Tag Archives: alberta

A couple places to cut spending.

Posted on by
Reply

 

Whenever it comes to spending cuts, supporters of big government like to try and act as if spending on core services will have to be decimated. Nenshi loves doing that in Calgary when people complain of tax hikes. He likes to ask if people don’t want their streets plowed or if people want policing cuts.  There are hundreds of other areas of spending that we could reduce or simply do without altogether. Some of these are some pretty big ticket items on the national and provincial fronts.  

 In the 21st century, we have utterly no need whatsoever for a State Broadcaster. The CBC was initially formed to help bring information and communication across a very vast country. Broadcasting infrastructure such as local studios and towers did not yet exist and the CBC indeed helped unify the nation in bringing all of that together. Those days however are long gone. Satellite technology ensures that people have access to information whether through radio, television or internet in every corner of the country. While working in the arctic, I never saw a house without a satellite dish. Cellular coverage is available on the ice-roads on the Beafort Sea. 
 

 Our State Broadcaster is completely obsolete yet it is costing Canadians $1.2 billion per year. If privatized, I am sure that the infrastructure of the CBC  would be worth at least a few billion when sold as well. That money could be dedicated to the national debt thus reducing interest charges thus allowing for more spending on core services. I am sure that most provinces would be happy to dedicate another $100+ million per year to their health expenditures even if indeed it does mean that we will see fewer reruns of Anne of Green Gables and Little Mosque on the Prairie.

 Another behemoth of spending that we really don’t require is bilingualism. Let’s face it, aside from Quebec, New Brunswick and to a much lesser degree Ontario, French speakers are in such a tiny minority that it is a joke to really consider the rest of the provinces to be bilingual. Unilingual French speakers are an even smaller minority within a minority. The amount we are spending on this microscopic segment of the population however is not small at all.

 A recent study has found bilingualism to be costing $2.4 billion per year in Canada.

Now perhaps a case can be made for enforced bilingual services in some of our Eastern provinces but lets look here in Alberta (the other Western provinces are similar).

 In Alberta, 1.9% of our province consider French to be their mother tongue. Only .05% are considered to be unilingual French speakers. Think about that folks because it really is only the unilingual ones we need to be concerned with here when it comes to providing French services. In provincial bilingual spending alone, we spend $2027 per year per unilingual French speaker. With federal spending on top of that the cost becomes much higher.

 That sure is a lot of money to spend to ensure that a tiny minority can read the back of a cereal box in their preferred language.

 What is the long-term goal for this spending anyway? Is it expected that we will have a large population fluent in both official languages in Alberta? If that is the case, it has been a terrible failure. French is not growing in popular use in Alberta no matter how much we spend on it.

 Is it really that impossible to model spending based on actual need?

 When will we allow common sense to creep into spending decisions? We are seeing countries all around the world going broke because they thought that they could tax, borrow and spend themselves into prosperity. Those countries are now being forced into considering some almost crippling austerity measures to make up for their past overspending. We are in an envious position in that we have not hit that debt/spending wall yet. We need to get rational about what we spend on and how much.

 Where are our priorities? In virtually every poll health and education are the top two concerns voiced by Albertans. Why then are we running short on the aforementioned items while spending billions on luxury programs such as the CBC and bilingualism that only service tiny minorities?

 Think to yourself, will your life change radically for the worse if the CBC were privatized? Would Alberta suffer a crippling cultural blow if we no longer spent millions upon millions to accommodate a convenience for .05% of our population?

 With more time and research people can find all sorts of areas where spending can be cut without any measurable effect on our core services. We need to remember that when elected officials try to play that bait and switch method in defending the hyper-expenditure increases being made by big government.

 We can still maintain a high standard of health and education provision while not raising taxes or overall government expenditures. We have a great deal of spending cuts to make on items that we don’t need however.

The squatting in Olympic Plaza has finally ended. Nothing was accomplished.

Posted on by
5

 With nearly two months of illegal squatting in a downtown Calgary park, the “occupy” Calgary squatters have finally packed up and gone home. No message was ever defined much less conveyed to the public at large. The only accomplishments really have been to have Calgary more clearly define the strength of bylaws should the city choose to enforce them.

 Some squatter supporters have been trying to save face and claiming that the activity spurred discussion. Really? Discussion of what? There was never a solid issue and there has never been real discussion. There have been strange demands made by crazy squatters and vague statements. Nothing specific was ever addressed through this exercise and there certainly was nothing that was settled. Serious discussions of issues existed before the squatting and will continue after the squatting. The squatting never aided in any discussion aside from wondering whether there is a Charter right to squat in city parks at expense to taxpayers (it was clearly determined that no such right exists).

Now I put this out to the squatters who now find themselves with even less to do; do you really want to accomplish anything? Do you want to take a path that really does spur discussion and impact decision making? Are there issues that you really want to see seriously discussed by the public and decision makers?

If the answers to any of the above are yes, then please read on while I explain how people can influence discussion and opinion in electoral politics. It allows me to do one of my favorite activities in that I will be tooting my own horn in providing real examples on how small but determined groups can influence politics on every level.

When I was in my 20s, I found myself frustrated with politics in Alberta. Our Prime Minister of the time (Jean Chretien) had won a strong majority in an electoral campaign that blatantly demonized my province and in which he never once even so much as set foot in Alberta. Chretien openly made statements about how he did not like dealing with Westerners and I felt that attitude had been embraced as Ontario and Quebec had given the Liberals of that time a strong mandate. I looked to the existing political vehicles and did not see any party that I felt was standing up for Western Canadian interests in a strong enough manner. Since no such party existed, I formed my own.

The Alberta Independence Party was a soft nationalist party that existed for less than a year overall. We never even managed to get officially registered as a party and we fell in apart for a number of reasons (not the least of which was my inexperience in leading a party). Despite such a short existence, in it’s time the AIP brought about both national and local discussion regarding Alberta’s role within confederation. Heated debates were had in the House of Commons as multiple MPs and Senator elects attended our founding convention. Suddenly Western alienation was a worthwhile discussion in Ottawa.

Provincially, an election was called within weeks of our founding convention as a party. Despite our lack of registration as a party and only a few more than a dozen declared candidates, the throne speech that was held just before the dissolution of the legislature took multiple shots at our small party and set the tone for the beginning of the election. Candidates across the province were questioned on their stances vs federal incursions on provincial jurisdiction. National and provincial news pundits wrote countless pieces on Western alienation, the causes of it and potential solutions for it and alienation was a top coffee shop discussion around the province.

Despite this attention to the issue, as I said the party did not last long after the provincial election. We had made a mark though and had definitively had an impact on discussion and decision making.

My main point here is that in the partisan world, measurable accomplishments can be attained even without being in an electable position.

Now again to the squatters, one thing you do have is a common social group even if your specific goals are tough to define. You can turn something productive from this last couple months through keeping your group and moving into the realm of electoral politics if you choose to. All of the information required for founding a political party can be found at the Elections Alberta website.  I have always found Elections Alberta to be excellent and very helpful in guiding one through the process.

There are some attitudes and ideas that will need to be shed by you if you are going to go this route however. I will list them below.

Public Opinion Matters!

Had the occupy squatter movement gained even a measurable 15% of strong support within the city of Calgary I assure you guys that your encampment would still actually exist as our elected city officials would not dare alienate a group like that. 15% is well within electoral spoiler numbers and no politician wants to go out of their way to cause a bloc of people like that to take their support elsewhere.

 Along with a degree of support, the direction and momentum of the support is important. The Alberta Independence Party at it’s very best was probably only appealing to perhaps 15% in some selected constituencies. That number grew fast however and had potential to get larger. Any MLA who had won their seat with any less than a 20% lead had to at the very least pay attention to us. The best way to undercut us was to embrace at least some of our sentiment. Again, goals were being accomplished. They wanted to ensure that our numbers stopped growing.

 The “occupy” Calgary group clearly saw public support eroding pretty much essentially since it’s inception. Incident after episode caused people almost daily to turn against the movement even had they been sympathetic before. Instead of being concerned with this drop in public support, what we saw mostly from the group was an attitude of “FU, we don’t care what you think.”. Well you should have cared guys. As it became clear that the support trend was going downward, city officials felt more emboldened in taking action to end your demonstration.

 As I demonstrated, you can come from a small minority position in general support yet still have an impact on policies, discussion and decision makers. You will not be able to do so though until you realize and accept that a degree of dedicated public support is essential to your cause.

Find, define and promote a message!

The shotgun approach to issues was a great part of the occupy undoing. Constantly people pointed out that when one asks 10 “occupiers” what the issue is they get 11 answers. That is laughed off and it is often pointed out in an almost arrogant manner that this consensus model is what it is all about and only fools should be asking for or expecting specifics.

 Well kids, you need to get over that concept. Months have been wasted and still nobody knows what you even stood for. You can’t claim that discussion was inspired when you can’t even define the issue.

 Part of why myself and others have been able to so consistently beat the hell out of you guys in discussion is that you have allowed us to frame the entire debate. When you refuse to define yourselves, rest assured somebody will do it on your behalf and as you know, folks like me were not kind in making our definitions.

 Think of it this way kids. You had been squatting for a couple weeks and nobody could figure out what point you were trying to make. I parked my truck there in counterprotest, made the point that a double standard existed in law enforcement and set the entire discussion of the whole thing for the rest of the movement on being about the “right” to squat in a park illegally. One man did that in one afternoon with a plan and a solid message.

 The Alberta Independence Party had what I still think to be a very good and comprehensive policy book. Despite that, the reality was that at best we were only considered an authority on issues of provincial alienation. We accepted and worked with that. Nobody came to us to hear what we thought of healthcare provision, but we found our way into the discussion when we pointed out the federal shortcomings in funding transfers to healthcare (particularly when compared with federal funding for Quebec). We were single issue in many ways but we found ways to apply our views and make ourselves a group worthy of consideration on more diverse views.

 While literally hundreds of issues exist, voters realistically are only closely watching perhaps a half-dozen issues and they base their electoral decisions on those views. Fight it out guys and find your common ground. Identify five solid issues and stake your ground on them. Become experts on those issues and make yourselves the authority on them. Learn to apply those five issues to broader issues as I did with provincial alienation. Then people will come to you and if you do it right, they will stay with you.

You need the media!

Yes the media is often biased. The media can be fickle and they can be nasty. You don’t need to even like the media but you had better damn well learn that they are essential to you if you want to influence public opinion and decision making whether in electoral politics or in any other form of activism. The majority of people on all ends of the political spectrum get their information from the “corporate media” and they base their views on that information. To shun this is nothing shy of idiocy.

 I saw and documented many forms of idiocy from the “occupy” Calgary crowd. One that definitely made the top 5 though was yesterday’s stupid press conference stunt. To get media together for an event and then walk away refusing to comment was petty, pointless and to be blunt just bloody stupid. You don’t have to pursue the media or kiss their butts, but to go out of your way to piss them off is just dumb. Believe it or not, those reporters do have better things to do. What few may have been even a tiny bit sympathetic to you disappeared yesterday morning after that stunt. When you already know that they can be biased, why purposely turn that bias against yourself?

 I led a soft-nationalist party. I was attacked and abused from editorialists from across the country. I was mocked by some and outright attacked by others. The CBC was particularly skilled in their patronizing and belittling coverage of us. I did not let this stop me from doing interviews. I certainly did not lash back. It was pointless.

 As I said, the CBC was terribly rough on me.  I recall doing a Newsworld interview where the host just pummelled me for the entire thing. I felt out right lashed and exhausted after that loaded interview. After the interview, our phone rang off the hook and memberships poured in. Don’t underestimate the public’s ability of seeing through the bias. The interview got our message out to a whole new group of people and we gained support despite the bias.

I remember one Globe and Mail piece that began with “Cory the Kid and his pipsqueak party held a convention in Red Deer last weekend.” After that opening sentence, the editorial began to get rough and patronizing with me. After our founding convention the Globe dedicated three days of editorials explaining to Canada why our party didn’t matter. We never could have bought such advertising. While rarely was there ever a favorable article about us, the support through contributions, volunteers and memberships continued to grow as people got familiar with us.

 I am not of the view of any press being good press. If they are reporting on something idiotic that has been done by you, then you simply will look more the idiot for the coverage. Bias however is not always all that harmful even if it irritates. As long as you are somewhat solid in your message, you can and will withstand the slant.

 Don’t forget, the media needs you too. Put yourself in the shoes of a reporter. You have a deadline and you need something interesting to write about. You need quotes and interviews to make your piece stand out and be unique in presenting information to people. Rest assured, reporters don’t get far by figuratively beating the piss out of everybody they interview. They will not get further quotes and information from people for long with that approach. Set aside the paranoia and address them guys. You need each other.

Get a leader!

Every movement/party needs a leader/spokesperson. I know the “occupy” thing was supposed to be leaderless. Well it showed. Along with a consistent message, you need a consistent voice/face presenting it or it will be forgotten and lost.

One of the reasons that the Alberta Independence Party took off for the period that it did was because they had a dashing and well spoken young man who people could comfortably approach and get statements from. It was tougher to stereotype us as old white Christian men as people often did with Reform when the leader was a twenty-something, outspoken social liberal and agnostic who was of mixed ancestry. No leaderless group can dodge such pidgeonholing without having a leader to counter it.

 People and press need a consistent face representing the movement as much as they need a consistent message. The leader need not be a dynamo or saint. The leader simply needs to be consistent, know the issues and be at least a bit sane (may be tough for the last part).

 Is the goal change? Do you really want to see serious discussion? Do you want to impact decision making? Again I strongly suggest that you take the tips above to heart. A small group can have a large impact if things are done right.

 Even if your goals are simple selfish bragging rights. Lets look at a comparisons of outcomes.

One day I will be able to tell my grandkids that I formed and led a political party that caused national discussion of Alberta’s role within confederation and set the tone for an entire provincial election.

One day our “occupy” Calgary squatters will be able to tell their grandkids that they alienated the entire city of Calgary and will be forever be remembered for pooping in a park.

 Which outcome do you prefer?

Fear factor.

Posted on by
1

One odd trait that I will never understand is humanity’s enjoyment and pursuit of being frightened. The reason for fear in itself is pretty self-evident in evolutionary rationale. We have (or should have) a natural inclination to avoid things that may harm us. Despite this worthy instinct, we go out of our way to put ourselves into fearful situations. We participate in extreme sports and we put ourselves on midway rides that have been assembled by carnies of the most questionable mechanical merit in our pursuit of the thrill that fear gives us. An entire genre of fearful storytelling has evolved from Dante’s Inferno to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to movies such as Nightmare on Elm Street.

Writers who want to thrill their readers with fearful creations have realized that one of the most fearful realms for that of humanity is the fear of the unknown. Dante Alighieri crafted an epic trilogy dealing with the afterlife. Mary Shelley wrote on the possible outcomes of work with electricity which was poorly understood at the time and the creators of a Nightmare on Elm Street made a frightening movie based on what happens while we dream.

The aforementioned stories (and many others) were quite successful in playing on the fear of readers as they took an area where people generally have a lack of understanding and they filled that void with a terrifying explanation.

Unfortunately, it is not simply novelists and movie creators who take advantage of societies fear of the unknown. The media and special interest groups take advantage of this human tendency all the time and often to our detriment as a whole.

Take heavy metals for an example. It has been long known that ingesting quantities of many of these elements can harm or even kill people. There seems to be quite an ignorance displayed by some on how one does ingest these metals and how much is dangerous.

I will always remember a news story on TV that I saw a couple of years ago leading up to Halloween. A woman had purchased some mechanical porch decorations and put them outside in preparation for the evening of little ghouls and goblins. These decorations were robotic sort of witches and such that moved and made sounds. In a moment of revelation this gal decided to fully read the packaging on her purchase and much to her horror she discovered that THE PRODUCT CONTAINS LEAD!!!!

Oh dear oh dear. What to do? Return the item? Call a hazmat crew for removal? Call the Prime Minister? Call Ghostbusters? Nah, this lady called the media. A crew rushed down and filmed this woman fearfully and indignantly ranting on how her entire block has been put at risk by this toxic product. Children could very well have dropped dead walking up her steps and birds could have fallen from the sky.

Now lets inject a touch of reality here. The lead contained in the products was in a solder within the circuitry of the units. A person would literally have to take the things apart, extract the lead and eat it from multiple units in order to be harmed. These were not baby toys in the crib, they are porch decorations. Has a person ever noticed that most fishing tackle boxes will include some lead weights? Has anybody ever wondered what that fast oxidizing grey metal is on their car battery posts? We are surrounded by lead people and we always have been. It is an essential metal to us in many ways and is pretty much harmless when we utilize it properly.

Now back to the main issue; did the reporter do the simple research to dismiss and move beyond this hysteric claim of mass poisoning? Of course not. She needed a story that would scare people and facts would certainly ruin that. An expert was quoted on what the harmful effects are due to mass consumption of lead (but he never explained how one ends up consuming so much) and a protectionist labor leader was interviewed to explain the evils of importing products from other nations. The story actually ran over multiple days so I guess viewer reviews were positive. Sad.

Now on to a bigger scale we are seeing a renewed hysteria about nuclear energy due to the tragic events in Japan. Aging hippies are gleefully feeling justified in their attempts to liken nuclear power generation to nuclear bombing as they have done so for decades. Again facts are being completely left aside as media and special interests swarm over this story and try to instill a fear of Armageddon in society at large. Iodine is selling out in Calgary despite their being utterly no risk of radiation exposure in Alberta and “health” stores are eager to fill this irrational demand as they prey on unfounded fears.

Now lets get back to reality. Currently there are 442 nuclear power plants in operation in over 30 countries. Nuclear power has been used for over 50 years. There have now been 3 incidents. Three Mile Island is often cited. People need to remember that the death toll of the Three Mile Island is ZERO. Chernobyl was certainly a disaster. Due to the communist tendencies of hiding facts, we never will know the true human cost of that tragedy. People have to keep in mind though that the Chernobyl reactor was created and run by a communist regime that was completely dysfunctional to the point of being incapable of manufacturing a good clock radio.

The contributing factors in the TWO nuclear generation incidents must be kept in mind and it is foolish to try and blanket what is statistically a very clean and safe industry. The earthquake and resulting tsunami in Japan were exceptional and rare occurrences. Despite this, I see Alberta activists trying to use that example to fight potential nuclear power generation in Alberta. How about this folks, I am offering $10 million insurance coverage for tsunami damage within Alberta for the paltry premium of $100 per month. Contact me for details.

Interest groups are comparing apples and oranges and leaving aside facts as they take advantage of public fear in their opposition to pretty much every form of power generation known to man. Wind farms kill birds and whales, dammed rivers flood habitats, coal is evil, natural gas is evil, solar requires masses of mined heavy metals from third-world countries and of course nuclear energy is created by Satan Himself.

These groups preying on public fear never offer alternatives to things. They simply create hysteric theoretical outcomes. Keep in mind, if you are fundraising for an environmental group your efforts will be far more successful if you portray a mushroom cloud frying millions of people as opposed to the kinda sorta possibility that a few people may get hurt reality involved in power generation. Many people have died building dams, in oil/gas exploration and in coal mining. No form of energy comes with no cost.

The best case that I have seen against nuclear power generation in Alberta has been the economic one. If nuclear generation is unviable without government grants, then it is not a feasible form of generation. When the element of fear is set aside and a person thinks rationally on the issue, that is the simple and correct outcome.

Fear sells but I hope we can try better to move away from letting it impact our choices on important issues. We need to do our own research on issues. Whether it is an irrational fear of vaccinations or of types of power generation, if we make any decisions based on fear rather than fact we will almost invariably make the wrong choice. Remember, most fear is based on the unknown. We can make many of our fears go away simply by educating ourselves.

Do we want the best or not?

Posted on by
Reply

 Year after year, poll after poll we see that health care is considered far and away to be the most important issue to Albertans whether left, right or center. We also see constant stories of shortcomings in our current system. Recently we have literally seen a doughnut shop being used as an ER because a BC hospital was over capacity. People have been literally dying on waiting lists and we are seeing health facilities in dire need of upgrading or repair.

 Two facts are evident here.  One is that health care is paramount in importance to Albertans and that the system is not performing in a satisfactory way. People say that they want the “best”. OK fair enough but how do we determine what is actually the best? Lets look at a few measures.

Spending.

 Almost invariably when shortcomings are pointed out in the system, defenders of the status-quo (unions) suddenly claim that our system is one of perfection and that we simply are underfunding it.

 Alberta has tripled health care spending in the last decade. Despite that massive increase in expenditure, our waiting lists continue to grow and our infrastructure continues to crumble.  if spending alone were the measure of a successful system, the United States are clearly the most successful health care providers on the planet as they spend more by every measure on health care than any developed nation on the planet.

 Many health systems that can brag better results than Canada spend less in measures of per-capita spending and in percentage of gross domestic product. It is pretty safe to say that this means that we can see better results in health care without spending more money if we are willing to change how we do things.

 It must be kept in mind that the most vocal groups for increased spending are unions and their side lobby groups (Friends of Medicare). Despite what they may claim, unions simply do not have the interests of patients in mind (nor should they, the workers are their mandate). Note that the unions constantly call for “more beds”, not more doctors, more procedures, more drug coverage, more preventative medicine or more diagnostic equipment. The reason for this is simply that more beds translates into more union staff whether nurses, janitorial or even in laundry services. If we got all of the other things, we would need less beds as people would not be languishing in hospitals awaiting treatment as they are now. The unions are simply doing their job in that their interest is nothing more than gaining and maintaining more union workers. That always has to be kept in mind when they call for more spending in health however.

World health spending rates can be found here. Canada is near the top in this at least.

Beds per 10,000

 While beds and the need for them can represent a shortcoming in timely treatment, we certainly do need a measure of them. As Canada is among the world leaders in spending, how do we rank among beds? Not too well I fear.

Canada ranks 40th behind such economic powerhouses as Uzbekistan and Palau. 

 Again beds alone are pretty limited in what they indicate and in what they provide in health services. All the same, if we are going to lead in spending, why are we not leading in such measures as this?

Doctors

                   One thing that greatly reduces the need for hospital beds is having an adequate number of doctors and specialists treating patients so that they can be back on their feet again. An increased number of doctors helps reduce the load on the system by diagnosing and treating patients earlier while many conditions still remain more easily treatable.

 Canada ranks 58th in doctors per capita behind such nations as Moldova and Uruguay with 2.1 doctors per 1000 people.

 Gaining and maintaining doctors is not a simple task. Increasing the number of doctors we educate at home is good but it is no assurance that we will keep these recent graduates. Many newly trained Canadian doctors are quickly recruited by foreign countries that have more flexible health systems which are much more attractive to doctors than ours with essentially capped salaries and untenable hours of work. Our system hinders us in trying to draw foreign doctors in to Canada as well.

 It only makes sense that we examine comparable countries to our own and that we emulate what has been working with them.

Life Expectancy

 Many other factors come in when it comes to life expectancy. The local health care system has a huge impact on expectancies though.

In the world rankings, Canada is 11th in life expectancy. Not bad. I still like aspiring to the numbers of the 10 nations ahead of us though (all of whom have mixed health care provision systems).

Infant mortality

Infant mortality is a good measure. Certainly we can’t directly compare with third-world nations that are coping with malnutrition, clean water and getting simple vaccinations. In developed nations though, the infant mortality rate can give a good indication of how the pre-natal and birthing care have been. In Canada we rank 23rd. 

Universality

Universal care is a value that most Canadians share. Ironically, in our stubborn adherence to our flawed system many desperate Canadians are going to European and Asian nations in order to purchase procedures that they simply can no longer wait for in Canada. The irony is that these people are subsidizing the universal coverage of other nations while we languish with untenable waiting lists in Canada due to a twisted sense of “fairness” and an ingrained fear of “two-tier” care. Our socialized and rationed system is self-defeating in that people of means (or desperation) are still jumping the line and are taking their resources out of the country while they are at it. I wonder how many of these people end up getting treated by Canadian trained doctors in foreign nations? Which nations more truly have universal coverage?

 We as Canadians have had it driven into our heads our whole lives that Canada has the best health system on the planet while every measure possible is contrary to that assertion. We have actually built a system of service provision into our national identity which is sort of disturbing when you think of it.

 If we truly want to get the best health care possible for ourselves, we first have to admit that our system is not the best (in fact it isn’t even close to it). We then need to examine the systems that do rate as the best and emulate them.

 In all of the measures I referred to above, some countries consistently ranked near the top. France, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland all surpass us and only Switzerland spends more. One common element of the countries that are surpassing us is that they have set aside the notions of envy and socialism in order to pursue the best outcomes for patients. All of those countries allow a much greater degree of private provision and management than Canada does and that is no small denominator in why those countries enjoy better care than we do at less cost to all. All of those countries have universal coverage as well.

 When we look at the chronic crisis hitting Canada’s health system despite massive increases in expenditures, it becomes clear that change to Canada’s system is inevitable. What we have to ask ourselves is whether we want to proactively pursue that change now or if we will stubbornly hang on to our broken system until it collapses and change comes in a different way.

 I would prefer to pursue the best system myself.

They just don’t get it.

Posted on by
6

 Being stranded in New York for the last while, my blogging lagged somewhat.

 I can’t think of a better story to get back in the swing of things.

Wildrose #1 in Alberta, poll finds.

 Now the Wildrose Alliance Party reaching the status of government in waiting is certainly worthy of discussion on it’s own. What I am finding more interesting at the moment though is the hysterical commentary from Liberal/Progressive Conservative stalwarts in light of these numbers. Blogs and the comment sections in newspapers are great places for insight into the mindset of the fast-dwindling supporters of the traditional Alberta parties.

 Liberal supporters are acting predictably. The number of commenters calling the electorate stupid and labelling Albertans as a collection of slack-jawed yokels who are too stupid to embrace what they consider as a good progressive alternative is appalling. I understand that the general concepts of democracy are often lost on those who embrace the left but come on guys, think about this. Whether you like it or not, those slack jawed locals have the power of the vote and they exercise it. Try to peek outside of your ivory tower for a moment and understand why your party has not been able to gain an inch in decades. Here is a political tip that I will offer for free, try listening to the electorate instead of constantly berating them as being a collection of fools. You may finally see a one point jump in the polls.

 I can understand the Liberal rage in Alberta. This is a party that has been in Alberta since the province was founded. Currently we have what appears to be the most inept provincial government since Harry Strom and an electorate that is salivating for change. Despite this situation, the Liberals simply can’t gain an inch in Alberta. This was reflected rather well in the Calgary Glenmore by-election. The Liberals pulled in every possible volunteer from across the province and poured every nickle that they had into the campaign. The NDP sat out the campaign and the Green Party no longer exists. The outcome was that a brand new party passed the Liberals and took the seat while the Liberals were mired at the exact same support levels that they enjoyed years ago.

 The writing is on the wall. Alberta is simply not a Liberal supporting province and never will be. Get over it and move on guys.

 Now the reaction from the few remaining PC diehards is telling as well. Currently we are still seeing denial. Shallow and short comments regarding their current status show that these folks still do not realize just how threatened their position of power is. Dismissing the Wildrose Alliance Party as irrelevant is sort of pointless now isn’t it? Well that seems to be the best the PCs can come up with. Firing out terms such as “bigots, rednecks, extreme” has not been too effective either particularly in light of all the socially conservative actions of the Stelmach regime in the last couple years. Here is a tip for you guys, pretending that the Wildrose Alliance Party will simply fade away is not a good strategy on your part.

 What I see from the party stalwarts in both the PCs and the Liberals is a stubborn insistence on staying the course. Despite the astronomical plummeting of support for the PCs and the flaccid state of support for the Liberals, neither party is even considering making large and real change. The electorate is simply leaving the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives behind.

 Historically Albertans have always been ready to embrace change. From giving women the right to vote to creating entirely new political movements Alberta has led the nation consistently.

 The people of Alberta are ready for another wholesale change and the traditional parties will not let themselves realize this. It is clear that the Wildrose Alliance Party has become that vehicle for change and I don’t see this trend stopping. The membership is still seeing explosive growth, an increasingly skilled set of people are involved in the management of the party and our ground organization is coming along excellently. I suspect that even Stelmach is not foolish enough to call an early election at this point and with two more years of organization the Wildrose Alliance Party will be quite a force in the next general election.

 Let the remaining supporters of the Liberals and Conservatives continue to fiddle. Alberta has discovered an option and Albertans are embracing it. The future looks bright for the Wildrose Alliance Party and Alberta itself.  

Hapless Ed is sure to express surprise again.

Posted on by
7

 stelmach03_103961artw

 Should Premier Eddie finally make an appearance to address the gross increase in our provincial deficit, I wonder which adjective he will use to describe this? I think in most Stelmach releases he has used all of these words so he must be familiar with them: unexpected, unanticipated, unpredicted, unforeseen, unheralded or perhaps he should simply go to unreal.

 The Herald is reporting on the frightening consequence of horrific fiscal management here.

 It is little wonder that Tom Olsen responds with blasts of obscenities when reporters dare ask direct questions of Stelmach. Being Stelmach’s handler must be one of the most challenging jobs on the planet. How much can you expose the man to the public when all he can do is express astonishment that yet another of his initiatives or predictions have blown up in his face? It must be disheartening in knowing that the best possible strategy to be taken in a by-election is to hide your leader as deeply as you can.

 Will Special Ed shed his cloak of invisibility and address the looming quarterly fiscal update? What marble-mouthed excuses will be used to try and justify the latest example of the Stelmach government’s gross fiscal mismanagement?

 Hmm let’s see, in one year Eddie has taken an $8 billion dollar surplus and turned it into what is looking like an $8 billion deficit. There are still three more quarters in this fiscal year for Ed to drive our grandchildren further into debt and a sadly don’t doubt he will. I wish I could express such surprise as Ed now and then.

 How much longer can we tolerate a premier that has not made a successful move since assuming power? What sort of confidence can we have in our provincial leadership when the leader can do nothing but express shock that his management has been a disaster?

 What is shocking about our situation? Ed massively increased spending and drove our primary industry from the province. A person with a Grade 3 education can figure out the math on that one and see that poverty is sure to follow. Perhaps the reason that Eddie has been in hiding lately is that he is taking some sort of remedial classes somewhere (I sure hope so).

 Well, I have said it before and I will say it again; SEND ED A MESSAGE!!

 Calgary Glenmore has the opportunity and expect that they will indeed send a message. The rest of the province should get to work to make that message final.

Why, why, why?

Posted on by
Reply

 I just finished listening to a frustrating and circular interview of Lindsay Blackett on an Albertan radio show. While Blackett should be commended for being willing to respond to callers (most PC guests refuse to), he really did not have much of worth to say.

 The subject was the contentious Bill 44 that is going before the legislature. Some months ago Blackett mused about the need to reform Alberta’s human rights act as section 3 was leading to infringements on free speech. Blackett was applauded by supporters of free speech and no opposition to this reform was heard.

 Finally the day arrived when Lindsay Blackett presented the bill to reform the act and it looks like pretty much nobody was prepared for the idiocy contained within the bill. While the free speech amendments appeared roundly popular, Blackett was compelled to drop that aspect of reform. Protection of free speech is not a priority for the Stelmach Progressives. Alberta can look forward to more attacks on the press and individuals in the future by people claiming hurt feelings. Press can continue to feel the chill and activists can continue to abuse our tax funded human rights commissions in order to stifle contrary opinions.

 I can understand why Special Ed Stelmach would like to curb free speech. Stelmach has been known to bully student bloggers who have dared mock him with legal threats. I am sure that Chairman Ed would like to expand his powers to suppress speech made by Albertans that he does not approve of. This move was sad but not surprising from a government that has little respect for democracy and discourse.

 What is really odd with Blackett’s bill was the inclusion of parental rights regarding education. The hornet’s nest has been poked and opposition to this addition is coming from all directions whether teachers groups or civil libertarians. Fears of people taking teachers to the human rights commission over the teaching of evolution and other such examples are abounding. Alberta’s unfair reputation as being backwards or redneck is only getting more deeply entrenched now.

 Getting back to the “why” of this. On the radio, Blackett kept downplaying the potential impact of this bill by pointing out that the Alberta School act already allows parents to remove their children from school if they feel the subject matter clashes with their religion. Uhh, OK. In that case, why do we need this added to the bill? The host kept asking and Blackett kept dodging. Blackett than pointed out that while there are over 2000 schools in Alberta, only 50 some people actually opted their kids out of any classes. Uhhhh OK. In that case why do we need this? Clearly it is a tiny minority that really even care on this issue. The host persisted on the why aspect and Blackett got increasingly flustered. The reason Blackett was flustered was that he really has no answer to the question of why we need this addition to our legislation.

 Stubbornly our PCs push on, enduring heaps of abuse and having our province labelled as being populated by bumpkins (considering the bumpkin nature of our premier, we really did not need more of this).

 From record deficits to needless controversy over unnecessary legislation, the Progressive Conservative government of Alberta is proving itself to be completely incompetent. To those who have been claiming for the last 8 years or so that the PCs can be reformed from within, give your heads a shake. The PC party is hopelessly inept.

It’s bonus season!!

Posted on by
Reply

 As we see the economy slip into the tank, as we see layoffs in all sectors, as stress in households grows with decimated retirement portfolios and as we hearthe Stelmach government tell us that they must borrow our grandchildren into debt for lack of room to cut spending, we hear that the Progressive Conservative government of Alberta has handed out $110,000,000 in “achievement” bonuses for senior civil servants in the last 3 years.

 Considering the explosive increases in spending in the last few years, all we can assume is that the rewarded “achievement”  is achieving excellence in creatively pissing away the hard earned tax dollars of Albertans.

 Bonuses can be an effective means of getting better performances from employees. These bonuses only apply to a few thousand of the senior elite in government however. The civil servants working in the trenches don’t see these lucrative perks. Most of this bonus money has gone to deputy ministers who make an average of $250,000 per year and have seen their salaries increase by 61% since 2005.

 Would not those disproportionate raises in the last few years constitute something of a reward for these people already? Apparently not.

 While the government is bound to report the spending on these bonuses in their respective departments, one department is unsurprisingly exempt from disclosure; that is the Alberta Executive Council.

The Executive Council is made up of the Premier and cabinet ministers.

Well Ed, how many perks have you lined your own and the cabinet’s pockets with bonuses? I guess those 30% raises last fall were not enough. Sadly as Albertans we are not allowed to find out these numbers.

 Keep these kinds of things in mind in a couple weeks as the government releases a deficit budget and claims they have no way to avoid budgeting on our collective credit cards.

Property rights? Not in Alberta.

Posted on by
1

 

 Actually, we do not have property rights enshrined in our federal charter either. Pierre Trudeau made sure of that.

 Expropriation is a requirement at times for any region under development. Countries with property rights such as the United States still have to take land at times. The enshrinement of property rights obligates governments to assure that full compensation is given to landowners in expropriation situations and that land cannot be taken in a frivolous manner.

 When a province/country lacks property rights, governments may bring in repugnant legislation that attacks the rights of landowners just as the Stelmach government is proposing with Bill 19: The Land Assembly Project Area Act.

 What this odious bill proposes is to give the government carte blanche power to slap a land development restriction on land that they may consider developing in the future.

 Now we know from experience how quickly the Progressive Conservative government moves on development ideas. Why look how they are speeding along with that hospital in South Calgary or the perpetual negotiations on the ring-road.

 Bill 19 proposes no timeline. The government can slap a landowner with a development restriction for a project that may not begin for decades if ever.

 Now, try and imagine what happens to the value of your land if suddenly you find yourself with a development restriction on it. Nobody in their right mind would purchase such land. How useful is your land to you when the government has told you that you may not develop? Not very.

 Of course, in their usual manner of dictatorship the Stelmach government put no protections in the bill for landowner rights, but they sure spelled out the penalties that they will hand out to a landowner who dares do some terrible act such as building a shed on their land.

“Offence

(1)

A person who contravenes an enforcement order under

 

section 7 is guilty of an offence and liable,

(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine of not more than

$100 000 or to imprisonment for a period of not more than

2 years, or to both a fine and imprisonment, or

(b) in the case of a corporation, to a fine of not more than

$1 000 000.”

 Landowners beware. You may be bankrupted or possibly even jailed for a couple years should you dare defy the Stelmach government and try to alter land that you thought you owned.

 Look at the nifty outcome for the PC government if they get this one. Land can have an order placed on it a decade before development, the land massively depreciates over the decade due to the order and then when the government indeed does expropriate they can pay the landowner a tiny fraction of the original value of the land.

 Only real property rights may protect us from such government incursions upon us. The PCs certainly would never consider supporting such an initiative. Left-leaning parties such as the Liberals and NDP have traditionally never supported property rights for individuals. Only the Wildrose Alliance Party has has a policy to entrench property rights in an Alberta Bill of Rights. I strongly suggest to anybody who wants to protect the rights of Albertans to take out a membership with the Wildrose Alliance and get to work to rid Alberta of this increasingly disconnected government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proportional representation. The tired panacea for losers.

Posted on by
3

 It is pretty standard that we see people howling and demanding that we need proportional representation after an election. Those demanding this change are essentially admitting that whatever group or movement that they support will never garner more than a small fraction of electoral support.

 People calling for proportional representation usually do not look too terribly deeply into the actual system itself, they simply are trying to find a back door for whatever fringe movement that they support.

 One irony I see is that those who howl for PR are often the same whiners who come out of the woodwork whenever an election is called and scream that Canadians neither want nor need at election at this time. Well, have a look at Italy for a second. They have PR and have enjoyed some 61 governments since 1945. Do we really want to go to the polls annually as a dysfunctional pizza-parliament stumbles along? Rest assured, many people would look back wistfully to the stability our current spate of minority governments.

 Our system is far from perfect. There are many democratic improvements that I would like to see come about. Legislated fixed election dates, binding citizen’s initiated referenda and more free votes come to mind. Those steps would help empower the electorate and locally elected representatives.

 Speaking of locally elected representatives, we can say goodbye to having those any longer in a PR system. The parties will choose who gets a seat in the parliament/legislature after an election, not you. These people will most likely be appointed to their seat due to internal party issues as opposed to any kind of merit they may provide to the constituents. If there is some sort of local issue that is pressing in your area, you will not have a member chosen by yourself and your neighbors who can address that issue for you.

 Many people complain about partisanship. Well rest assured you will see hyper-partisanship like never before if we had a proportional representation system. People seeking seats will no longer have to appeal to the electorate in order to win a seat, they will have to appeal to party brass. Is that more transparent?

 How much voice will the fringe really have in a PR system anyway? Hell, if the system were PR in Alberta in 2001, I likely would have gotten myself a seat as leader of the AIP. Would I then have been able to make any real progress or changes? I would be stuck in a corner of the legislature with a handful of other notables such as the old Natural Law party or the Marijuana Party or FSM knows whatever other fringe bands will be able to scrape together enough support to get a seat.

 When yowling for PR back in 2004, Jack Layton also proposed that seats be set aside exclusively for aboriginals. Perhaps we would go further and divide up the entire parliamentary seats exclusively based on race. The certainly would do wonders for unity in general. Some women’s groups have demanded seats based on gender as well. The proponents of PR seem determined to remove all elements of real democratic choice from the system. If we tear down our current system, we put ourselves at risk of such kooky notions as mandated racism that the NDP supports. It may be difficult to get that toothpaste back in the tube.

 While the fringe movements will have gained a little more of a voice, governments still will be dominated by a coalition involving the top two or three parties. Essentially things will be much the same as they are now except that we would have lost local representation while we were at it.

 There is merit in pursuing political change from outside of the mainstream parties. I certainly have dedicated enough time to that. Even though we won no seats in the last election, we still had an impact. Leading candidates could not completely ignore Green and Wildrose Alliance candidates particularly in constituencies that were close races. The best way to counter such spoilers is to embrace some of the policies of those outside contenders. Candidates were forced to address “green” issues as well as fiscal conservatism more than they would have were there no candidates pushing those issues from the “fringe”. The current government still has to keep those issues in mind while in power or risk the election of Green or WAP candidates in the next election.

 The Wildrose Alliance and Green parties did not win any seats in the last provincial election because they failed to inspire enough electors in any constituencies. I do not see the efforts as failed as issues were raised and candidates were influenced. To claim that the system screwed them is simply sour grapes.

 If a party wants seats in an election there are steps to get them. For one, the candidate must have policies that reflect the views of the largest segment of that constituency (one would think that speaks for itself but PR supporters want to bypass that). The candidate must work effectively and hard to contact those electors and gain their support. Whether it is through convincing the electorate of the merits of their policies, or modelling policy to reflect the views of the electorate the bottom line is that a candidate has to appeal to more than a fringe.

 It is a hard route to follow in order to win seats and it should be. It takes a strong party and strong candidates. PR would eliminate the need for either to a degree thus weak parties with weak candidates want it.

 Stelmach decisively won the last provincial election. The PCs won the right to govern Alberta fairly. I do not agree with many things that the PCs are doing and will continue to strive to replace them. I will not cry at the sidelines for some panacea such as PR in hopes of bypassing the work required to gain the support of a larger share of Alberta’s voters.