Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying

Alberta's new cabinet

Cabinet making is always a favorite topic for political watchers because it involves the balancing of a multitude of considerations and generally serves to define a leader's overall tone for her government. More than that though, the personal nature of some of the considerations involved (i.e. loyalty, perceived competence, competition to leader, etc.) means that the outcomes are also completely open to interpretation. Few people can actually speak authoritatively on the subject, but that doesn't mean many won't try. So in light of that, welcome to the Official AGRDT 'Alberta's new cabinet' post!

Today's cabinet looks a lot like the one before it with a few notable exceptions. There's more ministers (cabinet grows from 18 to 23), there's more urban representation (Calgary has six seats and Edmonton three, which compares to the three seats combined they had last time around) and there's more women (five new women - Mary Anne Jablonski, Cindy Ady, Heather Klimchuk, Alison Redford, and Yvonne Fritz - join the existing two female ministers - Janice Tarchuk and Iris Evans). The only other major changes include the creation of several "parliamentary assistant" positions and the switcharoo of Dave Hancock (now Education) and Ron Liepert (now Health).  The mainstream media has a good run-down of the remaining changes to portfolio composition, etc. so I suggest you take a look at these.

I have quite a few thoughts on the new cabinet, so for your reading ease, I'll organize them into seven themes:

1. Best Move: A cabinet that looks more like Alberta

It drives me absolutely crazy when people instantly dismiss the argument that a Cabinet should look like the population it represents. Some people seem to think that second you suggest that not enough women or visible minorites have been appointed to cabinet, you must immediately ascribe to the idea that men can't represent women and white people can't represent non-white people. Not only is this notion problematic because it assumes there is a single women's or racialized minority interest, but it also obscures the actual basis for the desire for a representative cabinet.

Cabinet should be diverse because when a Cabinet is not diverse, (i.e. there are no or a disproportionate amount of "qualified" women, visible minorities, and other minority groups) then somewhere down the line there is a systemic barrier to those groups' full participation at all levels of Alberta's politics. As a person who thinks it's important that all members of Alberta's society have the opportunity to participate in it's politics, the absence of a loosely proportionate amount of women or minority groups is quite disconcerting.

That said, I have to give Stelmach props for recognizing the talent and qualifications of the five new women he appointed to Cabinet. Now if only, there was more than one non-white person around to demonstrate that there aren't systemic barriers to the people of color who make up eighteen percent of Alberta's population.

2. Worst Move: Groeneveld needs to be put out to pasture

This one probably reflects the soft spot I have in my heart for agricultural policy, but...for anyone out there who tries to make the diluted argument that cabinets are picked on the basis of qualifications, I have two words for you: George Groeneveld. His retention of the Alberta Agriculture portfolio has to be one of Stelmach's worst moves. I know Mr. Groeneveld has substantial experience in agriculture and with Alberta's Wheat Pool, but this man is far past his prime. If you don't believe me: watch question period. He spends more time searching through papers on his desk for his PAB written answers and his glasses then he does responding to the question. It's actually sort of painful to watch.

This sad situation contrasts sharply with other jurisdictions, like the EU, Oregon, and even Ontario, which are trying new reforms and innovative approaches to the production and marketing of food in their jurisdiction. Here in Alberta, the biggest news to come out of Agriculture last year was the Auditor General's revelation that up to $34 million a year was going to ineligible recipients of Alberta's farm fuel subsidy program, as the program or it's recipients had not been reviewed in ten years despite the government's own regulations that required a review every three years.

Honourable mention: Janis Tarchuk's retention of the Children and Youth Services portfolio. While I give her credit for being congenial to her opposition critics (this is a rare quality in Tory cabinet ministers, Hancock and (to an extent) Evans are the only others that come to mind), she has no clue what is going on in her department. Her inability to speak authoritatively about solutions to the appalling state of Alberta's foster care program and more generally, it's social infrastructure, or even to explain how her department didn't spend almost $31 million of its budget in 2006-07 and $25.9 million of federal child care money it received this summer in spite of massive child care space shortages, are prime  examples of why Tarchuk should have been showed the door

3. Evans to Finance and Enterprise (I know, I think the new portfolio name is strange, too)

Although I disagree with her politics, views, and value systems, I think Iris Evans is an excellent MLA and cabinet minister. Her work ethic is notorious, and she does seem to care a lot about the work she does. I think it will be interesting to see what she can accomplish in the Finance and Enterprise Portfolio, here's hoping she can hold her own against this guy.

4.  Rob Renner will continue to not accomplish anything in the environment portfolio

Maybe Stelmach should have placed Pierre Alvarez or one of the heads of Suncor or Enbridge in this portfolio instead. At least then something would move forward in this file. See here and here for more of my thoughts on this.

5. Hancock-Liepert Shuffle

This has the potential to quickly become Stelmach's worst move, if Liepert's behavior in Health is anything like his performance in Education. Liepert's attitude towards the ATA during their negotiations last year was divisive, dishonest, and down-right child-like. I don't think I've ever seen a grown man act like such a bully. Alberta would be looking at a province-wide teacher's strike right now, had it been up to him. If this is the approach Liepert is planning on adopting towards nurses and other health care professionals, expect him to cause more problems then he solves. Adding insult to injury is the fact that Dave Hancock is by far the most capable minister and given more time, would have likely come up with some innovative solutions to Alberta's health care challenges.

So what was Stelmach thinking? Liepert is seen by Tories as a hard-line fiscal conservative, not afraid to make deep cuts. Moreover, many Tories have openly complained about Alberta's "bloated" health care budget, and indeed, "increasing access to quality health care and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of health care service delivery" is outlined today as one of the new government's five priorities.  I wouldn't be surprised if Stelmach was looking to use some  neoliberal measures to address Alberta's health care systems, and he sees Liepert as the henchman to do it. Will he go so far as to push for privatization? In the spectre of the disaster that was Bill 11, only time will tell. However, considering Stelmach was a member of the unfortunate episode in Alberta's history known as Deep Six, I can't say I would be surprised in the least if he took steps in this direction (for more on Stelmach's neo-conservatism check out Jeremy Klasuz's excellent article on, 'Ed Stelmach: the Forgotten Years.') 

6. Ted "I hate gay people, and I don't really trust women, either" Morton maintains SRD

Just a reminder that this creep is still lurking around.

7. On parliamentary assistants...

Stelmach deserves some credit here for introducing the Westminister tradition of parliamentary secretaries to Alberta. While only time will tell how effective they are, they will hopefully solve one constant problem in Question Period. Namely, that under current practices when a minister is away, another minister is expected to answer questions on their behalf. This exercise is always a complete disaster, as no one knows who is supposed to be standing in for who, and the stand-in is never prepared. These exchanges always end with a vague promise to "pass the question along" and a minister's absence can work as a tactic for Tories looking to avoid confrontation (and media attention) over controversy in a specific portfolio.

Make sure you stay tuned tomorrow for a AGRDT Guy Boutilier send-off!

Guest Post: An election postmortem from an outsider's perspective, pt. 2

As promised, here is part two of JR's guest post. Yesterday, I posted part one, which describes the problem plaguing the exercise of healthy democracy in Alberta - so make sure you check it out before you read this one. Today, for your reading pleasure, we bring you a possible solution to Alberta's democratic malaise.

As I mentioned yesterday, JR is from out of province, so feel free to let him know if he's on track or totally off base in the comments.

Alberta Election Postmortem: An Outsider’s Perspective

Part Two: The Solution

There remains, however, a solution to Alberta’s democratic deficiency and a hope for progressive-minded Albertans.  As the First Law of Petropolitics dictates, the lower the price of oil the more a political culture becomes sensitive to opposition voices.  What I propose is for Alberta to implement a regulatory regime that caps oil prices and limits the amount of production in the tar sands annually. 

Though some of the more hard-headed readers of this blog may deride my prescription as an exercise of neo-Marxism I believe it would be in Alberta’s interest to regulate the price and production of oil.  Oil is not a renewable resource and thus there is a finite amount that can be produced (if you don’t believe me I suggest you check out the documentary A Crude Awakening). Such a policy will help Albertans create a more transparent political process that lets the people, rather than the oil companies and the governments that enable them, to have a stake in their own future. 

When the oil runs out, I doubt Alberta’s reputable knowledge-based economy will ensure the continued stability, viability and influence provided by an oil economy.  By controlling oil’s price and production through public-private partnerships between government and the oil sector, Alberta can ensure its continued influence in the federation and practice a responsible policy that saves its natural resources for future generations while limiting environmental damage today.

Guest Post: An election postmortem from an outsider's perspective

The following post is from a good friend of the AGRDT team who lives out-of-province. Although I originally enlisted him for the purposes of providing some federal political analysis, it seems he is more interested in taking a stab at the Albertan enigma. It's a bit on the long side (aren't they always) so I've split it up into two parts, one (the problem) which I will publish today and two (the solution) that I'll put up tomorrow. Love it, hate it, tear it to shreds, it's up to you. Let us know what you think. Either way - a big thanks goes out to JR for his time and effort!

Finally, on the off chance any one was missing my posts last week, I'm sorry I had to get caught up with, uh, my life, but I promise I'll have something new for you within the next twenty-four hours. Happy reading!

Alberta Election Postmortem: An Outsider’s Perspective

Part One: The Problem

As an outside observer from a province that will remain nameless, my first reaction to the results of the Alberta election was to re-visit an article written by Thomas Friedman a couple of years ago. Friedman posits the emergence of a new law linking the rise and fall of political and economic freedoms to fluctuations in the price of oil.  Calling this observation the First Law of Petropolitics, Friedman writes:

The price of oil and the pace of freedom always move in opposite directions in oil-rich petrolist states. According to the First Law of Petropolitics, the higher the average global crude oil price rises, the more free speech, free press, free and fair elections, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, and independent political parties are eroded. And these negative trends are reinforced by the fact that the higher the price goes, the less petrolist leaders are sensitive to what the world thinks or says about them. Conversely, according to the First Law of Petropolitics, the lower the price of oil, the more petrolist countries are forced to move toward a political system and a society that is more transparent, more sensitive to opposition voices, and more focused on building the legal and educational structures that will maximize their people’s ability, both men’s and women’s, to compete, start new companies, and attract investments from abroad. The lower the price of crude oil falls, the more petrolist leaders are sensitive to what outside forces think of them.”

Though it is a stretch to call Alberta a petty petro-dictatorship (from all observations it does seem to have the rule of law and an independent judiciary), I believe that the First Law of Petropolitics can at least partially explain the results of the Alberta election and the current political culture in the province.  Any attempt to classify the recent Alberta election as a healthy exercise of democracy is at best quixotic and at worst delusional.  When 41% of the population turns out and 53% vote for a party that gains 88% of the seats giving them an eleventh-straight so-called majority, it's hard to argue the collective will of the people has been truly expressed.  Instead, as the price of oil continues to climb, the pace of political freedom in Alberta has dwindled relegating opposition parties and progressive voices to the sidelines...

Check back tomorrow for "Part Two: The Solution"

Post election observations

Well, the people of Alberta have spoken, and they have spoken decisively. At last count, the seats were looking something like:

PCs: TONNES
Liberals: Barely any
NDP: Almost none
Wildrose Alliance: none

I'm not too thrilled about this, and went though my customary "I'm moving out of this goddam province" sore-loser hissy-fit after the results started to roll in, but now that the dust has settled I am surprisingly sanguine. In fact, out of the elections observations I'm going to highlight below, only one is decisively negative. I'll get that one out of the way first.

1. Albertans don't care about the environment.

This is the one truly disappointing thing that I'm going to take from this election. By so resolutely reelecting a government that is so weak in this area, Albertans have effectively said that climate change, air and water quality, the protection of endangered species and the irreversible leveling of a swath of boreal forest the size of Florida simply are not of concern to them. As someone who plans on remaining in this province for a long time, I find this deeply troublesome.

The PCs have certainly done a lot of window-dressing in this area, but their environmental policies inevitably reduce to either "technology will save us," "don't worry about it," or some combination of the two. I don't think Albertans necessarily buy or don't buy this; I just really don't think they care. And that sucks.

2. This wasn't as ringing an endorsement as it seems

Don't get me wrong: this was a bloodbath. But what gets lost in our gerrymandered ridings and first-past-the-post system is the fact that although the PCs won about 9 times the seats of the Liberals, they only received twice the popular vote.* So although the progressive side has indeed been crushed, the crushing has been vastly magnified by a voting system that poorly reflects voter preferences (honestly: would it be possible to credibly argue, in light of these results, that it doesn't?).

As well, let's not forget that an all time low of  41% of Albertans actually voted -- ie, the PCs managed to get the support of 22% of the province.

*I'm looking forward to this being pointed out by the media, and having Tories disingenuously trot out the ever-so-tired "PR would make ridings too big" line to justify their blatantly self-serving continuation of this practice.

3. The PCs won this election by adopting progressive ideas

This is obviously up for debate, but in my mind what won Stelmach this election was raising royalties,  renewing Albertans faith that his party was committed to strong public education and healthcare systems, and paying just enough lip-service to environmental issues that Albertans could sleep at night. These are not ideas that one would typically identify as conservative.

This shows, to me, that Albertans aren't so much ideologically attached to conservatism as they are to the brand of conservatism.  They'll vote in large swaths for progressive ideas as long as they're packaged up with enough free-market-rules, Trudeau-sucks rhetoric that they don't feel like pinkos. This, to me, is hopeful -- it shows that, fundamentally, Albertans aren't the ideologically-rigid conservatives they're widely assumed to be. A progressive party wouldn't need to shift the values of Albertans to get elected; it would need to shift their perceptions. The latter is still a mighty task, but not nearly so mighty as the former.

4. This result is going to force the Liberals and NDP to each take a long, hard look in the mirror

I think in light of these results it's going to be hard for a Liberal to say with any honesty that he or she sees a Liberal government getting elected in an Alberta in the forseeable future, or for an NDPer to say with any honesty that his or her party is really accomplishing anything. For this reason, a defeat as resounding as this one -- when the PCs were so vulnerable -- is almost favourable to a more modest defeat or even modest gains by these parties, because it's going to force them to come to grips with the fact that Albertans simply aren't attracted to what they're offering, and something drastic must be done to change this.

What's to be done? Perhaps the merging of progressive parties that people like me have been dreaming about. Maybe Mason, Taft, and their respective caucuses should just defect en masse to the PCs, and we can officially start to operate as the Mexico-esque one party state we've been effectively functioning as for the last decade.

Who knows? The details will undoubtedly be sorted out. The important thing right now is not what needs to be done -- it's that there has never been a stronger message that something has be done.

Conclusion

In my opinion, and in the opinion of at least 47% of the voting public, the PCs are not fit to hold office. They have  received an endorsement from the people of this province, but there are nevertheless many who see serious flaws in their philosophies, policies, and governance. The environment and democratic process are two areas in which this party has an abhorrent record, but this election has showed, among other things, that in Alberta elections are not decided on these issues.

Progressives need to recognize this, learn what we can, pick up the pieces, and move on.  Google tells me some guy named Napolean Hill said that “opportunity often comes disguised in the form of misfortune, or temporary defeat.” I hope to hell he's right.

It's E-Day - Go Vote!

Well, election day is finally here and after four merciless weeks of blogging-inducing news coverage, Alberta looks on track to maintain its first place rank in the provinces-and-territories-who-don't-like-voting competition. So in light of this, we at AGRDT have some suggestions for what you should do to occupy your time today.

1. Read our amazing endorsement post.

2. Check out some of the equally awesome coverage by our blogger counterparts: Four Strong Winds has an excellent post that just about sums up how I feel about this election. Grandinite raises an intriguing proposition, that I'd definitely support. He also gets extra props for linking to an oh so topical Slate article about one of my favorite authors.  Daveberta lets you know where to vote and find information about your candidates AND makes some observations about seats to watch in Edmonton, Calgary, and Lethbridge and the rest of Alberta. CalgaryGrit goes one step further and boldly tries to predict seat totals, while PTHB updates us on the Liberal GTOV operations in one Calgary riding. Finally, Ken Chapman has his usual mind-boggling (but respectable) mix of stated support for both progressive objectives AND Ed Stelmach.

3. GO VOTE. Make your voice heard and send this man a message.

Ed Stelmach: not touching the brake.

Change that works for insurance corporations, pt. 3

Something else on auto insurance to ponder as you're deciding who to vote for tomorrow. Take a look, it's more in-depth coverage than anything else I've seen this election. Also, here's a bit of hope from one of my favorite columnists from a while back, too.

Last but not least, don't forget to read the AGRDT endorsement post (and to vote, of course).

AGRDT's 2008 Alberta election endorsement post

After 4 weeks of one of the worst political campaigns in recent history, election day is nigh. Alberta voters will go to the polls on Monday, and for reasons most voters themselves are not aware of, we as a province will likely be sentenced to 4 more years of PC rule.

What was so bad about the campaign? We think the biggest problem is that it confirms again that critical thought has all but disappeared from the Alberta political sphere. As progressives, we're sad that a conservative party will likely be elected, but what troubles us so much more is that this party is not being elected based on platforms and policies. It is being elected on the basis of Albertan mythologies: 'we hate Liberals,' 'we hate socialists,' 'all governments are corrupt,' 'you can't change Alberta politics,' and 'we vote conservative -- that's just what we do.'

It's ironic that in a province that prides itself on being home to "mavericks" -- another mythology -- so many people don't have the wherewithal to question these dominant assumptions. This quote, from a Drumheller resident and taken from Graham Thomson's profile of that town, is indicative of what we perceive to be the salient theme of Alberta voting: I vote Conservative because my parents voted Conservative. Hereditary voting? Is that really a reason to support a party?

At least some of the fault goes to the opposition parties, because they haven't been able to present a vision compelling enough to force people like the one quoted above to ask themselves why they vote Tory, something we're not sure a lot of these people would be able to tell you. However, it's hard for these parties to make inroads with a population that seems totally unwilling to listen to what they have to say.

Examining a few developments from the campaign illuminates this all too clearly. Alberta voters have more-or-less consistently identified environment and healthcare as their issues of greatest concern for this election. In the last four weeks, we've seen the Conservation Voters of Alberta release a report grading the environmental platforms of Alberta's major political parties. Here the Liberals, New Democrats, and Greens were tied for first place with a "B," and the Tories were tied with the Wildrose Alliance in last with a "D." We've also seen the Alberta Medical Association release a similar report grading the healthcare platforms of the parties, in which the Liberals were awarded first place with a "B," the NDPs second with a "C+," and the Tories third with a "C."

We have independent bodies ranking the major opposition parties higher than the incumbent PCs on the two issues that matter most to Albertans. Yet, even in the face of this information and of many, many, many, many other embarrassments on the part of the PCs, they will likely be elected on Monday to their 11th consecutive majority. We feel that Alberta voters can do better.

Which brings us to the Alberta: Get Rich of Die Trying Alberta Election 2008 Endorsement: vote with your brain.

We ask Albertans to shed their biases, take a look at what matters to them and attempt to objectively gauge what party best represents these concerns. You're smart, hard-working and committed people that have made this province what it is today. You know you deserve better than this, in fact most of have already made it clear that it's time for a change. So now it's time to put your money where your mouth is.

Liberal, Green, NDP, WAP or even PC; the most important thing is that voters truly believe the party they vote for will run our province with Albertans' best interests at heart. That said, being a progressive blog,  we'll add that an objective look at the performance of this government likely won't lead you to vote for the Tories (unless you are in favour of corruption, inefficiency and incompetence). While you may not think the opposition parties are quite ready to govern, they will never become true alternatives if voters don't give them the chance to do so. More opposition MLAs means stronger parties with more resources who can work to deliver the change Albertans want to see and hold our government to account. And if you don't like them, you can always kick them out in four years. 

In conclusion, it is heartening to see that some people have started to change their minds about the PCs. We've seen new voices of dissent rising in places where they were rare before: rural Alberta, Calgary, and strangely enough, even industry. Unfortunately, though, we doubt there will be enough of them come Monday. Here's hoping that we're wrong. 

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.

 

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.

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?

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.