Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying

Stelmach backs off on allegations of job losses, well sort of... UPDATE.

Ed Stelmach has finally revealed where he got his statistic about the 300 000 plus jobs that would be lost if the Alberta Liberal's GHG plan was implemented. This comes via Scott Dippel at the CBC's Reporter's Notebook.

Speaking of Stelmach, it's day 25 of 28 day campaign. He still can't source his claim that a Liberal government's environment plan will kill 345,000 jobs in Alberta... or as we found out at a campaign stop this week, he meant to say Canada.

When asked to name which organization produced this statistic, he tells reporters: "I forget the name of the board." The PC campaign team can't name a website, document or author.

Hmmmm....maybe because you're blatantly lying. You made it up, there's not stats and no report. Obviously this behaviour makes my blood boil. Why must the Alberta's government persist (to the point of fabricating evidence) with such dated, backwards logic that environment=recession, when every one else in the developed world is moving on. It's just embarrassing.

Anyhow, Dippel's post cites more examples of why the Conservatives have had a bad campaign (which, you will discover is the understatement of the year for describing these gems) so I encourage you to go check it out. For now, here's one more particularly pathetic (and oh so depressing) example:

Two members of a Conservative candidate's team in rural Alberta storm into a local newspaper office. The candidate wants the editor's head on a plate. His crime: the paper dared to print a picture of Liberal Leader Kevin Taft on its front page.

The editor agrees to tell this story to CBC News but stops at the last minute. That's because the paper's publisher tells the editor that "if he values his job," he won't speak about the incident.

Sense of entitlement, much?

[1/2 of] Alberta Votes 2008- memorable quotes

I have been collecting a list of some notable quotables throughout the past month. Some are good, some are bad, and others are just plain ugly (i.e. insulting, although perhaps deserved). Of course, these categories reflect my own personal bias, but I think for a lot of other people they aren't far off the mark. Feel free to disagree or post any quotes I've left out in comments.

The Good:

"It's that dream, that possibility that should be more achievable here than anywhere else. And yet, it's just slipping through our fingers." -Kevin Taft

"NEP never happened - it is an Alberta urban myth...Reagan let the US strategic oil supplies lose on the open market and that undermined market prices of oil. That is what destroyed the Alberta economy....NEP would have done the same thing but Reagan beat the [Federal] Libs to it. Deal with the facts." - Ken Chapman, responding to a comment that the Alberta Liberals should apologize for the NEP.

"But this isn't Communist China. All appearances to the contrary, we're not actually supposed to have institutionalized one-party rule here. The PC party and the government are supposed to be two separate entities. The party is not supposed to control the electoral process." -Paula Simons on the returning officer scandal

"Stelmach is attacking Jean Chretien!" -Daveberta, live blogging the leaders debate

"Everybody's taxes pay for universities, colleges and technical institutions to operate, but because of these high costs not everybody's kids can go,"- Brian Mason

"The controversy over auto insurance rates revealed an unhealthy relationship between the insurance industry and an Alberta government that proved eager to roll over and play dead when it came to protecting the rights of Albertans." - Graham Thomson

The Bad:

"I'm not aware of Bill's comments uh and uh... and and even if he did talk to or if he did or didn't talk to Bill Mason... uh, or ... whatever his name is." -Ed Stelmach

"If you look at all of the things we need to fix, the returning officer is the last thing on my list." -Paul Hinman

“I lived through the 22-per-cent interest rates and part of that was the    Liberal government that dumped the NEP on this province.”- Ed Stelmach, fearmongering in response to a question on healthcare.

"While human beings can create laws, the laws of God must take precedence" - Ken Kowalski, in an election ad (h/t daveberta)

Mason thanked everyone for coming, then introduced his 'ordinary Albertan' friends, Steve and Cora Smerdely. Cora interupted: "It's Arlene." - Arlene Smerdely

"Let's take back the capital!" -Bill Donahue, PC Candidate, Edmonton-Centre.

"My wife thinks I am charismatic"  -Brian Mason, leaders debate.

"After the election is over we want to make sure that every area has an equal opportunity to cast their ballots" -Ed Stelmach   

Exchange between Ed Stelmach and a volunteer at an Edmonton campaign stop:
Stelmach: "So, is it already past, uh, the new year?"
Worker: "Of course, well, yeah, I'm not Chinese but I'm Filipino."
Stelmach: "You're Filipino…."

"People are dying as we speak, Mr. Stelmach" - Kevin Taft, leaders' debate

"Edmonton is coming home. I can feel it." - Ed Stelmach

"The other plan destroys 335,000 jobs. There are 600,000 new Albertans in this province. Do you want to send them back home to other provinces, other countries?" - Ed Stelmach, blatantly misrepresenting the facts.

The Ugly:

"Change that works for Tory insiders."-Brian Mason

"If its a charisma race between me and Ed Stelmach, I like the odds." - Kevin Taft

"They've asked me about nothing. They want nothing but my name, sadly,"- Arthur Kent

"It's coming like a locomotive on us and this government is playing marbles on the track." -Kevin Taft, leaders debate, discussing GHGs

“Every time we asked him a question he would just completely change the subject.” - Spencer Swinston, 10th grader, discussing Ed Stelmach's visit to his school.

"You're as transparent as a slab of granite" -Brian Mason to Ed Stelmach, leaders debate

"We've changed the head, but the beast remains the same" - Paul Hinman, leaders debate

"Ed, if you wanted real change, I don't know why you're running again," Kevin Taft, leaders debate.

 

Edmonton's Murdered Women

On Tuesday, the Edmonton Journal's Paula Simons wrote a column about the 16th sex trade worker to be found murdered in the last 20 years. The column started out OK, as Simons correctly pointed out that Edmontonians

"would rather believe in the existence of one bogeyman than accept the horrible notion that there might be a dozen different men out there who think nothing of killing women and discarding their bodies like trash. The bitter truth is that murders like this are frighteningly commonplace."

Unfortunately, Simon's column then veers completely offtrack. She suggests that all of these women were murdered because they were drug addicts. That is, drugs led them to the survival sex trade, which made them vulnerable to a serial killer. This is problematic for several reasons. Instead I argue that it is the conditions of the survival sex trade and women's inequality that is responsible for these deaths, and here's why:

• Simons relies on the stereotype of the drug addict who turns to the survival sex trade to support her habit. While this is may be the case for many woman, not all survival sex trade workers are  drug addicts. Indeed, Simons seems to assume that the other 15 women were addicted to drugs. Moreover, she doesn't mention the possibility that those women who were addicted, turned to drugs because Canada's survival sex trade is so unbearable.
  
  • The illegality of the act of paying for sex in Canada, means that many women are forced to go with johns to places away from the security provided by nearby coworkers and friends. Alleys and isolated rural locales are their necessary places of work. This (and not their addiction, if they have one) makes them the likely target of violence and abuse. Thus, some may turn to drugs to help deal with this reality.
• Simons ignores the root causes of the sex trade in the first place. The survival sex trade  exists because of gender inequality. Some men believe that women are objects or property. This practice is pervasive in our culture and is apparent in the pornography industry, the sexual double standard, and in slurs like c**t.  If their were no demand for the services of sex trade workers, women wouldn't be tempted into selling their bodies for high prices.
• Moreover, women have access to fewer economic opportunities than men and as such, more women than men live in poverty. This discrepancy  is particularly true in Alberta and  particularly true for Aboriginal women, who are drastically overrepresented in Edmonton's sex trade worker body count. In these murders, sexism and racism intersect to amplify vulnerability.
• There are generally more male drug abusers than female ones, but I have yet to hear of a case in Canada where male drug addicts have been stalked by a serial killer. Simons is right that the murders of female sex trade workers are extremely commonplace. But, this is not because of an addictions public health crisis, rather it is symptomatic of a pervasive trend of violence against women in this province and elsewhere.
  
  • The men who murder sex trade workers, spouses,  girlfriends and female acquaintances do so mainly out of a basic lack of respect for women. To them, women are objects or property. As such, they feel entitled to treat them as they see fit. This is clearly evidenced by the widespread incidence of violence against women in Alberta and the disturbing fact that homicide is the number one cause of death for pregnant women (American Journal of Public Health, March 2005).

Thus, it is illogical to refer to drug addiction as a secondary killer of Edmonton's sex trade workers. Addiction is an important issue but it does not inherently produce vulnerability to murder, and it certainly not a necessary factor in the murder of a sex trade worker. As someone with a passion for drug policy, I wholeheartedly agree that the criminalization of drug abusers creates more problems than it solves and that drug law reform would alleviate many of the harms associated with prohibition. But, this discussion is  tangentially related to the murder of innocent women and should not be used to distract from or excuse the broader problem of violence against women and gender inequality in this country, which allows some men to "think nothing of killing women and discarding their bodies like trash."

Wildrose Alliance Party Ads

Since we have already posted PC, NDP and Liberal campaign ads, I thought it was only fair to put up the latest from the WAP. I know, I know, they are a "grassroots" party with little cash and Paul Hinman seems like a nice man, so I shouldn't mock them. But couldn't they have at least tried to make him look less creepy? And why do the ads look like they were made during the height of the 1980s? If you have a minute, go check out the second longer ad on YouTube. That music!

Oh well, here's hoping these ads help split the vote on the right...

Alberta Libs release their television ads

Well with only five days to go before the election, the Alberta Liberals are kicking it up a notch with the launch of their television ad campaign. The ads continue the theme from the Kevin Taft "It's Time" video we posted a while ago. I like that video and I like that theme because (for me, at least) it really nails what's wrong with the state of Alberta's politics right now: that is, the notion that we are completely blowing a massive opportunity to do something -- anything -- to plan for a brighter future for this province.

While the  necessarily short TV ads don't quite capture the feel of the longer "It's Time" video and both look decided unpolished, I think they represent an honest effort by a cash-strapped party. It would be interesting to see what they could have come with if they had the war chest of the Tories (or even the NDs for that matter).

Overall, I like these ads (though the shorter one is much better than the longer version) because they're the only vaguely inspiring thing I've seen all election. This is especially true when you compare these ads to those of the NDs and the PCs. On the one hand, you have the Cons with the message, "hey, everyone, we now have the plan to manage growth that we should have had 10 years ago" and on the other hand we have the NDs with their "banning corporate donations is the most important policy in our platform," message. While both themes are understandable and important, they definitely don't capture the imagination of Alberta's citizens - something sorely needed in this province.

Change that works for insurance corporations, pt. 2

After the Alberta government's attempt to stay the decision to overturn the soft-injury cap (thereby keeping the cap in place until after the appeal) failed yesterday Stelmach announced he will not do anything to protect Albertans from the large insurance rate increases he anticipates will stem from the court decision overturning the ban.

As the Journal explains, "the government itself has control over the costs for mandatory coverage, and its rate board annually orders rates to go up or down, based on its judgement." Indeed, both Kevin Taft and Brian Mason pledged to enact a rate freeze if elected. Nonetheless, and in keeping with his 'government does not control the economy' mantra, Stelmach will let the companies appeal to the board for a rate increase, even while the appeal is pending.

Ultimately, I don't think Stelmach's refusal to freeze will be that all that costly to ordinary Albertans because: a) I think the actual costs that  accrue from the abolishment of the cap are greatly overexaggerated, and b) since the "independence" of the rate board, which will ultimately decide whether or not the companies' are allowed to increase, has been legitimately called into question (it's chaired by a former PC party president), the board will probably choose the politically expedient option anyways (i.e. a low to no increase).

Nonetheless, between Stelmach's eagerness to side with auto insurance corporations, his government's refusal to release the climate change report (at least probably not until after the election) and his accusing reporters of being liberal supporters, I think 'Honest Ed' is starting to look more and more like this guy.

Sooooo Shady Part...too many to count.

Un-f**king-believable! Sorry, but only an expletive will adequately express the anger and dismay I feel towards the Alberta government. The Edmonton Sun reported today that the returning officer for Edmonton-Castle Downs is none other than the incumbent, Tory MLA Thomas Lukaszuk's former executive assistant, Linda Brown! Allie Wojtaszek move over! A new poster-person for PC patronage has been crowned.

In case you don't remember, back in the 2004 election Lukaszuk was declared a winner only after 3 recounts and a margin of 3 votes over the Liberal candidate Chris Kibermanis. Now these two are going head-to-head again with Lukasuik's former EA personally overseeing the possible recount. That is, she will have the power to declare ballets spoiled and in the occasion of a tie, she will cast a ballot to declare a winner. If ever impartiality was needed in an election riding THIS WOULD BE THE CASE. As such the Alberta Libs are calling for the chief electoral officer to oversee this counts himself. However, I don't think even this will salvage the reputation of Elections Alberta and the Stelmach government. Post-democratic state, indeed.

Wendy Andrews is running for the wrong party

If you've traveled through the intersection of Stony Plain Road and 142 st in Edmonton, you may have noticed a billboard that looks like this:

Initially reading it, you could be confused: the leafy green background and promise of "fresh thinking" would have you thinking that the candidate was strongly focused on changing the dismal environmental record of this province --  then you'd see the PC Alberta logo, and, if you're like me, wonder if this background was a bit misleading. Given the PC's performance, I would think this billboard to be more accurate if the background image showed fumes billowing from some upgrader smokestacks, possibly behind a massive tailings pond, maybe beside a giant burning pile of the boreal forest that used to occupy the area filled by the smokestack and tailings pond.

To put this in other words, I find it curious that Andrews is running on an environmental platform (at least as portrayed by her billboard and recycled-paper brochures) as a candidate in a party that has, as a government, an environmental record that can only be described as dismal.  In just the last few weeks we've seen news of the government withholding from the public a report on climate change they commissioned Mark Jaccard to write (to be fair, this is as much of an insult to democracy as it is to the environment), industry asking government for a moratorium on the issuing of new tarsands leases, the Conservation Voters of Alberta report card that put the PC's platform in last place with a "D," and Ed Stelmach making up ludicrous job loss estimates that he says would result from any serious attempt to cap emissions, and then refusing to back these claims up. Does this qualify as "fresh thinking?"   

I'm not necessarily questioning Andrews' environmental convictions (although it does concern me that on the front page of her campaign website she trumpets an endorsement from this guy, who among other things refers to the Kyoto accord as a "socialist wealth transfer scheme"). It's likely she wants to work as an "agent for change" within the PC Party; my contention is that she should have thought this through. Does she think that the environmental goals she's made the centrepiece of her campaign would be best accomplished by her getting elected as a PC and attempting to to single-handedly and drastically shift the course of the most recalcitrant government in the country? Particularly in a province where the head of government (i.e. the premier and his inner circle) is so powerful (relative to even other Canadian governments) and steadfastly promises not to "touch the brake," the likelihood of this happening is basically nil. In fact, I would say that the tendency of several Tory partisans and the party itself to co-opt and parade around candidates like Ms. Andrews and a similar candidate in Calgary (Leah Lawrence) as evidence that they care about the environment does more harm than good to furthering environmental goals.

Looking at her record and ideas, she seems like she would be a good candidate, if she were running for a party that's record demonstrated it actually gives a rat's ass about environment. It's either naïve, disingenuous, careless, or some combination of the three for her to run on the platform she is for the party she is, and for that reason alone I would strongly question supporting her. However, I don't live in Edmonton-Riverview, so she won't have to worry about me...

Now: bring on the comments calling me a partisan Liberal for attacking someone making a challenge to Taft's seat!

Stelmach backs off on allegations of job losses, well sort of...

It seems that Ed Stelmach has finally provided CBC's Kim Trynacity with an answer to the question she posed to during last week's debate - well, sort of...

A new story ('Stelmach oftens job losses statistic in final days of campaign') from the CBC tonight, explains that in response to continued prodding from reporters about the source of his prediction that the Liberal's climate change plan would lead to 300 000 job losses in Alberta, Stelmach modified his orignal statistic to include resulting job losses across Canada. As the CBC explains,

On Tuesday in Calgary, the question arose again, and as Stelmach was formulating an answer, his communications adviser jumped in with some prodding: "Across Canada, make that clear, premier, Alberta and across Canada."

The Tory leader then said, "Yeah, these are 300,000 jobs across the country of Canada, and that's a small amount given the fact that 745,000 jobs rely on the oil and gas industry in the country of Canada."

Before Tuesday's statement, the Progressive Conservatives used the job loss statistic in a news release that attacked the Alberta Liberals' climate change plan, which promises to bring in caps on carbon emissions within five years, and Stelmach quoted the number in a heated debate with an environmentalist.

"The other plan destroys 335,000 jobs. There are 600,000 new Albertans in this province. Do you want to send them back home to other provinces, other countries?" Stelmach said on Feb. 11.

Oh, OKAY. Anyhow, from what I can tell Stelmach still was unable to provide the source for this updated statistic, even though it now seems an extremely miniscule touch more plausible. Hmm...maybe the source is in the taxpayer-funded climate change report the government is refusing to release?

That's right, the CBC has also discovered that the Alberta government has commissioned a report entitled, 'Economic Analysis of Climate Change Abatement Opportunities for Alberta' from Canada's foremost expert on climate change policies, Mark Jaccard. Opportunities, foremost expert - sounds pretty interesting, doesn't it? Well, don't get your hopes up for reading it anytime soon. Although the report was completed in 2006, and the government claims it informed their climate change "strategy," according to the Department of Energy, the report is not "ready" to be released to the public. In my translation of this statement from public-affairs-bureauese, it can only mean one of two things:

1. The Department didn't expect that anyone would be requesting this report anytime soon, and so has not bothered to complete the appropriate spinning processes on said report. Or,

2. The Department fully expected that requests for this report would be made, however has been instructed not to release the report until after the election.

Clearly option #2 is the most plausible explanation. First of all, there is a precedent for this type of behavior.  Sure enough, the department has promised that the report will eventually be released with a full technical briefing. Unfortunately, in Alberta's sad state of democratic affairs, this likely means after the election. Moreover, given Stelmach's penchant for hyperbole and scare-mongering when it comes to climate change, and knowing Jaccard's penchant for sensible yet effective policies, I would wager that if the report does get released it will be after a drawn-out FOIP process complete with heavy sensoring under the guise of 'Advice to Officals,*' or some garbage like that.

* Yes, thanks to Bill 20, anything considered by the government to be "advice to officials" does not have to be released to the public.

UPDATE: Stelmach has finally identified his source for his oft-repeated 300 000 job losses statistic: THERE IS NO SOURCE. It appears that Stelmach confused the Liberals' policy to institute a hard cap at levels determined by industry in consultation with the government by 2013 with the Kyoto accord, which calls for  (now drastic) reductions of GHG to 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. I say "it appears" because Stelmach refuses to admit this is what happened,

"Just give it some thought: 600,000 new Albertans in this province of Alberta, bringing back greenhouse gases to the levels of 1990 with all of the growth we've had in every community in the province of Alberta," he told reporters in Lethbridge.

"Three hundred thousand job losses across Canada would be minimal if you look at the number of jobs in the oil and gas industry."

When a reporter suggested he was mistaken, Stelmach asked if he was defending the Liberal policy.

"They clearly said Kyoto-style caps, absolute caps, 1990... I have a very clear understanding of their policy," said Stelmach, a leader often nicknamed "Honest Ed."

Wow. He won't even admit he's wrong!! The Liberals do not say anything about Kyoto, see for yourself. This is such blatant manipulation of facts for the purpose of scarce-mongering I don't even know what to say. Politicians are prone to spin, but would Stelmach's behavior fly anywhere else? What it comes down to is  that Stelmach is using these tactics because he assumes Albertans can't and won't think for themselves and check the facts. He excepts us all to unblinkingly trust him. Albertans deserve better than this. Stelmach should come clean and apologize for willfully misleading the public.  But given that this is Alberta and we LOVE letting politicians get away with this kind of thing, I won't hold my breath.

A long-term crisis in the making?

This post is a bit dated, but it's about an important issues that I've been meaning to write about for some time.

Buried in the middle of the CityPlus section of last Wednesday's Edmonton Journal comes even more distressing news for Alberta's human services sector. This sector is vitally important to Alberta's social fabric, as it includes the many organizations and individuals who provide support and practical assistance to some of our most vulnerable citizens, including people with disabilities, abused women, children, and seniors. Last fall, several of these major organizations came together to launch the Who Cares? Alberta campaign in an effort to raise awareness around the growing human resources crisis in this sector.

Briefly, the situation is a result of a combination of Alberta's out of control job market and stagnant provincial government grants, which guarantees that workers in these fields are consistently overworked and underpaid. In many cases, these jobs pay even less than the relatively less stressful and more flexible service industry positions. While human services workers are usually extremely devoted to their work, this passion doesn't pay the bills - and particularly since the onset of the boom (and it's upward pressure on the cost of living), we've seen a mass exodus of employees from these fields who find themselves plagued with employee turnover rates of up to 40% in Edmonton and Calgary and 70% in Northern Alberta. As a result, many organizations are operating at only partial capacity and are unable to provide Albertans the services they require. (For one illustrative - and heartbreaking - example, 27 000 women and children fleeing violence were turned away from Alberta's women shelters last year).

The latest news demonstrates that the crisis has elevated to an even more critical level, as the Journal story examines the closure of several disability care programs at Alberta postsecondary institutions due to low enrollment. Further, it explains that where programs remain, they are generally operating at only partial enrollment. This development is particularly worrying, because it demonstrates how not only are current human services workers leaving the sector, potential future workers are also being deterred from entering the field.

Clearly, this crisis is in every way a social infrastructure debt that must be dealt with immediately. Proactive steps must be taken to make human sector jobs more attractive now if we wish to avoid a long-term crisis. So if you have a second, let the Alberta government know that this is an important issue to you.

In case you're interested in learning more about this issue, you can check out these links. The CBC also has an interesting a step-by-step timeline of the budget cuts that gutted Alberta's human services and several audio pieces in their excellent feature, "Alberta's Social Services in Crisis." If blogs are more your style, Ken Chapman also had a good post on this issue a little while back.

Science: A 21st Century Menace

Last Tuesday, Rick Mercer blogged about the Harper government's distrust of science and the Canadian scientific community. These sentiments have been echoed (albeit somewhat less humorously) by a recent editorial in Nature, a highly respected science-based periodical. Specifically, since taking office the Conservative government has:

1. Told the independent, non-partisan National Science Adviser, that his services were no longer needed (and replaced his office with a committee comprising of both scientists and several senior-level bureaucrats). As such, the science advising and progess reports the government receives are expected to be 'markely less independent.'
2. Refused to meet with a group of Canadian scientists who had just won the Nobel Peace Prize, because their work was in the area of climate change (a.k.a. Kyoto socialist scheme).
3. Muzzled Environment Canada's scientists and routed all media inquires through the PMO, to ensure the agency stays 'on message.'
4. Finally, this government has continued the trend of underfunding agencies like that National Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Canadian Institute of Health Research, and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council.

Now before I get accused of pining for the lost days of the ivory tower, where academics (a slur to some people) were respected and revered for their infinite knowledge, allow me to lay out some practical repercussions to the Harper war on (independent) science.

First, forward-looking nations that know they cannot compete with the low wages of Asia for manufacturing jobs and are shifting to economies centred on the creation of what is essentially intellectual property. To compete in the global economy, countries increasingly require highly skilled and educated people to innovate and create exportable knowledge and technologies. Support for Canada's scientific community vital if we are to have young Canadians take on these important roles and the continue the development of technologies, commercially applicable and otherwise.

Second, the global imperative of climate change (and probably also the looming fear of peak oil) is creating a burgeoning sustainable energy industry. Scientists and engineers in countries all over the globe (especially those which import oil and gas) are working towards developing cleaner sources of energy and the means to ween ourselves off carbon intensive fuel sources. Relative to most other countries Canada is well positioned to become a leader in the production of exportable clean energy technologies, but at this early stage would be aided greatly by strong leadership from the federal government. Instead, as the Nature article points out, Stephen Harper's government seems content to commit our nation to a fossil-fuel economy (centered on the tar sands). This may create wealth in the short term, but if the Canadian government doesn't encourage the development of other technologies it is all too likely that Canada will be left behind in the transition to the post-carbon economy.

Suncor, Shell, Petro-Canada, Husky and Imperial Oil are officially more environmentally trustworthy than the Alberta Government

You know it's got to be bad when even the OIL COMPANIES are asking for a temporary moratorium on expansion of the oilsands, in order to allow for the creation of conservation areas. What kind of twilight zone must we live in if business is lobbying the government to preserve more land for conservation? This story was originally reported in the Globe and Mail with more detail, but for your convenience I have posted the CBC's summary of the story below:

Companies call for oilsands development freeze: report
Last Updated: Monday, February 25, 2008 | 10:33 AM MT
CBC News

For the first time, major oil producers are calling on the Alberta government to introduce a partial moratorium on oilsands development in the province's north, according to a newspaper report.

Companies including Petro-Canada, Suncor and Shell Canada signed a private letter last month asking the province to freeze land lease licences until 2011 in three areas around Fort McMurray that have not yet been developed, the Globe and Mail said Monday.

The provincial government sells the licences to allow companies to find and produce crude.

"Further granting of new surface and sub-surface rights would continue to reduce the available options for the establishment of new conservation areas that would serve to accomplish a balanced suite of regional outcomes," reads the letter obtained by the newspaper.

The missive is also signed by Environment Canada and environmental group Pembina Institute.

The Globe reported that a majority of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, a group of 46 industry, government and aboriginal members working in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, support the letter.

But at least four major companies that are a part of CEMA, such as Encana and Canadian Natural, rejected the call for a partial moratorium, with Syncrude abstaining from taking a position.

A spokesman from Alberta's Energy Department told the newspaper the government is working on a response, which will likely come after the March 3 provincial election.

UPDATE: Alberta's aboriginal chiefs have also come out in support of a moratorium. Also of note in the story is the Liberal's response  to the initial Globe story. I have yet to see anything from the Tories or the NDs, but will be sure to do so if and when they respond.

UPDATE #2: NEP Alert! Oh no, I spoke too soon. An updated version of the CBC article has Stelmach's response and surprise, surprise he has envoked his memory of the NEP and Trudeau for the third time THIS election.

At a campaign stop in Calgary on Monday, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach said he's not surprised by the recommendation but pointed out that support for it is not unanimous.

"Governments do not control the economy," he said. "The last time the economy was controlled by a government was back in the '80s, and it was the federal Trudeau Liberals that I ended up paying 22 per cent interest rates … We're not going back to those dark days."

In the past, Stelmach has said the government shouldn't "touch the brake" of the provincial economy.

He also said the government will not respond until CEMA finalizes its recommendations which are due in June.

Stelmach may be correct to say that governments do not control the economy, but they do control the conditions in which it operates. They set tax rates, allocate public lands for sales and sell mineral leases. They have complete control over these rates and can use them to stimulate or slow under or over performing economies - every jurisdiction in the world does this.

Also, this is pretty hypocritical, given that Stelmach himself revoked OSUM sub-surface lease under Marie Lake last year, explaining that all of Alberta isn't for sale. Hmm... looks like everything is back on the (free) market after all.

Update #3: A longer piece from the Edmonton Journal describing Stelmach's reaction in greater depth, and an updated article from the Herald touching on the NDP's position.

Other business

Here is a few small(ish) items that I've been accumulating over the week because I think they're worth sharing:

Sense of entitlement, much?

Is anyone else mildly disturbed by this excerpt from Tuesday's story from the Edmonton Journal, 'Millions in war chest give Tories ad-vantage':

Despite the Tories' financial health, they're being pinched on one side by unrest in the oilpatch after Stelmach's decision last fall to hike energy royalties. Companies have said the increases would kill investment at a time when conventional oil and gas developers are already hurting, and hundreds of millions of dollars in investments have been cancelled.

Rick Grafton, former chairman of Canaccord Adams and a pioneer in Alberta's energy financing sector, angrily quit the PCs' Calgary finance committee last month.

In a letter to campaign co-chair Doug Black, Grafton said "raising money for a premier and minister who are not open to private in-depth conversations with the energy sector to reach a consensus collaboratively will only be an exercise in frustration and futility."

Somehow, I doubt Stelmach isn't open to these deals, but can you believe this guy's lack of subtlety? He might as well made the subject line of his letter, re: quid pro quo.

I heart Todd Babiak, Pt. 2

On a lighter note, best blog post title of the week, goes to Todd Babiak  for this number. Hmm...I'm sensing someone wishes they had been invited to join the Journal's Election Notebook blog.

The Red Dot Campaign

Hallelujah. Someone's found an effective and permanent way to stop (most) junk mail from cluttering your mailbox. Say hello to the Red Dot Campaign. Contrary to the rumors that 'No Junk Mail' stickers are ignored by mail carriers, Canada post actually has their own program to allow citizens to opt-out of receiving unaddressed mail. The Red Dot Campaign was established to publicize the program's existence (as for understandable bottom-line reasons, Canada Post does not).

The group is motivated by their perception that,

We are fortunate to live in abundance where many of us have TOO MUCH STUFF! And to keep us buying more stuff, we are inundated with $19 Billion worth of advertising each year.

Much of this advertising is wasteful and irrelevant. Print advertising has a huge environmental footprint and often produces only a 1-2% uptake on the offer.

In addition to these stats, the campaign also notes that 67% of Canadians are not interested in these ads, and 25% throw them out without even looking at them (I definitely fall in this bracket, but not for much longer!).

Sign up today! And don't worry, AGRDT readers, your political and public service information pamphlets will still get through, as they are excluded from the ban.

And last but not least - My Favorite (Non Alberta Election Related) Video of the Week,

Newsflash: PC environmental platform weak

I know this is going to come as a real shock to all of you, but a conservation group rated the environmental platforms of the 5 most prominent provincial parties and the PCs were in the basement (along with the Wildrose Alliance Party) with an inspring grade of "D."

The ratings were done by the Conservation Voters of Alberta, and the report can be found here. A summary of each party's overall grade:

Alberta Liberals: B (formerly B+, but downgraded after the party released their stance on nuclear energy in the province)
New Democrats: B
Greens: B
Progressive Conservatives: D
Wildrose Alliance: D

The report is fairly short and actually pretty readable. It identifies a few issues in the province that I thought warranted a little more attention:

1. There are no environmental thresholds or health limits for communities in the vicinity of the tarsands

2. There hasn't been, to date, any cumulative assessment of the combined environmental effects of existing and planned development.

This is pretty amazing, especially courtesy of a party that steadfastly maintains that it has a "plan." Under the Progressive Conservative government, unprecedented development of a toxic resource has been able to take place with virtually no heed paid to the possible effects on human or ecological health in the vicinity. This task has apparently been delegated to the "free market," that familiar PC problem-solver with its lack of virtually any mechanisms to account for any costs that aren't direct and strictly monetary.

3. Current land use practices allow mining, logging, and drilling in some protected areas

"Protected areas," for the record, include provincial parks, wildland parks, provincial recreation areas, ecological reserves, wilderness areas, natural areas, and "heritage rangelands." This leaves me wondering exactly what the Tories' definition of "protected" is.

4. Stelmach wildly exaggerates job loss claims when talking about emissions reductions

This last one isn't a surprise, especially after the debate in which Stelmach made no attempt whatsoever to adresss Kim Trynacity's calling of his bluff on this matter. I suppose it isn't really as shocking as the above three points, but I wanted to point it out as this is something of a personal beef of mine and I was pleasantly surprised to see it mentioned literally in the report.

Ultimately, this report just makes more obvious the PC green-washing that we've seen during (and before) this campaign. The PCs constantly talk about "greening our growth," and run candidates who, as an example, espouse platitudes about "green living," yet preside over one of the most poorly-planned, poorly-monitored ecological disasters in recent history and seem very eager to make it worse. The party laughably portrays itself as a leader on climate change because it was the first government in Canada to draft legislation in this area, but fails to realize that "leadership" doesn't simply mean "being the first to do something." It's bad enough to ignore environmental considerations, but for doing so while giving Albertans the impression that their party actually prioritizes environmental considerations the PCs should be ashamed. At least the Wildrose Alliance is somewhat upfront about their disregard for the natural world.

I'll end with what I thought to be a humuorous quote from the report that aptly sums up my feelings on the issue:

With an announcement titled “Progressive Conservatives Green Our Growth with a Plan to Balance Demands on Our Air, Land and Water,” one is led to believe that the Stelmach Conservatives would have a plan to address the increased pressures on our land, air and water.

One would think so...

Alberta NDs release their TV ad campaign

Unsurprisingly, they continue to go negative. I wonder if the Vancouver-based consultants are the same team who coached Mason before the debate last night? I also wonder why the NDs are using Vancouver consultants. Thoughts?

Leader's debate recap

Although we felt that "liveblogging" probably wouldn't be necessary given the abundance of it from our better-read counterparts (even Rod Love was liveblogging in his own smarmy way), the AGRDT team all watched the debate last night. We were hoping to see the same thing other Albertan progressives -- and probably some PCs of the "I'm supportin' Morton" stripe -- were hoping to see: an Ed Stelmach meltdown.

Although he resorted to invoking the "socialism" boogeyman, the "Eastern Liberals want our money" boogeyman, and flagrantly dodged the most direct question of the night, collapse he did not, and this is probably the big story of last night's debate.

A quick aside: as an Albertan that every day laments the sorry state of democracy in our province, I think that this is pretty sad (not that Stelmach didn't collapse, but that him not collapsing was the salient theme of the debate). When the main development of a leader's debate is someone simply not failing, when the platform of the dominant party essentially boils down to "we actually have a plan now," and when the most compelling reason that the opposition parties can seem to find to remove the government from power (out of the stunning array available to them) is that "37 years is too long," you know that something is rotten in Wild Rose Country.

But enough pontification: time for the ubiquitous blog debate recap.

It's hard to pick winners or losers because there weren't really any of either. As I mentioned above, the most remarkable thing that happened was that Stelmach didn't completely embarrass himself. Adding to this nebulousness is the truly staggering array of opinions I've heard from various pundits and citizens in the various media outlets. That being said, we at AGRDT were able to piece together what we thought would be a ranking of the leaders in terms of performance.

1. Brian Mason

Although Albertans at large seem to disagree with us on this one, we thought that Mason was able to project the most principled stance of all of the leaders, and was also able to most effectively articulate his ideas. He was able to take some excellent jabs at the Premier, the most notable being him making the Premier look like a bit of a fool calling a 10 year plan to end homelessness in the one of the richest districts on earth "ambitious."

Mason loses points for his continued fondness for attacking the Liberals. This has many (but certainly not all) NDP supporters that we know banging their heads against the wall, some to the extent that they're switching votes to the Liberals. As a progressive, I have to say that I find this truly frustrating. In the big picture, what's the biggest obstacle to the NDP furthering its objectives in this province: the Alberta Liberal Party, which hasn't held office since 1921, or the PCs which have created and then exacerbated all of the problems that the NDP is trying to fix? Principles are good, but we think Mason needs to inject a little more pragmatism into his strategy.

Memorable moment: managing to get a bee into Taft's bonnet about emissions caps, inciting a fracas that resembled a family political debate at Christmas after a few too many eggnogs.

2. Kevin Taft

This was a toughy. We thought Stelmach and Taft were pretty close performance-wise, but ultimately had to give the edge to Taft because simply not-shitting-the-bed wasn't a good reason, in our minds, to put Stelmach in second.

If Taft had one thing he wanted to accomplish, it was to not come off looking like a shrill, academic egghead. For the first two questions, Taft looked precisely like a shrill academic egghead, but once we warmed up he started to tone down the polemical attacks and make some good, more reasoned criticisms of the Premier's record. Although it wasn't the inspiring performance that many Liberals were hoping for, it was certainly solid.

Taft loses points for getting lured into a bickering match with Mason over emissions caps of all things -- something the PCs have an absolutely dismal record on, and one of the areas that Taft had a real chance to embarrass the Premier about. This was a general theme of Taft's performance; he tended, in our eyes, to focus his attacks in areas where the Premier wasn't as vulnerable, like healthcare, while missing an opportunity to pound him on issues like growth management and climate change where the PCs have truly bumbled.

Memorable moments: "PEOPLE ARE DYING, PREMIER STELMACH!" and "Charisma doesn't win elections. Charisma doesn't get hospitals build. Charisma doesn't get schools built."

3. Ed Stelmach

As I said numerous times above, Stelmach surprised a lot of people by holding his own pretty well in an area (public speaking) that is clearly one of his weaker. The benefits of professional communications coaching, courtesy of the PC's massive war chest, were clearly showing last night. He was able to quote a lot of stats to backup of his arguments, and actually managed to make a few witty digs at his adversaries (particularly Taft and Mason) who, with a few exceptions, were attacking him all night.

Stelmach loses points -- many points -- for completely dodging the most direct and pertinent question posed by the panel during the debate. Kim Trynacity asked Stelmach directly (sorry, this isn't verbatim): "you have said that implementing hard emissions caps would result in the losses of 300 000 oil-related jobs in Alberta; where did you get these figures?" In response, Stelmach mumbled out a few talking points about his government taking a leadership position on climate change (HA!) and how his party's goals were real and achievable -- in other words, complete nonsense (which is probably because he well knows that his wildly exaggerated claims of job losses are rubbish).

We also had to ding Stelmach for repeatedly and baselessly calling the Liberals and New Democrats "socialists," and somehow attempting to link the comments of Jean Chrétien on a recent visit to Edmonton about Alberta sharing its wealth to the Alberta Liberal Party.

Memorable moment: the first free debate session, in which Stelmach semi-coherently stumbled through an anecdote about being married to his wife for 35 years and her not wanting a change while the other leaders yelled simultaneously.

Also Ran: Paul Hinman

Although Hinman presented himself pretty well and was able to sensibly communicate his ideas, he was really a non-factor in the debate. The other leaders didn't address his comments, and more or less acted like he wasn't there. Casual observers (like the less politically involved friends who joined the AGRDT team for the debate) probably left horrified at Hinman's unrelenting bleeding heart for big oil corporations and thinly veiled social conservatism. That said, he may well have attracted a few voters on the rightward-fringes of the PCs with his consistent advocacy for lower taxes and less government.

Memorable moments: chastising Stelmach for listening to his heart when he should have been listening to industry and suggesting that that the best way to solve Alberta's childcare crisis is to have parents (read Moms) stay home with their children.

Thanks for reading the AGRDT post-debate recap. You can find reactions from other bloggers here: Calgary Grit, Joel Kom, Archie McLean, Albertatory, and Ken Chapman, Aaron Braaten and Daveberta via CBC's YouCast.

More fun with stats

Angus Reid Strategies has a new poll out today. Without going into a full breakdown, the main differences between this poll and the Ipsos Reid poll from yesterday relate to support for the Liberals and the regional breakdowns. Angus Reid puts the Liberals at 31 per cent provincially and leading the PCs by 9 points in Edmonton. The poll also pegs the PCs at 45% in Calgary.

In sharp contrast to yesterday, the PCs are now safely leading in Calgary and safely losing in Edmonton. If anything the combination of the two polls should demonstrate the frequent unreliability of polls for predicting election outcomes. Hopefully the contrast means that this election is still anyone's game, or a the very least, the option of a minority government is still on the table.

Soooooo Shady, Part. 2.75

Update on the ongoing returning officer saga. If these (suspiciously well-timed) allegations are true, this is really disturbing. What is a PC MLA doing visiting a polling station anyways?

NEP Alert

The almost thirty-year old failed policy of the federal liberal party, was brought up again for the third time this election with Stelmach's latest comparison of Kevin Taft to Pierre Trudeau. Is there anyone who takes this seriously anymore? Come on.

AGRDT has more thoughts on this frustrating phenomenon and a tally of other NEP references this campaign, here.

Bridging the urban-rural "divide"?

Is anyone else enjoying the Edmonton Journal's columnists' profiles of small Alberta towns and cities? I think they're really interesting, yet at times disconcerting. So in case you've missed them and would like to read more, here is a list of links for your reading convenience.

• Todd Babiak on Lac La Biche, "Politically, this is Latin America with snow"
• Todd Babiak on Andrew, "City sneers sting in Stelmach Country"
• Paula Simons on Fort Saskatchewan, "Fort Saskatchewan concerns are practical"
• Scott McKeen on Whitecourt, "Discontent stays well hidden in Whitecourt"
• Dan Barnes on Grande Prairie, "Grande Prairie suffering effects of uncontrolled growth"
• Dan Barnes on Grande Cache, "Tourism talk splits mining town"
• Dan Barnes on Carvel, "Politicking is easy in idyllic town"

Beyond a few letters to the editor here and there, I haven't seen a lot of feedback about these columns - so if any one has an opinion on them, please feel free to share!