Is Alison Redford The Next Kim Campbell?

Posted on March 4, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Kim who…?  (You young ‘uns crack me up).  Kim Campbell was the 19th prime minister of Canada.  She held that auspicious office for less than 5 months before being obliterated by a Liberal landslide and taking the rest of the PC party down with her.

The trajectory of Kim Campbell and Alison Redford’s careers is eerily similar.  Both were bright young lawyers who landed cabinet posts in their first terms in office.  Both were Johnny-on-the-spot when their party leaders stepped down and both won the leadership race with a slim margin;  Campbell with the support of half her caucus and Redford, with virtually no caucus support, on the strength of bold promises of fixed election dates, a moratorium on three major power lines projects, restoring funding to Alberta teachers and calling a public inquiry into queue jumping and physician intimidation.

This is where the political careers of Campbell and Redford start to diverge, at least momentarily.  Campbell was forced to call an election soon after becoming the prime minister.  Consequently she was never held to account for her pre-election promises.  Redford, on the other hand, is a sitting premier.  She’s enacted 6 major pieces of legislation that, in her opinion, embody every pre-election promise she’s ever made.

Really?   With the exception of the promise to restore funding to the teachers, Redford’s promises lay shattered on the floor.  Her refusal to call a public inquiry into physician intimidation is the most egregious example of a pre-election promise going pear-shaped.

Forget the fog of politics and what Redford says she said, what we thought she said, what she says she meant and what we hoped she meant.  Look instead at what the Premier and her Health Minister actually did say in the Legislature when the Health Quality Council Report was released.

Mr Horne:  “We are going to take the time…to review the recommendations in detail, and those recommendations will greatly inform the development of terms of reference for the inquiry that has been promised by the Premier”.*

Ms Redford:  “…we put a plan in place in the fall, we passed [the Health Quality Council of Alberta Act] and we said that we would wait for the health quality report to ensure that we established terms of reference that made sense for the independent inquiry.”**

Got it?  All eyes on the HQC report, please.  The Health Quality Council spent 10 months reviewing records, conducting interviews and analysing data.  They sifted through 2000 responses to the physician intimidation survey and conducted in depth interviews with 99 stakeholders on that very issue.  Dr Cowell, the HQC’s CEO was pleased with the Council’s work: “It’s been a thorough exhaustive process.  The HQCA is satisfied that it got to the bottom of the issues and left no material avenues unexplored.”*** 

This was good news given the Premier’s clear intention to rely on the report to frame the terms of reference for the public inquiry.  Within days the Premier announced that a public inquiry would be called—to investigate queue jumping in the healthcare system.

What…?   The HQC report set out 21 recommendations and not one of them relates to queue jumping! 

How did the HQC report—which had zero recommendations addressing queue jumping and seven recommendations addressing physician intimidation—“inform” the terms of reference for the public inquiry?  And most importantly did Redford just break another promise—the one where she said there would be no political interference with the public inquiry process?

Redford says, “I, in my heart, believe and know that the commitment I made last June is the commitment that we honoured this week”.**** The public knows better and this is where Alison Redford’s political career path will converge with that of Kim Campbell.

The big question is will Redford survive the coming election?  Yes, but only until the next leadership convention when she’ll be stripped of her leadership role for committing the cardinal sin in politics.  She’s lost all credibility.  Will Redford take the PC party down with her when she falls?  Not likely, but she’s inflicted serious damage to the party’s already tattered reputation and the opposition parties (if they have an ounce of political sense) will capitalize on the opportunity to build their base.

But it’s not all bad.  Campbell developed a varied and interesting career outside the world of politics and I’m sure Redford will do the same.  Good luck in your future endeavors Ms Redford.   It’s been a slice.

*Hansard, Feb 22, 2012, p 229

**Hansard, Feb 23, 2012, p 263

***HQCA Press Release, Feb 22, 2012 

****CBC News Online Mar 1, 2012 

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

In the Hands of Squints and Politicians

Posted on February 26, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

The state of Alberta healthcare is the most important issue facing Alberta voters—and it’s resting in the hands of squints and politicians.  Lord help us!

A “squint”, like his compatriots the geek and the quant, is a highly trained technical person specializing in data collection and analysis.  They’re lovely people but have been known to miss the forest for the trees.  A quick read of the Health Quality Council (HQC) report on the problems of our healthcare system makes it clear that the 20 odd (and I mean that in the nicest possible way) people who compiled the report are predominately in the squint camp.

The story of the squints and the politicians starts on June 7, 2011 when Ms Redford broke from the pack of PC leadership hopefuls and staked her political career on a promise to call for a public inquiry into “charges of political interference in the provincial health-care system”*.   Remember that on June 7, 2011 the only way to call a public inquiry into healthcare was under the Public Inquiries Act.

Like so many Two Minute Tories, I made the mistake of voting for Ms Redford and helped her capture the premiership by a very slim margin.  It simply hadn’t dawned on me that once elected Ms Redford would slip the noose of her political promise by enacting a new piece of legislation**to give the Health Quality Council (the squints referred to above) the power to hold a watered down “public inquiry”.

It took 3 months for the new HQC Act to be proclaimed.  Meanwhile Ms Redford ordered the HQC to investigate the issues.  When asked if this was a needless duplication of effort given that the HQC would soon be conducting a public inquiry, Ms Redford replied that the HQC report would set the terms of reference for the inquiry.  This is a very important point that I’ll return to later.

The mandate of the HQC is to measure, monitor and report—this is what squints do best—and the HQC performed its duties well.

It found that emergency department wait times exceeded the Canadian guidelines by 10 to 20 times in a significant number of cases.  No surprise there to anyone who’s spent 22 hours in the ED waiting for someone, anyone, to treat them.  It found no evidence of needless cancer deaths, but noted there were legitimate concerns with managing the lists and that these concerns had been addressed.

Most importantly, it found substantial evidence of physicians being threatened, censured, bullied, ridiculed, punished and at risk of losing their hospital privileges or positions.

This is where being a squint has its limitations.  Much to Ms Redford’s surprise, the HQC recommended against a public inquiry.  Instead, it suggested two task forces be set up to sort out the roles of the government, Alberta Health Services (the doctors’ employer) and the College of Physicians and Surgeons (the doctors’ disciplinary body) versus the doctors.  Rather like taking your kids on a long car trip and drawing a line down the middle of the back seat so that they can make it to your destination without killing each other.

The HQC’s mind is made up.  It will not come to a different conclusion in the public inquiry.  Lawyers call this fettering the jurisdiction of an administrative/quasi judicial panel.  It would normally be grounds for appeal…but for the fact that the HQC Act prohibits appeals.

So where does that leave Ms Redford?  Should she order the public inquiry anyway?  If so how will she force the HQC to set terms of reference for an inquiry it says is unnecessary?

The only way out of this mess is to ensure that the HQC inquiry hears fresh evidence that might lead to a different outcome.  Past and present health ministers, their top bureaucrats and the administrators must be called to testify.  Did Mr Liepert roll up the 9 health regions into the mega AHS so the government would have more control over the doctors?  Mr Zwozdesky and Mr Horne, please explain why, after 4 years of operation, the lumbering AHS bureaucracy has finally managed to bring the state of healthcare back to where it was in 2006.  (No that’s not a typo.)

And most importantly, doctors who’ve been bullied must be called to identify who bullied them, how they were bullied and how this impacted patient safety.  Once all the facts are made public, the bullying will stop because the bullies can’t hide.

The squints cannot set the terms of reference for the inquiry because they’ve already neutered themselves.  It’s now up to Ms Redford.  She must set broad terms of reference to capture this fresh evidence.  If she does, her ministers and former ministers will testify.  If she doesn’t, she’ll continue to tap dance, hoping that we’ll be dazzled by the coming election rhetoric and lose sight of what’s really going on here.

Over to you Ms Redford.

*Calgary Herald, Feb 25, 2012, A4

**Health Quality Council of Alberta Act, SA 2011, c H-7.2                 

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , | 13 Comments

Lunch with Larry Summers: Informative but Weird

Posted on February 19, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Last Monday I had lunch with Larry Summers.  Well, to be precise I and 249 politicians and business people attended a luncheon sponsored by Jack Mintz of the U of C School of Public Policy.  Larry Summers was the keynote speaker.  The event was both informative and weird.

Starting with the informative part (we’ll get to the weird part in a minute), Larry Summers is a titan in the world of economics (hard to believe a discipline Deborah Yedlin* characterizes as a “dismal science” could grow its own superstars but apparently anything is possible if you narrow the field sufficiently).  Summers’ many achievements include stints as the president of Harvard, US Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton and President Obama’s key economic advisor.

Summers is in high demand as a keynote speaker–not only does he know a lot about economics, he can explain it clearly.  Always a plus when the audience includes formulaically challenged individuals such as myself.  Give it to me in words or don’t bother.

Summers’ key message was this—the US economy is in big trouble.  While he didn’t put it quite so bluntly, his comments lead to that inescapable conclusion, viz** the US economy is not out of the woods yet and needs another 4 to 5 years to recover.  Furthermore, even if the economy pulls up out of its nosedive its existing financial structure is not sustainable.  If the US is to survive it must adopt a new financial strategy and Summers was prepared to share it with us.  Ahh, this is what we’ve all been waiting for. 

And this is where it got weird.

Summers said:

The economy won’t grow unless people and corporations stop hording cash and start to spend.  Okay, I understand that corporations are not doing the economy any favours by refusing to reinvest their $2 trillion stash of cash in manufacturing jobs and research and development, but I’m not clear why encouraging consumers to spend on useless gadgets and houses they can’t afford gets us anywhere other than deeper in debt.

Cap government spending.  Summers urges government to focus on the services it performs well and privatize the services it performs poorly.  This sounds good on paper but is a veritable hornet’s nest of conflicting priorities and political agendas.  It’s success depends on a clear non-partisan approach to the problem…in the US?  Good luck with that.

Reduce healthcare costs, on the public and private side.  A spending reduction plan for healthcare, in the absence of a plan to clean up healthcare fraud and abuse is worse than useless.  Last year the US Department of Justice collected $2.4 billion in fraudulent health claims from healthcare providers and suppliers against Medicare and Medicaid.***But Summers is right about one thing—you can’t cut spending in the public sector without also cutting spending in the private sector or the public sector doctors will simply move over to the private sector.  I can’t wait to see how the private healthcare sector and their political supporters react to this one!

Older people must keep working.  No surprise there.  Social security benefits aren’t enough to sustain the elderly through their golden years—but realize this, Summers said, the job that an old person retires from (when he finally retires) may not be his “career” job.  This is economics-speak for:  old guys will be pushed out of their corporate jobs when they’re “too old” to function profitably and they’d better be prepared to become Wal-Mart greeters because their social security benefits won’t tide them over.

Summers didn’t address the other side of the coin which is just as pernicious.  If the old folks stay in their jobs, they’ll block the career paths of the youngsters who are trying to get a grip on the first rung of the corporate ladder.  The young have 2 choices:  stay in school (and run up even more debt) in the hope that things will improve in 2 years or settle for a lesser job and become part of the discontented generation.

Deal with the 99%.  Summers pointed out that the wage disparity between the 99% and the 1% is growing exponentially.  The fact that he recognized this at all signals a blossoming awareness on the part of the ”establishment” for the growing unrest in the nation.  Unfortunately Summers’ solution—a low broad tax applied to everyone—leaves a lot to be desired.    What happened to Warren Buffett’s progressive tax idea with higher tax rates for those with higher incomes?

“It’s weird.”

Larry Summers strategy is weird because, for all of his education and experience the one thing Summers failed to consider was whether the underlying structure of the US economy was still sound.  Common sense would have you ask:  What makes an economy grow?  Are these growth mechanisms still functioning as expected?  What happens if they fail?  Think about it—how can economists ever hope to fix the economy if all they can tell us is what happened, but not why it happened.

This was the conundrum faced by Fischer Black, a colleague of Summers and another giant in the world of finance (he co-authored the Black-Scholes option pricing model).

The Wall Street Journal asked Black to comment on why the stock market crashed so spectactularly on October 19, 1987.  He responded with the conventional wisdom—the investors had decided that the market was riskier.  Yes, but why did the investors decide the market was riskier on that particular date?  Black’s response was delightful:  “It’s conceivable that a change in the well-informed forecast of future economic events moved the market as it did…on the other hand, it’s pretty weird”.

His mother was appalled.  “Fifteen years of education, three advanced degrees, and all you can say is ‘it’s weird’?.”****When it comes to Larry Summer and the quality of his economic strategy, I’m with Fischer Black’s mother.  That’s it?  That’s all you’ve got?

I fear that the academic world of economics (formulas and rules) has squelched creativity and initiative and that Larry Summers and his colleagues are caught in the trap of conventional wisdom.  This will surely lead us astray unless we find a way to encourage fresh perspectives from bright young minds who are prepared to look at the world as it really is and not as the economists would like it to be.

*Calgary Herald, Feb 14, 2012, D12

**from the Latin “videlicet” meaning “that is to say” or “namely”.  I’ve been dying to use it in a sentence, what better place than in a post about the titan of economics, Larry Summers!

***Association of Corporate Counsel Newstand, Poyner Spruill LLP, Feb 1, 2012       

****The Myth of the Rational Market, A History of Risk, Reward, and Delusion on Wall Street by Justin Fox, p 231.  See also p 328.

Posted in Economics, Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Budget 2012 – The “Hockey Stick” Budget

Posted on February 12, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Don’t you just love accountants?  I’m serious.  Every year accountants are given the thankless task of preparing “The Budget” and every year, bless their little number crunching hearts, they deliver—only to see their hard work go off the rails and into the ditch in less than 8 seconds.

The derailment process starts when the “higher ups” see the budget and react in horror and disbelief.  In the corporate world the “higher ups” know they can’t take that budget to the board of directors without risking the board (and the shareholders) concluding that management are incompetent spendthrifts.   In the political world, the Premier and her Cabinet know they can’t table a budget that fuels the Wildrose argument that the Torys are reckless money managers or attracts censure from the Liberals, NDP, and Alberta Party for sacrificing the most vulnerable Albertans on the altar of big business.  It has to a Goldilocks budget—not to big, not too small, just right—at least until after the election when the Premier and her party are safely ensconced in the Legislature for another 4 years.

The dialogue between the “higher ups” and the accountants invariably focuses on the assumptions underlying the numbers.  (This makes sense because assumptions are not laws of physics and can be changed with a stroke of the pen.)  The debate usually goes like this: “What do you mean [insert appropriate sacred cow] won’t hold from here to eternity?” or “What do you mean [insert extremely optimistic forecast] isn’t appropriate in these circumstances?

The Redford/Liepert 2012 budget includes some critical assumptions that deserve further scrutiny.  These are:

  • Oil prices will be $99/bbl.  Oil prices are influenced by the global economy which shows no signs of finding its feet any time soon.  There’s a 40% chance that the US economy will stumble and if that happens, oil prices will drop to the $90/bbl range.* A $1 drop in the price of oil results in a $223 million drop in revenues—do the math.
  • Natural gas prices will hold at $3 per gigajoule.  The market is flooded with natural gas, production is declining and new demand from industrial, power and LNG markets takes time to develop.  Bottom line: don’t expect a boost in natural gas royalties any time soon.
  • The Canadian dollar will remain in the 98.6 cent range against the US dollar.  The Cdn dollar and the US dollar shudder when someone sneezes.  If the loonie goes to par with the US dollar the impact is a $600 million drop in revenue.

Depending on how these assumptions play out we could be looking down the barrel of a $1 billion shortfall.

While some industry associations like SEPAC and CAPP**are prepared to support these assumptions, financial experts like FirstEnergy Capital Corp and BMO Capital Markets call them (delicately) a little optimistic.  And the big players in the industry are sending out mixed signals.  Husky expects a “lumpy” year and Nexen describes 2012 as “pivotal”.***

Given that resource revenue makes up about 30% (27.8% to be precise) of the budgeted revenue of $40 billion one would hope (pray actually) that the government didn’t resort to an overly “aggressive” approach to developing these assumptions.  Or to put it another way, in these uncertain times the assumptions should err on the side of caution, not wild-eyed optimism.  This is especially true when you consider that in order to achieve the dramatic turnaround from deficit to surplus the government must raid the Sustainability Fund.   By 2015 the Fund will have dropped from $14.9 billion to $2.4 billion.  That gives the government very little wiggle room if they got it wrong.

A CEO delivers a “bad news” budget to his board of directors by presenting a chart known as the “hockey stick”.  The blade of the hockey stick sits down in the lower left hand corner of the chart…this is the god-awful-horrible-results quadrant.  The stick then swoops up hard and fast to the top right quadrant where revenues flow into the corporate coffers, everyone collects their bonuses and goes home happy.  A smart director will ask for details about the assumptions to understand why these assumptions will drive the rapid rise up the hockey stick.  If the CEO doesn’t have a rational answer or, heaven forbid, the directors saw this very same hockey stick last year and the year before that, smart directors will fire the CEO before the shareholders dump their stock.

The Redford/Liepert “hockey stick” starts with an $886 million deficit (the god-awful corner of the chart), next year it turns the corner with a $952 million surplus and in 2 years it soars to the nirvana quadrant with a $5.19 billion surplus.  Like smart directors we need to ask ourselves:  Is the hockey stick based on a realistic assumption about resource revenues?  What’s Plan B if the resource revenue assumption fails to materialize?  And most importantly, how many times must we see this “hockey stick” before we do the political equivalent of firing the CEO and dumping the stock?  Think about it when you mark your ballot this spring.

*Craig Alexander, SVP and Chief Economist, TD Bank Group

**Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada and Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

***Calgary Herald, Feb 10, 2012, A10, D7, D4

Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , | 2 Comments

“Why I Joined The Wildrose Party”

Posted on February 5, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Before anyone has a coronary, that’s not “Why I (as in me) joined the Wildrose Party” but rather why Guy Boutilier joined the Wildrose Party.  But first, another question—why did a 69 year old woman, dressed up in a garbage bag, picket in front of the Provincial Building?  Here’s a clue.  It’s Gladys Schrader, she lives in Fort McMurray and she’s carrying a sign that says “Extended care or euthanasia?”* 

Mr Boutiler and Mz Schrader’s destinies became entwined in 1996 when Premier Klein came to Fort Mac to open a long term care (LTC) facility—31 beds on the 4th floor of the local hospital.  (Mr Klein refered to the seniors as “grey haired ladies”.  I’ll use the more respectful salutation “Mz”.)  It had taken 10 years to get this far.  Unfortunately the battle was far from over.  Soon the 4th floor was overflowing and seniors were packed into acute care beds on the 3rd floor.  They desperately needed a new facility.

Working through the usual channels was going nowhere so Mz Schrader went to Plan B.  This is where the garbage bag and sign come in.  She organized a protest on the same day that Premier Stelmach and 9 other ministers came to town to open the Syncrude sports centre.  By all accounts the Premier was unmoved.

Undaunted Mz Schrader circulated petitions, talked to the press and most importantly, worked with her Conservative MLA, Mr Boutilier.  He took her message to the Legislature and voila, in Jan 2008, a mere 12 years and one study later,**the PCs approved $35 million to construct a 48 bed LTC facility in downtown Fort McMurray.

Mz Schrader remained sceptical—with good reason as it turned out.  The funding came “under review” 3 months later and remained “under review” for a full yearuntil Health Minister Liepert decided he wouldn’t commit the money because a different study said there was no “urgent need” for LTC in Fort McMurray.***The LTC facility was erased from the 3 year capital budget and the money originally earmarked for the facility was “reprofiled”.   It should have gone into witness protection.

Mz Schrader did not take the news lightly:  “We’re not going to get it?  Well, surprise, surprise.  My battle cry has been we built this God damned city.  We’ve put in our time and now I need a home…and they’re not going to give it to me.  What happens if I have a stroke or something?”  It had not escaped Mz Schrader’s attention that the government and the Alberta Health Superboard did not need a study to justify giving themselves sizable raises.

Mr Boutilier would not let the matter rest.  He said Mr Liepert’s decision to delay was “gibberish”.  He worked with the Friends of Medicare to mount a protest against the government.  He assured the media and the seniors that he would do everything in his power to get the decision reversed……and he was thrown out of caucus.   After 12 years in government and various cabinet posts he was gone.  Apparently the only way the PCs can deal with an MLA who disagrees with the party line is to excommunicate him.

In Jan 2010 Mr Boutilier joined the Wildrose caucus.  Three months later, the Government announced plans to build a 100 bed continuing care facility with (you guessed it) 30 LTC beds which would replace the acute care hospital beds currently used to house LTC patients.  There was just one tiny snag—the Government had not yet secured the land.  And of course, no land, no project;  no project, no money.

In June 2011 (a year and a half later) the government solved the land problem.  It reviewed 6 sites and selected Willow Square, right across the street from the hospital which currently housed the LTC seniors.  The seniors were delighted.  Mr Danyluk, Minister of Infrastructure, Mr Hughes, Chairman of Alberta Health Services Board, Mr Brian Jean, federal Conservative MP and Ms Jablonski, Minister of Seniors came to Fort Mac to make the announcement.  (Mr Boutilier was not invited.)  The mood was all sweetness and light.  Ms Jablonski said “The province made a commitment, the premier made a commitment, today we name this location and soon we’ll be putting shovels in the ground”.   

Mr Boutilier was less optimistic.  “...there still isn’t a shovel in the ground yet and this is the fifth announcement”.  Mz Debrule, a senior, presented Seniors Minister Jablonski with an engraved paddle as punishment for previous broken promises.  Everyone chuckled.  The government was asked if it would renege if costs increased.  Mr Danyluk said “Not a chance”.

Everything settled down—for 6 months.  Then the government moved the LTC facility to Parsons Creek on the outskirts of town. The seniors were stunned.  Parsons Creek had no churches, no shopping centres and no hotels for visiting family members.  They would be isolated, away from their friends in town.  And most importantly, they weren’t mobile and would have to rely on public transportation—a taxi costs $50 to $70 round trip—to get to hospital for treatment.  Their protests were ignored.

In Jan 2012 the seniors had one last chance to voice their concerns.  Premier Redford and her entourage, Mr Horne, Health & Wellness, Mr Johnson, Infrastructure and Mr VanderBerg, Seniors, were swinging through Fort Mac on the pre-election magical mystery tour.  One hundred seniors met with the government to explain why the Parsons Creek site wouldn’t do.  Mr VanderBerg replied, “I’m firm for the long-term vision of our seniors that I want to choose the best site…where we can have a safe, secure site for our seniors, where we can expand, where it can be attached to a medical facility.  I couldn’t do that in Willow Square—not the vision that I have for the seniors of the future”.****

And that’s why Mr Boutiller joined the Wildrose.  The PCs have a “vision” for their constituents, whether their constituents like it or not.  Mr Boutilier sees it differently:  “My job is to represent the views of my constituents.  That’s what I’ve been doing, and that’s what I’ll continue to do”.*****

I’m not about to join the Wildrose Party any time soon, but anyone planning to vote for the PCs should consider two things (1) it took the Fort Mac seniors 16 years to end up…where? and (2) the PCs have a new leader, but have things really changed?  Oh and one more thing, anyone who underestimates the seniors in Fort McMurray, or anywhere else for that matter, had better think again.  They’re not sweet little old ladies any longer!

*Many thanks to Carol Wodak, publisher of CareWatch, for her in-depth research of the LTC crisis in Fort McMurray.  Readers interested in learning more can contact Carol at cwodak@techwcs.com.

**the Radke Study

***In Apr 2009, Mr Liepert used the McKinsey Report as justification that long term care was not an urgent need in Fort McMurray

****Connect Online Jan 27, 2012

*****Rabble.ca July 19, 2009

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , | 12 Comments

“Follow the Money” – The Coles Notes Version

Posted on January 29, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Government is all about money—finding it, spending it and saving it.  Politics is all about where you find the money, who you spend it on and how much, if any, you save.  The trifecta for any political party is to get all three of these right in the eyes of the voters.  How well has Alberta’s PC government done in the trifecta…grand slam or bust?  Kevin Taft’s new book Follow the Money gives us a pretty good idea—turns out it all depends on whether you’re a person or a corporation.*

First a little background.  Alberta is the richest province in Canada and one of the richest jurisdictions in the world thanks to its oil and natural gas reserves.  These reserves belong to all Albertans and are managed on our behalf by the government.  Given this great wealth why is our healthcare in the bottom third of all provinces in Canada?  Why are our schools over-crowded and underfunded?  Why are our seniors shunted from pillar to post instead of enjoying their waning years in a safe, let alone comfortable, long term care facility?  Where did all the money go?

Find the Money

Starting with the first leg of the trifecta—find the money—the traditional source of revenue for every government is taxes.  The PCs take inordinate pride in the fact that Alberta’s personal and corporate tax rates are the lowest in all of Canada.  Mr Snelgrove boasts that he could increase taxes by $11 billion and Alberta would still be the lowest taxed jurisdiction in the nation.

Why is this a good thing when Albertans are not receiving basic public services?  We would be prepared to pay higher taxes, if that money were put to good use.  Just ask Finance Minister Liepert.  He was given this message loud and clear by card-carrying PC party members;  the only people invited to participate in his budget consultation process.

A second source of revenue in a resource rich jurisdiction is royalties.  Former premier Stelmach commissioned an expert panel to review Alberta’s royalty framework. Unfortunately the review panel hit an iceberg and sank once it announced that royalties should increase by 20% or an additional $2 billion a year.  Energy companies threatened to pack up their rigs and leave the province.  Some of them did.  Apparently the concurrent drop in the price of natural gas was merely coincidental and in no way influenced their decision to flounce out the door.  The PCs snapped to attention and merely tweaked the royalty framework.  By happy coincidence oil prices began to surge and the energy companies came back.

Stripping away the corporate histrionics, the fact is that in 2011 Alberta corporations paid a combined provincial and federal tax of 26.5%.  Compare that to US companies which paid a combined state and federal corporate tax of 39.2%.   And remember that royalties weigh lightly on the balance sheet.  Syncrude sells crude oil for an average of $111/barrel and pays a mere $10/barrel in royalties.  There’s room for improvement, right?  And that’s where the issue becomes political—will increasing taxes and royalties drive voters into the arms of the Wildrose party?

Spend the Money

“We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem”.  That’s been the PC’s mantra ever since Mr Klein stepped into the premier’s office.  The poster child for excessive spending was (and remains) health care.  Public education is not far behind.  But is this true?  Not when the statistics are adjusted for inflation and population growth.  Alberta’s per capita spending on public services has remained flat for the last 20 years.  The 5 year average for 2005 to 2009 was $10,208 per person.  That’s $89 more than the 5 year average for 1989 to 1993 ($10,119 per person).  $89…??? 

Why is it important for the PCs to maintain the misconception that spending is out of control?  Kevin Taft urges us to “follow the money”.  Two things happened in the 1980’s that caught the PCs unprepared and started the yo-yo budget process.  Oil prices crashed and interest rates soared.  The PC’s strategy of borrowing to offset the loss of resource revenues imploded.  The annual deficit skyrocketed and debt grew.

And this is where politics comes in.  Rather than raise personal and corporate taxes and risk losing votes, the Klein government blamed the people and slashed public service spending by 50%.**  This budgetary oscillation continues today.  Resource revenue drops and public services are slashed;  resource revenue goes up (or an election is called) and public services are increased.  Unless we find a way to smooth out the impact of the boom/bust cycle this budgetary strategy will end badly.      

Save the money (or at least some of it)

The Alberta government saves money in two key funds:  the Sustainability Fund and the Heritage Fund.  The Sustainability Fund was created in 2003 to tide us over when oil and gas revenues drop.  It’s a brilliant idea and it works—in the short term.  The Heritage Fund was created by Peter Lougheed to save a portion of Alberta’s oil and gas royalties to protect us in future.  It started with a bang in 1976 but soon ran into trouble as Alberta slipped into the bust part of the boom/bust cycle.  The government reduced or eliminated contributions and inflation took its toll.  As a result the Heritage Fund is worth less today (in real dollars) than the day it was created.

Bottom Line

The Alberta economy has exploded—it’s up 70% per person over the last 20 years—and yet spending has remained flat and revenues (from taxes, royalties, etc) are not sufficient to balance the budget.  Why?  Because corporations are not required to pay their fair share.

So we come back full circle to the first leg of the trifecta:  Find the money.  Instead of finding the money by reducing public services and making the public pay, the government must turn its attention to Alberta’s corporate citizens and make them contribute by way of an equitable tax and royalty structure that will sustain the province for the long term.

“You’re richer than you think” is not just a Scotiabank slogan that flashes across the screen before the movie starts.  Here in Alberta it’s true…assuming your government properly performs its duties as steward of our natural resources on behalf of all Albertans, not just those who run oil and gas companies.    

*The facts presented here are drawn from Kevin Taft’s new book Follow the Money.  It is available at Audrey’s in Edmonton and can be ordered through your local bookstore.  I picked up my copy at The Owl’s Nest in the Britannia Shopping Centre.

** Follow The Money YouTube Video. 

 

 

Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , | 20 Comments

The Keystone XL Pipeline: Trapped in Silly Season

Posted on January 22, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

TCPL’s Keystone XL pipeline may not be dead, but it is mortally wounded thanks to President Obama’s refusal to grant a presidential permit allowing XL to proceed.  Many blame Alberta’s Conservative government for not doing enough to ensure that Keystone landed right side up at the end of the arduous 3 year approval process.  The PCs have failed Albertans in many ways—but this isn’t one of them.

Granted, the PCs should have enacted tougher environmental laws years ago instead of cosying up to industry.  That may have given some comfort to the environmentalists (as well as the feds who elbowed their way into Alberta’s environmental process).  However that’s about as far as we can go to blame the PCs for the failure of Keystone.

If you want to see who’s really responsible for Keystone going pear-shaped look no further than the corporations developing the oilsands, TCPL, and the quagmire created by American politics in an election year. The latter is particularly instructive given that Albertans are also entering the silly season.

Let’s start with the corporations.  It’s their responsibility, not the government’s, to ensure that the public is fully informed of the benefits and the risks of the oilsands and, more importantly, understand that the benefits outweigh the risks.  Public tax dollars are earmarked for projects in the public interest (think healthcare) and should not be spent on public relations efforts to bolster the private interests of a corporation’s shareholders.  These corporations have their own well-paid PR and government relations departments, they failed to use them effectively.

Turning to TCPL…What were they thinking?  It’s one thing to face down ranchers in a right-of-way dispute which ends in expropriation.  It’s quite another to plunk a ruler on a map, draw a straight line through Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska and declare that that’s the pipeline route come hell or high water—especially when the route runs straight as an arrow through the Sandhills and the Ogallala aquifer.

The environmentalists were enraged and joined forces with the disenfranchised ranchers to cry halt.  TCPL responded with charts and graphs.  It acknowledged the “unique challenges” of the Sandhills and committed to bringing in experts.*  It reassured the protesters that the odds of a leak in the Ogallala aquifer were small and the impact of a leak would be minimal in the grand scheme of things.

Maybe true, but dream on.  Charts and graphs never trump emotion.  The environmentalists drew in big name supporters but still TCPL refused to re-route the pipeline.  Instead it placed its future in the hands of the politicians…in an election year.  Desperate men do desperate things, but really…What were they thinking? 

The first crack in that game plan appeared when Obama delayed his decision on the presidential certificate until after the Nov 2012 election.  Surprise surprise.  The Republicans saw their opportunity and took it.  They cleverly tacked a rider to a tax reduction bill (only in the US…!) which imposed an arbitrary 60 day deadline within which Obama had to decide whether Keystone was in the national interest or not.

Obama had two choices: (1) go with the environmentalists and be painted as an anti-business tree hugger or (2) go with industry and lose the support of the powerful Natural Resources Defence Council and other activists forever.  Either way the Republicans win.

What do you do when you have to choose between 2 doors:  behind one is the lady and behind the other is the lion, except the lady isn’t a lady she’s another lion.  Obama was hooped.  On Jan 19th, a full month ahead of the deadline, he did exactly what the Republicans thought he’d do—he chose the environmentalists.

The Republicans are now frothing with well-staged indignation.  They’re working on 3 bills to “fight for the pipeline”.  They’ve “invited” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to testify about Keystone at the next House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing.  They’re abuzz with energy devoted to saving the pipeline that they themselves put in jeopardy.

The Keystone experience is instructive as Albertans go into the next election.  The controversy over Keystone was not caused by activists vs industry, or even politicians vs industry, but rather politicians vs politicians.  And when politicians are pitted against politicians in “silly season” they will throw everyone—the public, industry, their mothers—under the bus if that’s what it takes to be re-elected.

To paraphrase Kenneth Greene, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, every single word a politician says in silly season should be viewed as a campaign tactic.** Let’s keep a keen eye out for who’s about to be thrown under the bus.    

*TCPL Report, Pipeline Construction in Sandhills Native Ranchlands, TCPL website

**Calgary Herald, Jan 20, 2012, D7

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

What Do Alison Redford and George Orwell Have in Common?

Posted on January 15, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Premier Redford and the novelist George Orwell have one thing in common—they recognize the value of euphemisms in political discourse.

A euphemism is a mild or indirect word or expression used in place of one that is too harsh or blunt.  The recent exchange between Premier Redford and Prime Minister Harper about the national energy strategy is a brilliant example of two savvy politicians using euphemisms to stake out their positions on a critical federal and provincial issue—the exploitation of the oil sands.

Premier Redford fired the first volley (although she didn’t realize it at the time) in a speech to the Economic Club of Canada where she outlined her vision for a national energy strategy and Alberta’s role as a leader in the economic development of Canada.  She said Ottawa and the provinces needed to work together to make Canada an energy leader and—in a turn of phrase which in retrospect would have benefited from the application of a soothing euphemism—said “We need to put all antagonisms behind us.”* Antagonisms…?  Too adversarial, try something more bland like “differences” or better yet, scrap the sentence altogether.                                                                                                 

The Prime Minister was not amused (now there’s a euphemism if ever there was one), particularly when the premiers of BC, Sask, Que and Ontario climbed on board.  Mr Charest, the premier of Quebec, boldly stated that the provinces didn’t need the federal government to set up a national energy strategy because they were already working on it.  Take that Mr Harper!

Mr Harper’s response was measured and cut to the quick.  He was puzzled.  He described Redford’s energy strategy as “kind of vague”.  He had no idea what the premiers were talking about but looked forward to discussing it with them.  Then in a devastating use of euphemistic metaphor he flashed the sword of federal power.  He tied Redford’snational energy strategy to Trudeau’s National Energy Program (NEP) by stating that all Canadians get “nervous” when they hear the words “national” and “energy” used in the same sentence.  The NEP still evokes a visceral reaction from Albertans 40 years after the demise of that disastrous program.** Nice slap down Mr Harper, but was it really necessary?   

Yes it was—if you’re Mr Harper.  Strip away the cloak of euphemism to see what really going on here.  Mr Harper is not the least bit “confused” about Ms Redford’s national energy strategy.  It’s crystal clear to him that the provinces are banding together to create it and as far as Mr Harper is concerned if the provinces think they’re going to go forward a Canadian energy strategy without the fed’s involvement they can think again!

Ms Redford reacted quickly to this veiled attack on provincial cooperation.  She gave interviews expressing her “surprise” at the Prime Minister’s comments but was quick to note that she was “not offended”.  She said (and here’s a clever example of a sentence so vague it completely loses its meaning) that she “didn’t really take it as anything to be particularly preoccupied with one way or the other” and concluded that the Prime Minister’s comment was a tempest in a teacup.***

There are an awful lot of fluffy metaphors and abstract understatements flying around between Ms Redford and Mr Harper over the most critical issue facing Canadians today.  And that’s the point…euphemisms serve two purposes:  (1) to send messages staking out one’s position without being so blunt that the message requires an equally blunt response and (2) to phrase the message in language the public won’t fully understand so that the public is rendered incapable of participating in the discussion.

The use of euphemisms in political dialogue is very dangerous because a misguided political strategy will be well into implementation (perhaps completely haywire) before the public understands the facts and has an opportunity to complain.  That hasn’t happened yet in the discourse around the national energy strategy, but it has happened in the context of Alberta’s healthcare policies, energy policies and land management policies (to name a few).

The run-up to the provincial election will be peppered with euphemisms from all political parties.  We would be well advised to take George Orwell’s definition of euphemism to heart.  He said euphemism is obfuscatory language designed “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable”.****It’s time to start paying close attention.

*Calgary Herald Online Nov 16, 2011

**Edmonton Journal Online, Jan 6, 2012

***Calgary Herald Online, Jan 22, 2012 

****The Economist Dec 17, 2011, p107

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Ken Hughes in the Crosshairs

Posted on January 8, 2012 by susanonthesoapbox

Update:  It’s official.  On Jan 21/12 Ken Hughes was narrowly defeated on the 3rd ballot by Shiraz Shariff.  Good move on the part of the PCs.  Bad news for the opposition parties–the job of taking Calgary West away from the PCs just got a whole lot harder. 

It’s not every day that a politician plants himself squarely in the crosshairs but that’s exactly what happened when Ken Hughes announced he was running for the Conservative nomination in Calgary-West on the strength of his record as the chairman of the Alberta Health Services board.

Mr Hughes was chairman of the AHS board for 4 years.  He says he has a “good” record and highlights his achievements as (1) creating objectives for the healthcare system, (2) making it more responsive, (3) making it accountable and (4) providing it with stable funding.* Sounds good, but is this true?

Objectives

Yes, the system has objectives but the critical ones are not being met.  Surgical wait times, ER wait times and seniors blocking acute care beds are still in the “red zone”.** Physician engagement has improved—now it’s 43%–but this is still nothing to write home about.  Interestingly,  patient satisfaction is up to 86%, once again confirming that if you can make it through the mob in ER you will receive good care.  Bottom line:  nothing has changed.

Responsiveness

It is unclear what Mr Hughes is referring to.  If it’s responsiveness to Albertan’s needs I urge you to re-read the last paragraph.  If it’s responsiveness to the 7400 doctors represented by the Alberta Medical Association (AMA), they’ve been without a contract since March 2011.  Contract negotiations broke down because the government and Mr Hughes refused to accept physician input into decision making and conflict resolution.  Negotiations will hang in limbo for another 3 to 6 months to ensure that the AMA doesn’t rock the boat in the critical run-up to the election.

Meanwhile the AMA continues to be excluded from healthcare strategy.  It was completely blindsided when Ms Redford rolled out her plan to implement Family Care Centres.  The AMA doesn’t know what FCCs are or how they’re different from Primary Care Networks.  Neither do we.

Do Ms Redford and the Health Minister deliberately keep Mr Hughes in the dark or is he privy to their strategy but loathe to share it with the AMA because his primary loyalty is to his political masters?  In either case his conduct can hardly be described as responsive.

Accountability

During Mr Hughes’ tenure he had two opportunities to demonstrate accountability.  The first was when Dr Duckett was summarily dismissed by the Health Minister.  Four of his board members resigned citing ministerial interference.  Mr Hughes said nothing.  The second opportunity arose when the 7400 doctors in the Alberta Medical Association called for a public inquiry into the intimidation of doctors.  Mr Hughes said nothing.  Instead of being accountable to his board and the physicians Mr Hughes ducked below the parapet out of the line of fire.  We all know it can be a career limiting move to contradict the boss, but that’s when integrity kick in.

Stable Funding

Mr Hughes is right, the 5 year funding plan is an excellent idea—one small snag, it wasn’t his idea.  The 5 year funding plan was created by the former Health Minister, Mr Zwozdesky, so it’s a little disingenuous of Mr Hughes to take credit for the plan.  ‘Nuff said.

The complete record

If Mr Hughes wants to talk about his record let’s talk about his entire record, including the rough patches.  In addition to the culture of intimidation which continues to drive top-notch physicians out of the province and unacceptable wait times, the record contains sloppy diagnostic processes resulting in misdiagnoses all over the province, the mismanaged H1N1 vaccination program topped off by the Calgary Flames queue-jumping episode, transferring the Tom Baker cancer testing centre to an AHS subsidiary and the creation of 5 new health regions—a signal that the centralization strategy Mr Hughes is so proud of is unravelling.

Why is Mr Hughes relying on his record? 

Given these blemishes on Mr Hughes’ record why is he relying on it in his bid for Ron Liepert’s old seat?  Perhaps he actually believes his own PR.  Or perhaps he knows his record will be a tough sell but as any good litigation lawyer will tell you, it’s always better to get the bad news out first and reshape it into something more palatable (if the voters are asleep they really will believe that black is white).

Or, and this is more likely, it doesn’t matter what Mr Hughes’ record is.  Mr Hughes has been a loyal foot soldier and the Conservatives take care of their own.  The old guard will ensure that Mr Hughes wins the nomination and lands a cabinet post that will ease him gently into retirement.

If this is the case Mr Hughes is not in the crosshairs at all.  In fact he’s wearing a bullet proof vest and Ms Redford and her friends will ensure that he comes to no harm.  However, his competition, young Mr Ellis, doesn’t stand a chance.

* Calgary Herald, Jan 4, 2012, A4

**AHS Performance Report Q2 2011/2012

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

Allison Redford’s New Years Resolutions

Posted on December 31, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

The only thing more irritating than your own New Year’s resolutions are those made for you by someone else.  Nevertheless, I’ve created 10 New Year’s resolutions for Alison Redford.  Hey, she’s busy preparing for the spring election, I’m sure she’ll appreciate the gesture.  So here goes:

1.  Find the line between “politician” and “public servant” and enforce it

This shouldn’t be too difficult.  “Politicians” focus on their political party’s best interests while “public servants” focus on…you guessed it…the public’s best interests.  So no more misguided statements from the likes of Finance Minister Liepert about why there were no non-PCs participating in the round table discussions about the 2012 budget.  He said it was a government process.  Yes we got that, but what about the fact that only PC members were invited to attend?  Mr Liepert was acting as a politician when he should have been acting as a public servant.

2.  Listen more, talk less and share (also known as Public Consultation)

We love public consultation provided we’re actually consulted!  It’s not enough to invite your PC friends (see resolution #1) and push the rest of us to an on-line survey, then triumphantly declare that you’ve consulted all Albertans.  You haven’t.  We know it and you know it so stop it.  While we’re at it, we’d like to see the results of the public consultation processes.  We interested in what other Albertans are thinking (and we don’t really trust you).

3.  Demand accountability  

MLAs who are given cabinet posts are accountable for the actions of their ministries and you as Premier are accountable for the actions of your ministers.  Ministers who dance around failures in their ministries should be removed from office.  It’s early days yet but two ministers are on the knife edge and should be turfed if their performance does not improve immediately.

Both of these ministers are responsible for our most vulnerable citizens—the sick, the elderly and the disabled.  Mr VanderBurg, Seniors Minister, has called for a judge-led “probe” into the recent scalding deaths in provincial facilities.*  Health Minister Horne is calling for a “proactive” investigation into the spate of medical test misdiagnoses.

There have been enough probes, investigations and inquiries in these two ministries to fill a warehouse with paper.  The correct ministerial response is:  you’re right, this is unacceptable, we’ll be back in 2 months to show you how we’ve fixed it.

4.  Transparency

Alison, this one needs a lot of work.  The freedom of information laws have been in place for years and yet the outgoing Privacy Commissioner, Frank Work, has repeatedly expressed concern over your government’s efforts to circumvent these laws.  You promised transparency, but once elected you delivered a Freedom of Information pledge.  A pledge??  To do what…obey the law?

Instead of trying to appear more transparent, be more transparent.  Start by disclosing the amount the PC party is paying to top-up your salary.  And yes, this is our business because these funds are donations.  If the top-up is $3000 we won’t care, but if it’s closer to $100,000 then we want to know who the donors are so that we can watch for conflicts of interest.

5.  Give the Opposition some credit

You don’t have all the answers.  Accept that.  Allow others to input into your decisions.  Your government represents all Albertans, not just those with PC membership cards.  You were well advised to heed your own Mr Marz, who bravely spoke out against your .05 drinking and driving bill.  You’d be equally well advised to pay heed to the Opposition MLAs.  How else will you know what we’re thinking?

6.  Uphold the democratic process

No more ”faux throne speeches” on days reserved for private members bills and no more ramrodding contentious legislation through the House under the guise of “informed debate”.  There’s nothing more to add to this point—it’s such a flagrant abuse of the democratic process that it’s unconscionable.  See also resolution #5, give the opposition some credit.

7.  Stop the yo-yo budget process

From Feb 2011 to Oct 2011 the 2012 budget was in deficit (Mr Morton), no it wasn’t (Mr Snelgrove), yes it was (Mr Liepert).  Get real.  The PC budget process is a yo-yo driven by (1) the price of oil and gas and (2) where we are in the election cycle.  It is symptomatic of irresponsible governance.  You asked Albertans for their input into the 2012 budget.  Now create a real budget and test it with the voters instead of promising the world to get elected and then slashing social programs once you’re in office.

8.  No more “bait and switch” on campaign promises

I don’t care how you package it, the Health Quality Council investigation under the Health Quality Council Act is not the same as a public inquiry under the Public Inquiry Act.  And promising to support public funded healthcare is not the same as promising to support the publicly delivered healthcare.  Gary Mar lost the leadership race because he clearly stated he supported privately delivered healthcare.  You said the opposite.  So before you slide us into the arms of even more private service providers we need to talk.  And on that point see resolution #1 public consultation.

9.   Get elected by demonstrating authentic leadership

You respect “authentic leadership” which you define as “this is who I am, if you elect me this is who I’ll be”.** When you were elected you said:  “Make no mistake—we’re going to do things differently”*** So here we are.  These resolutions embody “doing things differently”.  Breaking them is not the same as breaking a resolution to lose 10 pounds.  We won’t care if you’re plump, but we will care if we can no longer trust you.

10.  Sing in public more often

You were the key note speaker at a recent fund raising event.  You praised the efforts of the Homeless Foundation to improve the lives of disadvantaged Albertans.  Then you sang “In the Jungle” with the Heebee Geebees.  It’s easy to be magnanimous when there is nothing at stake.  Alison, if you let your heart and spirit guide you as it did that night you will accomplish great things.  But if you succumb to the pressure of the PC party (and perhaps it’s impossible not to be swallowed by the machine) then even if you win the election you will have lost your purpose.

Good luck.  We’ll see you at election time.

*Calgary Herald, Dec 31, 2011, p A6

** Calgary Herald, Oct 29, 2011 A4  

***Calgary Herald, Dec 30, 2011, A4

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 16 Comments