Saving for a rainy day

The tragedy of recent historic flooding in Southern Alberta has had a profound impact on us. As an Edmontonian who spends a good deal of time in Calgary, my heart goes out to those who have been affected. Encouragingly, the Alberta spirit lives on and Calgarians will demonstrate resiliency as the rest of us demonstrate high levels of empathy and community through giving in the ways that are available to us.  I have to give big kudos to Mayor Naheed Nenshi, Premier Alison Redford, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and all three levels of government who have been absolutely stellar in their response. These tragedies and struggles do emphasize the important role of government in acting as the vehicle through which we take collective action and in the value of the public service and public servants.

Recently, the Redford government announced that it would pledge an initial and immediate $1 Billion in aid with more to come. They also said that in doing this, the priority of a balanced budget would be set aside. They should be applauded for doing the right thing. We count on government (ie our neighbours) to be there for us on rainy days. But, talk of a balanced budget in this context made me think of where this money will come from, could come from and should come from. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a rainy day fund for such unforeseen instances?

Oh?! We do???

That's right. We have the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund which sits at $16.8 billion. This is good. It could come in handy here, but with BMO estimating the costs of recovery in the $3-$5 billion range it would make a considerable dent in the fund. Unfortunately, the fund has not grown substantially in decades. The last systematic investment into the fund was made in 1987 and while the fund has generated $33.4 billion in total income, $34.6 billion has been transferred out of it largely to fund general programs. 

The Alberta fiscal formula is fundamentally flawed. Last year the government brought in $38.6 billion in revenues. Of that, $7.6 billion came from selling off non-renewable resources and $2.5 billion came from siphoning off investment earnings. At the same time they still spent $2.8 billion more than they raised which was drained out of another smaller more temporary rainy day fund, the Sustainability Fund. 

This all becomes a critical issue when you account for the fact that Alberta is the lowest taxed jurisdiction in Canada and could raise $11 billion more in taxes and maintain the lowest tax regime in the country. 

In simple terms, we are selling off the farm and dipping into our RRSPs in order to pay the bills just so we can take more time off work. 

As much as some would say debt is stealing from future generations, what we are doing amounts to grand larceny fraud against our great grandchildren. They should have a stake in both our non-renewable resources and our savings and in the meantime we should continue to contribute by paying our fair share. 

A fiscal prudent strategy would look like this. Instead of selling off non-renewable resources to fund programs we should treat it like a transfer from fixed assets to liquid but restricted assets. In other words, put all non-renewable resource revenue into the Heritage Fund. We should quit the vacation from responsibility and increase our taxes to the point where we collect the $11 billion more in revenue while maintaining our tax advantage. We should then quit using interest to fund general programs and instead use it for an endowment fund to help diversify our economy and train our people for the day the oil is gone. 

And when catastrophic flooding or fires occur again we sensibly and responsibly use the rainy day fund to pay for recovery... without guilt or regret because that is what we planned for all along. 

Cabinet Speculation

Hey, I'm awful at predictions, but why not speculate on cabinet postings.

Premier Alison Redford has discussed the possibility of some repositioning of portfolios and the possibility of a downsize to cabinet. It is quite likely that we will see 20 ministers in the cabinet including the Premier. As far as responsibility juggling, we could see something done that would help coordinate seniors housing options which is currently spread over three ministries: human services, health and seniors. We might also see a combination of Tourism, Parks and Recreation with Culture and Community Spirit as a way to downsize cabinet by combining some smaller ministries that are justifiably related.

But people tend to be more concerned about who will be in cabinet and so let's get to that.

First off, let's look at ministers that will definitely remain in cabinet:

• Alison Redford (Calgary-Elbow) will be Premier.
• Doug Horner (Spruce Grove-St. Albert) is competent and popular. He will remain in cabinet and he is likely to remain as deputy premier.
• Dave Hancock (Edmonton-Whitemud) will surely continue in his role developing the new Human Services ministry.
• Greg Weadick (Lethbridge-West) will remain in cabinet since Redford will need representation from South of Calgary.
• Cal Dallas (Red Deer North) will likely be returned to cabinet to bring representation to central Alberta. He is also likely to be given the opportunity to continue building his new ministry of Intergovernmental, International and Aboriginal Relations.
• Diana McQueen (Drayton Valley-Devon) has proven to be competent and should be returned to cabinet. It is quite likely that she may also be promoted. Energy might be a good fit for this oil patch area representative.
• Verlyn Olson (Wetaskiwin-Camrose) is also quite competent and widely respected, so it is likely he will remain in cabinet and as justice minister.
• Frank Oberle (Peace River) will bring some northern representation, as will
• George Vanderburg (Whitecourt-Ste Anne) brings rural representation and could head up realignment of housing services for seniors.
• Manmeet Bhullar (Calgary Greenway) proved himself as a junior minister and will help represent cultural diversity in the new government. Look for him to be promoted.

Secondly, which newcomers are likely to be added into the mix:

• Bridget Pastoor (Lethbridge East) will be added to cabinet to bring as much southern representation as is possible.
• Ken Hughes (Calgary-West) was handpicked by Redford to run and as former Alberta Health Services chair will surely be added to the inner circle.
• Donna Kennedy-Glans (Calgary-Varsity) is also a friend of Redford's going back to the Joe Clark days. She represents the new brand of Progressive Conservatism that the party is trying to brand itself as. Her work around integrity will be valued by this partially stained PC government.
• Don Scott (Fort McMurray-Conklin) will likely be included as one of the Fort McMurray MLAs will need to be added to cabinet and he seems to be the more experienced of the two.
• Other newcomers that could get cabinet postings include Christine Cusanelli (Calgary-Currie), Ron Casey (Banff-Cochrane), David Dorward (Edmonton-Gold Bar) and Sandra Jansen (Calgary-North West).
• Alana DeLong (Calgary-Bow), Naresh Bhardwaj (Edmonton-Ellerslie) and Janice Sarich (Edmonton-Decore) are sophomore MLAs that could get a bump to cabinet.

Finally, experience is likely to come from these ministers who are likely to get reappointed, but bumps in their last files may provide uncertainty around their placement:

• Doug Griffiths (Battle River-Wainright) proved popular on the leadership trail especially amongst progressives, but his spat with AUMA chair Linda Sloan could cost him.
• Thomas Lukaszuk (Edmonton-Castledowns) is a very strong messenger and has proven himself as loyal to the premier, but problems with passing the Education Act could jeopardize his reappointment.
• Fred Horne (Edmonton-Rutherford) tried hard but wasn't fully able to bring confidence to one of the most important portfolios in cabinet. He will likely be reinstated to cabinet at a lower posting.
• Jonathan Denis (Calgary-Acadia), Jeff Johnson (Athabasca-Sturgeon-Redwater) and Heather Klimchuk (Edmonton-Glenora) have no points against them, but haven't made a big splash either. They could go if Redford has other people in mind for cabinet.

And finally, since I am not afraid of being proven wrong, here is a firm estimate of people and positions from my point of view. I am certain there will be some restructuring, but I will place people into the old set of portfolios anyway.

Alison Redford	Premier
Doug Horner	Deputy Premier, Treasury Board
Dave Hancock	Human Services, House Leader
Donna Kennedy-Glans	Energy
Verlyn Olson	Justice
Ken Hughes	Health
Thomas Lukaszuk	Finance
Fred Horne	Education
Greg Weadick	Advanced Education
Bridget Pastoor	Agriculture
Cal Dallas	Intergovernmental Affairs
Doug Griffiths	Municipal Affairs
Diana McQueen	Environment
Don Scott	Transportation
Jonathan Denis	Public Security / Solicitor General
Frank Oberle	Sustainable Resources Development
George Vanderburg	Seniors
Jeff Johnson	Infrastructure
Manmeet Bhullar	Service Alberta
Sandra Jansen	Culture
Naresh Bhardwaj	Tourism

Wildrose Voters got Cold Feet

In the days after Alberta's engaging general election for the 28th legislature, everyone is talking about the polls - specifically how wrong they were. And while they did not accurately predict the outcome of the election, it is hard to suggest that the methodology was wrong. The polls, regardless of method employed, were pretty consistent with each other - particularly in the last week. If you have a large number of samples that are reinforcing each other, it is likely that the have a good sense of the question being asked and people's honest opinions on the matter. Let's take a closer look at the numbers.

Most of the polls were reporting percentages based on decided voters, including voters who indicate which way they are leading. A few of the polls reported on the number of undecided voters and where reported that number was somewhere between 16 and 30 per cent. For sake of analysis, let's make a few assumptions and look at the numbers. Assumptions:

• There are 2,265,000 eligible voters in Alberta.
• 20% of polled voters were undecided (5 polls that reported undecided percentage reported: 16, 17, 18, 24 and 30% undecided).
• Polls in the last week showed around the following percentages for decided voters: 41% (WRP), 33% (PC), 11% (Lib), 11% (NDP).

	WRP	PC	Lib	NDP
2012 Projected Voters	742920	597960	199320	199320
2012 Actual Voters	442429	567060	127645	126752
Retention	60%	95%	64%	64%

If you assume that people generally don't lie to pollsters, you have to assume that something happened between the pollsters phone call at home and the poll booth. While the PCs retained 95% of voters who told pollsters they would vote PC, the Wildrose only retained 60%.

There is an old adage that parties don't get elected to office as much as other parties are thrown out of office. This would be very appropriate for Alberta. In order to change government, you typically need a high voter turnout. In 1921 the United Farmers were elected with 75% voter turnout; in 1935, when the Social Credit was swept into office, turnout was 82%; In 1971, when the PCs were swept in, turnout was 72%. Estimates for Monday's election are putting turnout at around 57%. In order to toss out the governing Conservatives, the Wildrose would need to get about 40% of votes with a turnout of over 70% - they would need about 634,000 votes. Enough people told pollsters they would vote Wildrose, but not enough did.
Essentially what happened is a big chunk of potential Wildrose voters got cold feet.

Actually, the wedding analogy is pretty apt here. For the most part if a wedding leads to a successful marriage it is because the couple knows each other well, they have dated for a while, they were likely engaged for a while and as time went on the commitment towards getting married grows and solidifies. Alternately, sometimes a nice conservative man meets a young attractive energetic young lady, they quickly fall in love, think the world of each other, get engaged and 28 days later when the wedding is about to start, and the man has had a chance to learn a bit more about his lover, he wonders whether he's making the right choice.
Alberta was tying on the patent leather shoes and figuring out how to tie up the bow tie when it said to itself, "Can we make this work if she doesn't believe in climate change? What else don't I know about her?"

There is no doubt that fear led to the collapse: A number of people who said they would vote Wildrose stayed home, a number went back to date the PCs a bit longer. Also a number of people who said they would vote Liberal or NDP ended up at the ballot box switching to the PCs. Alternately, PC supporters were more motivated to get to the polls, they feared the chance that they might lose grip on the province (especially to a radical WRP) and they got out to vote.

The WRP only retained 60% of voters who told pollsters they would vote WRP. There are three main reasons for this (most of which can be described as cold feet): anger with the PCs was not as big as expected and people stayed home; large poll numbers made people feel complacent and they stayed home; and people who were less engaged (less likely to vote) were inclined to tell pollsters they would vote WRP because of the early hype. This drop of 300,000 WRP supporters was the biggest factor in the PC win.

Another interesting trend is apparent when the bulk numbers from 2012 are compared to 2008:

	WRP	PC	Lib	NDP
2008 Votes	64407	501063	251158	80578
2012 Votes	442429	567060	127645	126752
Difference	+378022	+65997	-123513	+46174

From this analysis, it is fascinating to see how every party was able to gain supporters with the exception of the Liberal party. While overall participation grew by 366,000 voters, It would be silly to suggest that WRP support came entirely from new voters. While some new voters would vote WRP, they gained most of their votes at the PCs expense. While the PCs lost a chunk of voters to the WRP, they would have picked up a lot of new voters and a lot of voters from the Liberals. Finally, the NDP base is relatively stable (in Alberta they are used to losing ridings and don't mind voting NDP anyway). They would have gained some voters in their stronger ridings from the Liberals and they would have attracted some new voters. The growth in raw vote support suggests that the WRP, PC and NDP can all claim some victory in this election.

There is a bit of data here and a lot of speculation, so I would love to hear your comments.

Election Predictions and Ridings to Watch

Today is election day in Alberta and quite a day it will be. I am guaranteed to be glued to my television screen and interweb module well into the wee hours of the morning. I suspect that it will be late before we know who the premier will be and whether they will have a majority or minority government. I pity the people who will have to make projections for the media outlets. They will juggle the balance between trying to be first to call the election, while ensuring that their call is not a wrong call.

Nonetheless, for funsies, I am prepared to make a prediction:

• Wildrose - 45 seats
• PC          - 36 seats
• NDP       - 4 seats
• Liberal    - 2 seats

While I have ended up at nearly the same result as Eric at threehundredeight.com, I feel it is important to note that I have done so by crunching my own numbers using 2008 results and current poll projections. The totals are nearly the same, but the ridings that make up the totals are different.

Having said that, there are a few things that I will be watching closely on election night.

1. Bellwether Ridings - ridings where early results will help determine the scope of the election. Wildrose wins in these close Calgary ridings will help to indicate the mood of Calgarians for change. Similarly, if PC can hold these two close central Alberta ridings, it should indicate that rural Albertans might be less ready to risk it with the Wildrose.

• Calgary Cross
• Calgary Currie
• Calgary East
• Calgary Foothills
• Lacombe Ponoka
• Wetaskiwin Camrose

2. Other interesting ridings

• Edmonton Centre - Everyone is talking about Glenora, but I think it is safer for the incumbent than this seat which is as likely to go PC or NDP as opposed to staying with Liberal Laurie Blakeman. I say Blakeman stays.
• West Yellowhead - Should be a safe PC riding, but has had a strong showing for the NDP in the past. If Alberta party leader Glenn Taylor can convince labour supports to vote for him, he could steal the riding. My prediction is for Robin Campbell.
• Calgary Elbow - Having been the home of former Premier Ralph Klein, Elbow must be getting accustomed to hosting the premier. Will their member be Premier, leader of the opposition or a giant killer in a new Wildrose government? I say Redford holds.
• Edmonton Glenora - Of course, this one is being dubbed as the five way race so everyone will be keeping an eye on it. I believe that Klimchuk will be able to hold it and it won't be as close as everyone is anticipating.
• Edmonton Meadowlark - It is hard to say how many voters who voted for Raj Sherman as a PC will stick with him as a Liberal, but floor crossers are rarely punished in Alberta and he will have the advantage of being a party leader. I say Sherman holds.
• Edmonton Riverview and Edmonton GoldBar - Both ridings were previous Liberal strongholds, but popular MLAs Taft and MacDonald are not running. The NDP is making big pushes in both ridings, but progressive voters might coalesce around the PCs to stave off the Wildrose. I'm picking PC in both ridings.
• Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville - People here loved Ed Stelmach, some will backlash against the Tories for turfing him and reward the Wildrose who have fielded a strong candidate in Shannon Stubbs (seeking to beat the Premier at home), but others will see the Wildrose as the enemy that got rid of their guy and stay true blue. I think Fenske will keep the riding PC.

We shall check back on Tuesday to see how these predictions hold up.

Will recall remain a priority for a Wildrose government?

Democratic reform is a popular part of opposition party platforms, especially for populist parties who are trying to toss out a long standing party in power that is seen to have accountability issues. And so it goes for the 2012 Alberta general election. The Wildrose party is attempting to push aside the Progressive Conservatives whom have governed this province for over 41 years.

The Wildrose is sending the message that 40 years is enough and advancing rhetoric like, "The politics of entitlement and corruption must be replaced by a culture of accountability where doing what’s right is the rule, not the exception."

Quite often however, a party that runs on a platform of democratic reform is slow to bring in the reforms once they gain power. The Reform/Conservative party at the federal level is a good example of this. They too proposed ideas like citizen initiatied referenda, recall legislation, a triple-e senate and free votes. Yet after more than 6 years in office, Prime Minister Harper has made little substantial progress on any of these concepts.

These ideas make for good policies to run on in an effort to unseat a ruling party, but they have no value for the party that is in power. And so, when a party assumes office, they have little impetus to change the system that got them there.

 With many pundits predicting either a minority government or slim Wildrose majority, some real considerable action is likely to occur after the election. The website threehundredeight.com is predicting that the Wildrose party will form a majority government by two seats (winning 45/87 seats). I have come to the same conclusion based on independent analysis. This situation will leave the results from election day in a tenuous position. The speaker election and potential floor crossings mean that the seat count on election night won't necessarily represent the makeup of the legislature for too long.

Some important questions arise.

Would a Wildrose government in minority or slim majority position risk their potential tenuous hold on the legislature by carrying through with democratic reforms like free votes or recall? Could the Wildrose Accountability Act pledge be the first flip-flop for Danielle Smith? If Wildrose does carry through with the legislation, how long will it take for a "bozo eruption" to occur inspiring a recall effort against an MLA elected by a small margin to begin with?

Why I am eating my ballot.

With one week to go in the Alberta general election campaign, I’m wondering what you perceive the biggest issues to be. Perhaps it is F-35 fighter jets, maybe it is the abolition of the gun registry, the omnibus crime bill, perhaps it is public service cuts related to food safety inspectors or the CBC.

…So, I’m being told that those are not issues in the Alberta election… uh, huh… right, apparently, these are federal issues and not provincial issues… okay.

Well this makes sense, since we are contesting a provincial election, we should be discussing provincial issues like education, healthcare, energy and agriculture.

…what’s that… okay, but… No you just said this was a provincial election… WTF?... So apparently, I am now being told that there is a federal contest in this election.

At the same time there is a provincial general election (and a hotly contested one, at that) we are also selecting nominees-in-waiting forthe federal senate. Alberta is the only province in the country that partakes in this practice, and since confederation only three elected senators have ever been appointed to the senate. Otherwise, appointments are made by the Prime Minister without any democratic participation.

It is a little ridiculous that we are holding this federal contest in the middle of a provincial campaign. There has been absolutely no attention paid to the contest, the candidates or the issues. The purpose of a democratic campaign, in my mind, is that every 4 years (or so) we engage in a public conversation around issues of importance and then citizens decide on who they think will best represent those views. If there is no public discussion of the issues, then the outcome of the process fails to have legitimacy.

Another peculiarity of this exercise that questions the legitimacy of the practice is that the people who are being elected next week, could be left in waiting for up to 6 years or longer. Who is to say, that the candidates elected by Albertans in 2012 will still be supported in 2018 or for that matter decades later as they still sit in the chamber. Perhaps the opinion of the candidate on certain issues will have changed; perhaps the opinion of Albertans will have changed. In a legitimate democratic campaign, the candidates need to discuss publicly the relevant issues of the day that they will be deciding on - that is not what is happening in this process. This delay between when an election is made and when an appointment is made brings further questions to the legitimacy of the election.

Now, I understand why we are doing this. There is a genuine interest in reforming the senate and most Albertans have seemingly supported the concept of a triple-E senate as advanced by the Reform party in the 1990s. But the little exercise we are engaged in today is haphazard and only achieves a miniscule element of piecemeal reformation. All it does is add some little bit of credibility to a system that is completely broken without committing to the full set of reforms that are necessary.

At the end of the day, we should talk about real senate reform instead of piecemeal ad hoc revisions and perhaps we should even talk about abolishing the senate. The Senate is Canada’s version of the British House of Lords. The House of Lords was the first version of parliament in the English monarchy. In the 11^th century, this house included religious leaders and key advisors to the king, appointed by the king. It wasn’t until the 14^th century that cities and boroughs demanded representation that the house of commons (representing commoners) was created. For centuries the house of lords included those who held particular church positions, those appointed by the king and those who inherited their seat from their parents. In fact, up until 1999 a chunk of seats in the house of lords were still being passed down within aristocratic families. (This page outlines how seats are given out in Britain today). The house of lords maintained power over the house of commons for many centuries and the struggle of prominence is an important piece of British history. Ultimately, the house of lords is about maintaining power in the hands of the wealthy and elite and those who have become accustomed to holding power. It serves well to maintain the class lines that are so prominent in Britain throughout history and even into today.

In today’s Canada, we have no need for a house of lords or a senate – elected or not. That is why I plan to spoil my senate ballot on April 23^rd and I hope you will too.

180 degrees.

180 degrees. About face.

Alison Redford may have been called a flip flopper before, but this time it was a complete polar turn around. To be fair, I see nothing wrong with flip flopping. We all make mistakes and we all make decisions without necessarily considering the complete information. Reversing a decision simply means that a person has given an issue further consideration and deemed that a different decision would be more appropriate. Policy development should be about getting things right and it shouldn't matter if someone thought wrong before and has since changed their mind - as long as they get it right.

Redford has now gotten it right (sort of). I am talking of course about the announcement made on Thursday that PC MLAs will return their no-meet-committee pay. Clearly, this issue was being heard on the doorsteps as MLAs were canvassing for votes. This issue, it was deemed, was driving down PC poll numbers. A flip was necessary.

And the PCs messaged this one perfectly - in a way very few politicians have had the courage to do so before.

"Growing up I was always taught that the only thing worse than making a mistake was not admitting it and fixing it. I made a mistake on these issues and now I am fixing them," she said. "Leadership is about making decisions; sometimes difficult decisions and sometimes, admitting you were wrong."

So, how did they get it so wrong? How did PC MLAs - smart, politically savvy people, with their ear to the ground - not know that Albertans would be so upset about this? I suspect they knew that there  would be backlash, but they felt that the issue had been managed appropriately. Maybe they have a point.

First off, MLA compensation is broken. There is a dominant narrative that suggests politicians are a bunch of pigs at a trough and we pay them too much money. This narrative is particularly strong in Alberta. So, for the past two decades, MLAs have attempted to hide the real amount of compensation that they get. They got rid of the pension plan and replaced it with severance packages. They slashed base pay and implemented tax free allowances. They implemented pay for committee and portfolio work and boosted it by 30 per cent. All of this is done in an effort to make MLA remuneration appear lower than it actually is. Ultimately, it is dishonest and unfair to both MLAs and taxpayers.

MLAs saw the committee pay, not as pay specifically for the work of the committee, but rather just as a part of their actual total compensation. I think that is why Ray Prins was so insulted by this being phrased as an integrity question. For MLAs, being named to a committee meant they were being recognized for good work and the compensation that came with that was part and parcel of MLA pay. That concept that committee pay is about boosting total compensation for backbenchers as opposed to pay for extra work is echoed in statements made by former MLA Richard Marz.

The real problem is that MLA base compensation is too low. A number of MLAs are doctors, or lawyers or business executives and in many cases they now work harder and longer, under closer scrutiny and for less pay than they did before. Our premier, chairman of the board for an organization that manages a $40 billion per year operation - takes in a bit over $200,000 per year. I wonder how that would compare to the chairman of a similar sized organization in the private sector? The average MLA pay depending on the source you ask, is between $125,000 and $160,000. I'm not going to suggest that that is a small amount of money, but if we want the best decisions made, then we need to attract the best and brightest to public office. We have to give them an incentive for taking the risk, making the sacrifices and managing the time and stress associated with the role.

At the end of the day, a review is necessary and Redford has appropriately appointed former Supreme Court justice John Major to lead that review. Policy-wise it was the right decision to make - unfortunately it didn't work out well for her politically. Hopefully this honest reversal will.

Liberals release poll, continue with bold moves

The Alberta Liberals carried on day two of the provincial election campaign with another bold move. After suggesting that they had the best day one of the parties, I risk coming across as partisan when I suggest that they take the cake again for day two. The big bang came from releasing internal poll results on public opinion of their policy platform. This move wasn't a complete win for the Liberals but it was the boldest move of the day.

(Honourable mention goes to the Conservative "Compare" press releases, but I am sure I will be able to write about those on a future day.)

It is common for parties to engage in all sorts of public polling (and even push polling, if you are Stephen Carter) but it is most uncommon for those parties to release the results publicly. Furthermore, the Alberta Liberals need to be given full points for releasing the entire results - warts and all.

The poll results show that the public might be comfortable with adopting some of the Liberal positions, perhaps even more so if they don't come from the Liberals:

• 57% of Albertans support doubling the seniors home care budget,
• 50% support elimination school fees,
• 53% support post secondary debt forgiveness for grads who stay in Alberta,
• 50% support tuition elimination,
• 64% support free votes in the legislature,
• 54% support income tax hikes on the wealthy, and
• 66% support higher corporate taxes.

 I should mention that all of the poll questions were phrased in the positive and people are more likely to poll in favour of things as opposed to being against things and that may speak to some of the support. But what is interesting is question C3: Having heard these ideas from the Alberta Liberal Party platform do they make you more or less likely to vote for them?

Almost as many people said they were less likely to vote for the Liberals as said they were more likely to vote for them (around a third of respondents each). 28% of people said they wouldn't change their voting intention at all. And given that only 13% of respondents expressed support for the Liberals, this result should not be completely comforting for the grits. The question not asked was would you be more likely to vote for the NDP or Wildrose party after hearing their policy.

Unfortunately, ideas matter less in elections than how effective you are at messaging them or how popular your leader is.  The Liberals have a big branding issue in Alberta that probably can't be solved by simply expressing good ideas.

Two days of bold announcements might help fix the brand, but they must have some big tricks left to pull out later in the campaign too.

Hotel stunt wins day one for Sherman

An election campaign is upon us and that means that each day will be filled with announcements, attacks, ideas, stunts and mistakes. It makes for an interesting time as Albertans spend 4 weeks discussing a wide variety of public policy issues (in theory). With so little surprise as to the day the campaign would start each party had a good opportunity to plan for it and ensure that they started with their best foot forward. For me, the strategies and the tactics are the most compelling thing to watch. There were no flubs, but which party and which happening was most notable on Day One?

My vote has to go to the Alberta Liberal party.

While the other parties held news conferences from the legislature with their leader surrounded by candidates attempting to set a narrative in motion, it was Raj Sherman who decided to do things a little differently. He launched his campaign from the Fairmont Hotel MacDonald of all places.

Dr Sherman started out with a stunt that reinforced the issue on which he is most knowledgeable and for which most Albertans describe as their top priority: healthcare. The message being delivered: a night in acute care is more costly than a night in the most expensive hotel in Edmonton. Point well delivered and well punctuated.

Albertans are finally starting to realise and accept generally that the biggest problem with our healthcare system is the waiting times for extended care beds for seniors. Unfortunately, these people who do not require acute care treatment (what most of us consider to be a general hospital bed), are stuck in acute care beds until the longterm care spaces open up. The log jam here is clogging the hallways down to and out the emergency room doors.

Emergency wards are full of people who are ready to be moved to acute care, but have to wait and the waiting rooms are full of people waiting to see a doctor in the emergency ward. Unfortunately, a good number of the people waiting to be seen in Emergency are being attended to by paramedics and the stress gets passed on to our ambulatory system.

Dr Sherman delivered a solid blow on day one by effectively showing that a little bit of money spent on seniors long term care will save money in all other parts of the system while simultaneously fixing some of the biggest problems.

Election 2012 Begins - A real race is expected.

As expected Premier Alison Redford visited the Lieutenant-Governor's office today and started Alberta's 2012 general election. She waited until the Alberta legislature passed the budget to get the campaign started in an effort to reinforce the party image as stable competent managers. The strategy seemed sound: pass a fair and prudent budget, move forward on key legislation and keep Danielle Smith on the sidelines. The risk, of course, is that you provide a forum for the opposition parties to air their grievances on a daily basis. If a narrative emerges and gains traction, then you are stuck in the house responding to an agenda advanced by the opposition parties. Unfortunately a narrative emerged: the Tories are bullies and have abused the reins of power for too long. This narrative was largely advanced by the Liberals and will serve the Wildrose party well.

Recent polls bear witness to this critical mistake on election timing. Prior to the spring session the PCs had a comfortable 10-15 point lead, but two polls released on the day the election started show the race is much closer.

A CTV-Forum research poll puts the PCs ahead only three points over the Wildrose province wide (36-33) amongst decided voters. Even worse, a Global-Ipsos poll puts the parties in a complete tie (38-38). With a strong Tory lead in Edmonton, both polls demonstrate that Wildrose is ahead in Calgary and rural Alberta.

Now I am watching the polls closely and have developed a little seat projection tool that I hope will serve me well throughout the campaign. According to my projections, a vote held today would yield 51 seats for the PCs, 27 for the Wildrose, 6 seats for the NDP and 3 seats for the Liberals. (My pre-session projections were 65-12-5-5, and a few commentators said I was giving too much credit to the opposition).

Polls aside, 28 days can be an eternity in politics and a vigorous campaign will undoubtedly emerge. Redford strategist Stephen Carter is known to use the full length of the campaign period quite effectively, so the story on April 22nd will be quite different from the story today. I hope to write to you dear reader on a daily basis until then. I hope you will enjoy it and share your thoughts.

On Being a Teacher, or Why Merit Pay Stinks.

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.

Bill 17: De-democratizing healthcare

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

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.

"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

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.

Fraser Institute is Flat Wrong

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

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

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:

• Shannon Sortland
• Duncan Kinney
  
• DJ Kelly
• Chris LaBossiere, or
• Ken Chapman

For some more conservative views on the event try:

• Gemma Beierback
• Stephen Taylor

Cute.

Further to my post on private health care...

Time to put private health delivery to bed.

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?