When and What Will the Next Alberta Election Be About?

I get a strange feeling the Stelmach government is easing into the election prep stage known as The Red Zone. That is where not much happens in governance because they don’t want to make political mistakes. With the rise of the “pungent and pink” Wildrose the current government, if not in the Red Zone, it is definitely concerned about the Wildrose “pink zone” of election readiness.


I don’t think we will have a snap election in Alberta but I would not count on Stelmach waiting until March 2012 as stated earlier. Alberta is mindful of many external forces influencing its election timing. For example there is potential for a federal election late this fall or next spring. It may happen over the next budget or, depending if Harper thinks he can get a majority, he will engineer his own defeat. The midterm US elections will be watched carefully by the Stelmach government for policy trends that impact energy policy and oil sands development.

Then there are domestic concerns about election timing. The Stelmach government had an approval rating of 12% in a recent survey of Albertans. The economy is apparently recovering but is it due to the billions of provincial and federal government stimulus money or is it authentic economic growth at play? Are we into a slow and steady economic turn around or a double dip recession? Too early to tell yet and economist are pointing in every direction, as usual.

Then we have the volatility of politics to consider too. There is change in the air in Alberta these days. And what form that will take is still unclear. Albertan’s self –image from environmental pressures and negative PR is eating away at our pride of place, our self-confidence and our self-esteem. Albertans are clear that oil sands are critically important to our future prosperity. But they are now questioning themselves and their government about how well this resource is being developed and managed.

The lack of faith in the leadership in any of the current political parties is another measure of volatility. We recently asked a random sample of over 1000 Albertans which political leader they trusted most to manage the growth in the Alberta economy. The results brought a sharp focus on the general disaffection Albertans have with the current crop of political leaders. Only 4% picked the NDP’s Brian Mason. Some 9% trusted Liberal leader David Swann. As for The Wildrose and Danielle Smith only 19% would put their management trust in her. Premier Ed Stelmach of the PCs garnered a scant 23% who said they trusted him the most to manage Alberta’s growth. Here is the kicker – 45% of us said we mostly trusted none of them to manage the growth of the Alberta economy. That survey outcome speaks to potential for serious political change but begs the question – change to what alternative?

Now add in the right-wing conservative political culture war that is raging in Alberta between Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose Alliance Party. With Ted Morton’s move to Minister of Finance and Enterprise he is doing the next budget for the spring of 2011. We can expect his ideological fingerprints will to be all over the economic and fiscal policy direction of Alberta by next year. Kevin Libin has a very insightful and telling column in a recent edition of the National Post on the Morton factor in Alberta politics and policy directions. I recommend you read it.

If Kevin is right in his observations about Minister Morton, and my comments he quotes about Minister Morton from 2006 are still valid (and Morton himself says they are) then we have another fly-in-the-ointment political dynamic that will influence the election timing.

What if the PCs become less progressive and more Morton-like conservative between now and the next election? What if the defacto election battle on the right is between the Sorcerer Morton and Smith, his former Apprentice from the Calgary School? Where does that leave Stelmach? Where do progressives go given the current anemic political alternatives they are being offered? What does the next Alberta look like if only the radical right and reactionary left show up to vote?

We need a viable progressive political alternative in Alberta. The current situation is untenable for any thoughtful Albertan who sees a positive balanced role for responsible, accountable, open and honest government. Reboot Alberta is not a political party but it is a way to influence and shape any new or existing political party. We need to show the powers that be and any that want to be that they must move towards a more inclusive and effective approach to a more contemporary political culture that reflects the next Alberta instead of trying to perfect the past.

Efforts are afoot for staging Reboot 3.0 in late October to look at a more activist approach to bring the progressive agenda and voice back to Alberta politics. Stay tuned for more information here and to join the Reboot Alberta citizen's movement go to http://www.rebootalberta.org/

By Election Results Shows that Alberta PC's & Premier Stelmach Have Some Serious Soul Searching to do!

UPDATE Sept 16/09: Now I just got home from Edson and read Dan Arnold's like-minded piece on the implications of the Calgary Glenmore by election in the National Post. Worth a read.

Just got home from meetings in Jasper and looked at the Calgary Glenmore by election results. Congratulations to WAP's Paul Hinman for his impressive victory. The results are going to have to take some time to sink in especially as the PCs start to reflect on the implications of these results.



The PC percentage vote was cut in half in a seat they have held since 1969 and held by the Deputy Premier in the Stelmach PC government. Clearly some PCs stayed home and some switched to WAP in this by election. In the March 2008 election PCs got 6436 votes for 51%, same percentage vote as in the 2004 election. Today with a high quality candidate with lots of name recognition, the PCs fell to 26% of the popular vote. ASTONISHING!


The total turnout for this by election was 41% (11,208 votes) compared to 44% (12701) votes in 2008 when there was a very poor turnout in Calgary PC country as they tried to send Stelmach a message. In the 2008 election the WAP vote was non-existent at 8% (1025 votes) Well this time the WAP supporters showed up and lots other conservatively inclined Calgarians decided to use this by election to send a very strong message.


Last time there was such a dramatic rejection of a PC candidate in Calgary was in 1992 at the end of the Getty era when Rod Love came in third behind a Liberal and an NDP candidate garnering only about 15% of the total vote.

The Liberals came in second again and held their position in terms of popular vote at 34% compared to 33% in 2008.

So the Monday morning political quarterbacks will be out in droves for the next few days. Here are some grounding realities that can cut both ways. This is a by election and there is 3 years until the next election, lots can happen. There is a WAP leadership in a month that will frame them in a certain way, for good or ill for their longer term political fortunes.

The Liberals are in suspended animation floating in a political weightlessness bouncing off issues and events but not creating them. The Greens are a spend force due to internal squabbling. The NDP are still trying to perfect yesterday and Albertans are happy with them a the Jiminy Cricket kind of conscience of government but not ever to be a government.

The political reaction from Premier Stelmach is what I will be watching for. How will the Premier's Office interpret and respond to this slap up the side of the head? How will the core group of Stelmach's leadership team who brung him to the dance respond. They are all in Cabinet so it will be interesting to see how they respond and what they do to change things.

What will be the PC Caucus reaction? They used to tolerate Klein's shortcomings, both personally and politically, because most of the PC MLAs felt that they owed Klein their seat. He was always more popular than the party. None of the current caucus owes Stelmach their seat. PC caucus reaction will be interesting to watch.

How will the PC party membership respond in the November AGM leadership review vote? Will the rally behind the Premier? Will the Social Conservatives in the party, who had a group of about 12 like-minded MLAs orchestrate Bill 44, feel even more emboldened and vote against Stelmach? Will the Progressives decide to stay home? Or will the party show up and rally around and support Stelmach? Or will they vote confidence in the leadership because they want to support the "brand" as much or more than the leadership?

What if Stelmach gets around 70% support? Will that be enough to keep control of the government? What if he does a Joe Clark and says he wants to reaffirm his leadership with another leadership contest? That would have to happen pretty quickly given the turmoil in the economy and the strain on the social contract. My guess is only Ted Morton could be up and ready to go to challenge the current leadership.

Politics is a cruel and all too often, a blood sport. Based on this by election, the recession, budget cuts now and much more next year and the political power shift to the right in the PC party since the leadership I expect there will be political cruelty, both against politicians and even by them. I hope not but experience tells me turmoil and tensions are the most likely to be the political forecast for Alberta's political climate for the foreseeable future.

It does not have to be that way but unless Stelmach becomes, or is allowed (?) to become the Stelmach that I know, it is not going to be easy or pretty in Alberta politics - not for quite some time. The next election is 3 years away.

Alberta Must Fix its Own Fiscal House Now & Not Pass the Problems on to Future Generations.

Alberta's Fiscal Challenges!
I am confused by the fiscal messaging coming out of Alberta these days. Albertans are into some tough times and more to come from what we are being told. With chronic low natural gas prices and other adjustment in our budget assumptions we can’t expect to rely on resource revenues to sustain our program spending.

There are some other realities that have put us in an operating accounts deficit position. However, let’s be clear Alberta has billions stashed away in various accounts – other than the Heritage Fund. We are borrowing the short fall instead of using the cash reserves. I think that is a good idea given the extremely low interests rate these days.

We are told we have almost a $1B of deficit from last year, then $4.7B in this year and now ballooning to $6.2 B. We can expect an even larger deficit next year even after we cut $2B of spending and Health Minister Liepert is reported to say he doesn’t think you can make that kind of cut in the system in one year in a recession. Recently we have been told by Minister Liepert that our leaner more efficient new health care system will tack on another $1B of deficit this fiscal. That is ironically the same amount as health care premiums used to generate before we scraped them.

What Can Be Done?

Go To Ottawa for More Money!
Part of the deficit “solution” being considered by the Alberta government is to go to Ottawa for more money to help out cash strapped Alberta, particularly for health care. Ottawa has rightly told Alberta we must be a “have-not province” before that would happen. Alberta is far from being a “have-not” province so we will have to find our own solutions to the health care budget shortfall.

Since Harper is now known to be low-balling his own budget deficit estimates according to the Parliamentary Budget Office who predict a structural deficit will prevail until at least 2014 the likelihood of Canada bailing out Alberta are between slim and nil.

Lots of Room to Raise Taxes & Still be Competative!
Alberta’s taxes are also extremely low compared to the rest of the country. Perhaps our taxes are too low especially if we can’t sustain our quality of living and public services as a result. Minister Evans noted in a Calgary Herald Opinion Piece in May 2009 that “…if Alberta had the same tax system as other provinces, Albertans and Alberta businesses would pay between $10B and $18B more in taxes every single year….”

Ted Morton is recently quoted in the Calgary Sun saying Alberta will have to cut spending and raise taxes. “The shortfall is so big. We can’t keep loading debt on the next generation. That is not what conservatives do” according to Minister Morton.

Why Not Charge and Collect Responsible Royalty Rates?
Well let’s talk a bit more about intergenerational fairness and the fiscal realities of Alberta today. What if we actually collected the royalties owed by the energy sector and stopped the high subsidy rates. The Auditor General estimates the Alberta government leaves about $2B per year on the table from uncollected royalties in the conventional oil and gas sector every year from 2006. In addition we subsidize natural gas drilling between $1.5B to $3B in foregone royalties. We are doing this at a time when commodity prices and supply gluts tell us it is folly to drill for more gas because all more supply will do is ensure prices stay low and Alberta’s royalty take will continue to languish.

By not charging reasonable royalties and not collecting those royalty rents on the non-renewable resources owned by Albertans the government is irretrievably squandering the birthright of future generations of Albertans. That is something Minister Morton says Conservatives don’t do.

Eliminate Flat Tax or Keep it & Put in a Sales Tax!
The other thing we could do is to eliminate the flat income tax and return to a progressive tax model. Alternatively we can retain the flat tax but institute a sales tax based on consumption and add a progressive tax element back into our system and raise much needed funds. This would bring in enough money to cover the deficits and still leave Alberta as the most tax competitive province overall.

Can we Look Our Kids in the Eye if we Don't Resolve the Problem Now?
It was way back in 1994-94 when our government consciousness caught up with the fiscal sentiments of Albertans and took on the challenge to eliminate the accumulated debt and stop deficit budgeting. One of the key motivations of the people of Alberta at the time was the unfairness debt and deficit was to future generations. Debt and deficits were seen as mortgaging the future of our children. When the task was accomplished Premier Klein said “we can look our kids in the eye again.”

Well we have the same shame now in looking future generations in the eye as we fail refuse or neglect to charge and collect responsible and reasonable royalty rents from our non-renewable resource energy sector. By failing to require and enforce restoration and reclamation practices for roads, wells sites, seismic lines and other disturbances inherent in the development of the energy sector we leave a negative legacy for our children to contend with. By not having adequate protection and enforcement of land, water and air standards we put an additional burden on future Albertans.

The 2010-11 Alberta Budget cycle has just started. The news is not good but the solutions are in the hands and within the power of Albertans to take on, control as resolve “adults.” It will take political will to accomplish the tasks but Albertans forced the political will on its politicians before - in 1993-94 over debt and deficit. Will Albertans once again take personal responsibility to resolve and adjust to the current fiscal realities and choose not to delay or defer them as a burden on future generations?

The Rocky Road to the Repeal of Bill 44 Provisions in The Alberta Human Rights Act.

What is Next for Bill 44 Provision in Alberta Human Rights Act?
The frequency and volume of political commentary about passing The Alberta Human Rights Act (AHRA) that adopted the Bill 44 opting out provisions will diminish over the next few months. It is summer after all. The reality of the consequences of this ill-advised and ill-conceived law will come once the Act is proclaimed and becomes the actual law of the land.


There are some unrest and rumblings within the Progressive Conservative Party rank and file against Bill 44 provisions in the AHRA. I also hear some in the PC Party are trying to stifle and suppress any continuing talk about Bill 44, presuming it will be forgotten over time. I don't think that will be the case given the anger I have seen expressed over this bad politics and poor governance decision. That approached worked in a pre-Internet world but it will not work now.


There are a few moves afoot within some PC Party constituencies to submit a resolution for repeal of the opting out provisions for debate the AGM in November 2009. I am all for that and hope it happens but there are many hurdles to jump to make that a reality. Here is a sense of what it would take and what it would mean for the PC Party to debate the repeal of the opting out provisions of the AHRA at the next AGM.


The PC Party is not the PC Government.
First, if must be clearly understood that whatever the PC Party decides is not binding on the Stelmach government. The PC Party is just another political special interest group. It is not the government. I served on the PC Party Policy Committee for years but over a decade ago. I had a constant fight with the Reform/Alliance wing members who did not grasp the difference between the government and the policy proposals of the political party that supported it. Grassroots run deep with old-time Reformers.


Sometimes process is everything so here is how it works, as I understand it. I checked the process and it is essentially the same as in my day in dealing with Party Resolutions at AGMs. Here is a link to the PC Party website for the actual constituency resolution process, if you are interested.

The PC Party debates Resolutions at every AGM from submissions made by individual constituency organizations. Each constituency can submit two resolutions. The first one (the "A" Resolution) will always be debated. While the second one (the "B" Resolution) may not be debated because of time constraints. If there are duplicates of resolutions they are combined and only one is debated. Some resolutions are declined because the don't deal with provincial jurisdiction or they are too vague or too local in nature.


A group of Regional Directors and constituency level VPs of Policy, all as party volunteers, will do the vetting of the resolutions received. The A and B Resolutions are dealt with first come first served and up to 6 minutes of debate is provided for each one. Then any party member in the room can vote on the Resolution on a show of hands. Open transparent and fair to my mind.


Those Resolutions that get support from the membership are submitted to the government as information and advice. The government caucus then considers them and responds to the Party on each one, in writing. The government's responses range from agreement to disagreement and everything in between and often includes a reporting on the status and progress on resolutions and related issues.


Will the PC AGM Debate a Repeal Resolution?
So what will it take to get the AHRA provisions of Bill 44 to be debated as a Resolution at the November PC Party AGM? The first step is for a local party constituency organization to draft an appropriate proposed resolution and then decide as a local Board to submit it to the AGM.


That first step has already been done by the Edmonton Whitemud PC Constituency but there is a wrinkle. My information is the Bill 44 Repeal Resolution from Whitemud was a tie vote for second place - a "B" Resolution. The constituency apparently has decided to submit three resolutions rather than break the tie for the B resolution. It is an interesting development because the Repeal Resolution it will at best be a "B" Resolution and it risks not being debated due to time constraints. That has never happened in my experience in dealing with Party Resolutions, but it is a possibility, and in politics if it is possible anything can happen so nothing should surprise us.


Here are some interesting "What Ifs." What if in the initial Party vetting process they cull one of the two Whitemud B resolutions because only two Resolutions are allowed. Would the Bill 44 resolution be the one culled? The resolution vetting process could more likely send the two B resolutions back to Whitemud and require them to break the tie and will that happen or will they settle on only submitting an "A" Resolution?

If at the party organizational level, they decided to cull the only Repeal Resolution on such a technicality, I expect progressives in the PC Party would either revolt against the Party Executive or just leave the party. My money is on the Party going back to the Whitemud constituency and making them break the tie vote. So much uncertainty still prevails.


This could be avoided if another PC Constituency organization were to submit an "A" Resolution to recommend repeal of the AHRA opting out provisions. To date that has not happened but it might. I think it should happen for the sake of the PC Party itself but there appears to be some of nervous nellies who help run the party. They clearly want this to go away so all this Bill 44 controversy would just disappear somehow.


Some Serious Political Implications Around a Repeal Resolution
Here are some of the political implications for the PC Party, the PC government and progressive Albertans emerging from these various scenarios. If there is a Resolution for the Repeal of the AHRA opting out provisions debated at the AGM, and it passes, the Stelmach government can reconsider its policy and move to repeal the provisions. It can also say no, that is a done deal and they can refuse to reconsider. That is their option as our government but there will be repercussions in the PC Party and the PC government either way.


If such a Resolution is defeated by the PC Party membership then there will be soul searching in the progressive membership ranks of the PC Party considering if this party is still viable as their political "home." Who knows if or when that will happen. The party progressives I have talked to about Bill 44 know there is no other political party for them to go where they feel comfortable and believe they could be effective. The question then is will they join the other 60% of disengaged Albertans or pursue something different to express their political philosophy and aspirations for Alberta? Will the "Alberta Citizen Cynicism" party gets thousands more non-voters?


There are Implication for Progressives.
There is another more subtle but even more significant potential implication coming out of how the PC Party handles a Resolution to repeal AHRA opting out provisions. If they never received such a resolution from a constituency then local constituency ennui or angst against "rocking the boat" gets the Party off the hook. But that does not resolve the larger political issue, namely the anger amongst all the progressive Albertans who are still angry over the unnecessary Bill 44 optioning out provisions in the AHRA.

If no PC constituency organization has the courage and conviction to submit a repeal resolution for debate at the AGM I expect most progressive PC members will drift away from the party and be missing in action in the next election. The non-partisan Alberta progressives will decide to actively campaign against the PC Party in preparation for the next election. We are seeing the tip of that iceberg as evidenced in the wave of social media and traditional media commentary on the appropriateness of some recent personal comments made in public by Iris Evans and Doug Elniski. The PC Party and the PC government can expect more of this kind of scrutiny and aggressive response from now on - regardless of any AGM debate or its outcome.


If the Party receives a submission but tries to subvert the AGM debate of a repeal resolution I will expect to see progressive party members getting more vocal and deciding in droves to be no shows at the November AGM meeting. I can't see that subversion happening but it is politics and anything can happen. If it did happen I would be more disappointed than surprised. The likely unintended consequences are that the majority of PC party members who will "show up" at the AGM (and who will likely be encouraged to show up) will be those social conservatives on the far right of the party who tend to support Ted Morton.

There are Potential Implications for the Stelmach Leadership too.
Under those circumstances, a really significant political turn of events from the Bill 44 fiasco, that could happen at this November AGM. That is a potential threat to Premier Stelmach's continuing leadership of the PC Party. The PC Party Constitution requires that the Leader to face a confidence vote at the first AGM following an election - win or lose. That is how the Party sent a message to Ralph Klein that it was time for him to go a few years back. Ralph lingered as Leader, but the Party told him, in a vote of no uncertain terms, that he was past his best before date. He was gone!

PC Party Leader Ed Stelmach has to face a similar leadership confidence vote of party members at the November AGM.


What if the party "faithful" who show up at the AGM are predominantly social conservatives because they are emboldened by Bill 44? What if the the progressives stay home because the are discouraged by Bill 44? Could this be the "perfect storm" for the far right to give Premier Stelmach a low vote of support? What level of low support would seriously undermine his continuing leadership? What if his support is low enough, like Klein's 55% support? Will he have a backbench revolt of social conservatives that demand another leadership race? Will we be into a PC leadership contest for a new Alberta Premier sooner than we thought or even wished for? What will such uncertainty do to the Alberta economy and any recovery from the recession?


This is what can happen when internal partisan political expediency is preferred over good governance - like in the case of the Bill 44 fiasco. Bill 44 issues will be quiet over the summer but they will be front and centre again in the fall. Stay tuned. It promises to be interesting, unnerving, disappointing and even devastating, depending on your perspective.

Lots to Applaud in the Alberta Land Use Framework

The Alberta Land Use Framework is one of the most important and eagerly anticipated public policy initiatives in Alberta in a long time. OK maybe saying it has been eagerly anticipated is a stretch for most Albertans but it is true for those of us who live in the public policy and political world.

I was involved in the early stages of the process and even had a small hand in some of the process design and participated in some of the stakeholder consultations and workshops and did some briefings for senior officials on the outcomes of the discrete choice modeling values based research we did on forestry stewardship and oil sands development. That involvement adds to my sense of anticipation obviously. I have not had the time to read the document in detail but let me share some initial impressions.

IT IS ALL ABOUT MANAGING GROWTH:

This document is a thoughtful response to growth pressures in Alberta. Don’t be naïve. It will have an impact on the pace of growth and even the purpose and place of growth in some instances. It is going to be an effective “touching of the brakes.” Be careful how you interpret that comment. Touching the brakes tends to slow things down. You have to “hit the brakes” to stop things. This is not about hitting the brakes but it is definitely going to have the effect of touching them. This slowing down of the pace of growth will give us time to get growth right instead of rapid as has been the case so far.

A QUALITY EXAMPLE OF PUBLIC POLICY DEVELOPMENT:

This document has been a long time coming and for good reason. It is the result of a comprehensive and intensive series of explorations and consultations and activist citizen engagement. It is the product of an intelligent policy design process. The last time complex and intricate policy was developed in such a positive way was the Water for Life Strategy. That policy was left unfunded so it has not lived up to its promise – at least not yet but I am hopeful that will change as it integrates with the Land Use Framework policy.

TYING LAND USE TO WATER CAPACITY IS BRILLIANT:

The brilliant move in the Land Use Framework is tying land use to water use as the defining element in regional planning. If the water capacity can’t sustain a land use development – it should not happen. There limits to our ecological capacity for growth that are atmospheric (GHG) water and land use. There is a focus on cumulative impacts now and not each project being looked at on its own “merits.” The integration of land, air and water, with cumulative impacts, consideration of habitat, fragmentation, urban sprawl and a host of other growth pressure elements will all come into play now. This means there will not be a one-size-to-fit-all approach going forward. More design intelligence is obviously at work here in this document.

WE HAVE TO DO BETTER IN CONSERVATOIN AND STEWARDSHIP:

This auger well for us now avoiding turning the entire province in to the same mess we created in Fort McMurray caused by delays and the disasters due to the personal political agendas of incompetent and neglectful former key Ministers who are no longer around.

The other really reassuring strategy in the Land Use Framework is the commitment to develop a conservation and stewardship ethos on public and private lands. This issue, especially around preserving and protecting wildlife habitat has shown up as top of mind for Albertans in our research but had not registered in the political agendas of the province – until now.

Congratulations Dr. Morton for making these policy considerations central to our land use ethic going forward.

There is a lot more meat in this document and policy process that I will have to read and reflect on before I comment further. I see this as a great day for Alberta with the release of this draft. It impacts every one of us and ought to be as catalytic for public engagement as the Hunter Royalty Review Panel document was last fall. Now the real work begins!

Here is the link to the website that every Albertan needs to get into and get serious about helping decide where we all go forward on this transformation policy proposal.

Nice To See Alberta Ministers Musing About New Ideas in Public

Anyone who has read this Blog for any length of time knows that I am a card carrying member of the Alberta PC Party and friend and fan of Dave Hancock, Alberta’s new Minister of Learning.

So with that bias disclosed let me say Hancock has been making some interesting moves in that of portfolio of late. Suggesting that school planning has been “insane” and that perhaps school boards are worthy of more respect and responsibility than they have been in the past decade and maybe ought to have some more political power.

I have to say I am surprised and encouraged by this new openness and policy commentary actually making news coming from Ministers like Hancock, Liepert on health reform and Morton on land use issues. This is kind of political using before matters get to Cabinet good for democracy and key to achieving a re-engaged and informed citizenry.

There seemed to be a message controlling chill over government MLAs and Cabinet Ministers expressing opinions before Stelmach became Premier. For sure, once a Cabinet decision has been take that position is, and should be, gospel for all Ministers. If they don’t like it they can resign from Cabinet. It has happened.

As a citizen I am as interested in what range of options is being considered and how policy issues are being explored before they go behind the closed Cabinet doors for decisions. I want to see want is left on the cutting room floor as these who govern us make the hard choices on our behalf. This new openness is so much more respectful of Albertans.

It is important that our policy makers show that they are informed, engaged and actively exploring options that, in the end, serve the common good. If the politicinas want to earn our respect and gain our trust they need to show citizens that they are not just in a sheep-like acceptance of a top down pre-ordained and dictated “political solution.”

I credit Premier Stelmach for this change in attitude and governing philosophy. The old-style pre-ordained political positioning that is pushed through a public consultation process purely for show is hopefully a thing of the past now too.

Alberta's Wildrose and Alliance Parties Looking At Merger!

Good to see the nascent Wildrose Party and the bucolic Alliance Party talking merger. My sources say early efforts at a merger between Wildrose and the Social Credit Party proved unworkable. There are still the Alberta Party and the Separation Party that may be ripe for merger with this new entity too.

The parties better fast track this effort if they want to be a force in the forth coming Alberta election. Getting the Alliance party members to agree to a merger and accept the bylaws of the Wildrose Party and have Wildrose first in name will take some explaining if it is to be successful a the January 19th AGM of the Alliance.

The Alliance has been around longer, since 2002, and has proven to be able to deliver at least a modicum electoral success with Leader Paul Hinman. The compromise position offered is Mr. Hinman will lead the new merged party. That will at least be until the next election where we will see how well he does in his own seat. His second major challenge as leader will be recruiting credible candidates with such short notice and not much money or time to raise it.

Hinman will be running against Progressive Conservative Broyce Jacobs again. Jacobs held the seat before but lost it to Hinman in 2004 as the Cardston-Taber-Warner seat concentrated its disillusionment with Ralph Klein. Alliance gelled their support and in a tight two-way race Hinman won by 131 votes. The Alberta Liberals and New Democrats have not nominated their cannon fodder candidates in the constituency as yet.

This constituency is one to watch for many reasons but mostly as a test of the Stelmach PCs and the political viability of the far right parties, in coalition or otherwise. The implications for the acceptability and viability of the proposed merged Wildrose Alliance Party are obvious.

Results differ depending if this deep-south constituency sees Stelmach as a continuation of Ralph Klein or is he going to be seen as a new guy with rural roots and a man of integrity, substance and experience. On the other hand they may feel they don’t know enough about Stelmach and could decide continuing as a contrarian constituency and supporting Hinman again can’t hurt them and it will send a serious message to government.

There is a back story in all of this too that involves Dr. Ted Morton and where he will stand and how will he come out in all of this. He is clearly the heir apparent to the Wildrose Alliance leadership if Hinman fails to win his seat. He is also well respected and known in the area. Where will Morton’s loyalties lie, with Stelmach, his Alliance roots or with his own future leadership aspirations? If the case is the latter scenario, which party will Morton align with to fulfil his political leadership ambitions?

Morton can concentrate on winning his own seat as a PC and not work for Stelmach in the deep south. This has the making of best scenario outcomes for Morton If Stelmach does well, Morton will have proven his capability and “loyalty” to the Stelmach PC government and should be secure in a Cabinet post again.

If Stelmach does not do well then consequences differ depending if Hinman wins or loses? If Hinman loses Morton will be facing a far right draft to cross the floor and lead the new party giving it a continuing seat in the Legislature as well. If Hinman wins, there will be pressure for a PC leadership change again and will Morton try to become leader of the PCs again?

Looks like Dr. Ted Morton is positioning well for a favourable personal political outcome no matter what happens in the next election – so long as he wins his own seat. One more indication that Alberta politics are no longer boring.

PC Party Should Learn From the Chandler Experience and Fix Its Nomination and Leadership Process

The right decision was made by the PC Party Executive Committee on Mr. Chandler’s suitability for candidacy in the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. The matter is not over. Beyond Mr. Chandler’s indications he may sue the Party for his nomination costs which he says are $127,000.00, the PC Party needs to revisit its nomination and leadership selection processes.

The PC Party, and other political parties too I expect, need to review their nomination process in the light of expectations of accountability, transparency and fairness. Premier Stelmach promised the Party would review and fix the leadership process. Let’s kill two birds and deal with the nomination process at the same time.

Let’s learn from the Chandler experience and do some Constitutional updating. First fairness. If the Leader or the Party Executive has reservations about a candidate pursuing nomination perhaps we need to take a page from the federal CPCs and have a questionnaire and statutory declaration completed by each candidate before they are eligible to run. We can confidentially get a sense of their background and skeletons, if any, and judge their suitability up front. We should not have to rely on Dr. Oberg for this information on skeletons. A suitability test and a decision could be made without embarrassing anyone.

Second, we need full disclosure of donors and perhaps limits on nomination campaign spending to level the playing field and for transparency. If Mr. Chandler spent $127,000.00 for about 950 votes, how did he spend it? Did he buy every supporter dinner in a nice restaurant? For that money? He could have.

Who ponied up $127,000 in the first place? Spending that kind of money at this level of the political process shows that Mr. Chandler is clearly only a social conservative...he is no fiscal conservative, that is for sure. Can you imagine how he might spend of our tax money if he were in government? We need to clean this matter up in the leadership process too. We have been waiting about a year and still don't know who supported Do. Oberg's leadership despite his promise to disclose donors. Dr. Morton said he will not disclose his leadership campaign donors and under the current Party rules - he is entitled to that entitlement. Not good enough.

We have some fixin’ to do in the PC Party around our nomination and leadership processes. This is up to the Party not the leader to undertake this job. Let’s get at it.

Link Byfield Says the Growing Undecided Voters in Alberta is Good for the Wildrose Party

Link Byfield has sent out another call for signatures to help the new Wildrose Party to get political party status. He sees the Cameron Strategies poll last week showing some 37% of Albertans undecided in how they will vote next election as fertile ground for a new, energized far-right political movement. Here is what Link had to say in an e-mail on Friday:

“An astonishing poll this week from Cameron Strategy in Calgary shows that undecided voters are now the largest group in Alberta (37%). The Stelmach Conservatives have dropped to 32%. That's down from 54% in January. Liberals, NDP, Greens and Alliance are all stalled. Highest place are the Liberals, unchanged at 16%. The Alberta Alliance remains at 5%, down from 9% in 2004 election.”

It is actually 30% undecided and 6% who will not vote at all in the polling figures I have seen,but that is a quibble. I wonder if Link remembered this pollster was also an able and key advisor to the Dr. Oberg PC leadership campaign. Speaking of Dr. Oberg, when is he going to release his donor list from the PC leadership campaign – what has it been 9 months? He is the last to do it. Remember Dr. Morton said he never would tell Albertans who bankrolled him.

As for the poll, it does not look good for those of us who believe in the leadership of Ed Stelmach. I have only seen the news release on the poll. I have not seen the questions or the data distribution so it is hard to really comment except in the most general of terms. We all know wording of questions can have an impact on outcomes.

It would be interesting to know how many phone calls in total were made in this poll before they got the 600 participants. Some indications are that as many as 15-20 calls have to be made these days before someone is prepared to take the time to answer pollster. The end result is the group participating is not as random as one might think because people self-select to participate and we can never tell what their motivations are.

We also know how the participants split geographically, a third in each of Edmonton, Calgary and other. We don't know gender, age, education, income breakdowns and if that mix correlates with the representative population characteristics of Alberta. I always like to know that before I rely on the data. Cameron Strategies is very reputable and experienced so I am sure they will soon release all the data and the wording of the questions too.

Regardless of these technicalities, judging by these results, it sure looks like Albertans are disenchanted with politics these days. Stelmach is taking the brunt of this but there is little solace for the Taft Liberals or Mason's NDP, who Link notes are both “stalled.” The Alliance is in free fall too. That and "37%" undecided – maybe the Wildrose Party has some potential to be a force in the next election.

In the mean time the Wildrose Party need signatures to qualify as a political party for the next Alberta election and that is obviously Job 1 for them right now.

Thoughts on Why Ed Stelmach Won the PC Leadership

My previous post was about why Dinning and Morton lost the 2006 PC leadership. That commentary was based on a study we did on leadership qualities Albertan’s were looking for in the the summer of 2003. A visit to the previous post will give you some context on the leadership attributes we considered.

What was it about Ed Stelmach that the Albertans liked about him when they showed up to chose him as their next Premier last December? The most significant positive Preparation driver for leadership in Alberta was someone with Business experience. None of the leadership candidates were strongly identified with having a business background, including Stelmach. However, his advantage was that he was also not identified with the other very negative Preparation attributes of being a professional politician, a lawyer or an academic. Other candidates were strongly identified with these negative attributes and that benefited Stelmach.

He was able to be identified with issues around the importance of Alberta’s role in Canada and the world. This was partly because of his past portfolios like Agriculture and top of mind issues like BSE and concerns about Alberta’s beef export access to American and other markets. His stint in International and Intergovernmental Affairs helped him understand and explain Alberta's place in a Canadian and international context. Stelmach’s recent success at the Council of the Federation, where he spent time explaining Alberta’s growth challenges and environmental plans, helped persuade most of the First Minister’s to sympathize with us and give us the benefit of the doubt and accept that we were engaged and up to the task.

In the end, I believe it was his personal qualities that made him the most attractive as the next PC leader and Premier. He was seen as an honest man with integrity and he campaigned aggressively on that theme. Even as a politician, he still farmed. That framed him to many as a potential leader who would not lose contact with the real lives of real people and not just identify and deal with the beautiful and bountiful or the rich and famous once he was in office.

His obvious ability to listen and even his lack of media skills would be perceived as positives in the campaign. Remember from the last posting, any media savvy candidate was seen as someone not to be trusted. They tended to be perceived as slick and masters of spin. The quality of being media savvy was a big leadership negative to Albertans in our survey results.

The other high value communications skill the survey showed was the ability to bring clarity to issues and to be a good listener. Stelmach is a very good listener. He sees and appreciates the complexity of most modern political issues and has a mind that likes to explore their implications and nuances. As a result clarity is sometimes sacrificed to his predilection for a fulsome understanding and "explanation" of the issues. In that way he is more like Jed Bartlett of the West Wing than George Bush of the Right Wing.

Being articulate was ranked as such a minor positive attribute that it could be considered as a neutral matter in our survey results. During the campaign, and ever since, the mainstream media in Alberta has made much of Stelmach’s “communications challenges.” Stelmach obviously lacks the polished “skill” of mouthing media-speak sound bite answers. That seems to drive the main stream media to distraction because they are so used to the professionally packaged politician. Citizens are not as concerned so long as they feel they can trust his judgement and his grasp of the issues. After all how many citizens get to (or have to) sit through an entire news conference or press briefing?

The second most important positive attribute for leadership from our study was being able to be an agent of change and to bring forth new ideas and support new ideas from others. This is where Stelmach's real potential lies, in championing changes. He has lots of change in progress in areas like energy policy, royalties and infrastructure funding. He is setting new priorities with an emphasis on innovation and technology, to concerns about managing growth and even raising issues about literacy.

He has instituted democratic reforms and reorganized the legislative policy committee structures to be all-party inclusive. He has introduced health reforms like legislation for smoking bans in public and work places. He is committed to cleaning up the teachers and other pension debts which was a holdover from Klein’s era. He is reviewing roles and responsibilities of agencies boards and commissions and the provincial government relationship with them including regional health authorities and municipalities. And he is instituting lobbyist legislation.

The record already shows Stelmach is an originator and supporter of new ideas and is a positive champion as an agent for change. None of this as yet to resonate with the mainstream media and, as a consequence, it is far from top of mind with the public. He is perceived by some, including me, as not having communicated very effectively nor has he executed political power particularly well.

There may be a change afoot however. The recent meetings in Moncton with the provincial Premiers at the Council of the Federation, Stelmach is being given media-based credit, for the first time, for his governance ability. He showed his capacity to articulate effectively, bring clarity to complex issues like climate change and GHG emissions and explain them in the context of accelerating economic growth pressures. And he has made the point of how Alberta's growth is benefiting the rest of Canada. All of these elements were identified by Albertans in our study way back in 2003 as the high value positive leadership attributes that we wanted for the next Alberta Premier.

Communicating clearly and executing the Premier's governance and political roles more effectively is a big part of what the PC government needs. These are key elements towards the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta revitalizing, rejuvenating and retaining its position as the preferred voter choice to govern the next Alberta.

An election is less than a year away and the Red Zone is a few months away. If our survey findings are still valid, letting Ed be Ed in ways that show off his personal qualities is one of our "secret" weapons to this continued success. Showing off Stelmach's personal qualities and capacities, especially as a champion for positive change, is big part of what we need to do to reconnect with Albertans. There is no time to waste Mr. Premier.

Why Dinning and Morton Lost the PC Leadership

Ed Stelmach’s win of the Alberta PC Leadership last December was a surprise to many but not to his hard working campaigners, especially given their success between the first and second ballot. Yes there was the emerging ABD and ADM factor (Anybody but Dinning and/or Morton) that will draw some to conclude Stelmach was a “compromise” candidate, but there was something else going on too.

The vote on the next PC Leader would also be the Premier of Alberta so the selection process was open to any adult Albertan who wanted to pony up 5 bucks and take the trouble to show up and vote. There were lots of people who were not typical Progressive Conservative party types but they did join the PC Party and they showed up and I think they made a big difference in the final outcome.

I had access to some particular insight as to what Albertans wanted in their next Premier. My firm, Cambridge Strategies Inc. with a strategic partner, did a Discrete Choice Modelling survey in the summer of 2003 where we asked Albertans to tell us what qualities they were looking for in the next Premier of Alberta. Given that it was done a while ago I think those findings still reflected, in large part, why Jim Dinning and Ted Morton lost and why Ed Stelmach won the PC leadership on December 2, 2006.

We surveyed influential Albertans, those who are involved in thier communities and whose opinions matter to other people, as to their preferences in three major leadership categories, Preparation for Premier, Vision and Education. We broke Preparation to be Premier in four experience areas, political, business, academic and legal experience. As for vision we asked if the next Premier should focus strictly on Alberta's needs, Alberta’s Role in Canada or Alberta’s Role in the World. The level of education preferred for the next Premier was between High School, University Degree and Post-Graduate levels.

We also asked about some personal qualities, communications skills and approaches to change citizens valued in their next Premier. The results showed the values of Albertans, including both positive and negative attributes, that would influence and drive their preferences in selecting their next Premier. It also indicated the degree of intensity Albertans held on each attribute.

I will share in my next posting my analysis of why Ed won, but first I will discuss what we discovered to be the least optimal leadership characteristics for the next Premier. I think this analysis of the study results around negative attributes, what Albertans did not want in their next Premier, provides some real insight as to why Dinning and Morton lost.

If your Experience in preparation for leadership was mostly political (Dinning) or academic (Dr. Morton) there was a significantly negative voter influence on you and your candidacy. If your Vision was focused exclusively on Alberta, like Dr. Morton who signed the famous Firewall letter, along with now Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The Firewall letter urged Premier Klein to isolate Alberta from the rest of Canada by erecting a policy “Firewall” around the province. That was the second significant negative attribute on the Dr. Morton candidacy and campaign.

If your perceived personal qualities were Assertive and Self-confident (Morton) or Informed and Curious (Dinning) it was a turn off to voters. The world is a complex place and Integrity, Honesty, Real Life Experience and practical Know-How were the preferred personal leadership qualities Albertans were looking for in their next Premier. If your Communications approach was that of a media savvy political spinner (both the Dinning and Morton campaigns) it was a major turn off. Being perceived as slick and glib was a curse to any candidacy for Leader/Premier.

If your approach to dealing with change was to follow the lead of others; that was the most negative turn off in the entire study. I think Dinning may have gotten caught in this negative attribute because many saw his leadership as an extension of the status quo Calgary dominated continuation of the Klein agenda. Morton, a Reform Party activist, Senator-in-Waiting was perceived to be strongly tied to the agenda of the Reform wing of the federal Conservative Party. He was perhaps seen as someone who would be more inclined to follow the Harper Conservative agenda and isolate Alberta from the rest of Canada.

Voter perceptions of a candidate having to kowtow to those backroom people who “brung you to the dance” and who those people were would have had an influence on deciding if a candidate was “their own man or not.” Morton stating early on that he would not be disclosing any information about his campaign contributors made people wonder who he was going to be beholden to and if such unknown forces may have too much influence that would not be in the best interests of Albertans. The Dinning campaign was seen as having lots of the Klein era holdovers from the plethora of MLA endorsements to long time Klein political organizers in key campaign roles. That could have contributed to a suspicion about Dinning’s practical capacity to be an independent leader and an agent of real change or would he be just a continuation of the same old – same old.

This is admittedly all 20/20 hindsight but it is interesting to consider nonetheless, especially as we go into the next provincial election expected in the spring of 2008. Next posting I will discuss the survey results and how they indicated how Stelmach presented a winning combination of experience, qualities and capacities.

Disgruntled Alberta Refomers See the Province as the Way to Change Ottawa

Link Byfield made it known 2 weeks ago on the home page of his Citizen’s Centre for Freedom and Democracy that this group was “going political.”

The inspiration appears to be the Firewall letter of 2001 which Links calls the end of the Reform Party Era. He sees the way to reform Ottawa is now in the ands of the provinces and that Alberta is in the best position to pick up the torch or cudgel, depending on how you see it. So they have started a new Reform provincially based political party...the Wildrose Party.

I see Ted Morton’s picture along with Stephen Harper who both signed the infamous Firewall Letter to then Premier Ralph Klein in 2001. This was before these gentlemen were successful in elected politics.

So I expect Link sees the Firewall Letter spirit as a fulcrum and a provincial political party as a lever to get the job done. With so many strong egos and different perspectives on the far right, it is hard to see a way that a coalition will emerge…but a strong man might. Who might that strong man be? Alberta’s SRD Minister Ted Morton and Edmonton City Councilor Mike Nickel are names you hear bandied about for that role.

Alberta Declares a State of Emergency Due to Mountain Pine Beetle

My posting on adapting to the Mountain Pine Beetle has been getting a lot of hits and attention. With this level of interest I thought readers may want to have more background. The report we did for the Grande Alberta Economic Region in January dealt with the economic, social and environmental costs of the Beetle to this region based on the devastating experience form British Columbia mostly.

I see Premier Stelmach and Minister Morton have declared a state of emergency because of the Mountain Pine Beetle. It is a good thing. Even the southerners are getting concerned and they are not as dependent on the Boreal Forest as norther Albertans are. The beetle is now in Banff and Jasper National Parks in significant numbers now too. that adds a whole new dimension to the problems. This is going to be a national emergency soon too I expect.

We have a video interview coming on Policy Channel shortly with Glenn Taylor, Mayor of Hinton and the Chair of the Grande Alberta Economic Region. If you are concerned about the biota at all you will want to see that interview.

Recommend the Post to Progressive Bloggers

PC Leadership CampaignDisclosure Doesn't Cut It!

The disclosure of PC Leadership donations just does not cut it. Larry Johnsrude of the Edmonton Journal has a good analysis and he closely reflects my sentiments. The Progressive conservative Party has not done itself “proud” by having no rules around campaign contribution limits and disclosure. The candidates have done the best they could under the circumstances but the fact remains the PC Party created the circumstances.

Anonymous donations of any size are inappropriate in an open and transparent modern and mature democracy. Now put this under the pressure of a very competitive campaign context of a political party leadership. The system assured that nobody really knows anything about what is going on in the campaign and there is no obligation to account.

Under the circumstances what can you expect except what Stelmach and Hancock did by way of disclosure? Dinning is on board and Oberg will fess up shortly. Norris says he has disclosed already but needs to do it formally as a final wrap up if he expect to run again. Dr. Morton is a no show on campaign contribution disclosure and that is simply not acceptable in this day an age.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, (PCPA) of which I am a proud member, blew it. Instead of giving Albertans a sense of openness and transparency in the process this time, we have cast suspicion on the participants. In 1992, when we last selected a leader, the one person one vote model was a shining example of how we were an open process party inviting citizen participation.

We did not have very stringent fund raising rules around political donations in those days. Now we do. The PCPA ought to have adopted the same rules for political contributions applicable at election time and applied them to the 2006 leadership campaign. We did not change with the times and we should have.

After all we (including me) made big deals that we were not just electing a party leader but also a Premier. We (including me) made a big deal about how open, inclusive and accountable we were being as a party. We were letting any citizen who wanted to vote on our leader and for their Premier “in” on the PC Party's decision for a $5 spot to join the party.

We would welcome risking the loss of control over the selection of “our” party leader to the general population for the good of democracy. Damn we were being good. Right? Over 140,000 ordinary Albertans bought into that reality and showed up, ponied up and voted. Special interests formed and many showed up. Many more who were rumored to be “showing up” didn’t, and the rest, as they say, is history. Well that good will the party earned and deserved, has been squandered over the lack of adequate campaign contribution disclosure rules.

Now we have a pall over the process and the participants because of the immediate cash needs of many campaigns, including late comers like Stelmach and Hancock. They needed to collect money, lots of it and very quickly. So anonymous donations were accepted, simply because they were allowed and the need was great. Not good enough but that was the reality.

Here are the key questions we have to come to grips with on the level of disclosure from what we have seen, so far, and on a voluntary basis. Hancock has 7 no-names and one for $10K. Stelmach has about 80 individual contributions plus other unidentified sources amounting to about 1/3 of his total campaign budget. We don't know the distribution of the anonymous contributions. Are they all in the $1000 range or are their some big whoppers in there too? We need a breakdown to be as least somewhat reassured no one is apppearing to try to buy access and influence.

Hancock, Stelmach and others benefited from significant “fundraising” events that are reported as anonymous too, including the events in Edmonton and Calgary to cover some candidate’s campaign deficits. For the record, I am in for $500 of that “fundraising” group. My $500 ticket had a stub with a place for a name, which I filled out and turned in at the door on the evening of the event.

I fully expected that as a condition of attendance I would be seeing my name disclosed on a contributor list. It has not been so I am telling you my contribution now. I made no other financial contribution to any campaign, including Hancock, but donated hundreds of hours of volunteer time to the Hancock campaign over 6 months and about 60 hours to the Stelmach campaign in the last week.

I am not usually on the fund raising side of campaigns but I have picked up a few of the "realities" over the years. Most anonymous donations come from four main sources. First those who belong to other parties, usually higher profile types, who will support another party’s candidate on the quality of his or her character but they don’t want the publicity that would result from disclosure.

Secondly we have people who have made an “undying pledge” to support one candidate but given the nature of their business, often the government portion of which is significant, they feel they have to "hedge their bets" and support virtually anyone else they think will have an outside chance. The “also rans” contributions are almost always anonymous.

Thirdly are true benefactors, usually individually wealthy citizens. They make larger donations but do not to want to be hounded by other charities or fundraisers, including those outside of politics, for money. They don't need to buy access or influence, they already have it.

Occasionally you get some “rube” who thinks they can buy access to power this way by a big anonymous donation, but they are few and far between. That, however, is the central problem. They can’t buy the access and influence in reality, but we tend to think they can and therefore all anonymous donors all fall into the latter scuzzy category in the public’s mind.

I don’t blame the candidates for this fiasco, but they deserve some of the brunt and they are wearing it now. I mostly blame the PC Party of Alberta, my party, for this mess. We are supposed to be the good guys who are best able to manage and govern the province and be the best group to deserve and be granted the Alberta citizen’s consent to be governed.

Well we fell way too short on the issue of campaign contribution disclosure this time. I will be looking for the new legislation Premier Stelmach has promised to clean up this stupidity and it best be done sooner than later…and it better be good!.

Alberta Firewall Guy Clarifies Equalization Payments

There is a very good op-ed in the Globe and Mail today that clarifies many of facts and the questions around equalization payments from the government of Canada to the so-called have-not provinces. The piece is written by Ken Boessenkool, now GM of Hill and Knowlton Alberta and one of the famous Firewall Letter signatories in 2001.

The myth busting article reflects and aligns with the same reality outlined in an early post in this blog. No wonder I like it.

The Firewall letter was signed by other notables including now Prime Minister Harper, but then he headed the National Citizens’ Coalition. Failed PC Leadership candidate, now Alberta Cabinet Minister, Dr. Ted Morton also signed the letter. It was a letter addressed to Premier Klein recommending that Alberta withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan and set up its own cheaper scheme offering the same benefits. It recommended replacing the RCMP with a provincial police service. Both of these issues were part of the debates in the recent Alberta Progressive Conservative Party leadership campaign.

Other recommendations included Alberta collecting its own income tax and take complete control of Medicare even if that resulted in breaches of the Canada Health Act and withdraw of federal funds to the province for health care. These two recommendations have proven to be non-starters politically and economically in Alberta.

The motivation for the Firewall letter is captured in this sentence from the document: "It's imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction."

Another telling part of the letter dated January 2001 noted "As economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta's prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power."

Albertans overwhelming see themselves as Canadian even with a core group of about 10% separatist sentiment in the province. The mythology of a federal government plundering Alberta’s resources runs deep in certain sectors of Alberta society. It arises in the ghosts of another National Energy Program or the mistaken assumption that equalization payments are from Alberta resource revenues. The belief that equalization payments are made from federally expropriated Alberta resource dollars. There is no evidence for either of these myths but that rarely matters to some people in Alberta.

It really helps to have people like Mr. Boessenkool clarify the terms and scope of equalization as part of the national conversation, particularly around fed-prov relations and the role equalization plays as part of our Constitution.

More Commentary on Alberta in Canada

I see Paul Boothe from the U of A has weighed in on the runaway rhetoric of Boutilier and has added a dash of Dr. Morton to boot in his Edmonton Journal Op Ed opinion piece today.

It is good to see some good old fashioned free speech coupled with some facts, sound analysis and an authoritative opinion emerging from the halls of academe. We need more of those informed voices in the public conversations of the day. Thanks for doing this Paul.

I have one bone to pick with Paul in his piece though. He states: “It seems like the new Stelmach cabinet bent on picking a fight with the rest of Canada.” I think that is an over generalization. We have only two Ministers in that mode. True, Stelmach made a comment in his first news conference about the concept of the Quebec nation saying, to the effect; that it should not take anything away from other provinces. And why should it and why would it? That is the sum total of cabinet commentary and it doesn’t add up to the entire “new Stelmach cabinet.”

For years, I, like so many other Progressive conservatives, just sat back and let the far right have their say and never really responded. I believed they were so obvious in their marginal ideology that it was unnecessary to rebut debate or challenge them. As a result of such inaction the rhetoric of the far right has become the voice of Alberta to the rest of Canada in the "minds" of the CBC in particular.

The recent CBC radio show “The Current” that Boothe refers to regarding Dr. Morton’s comments is a good case in point. I have not heard it yet so I will not comment on the content. However seeing Dr. Morton being slated as a guest to be a voice for Alberta discussing our provincial role in confederation rankles me both as a Progressive conservative and as an Albertan.

He would not come even close to representing any dominant Alberta perspective on the topic. He is entitled to his POV and has a right to express it. I just wonder who else they had on that program would represent a more inclusive and integrated Alberta perspective within Canada. I will be checking the program archives to give it a listen and hope they had a Progressive perspective included as well.

My business partner, Satya Das, does a lot of CBC French radio and television commentary on Alberta events and perspectives. He recently wrote a book called “The Best Country – Why Canada Will Lead the Future” which is an Albertan speaking about what makes Canada great. {which you can buy at Tix on the Square in Edmonton now}

For regular readers of this Blog you will know we co-write a regular monthly column for the LaPresse newspaper in Montreal on Alberta issues and topics too. Das would have made an excellent Edmonton counterpoint to the Morton position for the Calgary-centric CBC show segment on The Current.

When I saw Dr. Morton as a panelist I contacted the Calgary and Toronto producers of The Current by email to offer Satya’s services to provide another perspective on the subject of Alberta's role in Canada. No reply at all. Proving to me once again that the central Canadian idea of what an Albertan is has been forfeited to the far right and fundamentalists diatribes.

That mistaken caricature of the character and consciousness of Alberta has to be rebutted. I am working on it, including through this Blog. I see Paul Boothe is obviously engaged and like minded. It is sure nice to have such informed and effective allies.

Candidates Disclosure Should be a Condition of Cabinet Apppointment.

It would be a good move if Premier Elect Stelmach required all candidates who want to be in Cabinet to disclose there leadership contributor lists as a precondition for any Cabinet appointment. Since every leadership candidate EXCEPT for Professor Morton undertook to disclose their contributor list; it should not be a burden. Inquiring minds want to know and I bet Premier Stelmach feels he needs to know too.

The public expects open, transparent and accountable government – particularly at the cabinet level. Those principles demand that Albertans know who was behind the leadership candidates, at least those candidates who wish to be in Cabinet – BEFORE they are appointed.

If Professor Morton believes he deserves a Cabinet spot, he should satisfy the test of openness and transparency that full and timely disclosure of his campaign contributors would provide.

We can expect anonymous donors to be respected but we need to know how many there were and the amounts they each contributed, not be all lumped together as a single group. Too many and too much money in that anonymous category will cause concern. We need to know who is behind the scenes and may be trying to influence any leadership candidate cum Cabinet Minister in the future.

If we are going to have a Lobbyist and Contractor Registry, and we should, we should also know who the leadership candidate contributors were too.

Time for Professor Morton to change his mind and disclose his campaign contributors, and if not, he ought to forfeit any aspirations to a Cabinet appointment.

Ted Morton's Big Tent

Ted Morton is all of a sudden a big tent, inclusive kind of guy with a passion for diversity. He has lots of room for lots of different people in his Conservative party even though he is running for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party…a real difference and not just semantics I might add.

He even pointed out his “endorsement from the Muslim community” on the Global TV debate tonight as his proof of this claim. Specific reference in the newspapers in Edmonton and Calgary today was to Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada as the supporter of Dr. Morton.

Here is a Calgary Herald story from this past August on his Muslim supporter and the group he represents. His supporter sounds a bit harsh to me and apparently not representative of the majority of the Muslim community as Dr. Morton suggests. I’ll leave the final judgment of readers as to if this helps make Dr. Morton’s image as a more accommodating, moderate and tolerant guy and someone who you would grant your consent to govern your life as Premier of Alberta.



Muslim leader lashes out at U.S. 'fascists': Calgarian prompts outcry by blaming Bush for terrorism
Calgary Herald
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Page: A7
Section: News
Byline: Jason Fekete
Source: Calgary Herald
A national Islamic organization headed by a Calgarian says George W. Bush is a root cause of terrorism, calling the U.S. president and some neo-conservatives "the biggest fascists, terrorists and extremists."
Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and founder of Muslims Against
Terrorism, also suggested this week's United Kingdom terrorism plot was an effort to shift the world's attention from "the genocide in Lebanon."
The comments sparked criticism from other religious leaders, including Hatim Zaghloul, chairman of the Muslim Council of Calgary, who said Soharwardy's remarks don't represent the views of the larger portion of the community.
Soharwardy condemned Friday the alleged terrorism plot discovered by British authorities to blow up at least 10 transatlantic flights -- a plan the U.S. president linked to "Islamic fascists."
Soharwardy insisted Bush and the terrorists have a "common agenda," which is to kill civilians and destroy infrastructure in an effort to gain control over people and the world's resources.
"The reality is that the overwhelming majority of peaceful people see Mr. Bush and his neo-cons as the biggest fascists, terrorists and extremists," Soharwardy said in a statement that was further backed up in an interview.
The terrorists, along with Bush and his "neo-cons" -- including British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- are the root cause of terrorism, he said, adding that both of these "mafia-like organizations" should be condemned and brought to justice.
"It has been proven Mr. Bush and his neo-con mafia are responsible for producing more terrorists and more destruction," said Soharwardy, speaking on behalf of the Islamic council, which has 13 chapters across the country and says it represents 50,000 Muslims.
"The war against terrorism is a factory that is producing terrorists on a very large scale. Mr. Bush and the neo-cons are managing this factory," he added. "Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are as much responsible as the terrorists for killing innocent civilians."
Soharwardy said his argument that the British terror plot is an effort to deviate the world's attention from "the genocide in Lebanon" isn't necessarily laying blame for who's behind the plan.
"Regardless of who's responsible . . . this plot has diverted attention from Lebanon," he said, adding that it's damaged the Muslim cause.
His statements were quickly censured by Calgary's largest Muslim group and by the B'nai Brith Canada.
"It's inflammatory language, there's no doubt," said Zaghloul, whose group represents about 80 per cent of all Muslims in Calgary, or between 50,000 to 65,000 people.
"We need to bring people closer, not further apart," Zaghloul said.
Calgary Imam Alaa Elsayed agreed that Soharwardy represents a small percentage of Muslims, but conceded Bush's comments have sparked a backlash that may be partially to blame for mounting terrorism in the world.
"I don't disagree totally. I disagree in the wording," he said, specifically criticizing suggestions Bush is a terrorist.
Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada, assailed Soharwardy's statements as absurdities that "have no foundation in reality," particularly the notion of a genocide in Lebanon.
The comments reflect a pattern, Dimant said, of elements within Canadian society that are becoming much more aggressive.
"It's horrible. It's outlandish. It's on the verge of insanity to speak in the terms being spoken by these people," Dimant said. "It's preposterous that people in the safety of Canada can possibly pronounce the kind of statements done (Friday)."
In an interview with the Herald, Soharwardy conceded he used "strong language." However, he said it was needed so Canadians can see a more complete story regarding the terror plot, and that terrorism isn't automatically tied to Muslims or Islam.
Bush's comments and the military actions of the western world isolate the general Muslim population, he said, which leads some Muslims to extremist groups.
"The war against terrorism hasn't reduced terrorism. It's increased terrorism," Soharwardy said.
jfekete@theherald.canwest.com

This Saturday – be careful who you elect.

Front Runners Campaign on "Anybody But" and "Let's Kick Some Butt"

As the campaign heats up to the sprint to the finish line interesting events are happening. For example, Ted Morton’ campaign slogan says “More Alberta – Less Ottawa.” But he has a bunch of Federal Conservative MPs from Ottawa in Alberta campaigning for him. Does what he really mean is “More of Ted’s Alberta – More of Ted’s Ottawa.”

The Edmonton gay and lesbian community supports Jim Dinning. Good to see the Pride Centre of Edmonton getting involved. The Edmonton Journal says they view Dinning as the “lesser of the evils.” Did they really mean to say that “Morton is the evil of two lessers?” I hope they at least vote Stelmach as #2.

Stelmach is the choice of people who want to see the province work more collaboratively and comprehensively in practical integrated ways to deal the full range of challenges before us. If the contest is all about the “Clash of the Calgary Titans” it is quite scary when you consider the consequences for the whole province. It is entirely avoidable too if everyone voted Stelmach as your #1 choice but that is unrealistic. At least make Stelmach your #2 choice regardless of who you vote #1.

The two front runners are polarizing forces for sure, as tonight’s debate will no doubt confirm. Albertans are looking at all three Leader/Premier candidates this week in terms of what motivates them, who is closest to them and who has influence on them and who controls access to them and, finally, how will they govern.

Policy differences are important but not the deciding factors. The choice between Morton and Dinning is being decided by many party members and interest groups as the lesser of two evils. I think that undervalues the obvious skills, abilities and talents of both Dinning and Morton. It is not just about who will govern but how they will govern that is unsettling to many as they look at Dinning and Morton.

The ballot box questions are concerns over the values and the motivations for each of the candidates and the public’s evolving perceptions of their personalities and characters. The choice is also being decided through a lens of a significant trend towards fragmentation of the province.

The fragmentation of Alberta into special interest groups who are becoming very involved and engaged as strategic voting blocks from unionists to evangelicals. The various regions throughout the province are also looking at voting strategically for candidates based on competition for critical government attention to their issues. The PC party is fragmenting internally too. I wonder if we aren't just auctioning it off to the Alliance Party by voting Morton.

The divisions are reflected in many ways including geography that is north-south, urban-rural, in the corridor and outside the corridor. There are value differences of intolerance of differences to embracing inclusion and diversity. Intergenerational differences about what to do with non-renewable resource revenues and surpluses are showing up. There are fault lines forming even amongst industry sectors as they scramble and compete for staff and workers, and we have not even highlighted Edmonton and Calgary issues.

So Alberta – ask yourself, what are the skills, insights and character qualities that are needed to deal with this reality? Who has earned the trust and respect of the widest range of people in all the “places” that is becoming Alberta today? Who sees this balkanization as a barrier to Alberta achieving its potential and living up to its promise - and will do something about it?

Who can ensure we make Alberta’s defining characteristic as being the best example of what is best about Canada as opposed to becoming a U.S. Republican Party facsimilie? Who is best able to use their leadership skills to ensure we don’t turn Alberta into a mini-middle east of irreconcilable differences were self-interests and radical factions compete for power and control?

This Saturday we all have unavoidable choices to make and serious consequences to consider as we decide on our Premier for the next two years. Even staying home and not participating is making a choice to let others decide this issue for you. Lack of knowledge can be cured by going on the candidate's websites and informing yourself. Indifference to the chance to make a difference is inexcusable.

The future is ours so long as we don’t blow it on Saturday. Overcome the frustration, the anger and deal with the angst and vote for intelligent, skilled, compassionate and effective change. Think about what is in the best interest of you and your family. Think about what is best for your community and the province as a whole when you vote. I have done that reflection and I am voting Stelmach/Dinning in that order.

Remember we are all in this together, alone!

Can Stelmach Catch Morton?

Edmonton will be a battle ground this week to select the next PC leader and pro tem Premier. No guarantee that this week will be anything like the last week in Edmonton or Alberta for that matter, but there are some interesting facts that indicate strengths and potential for growth.

The Edmonton vote was split up all over the place. Dinning had 5575 in Edmonton and Hancock had 4995. No doubt some Hancock votes will bleed to Dinning. Oberg was third in Edmonton with 3228 and they have no reason to go to Dinning but will bleed some to Morton who had a respectable 2739 total in Edmonton. Norris was fourth in Edmonton with 3125 and Stelmach was only 200 votes behind him at 2925.

So let’s make some assumptions and see how this all shakes out. Let’s presume Hancock and Oberg bleed 30% each to Dinning and Morton respectively and the rest goes to Stelmach. We don’t know where Norris is going yet but we know a big part of the motivation for his backers was an “anybody but a Calgarian” leader. The question is will they show up for Ed or just go through the motions? So let’s say Norris delivers 60% of his vote to Ed and the rest splits evenly between Morton and Dinning. No reason to think Stelmach would see any of his core Edmonton support drift away.

So Stelmach has 2925 and he gets 3500 votes (rounded) from Hancock, and 2300 (rounded) from Oberg and 1875 from Norris. His total “presumed” second week Edmonton base is therefore 10600.

Dinning has 5575 and there is no reason to think he wouldn’t keep that base. He gets 1500 from Hancock and 625 from Norris for a “presumed second week Edmonton base of 7700.

Morton has 2739 and gets 625 from Norris and 970 from Oberg for a “presumed second week Edmonton base of 4350 (rounded). I think there is a chance for a small amount of Morton’s Edmonton support to stay home but not enough to make a difference.

Stelmach can win if he can be in second place on the first count on December 2. The first ballot totals were 25600 Morton and 15,000 Stelmach so he needs 10600 more votes to break even from the first ballot and another 1600 from bleed to Morton in Edmonton for an Edmonton shortfall of 12200 going into the second ballot. He has a good chance to pick up 7700 of those in Edmonton alone from Hancock, Oberg and Norris. Which leaves him 4500 short of catching Morton just coming out of the endorsement adjustments in Edmonton.

The rural vote is interesting too. Morton is very strong with 15460 votes to Stelmach’s 10470 for a shortfall of 5000. My sense is Oberg has already lost whatever rural vote he had to Morton based on the kind of campaign he ran and the idea of we need to change the old boys network in the party. I am assuming Oberg’s remaining 5353 voters are not going to bleed to Morton and really are rural voters who will en masse to support another rural candidate like Stelmach. I think all Hancock and Norris rural voters go to Stelmach because there is no reason to go Morton or Dinning.

Coming out of Edmonton Stelmach is facing an adjusted shortfall to catch Morton of 4500 plus the first vote rural shortfall of 5000. Stelmach needs to make up 9500 votes to catch Morton before we face Calgary. He gets Hancock’s rural vote of 2000, Norris’ 3000 and Oberg’s 5300 which makes 10300 and effectively puts him even with Morton going into Calgary.

I will do an analysis of the Calgary vote implications for Stelmach journey to catch Morton tomorrow. Fact is Dinning “owns” Calgary butMorton is strong. How much does the allocation of the “also- rans” voters help Stelmach catch Morton?

Then there is the momentum and growth factor and the “Who really wants it” factor and who is going to go out and get it like Klein did last time.

Stay tuned.