;
Set up a provincial income tax regime, rather than allow Ottawa to collect the tax on Alberta's behalf;
Replace the RCMP with an Alberta provincial police force;
Create a provincial health care plan; and compel Ottawa to create a Triple-E (effective, equal, elected) Senate.

In response, Klein stated that Alberta was ready to consider putting barriers around its economy and political authority to keep the federal government out of provincial affairs. Although he made it clear separation was not being considered, he stated that he would not keep the idea of a firewall around the province off the government's caucus table.

When the leadership race was in full-swing, Alberta’s place in Canada emerged as an important election topic. Consequently, most candidates took positions and crafted policies on how to deal with some of the issues raised by the “firewall letter.”

Rural Alberta

The rural vote was an area of focus for many candidates in this leadership contest. They attempted to tap into this demographic by spending time in the smallest and most remote corners of the province. Campaigning in these areas was especially important as many rural Albertans felt left behind by the booming Albertan economy. Income from farming was hurt by the disruption of beef exports following the BSE crisis (Mad Cow Disease). Revenues from rural well sites are often channeled into other parts of the province, while the costs for maintaining country roads carrying oilfield equipment are borne locally. Additionally, with a mature and continually developing oil industry there are higher concentrations of wells, pumps, pipelines, and high-density drilling than typically accompanies exploration for coal bed methane. This raises the issue of rural compensation for this development for both landowners and neighbours (who may be affected by the development).

For many rural Albertans this leadership election offered an opportunity to bring to the forefront issues that are of concern to them. Those candidates able to win the support of these residents (be they members of the PC Party or otherwise) will had to demonstrate a commitment to addressing their basic concerns: farm income, fair practices, and support for Alberta's tax-starved counties and municipal districts.

Results of the Alberta PC Leadership Contest

Highlights and winners of the votes

The leadership selection took place over the course of a week, with the first round of voting occurring on November 25 and the run-off vote on December 2. The following provides the highlights and results of the two votes.

See The Progressive Conservative Leadership Selection Process section of this article for more information on the rules of leadership selection.

Results of the First Round of Voting

The first round of voting was indecisive, with no candidate winning more than 50 percent of the ballots cast. The result was very close between the two frontrunners, Jim Dinning and Ted Morton, with the eventual winner, Ed Stelmach a relatively distant third. The exact results of the first round of voting were as follows:

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Jim Dinning	29,470	30.2
Ted Morton	25,614	26.2
Ed Stelmach	14,967	15.3
Lyle Oberg	11,638	11.9
Dave Hancock	7,595	7.8
Mark Norris	6,789	6.9
Victor Doerksen	873	0.9
Gary McPherson	744	0.8
Total	97,690	100.0

Political Support After the First Round

With only the top three vote getters advancing to the second round of voting, the key political question was where the other candidates would throw their support. Lye Oberg, Dave Hancock, and Mark Norris official declared their support for Ed Stelmach, while Gary McPherson threw his support to Jim Dinning. Victor Doerksen chose not to endorse any of the leading candidates.

Results of the Second Round of Voting

In the second round of voting, party members indicated both their first and second choices for leader in a preferential ballot. With regard to members’ “first choice votes,” the result was very close between Ed Stelmach and Jim Dinning:

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Ed Stelmach	51,764	35.9
Jim Dinning	51,282	35.6
Ted Morton	41,243	28.6
Total	97,690	100.0

However, members’ “second choice votes” overwhelmingly favoured Ed Stelmach, pushing him over the 50 percent threshold and making him the new leader of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party and the new Premier of the province.

Candidate	1st Choice Votes	2nd Choice Votes	Total Votes	Percentage
Ed Stelmach	51,764	25,813	77,577	58.3
Jim Dinning	51,282	4,227	55,509	41.7

Source & Links for Further Information

A list of Internet links for further information on the Progressive Conservative Leadership Race

Sources Used for this Article

Electronic Sources

“No rules on fundraising, spending for Tory candidates.” CBC.ca. 21 September, 2006. 2 October, 2006.
<http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/09/21/tory-spending.html
“Facts on the Alberta Progressive Conservative party leadership race.” CBC.ca. 21 September, 2006. 2 October, 2006.
<http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/09/21/facts-race.html>
“Replacing Ralph: Leadership Hopefuls.” CBC.ca 18 October 2006. 16 October, 2006.
<http://www.cbc.ca/edmonton/features/replacingralph/>
“Battle for Alta. voters being waged on the web.” Canadian Press.18 September, 2006. 2 October, 2006.
<http://www.ctv.ca/...>
“Klein to tender resignation letter next week.” Canadian Press. 17 September, 2006. October 3, 2006.
<http://www.ctv.ca/servlet...>
“Alberta could see 'backlash' if future premier tries to change oilsands rules.” CBC.ca. 1 October, 2006. 3 October, 2006.
<http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/061001/b100106.html>
“Would-be premiers need to address environmental, poverty issues: Poll shows Albertans see these as priorities.”Canada West Foundation. 15 May, 2006. 2 October, 2006.|
<http://www.cwf.ca/abcalcwf/doc.nsf/doc/oped_berdahl_051606.cm?Open>
“Dinning, Oberg lead pack in charge for Tories' top job.” Calgary Herald. 4 October, 2006. 5 October, 2006.
<http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/featu...>
“Alberta Tory leadership race unofficially opens.” Canadian Press.12 September, 2006. 5 October, 2006.
<http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews...>
“Profiles: Nine in the race to replace Ralph Klein.” CTVnews.ca. 20 September, 2006. 5 October, 2006.
<http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s...>
“Alberta Tories Would Get New Victory.” Angus Reid Consultants. 9 October, 2006. 15 October, 2006.
<http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13411>
“Progressive Conservative Party Leadership Race.” Leger Marketing. 4 October, 2006. 31 October, 2006.
<http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/pol/061004ENG.pdf>
“MLA backing can make or break leader: Caucus support can translate into votes from individual ridings.” University of Alberta: Office of External Relations. 23 October, 2006. 28 October, 2006.
<http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=51834>
“Cultivating fertile ground: Rural policies play key role in Tory leadership contest.” University of Alberta: Office of External Relations. 25 September, 2006. 28 October, 2006. <http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=50846>

Links for Further Information

“Oil sands.” 2004. Government of Alberta. 15 October, 2006.
<http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp>
“What are the Alberta oilsands?” Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. 14 June, 2005. 24 October, 2006.
<http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/activities/CBM/alberta_oil_sands.html>

Coalition Governments in Canada

Jay Makarenko — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00 -0700

Coalition governments have been rare in Canadian history; however, the ones that have existed had have important impacts on Canadian politics. This article describes the nature of coalition governments in Canada, including a basic definition of coalition governments, an overview of different types of coalitions, and a historical perspective on coalition governments in Canada.

Introduction to Coalition Government in Canada

What are coalition governments?

Types of Canadian Coalition Governments

Why are coalition governments formed?

Canadian Coalition Governments in History

Important coalition governments in Canadian history.

Links to Further Information on Coalition Governments

Find more information on coalition governments.

Introduction to Coalition Government in Canada

What are coalition governments?

Generally speaking, coalition governments are ones in which two or more political parties enter into a formal agreement to govern together. The parties form a coalition with one another - hence the term "Coalition Government." In understanding this type of government further, it is important to examine key concepts in Canadian Parliamentary politics, such as the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the notion of responsible government, and the role of political parties in forming governments .

Prime Minister and Cabinet as Government

In Canada, the term “government” refers to the Prime Minister and his/her Cabinet (in the case of provincial/territorial legislatures, "government" refers to the Premier and their Cabinet). These persons lead the nation and decide important issues of governance; for example, how much money the state should tax and spend, what the nation's laws should be, and what programs and services the state should offer. In essence, the Prime Minister and Cabinet represent the pinnacle of executive political power in Canada.

For more information on the head of government in Canada:

Mapleleafweb: The Federal Cabinet and PM of Canada

Notion of Responsible Government

The Prime Minister and Cabinet, however, are not completely free to govern the country as they wish. Rather, they are responsible to Canadian voters indirectly through a process called "responsible government." Under this process, the Prime Minister and Cabinet can only govern so long as they the support of the majority of Members of Parliament (or "MPs") in the nationally elected legislature, which is called the House of Commons. These MPs, in turn, are responsible to the voters during general elections – voters may decide to re-elect their incumbent MP or vote for a new representative. It is through their democratically elected MPs, then, that the government in Canada is responsible to, and held accountable by, the Canadian people.

For more on information on responsible government in Canada:

Mapleleafweb: Practice of Responsible Government

Political Parties and Government

What does all of this have to do with coalition governments? The answer lies with the relationship between responsible government and another key political concept - political parties. Most MPs in the House of Commons belong to a particular political party, for example, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, or the New Democratic Party. Membership in a political party is not mandatory. Over time, however, political parties have developed in such a way as to become essential to persons desiring a successful political career. Moreover, political parties exert an incredible amount of control over their MPs in the House. This is due in large part to a practice called “party discipline,” in which the leadership of a political party will use certain tactics, such as the threat of demotion within the party hierarchy, to ensure that MPs ”toe the party line.”

Political parties thus play an important role in the process of forming and maintaining governments; the political party with the most MPs elected to the House usually forms the government, and the leader of that party usually becomes the Prime Minister. Why is this the case? Remember, under Canada's system of responsible government, the Prime Minister and Cabinet must have the support the majority of MPs in the House of Commons. As such, the leader of political party with the most MPs in the House generally has the best chance of gaining this majority support. S/he can use party discipline to ensure the greatest amount of votes in the legislature.

Majority & Minority Governments

In most cases in Canada’s parliamentary history, a single political party has had more than half of all the MPs in the House of Commons. This is called a majority government because the governing political party has a “clear majority” in the House. Majority governments are usually very stable: since more than half of the MPs in the House belong to the same political party as the Prime Minister, s/he can simply use party discipline to ensure that the government always has majority support in the legislature.

In some cases, however, no single political party has a clear majority of MPs in the House. The political party with the most MPs, nevertheless, may decide to form the government on its own. This is called a minority government because the governing political party only has a “minority” of MPs in the legislature. A minority government governs much differently than majority ones: because it does not have a clear majority in the House, the government cannot simply use party discipline to guarantee support in the legislature. Instead, it must negotiate with opposition parties to gain their support for government legislation. This is usually done on a legislation-by-legislation basis. The government may, for example, strike a deal with one opposition party to gain the support it needs for one piece of legislation, and then negotiate with a different political party on another piece of legislation.

For more information on minority governments:

Mapleleafweb: Minority Government in Canada

Coalition Governments

Coalition governments are different from majority and minority governments in that they involve two or more political parties forming the government together (whereas the other two involve only one political party sitting as government). In coalition governments, members from each coalition party will fill government offices. It may be the case, for example, that the Prime Minister is from one political party, while the Minister of Finance is from another. The coalition parties will work closely together to develop government policy, and their MPs will vote in unison in the House of Commons.

Coalition governments can occur when no single political party has a majority of MPs - two or more parties will form a coalition and together exercise a majority in the House. These types of coalitions, however, should not be confused with minority governments. In the latter case, a single political party forms the government alone and then seeks the support of different opposition parties on a case-by-case basis. In coalition governments, two or more political parties enter into a long-term agreement to form the government together, to the exclusion of all other parties in the legislature.

Moreover, it is important to note that a coalition can be formed even when a single political party has a majority of MPs in the House. It may be the case that the majority party desires complete unity in the legislature, for example, during war or some national crisis, and, as a result, asks other political parties to join it in government.

Types of Coalition Governments in Canada

Why are coalition governments formed?

Coalitions to Form Government

Coalition governments, be it in Canada or in other parliamentary democracies, are formed for several different reasons. One sort of coalition government occurs in parliamentary systems when no single party holds a majority of seats in the national legislature. Instead of forming a minority government, two or more political parties enter into a formal agreement to form the government together. In most cases, such coalition governments will involve a major political party entering into a coalition with a minor party, or several minor parties, to gain the few seats it needs to enjoy a majority in the legislature. Such coalitions are often very unequal, with the larger, dominant coalition partner holding the majority of key government positions and exerting greater influence on government policy.

Why would a major political party in this situation prefer to form a coalition government instead of governing with a minority? Such decisions depend, in large part, on the make-up of the legislature following an election. If the major political party is only a few seats shy of a majority in the legislature, and there is a smaller potential coalition partner that holds a similar ideology and enough seats to make up the difference, then a coalition government may make more sense than a minority one. The major political party gets the benefit of playing the dominant role in a stable government, with a like-minded – but weaker – partner. The smaller party, in return, gets to participate directly in government decision-making to a greater extent than may have otherwise been the case.

Coalition governments are very common in countries that have long traditions with a proportional representation electoral system. This type of electoral system can often produce a fractured legislature in which no single political party has a majority of seats. In Germany, for example, the two major political parties, the Christian Democratic Union Party (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD), have rarely been able to form majority governments. During the 1980s and 1990s, the CDU governed in a coalition with the smaller Free Democratic Party. Then, from 1998-2005, the SPD formed a coalition government with the smaller German Green Party.

Coalitions in National Crises

Coalition governments are also, on occasion, formed when a single party has a clear majority in the legislature. This type of coalition usually occurs as the result of a national crisis or emergency, such as war or widespread civil unrest, which requires difficult and potentially divisive political decisions. The governing party will seek complete unity in the legislature in dealing with the crisis by inviting opposition parties into government through a coalition. Members of the former opposition parties will take up key government positions and participate in government decision-making.

The purpose of this type of coalition government is quite different from those formed under minority situations. The objective here is not to secure enough seats to form the government; the governing party already possesses a majority in the legislature. Rather, the objective is to organize the legislature in such a way that it can deal with a national crisis in an effective and unified manner. By bringing all parties into government, partisan politics is temporarily removed from the legislative process, and responsibility for difficult policy decisions is spread amongst most or all of the political parties in the legislature.

Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden’s government during World War I serves as an example of this sort of coalition. The governing Conservative Prime Minister invited Liberal and independent members of Parliament to join his government to present a united front on the divisive issue of conscription.

Canadian Coalition Governments in History

Important coalition governments in Canadian history.

The Great Coalition (1864-1867)

Prior to Confederation, several coalition governments ruled throughout the Canadian colonies. One of the more important of these was the Great Coalition of 1864-67, which was formed in the Province of Canada. This was a large coalition involving most political parties in the Colony’s legislature at the time. It was formed in order to overcome legislative deadlock that had plagued the Colony for several decades, and eventually led the Colony into Confederation.

At that time, the Province of Canada consisted of Canada West (present day Ontario) and Canada East (present day Quebec), and was heavily divided along linguistic, religious, and ethnic lines. English-speaking Protestants, with strong ties to the British Empire, dominated Canada West. In contrast, Canada East was a former colony of France, and was predominately French-speaking and Catholic.

When the British formed the Province of Canada under the Act of Union, 1840, it gave the Colony a “unitary” parliamentary government in which there was only one level of government with a single legislative assembly. Moreover, the British instituted a double majority rule to govern the operation of the Colony’s assembly. Most parliamentary systems operate under a simple majority rule whereby the government only needs the support of a majority of all members of the assembly to pass legislation. Under the double majority rule, however, the Canadian colonial government needed two majorities. It had to gain the support of the majority of assembly members from Canada West, as well as the majority of members from Canada East.

The intent of this rule was to give each part of the Colony a veto on government legislation. At any time assembly members from either Canada West or Canada East could pool their votes together and defeat any piece of government legislation that they felt was against their interests. The effect of the rule, however, was legislative deadlock and the continual defeat of governments. The Colony’s linguistic and religious divisions resulted in assembly members from one part of the Colony constantly pooling their votes to block the legislative proposals of the other side.

In 1864, a consensus was reached in the Colony’s assembly to create a coalition government to reform the political system and end the legislative deadlock. This coalition government, commonly referred to as the “Great Coalition,” included the Conservative Party, the Clear Grits of Canada West, and the Parti Bleu of Canada East. John A. Macdonald, the leader of the Conservative Party, and Étienne-Paschal Taché became joint heads of the government. The only party not to join the Great Coalition was the Parti Rouge of Canada East.

One of the most important outcomes of the Great Coalition was Confederation, which led to the creation of the Dominion of Canada. The Great Coalition saw confederation with the Maritime colonies as a means of reforming the politics of the Province of Canada and of ending its legislative deadlock. With Confederation, the colony would be dissolved and Canada West and Canada East would become separate provinces, each with their own provincial legislatures and jurisdictions. In 1864, representatives from the Great Coalition proposed the idea of confederation to the Maritime colonies. Three years later the new Dominion of Canada was proclaimed. The Coalition Government was disbanded immediately when Confederation was realized.

For more information on the Great Coalition:
Library and Archives Canada: The Great Coalition
Marianopolis College: The Great Coalition Government

The Union Government (1917-20)

Since Confederation there has only been one coalition government in Canada’s history: the Union Government of World War I. This was a coalition between the Conservative Party, led by Robert Borden, and Liberals and independents. The coalition was formed in order to broaden support for the Borden government and its controversial conscription policy.

In 1917, Prime Minister Borden announced that his government was going to introduce conscription to increase troops for the war in Europe. This policy was strongly opposed by many groups in Canada, in particular, French Canadians in Quebec and rural farmers. These groups resented being forced to participate in a British foreign war.

Prime Minister Borden hoped that a coalition government consisting of Conservatives and Liberals would help overcome these growing divisions within the country on this issue. Wilfrid Laurier, then leader of the Liberal Party, was opposed to conscription; he refused to lead his party into a coalition with the Conservatives. Many English-speaking Liberals, however, disagreed with their leader and left the party to join Borden in a coalition commonly referred to as the “Union Government.” Ultimately, the Union Government was successful in wining the general election of 1917 and eventually pushing conscription through Parliament.

With the end of the war in 1918, the primary raison d’être for the Union Government ceased to exist and the coalition began to break apart. Many former Liberals returned to their original political party, and the coalition dissolved completely with Prime Minister Borden’s retirement in 1920.

For more information on the Union Coalition Government:

Links to Further Information on Coalition Governments

Find more information on coalition governments.