Campus Alberta: Converting Universities into Trade Schools

Posted on October 13, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

I like engineers but this is ridiculous (and I’m not talking about Supercow, the U of C engineering mascot).

Supercow U of C Engineering Mascot

The PC government just invested $142.5 million to expand the Schulich School of Engineering at the University of Calgary while at the same time hacking $147 million out of the province’s post-secondary budget.

Yes, I know, the $142 million is a capital (one-time) payment while the $147 million decrease in the post-secondary budget is an operating budget (on-going) cut, so it’s impossible to have an apples-to-apples conversation about this.

Instead of focusing on the dollars, let’s focus on how the PC government is using Campus Alberta to maul the University of Alberta and mollify the University of Calgary, and why.

Both universities suffered as a result of the 2013 budget cuts, but only one, the U of A, is face down in the dust.  The U of C will emerge even stronger.

What is Campus Alberta?

The Department of Enterprise and Advanced Education describes Campus Alberta as a concept to formalize and encourage further collaboration between the province’s 26 publicly funded post-secondary institutions.

Oh, it’s a fuzzy collaborative thingy.  Ah…no, it’s a meat cleaver used to cut post-secondary institutions down to size when the bitumen bubble burst and there wasn’t enough royalty revenue lying around to cover the government’s costs.

Smack down at the U of A

University of Alberta

For some unknown reason the U of A was under the misapprehension that academic independence meant it was free from state interference in its internal affairs.  I’ll admit I was under the same misapprehension.  When the government announced draconian cuts to the post-secondary education budget, the U of A fought back.  Faculty, students and the public expressed their dissatisfaction by publicizing the impact of the cuts, talking to their MLAs, raising the issue with the University’s President and Board of Governors and staging protests outside the Legislature.

The minister was not amused.* He stripped the U of A of its financial independence by rejecting its three-year deficit budget and approving a one-year deficit budget on the condition that the University file quarterly financial updates.  Mr Lucaszuk also assigned a “consultant” to work with the University to sort out its long-term fiscal sustainability problem.

Not satisfied to stop there, the minister stripped the University of its right to its reputation.  He castigated the U of A for daring to describe itself as a “leading research-intensive post-secondary institution” and a “flagship institution”.  The U of A was nothing more than one of “26 important institutions, all of which have a critical role to play in a diverse and differentiated system.”  Don’t you go thinkin’ you’re any better than Keyano or Norquest, y’hear?   

Meanwhile life at the University of Calgary is peachy.

The “Confederation of Scholars”** 

Notwithstanding the budget cuts, the U of C discovered a stash of cash in its operating budget—enough to hire 30 assistant professors, postdoctoral students and research chairs.  These academics will form a “confederation of scholars” who’ll collaborate with industry on conventional and unconventional energy research.  The “confederation” will join more than 200 faculty members already conducting energy research and training graduate students and postdoctoral fellows.

Apparently the collaborative approach is highly successful.  Over the last five years researchers have spun-out companies and issued more than 50 oilsands recovery patents—all on the Alberta taxpayers’ dime.

Expanding the Schulich School of Engineering

Now for the big ticket item.  The U of C will expand and renovate the Schulich School of Engineering by adding advanced research and teaching labs, study and support spaces, and two new 240 seat theatres.  It is truly a spectacular space.  Here’s a video “fly-through”

Rendering – Schulich School of Engineering

The government anted up $142.5 million of the $158.3 tab.  The remaining $15.8 million is coming from the private sector.  The expanded space will be ready for 400 students in 2016.  Still no word on where the operating funds will come from but U of C President Elizabeth Cannon is not worried—talks are ongoing.

Not only is Mr Lucaszuk blithely unconcerned about the U of C’s operational shortfall, he stands proudly in the wings while the U of C video embedded in the government’s press release gushes with grandiose statements like “The Schulich School of Engineering is a top ranked school” and “The University of Calgary will be a global intellectual hub”.

The only thing missing is “flagship institution”.

What drives post-secondary education?

The PC government has put all of its educational eggs in one basket.  Post-secondary institutions are simply another “service provider” (to use supply chain terminology) that must deliver a return on research investment.

The U of C gets this and is well down the path to becoming a technical school that provides training at the post-secondary and graduate school level.  The U of A on the other hand is holding itself to a higher standard and is suffering as a result.  Campus Alberta, the meat cleaver, has come down hard on the U of A and will do so again until the U of A becomes part of the value chain…or the PC government is replaced by a party that values education for its own sake.

Oh, before I forget, Mr Schulich donates money to many post-secondary institutions across Canada.  Upon receiving the donations all of these institutions change their names to become the Schulich School of [fill in the blank].  The biggest donation so far went to the York faculty of business.  It’s now known as the Schulich School of Business and all degrees issued by the school bear Mr Schulich’s signature.

We’ll know that the fight for academic freedom is well and truly lost when the degrees issued by Alberta universities bear the signatures of successful businessmen.

*Letter to the Chair of the Board of Governors, dated August 15, 2013 posted on the Whiter the U of A blog http://whithertheuofa.blogspot.ca/2013/10/goss-got-ticking-off-from-lukaszuk-in.html

**Daily Oil Bulletin, Sept 26, 2013

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

Redford backtracks on public participation–but only at the federal level

Posted on October 11, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

Premier Redford was asked to comment on the actions of environmental activists protesting a National Energy Board (NEB) review of the proposal to reverse Enbridge’s Line 9 oil pipeline.  The environmentalists say the NEB’s review process is too narrow and public participation is too limited.

Premier Redford said: “I think anyone who wants to have a voice should participate in the hearing process and we should ensure that that happens”.*

Wow!  This is a complete about-face from the position the premier expressed earlier this week when she said that it’s the government’s prerogative to decide who participates and who doesn’t.

It’s easy to for the premier to be inclusive when she’s commenting on the National Energy Board process—it’s a federal matter outside her jurisdiction—but a principle is a principle.

If Ms Redford truly believes that anyone who “wants to have a voice should participate in the hearing process”  she should put her money where her mouth is and table an amendment in the Legislature this fall.  The amendment would amend the Responsible Energy Development Act (REDA) by giving the public the right to participate.  This amendment would reinstate the “public interest” test as it was set out in the Energy Resources Conservation Act before it was replaced by REDA.

The people of Alberta deserve to have a voice.  Like Captain Picard, the premier has the ability to “make it so”.  All she has to do is do it.

PS  Dear readers, you will have noticed a series of micro-blogs on this topic over last week.  You’ll be seeing more of these rapid fire blogs over the coming months as Ms Redford approaches the opening of the House on Oct 28, 2013 and prepares for her own leadership review in November.  I welcome your input! 

*Daily Oil Bulletin, Oct 10, 2013 

Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , | 8 Comments

McQueen’s Damage Control Strategy: The Erosion of Natural Justice Continues

Posted on October 9, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

“It is incredibly irresponsible and I think they’re trapped in an extremely ineffective strategy of damage control.”  — Rachel Notley NDP MLA*

Environment Minister McQueen is back from her European junket.  She’s had a few days to consider Justice Marceau’s decision which flayed her department for refusing to allow an environmental coalition (Pembina and Fort McMurray Environmental Association) to participate in an application for an oilsands project.  Here’s what she has to say:

“My job is to make sure we allow [the directors] to do their job and that it goes through a proper process.  And I think that’s what happened”.

Diana McQueen

Actually that’s not what happened.  And the good judge, Justice Marceau, described in painstaking detail just how it didn’t happen when a director “hijacked” the government’s own approval process to deny the Pembina’s right to be heard by making up additional criteria to bar their eligibility to participate.  It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

However now that she’s out on the ledge there’s nowhere for Ms McQueen to go but step off into thin air.  She argued that the fact that Pembina was able to take the case to court—and win—shows that the system is working:

“What’s important is that we have a process that allows for people, if they don’t like decisions, to really be able to appeal.”

Damage control

Let’s analyze the PC’s damage control rationale (it’s certainly not a “strategy”).

  • Justice Marceau said that the director of Environment violated the principles of natural justice when he refused to allow Pembina to participate in an oil sands application.  Minister McQueen says the directors did their jobs properly.  Rationale: Justice Marceau is wrong and the government is right.
  • The government has a process that allowed Pembina to appeal being banned therefore the system is working.  Ummm…that process is called “If you don’t like it, sue me!”  The less expensive and speedier appeal process contained in the legislation does not apply in a situation like this where an intervener is denied the right to file a Statement of Concern in the first place.  Rationale: very few interveners will have the money or the resources to launch a law suit to protect their right to be heard. So we’re good. 

Damage control is effective only if it makes a modicum of sense.  Justice Marceau’s decision stands as the law in Alberta unless and until it is overturned on appeal.  Stamping one’s tiny foot and saying the law isn’t the law won’t cut it.  But continuing to pursue this incoherent and irresponsible argument will conflate this issue into the PC’s very own “lakes of fire” moment–only this time the loony espousing the “law” as they see it is not a fringe candidate running for office in the hinterland but our very own Premier and her loyal cabinet ministers.  Unbelievable!

*Calgary Herald, Oct 9, 2013, A4

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

Does Redford’s “Prerogative” Trump the Law?

Posted on October 6, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

When a Queen’s Bench justice compares Redford’s government to the corrupt regime of former Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis you know you’ve hit rock bottom.

Justice Marceau made the damning comment in his ruling that the Redford government violated the principles of natural justice by refusing to allow an environmental coalition to participate in a review of an oilsands project.

Premier Redford

Premier Redford’s response?  It’s the government’s prerogative to decide who’s “directly impacted” by an oilsands project and who’s not.

This is a big deal because if the government decides you’re not “directly affected” you can’t file a Statement of Concern—this means you can’t participate in the application process and you can’t appeal the decision after it’s rendered.  You have no voice.

The Court Case*

After successfully filing 14 Statements of Concern over the course of a decade the environmental coalition comprised of Pembina and the Fort McMurray Environmental Association hit a wall.  Four requests to file Statements of Concern were rejected.  The Coalition took the government to court and had the good luck to draw Justice Marceau as the presiding judge.  Providence smiles on the righteous. 

Justice Marceau found that the government breached the principles of natural justice by creating a secret policy that “hijacked” the government’s approval policy.  This secret policy changed the interpretation of “directly affected” such that the Coalition would never again qualify as a Statement of Concern filer.  The reasons for this change were (1) Pembina was no longer cooperating with a government environmental initiative and (2) it published “negative media” about the oilsands.  It’s the George Bush principle:  if you’re not with us you’re against us.      

Maurice Duplessis (1890-1959), député, avant s...

Premier Maurice Duplessis

Justice Marceau concluded that it’s “…difficult to envision a more direct apprehension of bias unless it is the Premier of Quebec telling the Quebec Liquor Commission to revoke a restauranteur’s liquor license because the proprietor of the restaurant is a Jehovah’s Witness.” The judge was referring to former Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis whose corrupt reign was known as “The Great Darkness” (1939 to 1959).

The judge’s point?  No public official is above the law.

The government reacts—poorly  

Redford’s government quickly spun up into damage control mode.

Environment Minister McQueen issued a scathing press release castigating the NDP for “referring to documents from five years ago.” This is bizarre given that the Coalition’s application was made in March 2012.**

McQueen prattled on about premiers “of every persuasion” (?) working hard to develop the economy through responsible resource development.  She touted the Premier’s progress on the Canadian Energy Strategy, the carbon levy and the new regulations that allow Albertans who are directly and adversely affected to provide a notice of concern to the regulator.   

Energy Minister Hughes chimed in saying that this problem would never occur under the new regulatory process because if presenters demonstrate that their input is meaningful, valuable and will assist the regulator, they’re in.***What planet is this man living on?  

Minister Hughes

Let’s get one thing straight about the new legislation, it is now harder not easier to file a Statement of Concern because you can’t file unless you’re “directly and adversely affected” by a project.  The addition of the second hurdle—demonstrating that you’re adversely affected—makes Minister Hughes’ platitudes about meaningful and valuable information irrelevant unless it demonstrates adverse impact.  Bottom line, now you have to jump through two hoops not one.

The Alberta Energy Regulator

Oh and if this wasn’t bad enough, the newly minted CEO of the Alberta Energy Regulator is none other than Mr Jim Ellis, the deputy minister in charge of Environment when the secret policy to silence the Coalition was implemented.

Mr Ellis declined to be interviewed but his representatives say there is no policy against a “specific group” and that the briefing note (policy) prepared for Mr Ellis is “for information only”.  Furthermore, this decision begins and ends with the Director for the Northern Region.  So the Director could create a policy on a whim and his boss, Mr Ellis, was powerless to stop him? 

This would be ludicrous but for Mr Ellis’ recent comments about a “breakdown” in how the Alberta government creates policies.**** Mr Ellis says that when he was deputy minister of Energy the province sold $3.5 billion worth of shale gas leases but had no policy in place to get ahead of the drilling activity.   Did they not see it coming?  

What’s next?  

Ms Redford’s PR department will continue to fill the air with incoherent media releases in the hopes that we’ll get confused and go away.

Mr Ellis, CEO of the Alberta Energy Regulator and his boss, Mr Protti, industry insider and Chair of the Alberta Energy Board, are going to Washington DC to spread the good word about Alberta’s new energy regulator.

Ms McQueen, the Environment minister, refuses to return from Europe to address this mess.  Her excuse?  She’s trying to convince European Union leaders not to discriminate against oilsands-derived fuels.  (Note: Canada sells no crude to the EU and the EU members she’s visiting are Slovakia, Croatia, Greece, Sweden, Austria and France.)

And hopefully Mr Hughes, the Energy minister, is studying the Responsible Energy Development Act so the next time he’s asked what the government intends to do about a breach of natural justice he’ll actually know what he’s talking about.

The opposition parties are making hay (as they should) with the government’s penchant for secret policies implemented behind closed doors for the purpose of silencing the people.

Make no mistake.  This case is more than a simple misunderstanding of governmental “prerogative”.  To quote U of C law professor, Shaun Fluker, Justice Marceau’s decision “provides Albertans with a basis upon which to stand against government officials who seem fixated on removing public participation from the landscape.”*****

That’s our rallying cry.  It’s time to take a stand against “The Great Darkness”.

*Pembina Institute, Fort McMurray Environmental Association v Director, Northern Region, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources Development and Southern Pacific Resource Corp. Docket: 1203 18391, Registry: Edmonton, particularly page 16.

**Media Release dated Oct 3, 2013

***Calgary Herald Oct 5, 2013, C1

****Daily Oil Bulletin Sept 30, 2013

***** http://ablawg.ca/2013/10/03/the-smoking-gun-revealed-alberta-environment-denies-environmental-groups-who-oppose-oil-sands-projects-the-right-to-participate-in-the-decision-making-process/#more-3467

Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 27 Comments

Dinner with Justin Trudeau: Gimmick or Doing Politics Differently?

Posted on September 29, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

“Have dinner with me, Susan.”  What a charming invitation.  Too bad it’s part of a fundraising campaign directed at 300,000 supporters of the federal Liberal party.

But wait…let’s think about this for a moment.  For a $5.00 donation, Ms Soapbox and four of her closest friends and relatives get a one in 6,000* shot at tackling Justin Trudeau on the issues near and dear to their hearts.  Cool!

The contest

Justin Trudeau

Justin Trudeau

Make no mistake, “Dinner with Justin” is a real contest with Justin as the prize.  Typical lottery rules apply including the dreaded skill testing question before the winner, who’ll be selected on Oct 4, can claim her prize (it’s probably a multiplication question and if I win I’ll freeze and Mr Soapbox will have to whisper the answer to me sotto voce from the sidelines).    

The target  

Every contest has a target.  This one is no different.  The purpose of the contest is to raise $300,000 in the month of September.  This would put the Liberals within spitting distance of their Q3 fundraising target of $2.2 million—a target that’s $1 million less than what the Conservatives are expected to raise over the same time period.

A good chunk of this funding is earmarked to respond to Harper’s vitriolic US-style media attacks.  The “Justin sprinkled with fairy dust” video was a shot across the bow.  It’s going to get a whole lot worse in the next 700 days leading up to the federal election.  Oh joy. 

The teaser – the Hamilton video

Trudeau’s chief fundraiser, Stephen Bronfman (yes, of the Seagram’s liquor empire) is determined to beef up the party’s traditional donor base.  He’s targeting younger donors where they live—on line.

Stephen Bronfman

He created the “BBQ with Doug Hamilton” video that accompanies the donation request.  The 4:23 minute clip shows Mr Hamilton, a fisherman from Gabriola Island, his sisters Mariah and Jane, and Jane’s husband and son enjoying a salmon BBQ with Justin Trudeau.  It’s a pleasant Vancouver afternoon, everyone is relaxed and Justin stays “on message” without appearing too scripted.

And what’s the message?  Justin Trudeau is a hard working, middle class, family man (I didn’t say it was an easy message, just that he stayed on point) who sees a need to “do politics differently” and is only too happy to be the “vehicle” (surely there’s a better word) for that political transformation.

The Hamilton clan responded positively.  They found Justin to be personable, genuine and optimistic about the future.  Clearly they enjoyed themselves.  Mr Hamilton paid Justin the ultimate compliment when he said “I’d love to take him out fishing”. 

Bottom line:  The video was a success and thousands of people, including Ms Soapbox, pried open their wallets and made a small donation.

The Conservatives’ reaction

But not everyone enjoyed the video.   The National Post, that bastion of conservatism, described the video as an “arty short” in the style of My Dinner with Andre (surely one of the most boring movies ever made) and printed a “recap” of the video.**

Leaving aside the pot shots at the background music (“mournful acoustic guitar”) and the BC landscape (“too pretty to be realistic”) the most telling criticism was the NP’s reaction to Trudeau’s comment that “People are cynical about politics, but we’re Canadian, so it doesn’t sit right for us to be cynical.”   

The NP took issue with this statement, calling it “…a dagger straight to the place where a political reporter’s heart should be.”   Hmmm…sounds witty but what the heck does it mean?

Stephen Harper

Is the NP saying people are not cynical?  I doubt it.  More likely the NP and its conservative masters are trying to figure out how to respond to a politician who, unlike their own Mr Harper, is both engaging and candid.  Note to NP:  Ridiculing the Trudeau video and in the process the Hamilton family is not the way to address your problem.  May I suggest ditching Mr Harper instead.

Gimmick or doing politics differently?

The “Dinner with Justin” contest would have been just another gimmick if the “prize” was a ticket to a rubber-chicken fundraiser.  But it’s more than that.  It actually gives a few Canadians an opportunity to have an unhurried conversation with a politician.

Whether the contest winners have any impact at the end of the day remains to be seen, but they’ll certainly have an opportunity to change the direction of communication.  Instead of the usual one-way blast coming at us from our elected representatives we have a chance for a two-way dialogue with the man who wants to be our prime minister.

The fact that it’s a perfect Youtube moment that got under the skin of the Harperites is an added bonus!

A really tough question

What happens if I win the prize?  Who do I take with me?  Mr Soapbox and the mini-soapboxes of course, but I’m still one guest short.  I could run a contest on the Soapbox, the commentator with the most comments on this post wins…or I could take my mother, one of the most politically astute people I know, although I’m sure that somewhere over the course of the evening she’d tell Justin he needs a haircut…

I’ll keep you posted.

*The donor count was up to 4,287 on Sept 26, I’ve bumped it up to allow for the last 4 days in Sept.

** http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/25/justin-trudeaus-arty-short-film-win-dinner-with-justin-donate-now-a-rollercoaster-of-emotions/

Posted in Politics, Rich and/or Famous | Tagged , , , , | 14 Comments

A Dead Cat Bounce: Redford’s Approval Rating Up to 32%

Posted on September 22, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

It’s called a “dead cat bounce”.  It’s based on the premise that even a dead cat bounces when it slips off a 12th floor balcony and lands on the sidewalk (contrary to popular belief most sky-diving cats aren’t lucky enough to land in a rose bush).

Skydiving cat (really)

This distressing analogy is used in business when share prices, commodity prices, or any measure of corporate performance, blips up and the reason for that blip is unsustainable—a hurricane that temporarily disables petrochemical manufacturing plants in the US Gulf Coast will cause an uptick in commodity prices because supply can’t keep up with demand, but that uptick vaporizes the minute conditions return to normal.

A wise CEO never deludes himself into thinking that the dead cat bounce is real—that poor kitty ain’t going anywhere–he looks for the real story elsewhere.

The Leger survey

Okay with the image of a dead cat firmly in mind, let’s turn to the Leger survey commissioned by the Calgary Herald*  You know where this is leading, don’t you? 

Leger surveyed 1,208 Albertans between Sept 11 and 17.  The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8% (which means absolutely nothing to me.  I took basic statistics twice and still can’t remember the difference between the mean, median and that other thing).

Here are Leger’s results for approval ratings:

  • Alison Redford (PC) up from 26% to 32%
  • Danielle Smith (WR) up from 39% to 41%
  • Raj Sherman (Lib) up from 28% to 30%
  • Brian Mason (NDP) remained steady at 30%

Alison Redford with flood victim

So what did the statistically-challenged learn from this data?  That 1,208 Albertans like Ms Redford a little more than Dr Sherman and Mr Mason but a lot less than Ms Smith.  Oh and kudos to Ms Redford’s PR guys, those teary eyed photo ops with flood victims paid off. 

Leger continues.  If an election were held tomorrow the Wildrose would capture 34% of the vote, the PCs 33% and the NDP and the Liberals each 15%.  This means that either the WR or the PCs would win and the NDP and Liberals would lose.

What does all this mean?  Absolutely nothing.  The Herald describes the Leger poll “the first major poll” since the flood.  This is utter nonsense.  It’s nothing more than a pulse check, and guess what, there are at least four parties charging down the track in a horse race that isn’t even half over.      

The thoughtful pollster

Instead of wasting our time with superficial surveys conducted by “for-profit” corporations who do market research for anyone from Blackberry to Walt Disney (I wonder whether Leger will remove Blackberry from its list of “prestigious clients” when BB completes its death spiral) it would be more helpful to engage a thoughtful pollster, someone like Michael Adams for example.

Michael Adams

Mr Adams is a pollster and founder of the Environics Institute, a non-profit organization engaged in research related to public policy and social change.  He also wrote Fire and Ice:  The United States, Canada and the Myth of Converging Values which demonstrated, much to my relief, that contrary to popular belief Canada was not turning into the US.     

Mr Adams believes that pollsters’ data, if gathered in a thoughtful and rigorous way, can “catalyse discussion and action among the engaged public” in much the same way as “persuasive prose from an accessible academic or a respected journalist.”**

Hear!  Hear!  Engaged Albertans aren’t interested in which politician is the most “likeable”.  They want to know more about the values that guide our government.  Are Albertans prepared to fight for universal healthcare or do they believe that healthcare is a privilege and those who can afford it, earned the right to jump the queue?  Are Albertans prepared to risk the environment (and if so how much) in order to develop the oil sands?  What is an acceptable baseline for primary, secondary and post secondary education?

To paraphrase Mr Adams, thoughtful people are not just curious about the world, they are curious about themselves.  We want to know who we are as a society and what we’re becoming.  Intelligent pollsters can play a vital role in helping us understand these issues.  If nothing else the progressives want to know that they’re not alone!

So this is a long winded way of telling you media types that if you’re going to publish a full page analysis of poll results under the banner Inside Politics you need to do a lot better than reciting a few numbers from a pollster who in the last provincial election got the percentages right but the parties wrong, and fluffing it up with a few quotes from local political scientists who summarize the poll results by saying that despite the issues facing the government “…the Tories aren’t losing ground”.

Hand me that dead cat will you, it’s time to smack someone upside the head.

*Calgary Herald, Sept 21, 2013, A4

**The Public Intellectual In Canada, ed Nelson Wiseman, 2013 

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

A “Two Minute Tory” Spends an Evening with Ted Morton

Posted on September 15, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

Ted Morton, the former Finance Minister and unsuccessful PC leadership candidate, was holding court at the Manning Foundation.  He was going to give a speech on how a bunch of lefty carpet baggers (aka the “Two Minute Tories”) hijacked the PC leadership selection process to the enduring detriment of the Blue Tories.

The party faithful clustered around him to exchange pleasantries.  Ms Soapbox worked her way to the front of the line and introduced herself as a Two Minute Tory who’d made the unfortunate mistake of voting for Ms Redford in the last PC leadership race.

Ted Morton

Mr Morton stared blankly at this creature shaking his outstretched hand.  A smart politician would have leapt at the chance to validate his theory that progressives buy PC memberships to elect the “least objectionable candidate” (his words) because after 40 years of continuous PC reign that candidate will become the next premier of Alberta.  Instead he mumbled something and looked helplessly in his wife’s direction.  Oh well.   

To give Mr Morton his due, he gave a very enlightening presentation, although perhaps not in the way he intended.

Here are the highlights:

Two Minute Tories wreak havoc:  Mr Morton flashed up charts and graphs demonstrating that in the last three leadership races a dark horse (read: undeserving contender) used the Second Ballot Strategy  (buying a whack of progressive voters with ridiculous promises) in order to take down the front runner.

Nancy Betkowski—who’d been groomed to become the PC’s first female premier—was trounced by Ralph Klein.  Jim Dinning lost to Ed Stelmach of all people.  Mr Morton admitted that his own “anyone-but-Dinning” campaign helped push Mr Stelmach over the 50% threshold.  Wouldn’t that be galling! 

Finally, in 2011 Gary Mar (a deserving PC in Mr Morton’s eyes) lost to the interloper Alison Redford who deployed the Second Ballot Strategy with lethal force and bought off the public employees’ union, the United Nurses of Alberta and the teachers’ union in order to ascend to the Premier’s office.

This is curious.  The PCs have been buying votes with pre-election promises for decades.  The only difference here is who was bought (if indeed they were).  Apparently providing corporate welfare to Big Oil is less objectionable than providing public services to Albertans.

Right vs Left:  Mr Morton quickly fell into the classic political shorthand of Right versus Left.  (Presumably there is no “in-between”).  He suggested that Ms Redford would continue to pander to the “party of tax collectors” at the expense of the “party of tax payers” until financial sanity returned to government.

Ms Thatcher

He referred to the post-Regan and Thatcher eras which split voters into two camps: those who give more in taxes than they get and those who get more than they give and want to get even more.  The inflammatory rhetoric is alive and well at the Manning Foundation.

NOTE:  This Right/Left view of the world is myopic and creates a tremendous opportunity for a centrist party to mobilize voters focused on issues (health, education, environment),  not party labels.

The Urban/Rural Divide:   Due to a quirk in demographics the urban/rural divide is drawn at Battle River—the south was populated by US migrants; the north by eastern European immigrants.  The south is the birthplace of new parties that rise like a tsunami and unceremoniously wipe out the ruling party.  The Wildrose is following this historical pattern.

Vote Splitting on the Right:  The PCs are losing rural support.  They need to craft a coalition of Edmonton and Calgary voters (edging out the Liberals and the NDP) in order to succeed.

This creates a real danger that the conservative vote will be split between the PCs and the Wildrose, and, to quote Mr Morton, “it would be a shame if Alberta went Left by default”.  At this point Ms Soapbox exercised supreme self-control and did not leap out of her chair and shout “Yessss!!!

The future of the PC Party:  When asked whether the PC party was dead, Mr Morton replied, “Maybe, maybe not.”  He didn’t elaborate but I will.  There are two possible scenarios:

The doomsday scenario: The Wildrose and PCs split the vote and Alberta “defaults to the left”.  Mr Manning issued a warning:  Do not underestimate Alberta’s small “l” liberal base.

25% to 30% of Albertans are Liberals.  The Liberals could rise again if the party (1) finds a new charismatic leader—someone like Calgary’s mayor Nenshi literally “walks on water” and would capture the urban vote in Calgary and Edmonton in a heartbeat (a solemn hush fell over the crowd), (2) ditches the Liberal name and severs all ties to the federal Liberal party and (3) develops some new policies (presumably conservative ones).  

Ms Smith

The miracle scenario:  The Wildrose bridges the rural/urban divide by focusing on issues not ideology.  For example, the concerns of rural land owners and environmentalists are aligned.

This sounds like a tough slog given the Wildrose’s ideological bias toward the corporatization of government by privatizing anything that moves and its belief that the free market will solve all ills.  The enemy of my enemy may be my friend—but only until the skirmish is over, then it’s back to base camp.

Questions?

Ms Soapbox swore she’d never again become a Two Minute Tory and vote for the “least objectionable candidate”, however Mr Morton says this is an effective tactic.  So what do we do?

Do we continue to throw a monkey wrench into the PC leadership selection process?  Will this drive even more Blue Tories into the arms of the Wildrose?  Will this split the conservative vote or make the Wildrose even stronger?

If we support the “least objectionable candidate” will she and her incompetent party destroy what’s left of our public services over the next four years?

Do we ignore the PC leadership selection process all together and focus our attention on strengthening…who?  The Liberals, the NDP, the Alberta Party or the Green Party?

Bottom line:  the Manning Foundation, Alberta’s leading conservative think tank, thinks there’s room for a centrist party in Alberta…will somebody please get their act together!!!

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , | 40 Comments

Janet Davidson is appointed Deputy Minister of Health

Posted on September 11, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

Janet Davidson

The Redford government just passed an Order in Council appointing Janet Davidson Deputy Minister of Health.  This decision has many implications, not the least of which is this:  Will Ms Davidson continue in her role as Official Administrator of Alberta Health Services?  Is she legally allowed to perform both roles and collect two pay cheques, one as Official Administrator and one as Deputy Minister, at the same time?  If she can, is this an indication that the government is backing away from its practice of creating boards and packing them with cronies who’ve served them well?  (Wild applause!)

Clearly this move has been in the works for some time—Orders in Council aren’t whipped up overnight.  Why wasn’t this decision mentioned in yesterday’s press release announcing the AHS organizational changes?

Does anyone know how to spell T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-C-Y?

Here’s the Order in Council Notice

 Order in Council

September 11, 2013Approved September 10, 2013.HONOURABLE MS. REDFORD287/2013
GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ACT (section 4) and PUBLIC SERVICE ACT (sections 11 and 18) – Appoints Janet Davidson as Deputy Minister of Health for a term to expire on September 30, 2015.

Orders in Council can now be viewed on the Queen’s Printer website at: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/507.cfm
Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 11 Comments

It’s Really Not About Access to Private MRIs

Posted on September 8, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

The dapper Dr Theman stands unfazed in a thicket of microphones and TV cameras and repeats for the umpteenth time that proposed changes to the doctors’ Standards of Practice will not, repeat, not, shut down private MRI and CT services—these private clinics fall through a gap in the legislation and are outside the College’s authority.             

Hmmm, says a reporter (who looks like she’d barely reached the legal drinking age), if that’s the case why is everyone talking about “banning” and ”outlawing” private MRIs?

Good question!  How, pray tell, did a noble effort on the part of the College of Physicians & Surgeons (College) to protect the public from being charged for services that they are legally entitled to get for free turn into a media brouhaha over blocking access to private MRIs and CT scans?

Dr Theman paused…and turned the question back on the media.  He said everyone started talking about banning private MRIs when the media started talking about banning private MRIs.  What he didn’t say was that media frenzy was fueled by some of the most influential figures in the medical profession.

Dr Giuffre’s letter

It’s one thing to wade through vitriolic letters to the editor (and there were plenty);  it’s quite another to discover that the most strident opponent of these changes was none other than Dr Giuffre, the head of the Alberta Medical Association (aka the doctors’ union).

In a letter to the profession dated August 30, Dr Giuffre set out his concerns.  He said he’d had a conversation with Dr Theman which led him to conclude that the College had completely missed the boat.  OK, I’m summarizing. 

Dr Giuffre started with a garbled reference to the Vertes report in the Queue Jumping Inquiry and in an bizarre leap of logic concluded that the College had turned “a blind eye” to the core problem of access.  Then he dragged out a number of red herrings to support his position.  These included a reference to an irrelevant decision by the Supreme Court and a concern about interfering with the rights of those who have the money to buy their way to the front of private MRI lines.

All of this could have been dismissed as overblown hyperbole, but for Dr Giuffre’s rhetorical question:  Is it the college’s role to establish public policy of this kind and magnitude?

I beg your pardon????

The College’s Mandate

The College regulates the practice of medicine in Alberta.  It is a self-regulating body that is legally obligated to protect and serve the public interest.*  This includes guiding the 7,500 or so doctors in the province by setting standards of practice and a code of ethics.

To suggest that the College has stepped outside of its mandate because it wants to clarify existing standards and add a new standard to address problems that have arisen in the past is ludicrous.

Given the tenor of Dr Giuffre’s comments one wonders whether he’s even read the proposed changes.

If he had he would have noticed that the standards were not directed at a specific medical service like MRIs or CT scans or at a specific type of practice like concierge clinics.  The standards simply reinforce two key public health principles—universality and accessibility—that the College and every doctor in the province is legally bound to uphold.

The proposed changes assist physicians by clarifying the College’s expectations when a doctor relocates his practice and it becomes impractical for his patients to follow him, or when a doctor significantly alters the scope of his practice and can no longer handle his original patient load.  It also clarifies an existing standard that addresses when and how a doctor may charge for uninsured medical services.

There is nothing untoward about any of these changes unless a physician prefers a set of standards so full of loopholes that he could move into a concierge clinic and refuse to accept his former patients unless they fork over an annual fee (ranging from $3000 to $10,000 a year) to purchase a basket of uninsured services (like diet counseling or massage therapy) even if the patient has no intention of using these services–ever. 

In the business world the practice of providing a product or service on the condition that the customer buys another product or service is called tied selling.  It’s illegal.

The Council Meeting

Sandra Azocar Friends of Medicare

The College expected the proposed standards to be contentious.  Clue: when the conference room is packed with media and representatives from the Consumers Association, Friends of Medicare, Whitemud Citizens for Public Health, the general public and a woman with a soapbox you know it’s going to be a rough ride. 

College staff walked Council through the proposed changes and in no time everyone was engaged in a passionate discussion.  Three camps emerged (there may have been more).

First there were those who believed in universal healthcare and the “special relationship” between doctors and their patients.  They viewed the College’s self-governance role as a privilege that must be exercised respectfully and in the public interest.

The second camp supported a two-tiered healthcare system and wanted to clear the decks in order to let the market operate freely.  Yikes!

The third camp argued for delay.  They needed more time and more data to get the standards right.  They were concerned about public opinion (surely not those vitriolic letters to the editor) and questioned whether Council had the power to make this decision in the first place.

Thankfully the matter went to a vote and the arguments in favour of universality and accessibility carried the day.  We erupted into whoops and high-fives!  Well no, not in a conference room surrounded by a bunch of doctors but later over drinks.

Dr Giuffre’s Response

According to the Calgary Herald “The Alberta Medical Association would not comment on Friday’s decision”. ** 

Really Dr Giuffre, after all you’ve had to say on this topic is that the best you can do?

*Health Professions Act, Section 3(1)

**Calgary Herald, Sept 7, 2013, A3 

Posted in Alberta Health Care | Tagged , , , , , | 20 Comments

Banff and the Good Life

Posted on September 1, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

After a spirited discussion about Pamela Wallin, the Tory’s overspending senator, Ms Soapbox’s mother sighed and said ““Sometimes politics makes me so mad I need a rest!”

Brilliant!  A rest was exactly what Mr and Ms Soapbox needed so we packed up the car and set off on an over-night junket to Banff.

Soon we were inhaling sulphur fumes and peering through the gloom at a tiny opening in a cave ceiling.  The last thing on our minds was the political morass that passes for “government” in Alberta.

In the space of two days we discovered that the “good life” does not require an expensive lifestyle.

The Banff Springs Hotel

Okay, the Banff Springs Hotel is pricey, but we had a gift certificate and you don’t need to be a guest to enjoy the hotel’s amenities.

photo IMG_0349_zpsca5d499b.jpg

View from our room

I love old hotels.  The Banff Spring Hotel was built by CP Rail in 1888.  It was rebuilt in 1911 in the Scottish Baronial style and is a huge sprawling castle, regal and mysterious, with corridors leading off of corridors and staircases leading to locked doors.  We got lost three times trying to find our way back to the lobby.  How can an entire bank of elevators go missing???

Apparently it is also haunted; although an American paranormal film crew, disguised as guests, failed to discover Sam the Bellman, or anyone else for that matter, tucked behind the false door that they hacked down before getting caught by hotel staff.

On an early morning prowl Mr Soapbox and I discovered a secret door set into the oak panelled walls.  Behind it were shelves packed with candy filled goblets and serving trays.  You could easily hide a body in there.   

photo IMG_0390_zps96ab5798.jpg

Marilyn Monroe at Banff Springs Hotel

There were only two things on our “must do” list:  the Whyte Museum and the Cave and Basin.  Soon we discovered two themes overlaying our mini-break.  The first was the critical importance of CP Rail to opening up the West and creating Canada’s National Parks system; the second was the pervasiveness of Star Trek lore in our everyday lives.  Disclosure: Mr Soapbox disavows any association with the Star Trek theme, he says it’s lunacy.

The Whyte Museum

This pretty little museum was inspired by landscape painter Peter Whyte and Boston socialite Catharine Robb.  They met in 1925 and carried on a secret liaison until they wed in 1930.  The story of the middle class Banff boy and the American debutant who gave up high society to live in a log cabin in the middle of nowhere is just as compelling as the museum’s exhibits.

The suggested cost of admission?  A $5.00 donation.

The Maple Leaf Grill

We’d forgotten to make dinner reservations and were faced the prospect of Wendy’s when we decided to try the Maple Leaf Grill.  Yes they could fit us in if we came at 5:30, just before the huge wedding party that was expected at 6:00.

Only in Banff is it possible to show up for dinner at 5:30 and not trip over a thicket of four-pronged canes and aluminum walkers.  The early start was worth it, although it wasn’t until the end of the meal that we figured out that the hint of something slightly sweet in the beef tenderloin was maple syrup.  One would have thought the word “maple” in the restaurant’s name would have been a clue, but, hey, we were thinking “leaf” not “syrup.”

Vulcan Mind Meld

Twice in the space of two hours Mr Soapbox declared “I was just going to say that” in response to a witty comment from Ms Soapbox.  Thinking he was on a roll, Mr Soapbox spent the rest of the evening beaming “I need a Porche” thoughts at his wife, but to no avail.  The crisp mountain air will go only so far when it comes to attempting the Vulcan mind meld with one’s spouse.

The Cave and Basin

photo IMG_0413_zps9f8c5a09.jpg

Skylight over pool

The Cave and Basin is a magical place.  It came to national attention in 1883 when two CPR workers, William McCardell and Frank McCabe, crawled through what appeared to be a hole in the ground, but was in reality a skylight entrance to a mysterious evil smelling cave.

Conflicting claims over who “owned” the hot springs were settled with the intervention of Prime Minister John A MacDonald.  The intercession of the federal government sparked the creation of Canada’s national parks system.

The hot springs are home to the Banff Springs snail, an endangered species no bigger than an unpopped popcorn kernel.  Its shell, for some strange reason, spirals to the left, instead of the right.

The Parks Department, like Starfleet Command, subscribes to the Prime Directive—non-interference with local cultures.  In a recent unseasonable drought (believed to be the result of climate change) many feared that the tiny Banff snail would perish.  Luckily it’s a tough little creature and crept ever so slowly into crevasses in the rock, re-emerging when water levels returned to normal and proving once again that size doesn’t matter if you’re resilient.

The cost of admission?   $4.00

The Good Life

We had a delightful mini-break.  Mr Soapbox is happy.  On the way through Canmore he picked up a cast iron Danish Aebleskiver skillet that he’ll use to make cornbread, not aebleskivers (whatever they are).  Ms Soapbox is happy, she’d learned that the cost of the good life was $17.80 plus gas, meals and accommodation.

The value of the good life?  Priceless. 

Have a wonderful Labour Day weekend!

Posted in Vacation | Tagged , , , | 15 Comments