The Roundhouse

Goodbye, Mr. Layton.

2011-08-22T13:35:00.000-07:00

Jack Layton was a fine man and a fine public servant. I disagreed with him on many of the issues, but his voice was always a valued contribution to our public domain.

We are all poorer for his loss. His friends and loved ones have my sympathy for their bereavement. A lifetime of memories to treasure is today a very poor substitute for the man himself, I am sure.

Goodbye Mr. Layton, and thank you for a life well lived.

If you haven't already read his final letter you can do so here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/laytons-last-words-love-is-better-than-anger-hope-is-better-than-fear/article2137381/

Volunteerism as a Tax Strategy?

2011-02-09T09:57:00.001-08:00

The idea of rewarding volunteer hours with a tax break has been bruited around recently, and has caught my attention for a couple of reasons.

The first issue with this as an incentive to volunteerism of course is that the incentive has nothing to do with the reasons Albertans volunteer so extensively. There is no tax reason to do so now, and Albertans apparently volunteer as much as any population in the country. Clearly we have good reasons to do so that have nothing to do with our annual tax bill. We choose to become involved in sports leagues, drop-in centres, food banks, choral societies and even political parties because they allow us to realize our dreams or reach out to others. Given what we, as a society, are prepared to pay for convenience in food or parking, among a myriad of other things, it hardly seems likely that people will exert themselves to do something they wouldn't have done before just because of a small tax rebate.

In addition there are a great many opportunities for tax breaks as it is, ranging from business investment to home improvement. Those who would most benefit from a relief of their tax burden are those in lower income brackets, and there are far more efficient ways of delivering that relief than a credit for volunteer hours. A simple raising of the basic income tax exemption by $10-15,000 would be a far more effective tool in this instance. Coincidentally this idea, like so many others, would benefit from an open discussion of our province's ends and means with all options on the table, as is being called for by Doug Griffiths of the PCs and by the Alberta Party.

More important than the vague connection being asserted between volunteerism and tax relief are the administrative issues this proposed reform would create. In order to manage and administer this new tax break a burden of increased administrative costs and government red tape would be imposed on charities and non-profit groups. In essence one of the unintended side effects of this proposal would be an increase in the 'administrative slice' of every dollar donated to charity. In short increased administrative costs would eat into the percentage of donations that would actually be used to deliver service.

The idea of rewarding community involvement with a tax break seems to me rather fuzzy in its goals. If the goal is to reduce the tax burden then actually lowering taxes would seem to be the way to go. If the goal is to increase community involvement then there are all kinds of other inducements, from community project grants on the positive side to cutting funding for community services on the negative side, that will further that goal without increasing the burdens borne by our not-for-profit sector. In short this proposal amounts to a small and poorly aimed tax cut for a group that will continue being involved in these organizations without it. We won't stop organizing our children's hockey leagues or helping at Brown Bagging it For Kids if no tax credit for volunteerism is introduced. Those organizations will, on the other hand, potentially be disrupted if such a change is made.

Busy week in Alberta Politics!

2011-01-25T11:20:00.000-08:00

Following the move by Dave Taylor to the Alberta Party yesterday Premier Ed Stelmach has just announced that he will not be seeking re-election, and will be stepping aside as Alberta's Premier. The move by Mr. Taylor was already something of a tremor in Alberta politics, giving as it did the rapidly growing Alberta Party its first MLA. Mr. Stelmach's decision is an earthquake, however.

Links:

The Premier's remarks -
http://alberta.ca/blog/home.cfm/2011/1/25/Premiers-comments

The Enlightened Savage's Comments -
http://www.enlightenedsavage.com/2011/01/ed-stelmach-to-resign-as-premier.html

The Premier's decision is a game-changer. First and foremost it means that the PC party will be having a leadership race. That race will be a chance for the PCs to focus and define themselves in preparation for the next election. How that race turns out, and the direction the PC party chooses to move, will have a profound impact on the province's political landscape. Will the party choose Morton and go head to head with the Wild Rose? Will the progressive wing of the party prevail with a candidate like Redford or even Doug Griffiths? The latter would place enormous pressure of the Liberal and Alberta parties, where the former would likely serve to put a large part of the existing PC voters up for grabs. Mr. Stelmach's decision is also likely to mean that the next election, expected in March or so of 2012, will be delayed. A leadership race, candidate nomination etc. will all take time.

Personally I would also like to add that Mr. Stelmach has always been an upright and classy human being, and a fine representative. I disagree with many of the decisions and priorities of the governments he has been a member of and latterly led, but that doesn't impact my high regard for him as a man. Thank you for your service Mr. Stelmach.

Alberta politics just gets more and more interesting these days!

Purchasing Fighter Jets, Yes. F-35s, Maybe.

2011-01-21T17:01:00.000-08:00

The prospective purchase of 65 F-35 fighter aircraft for the Canadian Forces has become, perhaps unsurprisingly, a political football. What is little in evidence, however, is discussion of the role the aircraft are intended to fill in our national defence policy, and the reasons for making this specific purchase.

As background it is worth reminding ourselves that the Canadian CF-18 fleet, originally over 120 strong, has been reduced to some 60 operational aircraft by unit retirement and changing priorities. These last 60 aircraft are approaching the final decade of their design life, and they cannot be kept flying forever. Any replacement aircraft, however, will not appear in the budget until 2016 or so, and the price will be spread over a decade for their delivery. Maintenance costs, an enormous percentage of the total lifetime cost of these assets, would continue over their 25-40 year useful life. A fleet of fighter jets is a big-ticket item, with the current conversation of the F-35 purchase including $9 billion for the planes and $7 billion for the maintenance over their lifespan. This is a lot of money, but on a national scale over a period of decades it is also not really that large. Our government is looking at spending several billion dollars on additional prison buildings in the near future, not to mention what the operation and maintenance expenses of those buildings will turn out to be.

In considering the purchase, then, we have a national defence asset that provides a series of unique capabilities that we are losing in the near future to old age. Those capabilities include:
1 - Air superiority/combat air patrol
2 - Air strikes on surface targets
3 – Aerial Reconnaissance & surveillance
4 - A rapidly deployable force with enormous range
5 - A force element highly interoperable with our allies
The fundamental question underlying the purchase of any replacement fighter aircraft is whether or not we require these capabilities, and if so whether or not new aircraft are the only way to maintain them.

In the case of the original raison d’être of fighter aircraft, the ability to control airspace, they are still an unrivalled tool. Ground-based defences can protect specific sites, but Canada’s capabilities in that area are starkly limited and our airspace is vast. There are now drone aircraft, including the American Predator, with a limited anti-aircraft capability. Given their relatively slow speed, limited sensor capabilities and very limited armament these drones also do not approach the capacity offered by manned aircraft.

The story in terms of surface support is much the same. Army artillery can provide support only within its own range, as is the case with our Navy’s ships and submarines. The aircraft are able to provide support over great distances, and are also capable of using a vast array of munitions, from the most powerful to the most precise. Drones as yet carry only a very limited array of weapons, and are far less survivable to boot.

In terms of surveillance fighter aircraft are essentially never the first option. Dedicated long-range reconnaissance aircraft like the Orion or Nimrod are superior for maritime work and drones are better for tactical work. Where the fighter aircraft do offer a unique strength in this area is in their ability to actually engage a target if required, but for the scouting work itself they are a second option.

The range issue has already been mentioned. Canada is vast, our maritime frontiers even more so, and we have friends and potential commitments all over the world. In that respect this type of aircraft is an excellent asset for foreign deployments for two reasons. First, it is relatively easy to get the planes there. Second, so long as we maintain our tradition of NATO interoperability we can act with our allies without awkward and expensive barriers to overcome.

In my view these are capabilities we should have, both for our own protection and for the aid of our allies. It is also worth noting that these are not capabilities that can be recreated in less than a decade should we decide to eliminate them. To buy the planes, get them delivered, train pilots and re-create an infrastructure would be enormously expensive and time-consuming. To a large extent we shelter under the American aerial umbrella (they operate thousands of fighter aircraft), but their interests are not ours and there will be frictions around northern waters and sovereignty for example where their aid may not be forthcoming, or it may not be available even if they want to help.

This brings me to the question of whether or not the F-35 is the right aircraft for Canada’s needs. There are a variety of aircraft currently in production. Some, like China’s domestically-produced military aircraft are easily ruled out. I put Russian-made MIG aircraft in this category, both due to their inferior performance and more importantly the highly unsafe and unreliable supplier. Given our highly limited influence in Russia, and the difficulties around relying on contracts with Russian organization (i.e.: Shell’s experience with Gazprom) there are far too many red lights to make this practicable. What does that leave us with?

Essentially there are 5 aircraft being produced by Canada’s allies for us to choose from, including the F-35. In Europe the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale also are in production, and thus likely available. In the United States there are the F-16, the F-15E and the F-18 E/F model (the linear descendant of Canada’s CF-18s, which are largely a variant of the F-18D). The Americans are also producing the F-22, but this aircraft is both more expensive than the F-35 and less well-rounded, being focused more on air-to-air combat. Currently it is also restricted from export sale by Congress, just in case anyone here still wanted it…

So why the F-35? The F-15, F-16 and F-18 models are old designs, with the advantages and drawbacks that implies. They are proven performers, but they lack some of the capabilities provided by the newer aircraft. The Eurofighter and Rafale are largely equivalent to their American counterparts, with the exception of the F-35, which stands out from the group as the only option from the very latest design generation; incorporating a variety of stealth characteristics and sensor and computer upgrades.

The question is what capabilities the plane is required to deliver, and the threats it is intended to meet. Fighter aircraft to replace the CF-18s seem like a reasonable defence purchase to me, given the variety and importance of the roles these aircraft perform. What is less clear to me is whether or not we need the F-35. Any of the models mentioned here is an upgrade over our current CF-18s, even if the latter were not at the very end of their useful life. An open tender based on clearly published requirements would seem like an obvious way to allow the field to price itself, and to comparison shop. I am disappointed that this approach was not taken by the government several years ago, but I am hoping that public interest drives a conversation about the topic now. I am also hoping that this conversation does not long delay a selection and a purchase, since such aircraft are an important part of our national defence framework and the timelines on acquisition is long.

While I am on the subject of said framework it is worth pointing out that a full white paper national defence review would seem to be called for as a way of adjudicating priorities on such issues.

*Edit:
Here are the Operational Requirements from the DND website:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/or-bo-eng.asp

The Wee Shuffle

2011-01-04T13:29:00.001-08:00

Today's Cabinet Shuffle, necessitated by the retirement of Jim Prentice to move on to a job at CIBC, was as minor as it could have been. A replacement had to be found for Mr. Prentice, and while there were no other important changes the strategy of wooing Greater Toronto prior to the next election continued.

Mr. Prentice's replacement at Environment is Mr. Peter Kent, whose experience in the media will undoubtedly be very useful in a position which this government uses primarily as a heat shield for criticism of the government's environmental policy. I don't envy Mr. Kent the role, though a seat at the Cabinet table is certainly a prize. In addition Mr. Julian Fantino, recent winner of the close Vaughn by-election, was appointed as Minister of State for Seniors. Mr. Kent and Mr. Fantino, a former Chief of both the Toronto and Ontario Provincial Police, are highly visible parts of the Conservative strategy of targeting Toronto seats for the next election. Putting them both in Cabinet, however minor Mr. Fantino's role, will be intended to raise their profile.

Alberta sees Mr. Prentice replaced in Cabinet, at least in theory, by the promotion of Mr. Ted Menzies from Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for finance. Ms. Diane Ablonczy moves sideways from the post now occupied by Mr. Fantino to Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs). With a cabinet whose major figures aside from the Prime Minister are all from outside of Alberta it will be interesting to see if there will be any repercussions here in the Conservative Party's heartland.

Alberta Politics Overview - December 2010

2010-12-08T16:02:00.000-08:00

If you are a blogger interested in Alberta politics recent months, and this past month in particular, have been filled with an embarrassment of riches. I am finding it difficult to actually finish posts, as there are so many topics worth writing about that even the low-hanging fruit is overwhelming. If only I got paid for writing here, eh? However, one of the more common conversations I've been having recently is about the 'state of the game' in Alberta politics. How badly have the Progressive Conservatives been hurt by recent events? Has the Wild Rose Alliance stalled or is it making up ground? Are the Liberals in trouble? Can the Alberta Party actually become relevant? This is my brief overview of the current state of play.

The governing Progressive Conservatives have had a very bad few weeks. Alternatively one could refer to the fall session of the Legislature as a train wreck for the governing party. From a communications point of view 'Cookiegate' and the subsequent, and much more harmful, loss of MLA Raj Sherman are the only memorable images of the session for most Albertans. From a branding point of view the damage done to the PC party may have legs, if the opposition parties can continue the identification of the PCs with long wait times and erratic management. That said the PCs have escaped the fall session, and they still have the largest political infrastructure in the province. While bloodied they have the time and resources to fight back, especially with an election still most likely over a year away and at a time of their choosing.

The Wild Rose have had both good and bad news in the past month. The latest polls put them within 5% of the PCs in popular support province wide, and while it is far too early for that to be vital it is certainly good news for the party. They have, however, had some problems of their own at the grassroots level, with problems around the nomination process in Little Bow and other internal frictions in Medicine Hat. In the legislature the WAP MLAs have been very insistent in their attacks on the government, as is their role, but occasionally have strayed beyond the bounds of decorum and relevance. Sadly they are far from alone, and the debate between Hancock and Anderson over the former's point of order was not an edifying parliamentary spectacle. While I'm sure the heated language and personalization of issues will play well with elements of the Wild Rose's base support, they haven't made as much out of the opportunity the government has presented them with as I would have expected.

The WAP push to continue nominating candidates for the next election continues despite the difficulties in Little Bow. They have, as of this writing, settled on candidates in 26 ridings, far more than anyone else. This is slightly misleading of course, as the PCs will be running many of their 67 incumbent MLAs again, but it does put them far ahead of the other opposition parties. The challenge they will have to overcome moving forward involves fundraising, as they managed to match the Liberals last year while falling far short of the PCs. They need to close that gap to make themselves look like the government in waiting, and to provide the resources they'll need for a winning campaign.

The Alberta Liberals have, despite feeling very good about their work in the fall session, fallen to 19% support in recent polling. This indicates that, despite their efforts, they are not connecting with the imagination of the voters. Again, this polling is a snapshot, and one taken a long way from an election, but I think it points to an issue that has troubled me about the Alberta Liberals for a long time. While they have managed to consistently attract the support of 1/4 of voters, give or take, I have long felt that this support was 'soft'. As the only serious opposition party over the past 20 years, since there was no realistic chance of the NDP winning an election, the Liberals became a parking place for voters opposed to the PCs. With the rise of the Wild Rose, and at least potentially the Alberta Party, this 'soft' support will no longer be necessarily available to the Liberals.

The NDP, with its tiny caucus of two MLAs, continues to punch well above its weight in the legislature. I continue to be impressed with the work of Rachel Notely - I may not agree with her on many of the issues, but she has proven to be a fine MLA. Long term it is hard to see how the NDP can move much beyond the half-dozen or so ridings in which they possess significant support, however.

Finally there is the Alberta Party. While only a participant in the ongoing drama in the legislature via its committed online partisans, it is starting to stand itself up as a viable political organization. I emphasize starting, but the appointment of Sue Huff as its interim leader provides a charismatic and articulate face for the organization. At least as important constituency associations, the real groundwork of any political party, are coming online at a rate of 2-4 per week. I'm also told that fundraising is moving forward and should the party maintain this momentum for a couple of months then by spring it will be in a position to act as a full participant in the political arena; with people, money and a leader to provide the voice. That said it is worth remembering that the party was left off the recent poll for a reason - it has a long way to go yet.

According to Premier Stelmach the next election is likely to he held in the spring of 2012. There is no realistic scenario in which the PC party could lose control of the house before that, and it is hard at this point to imagine a situation in which the Premier and cabinet want to rush into an election. Thus, we have a year and a half to go - a long enough time for a great deal to change in politics.

To count to PCs out because of the battering they took last week would be foolish - they have a lot of time, and the experienced personnel, to right the ship. The Wild Rose may have stalled, but they have time. Their biggest issues are the internal frictions that have been surfacing between the party's central bodies and its constituencies. The Liberals are working hard to change their methods and messaging, and depending on the results of those efforts their position may improve by election time. The fundamental question they will face is whether the 25% of voters they have been attracting consistently are supporting the Liberals or just opposing the PCs. The NDP seems content to remain what it is, and they possess a committed base of support. The Alberta Party has generated some energy and is transitioning into the real business of politics, and at its current rate of progress will be able to take its place as a full participant in the political scene with a year left to go before the likely election call.

Anyone still bored with Alberta politics? I think we're in for a very interesting year and a half.

Representative Independence versus Caucus Control

2010-11-23T09:56:00.000-08:00

Behind all the Sturm und Drang engendered by Dr. Raj Sherman's letter, comments and subsequent removal from the PC caucus there are several stories. The specifics of what happened and why are known only to those involved, and I won't speculate. There is a good post at the Enlightened Savage about which line Dr. Sherman crossed: http://www.enlightenedsavage.com/2010/11/paging-dr-sherman.html
The basic outlines can be found here: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Sherman+suspended+from+Conservative+caucus/3867417/story.html

It is important to note that Dr. Sherman has been suspended, as opposed to Mr. Boutillier who was simply expelled. What requirements have been communicated to Dr. Sherman for his return, if any at this early stage, I certainly do not know. It is, however, clear that the PC caucus and the PC party both want Dr. Sherman as a member, something that was not the case with Mr. Boutillier.

Dr. Sherman's suspension from caucus is part of an ongoing conversation in Canada about the role and independence of our elected representatives vis a vis their parties.

Dr. Sherman was an emergency physician before he became an MLA, and continues to practice while he sits in the legislature. His sincerity and passion on the issue of emergency medicine are not questioned by anyone so far as I am aware, and he possesses a professional's knowledge of the systems strengths and faults. Dr. Sherman was entirely right to act as he did in order to bring the greatest possible profile to an issue he felt was vital. Conversely the government caucus was entirely within their rights to suspend him. This is the creative tension between the individual representative and the discipline of the group, and the latter is essential in order to make the system work.

The problem is that the individual representative has been pushed into the background by group discipline. Both Federally and here in Alberta the governing party keeps all conversations behind the closed doors of caucus far too often. Party discipline for votes on the floor is an essential element of a representative system, don't get me wrong. Without the ability to whip votes you wind up needing the kind of earmark system which has so bedeviled the American Congress in order to deliver enough votes to pass legislation and do the basic business of government. The tendency, however, to follow the logic of control past the point of necessary and into the realm of convenience.

Avoiding the presentation by your MLAs of alternative views to that of the government makes communications and messaging easier, avoids some public frictions; fundamentally it is easier to manage than diversity. The problem is that the diversity exists anyway - in a caucus of 68 members does anyone believe that the PC MLAs all agree on anything? Behind the closed doors of government caucus the debates and alternative views are guaranteed to be lively, but we the public don't get to see it. This disconnect is worsened by the lows to which question period has sunk, shortened legislative sessions and the steady reduction in the independence of committees in the legislature. As a result there are fewer and fewer arenas in which the individual MLA can be relevant outside of caucus, which we can't see, and constituency work, which is profoundly local. The latter is important, and many of our MLAs do it very well and build important and useful two-way relationships with their communities. Our public dialogue would be greatly enriched, however, if individual MLAs were more engaged and engaging on the provincial stage.

This does not require a revolution in political procedure - here in Canada we have a tradition of ministerial responsibility and representative independence. Even in this age of tight party control there are individual MLAs (and MPs) who, by force of personality or sheer competence, have carved out independent voices for themselves. Does this mean that Doug Griffiths or Jim Prentice don't vote with their party on matters of confidence? Of course not. We as citizens need to demand more from our representatives, however.

Equally important party organizations and party leaders need to examine what they lose by keeping the reins short, as well as what they gain. Simplifying the messaging has to be balanced against the separation created between party and citizens. Openness has the advantage of creating conversation and engagement, which can be harnessed and directed in positive ways. True discipline doesn't mean there is no debate on what to do, it just means that when the time comes to act everyone supports making the decision work. We need to work on a parliamentary culture that embraces the diversity of views expressed publicly for examination and debate. The biggest gainers will be the parties, in the end.

Alberta Party policy convention - Aftermath

2010-11-15T15:00:00.001-08:00

The Alberta Party is a young, relatively small and rapidly evolving organization. In Red Deer this weekend at their first policy convention following the merger of the old Alberta Party and the Renew Alberta group. Essentially the party is building from scratch in both organizational and policy terms - a state that implies both vast opportunity and manifold risks.

This past weekend was the Alberta Party's policy convention, following up the "big listen" process that the party had undertaken over the preceding 6 months or more. Tension between diverse viewpoints was a characteristic of the weekend, as the thousands of points that had arisen from the 'big listen' were considered, debated amended etc. There were people present from a wide variety of backgrounds, including former PC, Liberal, NDP and Reform members and organizers, as well as a variety of people formerly unengaged in partisan politics. It was an impressive group, and I found myself learning something with almost every conversation I had all weekend.

What arose from the weekend should be available on the Alberta Party website (www.albertaparty.ca) later this week, as soon as the volunteers can finish with the drafting and formatting. For a party that lacks a permanent leader and is just beginning the process of constituency organizing policy will be crucial, both to define who the party is and provide people with reasons to support its growth. Among the policies I was involved in the discussions for were the following:
- Strengthening officers of the Legislature like the Ombudsman, Chief Electoral Officer, Ethics Commissioner and Auditor General by guaranteeing their funding and ensuring their third-party status. Included in this was a commitment to empowering the Auditor to undertake forensic audits at their discretion.
- All government data and reports that do not contain personal or sensitive information are to be available to the public as soon as they are complete. This includes the information on which official reports are based.
- The Alberta Party is committed to moving all natural resource revenue as investment capital, and to cease its use for directly funding programs.
Obviously these are a small sample of the total, but I was there for these conversations, and I think that these are ideas worth supporting.

In his talk to conclude the event following Sunday's plenary session Dave Cournoyer argued that our existing government has become formatted by its own success. It is organized as a top-down culture, with limited interest or acceptance of transparency. According to Cournoyer, and I agree with him, Minister Leipert's anonymous advisory group is a sign of a government that has lost its way. There is no reason for the identities of those the Minister has turned to for advice should not be public knowledge, especially since the Minister is entirely correct to seek advice wherever he feels it will be useful. The Alberta Party's commitments to transparency and a bottom-up culture are what drew Mr. Cournoyer to join the party, and provide it with some of its potentially defining characteristics. Mr. Cournoyer's address can be found here: http://daveberta.ca/2010/11/my-closing-remarks-to-the-alberta-party/

Moving forward one of the most important issues for the Alberta Party will be leadership. Mr. Erickson stepped down as interim leader this weekend, after shepherding the party through the amalgamation and subsequent rapid expansion with quiet grace, for which members of the party should be thankful. The new interim leader will, I expect, be one of the current board members and will be announced in the immediate future. The sooner the better, as the party now needs to launch its real leadership contest, with a leadership vote to come before next summer. Whoever the new interim leader is they will have the responsibility of nourishing the fledgling party's energy and culture through further rapid expansion, constituency organizing and a leadership race. No shortage of work.

There are a number of people involved in the party I would like to see throw their hats in the leadership ring. Obviously I can't speak for any of these people, and the opinion being expressed is entirely my own! Chima Nkenmdrim would have been an obvious choice, but has likely removed himself from contention by choosing to join Mr. Nenshi at Calgary city hall. I think Glenn Taylor, recently re-elected as mayor of Hinton, would be an intriguing option. He's young, electorally successful, well-spoken and familiar with the province's issues. I am also interested to see if Michael Brechtel, Edmonton ad man and community builder as well as Alberta Party board member, will put himself forward. He too is a builder of relationships who could offer a lot to the race. Also on the board is former school trustee Sue Huff, who has certainly been an active and appealing figure in Edmonton over the past several years and would be an excellent candidate. Again I cannot speak for any of these four, but I do hope that they all give the option serious thought.

Alberta politics is, and has been for several years now, in a state of change. There are two new political parties on the scene, a surprising new mayor in Calgary, and an ongoing conversation about change in every party and at every level of government. This is healthy and exciting. I think that there is a lot of room in Alberta politics for the Wild Rose and Alberta parties, and that the existing parties are all undertaking changes of their own. The tired narrative of Alberta politics as monopolistic and uninteresting no longer applies, no matter what your political views are. This is, I would argue, the most politically active and interesting province in the federation at this time and I, for one, am excited to see how it develops.

Alberta Party Policy Convention - Part 1

2010-11-13T08:56:00.000-08:00

I am in Red Deer this morning for the Alberta Party's policy convention - my third weekend in a row out taking the pulse of Alberta's political culture. While not a morning person I have to say that a prairie sunrise is worth getting up at 0615 all by itself on a day like today - Alberta is a gorgeous place.

what interests me in this event is the intersection of of hope and ideology with political reality. Chris LaBossiere, president of the party, called it "an idea yet to be actioned" this morning; a phrase which I think admirably sums up where the Alberta Party stands. There are a lot of engaging things about this young party, but this is the point at which a lot of similar efforts have fallen flat. Political organization is an exercise in patient logistics. Logistics are hard, unglamorous and need to be kept rolling day by day. Can the enthusiasm in this room be translated into real and effective organization? I'm here to find out.

Reboot 3 - Now what?

2010-11-11T15:12:00.001-08:00

I was only able to make time to attend the Reboot 3 gathering at the last minute, meaning that I was not prepared or engaged in the agenda-setting stage. I found it interesting to note that the blogger population at Reboot 3 was considerably smaller than the first two, with major cogs in the Alberta blogosphere like DJ Kelly, Joey Oberhoffner and Dave Cournoyer not attending. Congratulations DJ, by the way!

The morning sessions were spent discussing models of ownership and their implications for the management of the oil sands. The table I happened to be at was, to my good fortune, full of passionate, articulate and capable people – one of whom thankfully makes a living as a mediator and was able to keep the conversation moving in more or less the intended direction. While we certainly didn’t arrive at a consensus on how ownership ought to be considered in the area of natural resources we were agreed that it was important for the Government and corporations to think differently on the issue. To me there is, or ought to be, a creative tension between the profit motive of corporations and the social good that ought to underlie government decision-making. Interestingly the table was quite interested in the idea of full-cost accounting, which is hardly a simple or non-contentious topic in and of itself.

The central conversation in the afternoon revolved around the question of what it meant to be a progressive. In examining this issue four speakers gave us their thoughts: Troy Wason of the Alberta PCs, Chris LaBossiere from the Alberta Party, Phil Elder for the Democratic Renewal Project and David Swann of the Alberta Liberal Party. (Speaking in that order) Both Mr. Wason and Mr. LaBossiere talked about their reasons for being involved with their respective parties, and their thoughts on how they feel their organizations are embodying and responding to ideas that can be defined as progressive. Mr. Wason was passionate in his belief that the progressive element of the PC party is a central part of that party. He also pointed out that his qualification as a member of the provinces notional political elite consisted of “paying my $5 and putting up my hand to volunteer”. Succinct and important to bear in mind – our system is run by those who choose to show up. Mr. LaBossiere’s talk is perhaps best summarized by himself on his blog, but he too addressed the importance of engagement.

Mr. Elder and Mr. Swann took another tack entirely. Mr. Elder outlined the Democratic Renewal Project and their plans to encourage non-competition among opposition parties. My thoughts on the undesirability and futility of their project are elaborated in an earlier post http://myroundhouse.blogspot.com/2010/05/night-with-alberta-democratic-renewal.html . Mr. Swann’s presentation focused on the reasons why the people in the room for Reboot should vote for the Liberals. Interestingly his primary reason was fear – he argued that without the Liberal’s tradition, organization and financial framework none of the other parties before Albertans could advance a progressive agenda or effectively challenge the PC party. Leaving aside the assumption that replacing the PC government is inherently desirable, it is hard to see anything progressive or attractive in this inherently negative formulation. It appeared to me as an attempt by Mr. Swann to dissuade those present from considering the Alberta Party, which, while an entirely justifiable end for the leader of another party to undertake, seemed entirely at odds with the kind of dialogue Reboot exists to promote.

In my view there are two ends that the Reboot name and movement can serve here in Alberta moving forward. I need to underline that my views here reflect nothing beyond my own opinions, and have no bearing on the thoughts or intentions of the organizers in particular or the other participants in general.

To begin with I continue to find these meetings to be a good forum for people of diverse views to meet and discuss matters of common interest. There is real value in a periodic forum to exchange views outside our usual partisan or professional communities, and Reboot has contributed usefully to the political culture of Alberta in that respect. Being exposed to alternative viewpoints is essential in challenging our assumptions. That process of challenging ideas and evolving them under the pressure of new information is in turn a fundamental element of healthy public discourse. I would like to see the Reboot gatherings continue once or twice a year, focusing on acting as a common area in which people of all partisan stripes, or none, can gather to discuss issues of public interest. As a mechanism perhaps an issue or two could be selected for discussion, followed by an unconference format upon arrival to decide where and how that conversation will be focused.

Reboot can, however, be the genesis of something beyond a useful meeting place on the political commons. I would like to see a permanent non-partisan think tank develop from the Reboot community. This organization would study questions of civic engagement, civil society and public policy. The public discourse gains real value from organizations like the Manning Centre and the Pembina Institute, the research they create, the events they hold and the people they train and employ. Given the population and wealth of Alberta, and the gaps between existing bodies of similar nature, there is more than enough room in the public discourse for such a body. (That sound you hear is the pained laughter of the Reboot organizers as I volunteer their idea and efforts for an extensive and labour-intensive expansion.) If the idea is of any interest to anyone but myself I hope to hear from you!

Reboot Alberta 3.0

2010-11-06T00:02:00.000-07:00

I'm in Edmonton this weekend for the Reboot 3.0 conference, to see what the latest installment of these gatherings for self-selected 'progressives' has in store.

The most interesting charecteristic of the Reboot gatherings in the variety of people who attend. The first two Reboots crossed partisan lines in their attendence, and based on Friday's opening reception this one is no different. What is different, or perhaps just more noticable to me, is the presence of more declared partisans. There are members of the PC and Liberals present, though the coincidental overlap with the NDP's AGM has meant I have yet to see anyone from that party. There are also members of the Alberta Party here, though I put them in a seperate catagory since that organization is still in its infancy as an effective political organization.

what most interests me are the conversations about civic engagement. Much as wonks like myself enjoy the details of policy or the mechanics of campaigning it is important to step back form time to time and consider the wider questions of political culture. It is my opinion that the province of Alberta is in the early stages of a political transition. (Whether or not that means a change in government is another question entirely.) The shape of that transition will be an organic outgrowth of the changing political culture here, and the kind of wider engagement that preoccupies most of the attendees at Reboot can be a factor there. More to come as the weekend goes on.

PC AGM Part 3 – Final thoughts

2010-11-01T16:05:00.000-07:00

I should begin this post about the weekend’s PC party AGM in Calgary with a pair of disclaimers. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Alberta Progressive Conservative party. I am also not a reporter. I am an analyst and an academic, but those are very different things, and there were a number of ‘real’ reporters in the media room this weekend whose work you should read if the event interests you. What I am interested in, and writing about here, is more thematic and impressionistic than the “who, what, where, when and why” of traditional journalism. Such are the privileges of being your own editor.

One of the most noticeable features of this year’s PC AGM was the change in tone and attitude from a year ago. Where a year ago the PCs were visibly distracted by internal frictions and a real sense of threat the mood this year was definitely more positive and combative. The choice of ‘Team PC’ as the event slogan, and I expect as the ongoing slogan for the party and campaign, is certainly indicative of the awareness that one of the party’s first priorities had to be an emphasis on unity. As I have said before, however disoriented the PCs may have been by the initial onset of the Wild Rose in combination with the impact of the recession, they had a lot of time before the next election to pull themselves together. The party appears to have made a lot of progress on that front.

In combination with the ‘Team PC’ theme the primary message would appear to be the success of Alberta under PC management. The successes of Alberta under PC management featured prominently in the Premier’s speech on Friday night, through the Q & A sessions on Saturday and many of the speakers at policy sessions as well. Hardly surprising that this is the message that the party would want to go with as their central message and the basis of the campaign, but what is interesting is the very real feeling that, only two years into a mandate, the PC party and government are starting their next campaign. In addition almost everyone I spoke to on the issue emphasized the unity of the party, which certainly speaks to the awareness that infighting hasn’t done them any favours in the recent past.

Alberta is possessed of an active and engaged online political community. The invitation of bloggers to attend the AGM, in addition to the various ‘in-house’ PC bloggers, strikes me as the beginnings of an institutional acknowledgement that the PC party will have to go where the conversation is. Bloggers each have the ability to build an audience, and an audience self-selected based on interest at that. In addition in a world where search engines are so important to how people find information it will often be a blog entry that matches someone’s search terms most clearly, with the implications that can have for the dissemination of information on a specific case or issue.

Twitter hashtags like #pcagm, or even more so #ableg, are excellent opportunities to engage with people of varied views through a shared link. The very publicity of anything said over twitter means that no matter how hard a single partisan group might try to dominate a topic or a tag they can never keep other individuals or viewpoints out. Throughout the weekend there was a constant interaction between attendees of the AGM, observers present (including myself), interested PC members who were unable to attend and people interested in the event or the issues discussed. Thinking of it now I should have checked the total number of tweets exchanged on the #pcagm and #ableg hashtags this weekend, but a quick check of my tweetdeck shows over 600 tweets using #pcagm alone. This doesn’t include any of the untagged tweets to and from attendees, or those using other tags. A number of very lively exchanges took place on each of the relevant hashtags, and it is important for both organizers and interested citizens to realize that these events are now more public than ever before, and are playing to the world in real time!

This evolution in the information environment, and the implications it is already having on political communication, led me to spend the weekend talking to people about how they feel that PC party will change. In particular I was interested to talk to the volunteers who really make the party work at the constituency level. I talked to over 40 of these volunteers about communication, both within and without the party, party organization and their concerns and views of the prospects for change. As you would expect there were a wide variety of responses, but they grouped themselves rather neatly. I have several more people who have agreed to talk to me about these issues in the near future, so I hope to be able to build a better image of the visions of change in the PC party.

First, there were those who felt that the party would have to make substantial changes to its structure and methods. While some felt that the party needed to make immediate changes, there was little sense of urgency. Those advocating these changes rarely gave existential reasons for their concerns, rather the conversation tended to be one of competitive advantage. The greatest sense of urgency was to be found among those engaged in communications and election readiness, but even in those groups there was a general sense that the roughly two years until the next election would provide more than enough time.

Second, there were those who felt that all the talk of change was simply window dressing. The campaign messaging from the Premier about the success enjoyed by Alberta under PC management certainly resonated with these individuals. Interestingly it was also this group that evinced the most discontent with the Premier, though criticisms were inevitably followed by the disclaimer that they were committed to making things work.

Finally, and the largest group, there were those that felt that the party was structured and operating effectively, but needed some fine tuning here and there. I heard from several people that they felt very comfortable with the party’s methods for disseminating information internally, with one consistent exception. That exception was a perceived failure to make best use of the expertise of grassroots members of the party. Several health professionals in particular felt that their expertise was receiving short shrift. There was also a consensus that the party was going to have to increase and improve its utilization of non-traditional media; the Nenshi campaign’s victory here in Calgary seems to have made quite an impression in that regard.

I have to thank the AGM’s attendees for their hospitality and willingness to talk to me, and Brent Harding, Janice Harrington and Joey Oberhoffner in particular for their efforts in managing the media room and supporting its occupants. The realities of media are changing, and political commentary and analysis is immensely more open-source than it has been in the past. It is my hope that accreditation of bloggers as media to this AGM sets a precedent, and that the active online and twitter political community is embraced by all parties and organizations at their events moving forward.

Fundamentally what I saw this weekend was a prototypical establishment party, comfortable with itself and the world as it is. I mean neither that as neither an insult nor a compliment, merely a summary of the zeitgeist. There were the expected cri de couer marginal groups, and the passionate crusaders for change (in one direction or another), but the dominant feeling was one of satisfaction. I wouldn’t call it complacent, not after the last year, but there was a definite sense of returning purpose and order after a scare. The PC party remains unchallenged in fundraising, as the recently released numbers for last year demonstrate, and there is no other provincial political entity capable of bringing together over a thousand members for a weekend. The human capital and intellectual resources of the party remain formidable, and if they ‘team PC’ meme catches on with the party’s membership those resources may be deployed much more effectively in the year to come than they have been over the last few. We shall see, as there are more than a few factions within the party that have in the past struggled to cooperate effectively.

For further comment see:
Dave Cournoyer - http://daveberta.ca/2010/11/dont-write-an-obituary-yet/

PC AGM Part 2

2010-10-30T07:43:00.000-07:00

While this morning's closed session on election readiness is taking place it is time to put some thoughts together on the opening night of the PC AGM . (the research being presented in the closed session has been distributed in PowerPoint form here in the media room) I also have to say that the variety show put on by many of the PC caucus this morning was actually worth getting up for - watching Ted Morton and Dave Hancock singing Kumbaya hand in hand was well worth the (free) admission.

The central element of opening night was, of course, the Premier's speech. Mr. Stelmach, not noted as a speaker, has definitely improved the writing and delivery, however, and there were several moments of real warmth and humour. The speech itself was a classic stump speech, with elements to rally the base, clips for the news and some positioning for future negotiating. It included a strong emphasis on Alberta's relative insulation from the recession, and the strengths of the PC record. Interestingly there was also a commitment to complete the nomination process for candidates, including the four new ridings, by the end of spring 2011. Particularly interesting to me was the announcement that the party would be undertaking a very wide-ranging and open policy development process, which the Premier said would be the most open and interactive in Alberta history. I am interested to see how it will compare to the Alberta Party's 'Big Listen' idea, given that the PCs have to deal with a vastly larger structure and certain concerns, like getting elected and raising money, that the Alberta Party is only in the natal stages of considering.

The part most striking to me was the positioning for future negotiations with the Federal government, as the Premier opposed a national securities regulator and insisted that Alberta needed to be "treated fairly" in terms of the net tax burden. To me the fact that Alberta and Albertans pay more than less affluent provinces is hardly surprising, nor is it an issue. The Premier, on the other hand, was clearly staking out a position for a future negotiation about transfer payments and natural resource revenue distribution. How helpful the combative language is, as opposed to the dangers of creating a negative feedback loop in the conversation, is not clear to me. That said, given the Harper government's usual negotiating style, it is hard to see how anything the provincial government could say would substantively change the tone of the conversation.

As far as my ongoing project for the weekend, namely talking to as many constituency organizers and riding presidents as possible about their perceptions of and involvement in change within the organization, I have had a number of very interesting conversations. The responses have so far fallen into three broad categories. First, those who are genuinely concerned with and engaged in change, variously defined, and acutely aware of potential risks and opportunities for the PC party here in Alberta. Second, those who feel that change is coming, but either aren't clear on what it should be or why it is necessary. Finally, there are those who talk about change without any seriousness - either because they feel they need to say something about it for form's sake or because they don't really see any need for it. I'll have a real breakdown on the details after the event ends.

I do need to thank the organizers and participants for their warm welcome and, for the overwhelming majority, their willingness to take time to talk to an outsider freely and openly.

PC AGM, Part 1

2010-10-29T15:12:00.000-07:00

I have been offered the opportunity to attend the PC AGM here in Calgary this weekend as a 'new media' observer. Leaving aside the simple curiosity of a political nerd I accepted for a number of reasons. First, I think it is important that our parties continue evolving to reflect the new information environment and changing the traditional notions of what constitutes political press is a part of that. Secondly, I am curious about the atmosphere of the gathering - how do the delegates feel about the party and its situation? Finally, how is the party dealing with the challenges it is publicly perceived to be facing, including complacency and fading popular support.

In looking at these issues I am not interested in talking to the elected party representatives, whether MLAs or party executives, but rather the volunteer rank and file that actually make a political party function. In particular I will be targeting the constituency presidents and organizers. (Organizers have conveniently tagged the presidents with orange ribbons - thanks!) So far several have taken the time to speak with me, so we'll see how this plan works out.

Some Pictures Are Worth a Thousand Words

2010-10-21T10:41:00.000-07:00

From today's Toronto Star:

Funny and on target! I have to say that I'm very happy with the real contest of visions we had in our municipal election, especially compared to the dismal partisanship of the Toronto campaign.

Nenshi Wins - Now What?

2010-10-19T11:01:00.000-07:00

And so it is Nenshi for Mayor - but what looks like a very conservative council. Should be an interesting few years, Calgary.

Ironically, for all the talk about technology and change, the Nenshi campaign won because they ran the best old-fashioned political campaign. They presented the best-developed message, and did a great job of layering it from the sound bite all the way through to clear policy plans. Mr. Nenshi showed good groundwork as a candidate, building profile the old-fashioned way by appearing everywhere, all the time. The campaign made good use of volunteers, and got their best work out of them by building a really energized team environment. They also figured out how to identify and motivate their supporters, a process complicated by the fact that they didn't have any (or at least not many) a year ago, and there was no obvious political constituency of support. I found it encouraging that I know people supporting Mr. Nenshi who in provincial politics support the Greens, the NDP, the Liberals, the PCs and the Wild Rose. An advantage yes, but one that greatly complicates the process of getting out your vote!

As for Mr. Nenshi's competitors; Ms. Higgins found her rhythm too late in the campaign to carry it to a successful conclusion, but looking at the process in retrospect I am sure she will be proud that she received over 91,000 votes. I would be very surprised at this point if we have seen the last of Ms. Higgins. Mr. McIvor, the prohibitive front runner at the beginning of the race, made the mistake of running too conservative a campaign. (I assure you that the pun wasn't deliberate!) In spending most of the campaign running not to lose he missed out on the opportunity to define the process, and Ms. Higgins' entry and Mr. Nenshi's rise defined it for him. In the new dialogue Mr. McIvor found himself with multiple threats, and while this appears to have galvanized his campaign he was unable to make up for earlier complacency.

With regard to council, and the potential dynamics thereon, I recommend reading DJ Kelly's post here: http://calgarypolitics.com/2010/10/19/calgary-meet-your-new-council/ Mr. Nenshi and the Aldermen will have to develop a modus vivendi that enables them to develop into a team. Calgarians turned out in record numbers, over 53% of eligible voters casting ballots, which shatters the previous record of 48.6% in 1989. Also remember that the last provincial election saw a turnout of a little over 40%. In short Calgarians took this election very seriously, and I think it is fair to say that we, as a city, are expecting results from out representatives. They in turn will now have to figure out how to deliver.

Personally I would like to thank all of the people who sacrificed their time, privacy, peace and quiet and energies to run for office. You all deserve recognition for stepping forward - our system relies on people doing what you did. For those whose hopes were disappointed last night, it is important to remember that not only the winner is important. Stepping forward to advance the issues that are important to you helps shape the conversation, and you all did that. Thank you all.

Going forward the question is whether the scale of Calgarians' involvement with this election, whether in the number and variety of candidates, the voter turnout, the volunteerism or the number of conversations it engendered, indicates that people are going to be more engaged after the election. It is my belief that it does, and that Calgarians, and Albertans more generally, are once again becoming energized about their beliefs and concerns in the public arena. I look forward to what promises to be a most interesting few years!

What's in a Name?

2010-10-15T20:21:00.000-07:00

The negative tone of much contemporary politics in Canada, and even more the case in the United States, is an issue of concern to people from all sides of any given issue. It seems to me, based on prolonged observation, that there is a simple remedy that would go a long way to address the concerns of those lamenting the balkanization of our political discourse: use people's names.

Even if you don't like someone, or their views, show them some respect and use their name. As someone who has trained as an academic I'd be interested to see a correlative study linking the use of derogatory nicknames with the appreciation of complexity in politics. Painting issues in black and white is rarely a good way to accommodate the complexity of the world we live in. Painting policy alternatives, like a given airport tunnel project or piece of legislation, in black and white is even more unlikely to reflect anything resembling their true relationship with reality.

The fundamental point I always aspire to bear in mind is that people of good will can, and will, disagree on any given issue. Our system of Westminster-style democracy is not only designed to accommodate such disagreements, it is dependant on the adversarial contest between diverging views to develop a working consensus. This is perhaps even more the case in our pluralist parliamentary model, as opposed to the unique duopoly the Americans have developed. A substantial majority of our fellow-citizens are good people, so those engaged in our political discourse, whether they be politicians, civil servants, journalists, commentators or concerned citizens, deserve the same assumption.

The use of nicknames, whether simply shorthands or the actively derogatory, is obviously a continuum. However, in order to avoid slipping into the derogatory, or the grey area in which one could be perceived that way, use the simple alternative of the proper noun. So instead of 'Slitherman' or 'Harpo' I try to use Mr. Smitherman or Mr. Harper. In the latter case why not acknowledge his earned title, and call him the Prime Minister? He is, after all, whether I like it or not, and he deserves to be.

In short, I have resolved to combat trolls on the internet and incivility in my speech by aspiring to use the simplest of formal courtesies - the proper name.

Christopher Hitchens on Dealing with Mortality

2010-10-13T13:08:00.000-07:00

I found this piece enormously powerful, and thought it was worth sharing.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/09/hitchens-201009

Calgary's Municipal Election, version 2010

2010-10-06T18:11:00.001-07:00

As the Municipal Election begins to loom here in Calgary I have regularly been asked for my thoughts on the race for Mayor. Having repeated them so many times I may as well post them publicly....

Both of the current front-runners in the polls will not be receiving my support. Ms. Higgins, running an exceedingly cautious campaign based on her name recognition, has yet to provide any reason for me to actually support her. In fact it is difficult for me to recall any serious campaign in the last 15 years in which the candidate offered less insight to their views or policy outlook. Mr. McIvor, whose record as an Alderman was indifferent, has also run a very cautious campaign based on his name recognition and the 'Dr. No' image he cultivated on council. Unfortunately the flip side of the 'Dr. No' reputation is the friction created on council, which certainly doesn't bode well for a Mayor, especially in a city where the mayoralty is a chairman of the board without much inherent power and thus in need of consensus support. The policy framework advanced by Mr. McIvor is also vague and unimpressive, which I suppose is part and parcel with the decision not to risk controversy.

The candidate I would most like to support would be Wayne Stewart, whose resume is impressive and comes very highly recommended by several people I trust. unfortunately I can't see any way for Mr. Stewart to break out of pack of also-rans and actually have a chance to win the race. I believe the same fate awaits Craig Burrows, whom I have been surprisingly impressed with in his attempt to recover from losing his last Aldermanic contest to Joe Connelly.

In the end I think this will leave me supporting Naheed Nenshi for Mayor. Mr. Nenshi's background in business and thinking about municipal issues is impressive, and his policy platform is the most complete and best elucidated. I do worry about his ability to manage a council, since a disconcerting number of his sentences start with "I" and he will need to command the support of seven Aldermen. Several people I know who have worked with him assure me that this won't be a problem, however, and in light of the balance of the race it is a risk I am willing to take.

On a more local level the Aldermanic race here in Ward 7 has caused me more trouble. I had hoped that I would be able to support a replacement for Alderman Farrell, but that is looking unlikely now. The Ward 7 Aldermanic candidate forum put on in the Triwoods Community Centre by Civiccamp was a very useful event. My thanks to all the volunteers who made it happen, and to Civiccamp as a whole for undertaking to put on one of these in every Ward. We as citizens need to have these, and I certainly appreciate having had the opportunity to attend one.

The five candidates attending were the current Alderman, Druh Farrell, James Taylor, Jim Pilling, Elizabeth Cook and Michael Krisko. For a detailed summary of the meeting see http://calgarypolitics.com/2010/09/29/urban-sprawl-and-ward-7/ The event certainly helped me familiarize myself with the options, and there is no substitute for seeing candidates live and in person, talking to them and listening to them answer questions. The result, for me, was that the options to Ms. Farrell underwhelmed me. The only serious challenger appears to be Mr. Taylor, but I have no real idea where he stands on the issues. His presentation, like Ms. Farrell's, is polished, but there is little in what he says to get a hold of. Hence, at the Aldermanic level, I am uncertain and unhappy with my options but leaning toward the incumbent. Inertia certainly isn't the best reason for casting a vote, but in the absence of a compelling alternative....

What to make of the Gun Registry

2010-09-22T12:26:00.001-07:00

The existing Federal Long Gun registry is an issue on which I have mixed feelings.

To begin with it is a flawed peice of legislation, its startup costs were exhorbitant, and its operating costs remain higher than they should be. That said Canada's police chiefs say it is useful, and the current operating costs aren't so extreme that the program should be cancelled on that basis alone. It should, however, be subject to a full review, with the intention of making the program both more useful to law enforcement and cheaper. A committee of the House of Commons with representation from all parties would be the ideal mechanism for this, though it is hard to see how it would work in the current poisoned climate in Ottawa.

Do I think Canadians ought to be able to purchase and own firearms? The answer to that is, unhesitatingly, yes. Do I think they should have to register those firearms? The answer to that is yes as well. It is a question of responsibility; where society is trusting you with a weapon you should be accountable for the maintenance, safety and use of that weapon. We all register our cars for the very same reasons, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we be accountable for our weapons in the same way. This is especially the case for handguns and automatic weapons, whose designed purpose is for use on humans. Long guns in the traditional sense have real and enduring utility outside city limits, but handguns and automatic weapons do not, outside of the pleasures of target shooting or collectors.

The argument that 'criminals don't register their guns' is a disingenuous straw man. It is, of course, partially true - but it is also a red herring. The goal is to restrict their access to weapons, with the acknowledgement that you can never eliminate it entirely, and to reduce gun crime by making it more and more difficult. in Switzerland, where nearly every household has several military-issue firearms, a result of their universal militia service, gun crime is among the lowest in the world. Their system of registration and accountability is one of the most important reasons why.

The other concern most often used by opponents of gun control is that "the government may take away my guns". I'm afraid that, with or without gun control legislation, if the government has reason to then they can certainly do that. Preventing unreasonable search and seizure is a part of the ongoing battle to maintain due process! Another, more reasonable, version of that argument holds that the government can retroactively ban certain weapons, making your formerly legal possession illegal. In my view almost all weapons should be allowed, provided the purchaser meets reasonable requirements, and thus the confiscatory concern should be addressed. Where there should be severe penalties is on the purveyance, and use in criminal activity of, illegal and unregistered weapons.

Given that we register our charitable donations with CRA, file for permits to move plumbing in our houses with city hall (in order to maintain our valid home insurance, if nothing else!), and register our vehicles with multiple authorities it hardly seems unreasonable to me that I should file that I own a deadly weapon.

People who really want to kill will find alternative methods, and there is no way to eliminate crime through legislation. Given the evidence of what stricter attitudes towards the responsibilities of firearms ownership, for example the British or the Swiss, does to crime and injury rates as opposed to the looser attitudes of the United States or Mexico I have to place myself in the stricter camp.

The problem with the Long Gun registry is that it is such a flawed and inadequate measure I'm not convinced it is more a part of the solution than it is a simple obstruction.

EDIT: It appears that the Registry has survived the private member's Bill to abolish it, by the narrowest of margins: 153-151 against. Now I hope there is a Bill introduced with changes to the legislation, to be followed by an open debate on the merits of said changes. Note the use of the word 'hope'.

In Memory of Dr. Margaret Osler

2010-09-21T10:27:00.000-07:00

Last week the University of Calgary lost a superb teacher & scholar, who I deeply admired, and a witty and caring woman, of whom I was very fond.

Dr. Osler joined Calgary's department of History in 1975, and for the next 35 years enriched the world's understanding of the history of science and religion, intellectual history, the mechanical philosophy and the scientific revolution. She helped create the major and minor undergraduate programs in History and Philosophy of Science, the interdisciplinary M.A. and Ph.D. programs in Cultural Studies, and the Research Institute in Gender Studies. She also served as coordinator for the Science, Technology and Society program. Her published work is impressive in volume and quality, and her professional standing was of the first class. All of which was simply a result of her brilliant mind, impatience with guff, and wicked sense of humour.

During the coursework of my PhD I took a seminar with Dr. Osler on the development of the mechanical philosophy in the 16th & 17th centuries, roughly Gassendi through to Newton. It was utterly outside my field, but the opportunity to study with Dr. Osler was not to be missed simply because I was here in Calgary to study something else and didn't have an adequate background to study the topic at that level! My standing in the class could perhaps be best summarized by a comment on the paper I wrote, in the margin of which appeared "For flailing this isn't bad". That was all Maggie - succinct, penetrating, and witty.

As her teaching assistant, something I had the privilege to be more than once, I will always treasure that I was paid to listen to her lectures. How often to we get to listen to a world expert on an interesting field range over the topic with humour and wisdom? She told me more than once that when I "got over that political stuff" I should come and study a 'real' topic with her. I treasure that, and I choose to think that it was more indicative of her opinion of me than the time she snored through my lecture in her class. (In my defence I did better the next time!)

Outside of the University Dr. Osler was active in the Calgary community, dedicating time to the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association and the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, among others. Issues great and small were subject to her acute and occasionally acerbic wit, and to her warmth.

Goodbye Maggie, the world is a poorer and less interesting place without you. You touched many of us, and we won't forget.

The University of Calgary obituary is here:
http://arts.ucalgary.ca/news/dr-margaret-osler-fondly-remembered

'Fixing' what isn't Broken: Tampering with the Census

2010-08-11T13:58:00.001-07:00

I have been startled this last few weeks to witness the extent to which a seemingly esoteric subject, the census, has become a political and conversational issue during the dog days of summer. Here in Calgary I have had a series of conversations about this topic, and so far all of them have been with people upset by the changes. Most people have been concerned by the prospect of impeding the gathering of good data, and everyone I have had the conversation with have been baffled by the government's decision to fix something that manifestly wasn't broken.

The decision by the Conservative government of Mr. Harper to change the long-form census from mandatory to optional was announced and defended on two grounds. First, that the current system was intrusive, and thus needed to be changed on privacy grounds. Second, that because there were legal sanctions attached to a failure to return the mandatory form it was necessary to act in order to protect Canadians from being punished by the state should they decide not to return the form.

Both of these grounds were, sadly, completely fatuous. In the case of the latter it is enough to point out that no Canadian has ever been jailed for the failure to complete the census. If there is a case I've missed on this point please let me know! As for the former, well, there are a series of reasons why that concern makes little or no sense. To begin with it is entirely possible to return the form blank, or with inaccurate answers. Tens of thousands do - witness the write-in answer of 'Jedi' under the religion category over the past few censuses. Secondly anything which identifies your answers with you is held in confidence for 92 years, at which point you will be past caring about what you may have said. Thirdly the data you are submitting via the long form frequently exists elsewhere, in tax filings, building permits, school records etc, all of which are vastly more accessible than the census data. Fourthly, many of us submit vast amounts of personal data to private organizations, whether those be stores or banks, that maintain and are held to a much lower standard of privacy. Finally it should be borne in mind that in an era in which we all can and do complain about things which irritate us every day the last census received a grand total of three, yes three, privacy complaints. I would submit that any private organization that sent out a questionnaire to its membership and received only three complaints would be thrilled; and that on a vastly smaller sample size.

The problems with the proposed new system of a mandatory short-form and a voluntary long-form are manifold. To begin with the mandatory long-form is the fundamental control group for all of the research done in this country by Statistics Canada and most private researchers as well. The mandatory long-form is invaluable because it reaches a huge number of people, the response rate is high and the people are randomly chosen. As a result the data provides a statistical sample size and randomness that is unmatched. This means that its results are accurate even though many people either don't complete it or send back that they are Jedi - these outliers fall off the edges of the curve for any given question and we are left with an enormous sample to work with. the result is data that is internationally admired for its reach, accuracy and completeness. To make the sample voluntary means that response rates fall, and the response rate skews away from a representative sample of Canadians. The worst thing about this is that we won't be able to know how much, or which way, the data has skewed - we will have cancelled the control group we test everything else against.

What I have found fascinating the past few weeks is the number of people I have had this conversation with, many of whom are not political people, much less policy wonks. I have several times been told that we, as Canadians, prefer to settle our differences by appealing to the facts. There seems to be something in the census changes that people recognize as an attack on the facts, or at least the system for gathering them. Last time I checked there were hundreds of groups, ranging from provinces and municipalities to professional groups like statisticians and economists, in opposition to the changes. In favour these was only the government, the National Citizen's Coalition (formerly run by Mr. Harper) and the Fraser Institute. The contrast is educational in and of itself. The issue also seems to have resonated with a much wider section of the public than the narrow element of the Conservative Party's base that the move was intended to satisfy. the polling data the last week indicates that it has hurt the government's standing with voters, though like all polls (especially in the summer) that needs to be placed in context. Unless the opposition is able to make strides towards portraying itself as a viable government-in-waiting then the results are unimportant.

Mr. Clement's announcement today that the government would move the language section of the long-form to the short-form census questionnaire is a transparent effort to avoid the court challenge filed by the Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada. The conflict between the maintenance and extension of the short-form census and the rhetoric about removing the mandatory long-form and protecting citizen privacy from the state is striking.

Another avoidable tragedy for Gaza

2010-05-31T13:01:00.000-07:00

The loss of life on the flotilla attempting to move from Cyprus to Gaza is tragic, but it was also completely avoidable. This is a topic certain to inflame passions, but there were a few points I felt I had to make.

Gaza is under a declared blockade; one declared not by Israel alone, but rather by Israel and Egypt. While Israeli warships and troops carried out the blockade in this instance it is important to remember that a Palestinian ally supports the blockade. The flotilla's organizers refused to follow the protocol of the blockade, docking in either Egypt or Israel to have their cargo inspected and then delivered overland to Gaza. They wanted to make a statement, and they did that.

Obviously the primary focus of the blockade is weapons smuggling. Currently what is known as dual-use material is also restricted from shipment to Gaza under the terms of the blockade, however, as a result of the risk of it being used to support violence and terrorism. Piping and concrete are harmless in and of themselves, but they can become rockets and bunkers. As it stands today the blockade is a hardship on the people of Gaza, but food and medicine are exempt from the blockade and it doesn't add unduly to the humanitarian crisis that is Gaza.

The terms of the Camp David agreements removed Israeli troops from Gaza. they also forbade heavy weaponry to the Palestinian government of Gaza, something that Hamas has been reluctant at best to comply with. (Hence the blockade) Until Hamas realizes that giving up certain kinds of weaponry is one of the prices for peace, just as Egypt is not allowed heavy weaponry and more than a certain number of light soldiers in the Sinai, then the peace process will remain stalled. Israel, of course, needs to make concessions as well, with the most egregious violation on its part of the peace terms being the continued building of settlements on Palestinian land. This is, however, a separate issue.

Running a declared blockade means that you know there is a real possibility of a military response, and by declaring your intention and timeline beforehand you are basically fishing for one. Last night 3 Israeli naval vessels intercepted the flotilla, and presumably were unable to convince them to turn around or dock for inspection in accordance with the blockade. These vessels rightly decided that sinking the ships would be excessive, and elected to use a much lower scale of force. Interestingly the information I've seen indicates that all vessels complied without violence except one, so we'll have to see whether that case involved excessive force or real provocation. Sadly the facts may actually matter very little as the overwhelming majority of people will simply fit this episode into whichever pre-conceived framework they want to.

As a final thought there will be calls for the UN to take action against Israel as a result of this, and the question that I have is why did Israel's opponents give up on the UN to pressure Israel and Egypt to take down the blockade?

Link to Sue Huff on Expense Accounts

2010-05-18T12:22:00.000-07:00

This is a link to a post by Sue Huff (an Edmonton School Trustee) on expense accounts and political culture. Well said, Sue.

http://www.rebootalberta.org/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=expense-accounts-and-the-safety-net-of-transparency.html&Itemid=1

A night with the Alberta Democratic Renewal Project

2010-05-04T21:29:00.000-07:00

Tonight I attended a panel put on by the Alberta Democratic Renewal Project here in Calgary. http://drpcalgary.wetpaint.com/

I should be clear that while I am not a supporter of the ADRP or their specific aims I certainly endorse their passion for Alberta. In addition I’d spent the rest of the day mired in re-working a chapter section on the development of the Bank of England’s 1925 American credit for the return to gold, so some political debate and contact with other human beings was more than welcome. In brief the ARDP is an organization devoted to two goals. In the short term a cooperative alliance or non-compete agreement among opposition parties here in Alberta, which they refer to as progressive parties. The ultimate purpose of this alliance, and their second goal, is to institute a system of proportional representation here in Alberta.

The panel consisted of three speakers: Dr. Avalon Roberts (former Liberal Candidate), Dr. Phil Elder (of the ADRP) and Dr. Doreen Barrie (University of Calgary) standing in for a panelist trapped in Edmonton by the weather. Each panelist spoke for 15 minutes to an audience of approximately 50 people. Typical of most such events the crowd was decidedly monochromatic, well off, well-educated and older, but what the group lacked in variety it made up for in lively engagement. The formal Q & A lasted longer than the talks, and many people stayed later to continue conversing. I don’t know whether the event generated any support for the ADRP, but it certainly succeeded in generating a worthwhile and engaging couple of hours.

As I couldn’t take notes I will simply note some of the themes discussed by the panelists. Dr. Roberts and Dr. Barrie both moved over similar territory; the focus was on declining voter turnout, increasing disengagement from the process, the travails of the current opposition parties and the inadequacies of the provincial government. Dr. Elder spoke on the ADRP’s plans and reasoning, which I will omit as you can find the basics on their website above. The one statement he made that I need to set out is the assertion that the opposition parties here in Alberta have broadly common policies. Questioners of note included Donn Lovett, formerly of the Alberta Liberals and now involved with MLA Dave Taylor, The President of the Alberta Liberal Party and MLA Harry Chase. When he spoke Mr. Chase seemed to be saying that he supported the ideas of the ADRP, but they could never work because of the NDP’s unwillingness to work with the Liberals. Mr. Sansotta’s stepped up later to address a critic of the ALP with some humour, but regrettably did not address any of the issues raised by the panel or other commenter's. Mr. Lovett made a couple of trenchant points about the layout of the Alberta electorate, and the requirements as he saw them of a successful party in the centre.

I had to ask a few questions. To begin I took exception to the repeated assertion that politics in Alberta is moribund or unchanging. What other jurisdiction in Canada has two new parties like our Wild Rose and Alberta Parties, not to mention activist groups like Reboot and the ADRP itself all coming forward at once? Secondly I pointed out that disillusionment might well have more to do with the inaccessibility of parties, and the tiny percentage of the population that belong to one, than the length of the current government. I couldn’t resist noting that most opposition candidates in Alberta are already ‘paper’ candidates, so the plan of the ADRP really only has relevance in perhaps 12-20 ridings in the province, even accepting (which I certainly do not) that the opposition vote could be united. Finally the idea that the Liberals, NDP and Greens share common policies demonstrates far more about the failings of those organizations to define themselves than it does about their commonalities.

So what do I think at the end of the night? For myself I am not sold on the virtues of proportional representation as a system. Provided the basic political culture is healthy it seems like a solution looking for a problem, and if the culture is unhealthy there are a whole new crop of potential abuses – every system has them. As for the idea of non-compete agreement, well, I oppose it on grounds of both principle and practice. To begin with the ADRP is so far from the consciousness of the mass electorate as to be a minor factor in voting intentions at best, so even if such an alliance were signed it could not deliver the votes to one candidate. I also don’t believe that the parties are in fact interchangeable, certainly not to their supporters. In addition I as a voter oppose the limitation of my options, and view diversity of competition as a healthy thing. Besides, with the rise of the Wild Rose it won’t just be the centre/left vote that splits in the next election, will it? All in all I feel that the ADRP’s plan is a poor substitute for a well-organized and well-executed opposition party or two.

That said I think having groups like this coming alive and working to raise awareness and engage people with the system, and trying to change the system, is an essential element of that healthy political culture I talked about earlier. I wish the ADRP people all success in bringing their plan before a wider audience, I just hope that it isn’t adopted!

The Public Accounts Committee and the casual abuse of power

2010-04-14T18:53:00.000-07:00

Politics here in Alberta is certainly lively, both in ways that the rest of Canada will envy, like the recent profusion in parties and movements, and in ways less good, like today's stupidity in the Public Accounts Committee of the Alberta Legislature. To be brief I will quote the Edmonton Journal article linked below:

"Edmonton-Gold Bar MLA Hugh MacDonald was effectively neutered as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee this morning.

On the recommendation of Wetaskiwin-Camrose Tory Verlyn Olson, "all future correspondence on behalf of the public accounts committee (must) be signed by both the chair and deputy chair."
So, before MacDonald can send out e-mails, make plans for future meetings, and demand government bodies make an appearance before the all-party committee, Calgary-Lougheed Tory Dave Rodney (the deputy chair) must give him the nod.

It's an unusual practice, since it doesn't happen in any other legislative committee, all of which are dominated by government Conservatives. Olson's motion this morning was backed by all present government members and opposed by NDP Leader Brian Mason and Calgary-Varsity Liberal Harry Chase. (MacDonald, as the chairman, can't actually vote.)"

As a basic matter of good governance this move by government caucus is appalling. What is the point of such a committee if its every move, even to convene a meeting, essentially requires the permission of the government? The abuse of power, and it is hard to see what else to call it, is especially flagrant given that this is the only significant committee I am aware of that the government doesn't already chair. Was one potentially awkward voice too many? According to the Edmonton Journal's article this is in fact the only committee of the legislature that the government doesn't already chair. As a matter of principle in governance it is best to have oversight committees like this representative of as many views outside the government as possible, to encourage them to ask the kind of questions they need to in order to be effective. Especially with a strong majority situation like we have here in Alberta this kind of oversight is important; the government should welcome an effective opposition voice, especially when it comes without any serious threat in the legislature itself.

Edmonton Journal - Capital Notebook: http://communities.canada.com/EDMONTONJOURNAL/blogs/electionnotebook/archive/2010/04/14/watch-emergency-debate-amp-reporter-accolades.aspx

Daveberta: http://daveberta.ca/?p=2401

**Update**

It appears that there may be a retraction of the offensive motion coming tomorrow, April 21. In addition worth reading this post by Dave Cournoyer to learn who the silent votes on the motion were from the PC caucus. Shame on all 5 of you!
http://daveberta.ca/?p=2492

Enbridge's BC Battle

2010-03-23T15:16:00.000-07:00

Well, it appears that the gloves are off in public for the opponents of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline from Fort McMurray to Kitimat BC. This ad ran in today's Globe and Mail, as well as being widely posted online by the various signatories:

http://blogs.greenpeace.ca/?p=2573

From the the point of view of Enbridge and other players in the oil industry the majority of the signatory list can be referred to in shorthand as 'the usual suspects'. That being said there are a couple of reasons that this public statement is significant. First and foremost the lengthy list of First Nations groups is a serious threat to the very existence of the project. Laying out a pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat that doesn't cross First Nation's land would be awkward, to put it mildly.

In addition the decision to challenge the pipeline on the basis of the risks on the maritime end is smart, on several levels. The ferry Queen of the North was lost in those waters in 2006 and the case has been in the news recently as the lawsuits wend their way through the courts. In addition this threat has enabled Greenpeace and other opponents of the pipeline to get the tourist and fishing industries on board with their opposition, as the organization and business lists reveal. Finally it enables them to challenge the pipeline without reference specifically to the domestic oil industry or the pipeline itself. This last demonstrates that Greenpeace and their allies have learned that threatening jobs and economic growth directly is a counterproductive marketing strategy.

It would be in Alberta's interests to see the development of this pipeline, or some similar project. Creating alternative markets for bitumen and oil outside of our current restrictions would help insure better access to markets, and perhaps a greater degree of competition for our raw product. Currently the pipeline grid means that our options are starkly limited in terms of refinery access - whereas a link to a deep-water port opens the world's refineries to us. Whether or not a modus vivendi can be found that makes this pipeline, or another like it, feasible is something that Alberta in particular and Canada more generally need to pay serious attention to.

* My thanks to @duncankinney for linking and discussing this with me today!

Canadian Impact of the GOP's "waterloo"?

2010-03-22T23:10:00.000-07:00

Here is a link to an opinion piece by David Frum, former special assistant to President Bush in 2001-02 and a prominent conservative commentator south of the border:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/22/frum.healthcare.gop.strategy/index.html

In addition to the interesting take on the political dimensions of the Republican party's challenges there are a couple of storm cloud comments in this piece from the perspective of Canada and Alberta.

Frum begins by acknowledging that 'Obamacare' is now a done deal and that the idea that the Republican party will be able to simply repeal it is ludicrously simplistic. He then focuses in on specific challenges he feels that the GOP needs to address, starting with the means of paying for the program. He identifies minimizing the impact of upper-tier income-tax increases as a priority. "We need to start thinking now about how to get rid of these new taxes on work, saving and investment -- if necessary by finding other sources of revenue, including carbon taxes."

Well Alberta, that is the sound of change coming south of the border. There is already a large faction of the Democratic party working to implement some kind of carbon tax, for one or both of the environmental or fiscal agendas. In the Republican party support for the idea has been more limited, but if Frum and other Republican thought leaders come to see it as a source of revenue to fund some of their liabilities, as well as a possible wedge issue to court certain factions within the Democratic vote, then the likelihood of a serious carbon tax regime of some kind in the next few years goes up markedly.

In addition he makes a couple of comments about the coming shift in the American health insurance market, the impacts of which will be felt on this side of the border as well. I will leave aside his discussion of the market mechanics of a free trade, if such a thing can be said to exist in this case, in health care. The more immediately germane comment is his fourth - that dealing with the potential impact of the punitive provisions of the new health plan on employers who don't meet the new rules. The American recovery is tender, and productivity south of the border, while not as bad as in Canada, is certainly nothing to envy. Given the impact of the American economy on our own we need to be alert for indications of how some of these elements of the plan will play out in practice.

Given the magnitude of the Republican mismanagement of American policy and finances under President Bush it is hard to feel an sympathy for the GOP when Frum concludes "the "Waterloo" threatened by GOP Sen. Jim DeMint last year regarding Obama and health care has finally arrived all right: Only it turns out to be our own."

Reboot 2.0, or herding cats.

2010-03-02T14:43:00.000-08:00

This past weekend was the Reboot Alberta 2.0 conference, which following on the striking success of the first I made time to attend. For my summary of Reboot 1 and some links to other responses see http://myroundhouse.blogspot.com/2009/11/response-to-reboot.html.

I, like the vast majority of the participants, found the November Reboot event profoundly stimulating and energizing. Obviously my hope going in to the second event was that the group would be able to build on that momentum. I was also looking forward to seeing what the larger attendance inspired by the success of the first event would bring; in particular if the event would see the arrival of provincial elected officials. With that said I also wanted to see how the challenges of growth, especially the challenges of raised expectations and the practical difficulties of recapturing the freewheeling discussions of Reboot 1 in a larger group.

The dissatisfaction that motivated many of us to attend the first Reboot, and by extension the second, was put on display for me early Saturday morning. During the first session I found myself at a table with a grade 11 student, who had decided to come (mother in tow) to take part in the event as the result of a trip their school had taken to an MLA-for-a-day event at the legislature. Despite being excited to attend that event what they saw had profoundly disillusioned this individual, who was startled by the blind partisanship and shortsightedness they witnessed. In addition they found the way their group of enthusiastic youth were treated, "like our enthusiasm was cute and they knew they'd never see us again", profoundly off-putting. While this anecdote only speaks directly to the mind of one person the feeling that the system is less responsive and less engaging than it could and should be is, I think, at the root of what created this gathering.

In the event there were several key differences between Reboot 1 and Reboot 2. Firstly it was simply larger; while obviously as an attendee I do not have access to the organizers' information by my count the attendance at Reboot 2 was at least 50% larger than Reboot 1 with at least 120+ in the room on Saturday morning. Secondly Reboot 2 was much more structured in approach than Reboot 1. The structure of the discussions was based on the outlines developed at the first event, which had a couple of important impacts on the weekend.

It was the combination of these two differences which I think led to the initial frustration of the 40 or more of us in attendance who had also been at Reboot 1. Shannon Sortland blogged about this here: http://www.rebootalberta.org/index.php/home/my-initial-rebootab-20-thoughts-pre-230pm-saturday-by-shannon-sortland.html In short many of us who had attended the first event felt like much of the activity on Saturday was a 'Cole's notes' version of Reboot 1 - or perhaps more accurately a remedial course for the majority of the attendees who had not been at the first event. At the time, like Shannon, I found this very frustrating. As the day wore on, and in the days since, I have realized that my frustration reflected an unrealistic desire to forge ahead on the assumption that everyone who had missed the first event had somehow absorbed all of the information arising from it nonetheless. In fact until mid-afternoon on Saturday what we were doing, in fact, was not building on the previous event but bringing a wider circle of people up to speed on the conversation.

The fact that this process went as quickly as it did was the up side of the structuring of the event based on the 'streams' arising from Reboot 1. What the use of the outcomes of Reboot 1 cost Reboot 2 was the magic of that open-ended process. That being said I'm not at all sure that with the numbers present at last weekend's meeting that the methodology of the first meeting could have worked anyway. At Reboot 1 the discussion group for "Change within the existing system" had 14 of us. On Saturday afternoon I was part of a group of 30. 14 people is a manageable conversation, 30 is much less so and requires more structure and provides less interactivity.

As a result by Saturday afternoon, despite some really excellent exchanges and good ideas, I was getting frustrated that we didn't seem to be breaking any new ground. That said I would like to thank everyone in the final afternoon session - I thought there were a lot of interesting/challenging things said! On the whole I was frustrated at the outcome of Saturday as we ended the formal sessions, as I had come looking to exchange ideas on action to be taken, not the continued identification of problems. the problem here is, of course, that my dissatisfaction was completely unreasonable. First of all you can never recapture the magic of a new thing. Secondly the connections and conversations taking place were invaluable, and need to be acknowledged as such independent of my personal agenda going in. Where else in Alberta last weekend were PC MLAs, Liberal Strategists, NDP researchers and Wild Rose members all sitting down to talk with unaffiliated citizens and people from the civil service, the ATB and a spectrum of non-profits?

Things began to turn around for me personally almost as soon as dinner was served, however. My table, a most lively collection of people, was positively abuzz with ideas and proposals on how to effect changes of all kinds moving forward. Having a bunch of spontaneously witty people certainly helped liven things up too, though I certainly didn't add much to that part myself, sadly. Following that the migration of a large part of the overall group to a pub certainly helped shake things up too, mixing up individuals and groups rather thoroughly.

The upshot was a Sunday session completely different in tone and nature than Saturday. In short Sunday was what I came for - the 'OK, now what?" phase. A series of ideas, proposals and metrics were advanced for further discussion via http://www.rebootalberta.org/ and the forums community there. I encourage Albertans of every stripe to join that community and the conversations taking place there! It would have been good to have seen more representation from the Wild Rose, and the absence of the folks from the Manning Centre was also a loss. Other than that I found the variety of voices in the room both stimulating and encouraging, as was the sheer depth of knowledge available on a wide range of public policy challenges.

I learned a great deal last weekend, and I look forward to learning a great deal more in the months to come. It is in that arena of exchanging ideas and facilitating conversation that I see the future of Reboot - a larger-scale civic camp perhaps, or a common area for people of divergent interests and inclinations to meet and exchange ideas and arguments without the direct investment of partisan competition. As a movement to improve the exchange of ideas and help promote a healthier political culture here in Alberta I definitely think there is a place for Reboot as we move forward.

Calgarians Against Proroguing Parliament

2010-01-21T16:29:00.000-08:00

The Calgarians Against Proroguing Parliament, a non-partisan outgrowth of the 208,000 member Facebook group, is hold a rally outside Mr. Harper's office on Saturday. I'll be attending, and hope some of the other Calgarians that read this blog will too.

Date: Saturday January 23rd
Time: 1 pm
Location: Outside Mr. Harper's office at 1600 - 90th Avenue SW, Calgary

www.noprorogue.ca/calgary/

Letter to the Herald

2010-01-10T19:21:00.000-08:00

I wrote a letter to the Calgary Herald this week, which appeared in the Sunday edition.

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper claims that this extended break is to allow the government to consult with Canadians over the economy. If that is the case, I will expect my MP, Rob Anders, to be in his office every day between now and March 3. In addition, I expect to see consultation meetings within the constituency scheduled immediately. I'll be checking, and I encourage others to do the same.

Thomas Muir, Calgary"

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/letters/Check+them/2425734/story.html

PC MLAs defect to Wild Rose

2010-01-04T12:23:00.000-08:00

The news this morning that Rob Anderson and Heather Forsyth were leaving the Alberta PC party and joining the Wild Rose Alliance party and caucus has, predictably, generated a lot of commentary. In light of that commentary I think a couple of points need to be reiterated.

First of all during the last election the Premier, his staff and advisers were hoping to win somewhere in the area of 55-65 seats - a massive majority of the 83 total. They wound up with the unwieldy total of 72, a majority of exotic magnitude. At this point the PC government still commands more seats than they had hoped to win in the past election. It is also over two years to the next election - we're still in the first period of this game so let's not jump to conclusions.

Secondly the defections hardly constitute major losses to the PCs, or game-changing additions to the Wild Rose. Given the changing dynamics of Alberta politics and the inflated size of the PC caucus some defections to the Wild Rose were almost inevitable. If the government is able to keep the losses to such minor figures and Mr. Anderson and Ms. Forsyth then they will have done well. Neither of them has the stature to constitute a significant threat to the PC's standing.

Finally I think it is worth noting that the Wild Rose and the two defectors have certainly not gained the maximum political traction from the opportunity this move created. Had they paired the news of the defections with a major policy platform announcement they would have had the opportunity to fix both the event and Mr Anderson/Ms. Forsyth in the public mind. Instead they are likely to be forgotten or simply remembered as 'the defectors'. Another idea would have been to pair the announcement of the defection with the news of the cabinet shuffle or a major news story negative to the PCs. Whether this opportunity has gone begging due to a lack of vision or simply lack of discipline I certainly cannot say, but the fact is that done in this way the defections will have less impact than they could have had.

Mr. Anderson's Statement:

http://67.205.105.189/RobAnderson/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83:rob-joins-wildrose-alliance&catid=69:press-releases

Calgary Herald Article:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgary+area+MLAs+defect+Wildrose+saying+concerns+addressed+Tories/2403794/story.html

Public Assets

2009-12-19T09:16:00.000-08:00

Over the past week both the government of Canada and the government of Ontario have begun looking into the possibility of asset sales to help with their budget deficits.

Ontario: www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ontario-ponders-sale-of-crown-corporations-to-beat-down-deficit/article1401807/

Canada: www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-puts-its-nuclear-pride-on-the-block/article1404807/

Given the scale of the deficits - an expected $55 billion for the federal and approaching $30 billion for Ontario - the decision to examine this option is unsurprising. It is also an extremely bad idea should it be taken past the examination phase, however.

In the case of AECL there are issues with giving away the growth potential of the business, but the real objection lies in the area of intellectual property. The CANDU reactor patents, while there has been a dearth of recent sales, have generated revenue in the past and there is a real prospect of significant growth in nuclear power over the next decade. The recent bankruptcy of Nortel, which the government should have prioritized supporting ahead of American auto makers, meant that a number of patents were sold off at fire sale prices. The liscencing fees that Canadian governments and companies will now have to pay to access those technologies will cost considerably more than a support package would have. To repeat the mistake with AECL would be simple incompetence.

The Ontario case provides an even more powerful case for retaining the assets. The LCBO generates approximately $1.5 billion in net revenue, and the OGLC another $600 million. In other words the structural hole in Ontario's budget would be at least $2.1 billion larger next year, and every year going forward. Both the liqour monopoly and the lottery are cash cows that support the program spending of other departments, and to sell them off in order to make one year's defecit smaller is like accepting a pay cut in order to shrink this month's credit card bill!

The deficits themselves are bad enough, though the current low interest rates will most likely put off the real pain from them for at least 6 months or so until they start to rise significantly again. These proposed asset sales will not raise enough money to cover the shortfalls even for this year, and will cost our citizens money even in the short term, much less the long term. They are, in short, political optics masquerading as policy - and a damned bad policy at that.

Excellent Questions

2009-12-05T19:27:00.000-08:00

I strongly recommend that those who live in or are interested in Alberta read the following post by Mr. Cournoyer on his "Daveberta" blog: http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/12/not-so-tough-economics-times-for-some.html

He poses with clarity several of the issues that have been irritating me for some time. Well worth the time to read!

Also Sue Huff of the Edmonton Public Schools created this new blog, opening with some fundamental questions for the majority of Albertans who didn't vote in the last provincial election - why not and what would inspire you to do so?

http://inspired2vote.blogspot.com/

A Response to Reboot

2009-11-30T16:21:00.001-08:00

I want to post some initial responses to Reboot Alberta.

To begin I want to thank Dave King, Ken Chapman and the other organizers for making this event happen; and to thank Bryna and Xanthe for their great work keeping everything running so smoothly. I would also like to thank everyone who attended for providing an impressive combination of intensity and goodwill that made the open-ended organic format of the weekend work so well. Reboot Alberta turned out to have been perhaps the single most interesting conference or event I have ever attended.

At the first session on Saturday someone said “There is a real feeling that the existing parties are failing to address our needs” during the preamble to their remarks. This is as good a starting point as any for how and why this disparate group of people gathered in Red Deer on the Grey cup weekend to talk politics, policy and citizenship. The variety of interesting and articulate people at Reboot was exceptional. There were current and former elected officials, ranging from school trustees to cabinet ministers, partisans of all parties from both the elected and back room crowds, commentators and business people. This diverse crowd of interesting and articulate people gathered together to explore how public life in Alberta might be improved and what it means to be ‘progressive’, if anything. I was impressed by the respectful intensity of the weekend – everyone had something to offer but everyone also wanted to hear what others had to say and the result was an extraordinary experience.

There were a great many sessions running, and obviously I only participated in a small minority of them. There are three that I did participate in that I wanted to talk about, starting with the session on “What is a progressive”. The variety of the weekend was certainly visible in this sessions, which included a PC and Liberal who had rarely sat at an event together without coming to (verbal) blows who warily found that in many respects their concerns matched, if not their prescriptions. The session felt in many ways like we were looking for the walls of a dark room – we knew they were there but not where they were or how they were laid out. In the end there was a broad consensus on a few issues but no definition of what a progressive might be.

I also participated in two sessions around the idea of creating a new political party here in Alberta. Both sessions were large and lively, especially as they included people of every viewpoint on the matter – for, against, and uncommitted or waiting to see what form such a party might take. All of these positions were discussed and many ideas about what parties are and should be were fielded. In the event it looks like the people behind the Renew Alberta initiative are going to move forward with the creation of a party. For what it is worth I wish them luck, these kind of initiatives are essential for the health of our system. It was interesting to see the depth of dissatisfaction with the functioning of our existing parties, whether it be the culture of entitlement in some or of defeat in others, even from those who are committed members of one or the other.

The last session I participated in that I wanted to mention specifically was one on how to improve Alberta through the operation of the existing political system in the province. Thirteen of us (out of 90 or so!) decided that this was the mechanism of change we wanted to discuss, and that group ranged across the political spectrum and generations. I was struck, powerfully so, that this group of highly partisan type A personalities proceeded to have one of the most respectful, on-topic and frank discussions I’ve ever been a part of. No-one so much as interrupted, which is a level of civility I rarely see even among friends! The other striking thing about this session was that we all shared a great many concerns about the functioning of the system, even those from the government or governing party. Unfortunately solutions for these issues within the context of the existing system were thinner on the ground and we were essentially forced to concede that changes are needed.

That session brought out many of the issues that everyone at the event seemed to feeling. There was a lot of dissatisfaction with the ‘dumbing down’ of politics and public life, and the nastiness that seems to have increasingly crept in. This is perceived by many, myself included, as a part of the general devaluing of our systems and institutions in general, even by those who are a part of them. I would argue that this is one of the most important areas for us to address, whether you define yourself a ‘progressive’ or anything else. As an element of that is the notable dissatisfaction with the way parties work – whether the frustration of those both within or without the existing ones or those engaged in starting new ones, whether the Wild Rose or the Renew Alberta people. The range and importance of these issues is certainly sufficient to explain the turnout and the passion at Reboot Alberta.

Finally there is the question of what, if anything, will come of the weekend. Firstly Reboot connected a number of people who otherwise would not have met, provided many short term benefits in terms if ideas and conversation. In the long term who knows what those ideas and connections will lead to? Secondly the fielding and discussion, in a very open and extended format, of a wide variety of interesting ideas provided a lot of learning opportunities. Perhaps even more importantly the format and people at this event generated a lot of energy - people left brimming with energy and ready to take action, whatever their field of endeavour. Finally, in addition to the other potential benefits, the experience was so singular that efforts are being made to maintain contact through a Reboot Alberta virtual community, an effort I certainly support and will be a part of. In short there is a very real potential that Reboot Alberta may have introduced an ongoing variable to public life in Alberta, and I am looking forward to seeing how that variable impacts the game.

Some other responses to be found here:
Alex Abboud - http://alexabboud.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/rebooting-alberta-instant-reaction/
Chris Labossiere -http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/11/28/i-just-rebooted-myself-and-it-feels-good.html
Dave Cournoyer - http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/11/reboot-alberta-211pm.html
Andrew Mcintyre - http://andrewmcintyre.ca/2009/11/29/rebooting-democracy-in-alberta/
DJ Kelly - http://djkelly.ca/2009/11/progress-and-respect/
Alberta Altruist - http://thealbertaaltruist.blogspot.com/2009/11/my-thoughts-on-rebootab-movement.html
Johnathan Teghtmeyer - http://atypicalalbertan.blogspot.com/2009/11/progressives-gather-to-reboot-alberta.html

Modernizing the Party

2009-11-26T18:33:00.000-08:00

Jason Morris wrote a blog entry on some changes he would like to see in the political process, the link is in my last post. One of his proposals was to vest more power in what he called the ‘super caucus’ – essentially nominated candidates as well as elected members. The idea is interesting, and reflects something I have long wanted to see at the Federal level. The idea serves two purposes: empowering local associations of the membership regardless of the current status of a seat and widening the pool of talent available to party leaderships. Both are good things, and I think that this is an idea every party should be pursuing, especially as it entails relatively little disruption in the existing process.

One of the basic ideas I would like to see enacted here in Alberta is the creation of a neutral 3rd-party election authority, along the lines of Elections Canada or Elections BC. This body would be created to take control over managing elections, hiring elections officials and the management of district boundaries. The removal of all of these things from the partisan realm is simply good management, as it removes several obvious conflicts of interest and creates stability in the management of these important logistical matters.

Perhaps more importantly I agree with Mr. Morris and many others that it is time for a major renovation of the political party, and there is no reason not to start here in Alberta. Political parties are a practical response to the requirements of democratic, in particular representative-style, government. From the beginnings of their modern form in 18th-century Britain they have been criticized for promoting ‘faction’ or partisanship over good governance. In fact the pamphlets known as Cato’s Letter’s by Gordon and Trenchard, dating from the early 1720’s, concerned with promoting and defending freedom of conscience and speech, spent a considerable amount of time on the issue. Perhaps ironically over this lengthy series of pamphlets there are very few debating points on the issue of parties, even today, that are not dealt with.

( Cato’s Letters: http://classicliberal.tripod.com/cato/ I recommend these highly, the writing is excellent and many of the issues retain their interest. In addition these were central documents in the evolution of both British and American thinking, with a contemporary impact as substantial as Locke’s. My apologies for the digression!)

What are the dominant characteristics of our parties today? First of all they are, relative to the population, small. This small size makes them, to greater or lesser degrees, closed clubs with a fixed membership. Secondly their membership is not representative of the electorate, being on the whole wealthier, older and whiter. Thirdly they are very much, and avowedly, top-down organizations that make little effort to engage with and empower the bulk of their membership, focusing instead on their elites. This makes them rigid, as well as reinforcing the preceding characteristics.

The changes in our information environment and the rise of social media threaten organizations like this with going the way of Eaton’s. Already the federal parties are trying to use social media, online forums and improved databasing; the issue is that they haven’t yet actually changed their cultures. One of the topics I most look forward to discussing at Reboot Alberta this weekend is how the political party as we know it can be reformed to make it more responsive to and representative of citizens, through the use of these new tools and media. It is my belief that we now have the opportunity to flatten the organization of our political parties, increasing the access for and importance of the individual members.

Political Labels

2009-11-19T15:47:00.000-08:00

This post is largely in response to the growing dialogue surrounding Reboot Alberta, the site for which is here: http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/

In particular This blog post from Chris LaBossiere: http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/11/15/meet-chris-the-progressive-capitalist.html
and this one from Jason Morris:
http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/thoughts-on-how-to-do-politics-differently/
both speak to issues I have been giving some thought to lately and are worth responding to.

In essence Mr. LaBossiere's post has contributed to the conversation I have been having with myself about how to define political orientations and positions in our increasingly complex political firmament. Mr. Morris' post relates to my other major intellectual engagement with our political system these days - how do we modernize the structure of the political party to provide a better, more open and effective organization through which our citizens can contribute to the body politic? More on the latter in a post tomorrow, today I want to deal with the question of definitions.

The left/right dichotomy is over two hundred years old at this point, dating as it does from the National Convention of 1791, and over the years these terms' meanings have grown and changed constantly. Originally strictly referring (via seating arrangements relative to the chamber's speaker) to the political loyalties of the members, either royalist or montagnard. With the growth of economic factors in politics the terms grew to accommodate these ideas as well during the 19th century.

Where does that leave us today? In short it leaves us with an old, inflexible and ineffective terminology in general use for describing one another's political views. The result is a hampered dialogue, in which the label assigned frequently fails to convey any useful information, or at least insufficient information. We are in a similar position to a cook whose labels all read "bitter" or "sugary" - we have some information but not enough to make anything beyond the most basic dish.

This tool http://www.politicalcompass.org/ reflects some of the scholarship from the world of political science by marking out people's views on two axes - Authoritarian/Libertarian and communitarian/capitalist. By adding only one more variable a much more useful set of descriptors is created, but as Mr. LaBossiere points out the result still doesn't allow for much individuality. That, fundamentally, is the challenge for Canadian political institutions and representatives - they now exist in a highly individualized and open information environment. As a result citizens are demanding increased attention and, dare I say it, flexibility from their leaders and representatives. The era of the loyal voter, or the one-issue voter, is drawing to a close in Canada and other democracies simply because people are now able to engage with their interests and make choices in a much more flexible way than ever before.

For myself I am in most senses a 19th-century liberal - interested in the greatest possible individual liberty and minimal interference in the lives of its citizens by the state, while still believing that there are spheres appropriate for government action and believing that in those spheres government can accomplish much good. As a result, depending on the issue, I can swing from 'left' to right' quite dramatically; sometimes I am hard to pin down on even individual issues. For example I am a great believer in universal public health care, both on the principle that all citizens should have access to quality care and on the basis that universal provision, via the economies of scale, has proven to be cheaper and more efficient than any other method. Left and right in the same response.

One of the elements I most look forward to at Reboot Alberta is a discussion with a number of people whose thoughts I have enjoyed and been stimulated by about these topics.

Women's Ski Jumping and VANOC

2009-11-13T20:00:00.000-08:00

Today the legal effort to use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to force the IOC and VANOC to allow the women to compete was essentially ended when their appeal was dismissed by a judge in Vancouver. http://www.ctvolympics.ca/ski-jumping/news/newsid=19752.html#olympic+dream+dashed+women+jumpers

As I understand it the fundamentals of the case are as follows. All Olympic events are required by the IOC to have some form of world championship, either via single event or series, as well as national qualifiers to reach that level, to establish international seeding and Olympic eligibility. Women's ski jumping has so few participants and such a limited formal structure that these requirements were not met, and as a result the event was not allowed in. In an attempt to get around the IOC's refusal a number of the athletes and their representatives filed for an injunction from a Canadian court to force VANOC to allow the event over the IOC's objections.

the requirements of the IOC for inclusion were simply not met. Many other sports, including the case of Karate, which is near and dear to my heart, have been unable to get in for one reason or another - but this is an entirely separate kind of case. Ski jumping is in, the issue here is that there are either not enough participants to create the same competition structure that other athletes must pass to qualify or there is no organization to administer the same. Both of these are issues that can be addressed in order to assure access to future games, and the IOC has said as much.

While I am in general a passionate advocate of insuring equal treatment regardless of gender this does not seem to me to be a gender treatment issue. Women's ski jumping wasn't disallowed because it was for women, it was disallowed because every other athlete going to Vancouver had to compete for the right to go, and these ski jumpers would not have had to do so.

In a Twitter exchange with Senator Grant Mitchell he asked me:
@SenMitchell So what. Why can't we see past the bureaucratic to the just and equal?

This is a good point, and something we should always aspire to do - keep our eye on the principle and not get lost in the process. That said I still believe that the inclusion of women in every event shouldn't be a goal that trumps the ideal of elite competition which to me lies at the heart of the games. Set out a process by which every athlete in a given sport qualifies the same way, and once the best in the world gather may the best woman on the day win. Allowing some athletes in 'by the side door' in order to balance the number of men's and women's competitions demeans the accomplishments of the athletes concerned. In addition, since the IOC's decision was made based on clear criteria which the athletes could have met I fail to see how any of their rights were violated - they were simply asked to meet the same standards as other athletes.

Interestingly this line of thought is taking me into thinking about the Title 9 debate in the United States. As I would have to say I would have been a supporter of Title 9 the fact that my view of this case is somewhat different intrigues me. I shall have to come back to this again.

Remembrance Day

2009-11-10T12:58:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow is Remembrance Day, and I wanted to post this list of events that will be happening around the city of Calgary.

- The Military Museums, 4520 Crowchild Tr. S.W. Ceremony begins at 10:40 a.m. Free parking and admission. Always a large event, so come a little early to get parking nearby/ a good spot.

- Jubilee Auditorium, 14th Street and 16th Avenue N.W. Doors open at 9:30 a.m., service begins at 10 a.m., followed by a small ceremony at the Memorial Park Cenotaph, 4th Street and 11th Avenue S.W, at 11 a.m. There will be a more extensive service and wreath laying ceremony at the cenotaph at 12:15 p.m.

- Naval Museum of Alberta, 1820 24th St. S.W., 11 a.m. ceremony on HMCS Tecumseh Drill Deck.

- CPR service, Gulf Canada Square, 10:45 a.m.

- Battalion Ridge, overlooking Westhills Towne Centre. Ceremony with scouts from Dover and Victoria Park starts at 9 a.m.

Personally given the importance of the day and the meaning it holds for me given my family history I prefer to attend a public event, as a statement of sorts. To my mind it is most important to remember, but it is also important to remember together. If the purpose of the day is to memorialize sacrifice then it is also important to think about what sacrifice for the common good can mean, so it seems appropriate to do so as a community standing together. This year I will be volunteering at the Military Museums ceremony as well, in order to contribute a little bit to making that event run smoothly.

Both of my grandfathers volunteered in 1939/40, and it was the middle of 1945 before either of them returned to their homes. They spent longer in uniform during the war than I have spent working on acquiring a PhD, voluntarily giving up a large chunk of their lives and accepting considerable danger because they felt it was the right thing to do. We take our safety and prosperity sufficiently for granted that we often fail to consider the obligations imposed by our privileges - the responsibilities that are the twins of our rights.

Come on out tomorrow and join other members of our community remembering those who have accepted their responsibilities to us, and paid a price for doing so.

The PC AGM and Alberta

2009-11-07T22:45:00.000-08:00

Been a busy week buried in the late 1920's, but this weekend's Alberta PC AGM is too interesting not to say something about. I'm still waiting to hear from the people I know who were there, but interesting commentary is starting to appear. A few examples, to be amended once the weekend is over and the commentators have time to mull things over.

David Climenhaga:
http://diary.davidclimenhaga.ca/2009/11/77-solution-its-good-enough-for-now-but.html
Dave Cournoyer:
Before - http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/11/whats-going-to-happen-at-pc-leadership.html
After - http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/11/774-proof.html
Alex Abboud:
http://alexabboud.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/state-of-alberta-at-a-crossroads/
Ken Chapman:
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-alberta-about-to-enter-empire-of.html
Chris LaBossiere:
Before: http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/10/25/run-up-the-middleto-the-right-of-centre.html
After:http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2009/11/8/evolving-thoughts-on-ed-stelmach-and-the-pc-party.html
Duncan Wojtaszek:
http://www.phendrana.ca/2009/10/red-deer.html

My personal view is that the leadership 'review' was always something of a manufactured story, given that Premier Stelmach was recently elected to an overwhelming majority and the PC party here in Alberta certainly doesn't need any self-inflicted wounds at this time. The Premier's 77+ % support was actually lower than I had expected, but in a free vote it qualifies as an overwhelming win. Of course the people voting are those who are shelling out the $400 or so to attend the convention, and are members of the party and have a vested interest in the success of the government.

What is really going to be interesting about this weekend's event going forward is whether or not the PCs are able to move forward with any sense of unified purpose or clarity. The party has, along with the government, appeared limp and lost for several years. With a new challenger arising on its home turf the Alberta PCs will, along with the opposition parties, have to take stock and tighten themselves up. Has the AGM helped the party do that, or are a number of the people the party is going to need moving forward still drifting away to either disengagement or other parties?

As a final point it is worth noting that calling the Wild Rose Alliance a 'mortal threat' or anything along those lines to the Alberta PC government is like calling the Colorado Avalanche the Stanley Cup champions based on October's play. Far too early, and these are the games that count the least. It is years to the next provincial election, folks, so lets see where we are in the weeks to come and how that moves forward.

Besides, the government can hardly look much worse after the disastrous budget numbers, the H1N1 mismanagement, the rising unemployment and general communications incompetence of the last few months. Much like Toronto's suffering Leafs they almost have to get better - don't they?

Stelmach's response to the Pembina Report

2009-10-31T16:55:00.001-07:00

The batting around of numbers in political discourse is an ongoing source of frustration to me, since the context that gives the number relevance is often (or even usually) omitted. This is especially prominent in discussions of economics or economic policy, where to put it crudely there are a lot of numbers to choose from.

For a recent example, and some demystification, I strongly recommend this post by Aaron Braaten on his excellent blog. http://www.grandinite.com/2009/10/30/ed-meet-data-data-ed/

More Climate Change Policy Conversation

2009-10-29T09:48:00.001-07:00

Just a quick post to share some information.

First of all a link to Jeffrey Simpson's article in today's Globe and Mail regarding Canada's policy toward the upcoming Copenhagen climate change conference. To quote -

"Once before, Canada went to a climate-change conference, at Kyoto, and made promises it could not and did not keep. It would appear a repeat performance is in the making. Or, to put things differently: new government, same script."

The article is worth a read.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/once-again-climate-change-promises-ottawa-cant-keep/article1342392/

On a more inormative note a report is now available on the topic from the Pembina Institute/Toronto Dominion Bank/David Suzuki Foundation & can be found here:

http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/climate-leadership-report-en.pdf

For other policy nerds the math which supports the above report, from MK Jaccard & Associates, can be found here:

http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/mkja-climate-targets-report.pdf

Thanks to Trish Audette of the Edmonton Journal for pointing me to the links.

Minister Prentice's response to the report was certainly not positive - "The conclusions [the report] draws are irresponsible" - but he hasn't advanced any data or analyses on behalf of the government. It is my profound hope that the government provides us with something more interesting than the obviously empty platitudes that have been advanced for the Copenhagen delegation. I am not wedded to any particular policy at this point, but I have become actively interested in doing research into the sustainability of our current economic models. I would also like to point out that Climate Change, or global warming if you will, is only a small part of the sustainability question. I look forward to a positive program from Minister Prentice at the earliest date!

Globe article on Mr. Prentice's response:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/climate-change-report-irresponsible-prentice-says/article1344485/

*Late Edit* Read some thoughts on this from Ken Chapman on his blog here:

http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-leadership-and-economic.html

Reboot Alberta

2009-10-27T19:15:00.000-07:00

In ironic counterpoint to the exasperation of my last point I have booked myself a trip to Red Deer in November to take part in the Reboot Alberta event.

This event has the potential to be a very interesting thing, building on the success of events like Change Camp Edmonton (http://www.changecampedmonton.ca/) and Civic Camp Calgary ( http://www.civiccamp.net/index.php?title=Main_Page). The statement of intent reads "a weekend for Progressive Albertans to spend some time together for creating and exploring a new public policy map for the next Alberta. It will be an open-ended experience for progressive thinking Albertans to consider what their political voice should be in the next Alberta. It will be about how to get the progressive voice heard in the governance and politics of our province."

I am excited to see what develops at the event, especially in terms of finding ways to increase people's day-to-day engagement with their government and the development of good public policy.

Reboot Alberta site:
http://rebootalberta.wordpress.com/

Ken Chapman (organizer)
http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2009/10/reboot-alberta-is-about-to-happen-what.html

Dave Cournoyer (mentions it in his blog)
http://daveberta.blogspot.com/2009/10/reboot-alberta.html

Off to a Good Start, Apparently

2009-10-27T14:03:00.000-07:00

Nice to see that the Alberta Legislature is opening with intelligent and mature debate on the issues. (Sarcasm Alert)

Premier to Brian Mason: "I'll take the word of this nurse [Min. Fritz] over the word of a bus driver any time" (via @davecournoyer and @JProssa)

an obviously unworthy ad-hominem attack, which led to an amusing question via twitter:

@BreakenNews @davecournoyer I wonder why he didn't identify himself as a university drop-out.

Wouldn't it be nice if our elected representatives could keep their eyes on the public-interest ball as opposed to venting their partisan passions on one another?

Security Certificates Extinct?

2009-10-26T09:32:00.000-07:00

While catching up on The Economist this morning I found this little article on the failure of Canadian Security Certificates law to pass muster with the courts. http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14700736

It has been my opinion that the certificates are fundamentally flawed as a legal mechanism, and so their tenuous future is to my mind a good thing. The Anti-Terrorism Act already covers the procedures necessary, and is not an egregious exception to the general practice of our common law. What did catch my attention was the last paragraph, for several reasons.

"This is not a government that admits its mistakes, so there will be no public repudiation of the certificate programme for use in catching terrorists. It will be quietly discarded. But that may not be the last Canadians hear of it. One of the former detainees has publicly mused about suing the government now that he is free."

That summary is, sadly, quite accurate, and the lawsuit will more than likely be successful.

Stimulus and Partisanship

2009-10-20T09:52:00.000-07:00

I had this article brought to my attention this morning: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1147994.html

It is worth diving into the comments section as well, there is some interesting by-play there.

I share the author's serious concerns about the systemic obfuscation regarding the stimulus spending. Whether or not there are partisan abuses of the system is hard to say, given that it is almost impossible to ascertain what money is in fact spent, or committed, and what stage of planning the projects concerned are at. Based on my research there are certainly enough gaps to be concerned, but not enough information to be definitive.

Obviously it is my opinion that this information should be easily and freely available - in as much detail as possible. Sadly this government appears to oppose, as both Conservative and Liberal governments have in the past, free access to public information. What the Harper government has managed, however, is to promote stonewalling to an art form. Given the reform roots and the passionate cries for transparency and grassroots engagement that informed that movement under Mr. Manning it is particularly depressing to see the lengths to which Mr. Harper and his government are going to prevent just such transparency.

Following the Wrong Road

2009-10-19T12:59:00.000-07:00

The progress of Bill C-25, which will end the so-called 'two for one credit', though Parliament troubles me. Bill C-25 would end the common practice of giving criminals a two-for-one credit for time served in jail before being sentenced. Instead, the bill would have judges give them a straight credit for time served. The political optics of getting 'tough on crime' in this way are sufficiently obvious that they can be passed over without elaboration.

That said the idea that 'criminals need to be in jail' is both simplistic and incorrect. Obviously I am not talking about serial killers or sexual predators here, and my feelings about things like the Karla Homolka case are undoubtedly very close to the of Minister Van Loan. This class of criminal makes up a tiny percentage of the people brought before our courts, however, and as the exceptions are a truly terrible sample on which to base the rule.

Two issues are problematic with this bill: the lack of costing and the absence of discussion or planning for what this means for our correctional system. Apparently the bill has been costed, but the numbers can not be released because of cabinet confidentiality. This is completely unacceptable - the lawmakers of the land are being asked to vote into law a bill that the government doesn't want them to see the numbers for? Not to mention it is difficult to see how cabinet confidentiality applies in this case, as the bill is an open matter before the house and no national security interests are at issue. That being said data from Statistics Canada indicates that the bill will lead to at least a 10 per cent increase in the federal prison population, and costs well over $100-million a year.

The cost is, of course, just a number. In point of fact it isn't, unless the Cabinet knows something that they don't want us to know, a terribly large number either. More important than the dollar number is the increase in the prison population. What this bill completely fails to discuss is what correctional services across the country are supposed to do with these new inmates, or how to reduce the numbers in the future or prevent recidivism among those convicted of crimes.

Moving beyond the problems I have with the particulars, or more accurately the lack of particulars, are the flawed principles that motivate it. What our government is proposing to do, in a smaller and less explicit way, is to follow the path blazed in the United States over the past 20 years. The process of mandatory sentencing and restrictions on options other than prison has led to a situation where there are now 2.3 million people incarcerated and another 5 million or so on parole or probation in the United States. To put his in perspective approximately one in every 18 men in the United States is behind bars or being monitored - an outcome that simply screams failure.

Restricting the Criminal Justice system's options is not actually helpful, as the administration of justice is as complex as the people the system serves. The government has not made a case that the 'two-for-one' practice is a serious flaw in the system. More importantly this bill strikes me as advancing an agenda of unthinking rigidity in the administration of Justice, the failed results of which are visible south of the border.

Profit, Regulation and Responsibility

2009-10-06T11:37:00.000-07:00

The last few years have put several of our economy's weaknesses on prominent display. Lack of basic regulation, excessive lending/borrowing (on the assumption of permanent growth!) and a series of issues with corporate governance have all been themes that have impacted the last few years' recession. This article from Sunday's New York Times discusses a few of the themes as related to private equity firms and the case of Simmons Mattresses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1 (my thanks to @abraaten for bringing the article to my attention)

It is important to move past the knee-jerk negative reaction to the operations of Equity Firms and other financial sharks - they are an important part of the economic system. That said there are glaring problems with corporate governance and basic regulatory standards revealed in this case study. Make no mistake, I am a great fan of the competitive capitalist model - without pressure from some kind of constraint there is no efficiency in any undertaking. That said there is also no such thing as a completely free market, unless piracy counts I suppose.

The question isn't the false dichotomy of regulation vs. deregulation, the issue is what the details of regulation will be. Fundamental ignorance about the complexity of the system leads to pointless discussions about straw-man issues.

We as Canadians and Americans need to elevate the conversation about our economy, and how societal concerns are expressed in its organization, whether those concerns be environmental, cultural, financial or personal.

Help Alberta's Bears

2009-10-02T13:44:00.000-07:00

Canadian Parks and Wildlife Society (CPAWS) has a petition going to Premier Stelmach about protecting our Grizzly bears. Given that they are an umbrella species the fact that last year's census put the adult population at 500, approximately 1/2 of a healthy population, is a serious sign of the challenges facing our foothill and mountain ecosystems.

Sign the petition on the CPAWS website or write a letter to the Premier and your MLA today! http://cpawsnab.org/cpawsnab/take-action/write-a-letter/letter-2

Devolution or Dysfuntion?

2009-10-01T11:43:00.000-07:00

I saw this article today http://www.themarknews.com/articles/519-political-action-on-stage-west and I found it profoundly troubling on several fronts.

Provincial governments are elected based on an avowedly narrow and exclusive mandate - their job is to advance the interests of their population without any requirement for regarding the interests of others. The Alberta government's entire electorate resides in Alberta, after all. Parochialism is also a risk - one has only to look at the Alberta government's ludicris speculation about a provincial cap-and-trade system in years past. It is unrealistic to expect provincial governments, which lack the information, the inclination or the mandate, to develop good national policy.

The dysfunction in Ottawa is the result of Stephen Harper's style of politics, not the minority government system as Roger Gibbons proposes. No compliment should be taken there by the opposition parties, who have also done themselves no credit, but the responsibility lies with the power - on the Harper conservatives. Harper has not proven willing to work with Canada's moderate majority, or with the restrictions and subtlties of Wesminster democracy.

More troublingly Harper does not appear to appreciate the importance of a strong federal government. The actions taken by provincial leaders that Gibbons is lauding are taken to fill a gap left by Harper's weak and divisive leadership. Historically the Premiers' provincial protectionism has been an impediment to progress. The fact that premiers from the former "regions" are beginning to recognize the importance of national standards is a progressive move toward better governance, but certainly not one that indicates a declining role for the national government.

In my view the increasing complexity and scale of the challenges facing Canadians requires increased leadership and engagement from the Federal government. That even the provinces see it and are acting collectively simply damns the absence of leadership from the top, it doesn't point the way to a better future.

Coderre Quits

2009-09-28T10:26:00.001-07:00

Denis Coderre resigned this morning as the Liberal Party's defence critic and Quebec lieutenant for the leader. This follows on the brouhaha over Coderre's decision to prevent Martin Cauchon from running for the Liberal nomination in the riding of Outremont, a riding Cauchon had previously represented while serving as a cabinet minister. Link

In my view allowing contested nominations with any interested candidates should be the unwavering rule, so I opposed Coderre's decision on principle. In addition it is inexcusably stupid, as Cauchon is an experienced and capable candidate who won the riding three times before deciding not to run again in 2004. Why would you turn away strength? The answer of course would seem to be advancing personal or factional interests over that of the party as a whole. As a result I think you have to view Coderre's resignation today somewhat differently than much of the media spin.

Firstly Mr. Coderre, having made a poor decision and been overruled, should have resigned and I give him credit for that. Secondly this is a victory for the Liberal party as a whole, since it indicates that the will of the membership and the election-readiness of the whole is being placed above factional interests. In my view the victory of the Outremont membership and the positive message to the party as a whole are worth far more than the a few news cycles of bad press.

Open nominations are, to my mind, one of the foundations of democracy. The Conservative refusal to allow such, especially given that my MP is the singularly useless Rob Anders, is one of my largest problems with the party right now. If you are unable to win a nomination meeting held by the membership of your own party what on earth qualifies you as the best candidate before the electorate, the vast majority of whom belong to no party at all?

Excellent Blog post on the Issue by Jeff Jadras Here

Carbon Capture Report

2009-09-24T11:16:00.000-07:00

Now that I am back in Calgary and back to working as normal it is time to start posting here again.

I'd like to start up again by linking to this report on the science behind the carbon capture technology that Alberta is making such a large commitment to. Munk_Centre_Paper.pdf The Munk Centre for International Studies released this report by Graham Thomson of Edmonton yesterday. (As an aside thanks to Dave Cournoyer for keeping this issue prominent on his Daveberta blog!)

I think this paragraph from the conclusion sums up the importance of this report:

"The Bottom Line: Given the paucity of groundwater information in Canada and lack of
national water standards, the push to accelerate CCS could pose real risks to our
groundwater resources. In sum, the marriage of a brave new technology with a political
fix for an immediate climate problem could have negative long-term consequences for
Canadian taxpayers and water drinkers without stabilizing the climate. To move forward
on the sequestration of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide in underground saline
aquifers without strong regulations, clear liability, effective oversight, sound science and
a transparent decision-making process would be sheer folly."

It is my view that the issue of emissions, not simply those into the air but also into water and soil, are going to be one of the central issues of the next 50 years. Moderating our impact on the environment around us while maintaining or improving our productivity and standard of living is already a central challenge. The fundamental issue I have with the proposed carbon capture technology is that it proposes to attack one issue by shifting the problem into another area - without any real understanding of how moving the carbon into the ground might impact soil and especially water tables. Clean water is already a growing issue in large areas of Alberta, and one we as a polity have not dealt with in a coherent and effective manner.

The political impetus behind the carbon capture initiative is undeniable, but is not necessarily a bad thing. Ultimately political action on emissions is what we need, but what we have to do is ensure that the political pressures are channeled into making good policy. At this point Carbon Capture is not that policy.

Ah, Winston!

2009-08-15T10:21:00.000-07:00

I just spent a chunk of my day that I should have been working watching a rather well-done biopic of Winston Churchill called "Into the Storm", apparently made for HBO. Quite well done, and it inspired me to once again go and listen to some of his speeches. Quite a bit more entertaining than my current work on tipping points in the gold standard exchange system, at any rate!

That said perhaps the rise of Obama, something that was certainly not the most likely political outcome even a couple of years ago, has served to remind everyone about the power of language when deployed by a good speaker. So many of our public figures these days are poor orators, and it is my view that our public life suffers for it. Public figures communicate less than they should, in part because they do it poorly and know it. (yes, I'm looking at you misters Stelmach, Harper et. al.) When they do speak many people listen less than they should, because, to be frank, the listening isn't worth the trouble most of the time.

Some work on rhetoric, in the classical sense, seems to me to be something that would have a healthy impact on the body politic. I can always hope, right?

A good selection of Churchill's speeches can be heard and downloaded here:
http://www.archive.org/details/Winston_Churchill

Bill 44 still waiting...

2009-08-14T20:22:00.000-07:00

Well, it appears that in addition to the uncertainty it creates for teachers Bill 44 is also going to be enacted at an uncertain time. link

It now looks like the law will not be proclaimed until 'October or November', some 6 months after the legislature passed it. While I am certainly in favour of this piece of bad law not being enacted, it is capricious on the part of the government to delay proclaiming it. Either it is a piece of legislation they believe in and is ready to enact, or it should never have been approved. Delaying its proclamation simply magnifies the uncertainty already being felt by those who may be impacted, as now they cannot even be sure when the rules change.

For those interested in the issue I include a link to Ken Chapman's blog, where he continues to keep close track of the Bill 44 issue as it moves forward with his 14 August post. link

It looks to me like the government is doing one of two things. Option one is that they are, belatedly, working through the potential legal fallout of the bill with their lawyers. Option two is that they are holding off until after the Alberta PC AGM this fall, at which they can either genuinely debate the issue, or perhaps push through a motion of support from the party. Both would seem to involve the government engaged in doing something that should have been done before Bill 44 was ever brought forward for 3rd reading.

Citizenship and extradition

2009-07-30T09:31:00.000-07:00

Today's post is a response to a series of exchanges over twitter regarding the Diab case. For those not familiar with the case here is a link to the National Post Editorial about it yesterday. In essence a Lebanese-born Canadian citizen has been accused of being involved in a bombing in France 29 years ago.

Here is the bulk of an exchange:

@dominionpundit Why are people so eager to strip citizenship, especially before trials? If he is convicted let him serve his sentance.

@theRoundhouse good pt. but, Canadians need to be vigilant to ensure govt enable our country to be a safe haven for terrorists.

@dominionpundit I would agree, but why not wait and see if there is actually any reason to discuss it first?

@theRoundhouse not comfortable w terrorists landing here,get citizenship,leave to terrorize under my flag, tarnishing my citizenship brand.

@dominionpundit Diab case, if sustained, relates to an event in 1980, so nothing to do with 'your flag' & all citizens must be equal to govt

@theRoundhouse I should say, even natural born Canadians should not expect AUTOMATIC clemency req from our govt when arrested for terror

@theRoundhouse re Diab.event was before he was granted Cdn cit.if convicted,means he lied on imm app.hence,loss of Cdn cit.

@theroundhouse If we have extradition treaties,Cdn cit(born here or not) shld be extradited for trial(pedo in Thailand, terrorism elsewhere)

@theRoundhouse Cdn cit shld not b getoutof-international jail free card if ur sought for crimes abroad. (assuming legal system is fair) no?

There are several issues in play during this exchange, and I want to deal with them separately, The first is citizenship. Citizenship to me is both a legal state and a principle. If you are a Canadian then you enjoy the rights and privileges thereof, as well as the obligations. I do not recognize any distinction between 'natural born' and naturalized citizens - either you are a Canadian or you are not. To think otherwise is to invite the creation of a caste system, in which some are more equal than others. The last thing any Canadian wants is for the government to be able to decide whether or not they are, in fact, a Canadian and thus worthy of access to those rights and privileges.

In recent years, starting under the Martin government and worsening under the Harper government, there has been a devaluation of Canadian citizenship. Among the chattering classes this has become a popular topic for conversation, and you see it regularly in the blogoshpere. Another person discussing this today: http://eaves.ca/2009/07/30/your-canadian-citizenship-means-nothing/

The second issue is that of extradition. In this @domionpundit and I are in complete agreement - where Canada has an extradition treaty we are obligated to give up any citizen charged with a crime. In cases where there is no treaty we are not so obligated, and such cases need to be examined individually to determine if there is both reasonable cause for extradition and reasonable expectation of a fair trial.

The third issue is the idea that terrorism is somehow a crime sui generis. Organized terrorism is closest, in organizational terms, to organized crime, and needs to be tackled in the same manner; combining efficient enforcement with the elimination of its root causes. Terrorism is also not new, despite some of the rhetoric in circulation these days. Even Western Europe & North America have historical experience: during the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th anarchists assassinated a President of the United States, a King of Italy, a President of France and a Premier of Spain within a few years of one another, among many other bombings and attacks. No constitutions were suspended or Patriot Acts passed, and the threat was dealt with within the existing laws.

Finally there is the question of government responsibility. The Canadian government is responsible for the protection of all Canadian citizens, regardless of their identity or the date of their citizenship. That doesn't mean that Canadians should be protected from foreign prosecution, of course. It also doesn't mean that Canadians abroad should expect to be rescued when they travel abroad - in the other countries of the world Canadians are aliens, though hopefully legal ones! In the event of a foreign country arresting a Canadian our government should represent us, and ensure that we are given due process and protected from violations of the law as it stands in that country and internationally.

In situations such as Mr. Diab's that means that he is free on bail while awaiting his extradition hearing for a trial in France sometime next year. Should he be convicted he will serve his sentence, and upon his release be free to return to Canada. In the case of Mr. Abdelrazik it means that the Canadian government should have been pushing for his return years ago, and certainly that he should have been brought home to Ottawa as soon as he set foot in the Canadian Embassy in Sudan 2 years ago. In the case of Omar Khadr, held in Guantanamo Bay, it means that our government should be pushing tirelessly to see him either released or charged with a crime and tried in a legal civilian court.

The idea that the government gets to choose which citizens to help is profoundly frightening. It is perhaps less frightening to me, as a white anglo with a safe name, but it is frightening nonetheless. Either citizenship applies to us all or we accept the creation of a stratified society in which, as Orwell said, some are more equal than others.

Crime and Conservatives

2009-07-22T13:31:00.001-07:00

In the course of my daily prowl through the news and blogs online I came across this, posted last week by David Climenhaga. link

Perhaps unsurprisingly it matched a few thoughts of my own I was considering for this blog, and thus I may as well put it out there today. First of all I would like to point out that my MP is Rob Anders, and a better way to drive moderate conservatives, or anyone politically aware, away from the Conservative Party of Canada would be hard to imagine. That said he has won the riding here by significant majorities since replacing Harper in this seat. As a testament to the power of the CPC brand here in Alberta, and the failure of the Liberals to make inroads, there could hardly be a better example.

Mr. Anders sends out regular public mailings, both the parliamentary '10-percenters' and Constituency notices. There are only ever two topics for these mailings - crime and attacking the Liberals. The latter have focused on the 'just visiting' campaign and threatening me with Liberal tax hikes, both of which I find offensive but are not relevant to this post. What fascinates me, much like Mr. Climenhaga, are the mailings on crime and the criminal justice system.

Every single one of the mail-outs on crime is a ridiculous straw man. Every one. "Criminals don't register their guns, why should you", or variations on the theme of 'do you think criminal should be punished or immediately released without penalties'. I think all Canadian parties agree that there should be consequences for breaking the law. I would also think that appealing to criminal behaviour to justify ignoring laws you may not like isn't the strongest argument you could make.

Many people will remember the attacks on Paul Martin (link) that stemmed from this mindset. Mr. Martin, whatever his manifold failings as Prime Minister or leader of the Liberal party, is a father and a grandfather. The suggestion that he, or anyone in Parliament, does not wish to see child pornographers caught and punished is both a disgusting personal attack and mendacious.

In short I am profoundly irritated by the simplistic efforts of conservative politicians to pretend that only they understand and have correct views on crime and the criminal justice system. No single party or group is the sole source of truth or good ideas on any complex topic! Even more importantly the distinctions between positions that these sort of mailings appeal to is almost entirely fallacious. The real differences in policy terms at this time, between the Liberals and Conservatives especially, is very small. The substitution of rhetoric for fact in an attempt to create a distinction is both unpleasant and misleading.

*For those who are interested the recent Statistics Canada release on crime is here.

Boutilier's Banishment

2009-07-18T13:41:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Mr. Stelmach took the unusual step of expelling a member of the government caucus.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/alberta-mla-kicked-out-of-tory-caucus-over-health-spending-spat/article1223606/

Interesting and unusual in itself, the real importance of the event may be whether or not it indicates a larger issue. On the face of it Boutilier's comments, while definitely uncomfortable for the government, hardly seem indicative of a serious opposition to the PC party. The man is, lest we forget, a former cabinet member of the party that just expelled him from caucus. In addition the criticisms he is making certainly echo those of his constituents. The inadequacy of Fort McMurray's infrastructure is a commonplace, both in the city itself and in Alberta politics. To my mind Mr. Boutilier's job as an MLA required him to say more or less what he said.

What I find interesting is that this move seems atypical for the Stelmach PC government. For one thing it is an open admission of, and invitation to, conflict - the one thing this government studiously avoids. Good luck finding an official mention of Bill 44 or the public outcry about that bill in any government publication.* The government's RSS feed doen't even list Bill 44 as one of the achievements of the last session!

In addition the PC party has worked hard to maintain itself as the biggest tent possible. The gap between Ted Morton and Jim Dinning in philosophical terms is much larger than that between most PCs and Liberals. This move is unusually decisive and divisive.

Opponents of the PCs are already taking this move as either the beginning of the end, with David Swann posting "the friendly farmer image is gone, now we can see the tight fisted control of this administration " on twitter, and a liberal blogger posting an entry on the viability of the PC party in Alberta http://pierretrudeauismyhomeboy.blogspot.com/2009/07/change-that-works-for-ed-stelmach.html . This of course builds on the pressure by the Wild Rose Alliance, and its implications for the right wing support of the PCs. (see Daveberta's entry of July 13th here: http://daveberta.blogspot.com/)

On the whole it appears that the strain of the recession combined with the inertia and lack of vision, or at least common vision, within the PC party after 37 years in power may be coming to a head. There is enormous energy in Alberta, but it doesn't owe anything to the government and hasn't for some time. The last several Alberta elections have seen the PCs run successfully on a caretaker agenda of 'don't rock the boat and we won't screw it up'. Should their image of bland certainty start to fade there may be the groundwork for real political change here in Alberta.

It would be well, however, for opponents of the PCs to remember the strengths of the government. In addition to their almost unwieldy majority (which may in itself be the cause of the Boutilier issue) the PCs have the fundraising, the relationships and total control over the apparatus of the province. All that, in addition to the habitual loyalty of a large percentage of the electorate.

The political weather may be changing, as a lot of challenges are coming to a head in the PC party here in Alberta. The most important element of that potential for change lies within the PC party at this time, however, and the real interest to me in the Boutilier affair is where it leads the factions within the party and the caucus over the next few months.

2009-07-17T10:16:00.000-07:00

Support the Parliamentary Budget Office - sign the open letter here:

http://supporttheopbo.blogspot.com/2009/07/open-letter-in-support-of-opbo.html

Partisanship

2009-07-07T13:26:00.000-07:00

The topic of partisanship and the role of parties in the system appears to be getting more attention in Canada, though mostly of the negative variety. The dominant reason is that our parties give the impression of being less and less successful in representing us. I just read a good article on this disillusionment:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/07/f-vp-jackson.html

Currently less than 1% of Canadians belong to a party. (recent membership drives may have raised that to just over 1%, but the basic point stands) In addition party membership is, as anyone who attends party events can tell you, heavily stilted toward middle age and later. In short parties in Canada are, to a large extent, exactly what those who do not belong characterize them as - establishment in-groups.

More important than that, however, is that parties are closed shops these days even to their members. Membership is often little more than paying $10 to be able to vote in a leadership or nomination contest, as well as being added to the inevitable fundraising list. Unsurprisingly this extractive model of membership doesn't grow membership or engender loyalty, so without outside elements like personal charisma or ideological conviction the party organization simply doesn't work.

I think that this is an important topic, and I intend to return to it at length in the next week or so. The changes in information technology, and the success of relatively 'flat' and open organizations like Google seem to me to point the way to a much more successful vision of party organization. Engagement and grassroots involvement don't have to be limited to tired catchphrases, as they all too often are these days. Canadians are engaged in their communities and causes, the question is how to modernize the political process to enable it to partake in that energy!

Electronic Voting

2009-07-06T11:04:00.001-07:00

The subject of electronic voting, with its promise and hazards, is an interesting one. As we move an ever-expanding amount of our personal logistics like shopping and paying bills online it is inevitable that as a society we will start examining the mechanics of exercising our franchise virtually. (As opposed to virtually exercising the franchise, which may describe a lot of voting behaviour already!)

Kirk Schmidt, making a guest appearance on the Enlightened Savage's Blog on 30 June, posted an excellent summary of the practical issues with taking voting online. I found it well worth the read - interesting, thorough, and thought-provoking. Recommended!

http://enlightenedsavage.blogspot.com/2009/06/guest-blogger-kirk-schmidt-on-on-line.html

Times changing in Iran?

2009-06-14T21:39:00.000-07:00

Many of us that take an interest in politics and public affairs have been captivated by the unrest in Iran following the general election there. Strong feelings are evoked by the images of people taking to the streets in defiance of a system which they feel has cheated them of their voice. The fundamental question to me is what exactly are we seeing? Without delving into the complicated history of the 1953 and 1979 revolutions there are a few important elements to keep an eye on.

Iran is a complex society that we in North America tend to think of in caricature, if at all. The image of the fanatical mullah conveys little sense of the size, historical depth or ethnic diversity of Iran. To put it another way we are discussing a place with over 70 million people, a settled history dated back over 9000 years, and with constitutional recognition of 4 regional languages in addition to Persian. In large part it is elements of this complexity that have created the confrontations we are seeing on our televisions.

That large population is also young, with around 2/3 of Iranians under the age of 30. Increasingly that population is urban, and women are playing an ever-increasing role in the workforce and the professions. In short Iran is undergoing a period of demographic instability, combined with a political system dominated by the men who either made or participated in the revolution of 1979. In other words men who were politically active before more than 2/3 of their citizens were even alive.

Within that profound generational power gap there are also several other political flashpoints. As the population has grown it has migrated to the cities, with over 60% of the population living in urban areas now and that number is expected to rise to 80% by 2030. This has created frictions between the now-preponderant population centers and a political system divided into 30 (theoretically) equal provinces. In addition the concentration of the oil resources that provide 45% of government revenue in a few provinces heightens the division between ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’.

In short there are a great many internal divisions and interest groups within the country. Dividing the people we see on TV into ‘progressives’ and ‘conservatives’ is both inaccurate and unhelpful. The politics of Iran are no more black and white than any other political jurisdiction's. The theocratic nature of the regime does tend to evoke dichotomous language from both critics and supporters, however. It is also worth remembering just how much control the Supreme Council (of Clerics) possesses. They select or vet candidates for all offices, and all state structures report back to the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, or the Council of Guardians. The position of President, while important, is not equivalent to his American counterpart or our Prime Minister.

With all that said we are witnessing a repressive regime being pressured toward change. This is not an easy process, and building pressure tends to lead to repression, which in turn tends to lead to violence. At this point the Iranian security forces have exercised restraint, and provided they continue to do so without losing their cohesion and loyalty to the state this unrest will likely subside. It will subside having left a lasting impression on the mindset of the country, however, particularly on the young and urban workforce who feel excluded by the regime. This election may thus serve as a source inspiration and motivation for those seeking to create change in Iran. If the shooting starts the impact may be considerably more immediate.

Politics is really Logistics, Folks.

2009-06-09T11:22:00.000-07:00

The minority Parliaments of recent years have been reflective of the changed circumstances in Canadian politics. In addition to the in the electoral map the political reality is that we have now joined the Americans in living in a state of permanent campaign. What interests me is how poorly Canadian political parties have adjusted to this, in organizational terms. Traditionally in Canadian politics campaigns have been viewed as a unique activity, which they are, and as something separate from the day-to-day realities of political life, which they are not - if in fact they ever were.

This view that campaigns were a sui generis activity has crippled the Liberal Party in recent years. The party has failed to create a central database, resulting in the fragmentation and hoarding of the available data. The drawbacks to that are obvious, and exacted a heavy penalty in organizational terms. In addition building an ongoing relationship between the organization (as distinct from the candidate) and its supporters has not been a priority. The absence of such a relationship has resulted in seriously reduced membership numbers, with the concomitant drag on fundraising. This is especially significant given the $1100 individual donation cap, which rules out the traditional Canadian political fundraising tactic of large corporate and individual donations.

These are all failings of basic organizational performance, which the current leadership and the membership of the party appear to have acknowledged. The hiring of Rocco Rossi as national director and the acclimation of Alfred Apps as party president has placed a pair of strong organization-builders at the top. They have a great deal of work to do to make their organization competitive again.

That said the Conservative party is currently considered to be the organizational standard in Canadian politics. They have done a better job of this that the others, but even their ‘success’ needs to be put in perspective. Their ‘machine’ has only managed minority governments, despite a crippled Liberal party and marginal NDP and Bloc. Even the ‘vast’ conservative fundraising effort only brought in $4 million in the 1st quarter of 2009. That is enough money to franchise and open one Tim Horton’s shop, maybe two in smaller locations. Hardly overwhelming, and the fact that the Liberals raised under half that number is an indictment of them, not a compliment to the Conservatives. Currently no Canadian party can count even 1% of the population as members.

In short all Canadian political parties are struggling to manage their organizational challenges as well as the communications and data challenges presented by a web 2.0 society. Acquiring and managing data as well as building up an engaged membership who are willing to contribute time and money is an ongoing process. It is essential to view the politics as an ongoing or organic process, not one of periods of stability punctuated by elections.

Politics and Social Media

2009-06-07T15:47:00.000-07:00

The wireless revolution, with devices like the Blackberry and the Iphone making it possible to walk around in constant touch with the internet in addition to the ubiquity of cellular phones, constitute a sea change in the way people communicate. Here in Alberta the recent debate over Bill 44 (see post below) energized a politically aware population to reach out to one another via the new ‘social media’ of Twitter, Facebook etc. What was revealed was that these media had the power to bring together hundreds of people, both specialists and non-specialists, in direct contact in real time. This new information environment is going to change the way politics in Canada works.

There are a number of elements to this process of change, but for today I want to concentrate on two. The first is the importance of information management. The single greatest advantage of these new digital communication media is also their greatest weakness – essentially limitless access to information. On the up side this means that it is possible to access information about events or individuals with ease. On the other hand it is difficult to track the importance of a given piece of information, given the sheer mass of data.

To cope with the drawbacks inherent in the sheer scope of the available information a few things are necessary. The first is proper use of modern database technology, with which the social media world is a treasure trove of data as well as another platform for discourse. The second is the ability to dedicate the time to learning how to use the technology and to understand the players who are important to the issues that matter to you. This will allow you to sift the wheat from the chaff with greater ease.

To take advantage of the up side you need to get your voice out there, and contribute to the discussion. There is enormous potential to build relationships with potential supporters and allies, and to keep an eye on the thinking and actions of your political rivals. Recognize the strengths of these media, and attempt to add content and respond constructively to those who reach out to you. Press releases are best done elsewhere – link to them in social media, don’t treat them as content.

That leads me to the second major area I wanted to talk about today - messaging. With the move into the information-rich environment of social media the importance of a clear and coherent message becomes magnified. It is possible, via twitter and Google, for a potential policy resolution to be leaked, the research inspected and thousands of decisions made before the document is even announced. It also means that everyone on your team is now a part of your communications staff, whether you want them to be or not! As a result politicians and political parties are going to find that the value of a powerful vision and solid communications preparation are magnified.

The development and rapid spread of social media is an evolutionary challenge for the inhabitants of the political jungle. Those who are able to develop clear and compelling visions and then build strong relationships will prosper. Those who treat social media as an annex to traditional non-interactive mediums will be punished by receiving less information and fewer new allies. In blunt terms the first party to understand and develop the potential of social media to meet and develop its supporters will have a lasting advantage over their competition.

Be Concise!

2009-06-03T14:55:00.000-07:00

Mental note - I can see from looking at my previous post that too much time in the academic world is ruining my prose. I will work on brevity in future.

Bill 44 Creates a Window of Opportunity

2009-06-03T14:50:00.000-07:00

I opposed Bill 44 as a piece of poorly thought out and unnecessary legislation which is open to several forms of abuse. There may or may not be an entry on this blog regarding that - while I have written one the bill has been passed, and so in another sense has the relevance of that discussion. What is left to discuss is the impact on, and outlook for, the prospects for increased citizen engagement here in Alberta. Perhaps the most interesting thing to come out of the process of Bill 44 here in Alberta is the discussion it has engendered about the engagement of people in the political process. For those looking for information on Bill 44 itself or the debate regarding it please see Ken Chapman's excellent breakdown on his blog http://www.ken-chapman.blogspot.com/, and you can check out all the twitter action via the #Bill44 hashtag. Not coincidentally it is this lively online conversation that engendered the thinking behind this post.

Alberta is not known for its lively grassroots democracy these days. The exact whys and wherefores of that are a debate in and of themselves, but among the front runners are the entrenched one-party system here and the voter placidity engendered by several decades of prosperity. The result was an election with (off the top of my head) 41% voter turnout. This pitiful turnout resulted in 501,000 votes for the PCs, 251,000 for the Liberals and 81,000 for the NDP. In terms of seats in the Alberta legislature the counts are PC-72 Lib-9 and NDP-2. These results go a long way to explaining why the PC party is content with the status quo. (Or perhaps they are the status quo?) Both of the opposition parties are small and organizationally impoverished, which is another chicken-or-egg conversation.

The upshot is that the PC party still operates in fundamentally the same way as it did during the early 1990s. Communication is limited and decidedly non-interactive, and consultation even within the PC party itself is limited. There were a series of hopeful moves by the government after Mr. Stelmach won the election, as the PCs moved towards taking advantage of the new Web 2.0 world with promising moves like the creation of mypcmla. This momentum seems to have petered out, a symptom of which was the departure of the caucus’s new social media guru. Instead what happened was a conversation within the twitterverse and blogosphere that was overwhelmingly negative to Bill 44, and the government was unable to introduce its own view effectively to defend its legislation.

Efforts to do just that failed, and the Culture Minister, Lindsay Blackett, simply came across as dismissive and condescending. During the Bill 44 conversation on twitter Blackett posted this to his Twitter feed "finally got to some of the opposition's misinformation in the Leg today... I don't expect the media will pick-up on it." He followed this petulant post with another during the debate itself "is amazed at the continued fearmongering by the opposition, intelligent people who read the bill can see through it." Referring to concerns about your legislation as misinformation or fear mongering while implying quite directly that those who disagree with you are lacking in intelligence is not using the new medium to open a conversation. What is depressing is that this knee jerk was all the reaction we got, and it was of less value than a traditional press release. A priceless opportunity wasted for the government to speak to citizens and engage with them.
What this process has revealed about the government's attitudes toward dialogue and improving communication is not pretty. That said the current culture of complacency in Alberta politics has done the PC party a world of good, so there is a very rational argument to be made for the status quo. Several people I know who work for the party have talked about increasing voter engagement, but when push came to shove and their ideas needed backing the support they received has ranged from tepid to nonexistent. To quote another twitter commentator "AB_Baby@wunderbar @trasie #ableg I said something similar earlier. the govt keeps the silent majority silent by refusing to listen time after time"

In contrast to that feeling of estrangement as I write this on the 3rd of June there are 3300+ members of the Facebook group “Students Against Bill 44”. A number of those people are not Albertans, but the group may constitute one of the larger issue-based gatherings of voters this year none the less. The topic twitter feed (#Bill44) climbed as high as 6th on the list of most active tags during the final week leading up to the passage of the Bill. A Calgary Herald story regarding the Bill has attracted over 1200 comments on the website as I write this. In short there is a very considerable public involvement in responding to this bill. Interestingly several PC MLAs informed me that the correspondence they had received on the subject was in the area of 2-1 in favour. This contrasts with the overwhelmingly negative response on twitter and Facebook, and forces us to consider why this difference exists and what it means for citizen engagement.

I would argue that the divergence between the submissions to government MLAs and the majority expression in the online discussion is indicative of the extent to which most Albertans have become detached from the “formal” political process. Fewer than half of registered voters even bothered to cast their ballots in the last provincial election, and given the labour mobility in this province you would expect a considerable body of unregistered voters as well. As an aside, on the issue of alienation, there is also the question of to what extent those who disagree with the government would be willing to take the time to communicate with their MLA if they feel ignored or dismissed. This to my mind is the real issue with statements like those of Mr. Blackett quoted above – such things serve to widen the gap between people and their representatives.

That being said I think there is a very real opportunity here to build on the momentum created by the discussion of this bill. I mean momentum not in a partisan sense, but in the sense that there are a large number of people trying to become active citizens. It presents all elements of the Alberta political spectrum with an opportunity to learn from and educate in turn the people of the province. It behooves us all to make the effort to get out there and try. There are several members of the government caucus who ‘get it’, and kudos are due to Mr. Elniski and Mr. Denis. It is my hope that more of our representatives in the Legislature and organizations and individuals outside it as well will work toward developing modern communication strategies and learn from one another!