Ric McIver Stumbles…the PC Party Falls

Posted on June 22, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

“Closed-mindedness or intolerance have no place in the PC [party].” —The PC party’s response to Ric McIver’s participation in the March for Jesus led by anti-gay pastor Artur Pawlowski.

Instead of belabouring Ric McIver’s pathetic too-little, too-late apology for participating in last Sunday’s March for Jesus (led by Pastor Pawlowski who says gays are agents for Satan) let’s focus on the Progressive Conservative Party’s response to Mr McIver’s participation in this appalling spectacle.

Artur Pawloski

On Monday PC party president, Jim McCormick, shot out a statement saying “individual members…are expected to follow our statement of principles, which includes that of being an open party that’s accessible to all Albertans.”

Well, a certain “individual member” who happens to be running for the leadership of the party did not follow PC principles and Mr McCormick, who was quick to smack down a sitting premier, Alison Redford, is doing absolutely nothing about it.

On Wednesday, Premier Dave Hancock characterized Mr McIver’s participation as oversight. “Sometimes we don’t necessarily get all the background on things, and I won’t chastise anybody for something they may have done not having the full picture”. He urged leadership candidates “to be careful how you associate, because people will make assumptions that you can’t control”.*

Not having the full picture….? Mr McIver participated in the Walk for Jesus for four years. It defies reason that he was not aware of Pastor Pawlowski’s homophobic views.

What did they talk about as they marched down the street arm in arm…the Pope? No wait, Pope Francis said “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?”**The weather? Well okay, maybe the weather. Pastor Pawlowski did say the 2013 flood was caused by God “weeping for the perversions of homosexuality”.***

Trust me, Albertans have “the full picture” and it isn’t pretty.

Let’s review.

PC’s “support” of LGBTQ Albertans

The PC government made it crystal clear that it would not protect the rights of LGBTQ students when it refused to support a motion put forward by Liberal MLA, Kent Hehr. Motion 503 would have required school boards to support LGBTQ students with policies that allowed students to create gay-straight alliances. NOTE: Mr Lukaszuk voted in favour of Mr Hehr’s motion. Mr McIver and Mr Hancock were absent.

Ric McIver

Much to the PC’s surprise, the government’s Neanderthal response to this motion created an immediate backlash. In an effort at damage control Justice Minister Denis (who was photographed with Pastor Pawlowski in 2012) quickly rolled out a one-time grant from the Civil Forfeiture Fund—a grand total of $76,250—to the Edmonton Pride Centre for a mentoring project to encourage LGBTQ youth to avoid a life of crime by developing relationships with LGBTQ adults who would help them develop safe and positive community connections. The program expires in 2 years.

So the PC party message is this: It has no issues with MLAs who support anti-gay ministries. Remember it green-lighted Mr McIver’s nomination when he ran in Calgary-Hays, by then he’d already participated in at least one March for Jesus, and looked the other way when he continued to do so. It responded only after the issue exploded in the twittersphere. It whitewashed Mr McIver’s participation as an oversight. And it will allow Mr McIver to continue his bid for leadership of the PC party which means it is prepared to take the risk that Mr McIver will be sitting in the premier’s office this fall.  

But this should be of no concern to the LGBTQ community because the PC government has given the Edmonton Pride Centre $76,250 (!!)

Frankly this makes Danielle Smith’s decision not to dump MLA candidate Alan Hunsperger—who said gays and lesbians are doomed to an eternal “lake of fire” unless they changed their sexual orientation—look like an administrative hiccup.

Gay rights in the 21st century

Lord John Browne

The corporate world has embraced gay rights. Over 90% of Fortune 500 companies have policies against homophobic discrimination.****Employees who violate these policies are disciplined or terminated. Lord Browne, former CEO of BP, who kept his homosexuality hidden for decades, says this is good business—firms that embrace gay rights will win the war for talent by being able to attract gay employees as well as gay-friendly employees.  Firms that don’t will be left in the dust.

The same principle applies in government. So why did Premier Hancock make feeble excuses for Mr McIver and why did the PC party allow Mr McIver to stay in the leadership race?

Two possible reasons: One, the PC party knows that Mr McIver reflects the views of many PC members and prefers to tread softly rather than risk losing these members to the Wildrose. Two, the PC party thinks that keeping Mr McIver in the PC leadership race will split the “old guard” vote between Mr Lukaszuk and Mr McIver, thereby guaranteeing a win for Mr Prentice.

This is cynical and short sighted.  Refusing to remove Mr McIver from the leadership race confirmed something most of us suspected. The PC party will do whatever it takes to stay in power, including sacrificing the rights of LGBTQ Albertans.

Welcome to the dark ages.

*Calgary Herald, June 18, 2014, A5

**The Christian Post, online, Sept 19, 2013

***Calgary Herald, June 17, 2014, A4

****The Economist, May 31, 2014, 62

 

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Desmond Tutu and the “Animals in War” Memorial

Posted on June 15, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

Everywhere you turn in London there’s a statue or monument commemorating an epic battle or a long dead sovereign. While interesting, none is as compelling as the Animals in War memorial.  It reduced me to tears.

The Animals in War memorial consists of two mules struggling to approach a gap in a large thick wall.  On the other side of the wall are a horse and dog who have passed through the gap. The dog looks back over his shoulder…at what?  The weary mules?  His master?  The memorial is dedicated to all the animals that died alongside British and Allied troops.  It bears the inscription “They had no choice.”

Choice

That got me thinking about “choice” and Desmond Tutu’s recent comments at a conference on climate change and the Alberta oilsands.  U of C law professor Kathleen Mahoney provides an excellent analysis of Bishop Tutu’s position in her Ablawg post.*

Bishop Tutu views climate change as the greatest moral issue of our time, which is probably why Albertans who see the issue as nothing more than an economic decision consider anyone who disagrees with them “energy illiterate”.  They’ve missed the point.

Moral Imperatives

Desmond Tutu identified three moral imperatives that must be considered in the context of climate change.  These are:

– responsibility for future generations whose rights are at the mercy of the present generation

– responsibility for different global populations, particularly those who will suffer the brunt of the impact of climate change (eg poorer populations living in semi-arid deserts, river deltas, coastal and island regions etc)

– responsibility to the natural world and the need to develop a stronger relationship with nature.  To paraphrase Bishop Tutu; just because Man is at the top of the food chain doesn’t mean he has the right to abuse other sentient beings.

These are complex and difficult issues that require thoughtful deliberation.  And while Bishop Tutu wasn’t about to tell Canadians what to do, he did make this insightful comment:  “I think I can say, almost without contradiction, you do know what you should do.”**

He’s right.

Unlike the dogs and horses and mules that went to war, we have a choice.

We can choose to rein in politicians who have mismanaged our greatest natural resource, compromised our environment and gutted our social services while at the same time draining the Heritage Fund so that these environmental and social problems are passed down to our children.

Or we can choose to turn a blind eye and let the politicians lead us in any direction they and their Big Oil advisors deem expedient.

Dogs and horses and mules that die while serving alongside their masters deserve a memorial commemorating their selfless sacrifice. Albertans and Canadians who’ve had an opportunity to consider the consequences of their actions and choose to ignore them, do not.

Choose wisely.

*Professor Mahoney’s thorough review of Bishop Tutu’s position is well worth reading. 

** Macleans, online, May 31, 2014

Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Environment, Politics and Government | Tagged , , | 15 Comments

The Orient Express!!!

Posted on June 8, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

This is the Orient Express…well not the original Orient Express with service from Paris to Vienna and the Balkans or its successor that travelled from Strasbourg to Vienna. Those trains are long gone. This is the Venice-Simplon Orient Express and Mr and Ms Soapbox are on board at this very moment!

Much to Mr Soapbox’s dismay ever since Ms Soapbox saw a documentary by David Suchet (the best Hercule Poirot ever) about his trip on the Orient Express, she’s had her heart set on travelling on this beautiful train.

Mr Soapbox considered letting his darling wife make the trip alone but she has an unnerving habit of leaping on to trains without fully understanding where they’re going. On a recent trip to Denmark Ms Soapbox embarked on a train destined for Hamburg—she was trying to catch a train heading to Roskilde, a tiny Viking village just outside of Copenhagen. A kindly Danish businessman got the Soapboxes off the train just before they crossed the border into Germany and caused an international incident for traveling without their passports (don’t ask!)

David Suchet (did I mention he is the best Poirot ever) took the Orient Express from Calais to Venice and Prague. Mr and Ms Soapbox are travelling in the opposite direction, having started in Prague and heading north to London.

Like Mr Suchet, they are in awe of their luxurious surroundings—the Lalique crystal and rare wood fittings in their tiny sleeping car, the 5-star meals created in the miniscule (and incredibly hot) kitchen, round the clock steward service and the rag-tag assortment of passengers.

This evening Ms Soapbox will put on her little black dress and Mr Soapbox will don a dark suit (he refused to buy a tux). They’ll drape themselves over the baby grand piano in the bar car, toss back a few G&Ts and then head to the dining car for a sumptuous meal. Later they’ll curl up in their teeny but well appointed sleeping car and alight, fresh as daisies, the next afternoon in London.

The entire experience will fade like a dream and assuming she’s not inconveniently murdered en route Ms Soapbox will begin planning her next train trip on the Транссибирская магистраль, also known as the Trans-Siberian Railway.

(Please don’t tell Mr Soapbox. It’s a surprise!)

Posted in Vacation | Tagged , , | 16 Comments

Round One! Thomas Lukaszuk!

Posted on June 1, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

“Diamond” Jim Prentice (don’t you just love the “Brian Masonism”) adopted a “nobody moves, nobody gets hurt” strategy for his leadership campaign…and it works for the 99% of his election platform.

There will be no change to the energy policy (full steam ahead with expanding the oilsands), no change to upgrading bitumen in Alberta…unless it’s “competitive” (read: OK with Big Oil), no change to the environmental policy (leave climate change to the Feds), no change to revenue generation (no sales tax, no royalty changes) and no change to the decision to incur $18 billion in debt by 2015-16 until he’s at the table and can scrutinize and prioritize the plan* (rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic?).

Mr Prentice

The one change Mr Prentice did promise was to restore trust in the PC government by ending entitlement. He’s going to toughen the government’s conflict of interest rules and impose better controls on lobbyists. Anyone who breaches these rules will be gone.

Sounds good but how does a premier “fire” an MLA—only the voters can do that—or rip up legally binding contracts made by the government with an MLA’s friends, family and big donors?  

The donor list

Mr Prentice’s commitment to restore trust hit a speed bump last week when Thomas Lukaszuk announced that he would disclose his list of financial supporters before Sept 6, the date that PC party members vote for their new leader. (Mr McIver soon followed suit).

Instead of saying “yes, I’ll publish my donor list” or “no, not in your wildest dreams” Mr Prentice resorted to what Steven Pinker calls “indirect language.” The purpose of indirect language is to avoid creating mutual understanding. It sounds (sort of) like a commitment but allows you to back away if things don’t turn out as you expected.

Mr Prentice’s said: “We will follow the process put in place by the party and required by Elections Alberta to the letter.”**

Given that Elections Alberta does not require disclosure of financial donors until after the campaign and the PC party has no rules requiring disclosure prior to the election date, Mr Prentice’s promise to follow the law and party’s process “to the letter” meant that Mr Prentice would not disclose his donors list until after his campaign is over.

The next day Mr Prentice did an about face. He decided not to follow the process set out by the party and Elections Alberta to the letter. Instead, he’d voluntarily disclose his donor’s list prior to the Sept 6 vote.

Trap sprung!  Mr Lukaszuk grinned like a Cheshire cat.

Shrewd politicking

Mr Lukaszuk says he’s disclosing his donor list because: “I intuitively believe the public wants to know…it gives you a clear understanding of the candidate.”**

Mr Lukaszuk

He’s right.

Mr Lukaszuk is a very shrewd politician. In order to win the grassroots vote he needs to hammer the point that Mr Prentice is a corporate “insider”; a slick lawyer/banker who enjoys the support of big business and well-heeled Albertans…people who are not like you and me.

By forcing Mr Prentice to go beyond the “letter of the law” and voluntarily reveal his donor list Mr Lukaszuk will be able to draw a bright line between himself and the smooth talking politician who blew into town to save the PC party from itself.

Nicely played Mr Lukaszuk, nicely played.

*Calgary Herald, May 29, 2014, A4

**Calgary Herald May 28, 2014, A4

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 12 Comments

The Alberta Federation of Labour’s Litmus Test for Alberta’s Opposition Parties

Posted on May 25, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

“Sometimes telling the truth hurts…and it will hurt here.”—Rob Anderson, Wildrose MLA at the Alberta Federation of Labour Conference in response to a question about the legal right to strike*

The Alberta Federation of Labour held a two day conference this weekend in Calgary. Ms Soapbox was extremely fortunate to receive an invitation to hear Rob Anderson (Wildrose), Deron Bilous (NDP) and Dr David Swann (Liberal) speak at a panel on “Alberta Political Parties’ Vision for Labour and Working People.”

Mr Anderson

Apparently, the Progressive Conservatives were also invited but Premier Hancock was busy and none of the 60-odd PC MLAs were able to attend in his place. Pity.

The litmus test

The litmus test is a metaphor for questions asked of political candidates for high office. The trick is to get the question right and to keep digging if you get a slippery answer. The Alberta Federation of Labour and its moderator, Bob Hawkeworth, made it look easy.

The result was an engaging discussion on issues that are critical to all Albertans. Here are the highlights:

Revenue generation? The Wildrose is satisfied with the existing royalty and tax structure. Its focus is the elimination of corporate welfare ($2 billion to Shell’s carbon capture and storage project) and wasteful spending ($1 billion in sole sourced contracts at Alberta Health Services). The Wildrose is banking on a $5 to $6 billion royalty “bonanza” to buttress the revenue side of the ledger in coming years.

Dr Swann

The Liberals and NDs on the other hand are not content to stay with the PC government’s boom/bust revenue model. They’d take bold steps to increase revenues by revisiting existing royalty and tax structures. Dr Swann noted said that royalties should be closer to 25% not 9%, while Mr Bilous pushed for a “competitive royalty”. Both parties are in favour of progressive taxation.

Private delivery of public services? The NDs would never allow the private sector to deliver public services and would reverse all past privatization decisions. The Liberals support publicly delivered services, but may allow private delivery where it is too difficult to revert back to public delivery.

After a (Freudian?) slip of the tongue, Mr Anderson said the Wildrose supports public service delivery and would allow private service delivery only if it is based on a solid business case. Forgive me for being skeptical, but I don’t recall the Wildrose making much of a fuss over the PC government’s decision to privatize all lab services in the Edmonton area.  

Labour’s success in reversing governmental policy? The moderator, Mr Hawkesworth, wondered about labour’s role in getting the PC government to delay or reverse its stance on pensions, the elimination of compulsory arbitration and penalizing anyone who even whispered the word “strike”.

Mr Bilous

The Wildrose attributed this about-face to the unions’ efforts to educate politicians so MLAs could effectively oppose these anti-labour measures in the Legislature. The Liberals and the NDs gave credit to the unions for massive demonstrations protesting the legislation and, in the words of Mr Bilous, scaring the PC backbenchers sh**tless.

While these were important activities, let’s not kid ourselves. The PCs were not shamed into dropping their anti-labour agenda by the unions or the opposition. The government did not back down until the courts slammed Bill 45 for being unconstitutional. That, plus Ms Redford’s fall from grace, created such political chaos that the PC government could not risk any further political fallout.  

Labour and politics

Tory Behemoth

All of the political parties want labour’s support. Dr Swann pointed out that the Tories and the Wildrose would split the vote on the right and urged the Liberals, NDs and labour to work together to take down the “Tory behemoth” (I’m sure he meant the mythical beast not the Polish band).

Mr Bilous reminded everyone that the NDs and labour share the same priorities and that now was the time for labour and the NDs to work together to bring about a change in government.

Mr Anderson stressed that government must be humble and respect labour. He said the Wildrose respects the Rule of Law and the unions’ right to bargain in good faith and promised to repeal all of the PC government’s anti-labour legislation if they were elected in 2016.   

Who do we trust?

According to Calgary pollster Janet Brown, the PC party is crumbling right before our eyes. They may be down to eight seats in the next election.**One can only hope! So the question is this: who do you trust to replace them? And can they elect enough MLAs to make a difference?

It’s a given that labour will support the NDs, however the likelihood of a majority (or even minority) ND government is slim. Consequently organized labour should ask itself some critical questions. Does the Wildrose really mean what it says? Should the Liberals and the NDs cooperate to increase the chance of sending candidates who support labour to the Legislature?  What’s the best use of labour’s influence and resources?

Remember, the PCs are an arrogant and disrespectful government. Unless they lose their majority government status they will return in 2016 to finish the job they’ve started—restructuring labour markets in ways that harm organized labour and ultimately all Albertans.***

That would be beyond tragic.

*Please check video to verify exact language, this is what I scribbled down

** Comment by Gil McGowen at AFL conference

**Thank you Harry for giving me your conference materials, including the Executive Summary of “On the Job—Why Unions Matter in Alberta”

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Jim Prentice: A Risk-averse Banker Meets the Black Swan

Posted on May 18, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

Two energy company executives made a wager. The one who bet that Jim Prentice would never give up $3 million a year in exchange for power lost. True story.

Mr Prentice

On May 16, 2014, Mr Prentice entered the Progressive Conservative leadership race. After two months of dancing on the edge, he managed to satisfy himself that he had a shot at winning. His funding strategy is  ready to roll, his four campaign co-chairs are assembled and he’s been endorsed by 18 MLAs so far.

Jobs Minister Lukaszuk made an interesting point with respect to the 18 MLAs eager to prove their loyalty—none of them has a clue what Mr Prentice stands for.

Mr Prentice’s policies

As much as it pains Ms Soapbox to say so, she agrees with Mr Lukaszuk. Mr Prentice hasn’t said a word about his policies, likely because they won’t be finished, even in draft form, until this weekend.

While the 18 MLAs may be content to endorse Mr Prentice on blind faith, more discerning Alberta voters should read some of the speeches Mr Prentice made while he was senior executive vice president and vice chair of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce—particularly since all of these speeches concern the energy industry.

Mr Prentice’s policy is simple: rip, strip and ship—with a dash of “social contract” thrown in on the side.

Here’s an example.  Last October Mr Prentice spoke at the CIBC Global Investors Forum. He said he supports the free market (“Free markets produce impressive results when they are allowed to work”) but managed to argue all the same for greater regulatory control of Canadian/US energy policy. He’d like “full-on harmonization” of the transportation grid, rail and aviation industries and wants to stop US state governments from creating their own renewables standards and low-carbon fuel standards because they shut out Canadian hydro and bitumen.

Mr Prentice acknowledged that Canada and the US should be environmental leaders but was content to fall back on industry innovations and the existing environmental regime to get there.  Even the petulant prime minister recognizes that Canada needs to step up its environmental game if it hopes to make Canadian bitumen more acceptable to American and European markets.  

Mr Prentice stressed the need to open up Asian markets (this as a “national imperative”) but failed to consider upgrading in Alberta or elsewhere in Canada in order to create jobs and reduce the opposition to raw bitumen from the US and Europe.

Stress testing

Mr Prentice wants Alberta (and Canada) to be an energy superpower. However he’s missed the forest for the trees. This is not surprising given Mr Prentice’s recent experience as a banker.

Banks are in the business of identifying, managing and controlling risk. There’s not much point in lending someone money if they can’t pay it back with interest.     

CIBC manages risk by running daily “stress test scenarios” to figure out what impact certain events would have on the bank’s financial wellbeing. Some events like 9/11 or the sub-prime/Lehman Bros collapse have a negative impact. Others like the US debt default or the growth of Chinese economy have a positive effect.

Not one of the bank’s 12 scenarios focuses on the energy industry. Given the importance of energy to the Canadian economy this is puzzling…until you remember the black swan.

The Black Swan

The premise of Taleb’s book, The Black Swan, is that while extreme events are rare, they do happen. And when they do, all hell breaks loose. Examples of Black Swan events are 9/11 and the rise of the internet, particularly Google. The energy industry, like international banking, is not immune from Black Swan events

For example, if the Alberta Energy Regulator determines that the bitumen leaks at CNRL’s Primrose site were not caused by wellbore failure but a geological condition exacerbated by fracking, the future of fracking is in serious jeopardy.

On a more dramatic scale, concerns about the impact of climate change have filtered into the minds of investment bankers who’ve asked all the major energy companies to describe how they would respond to regulations that reduce emissions levels to the point that their oil and coal deposits become stranded assets.**If the banks are not satisfied with the energy companies’ response, the cost of running their operations will skyrocket.

No longer business as usual

Mr Prentice’s speeches indicate that he has fallen prey to the “business as usual” outlook—it  reflects an optimistic bias, sees familiar patterns and is blind to the unexpected. ***

While the energy industry may be forgiven for ignoring the grim possibility that the gravy train may leave the station;  the future Premier of Alberta cannot assume that Alberta’s prosperity will continue forever if he can just find a way to ram a pipeline to the west coast, another to the Gulf of Mexico and a third to New Brunswick.

Albertans deserve a premier with vision who can transform a tired old government into one capable of creating a diverse economy capable of supporting investments in people and infrastructure through the boom and bust of the energy cycle.

It’s the only way to ensure that when the next black swan drifts by Alberta won’t go into a tailspin.

*2013 Annual Report starting at p 63

** http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-24/investor-group-presses-oil-companies-on-unburnable-carbon-.html

***http://hbr.org/2013/05/living-in-the-futures/ar/1

 

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 24 Comments

Honour and Dishonour on the National Day of Honour

Posted on May 11, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

On May 9, 2014, amidst the pomp and circumstance of marching bands, dignitaries and aircraft buzzing overhead, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the crowds gathered on Parliament Hill that the names of the 158 soldiers killed in Afghanistan would be engraved “on the hearts of all Canadians who cherish freedom, justice and human dignity. These are the things they died protecting. Canadians are safer and Canada is stronger because of their sacrifice.”*

Troops at Vimy Ridge

A noble statement but not as meaningful as the promise made by Prime Minister Robert Borden to Canadian troops preparing for the Battle of Vimy Ridge.  Prime Minister Borden said “no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.”**

Prime Minister Borden was explicit: “The men by whose sacrifice and endurance the free institutions of Canada will be preserved must be re-educated where necessary and re-established on the land or in pursuits or vocations as they may desire to follow. The maimed and the broken will be protected, the widow and the orphan will be helped and cherished.”

The Canadian government enshrined this promise in legislation and honoured it for 93 years—until it was obliterated by Prime Minister Harper.

Harper betrays veterans

In 2006 the Harper government convinced the House that veterans would be better served by eliminating their access to benefits under the Pension Act in favour of “new” benefits under the New Veterans Charter.***

In fact the opposite was true. The New Veteran’s Charter reduced the compensation available to Afghanistan war veterans who went to war under the Borden promise and returned home under the Harper promise.****

This betrayal is the result of the Canadian Forces two-pronged strategy. First, instill pride in the Forces and provide a competitive quality of life and rewarding careers to its members and employees; and second, improve resource stewardship by balancing investments for current operations against investments in people, infrastructure and equipment required in the future.

Mr Harper’s New Veteran’s Charter demonstrates that soldiers who were grievously injured, but did not die in Afghanistan, don’t fit the second prong of the strategy. They are no longer “resources” meriting “investment” because they can’t be deployed in current operations and certainly can’t be used to fight future battles.

So Mr Harper simply kicks them to the curb and moves on.

The Honour of the Crown

Mr Harper forgot one tiny detail—he was attacking warriors.

In Oct 2012, six vets injured in Afghanistan started a class action against the Harper government.

Major Mark Campbell

The six include Mark Campbell, a 47 year old major in the Princess Patricia Light Infantry who was on his second tour of duty in Afghanistan when he got caught in a Taliban ambush and hit by an IED. The explosion blew off both of his legs. It took 90 minutes to evacuate Mr Campbell in the midst of an intense gun battle and an additional 25 minutes to helicopter him to the field hospital at Kandahar Airfield. A few days later Mr Campbell was flown to a hospital in Germany and from there to the U of A hospital.

Mr Campbell and his fellow litigants are relying on the government’s promise to help them put their lives back together again…and the New Veterans Charter simply doesn’t cut it.

The veterans are represented by Donald Sorochan, a Vancouver lawyer, who has taken on the case pro bono. Mr Sorochan says the Harper government is bound by “the honour of the Crown” and must honour the promise made by Prime Minister Borden in 1917. The New Veterans Charter violates this promise because it leaves injured veterans worse off than they were under the Pension Act. He wants the New Veterans Charter struck down and veterans’ benefits and compensations under the Pension Act restored.

Harper’s lawyers respond

Mr Harper’s lawyers’ responded with an application to kill the lawsuit on the basis that it failed to disclose any reasonable claim and was unnecessary, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process– legalese for the veterans don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell.

Mr Harper’s lawyers also argued that Prime Minister Borden’s promise was nothing more than a “political speech” and was never intended to bind his or subsequent governments…something well worth remembering when Mr Harper starts campaigning in 2015.

The BC Supreme Court disagreed with Mr Harper’s lawyers. The veterans are free to proceed to trial with the “honour of the Crown” argument as well as Charter and Bill of Rights arguments.

Duty and decency

The veterans’ case is complex. It involves the principles of parliamentary sovereignty, the expansion of “the honour of the Crown” principle beyond the aboriginal law context and other significant legal issues. One way or another it will find its way to the Supreme Court of Canada—where Chief Justice Beverley McLachin (recently the target of a scurrilous attack by Mr Harper) will have an opportunity to consider the conduct of Mr Harper’s government.

Regardless of how the courts decide, the words of Sir Robert Borden ring true. “Duty and decency demand that those who are saving democracy shall not find democracy a house of privilege, or a school of poverty and hardship.”**

Vets carrying last Canadian flag

Duty and decency also demand that a prime minister who fails to honour the promises made by past prime ministers at least refrain from squabbling with the veterans over who should receive the last Canadian flag that flew in Afghanistan.  Mr Harper appeared to be under the mistaken impression that he, not the Governor General, was the Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces.

Mr Harper finally agreed to hand the flag over to Governor General, but only after he had received it first.

Duty and decency demand honour—a concept Mr Harper has utterly failed to grasp in his dealings with Canada’s war veterans and his bickering with the veterans charged with bringing the last Canadian flag in Afghanistan home to the Canadian people.

*Calgary Herald, May 10, 2014

**See the Miller Thomas website for the legal documents relating to the Scott v Canada (AG) class action http://equitassociety.ca/legal-action

***Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act SC 2011, c 12

**** http://www.nationalmagazine.ca/Articles/November/Veterans-benefits.aspx?lang=FR

Posted in Celebrations, Politics and Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 13 Comments

Mr Hancock’s Cockamamie Apology

Posted on May 4, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

“I’m truly sorry that we allowed government to become a distraction from the vital work we’re doing on issues that matter to Albertans.”— Premier Dave Hancock to PC party supporters, May 1, 2014

Bill Clinton apologised for slavery, Tony Blair apologised for the Irish potato famine, Pope John Paul II apologised for the Crusades*and Premier Dave Hancock apologised for allowing the government to become a distraction.  A distraction?

It’s never a good idea to legally parse an apology (Ms Soapbox knows this from personal experience) however Mr Hancock’s apology makes absolutely no sense.

Who is apologising to whom for what?

Let’s try that again: “I’m truly sorry that we allowed government to become a distraction from the vital work we’re doing on issues that matter to Albertans.”

Mr Hancock apologises

Now ask yourself: who are “we” and how did “we” allow a government elected by the people to become a distraction from issues that matter to Albertans?

Either Alberta is being governed by a secret cabal (otherwise known as “WE”) or Mr Hancock the leader of the PC party is apologising to the party faithful for letting the “government” distract the PC party from running the province. Neither is good.

The litany of wrongdoing for which Mr Hancock says he’s sorry includes: damaging Albertans’ confidence in “the party” (not the government?), losing touch with the “grassroots” (not all Albertans?), taking the support of Albertans and PC members for granted and acting contrary to “our” (presumably PC) values.

Behavior versus character

Mr Hancock acknowledged that caucus lost its way but promised to get caucus back on track. He said it was possible to regain trust because “There is a big difference between behavior and character. Behavior can be changed. Character is a different matter.”**

Mr Hancock is dead wrong.

Trust is based on behavior. Behavior is the external manifestation of character. The two are indivisible. The only people who believe that behavior can be separated from character are proponents of the “Devil made me do it” theory of misbehaviour.

Dr Daniel Borenstein says trust is based on our evaluation of three dimensions of behavior: ability (knowledge, skills and experience), integrity (congruence between word and deed) and benevolence (promoting someone else’s interests or at the very least not impeding them).***

A heartfelt apology and promises to do better in the future will rebuild trust; but apologies and promises must be backed up with behavior (ability, integrity, and benevolence) that demonstrates that trust is not misplaced.

The government’s behavior

Mr Hancock promised to do a better job on “reporting how we use taxpayers’ dollars and ensuring Albertans see and understand the value of these changes”. He promised to demonstrate “how we’ve changed through our policies, practices and legislation”.****

But the government’s behavior fails to engender trust.

Mr Horner

Instead of announcing a decision to scrap the confusing budget format that makes it well nigh impossible for Albertans to understand how their tax dollars are being spent (to say nothing of failing to meet general accounting standards) the Finance Minister staunchly defends the format as the best way to ensure Albertans understand that their $43 billion is being spent wisely.

Instead of announcing a decision to repeal the sinister Bill 45 that makes it illegal to even talk about taking strike action and the draconian Bill 46 that removed labour’s right to binding arbitration, the Justice Minister and the Jobs Minister are busy carping about Ms Redford’s failure to return to work.

The apology minister, Mr Hancock, is no better. He was introduced at the PC party fundraiser with a short video that flashed pictures on a screen of past Tory premiers…but Ms Redford was curiously absent. She’d been erased as effectively as a fallen Chinese leader in the Cultural Revolution.

When asked about this peculiar omission, Mr Hancock said “I would have had her in the video”. So what happened? Did he fail to notice she was missing when he reviewed the program for his maiden speech or did those presumptuous PR guys delete her of their own accord?

Mea culpa

Historian Margaret MacMillan researched Canadian, British, Australian and American governments issuing apologies. She concluded:  “Words are cheap…and politicians like to appear caring and sensitive…Moreover apologies about the past can be used as an excuse for not doing very much in the present.”* She was referring to government apologies for incidents that occurred decades ago, however her conclusion rings true for abuses that took place yesterday.

Words are not enough when the PC caucus (by Mr Hancock’s own admission) messed up the governance of Alberta so badly that it became dysfunctional. His apology will not stem the exodus of disgruntled PCs because his caucus either refuses or is incapable of backing up his apology with trustworthy behavior.

Trust is founded on behavior. Behavior reflects character. The behavior of the PC government reflects a character with a single-minded purpose—staying in power at all costs.

Consequently Mr Hancock’s apology is insincere and I refuse to accept it.

*The Uses and Abuses of History by Margaret MacMillan, p 27, 28, 30.

** http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/02/its-just-not-acceptable-albertas-new-premier-uses-first-speech-to-apologize-for-redford/

***http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/trust-building

****Calgary Herald, May 2, 2014 A4.

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

Obama Punts Keystone XL (Again) — Harper Learns a Lesson in Humility (Maybe)

Posted on April 27, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

“If you were a betting man (or woman) what odds would you place on President Obama approving the Keystone XL pipeline before the end of his term and why?”

Ms Soapbox posed the question to a panel* discussing the future of Alberta’s energy industry. The panelists, bless their hearts, didn’t leave the stage en masse…partly because Ms Soapbox was the moderator and had control of the agenda.

Instead this group of economists, politicians, academics and businessmen pegged the odds between 25% to 80%; with a higher chance of approval based on Mr Obama holding off on a decision until the mid-term elections were safely out of the way.

Given our understanding of the USA’s desperate need for energy security and job creation projects how did Keystone XL turn into a political football?

Small decisions; huge impacts

The fate of Keystone XL is uncertain because of decisions taken by the Harper government and TCPL—decisions that created tremendous public resistance. Like a Chinese finger trap, the harder Harper and TCPL fought to overcome this resistance, the tighter the trap became. Let’s review the timeline:

Sept 2008 – TCPL applies for a presidential permit to build a pipeline to carry bitumen across the Canada/US border for delivery to refineries on US Gulf Coast.

May 2011 – Harper wins a majority government. Recognizing Canada’s potential to become an energy super power he begins an aggressive campaign to get Keystone XL approved. His strategy is based on his belief that the USA’s need for energy security and job creation trumps environmental concerns. Mistake #1.

Ogallala aquifer

Aug 2011 – Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman is deluged by complaints from farmers, ranchers and environmentalists who want the pipeline rerouted to avoid the Ogallala aquifer in the Sandhills region. The Ogallala supplies drinking water for 2 million people in eight states and irrigates almost half of Nebraska.** Governor Heineman supports their position and asks Obama to refuse the permit.

Oct 2011 – TCPL meets with four Nebraska senators but refuses to budge because it is “impossible” to reroute the pipeline to avoid the aquifer at this late date. Mistake #2.

Nov 1 2011– Nebraska grants itself the power to block the pipeline.

Nov 5, 2011 – TCPL decides it’s not impossible to reroute Keystone after all (surprise) and agrees to develop an alternate route.  Nebraska Governor Heineman is happy but the reroute will require further environmental review.

Nov 10, 2011 – Obama advises Harper that his decision is delayed due to the situation in Nebraska, a pro-pipeline state run by a pro-pipeline governor.

Nov 2011 – Harper says he won’t take “no for an answer.” He redoubles his lobbying efforts and unleashes a multimillion-dollar ad campaign to bring Obama to his senses.

Dec 2011 – Harper pulls Canada out of the Kyoto Protocol.

Jan 2012– Obama advises Harper that the Republicans attached a rider to a tax bill demanding a decision on Keystone within 60 days. Since 60 days isn’t enough time to conduct proper assessment of TCPL’s alternative route through Nebraska Obama has no alternative but to turn it down.

Jan 2012 – TCPL reapplies for a permit and receives a positive environmental review from the State Department, but by now Nebraska’s authority to approve the revised route is before the courts.

Nov 2012 – Obama is re-elected.

Apr 2014 – Obama advises Harper that his decision will be delayed pending the outcome of the Nebraska court case which is (coincidently) not expected to be handed down until after the Nov 2014 mid-term elections. Keystone is in limbo.

Lessons learned?

The Harper government dismisses Obama’s inaction as “purely political” stalling. Joe Oliver, Finance Minister, blames the delay on well funded environmentalists who have the President’s ear.

TCPL executives blame BP and Enbridge, arguing that the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico and Enbridge’s spill into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan mobilized well funded environmentalists who made Keystone XL the whipping boy in an anti-oilsands, anti-fossil fuels campaign.

Get real. Public opposition to pipelines (and the bitumen they carry) comes from all quarters, not just “well funded environmental groups”. In BC entire towns voted against Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline. The Dogwood Initiative, an environmental group, is considering triggering a province wide referendum, à la the HST referendum, to decide whether Northern Gateway should proceed, despite the fact that it’s been blessed by the regulator.

President Obama’s refusal to be pressured into approving Keystone XL demonstrates that social values (including the protection of the environment) must be balanced with the economic benefits created by pipeline approvals.

Prime Minister Harper needs to move ahead with his promise to enact rigorous environmental regulations. Industry needs to do more than give lip service to the consultation process if it hopes to avoid the embarrassing predicament TCPL created for itself when it agreed to reroute Keystone XL a mere four days after it said a reroute was “impossible”.

All pipelines are political footballs. The best way through the political minefield is to adopt the advice of the US ambassador to Canada, Bruce Heyman, who said “Today you can be pro-economy and pro-energy and considerate of the environment”.***

You can indeed…but first you need to develop a little humility and learn from your mistakes. Over to you Mr Harper.

*David Daly, Peter Linder and Dr Jennifer Winter, MLA Donna Kennedy-Glans, MP Geoff Regan and Dr Marlo Raynolds participated in a lively energy forum presented by the Calgary Centre Federal Liberals

**McClatchy DC Online Feb 13, 2011

***Calgary Herald, Apr 9, 2014, D1

Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Environment, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments

It’s Time to Drag Redneck Alberta Out of the Closet

Posted on April 20, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

If a government wants to trample the rights of its citizens it can do so in two ways.

It can violate our fundamental rights by passing legislation that invokes the “notwithstanding clause”—this allows the government to pass laws that expressly violate the fundamental rights guaranteed to us under the Charter and human rights legislation.

Or it can do what the Alberta government did when it rolled faith based schools into the publicly funded school system—it can turn a blind eye to school boards that violate the fundamental rights of staff and students on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Until Liberal MLA Kent Hehr presented Motion 503—a recommendation that students be allowed to form gay-straight alliances without being shut down by mediaeval school boards—most Albertans had no idea that the majority of their MLAs condoned the bullying of Alberta’s youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

Some MLAs tried to argue that the motion would abrogate the independence of the school boards. This is rubbish. In 2000 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that school boards are not independent entities free from provincial control.* 

Other MLAs went straight to the heart of the matter arguing that being “pro-gay” was “anti-Christian”.  Here’s how Wildrose MLA McAllister put it:

Mr McAllister

“It would be highly inappropriate for us assembled in this Legislature to use our power to force schools, particularly faith based schools, to sanction any organization that might teach or promote concepts that contradict their sincerely held religious belief.  Doing so may be well meaning, but in effect it works to protect the rights of one group by disrespecting the closely held beliefs of another group.”**

In other words, some fundamental human rights are more deserving of protection than others.

Wrong! The shield protecting your right to religious freedom cannot be used as a sword to oppress another’s right to express their sexual orientation.

How to violate human rights in Alberta

Forget the yet-to-be-proclaimed Education Act—if it’s anything like the recently proclaimed Health Act it will languish on the shelf for years before it sees the light of day—the relevant legislation is the School Act.***

The School Act must comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act, unless the government says otherwise by inserting a “notwithstanding clause”.

Does the Act contain a “notwithstanding clause”? No. This is understandable. The “notwithstanding clause” is like the third rail—governments invoke it at their peril because it’s not a very progressive thing to do.

Consequently, publicly funded school boards, including faith based school boards, are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.   So how do faith based school boards get away with forcing their staff and students to sign “community covenants” that prohibit same-sex relationships on pain of expulsion and eternity in the infamous “lake of fire”?

It’s all about politics

The Alberta government and the school boards may fight like cats and dogs, but when it comes to the importance of being re-elected they are of one mind.

In Feb 2009 the Alberta School Boards Association published a report called Educational Choice for Albertans.  It can only be described as bizarre.

Education Minister Jeff Johnson

The Report starts on firm footing by acknowledging that it’s the government’s responsibility to ensure that (1) children receive a quality education, (2) the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter, the Human Rights, and Citizenship and Multicultural Acts are protected, and (3) the wishes and expectations of Albertans are met.

But it fails to address the inevitable friction that arises when the fundamental rights of one group conflict with the wishes or expectations of another.

Instead of declaring that all fundamental rights must be protected, the Report wobbles off into a discussion about values and beliefs.  (Apparently they vary throughout the population…who knew?)  It states that educational programs and environments must be responsive to such variations.

Then it lays a trail of breadcrumbs illustrating that in the event of a conflict school boards would be wise to default to politics:

“Governments wishing to remain in power—and that is basic to the political process—must be responsive to the desires of their constituents. Therefore the provincial government will continue to respond to demands of parents, pressure groups and influential individuals for increased opportunities to influence the educational system.”  (p 3)

“Members of the provincial government are the elected representatives of the people and, if they wish to be re-elected, they must respond to the wishes of the majority or to what the majority is at least prepared to tolerate”.  (p 4)

31 MLAs respond

Some Albertans, dare I call them “pressure groups and influential individuals”, appear to have greater sway over our MLAs than the rest of us. Consequently 31 Progressive Conservative and Wildrose MLAs voted against Mr Hehr’s motion. Evidently they thought the majority of Albertans would tolerate their behavior.

But Albertans must not “tolerate” a government that turns a blind eye to publicly funded faith based school boards that violate the Charter simply by playing the “religious freedoms” card.

Dante’s Circles of Hell

The Alberta government has two choices. It can stop the flow of public funds to school boards that discriminate against Alberta’s students on the basis of sexual orientation or it can amend the School Act and the yet-to-be-proclaimed Education Act by inserting a “notwithstanding clause” that allows Alberta faith based school boards to violate the Charter and human rights legislation.

In either case all Albertans will have an opportunity to voice their opinions to their MLAs and in the process we will discover whether Alberta really is the redneck province some PC/Wildrose MLAs believe it is.

*Public School Boards’ Assn. of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [2000] 2 SCR 409 

**Hansard, Apr 7, p 364

***RSA 2000, c-S3

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