It is an interesting decision for sure.
Does that mean MLA's who are landowners
can't vote on the land use framework?
Or that MLA's who hold shares in oil
comanies can no longer vote on Tar
Sands, Coal bed methane or other
development?
I think that the members are duly
elected (OK maybe not always duly) to
represent their constituents with some
semblance of professionalism and common
sense. I would fully expect an MLA to
vote to their personal detriment on a
specific issue if in fact it benefited
the constituency or the province as a
whole.
This recent logic should also mean that
only rural MLAs are allowed to vote on
issues affecting Calgary and Edmonton.
Does that mean MLA's who are landowners
can't vote on the land use framework?
Or that MLA's who hold shares in oil
comanies can no longer vote on Tar
Sands, Coal bed methane or other
development?
I think that the members are duly
elected (OK maybe not always duly) to
represent their constituents with some
semblance of professionalism and common
sense. I would fully expect an MLA to
vote to their personal detriment on a
specific issue if in fact it benefited
the constituency or the province as a
whole.
This recent logic should also mean that
only rural MLAs are allowed to vote on
issues affecting Calgary and Edmonton.
Comment