Poll Shows Carbon Tax Support Growing in Canada

Following up yesterdays post on the video of Michael Adam's remarks at the "Decoding Carbon Pricing" a global warming conference in Vancouver, the Environics poll he referenced is posted. It is part of their "Canadian Environmental Barometer" that they do monthly.

B.C. already has a carbon tax and Alberta has a de facto carbon tax of $15/tonne on heavy emitters but it is intensity based which does not reduce carbon in absolute terms. The Harper Conservatives have recently come forward and are suggesting a Cap and Trade model response to carbon emissions. I personally prefer a tax for reasons I will explore in subsequent posts.

Here is what the Environics poll found about attitudes towards a carbon tax. First B.C. residents initially and pre-recession, were supportive of a carbon tax with 54% Strongly or somewhat support for the tax. That combined support dropped to 40% in July 2008 as the recession was upon us, even though Harper was denying the fact. In May 2009 the B.C. combine support is back to 48% for this example of Premier Campbell leadership on climate change.

The support for a carbon tax in the rest of Canada is approaching 50% as of May 2009. The more interesting poll results are from Alberta and Saskatchewan, the home of oil sands a.k.a. "dirty oil" where support for a carbon tax is growing. In Alberta the Feb 08 combined support was 38% and 57% opposed. By July 08 support had fallen to 27% with opposition growing to 69%. Now the Alberta numbers are 44% in support with 53% opposed. The remarkable jump in Alberta support is 17% in less than a year and the recession is not over yet.

Saskatchewan has gone from an early supprrt of 42%, dropping to 29% and rebounding to 42% now.

I can do no better than Environics VP Keith Neuman who is quoted as saying "this latest survey demonstrates that it is premature to 'write off' carbon taxes as a failed climate change policy in Canada."

Harper is touting Cap and Trade in anticipation of a pending election - my betting in is a Nov 9/09 election BTW. I wonder if Harper is picking the right option for fighting climate change given this shift in sentiment about a carbon tax alternative. Keith Newman again: "Taxes of any kind will never be vote-winners, but the outcome of the recent B.B. provincial election validates Premier Gordon Campbell's decision to stick with a tax-based approach to fighting climate change in the face of serious opposition."

Will any federal party, other than the Greens, will have the courage and character to advocate for a carbon tax as policy in the next federal election? I wonder if this poll result will at least get the parties re-thinking their positions.

Michael Adams Talks Carbon Tax and New Governance

Michael Adams of Environics has new poll that shows support for a carbon tax is up 10% in BC since their election. Apparently support for a carbon tax is up across the country too. I am going to ask Michael for the data and blog on the results in more detail.


A carbon tax is such a better alternative to the Harper or Obama Cap&Trade concepts.


Here is a video of Michael speaking at a global warming conference in Vancouver earlier this week. Except for the info on support for carbon tax he is giving the same message I gave to School Trustees and ATA leaders last week.


The sound isn't so good but the content of Michael's presentation is awesome.

"The Earth Needs a New Operating System"

Here is a link to a website that carried Paul Hawken's Commencement Address to the Class of 2009 at the University of Portland. It is practical, and poetic and ponderful and all at the same time. I recommend that you read it. I guarantee it will engage you....

OK so "ponderful" is not a word, but after reading Hawken's address, it should be.

(Hat tip to @Parker Hogan, @AllieW and @Mike Soron for the lead to the link)

Alberta's Guide to Education is More Enlightened Than Bill 44

The ATA is responding with advice to teachers on what to do in the face of a Bill 44 complaint against them.

I love the excerpt from the Alberta "Guide to Education" they posted in this notice. It says:

"Studying controversial issues is important in preparing students to participate responsibly in a democratic society. Such study provides opportunities to develop the ability to think clearly, to reason logically, to open-mindedness and respectfully examine different points of view and to make sound judgements ....Controversial issues that have been anticipated by the teacher, and those that may arise incidentally during instruction,should be used by the teacher to promote critical inquiry and/or to teach thinking skills."

Isn't that a better world view of the kind of province we want Alberta to be? Doesn't this offer a more mature and inclusive society than the narrow-minded, institutionalized ignorance model of public education being promoted and defended by the Stelmach government in Bill 44 and now being entrenched in our so-called "Human Rights Act?"

The Day the Media Died

Here is a video that will amuse and bemuse you. It is clever, creative and perhaps more prescient than we would like it to be. It is about the demise of mainstream media advertising in the face of the Internet. The times are a-changin'. Word of mouth and the means tom make it happen in social media is an amazing shift that is just starting to resonate. Who knows where this will all end up!

Students in Medicine Hat Demonstrate Against Bill 44

The political fallout of Bill 44 continues and the opposition to it's darkness and danger grows. In the immortal words of Buffalo Springfield, "Something's happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear. Think it's time we stop, Hey what's that sound, Everybody look what's going down."

Well in Medicine Hat yesterday the "sound" about Bill 44 from 200 high school students was silence. A group of students from Crescent Heights High School in Medicine Hat acted as engaged citizens yesterday. They staged a protest by taping up their mouths with the message "I've been silenced by Bill 44." They are right at so many levels. The really cool thing is that a group of high school students get it about their role and responsibility as citizens. They are showing the rest of Alberta, by this protest, that we have to dust off our citizenship and re-engage in the political and public policy culture of our society.

Once again we see the power of social media in gathering like-minded people into a community to make their voices heard. Daniel Jessome and Dylan Beyak started a Facebook group and put up posters around the school about the protest. There is a very powerful Facebook group "Student Against Bill 44" that has over 7100 members as I write this. It started just 10 days ago encourage you to join.

These students rightly fear that their teachers "...will start holding back in class for fear of being hauled up in front of a human rights tribunal." They get it when they say "It's going to affect our education, because we're not going to have those sporadic discussions in class anymore." "If we can't talk about the issues of today, how are we supposed to learn anything" is another accurate observation by these student leaders.

Congratulations to the students of Crescent Heights High School in Medicine Hat. You are right. Your freedom of speech has been diminished by the backward thinking that is the basis of Bill 44. Your actions speak louder than your words ;-) Thanks for showing up and not opting out. You set a good example for the elected representative that form your government. Keep up the good work!

Lougheed Confirms Albertans Own the Oilsands But Says We Better Start Acting Like Owners.

With all the turmoil going on in the world - and in my province of Alberta in particular, to read the top Editorial from this morning's Globe and Mail was a gift of clarity and common sense.

Former Alberta Premier, Peter Lougheed cuts through the fog and frustration and states the fundamental truth for Albertans. That is that the citizens of Alberta are owners of the oilsands - not the energy industry. The energy industry companies who are developing the resource are welcome as tenants but only as tenants. This issue of Albertans needing to act like owners of the oilsands was the key message coming from the Royalty Review Panel Report last year as well.

The old-boys back-channel industry model of dealing with and influencing government is over and that will be confirmed this November when the Lobbyist Act finally get Proclaimed into law. The government has to rethink its mindset around oilsands too. It has pandered and capitulated to the industry demands on royalties and taxes and subsidies for generations but as the proxy holders for citizens, the government has to remember whose best interests they are supposed represent.

Shareholder interests can no long trump the interests of Albertans. If certain energy companies wants to leave, the resource is not going away. Others will come to replace them. We know there is lots of international interest to invest in Alberta's oilsands. the big selling features are that we have a know and enormous proven oilsands resource. We have a stable government with the rule of law, a strong investment climate and reasonable accountability controls and no corruption. We have the best proximity of any oil supplier to the largest energy market on the planet and an international treaty with that customer to provide some certainty in the marketplace.

The energy industry is in turmoil too, given the recession, restricted access to capital, volatile commodity prices and issues around cost control and royalties. I haven't even begun to talk about the new environmental standards they will face in the immediate future as we get into a post-Kyoto world soon to be emerging out of the Copenhagen Climate Change meetings come December.

Lougheed says Albertans, as owners, need to insist on a more "orderly development" as we come out of this recession. That means one project at a time to reduce costs, contain inflation and allow for adaptations for environmental and social impacts of oilsands development. Lougheed also says oilsands upgrading has to happen in Alberta, something we at Cambridge Strategies have been advocating as well.

Lougheed says Albertans also need to expand our oilsands markets into Asia and not just depend on the US market. This is another issue we at Cambridge Strategies have been pushing and actively working on. You can review the Cambridge Strategies work in our Economic Outlook 2009. We also have called for the GOA to invest in a merchantile upgrader in our recent Budget Analysis.

Lougheed laments that previous calls for a more sustainable and focused development of the oilsands "...have mostly fallen on deaf ears." The Editorial goes further to the heart of the matter stating: "There has been an unwillingness of the Alberta government, and not enough pressure from the public, to exercise greater restraint."

The old-boys of the energy sector have effectively convinced themselves that the new Royalty Regime is the NEP of the 21st century. They have vilified the Alberta government in the process. Both the industry and the government seems to have forgotten who really call the shots here, the Alberta citizenry as the owners of the resource. The attitude in the pubic is that both industry and government have forgotten their place and have lost their way in the need to create a responsible, reasonable and sustainable oilsands development approach.

The close of the Editorial is what was the most encouraging comment for a Monday morning. It goes to the governance of Alberta and to the roles and responsiblity of Albertans as owners of our natrual resources. Will Albertans take back the power of politicla governance and exercie their proper proprietray ownership obligations in the oilsands? Lougheed is hoepful and so am I.

Why Not Ask Bill 44 No-Show MLAs How They Would Have Voted

Edmonton Public School Board Trustee Sue Huff posted a list on her blog of the MLAs who did not show up for the Third Reading of Bill 44. It is an interesting grouping.

The question is why did they not show up? It was a "free vote" or was it? Was Bill 44 a matter for personal conscience or not? Was it just easier to duck out of the vote and go along to get along? How would they have voted had they been able or bothered enough to show up?

Since it was a free vote, would it be too much to ask of those MLAs who failed, refused or neglected to vote why they did not vote? Would it be too much to ask how they would have voted had they not been missing in action on this controversial Bill?

We elect people in a democracy to represent us but that will always be tempered by their own world view and personal beliefs and party discipline. I am fine, to a point. But when we have the Premier saying there is a free vote on Bill 44 and some MLAs don't show up to vote, that means we citizens can legitimately ask some questions of those MLAs. Most critical for we citizens it to know how and understand why they would have voted if they had been able or bothered to vote.

If your MLA did not vote and you are also curious about these questions, why not drop your MLA an email and ask why they didn't vote and if they were there to vote how they would have voted. I think that is vital information for progressives, especially those of us in the PC Party, to know and understand.

The Whitemud PC Assn Constituency Resolution Seeks to Repeal Human Rights Act on Opting Out.

I understand this is the wording of the proposed Bill 44 Resolution wording that the Edmonton Whitemud Progressive Conservative constituency Board is considering:

Whereas on of the primary goals of public education is to expose students to a wide variety of issues and beliefs with the goal of creating a tolerant, multicultural, open-minded society;

Whereas the majority of Albertans do not want teachers to be put in the position of defending themselves for discussing sexual orientation, sexuality or religion in the classroom before quasi-judicial hearing of the Human Rights Commission;

Whereas there is a strong likelihood of potential increased costs to the province for future appeals of the parental rights provisions;

Therefore be it resolved that:

The Government of Alberta introduce an amendment to the Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act to remove Section 9 from Bill 44, the clause referring to subject matter that deals primarily and explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation

And be it further resolved that:

The Government of Alberta reconsider dealing with this matter under the School Act.

If this is the wording it needs to be changed to reference the removal of the relevant sections of the new Human Rights Act since Bill 44 has been passed. This old Bill 44 reference is over now since is has third reading ans Royal Assent but not Proclamation as I write this. That is technical stuff that a lawyer will pick up on quickly.

More to the point this is a resolution that calls for the repeal of the offensive "parental opting out" provisions in the Human Rights Act that puts teachers at risk of incurring expensive and protracted legal processes that will be difficult to prove one way or the other with the fuzzy wording of the Act. This is an important matter and good to see it described in plain language.

The second important part of this proposed Resolution is that it acknowledges there is a place and need for parental involvement in the education of their children, ideally in partnership with teachers, school administration and school boards. The proper place for that parental engagement is through the School Act and this Resolution states that in plain language once again.

Well done to those on the Executive Committee who drafted this. I now hope they can garner the support of the rest of the Board to put the Resolution before the Progressive Conservative Party to vote on at its Annual General Meeting in November. I also hope this initiative by Whitemud encourages other PC Constituency organizations to pass such a resolution so the debates on the issues emerging from Bill 44 can finally get a form of public discussion, at least within the PC Party as a place to start.

Stay tuned Alberta the fallout form Bill 44 is not over yet - not by a long shot. I hope other PC Constituencies are thinking of joining in to influence the Stelmach government to change it tune and change the new Human Rights Act. accordingly.

Will the PC Party Pursue the Repeal of Bill 44 Opting-Out Provisions?

It is a dreary rainy Friday afternoon in Edmonton but a ray of public policy sunshine is coming through. Yesterday there was the start of a move within the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta to repeal the opting-out portions of what was Bill 44. It is now the Alberta Human Rights Act since Third Reading early Tuesday morning and it received Royal Assent on June 4th. It is not law until it is Proclaimed but that can happen at any Cabinet Meeting.

The political fallout of the Progressive Conservative government passing this ill-conceived poorly drafted and socially destructive law has not gone unnoticed, including by some other progressives in the Progressive Conservative Party - at least at the local constituency level. The Whitemud Constituency Executive are taking a recommendation to the Board in mid June seeking approval that they present a Resolution to the PC Party AGM in November to deal with the offensive provisions of Bill 44, now the Alberta Human Rights Act.

I understand the Resolution will be intended to deal with the parental opting out provisions of the Human Right Act that focus on education and teaching issues religion, human sexuality and sexual orientation. This Bill was a solution looking for a problem. The School Act had opting out provisions that worked well for 20 years. These options did not need to be expanded and extended into the Human Rights complaint and litigation process against teachers and school trustees. But the Stelmach government in its "wisdom" has done just that...and without any consultation or even advanced notice to anyone involved. Breathtakingly bad governance in a modern and mature representative democracy.

I was at the Edmonton Glenora PC Constituency meeting last night and they decided to do a Policy Resolution to the November AGM as well. I suggested a repeal of the opting out provisions. What will happen in Glenora is three proposed resolutions will be presented to the Board and the one receiving the most votes will go forward for consideration at the AGM. That will be an interesting exercise in local level political party democracy. I will keep you posted.

These Resolutions from the Progressive Conservative Party membership are not binding on the government. They are merely advice and input just like any other special interest group. Sometimes the advice is the result of a collective wisdom. Sometimes it is just pooled Ignorance. One thing for sure the Bill 44 fiasco has legs and it is not going away!

I ran into a former Party President at lunch who has been asked to supervise the PC Party Leadership Confidence vote at the November AGM too. This vote is a Party constitutional provision and happens after every election. It was how the PC Party dumped Premier Klein when he hung on too long after the 2004 election.

Bill 44 is far from over. The political fallout is just beginning to be felt. The Letters to the Editor in the newspapers and the editorial commentary is still coming in. The legal fallout will have to wait for the Human Rights Act to be Proclaimed and who knows when that will happen. Time for citizens, and especially political party members, to take back their political power and to once again participate in the public policy culture of their society.

Opting out of citizenship due to cynicism and skepticism is creating a "silent majority" in the minds of certain politicians. They are hiding behind this veneer of presumed public will and support for Bill 44 by presuming silence entitles them to legalize ignorance and intolerance around religion, human sexuality and sexual orientation.

The world is run by those who show up - not by those who opt out.

Alberta School Trustees Seething Mad About Bill 44

I spent yesterday with over 250 Alberta School Trustees discussing matters of governance in public education. It was more than a might ironic given the government of Alberta imposed closure the night before on Bill 44 in the face of enormous opposition from teachers, trustees, superintendents, parents and students.


My message to Schools Trustees was that they lost political power a long time ago. What they have now is political influence, just like the rest of us. Since they are still elected they have more political authority than the rest of us. The role they play in promoting, protecting and preserving our public education system gives school trustees a real reason and a duty to reach out to the disengaged and cynical citizenry on public education issues. It is hard not to see how public education does not have a connection to just about any issue in society today.


School Trustees are the lowest order of elected governance we have. They are the Rodney Dangerfields of Alberta democracy. They are also persons elected by local communities and we entrust the education of our kids and future generations to their care. They are elected as individuals and not hampered by partisanship. People can relate to them easier and more openly but the problem is nobody knows who they are.


We have a serious and growing democratic deficit in Alberta. It will only get worse unless citizens take back their responsibility to participate in the political life of our province. My message to School Trustees was they are the closest to the people in their communities BUT they have to reach out and join the communities, not wait for them to come or expect them to come to the school system.

As a practical example of what I am talking about, here is a link to one of Sue Huff's blog posts on the passing of Bill 44. Sue is a first term Trustee in the Edmonton Public School Board. She was not in Red Deer this week but I will be sure she get a copy of my remarks.

The way to do this is by engaging in conversations in real life and on the Internet, using social media. I showed them some social media sites and put them in some context about how to use them to create and participate in personal and group conversations about meaningful issues to citizens. This it their role to help get Albertans to return and take up the role of citizen at the centre of our "democratic" society.

Bill 44 is the catalyst to regain the energy for public policy and political participation in Alberta. School Trustees are the best positioned to help influence individuals and communities to re-engage in civic life and to take back the political power that is at the core of our democratic system. I hope they earn the respect of their constituents, friends and neighbours. They deserve it but it will not come to them. They have to go out and get it and show the rest of us what a responsible, resilient and respectful democracy is again.

As Red Green would say "Get your stick on the ice. I am pulling for you."

Bill 44: Bad Policy Becomes Bad Law in the Name of Human Rights

As Bill 44 goes into Third Reading, it is being framed by its proponents as a law that is needed to protect and promote parents “rights” to be primarily responsible for the education of their children. Those who oppose Bill 44 are somehow presumed to be in opposition to that principle. That is not true. I think those who are promoting this Bill are intentional mis-framing the core issues of Bill 44. They are doing this to deflect attention from the serious shortcomings and legitimate concerns about Bill 44.

Bill 44 is not all bad. It proposes to specifically identify legal protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation. No one I know who opposes Bill 44 does so for that reason. Disallowing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is the law of the land. Alberta is finally getting around to writing in that reality in this proposed Alberta Human Rights Act. No one in know who opposes Bill 44 does so for reasons relating to the appropriate roles and responsibility of parents in the education of their children in the Alberta public education system.

There has always been a home and school partnership relationship in Alberta’s public education system It is well recognized in the Alberta School Act. The Preamble of the School Act says: “WHEREAS parents have a right and a responsibility to make decisions respecting the education of their children.” That covers the parental side of the public education partnership. This part of the Preamble covers the education community side of the partnership. It says: “WHEREAS the education community in making decision should consider the diverse nature and heritage of society in Alberta within the context of its common values and beliefs.”

Here is why the opting out provision of Bill 44 is unnecessary. Section 50 of the School Act put the discretion in a School Board to prescribe religious instruction, religious exercises, patriotic instruction, and patriotic exercises. The Act provides for a written request from a parent to exclude their children from any or all of these discretionary instructions or exercises. Sexuality exclusions are not in the Act but are dealt with effectively in Department of Education policy and procedures.

Given this historical, successful and practical partnership approach inherent in the School Act, why does the Government of Alberta feel the need to set up another quasi-judicial legalistic and possibly adversarial process? Bill 44 proposes provisions that are not about discretionary religious instruction and exercises. The new parental opt-out provisions are not about religious instruction or exercises, but about religion itself. That is a much broader and more imprecise concept than “religious instruction and exercises” provided in the School Act.

Sexuality is specifically added into the proposed Human Rights Act and recent amendments clarified that to mean “human sexuality” for purposes of clarity. Interestingly, “sexual orientation,” is a new parental opt-out option being added in the new Human Rights Act. One would think that human sexuality would include sexual orientation, but it has been singled out as a distinctly offensive opting out issue for parents. Any fair-minded and progressive Albertans has to ask themselves why sexual orientation has been singled out. There is not obvious positive public policy answer.

Nobody disputes that Alberta parents have a say and can participate in the education of their child in our public education system. Educators only wish more of them took up this as an obligation. That said, what is the advantage of elevating this parental privilege to opt-out their children’s from religious and patriotic instruction and exercise to the level of creating a human rights claim? Bill 44 elevates parental participation and provides a litigation process for remedying alleged breaches of law that can be used against their child’s teacher and perhaps, school trustees. No legislator has yet to offer a satisfactory explanation as to why this is being done.

The School Act Preamble also says: “WHEREAS the best educational interests of the student are the paramount considerations in the exercise of any authority under this Act.” That “authority” rightly rests jointly with the schools and the parents. To replace such a sound concept of collaborative common cause between home and school with an adversarial and litigious process based on seeking damages for alleged breaches does not serve “…the best educational interests of the student.” Bill 44 undermines the very spirit and intent of public education in Alberta.

There are other damaging elements in enabling a legal process to replace a common cause approaches in our public education system. The language in Bill 44 is extremely vague and difficult to define given the shared learning context of a typical classroom discussion. In trying to clarify the intent of the new opting out provisions on religion, human sexuality and sexual orientation the law makers introduced some amendments. Something they said they would not do only a week earlier. The language has moved from “subject-matter that deals explicitly” to “subject-matter that deals primarily and explicitly” with religion, human sexuality and sexual orientation. And we are told this amendment is for purposes of clarity? As a lawyer and as a public policy consultant, I think these amendments fail miserably at providing clarity. It looks effective on its face, but how will it work and what does it mean in real life?

What is the standard test to use by a teacher to determine when they are at the stage of “primarily and explicitly” when class discussions start dealing with “subject- matter that deals” with “religion, human sexuality and sexual orientation?” It is this kind of intentional obfuscation in law making that drives these issues to the courts, often because of a politically intentional lack of clarity. We need the laws to say what they mean and our lawmakers to mean what they say in our statutes. We need our politicians to make laws for our greater good that are as clear, precise and in language as plain as possible.

How does a teacher know where to draw the line in a vibrant learning atmosphere with curious and engaged students who are exploring, learning and asking probing questions? When does the classroom discussion become “explicitly” about religion, human sexuality and/or sexual orientation? When does a classroom discussion reach the point of being “primarily” about those topics? Is it when more than half the class time is spent on the explicit subject? Or is it when more than half the students participate in the explicit discussion? These are questions a Human Rights Tribunal or a Court will ask when dealing with a complaint. The only safe course of action for a teacher is to avoid any such topics and classroom discussion altogether if for no other purposes than self-preservation. What does that do to the quality of our public education system Mr. and Ms. Alberta lawmaker?

We then see an attempt by the Government of Alberta to grapple with this dilemma in a further amendment also offered as “clarification.” These further amendment says teachers need not only worry about “primarily and explicitly” so long as the classroom events and student discourse was only in terms of “incidental or indirect” references. That is hardly reassuring because teacher still don’t know what test to apply in evaluating what constitutes incidental or indirect references. So it’s acceptable to incidentally or indirectly talk about religion and human sexuality in the classroom. What does that mean and doesn’t that depend on how any individual student perceives the discussion or the intent of the individual student’s comments or questions? What may be an incidental or indirect reference to one person may well be a primary and explicit reference in the mind of another.

What will be the legal test applied to alleged breaches? Will it be objective, or subjective and what about context? How will context be proven and based on what kind of evidence? These Human rights Tribunals are quasi-judicial. They are not like a parent-teacher meeting. Consider context, look at the incident this past week in the House of Commons. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister used the phrase “tar baby” with reference to the Alberta oil sands in Parliament. Others in the House immediately took it to be a racial slur and asked for an apology, which the Parliamentary Secretary refused by the way. This is a perfect example of what can go wrong when we draft laws with intentionally vague language as in Bill 44. Politicians don’t have to worry about liability for comments in legislature or in Parliament because they have a wonderful protection called Parliamentary Privilege. That means they can say anything they want about anybody they want, provided they use Parliamentary language, and they are immune from prosecution. Too bad teachers don’t have the same protection as the lawmakers.

Here is what I see happening with the ill-conceived, ill-defined and poorly drafted Bill 44, even as amended. It will cause certain social conservative zealots and advocates to be emboldened. They will pursue incidences of alleged breaches of the new and ironically entitled, Alberta Human Rights Act just to make political points and settle scores. They will do this because they want things like teaching creationism accepted in the public school curriculum. They will focus on getting political retribution on the back of Alberta’s teachers and public education system because of homosexuality and gay marriages are now not just “legal” but are becoming normalized in Canadian law and society. Innocent teachers will be caught in the cross fire. Bill 44 gives these people access to the Alberta Human Rights complaint process and an avenue of appeal to the Courts so they can pursue and promote their political agendas.

Wait, it gets worse. Besides the vagueness of the legal tests of what would be a breach of the Act, what would the evidence look like and where would it come from? Bill 44 provisions will put a student between his parents and his teacher in a “he said – she said” standoff. The only objective evidence available would have to come from other student in the classroom at the time of the alleged breaches. Besides the pressure on children being interviewed and potentially having to testify in a tribunal and in a court, how likely will those children know how to evaluate the so-called “offensive” classroom comments? How will they determine, in their own minds, if alleged comments were in any way “primarily and explicitly” or “incidental or indirect related to religion, religious themes, human sexuality and sexual orientation”? What weight ought to be given to such evidence from other children, who are also caught in this political crossfire now? What other means of gathering independent evidence will there be to assist the Trier of fact in making a finding in such circumstances? This is not only harmful to these children who will have to endure such a process, it is also highly inappropriate.

We are told by the government politicians promoting this new law that the chances of any of this complaint process actually happening is small. They use past statistics of Human Rights complaints to reassure us. Unfortunately this is far from reassuring. We can’t use past statistics to predict the future impact of a new law that effectively creates a new parental human right. If even one political motivated aggressive social conservative advocate on a mission filed a complaint and pursued it, we are into a full blown, time consuming and expensive quasi-judicial review. If one of the parties is unhappy with the result at first instance, there is a potential appeal to the courts. This could be an even more time consuming and expensive judicial process. That threat from Bill 44, however small, will still send a chill through the teachers in the entire Alberta public education system.

There are other serious question on the process of Bill 44, beyond it merits. Where was the public consultation around this new law? Where are the legal opinions that support this Bill 44 that outline the social problem that is intends to solve and advised how it does so within the law? Where was the public debate about moving from a joint home and school partnership in public education to a scheme that is a one-way parental rights based litigious model? And where is the sound and reasoned public policy judgment and indication of the wisdom of our government’s lawmakers? What studies have they done to determine if there even is a governance or social problem that needs to be solved in the first place? All of this background material is needed to show citizens that Bill 44 is necessary to resolve an identified public policy problem. It is also needed to show citizens that Bill 44 is a justifiable law as a solution to the identified public policy.

This information has been asked for by the Opposition but none has been provided by the Government of Alberta to substantiate why Bill 44 is a necessary new law for Albertans.
The political spin originally put on Bill 44 is that it is “symbolic” and “just the same as the current School Act.” It clearly is not. We are now being told this is about preserving the rights of parents as the primary educators of their children. This too is factually inaccurate given all the sources that children learn from these days. We are being told that those who oppose Bill 44 want the “nanny state” to replace parental rights regarding their children. This is also unfounded because we already have the School Act to deal with the real issues of curriculum opting-out. We are being told that frivolous and vexatious Human Rights claims arising from Bill 44 provisions will not happen because Albertans are educated and reasonable people.

The Government lays out assurance that even if some Albertans did file complaints for alleged breaches “good teachers” have nothing to fear under this new law. If the government is so confident in those “nothing to fear” representations why do they consistently refuse agree to indemnify teachers who face such accusations? Why has the government refused to cover a teacher’s legal costs and damages in the event of any such claims? Could it be the Government of Alberta doesn’t actually believe its own assurances to teacher that this is no big threat?

There is not a single good governance reason to make these changes to the new Human Rights Act. There is every likelihood that this unnecessary and ill-conceived law will only serve to erode and destabilize our quality public education system and intimidate teachers and school trustees. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw as to why this is happening is that it is for internal political appeasement purposes. It is being proposed to satisfy demands of a social conservative faction in the governing Progressive Conservative Caucus. This fact has already been “explicitly” stated by at least one Alberta Cabinet Minister to be the reason for these proposed amendments. Nobody has clarified or denied that assertion as to the reasons for Bill 44 opting out provisions.

This is a public policy travesty that is turning into a statutory tragedy at Third Reading of Bill 44 this Monday night June 1, 2009. Alberta’s excellent public education system will be sacrificed and Alberta’s children will suffer in the service of noting more than some contemptuous political appeasement within the governing Progressive Conservative Caucus.

Still Time to Send a Letter or an E-Mail to Your MLA & the Premier to Record Your Opposition to Bill 44

Here is an example of the kind of informed and engaged citizenship we need in Alberta. Sirthinks and I follow each other on Twitter. I am @KenChapman46 on Twitter if you want to follow me. @Sirthinks is also on Twitter. He and I were active in the tweetfest that happened during the Committee of the Whole debates on Bill 44 last week. It was a most amazing evening where the anti-Bill 44 online community came together and shared ideas, opinions and information about the Bill.

Third reading of this terrible law will happen early next week so it is not too late to register your displeasure with your MLA and copy the Premier too. Bill 44 looks like it will pass as amended but opposition is not futile, indifference is.

There is a legitimate expectation in a democracy that we can and should hold our politicians accountable. However, if we citizens do not take account of our our responsibilities to become informed and engaged, then the power shifts from the people to the political elites and democracy diminishes.

Early last week Minister Lindsay Blackett said he only received 300 letters on the issue of Bill 44. I take him at his word. If that is true, then we citizens who are too passive or indifferent to care about what kind of a society we are creating and allow a backward law like Bill 44 to proceed unopposed then we deserve the kind of government we will get from this lousy piece of law.

Thanks to Sirthinks and all the others who are making their opposition known to their democratically elected political representatives.

Premier Stelmach Say Bill 44 is a Free Vote and I Believe Him!

The smart money seems to believe that Bill44, as amended, will go through Third Reading tomorrow and become law. It will not be enforceable law until it gets signed by the Lieutenant Governor.

There have been some changes to Bill 44 presented by the government as a result of the political pressure and particularly from by teachers, school trustees and parent groups. More on that late, but the other significant change around Bill 44 was Premier Stelmach’s announcement yesterday that it would be subject open to a free vote in the Legislature. This is a dramatic turnaround from the staunch position of a few days ago that Bill 44 was going to proceed as a government bill and “as is.”

Premier Stelmach’s surprise pronouncement yesterday that Bill 44 would be subject to a free vote is very significant, shows enlightened leadership and needs to be acknowledged. There are many who don’t believe Bill 44 will be a free vote but I do. I think a free vote is only important at Third and final reading that makes the Bill the law of the land. Every vote beforehand is process and a free vote has no real meaning there. Liberal Opposition Leader has also said his caucus will have a free vote on Bill 44 as well, and given the small size of the NDP caucus every vote is essentially a free vote.

A free vote means that every MLA will be able to vote their conscience on Bill 44 without having to support party lines. I don’t know if the House voted on the government amendments last night or not but let’s not confuse the matter with parliamentary process. Let’s stay with the personal, political and leadership importance of a free vote.

A free vote shows the Premier recognizes the fundamental morality concerns and the personal values-based nature of what Bill 44 is all about. This shows Premier Stelmach is prepared to lose the vote and the passing Bill 44 into law. That is unlikely, but with a true free vote, why would anyone not take the Premier at his word on that?

Are there enough Progressives in the Stelmach government who do not doubt the Premier’s word and who will vote against Bill 44 as a matter of personal conscience regardless of partisanship? Are there some in the PC Caucus who realize that the opting out provisions are flawed? Do they see that the recent government amendments do nothing to fix the flaws, and may even make them worse? Will they exercise the free vote opportunity and declare their distaste for the unfortunate elements in this Bill and vote against it?

Or will the MLAs in the Progressive Conservative Caucus not believe the Premier when he said Bill 44 is a free vote? Are they afraid there will be consequences if they vote their conscience and oppose a government Bill regardless of what the Premier said about a free vote? That would be sad at so many levels and in so many ways, including the further erosion of our democracy. It would also show a lack of confidence in the leadership of the Premier if PC MLAs somehow felt they could not take him at his word that Bill 44 is a free vote for his Caucus.

I believe this proposed Alberta Human Rights law does not elevate Alberta society, or in any way, serve the greater good. It is supposed to be a law about what we believe in and reflect positively on us as a fair-minded, inclusive, diverse and respectful society. But it is so defective in serving those core Alberta principles, rather than make us proud to be Albertan; Bill 44 makes us want to cringe.

I don’t think there will be enough freely exercised Progressive Conservative MLA who will vote their personal conscience and defeat Bill 44. I also know not every PC MLA is enamoured with Bill 44 but they may think the “hard fought” amendments fix the problems so they can exercise their free vote and support the amended Bill. On a clear reading of the implication of the amendments, even by a mediocre legal mind, it is obvious that the hastily constructed parsing of words in the amendments only add process complexity instead of clarity. The changes simply don’t fix the fundamental flaws in Bill 44. For those who are not regular readers of this Blog just go back to archive entries for 2 weeks or so to get a sense of just how dreadful this Bill is.

If there are no dissenting votes from the PC side at third reading, as a Progressive Conservative Party member, I will be more disappointed than surprised. I will not know if that unanimity happened because the PC Caucus did not believe or trust the word of the Premier, their leader, when he gave his free vote directive on Bill 44. I will not know if that unanimous support of the amended Bill 44 was a character flaw or a judgment shortcoming of individual MLAs because they would not or could not see the serious social consequences of making such an ill-conceived law. I will not know if the Caucus membership is so timid or intimidated that some members who beg to differ, but rather choose to defer. I will suspect that if they all act like sheep they will at least have the integrity to be sheepish about it. Time will tell.

There is a great democratic force emerging on the political scene. It is an budding wave of voter energy and civic engagement that Bill 44 has created amongst networked and tech-savvy Influentials. I predict that nascent opinionated personal energy will become an on-going political force that will grow and gather momentum in Alberta. I smell democracy in the air and I sense a change coming. A few short hours ago hundreds of Influential tech-savvy and politically engaged Albertans from all over our province got on their computers and found each other online because of opposition to Bill 44. They eagerly explored their differences and enjoyed their like-mindedness too. The focus was all about what Bill 44 would do to offend their shared values and pride as Albertans.

A small group of people with the personal empowerment and communal potential got together on line, in Alberta, until very late last night. They engaged in common cause last night and that they may be the start of creating some big political changes that they want to see in their Alberta.

Margaret Meade is often quoted about cautioning to never underestimating the power of a small group of people to change the world - because that is the way it is always done. Margaret would have been proud of what she saw last night in Alberta. She would have enjoyed watch us struggle to find any rational reason, other than pettiness and pure power politics, for certain devastating, destructive and discriminatory changes being introduced into our Alberta Human Rights Act.

Late last night, online, a lot of Albertans got together, found each other, and started to wake up as they deliberately dusted off their citizenship. If Bill 44 is not a real free vote, there will be a political cost for Alberta Conservatives.

Alberta Opportunity With India

Not all my Blog readers are subscribers to the Cambridge Strategies Inc. Policy and Political Commentary list. So I give you the link to the most recent piece done my by Satya Das of Cambridge Strategies on the Alberta opportunities in the emerging India.
http://www.cambridgestrategies.com/news-room/doc_download/78-opportunity-india-why-albertas-future-wealth-will-be-made-in-india

If you want to subscribe to future items there is a place to do so on the Cambridge Strategies Inc. website.

Bill 44 Debate Last Night Spawned Online Citizen Engagement and Will Change Alberta Politics

Something quite amazing things happened in Alberta politics yesterday. I saw some attempts to clarify some of the fuzzy language in Bill 44 even when the government said they would not bend. They tried to respond to the concerns of teachers and school trustees over a potential for a classroom chill as class conversations migrated and related to religion, sexuality or sexual orientation. The amendments proposed fail to clarify the situation and in my opinion, makes the situation worse. But the effort to adapt has to be acknowledged even if the Alberta government has to go back to the drawing board to get it right.

The fear from teachers and school trustees comes from the breadth and vagueness of those concepts of explicit religion, sexuality and sexual orientation. Bill 44 also that sets up a quasi-judicial process for complaints around parental exemption that will most likely be exploited some reactionary parents with a political/moral agenda looking for a test case to change public education away form secularism. Students, teachers and an excellent public education system will all be the victims if this new power and litigious process is provided to those activists in the fundamentalist fringe groups.

Those fundamentalist arch-conservative based political agendas are actively playing out in parts of the United States and are about to be imported into Alberta big time with the advent of Bill 44. The kind of public policy issues that Bill 44 provisions will effectively import into Alberta the tensions teaching evolution versus creationism. Bill 44 is about a homophobic faction in our society who we are arming with a process so they can use our public education system as a means of institutionalizing and normalizing discrimination in Alberta on the basis of sexual orientation. It is also about a values conflict in human sexuality about differing reproductive philosophies between the abstinence of Sarah Palin or the teaching human sexuality in context of imparting factual biological information and promoting personal reproductive responsibility and loving relationships...yes Dr. Morton, regardless of sexual orientation.

Reasonable Albertans are not the concern caused by the clumsy drafting of Bill 44. There are small and activist fundamentalist factions in our society who would take advantage of the potential for pushing litigation opportunities inherent in Alberta’s proposed new Human Rights Act. This would not be the first time Alberta became a discrimination test case on sexual orientation was litigated and the Alberta government lost. The very fact we are writing sexual orientation into the Alberta law is a result of a Supreme Court decision over 10 years ago in the Vriend case requiring Alberta could no longer discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The next time it will not be the Government of Alberta who will have to defend itself, but some unfortunate teacher whose classroom will be turned into a test case.

Reassurances from some Progressive Conservative politicians that this is not their intent in Bill 44 and that they don’t believe it will happen are hollow assurances. Bill 44 is law making that imparts rights and imposes responsibilities about morals and values and gives access to the Courts for redress. It is not about simple symbolism or some benign rehash of the status quo. Bill 44 creates a new era in Alberta society – and not something we will be proud of either.


The other amazing political thing yesterday was the Bill 44 Committee of the Whole debate last night - that went on until about 4:30 a.m. Who says MLAs are not hard working! There were a flock of us Twitter-types watching and commenting online around the debate, in a vibrant cyber-community that included some MLAs. I went to bed at 2:00 am but some hardy on-line citizen souls stayed until the bitter end. Alberta’s Netizens found each other on Twitter last night as we gathered around the debates on Bill 44. There was a new realization that crystallized last night. That realization was that there is a new and effective political platform in which you can share, explore and exchange ideas with fellow citizens that is available on the Internet-and it is in real time. In fact the real time online experience went to 4:30 am along with our elected representative last night.

The Twitter exchanges were as respectful, wide ranging and probing as was the debate on the floor of the Legislature last night. A new citizen awareness and political engagement started to gel last night in Alberta. As a believer in participatory democracy and freedom of speech, I was delighted and reassured to see all that happen so spontaneously and spiritedly.

I expect the Netizen online opposition to Bill 44 to grow exponentially now and it will be amplified because the mainstream media was right there with us last night. The front page news coverage today on Bill 44 reinforces my point. I also expect the online opposition to Bill 44 to sustain itself and spread as the Progressive Netizens of Alberta emerge as an influential political counter force to those fundamentalists factions in our society.

Alberta politics changed last night. You had to be there to see it and to feel it. The Albertan Netizen genie is out of the bottle and it started a month ago with the passing of Genia Leskiw's Motion 503 on Grade 3 Provincial Achievement Test. That was where the real life Legislature debate was also an online concurrent Netizen debate. Online citizen engagement in politics and public policy is emerging and spreading as a new influential force in the future of Alberta.

Welcome to the next Alberta but buckle your seat belt - it is going to be a bumpy ride. Here's to the new trans-partisan Netizens of Alberta. May we boldly go, live long and prosper.

Thoughts a Sustainable Economy Within a Sustainable Environment.

Aaron Braaten blogs as the Grandinite and has a truly wonderful mind. Here is a link to a rich blog post to anyone you can accept that the environment and the economy are an integrated whole - not competing forces. Hat tip to EPSB School Trustee for bring it to my attention.




I think Preston Manning is about to have a much more effective role as a Conservationist than he ever did as a Conservative.




Don Hill is a fellow fan of Edward de Bono and accomplished broadcaster and documentarist and friend for about 30 years.




Mark Anielski is someone I always enjoy spending time with and learning from. I have bought and given away about 100 of his books award winning book The Economics of Happiness - Building Genuine Wealth.




These men are not only food for thought - they are an intellectual and educational movable feast.

Alberta Government Says Bill 44 Will be Amended

So the Stelmach government announced today in Question Period we can expect amendments to Bill 44 parental opting out provisions around issues of religion, sexuality and sexual orientation in Alberta classrooms. The public pressure has been mounting against Bill 44 and Minister Blackett admitted as much today.

Our government might have gotten the message from the majority of Albertans want an inclusive, diverse and respectful society. Our government might have come to realize that it is unacceptable to institutionalize bigotry against homosexuals and put teachers and school trustees at risk to prosecution by rights reactionaries. None of this undermines the current law and public policy that preserves a parent’s right to have their family views on religious beliefs and the reality of how they see their values on human sexuality prevail. That is still to be respected and preserved but not elevated to a right.

The bottom line is there is no compromise on recognizing sexual orientation in Alberta Human Rights laws, because it is the law of the land. Sexual orientation is part of human sexuality and when those matters are scheduled for classroom discussion as part of the curriculum prior notice should still be given and parental exemption wishes honoured.

It is also not appropriate for public education to provide religious instruction to those who do not wish it. The current provisions and practices under the School Act deal very effectively with that legitimate concern as well. Note that religious instruction is not the same as religion. Religion has to be an integral pat of any modern and forward thinking course of study in the Alberta public school system. There is Separate and other religious affiliated private schools in Alberta that are able to serve those faith based wishes around providing religious instruction.

The amendments to Bill 44 that are acceptable are the elimination of section 11.1 that created all these problems. I hope the Alberta government also revisits and eliminates Section 3 on hate speech too. Those provisions are not necessary either in Alberta’s updated human rights legislation.

Then teachers can continue to teach and school districts can provide the proper notice when required, as is the case today without Bill 44 “fixes.” Human sexuality includes sexual orientation so discussions can proceed with children of those parents who accept and respect differences. We can use public education as a means to expand our understanding of our differences without demonizing anyone.

The most appropriate amendments must eliminate any reference to sexual orientation as distinct from human sexuality and retain the latter as an option to opt out but only from pre-scheduled curriculum based class time. It must eliminate any reference to religion as a subject of opting out and stay with religious instruction only. Religious instruction is not part of the Alberta curriculum as far as I know. Catholic schools and other denominational schools can teach religious instruction but students in those schools whose parents wish them to be excused from participating can do so and still attend the school for all other purposes. That is the current reality and it should stay.

Am I optimistic this will be the amendments we will see tomorrow? I expect something less based on an incremental retreat from a very faulty public policy and governance stance articulated in Bill 44. This is about foundational social values and principles. It is not the stuff of compromise. A compromise on faulty principles will not fix the fault. It will perpetuate it. This is not the time to put forward the Canadian propensity for compromise by allowing incidental an incremental discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is the law of the land that no level of discrimination based on sexual orientation is acceptable and therefore any compromise on that principle is also unacceptable.

This is not the time to ease any public pressure to get this matter totally and appropriately resolved. I am waiting to see what happens tomorrow and will decide then if I am optimistic or not about the amendments.

Alberta's Bill 44 Embarassment Broadens.

UPDATE May 25 @ 2:15 pm: Minister of Culture and Community Spirit, Lindsay Blackett said in Question Period today that the GOA has been listening and Bill 44 is being amended. We can expect that will happen tomorrow. Hoping the matter stays in the School Act and we define the terms and conditions that create an opt-out in language that offers more clarity than in the current version of Bill 44. STAY TUNED!!!

The controversy around the opting-out provisions proposed in the draft Alberta Human Rights Act is not going away and now the rest of Canada is getting involved - and not just watching as we institutionalize bigotry in our proposed human rights legislation.

The Globe and Mail reports today that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has written to the Progressive Conservative Alberta government about the folly of this proposed legislation. They say "no valid public interest is gained" by extending a parental rights clause. They also say if Alberta proceeds in this way it will "become a counterproductive precedent" for other provinces.

Here is the quote I love. "You should be able to exclude your kids from indoctrination but not from knowledge." That is the core ethical issue at stake here. Parental choice and role is vitally important and they already have all the respect and protection they need in the current Alberta School Act to ensure no school will provide unwanted religious instruction and human sexuality instruction. Those exclusions ensure parents who want to exclude their children from school courses involving those topics are free to do so. That is an acceptable, effective and working current policy that does not need changing. It sure does not need fixing.

The motives behind the proposed changed to require a parental right elevate the exclusions to a human right, not a personal parental privilege, is admitted to be a sop to bigotry in a quote attributed to the Minister ironically responsible for "Culture and Community Spirit." The ultra-right elements in the "Progressive (sic) Conservative government are insisting that opting out be elevated to a human right and expanded and extended "..as an olive branch to religious groups and conservative voters who might be offended by the provinces move to recognize gay rights.

This political pandering masquerading as public policy pragmatism is offensive to the vast majority of Albertans. The mainstream of Alberta society what an inclusive, diverse and respectful society that thrives on differences and doesn't fear them. Gay rights are not negotiable. They are the law of the land. Legislators make those laws and they ought to be the first to respect them. It is a fundamental character flaw of politicians to even presume to negotiate institutionalizing bigotry on the basis of sexual orientation. To accept this into law to merely appease some ultra-right religious fundamentalists who dogmatically refuse to accept the fact of diverse sexual orientations as a reality is appalling.

Parents legitimately have the option to exclude their children from instruction on matters of instruction in areas of religion and human sexuality as is the case today in the Alberta School Act. That privilege protects their children from indoctrination. What Bill 44 does is say the opting out extends to the general topic of religion and sexual orientation. That crosses the line from protecting children from indoctrination to keeping them ignorant and excluded from access to useful knowledge. That is not acceptable in our modern Canadian and Albertan societal values.

Of course parents have a vital role to play in the education of their children and in teaching and transmitting social values to them. That parental privilege does not extend to the promotion of prejudice and potential persecution of teachers and school trustees as Bill 44 will empower them to do. Kill the opting out provisions of Bill 44 and leave the School Act as it is - that is protection enough for parents - and for the right reasons too.

Bill 44 is a Human Rights Disaster

I am running into all these bright minds grounded in sound principles writing in the mainstream media. Here is a piece on what a disaster Bill 44 amending Alberta Human Rights legislation for the worse. It is by Janet Keeping, President of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation on Ethics and Leadership. Janet and I participate in a monthly column in Alberta Venture magazine on business ethics along with Fil Fraser, the former head of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

Janet's approach is to show how badly Bill 44 deals with real human rights issues and serious but ignored HRC conflict issues. My take is that parents rights around the education of their kids belongs in the School Act and there are protections there already. This is about quality, inclusion and relevancy in public education and not about extending exiting parental consent to instruction on religion and human sexuality to a human right.

The narrow mindedness of the Progressive Conservative caucus demonstrated by Bill 44 opting out provisions shows the world that Alberta is not the kind of place open hearted, creative, innovative and accepting people will want to work, live and invest in. It shows us to be just the opposite. may as well save what is left of the $25M branding budget. Nobody is going to believe the rhetoric with this shabby display of retrograde public policy by our government.

Time for the PC caucus to read some of the writings of Richard Florida and get up to speed what a successful society looks like in the 21st century.

"Mulroney Sinks to Using Clinton Defence"

I don't often just link to a news item or op-ed without further commentary on the content. This is an exception simply because I can't think of anything more to add to this excellent op-ed by Peter Bowal, UofC Law Professor. Oh yes one thing, full disclosure, Peter used to work for me as an Associate in my law firm more than a few years ago.


In a world were political integrity and transparency are touted, prevarication and deceit still trump the truth in context. If you want to go deeper into the "heart and science" of this behaviour an easy enlightening read is "Mistakes Were Made but not by Me."

Command & Control Governance is Out of Sync with the Times.

Edmonton Journal front page story by Sheila Pratt notes the Stelmach government has shifted to the right. I think they are hunkered down and have retreated into a command and control top down "father knows best" governing philosophy. This is unfortunate because in these times Albertans want to know what is happening and not be told what is happening.

With the Internet increasing connectivity and enabling communities of interest to form and push for public policy changes. The capacity for citizens to organize to engage and influence public policy has never been greater nor easier to do. For democratic governments to fail, refuse or neglect to pick up on this shift in power to the little guys means they will have to pay a political price. The Stelmach government has shifted from its initial governing philosophy of enabling and informing the public discussion and debate to where they now focus on controlling the message and sometimes some politicians are taking steps to intimidate some people and stifle dissent.

I have done a commentary paper on this shift in governance and influence for a client and it will be published soon. I will make it available when it is public. I know regular readers of this blog will find it interesting.

Are You Ready for Reverse Globalization?

Nice to see the Globe and Mail giving some space to Jeff Rubin and he new book. I posted on Jeff's new book a few days ago. He is predicting oil at $200+ and is a believer in peak oil theory.


He is also forecasting the reversal of globalization as a result of higher oil prices driving up transportation and other costs. That is an interesting prospect. A highly connected world in terms of technology, politics and the environment but less in terms of trade. China and U.S. relations will be an interesting case study for all kinds of reasons if this reverse globalization happens.


This could mean more focus and growth in local production especially in items like food. Thanks to Michelle Obama there is a vegetable garden on part of the White House lawn that has spawned a return to backyard and community gardens. This may be the early weak signals signs of another enormous economic shift.


It will be all good for Alberta if we get busy and plan for it now and not merely react late in the game as has been the case in the past.

Does Bill 44 Opting Out Provisions Make You Proud to be an Albertan?

Are you still proud to be an Albertan? For me that is the core values question coming out of Bill 44 - Alberta's Human Rights Act and section 11.1 parental opting out amendments. Parents are given a legal rights and remedies to have advanced notice so they can exempt their children if topics of religion, sexuality and sexual orientation happen in the classroom. It is impossible to tell when and how such topics may come up in a classroom discussion - especially if you what to foster curious and thinking students.

Aiding and abetting such institutionalized ignorance and encouraging it to be embedded in our pluralistic public education system is bad politics and is even worse governance. It begs the question: "Are you still proud to be an Albertan?"

These proposed parental exemptions are too broad and extremely offensive to Albertan core values of equality, fairness, inclusiveness and respect. It has been over a decade since the Alberta government took the decision on discrimination based on sexual orientation to the Supreme Court of Canada - and lost. It was the nationally embarrassing Vriend case.

Bill 44 takes the bold step of making a virtue out of the necessity that requires Alberta to finally follow the law of the land and incorporate protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in our provincial human rights legislation. It is the right thing to do but it is not something to be proud about given it took us over 10 years to do the right thing. Does that long a delay in doing the right thing make you proud to be an Albertan?

Next thing we do is undermine our good intentions of being accepting, inclusive and respectful of different sexual orientations. We do this by passing another amendment in the very same Bill 44 saying that if there are educational materials and classroom discussions about sexual orientation, the public education system has to give notice to parents so they can exempt their child. Beyond being impossible to enforce it will allow reactionaries to victimize teachers and perhaps school trustees and administrators. Why on earth would we want such a law in our public education system in the first place? Does that possibility make you proud to be an Albertan?

The government's political talking points we are supposed to swallow is that section 11.1 says it only applies when subject matter is "explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation." Black's Law Dictionary defines explicit as "Not obscure or ambiguous, having no disguised meaning or reservation." The Oxford Canadian Dictionary defines explicit to include being "definite, clear, expressing views unreservedly; outspoken." So how do you define and determine explicit when as the amendment says in"...courses of study...include subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation"? Is the innuendo, metaphor and inference in Shakespeare's plays and sonnets, or in Pope's "The Rape of the Lock"explicit enough to offend the proposed law? I'm betting we are going to find out if this law is passed.

Will teachers feel a chill, avoid subject content and stifle classroom discussions that could provide teachable moments and serve to overcome ignorance and intolerance for fear of being a test case? You bet they will, and who can blame them. How does this deplorable proposal improve public education and better prepare our youth for the interdependent globalized complex world they are inheriting? Does that consequent decline in the quality of public education make you proud to be an Albertan?

Every incident that turns into a complaint to the Human Rights Commission will turn on its own facts on a case by case basis. The government may think their new law is very clear but facts will not be clear. They never are. Nor will the matter be settled easily. The evidence surrounding an alleged breach of the law will undoubtedly have to come from other students in the class who will most likely be the only other witnesses to the alleged breach. How inappropriate is that? Having children testify in a legal process against their teacher, now that has to make you proud to be an Albertan.

You can rest assured that an aggrieved and offended parent who takes offence at some alleged explicit and offensive event in a classroom, somewhere sometime soon in Alberta, can find the ways and means to file and push a human rights complaint against a teacher If they are pursuing a complaint as a matter of "principle" it will not likely settle in advance through mediation and it will then go to a Human Rights Tribunal. If the principled parent is unsatisfied at the Tribunal stage, they can go on to appeal the Tribunal decision to the Courts. Why can this happen, because that is the law already extant in Alberta. What Bill 44 is doing is providing this kind of legal process to parents who wish to pursue it for political purposes as much as anything else. That is a new power afforded to them by the proposed opting out amendment in Bill 44.

This amendment serves no necessary educational purpose nor does it enhance any enlightened greater public good. The School Act and current government policy already allows for notice and exemption from "religious instruction and patriotic instruction" and matters of teaching sexuality. It has worked well for over 20 years and does not need fixing. Does the fact that we are ignoring that success and allowing teachers and trustees to be victimized make you proud to be an Albertan?

What is our government thinking? They are not only allowing this to happen but actively promoting it politically! Is this willful blindness to the consequences of normalizing and institutionalizing ignorance that is inherent in the proposed law? How can such a maladaptive view of progress be promulgated by our government? How can Albertans accept it when it demonstrates such an obvious indifference to social justice and Charter Rights that are at the core of our citizenship?

Why do our legislators have such a naive and misplaced trust that there will be no consequences in passing such a law? Are they that gullible to think human rights legislation is merely "symbolic"? If they are right that it is only "symbolic," then why pass it as a law at all. Leave it the realm of personal conviction and preference. Leave it alone and stay with current government policy. Why create new legal remedies for those who may take offense and invoke these new legal remedies and rights for no other reason than to test their legal limits. This attitude has already been expressed by the Calgary-based Canada Family Action Coalition who are quoted to believe the new parental rights being granted in Bill 44 "can be more widely interpreted" and "...it's up to the parent to make (the legislation) as broad or as narrow and they want." Does that possibility of Bill 44 being a test case over legalizing institutionalized ignorance in our public education system make you proud to be an Albertan?

Institutionalizing such ignorance and intolerance in our public education system is reprehensible. Ignorance is the adversary here, not people of faith. I define ignorance as the absence of that which if learned that would be helpful to know. It is mostly by a default to ignorance that leads me to believe that certain of our democratically elected representatives in our government are obviously fearing change and diversity. They appear to be looking for a quick internal partisan and parochial political fix that is a solution looking for a problem by allowing these opting out provisions. In the process they are sacrificing teachers, school trustees, children and obviously scapegoating gays and lesbians. Are you still proud to be an Albertan?

I have to weep at the political posturing that is going on and trying to reassure us that all of this is merely "symbolic" and changes nothing. If that were true then why change it in the first place. Human Rights laws are not symbolic. They create, clarify and assert rights and protections as a matter of law. Passing a law that makes the Bull Trout the "Official Fish" of Alberta is symbolic. Bill 44 is amending the Alberta Human Rights Act. That is not even close to being classified as "symbolic." To hear that our Human Rights laws in Alberta are being reduced to mere symbolism must make you proud to be an Albertan.

Invoking such an intolerable and invidious amendment into Alberta's Human Rights Act exposes an underdeveloped understanding and appreciation for Albertan and Canadian values. Persisting in being tone deaf to the dissonance it is causing is pure authoritarianism. It is disrespectful of Albertans intelligence and also disrespects other social virtues like compassion, empathy, inclusion, diversity and justice. Considering how this is being handled politically, doesn't that make you proud to be an Albertan?

It was Edmund Burke who said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." And for my fellow like-minded Albertans, Burke also said, "Never despair; but if you do, work on in despair." I post this and past blogs about the shortcomings of Bill 44 in the spirit of Edmund Burke's advice.

I encourage you to resist and protest this proposed opting out provisions in the "new" Alberta Human Rights Act. This is the week to email and call your MLA and tell them to pull section 11.1 out of Bill 44. Your MLA is home in the constituency this week so take the time to find them and tell them to stop this unnecessary and destructive amendment. Restore your pride in being Albertan and stop this unnecessary and divisive opting out amendment from becoming law.

Brouhahas, Bungling, Banter and Buzz Befuddle the Alberta Government

There is a bunch of buzz out there about the Stelmach government, where they are going and how they are doing. I recently did a backgrounder interview with a daily newspaper reporter on the issue of how transparency has been changing - deteriorating - in the Stelmach government. I have also written a paper for a client on governance in Alberta that will be released in late May or early June.

There is a power shift happening in what forms public opinion these days. That power to form and inform public opinion is devolving to citizens who are actively engaging in conversations on matters of concern on the Internet, primarily through social media. This is generating buzz about the performance and positions being taken by the Stelmach government on a variety of issues and events. It is pretty obvious the traditionalists in government communications are unnerved by all this goings on becasue they have not come to accept that they can't control the message and provide the meaning behind the message anymore. The world has changed.

Now with the hasty departure of the Deputy Premier Ron Stevens, speculation and buzz will build. Part of the ongoing and online buzz is caused by past events like the Northumberland Beach brouhaha.

Here is a blog post by fusedlogic that gives some context and content as to why the online buzz about our government's performance and positioning is building. I will have more comments later but thought this link to blogger fusedlogic is worth a read.

Jeff Rubin's New Book Will be a Warning and a Wakeup Call for Albertans

Economics Jeff Rubins left the CIBC last March and has written a book to be released in a week or so. Entitled "Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller." It is as a consequence of peak oil that he says will drive prices up over $200 a barrel in 2012 and the "inevitable carbon tax" resulting in "very high transportation costs" which will "throw the machinery of globalization into reverse."

This is good and bad news for Alberta. We are using taxpayer dollars and foregone royalties to subsidize conventional oil and gas exploration in the face of mature basins which means diminishing supplies but at high development costs.

We will have renewed and accelerated pressures once again on oil sands development, upgrading, pipelines. Plus we will have more public infrastructure needs to meet the growth demands on us due to the energy shortfall from facts or fears of peak oil happening around the world.

Alberta needs to get real and responsible about planning and preparing for all of this now and not wait for the next boom to mess us up like the last two have done. Part of proper preparation is for our government to stop giving the resources away to energy companies by subsidies and ridiculously low royalty rates. Also start collecting and accounting for the cash Albertans are owed instead of letting the tenants defer and delay payment without penalty.

While we are at it, we better insist on constant updating of new technology for environmental reasons. Lets not grant any new leases to any companies who are laggards in reclamation of old sites, roads and seismic lines. If you have old ignored well sites, put your people to work to clean them up and reclaim them as is your legal responsibility and central to your social license duty. I am talking real reclamation back to forest with tree replanting for habitat restoration, not just a bit of grass seed scattered on the ground and forget it.

We have to break the back of the default mindset that says the energy industry in Alberta are the de facto governors who run the province and not our elected and somewhat insipid politicians. The energy industry has become Alberta's sacred economic cow. It can wander at will in the marketplace without concern or consideration for the damaged they do nor for the long term well being for rest of us.

In all fairness, some of the oil sands operators are getting it and show a growing concern for deserving their social license to operate. That is partly because they have large site specific capital investments so they have to be good neighbours, not just passing through the neighbourhood like the conventional exploration companies. Oil sands operators are miners, not drillers. They take a long term more integrated view of the impact and implications of what they do with land, water, air, habitat and local cultures. They are starting to behave more like a quality forestry companies. Foresters have a long term reclamation and restoration corporate culture. This partly because they are operating in a renewable resource sector but they have lots to teach the energy sector about good corporate social responsibility.

Albertans have to get serious, start acting like the resource owners and insist the energy industry be more responsible as our tenants who we grant access to exploit our assets for a fair mutual benefit.

If Jeff Rubins is right about the economic and social impacts coming due to peak oil, Alberta is going to be saddled once again with a blessing and a burden of a boom. If we Albertans, as owners, truly want ecological integrity and sustainability in the development of our fossil fuel natural resources we have to get overt and active now. We have to show, in no uncertain terms, both the energy industry and our politicians, that lax enforcement of environmental laws and a lazy tax collection culture plus the past predatory operational practices in the energy sector are no longer going to be tolerated. It is time for Alberta to develop its fossil fuel resources the right way, not just rapidly.

ATA Brief on Bill #44 Exposes its Flaws

Here is the Alberta Teachers Association brief on Bill 44. It clarifies and outlines the practical problems for teachers from the offensive section 11.1. Thoise are the expanded and extended parental opting out provisions centred around religion, sexuality and sexual orientation being brought up in an Alberta classroom.

It is a well thought out brief and I agree with every thing in it. Full disclosure, I have done work for the ATA but I am not advising them on Bill 44.

I have read Hansard on the second reading debates on Bill 44. I am impressed by the grasp Liberals Harry Chase and Kent Hehr have on the issues and the implications. Education Minister Dave Hancock is clear in his analysis but I remain unconvinced that this legislation is necessary nor well advised for any reason whatsoever. I expect Hancock would rather see the deletion of section 11.1 but he is stuck defending it as a Cabinet Minister. I encourage you to read Minister Hancock's blog posts on Bill 44 as well.

Exposing teachers and quite possibly school trustees to expensive and intimidating potential legal processing before a Human Rights Tribunal by zealots and reactionaries is not dispelled by Ministers Hancock and Blackett expressing their personal beliefs that such situations would be unlikely to happen. The way Bill 44 reads now, there is an entitlement for a parent to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission and seek redress before a Tribunal. Once a legal process starts, no one can predict what will happen, other than to say it will proceed and take its course. Precious little solice for the teaching profession and the poor teachers who will have to defend themselves in such circumstances.

Current policy has worked well for years and there is no sound public policy reason to change things. That makes one wonder why this provision is appearing in a government Bill other than bad politics is trumping good government. The additional opting out provisions provided in Bill 44 are not the same as in the School Act, regardless of how the Stelmach government tries to flog that mischaracterization. As for being symbolic, these changes are sure symbolic, but not of a satisfactory status quo and definitely not of the progressive plural and inclusive society that most Albertans aspire to.

As for Minister Blackett saying in recent media reports that it is too late to change the Bill. Horsefeathers. It is far from too late. I worked on an exemption for the nonprofit voluntary sector from the provisions of the Lobbyist Act last session. That exemption came out of the Bill by way a government member proposing the exemption by an amendment at third and final reading of the Bill. The amended Bill passed and the nonproft voluntary sector is exempt from the Lobbyist Act.

BTW, the government member who introduced the successful voluntary sector exemption amendment was the current Minister of Education, the Honourable Dave Hancock. It is not too late to withdraw the offensive section 11.1 of Bill 44 and failing that, it is obvious not to late to amend it either.

None of this will happen unless Albertans tell Premier Stelmach and all their local MLAs that they want Bill 44 changed so teachers can do their jobs appropriately and without fear. The Legislature is not sitting this week so your MLA is in the constituency. Drop by or drop them a note or an email and let them know you are unhappy with Bill 44 as it stands.

Deputy Premier Stevens Throws in the Towel

The Hon Ron Stevens, Deputy Premier of Alberta call it quits - IMMEDIATELY! There was lots of speculation that Ron would retire from politics and head to the Bench sometime this year but not right now, before the Spring Session is over. There is so much going on and so much to do it is strange that he seems to be bolting out of the building. The timing and decisiveness of the decision to leave so abruptly is a big surprise.

There is going to have to be a by-election in Calgary pretty soon, I expect in the fall of 2009. It will be seen as a test of confidence in the Stelmach government by the Calgary elites. It will be interesting to see what happens but mid term by-elections are hardly ever good news for governments, especially those in a recession.


The Stelmach government has relationship problems in the energy tycoons in the Calgary Towers but I am not so sure that is also true of the guy on the street in Calgary. As Deputy Premier Ron Stevens would be the point guy on the ground to bridge any information and perception gaps and quell any angst in the Towers.


There is plenty of Tower Angst and the denizens of the Towers are equating the Jan 1/09 royalty regime as equivalent to the NEP. That is hyperbole and hypocrisy but the stuff that Stevens would have to deal with. Here is a link to a piece my business partner Satya Das did in rebuttal to a Calgary Herald columnist on the Tower Angst.
http://www.cambridgestrategies.com/news-room/doc_download/74-new-era-for-the-oilpatch


Will Premier Stelmach appoint another Deputy Premier out of Calgary, if so who. The Calgary crew in the Stelmach Cabinet is short on experience, with Ron Liepert now looking like the senior Calgary guy. My guess is the Premier will not appoint a Deputy Premier, from Calgary or elsewhere.


The more interesting political concern is with Steven's immediate departure Stelmach can do a Cabinet shuffle without looking like he is intentionally throwing anybody under the bus...something he will likely do anyway.


Stelmach needs to make changes and regroup. The government is strategically incoherent and becoming top down, centralized, thin skinned and insular. This is happening just at a time when they ought to be bold, looking outward, forward and listening to citizens.

Ken Chapman, Ruth Kelly & Cory Janssen at InterVivos Event

I am looking forward to meeting and mentoring with the InterVivos crowd June 8 at their "Business Plan Your Lunch" event in Edmonton. Joining me in this event is Ruth Kelly, the President and CEO of Venture Publishing and Cory Janssen, the co-founder of www.investopedia.com.

Check it out and come out and join us. It will be fun and practical too.

Stelmach Hands out the Pork - to Brian Mason

This is the kind of "stimulating" post partisanship we need in a modern democracy. Here is Premier Stelmach on the Legislature Grounds today "dishing out the pork" for a goods cause and to none other than the Leader of the NDP, Mr. Brian Mason. Eat pork Alberta...just like Ed and Brian.

CBC Radio Show Now on Bill 44 on You Tube

Yesterday I was on CBC Radio Wildrose programme about Bill 44. We were talking about the new Human Rights Act for Alberta. It was a great conversation with Albertans especially on the issues of expanded and extended parental rights to exempt children from classroom discussion about religion, sexuality and sexual orientation. I was amazed and reassured by the level of awareness and breadth of concern express of the callers to the show.


If you missed it we put the program up on the Cambridge Strategies Channel on You Tube. It is in three parts and feel free to comment on this blog on the You Tube Channel.

If you have more time, check out the Dr. Bill Gunter interview on carbon too. He is an expert from the Alberta Research Council.

Top Ten Countries for Internet Speed.

Here are the Top Ten countries for Internet speed:

1. South Korea; 2. Japan; 3. Hong Kong; 4. Romania 5. Sweden 6. Switzerland 7. Holland 8. Belgium 9. Slovakia 10. Norway.

Why isn't Canada on this list? Why isn't Canada even more wired into small towns and rural areas?

What is more, where is Alberta on this Top Ten list of Internet Speed? We have the SuperNet but is has not lived up to its potential for speed or distribution to Albertans.

It is time to get serious about realizing the potential of the Alberta SuperNet. It is a 21st century infrastructure but stuck in a mid-20th century political mindset. We need SuperNet access for every Albertan and the "last mile" to rural communities must be solved too. We can do all this without anymore delay or capital costs.

The key to making that happen is the good old fashioned telephone lines that exist all over Alberta now. What that takes is Telus seeing the business case to provide this infrastructure. Telus has not been inclined to provide access to their copper wire so now the matter is before the CRTC and a decision is expected soon.

If the CRTC directs Telus to provide Albertans access to the copper wire phone lines then Alberta citizens, organizations and businesses can get fibre-quality connectivity to the SuperNet. That is a game changer and can put Alberta on the Top Ten list of high speed Internet access.

Stay tuned to this blog for more developments.

GOA Goes After Big Tobacco to Recover Health Care Costs.

The Alberta government through the Minister of Health and Wellness just introduced Bill 48 today, Crown’s Right of Recovery Act. It is a great move and aimed at enabling the province to recover health costs incurred in a number of situations. They include car accidents but the law will use a wrongdoer’s insurance to recover health costs. That could get complicated in how to calculate the health costs associated.

The essence of the Bill is in section 2(1) that says in effect if someone receives health services for personal injuries due to wrongful acts or omission of a wrongdoer, the province then has the right to recover the health care costs, both current and future costs, from the wrongdoer. If someone, who is a victim receiving care due and contributory negligent, the wrongdoer is off the hook for that portion of the health care costs the victim is responsible for.

Bill 48 deals with convicted criminals who are hurt in committing a crime. They will be paying their health care costs. And it also goes after the tobacco industry to recover the health costs associated with the damage done by their products. The tobacco sections are very complex and I will need more time to study and digest what they mean and if second hand smoke is involved too. Overall - Wow! As a citizen and taxpayer, on first blush, I'm loving this Bill.

The province makes a direct claim for recovery of health care costs against tobacco companies so the patient is not involved in any messy litigation. The province looks like it is actually pursuing the tobacco companies on an aggregated basis to recover all health costs caused by and associated with tobacco produces. With tobacco, it looks like it is not dealt with on case by case approach but in the aggregate. That is smart.

Lots of detail to consider here but this is a great step in the right direction. It was impossible to get the Klein government to accept a ban on smoking in public and work places. There were numerous tries and all were rebuffed by Ralph Klein. That smoking ban was finally accomplished by Dave Hancock when he was Minister of Health and Wellness in the first Stelmach government.

His good work is being carried on by the current Minister, Ron Liepert. Full disclosure, I worked with a consortium of health professionals and advocacy groups to get the smoking ban in Alberta last year. There are lots on blog post in the archives if you want to know more about that initiative.

Bill 44 sucks but Bill 48 makes great sense.