Stelmach Is Reviewing the Chandler Nomination...YES!!!

I am delighted to hear Premier Stelmach is reviewing the Craig Chandler nomination as a candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta – and that the criteria he is using is the Statement of Principles of the party. Media reports say Premier Stelmach will meet with the PC Party executive committee to discuss this matter very soon.

Good move Mr. Premier. Being leader of a political party and Premier of a province has overlapping elements but they are fundamentally two different things. Mr. Chandler's nomination is a constituency and party matter but it is up to the leader to accept him as a candidate.

The leader’s final decision on candidates reflects to citizens/voters what the PC party will accept as "tolerable" and that should not include intolerance. This decision by Ed Stelmach is sending a message to voters about the character of our political party and our fitness to govern.

I believe Mr. Chandler is inappropriate as a PC candidate and as an elected representative from the PC party given our pluralistic, secular, inclusive and diverse province. He has often expressed views that are very inconsistent with those Alberta values as well as the Statement of Principles of the PC Party of Alberta.

He seems to be more closely aligned with the new Wild Rose Party. They look like they could use his organizational talents as they chase enough signatures to qualify as a new provincial political party before the next election.

Mr. Chandler will undoubtedly respond and make arguments about respect for democracy and freedom of speech. But many of his past actions have been anything but respectful of those values. He has even been forced to publicly apologize for Human Rights abuses in the past.

Premier Stelmach is right. We Progressive Conservatives can’t tolerate intolerance – especially in our political representation. While the democratic process duly nominated Mr. Chandler in Calgary Egmont. A nomination decision is only a recommendation from a constituency to the party. It is not a final decision.

That final decision on the acceptability of a candidate is, and ought to be, with the leader who, after all, has to work with a group that becomes his team at the end of the day. The PC Party selects it leader on a one person one vote basis so we are assured the winner is the real choice of the party membership. Those votes are very personal and individual decisions – not based on some phoney delegated authority of special interests. Given that leadership selection process, Ed Stelmach, as our party leader, should be able to exercise his discretion in accepting or rejecting candidate nomination recommendations from constituency organizations.

By personally consulting with the party executive, Premier Stelmach has shown once again that he brings ability and wisdom to his position as party leader. Legally speaking, seeking advice from the party executive need not be done at all. There is a legislation that gives him a right, a party leader, to override the local nomination process. He can, by law, refuse to sign the papers that turns a nominee into a candidate.

I hope and expect the PC party executive will conclude that Mr. Chandler is not an acceptable candidate and they will support a move to reject his nomination in Calgary Egmont. Do not expect Mr. Chandler and his followers to go away quietly. It is not their style. I would not be surprised if legal actions were at least threatened by Mr. Chandler and his acolytes. But adherence to values of respect, inclusiveness and diversity should not be diminished by any such threats or intimidation tactics.

Did Alberta Try to Get Quebec to Change Policy on Kyoto by Offering "Billions of Industry" Money?

I have bought but not yet read William Marsden’s book “Stupid to the Last Drop” about the Alberta oil sands. I don’t expect to get to it until after Christmas but I may have to fast track my plans.

This CanWest news piece suggesting Guy Boutilier, when he was Alberta’s Minister of the Environment, may be enough to convince me to get into the book sooner. Apparently Mr. Boutiller tried in 2005 to influence the Quebec government to change its support for the Kyoto Accord in exchange for “billions of Alberta industry” dollars to help finance the Montreal Stock Exchange.

This is an interesting allegation given that Mr. Boutilier admits to writing the note and circumstances of the event. He berates Mr. Marsden for “sensationalizing something that is totally imaginative.” What was so imaginative about this ploy? Trying to buy Quebec loyalty and failing to do so is hardly imaginative.

Many past federal Liberal governments were masters at it and Chrétien was perhaps the biggest failure at it. Just look at Adscam for proof of that statement. Even the current Con government under Mr. Harper is playing the lets buy Quebec's loyalty card. He is into the “Quebec Nation” notion and has done some pretty serious federal spending in Quebec with the strategic advice of former Prime Minister Mulroney. Remember it was Mr. Mulroney who managed to get an impressive string of majority governments out of his application of this “imaginative” lets buy the Quebec loyalty tactic.

This is hardly an imaginative approach to nation building or cooperative federalism. It is nothing even close to the effective tag teaming Lougheed and Lévesque used to employ against Ottawa from time to time. Those events were marked by Alberta and Quebec sharing a mutual respect for the division of powers in the Canadian Constitution at a time when Ottawa was buying influence from all other provinces.

Hard to judge from what we know for sure about this event as to what Mr. Boutilier was really up to in offering billions of Alberta industry money to Quebec. On what basis Mr. Boutilier thinks he can offer billions of private industry money to Quebec in the first place is confusing enough. What was he thinking?

Claiming it was about being "imaginative" is not likely to pass any sniff test as to what his motivations really were.

Oil Sands Survey Comments Reveals Concerns.

As of last Friday we had 556 comments on the Oil Sands Survey. They cover a wide range of opinions, just as you would expect around a serious economic, environmental and societal concerns like the development of the Alberta oil sands.

I thought I would give you a sense of what people are saying through a smattering of the comments. The survey went live October 22 so the comments changed a bit over time. We can’t tie the comments to participants. They are anonymous and not traceable by us or anyone else. Here is some of what Albertans had to say when they took the survey.

“I have never lived in a more money hungry province. All "oil sand" workers are in it for the money and to get ahead. Eventually, you will not be able to compete with our dying world and be FORCED to stop drilling. If people conserve more, drive less and stop drilling, maybe our children's children will be able to enjoy our dying world!”

“I wish 'ED' would back off on the royalties’ issue. He's only causing bigger problems. Thanks for your time.”

“I wish we could find a way that the development would not hurt the environment and that there would be more funding and help available for disabled people and seniors in Alberta.”

“I'm tired of the businesses and government ALWAYS getting the royalties and then hiking prices of gas, electricity, natural gas, food, clothing, housing...all the necessities. They know we can't live without the necessities so they keep increasing them and tell us to deal with it. Meanwhile they are lining their pockets and keep getting raises!! Where's ours???????”

“Royalties need to be increased; more environmental thoughts need to be brought into play and good old fashioned common sense.”

Some people loved the survey technique and others distrusted it:

“This was an extremely unfair survey. Totally biased towards oil and gas. I didn't want to choose either one or the other, but had to. To me, this will be a totally unfairly represented survey. The results are not conclusive. Ridiculous.

“As in real life, you have given us several ugly choices in the options you offered. What will it take to make environment, long-term planet benefits, and community capacity the primary factors in business, rather than exploitative, market-driven decisions?”

“That was a good survey. It made one think.”

“A very interesting and thought provoking survey.”

The Survey is a challenge because the technique requires hard choices and trade offs to be made. Never an easy task! It is being done independently by Cambridge Strategies Inc. and will be used to try and inform government policy and industry practices around responsible and sustainable oil sands development. It is available on www.policychannel.com until December 7. Take a bit of time and do the survey yourself.

Oberg Discloses Alberta's Surplus - But Still Not His PC Leadership Campaign Donors - What (and who) Gives?

It is a good thing Dr. Oberg is providing an open and transparent declaration of the Alberta Surplus situation in his quarterly update. So we are into the $4B level of projected surplus now and yes there are some reasons for concern looking out and we need to be better at planning for a slower growth in our Alberta.

That said, I wonder when Dr. Oberg is going to release his PC Leadership campaign donor list? He promised he would and did I miss it? On December 2 it will be one year since the PC leadership was decided and still no disclosure from Dr. O.

He has the discipline to get quarterly updates done on surpluses, surely he can give us a simply list of his campaign donors and the amounts contributed before a year is out.

How can Dr. Oberg justify this failure, refusal or neglect to release his leadership campaign donor list when he promised that he would? Not good enough Dr. O. Not nearly a good enough. Dr. Oberg should be setting an example of open, accountable and transparent government given his Cabinet position!

Stelmach Should Reject Craig Chandler's Nomination

I am not happy with the Progressive Conservative Party nomination of Craig Chandler in Calgary Egmont. If you are Ed Stelmach, you only need to go to the Craig Chandler website and watch the video to see what kind of "candidate" you are dealing with.

Really listen to him and you have to be concerned about his intentions and attitudes and look at the record of what he says and what he has done.

I am glad the Premier is meeting with Mr. Chandler to discuss his intentions and to assess his ability to be a team player. The results of that meeting should be a foregone conclusion based on the Chandler website video. The Premier should refuse to sign this person’s nomination papers as an Alberta Progressive Conservative candidate.

In the website video Mr. Chandler says, “Do you think in a Caucus meeting I’m going to roll over?” He and columnist Paul Jackson of the Calgary Sun say Mr. Chandler will not “toe the party line.” Mr. Chandler himself makes the point that he believes he must represent “his constituents” and he…”won’t toe the party line and any of you think I will don’t know me very well.”

I admire an independent streak and have one myself, and that does not preclude one from being a team player. You don’t have to "toe the party line" in Caucus during what is often a rigorous debate. But you have to accept the ultimate and final decision of Caucus. That is when the MLAs in any government must "toe the party line" or else nothing will get done or even be finally decided.

If you disagree with a Caucus decision Mr. Chandler you have a few options. Suck it up and shut up. Quit or cross the floor. Speaking out against the party line or the party principles will likely see you quickly kicked out of Caucus. Don’t fool yourself, sir it happens. Just ask Dr. Oberg

The problem I have with Mr. Chandler is not that he is independent. He is also oppressive and dogmatic. He strikes me as a person who chooses not to see nuances on issues. Kind of like George Bush. If you are not for us, you are deemed to be against us. Can Mr. Chandler accept and reconcile differences of opinion in ways that seek effective solutions to complex governance problems?

He comes across as the kind of person who is often wrong but never in doubt. He has expectations that everyone else should adapt to his version of “reality and truth” because he sure isn’t going to “toe any party line.”

He doesn’t come across as being able to accept that he has blind spots. We all have blind spots and that is why we get better judgments and wiser decisions when our politicians listen and learn from a wide rage of perspectives. Does he have the right stuff to be effective in a representative democracy that is based on principles of being inclusive and valuing diversity? Those are core qualities of modern democratic political representation.

He makes a strong point of saying he represents his constituents before he owes any party or Caucus allegiances. That may be true but it is going to be interesting to see if he can be representative of all of his constituents, especially if they disagree with him. Given he has such a dogmatic attitude, ask yourself how well he will represent the concerns of his Gay constituent? I think it is a pretty sure bet Calgary Egmont has gay residents and they would be Mr. Chandler's "constituents" should he be a PC candidate and win in the next election.

Premier Stelmach, take a minute and read the Statement of Principles of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta. Then make a personal leadership statement based on those principles and refuse to sign this gentleman’s nomination papers.

Mr. Harper has taken this leadership step on more than one occasion recently. You will get some heat but refusing this candidate is the proper thing to do under the circumstances.