Alberta Venture Column on Business Ethics - May Edition

The May issue of Alberta Venture magazine is out. The business ethics column I participate in "The Right Call" tackled the question "Should a good corporate citizen go to any lengths to avoid taxes?" Leveraging loopholes and lax enforcement versus stepping up to the plate for the common good.

The Canadian Income Tax Act started about a century ago as a"temporary measure" to help pay for World War I. Things were simple them but now it is so complicated that mere mortals can't comprehend the tax laws.

The larger question is what are we paying for when the taxman take his chunk out of our hard earned dollars? Are we getting value for money. I scoff at the "self-made man" types who think they are the masters of the universe and their success is a result of their time, talent and risk taking.

All that is true but only part of the story. They are able to succeed because the public sector is there doing its job and that provides a stable society, with some serious certainty they tend to take for granted. I am talking things like a quality public education system that generates skilled talent they can lever but we all pay for. A justice system and the rule of law with an effective policy and fire protection system assures that private property can be expanded and protected and we all pay for that.

The free market system is a function of these universally provided public goods, not the other way around. The economy is there to serve the society, not the other way around. Enterprises have duties beyond the bottom line. Those in regulated industries like energy, forestry, telecommunications and broadcasting must earn public trust to continue with the all important "social license to operate."

There is more but you get my point. Paying taxes is no fun but it is necessary. As citizens our job is to be vigilant to make sure we get value for the money we pay.

Bill 44 Amendments on Parental Exemption is Bad Law and a Political Sop to So-Cons

There is a significant and growing citizen's resistance movement to the so-called “parental exemption” proposed in the new Alberta Human Rights Act. I have been mulling this situation for a few days and my concerns have growen the more I reflect on the implications of this Bill 44 amendment. I also simply fail to see neither the need nor the wisdom in passing such a law.


It is pretty obvious that most of the Alberta Progressive Conservative caucus is "going along to get along" with the social conservative element. They are hoping that by being quiet this ill-conceived parental exemption amendment will pass unnoticed. By being benign they are reneging on their duty to Albertans as our political representatives. They are actually doing serious harm to many citizens, including children, parents, teachers and school board trustees – just to name a few.

This will be bad law. It will cause more problems for individual teachers and school boards trustees than they deserve. They should never be asked to shoulder such a burden because of such inept legislation. The PC caucus is setting up those hard working and innocent public servants for personal pain and anguish - just for doing their jobs.

There will be the inevitable accusation of a violation of this new parental exemption head of human right our government is creating in Bill 44. This will be done by filing of formal human rights complaints against teachers and likely school boards, perhaps even against individual Trustees. It will be championed by some dogmatic zealot who will set out to make a name for themselves on the issues of religion, sexuality and sexual orientation. This will put some poor teacher right in the middle of the controversy and a nation-wide media feeding frenzy. Talk about unintended secondary consequences of political ineptness and poor governance.


This Bill 44 amendment also has all the markings of a court challenge written all over it. If is passed and applied it is undoubtedly on its way to the courts or its legality. My guess is it will go all the way to the Supreme Court. The Alberta government forced the Constitutional issue of french language education rights all the way to the Supreme Court in the more enlightened days of the Lougheed government. This Bill 44 stuff is going to be much more controversial.

The lawyer in me asks why we need this legislated change and this new legal status for a parental exemption right at all. What is the actual social mischief or mistake it is trying to solve? The School Act has already resolved the parental exemption issue quite satisfactorily and it has been working for years. The Preamble of the School Act also “explicitly” recognizes the role of parents in the education of their children. Here is the relevant parts of the Preamble and the key section of the School Act.

WHEREAS the best educational interests of the student are the paramount considerations in the exercise of any authority under this Act;
WHEREAS parents have a right and a responsibility to make decisions respecting the education of their children;

Section 50 of the School Act already provides both the provision of religious and patriotic instruction and for the parental exemption from such religious and patriotic instruction. This provision has been working well since 1988. It reads as follows:


50 - Religious and patriotic instruction
(1) A board may
(a) prescribe religious instruction to be offered to its students;
(b) prescribe religious exercises for its students;
(c) prescribe patriotic instruction to be offered to its students;
(d) prescribe patriotic exercises for its students;
(e) permit persons other than teachers to provide religious instruction to its students.


(2) Where a teacher or other person providing religious or patriotic instruction receives a written request signed by a parent of a student that the student be excluded from religious or patriotic instruction or exercises, or both, the teacher or other person shall permit the student
(a) to leave the classroom or place where the instruction or exercises are taking place for the duration of the instruction or exercises, or
(b) to remain in the classroom or place without taking part in the instruction or exercises.


Bill 44 makes Alberta the last province in the country to “explicitly” acknowledge, in statute, sexual orientation as a human right. Concurrently with this late coming enlightenment, Bill 44 also proposes the following amendment to extend and expand the power of parental exemption from the Alberta school curriculum:


Notice to parent or guardian
11.1(1) A board as defined in the School Act shall provide
notice to a parent or guardian of a student where courses of
study, educational programs or instructional materials, or
instruction or exercises, prescribed under that Act include
subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or
sexual orientation.
(2) Where a teacher or other person providing instruction,
teaching a course of study or educational program or using the
instructional materials referred to in subsection (1) receives a
written request signed by a parent or guardian of a student that
the student be excluded from the instruction, course of study,
educational program or use of instructional materials, the
teacher or other person shall in accordance with the request of
the parent or guardian and without academic penalty permit the
student
(a) to leave the classroom or place where the instruction,
course of study or educational program is taking place or
the instructional materials are being used for the duration
of the part of the instruction, course of study or
educational program, or the use of the instructional
materials, that includes the subject-matter referred to in
subsection (1), or
(b) to remain in the classroom or place without taking part
in the instruction, course of study or educational
program or using the instructional materials.


What is actually proposed in Bill 44 is much more disturbing and expansive than anything covered in Section 50 of the School Act. The official government line is Bill 44 is not proposing anything different that Section 50 of the School Act. If that is the truth, why amend Bill 44 at all. The matter has been well under control for over 20 years.

The real problem here is bad politics not good governance. The majority of the PC caucus appears to be pandering to the minority social conservative elements in their midst. It looks to me that the choosing-to-be-silent majority in the PC caucus are attempting to appease the social conservative with this over-reaching and unnecessary “parental exemption” provision. They are self-delusional if they believe it to be merely a symbolic gesture. Laws are more than mere symbolism. If your purpose is mere symbolism, please don't use the law as your symbolic vehicle.

The truth is the Bill 44 proposals go dangerously beyond mere symbolism. We already have a Charter giving citizens freedom of religion. That also means we have freedom from religion in Canada. Those are the two sides of religious freedom are handled in the current parental exemptions from religious instruction in the School Act. That is very different from the proposed Bill 44 parental exemptions contained in section 11.1 of Bill 44.

Bill 44 is not about an appropriate and respectful accommodation of an exemption from religious instruction as provided in the School Act. Bill 44 is about providing an explicit exempting option whereby a child can be removed from teachings about religion itself as a subject matter. This is hardly symbolic and very different from the School Act exemption. What's more that extended exemption in Bill 44 appears to be elevated in status. It is to become a legally enforceable right of the parent, who can then complain to the Alberta Human Rights Commission about any preceive breach, as they wish. Is that the stuff of symbolism?

If I am right about Bill 44 creates an exemption from instruction about religion, well there goes a good portion of the history curriculum. How can you exclude the impact and influence of religion from the Crusades or the Reformation, or the Renaissance and the Enlightenment? They all relate to religion in one way or another. While we are at this, what qualifies as a religion to justify the exemption? How about aboriginal spiritualism? How about ancient and emerging alternative religious belief? How about Wicca? How ironic and idiotic this all becomes.

Wait, it gets worse. We have finally included sexual orientation as a protected status under the proposed new Alberta Human Rights Act. While Bill 44 now says sexual orientation is to be a protected human right in Alberta, just as it has been in every other province for some time now. It is also written into our proposed "human rights" law that sexual orientation is somehow not an acceptable topic for discussion in Alberta schools. So much for any evidence of an authentic effort by the Stelmach government at inclusion, acceptance and tolerance of differences when it comes to the sexual orientations of our citizens.


Here we go again feeding the Neanderthal stereotype of the socially backward Albertan yet again. We are the last province in all of Canada to put sexual orientation in our so-called Human Rights Act and then, right in the same legislation, we effectively legalize disdain for those Albertans with a “different” sexual orientation. Ironic yes, but it more like a shameful tragedy to my mind.


Looking at the specifics of the Bill 44 amendment we see it is not about School Act provisions about “religious instruction.” It is about exempting instruction about “religion” (a.k.a. evolution?) “sexuality” (a.k.a. homosexuality?) and “sexual orientation” (a.k.a. gay marriage?). Why are the so-cons being appeased by the deafening silence and insouciance of the PC Caucus? Do they actually agree with these provisions?

Please don’t tell me the appeasement is a quid pro quo for the insertion of sexual orientation in Bill 44 in the first place. That is not a negotiable item. It is the established and accepted law of the land. Alberta is finally catching up the rest of the country by explicitly including it in our Human Rights law. There is nothing to negotiate here. It is settled law.

Let’s call a spade a spade. This so-called “religion” and “sexual orientation” exemption is all about certain social conservative and religious creationists continuing to fight over our public schools teaching evolution and not creationism. I suggest it is also about the intolerant religious angst from some So-con over losing the battle for sexual orientation to be finally included as a legislated human right in Alberta. It is a thinly veiled effort to elevate an acceptable School Act parental exemption over “religious instruction” into a faux and ersatz human right enforceable by complaints and hearings before Human Rights Tribunals in Alberta.

Bill 44 section 11.1 is bad law because it is not only unnecessary but it will embolden social conservatives and religious fundamentalists to take a page out of the playbook of those radical Muslims who filed an ill founded human rights complaint against Ezra Levant. Mr. Levant was accused of encouraging discrimination, hate and contempt by virtue of his republishing the famous Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad. He was the victim of fundamentalist zealots using human rights provisions inappropriately. So it can and will happen if the opportunity is there.

Mr. Levant’s issue was with section 3 of the human rights legislation not the effects of the proposed section 11.1. He had a point, but his solution was not to eliminate section 3, an argument which has some merit, but to throw out all Human Rights Commissions in total. Mr. Levant offered a non-starter solution but he had a sound principle worth fighting for. In the end he won but it was no doubt an expensive, exasperating and exhaustive process.

Social Conservatives fundamentally detest and deplore what they perceive as judicial activism by the courts. They often accuse judges of making law and not just interpreting law. That happens, but it only happens when we have politicians passing vague, weasel-worded and ill-conceived laws in the first place.

Those bad laws are usually motivated by the blatant ideological attitudes of marginal, not main stream, politicians. As a result they are found to be contrary to the law of the land, most often due to a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill 44 section 11.1 is a perfect example of such an ideologically motivated failure to provide good governance.

If Bill 44 is passed as is, it's shortcomings will inevitably and expensively remedied by the courts.
This would not be judicial activism. It would be the courts fulfilling its role as the ultimate protector for citizens from abuse by the state. This abuse by the state happens when our duly elected democratic representatives fail to show courage of their convictions, exercise sound judgment, display real wisdom and demonstrate the strength of character needed to do their duty as public servants for the greater good of our society.

Citizens of Alberta are upset with these parental exemption provisions of Bill 44. Their public response is effectively serving notice on their government and their duly elected political representative that the Bill 44 amendments on parental exemptions are unnecessary, dangerous and ill-conceived and contrary to the greater public good. I trust they will all reassess their passivity on the matter, govern themselves accordingly, and delete section 11.1 of Bill 44 at Third Reading.

What Has Your Government Done to You This Week?

Here is a link to Fusedlogic, a smart social media strategy company. This is a blog post showing some of the topical traffic issues in and around the Government of Alberta for the last week. It has not been a good week for the strategically incoherent Stelmach government. These numbers show that cyberspace has been engaged.

Let me know what you think about the barring of opposition MLAs from a new conference on a new pharmacy policy, or the misleading beach picture from England in the $25m ALBERTA branding campaign or the weird amendments on Human Rights legislation to make it a human rights violation for a teacher to allow discussion on things like evolution or human sexuality where parents of kids in the class might object.

Parents now receive advanced notice when such topics are scheduled to be taught as part of the provincial course content. They can legitimately keep their kids out of those classes and that is fine. But what will religious fundamentalists do if thees issues come up spontanously in unscheduled classroom discussion. Dangerous to make this a human rights offence. Parents can teach their religious beliefs at home and in chosen places of worship. They should not be entitled to stifle free speech and expression for the rest of us.

What do you think?

Canadian Bar Association Calls for Omar to Come Home.

It is incomprehensible why the Harper government continues to refuse to respect the Charter Rights of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen. Many on the right side of the political spectrum use Khadr’s family attitude in support of terrorism as a reason to refuse him his rights as a Canadian citizen. This is wrong at so many levels.

When such attitudes prevail the Rule of Law gets set aside by our democracies and we all become vulnerable. That is the best was to ensure the terrorists win. Look at the wide spread and illegal use of torture plus the illegal wiretapping and internet monitoring of private citizens by the US government all done without due process protections by the Bush White House. This is further evidence of this same dangerous decline in the democratic rights of citizens. When you consider how little has achieved from these tactics and how much foreign and domestic harm they have done you have to fear and regret the consequences.

The latest positive expression of the erosion of democratic rights and erosion of protections in the Khadr case comes from the Canadian Bar Association. This letter from the President to our Prime Minister and the President of the United States is written on behalf of 38,000 Canadian lawyers and speaks for itself.

April 24, 2009

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

The President of the United States
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Re: Repatriation of Omar Khadr

Dear Prime Minister and Mr. President:

On behalf of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), I write to you to urge the U.S. and Canadian
governments to work together to facilitate the repatriation of Omar Khadr, the only Western citizen who continues to be detained at Guantánamo Bay.

The CBA is a national association representing 38,000 jurists across Canada. We work to promote the Rule of Law and improve the administration of justice in Canada and around the world. It is in this light that we have protested Mr. Khadr’s subjection to the military tribunal process in Guantánamo Bay and called for his repatriation. We take no position on Mr. Khadr’s guilt or innocence. Our concern is that he receive a fair trial in accordance with all procedural protections and special considerations to be afforded a minor, as required by domestic and international law. Canada’s justice system is well equipped to fairly and openly assess Mr. Khadr’s criminal culpability, in a manner that reflects his status as a minor at the relevant time.

Mr. President, we welcomed the news of your decision to close Guantánamo Bay within the year and to assign officials to review the status of all detainees. Pursuant to your executive order, you have tasked review members to first consider “whether it is possible to transfer or release the individuals consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and, if so, whether and how the Secretary of Defense may effect their transfer or release.”

Yesterday, Canada’s Federal Court ruled the ongoing refusal of the Government of Canada to
request Mr. Khadr’s repatriation to Canada “offends a principle of fundamental justice and violates Mr. Khadr’s rights under s. 7 of the Charter”. It ordered the government to seek Khadr’s repatriation as soon as practicable.

Mr. Khadr was 15 years old when he was wounded on the battlefield in Afghanistan, a child under the terms of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Mr. Khadr has not been fully afforded the basic entitlements of due process under the Rule of Law, such as the right to counsel and the right to know the case against him. He has not been afforded any process that took into account his unique needs and status as a minor under the Optional Protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. He has been detained in the general population of detainees in Guantánamo Bay and has not received any physical, psychological or educational services that would assist in his rehabilitation. The Federal Court of Canada found that the terms of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment were violated in relation to Mr. Khadr’s treatment.

Prime Minister, the time has come for the Canadian government to advise the U.S. that it is willing to negotiate the terms of Mr. Khadr’s repatriation to Canada to face Canadian justice. In turn, Mr. President, we urge the U.S. government to negotiate the terms of Mr. Khadr’s repatriation with the Canadian government and to transfer available evidence respecting his conduct to the Canadian government. We urge you to come to an agreement that recognizes international human rights obligations, due process and the Rule of Law, and the desirability of ensuring the national security of both countries.

Yours truly,
(Original signed by J. Guy Joubert)
J. Guy Joubert
c. The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, P.C., M.P., Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice
H. Thomas Wells, Jr., President, American Bar Association

Alberta Liberals Show Shabby Side With Conflict of Interest Ploy

I watched Question Period today and then received an emailed news release from the Alberta Liberals on the same thing - and both events irritated me. The problem is encapsulated in the title on the new release. It says: Conflicts of Interest in AIMCo-Precision Deal? Notice the question mark! Why the question mark?

Full disclosure, regular readers know I am a card carrying member of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party, If you are a new reader you may not be aware of that fact but you need to know that so you can judge this blog post in context.

I also have enormous respect for David Swann and have met with him and communicate with him on a semi-regular basis. I also joined the Alberta Liberal Party to support his recent leadership bid. I applaud his effort to revitalize the Alberta Liberals and value the role of the opposition in our form of government. Now that is all out of the way let’s deal the issues.

The allegations and implications in the QP and in the Alberta LIberal Party news release around conflicts of interest are very unfair. If there is a concern of conflict of interest there is a much better and effective way to deal with it. This effort by the Liberals is so far just a fishing expedition and nothing but allegation and innuendo. It is a good for grabbing headlines but does a serious disservice to democracy and good governance.

To question the Minister in the Legislature as one of the Liberal MLAs did today gives parliamentary immunity to the Member who raises the question. That means they can say whatever they want in the Legislature and they can’t be sued for liable for any comments made in the Legislature. This put the individual citizens who are the targets of the allegations and the damning implications about their character and reputations at a serious disadvantage.

AIMCo is an arms-length Crown Corporation and if there is evidence of conflict of interest it ought to be brought to the attention of the Board of Directors of that entity. Conflating the responsibility of AIMCo and requiring in Question Period the Minister of Finance and Enterprise “…to review the situation and prove to the Assembly tomorrow that the Vice-Chair of AIMCo recused himself from all discussion regarding the Precision deal” if shabby at best. This is potentially pure politics at its worst. The proof of that is how the Liberal new release characterized the Minister’s response as pleading “ignorance and, furthermore was unconcerned by the news.”

What the news in this? Innuendo and allegation of “concerns” and “potential” conflicts of interest are not news. News is based on facts. This is just the stuff of politics, pure and simplistic. The media will have a field day with it. But as it stands right now, there are no facts proven and not much by way of evidence being presented to help prove these serious allegations.

The Liberal Party news release offers no evidence of conflict of interest and only alludes to some vague weasel words in support of “the case” like “raised concerns” and “longstanding friends and business partners” and “highlighting potential conflict of interest.” They then attach a Corporate Registry search of another company with a head office in B.C. Is that all the evidence they have of a “potential” conflict of interest? They don’t mention directly the names of the parties they presume to be in potential conflict of interest and so they impugn the reputation of every name on the list in the Corporate Registry search.

The proper course of action for the Liberals to have taken, if there was a legitimate concern about conflict of interest would be to write to the Board of Directors of AIMCo and ask to have a Certified True copy of the Board Minutes on the Precision Drilling investment decision. Those minutes should show who was in the room and who was not; and it ought to show how the Board voted on the Precision deal.

That would clear the air or indicate a need for real concern if the matter was not handled properly by the AIMCo Board. Today we have no evidence of any wrong doing and only odious politics at play.

That voting information and decision of AIMCo is not proprietary and should not be confidential since it is public money we have entrusted to them and it is being used here. If there was failure refusal or neglect by the AIMCo Board to provide the information then perhaps the government could be asked to ensure the release the information publicly.

I am disappointed in how cavalierly politicians sometime approach issues of personal reputation of private citizens who contribute their time and talents to the common good of the province. It does not happen very often but when it does it undermines our democracy and adds to the continuing cynicism of citizens about our political culture.

I hope that the Alberta Liberals will withdraw their premature demand of the Minister of Finance and Enterprise and hope they pursue any concerns they have using good governance practices in pursuing their goal. The tactics they have employed so far is designed to be a headline hunting political gambit. I expected better of the Alberta Liberals and Albertans deserve better of their politicians regardless of party affiliation.

Leonard Cohen's "The Future" Makes Me Think of Dick Cheney

I went to a wonderful Leonard Cohen concert last night. As I listened intently to the lyrics of his song "The Future" I couldn't help but thing of the disastrous and diabolical doings of former Vice President Dick Cheney and the other malevolent members of the Bush administration.

As you read these lyrics think of all the terrible things these people did from WMD, Iraq war to Gitmo, torture and the mass illegal invasion of privacy on Americans by their White House - just to name a few. None of this has made America safer or more secure, just the opposite.

Thing of how out of touch, isolated and fear-mongering they were and how they used that to justify ignoring and suspension of the American Constitution. It is eerily chilling and comes across as a 21st century protest song in this context.

Here are the lyrics:
"Give me back my broken night my mirrored room, my secret life it's lonely here, there's no one left to torture

Give me absolute control over every living soul And lie beside me, baby, that's an order!

Give me crack and anal sex Take the only tree that's left and stuff it up the hole in your culture

Give me back the Berlin wall give me Stalin and St Paul I've seen the future, brother: it is murder.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore The blizzard, the blizzard of the world has crossed the threshold and it has overturned the order of the soul When they said REPENT REPENT I wonder what they meant When they said REPENT REPENT I wonder what they meant When they said REPENT REPENT I wonder what they meant

You don't know me from the wind you never will, you never did I'm the little Jew who wrote the Bible

I've seen the nations rise and fall I've heard their stories, heard them all but love's the only engine of survival

Your servant here, he has been told to say it clear, to say it cold: It's over, it ain't going any further

And now the wheels of heaven stop you feel the devil's riding crop Get ready for the future: it is murder

Things are going to slide ... There'll be the breaking of the ancient western code Your private life will suddenly explode There'll be phantoms There'll be fires on the road and the white man dancing

You'll see a woman hanging upside down her features covered by her fallen gown and all the lousy little poets coming round tryin' to sound like Charlie Manson and the white man dancin'

Give me back the Berlin wall Give me Stalin and St Paul Give me Christ or give me Hiroshima Destroy another fetus now We don't like children anyhow I've seen the future, baby: it is murder Things are going to slide ... When they said REPENT REPENT ...

Susan Boyle According to Doyle

John Doyle in the Globe and Mail today cynically and sardonically asks “Have we been expertly manipulated” over the Susan Boyle phenomenal performance in “Britain’s Got Talent.” The You Tube video of Boyle's performance has had over 34 million hits since she sang on April 16, 2009. Doyle says that is more people than watched the televised Academy Awards this year.

According to Doyle viewing this video is a “heartwarming experience” and we seem somehow “vindicated” when we view it. What is wrong according to Doyle, the Susan Boyle event reveals “our collective hypocrisy about realty TV, beauty and talent.” He rightly says “If American Idol…actually featured a lot of people who looked like Boyle, then hardly anybody would watch.”

He notes “The attention given to Boyle is the exception that proves the rule – we are relentlessly superficial. It isn’t the fault of television. It’s a collective weakness, as we get the popular culture we deserve.” He laments that Boyle may be the vanguard for the next phase of reality TV lead by “middle- aged ordinary looking people.” The Jerry Springer Talent Show on television perhaps? Would that surprise anyone? I don’t think so.

What is happening on a world-wide scale given this catalytic moment in what was supposed to be merely entertainment? Doyle posits that the Boyle phenomenon is quite possibly being “foisted upon us.”e laments that Boyle may be a vangH He suggests that “… we’re not facing up to the collective hypocrisy that Boyle reveals to us. We are congratulating ourselves for cheering her on…” He challenges us to consider if we are “deluding ourselves about our honesty and fairness.”

Well I think Doyle is very right but not entirely right. The main stream media hype on the Boyle story is superficial and perhaps we are being hypocritical. But the internet participants who initially found the Boyle story from friends on Facebook, Twitter and were encouraging others to go to YouTube to see the phenomenon was not superficial, nor hypocritical. It was community based, heartfelt and human – no hype and hubris from the media machine that followed.

Boyle is a Cinderella story in real life and has been accessed and enjoyed “virtually” around the globe. It was another collective triumph of the power and influence of the internet as a creator of connected human community. That video link invited us to enjoy but also to revisit and reflect on our humanity, our sense of decency and our respect for people.

I know it made me reconsider an ill-considered recent blog post that I subsequently deleted because while it attempted political satire, it could be easily construed as cruel. That cruelty was pointed out by some anonymous comments that I in fact posted. Upon reflection I came to the realization of how easy it was to unfairly prejudge Susan Boyle. I deleted the post.

What the Public Wants From Public Education.

My firm, Cambridge Strategies Inc., recently finished a community based research project for the Edmonton Public School Board as part of their work on improving their processes school closure and system sustainability.

Our goal was to find out relative value preferences on the role of public schools by the citizens of Edmonton. We used a technique called Discrete Choice Modeling which requires value trade-offs to be made that determines relative value preferences and the degree of commitment to such preferences.

We always make value trade-offs in the real world that determines real preferences between competing interests. That is why this research technique is so much better than mere opinion polling that only gives a snapshot but also lack any depth of insight behind in value drivers of the “opinions” in traditional polling.

We surveyed on seven value attributes with 706 Edmontonians that profiled the Stats Can demographic profile of Edmonton in early December 2008. We compared the following value attributes: proximity of schools, the programming of schools, the use of school facilities, costs and space issues, the educational focus, the operating structure of a school and the size of schools.

We found Edmontonians had two very dominant value preferences they expect of their public education system. All other attributes were equally important but less significant compared to the top two preferences

FOCUS ON EDUCATION: The most dominant value preference was in terms of sustainability of the system. The focus needs to be on the nature of the education being provided with a major emphasis on providing students with skills around creativity, thinking and adaptability. Related to this value was a desire to have schools meet the needs of individual students and prepare them for post-secondary education. Part of this attribute was to create a skilled workforce and prepare students for citizenship.

The focus on test results that is emphasized by some think-tanks and public education critics was not seen as preferred focus of public education. That does not mean test results are not important. It means that they are relatively unimportant compared to other competing values about where the focus of the public education system should be.

PUBLIC EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY NEEDS: The second most significant value driver for public education in Edmonton was in the context of the role of schools to local communities. A decision about closing a school needs to responsive to community needs and the system needs to respond to growth trends in the city. There is a recognition that for a school to stay open there has to be sensitive to enrollment levels and the school to be viable has to be able to provide quality programming. There is no support for just providing a basic 3R’s education and lots of support for extended education programming. Very few were saying a school should stay open regardless of costs.

Meeting community needs included support for schools partnering with others to meet community’s social needs including early childhood education. Schools need to be available to the community for use after hours and to be more integrated into the local community. There was no sympathy for a school to be only focused on exclusively serving the K-12 student population.

There is significant support for schools to provide specialized spaces like shops and music rooms and services like librarians and teacher assistance. This all aligns with achieving the major value drivers of schools focusing on creative education and local community needs. The size of schools and how far they are away were not significant value drivers about what contributes to a quality public education in Edmonton.

DECISION SUPPORT FOR SOUND POLICIES: These findings show a clear path to the future for the EPSB to pursue in how to provide the public want they believe is important to the future of public education. Of course there are costs and resource constraints that do not always make these decisions easy.

Wisdom and judgment by the Board will still have to be exercised in reaching final decisions about the closure of a school. Some things are very clear from this research. If you need to close a school you need to carefull consider the local community needs and how best to use the facilities if they are no longer viable as a school. A focus on providing 21st century skills for students is by far the most preferred destination and direction of our public education system in Edmonton. Moving overtly and effectively to all those ends will ensure continued public support for a successful and sustainable public education system in our city.

Lois Hole's Love for Libraries Remembered

My Name is Earl (J. Woods): At Long Last, a Little Love for Libraries

Ran across this Blogger because he started to Follow me on Twitter (kenchapman46). So I returned the Follow and checkout his Blog. This post revisits a speech he wrote for the late and great former Lt Gov and friend of Alberta - Lois Hole.

Lois had a passion for gardening, libraries and literacy among other things - like hugging everyone she met. Now we have the Lois Hole Library that is an innovative and unique digital institution - built in her honour and in her spirit.

It was nice to be reminded or the warmth and humanity of this wonderful woman. Thank you Earl.

This is especially sweet given the recent provincial funding announcement for the advancement of our beleaguered Alberta libraries. Well done Minister Ray Danyluk and Alberta Library System Promoter Punch Jackson. Consider yourselves hugged gentlemen!

Cap and Trade Sucks - Get Real Alberta and Start Taxing Carbon

There is lots of buzz about cap and trade as a scheme to reduce carbon emissions. I think it is merely wealth transfer and a petrie dish to grow a culture of more corporate corruption. To get some context read Stephen Murgatroyd's blog post on the subject.


This Edmonton Journal story on the Alberta perspective on carbon pricing is more context. And we are being told Canada has to rationalize with the US standards - and Obama is pushing cap and trade too.

The $2B Alberta investment in carbon capture and storage is pretty impressive. The Americans ponied up $1B for CCS and the Chinese are into it for $6B but look at the investment per capita and Alberta is definitely a leader in this effort. That is a longer term and capital intensive solution and will not solve the political issue of cap and trade versus carbon tax options.

This issue of how to respond to the CO2 emissions puts Alberta in the political, ecological and fiscal cross-hairs big time and on a world scale. We have dipped our provincial toes into the CO2 emissions issue with some legislation that is timid and tepid and hopefully temporary. We tax carbon now at $15 a tonne based on intensity targets. That is a start but the political credibility of this policy has lost its lustre long ago. As we grow the oil sands we allow emissions to grow in absolute terms and that is not a viable solution to the GHG issue for Alberta.


The experts say the real cost of CO2 is about $125 a tonne so we have long way to go to get realistic about paying the piper and not passing the problem on to future generations. Alberta Environment Minister Renner questioned on the Alberta price of carbon is quoted as saying: It probably would do better if it were higher." You bet Mr. Minister.


The perennial concern is what happens if Alberta pays a realistic price for carbon and others do not. Will our economy will suffer? That is known as the "Edge Effect" where everyone knows what is the right thing to do but can't agree on the right time to do it. I'm hoping Alberta takes the first serious step and taxes carbon as a carrot and a stick to get serious about encouraging new technologies and penalizing those who refuse to invest to reduce their carbon footprints.


A made-in-Alberta for Alberta carbon tax keeps the cash in Alberta. Transferring wealth out of Alberta with a cap and trade policy to pay who knows what for what kind of flaky schemes that alleged ecological advantages is stupid and breeds greed and corruption. Surely we have seen enough of that these days with the market meltdown. We are all enduring this recession/depression thanks to the under-regulated American financial system and the breathtaking personal greed and corporate corruption in that sector.


Albertans want the problem solved here - not just a fiscal surcharge penalty that somehow absolves us of the duty to adapt our economy to better serve the environment. The best way to do that is to park the ideological posturing about taxes and use taxes to change behaviour. We know that works and it is easier to monitor and evaluate effectiveness.


That way the money raised with such a tax stays in Alberta to foster investment in things like a state of the art mercantile upgrader so more bitumen gets processed here with jobs and value added benefits here too.


I think we Albertans need to get that comprehensive carbon tax happening now and stifle the efforts of those who are pushing a wealth transfer away from Alberta with their cap and trade ecological schemes and bad economic dreams.

It will not solve the Alberta emission challenges and only penalize our economy. Beat them to the punch and put in a realistic tax on Alberta carbon now Premier Stelmach.

When do Albertans Have a Right to Know About Environmental Law Investigations?

OK here is the problem. Which is more important, the public’s right to know or the preliminary process needs of the justice system? This kind of issue is well resolved when it comes to charges against minors. We have legislation that protects the identity of youth facing judicial proceedings. Unfortunately this law sometimes ends up protecting the identity adult bad guys from public disclosure because that might inadvertently disclose the identity of a minor so it too could be better.

We have a formal judicial process to ban publication of the names of those involved in judicial proceedings, not only accused but witnesses too. That decision is made in a formal court application before a judge who decides if a ban on publication of the identity of parties or individuals is in fact in the public interest - and not just the self-interests of the accused party.

So why in Alberta do we not hear of cases where about possible environmental law issue arise until investigations are complete and charges are actually laid? The competing values and the conflict between the various interests are very clear. The Crown Prosecutors rightfully want to gather all the available evidence, review and test it to see if it is sufficient to lay a charge before a charge is laid. If that evidentiary hurdle is overcome there is further consideration to decide if a charge is even in the public interest. Satisfaction of all this reviewing and evaluation may finally result in a charge and the public is then finally informed about the matter…but not until then.

That process and practice serves the interest of the judicial review process and the privacy of a potential accused but it does not serve the greater public interest and our right to know what is going on. The Alberta public owns the natural resources of the province. Our government, as our democratically elected agents/proxy, is legally delegated the duty to protect our environment and to ensure responsible exploitation the public’s natural resources in the service of the greater public good. Simple enough!

When an alleged breach of environmental law happens by actions of a company with a license operate and a duty to obey the law while profiting from our publicly owned natural resources, why shouldn’t the public know about any such allegations right away?

Governments talk accountability, transparency and openness with regularity but do they walk that talk with authenticity, integrity and alacrity? Not so much. This deficiency is not necessarily because government doesn’t want to be overt about such public notice. They have made a choice not to. They have decided the needs of the judicial process are the values that dominate and they dictate otherwise.

I think this is a misplaced virtue when it comes to investigations and pending charges for alleged breaches of environmental laws. The public interest and our right to know what is alleged, against who, the nature of the alleged breaches and extent of the possible damages is the public interest value set that should predominate in all such cases.

Immediate public disclosure ought to be the default position in all such cases. If a company wants a ban then let them go to court and prove to a Judge that concealment of the facts and the identity of the parties involved are in the public interest. Let the corporations and the individuals involved go to Court and get an Order for a ban on disclosure and publication.

What happens now is even the Minister of the Environment is uninformed and unaware of such allegations and investigations of potential breaches of our environmental law and therefore oblivious to the current consequential environmental damages. This is bad governing and bad public policy. Here is why.

When a charge is laid the Minister gets to rightly say he can’t comment publicly because the matter is before the courts. However if an investigation is on-going but no charge has yet been laid, than a Minister can’t use that sub judice tactic if asked about any such matter in Question Period, by the media or the public. In fact open, transparent, accountable governing principles would dictate that the Minister ought to obliged comment on such matters in an informed and comprehensive way.

So, as a consequence, to avoid the duty to comment, it seems the justice system and the government public relations systems seem to have decided not to tell the Minister anything about any such investigations. I am not prone to conspiracy theories and don't believe that is what is happening here. Keeping the Minister willfully blind and the rest of us uninformed and ignorant as a result is a long way from open, transparent and accountable governance. I don't think it is a conspiracy. I think it is cultural and the wrong governing philosophy.

There is another unfortunate consequence of not having early public disclosure of allegations and investigations of possible environmental law breaches. Many of the alleged breaches come from industry self-monitoring and reporting requirements. So the evidence they present, regardless of accuracy and timeliness, would naturally be under suspicion right away. The company and the government would both tend to be seen as not doing their jobs of protecting the environment when such incidences occur. There is no public benefit of the doubt for anyone involved in such situations.

What makes it worse is the Crown Prosecutors have to take the time necessary to carefully gather, evaluate and figure out how to prove the alleged case before they can appropriately lay any charge. The various incidences of breach are rarely simple and straight forward and if they are the evaluation of the resulting damages is always difficult to quantify. Preparing the case to see if a charge is warranted can take years to yield an appropriate answer and justify a charge. Such delay makes a suspicious public think industry and government are in cahoots and neither one is presumed to be serving the greater public interest.

Recent charges were laid resulting from an incident in the oil sands. It was about untreated human waste discharged into the Athabasca River that happened some three years ago. Even the Minister of Environment had no prior knowledge until the charge was laid and in fact he assumed the matter had been disclosed publicly at the time of the original incident. Much to his surprise that was not the case then nor would it be now. He has said this policy must change and the public’s right to know must be honoured immediately in such instances.

Under the current policy when such environmental breaches are finally made public the company and the government end up looking like they were conspiring to delay matters and hide the facts. This serves the best interests of nobody, including the government, the company, the minister, the public and ultimately the public's respect for the law.

This systemic indifference to the public interest came into sharp focus on the famous 500 dead ducks in the Syncrude tailings pond. That incident resonated around the world. Well this time we all knew about it before charges were laid because some anonymous tipster called the media. Thank you very much Anon.

The public got increasingly suspicious about the integrity of the evidentiary review process when it a year passed and yet no charges were laid. The public’s suspicions were so aroused that a private group eventually announced they were going to seek judicial leave to launch its own civil suit against Syncrude for damages about the 500 dead ducks.

Coincidentally, it would seem, the government finally laid its charges just before the private action finally got going. That kind of delayed timing adds to the public suspicions and cynicism. Then we get the icing on the dead duck disclosure cake. We find that the company and government officials knew, for some considerable time, that it was not 500 dead ducks at issue but over 1600 dead ducks that were lost in the tailing pond incident.

That unfortunate updated fact was only disclosed in a company affidavit that was filed in the courts and then caught by the media. The Minister did not find this out about the reality of 1600 ducks until he heard it on the news and read a press release by Syncrude. How does this process circus of delay and non-disclosure serve the better interests of anyone or any institution that is involved?

My solution is not perfect. There is some reputational risk to the corporations who are facing investigations in such circumstances. The public has a poorly developed understanding of the presumption of innocence. We all too often jump to a conclusion of guilt when charges are laid.
What is to prevent the public from assuming guilt at the preceding stage of mere allegation and investigation? Not much except perhaps a better educated public about the importance of the presumption of innocence and an appreciation of the checks and balances about investigations and evidence evaluation.

The judicial process eventually resolves all this one way or another by acting fairly and judiciously in service of the greater public interest. But that takes time and the unwarranted damage to reputations is done and may be irreparable. The finding of guilt will be well publicized, while the finding of innocence – not so much.

That said I think the consequences to public reputation, the need to meet certain corporate social responsibility standards and the duty of corporations to meet social license to operate obligations as the tenant on the public‘s lands and in service of the public interests is a corporate deterrent worth having. The court of public opinion can be more effective as a deterrent than the law and the justice system itself sometimes.

These corporations who are sold leases on public lands and entrusted to develop our natural resources in a responsible and sustainable way that they are all too often way out of line. They seem to think it is their oil and gas or their trees. If they provide jobs, pay taxes and our minimalist royalties and stumpage, they are meeting their obligations to the public interest. Stewardship of land, water, air, habitat and reclamation is always somebody else’s hassle and to be left for another day in the minds of the leadership in those kinds of irresponsible and arrogant corporations. NOT good enough! NOT any more!

Those modest corporate economic accountability measures of serving the public interest are the mere ante of corporations to play the 21st century resource exploitation game in Alberta. In the Alberta public’s mind, anyone who only sets merely meet the minimal ecological requirements and makes no effort to exceed the lowest allowed environmental and social standards are about to see some serious backlash from the public.

And for any government officials who choose judicial process convenience over duties of public disclosure you need to change your approaches and reassess your attitudes too. Ministers of the Crown in the Right of Alberta who may value willful blindness as a defense to avoid doing the right thing and fulfilling your sworn public duty, you are also in for some rude public awakenings too.

US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” That is especially true in Alberta today when it come to the public’s right to know and our need to know what our government and corporate tenants are doing with our ecological and natural resources birthright. Only with full and timely public disclosure will we see a change to a more accountable and open governing philosophy in this province.

We citizens also have an obligation to change our behaviours and adjust our attitudes. We must learn more about our legal system and especially about the place and importance of the presumption of innocence in that system. We have to respect it and to learn to be patient and not jump to negative conclusions at the mere mention of an investigation.

Democracy is messy and cumbersome. Freedoms only survive with usage and vigilance so citizens have to smarten up and show up too. Civic cynicism is a luxury we can no longer afford in Alberta. It is time for citizens to show up an put some skin in the governance game of their province.

Stelmach Gov't Pays for Police Checks for Voluntary Sector.

One of the little Alberta Budget 2009 gems that got lost in the deficit spending headlines was the province funding of $2.4 million for a three year project to compensate police services for criminal record checks for the not for profit and voluntary sector.

This is an idea that goes to the very beating heart of safe and vibrant communities. This is also an idea that has been long time coming and reflects the new focus on Premier Stelmach's personal commitment to community and values.

The need to ensure that people who volunteer time and talent to community service are not dangerous or inappropriate because of past criminal or other behaviours has been pushed by Volunteer Alberta for a number of years.

Cambridge Strategies was commissioned in 2006 by Volunteer Alberta to do a survey and analysis of "Volunteer Screening Initiative." We found that police checks were an expensive and difficult process for the not-for-profit voluntary sector to absorb and that no grants were available to pay for this protection of the public. I encourage you to read the study because it is a window into the plight of these volunteer dependent community service agencies.

The report we did, like so many in those days, fell on deaf ears as the PC government was going through a leadership transition so anything new and innovative was shelved. Well I have to say I was pleasantly surprised to see the Stelmach government step up to the plate on this concept. It will ensure that the community based not-for-profit, volunteer supported service agencies who work with our most vulnerable citizens, can do their jobs better, clients can be safer and communities can thrive from the good works of caring and committed citizen volunteers.

Congratulations to the Board and Staff of Volunteer Alberta for persevering and making this progressive policy change finally happen.

Goldman Sachs Sues Blogger Who Takes Takes Them On

Here is an example of how powerful a blog can become and how the power has shifted to the individual with a public purpose from corporate interest with a private purpose.

When Goldman Sachs - a big Obama bailout recipient, considers a lowly blogger dangerous enough to issue a cease and desist letter, something has to be up. The claim against the blogger by Goldman Sachs' lawyers seem to be that his posts "violate several intellectual property rights" and "imply" he has "a relationship with the bank."

The blogger apparently has an explicit disclaimer on the site saying he is in no way associated nor sanctioned by Goldman Sachs. So there goes one claim. As for intellectual property of GS one can only imagine what they might be talking about. Could the intellectual property this blogger is abusing the intellectual honesty Goldman Sachs had shown through their involvement in AIG and the sub-prime fiasco?

I don't htink they are merely bullying this blogger. I htink they are genuinely afraid of what he may say that is informative and helpful to the public about what went on and how GS participated.

Goldman Sachs is another of many newly minted corporate welfare cases they are living and surviving on taxpayers hard earned money through bailout bucks. This is happening while American workers and investors have been sold out due to the self-interested decisions in such corporations and banks. A touch of humility is called for - not just continuing hubris.

I am rooting for the blogger and anyone else who wants to take on these Bastards of the Universe. The mess we are in today is due largely to the personal and corporate greed and the breathtaking indifference they showed to the common good. These are values they shared with the Bush White House. Together they have put the economies of the world in this mess.

Cambridge Strategies Commentary on Alberta Budget 2009

Here is a link to the Cambridge Strategies Inc. commentary on the 2009 Alberta Budget written by my business partner, Satya Das. I will be sharing my thoughts and doing some more specific issues based posts on the budget in the near future.

In the meantime here is a provocative take on where Alberta is and some ideas of what can be done with our fiscal strengths and challenges. One thing that we at CSI find disturbing is around the Royalty Regime. The new royalty policy that came into effect January 1, 2009 and that delay gave industry more than a year to adapt.

The only ones who seem to have really "adapted" are the provincial politicians. They are the one who have chipped away at the new Royalty Rates as the energy sector presses them behind closed doors. It now seems that the energy industry in Alberta is intent on making royalties the new NEP as see them as the major cause of all their woes.

There have been many expensive concessions made since then to encourage drilling activity and conventional energy plus commodity price sensitive royalty rates. The reality is everything in the new royalty regime that was to get a fair rent to Albertans for our energy resources has been given back to the industry. That is playing Albertans for chumps and taking away the providence of future generations as we will never again be able to collect proper rents for these non-renewable resources.

Satya talks about this and some other serious shortcomings in our pubic policy models in resources and other sectors of our economy.

Ken Chapman's Blogging Manifesto

I am writing this post as a personal manifesto about what has been on my mind about the future of this blog. I understand a manifesto to be a statement from "a body of little consequence" that explains past actions and the reasons and motives for what is forthcoming. So, in that spirit, I am going to be extending and amplifying the tone, tenure and attention of this blog to be more assertive, aggressive and pointed on public policy issues and political events in Alberta, its place in Canada and the world.

It is approaching three years since I innocently started this blog. It has been an enjoyable experience. I have met many new and interesting people. I have found new mentors (mostly under 30) who patiently explain the changing world of connectivity and social media to me. I have been able to exercise my right of free speech overtly, to formulate my thoughts purposefully and to share my opinions widely. The conversations emerging from the comments and emails, plus the numerous invitations to speak to groups and gatherings have provided some of my best learnings-for-life experiences.

BLOGGING AND JOURNALISM
I think it is time to take all this to the next level. Regular readers know I am most interested in politics, culture, creativity, environment, business and social justice stuff. This is also the core interests of mainstream news media and journalism. I have never thought of blogging as actual journalism, just “journalism-ish.” There are traditional journalists who are now blogging regularly from their traditional media outlets too, so the lines are getting fuzzy.

The closest blogging comes to journalism is published and promulgated opinion pieces through internet and traditional media, in what some have called citizen journalism. The citizen journalist parallels are closer to mainstream media columnists - not traditional news reporting. Although news reporting is possible for bloggers using live blogging techniques that strive to “cover” certain news events. We don’t pretend to cover the “news” but some bloggers get invited to news events and conferences in hopes that we will “cover” them in our postings.

As the blogosphere matures there is more authority being attributed to certain newsworthy bloggers and websites. This is especially true for those that create and aggregate useful subject matter that provides insight, opinion and commentary - and can draw an audience.

BIG CHANGES IN MEDIA AND GOVERNING:
The other reality is the business model for newspapers, magazines and network television are all suffer from increasing expenses, dwindling audiences and diminishing advertising revenues. All of this media turmoil is happening in the perfect storm of a severe economic recession.

The other big changes that are impacting our reality as citizens are the social, environmental, economic and political shifts. They are not only large scale tectonic changes, they are happening rapid and accelerating and are world-wide; all at the same time.

With ubiquitous connectivity information is instantaneous, context is confusing, complexity is expanding and meaning and connotation is confounding. What are citizens to do and where are they to go to get an understanding and a sense of what this means for the future wellbeing of their families and communities?

The standard journalism edicts of telling the public the news by reporting on who, what, where and when are not enough anymore. They get trumped by the pubic need to know why and how and; even more crucial, to understand the ends or consequence of complex events or issues. In the information maw of the 24 hour news cycle, novelty replace nuance, simplicity replaces clarity and being first with a story is too often more valued by the media than being factual. Putting adversarial pundits on television to mouth focused group tested messages “against” each other is passed off as in-depth analysis. It is all being dumbed down and debased as infotainment.

With all this happening, I sense a decline in the ability and capacity of the traditional media to be effective as the watchdog for the public interest. The citizenry has also become cynical, distrusting and disengaged from politics and governance. As a result governments go though the motions of public consultations and the public feels more distanced, distained and marginalized, even at election time. I think the underpinnings of western representative democracy, namely an informed and engaged citizenry, is under threat due to an institutionalization of ennui, alienation and indifference.

WHO WILL TAKE TRUTH TO POWER?
It is my experience that you can take truth to power but power mostly has its own agenda that is not necessarily public information, and if it is public it may not be well known - by intention. Power may simply not care about the truth you bring to it, especially if it has already made up its mind and is prepared to risk the political and governance consequences of being wrong. The consequence of the power elite being wrong doesn’t just mean a potential loss of their power to be the “deciders.” Such arrogant mistakes can be devastating to an entire economy, society, culture and yes, even the planet.

This recession is caused largely by this arrogance of the powerful people in the Bush administration, lax regulators and a gaggle of greedy business “leaders.” It has been made much worse by their indifference to the extent of the consequences of them being wrong.

BLOGGING AS A JOURNAL ABOUT CITIZENSHIP
So with these conditions and with this consciousness, I have decided to take this blog even more aggressively into the realm of citizen journalism. In fact this blog will be dealing more aggressively with issues, events, politics and public policy matters I care about, I know about or am actively engaged in, personally or professionally. I will be prudent in letting you know every time I write about a matter I am professionally engaged in, and to what extent, so you can better judge the authority and authenticity of my content.

I have blogged on matters that I have been professionally involved with in the past and have disclosed that fact, except one time I forgot. I was working with a coalition of health professionals and advocates to get a law passed to ban smoking in work and public places. In earlier posts I mentioned my professional relationship with the issues but one time I forgot. I got called on it by other bloggers and in comments and rightly so. I have learned my lesson and will be vigilant about such disclosure in each and every relevant post in the future.

This blogs move towards journalism about citizenship is not going to replace the traditional media. It is more of a supplement to traditional media, provided traditional media continues to survive and provide a useful service. If it doesn’t survive then something will have to fill the vacuum to help citizen understand context and connotation of public policy issues and events.

Perhaps citizen journalism and journalism about citizenship using blogs will be a transition to a different sustainable news and opinion medium. I know we will need some new media model to emerge to aid and protect the public interest.

Part One: Ken Chapman on CBC Wildrose April 01, 2009

Here is part 1 of my CBC radio Wildrose open line show last week on executive bonuses.

Part Two: Ken Chapman on CBC Wildrose April 01, 2009

Here is part 2 of my CBC Radio open line on executive bonuses

Alberta's $2B Carbon Capture and Storage Project Receives Proposals

March 31, 2009 is the final day for Alberta companies to file details plans on what they would do to reduce CO2 emission if they were funded as part of the $2B Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) program of the Stelmach government.

This $B is an impressive financial commitment by 3.3 million Albertans into CCS technology. This is particularly impressive when you consider the U.S. was only investing $B and China was in for $6B for CCS technology and they are significantly bigger players than little ol' Alberta. Alberta is obviously serious about capturing and storing CO2 and this investment is a strong signal about the level of engagement from the province.

The CCS program was the only budget item that was NOT under reconsideration in the Alberta government's revisit of its budget with the economic meltdown that hit the world in September 2008. There was considerable private sector interest in the opportunity with over 50 initial indications of Expressions of Interest in the project. Over 20 proposals made it through the initial evaluation process and they were invited to submit details project plans by March 31, 2009.

Indications are that all 20+ proposals will make details submissions which will be evaluated by a committee of Deputy Ministers to whittle them down to between 3 to 5 accepted projects. What happens then is the proponents must actually develop and deliver on their proposals at their own expense. Once the projects are up and running and proven to reduce the CO2 as promised, only then will they get reimbursed from the $2B fund.

The Group of 20+ Proponents has been made public and I know of a number of project proponents and they are all proceeding very diligently on preparing their details submissions. That can only auger well for them, Alberta and our government’s efforts to reduce GHGs and deliver on it Climate Change policy. I hope there is a release of the Group of 20 who actually submit detailed project plans and a brief description of what they intent to do and how much they will reduce CO2 emissions.

This is all good news but there are some who are very suspicious about the effectiveness of CCS and say it is unproven technology. It is technology in progress for sure but it is far from unproven as the Weyburn CCS project has proven over the past number of years.

There is one persistent matter of confusion around the intent and outcomes of Alberta’s CCS efforts. The CCS project has been positioned as a solution to the CO2 emissions from the oil sands. It is not but that messaging still persists from some politicians and some government officials. The open pit mining of oil sands CO2 emissions will not be easily captured given the nature of the open pit mining process. However that process represents about 20% of overall oil sand development over time. Some 80% of total oil sands exploitation and almost all of future development with be using a drilling techniques, not open pit mining,

Drilling for oil sands is the future of the resource and most of the CO2 can be captured in those processes. The bitumen upgrading process also emits CO2 that and that can be captured too. That is all significant but the real payoffs for the Alberta CCS project will come from the reduced emissions from coal-fed electricity generation. Alberta uses a lot of coal to produce electricity and needs a great deal more electricity to keep pace with growth demands.

At a recent dinner meeting I had with the Premier I asked him about where the CO2 emission benefits would come from with the CCS project investment. He was quick to point out some benefits would be from oil sands development now and much more in the future. He noted the big payoff would be in coal based power generation.

The Premier had the facts right and the message clear but the impression left in the public and the media is Alberta is investing $2B in CO2 emission reductions from the oil sands. That mistake in messaging is going to cause more heat than light and increased mistrust over the intentions and actions of the GOA on delivering responsible oil sands development. We have had too much of that already so I hope the Premier and Ministers make it clear and transparent what the $2B CCS project is intending to do. I hope the clarity and transparency starts this week with some information on the 20+ project proposals that are applying for consideration for a share of the $2B of Alberta taxpayer money to reduce the Alberta carbon footprint.

As an Albertan I want to be proud of how we are developing the oil sands resources in a responsible and sustainable manner. I look forward to being proud of how we respond to CO2 emission reductions, still sustain growth and create green jobs in the process. $2B of investment in CCS is a great start.

Does Calgary West Harken to Harper's Downfall?

March 30 UPDATE: Just spoke with Randy Dawson and contrary to prior information, he confirms that he is not involved in any way or with any candidate in the Federal Conservative Calgary West nomination process. He says he only gets involved in his own constituency and that is not Calgary West. I have revised this blog post to reflect that reality.

The recent results of the Conservative Party AGM in Calgary West are very interesting. With 27 of 30 new board members supporting challenger Donna Kennedy Glans, this means incumbent MP Rob Anders is in serious trouble in Calgary West.

That is fascinating example of constituency politics but the implications go much deeper, right into Harper’s hope for continuing party leadership and potential to stay as Prime Minister. But more on that in a minute.

In an attempt to protect incumbents the Harper Party recently imposed new rules that required a 2/3 vote of constituency members to call for a nomination contest. That means most ridings will preserve the status quo for the protected incumbents – and representative democracy continues to erode. But not so in Calgary West! The new board election resulted in the ousting Ander’s loyalists and that pretty much guarantees that the incumbent Anders will face a nomination race.

So presuming a nomination battle in Calgary West, what might happen? Looks at first glance like a race between Anders and Donna Kennedy Glans.

Anders is the choice of the rabid old-guard Reformers and has tried to frame Glans as a Liberal in his phony fending off of her challenge. So with all this positioning of the players, let’s play political scenario!

Anders is a formidable campaigner and the new rules favour the incumbent. Glans’ takeover of the Calgary West constituency board shows she too is a formidable campaigner. More to the point she has proven that she can attract new people to the party who will also show up to vote for a change.

The other dynamic at play is the disenchantment of the Reform base with Harper’s abandoning of their political principles for his own purposes, namely personal political power. Harper’s Liberal-like pandering to Quebec with money and federal largess was the very stuff that started the Reform Party in the first place – and it did not work in the last election. Now the Harper stimulus policy is again way too Liberal-like for the hard-core Reformer/Alliance conservatives. They, after all, are the ones who actually brought Harper to the dance in the first place.

This has plenty of implications for Harper’s survival as the conservative leader but what does it have to do with Ander’s candidacy! Potentially plenty! I don’t know if the rabid Reform base stayed home from the Calgary West AGM or if they were complacent. Perhaps they just did not see Glans coming, along with 600 other party folk, who were mostly intent on electing a new board. Both ways, they obviously did not show up in sufficient numbers to support Anders. The end result is that the Anders Reformers have lost control of the Calgary West constituency. Now what!

Will the rabid Reformers decide to stay home on the inevitable vote for a Calgary West nomination meeting? And will the nomination itself throw Anders under the bus as a way to send an early warning sign to Stephen Harper? Or will they “catch on” to the consequences of passivity and return to kill a nomination vote and thereby ensure that Anders survives as a symbol they still support the Harper leadership? I’m seeing the former reaction as more likely from old Reformers who have become more disenchanted with Harper’s leadership.

So where will the Calgary west battle lines be drawn? Will it be between the Reform/Alliance Anders types versus the Progressive Conservatives? Could it be between Anders’ Reformers and the Kennedy Glans Progressive Conservatives as it seems at present? What if another candidate enters the nomination process from Progressive Conbservative or the Reform side of the Federal Conservative Party? What if the Reformers stay home and the battle is between two Progressive Conservative candidates? What will that say about Harper’s presumptive Alberta stronghold and his political stranglehold in Calgary?

Remember in the last provincial election, Morton Reformers and Dinning Progressive Conservatives saw both of them rejected and Stelmach win the PC Party leadership. Calgary then saw Stelmach win a decisive election victory, much to their amazement. What’s more there were five Liberals elected in Calgary – and only three from Redmonton - in the last provincial election. The Calgary political climate seems to be changing, maybe not as dramatically as the planet's climate is changing but who knows.

I think the Calgary West Conservative Party AGM results have to be seen as some serious writing on the wall for Harper and his leadership. It is going to be a bell weather constituency for Harper’s future, even before the election, and especially if it chooses to have a nomination meeting in the near future.

Harper has ignored his base and they know it and they are not amused. He has also taken Alberta for granted for much too long. His best times are behind him and his style of leadership and his penchant for political tactics over good governing are “talents” that are no longer valued by the voters. His bullying and misleading instead of leading has worn thin. It is becoming more and more obvious that Harper is not what Canada needs, especially as we face enormous and mounting economic, environmental and social challenges all over the county.

It will take some time for Harper to exit, but by the time the next election rolls around, I think Canadians will just want to butter Harper because he is toast - and stale toast at that.

Is Alberta's Not-For-Profit Voluntary Sector Doomed?

The not-for-profit (NFP) voluntary sector in Alberta faced some challenging and changing financial times in 2008 but nothing like they are likely to face in 2009.

NOT-FOR-PROFITS REVENUES DOWN BUT DEMANDS ARE UP:
A recent survey comparing 2007 and 2008 NFP revenue sources and program demands has some interesting and disturbing trends, especially if we project into the emerging recession reality of 2009.

In 2008 51% of the sector sustained the same level of donor support but that is definitely not the 2009 expectation. Calgary and Edmonton have the highest expectations of support retraction and are likely to face the largest growth in social service demands in this recession.

There is a lower expectation of government contracts, a major source of some service agency revenues. These are likely to be reduced as the province deals with its own declining revenues from resources and taxes. That means the NFP sector will seriously suffer further decline as this semi-substitute for core funding dries up for many of them.

The NFP community based voluntary sector is responding with 57% of them hoping for new funding sources in 2009 – Good luck! Others (53%) think they can squeeze the nickel even more to meet the continuing and growing shortfalls – Good luck! In the 30% range is a group of agencies who hope to use a combination of reduced staffing, program or shared services to cover the gap. Doing even more with less in an already seriously stretched sector is potentially dangerous. This is particularly true for those social service agencies who are under staffed and dealing with vulnerable clients like kids-at-risk, seniors and the disabled. People are going to suffer and get hurt.

How is it possible to meet increasing demands with declining resources? The impact of the recession shows that the NFP social services sector believes that demands for its services will increase over 70% in 2009. Estimates show that health service demands on the sector are going to be up over 50% so how does staffing stretching and program cuts make any sense? This is a recipe for disaster and burnout in this vital social services sector.


If government was smart and strategic they would realize this NFP community based voluntary service sector is the best and most effective program provider. It is also a prime source for fiscal leverage to meet most of the local social pressures being caused by the recession. They should be adding fiscal and other resources into these NFP community-based volunteer supported local agencies in times of recession. That is the best way to ensure local needs have responsive and reliable program design and competent agencies with the capacity to meet the increased local demands.

VOLUNTEERS ARE ADAPTABLE & ACCOUNTABLE BUT NEED FUNDING AND FLEXIBILITY:
There is a catch to achieving this that goes beyond more money. Volunteers are not easily controllable, particularly from the top down. The sector is prone to caring, resourcefulness, innovation and adaptability, especially if they are encouraged and enabled. To be most effective this sector must be freed up to use those strengths, wisdom and professional talents to the best of their abilities. They ought not be burdened with fiscal fears, administrivia and even intimidation as happens in some cases these days.


Unfortunately we see an emerging governing philosophy that is increasingly driven by dollar tracking accountability measures and a hardening of the auditors approach. A focus on effective outcomes for people needing services gets lost in this kind of narrow accountability culture.

We have evolved from the days of debt and deficit slaying into a fiscal accountability model that seeks to know how to track the cost of everything. In the process the system tends to ignore the real value and any meaningful evaluation of program service outcomes for citizens. Those in need also become victims in this new narrow accountability culture.

The community based social services sector has proven that it can deliver good results. They do not always fit nicely into prescribed and pro forma program accountability models that are designed mostly to make auditors happy but not necessarily serve the clients or the community. We need a balance but I fear we are not headed in that direction and the policy pendulum is swinging and shifting...perhaps too far.

To make matters worse, the individual agency volunteers, those folks with the heart, energy and courage to deal directly with addressing local social issues and pressures are facing burnout, policy backtracking and the harmful effects of funding shortfalls. My speculation is that the pending GOA budget constraints are going to cause the dismantling of many of the community based volunteer agencies as they just give up and close their doors. Those that survive will see fundamental changes in their roles and relationships with government and with clients.


I am speculating but I would not be surprised to see a new GOA fiscal, command and control approach, institutionalized within government, thereby causing the demise or forced amalgamation of a bunch of NFP volunteer community-based service provider agencies. That may not be a totally bad thing so long as we do not lessen the overall capacity of locally based not-for-profits to serve their communities needs effectively.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTED BOARDS ARE CHANGING TOO:
I suggest we may even see big changes and the possible dismantling of some of the government appointed Agencies, Boards and Commissions (AB&Cs). Because some of them are no longer needed while others are ineffective and should just go. My concern is, as a consequence of some shortcomings in some AB&Cs, especially in the social services sector, that may hasten the end of many community-based volunteer supported NFP service provider agencies. If this happens it will be politically justified in the name of fiscal efficiency and auditor-type accountability demands. Such justifications will discount any necessity for improved program performance, service delivery systems and enhanced client outcomes due to the recession.

For example, remember the Calgary Health Authority governing board? It was consistently out of control, over budget and demanding perpetual bail outs from the province. Instead of just changing the Calgary Health Authority the GOA dumped and disbanded all of the local health authorities across the entire province and put in a single Super Board to run things.


I personally think that is a good precedent to follow in terms of some other regional governing board structures like those in Children’s Services and Person With Developmental Disabilities. This is because they, like the old health authorities, have delegated authority, power and influence, but they seem to be more of a buffer that protects the government from the realities of the rabble rather than being locally astute and effective policy advisers to Ministers and departments.

There has been a thorough and independent review of Alberta's system of governance covering all of the appointed AB&Cs. There are changes coming in their governance structures as well with a new Bill 32 that has been recently tabled in the Alberta legislature. Since these AB&Cs spend about half of the annual provincial budget and there is a need to cut costs, I expect their will also be fiscal changes imposed on the AB&Cs in April 7th Budget too. I anticipate the coming provincial budget will also require more policy alignment of the AB&Cs with more fiscal and program delivery transparency, accountability too. All worthy endeavours for fiscal efficiency but that should not trump program and policy effectiveness. We need both.

I also expect there will be more fiscal pressures put on the NFP community-based voluntary sector for the same reasons. There will be pressures for agency consolidation and even elimination in some cases. There are about 19,000 registered NFP groups in Alberta engaged in a wide range of activities. In the end, I'm betting there will be fewer of these community-based volunteer not for-profit groups in the province by the end of 2009.

The end result will also see more centralized funding approvals with more program design and delivery decisions being made in the provincial bureaucracy level. Those functions will likely be brought back into the direct control of provincial government departments and become even more rigid and rule bound than before. This will be politically justified as part of the journey towards more fiscal prudence and accountability for taxpayer dollars. My guess is many social program outcomes and effectiveness will suffer along with the vulnerable Albertans who depend on those services.

MLAs WILL BE LOBBYISTS FOR FUNDING LOCAL NEEDS:
These changes will put the local MLAs in the direct line of fire. They will be expected to personally get the government support needed and to get things done in their local constituencies and communities. They will have too know much more, and in more detail, about the local social needs, trends, implications and consequences as the recession impacts grow and deepen. They will have to be more activist, engaged and representative of their constituencies to the government and not from the government.

MLAs will have to become the overt and activist champions within the government to get the provincial resources needed to address the local social needs of their constituencies. Bottom line, political success will be measured in how well MLAs deliver the government resources needed to resolve the various concerns of their constituents. The competition amongst MLAs for limited and declining provincial resources will be fierce. I'm betting that caucus and committee meetings will be more volatile and differences will be more personal amongst politicians.

THE LOBBYIST ACT WILL ENABLE MORE CITIZEN ACTIVISM
The Lobbyist Act is scheduled to be finally proclaimed in November and the regulations are to come into effect then too. It will set the rules of the game for the NFP voluntary sector to pressure their MLAs to better understand, deliver and to satisfy local needs. I think the Lobbyist Act will not inoculate the local MLA and Ministers from feeling some profound political and public policy pressures coming from local citizens and community interests groups. I think The Lobbyist Act will actually enable and embolden more local citizens and groups to be more aware, engaged, aggressive and politically overt in lobbying techniques to achieve the desired ends of their communities.

If my speculations are right, we can only hope any new centralized public policy decisions review processes will be based on sound principles and not just by politics-as-usual depending on what "big wheel" has the most squeak, influence and access to power.

Part 3: Ken discusses the 10 year provincial plan to end homelessness

Part 3 - the Final Part of the CBC Radio March 16 Wildrose Openline session on Alberta's Homelessness Strategy.

Part 2: Ken discusses the 10 year provincial plan to end homelessness

Here is Part 2 of the CBC Radio One Wildrose Openline sesson on the Alberta Homelessness Strategy done on March 16

Part 1: Ken discusses the 10 year provincial plan to end homelessness

There are three parts to this CBC open line and interview on the recent Government of Alberta Homelessness Strategy. All three parts are at YouTube if you search Cambridge Strategies. I will post all three parts on the blog too

World Events are Like a Dope Opera.

I am fascinated by a whole lot of individual stories floating around these days.

OBAMA IS AFTER THE BASTARDS OF THE UNIVERSE:
Obama will do whatever he can to frustrate the AIG bonuses. Good. How can it be sound corporate governance when you need $170B bailout and still thing the senior management in place was entitled to bonuses for good performance. Glad to see the NY AG is looking into this scam using a fraud lens. I am interested in the findings and applaud the initiative. Someone hast to rein in these Bastards of the Universe.


DOES MINISTER KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND A SEANCE?
Harper’s Science Minister Gary Goodyear is being coy about his religious beliefs regarding evolution versus creationism. The natural vacuum he leaves with comments like “I’m not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate.” The question was not actually about his religion. It was about science and if he believed in evolution. To default to presume that this is about his religion and his bvelief in creationism provides us with the answer he tried to refuse to give. BTW, studies show 28% of Americans still believe the Sun revolves around Earth. What say you Minister Goodyear?

CRAMER CRASHES AND GET BURNED!
Mad Money Fiscal Infomercial Man - Cramer seems to have disappeared from the chat circuit ever since Jon Stewart eviscerated him on the Daily Show. CNBC says “In Cramer We Trust.” Must be very lonely for the CNBC promo people these days!

CONSERVATIVE PARTY INSTITUTES INCUMBENT PROTECTION PROGRAM:
The Globe and Mail Editorial today takes on the Conservative Party on its Incumbent Candidate Protection Program. Democracy suffers when control comes from the top like this and citizens are excluded even more from politics and policy issues Political parties in Canada have too much power and,as private clubs, they lack sufficient public accountability. They need fixing. The Liberals are not the only political party that is "broke." (sic)

OUR BANKS ARE BETTER - THE HAVE CASH & OPT TO REFUSE HARPER'S BAILOUT POLICY
I want to end with some good news. Canadians are “...becoming our grandparents: we’re starting to think in terms of savings” according to CBIC World Markets. The upside is the Canadian banking system has lots of cash and are relatively solvent. Savings are to the point the banks are refusing the Harper government’s offer from last October to buy up some risky mortgages with taxpayer money. “We actually don’t need a lot of funding right now” says a senior Big Five banker. All of the Canadian banks are pretty flush right now with cash.” Was Bush right when he said "Go Shopping" after 9/11? Is it time to borrow and start buying again Canada?

There is lots happening in the world. Most of it is either sad, scary or absurd. I wonder what George Carlin would be saying about the current state of these notions if he were still with us.