Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying

Suncor 1st quarter profit rises from a gazillion dollars to several gazillion dollars

Read all about it here.

Good thing we didn't implement the Oil Sands Severance Tax recommended by the Royalty Review Panel. And good thing we haven't imposed any socialist, draconian carbon-reduction regulations on them. Suncor, in this environment of spiraling costs and labour shortages, is clearly walking the razor's edge between profitability and loss.

Thank goodness we have Alberta PCs to shepherd them through this difficult time.

Budget 2008: Albertans apparently fans of talking the talk

Today, as millions of Albertans went about their daily lives not caring, Finance Minister Iris Evans delivered the new government's first budget. The big story (quite literally if you read the Globe) is that Alberta's spending spree continues.

I, for one, can't say that I'm very surprised. The two main drivers of this increase, (according to Bloomberg, the government backgrounder, and a little Excel magic from yours truly) were Health and Wellness, which accounted for about 35% of the increase, and spending on new infrastructure, which accounted for about 50% of the increase (this includes spending for health-related infrastructure; I couldn't find infrastructure breakdowns by ministry).   

Healthcare spending is projected to rise by 9.1%. Last year, the combination of inflation and population growth totaled 8%. Although that likely won't be as high this year, when you factor in the demographic shifts that Alberta and much of the western world are seeing (aging and fattening population), 9.1% isn't entirely out of line (although it will no doubt be bandied about for yet another year by private healthcare advocates as evidence that healthcare costs are "spiraling out of control"). So, like I said, no surprises here.

The other big driver, infrastructure, isn't a real shock either when one considers the myopic and single-minded debt reduction of the Klein years. According to this article in the Herald, Calgary Economic Development chief economist Adam Legge agrees with me. Although we differ greatly in our degree of sanguinity, appreciation of the wisdom of the "paying off the mortgage," and general contempt for the government, we share more-or-less the same view:

"I don't really get too concerned about spending growth, because we took so long paying off the mortgage we weren't worried enough about the roof and the foundation," said Legge. "I'm of the opinion that we have a lot of catch-up to do."

Some may recall some jerks spoiling the debt-free party a few years ago by pointing out that despite being technically debt free, Alberta still had a massive infrastructure debt to contend with. If I recall correctly, this was dismissed as whiny communist nonsense by Klein and his always-open-to-suggestion Alberta PC party, but it seems their chickens have come home to roost. Unfortunately the rest of us have to actually pay for this, but I digress.

So, when you think about it, about 80% of the increases were pretty predictable. To me, the truly interesting thing about this budget is that it serves as further proof that Albertans seem to like the idea of being conservative more than they actually like being conservative. Firmly ensconced in the ivory tower located on the left side of the political spectrum, even I'm getting worried about these year-over-year spending increases -- but the supposedly government-hating people of Alberta just elected the living shit out of the government pumping them out.

It's also interesting to see things like the ministry of the environment getting 120% increase to its budget, and people like this guy getting excited about publicly-subsidized culture. Lloyd Snelgrove has a good quote in this CBC story that further adds to this sentiment:

... Treasury Board President Lloyd Snelgrove questioned whether Albertans are ready to accept a cut in government spending.

"None of the universities, none of the hospitals, none of the school boards, none of the towns and counties and cities have said to us: Take some money back from us and put in the bank — we have no more need for it."

Don't get me wrong -- it makes me happy to think that Albertan's might not be as conservative as they like to talk about being. It makes me sad, though, to think that we have a positively meagre Heritage Savings Trust Fund and face the possibility of deficits in the near-to-medium term. Come on, Alberta conservatives: where are the calls for penny pinching? Have you wasted all your energy denying climate change or what?

Carbon taxes: really not a liberal idea

This post is born not necessarily out of the currency or even newsworthiness of the topic at hand, but rather because it provides a perfect opportunity to highlight just how ridiculous the rhetoric used by John Baird actually is. If you'll recall, in response to a report released in January by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (itself an advisory body to the federal government) calling for a nation-wide carbon tax, federal Environment Minister John Baird flat out rejected the report's recommendations with the statement: "a new tax sounds like a Liberal idea to me."

While John Baird isn't exactly known for his thoughtful deliberations or quiet reflection, this outright dismissal of an important policy option for mitigating climate change is pretty low. I mean at least the Liberals pretended to agree with similar reports, even if they didn't actually act on them.  I guess under Stephen Harper's Conservative government, even the environment minister isn't expected to pretend to listen to the advisers he's paying to make ecologically and financially sound decisions. Anyhow, a new report  released last week may (well, one would hope it would) give Baird pause next time he decides to knee-jerk react to the suggestion of a carbon tax with a partisan quip.

This week, prominent Canadian economist Jack Mintz  echoed the growing chorus of Canadians calling for a nation-wide carbon tax to fight climate change. In the report, Mintz surmises that the current $0.10/litre excise tax charged by the federal government on gasoline works out (in effect) to a carbon tax of about $42/tonne. The report says if this taxation scheme where applied to all carbon emitting fuels in Canada (i.e. natural gas, coal used in electricity generation), the Canadian government would be able to collect an additional $12 to $15 billion dollars a year. In addition this revenue could then be used to decrease personal and corporate income taxes, thereby making Canada's economy more competitive and Canada's worldwide environmental reputation slightly less humiliating.

The fact that Jack Mintz of all people is endorsing a nation-wide carbon tax, should demonstrate to the few people that take Baird seriously that this is so not a "Liberal idea" (I'm assuming that when Baird derisively sneers the term 'Liberal', he's referring to it in the big "L", socialist wealth transfer scheme sense of the word, rather than the small 'l' sense as taxes aren't usually associated with liberalism). For those of you not familiar with Mr. Mintz, here's a few interesting tidbits that establish his non-Liberal mettle: he sits on the board of Imperial Oil, he thinks Alberta's low taxes and privatization rates make it perfect, he has a long, illustrious publication record with the tax competitiveness section of the C.D. Howe Institute (not to mention a 7-year tenure as its president and CEO), the Alberta government hired him to do their financial planning last year, and finally pretty much every time he is asked to comment on a government's budget, he laments the insufficiency of the broad-based 'tax-relief' provided.

The fact that someone like Jack Mintz recommends the adoption of a national carbon tax demonstrates that he is a fiscal conservative who uses his head when assessing policy options; John Baird's idiotic partisan reaction demonstrates that he is not.

The biggest irony in all of this is of course, that the use of market mechanisms like carbon taxes is an inherently neo-conservative idea. Many environmentalists and progressives would much prefer to see Canada deal with climate change through regulation and forced compliance to those regulations. For them and other more traditionally social-democratic countries, regulation is the only way to ensure that pollution never enters the environment (rather than it simply costing some companies more to pollute).  The fact that many (ideologically left-leaning) environmentalists in Canada have come to largely adopt the position that a carbon tax is a necessary solution to climate change for Canada shows that they are able to consider their options, context, and restraints thoughtfully and determine the best compromise for fast action. You would think we could expect the same from our political leaders.

Monday morning reading

For a Monday morning, there's a surprising amount of interesting Alberta-related news items in today's dailies:

• The Globe and Mail has a really interesting run-down of Imperial Oil's Kearl project , the challenges it faces and the risks it poses to Alberta's environment. The latest news is, that - in light of a federal court ruling, which nulled the decision of a joint federal-Alberta government environmental review panel to approve the Kearl project earlier this month -  the federal fisheries department has also decided to revoke the project's water permit. This means that the land set aside for the project - a strip mine that would cover an area of undisturbed Boreal forest bog the size of 20 000 football fields - cannot begin to be prepped for mining.  The article provides an overview of one of the most controversial oilsands projects in recent memory, so I highly recommend reading it. UPDATE: Imperial Oil plans to appeal the government's decision to revoke their water license.
  

• The Edmonton Journal has an interesting front-page feature on the future of high-speed rail in Alberta. The article highlights potential time-frames and some obstacles to and opportunities for the rail link's construction.  One of the key barriers outlined by the article is securing the land necessary from farmers and rural landowners. As I have argued before, high speed rail provide an important opportunity for Alberta to begin to off-set our embarrassing track-record on greenhouse gas emissions. Stelmach going on the record in support of high-speed rail was one of the few things he's done that I applaud, and his ability to move this project forward could demonstrate that he's able to think beyond the immediate future, something we have yet to see.

• The Calgary Herald has a story revealing that, Stephen Harper (i.e. the man with the climate change plan that puts Alberta's to shame), has continually ignored warnings from the Canadian government's top scientists that Canada faces climate disaster if it continues on its course of blocking international progress on climate change. Sadly, this revelation is so unsurprising, I'm surprised it made the papers at all.

• Finally, this is a bit late, but better late then never. This story provides yet another reason to forget Ralph Klein was premier of this province for 14 years. (Check out his Wikipedia page if you need any others). Klein was awarded the French equivalent of the Order of Canada and these remarks are are the best he could come up with? France shares in some of the embarrassment too. I mean, seriously France, you couldn't think of anyone better to award your highest honor?

Nuclear in Alberta: Our very own monorail

According to Shawn McCarthy at the Globe and Mail, as far as nuclear power in Alberta is concerned:

1. We don't need it
2. It's cost prohibitive
3. To sell it, the Bruce Power needs to  "create a buzz" around the concept of a nuclear renaissance

I have been against nuclear energy in Alberta since Energy Alberta Corp was poking around Whitecourt and Peace River last summer. I'm even more against it now that Bruce Power (which bought out EAC) wants to build four nuclear reactors rather than two. Even if the generation of tons of toxic waste doesn't bother you, the economic arguments against  nuclear in this province (and elsewhere) should be enough to convince anyone that Alberta doesn't need nuclear energy.  I hope the provincial government will not subsidize the development of this industry and Albertans will avoid being duped into building something we don't need.

Thursday night TV

Just a reminder that the CBC's Doc Zone will be airing 'Tar Sands: The Selling of Alberta' at 9:00 pm tonight. Here is a synopsis:

"Tar Sands: The Selling of Alberta captures the intersecting storylines of a remarkable cast of characters eager to cash in on the oil boom in Fort McMurray, Alberta. Washington lobbyists, Newfie pipefitters, Chinese investors and Norwegian industrialists descend on tar-soaked "Fort McMoney", a modern-day Eldorado, where rents are sky rocketing and cocaine abuse is four times the provincial average. Up for grabs - a stake in a $100 billion energy bonanza and Canada's economic sovereignty."

For more details, click here. For a review of the documentary by the Globe and Mail, click here.

Welcome back to the twilight zone

This has so far been a very eventful week for those interested in climate policy and Alberta politics/sabre-rattling. First, on Monday, we heard from Environment Minister John Baird that Ottawa will be putting in place new regulations that as of 2012 will require oilsands operators and coal-fired electricity generators to use new technology to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. And now today, I read a read a headline in the Journal that made me think I was in Bizarro World:  oilsands operators have announced their support for the implementation of a nation-wide carbon tax. Wow.

In a nutshell, Monday's new regulations break down as follows:

• Starting in 2012, new oilsands extraction operations will be required to install carbon capture and storage systems to capture "the bulk" of their carbon emission. "The bulk" has yet to be specifically defined.
  
• Also starting in 2012, new coal-fired electricity generation plants will be required to reduce their carbon emissions (again no solid number) through the implementation of a combination of new technologies, which I'm assuming mainly means carbon capture and storage and coal-gasification processes (i.e. the infamous and so-called "clean coal" mentioned by Klein in his last state-of-the-province-type address to Alberta)
• Existing facilities and those oilsands operations that will be coming online before 2012 will be required to "reduce emissions using cleaner fuels," according to yet to be determined rules that will be finalized at some point next year.
• The government reaffirmed it's decision to create a carbon offset/cap and trade system at some point in the future.

Some initial impressions: first of all, it's important to remember that despite all the fancy talk and government programs with "eco" prefixes, Canada still has no intention of setting a hard cap on emissions any time soon, which means absolute GHG emissions will likely continue to rise. Additionally (and ironically), the news release accompanying Monday's announcement, Government Delivers Details of Greenhouse Gas Regulatory Framework, uses language like "effectively bans" and "will effectively require" but doesn't effectively contain many firm details. Looking at some of the attached policy documents gives one the impression that there's a lot that's still TBA.

Second, although some environmentalists have raised legitimate criticisms around the 2012 start date (as by this time most planned new oilsands operations will already be online), one benefit is that it provides an early signal to oilsands and electricity generators to start getting their act together -- early plans can do a lot to minimize the economic costs of environmental actions.

Third, it seems the federal government is putting a tonne of stock into new and unproven technologies. To use an variation of an oft-repeated phrase from fellow Alberta blogger Ken Chapman, this is good politics but bad policy. Carbon capture and storage is the mother of all end-of-pipe solutions -- it does nothing to address the root of the problem, i.e. insatiable consumer demand for energy.

The only mechanism contained in the new regulations for addressing consumer demand comes in the form of a cap and trade system, which again is still without elaboration.  Cap and trade systems, however, are generally regarded by economists and climate policy experts as being less efficient than the primary alternate option: a carbon tax. For these reasons, I'm shockingly inclined to agree in principle with today's call from the oilsands companies; hence, the title of this post.

Although it appears that Alberta's status as the twilight zone has now been officially affirmed, it's important to acknowledge the obvious self-interest embedded into today's announcement. Firstly, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producer's Pierre Alvarez has mused about about the need for a carbon tax in the past as an attempt to scare-monger. Moreover, while I agree that the costs of emissions reductions should indeed be shared across society, I subscribe to the "polluter pays" principle so I don't think that the proceeds from a carbon tax should be used to fund carbon capture and storage for oilsands and electricity operators. I prefer the revenue-neutral concept advocated by the BC Liberals and the Green Party: net proceeds from the tax should be used to apply an across the board corporate and/or income tax cut. If there is one things corporations (and some people) hate more than anything it's taxes, so creating a policy that would give these entities the opportunity to reduce their tax load in way that would benefit society at large just makes sense to me.

I would hope this would make sense to our Premier as well, but I'm not optimistic. Instead, I'm looking forward to more of the international oil industry taking the lead on our province's environmental file.

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.

This week in environment

There are a number of stories in the Canadian news media that warrant some attention this week. Here are but a few:

1. In response to the lack of political leadership on climate change and the environment in Canada, 11 of Canada's major ENGOs have released a plan for action. The report, entitled Tomorrow, Today: How Canada Can Make a World of Difference, covers seven key areas such as energy, food and agriculture, oceans, etc. It recommends ways for the government to get the ball rolling on sustainability and conservation. This kind of cooperation between ENGOs is rare, as there is often a lot of politicking between groups. Thus, this collaborative effort is worth checking out. Maybe send John Baird a copy too.

2. The Vatican decrees: Thou Shall Not Pollute in its new list of sins in a globalized world. In addition, thou shall not widen the gap between the rich and the poor, collect excessive wealth, nor create poverty. The condemnation of these globalization sins would probably be more meaningful if birth control and drug abuse weren't also included on the list.

3. Earth Hour is Saturday March 29th 2008. It is a worldwide movement of dozens of cities that asks people and businesses to turn off their lights for one hour in an effort to inspire other to take action on climate change. It began in Sydney, Australia, on 31 March 2007, when 2.2 million people and 2100 Sydney businesses turned off their lights for one hour - Earth Hour. This massive collective effort reduced Sydney's energy consumption by 10.2% for one hour, which is the equivalent effect of taking 48,000 cars off the road for a year. So far,  Jasper and Edmonton are the only two Albertan cities to officially sign on. But dozens of non-Albertan Canadian cities have joined as well. For more information about the event and how to get your city involved, click here.

Oh, and here is a somewhat cheesy video (complete with Australian Aborigine music) to inspire you to have dinner by candlelight that night:

4. The federal government will soon require carbon capture and sequestration technologies on all new tar sands projects and all new coal-fired electricity plants. Existing operations will be held to a modest 18% intensity target.  I have a few questions. Who is going to pay for the CCS technology? I have a feeling the energy companies won't be footing the bill on their own. Although I wish the government would adhere to the polluter pays principle, I wouldn't be surprised if subsidies and or generous tax breaks were involved. How is the Alberta government going to respond? My guess is poorly.

5. The 'Wikipedia for Biodiversity' goes online. Encyclopedia of Life is a wiki-style website that aims to establish a complete record of all known species on Earth. This is an astronomical task because no one even knows how many are out there (some people guesstimate around 1.8 million though).

UPDATE: I probably should have mentioned the release of a report by NRCan last week that suggests Canada is going to hell in a handbasket. I may or may not have worked for the aforementioned agency at some point in the past, and I would say that (unfortunately for us) this modeling and the people doing it  are both credible.

Alberta: Come for the job, stay for the... tailings ponds?

Several times throughout the provincial election, Premier Stelmach referred to Alberta as a "beacon of hope." He even does it on his website. While the statement is both sensational and very corny, I'll concede that I can understand the logic (not that it's difficult): there are tonnes of jobs here, and a lot of people without jobs move here in search of the proverbial "better life."

My problem with the statement is this: it's indicative of a view that focuses on a pretty narrow conception of what makes a place livable. While jobs are undoubtedly a vital part of the livability equation, there are other very important dimensions that I think we in Alberta are falling behind on.

My thoughts on this crystallized while reading this article from the Toronto Star that talks about the "brain drain" that Alberta is creating on the rest of country. I'm enough of an Albertan that I originally read this as at least partially good news; despite the fact there is a shortage of professional staff, it's good to see that Alberta is actively forcing Canadian provinces to address this problem, and that our province can attract people like the researcher mentioned at the beginning of the story.

Reflecting further, though, I wondered: when is that last time I had met someone not originally from here who hadn't moved here because of either reasons directly related to a job, school, or because they met an Albertan travelling abroad and were lured back (Edmontonians in particular seem to be very adept in this area)? I then thought of growing number of Albertan-born friends who have left the province because a high-paying oil job didn't appeal to them and there wasn't a lot else, in their view, to encourage them to stay.

This is obviously purely anecdotal, but I think nonetheless that it's indicative of a problem in the province. It begs the question: how are we going to attract and retain interesting, talented people when there isn't an endless supply of high-paying employment to bait the hook? And how many interesting, talented people are we missing out on because the prospect of a job isn't quite enough to convince them to move here?

I read a book called "Municipal Mind" by Toronto's poet laureate, Pier Giorgio Di Cicco, and he kind of touched on this idea while describing "The Lifestyle Dream," a characteristic of his hypothetical "City of Dread." To spell out the obvious and relate this to the rest of this post, a City of Dread is not the kind of place people are inspired to move to. He writes:

In the the city of dread, lifestyles are the new allegiance. The call of lifestyle accounts for migration, emigration, relocation, new location. People choose cities according to the exigencies of their lifestyles.

... The lifestyle dream -- entitlement without patience, tolerance without empathy, a constant ovation to progress, and the chastisement of history. The lifestyle dream -- "house farms" blessed by a neighbourhood watch, local history sandblasted and secured with locks, and a civic mandate to mind your own business. ...The lifestyle dream -- free of identifications, all but one -- that of the ethic of globalization -- security at all costs, autonomy without detractors, connectedness without intimacy.

Looking through the verbose writing, it seems like Alberta is possibly becoming, in Di Cicco's estimation, something of a Province of Dread -- focused singularly on individualistic wealth creation, to the detriment of things like community and a sense of place that make a place truly vital and attractive by forging stronger bonds than a job typically ever can.

I think this is related to one of the fundamental challenges Alberta faces: creating an identity that extends beyond cowboy caricatures and contempt for the rest of the country.  To attract newcomers, retain the people already here, and to generally improve our quality of life, we need to build a stronger sense of community based on ideas that reflect what this province is and what we want it to be -- not on outdated stereotypes and spite.

This Just In: Feds DO care about women

...as long as they know how to wield a hammer. Or something like that.  On behalf of the federal government, Rona Ambrose announced friday that $1.39 million will be invested into Women Building Futures.  WBF is a not-for-profit training program that trains women in trade work.  Here is the mandate of this organization:

• Attract more women into the construction trades;
• Provide trades training that meets the needs of women and the industry;
• Provide mentorship and long-term support for women entering and in the trades;
• Examine and address systemic barriers to the recruitment, training and retention of women entering and in trades;
• Increase the number of tradeswomen instructors and mentors.

This sincere and commendable move by the feds come close on the heels of one heinous "we hate women" bill that recently passed second reading in the House.  On Wednesday, the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" (Bill c-484) passed with flying colours when almost all Conservatives and a strong showing of Liberals stood in favour of it--including above mentioned 'pro-woman' Rona Ambrose.

Bill C-484 was introduced by local fan fave Ken Epp (and by local fan fave, I mean bland Tory backbencher from Edmonton-Sherwood Park), and is designed to double penalize people who assault pregnant women and in doing so, kill the fetus.  Essentially, if a fetus dies during the assault or murder of the pregnant woman, the assaulter is charged with two counts of assault.  Sounds okay, right? So what's the problem?

What pro-choice activists are arguing, is that this bill reintroduces fetal personhood thereby opening up the door for the anti-choicers to mount a legal challenge.  You see, once 'personhood' rights have been established, it becomes the first step in a legal and moral strategy which pits the rights of the 'fetus' against the rights of the 'woman'.  Since the fetus is inherently 'innocent' and the woman 'should have known better' it ultimately ends with the rights of the fetus trumping the rights of the women, thereby forcing her to continue through with her unwanted pregnancy and bear the child.  This is obviously a huge problem for the reproductive rights and bodily integrity of women in the country.  Now, Ken Epp and other defenders of this bill are arguing that it does not infringe on a women's right to access abortion, citing the fact that a person can only be charged for assaulting a fetus when the mother had been assaulted at the same time.  However, they are missing (zealously concealing) the point.  Bringing fetal rights into Canadian jurisprudence and law establishes a legal recognition of the fetus.  This interestingly brings it into conflict with the Criminal Code which expressly states that a person only becomes a person once it has left the birth canal.

Among the many ironies, 2008 is the 20th Anniversary for the Morgentaler Decision in Canada--the watershed court case that de-criminalized abortion, allowing it to become legal.  In another royal kick in the skirt, our fearless opposition leader, Stephane Dion, was missing from the vote that day because he was...wait for it... attending a party for International Women's Day.  The Bloc and the NDP all whipped their parties to vote against it.  And, on a twisted upnote, Josee Verner, the Minister for Women's Affairs, voted against the bill, too. Perhaps a silver lining? Who knows. We will keep you updated for the third and final reading.

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.

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.

It's going to take more than a 10% tax cut

I read in the Herald yesterday an article about the Tories' recent announcement of their "economic diversity plan." The plan contains some good items; for example, it seeks to address the lack of venture capital in Alberta which is considered by many to be a major obstacle to the development of real returns from the province's research investments. The policy also contains a 10% "Scientific Research and Experimental Development tax credit," which "will be available to any private or public business or organization that meets the criteria to be established," and "incentives for companies to invest in research and development of new, clean technologies."

Fine enough, but like so many PC policies, this is simply an "end-of-pipe" solution. In my opinion, this is one of the better of their end-of-pipe solutions, but it simply doesn't address root problems, or take a holistic view of the problem. What is really hampering economic diversification in Alberta? Is it the lack of a 10% tax credit, or is it the fact that there have been so many petroleum megaprojects approved in the province without any consideration of the consequences that young businesses are now forced to compete with the bottomless cash reserves of the international petroleum industry for employees and resources? Is it the lack of R&D incentives for "new, clean technologies," or is it the fact that the province is losing bright, creative, and talented young citizens who aren't necessarily interested in the high petroleum-sector salaries that are becoming increasingly necessary to deal with the province's skyrocketing cost of living? This policy is adequate enough when considered in isolation, but it leaves many larger questions unanswered.

I give kudos to the Tories for addressing this issue more directly than the other parties, but I ultimately think that most of the benefits of policy like this will be eliminated by their seeming refusal to stop unquestionably pursuing growth simply for growth's sake. Ultimately, I think that avoiding the development of an Albertan strain of Dutch Disease would be better accomplished by several other things, such as a carbon tax or cap, which would enhance the relative competitiveness of non-carbon-based (ie non-petroleum) industries within the province, or directly confronting the province's housing crisis (items that, I'll note, several opposition parties have in their platforms).

Well, either that or another round of diversification-stimulating "prosperity" cheques*.

*Seriously, could you think of something more stupid if you tried?