Ziggy in the Christmas Tree

Posted on December 23, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

This was supposed to be a magnificent post about the power of the internet and how it opened the Pandora’s box of the Information Age…it turned a small intimate post about the dog in the Christmas tree.

Here’s the backstory.  I’m the eldest of four girls.  Three of “The Sisters” (that’s how we refer to ourselves when we’re in a pack) live in paradise, also known as British Columbia, while I live in Calgary, also known as the place where it snows in August.  I don’t see The Sisters as often as I’d like but we keep in touch over the internet, primarily through emails which circulate on a weekly basis.  These emails carry news of joy, pain, sorrow and the plain old humdrum of everyday life.  At Christmas time they buzz with details about who’s going to Mom and Dad’s place (also in paradise), when they’re going to get there and which of the semi-adult children will be with them.

Recognizing that I couldn’t visit the folks or The Sisters this year, Linda, the middle sister, suggested we share pictures of our Christmas trees.  Rose, the next eldest, sent a lovely photo of a traditional tree.  How she managed to string even one bauble, given the year she’s had, is beyond me.  Jo, the youngest sent a gingerbread tree—a stunning achievement considering the girl never cooks let alone bakes.

Then Linda sent The Photo.  It came in a jpg labelled “cat and tree”.  I scoured that picture for 5 minutes and couldn’t find that wretched cat anywhere.  I gave up and moved on to her note.  It was only then that I discovered there was no cat in the tree.  This comes as no surprise because (a) none of us has ever seen her wacko cat (it hates people and won’t come out from under the couch) and (b) Linda has always been, shall we say, a bit impish.

That prompted my photo—Ziggy in the Christmas Tree.  It’s a picture of my daughter’s dog, a 100 pound black and gray Bouvier des Flandres.  In order to find him think: Waldo (as in “where is…”).  You’ve got 10 seconds.  Go.  (For those of you with failing eyesight and no patience, the solution appears at the end of the blog).  

The sisters responded quickly.  Rose loved it and suggested Ziggy should be wearing reindeer antlers.  Jo came back with “I see Zoggy” (too much eggnog) and Linda thought we should just decorate the dog and skip the tree altogether (see what I mean about “impish”).

This delightful exchange, sparked by Linda’s “cat and tree” photo, reminded me of why I love the internet.  It allows us to compress distance (1000 kilometers) and time (12 hours by car) to be a family.

The internet saga doesn’t end with The Sisters.  My 84 year old parents shocked us all when Dad announced that he’d bought a second hand computer for $50.  My father wanted it so that he could record his golf scores.  The next thing I knew I received an email:  “hi susan”.  That was it.  I whipped off an ecstatic reply.  Nothing.  My mother went for help and found a Windows for Dummies book.  They argued for 30 minutes about how to reply to an email.  Is Dad replying or sending?  Mom said think about the computer as your secretary (he’s never had a secretary), you receive a letter and tell your secretary to send a reply.  (I’ll bet that cleared it up).

I’m not sure what happened but a week later Dad wrote to my husband:  “Hello Roy This is your Father in law calling to let you know I entered the Computer age.”  Yipee, we have lift off!  Enthusiastically I fired off “Ziggy in the Christmas Tree” with instructions on how to click on the jpg to open it and how to close it (take the arrow up to red X).  Dad sent a reply: he couldn’t find Ziggy, all he could see were photos of Jo in Hawaii and Rose in a Halloween costume (Huh??).

Luckily Mom and Dad have their own personal IT guy—Rose’s husband.  Thank god he really is an IT guy and is used to responding to questions like “where did all the icons go?”  Mom says Dad needs to stop hitting YES whenever he’s given the choice.  I’m awestruck.  If two eccentric Hungarians can conquer the internet anything is possible.

Right, it’s time to show you the answer to Where’s Ziggy?  Here’s an enhanced version of Ziggy in the Christmas Tree.  You couldn’t see him at first because you were dazzled by the Christmas tree lights and were searching for a 100 pound dog, but if you look carefully at the bottom of the tree you’ll see Ziggy’s head, his pointy ears and one soft dark eye looking right at you.  Once you’ve discovered how to see him, you’ll always be able to see him.  He’s like the internet, once you’ve discovered how to use it, there’s no going back.

Merry Christmas Mom and Dad, Rose, Linda, Jo and their families.  And Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all of you and your families.

PS    If you have a photograph of your dog, cat, or goldfish in a Christmas tree, send it to me.

PPS  No Linda, you can’t photoshop Tigger into the tree.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

The Game of Clue – Part 2 (Did Mr Zwozdesky lie?)

Posted on December 18, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

When we last saw Miss Scarlett (oops, Ms Notley) she had just informed Professor Plum (sorry, House Speaker, Mr Kowalski) that the former Health Minister Mr Zwozdesky (oh the heck with it…Colonel Mustard) had misled the House when he said that the source of the July 2010 power point document (which outlined the government’s future plans for increased privatization of healthcare) was the people of Alberta and not the government itself.

Let’s pick up the thread and see how Miss Scarlett, I beg your pardon, Ms Notley, made out… 

You’ll recall that the Speaker postponed Ms Notley’s motion on the point of privilege because Mr Zwozdesky was away from the House attending to a family matter.  So Ms Notley waited patiently until Nov 21, 2011 when the House reconvened following an unexpected (and unnecessary) recess.

Painstakingly she laid out her case;  an allegation of misleading the House (also known as lying) is a very serious matter.  If proven, the former Health Minister would be in contempt of the House.  In my view any elected representative caught misleading the House—the only assembly with power to enact legislation—should be drawn and quartered, but I digress.

Ms Notley had to meet the test established by Mr McGee, former Clerk of the House of Representatives in New Zealand.  (Mr McGee from New Zealand…I love it!)  She had to show that (1) Mr Zwozdesky’s statement was misleading, (2) he knew it was misleading when he made it and (3) he intended to mislead the House when he made it.

She was 17 minutes into her presentation when the Speaker cut her off in mid-sentence.  He said:  Hon. Member, please excuse me for a second.  Would you please take your seat?  What?  That’s like a judge cutting off an attorney’s summation to the jury in mid flight.

The Speaker reminded Ms Notley of the rules governing standing orders.  They are to be “brief statements”.  He acknowledged that “brief” was a subjective term, but in his view “brief” meant “several moments”.*  Mr Speaker, might I direct you to the Oxford dictionary which defines “moment” as a very brief period indeed, in fact an instant?  So much for procedural fairness, but perhaps it doesn’t matter if you’ve already made up your mind.  But I digress.         

Ms Notley, being the spunky gal that she is, stood her ground:  she had 4 minutes left and wanted to present the document underpinning her case.  The Speaker responded graciously—“You just wasted 20 seconds.  I’ll give you 4 more minutes”.*  

Ms Notley replied with a snarky comeback.  Well no, she didn’t, but I’m sure she wanted to.

Ms Notley showed that a Confidential Ministerial Report written in May 2010 represented the views of the government.  Mr Zwodesky was aware of these views because the May document was created by his ministry on his behalf.  These views reappeared in the July power point document and Mr Zwozdesky said that the July power point document represented the views of Albertans, not the views of the government.  This was not true and as a result Mr Zwozdesky misled the House and should be censured (or drawn and quartered, take your pick).

The Speaker gave Mr Zwozdesky some time to respond.  Two days later Mr Zwozdesky replied in classic bombastic fashion:  “This is absolutely false and otherwise totally incorrect.”**  

Apparently the problem isn’t Mr Zwozdesky’s misstatement, but rather Ms Notley’s “fundamental lack of understanding of government processes and misinterpretation of some facts”.** Mr Zwozdesky offeredthis convoluted explanation.  The government routinely consults with the people and compiles, collates, categorizes and otherwise organizes their feedback in a report to the Minister.  The May document is such a report and represents the views of the people.  The May document became the foundation for the July power point document.  Ergo, the July power point document represents the views of the people and Mr Zwozdesky did not mislead the House.  Sorry Ms Scarlett, it’s not Colonel Mustard in the ballroom with the wrench afterall.  Try again.

But wait…think about the logic of Mr Zwozdesky’s explanation.  If the May document reflects the views of the people, then they’ve told the Government that they want a two-tier system, extra billing, queue jumping and doctors to be able to opt in and out of the public system!  That’s Mr Zwozdesky’s explanation of how those statements made it into the May report and were ultimately carried forward into the July power point document…or maybe, just maybe, the May document represents the views of the Government just as Ms Notley alleged and Mr Zwozdesky misled the House yet again.   

The Game was put on hold for a day while the Speaker ruminated over what he’d heard.  It came as no surprise that the Speaker ruled that Ms Notley failed to meet the McGee test and the matter was concluded in favour of Mr Zwozdesky.

Only a fool would fail to see that the Game of Clue is rigged.  The opposition will never catch Colonel Mustard in the ballroom with the wrench because the Government will simply grab the dice and pack up the board.  So why do Ms Notley and others like her bother to raise a point of privilege in the first place?

Simple, the opposition isn’t playing the Game with the Government.  They are playing the Game with the people.  The opposition wants the people to see how the Government has misused its power in order to circumvent the democratic process.

So thank you Ms Scarlett!  We see the real game being played out beneath the veneer of government consultation.  And we’ll remember that game when we step into the voting booth next spring because we’re on the same side.

* Hansard, Nov 21, 2011, 1206

** Hansard, Nov 23, 2011, p 1299

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged | 11 Comments

37,000 Lawyers

Posted on December 11, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

Lawyers are delightful people…seriously!  I’m not just saying that because I’m a member of the legal fraternity.  They love esoteric debate and understand our laws better than most Canadians.  And when they get riled up they take it to the streets—well, the virtual streets of the internet.

This fall 37,000 lawyers represented by the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) marshalled their knowledge and experience to critique Bill C-10, Harper’s Omnibus Crime Bill.  This Bill bears the innocuous moniker, the Safe Street and Communities Act.  Rather ironic, if not downright misleading, considering that Canada already has the safest streets and communities in the world and our crime rates are dropping not rising.

Bill C-10 is a mishmash of 9 different bills covering a range of proposals including at-risk youth, victims of terrorism, immigrant and refugee protection and the elimination of judicial discretion in sentencing.  The CBA analyzed over 150 pages of legislation.  Not an easy task considering that some of these proposals had surfaced in earlier bills, were commented on, changed and then resurrected in their original flawed form in Bill C- 10.

As a result of its analysis the CBA had no choice but to express its “serious concerns” (legalese for OMG!!!) in a 100 page submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—twice.

The CBA also published a 2 pager setting out 10 reasons to oppose the Bill.

The CBA’s “serious concerns” fall into two baskets:  process and substance (which pretty much covers the waterfront).

The process concerns were driven by Harper’s pre-election promise to deliver a tough crime bill within 100 days of being in power.  He’s done that.  He’s also trampled the democratic process embedded in parliamentary review.  For example there is absolutely no evidence to support the need for this Bill.  Crime rates and severity are at record low levels, with murder rates at their lowest point since the mid 1960s.  Canadians know this—93% of them report feeling safe from crime.

But the Government was not interested in hearing the evidence.  Lawyers, jurists and other experts were not given enough time to properly review the 150 page Bill.  All that appears in the section dealing with offences against children is this poignant sentence:  “We have not prepared comments on this part of the Bill”.  Neither was the CBA given sufficient time to present its views to the Parliamentary Committee–experts were routinely cut off in mid-sentence 5 minutes into their presentations.

All the while Harper’s PR department was on “full spin” cycle, busily dishing out half truths to ratchet up the politics of fear and market the idea that Harper had delivered on his pre-election promise.  Unfortunately the Bill’s overreach and overreaction to a non-existent problem will create the very problems it is supposed to solve.

Here’s why.  The focus of Bill C-10 is retribution and punishment as opposed to prevention and rehabilitation.  It is based on the premise that longer incarceration and enhanced disciplinary powers in the hands of prison guards will magically deter the criminally inclined from committing crimes or re-offending.  Furthermore, the Bill signals a lack of trust in the judiciary by severely constricting the judges’ discretionary powers in sentencing.  The end result is more prisons to house more inmates at greater cost to the taxpayer.

The saddest indictment of Bill C-10 is that this heavy handed approach was tried in California and Texas—and failed.  These jurisdictions are now on “course correction” having realized that retribution and punishment costs too much and makes the justice system worse, not better.  And yet Canada is plunging headlong down a path already proven to be disastrous.

As an aside, even Chief Dale McFee, the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, recognizes the need for balance:  “When we’re dealing with serious crime, there’s quite frankly some people that need to go to jail but there’s also a lot of people (for whom) early intervention and prevention will go a long ways and save lots of money and obviously be more efficient in achieving the results at that end.”*   

Bill C-10 has already cleared the House and is on its way to the Senate.  Is it too late to do something about it?

It’s never too late to stand up for the democratic process and a well balanced justice system.  Take a look at the recent Alberta experience with Bill 26, which introduced stiffer penalties for drivers caught between .05 and .08 blood alcohol levels.  Bill 26 was rammed through the House by the majority PC government, but extremely negative feedback from the general public and restaurant and pub owners directly to their PC MLAs resulted in Premier Redford delaying the implementation of Bill 26 until next summer.  There will be an election between now and then, many new players will join the Legislature.  Who knows what might happen.

“What do you get when 37,000 lawyers are agitated?”  is not the start of a lawyer joke.  It’s an act of political activism.  The CBA needs our help.  Here’s what you can do.  Go to the CBA President’s letter on the CBA website.  Follow the trail to your MP and the Prime Minister.  Tell them that the Government failed to respect the democratic process when it passed Bill C–10 and the implementation of the Bill should be held in abeyance until all parties have an opportunity to give it due consideration.

Let’s face it, if 37,000 stogy old lawyers can become political activists, so can you.

*CTV On-line Dec 6, 2011.   

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged | 5 Comments

Bill 24 – The Democratic Process is Swiss Cheese

Posted on December 4, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

Alberta’s Privacy Commissioner nailed it when he said that the government’s propensity to override the public’s right to information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) was turning FOIP into “Swiss cheese”.* This is deeply distressing to citizens who live in a democratic society because the right to information, to quote Mr Work, “is fundamental to openness, accountability and transparency for public bodies.”  

Let me take Mr Work’s concern one step further.  The right to information is meaningless without the associated right of informed debate in the Legislature.  Both of these rights are fundamental to the democratic process.  And both of these rights has been shredded by 40 years of PC rule.

Take the debate over Bill 24, the Health Quality Council of Alberta Act, as an example.

The Bill 24 debate started when Premier Redford painted herself into a corner with her campaign promise to call a public inquiry into the intimidation of doctors and queue jumping.  It went sideways when Ron Liepert threw down the gauntlet and said “over my dead body”.  The result of this imbroglio is Bill 24.

Whenever new legislation is proposed you should ask two questions:  (1) what is the problem the Legislature is trying to fix and (2) is the proposed legislation the best way to fix it?

The answer to the first question is obvious.  The problem the Legislature is trying to fix is the a culture of intimidation which is driving good doctors out of the province and killing the moral of those who stay.  After a pathetic attempt to convince the public that Bill 24 was exactly what Premier Redford meant when she promised a public inquiry the debate shifted to the second question:  is Bill 24 the best way to fix the problem?

Health Minister Horne argues that a HQC inquiry under Bill 24 is better than a public inquiry under the Public Inquiry Act because Bill 24 is “customized to” and “best fits” the requirements of the health system.** Unable to demonstrate that the health system is unique, Mr Horne argued out of both sides of his mouth.  He said that the Public Inquiries Act will impose more confidentiality than Bill 24 but admitted that the “in camera” powers under Bill 24 are broader than those under the Public Inquiries Act.*** 

Mr Horne’s focus on degrees of confidentiality completely misses the point.  No one is asking for confidential treatment.  The doctors are asking for the exact opposite—they want to speak freely and not be sued for breach of their non-disclosure agreements or worse yet, be harassed and intimidated to the point where they join the diaspora fleeing Alberta for a better life elsewhere.

The doctors want to show Albertans what intimidation looks like.  They want a process to force the “in crowd”—PCs and their friends at College of Physicians and Surgeons, Alberta Health and Wellness (Minister Horne) and Alberta Health Services (the Superboard)—to stop the intimidation or suffer the consequences for failure to do so.

And that’s the nub of the problem.  No matter how you cut it, Mr Horne’s rhetoric fails to justify the fundamental flaw with Bill 24.  Namely that the Tories have handpicked the HQC which will handpick the HQC inquiry panel.  The HQC panel will agree to allow testimony “in camera” if they are asked to do so by the “in crowd” and their decision to go “in camera” is final and not open to judicial review.

Couple Mr Horne’s misleading characterization of the Public Inquiries Act with the fact that the time for debate of this and several other critical bills has been compressed into a few days and evenings and you have an abuse of the democratic process of informed debate.

The Fall Session under Premier Redford is scheduled to run for 10 days.  The first 2 days were primarily devoted to Ms Redford’s faux Throne Speech (Alberta will survive in the face of global uncertainty if we all tighten our belts).  The last 8 days will be devoted to House business and debate on proposed legislation.

To their credit the Opposition agreed to sit for extended hours.  This works for the PCs who have 67 members and can rotate MLAs through the hall, giving key MLAs an opportunity to rest up between rounds.  The Opposition however are glued to their seats.  The quality of debate on both sides has deteriorated.  Members are exhausted.  They’re calling each other bozos.  They’re zoning out or taking catnaps.  The proposed bills are amended time and time again, amendments and subamendments are tabled and the MLAs can’t remember which item they’re debating.

Mr Mason (NDP) raised this concern with the PCs.  He called it ‘legislation by exhaustion”.  Mr Hancock responded with disdain.  He said the MLAs should suck it up and do their job.  He referred to the proposed legislation as “Seven very straightforward, relatively simple bills.  Important, straightforward, but simple.****He provided a short precise of each bill.  Unfortunately in classic Rick Perry fashion he forgot two.  I think he was tired.

At the end of the day the Opposition doesn’t stand a chance.  They don’t have the time or resources to research and analyse the bills, get feedback from their constituents, propose amendments and debate bills that the PCs have been working on for months.  The risk of creating a statute that is nothing more than a PC driven ill-conceived hodge-podge runs high.

If there is one thing that has become painfully clear from observing Premier Redford’s first term as PC leader it’s this:  legislation by exhaustion may be in the best interests of the PC party, but it is definitely not in the best interests of the public.  So when you’re standing in the election booth think of Swiss cheese—interesting food, scary democratic process.

*Report on the Use of “Paramount” Clauses in Acts and Regulations to Override the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

**Hansard, Nov 29, p 1479

*** Hansard, Nov 22, 1236.  Mr Horne makes two specious arguments.  First he says that the Public Information Act will not protect confidential health information.  It will by way of an application under section 9(4)(b) or (c) of the Act.  Second he argues that the Public Inquiries Act requires certain matters to be heard in private.  It does, but they are  matters that are legally required to be kept confidential by statute, regulation or court order.  A non-disclosure agreement or employment contract is not a statute, regulation or court order so this point is irrelevant.

****Hansard, Dec 1, 2011, p 1589

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Bill 24 — A Public Inquiry?

Posted on November 27, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

Question:  when is a public inquiry not a public inquiry?  Answer:  when the controversial testimony must be given behind closed doors.  Welcome to Bill 24—the Health Quality Council of Alberta Act.

We all remember Premier Redford’s breakout moment in the PC leadership race when she promised to call a public inquiry into the allegations of physician intimidation and queue jumping.  Her promise inspired non-PC voters to come out in support of the one PC candidate we thought would shine a light on this horrific problem.

But as soon as Ms Redford moved into the Premier’s office she changed her tune.  There would be no public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act.  Instead she tabled Bill 24.  The question on everyone’s mind was why.  Was it a bait and switch on Ms Redford’s part or had she been brought into the picture by the present and former Health Ministers and now realized that a true public inquiry was out of the question, especially in an election year?

In any event Bill 24 just doesn’t cut it.  Here’s why.

At first blush Bill 24 and the Public Inquiries Act appear to be similar.  Both provide the coercive power to compel the attendance of witnesses and force them to produce documentation.  Both carve out exceptions which allow documents to be kept confidential and testimony to be given in camera.  However, unlike the Public Inquiries Act, Bill 24 expands the power to shroud documents and testimony in secrecy and fails to set up a system of checks and balances to ensure that this power to remain hidden is not abused.

For example, both the Public Inquiries Act and Bill 24 allow an inquiry to go behind closed doors if making the information public “would be injurious to the public interest”.  This is a nebulous concept at the best of times;  but it is made worse in Bill 24 by the addition of a second exception.  The HQC Panel may shield the information if it’s essential to do so “in the interests of justice”.

This raises the prickly question of what kind of information would be “injurious to the public interest” or against the “interests of justice”.  The only way to determine whether the HQC Panel has interpreted either of these lofty concepts correctly is to take the question to a court of law.

Oops, sorry, that avenue is blocked.  Bill 24 expressly prohibits any court from questioning or reviewing the HQC’s Panel’s decision to hear testimony in camera.  The Public Inquiries Act on the other hand does not throw up barriers to judicial review.

Given that there’s no right of appeal at the back end, who decides what information should be disclosed in private at the front end?  Under the Public Inquiries Act the only person who can make that decision is the Justice Minister—and he can’t do so at a whim.  He’s required to certify that he believes the disclosure would reveal Cabinet deliberations, matters that would not be in the public interest or matters which can’t be disclosed without prejudice to the interest of others not involved in the inquiry.  Making a false certificate is enough to get a lawyer disbarred so it’s not a step that is taken lightly and don’t forget—it is reviewable by a court.

Contrast this to Bill 24 which offhandedly refers to “an application” to hold the hearing in camera without ever identifying who the applicant is.  Could it be Health Minister Horne who called the president of the Alberta Medical Association to express “concern” about Raj Sherman’s mental health which forced Mr Sherman to undergo a psychiatric evaluation?  What about Mr Liepert who as Health Minister canceled a public awareness campaign about a syphilis outbreak—a number of public health officials and doctors were terminated and Alberta’s syphilis rates spiked to Third World levels.  Or perhaps Dr Wright, the Head of the Dept of Pathology who told Dr Magliocco that he’d “regret” making waves over the closure of the Tom Baker cancer labs?  The list is endless.

One last point of comparison, the Public Inquiry Commission is allowed to mention in its report that certain issues were discussed in camera.  However the only way that the HQC Panel’s report can allude to the existence of private testimony is if it can convince itself that such a reference is essential to the completeness and integrity of the report and is in the public interest.  Good luck.

That’s why an inquiry held under Bill 24 will be a mere shadow of an inquiry held under the Public Inquiries Act.  The checks and balances which weigh the interest in disclosure against the interest in confidentiality are non-existent.  As a result the HQC Panel is biased in favour of confidentiality.  Significant parts of the inquiry will occur behind closed doors, unbeknownst to the public.

At the end of the day the HQC Panel will recommend a process for advocacy and perhaps more decentralized decision making—and our doctors will continue to struggle with the culture of intimidation.

Ms Redford promised a public inquiry.  She delivered Bill 24.  Like Harry Potter’s cloak of invisibility, Bill 24 appears to be transparent but once the HQC Panel puts it on they’ll be safely hidden from the prying eyes of the public.

So much for transparency and rebuilding public trust.

NOTE:  Bill 24 also amends the Health Information Act to allow the HQC to use the health information in its custody or control to conduct investigations and disciplinary proceedings relating to members of the health profession.  See Explanatory Note 26(4).  The HQC did not have this power before it was empowered to conduct public inquiries…why does it need it now?

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged | 7 Comments

Square Peg/Round Hole — Redford’s Proposal to Beef Up the Health Quality Council Review

Posted on November 20, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

UPDATE — Premier Redford promised changes to the HQC which would allow it to conduct a public inquiry.  She delivered Bill 24 which allows the  HQC  to take the “public inquiry” behind closed doors under a number of circumstances.  So much for transparency.  I will post an analysis of Bill 24 this weekend.  Stay tuned.  

Have you ever watched a child playing with a wooden hammer and peg set?  It’s all sweetness and light until he gets bored hammering the pegs and tries to hammer in a lego block instead.  That’s because the lego block is a square peg being forced into a round hole…and good luck trying to get it back out again.

Premier Redford is using this “square peg/round hole” approach to augment the powers of the Health Quality Council* (HQC) and buttress her claim that the HQC can properly review (for a second time) allegations that physicians who dared to advocate on behalf of their patients were subjected to intimidation.

Physicians and the public have been calling for a public inquiry into these allegations since 2010.  But the PCs under Stelmach refused to budge, arguing that the HQC review was as good as a public inquiry.  However during the PC leadership race Ms Redford broke from the pack.  She promised a public inquiry into the culture of intimidation if she were elected—and now she’s trying to wiggle out of her campaign promise by arguing that a beefed up HQC review will be sufficient.

For the record, there’s been some discussion about whether Ms Redford promised a “public” inquiry or a “judicial” inquiry.  This is simply semantics.  The terms are used interchangeably in the media and mean the same thing to the public—a transparent inquiry that is open to the public.

So what are these “beefed up” powers and how will they magically transform the HQC review to something akin to a public inquiry?  Stephen Carter, the Premier’s chief of staff, says 3 key elements are mandatory:  “…the inquiry must be truly independent, it must be able to compel evidence and it must be led by a judge”.**

Let’s break down each element to understand why it falls short of the mark.

True Independence:  Mr Carter says the HQC should report to the Legislature instead of the Health Minister.  This would be a good move.  But as Don Braid astutely points out, this also means the HQC cannot file its report unless the House is sitting.  Given the fact that in 2011 the Legislature was in session for less than 2 months and 2012 is an election year this will cause an inordinate (or opportunistic) delay in completing the HQC review.

Furthermore, in order to be truly independent, Reg 130/2006, the regulation that created the HQC, must be completely gutted.  Today the Health Minister holds the HQC in the palm of his hand.  He appoints the Health Quality Council and has the power to “prohibit, restrict or place conditions” on the HQC’s already limited rights and powers.  In other words, the HQC will never be independent of the Health Minister unless Reg 130/2006 is repealed.

The power to “compel evidence”:   Mr Carter’s second key element sounds promising until you realize that the power to compel evidence is not the same as the power to compel witnesses to attend the inquiry.  A tribunal must be expressly given this power by legislation.***

Ms Redford, her health minister, Mr Horne and her chief of staff, Mr Carter have carefully avoided saying anything about the power to compel witnesses.  And we all know why.  It’s one thing to be able to see the emails written by Mr Liepert, Mr Zwozdesky, Mr Horne, and officials at AHS and the College of Physicians and Surgeons.  It’s quite another to force these individuals to attend the hearing and submit to cross-examination on their emails and anything else the tribunal deems relevant.

Judge led:  Mr Carter makes much of the fact that the HQC review must be led by a judge.  But this is simply a feeble attempt to plant the idea in the public’s mind that a judge-led inquiry is the same thing as a judicial inquiry and consequently Premier Redford has not back-tracked on her promise.  But it’s not.

The critical distinction is not who’s leading the panel; he can be a judge, a doctor or a businessmen, but rather, the nature of the inquiry process.  Will the tribunal have the power to summon witnesses and compel their attendance?  Will the tribunal have the power to compel witnesses to produce documentation?  Will the tribunal be able to protect the witnesses, particularly doctors who’ve suffered from intimidation, by giving them immunity from AHS lawsuits alleging breach of confidentiality.  By the way the need for immunity applies to all doctors and employees of AHS, not just the doctors who’ve settled lawsuits with the AHS and its predecessors, because all doctors and AHS employees are under an obligation of confidentiality as part of their employment relationship with the AHS.

If a judge led HQC review cannot wield these powers or deliver blanket immunity then it is not a judicial inquiry but simply a repeat of the watered down HQC review presently underway.

The vacuous “key elements” proposed by Mr Carter do serve one important purpose.    They confuse the public and deflect attention from the fact that not once has Ms Redford assured Albertans that the HQC review would be open to the public.       

A public inquiry by definition is an open process.  Testimony is given in public and documents are made available to the public (often by posting them on the public inquiry’s official web site).  This openness is something Ms Redford is working very hard to avoid.

The HQC review, even with the addition of Carter’s 3 key elements, will not be open to the public.  It will not serve the public or even the doctors who’ve been caught in the web of intimidation.  Not only is this a disservice to the physicians and the public, it’s a disservice to the HQC which simply was not designed to carry out an inquiry of such magnitude.

Which brings us back to the square peg and the round hole.  The only way to get a square peg into a round hole is to hammer the life out of it.  The end result is a square peg firmly wedged in a round hole—surely a frustrating and useless exercise.  But take heart, the Public Inquiries Act is sitting right there on Ms Redford’s desk.  All she needs to do is remember her promise and use it.

*The HQC was created by Regulation 130/2006 under the Regional Health Authorities Act, RSA 2000, c R-10.  Its focus is patient safety and health service quality.  It has no mandate to address the culture of intimidation.  It was given permission to conduct this review by former Health Minister Zwozdesky.      

** Calgary Herald, Nov 18, 2011

***See the Public Inquiries Act which sets out the power to produce documentation in Section 4 and the power to force the attendance of witnesses in Section 5

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 10 Comments

What’s Free Enterprise Got To Do With It?

Posted on November 13, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

Occupy Wallstreet…I’ve refrained from wading into this debate (partly because the Canadian experience has not been as devastating as the US experience) however a goofball comment has been tormenting me for weeks and I can’t sit on the sidelines any longer.

Here’s the comment:  “Antibusiness protests are attracting a lot of attention in the media right now…and very close to home, but they hide a basic fact: our wealth and freedom depend on the individual right to free enterprise.*

The speaker was Premier Redford.  The occasion was her faux Throne Speech to the Legislature on Oct 24, 2011.  The comment was recorded for posterity in Hansard, the official record of the debates held in the Legislature.  Yes, I know, Hansard is replete with politicians’ statements which range from probing and perceptive to inane and downright offensive.  I’d like to park this comment under the heading “inane” and leave it at that—but I can’t.  Here’s why.

What Ms Redford really said was this:  the Occupy Wallstreet demonstrations have obscured a fundamental human right—the right to free enterprise—and that our wealth and freedom depend on that right.  Say again?

Is there a right to free enterprise? 

Contrary to what Ms Redford would have us believe there is no right to free enterprise.  Canadians and Albertans have numerous rights and freedoms.  They are so vital to our existence as a democratic society that they’re enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Alberta Bill of Rights and the Alberta Human Rights Act.  These rights and freedoms are clearly described so that there can be absolutely no confusion (or wiggle room) as to what they are, namely:  the right to vote, the right to equality and freedom from discrimination, the right to life, liberty and security of the person, enjoyment of property and due process of law;  freedom of religion, speech, assembly and association, and lastly freedom of the press.

These rights and freedoms are sacred.  When them come under attack, either here or abroad, we take up arms and go to war.  Many die.  And this weekend we paused to remember those who gave their lives so that we could continue to enjoy these rights and freedoms unmolested by others.

So forgive me if I react with dismay when the Premier of the province blithely creates a new “right”, this time free enterprise, and says that our wealth and freedom depend on it.

Do wealth and freedom depend on free enterprise?

Ignoring for a minute the fact that free enterprise is not a right, are wealth and freedom dependent on it?  Well, that depends on where you live.  In a democratic society wealth is dependent on free enterprise…but it is also dependent on a myriad of other factors including global markets, the regulatory framework governing the enterprise, access to financing and a trained work force, government royalties and tax breaks, etc.

If, on the other hand, you live in a dictatorship, wealth may be dependent solely on having a close personal relationship with the dictator who, by odd coincidence, has a close personal relationship with the head of the militia.

And sometimes wealth is the result of serendipity—just ask Art Fry, the guy who invented 3M Post It notes.

Freedom is also dependent on where you live;  and your ability to make the most of your talents.  This in turn is dependent on having access to good healthcare and a good education, and then to being able to apply your talents in a democratic society that values your contribution.  To suggest that freedom is in anyway dependent on free enterprise is utterly ridicules.

Are the Occupy Wallstreet demonstrations “hiding” any basic facts?

Now this is downright bizarre.  I’ll be the first to admit that the message of the Occupy Wallstreet protesters is diffuse and muddled at times, however their purpose is clear—to raise awareness of the inequities that result when a small group has disproportionate control over the economic, political and financial sectors of society.  The result is an enhanced quality of life for a privileged few and a diminished quality of life for the rest.  This is wrong because, in the words of Desmond Tutu, “Everyone is precious; everyone matters.”**

What’s free enterprise got to do with it?

Nothing.  I don’t think that Ms Redford truly believes that our wealth and freedom depend on the individual right to free enterprise.  This was just a slick turn of phrase which allowed her to segue into the next part of her speech—a statement in support of small businesses like organic wineries and modular home construction companies.

And that’s why this comment bothers me so much.  Overheated hyperbole is fine when used by sports fans arguing about the best team in the NFL.  But it is never appropriate when uttered by the Premier of Alberta on the eve of an election—then it is fallacious and misleading.

It’s time for Ms Redford to curb her speechwriter and engage the public in an honest dialogue around the issues that really matter.  Healthcare, education, budget deficits, and responsible resource development are a few that spring to mind.

*Hansard, Oct 24, 2011, 1156 

**Vanity Fair Nov 2011, 232

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged | 12 Comments

The Game of Clue

Posted on November 6, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

I love a good mystery, everything from the bucolic Midsomer Murders BBC series to a “whodunnit” board game like Clue.  I wrestle my daughter for the privilege of being Miss Scarlett and pout if I can’t have the miniature candlestick as my token.  We roll the dice and march around the board until some bright light (not me) triumphantly announces that the murderer is Colonel Mustard in the library with the lead pipe.

So you can understand why I’m riveted by the NDP’s announcement in the House last week.  They’re playing a game of Clue—on the political game board.  They’ve been digging into the government’s decision to amend the Alberta Health Act to make it more “flexible” (read: more open to the privatization) and at the start of the Fall Session they rolled the dice and made their first move.

Miss Scarlett, oops, Ms Notley made a Standing Order 15 application.  It is recorded in Hansard under the heading “Privilege, Misleading the House”.*  Ms Notley advised Professor Plum, oops sorry, the Speaker Mr Kowalski, that the former Health Minister, Mr Zwozdesky. had mischaracterized the sources of information for the Moving Forward report presented to caucus and thus crippled the Opposition’s ability to question the authors of a report which significantly changed Alberta’s healthcare policy.   

Misleading the House?  Did Ms Notley just say that Mr Zwozdesky lied?

Standing Orders are rules of procedure established by the Legislature as part of the system of checks and balances designed to make government answerable to the Legislature.  Clearly a Standing Order on a point of privilege alleging that a member lied to the House is not undertaken lightly (notwithstanding my silliness just a minute ago).

Ms Notley has to meet certain “tests” before she can proceed.  First:  notification–it was duly provided to the Speaker.  Second:  raising the point of order at the earliest possible moment–the first day of the Fall Session is about as early as you can get.  Finally, the member must be present to hear the accusation and be given an opportunity to respond.  Mr Zwozdesky was away from the House attending to a family matter so the application was deferred to Nov 21 when the House returns from its 3 week hiatus.

So what’s all the fuss about?  Well, here’s the first clue.  Mr Zwozdesky said that the Moving Forward document that was presented to caucus and laid the foundation for the  new Alberta Health Act was based on input gathered from a public consultation process spearheaded by Fred Horne.

But—and here’s the second clue—that very same “input” appeared in a confidential Ministerial Report drafted by government bureaucrats for the Health Minister before the public consultation process was completed.

So either Mr Zwozdesky had a crystal ball and foresaw exactly what the public was going to say before the public said it or his staff developed a new healthcare model, recommended it to Mr Zwozdesky in the confidential Ministerial Report, and Mr Horne force-fit the public input he acquired later to support it.

In either case, when the Moving Forward document was leaked to the public it created a firestorm of controversy.  The Opposition argued that the amendments to the Alberta Health Act and the plan to “consolidate” 5 statutes that protect publicly funded and delivered healthcare into who knows what was proof that the government intended to move Albertans into a 2 tier public/private healthcare system.  The PCs argued that this was wild-eyed paranoia and they had absolutely no such intention.

Add to this chaos a third clue, well, maybe it’s more of a strange fact.  Ever since the controversy broke, Mr Zwozdesky has taken great pains to tell all and sundry that not only did he not present the Moving Forward document to caucus, he wasn’t there at all and can’t speak to what happened in caucus.   (Perhaps he was attending to a family matter).   

And finally there’s the most puzzling mystery of all.  Where do all these confidential documents come from?  Who sent the Moving Forward document to the Liberals in Nov 2010?  How did the NDP get their hands on the confidential Ministerial Report?  Is there a Deep Throat in the Department of Health and Wellness who is willing to risk his/her career to slip this information to the Opposition?  If that doesn’t prove that some insiders are worried sick about where the PCs are taking the public healthcare I don’t know what does.

I love a mystery and can hardly wait until Nov 21 to see how this will end!  Will we find Mr Zwozdesky in the library with a smoking gun—proof that the PCs killed the healthcare consultation process?  Or even more relevant today, will we catch a glimpse of Mr Liepert  bludgeoning another public consultation process (this time about the budget) into the ground.

The game is afoot!

*Hansard, Oct 24, 2011, 1151

FYI:  the key elements of the game of Clue are: Characters:  Colonel Mustard, Miss Scarlet, Professor Plum, Mr Green, Mrs White, Mrs Peacock;  Weapons:  rope, lead pipe, knife, wrench, candlestick, pistol;  Rooms:  kitchen, dining room, lounge, hall, study, library, billiard room

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

Paging Ms Redford

Posted on October 30, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

Paging Ms Redford…Ms Redford…?  I’ve been looking for Ms Redford since the day she was elected as Premier of Alberta.  My Ms Redford said “The strongest leaders are the ones that can be authentic…so that you’re truly saying to people during the campaign, ‘this is who I am.  If you elect me, this is who I’ll be’”*.  My Ms Redford promised change,  transparency and democratic renewal.       

Unfortunately my Ms Redford is missing in action.  Taking her place is Premier Redford, who stacked her cabinet with the same “old boys” she disparaged during her campaign;  Premier Redford who ignored comments made by her Finance Minister and her Health Minister which conflict with her campaign promise of a judicial healthcare inquiry and, perhaps most egregious of all;  Premier Redford who trashed the principles of democratic renewal by hi-jacking the business of the Legislature on the first day of the Fall Session and calling for (get this) a Standing Order 30.

Every organization should have a Standing Order 30 which can be pulled out at the drop of a hat to bring business to a grinding halt while the powers-that-be spend the day addressing “…a matter of urgent public importance…”**

Don’t get me wrong, invoking Standing Order 30 to address critical and time sensitive matters of urgent public importance is a vital legislative mechanism.  It’s been invoked to address excessive ER wait times, inadequate preparations for the H1N1 pandemic, tailings pond management and the PC’s refusal to provide information in support of the 2009-10 budget.  The need for a timely resolution of these problems is obvious.

However on Oct 24, the PCs invoked Standing Order 30 because “…Nothing could be more important at this moment in time to Albertans than to hear from their leadership, the Premier and the leaders of the opposition parties in this House, about issues that concern them because Alberta trades out into the world…and the world markets are in an incredible state of disarray.”**  I beg your pardon?

Once the Premier grabbed control of the agenda and she launched into oratory.  It was based on the premise that “debt is the trap” which brought Europe to its knees and could soon topple Alberta.  But not to worry, the PCs will save Alberta.  Premier Redford conceded that Albertans have no debt, but warned us not to be complacent.  “We can stay safe from these threats…We will make the tough decisions…We will introduce the necessary reforms to make sure that this province keeps growing.  There is no other way.”*** 

Wow…I had no idea we were on the brink of financial extinction and was all agog to hear how the PCs would save Alberta from the perils of global economic volatility.

What followed next was a mishmash of lofty promises and banal statements of the obvious.  The PCs will maintain our quality of life, support public healthcare, protect the environment, create jobs and support the arts.  Asian markets are important, the energy industry must grow, energy revenues are key, and small businesses and entrepreneurship are valued.  If this sounds like the typical hodge-podge you’d hear off the back of the “Go Alison” bus on the eve of an election, you’re right, it is.

But here’s the best part.  The one thing that will protect Albertans and keep us safe (Ms Redford’s words, not mine) is the budget.

Cue the Finance Minister.  For those of you who get a bit antsy whenever Mr Liepert steps on to the stage, take heart,  Premier Redford promised to engage in a public consultation process in November and offered round-tables with ministers, a public survey and requests for submissions.  The 2012 budget will reflect Albertans’ priorities and morph into a balanced budget by 2013-14.

Many of us who participated in Fred Horne’s public consultation on healthcare are tickled pink to be given a second chance to see our suggestions end up on the flip chart labeled “parking lot”.

The Opposition thought it would be responding to a speech about international opportunities in a volatile global economy.  They did a brilliant job of switching gears to respond to what Mr Mason called a “faux Throne Speech”.  (Nice turn of phrase by the way).

Their response to the veiled threat of a harsh budget was most illuminating.  Let’s focus on just one item on Premier Redford’s laundry list—resource revenue that makes up 30% of revenue.  The Opposition pointed out that corporate taxes and royalties could increase by $11 billion and Alberta would still be the lowest taxed province in Canada.  Add to that the upgrading of oil sands crude oil in Alberta and you’d create a sustainable long term economic driver that would serve future generations.

Unfortunately neither of these options was included in the Premier’s “Save Alberta” list.  It will be interesting to see whether they surface in the ministers’ round-table consultations and make it to the final feedback briefing document.

Stripping away the partisan rhetoric, Standing Order 30 was all about preparing the public for another round of budget cuts.  Which brings me back to where I started—paging Ms Redford.  Just once I’d like to page Ms Redford and not have Mr Liepert answer.

*  Calgary Herald Oct 29, 2011, A4

** Hansard, Oct 24, 2011, 1152

***Hansard, Oct 24, 2011, 1154 


Posted in Politics and Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 11 Comments

The House of Mirrors

Posted on October 23, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

Recent statements by Finance Minister, Ron Liepert, confirm my suspicion that politics is like a House of Mirrors.  Not a transparent glass house (no stone throwing allowed), but the maze-like puzzle boxes you find at amusement parks and the midway.  The challenge of the maze is heightened by mirrors and panes of glass which disorient the players who catch a glimpse of the real world beyond the glass but wonder if they’ll ever get there.

How did Mr Liepert create such an unsettling image?  Surely you jest.  OK seriously, consider this.  In August Mr Snelgrove, interim Finance Minister, presented the Q1 financial report.  It was a jolly report, full of optimism for the future.  It predicted a balanced budget by the end of the 2011/2012 budget year due to an infusion of new revenues.*  Mr Liepert, ever supportive, heartily agreed with him.  At the time Mr Liepert was the Energy Minister responsible for the oil, natural gas and coal industries that would be creating these revenues.  Presumably he had a solid understanding of the economic forces driving the industries in his portfolio.

Fast forward 2 months.  Mr Liepert is stripped of the powerful Energy portfolio and now finds himself toiling in the unglamourous Finance portfolio.  (No offense to all the accountants out there).  Make no mistake, Finance is a powerful portfolio, but its influence is moderated by Treasury, now under Doug Horner.  In the Cabinet’s order of precedence Mr Liepert is now 2 levels lower than the Energy Minister, sandwiched between Health and Education.

Mr Liepert is a feisty man.  It took him 8 days to find his footing in his new ministry.  On the 8th day he met with the press to announce dark days ahead.  He said that although he had originally agreed with Mr Snelgrove’s Q1 financial report he was now “much less optimistic” that the PCs would be able to balance the 2011/2012 budget.  He blamed this nasty turn of events on the deterioration of the world economy, its impact on energy prices and the Heritage trust fund and the fact that there was no “low hanging fruit” (eg. easy items) left in the budget to cut.  Really?  I would urge Mr Liepert to take a careful look at the $14 million budget of the Public Affairs Bureau (also known as the PC propaganda machine).  But I digress.

At first blush, Mr Liepert’s statement sounds plausible—but think about it for a moment.  What happened between August and October to cause Mr Liepert to make such a dramatic about-face.  Did the world turn upside down in the last 2 months?  Sure, the global economy is volatile, but what is the impact of that volatility on Alberta?

Here’s what some experts (who don’t have a political agenda) say about Alberta’s economic prospects:

  • Gregory Ebel, CEO of Spectra Energy, a US natural gas company with interests in Canada says there’s a “gas renaissance” coming and if gas prices stay in the US$3 to 5, or $4 to 6 range (which forecasters believe is achievable) “everybody can win”.**
  • Greg Stringham, VP with Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) says “We expect to see substantial growth, maybe not at the same pace we saw a few years ago, but at least we’ve come out of the recession in a manner that shows some growth in the oil business.” ***

This prognosis is borne out by the land sales statistics.  The province of Alberta owns 81% of all of the oil, natural gas and other minerals in the province.  It sells these resources to oil and gas companies in “land sales”.  The number of land sales/year is a good indication of the industry’s confidence in the future.  In 2006 revenue from land sales hit an all time record high of $3.43 billion due to heavy spending by the oil sands industry.  Land sales revenue to-date is $3.24 billion—that’s just $200 million short of the 2006 record and there are still 4 land sales left to go before we close off 2011.

Now, I’m not an economist or industry expert, but it looks to me like the industry is feeling pretty optimistic about its future.  Oops, watch it…you just walked into a glass wall!  That glass wall is intended to deflect you from your destination, which in this case is a balanced approach to spending on public services.

Mr Liepert says he will table a budget in Feb 2012.  In order to do so he needs to forge an alignment in caucus which balances the PC’s desire for a balanced budget against the public’s desire to protect public service spending.  What drives this balance?  The litmus test according to Mr Liepert is what caucus is prepared to “sell on the doorsteps…”

Of course!  Developing a budget is ultimately a political exercise not a financial or economic one.  Therefore the optimistic perspective of the industry experts is irrelevant.

Mr Liepert is simply fulfilling his mandate to ensure that the PCs are re-elected next spring.  The biggest challenge facing the PCs today is trying to be more fiscally conservative than the Wildrose.  How will the PCs justify a harsh budget when industry forecasters don’t support their position?  Well, take a page from the Republican playbook—manufacture or exaggerate a crisis and run with it.  In the US, it was the war on terrorism, in Alberta it may be the volatile global economy.  The fact that economic forecasts don’t support the need to butcher the budget is irrelevant, we’re in the House of Mirrors afterall.

On Monday, Oct 24 the Legislature meets for the first time under Premier Redford.  It will sit for 2 days.  Ms Redford decided that the best use of her time was to discuss the global economic crisis.  What?  Let’s see whether Ms Redford uses this opportunity to set the stage for deep budget cuts across the board.

If she does, remember this:  politics may be a House of Mirrors, but Government is not.

*Calgary Herald Oct 18, 2011, A4

**Financial Post, Oct 21, 2011, FP5

***Calgary Herald OnLine, Oct 20, 2011

****Daily Oil Bulletin, Oct 2011,

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