Who is Responsible for Land Reclamation in Alberta?

Reclamation is an emerging hot topic in the minds of Albertans according to the Cambridge Strategies Inc Discrete Choice Modeling survey on oil sands development. We have unnecessary seismic lines, old oil and gas and forestry roads, abandoned well sites, pipeline disturbance all over the province that could be reclaimed. We have the open pit oil sands disturbances including tailing ponds and the really big oil sands show is the in-situ development where 70% of future oil sands activity is going to take place.

The question on my mind is if reclamation an afterthought in the consciousness industry and policy makers in Alberta? If so how long can this go on and who is ultimately responsible to pay for reclamation in the end? The old conventional industry game was for reclamation responsibility to be with the original developing oil company. The big guys, who do the really big plays, take on the reclamation responsibility at the front end. As the production diminishes the wells get sold off to juniors and smaller players who further exploit the wells and assume the reclamation duties. As the wells get really inefficient they get sold off to smaller and smaller groups who can use shell companies to pick up the dwindling production wells.

Then these micro players bankrupt the shell companies and leave the reclamation obligations unfulfilled. Not good. As I understand it the reasonability for reclamation can be enforced up the chain of ownership to the original players. If that is the case how often is that enforced by the government? If not, why not?

Another “disturbing” point about reclamation is the requirements to return the lands to a useful purpose akin to the original one would hope. Conventional site reclamations only require the l companies to plant grass…not even replace the trees they took out. In the early days of open pit oil sands mining the operators just stripped off the “overburden” and piled it up. One man’s overburden is another man’s topsoil and trees. Other species with whom we share the overburden lands call them home. How is it possible to replace the topsoil and the surface organic material that will sustain a forest growth if it is all mixed up in a pile? If this is what has happened one has to ask can the legal responsibility of developers to reclaim open pit oil sands mines ever be met with such operational practices?

The regulators have recently changed this and the Shell Albion project has actually for the first time separated the overburden into different piles so there is at least a chance it can be returned in some form so future efforts at reclamation may have a chance of supporting growth.

We better start looking seriously at responsibilities for reclamation now. We can’t wait any longer to get our heads around this problem. I am hoping we see something significant about reclamation in the soon to be released Land Use Framework of the GOA.

Short sighted development that is not integrated and enlightened cannot be the default position of Alberta. Albertans know this and it is time for our government to catch up to this reality and get aggressive about enforcing reclamation obligations.

Alberta Election Reform Should Not Limit Free Speech

The existential anxiety I feel when I agree with Lorne Gunter amuses and alarms me. His column today goes beyond my usual cognitive dissonance. It actually astonishes me because I can’t even find a quibble with what he says - never mind any significant disagreement with him.

The election reform we need to restore citizenship and participation in Alberta’s democratic process is not going to be achieved by putting a limitation on free speech. The contest of how to correct the system so far sees Stelmach’s trial balloon of limiting third party election spending and the Alberta Federation of Labour’s counter punch of demanding big business donation bucks are taken out of politics too.

The story line is there is too much political muscle vested in special interests like labour and business. Those big money guys are the problem. Why? Because they can buy influence via paid advertising in the election process. I don’t buy that. I also don’t buy that political parties should be the only serious players in politics at election time. If any group has too much power over the process it is the political parties, not business and labour.

The problem with our lack of political engagement in our democracy is not about who has and is exercising monetary muscle. It is more about that what is being said at elections. What problems being presented in platforms. What solutions are being offered by the political class. For the most part the content and context of elections are not meaningful to the population.

Political parties try not to lose elections rather than win them. They play super safe by doing pointless polls, run obtuse focus groups, then media train the personality out of the leaders by shrink-wrapping them into a message bubble so they will be politically safe. Elections are supposed to be about choices and consequences. Instead of making election politics about practical purposes and people they become personality contests focused on tactics, gaffes and shallow media events.

There are some changes that need to be made in the election process that deals more with openness and transparency of who exactly is trying to buy influence over me. People who show up and think about the issues and how to cast their vote are not stupid. Those who don’t bother to get informed or to vote effectively abdicate their democratic rights to those who do vote. As a result the no-shows have made a decision that they don’t want to count in the future political direction and decisions that impact their lives. So be it but paid advertising is not likely to change the opinions much less the behaviours of the pathologically disengaged “citizen.”

The solution for that democratic dilemma is not the elimination of third party advertising or abolition of certain financial support sources for elections. I would be trying to expand both elements and also be encouraging individual donations and citizen political participation as a way to get political parties and leaders to become more open to new ideas.

We need more candidates who are able to be bolder, braver and come forward with more engaging and meaningful policy promises. they need to be able to clearly articulate a relevant practical political platforms they intend to keep. I think if there is going to be a focus on election reform, it is not so much about how free speech is being exercised but to ensure we know who exactly is “talking” to us to influence our vote.

The AFL gambit of not disclosing that they were behind the anti-Stelmach TV ads hurt the NDP who could have used the money. It also hurt the Liberals who got caught in a backlash because they were presumed to be the source of the ads and they got blamed because for many Albertans they were seen to be in bad taste and too negative. The irony is, as Gunter points out, that while Stelmach may be trying to limit such ads, he actually benefited significantly from the AFL negative TV ads at the end of the day.

There is some positive, serious and significant election reform going that will not likely get front page headlines because it is not deemed to be newsworthy. It is the recent Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta effort to amend and fix its own leadership selection process. It is one of the most open and democratic processes in the country today but still needs improvement. I suggest this effort is a more important and meaningful step at significant political reform.

The Alberta Liberals and NDP are poised for leadership changes as well. They might we well advised to look at their own party processes and shortcomings before they jump into any exercise or bandwagon to limit free speech masquerading in the guise of enhancing our democracy.

Minister's Biker Girlfriend is Not a Security Risk

Let me get this straight. The Minister of Foreign Affairs (sic) has a girlfriend who was married to a well known and convicted mobster and formerly in a relationship with another who was killed before he got to trial. This is a private matter and “none of our business” and not a security risk according to the Prime Minister.


Our government does not know where 41000 at large deportees are and they presume they left Canada when we rejected them status and because they must be honourable folks.

Now tell me again just who is not a leader?

Politicians who are that naive, lack a modicum of judgment and are self-delusional are not fit to govern.

Western Canadians - Including Albertans - Are Moving to the Center.

I really appreciate the good work the Canada West Foundation does. The recent study from the CWF provides proves my admiration is well founded as they provide more clarity as to the direction western Canadians want to go on some 15 public policy issue they studied.

The findings are very interesting and show a shift in public consciousness squarely toward the social infrastructure deficit and looking for a more activist government to invest qualitatively in the future prosperity in a knowledge economy.

The most significant finding is the consistency on the top public policy issues for all four western provinces. We all agree across the west that the top three public policy issues being improving health care (77.2%) doing more to protect the environment (74.9%) and doing more to reduce poverty (71.7%). These findings are consistent with a conjoint research project we did in the fall of 2006 during the Progressive Conservative leadership campaign.

The growing public concern over dealing with poverty issues surprised most people back then. The greater concern for Aboriginal social issues (44.3%) and creating employment opportunities for Aboriginal people (43.9%) over attracting skilled workers from other countries (31.3%) is illustrating a shift the social infrastructure deficit as a critical issue as well.

Alberta and BC align on the next priority of issues with concerns about investments in post-secondary education (61.9%), transportation and infrastructure (58.1%) plus science and technology (57.1%) are ranked as more important than lowering personal income taxes (55.1%). Expect TILMA to assist in this regard.

Westerners are all still big on the free market economy with 6 out of 10 wanting government to stay out of the economy but still 78.8% of us want government to protect rural economies. There is enormous support for activist government in using tax incentives for supporting resource industry, science and technology and increasing R&D funding as well as putting money into universities for hiring top researchers. Albertans are at the very top of the push in these areas. Ironic really, given that the previous government’s mantra of “government on being in the business of being in business.”

There are some storm clouds indicated about acceptability of high levels of foreign investment. Only 49.2% support and 46.7% oppose this trend and the highest support is not from Alberta but recognize the differences between provinces are not statistically significant. Times are good in Alberta and the west generally. This all may change if the economy changes dramatically.

CWF’s concluding remarks really nails the essence of the research when they say “ Western Canadians’ top public policy priorities are decidedly non-economic: while addressing issues of health care, the environment, poverty and greenhouse gas emissions may have economic dimensions, they are not economic policy areas.” They go on to note “…there are a wide range of areas in which western Canadians are supportive of government action and intervention.”

Squaring this circle of free enterprisers and activitist government is done by the CWF who point out only 2 of 10 strongly agree for government to stay out of the free market, at least “…suggesting that almost 8 in 10 are open to government economic intervention in selected areas.”

Westerners, including Albertans, have moved on from the past harsh economic policies and the far right political focus of reducing government capacity to simply lower taxes. The new Stelmach government clearly has a sense of this and is adjusting accordingly. Lots to do and fiscal prudence is still the overarching principle but we need to do more for those less able to help themselves in the brave new world of western Canada.

Why Are Alberta Opposition Parties Blaming Voters the Election Results?

The talk of a new political party or the merger of the Alberta Liberal and the NDP in response to the recent Stelmach Progressive Conservative landslide majority is interesting but if it is reactive it will not get any momentum.

The gnashing of Liberal and NDP teeth after the last election results was more like they were blaming Alberta voters for electing the Stelmach versions of a Progressive Conservative government. They bemoaned that 20% of total of eligible Albertans selected the Stelmach government. Stelmach actually got over 50% of the 41% of eligible voters who bothered to show up on election day.

The Alberta results could also be legitimately framed that the majority of voting Albertans selected Stelmach and it is worth noting only two political parties showed an increase in their popular vote, the Progressive Conservative and the Green Party of Alberta. The rejection of the Alberta Liberals and the NDP means they need to look at themselves instead of blaming the voter or the apathetic Alberta for the performance of their parties in these election results.

Still the opposition parties and vested interest groups wailed and moaned that these election results were unacceptable and somehow undemocratic and the low participation actually diminished the PC mandate. That is utter nonsense.

That kind of reaction from the losers was just insulting the Albertans who had considered the options, made a decision on who to vote for and then took the time to show up and vote. Those engaged Albertan made their preferences known about who they wanted to grant consent to govern the province. It was not the Alberta Liberals or the NDP. The right to vote is a moral duty and not a legal obligation. Enough said!

That said, there is still a problem that threatens our democracy when only 41% of the population could be bothered to vote in the first place. That is not going to be solved by blaming the voter or arranging a shotgun marriage of the Alberta Liberal and the NDP. Even worse is the “solution” of some who are calling a strategic machination to reduce the democratic choices for Alberta voters. This is the end result of the proposal that the Alberta Liberals and NDP collude and not run candidates against each other in certain close ridings to avoid splitting votes.

Instead the oppositions parties ought to be look at ways they can offer Albertan’s a better government through better leadership, better candidates and more resonate platforms. Tinkering with the system with schemes like Proportional Representation is another folly of political parties who just can’t cut it with the electorate.

We need a strong opposition. They help make government better, more accountable and more effective and can provide voters with choices and alternatives. That is the job of the opposition and they need to get on with it. They should quit trying to change the rules and stop blaming voters or apathy for their own shortcoming. More opposition members is an obvious “solution” but remember the four-man NDP Caucus last session was pretty damn effective by all counts.

Reality is when Albertans what more opposition member it will elect them. In the meantime opposition parties should refocus and get serious about being an effective opposition and an acceptable alternative for Albertans if they ever want to govern us. So far they look like they just want to whine about not getting political power.