Dear Mr Harper: About that Poll…

Posted on July 26, 2015 by susanonthesoapbox

On Thursday I answered the phone and it was you Mr Harper (well, your robot pollster lady) wondering whether I’d answer a 30 second political survey.

While I can’t be certain she was calling on your behalf, the nature of her questions led me to the inevitable conclusion that I was talking to none other than Our Dear Leader.

Here’s why.

Question 1: What do you care about most?  

Right off the bat you manipulated my response.

The choices you gave me were: a balanced economy, healthcare, public safety and two other things that were so inconsequential I can’t remember them.

My biggest concern is your democracy-killing anti-terrorism bills but the only semi-related response was “public safety”. I couldn’t click “public safety” because you’d interpret my answer as support for these wretched bills when in fact the opposite is true.

Mr Harper smiling

Also, you completely ignored the possibility that I might be fussed about climate change.

I’m not surprised. In a recent photo op you stood before the billowing smoke of a forest fire and vowed to take a hard look at new ways to fight wildfires.

When asked whether there may be a connection between significantly more forest fires and—dare we say it—climate change you said “it’s possible” but refused to commit any funding or resources to the issue.

Climate change is eclipsed by your focus on the “jihadist threat.”

Sadly, this strategy seems to be working for you and your colleagues David Cameron and Tony Abbot.

A recent Pew Centre Survey of 40 countries found that climate change was the most commonly cited global threat everywhere but Canada, the US, Australia, South Korea, Japan and some parts of Europe.

Fifty-eight percent of Canadians rated ISIS a more serious threat than climate change which registered with only 45% of the population. ISIS was the number one threat for 68% of Americans and 69% of Australians; climate change ranked 42% and 37% respectively.

This isn’t surprising considering the war rhetoric you, Cameron and Abbot use whenever you talk about terrorism.

Remember your “not now, not ever” speech? It was a classic. You introduced your anti-terrorism bills by characterizing “violent jihadism” as “an act of war” against the “Canadian way of life”.

It’s no coincidence that your “way of life” rhetoric echoes the words of Winston Churchill who described Britain’s battle with Hitler as a battle for the survival of British life.

But know this: Churchill was right and you are wrong. It’s you, not the so-called jihadists, who are crushing our rights and freedoms.

Oh and while we’re on the topic of Winston Churchill, somehow I don’t think he would have hidden in a closet when Michael Zehaf-Bibeau stormed Parliament Hill…

Questions 2 & 3: Who will you vote for? Who’s your second choice?

That’s easy. Mulcair’s party followed by Trudeau’s party.

Question 4: We have fixed election dates. Do you think it would be unfair to move away from the fixed date?

Well, isn’t that clever! You’re trying to assess whether your conservative and undecided voters will react negatively if you call an early election.

Mr Harper “unbuttoned”

I know why you’re asking. With each passing day Canadians are getting to know Mulcair better. He’s even shared his childhood photographs. Turns out he was a hippy in university just like the rest of us! You on the other hand look like you were born in a three piece suit. Gracious, even young Justin is starting to make some sense.

I was tempted to click “no problem” with a snap election just to get you to do it (we all know how well that worked out for Jim Prentice) but decided to be honest instead. Yes it’s a big deal.

Question 5: What species are you, male or female?

You probably didn’t use the word “species” but by the end of the 30 seconds I felt like I’d been communicating with an alien so it wouldn’t have surprised me if you had.

One last thing

I wish your poll allowed respondents to add a few words at the end.

I would have paraphrased the British journalist, George Monbiot, who said men like you, Cameron and Abbot “won’t engage in generational struggles with real existential threats—climate breakdown first among them—for fear of alienating their sponsors”.

Instead you invest yourselves with “belligerent glory while forgetting Churchill’s ability to place the interests of the nation above the interests of his sponsors and his class”.

Place the interests of the nation above the interests of his sponsors and his class.

Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change?  

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , | 21 Comments

While Brad Wall is “Showboating” Rachel Notley Moves On

Posted on July 19, 2015 by susanonthesoapbox

“Premier Wall says that if standing up for your industry and your province is showboating, take me to the bridge.”—Brad Wall’s response to Rachel Notley’s comment that Wall was “showboating” on the eve of the premiers’ meeting.  

Brad Wall is the second provincial premier (Jim Prentice was the first) who tried to take a bite out of Rachel Notley and ended up crumpled on the floor.

The brouhaha started when Mr Wall said Ms Notley had given Quebec a de facto veto of future pipelines when she said Quebec would support such pipelines if Alberta demonstrates it’s taking real action on climate change and environmental protection.

This, he said, was a rejection of the principles of Confederation and a failure to stand up for industry. He argued that if nothing else, forking over $10 billion in equalization payments to the have-not provinces should shut them up.

Premier Notley & Premier Couillard

Ms Notley responded by saying the provinces could accomplish more by working together than by picking fights and that any suggestion that having a consensual dialogue translated into one province handing off its authority to another was “simply ridiculous and a bit naïve.”

Mr Wall went ballistic.

He said he felt like Homer Simpson in the episode where Homer wanted to buy a gun but was told he had to wait five days. “Five days, but I’m mad now.”* Okay, Mr Wall is angry but did he have to pick the rampaging shooter analogy?  

Mr Wall decided to attend the premiers’ meeting after all. Originally he was going to stay home to deal with the forest fires. Presumably he realized that unless he was going to grab a fire hose they could spare him for a couple of days.

And guess what.  At the end of the day all 13 provincial and territorial leaders, including the truculent Mr Wall, signed off on the Canadian Energy Strategy.

The Canadian Energy Strategy

The Canadian Energy Strategy is long on visionary statements and short on details…but it’s a start.

PM Harper

Its major shortcoming is it lacks federal government support. Once again Prime Minister Harper refused to acknowledge the meeting was going on. (When will the PM learn that he can’t run a confederation without some help from the provinces?)

The provinces agreed to collaborate on their regulatory and environmental practices but unless the feds step up to the plate, the provinces will not be able to deliver on a critical objective—to cut regulatory red tape or significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions—because pipelines carrying oilsands bitumen or natural gas destined for American or Asian markets require NEB approval.

And the NEB is a federal regulatory agency beyond the reach of any provincial government.

A back door solution

In an effort to overcome the limitations arising from the constitutional division of powers, the premiers crafted a clever work-around.

They want a seat at the table when the feds engage in international negotiations, agreements and forums on energy and climate change issues.

This is brilliant given the Prime Minister’s propensity for negotiating trade deals that allow foreign corporations to sue Canada if the provinces pass environmental legislation that reduces a foreign corporation’s profits.

No doubt this objective will go down like a lead balloon with Our Dear Leader…but it may be more acceptable to his replacement come October.

Ironically, Brad Wall fretted that Alberta was rewriting the Constitution by giving a de facto pipeline veto to other provinces when in reality it’s Prime Minister Harper who should be worried by the provinces’ desire to encroach on the federal domain.

See what happens when you refuse to acknowledge premiers’ meetings—the provinces lay siege to 24 Sussex Drive.

The still petulant Mr Wall

Mr Wall may have signed the Canadian Energy Strategy but he’s not happy.

Premier Wall

He says the West should stop apologizing for its resources and stop being diplomatic about its message. Perhaps he can suggest a suitably belligerent alternative?

He bemoans the fact that all we’ve got to show for our goodwill is the National Energy Program (good lord, that old chestnut) and “precisely no pipelines” have been approved (well, except TCPL’s Keystone XL pipeline and Enbridge’s Northern Gateway,** approved by the NEB in Mar 2009 and June 2014 respectively).

Mr Wall concludes that more Canadians would support the Energy East pipeline if they knew it would end foreign imports from places like Venezuela and Saudia Arabia. (How? Energy East will export bitumen to overseas markets. No one can force producers to sell their product within Canada if they can get a better price elsewhere).

It’s time for Mr Wall to get off the bridge of the showboat and go down to the brig. There he can study the tape of the Notley/Prentice debate. He’ll soon learn that cheap shots will get him absolutely nowhere with the little blonde premier from Alberta.

*Globe & Mail July 17, 2015, A9

**Northern Gateway was approved subject to 209 conditions that Al Monaco, Enbridge’s CEO, is prepared to satisfy.

Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

The Cowboy Code and the Abuse of Grazing Leases

Posted on July 12, 2015 by susanonthesoapbox

Alberta ranchers could teach Wall Street moguls a thing or two about leveraging other peoples’ money for personal gain.

The Auditor General just released a report showing that Alberta ranchers short changed Albertans about $25 million last year. Furthermore, they’ll keep doing it unless the new government does something about grazing leases on Crown land.

“Longhorns Gone Wild” by Robert Hurst

To be fair, the ranchers aren’t doing anything illegal. They’re using cowboy ingenuity to exploit a loophole in the law that’s big enough to accommodate a herd of Texas longhorns.

Grazing leases

Sixty percent of Alberta land is owned by the Crown on behalf of Albertans. Ranchers, grazing associations and corporations graze 300,000 cattle on 5,700 grazing leases. They pay the government (that would be us) $4 million a year for grazing rights that would cost them 10 times more on the private market.

Furthermore, they keep entry fees paid by oil and gas companies that rightfully should go to the Crown.

The Auditor General estimates that the government is losing up to $25 million a year in entry fees but acknowledges it’s hard to pin down the precise number due to incomplete information.

The government pegged this number at $40 million in 1999 then revised it to $16 million during the debate on Bill 31 which was meant to update the rules. Bill 31 was never proclaimed—apparently ranchers are effective lobbyists in addition to being shrewd businessmen.*

To stick with the livestock metaphors—we’re being fleeced.

A license to print money

In addition to being ridiculously cheap, ranchers use grazing leases as low-cost collateral for mortgages and loans, sub-lease them at private grazing rates and sell them for up to 32 times their value.

The Auditor General says a rancher sold two leases that cost him $486 a year for $265,000. The leases had three years remaining on the term. Assuming they were 20 year leases the rancher’s cash outlay would have been $8,262 ($486 X 17 years). His profit was 32 times his initial investment. Wall Street investors take note.

It’s not illegal, but is it morally right?

The Code of the West

Aren’t cowboys bound by the Cowboy Code or something that prevents taciturn Marlboro men from ripping us off?

Wall Street Bull by David Smith

James Owen, a 40 year veteran of Wall Street and hedge fund owner, did extensive research on the Old West. He says there was indeed a Code of the West. He’s convinced Wall Street would become the honourable institution it once was if it simply applied the Code.**

Frankly, Ms Soapbox thinks Mr Owen is a hopeless romantic with a naïve view of both the American cowboy and Wall Street, however the Code is worth considering in this context.

It requires cowboys to be tough but fair (in the old days ranchers could sell their neighbour’s stray cows as long as they paid their neighbours the price they got) and to know where to draw the line because some things, like honour and reputation, simply aren’t for sale

Owen summarizes these principles in one simple concept: just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.

Surely ranchers paying 1/10th the going rate for grazing land know they don’t own it and have no business subleasing or re-selling it at private rates or accepting entry fees from resource companies and not passing the benefits back to the land owner (us).

Drew Barnes, Wildrose MLA, rancher, and self-appointed spokesperson for the ranchers says the existing system is just fine. He says ranchers contribute to air ambulance services and renovate schools so a lot of the money stays local.

By Mr Barnes’ logic anyone who donates to charity while at the same time taking something that doesn’t belong to him deserves a pat on the back.      

These ranchers are like Wall Street bankers in pointy-toed shoes. They’re equally effective at leveraging someone else’s assets to make a buck. Both operate under a different code: if it’s morally wrong but legally right, go for it.

So like the SEC, the NDP government will have to impose more rules clarifying what we already know—you can’t keep what isn’t yours.

Here’s hoping Shannon Phillips, Environment minister, plugs this loophole at her first opportunity so the benefits of grazing leases on Crown land accrue to all Albertans not just overreaching ranchers capitalizing on sloppy legislation drafted by a government looking to capture the rural vote.

Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.

*Hansard, Mar 7, 2000

**Cowboy Ethics: What Wall Street Can Learn from the Code of the West

Posted in Energy, Environment, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 29 Comments

Using the Leap Second to Rate Harper’s Government

Posted on July 5, 2015 by susanonthesoapbox

Stephen Harper was late for Canada Day this year.

He missed the kick-off by a full second; or he would have but for the leap second.

None of us noticed because the scientists responsible for time (coolest job description ever) slowed down Coordinated Universal Time by adding a leap second at 23:59:60.

Before we get into why the leap second is relevant in Harperland a brief, non-Stephen Hawkings history of time is in order.

Scientists have been playing around with time since 1884 when they defined the universal day using the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, England. All went well until the invention of the atomic clock which was more accurate than time based on astronomical observations. Scientists compensated for the glitch in time on the atomic clock caused by the slowing of the Earth’s rotation by adding a leap second here and there.

Since June 1972 we’ve gained 25 leap seconds. By the end of the 21st century scientists will be adding leap seconds every 250 days and by the end of a few tens of thousands of centuries they’ll be plugging in leap seconds each and every day.

This makes the time scientists very uncomfortable.*  Some think it’s time for a change. Others do not.

The anti-change scientists think we should stick with the status quo and continue to use leap seconds to adjust our clocks to Earth’s slowing rotation. They say humanity has defined time by Earth’s rotation for over 5000 years. They note that savvy IT techs can work around any computer problems created by an additional second or two and point out that abandoning leap seconds would make sundials obsolete (what, they’re not obsolete already?)

The pro-change scientists say it’s time to get rid of leap seconds and move to atomic clocks once and for all. They base their argument on the fact that defining time by Earth’s rotation is not significant in most people’s daily lives (unless they’re air traffic controllers or Goldman Sachs stock market manipulators).

Essentially the debate boils down to this: does the redefinition of time turn our lives upside down.

If the “upside down” test is good enough for time scientists fretting about events that will occur in the far distant future, surely it’s good enough for Canadians trying to decide whether to re-elect Stephen Harper a few short months from now.  

The consequences of Harper’s policies

Many Canadians think their day to day lives are untouched by the Harper government (scandals are par for the course, right?). But if Harper is re-elected they’ll soon discover that their lives have indeed been turned “upside down”.

They’ll feel the sting of sacrificing personal freedom, privacy and the right to be a citizen in return for “protection” from terrorism. (Bills C-51 and C-24).

They’ll wonder why their sense of a Canadian identity has become foggy as Harper continues to erase Canada’s legacy as peace keepers and replace it with vignettes of Canada transforming itself into a warrior nation.

They’ll be troubled by their government’s refusal to protect their environment and their livelihoods, unaware that Harper sacrificed Canada’s national sovereignty to the whims of corporations benefiting from secret trade deals which bolster global economic integration.

And finally, they’ll be helpless as Harper’s ham-fisted economic policies crush their quality of life.  They’ll struggle to feed their families, to educate their children, to heal their sick and care for their elderly as the economy contracts, social programs are cut, manufacturing jobs disappear, the income inequity gap widens, consumer debt skyrockets, the deficit rises and Canada’s debt grows.

They’ll wonder what happened to the Harper who trumpeted his economic stewardship and belittled his rivals and realize that if this is the best he can do when he’s on his game, God help us when he trips.

The results of the “upside down” test

The time scientists are supposed to vote on whether to redefine time in 2015. Whether they take the vote remains to be seen—they postponed it three times since 2003.

If they defer the vote again the consequences are insignificant. They’ll simply add another leap second to a June 30th sometime in the future.  

Unfortunately Canadians aren’t so lucky. The federal election will go ahead on Oct 19, 2015 whether they vote or not.

So let’s stop wasting time speculating about what Harper will do if he’s re-elected. Let’s focus on what he’s done to date. We don’t need to go back very far. Focus on Harper’s performance in 2015 (this is an election year, he’s supposed to be on his best behavior). Harper’s lack of respect for democracy is shameful. His anti-terrorism and economic policies are poisonous. Harper will negatively impact every man, woman and child in this country.

On Oct 19, 2015 Canadians need to tell Harper he’s run out of time.

*http://www.timeanddate.com/time/leap-seconds-future.html

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , | 35 Comments

Civil Disobedience the Wildrose Way

Posted on June 28, 2015 by susanonthesoapbox

For a brief and shining moment we had détente.

The NDP government and the Opposition met in the Legislature, engaged in healthy debate and came together to pass a landmark piece of legislation, Bill 1, which bans union and corporate donations to political parties.

Then Wildrose Opposition Leader Brian Jean unleashed the hounds with a spurious attack on NDP Environment Minister Shannon Phillips.

The Book 

The brouhaha started when the Wildrose stumbled across a book written in 2004 by political activist Mike Hudema. Online bookseller Amazon describes An Action A Day Keeps Global Capitalism Away as a “lively, challenging, and decidedly fun book designed for activists and concerned citizens who want to change the world.”

Environment Minister Phillips

The Book describes 52 actions or tools in the political activist’s toolbox. They range from sidewalk chalking (a favorite of Calgary’s Mayor Nenshi and the Alberta Party), radical cheerleading and fishing in the sewers to occupations and blockades.

None of these actions are new. The Book simply presents them in a way that is “heavy on drama, theatre and media-friendly visuals”.

And guess what. The introduction was co-written by Mike Hudema and Shannon Phillips, then a university student now Alberta’s Environment Minister.

The Wildrose was apoplectic. How dare a government minister counsel someone to break the law?

Before we answer that muddle-headed question, we need a brief refresher on civil disobedience

Civil disobedience

Civil disobedience and ordinary acts of protest have a similar purpose, to demonstrate the injustice or unfairness of a particular law or policy;  however civil disobedience is more serious—it requires an action that breaks the law.

For example, Henry David Thoreau broke the law when he refused to pay taxes to protest against slavery and the Mexican American War. He was imprisoned and much to his chagrin released when well-meaning friends made the payment on his behalf.

Even if we assume that some of the actions described in The Book go beyond lawful protest and are actually acts of civil disobedience, Ms Phillips’ act of co-writing an introduction to a book written by someone else who describes such actions to an unknown reader who may or may not engage in the activity does not appear to constitute the intent necessary to support the criminal offence of “counselling”.

Wildrose supports protests and civil disobedience

Legal niceties aside, it’s disingenuous for the Wildrose to play the outrage card when they support the use of protests and civil disobedience to fight policies and laws that they feel are unfair or unjust.

Mr Strankman MLA

In 2010 the Wildrose welcomed former PC MLA Guy Boutilier with open arms after he’d been ejected from the PC caucus by premier Ed Stelmach for organizing a protest against the PC government’s decision to postpone a long term care facility in Fort McMurray.

In 2002 Wildrose MLA Rick Strankman, then a private citizen, engaged in civil disobedience by taking 757 bushels of wheat across the border in violation of the Customs Act. He refused to pay the fine and was sentenced to 180 days in jail but was released after one week. Mr Strankman was so angry about the whole thing that he seriously considered moving to Brazil.

In 2012 Mr Strankman was pardoned by Stephen Harper who characterized Mr Strankman’s decision to break the law an act of courage for which he and his cohorts were unjustly charged, convicted, fined and imprisoned.

Quit while you’re ahead

NDP House Leader Brian Mason said it was hypocritical for the Wildrose to attack Ms Phillips given that Mr Strankman had deliberately flouted the law.

The Wildrose went ballistic.

Wildrose MLA Nathan Cooper argued that Mr Mason’s reference to Mr Strankman’s offence was irrelevant because it happened in the past, Mr Strankman had been pardoned by “the Prime Minister of this great land” and the law was eventually changed as a result of Mr Strankman’s actions.

Mr Cooper MLA

Mr Cooper ignored the fact that Ms Phillips’ actions also happened in the past and unlike Mr Strankman’s action did not violate the law. He wrongly asserted that the pardon erased Mr Strankman’s offence.  It doesn’t.

Finally–and this is the quit when you’re ahead part–Mr Cooper said that when Mason spoke disrespectfully about Mr Strankman and through him the Prime Minister, Mr Mason was speaking disrespectfully of The Queen “that leads our country” and the Royal Family. What???

To his credit Mason did not dissolve in a fit of laughter. He shut the matter down by saying he respected Mr Strankman, while disagreeing with some of his views, and apologised for the way in which he’d raised the matter.

The conservative view

If we’ve learned anything from the Wildrose’s handling of the Phillips matter (aside from the fact that they have a tenuous grasp of the law) we’ve learned this: Anyone who engages in acts of civil disobedience will be hailed as a hero by the Wildrose if the law they’ve broken offends the free market.

However, anyone who engages in civil disobedience to protest other unjust laws that offend Wildrose sensibilities runs the risk of prosecution.  If convicted they’ll be tossed into prison.

A chilling prospect, borne out in spades by the man the Wildrose describe as the Prime Minister of this great land.  

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

The NDP in Power: Week One

Posted on June 21, 2015 by susanonthesoapbox

The best thing about booting the PCs out of office is the refreshing change the NDP have brought to the Legislature. And if the first week of the 29th Legislative session is any indication, we can expect the next four years to be thought provoking, entertaining and bizarre.

Democratic reform

Unlike the Prentice PCs whose first order of business was much ado about nothing—Mr Prentice introduced a bill repealing an unproclaimed statute—the NDP started with Bill 1, an act prohibiting corporations and unions from making political contributions to candidates, constituency associations and political parties.

Justice Minister Ganley

After some skirmishing over whose bright idea this was—both the Wildrose and the NDP claim it as their own—and notwithstanding the PC’s initial position that Bill 1 does a disservice to corporations by tipping the playing field in favour of individual voters (yeah, I know, its nuts), all the Opposition parties supported the Bill.

They did, however, raise some legitimate concerns. Would its retroactive application survive a court challenge? Should corporations and unions be allowed to repay political loans and backstop guarantees? What about third-party advertising, “in kind” donations and government announcements during an election period?

Justice Minister Ganley assured the Opposition she had legal opinions supporting the Bill’s retroactive application. She walked them through the loans/guarantees sections (they become illegal contributions if they’re not repaid quickly) and assured the Opposition that their remaining concerns would be addressed by a special committee struck to review ethics, transparency, conflicts of interest and whistle-blower legislation.

It was a good start.

Progressive Taxation

With the introduction of Bill 2, An Act to Restore Fairness to Public Revenues, the NDP put paid to the speculation that it might back away from its promise to kill the flat tax.

Bill 2 raises corporate taxes to 12% and introduces graduated taxes on personal incomes over $125,000.

Finance Minister Joe Ceci assured the Opposition that all-in Alberta still has the lowest tax regime in Canada because it has no sales tax, no healthcare premiums, no payroll tax and the lowest fuel tax in the country.

Nevertheless the Opposition is worried that even with these new taxes, the government will not be able to raise enough revenue to pay for the services it promised to Albertans. This is a legitimate concern which will not be resolved until the government unveils its budget in October.

Which brings us to another bone of contention.

The Budget

Under normal circumstances the government would have introduced the budget in the spring. However since Jim Prentice arrived on the scene, government in Alberta has been anything but “normal”.

Premier Notley

Mr Jean suggests Ms Notley should hunker down and unveil the budget in September but Ms Notley will not be pushed. “We’re going to do it in a considered, detailed fashion. We don’t want to introduce Prentice 2.0. We want to introduce NDP 1.0 because that’s what the people of this province just voted for, and that’s what we owe to them.”*

In the meantime, the government requires an interim supply bill (Bill 3) to tide it over until the new budget takes effect.

The Opposition is critical of Bill 3, arguing it lacks detail and they do not have sufficient time to scrutinize it properly.

But as Mr Mason pointed out to Mr McIver, the interim PC leader and leader of the third party (oh, let’s just say that again, the third party), the NDP government’s predicament is actually Mr McIver’s party’s fault.

The Prentice PCs presented their budget in March then called a snap election before it could be debated. They approved an interim supply bill that allowed the government to tick over until June 30 with the expectation that they would sweep back into power and ram through their budget before their interim supply budget expired.

Life can be cruel.

The NDP ousted the PCs. They need time to fully understand the books and formulate a new budget consistent with their platform.

They know that. The Opposition knows that. And most importantly, the public knows that.

So while the Opposition is doing its job by pointing out Bill 3’s flaws the public really doesn’t care.

The good and the wacky

The first week of the 29th session of the Legislature saw the introduction of two additional bills.

Bill 201, Assuring Alberta’s Fiscal Future Act, is a private member’s bill introduced by PC MLA, Rick Fraser. The Bill, if passed, would force the government to introduce legislation to save for the Heritage Fund.

It’s an exercise in futility; not because saving for the future is a bad idea, but because a majority government will never pass an opposition party’s bill forcing it to act.

The only way for an opposition to force a majority government to do anything is to mobilize public opinion and shame the government into it. Given the PC’s track record on saving resource revenue for a rainy day, that’s not going to happen anytime soon.

A more thoughtful bill is Bill 202, Alberta Local Food Act, proposed by NDP MLA Estefania Cortez-Vargas. Bill 202 is aimed at developing a sustainable local foods economy by connecting local farmers to larger markets and improving economic returns and food security in Alberta. This one is worth watching.

Thin skinned PCs

Last week we discovered just how thin skinned the PCs really are.

Health Minister Hoffman

In Question Period Health Minister Sarah Hoffman said “we know that the past government has a proven track record of political interference.”** The PCs reacted by raising a point of order, arguing that Ms Hoffman’s comment imputed false or unavowed motives to an MLA or introduced a matter that offends the practices and precedents of the Assembly.

Mr Mason responded on Ms Hoffman’s behalf saying she recognized she went “a little too far” and was willing to withdraw the remark and apologize to the House.**

Interestingly, the PCs didn’t bat an eyelash when a Wildrose MLA said “…the last government politicized hospital infrastructure all over the province by keeping its infrastructure priorities secret and this caused serious harm to communities—I think we can both agree that this was wrong and unethical.”***

Surely being accused of politicizing decisions, seriously harming communities and being unethical is more offensive to delicate PC sensibilities than being accused of political interference. Perhaps the intensity of the sting depends on who is making the accusation.

So far so good 

Rachel Notley, the brainy blond politician who drove a stake through the heart of the Progressive Conservative party, has four years to show Albertans what she and her party are made off.

She’s off to a great start.

*Hansard, June 16, 2015, p 14.

** Hansard, June 18, 2015, p 103 & 105

***Hansard, June 18, 2015, p 103

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Road Trip!!!

Posted on June 12, 2015 by susanonthesoapbox

There is so much we could talk about:  the G7 “support” for a fossil fuel free world by 2100, Mr Harper’s visit with the Pope, the Senate’s secret arbitration process, but today we’re going to talk about road trips.

Ms Soapbox and her daughter (let’s call her Missy) are going on a road trip to Victoria where Missy will start her first nursing job.

The trip will take two days because Ms Soapbox loathes being stuck in a car for more than two hours. This is likely a holdover from her childhood when she and her sisters would be trapped in the backseat of an ancient Chrysler until their father’s bladder couldn’t take it anymore.

Ms Soapbox’s parents rarely took road trips. But the few they took were very exciting.

Not quite Ms Soapbox’s Dad’s car

One of Ms Soapbox’s most vivid childhood memories is her father racing around a blind curve trying to overtake a battered truck with Jesus Saves painted on the side. Her mother gritted her teeth and said: “You’d better hope Jesus Saves because we’re all going to die.”

Over the years Mr and Ms Soapbox and the children took many road trips from Calgary to Lantzville BC where Ms Soapbox’s parents lived.

Mr Soapbox, bless his heart, is less likely to scare the wits out of Ms Soapbox than her father was. Nevertheless, it took some time for him to understand that when Ms Soapbox needs to get out of the car, she really needs to get out of the car.

Mr Soapbox is one of those people who packs the car the night before and leaves at the crack of dawn. His objective is to get a good two hours under our belt while traffic is light and the children are asleep before stopping for breakfast at Smitty’s.

Generally a good plan…until the children stuff themselves with pancakes (try telling a child she can’t have a pancake when you’re on the road).

The children would then be strapped back into their car seats with a water cooler strategically placed between them to stop them from bickering. On one trip Ms Soapbox found a lovely antique wooden chair and positioned it upside down between them.  They were terrified. They’d overheard their father say “that thing is going to poke their eyes out.”

It usually took a couple of hours for the children to doze off (not surprising given their hearty breakfast of icing sugar and pancake syrup). In the meantime Mr Soapbox would entertain them by pointing out mountain goats (specks on the landscape) and craggy peaks (which one?) while Ms Soapbox dove into the goodie bag at her feet searching for books and toys to toss into the back seat like steaks thrown into a lion’s cage.

Not quite a “Mountain Worm”

When all else failed Ms Soapbox would tell them stories about the Mountain Worms. These are MASSIVE worms that eat rocks and create tunnels which are used by the railways when the worms aren’t in them.

Mountain worms sleep during the day and get very angry when disturbed (by cars like ours). Then the authorities must race up the mountain to fire off rounds from the mountain cannon (which looks very much like an avalanche cannon) in order to keep the mountain worms at bay.

After the “lost screw incident” (don’t ask) Mr Soapbox learned that Ms Soapbox would crawl out the window at 120 kph if he didn’t book a hotel for the night in Vernon or Kelowna.

And Ms Soapbox learned that the only hotel worth staying in is one with a waterslide. Mr Soapbox soon perfected the arched back descent and last minute contortion that ensured he wouldn’t drown the little Soapboxes when he shot out of the plastic tube at excessive speed. At night everyone slept like a baby, even the babies.

This road trip promises to be much less stressful (for one thing Missy will be driving not hollering from the backseat), and when we finish settling her in her apartment it will be her turn to visit us.

No doubt she’ll take a plane like a civilized person.

Posted in Humour, Vacation | Tagged , , , | 16 Comments

Boycott Tim Hortons? Seriously??

Posted on June 7, 2015 by susanonthesoapbox

The recent media frenzy generated by Tim Hortons’ decision to pull the Enbridge ads off their in-store Tims TV monitors almost drove Ms Soapbox to drink (G&Ts not Tims double double).

Then she paused. The #BoycottTims brouhaha created a learning opportunity—for businessmen and conservative politicians alike.

The business lesson

Here are the steps that resulted in the Tim Hortons/Enbridge ad campaign going horribly wrong.

  1. Sell Tim Hortons, a Canadian icon, to 3G Capital, a multi-billion dollar Brazilian investment company and merge it with Burger King, an American fast food giant. Then make the merged chain a subsidiary of a new company, Restaurant Brands International Inc. This will ensure that the New York suits who call the shots will have little more than a rudimentary understanding of local issues.
  2. Lay off hundreds of Timmys’ staff at head office and the regional offices. Ensure that Timmys’ sustainability/corporate responsibility staff are among those given their walking papers.
  3. Develop a new revenue generating model (Tims TV) which is essentially an in-store billboard that promotes items of community interest and ads for Timmys and other complementary brands to a captive audience.  Forget the “community” purpose of Tims TV and accept a lucrative ad campaign from Enbridge, the pipeline company sponsoring the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline. 
  4. Run three weeks of “Life Takes Energy” ads featuring small children and owls and get blindsided by an online petition sponsored by SumOfUs, an internet activist/corporate watchdog demanding that the “Life Takes Energy” ads be pulled because Enbridge is using a trusted brand to promote its pipeline to the public.
  5. Wait two days to assess the negative feedback and pull the ad from the in-store TV programming.
  6. Watch helplessly as wild-eyed politicians attack the decision to pull the ad and demand that Canadians boycott Timmys unless it apologizes and reinstates the ad (even if Enbridge doesn’t want to?)
  7. Wish you’d never heard of “Life Takes Energy” because “Life Takes Stamina” to survive between a rock and a hard place.

Business decision go wrong

The Tim Hortons/Enbridge ad controversy is similar to the Taco Bell Veggies ad campaign which blew up when the Centre for Science in Public Interest complained that the ad implied Super Bowl party-goers were wimps if they brought veggie trays to a playoff game party. CSPI launched a Twitter campaign and Taco Bell pulled the ad. That sparked a backlash from other consumers (presumably junk food aficionados) who berated the company for caving to the “food police”.

All of which illustrates the golden rule of advertising: don’t offend the very people you want to convince to buy your product.

In this case, Tim Hortons and Enbridge did the smart thing. Timmys assessed the negative feedback and pulled the ad. Enbridge said it respected Timmys’ decision.

And that would have been the end of it but for a bunch of hysterical politicians who blew the whole thing out of proportion.

Political meddling

Wildrose MLA, Brian Jean, characterized Timmys’ decision to pull the ad as “a political shot” at energy job creators. Mr Jean alleged that the online petition is part of a larger conspiracy mounted by Americans who want to destroy the oil industry and turn Canada into “a huge national park”.*

Mr Jean Wildrose MLA, Leader of the Opposiion

Mr Jean refuses to set foot in Tim Hortons until it issues an apology to God knows who.

Federal Conservative politicians Jason Kenny, Michelle Rempel and Joan Crockatt piled onto the boycott bandwagon urging Canadians to give up their beloved double doubles as a sign of support for the oil industry.

Has everyone lost their minds?

It is utterly undemocratic and an abuse of political power for a gang of politicians to override the commercial decisions of two private businesses and urge citizens to boycott one business if it refuses to fall into line with their warped thinking.

A reality check

OPEC met this week and decided to maintain its current high level of production. Consequently oil prices will remain low and Alberta’s economy will continue to suffer.

Among those who will suffer are the hundreds of Tim Hortons franchise owners in Alberta. These businessmen and women invested between $480,000 to $510,000 to set up shop; they’ll fork out an addition 30% of gross monthly revenues to Timmys just to keep the doors open. Then they’ll pay wages and taxes and then, if they’re lucky, they’ll make a profit.

The conservatives’ call for a boycott will accomplish nothing…other than harming these small business owners, their employees and the local economy.

Surely it’s time for politicians to realize that they’re not the energy industry’s white knights. The CEOs of Enbridge and Restaurant Brands (who together earned $12.5 million last year) can take care of themselves very well thank you, without the misguided “assistance” of politicians trying to make a name for themselves.

*http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.3102313/no-time-for-tim-hortons-alberta-politician-boycotts-coffee-chain-over-enbridge-ad-flap-1.3102938

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 19 Comments

CNRL Enters the Political Debate

Posted on May 31, 2015 by susanonthesoapbox

“This is not about sending a message or a shot across the bow.”—Murray Edwards, billionaire oil tycoon

Are you kidding me?

Murray Edwards’ message couldn’t have been clearer if he’d fired a cannonball with neener neener written on it into Premier Notley’s office.

Mr Edwards ponders “uncertainty”

Murray Edwards is the chairman of the board of CNRL, a multibillion dollar oilsands producer. Last week CNRL issued a press release deferring its annual investors’ open house because the uncertainty surrounding the NDP government’s review of royalties, taxation, environmental and greenhouse gas policies meant it couldn’t finalize future capital allocation plans.

Boondoggle deferred

When was the last time you saw CNRL, or any oil producer for that matter, issue a press release saying it’s hosting an investors’ open house let alone cancelling one. The answer is never. That’s because it’s not mandatory to hold investors’ open houses under Canadian or US securities laws.

Consequently when a company hosts an investors’ open house it’s a touchy-feely event that gives investors a chance to get to know the company “up close and personal”.

The senior management team is on its best behavior. The CEO, CFO and VPs make presentations on their current and future plans with respect to finance, marketing, operations and R&D. Every presentation is introduced with the usual legalese that gives the company enough leeway to escape liability if things don’t turn out as expected.

Open houses are also an opportunity for the executives to bond with the investors over lunch, dinner and more often than not, the golf course.

If all goes well the investors are left with the impression that their investment is in good hands.

So what’s the impact of Mr Edwards deferring the investors’ open house? Nothing…other than sending Premier Notley a message which in this case appears to be “I’m Murray Edwards and I’m miffed”.

“Invitation only” conferences

The fact Mr Edwards’ “uncertainty” argument is nothing more than a smokescreen became apparent when Mr Edwards did not cancel CNRL’s participation in two investor conferences that actually matter.

Right after the election CNRL participated in the Citi Global Energy and Utilities Conference in Boston. In June CNRL will be participating in the RBC Capital Markets’ Global Energy and Power Executive Conference in New York.

Mr Blankfein CEO Goldman Sachs

These “invitation only” conferences are hosted by major financial investors like CitiGroup, RBC and Goldman Sachs. They are so prestigious that companies issue press releases telling all and sundry that their CEOs, CFOs and executives will be chairing a panel or making a presentation.

If Mr Edwards is so concerned about the uncertainty created by the NDP government why is he sanguine about allowing CNRL to participate in the Citi and RBC conferences where his executives will surely be asked to discuss the impact of the election of an NDP government on the company’s prospects?

Oh the uncertainty!

To be fair, CNRL, like all oil producers, is grappling with the uncertainty caused by low oil prices, the lack of pipeline access to new markets, the cost of transportation by rail and forest fires in northern Alberta which cut production by 10%.

But it’s hard to believe that the election of the NDP is the straw that broke the camel’s back.

The NDP will raise corporate taxes to 12%. This is a certainty that should be included in CNRL’s future capital allocation plans. Perhaps CNRL can use some of the $228 million it will save as a result of tax law changes in the United Kingdom which reduced the corporate tax rate on North Sea oil and gas production from 62% to 50% (that’s not a typo!) and the petroleum revenue tax from 50% to 35% (again, not a typo).

Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd says the royalty review is a priority. She expects to have a good road map in place within six months. The government is pressing ahead with revisions to the environmental and greenhouse gas regulations.

Rushing the process simply to assuage Mr Edwards’ concerns would be imprudent.

The gracious Ms Notley

In the interim CNRL is not paralyzed by the lack of certainty around royalties, environmental and GHG regulations. It can and will do what all public companies do in similar circumstances. It will make reasonable assumptions, set out the high, medium, and low cases and report the results couched in so many weasel words that no one can hold CNRL to its numbers if it turns out they were wrong.

The real nature of the debate

Premier Notley responded to Murray Edwards’ decision to defer the investors’ open house by saying: “Everyone has their interests, and this is a political debate as well as an economic debate, and I welcome all contributions.”

This is indeed a political debate. Companies that work with the government will have an opportunity to participate fully in the debate. Corporations that lob cannonballs into the premiers’ office should expect to have them lobbed right back.

Premier Notley is much too gracious to say this, so Ms Soapbox will say it for her: neener neener!

Posted in Energy, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , | 42 Comments

An Open Letter to Stephen Harper about the Debates

Posted on May 24, 2015 by susanonthesoapbox

Dear Mr Harper: I understand that you’ve decided not to participate in the traditional election debates hosted by the three major TV networks, Global, CTV and CBC. Incidentally, isn’t it convenient they’re known as The Consortium? Conjures up all sorts of sinister images of The Firm and The Company and lends a smattering of credence to your objection.

You’ve rejected The Consortium because you want “more opportunities for freewheeling interaction” and greater “diversity and innovation”. Apparently you expect to get these opportunities with other media organizations like Macleans.

Have you lost your mind?

May I remind you that the last time you tried to be “freewheeling” (the 2008 debate) you ignored your Hill+Knowlton debate coach, became an automaton and allowed Stephane Dion (of all people) to walk all over you.

And yes, you were better in 2011. That time you listened to your debate coach and did not to engage with Michael Ignatieff. Instead you used the “pivot and look into the camera” technique to defuse him.  This might work with young Justin, but it will be futile against the master debater Thomas Mulcair. He can unhinge you in Question Period when you’re ready for him with a fist full of scripted non-answers; just imagine what he’ll throw at you in a freewheeling debate.

Face it Stephen, you’re a buttoned down, straight laced kind of guy. You need the predictability and structure of a traditional debate.

Having said that I wonder whether you figured out that The Consortium is doing something different this year. They’ve entered into arrangements with Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Vine and YouTube to deliver the debates online. The Consortium says this will give the debates an “unprecedented digital reach.”

Perhaps you figured out that such “digital reach” will expose you to the instantaneous scathing commentary of the social media glitterati. Their genius lies in crafting snappy phrases that can torpedo a politician and his political career in a nanosecond. Remember Prentice’s #mathishard?  Just imagine what we can do with #HeaveSteve.

I think we can both agree that you don’t “get” social media. I’ve checked out your website 24 Seven. It’s pathetic. Between the snooze inducing infographics on eliminating tariffs and the “fun” section complete with pictures of Laureen holding a kitten, it’s not surprising that your stats for the week of Jan 2, 2014 averaged 1,450 a day across the entire country.  

Stephen, the one thing you need to understand is that there’s no point in trying to limit the accessibility of these debates. Canadians will watch them whether they are carried by The Consortium or projected on to a sheet by a creaky Super 8 movie projector.

The sad truth (for you) is that we’re done with your Conservative government. We will be glued to the debates so we can decide whether to replace you with Justin Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair.

All you can do now is go out with dignity. No more undemocratic behind the scenes sleight of hand.  Give all Canadians a couple of good debates and go out with your head held high. Think you can do that Stephen? I thought not.

Sincerely, Ms Soapbox

Facts and stats from “The Longer I’m Prime Minister” by Paul Wells

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 20 Comments