I read with interest Paul Stanway’s Edmonton Sun recent column outlining, yet again, the critical state of the infrastructure needs in Fort McMurray. He notes the fact this municipality is about to outpace Lethbridge in population and is rapidly closing in on Red Deer. Yet the province, who controls the land surrounding Fort McMurray that is available for development of housing has been virtually frozen in the face of such growth…an not as if they could not see it coming – oil sands plants don’t spring up over night.
To be fair, the province did release some land for residential development in 1999 but it was done so ineptly (a very polite way to describe that fiasco) that they literally gave away acres of land for free to a private developer who then took the free land site as part of a larger project, and at such a low price that part of the deal was questioned as well. He turned it all into housing and realized a multimillion dollar windfall from the free land. The recent Auditor General investigation on this deal outlined the utter ineptness of the deal but was not allowed to follow the money resulting from the transaction or to go into why political actions were taken afterwards, like a narrow scope appraisal that was ordered to “prove” the validity of the price. Too bad. There may have been even more interesting information that would have resulted from a wider scope of authority for the Auditor General’s office.
The government has reneged on promises made to the municipality and industry in May 2005 in response to the third business case report, in less than a decade, that was done and presented to government outlining the need and estimate costs and set priorities for the region. The promise was to provide funding help meet the growth demands caused by oil sands developments so the local tax base could eventually catch up to the growth and then sustain itself. A Ministerial committee, including Guy Boutilier, the Minister of Environment and the local MLA, said the province would help fund public needs like water treatment recreational, schools and hospital facilities, amongst others form surpluses in the 2004-05 fiscal year. It never happened.
Even more amazing was testimony by government officials before recent EUB hearings where the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo intervened in yet another effort to try to get the attention of the province. This was a very radical step for a municipality but nothing else they have tried to get the necessary help from the province had worked very effectively. The admission was made in those hearings that the 2005 Wood Buffalo Business Case was never given any credence by the province. They said they had not sought or received any third party verification of the numbers and it was never dealt with by the province. The province admitted they essentially ignored the joint report of industry and the community on the needs for the region. Astonishing!
Mark Norris says he wants a new government department to deal with northern issues. He is a little out of touch. We already have that department. It is called Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It is a small department that needs more clout and more cash to deliver on the mandate and promises made and to realize the potential of the north. I agree northern issues are critical to the future of the province as a whole. They have 10% of the population and generate 67% of our wealth. They need more than respect they need help NOW!
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Is Gary McPherson the Next Candidate In the Race?
I believe the next candidate in the PC Leadership race will be Gary McPherson and he could announce as early as tomorrow.
Gary is a quadriplegic so has some obvious physical disabilities. Based on brains, personal accomplishments and contribution to society and community Gary can equal or better any other candidate in the field to date.
None of the candidates are perfect. Each has some shortcomings or disability. In Gary's case his disability is obvious, but his candidacy suggests that we all should look more carefully at the shortcomings and disabilites of the other candidates too. The test is not just the kinds promises they make but their capacity and character to deliver on them. This is very important.
The big question for Gary is will Albertans take him seriously or just dismiss him at first sight. That would be a very serious mistake for Albertans to make. This guy has something to say about our future and he is likely to be about much more than promoting a single issue around disabilities.
The leadership field is getting crowded and very interesting. I wonder if it is enough to get Albertans in to a serious consideration of the consequences for themselves, their families and communities inherent in this PC leadership campaign.
Participation in politics is not an option...if you are not engaged, political consequences will impact your life anyway. Gary McPherson knows that and is getting his "game face on." Hurry up and get in the frey Gary - time is awastin.'
Gary is a quadriplegic so has some obvious physical disabilities. Based on brains, personal accomplishments and contribution to society and community Gary can equal or better any other candidate in the field to date.
None of the candidates are perfect. Each has some shortcomings or disability. In Gary's case his disability is obvious, but his candidacy suggests that we all should look more carefully at the shortcomings and disabilites of the other candidates too. The test is not just the kinds promises they make but their capacity and character to deliver on them. This is very important.
The big question for Gary is will Albertans take him seriously or just dismiss him at first sight. That would be a very serious mistake for Albertans to make. This guy has something to say about our future and he is likely to be about much more than promoting a single issue around disabilities.
The leadership field is getting crowded and very interesting. I wonder if it is enough to get Albertans in to a serious consideration of the consequences for themselves, their families and communities inherent in this PC leadership campaign.
Participation in politics is not an option...if you are not engaged, political consequences will impact your life anyway. Gary McPherson knows that and is getting his "game face on." Hurry up and get in the frey Gary - time is awastin.'
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Vote Victor - Then Hide Your Books
Another Cabinet Minister bites the dust. The Victor Doerksen leadership candidacy is very interesting. Presuming the speculation is right. Why else would he leave Cabinet?
My sense is the evangelical social conservatives were really behind Preston Manning’s candidacy and when he passed, they were reluctantly leaning to Dr. Ted Morton. With time, my guess is they likely found Dr. Morton’s brand of social conservativism too cerebral – all in his head, not enough in his heart and precious little worn on his sleeve…Ted wants to win after all.
For example, I’d bet Dr. Morton’s pending private members Bill is not tough enough for the anti-gay fundamentalist crowd. This Bill might get into Committee debate now that we have an August legislative session coming up. As I recall, the Bill is intended, in part, to relieve a teacher, based on conscious or faith, from the obligation to teach certain aspects of the curriculum that relate to homosexuality. This is pretty scary stuff to me but it is likely just not tough enough for those who believe homosexuality is a sin and a chosen lifestyle.
Victor Doerksen is likely a recruit to this fundamentalist cause and represents a superficial shunning of Dr. Morton, at least until the second vote. If Dr. Morton makes it past the first ballot many of Victor's suporters will go to Morton on the second ballot. Better to have a "second choice" social conservative running this province than none at all will be the rationale.
These Doerksen supporters are likely the same folks who were very active and overt for Harper in the 2004 federal campaign. Remember they made him look “scary?” By staying quiet but showing up to vote in the 2006 election, Harper, this time, was merely seen as “wonky.” He got a good positive glow off of Gomery's findings and eventually a minority government…a good thing in my books.
We know the Gang of 100 who “bought into” the Norris candidacy but I expect we will never know who is really behind Doerksen. Based on the success they enjoyed by staying low key and then coming out strong on election day they made a difference for Harper. They have a strategy that works for them and it ain't broke. Why not use it to get the kind of Alberta Premier you want - for at least the next 2 years! A lot can happen in 2 years!
Will this split the social conservative vote and hurt both Victor and Ted? Or will it energize this sector and generate even more over all interest amongst the sector and sell even more memberships. Time will tell.
To my mind if you vote for Victor and he wins - you better hide your books – he likes to ban them!
My sense is the evangelical social conservatives were really behind Preston Manning’s candidacy and when he passed, they were reluctantly leaning to Dr. Ted Morton. With time, my guess is they likely found Dr. Morton’s brand of social conservativism too cerebral – all in his head, not enough in his heart and precious little worn on his sleeve…Ted wants to win after all.
For example, I’d bet Dr. Morton’s pending private members Bill is not tough enough for the anti-gay fundamentalist crowd. This Bill might get into Committee debate now that we have an August legislative session coming up. As I recall, the Bill is intended, in part, to relieve a teacher, based on conscious or faith, from the obligation to teach certain aspects of the curriculum that relate to homosexuality. This is pretty scary stuff to me but it is likely just not tough enough for those who believe homosexuality is a sin and a chosen lifestyle.
Victor Doerksen is likely a recruit to this fundamentalist cause and represents a superficial shunning of Dr. Morton, at least until the second vote. If Dr. Morton makes it past the first ballot many of Victor's suporters will go to Morton on the second ballot. Better to have a "second choice" social conservative running this province than none at all will be the rationale.
These Doerksen supporters are likely the same folks who were very active and overt for Harper in the 2004 federal campaign. Remember they made him look “scary?” By staying quiet but showing up to vote in the 2006 election, Harper, this time, was merely seen as “wonky.” He got a good positive glow off of Gomery's findings and eventually a minority government…a good thing in my books.
We know the Gang of 100 who “bought into” the Norris candidacy but I expect we will never know who is really behind Doerksen. Based on the success they enjoyed by staying low key and then coming out strong on election day they made a difference for Harper. They have a strategy that works for them and it ain't broke. Why not use it to get the kind of Alberta Premier you want - for at least the next 2 years! A lot can happen in 2 years!
Will this split the social conservative vote and hurt both Victor and Ted? Or will it energize this sector and generate even more over all interest amongst the sector and sell even more memberships. Time will tell.
To my mind if you vote for Victor and he wins - you better hide your books – he likes to ban them!
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Is Complacency a Character Flaw or Just Being Canadian?
The Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin had some interesting things to say today about unmotivated “dozy” youth. Dubbed “the complacent generation” by Liberal Leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy, who says, “I think my generation has been more or less asleep in taking for granted what assets we have. It is time to assert ourselves before it’s too late.” I could not agree more.
Lawrence Martin says the complacent generation has been “turned off by political corruption and the idea that they can’t make a difference.” He goes on to suggest that ought to be a “Motivating factor, not the opposite.” I would expect that response as well but apparently not.
Martin and I are baby boomers and we agree on many points in his column today. We had Vietnam, the Cold War, Watergate and the FLQ in Canada to stir our activism. I recall believing that the mainstream system was so corrupt and out of touch that “you couldn’t trust anyone over 30.” With climate change, terrorism, HIV/AIDS and various warring hot spots, and, as Martin points out, “a president who may even be worse than Richard Nixon,” that ought to be enough to stir up some activism amongst youth.
It all comes down for values and beliefs. There is a wide range and expression of values and beliefs in a pluralistic country like Canada. That diversity is a good thing, so long as we can continue to learn from each other, have mutual respect and not try to impose only one point of view on the entire population. That is the essence of Canada and what is respected and revered by other peoples and countries throughout the world. There is that “multilateral moderation” that is at the heart of Canada and what I call “the incredible enlighten-ness of being Canadian.” As so many other places on the planet decline into what Martin call a “medieval standard” Canada and Canadians have to overcome complacency and start to show some assertive leadership and greater engagement in the large issues of the world today. That ought to be the job of youth to force those changes.
As for values and beliefs, take a few minutes for personal self awareness and go to the Environics 3SC Survey find more about your beliefs and values and your values “tribe.” Then consider what you are doing as a citizen and how you can engage to make a better world and then get at it and keep at it…it is such a Canadian thing to do. Remeber generousity of spirit is not a sin.
By the way my tribe is Cosmopolitan Modernist.
Lawrence Martin says the complacent generation has been “turned off by political corruption and the idea that they can’t make a difference.” He goes on to suggest that ought to be a “Motivating factor, not the opposite.” I would expect that response as well but apparently not.
Martin and I are baby boomers and we agree on many points in his column today. We had Vietnam, the Cold War, Watergate and the FLQ in Canada to stir our activism. I recall believing that the mainstream system was so corrupt and out of touch that “you couldn’t trust anyone over 30.” With climate change, terrorism, HIV/AIDS and various warring hot spots, and, as Martin points out, “a president who may even be worse than Richard Nixon,” that ought to be enough to stir up some activism amongst youth.
It all comes down for values and beliefs. There is a wide range and expression of values and beliefs in a pluralistic country like Canada. That diversity is a good thing, so long as we can continue to learn from each other, have mutual respect and not try to impose only one point of view on the entire population. That is the essence of Canada and what is respected and revered by other peoples and countries throughout the world. There is that “multilateral moderation” that is at the heart of Canada and what I call “the incredible enlighten-ness of being Canadian.” As so many other places on the planet decline into what Martin call a “medieval standard” Canada and Canadians have to overcome complacency and start to show some assertive leadership and greater engagement in the large issues of the world today. That ought to be the job of youth to force those changes.
As for values and beliefs, take a few minutes for personal self awareness and go to the Environics 3SC Survey find more about your beliefs and values and your values “tribe.” Then consider what you are doing as a citizen and how you can engage to make a better world and then get at it and keep at it…it is such a Canadian thing to do. Remeber generousity of spirit is not a sin.
By the way my tribe is Cosmopolitan Modernist.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Conservative Party Clips the Grassroots?
I read with interest William McBeath’s Blog (“Something About Glass Houses and Stones”) and his defence of the Conservative Party of Canada’s recent changes to the Nomination Rules and Procedures. He offers a rational explanation for the changes and takes on the federal Liberals for nomination process abuses as well…with justification I might add.
The point he makes, as I see it, there is plenty of blame to go around for both parties. OK but is mutual blame good enough? Does that restore faith in the ordinary citizen that, as individuals, their votes count and that there is a point in participating in elections? This behaviour reinforces the notion that party nominations seem to be manipulated. It gives a whole new slant to “fixed elections” don’t you think?
McBeath (Conservative) also takes on Nicole Martel (Liberal) and her comments on the recent Don Martin column lambasting the Conservative’s changes. McBeath "outs" the dismal record of the Liberal Party of Canada candidate selection processes. I like to see this, a respectful yet pointed and energetic dialogue that is both factual and principled and not the least bit personal. These two people are some of the brightest and most effective young political organizers in Alberta today. We are blessed to have such people and we need more.
Now lets look as some of the reality of the recent Conservative nomination process rules changes. Having consistent, comprehensive and enforced political party nomination rules and procedures are critical to an open, transparent, accountable and inclusive democracy. I have done a quick look at the Conservative Party website and can’t find any notice of the changes. Not saying they aren’t there – not just quick and easy to find. That raises suspicions in cynical minds. William – please do what you can to get the new nomination rules and procedures posted, or more at least more prominently, on the party web site.
Secondly, this action seems to run in the face of the traditions and values of the grassroots local autonomy principles of the Reform/Alliance and even the former Progressive Conservative elements in the new Conservative party. I remember the demands that local constituencies have the power of Recall over their MPs. What ever happened to that kind of grassroots populism? Surely local party members can decide who their local candidate will be without “advice” from National Party Office, or worse, the PMO.
Thirdly, it is not a practical process now. It takes more than a week of filling out forms, getting police checks and selling memberships for someone to decide to run for elected office. This is one of the most profound personal decisions an individual and their families can make. It takes reflection as well as action…and reflection takes time. This rule change seems to be more of a barrier to enabling more people to participate in politics. I am wondering just how this action enhances democracy and respect for political processes by ordinary citizens.
In a democracy efficiency is nice to have - but it is over rated when compared to effectiveness. Better to do things right rather than rapidly – especially if you want people to respect and respond to the results.
The point he makes, as I see it, there is plenty of blame to go around for both parties. OK but is mutual blame good enough? Does that restore faith in the ordinary citizen that, as individuals, their votes count and that there is a point in participating in elections? This behaviour reinforces the notion that party nominations seem to be manipulated. It gives a whole new slant to “fixed elections” don’t you think?
McBeath (Conservative) also takes on Nicole Martel (Liberal) and her comments on the recent Don Martin column lambasting the Conservative’s changes. McBeath "outs" the dismal record of the Liberal Party of Canada candidate selection processes. I like to see this, a respectful yet pointed and energetic dialogue that is both factual and principled and not the least bit personal. These two people are some of the brightest and most effective young political organizers in Alberta today. We are blessed to have such people and we need more.
Now lets look as some of the reality of the recent Conservative nomination process rules changes. Having consistent, comprehensive and enforced political party nomination rules and procedures are critical to an open, transparent, accountable and inclusive democracy. I have done a quick look at the Conservative Party website and can’t find any notice of the changes. Not saying they aren’t there – not just quick and easy to find. That raises suspicions in cynical minds. William – please do what you can to get the new nomination rules and procedures posted, or more at least more prominently, on the party web site.
Secondly, this action seems to run in the face of the traditions and values of the grassroots local autonomy principles of the Reform/Alliance and even the former Progressive Conservative elements in the new Conservative party. I remember the demands that local constituencies have the power of Recall over their MPs. What ever happened to that kind of grassroots populism? Surely local party members can decide who their local candidate will be without “advice” from National Party Office, or worse, the PMO.
Thirdly, it is not a practical process now. It takes more than a week of filling out forms, getting police checks and selling memberships for someone to decide to run for elected office. This is one of the most profound personal decisions an individual and their families can make. It takes reflection as well as action…and reflection takes time. This rule change seems to be more of a barrier to enabling more people to participate in politics. I am wondering just how this action enhances democracy and respect for political processes by ordinary citizens.
In a democracy efficiency is nice to have - but it is over rated when compared to effectiveness. Better to do things right rather than rapidly – especially if you want people to respect and respond to the results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)