I did a short video for the Calgary ATA locals on what they need to do and be aware and engaged as community leaders and citizens of Calgary and Alberta.
There is so much changing in learning these days and teachers are needed to be at the forefront of dealing with those changes. We need an expanded definition of learning, literacy and now we have no choice but to be lifelong learners.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI6ltnESuG0&feature=digest
There is another related video clip we did on Calgary's challenges and the impact on teachers and education that I will post later.
BTW the report on the Inspiring Education public dialogue initiative of Minister Dave Hancock is scheduled for release June 2.
Cambridge Strategies is a co-sponsor of two public dialogues entitled "Learning Our Way to the Next Alberta" featuring Gwynne Dyer, David Peat and Scott Murray May 31 in Calgary and June 1 in Edmonton. We are half sold with two weeks still to go. There is obviously lots of interest in this topic. You can get tickets at http://www.learningourway.ca/
Monday, May 17, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Alberta Health Superboard Should Go!
I am heading into a meeting this afternoon on Foresight this. Foresight is not about making prediction like a futurist but it is about extrapolating possibilities based on evidence, experience, insight and a bit of intuition.
That said here is my non-prediction anyway. I believe the Alberta Health Services Super Board will be gonzo sometime this summer. ..and it should be. The government has approved a five year spending envelope for healthcare in the last budget and covered off the deficits of the Superboard at the same time.
With assured healthcare funding for five years, I assume they are working a five year business plan for health care delivery in Alberta as well. With Registered Nurses in contract negotiations now and the Physicians into negotiations next year, my guess is the government will take back the duty of delivering health care in Alberta. Then who needs a Superboard?
The Klein era governance model was ostensibly built on regional advisory boards of local citizens who were presumed to be best able to know, assess and advise Ministers and government on local issues. In reality that policy proved to be more fiction than fact, especially in the execution and application. I know this firsthand from some of the work I do.
There is a full report done by the Province of Alberta on governance and conflict of interest around provincial government agencies, boards and commissions. The process was lead by Allan Tupper (formerly of the U of A and now at UBC) many years ago. The implementation of the report’s recommendations is now in the care of a senior provincial bureaucrat in Executive Council office. So far as I can see not much has been done about the recommendations. My guess this is mostly due to political inertia and a lack of political will.
The regional board system was implemented in health, childrens’ services, persons with developmental disabilities and perhaps other departments too. It has all turned out to be just another level of expensive governance without authority, expertise or an informed knowledge base to be very effective. They ended up being buffers to protect Ministers from having to deal with the rabble commonly known as citizens. Bottom line we have good people trying to do s job in a bad governance system and no political or administrative intent to change the dynamic.
These board members do not effectively connect with the local population or deal openly with local issues. My evidence and experiences suggest these regional advisory boards did not effectively connect with the government or the Ministers either. I had a conversation one such Minister who appointed well-meaning citizens these regional advisory boards. I asked if any of the appointed board members had ever given direct advice to that Minister. The answer was no. By the look on the Minister’s face in response to the question, I know a light bulb had just been turned. Perhaps that Minister had just realized why there were so many problems in the field that the Minister was chronically unaware.
It is in this context why I think the AHS Superboard will be extinct in a few months. The healthcare system started on this regionalization kick with 17 of them. That soon became 9 and one day, overnight and out of the blue, those were collapsed into one Superboard. The cynic in me says the Minister of the day wanted to fix an obvious regional leadership problem they had in the Calgary regional health board. The government did not want to look like they were picking on Calgary for political reasons, so they decided to dissolve all the regional health authorities into one. No advanced warning, no consultation, no review of the implications or consequences…and no thoughtful plan of implementation. It was just raw politics that were at work in that decision.
The former Minister of Health has since been shuffled and a new much more capable Minister is in place. A new Deputy Minister is in charge and he has the ear and confidence of the Premier. The government is back making the serious policy and implementation decisions about health care. The new leadership in the Department and Ministry of Health and Wellness has been reversing the mistakes of the former Minister and has taken almost all of the power away from the Superboard.
The Superboard and its administration were still (are still?) in the competitive slash and burn damn the torpedoes mindset of the former Minister. They failed refused or neglected to see there was a new Sheriff in town. As a result many the programs and initiatives the Superboard was implementing were stopped, stifled or reversed by the new Minister. The confusion as to roles, responsibilities and relationships between the Superboard, the Ministry and the department was enormous but it is being resolved – effectively, appropriately and dramatically from my point of view.
The political reality is the Minister and the Premier wears the good, bad and ugly politics of healthcare policy. Not the faceless members of the Superboard. The new Minister and Deputy Minister know this and, to their credit, they have taken back the control of the healthcare system into government. They are meeting people, professions and stakeholders to get a serious and in depth sense of what is going on in the field.
They are making positive changes, adding money and allowing for longer planning time frames. And they are burying the idea that private sector marketplace models based of competition will make the public healthcare system stronger and more accountable. The fact that the province has to spend $2.8 million of taxpayer dollars just to bailout a Calgary based private surgical centre from bankruptcy shows the folly of the radical right wing healthcare policy of past and possible future political regimes in the province…if the Wildrose replaces the Stelmach conservatives next election.
So while the governmet is on the job of discarding the AHS Superboard, I strongly suggest they do the same thing and dump all the regional buffer boards including in Childrens’ Services and Persons with Developmental Disabilities (PDD). They are doing more harm than good when it comes to open, transparent and accountable governance. They are not effectively governing or connecting community to government or service providers. They are political buffers for politicians – pure and simple.
Good governance is always good politics. The opposite is hardly ever true.
That said here is my non-prediction anyway. I believe the Alberta Health Services Super Board will be gonzo sometime this summer. ..and it should be. The government has approved a five year spending envelope for healthcare in the last budget and covered off the deficits of the Superboard at the same time.
With assured healthcare funding for five years, I assume they are working a five year business plan for health care delivery in Alberta as well. With Registered Nurses in contract negotiations now and the Physicians into negotiations next year, my guess is the government will take back the duty of delivering health care in Alberta. Then who needs a Superboard?
The Klein era governance model was ostensibly built on regional advisory boards of local citizens who were presumed to be best able to know, assess and advise Ministers and government on local issues. In reality that policy proved to be more fiction than fact, especially in the execution and application. I know this firsthand from some of the work I do.
There is a full report done by the Province of Alberta on governance and conflict of interest around provincial government agencies, boards and commissions. The process was lead by Allan Tupper (formerly of the U of A and now at UBC) many years ago. The implementation of the report’s recommendations is now in the care of a senior provincial bureaucrat in Executive Council office. So far as I can see not much has been done about the recommendations. My guess this is mostly due to political inertia and a lack of political will.
The regional board system was implemented in health, childrens’ services, persons with developmental disabilities and perhaps other departments too. It has all turned out to be just another level of expensive governance without authority, expertise or an informed knowledge base to be very effective. They ended up being buffers to protect Ministers from having to deal with the rabble commonly known as citizens. Bottom line we have good people trying to do s job in a bad governance system and no political or administrative intent to change the dynamic.
These board members do not effectively connect with the local population or deal openly with local issues. My evidence and experiences suggest these regional advisory boards did not effectively connect with the government or the Ministers either. I had a conversation one such Minister who appointed well-meaning citizens these regional advisory boards. I asked if any of the appointed board members had ever given direct advice to that Minister. The answer was no. By the look on the Minister’s face in response to the question, I know a light bulb had just been turned. Perhaps that Minister had just realized why there were so many problems in the field that the Minister was chronically unaware.
It is in this context why I think the AHS Superboard will be extinct in a few months. The healthcare system started on this regionalization kick with 17 of them. That soon became 9 and one day, overnight and out of the blue, those were collapsed into one Superboard. The cynic in me says the Minister of the day wanted to fix an obvious regional leadership problem they had in the Calgary regional health board. The government did not want to look like they were picking on Calgary for political reasons, so they decided to dissolve all the regional health authorities into one. No advanced warning, no consultation, no review of the implications or consequences…and no thoughtful plan of implementation. It was just raw politics that were at work in that decision.
The former Minister of Health has since been shuffled and a new much more capable Minister is in place. A new Deputy Minister is in charge and he has the ear and confidence of the Premier. The government is back making the serious policy and implementation decisions about health care. The new leadership in the Department and Ministry of Health and Wellness has been reversing the mistakes of the former Minister and has taken almost all of the power away from the Superboard.
The Superboard and its administration were still (are still?) in the competitive slash and burn damn the torpedoes mindset of the former Minister. They failed refused or neglected to see there was a new Sheriff in town. As a result many the programs and initiatives the Superboard was implementing were stopped, stifled or reversed by the new Minister. The confusion as to roles, responsibilities and relationships between the Superboard, the Ministry and the department was enormous but it is being resolved – effectively, appropriately and dramatically from my point of view.
The political reality is the Minister and the Premier wears the good, bad and ugly politics of healthcare policy. Not the faceless members of the Superboard. The new Minister and Deputy Minister know this and, to their credit, they have taken back the control of the healthcare system into government. They are meeting people, professions and stakeholders to get a serious and in depth sense of what is going on in the field.
They are making positive changes, adding money and allowing for longer planning time frames. And they are burying the idea that private sector marketplace models based of competition will make the public healthcare system stronger and more accountable. The fact that the province has to spend $2.8 million of taxpayer dollars just to bailout a Calgary based private surgical centre from bankruptcy shows the folly of the radical right wing healthcare policy of past and possible future political regimes in the province…if the Wildrose replaces the Stelmach conservatives next election.
So while the governmet is on the job of discarding the AHS Superboard, I strongly suggest they do the same thing and dump all the regional buffer boards including in Childrens’ Services and Persons with Developmental Disabilities (PDD). They are doing more harm than good when it comes to open, transparent and accountable governance. They are not effectively governing or connecting community to government or service providers. They are political buffers for politicians – pure and simple.
Good governance is always good politics. The opposite is hardly ever true.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Alberta Senators-in-Waiting Call on Stelmach to Reverse Decision & Hold New Elections This Fall.
I spoke with Link Byfield today about the three remaining Senators-in-Waiting (SIW)calling on Premier Stelmach to reverse his decision to delay the elections until 2013. The law in Alberta says the terms of these three SIWs expires in November 2010. But the loop hole in the law is that the provincial government can change things, like extending terms. But that discretion should be exercised prudently and for reasons of good government and promoting and preserving democracy...not for puerile political reasons.
THE STELMACH GOVERNMENTS REASONS FOR DELAY DON'T MAKE SENSE.
I heard the rationale for the deferral of the SIW elections to 2013. It would cost $5m to run them in conjunction with the municipal elections but no indication of how much more it would cost 3 years from now. Then there was the possibility of Saskatchewan passing similar Senator-in-Waiting legislation and it was suggested Alberta' democracy be delayed until we know if another province would also have such a law. What is that all about and why?
The third facile and farcical reason for the delay was that Alberta Senator Bert Brown had just introduced a Senate Bill S-8 "An Act Respecting the Selection of Senators. OUrugovernment has insisted that Albertans right to choose SIWs should wait to give that new law a chance to pass before we went into a new election. For you information - and thanks to SIW Link Byfield for the Bill.
Here is the summary text of Senator Brown's Bill that has caused a delay in democracy in Alberta:
This enactment establishes a framework for electing nominees for Senate
appointments from the provinces and territories. The following principles apply
to the selection process:
(a) the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor
General for a province or territory, would be required to consider names from
a list of nominees submitted by the provincial or territorial government; and
(b) the list of nominees would be determined by an election held in
accordance with provincial or territorial laws enacted to implement the
framework.
Section 3 of Bill s-8 puts a duty of the Prime Minister to recommend to the Governor General "to consider names from the most current list of Senate nominees elected for that province or territory" if a province or territory has enacted Senate selection legislation that is consistent with the principles in the Summary above. Well Alberta has has such legislation since 1985. How does Bill S-8 justify the suspension of a law that provided Albertans with a democratic right to select SIWs? Bill S-8 only puts the duty on the Prime Minister "to consider" such nominees selected by provincial or territorial law. It is not even binding for crying out loud. And this justifies a deferral and delay of democracy in Alberta?
IS DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY FOR PARTISAN PURPOSES JUSTIFIED?
OK I agree there are bigger issues and concerns facing Albertan that this theatre of the absurd Senate nominee election process. However, if our government is going to ride roughshod over these kinds of somewhat less than profound democratic rights, what is stopping them from staying the course and disregarding more significant democratic rights? This is at best causal corruption and at worst abuse of power for partisan political purposes. In no way shape of form is it good governance.
I am strongly opposed to this delay by the Stelmach government because it is unwarranted and an abuse of the discretion of the Alberta government. There is no good reason for such a delay except for pure political reasons. It seems like the PCs are running scared of the Wildrose and an election of Senators-in-Waiting this fall would likely result in Wildrose candidates winning. For the record Byfield ran as an Independent and the other three winners ran as Progressive Conservatives although they were all Reform and Alliance party faithfuls.
The result this time would see candidates running but likely mostly for theWildrose Party. This is because the Wildrose is the only party in Alberta really interested in an elected Senate for Canada. Last Senate election saw about 160,000 Albertans either refuse the Senate election ballot or spoil it as a protest. The political optics of Stelmach losing Senate elections this fall to Wildrose candidates will be seen as another referendum cum by-election result on his low popularity. He want to avoid that obviously, so the democratic deficit in Alberta deepens and widens as a result of pure political posturing - not the respect for the Rule of Law.
STELMACH RUNS IN THE FACE OF ALBERTAN'S VALUES
Integrity, honest, open, accountable and transparent government is missing with the Stelmach decision to delay the next Senator-in-Waiting election. This abuse of discretion and poor governance process to defer the next time Albertans get to say who they want be considered to represent them in the Senate until sometime in 2013 will put it after the next provincial and the next federal election too, most likely. Ironically the extension of the current crop of SIWs from 2004 to 2013 puts them in limbo longer than the eight years Harper would limit Senators terms of service.
THE STATEMENT FROM THE CURRENT SENATORS-IN-WAITING:
So here is the Statement the current crop of SIWs put out for your information. For the record I don't endorse all of what they are saying but I do applaud them for standing up for citizen's based democracy - not top down command and control centrist power based politics. That democratic deficit disease is creeping into Alberta and is rampant in the feckless Harper federal government. Looking forward to your comments.
Why we need elected senators representing us in Parliament
As Alberta’s three remaining senators-elect, we want to state publicly our belief that the Alberta government should hold a new Senate election with the province-wide municipal elections this fall. We say this solely in the interest of the province, and not for or against any provincial political party.
The government’s exercise of its legal option to extend our elected status by up to three years is not helpful to the cause of Senate reform in our view.
It is likely that one and perhaps two Alberta Senate vacancies will occur before there is a further province-wide opportunity for a Senate election.
However, in the event the government does not hold an election this fall, it would be wrong for us to leave Alberta in a position where a prime minister (be it Mr. Harper or Mr. Ignatieff) has no option but to appoint personal or party favourites to represent our province. We will therefore accept the government’s extension of our elected status until Albertans have been given a new chance to choose Senate nominees.
To illustrate why Albertans must not be represented by unelected senators, consider the recent Senate activities of Claudette Tardif.
She was picked to represent Alberta until the year 2022 by then-prime minister Paul Martin in 2005, five months after Albertans had cast 2.2 million votes to fill three vacant Senate seats. Neither Tardif nor Martin’s other two appointees ran for election.
On April 13th, 2010, Tardif introduced in the Senate Bill C-232, which if passed will require all future members of the Supreme Court of Canada to be fluently bilingual, not just in conversation but in complex and subtle points of law. The purported aim is to render translation unnecessary for judges in Canada’s highest court.
The many reasons why this private member’s bill is bad for the Supreme Court, bad for Canadian law, bad for national unity, and bad for unilingual regions, have already been aired in Parliament and in the media. Suffice it to say here that very few lawyers in Canada – and close to none in Alberta – qualify to hear a superior court legal argument in French without the aid of translation. This bill effectively kills the chance of most legally-qualified western Canadian lawyers and judges to sit on our highest court.
Neither of our two western Supreme Court incumbents, Beverley McLachlin and Marshall Rothstein, would qualify for the court under this statute.
Unfortunately, because bilingualism is so sacrosanct in Ottawa, Bill C-232 cleared the House of Commons by three votes on March 30th, with the combined support of the Bloc Quebecois, Liberals and NDP.
To add symbolic insult to material injury, C-232 was then put before the Senate by Claudette Tardif, an Alberta senator.
Instead of boosting official languages, Alberta’s six-person Senate delegation should be asking some searching questions. Is bilingualism actually working? Apparently not. According to Statistics Canada, “knowledge of [both] English and French” is a declining phenomenon, not a growing one. How much do official languages actually cost – not just for governments, how high is the immense cost of translation and compliance in the private sector? Ottawa doesn’t ask because Ottawa doesn’t want to know. Instead we blindly persist in the wishful thinking of half a century ago.
This is why we need provincially-elected senators in Parliament: to address questions the national government can’t or won’t. This is the “sober second thought” the 21st century demands.
It is time for parliamentarians to ask uncomfortable questions about productivity in the transfer-dependent regions of Canada, about our lack of success with official languages, about EI, multiculturalism, national marketing boards, and the economic value of subsidized industries.
These questions can’t be answered in the House of Commons because they can’t even be asked in the House of Commons. No national party can afford to lose the seats such candour would cost.
Nor can they be resolved in provincial legislatures, because there is nothing provinces can do about them. These are national issues under the authority of Parliament, best handled by the Senate.
In fact there is only one place where it would be politically possible to raise them and constitutionally possible to resolve them, and that is in a provincially-elected Senate such as Prime Minister Harper’s government is proposing. Not a Senate that is merely appointed, and which therefore dares not exercise the immense power it possesses under the constitution – powers equal to those of the House of Commons. And not a Senate filled with national party cheerleaders beholden to the same leaders who run the Commons.
No, to exert power the Senate must be elected, and to represent the diversity of Canada the elections must be provincial – provincial parties, federal issues.
This is what Canada needs, this is what the Prime Minister has asked provinces to provide, and this is what all Albertans should support.
Alberta Senators-Elect:
Betty Unger
Cliff Breitkreuz
Link Byfield
So dear Reader, what do you think? Is this a tempest in a teapot? Is this just the way things are and there is nothing you as a citizen can do about it? Or are you coming to realize that democracy is not free and free speech is not free either. They both have to be exercised and valued to do any good. Let you MLA and the Premier's office if you are tired of the disregard and disdain for democracy in Alberta. Whose Alberta is it any way?
THE STELMACH GOVERNMENTS REASONS FOR DELAY DON'T MAKE SENSE.
I heard the rationale for the deferral of the SIW elections to 2013. It would cost $5m to run them in conjunction with the municipal elections but no indication of how much more it would cost 3 years from now. Then there was the possibility of Saskatchewan passing similar Senator-in-Waiting legislation and it was suggested Alberta' democracy be delayed until we know if another province would also have such a law. What is that all about and why?
The third facile and farcical reason for the delay was that Alberta Senator Bert Brown had just introduced a Senate Bill S-8 "An Act Respecting the Selection of Senators. OUrugovernment has insisted that Albertans right to choose SIWs should wait to give that new law a chance to pass before we went into a new election. For you information - and thanks to SIW Link Byfield for the Bill.
Here is the summary text of Senator Brown's Bill that has caused a delay in democracy in Alberta:
This enactment establishes a framework for electing nominees for Senate
appointments from the provinces and territories. The following principles apply
to the selection process:
(a) the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor
General for a province or territory, would be required to consider names from
a list of nominees submitted by the provincial or territorial government; and
(b) the list of nominees would be determined by an election held in
accordance with provincial or territorial laws enacted to implement the
framework.
Section 3 of Bill s-8 puts a duty of the Prime Minister to recommend to the Governor General "to consider names from the most current list of Senate nominees elected for that province or territory" if a province or territory has enacted Senate selection legislation that is consistent with the principles in the Summary above. Well Alberta has has such legislation since 1985. How does Bill S-8 justify the suspension of a law that provided Albertans with a democratic right to select SIWs? Bill S-8 only puts the duty on the Prime Minister "to consider" such nominees selected by provincial or territorial law. It is not even binding for crying out loud. And this justifies a deferral and delay of democracy in Alberta?
IS DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY FOR PARTISAN PURPOSES JUSTIFIED?
OK I agree there are bigger issues and concerns facing Albertan that this theatre of the absurd Senate nominee election process. However, if our government is going to ride roughshod over these kinds of somewhat less than profound democratic rights, what is stopping them from staying the course and disregarding more significant democratic rights? This is at best causal corruption and at worst abuse of power for partisan political purposes. In no way shape of form is it good governance.
I am strongly opposed to this delay by the Stelmach government because it is unwarranted and an abuse of the discretion of the Alberta government. There is no good reason for such a delay except for pure political reasons. It seems like the PCs are running scared of the Wildrose and an election of Senators-in-Waiting this fall would likely result in Wildrose candidates winning. For the record Byfield ran as an Independent and the other three winners ran as Progressive Conservatives although they were all Reform and Alliance party faithfuls.
The result this time would see candidates running but likely mostly for theWildrose Party. This is because the Wildrose is the only party in Alberta really interested in an elected Senate for Canada. Last Senate election saw about 160,000 Albertans either refuse the Senate election ballot or spoil it as a protest. The political optics of Stelmach losing Senate elections this fall to Wildrose candidates will be seen as another referendum cum by-election result on his low popularity. He want to avoid that obviously, so the democratic deficit in Alberta deepens and widens as a result of pure political posturing - not the respect for the Rule of Law.
STELMACH RUNS IN THE FACE OF ALBERTAN'S VALUES
Integrity, honest, open, accountable and transparent government is missing with the Stelmach decision to delay the next Senator-in-Waiting election. This abuse of discretion and poor governance process to defer the next time Albertans get to say who they want be considered to represent them in the Senate until sometime in 2013 will put it after the next provincial and the next federal election too, most likely. Ironically the extension of the current crop of SIWs from 2004 to 2013 puts them in limbo longer than the eight years Harper would limit Senators terms of service.
THE STATEMENT FROM THE CURRENT SENATORS-IN-WAITING:
So here is the Statement the current crop of SIWs put out for your information. For the record I don't endorse all of what they are saying but I do applaud them for standing up for citizen's based democracy - not top down command and control centrist power based politics. That democratic deficit disease is creeping into Alberta and is rampant in the feckless Harper federal government. Looking forward to your comments.
Why we need elected senators representing us in Parliament
As Alberta’s three remaining senators-elect, we want to state publicly our belief that the Alberta government should hold a new Senate election with the province-wide municipal elections this fall. We say this solely in the interest of the province, and not for or against any provincial political party.
The government’s exercise of its legal option to extend our elected status by up to three years is not helpful to the cause of Senate reform in our view.
It is likely that one and perhaps two Alberta Senate vacancies will occur before there is a further province-wide opportunity for a Senate election.
However, in the event the government does not hold an election this fall, it would be wrong for us to leave Alberta in a position where a prime minister (be it Mr. Harper or Mr. Ignatieff) has no option but to appoint personal or party favourites to represent our province. We will therefore accept the government’s extension of our elected status until Albertans have been given a new chance to choose Senate nominees.
To illustrate why Albertans must not be represented by unelected senators, consider the recent Senate activities of Claudette Tardif.
She was picked to represent Alberta until the year 2022 by then-prime minister Paul Martin in 2005, five months after Albertans had cast 2.2 million votes to fill three vacant Senate seats. Neither Tardif nor Martin’s other two appointees ran for election.
On April 13th, 2010, Tardif introduced in the Senate Bill C-232, which if passed will require all future members of the Supreme Court of Canada to be fluently bilingual, not just in conversation but in complex and subtle points of law. The purported aim is to render translation unnecessary for judges in Canada’s highest court.
The many reasons why this private member’s bill is bad for the Supreme Court, bad for Canadian law, bad for national unity, and bad for unilingual regions, have already been aired in Parliament and in the media. Suffice it to say here that very few lawyers in Canada – and close to none in Alberta – qualify to hear a superior court legal argument in French without the aid of translation. This bill effectively kills the chance of most legally-qualified western Canadian lawyers and judges to sit on our highest court.
Neither of our two western Supreme Court incumbents, Beverley McLachlin and Marshall Rothstein, would qualify for the court under this statute.
Unfortunately, because bilingualism is so sacrosanct in Ottawa, Bill C-232 cleared the House of Commons by three votes on March 30th, with the combined support of the Bloc Quebecois, Liberals and NDP.
To add symbolic insult to material injury, C-232 was then put before the Senate by Claudette Tardif, an Alberta senator.
Instead of boosting official languages, Alberta’s six-person Senate delegation should be asking some searching questions. Is bilingualism actually working? Apparently not. According to Statistics Canada, “knowledge of [both] English and French” is a declining phenomenon, not a growing one. How much do official languages actually cost – not just for governments, how high is the immense cost of translation and compliance in the private sector? Ottawa doesn’t ask because Ottawa doesn’t want to know. Instead we blindly persist in the wishful thinking of half a century ago.
This is why we need provincially-elected senators in Parliament: to address questions the national government can’t or won’t. This is the “sober second thought” the 21st century demands.
It is time for parliamentarians to ask uncomfortable questions about productivity in the transfer-dependent regions of Canada, about our lack of success with official languages, about EI, multiculturalism, national marketing boards, and the economic value of subsidized industries.
These questions can’t be answered in the House of Commons because they can’t even be asked in the House of Commons. No national party can afford to lose the seats such candour would cost.
Nor can they be resolved in provincial legislatures, because there is nothing provinces can do about them. These are national issues under the authority of Parliament, best handled by the Senate.
In fact there is only one place where it would be politically possible to raise them and constitutionally possible to resolve them, and that is in a provincially-elected Senate such as Prime Minister Harper’s government is proposing. Not a Senate that is merely appointed, and which therefore dares not exercise the immense power it possesses under the constitution – powers equal to those of the House of Commons. And not a Senate filled with national party cheerleaders beholden to the same leaders who run the Commons.
No, to exert power the Senate must be elected, and to represent the diversity of Canada the elections must be provincial – provincial parties, federal issues.
This is what Canada needs, this is what the Prime Minister has asked provinces to provide, and this is what all Albertans should support.
Alberta Senators-Elect:
Betty Unger
Cliff Breitkreuz
Link Byfield
So dear Reader, what do you think? Is this a tempest in a teapot? Is this just the way things are and there is nothing you as a citizen can do about it? Or are you coming to realize that democracy is not free and free speech is not free either. They both have to be exercised and valued to do any good. Let you MLA and the Premier's office if you are tired of the disregard and disdain for democracy in Alberta. Whose Alberta is it any way?
Albertans Are Embracing Citizenship and Activism Again!
When I see active engaged citizenship I can't help but participate and promote it. At the bottom of thie blog post is a News Release from ARTES (Association for Responsive Trusteeship in Edmonton Schools) of an event I am speaking at in Edmonton on public education and Trusteeship on May 15th. This an example of this kind of get informed and get involved citizen activism we need to overcome the democratic deficit we have allowed to prevail in Alberta - and Canada for that matter.
LEARNING OUR WAY TO THE NEXT ALBERTA:
It is all coming together as people take back control, start creating alternative approaches and changing the outmoded top down command and control style of politics and governance. To get more of a flavour of this kind of awareness and engagement as an Albertan come to an of interesting public lecture (May 31 in Calgary and June 1 in Edmonton) featuring Gywnne Dyer as we are Learning Our Way to the Next Alberta. That link will give you more information on Learning Our Way and allow your to buy tickets at $10 each. It is open to the public all about a better more vibrant and vital democracy. It is very much in the spirit of the Reboot Alberta citizen's initiative - but this is not a Reboot Event.
So if you care and are committed to the future of Alberta and keen on preserving and advancing what is good and can be better about our province, join us at these events and others that are being planned.
ARTES:
Here is the news release for the ARTES event as well. I will be speaking on the Albertans values survey we recently did within the progressive Reboot Alberta community. I look forward to meeting you at either or both events.
May 10th, 2010
For Immediate Release
Election event planned for potential trustee candidates
The (ARTES) will host a wine and cheese mixer for people interested in local education issues, including potential candidates who are eyeing the possibility of running in the fall election.
The focus will be on building connections, but the event will also include three brief presentations:
- Dale Hudjik, ARTES president, on the principles of effective and responsive governance;
- Lynn Odynski, a former EPSB trustee, on the responsibilities of the office; and
- Ken Chapman, partner at Cambridge Strategies, on the values that voters identify as most important heading into the vote.
Anyone considering standing for election as a trustee is invited to attend, along with members of the public who want to learn more the school board system or get to know potential candidates.
Event details:
Saturday, May 15th, 7-9 p.m.
Woodcroft Community League Hall
13915 - 115th Avenue
Media contact:
Dale Hudjik
c. 1.780.904.6081
dale.hudjik@gmail.com
http://www.responsivetrustee.com
ARTES (ar-tes) represents people committed to the welfare of children and public education in Edmonton. It seeks to encourage high quality candidates for school boards.
Mission: To encourage and support school trustee candidates who are independent, transparent in their views and values, accountable, forward-looking, and responsive to the community.
- 30 -
LEARNING OUR WAY TO THE NEXT ALBERTA:
It is all coming together as people take back control, start creating alternative approaches and changing the outmoded top down command and control style of politics and governance. To get more of a flavour of this kind of awareness and engagement as an Albertan come to an of interesting public lecture (May 31 in Calgary and June 1 in Edmonton) featuring Gywnne Dyer as we are Learning Our Way to the Next Alberta. That link will give you more information on Learning Our Way and allow your to buy tickets at $10 each. It is open to the public all about a better more vibrant and vital democracy. It is very much in the spirit of the Reboot Alberta citizen's initiative - but this is not a Reboot Event.
So if you care and are committed to the future of Alberta and keen on preserving and advancing what is good and can be better about our province, join us at these events and others that are being planned.
ARTES:
Here is the news release for the ARTES event as well. I will be speaking on the Albertans values survey we recently did within the progressive Reboot Alberta community. I look forward to meeting you at either or both events.
May 10th, 2010
For Immediate Release
Election event planned for potential trustee candidates
The (ARTES) will host a wine and cheese mixer for people interested in local education issues, including potential candidates who are eyeing the possibility of running in the fall election.
The focus will be on building connections, but the event will also include three brief presentations:
- Dale Hudjik, ARTES president, on the principles of effective and responsive governance;
- Lynn Odynski, a former EPSB trustee, on the responsibilities of the office; and
- Ken Chapman, partner at Cambridge Strategies, on the values that voters identify as most important heading into the vote.
Anyone considering standing for election as a trustee is invited to attend, along with members of the public who want to learn more the school board system or get to know potential candidates.
Event details:
Saturday, May 15th, 7-9 p.m.
Woodcroft Community League Hall
13915 - 115th Avenue
Media contact:
Dale Hudjik
c. 1.780.904.6081
dale.hudjik@gmail.com
http://www.responsivetrustee.com
ARTES (ar-tes) represents people committed to the welfare of children and public education in Edmonton. It seeks to encourage high quality candidates for school boards.
Mission: To encourage and support school trustee candidates who are independent, transparent in their views and values, accountable, forward-looking, and responsive to the community.
- 30 -
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Joe Anglin's Passion is to Pursue the Forces of Power in the Province.
I don't usually do "guest blogs" in this space...and this is not an exception although it may look like it. Fellow Rebooter and activist Joe Anglin has been tireless in his pursuit of fairness, justice, accountability, honesty and transparency. He has been especially diligent around issues of electricity transmission and impact on private property rights in rural Alberta.
I get Joe's missives on these complex issues and read them. But like so many other Albertan's I feel the issues are too complex and as an individual I am too powerless to do much about them. That is a dangerous and unhelpful attitude to take. If citizen's are going to take on changing the power system - in many levels of that term - then we need to know what we are talking about and what we want as an alternative.
Joe's latest message is pretty simple to follow and pretty important to understand. I am sure he would be delighted to hear from you if you wantt to learn and know more about these critical issues to the future fairness, progress, sustainability and well-being of Alberta and Albertans.
Here is what Joe sent me. Read it and reflect on it and tell him, me, and mostly your local MLA, what you think.
Is AltaLink double dipping on the public?????
AltaLink has asked the Alberta Utilities Commission to force the Alberta public to reimburse $35 million dollars for the costs AltaLink incurred during the 2007 500KV transmission line hearings.
What costs did AltaLink incur in 2007? The majority of engineering costs for the 500KV transmission line were incurred and reimbursed to AltaLink from the 2004 “Needs” hearing process. After the need for a 500KV transmission line was approved by the EUB, the EUB reimbursed AltaLink for its costs in Decision 2005-037.
In fact, in Decision 2005-037 the EUB Board wrote:
The AESO claimed $262,195.13 with respect to its participation in the proceeding. Of that amount, $96,989.00 related to legal fees, $38,072.53 related to consulting fees, and the remainder related to disbursements.
AltaLink claimed $204,500.03 with respect to its participation in the proceeding. Of that amount, $172,732.00 related to legal fees, $19,155.00 related to consulting fees, and $12,613.03 related to disbursements. AltaLink participated in the pre-hearing meeting, prepared written submissions, IRs, and answers to IRs, cross-examined the City of Calgary (Calgary) and IPCAA/ADC, and provided argument at the proceeding. The Board considers that AltaLink was one of the major participants in the proceeding.
The “Needs” hearing determined the size of the line, and where the line was going to be placed in the west corridor. The size of the line dictated the size and type of the conductor, which dictated the size and type of towers. After the “needs” hearing there was little left for AltaLink’s engineers to do! All that remained was for AltaLink’s engineers to space the towers apart, (on a piece of paper), from one another in a straight line, and count the total number of towers. It is reasonable to believe that AltaLink’s engineers should be able to count approximately 300 towers for considerably less than $35 million dollars!
Surely, Borden Ladner and Gervais (BLG), AltaLink’s lawyers, didn’t charge $35 million dollars in legal fees! After all, AESO and AltaLink’s combined legal expenses only totalled to less than $500,000 dollars for the “Needs” hearing, and the total 2007 legal costs incurred for all 32 parties involved (each represented by individual lawyers and consultants), amounted to less than $1.9 million dollars. Ralph Klein and the former EUB Chairman, Neil McCrank, who coincidently oversaw the approval of the transmission line, who both now work for BLG – could they be worth $35 million dollars?
What the public needs is a full independent judicial inquiry into this debacle!
Joe Anglin
Rimbey, Alberta
(403) 843-3279
This commenary from Joe Anglin says alot to the citizens of Alberta but are we saying enough to change things in the way we are governed in our province? Whose province is it anyway?
I get Joe's missives on these complex issues and read them. But like so many other Albertan's I feel the issues are too complex and as an individual I am too powerless to do much about them. That is a dangerous and unhelpful attitude to take. If citizen's are going to take on changing the power system - in many levels of that term - then we need to know what we are talking about and what we want as an alternative.
Joe's latest message is pretty simple to follow and pretty important to understand. I am sure he would be delighted to hear from you if you wantt to learn and know more about these critical issues to the future fairness, progress, sustainability and well-being of Alberta and Albertans.
Here is what Joe sent me. Read it and reflect on it and tell him, me, and mostly your local MLA, what you think.
Is AltaLink double dipping on the public?????
AltaLink has asked the Alberta Utilities Commission to force the Alberta public to reimburse $35 million dollars for the costs AltaLink incurred during the 2007 500KV transmission line hearings.
What costs did AltaLink incur in 2007? The majority of engineering costs for the 500KV transmission line were incurred and reimbursed to AltaLink from the 2004 “Needs” hearing process. After the need for a 500KV transmission line was approved by the EUB, the EUB reimbursed AltaLink for its costs in Decision 2005-037.
In fact, in Decision 2005-037 the EUB Board wrote:
The AESO claimed $262,195.13 with respect to its participation in the proceeding. Of that amount, $96,989.00 related to legal fees, $38,072.53 related to consulting fees, and the remainder related to disbursements.
AltaLink claimed $204,500.03 with respect to its participation in the proceeding. Of that amount, $172,732.00 related to legal fees, $19,155.00 related to consulting fees, and $12,613.03 related to disbursements. AltaLink participated in the pre-hearing meeting, prepared written submissions, IRs, and answers to IRs, cross-examined the City of Calgary (Calgary) and IPCAA/ADC, and provided argument at the proceeding. The Board considers that AltaLink was one of the major participants in the proceeding.
The “Needs” hearing determined the size of the line, and where the line was going to be placed in the west corridor. The size of the line dictated the size and type of the conductor, which dictated the size and type of towers. After the “needs” hearing there was little left for AltaLink’s engineers to do! All that remained was for AltaLink’s engineers to space the towers apart, (on a piece of paper), from one another in a straight line, and count the total number of towers. It is reasonable to believe that AltaLink’s engineers should be able to count approximately 300 towers for considerably less than $35 million dollars!
Surely, Borden Ladner and Gervais (BLG), AltaLink’s lawyers, didn’t charge $35 million dollars in legal fees! After all, AESO and AltaLink’s combined legal expenses only totalled to less than $500,000 dollars for the “Needs” hearing, and the total 2007 legal costs incurred for all 32 parties involved (each represented by individual lawyers and consultants), amounted to less than $1.9 million dollars. Ralph Klein and the former EUB Chairman, Neil McCrank, who coincidently oversaw the approval of the transmission line, who both now work for BLG – could they be worth $35 million dollars?
What the public needs is a full independent judicial inquiry into this debacle!
Joe Anglin
Rimbey, Alberta
(403) 843-3279
This commenary from Joe Anglin says alot to the citizens of Alberta but are we saying enough to change things in the way we are governed in our province? Whose province is it anyway?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)