I have read the leaked Government of Alberta Power Point presentation "Alberta's Health Legislation: Moving Forward" It is a document that begs a lot of questions and raises some legitimate suspicions about the political intent of the Stelmach government on just how secure is the future of publicly funded health care in Alberta.
Bill 17, the new Alberta Health Act is now passed with Closure invoked by the Stelmach government. I expect to hear very little about it now. The government wants to shift our attention to the "Becoming the Best: Alberta's 5-Year Health Action Plan" and not have us dwell on any boogie-man fears of a secret strategy of privateers out to make our health care system the private property right of some insurance companies.
I have not yet read the Five Year Action Plan. It was just released yesterday. But I will read it with great interest. At first is sounds like a revision of the Olympics motto with words like "more, faster, quicker, reduced, best" as the hooks. There is only one small mention of a wellness aspect and that is a 32% increase in child immunization rates...what ever that means. We need much more attention to prevention and wellness in our health action planning. Don't you think?
I know Minister Zwozdesky had some resistance getting this Action Plan through Cabinet. But all the publicity and pressure over Raj Sherman and the leak of July strategy document I am sure that forced the hands of the foot-draggers in Cabinet. After all what is the point of a five year stable funding commitment if you don't have a five year plan to be able to prove you are using the money wisely?
I will comment more on both document in future blogs. Let me say for now, on the leaked "Alberta Health Legislation: Moving Forward" it is difficult to understand the document because it is terse and in bullets points. There is not much narrative to help one really understand the integrity and intent of the policy approach being proposed. Some stuff is very good and other stuff is veiled political framing of a privatization agenda. Minister Zwozdesky says this is "not his document" and he rejected it because some elements were contrary to the Canada Health Act. Go figure!
From that statement by Minister Zwozdesky, it is safe to conclude this government document is must then "belong" to former Health Minister Ron Liepert. Is sure sounds like his free-market competitive Fraser Institute approach to health care. Given the clear comments from Minister Zwozdesky that he rejected the leaked "Moving Forward" document, we can hopefully conclude that the public health care system in Alberta is safe from ideologically driven privatization agenda - at lest for now.. That sense of safety for the public health system in Alberta only goes up to the next Cabinet shuffle, when ever that might be. If Minister Liepert performs as badly in Energy as he did in Education and Health, a shuffle could be sooner than later. Who replaces Gene Zwozdesky in the Health and Wellness portfolio will tell us a great deal about the integrity and true intent of the Stelmach government on the privatization of the public health care system in Alberta.
As for the Five Year Action Plan, at first blush is it all about targets, measures and percentage but almost entirely aimed at the acute care end of the spectrum. The care and compassion, respect for professionalism in the system is not readily apparent. Fair enough but we also need a culture shift to include encouraging personal action on disease prevention, wellness and well-being too. Albertans must take personal responsibility for their health care and that is about each of us taking steps in the areas of prevention, including lifestyle changes as necessary. Health care is not just all about the system. Much of it is about us, our values and attitudes.
I get put off when I see policy documents aspiring to be the "best." Like in this document title: "Becoming the Best:Alberta's 5-Year Health Action Plan." Stating Alberta's goal to be the "best-performing publicly funded health system in Canada is to merely measure ourselves relative to others. That is a mugs game and is more sloganeering than a soundly reasoned policy objective. With all the wealth in Alberta and our highest per capita spending on health care we should already be the best in Canada...but on what measures? Life expectancy and wait times are important but not very sophisticated outcome aspirations.
We know economic wealth translates into good health outcomes. Given the enormous wealth and potential in Alberta we should have the aspiration to be the best health care system for the world, as well as the best in the world. That better aspiration for Alberta to be the best health care system for the world can happen in terms of investment in other areas like prevention, teaching, research and innovation. Now that is something to strive for in addition to value for tax money and, quality care and better access times...all of which are essential but not sufficient for live up to our potential.
To close let me invite you to watch this interesting video. It is just over 4 minutes and shows how the wealth of a country is correlated to life expectancy. Watch it and ask yourself why the Alberta government sets its health care sights so low and narrow given our potential. (H/T to Kim Bater for the link)
Showing posts with label Bill 44; Klimchuk; Stelmach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill 44; Klimchuk; Stelmach. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Alberta Senators-in-Waiting Call on Stelmach to Reverse Decision & Hold New Elections This Fall.
I spoke with Link Byfield today about the three remaining Senators-in-Waiting (SIW)calling on Premier Stelmach to reverse his decision to delay the elections until 2013. The law in Alberta says the terms of these three SIWs expires in November 2010. But the loop hole in the law is that the provincial government can change things, like extending terms. But that discretion should be exercised prudently and for reasons of good government and promoting and preserving democracy...not for puerile political reasons.
THE STELMACH GOVERNMENTS REASONS FOR DELAY DON'T MAKE SENSE.
I heard the rationale for the deferral of the SIW elections to 2013. It would cost $5m to run them in conjunction with the municipal elections but no indication of how much more it would cost 3 years from now. Then there was the possibility of Saskatchewan passing similar Senator-in-Waiting legislation and it was suggested Alberta' democracy be delayed until we know if another province would also have such a law. What is that all about and why?
The third facile and farcical reason for the delay was that Alberta Senator Bert Brown had just introduced a Senate Bill S-8 "An Act Respecting the Selection of Senators. OUrugovernment has insisted that Albertans right to choose SIWs should wait to give that new law a chance to pass before we went into a new election. For you information - and thanks to SIW Link Byfield for the Bill.
Here is the summary text of Senator Brown's Bill that has caused a delay in democracy in Alberta:
This enactment establishes a framework for electing nominees for Senate
appointments from the provinces and territories. The following principles apply
to the selection process:
(a) the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor
General for a province or territory, would be required to consider names from
a list of nominees submitted by the provincial or territorial government; and
(b) the list of nominees would be determined by an election held in
accordance with provincial or territorial laws enacted to implement the
framework.
Section 3 of Bill s-8 puts a duty of the Prime Minister to recommend to the Governor General "to consider names from the most current list of Senate nominees elected for that province or territory" if a province or territory has enacted Senate selection legislation that is consistent with the principles in the Summary above. Well Alberta has has such legislation since 1985. How does Bill S-8 justify the suspension of a law that provided Albertans with a democratic right to select SIWs? Bill S-8 only puts the duty on the Prime Minister "to consider" such nominees selected by provincial or territorial law. It is not even binding for crying out loud. And this justifies a deferral and delay of democracy in Alberta?
IS DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY FOR PARTISAN PURPOSES JUSTIFIED?
OK I agree there are bigger issues and concerns facing Albertan that this theatre of the absurd Senate nominee election process. However, if our government is going to ride roughshod over these kinds of somewhat less than profound democratic rights, what is stopping them from staying the course and disregarding more significant democratic rights? This is at best causal corruption and at worst abuse of power for partisan political purposes. In no way shape of form is it good governance.
I am strongly opposed to this delay by the Stelmach government because it is unwarranted and an abuse of the discretion of the Alberta government. There is no good reason for such a delay except for pure political reasons. It seems like the PCs are running scared of the Wildrose and an election of Senators-in-Waiting this fall would likely result in Wildrose candidates winning. For the record Byfield ran as an Independent and the other three winners ran as Progressive Conservatives although they were all Reform and Alliance party faithfuls.
The result this time would see candidates running but likely mostly for theWildrose Party. This is because the Wildrose is the only party in Alberta really interested in an elected Senate for Canada. Last Senate election saw about 160,000 Albertans either refuse the Senate election ballot or spoil it as a protest. The political optics of Stelmach losing Senate elections this fall to Wildrose candidates will be seen as another referendum cum by-election result on his low popularity. He want to avoid that obviously, so the democratic deficit in Alberta deepens and widens as a result of pure political posturing - not the respect for the Rule of Law.
STELMACH RUNS IN THE FACE OF ALBERTAN'S VALUES
Integrity, honest, open, accountable and transparent government is missing with the Stelmach decision to delay the next Senator-in-Waiting election. This abuse of discretion and poor governance process to defer the next time Albertans get to say who they want be considered to represent them in the Senate until sometime in 2013 will put it after the next provincial and the next federal election too, most likely. Ironically the extension of the current crop of SIWs from 2004 to 2013 puts them in limbo longer than the eight years Harper would limit Senators terms of service.
THE STATEMENT FROM THE CURRENT SENATORS-IN-WAITING:
So here is the Statement the current crop of SIWs put out for your information. For the record I don't endorse all of what they are saying but I do applaud them for standing up for citizen's based democracy - not top down command and control centrist power based politics. That democratic deficit disease is creeping into Alberta and is rampant in the feckless Harper federal government. Looking forward to your comments.
Why we need elected senators representing us in Parliament
As Alberta’s three remaining senators-elect, we want to state publicly our belief that the Alberta government should hold a new Senate election with the province-wide municipal elections this fall. We say this solely in the interest of the province, and not for or against any provincial political party.
The government’s exercise of its legal option to extend our elected status by up to three years is not helpful to the cause of Senate reform in our view.
It is likely that one and perhaps two Alberta Senate vacancies will occur before there is a further province-wide opportunity for a Senate election.
However, in the event the government does not hold an election this fall, it would be wrong for us to leave Alberta in a position where a prime minister (be it Mr. Harper or Mr. Ignatieff) has no option but to appoint personal or party favourites to represent our province. We will therefore accept the government’s extension of our elected status until Albertans have been given a new chance to choose Senate nominees.
To illustrate why Albertans must not be represented by unelected senators, consider the recent Senate activities of Claudette Tardif.
She was picked to represent Alberta until the year 2022 by then-prime minister Paul Martin in 2005, five months after Albertans had cast 2.2 million votes to fill three vacant Senate seats. Neither Tardif nor Martin’s other two appointees ran for election.
On April 13th, 2010, Tardif introduced in the Senate Bill C-232, which if passed will require all future members of the Supreme Court of Canada to be fluently bilingual, not just in conversation but in complex and subtle points of law. The purported aim is to render translation unnecessary for judges in Canada’s highest court.
The many reasons why this private member’s bill is bad for the Supreme Court, bad for Canadian law, bad for national unity, and bad for unilingual regions, have already been aired in Parliament and in the media. Suffice it to say here that very few lawyers in Canada – and close to none in Alberta – qualify to hear a superior court legal argument in French without the aid of translation. This bill effectively kills the chance of most legally-qualified western Canadian lawyers and judges to sit on our highest court.
Neither of our two western Supreme Court incumbents, Beverley McLachlin and Marshall Rothstein, would qualify for the court under this statute.
Unfortunately, because bilingualism is so sacrosanct in Ottawa, Bill C-232 cleared the House of Commons by three votes on March 30th, with the combined support of the Bloc Quebecois, Liberals and NDP.
To add symbolic insult to material injury, C-232 was then put before the Senate by Claudette Tardif, an Alberta senator.
Instead of boosting official languages, Alberta’s six-person Senate delegation should be asking some searching questions. Is bilingualism actually working? Apparently not. According to Statistics Canada, “knowledge of [both] English and French” is a declining phenomenon, not a growing one. How much do official languages actually cost – not just for governments, how high is the immense cost of translation and compliance in the private sector? Ottawa doesn’t ask because Ottawa doesn’t want to know. Instead we blindly persist in the wishful thinking of half a century ago.
This is why we need provincially-elected senators in Parliament: to address questions the national government can’t or won’t. This is the “sober second thought” the 21st century demands.
It is time for parliamentarians to ask uncomfortable questions about productivity in the transfer-dependent regions of Canada, about our lack of success with official languages, about EI, multiculturalism, national marketing boards, and the economic value of subsidized industries.
These questions can’t be answered in the House of Commons because they can’t even be asked in the House of Commons. No national party can afford to lose the seats such candour would cost.
Nor can they be resolved in provincial legislatures, because there is nothing provinces can do about them. These are national issues under the authority of Parliament, best handled by the Senate.
In fact there is only one place where it would be politically possible to raise them and constitutionally possible to resolve them, and that is in a provincially-elected Senate such as Prime Minister Harper’s government is proposing. Not a Senate that is merely appointed, and which therefore dares not exercise the immense power it possesses under the constitution – powers equal to those of the House of Commons. And not a Senate filled with national party cheerleaders beholden to the same leaders who run the Commons.
No, to exert power the Senate must be elected, and to represent the diversity of Canada the elections must be provincial – provincial parties, federal issues.
This is what Canada needs, this is what the Prime Minister has asked provinces to provide, and this is what all Albertans should support.
Alberta Senators-Elect:
Betty Unger
Cliff Breitkreuz
Link Byfield
So dear Reader, what do you think? Is this a tempest in a teapot? Is this just the way things are and there is nothing you as a citizen can do about it? Or are you coming to realize that democracy is not free and free speech is not free either. They both have to be exercised and valued to do any good. Let you MLA and the Premier's office if you are tired of the disregard and disdain for democracy in Alberta. Whose Alberta is it any way?
THE STELMACH GOVERNMENTS REASONS FOR DELAY DON'T MAKE SENSE.
I heard the rationale for the deferral of the SIW elections to 2013. It would cost $5m to run them in conjunction with the municipal elections but no indication of how much more it would cost 3 years from now. Then there was the possibility of Saskatchewan passing similar Senator-in-Waiting legislation and it was suggested Alberta' democracy be delayed until we know if another province would also have such a law. What is that all about and why?
The third facile and farcical reason for the delay was that Alberta Senator Bert Brown had just introduced a Senate Bill S-8 "An Act Respecting the Selection of Senators. OUrugovernment has insisted that Albertans right to choose SIWs should wait to give that new law a chance to pass before we went into a new election. For you information - and thanks to SIW Link Byfield for the Bill.
Here is the summary text of Senator Brown's Bill that has caused a delay in democracy in Alberta:
This enactment establishes a framework for electing nominees for Senate
appointments from the provinces and territories. The following principles apply
to the selection process:
(a) the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor
General for a province or territory, would be required to consider names from
a list of nominees submitted by the provincial or territorial government; and
(b) the list of nominees would be determined by an election held in
accordance with provincial or territorial laws enacted to implement the
framework.
Section 3 of Bill s-8 puts a duty of the Prime Minister to recommend to the Governor General "to consider names from the most current list of Senate nominees elected for that province or territory" if a province or territory has enacted Senate selection legislation that is consistent with the principles in the Summary above. Well Alberta has has such legislation since 1985. How does Bill S-8 justify the suspension of a law that provided Albertans with a democratic right to select SIWs? Bill S-8 only puts the duty on the Prime Minister "to consider" such nominees selected by provincial or territorial law. It is not even binding for crying out loud. And this justifies a deferral and delay of democracy in Alberta?
IS DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY FOR PARTISAN PURPOSES JUSTIFIED?
OK I agree there are bigger issues and concerns facing Albertan that this theatre of the absurd Senate nominee election process. However, if our government is going to ride roughshod over these kinds of somewhat less than profound democratic rights, what is stopping them from staying the course and disregarding more significant democratic rights? This is at best causal corruption and at worst abuse of power for partisan political purposes. In no way shape of form is it good governance.
I am strongly opposed to this delay by the Stelmach government because it is unwarranted and an abuse of the discretion of the Alberta government. There is no good reason for such a delay except for pure political reasons. It seems like the PCs are running scared of the Wildrose and an election of Senators-in-Waiting this fall would likely result in Wildrose candidates winning. For the record Byfield ran as an Independent and the other three winners ran as Progressive Conservatives although they were all Reform and Alliance party faithfuls.
The result this time would see candidates running but likely mostly for theWildrose Party. This is because the Wildrose is the only party in Alberta really interested in an elected Senate for Canada. Last Senate election saw about 160,000 Albertans either refuse the Senate election ballot or spoil it as a protest. The political optics of Stelmach losing Senate elections this fall to Wildrose candidates will be seen as another referendum cum by-election result on his low popularity. He want to avoid that obviously, so the democratic deficit in Alberta deepens and widens as a result of pure political posturing - not the respect for the Rule of Law.
STELMACH RUNS IN THE FACE OF ALBERTAN'S VALUES
Integrity, honest, open, accountable and transparent government is missing with the Stelmach decision to delay the next Senator-in-Waiting election. This abuse of discretion and poor governance process to defer the next time Albertans get to say who they want be considered to represent them in the Senate until sometime in 2013 will put it after the next provincial and the next federal election too, most likely. Ironically the extension of the current crop of SIWs from 2004 to 2013 puts them in limbo longer than the eight years Harper would limit Senators terms of service.
THE STATEMENT FROM THE CURRENT SENATORS-IN-WAITING:
So here is the Statement the current crop of SIWs put out for your information. For the record I don't endorse all of what they are saying but I do applaud them for standing up for citizen's based democracy - not top down command and control centrist power based politics. That democratic deficit disease is creeping into Alberta and is rampant in the feckless Harper federal government. Looking forward to your comments.
Why we need elected senators representing us in Parliament
As Alberta’s three remaining senators-elect, we want to state publicly our belief that the Alberta government should hold a new Senate election with the province-wide municipal elections this fall. We say this solely in the interest of the province, and not for or against any provincial political party.
The government’s exercise of its legal option to extend our elected status by up to three years is not helpful to the cause of Senate reform in our view.
It is likely that one and perhaps two Alberta Senate vacancies will occur before there is a further province-wide opportunity for a Senate election.
However, in the event the government does not hold an election this fall, it would be wrong for us to leave Alberta in a position where a prime minister (be it Mr. Harper or Mr. Ignatieff) has no option but to appoint personal or party favourites to represent our province. We will therefore accept the government’s extension of our elected status until Albertans have been given a new chance to choose Senate nominees.
To illustrate why Albertans must not be represented by unelected senators, consider the recent Senate activities of Claudette Tardif.
She was picked to represent Alberta until the year 2022 by then-prime minister Paul Martin in 2005, five months after Albertans had cast 2.2 million votes to fill three vacant Senate seats. Neither Tardif nor Martin’s other two appointees ran for election.
On April 13th, 2010, Tardif introduced in the Senate Bill C-232, which if passed will require all future members of the Supreme Court of Canada to be fluently bilingual, not just in conversation but in complex and subtle points of law. The purported aim is to render translation unnecessary for judges in Canada’s highest court.
The many reasons why this private member’s bill is bad for the Supreme Court, bad for Canadian law, bad for national unity, and bad for unilingual regions, have already been aired in Parliament and in the media. Suffice it to say here that very few lawyers in Canada – and close to none in Alberta – qualify to hear a superior court legal argument in French without the aid of translation. This bill effectively kills the chance of most legally-qualified western Canadian lawyers and judges to sit on our highest court.
Neither of our two western Supreme Court incumbents, Beverley McLachlin and Marshall Rothstein, would qualify for the court under this statute.
Unfortunately, because bilingualism is so sacrosanct in Ottawa, Bill C-232 cleared the House of Commons by three votes on March 30th, with the combined support of the Bloc Quebecois, Liberals and NDP.
To add symbolic insult to material injury, C-232 was then put before the Senate by Claudette Tardif, an Alberta senator.
Instead of boosting official languages, Alberta’s six-person Senate delegation should be asking some searching questions. Is bilingualism actually working? Apparently not. According to Statistics Canada, “knowledge of [both] English and French” is a declining phenomenon, not a growing one. How much do official languages actually cost – not just for governments, how high is the immense cost of translation and compliance in the private sector? Ottawa doesn’t ask because Ottawa doesn’t want to know. Instead we blindly persist in the wishful thinking of half a century ago.
This is why we need provincially-elected senators in Parliament: to address questions the national government can’t or won’t. This is the “sober second thought” the 21st century demands.
It is time for parliamentarians to ask uncomfortable questions about productivity in the transfer-dependent regions of Canada, about our lack of success with official languages, about EI, multiculturalism, national marketing boards, and the economic value of subsidized industries.
These questions can’t be answered in the House of Commons because they can’t even be asked in the House of Commons. No national party can afford to lose the seats such candour would cost.
Nor can they be resolved in provincial legislatures, because there is nothing provinces can do about them. These are national issues under the authority of Parliament, best handled by the Senate.
In fact there is only one place where it would be politically possible to raise them and constitutionally possible to resolve them, and that is in a provincially-elected Senate such as Prime Minister Harper’s government is proposing. Not a Senate that is merely appointed, and which therefore dares not exercise the immense power it possesses under the constitution – powers equal to those of the House of Commons. And not a Senate filled with national party cheerleaders beholden to the same leaders who run the Commons.
No, to exert power the Senate must be elected, and to represent the diversity of Canada the elections must be provincial – provincial parties, federal issues.
This is what Canada needs, this is what the Prime Minister has asked provinces to provide, and this is what all Albertans should support.
Alberta Senators-Elect:
Betty Unger
Cliff Breitkreuz
Link Byfield
So dear Reader, what do you think? Is this a tempest in a teapot? Is this just the way things are and there is nothing you as a citizen can do about it? Or are you coming to realize that democracy is not free and free speech is not free either. They both have to be exercised and valued to do any good. Let you MLA and the Premier's office if you are tired of the disregard and disdain for democracy in Alberta. Whose Alberta is it any way?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Alberta's Political Eyes Now Turn to PC Leadership Confidence Vote
I had a great conversation with Katherine O'Neill of the Globe and Mail yesterday on the Wildrose Alliance Party leadership and the pending Alberta Progressive Conservative Party Annual General Meeting leadership confidence vote for Premier Stelmach coming up November 7th. Here is the link to the story in today's Globe and Mail.
I think the Alberta political media attention will shift now to the PC AGM leadership confidence vote but with the Danielle Smith WAP leadership lurking in the background. The speculation will be rampant but pointless. What is on the minds of the delegates and what do they see and the confidence vote "ballot question" is the real issue.
There is a growing amount of grumbling in the PC rank and file these days. It may be that I attract the griping because I speak out about political and governance concerns on this blog. The big tent for fiscal conservatives and social progressives is wearing thin on both counts. Walking away for $2B in royalties for no good reason other than to appease the Calgary based energy executive suites and at the same time to be calling for the same $2B in program cuts in the coming fiscal year captures the essence of why both elements in the PC Party are dissatisfied.
The Premier's political response to the embarrassing third place finish in the Calgary Glenmore by election was restricted to blaming the results on the bad economy and the rapidly expanded government program spending. That presumption that the Stelmach government is not fiscally right-wing enough ignores the growing lack of confidence in the governance and leadership capacity of the current regime. It also ignores the revenue problem caused by politically motivated giveaways and concessions to the energy sector with no positive economic upside for the provincial treasury and the Premier painting himself in a corner with a hasty announcement about not increasing taxes on his watch.
Now the cost-cutting strategy is to give token claw backs of the massive recent Cabinet pay increases as if that would provide some moral high ground to go to public sector workers to induce them to walk away from legally binding mutually agreed to collective bargaining agreements. The not-for-profit community based service sector agencies doing the government's work in the volatile and vulnerable areas like seniors, children's service and the developmentally disabled are being penalized even more than the union based public sector workers.
Passing up non-renewable resource revenues in the face of market based commodity prices and putting the burden for that giveaway on the middle class and most vulnerable in our society is not good politics and even poorer governance.
Will this message come through loud and clear at the pending confidence vote at the November PC AGM? My betting is not at all. Even with all this crashing down on the shoulders of the provincial government and the downloading of the burden on municipalities, schools, hospitals, universities, community based not-for profit social service agencies, it will all be stifled and not talked about openly at the AGM.
The first rule of old-school politics is to get re-elected and the next election is a long way off in political time. There is a lot of water to go under the political bridge before Premier Stelmach has to face the people. The "people" in the PC party know this. The only thing that could cause Stelmach to face the citizens of Alberta earlier would be a low confidence vote in the party leader and Premier by the party faithful. That would trigger a PC leadership contest and with the party policy of one-membership one-vote process Albertans could destabilize the entire PC party tradition and structure.
The PC party faithful will stay "faithful" on November 7th if not to the leader at least to the PC brand. To do anything else will only hurt the party, the province and destabilize provincial politics by unnecessarily increasing the already considerable instability and uncertainty of being Albertan.
I think the Alberta political media attention will shift now to the PC AGM leadership confidence vote but with the Danielle Smith WAP leadership lurking in the background. The speculation will be rampant but pointless. What is on the minds of the delegates and what do they see and the confidence vote "ballot question" is the real issue.
There is a growing amount of grumbling in the PC rank and file these days. It may be that I attract the griping because I speak out about political and governance concerns on this blog. The big tent for fiscal conservatives and social progressives is wearing thin on both counts. Walking away for $2B in royalties for no good reason other than to appease the Calgary based energy executive suites and at the same time to be calling for the same $2B in program cuts in the coming fiscal year captures the essence of why both elements in the PC Party are dissatisfied.
The Premier's political response to the embarrassing third place finish in the Calgary Glenmore by election was restricted to blaming the results on the bad economy and the rapidly expanded government program spending. That presumption that the Stelmach government is not fiscally right-wing enough ignores the growing lack of confidence in the governance and leadership capacity of the current regime. It also ignores the revenue problem caused by politically motivated giveaways and concessions to the energy sector with no positive economic upside for the provincial treasury and the Premier painting himself in a corner with a hasty announcement about not increasing taxes on his watch.
Now the cost-cutting strategy is to give token claw backs of the massive recent Cabinet pay increases as if that would provide some moral high ground to go to public sector workers to induce them to walk away from legally binding mutually agreed to collective bargaining agreements. The not-for-profit community based service sector agencies doing the government's work in the volatile and vulnerable areas like seniors, children's service and the developmentally disabled are being penalized even more than the union based public sector workers.
Passing up non-renewable resource revenues in the face of market based commodity prices and putting the burden for that giveaway on the middle class and most vulnerable in our society is not good politics and even poorer governance.
Will this message come through loud and clear at the pending confidence vote at the November PC AGM? My betting is not at all. Even with all this crashing down on the shoulders of the provincial government and the downloading of the burden on municipalities, schools, hospitals, universities, community based not-for profit social service agencies, it will all be stifled and not talked about openly at the AGM.
The first rule of old-school politics is to get re-elected and the next election is a long way off in political time. There is a lot of water to go under the political bridge before Premier Stelmach has to face the people. The "people" in the PC party know this. The only thing that could cause Stelmach to face the citizens of Alberta earlier would be a low confidence vote in the party leader and Premier by the party faithful. That would trigger a PC leadership contest and with the party policy of one-membership one-vote process Albertans could destabilize the entire PC party tradition and structure.
The PC party faithful will stay "faithful" on November 7th if not to the leader at least to the PC brand. To do anything else will only hurt the party, the province and destabilize provincial politics by unnecessarily increasing the already considerable instability and uncertainty of being Albertan.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Is Bill 44 Already Reviving Some Old and Hateful Activitists
So the aggressive attitudes we feared would come out of passing Bill 44 are starting already. they are not just based on religion but attack "politically correct and pandering" to the legal acceptance of no allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation. Well known homophobe and pamphleteer Bill Whatcott has returned. Just Google him for some context. I am all for free speech and believe he has a right to say what ever he chooses, within the law. That is not my concern with these events.
This time he is delivering a flyer and targeting Alberta Minister of Government Services, Heather Klimchuk's constituency and labeling her as one who "panders to the media and celebrates homosexual pride" because she showed up and participated int eh Edmonton Pride Parade.
Minister Klimchuk was one of three Progressive Conservatives MLAs who were the first from the PC Party to participate in Edmonton's Gay Pride Parade a couple of weeks ago. Mr Whatcott is bemoaning that "...the Stelmach Tories felt they needed to send someone to Edmonton's shame parade to pander to the New Sodom." Wonder if he is also taking on the other two MLAs who participated in the Pride Parade, namely Doug Elniski and Fred Horne and distributing his flyers in their constituencies?
Politics is a blood sport played in public, without a net, and the rules are not always fair, as Doug Elniski has discovered as of late. Heather Klimchuk does not deserve this kind of abuse, nor does any other publicly elected office holder, but it comes with the territory. The members and organizers of the GLBT community can do without the revival of these old hatreds and stereotypes too.
The defenders of expanding and extending the opting out provision in Bill 44 into such broad areas of religion, human sexuality and sexual orientation and then piling on a Human Rights Act review and hearing process have tried to assure Albertans that this kind of thing would not happen because "Albertans are reasonable people." True enough, most of us are reasonable live-and-let-live people. But why did the Stelmach government take the enabling legislative step to empower and embolden the likes of Mr. Whatcott?
He is a well known reactionary Christian-values activists and at the extreme margins of the Christian community. His ilk can also undoubtedly be found in parents of school children who will be be just as inclined to target a teacher as professionals and private citizens. Teachers did not sign up for such terrorist type and targeting by fanatics. But the new opting out amendments to the Alberta Human Rights Act, that started out as the infamous Bill44, will no doubt embolden and empower those people to pursue their political purposes and agendas on the backs of Alberta's teachers.
This is going to be the stuff of good old-fashioned news to the MSM and the blogosphere. That is especially the case for the far right reactionary bloggers and those vile anonymous commentators we often get to "enjoy." The opting out laws masquerading as human rights and parental rights are ill conceived and so unnecessary. Nothing new needed to be done to secure and protect parental rights. The School Act provisions worked well for 20 years. Bill 44 was at best a solution looking for a problem. At its worst it is pure insider partisan appeasement politics beggaring a duty to provide good governance.
According to Mr. Whatcott, "Rather than stand on true principle, our so-called Conservative politicians prefer to pander to politically correct sexual perversion...." He then goes on to tell us why, in his opinion homosexuality is "physically harmful" complete with a graphic photo of anal warts which he says is an STD caused by homosexuality and "nothing to be proud of." Next he alleges homosexuality is "socially and mentally harmful" and lists suicide rates and says homosexuals are "overrepresented in child sex offenses." He offers no authority evidence or other forms of proof for his many allegations. He also denounces "bastions of homosexual tolerance like "posh corporations as the CBC, City of Toronto or Edmonton Police Force."
The spiritual harm of homosexuality is alleged to be evidenced by extensive quoting Biblical Scriptures. But he says there is "hope for homosexuals" again based on Christian forgiveness and Gods love of sinners. So the reactionaries are back, emboldened and about to wreck some havoc. This time is was a politician, Soon, I expect it will be some poor teacher who is just trying to do a professional job of educating our youth to enable them to live well and successfully in a diverse, complex and conflict riven world.
It is not to late to repeal those offensive opting out provisions of the Alberta Human Rights Act as the right thing to do as good governors and for the common good of society. To fail, refuse or neglect to fix this mess will undermine the essential social cohesion of Alberta and drive a values wedge into the rank and file of the PC Party too.
Sometimes certain politicians have to put away their "principles" and do the right thing, like repealing the offensive opting out sections of the revised Alberta Human Rights Act. As an aside, I will not be surprised if I am targeting by these folks for expressing my opinions on such matters. So be it. Free speech is not free because it requires vigilance and must be freely exercised, otherwise it will be lost. I look forward to your comments.
This time he is delivering a flyer and targeting Alberta Minister of Government Services, Heather Klimchuk's constituency and labeling her as one who "panders to the media and celebrates homosexual pride" because she showed up and participated int eh Edmonton Pride Parade.
Minister Klimchuk was one of three Progressive Conservatives MLAs who were the first from the PC Party to participate in Edmonton's Gay Pride Parade a couple of weeks ago. Mr Whatcott is bemoaning that "...the Stelmach Tories felt they needed to send someone to Edmonton's shame parade to pander to the New Sodom." Wonder if he is also taking on the other two MLAs who participated in the Pride Parade, namely Doug Elniski and Fred Horne and distributing his flyers in their constituencies?
Politics is a blood sport played in public, without a net, and the rules are not always fair, as Doug Elniski has discovered as of late. Heather Klimchuk does not deserve this kind of abuse, nor does any other publicly elected office holder, but it comes with the territory. The members and organizers of the GLBT community can do without the revival of these old hatreds and stereotypes too.
The defenders of expanding and extending the opting out provision in Bill 44 into such broad areas of religion, human sexuality and sexual orientation and then piling on a Human Rights Act review and hearing process have tried to assure Albertans that this kind of thing would not happen because "Albertans are reasonable people." True enough, most of us are reasonable live-and-let-live people. But why did the Stelmach government take the enabling legislative step to empower and embolden the likes of Mr. Whatcott?
He is a well known reactionary Christian-values activists and at the extreme margins of the Christian community. His ilk can also undoubtedly be found in parents of school children who will be be just as inclined to target a teacher as professionals and private citizens. Teachers did not sign up for such terrorist type and targeting by fanatics. But the new opting out amendments to the Alberta Human Rights Act, that started out as the infamous Bill44, will no doubt embolden and empower those people to pursue their political purposes and agendas on the backs of Alberta's teachers.
This is going to be the stuff of good old-fashioned news to the MSM and the blogosphere. That is especially the case for the far right reactionary bloggers and those vile anonymous commentators we often get to "enjoy." The opting out laws masquerading as human rights and parental rights are ill conceived and so unnecessary. Nothing new needed to be done to secure and protect parental rights. The School Act provisions worked well for 20 years. Bill 44 was at best a solution looking for a problem. At its worst it is pure insider partisan appeasement politics beggaring a duty to provide good governance.
According to Mr. Whatcott, "Rather than stand on true principle, our so-called Conservative politicians prefer to pander to politically correct sexual perversion...." He then goes on to tell us why, in his opinion homosexuality is "physically harmful" complete with a graphic photo of anal warts which he says is an STD caused by homosexuality and "nothing to be proud of." Next he alleges homosexuality is "socially and mentally harmful" and lists suicide rates and says homosexuals are "overrepresented in child sex offenses." He offers no authority evidence or other forms of proof for his many allegations. He also denounces "bastions of homosexual tolerance like "posh corporations as the CBC, City of Toronto or Edmonton Police Force."
The spiritual harm of homosexuality is alleged to be evidenced by extensive quoting Biblical Scriptures. But he says there is "hope for homosexuals" again based on Christian forgiveness and Gods love of sinners. So the reactionaries are back, emboldened and about to wreck some havoc. This time is was a politician, Soon, I expect it will be some poor teacher who is just trying to do a professional job of educating our youth to enable them to live well and successfully in a diverse, complex and conflict riven world.
It is not to late to repeal those offensive opting out provisions of the Alberta Human Rights Act as the right thing to do as good governors and for the common good of society. To fail, refuse or neglect to fix this mess will undermine the essential social cohesion of Alberta and drive a values wedge into the rank and file of the PC Party too.
Sometimes certain politicians have to put away their "principles" and do the right thing, like repealing the offensive opting out sections of the revised Alberta Human Rights Act. As an aside, I will not be surprised if I am targeting by these folks for expressing my opinions on such matters. So be it. Free speech is not free because it requires vigilance and must be freely exercised, otherwise it will be lost. I look forward to your comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)