The curious case of Christine Melnick
Advertisement
Read this article for free:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Monthly Digital Subscription
$1 per week for 24 weeks*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*Billed as $4.00 plus GST every four weeks. After 24 weeks, price increases to the regular rate of $19.00 plus GST every four weeks. Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.
Monthly Digital Subscription
$4.75/week*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*Billed as $19 plus GST every four weeks. Cancel any time.
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Add Winnipeg Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only
$1 for the first 4 weeks*
*$1 will be added to your next bill. After your 4 weeks access is complete your rate will increase by $0.00 a X percent off the regular rate.
Read unlimited articles for free today:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/05/2015 (3786 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
You would think that with them kissing and making up, it would all be water under the bridge.
Not so.
There’s still chatter on Broadway about Premier Greg Selinger’s expulsion of Melnick last year.
She was expelled from the NDP caucus Feb. 4, 2014 because the premier said he could no longer trust her. The reason why is here: NDP bids goodbye to Melnick
Behind the scenes there is also chatter that Selinger MAY have violated the Legislative Assembly Act when he allowed the Riel MLA back into caucus on Nov. 13.
The Legislative Assembly Act says:
52.3.1 A member who
(a) is elected with the endorsement of a political party; and
(b) ceases to belong to the caucus of that party during the term for which he or she was elected; must sit in the Assembly as an independent and is to be treated as such for the purposes of this act and all proceedings in the Assembly during the remainder of the member’s term.
To believe some people, this would indicate that Selinger supposedly contravened the act in bringing Melnick back into the NDP fold when he did on Nov. 13, 2014.
They say 52.3.1 would say that Melnick had to stay as an independent until the election next year.
Now, other folks say that’s complete hogwash. They say that’s a completely inaccurate reading of 52.3.1.
They say the section only pertains to MLAs who cross the floor to join another party.
They point to the heading or title of section 52.3.1: Member who crosses the floor must sit as independent
They say the title has the same legal bearing as the actual wording of the section; that the two go together hand-in-hand like Jack and Jill.
With that they say 52.3.1 has no bearing whatsoever with the Melnick matter. Period. End of story. Move along.
The section was brought in in April 2006 by the government of former NDP Premier Gary Doer. It was Doer’s intent to stop MLAs from crossing the floor from one party to another.
It was Doer’s way in to capitalize on the outrage about MPs who cross the floor to get into cabinet.
The intent is to force MLAs to resign and run for re-election before they could cross the floor, or sit as independents until the next election. It also applies to politicians who leave their party on matters of conscience and principle.
With that background, it would seem that 52.3.1 has zilch do to with Melnick.
She was expelled as a matter of confidence. Pure and simple. She did not cross the floor to sit with Brian Pallister.
But, here’s where it gets iffy, especially on subsection (b) of the Legislative Assembly Act:
(b) ceases to belong to the caucus of that party during the term for which he or she was elected; must sit in the assembly as an independent and is to be treated as such for the purposes of this act and all proceedings in the assembly during the remainder of the member’s term.
Now, the wording in this clause is not specific on what “cease” means, even though it’s (sort of) specified in the title: crosses the floor.
Confusing matters is another piece of legislation, the Interpretation Act. The Interpretation Act applies to the interpretation of every act unless a “contrary intention” appears in another act or regulation.
Section 14 of the The Interpretation Act says:
Reference aids
(14) Tables of contents, headings, notes, historical references, overviews, examples and other readers’ aids are included in an act or regulation for convenience of reference only and do not form part of it.
Now, this would seem to mean that the title “Member who crosses the floor must sit as independent” is only in the Legislative Assembly Act as a “convenience of reference” for readers, and nothing more.
Unless, of course, a “contrary intention” appears in 52.3.1 (b) of the Legislative Assembly Act.
One cancels the other out, and the intention of 52.3.1 is indeed only for MLAs who cross the floor, and not Melnick.
Anyway, it’s all water under the bridge. Melnick has been back in the NDP caucus for months and is expected to represent the party in next year’s election as no one else wants the NDP nomination for Riel. The nomination meeting is June 10, and only Melnick is running.