It was an unusual time for Alberta’s ethics commissioner to table a report into a sitting premier’s impropriety. Just two weeks before Election Day 2023, Marguerite Trussler released a scathing rebuke of Danielle Smith’s interference in the justice system. The commissioner concluded that Smith had indeed sought to interrupt the prosecution of Artur Pawlowski for his 2022 crimes related to the Coutts border blockade. The abuse of power was so serious that the commissioner’s report could not wait.
“The legal system is an independent arm of government,” Trussler wrote, “and neither the Legislative branch of Government nor the Executive branch of Government should interfere or appear to interfere with the Judicial branch of Government. To do so is to endanger the independence of the judicial system. This principle is a fundamental pillar of our democracy. The Premier breached this principle by discussing the accused’s case with [Pawlowski].”
It wasn’t the first time an Alberta cabinet member had crossed the line when it comes to the justice system. The most recent previous incident wasn’t even that long ago: a 2022 investigation found that Alberta’s then-justice minister Kaycee Madu had attempted to get out of a traffic ticket the previous year by phoning Edmonton’s chief of police. Nor is this sort of behaviour exclusive to one party or one province. Centred on similar conflicts of interest at the federal level, the 2018 SNC Lavalin affair drew attention to the importance of preserving prosecutorial independence, the rule of law and the separation of powers.
Both the Alberta and the federal governments were returned to office in the elections following these respective scandals, raising serious questions about voters’ knowledge, understanding and tolerance of clear violations of democratic norms. But these incidents raise more serious concerns about our politicians—and not just the ones who commit an abuse but also those who fail to understand the seriousness of the abuse, or downplay it, or fail to hold the perpetrator responsible. Governments are accountable to their legislatures or Parliament, meaning that rank-and-file politicians can—and should—act to remove ministers or bring down governments when they breach fundamental democratic principles.
Trussler recognized the gap in Alberta politicians’ knowledge and understanding, recommending in her report that “all new Members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta attend mandatory training… about the structure of Canadian government and the roles of the three branches of government.”
The Ethics Commissioner’s call to action was well placed. Alberta has, since 2015, seen high turnover among elected officials. But even experienced ministers and MLAs in both the provincial UCP and federal Liberal governments had little effect on stemming leaders’ abuses of power. Smith herself had been an MLA for just over three years in total at the time of her call with Pawlowski. Justin Trudeau had been an MP for 11 years at the time of the SNC Lavalin affair. In other words, it’s not only rookie politicians that can fail to grasp how our government works.
Nor is the problem confined to the government benches. Opposition MLAs have critical roles to fulfil in holding a government accountable. In Alberta’s newly competitive two-party system, many opposition critics are ministers-in-waiting. It’s important they understand our system of government and democracy before they assume seats around the cabinet table. Political staffers too require the sort of education the commissioner urges, since they advise ministers, backbenchers and opposition MLAs alike.
MLAs need to understand that in Alberta the rule of law ensures that no person is above (or beneath) justice.
You might say: Wait, aren’t MLAs already given such an education? The answer would be no, they aren’t—beyond whatever the MLA learned from their K–12 civics lessons (the dearth of which in Alberta is a topic for another article).
Alberta does provide a two-day orientation within weeks of an election. The focus is largely professional, preparing MLAs for life in the legislature and as head of their constituency office. The topics are like those in most human resources onboarding sessions: org charts, compensation and benefits, security protocols, respectful workplace conduct and so on. The sessions feature presentations from officers of the legislature, including the Ethics Commissioner, who review policies and laws. The Legislative Assembly Office provides training in legislative procedures. MLAs can access online resources on how government works, including from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
Each party caucus provides its own training. They introduce MLAs to the history and operations of their party and cover more strategic considerations, such as how to set up constituency offices (e.g., location and staff) and how to communicate with constituents and stakeholders (media training etc.). Political management programs have also cropped up in universities across the country, helping budding staffers acquire basic knowledge.
This is woefully inadequate. Beyond what an Alberta MLA might glean from a short presentation by the Ethics Commissioner or optional online readings, they don’t receive any meaningful, mandatory training on the foundations of Canadian democracy. This needs to change.
If we were to take Trussler’s recommendation seriously, and include all 87 Alberta MLAs and their staff, what might a politician education program look like?
The first idea MLAs need to understand is that Alberta is a liberal democracy, in which powers are separated into different branches of government, and where the rule of law ensures that no person—whether elected leader or ordinary citizen—is above (or beneath) justice. MLAs should study the dual principles of judicial impartiality and judicial independence, which shield the justice system from the type of interference seen in the Pawlowski and SNC Lavalin affairs. We do not want political biases or agendas interfering in the course of justice.
Second, MLAs need to appreciate their crucial role in our system of representative democracy. Elected officials are more than delegates for their individual constituencies; they’re trustees of the public good and must at times make difficult decisions that place the broader interest ahead of narrower desires. As we saw during the pandemic, for example, MLAs are conduits between the public and their government. They must balance the demands of people in their own districts and their own strata of the political spectrum with the needs of others. In addition, their collective judgment on matters of provincial, national or global importance cannot be replaced by periodic plebiscites on matters of policy. This is particularly true on issues that require a lot of technical knowledge, such as pensions, or when minority interests are in danger, as with human rights.
MLAs next need to understand that they are at the heart of our system of responsible democratic government. Any “education” in democracy offered to MLAs by people close to party leadership seldom does this; intentionally or not, it tends to de-emphasize the role of the MLA, reinforcing norms of party discipline and cabinet dominance. But the first loyalty of an MLA is to their constituents, not to their party or leader. And the duty of the MLA extends far beyond just being careful with tax dollars. Responsible government requires cabinet to maintain the confidence of the legislature if they want to remain in power. Backbench MLAs on both sides of the aisle have a duty to hold the premier and her ministers accountable. No provincial government should assume it can rule with impunity until the next scheduled election; it serves at the pleasure of MLAs, each of whom is a representative of Albertans.
MLAs need to understand that in Alberta the rule of law ensures that no person is above (or beneath) justice.
Strict party discipline frequently distorts these roles, as MLAs typically vote along partisan lines on threat of being dropped from caucus (a group of MLAs that belong to the same party). Alberta’s high rate of caucus expulsions is testament to this, as MLAs have been turfed from or quit their party after exercising their authority to speak out against their parties’ leadership. MLAs Robyn Luff in the Notley era and Drew Barnes in the Kenney years, for example, left their parties to sit in the legislature as independents. If we want responsible government, more MLAs need to understand the importance of putting their province ahead of their party or leader.
At the same time, responsible government dictates that members of cabinet are duty bound to close ranks on matters of government policy. While they can disagree behind closed doors, the public face of cabinet must remain united. In-camera (closed) cabinet meetings are understood to encourage critical views and fruitful disagreements and yield better decisions than those that could be made in the open. Some members of cabinet in Alberta abandoned this principle during the transition from Premier Kenney to Premier Smith, speaking openly against the former in courting favour with the latter.
Individual ministers are required to answer publicly for any errors in their judgment or for malpractice in the portfolios they oversee. If the deeds are egregious, the minister is expected to resign or be removed by the premier. Failure to hold a minister accountable risks bringing into disrepute the very institutions MLAs are sworn to protect. Interference with the justice system certainly crosses this line.
Finally, MLAs should get a crash course in the division of powers in a democracy—and not simply the separations between the legislative, executive and judicial branches that Commissioner Trussler emphasized. Contrary to recent musings and age-old misconceptions in Alberta, Canada’s system of federalism involves a combination of shared sovereignty and provincial autonomy. Beyond the letter of the Constitution, the practice of federalism involves coordination, collaboration and consensus to get things done.
This principle extends to municipal governments and arm’s-length agencies, boards and commissions, which should be free from provincial government interference. Similarly, MLAs have to understand the basics of the “public servant bargain,” through which governments receive fearless advice and loyal implementation of policies from members of the province’s civil service in return for providing civil servants with job security and anonymity. Premiers, especially, have to stop making threats to cull the senior ranks of the public service or appoint partisans to positions within it.
It wasn’t the first time an Alberta cabinet member had crossed the line when it comes to the justice system.
Beyond the content, the mode of instruction would also matter. Stuffy university professors with little practical experience or reliant on long slideshows are unlikely to hold MLAs’ attention. Neither are ideologues. The now-dormant UBC Institute for Future Legislators provided a great model, mixing experiential training and case studies with teaching from academic experts and seasoned practitioners from across the political spectrum and from diverse communities. A similar program, combining scholars from Alberta universities and retired politicians and political staffers, would be a great way to build bridges across the divides in our political system.
These training sessions would also be held throughout the mandate of the legislature. Key lessons from orientations can be lost in the deluge of onboarding and transition activities, which receive higher priority and urgency. Like all employees new to a job, rookie legislators describe their opening weeks as akin to drinking from a firehose. Their forgetting or misunderstanding vital lessons about democracy could lead to more abuses of power like the ones we’ve seen in recent years.
Seasoned and inexperienced politicians alike from all parties would attend. Any opportunity to bring MLAs together outside of their parties would go a long way toward building camaraderie across partisan, regional, gender and other divides.
The Ethics Commissioner’s call for revamping our MLA training system is timely. This isn’t simply because it might stem the recent spate of undemocratic actions by elected leaders in Alberta, but because it could help rebuild the common ground that could unite politicians from across the province and political spectrum. MLAs understanding their shared duties, obligations and powers could reinvigorate the legislature. It could better equip our leaders to address huge public challenges with knowledge and integrity. And it could go some way to help restore Albertans’ faith in government.
Jared Wesley is a professor of political science at the U of A and the lead researcher for the Common Ground initiative.
____________________________________________
