Minister Horne Reacts to the Preferential Access (Queue Jumping) Report: It’s not good

Posted on August 25, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

Justice Vertes released the results of the Preferential Access (Queue Jumping) Inquiry this week.  Health Minister Horne heaved a huge sigh of relief.  Vertes found that allegations raised by Dr Duckett (former head of Alberta Health Services) and Dr Sherman (Liberal leader) were unfounded and there was no evidence that MLAs used their influence to get preferential treatment for themselves or their family and friends.* Whew!!

Fred Horne & Health Promise

Mr Horne was so busy gloating that he failed to tell the public that Vertes had indeed found numerous cases of queue jumping right up to the time of the Inquiry itself.

The queue jumping incidents fell into two categories:

  • the gong show that passed for the government’s response to the H1N1 pandemic: Alberta Health Services (AHS) improperly inoculated the Calgary Flames hockey team and their friends and families, the friends and family of a group of Edmonton nurses and the non-essential administrative staff at the Red Deer Michener Centre, and
  • an influential Calgary doctor (Dr Bridges) used byzantine booking and referral practices to fast track colonoscopy screening tests for his own patients and those from the Helios concierge clinic.

Mr Horne also failed to explain that Vertes found a system riddled with opportunities for queue jumping, including:

  • AHS executives making “courtesy calls” to hospital staff to give them a “heads up” that a VIP was in the building   
  • expediting treatment for elite athletes    
  • allowing doctors and AHS executives to interfere with the emergency care and triage process for certain patients and
  • allowing doctors to send patients to Emergency through the “private patient path”.  Heads up, my patient is coming through. 

Most importantly Mr Horne failed to mention that these queue jumping and near-queue jumping episodes occurred on his watch. 

The Inquiry

Justice Vertes

Justice Vertes did a remarkable job given that he was hamstrung by the PC government from the outset—the Inquiry was restricted to queue jumping that “is occurring”.

Vertes did his level best to consider “background circumstances” despite strenuous objections from the government, the AHS and the Alberta Medical Association.  He created a public uproar when Mr Horne tried to shut down the Inquiry prematurely.

Vertes’ Recommendations

Vertes identified serious systemic issues and issued 12 sensible recommendations to address them.  They should have been adopted in a heartbeat without qualification;  but Mr Horne balked on three, saying that he’d accept them “in principle”, but not as written because “they involve legal changes potentially and …some consultation.”**

“In principle” is legalese for wiggle room.  Apparently there’s something about these three recommendations that troubles Minister Horne.    

The “in principle” recommendations***

Recommendation #1 closes loopholes in the law that could otherwise allow improper queue jumping.  It also requires people to report queue jumping violations and protects them from reprisal if they do so.  Mr Horne balked.  

Recommendation #2 provides whistleblower protection to all healthcare workers, including doctors who are contractors.  Interestingly this change would provide whistleblower protection well beyond the queue jumping issue and would allow a contractor to sound the alarm over any improper behavior without fear of reprisal.  Brilliant!  Mr Horne balked again.

Recommendation #7 protects patients by creating an independent Health Advocate to advise them and help them resolve complaints.  Hello accountability and transparency!  Mr Horne balked a third time.

Whistleblowing and independence.  Notice a trend here?

Mr Horne’s objections

Mr Horne says he accepted these recommendations “in principle” only because they may require legal changes and consultation.  Let’s talk about consultation.  He’s accepted, without qualification, five other recommendations that require consultation so the consultation excuse is a red herring.****

All that’s left in Mr Horne’s quiver is the excuse that these recommendations may require legal changes.  This is rich coming from a majority government that slammed through the .05 drunk driving legislation and throttled the public’s right to be heard under the new Alberta energy regulations.

By requiring doctors to report abuses of the system and protecting them from reprisal, Recommendations 1 and 2 give our doctors “air cover”.  They can speak out, notwithstanding their confidentiality agreements and are protected from bullying if they do so.

Recommendation 7 gives the public access to better healthcare by creating an independent advocate who will help them navigate through the healthcare system and resolve their complaints.   This is a stark contrast to Mr Horne’s proposal for a puppet Health Advocate who is paid by and reports to the Health Minister.

Where’s the harm in that?

What’s next?

Mr Horne had a choice.  He could have accepted Recommendations 1, 2 and 7 without qualification, in accordance with Justice Vertes’ belief that they give healthcare professionals “added safety” and “increase transparency and public confidence in our healthcare system.*****

Instead he reverted to form and is working feverishly to maintain iron-fisted control over the healthcare system.  No doubt a smoke and mirrors “consultation” process and legislative tweaks purporting to implement these recommendations will be announced soon.

Then Mr Horne can bury the Vertes’ Inquiry Report in the same place that the PCs stashed the AHS Governance Report and the Groeneveld Flood Mitigation Report…and call it a day.

The Inquiry cost $7 million.  Countless brave witnesses came forward to tell their stories.  We deserve better.

*Government News Release, August 21, 2013 

** Calgary Herald, Aug 22, 2013, A3

***Recommendation 1 would amend section 3 of the Health Care Protection Act;  Recommendation 2 would amend the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act

****Recommendations 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12 all require consultations among one or more of the government, Alberta Health Services, other sectors of the health care system and the public.   

*****Inquiry Report, pp 116, 153, 154

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

“Show me the money”: The Alberta Medical Association Channels Jerry Maguire

Posted on August 18, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

Dr Giuffre & Minister Horne

To borrow a phrase from Renee Zellweger in the movie Jerry Maguire, Dr Michael Giuffre had me at hello.  He battled Health Minister Fred Horne for months, finally getting the Health Minister’s signature on the AMA Agreement settling doctors’ compensation.  We were pleased.  Tensions eased…

…and then Dr Giuffre sent the President’s Letter of August 8, 2013.

In this letter, Dr Giuffre sets out three new focus areas for the AMA’s 2013-14 Business Plan.  Two of these were old hat;  helping physicians stay in good health and encouraging them to take up leadership roles is not new.  However Dr Giuffre added a third focus called “Financial Health”.

How does the AMA propose to improve a physician’s “financial health”?  Well, in addition to assisting them with practice management and providing access to specially priced financial products (again, old hat) there was this little nugget:  “The AMA assists and supports members in maintaining their financial health. This includes negotiating with payers to ensure fair compensation”.    

That’s where you lost me Jerry Maguire.  I’m so far gone you’ll never get me back.          

“Financial Health”

The AMA already settled doctors’ compensation; not just for the time period covered by the 2013-14 Business Plan but right out to 2018.  The doctors agreed to a pay ladder:  a 0% increase for 2011 to 2014, a 2.5% increase for 2015 and 2016 and a cost of living increase for 2017 and 2018.

So what does “negotiating with payers to ensure fair compensation” mean?  What’s left to negotiate?  Who’s the payer?  Fair compensation for what?

The answer lies buried in the legalese of the AMA Agreement itself.  (Yes, that would be the very same agreement I just congratulated Dr Giuffre for signing…silly me.)

There are two scenarios in which the 0% to 2.5% plus inflation pay ladder does not apply.

Over-utilization

Any additional costs arising from over-utilization of the healthcare system due to population increases or other factors beyond the physicians’ control are the responsibility of the Alberta government, specifically Health Minister Horne.

Ms Redford & team

The government will have two courses of action.  It can increase the healthcare budget and make additional payments to the doctors or if this is politically unacceptable, it can hold the line and allow Alberta’s healthcare system to deteriorate further.  Three guess which way Ms Redford and her crew will roll.

Concierge Clinics on Steroids

There is nothing in the AMA Agreement to prevent Primary Care Networks and Redford’s new Family Care Clinics from offering “uninsured” medical services. ”* Furthermore, the agreement states that the 0% to 2.5% plus inflation pay ladder does not apply to uninsured services so physicians are free to overlay the “concierge clinic” model onto Primary Care Networks and the yet-to-be-developed Family Care Clinic model and charge whatever they’d like for uninsured services.

The AMA will, as it so delicately puts it, negotiate with the “payer” (in this case the government, which in reality is us) to ensure that physicians receive “fair compensation” for their services.

It’s difficult to regulate concierge clinics in their existing form.  It will be next to impossible to regulate concierge clinics disguised as Primary Care Networks or Family Care Clinics.

You had me at hello

Everyone wants more money.  Lawyers charge high fees, investment bankers are ridiculously expensive and CEOs of major corporations are grossly overpaid.  We thought doctors were different.  And guess what, we’re not alone in this view.

The Canadian Medical Association, like the Alberta Medical Association, bills itself as an advocate for physicians and patients.  It assists doctors with practice management, education, wellness and wealth management.  It’s an effective advocate for patients with the federal government and individual MPs.

In May 2012, the CMA approved a policy statement with respect to the accountability of physicians to society and the healthcare system.**

Dr Francescutti

“In general, society and the health care system in Canada provide physicians with financial compensation, with a significant degree of clinical autonomy as reflected by professionally-led regulation, and with a high level of trust.  In some cases, physicians are also provided with a facility in which to practice and with access to necessary resources such as MRIs and operating rooms.  In return, physicians agree to make their own individual interests secondary in order to focus on those of their patients, and they agree to provide necessary medical services.” 

The concept that a physician should focus on patients first and his own interests second got a boost this week with the appointment of the quirky Dr Louis Francescutti (he’s an amateur stonemason) as president of the Canadian Medical Association.

Dr Francescutti is patient oriented.  He doesn’t like the fact that the healthcare system is designed for the convenience of doctors and health care practitioners, but not their patients.  “There’s no disease I know of that shuts down at 5 pm and opens again at 9 am the next morning.”***

He’s asked doctors to renew their passion for their profession.  “What unique value do physicians bring to the system, do they love what they’re doing, do they love the systems they work in and are they prepared to be held to a higher standard than in the past?”****

Or, like the AMA, are they simply dreaming up new ways to “show me the money”.

Dr Francescutti, you had me at hello.

*AMA Agreement, Sections 3(a)(i) and 3(b)(v)

**The Evolving Professional Relationship between Canadian Physicians and Our Health Care System:  Where Do We Stand? p 9

*** http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/02/01/doctors-too-self-interested-to-put-patients-first-royal-college-of-physicianssurgeons-president/

****Calgary Herald, Aug 15, 2013, A8

 

Posted in Alberta Health Care | Tagged , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Capturing the Youth Vote: Got (Black) Milk?

Posted on August 11, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

Politicians have been fussing about the youth vote for decades, primarily because it’s virtually nonexistent.  But if they could replicate Black Milk’s social media strategy they’d deliver the youth vote all wrapped up in a pair of Galaxy tights (and Question Period would get a whole lot more entertaining as well).

Okay, a little background.  Black Milk is a small clothing manufacturer based in Brisbane Australia.  It was started when James Lillis pawned his CD player to buy a sewing machine (??) and taught himself to sew leggings (men:  think super tight brightly coloured stretchy pants).

Galaxy Purple Leggings

In five years Black Milk mushroomed into a global enterprise selling dresses, swimsuits, skirts, tops, body suits and of course leggings, and along the way, created a global community of women united by a love of nylon.

Black Milk customers have pressed Lillis to use the Black Milk community to “shine a spotlight” on a troubling social issues.  But Lillis will have none of it.  He has no social agenda.  “I started this fashion label so I wouldn’t have to get a real job, not to change the world”.      

So here’s the real question:  If a fashion designer whose sole purpose is “to sell tight clothes to awesome ladies” magically creates a community prepared to tackle pressing social issues, why can’t a politician do the same thing?    

Develop a personal relationship  

Let’s face it; most politicians on social media are boring.  Their facebook pages, tweets and blogs run the gamut from self-promotion to outraged indignation at what the other guy is doing.  Youth voters tune out.  It’s time to learn from the master.

Lillis uses social media to foster a personal relationship with his customers (who he’s nicknamed “sharkies”).  This takes effort and not a small dollop of courage.  He asks sharkies for advice.  I’m thinking of doing bicycle pants, what do you think?  He throws himself at their feet and begs for mercy when their orders are delayed or poorly executed.  He’s honest, breezy and irreverent.

The sharkies (who love their nickname by the way) feel they have a voice and their opinions matter.  They’re loyal customers.

Interactive social media is not the one-way blast of partisan information that appears on Premier Redford’s twitter feed and facebook pages—citizens gamely raise concerns which hang in limbo unanswered and ignored.

Mayor Nenshi

Note: Calgary Mayor Nenshi is the exception to the rule.  He interacts with Calgarians all the time.  Here’s my favorite exchange:

  • @banthedan  What’s the point of the ridiculously expensive bridge again?  What does it signify?
  • @nenshi: I think it’s used to cross the river

Bottom line, social media is a forum for feedback.  If a politician doesn’t want feedback then he should forget about social media (and the youth vote) and settle for sending us letters that end like this:  We appreciate you taking the time to write and are happy to bring your comments to the attention of MLA Alison Redford now please go away.  (Sorry, I added that last bit).

Develop a community

Lillis created an opportunity for his customers to connect in ways that had nothing to do with Black Milk making a profit.  He allowed customers to set up sub-communities based on shared interests in fitness, pets, alternative lifestyles, geography and commerce—the BSS (“buy, sell, swap”) community is essentially a secondary market allowing customers to sell BM apparel to each other without going through the company.

Sharkies are free to post self-portraits and comment on the posts of their friends provided they don’t break Ellis’ 10 Commandments (of which there are only 8).  The first commandment is “be sweet to each other”.

Sounds mushy but it’s good business because it builds cohesion and ensures that snarky commentators won’t drive others off the site.  This lesson is learned too late or never by politicians and activist bloggers.  A recent example was the attempt by the Broken City group to develop an all-party progressive alternative to the PCs.  The effort fell to pieces when the “you’re an idiot” crowd elbowed the sincere participants off the stage.

Face to face

Here’s a gutsy move.  Lillis came out from behind the veil of social media to meet sharkies face to face.  These “meet-ups” cement relationships developed on-line and contribute to the feeling that Black Milk is “more like a family than a company”.

Meeting face to face is risky because it reveals one’s true personality.  What if Lillis is a jerk?  What if the so-called community is a sham?  In Lillis’ case the risk is worth the gamble.  He’s just as irreverent in person as he is on line.

Most politicians are loath to reveal their personalities.  They hide behind well crafted speeches and carefully staged photo ops, but would never pop up on Youtube singing “I love my white shoes.” (Calgary’s Mayor, who else?)

Social Media and Politics

Politicians climbed on to the social media band wagon because their campaign advisors told them that a blog, twitter account and facebook page would capture the “youth vote”.

What they failed to recognize was that social media is just another tool.   It achieves nothing unless it’s used by a politician prepared to interact with the community.      

Young voters are attracted to politicians with integrity and humour.  A politician who exemplifies these characteristics will capture their trust.  Trust coupled with social media creates political power.

Lillis is a smart entrepreneur who uses social media very effectively to grow his business.  There is no reason why a smart politician acting with integrity couldn’t achieve his political goals by taking a page from the Black Milk play book.

Got (Black) Milk, anybody?

My sincere thanks to all the sharkies who responded to my daughter (also a sharkie) who asked: why is Black Milk such a success.  You rock! 

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

A(nother) Trip to the Mayo: The Power of Seamless Connections

Posted on August 4, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

For the record, the Soapbox family is not crazy about going to the US for medical care, but our eldest daughter (let’s call her “Missy”) has some serious health issues (I blame it on Mr Soapbox’s gene pool) and her GP refused to book the necessary appointments with specialists because—get this—“there were too many cooks in the kitchen”!

photo IMG_0260_zps0e14fcb1.jpg

The Doctors Mayo

So we followed in the footsteps of Mr Soapbox and our younger daughter “Mini” and set out for the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

We got off to a less than auspicious start.  I kicked over Missy’s hot chocolate in the airport lounge, our plane was late and they lost our luggage.  Luckily Ms Soapbox and Missy are easy going souls and rolled with it.  OK, Missy rolled with it, Ms Soapbox fretted until the bags showed up at midnight.   

After an initial hiccup (Missy’s “intake” doctor was on vacation and appointments that should have been pre-booked were not) her cardiologist sorted out her appointments overnight.   These ranged from baseline tests to assessments with a number of specialists.

Some specialists were able to see Missy within a couple of days, but others, specializing in more complex cases, were booked 3 weeks out.  Not good.

That’s when we became “checkers”.

The “checker” system

Thousands of patients flow through Mayo each day.  Most have appointments scheduled outside of the “anticipated” window of five to eight business days.  This wreaks havoc with hotel reservations, return flights and life in general and would be a colossal problem but for the fact that the minute they get their appointment schedules everybody starts shifting them around. 

photo IMG_0229_zps0d4127f8.jpg

A checker’s beeper

The Mayo booking process allows a patient to “check in” with a doctor hours or even days in advance of their scheduled appointment and hang around in the waiting room in the hope that the doctor can squeeze them in.  Sounds goofy but it works.

In Missy’s case this meant foregoing breakfast (twice) on the chance the doctor could see her—he did.

Too many cooks?

Missy’s cardiologist was stunned by our GP’s belief that involving specialists would result in “too many cooks in the kitchen”.  The Mayo model is based on the collaborative efforts of a number of specialists working as a team to deliver the best results for the patient.

His comment:  “There’s no such thing as too many cooks in the kitchen”.  The real challenge is to ensure that all of the “cooks” are communicating effectively.  That’s where Mayo Apps come in.

 Mayo Apps

All of the Mayo doctors work off the same page (literally) and have done so for decades.

About 100 years ago Dr Henry Plummer, one of the original partners, created the “unit record”—a single file that records everything related to a patient’s care—physician notes, lab reports, surgical dictations,  correspondence, appointment schedules, X-rays, ultrasounds, CT and MRI scans, echocardiograms — you name it, it’s all in the unit record.

In 2005 the unit record went electronic.  Not only is the record instantly accessible to all of the doctors who record their findings immediately after each appointment, it’s instantly accessible to the patient who’s downloaded the Mayo app to her iPhone or iPad.  A sign of trust given the US is one of the most litigious nations in the world.

The Mayo app is secure as human nature will allow…you guessed it, the waiting room is abuzz with conversations like this:  Wife:  It looks like you’re leaking protein. Husband:  I’m leaking what???  

What Alberta can learn from Mayo

Harvard economist, Jeffrey Sachs says “Good health requires seamless connections among the family doctor, specialists, hospitals, diagnostic units and others.  Instead we have a horrendous maze of separate organizations, insurers, and providers, each on its own accounts and information systems. The result is waste, fraud, and abuse of hundreds of billions of dollars each year.”*

Mr Sachs was talking about US but the “horrendous maze” is springing up in Alberta as well, particularly since the government agreed to underpin private concierge clinics and diagnostic clinics with a publicly funded safety net.

It doesn’t have to be this way.  We can develop a healthcare system powered by collaboration and “seamless connections” by learning from those who do it best.

“Patients First”  

The Mayo’s motto is “The needs of the patient come first”.  This is expressed in its priorities which include Allow time for questions.  Anticipate the patient’s needs and Go the extra mile. 

The Alberta Medical Association also has a motto—Advocating for Patients First—but fails to take it to heart.  The “one ailment per visit” rule allows doctors to pad their incomes at the expense of their patients.  GPs abandon their patients once they’re put on the wait list where they may languish untreated for years.

Trust me, a patient knows when her doctor is merely giving lip service to “patients first” or going the extra mile.  It’s time for the AMA to step up.

Electronic Medical Records

Alberta Health Services has been working on a province-wide Electronic Health Record (EHR) system since 1999.  By 2010 roughly 2,600 physicians or 50% of the “eligible community physicians” were using the system.**Very little progress has been made since then.

Missy spent days schlepping from MRI clinic to X ray clinic to specialists’ offices gathering up her medical records because her GP was not electronically connected to anything.        

The Mayo Clinic converted 6.2 million patient files (some dating back to 1907) to electronic records in 2005.  It continues to update its files by 350,000 patients a year (the system now contains 8 million electronic patient files).  Surely Alberta Health Services can finish the job it started in 1999 and convert the records of 3.9 million Albertans to an electronic system accessible to all including the patient.

What the Soapbox family learned from Mayo 

photo IMG_0245_zps1da23c09.jpg

Bronze Door Plummer Building

We learned something we already knew but couldn’t access in Alberta:

  • Medicine is a personal service.  It begins with listening to the patient and creating a relationship based on trust.
  • Human health is a complex thing.  Specialists see what they are trained to see; when they collaborate their collective efforts are far superior to their individual contributions.
  • This is the 21st century.  It’s easier to collaborate electronically.

And on a personal note, after living together in a hotel room for eleven days, Ms Soapbox and Missy learned that they don’t need much personal space as long as there’s something half decent on TV.

*“How Not to Make America Great” by Jeffrey D Sachs, Esquire April 2013, p 86

** Government of Alberta Backgrounder dated May 14, 2011

Posted in Alberta Health Care | Tagged , , , | 12 Comments

Advice from the “Old White Guys”: Alberta Progressives Listen Up!

Posted on July 28, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

The Republicans may hold the secret to the progressives’ return to power…yes, seriously!

Let’s start at the beginning…

Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson in their glib little book The Big Shift argue that Western Canada, particularly Alberta, is responsible for the tsunami of support that carried Stephen Harper to victory on May 2, 2011.

To be clear, Bricker & Ibbitson didn’t say that Mr Harper’s success rested solely on Alberta’s shoulders (thank God).  Ontario’s suburban middle class (area code 905) and immigrant voters helped push Mr Harper over the top.

Mr Harper

Bricker & Ibbitson proclaim that Mr Harper will be ensconced at 24 Sussex Drive, like a barnacle on a rock, for a long, long time unless the progressives adopt his winning strategy;  namely recognize that Canada made a seismic shift to the right and cater to it.

Apparently Mr Harper’s 4 point strategy (reduce taxes, balance the books, promote the military and crack down on crime) resonates with the New Canadian Right in a way that the progressives’ passé policies never will.  Taxpayer-funded private healthcare and private education, here we come!

The “big shift” to the right would be the death knell of the progressives (federally and provincially) if it were true.  But it’s not.  Whew!

A Big Shift …Really?

Bricker & Ibbitson’s conclusion rests on demographic and polling data.  This neatly sidesteps a fundamental flaw in their analysis—the youth vote was grossly underrepresented.  Only 39% of the 18 to 24 year olds showed up compared to 75% of the 65 to 74 year olds.*

Instead of sifting through the ashes of unreliable polling data (remember the polling fiascos in the Alberta and BC elections?) and extrapolating the results to the burgeoning immigrant population, it’s time to gaze into a new crystal ball.

As luck would have it I happen to have one right here.   Voila!  The report of the College Republicans National Committee entitled “Grand Old Party for a Brand New Generation”. 

Enter the Republican Party…Yes, seriously!

After the disastrous 2012 US election, the Republicans embarked on a soul searching mission to figure out how to capture the youth vote by broadening the GOP’s appeal beyond the “old white guys”.**

The CRNC set up six focus groups comprised of young voters from both ends of the political spectrum.    Their responses revealed not just how they viewed the Republican party, but more importantly, how they viewed themselves.    

Young voters wanted to be seen as intelligent, hard working, caring and open-minded.  Their feedback was replete with comments that no doubt knocked the socks off the “old white guys”.

For example:

  • A “social safety net” program is necessary to get people back on their feet quickly
  • Gays should be allowed to marry
  • Reduce the defence budget and use the savings to increase the education budget
  • Increase taxes on the wealthy  (Take that Mitt Romney!)

The CRNC responded to this feedback with five recommendations, one of which was to develop a reputation for being “caring” by linking economic growth and opportunity to “caring” policies.

“When it comes to the issue of caring, the Republican Party can push back [on the Democrats] by promoting a narrative of economic growth and opportunity, with policies behind it that clearly show how those who are down on their luck or disadvantaged aren’t left out.  If we don’t believe that Republicans are the “fend for yourself” party, then it’s time for us to explain why—and to show our work”.***

Note:  I’m not saying I believe the GOP has changed its spots, simply that the Republicans (of all people) finally figured out that young voters will not support a government that doesn’t care about its less fortunate citizens.

What we can learn from the Republicans

Bricker & Ibbitson got it wrong.  The progressives don’t need to become a “me-too” party that caters to the New Canadian Right.  That’s the purview of the “old white guys”.

Instead, the progressives need to understand the underlying message of the Republican’s report—young voters want to be perceived as intelligent, responsible, caring and open-minded and want to belong to a political party that exemplifies these qualities.   

Young voters have recognized that “it’s not all about me” and are prepared to vote against parties that are so stupid, uncaring, narrow minded and selfish that they’d destroy the social safety net in order to shave a few bucks off the austerity budget.   

Now here’s the catch.  In order to get back into power progressive parties need more than just the right progressive values.  In addition to being intelligent, responsible, caring and open-minded, the progressives need to be unselfish.  They will have to cooperate or even merge in order to communicate the message that “we really are all in this together”.

And if that’s not the definition of a democratic society I don’t know what is.

*Elections Canada Report, Estimation of Voter Turnout by Age Group and Gender at the 2011 Federal General Election, Apr 2012  p 7

** http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/05/rebranding-republican-party-young-voters

***Grand Old Party for a Brand New Generation” p. 86.       

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

The Home Care Consolidation Debacle: Fred Horne’s Mission Impossible

Posted on July 21, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

Like Tom Cruise in Ghost Protocol, Health Minister Horne is tearing through the building trying to stay ahead of the explosives he’s set to detonate.  The big question is will he make it out in time.

So far Fred has successfully blown up the AHS board, slashed the number of RNs by 200 and jeopardized contract negotiations with the United Nurses of Alberta—all the while amassing a $100 million surplus at AHS.

But his decision to “consolidate” Alberta’s home care agencies from 72 to 13 (with the majority of these being large Ontario based for-profit corporations) has infuriated seniors, unions, public advocacy groups, home care residents, their families and care givers—and they’re fighting back.

Why consolidate?  

Home care is care given to the sick, the frail, the elderly and the disabled living at home, in lodges or supportive living facilities.  It includes help with dressing, bathing, meals and medication.  It is an intimate relationship that evolves over time between caregivers and their clients.  It’s not just a business.

So why is the government switching from the traditional non-profit home care model to for-profit corporate providers?  Premier Redford says the switch will “…reduce administration costs so we can continue to put resources into the system.”*   

I beg your pardon???  Transferring $371 million in taxpayer dollars to large Ontario-based corporations will save the province a mere $18 million in administration costs.

May I remind the Premier that her own Health Minister pooh-poohed the suggestion that the $100 million AHS surplus was worth getting excited about—it’s equal to three days of operating costs–that makes $18 million equal to a half a day of op costs, right?

Maybe it’s not about the $18 million…

Stephen Lockwood

At the June 6, AHS Board meeting, Stephen Lockwood, AHS Chair, said: “we will find more than $200 million in cost-savings this year…I’m not suggesting that this will be easy or that in some areas it will not have an impact on patient care.  We will closely monitor and make changes as needed…they are a necessary part of putting more resources into continuing care and other community care including home care, more dollars into new capacity while eliminating unnecessary costs…we will reduce overhead administration costs by at least $25 million over the next three years.”

With that the AHS Board approved two home care service contracts—one with CBI Home Health for $235,707,695 and the other with Bayshore Healthcare for $136,105,945—to provide home care services for Calgary and Edmonton for the next five years.

Just so we’re clear, I’m all for cost reduction, and I’m not assuming that the entire $200 million in cost savings this year and the additional $25 million reduction in administration costs will come from the consolidation of home care;  what I don’t understand is how the AHS will achieve any cost savings by entrusting home care to private companies whose raison d’etre is to increase profits?

Where are savings and who gets the benefit       

Calgary Family Services, a non-profit that’s provided home care for 68 years, lost its $8 million contract to Bayshore and Revera Home Health, even though it bid the AHS set price.  That means that Bayshore and Revera came in with low-ball bids.  Calgary Family Services CEO Sue Mallon says:  “Having managed this program for a long time, I know there isn’t a lot of money in it.  A reduction has to come out of somebody”* 

Care to guess who that “somebody” might be?  Let’s ask the City of Leduc.

Leduc has provided home care for 34 years.  It lost the AHS contract to We Care, Canada’s largest privately owned home care company.  Leduc’s 37 caregivers got the boot.  We Care said it would take some of them back if they took a 40% pay cut, lost their benefits and traveled from Leduc to Edmonton to pick up their cheques and medical supplies.**Oh, and We Care does not pay mileage.  Just think what they would have offered if We Didn’t Care! 

The only way a service company can maintain or increase profits is to decrease its costs.  This is achieved by paying sub-standard wages to employees who are directed to provide fewer services;  for example reducing the number of baths or the time spent in a home visit.  Sorry no time to chat, this is a business relationship. 

The Hue and Cry

Now this is where it gets interesting.  In a classic David and Goliath showdown home care residents, their families, caregivers, seniors and healthcare advocates of all stripes are fighting the consolidation through press conferences, demonstrations, letters to the editor and letters to their MLAs.  The opposition parties, particularly the NDP, rallied to the cause…and poor Minister Horne is becoming “increasingly frustrated.”***

Janet Davidson

He threw Janet Davidson, the AHS Official Administrator, into the breach.  Ms Davidson (whose job title should be “The Fixer”) set up an independent appeal panel comprised of lord knows who, which reversed some of the contracts granted to the for-profits.  From a legal perspective this sounds like a breach of contract and a breach of tender law, but hey, it’s Fred. 

By a strange coincidence all the contract reversals are in Edmonton which picked up 2 new NDP MLAs in the last election.

Mission Impossible?

Dumping Alberta’s elderly, sick, frail and disabled into the arms of for-profit corporations in order to save $18 to 200 (?) million is a heartless short term trade-off which guarantees higher costs in the long run because residents who receive sub-standard home care will quickly move into more expensive auxiliary and long term care facilities.

Public outcry has forced Mr Horne to partially reverse this ill-conceived initiative.  In order to ensure Mr Horne’s consolidation mission becomes mission impossible, please attend the Public Interest Alberta rally to be held on Sunday September 8th at 1:00 on the steps of the Legislature (assuming it’s still standing) and other locations around Alberta.  Check out the PIA website for more information.

Tom Cruise can escape an exploding building because Ghost Protocol is a movie.  But in real life no one can outrun public fury, not even Fred Horne.

Cue the Mission Impossible theme song…da, da, da-da…

Many thanks to Carol Wodak for her assistance in providing background information for this blog.

* Calgary Herald Online, June 8, 2013 

**Leducrep.com, July 11, 2013

***Edmonton Journal July 9, 2013 

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , | 29 Comments

The Auditor General’s Report: Alberta’s “Enron” Moment

Posted on July 14, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

God bless Merwan Saher, Alberta’s Auditor General!  He grabbed the government by the scruff of the neck and gave it a shake for dragging us into the abyss of “Enron” accounting.  Sadly, the government refuses to budge and opaque financial reporting will continue.

Merwan Saher has been a government auditor for 33 years.  He was promoted to Auditor General in 2010.  It’s his job to audit every ministry, department, fund and agency in the province.  He’s like E. F. Hutton—when he talks; people listen.

The Auditor General took a dim view of the government’s decision to change how it would present Alberta’s financial results saying that the new format makes it difficult for Albertans to hold the government accountable for its spending*.

This is an E. F. Hutton moment—Albertans need to sit up and take notice. 

How bad is it, really?

Think Enron.  I’m serious. 

Enron’s collapse was the result of corporate greed, overly complex financial structures and confusing and misleading financial reporting that allowed Enron executives to hid billions of dollars of debt.  Analysts and shareholders had no idea what was going on until Enron imploded.

Fast forward 13 years to the Auditor General who pored over Mr Horner’s financial statements and said “I can tell you, the very best minds in this office have found it challenging”.**

The “challenge” (audit-speak for “a complete and utter mess”) arises because the government passed a law allowing it to carve up the budget into three pieces, an operating budget, a capital budget and a savings budget.***

With a stroke of the legislative pen, Finance Minister Horner has the power to turn straw into gold—under the new law the $114 million deficit for 2011-12 would have been reported as a $2.5 billion surplus.

Mr Saher says, with typical understatement, “The difference between these two ways of looking at life is substantial”.  No kidding!  Without actually tallying up the pluses and minuses the auditors (let alone we little people) can’t tell whether the province rich or hanging by a thread.

Finance minister Horner justifies this move to greater opacity by saying that’s how corporations do it.  Really???

In for a penny, in for a pound    

Securities regulators are constantly passing regulations to enhance transparency.  For example, corporations must use a consistent set of financial reporting methodologies so that shareholders can compare the company’s financial performance year over year.  And if a corporation decides to change its methodology mid-year it must set out a reconciliation table so that shareholders can see how the corporation performed year over year—no hiding in the weeds of accounting bafflegab. 

Finance Minister Horner had an opportunity to make his new methodology transparent by including a reconciliation table in his financial statements.  He chose not to do so.

When the Auditor General pointed out that a comparison between last year’s budget and this year’s budgets would be difficult to understand, let alone explain, Mr Horner agreed to provide a reconciliation table—next year.  The one year delay troubled the Auditor General and is of great concern at a time when the government is slashing public services on the basis of tough economic times.

So yes, corporations split out their operating and capital budgets, but they provide a trail of bread crumbs to get their shareholders from A to B.  If Finance Minister Horner wishes to model his financial reporting after corporate financial reporting, he must adopt all of the corporate disclosure protocols, not just the ones that suit his fancy at a particular point in time.  Sorry Minister—in for a penny, in for a pound.     

Have we learned nothing from Enron?

After the collapse of Enron it took the SEC eight months to pass legislation to protect shareholders and employees from the perfidy of Big Corp CEOs and CFOs by requiring increased transparency and accountability.

After Alberta’s “bitumen bubble” blew a hole in Ms Redford’s rosy fiscal forecast, it took the Alberta government two months to pass legislation making it legal for the government to abandon the financial reporting standards of Peter Lougheed and replace them with the financial reporting standards of Alison Redford, resulting in the ludicrous situation where it’s unclear whether Alberta is sitting on a deficit of $114 million or a surplus of $2.5 billion! 

It took the Auditor General just two months to cull through reams of paper which were “exponentially more complicated”** than they were last year to figure out that something has gone horribly wrong with Alberta’s financial reporting.

The Auditor General has the last word

The Auditor General Report contains many brilliant statements.  Here’s my favourite: “Government accountability allows Albertans to decide whether the government is doing a good job.  They can compare the costs and benefits of government action:  what it spends, what it tries to do…and what it achieves…”

If the government sees fit to pass legislation that prevents its citizens from comparing actual and budgeted financial results, its citizens would be justified in concluding that the government has decided it will no long be held accountable for its financial management.

Such a government has lost the right to govern.       

*Report of the Auditor General July 2013   

**Calgary Herald, July 11, 2013, A14

***Fiscal Management Act

 

Posted in Politics and Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 23 Comments

Health Minister Fred Horne: The Puppet Master

Posted on July 7, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

The Google search engine connecting a reader to the Soapbox spat out this query:  “Is Fred Horne as stupid as he looks?”  Yikes!  That’s bit harsh.  But I must admit the question had crossed my mind (without the reference to Mr Horne’s looks—Ms Soapbox tries to maintain a modicum of decorum on the blog).

Short answer?  No, Mr Horne is not stupid.  Quite the opposite.  He’s a master at manipulating the media to achieve his objectives.  Consider what he’s accomplished over the past month.

The Puppet Master

It started when Mr Horne whipped the public into a pitchfork frenzy over the AHS Board’s decision to pay “bonuses” to senior AHS staff and then sacked the AHS Board for refusing to breach its contractual obligations.

Unbeknownst to us, Mr Horne effectively signed off on the “bonuses” at the same time he was condemning the recalcitrant AHS Board—his Accountability Statement attached to the 2012-2013 Annual Report and Financial Statements indicating payment of $637,000 in at-risk compensation is dated June 19, 2013. 

Apparently his newly appointed Official Administrator managed to do something a flotilla of lawyers were unable to do—she convinced him that the payments had to be made.  (Or, and this is more likely, he knew the lawyers were right but used the bonuses as an excuse to oust the AHS board and pick up some brownie points with the public along the way).   

Mr Horne press released his about-face late Friday, June 21, in the middle of the worst flooding disaster in Alberta’s history.  Well executed from a PR perspective. 

The Puppet Master Goes Silent  

A good public relations consultant knows when to engage the media and when to go to ground.  Mr Horne’s communications team pulled a master stroke when it learned that the AHS accumulated a $106,391,000 surplus for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.

Instead of shouting it from the rooftops, the normal PR response to a good news story, Mr Horne said absolutely nothing.  The Financial Statements* simply materialized on the Health Department’s website.

Why the radio silence?

The 2012-2013 Annual Report and Financial Statements

It’s very simple really.  By acknowledging the existence of the $100 million surplus Mr Horne exposes himself to some very difficult questions.

Where did the surplus come from?  Did the AHS discover innovative ways to deliver healthcare?    If so the AHS executives deserved their bonuses and the AHS board should not have been fired.  If not, did the AHS engage in a needless slash and burn program?

Heather Smith, president of the United Nurses of Alberta, articulated her concern:  “If they’re posting a surplus of this size, why are they continuing to cut services to some of the most vulnerable citizens of Alberta?” **

Mr Horne responded in true PR fashion.  The $100 million surplus is negligible, three days of operating costs at the most.  However viewed from another PR perspective, the $100 million will pay for 1000 full time RNs for a full year.***  Over to you Fred.   

Landmines for the Puppet Master

Ms Soapbox’s antenna shot up when it became apparent that the Puppet Master did not want Albertans looking at the “good news” Annual Report (nothing to see here ma’am, move along), so she spent a couple of hours plowing through its turgid prose.  She has many questions.  For example:

In these tough economic times why is Mr Horne’s ministry over budget by $16,040,000?  And why did these overages come out of the two departments focused on strategy?  (p 97). Come to think of it, what exactly did the Department of Policy Development & Strategic Support and the Strategic Corporate Support departments do with $69.2 million?

Given the chaotic state of healthcare in Alberta—privatization by stealth, queue jumping, out of control wait times and flawed governance–why don’t we just scrap these departments and save ourselves the $69.2 million.   That would be enough to hire an additional 700 RNs for another year.

And while we’re on the topic of mega payouts to AHS executives…Who is Andrew Will, Executive VP and Executive Lead Transition, and why was he paid a whopping $1,267,000 last year?  Mr Will’s title suggests that he was in charge of transitioning.  Apparently he “transitioned” himself right out of a job and walked away with $738,000 in severance (p 163).  If Mr Horne was prepared to breach 99 AHS employment contracts to avoid paying $637,000 why didn’t he breach this one as well?

The Puppet Master Exposed

Dr Maybaum, a leading patient advocate, has harsh words for Mr Horne and the firing of the AHS Board.  He says that without the AHS Board to act as a buffer “…we now have a situation in which unbridled political interference, lobbying and toadying to cronies can run unchecked in AHS …I cannot underscore and emphasize enough that every Albertan, regardless of political affiliation must wake up to this Orwellian reality.” ****

Albertans can no longer let the government pull the wool over their eyes by manipulating the media.  Mr Horne’s attempt to bury the 2012-13 Annual Report to avoid accountability for massive layoffs in a time of surplus and cover up the gross ineptitude of his ministry is cause for termination.  Let’s call him on it.  It’s time to send an email to Ms Redford Alison.redford@assembly.ab.ca with a copy to Fred Horne fred.horne@assembly.ab.ca  demanding Mr Horne’s resignation.

This is your wake-up call.

* http://www.health.alberta.ca/newsroom/pub-annual-reports.html

**UNA Press Release July 3, 2013 

*** David Climenhaga, commenting on Whitemud Citizens for Public Health Facebook page

****Vital Signs July 2013

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 17 Comments

We’re all in this together–sort of. The Alberta Flood 2013

Posted on June 30, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

Nobody said it better than the Dairy Lane Cafe and the Blue Star Diner in a sunny (literally) little poster announcing that on Canada Day every penny received from sales and tips would be donated to flood relief.  The blue banner “We’re All in This Together” epitomized the can-do attitude of Calgarians, indeed all Albertans, who pulled together to assist the victims of the worst flood in Alberta’s history.

Why do people donate? 

Economist Lise Versterlund offers two theories of charitable giving: (1) the “public benefit” theory–an altruistic desire to help without wanting anything in return, and (2) the “private benefit” theory which refers to the uniquely personal reasons a person donates such as a need for social recognition or the desire to share one’s good fortune.

Whatever the reason 84% of Albertans made charitable contributions in 2010.  And guess what, in times of trouble, people donate even more.

Why do people give more to victims of natural disasters?    

Volunteerism and charitable contributions hit all time highs in the aftermath of a natural disaster.  Why?

Psychologist Hanna Zageflkast attributes the surge in generosity to the “Just World Belief”.  Apparently we have an inherent need to believe that the world is just.  If the world is “just” and some people still need charity, then it’s somehow their fault.  They’re lazy, they’re alcoholics or drug addicts, they didn’t study hard enough in school, etc.***Yes, this is a simplistic and incomplete explanation because it doesn’t address the root cause of alcoholism, addiction or the inherent inequality of society.  Dr Zageflkast doesn’t say she shares the Just World Belief, just that others hold it.

Natural disasters are not part of the “Just World”.  They are acts of God (this statement alone could take us off on an interesting tangent).  Consequently we attach no blame to a hapless souls caught in the path of an overflowing river.  We see them as innocent victims.  We perceive them as making more of an effort to help themselves and are prepared to reward them for being proactive.

What happens when the “choice” to donate turns into an “obligation” to fund?

I applaud Premier Redford’s decision to provide relief to all Albertans affected by the flood, but I’m deeply troubled that her promise is unconditional and question her decision not to impose a cap on rebuilding every home damaged or destroyed in the flood.

Here’s why.  Disaster sociologist Timothy Haney points out that in the past North American floods destroyed low-income neighbourhoods;  middle and high-income neighbourhoods were untouched.  Not so in Calgary where affluent neighbourhoods like Elbow Park were flooded along with lower-income neighbourhoods like Bowness and Montgomery.

Mr Haney says that this makes the “dynamics of recovery” markedly different from past floods because “the people most affected will have significant resources at their disposal”.****

I’m sure they do.  The tough question is this:  Are high-income homeowners prepared to use their own “significant resources” to rebuild their million dollar homes given Ms Redford’s unconditional promise that Albertans’ tax dollars will underwrite the cost of rebuilding?

We’re all in this together…but maybe not to the same degree

The Alberta situation is complicated.  There are no provincial regulations in place to prevent new construction in flood risk areas.  There is no flood insurance available for people who’ve purchased homes in flood risk areas.  The homes in flood risk areas are owned by high, middle and low income homeowners.  Given these facts it would be harsh to penalize everyone whose homes have been damaged or lost in the flood.  But that doesn’t mean that Alberta taxpayers should fund the reconstruction of a Carrera marble ensuite bathroom in Elbow Park.

In my view Premier Redford’s one-size-fits-all solution works as the foundation for charitable flood relief program, but it’s utterly misguided for a tax based flood relief program.

The government says the reconstruction payments will come from “cash on hand”.  This readily available cash was not “on hand” a week ago to maintain, let alone improve, the quality of Alberta’s healthcare and educational services.  Presumably it will come from the $3.5 billion contingency fund.  In any event it doesn’t matter—it’s all tax dollars.

Given that the $1 to 5 billion reconstruction plan is funded by tax dollars, I as a taxpayer, wish to make the following alternative proposal:

  1. Reconstruction payments should be capped at the average house price for Calgary, High River, Canmore, or wherever the flood damage occurred.  Using the Calgary example, the maximum payout would be $480,000 (the average house price in 2012). Homeowners whose houses were worth more would be expected to make up the balance or downsize their expectations.
  2. The government should implement, on a going-forward basis, the recommendations in the Groeneveld report which included a ban on disaster recovery payments to homeowners who built new homes in flood risk zones.
  3. The government should develop a flood insurance scheme similar to the hail insurance program provided pursuant to the Agricultural Financial Services Act so that homeowners who live in flood risk zones will be able to purchase flood insurance as a safeguard against future flood damage.

We’re all in this together is the right motivator for charitable contributions, but when scarce tax resources are being diverted to rebuild the homes of the wealthy it’s every man for himself.

* “Why do People Give?” in Richard Steinberg and Walter W. Powell eds., The Nonprofit Sector, 2nd edition, Yale Press, 2006

**StatsCan Website http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2012001/t/11637/tbl04-eng.htm

***http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110114082432.htm

****Edmonton Journal Online, June 28, 2013


Posted in Disasters, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 32 Comments

The Alberta Energy Board: What the PC Government learned and failed to learn from Machiavelli

Posted on June 23, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

On the same day that the Health Minister unceremoniously fired the Alberta Health Services board for refusing to revoke $3.2 million in bonuses, the Energy Minister announced the appointment of the Alberta Energy Board.

Hmmm.  I wonder whether in a year or two this newly minted board will find themselves pilloried in the press as utter incompetents or hailed for valiantly balancing resource growth with strong environmental commitment…

Famous posthumous portrait of Niccolò Machiave...

…and my mind drifted to Machiavelli’s landmark treatise, The Prince.  The fundamental premise of The Prince is that successful governments must be willing “to act ruthlessly to attain their ends.”

This begs the question: what are their ends?  Serving the public interest?  Serving corporate interests under the guise of serving public interests?  Staying in power at all costs?  Machiavelli would argue it’s the latter.  And his little book The Prince provides a how-to manual on how to succeed.

The PC government might not have The Prince at its bedside table but the creation of the Alberta Energy Board under the new Responsible Energy Development Act indicates that it’s somewhere close at hand.

The new Alberta Energy Regulator and its Board

The government “streamlined” the regulation of the oil, natural gas, oilsands and coal industries by creating the Responsible Energy Development Act (REDA) and folding the regulation of these industries under one regulator, the Alberta Energy Regulator.  The new Regulator is responsible for all regulatory functions previously performed by the Energy Resources Conservation Board as well as the regulation of public lands, water and the environment.*

Now here’s the Machiavellian bit.  The government used REDA to erase the Regulator’s independence.  This was achieved with three clever statutory changes.

One:  REDA gave the Energy Minister the power to issue “directions” to the Regulator to ensure its work is consistent with government priorities and policies and the Regulator must comply.**

If the Regulator refuses to comply, its Commissioners will be fired à la the Health Minister’s recent firing of the AHS board (who incidentally were not under a statutory obligation to comply—a convenient example of what happens when you cross your Minister).

Two:  REDA created a brand new board to be “responsible for governance and the general direction of the Regulator’s business and affairs.”***Gerry Protti, the Chairman of the Board (more on him later) said this “corporate-style board” will set the direction for the organization’s business, approve regulatory change (??) and set performance expectations for the Regulator.*

Excuse me?  The Regulator is a quasi-judicial body with broad powers including the ability to take away an individual’s property rights.  Its predecessor, the Energy Resources Conservation Board was answerable only to the courts.  Why, pray tell, must this Regulator be answerable to a corporate-style board of directors who are statutorily obligated to take their directions from a single shareholder—the Minister of Energy? ****

What’s next?  A corporate-style board to oversee the activities of the Court of Queen’s Bench?

Three:  By replacing the Energy Resources Conservation Act with the new and improved REDA, the government vapourized Albertans’ ability to challenge industry applications on the grounds that they’re not in the “public interest” (fancy that).

Ken Hughes Energy Minister

Public interest has become a matter of policy to be decided behind closed doors by the Minister of Energy and industry representatives.  If they decide it’s in the public interest to exploit Alberta’s natural resources at breakneck speed, so be it.  The Minister will pass this policy on to the Regulator as a directive and the Regulator must comply.  Forgive me for being uneasy about this.  It’s just that the Energy Minister does not have my phone number on speed dial and won’t get my input.

Who’s running the show?

The government website proclaims that “Under the Responsible Energy Development Act, the new regulator will operate at arm’s length from the Government of Alberta, under the direction of an appointed board of directors and chief executive officer.”  And who might that be?

Let me introduce the Chairman of the Board:  Mr Gerry Protti.  Mr Protti comes to us from his post as president of the Energy Policy Institute of Canada, a non-profit organization “concerned about Canada’s energy future.”  The Institute is supported by Encana, Canadian Oil Sands Limited, Suncor and Shell.  Previously Mr Protti was the VP of Corporate Affairs at Encana and a founding member of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), the industry’s lobbying arm.*****

Jim Ellis & Ken Hughes

Let me also introduce Mr Jim Ellis, the CEO of the Regulator.  Mr Ellis was the Deputy Energy Minister prior to accepting this position.  Mr Ellis sees his role as “balancing the need for consistency and regulatory certainty while bringing new environmental regulatory responsibilities into the [Regulator].”**

To be fair Mr Ellis’ comments indicate he sees a need to balance the interests of the industry with the government’s responsibility to protect the environment.  One can only hope that his concern for the environment isn’t eclipsed by Ministerial directives to the contrary.

The energy industry thought it had died and gone to heaven.  The rest of us thought we’d just died…

…then my mind drifted back to Machiavelli’s The Prince (you knew I’d get back there eventually).     

The Machiavellian Outcome

In Machiavellian terms Albertans live in a “hereditary principality”—the Prince’s family has ruled the population for over 40 years.  Hereditary principalities are very stable provided the Prince doesn’t neglect long established institutions or fail to adapt his policies to major events.

And there’s the catch. 

By enacting REDA the government shredded the checks and balances necessary to ensure that Alberta’s resources are developed with an eye to the public interest.  Machiavelli would call this a “neglect of a long established institution”.

Furthermore the ferocious protests over oilsands development demonstrate an increased desire for environmentally sustainable resource development.  Machiavelli would characterize this as a “major event” and would point out that appointing an industry insider to chair a corporate-style board that oversees a quasi-judicial regulator, creates  less transparency not more, and is a “failure to adapt”.

If Machiavellian principles hold, the PCs are looking down the gun barrel of regime change.  The next election will usher in a new prince who will (hopefully) review the lessons of the past and recognize that Albertans will no longer tolerate the “corporatization” of their government.

Let’s face it;  it may be career suicide to cross a Minister, but it’s political suicide to cross Machiavelli.

*Daily Oil Bulletin June 17, 2013

**Responsible Energy Development Act, section 67

***Government News Release June 12, 2013

****Thanks to Jill Browne for pointing this out.

*****Huffington Post Online May 7, 2013

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