“Campus Alberta”: Soviet Style Research and Development Comes to Alberta

Posted on May 19, 2013 by

Sigh…where to start?  The barrage of bad news spewing out of the Premier’s office has been so intense that the government’s Machiavellian takeover of post secondary institutions and research and development slipped by with relatively little public outcry.

Sure, some students and academics staged protests on the steps of the Legislature but the general public doesn’t know what the fuss is about.  Is it higher tuition fees?  No.  Do the professors want higher salaries?  No.  Well what then?      

Government-driven R&D

The PC government has recognized (yet again) that Alberta’s economic survival depends on a diversified economy.  You mean we’re not going to be beholden to the oil companies anymore?  Not so fast, grasshopper.

A bit of background.  In 2010 the Stelmach government set up Alberta Innovates to fund short-term, applied research under the banners of Tech Solutions, Bio Solutions, Energy & Environmental Solutions and Health Solutions.  Three short years later, Mr Lukaszuk, Minister of Enterprise and Advanced Education, declared Alberta Innovates was, like a bad cup of coffee, not “totally satisfying”* and dismantled it.  He rolled Tech, Bio and Energy & Environment (and their $160 million budgets) into a yet-to-be-named institute and spun Health Solutions off into Alberta Health Services.

In the interests of brevity let’s call the yet-to-be-named institute the Midas Research Institute (a brilliant term coined by Jeremy Richards in the excellent University of Alberta blog Whither the U of A?)

The Midas Research Institute

Midas Research is a centralized, top-down, government-driven research and development institute created to “help” post secondary institutions commercialize their research in partnership with private companies.  Mr Lukaszuk says the research will focus on the “human, animal, agriculture and petroleum industries”.** I have no idea what a “human industry” is. 

Midas Research will spin off companies and “help start a new economy for Alberta”.  It will also generate a stream of royalties to fund post secondary institutions and benefit businesses.* Assuming of course that the creator of the intellectual property is prepared to give up his IP rights to industry, the university or the government in the first place.

Impact of Midas Research on “basic” research

Researchers are concerned about the impact of Midas Research on “basic” research—pure scientific research intended to increase our understanding of phenomena.  When asked how he intends to nurture basic research Mr Lukaszuk replied: basic science (he meant “research”) is “a good beginning” which can be used to “elevate basic science to higher levels and hopefully attract investment to commercialize the product”.**

Bottom line: there’s no such thing as “basic research”.  All research is geared to commercialization and the generation of profits, preferably within the current four year election cycle so the PCs can take credit for it.

As an aside, aren’t you glad Alexander Fleming wasn’t pursuing a government-driven/corporate R&D agenda when he discovered blue green mould growing in a contaminated petri dish;  he’d have tossed it in the trash!    

Impact of Midas Research on post secondary institutions

When Mr Lukaszuk unveiled the Midas Research Institute he also announced that 26 post secondary institutions would not receive a promised 2% budget increase;  instead they’d be whacked with a 7.2% budget cut.

As a result the $147 million originally slated to go to post secondary institutions is looking for a new home…Midas Research perhaps?

The hardship caused by this $147 million budget shortfall is immeasurable.  Five post secondary institutions have indicated they will cut or curtail 28 programs.  The Universities of Calgary and Alberta have not yet released their program cuts; but the U of A says the $67 million shortfall is close to the base funding for one large faculty or 5 small to mid-sized ones.***

Mr Lukaszuk says don’t worry, his department, nay, his very own office, will make the final decision on the cuts.  He’ll review the list of programs to be cut, check the enrolment levels and decide whether the programs can be “delivered to students in a different fashion” or at different institutions**** Oh I get it.  A course is offered if Mr Lukaszuk says it’s offered.  A course is cut if Mr Lukaszuk says it’s cut—so much for the independence and autonomy of our universities, colleges and technical schools. 

Government-dictated post secondary education and research

Mr Lukaszuk is the Minister of Enterprise and Advanced Education.  He dismantled Alberta Innovates which provided applied-research in accordance with government priorities and replaced it with the Midas Research Institute, a university/government/industry collaboration to provide applied-research in accordance with government priorities.  At the same time he imposed a $147 million reduction in post secondary funding.

It’s clear that Mr Lukaszuk’s mission is press gang our academics and researchers into serving industry.  Those who would prefer to do basic research or teach in a post secondary institution with some level of independence and autonomy need not apply to Campus Alberta.

But here’s the really sad part.  The top-down, government-driven research model doesn’t work!  Internationally renown scientist Dr Bob Church, a founding member of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, former member of the Medical Research Council of Canada and the Alberta Research Council (the list goes on), says the last time he saw this research model was in the Soviet Union in 1972.***

The model doesn’t result in wealth-creating research, but it does create an exodus of top scientists, clinicians and professionals.  And that Mr Lukaszuk is a “brain drain”, not a sustainable economic advantage.

*Calgary Herald, May 6, 2013, A4

**Mr Lukaszuk in an interview with Mike Spear, of Genome Alberta, at the Bio Buzz Conference, (Biotechnology Industry Organization) in Boston earlier this year.

***http://whithertheuofa.blogspot.ca/2013/05/cip-prognosis.html 

**** Hansard, May 13, 2291

*****Hansard, May 6, 2071

Posted in Education, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Conrad Black and Danielle Smith

Posted on May 12, 2013 by

Conrad Black, the Canadian media mogul and convicted felon* was in Calgary last week to have a “conversation” with the Calgary business elite (and me) over lunch at the Calgary Petroleum Club.

The big question is why does Baron Black of Crossharbour—oh let’s just call him Conrad—continue to draw sell-out crowds.  By the end of lunch and the exchange between Conrad and Ms Danielle Smith, the leader of the Opposition, I had my answer.

Before we go there, let’s set the stage.  The Petroleum Club dining room is, as you would imagine, an upscale venue.  Tables filled with glittering china and silverware were clustered in front of a stage upon which were two comfy armchairs—one for Conrad and the other for our host, Dr Roger Gibbons.

Ms Soapbox was seated at table 35, the lone woman at a table of accountants, lawyers and businessmen.  One of the accountants admitted that Conrad had been his client.  The other whipped out The Concise Oxford Dictionary in case Conrad soared off into overblown oratory.

Conrad was witty and entertaining.  He made a number of Conradesque comments.  But he also said some things that were totally out of character.  Here are the highlights:

The American and Canadian justice systems:  The American system is “rancid”.  US prosecutors enjoy a 99.5% conviction rate** in comparison to the Canadian conviction rate of 62%.   US prosecutors achieve these stellar results by coercing witnesses to “turn” on the accused.  The Canadian system is more even-handed and the defendant has a fighting chance.  I agree.

The US penal system:  Conrad says it’s not bad, at least in low security, but admits that he was not “psychologically in the place”.  He had email access and his writing career flourished.

Coleman Federal Prison

Conrad made an uncharacteristic and insightful comment:  Prime Minister Harper’s push for more prisons and stiffer mandatory sentences is ill-conceived, particularly for non-violent offenders who generally leave prison in worse shape than when they went in.  Hear hear!        

The decline of America:  America’s greatness was founded on hard working immigrants and brilliant statesmen (I’d venture a guess that Conrad sees himself in the latter category).  However the US will sink into decline if it fails to correct three flaws:  (1) complacency, (2) the utter lack of interest in anything outside their borders, and (3) the belief that they are an “exceptional” nation.  He thought the US could turn it around, I’m not so sure.      

President Obama:  Obama gets credit for being the first non-white president and for stealing “Bill and Hilary’s party” right out from under their noses.  However Obama has not shown global leadership in addressing the buildup of nuclear weapons and is “playing chicken” with the Republicans in a misguided effort to address the ballooning national debt.

Quebec:  Quebec is a “society of consultants and academics, both equally useless” (to which Dr Gibbins took mock offence).  Quebec’s “addiction” to transfer payments has eliminated the risk of secession and a federal party no longer needs Quebec to win a majority.  Probably not how Mulcair sees it.

Ezra Levant and Mark Stone:  The Human Rights Commission cases against Levant and Stone were “scandalous!”  Freedom of speech must be protected.  This principle holds for Tom Flannagan as well.  This comment elicited a smattering of applause.

Enter Danielle Smith

The most interesting conversation occurred when a woman took the microphone and said, “Lord Black, my name is Danielle Smith”.  The audience held its breath.  What’s her question?  It turned out to be innocuous—should Canada adopt a federal securities commission like the SEC?***

Conrad peered into the crowd, shading his eyes against the spotlight’s glare.  “Will you tell me your name again?” Danielle repeated her name and reminded Conrad she’d once worked for him at the Calgary Herald.  “Ah, you are indeed who I think you are”.  After a pause he complemented her on the “tremendous job” she’d done with the Wildrose and added a jab at Redford’s PCs with the observation, “Conservatives sometimes fish too far to the left”.  Clearly Conrad is not up on Redford’s recent attempts to be even more conservative than the Wildrose, nevertheless Danielle looked pleased.  

Why did I pay to see Conrad Black?

Mr Black and his ilk hold great wealth and power (even after they fall from grace).  They chair influential gatherings like the Davos World Economic Forum and the Bilderberg group.  They shape provincial, national and global policies and our politicians unabashedly seek their guidance. 

Two recent examples:  Prime Minister Harper consulted with Murray Edwards, the billionaire CEO of Canadian Natural Resources Limited, about whether a Chinese state-owned entity should take over Nexen (Mr Edwards had reservations).****

Ms Redford told Ms Smith in Question Period that she would take advice from Brian Ferguson, CEO of Cenovus, on the “bitumen bubble” spread (and the basis for her austerity budget) “well before” she’d take the Opposition’s advice.*****

I paid $250 to see Conrad Black to get a sense of where the man is going and which politicians he’s taking along for the ride.   It was worth every penny.

*Conrad was convicted of mail fraud and obstruction of justice by the US courts and served 37 months of a 42 month sentence.

**In 2011 the US Dept of Justice reported a conviction rate of 93% so Conrad isn’t far off the mark.

***Conrad’s answer was no; beef up your provincial securities commission and sell it to someone who’s business friendly and criminal hostile. 

****Globe and Mail online Dec 9, 2012

*****Hansard Apr 25, 2013, p 2046

 

 

Posted in Politics and Government, Rich and/or Famous | Tagged , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Strike While the Iron is Hot: The Edmonton Remand Centre Labour Dispute

Posted on May 5, 2013 by

For years I’ve wondered whether unions had outlived their usefulness and were simply using their collective bargaining power to crank up wages and benefits at the expense of…well…who knows what.  But the wildcat strike arising out of the Edmonton Remand Centre labour dispute proved me wrong.

Edmonton Remand Centre

The Edmonton Remand Centre is the largest and most technologically advanced facility in Canada.  Planning and construction of this state-of-the-art facility, which is the size of 10 football fields, started in 2007.  Total cost?  $580 million.  In April the facility was preparing to receive the first of 1,952 inmates when two correctional officers raised safety concerns relating to design flaws and the guards’ lack of readiness to accept 800 inmates who would soon be flooding through the doors.

Their employer, the Department of Justice, reacted by suspending them.  This is a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act which not only obligates an employee to report safety concerns, but prohibits an employer from taking disciplinary action against an employee for doing so.*

Deputy Premier Lukaszuk further inflamed the situation by calling the complaints a personality conflict between staff and their supervisor.  This sparked wildcat strikes across the province as guards, sheriffs, social workers and clerks walked off the job in a show of solidarity.  Courthouses shut down, trials were postponed and the matter finally got the media attention it deserved.

What’s the big deal?

Before we leap to the conclusion that correctional officers are big boys who should stop whining and get on with their jobs, let’s gather the facts.

Fact #1:  A “remand” centre is a facility built to hold inmates awaiting trial.  Some are accused of violent crimes; others are considered a flight risk if they’re granted bail.  Incarceration is measured in days and months, not years and decades.

Fact #2:  The Edmonton Remand Centre is physically and organizationally constructed on the “direct supervision” model of inmate management.  Correctional officers are “stationed inside living units to maintain direct and frequent contact with inmates.”**

Fact #3:  The “direct supervision” model of inmate management is a major departure from the models that were in place for the last 33 years.  Under the prior “intermittent surveillance” and “remote surveillance” models, correctional officers had very little direct contact with inmates, relying instead on remote observation and intercom communication. They were physically separated from inmates by security barriers made of stainless steel, concrete and plexiglass.***

All that has changed.  Under the new “direct supervision” model, correctional officers are no longer separated from the inmates.  Quite the opposite.  Now a (as in ONE) correctional officer will be in direct contact with 48 to 64 cells.  His responsibilities have also changed.  He’s expected to supervise inmates, not just observe them (ie. prevent vandalism and violence instead of just respond to it).

Supervision includes influencing an inmate’s behavior by granting or withholding privileges like family visits and access to TV.

Fact #4:  This was not the first time correctional officers brought their safety concerns over design flaws to the government’s attention.  They’ve submitted pages of issues throughout the planning and construction phases and have been ignored…until now.

Is this a big deal?  You bet it is.  Stephen Saunders, a writer in the field of inmate management, describes the “direct supervision” model as a new concept that “combines principles of human behavior and facility design to create detention environments that facilitate the officer’s effectiveness”.   He notes that ”…the greatest concern about being incarcerated or seeking employment in a detention facility is personal safety…detention facilities have gained a reputation for danger and fear.”*** 

It is absolutely essential that a change of this magnitude be well thought out and carefully implemented—particularly when 800 inmates are delivered on the doorstep to be processed within 48 hours.

The Right Government Response

Mr Lukaszuk

Instead of suspending correctional officers and trivializing their safety concerns as personality conflicts or collective bargaining histrionics, the government should have investigated these concerns properly.  (It’s mildly ironic that Deputy Premier Lukaszuk would dismiss these safety concerns so quickly when he himself ran to the police in the last election complaining that a constituent punched him while he was door-knocking—the constituent was a 67 year old man dying of liver failure and on the waiting list for knee and shoulder surgery).

Instead of characterizing this event as an “us-against-them” battle (Alberta taxpayers against the union) and demanding the union pay the government $1.3 million to cover the (alleged) cost to backfill the striking employees and instead of demanding a 6 month suspension in union dues, the government should be satisfied with the $350,000 fine already imposed on the union by the courts.

Instead of trying to save face by agreeing to investigate “new and specific” safety concerns (the same ploy the government used in the Queue Jumping Inquiry) the government should follow up on the pages of concerns tabled in connection with the Edmonton Remand Centre over the last 5 years.

Strike while the iron is hot

While we’re on the topic, there is absolutely nothing wrong with striking (literally) when the iron is hot if the union has exhausted all of its legal remedies and it’s the only way to ensure that its membership will be safe.  Which brings us full circle.  The union movement was born in the Industrial Age in order to protect workers from exploitation and unsafe work conditions.  It continues to serve the same purpose today.  Doesn’t say much for how far we’ve come, does it?

*Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSA 2000, Sections 35 and 36

** Alberta Justice webpage http://www.solgps.alberta.ca/programs_and_services/correctional_services/adult_centre_operations/nerc/Pages/new_edmonton_remand_centre.aspx

***The discussion of the three models of inmate management comes from the paper “Direct Supervision Jails: A Management Model for the 21st Century” by Stephen I Saunders III.

Posted in Crime and Justice, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 11 Comments

The Face of Terrorism

Posted on April 28, 2013 by

I’ve been to Washington DC many times, but this trip was different.  In addition to the usual buzz created by lobbyists, bureaucrats, politicians and businessmen who had places to go and people to see, there was a sense of unease.  This feeling of foreboding was evident in the police cars parked on the street corners and the crowd control fencing encircling the White House.  It peaked with the false AP Newswire tweet that the President had been injured in an explosion at the White House which caused the stock market to nose dive.

The Boston marathon bombings were clearly taking their toll.

My American friends debated whether their country’s “experiment” with diversity had failed and whether it was time to return to the “melting pot”.  Are we all to be indoctrinated into the fundamentalist Baptist faith? 

They debated whether waterboarding was really torture.  No limbs are cut off.   And whether it was okay to torture Dzhohkar Tsarnaevthe, the suspected Boston marathon bomber, who it should be remembered is an American citizen.   

Lawmakers suggested they would have captured the Boston marathon bombers much sooner if they’d been allowed to deploy drone surveillance on the American people.

Thank god it’s not like that in Canada I thought.  We cherish our Charter rights and would never compromise our civil liberties in a knee jerk reaction brought about by fear…

…and then I came home and read the headline in Saturday’s Calgary Herald—CHANGING FACE OF TERROR.  Four faces stared off the front page;  the brothers accused of engineering the Boston marathon bombings and two men accused of plotting to derail a Via Rail passenger train.  The word “Terror” was written in bold typeface in case we didn’t get it.

Politics - Stephen Harper - CP- may 2 2012This story provided air cover for a much more important story reported the day before—the Senate and the House had passed Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act.  The full name of this legislation is An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act.   

The fact that Bill S-7 is an amendment to existing legislation is critically important because it signals to Canadians (if they’d bother to check) that we already have significant anti-terrorism measures in place.

For example, Section 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code gives the police the power to charge suspected terrorists with offences under various conventions and protocols set by global authorities including the United Nations and The Hague.  These conventions include offences relating to aviation, maritime navigation, fixed platforms on the continental shelf, nuclear materials, hostage-taking, bombings and financing terrorism, both inside or outside of Canada.

Furthermore, the Criminal Code defines the offence of terrorism to include causing death or injury, endangering life, public health or public safety, inflicting property damage, disrupting essential services, conspiring, attempting or threatening to commit such an act or being an accessory after the fact or counseling another in the commission of such an act in order to pursue a political, religious, or ideological cause, or to intimidate the public with regard to its security, including its economic security.

That pretty well covers the waterfront, don`t you think?

So what’s the point of the new Combating Terrorism Act?

Here’s what the Legislative branch lawyers have to say.  Bill S-7 simply reinstates (and broadens) provisions in the Criminal Code to allow “for investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions/preventive arrest in relation to terrorist activity”. *

In plain English this means that we’ve entered the zone portrayed in the sci-fi thriller Minority Report.  Parliament has authorized the police to arrest someone before he’s done anything (that’s the “preventative arrest” part) and to force him to appear at a hearing and divulge any “information” he may have (that’s the “investigative hearings” part).  To be fair, before such an arrest can be made the police must get the consent of the Attorney General and, in some cases, a judge’s order.    

Presumably the Attorney General will rely on the information presented to him by the police urging him to let them make a preventative arrest.  He’ll be well aware of the fact that if he doesn’t grant his consent and heaven forbid something goes wrong, the Attorney General`s picture will be plastered all over the front page of every Canadian newspaper together with the alleged terrorists under the banner headline:  AG Soft on Terrorists!

Police State

Law Enforcement at Boston Marathon

The real question here is: Why?  Why do police need these additional powers now?  What’s changed so radically that the already expansive powers available to law enforcement under the Criminal Code are no longer sufficient?  And given the impact Bill S-7 will have on our civil liberties why hasn’t there been a more fulsome debate on these issues in Parliament and in the media? 

Surely we are not so frightened as a nation that we will gladly give up our civil liberties and enter a police state for our own protection—that is simply trading the tyranny of terrorism for something much more sinister.

*Library of Parliament Publication No. 41-1-S7-E

Posted in Crime and Justice, Politics and Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 15 Comments

A Trip to the Mayo Clinic: Your dime or mine?

Posted on April 20, 2013 by
English: Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota - Gon...

Mayo Clinic seen from Cafeteria

This past January Mr Soapbox and my youngest daughter (let’s call her Mini) went on a pilgrimage to the Mayo clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.  Unbeknownst to them they were following in the footsteps of Ms Michele Lahey, former Chief Operating Officer of the former Capital Health Region, who’d made the trek almost six years to the day before them.

Ms Lahey was advised by her Alberta oncologist that she was cancer-free.  But her boss, Sheila Weatherill, CEO of Capital Health, told her to get a second opinion from the Mayo.*          

Mini Soapbox, on the other hand, had not received a clean bill of health by an Alberta medical specialist.  In fact she was stuck in that limbo known as “the waiting list” with more than four months to go before she could move to the next step in the diagnostic process.

The total cost of Ms Lahey’s trip was $7,232.  This included $5,215 for the Mayo Clinic, two nights at the Marriott, plus meals at one of the finest restaurants in Rochester.  Ms Weatherill magnanimously offered to charge the cost of Ms Lahey’s Mayo trip to the Alberta taxpayer by letting Ms Lahey expense the costs, thereby avoiding the need for approval by the out-of-country health services committee.

Mini Soapbox’s trip to the Mayo cost about $10,000, plus an additional $5000 for air fare, five nights at the Best Western and meals at Appleby’s.  It didn’t dawn on her anxious parents to apply to the out-of-country health services committee so that the bill could be passed on to Alberta taxpayers.  We simply paid it out of our own little soapbox pockets.

What were they thinking?

To say that Ms Weatherill and Ms Lahey displayed astoundingly bad judgment would be an understatement.  When senior executives in Alberta’s healthcare system circumvent the out-of-country review process and flaunt the rules for claiming expenses to confirm a solid diagnosis by an Alberta oncologist they demonstrate an appalling lack of respect for very system they are being paid to administer.

The Government is Accountable  

The PC government’s response to this mess is even more shocking.  The PCs started with the classic Kubler-Ross stages of denial and anger.  They skipped bargaining, depression and acceptance of responsibility to land squarely on “it’s not my fault”. 

Consider these pathetic excuses: (1) the Capital Health region no longer exists.  So what?  Its successor organization, Alberta Health Services, does.  (2) Alberta Health Services has clear transparent expense account rules.  That’s nice, how do we know they’re working?  And the most telling and feeble excuse of them all from Fred Horne:  (3) “I was not the Minister of Health in 2007.** True…but the government in which Minister Horne holds a cabinet post was in power in 2007 and is accountable for any and all transgressions that occurred on its watch.

This is a bedrock principle of corporate governance.  If successor organizations and successor officials are not held accountable for misdeeds that occurred in the past, they would simply avoid all liability by a never-ending cycle of reorganization.  Take the BP Macondo rig explosion that killed 11 people.  Using this argument, BP could avoid all responsibility by simply replacing the vice president in charge of operations and rolling the culpable business unit into another corporate entity.   

It doesn’t work that way for business and it cannot work that way for government.

What to do

Albertans must wait for the next election cycle before they can replace this government, but we’re not entirely helpless.

The opposition parties are pushing for a full forensic audit of healthcare expenses right back to 2005.  The government argues this is not necessary because, to quote Minister Horne: “We have a single health authority with a single set of rules, open and transparent rules that allow Albertans to verify that this situation could not happen and is not happening in Alberta today”.** (With that remark Mr Horne walked into another buzz-saw—under his watch Alberta Health Services reimbursed Alison Tonge, a former AHS executive, for diagnostic services provided at a private, not public clinic).

To put it simply:  All the rules, policies and procedures in the world will not instill good judgment and an ethical conscience in those who lack it in the first place.

A forensic audit of all the senior managers and executives at Alberta Health Services, including those who’ve worked their way up through its predecessor organizations, is essential to ensure that the pattern of Tory patronage has not packed the AHS with people who wouldn’t know an ethical dilemma if it smacked them upside the head.

And just to be clear, I’m not saying Ms Lahey should not be able to go to the Mayo Clinic for a second opinion.  It’s her life and if she needs additional assurance so be it.  But the cost of her piece of mind should come out of her own pocket book, not ours.

Mini Soapbox’s visit to the Mayo

Welcome Art at Mayo
(photo credit “Mini”)

And how is Mini?  She received excellent care at the Mayo.  The doctors, nurses, staff and volunteers (many of them former Mayo employees) were kind, courteous and efficient.  She has a treatment plan and is well on the way to good health.  Thank you for asking.

*Ms Weatherill disputes Ms Lahey’s version of the facts but took one for Team PC and paid the $7,232.  

** Hansard, Apr 16, 1828.

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 12 Comments

Ms Soapbox’s Great Adventure—Off to the Leg (it rhymes with “edge”)

Posted on April 14, 2013 by

Last week Ms Soapbox was introduced to the Legislative Assembly by Liberal MLA, Laurie Blakeman, the oldest (as in longest-serving, not age!) opposition MLA.  Ms Blakeman noted that Ms Soapbox was a lawyer but said the House wouldn’t hold that against her.  Ms Soapbox stood to receive the “traditional warm welcome” of the Assembly.  The MLAs thumped their desks and waved, warming the cockles of Ms Soapbox’s heart!

The Caucus Meeting

When Liberal MLA, Dr David Swann, invited me to attend a Liberal caucus meeting I leapt at the chance.  In less than 10 minutes I was booked on the 6 a.m. (groan) Red Arrow motor coach;  apparently they’re not called busses any more.

Jonathan, the chief of staff, greeted me at the Legislative Annex and fortified me with muffins that we filched from the snack table reserved for MLAs in Committee.         

We settled into the caucus meeting.  Party leader Dr Raj Sherman and Jeff, the communications guy, were running late due to an interview with Rutherford.  The MLAs and staffers are an animated bunch…so much so that Ms Blakeman (did I mention that she’s the oldest serving opposition MLA) was forced to reel them in with stern looks and threats to confiscate their cell phones.  Dutifully we turned our attention to the white board.

The first topic: finalizing questions for Question Period.  What are the right questions?  Who’s going to ask them?  What are the other opposition parties asking?  What’s the press interested in today?  Who gets the first question, the second, the third?

This is not a trivial exercise.  Question Period is an opportunity to hold the government to account but only if the opposition can bring the issue to the public’s attention.  The best way to engage the public is to grab a media headline.  Hence the questions are phrased in delicious little sound bites that play well in the media.  The opposition doesn’t expect a decent answer from the government (although a foot-in-mouth response is always welcome).  It’s the question, more than the answer, that’s important.

With question period settled, the meeting turned to other things.    

The Tunnel, Library and Cafe

After caucus we entered the eye of the storm—that moment of serenity when MLAs disappear into their offices to do some real work before the tempest hits.

David took me to the Leg through the underground tunnel.  Who knew there was a tunnel connecting the Annex to the Leg?  An escape route in case disgruntled Albertans storm the ramparts?     

We emerged in the rotunda; smack in the middle the Vaisakhi Day celebration marking the 314th anniversary of the foundation of the Sikh community.  Music, food, men in turbans, women in sparkling saris, children everywhere.  Is every day this exciting at the Leg? 

We ducked into the Library, a lovely room with tall windows, dark furniture and old IMG_0211 croppedfashioned stacks, but alas, no people.  Blame it on the Internet.  Then off to lunch at the Leg Cafe where a good-natured bear of a man told us where to find the best pizza in Calgary.

The Visitors Gallery

David dropped me at Security next to the Visitors Gallery.  I relinquished my briefcase and purse but they had to prise my cell phone out of my hand.  Then it was off to the metal detector.  Odd that the metal detector is on the second floor, giving disgruntled Albertans armed with tomatoes free access to the MLAs just outside the Assembly Hall.    

I took my place the front row and after Laurie’s delightful introduction, listened while the oldest opposition MLA in the Leg introduced the lady sitting beside me—Dr PearlAnn Reichwein,* a university professor deeply concerned about the changes being inflicted on Alberta’s 26 institutions of higher learning.

Following the introductions, the Assembly moved to the best part of the agenda—Question Period!

Question Period

Question Period is a blood sport.  TV doesn’t do it justice.   The opposition parties were in fine form, badgering the government over revoking veterans’ hospital parking passes, delisting generic drugs without providing replacements, the carbon tax (or lack thereof) and insufficient post secondary funding.

The government responded with excuses and platitudes, demonizing the opposition as the “extreme left” and “extreme right”.  Meaning that the PCs are the “moderate centre”?

And so it went, the opposition baiting the PCs and thumping their desks in appreciation of each other’s questions, the PC ministers rising one by one, like lumbering bears, trying to defend policy decisions that defy explanation.  At one point the opposition gaffawed so loudly that the Speaker scolded everyone.  Decorum broke out…for all of 2 minutes.  God, I love Question Period.

Reflections on the Red Arrow

Tucked into the back of the motor coach, watching the safety video narrated by my passenger service representative, I reflected on the day.

The PC dynasty is crumbling.**Only a miracle will save it now.  The Wildrose will likely form the next government.  The big question is whether it will be a minority or majority government.

IMG_0228This is where you come in.  Do you want to balance a Wildrose government with a progressive option?  Then contact your favourite progressive MLA and find out what you can do to help out now.  Ask to meet with caucus.  If they truly want to serve Albertans, they’ll find a way to accommodate your request.

*In one of those Casablanca moments (“Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine”) I discovered that PearlAnn was the daughter of a friend I’d met through the Whitemud Citizens for Public Health.  Pure serendipity. 

**Here’s a great Youtube video that sums up Albertans’ frustration with the PCs:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPlo1nNJGyE&sns=em

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments

What Would It Take to Make you Plead Guilty? Alberta Revamps Traffic Court

Posted on April 7, 2013 by

What would it take to make you plead guilty to a crime you didn’t commit?  One hundred dollars?  One thousand dollars?  Need more information?

Okay, what if the crime isn’t serious?  And if you plead guilty you can avoid the hassle of driving downtown, parking in an expensive lot, going through airport-style security and lollygagging around in the court house waiting to file your not guilty plea?  Still not sure?

Well how about this?  If you exercise your right to plead not guilty and the judge finds you guilty, your fine will double.  Does that make a difference?

You bet it does.  You’ve just been coerced into pleading guilty by the threat of extra punishment if you dare to plead not guilty.  And that, my friends, is a violation of a bedrock principle of criminal justice—the right to a fair trial.

The Justice Minister, Jonathan Denis, doesn’t see it this way.  In his mind this perversion of your right to a fair trial is nothing more than a “discount”; no different than paying a parking ticket early to save a few bucks.*

This is absolute nonsense.  A parking ticket is issued when you’ve overstayed your parking.  You know you’re guilty.  It’s simply a matter of when you’re going to pay the fine.  In the traffic court case, you think you might be innocent and you want to fight the charge.  But the Justice Minister is going to punish you if you got it wrong.

The underlying rationale

Mr Denis says he wants to save money and clear the gridlock in traffic court by moving traffic court out of downtown Calgary and Edmonton to who knows where.  He’s concerned about the poor schmucks who have to find their way downtown, pay for parking, fight their way through court house security and long queues in order to pay fines or enter not guilty pleas.  Wouldn’t it be lovely if Mr Denis’ colleague, Health Minister Horne, had the same desire to help us avoid the gridlock in the ER and the queues for surgery?  But I digress.

I’m all for saving money, but there’s only one reason to penalize Albertans for exercising their right to a fair trial and that’s to reduce the number of cases coming before a traffic court judge.  If you can reduce the number of cases you can reduce the number of judges, court rooms, prosecutors and administrators, sound familiar?

Charlie Pester, a former police officer who represents defendants in traffic court, is worried that the government will replace traffic court judges with administrative tribunals that aren’t bound by the rules of evidence.*

Wildrose MLA, Heather Forsythe is also concerned.  She asked the Justice Minister to confirm whether his ADM told traffic prosecutors that the government would reduce or eliminate traffic courts and traffic prosecutors.** He gave the classic lawyer’s response:  “…to the best of my knowledge there is no such plan being considered at this juncture”—which means that at tomorrow’s juncture, there may indeed be such a plan.

This isn’t a trivial concern.  The government can eliminate judges, prosecutors and defence counsel in a heartbeat by expanding the powers of the Alberta Traffic Safety Board, an administrative tribunal already in existence under the Traffic Safety Act.

A tempest in a teapot?

At this point you’re thinking, what’s the big deal?  This is traffic court! 

Right, and there’s the rub.  The Traffic Safety Act is a complex piece of legislation with over 200 sections that cross reference other statutes including the National Defence Act and the Criminal Code.  The Justice Minister says 218,000 criminal charges and 1.9 million traffic violations have issued under the Act.***

The Alberta Traffic Safety Board has tremendous power.  It can hold you in contempt or issue a bench warrant if you fail to show up (section 29).  Both will land you in jail.  It can suspend or permanently revoke your licence (s 30 and 31).  This can impair your ability to earn a living.

A factor the Board will consider when deciding whether to suspend or revoke your licence is your past conviction record (s 33) – that would be all those times you decided to plead guilty in order to avoid the hassle of driving downtown, parking in an expensive lot, getting through security and waiting in line to plead not guilty.

And depending on the charge you could face a fine of up to $25,000 and, if you fail to pay, 6 months in prison.  

Lastly, and most importantly, the Board’s decision is final and not subject to appeal (s 47).

Guilty is not always guilty

The Traffic Safety Act lets a judge (assuming he’s still there) find you innocent even if you’re guilty if you can show the offence couldn’t be avoided (s 161).  My daughter was ticketed for being in an intersection on a red light.  She couldn’t complete a left turn because a pedestrian steamed into the crosswalk against the “don’t walk” light.  My daughter disputed the offence before a traffic court judge.  Her evidence was the traffic camera photo that showed her car in the intersection and the pedestrian stopped dead in the cross walk yelling like a lunatic.  The judge found her not guilty.  Would my daughter have bothered to fight the charge and risk a substantially higher fine if she lost?

The Roman philosopher Seneca said “Every guilty person is his own hangman”.  What kind of Justice Minister coerces innocent Albertans into pleading guilty and hanging themselves simply to save a few bucks?

*Calgary Herald, Mar 20, A9

**Hansard, Mar 13, 2013, p 1548

***Hansard, Mar 18, 2013, p 1631

Posted in Crime and Justice, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 11 Comments