atypicalalbertan

PC Leadership: first ballot predictions

2011-09-16T16:50:00.000-06:00

I pride myself on having made some pretty accurate predictions in the 2006 Progressive Conservative Party leadership contest and so on this, the eve of the first ballot of the 2011 edition I feel it is necessary to register my thoughts.

Environics has provided a little bit of help for prognosticators, but I don't put a ton of weight into their polling results. Nearly 100,000 people voted in the first ballot in 2006 and the Environics poll was based on a membership list of 22,000 members. The origins of the list is under investigation, but I suspect it came from one of the campaigns. This is important because it may mean that campaigns that turned in their lists prior to the poll being conducted would be overrepresented while campaigns that didn't want to release their lists to the other candidates would be underrepresented. Similarly, a large number of voters will be registered at the polls.

With that in mind, I think the two front-runners have been clear and consistent all the way along and they are Gary Mar and Ted Morton. Similarly, both Rick Orman and Doug Griffiths faced uphill battles and will be a long way off from making the cut of top three for the second ballot. The only real questions remaining for me are who will be number three and how far ahead will Gary Mar be?

This is where I will take guidance from Environics. Alison Redford's support in that poll is well ahead of where I thought she would be. She is also perceived as a bit of a game changer and has been pretty much at the center of any of the big news-worthy controversial issues in the campaign. She also has a cracking campaign manager in Stephen Carter. Doug Horner has run a strong campaign, but in a contest that was initiated on desire for change, I worry he will be perceived too strongly as the status quo candidate.

So here is my predicted order of candidate placements on the first ballot. And heck, just for fun, I will put some numbers in for possible results.

1. Gary Mar (30-35%)
2. Ted Morton (25-30%)
3. Alison Redford (15-20%)
4. Doug Horner (10-15%)
5. Doug Griffiths (around 5%)
6. Rick Orman (around 5%)

Of course, endorsements should be interesting and will have a big impact on how the second ballot turns out - as will, the ability of any of the campaigns to sell memberships and get votes out on October 1.

The Hamilton Oilers? I highly doubt it!

2011-07-30T15:48:00.000-06:00

The biggest thing that irks me about the Edmonton arena debate is how the Katz group is using Oiler fandom to separate reasonable consideration from the debate over public funding. Typically, the arguments are based on one big fallacy – that the Oilers will leave Edmonton if public funds are not spent on a new downtown arena.

The fallacy was created when Katz delivered a veiled threat by stating that the Oilers would not play in the Northlands Coliseum (a name I will use for Rexall Place in order to separate the building from the Rexall brand of companies, which owns the naming rights) after 2014. I wrote twice earlier on this issue. Ultimately the argument is based on the misconception that professional hockey in Edmonton is not viable in the long term.

First, I find it hard to believe that the Oilers franchise is not profitable year-over-year. They currently have a sweetheart $1 per year lease on the Coliseum. All of the rinkboard and ice advertising is consistently sold out. All luxury boxes and season ticket seats are sold out with waiting lists for any vacancies. Nearly all of the individual seats for every home game is sold by game time. The team also owns a WHL team and an NAL baseball team, used to help market the Oilers brand. Merchandise sales are strong and lucrative broadcast deals are in place. Furthermore, the much desired salary cap is in place and the Oilers are operating well underneath it. If NHL is not profitable in Oil Country then I do not know where it would be profitable.

But, we won’t know much about the profitability of the Oilers because the Katz group is not willing to share their financial information – even though they want taxpayer money to subsidize the future operation. And really, profitability doesn’t matter so much. Just ask the Edmonton Investors Group. The EIG owned the Oilers from 1998 – 2008 and while the team consistently lost money over the years, it didn’t bother the members of the EIG too much. You see, they bought the team for $70 million in 1998 and sold it to Katz for $200 million in 2008. What matters more than profitability for businesspeople is Return on Investment (ROI). The ROI for EIG's investment was 285% for a very generous growth of 11% per year – a number that would make every Dragon in the den sign on.

The final piece of the moneymaking puzzle for Katz comes back to his intricate understanding of how to leverage sports fandom and loyalty to make money. The business case for the Rexall group of companies is very strong. Tie the brand to the Edmonton Oilers and to hockey in every way possible, including using Blue and Orange as your brand colours, ensure that the brand owner is reinforced consistently as a true Edmontonian and watch as the brand overtakes market share in Northern Alberta. There is nothing wrong with this strategy, by the way, but it needs to be reiterated that building the Oilers brand also creates revenue for the Rexall companies, which I’m sure are much larger and more profitable then the Oilers brand.

Now, add together these three models of moneymaking for the Katz group and ask yourself the following questions. Why would Darryl Katz even consider moving the Oilers out of Edmonton? Why should any money that rightfully belongs to all taxpayers be going to subsidize the lucrative business operations of a billionaire? Should taxpayer money be more appropriately spent to hire more police officers, paramedics, doctors, nurses or teachers? And, is there a better way to spend $225 million of taxpayer money to revitalize downtown?

Federal Election Prediction

2011-05-01T21:29:00.001-06:00

With the 41st Canadian General Election Day arriving tomorrow, it seems that it is time for me to get my election prediction on the record.

I am predicting a Conservative minority government with the New Democratic Party holding the balance of power. At this point, those two predictions are not ground breakers, so I want to add that I see the NDP and Liberals being placed in a position where their combined seats will challenge the number of seats that the Conservatives hold - meaning that a coalition government formed by those parties would not necessarily require the formal support of the Bloc Quebecois. I am also going to predict that Elizabeth May will win her seat for the Green Parties.

Here are my predictions, by the numbers:

	Bloc	Conservative	Green	Liberal	NDP
Total Seats	30	140	1	41	96
Popular Vote	6%	36%	6%	19%	32%
Regional breakdowns
BC	--	18	1	3	14
Alberta	--	26	0	0	2
Sask/Man	--	20	0	2	6
Ontario	--	56	0	24	26
Quebec	30	9	0	3	33
Atlantic	--	10	0	9	13
Territories	--	1	0	0	2

A special thanks to this page for supplying such a great summary of the poll numbers.

BKACPP - Marijuana Party

2011-04-25T19:05:00.001-06:00

Party Name: Marijuana Party

Leader (Location):

Blair T. Longley (Hochelaga, PQ)

Date of Registration:

November 6, 2000

2008 election:

8 candidates
2,298 total votes
13th of 19 parties

Notable History:

Between 2000 and 2004, 90% of contributions to the marijuana party were made under a legal scheme known as "Longley's Loophole." Under the scheme, the contributor could define how the contributions were to be used, even in a way that was of direct benefit to the contributor.

Biggest Issues:

Two policy statements are written on the website: Legalize marijuana. Legalize revolution.

Intriguing statement on website:

"People who are Members of the Party, or people who are Officers or Agents of this Party, have NO obligations to endorse nor vote for its Candidates. They have an independent right to vote, and to vote strategically, as they decide. Candidates are not obliged to agree with other Candidates or the Leader. We make no efforts to collectivize. We operate in decentralized ways."

Extraordinary statements on website:
It is interesting to note that the Marijuana Party website can be edited by any candidate, official agent or ‘regular marijuana party activist.’

The world is controlled by huge lies, backed up with lots of violence, and that is automatically getting worse! It is a runaway fascist plutocracy juggernaut ... Since the world is controlled by the people who are the "best" at dishonesty, backed up with violence, we actually are living in a Bizarro Mirror World!

BKACPP - Libertarian Party of Canada

2011-04-11T21:05:00.000-06:00

Party Name: Libertarian Party of Canada

Leader (Location):

Dennis Young (Sudbury, ON)

Date of Registration:

July 7, 1973

2008 election:

26 candidates
7,300 total votes
8th of 19 parties

Notable History:

"The party described itself as Canada's "fourth party" in the 1980s, but it has since been displaced by new parties such as the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party of Canada. The party declined to join the Reform Party of Canada when it was formed in 1987, attracting many libertarians who saw it as a better vehicle to put forward their philosophy." - Wikipedia

Biggest Issues:

Small government, property rights, personal liberty.

Intriguing statement on website:

We believe that no measure should have the force of law unless adopted by a duly elected Parliament, or by initiative; therefore, we are opposed to government by Order-in-Council.

Extraordinary statements on website:

Government interference in current social concerns such as pollution, consumer protection, health care delivery, and poverty exceeds the level required for the protection of individual rights. In addition, problems in these areas have not been solved, but primarily caused by government.
We support the repeal of compulsory education laws, and the elimination of government operation, regulation, and subsidy of educational institutions.
We propose the elimination of all government involvement in welfare and relief programs. Any aid to the poor should be conducted on a voluntary basis.
Doctors and other health care professionals should be free to work without licensing from the government.
We advocate an end to defense based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity," which absolve the guilty of their responsibility

BKACPP - Communist Party of Canada

2011-04-08T12:04:00.000-06:00

Party Name: Communist Party of Canada

Tag Line:

For peace, jobs, sovereignty and democracy

Leader (Location):

Miguel Figueroa (Davenport, ON)

Date of Founding:

May 1921

2008 election:

24 candidates
3,572 total votes
10th of 19 parties

Notable History:

"Figueroa v. Attorney-General of Canada resulted in the courts declaring several sections of the Elections Act unconstitutional, including a precedent-setting judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in June 2003 which struck down the 50-candidate rule as the threshold for federal party registration in Canada."

Biggest Issues:

"Our goal is a socialist Canada, in which resources and economic wealth are socially owned and democratically controlled by the working people, not private capitalists."

Intriguing statement on website:

"Scrap the Drug Patent Act (which guarantees mega-profits for the big drug companies, and high costs for health care), and build a publicly-owned pharmaceutical sector. Expand Medicare to include eye, dental, pharmacare and long-term care. Stop the “war on drugs”; treat addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal act."

Extraordinary statement on website:

"the Conservative party ‑ the preferred party of monopoly capital ‑ is the most dangerous threat to peace, democracy, and workers’ rights. They must go… now!"

BKACPP - Christian Heritage Party of Canada

2011-04-04T11:51:00.001-06:00

Party Name: Christian Heritage Party of Canada

Tag Line:

Better Solutions for Canada

Leader (Location):

James (Jim) Hnatiuk (Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley, NS)

Date of Registration:

June 17, 1986

2008 election:

59 candidates
26,475 total votes
6th of 19 parties

Notable History:

"During its 25 years history, the CHP has contested every federal election with candidates from across Canada who have been true to this vision. (Although in 2000 CHP candidates ran as independents because the CHP fell one candidate short of the minimum 50 candidates required at that time.)"

Biggest Issues:

Abortion and Immigration seem to be the most prevalent issues, but the CHP has a broad comprehensive policy. This party would be the extremist brother of America's Tea Party. Their childcare strategy would give $1,000 per month to two parent families who have one parent stay at home – they argue this policy would be cost neutral because of savings in EI and Welfare.

Intriguing statement on website:

"The CHP proposes that student loans be interest-free and repayment-free for ten years after graduation, to allow grads to get well-established in their chosen career fields before they begin repaying their share of their tuition."

Extraordinary statements on website (there are tons of them!):

"The CHP rejects cultural relativism, and asserts that not all cultures are equal or equally good."
"Canada is currently at war with an enemy that espouses a particularly dangerous and pernicious ideology, radical Islam, which seeks the subjugation of the entire world to its ideology."
"Recognize that immigration is being used as a form of jihad designed to undermine Canada’s Judeo-Christian culture and law to replace it with Sharia law; CHP Canada would immediately implement a moratorium on immigration from any Muslim nation."
"Abortion is now the most common surgical procedure in Canada, but rather than curing any illness, it creates new health problems: the newest research confirms that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, and recent studies in the UK show that in the two years after a pregnancy, the death rate from all causes is twice as high for abortive women as for those who carry their pregnancy to term, and the suicide rate is six times as high."
"HIV/AIDS is essentially a behavioural disease, and control requires (a) behavioural change; and (b) normal public health measures (contact tracing; quarantine the infected to protect the uninfected; education). The AIDS Establishment’s focus on medication, if not accompanied by behavioural change, increases the rate of infection by enabling infected persons to live longer (which is good) and to continue to be sexually promiscuous (which is bad)"

BKACPP - Canadian Action Party

2011-04-01T17:53:00.000-06:00

Party Name:

Canadian Action Party

Leader:

Christopher Porter

Date of Founding:

1997 05 13

2008 election:

20 candidates
3 455 votes
11th place of 19 parties

Notable History:

Party was formed in 1997 after the collapse of the National Party of Canada by former Minister of Defense and current member of Privy Council Paul Hellyer.

Biggest Issues:

Securing Canadian sovereignty through monetary reform. Five key pillars: Monetary Reform, Sovereignty, Civil and Human Rights, Parliamentary Reform and Environment.

Intriguing statement on website:

The Canadian Action Party is, above all, a pro-Canadian party dedicated to the principle that Canada can best serve its citizens and the world by re-claiming and maintaining its political and economic sovereignty as an independent country. It is opposed to the ascendancy of "corporate rule" and those aspects of unrestricted global investment that promote colonization of the world's smaller powers and in Canada's case its absorption by the United States of America.

Extraordinary statement on website:

There is a massive body of research suggesting that an intentional program of spreading diseases and health problems has been underway for many years in Canada, as elsewhere in the world; and further, that many pharmaceuticals being promoted have not been adequately researched, nor their effectiveness properly followed up. Serious health risks appear to be associated with chemtrail spraying, inoculations, the fluoridation of drinking water, the use of aspartame and other additives, and the introduction of irradiated and genetically modified foods, and a range of pharmaceuticals. The government appears to consistently support the corporate agenda while putting the health of Canadians at risk.

BKACPP - Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada

2011-03-30T20:03:00.001-06:00

Elizabeth May is quite concerned that the Green Party will not be included in the televised debates. And while I like the Green Party and believe that their contribution to the general political discourse is valuable, I believe that it is important to have a reasonable and consistent principle on which to judge the parties that will take place in the debates. I understand that the test being used is whether a party held seats in the last parliament. The fact is the line has to be drawn somewhere, as there are 19 registered political parties in Canada and all of them cannot be included in a single meaningful debate.

This of course got me thinking, what are the other parties that exist in Canada?

With that in mind, I am pleased to present part 1 of my 19 part series, Better Know A Canadian Political Party. This edition, the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada... the fighting Barkers!

Party Name:

Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada

Tag Line:

North America's first environmental and animal protection political party

Leader (Location):

Liz White (Toronto)

Date of Founding:

2005

2008 election:

4 candidates
527 total votes
16th of 19 parties

Notable History:

Predecessor group challenged 2000 law limiting the role of third parties in electoral politics.

Biggest Issues:

Animal rights and prevention of cruelty to animals.

Intriguing statement on website:

"For politicians working in a democracy, re-election often becomes the biggest concern when deciding public policy; it can overwhelm all other considerations."

Extraordinary statement on website:

"Contact your MP and ask where he / she stands on topics including ending Canada's commercial seal hunt - the largest, cruellest marine mammal slaughter in the world, curtailing or shutting down the Alberta Tar Sands - the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, and banning the importation of horses from the United States - where it is illegal to slaughter them for human consumption"

Stay tuned for more episodes in this series!

A tale of two schools

2011-02-08T00:07:00.001-07:00

I want to tell you about two schools:

Athabasca Delta Community School in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, and
Mormon Hills School in Bountiful, British Columbia.

I won't pretend that the linked reports are unbiased comprehensive depictions of either school, but they paint an interesting picture of the type of education that occurs in each school. Please ensure you take a few moments to read each article.

Now, you might be surprised to hear that some have deemed Mormon Hills school to be the best school in BC, while claiming Athabasca Delta Community School is one of the worst schools in Alberta.

This little tale of two schools is indicative of the Fraser Institute's view on the function of education.

Without knowing too much about either school, it is reasonable to expect that the level of critical thinking being developed at Mormon Hills School would be low. After all, you would not want the 14-year old students/brides to be questioning authority or their pre-defined future careers in "cooking, cleaning and child-minding." But, who needs high levels of critical thinking skills in order to fill in the bubbles on multiple-choice tests?

On the other end, you have the high needs children of Athabasca Delta Community School, where students are starting out well behind in academic achievement and are further hindered by "numerous socioeconomic issues beyond their control and comprehension." The small miracles of the school are accomplished when the students can read the exams, let alone answer the questions.

On one hand we have a school that is doing everything it can to help students achieve to their fullest potential in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds and on the other hand we have a school that is seemingly focused on ensuring that their students are best positioned to be subservient cogs in an oppressive regime.

And the Fraser Institute is saying that the one form of education has little value while the other one is commendable.

But, as I've written about at least twice before, this fits the world-view of neo-conservatives like the Fraser Institute. Their world-view is based on a father-knows-best morality and their vision of education is based on a system that develops good little worker cogs.

The alternative is a system based on nurturing talents and encouraging students to think critically and creatively over multiple domains, prepared to be confident open-minded citizens.

I know which education system I prefer.

This post was inspired by this article.

Your once-in-a-century chance is now!

2011-02-05T14:36:00.000-07:00

In 2008, for Alberta's last election, only 40% of eligible voters decided to cast a ballot. Many people cite cynicism, apathy or a lack of likable candidates as reasons to not vote. All of those reasons will disappear for the next election.

If you care about whether there will be an ambulance available when you need one, how long you have to wait for medical attention or the number of students that will be in your child's classroom then you should care about Alberta politics. If you care about the environment, the cost of college tuition, the price of gas, the state of highways, how our seniors are cared for, what our parks look like, whether we have clean water to drink, where electrical lines will run, what happens to children in abusive homes, whether we are selling our oil at a reasonable rate, what might happen with your job or how much taxes you pay then Alberta politics affects you. Heck, if you are concerned about having your streets plowed there is even an element of provincial governance affecting that.

So many of the decisions that affect your everyday life are determined by the Alberta legislature, and now you have a chance to affect those decisions unlike any other Albertan that came before in the province's 106 year history.

Currently, there are five provincial parties represented in the legislature and three of them are going through a competition to determine who their next leader will be. These parties represent a wide diverse set of values and there is no doubt that at least one of them would be reflective of your values.

At the ends of the political spectrum are the two parties with leaders in place, the Alberta New Democratic Party and the Wildrose Alliance Party. Check out their websites, if you like their policies you will like their leaders. Both Brian Mason and Danielle Smith are likable, effective advocates for their party members.

If you decide that those two parties are not for you, then I encourage you to look into the Alberta Party, the Alberta Liberal Party, or the Progressive Conservative Party. These three parties sit somewhere in between the NDP and the WAP. And they are all engaging in a leadership campaign over the next 9 months or so. There is likely going to be over a dozen people committed and courageous enough to put their names forward to become one of this province's next premiers.

With this range of choice and opportunity to influence, no-one should be left without a voice.

Take a look at the party policies and see which ones support your vision for Alberta. At this point, you don't even have to commit to one party! The state of things today is very fluid and in any party there will be some policies you like and some you don't. Different leadership candidates will emphasize different priorities and members coming and leaving will have influence over the policies. Memberships cost between $5 and $10 for the year and will keep you up-to-date and provide you with a chance to select the leader.

Next, find out about the potential leadership candidates and get behind your favourite(s). The leader will have a lot of influence on the actual decisions of the party and which policy pieces will be prioritized. You can support your favourite candidate by voting for him or her, talking about him with your neighbours, volunteering for her campaign or making a donation.

As the leaders are selected and the state of flux starts to thicken we will be headed right into a general election where you can reassess which leader-party-candidate combination works best for you in your riding, then you can get involved in that campaign or simply vote.

With this state of affairs, cynicism is not an excuse, lack of candidates is not a reality and apathy will not be accepted. Get off the sidelines and get in the game - it is your responsibility as a citizen.

How identity and leadership will factor on the future of Alberta politics

2011-02-01T12:29:00.000-07:00

The two biggest factors that will determine the political future, coming out of this incredible state of flux, will be identity and leadership.

I have often said that Alberta politics is all about identity. More specifically, the common piece of identity related to being a conservative (or a Conservative). For many Albertans (in particular, those over 50), being Albertan meant being conservative. This has a lot to do with the political rhetoric coming out of the 70s and 80s where divisive politics pitted the Lougheed Conservatives in Alberta against the Trudeau Liberals federally on a number of issues, including the Charter, the NEP and multiculturalism. The story went that Liberals were infringing on provincial issues and that their policies were killing Alberta prosperity and the Alberta way of life. The Progressive Conservatives in Alberta were seen as the ones who would stand up for Alberta and protect our interests. Coming out of that era, Albertans have been inextricably identified as conservatives and that label has passed on to many younger people who hadn't even been born when the construct was created.

This identity has lead to the relative constant state of the Progressive Conservative party. The brand has been absolutely invulnerable and the party has been the destination for anyone who is seriously interested in participating in governing the province. Needless to say, the party includes a large number of people with significantly diverse political viewpoints who from time to time struggle over control of the party that controls the province. We saw it in 1992, we saw it in 2006 and we are seeing it now.

The interesting thing about identity is how hard it is to shake off. For many Albertans, they have identified as Progressive Conservative and won't turn their backs on the brand. The 2006 leadership campaign drove a deep wedge into the concept of PC brand identity. The camp became significantly divided between Morton supporters and Dinning supporters and eventually Stelmach was chosen in an effort to conserve the brand (identity).

PC supporters have been so entrenched that they had difficulty dropping their identity, even if they disagreed with some of the policies or some of the leaders. But, Stelmach has been unable to heal the rifts and a global recession pushed the divisive issues to the forefront. Danielle Smith, as leader of the Wildrose Alliance Party, has subsequently been effective enough to get people to reconsider their identity. Similarly, moves by the PC party to prevent leakage on the right has caused some on the left to reconsider their identity.

Much has been said that the label of "Liberal" is a political liability in Alberta. This concept has largely contributed to the rise of the Alberta Party. Many 'progressives' shy away from the Alberta Liberals because of the liability and where they once would have had a home in the PC party, they are now cautious of the increasing power of the right wing of that caucus.

So here's where we are at: the extremes of the political spectrum, represented by the NDP and WAP are solid on both identity and leadership factors. Most supporters of each camp are content and ready to fight the next election. The vast middle however features three parties that are all dealing with leadership questions, while the Albertans who support them are dealing with identity questions.

How strong is the PC identity today? Is it strong enough to keep the followers even if their choice for leader is not selected? Will those who identify as Liberals move to the Alberta or PC Party if the right leader is selected? Will they move if the wrong leader is selected - for either their party or the PC party? Will the Alberta Party be able to identify with progressives from both the PC party and the Liberal party? Will they be able to create an identity that is more than the new Liberal party? Which leader will help them to create that identity?

The Alberta political landscape is like an electric football table, where the ground is shaking and bodies are shifting around. Each person came in wearing a uniform, but that uniform may not determine which pile they will end up in. People in all three parties will watch and participate in the leadership votes, then determine whether the selected leaders will have enough impact to change their political identities.

We are in unprecedented times - the most volatile political environment Alberta has ever seen.

On Being a Teacher, or Why Merit Pay Stinks.

2011-01-11T22:46:00.000-07:00

I'm taking a course on organizational theory right now and the readings have caused me to reflect on an issue that is getting a fair deal of play in education right now - merit pay for teachers. There are many specific arguments that can be made as to why merit pay is a bad idea and doesn't work, but I am a fan of looking at things from first principles. My readings on organizational theory have helped me to consider the first principles that are at play for the people who argue in favour of merit pay.

Those who tend to argue merit pay also argue for school choice, competition, rankings and the implementation of all sorts of market reforms in the education system. Ultimately these arguments are based on a fundamental vision of education that is drastically different from mine and that of most people close to schools. The market reformers view education in terms of a factory, where the inputs are young students with little knowledge and the outputs are graduates with a vast array of knowledge. Somewhere in between there is a transformation process where teachers install knowledge into pupils. The vision is of little boys and girls sitting on an assembly line, moving forward from teacher to teacher as the workers open flap A, insert knowledge component X and apply a diagnostic scanner to ensure the component is working properly. Next station!

Scientific Management guides this style of production and requires managers to "develop precise, standard procedures for doing each job; select workers with appropriate abilities; train workers in the standard procedures; carefully plan work; and provide wage incentives to increase output" (Daft and Armstrong, 2009, p. 24). The approach was pioneered by Frederick Winslow Taylor and worked well when implemented in the Bethlehem Steel Plant in 1898 to ensure that more employees unloaded more iron and loaded more steel onto rail cars.

Forgive me for being condescending, but students are not chunks of iron and plates of steel. Nor are they intricately wired and extensively engineered automobiles being pieced together on an assembly line.

(Interestingly, the Hawthorne Studies of the late 1920s and early 30s showed that performance incentives actually had a demotivating effect, even for factory work, and that improvements to productivity were actually made through the positive treatment of employees and by listening to employees concerns and ideas. But I digress.)

My argument is this, students are not products moving along an assembly line and teachers are not factory installers. The work of education and of teachers is complex, variable and highly skilled. As was once described to me by a speaker whose name I forget, pilots fly a finite number of models of planes and if they don't know something about the plane there is a manual they can pull out to find the answer - students don't come with manuals. Students do however come with an infinite number of contextual variables: family, prior education, economic status, emotional aptitudes, intellectual variables, medical conditions, behaviour disorders, talents, passions, fears, hopes and dreams.

The important work of teachers, done well, requires sorting through those variables to assess the needs of individual students, designing educational plans that meet those needs, implementing the plans and adapting as required, while observing multiple data sources to determine whether the outcomes are being met and what further steps need to be taken.

This type of work can not be boiled down into standard procedures and cannot be appropriately measured using standardized tests. Increasing teacher effectiveness is achieved not by tying a carrot to the end of a stick, but by providing teachers with the time, resources and professional freedom that is required to get the work done well. Those people who are looking for accountability should look to professional models like those in place for doctors and lawyers where the professionals are required to maintain ongoing professional development (prescribed by the individual practitioners) and the profession is given the authority to police the competency of its peers and determine whether they are fit to practice. (Interestingly, in Alberta, we are almost there.)

The best thing that can be done for education and our students is to provide the conditions necessary to allow teachers to do their important work.

References

Daft R. L., & Armstrong A. (2009). Organization theory and design. Toronto, ON: Nelson Education.

Alberta Health Services Works - Part II

2010-11-29T17:33:00.000-07:00

Last week, I commented on how Alberta Health Services works in how it has served its function for government. Today, I argue that Alberta Health Services actually works in so far as how it serves its function for patients. However I will be clear, the Capital Health Authority also worked and would have been more effective.

My primary arguments revolve around the experience of my family and my father-in-law. Unfortunately, my father-in-law suffered an injury a few weeks ago and has been under the fantastic care of the medical professionals at the University of Alberta hospital since it happened. Day after day and shift after shift, we have experienced the care of a cadre of professional, competent and compassionate doctors, nurses and other capable healthcare professionals. Unequivocally, I can say that we are blessed to have available to us a world-class outstanding free medicare system. It is first class care that achieves incredible outcomes day-after-day patient-after-patient.

Unfortunately, that system is stretched to the maximum of its capacity and it relies far too greatly on the exceptional drive, dedication and unwavering commitment of its professional public servants. Accessing the system may be difficult and the time required to wait for care is extreme - but once you get the care, you know that it is the best possible care that money can buy, and then some. And that is why I feel obliged as a citizen of Alberta to speak out and defend that system. I will not allow our healthcare system to be jeopardised by cumbersome bureaucracy or by petty politics. We need to speak out about protecting the fantastic care we have available while voicing our concerns and worries in a respectful constructive manner.

I worry about people that need to have access to the system and cannot access it in a timely manner and I worry about what will happen when any more stress gets placed on an already burdened system.

We need to move beyond cookies and promises and look at what is really required to solve the problems and deliver the service that Albertans deserve. It starts by supporting and funding the system appropriately, and it is continued by supporting and listening to the people who are at the heart of healthcare delivery.

People like Raj Sherman, frankly.

Alberta Health Services Works - Part I

2010-11-25T19:32:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, it was confirmed. Alberta Health Services Works. It has done what it was designed to do.

Many Albertans in May of 2008, asked why the province chose to dismantle nine regional health authorities, a provincial cancer board, a mental health board, an effective and well-branded provincial addictions board and regional ambulance services into one large, kludgy and unmanageable provincial health authority. The purpose of that exercise became clear with the dismissal of AHS CEO Dr Stephen Duckett.

I'm not necessarily going to disagree with today's decision by the AHS board, but I will be adamant that it is about much more than a bloody cookie. There were many reasons why Dr Duckett had overextended his time here and why he needed to leave.

But none of those really account for why Duckett was fired and what the role of AHS is. Duckett was fired because healthcare became a political minefield for the Conservatives and they needed to be seen to be doing something. AHS was designed to be the fallguy when this point came.

Prior to AHS, the government figured it couldn't achieve meaningful reform in healthcare because it couldn't compel those pesky regional authorities to get on board with the changes it envisioned. Look at the problems caused when the Calgary or Palliser Health Authorities stood up on their hind legs. With a single health authority the government could exert enough influence to affect the changes it needed while maintaining the appearance of arms-length and having the scapegoat in place in case anything should go wrong.

There is no doubt in the tone and commentary provided by AHS Chair Ken Hughes yesterday that the decision to oust Duckett was made by government. Hughes stated explicity that the board was beholden to the Minister of Health and that the Minister made his wishes clear - that Duckett would take the fall.

A number of board members have now resigned from the AHS board. Their resignations are clear signals that the board is not independent from the minister and that these board members resent the lack of authority the board actually has.

We must now turn our attention on to Bill 17 - the Alberta Health Act, because it is calling for greater control and power to rest in the hands of the minister and cabinet and it also introduces another fall guy for the government to use when the need arises.

Don't worry too much about the Sherman amendment... Kill the Bill.

Bill 17: De-democratizing healthcare

2010-11-01T21:55:00.001-06:00

My time lately has been consumed by two grad courses, an active full-time job and home and family commitments. But one emergent and urgent issue has forced me to tend to my oft-neglected blog. (Yes, Minister Zwozdesky, I do consider healthcare to be urgent.)

If I was at all surprised about the contents of Bill 17, the new Alberta Health Act, it was in how accurate my predictions for it were. While it is being positioned by government as sticking up for Albertans through a "health charter", "health advocate" and improved "public input," it is actually much more about removing power from Albertans and placing it at the cabinet table. Let's look at those three concepts and how Bill 17 is positioned to improve the power of cabinet.

Section 2 of the bill calls on the Minister to "establish a Health Charter to guide the actions of regional health authorities, provincial health boards, operators, health providers, professional colleges, Albertans, and any other persons specified in the regulations." Sounds great. Let's develop a document that outlines the rights of patients and responsibilities of the players in the system. While it is called a charter to make us think that it has some sort of higher power status like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (part of our constitution), Bill 17 allows it to be changed by the whim of Cabinet. Section 12(c) allows the Cabinet to make regulations "respecting the establishment and review of the Health Charter." This means that your sacred Health Charter can be changed by an "Order in Council" at a roughly bi-weekly private meeting.

"Relax," you say, "the Health Charter will be enforced by the Health Advocate." But section 6(1) of the act ensures that the Advocate reports to the Minister of Health as opposed to the legislature and section 12(f) allows the Cabinet to "make regulations respecting the powers and duties of the Health Advocate." So, while the position of the Health Advocate may be valuable within itself, he or she will be under the strict control of Cabinet.

This type of act is considered enabling legislation, because it lacks restrictive clauses and enables the Cabinet and Health Minister to govern the system by regulation. Section 12 contains 11 areas for which Cabinet can enact regulations. Section 13 allows the Minister of Health to make regulations "respecting the designation of other persons as health providers" and "respecting the roles and responsibilities of (regional health authorities, provincial health boards and professional colleges)." Previously, making changes to the roles and responsibilities of regional health authorities, provincial health boards and professional colleges would mean changing legislation and having those changes approved by the democratically elected legislative assembly. With Bill 17, those changes can be made at the whim of the Minister of Health (no need to worry any longer about the pesky College of Physicians and Surgeons).

Perhaps we need not worry, perhaps we should trust the discretion of Cabinet and the Minister of Health (you do know that Ron Liepert could be reappointed as Health Minister, right?). After all, Bill 17 assures us that regulations can only be made if "the Minister has published a notice of the proposed regulation on the public website" and a "time period during which members of the public and stakeholders may submit comments, has expired" and that time period "must not end until at least 30 days after the Minister gives notice." BUT, Bill 17 also says the Minister has to pass on to Cabinet the changes which he or she considers appropriate. It also says that Cabinet may or may not make changes to the regulation, whether or not such changes are referred to in the Minister's report. Furthermore, the time period for submission of comments can be changed if in the Minister's opinion, "the urgency of the situation requires it, the proposed regulation clarifies the intent, or the proposed regulation is of a minor or technical nature." Oh and by the way, "no regulation made (by Cabinet or the Minister) is invalid as a result of non-compliance" with the Public Input section of the Act.

In the off chance that this argument is too wordy or technical, what all of this means is that the Minister has to seek Public Input, unless he doesn't want to, and Cabinet has to change regulations after listening to the Public Input, unless they don't want to.

The big intent behind Bill 17 is to remove governance of our health care system from the control of our democratically elected legislative assembly and place it neatly under the thumb of Cabinet - and done all in the name of seeking Public Input and protecting patients.

No Thanks!

Call your MLA today and demand they return democracy to our healthcare system.

Meet an Alberta Progressive: Sherry McKibben

2010-07-20T10:03:00.001-06:00

One of the primary objectives of this series of podcasts, Meet an Alberta Progressive, is to demonstrate that progressives are a diverse group of people with diverse backgrounds, but to help us all to think about where our commonalities might lie.

Speakers are asked to provide a brief biography, some statements on why they love Alberta, what it means to be a progressive, the hopes they have for Alberta and what quality of life looks like.

Today, I bring you Sherry McKibben. Sherry is a social worker by profession and has been active in the social services and non-profit sector for many years. She has been the Executive Director for three Edmonton area non-profits including HIV Edmonton and the Boyle McCauley Health Centre. She has also served as city councillor in Edmonton Ward 3 and as President for the Alberta New Democrats.

Please, meet Sherry McKibben.

- music in the podcast is CC licensed by _ghost.
- photo courtesy facebook.com

Your Alberta Health Act: Opening Doors for Private Healthcare.

2010-07-13T23:28:00.000-06:00

"We'd be a lot better off if we had funding follow the patient"

The comment hung in the air, a pinata, colorful, attention seeking, begging for a reaction.

I figured I would have to swing at it, or at least give it a poke.

I tapped the edge, "Hmmm, really? What makes you say that?"

"Competition. If you make the clinics compete for funding, then they will have to find efficiencies," replied my tablemate as I chewed on my cookie waiting for MLA Fred Horne to get the evening started.

About 80 Edmonton and area citizens came to the public consultation on the Alberta Health Act on this warm June evening. I came because I wanted to help ensure that high quality accessible health care is available for all Albertans when they need it. After having a brief discussion with my tablemate, I was glad that I came to balance his perspective.

I value medicare: free, accessible, effective, outstanding, public medicare.

Unfortunately, medicare in Alberta is once again at risk. The Conservatives are introducing a bill in the fall sitting of the legislature which will create a brand new Alberta Health Act and while they say it is needed to "facilitate current and future health system initiatives," they are being quite guarded about what those initiatives might be.

The purpose of the legislation emerged as the evening progressed, evident by the types of questions that were being asked and the answers that were already filled in. Progressive Conservatives in Alberta have tried numerous times over the years to bring in private delivery of health care. Their challenge has always been in bringing in the enabling legislation. Its not like you can just open up the hospital doors and lay out a welcome mat for private investors. The legislative framework must be in place and policies for monitoring the operators must be enacted. Much like the doomed Bill 11, this upcoming piece of legislation will attempt to enable private delivery of healthcare and place fences around the process.

There were a few things from the consultation process that make me think that the new Health Act will be used to introduce private for-profit health care.

One of the topics of discussion was on the principles that should be included in the legislation. The report of the Minister's Advisory Committee on Health assures us that the principles of the Canada Health Act will be incorporated into the new Alberta Health Act, including the addition of some made in Alberta principles. However, while the Canada Health Act incorporates explicitly the principle of "public administration," our discussion paper says the Alberta Health Act will integrate, "what these principles have come to mean to Canadians - a publicly funded health system that is accessible to all regardless of ability to pay." These weasel words clearly leave out public administration, suggesting that it is not a principle that matters to Canadians and that the new legislation will enable private for-profit providers.

Another topic of discussion was around the concept of a patient charter. A patient charter outlines the rights and responsibilities of patients. The discussion paper calls for a "full and transparent discussion around what it can be used for, including issues of accountability and liability." There are a number of pitfalls here, the most significant of which is the possibility that patients could be denied service if they don't live up to their responsibilities, including "making healthy choices" (ask Americans what they think about 'pre-existing conditions'). However, that is not the thesis of my argument. My argument is that this concept of a patients charter is being used to enable private health care delivery. The reason we would need a charter is so that the government can regulate the activity of service providers. Interestingly, concepts such as "being ensured of privacy of information" and "having timely and reasonable access to information" are already protected within public institutions through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This charter is not about placing regulations on public institutions like Alberta Health Services it is about regulating private service providers.

A third discussion had to do with "ensuring ongoing citizen engagement in the development of legislation, regulation and policy." I summed this up as governance and argued that the government has already completely failed on this matter. The most effective forms of governance are distributed to local communities, because decision makers in individual communities are more closely aware of the circumstances and contexts of the community, thus they are in the best position to make informed decisions. I argued that the PCs missed on governance with two epic fails: removing democratically elected health boards and amalgamating heath regions into AHS. This discussion was really about testing the waters in Alberta about private governance. The PCs need answers to the question, "what decisions can be made without public consultation and public accountability and what types of public input is minimally necessary for those decisions that need it."

The final question was blatant: "What changes are you open to? What assurances are important?" Here the government was looking for data on the specific issues of private delivery - what can we get away with politically? I have to respect Horne and the PCs for finally realizing that they cannot afford to get health care reform wrong again. Albertans care too deeply and a misstep here may spell the end of their reign. With this consultation process the PCs are attempting to get a very specific reading on Albertans' appetites for changes.

Shockingly, before we broke up into our discussion groups my table mate from the start of the evening revealed something very telling about his views on medicare. He essentially asked, why shouldn't someone who can afford better treatment get it - after all that's how the rest of our world works.

For people like me, who want to defend public medicare - we need to mobilize and get the message out. Otherwise, the government will end up believing that the true sentiment of Albertans is that of my tablemate's and the concept of universal public healthcare will be in jeopardy.

You can still have your say by visiting http://yourhealthact.alberta.ca.

For a further glimpse into why private delivery will not benefit us, see this post.

Meet an Alberta Progressive: Chima Nkemdirim

2010-07-08T20:52:00.067-06:00

The Alberta Liberal party placed an advertisement Wednesday inviting other progressive parties to talk about opportunities for cooperation. I spent a great amount of time campaigning in 2004 in Edmonton Glenora when a high profile NDP candidate and a high profile Liberal candidate took on a Progressive Conservative incumbent. One of the most overwhelming messages I heard on the doorsteps was a desire for the two progressive parties to get their acts together and to focus on the bigger struggle of doing what's right for the province.

Ultimately there is a great deal of unrest with how politics is being done in Alberta and people are looking for alternatives. Many people are supporting the Wildrose Alliance Party for that reason alone (regardless of their ideological bend or policies). Others, like me, are a little more lost. I feel that party politics is part of the problem and I hope we can move past partisinship. That's what I like about the Liberal ad and what I disliked about the NDP response.

The left wing has a branding problem in Alberta. So many Albertans have adopted "conservative" as part of their identity, regardless of politics and can not bring themselves to support the Liberals or the NDP purely because of their names. Dave Cournoyer has shown that both parties have become stagnant.

Progressives need to transcend labels and partisanship and begin talking about issues and hopes and dreams for the province.

At the last Reboot Alberta conference I started talking to people about who they were, why they were there, what it meant to be a progressive, why they loved Alberta and what their hopes were for making the province a better place. I recorded those conversations with the hopes of providing my blog followers with a look at who these people are. This summer I plan to share those profiles with you. With the Liberals starting the discussion, I think its a good time to start releasing these conversations.

Today I want to introduce you to Chima Nkendirim.

Chima is a Calgary lawyer and spokesperson for the recently revived Alberta Party. In today's podcast he discusses his inner geek, what it means to be a progressive and what hopes he holds for Alberta.

Enjoy.

Photo courtesy of Facebook.

Katz and Copps: Why Edmonton should be concerned.

2010-06-29T22:41:00.007-06:00

Darryl Katz looking to take over the lease on Copps Coliseum says something incredibly important about his plans for Edmonton's Arena District, but not in the way that most are speculating. A fair amount of speculation on the matter relates to how the Katz group may be using this as a veiled threat to help secure support for the Oilers new arena.

I'm a little less skeptical.

I'm more of the mindset that Daryl Katz is an incredibly smart businessman and he legitimately sees value in operating sports and entertainment venues. The Katz Group, in connection with the Edmonton Oilers organization, has been incredibly successful at building both the Oilers and Rexall brands. Rexall Place is well regarded as one of the most successful concert venues in North America. There is no doubt that they would do well to expand such a successful entertainment operation (and Rexall pharmacies brand no doubt) into a new market.

So what should these mean to Edmontonians and the quest for the Edmonton Arena District?

It means that operating an arena is a valuable business venture and a smart financial investment. Katz is moving to purchase Copps and other venues in Hamilton because he believes he can make money there.

I tend to agree. Entertainment is a solid market and running a sports entertainment complex is a viable business. It is a good investment that will pay off for the investor.

Which is precisely why I am opposed to using public funds for the project.

Public money is collected for a reason, to provide programs and services for the collective good of society and to meet public needs. It is not a pot to help private investments become more profitable. Katz will do very well to create a Canadian corporation similar to AEG and he will make a lot of money off of it - he doesn't need our help doing it.

I am all in favour of the Edmonton Arena District, its ability to improve downtown and the positive impact it will have on the city. But let's get it done without public investment.

Fraser Institute is Flat Wrong

2010-06-11T17:34:00.009-06:00

Earlier this year, I wrote about the Manning Centre for Democracy’s conference on Alberta’s future. What I didn’t discuss in that post was how I spent an hour in the afternoon in the foyer outside the conference room talking about education with Fraser Institute economist Peter Cowley. Cowley is the author of the Fraser report cards on education and is trotted about as their educational expert, although he has no credentials in the field. The useless and over-normalised ranking of Alberta's high schools appeared in the Calgary Herald last weekend. Along with an exceptionally well-written and referenced (especially given the rotten assignment) article from Sarah McGinnis, the feature included a fallacious and ignorant editorial from Cowley.
Most of the fallacies in his argument can be accounted by the fact that he is an economist from BC and not an educator in Alberta. What is most reprehensible is that I pointed out these fallacies to him in January and he chose to ignore them and propogate the myths.

Fallacy Number One: "there is no provision for the routine expansion of successful operations." For 10 years, educational partners in Alberta have been engaged in a process specifically designed to expand successful operations called the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement. It is a highly successful model that is based on collaboration between a number of stakeholder organisations, including the ATA. It is the exact opposite of competition and it is having profound impacts on learning in Alberta that would not be possible under Fraser's preferred models for education.

Fallacy Two: "professional autonomy in the classroom inhibits the adoption of more effective teaching practice." Once again, this is completely opposite from the truth. As a teacher I had many strategies for delivering curriculum. Some of them were safe, tried and true. Others were innovative, off-the-wall and risky. Some of the practices I tried worked and others did not, but it was because of professional autonomy that I felt I could try them out, evaluate their effectiveness and adjust my practice accordingly. Without autonomy, I would have continued to deliver the safe, tried and true methods day-in and day-out.

Fallacy Three: "professional autonomy limits the principal's role as head teacher and mentor, making classroom level improvements more difficult to establish." Autonomy means that I, as an educated professional, can choose which practices I will use in my classroom. If my principal wants me to use a different strategy he would need to make the case for it. He needs to convince me of its merits and we would have to engage in academic discourse over its pedagogical value. As a result of this collegial environment, we have better educational outcomes for students. The alternative is that the principal comes in and dictates practice without discussion and without debate over what is best for the individual students in the individual classrooms (this is mentorship?).

Fallacy Number Four: "limitations on hours of work make it difficult for individual schools to extend the school timetable." Interestingly, in Alberta, the school jurisdictions with the most flexible timetables are the same jurisdictions that have hours of work clauses in their collective agreements. These agreements simply mean that the boards must achieve such changes in consultation with teachers. In many cases, the flexibility that allows for these innovations is because of these clauses. By spelling out the number of hours of assignable and instructional time for a teacher, it becomes easier to allocate those hours outside of the traditional teaching day.

Fallacy Number Five: there is "no evidence that any BC teacher had ever lost his right to teach due to incompetence." I don't have expertise in the BC education system and so will not comment on that aspect, but this is not the case in Alberta. Until last year teacher competency was enforced by the Council on Alberta Teaching Standards, who have removed certificates from teachers deemed to be not competent. Alberta's teachers are committed to upholding the honour and integrity of the profession, they have enforced professional conduct for decades and last year took over the role of policing competency as well.

Simply put, Cowley is an economist from British Columbia who has made no significant efforts to truly understand the education system in Alberta. He is advocating a tired mantra of privatisation and using falsehoods and data manipulation to advance his cause. I'm less dissapointed in him than I am in the Calgary Herald for publishing the tripe.

Inspiring Education report comes with risks

2010-06-03T09:09:00.002-06:00

Inspiring Education came out with its long anticipated report yesterday and the initial response is quite positive. The primary vision is reflected in the three-Es for an educated Albertan: Engaged Thinker, Ethical Citizen and Entrepreneurial Spirit. But a number of themes quickly emerge as being dominant in the report:

a shift in student outcomes from content to competencies;
a shift in the role of teachers from knowledge authority to architect of learning;
changes to the roles, responsibilities and makeup of governance teams;
moves away from testing students as a form of accountability;
education that is focussed on the needs of individual learners.

Taken at face value for the relatively vague statements they are, these are all great moves for our education system and will be beneficial for our students.

Generally speaking it is a great report and it is, more than anything else, inspirational. But there are a lot of pitfalls hidden between the lines of the 52 page document.

The first and by far biggest issue for Education Minister Dave Hancock will be managing the expectations of the over 4000 voices who participated in the process and the many stakeholders in the education system. There are a lot of generalisations and ambiguities contained within the report, most of which are positive and easy for people to rally around. This of course means that anyone can take their individual vision, bias or agenda and tuck it into this safe little wrapper called Inspiring Education. Consequently, there will be a lot of people ticked off because their vision – which they believe was included in Inspiring Education – is not being realised.

The second big issue for Hancock is essentially part of the first issue and that is funding. The document contains some pretty big ideas and monumental shifts in direction for the large ship that is Alberta’s Education system. Like changing the course of any big ship, achieving these changes is going to take a whole lot of fuel and a whole lot of time. Government cannot continue to underfund education while purporting to follow a vision for an innovative, responsive, learner-centred public education system. This is simply something that the citizens of Alberta must hold the government to account on. It is an ambitious vision, but education is worth every penny that we invest on it and the government needs to be willing to spend that money regardless of the price of oil.

There are a lot of issues encapsulated in this idea of a learner centred education system, even though there is little doubt that it is the ideal system. The reason we have a factory model of education currently in place is because it’s cheap. When teachers talk about the need to reduce class size, it is because they know they can do much more for each child if they only had more time to spend with each individual. If the entire system is going to be based on individualised instruction and individual needs we are going to need a whole lot more teachers. An associated risk is the notion that technology will be some silver bullet that can be used to fix everything. Teachers will tell you that technology takes time – there is time associated with learning the technology, there is time associated with assessing its validity and usefulness and there is time associated with implementing it. And yet, technology will not be able to replicate the role of teachers as architects of learning. Teachers will still need to spend time with students, assessing their needs, determining outcomes and strategies for learning and assessing that learning. Similarly, teachers will still need to spend time away from students focussing on planning, marking and professional development. Added time means the need for more teachers and that will cost money.

The final big risk is related to this idea of governance. I wholeheartedly agree that the governance model needs to be strongly reconsidered. Community is the reason for public education and the community needs to play a larger role in the governance of their schools. My sense is, this needs to happen at the local level as close to the classrooms as possible. The recent angst in Edmonton over school closures is a prime illustration of why we need to change the system of governance. One of the biggest reasons that Edmonton ended up in this situation is because of a disconnect between the decisions made (albeit decades ago) in urban planning by city hall and the ones made in school placement by education governors. In Finland, the schools are governed by the town councils – I’m not suggesting that is the model that should be used here, but it has a number of advantages that should be taken into consideration. The risk here is that people already perceive this to be an attack on school boards and on local elections. That should not be a concern. What needs to be created is a new model where schools are given more autonomy to make decisions, based on the needs of the students in the school, in consultation with the local community – and the governance model should facilitate that.

I want to end by reiterating my statements at the beginning of this post. Inspiring Education is a good document evolving from some very valuable and authentic work. There are risks that need to be managed, but that is not necessarily a criticism of the report or the process. To borrow some language from the Minister, we are all looking forward to some transformational change that is focussed on the best interests of students. In the end a strong effective public education system is the best investment we can make for the province of Alberta.

Manning Centre misses opportunity

2010-02-08T22:42:00.005-07:00

In his book Don't Think of an Elephant, George Lakoff provides a metaphor for conservatives as the strict father figure, where as liberals are the nurturant parent. Upon first reading I have to admit I didn't completely buy the metaphors as a way to collectively describe the baskets of conservative and liberal viewpoints.

While I am loath to pigeonhole myself and others using simplistic labels, I am definitely more likely to be described as a liberal than a conservative. So when I found myself at this past weekend's Conference on Alberta's Future, hosted by the Manning Centre for Democracy, I was excited to get a sense of what the vision for our future looked like through the eyes of conservatives.

It really was a shame then that I left without hearing the big picture vision.

Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate the opportunity that I was given to be there and I applaud Preston Manning and the centre for putting the event on. No matter what your political stripe is, it's important to encourage civic engagement and discussions on big picture ideas. I just felt like the vision, a sense of what the ideal Alberta looks like, wasn't delivered. In fact the session titled "Vision for the Future of Alberta" ended up being an election style debate between PC MLA Kyle Fawcett and WAP leader Danielle Smith over who can do a better job pandering to oil and gas interests. Interestingly the first speaker to mention "Quality of Life" was former Liberal MLA Mike Percy, well into the second day.

What I learned most from the weekend, I learned by comparing this event to my experiences at the Reboot event I attended in Red Deer in November. What I learned is that Lakoff's view of conservative ideology as the strict father figure holds some truth.

That conclusion comes not necessarily from what was said, rather it comes from how the event was conducted.

In the leadup to the Reboot conference, delegates were asked about what topics they wanted to discuss at the event. At breakfast on the first full day we were given dot stickers with which we could vote on the suggested topics to determine what would be discussed. From that point on people picked the tables they wanted to be at and discussion ensued.

The day before the Alberta's future conference, I was emailed an agenda filled with predetermined subjects and preselected speakers. I applaud the organizers for bringing in challenging speakers like Percy and Pembina Institute's Marlo Raynolds, but in the end very little time was given to hearing from delegates. After 30 minutes per topic focussed on the speaker, there was a mere 20 minutes provided for discussion and it was based on whether you agreed or disagreed with the speaker. In essence, the entire topic was dominated by the agenda set forward by the speakers.

By the way, I would use the word "experts" instead of speakers, but the men who presented on Health and Education in Alberta are economists (one of whom is from BC). Hardly experts in the field.

The intent of the event was not to bring concerned citizens together and provide them with an opportunity to share their vision for what might be possible in Alberta in 25 years. From what I could tell, the intent was to bring people in one room to get them on-message as far as what the Conservative playbook should look like over the next few years (oh yeah, and so Manning could unofficially, yet overtly, place his support in the WAP camp). I heard a lot about the need for greater privatization, freer markets, smaller government, decreased spending and robust growth in the oil and gas sector, but to what end? What is the Alberta that we will create by implementing these ideologies?

In what can only be summed up with "Whaaaaa?" the day concluded with a presentation of the summaries of the table discussions, where the group voted on them. I would love to tell you what we were voting on, but I hadn't a bloody clue. Somehow without knowing what was being discussed at any other table but mine, I was supposed to endorse these documents as accurate representations of the discussion... and at the same time endorse them to be "taken forward to Albertans," whatever the eff that means. These votes garnered a weaker turnout than the last provincial election!

I decided to abstain from the votes, not that it mattered since father knows best anyway.

In the end I think these tweets summed up the strict father feeling best:

@ChrisLaBossiere - I can't help but feel I wasn't being asked for my opinion or ideas as much as being polled or herded through someone elses. #projectab
@djkelly: ORDER! ORDER! (The most overheard phrase at #projectab)

I guess my ultimate conclusion is this - as we think about how we need to reengage people and reinvent our democracy, will the strict fatherhood model really provide us with the change we are hoping for?

If you are interested in other progressive takes on this conference read:

For some more conservative views on the event try:

Cute.

2010-02-07T10:29:00.004-07:00

Further to my post on private health care...

Time to put private health delivery to bed.

2010-01-26T19:38:00.010-07:00

There seems to be one demon that lingers that Albertans have to fight off time and time again. At least this time it appears that our premier is actually standing up to the demon, instead of opening the door like our last premier did - and now the opposition is on board too. Somehow, whenever the issue of "wait times" arises, we must again exorcise the neo-con ideologies of competition and privatization in health care.

Albertans have been abundantly clear that they don't want private insurance and they don't want two tier healthcare, but this spectre of fee-for-services and private operators in the public system won't go away.

The general principle is this. The government sets a rate that they will pay for a given procedure, the customer (who cease to be patients in this model) chooses where they will get the procedure done and the single payer (government) pays for the service. The typical neo-con reasoning behind this concept is that the service providers will compete for the funding that patients bring and will strive for efficiencies in the system - bringing down costs and boosting innovation.

The flaw however is the exact thing that is supposed to make the system work - profit motive.

Let's start this discussion with a little formula: Profit = Revenue - Expenses. In order for private interests to want to be a part of the system (and don't kid yourself - they really, REALLY do) there has to be a profit available to them. And if the goal of reform is to bring down costs, then that profit has to be made within the current funds available. There are two ways that that profit can be realised while maintaining the cost of the system - increase revenue or decrease expenses. I will discuss the drawbacks of both of these situations independently.

Let's consider some ways that private health maintenance organizations (HMOs) can increase their shares of revenue within the system.

First, they can see more people in a shorter amount of time. The theory works well... in the delivery of cheeseburgers. McDonald's does great business by getting people in and out quickly, but is that how you want your healthcare delivered? Do you really want to be put in to the loving care of a company whose primary interest is making profit, desperately trying to get you in, diagnosed and treated as quickly as possible? The fast food model simply doesn't compute for health care. It is likely to result in missed diagnoses or haphazard care.

Alternately, GloboHealthCorp could increase their revenue stream by competing for your return business. Sure, they may strive for top-quality service and positive customer experiences, but the best way for them to ensure you come back to see them is to keep you sick. After all, planned obsolescence worked well to drive up profits for the big four car companies. This strategy would stand in direct opposition to real strategies that control costs, like preventative care.

Finally, revenue could be generated by making unnecessary referrals and ordering useless diagnostics. Imagine, a Quickicare(TM) general practitioner sends you to see a Quickicare(TM) specialist who orders you a Quickicare(TM) MRI, which determines that your hangnail is just untreatable and the technician asks you to go back to your GP next week for further tests.

But what about using the profit motive and competitive market forces to drive down costs?

Since the single largest expense in any service based industry will be related to people, the best way to minimize costs is to cut staffing. This can be done by cutting staffing levels or staff compensation. Once again these types of solutions simply do not fit when applied to healthcare. Decreased levels of staff will result in overworked doctors and nurses delivering lower quality care or increased wait times. And decreasing staff compensation will drive away the best employees and decrease quality of service. This would be akin to the dollar-store model of healthcare, selling cheap quality products at the cheapest possible price.

Of course, lowering costs not related to employees could mean lowering building, maintenance, technology or drug costs - but the effects would be the same with minimal gains. Finally, efficiencies could be found by minimizing administrative costs, but I would suggest that those types of savings can similarly be made in the public system through responsible reform.

Ultimately, it comes down to this. When you are at your sickest and needing help, do you want the agency providing your health care to be motivated by your health or motivated by their profit?

Hearing David Suzuki

2009-12-23T15:01:00.007-07:00

I had the opportunity through work to attend the 2009 Canadian Public Relations Society Conference in Vancouver this past June. The second afternoon luncheon was delivered by David Suzuki. I was so inspired and impressed by his talk. Now, that I have finally gotten around to writing my report on that conference and the Suzuki talk, I would like to offer it here for your reading pleasure.

The Challenge of the 21st Century: Setting the Bottom line – David Suzuki

I have never had an opportunity to hear David Suzuki speak and it was by far the highlight of this conference. He was very well received, in particular given the corporate community that was gathered for the event and how his message often conflicted with corporate interests. My notes became sparser as the talk went on and I became more enthralled in the presentation, I apologise in advance for gaps.

Suzuki opened by stating that the environment and health care are the same issue, so if health care is ranked as the number one issue with Canadians, then the environment must be part of that discussion. He expanded to point out that if we are going to talk about climate change then we will have to talk about energy. All of these issues are interconnected and all of them have economic implications. There is little doubt that the future economy will be in green jobs.

Suzuki shared warning signs about how our environment is being affected by human activity. He shared about how his father and he would row out along the edges of English Bay and fish, and how that is impossible today due to overfishing. In fact, we’re fishing our way down the food chain: sardines and anchovies are the next big culinary delicacy because 90% of the big fish are gone. He talked about floating islands of debris, 150 feet thick, as large as Texas, existing in the middle of the oceans and how carbon dioxide is settling over the ocean, getting absorbed and converted into carbonic acid. He said every human has over 5 pounds of plastic absorbed within us.

Humans were once a local tribal people and we now have to ask ourselves what the collective impact of 6.7 billion of us is. Humans are now the most numerous mammal on the planet and carrying out the simple act of living comes with a massive ecological footprint. But, we don’t just carry on with simple living – technology amplifies the problem. Over 90% of teenage girls rate shopping as their number one leisure activity. We have an economy now that is so far beyond our necessities in life; that has shifted from providing our basic needs to servicing our extravagant wants. We buy all of our goods without any notion of where it comes from.

He then described how all human DNA can be traced back to Africa and he asked the audience to think about the first generation of naked hairless apes - who would have thought that they would become the dominant animal the whole world over. He argued that the only reason humans have become so dominant over the next 150,000 years is because of our superior intellect. Humans are curious and inventive. It is with that inventiveness that we have created this environmental problem, but it is also how we will solve it. We can affect the future by our behaviours of today; we can avoid the dangers and exploit the opportunities.

He criticized climate change deniers, saying that in this age of information explosion, you can find information to verify any misguided belief. Of note for educators, he argued that we need to have a greater degree of literacy to help them manage the information they receive.

In 1900, there were only 14 cities in the world with over a million people. In 1936, the world population was $1.4 billion and most people were farmers, who have an intimate understanding of the direct impacts of nature and climate. Now, there are 6.7 billion people and 400 cities that have a population of over a million. We don’t have a strong understanding of where our food comes from and where our garbage goes; as long as we have a strong economy, we don’t have to worry about it because it happens.

He noted that economy and ecology have the same root word (ecos, which means home) and we need to put the eco back into economics. He said the economic system is so fundamentally flawed that it can’t be fixed and that the last thing we should be doing is trying to get it up and running again the way it was.

Suzuki concluded by talking about how the economy can be structured to benefit the envioronment. He pointed out that Sweden has had a carbon tax since the early 1990s and while BCs tax is $10 per Tonne, Sweden’s is $100 per Tonne and its economy has actually grown by 44% in that time. He said we have to look at our natural resources differently. As long as forests are standing they are providing all sorts of functions from providing shelter for animals that we eat, to aiding the water cycle and converting carbon dioxide into oxygen. Yet, a logger once pointed out to him, “what you environmentalists have to understand is that unless you’re willing to pay to keep those trees, then you can’t save them – they’re not worth anything until they are cut down.” After hearing that, Suzuki realized that the logger was right and he reiterated his thesis that environment and economy are the same issue and we will need an economic solution to solve the environmental problem.

What it means to be a progressive.

2009-12-23T00:08:00.015-07:00

Happy New Year everyone. Welcome to 2010. Is it everything you thought it would look like?

I remember the new year of 1990 very well. I was 10 and it was the first time in my memory that we were celebrating the start of a decade. I remember vividly thinking about the future - the nineties - and what they would hold. I think that was the first time I really thought about the year 2000.

As a ten year old dreaming about ten years into the future, your imagination runs wild with possibilities. Sure there are no flying cars, but I do remember imagining boxes that sat on your hip that could do anything you needed it to. It was a phone, a calculator, a watch and a walkman; whatever you wanted it to do, it could do it. I think it was even a candy dispenser and a grappling hook. I'm so glad those geniuses at Apple keep thinking about the future and all its possibilities. (I can't wait for the grappling hook app to come out!)

Nonetheless, there is a point to me telling you about how I was a nerdy kid with a vivid imagination, because I want to talk about what it means to be a progressive and the most important thing about being a progressive is dreaming about the future and imagining all of the possibilities it brings. I also think that being a progressive means understanding that we are all in this world together and thinking about others.

Planning for the future.

A progressive takes the long range view on issues, assessing what the needs of society will be in 5, 10, 20 or 100 years. We look at the world that exists today and compare that to the world that we want our kids to grow up in. We understand cause-and-effect relationships and consider the consequences of our decisions.

In the context of Alberta today, progressives think seriously about the long range implications of energy management. We have a clear understanding that burning fossil fuels negatively affects our environment and we, as living creatures, depend on our environment to sustain life. We also understand that we are lucky to be sitting atop the amount of oil that we do and that that oil will be in greater and greater demand as global supply decreases. In other words, the oil under us will be worth more in the future than it is now and therefore we shouldn't be in such a rush to get it out of the ground and sell it off at the lowest price.

Planning for the future also means making smart investments that you know you will need down the road. First off, that means investing in education. The best thing we can do for ourselves and our children is to ensure that those children are as smart as they possibly can be. The world is changing rapidly and the rate of change is increasing. The issues of tomorrow will be solved by the children of today. But smart investments also includes public transportation and sound urban planning. Through migration and reproduction, Alberta's population is exploding and most of those people will live in our cities. We need to plan today for Calgary and Edmontons of 2 - 5 million people. But we can't keep expanding out because we need to maintain and invest in agriculture - that many people need lots of food. We need to look at major centres around the world to see how they have managed large populations and large population densities.

We are all in this together.

The politics of us and them is over. The world is a finite space and we are approaching 7 Billion people. The population density of Canada is 3 people per square kilometer, but the global population density is 45 people per square kilometer. We have one world that we increasingly realize is a place that we have to share. We can no longer afford to think about our friends and enemies, because we need to think about all of us.

The advent of the internet and cell phone have allowed us to understand how close we are to one another as human beings. Last year, millions of North Americans had the ability to join an uprising on the streets of Tehran via Twitter. A conflict half way around the world was humanized through the death of Neda Agha-Soltan, recorded on a cell phone and delivered to our desktops. Real people connected in real time.

Progressives understand this deep inter-connectivity of humans, whether its within our communities, cities, province, country, region or world. Facebook allows us to share our lives with hundreds of our friends and acquaintances all the time and it allows us to rally around causes and issues with the click of a mouse. There are multiple layers of community that exist and regardless of our differences, we have to live together and look out for one another.

Understanding that we are all in this together means replacing politics (which is about power) with processes for collaboration (which is about problem solving). Progressives are looking to step past the Cold War rhetoric of us versus them, east versus west or capitalists versus socialists and are looking to talk about how to establish meaningful systems to solve the problems that impact our lives.

Thinking about others.

If you have a sense that everyone is in this game of life together, you start to think about how you are the same as others and how you are different. Progressives think about the plights of others and think about those that have a different path or perspective on life. We understand that there are two types of issues: issues for individuals and issues for the collective.

Issues for individuals are those matters of personal choice for which your choices have little to no impact on others. While it is difficult to explore this area in its entirety, I am referring to issues related to religion, sexuality, morality, censorship and personal freedoms. To speak very generally, progressives feel that individuals should be free to do what they wish, so long as they are not bringing harm or risk to others. In short, issues for the individual should be settled privately and should not be part of public discourse.

I think its important at this point to talk about the progressive value of diversity and how it relates to citizenship. At some point, given the size of the global population and the variations in population density, we must understand that Canada will be a destination for many for a very long time. Progressives understand this and value the diversity and varied perspectives that immigrants (and other minorities) bring. We go past the ideas of tolerance, acceptance and melting pots to the values of respect, understanding and multiculturalism.

Issues for the collective refer to those issues where public value or public impacts exist. On these public issues, debate needs to occur in order to come to settlement on the issue. As I said, today's progressives understand and appreciate differences and individuality and therefore recognize the value of open, honest and respectful debate. Settling issues is not about power, it is about searching for the common good and determining solutions to help get us there. It also means that those people who are "in-power" have an obligation to use it wisely, to consult and to respect the perspectives of the minority opinion.

Finally, progressives understand that matters for the public interest which have costs associated with them, need to have those costs adequately funded. We do not begrudge paying reasonable taxes because we recognize that they fund important programs that benefit all of us like, roads, schools, hospitals and policing. I believe as well (although I am loath to attach this belief to other progressives) that these obligations should be borne to a greater extent by those of greater wealth. I believe this simply because they are in a better position to afford the expense and they will benefit through the economic well-being of others.

It is not easy to try and describe what it means to be the person you are. In many ways this felt like writing the executive summary to my manifesto. Ultimately, many of the ideas I expressed in this post have not been fleshed out, but hopefully I can do that over time on this space.

Thanks for reading.

New party or no party?

2009-11-30T19:30:00.003-07:00

I want to take another opportunity to thank everyone for Reboot Alberta. I originally had the names of those four wonderful pioneers and the two hard working associates written here, but I don't want to assume that they have come out completely.

At two points this weekend, I had to make a difficult choice about two conversations of which I could take part. In a nutshell, one conversation had to do with creating a new party for progressives in Alberta and the other one had to do with creating a broad movement for progressive change. Both times, I chose to join the movement conversation and now I want to use this post to sum up my thoughts on that issue.

First off, I want to be clear. I have great respect for everyone who decided to sit in on the new party group and in particular, for all of the people that are working so hard to develop the Renew Alberta concept. I hope that those people will take this critique in the spirit of which it is intended, which is an examination of the pitfalls that can lie ahead for that group. Secondly, I want them to know that I am very interested in the concept and will likely find myself at home in that party.

The main reason we need a new party in Alberta is because we have a strong and complex system in place that needs changing - and the traditional legitimate way to achieve that change is by supporting a party that can achieve it. Furthermore, between here and fundamental change there will be elections and I will need a place to park my vote and direct my efforts.

Thus, my conundrum. As I tweeted incessantly, the party system is part of the problem, but the party is the vehicle with which that change is most likely to occur. Partisan politics has gone awry. The single biggest issue in our parliamentary system is the position of caucus whip. Members cannot engage in meaningful debate about how they truly feel on the floor of the legislature because the caucus will have already voted on each issue. There is no point listening to the points brought forward by the opposition because you are not allowed to change your mind. Legislature debate is an absolute farce and everyone in the system knows it.

I remember the day in social ten when we had a class debate. I remember how everyone studied the issue came in to class with points prepared and chose which side of the room to sit on based on their preconceived stance. I remember how we politely (for the most part) listened as each person presented their points of view. I remember students getting up and moving to the other side of the room because of some passionate points being presented from the opposition.

Maybe I'm still too idealistic, but what is wrong with that? What is wrong with having an open and honest debate about the direction government should head, being humble when we triumph and being proud when we lose.

The problem is the parties are too worried about losing the pockets of power that they have already established and they have party whips to maintain their appearance of strength and solidarity. The floor of the legislature is seen as a vicious battle ground and you better ensure your troops are in line.

The idea of forming a new party is very seductive. Hearing from across the room the birth of what could be the next big party in Alberta was like being one of the Argonauts hearing the sirens on the rocks.

But all too often ambition is inversely proportional to the distance one is from power.

Which makes it very hard for the party to change the system that they just used to obtain power, right Mr Harper?

In the meantime I will be proud to be part of the group that works to keep the party pioneers honest.

PS - Alberta Liberals doomed in an un-party state, in today's Edmonton Journal is a great piece with impeccable timing. Happy Reading!

I'm coming out!

2009-11-29T14:30:00.004-07:00

For many of you, what I am about to say won't come as much of a surprise. For those others, you may want to sit down.

For some time, I feel like I've been leading a double life. I have this secret that I've been hiding from too many people for too long. I kept a very significant part of my life private from many people, because I was worried about the repercussions. I've been worried that some people might not agree with my choices or approve of people like me. In fact, there have been people who have been ridiculed, bullied, fired or even physically hurt for promoting the lifestyle that I want to live.

While I was a teacher I would go into school and be the person that I felt my colleagues, students and the community wanted me to be. Yet, at night I would go home and spend hours on websites interacting with other people like me, and reading about their lifestyle. At social gatherings I would avoid bringing up how I really felt because I didn't know how people would react or whether they would even want to talk to me anymore.

This weekend without telling most of my friends, family and coworkers I left town and went to a hotel with a bunch of other men (and some women, too) just like me and went to a space where we all felt more comfortable being ourselves and talking openly about what we want our lives to be like.

So here it is... I'm a progressive Albertan

Phew, I feel so much better now.

Okay, so maybe it's not that much of a surprise, but I am going to change my life a bit because of what I took away from Reboot Alberta this weekend. I'm not going to worry about talking about politics anymore - in any social circle. I'm going to tell more people about my blog. I'm going to ask you to follow me on Twitter. I'm going to use my facebook profile to advocate for change.

It comes down to this. We deserve to have a better province and we are not going to get it unless we talk about what it should look like. I want to hear what you think about Alberta and what you think about politics. I want you to bring it up with me in conversation. We are going to disagree, but that's okay. I'm not going to think any less of you and I hope you won't think any less of me.

So, thanks for reading and before you go I have three things to ask of you.

1. Visit the Reboot Alberta website.

2. Share this post with others you know - on Twitter, on Facebook, by email.

3. Consider coming out to your friends.

Let's start affecting the change that we want to see.

Progressives gather to Reboot Alberta.

2009-11-28T17:04:00.004-07:00

What do you get when you put 100 progressive thought leaders in a room?

http://www.moviesounds.com/topgun/target.wav

Actually, what you get is a number of absolutely incredible discussions about what Alberta should look like and how we should get there.

I have relished in the opportunity that Twitter has given me to discuss issues of importance to Alberta with a diverse group of people. I am now so happy with the opportunity that Reboot Alberta has given me to meet those people (amongst many others) and have a deeper more interactive discussion.

At Friday night's reception, I kept asking the question, "what hopes or expectations do you have for this event?"

The general answer was "not much" or "a good conversation." Good answers.

The spirit of the event has been about getting together without pretenses or defined outcomes and find out where our commonalities lie. We came into the room as progressives, but we all came with diverse definitions of what that meant.

The morning featured a nice breakfast and an exercise in determining the 15 themes that would make up the discussions for the morning. I found myself in conversations about engaging youth, open and honest government and bridging the urban/rural divide.

The discussions were meaningful, respectful and diverse. In essence what democracy should be about. The focus was on creating the best Alberta that was possible. In my mind, the goal now is to create a governance system that achieves what Reboot has. A system that enables meaningful, respectful and diverse dialogue on making Alberta the best place it could be for all citizens. We have great potential and politics too often get in the way.

The challenge, as the afternoon discussions revealed, is to come up with a vision for the change we wish to pursue and a strategy to obtain it within the contexts of the system that currently exists.

There is much work still to be done.

The four Ps of governance

2009-11-26T19:30:00.011-07:00

I am getting really excited about this weekend and Reboot Alberta. I'm looking forward to a meeting of progressive thought leaders that will focus on the future of this province. Most of all, I'm looking forward to meeting so many of the people that I have come to know online.

In advance on this meeting, I have decided to finally write this post on governance that I have been thinking about for some time.

In order to have effective governance, the stakeholders must have a strong model for collaboration. Effective collaboration relies upon a good understanding where the commonalities and differences lie amongst the stakeholders and an open acknowledgement of those differences.

Governance comes down to a hierarchy of four levels of opinion: Philosophies, Principles, Policies and Practices.

The model is an inverted pyramid because the practices of government need to be based upon the policies set forth by the policy makers, which in-turn are based upon their principles which are based on a set of fundamental philosophies. It is a pyramid because there are a fewer number of philosophies that guide an increasing number of principles and a larger number of policies and practices.

A collaborative decision-making group, whether it is a political party or a school board, must start from a basic set of agreed upon philosophies. These should be broad and general statements for which everyone can easily agree on. If a philosophy is to be stated, then little attention should be paid to the specific wording as it is the idea that is of fundamental importance. A philosophy should describe the general purpose of the group.

Once the group is clear on their collective philosophy, then they need to be open about their individual principles. Principles are those individual beliefs that change little over time that guide one's decision making. In a group, even those with high levels of homogeneity, individuals will have differing principles. An effective collaborative group should have a large number of common principles, yet will still have some differing principles. The ability to collaborate will depend directly on the group's understanding of where their principles differ and a respect for those differences.

The first two levels are preliminary to the decision making process, they relate to the biasses that the group or individuals within the group hold. The next level is the decision making level. Policies are the set of directions that the legislators give to their administrators as to how programs are to be delivered. It is a given that legislators will differ in opinion on individual policies, so it is essential that open, honest and respectful debate occur in the setting of policy. Unfortunately, too often, political trade-offs are used to set policy resulting in inappropriate policy. As a result of the debate there will be, for lack of better words, winners and losers. There must be no problem with this - it is a result of the process and there should be no shame in it.

Finally, there is a subtle but important difference between policy and best practices. The realm of policies should be constrained to those matters for which clear answers do not exist, whereas those matters for which best practices exist should be left to the hired experts. The policy should guide the bureaucracy, but the execution (practice) should be entrusted to those people hired to do it.

With that mind, good luck Rebooters!

In reply to: ETS to YEG?

2009-11-16T21:03:00.001-07:00

Great post Steven.

The transit option is an excellent stop-gap measure. Virtually every airport in the western world has some form of public mass transit available. Your ideas on how to make it work are critical.

In the meantime, we need to talk about this ludicrous arrangement that is forcing every single taxi driving to or from the airport to make the return trip empty. Edmonton needs to get over its protectionism of turf and negotiate a solution with Leduc county. Leduc needs to recognize how much a cash cow the entire airport is for them and offer some compromises.

Furthermore, Alberta needs to get on top of the high speed rail link between Edmonton and Calgary. Our geography is in such a perfect alignment to allow for a trip to get people from Downtown Edmonton to YEG to Red Deer to YYC to Downtown Calgary in around two hours.

All of this would save a ton of trips in small vehicle traffic and air travel. Especially when you consider the high number of government and business trips between these cities every day. And people might argue that the train won't get used, but if it takes less time, costs less and has less hassle you can guarantee the business class will jump aboard!

When we demand stimulus from our government, these are the sorts of actions that should be talked about instead of another tax grab for the oil industry.

Kicking them while they're down.

2009-11-13T13:33:00.004-07:00

Yesterday, I wrote a short post on updated employment figures that show that it is the youth, impoverished and working class families that are most affected by growing unemployment in this recession.

Two stories that I came across recently confirm who is really being affected by the recession. First, a report from the Community Foundations of Canada is
pointing out that the youth unemployment rate has hit a 30-year high. Youth
unemployment rose to a staggering 16.3 per cent over this past summer. Even
those youth who are able to find work are getting far fewer hours.

In the meantime, Statistics Canada data is showing that "Young people,
low-paid workers and families with children have borne the biggest share of job
losses in this downturn, while those aged 55 and over had modest employment
gains." Talk to anyone in their early 20s and they can tell you stories about
themselves, or their peers who are under or unemployed.

I concluded by criticising pending government cutbacks as a kick-em-while-they're-down strategy, because programs like education, post-secondary education, affordable housing and income supports are being threatened with cutbacks.

I'm sure glad that the Alberta government is gearing up for a kick-em-while-they're-down strategy towards our youth, impoverished and families by planning to cut the social institutions that we have set up to help those people in our society who need it most.

Silly me, I wrote about this before our premier came out and delivered the biggest boot to the head of the unemployed, saying "The A and B Crews are working and the C Crew is at home until they change their attitude."

Well, Ed, it is clear who needs the attitude adjustment. You've earned your monicker of Steady Eddie, because we have a youth unemployment pandemic and you have done NOTHING to improve their situation. Which is par for the course on how you manage to handle pandemics.

The premier's flak Tom Olsen tried to clarify by saying that the premier meant to say these people got used to $80,000 a year jobs with no training and now aren't prepared to go out and get an education.

He's got a bit of a point. This government blessed oil companies with low royalties, low taxes and corporate handouts for the past decade allowing the oil industry to boom unchecked. We were desperate for workers - oil companies chased after our youth with promises of big bucks and big trucks. So, you can't really blame them for somehow getting the idea that life was easy. Many kids were poached from high school without a second thought for their longterm wellbeing and sent off to the rigs and the pits. For some, the work-hard, party-hard lifestyle and easy-come, easy-go cash flow resulted into some pretty nasty drug addictions.

Now, you're blaming them for having no job and no education. You have got to be kidding me! You tell them to go back to school, yet you're cutting finding to education, tuition is rising and student loans are becoming smaller and harder to get. Meanwhile, you're cutting oil royalties and corporate taxes to 'stimulate' the economy?!?! It seems to me the only things being stimulated are the oil executives and shareholders.

Ed, you better hope they don't learn how to vote.

Youth and low paid workers suffer the most.

2009-11-12T12:45:00.005-07:00

Two stories that I came across recently confirm who is really being affected by the recession.

First, a report from the Community Foundations of Canada is pointing out that the youth unemployment rate has hit a 30-year high*. Youth unemployment rose to a staggering 16.3 per cent over this past summer. Even those youth who are able to find work are getting far fewer hours.

In the meantime, Statistics Canada data is showing that "Young people, low-paid workers and families with children have borne the biggest share of job losses in this downturn, while those aged 55 and over had modest employment gains." Talk to anyone in their early 20s and they can tell you stories about themselves, or their peers who are under or unemployed.

I'm sure glad that the Alberta government is gearing up for a kick-em-while-their-down strategy towards our youth, impoverished and families by planning to cut the social institutions that we have set up to help those people in our society who need it most.

*fixed from original posting. Thanks hhenshaw.

My Stop the Cuts letter.

2009-10-31T09:47:00.002-06:00

Dear Brian Mason, Minister Hancock and Premier Stelmach:

Albertans have sacrificed and worked hard over the past fifteen years to help eradicate our provincial debt. They did so because they knew that future payments on that debt would pose a risk to the quality of services the Alberta government provided in the future.

Now that Alberta is debt free and has gone through a significant boom, we expect that Alberta will have the highest quality public services in the country. We deserve it.

Reacting to plummeting energy prices by slashing funding will only jeopardize our future prosperity.

Our long term prosperity is dependent on developing creative and critical thinkers who are committed to working together to solve the problems of society. The only way to build that citizenry, is through a world class public education system, where students have the supports and opportunities to develop to their full potential.

Education funding cuts puts that future at risk! Now is the time to make the wise investments, the ones that will pay off for years to come. The future is so uncertain - we need to do everything possible to ensure that Alberta is ready for it.

As a concerned Albertan, I urge you not to cut funding for our schools.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Teghtmeyer
Edmonton

If you care about the future of education in Alberta, and the future of Alberta in general. Take 5 minutes and send your own message at www.stopthecuts.ca

Just for Scott Hennig

2009-10-27T20:26:00.003-06:00

Canadian Taxpayers Federation does a good job looking out for Alberta's elite. The Alberta Director Scott Hennig, told me on Twitter that Alberta has progressive taxation:

scotthennig @atypicalalbertn But we already have progressive taxation, thanks to the Basic Personal Exemption

Let's be honest Scott, it looks pretty flat to me:

Save the economy - get rid of the flat tax

2009-10-27T19:30:00.006-06:00

In my post yesterday, I examined provincial personal income taxes for a variety of income earners. I realise now that I wasn't clear on my main thesis.

The primary point I wanted to make is that flat tax systems extraordinarily benefit high income earners - and do so at the expense of middle class workers.

My analysis showed that an Albertan earning $40,000 pays 40% more in income tax than her counterpart in British Columbia. At the same time, the Albertan making $200,000 pays 18% less than a similar west-coaster.

But let's also keep in mind two important considerations.

Dollar for dollar, that high income earner is saving $4,000 out of his $200,000 while the low income earner is paying an extra $700 out of $40,000. Who do you think notices that difference more?

Secondly, my calculations do not include deductions. How much tax do you think that $40,000 earner is deducting because of RRSPs, political contributions or investment dividends? Now, how much do you think that $200,000 earner is deducting?

But, more importantly let's think about the impact on the economy. Plain and simple, economic activity is generated by spending. The healthiest thing for us, economically speaking, is to have people spend money and to have them spend it locally. By injecting cash into the local economy, local people have jobs - local people with jobs means more people spending money locally.

Cash in the hands of working people gets cycled around the economy and spent over and over and over again - generating economic activity.

Cash in the hands of the wealthy doesn't get spent as much. A greater percentage of their money is saved or invested - removed from the local economy.

It makes much more sense to shift the tax burden from the working class and move it towards the wealthy. First off, they can afford it more and secondly they will benefit indirectly from the economic activity generated by the spending of the working class - whether its because of bonusses, businesses or returns on investments.

It's time that Alberta got rid of the flat tax, for the benefit of all of us.

Debunking the low taxes myth.

2009-10-26T22:54:00.014-06:00

Albertan premiers have for a long time convinced Albertans that Alberta is the tax haven of North America. The last guy we had loved to talk about the Alberta advantage. The new guy wants us to think we have the freedom to achieve and tells us things like, "we have very low tax rates for people working in the province."

Either one of two things are happening for Premier Stelmach: he is trying to mislead us or he has no sense of what "working" people make.

He must not be talking about people who make between 30 and 80 thousand dollars a year. Because they could move to BC or Ontario and pay less in taxes.

This graph shows the amount of provincial personal income tax paid in 2008 by someone making $30,000, $50,000 and $70,000 of taxable income. If you're making $40,000 in Alberta you would pay $2,383.90 or 6% of your income to the province. Meanwhile, in BC you would be paying 4.2% and in Ontario you're paying 5%. (All data is calculated from Revenue Canada tax returns with only the personal deduction claimed)

In fact, as income levels rise, Albertans pay more tax than Ontarians until they start making $80,000. British Colombians save on taxes until they start making over $120,000.

The main reason for this, of course, is that Alberta has a flat income tax rate, while BC and Ontario have progressive tax rates. In fact, Alberta is the only province (and one of only a few jurisdictions) to have a flat tax.

We have it because we were duped.

In 2001 King Ralph moved Alberta to a flat tax and combined it with a tax cut. We bought the idea of a flat tax, because we liked the tax cut that happened to come with it. In actuality, the ones who really save with flat taxes are the wealthy.

To further support my claim that Alberta has revenue issues, this chart shows the 2008 personal income tax paid in 6 provinces, depending upon a person's taxable income.

In all of the other provinces as an individual's income level rises, the proportion taken for provincial taxes also rises. Except for Alberta, represented by the blue line, where the more you make the more you save.

There is an Alberta advantage alright - it's just felt most by those people who make the most money. Here are the tax levels for people earning $150,000 and $200,000 in the various provinces:

So while the Albertan making $40,000 is paying $693 a year more in taxes than his counterpart in BC, the Albertan who makes $200,000 is saving $3,874.

This provides for me two interesting alternatives. We could cut taxes for 6 Albertans by raising taxes on one siginificantly wealthier Albertan with no affect on the treasury. Or we could tax him at a level that all of the other provinces deem to be fair and save our public services.

Inspiring Education and religious fanatics: not what you might expect.

2009-10-20T22:26:00.005-06:00

So, I come to my computer this evening to make a post, after a fair hiatus, about Inspiring Education. Rusty to the process, I mistype the address into the explorer bar and end up at http://www.blogpsot.com/. It didn't take me long to determine that I would have to include my stumble onto this site as part of my post. But I'll get there later...

Now, anyone who was at The Inspiring Education Fall Forum knows that Bridget Ryan has the uncanny ability to use every conjugation of Inspire known to man. And, they also know where education should go over the next 20 years.

The big question is, how will we reconcile the fact that everyone leaving Northlands today had a slightly different image of that future?

First off, the team and everyone involved needs huge commendations for putting together an incredible environment where Albertans could get hopeful about our future and the potential we have as a society. It was about building the society of our dreams by ensuring that our children grow to their greatest potential. It was inspiring and there were some fabulous things said.

But we need to be clear, there was no synthesis of ideas from table to table and there were no ratifications of ideas or suggestions. There was no collective voice of Inspiring Education developed.

This is not a criticism of the process, it is merely an observation of the outputs. An important observation.

Over the next few months we are going to be in the process of rewriting the legislation that oversees education in Alberta. There is going to be a great deal of talk about what the system should look like and who should be doing what and how they should do it.

Beware the advocate who says that "Inspiring Education told us ___________."

Even (or perhaps especially) if that person is from the Government of Alberta or, for that matter, the Alberta Teachers' Association.

As valuable, authentic and informative as the process was, it was not a decision making body and it wasn't a referendum on policies - and that is exactly how it was intended. Government is not about to allow itself to be fenced in by what Inspiring Education said, and therefore nobody should be able to use it as a mantle to hang their own biases or agendas.

In the end, the process did exactly what it should. It gave people an opportunity to dust off their binoculars and peer into that perfect world down the road and to feel confident talking about what their vision for education in Alberta is, which is what these next few months are all about.

We need this dialogue and the government still needs to hear your thoughts, because some one needs to counter the more radical points of view out there.

The Untold Angle on Education Cutbacks.

2009-09-09T23:26:00.004-06:00

Full disclosure. I work in communications for the Alberta Teachers' Association. I have been very deliberate about maintaining a distinct line between what I write here and the work I do for my employer. Having said that, I really enjoy working for the ATA because the organization generally reflects my values and aspires to create the same Alberta I envision.

With that out of the way, the topic of today's post is the state of public education in Alberta.

I have expressed concerned in the past about how the Alberta government lacks planning for our future, those concerns are growing rapidly. My concern is that government is going to proceed next year with massive cuts to our education system.

While Hancock is hesitant to quote a number, credible estimates range between $215 million and $400 million. A common number referred to takes the $2 Billion reduction needed government-wide, multiplies it by the 17% of spending that the province devotes to education and arrives at $340 million in cuts to K-12 classrooms in 2010/11. This level of cuts could see the system losing 2000 to 3000 teachers, resulting in significant increases in class size.

While many stories have been written in regards to these cuts, one story flew under the radar because it wasn't labelled as an education funding issue, although it most undoubtedly is.

A love of children draws hundreds of new people to the teaching profession each year in Alberta, but there has been growing concern in both professional and government circles about the number of new teachers who, for one reason or another, stop feeling that love and leave the classroom after a few years.

More than 20 per cent of Alberta teachers leave the job within their first five years, workforce statistics compiled by the provincial government indicate. The problem is particularly evident in northern and rural areas.

Please, take a moment, read the story and come back for further analysis.

Here is my reason for dire concern. Of the up to 3000 teachers being laid off next year, most of those will be teachers with temporary and probationary contracts. These teachers tend to be younger and newer to the profession. These teachers are passionate about their work and their students, but they also worry about their own wellbeing and are considerate of the demands of the job and limitations on being able to meet the needs of all of their students.

If you take a group that is already leaving the profession in considerable numbers and lay a large portion of them off, it is quite likely that many of them will leave the profession or province completely.

Now, let's consider the long term implications. Sophisticated demographic models developed by government are already predicting a dire shortage of teaching staff in the next five to ten years. This will be mainly caused by very high fertility and immigration rates, combined with an outflux of retiring teachers.

So not only will the cutbacks affect classsizes, but they will also ensure astronomical levels of attrition in the teaching profession. And, as Alberta education director of workforce planning Randy Clarke is quoted, "There is evidence that with high levels of teacher attrition, students struggle academically."

So, what value do Albertans get out of slashing public education and laying off scores of teachers who will be desperately needed in five years? Teachers needed to meet the demands of the system that will educate the next generation of leaders in our province? How is this planning for the future?

Alberta's Revenue Problem

2009-08-27T10:41:00.005-06:00

Alberta's first quarter fiscal update was released this week and the news wasn't good. Alberta's deep reliance on resource revenues has forced the government into a harsh $6.9B deficit. With Ed Stelmach's backtracking on royalty rates and refusal to look at different tax structures, Alberta is left staring down the barrel at service cuts.

Given the economic boom that Alberta has experienced recently, there is no need for cuts to health care and education. First off, if we had a sustainable progressive taxation system, then we wouldn't have to worry about dropping energy prices effecting our public services. Secondly, if we had more lucrative royalty rates, we would have a much larger sustainability fund to draw from. Sure the boom wouldn't have been as dramatic, but then the bust wouldn't have hurt so much, either.

All in all, I consider this to be a revenue problem. The problem being, we rely on volatile revenue to deliver essential services - and that's no way to run a government.

Scott Hennig, leader of the most misrepresentatively named lobby group in Alberta (The Canadian Taxpayers Federation), argued with me recently on Twitter about my assertion that we have a revenue problem. He says we have a spending problem and pointed to dramatic increases in government spending since 2005 (near 11% per year, on average).

I decided to crunch some numbers to get a handle on the information. This graph shows the Alberta government's expenses and revenues on a per capita basis, adjusted for inflation (2002 dollars).

Government spending was slashed significantly in the mid 1990s under Premier Ralph Klein. It has only risen recently and it is still not at the level of service Albertans were experiencing before 1993. It is also noticable that the spending is reactive to fluctuations in revenue (driven by resource prices). The cuts in 2002 are only because revenues dipped in 2001.

Sure, spending increased since 2005, but much of that spending was on infrastructure that was neglected throughout the 90s and the early part of this century. The levels of delivered service is still well below what it was in the 80s - wait lists in health care are long and class sizes are large!

Here's another interesting look at government spending. This graph shows Alberta government and expenditures as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product.

In the early 90s government spending was in the 22% range, then under Ralph's reign it plummeted to near 13-14%. It stayed around there until 2002, where it took another hit and dropped to the 11.5% range. It has remained between 11 and 11.5% since 2004. What I find particularly interesting, is that government will reduce expenses whenever the economic climate justifies it, but does little to improve service when we are in a position to do so.

By comparing spending to GDP, we have a real sense of how much we are living up to our potential. As Alberta becomes more prosperous, should we not be allocating more resources to social services?

Ultimately, it comes down to this: We have great potential in Alberta to be one of the best places in the world to live - to ensure that everyone is looked after and prosperous. Instead, we don't plan and we squander our resources.

Why don't we get to see the debate?

2009-07-21T21:08:00.002-06:00

I've said it here before. I really enjoy a good debate. And frankly, I've been wrong (many times) and a good healthy debate has convinced me to change the way I see many issues. I also think that open, honest debate is healthy for democracy and healthy for our society.

I wish the Alberta PC caucus saw it that way.

In recent memory there were two occasions where the PC caucus has pointed to the rigorous debate that has gone on behind their closed doors to justify their stance. First, it was Bill 44, where apparently the PC caucus debated the issue for months. Now, it is used to justify the ousting of Guy Boutilier. Ed Stelmach is being very clear with his MLAs and Albertans - the public arena is no place for debate on issues that matter to Albertans.

If politicians could just swallow their pride a little bit and accept the risk of being wrong once in a while - and if voters and media could accept that being on the losing end of a public debate does not make a bad politician - then we would have some really healthy public debate about what's in the best interest of Albertans. It seems to me that that is what democracy should be about.

At this point, I suspect you may be calling me naive or idealistic. And you may be right. Sure, I understand that the party leader needs to ensure that the members of his party are behind him, especially in our parliamentary system. It is incredibly important in minority parliaments and thus we have this long established traditions of party whips and caucus solidarity. My thesis however, is that this practice does not allow for the best policy to emerge and it shouldn't governance be about developing the best policy possible.

Think of it this way. If the honest debate over which building projects had to be delayed was held in a public place (a house or an assembly, if you will) intended for debates over the issues of the day, then Boutilier would be able to go back to his constituents and say "I tried, but some tough decisions had to be made." They would be witness to his attempts and he wouldn't have to call out the premier in the media. Perhaps the Fort McMurray seniors complex wouldn't be built, but at least we could point to the discussion as evidence that the issue was appropriately considered.

Of course, people would also feel less cynical or alienated about politics and maybe they would feel more empowered to vote and become involved in the process.

But then, if people saw the real reasons why our legislature makes the decisions it does they might actually turn out to vote. And if people actually turned out to vote, the Conservatives might not win the next election.

I guess Stelmach has it figured out after all.

Why we have Bill 44 - the WHOLE story.

2009-05-27T19:42:00.007-06:00

While my post a few days ago was my emotional reaction to Bill 44 and the no-longer progressive Conservatives, I have had some time to reflect more on this issue from a logistical and political point of view. I have also benefited from some crucial background information from Paula Simons and Ken Chapman. As I started collecting great bits of information, the pieces all started to fit together and the big picture became much more clearer. Today, I hope to portray the whole ugly story as it looks from my point-of-view.

This story starts in the spring of 2006. Then premier Ralph Klein, subject of a regular leadership review from the PC party, receives a 55% approval rating and subsequently announces his retirement. In the race to replace him, Ed Stelmach won by being the second choice of most party members in the deeply divisive race between frontrunners Jim Dinning and Ted Morton. Since then, Ted Morton has not declared the amount of money raised or spent on his leadership campaign nor has he disbanded his campaign team.

Ted Morton believes that there exists an agenda "represented primarily by the gender feminists and gay rights movement--that target the natural family as public enemy number one." Furthermore, he believes that "according to the feminist-gay gospel, the great evils of this world are sexism and homophobia, and their breeding ground is the traditional family." In order to combat this conspiracy, he feels that "we must make enlightened family policy a cornerstone of the democratic state." And, we do this by "persuad(ing) our governments to require a 'family impact' statement for every new policy or law that is being considered." He says:

Before legislation is voted on, there should be an investigation and
written report that assesses its impact--positive, negative or neutral--on the
following aspects of family life:
Family income
Family stability
Family safety
Parental rights and responsibilities--especially the right to educate their
children in the moral and spiritual traditions of their choice.

I don't want to paint the picture that this is all Ted Morton's doing, because he is not alone. There are many social conservatives in the party, who worry about the gay-feminist agenda. Their biggest fear stems from the case of Chamberlain v. Surrey School District which was decided on by the Supreme Court of Canada in June of 2002. In this decision the Supreme Court ruled that Surrey SD was wrong in not allowing a teacher to use children’s books portraying same sex parents in his classroom. The court ruled that the board relied too heavily on religious reasoning to make its decision:

The overarching concern motivating the Board to decide as it did was accommodation of the moral and religious belief of some parents that homosexuality is wrong, which led them to object to their children being exposed to story books in which same-sex parented families appear. The Board allowed itself to be decisively influenced by certain parents’ unwillingness to countenance an opposed point of view and a different way of life. Pedagogical policy shaped by such beliefs cannot be secular or non-sectarian within the meaning of the School Act. The Board reached its decision in a way that was so clearly contrary to an obligation set out in its constitutive statute as to be not just unreasonable but illegal. As a result, the decision amounts to a breach of statute, is patently unreasonable, and should be quashed.

There is an important distinction to be made between the Alberta education system and the BC system - a distinction that relied heavily in the Supreme Court's decision. The BC School Act has a clause on secularism in public schools (a very good policy in my mind), whereas the closest thing in Alberta is a clause on diversity in shared values (see section 3).

So, when Minister Blackett moved to introduce amendments enshrining equality for homosexuals in human rights legislation, the so-cons seized the opportunity to bring in so called "enlightened family policy." The result is that instead of having a secular education system where teachers and students can have objective discussions on religion, sexuality and sexual orientation - we will have teachers interrupting and muzzling conversations for fear of appearing before a human rights tribunal.

The question lingered for me: how is it that these so-cons were able to convince Stelmach and the rest of caucus to introduce and fight for this so-called parent right provision? Well the answer to that lies in the first paragraph of this post. Stelmach is up for a regular leadership review in November. With Morton's campaign team still in operation and, I suspect, money left in the bank, Stelmach is fearful that his content supporters will stay him and Morton will bring out his supporters in droves. A coup could be in the works. If you are Stelmach, you either appease him or open yourself up to being overthrown - and if Morton can't do it within the party, he can always leave and take his supporters over to the Wildrose Alliance. Unfortunately, this means that sensible progressives in the PC party are left carrying the burden of Morton's back room politicking.

As I alluded to in my previous post, Albertans don't need a sleazy back room tradeoff to bring in equal rights for gays and we should be apalled by this move. This issue specifically, but more generally the issue of the PCs promoting social conservative policies needs to be the next campaign issue - I know a lot of PC supporters who do not appreciate this fundamentalist social policy.

I can't believe I waited so long to do a Bill 44 post or why I'm bloody tired of the PC Party

2009-05-25T22:40:00.005-06:00

It occured to me this evening what gets me upset the most about this so-called Progressive Conservative Party. It occured to me while thinking about Bill 44. I cannot believe that we still allow this party to govern. Albertans are changing and this party is the same party it has been since 1971 when it first came into power. This is not my party, it does not represent my views. I do not need the Supreme Court to tell me that homosexuals deserve to be treated equally (It took them 11 years to write it into law and they fought it for four years before that). And, I will not accept that achieving that equality requires some sleezy closed door political trade-off. We deserve better.

I am insulted when cheap politics gets in the way of good governance and sound policy. I am ticked off that progressives like Dave Hancock and Lindsay Blackett have to trade away their values to good ol' boys like Ted Morton and Rob Anderson. It's ridiculous that they have to join this party in order to achieve good government in Alberta in the first place.

I resent the fact that funding for my education was cut by these people in 1994, 1995, and 1996. And I really don't get why, but they did it again in 1999 and 2001? I didn't like it when I left school to rally on the legislature in 1994 and I don't like it now.

This is not my party. This is the party of my father's generation and the party my grandfather first voted for. This party got elected because Peter Lougheed was ticked off with Pierre Trudeau.

Well, times have changed. I care about treating people like people no matter how they were born. I care about the environment because I understand we live in a finite space and we can't keep doing what we are doing to it. I care about universal health care, I care about people in poverty. I am actually progressive, not just called it.

I can't stand that we continue to allow my parent's party to be elected. Where's my party?

The real reason gender reassignment surgery was delisted.

2009-04-19T09:07:00.005-06:00

I love debate! For a few reasons. First, it helps me to think comprehensively about an issue. I truly enjoy considering what others have to say about an issue, while I analyze my own biasses on the issue. Furthermore, debate allows for effective policy making. So long as the participants debate the merits of the issue and avoid partisan and personal attacks, we end up with well thought out decisions.

I enjoy twitter because it is a forum to share information and interesting stories, and it is a forum that encourages healthy public debate (reminiscent of London's speaker's corner). Today's blog post is inspired by the discussion I had last night with Doug Griffith (@GriffMLA) and one of our friends from Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying (@AB_get_rich). The topic was delisting of gender reassignment surgery (GRS).

What I am about to say requires a couple of important caveats. I acknowledge that I have no idea what it's like to be born into a body of the wrong gender. So whenever I'm in the situation of speaking about people for whom I don't know what its like, my motto is to be compassionate. I also acknowledge that no segmented group will speak with one voice - there will always be individual opinions within a group of people with similar lived experiences.

I decided shortly after budget day that I would discuss the delisting of GRS regularly. I decided this because I suspect that most transgendered people just want to live their lives happily and comfortably - they don't want to have to get into public debate over this very personal matter. Therefore, on this issue, I know that they are going to need as much help and support as they can possibly get. Ultimately, that is what makes the decision to delist GRS so repugnant - we are forcing a small disadvantaged marginalised group of people to stand up for something that in many ways only matters to them, but matters so much to them.

My argument today, though, has less to do with morality and more to do with finance.

Generally speaking, there are two types of budgeting: status quo and zero based. In status quo budgeting you begin with the budget from last year and add and delete items to create the new budget. In zero based budgeting, you start with nothing and simply add the items that you want to have to create the new budget. To the best of my knowledge, the Alberta government uses a status quo based approach.

The benefit of status quo budgeting is that it is faster and easier. One of the problems, however, is that you end up with a lot of "beige" programs staying on the books - programs that have no inherent problems, but have no great benefit either. When it comes time to trim spending what typically happens is someone goes through the items and tries to identify the ones that need to go. The items that cost the most tend to be examined more thoroughly and the ones that cost the least tend to stay put.

Thus, I come to my biggest concern with the decision to delist GRS. People involved in the budgeting process were given the task of cutting spending (I suspect that Liepert also suggested to do so by delisting procedures). While big fish like chiropractic care were targetted, someone chose specifically to chase after the tiny fish of GRS. The financial savings amount to around 1/200th of a percent of the health care budget, or the equivalent of 20 cents per Albertan. The reason why GRS was chosen was not financial, it was political. The people who approved this strategy knew they could get away with it - because typical Albertans and the Conservative base would applaud the move and the people who are affected by it are a small group of people that we don't understand. The owner of the gym I go to, essentially called them freaks.

This type of politics is appalling. We need to make decisions based on what is the right thing to do and what is in the best interests of the people of Alberta. Our politicians need to ask the question, why was this decision made and not accept finance as the answer - because it simply isn't so.

So how much does Suncor get?

2009-02-24T22:19:00.005-07:00

If you read my post yesterday about the vase distributor you will see here that he has done quite well for himself. I don't want the phrase Alberta Advantage to die, it fits so well for the oil companies.

On a related note, have you ever wondered how much money Albertans lost because of Conservative mishandling of the Heritage Savings Fund. I have. (h/t Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying)

Martha and Henry pass on - what to do with our inheritance?

2009-02-23T18:52:00.007-07:00

Imagine, if you will, that your grandparents were collectors of extremely rare and valuable... oh let's say vases. When they passed on, they left to you a basement full of these vases - more vases than you could possibly imagine.

One day, a vase distributor comes to your door and offers you $10 each for some of your vases. You sell him two and he goes down to the market and sells them for $20 each.

The next day he comes back and says he will buy 10 vases for $10 each. Realising that the extra income means you only have to work part time that day, you sell him the 10 vases. He goes down to the market, where they really like the vases and sells them for $40 each.

Day three - the distributor wants 100 vases (he'll pay $10 each). This means you can take the whole week off. He heads down to the market, where the biggest vase collector has come to buy, and sells them for $100 each.

Before the next day rolls around, your kids suggest that maybe you should charge more for the vases. But since you don't have to work anymore, have a ton of vases left and are reliant on the distributor, you decide not to mess with a good thing and keep the price at $10. The distributor comes by, you sell him another hundred vases and he sells them at market for $150.

Unfortunately on the fifth day, the big collector lost his job and isn't buying anymore vases. The distributor shows up and only wants to buy two vases. It's not enough for you to live off, so either you starve or go deep into debt. Forget about getting a job, there's none left!

Call it simple but the analogy fits for Alberta. In the past 17 years the Conservatives have slashed taxes on corporations and the wealthy, removing all of our sustainable and self-reliant income sources. They've sold off enormous amounts of our non-renewable resource for a pittance while oil companies have walked off with record profits. Worse of all, government has hardly saved a dime.

We need to think about our oil as an accumulated reserve, and every time we cash in one of those barrels we are trading future prosperity for immediate gain. We have a responsibility to future generations of Alberta to not squander this opportunity and to make the most of the money we generate from selling off our oil!

Funny... the conservatives used to talk about sustainability.

Government Plan: Do nothing and everything will be okay.

2009-02-21T15:17:00.002-07:00

Smiling Iris, Alberta finance minister, appeared in front of media on Thursday to announce that Alberta will lose 15,000 jobs and carry a $1 billion deficit from 2008/09.

Let's look at the government estimates over the course of the year:

Date	Revenue	Oil (Est)	Oil (Act)	Expenses	Surplus
April 2008 Budget	$38.6 B	$78	$112	$37 B	$1.6 B
August 2008 - Q1 Update	$46.6 B	$119	$117	$38.1	$8.5 B
November 2008 - Q2 Update	$39.9 B	$94	$57	$37.9 B	$2 B
February 2009 Update	???	???	$42	???	-$1 B

It will be interesting to see how the revenue and expense numbers fill out when Evans releases her third quarter update next week. If she knows the $1 Billion deficit number, then she likely knows the other numbers and is trying to release information slowly.

What I found particularly interesting though are some of the rose-colored glasses type statements made in the press release.

The province’s economy is expected to recover beginning in 2010 with modest economic growth. Evans said Alberta is well positioned for recovery, with low unemployment and inflation, a strong resource base, a competitive tax regime, an investment- and business-friendly environment, significant financial assets, and a fiscal framework designed to deal with the ups and downs of volatile resource revenues.

“As we emerge from these turbulent times, we will position Alberta to be the engine of the Canadian economy,” she said.

The government has convinced themselves that Alberta is above the rules of
global economics and that this global economic catastrophe is simply a one,
maybe two, year long wave that we can just ride over.

They go on to discuss their plans for weathering the storm:

The Alberta government’s plan for weathering the downturn includes keeping a close eye on government spending, drawing from its emergency savings to protect the programs and services Albertans rely on, continuing to build public infrastructure to support jobs and the economy, and promoting the province to a global market.

These actions include ... maintaining a low and competitive tax environment - which was enhanced this year with the elimination of health-care premiums, resulting in the injection of $1 billion back into the economy. Government will also continue to invest in public infrastructure through the 2008-11, $22-billion capital plan, a commitment that far outstrips that being spent elsewhere in Canada.

This isn't a plan! This is a combination of tired Conservative rhetoric (keeping an eye on spending, promoting the province to a global market, maintaining a competitive tax environment) and previously announced plans that public pressure forced the government to undertake (overcoming the vast infrastructure deficit, eliminating health care premiums).

This government has always lacked real innovative foresight and been slow to react to legitimate concerns of Albertans. This is a time for real leadership and a real plan instead of tired rhetoric and rose-colored glasses.

A few of my favourite things

2009-02-13T11:41:00.009-07:00

I commend all the other bloggers out there who manage to post thoughtful pieces on a regular basis. I subscribe to many of their RSS feeds using Google Reader and subsequently "Share" the ones I like. So between work and home life, I find barely enough time to read the material being put out let alone contributing in a thoughtful way on a regular basis.

So for today's post, I want to encourage you to scan my shared items which are linked to over there (------>) and here.

But I also want to share a few of the things that really grabbed my attention lately.

Dinner with a Stranger

Franke James is an artist who presents her Visual Essays on her blog My Green Conscience. Her latest posting Dinner with a Stranger is incredibly inspiring. Read it and enjoy!

Lost Generation

Perhaps you've already seen this video, as I was referred to it by Ken Chapman who pulls out a lot of these gems. But if you haven't take the time to watch it - its incredibly creative and powerful. I taught high school for 7 years and the greatest thing I learned in that time: "The Kids are all right"!

World Food Program

This is another great video to put things into context. Its a PSA from the United Nations World Food Program featuring Sean Penn. Thanks to AdFreak for this.

Turns out the No Plan commercials were right.

2009-01-17T09:01:00.006-07:00

Who knew the anti-Stelmach commercials from the last campaign would end up being right?

Ed Stelmach has no plan for dealing with this recession, so he turns to the only strategy the conservatives know when revenues drop - Massive cutbacks.

It seems to me, Ed was the guy we should have had as premier in the early part of this decade, back when Ralph was the guy without the plan.

Seen as it was Building Trades of Alberta behind "No Plan" it seems appropriate to use the renovation metaphor here.

See back in 1993, Ralph Klein looks at the public service in Alberta and decides that it is a building where expansions have been put on haphazardly (in his mind) and is this big ugly monstrousity. His bright idea... time for a renovation.

Klein is a master at demolition, he goes and tears things apart. Rips off all of the drywall, tears down whole wings of the building and even blows up the infirmary.

Klein looks at his work and is very happy, so he decides to sit back and take the next ten years off. In the meantime things turn good in the economy and the public service starts to rebuild. Spending announcements are made in a reactionary fashion with no coherent plan in place. The government claims they are spending more than they ever have, but little of the spending is planned sustained investment in the core programs that were cut.

Eventually, Klein admits that he hasn't had a plan for government and the Tories decide to turf him. They replace him with Ed, because Ed has a plan and a vision for government spending. But, oops - the money is gone, revenue has dropped and there is nothing left of the boom because the money was spent with no plan in place and no savings made.

We've been saying for years:

Royalty rates are too low and we're not getting our fair share.
The money we are getting from the boom needs to be saved.
The boom will end - it always does.

Unfortunately, I-told-you-sos don't achieve much now and its time for a new plan on the economy. But resorting to the same old Conservative playbook will only make things worse!

City of Edmonton to pay half the costs for a new McDonald's!

2008-12-21T15:53:00.004-07:00

So, imagine this...

Ray Kroc comes to Edmonton, says "you guys really like Big Macs, don't you?"

"Wouldn't it be a shame if the McDonald's weren't here and Edmonton couldn't get Big Macs?"

"Well, we need to build a new McDonald's and since you guys like Big Macs and you want there to be McDonald's here - I think you should give my franchise owner Daryl here some money to build a new McDonald's. Just take some of your tax dollars and pay for half the store so Daryl can make his business successful and overcharge you for Big Macs!"

Sounds ludicrous? Well that's precisely what Gary Bettman is telling us we should do!

Daryl Katz is involved in the hockey business because he loves the game and is a big fan, but more importantly he is involved because he knows that having his name connected with the national game will get more people into his drug stores and sell more cold medicine than any other marketing campaign.

"I looooove the Oilers!! I'm the biggest Oilers fan in Edmonton and Rexall supports the Oilers - I'm going to buy all my kids Diapers at Rexall!" - That's the strategy in a nutshell. And if that doesn't work he could always muse about having to move the team until he gets a government bailout or more people develop their photos at a Rexall family pharmacy.

In actuality I have nothing against Katz and I think he's got his heart in the right place, but let's see the issue for what it is - a ploy to put public money in private pockets.

Something smells worse than the manure

2008-12-01T00:38:00.002-07:00

Let me get this straight...

Ralph Klein was a standardbred horse owner. While in power, he along with at times finance minister Shirley McLellan provided repeated bail outs to the industry. The industry embarks on expensive ad campaigns, not promoting the races as entertainment (as Northlands does) but simply promoting the industry as being important to Albertans. Now McLellan is the Chairperson of Horse Racing Alberta, with her hand out?

For some reason, I have little sympathy.

Making Coalition Government Work

2008-11-30T23:23:00.003-07:00

Read this great article by Duncan Cameron on rabble.ca:

When she was elected NDP member for Edmonton Strathcona in the last election, Linda Duncan probably did not think she would shortly be a cabinet minister. But as the only non-Conservative member from Alberta she is certainly entitled to a cabinet post in the coalition Liberal/NDP government likely to be formed - as early as next week - because Stephen Harper has misunderstood how parliamentary democracy works.
The people elect the parliament, but governments are formed (and undone) by parliament. Winning the largest number of seats only entitled the Conservatives to form a government, and only at the invitation of the Governor General. Losing the confidence of the House of Commons, as the Harper government did when its economic update failed to recognize a worldwide economic slump and the need for stimulus, and promoted restraint instead, opens the door for a coalition government to take power - at the invitation of the Governor General.
More...

Goldring Watch - Episode 2

2008-11-29T15:26:00.005-07:00

And now, he speaks. November 26, 14:50:

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the motion passed last March by the House specifically called for the government to secure medium-lift helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles to better protect our brave men and women in Afghanistan. Can the Minister of National Defence tell the House when we will
have these helicopters and UAVs in Afghanistan?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to providing our brave soldiers with the best possible equipment. In fact, we have recently purchased six Chinook helicopters and UAVs in addition to those that were leased, all of which will be operational next year. I am pleased to tell the House that we will also deploy eight specially-equipped utility Griffin helicopters to act as escorts for these Chinooks. Most importantly, this will help reduce the risk to soldiers and civilians from ambushes, landmines and IEDs, all of this saving lives and continuing the important work of Canadian soldiers in theatre.

Not to say that we aren't all concerned about the safety of our soldiers, but... wow, nothing like back bench government members softballs in question period - providing wonderful opportunities for ministers to take up time patting themselves on the back, instead of holding the government to account for their actions. Take a look at what a rookie opposition member does in question period as opposed to our fifth term representative. So, I challenge you Mr. Goldring, how can you bring the concerns of Edmonton East (here or here)to parliament instead of being just 1 of 143.

Harper obligated to gain support

2008-11-29T15:14:00.003-07:00

As the prime minister of a minority parliament Stephen Harper has the obligation to obtain support of a majority of MPs for any major financial bills. That is the fundamental principal which makes a parliamentary democracy work. If he does not find friends in one of the three other parties on a piece of legislation then it means the country does not support the legislation. It is now time for Harper to put politics aside and craft legislation that will be supported by a majority of Canadians (as evidenced by the support of a majority of parliamentarians).

Part of the problem here is the completely objectionable conduct of the Liberal MPs at the end of the last parliament. Why would anyone be happy with electing an MP who abstains from voting on a piece of legislation that they believe is bad for the country, without a conflict of interest present. Yet, that is exactly what the Liberal MPs did in the last parliament. Doing so meant Harper was allowed to put through legislation that Canadians did not want, which is exactly what he is continuing to do now. The puppy peed on the carpet and got away with it, so why should we blame him when he continues to pee on the carpet.

The Liberals have no credibility and the Conservatives have contempt for the majority views of parliament and Canada. I cry a little inside.

Goldring Watch - Episode 1

2008-11-22T17:09:00.003-07:00

As a resident of Edmonton East, I was dismayed when Conservative Peter Goldring was once again reelected. I believe that the member's views are not actually representative of the needs and concerns of the majority of residents in the riding. As such, I plan to keep a watch on the activities of Mr. Goldring.

So at the end of this first week of the 1st session of the 40th Parliament of Canada, I have searched Hansard for Goldring:

Results: Your search did not match any documents.

Better luck next week.

I will in the not so distant future provide a response to his Journal editorial on vote swapping.

A greater shame for Alberta

2008-11-22T15:05:00.002-07:00

Over the past few years with sky high oil prices, the Alberta government has squandered a glorious opportunity.

The government has spent years raking in record surplusses from mediocre royalty rates while oil companies and a small segment of the population prospered immensely. Unfortunately, over this period the government's royalty scheme produced a small fraction of the billions of dollars that Albertans are rightfully due selling out their environment. At the end of this intense growth period, we are looking toward a fiscal crisis and potential recession no further ahead.

Cuts that were made to social services in the early 90s are yet to be restored. Schools, hospitals and roads are in great disrepair and Alberta's savings have grown insignificantly (much of the money added is likely now lost in the mire of tumbling stock markets.) At the same time, we have allowed unfettered growth which came with a boom in population that our infrastructure was not prepared for and was followed with a boom in addiction, crime and prostitution.

If royalties were appropriate, the growth would have been more controlled and the government would have had more money. There would be less strain placed on provincial services and housing while we would have the money to keep pace with the growing needs and we would have still been able to pay off the debt and sock a ton of money away for the rainy day which is upon us.

But most importantly of all, we may have been able to do some really incredible things that governments can only dream of - like ending child poverty. Instead, we have 1 in 10 children in Alberta living in poverty. This is a complete shame for the handlers of our province.

And now, steady Eddie is giving oil companies a choice on how much they pay in order to prevent a slow down.

Shame.

Federal Election

2008-10-15T13:41:00.002-06:00

Wow - its been well over a year. I want to try this again. I want to be more brief this time.

Stephen Harper must have been busy last night. No, not celebrating his victory. He must have been busy creating his economic plan.

Just like when I was in University, Harper left it until the last minute to create his plan for the economic crisis - or as he likes to call it the era of global economic uncertainty. He must have created it last night, or else why wouldn't he release during the campaign?

This makes me sick. Dion talks of having a plan but never talks about the details. Harper talks about taking it easy and not rocking the boat, then releases a six point plan after the election?!?! Shouldn't we be using the campaign to debate the merits of each plan and decide which one we want to carry forward with. But like Kim Campbell said, the election is no time to be discussing serious issues.

The only reason I can come up with why Harper didn't release his plan (because its not too controversial) before the election is because he actually had two plans ready to go.

That's right, one for a minority and one for a majority government.

Now, wouldn't we all like to know what he really wanted to do.

Oops!!

2007-01-11T18:54:00.000-07:00

Well Premier Steady Eddie has made his first big gaff - and let me say, for the image he was trying to present it was a BIG gaff. I'm not surprised to hear that Lyle Oberg and Mark Norris are knee deep in it as well.

So apparently you and your multi-national corporation can spend some quality time with Premier Stelmach or some of his ministers for the mere price of $5000. It's been said that everyone has their price; I'm just surprised that Ethical Ed has such a low price - and don't kid yourself, the cost to make your "issues" Ed's "issues" is much lower than $5000. Remember you get two-thirds of that back in a tax rebate. The cost to buy the Alberta premier $1333.33!!! It looks like Mr. Stelmach has a little bit of a price to pay for this bright idea which has tarnished his clean guy image. I hope for Stelmach's sake that he was not lying about canceling the plan before the public outcry, because if he gets caught in a lie there, he will not only be unethical, but he will be a cover-up guy too.

On another note, the LA Galaxy have signed the world's most popular soccer star David Beckham to a 5-year $250 million contract. This is an incredibly risky move, that can make or break the beautiful game in North America. If successful, it builds the league and sport, by profiling Beckham's skills and star-power. The Galaxy will be ground breakers and every other team in MLS will be looking for their own superstar. If it is unsuccessful, the Galaxy will have spent a lot of money on a sport with little potential in North America.

I'm inclined to believe the former and, as a soccer fan, I hope it will ring true. Maybe then Canada will be able to get a successful soccer league off the ground for once.

I Called It!!!!!

2006-12-05T22:14:00.000-07:00

Check out my post of November 26th.

Liberal Leadership

2006-12-02T16:35:00.000-07:00

Well, I guess Michael Ignatieff has to start unpacking his things, that move to Stornoway isn't going to happen.

Stephane Dion (or as George W. Bush likes to call him, "Steve") has won the liberal leadership and he should be able to make the next election interesting, especially given the upsurge in polls for the Liberal party of late.

Now, we sit and wait to see who the next premier of Alberta will be. It's Leadership night in Canada!

Another Tough Decision

2006-11-27T23:37:00.000-07:00

So, I decided not to vote in the first ballot of the PC Leadership election, but I can still choose to vote on December 2nd. What to do?

I know for sure that I do not want Ted Morton to run this province. I was pretty scared of the leadership of Ralph Klein in 1992 (although I eventually did cut my hair, right Pikey), yet the prospects of Premier Morton scare me even more. I don't know whether I would prefer a Dinning or Stelmach win as both have their upsides. Even still, I would have to hold my nose as they both a significant amount of downsides. I think I will spend some time researching the candidates and come to a conclusion by the end of the week, although the fear of a Morton win is a great motivator.

The other thing that I think needs to be said about Morton, involves his future in Dinning's Alberta. Can you possibly see Ted Morton as a minister in Dinning's cabinet? I didn't think so. So what is to be made of Dr. Ted after he realizes he has a large ground swelling of support after a Dinning win?

I don't think it is a far stretch to think that he would jump ship to the Alberta Alliance, after all many of his 26,000 votes last weekend came from Alliance members. So consider for a moment, Dinning wins the election and Morton crosses the floor to the Alliance. With him he brings a large number of dissidents who for a long time have bit their tongue and supported Klein in the Progressive Conservative Party. Suddenly, we have a 'credible' and popular leader for the Alliance party - might make for an interesting election in the spring of 2008. A weakened PC Party with a new controversial leader, a strengthened Alliance party with a new controversial leader, and perhaps a credible Liberal party with some relative strength. Rural ridings would fluctuate between PC and Alliance, Calgary would go mostly Conservative, and Edmonton would likely go mostly Liberal (with the incumbent ND's likely holding their seats) with a split right wing.

The scene in Alberta would change with a small majority PC government, and their security in question. The exact makeup would be dependent on the number of dissidents Morton could pull over with him. We may just be on the verge of the collapse of the PC stranglehold on this province. Unfortunately for us, when Alberta switches allegiances, it often switch to the right.

But perhaps, I'm getting ahead of myself and I need to look into the candidates in the election before us.

November 26, 2006 - The Aftermath!

2006-11-26T18:25:00.000-07:00

Hey there, how's it going? What's new? Good to hear. It's been so long since we've spoken. I'm such a bad friend.

Well, It's November 26, 2006 and we now know a little more where Alberta Progressive Conservatives and tens of thousands of other Albertans stand on who they want to be the next premier of this province.

In case you haven't heard, here are the results:

Jim Dinning	29,470
Ted Morton	25,614
Ed Stelmach	14,967
Lyle Oberg	11,638
Dave Hancock	7,595
Mark Norris	6,789
Victor Doerksen	873
Gary McPherson	744

Surprised? I'm not overly surprised, but there are surprises within the results. Ted Morton receives about 26% support. His second place finish is not a complete surprise, but to be under 4000 (4%) votes behind "sure thing" Dinning is a bit of a surprise. Morton is a wildcard and extreme in his views. He will have a tough time adding votes to his total, as most of his supporters are likely to be included in the 25,614; whereas, there is room in the Dinning and Stelmach umbrella to attract more voters - from the bottom five camp, and from the tens of thousands who will vote on December 2nd only.

Similarly surprising, maybe mostly to Lyle only, is that Oberg only garnered 12% of voter support. He likely shot himself in the foot throughout the campaign and conservatives smartly concluded that this wacko can't run our province.

So given the Oberg slide, and the lack of credibility from other candidates, am I surprised that Stelmach is firmly entrenched for the second ballot? Well, somewhat. I guess someone has to take that place, but I thought we would be more likely to see a Hancock, Norris, or Oberg to sit in with a distant third place.

The numbers look promising for Stelmach. He is over 10,000 votes away from Morton, but having Morton holding such strength, almost guarantess a third ballot. Dinning needs at least 25,000 more votes to gain a majority, Morton will need around 30,000. I don't see either of these camps, gaining those numbers for the second ballot. So, all Stelmach needs to do is place in second on that ballot.

There are three reasons Ed Stelmach will finish second on the second ballot:
1. The Morton Problem
2. The Anti-Dinning Factor
3. Momentum

The Morton problem. Ted Morton is an extremist. As an extremist, he has a large, solid, and vocal support group. He gained support from the Alberta Alliance and social conservatives - people who were motivated to see a change to what they saw as the immoral, chicken-shit, tax-and-spend leftist Tories under Klein. Very few of his supporters chose not to vote, or stayed home in the cold. He is not a big tent politician and his numbers are unlikely to grow significantly.

The Anti-Dinning Factor. It seems many of the politically astute in this province either love Dinning or hate him. There is a significant camp of people who really do not want Jim to run the province. Most of them also do not see Morton as a camp to pop their tent in - their only choice left is Ed Stelmach. This is why Lyle Oberg has gotten behind Steady Eddy, and that brings us to...

Momentum. Already, finishers four and five have thrown their support behind Stelmach (bringing potentially 15,000 plus voters with them). Victim number six is expected to throw his support Ed's way early in the week. Non-voters (too cold, or didn't care enough) are also likely to see Ed as a good compromise candidate. There was a little bit of a surprise with his finish, and everyone loves an underdog. For all these reasons, Ed has momentum on his side.

So here is the Stelmach plan; convince voters that he has a shot at the final two. Keep people from voting for Dinning because they are scared of Morton. Show yourself as the reliable, responsible, reasonable conservative - separate from the leftist old-school Dinning, and the extremist scary Morton. Finish second on the second ballot.

When everyone votes on the second ballot, the Dinning supporters will put Stelmach down as 2nd choice because he's not Morton, and Morton supporters will put Stelmach down as two because he's not Dinning. Waltz with the rejected to the finish line!

His only major challenge is to keep Morton's support strong enough to force a second ballot, but not so strong that Ted finishes second. Keep the left from flocking to Dinning because they are so scared of Morton. Do this Eddy and you have a real chance of winning.

College Shooting Not Preventable

2006-09-19T19:52:00.000-06:00

The events of September 13 at Dawson College in Montreal are awful, upsetting, and tragic. Throughout the debate that follows, let's agree to this and not forget it.

It is so easy to point out that Kimveer Gill obtained his long guns legally and in compliance with the gun registry and conclude that the registry is useless. But there is no way that this one instance of the registry's failure should overshadow the millions of times that the registry has prevented violent and deadly crimes.

What's that... preposterous you say... a million deaths have not been prevented by the registry?

But how do you know? How do you know it hasn't been a million crimes prevented? How do you know it hasn't been a thousand?

The trick with preventative or proactive measures is there is no way of verifying their success, yet the one time they do not prevent what they are supposed to, critics will jump on the "I told you so" train and ride it into the town square, shouting the whole trip through. Such is so with the gun registry and its critics (read Stephen Harper and the Conservatives).

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of the Liberals gun registry and its ridiculous cost overruns. However, I believe it is narrow sighted and ignorant to conclude that one violation of the registry's purpose defines the entire project as ineffective.

Stephen Harper's reaction (http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2006/09/19/1861913-sun.html) to the tragedy has been particularly misguided.

"The events at Dawson college tell us precisely that today's laws did not protect us," Harper responded.
"This government is determined to have more effective laws that would prevent such a tragedy in the future."
The PM pointed out his government has already introduced legislation that would mean stiffer penalties for violent crime, including mandatory minimum sentences.

If Mr. Harper believes that any law could have prevented this violent and unnecessary attack, then I have given him more intellectual credit in the past than he deserves, and I have given him very little credit. By including the point that the Conservatives are increasing penalties for violent crime, Harper is implying that a long jail sentence would have dissuaded Gill from committing this senseless act. I am unequivocally positive that Gill did not consider the jail time he would face at the end of the day, before he left home on September 13th. Furthermore, research shows that many acts of violence are done without care for the possible sentences that the criminal may face and it makes sense. Gill was planning to kill himself from the beginning, he fantasized about dying in a hail of bullets. Similarly, many domestic violence killers will not be dissuaded, as they see murder as their only way out of an unlivable situation.

The only way that we can reduce unwanted gun killings is to reduce access to guns. Don't worry, I've heard it all before:

Guns don't kill people, people kill people
If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns

These arguments/slogans are catchy but thoughtless. Guns have only one purpose and that is to kill, their access needs to be controlled. I understand that some guns are needed in society and their are many responsible gun owners who do not deserve to have their private property controlled by the government. But even responsible gun owners want to see illegal guns removed from society.

The first step in getting rid of illegal and illegally obtained guns is to identify them as such, as opposed to legally owned firearms. How can we possibly tell the difference between a legal gun and an illegal gun? You keep track of the legal guns, identify them and compile the list in some sort of ...er, ...ah, ...catalogue of guns. I don't know if this was the purpose or intent of the Liberal gun registry, and that is why I cannot support it - but I see no way to get rid of illegal firearms that are already in Canada without it.

Who Shall Follow? or What Say Do I Have?

2006-08-24T19:09:00.000-06:00

I heard an unconfirmed piece of data that was intriguing and believable nonetheless. Alberta is the world's third longest currently ruling one-party state. This makes some sense. The PC's have ruled since 1971 and I can only think of the communists in Cuba and China that have been in power longer. Perhaps it is right, perhaps it is wrong. What I do know though, is that long rules by one party are not good for democracy no matter who you are.

So here I sit at a cross roads. For $5 I can have more of a say in who will be our next premier than I have had in the last 14 years, and perhaps than I will for the next fourteen years to come. My professional association has encouraged me to get a memborship, pointing out that Ralph Klein needed around 50,000 votes to win the leadership last time, and our membership has 30,000 people. When presented with these facts and thoughts I sat, listened, and thought very uncomfortably.

I can not bring myself to think that I am supporting this oligarchy in anyway. I do not want to put any more money into the juggernauts pockets. I could not face seeing my name on the blue and orange membership card. I would dread opening my mailbox for the next year to see fundraising pamphlets and political appeals. I could not face myself.

And yet...

Here I stand with the greatest opportunity to influence the future of Alberta that I might get to have in the next decade and a half. I don't even know who I would vote for. Although I know who I definitely would not vote for (Mr. Oberg, I'm looking in your direction). I suppose I could do my research. I suppose I could hold my nose and put a mark by the least objectionable name on the ballot. I suppose I could burn my membership the day after the last vote. I suppose I could allow a little piece of me to die within myself for the sake of a tiny piece of the future.

And yet...

I still don't know what I'll do. I'll keep you up to date.

Goodbye Ralph.

2006-08-24T18:33:00.000-06:00

Let the countdown begin!!! At least we would if we had an actual clue as to when King Ralph would let his deathgrip on power loose.

After 14 years under dictatorial rule, it is enevitable that you face moments of confusion as the end draws near (I will spare you from any comparisons to Cuba). There were moments over the past few months when I actually thought I might miss poor Ralph. Moments where I considered that his time in office might not have been as bad as I made it out to be in my own mind. Moments when I thought he had some redeemable qualities.

Any such thoughts quickly dissolved today as i listened to Ralph speak on the opening day of his last session of the legislature (at least I hope so, this time.) There were three moments which were indicative Ralph.

(I type this before the hansard has been posted to the web, so I apologize for not having direct quotes.)

The first moment which raised my eyebrow as I watched question period was in Ralph's response to the first question directed at him. It even seemed that the opposition didn't care to direct questions at King Klein because they knew he was a lame duck, but nonetheless Liberal Opposition leader Kevin Taft could not refuse the opportunity to get in a few last jabs. In response to Taft's question regarding Education spending Klein replied by saying 'The leader of the opposition might be happy to be back here, but I sure am not.' This comment is indicative of the contempt for the legislature which Mr. Klein has had since his entry into the Premier's office. I would think that someone who wants to provide their public service to the province would enjoy their work and enjoy being there. I know I enjoy my job and enjoy being at it. I would never say after a long break away from it that I am certainly not happy to be there. Klein has always resented his legislature roles and responsibilities. He would rather rule by iron fist than have to answer to a body of his peers.

The second moment of contempt and disguist came actually before the first moment. Rose Lundy experienced a miscarriage in the hallways of Peter Lougheed hospital in Calgary in front of over 30 other patients. <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/07/26/miscarriage.html> She came to the legislature today to get answers and to ask questions of the government that was ultimately responsible. The Liberal party spoke to her and her husband Rick, even the health minister spoke to the Lundy's. But when they approached his highness, Mr. Klein quickly ducked into the elevator and yelled something to the equivalent of I have no time for you over the backs of the people in the elevator in front of him. Could he not have at least walked over, shook hands, and whispered in Rick's ear that he had no time for them. No, he had to treat thim with a similar lack of dignity that they received in the Peter Lougheed hospital. This once again showed his inability to listen to the concerns of his critics, and of the victims of his policies. He is not alone amongst politicians in this but it is a irreprehensible practice.

Finally Ralph Klein capped the day off by proving his appeal to the lowest common denominator. When confronted about having the lowest welfare rates in the country, he responded by touting the line that the employable have been encouraged to work, and he reminded us that the employable who refused to work were given a bus ticket. Ralph Klein dispises the poor. He did nothing to acknowledge the many who are unemployable and still trying to raise families on $12,000 per year in this wealthy and expensive province. He simply kept on the LCD argument that those bums on welfares should go out and get jobs or leave.

I am so happy to see Ralph Klein go. Happier today than I was on the day I first heard the news (and I remember vividly reading the newspaper on the airplane.) He is full of arrogance and ignorance, combined with contempt and disgust for anyone except his voters and the social elite whom he serves in this province. He has always been controlled by special interests and unexamined ideology.

The only thing that scares me is who shall follow.

Israel, Lebanon, and the Third World War

2006-08-03T14:19:00.000-06:00

I have so many thoughts on this topic, I'm not quite sure where to start. I guess I have to start with values.

I value Peace. Wow, way to go out on a limb, 'eh. War is bad. Yay, two for two on the controversy meter. We have an obligation as the rest of the world, to not allow this conflict to continue with the intensity that it is. The only way to stop a cycle of violence is to intervene and slow the cycle. Unfortunately, this conflict will not be solved, or stopped, by the parties involved. Even if Israel achieves its goals of wiping out Hesbellah (not likely) they will only do so through the obliteration of a large portion of Lebanon, or the middle east as a whole. Doing so will only serve to strengthen the conviction of the militants and drive the moderates closer to the extremes. Peace, must be the goal. Lasting peace can only be achieved be beginning with a temporary peace. The Bush/Harper/Israeli view that lasting peace can only be achieved through the obliteration of hesbellah is dangerous in that it only empowers Israel to continue to use force and violence to solve its problems and does nothing to address the root causes of the violence. I won't even begin to acknowledge that I have any idea as to what the root causes of the violence are, and that is part of the problem (I'll explain this in more detail later.) I know that I don't completely understand all of the issues involved, but I am trying.

To help myself try to understand the situation, I came up with a hypothetical parallel situation (which I am sure will get my phone tapped.) Hesbellah is an opposition political party in Lebanon with a military wing. Lebanon as a nation does not directly endorse its actions. This most recent conflict began with Hesbellah directing missile attacks at Israel from cities in Lebanon. To model this conflict I created the following hypothetical and asked myself what reaction I hope would come from it. Let's say that the NDP militarized and created a store of long range missiles in, oh, let's say Winnipeg. They then launched missiles from Winnipeg at the Pentagon. The problem for the United States in this situation is that the country of Canada has not attacked the US, just a group within Canada has. Israel's response would be akin to the US, in my simulation, explaining to the citizens of Winnipeg (some of whom are NDP supporters and some of whom are not) that they must leave their homes within the next few days before the Americans attack the city. This would inevitably be followed by attacks on Winnipeg, followed by attacks on other american targets by NDP forces in other Canadian cities. The cycle of violence propogates itself ad infinitum.

My question now is, how would I want the Americans to react reasonably. It is unreasonable to expect that the Americans not react, and to not use force in their reaction. However, I would hope that the Americans begin by approaching the Canadian government with a direct message. "You must stop these attacks immediately and deal with this rogue group, we will help you in any way that you request, but you must deal with this problem immediately. If you fail to do so in a timely manner, we have no choice but to invade." A message like this forces the Lebanese people to make a clear and conscious choice as a country to either support this group and enter war as a nation with Israel (the terms of combat are much more clearly defined in nation vs. nation conflict) or to reject this group and become an ally with their neighbours (perhaps starting a civil war, but with much more clearer lines). As it stands the conflict is muddy and the Lebanese civilians are caught in a state of disarray with multiple masters. The violence brought on by the Israelis only strengthens the resolve of the militants and drives the moderates closer to their defenders.

Which brings me to the bigger picture here. In Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan there are groups of militant armed extremists that are holding their respective countries hostage by engaging in battles with Judeo-Christian nations and coalitions. They have declared a Jihad, which is mobilizing a great many people to their cause, people who are willing to kill themselves in search of martyrdom. By responding with force we only strengthen their argument that they are engaged in a Jihad which only strengthens their force. The extremists become more motivated and many moderates become more incensed. This is a battle that cannot be won. The key to this conflict is to promote leaders in the moderate muslim community. The people of these countries (and let's include Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia in the argument) need to have their faith strengthened by home grown non-violent muslim leaders. The majority need to be encouraged that strength in their religion will only come by rejecting these extremists instead of supporting them. The citizens in their own countries must turn against groups like Al Queda, Hesbellah, and Hammas, for the good of their countries and for the good of their religion. Islam is not the problem, it is the solution.

I cannot pretend to know enough about the history and religion in this region, but this is my humble opinion based on what I do know now. Let me know what you know and think so that I can adjust my thoughts and/or support my beliefs with more knowledge.

In the future I will discuss the question "Why did muslims fly planes into buildings in New York City?" It is a very important question, that we need to be continually asking ourselves.

Welcome

2006-08-03T02:17:00.000-06:00

Well, I am finally ready to make my first blog post. Hopefully, there will be many more to come. I have thought in the past that I need to get my thoughts and beliefs down; to create a collection of my ideas and ideologies. When I first became aware of blogs, I thought it was the perfect medium to do this. I just can't believe it took me so long to get it going.

I hope you find my points of view unique and interesting. I also hope you find them somewhat controversial. I like to think of myself as open minded above all else. So please respond to what you read so that I may further develop my thoughts and ideas.

Enjoy.