Speak in a Loud Clear Voice

Posted on May 6, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

The Crystal Palace, that glorious jewel box of the London Exhibition (1851), started life as a massive gloomy shed, more like a bunker than a light filled conservatory.*  It was through the serendipitous intervention of Joseph Paxton, head gardener for the Duke of Devonshire, that the structure was transformed into an ethereal orangery which, at the time, was the largest building on the planet.

Many of us hoped that after this election we’d see a sparkling fresh government under the Dome, however unless there are radical changes we can expect another 4 years of opaque and uninspiring government.  We need our own Joseph Paxton to transform this disappointing outcome into the crystalline transparent government of our dreams.

How do we effect this transformation?  The very same way that Joseph Paxton did…by speaking in a loud clear voice.  The Duke of Devonshire was hard of hearing and hired Paxton when he was hardly more than a boy because Paxton spoke clearly in a strong voice and the Duke could understand what young Paxton was saying.

So rather than sinking into a 4 year stupor it’s time to speak to our government in a loud clear voice.

Connect with your MLA

A good place to start is with your own MLA.  It matters not whether he is PC, WR, Liberal or NDP.  He represents all of his constituents, including those who did not vote for him, so get engaged.  (I’m using the pronoun “he” because even in this post-liberation era most MLAs are male).

The Alberta Legislature website will identify your MLA and provide his email address.  Introduce yourself.  Start a dialogue, focus on the election promises that really matter to you.  Someone from his office will get back to you even if it isn’t the great man himself.

If your MLA stonewalls you (this may come as a surprise but some PC MLAs ignore their constituents because they believe they’d elect a bale of hay as long as it was painted PC blue) then find an Opposition MLA who’ll be more responsive (I guarantee it).  I communicate regularly with Liberal, NDP and WR MLAs who to a man (they really are all men) are happy to discuss the issues of the day.  If you support their policy positions, tell them, they’ll welcome the feedback.  If you don’t, challenge them.  Tell them how you, a voter with friends you can influence, rate their performance.

Communicate your views broadly

The news media were deeply engaged in this election.  The editorial board of the Calgary Herald took the unprecedented (and shrewd) step of supporting both the PCs and the WR.  Some Herald columnists went so far as to claim credit for winning the election for the Tories (yes, Robert Remington went a bit of over the top).**

The Herald’s Letters to the Editor page bristled with opinions about the parties, pro and con.  This was a landmark election and the paper’s interest in the public’s views has not waned.  So write letters to the editor telling them what you think.  Even an unpublished letter has an impact because all letters send signals the editorial board that an issue is of general public interest.  And a story that interests the public will interest the editors because it sells newspapers.

Why is this important?  Because it dovetails with the work of the Opposition which in turn amplifies your voice.   Other social media like Facebook and Twitter achieve the same results but with a less diverse audience.

Understand the issues

Communication is fine, but to be effective it must be well founded.  Given the hype of this election no Albertan can plead ignorance of the issues.  They were spelled out in detail—healthcare, education, the sustainable development of our natural resources and responsible fiscal policies.  It’s all there in the public record.  Use it to monitor your MLA’s performance.

MLA Watch***

It’s time we used crowd sourcing to track the performance of our MLAs and their parties.  Pick your own MLA or the cabinet minister responsible for an issue you care deeply about.  Monitor his performance and publish your findings here or on an MLA Watch page.

And that leads me right back to where I started—connecting with our MLAs and making them accountable for their promises, providing feedback when they’ve got it wrong (or right) and speaking to them, often and in a loud clear voice.

If the PC MLAs ignore us this time, we’ll have to build our own crystal palace under the Dome.  We came close to a minority government in this election, next time we’ll have to push it across the finish line.  None of us deserve to be stuck with a musty old shed any longer.

*At Home, Bill Bryson, pp 7 – 13

**Calgary Herald Online, Apr 28, 2012,

***My thanks to Jill Brown and Carol Wodak for the inspiration

 

Posted in Politics and Government | 6 Comments

Did Robocallers Sandbag the Alberta Election?

Posted on April 29, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Before we turn the page on this election, I’d like to say a word about robocalls…I like them. No, the stress of this election has not unhinged my mind; I’m serious.  Robocallers are like people, each with their own unique personalities.  Over the past 28 days I’ve met 3 distinct robopersonalities:  the “push” caller, the “press-a-#” caller and the granddaddy of them all, the “I care, I really care” call from the candidate him or herself in all of his/her pre-recorded glory.

The “push” caller

This insidious little robocaller is a Trojan horse who appears to be genuinely interested in your opinion but is subtly undermining the other candidates.  Did you know that Redford’s government is going to spend millions of your tax dollars to send a rocket to the moon?  You didn’t?  Of course not.  Because it’s not true.  “Push” robocalls started out with a bang at the outset of the election but fizzled quickly when the public and the other parties complained.  Guess the Trojan horses weren’t quite as subtle as they thought.

The “press-a-#” caller

My favourite “press a #” robocaller was Susan (and not just because we share the same first name).  Susan is a very perky, very loud young woman who urged me to answer one simple question.  If you had to vote tomorrow who would you vote for?  Press #1 for Raj Sherman’s Liberal Party, press #2 for Brian Mason’s NDP party, press #3 for Alison Redford’s Progressive Conservative party, press #4 for Danielle Smith’s Wildrose party, press #5 for Glenn Taylor’s Alberta Party, press #6 for the Evergreen party, press #7 for the Communist party (we have a Communist party??), press #8 for Undecided.  By the time Susan finished with the instructions I’d forgotten the number representing my party and ended up pressing #8 Undecided.  One thing Susan could do to make her poll more interesting is give us the option of pressing #9 None Of The Above and allowing us to type in T-H-E-G-O-L-D-F-I-S-H-P-A-R-T-Y.

The “I care, I really do” caller

I received robocalls from every party leader and listened to each one of them with the exception of Danielle Smith (my husband picked up Danielle’s call and hung up before I could wrestle the phone out of his grasp).  Roboleader calls are finely crafted and complex.  The leaders have a mere 90 seconds to deliver a message that will (hopefully) capture your vote.  Consequently these calls follow a predictable pattern:  (1) I believe in [insert party platform on healthcare, royalties, environment, etc] (2) those other guys believe in [stupid nasty] policies that will drag Albertans to a previously undiscovered circle of hell, and (3) I care, I really do, so vote for me and a rosy future awaits us.

After I’d listened to all of the roboleaders, I couldn’t remember a single thing any of them had said…with the exception of Raj Sherman—not because he said anything particularly brilliant but because in true Rocky Balboa fashion he said “I’ve got your back”.  I don’t think anyone, robo or real, has ever told me that they’ve got my back.  That was memorable…but not enough to swing my vote over to the Sherman Liberals.  (By the way, why are they now called the Sherman Liberals?  What happened to the liberal Liberals?)   

Unlike me, my friends loath robocalls.  One yelled obscenities into the receiver until she realized that without a “Press #0 Obscenity” option her longshoreman-like opinions would not be registered.  Another delighted in misleading robocallers by pressing #4 when she really intended to vote #1.   (Is it kosher to play mind games with robocallers?)

Time to get serious

Where does all this silliness leave us?  Not in a good place, I’m afraid.  Robocalls played a vital role in this election.  They provided raw data to pollsters who worked their statistical magic and issued overheated predictions of a WR sweep into a majority government.  Unfortunately for the public, the pollsters got it dead wrong and the PCs trounced the WR with a stunning 10 point margin.

What happened?  The pollsters argue that this dramatic reversal was not the result of inadequate polling methodology—what else would they say…that they’re idiots so don’t bother hiring them in the future—but rather a dramatic change of heart by the committed WR electorate in the last days of the campaign.

Fine, but the real question is what caused the 11th hour swing?  Sure the WR bozo eruptions and fortress Alberta talk took its toll, but could it be that the spectre of a WR majority government as predicted by the polls and reported by the media ad nauseum spooked the electorate who simply wanted to bring the PC party to heel not decimate it. Rather than risk this outcome, voters abandoned the WR.  The deluge of polling results magnified this course correction to the point where the defecting WR voters triggered a PC landslide.

It makes one wonder.  Is there any value in continuous polling and 24/7 reporting of the results?  If so, to whom?  The political parties conduct their own polls and develop a pretty accurate idea, riding by riding, of what to expect from the electorate.  The only group that benefits from continuous polling is the media—dramatic poll results create sensational news stories.  Unfortunately they also confuse and mislead the public creating the boomerang effect we witnessed in this election.

It’s not nice to play mind games with a robocaller, but it’s downright dangerous when a pollster plays mind games with the voters.  So here’s a message to loud perky robo-Susan:  although I enjoyed meeting you and your robocaller friends in this election, I will NOT be responding to any robocalls the next time around.  I refuse to participate in an unstable polling process that spits out wildly gyrating results which do nothing more than destabilize the electorate.  Press #1 if you agree.

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , | 9 Comments

Strategic Voting…are you kidding me?

Posted on April 22, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

This is going to sound harsh but here goes….listen up you lily-livered-small “l” liberals (eg. Liberals, NDP and Alberta Party members) there’s NO SUCH THING as a “strategic vote” in the upcoming Alberta election.  A “vote” is an exercise of choice.  If your only choices are “the devil you know” (PCs) or “the devil incarnate” (Wildrose) then you’re choosing between the devil and the devil.  That is not a “choice”;  that’s an act of resignation and despair.

Furthermore a “strategic vote” in this election is not even remotely strategic.  A decision is “strategic” only if it helps you reach a goal or objective.  Re-electing the PCs under a leader to be determined later (let’s face it, the old guard will dump Alison as soon as this debacle of an election is over) is not moving the centre-left any closer to its goal of forming government.  So ask yourself what is strategic about refusing to vote for the centre-left at a time when the PCs are most vulnerable? 

The answer given by many centre-lefties is galling (I told you this would sound harsh). They won’t vote for the candidates who best represent their values because they’re afraid.  They’ve swallowed the PC line that only the PC party can protect Albertans from the wild-eyed fanatics because the centre-left is too diffuse and will split the vote.  Really?  

This is a very volatile election.  There are 2.3 million voters in Alberta.  More than 40% will turn out (bet on it) on election day.  Given this environment it’s a little early for the PCs to call the results in each riding, don’t you think?

Instead of stampeding like a startled gaggle of geese—no wait, not geese, they’re feisty birds, more like frantic lemmings pushing each other off the political precipice—we would be well advised to heed the words of others who are watching this election very closely.

John Ralston Saul, the philosopher, writer and former Albertan said “the concept of an open, inclusive and egalitarian society…is reliant on individuals seeing themselves as having the power to shape their civilization.”* Let’s not meekly give up our power to shape Alberta’s society simply because the PCs have frightened us into “voting strategically”.

And be aware that by “voting strategically” we’re actually punishing the centre-left parties and the MLAs who’ve struggled long and hard to protect the social institutions we hold dear—public healthcare, public education, a thriving environmentally sustainable economy, an equitable royalty/tax structure and, most important, a democratic transparent government.

Mr Mason, NDP leader, said it best when he urged voters to ignore the “family feud” in the conservative camp and elect as many centre-left MLAs as possible because they will hold the balance of power in the Legislature for the next 4 years.  (Of course he’s hoping that these power brokers will be NDP MLAs, but that’s your call).

If John Ralston Saul and the opposition party leaders can’t convince you, how about Calgary Mayor Nenshi?  He said “It’s always best to vote for someone rather than against someone”.** That deafening roar of approval you just heard came from Mayor Nenshi’s supporters who stuck with the underdog against overwhelming odds and had the supreme satisfaction of seeing him defeat two well known and well funded rivals.

It’s time for the small “l” liberals to man up, to fight the panicky urge to vote strategically and replace it with the analytical process of thinking strategically.  Take a page from John Ralston Saul—stay cool, very very cool.  Listen carefully to what your local MLA candidates are saying.  Weed out the rhetoric, the fear mongering and the overblown promises.  And then vote, coolly, calmly and analytically.

Here’s how I worked through my decision:

  • Not PC because Alison failed to deliver on the promises she made in the leadership race (it doesn’t matter why);  also she’s disavowed any responsibility for her part in the bad decisions made by the PCs during the 4 years she was Justice Minister.  I’m holding her accountable.  Her “I am frightened” campaign was the last straw.  A “frightened” MLA does not deserve my vote.
  • Not WR and not just because of their tolerance of intolerant MLAs (how did those yahoos make it through the candidate screening process?) but because the WR is founded on the belief that the free market is the best solution for all that ails us.  Economic formulae may be elegant but they create a false sense of reality;  when the formula fails to deliver the expected results, the fallout is devastating (the financial meltdown in the US is a prime example).
  • Carefully considered the non PC/WR candidates in my riding which, as luck would have it, is Calgary Elbow, Alison Redford’s riding.  Normally I’d turn to change.alberta.ca for guidance, but there is none.  So I attended forums, met the candidates and did my on-line research.  I’ve made my decision and I’m comfortable with it.

We’re at a fork in the road in Alberta politics.  It’s time to decide.  Do you break left or break right?  You have a split second to consider your decision.  If you break right and vote PC make sure you’re voting FOR the PCs and not AGAINST the WR.  That split second decision will determine whether you are willing to spend the next 4 years governed by fear.

Good luck on election day.  See you on the other side once the dust settles.

*Calgary Herald Online, Apr 18, 2012

**Calgary Herald, Apr 20, 2012, A5 

 

Posted in Politics and Government | 27 Comments

Notwithstanding the “notwithstanding clause”

Posted on April 15, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Alison Redford has been “frightened” and “fearful” for the last 2 weeks.  The cause?  The Wildrose proposal to allow a citizen initiated referendum.   Her fear is overblown.

Before I tell you why let me be clear about one thing.  I do not support the Wildrose position on conscience rights or using a referendum to slip conscience rights into legislation, however I do not agree with Redford that all referenda are bad.

Redford’s argument is based on her belief that the Wildrose process to protect human rights—vetting the question with a federal judge to ensure it doesn’t violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—is a sham.

After the Leaders Debate Redford said:  “It’s important, I believe, to understand that there is no way that an issue will not be dealt by a judge favourably as long as we use the notwithstanding clause”.*  In other words, a federal judge must always allow a referendum to go ahead if the Wildrose shields the legislation by relying on the “notwithstanding clause”.

This is simply not true.

Here’s a quick constitutional law lesson:  The Charter prohibits the federal and provincial governments from passing laws that violate our rights and freedoms (which are nicely set out in the Charter).  But Section 33 of the Charter allows the feds or the provinces to pass laws which operate “notwithstanding” the protection of our rights and freedoms under the Charter.  So if a provincial statute says that it’s operational “notwithstanding” the Charter that statute can violate our rights and freedoms.  But there’s a caveat.

What Redford failed to mention is that such lawswill not stand if a court rules that the violation of our rights and freedoms is unjustified.  As a result, the “notwithstanding clause” is rarely used for two reasons (1) the burden of proof is on the province to demonstrate why the violation of these rights benefits the rest of society and (2) it’s political suicide to create legislation that violates basic human rights.

Whether a law stands or falls is determined by a court after it’s been passed.  The Wildrose safeguard goes one step further.  It requires a federal judge to determine the legal validity of the proposed law before the referendum is allowed to go ahead, not after the statute has been passed.

Only a handful of provinces have inserted the “notwithstanding clause” into a piece of legislation.  Quebec tossed it into all of its laws in a fit of spite when the Charter was enacted (it was removed when the Liberals ousted the PQ).  Saskatchewan used it once to legislate workers back to work (it turned out they didn’t need it, the legislation was not offside), the Yukon used it in a land use statute that was never proclaimed and Ralph Klein’s PC government used it in 2000 to prohibit same sex marriages.  (Another curious fact that Redford failed to mention).

Klein’s PC government enacted Bill 202 which amended the Marriage Act by defining “marriage” as a union between one man and one woman “notwithstanding” section 15 of the Charter which guarantees equal rights to all individuals.  Bill 202 passed with 32 votes in favour and 15 against.  The PCs who voted in favour of the Act to ban same sex marriages included Wayne Cao, Heather Forsyth, Ty Lund, Ed Stelmach and Gene Zwozdesky.  The PCs who voted against the Act to ban same sex marriages included Dave Hancock and Guy Boutilier.  Boutilier and Forsyth are now Wildrose MLA candidates.  See the full list of who voted for and against below.**

In 2005 the federal government passed Bill C-38 which defined marriage as a union of 2 persons.  Klein investigated creating new administrative hurdles to prevent same sex marriages but was told by legal experts that with the new federal law in place he’d lose a Charter challenge.  The Marriage Amendment Act expired and is now (thankfully) no longer law in Alberta.

Bottom line:  Notwithstanding the “notwithstanding clause” Redford has nothing to fear from a citizen initiated referendum—except the prospect of going down with the PC party at the end of its 41 year reign.      

*Global TV Post Debate Scrum:   http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/video/redford+in+postdebate+scrum/video.html?v=2222375828&p=1&s=dd#decision+alberta

**Votes In favour of the Marriage Amendment Act which prohibited same sex marriage:  Burgener, Cao, Coutts, Doerksen, Ducharme, Forsyth, Friedel, Haley, Havelock, Hlady, Johnson, Jonson, Klapstein, Kryczka, Langevin, Lougheed, Lund, Marz, McClellan, McFarland, Melchin, Paszkowski, Pham, Shariff, Stelmach, Strang, Tannas, Tarchuk, West, Woloshyn, Yankowsky, and Zwozdesky

Votes against the Marriage Amendment Act:  Bonner, Boutilier, Dickson, Graham, Hancock, Jacques, MacDonald, Magnus, O’Neill, Pannu, Renner, Spaers, Severtson, White, Wickman

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

Following in the Footsteps of Ki Ki Planet

Posted on April 11, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

I’ve given more thought to my support for a referendum on controversial issues such as abortion funding (the delisting question) and have decided that it’s Ki Ki Planet time.  Ki Ki was a staunch support of the Wildrose Party until she became aware of the party’s position on conscience rights.  She describes her own crisis of conscience in an insightful blog Pruned Bush: Confessions of a Wilted Rose. 

I find myself in a similar position—having to backtrack—for a different reason.  Unlike Ki Ki, I wasn’t an active Wildrose supporter, however their support of increased transparency in government, allowing free votes for MLAs and encouraging participatory democracy resonated with me.  So when the Wildrose announced the citizen referendum process I jumped for joy.  At last, an opportunity for citizens to make substantial changes in  controversial government policies without having to wait for the next election.

Unfortunately (being the cool analytical person that I am) I did not delve deeply enough into the issue being proposed as an example for such a referendum—delisting abortions so they would no longer be funded by taxpayers dollars.  I focused on the value of the process which worked just fine with the referendums on the federal Constitutional amendment, the Quebec sovereignty question and the repeal of the HST in BC.  I focused on the fact that the majority of Albertans would never vote in favour of such a proposal in any event (I hope!).  What I failed to focus on was the fact that such a proposal would create an illegal result and should never be put forward in the first place.

Here’s why.  Federal law makes abortion legal.  Consequently all of the provinces, including Alberta, are pro-choice.  If the Wildrose proposal went ahead and successfully delisted abortions, Alberta would still be pro-choice, however in practice Alberta would become pro–life but only for the women who couldn’t afford to pay for an abortion.  This would be both elitist and hypocritical.  It would also turn the law on its head.

Lawyers have a saying:  “You can’t do through the back door what you’re not allowed to do through the front door”.  And yet this is exactly what happens if this referendum is successful: the legal right to choose is subverted simply by making an administrative change to the public healthcare funding schedule.

So I stand corrected.  I’d like to thank you for patiently pointed out the obvious and I’d like to thank Ki Ki for demonstrating how easy it is to climb back off the ledge.

I’ll talk to you again after the BIG DEBATE.  I can hardly wait.

Posted in Politics and Government | 4 Comments

Brian Mason or Joe McCarthy?

Posted on April 8, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

All right, that’s it!  The headline in yesterday’s Calgary Herald was Moral issues fire up the parties.  All that’s missing is three exclamation points (!!!) at the end of that sentence and we can decide the outcome of this election by throwing Alison and Danielle into a mud wrestling pit and asking Raj to officiate.

We can’t allow the media to reframe this election as a battle between the extremes—the free thinking left wing (“good”) and the small “c” conservative right wing (“bad”).  If we do we’ll lose sight of the issues, including the most important issue of all—that we live in a democracy and every Albertan has a right to his beliefs and a right to vote for the party he/she feels best represents his values.

That is why I shuddered when Raj Sherman said “There is no place in this province and this country for this hard right-wing Tea Party thinking.”  If Raj had said:  “There is no place in this province and this country for this hard left-wing New Democratic Party thinking” we’d all agree he’d gone too far—in a democracy every political party that espouses policies that are legal under federal and provincial laws has the right to be heard.

I know what you’re thinking…I’ve lost my mind and jumped into the Wildrose camp.  I haven’t.  I’m simply trying to filter the bombastic rhetoric out of the election campaign so that I can compare where the parties stand on the key issues.

So let’s apply the rhetoric filter to a a real-life hot button issue—delisting  abortion so that it would not be covered by public healthcare.  This firestorm was unleashed when Jeffry Trynchy, the Wildrose chief administrative officer, responded to a questionnaire** asking all of the political parties about their policy on abortion.  So far only the Wildrose and the Alberta Party have responded, leaving us in the dark about where the PCs, Liberals and NDP stand on this issue.  Trynchy replied that abortion was federally regulated but that a Wildrose government would “Immediately introduce legislation allowing citizens to put issues like abortion to a citizen initiated referendum”.** 

Danielle Smith said that the Wildrose was not going to delist abortions but would implement a public referenda process to decide issues like abortion which “split politicians apart, where if you take a position, 50% of the people will love you and 50% will hate you.*  Before an issue was put to a referendum it would be vetted by a judge to ensure that if it was supported, it could be implemented without breaking the law.

The Calgary Herald was horrified because “A group of Albertans …could theoretically force a province wide vote on public funding for abortion”.*  Yes they could…so what.  One would hope that Albertans would care enough about the issue to vote in the referendum and put an end to the suggestion that abortion be delisted.

Some might argue that putting controversial issues like abortion funding to a referendum is an abdication of responsibility on the part of our elected representatives.  Not so.  Referenda have been used successfully at the provincial and federal level to engage the public on critical issues–the landmark 1992 federal referendum on whether to amend the Constitution per the Charlottetown Accord (71.8% of Canadians voted and 55% of them said no) is a prime example.

Oh and one other thing.  If the press is so interested in Danielle Smith’s personal beliefs on abortion, or same sex marriage, or any other so-called “left wing” issue, they should ask all of the political party leaders the same question.  In fact why don’t we could put them through an inquisition a la Joe McCarthy to determine whether they possess the moral character required to be an elected representative of a political party.  Do you now or have you ever in the past signed a petition [insert “in support of” or “opposed to”] abortion?   

The relevant question isn’t where a party leader stands on a controversial issue but rather where his/her party stands on the issue.  Believe it or not, intelligent people can hold a personal opinion that differs from the group to which they belong (just ask the 98% of Catholic women who use birth control).     

Ultimately this boils down to trust…do you trust a political party to deliver on its promises?  This is where the citizen initiated referendum concept is so helpful.  It would force a party to deliver what the public wants regardless of whether a particular MLA falls into the 50% that supports the proposal or not.

So let’s not fall all over ourselves stomping on the other guy’s right to his convictions (be they evangelical Christian or atheist) instead let’s listen to Brian Mason, the only left leaning political party leader***who’s making any sense right now and start focusing on the key issues:  is increased privatization of healthcare the only solution to the healthcare crisis?  How do we fix the crisis in education?  Should we increase taxation (corporate and personal) and royalty rates?  How do we transition from a non-renewable resource based economy to one based on…what…?

We have an opportunity to unseat a government that after 41 years in power has lost the ability to act in the public interest.   Let’s not squander it by allowing the media to turn this election into an ideological battle of (nit)wits.  Sensationalized press coverage may sell newspapers, but it leads to irrational decisions in the polling booth.

PS  For those of you searching for a non Wildrose/non PC candidate who stands a chance at winning in your riding—check out changeablerta.com.

*Calgary Herald, Apr 12, 2012, A4

**Jane Crawthorne’s blog The Abortion Monologues 

***other than Glenn Taylor who is getting virtually no air time

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

Redford’s Policies Trigger A “Stealth Alert”

Posted on April 1, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

If you’ve ever wondered why Albertans keep asking their government for one thing but end up with something completely different it’s because the battery on your *stealth alert* device is running low.  How do the PCs use stealth to push through policies that might not sit well with the public?  Let’s do a case study:  the use of Family Care Clinics to open up healthcare delivery to the private sector.

Imagine the breathless headline—Alberta Health & Wellness and Alberta Healths Services strengthen Primary Care Networks by creating Family Care Clinics!  Huh?  Would it help if I told you that you wanted these Family Care Clinics and Redford’s Tories are patting themselves on the back for delivering them to you?   No, then we’ll take it one step at a time.  I’ll add a *stealth alert* where appropriate.

Primary Care Networks (PCNs) were created in 2003 when the Alberta Medical Association, the government and the 9 regional health authorities, now all rolled up into Alberta Health Services (affectionately referred to as the Superboard) signed an 8 year agreement governing doctors’ pay.

PCNs were billed as an innovative new model that delivered healthcare by a team of professionals—doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, mental health workers, psychologists, etc—for a fee of $50 a head for every patient in the PCN.* Patients and doctors quickly adopted the PCN model and now there are 40 PCNs in Alberta.

*stealth alert* Everything was fine until Dec 2011 when Health Minister Horne dropped the Family Care Clinic bomb—billed as “an innovative new” model to deliver healthcare to Albertans.  Doctors were stunned.  The public was confused.  Details were non-existent.  When Dr Slocombe, President of the Alberta Medical Association, pressed Minister Horne for more information she was told that “…neither the locations nor the operational details were known”.** There’s no need to worry your pretty little head about that my dear.

*stealth alert*  Ms Redford told the Legislature “Family care clinics will include doctors, licensed practical nurses, and other health practitioners who can provide support to moms and dads who want to make sure that they can get access for their kids not in an emergency room at 11 o’clock at night but in their own community”.***    

That made FCCs sound like a solution to ER overcrowding but didn’t answer the critical question:  How are FCCs different from PCNs?  And how will the government ensure that FCCs don’t cannibalize the family practices supported by PCNs.

It took more than 3 months of playing cat and mouse with the government to confirm that (1) both FCCs and PCNs provide healthcare through the same team of healthcare professionals, (2) both FCCs and PCNs give patients direct access to other health professionals without a doctor’s referral,** and (3) both FCCs and PCNs provide extended access to healthcare.

*stealth alert* Then on Mar 7, 2012, the political fog cleared and the true purpose of FCCs was revealed.  While defending the Health Department budget, Mr Horne mentioned in passing that the pilot FCCs are owned and operated by the government, however “…opportunities do exist…for the FCCs to be community owned in the future and to be physician owned.  That is a distinct difference from the current [PCNs].”****

Premier Redford and Minister Horne have been talking about FCCs for 3 months, both in the press and at the Health Care town hall meetings.  Not once did they mention that the only “distinct difference” between the existing Primary Care Networks and the Family Care Clinics was the fact that FCCs could be privately owned and operated.

*stealth alert*  In fact Horne’s response to very pointed questions about FCCs at the town hall meetings was this:  (1) FCCs are not private delivery models but rather publicly funded models to deliver healthcare to smaller communities and (2) FCCs will enhance PCNs, not cannibalize them.

The proof is in the pudding.  On Mar 23, 2012 Mr Horne announced the opening of a FCC in Calgary (not exactly a “smaller community”).  It opened right next door to a PCN, forcing the PCN to close its doors.  (One down 39 more to go).  The PCN which cost $1 million to operate will be replaced by a FCC which costs 5 times as much.  The response of the AHS…?  Oops.  “It was never our intent when we planned this clinic for the [PCN] to move out”.*****     

*stealth alert*  To add insult to injury, Premier Redford is on record as saying “Family care clinics are what Albertans want.”** I don’t know about you, but I’m drawing a blank when it comes to asking the government to use Family Care Clinics to drive Public Care Networks out of business, at 5 times the cost to the tax payer!

Premier Redford extols the value of transparency and authenticity in government.  However her actions do not line up with her words.  No  surprise really, that’s what “stealth” is—a secretive act designed to make detection difficult if not impossible.

WARNING: You’ve entered the political fog, when you step into the voting booth on April 23, please ensure that your *stealth alert* device is on and fully charged.

*This was increased to $62 a head in Ms Redford’s effort to head off the bad PR created by the doctors’ insistence on a public inquiry into physician intimidation.  Albertans were relieved when the AMA didn’t roll over in return for the $12/head increase.

**AMA President’s Letter Dec 23, 2011

***Hansard, Mar 20, 2012, p 665    

****Hansard, Mar 7, 2012, 383 

*****Calgary Herald, March 23, 2012, B1. 

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

The Trouble with “Bad Boys”

Posted on March 25, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Today’s topic is busts—Wildrose Party Leader, Danielle Smith’s bus(t) and PC Minister of Education Tom Lukaszuk’s bust (as in “gotcha”).

Let’s start with Danielle Smith’s bus.  I’m sure you’ve seen it.  We’ve all seen it.  What strikes me as bizarre is why the bus (or rather the bus tires) were newsworthy in the first place, eliciting comments (on The National no less) like “If they can’t paint a bus right, how can they run the government?” 

Pause for a minute to consider how inane that comment is.  The commentator decided the bus was painted wrong.  Why was it wrong?  Because Danielle’s photo is positioned over the rear bus tires.  Why was this positioning wrong?  Because the bus tires look like breasts.  Really?  To me they looked like bus tires.  However I suppose if you’re a pimply faced prepubescent boy you’d see the juxtaposition of bus tires and Danielle’s face as something titillating (oops, sorry, don’t want to get those prepubescent boys all riled up again).

Equally inane was the reaction of Clare Beckton, executive director of Carleton University’s centre for women in politics and public leadership in Ottawa, who said this type of thing makes women think twice about running for political office and (it gets even better) stories like this “continue to reinforce stereotypes about women… they tend to focus on women’s bodies instead of focusing on what women bring to the table in terms of their competencies.”  Naomi Lakritz’s reaction was priceless.  “What stereotypes? That underneath those tailored jackets women wear in the boardroom, there are breasts the size of bus tires?”*

So on behalf of all the women wearing tailored jackets let me say this…guys, grow up.

Okay, now that I’ve got that off my chest (oops, sorry) consider the antics of the PC’s newest resident bad boy—Education Minister, Tom Lukaszuk.

During a province-wide telephone town hall meeting Mr Lukaszuk was asked by a constituent represented by Wildrose Party MLA Rob Anderson why Airdrie had not received two desperately needed portables to ease the overcrowding in its schools.  Mr Lukaszuk (who was hand-picked by Ms Redford for this cabinet post) replied, “You know what?  I’m really itching to say it, so I will, even though I know I shouldn’t, but the first thing you can do is, actually, in Airdrie call your MLA and ask him not to oppose me in the Legislature” on infrastructure funding.**

And here we thought that the decision on where schools are built and when they’d be refurbished was based on objective criteria like the student population demographics, the age and condition of the building and available capital.  Apparently the overriding consideration is whether the minister controlling the purse strings feels put upon by an opposition member who asks legitimate questions in the Legislature.

Mr Anderson “busted” Mr Lukaszuk in the Legislature.  He described Mr Lukaszuk’s comments as arrogant and stupid and asked the Premier to fire this bad boy.  Ms Redford’s response?  “I think what the Minister of Education said was entirely appropriate.”*** Ms Redford’s rationale?  Mr Lukaszuk’s comment was a legitimate discussion about alternative funding models and the importance of infrastructure spending—in other words a policy discussion (!!)  Based on that rationale she concluded that “It’s certainly within his purview to make those comments.”*** 

I’d be the first to agree a policy discussion is well within Mr Lukaszuk’s (or any MLA’s) purview.  But even Mr Lukaszuk knew he wasn’t making a policy statement but rather taking a jab at his nemesis across the aisle.  Why else would he preface his comment with the phrase ”I’m really itching to say it, so I will, even though I know I shouldn’t”. 

By cloaking Mr Lukaszuk’s inappropriate comment in the blanket of policy discussions, Ms Redford gave Mr Lukaszuk and others like him free rein to threaten voters in non-PC constituencies with reduced services in the hopes that they’ll see the light and vote PC in the next election.

The trouble with “bad boys” is that they really believe they have the right to be bad.  “Little” bad boys say stupid things and sucker other little boys (like those in the media) into their childish games and voila we end up with a “news” story about Danielle’s bus.  The mature response to “little” bad boys is to tell them to grow up and repaint the bus.

“Big” bad boys flash their power and make trouble for the sheer joy of it.  In the political world, big bad boys are tolerated as long as they continue to deliver (case in point—Ron Liepert who coincidently also started out as Education Minister).  But there should be no place for big bad boys in government because when they puff out their chests and throw their weight around they don’t hurt each other, they hurt us.

The mature response to “big” bad boys is to send them packing.

*Winnipeg Free Press Online, Mar 24, 2012

**Hansard Mar 20, 2012, p 664

*** Hansard Mar 20, 2012, p 667 

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

The Health Care Town Hall Meeting–How Come It’s Never Anybody’s Fault?

Posted on March 17, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

I went to the Health Care Town Hall meeting in Calgary last week.  After two hours I had a headache.  How come it’s never anybody’s fault?

“Fault” is defined as being responsible for an unpleasant situation.  I learned all about fault when as a child I was cavorting through the house and knocked a lamp off an end table.  The wire bit that held the light bulb snapped clean off the base.  Oh oh.  What to do?  With an unerring sense of self preservation I reassembled the lamp and placed it gingerly on the table.  It was fine—as long as no one touched it.  That evening my mother turned it on…and it fell to bits.  Who did this she asked.  Silence.  Well, the lamp didn’t just break by itself she said.  She had a point.  Given that I couldn’t pin the blame on my sister I confessed and lost my allowance for a week.

That’s how accountability works when you’re a child and that’s how accountability is supposed to work when you’re an adult—unless of course you’re the Minister of Health and Wellness.  In that case you’re free to deny accountability and, if you’re feeling particularly spunky, deny there’s any problem at all.

Minister Horne demonstrated this in spades at the health care town hall meeting.  In response to the question, do you think the healthcare system is in crisis, Mr Horne replied, “I do not believe our healthcare system as a whole is in crisis in Alberta, there are some relationships in our healthcare system that need attention”.*

Some relationships that need attention…?   The 420 page Health Quality Council (HQC) report on healthcare mismanagement had just landed with a thud on Mr Horne’s desk.  Part A described a critical lack of long term care beds which results in a misuse of acute care beds which in turn creates excessive wait times in ER and for surgeries.  Part B contained heart breaking stories of bullying (known in polite society as physician intimidation) at the hands of the departments of Health & Wellness (Mr Horne’s ministry), Alberta Health Services (the administrative arm of Mr Horne’s ministry), the College of Physicians and Surgeons and certain unnamed politicians.

So who’s accountable for this sorry state of affairs?  Apparently not the health minister.  Mr Horne acknowledged that the HQC report findings on physician intimidation were “very disturbing” but concluded that the problem arose because the centralization of 9 health regions into Alberta Health Services (also known as the Superboard) was carried out too quickly.

Ahh, I get it, like the lamp that broke itself, it’s the process’s fault.  Consequently it would be pointless to hold a public inquiry into physician intimidation to figure out what went wrong in order to prevent it from happening again.  Instead we should adopt Ms Redford’s mantra and simply “move on”.

Mr Horne has supreme confidence in the ability of his ministry (Health & Wellness), the administrative arm of his ministry (Alberta Health Services), the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and the Alberta Medical Association (AMA) to develop more processes to train physicians how to advocate effectively and create a “just culture” to prevent bullying.

Others are less optimistic.  Dr Swann put it best when he said Mr Horne’s plan was simply to ask the same health professionals who’d been intimidated to go back to work for the same people who’d intimidated them and rest easy because everyone’s learned their lesson and it won’t happen again.

To paraphrase my mother, the lamp didn’t break itself and the lamp won’t fix itself.  The bullying problem won’t go away without a thoughtful investigation that identifies the intimidators and why they stooped to intimidation and holds them accountable so that they and others like them will never be tempted to bully a physician again.

The Alberta Medical Association (one of the parties in the relationship that “needs attention”) is not prepared to accept this milque-toast solution.  While Mr Horne and his government are busy shuffling Alberta’s healthcare problems off the political stage, the AMA took pre-emptive action.  It launched a new public advocacy program called  “Just How Sick is Alberta’s Health Care System?” to demonstrate its commitment to a higher level of public advocacy “before, during and after” the provincial election.**

Wise move on the AMA’s part.  The Health Minister can cling to the “lamp broke itself” excuse, but the AMA and the public will drag these examples of intimidation into the light.  The bullying will stop when the bullies have nowhere to hide.

This is an extremely courageous move on the part of the AMA, particularly in this political environment.  They need our support.  Please click on the link and send your comments and concerns to whatithink@albertadoctors.org.  Let’s work with the AMA to end bullying and get on with creating the best publicly funded, publicly delivered healthcare system possible.

*Calgary Herald Online, March 7, 2012

** AMA President’s Letter Mar 6, 2012 

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , | 24 Comments

Alison Redford, the Moribund Committee and Caesar’s Wife

Posted on March 11, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

The adage that Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion usually refers to the associates of politicians—Caesar divorced Pompeia who was suspected of wrongdoing because he knew that continuing to associate with her would taint his reputation.  But what happens when the suspicion is swirling around Caesar?

I’m referring to the recent controversy around Premier Redford’s 5 month stint as a member of the Standing Committee on Privilege and Elections, Standing Orders and Printing (that’s quite a mouthful, let’s call it the Standing Committee).  Committee members are paid an additional $1000 a month for committee work—unfortunately for Ms Redford, this standing committee had not met since 2008 and she and her fellow committee members engaged in no committee work.

Ms Redford’s explanation of what would otherwise be a breach of ethics was this:  “I found out yesterday that I had been assigned to this committee.  I didn’t receive any pay for sitting on this committee, but the randomness of it is something that is very troubling to me and it should be troubling to Albertans.”*

Think about this explanation for a minute:  “I found out yesterday that I had been assigned to this committee”.  If Ms Redford is to be believed she’s just told us that the PC government appoints MLAs to committees and removes MLAs from committees without bothering to check with them first.  That’s bizarre.  How, pray tell, does this happen?

  • On Oct 28, 2009 Mr Hancock proposed a motion that Ms Redford be appointed to fill a vacancy on the Standing Committee (which had not met since 2008).  The motion was unopposed and appears in Hansard, October 28, 2009, p 1611.  Ms Redford’s name appeared for the first time in the list of committee members for the Standing Committee which is published on the last page of Hansard and appeared there each and every day for five months until February 10, 2010.
  • On February 10, 2010, Mr Hancock proposed a motion to expand the number of committee members so that more opposition MLAs could sit on the committees (laudable, don’t you think, especially given that they don’t have to go to meetings to collect their $1000/month stipend).  The motion was debated and passed unopposed.  It included a decision to remove Ms Redford and replace her with Mr Lindsay.  It was recorded in Hansard on February 10, 2010, p 65 and Ms Redford’s name was removed from the members list for the Standing Committee on the last page of Hansard.
  • Notwithstanding the public disclosure of her appointment and removal from the Standing Committee Ms Redford was unaware that she’d been a member of the Standing Committee until 2 days ago. 

There is only one possible explanation:  The PC government routinely appoints and un-appoints unsuspecting MLAs at a whim and Ms Redford, like 99% of all Albertans, does not read Hansard.

Okay, on to the next part of Ms Redford’s statement:  “I didn’t receive any pay for sitting on this committee”.  Unless we can convince Ms Redford to produce her pay stubs for the 5 months she “sat” on this committee without her knowledge we’ll just have to take her word for it.  The sad thing is that Albertan’s level of trust is at such a nadir that even if she produced her pay stubs, many would suspect they’d been doctored, rather like the controversy surrounding poor Mr Obama’s birth certificate.

We’re on the homestretch:  ”…but the randomness of it is something that is very troubling to me and it should be troubling to Albertans”. No kidding!  I’m sure the “randomness” is troubling to Ms Redford, if for no other reason than she’d just gone on record stating that she had no knowledge of this “disappointing” situation and primly pointed out that it “wasn’t something that connected to me at all.  But it’s not right.” **No sooner had she stepped away from the mike than the situation blew up in her face.

With respect to whether the situation is troubling to Albertans, rest assured Ms Redford, the randomness of the PC committee appointment process which appoints MLAs to moribund committees in order to funnel extra compensation into their pockets is extremely troubling to Albertans.  Not only does it demonstrate an absurd lack of good governance, it confirms, yet again, that the PC government is morally bankrupt.

So where does this leave us?  Luckily Ms Redford laid out the appropriate course of action when she invoked the Caesar’s Wife rule and suspended Mr Mar over his alleged misuse of public office to raise funds to pay off debts he incurred in his run for premier.  She disassociated herself and the PC party from Mr Mar by placing him on suspension until the ethics probe is complete.

But how can will Ms Redford invoke the Caesar’s Wife rule in relation to herself?  It’s not as if she can suspend herself pending an ethics probe and then re-instate herself once her name is cleared.

Not to worry, the people of Alberta can do it for her.  They will decide in the coming weeks whether they believe that Ms Redford had no knowledge of Mr Hancock’s motion to place her on the standing committee and then remove her 5 months later.  They will decide whether they believe that Ms Redford, unlike the other MLAs, received no payment for sitting on a moribund committee.  If they believe her, they’ll return Ms Redford and her party to power.  If they don’t it will be “valedico”.  That’s Latin for goodbye.

* Calgary Herald, Mar 11, 2010, p A5

**Calgary Herald, Mar 10,2012, A1 

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged | 6 Comments