Ct of Appeal Says Contempt of Court Means Jail Time but Community Service is an Alternative.

The Court of Appeal has wrestled with what is an appropriate penalty for Mr Ouelette's contempt of court for failing to promptly obey an earlier order of the court. Here is the Judgment.


The Justice reviewed the Rules that apply and here are the options: A fine but that would likely be covered by the province (we taxpayers) and that would mean no real skin off the former Directors nose.


Imprisonment until the contempt is "purged" but that purging was done the day before the second hearing on the contempt issue because the original court order was complied with and the child was returned as ordered. So that penalty is not appropriate. The Court noted, however, had the child not been returned at the last minute, imprisonment until the order was complied with may well have been appropriate, but not any more.


The final option under the Rules is imprisonment for up to 2 years but the court thought that was "harsh" so an alternative was sought between prison and a fine.


The possible resolution of the "quandary" was community service and there is case law that allows for this finding. Here is where it gets interesting and the wisdom of the courts and the judgment of the Bench come into focus. I love it when you see justice done in this way.


The final decision was to sentence Mr. Oulette to 8 days in prison for his contempt, to start once he got back from his holidays. However, the court gives Mr. Ouelette an option to avoid going to jail. He can do unpaid community service of 40 hours with a charitable organization or municipal government by October 31, 2009 and it must "not be in the child protection areas."


In addition the court ordered the payment of the solicitor-client costs of the lawyer acting for the foster mother and the child B.M. throughout the various stages. It left it up to the government to decide if it would pay those cost on behalf of Mr. Ouelette. That will likely be the case. However if the costs are not paid, then a motion could be brought to send Mr. Ouelette to jail on that basis too.


I think this is a very fair and appropriate penalty. The factors the court considered in arriving at it are interesting too. There was no "profit or bad intent" by the Director but a "considerable degree of carelessness." Since Mr Ouelette is no long in this position it is unlikely that there will be a recurrence by him. There was an apology and explanation given to the courts that served to mitigate penalty and the possibility that he received "poor legal advice."


Key to this court finding was also a "need for general deterrence (of others); and need for denunciation." These latter two heads of consideration go to the issue of the leadership, management and culture of the department which is what needs to be seriously reconsidered and fixed by the looks of it.


So that part of the drama is over. Now lets look at how well the child's interests were served in all of this and monitor how the department is responding.

Alberta Minister of Children Youth Services Reaches Out.

It is good to see the Minister of Child and Youth Services Alberta (CYSA) responding to the various events that impact from and to the department. Here is a copy of an email that I received from an anonymous source that I understand is from the Minister and distributed to the department:

"A number of incidents involving our ministry have placed us in the news headlines since the beginning of the year, including the death or injury of children in care, youth in care being charged with serious crimes, and issues such as the recent contempt of court ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal.

These matters and the resulting attention and criticism in the media have an impact on your daily work. I know what it is like to open the newspaper or turn on the radio and hear a report claiming that our system for serving children and families is not working properly.

I want to share with you action that our ministry has been taking following these occurrences, to continue ensuring the best possible outcomes for children, youth, and families in Alberta.

Those of you working directly with children and families, and those of you that support staff who do, understand that the troubling cases reported in the media are the exception and not the rule. During times when there is more media and public attention on the work of our ministry and its staff, it is important to not be distracted but continue focusing on developing and delivering the highest-quality supports and services to the thousands of Albertans who rely on our help.

Our policies and processes are based on leading practices nationally and internationally, and following them makes good sense, since we know they are rooted in evidence-based research. At the same time, it is essential to never stop looking for ways we can make our systems even stronger. In fact, this has always been at the heart of how this ministry does business.
• A number of initiatives are currently underway to achieve that goal including:
• A recently announced review of our child intervention system, chaired by leading child intervention experts, who will examine current child intervention practices, identify leading practices from other jurisdictions, and suggest ways our system may be further strengthened.
• Examining the way our ministry administers the court orders it receives through a review being done with Alberta Justice and Attorney General.
• Reviewing and developing recommendations to strengthen the kinship care program.
• Looking at the multi-disciplinary team process that is part of the Family Support for Children with Disabilities Program.

These activities are over and above the regular reviews and adjustments to our policies and practices, which happen on a continuous basis in our ministry.
Despite our best efforts the reality is there will be times where our systems may not work as well as intended. As ministry staff, you see first hand our policies at work. If you have suggestions on how our policies or practices can be improved, I encourage you to share them with your supervisor.

I feel fortunate to be part of a team that makes such a profound and lasting positive difference in the lives of thousands of Albertans. Please accept my continued thanks and appreciation for the hard work you do for children and families.

Honourable Janis Tarchuk, Minister"

I have asked questions and raised concerns about the corporate culture of CYSA in recent posts. So it is good to see the Minister reaching out. It still begs the questions if the CYSA system is inadequate or the people are ill-prepared or insufficiently resourced to do their job there are serious problems in meeting the legal obligations to the at-risk children and youth they are supposed to be helping. If the staff lacks confidence in the departments leadership then there are very serious problems in work place.

The GOA did a "Corporate Employee Survey" in December of 2008 for each department. Here are some interesting findings for the 1,433 staff of the CYSA. While 76% of department staff were "overall satisfied" to be a GOA employee only 64% of CYSA employees were "satisfied" with their ministry or department. Not good but better than 2006 when only 61% were satisfied with the department.

CYSA staff feelings about being "valued as a GOA employee had only 53% strongly or somewhat agreeing, 31% strongly or somewhat disagreeing and 16% in the neither category. Not a very good work situation obviously.

Only 54% felt the department felt that they were helped to understand how their work "contributes to government business plan goals" and 58% believed they understood the same about the department's business plan. Only 51% believes there is an effective internal communications process in CYSA. Is that reflecting alienation of staff or indifference of leadership and management or both?

We live in rapidly changing times and CYSA's work has to be amongst the most volatile in government services. That said only 52% of staff felt they got the support needed to adapt to changes in the job or work environment and only 50% felt senior management demonstrated interest in the well being of employees and 49% believed they received meaningful recognition for work well done. Only 44% of staff felt that they were asked for employee input about plans for business improvements and that the management and leadership could make timely decisions. OUCH.

It is not all bad news for CYSA. Mostly this department is slightly below the averages of all GOA employees in most categories but when it is bead it is significantly bad. On the positive side a full 92% feel they "have a positive working relationship with coworkers and 84% are satisfied with the quality of service provided from their own work unit. 80% indicated they had confidence in the direct supervisor. It is worth noting only 64% felt that others outside their immediate work unit provided high quality service. Strange disconnect there I think.

There is a recently announced GOA hiring freeze. I wonder how many vacancies exist in CYSA that may be critically needed for people to do their job? Only 56% felt they could retain needed department employees and only 48% felt they could attract needed employees too.

There is obviously a great deal to do to improve these numbers and to better position the department to do its job. I will pose a number of question in a rage of theme areas in future posts that I hope will help Albertans consider in how they might evaluate that repositioning. The credibility gap between the leadership and field staff is the most obvious.

So good start with this email to the department Minister Tarchuk. It is going to be a long row to hoe so please don't think the job of closing the gap between the senior management and your leadership is done with one email.

Will Bill 44 Be Debated at the Alberta PC Party AGM in November?

I found out that my suggestion to the Edmonton Glenora PC constituency association to submit a resolution to the Party AGM to repeal the classroom opting out provisions of the new Alberta Human Rights Act, best known as Bill 44, did not make the cut.

There were 4 options presented to the Board members to choose from. After a number of emails trying to find out what happened. I saw the constituency President at the Folk Festival on Thursday night and she told me the results. The Bill 44 repeal resolution was dead last in the Glenora constituency board voting priority. I am not surprised but I am sure disappointed.

It now looks like the last chance to have an AGM debate by the membership of the PC Party on Bill 44 is if the Whitemud constituency makes it happen. But that is not a sure thing either. The party rules are a limit of 2 resolutions per constituency. The Bill 44 resolution in Whitemud was tied for second place with another resolution. So the Whitemud constituency will have to break the tie. The Bill 44 option could be lost in the tie breaker vote.

This is a model example of the problem with party politics. They exist primarily to pursue and preserve political power. That power presumption sometimes trumps things like having a healthy public debate based on competing values and for the sake of good governance. I recall back in the day when Stockwell Day promoted a party resolution to de-insure abortions in Alberta's health care coverage. The resolution was presented, debated, voted on and defeated. The party was stronger for it.

If the PC party accepting that Bill 44 is preferred law and therefore it is not worth debating further, I can accept that. I suppose one can take it on faith that this is the will of the party because no constituency has yet to come forward conclusively to want to test the wisdom of Bill 44 in a resolution debate and a vote. It is very clear that party resolutions are not binding on the Stelmach government. They are merely advice and influential information at best.

That said what are other Albertans to think about the PC Party when people in it will not step up to the plate to speak their minds on contentious issues and government laws? Heaven knows we have seen lots of pressure to abolish the Alberta Human Rights Commission but certain people, many I expect are in the PC Party. That is well established law and a move to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Ironically everyone on all sides of the Alberta political spectrum agreed that the hate speech provisions of the Human Rights legislation in Alberta should go but it survived the legislation review process. GO figure. That must be an example of the old joke that you don't really what to know how sausages or how laws are made.

What are political parties good for as institutions in the larger scheme of our democracy if not to find their truths and to bring their truth to the powers that be in their party and the government. All it can do is make them better and stronger.

It is clear to me that the powers that be in the PC party and the PC government clearly want the embarrassment of Bill 44 to be forgotten and to just go away, rather than to try and fix the mistake. That is a naive political hope. It will not happen. This travesty will not be forgiven or forgotten by the majority of Albertans who find Bill 44 to be a discriminatory unnecessary and abusive law.

I guess fixing this problem is now up to the citizens of Alberta. The next opportunity for that correction of Bill 44 to happen will be in 3 more years; at the next election. Thanks to Bill 44 an awful lot of serious damage can happen to our schools, our children, our education system and out teachers between then and now.

YouTube Duck Poachers Arrested.

It is good news to see that the goofballs who illegally shot a bunch of ducks on a remote pond have been arrested. These jerks, who took great glee in killing these birds for not good reason, also posted the video of the event on YouTube.

They are in such serious trouble and they should be. The Globe an Mail story as of 10:15 am today had a 175 comments already. The Sun papers are carrying a story about their "apology" saying they had "never been in trouble before" and they "did not know it was a crime."

Come off it guys, how hollow, shallow and unctuous can you be.

These accused are rural young men in their 20s and a 30 year old who already fessed up that they are the ones in the video. They are not teenage boys out on a prank. They surely knew or ought to know what poaching is and that there is an actual duck hunting season. They own guns and one would hope they have been properly trained in their use and informed as to when guns are to be use for legitimate hunting purposes. This was thoughtless useless killing just for the fun of watching those birds die.

Hunters and wildlife conservationists share many common values about wildlife. These guys have done so much harm to legitimate sport hunters image that they are not going to get of with an apology for the useless slaughter of these ducks.

I am not surprised by the public loathing and seething anger at these guys. We have done two major research projects with over 4000 Albertans in each case. the study was on what are predominant value drivers of Albertans around the forestry and oil sands industries. In both cases preservation of wildlife and protection of their habitat was the #1 value driver for Albertans. We saw the international outrage when the ducks died in the Syncrude tailing pond over a year ago. The same outrage will be visited on these guys.

The penalties they potentially face are severe, depending on what laws they are charged under. The Migratory Birds Convention Act carries fines between $300,000 and $1,000,000 and up to 6 months in jail. The Saskatchewan Wildlife Act is another place were charges will likely be laid but I don't know the penalty sections there.

The wanton disregard for the law and the feeble excuses they have offered so far will do little to mitigate the damage they have done or the public outrage against this kind of behaviour. These dolts put their video up on YouTube for all to see. Social media is such a game changer in how our society is changing and learning about stuff. Some of it is mindless drivel but it also helps bring people to justice as in this case.

Contempt of Court Aside, Were the Best Interests of the Child Served?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.