Here is a comment I put on Don Braid's column today in the Calgary Herald. First read Don's column then continue with reading this comment:
The old ways of doing politics by the Calgary Commandos under Klein is gone and these guys don't know how to respond...so they blame the royalties as it if were a made-in-Alberta NEP.
The market is what is making things tough in the patch, not the Alberta taxpayer's take from OUR energy resources. We share the risk with lower rates in tough times and take more of the pie when things are good.
We were still the second lowest tax and royalty burden on the planet AFTER the new royalty regime was initially. Premier Stelmach has rolled royalty rates back so far, as an appeasement to the Calgary Commandos, that we now collect less revenue from these NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES than we would have generated from the original royalty scheme. Cry me a river!
Get off this royalty rant you guys; Albertans are sooner or later going to start acting like owners of their oil and gas reserves. When the do, then your social licenses will all come under serious public scrutiny. Your environmental records will be the first place the public will look to see if your enterprise is behaving appropriately to deserve a continuing social license. You are tenants on these public lands who are granted license to take a calculated business risk - not to play politics with the privilege.
You are welcome to go to Libya or Iran or Iraq or Nigeria instead of staying in Canada. And Saskatchewan is not the alternative; they are a different game with the Bakken. Their win with this great discovery is not Alberta's loss; it is win-win for Canada. That again is your independent business decision but the political games about royalties are becoming tedious. You have it really good and you know it.
I would really like to know how Albertans think about the royalties we collect on our natural resources and how the licensees who exploit them for us treat our land, air and water in the process.
Looking forward to your comments.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Harper Promises Other Parties to "Teach Them a Lesson" Next Election
Mr Harper says he is going to show the separatist and the socialists and teach them a lesson. Kind of like "you just wait until your father comes home Canada. There are going to be consequences if you don't give him a majority next election.
Harper and the strict and abusive father-figure is at his best in the Sault Ste Marie speech.
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2009/9/10/4316574.html
I always thought elections were the chance for citizens to teach abusive and arrogant politicians a lesson! Not in world of Harper's-Your-Daddy-and-you-better-obey-him-politics.
Harper and the strict and abusive father-figure is at his best in the Sault Ste Marie speech.
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2009/9/10/4316574.html
I always thought elections were the chance for citizens to teach abusive and arrogant politicians a lesson! Not in world of Harper's-Your-Daddy-and-you-better-obey-him-politics.
"Not Been Spending Enough of Your Money"
Here is an hilarious piece of creative political mockery for your cynical amusement. I came across this mock-ad by Edward Monton on Twitter (follow me @kenchapman46). It pokes fun at the $25 million Alberta branding advertising campaign and the Alberta budget plight. The text reads"
"There was never a better time for Alberta to waste $25 million of taxpayers money. The Tory government under Ed Stelmach is doing a wonderful job of running the Province from a surplus into a deficit. Let's forget about health care funding, the crumbling infrastructure and education to throw valuable funds into the creation of a new logo. We will also create ads like this that are uninspiring and refuse to break stereotypes. With that in mind, better let this fellow get back to polishing the metal nuts dangling from the back of his Chevy truck."
The logo cut line is "Alberta Freedom to Spend, Spirit to Waste"
OUCH! But this is the role of the artist, to tell us about ourselves. Good on you Edward Monton.
That said, Alberta's revenues are down due to commodity prices and royalty give aways and subsidy to industry in the good times. Cuts are here and more are coming. I hope we see some intelligence, integrity and compassion applied to the next budget building in Alberta.
We have not seen much evidence of anything happening to improve Alberta's brand image recently. Copenhagen is coming up in December, First Nations are getting European bank backing to fight energy issues and the oil sands investments by Statoil are an election issue in Norway these days, and China is getting serious about buying in. Alberta is on the world stage alright. There is a lot of angry and anxious people these days, and who can blame them.
I have been working on a blog post for the next in the series "Society's Child" but have been distracted by real work I have to do. I will be getting at it again shortly and will be posting about some pf the implications of the Bosco Homes closure for those kids and what will happen to them.
I will also be looking at some positive examples of where social workers in the children's services area. The examples I will use illustrate some exemplary work done on behalf of kids at risk, where the social workers have really showed up and stepped up. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Harper's Situational Ethics Rise Again - Will The Socialists and the Separatists be His Downfall?
Jeff Jedras has a hit on his hands with this video production. Situational ethics abound in politics. The Harper government's claim about socialist and separatist getting together to bring down the government before the last election has become the reality for Mr. Harper today.
Either the Bloc or the NDP will now be able to determine Mr. Harper's fate. Either one will have the power to vote non-confidence in him and force an election. We may not want an election but we need one to get out of this chaos from the current groups lack of leadership. We know we can't believe or trust this government and to perpetuate it for no real purpose will make things worse.
We can do better but only if we have an election. Then Canadians can take back the power from this Prime Minister and give the country a chance for a new government with a majority and a new mandate to manage the economy and work our way out of this recession
So I expect some day soon, but not right away, either Mr. Layton or Duceppe, or both, as the socialists and the separatists finally prove to be the nemesis of the Harper government.
Of course the irony of the situational ethics of Mr. Harper are made crystal clear in this video. He has a history of getting together with the separatists to defeat a minority government - but of course that was "different." That was not his government. No wonder citizens know they can't trust him. Just ask his income trust victims.
Either the Bloc or the NDP will now be able to determine Mr. Harper's fate. Either one will have the power to vote non-confidence in him and force an election. We may not want an election but we need one to get out of this chaos from the current groups lack of leadership. We know we can't believe or trust this government and to perpetuate it for no real purpose will make things worse.
We can do better but only if we have an election. Then Canadians can take back the power from this Prime Minister and give the country a chance for a new government with a majority and a new mandate to manage the economy and work our way out of this recession
So I expect some day soon, but not right away, either Mr. Layton or Duceppe, or both, as the socialists and the separatists finally prove to be the nemesis of the Harper government.
Of course the irony of the situational ethics of Mr. Harper are made crystal clear in this video. He has a history of getting together with the separatists to defeat a minority government - but of course that was "different." That was not his government. No wonder citizens know they can't trust him. Just ask his income trust victims.
Harper in Court Over "Fixed" Election Dates Law - Was the Last Election Illegal?
This turn of events show just how strange politics can be. Democracy Watch is a watchdog group that monitors ethics in government., They are suing the Harper government in Federal Court and the arguments are being heard today. The issue is if Prime Minister Harper's last election call was illegal.
Harper had a campaign promise in the prior election of 2006 to set fixed election dates, and his law was passed unanimously by Parliament, if memory serves. Under the law of the land the next election was supposed to be October 19, 2009, pretty much as it looks like it will be, give or take a month.
The then Minister of Democratic Reform, now Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson, said, according to CBC reports, the fixed election date law restricted the Prime Minister from calling an election unless a vote of no-confidence in the government occurred before October 2009. Ouch!
Democracy Watch says the fixed election date law was intended to stop the kind of actions Mr. Harper took last year in asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election. Of course Mr. Harper's lawyers say nothing in the law prevents the Prime Minister from making such a request of the Governor General.
An interesting challenge of what is the appropriate statutory interpretation of Harper's fixed election date law will ensue in the Federal Court today. Does it mean a minority government can only be defeated by a non-confidence vote? With Harper proroguing Parliament he managed to duck out of facing such a vote. Is that good for democracy?
Technically the Governor General calls an election not the Prime Minister. So what does it matter if we have an election based on a non-confidence vote or a voluntary submission of a minority government to dissolve and go to an election.
In this case, the opposition parties formed a coalition and were prepared to do two things. First defeat the Harper government in a non-confidence vote. Then go to the Governor General as a majority coalition and ask the Governor General for permission to form a new government.
If she agreed to the coalitions request they would form a government and we would not have had the last election forced on bu by Mr. Harper's tactics. We did not want an election then either but Harper forced it anyway, and he still won anyway. Almost looked like a majority there for a few days too.
So what will happen? Will the court decide that last election was illegal? If so what does that do to the legitimacy of the Harper's right to govern? Do we go back into an election now by court order? Or will the courts wait out the forth coming non-confidence vote, see the next election through and then announce its decision? I think so. The courts do not want to get that deeply into the political thrust and parry of validating or invalidating an election if they can avoid it.
Or will the courts do what the RCMP did in 2006 and proceed and announce their decision, even if it is in the middle of an election. Remember in the middle of the 2006 election the RCMP announced a criminal investigation into possible income trust leaks by the government. that investigation later proved baseless except for one civil servant who used the insider information for personal gain.
Many believe that ill-advised and ill-timed investigation led to the defeat of the Martin Liberal government. I don't think the courts will do that but there is nothing to stop them. In fact there is much to be said for them proceeding on their own timetable and to ignore the political implications. After all many do not like what they call judge made law.
Just as the state does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation, so too the courts do not belong in the election campaigns of the nation. However, that principle could cut either way. Staying out of the election campaign may be interpreted by the court as just delaying releasing its decision until after the next election is over. That is one way to stay out of the election process. It could also mean that the courts decide that the election timing and process has nothing to do with them and what ever they do is irrelevant to the election process. They would then choose to ignore the election process entirely and release their decision whenever they are ready. To do otherwise is a de facto involvement in the election process.
Then of course, this all depends on what the final court decision is. If Harper is off the hook and did not act illegally, should that decision be released in the middle of an election campaign? Will that not be the courts having an impact of the final result? If Harper is off the hook and the decision can be announced before the election starts but knowing we are headed for an election; should it be announced?
What if the courts wait, Harper wins the next election but loses in court? Does that destabilize and undermine the the legitimacy of his government? These potential scenarios are all real issues that could have been avoided simply by Harper facing the House of Commons non-confidence vote and challenging the coalitions legitimacy to govern and forcing an election in 2006.
Democracy Watch is saying if they win, then Canadians could start a class action against the Conservative Party for the $350,000,000 of costs for the last election. What a tangled web our Prime Minister weaves by the kinds of political choices he makes.
Harper had a campaign promise in the prior election of 2006 to set fixed election dates, and his law was passed unanimously by Parliament, if memory serves. Under the law of the land the next election was supposed to be October 19, 2009, pretty much as it looks like it will be, give or take a month.
The then Minister of Democratic Reform, now Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson, said, according to CBC reports, the fixed election date law restricted the Prime Minister from calling an election unless a vote of no-confidence in the government occurred before October 2009. Ouch!
Democracy Watch says the fixed election date law was intended to stop the kind of actions Mr. Harper took last year in asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election. Of course Mr. Harper's lawyers say nothing in the law prevents the Prime Minister from making such a request of the Governor General.
An interesting challenge of what is the appropriate statutory interpretation of Harper's fixed election date law will ensue in the Federal Court today. Does it mean a minority government can only be defeated by a non-confidence vote? With Harper proroguing Parliament he managed to duck out of facing such a vote. Is that good for democracy?
Technically the Governor General calls an election not the Prime Minister. So what does it matter if we have an election based on a non-confidence vote or a voluntary submission of a minority government to dissolve and go to an election.
In this case, the opposition parties formed a coalition and were prepared to do two things. First defeat the Harper government in a non-confidence vote. Then go to the Governor General as a majority coalition and ask the Governor General for permission to form a new government.
If she agreed to the coalitions request they would form a government and we would not have had the last election forced on bu by Mr. Harper's tactics. We did not want an election then either but Harper forced it anyway, and he still won anyway. Almost looked like a majority there for a few days too.
So what will happen? Will the court decide that last election was illegal? If so what does that do to the legitimacy of the Harper's right to govern? Do we go back into an election now by court order? Or will the courts wait out the forth coming non-confidence vote, see the next election through and then announce its decision? I think so. The courts do not want to get that deeply into the political thrust and parry of validating or invalidating an election if they can avoid it.
Or will the courts do what the RCMP did in 2006 and proceed and announce their decision, even if it is in the middle of an election. Remember in the middle of the 2006 election the RCMP announced a criminal investigation into possible income trust leaks by the government. that investigation later proved baseless except for one civil servant who used the insider information for personal gain.
Many believe that ill-advised and ill-timed investigation led to the defeat of the Martin Liberal government. I don't think the courts will do that but there is nothing to stop them. In fact there is much to be said for them proceeding on their own timetable and to ignore the political implications. After all many do not like what they call judge made law.
Just as the state does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation, so too the courts do not belong in the election campaigns of the nation. However, that principle could cut either way. Staying out of the election campaign may be interpreted by the court as just delaying releasing its decision until after the next election is over. That is one way to stay out of the election process. It could also mean that the courts decide that the election timing and process has nothing to do with them and what ever they do is irrelevant to the election process. They would then choose to ignore the election process entirely and release their decision whenever they are ready. To do otherwise is a de facto involvement in the election process.
Then of course, this all depends on what the final court decision is. If Harper is off the hook and did not act illegally, should that decision be released in the middle of an election campaign? Will that not be the courts having an impact of the final result? If Harper is off the hook and the decision can be announced before the election starts but knowing we are headed for an election; should it be announced?
What if the courts wait, Harper wins the next election but loses in court? Does that destabilize and undermine the the legitimacy of his government? These potential scenarios are all real issues that could have been avoided simply by Harper facing the House of Commons non-confidence vote and challenging the coalitions legitimacy to govern and forcing an election in 2006.
Democracy Watch is saying if they win, then Canadians could start a class action against the Conservative Party for the $350,000,000 of costs for the last election. What a tangled web our Prime Minister weaves by the kinds of political choices he makes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)