My blog post on the recent Alberta Court of Appeal contempt of court decision against the former Children and Youth Services Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement has been drawing lots of attention. Feedback has come for inside at the GOA political level and senior administrative levels. The Deputy Minister even commented on the blog post and I know that the Minister has read the post as well.
I have also been getting some very helpful information sent my way from anonymous sources on events and issues that relate to the problems in the department and public documents that add more context to the issues. This information is coming to be from both inside and outside government. I have also been challenged by many folks and friends to go further and look deeper into the matter by reading all the court filings. They have suggest I do more blogging on the background of this case so people can get a better handle on the issues and incidences and help better understand how the children at risk system works and how well it works in Alberta.
I know that last week the various legal counsel involved had to submit written argument as to what penalty they would advice the court should be imposed on the former Director. I was intending to at least read those when they were made public and to post about them. As well I will be posting on the final penalty pronouncement by the Court of Appeal on the contempt of court.
That is all from the Court of Appeal level only. To go all the way back into this case involves a great deal of time but it would likely shed more light on how the system attended to and how well it served the best interests of this child. That is what is really at the heart of the matter after all.
There is the prior Appeal Panel decision, various reports, affidavits and the Queens Bench decision to deal with too. Lots of material will be available to review and relate to I am sure. This is matter has been the subject of a very extensive process with lots of twists and turns. Contempt of court is a very serious matter but it is actually a sidebar to the real issues. Has the government processes and the courts done its job in serving the best interests of the child? I am no expert and not in a position to pass judgment on all of this. However, just like any other citizen I am entitled to know the facts and to draw my own conclusions about the answers to these questions.
So here is my question to you gentle reader. Do you, as a reader of this blog, want to know more about the facts and findings behind this child custody and contempt of court matter? If so why is it important to you to know more? If you tell me by email to ken@cambridgestrategies.com or by comments on this blog to go further and deeper on this matter I will. If there is no interest then I will just wait for the court to decide on the contempt penalty before I say more.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Why Tiny Perfect Blog was Anonymous is as Important as Who Tiny Perfect Blog Was.
What are we to take from the hasty retreat of Tiny Perfect Blog from cyberspace? Graham Thomson's column today adds some valuable perspective. Lots of people have been nosing around trying to uncover the true identity of TPB. It all seems like some kind of cyber scavenger hunt in search of a virtual prize of discovery and disclosure.
There is a growing "consensus" as to who it is but that is mostly driven by speculation and without any substantial evidence. That speculation will likely coalesce into urban myth and become reality in the mind space many who care about such things - regardless of the absence of substantiating facts. The lawyer in me simply wants the facts to be determined before the conclusion is reached. But in the court of public opinion that is not always the way things are decided.
The larger context around why TPB went into a self-induced virtual witness protection program is worth a few reflections. The rise and rapid growth of social media and the power shift of influence going from institutions to individuals is a significant social, political and emerging economic change. That is the larger backdrop to the legend of TPB. TPB had an audience and some influence so who was actually behind the blog has/had relevance.
Social media sites like Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Youtube are influential creating phenomena, each in their own right. I want to focus this post on the social media influence of blogging because TPB was, after all, a blogger. Blogging exploded a few years ago with millions of new blogs coming out of nowhere and showing up everywhere. Blogging was one of the earlier indications of this shift of influence from institutions to individuals who could now actually impact public agendas and how power was being exercised, especially political power. Remember the Drudge Report and Monica Lewinsky?
The blogosphere was and still is the "wild west" in many ways. It has settled back and now there are many abandoned and vacant blogs as the fad phase has worn off. Many early blogger left the scene as they came to the realization that it is hard work, demanded time and took discipline. Those political bloggers who have persisted, and now still prevail, have found and created significant audiences that are growing and becoming more engaged. Traditional media now references and relies on us almost as much as we reference and rely on them.
Both traditional and new mediums are adapting to grapple with this shift to horizontal interactive networked connectivity. The old media model of vertical integration, one-way communications, gatekeeper control of the political information and the public agenda is proving obsolete and uneconomical. Newspapers are having the toughest time adapting. Conventional television is also struggling. Private radio vacated much of the news gathering mode years ago when it turned to "talk" formats that are usually more voluminous than luminous in their content and news approach.
Political blogs are changing dramatically too. I really only know about Alberta so I will concentrate my comments in that context but I expect some observations can be generalized. There are fewer and fewer active political bloggers in Alberta these days. A scan of the Alberta Blog Roll sidebar of this blog will underscore that fact. Alberta political blogging is now "maturing" in marketing terms but I am not so sure that is as true in content and context terms. That lack of content and context maturity for blogs brings us back to consider Tiny Perfect Blog and the circumstances and apparent reasoning for the abrupt removal of the blog site.
I will not cover the same ground Graham Thomson did today and I will try to focus on the implications for blogging as a legitimate activity in support of a vibrant effective democracy. Mostly I think the TPB demise underscores the need for more citizens to learn some media literacy, especially in the social media realm, and with political blogs in particular.
Polls tell us traditional media has forfeited much of its presumption of authenticity and authority as a reliable new source. Many think political blogs never had any such presumptions about its reliability and authoritativeness. I think that was true back in the day, but it less true today. I see surviving political bloggers becoming more prolific, noticed, read and trusted as they move towards a more fact based approach in their posts. I say this not so much as a comment about a leveling of the playing field to the mutual discredit of traditional and social media. It is more of a comment to show the need for readers and viewers to be skeptical and cautious about what they choose to believe and what they rely on from all media sources, traditional or social.
When it comes to social media sources, and bloggers especially, if they are anonymous you have to wonder if they can be trusted and relied upon. A blog has to have a voice, a perspective and a lens to make it worth reading, becoming engaged with and even commenting on. Bloggers are more about providing commentary and observation than publishing hard news. There are exceptions when every now and then a blogger will "break" a news story. But for most of us that is not our goal. We do not want to be reporters. We are more akin to columnists and editorialists.
So if you don't know the identity of the person behind the voice, their perspective and their personal lens on the world, why would you believe anything they are saying? Given the content and context of the TPB posts and how they quickly slithered away once someone threatened to lift up the rock they were under, you tend want to question to motives of the person who wrote the blog. A cone of silence is around TPB so my guess is we will never know. For the record I don't know who TPB is/was and I would only care if that blogger's anonymity was used as a sword and not a shield. There are many unanswered questions about that concern for sure.
I know the true identity of a number of anonymous or nom de plume Alberta based political bloggers. I have lifted an enjoyable pint with many of them on many occasions. They have identified themselves to me in confidence and I will respect the confidence because I know that they may very well need the shield of anonymity to protect them.
As Daveberta is quoted in Graham's column, this is not China or Iran. BTW if you are Albertan
and don't know who Daveberta is you also must be living under a rock. However there are many powerful forces who find themselves in the blogs. Many are thin skinned, some tend to be bullying and some can even be very vindictive. Just look at the recent declaration of the new health super board that aspires to severely limit the free speech of those citizens working in the Alberta health care sector. You can see why some people in Alberta feel the need to have a shield in order to exercise their free speech rights. Sad but true.
In contrast, after many journalists and apparently some unionists, were trying to determine the true identity of TPB, we have to note that no one has yet been successful. According to Graham Thomson, the only one, so far, who acknowledges that they know the true identity of TPB is Edmonton NDP MLA, Rachel Notley. She is on the record as not "outing" TPB for much the same reasons I would not "out" those anonymous bloggers I know - a prior personal commitment to confidentiality. Am I to presume therefore that TPB was in some kind of position that justified the protection of anonymity? But since nothing is being said to indicate or confirm that need for a shield, one legitimately wonders if other factors are at play, especially given how adept TPB was at brandishing a political sword.
So while TPB is gone, we should not forget the lessons we can learn from his/her disappearance and given the circumstance that surround it. So bottom line, don't trust any media source at face value. In particular one should have a very skeptical eye and ear when the source is anonymous. We will not ever see the end of anonymous sources for traditional media or new media. That said, I personally think their credibility should not be taken seriously - not even with a grain of salt. I urge citizens to learn about media literacy and to keep learning, because one thing for sure, the media like the times, they are a'changing.
So, so long TPB, who ever you are/were or aspired to be. You will not be missed and should not be missed. Your 15 minutes of fame are over. Next!
There is a growing "consensus" as to who it is but that is mostly driven by speculation and without any substantial evidence. That speculation will likely coalesce into urban myth and become reality in the mind space many who care about such things - regardless of the absence of substantiating facts. The lawyer in me simply wants the facts to be determined before the conclusion is reached. But in the court of public opinion that is not always the way things are decided.
The larger context around why TPB went into a self-induced virtual witness protection program is worth a few reflections. The rise and rapid growth of social media and the power shift of influence going from institutions to individuals is a significant social, political and emerging economic change. That is the larger backdrop to the legend of TPB. TPB had an audience and some influence so who was actually behind the blog has/had relevance.
Social media sites like Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Youtube are influential creating phenomena, each in their own right. I want to focus this post on the social media influence of blogging because TPB was, after all, a blogger. Blogging exploded a few years ago with millions of new blogs coming out of nowhere and showing up everywhere. Blogging was one of the earlier indications of this shift of influence from institutions to individuals who could now actually impact public agendas and how power was being exercised, especially political power. Remember the Drudge Report and Monica Lewinsky?
The blogosphere was and still is the "wild west" in many ways. It has settled back and now there are many abandoned and vacant blogs as the fad phase has worn off. Many early blogger left the scene as they came to the realization that it is hard work, demanded time and took discipline. Those political bloggers who have persisted, and now still prevail, have found and created significant audiences that are growing and becoming more engaged. Traditional media now references and relies on us almost as much as we reference and rely on them.
Both traditional and new mediums are adapting to grapple with this shift to horizontal interactive networked connectivity. The old media model of vertical integration, one-way communications, gatekeeper control of the political information and the public agenda is proving obsolete and uneconomical. Newspapers are having the toughest time adapting. Conventional television is also struggling. Private radio vacated much of the news gathering mode years ago when it turned to "talk" formats that are usually more voluminous than luminous in their content and news approach.
Political blogs are changing dramatically too. I really only know about Alberta so I will concentrate my comments in that context but I expect some observations can be generalized. There are fewer and fewer active political bloggers in Alberta these days. A scan of the Alberta Blog Roll sidebar of this blog will underscore that fact. Alberta political blogging is now "maturing" in marketing terms but I am not so sure that is as true in content and context terms. That lack of content and context maturity for blogs brings us back to consider Tiny Perfect Blog and the circumstances and apparent reasoning for the abrupt removal of the blog site.
I will not cover the same ground Graham Thomson did today and I will try to focus on the implications for blogging as a legitimate activity in support of a vibrant effective democracy. Mostly I think the TPB demise underscores the need for more citizens to learn some media literacy, especially in the social media realm, and with political blogs in particular.
Polls tell us traditional media has forfeited much of its presumption of authenticity and authority as a reliable new source. Many think political blogs never had any such presumptions about its reliability and authoritativeness. I think that was true back in the day, but it less true today. I see surviving political bloggers becoming more prolific, noticed, read and trusted as they move towards a more fact based approach in their posts. I say this not so much as a comment about a leveling of the playing field to the mutual discredit of traditional and social media. It is more of a comment to show the need for readers and viewers to be skeptical and cautious about what they choose to believe and what they rely on from all media sources, traditional or social.
When it comes to social media sources, and bloggers especially, if they are anonymous you have to wonder if they can be trusted and relied upon. A blog has to have a voice, a perspective and a lens to make it worth reading, becoming engaged with and even commenting on. Bloggers are more about providing commentary and observation than publishing hard news. There are exceptions when every now and then a blogger will "break" a news story. But for most of us that is not our goal. We do not want to be reporters. We are more akin to columnists and editorialists.
So if you don't know the identity of the person behind the voice, their perspective and their personal lens on the world, why would you believe anything they are saying? Given the content and context of the TPB posts and how they quickly slithered away once someone threatened to lift up the rock they were under, you tend want to question to motives of the person who wrote the blog. A cone of silence is around TPB so my guess is we will never know. For the record I don't know who TPB is/was and I would only care if that blogger's anonymity was used as a sword and not a shield. There are many unanswered questions about that concern for sure.
I know the true identity of a number of anonymous or nom de plume Alberta based political bloggers. I have lifted an enjoyable pint with many of them on many occasions. They have identified themselves to me in confidence and I will respect the confidence because I know that they may very well need the shield of anonymity to protect them.
As Daveberta is quoted in Graham's column, this is not China or Iran. BTW if you are Albertan
and don't know who Daveberta is you also must be living under a rock. However there are many powerful forces who find themselves in the blogs. Many are thin skinned, some tend to be bullying and some can even be very vindictive. Just look at the recent declaration of the new health super board that aspires to severely limit the free speech of those citizens working in the Alberta health care sector. You can see why some people in Alberta feel the need to have a shield in order to exercise their free speech rights. Sad but true.
In contrast, after many journalists and apparently some unionists, were trying to determine the true identity of TPB, we have to note that no one has yet been successful. According to Graham Thomson, the only one, so far, who acknowledges that they know the true identity of TPB is Edmonton NDP MLA, Rachel Notley. She is on the record as not "outing" TPB for much the same reasons I would not "out" those anonymous bloggers I know - a prior personal commitment to confidentiality. Am I to presume therefore that TPB was in some kind of position that justified the protection of anonymity? But since nothing is being said to indicate or confirm that need for a shield, one legitimately wonders if other factors are at play, especially given how adept TPB was at brandishing a political sword.
So while TPB is gone, we should not forget the lessons we can learn from his/her disappearance and given the circumstance that surround it. So bottom line, don't trust any media source at face value. In particular one should have a very skeptical eye and ear when the source is anonymous. We will not ever see the end of anonymous sources for traditional media or new media. That said, I personally think their credibility should not be taken seriously - not even with a grain of salt. I urge citizens to learn about media literacy and to keep learning, because one thing for sure, the media like the times, they are a'changing.
So, so long TPB, who ever you are/were or aspired to be. You will not be missed and should not be missed. Your 15 minutes of fame are over. Next!
Friday, August 07, 2009
Folk Festival Funding Fiasco is About Politics - Pure & Simple
The ham-handed handling of the Conservative stimulus oriented "Marquee Tourism Event" funding so far is political farce in three acts.
Some context on the first act. The Harper Cons contempt for culture cost them a majority government last election. That was when Quebec voters saw through them and backed off in support and have stayed away from the CPC's ever since. This insight in Quebec happened after first being bamboozled by the Rovarian message machine that promised them recognition of "nation" and the feigning fixing of the non-existent "fiscal imbalance." This opportunistic political pandering for personal political power is at the epicentre of the cold cynical heart that is the essence of the soulless Harper Cons.
Now we have act two and another culture based political farce in Edmonton that goes to the core motivations of that cold anti-culture heart of the Harper Cons and puts in a pinch of pure petty politics for flavour. I talked about the Conservatives taking Edmonton for granted in an interview for CBC's The National just before the last election. To paraphrase I said in politics you can ignore two kinds of voters; those who will never vote for you and those who will always vote for you. Edmonton falls mostly in the latter group. Hence the Edmonton Folk Festival, the largest in Canada and recognized as one of the best of its kind in the world and around for 30 years gets no federal funding under a "Marquee Tourism Event????"
Square this circle when news reports of the stated "funding criteria" from an Industry Canada spokesman who said "MTEP (the Marquee Tourism Event Program) is designed to help existing tourism events that occur annually, are well established, have a tradition of programming and management excellence, and generate significant increases in their levels of tourism activity." The Edmonton Folk Festival somehow does not fit this description? It defines this description!
So guess what you don't have to be rational or fair or even equitable in how you select marquee events for funding. Favouritism, ideology and calculated political positioning in anticipation of a fall election seem to play a major part in how these funding decisions are being made. Here are some facts for you to chew on that supports these conclusions. Edmonton got $800,000, half for the Fringe, the first of its kind in Canada and running successfully since 1980 and half for the 3 year old Rexall Indy car race. Calgary, the Prime Minister's home town and "rich with Conservative Cabinet Ministers, got $2.2 million. Lets talk about a shot at redemption for a minute. Ottawa gets over $2million for three festivals and Vancouver a similar amount for two events.
Only $33.4 million has been distributed across Canada so far, and mostly at the last minute, and why not distribute all of it if it to be part of the economic stimulus funding in response to the recession. Quebec scored an amazing $13.1m of the total loot - so far! Steve, Steve , Steve! You already now you can't buy love in Quebec. And now you better understand you can't presume Edmonton and Alberta will give you unconditional love anymore either.
Another thing Steve, wasn't it that same kind of political pandering to Quebec that angered you as the slogan the "West Wants In" actually helped start the Reform Party in the first place? Where are you're political principles and what does all this tell us about your character, other than the pursuit of political power as the name of your game?
The final act is where flummox and unfairness turns into political farce. The farcical internal caucus consternation that led to the dumping of Diane Ablonczy from running this funding program was the early warning sign of what is pure political interference in the program. She was dumped because she put money into Toronto Gay Pride events and had the temerity to pose for a picture with some of "them." Now we have the hapless MP for Edmonton Centre, Laurie Hawn, is turning out to be the goat in the practical politics of this pathetic little panto. He is hopelessly trying to convince Edmontonians that there is no political interference in all of this.
He obviously had to speak out on this funding farce before he got the official talking points from the Prime Minister's Office. That is definitely a career limiting event in the top down command and control culture of the Harper Cons. Here is the gist of what Hawn has said so far.
There is no Edmonton versus Calgary issue here. Yeah Right! Explain why the Calgary Folk Festive get 30% more funding Heritage than Edmonton's when it is half the size? He flat out states "I've purposefully kept out of the process, so there would be no political interference." What the hell do you think your job is Mr.Hawn as a political representative of Edmonton in the federal government? Why are you at the "government's big kids Cabinet table" if not to represent Edmonton's interest in such matters?
How did the 3 year old Rexall Indy get the nod over the Folk Festival? I hear Hawn had a significant hand in that political decision. Oh yes, the Indy race, has budget management problems and is only THREE years old BUT it is in your constituency. Of yes, the Folk Festival is also in the Edmonton Strathcona constituency. That is the political home of Linda Duncan, that NDP blight on the Harper Con field of broken dreams. She alone frustrated the presumption of totally Conservative control and domination of Alberta. And besides Linda's riding is also home of the Fringe, who got some funding. She should be happy enough to keep quiet about any implication of political machinations that did or didn't go on in final funding decisions. Yeah, right again!
The coup d'grace of Hawn's political pugnaciousness is when he tries to characterize this ineptness or indifference as a way to ensure "no political interference" in the funding process to make sure this program did not become another Adscam. He just had to draw out that old Harper shibboleth and continue to mislead Albertans and Canada about the Adscam facts. After months of public inquiry and investigation Mr. Justice Gomrey found no evidence of any political interference by any politician at any level in the all of the Adscam frauds. Those frauds happened but were perpetrated by bureaucrats, party officials and private sector businessmen. No politicians were harmed or were harming the interests of Canada or their constituency in Adscam so quit misrepresenting the facts for partisan political purposes Mr Hawn.
There is a fundamental lack of fairness in all of this and it simply does not pass the political sniff test. Edmonton is being sent a political message by the Harper Cons. We are being put in our place for frustrating the natural order of things because some voters in Edmonton thwarted Harper's pursuit or personal and absolute political power, a total sweep of Alberta.
Harper's political brain trust presumes the Edmonton folkies won't vote for him anyway and, after this he has ensured that result. Those who other Edmontonians who are equivocating about him, his governing performance and suitability for holding the highest office in the land are being sold in no uncertain terms that they had better hop off that fence right now. The message is clear. If Harper wins the next election Edmonton would be well advised to step in line with him, we have just had a small taste of what could happen.
Harper is a bully and we have just seen another example of it. So much for democracy and freedom if Edmonton complies and conforms to support that kind of "leadership" next election.
Some context on the first act. The Harper Cons contempt for culture cost them a majority government last election. That was when Quebec voters saw through them and backed off in support and have stayed away from the CPC's ever since. This insight in Quebec happened after first being bamboozled by the Rovarian message machine that promised them recognition of "nation" and the feigning fixing of the non-existent "fiscal imbalance." This opportunistic political pandering for personal political power is at the epicentre of the cold cynical heart that is the essence of the soulless Harper Cons.
Now we have act two and another culture based political farce in Edmonton that goes to the core motivations of that cold anti-culture heart of the Harper Cons and puts in a pinch of pure petty politics for flavour. I talked about the Conservatives taking Edmonton for granted in an interview for CBC's The National just before the last election. To paraphrase I said in politics you can ignore two kinds of voters; those who will never vote for you and those who will always vote for you. Edmonton falls mostly in the latter group. Hence the Edmonton Folk Festival, the largest in Canada and recognized as one of the best of its kind in the world and around for 30 years gets no federal funding under a "Marquee Tourism Event????"
Square this circle when news reports of the stated "funding criteria" from an Industry Canada spokesman who said "MTEP (the Marquee Tourism Event Program) is designed to help existing tourism events that occur annually, are well established, have a tradition of programming and management excellence, and generate significant increases in their levels of tourism activity." The Edmonton Folk Festival somehow does not fit this description? It defines this description!
So guess what you don't have to be rational or fair or even equitable in how you select marquee events for funding. Favouritism, ideology and calculated political positioning in anticipation of a fall election seem to play a major part in how these funding decisions are being made. Here are some facts for you to chew on that supports these conclusions. Edmonton got $800,000, half for the Fringe, the first of its kind in Canada and running successfully since 1980 and half for the 3 year old Rexall Indy car race. Calgary, the Prime Minister's home town and "rich with Conservative Cabinet Ministers, got $2.2 million. Lets talk about a shot at redemption for a minute. Ottawa gets over $2million for three festivals and Vancouver a similar amount for two events.
Only $33.4 million has been distributed across Canada so far, and mostly at the last minute, and why not distribute all of it if it to be part of the economic stimulus funding in response to the recession. Quebec scored an amazing $13.1m of the total loot - so far! Steve, Steve , Steve! You already now you can't buy love in Quebec. And now you better understand you can't presume Edmonton and Alberta will give you unconditional love anymore either.
Another thing Steve, wasn't it that same kind of political pandering to Quebec that angered you as the slogan the "West Wants In" actually helped start the Reform Party in the first place? Where are you're political principles and what does all this tell us about your character, other than the pursuit of political power as the name of your game?
The final act is where flummox and unfairness turns into political farce. The farcical internal caucus consternation that led to the dumping of Diane Ablonczy from running this funding program was the early warning sign of what is pure political interference in the program. She was dumped because she put money into Toronto Gay Pride events and had the temerity to pose for a picture with some of "them." Now we have the hapless MP for Edmonton Centre, Laurie Hawn, is turning out to be the goat in the practical politics of this pathetic little panto. He is hopelessly trying to convince Edmontonians that there is no political interference in all of this.
He obviously had to speak out on this funding farce before he got the official talking points from the Prime Minister's Office. That is definitely a career limiting event in the top down command and control culture of the Harper Cons. Here is the gist of what Hawn has said so far.
There is no Edmonton versus Calgary issue here. Yeah Right! Explain why the Calgary Folk Festive get 30% more funding Heritage than Edmonton's when it is half the size? He flat out states "I've purposefully kept out of the process, so there would be no political interference." What the hell do you think your job is Mr.Hawn as a political representative of Edmonton in the federal government? Why are you at the "government's big kids Cabinet table" if not to represent Edmonton's interest in such matters?
How did the 3 year old Rexall Indy get the nod over the Folk Festival? I hear Hawn had a significant hand in that political decision. Oh yes, the Indy race, has budget management problems and is only THREE years old BUT it is in your constituency. Of yes, the Folk Festival is also in the Edmonton Strathcona constituency. That is the political home of Linda Duncan, that NDP blight on the Harper Con field of broken dreams. She alone frustrated the presumption of totally Conservative control and domination of Alberta. And besides Linda's riding is also home of the Fringe, who got some funding. She should be happy enough to keep quiet about any implication of political machinations that did or didn't go on in final funding decisions. Yeah, right again!
The coup d'grace of Hawn's political pugnaciousness is when he tries to characterize this ineptness or indifference as a way to ensure "no political interference" in the funding process to make sure this program did not become another Adscam. He just had to draw out that old Harper shibboleth and continue to mislead Albertans and Canada about the Adscam facts. After months of public inquiry and investigation Mr. Justice Gomrey found no evidence of any political interference by any politician at any level in the all of the Adscam frauds. Those frauds happened but were perpetrated by bureaucrats, party officials and private sector businessmen. No politicians were harmed or were harming the interests of Canada or their constituency in Adscam so quit misrepresenting the facts for partisan political purposes Mr Hawn.
There is a fundamental lack of fairness in all of this and it simply does not pass the political sniff test. Edmonton is being sent a political message by the Harper Cons. We are being put in our place for frustrating the natural order of things because some voters in Edmonton thwarted Harper's pursuit or personal and absolute political power, a total sweep of Alberta.
Harper's political brain trust presumes the Edmonton folkies won't vote for him anyway and, after this he has ensured that result. Those who other Edmontonians who are equivocating about him, his governing performance and suitability for holding the highest office in the land are being sold in no uncertain terms that they had better hop off that fence right now. The message is clear. If Harper wins the next election Edmonton would be well advised to step in line with him, we have just had a small taste of what could happen.
Harper is a bully and we have just seen another example of it. So much for democracy and freedom if Edmonton complies and conforms to support that kind of "leadership" next election.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Alberta Government Official Found in Contempt of Court
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently made a very interesting decision that has profound implications for the quality of governance and accountability of public servants in Alberta.
The court found the Alberta government Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement in the Department of Children and Youth Services in civil contempt of court. The Director was found to have not ensured the timely execution of a previous Court Order directing a child, for whom he was also the guardian, be returned to a foster mother.
The decision on the penalty was reserved but the lawyer’s submissions on what would constitute an appropriate penalty for this contempt of court are due today August 4, 2009. A decision as to consequences for the contempt of court should be rendered by Mr. Justice Cote soon. I will do a follow up post on the legal counsel submissions on the penalty later as well as a commentary on the actual penalty imposed by the Court of Appeal in a subsequent post. It is an open question if the Director will face jail time or not.
This is a lengthy and weighty post so make sure you have some time to read it all. The events and implications are very important.
The Background:
In preparation of this commentary I have read the June 23, 2009 Reasons of Mr. Justice Cote in finding Mr. Richard Ouellet, the Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement, in civil contempt of court. I also read the July 14, 2009 Reasons for Decision of Cote in rejecting Mr. Ouellet’s Application to Vacate/Vary the Civil Contempt finding against him. I have not read the various affidavits filed in the original or any subsequent court proceedings dealing with the same child. I think there is enough background in these documents to comment on the political and governance implications of this decision. I will not deal with the law or legal reasoning behind Cote’s Reasons for Decision either. The legal reasons are interesting, but they are more like deep background to my purpose, namely the public policy, accountability, transparency and governance implications of this decision.
A brief history of the facts are needed to give you some context behind the decision and for a better understand the public policy, governance and potential political implications of finding a senior civil servant in contempt of court. The child, known as B.M., was removed from a foster home by the Director. His decision was appealed to an Appeal Panel who, according to Cote, apparently gave “fairly extensive written reasons” as to why the child should not have been removed from the foster home. The Director appealed the Appeal Panel decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench. He got a stay of execution of the Appeal Panel decision to return the child and also won a court decision reversing the Appeal Panel. The foster parent then appealed to the Court of Appeal and it was argued in September 2008. On January 30, 2009 the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the original Appeal Panel decision. The time for any further appeal to the Supreme Court has expired.
The foster mother, relying on the final Court of Appeal Decision demanded that the Director return the child to her care but the Director apparently disagreed with this course of action presumably taking the position that the Court Order was subject to another interpretation. The court was not impressed with how the Director responded to the court order. Cote found that between the original Court Order of January 30, 2009 and June 4th, 2009 “…the Director did nothing of any consequence toward obeying the order of the Court of Appeal, or to clarify what it meant and what he was required to do.” Cote noted further, “He and his officials, however, did find the time to take many steps to make it more difficult for the foster mother ultimately to win.”
Counsel for the foster mother did pursue clarification of the court order and on June 4 the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal gave notice in writing to all parties clarifying that the Appeal Court “…judgment meant the child was to be returned.” The child was finally returned on June 22, 2009 almost five months after the original court order and the day before the June 23 Court of Appeal hearing that found the Director to be in contempt of court. The Director, Mr. Ouellet changed legal counsel who sent a letter to the Court of Appeal “…proposing to reopen and upset the contempt conviction…” and a Notice of Motion and an Affidavit to that end was filed by and on behalf of Mr. Ouellet on July 10, 2009. Cote reaffirmed the contempt of court finding against a province of Alberta senior public servant in the conduct of his duties.
What are the Governance and Public Policy Implications?
That is a summary of the facts, so now I will deal with some of the comments and findings of Mr. Justice Cote in his Reasons for Decision that has some serious governance and public policy implications. What follows is a policy commentary on the public policy, good governance, transparency, accountability, legal duty and respect for the law obligations arising from this matter.
Cote nails the point that nobody is above the law and government officials can’t ignore a court ordered public duty when he says [Para 27] “…when a court judgment or order is given directing someone to do something…Then doing nothing is not an alternative. Simply doing nothing in itself is contempt. Furthermore, it is not enough to take feeble and ineffective steps…negligent or inadequate attempts to obey the court order or to obey it in due course are themselves contempt of court.” He says that “…failure to obey by relying carelessly on others is in no sense vicarious liability. The duty is that of the person commanded.” (emphasis added).
In [Para 18] Cote broadens the issue of the legal duty of the public servants involved and brings it to a head when he says “For about 12 days after the contempt motion was filed here (and 18 days after the Court of Appeal clarified its judgment), everyone concerned on the government side was in clear and obvious breach of the Court of Appeal judgment.” (Emphasis added).
In [Para 36] it gets worse noting that Mr. Ouellet “…on June 5 he learned the following. The Court of Appeal decision of January 30 had not yet been obeyed, though the Court of Appeal on June 4 had clarified what should be done. None of the various officials concerned had yet returned the child, and they were still considering legal alternative to returning the child, i.e. trying to see if there was something which they could legally do to avoid returning the child, and in some fuzzy way were balancing the disadvantages of obeying the judgment.” (Emphasis added.)
In [Para 37] Cote also noted that Mr. Ouellet advised his officials “…he was satisfied with the course which they were following. He did not tell them that they could not wiggle out of obeying the order, nor that wasting time looking for alternatives to obedience was wrong. He did not say to return the child. Indeed he told me in open court on June 23 that the officials’ task on June 5 was to balance the conflicting interests of the two foster families and the child…Nor did Mr. Ouellet set any deadlines, nor inquire into how the child would be returned, nor the methods which would be used. He was content to leave it with the debating officials.” [Para 38] “Nor did Mr. Ouellet ask them to report, nor set up any checking or diarization methods. [Para 39] Yet Mr. Ouellet admitted that he had full power to give those other official binding direction, and that he had a duty to act if he saw something wrong, including a court order not obeyed.” [Para 40] “Worst of all, just before the meeting Mr. Ouellet was given a packet of material relating to this problem, but he never read it, whether before or after the meeting.”
Cote sums it all up in [Para 45] “…Mr. Ouellet had no system whatsoever for follow up or supervision or whether court orders against the Director were being obeyed; not even when the litigation had got as high as an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal judgment was issued January 30, clarified June 4, contempt threatened June 4, formally moved for June 10, and the child was not returned until June 22. Yet throughout that period of almost five months, Mr. Ouellet had no idea whether or when the child had been returned, and did not ask. Apparently no one was supposed to tell him. The last the Mr. Ouellet knew (June 5) was that the child had not been returned, and that whether to return the child was being discussed. He still knew nothing and made no inquires up to June 23.” (Emphasis added)
Not My Duty – Others Are at Fault:
So what was the reasoning the Director offered to the Court of Appeal to believe he deserved to be released from the earlier finding of contempt of court? These representations amount to CYA and passing-the-buck positioning. I paraphrase [Para 54]in saying first the Director tired to allege that other branches of the government, or other entities or people authorized by the government, such as the regional Child and Family Services authorities, were the ones who were actually involved with this child. The contempt order should therefore be vacated because the Court of Appeal erred in holding Mr. Ouellet as responsible to see to the execution of the court order to return the child. This representation was rejected by the court but it obviously has some interesting and serious public policy and governance implications going forward.
The other chilling implication of the position by the Director in saying an appointed government authority, in this case the Child and Family Services Authority, is the delegated body responsible for this child. That “defense” should make those volunteer citizens think hard about what such a tactic might mean to their personal liability in the future. If that responsibility was found to on the regional authorities by the court they would be well advised to think hard about personal liability from serving on such boards. This argument by a civil servant as to ultimate liability for vulnerable citizens has serious implications for other authorities like in the new heath care Super board and the regional boards dealing with Persons with Developmental Disabilities (PDD).
The good news is that Cote slam dunks the Director’s allegation noting the legislation setting up the authorities in question positions them as “agents of the Crown in right of Alberta under the Minister’s direction.” They are not autonomous and the staff of those authorizes actually work for the government. Those citizens who are sitting on other such authorities may want to ensure that the wording of their enabling legislation also protects them from personal liability, duty of care and possible negligence actions.
The Job is Complicated and the Duty was Delegated:
Cote comments starting at [Para 66 to 70] saying that hiding behind administrative structures in the government will not protect the Director from a finding of contempt when he says “Administrative structure is not the same as law.” He notes the “new evidence tendered as to the extremely convoluted and puzzling structure of who is administratively involved with child protection in Alberta….” He goes on to observe that “Mr. Ouellet seems to think that because the people involved on the ground were not reporting directly to him in a functional sense, that the court should ignore that fact that he had full legal and administrative powers…to see to obedience of court orders like the one in question.” In [para70] the attempt to say the Director’s powers can be delegated to various other bodies, such as regional authorities, and that there is some precedent for that to have happened in the form of Memorandum of Understanding and extracts from websites of regional authorities about their role to “oversee the delivery of services.”
Ouellet [Para80] tries to convince the court that in essence all these matters are and were run by Child and Family Service Authorities, independent bodies which he did not supervise, and so he had no connection. Whereas earlier [Para81] his counsel’s submissions on liability was that there are many children in care and Mr. Ouellet could not personally be familiar with every case, and that he delegated responsibility to many people but admitted that “Mr. Ouellet had to make the final determination how to return the child.” The record shows that “Mr. Ouellet was and is the guardian of this child.” OUCH!
The court notes all the employees of those authorities work for the government and the CEOs report both to the Deputy Minister and the boards of the authorities and “ultimately the Minister governs.” As a consequence the court finds “nothing…which would remove the legal powers and duties from the Director, nor take from him any status as guardian which he was formerly given.” In short delegation is not abdication and the Director in this case lost none of his powers and had no legal obstacle to obeying the Court of Appeal judgment.
The Court Ponders if Other Officials be Specifically Named in Future Actions?
The Court of Appeal offered some advice to legal counsels that oppose those child “protection” authourities in the future. Cote suggested that they learn about all the government officials involved in all matters around any such actions and that they all are named in the litigation and that the officials be personally served and that “Some things should not be assumed. Avenues to escape obedience may be undesirable for a time.”
The Court Ponders if Cabinet Minister Immunity Might be Challenged in the Future:
Cote comments on Cabinet Ministers and potential future culpability too in [Para 118] “After this judgment, ignorance or neglect by such officials will be a smaller excuse for disobeying court orders than before. A repetition might lead to litigation over whether those higher ups were not immune.” Would Cabinet Ministers be within the definition of “higher ups?” Could be an issue tried and determined in the next miscarriage of a public duty in the government.
Is There an Attitude Problem in Government?
Cote says [Para 113] “Her Majesty’s government of Alberta, in my 42 years’ experience, has not been in the habit of hiding identities, equivocating, nor evading court orders against it…[Para 114]But the present case raises doubts about whether everyone in the child protection parts of the government now shares those high standards, or even fully understands court orders. The complex administrative structures suggested by the evidence here must exacerbate opacity and the opportunities for deniability. [Emphasis added]
[Para 115] The government is established under the Constitution to administer the law, including the law about children. Counsel have become used to relying upon the government’s trustworthiness and fairness in obeying court orders. That should remain possible…The government’s obedience to court orders should be and be seen to be willing, prompt and automatic, not strained through the mesh of contempt motions.” [Para 116] Any contempt of court which included shuffling off responsibility to obey a court order amongst different official (at times like the dried pea under three walnut shells) would be almost unprecedented.” OUCH AGAIN!
[Para 117] “It is highly undesirable that the courts and the Bar of Alberta even contemplate having to assume all the burden of enforcing court orders in child protection cases. After all, the parents or foster parents often lack resources and rely on Legal Aid. So taxpayers would suffer too if government were to play as game of hide-an-go-seek.” Cote therefore notes that quite possibly many more individuals involved in the case day-to-day, given the disobedience was lengthy and undeniable, and may also be guilty of contempt. So he invites the Alberta Attorney General to follow up with further investigation and to make sure they know about this decision(sic) he directed the Deputy Registrar of the court to “…send a copy of these Reasons to the Minister of Children and Youth Services, and to the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Alberta.
There is an active review of the governance of agencies, boards and commissions in the Alberta government directly tied to the Premier’s office. Perhaps that review must be extended into the governance and accountability of some key departments. I have some strong suggestions to make as to which departments could use some house cleaning and a serious accountability focus based on some of the work I do.
If this behaviour by government administration is left without comment, concern or consequence by our political leadership then I wonder about their character and capacity. I question if they are worthy of our consent to be governed by them. Good governance is always good politics. The reverse happens too but it is the exception.
The court has commented clearly and forcefully already but just as administrative process is not the law, neither is the judiciary there to run our government. We need our lawmakers and those government officials who serve the public interest to reaffirm, in all actions and deeds, that they are not be above the law. We need a strong political statement form all those who govern us that any disrespect of the law, from the very top to the very bottom of our entire governance structure, will result in harsh consequences. If our government fails, refuses or neglects to reassure Albertans in this way, then Albertans have to engage and reassure our government that such an attitude will not be tolerated - and at the ballot box if necessary.
The court found the Alberta government Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement in the Department of Children and Youth Services in civil contempt of court. The Director was found to have not ensured the timely execution of a previous Court Order directing a child, for whom he was also the guardian, be returned to a foster mother.
The decision on the penalty was reserved but the lawyer’s submissions on what would constitute an appropriate penalty for this contempt of court are due today August 4, 2009. A decision as to consequences for the contempt of court should be rendered by Mr. Justice Cote soon. I will do a follow up post on the legal counsel submissions on the penalty later as well as a commentary on the actual penalty imposed by the Court of Appeal in a subsequent post. It is an open question if the Director will face jail time or not.
This is a lengthy and weighty post so make sure you have some time to read it all. The events and implications are very important.
The Background:
In preparation of this commentary I have read the June 23, 2009 Reasons of Mr. Justice Cote in finding Mr. Richard Ouellet, the Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement, in civil contempt of court. I also read the July 14, 2009 Reasons for Decision of Cote in rejecting Mr. Ouellet’s Application to Vacate/Vary the Civil Contempt finding against him. I have not read the various affidavits filed in the original or any subsequent court proceedings dealing with the same child. I think there is enough background in these documents to comment on the political and governance implications of this decision. I will not deal with the law or legal reasoning behind Cote’s Reasons for Decision either. The legal reasons are interesting, but they are more like deep background to my purpose, namely the public policy, accountability, transparency and governance implications of this decision.
A brief history of the facts are needed to give you some context behind the decision and for a better understand the public policy, governance and potential political implications of finding a senior civil servant in contempt of court. The child, known as B.M., was removed from a foster home by the Director. His decision was appealed to an Appeal Panel who, according to Cote, apparently gave “fairly extensive written reasons” as to why the child should not have been removed from the foster home. The Director appealed the Appeal Panel decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench. He got a stay of execution of the Appeal Panel decision to return the child and also won a court decision reversing the Appeal Panel. The foster parent then appealed to the Court of Appeal and it was argued in September 2008. On January 30, 2009 the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the original Appeal Panel decision. The time for any further appeal to the Supreme Court has expired.
The foster mother, relying on the final Court of Appeal Decision demanded that the Director return the child to her care but the Director apparently disagreed with this course of action presumably taking the position that the Court Order was subject to another interpretation. The court was not impressed with how the Director responded to the court order. Cote found that between the original Court Order of January 30, 2009 and June 4th, 2009 “…the Director did nothing of any consequence toward obeying the order of the Court of Appeal, or to clarify what it meant and what he was required to do.” Cote noted further, “He and his officials, however, did find the time to take many steps to make it more difficult for the foster mother ultimately to win.”
Counsel for the foster mother did pursue clarification of the court order and on June 4 the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal gave notice in writing to all parties clarifying that the Appeal Court “…judgment meant the child was to be returned.” The child was finally returned on June 22, 2009 almost five months after the original court order and the day before the June 23 Court of Appeal hearing that found the Director to be in contempt of court. The Director, Mr. Ouellet changed legal counsel who sent a letter to the Court of Appeal “…proposing to reopen and upset the contempt conviction…” and a Notice of Motion and an Affidavit to that end was filed by and on behalf of Mr. Ouellet on July 10, 2009. Cote reaffirmed the contempt of court finding against a province of Alberta senior public servant in the conduct of his duties.
What are the Governance and Public Policy Implications?
That is a summary of the facts, so now I will deal with some of the comments and findings of Mr. Justice Cote in his Reasons for Decision that has some serious governance and public policy implications. What follows is a policy commentary on the public policy, good governance, transparency, accountability, legal duty and respect for the law obligations arising from this matter.
Cote nails the point that nobody is above the law and government officials can’t ignore a court ordered public duty when he says [Para 27] “…when a court judgment or order is given directing someone to do something…Then doing nothing is not an alternative. Simply doing nothing in itself is contempt. Furthermore, it is not enough to take feeble and ineffective steps…negligent or inadequate attempts to obey the court order or to obey it in due course are themselves contempt of court.” He says that “…failure to obey by relying carelessly on others is in no sense vicarious liability. The duty is that of the person commanded.” (emphasis added).
In [Para 18] Cote broadens the issue of the legal duty of the public servants involved and brings it to a head when he says “For about 12 days after the contempt motion was filed here (and 18 days after the Court of Appeal clarified its judgment), everyone concerned on the government side was in clear and obvious breach of the Court of Appeal judgment.” (Emphasis added).
In [Para 36] it gets worse noting that Mr. Ouellet “…on June 5 he learned the following. The Court of Appeal decision of January 30 had not yet been obeyed, though the Court of Appeal on June 4 had clarified what should be done. None of the various officials concerned had yet returned the child, and they were still considering legal alternative to returning the child, i.e. trying to see if there was something which they could legally do to avoid returning the child, and in some fuzzy way were balancing the disadvantages of obeying the judgment.” (Emphasis added.)
In [Para 37] Cote also noted that Mr. Ouellet advised his officials “…he was satisfied with the course which they were following. He did not tell them that they could not wiggle out of obeying the order, nor that wasting time looking for alternatives to obedience was wrong. He did not say to return the child. Indeed he told me in open court on June 23 that the officials’ task on June 5 was to balance the conflicting interests of the two foster families and the child…Nor did Mr. Ouellet set any deadlines, nor inquire into how the child would be returned, nor the methods which would be used. He was content to leave it with the debating officials.” [Para 38] “Nor did Mr. Ouellet ask them to report, nor set up any checking or diarization methods. [Para 39] Yet Mr. Ouellet admitted that he had full power to give those other official binding direction, and that he had a duty to act if he saw something wrong, including a court order not obeyed.” [Para 40] “Worst of all, just before the meeting Mr. Ouellet was given a packet of material relating to this problem, but he never read it, whether before or after the meeting.”
Cote sums it all up in [Para 45] “…Mr. Ouellet had no system whatsoever for follow up or supervision or whether court orders against the Director were being obeyed; not even when the litigation had got as high as an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal judgment was issued January 30, clarified June 4, contempt threatened June 4, formally moved for June 10, and the child was not returned until June 22. Yet throughout that period of almost five months, Mr. Ouellet had no idea whether or when the child had been returned, and did not ask. Apparently no one was supposed to tell him. The last the Mr. Ouellet knew (June 5) was that the child had not been returned, and that whether to return the child was being discussed. He still knew nothing and made no inquires up to June 23.” (Emphasis added)
Not My Duty – Others Are at Fault:
So what was the reasoning the Director offered to the Court of Appeal to believe he deserved to be released from the earlier finding of contempt of court? These representations amount to CYA and passing-the-buck positioning. I paraphrase [Para 54]in saying first the Director tired to allege that other branches of the government, or other entities or people authorized by the government, such as the regional Child and Family Services authorities, were the ones who were actually involved with this child. The contempt order should therefore be vacated because the Court of Appeal erred in holding Mr. Ouellet as responsible to see to the execution of the court order to return the child. This representation was rejected by the court but it obviously has some interesting and serious public policy and governance implications going forward.
The other chilling implication of the position by the Director in saying an appointed government authority, in this case the Child and Family Services Authority, is the delegated body responsible for this child. That “defense” should make those volunteer citizens think hard about what such a tactic might mean to their personal liability in the future. If that responsibility was found to on the regional authorities by the court they would be well advised to think hard about personal liability from serving on such boards. This argument by a civil servant as to ultimate liability for vulnerable citizens has serious implications for other authorities like in the new heath care Super board and the regional boards dealing with Persons with Developmental Disabilities (PDD).
The good news is that Cote slam dunks the Director’s allegation noting the legislation setting up the authorities in question positions them as “agents of the Crown in right of Alberta under the Minister’s direction.” They are not autonomous and the staff of those authorizes actually work for the government. Those citizens who are sitting on other such authorities may want to ensure that the wording of their enabling legislation also protects them from personal liability, duty of care and possible negligence actions.
The Job is Complicated and the Duty was Delegated:
Cote comments starting at [Para 66 to 70] saying that hiding behind administrative structures in the government will not protect the Director from a finding of contempt when he says “Administrative structure is not the same as law.” He notes the “new evidence tendered as to the extremely convoluted and puzzling structure of who is administratively involved with child protection in Alberta….” He goes on to observe that “Mr. Ouellet seems to think that because the people involved on the ground were not reporting directly to him in a functional sense, that the court should ignore that fact that he had full legal and administrative powers…to see to obedience of court orders like the one in question.” In [para70] the attempt to say the Director’s powers can be delegated to various other bodies, such as regional authorities, and that there is some precedent for that to have happened in the form of Memorandum of Understanding and extracts from websites of regional authorities about their role to “oversee the delivery of services.”
Ouellet [Para80] tries to convince the court that in essence all these matters are and were run by Child and Family Service Authorities, independent bodies which he did not supervise, and so he had no connection. Whereas earlier [Para81] his counsel’s submissions on liability was that there are many children in care and Mr. Ouellet could not personally be familiar with every case, and that he delegated responsibility to many people but admitted that “Mr. Ouellet had to make the final determination how to return the child.” The record shows that “Mr. Ouellet was and is the guardian of this child.” OUCH!
The court notes all the employees of those authorities work for the government and the CEOs report both to the Deputy Minister and the boards of the authorities and “ultimately the Minister governs.” As a consequence the court finds “nothing…which would remove the legal powers and duties from the Director, nor take from him any status as guardian which he was formerly given.” In short delegation is not abdication and the Director in this case lost none of his powers and had no legal obstacle to obeying the Court of Appeal judgment.
The Court Ponders if Other Officials be Specifically Named in Future Actions?
The Court of Appeal offered some advice to legal counsels that oppose those child “protection” authourities in the future. Cote suggested that they learn about all the government officials involved in all matters around any such actions and that they all are named in the litigation and that the officials be personally served and that “Some things should not be assumed. Avenues to escape obedience may be undesirable for a time.”
The Court Ponders if Cabinet Minister Immunity Might be Challenged in the Future:
Cote comments on Cabinet Ministers and potential future culpability too in [Para 118] “After this judgment, ignorance or neglect by such officials will be a smaller excuse for disobeying court orders than before. A repetition might lead to litigation over whether those higher ups were not immune.” Would Cabinet Ministers be within the definition of “higher ups?” Could be an issue tried and determined in the next miscarriage of a public duty in the government.
Is There an Attitude Problem in Government?
Cote says [Para 113] “Her Majesty’s government of Alberta, in my 42 years’ experience, has not been in the habit of hiding identities, equivocating, nor evading court orders against it…[Para 114]But the present case raises doubts about whether everyone in the child protection parts of the government now shares those high standards, or even fully understands court orders. The complex administrative structures suggested by the evidence here must exacerbate opacity and the opportunities for deniability. [Emphasis added]
[Para 115] The government is established under the Constitution to administer the law, including the law about children. Counsel have become used to relying upon the government’s trustworthiness and fairness in obeying court orders. That should remain possible…The government’s obedience to court orders should be and be seen to be willing, prompt and automatic, not strained through the mesh of contempt motions.” [Para 116] Any contempt of court which included shuffling off responsibility to obey a court order amongst different official (at times like the dried pea under three walnut shells) would be almost unprecedented.” OUCH AGAIN!
[Para 117] “It is highly undesirable that the courts and the Bar of Alberta even contemplate having to assume all the burden of enforcing court orders in child protection cases. After all, the parents or foster parents often lack resources and rely on Legal Aid. So taxpayers would suffer too if government were to play as game of hide-an-go-seek.” Cote therefore notes that quite possibly many more individuals involved in the case day-to-day, given the disobedience was lengthy and undeniable, and may also be guilty of contempt. So he invites the Alberta Attorney General to follow up with further investigation and to make sure they know about this decision(sic) he directed the Deputy Registrar of the court to “…send a copy of these Reasons to the Minister of Children and Youth Services, and to the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Alberta.
There is an active review of the governance of agencies, boards and commissions in the Alberta government directly tied to the Premier’s office. Perhaps that review must be extended into the governance and accountability of some key departments. I have some strong suggestions to make as to which departments could use some house cleaning and a serious accountability focus based on some of the work I do.
If this behaviour by government administration is left without comment, concern or consequence by our political leadership then I wonder about their character and capacity. I question if they are worthy of our consent to be governed by them. Good governance is always good politics. The reverse happens too but it is the exception.
The court has commented clearly and forcefully already but just as administrative process is not the law, neither is the judiciary there to run our government. We need our lawmakers and those government officials who serve the public interest to reaffirm, in all actions and deeds, that they are not be above the law. We need a strong political statement form all those who govern us that any disrespect of the law, from the very top to the very bottom of our entire governance structure, will result in harsh consequences. If our government fails, refuses or neglects to reassure Albertans in this way, then Albertans have to engage and reassure our government that such an attitude will not be tolerated - and at the ballot box if necessary.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Alberta Venture Magazine "The Right Call" Column
Here is a link to the audio interviews we did with Fil Fraser in the column for Alberta Venture "The Right Call" on "An Ounce of Flesh" topic.
It is about the payday loan business and the role of government to regulate interest rates charged by businesses.
The "Green Issue" of Alberta Venture is on newsstands now. Pick it up or better yet, subscribe. It is a terrific Alberta based publication.
BTW next month "The Right Call" column is about social media in the workplace. What do you think and what are your experiences.
It is about the payday loan business and the role of government to regulate interest rates charged by businesses.
The "Green Issue" of Alberta Venture is on newsstands now. Pick it up or better yet, subscribe. It is a terrific Alberta based publication.
BTW next month "The Right Call" column is about social media in the workplace. What do you think and what are your experiences.
Land Use Framework Guidelines for Lower Athabasca Region Released
The Land Use Framework Guidelines for the Lower Athabasca Regional Council (RAC) have jsut been released.
It is looking at a 50 year planning horizon in a complex context around land use in the area of the oil sands. It aims to be comprehensive and deal with cummulative impacts of multiple projects and the ful array of impacts from regional economic, environmental and social outcomes. It is about developing strategies and actions to meet measurable objectives and goals.
A profile for where we are now as a province in the region was also released. Lots to chew on here and I will do so over the week end and post more on this very significant policy initiative next week.
This is a very important policy process that needs and deserves the benefit of the doubt as to its good intentions. That does not mean there is no need for rigerous monitoring and engagement by experts and others to help make it the best it can be.
Best of luck to Heather Kennedy and her Council as they launch into one of the most important and critical policy processes that will have enormouos impact on Alberta and Albertans for a long time to come.
It is looking at a 50 year planning horizon in a complex context around land use in the area of the oil sands. It aims to be comprehensive and deal with cummulative impacts of multiple projects and the ful array of impacts from regional economic, environmental and social outcomes. It is about developing strategies and actions to meet measurable objectives and goals.
A profile for where we are now as a province in the region was also released. Lots to chew on here and I will do so over the week end and post more on this very significant policy initiative next week.
This is a very important policy process that needs and deserves the benefit of the doubt as to its good intentions. That does not mean there is no need for rigerous monitoring and engagement by experts and others to help make it the best it can be.
Best of luck to Heather Kennedy and her Council as they launch into one of the most important and critical policy processes that will have enormouos impact on Alberta and Albertans for a long time to come.
Joe Clark's York University Convocation Address
I have never had a "guest blogger" on this Blog and this post is not technically that either. It is however the text of a recent Convocation Address given to the Graduating Class at York University and delivered by the Rt. Honourable Joe Clark.
I call myself a "Joe Clark Tory" and share his sense of what Canada is and can become. These days our politics are critically short of statesmen but Joe Clark, Peter Lougheed, Paul Martin and Preston Manning fit that discription to my mind. We could use a bunch more.
Here, for your reading pleasure, and with his permission, is what Joe recently said about Canada; a country still too good to lose.
YORK HONOURARY DEGREE
I am honoured to accept this degree, (I remember keenly that, a quarter century ago, when my political career took one of its sideways turns, York offered me a refuge at the Schulich School,) and I thank you all for inviting me to be part of a graduating class which has an unusual capacity to change and shape our world.
Fifty years ago, York University was born into an era dominated and traumatized by a Cold War between two superpowers who each had the will, and the nuclear weapons, to destroy the other. There was a name for that nuclear standoff. It was Mutual Assured Destruction. It had an acronym – M.A.D. – Mad.
Thirty years ago, this month, the promise of the steady evolution of China was shaken by the tanks in Tiananmen Square. Today, with some important lessons learned, China is one of the two most powerful nations in the world.
Short weeks ago, the caricature of Iran was of a vibrant society turned monolithic, controlled by its clerics. It is evidently not monolithic – and millions of its citizens, whatever their religious faith, are demonstrating a democratic faith which we can only envy.
Four days ago, a Canadian-led research team announced it has discovered where the AIDs virus hides in the human body. The team also announced it was moving its 25 scientists to the United States, because Canada has cut its science funding.
And, as soon as the weather allows, Julie Payette will be back in space.
This is a world changing faster than it ever did before. There is literally no predicting what you can do with your life – or what kind of world you can shape.
The American broadcaster Tom Brokaw coined a term for that cohort of his fellow citizens who survived a Depression, fought a world war, and built a superpower. He called them, modestly, “the greatest generation”.
We should not assume that our greatest generations are behind us.
And we genuinely modest Canadians should realize that some of the most promising capacities for future accomplishment are right here, in a Canada which combines wealth, and aspiration, and freedom, with a profound respect for the diversity that is the defining characteristic of the world that is emerging.
The transformations in this modern world can sharply increase Canada’s international influence and relevance. The Cold War was animated by ideology, and the post-Cold War by a faith in trade and economic growth. Now, the critical conflicts are rooted in culture, and stoked by poverty and inequality. In many cases, the causes have been latent a long time. Their catalyst is a general sense of shared grievance, or of holy mission. Those conflicts cannot be resolved by mere military power or “the magic of the market”. There is no real central command, no driving interest in economic growth.
So, where the roots of conflict are different, the remedies must be different. The issue now is bridging hostile cultures -- and the indispensable international attributes are the ability to draw differences together, to manage and respect diversity, and to earn and generate trust. Those are the traditional and genuine signature qualities of Canada, rooted not just in our history but in our behaviour, day to day. Our diversity, the growing equality of rights in Canada, and our example and success as a society are Canadian assets, as important, in this turbulent era, as our resource and material wealth.
And there is a warning. If we fail to invest our distinct international assets, our place in the world will decline. In the conventional terms of economic growth, there is a roster of countries which could overtake us. The Goldman Sachs projection of the world’s “largest economies by 2050” puts Canada 16th, a little smaller than Vietnam, a little larger than the Philippines.
But if we marry our economic strength with these new assets of international relevance, we can be a significant and positive influence in the world taking shape.
We have all learned to be suspicious of nationalism, and of the extremes and the violence to which it can lead. But a sense of nation can also be a motivating source of purpose and of pride, both an instrument and a guide to what we can become, as individuals, and as a community.
Beyond our wealth, our freedom, our ability to aspire: what distinguishes Canada?
I argue it is our tradition of diversity, which has characterized this large land literally for centuries.
Long before Europeans settled here, our Aboriginal peoples were as diverse as the geographies and climates which formed them – from the nations of the Plains, to the Woodland, to the Innu, to the art and seamanship of the Haida, to the caucus of the Algonquin, and the longhouse of the Iroquois and Huron.
And after Europeans settled, and disputed, and fought the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, the side which won that battle did not treat the side which lost as a vanquished people. On the contrary. We kept the French language and the English. We kept the civil code and the common law. We kept for almost a century the seigniorial system of land distribution – fly today over the Red River in Manitoba, and see as evidence the long strips of farm land stretching back from the water.
We deliberately respected the minority – and the minority culture – and that set the pattern which made it possible for wave upon wave of different cultures – from Europe, and Asia, and the Middle East, and Africa, and the Americas, and everywhere -- to come here, and co-operate here in relative harmony and respect.
Of course, there are tensions in Canada, and prejudice, and discrimination, and bursts of violence. There is the continuing scar of the conditions of life of our Aboriginal peoples. And there are other vibrant multicultural countries. But Canada may be the most successful country in the world at bridging cultural differences. Our own culture is to respect cultures.
These qualities are in our history and our nature, but they are not our birth-right. They have always to be earned.
This country was built against geography, against north-south economics, against the prejudice that cultural differences should set people permanently apart. Yet now, we are wealthy, lucky, increasingly self-absorbed. Without some sense of common purpose or vocation, we could become smaller than our whole, burrowing in to our regions, or our economic sectors, or our private lives and diversions.
Canada has always been an act of will. We didn’t come together naturally. We don’t stay together easily. Confederation was an act of will. So was Medicare. So was equalization. So was the Charter of rights. So was free trade.
As graduates today, you each have your own plans and hopes and aspirations. But remember this about this country, whether you are a Canadian, or an admirer of Canada. Our future will reflect your will.
You could not have a better place to prepare. For all its 50 years, York is a relatively young University – others are more deeply rooted in the Canadian past. York’s distinction is as the University of the Canada that is emerging – as diverse as the country is, urban, occasionally controversial, accomplished and outward-reaching.
I wish you well, I wish us well, and am honoured to be part of this community of graduates.
IT IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY HE WAS ONCE CALLED "CAPTAIN CANADA"
I call myself a "Joe Clark Tory" and share his sense of what Canada is and can become. These days our politics are critically short of statesmen but Joe Clark, Peter Lougheed, Paul Martin and Preston Manning fit that discription to my mind. We could use a bunch more.
Here, for your reading pleasure, and with his permission, is what Joe recently said about Canada; a country still too good to lose.
YORK HONOURARY DEGREE
I am honoured to accept this degree, (I remember keenly that, a quarter century ago, when my political career took one of its sideways turns, York offered me a refuge at the Schulich School,) and I thank you all for inviting me to be part of a graduating class which has an unusual capacity to change and shape our world.
Fifty years ago, York University was born into an era dominated and traumatized by a Cold War between two superpowers who each had the will, and the nuclear weapons, to destroy the other. There was a name for that nuclear standoff. It was Mutual Assured Destruction. It had an acronym – M.A.D. – Mad.
Thirty years ago, this month, the promise of the steady evolution of China was shaken by the tanks in Tiananmen Square. Today, with some important lessons learned, China is one of the two most powerful nations in the world.
Short weeks ago, the caricature of Iran was of a vibrant society turned monolithic, controlled by its clerics. It is evidently not monolithic – and millions of its citizens, whatever their religious faith, are demonstrating a democratic faith which we can only envy.
Four days ago, a Canadian-led research team announced it has discovered where the AIDs virus hides in the human body. The team also announced it was moving its 25 scientists to the United States, because Canada has cut its science funding.
And, as soon as the weather allows, Julie Payette will be back in space.
This is a world changing faster than it ever did before. There is literally no predicting what you can do with your life – or what kind of world you can shape.
The American broadcaster Tom Brokaw coined a term for that cohort of his fellow citizens who survived a Depression, fought a world war, and built a superpower. He called them, modestly, “the greatest generation”.
We should not assume that our greatest generations are behind us.
And we genuinely modest Canadians should realize that some of the most promising capacities for future accomplishment are right here, in a Canada which combines wealth, and aspiration, and freedom, with a profound respect for the diversity that is the defining characteristic of the world that is emerging.
The transformations in this modern world can sharply increase Canada’s international influence and relevance. The Cold War was animated by ideology, and the post-Cold War by a faith in trade and economic growth. Now, the critical conflicts are rooted in culture, and stoked by poverty and inequality. In many cases, the causes have been latent a long time. Their catalyst is a general sense of shared grievance, or of holy mission. Those conflicts cannot be resolved by mere military power or “the magic of the market”. There is no real central command, no driving interest in economic growth.
So, where the roots of conflict are different, the remedies must be different. The issue now is bridging hostile cultures -- and the indispensable international attributes are the ability to draw differences together, to manage and respect diversity, and to earn and generate trust. Those are the traditional and genuine signature qualities of Canada, rooted not just in our history but in our behaviour, day to day. Our diversity, the growing equality of rights in Canada, and our example and success as a society are Canadian assets, as important, in this turbulent era, as our resource and material wealth.
And there is a warning. If we fail to invest our distinct international assets, our place in the world will decline. In the conventional terms of economic growth, there is a roster of countries which could overtake us. The Goldman Sachs projection of the world’s “largest economies by 2050” puts Canada 16th, a little smaller than Vietnam, a little larger than the Philippines.
But if we marry our economic strength with these new assets of international relevance, we can be a significant and positive influence in the world taking shape.
We have all learned to be suspicious of nationalism, and of the extremes and the violence to which it can lead. But a sense of nation can also be a motivating source of purpose and of pride, both an instrument and a guide to what we can become, as individuals, and as a community.
Beyond our wealth, our freedom, our ability to aspire: what distinguishes Canada?
I argue it is our tradition of diversity, which has characterized this large land literally for centuries.
Long before Europeans settled here, our Aboriginal peoples were as diverse as the geographies and climates which formed them – from the nations of the Plains, to the Woodland, to the Innu, to the art and seamanship of the Haida, to the caucus of the Algonquin, and the longhouse of the Iroquois and Huron.
And after Europeans settled, and disputed, and fought the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, the side which won that battle did not treat the side which lost as a vanquished people. On the contrary. We kept the French language and the English. We kept the civil code and the common law. We kept for almost a century the seigniorial system of land distribution – fly today over the Red River in Manitoba, and see as evidence the long strips of farm land stretching back from the water.
We deliberately respected the minority – and the minority culture – and that set the pattern which made it possible for wave upon wave of different cultures – from Europe, and Asia, and the Middle East, and Africa, and the Americas, and everywhere -- to come here, and co-operate here in relative harmony and respect.
Of course, there are tensions in Canada, and prejudice, and discrimination, and bursts of violence. There is the continuing scar of the conditions of life of our Aboriginal peoples. And there are other vibrant multicultural countries. But Canada may be the most successful country in the world at bridging cultural differences. Our own culture is to respect cultures.
These qualities are in our history and our nature, but they are not our birth-right. They have always to be earned.
This country was built against geography, against north-south economics, against the prejudice that cultural differences should set people permanently apart. Yet now, we are wealthy, lucky, increasingly self-absorbed. Without some sense of common purpose or vocation, we could become smaller than our whole, burrowing in to our regions, or our economic sectors, or our private lives and diversions.
Canada has always been an act of will. We didn’t come together naturally. We don’t stay together easily. Confederation was an act of will. So was Medicare. So was equalization. So was the Charter of rights. So was free trade.
As graduates today, you each have your own plans and hopes and aspirations. But remember this about this country, whether you are a Canadian, or an admirer of Canada. Our future will reflect your will.
You could not have a better place to prepare. For all its 50 years, York is a relatively young University – others are more deeply rooted in the Canadian past. York’s distinction is as the University of the Canada that is emerging – as diverse as the country is, urban, occasionally controversial, accomplished and outward-reaching.
I wish you well, I wish us well, and am honoured to be part of this community of graduates.
IT IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY HE WAS ONCE CALLED "CAPTAIN CANADA"
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Freedom of Expression is NOT a Licence to Offend
I am a big fan of free speech, as regular readers of this blog will know. I am also a big fan of Human Rights Commissions and civil society. Still I see no legal reason to keep the hate speech provisions in Canadian human rights legislation, federally or provincially.
In the recently amended Alberta HR legislation Section 3 is the "offensive" section. Here it is:
3 (1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or
displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or
other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a
class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental
disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status
of that person or class of persons.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of
opinion on any subject.
There are Criminal Code provisions that serve the same purpose and so it is arguable that these provisions in HR legislation are redundant. The Canadian Constitution Foundation has recently launched an Intervener Action to declare Section 3 of the Alberta HR legislation outside the jurisdiction of the province of Alberta. This matter will be in court in September and will be interesting to follow.
It was expected that the Alberta government would be repealing this Section 3 in the recent Bill 44 amendments to the new Alberta Human Rights Act. That repeal did not happen for some strange reason. Repeal was highly recommended by many informed sources including the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership. No explanation for this unexpected shift in policy has yet been provided by the province of Alberta so far as I know.
For a more practical discussion and explanation of the implication and civil and ethical exercise of our Constitutional Right of freedom of speech I recommend this op-ed published in the Edmonton Journal. It is by Janet Keeping, President of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation. She really puts free speech matters in perspective.
I think her title for the op-ed frames the overarching duty for responsible speech perfectly, "Freedom of Expression Isn't a Licence to Offend." She, like me, endorses the principles behind Ezra Levant's push to eliminate Section 3. However Janet pushes back hard in this op-ed over how Mr. Levant is strategically pursuing his purposes.
She points out "It's not ethically OK to be obnoxious." She goes on to say "Even if you are legally entitled to be offensive, you are doing a bad thing - acting unethically - if you deliberately set out to harm people by your words or if you don't care about 'collateral damage' your offensiveness causes."
In the recently amended Alberta HR legislation Section 3 is the "offensive" section. Here it is:
3 (1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or
displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or
other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a
class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental
disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status
of that person or class of persons.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of
opinion on any subject.
There are Criminal Code provisions that serve the same purpose and so it is arguable that these provisions in HR legislation are redundant. The Canadian Constitution Foundation has recently launched an Intervener Action to declare Section 3 of the Alberta HR legislation outside the jurisdiction of the province of Alberta. This matter will be in court in September and will be interesting to follow.
It was expected that the Alberta government would be repealing this Section 3 in the recent Bill 44 amendments to the new Alberta Human Rights Act. That repeal did not happen for some strange reason. Repeal was highly recommended by many informed sources including the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership. No explanation for this unexpected shift in policy has yet been provided by the province of Alberta so far as I know.
For a more practical discussion and explanation of the implication and civil and ethical exercise of our Constitutional Right of freedom of speech I recommend this op-ed published in the Edmonton Journal. It is by Janet Keeping, President of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation. She really puts free speech matters in perspective.
I think her title for the op-ed frames the overarching duty for responsible speech perfectly, "Freedom of Expression Isn't a Licence to Offend." She, like me, endorses the principles behind Ezra Levant's push to eliminate Section 3. However Janet pushes back hard in this op-ed over how Mr. Levant is strategically pursuing his purposes.
She points out "It's not ethically OK to be obnoxious." She goes on to say "Even if you are legally entitled to be offensive, you are doing a bad thing - acting unethically - if you deliberately set out to harm people by your words or if you don't care about 'collateral damage' your offensiveness causes."
Life is not Disneyland easy. We can't live in a simple world like Bambi's mother described in admonishing Thumper: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." We have too many fundamental differences and the world is very small, complex and inter-related place these days. Nobody is able to be an island any more. So while we can be definite and determined in our disagreements, we must also do it without being disagreeable or disrespectful.
What all this also means is that effective citizenship now requires that when we encounter offensive disrespectful speech, we must, as a matter of principle, actively speak up against such behaviours. To let it slide lets the offensive exercise of free speech become normative. Going along to get along is also an unethical and inadequate response.
Janet Keeping in her excellent op-ed serves as a role model. She is an example in how to be effective in taking on that responsibility of ethical citizenship and properly protecting of our right of free speech. Give it a read and share it widely.
Alberta's Smoking Ban is Working
Nice to see some creative pubic policy working. Cigarette sales are dropping in Alberta. This is said to be as a result of a recent positive move by the Stelmach government to ban smoking in public and workplaces.
Full disclosure - I worked on this lobbying effort with a consortium of health advocacy groups and professional organizations.
The second positive contribution to this positive preventative health trend is the tax increase on cigarettes in Alberta. Recent pronouncements by Premier Stelmach that there will be no tax increases while he is in charge have to be rethought in circumstances when they can produce positive health benefits like this.
Taxes are one of the most effective ways of dissuading kids form picking up the addictive smoking habit. Glad to see the positive results coming in about reduced tobacco sales. Now we have to keep up the momentum with further tax increases and programs to pay for things like the patch to help people to quit.
Full disclosure - I worked on this lobbying effort with a consortium of health advocacy groups and professional organizations.
The second positive contribution to this positive preventative health trend is the tax increase on cigarettes in Alberta. Recent pronouncements by Premier Stelmach that there will be no tax increases while he is in charge have to be rethought in circumstances when they can produce positive health benefits like this.
Taxes are one of the most effective ways of dissuading kids form picking up the addictive smoking habit. Glad to see the positive results coming in about reduced tobacco sales. Now we have to keep up the momentum with further tax increases and programs to pay for things like the patch to help people to quit.
Monday, July 27, 2009
What Cabinet Shuffle Advice Would You Give Premier Stelmach?
Every now and then rumours appear about a Cabinet Shuffle in the Alberta government. Usually they arise when something momentous happens (booting Boutilier does not count as momentous by any objective measure). The shuffle rumours are circulating quietly, likely also around the BBQ and golf tournament circuits, this summer.
Shuffles also occur when there is a perception that the Premier's "political team" needs a shake up. A recent Deputy Minister mini shuffle saw two of them switch places but that hardly constitutes a shake up. This was a very strange event and done without much explanation. Is is still leaving speculation about what exactly was the driving force behind that decision and who made it. These kind of strange anomalous happenings add to the perception that the government is drifting and one of the best solutions would be for a front bench shake up.
A New Tough Budget Cycle Could Use Some Fresh Horses
It would be a good move to start the new budget and policy process with a fresh set of horse all pulling the same policy wagon and in the same clear direction. In September it will be 18 months since the last Alberta election. That may be a bit soon for a shuffle in normal circumstances. But these are not normal times. There is a growing sense of restlessness throughout the province about the economy, the environment, the quality of life in Alberta and the future direction of the province generally. That angst could be largely addressed by a Cabinet shake up and a new policy agenda clearly and forcefully articulated by the Premier.
There is a need to revise the thinking and governing philosophy from record surpluses to record deficits. We need deal with the recession and what we are going to do about it. We also need reposition the provincial government's mindset about how to deal with the environment. There is a nagging feeling that the front bench could use some serious focusing and take a much more strategic and coherent approach as they go forward into the next budget cycle. After all the writing is on the wall that at least $2B of budget cuts are coming next year.
The Premier is on record saying taxes are not going up. Our resource revenues, natural gas especially, are in the tank and likely to be there for a while longer. Some serious planning, cutting and communication work needs to be done. Re-branding the province with slogans, logos and paid advertising is not going to reassure Albertans that their government "gets it" and is capable of dealing with the challenges ahead.
Facing the PC Party Confidence Vote
The Premier also has to face the PC Party in a confidence vote in early November. He will need all the power his office can bring to bear on ensuring a big turnout and a strong endorsement. Culling his Cabinet herd early this fall may help reassure PC partisans he is reaffirming his leadership of the party and of the government and is taking control of the agenda.
If there ever was a time for Premier Stelmach to rethink and re-imaging how and where he wants to lead the province the time is now. Albertans are ripe for some changes but they want to see a plan that they can have confidence in. Given all of this political noise and churn, could a Cabinet Shuffle be in the offing this fall? I would not be surprised - either way.
What Cabinet Changes Would You Make If You Were in Charge?
So lets presume some Cabinet changes are going to happen. What advice would you give Premier Stelmach for a Cabinet shuffle? No cheap shots or character assassinations please. Give us your picks and pans and give us your reasons too. And please go beyond the personalities. Shift happens. Give us your Cabinet shuffle thoughts and recommendations. Tell us why you think your recommendations would be better to help ensure the prosperity and progress of the province.
I know the Premier's office reads this blog from time to time so your recommendations just might have some real influence. Who knows. Looking forward to your Cabinet shuffle thoughts, comments and recommendations.
Ron Stevens' Resigns But No Shuffle
We had a potential for a "momentous" occasion that could have given rise a Cabinet shuffle. It was too soon in the mandate and the Premier did the right thing by personally assuming the roles and responsibilities of the departed Minister. The surprisingly rapid resignation of Ron Stevens was the potential momentous occasion trigger for a Cabinet shuffle. He was the Deputy Premier, Minster of International and Intergovernmental Relations and perhaps most important of all, Ron was the political lead in Calgary. He was respected and a buffer for the Stelmach government in Calgary. Out of the blue he resigns and the next week shows up with an appointment the Court of Queen's Bench. Net result, no shuffle and nothing really changed.
Shuffles also occur when there is a perception that the Premier's "political team" needs a shake up. A recent Deputy Minister mini shuffle saw two of them switch places but that hardly constitutes a shake up. This was a very strange event and done without much explanation. Is is still leaving speculation about what exactly was the driving force behind that decision and who made it. These kind of strange anomalous happenings add to the perception that the government is drifting and one of the best solutions would be for a front bench shake up.
A New Tough Budget Cycle Could Use Some Fresh Horses
It would be a good move to start the new budget and policy process with a fresh set of horse all pulling the same policy wagon and in the same clear direction. In September it will be 18 months since the last Alberta election. That may be a bit soon for a shuffle in normal circumstances. But these are not normal times. There is a growing sense of restlessness throughout the province about the economy, the environment, the quality of life in Alberta and the future direction of the province generally. That angst could be largely addressed by a Cabinet shake up and a new policy agenda clearly and forcefully articulated by the Premier.
There is a need to revise the thinking and governing philosophy from record surpluses to record deficits. We need deal with the recession and what we are going to do about it. We also need reposition the provincial government's mindset about how to deal with the environment. There is a nagging feeling that the front bench could use some serious focusing and take a much more strategic and coherent approach as they go forward into the next budget cycle. After all the writing is on the wall that at least $2B of budget cuts are coming next year.
The Premier is on record saying taxes are not going up. Our resource revenues, natural gas especially, are in the tank and likely to be there for a while longer. Some serious planning, cutting and communication work needs to be done. Re-branding the province with slogans, logos and paid advertising is not going to reassure Albertans that their government "gets it" and is capable of dealing with the challenges ahead.
Facing the PC Party Confidence Vote
The Premier also has to face the PC Party in a confidence vote in early November. He will need all the power his office can bring to bear on ensuring a big turnout and a strong endorsement. Culling his Cabinet herd early this fall may help reassure PC partisans he is reaffirming his leadership of the party and of the government and is taking control of the agenda.
If there ever was a time for Premier Stelmach to rethink and re-imaging how and where he wants to lead the province the time is now. Albertans are ripe for some changes but they want to see a plan that they can have confidence in. Given all of this political noise and churn, could a Cabinet Shuffle be in the offing this fall? I would not be surprised - either way.
What Cabinet Changes Would You Make If You Were in Charge?
So lets presume some Cabinet changes are going to happen. What advice would you give Premier Stelmach for a Cabinet shuffle? No cheap shots or character assassinations please. Give us your picks and pans and give us your reasons too. And please go beyond the personalities. Shift happens. Give us your Cabinet shuffle thoughts and recommendations. Tell us why you think your recommendations would be better to help ensure the prosperity and progress of the province.
I know the Premier's office reads this blog from time to time so your recommendations just might have some real influence. Who knows. Looking forward to your Cabinet shuffle thoughts, comments and recommendations.
Who Needs a Visa When You Have Video Conferencing.
It appears that the Canadian government is even more protectionist about allowing foreigners in professional capacities to enter the country than the post 9/11 American model.
We are working on a joint venture project with an Indian company and looking at Indian bank financing through their Canadian subsidiary. We had a meeting set up in Toronto to discuss the project and we wanted our Indian strategic partner to attend the meeting with us. He is a PhD in Finance educated at the University of California.
When he applied at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi for a business visa he was denied and said he needed a "work permit" to be able to work with us in Canada on this project. How absurd. This kind of interpretation of consulting services by the Canadian government makes no sense and undermines efforts to provide equal trade in services between India and Canada. India has no such silliness in its business vise polities.
It seems to be motivated more by the Harper government trying to indirectly control international trade in services under the guise of visa restrictions. Accessing high calibre talent with the right relationships, from anywhere on the plant, is a necessity for Canada to become competitive and productive again.
As a matter of interest the hyper-anxious Americans, particularly about immigration matters have issued our strategic partner a 5 year unlimited access visa. So when he comes now I guess we will meet in New York instead of Canada. We will end up spending the money for such meetings in the States instead of Canada. Canadian short sightedness has its economic costs too.
So we solved the Visa problem by merely using communications technology. We set up the meeting using a commercial video conferencing service out of Mumbai right into the bank's boardroom in Toronto. We avoided the silliness of the Canadian visa restrictions, had the advantage of the strategic partnership and had a successful meeting anyway. At Cambridge Strategies we use video conferencing a great deal and find it a very effective tool that saves time, money and increase productivity, reach and effectiveness.
Just as capital is fluid and global these days - so is high quality talent global in context and reach. The arcane belief by our Canadian government that visa restrictions can somehow control access to national markets and stop this new world of global connectivity from happening is laughable.
Even the recent blanket visa restrictions by the Harper Cons with Mexico, our NAFTA trading partner makes no sense. It is apparently motivated by some ill-founded angst about allegations of 900 Mexican refugee applications in Canada. Deal with the real problem of processing refugee applications and stop creating bigger problems with blanket visa restrictions with Mexico. This is another galling example of misguided public policy being pursued by our-of-touch and out-of-date Harper Conservative government.
Canada, and especially Alberta, should be aggressively reaching out to India for more mutually beneficial economic, environmental, political and societal relations. We at Cambridge Strategies have written on this opportunity before. After all, we are both members of the British Commonwealth, share language, legal systems, the rule of law and democratic institutional frameworks. Instead we restrict visas to control relationships instead of opening up and embracing opportunities. Again the Americans are eating our lunch in promoting these crucial new relations with the large and emerging economies, especially India.
So once again we see our federal public policy approach as trying to perfect yesterday instead of designing and adapting to the new realities to prepare us for the future. Canadians have to get past our pride a "hewers of wood and drawers of water" if we are ever going to compete in the new world order.
We are working on a joint venture project with an Indian company and looking at Indian bank financing through their Canadian subsidiary. We had a meeting set up in Toronto to discuss the project and we wanted our Indian strategic partner to attend the meeting with us. He is a PhD in Finance educated at the University of California.
When he applied at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi for a business visa he was denied and said he needed a "work permit" to be able to work with us in Canada on this project. How absurd. This kind of interpretation of consulting services by the Canadian government makes no sense and undermines efforts to provide equal trade in services between India and Canada. India has no such silliness in its business vise polities.
It seems to be motivated more by the Harper government trying to indirectly control international trade in services under the guise of visa restrictions. Accessing high calibre talent with the right relationships, from anywhere on the plant, is a necessity for Canada to become competitive and productive again.
As a matter of interest the hyper-anxious Americans, particularly about immigration matters have issued our strategic partner a 5 year unlimited access visa. So when he comes now I guess we will meet in New York instead of Canada. We will end up spending the money for such meetings in the States instead of Canada. Canadian short sightedness has its economic costs too.
So we solved the Visa problem by merely using communications technology. We set up the meeting using a commercial video conferencing service out of Mumbai right into the bank's boardroom in Toronto. We avoided the silliness of the Canadian visa restrictions, had the advantage of the strategic partnership and had a successful meeting anyway. At Cambridge Strategies we use video conferencing a great deal and find it a very effective tool that saves time, money and increase productivity, reach and effectiveness.
Just as capital is fluid and global these days - so is high quality talent global in context and reach. The arcane belief by our Canadian government that visa restrictions can somehow control access to national markets and stop this new world of global connectivity from happening is laughable.
Even the recent blanket visa restrictions by the Harper Cons with Mexico, our NAFTA trading partner makes no sense. It is apparently motivated by some ill-founded angst about allegations of 900 Mexican refugee applications in Canada. Deal with the real problem of processing refugee applications and stop creating bigger problems with blanket visa restrictions with Mexico. This is another galling example of misguided public policy being pursued by our-of-touch and out-of-date Harper Conservative government.
Canada, and especially Alberta, should be aggressively reaching out to India for more mutually beneficial economic, environmental, political and societal relations. We at Cambridge Strategies have written on this opportunity before. After all, we are both members of the British Commonwealth, share language, legal systems, the rule of law and democratic institutional frameworks. Instead we restrict visas to control relationships instead of opening up and embracing opportunities. Again the Americans are eating our lunch in promoting these crucial new relations with the large and emerging economies, especially India.
So once again we see our federal public policy approach as trying to perfect yesterday instead of designing and adapting to the new realities to prepare us for the future. Canadians have to get past our pride a "hewers of wood and drawers of water" if we are ever going to compete in the new world order.
Friday, July 24, 2009
More Influencers - Less Powerbrokers
The Mark News has published a shorter version of my "Contented Oyster Never Made a Pearl." It was a paper done for a presentation for school trustees who are members of the Alberta School Boards Association. It was focused on influence, power, politics and governance in public education today and tomorrow.
If you missed the earlier version here is the shorter Mark News link.
I would really like to hear your thoughts on the issues in the piece. Comments welcome.
If you missed the earlier version here is the shorter Mark News link.
I would really like to hear your thoughts on the issues in the piece. Comments welcome.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Oil Sands Interview on BNN with Satya Das on Green Oil
Satya Das, my business partner was on BNN today talking about oil sands and responsible development. He is writing a book called Green Oil about responsible and sustainable oil sands and what it will take.
Here is the BNN interview link.
Here is the BNN interview link.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
It's Not About Boutilier - It's About Politics and Leadership
Political leadership, particularly when in government, has three key elements. There is the party leadership, caucus leadership and the government leadership. They are all different but they are significantly overlapping elements that together determine the effectiveness of modern political leadership.
Premier Stelmach's government leadership is legally and technically secure for at least three years until the next election. Given that timing and his impressive majority government in the last election plus the enormous political powers of the Premier's office as head of state, Stelmach is pretty secure, at least technically and conventionally.
Stelmach has just confirmed and consolidated his caucus leadership with his unilateral, fast and furious firing of the backbencher Guy Boutilier. Boutilier built his political bed and the caucus knows it. They concur with the Premier's conclusions and support his actions. Boutilier, while appearing to merely represent his constituency, which is his right and his duty, his timing and technique was off as a government MLA and member of Treasury Board. He left Stelmach no choice but to expel him from the PC caucus. I expect a strong caucus backing for the Premier's decision. It will not be out of fear for future reprisals but rather for better teamwork and better policy execution in what will be difficult times ahead.
On the other hand, Stelmach's governing leadership is being actively questioned on the streets all over Alberta. It is mostly happening in Calgary and led by energy sector executives but there are others who are also grumbling and rumbling about him too. The Calgary based energy sector seems to have made it their mission to undermine the Premier, allegedly over royalties, but their angst goes deeper. It goes all the way back to Stelmach's "surprise" winning of the PC Party leadership over Jim Dinning. Dinning was the Calgary choice for heir apparent to the Premiership. That never happened and some of the Calgary elite have never gotten over it.
Now we come to party leadership. Here is where members of the PC Party of Alberta get to rate Stelmach and relay a message to their party leader. It could be good, bad and even ugly. We have no idea today what the outcome will be. This party leadership evaluation will not be done without serious consideration of all the duties and responsibilities Stelmach has as Premier. So frustrations will be tempered by reality when the vote happens.
Like politicians, political party influentials also want to retain political power. Winning elections for rabid political partisans is not everything, it is the only thing. Indications are that the party faithful were pleased with the Premier's performance at the recent Policy Conference. A good sign. However a recent poll however has shown no growth in the Premier's support since the last election and some surprising softness in rural Alberta. If winning is the only thing how will that desire drive the decision about Stelmach's party leadership performance in the climate of an AGM, not a policy conference?
Policy conferences attract a different kind of partisan political animal than show up at AGMs. Policy wonks are interested in talking and exploring ideas, political processes and governance issues - forever! They are often more interested in getting the governing right and forget the need to get the right to govern thing done first. AGMs, on the other hand, attracts a more red meat kind of partisan player. These are folks who are more interested in the power of politics and being ready for the next big political fight. They want to do what it takes to win elections. Leadership is job #1 for achieving that goal for any political party.
The PC Party Constitution requires that its leader be subjected to what is essentially a confidence vote at the next AGM after each election - win or lose. That vote will happen at the November AGM in Red Deer. I think there is good reason to be concerned about the final outcome. Who will show and how will they vote? What issues or concerns will be on their minds as they "evaluate" the Premier as the leader of their party? Will we have pooled political ignorance or collective reflective wisdom in determining the outcome? What pressures will be brought to bear on party members leading up to the process? There is a lot at stake this November no matter how you look at it.
Ralph Klein, much to his surprise, was turfed as leader of the PC Party at one of these AGM evaluation votes. If Ed Stelmach suffers the same fate will we be back into a PC leadership race for the Premiership of the province as soon as spring of 2010? Will we be in a federal election at that time too? What will an early leadership campaign do to the PC political brand and the confidence Albertans? Will Albertans be happy with another chance to select a Premier - or not? What will be the impact on the economy? Will a lack of strong support for the Premier cause investment uncertainty and will it prolong the recession? Or will the party decide that another change is necessary and will they cause it to happen, sooner than later? Damn the consequences!
So I think Premier Stelmach's caucus leadership is well in hand. Government leadership is always a work in progress and the record so far is mixed. But the party leadership is also in play. It may have a serious negative impact on the other two political leadership realms, especially if the party evaluation of the Premier goes badly. Even a tepid support for the Premier's party leadership in November will damage the Premier, the party and the province. I expect a full court press from the PC caucus to encourage PC party members to show up and indicate their strong support Stelmach's party leadership in November and that will start in earnest by mid September.
There a hundreds of critical questions facing the future of Alberta. But make no mistake about the importance of the PC Party leadership results. That may determine much of the future for the province. This November in Red Deer is when a small group of Albertans, who just happen to be members of the PC Party, will show up at their Annual General Meeting. They will take a vote and they will make a very important decision. They will have the power to impact the entire future of the province.
It all depends on how they express their confidence in Premier Stelmach in a secret ballot vote. That all depends on how they feel about Premier Stelmach's overall leadership performance at the time. That enormous power is in the hands of a small group of citizens who belong to what is essentially private club, namely the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta.
November is a long way off and lots can happen. The 100 days between now and November is an eternity in politics. Let's hope for the best but lets not presume anything between now and then. There is much at stake for all Albertans, not just the political partisans. The outcome of the PC Party AGM vote on the party leadership this November will dramatically impact the entire province - regardless of the final results. Scary eh?
Premier Stelmach's government leadership is legally and technically secure for at least three years until the next election. Given that timing and his impressive majority government in the last election plus the enormous political powers of the Premier's office as head of state, Stelmach is pretty secure, at least technically and conventionally.
Stelmach has just confirmed and consolidated his caucus leadership with his unilateral, fast and furious firing of the backbencher Guy Boutilier. Boutilier built his political bed and the caucus knows it. They concur with the Premier's conclusions and support his actions. Boutilier, while appearing to merely represent his constituency, which is his right and his duty, his timing and technique was off as a government MLA and member of Treasury Board. He left Stelmach no choice but to expel him from the PC caucus. I expect a strong caucus backing for the Premier's decision. It will not be out of fear for future reprisals but rather for better teamwork and better policy execution in what will be difficult times ahead.
On the other hand, Stelmach's governing leadership is being actively questioned on the streets all over Alberta. It is mostly happening in Calgary and led by energy sector executives but there are others who are also grumbling and rumbling about him too. The Calgary based energy sector seems to have made it their mission to undermine the Premier, allegedly over royalties, but their angst goes deeper. It goes all the way back to Stelmach's "surprise" winning of the PC Party leadership over Jim Dinning. Dinning was the Calgary choice for heir apparent to the Premiership. That never happened and some of the Calgary elite have never gotten over it.
Now we come to party leadership. Here is where members of the PC Party of Alberta get to rate Stelmach and relay a message to their party leader. It could be good, bad and even ugly. We have no idea today what the outcome will be. This party leadership evaluation will not be done without serious consideration of all the duties and responsibilities Stelmach has as Premier. So frustrations will be tempered by reality when the vote happens.
Like politicians, political party influentials also want to retain political power. Winning elections for rabid political partisans is not everything, it is the only thing. Indications are that the party faithful were pleased with the Premier's performance at the recent Policy Conference. A good sign. However a recent poll however has shown no growth in the Premier's support since the last election and some surprising softness in rural Alberta. If winning is the only thing how will that desire drive the decision about Stelmach's party leadership performance in the climate of an AGM, not a policy conference?
Policy conferences attract a different kind of partisan political animal than show up at AGMs. Policy wonks are interested in talking and exploring ideas, political processes and governance issues - forever! They are often more interested in getting the governing right and forget the need to get the right to govern thing done first. AGMs, on the other hand, attracts a more red meat kind of partisan player. These are folks who are more interested in the power of politics and being ready for the next big political fight. They want to do what it takes to win elections. Leadership is job #1 for achieving that goal for any political party.
The PC Party Constitution requires that its leader be subjected to what is essentially a confidence vote at the next AGM after each election - win or lose. That vote will happen at the November AGM in Red Deer. I think there is good reason to be concerned about the final outcome. Who will show and how will they vote? What issues or concerns will be on their minds as they "evaluate" the Premier as the leader of their party? Will we have pooled political ignorance or collective reflective wisdom in determining the outcome? What pressures will be brought to bear on party members leading up to the process? There is a lot at stake this November no matter how you look at it.
Ralph Klein, much to his surprise, was turfed as leader of the PC Party at one of these AGM evaluation votes. If Ed Stelmach suffers the same fate will we be back into a PC leadership race for the Premiership of the province as soon as spring of 2010? Will we be in a federal election at that time too? What will an early leadership campaign do to the PC political brand and the confidence Albertans? Will Albertans be happy with another chance to select a Premier - or not? What will be the impact on the economy? Will a lack of strong support for the Premier cause investment uncertainty and will it prolong the recession? Or will the party decide that another change is necessary and will they cause it to happen, sooner than later? Damn the consequences!
So I think Premier Stelmach's caucus leadership is well in hand. Government leadership is always a work in progress and the record so far is mixed. But the party leadership is also in play. It may have a serious negative impact on the other two political leadership realms, especially if the party evaluation of the Premier goes badly. Even a tepid support for the Premier's party leadership in November will damage the Premier, the party and the province. I expect a full court press from the PC caucus to encourage PC party members to show up and indicate their strong support Stelmach's party leadership in November and that will start in earnest by mid September.
There a hundreds of critical questions facing the future of Alberta. But make no mistake about the importance of the PC Party leadership results. That may determine much of the future for the province. This November in Red Deer is when a small group of Albertans, who just happen to be members of the PC Party, will show up at their Annual General Meeting. They will take a vote and they will make a very important decision. They will have the power to impact the entire future of the province.
It all depends on how they express their confidence in Premier Stelmach in a secret ballot vote. That all depends on how they feel about Premier Stelmach's overall leadership performance at the time. That enormous power is in the hands of a small group of citizens who belong to what is essentially private club, namely the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta.
November is a long way off and lots can happen. The 100 days between now and November is an eternity in politics. Let's hope for the best but lets not presume anything between now and then. There is much at stake for all Albertans, not just the political partisans. The outcome of the PC Party AGM vote on the party leadership this November will dramatically impact the entire province - regardless of the final results. Scary eh?
Monday, July 20, 2009
BOOTilier's Been a Problem for a Long Time
Here is another reason why the Premier is right to Boot Boutilier. Three years ago today I posted a piece about Boutilier as then Minister of Environment insisting that he be allowed to testify at an EUB hearing on an oil sands project...on two days notice.
He became famous for his testimony consistently saying he was there as the Wood Buffalo MLA and not the Minister of Environment. He assured the hearing that "he could turn off that part of his brain that was the Minister's role and just be the MLA." He became famous for that advanced neurological capacity.
I called him reckless then and he was. He could have forced that hearing to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court with his ill advised ege driven "intervention." I believed then and I still believe today that he was more concerned that the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo's legitimate intervention and that would somehow upstage him as the local MLA. This hubris was too much. But to take such a position and for the Klein government to allow that to happen meant Boutilier actually jeopardized the executive branch discretion of the Klein government in the oil sands project approval process.
Klein knew what Boutilier was up to but was either ignorant of the consequences or oblivious to the problem. Soon afterwards Ron Stevens, the Deputy Premier and Minister of Justice suddenly became the Chair of the all powerful special multi-departmental Cabinet committee that was dealing with the oil sands policy and strategy. I think the Minister of Justice took over that committee just in case the province got sued because of the rashness of the then Minister of the Environment.
The problem that is Boutiler goes back a long way and has persisted for many years. Stelmach has not over reacted to this. There is always a last straw.
He became famous for his testimony consistently saying he was there as the Wood Buffalo MLA and not the Minister of Environment. He assured the hearing that "he could turn off that part of his brain that was the Minister's role and just be the MLA." He became famous for that advanced neurological capacity.
I called him reckless then and he was. He could have forced that hearing to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court with his ill advised ege driven "intervention." I believed then and I still believe today that he was more concerned that the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo's legitimate intervention and that would somehow upstage him as the local MLA. This hubris was too much. But to take such a position and for the Klein government to allow that to happen meant Boutilier actually jeopardized the executive branch discretion of the Klein government in the oil sands project approval process.
Klein knew what Boutilier was up to but was either ignorant of the consequences or oblivious to the problem. Soon afterwards Ron Stevens, the Deputy Premier and Minister of Justice suddenly became the Chair of the all powerful special multi-departmental Cabinet committee that was dealing with the oil sands policy and strategy. I think the Minister of Justice took over that committee just in case the province got sued because of the rashness of the then Minister of the Environment.
The problem that is Boutiler goes back a long way and has persisted for many years. Stelmach has not over reacted to this. There is always a last straw.
CRTC Decision is Foundational to the Fate of the Nation
Net Neutrality is likely a very foreign concept to most Canadians. It is a critical issue in terms of free speech, fairness, consumer law, connectivity, productivity, fair trade rules and the overall 21st century competitiveness of the country.
It is essentially that all Internet users should have the same rights to use the technology within the law. Some service providers are charging for services they are not providing because the "throttle" bandwidth. That means they restrict bandwidth to customers under the discretion of the Internet service provider and without notice or adjustment of payment. Some of the big boys in the ISP world claim they need to do this for technical reasons but that is a factious argument since not all of the big boys do it.
The CRTC has been holding hearing on the issue. The outcome of these hearing will be a fundamental to the future of rights and freedoms as it will be to economic and community capacities of the country.
Michael Geist has a very good summary column in the Toronto Star. It is a good place to start to get you heard around the issues.
It is essentially that all Internet users should have the same rights to use the technology within the law. Some service providers are charging for services they are not providing because the "throttle" bandwidth. That means they restrict bandwidth to customers under the discretion of the Internet service provider and without notice or adjustment of payment. Some of the big boys in the ISP world claim they need to do this for technical reasons but that is a factious argument since not all of the big boys do it.
The CRTC has been holding hearing on the issue. The outcome of these hearing will be a fundamental to the future of rights and freedoms as it will be to economic and community capacities of the country.
Michael Geist has a very good summary column in the Toronto Star. It is a good place to start to get you heard around the issues.
Krugman Speaks to His Concerns About the Recession
I have been wondering what is happening with the Canadian and Alberta economy in particular. There is lots of commentary on the recession, what caused it, where we are in the cycle, what will it take to get out of it. Since it is a global recession what one country does can impact another very dramatically. Protectionism and currency devaluations can bring short term advantages but be devastating long term.
I recently read a June 2009 interview by the UK newspaper The Observer and Nobel Prize winning Economist Paul Krugman that had some interesting observations I think are worth sharing. I also wonder if anything Krugman is saying has anything to do with the economic realities in Canada and Alberta?
Krugman had been warning about the possibility of an all out depression or a "lost decade" flat economy like Japan experienced. He said the first year of this crisis was "far worse that anything Japan went through" and suggested that "risk for long stagnation is really high." He also so emphasized that he thinks this recession is different and while fiscal tools like lowing interest rates and increasing government capital spending are happening,"...everything after that is speculation." That is a very clear signal that we live in interesting and uncertain time.
The Krugman response to the economic "green shoots" emerging like improving business confidence indicators and housing market bottoming in the US justifies optimism is that all this "...points to a levelling off, rather than actual recovery." He goes on saying "I hope I'm wrong but the question you always have to ask is: where do we think that this recovery's going to come from? It's not an easy story to tell."
Krugman postulate that we are into a 36 month downturn and we are a year into it and the rate of the downward trend is slowing. He notes not all countries and not all economies are the same. There are a range of government policy responses being tried in different countries. Some will come out sooner than others and the recovery will not be the same for each economy and rate of recovery will not be the same either.
Krugman thinks that USA stimulus program was not large enough and says there are discussion going on for an second round of American stimulus spending. He says "There is a possibility that we get some perk-up as the stimulus dollars start to flow and an almost mechanical bounce back in industrial production as inventories are built up. But then we slide down again. The idea that we sort of bounce along the bottom is all too easy to imagine."
He advocates more financial regulation for the American economy. He says what he wants coming out of this economic crisis is "...a stronger welfare state and a little more social democracy." He suggests the time is ripe for Obama to be pushing for serious health care reform and a better US social safety net.
I wonder what the aspiration for a better Canada and a better Alberta are coming out of this recession. I have said before that we better not squander this recession. It is an ideal time to make some fundamental changes. We have good financial regulation and a good heath care/social safety net. While improvements can always be made we are in good shape in Canada and especially in Alberta.
What I would like to see for Alberta, coming out of the recession, is a greater focus on investment in productivity. that is everything from enhancing our electronic connectivity all the way to a full range of literacy upgrading. I see a real need for a serious focus on economic diversification policies with emphasis resource based value added and new industry sectors enabled. We need to upgrade our faltering education system from top to bottom. I would like to see some serious stimulation of research and development programs focused in new green technologies. I think we need to get serious about natural capital by encouraging conservation efforts from energy use to wildlife habitat protection.
Alberta has a start in all these areas but we seem to be going through the motions instead of pursuing a passion. We need a real focus and some serious political, investor, industry and community support. We need to get some serious and committed champions who will get behind these efforts if we are to emerge from this recession better and stronger and more sustainable.
The time is right, and there is a fundamental realization that tomorrow is not a mere extension of yesterday in Alberta. I wonder who, if anyone in Alberta, will be stepping up to the plate and start making a difference in these areas.
I recently read a June 2009 interview by the UK newspaper The Observer and Nobel Prize winning Economist Paul Krugman that had some interesting observations I think are worth sharing. I also wonder if anything Krugman is saying has anything to do with the economic realities in Canada and Alberta?
Krugman had been warning about the possibility of an all out depression or a "lost decade" flat economy like Japan experienced. He said the first year of this crisis was "far worse that anything Japan went through" and suggested that "risk for long stagnation is really high." He also so emphasized that he thinks this recession is different and while fiscal tools like lowing interest rates and increasing government capital spending are happening,"...everything after that is speculation." That is a very clear signal that we live in interesting and uncertain time.
The Krugman response to the economic "green shoots" emerging like improving business confidence indicators and housing market bottoming in the US justifies optimism is that all this "...points to a levelling off, rather than actual recovery." He goes on saying "I hope I'm wrong but the question you always have to ask is: where do we think that this recovery's going to come from? It's not an easy story to tell."
Krugman postulate that we are into a 36 month downturn and we are a year into it and the rate of the downward trend is slowing. He notes not all countries and not all economies are the same. There are a range of government policy responses being tried in different countries. Some will come out sooner than others and the recovery will not be the same for each economy and rate of recovery will not be the same either.
Krugman thinks that USA stimulus program was not large enough and says there are discussion going on for an second round of American stimulus spending. He says "There is a possibility that we get some perk-up as the stimulus dollars start to flow and an almost mechanical bounce back in industrial production as inventories are built up. But then we slide down again. The idea that we sort of bounce along the bottom is all too easy to imagine."
He advocates more financial regulation for the American economy. He says what he wants coming out of this economic crisis is "...a stronger welfare state and a little more social democracy." He suggests the time is ripe for Obama to be pushing for serious health care reform and a better US social safety net.
I wonder what the aspiration for a better Canada and a better Alberta are coming out of this recession. I have said before that we better not squander this recession. It is an ideal time to make some fundamental changes. We have good financial regulation and a good heath care/social safety net. While improvements can always be made we are in good shape in Canada and especially in Alberta.
What I would like to see for Alberta, coming out of the recession, is a greater focus on investment in productivity. that is everything from enhancing our electronic connectivity all the way to a full range of literacy upgrading. I see a real need for a serious focus on economic diversification policies with emphasis resource based value added and new industry sectors enabled. We need to upgrade our faltering education system from top to bottom. I would like to see some serious stimulation of research and development programs focused in new green technologies. I think we need to get serious about natural capital by encouraging conservation efforts from energy use to wildlife habitat protection.
Alberta has a start in all these areas but we seem to be going through the motions instead of pursuing a passion. We need a real focus and some serious political, investor, industry and community support. We need to get some serious and committed champions who will get behind these efforts if we are to emerge from this recession better and stronger and more sustainable.
The time is right, and there is a fundamental realization that tomorrow is not a mere extension of yesterday in Alberta. I wonder who, if anyone in Alberta, will be stepping up to the plate and start making a difference in these areas.
TEDxEDMONTON Is Coming - What a Great Idea!
So Monday mornings are usually a catch up time, a time to get focused and to plan the week. This morning was that and more all because of a Retweet I noticed when checking Twitter. It was announcing a project called TEDxEdmonton. That is intriguing and puts a whole new mindset to my usual Monday morning.
UPDATE: Just heard from Michael Brechtel and he tells me the people behind this in Edmonton are him and Ken Bautista and Cam Linke. What is more they are apparently working on a Calgary TED event too coordinating with local organizers Jasmine Antonick, Alex Middleton and Sara Blue . This is bigger and better than I originally thought. Congratulations to all of you for coming up with this wonderful idea and pursuing it. Alberta will be better for your efforts.
If you don't know what TED is you need to visit http://www.ted.com/ and watch the videos on the stuff they do. It is fascinating cutting edge information. TED stands for Technology, Education and Design. I have often linked to TED events in this blog.
UPDATE: Just heard from Michael Brechtel and he tells me the people behind this in Edmonton are him and Ken Bautista and Cam Linke. What is more they are apparently working on a Calgary TED event too coordinating with local organizers Jasmine Antonick, Alex Middleton and Sara Blue . This is bigger and better than I originally thought. Congratulations to all of you for coming up with this wonderful idea and pursuing it. Alberta will be better for your efforts.
If you don't know what TED is you need to visit http://www.ted.com/ and watch the videos on the stuff they do. It is fascinating cutting edge information. TED stands for Technology, Education and Design. I have often linked to TED events in this blog.
To get involved with TEDxEdmonton you can get on the mailing list at http://www.tedxedmonton.com/. I encourage you to help make this most interesting and creative event a success. I am sure looking forward to it.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Stelmach Boots Boutilier Out of Caucus
So Boutilier was bounced out of caucus by the Premier. Quel surprise! What are we as citizens to read into all of this? What is the real motivation behind this move by the Premier?
Is it an internal party and caucus matter only? Is it a bigger issue about representative democracy versus leadership dominated politics? Is it about being a unified team (aka message mouthing sheep) as a governing party apparatus? Is it personal to Boutilier, since he has a very checkered political record and has not a very effective Cabinet level politician anyway. Could it be the last straw about Boutilier that goes all the way back to his questionable intervention while serving as Minister of the Environment and his ill-advised direct testimony "as an MLA" in a regulatory hearing on a Suncor oilsand project? Could it be because he supported Oberg in the leadership? Could it be all those thing...and more?
I'm betting all of that and more is behind Premier Stelmach last straw decision with the political future of Guy Boutilier as a Progressive Conservative. I expect Boutilier will be courted by the Wildrose Alliance and his Independent status will not last too long as he seek revenge by sitting as a WRAP MLA. Boutilier was one of the few caucus members to support "Ralph can't fire me because I know where the skeletons are buried" Lyle Oberg in his leadership bid for the Progressive Conservative Party.
Oberg you will remember besmirched the entire PC caucus with those comments. In a stroke of political theatrical brilliance Klein had the PC caucus expel Oberg from their ranks. Klein stayed "above the fray" and rightly so because Oberg's skeleton remarks insulted every other PC MLA in the caucus. Boutilier has only targeted the Minister of Health and since Stelmach made that appointment, the Boutilier challenge is directly at the Premier too. Stelmach picked up Guy's gauntlet and was a one-man bomb disposal crew as he personally dumped Guy from the PC caucus.
As for Guy, he got was was coming to him. It was incumbent on the Premier to fire him under the circumstances. I am all for more open debate and public discussion by governing MLAs on public policy but Boutilier was over the line and was asking for the obvious political consequences. It is entirely appropriate for an MLA to push politically for your constituency needs but it is about time, place and technique.
The timing tone and content of Boutilier's criticism of the Minister of Health and the personalization of his media comments, like accusing the Minister of "gibberish", went over the line. Stelmach has no choice but to boot him. Boutilier wants to talk to caucus who he implies are his "accusers." That was a request appropriately denied by Stelmach. The Premier is Boutilier's accuser and Stelmach is rightly in his rights as Boutiler's political nemesis. Stelmach has spoken on the issue of Boutilier's future with the PC caucus with great clarity. There is none! Move on!
Boutilier is no hero, nor is he an innocent victim, nor is he a martyr in this medieval morality play of partisan politics. He is merely a guy who doesn't get it and is quite frankly very late into the game of constituency representative democracy. For years he fiddled and frittered while his constituency, Wood Buffalo and particularly Fort McMurray, burned with growth pressures, infrastructure shortfalls and enormous safety and social crisis.
There are no winner is this embarrassment for all ofus who are of a PC persuasion - from the Premier down to mere members like myself. There are lots of loser however. The good folks of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo still have serious social, growth, infrastructure, safety and capacity problems. Now they have nobody in the critical government caucus meetings to keep them up keep up to date on what is really happening that impacts them. They are the big losers in all of this. Their continuing efforts to respond to these enormous challenges for their unique and hard pressed community are caught hard in these recessionary times. We now have many more Alberta communities facing challenges just like Fort McMurray. But that does not solve the problem nor fix the consequences of the systemic neglect inherent in the Fort McMurray reality of over two decades of gold rush growth in the oil sands.
Stelmach has done the only thing the partisan political circumstances allow him to do. He had to turf Boutilier, and for so many reasons. In the hothouse of partisan politics it was a decision that is totally justified. This result is more attributed to Boutilier's doing than Stelmach's. It is not a situation that enables a more enlightened discussion about presenting a more open and representative democracy. It is all about asserting leaderhisp in a climate that is all about raw power in politics. Guy played his hand and was trumped by ht ePremier. That trick is over but the game goes on. Guy, however, is no longer at the table and will no longer be dealt any political cards by the Stelmach government.
As for a better governance model, we have nothing to learn or applaud from the travesty of these recent events. It is time for citizens to act like owners of the oil sands, the water, the land, the air and the democracy that makes up Alberta. It is too serious a situation to leave to petty politics and partisan infighting...regardless of your political persuasion. Without a re-engagement in politics by Albertan these events will rule, become the norm and everyone loses. Please tell me citizens of Alberta that your sense of being Albertan and you sense of shared and personal responsibility for this place is greater than indicated by these offensive events.
I hope the lessons for Albertans is such that they will re-engage in the political culture of their province. Politics stinks because you and I have abdicated our shared responsibility and have allowed it to rot.
Friday, July 17, 2009
There Is a Crack in Everything-That is How the Light Gets In
UPDATE JULY 18: THE MLA BACKBENCER REFERRED TO IN THIS POST IS GUY BOUTILIER. ON FRIDAY NIGHT JULY 17 HE WAS EXPELLED FROM THE PC CAUCUS BY PREMIER STELMACH. THAT PUTS MORE CONTEXT ON THIS BLOG POST.
The media reports about "cracks" in the PC Caucus coming out of recent comments by a PC backbench MLA who was critical of the Minister of Health are interesting. I am not going to deal with the merits of the comments. I am much more interested in the governing implications of the story. The politics of the situation are a large part of implications too.
The fact is a backbench MLA spoke out publicly, on behalf of his constituency, and criticized a change in government policy that directly affects citizens in his riding. This should be considered normal not objectionable behaviour by government, leadership and political parties. Otherwise what is the point of electing these people to represent us on a constituency basis? Cabinet Ministers are in a more difficult position because they have to actually represent the government. That can sometimes fetter their ability to speak out publicly.
There are always cracks in a political Caucus. They are supposed to be there. This is natural in a representative democracy and in Cabinets organized in departments with oversight committees like Treasury Board and Agenda and Priorities. In Klein's Caucus there was 1/3 on the right, 1/3 on the left and 1/3 who wanted to be on Klein's side. Most of them felt that they owed Klein their seats but that is not the case today. The left and right are smaller and the middle group does not owe their seat to Premier Stelmach, even with the large majority in the last election.
The more critical issue about "cracks" in a governing caucus is the role of power politics in the classic power structures of command and control leadership within a top-down governance philosophy. The classic command and control top down model demands that government politicians speak with "one voice" on all government policy. That one voice is often the leaders voice - regardless of the party. At least that is my experience.
We saw that "one voice" actually being that of a party leader happen last week. Premier Stelmach came out of a caucus meeting and said he was not raising taxes to cover the record deficits Alberta is facing. He did that in the face of contrary comments made by some of his Cabinet who mused about the possibility of raising taxes to cover budget deficits. He also said he was rolling back recent liquor taxes because "he was not comfortable with them." Why does the leader get to unilaterally decide to change the provincial budget by personal fiat after it is the law of the Province? This is not unique to Alberta but it should not be the acceptable norm in responsible "democratic" governance either.
The natural conclusion of a command and control top down policy decision making process is that it stifles public discussion and debate, especially by governing caucus members. I think this open public policy discussion, by governing politicians, is vital for a vibrant healthy democracy. It needs to happen vigorously and extensively before a policy decision is made or when a Minister unilaterally decides, by personal fiat, to change an existing government policy position. Anything less is not a meaningful way of practicing true responsible and representative democracy.
The command and control top down governance model means we end up with MLAs, especially government MLAs, only representing the government perspective to their constituents. MLAs are supposed to be the the best eyes and ears a governing political party can have. They are supposed to be sensitive and reflect the mood and mind of their constituency. But we hardly ever see or hear from them speaking out in that role. I am sure the behind closed doors caucus discussions are full of MLAs talking and debating about constituency concerns on various issues and proposed public policies. You would never know it given the tradition of caucus secrecy and the command and control "need" for one consistent voice coming out of caucus.
If you, as a politician, don't agree with a partisan policy position of your caucus you have few choices. Mostly shut up and toe the line or quit the caucus, or speak out and risk being kicked out of the caucus. Quitting means you don't get to fight another day and not toeing the line means you are deemed to not be "a team player." You will face pressures, discipline and other consequences from the party structure and precious little protection can come from your constituency.
I think political parties need to open up the internal party discussion and debate. They need to the trust the intelligence of the populace more than they do. We citizens are not so naive or stupid that we can't understand the political need for a governing party to balance conflicting perspectives and make trade offs of competing values. What we need, as citizens, in order to have more confidence in our government, is to see the actual political decision making process that is being used to strike that balance or to make that value trade off. We elect our politicians to make those balance choices and those value trade offs for us. But surely we ought to be entitled to see the reasoning and hear the discussion that was behind the choices being made on our behalf.
The closest thing we have to serve that need now is the political theatre of Question Period. That is more farce than informative. I want more government MLAs taking personal political positions in public on the policy issues of the day. I saw that public debate happen with Bill 44. Some social conservatives in the PC Caucus were actually speaking out in mainstream and social media and stating their positions and reasons in support of the legislation.
I did not see a single progressive conservative governing caucus member arguing against Bill 44 in public. My guess is they were silent because it was a government Bill and caucus already had the policy debate and the decision was a "done deal." But Bill 44 was only debated amongst the governing caucus members behind the closed doors of their private and secret caucus meetings.
Surely not everyone in the PC Caucus agreed whole heartedly with Bill 44 as written or amended. Will we ever know that for sure? Not likely. The PC Caucus and the PC Party apparatus just wants the whole Bill 44 fiasco to go away and to be forgotten. That is not likely to happen either. Not when there is a Facebook group like "Students Against Bill 44" with over 11,000 members still in existence.
The non-partisan and partisan public debate on the issues inherent in Bill 44 could and should happen before it hits a closed caucus meeting decision. I want to know that there was a debate, what issues were debated and the range of opinion that was under consideration. I want to see what was on the cutting room floor of the political drama. I am not satisfied with just get ting a pre-programmed press release about the final outcome. It is fine for a governing MLA caucus member to lose a battle, choose to stay in a caucus and to try and win another day in a mature political party process.
I respect politicians who authentically hold different political principles from my own. I especially respect politicians who spend their political capital and risk losing policy battles based on their principles. That is essential for a lively, vibrant, capable and confident political party. It is foundational to mature effective political leadership and core to the concept of responsible, representative and accountable democratic governance. All that is not possible in the current message massaging political machine of command and control top down governance models that dominate modern democracies these days.
Then add to the Bill 44 farce when the Premier declared a "free vote" for the PC caucus on Bill 44. What was free about this vote when, in the final result, any PC MLA who opposed Bill 44 on principle, and there were some, all ducked out of the free vote or they merely complied like sheep. Going along to get along and personal principles be damned is too often the default position of too many of our partisan-loyal politicians these days. Constituent concerns are, at best, treated as second class in this kind of political culture.
Excuses as to why PC MLAs did not show up to vote on Bill 44 third reading abound. Some have said "I was not on house duty that night" and "I had previous commitments" were amongst the most common. All weak and feckless excuses to avoid standing up for their political principles if you as me. The government knew it was going to invoke closure on the Bill 44 legislature debate and it did. It was not as if government MLAs did not know that and that the critical final vote on Bill 44 would happen that night.
Second, they would know when the vote would likely happen because they engineered the debate to happen late at night. The thinking there was undoubtedly that a late night vote meant that nobody would be following the debate and the MSM wouldn't care enough to cover it the next day. Wrong again, mostly because they did not expect the influence of the Internet and the power of social media. Hundreds of citizens were watching the debate as it streamed on line and they were actively engaged in Twittering all night long.
Finally I noted that the Premier came back to the Legislature about 12:30 am the night of the final vote on Bill 44. If he could make the effort to come back to the legislature to take advantage of the "free vote" why didn't those other government MLAs, who may have opposed Bill 44 on principle, come back and vote too? Was it about taking the easy way out and go along to get along? Or did they not believe the Premier when he said it would be a free vote. Where they afraid to vote against a government Bill as a PC MLA because it would result in "consequences?"
The Premier showed up and showed leadership that night. He was wrong in his position to my mind - but he at least showed up and voted. I always say the world is run by those who show up. The progressives in the PC caucus who were opposed to Bill 44 failed us and themselves when they failed, refused or neglected to show up and take a free vote stand against this ill-advised legislation.
This going along to get along is becoming the new normal in the world of command and control top down hyper-partisan "democracy." I hope the new networked collaborative and respective sharing of differences of opinion in open political discussion and with rigorous principled debate will be the basis of a revived representative democracy in Alberta. We sure need it. The "cracks" that are showing in any and likely all political caucuses, especially a governing party caucus, are a good thing for citizens and for our democracy. Remember what Leonard Cohen said:
"Ring the bell that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That is how the light gets in."
The media reports about "cracks" in the PC Caucus coming out of recent comments by a PC backbench MLA who was critical of the Minister of Health are interesting. I am not going to deal with the merits of the comments. I am much more interested in the governing implications of the story. The politics of the situation are a large part of implications too.
The fact is a backbench MLA spoke out publicly, on behalf of his constituency, and criticized a change in government policy that directly affects citizens in his riding. This should be considered normal not objectionable behaviour by government, leadership and political parties. Otherwise what is the point of electing these people to represent us on a constituency basis? Cabinet Ministers are in a more difficult position because they have to actually represent the government. That can sometimes fetter their ability to speak out publicly.
There are always cracks in a political Caucus. They are supposed to be there. This is natural in a representative democracy and in Cabinets organized in departments with oversight committees like Treasury Board and Agenda and Priorities. In Klein's Caucus there was 1/3 on the right, 1/3 on the left and 1/3 who wanted to be on Klein's side. Most of them felt that they owed Klein their seats but that is not the case today. The left and right are smaller and the middle group does not owe their seat to Premier Stelmach, even with the large majority in the last election.
The more critical issue about "cracks" in a governing caucus is the role of power politics in the classic power structures of command and control leadership within a top-down governance philosophy. The classic command and control top down model demands that government politicians speak with "one voice" on all government policy. That one voice is often the leaders voice - regardless of the party. At least that is my experience.
We saw that "one voice" actually being that of a party leader happen last week. Premier Stelmach came out of a caucus meeting and said he was not raising taxes to cover the record deficits Alberta is facing. He did that in the face of contrary comments made by some of his Cabinet who mused about the possibility of raising taxes to cover budget deficits. He also said he was rolling back recent liquor taxes because "he was not comfortable with them." Why does the leader get to unilaterally decide to change the provincial budget by personal fiat after it is the law of the Province? This is not unique to Alberta but it should not be the acceptable norm in responsible "democratic" governance either.
The natural conclusion of a command and control top down policy decision making process is that it stifles public discussion and debate, especially by governing caucus members. I think this open public policy discussion, by governing politicians, is vital for a vibrant healthy democracy. It needs to happen vigorously and extensively before a policy decision is made or when a Minister unilaterally decides, by personal fiat, to change an existing government policy position. Anything less is not a meaningful way of practicing true responsible and representative democracy.
The command and control top down governance model means we end up with MLAs, especially government MLAs, only representing the government perspective to their constituents. MLAs are supposed to be the the best eyes and ears a governing political party can have. They are supposed to be sensitive and reflect the mood and mind of their constituency. But we hardly ever see or hear from them speaking out in that role. I am sure the behind closed doors caucus discussions are full of MLAs talking and debating about constituency concerns on various issues and proposed public policies. You would never know it given the tradition of caucus secrecy and the command and control "need" for one consistent voice coming out of caucus.
If you, as a politician, don't agree with a partisan policy position of your caucus you have few choices. Mostly shut up and toe the line or quit the caucus, or speak out and risk being kicked out of the caucus. Quitting means you don't get to fight another day and not toeing the line means you are deemed to not be "a team player." You will face pressures, discipline and other consequences from the party structure and precious little protection can come from your constituency.
I think political parties need to open up the internal party discussion and debate. They need to the trust the intelligence of the populace more than they do. We citizens are not so naive or stupid that we can't understand the political need for a governing party to balance conflicting perspectives and make trade offs of competing values. What we need, as citizens, in order to have more confidence in our government, is to see the actual political decision making process that is being used to strike that balance or to make that value trade off. We elect our politicians to make those balance choices and those value trade offs for us. But surely we ought to be entitled to see the reasoning and hear the discussion that was behind the choices being made on our behalf.
The closest thing we have to serve that need now is the political theatre of Question Period. That is more farce than informative. I want more government MLAs taking personal political positions in public on the policy issues of the day. I saw that public debate happen with Bill 44. Some social conservatives in the PC Caucus were actually speaking out in mainstream and social media and stating their positions and reasons in support of the legislation.
I did not see a single progressive conservative governing caucus member arguing against Bill 44 in public. My guess is they were silent because it was a government Bill and caucus already had the policy debate and the decision was a "done deal." But Bill 44 was only debated amongst the governing caucus members behind the closed doors of their private and secret caucus meetings.
Surely not everyone in the PC Caucus agreed whole heartedly with Bill 44 as written or amended. Will we ever know that for sure? Not likely. The PC Caucus and the PC Party apparatus just wants the whole Bill 44 fiasco to go away and to be forgotten. That is not likely to happen either. Not when there is a Facebook group like "Students Against Bill 44" with over 11,000 members still in existence.
The non-partisan and partisan public debate on the issues inherent in Bill 44 could and should happen before it hits a closed caucus meeting decision. I want to know that there was a debate, what issues were debated and the range of opinion that was under consideration. I want to see what was on the cutting room floor of the political drama. I am not satisfied with just get ting a pre-programmed press release about the final outcome. It is fine for a governing MLA caucus member to lose a battle, choose to stay in a caucus and to try and win another day in a mature political party process.
I respect politicians who authentically hold different political principles from my own. I especially respect politicians who spend their political capital and risk losing policy battles based on their principles. That is essential for a lively, vibrant, capable and confident political party. It is foundational to mature effective political leadership and core to the concept of responsible, representative and accountable democratic governance. All that is not possible in the current message massaging political machine of command and control top down governance models that dominate modern democracies these days.
Then add to the Bill 44 farce when the Premier declared a "free vote" for the PC caucus on Bill 44. What was free about this vote when, in the final result, any PC MLA who opposed Bill 44 on principle, and there were some, all ducked out of the free vote or they merely complied like sheep. Going along to get along and personal principles be damned is too often the default position of too many of our partisan-loyal politicians these days. Constituent concerns are, at best, treated as second class in this kind of political culture.
Excuses as to why PC MLAs did not show up to vote on Bill 44 third reading abound. Some have said "I was not on house duty that night" and "I had previous commitments" were amongst the most common. All weak and feckless excuses to avoid standing up for their political principles if you as me. The government knew it was going to invoke closure on the Bill 44 legislature debate and it did. It was not as if government MLAs did not know that and that the critical final vote on Bill 44 would happen that night.
Second, they would know when the vote would likely happen because they engineered the debate to happen late at night. The thinking there was undoubtedly that a late night vote meant that nobody would be following the debate and the MSM wouldn't care enough to cover it the next day. Wrong again, mostly because they did not expect the influence of the Internet and the power of social media. Hundreds of citizens were watching the debate as it streamed on line and they were actively engaged in Twittering all night long.
Finally I noted that the Premier came back to the Legislature about 12:30 am the night of the final vote on Bill 44. If he could make the effort to come back to the legislature to take advantage of the "free vote" why didn't those other government MLAs, who may have opposed Bill 44 on principle, come back and vote too? Was it about taking the easy way out and go along to get along? Or did they not believe the Premier when he said it would be a free vote. Where they afraid to vote against a government Bill as a PC MLA because it would result in "consequences?"
The Premier showed up and showed leadership that night. He was wrong in his position to my mind - but he at least showed up and voted. I always say the world is run by those who show up. The progressives in the PC caucus who were opposed to Bill 44 failed us and themselves when they failed, refused or neglected to show up and take a free vote stand against this ill-advised legislation.
This going along to get along is becoming the new normal in the world of command and control top down hyper-partisan "democracy." I hope the new networked collaborative and respective sharing of differences of opinion in open political discussion and with rigorous principled debate will be the basis of a revived representative democracy in Alberta. We sure need it. The "cracks" that are showing in any and likely all political caucuses, especially a governing party caucus, are a good thing for citizens and for our democracy. Remember what Leonard Cohen said:
"Ring the bell that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That is how the light gets in."
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Research Shows Connected People Can't Live Without Social Media.
New research done this June by Anderson Analytics of 5000 U.S. social media users says that 71% "can't live without Facebook." Life without Twitter could be tolerated by 43% making 57% saying it is vital to their lives these days.
As for the most "valuable network" the study shows 75% touting Facebook, 30% naming the business centred LinkedIn and only 12% giving Twitter the #1 designation. Makes sense to me given the more social nature of Facebook overall.
Twitter is a much different social media animal that Facebook I think. It is more issues and activist oriented. That is especially true if you use a program like Tweetdeck.com to organize you Tweets and messages in themes instead of just chronologically. Chief Marketing Officers are trending towards Twitter according to a recent Business Week story. Part of the reason is you can find and target different social network communities using Twitter. One CMO comment was the Twitter users are the "loudest" group online - a sentiment I share.
The Anderson survey estimates that 110 million Americans are regular social media users. That is 36% of the population. Men are more active in all three social media than women partly because men are less likely to be concerned about meeting strangers on line. Facebook has women participating than men 56% vs 44% but LinkedIn has more men than women 57% to 43% participants. The average social media networker will visit sites 5 days a week and about 4 times a day for an hour each and every day.
Social media is changing the nature of communications, relationships and information sharing. It is horizontal and community based with a richer definition of community than neighbourhood.
As for the most "valuable network" the study shows 75% touting Facebook, 30% naming the business centred LinkedIn and only 12% giving Twitter the #1 designation. Makes sense to me given the more social nature of Facebook overall.
Twitter is a much different social media animal that Facebook I think. It is more issues and activist oriented. That is especially true if you use a program like Tweetdeck.com to organize you Tweets and messages in themes instead of just chronologically. Chief Marketing Officers are trending towards Twitter according to a recent Business Week story. Part of the reason is you can find and target different social network communities using Twitter. One CMO comment was the Twitter users are the "loudest" group online - a sentiment I share.
The Anderson survey estimates that 110 million Americans are regular social media users. That is 36% of the population. Men are more active in all three social media than women partly because men are less likely to be concerned about meeting strangers on line. Facebook has women participating than men 56% vs 44% but LinkedIn has more men than women 57% to 43% participants. The average social media networker will visit sites 5 days a week and about 4 times a day for an hour each and every day.
Social media is changing the nature of communications, relationships and information sharing. It is horizontal and community based with a richer definition of community than neighbourhood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)