Saturday, April 21, 2007
Why I Like Elizabeth May - Her Humanity.
Blogger Politque Vert provides a delightful interview with Elizabeth May done by a Law student at the U of S. Be sure you are not on medication – or other mind altering substances – when you look at this video…the camera work is pre-amateurish but the hearts are big and in the right place.
Dion Wants the Court Challenges Program Back
Dion calls for the reinstatement of the Court Challenges program cut by the Harper Cons. Good for him.
The Cons say “why would the government fund people who want to challenge official government policy through the Courts?” They also say the Court Challenges Program was not much more than a pool of cash for lawyers to access to irritate the government. That seems to be the extent of the rationale for Harper to cut the program. It has been cut before, by the Mulroney government and later reinstated.
The fundamental reason to have the program is to enable differing opinions to challenge government policy based on law and its interpretation, not political whims as the Cons imply. It is a very worthwhile program and one that reflects a mature democracy, not the stern disciplinary “father knows best stance” and Harper “is your daddy” of the current federal Bush-like CPC government.
In the spirit of full disclosure I have been one of the lawyers who have accessed the Court Challenges “pool of cash” in order to fight a government policy. We acted on behalf of a group of Franco-Albertans who wanted to exercise their Section 23 Charter rights for a minority French language school in Alberta. This action was contrary to the stated policy of the Government of Alberta, under then Premier, Peter Lougheed.
Lougheed’s government was one of the most enlightened of the day but the animus towards bilingualism and the sense that “French was being shoved down or throats” was still alive in Alberta in those days. The obvious political position of the Alberta government was taken and they argued that there were not enough French speaking people to pass the “where number warrant” test in the legislation.
The Alberta government fought us all the way to the Supreme Court. Our client’s, who were ordinary citizens and not independently wealthy, could not afford to continue the battle without the aid of the Court Challenges program. I believe we got the last funds from the program just before Mulroney killed it.
The “where number warrant” test in the legislation is what the case turned on. How to prove you had enough French speaking people to warrant a minority language school system was a big legal challenge to be sure. What was the minimum number of minority French language speaking people in an area that was needed to justify a school?
We had a stroke of genius one day and thought the maximum test for sufficient numbers should be the same number of students as in the smallest English speaking school jurisdiction in Alberta. Eureka! We found a mainstream school jurisdiction under Alberta law in Waterton Lakes National Park that had only 23 students but they had an elected School Board, a Superintendent and a full blown delivery system for only 23 student.
BTW, the Supreme Court agreed with us and we won the case. The francophone school system in Alberta is now well established, highly respected and thriving all over the province.
Recommend this Post to Progressive Bloggers
The Cons say “why would the government fund people who want to challenge official government policy through the Courts?” They also say the Court Challenges Program was not much more than a pool of cash for lawyers to access to irritate the government. That seems to be the extent of the rationale for Harper to cut the program. It has been cut before, by the Mulroney government and later reinstated.
The fundamental reason to have the program is to enable differing opinions to challenge government policy based on law and its interpretation, not political whims as the Cons imply. It is a very worthwhile program and one that reflects a mature democracy, not the stern disciplinary “father knows best stance” and Harper “is your daddy” of the current federal Bush-like CPC government.
In the spirit of full disclosure I have been one of the lawyers who have accessed the Court Challenges “pool of cash” in order to fight a government policy. We acted on behalf of a group of Franco-Albertans who wanted to exercise their Section 23 Charter rights for a minority French language school in Alberta. This action was contrary to the stated policy of the Government of Alberta, under then Premier, Peter Lougheed.
Lougheed’s government was one of the most enlightened of the day but the animus towards bilingualism and the sense that “French was being shoved down or throats” was still alive in Alberta in those days. The obvious political position of the Alberta government was taken and they argued that there were not enough French speaking people to pass the “where number warrant” test in the legislation.
The Alberta government fought us all the way to the Supreme Court. Our client’s, who were ordinary citizens and not independently wealthy, could not afford to continue the battle without the aid of the Court Challenges program. I believe we got the last funds from the program just before Mulroney killed it.
The “where number warrant” test in the legislation is what the case turned on. How to prove you had enough French speaking people to warrant a minority language school system was a big legal challenge to be sure. What was the minimum number of minority French language speaking people in an area that was needed to justify a school?
We had a stroke of genius one day and thought the maximum test for sufficient numbers should be the same number of students as in the smallest English speaking school jurisdiction in Alberta. Eureka! We found a mainstream school jurisdiction under Alberta law in Waterton Lakes National Park that had only 23 students but they had an elected School Board, a Superintendent and a full blown delivery system for only 23 student.
BTW, the Supreme Court agreed with us and we won the case. The francophone school system in Alberta is now well established, highly respected and thriving all over the province.
Recommend this Post to Progressive Bloggers
Friday, April 20, 2007
Stelmach, Hancock and Oberg's Fingerprints are All Over the Alberta Budget.
So the Stelmach government has really differentiated itself for the Klein days with this budget. It has strong evidence of immediate responses to well known and identified problems and towards some serious planning. The feedback Stelmach, Oberg and Hancock received during the PC leadership campaign has had an obvious impact on this Budget. The entire set of Budget documents are on line and I encourage you to read them
It is about the past, the present and the future. It has lots of catch up spending with almost a 40% increase in infrastructure funding for the infrastructure deficit and to respond to growth. It also adds 10% to current operational spending to deal with a 5% cost increase due to growth and inflation. It also sets up some longer term planning, a line by line departmental review looking at program efficiency and effectiveness and imposes some in-year discipline, something sadly missing in the Klein years.
The long-view is evident throughout the document including a commitment to find solutions to the various unfunded pension liabilities including the teacher’s pension plan which is one of the most unfair fiscal situations we have in Alberta. Some tinkering has been done in the interim but a major decision to take on the entire unfunded liability has to be taken. It will result in massive savings in the long term if the bullet is bitten now.
New and interesting items are a tax increase on tobacco. The 17% tax hit is the first salvo in a major assault on tobacco use in the province. This is the lowest hanging fruit towards better control health care spending and better health outcomes for Albertans. It is part of the new emphasis on wellness that Hancock will be pushing through the policy making process this session.
Another positive start is the embedding of about an 18% increase in the disability sector. This puts about $11.3B in the base for staffing recruitment and retention. Not enough but a start. Alberta spends some $530B on persons with disabilities these days and this program area will no doubt be seriously scrutinized for efficiency and effectiveness in the up coming Treasury Board review. As well the governance system is open to question too. The recent disbanding of the provincial board that represent the government in this area signals a further review in the regional governance system too.
A new day is dawning with this Budget. Dr. Oberg at a breakfast this morning noted this Budget was very much a Caucus document and involved direct input from MLAs because it was reviewed and designed by the various policy committees. That is more indication of a better sense of good governance changes coming from the Premier’s office.
Oberg noted this morning the next Budgets planning starts today and is already scheduled to be released February 14, 2008. That will be the election budget and we shall see how it differs from yesterday’s very positive document.
It is about the past, the present and the future. It has lots of catch up spending with almost a 40% increase in infrastructure funding for the infrastructure deficit and to respond to growth. It also adds 10% to current operational spending to deal with a 5% cost increase due to growth and inflation. It also sets up some longer term planning, a line by line departmental review looking at program efficiency and effectiveness and imposes some in-year discipline, something sadly missing in the Klein years.
The long-view is evident throughout the document including a commitment to find solutions to the various unfunded pension liabilities including the teacher’s pension plan which is one of the most unfair fiscal situations we have in Alberta. Some tinkering has been done in the interim but a major decision to take on the entire unfunded liability has to be taken. It will result in massive savings in the long term if the bullet is bitten now.
New and interesting items are a tax increase on tobacco. The 17% tax hit is the first salvo in a major assault on tobacco use in the province. This is the lowest hanging fruit towards better control health care spending and better health outcomes for Albertans. It is part of the new emphasis on wellness that Hancock will be pushing through the policy making process this session.
Another positive start is the embedding of about an 18% increase in the disability sector. This puts about $11.3B in the base for staffing recruitment and retention. Not enough but a start. Alberta spends some $530B on persons with disabilities these days and this program area will no doubt be seriously scrutinized for efficiency and effectiveness in the up coming Treasury Board review. As well the governance system is open to question too. The recent disbanding of the provincial board that represent the government in this area signals a further review in the regional governance system too.
A new day is dawning with this Budget. Dr. Oberg at a breakfast this morning noted this Budget was very much a Caucus document and involved direct input from MLAs because it was reviewed and designed by the various policy committees. That is more indication of a better sense of good governance changes coming from the Premier’s office.
Oberg noted this morning the next Budgets planning starts today and is already scheduled to be released February 14, 2008. That will be the election budget and we shall see how it differs from yesterday’s very positive document.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Alberta's Budget Looks Like Stelmach is Going "Full Steam Ahead"
It is Budget Day in Alberta. Indications are for record spending om operations and capital and proof the new Stelmach government is going to be big on planning. Albertans are going to be paying a premium for public infrastructure projects given the overheated economy, lack of labour and shortages of materials but the overwhelming needs that are being caused by rapid growth.
Some economists are calling for restraint and delay in such projects. We shall see what Finance Minister Oberg has in mind in how to proceed in a few hours.
I will be at the Legislature this afternoon to read the the documents and collect my thoughts. I will post my preliminary comments on the Budget tomorrow or late tonight.
This is Budget will undoubtedly be a dramatic change of course for the Alberta government and there will be lots to talk about I expect.
Some economists are calling for restraint and delay in such projects. We shall see what Finance Minister Oberg has in mind in how to proceed in a few hours.
I will be at the Legislature this afternoon to read the the documents and collect my thoughts. I will post my preliminary comments on the Budget tomorrow or late tonight.
This is Budget will undoubtedly be a dramatic change of course for the Alberta government and there will be lots to talk about I expect.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Appeal Court Confirms Ander's Conservative Nomination "Improper"
UPDATE: April 22, 2007 - Don Martin comments on Rob Anders in the Calgary Herald.
Rob Anders has to be re-nominated in Calgary West if he want to run in the next election. This time the nomination has to be for real! The Appeal Court upheld the original Queens Bench judgment that overturned Anders “unanimous nomination” for the Cons (no pun in ended) in Calgary West.
Anders lost – democracy rules.
Certain "party persons" who were found not to be acting appropriately are now resigning from their Calgary West CPC constituency posts. The whole messy business has to be done over and done fairly this time. The CPC better hope for its own integrity that Anders loses this nomination - but in a fair fight this time.
It is now proven that the Conservative Party of Canada, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, can’t even run a fair and open simple single constituency nomination – even amongst their own party membership. This is nothing short of a wanton disrespect for democracy given the facts surrounding the Anders' so-called nomination.
The utter hubris of the argument Anders offered during the appeal is absolutely breath taking. Media reports say:
"...a lawyer for Anders argued that the MP would suffer irreparable harm if he had to fight a new nomination race in the wake of his disputed acclamation last summer. "He cannot fairly and effectively fight a new nomination battle while performing his duties as a sitting MP in a minority government.,"
The powers that were in Calgary West seemed to think rules are for little people and not the powerful people. How far does this reprehensible attitude prevail in the rest of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Why, with this now proven deplorable behaviour and this insufficient set of attitudes and values, would we risk entrusting these kinds of politicians with our consent to govern us. How can we expect them to respect and protect the rights and privileges of all Canadian citizens when they do not even do it for their own party faithful?
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Rob Anders has to be re-nominated in Calgary West if he want to run in the next election. This time the nomination has to be for real! The Appeal Court upheld the original Queens Bench judgment that overturned Anders “unanimous nomination” for the Cons (no pun in ended) in Calgary West.
Anders lost – democracy rules.
Certain "party persons" who were found not to be acting appropriately are now resigning from their Calgary West CPC constituency posts. The whole messy business has to be done over and done fairly this time. The CPC better hope for its own integrity that Anders loses this nomination - but in a fair fight this time.
It is now proven that the Conservative Party of Canada, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, can’t even run a fair and open simple single constituency nomination – even amongst their own party membership. This is nothing short of a wanton disrespect for democracy given the facts surrounding the Anders' so-called nomination.
The utter hubris of the argument Anders offered during the appeal is absolutely breath taking. Media reports say:
"...a lawyer for Anders argued that the MP would suffer irreparable harm if he had to fight a new nomination race in the wake of his disputed acclamation last summer. "He cannot fairly and effectively fight a new nomination battle while performing his duties as a sitting MP in a minority government.,"
The powers that were in Calgary West seemed to think rules are for little people and not the powerful people. How far does this reprehensible attitude prevail in the rest of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Why, with this now proven deplorable behaviour and this insufficient set of attitudes and values, would we risk entrusting these kinds of politicians with our consent to govern us. How can we expect them to respect and protect the rights and privileges of all Canadian citizens when they do not even do it for their own party faithful?
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)