Ms Soapbox Throws Her Hat In The Ring

Posted on August 31, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

Ms Soapbox would like to make an announcement: She’s seeking the Liberal nomination in the provincial riding of Calgary Elbow. Calgary Elbow was left MLA-less when former premier Alison Redford resigned her seat on Aug 6, 2014…although it would be fair to say it has been unrepresented for quite some time now.

Are you nuts?

Most of Ms Soapbox’s friends and family support her political aspirations; however a few are afraid she’s lost her mind. (Her father suggested she take up golf).  

Ms Soapbox’s hat (sort of)

So why plunge into politics now? And why pick the Liberals?

After years of grousing about politics, blogging about politics and inundating provincial and federal political representatives with thoughtful letters expressing dismay and profound disappointment over the general state of affairs in Alberta and Canada, the penny dropped. The only people the governing party pays the slightest bit of attention to (other than big business) are the politicians who cause a ruckus from the opposition benches.

The seed was planted. Events transpired, Alison Redford resigned and voila…an open riding.

Liberals?

Ms Soapbox is friends with politicians of all political stripes. After researching their policies and engaging them in spirited discussions, it became clear that the Liberal party best reflected Ms Soapbox’s values. She was delighted to discover that a number of Albertans felt the same way.

Getting ready

It’s easy to be a lawyer. You figure out what you want to do, make sure it fits within the applicable legislation and case law and you’re off and running towards your objective…and chances are you’ll attain it.

Politics is different. It’s fluid. It’s murky. It’s full of political operatives practiced in the dark arts. What you know to be true on Monday turns into a baseless rumour by Friday. A neophyte needs all the help she can get before she sets off into uncharted waters.

So Ms Soapbox sought out a creative, enthusiastic and ethical core team, starting with Mr Soapbox. We agreed, if we’re going to do this, we’re going to do it right.  

Next up, winning the nomination. This entails asking people in the riding to sign your nomination form. The process is going well notwithstanding Ms Soapbox’s encounters with ferocious dogs and spooky cats lurking in supporters’ houses and a near death experience on Elbow Drive in the pouring rain at rush hour. Why the City can’t repair this road once and for all is beyond me.

Door knocking is an eye opening experience. The simple question: “do you have any issues or concerns about your government” unleashes a torrent of frustration.

PC Party Leadership Candidates

People are tired of a government that doesn’t understand the distinction between partisan politics and government business. They are fed up with inaccessible healthcare, crumbling infrastructure, a shortage of public schools and the lack of predictable funding for post secondary education. They want a government that can think strategically about the future and politicians who are prepared to create an energy strategy that lasts longer than one election cycle. A diversified economy wouldn’t hurt either.

Substantive issues matter.

The whiz kids are on board. They understand the magic of social media and simply “make it so”. Websites, Facebook, Twitter, you name it, we’ve got it.

The printed material is ready to go. More photos are on the way although I suspect the shot of Ms Soapbox about to be blown into a ravine won’t make it on to the webpage.

Ms Soapbox completed her first TV interview and is learning the value of the sound bite…and it ain’t easy, she’s a lawyer remember.        

Our volunteers are “with us”. Apparently there’s an art to asking for volunteers—“join us” sounds like a cult, “join with us” sounds like a church and “help us” sounds like a charity.

What’s next

The Soapbox will continue as a progressive blog space inviting readers to discuss issues of common concern. Future posts will include a review of the Cambie Clinic litigation which threatens the ongoing viability of public healthcare in Canada, why P3s are not all they’re cracked up to be and why Frank McKenna, former premier of New Brunswick and now senior executive at TD Bank thinks the lack of upgrading capability in Canada is “value destruction on a scale never witnessed before in this country”.

Readers who would like to learn more about Susan Wright the aspiring politician are invited to check out http://www.wright4elbow.ca/

Ms Soapbox (and Susan Wright) would love to hear from you.

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , | 44 Comments

Top Ten Reasons Why Jim Prentice’s “Term Limited” Government is a Bad Idea

Posted on August 24, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

Politicians are not tins of spork. The good ones don’t go bad just because they’ve been sitting around for a while.

Of all of the things that PC party leadership candidate Jim Prentice could have done to restore Albertans’ trust in government, imposing term limits on provincial MLAs was not one of them.

Under Mr Prentice’s “term limited” model MLAs will be limited to three terms (12 years) and premiers will be limited to two (8 years). All existing MLAs are exempt.

A wave of despair washes over Ms Soapbox as she struggles to compose herself and prepare a new Top Ten List—this time setting out Mr Prentice’s rationale for limited terms and the reasons why this is a spectacularly bad idea. (Note: All quotes come from Mr Prentice)

The Top Ten List

10.  “It’s very democratic and it’s done in other democracies…”

Just because there are term limits in the US does not make it democratic in Alberta.

George Washington

Leaving aside the obvious differences—we’re a parliamentary democracy, the US is a republic—it took centuries for the US to develop the limited term model. It applies to the president, 36 governors and 15 state legislatures. Six states have overturned limited terms or had them invalidated by the courts.

Limited terms evolved through reasoned debate by luminaries such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. They did not spring from the fevered brow of a desperate campaign strategist trying a Hail Mary pass to save a lackluster leadership campaign.

But if we’re going to adopt the American way of governance I’d like to put impeachment on the table.

  1. Limited terms will be implemented through legislation and party policy.

One small catch, any legislation that bans an MLA from running for office at the end of his third term would violate Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.*

(Ms Soapbox has no issue with Mr Prentice implementing limited terms through party policy because then it only applies to PC MLAs. Anything that whittles down their numbers is fine by me).

  1. Limited terms will cure an “out of touch” government.

Really? Alison Redford was in office for six years (well within the time limit for an MLA or a premier) and the poor dear was the most out of touch politician this province has seen in a very long time.

  1. “It ensures that people stay grounded.”

Mr Lougheed

Grounded? Assuming that means only “term limited” politicians have the backbone to do what is required in times of stress, look no further than Peter Lougheed who was in his fourth term when he successfully challenged the federal government over the national energy program.

  1.  Limited terms create “turnover in the political process”.

They certainly do. They also create “lame ducks” who won’t do anything courageous in their final term for fear they’ll jeopardize their employment prospects in the real world.

5.  “If six years is the appropriate time for people to take on positions of public responsibility, why is it not appropriate for people that elect them to have term limits?”

Umm, because the premier has the right to appoint the 6-year appointees but only the people have the right to elect the politicians…?

  1. “It’s time to channel our anger into positive and lasting change that is going to benefit this province”.Term limits will undermine any positive benefit to the province by gutting all the opposition parties who need at least two terms to demonstrate they can be trusted to govern.

3.  “…lasting change…to benefit this province”.

Does anyone have any idea what Mr Prentice is talking about? His proposal is utterly devoid of detail. It’s not clear whether an MLA who becomes premier can serve 3 MLA terms and then 2 premier terms. If not, a sitting MLA must land the premier’s job after his first term in office in order to serve as premier for two terms. Ms Redford catapulted into the premier’s office after one term and we all know how unprepared she was for the promotion.

  1. Term limits will bring “new young faces” into the political arena.

Why? Do you really think limited terms will cure the apathy created by the stream of scandals the “new young faces” have witnessed over the last few years?

  1. Term limits will not apply to sitting MLAs.

Mr Prentice

Why not? Eighteen Tory MLAs, including Dave Hancock, Thomas Lucaszuk and Doug Horner, will be well past the three year term limit when the election is called in 2016. Either Mr Prentice is confident that these 18 MLAs have not fallen “out of touch” with Albertans or his vision clouded by the fact that 17 of the 18 are stumping for him in his leadership campaign.

The test of a good politician

Rival PC leadership candidates Thomas Lukaszuk and Ric McIver are in shock. Mr Lukaszuk says the proposal is “bizarre” and defies tradition and the law. Mr McIver says let the voters decide who should stay and who should go. Ms Soapbox is in shock because she finds herself agreeing with both Mr Lukaszuk and Mr McIver.

If Mr Prentice believes imposing arbitrary term limits on MLAs will regain the trust of Albertans he’s sadly mistaken.

Albertans know that the test of a good politician is not how long he serves, but how well he serves.

They also know that they have the constitutional right to decide who will represent them.

No one, not even Diamond Jim Prentice, can take that right away from them.

* http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/20140823/SAG0801/308239985

Corrected Aug 25, 2014 to reflect that Premier Lougheed was in his fourth term, not his third, when he tackled the federal government on NEP. Thank you Don Braid.

 

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

Jim Prentice Fails the “Truthiness” Test (apologies to Stephen Colbert)

Posted on August 17, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

If Jim Prentice is going to wade into the murky waters of “truthiness” the least he could do is do it properly, otherwise the whole thing becomes a farce.       

Stephen Colbert

“Truthiness” is a term coined by political satirist/comic Stephen Colbert to describe the practice of framing a political message to appeal to the voter’s gut feelings, not reason.  A statement is “truthy” when it feels true, even though it may not be true.*  

The Jim Prentice giveaway

Things started on such a high note.  Is that truthiness or just sarcasm?

A volunteer from the McIver camp secretly taped a volunteer from the Prentice camp offering free PC memberships at a street fair.  It was promoted as a “one-time” deal.  Given that only card-carrying PC members can vote in the upcoming PC leadership race this would put Mr McIver (and Mr Lukaszuk) at a disadvantage because they, unlike Mr Prentice, were charging Albertans $10 to buy a PC party membership.         

Mr McIver lodged a complaint with the PC party executive director, Mr Charlebois who said the party does not condone giving away free memberships.  Indeed, Mr Charlebois said that giving away memberships was not the way to get votes.**

Bill Anderson, Mr Prentice’s, spokesman took immediate action.  He denied that the Prentice campaign was giving away memberships and called Mr McIver’s allegation a “stunt” to deflect attention from his inability to kill the zombie known as Alison Redford’s sky palace.

Then three days later Mr Prentice confirmed that Mr McIver was correct…oops. 

Mr Prentice said:  “There will be free memberships…My perspective on all of this is we want as many people taking part in the democratic process as possible.  They need to have a membership card to vote, and what I want to see is as many Albertans as possible taking part.”***

There are two things to note in this statement.  First, the use of the passive voice.  “There will be free memberships” (Apparently they materialize out of thin air because no one, least of all Mr Prentice, is taking responsibility for throwing them around like jelly beans at Easter). 

And second, the “truthism”—namely it is fundamental to the democratic process to hand out free memberships.       

What’s the big deal?

Susan Elliott

Susan Elliott, campaign manager for former premier Redford, doesn’t understand why anyone would think that Mr Prentice did anything wrong.  She characterizes Mr McIver and Mr Lukaszuk as whiners who are picking on Mr Prentice because they don’t have the funds to buy memberships and give them away themselves. 

She says:  “So if Prentice is trying to stir things up with free memberships, the tactic is not against the rules and someone needs to explain what ethic is offended”. 

Ethics

Okay, let’s give Ms Elliott and Mr Prentice a lesson in ethics. 

Ethics is defined in the Oxford dictionary as “Moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity”.  “Moral” is defined as holding the highest principles for proper conduct.

In a nutshell, ethics is about behaving in accordance with the highest principles of conduct.

Jim Prentice

Bearing that in mind let’s review the PC party membership giveaway:   

  1. The PC party does not expressly prohibit giving away memberships; but just because a rule is not written down does not mean it doesn’t exist.  Just ask the folks who went to jail after Enron.
  2. The PC party does not condone giving away free memberships.  Apparently even this craven party has limits beyond which it will not go.
  3. Fair play requires all leadership candidates to play by the same rules but McIver and Lukaszuk were unaware they could give away free PC memberships until halfway through the campaign.  
  4. It is unfair to pay for memberships for some Albertans while expecting other Albertans to buy a membership. The memberships are free or they’re not free. They can’t be both.  
  5. The PC party’s most recent email to Albertans whose memberships have lapsed is misleading and untrue. It says: “Buy a membership from us right here (link) and have your say in selecting the new leader for the PC Party”. It should also say: “unless you intend to vote for Jim Prentice in which case your membership is free.”
  6. A leadership candidate who vowed that “Ethics and integrity will be the hallmarks of any government that I lead.”****should not dredge up slick practices reminiscent of Brian Mulroney and the busload of homeless men who were promised beer and cigarettes if they voted for the “right” candidate at a nomination meeting.

But here’s the acid test. Truthiness only works when it feels true. 

Say this out loud. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the PC candidate with the most money to tip the playing field even further in his favour by handing out free memberships and not telling his rivals or the PC party that he’s doing so. In fact it’s good for the democratic process.

Ummm…nope, that doesn’t feel right.   

Is it too late to run Stephen Colbert for Premier of Alberta?    

*Enlightenment 2.0 by Joseph Heath p3  

**Calgary Herald, Online Aug 12, 2014

***Calgary Herald, Online Aug 15, 2014

****Calgary Herald, Online Aug 7, 2014

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 26 Comments

The Tory Airplane Scandal–Excuses, Excuses

Posted on August 10, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

“I am optimistic that your review will assist in securing Albertans’ continued confidence in their government and trust in their elected officials.”—Premier Redford’s letter to the Auditor General requesting a review of her compliance with the Travel and Expense policy, Mar 4, 2014

Ms Redford

Ms Redford’s optimism quickly turned to ashes. Not only did her request dump her onto the scrap heap of disgraced politicians, but there’s a good chance she’ll take the rest of the PC government with her.

A junket to Grande Prairie

On Thursday, Oct 25, 2012 Premier Redford and 8 MLAs—Donna Kennedy-Glans, Ken Hughes, Wayne Drysdale, Fred Horne, Cal Dallas, Christine Cusanelli, Wayne Cao and Everett McDonald—made a trip to Grande Prairie. Two ministers joined Ms Redford on the government plane flying to Grande Prairie; the others joined her on the flight back.

The flight manifest says the purpose of the trip was to meet with government officials. Health Minister Horne says the purpose of the trip was to “make an announcement” about the progress of the expansion of the Grande Prairie hospital. The announcement was made…at 4:20 in Edmonton while the plane was somewhere in the air between Calgary and Grande Prairie. The plane touched down at 4:32. The Progressive Conservative fundraiser dinner started at 5:20. There were no meetings with government officials and no media events in the 48 minutes between wheels down and forks up.*

The touchy Mr Drysdale

When asked by the Opposition to explain themselves, Deputy Premier Hancock huffily replied that the trip was “clearly government business.” Finance Minister Horner blew his stack calling the Opposition’s questions “despicable”. Health Minister Horne bleated the government had “made an announcement” and Infrastructure Minister Drysdale flew into a rage, accusing Ms Smith of impugning his integrity and judgment.*

Yikes!

The Auditor General’s take

Then along came Merwan Saher, the Auditor General (and my hero) to set the government straight.

The Auditor General reminded everyone that the Travel & Expense policy requires the government (us) to pick up the tab for the government plane if the passengers are travelling on “government business”. Government business is defined as “activities intended to promote and achieve the goals and objectives of the government of Alberta.”

The Auditor General found no evidence of government business on the Grande Prairie junket. Attending a Progressive Conservative party fundraiser does not qualify.  Quelle surprise!

This leaves the 8 MLAs who accompanied Ms Redford to the PC fundraiser in a quandary.

Eight MLAs react

Ms Donna Kennedy-Glans and Mr Ken Hughes apologised—Ms DK-G for “making assumptions about the integrity of the flight logistics” (whatever that means) and Mr Hughes for “believing the plane was in Grande Prairie on government business.”**

Mr Hughes

Notice, they’re both apologising for not knowing that the plane was on nongovernment business. This is bizarre. The plane doesn’t flip from government to nongovernment business; it’s ALWAYS on government business. The one thing both Ms DK-G and Mr Hughes knew was that they were not flying on government business.

On this the Auditor General is crystal clear. If a passenger is traveling on nongovernment business they should not be travelling on the government plane. That’s why Ms Redford could take the government plane on government business but her daughter could not accompany her.

Mr McDonald refuses to apologize. He says the Auditor General got the facts wrong and that he, Health Minister Horne and Infrastructure Minister Drysdale did announce the progress made on the Grande Prairie hospital. Excuse me but you don’t need to fly a government plane to Grande Prairie to issue a press release in Edmonton.

And let’s not forget that the Auditor General gave a draft copy of his report to Premier Hancock. Auditors do that so management (in this case the government) can correct any factual errors.

Premier Hancock did not correct the so-called “error” that Mr McDonald is using to excuse his behavior.

Ms Cusanelli and a spokesperson for Mr Dallas said they picked up the plane in Grande Prairie because they were hosting a briefing with Consular Corps in Calgary the next day. What this has to do with anything is beyond me. Ms Cusanelli also said the policy isn’t clear.

Mr Cao says taking the government plane was the wrong choice.

Mr Horne and Mr Drysdale were unavailable for comment. This is probably a good thing given their reaction to the Opposition Leader when questioned about the trip (see ranting and raving above).

Who is responsible?

The Auditor General places the responsibility squarely on Mr Horner. Mr Horner says he’s responsible for policies but disavows responsibility for Ms Redford’s actions because he is simply the “booking agent”.***

The “booking agent”

What nonsense. Next thing we know Mr Horner will deny responsibility for $17 billion in debt come 2016 because he’s just the “bank teller”.

It’s Mr Horner’s job to know the rules and enforce the rules.   He chose not to do so because as he told the Opposition Leader, it is normal course for MLAs using government aircraft to bring their families with them to government functions and nongovernment functions. “We’ve been doing it for a long time, not just this Premier but Premiers before her as well.”****

Mr Horner was simply restating something former premier Klein said in 2005: “So if it happens some party business is mixed with ministerial business so be it. What’s the big deal?”

How about it’s a breach of trust for a start?

*Hansard Mar 11, 2014, p 164, Mar 12, 2014, p 201, 202 & Mar 13, 2014, p 239

**Calgary Herald, Aug 9, 2014, A4

***Calgary Herald, Aug 8, 2014, A3

****Hansard, Mar 5, 2014, p 53

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

Alberta’s Rogue Politics and Politicians

Posted on August 3, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

Is Alison Redford a rogue politician or does she belong to a rogue party?

A rogue is a dishonest or unprincipled man (or woman), a scoundrel, villain, miscreant, reprobate, good-for-nothing, ne’re-do-well, wretch, louse, crook.

The word “rogue” entered the lexicon of Alberta politics after Auditor General Merwan Saher reviewed Alison Redford’s use of government aircraft and found that somebody booked “false passengers” onto government flights in order to block seats and then unbooked them so that Ms Redford and her entourage could have the plane all to themselves. This is almost as spooky as that episode of Sherlock Holmes where the government packed a plane with dead people who would be blown up in order to avoid revealing that the government had cracked a terrorist code.

Politicians from both sides of the aisle are outraged, demanding that Ms Redford be ousted from caucus, resign her seat, be investigated by the RCMP and/or be tarred and feathered and run out of town.  

George Rogers, Deputy Speaker, said “At some point when someone basically goes rogue, what do you do? You have got to jettison that baggage.”*

This has got to stop

Of the three PC leadership candidates, Mr Prentice has been the most vocal about how he’d deal with rogue politicians and government officials.

He’s going to impose rules and discipline. “It’s about the tone from the top. We’ll change the rules, we’ll enforce the rules, and there will be real discipline around that. I promise you that. But that won’t do it in and of itself, because people will break the rules, and they’ll break the rules if they see the person at the top breaking the rules. That’s how leadership works.”**

It’s easy to sound righteous in the abstract. So Mr Prentice needs to put his high-flown oratory into practice right now.

How? By buttressing his promise to “change the rules, enforce the rules and discipline by the rules” by identifying the MLAs and elected officials who deserve sanction and promising to do something about them if he gets elected. Unlike Ms Redford (who it must be remembered is not yet been found guilty of anything) the Tory government includes a number of MLAs and government officials who have violated our trust.

The rogues’ gallery

The ethics commissioner, Neil Wilkinson, had no difficulty approving the Tory government’s decision to appoint Evan Berger, the defeated Tory cabinet minister, to a senior policy advisor post even though the appointment violated Alberta’s conflict of interest laws.

Mr Sandu

The ethics commissioner was equally sanguine about Tory MLA Peter Sandu’s failure to disclose six lawsuits against his financially troubled home-building company or his lobbying the government to change legislation in favour of his home-building company.

Mr Sandu resigned his seat as a Tory MLA to sit as an independent. His fellow MLA Mike Allen also became an independent after he was caught in a prostitution sting and charged with soliciting while on government business in Minnesota. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and was fined $500.

The Tory caucus voted to bring both Mr Sandu and Mr Allen back into the fold last December.

Instead of piling onto the “get Redford” bandwagon, Mr Prentice can do something remarkable.

He can promise to oust Mr Sandu and Mr Allen from caucus for violating the public trust. He can promise to review the performance of the ethics commissioner who appears to think his job is nothing more that providing air cover for the inappropriate or illegal actions of MLAs and their staff. Lastly, Mr Prentice can promise to ask Agriculture Minister Verlyn Olson to terminate Mr Berger’s contract because it violates Alberta’s conflict of interest rules that require a one year cooling off period before a former government minister can work for the public service in an area in which he’s had significant dealings.

Mr Prentice

If Mr Prentice is reluctant to act because these decisions were made a year ago he can turn his attention to a recent decision that came to light around the same time as the licence plate debate.

Mr Prentice can promise to reverse Finance Minister Horner’s decision to give senior public servants a 7% pay raise over two years because it is a blatant violation of last year’s announcement that the compensation paid to top public servants would be frozen for three years.

Mr Horner’s about-face is even more egregious because when he announced the 3-year wage freeze he couldn’t resist saying “Our government is leading by example.”   

Based on that statement alone Mr Prentice should promise to oust Mr Horner for making the government look smug, self-righteous and hypocritical. Okay, maybe that last bit is over the top…the PC government is always smug, self-righteous and hypocritical.

Mr Prentice’s other alternative is to follow in Ralph Klein’s footsteps—unleash the spin doctors and turn himself into a lovable rogue—frankly I can’t see that working anymore, can you?

*Calgary Herald, July 30, 2014, A4

**Calgary Herald Online, July 14, 2014

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 28 Comments

Bread, Circuses and the Great Alberta Plate Debate

Posted on July 27, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

Poor Premier Hancock. Remember him. He tried to pull off the “bread and circuses” gambit—and kicked over a hornet’s nest.

The phrase “bread and circuses” was coined the Romans. It refers to the political strategy of distracting the population from failed government policies and inadequate leadership with “bread” (trivial benefits) and “circuses” (amusement).

Mr Hancock hoped to distract Albertans from the government’s inability to make any headway whatsoever on major issues (healthcare, environment, education, justice, a $17 billion debt by 2017) with a circus. Out of the blue Mr Hancock and his side-kick Mr Griffiths announced that Albertans would be getting a nifty new licence plate and they’d be allowed to vote for their favourite designs, lucky us!

Each of the designs features mountains, prairies and sky. None of the designs includes Alberta’s 30 year old slogan—Wild Rose Country. It will be replaced with alberta.ca (try googling that at 80 kpm). Our floral emblem, the Rosa Acicularis (commonly known as the wild rose) would also disappear.

This circus will cost $15 million (half the cost of upgrading the mouse, mould and asbestos ridden kitchen at Foothills Hospital) and a $5 hike in annual registration fees.

We are not amused

Did the “bread and circuses” gambit work? You bet it did. But not exactly the way the Tories expected.  

The public flocked to the government’s website to check out the new plates. The site received 500,000 hits in one day. This is an all time record and five times more than the hits generated by the June 2013 flood.

A recent Insights West survey shows that more Albertans (60%) are following the Great Plate Debate than actually voted in the last election.

Unfortunately for the circus master, the survey also revealed that the majority of Albertans are opposed to removing the Wild Rose Country slogan. Never mind.  The government said Albertans will “get used to the idea pretty quickly once the plates are affixed to vehicles.”*

Albertans also questioned the government’s motives and integrity. Was this a petty attempt by the Tories to stop giving the Wildrose party free publicity? Why yes it was.* Although most Albertans didn’t make the connection until the PCs made it for them.

Albertans wondered whether we were bereft of competent designers. The design was produced by an American firm and according to a sharp-eyed Albertan is a knockoff of Montana’s Sweetgrass Hills. Great, now we’re plagiarizing another country’s geography.

The media fell for the gambit hook, line and sinker. The Great Plate Debate generated more media coverage than Albertans’ right to a fair trial (infringed by cuts to legal aid funding and changes to Traffic Court), the cumulative effects of environmental pollution from the oilsands and the $637 million in deferred maintenance required to fix up hospitals and clinics across the province.

Fight “circus” with “circus”  

The Wildrose party is having a field day. They’ve set up an alternative licence plate design competition offering the successful designer a $500 prize and a contribution of $2500 to the charity of their choice.

This triggered a backlash from the design community who say it is “unethical” to expect “people in the creative field to be doing design work for no payment.”

Does no one remember the Great Canadian Flag debate of 1964 where Canadians were invited to submit a design for a flag to replace the Union Jack? Ms Soapbox’s charming submission—a beaver sitting on a log—was rejected, likely because it looked like the beaver sitting on a log on the back of the Canadian nickel. Ms Soapbox was a child, forgive her lack of imagination.

Success even amid failure

Mr Hancock’s attempt at “bread and circuses” backfired because it showed us how petty the PC party really is. However even a backfire is successful if it draws the public’s attention away from the critical issues facing the province—mounting debt, no long term energy strategy, inadequate healthcare, education, infrastructure—all of which are the direct result of years of inept PC government.

And did you notice when the “circus” rolled into town? Right in the middle of the PC leadership race just when the candidates were busy floating promises of more schools, more roads, more hospitals and no debt in [fill in the blank] years…without answering the critical question—just how do you intend to pay for all this?

Maybe Mr Hancock isn’t a simpleton after all. Clearly he understands the meaning of the Latin phrase Panem et Circenses. Here’s hoping that Albertans understand its modern day translation: “Oh look, shiny object!”

(Or if you’re a dog: “Squirrel!)

*Calgary Herald, July 25, 2014, A12

 

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 15 Comments

Top Ten Reasons Why Jim Prentice is Nothing Like Peter Lougheed

Posted on July 20, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

“During a one-and-a-half hour editorial board meeting…with Progressive Conservative leadership candidate… Jim Prentice, I was struck by how often Lougheed’s legendary thoughtfulness, tone and command of all topics came to mind.”—Licia Corbella, Calgary Herald, July 11, 2014

It’s official. As far as Ms Corbella is concerned Jim Prentice is the answer to our prayers—the leader for those of us who “pine for the days of Peter Lougheed and all that he embodied”.

Are you kidding me?

This statement is so fatuous that Ms Soapbox is compelled to respond with her own Top Ten List:  Reasons Why Jim Prentice is Nothing like Peter Lougheed. Unlike David Letterman’s lists, this list is funny only if you ignore where we’ll end up if Jim Prentice and the PCs are re-elected in 2016.  

Drum roll please…

10. Lougheed galvanized all Albertans in a fight with the feds over ownership of provincial resources. Prentice is whipping up one faction of conservative Albertans against another faction of conservative Albertans and the rest of us be damned.

Mr Prentice

9. When it comes to dealing with Big Oil, Lougheed was GI Joe. Prentice is a Care Bear. The US State Department described Lougheed as “arrogant and belligerent, particularly if he encounters opposition from…oil company executives.”* The Financial Post describes Prentice as “Big Oil’s Kindred Spirit”**

8. Lougheed believed that Alberta’s natural resources belong to the people and wanted to see an increase in oilsands royalties. Prentice acts like our natural resources belong to the oil companies and refuses to increase royalties under any circumstances.

7. Lougheed wanted an increase in personal and corporate taxes in order to balance our strong economic performance with our weaker social and environmental performance. Prentice’s response? Read my lips, no new taxes.

6. Lougheed worried that the Alberta government let oilsands development get ahead of infrastructure and was paying the price in crumbling highways and crowded schools and hospitals. Prentice says damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead because there might be a “price correction” (read: oil price drop) as early as 2017 that will hit the oil producers right in the balance sheet.

5. Lougheed called Fort McMurray and the tar sands a “moonscape” and a “mess”.***He urged the government to revise its policies. Prentice pays lip service to finding the “right balance between resource extraction and the environment”, but concludes that “we’re actually very good at that.”***

4.   Lougheed said “no” to Keystone XL and “yes” to value-added upgrading in Alberta. Prentice said the exact opposite.

3. Lougheed was a fiscal conservative who believed that government had a role in encouraging industry to act for the greater good of all Albertans. He believed that natural resources should be managed with good public policy and created the Alberta Energy Company and Alberta’s petrochemical industry as vehicles for job creation and economic growth. What is Prentice’s view on the government’s role vis-a-vis industry? Let me guess…If Big Oil is happy the rest will take care of itself.

Premier Lougheed

2. Lougheed was a visionary leader with an eye to the future. He inspired Albertans who suffered through drought, depression and war to move into the mainstream of Confederation.****Prentice is yesterday’s man. He personifies the status quo—a stagnant 43 year old government responding to the demands of Big Oil with no inkling of how to address the challenges of the 21st century.

1.  In 2006 Peter Lougheed was asked what challenges would face the next premier of Alberta. He said would be many, but “on the economic side it will be trying to manage the development of the Alberta oilsands”. *****Prentice will turn management of the oilsands over to Big Oil because that’s what kindred spirits do.

Anyone who suggests that Jim Prentice can govern Alberta with Peter Lougheed’s “legendary thoughtfulness, tone and command” demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding of all that Premier Lougheed achieved in the 14 years he governed this province.  They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

*Wikileaks May 22, 2009

**May 16, 2015

***Fort McMurray News June 1, 2014

****The Other Alberta, by Doreen Barrie, p 89

*****Policy Options Interview, Sept 2006

Posted in Politics and Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 30 Comments

Alberta’s Climate Change Strategy Goes Up in Smoke

Posted on July 13, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

Alberta’s Auditor General blew a gasket. He called the government’s performance on climate change strategy “troubling” and “disturbing”. Hey, he’s a mild mannered accountant; this is as in-your-face as he gets.

Our feisty Auditor General

Mr Saher kicked off the July 2014 audit report with a lesson on the role of government. A good government puts the right people in place to get the job done. It exercises ministerial oversight (gee, there’s a thought) and most importantly, is accountable and ensures Albertans receive value for the money spent on government programs and services.

Mr Saher tested Alberta’s climate change strategy against these criteria. It failed miserably.

In 2008 the government set out emissions reductions targets for 2020 and 2050 but didn’t bother to properly monitor them to see if the targets were being met.

It spent $1 billion on carbon capture and storage to reduce emissions but discovered that CCS will reduce emissions by only 10% of what was expected.  

It gave out bioenergy grants for projects to produce lower emissions than comparable non-renewable energy projects but failed to confirm that the projects actually reduced emissions.*

Mr Saher reflected on these failures plus the expiry of the $15 carbon levy later this year and said: “This pace does not reflect the significance that effectively managing climate change has for the economy and environmental performance in Alberta and Canada.”**

Maybe not, but it does reflect a lack of commitment on the part of the government and industry to any climate change strategy whatsoever.

Industry supports a carbon tax if…

Cenovus CEO, Brian Ferguson said he’d support a carbon tax if it was appropriately structured. It must be spread across the entire value chain—production, transportation and consumption. Okay we can live with that.

But wait, Russ Girling, CEO of TCPL, says that the carbon tax must be worked out to the tiniest detail with all the “i”s dotted and the “t”s crossed to avoid unintended consequences. Funny, they were happy to see the departments of Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development slammed together under the Alberta Energy Regulator without worrying about the details…as long as the Regulator was run by their good friend and industry lobbyist Gerry Protti.

Oh, one last point, neither Ferguson nor Girling is prepared to accept a carbon tax unless the US implements one as well because to do otherwise would put an unnecessary burden on Canadian producers.***

Prentice, Lukaszuk and McIver weigh in

Mr Prentice

Mr Prentice is annoyed. The government was “off its game” for years when it comes to climate change. If elected leader, Mr Prentice would beef up Alberta Environment’s scientific strength and monitoring and regulatory capability so we could “defend ourselves internationally as protecting the environment”.****

Defend ourselves?

The real question is how is this going to work on the ground given that Mr Prentice has hamstrung the team. Mr Prentice won’t let the Environment Ministry raise Alberta’s $15 per tonne carbon levy unless the federal government and the US government do likewise. He says he might consider a “unilateral” move but he expects Alberta “… to get something for that from somebody.” Like what…Obama’s approval of Keystone XL? BC’s approval of Northern Gateway?

In other words Mr Prentice is signaling to Messrs Ferguson and Girling: Message received loud & clear.

Mr Lukaszuk, to his credit and much to my amazement, is not about to jump into bed with industry. He’s prepared to hike the carbon levy recognizing that it’s necessary to win the social licence required for projects to proceed.****

Mr McIver was unavailable for comment. As usual.

Climate change strategy or window dressing

The Auditor General presumed that Alberta had a climate change strategy and was appalled by the government’s inability to deliver results. Unfortunately he’s got the wrong end of the stick. The government’s foot-dragging since 2008 demonstrates that Alberta’s climate change strategy is nothing more than window dressing meant to appease those wing-nut environmentalists who’ve taken other less enlightened governments hostage.

Well, it’s time for Alberta to ditch its defensive posture and take a leadership role in addressing climate change. This would start with a government that’s prepared to stop asking industry “Mother may I?”

And while we’re at it, let’s avoid comments like Premier Hancock’s response to the Auditor General’s report: “We already can say to the world, we have some of the strongest environmental regulatory frameworks for oil and gas extraction. We’re doing more on CO2, carbon capture and storage and other issues. We don’t have to apologize to anyone for the strength of our system”.****

Really Premier Hancock? Tell that to the Auditor General. 

*Report of the Auditor General of Alberta, July 2014 p37

**AG Report, p 40

***Daily Oil Bulletin, July 9, 2014

****Calgary Herald, July 10, 2014, A4 

Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Environment, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 14 Comments

Who Deserves A Severance Package: Ms Neala Barton or the AHS Executives?

Posted on July 6, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

 “de-mur: to make objection; especially on the grounds of scruples”—Dictionary.com

Neala Barton has the uncanny ability to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and emerge unscathed. She was a communications staffer for Ontario health minister David Caplan—until he resigned over the eHealth scandal. She moved on to become Dalton McGuinty’s press secretary—until he resigned to avoid the Ornge air ambulance scandal and a political crisis triggered by his cancellation of two gas plants.

Ms Barton

Ms Barton then joined Alison Redford’s team as press secretary. She lasted one year before the whole thing went pear-shaped.

You’d think that all these unexpected career interruptions would make a girl jaded and cynical. Not so with Ms Barton.

Unlike her colleagues, Ms Barton demurred when offered a severance package estimated to be in the $100,000 range. Why? Because she was in negotiations for another job when Ms Redford resigned and thought she didn’t need or deserve the money.*

This was a remarkable decision given that the government was obligated at law to pay her severance.

Pause for a moment to consider Ms Barton’s decision in light of another severance scenario–the the Alberta Health Service (AHS) executives who got the boot when Health Minister Horne “rightsized” the organization. Wouldn’t it have been nice if he’d gotten the “sizing” right the first time and spared us the chaos and expense, but I digress…

The Alberta Health Service Annual Report 2013-2014 states that five former AHS executives received a total of $2.4 million in severance. Note, this amount excludes “soft” severance which is disguised as paid leave and consulting contracts. The value of these arrangements would likely boost that number by another million dollars.

The ineptitude of Minister Horne in creating this situation is breathtaking.

Soft severance is still severance

When Dr Chris Eagle was stripped of his CEO role and “moved to the position of Special Advisor to the Official Administrator” for 12 months, he didn’t get severance. However the “special advisor” job was created out of thin air, there was no change to his $580,000 pay packet and he kicked off his 12-month stint with a 3-month paid “sabbatical leave”.**  It’s a little difficult to characterize this arrangement as anything but severance.

Dr Eagle was replaced as CEO by Mr Duncan Campbell. Mr Campbell had been the CFO.  He replaced Allaudin Merali who held the CFO position from May to Aug 2012 when he was fired for mismanaging his expenses with the Capital Health Region. (Mr Merali wants the severance he’d been promised and is suing AHS for $6 million.)

Mr Campbell lasted less than a month in the CEO’s office before he was punted. He went on a 4-month paid leave and was awarded a $500,000 consulting contract with AHS. AHS threw in $43,000 to cover his “relocation” expenses. Not bad for someone who’d been CFO for 6 months and CEO for less than one month.

The severance jackpot

The jackpot goes to Dr David Megran who was on “secondment from the University of Calgary” when he was fired.***

Dr Megran

The term “secondment” means being on temporary assignment to another department or organization. A “seconded” employee usually maintains his position in his home organization and is paid by his home organization which retains liability for the employee in the event he gets fired by the host organization.

For some bizarre reason, AHS turned this logic on its head. AHS describes its relationship with Dr Megran as a “secondment” but for all intents and purposes it treated Dr Megran like an employee. It paid Dr Megran’s salary and put Dr Megran into its benefits plan including its executive pension plan. The result—a severance payout totalling $730,000 and a lump-sum pension payout of $1.06 million.

Dr Megran didn’t miss a beat. He simply picked up his $2.2 million cheque and returned to work at the University of Calgary.

Whoever negotiated Dr Megran’s contract should be shot.  

A gift horse

Far be it from me to blame the AHS executives for accepting the hundreds of thousands of dollars they were legally entitled to collect upon termination simply because Health Minister Horne and his predecessors were idiots.

But Ms Barton’s decision to look a gift horse in the mouth made me wonder. Is it easier to turn down $100,000 than $2.2 million? Does it make a difference if you’re young and starting out in your career or established and nearing the end? Is this a moral question as well as a legal one?

One thing is for sure. We’ll be seeing more of Ms Barton. She’s working as a communications officer for the organizing committee for the 2015 Pan-Am games. They’ve already lost a CEO and two senior VPs and the Ontario Tories smell a scandal.

Tory MPP Rod Jackson accused the Ontario Liberals of mismanaging the Pan Am games and railed on about Ms Barton who, he says “shows up in gas plants, Premier Redford scandals and now Pan Am”…as if these misguided decisions were somehow her fault.****

Given the Tory vitriol one would hope that if the Pan-Am job ends badly Ms Barton will be offered a decent severance package. And she takes it.

Because if anyone deserves to walk away with a windfall, it’s Ms Neala Barton.

*Calgary Herald, July 5, 2014, A5

**AHS Annual Report 2013-2014, page 146, note (t)

***AHS Annual Report 2013-2014, page 145, note (o)

****http://ottawacitizen.com/news/the-turbulent-career-of-neala-barton

 

Posted in Alberta Health Care | Tagged , , , , , , , | 17 Comments

A Gift from Chief Justice McLachlin: The Tsilhqot’in Decision on Aboriginal Rights*

Posted on June 29, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

On June 26, 2014, in a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin gave the First Nations (and the rest of Canada) a treasure map.

Chief Justice McLachlin

It wasn’t a crumpled piece of paper covered with a cryptic scrawl, but a comprehensive legal analysis that defines the elements of Aboriginal title to land and sets out how the federal and provincial governments must act if they intend to intrude on Aboriginal lands.

And here’s the best part.  By forcing the government and industry to respect Aboriginal title to ancestral lands the Supreme Court of Canada reined in the government’s relentless drive for economic development at the expense of practically everything else.

Not only does “X” mark the spot, it marks the sweet spot where a strong economy can be balanced with respect for the environment and concern for Aboriginal (and non-Aboriginal) society.

The Lawsuit

The Tsilhqot’in Nation is a semi-nomadic group of bands living in central BC. They objected to the BC government granting timber licences on their ancestral lands. They were unable to resolve their dispute and launched a lawsuit against the BC and federal government.

A number of provincial governments, First Nations and business organizations piled on, including the BC Business Council which represents the forestry and mining industry. It argued that granting the Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal title to the area would have devastating economic consequences.

Thirty-one years later (!) Chief Justice McLaughlin granted the Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal title over their traditional lands.

First Principles

The Court went back to first principles in its review of Aboriginal title, starting with the not-so-gentle reminder that contrary to what some people may think, the doctrine of terra nullius (that no one owned the land before the Europeans got here) does not apply in Canada.**

Having put the “how dare they” crowd to rest, the Court described the elements of Aboriginal title and what that requires from the government.

Aboriginal title and consent

Aboriginal title gives Aboriginal peoples the exclusive right to decide how their land is used and to enjoy the benefits of that use, subject only to the restriction that the uses must be consistent with the enjoyment of the land by future generations.

Consequently, before a government can intrude on Aboriginal lands it needs their consent; failing which the government must justify its intrusion under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Section 35 requires the government to show that it is intruding to achieve a “compelling and substantial objective.” Objectives may include economic development (ie agriculture, forestry, mining, hydroelectric power) and environmental protection.

The Tsilhqot’in

However, such incursions cannot be justified if the benefits of the intrusion are outweighed by its adverse consequences or if the intrusion would substantially deprive future generations of the benefit of the land.

That’s one heck of a big “but”.

And therein lies the problem for the ongoing development of the oilsands and the transportation of bitumen by Enbridge through Northern Gateway to the West Coast and TCPL through Energy East to New Brunswick.

While the provincial and federal governments are quick to tout the economic benefits of oilsands development, they’re less forthright when it comes to addressing its adverse consequences, particularly any negative impacts on Aboriginal populations. However the Tsilhqot’in decision means the government has no place to hide.

The Lubicon are fighting a number of energy projects within a 10,000 square kilometre area in Alberta. A myriad of Aboriginal bands are opposing the Northern Gateway pipeline route in BC.

These Alberta and BC Aboriginal groups refused to consent to these projects. Consequently the provincial and federal governments must demonstrate a “compelling or substantial objective” to justify proceeding without their consent.

How will the provincial and federal governments proceed? Who knows. The silence from the ministers of energy and Indian Affairs is eerie.

Industry reaction is puzzling. Alex Ferguson of Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers turned the spotlight on to the government, saying that the decision highlights the need for governments to work together to fulfill their legal obligations. As if that wasn’t obvious.

He also said there’s no need to overreact. Overreact? On whose part? The Aboriginal bands who have significantly more leverage now than they had yesterday? The Chinese marketplace that sees yet another obstacle to quick access to Canadian bitumen? The oil producers and pipeline companies who need to explain the impact of the decision to their investors in a way that won’t depress share prices?

The treasure

It will take a while for governments and industry to develop a game plan to work within the confines of the Tsilhqot’in decision.

In the meantime one thing is certain. The Tsihqot’in decision is indeed a treasure map, but with a difference. The buried treasure is not gold, but independence and honour.

Aboriginal groups found independence. Chief Roger William of the Xeni Gwet’in beams from ear to ear when he describes being able to govern the Xeni Gwet’in nation and rely on the natural resources of their land”****Globe and Mail, June 27, 2014, A4.

The Canadian people found honour. The Tsilhqot’in decision allows us to honour the promises made to the First Nations in the Royal Proclamation, the treaties, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution.

The provincial and federal governments found nothing. They deliberately ignored the promises they made and must leave empty handed and covered in shame.

*Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44

** Royal Proclamation**(1763), R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 1.

***Globe and Mail, June 27, 2014, B6

Posted in Crime and Justice, Energy & Natural Resources, Environment, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments