Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying

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?

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!

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.

NEP Alert

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

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

Speaking of ghosts from the past......

Although, it was only yesterday, that Ed resorted to playing the N.E.P. card for the first (and hopefully last) time this campaign, already another blast from the past has entered the Alberta  2008 Election milieu.  The CBC is reporting  that Ron Wood, former press secretary to Preston Manning, has decided to endorse the Liberals. According to Wood, the governing Tories under Premier Ed Stelmach are tired, old, complacent and "need some time in exile." Accordingly, Wood will be supporting Liberal candidate Patrick Murray  in his Calgary-North Hill riding.

Although the Liberals are probably pretty pumped about this one, I have to say the decision to make this a national news story on part of the CBC is pretty depressing for me. Why? Well, first of all, are we Albertans really so tied to the past that the opinion of a FORMER AIDE to a FORMER leader of a DEFUNCT party still holds significant weight for us? If not, is this just the CBC demonstrating to the rest of Canada that since one crazy Reformer switched to the Liberals, maybe the rest of them (i.e. everyone in the province) will? I mean if a former assistant to say, Mike Harris, starting voting NDP, would that make the news in Ontario? I guess my point is that sometimes, (well a lot of the time) people, ideas, and mythology from the past hold way too much power over our present politics in Alberta, and this has severe negative implications for our future politics.

As much as we like to believe that Alberta is still the Western Frontier full of pioneer spirits and hardy cowboys (look at the last throne speech under Klein or Oberg's last budget speech if you want some examples of the use of these myths), we're not. Over 80% of Albertans live in cities, and even places like Brooks, Alberta, have burgeoning newcomer populations.  Since the last election over a quarter of a million new people have moved to this province. If we're going to plan for our future, we need to first acknowledge not only what it will look like in 15, 20, 35 years, but also acknowledge what it looks like right now.

It's a big problem when politicians can bring up boogeymen from the past, like the NEP or Preston Manning, and use them to successfully deflect scrutiny of their current policies. In some cases, like Stelmach's NEP bomb yesterday, it's almost comical. As Joel Kom at the Calgary Herald put it in his blog post on the subject,

Here, essentially, was a reporter’s question on Tuesday to Ed Stelmach: Liberal leader Kevin Taft charges your party is responsible for many problems in health care. What do you make of that, and can your party be trusted to improve health care if it was indeed responsible for several poor decisions, as Taft claims?

Here’s the most critical part of Stelmach’s answer that succinctly contains the message he  wanted to  get across: “I lived through the 22-per-cent interest rates and part of that was the    Liberal government that dumped the NEP on this province.”

Excuse me?

You got a question on your health care track record and platform, and your answer was to  blame a program by a federal government that is now almost three decades old.

The fact that government was Liberal is somehow supposed to reflect on Taft — even though it was almost 30 years ago and an entirely different level of government altogether.

Kom's post is interesting because he is one of a very few (the only?) person (at least, not tied to the Liberal party) to publicly make the point: that the unfortunate imposition of the NEP in the 1970s does not prove that Kevin Taft will make a bad Premier today in 2008. So congratulations, Joel Kom, good work. Hopefully more of your journalist brethren will similarly take to task the politicians that rely on these ghosts from the past to succeed in the present. For the rest of us, it's time we stopped accepting the ideology around myths and past demons as a perfect substitue for critical thought.

UPDATE: Stelmach gets NEP'd himself.