Alison’s Cabinet

Posted on October 16, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

Alison what were you thinking?!!!  Oops sorry, that was my inside voice, let me try that again.  *Ahem*.  Premier Redford I have a question (quite a few actually) about your recently announced Cabinet appointments.

Let’s start with your promise that the Redford government was the government of change.  The Redford battle cry you’ll recall, was: if you’re looking for change elect me;  if you want the Old Boys, look no further than Mr Mar and his endorsers, Mr Morton, Mr Griffiths and Mr Orman.  Well, I’ve reviewed the appointees list and guess what all those Old Boys (and more) are there, with the exception of Mr Mar who’s on his way to a plum assignment in Hong Kong* and Mr Orman who’s not a sitting MLA and therefore not eligible.

Sure there are some new faces, but the neophytes are outweighed 3 to 1 in firepower by the old guard who landed all of the power portfolios.  Of the 20 cabinet posts all but 7 went to existing cabinet ministers.  Furthermore the key portfolios of Energy and Finance were simply switched between Mr Morton and Mr Liepert while the remaining hot button portfolios, Environment & Water and Health & Wellness are now held by former junior ministers who reported to and were trained by the Old Boys (Diana McQueen was junior minister to Mr Liepert and Mr Horne was junior minister to Mr Zwozdesky—two Old Boys who are masters at keeping the public at bay).

The remaining “new faces” (including the daring Doug Griffiths) are scattered about in lesser portfolios on the bottom half of the appointment list—a list the government says is presented “in order of precedence”.  As an aside, I’d like to point out that while Service Alberta landed in the rock bottom slot let’s not forget that he who controls the IT help desk controls the world.

But back to the topic at hand.  The poster child for the Old Boys Club is Ron Liepert.  The non-PCs who voted for Alison Redford as an agent of change were convinced that Mr Liepert’s days were numbered.  This belief was bolstered by Mr Liepert’s utterly inappropriate attack on Ms Redford’s promise to open a judicial inquiry into queue jumping.  He made these comments before she was sworn in as his new boss, apparently unconcerned whether or not he’d land a Cabinet post.  Specifically he said “I don’t support it, so I guess we’ll have that discussion.  But even if that’s what is decided, I still won’t support it.”  The concept of being a team player doesn’t appear to have crossed his mind.

Given that Ms Redford’s promise of a judicial inquiry was one of the few distinquishing features of the entire PC leadership race, Mr Liepert’s belief that he could “buck the boss” on the eve of her investiture was very disconcerting.  Surely this was the last straw and Ms Redford would use the opportunity of naming her new Cabinet to ease Mr Liepert gently but firmly out the door.

Imagine our shock when we learned that instead of planning his retirement dinner, Mr Liepert would be trading offices with Mr Morton and, like the proverbial bad penny, was back in Cabinet as the Finance Minister!

So let’s stop for a moment and review the key players sitting around the Cabinet table.

Mr Morton’s appointment as Energy Minister is a good decision, one that is welcomed by the industry.  Mr Morton has the education, skills and experience to represent Alberta’s energy interests on the federal, North American and global stage.  Furthermore, Mr Morton recognizes that sustainability and conservation are inextricably linked to building support for the exploitation of energy resources which gives the environmentalists some hope.

Mr Liepert, on the other hand, comes to his new portfolio with a less than stellar track record.  He’s a one note politician…and that note is centralize, centralize, centralize.  As Health Minister he created the health superboard—a disastrous monolithic structure which has yet to deliver value.  As Energy Minister he embarked on yet another centralization scheme, this time to rationalize the regulatory approval processes of the departments of Energy, Environment and Sustainable Resource Development.

Eliminating overlapping regulation is a good thing, but remember, this drain on internal time and resources was occurring when oil and gas prices were tanking due to the global economic turmoil.  Instead of focusing internally to “clean up” provincial regulations Mr Liepert should have been focusing externally, drumming up support for the national energy policy (which was spearheaded by industry not his department).  He should have been helping industry executives press the federal government for explicit support of oil and gas projects that crossed into BC and the USA.  Instead, Mr Liepert’s efforts to centralize regulations so alarmed the Feds that they increased their regulatory oversight of Alberta’s resources.

Hopefully Mr Liepert’s staff and Mr Horner, as President of the Treasury Board, will be able to drag Mr Liepert off the ledge before he jumps and takes the rest of us with him.

Mr Horne, the new minister of Health & Wellness, was parliamentary assistant to the smooth-talking Mr Zwozdesky.  Mr Horne is the consummate politician, careful never to get caught in public on the wrong side of a difficult issue.  He is adept at translating the “feedback” from Albertans concerned about healthcare into a power point presentation recommending the creation of a new Alberta Health Act and the overhaul of 5 additional pieces of legislation; all of which give private healthcare providers greater flexibility within the public healthcare system.

Also when it comes to reining in dissident voices in caucus, Mr Horne is not above making a few well placed phone calls to the president of the Alberta Medical Association and others, expressing “concern” about an MLA’s mental health.

Ms Diana McQueen, the new minister of Environment & Water, appears knowledgeable. Unfortunately she was parliamentary assistant to Mr Liepert when he ran Energy.  She led his centralization project to align the regulatory framework governing Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development.  Admittedly, Mr Liepert is no longer her boss, however a man that dares to criticize the premier-elect in public will think nothing of imposing his opinion on an ex-parliamentary assistant and fresh young cabinet minister like Ms McQueen.

In fact this is exactly the role that Ms Redford has outlined for Mr Liepert.  Recall that when Ms Redford was asked why she included Mr Liepert in her new “changed” Cabinet she defended her choice by saying he’s a friend.  “He will be a very important adviser to me personally, and to cabinet.”** 

It all boils down to judgment.  Was Ms Redford’s appointment of Mr Liepert a good decision?  No.  Does it demonstrate a commitment to change?  No, and even she knows it.  When the Ms Redford and her “new” cabinet posed for their first photo op she jokingly told Morton, Horner and Hancock “You guys weren’t supposed to stand right next to me”.  Nice try, but I’m afraid that the only way to avoid the impression that the Cabinet is not just the “same old, same old”, is to step right out of the picture, not just move to the edge of the frame.

So having thrashed through all this with my non-PC friends we recognize that Ms Redford’s cabinet choices were designed to bolster internal PC party unity, not address what’s best for Alberta.  Is there anything we can do about it?  Sure.  Stay involved.  Be watchful.  An election will be called within 9 months.  If Ms Redford can’t lead her “new” Cabinet into the 21st century, don’t worry, we’ll have an opportunity to vote for a party that will.

*A machiavelian take on Mr Mar’s promotion to this newly-created position would be that he was banished to the Far East in an effort to keep a popular rival away from the seat of power—out of sight, out of mind.

**Calgary Herald, Oct 13, 2011, A3. 

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 18 Comments

We’ve moved!

Posted on October 13, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

susanonthesoapbox.wordpress.com has moved to susanonthesoapbox.com

Don’t worry though, the old link will redirect you to the right location for uninterrupted soapboxing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

With All Due Respect

Posted on October 9, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

“With all due respect” is a phrase used by courtroom lawyers to signal to opposing counsel that he’s just said something that is utterly daft.  It is used sparingly because it invariably gets everyone’s back up and will backfire unless you’re on solid legal footing.  So now that you know the code let me straighten my barrister’s wig, hitch my robes over my shoulders and begin.

With all due respect to the pundits who say Alison Redford won the premier’s job because she pulled in the women’s vote…there is no such thing as the woman’s vote.  Well except maybe in the 1921 Canadian federal election in which all women were allowed to vote for the first time.

The “women’s vote” argument assumes that teachers, nurses and soccer moms* are the only voters who truly care about education, health and seniors’ care.  It is mired in the quaint stereotypical view that men “take charge” while women “take care”.  Consequently, Ms Redford (being a woman and all) focused on health and education to bring in the women voters while her male competitors (blinded by their maleness) focused on the “manly” issues of energy, environment, fiscal policy and democratic renewal and, as a result, lost the women voters.

Hogwash!  (Another legal term—you know what it’s code for).  All 3 leadership candidates repeatedly addressed all these issues with the general population in public forums and in televised debates.  They met one-on-one with industry representatives, citizens’ advocacy groups and union reps.  Their positions were reported in the media and on their websites.

Publications like the Daily Oil Bulletin and Oil Week asked the candidates to state their positions on balancing oilsands development with protecting the environment, diversifying energy markets, re-setting oil and gas royalties, the impact of land use planning laws on rural voters and the importance of a national energy strategy.  Ms Redford’s position on these issues (like that of the other candidates) was published for scrutiny by industry executives, environmentalists and economists, as well as the general public.

As an aside, the Daily Oil Bulletin conducted a poll when all 6 candidates were still in the race.  Ms Redford and Mr Orman outpaced Mr Mar by a 2 to 1 margin.  While we’re on the topic of polls, the blogger daveberta also conducted a poll in the last days of the 3 way race—Ms Redford beat Mr Mar by a smaller margin.  Neither the Daily Oil Bulletin nor daveberta target the same market segment as Women’s Wear Daily or Better Homes and Gardens and yet Ms Redford still led the pack. 

But I digress.  Back to the topic of legal argument.  Once a lawyer lobs a “with all due respect” challenge into opposing counsel’s court, opposing counsel fires it right back at him with the demand:   “What’s your authority?”  This is simply a bombastic way of saying “no one calls me daft without proof, back up your statement with case law or statute”.

So here’s where this discussion gets a little tricky.  The “authority” for the proposition that Alison Redford won the top job because of the women’s vote is none other than Ms Redford’s own campaign strategist, Stephen Carter, who put the cat amongst the pigeons with the statement “Every word I ever wrote was for women”.**

OK now I’m mystified.  Mr Carter characterizes women as the power of our society, the ones that form bonds and have empathy for one another.  Hmmm…sounds a little like the “noble savage” concept that dominated literature and political discourse in the 17th century.  But consider the context of Mr Carter’s statement.  Mr Carter was describing a new theory of electioneering—building  a “brand”.  The brand is comprised of 3 elements:  story, personality and ideas.

So how do the 3 candidates stack up when it comes to building a brand?  All 3 have great “stories”.  Ms. Redford is a working mom with ailing parents.  Mr Mar is the child of immigrant Chinese grandparents who became a successful lawyer and politician, and Mr Horner is a hard working politician with deep roots in the rural community and a stellar political family tree.

All 3 candidates have “personality”.  Ms Redford demonstrated courage and resilience when she participated in a critical public debate the day after her mother died.  Mr Mar is a charming and personable and Mr Horner possesses a subtle mind and dry wit which was not immediately apparent at the start of the campaign but became more obvious to those who were paying attention.

This just leaves the final element—“ideas”.  All three candidates had similar ideas.  No one shot off the richter scale with the proposition that the government be fiscally imprudent, environmentally irresponsible or libertarian just for the sake of it.  But there were important differences.  Mr Mar clearly supported increased privatization of healthcare while Ms Redford and Mr Horner were steadfast in their support for public healthcare.  But Ms Redford went a step further.  She pushed for a judicial inquiry into healthcare.  Mr Mar thought it was unnecessary and Mr Horner took the middle ground suggesting that we should let the Health Quality Council complete its review before taking this step.

Then Ms Redford then upped the ante one more time—she promised to reverse the $107 million funding cut to education.  Neither Mr Horner nor Mr Mar would follow her that far.

In other words, Ms Redford pushed her ideas two steps further than Mr Mar and one step further than Mr Horner.  These two steps were enough to capture the attention of Alberta voters who’d given up on the political process altogether.  They started to pay attention to the leadership race.  They checked out the candidates and selected the one whose views aligned most closely with their own.  They showed up at the polling station and cast their ballots, pushing Ms Redford from 19% support in the first ballot to 37% support in the second ballot—enough to knock Mr Mar off the perch in the runoff.

Now it’s up to Ms Redford and her new cabinet to deliver.

Oh and before I forget;  with all due respect, there’s no such thing as a soccer mom but there is such a thing as a hockey dad—he’s the guy down there on the ice screaming at the ref.  No, I’m being facetious.  Politics today is about issues and ideas.  Any politician who thinks he’s going to win by pitching his spiel at the soccer moms or the hockey dads to get the women’s vote or the Nascar vote is in for a dreadful shock the day the ballots are counted.

*Although Alberta statistics are unclear it appears that approximately 30% of teachers are male, 9% of nurses are male and, by definition, 100% of soccer moms are female.    

** Calgary Herald, Oct 5, 2011, A12

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , | 10 Comments

A Leap of Faith

Posted on October 2, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

The “old boys” just got their pants pulled down–by a cracker jack plain speaking female politician.

How did she do it?  By embarking on a risky political strategy–speaking the truth about the tired old self serving PC political process and promising change.  Many non-PCs didn’t think she’d make it to the second round.   Surely the old boys would link arms and frog march her off the political stage.

But her message of change resonated with the rest of us, we perked up and started to pay attention.*

We put aside party affiliations and asked ourselves:  What’s best for Alberta?  Can Alison carry this off?  Here’s an idea…let’s ask her.

Citizen action groups like the Whitemud Citizens for Public Health and the PIA Seniors Task Force contacted Alison and asked for a meeting–and she showed up.  She responded to their concerns about the privatization of healthcare and the lack of services for seniors.  She made sense and we were prepared to give her a chance.  So we plunked down $5 and bought party memberships (shudder), we fought our way past the Go Gary buses and voted for Alison as premier.

And she won!

So now comes the hard part.  Alison made two concrete promises in her campaign:  (1) she promised to restore the $107 million shortfall in education funding within 10 days of becoming premier and (2) she promised to hold a judicial inquiry into allegations of political interference in the healthcare system.  These are actionable promises–binary to use the language of engineers–either she’ll do it or she won’t.

The non-PC’s took a gigantic leap of faith in voting for Alison.  Now it’s up to Premier Redford to deliver for all Albertans.

Oh and Messrs Mar, Morton, Griffiths, Hancock, Liepert and Zwozdesky, say hello to your new boss.

*See A Distant View for a discussion of how I got there. 

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

A Distant View

Posted on September 29, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

Gold mining and politics have one thing in common.  Sometimes it’s best to take a distant view of the field and look for patterns that might indicate a rich vein.  We’re down to the final days of the PC leadership race.  The candidates are all from the same party, they appear to share the same basic values, how do we find the gold buried in the clay?

Step back, take the distant view.  What do you see?

I see Gary Mar, a candidate so mired in PC groupthink that he appeared at the Global TV debate behind a podium covered with scraps of paper and stickie notes–no doubt to remind him of his stance on the controversial issues in case he forgets.  I see Doug Horner who’s moved a little outside the PC groupthink bubble but is not as articulate or clear thinking about the issues as you would expect from a candidate at this point in the campaign.  Finally I see Alison Redford, focused and confident, who addressed the issues crisply without reading from a cheat sheet to keep her facts straight.

The worry that non-PCs have about any PC leadership candidate is that 40 years of power has created a groupthink mindset that no candidate, regardless of their intelligence or integrity, can overcome.  Let’s examine that proposition.

Groupthink is “a pattern of thought that is characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics.”*  It’s elements are:   pressure to conform (those who disagree are excluded—Raj Sherman springs to mind),  closed-mindedness and an overestimation of the group’s strength, intelligence and moral superiority.

Mr Mar’s campaign is replete with examples of groupthink.  Listen to his justification for taking his $478,500 severance package after he said he’d defer it.  His rationale:  “I did say I would defer it to some point in the future. I didn’t say when.”  Mr Mar buttressed his explanation with the comment that he did what every other MLA would do.  What he conveniently forgets to mention is that the other MLAs did not make a public pledge implying that they’d defer their packages until after they’d completed their new assignments.

Mr Mar’s explanation of the Charlebois affair isn’t any better.  He paid $390,000 to Kelly Charlebois, his former executive assistant, for consulting advice.  Apparently it was terrific advice, given over the course of 2 years, in connection with rolling up the 17 health regions into nine.  There’s just  one teensy little problem—there isn’t a report, document or shred of written evidence that any advice was given at all.

At first Mr Mar was defiantly unapologetic about the Charlebois affair.  Later he admitted that it was a mistake to issue an untendered contract to Mr Charlebois.  Note that this admission was for the failure to put the contract to public tender, not the failure to document any of the advice he’d been given.  Later still Mr Mar backtracked on the admission of error by saying that that was how things were done back then but the rules had changed since.  The auditor general at that time disagreed.  He found that Mr Mar failed to follow his own ministry’s policies when he issued the contract to his friend.

Hmmm…no wonder Mr Mar’s podium was bristling with sheets of paper and stickie notes.  Any politician so trapped in self-deception and conformity to group values and ethics (that’s how we did it then, that’s what everyone else would do) needs all the help he can get because he’s not espousing his own position but rather that of the group.  In Mr Mar’s case, the group is the caucus created by Ralph Klein and augmented by his new best friends Ted Morton and Rick Orman.   And that is downright scary.

Doug Horner is more difficult to peg.  From a distance he appears sincere and aligned with many of Ms Redford’s views.  He supports public healthcare and does not favour increased privatization.  However on the question of whether he’d support a judicial inquiry into political interference in the delivery of healthcare, Mr Horner is sticking to the PC party line—the Health Quality Council of Alberta has all the power it needs to conduct a fulsome investigation.  This is troubling because the call for a judicial inquiry is based on the need for greater transparency and accountability.  Mr Horner’s failure to recognize that fact demonstrates that he hasn’t ventured far from PC group values and ethics.

Alison Redford on the other hand burst the PC groupthink bubble the day she started her leadership campaign.  She declared her support for a judicial inquiry five months ago and has never wavered.  Not even in the face of Ed Stelmach’s disdainful attack that Ms Redford was no better than the NDP.  Apparently daring to challenge the PC’s official position results in expulsion from the PC party figuratively as well as literally.

Ms Redford has been crystal clear in her support for public healthcare.  In her view “privatization of healthcare is the thin edge of the wedge that begins to undermine public confidence in our most important public service”.**  She is fighting for the honour of serving Albertans and recognizes that those who hold public office must be worthy of the public trust.  She’s demonstrated leadership and courage as she coped with the passing of her mother in the final days of the campaign.

So step back, what do you see?  I look at Alison Redford and I see gold sparkling in the clay.

I’m not a PC party member, but I purchased a PC membership and voted for Alison Redford to be the next premier of Alberta.    You might want to consider it.

* The Perfect Swarm, by Len Fisher, PhD, pp 93, 94.

** Calgary Herald On-Line, Sept 28, 2011

 

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Release the Kraken!

Posted on September 25, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

“Release the Kraken!”  That has to be the greatest line in the cheesiest movie ever made.  Zeus (Liam Neeson in a tin foil suit) has had it up to here with mortal man and orders the release of the beast which bursts out of a foaming sea to trash the landscape and squash the people until Perseus (a demi-god and our hero) arrives to save the day by confronting the monster with the head of Medusa.

Wow!  A marauding CG Kraken is hugely entertaining to a movie audience, however an unleashed real life Kraken is downright dangerous.

Last week I made the not so subtle point that corporations, like fictional beasts, are legally programmed to do one thing—act in the best interests of their owners.  I argued that the privatization of public services would end badly because a corporation’s objective is based on self interest while the government’s objective is to serve the public interest.  The only thing that keeps a corporation in check are the laws and regulations which bind it to the ocean floor (so to speak).  These laws and regulations are designed to prevent a corporation from harming society, including its own employees, and the environment while it goes about the business of making money.

If the purpose of all these health, safety and environmental regs* is to protect us and the environment then why the hue and cry for more deregulation?  Given the regulators’ spectacular lack of success shouldn’t we be clamouring for more regulation not less?

Not as far as the corporations are concerned.  They say they are good corporate citizens with a vested interest protecting the public interest but they’d prefer to do it by themselves without any government oversight.  They’re convinced that the market can do a better job—“bad” companies will go out of business while “good” companies will thrive and grow.

The problem with this argument is that allowing a corporation to voluntarily be “good” is like asking the fox to guard the hen house—it’s a conflict of interest.  The corporate law that requires a corporation to act in the best interests of its shareholders means it must filter all decisions through a cost/benefit analysis in order to determine the “appropriate” balance between the public interest and maximizing profits.

How does this work in real life?  Take the 1979 Chevrolet Malibu case**.  On Christmas Day 1993, a mother and her 4 children were horribly burned when a drunk driver slammed into the back of their car and it burst into flames.  It turned out that in 1972 GM redesigned the Malibu and moved the gas tank 9 inches closer to the rear bumper in order to save $6.19 per car.  What is even more horrifying is the cost/benefit analysis pegged the expected number of fatalities at 500/year and factored in $200,000 in legal damages/fatality.  GM decided that a profit of $6.19/car times 41 million cars was worth it.

The GM cost/benefit analysis was done in 1972.  Are corporations better stewards of the public good today?  Hardly.  Consider the infamous “Three Little Pigs” cost/benefit analysis memo prepared by BP in 2002.  The analysis was used to determine how much money BP should spend on worker accommodation at the aging Texas City refinery site.  The analysis used cutesy fairy tale language:  explosion frequency translated into “the big bad wolf will blow the house down”, consequences turned into “the piggy is gobbled” and maximum justifiable spend was what the piggy would spend to “save its bacon”.  Callous and insensitive language which came to light after the 2005 explosion which killed 15 workers and injured 170 others.

Did the market punish BP so that its behaviour improved?  No.  Eight years later BP sailed straight into the Deepwater disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.  Eleven workers were killed, hundreds of people lost their livelihoods, the environment was irreparably damaged—and BP’s profits for Q1 2011 dropped by 2% from an expected $5.7 billion to $5.4 billion.

OK maybe the problem isn’t too much regulation but too much duplicative regulation that creates inefficiency and unnecessary costs.  Time marches on, regulations get stale, new ones are passed which overlap with or contradict old ones.  Fair point, but the fact that regulations need to be overhauled does not mean they need to be scrapped entirely or their enforcement turned over to the very entities trying to escape oversight in the first place.

Right, so this is where the government needs to step up and protect the public interest.  Or to put it in movie language: check on the Kraken and ensure that it is still tightly tethered to the ocean floor.  Unfortunately that’s not happening.

Corporations have slowly but surely loosened the regulatory bonds over the last four decades.  Their first level of attack is the electoral process.

Anyone who’s worked for an American company knows the joy of receiving an invitation to the CEO’s house to meet the congressman who happens to see eye to eye with the corporation on critical health, safety and environmental issues.  Such invitations are not BYOB but rather BYOC (bring your own chequebook).  It’s usually a career limiting move to pass on this opportunity.  The result is obvious, politicians who benefit from the support of industry take care of industry.

The second level of attack is the multi-pronged “educational” approach waged by industry associations, industry funded think tanks and lobbyists who spend considerable time and money educating the government on complex industry issues.  Government bureaucracies are generally understaffed and underqualified and as such need all the help they can get.  Unfortunately industry’s perspective is not always balanced with that of NGOs or citizen advocacy groups who do not have the same level of resources and access to the politicians and bureaucrats.

This process creates a feedback loop—politicians respond to industry pressure and largesse, they repeal “offensive” regulations and/or cut staff, government inspections and certification processes slow down, industry complains and offers to take the whole mess off our hands.

Then comes the ultimate irony—the regulatory bonds snap, the Kraken chews up the landscape, destroys lives, makes class action lawyers rich and the public demands someone’s head on a plate (where is that wretched Zeus when you need him).   The government dutifully responds by enacting regulations to assure the public that this horrible situation will never happen again.  And it doesn’t, until the next time.

Wouldn’t it make more sense not to release the Kraken in the first place?

*The prohibitions against insider trading, market manipulation, corruption and fraud are another topic for another day. 

**The Corporation, by Joel Bakan, pp 61-65.


Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged | 6 Comments

Frankenstein’s Monster…Or Why Privatization of Healthcare is a Bad Idea

Posted on September 18, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

In the late 1800s, the US government tinkered with a relatively benign creature and created a monster.  Like Dr Frankenstein, the US government acted with the best of intentions.  It wanted to allow corporations to raise capital to finance the expansion of the railroad without exposing the investors to personal liability and bankruptcy if the venture failed.  The result of the government’s intervention was a creature which is legally considered a person.  This person must act in accordance with its by-laws and the law.  Unfortunately this means that it is legally programmed to be self-interested, amoral and without a conscience.*

A corporation has but one purpose—to increase shareholder value (also known as maximizing shareholder wealth).  In monster terms this would be “to grow big and powerful so that your owners get rich”.

The guiding principle of corporate law (let’s call it the prime directive) which governs all corporate activity is simple:  the directors and officers of a corporation must act in the best interests of the corporation.  The best interests of the corporation are synonymous with the best interests of the shareholders.  And shareholders want to make money.  If they didn’t they would donate their cash to charity (or invest it in my stock picks).

So why are two out of the three PC candidates in the race for the premier’s job prepared to privatize some of our healthcare services?  Gary Mar says the wealthy are already accessing private clinics outside of Alberta, so why not capture that “economic opportunity” here.  Doug Horner supports competition by healthcare providers for delivery of publicly-insured services.  Alison Redford is the only PC leadership candidate who clearly understands that increased privatization will erode our universal public healthcare system.

No doubt Mr Mar and Mr Horner mean well;  unfortunately they’ve forgotten the prime directive of corporate law.  All corporate activity is for one purpose—to make money for the shareholder.  Any CEO who fails to deliver on the prime directive has the life expectancy of a gnat.  If Mr Mar and Mr Horner applied the prime directive to the private corporations jostling to offer Albertans privatized healthcare services, they would quickly realize that the offer is a “limited time offer with no warranties”.  The minute healthcare services become too costly and unprofitable, they’re gone and so are the consumers (formerly known as patients) who are depending on them.

But wait.  What about corporate social responsibility?  Every time we turn on the TV we’re faced with self-congratulatory spots telling us all the wonderful things that corporations are doing for the little people, the environment and society as a whole.  Doesn’t this offset the drive to make money at all costs?

Well, look at the history of corporate social responsibility.  It’s not a new phenomenon.  It emerged at the turn of the century with the growth of large corporations like AT&T whose sheer power and size created mistrust in the population.  It reappeared in the 1930’s during the Great Depression, and again and again in the slipstream of corporate greed and mismanagement following the implosion of Enron, the meltdown of global financial markets and in the steady stream of environmental disasters which continue to occur on an alarmingly regular basis.  History demonstrates that the ability of corporate social responsibility to moderate the drive to make money is nonexistent.

When stripped of all the rhetoric, corporate social responsibility is simply a corporation’s effort to tamp down adverse public opinion by voluntarily stepping up as a good corporate citizen and “taking responsibility” for its employees, its customers, its neighbours, the environment and the general public so that the government will not feel compelled to pass regulations to protect these stakeholders from the corporation’s actions.

Corporate social responsibility, like all things corporate, is subject to the prime directive.  It must make the shareholders wealthy.  Smart corporate social responsibility does just that by keeping the public and the regulators at bay, thereby avoiding litigation, remediation and other “non-value adding” activities.

The Chartwell case is a classic example of the prime directive and corporate social responsibility in a microcosm.  Thirty seniors were slated for eviction from their assisted living units because Chartwell, a for-profit corporation, decided not to renew its contract with the Alberta government.  The contract required Chartwell to provide accommodations, food and housekeeping for seniors for a price.  A Chartwell senior vice president said renewing the contract “wasn’t in our best interest”.  (Sound familiar?)

News of the evictions caused a public uproar.  Chartwell relented and extended its contract for another 3 years.  Was this because Chartwell suddenly developed a social conscience?  Not likely.  The son of a 92 year old war veteran on the eviction list put it best:  ”Chartwell decided they’d had enough of being seen as the bad guys”.** Bingo.  It was time to roll out some smart corporate social responsibility.  Chartwell is in the business of providing independent and assisted living seniors housing.  It’s not good business to act like a heartless landlord tossing disabled war veterans into the street in order to make an additional $600/month.

The underlying problem is this:  public institutions are created to serve the public good;  corporations are created to maximize shareholder wealth.  Attempting to provide public services via a private corporate model is like trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.  There’s bound to be a rub somewhere.

To illustrate the conundrum consider a comment from Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize winning economist.  Mr Friedman argues that all social services should be handed over to the private sector—except the military.  He didn’t say why but I will.  The privatization of the military creates a mercenary army.  Mercenaries are another one of Frankenstein’s monsters and under the prime directive will go into battle for the highest bidder, including a bidder prepared to wage war on the home country.  Such a scenario is unthinkable.  Ask yourself this…if Mr Friedman does not trust the private sector to protect the nation, why should we trust the private sector to protect the nation’s most vulnerable people, the young, the old, the sick and the dying?

So before Mr Mar and Mr Horner press ahead with their privatization solutions to escalating healthcare costs, they would be well advised to go back to the most important principle of all:  the government takes care of its people, but corporations take care of themselves.

*This post has drawn from the concepts and ideas presented in The Corporation by Joel Bakan.     

** Calgary Herald On-line July 15, 2011

This is the first in a series of posts on privatization, deregulation and what we can do about it.  Next up:  “Unleash the Kraken”. 

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Frederick Lee – A Rose By Any Other Name

Posted on September 11, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

Just when we thought Alberta politics couldn’t get any weirder up popped Frederick Lee.  This week we learned that PC leadership candidate Ted Morton used an alter-ego “Frederick Lee” for internal email communications when, according to a former staffer, “…he didn’t want people to know it was him doing the writing”.*

As if this wasn’t bizarre enough, we also learned that Mr Morton’s staff deleted all his emails and shredded his documents when he left his cabinet post earlier this year.**

Frank Work, the Privacy Commissioner, has launched an investigation to determine whether Mr Morton used Frederick Lee in order to avoid FOIP issues and whether the destruction of records was appropriate.  (Mr Work is a staunch supporter of the public’s right to information and the fact that this investigation has landed in his lap on the eve of his retirement is surely an act of serendipity on the part of the gods.)

Mr Morton doesn’t see what the fuss is about.  Here’s what he had to say on the topic of his nom de plume Frederick Lee**

“If I was trying to avoid FOIPP, I wouldn’t have used my real name”

OK, Wikipedia may have been aware that Fredrick Lee Morton is “known commonly as Ted Morton’ but the rest of us were not.  Michel Drapeau, an Ottawa Lawyer and expert in accessing government documents sums it up best:  “A five- or six-year old will see right through that and say, ‘Give me a break’.  [Mr Morton] may know that is a fraction of his name, but nobody else does.”  Mr Drapeau has filed over 5000 access to information requests to every federal government ministry, agency and department known to man.  He should know.

“I’ve done nothing out of the ordinary…[an investigation]…will exonerate me from doing anything different than what the premier does or any of the other ministers do”.

Well, Mr Morton is right about the Premier.  Mr Stelmach has 3 emails and one under a pseudonym (what’s with these guys, do they think they work for the CIA).  However, Mr Morton is wrong about his fellow PC leadership candidates Alison Redford and Gary Mar.  They have one email address.  In the fullness of time the Privacy Commissioner’s investigation will fill in the blanks around the other MLAs, assuming of course that they’re not at this moment busily destroying their alias emails.

“It was a question of administrative efficiency”.        

Mr Morton raises a legitimate point—wouldn’t the taxpayers want their ministers to do real work instead of plowing through 400-500 emails a day?  Sure we would.  That’s why a huge chunk of our tax dollars goes toward paying the salaries of the ministers’ administrative assistants, support staff, technical staff, ADMs, DMs, junior ministers and all the other bureaucrats who keep the wheels of government grinding along.  These people are paid to pore over emails sent to their ministers so that ministers like Mr Morton won’t have to.

But take the reference to administrative efficiency down a notch—to the one Frederick Lee email that escaped the shredder.  At 18:17:08, Nov 15, 2008 the Land Use Framework email was sent by Mr Morton from a telus.net email address to Frederick Lee with the following instructions:  “Please see the attached or below.  Forward to Morris and whomever else needs to see it”.  Frederick Lee (aka Mr Morton) received the email from himself, read the instructions to himself and forwarded the email on to Morris and two other individuals.  The whole process took 25 minutes.  Does this look like an exercise in efficiency or an effort to avoid public scrutiny?

With respect to the wholesale destruction of government records, Mr Morton has this to say:**

“It was certainly acceptable under the circumstances, because nobody told us otherwise.”

Well, not exactly.  In 2004 the Government of Alberta created a guide for the retention and destruction of government records.***The Guide says everything is a record.  Some records are “official records” which must be retained.  Others are “transitory records” which can be destroyed after they’ve served their purpose.  Official records document activities like policy generation, business planning and the protection of public rights.  Transitory records are fleeting records which relate to immediate or short term minor transactions.  An example of a transitory record, this one from Mr Horner, is a note reminding him to meet his wife for lunch.

Sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish between a document that must be kept and one that can be destroyed.  In these cases the Guide says—when in doubt keep it.  There’s a second proviso relating to transitory records.  If a transitory record contains information which is subject to a FOIP request or litigation, the transitory record is frozen.  It must not be destroyed.

The most important statement in the Guide is this:  “The records that document our jobs are important assets that are owned by the government.  They are not ours to do with as we choose”. 

So why did Mr Morton choose to destroy the records relating to his tenure prior to his resignation from Cabinet?  Did he consider them all transitory and relating to minor, short term, insignificant activities?  The Land Use Framework memo send by him to Frederick Lee addressed whether the Metis settlements should be included in the definition of private lands and whether the Inuit have aboriginal rights within the context of the land use policy.  These are policy considerations.  Even a very skilled legal advisor would have difficulty jamming that memo into the definition of transitory records which can be sent to the shredder.  And yet, this email is the only one in the chain to surface in response to the CBC’s FOIP request.

Mr Morton further justifies his decision to shred with the comment that “nobody told us otherwise”.  This is like telling a police officer that you didn’t realize you were speeding through a playground zone because you didn’t see the sign.  His response:  Too bad.  Here’s your ticket.  Have a nice day.

The Privacy Commission investigation couldn’t have come at a better time.  With any luck the Commission’s findings will be made public before the next election and Albertans will have an opportunity to measure the PC’s running for re-election against their promise of democratic renewal and increased transparency.  I’m betting that the Commission’s findings will be enough to get the 60% of Alberta voters who didn’t vote in the last election up out of their armchairs to vote for a candidate who is prepared to call a rose a rose and mean it.

*CBC News on-line Sept 8, 2011

**Edmonton Journal On line Sept 8, 2011, CBC News On-Line Sept 8, 2011, c-news, Canoe.ca, Sept 9, 2011

***Official and Transitory Records:  A Guide for Government of Alberta Employees March 2004

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged | 4 Comments

The Wizard of Zwoz and his Lawyer

Posted on September 4, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

It’s not easy being a lawyer.  You grind through 3 years of law school, 1 year of articles and then if you’re kept on at the law firm, you dive into the shark tank vying for the “good” files (work from partners who share billable hours with their juniors) and dodging the “bad” files (work from lazy partners who bill your time as their own).  Many lawyers respond to the pressure to be a billing machine by going “in-house” with companies, non-profits and the government.

Life as in-house counsel would be perfect, but for one thing—the client.  It doesn’t matter whether you practice law in-house or out-house, you always work for one of three client types:  (1) the wonderful client, intelligent and thoughtful who comes to you early and actually takes your advice, (2) the dense client who can barely tie his shoe laces—if you’re lucky you’ll get the file in time to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse (well maybe naugahyde) and (3) the horrible client who is just smart enough to be dangerous and who has done something or is about to do something awful and wants your blessing as a CYA just in case it all blows up (as it surely will).

I don’t know the Health Minister, Mr Zwozdesky, well enough to place him in one of these categories, but based on my correspondence with his lawyer (we’ll call her Ms L) I know he’s blessed with good legal counsel.  When the WCPH* met with Mr Zwozdesky a couple of weeks ago he provided us with evasive responses so I wrote to Ms L asking for more information.  Much to my surprise she replied.

Our key concern was this:  would the new Alberta Health Act open the door to greater privatization of healthcare services?  Ms L side-stepped the question.  However she did point out that the Alberta Health Act is “principles-based” legislation.  Its purpose is to provide guidelines for the healthcare system against which it can be measured.

Legislation is either principles-based or rule-based.  Let’s look at the speeding laws as an example.  A rule-based speeding law would be:  “Do not drive over 80 km/h”.   A principles-based speeding law would be:  “Do not drive faster than is reasonably prudent in the circumstances”.  Principles-based laws are more general, more flexible and more sensitive to context, but are also less certain.  Rules-based laws are more specific, directive and certain, but as a result more rigid.

Principles-based laws are a good thing if the principles set out in the legislation are relevant and clearly stated.  The new Alberta Health Act contains 10 principles.  Three touch on the public vs private healthcare issue.  These are (1) a commitment to the principles of the Canada Health Act, (2) access to publicly funded health services based on need, not the ability to pay, and (3) carrying out health decisions, financial stewardship and the allocation and use of resources “in a way that is transparent…and ensure(s) that Alberta’s publicly funded health system is sustained for the future”.

Do these principles protect public healthcare?

The first principle, the commitment to the Canada Health Act, doesn’t get us very far.  The Canada Health Act does not prohibit private health services, private healthcare delivery or private health insurance.  It is simply a funding mechanism that sets out the criteria under which the federal government will transfer funds to the province.  If the province fails to meet that criteria the feds sit on the transfer payment until the federal/provincial squabble is resolved.  The only protection Albertans have against increased privatization is contained in other Alberta statutes (more on this later).  Net result:  the commitment to the principles of the Canada Health Act does nothing to stem the rising tide of privatization.

The second principle requires accessibility to publicly funded health services based on need, not the ability to pay.  Gary Mar’s recent comments suggesting that the wealthy should have greater access to “non-essential” health services and Mr Zwozdesky’s lack of concern about Mr Mar’s position illustrate the PC’s intentions with respect to accessibility.  Publicly funded health services will be available based on need, however if you have the ability to pay, you can access these services more quickly in the private market.  The result—longer wait times in the public healthcare line while the finite pool of doctors, nurses and resources attends to patients in the private healthcare line.

The third principle addresses transparency and the sustainability of the publicly funded health system.  We all know the PC’s record on transparency.  It’s nonexistent.  Furthermore, the  publicly funded health system is already under seige as a result of the PC’s cost cutting and centralization schemes.  This principle—mere words on a page—will do little to shore up sustainability.

Bottom line:  the new principles-based Alberta Health Act does absolutely nothing to protect universal public healthcare.  Quite the opposite.  It is the first step in an ongoing process to create a two-tier healthcare business.  It allows the Health Minister to use his new power to designate “health providers” to include private healthcare providers so they can bill the government for insured services.  The government will proceed with its plan to “align” 4 provincial healthcare statutes** with the new Alberta Health Act.  The new Alberta Health Act contains no language to protect public healthcare.  As a result the protections contained in the 4 provincial healthcare statutes will be stripped out in the “alignment” process and the last bulwarks against a private 2 tier healthcare system will evaporate.

In-house counsel did their job.  Too bad their job was to dismantle the laws that protect public healthcare in Alberta.

*Whitemud Citizens for Public Health, an Edmonton-based citizen’s action group that includes provincial and federal constituencies  

**the Nursing Homes Act, the Health Care Protection Act, the Health Care Insurance Act and the Hospitals Act

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged | 2 Comments

The Big Blue Button

Posted on August 28, 2011 by susanonthesoapbox

Bear with me…I’m about to make a case for civil disobedience with respect to the (non)delivery of healthcare.         

We’ve all experienced the feeling of helplessness and controlled panic when our mothers, fathers, partners, children and friends are in hospital awaiting treatment, be it emergency care or post surgical care.  They’re writhing in pain with no medical personnel in sight.  You run out to the nursing station again and again pleading for help.  When is the doctor coming?  Can’t you give them something for the pain?  The answer is always the same.  You’ll get medical attention when it’s your turn, we’re busy, others are sicker, be patient…go away.

This scenario played out for a friend of mine recently.  Her mother is very old and very ill with lung disease.  Mom took a turn for the worst and was rushed to the ER in what is touted to be the second best hospital in Canada to treat Mom’s condition.  The ER was not only chaotic and slow, it was dirty.  My friend and her brothers waited with Mom for hours before a doctor assessed Mom and send her to a ward.

Once Mom was parked in the ward she was off the ER’s “to do” list but still in considerable pain—but no one came.  She had entered the twilight zone where no one was responsible for her.  Mom struggled to breathe while her children frantically searched for a doctor.  They went back to ER to find the doctor who’d originally admitted Mom.  He was less than helpful.  They talked to the ward nurses who finally called a doctor (lord only knows who it was this time) who prescribed something to help Mom relax.  The drug was of little help and Mom had what is euphemistically called “a rough night”.  The search for a doctor continued, Mom got worse and the children were beside themselves.

And then my friend did the unthinkable—she hit the big blue button on the wall next to the bed.  This call button initiated a Code Blue.  Code Blue is used to indicate a patient requiring immediate resuscitation, often as a result of cardiac arrest.  Doctors and nurses streamed into Mom’s room.  Clearly Mom was breathing, albeit with great difficulty.  She didn’t need resuscitation.  There was no Code Blue.

The moment of reckoning came swiftly.  The doctors demanded to know who pushed the button.  My friend said I did.  Why?  Because Mom is in agony and no one will help her.  The doctors reprimanded my friend for initiating a Code Blue inappropriately.  They chastised her for diverting medical personnel from more needy patients and for not going to the head nurse who, apparently was not apprised of the situation by her own nursing staff (why this should be my friend’s problem and not the head nurse’s problem is beyond me).

After the hubbub died down, the doctors took good care of Mom.  They prescribed medication which alleviated the pain and made Mom more comfortable.  The children set up a vigil taking turns staying with Mom through the night.  The doctors and nurses continued to be attentive to Mom for the duration of her stay.  (No doubt they were worried that those lunatics in Mom’s room would hit the big blue button again).

My friend’s desperate act comes at a time when the media is exploding with stories about Canada’s broken public health system.  Dr Jeffrey Turnbull, the outgoing president of the Canadian Medical Association, didn’t mince words when he referred to the “deeply troubled” healthcare system and said “…this pillar of Canadian society is eroding”*.  Meanwhile, the government of Alberta is working on Phase 2 of legislative reform which will further erode the protection of universal healthcare enshrined in the Canada Health Act.**

Gary Mar, the front runner in the PC leadership race, is boldly advocating a two-tier system that will provide prompt medical attention to the wealthy.  When asked to respond to Mr Mar’s position that Alberta doctors should be able to offer hip and knee replacements or other “non-essential services” to wealthy patients as an economic opportunity (?) Health Minister Zwozdesky said:  “I don’t have any particular thoughts on any of the issues that any of the candidates have mentioned so far”.***Really??  Surely it’s the Health Minister’s job to have an opinion on the most critical issue in his portfolio.  Dr Bissoondath, founder of Preventous, a private healthcare clinic, doesn’t sugar coat the problem.  He argues that the fix will require “a major public outcry Canada-wide” ****

For decades concerned Albertans (and medical professionals like the United Nurses of Alberta) have met with MLAs and MPs, staged rallies on the grounds of the Legislature, written letters to the editor, posted articles in newsletters and the social media and participated in government sponsored focus groups and a political leadership forums.  They have clearly articulated their position—we believe in publically funded universal healthcare.  What more can we do?

Well, there’s always civil disobedience.  In a nutshell, civil disobedience is the refusal to obey government laws in a non violent manner.  Policy-based civil disobedience is the act of breaking the law in order to change a policy one views as dangerously wrong.  I don’t know whether pushing the big blue button is illegal, but it is most certainly a breach of hospital protocol.

As we stand helplessly by and watch our mothers, fathers, partners, children and friends suffer because of unacceptable wait times for surgery, in the ER and on the wards we will be left with no choice but to push that big blue button.  Yes, it’s an act of civil disobedience but it sends a message—we really and truly have had enough.

* Herald Aug 24, 2011 A5   

**UNA Analysis of Leaked Document, Dec 2010 

*** Edmonton Journal Aug 18, 2011

****Calgary Herald Advertising Supplement Aug 27, 2011.

 

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 6 Comments