A $6 Billion “Bitumen Bubble”…Really?

Posted on January 27, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

It’s the “bubble’s” fault.  According to Alison Redford a “bitumen bubble” triggered a nose dive in oilsands crude prices resulting in a $6 billion shortfall in Alberta’s resource revenues and leaving Albertans $6 billion short for the upcoming budget.*  Ouch!

English: Reflection in a soap bubble. Français...

Is this true?  Is the “bitumen bubble” the culprit?  What is a “bitumen bubble” anyway?

Here’s the scoop on “bubbles”.  An “economic bubble” develops when the price of product skyrockets because investors are speculating about its price in the future—they’re convinced that the price will rise.  This “irrational exuberance” has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the product.  The price expands on thin air and like a soap bubble, bursts with no warning.  *Poof* Prices collapse, investors jump out windows and financial chaos reigns.

The history of economic bubbles, starting with the tulip mania bubble right through to the dot.com bubble and the US housing bubble, demonstrates that bubbles are a very bad thing. 

Now compare the economic bubble scenario to Premier Redford’s “bitumen bubble” rationale.  There is no “irrational exuberance” driving up the price of bitumen.  The so-called “bitumen bubble” did not burst because sanity somehow returned to crude oil markets causing prices to plunge.  Quite the contrary.  Crude oil producers know that bitumen is undervalued, not overvalued, in the market place by simply looking at the the difference between the WTI price and the Western Canadian Select price.

To put it bluntly, Redford’s “bitumen bubble” is a myth, a clever PR hack’s attempt to explain or obscure (who knows with this government) a much more serious problem.

English: Cold refined bitumen

Cold refined bitumen (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What we’re experiencing is a market dislocation caused by (1) Alberta oilsands producers oversupplying the market with bitumen, (2) a lack of pipelines to take this bitumen to the US Gulf Coast and Asia and (3) increased competition  from Bakken (North Dakota) producers who are moving into Alberta’s US and Eastern Canadian markets.

This market dislocation will continue until producers develop new markets and lay down new pipelines to serve them.  Don’t expect this to happen any time soon.

When Premier Redford dropped the bitumen bubble bomb her implicit message was this:  Brace for 6 billion dollars of collateral damage to education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.   Equally troubling was how she delivered this message.

On Wed Jan 23 she sent an email to PC party members (“As loyal party supporters, I wanted to let you know first”) foreshadowing her speech but essentially saying nothing.  On Thur Jan 24 she told the media that contrary to past practice, they would not be receiving advance copies of her 8 minute speech and furthermore they were prohibited from reporting on the speech for a full hour after she’d given it.** How much time does it take to digest 8 magnificent minutes? 

The speech, like the “letting you know first” email, was as light as air and burst upon contact with reality.

It contained only two pieces of new information.  One was the confirmation that the deficit was indeed the $6 billion number that the media had been floating for weeks.  The second was the announcement of the first annual Alberta Economic Summit, a vehicle for business leaders and academics to have yet another “conversation” about the budget.  This is the third “conversation” the government has had with Albertans about its budget.  Last year Ron Liepert chaired an invitation-only roundtable and the government kicked off the Dollars and Sense survey project.  Apparently they still haven’t gotten it right.

The 8 minute speech was both vacuous and bizarre.  At times, the Premier was defensive—it wasn’t her fault that the government missed its 2012 oil price forecast, a bunch of analysts had made the same mistake.  (She failed to mention that these analysts continued to update their forecasts throughout the year as oil prices fell, while the government waited until the fourth quarter to raise the alarm).

The Premier’s efforts to cosy up to Albertans with references to her father and her daughter Sarah did nothing to support her allegation that Alberta has world class healthcare and quality education, and the use of multiple jump-cuts after she finished each sentence was jarring (it did however allow her to correct any flubs along the way).

Forgive me, but I’m uneasy.  The Premier’s “state of the budget” address, starting with a catchy but fallacious reference to a “bitumen bubble” and ending with the “we’ll get through this together” pitch tells me that the government plans yet another round of austerity cuts without making any effort to re-think the structural problem (its continued reliance on volatile resource revenues) that got us into this mess in the first place.

We could wait patiently for another four decades while they figure it out…or we could show them the door in the next election and elect someone with creative ideas and more fiscal sense.

English: Soap bubble reflects the sky

I’m all for bursting the PC’s bubble and starting fresh with a new government.  What about you?

*Premier’s Address to Albertans, Jan 24, 2013

**Calgary Herald, Jan 26, 2013, A9

Posted in Economics, Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 21 Comments

Drs Love and Boswell, I Presume?

Posted on January 20, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

When Mr Stanley tracked down Dr Livingstone on the shores of Lake Tanganyika he greeted the doctor with the now famous phrase “Dr Livingstone, I presume?”  Dr Livingstone replied “Yes, I feel thankful that I am here to welcome you”.  Dr Livingstone was thankful but very ill; still he refused to leave Africa until he found the source of the Nile.  Unfortunately he died before achieving his goal.

Henry Morton Stanley meets David Livingstone i...

Henry Morton Stanley meets David Livingstone in Ujiji, 1871. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As I plowed through the transcripts of the Preferential Access (Queue Jumping) Inquiry, I was struck by the testimony of two intrepid physicians—Drs Love and Boswell—who like Dr Livingstone refused to give up their search for justice until they’d reached their goal.  Unlike the unfortunate Dr Livingston, Drs Love and Boswell were successful.

Note to reader:  from this point forward you’re going to meet a lot of doctors…stay with me.    

Dr Love is a gastroenterologist and site chief at Foothills Medical Centre.  He sees patients at the University of Calgary Medical Centre and the Forzani & MacPhail Colon Cancer Screening Centre (CCSC).

Dr Boswell is a general practitioner who performs pre-assessments at CCSC.  She’s married to Dr Love.      

In 2010 Dr Love heard rumours that patients from the Helios clinic, a private facility providing concierge medical service to well heeled patients, were being treated differently than the 14,000 people on the CCSC waiting list (2454)*   

He was troubled that a patient rated “moderate priority” had been booked for a colonoscopy four days after referral.  The usual wait time for a “moderate priority” case is 10 months.  Other than her file being tagged “as per Dr Bridges” (2444), there was nothing to indicate an urgent priority, other than perhaps a referral letter from her Helios physician, Dr Caine, that indicated a relationship between him and Dr Bridges (remember Dr Bridges, he figures prominently in this story) and the fact that the patient was leaving for her winter home in Mexico in two weeks (2463).

Dr Love paid a visit to the Helios clinic and was treated to a tour by Dr Caine, who described Helios as a “reward for the philanthropic community of the University of Calgary”.  Dr Love’s reaction:  “it’s not really charity if you get a reward” (2450).  He tightened CCSC procedures and asked Ms Barbara Kathol, an executive at Foothills Hospital, to speak to Dr Rostom, the medical director and boss of CCSC.

The Kathol/Rostom conversation had an impact and the rumours of queue jumping died down…only to resurface in 2011.  This time the concern was raised by Dr Love’s wife, Dr Boswell, who noticed that the Helios patients were moving through the queue more quickly than the rest.  After investigating she learned that the Helios charts were colour coded and booked through a special booking clerk (Olga).

Dr Boswell raised her concerns at a meeting with Dr Rostom, CCSC boss, and his colleague Dr Hilsden.  They “kind of looked at each other and Dr Rostom said ‘This is not a hill we want to die on’”(2485).

At that point the intrepid Dr Boswell took matters into her own hands.  She called the Helios clinic from her home phone and asked how to get a patient into the clinic.  She was “grilled” by the receptionist and was so “spooked” that she hung up (2487).

Drs Love and Boswell took their concerns to Dr Swain, the head of gastroenterology at the University of Calgary and Foothills Hospital.  Dr Swain is a quirky fellow who describes himself as a “clinical scientist…80 percent of my time, I spend with mice” (2385)

While the practice of flagging a Helios file had subsided, there was still a major problem at CCSC.  It appeared that Dr Bridges (remember him, the “as per Dr Bridges” note on the file of the patient going to Mexico?) was booking patients on to his own list.  This gave Dr Bridges an opportunity to accelerate his own Helios patients at the expense of CCSC patients.

Dr Swain took the concern to Ms Kathol (she’s the executive that Dr Love sought out originally—clearly a woman with ethics and courage).   Ms Kathol took the matter up with Dr Rostom, the CCSC boss, who issued a strongly worded memo warning against this practice.

So why didn’t anyone confront Dr Bridges directly?  Dr Swain sums it up in a nutshell:  Dr Bridges is a very powerful man and one of the most significant people in the Faculty of Medicine (2397).

He’s the head negotiator for the alternate funding plan (AFP) between the University, the government and Alberta Health Services—AFP pays the salaries of all of the academic physicians (2398).

He has friends in high places and is a director of CCSC with a voice in who gets reaccredited each year.  The loss of accredition would result in a “significant financial loss” to doctors who would no longer be allowed to perform colonoscopies at CCSC (2399).

And as if that wasn’t enough, Dr Bridges was Dr Rostom’s first boss at CCSC.  Their friendship dates back to their medical school days.

So in the words of Dr Swain, you’d need a lot of self-confidence to complain to Dr Bridges about Dr Bridges.

Aren’t we lucky that Drs Love and Boswell have the courage to “die on this hill” by fighting the Helios expedited list and testifying about it at the Inquiry instead of staying silent?  It’s the only way we’ll ever get to the front of the line.

* All references are to page numbers from the Preferential Access Transcript.  

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 14 Comments

When “The Duchess” says jump, you jump! Sheila Weatherill testifies at the Queue Jumping Inquiry

Posted on January 13, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

Has the public inquiry into preferential access (queue jumping) into healthcare been a colossal waste of time?  Not on your life!

The inquiry created a window, rather like that in the cannulated cow, into the byzantine and sometimes Machiavellian antics of our MLAs, the ministry of health, the government-controlled Alberta Health Services (and its predecessor health regions) to see how they responded to Albertans desperately seeking healthcare for themselves and their families.

Ahh, where to start…?  Well, how about Sheila Weatherill, or The Duchess as she’s known in some circles.

Cover of "The Duchess"

Cover of The Duchessin some circles?

Sheila was the CEO of Capital Health (Edmonton region) until it was rolled into Alberta Health Services (AHS).  She picked up a cool $3.2 million in severance,* breezed through the revolving door of Tory patronage, resurfaced on the AHS board of directors (surprise) and then abruptly resigned in the wake of the Merali expense scandal.

At the queue jumping inquiry Sheila described a convoluted “back channel” protocol that was available to VIPs.  To be fair to Sheila she didn’t call it this.

Here’s how it worked.  A VIP (a “prominent person”, a financial donor, a celebrity, an MLA, an MLA’s constituent, or a member of a VIP’s family, staff, or entourage) would place a call directly to Sheila, the CEO of Capital Health, to let her know that they (a) were having difficulty getting treatment at a facility in her jurisdiction, or (b) would be admitted shortly to a facility in her jurisdiction, or (c) were, heaven forbid, stuck in the ER in a facility in her jurisdiction, or (d) disagreed with the clinical advice they’d received from a facility in her jurisdiction.

Sheila got right on it and made a phone call.

She characterized her calls as one of two types:  The first was the “navigational” or “advisory” call to help the VIP find his/her way through the morass of healthcare services.  She provided this service notwithstanding the countless individuals like Lynn Redford who were employed by the Capital Health Region to provide exactly the same service.

The second was the “heads up” or “awareness” call in the case of a VIP with “extraordinary privacy issues”. She provided this service notwithstanding the fact that the patient could be admitted under an alias if security or confidentiality were an issue.

Like a spark running along a lit fuse, Sheila passed the confidential information about the VIP to Michele Lahey, her Chief Operating Officer, or Deb Gordon, a VP who reported to Michele. (1057)**

The Duchess was blissfully unaware of what happened next.  Lahey and Gordon did not report back because Sheila “had full confidence that they would know what to do with that information” (1061).

So what did they do with that information?  Guess.  Yep, they made a “context” call to a senior executive at the facility, often the executive on call.  They told the exec on call that Sheila needed information; or that Mr VIP was going to be admitted or that Mr VIP was a donor who’d raised scads of money for the hospital or that Mr VIP’s spouse was worried about her husband who was in considerable pain and stuck in their overcrowded ER.  They asked: “Can you just check and see how he’s doing?” (753).

The executive on call would touch base with the front line staff to check on these patients and relay the information back up the chain to Sheila (who you’ll recall denies requesting feedback).

The front line staff thought this protocol was disruptive and annoying.  In the case of the VIP stuck in ER, the exec on call directed the triage nurse to check on the patient and bring in an ER physician to determine address his pain issues.  Yep, that would be disruptive.

Nevertheless, this level of intrusion was necessary because, in the words of Brigitte McDonough, a senior operating officer at the University Hospital, who reported to Deb Gordon, who reported to Michelle Lahey, who reported to The Duchess, “…it was very well known that when Sheila wanted something, you jump” (797). 

The big question is what did Sheila Weatherill hope to achieve?

Sheila says the purpose of her calls was to ensure the facility was aware that a VIP was coming so that it could factor this information into “their general knowledge of what’s happening in their facility.  There would be no expectation, no direction given, no expectation of any extra service.  That’s the role of physicians and clinicians to decide.” (1063).

So why are senior executives ordering triage nurses to pull in ER doctors to check whether a certain patient’s pain is manageable?

I’m confused.  And so is Judge Vertes, the Chairman of the inquiry.  He asked The Duchess a number of questions.  If hospitals have procedures in place to deal with privacy concerns and every patient is dealt with the same way, what makes a patient’s privacy concern “extraordinary” to the point where it requires a call from Sheila Weatherill?

Sheila’s response?  The patient would be more recognizable “…and it was – and it was – was a prior – was private and so –“… at this point she spluttered to a stop (1144).

Sheila Weatherill states that she “has no information” indicating that her phone calls resulted in a particular patient receiving expedited or preferential care (1130).

My concern is this: in a relationship where there is a power imbalance between the CEO of Capital Health who writes the pay cheques and the healthcare providers who work for her, there is no such thing as  a “heads up” or “courtesy” call.  There are simply “strings attached” calls.  Unfortunately these “strings” required healthcare providers to grant preferential access or preferential treatment to certain Albertans at the expense of others.

The fact that Sheila Weatherill and her staff failed to recognize this is disheartening.

How will we ever eradicate preferential access to healthcare if the MLAs, government bureaucrats and AHS executives don’t recognize that they’re providing it in the first place?

*http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=a0049288-afe5-4971-8414-b5933497123a

**Numbers in brackets refer to page numbers in the inquiry transcript.

Here’s my very own “heads up” or “awareness” note to you:  The inquiry into preferential access to treatment is brimming with fascinating tidbits of information.  Stay tuned.

 

Posted in Alberta Health Care | Tagged , , , , , , | 13 Comments

The Summons (!!)

Posted on January 6, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

“You’ve got mail!  It’s a letter the Alberta Department of Justice.”  Mr Soapbox solemnly passed me the envelope.

Yikes!  It’s the PC thought police!  I ripped it open and found…a Summons for Jury Duty.

Groan, this is even worse than the PC thought police!  In typical Scarlett O’Hara fashion I tossed it on top of a stack of mail.  I would think about it tomorrow.

Ten “tomorrows” later I remembered the Summons.  The first thing I realized was that I was supposed to fill out the Juror Certification Form and return it to the Jury Management Office within five days.  Great, I’m 5 days late and liable for a fine of up to $1000 and/or one month in jail. 

Cover of "12 Angry Men (50th Anniversary ...

Cover of 12 Angry Men (50th Anniversary Edition)

The second thing I realized was that I (together with criminals and politicians) was excluded from jury duty because I’m a lawyer.  Yippee! 

The third thing I realized that I wanted to serve on a jury; not just to collect a whopping $50 a day plus expenses or to see what the other jurors were wearing (jurors must refrain from wearing extravagant, informal or distracting clothing (stripper gear?) or to experience the drama of being sequestered with a jury a la 12 Angry Men;  I wanted to participate in the effective functioning of the justice system.

Assuming I could serve on a jury, would I have made the cut?

The prosecutor and defense counsel have the right to challenge any juror “for cause” for the reasons set out in the Criminal Code, including the delicately worded concern that “a juror is not indifferent between the Queen and the accused.* 

The prosecutor and defense counsel are also allowed a number of peremptory challenges to reject prospective jurors without explanation.  They get 20 challenges in a case of high treason or murder, 12 challenges if the accused is facing a sentence of five years or more and 4 challenges for an offense with a lesser sentence.*

The decision to use a peremptory challenge is tricky because the lawyers have very little information about a juror other than his/her name, residence and profession.  Sometimes a lawyer may ask a juror if he has a racial bias or has been influenced by pre-trial publicity, but that’s about it.

So jury selection boils down to the lawyers’ gut instinct and quirky biases.**

Some defence lawyers avoid engineers, accountants, well-dressed men over 50 and blue-collar workers because they’re thought to be narrow minded and prone to convict. Some prosecutors avoid teachers and social workers for fear that they’re “bleeding hearts”.

Eddie Greenspan, the well known criminal defense lawyer who (unsuccessfully) defended Conrad Black, says this is poppycock.  “… if you pick the first 12 jurors, you’re probably not going to do much better than if you start applying these nonsensical…rules.”  

When I was a law student I spent a summer at the Crown Prosecutor’s office.  The highlight of the summer was a rape case—a woman alleged that she’d been raped by her neighbour—the prosecutor asked me and a fellow law student to assist him at the trial.

The prosecutor walked the woman through her evidence while the accused sat terrified and as still as a stone in the prisoner’s box.  There was clear evidence of intercourse.  The critical question was: did she consent?  Her testimony was unequivocal:  No.

Just before defense counsel started his cross examination he passed a glass of water to the accused.  Remember the water…it’s important.  Under defense counsel’s cross examination it became obvious that these two knew each other very well.  They were both married and the two couples socialized with each other most weekends.  Drinking was a major part of their entertainment.

On the night of the alleged rape, the woman invited the accused over for a drink.  Her husband was working late; his wife was not available.  Somehow they ended up in bed.  She wasn’t sure how they got there but she was pretty sure she hadn’t consented.

The jury box in the Pershing County, Nevada, C...

The jury box (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now this is where the water comes in.  When the accused accepted the water glass from his counsel he set it down on the edge of the prisoner’s box.  As he reached for the glass to take a sip of water he noticed a water stain on the wooden barrier.  Clutching his sleeve he carefully wiped it away and held the glass in his lap for the duration of his accuser’s testimony.

The defense counsel finished his cross examination and it was time for the judge to instruct the jury—the prosecutor must prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The jurors’ decision must be unanimous, etc.  With that the jury was sent away to deliberate.

The prosecutor guessed that the jury would return quickly and it did.  The accused stood to hear the verdict—Not Guilty.  His eyes filled with tears.  He hugged his wife who was also crying and who’d been in the courtroom every day of the trial.

The prosecutor turned to me and my fellow law student and asked:  What do you think?

We both thought it was the right verdict and we were very relieved the man wouldn’t be sent to prison as a convicted rapist.

In Canada, unlike the US, the lawyers are not allowed to “poll” the jury to find out why they decided the way they did so I never found out whether the factors that influenced me also influenced them.  All I know is that I didn’t believe the woman when she said she had not given her consent and there is something about a man who carefully wipes away a water stain when he’s on trial for rape.

The serendipity of that moment struck me.  Defense counsel hadn’t set it up;  there was no guarantee that the jurors would catch it or put any stock in it; it just happened.

If something as innocuous as a glass of water can tip the balance between freedom and incarceration, then surely Eddie Greenspan is right—it is impossible to pin down what kind of juror will acquit or convict.  And furthermore every qualified Canadian must be given the opportunity to serve on a jury—it’s the only way to ensure that an accused will be tried by a jury of his peers.

Which leads me back to where we started:  Should lawyers be excluded from jury duty?

*Criminal Code, RSC, C-34, sections 634 – 638.

**Reference:  http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/516779–the-inexact-art-of-jury-selection

 

Posted in Crime and Justice | Tagged , , | 30 Comments

Ode to the Smack Down Chocolate Orange – with apologies to the poet John Keats

Posted on January 1, 2013 by susanonthesoapbox

John Keats’ poem Ode on a Grecian Urn was a flop when it was first published in 1819, largely because of the last two lines:  Beauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

English: John Keats by Joseph Severn 1819. Oil...

John Keats by Joseph Severn 1819. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The criticism was virulent.  Josiah Conder said:  “That is all that Mr Keats knows or cares to know.  But till he knows much more than this, he will never write verses fit to live.”*  Poor Mr Conder, his lack of prescience is immortalized in Wikipedia forever.

I hadn’t given much thought to Keats or to the Ode for that matter–other than to wonder why it was an ode on an urn and not to an urn–until today.

You’ll recall that in my Christmas blog I complained about Calgary’s lack of chocolate oranges (the kind you smack down on a countertop with a satisfying thwack!) and resigned myself to ordinary chocolates and marzipan pigs.

Well guess what.  Today a heavily-padded, bubble-wrap envelope landed on my doorstep—an express post from my dear friend Liane.  Liane and I met in Toronto when we were in our twenties.  We immediately became fast friends and kept in touch notwithstanding the Soapbox family’s moves all over western Canada and the eastern US.  A steady stream of letters, cards and emails topped off with an occasional visit here and there kept us current on all the major events in each other’s lives.

We shared the joy of children growing up and the heartache of parents growing frail.  We celebrated birthdays—Liane is a year and 2 months older than me, but hey, who’s counting—and supported each other through life’s difficult moments.  Our friendship continues to endure.

And now I know why…it’s the smack down chocolate orange and all it symbolizes.  Just as Keats’ Grecian Urn is a symbol for poetry, Liane’s chocolate orange is a symbol for what it takes to keep a friendship alive.  It takes time to find a chocolate orange, wrap it in red tissue paper, stuff it and a delightful card into a bubble-wrap envelope and send it by express post to a friend two time zones away.  And it takes a puckish sense of humour to consider doing it in the first place.

So before I go into the kitchen and smack down the chocolate orange–dark chocolate, not milk, because Liane knows that I think milk chocolate is insipid–I’ll leave you with this thought (I’m sure Keats won’t mind me taking liberties with the Ode and no one cares what the critic Conder thinks, he missed the biggest literary event of the 18th century) :

Friendship is truth, truth is friendship.  And that is all any of us on earth need to know.

Liane, Howell, Simon and Nora;  the Soapbox family thanks you!

*Wikipedia, Eclectic Review, Sept 1820

Posted in Celebrations, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 18 Comments

Alberta: Poised on the Fiscal Cliff. Again!

Posted on December 30, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

The Alberta Progressive Conservatives are in deep trouble when the only PC making any sense is Ron Liepert (yes, that Ron Liepert, Alberta’s former finance minister and one man wrecking crew).  Mr Liepert says it’s time for the government to consider all of its options to dig out of from under a $3 billion deficit.  

Ron Liepert

Ron Liepert (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mr Liepert was reacting to Premier Redford’s “read my lips—no new taxes, no new levies” game plan to deal with the spectacularly underfunded 2013 budget.  In his opinion “ you box yourself in by saying ‘This is off the table, that’s off the table’.  And then when the sh—t hits the fan, you don’t have many options left.  I just think Albertans are prepared to have that discussion”.*

I agree.  But first we need to understand what happened and how a budget projecting a small surplus morphed into a $3 billion deficit.

Over to you Finance Minister Horner:  “We have a situation here that is growing faster than anyone predicted, in the sense that the market access is causing us to back up even faster than we thought because of the new production numbers in the United States, because of the delay in the United States recovery and because they are our one customer for the majority of our business.”**

In other words: Wow, we didn’t see it coming!   

Really?  Was this “situation” (as Mr Horner quaintly puts it) truly unpredictable?   

Thirty percent of the revenue required to fund our 2013 operating and capital expenses comes from energy revenues—royalties, taxes and land sales. The natural gas market collapsed three years ago…no joy there, and no surprise either.

The crude oil side is experiencing a perfect storm—surging oilsands production and constrained pipeline takeaway capacity flowing to one customer (the USA) who’s rapidly becoming energy self sufficient.  No wonder the industry is pushing hard to access Asian markets via the Northern Gateway and Transmountain pipelines.

But neither Northern Gateway nor Transmountain had been approved, let alone built, when Ms Redford unveiled her pre-election budget and it was nothing short of naive (or more likely pre-election politicking) to assume that oilsands revenues should be factored into the 2013 revenue requirements. 

The reality of the supply/demand imbalance is stark:  Alberta’s heavy oil is sitting at $55/barrel; significantly lower than the West Texas Intermediate price of $90/barrel and the Brent crude price of $110/barrel.  Consequently royalty payments and land sales revenue have plummeted.

Mr Horner’s statement that the “the situation” was “growing faster than anyone expected” implies that he was banking on something perhaps Ms Redford’s Canadian Energy Strategy, to lead the industry through this rough patch when it flared up as “expected” sometime in 2014 or 2015.

Thus far Ms Redford’s Canadian Energy Strategy has been a flop.  Instead of working with Premier Clark to ease the Northern Gateway pipeline through the thicket of regulatory and stakeholder concerns, Ms Redford alienated her.  Ms Clark responded with 5 demands that had to be met before BC would “approve” Northern Gateway.  Ms Redford reacted by throwing her toys out of the pram.

According to Andrew Potter, CIBC oil and gas equity analyst, the odds of Northern Gateway or Transmountain being built before the end of the decade have sunk to 50/50.*** 

Over to you Ms Redford…you have the floor:

English: Alison Redford campaigning for the 20...

Alison Redford campaigning for the 2011 PC Alberta leadership. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ms Redford is calm.  ”We’re experiencing difficult fiscal times just at the moment…please stand by…” 

No, sorry, that was cheeky, what she really said was “…but I think the framework we have in place allows us to manage with where we are—and so we will just proceed on that basis.”****

Framework…?  What framework?  It’s certainly isn’t the “fiscal discipline” framework set out in Ms Redford’s election platform where she promised (1) no new taxes, no cuts in services, (2) no deficits and (3) rebuilding the savings plan as a “shield against worldwide economic downturns”.

Ms Redford is holding firm on no new taxes, but we’re all justifiably skeptical about her promise not to cut services.  She’s broken her promise to avoid deficits and forsaken her pledge to rebuild the saving plan—the sustainability fund which sat at $6.3 billion on June 30, 2012, dropped to $5 billion by Sept 30—a $1.3 billion decrease in the space of 90 days.

What’s really pathetic is that Albertans have been to this movie before and we know it will end badly (like running with scissors) unless the government smartens up.

So as much as it pains me to agree with Ron Liepert on anything, it’s time to have a thoughtful conversation about increasing corporate and personal taxes, adding levies, adding a sales tax and perhaps most importantly, encouraging the upgrading of Alberta’s natural resources in Alberta.

These are not new ideas.  They’ve been raised by a number of smart people including Ms Redford’s mentor, Premier Lougheed, the world renowned economist Jack Mintz and the Premier’s Council’s (Shaping Alberta’s Future).  They urged the government to start acting like a real government, spending only what it collects in tax revenue without relying on resource revenue (which is four times as volatile as ordinary income) to underwrite 30% of the cost of public services

So why is Ms Redford stubbornly clinging to her “read my lips—no new taxes, no new levies” (non)strategy?

Perhaps Bernard Lewis, the acclaimed historian, has the answer:  “Those who are unwilling to confront the past will be unable to understand the present and unfit to face the future.” ***** 

The result?  Goodbye creative thinking and a fresh framework to radically change Alberta’s economic structure and free Canada’s richest province from the tyranny of yo-yo economics.  Hello 2013 deficit budget, the first of many more to come.  Pity.

*Calgary Herald, Dec 21, 2012, A4

**Daily Oil Bulletin, Dec 20, 2012

***Daily Oil Bulletin, Dec 18, 2012

****Herald Dec 21, 2012, A4

*****Notes on a Century, p 5 

 

 

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

Merry Christmas from the Soapbox Family

Posted on December 25, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

I love Christmas and the quirky Christmas traditions that have sprung up in the Soapbox household.

The tradition I love the most is me not making the turkey dinner.  I was banned from the kitchen years ago after the safety pin incident.  As newlyweds we’d invited my parents to dinner.  I’d pinned the turkey together with a safety pin and forgot to remove it before serving it to my Dad.  Poor man almost swallowed it.  ‘Nuff said! 

We have other delightful traditions…my youngest daughter and I tackle the majestic fake tree (it gives my older daughter hives).  We hang ornaments to the sounds of our “traditional” Christmas albums…the soundtracks from The Full Monty and the Australian classic Strictly Ballroom…a weird but lively choice.

Roy buys mince tarts from Safeway complete with little plastic sprigs of holly, but we won’t touch them.  We prefer those chocolate oranges that you smack down on the countertops but haven’t been able to find them anywhere this year.  No need to panic, we’ve got mounds of chocolates and three tiny marzipan pigs (apparently a Belgium tradition) to stuff into our sequined Christmas stockings (see below).

IMG_0125_zpsdeaa33ca

Christmas Eve is family time.  We have our traditional Christmas Eve dinner—take-out pizza and wings (yes, I know, we’re starting to sound like that family from Duck Dynasty) and hunker down to a rousing round of Rummikub (a combination of dominoes and mah-jogg).  My husband and two daughters are fiercely competitive and we all await the moment when the tile whisperer (youngest daughter) stares intently at the tiles and then swoops in to rearrange the entire table.  It’s imperative that we watch her every move because 9 times out of 10 she nails it but once in a while something goes horribly wrong and the tiles end up a real mess.

On Christmas morning I insist that the children, now in their twenties, meet me under the Christmas tree at 8 a.m. sharp.  I savour that karma moment when they beg for an extra five minutes of sleep.

Roy plays the Dolly Parton Christmas album (lord knows how she became a part of our Christmas tradition, not one of us likes country music), we give the dog his gift and then spend a delightful 30 minutes watching each other oohing and ahhing over presents that always seem to hit the mark (either that or the Soapbox family is very polite).

Roy spends Christmas morning preparing the turkey and an amazing variety of side dishes including a yam and apricot casserole we’ve enjoyed for decades.  Every few years he tries to jettison the casserole but we won’t stand for it…it’s tradition!!!

And speaking of tradition don’t anyone mention Turfurkey or Duckwocky or whatever that bizarre bird-inside-of-a-bird-inside-of-a-bird thing is.  It will never take place of pride at our table!

The highlight of Christmas morning is my phone call to my parents. They’re in their mid-eighties, spry and healthy and still living in their own home on the West Coast.  We talk about the family—which of my three sisters are coming to visit, when they’ll arrive, how long they’ll stay, where they’ll sleep and whether the grandchildren coming.  It’s comforting to know that my parents will be surrounded by family this Christmas.

Later in the day we’ll share Christmas dinner with close friends.  Sometimes we have British Christmas Crackers and try not to take each other’s eyes out by snapping them with too much gusto.  We put on our little paper crowns and regale each other with the perfectly awful jokes that are wrapped around the plastic toys (free) inside each cracker.

Then before you know it, the day is done, Christmas is over.  The tree is dismantled and put back in its box.  The gaudy sequined stockings are taken down, the German carousel music box is packed away and the Soapbox household returns to normal.

Merry Christmas and Seasons Greetings from the Soapbox family.  We wish you all the very best for 2013!

And for those of you who couldn’t find Ziggy in the Christmas tree last year we’re giving you another chance…this time with the lights on.

IMG_0119_zps7a8651d4

Posted in Celebrations | Tagged , | 21 Comments

Merry Christmas Florence Nightingale

Posted on December 23, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing, once said “No man, not even a doctor, ever gives any other definition of what a nurse should be than this –‘devoted and obedient.’  This definition would do just as well for a porter.  It might even do for a horse.  It would not do for a policeman”… and in Florence Nightingale’s world it would not do for a nurse either.

Illustration of Florence Nightingale

Think about it for a minute.  When you or I have a really bad day at work, we put it into perspective with the comment “nobody died”.  In fact that’s exactly how Health Minister Horne dismissed public criticism of yet another scalding incident in a government funded private care facility—“…in no case was it indicated that there was any serious harm done, nor did anyone die as a result of these errors”.*  What’s the big deal, nobody died.    

In a nurse’s world people die.  And if the nurse’s world is a seniors long term care facility the odds of somebody dying are high.

That’s why one of the guiding principles of Park Place Seniors Living, a private for-profit corporation providing seniors care, is to ”attract, hire, retain, develop and deserve the best people at all levels”.

Park Place owns 13 seniors care centres in BC and Alberta including the Devonshire Care Centre in Edmonton.  So how well is this vision/mission/principle working at the Devonshire?

Not well I’m afraid.  In order to “attract, hire, and retain…the best” Park Place is offering a compensation package that is about $9 an hour less than the package paid to RNs doing the same work at other seniors care centres (including some operated by Park Place) and at public health care facilities.

In order to demonstrate how much it “deserves”  the best people Park Place sent a message to the Devonshire residents and their families implying that if it paid the nurses the wages they were asking for it would have to reduce levels of care.**

Let’s not forget that Park Place cannot operate the Devonshire facility without registered nurses working on every shift.  It’s the law.  Let’s not forget that Park Place receives public funding (ie. our tax dollars) to subsidize its for-profit business model, which goes a long way to helping Park Place meet its financial guiding principles—minimizing financial risk and making sound financial decisions.

And yet, this inadequate compensation package is the best that Park Place can cobble together after a year of negotiating with the Devonshire nurses, all 15 of them.       

Florence Nightingale would never stand for it and neither will the Devonshire nurses.

On Dec 14, 2012 the nurses, who are members of the United Nurses of Alberta (UNA) Local 417, voted overwhelmingly in favour of strike action.   Three days later they could have given strike notice, walked off the job, thrown up picket lines in front of the Devonshire and disrupted Christmas for the seniors and their families.

But the Devonshire nurses chose not to do so.  Why?  Because when nurses say they care about people they really mean it. 

The Devonshire nurses had leverage.  What better way to put pressure on Park Place’s scrooge-like management than to take strike action on Christmas Day.  The BC Ferries union often “discovered” mechanical problems the day before a holiday weekend if contract negotiations were going poorly.  Some unions don’t give a fig for the public who are impacted by their actions.  Fancy that.

The United Nurses of Alberta are different.  Heather Smith, UNA President, sums it up like this:  “Every day our actions speak volumes about our intent and interest, not just in nursing but in working for all Albertans”. *** 

The willingness of UNA Local 417 to delay strike action until after Christmas demonstrates the nurses’ compassion for the Devonshire residents and their families.

But make no mistake; the Devonshire nurses in UNA Local 417 take their cues from Florence Nightingale, not the fictional Cherry Ames.  They will fight hard for a fair wage from a private corporation subsidized by tax dollars and bent on maintaining its profit margin at the expense of the nurses it employs.

Merry Christmas Florence Nightingale and UNA Local 417!  You have our unwavering support and admiration in the coming year.

Blog readers:  Honk if you agree!      

*Hansard, Nov 8, 2012, p 678

**UNA Media Release, Dec 18, 2012

***UNA Newsletter Dec 2012 

 

 

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

The Redford Government’s Descent into 1984

Posted on December 16, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

On Nov 21, 2012* the Redford government took Albertans to the threshold that divides the world of reason and accountability from Orwell’s 1984.  We’re teetering on the brink, trying to hack our way through the double-think, newspeak and historic revisionism that is the foundation of Finance Minister Horner’s 2013-14 budget.  Next spring it will all be over and most of us didn’t even see it coming.

No, I’m not totally unhinged…here’s what’s set me off.    

Redford’s government has been wrestling with the fact that Ms Redford’s election promise of a balanced budget (with a $500 million surplus) vaporized and will be replaced by a deficit that could balloon to $3 billion.  By anybody’s reckoning a $3 billion deficit is NOT a balanced budget.

But Redford’s government is not “anybody”.  Redford’s government is immune from the rules of logic.  Turn to Hansard, Nov 21, 2012 when the Opposition leader, Ms Smith, pressed Finance Minister Horner to admit that the 2013-14 budget would not be a balanced budget.

Now pay close attention to Mr Horner’s response.  It’s a fine example of the Orwellian use of language and logic.

He started with a statement of the obvious—Albertans elected the Tories to exercise sound financial management.  Sound financial management requires the government to use “all of the tools” that are available in the financial “tool box”.  Debt, like P3s and deferring payment to a future date “when it will cost more” (due to accrued interest) is no different than cash.  Debt is simply a tool in the tool box and one that the Redford government intends to use.

Mr Horner closed with a self-congratulatory flourish.  The financial management act (whatever that is) precludes the Minister of Finance from borrowing to cover an operating deficit and he intends “to adhere to that piece of the act” (oh good, he’s not going to break the law).  We will balance our budget.  We will have a savings plan, and we will have a capital plan.”

Mr Horner repeated his promise using even more Orwellian double-speak on Nov 28.**  I’ve applied an Orwellian decoder to help you understand what he really said:

“The simple truth of the matter (Orwellian heads up: you know you’re in big trouble when someone starts a sentence with “the simple truth of the matter”) is that when we bring forward the budget next year, it will have an operating plan, it will have a savings plan, it will have a capital plan (Orwellian heads up:  a “plan” sounds important but it’s nothing more than a forecast, every budget has to have one) because Albertans have told us that they want to have a home in the health care system, they want to have their kids have access to postsecondary education for their future, they want to be able to get to work on time, not congested, and they want to get products to market (Orwellian bafflegab: providing hospitals, schools, roads, and transportation channels is the government’s job).

“All of that will be in a balanced budget presentation for the ’13-‘14 year (Orwellian heads up:  “balanced” doesn’t tell you where the money is coming from—existing revenue or debt—all we know is that it’s coming from somewhere).  We have made that commitment.  (Orwellian rah rah).  The premier has told me that it will be done because it meets the vision that she has for this province when we have 5 million people in the province.  That’s what this government will do.”  (Orwellian question: did our population really jump from 3.5 million to 5 million overnight? Why didn’t Mr Horner acknowledge that oil and gas royalty revenues were less than expected and 30% of the budget is dependent on this highly volatile revenue source?  Oh wait, this was an election year budget…never mind).

Mr Horner’s budget speech leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Redford government is going into debt to fund capital spending.

All of this becomes even more poignant when you recall that in Oct 2011 Ms Redford called an emergency debate about Alberta’s place in the global economy and told the House that “Debt is the trap that has caught so many struggling governments.  Debt has proven the death of countless dreams.”*** 

A year later her finance minister told the House: Debt is no different than cash.  A $3 billion deficit budget is a balanced budget.

Welcome to 1984…a world ruled by doublethink – to know and not to know.  To be conscious of complete truthfulness, while telling carefully construed lies…to use logic against logic: to repudiate morality while laying claim to it.”****

*Hansard, Nov 21, 2012 p 909

** Hansard, Nov 28, 2012, p 1110

***Hansard,Oct 24, 2011, p 1154. 

****Allan Gregg Another View Sept 5, 2012

 

Posted in Economics, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 17 Comments

We are not the Borg!

Posted on December 9, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox
Alice Krige as the Borg Queen in First Contact

Alice Krige as the Borg Queen in First Contact (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Borg is an alien race that exists in the Star Trek universe.  Its sole purpose is to assimilate all other species, usually by force, into the “hive mind” in order to achieve perfection.

OK, hold that thought…

…now consider the recent debate over the Wildrose’s conduct in the House.  Some argue that the Official Opposition acted improperly, resorting to tantrums and mudslinging instead of following the “dignified” example of their esteemed colleagues across the aisle.

Poppycock!

A few facts to put this discussion into context:  the government holds legislative sessions in order to carry on the business of governing.  The democratic process allows the Opposition to hold the government and its individual ministers accountable by asking questions in Question Period.

Since “Question Period is a free‑wheeling affair, with tremendous spontaneity and vitality”* it’s a good idea to set some ground rules or there’d be blood on the floor.  Enter Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit, the editors of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice. 

The  Marleau-Montpetit rules governing Question Period are simple:  ask a question, be brief, seek information and keep the question within the administrative (ie not political) responsibility of the government or the Minister to whom it is posed.

Sounds easy…let’s test it with a question that’s been troubling WR Health critic, Ms Heather Forsyth  and the medical community for months—how much will Family Care Clinics cost and how are they going to be staffed?

Remember Family Care Clinics—Ms Redford’s last ditch election promise to create 140 of them to make healthcare more accessible?  I’m all for making healthcare more accessible, but as a taxpayer footing the bill I’d like to know why Family Care Clinics (FCCs) are a better solution than the 40 Primary Care Networks (PCNs) already in place.

Ms Forsyth “rose” in the House (I love how they “rise”) and asked Health Minister Horne a question:  what will Family Care Clinics cost and how will we staff them?  Her question met the Marleau-Montpetit criteria:  it’s a question, it’s brief, it seeks information and it’s within the Health Minister’s portfolio.

Minister Horne’s responded with hot air.** He waxed eloquent about the new Kaye Edmonton Clinic, a $484 million facility that will “work very closely with both primary care networks and family care clinics that are serving the capital region, staffed by competent, enthusiastic health professions who believe in the benefits of primary care for the communities they serve.” 

Okay, Mr Horne did use the words “primary care networks” and “family care clinics” in his answer, but his comment was hardly responsive.

Armed with FOIP-ed information she’d obtained from Mr Horne’s own department, Ms Forsyth pressed on.  FCCs will cost between $3 million and $5 million each;  the per patient cost will be $300 per FCC patient versus $65 per PCN patient and the doctors are worried that the government will scoop $700 million out of their compensation package to pay for them.

Mr Horne responded with sarcasm and obfuscation:  “…if the hon. Member wants to play with the dynamics of health economics, I leave that up to her… As the hon. Member knows, we’re spending over $181 million in support for PCNs today.  We’ve allocated a further $75 million in this budget and for the budget for the next two years to support family care clinics and other primary health care initiatives.  That adds up for us.”      

Does that add up for you?  By my calculations the government will fund FCCs and “other primary care initiatives” to the tune of $225 million over 3 years—which is $195 million to $475 million short of the $420 million to $700 million that will be required (assuming WR FOIP-ed numbers are correct).

When Ms Forsyth didn’t drop her question Mr Horne told her to put it in writing (apparently it was too complex for a verbal answer).

Ms Forsyth dutifully tabled two written questions.** One asked for the projected annual operating costs of personnel for individual family care clinics.  The other asked for the projected annual capital costs to build or lease family care clinics over the next four years.

But here’s the snag.  Before Mr Horne has to respond to the written questions the House gets to debate the merits of the questions.  Ms Forsythe made a number of arguments supporting her questions including the point that surely Mr Horne had an inkling of what Ms Redford’s pre-election promise was going to cost the tax payers.

Apparently not.  Mr Horne argued that both written questions were “impossible to answer” because family care clinics will be developed in response to community needs, hence they’d all be different, hence the government had absolutely no idea what the projected operating and capital costs would be.

Both questions were put to a vote and were defeated (15 in favour of the government answering the questions and 38 against).

Let’s recap.  Ms Redford made a pre-election promise to provide 140 family care clinics.  The Opposition asked the government to provide the operating and capital costs that Alberta taxpayers will pay for these clinics.  The Health Minister said it’s “impossible” to provide this information because each family care clinic will be unique.

And Albertans are happy with this answer!    They must be or they wouldn’t be criticizing the WR for continuing to press for a response to these and other troubling questions.

Have Albertans lost their minds?  If they allow the PCs to characterize Ms Redford and her government as hapless victims of the Opposition simply because the Opposition is asking legitimate questions then they have well and truly been assimilated by the Borg.

But guess what, some of us no longer believe that “Resistance is futile”.  We stand behind the democratic right of all of our Opposition MLAs to hold the PC government accountable for its actions.

Message to the Borg , oops sorry, the PC’s, fasten your seatbelts; you’re in for a turbulent ride!

*House of Commons Procedure and Practice webpage—Oral Questions

**Hansard Dec 3, 1198, 1199,

***Hansard Dec 3, 2012, starting at p 1212

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments