The Progressive Conservatives Prepare for War–Really!

Posted on January 5, 2014 by susanonthesoapbox

“Our organization cannot lose the grassroots donation battle to our opposition if we hope to win the war in 2016.”—Ron Renaud, PC Chief Financial Officer

Win the war in 2016??? 

The “war” metaphor

Before we get sucked into the “war” metaphor let’s pause and consider what George Orwell taught us—thought can corrupt language and language can corrupt thought.* Orwell warns that the invasion of one’s mind by ready-made phrases (battle, war) anaesthetizes one’s brain, but it can be prevented if one remains vigilant.

George Orwell

He suggests we start with the dictionary.  What does “war” mean?  Ah yes, here it is.  The Oxford dictionary defines “war” as “a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country”. 

Armed conflict between different groups within a country…?  What bright light at PC party headquarters imagined, even for a nanosecond, that the best way to squeeze a few donation dollars out of the party faithful was to characterize the 2016 election as an act of insurrection?

But having raised the spectre of sedition, let’s follow it to its logical conclusion.

The enemy

The PCs can’t mount a war without targeting an enemy.  Who would that be?

Mr Renaud refers to losing the battle to “our opposition”.  Assuming he’s targeting the 50% of eligible voters actually bothered to vote in the last election, the “enemy” would be the 34% of voters who voted for the Wildrose or the 56% of voters who voted against the PCs by voting for the Wildrose, the Liberals, the NDP, the Alberta Party or the Evergreens.

Applying the war metaphor, the message is clear.  If you’re not with us, you’re with the enemy.  Given the PCs tendency to reward their friends and punish their enemies, this is a powerful warning indeed.

The battle for the grassroots

The PCs have a funding problem.  Their deep-pocket corporate donors are wobbling.  Corporate Alberta is worried about Ms Redford’s willingness to take on debt, and it (like the Auditor General) is not convinced that Mr Horner’s new budget model is anything more than smoke and mirrors.

Danielle Smith & Rob Anderson

So Corporate Alberta is doing what it always does in times of uncertainty.  It’s hedging its bets by contributing to the Wildrose party.

This gives the Wildrose an advantage because it already has solid grassroots support (over 75% of Wildrose contributions come from individual donors) and is well ahead in the fund raising race.

No wonder the PC party is resorting to the war metaphor…a scared dog is an aggressive dog.

Will the PCs succeed in capturing the grassroots?

The grassroots is a broad based group with diverse interests…whether the PCs manage to persuade them to fund a steady stream of donations will depend on convincing them of two things:  (1) their mantra: “promise made, promise kept” is true and (2) the devil you know is better than the devil incarnate (the Wildrose).

Which brings us back to George Orwell.

Political doublespeak

Orwell says: Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.  One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase…into the dustbin where it belongs.*  

The fact that the PC party’s CFO resorted to the war metaphor so early in the game signals the desperation of a flagging party trying to hold on to power at all costs.

Rude Raspberry

Albertans need to listen to the political rhetoric, identify misleading “political language” and jeer loudly so that it and the PC party are relegated to the dustbin where they belong.

I’ll start:  Here’s a giant raspberry to Mr Renaud and the PCs for sending a message of fear and discord to the party faithful.

This is Alberta for heaven’s sake, not America on the brink of the Civil War!

*Politics and the English Language, Horizon, April 1946. 

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

Susan on the Soapbox Wins a Clawbie!

Posted on December 31, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

As some of you may know, Susan on the Soapbox was nominated for a Clawbie (the Canadian Law Blog Awards) by ABlawg, an excellent law blog produced by my alma mater, the University of Calgary law school.

This morning while I was cleaning out the basement, I learned that the Soapbox had won a Clawbie for the Best Non-Legal Audience Blog.  Here’s what the judges said:

Susan On The Soapbox, written by Calgary lawyer Susan Wright, [is] another blog that takes a strong position on issues of public policy and delivers rousing attacks on (or defences of) corporate and political maneuvers in Alberta and across the country… Susan On The Soapbox will not be everyone’s cup of tea politically; but blogs like this deserve to be singled out for their passion, dedication, and most importantly, their interest in enlightening their readers and advocating their positions, which ultimately is what lawyer blogs should do.

YIPPEE!!!

OK, now that I’ve gotten that out of my system, I’d like to congratulate ABlawg who won the Clawbie for the best Law School/Law Professor Blog second year in a row.  Here’s what the judges said:

No other Canadian law blog received as many nominations as this one, many of them from practicing lawyers who find ABlawg’s updates and insights highly valuable. This is not just the best academic law blog in Canada, a category that is very difficult to win; it’s one of the best law blogs around, period.

I can’t tell you how delighted I am to share the virtual podium with ABlawg and the other winners who can be found here.

Thank you Soapbox readers and commentators for your passion and support.  I’m so glad you’re by my side.

(Now if I could just figure out how to attach that Clawbie badge thingy to the Soapbox, everything would be perfect).

Posted in Celebrations, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 33 Comments

CNRL’s Primrose Problem: A Slow Motion Blow Out

Posted on December 29, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

When King Edward VIII abdicated the throne to marry Wallis Simpson it was scandalous.  When the Alberta government abdicated the regulation of Alberta’s natural resources to an industry-led agency nobody raised an eyebrow.

The new Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) is 100% funded by industry.  It’s chaired by an industry lobbyist, Gerry Protti, and managed by a former deputy minister, Jim Ellis, who achieved notoriety when his department illegally barred environmentalists from participating in energy project applications.

This less than inspiring crew is investigating the CNRL Primrose problem.

The Primrose problem  

CNRL, a global oil and natural gas company, uses fracking to extract bitumen at the Primrose oil sands site near Cold Lake Alberta.  CNRL injects steam under high pressure into a reservoir.  The heat softens the bitumen, the water separates it from the sand and the pressure creates cracks through which the bitumen flows back into wells which bring it to the surface.

In 2013 CNRL had four uncontrolled bitumen releases—seepages that made their way to the surface.  Similar large and uncontrolled releases occurred in 2009 and 2006.

CNRL reported the first two releases to the AER on May 21.  It reported the third on June 8 and the fourth on June 24.  It was only after CNRL’s fourth report that the AER issued a bizarre press release saying it would “hold the responsible party accountable for the incident and its impacts.”* Responsible party??  Let me guess…CNRL?

CNRL didn’t know what caused the releases but assured its shareholders that production at Primrose would be unaffected.

AER reacts…slowly

In July the AER ordered CNRL to suspend steaming on part of the site and restrict steaming on another and to enhance monitoring and accelerate cleanup.     

Jim Ellis, the AER’s CEO, described these measures as precautionary, noting that “there have been no risks to public safety”. ** A bold statement given that the AER had no subsurface groundwater test results in hand at the time. 

CNRL said the cause of the release was “mechanical” (ie caused by wellbore failure) and assured its shareholders that the Primrose Problem would not impact its annual thermal in-situ production results.

On Sept 24, three months after CNRL first reported the releases, AER issued an Environmental Protection Order requiring CNRL to drain a 53 hectare lake in order to mitigate the impact of the release.

Mr Ellis

Jim Ellis, AER CEO, once again spoke on behalf of the company.  He said that seepage was expected to continue indefinitely until the pressure in the reservoir subsided.

He ventured that there may be a bigger problem.  “We are kind of hopeful…that this is a mechanical failure.  If it is not mechanical it is a reservoir issue”.***

It’s not clear who the royal “we” was, but it certainly wasn’t CNRL who immediately rejected the suggestion that the cause could be a reservoir issue and repeated its assertion that the cause was “mechanical” (defective wellbores).

On October 21, the AER finally issued an Environmental Enforcement Order requiring CNRL to determine the impact to subsurface groundwater and find the root cause of all four bitumen releases.    

Now we’re getting somewhere.  This will bring the causation issue to a head.  Is it defective wellbores (a relatively easy fix) or a reservoir issue which could shut down the Primrose reservoir and negatively impact CNRL’s bottom line?

CNRL stakes out its position

At its third-quarter investor call, CNRL president, Steve Laut, described the Primrose problem as “a technical, operational challenge that is totally solvable.”****Another way to put this is: we’ve had seepage problems since 2006 and haven’t done a thing about it, but rest assured it’s NOT a reservoir problem.

Mr Laut

He outlined the steps CNRL will take to avoid seepage in the future:  (1) examine 31 legacy wells and repair if necessary, (2) set up an “enhanced monitoring” system to identify “infrequent subsurface release signals from the Clearwater in the Grand Rapids” and trigger an “enhanced response” and (3) modify the steaming process.

Ah, could you run that second one by me again, slowly? 

CNRL’s “enhanced monitoring” system 

Apparently three major rock formations act as barriers preventing bitumen from escaping from the Clearwater Sands formation.  These are the Clearwater Shale formation, the Grand Rapids zone and the Colorado Shale Group.

If by some fluke bitumen does escape from the Clearwater Sands formation into the Clearwater Shale formation and from there finds its way to the Grand Rapids zone, CNRL’s “enhanced monitoring” system will kick in and CNRL will reduce reservoir pressure so the bitumen can’t go through the last barrier, the Colorado Shale Group.

Having said all that, if CNRL fails to register the seepage on its “enhanced monitoring” system, the bitumen can travel through cracks in Grand Rapids and Colorado Shale to the surface.  But CNRL is confident this will never happen unless there’s a defective wellbore lying around waiting to carry the bitumen to the surface.

What about the ERCB report?

There’s just one small hitch.

When the ERCB investigated CNRL’s 2009 bitumen release it found that the first barrier, the Clearwater shale formation, was “likely breached by high-pressure steam injection not related to a wellbore issue, that the Grand Rapids Formation…did not act as a diverter, and that a pathway found through the Colorado Group likely involved a wellbore or a series of pre-existing faults”.*****

In other words, the ERCB found a “reservoir issue”.

The acid test

CNRL is adamant that these four releases are a “mechanical” problem resulting from faulty wellbores.

The ERCB is on record saying the 2009 Primrose release was not caused by wellbore failure but a “reservoir issue”.

And it’s up to the AER to review the evidence and decide whether the four releases are a “mechanical problem” or a “reservoir issue”.  Which way do you think the industry dominated AER will go?

Right.  And that’s why the Alberta government’s abdication of its regulatory responsibility is beyond scandalous.  It’s reprehensible.

*Daily Oil Bulletin July 2, 2013 

**DOB July 19, 2013

***DOB Sept 25, 2013

****DOB Nov 8, 2013

*****ERCB Investigation Report, issued Jan 8, 2013

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

The Traditional Christmas Blog

Posted on December 25, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

The Soapbox family, like your family, does not live in a Norman Rockwell painting.

Our Christmas traditions run the gamut from Dolly Parton Christmas carols (don’t ask) to an amazing Christmas dinner prepared to perfection by his nibs, Mr Soapbox.

We thought we had all our traditions down pat…and then we discovered Stuart McLean’s Vinyl Cafe.

On Christmas Eve, we had our traditional dinner of pizza & wings, watched “Mini” rearrange the tiles on the Rummykub table to the point where none of us could remember where they went, and then popped The Vinyl Cafe into the CD player.

It was like a scene from the 1940’s.  Mr and Ms Soapbox, Mini and Missy huddled in front of the radio, Ziggy the dog conked out in front of the fire.  No one said a word while Stuart McLean weaved loopy stories about Dave and Morley, the kids and the Cat.  It was perfect.

In that instant The Vinyl Cafe became part of the Soapbox family’s traditional Christmas.

Christmas morning went off without a hitch—except for Ziggy the dog.  He found a bone the size of a dinosaur’s femur in his stocking and gnawed his lips raw leaving little flecks of blood on the Oriental rug.

Missy said the best way to get blood out of a carpet is to spit on it.  Ms Soapbox does not spit.   But she loves her carpets.  In a flash she and Missy were on their hands and knees spitting at the flecks and daubing them up.  Guess what…it works!   Nevertheless, spitting on the carpets will not become a part of the Soapbox family’s traditional Christmas.

What are your traditions?  Do you decorate palm trees?  Dig around in grab bags hoping not to pick the worst gag gift for once in your life?  Have a shot of pálinka before breakfast?   Whatever your traditions, I’m sure they bring you joy.

So let’s close with a Ziggy Christmas tradition.  In year one most of you couldn’t find him in the Christmas tree.  In year two he flopped into a tragic heap at the base of the tree.  But this year he’s majestic—proud as a peacock in his goofy paper hat.  I think that bodes well for the new year, don’t you?

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from the Soapbox family.  We wish you and yours the very best for 2014!!!     

photo fda8b74b-f21d-4446-bfc7-bf4075b05fcd_zps33c33682.jpg

Posted in Celebrations | Tagged , , , , | 17 Comments

Wolves and Rabbits: The $3 billion RFP for Lab Services

Posted on December 22, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

I was slogging through Alberta Health Service’s Request For Proposals (RFP) for a 15 year $3 billion contract to provide lab services in the Edmonton area when the words of a former boss popped to mind…The world is divided into wolves and rabbits.

Wolves or rabbits?  Care to guess what we are.  Hint: we look really cute on Hallmark Easter cards.

The Rationale  

There is no rationale for AHS’ decision to privatize all lab services in the Edmonton area.  The “explanations” from AHS and Health Minister Horne boil down to this:

  • The volume of tests is increasing 6% a year and patients need new sophisticated genomic and proteomic testing.  This explains the need for a state-of-the-art lab but not why it must be privately built and managed.   
  • AHS’ contract with a private service provider (DynaLIFE) expires in Mar 2015.  DynaLIFE provides 60% of lab services.  What, the DynaLIFE contract can’t be renewed?  AHS and Covenant provide the remaining 40% of lab services, they’re unaffected by the DynaLIFE contract, why can’t they continue?
  • This is NOT about saving money.  It’s all about improving quality and patient safety.   Have you read the RFP???   

Uncertainties

At first glance, the RFP appears fraught with uncertainty, both financial and people related.

The bidder doesn’t know whether the Superlab will end up at the U of A or on the outskirts of Edmonton.  This impacts the land calculation and whether the Public Health lab is in or out.  He doesn’t know whether AHS will expand the services to include north-central Alberta.   This impacts the size of the Superlab.

On the people side, the bidder must accept the unionized staff and their collective agreements but doesn’t know whether the Alberta Labour Relations Board will approve the transfer of the collective agreements or what it will cost to replace the employees’ LAPP pension plan.

Most importantly, the bidder doesn’t know whether he’ll reach an agreement with the medical and scientific staff (represented by the Pathology Practice Group).  This one is a deal-breaker—without it the deal falls apart.  That would make the Pathology Practice Group a wolf—somebody go tell them, OK? 

Certainties

Before we start feeling sorry for the bidder consider this:  the inclusion of the Superlab in the so-called “services’ contract changes it to a property financing transaction that guarantees the bidder two profit streams.

First, the bidder puts up the financing for the land and the Superlab and Albertans will repay this with interest.  And, if AHS doesn’t extend the contract at the end of the 15 year term, Albertans will pay a lump sum for the unamortized portion of the land and facility and buy back the equipment.

Think about this for a moment.  Finance Minister Horner is adamant that the government should borrow for capital projects because it can get capital loans at the lowest interest rates on the planet.  So why did AHS go to a private company, and not the government, to finance the Superlab? It’s like financing a car loan through GMAC instead of the bank.     

Second, the RFP guarantees the bidder a “fair and reasonable return” on its operational investment and suggests a return of 8% without waiting for the bidders to work out their own profit margins.  A wolf never tables his number first…why negotiate against yourself. 

Third, the RFP includes a number of mechanisms like co-pay or user pay “utilization incentives” that allow the bidder to increase his profit.

Fourth, the Superlab will perform private sector and out of province testing.

It’s true that at any profits above the 8% threshold must be shared 50/50 with AHS, but a wolf (pardon me, savvy corporation) with a team of sharp accountants knows how to shift revenue to minimize profit and maximize bonuses and dividends.       

Failure to perform

There is one flickering ray of hope.  AHS has the power to terminate the contract, reduce its scope, impose financial penalties or take over if the bidder goes into default (eg goes bankrupt, undergoes a nasty change of control) or continually fails to meet key performance indicators (KPIs).

But there’s an alarming caveat—within six months of entering the contract the bidder can tell AHS the KPIs are unrealistic and AHS might revise them.  A wolf will agree to almost anything to land a deal and then fight to change it once the ink is dry.  Why make it easy for him?     

Wolves and Rabbits

A cynic would see this as a $3 billion shell game designed to award 100% of the Edmonton and North/Central Alberta lab services to DynaLIFE (with DynaLIFE awarding the Superlab construction contract to a friend of the government).

That would make DynaLIFE and Mr Construction Company wolves who’ll make a tidy profit on risk-free deals backstopped by the Alberta taxpayer.

The rest of us are rabbits.  “Patient” rabbits depending on AHS to do the proper inspections and monitoring to ensure their safety, ”employee” rabbits hoping to recoup the value of their lost pensions and learning to cope in an super-centralized workplace and “taxpayer” rabbits paying for a facility and a service that may not be necessary.

lonewolfCome 2016, let’s remember who put us on the wolf’s path and elect a government not wedded to a super-centralized privatized model of service delivery.   Then let’s demand that the government investigate the feasibility of terminating the contract on 12 month’s notice.

Let’s be wolves!

Posted in Alberta Health Care | Tagged , , , | 33 Comments

Redford’s Performance Appraisal: The Building Alberta Plan

Posted on December 15, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

Alison Redford’s performance appraisal document landed on my doorstep a week ago.  It’s called “The Building Alberta Plan 2013 Edition”.

In the real world a CEO undergoes an annual performance appraisal with the Compensation Committee of the board of directors.  If a CEO presented Redford’s Plan to the Comp Committee he’d be lucky to keep his job let alone pick up his bonus.  However, Ms Redford touts “The Plan” as proof of a job well done.

How did she justify her shoddy performance?  By moving the goal posts and burying her failures.

A “real world” review of The Building Alberta Plan

A CEO’s performance appraisal document includes measurable targets.  Redford’s Plan is slick with spin.  Its purpose is to sooth and confuse Albertans so they don’t twig to the fact that their “CEO” is squandering the $40 billion they’ve entrusted to her care.

The Plan sets out three objectives (election promises): (1) investing in families and communities, (2) living within our means and (3) opening new markets for Alberta’s resources.   Let’s examine the (few) metrics provided to see how Ms Redford’s government performed against these objectives.

Objective #1:  Investing in families and communities

This objective is measured by building roads, schools and health facilities and strengthening programs that support children, families, seniors and vulnerable Albertans.

Ms Redford promised to build 50 schools and modernize 70 more by 2016 and points to 35 school projects that are underway or completed.  She promised 140 Family Care Clinics by 2016 and takes credit for three FCCs and another 24 “in development”.

There’s just one snag.  The 35 school projects and the 3 FCCs were all in place prior to 2012 when she made her election promise.  None of 120 schools (new or modernized) are actually under construction and no new FCCs have been created since the PCs took office in 2012. 

Alberta’s social programs are a disaster.  The home care privatization project saw service providers renege on contracts and abandon their clients, seniors are dying of neglect in private long term care facilities, 145 children died in foster care and Albertans with developmental disabilities staged protests on the steps of the Legislature.  The Comp Committee would have a field day!    

On the bright side: Ms Redford delivered the Ring Road in Calgary and the twinning of Highway 63 is coming along nicely.

Comp Committee decision?   The government gets a PASS on roads but a FAIL on schools, health facilities and social programs…we’re not off to a good start, are we?

Objective #2:  Living within our means

This objective is described as challenging every dollar spent, investing wisely and saving for the future.   The Plan claims success with “budget challenge panels”, wage freezes and expense disclosure policies.

Wait a minute.  What happened to the “bitumen bubble”?  Ms Redford claimed it blew a $6 billion hole in the budget.  She passed a bunch of laws to let her government go into debt and mangle the presentation of future budgets so that no one can figure out where the money went and yet there’s no mention of that blasted bubble anywhere in The Plan.      

Comp Committee decision?  This one is easy.  A CEO’s failure to address a fundamental weakness in the revenue model (over reliance on resource revenues) while altering the presentation the company’s financial statements so the financial risk is obscured is a FAIL.      

Objective #3:  Opening new markets for Alberta’s resources

The objective here is “fairer prices” for Alberta’s oil, natural gas, beef, agricultural crops and lumber with the recognition that the government must show responsible resource development in order to succeed.

Redford lists the Canadian Energy Strategy, TCPL’s Energy East and Keystone XL pipelines, trade missions to Asia, new “rules” for resource development and setting aside 1.5 million hectares to “conserve our natural heritage” as evidence of success.

But The Plan fails to mention upgrading resources in Alberta or prudently managing extraction to minimize inflation, environmental damage and the negative societal and infrastructure impacts of unbridled exploitation.

Why?  In 2012 Ms Redford’s election platform included becoming a world leader in resource stewardship.* She replaced this objective in 2013 with “living within our means”. Responsible resource development has slipped off the radar screen as a metric of success.    

Comp Committee decision?  The Canadian Energy Strategy, the two TCPL pipeline projects and junkets to Asia are just talk—helpful, but not determinative in getting projects approved.  Reliance on the “new rules” to demonstrate responsible resource development is meaningless—these rules are biased in favour of industry at the expense of the environment and landowners’ rights.  And setting aside 1.5 million hectares is window dressing, nothing more.  Result: FAIL   

Five FAILs and one PASS

If Ms Redford were the CEO of a $40 billion publicly traded company, the Comp Committee would terminate her for incompetence.  Unfortunately, she’s not.  She’s the premier of a province blessed with outstanding natural beauty, abundant natural resources and an innovative and creative population that’s expected to reach 5 million in the next decade.

In 2016 Albertans will get the chance to fire Ms Redford and her party.  Let’s hope they remember that it’s no longer enough to play political games by moving the goalposts and burying your mistakes.  Alberta’s future is at stake.

*Thanks Joe T 

 

Posted in Economics, Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , | 16 Comments

Redford and Mandela: Hypocrisy and Hope (Part 2)

Posted on December 11, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

“He would continually bring people back to the table.  That was his greatest strength”—Ms Redford on Nelson Mandela*

Sadly, Ms Redford never learned how to bring “people back to the table” here in Alberta.  So she resorted to the meat hammer—ramming through Bill 46 for force a “settlement” on the AUPE in order to abort the compulsory arbitration process.

Peter Lougheed

With a stoke of the pen, Ms Redford destroyed the integrity of Mr Lougheed’s promise to 100,000 public service employees who gave up the right to strike in return for a statutory right to compulsory arbitration. 

Let’s make a deal (or not)

The preamble to Bill 46, the Public Service Salary Restraint Act, overflows with vacuous statements about the government “living within its means” and seeking “better market alignment” with public service employees in other provinces.

Ms Redford said she wants the government to reach a “fair deal for taxpayers and a fair deal for public servants.”**Public servants don’t pay taxes? 

Interestingly, the government’s commitment to “living within its means” does not apply to MLA compensation or paying a certain deputy minister double what her fellow DMs are being paid.

Similarly, the principle of “market alignment” only works one way—down.  Mr Horner told the House that “...all of the research…would suggest that we are very competitive, and we should stay that way.”***   

Mr Bilous

Well then, said Mr Bilous (NDP), Alberta should consider the fact that BC just gave its 51,000 public service employees a 5.5% increase over five years together with a bonus if the BC economy continues to grow.  Mr Horner said the BC situation was unique—it came about through negotiation which (he said in a bizarre leap of logic) is exactly what the government is doing with Bill 46.

Let me get this straight.  The government rammed through Bill 46 which forces a four year settlement of 0%, 0%, 1% and 1% so that AUPE will come back to the bargaining table and get what?  Certainly not the five year 5.5% plus bonus settlement BC’s public service got because that’s “unique”.  

Mr Horner described Bill 46 as a framework for negotiations (actually it’s a law).  But he can’t explain why the law put in place by Peter Lougheed in 1971 is suddenly so inadequate.

Here’s a clue:  The Lougheed arbitration clause requires the arbitrator to consider wages and benefits in the public and private sectors within the context of Alberta’s general economy.  The Conference Board of Canada says Alberta’s outlook is “exceedingly bright” with a 3.4% increase in 2014 and a 2.6% increase in 2015…in other words, Mr Horner’s offer of zippo is unacceptable.

It’s just this once

Mr Horner can’t understand why we’re fussing.  Sure, Lougheed’s government passed a law guaranteeing the unions compulsory arbitration, and sure, Redford’s government just passed a law breaking that law, but it’s only this once and only for the AUPE, so what’s the big deal?

Mr Horner

Let me spell it out for you Mr Horner.  Passing a law which crushes a right guaranteed by law even once is a betrayal of public trust and immoral.

Furthermore, singling out one group, who will be held up to others as an object lesson of what to expect if they don’t fall into line is also immoral.

Lastly, defending this immoral law as an example of prudent fiscal practice and living within our means is the height of hypocrisy.

Sadly, it’s working.  Too many people have accepted the “taxpayers” (us) versus “unions” (them) dichotomy.  They relish the thought of the unions getting a dose of their own medicine (whatever that means).  They’re blind to the bigger issue at stake which is this:  If the government can strip away the fundamental rights of one segment of society, they can strip away your fundamental rights as well.

Bills 45 and 46 exposed

Bill 46 took away the union’s right to compulsory arbitration without giving back its right to strike.  Bill 45 made it illegal to even whisper about the possibility of a strike (all strikes are illegal) or take steps to protect the public in the event an illegal strike might be coming.

Redford’s government justifies the breach of the union’s fundamental rights on the basis of living within our means and remaining competitive—at a time of unprecedented economic growth.

Professor Charles Derber in his book Morality Wars calls this “immoral morality” where certain principles and beliefs are used to justify socially harmful or unethical policies.

Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela fought tooth and nail against “immoral morality” in South Africa.  Ms Redford worked with him as part of a team steering Africa out of apartheid and rebuilding its legal system.  And yet she learned nothing from the man she called her friend.

But we have.  We’ve learned we can fight these immoral laws by doing exactly what Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, asked us to do:  (1) protest to protect our democratic rights, (2) reassess Ms Redford (is she really a progressive conservative) and (3) support the public sector workers.****

Who knows, maybe Ms Redford’s attempt to crush the unions will reinvigorate the union movement in Alberta.  Wouldn’t that be ultimate justice!

* Calgary Herald, Dec 6, 2013, A3

**Hansard, Nov 28, 2013, 3196 

*** Hansard, Dec 4, 2013, 3384 

****Calgary Herald , Dec 4, 2013 A15  

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

Redford and Mandela: Hypocrisy and Hope

Posted on December 8, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

The Redford government’s capacity for hypocrisy knows no bounds.  In the same week that Redford’s PC government passed two corrosive pieces of anti-labour legislation, Ms Redford reflected on what she’d learned as a young lawyer working with Nelson Mandela to reform South Africa’s legal system.

Nelson Mandela

“He taught me that the best advice comes from people who have been working in the trenches, and that leaders have to sacrifice. I remember his wisdom, his optimism and his patience.” *

Instead of taking Nelson Mandela’s lessons to heart, the Redford government used its majority power to ram Bills 45 and 46 through the Legislature.  All of the opposition parties, including the Wildrose (much to the PC’s surprise), supported the unions in opposition to this oppressive legislation.

Bill 45:  Who is this “person” and why is he in so much trouble?

Let’s focus on Bill 45, the Public Sector Services Continuation Act.  It purports to protect the health and safety of Albertans and save them from hardship in the event of a strike.  We already have two statutes (the Alberta Labour Code and the Public Service Employee Relations Act) that do the same thing.  Why do we need another one?

Mr Horner and Mr Hancock say some tweaks are required to modernize the existing legislation.

But Bill 45 has a more sinister purpose.  In addition to fining the unions into oblivion, it takes a gigantic leap backward into George Orwell’s 1984.  It prohibits a union and its reps and employees from engaging in conduct that constitutes a strike threat and prohibits a “person” from counselling a person to go on strike or engaging in conduct that constitutes a strike threat.  And no one knows what that means.

Orwell’s definitions

A “strike threat” is defined as calling for a strike and ”an act or threat to act that could reasonably be perceived as preparation” for a strike.**

Let’s break that down shall we?  An “act” could be anything, right?  The “threat to act” would be the threat to do anything (??) and this threat or threat to do anything would have to “reasonably be perceived” (by whom?) as preparation (which would be what exactly?) for a strike.   Got it?

Let’s try something a little simpler.  What does “counselling a person to go on strike or engaging in conduct that constitutes a strike threat” mean?

Mr Hancock, Bill 45’s sponsor and a lawyer to boot, gave it a try in the debates.  Turns out he doesn’t know either. ***

He started by saying a strike threat is not (1) a couple of people talking about what they should do, (2) a water cooler conversation, (3) someone calling into a talk show or (4) somebody waving a sign.   Unfortunately none of these exclusions made it into the statutory definition.

Mr Hancock continued—a strike threat “is an effective and meaningful approach to induce or encourage a strike and to indicate that a strike is going to happen”.  This contradicts the statutory definition which hinges on “reasonable perception” in the eyes of Big Brother and not on the “effectiveness” of the threat itself. 

But Mr Hancock was on a roll.  With respect to “counselling” he said it’s a well known term which would be interpreted by the Labour Relations Board or the Courts.   In other words you won’t know if you’ve engaged in counselling until you’re hauled up before the Board or a Court and found guilty. 

Then he latched on the Criminal Code definition of “counselling” and blathered on about the perpetrator having to have the power, authority or credibility to cause the event to happen and concluded that you can’t be guilty of counselling an offence if the offence itself did not occur.

Mr Hancock

This is utter nonsense.  Section 464 of the Criminal Code says anyone who counsels another to commit an offence is guilty even if the offence is not committed and would be subject to the same punishment as the person who failed to commit the offence.   Oh and there’s no requirement for authority or credibility either.

One last question…I’m almost afraid to ask.  Who’s a “person” under Bill 45?  The government website says the Bill applies to “employees” who are forbidden to strike.  It also states its purpose is to hold “unions” and “individuals” (who wouldn’t necessarily have to be union employees) accountable for breaking the law.  Employees or individuals, which is it?

Mr Hancock clearly thinks Bill 45 applies to everyone, not just union employees, otherwise he’d have shut down the oppositions’ questions about people calling into radio talk shows as being irrelevant and outside the scope of the Bill.

Not to worry, Bill 45 allows the Lieutenant Governor in Counsel to make regulations defining terms that are not defined in the Act.

So sometime in the not too distant future we may find out (if we keep our eyes peeled for upcoming orders-in-council) exactly who Bill 45 applies to, what constitutes a “strike treat” and what’s involved in “counselling” a strike or a strike threat.   Quelle relief!

A Charter Challenge

The union will (and must) mount a legal challenge to Bill 45.  It will argue that Bill 45 violates our charter rights:  freedom of assembly (you and me meeting at the pub to discuss whether we should go on strike) and freedom of speech (can we even say “strike” or is that a “strike threat”?)

The government will hire the best lawyers possible to defend this “junk law” and Alberta taxpayers will foot the bill.  The law suit drag on for years.

Meanwhile union after union will be slammed into the boards by a government that, unlike Nelson Mandela, never learned to listen to the people with wisdom, optimism and patience.  Instead it crushes the people at every turn–that’s what’s required to hold on to power at all costs.  Tragic.   

*Government Media Release Dec 5, 2013

**Bill 45, Section 1(1)(k) 

***Hansard, Dec 4, 2013, 3372

Posted in Politics and Government, Rich and/or Famous | Tagged , , , , | 29 Comments

145 Children Die in Government Care; but 89 Don’t Count

Posted on December 1, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

               “WHEREAS the Government of Alberta recognizes that children and youth are our greatest resource…blah blah blah”—Child and Youth Advocate Act 

One hundred and forty five children died in government care since 1999.  The government reported 56 deaths.  The rest sank below the radar because they were the result of “natural causes”.

But the numbers don’t work.

Here’s why.  If 145 children died and the government reported 56 deaths, that would mean that 89 died of natural causes, right?  Wrong.  The government says 68 died of natural causes.  So what happened to the remaining 21 children?*

And while we’re counting dead children, what about those who died of “natural causes” like malnutrition and those who died in their own homes under government supervised protective service?

Can the government tell us how many of these children died since 1999?  Or have they simply disappeared because their parents are forbidden by law to speak their names in public?

Human Services Minister Hancock responds

Mr Hancock was furious with the investigative reporters who exposed the government’s failure to protect our most vulnerable citizens.  He said the headline “Fatal Care” was “very unfortunate.”  Tell me, is it possible to describe government care that results in 145 deaths as something other than “fatal”?        

The minister was outraged when Danielle Smith (Wildrose) reminded him in Question Period that he told reporters that the number of children who died was “not significant”.  He said Ms Smith took his comment out of context.  I’m sorry Mr Hancock, but there’s simply no context in which the words “dead children” and “not significant” is even remotely appropriate.

No public inquiry

The opposition parties are demanding a public inquiry to find out what went wrong and what can be done to prevent future deaths.

The PCs rejected the idea.  Instead of “wasting” Alberta’s time and money on a public inquiry Mr Hancock will host (his word, not mine) an expert roundtable to “hear all the necessary voices” (parents? social workers?) and create the “best policy in the country”.**

Mr Hancock

Oh, and the roundtable experts will review what information should be public, who should make it public, and how death reviews should be conducted*** (based on what?).  This will allow Mr Hancock to be confident that the right information is being reported and the right processes are being followed.****Maybe then he’ll get the numbers right. 

So that’s that:  There will be no public inquiry, just a  roundtable report that may or may not be tabled in the Legislature.  

The child death review process

Let’s examine those processes, shall we?

Mr Hancock’s process is this:  the Quality Assurance Council reviews every incident of serious injury and death and every death must be reported to the Child Advocate.

Does this process work?  No.  In 1998 the Child Advocate asked the government to develop a comprehensive multi–disciplinary child death review process.  In 2010 and 2011 two independent review panels added their voices to that of the Child Advocate.  Their requests have been echoing through the halls of the Legislature ever since.

Mr Graff Child Advocate

Here’s the problem:  As many as six bodies may be called upon to review a child’s death—the Quality Assurance Council, the Child Advocate, the Fatality Review Board, the medical examiner and the Pediatric Review Committee.  There may also be a criminal investigation.

These bodies operate under three different sets of laws, under two ministers (one of whom was Alison Redford in her role as justice minister prior to becoming PC leader in 2011) and in accordance with an internal policy document and unwritten conventions that may or may not be followed.

These bodies report their recommendations piecemeal.  To date, there are 258 recommendations floating around, none of which has been collected, tracked or monitored to ensure proper implementation.

Bottom line: there is no comprehensive review process and no way to track recommendations to ensure that the system improves and fewer children die in the future.

The government takes “immediate” action

Take heart, Mr Hancock just received a recommendation from the Quality Assurance Council suggesting that the government publicly track all of the recommendations that have come forward.  Mr Hancock says he’ll act on the recommendation immediately.  Whew!  That’s one less thing for the expert roundtable to worry about.

Furthermore Ms Redford says she acted immediately to protect children by passing the Children First Act in 2012.  However, the Act was not proclaimed until Nov 1, 2013…just a few weeks before the “unfortunate headlines” appeared in the Journal and Herald. 

And, the sections that support interdepartmental cooperation by making it legal to share information that could protect a child before he dies are not yet in force.  Only Mr Hancock, the Act’s sponsor, knows why.

We value our “resources”

It’s taken the PCs 14 years, 258 recommendations and 145 dead children to decide that we need another expert panel to discuss the problem of abused and neglected children.

It took the PCs three years and one task force to “streamline” the regulatory approval process to ensure the speedy approval of energy projects (bulldozing the rights of land owners, environmentalists and the public in the process).

So tell me, which does the government value as our “greatest resource”?  Children or energy producers?

NOTE: The reference to Mr Hancock’s letter in the Calgary Herald has been clarified.  He said he wants to have confidence that the right information is reported and the right processes are followed.  He appears to believe the roundtable will provide this assurance, however his refusal to hold a public inquiry means that no one will really know why these children died, which means we won’t be sure we’ve fixed any systemic problems that may contribute to further deaths in the future.

* Hansard, Nov 26, 2013, 3095

**Hansard, Nov 28, 2013, 3195

***Hansard, Nov 27, 2013, 3154

****Calgary Herald Nov 30, 2013, A11

Posted in Crime and Justice, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 37 Comments

One Dead Fish or More Big Ideas? The Quality of Debate in Redford’s Government

Posted on November 24, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

Premier Redford complains bitterly about the quality of debate in the Legislature; apparently we need more “big ideas” and less “parochial debate”.* 

However her Environmental Minister continues to provide fatuous explanations for why it took nineteen days to issue an Environmental Protection Order in connection with the largest coal mining waste water spill in Canadian history.

On Oct 31, Obed released one billion litres of waste water into the Athabasca River.  A toxic plume 150 kilometers long and the size of 400 Olympic sized swimming pools is now working its way to the Arctic Ocean.  The government flew below the radar screen for almost three weeks…until the Opposition (bless their feisty hearts) called them on it.

The Government’s response to the Obed spill

Brian Mason (NDP) pointed out that this spill is 20 times bigger than the Exxon Valdez spill and yet Ms McQueen failed to issue a public statement.  Sure, she posted an information bulletin, but if you’re not on the government’s media feed you wouldn’t get it.  She told communities not to draw drinking water from the Athabasca River but failed to include a number of First Nations in the communications plan.  And she sent inspectors to take water samples and so far all they’ve found is one dead fish.

One dead fish?  Are you kidding me?  What happened?  Did it forget to hold its breath when 150 kilometers of mercury, arsenic, lead and cadmium rolled by?  Are the rest of the fish happily going about their fishy business or are they floating belly up somewhere downstream?

One dead fish or more “big ideas”?

It’s the government, not the Opposition, who sets the legislative agenda and bears the responsibility (and the blame) for debating about a dead fish instead of “big ideas.”

A government that sets itself up as Joan of Arc, Defender of Industry (and all that is good, noble and true) finds itself in a quagmire when industry does something that warrants censure.  The government’s Environment Minister will be trapped into making idiotic comments like:**

  • There’s no harm except to the one dead fish (note: the impact on wildlife habitats is not yet known)
  • The Environmental Protection Order is a merely a “tool”,  like education and prevention, to keep Albertans safe and healthy (note: it’s also a mechanism that can lead to charges for violating the law)
  • The drinking water is safe (note: the government told communities to stop drawing their water from the Athabasca and don’t ask about the First Nations because no one knows).

A meaningful debate

As frightening as this may sound to the PC government, the Obed spill presented a golden opportunity for the government to demonstrate what it would do to protect human health and the environment when (not if) there’s a toxic release from an oils sands tailings pond.  It was a chance to debate a “big idea.”

Ms McQueen

Unfortunately Ms Redford and Ms McQueen failed to rise to the occasion and, to paraphrase economist Michael Moore, are not doing their bit in the “concerted effort by both industry and government to gain the trust and confidence of a wary Canadian populace”. ***

But take heart, Minister McQueen assured the House that her government is “very concerned” and is “taking action” and “the company will be held responsible once the investigation is complete”. **

Let’s see….what’s an appropriate punishment given that this government has yet to impose a significant fine for a major transgression?  How about a public flogging with a dead fish?

*Premier Redford’s “Building Alberta” Speech, Glenbow Museum, Nov 18, 2013

**Hansard Nov 20, 2013 p 2968

***Daily Oil Bulletin, Nov 20, 2013

Posted in Disasters, Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , | 35 Comments