Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying

Stelmach: The fact that Albertan soliders have died in Afghanistan should absolve us from our Kyoto commitments

Daveberta has a great post today describing how Ed Stelmach - responding to questions raised about the UN's investigation into Canada's unwillingness to comply with its Kyoto obligations - argued that Alberta should be absolved from its responsibility to help Canada meet its climate targets under the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol because Albertan soldiers are dying in Afghanistan. Seriously.

From the Canadian Press article,

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is bristling over the United Nations threat of sanctions against Canada for failing to meet a Kyoto Protocol deadline on greenhouse-gas reporting.

Stelmach says Canada is doing its part for United Nations-backed military efforts in Afghanistan and the timing of these threatened sanctions appears to be insensitive.

"Does it bother me a bit? Yes it does," Stelmach said Thursday. "We´re in Afghanistan and just lost another soldier."

Wow. Between this and the "wind turbines kill 30 000 ducks a year" bit, it seems like the main focus of Stelmach's mandate is to embarrass Albertans on an international scale. He appears to be unaware that the mission in Afghanistan is actually a NATO-led and Canada -- not Alberta -- signed on to it, and even if that were the case his logic would still make little sense. If anyone ever thought that the Alberta government's arguments around climate change were based on sound scientific policies or rational thought, this and the Mark Jaccard report the Alberta government finally released today should have completely dispelled that notion.

I think this raises another interesting point, too: if Alberta wants to have its own embarrassingly ineffective climate change plan, it should have to go and defend it on the international stage like every other jurisdiction. At this point, Canadian provinces operate more like independent nations than European countries in this respect anyway. Could you image Canadian provinces getting along enough to burden share like the EU did?

So why don't we send Stelmach and his compelling arguments to Poland in Decemeber for the next meeting of the signatories to Kyoto? Hell, he can even take along Knuckles to back him up.

Liberals + NDP + Greens = you still lost the election

I took this picture while stopped for a pee break on the way back from a recent trip to Lethbridge. It doesn't really have much to with this article, but it's, I think, a very stereotypically Albertan image, so it might be an appropriate accompaniment for the discussion of heady matters like those below. Most of all I just thought it was nice and wanted to put it up...

Everyone knew that this was bound to happen sooner or later: the parties defeated in the recent provincial election are "mulling radical options," according to the Edmonton Journal. Although we're a little late (each of Ken Chapman, Daveberta, and Calgary Grit have already offered opinions on this matter), in the day-late-dollar-short spirit of the opposition parties of Alberta, I thought I would contribute a substandard analysis after everyone has stopped caring.

First of all, I'm thrilled and overjoyed to see that these parties are finally doing what many opponents of the Alberta PCs have been wishing they'd do for years -- that is, recognize that what they're doing isn't working, and take an honest look at what can be done to change this. What they've come up with thus far isn't entirely impressive, but there is some definite potential and it's great to see people actually thinking about this.

The "radical options" that the Journal article refers to are:

1. An alliance of sorts where the Greens, NDP, and Liberals don't run candidates against one another in some or all of the province's ridings, and agree to a list of "core priorities to act upon if they are able to form a government after the next election." (h/t Daveberta).
2. Liberal MLA David Swann's investigation (which apparently includes a planned meeting with Preston Manning) into starting "a new party based on green politics, accountability and democratic reform."

As Calgary Grit very capably points out in his post on the subject, the first idea is destined for failure. The last election was not lost on vote-splitting. It was lost because none of the opposition parties came close to offering up a vision that would attract support from significant numbers of Tory voters and/or non-voters. My feeling is that to ever have a hope of unseating the Alberta PCs, the farthest to the left any opposition party could be is "centre, " and in Alberta I would say that the NDP, Liberal, and Green brands all carry connotations of "left." Although these perceptions, at least in the case of the Liberals and Greens, aren't entirely based on reality, they would nonetheless result in this alliance being perceived as resolutely "left-wing" -- which might actually result in them losing total votes. In this case, I think the whole would be less the sum of its parts, which is why I'm much warmer to idea number 2.

I think David Swann is one of the best of MLAs in the legislature, so to see this coming from him is great (and not entirely surprising.) However, although the Journal story is a little thin on details, it seems that the party that he is contemplating could best be summarized as Green Party 2. If I were to start an opposition party I'd want to focus on exactly the same three things that Swann mentions: green politics, accountability and democratic reform. However, if I wanted to get elected, I'd be sure to make smart spending and continued prosperity central planks of this party's platform.

The key, I think, is to not be perceived as an environmental party that embraces fiscal conservatism -- that's what the Green Party does, and it earned them 4.6% of the popular vote last election. The key is being seen as a fiscally conservative party that embraces environmentalism (and democratic reform and accountability). Hopefully Preston Manning mentions something along these lines when him and Swann are talking.

The Alberta PC party is perhaps the biggest tent in Canadian politics. Any opposition party that wants to form government in our province is going to have to lop off a pretty big chunk of it, and I think the the time is right for a movement like the one Swann is proposing to do just that, so long as it is grounded in the fiscal conservatism that I think is basically a prerequisite for forming government in Alberta. Such a party might not attract the support of very many NDP voters, but I would say the centre to centre-right spectrum is a lot more vote-rich than the left to far-left.

That may sound a little greasy, but perpetually being in the opposition -- or, more accurately, never having a snowball's chance in hell of forming government -- sucks. I'm willing accept a little bit of spend-thriftness if it means having a Premier who doesn't wholeheartedly believe that the environmental toll of the oilsands is a "myth."

Back to the dead ducks

When Premier Stelmach finally stopped drooling out comments about wind turbines and the evil Sierra Club, I thought that writing fodder on this subject had just about come to an end. However, yesterday in the letters section of the Journal I saw about a square foot of backlash towards citizens like us here at AGRDT who've been impolite enough to raise a stink over this whole issue, which kind of got the gears turning. Adding to this, today I was forwarded this piece of nonsensical sanctimonious tripe (penned by Ian Robinson for the Calgary Sun -- surprising, I know) that, as you can probably tell from the description I gave it, riled me up enough to write one more post on this issue.

There upshot of most of the letters in the Journal and Robinson's piece (if there is one; he rambles from topic to topic, the only common thread seeming to be his desire to malign "enviro-whackos") is that, in the big scheme of things, the death of 500 ducks isn't a big deal. Many more are killed by wind turbines/hunting/cats/cars/houses each year, so we should just forget about this (and, presumably, go on with strip mining the rest of the province.)

Talk about missing the point. I completely agree that the death of 500 ducks, in itself, is nothing to get too upset about. But the big issue with this incident isn't the ducks per se; it's that we ever allowed an enormous, poisonous lake that can more-or-less instantly kill an entire flock of ducks unless it's surrounded by constantly-firing noise cannons to ever exist in the first place. The unfortunate death of these ducks simply brought that to light in a very visible way. The communication I've seen that has been critical of this incident has consistently conveyed this idea, but people like Robinson seem to be more worried about painting "enviro-whackos" as a bunch of bleeding hearts who guilelessly personify all living creatures like a bunch of misguided children than actually thinking about what they're saying or writing.

Here's a few numbers to illustrate my point: in 2004 there were 622 murders in Canada. In that same year, a 160 762 Canadians died from either  circulatory diseases, cancer, or respiratory diseases. Using the logic of Robinson and his ilk, we could safely conclude that murder isn't a problem in Canada, so we should just go on our merry way without being burdened with the unseemly task of figuring out how we can improve things.

The problem with this logic, of course, is that it's really stupid -- it ignores the fact that there is some sort of underlying problem with our society that is causing the murders. Although simply not worrying about this would undoubtedly make it easier to sleep at night, it would unfortunately do absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

I'll agree with Robinson and say that the death of 500 ducks in itself doesn't constitute a tragedy. What's truly tragic -- and what this incident illustrates -- is the sorrowful extent to which our governments have allowed our environmental stewardship to degrade.

Syncrude's Dead Ducks: update

Don't worry about the toxic chemical lakes that cover over 50 square km of former Boreal forest, are growing by 1 million litres a day, and that we have no idea how to get rid of, folks! Wind turbines are our real problem. At least that's what Ed Stelmach says in a piece of logic and integrity that make me think his brain and heart, like several hundred hectares of our province, are full of carcinogenic sludge. According to this story in the Globe,

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is down playing the deaths, saying that wind turbines kill 30,000 birds annually.

If anyone needed any more proof that Ed Stelmach doesn't care about the environment, this is it. Instead of confronting this issue, he flippantly quotes a meaningless and inflammatory statistic to attempt to minimize the debacle. Of course, this isn't at all surprising coming from a man who's government has chosen to spend $25 million in attempt to convince people everything's okay without actually making it okay first. In fact, I'd say it's a shining example of the supposed "integrity" that his supporters love to prattle on about.

Were it not so infuriating, it would be hilarious to watch Stelmach stumble through yet another incident with his characteristic media savvy. Prior to the above bombshell, Stelmach likened himself to David in a battle against the Goliath that is evil, all-powerful, and notoriously deep-pocketed environmental movement:

“The $25-million is small compared to the combined money of the various lobby groups,” said the premier. “In terms of David and Goliath, I've been in this position before and now I'm here, so I recognize the challenges.”

(From this story in the Globe.)

There you have it folks, your premier Ed Stelmach. When a flock of ducks dies by landing on an oil company's giant toxic slough, his default position is say it isn't a big deal, defend the oil company, and attack the environmental groups who dare use it as an example of poor environmental stewardship by self-righteously and incomprehensibly framing himself as the underdog. Like I said, I'd laugh at this were it not so completely depressing coming from the man that runs my province.

If anything, at least we can take solace in the fact that the unfortunate death of the 495 ducks was not completely in vain, as there is no question that the international news coverage of this tragic episode has more than negated any potential positive effect from the dishonest $25 million PR campaign. Quack heard around the world, indeed.

Photo post: Greenpeace rains on Stelmach's parade

Read about it here and here. The best part: Stelmach was in the middle of an anti-Greenpeace speech. Even if you don't agree with non-violent direct action, you have to admit that this is a pretty impressive feat. Kudos.

Photo via Facebook

Update: In case you didn't have a $450 ticket to the show. Greenpeace has uploaded some video on Youtube for your viewing pleasure.

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.

Bruce Power hires PC campaign manager to lobby AB government on nuclear power

If I were a large, wealthy corporation that wanted to push a hazardous and unnecessary environmental disaster onto an unsuspecting population for the sole purpose of expanding my bottom line, what would I do?

I would hire the man responsible for recently handing their government a massive landslide victory to be my lobbyist. That's what I would do.

Good news, for a change.

The Alberta Electric System Operator currently has applications from several companies to generate a total 10,500 megawatts of wind power. Given that the AESO is forecasting the need for an additional 5,000 megawatts of power over the next 10 years, this is excellent news! Kudos to the Stelmach government for finally lifting Alberta's asinine wind power cap last year.

This begs the question, why do we need nuclear in Alberta? Especially given the latest news from Bruce Power.

Am I the only one not looking forward to this?

This afternoon marked the beginning of the first legislative session in our new, largely opposition-free government, and I for one am not too excited. Many of the bills on tap (see this pre-session preview in the Herald) are relatively benign, and some I would even support in principle; a ban on talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving, a crack down on street racing (I'm neither 2 fast nor 2 furious), and an increase in penalties for animal cruelty aren't things I can't agree with*.

The thing that has me shaking in my boots, though, is all of the tough talk that's been coming from the direction of Ron Liepert. Since about 15 minutes after being named minister of health, Liepert has making sure everyone in the province knows that he's a man who prefers action to talk by a very large margin. He's also been intimating that he's not going to be afraid to ruffle a few feathers (read: completely ignore the opinions of broad swaths of stakeholders) to quench this thirst for action, which is likely true if his performance as education minister can be used as any guide.

Action in itself is fine enough. But when someone is chomping at the bit to implement reforms inspired by the amazingly poorly-executed and devastating Klein cuts of the early 1990s, and has shown himself to be a steadfast ideologue by ignoring a torrent of evidence to the contrary and choosing the P3 model for the construction of new schools in the province apparently on the basis of one of the 3 "P"s standing for  "private," I'm somewhat worried about what he'll cook up.

Health care is definitely going to be the big issue this session, but as Dave Hancock said in one of the stories linked to above, "to a certain extent, legislatures take on their own life." It will be interesting see what the Tories get up to this time around, but I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy it a lot less than the last session. As is pointed out in this story, it's likely that Stelmach (and, by extension, his government), in light of his crushing mandate, will be a lot less worried about pissing people off, which will mean less hilarious blunders and more aggressive moves on issues that us at AGRDT have a tendency to write angry polemical rants about.

I guess we'll see. Here's hoping that Liepert hasn't delisted childbirth by the end of this session.

*I mean, I'd rather they spend their time on things a little more pressing than street racing as the global economic situation grows ever more dire and the northern half of our province is stripmined, but I learned long ago that looking towards the future isn't really a forte of the Alberta PC

 

Spin trumps substance

So I was going to write a post about how ridiculous Rob Renner's (sweet mustache, bud) mandate letter was. Top on the list of initiatives Renner is to lead:

Inform Albertans on our environmental stewardship to ensure a clear provincial, national and international understanding of Alberta’s leadership, commitment and action on the environment;

It's pretty obvious why I think this is ridiculous; the Stelmach apparently doesn't want Renner to actually do anything, he just wants him to convince everyone else that the embarrassingly pathetic job that he is doing is perceived as favourably as possible. Nice.

I picked up a copy of Vue Weekly this morning and saw that Ricardo Acuña, in addition to being much smarter than me, had also beat me to the punch. Read his apt analysis of this issue here, and get ready to start hating your provincial government for yet another four years.

APRIL FOOLS!

Like it wasn't obvious.

Maybe these dum-dums should actually do something instead of trying to convince everyone that the oilsands are sustainable.

Ed Stelmach Is Right

I could only find myself nodding at an increasing amplitude as I progressed through this story, in which the man himself talks about the need for non-Albertans to recognize our environmental stewardship. It's high time that all of the fringe ecosocialists realized a few things about Alberta:

• the oilsands are not dirty (I don't care how many square kilometres of tailings ponds you show me)
• the oilsands are sustainable (there is simply just too much of it to ever run out)
• we are leading the way on climate change (we were the first to legislate, which means we're leaders)
• species of every kind are thriving in the province (honestly, how much habitat do you need, migratory caribou?)
• our air and water quality is second to none (highest asthma rates in the country? More like highest schmasthma rates in the country)

Even if we may make the occasional misstep in one of these areas, as Iris Evans points out in the article, we can't forget one thing: we're getting really, really rich from the oilsands. And to paraphrase Lenin: you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Thanks to, I'm guessing, liberal-biased mainstream media coverage, none of these facts have got out, which is why I have to salute this campaign as yet another example of Stelmach's principled leadership, and, of course, proof that "environment trumps economy," as the premier has said. So: right on, Eddy, and stay the course!

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!