So the ultra neurotic armed and dangerous traditional conservatives in the USA are disrupting health care town halls. This video puts some context on the "reality" of these guys trying to sustain the unsustainable American health care system.
And while we smug Canadians love our "system" we don't have much to brag about either when the rankings are exposed in this clip.
Enjoy this example of free speech and spread it around. I wonder if Paul Hipp will tackle Rush Limbaugh's call for the return of segregated buses. Could be a great video.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Harper, Layton, Duceppe - the New Coalition of Political Hypocrisy
I caught Robin Williams on Leno last night. In another context he said "...the hypocrisy gods are unhappy and the pay back is going to be a bitch." Couldn't help but think of that reality in terms of Harper, Layton and Duceppe, and their new coalition of the willing to serve their own self interests and beggar the best interests of the country.
The hypocrisy of Harper to say the next election is unnecessary when he did called his own unnecessary election - the last election. He broke his own fixed date election law and ran from the House of Commons begging the Governor General to call an expensive and unnecessary election to save his own hide, the good of the country be damned. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the Democracy Watch law suit against the Harper Cons for breaking their own law.
Then we have Smilin' Jack Layton who all through last Parliament lambasted the Liberals for propping up Harper's radical regime. While he did his dog in a manger magic show of alleging the high road of constantly voting against Harper he now has turned tail and is now covering up for Harper's personal political ambitions and supporting the Reform Conservatives. Talk about "inconvenient truths."
The Liberals were not ready to run another election lat year. They debated and criticized the Harper policies but in the end pragmatism prevailed and they voted for the government policies partly because Harper made every bill a "confidence vote" for no good reason than playing political chicken with the good of the country. The Liberal did not want to be blamed for another unnecessary election, especially one they could neither win nor afford. Canadians all knew that and we wanted the minority parliament to work that way anyway.
Ignatieff is adamant that times have changed. He has money and moxie and the means to make Harper accountable. He intends to do just that and an eventual election is the litmus test for all of this.. Layton now is going to bear the blame for the next unpopular but ultimately very necessary election.
Now Layton is the one who can't afford an election. He is withering in the polls, money is tight, has lost his mojo and he has messed up his message with superficial and cosmetic musings about changing the party name. The only thing New about the New Democrats is the utter hypocrisy of them now propping up the Harper Reform Conservatives. This new found coalition between Layton and Harper is not for the good of the country but to save Layton's political hide.
Duceppe is on autopilot politically. He wants out of the game but can't find an effective exit strategy. An unpopular election that has not yet squeezed the same amount and kind of blood out of Harper as last election will not serve him or his party interests well. Remember last time Harper was even more hypocritical in Quebec, pandering promises to recognize Quebec as a nation and reviving the mythical fiscal imbalance issue in that province. If the Bloc can't play its separatists card for domestic political purposes, they risk the fate of the PQ provincially - a Liberal majority.
And finally we have the sad and sorry state of affairs around Rahim Jaffer's arrest for drunk driving and possession of cocaine. Jaffer is former Harper poster-boy MP from Alberta who lost the last election to a New Democrat of all things. He was just arrested for drunk driving an possession of cocaine in Ontario. An arrest is far from a conviction and he is innocent until proven guilty. It is important to remember that!
In the meantime social media is all over this hypocrisy and that is fair game politically. This is because of the hard line law and order fear based Reform Conservative radio ad he did in the last election campaign. Here is what he said then:
"Jack Layton and the Ottawa NDP have publicly supported the legalization of marijuana. In fact when asked about marijuana Jack Layton called it a wonderful substance which Canadians should be free to smoke at home or in a cafe. Edmontonians understand how difficult it is to make sure our children make the right choices especially on serious issues like drug use. The Conservative Party supports drug free schools and getting tough with drug dealers who sell illegal drugs to children. Don't let our schools go up in smoke..on October 14th vote Conservative."
Rahim Jaffer
Radio Ad
(in the final days of the 2008 Federal Election)
(HAT TIP to Buckdog)
Yes Robin Williams is right. The hypocrisy gods are unhappy and the payback is going to be a bitch. The payback will come in the next election and no hypocrite, be it Harper, Layton or Duceppe, will be safe from the wrath of the vengeful voter.
The hypocrisy of Harper to say the next election is unnecessary when he did called his own unnecessary election - the last election. He broke his own fixed date election law and ran from the House of Commons begging the Governor General to call an expensive and unnecessary election to save his own hide, the good of the country be damned. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the Democracy Watch law suit against the Harper Cons for breaking their own law.
Then we have Smilin' Jack Layton who all through last Parliament lambasted the Liberals for propping up Harper's radical regime. While he did his dog in a manger magic show of alleging the high road of constantly voting against Harper he now has turned tail and is now covering up for Harper's personal political ambitions and supporting the Reform Conservatives. Talk about "inconvenient truths."
The Liberals were not ready to run another election lat year. They debated and criticized the Harper policies but in the end pragmatism prevailed and they voted for the government policies partly because Harper made every bill a "confidence vote" for no good reason than playing political chicken with the good of the country. The Liberal did not want to be blamed for another unnecessary election, especially one they could neither win nor afford. Canadians all knew that and we wanted the minority parliament to work that way anyway.
Ignatieff is adamant that times have changed. He has money and moxie and the means to make Harper accountable. He intends to do just that and an eventual election is the litmus test for all of this.. Layton now is going to bear the blame for the next unpopular but ultimately very necessary election.
Now Layton is the one who can't afford an election. He is withering in the polls, money is tight, has lost his mojo and he has messed up his message with superficial and cosmetic musings about changing the party name. The only thing New about the New Democrats is the utter hypocrisy of them now propping up the Harper Reform Conservatives. This new found coalition between Layton and Harper is not for the good of the country but to save Layton's political hide.
Duceppe is on autopilot politically. He wants out of the game but can't find an effective exit strategy. An unpopular election that has not yet squeezed the same amount and kind of blood out of Harper as last election will not serve him or his party interests well. Remember last time Harper was even more hypocritical in Quebec, pandering promises to recognize Quebec as a nation and reviving the mythical fiscal imbalance issue in that province. If the Bloc can't play its separatists card for domestic political purposes, they risk the fate of the PQ provincially - a Liberal majority.
And finally we have the sad and sorry state of affairs around Rahim Jaffer's arrest for drunk driving and possession of cocaine. Jaffer is former Harper poster-boy MP from Alberta who lost the last election to a New Democrat of all things. He was just arrested for drunk driving an possession of cocaine in Ontario. An arrest is far from a conviction and he is innocent until proven guilty. It is important to remember that!
In the meantime social media is all over this hypocrisy and that is fair game politically. This is because of the hard line law and order fear based Reform Conservative radio ad he did in the last election campaign. Here is what he said then:
"Jack Layton and the Ottawa NDP have publicly supported the legalization of marijuana. In fact when asked about marijuana Jack Layton called it a wonderful substance which Canadians should be free to smoke at home or in a cafe. Edmontonians understand how difficult it is to make sure our children make the right choices especially on serious issues like drug use. The Conservative Party supports drug free schools and getting tough with drug dealers who sell illegal drugs to children. Don't let our schools go up in smoke..on October 14th vote Conservative."
Rahim Jaffer
Radio Ad
(in the final days of the 2008 Federal Election)
(HAT TIP to Buckdog)
Yes Robin Williams is right. The hypocrisy gods are unhappy and the payback is going to be a bitch. The payback will come in the next election and no hypocrite, be it Harper, Layton or Duceppe, will be safe from the wrath of the vengeful voter.
Monday, September 14, 2009
By Election Results Shows that Alberta PC's & Premier Stelmach Have Some Serious Soul Searching to do!
UPDATE Sept 16/09: Now I just got home from Edson and read Dan Arnold's like-minded piece on the implications of the Calgary Glenmore by election in the National Post. Worth a read.
Just got home from meetings in Jasper and looked at the Calgary Glenmore by election results. Congratulations to WAP's Paul Hinman for his impressive victory. The results are going to have to take some time to sink in especially as the PCs start to reflect on the implications of these results.
The PC percentage vote was cut in half in a seat they have held since 1969 and held by the Deputy Premier in the Stelmach PC government. Clearly some PCs stayed home and some switched to WAP in this by election. In the March 2008 election PCs got 6436 votes for 51%, same percentage vote as in the 2004 election. Today with a high quality candidate with lots of name recognition, the PCs fell to 26% of the popular vote. ASTONISHING!
The total turnout for this by election was 41% (11,208 votes) compared to 44% (12701) votes in 2008 when there was a very poor turnout in Calgary PC country as they tried to send Stelmach a message. In the 2008 election the WAP vote was non-existent at 8% (1025 votes) Well this time the WAP supporters showed up and lots other conservatively inclined Calgarians decided to use this by election to send a very strong message.
Last time there was such a dramatic rejection of a PC candidate in Calgary was in 1992 at the end of the Getty era when Rod Love came in third behind a Liberal and an NDP candidate garnering only about 15% of the total vote.
Just got home from meetings in Jasper and looked at the Calgary Glenmore by election results. Congratulations to WAP's Paul Hinman for his impressive victory. The results are going to have to take some time to sink in especially as the PCs start to reflect on the implications of these results.
The PC percentage vote was cut in half in a seat they have held since 1969 and held by the Deputy Premier in the Stelmach PC government. Clearly some PCs stayed home and some switched to WAP in this by election. In the March 2008 election PCs got 6436 votes for 51%, same percentage vote as in the 2004 election. Today with a high quality candidate with lots of name recognition, the PCs fell to 26% of the popular vote. ASTONISHING!
The total turnout for this by election was 41% (11,208 votes) compared to 44% (12701) votes in 2008 when there was a very poor turnout in Calgary PC country as they tried to send Stelmach a message. In the 2008 election the WAP vote was non-existent at 8% (1025 votes) Well this time the WAP supporters showed up and lots other conservatively inclined Calgarians decided to use this by election to send a very strong message.
Last time there was such a dramatic rejection of a PC candidate in Calgary was in 1992 at the end of the Getty era when Rod Love came in third behind a Liberal and an NDP candidate garnering only about 15% of the total vote.
The Liberals came in second again and held their position in terms of popular vote at 34% compared to 33% in 2008.
So the Monday morning political quarterbacks will be out in droves for the next few days. Here are some grounding realities that can cut both ways. This is a by election and there is 3 years until the next election, lots can happen. There is a WAP leadership in a month that will frame them in a certain way, for good or ill for their longer term political fortunes.
The Liberals are in suspended animation floating in a political weightlessness bouncing off issues and events but not creating them. The Greens are a spend force due to internal squabbling. The NDP are still trying to perfect yesterday and Albertans are happy with them a the Jiminy Cricket kind of conscience of government but not ever to be a government.
The political reaction from Premier Stelmach is what I will be watching for. How will the Premier's Office interpret and respond to this slap up the side of the head? How will the core group of Stelmach's leadership team who brung him to the dance respond. They are all in Cabinet so it will be interesting to see how they respond and what they do to change things.
What will be the PC Caucus reaction? They used to tolerate Klein's shortcomings, both personally and politically, because most of the PC MLAs felt that they owed Klein their seat. He was always more popular than the party. None of the current caucus owes Stelmach their seat. PC caucus reaction will be interesting to watch.
How will the PC party membership respond in the November AGM leadership review vote? Will the rally behind the Premier? Will the Social Conservatives in the party, who had a group of about 12 like-minded MLAs orchestrate Bill 44, feel even more emboldened and vote against Stelmach? Will the Progressives decide to stay home? Or will the party show up and rally around and support Stelmach? Or will they vote confidence in the leadership because they want to support the "brand" as much or more than the leadership?
What if Stelmach gets around 70% support? Will that be enough to keep control of the government? What if he does a Joe Clark and says he wants to reaffirm his leadership with another leadership contest? That would have to happen pretty quickly given the turmoil in the economy and the strain on the social contract. My guess is only Ted Morton could be up and ready to go to challenge the current leadership.
Politics is a cruel and all too often, a blood sport. Based on this by election, the recession, budget cuts now and much more next year and the political power shift to the right in the PC party since the leadership I expect there will be political cruelty, both against politicians and even by them. I hope not but experience tells me turmoil and tensions are the most likely to be the political forecast for Alberta's political climate for the foreseeable future.
It does not have to be that way but unless Stelmach becomes, or is allowed (?) to become the Stelmach that I know, it is not going to be easy or pretty in Alberta politics - not for quite some time. The next election is 3 years away.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Prime Minister Harper - Just Visiting!
This is such a clever presention of some truth about Stephen Harper and his relations to the United States. He doesn't accomplish anything in improving Canada - US relations. He just visits, and visits and visits. Harper is off to Washington again...very soon...for another visit...too true to from.
He wants us to think he is aligned with President Obama on Climate Change. He is not.
He wants us to think he has the best interests of Alberta's oilsands at heart. He does not.
He is just visiting the United States - all the time.
(h/t @DanWoy on Twitter)
He wants us to think he is aligned with President Obama on Climate Change. He is not.
He wants us to think he has the best interests of Alberta's oilsands at heart. He does not.
He is just visiting the United States - all the time.
(h/t @DanWoy on Twitter)
Energy Industry Rant on Alberta Royalties Wearing Thin
Here is a comment I put on Don Braid's column today in the Calgary Herald. First read Don's column then continue with reading this comment:
The old ways of doing politics by the Calgary Commandos under Klein is gone and these guys don't know how to respond...so they blame the royalties as it if were a made-in-Alberta NEP.
The market is what is making things tough in the patch, not the Alberta taxpayer's take from OUR energy resources. We share the risk with lower rates in tough times and take more of the pie when things are good.
We were still the second lowest tax and royalty burden on the planet AFTER the new royalty regime was initially. Premier Stelmach has rolled royalty rates back so far, as an appeasement to the Calgary Commandos, that we now collect less revenue from these NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES than we would have generated from the original royalty scheme. Cry me a river!
Get off this royalty rant you guys; Albertans are sooner or later going to start acting like owners of their oil and gas reserves. When the do, then your social licenses will all come under serious public scrutiny. Your environmental records will be the first place the public will look to see if your enterprise is behaving appropriately to deserve a continuing social license. You are tenants on these public lands who are granted license to take a calculated business risk - not to play politics with the privilege.
You are welcome to go to Libya or Iran or Iraq or Nigeria instead of staying in Canada. And Saskatchewan is not the alternative; they are a different game with the Bakken. Their win with this great discovery is not Alberta's loss; it is win-win for Canada. That again is your independent business decision but the political games about royalties are becoming tedious. You have it really good and you know it.
I would really like to know how Albertans think about the royalties we collect on our natural resources and how the licensees who exploit them for us treat our land, air and water in the process.
Looking forward to your comments.
The old ways of doing politics by the Calgary Commandos under Klein is gone and these guys don't know how to respond...so they blame the royalties as it if were a made-in-Alberta NEP.
The market is what is making things tough in the patch, not the Alberta taxpayer's take from OUR energy resources. We share the risk with lower rates in tough times and take more of the pie when things are good.
We were still the second lowest tax and royalty burden on the planet AFTER the new royalty regime was initially. Premier Stelmach has rolled royalty rates back so far, as an appeasement to the Calgary Commandos, that we now collect less revenue from these NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES than we would have generated from the original royalty scheme. Cry me a river!
Get off this royalty rant you guys; Albertans are sooner or later going to start acting like owners of their oil and gas reserves. When the do, then your social licenses will all come under serious public scrutiny. Your environmental records will be the first place the public will look to see if your enterprise is behaving appropriately to deserve a continuing social license. You are tenants on these public lands who are granted license to take a calculated business risk - not to play politics with the privilege.
You are welcome to go to Libya or Iran or Iraq or Nigeria instead of staying in Canada. And Saskatchewan is not the alternative; they are a different game with the Bakken. Their win with this great discovery is not Alberta's loss; it is win-win for Canada. That again is your independent business decision but the political games about royalties are becoming tedious. You have it really good and you know it.
I would really like to know how Albertans think about the royalties we collect on our natural resources and how the licensees who exploit them for us treat our land, air and water in the process.
Looking forward to your comments.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Harper Promises Other Parties to "Teach Them a Lesson" Next Election
Mr Harper says he is going to show the separatist and the socialists and teach them a lesson. Kind of like "you just wait until your father comes home Canada. There are going to be consequences if you don't give him a majority next election.
Harper and the strict and abusive father-figure is at his best in the Sault Ste Marie speech.
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2009/9/10/4316574.html
I always thought elections were the chance for citizens to teach abusive and arrogant politicians a lesson! Not in world of Harper's-Your-Daddy-and-you-better-obey-him-politics.
Harper and the strict and abusive father-figure is at his best in the Sault Ste Marie speech.
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2009/9/10/4316574.html
I always thought elections were the chance for citizens to teach abusive and arrogant politicians a lesson! Not in world of Harper's-Your-Daddy-and-you-better-obey-him-politics.
"Not Been Spending Enough of Your Money"
Here is an hilarious piece of creative political mockery for your cynical amusement. I came across this mock-ad by Edward Monton on Twitter (follow me @kenchapman46). It pokes fun at the $25 million Alberta branding advertising campaign and the Alberta budget plight. The text reads"
"There was never a better time for Alberta to waste $25 million of taxpayers money. The Tory government under Ed Stelmach is doing a wonderful job of running the Province from a surplus into a deficit. Let's forget about health care funding, the crumbling infrastructure and education to throw valuable funds into the creation of a new logo. We will also create ads like this that are uninspiring and refuse to break stereotypes. With that in mind, better let this fellow get back to polishing the metal nuts dangling from the back of his Chevy truck."
The logo cut line is "Alberta Freedom to Spend, Spirit to Waste"
OUCH! But this is the role of the artist, to tell us about ourselves. Good on you Edward Monton.
That said, Alberta's revenues are down due to commodity prices and royalty give aways and subsidy to industry in the good times. Cuts are here and more are coming. I hope we see some intelligence, integrity and compassion applied to the next budget building in Alberta.
We have not seen much evidence of anything happening to improve Alberta's brand image recently. Copenhagen is coming up in December, First Nations are getting European bank backing to fight energy issues and the oil sands investments by Statoil are an election issue in Norway these days, and China is getting serious about buying in. Alberta is on the world stage alright. There is a lot of angry and anxious people these days, and who can blame them.
I have been working on a blog post for the next in the series "Society's Child" but have been distracted by real work I have to do. I will be getting at it again shortly and will be posting about some pf the implications of the Bosco Homes closure for those kids and what will happen to them.
I will also be looking at some positive examples of where social workers in the children's services area. The examples I will use illustrate some exemplary work done on behalf of kids at risk, where the social workers have really showed up and stepped up. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Harper's Situational Ethics Rise Again - Will The Socialists and the Separatists be His Downfall?
Jeff Jedras has a hit on his hands with this video production. Situational ethics abound in politics. The Harper government's claim about socialist and separatist getting together to bring down the government before the last election has become the reality for Mr. Harper today.
Either the Bloc or the NDP will now be able to determine Mr. Harper's fate. Either one will have the power to vote non-confidence in him and force an election. We may not want an election but we need one to get out of this chaos from the current groups lack of leadership. We know we can't believe or trust this government and to perpetuate it for no real purpose will make things worse.
We can do better but only if we have an election. Then Canadians can take back the power from this Prime Minister and give the country a chance for a new government with a majority and a new mandate to manage the economy and work our way out of this recession
So I expect some day soon, but not right away, either Mr. Layton or Duceppe, or both, as the socialists and the separatists finally prove to be the nemesis of the Harper government.
Of course the irony of the situational ethics of Mr. Harper are made crystal clear in this video. He has a history of getting together with the separatists to defeat a minority government - but of course that was "different." That was not his government. No wonder citizens know they can't trust him. Just ask his income trust victims.
Either the Bloc or the NDP will now be able to determine Mr. Harper's fate. Either one will have the power to vote non-confidence in him and force an election. We may not want an election but we need one to get out of this chaos from the current groups lack of leadership. We know we can't believe or trust this government and to perpetuate it for no real purpose will make things worse.
We can do better but only if we have an election. Then Canadians can take back the power from this Prime Minister and give the country a chance for a new government with a majority and a new mandate to manage the economy and work our way out of this recession
So I expect some day soon, but not right away, either Mr. Layton or Duceppe, or both, as the socialists and the separatists finally prove to be the nemesis of the Harper government.
Of course the irony of the situational ethics of Mr. Harper are made crystal clear in this video. He has a history of getting together with the separatists to defeat a minority government - but of course that was "different." That was not his government. No wonder citizens know they can't trust him. Just ask his income trust victims.
Harper in Court Over "Fixed" Election Dates Law - Was the Last Election Illegal?
This turn of events show just how strange politics can be. Democracy Watch is a watchdog group that monitors ethics in government., They are suing the Harper government in Federal Court and the arguments are being heard today. The issue is if Prime Minister Harper's last election call was illegal.
Harper had a campaign promise in the prior election of 2006 to set fixed election dates, and his law was passed unanimously by Parliament, if memory serves. Under the law of the land the next election was supposed to be October 19, 2009, pretty much as it looks like it will be, give or take a month.
The then Minister of Democratic Reform, now Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson, said, according to CBC reports, the fixed election date law restricted the Prime Minister from calling an election unless a vote of no-confidence in the government occurred before October 2009. Ouch!
Democracy Watch says the fixed election date law was intended to stop the kind of actions Mr. Harper took last year in asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election. Of course Mr. Harper's lawyers say nothing in the law prevents the Prime Minister from making such a request of the Governor General.
An interesting challenge of what is the appropriate statutory interpretation of Harper's fixed election date law will ensue in the Federal Court today. Does it mean a minority government can only be defeated by a non-confidence vote? With Harper proroguing Parliament he managed to duck out of facing such a vote. Is that good for democracy?
Technically the Governor General calls an election not the Prime Minister. So what does it matter if we have an election based on a non-confidence vote or a voluntary submission of a minority government to dissolve and go to an election.
In this case, the opposition parties formed a coalition and were prepared to do two things. First defeat the Harper government in a non-confidence vote. Then go to the Governor General as a majority coalition and ask the Governor General for permission to form a new government.
If she agreed to the coalitions request they would form a government and we would not have had the last election forced on bu by Mr. Harper's tactics. We did not want an election then either but Harper forced it anyway, and he still won anyway. Almost looked like a majority there for a few days too.
So what will happen? Will the court decide that last election was illegal? If so what does that do to the legitimacy of the Harper's right to govern? Do we go back into an election now by court order? Or will the courts wait out the forth coming non-confidence vote, see the next election through and then announce its decision? I think so. The courts do not want to get that deeply into the political thrust and parry of validating or invalidating an election if they can avoid it.
Or will the courts do what the RCMP did in 2006 and proceed and announce their decision, even if it is in the middle of an election. Remember in the middle of the 2006 election the RCMP announced a criminal investigation into possible income trust leaks by the government. that investigation later proved baseless except for one civil servant who used the insider information for personal gain.
Many believe that ill-advised and ill-timed investigation led to the defeat of the Martin Liberal government. I don't think the courts will do that but there is nothing to stop them. In fact there is much to be said for them proceeding on their own timetable and to ignore the political implications. After all many do not like what they call judge made law.
Just as the state does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation, so too the courts do not belong in the election campaigns of the nation. However, that principle could cut either way. Staying out of the election campaign may be interpreted by the court as just delaying releasing its decision until after the next election is over. That is one way to stay out of the election process. It could also mean that the courts decide that the election timing and process has nothing to do with them and what ever they do is irrelevant to the election process. They would then choose to ignore the election process entirely and release their decision whenever they are ready. To do otherwise is a de facto involvement in the election process.
Then of course, this all depends on what the final court decision is. If Harper is off the hook and did not act illegally, should that decision be released in the middle of an election campaign? Will that not be the courts having an impact of the final result? If Harper is off the hook and the decision can be announced before the election starts but knowing we are headed for an election; should it be announced?
What if the courts wait, Harper wins the next election but loses in court? Does that destabilize and undermine the the legitimacy of his government? These potential scenarios are all real issues that could have been avoided simply by Harper facing the House of Commons non-confidence vote and challenging the coalitions legitimacy to govern and forcing an election in 2006.
Democracy Watch is saying if they win, then Canadians could start a class action against the Conservative Party for the $350,000,000 of costs for the last election. What a tangled web our Prime Minister weaves by the kinds of political choices he makes.
Harper had a campaign promise in the prior election of 2006 to set fixed election dates, and his law was passed unanimously by Parliament, if memory serves. Under the law of the land the next election was supposed to be October 19, 2009, pretty much as it looks like it will be, give or take a month.
The then Minister of Democratic Reform, now Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson, said, according to CBC reports, the fixed election date law restricted the Prime Minister from calling an election unless a vote of no-confidence in the government occurred before October 2009. Ouch!
Democracy Watch says the fixed election date law was intended to stop the kind of actions Mr. Harper took last year in asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election. Of course Mr. Harper's lawyers say nothing in the law prevents the Prime Minister from making such a request of the Governor General.
An interesting challenge of what is the appropriate statutory interpretation of Harper's fixed election date law will ensue in the Federal Court today. Does it mean a minority government can only be defeated by a non-confidence vote? With Harper proroguing Parliament he managed to duck out of facing such a vote. Is that good for democracy?
Technically the Governor General calls an election not the Prime Minister. So what does it matter if we have an election based on a non-confidence vote or a voluntary submission of a minority government to dissolve and go to an election.
In this case, the opposition parties formed a coalition and were prepared to do two things. First defeat the Harper government in a non-confidence vote. Then go to the Governor General as a majority coalition and ask the Governor General for permission to form a new government.
If she agreed to the coalitions request they would form a government and we would not have had the last election forced on bu by Mr. Harper's tactics. We did not want an election then either but Harper forced it anyway, and he still won anyway. Almost looked like a majority there for a few days too.
So what will happen? Will the court decide that last election was illegal? If so what does that do to the legitimacy of the Harper's right to govern? Do we go back into an election now by court order? Or will the courts wait out the forth coming non-confidence vote, see the next election through and then announce its decision? I think so. The courts do not want to get that deeply into the political thrust and parry of validating or invalidating an election if they can avoid it.
Or will the courts do what the RCMP did in 2006 and proceed and announce their decision, even if it is in the middle of an election. Remember in the middle of the 2006 election the RCMP announced a criminal investigation into possible income trust leaks by the government. that investigation later proved baseless except for one civil servant who used the insider information for personal gain.
Many believe that ill-advised and ill-timed investigation led to the defeat of the Martin Liberal government. I don't think the courts will do that but there is nothing to stop them. In fact there is much to be said for them proceeding on their own timetable and to ignore the political implications. After all many do not like what they call judge made law.
Just as the state does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation, so too the courts do not belong in the election campaigns of the nation. However, that principle could cut either way. Staying out of the election campaign may be interpreted by the court as just delaying releasing its decision until after the next election is over. That is one way to stay out of the election process. It could also mean that the courts decide that the election timing and process has nothing to do with them and what ever they do is irrelevant to the election process. They would then choose to ignore the election process entirely and release their decision whenever they are ready. To do otherwise is a de facto involvement in the election process.
Then of course, this all depends on what the final court decision is. If Harper is off the hook and did not act illegally, should that decision be released in the middle of an election campaign? Will that not be the courts having an impact of the final result? If Harper is off the hook and the decision can be announced before the election starts but knowing we are headed for an election; should it be announced?
What if the courts wait, Harper wins the next election but loses in court? Does that destabilize and undermine the the legitimacy of his government? These potential scenarios are all real issues that could have been avoided simply by Harper facing the House of Commons non-confidence vote and challenging the coalitions legitimacy to govern and forcing an election in 2006.
Democracy Watch is saying if they win, then Canadians could start a class action against the Conservative Party for the $350,000,000 of costs for the last election. What a tangled web our Prime Minister weaves by the kinds of political choices he makes.
Are Volatile "Voters" Confounding the Pollsters?
So once again we are seeing voter volatility and uncertainty reflected in the various recent poll results but they are all about a hypothetical question of who will you vote for when there is no election on, so generally, people don't take the question seriously. Ekos says Harper and Ignatieff are tied but the Libs have been leading for a while. Strategic Counsel says Harper is up 5 points and has been leading the Liberals since early July. Ipsos Reid a couple of weeks ago had a poll result that was very different that a group of other recent pollster findings. Go figure? All are pollsters in the game are reputable and capable but how can we account fo rthe wide variations in findings?
Strategic Counsel says the Liberal Vote is down 14% in Quebec since last May. Ekos tells us that Liberal support is higher in Alberta than Conservative support in Quebec. A fun factoid but what does it mean. Will the Libs break through in Alberta again? Will Quebecers send Harper packing? All this proves nothing but continuing uncertainty and just adds to the misinformation and distraction from the real issues we need to be facing in any pending election.
Here are some of my concerns about the state of politics and the nation these days. Consensus about leadership is lacking, both in terms of Harper's capacity and Ignatieff's intentions. No one has really talked clearly about vision and how we need to mitigate and adapt over concerns over climate change, education based on skills needed for the 21st century, how we can rethink our economy to reposition ourselves globally as we come out of the recession. What about our relations with America - where the puck was, and China and India where the puck is going. None of these issues are in isolation, they are all integrated and impact on each other.
Canadians recognize that we need a change from another minority government but we are not sure yet which way we want to go to create that change. An election will focus us on how we really want to answer that question. The Conservatives are feeding fear that an election will shut down government and the home reno provisions will not be passed. Not true but in uncertain times feeding fear is a powerful political strategy.
Elections have never destabilized the continuing work of government in Canada. And the home reno issue is assured and need not be political at all, unless Mr. Harper decides he wants to make so. I still don't understand why Harper did not just pass it all in his budget last April. Why did he not just get the home reno program done when he had the chance? We have enough uncertainty and his approach to suggest it might not go through if an election were called this fall is not true and intended to add to the angst and uncertainty of the recession.
Harper wants to avoid an early election because he wants the media attention of the international meetings that are coming up, including another session with President Obama. He will likely do what it takes to defer any efforts to personally present a confidence motion on an issue that he would like to be defeated on, like EI reform. He will at least wait to play that kind of political card until after he gets to rub shoulders with the truly powerful politicians on the world stage.
The Liberals already voted for the Budget and want it finished and effectively implemented so they are not going to scuttle the home reno program. They also want to see the results of the fiscal update the PM has to deliver to the nation by the end of September. They are just starting to talk about hope and are staking out a place presence for their leader on the Internet and traditional media with a new advertising campaign. That needs time to gel too.
But but neither Conservative fear or Liberal hope is in itself an effective method to prove either leader is ready to govern in these perilous uncertain times in our country. We will want more meaningful policy meat from these camps if we are forced to go to the polls this fall. The economy, health care and the environment are likely the top of mind issues for most of us. No polls that I have seen are exploring what the issues are going to be in the next election and our attitudes are towards them. Pity!
The punditry is all about talking up the horse race between the leaders, as meaningless and trivial as that is to the real concerns of the country. Commentary is presented without clarification nor with the contextual reality that the race has not yet started so all this chatter is just that, much ado but signifying nothing. The polling focuses to date are just about positioning politicians and parties like people in elevators. They are either coming in and on their way up or they are going down and on their way out. Sadly we don't yet know for sure who is who in the zoo.
We are going to have an election eventually. The timing will be based on if Mr. Harper's minority government can still sustain the confidence of the House of Commons. The Liberals are now on record that they are ready to go any time. So now the Bloc and the NDP have the finger on the trigger of the starting gun that will cause the election. It is up to either them to tip the scales and determine when Mr. Harper's leadership has to face the nation. It is an open question when it will start, who will start it, Layton or Duceppe, and what issue they will use to trigger it.
As to what the ballot question will be in the next election, it is always based on a theme of leadership, change and vision. The next election will also be about those themes and how do we achieve an majority government so we can get back to some stability in our politics and governance. That means the underlying and animating ballot question will be which leader do we, as a nation and in our collective wisdom, trust with the absolute governing power of a majority government - Harper or Ignatieff.
Strategic Counsel says the Liberal Vote is down 14% in Quebec since last May. Ekos tells us that Liberal support is higher in Alberta than Conservative support in Quebec. A fun factoid but what does it mean. Will the Libs break through in Alberta again? Will Quebecers send Harper packing? All this proves nothing but continuing uncertainty and just adds to the misinformation and distraction from the real issues we need to be facing in any pending election.
Here are some of my concerns about the state of politics and the nation these days. Consensus about leadership is lacking, both in terms of Harper's capacity and Ignatieff's intentions. No one has really talked clearly about vision and how we need to mitigate and adapt over concerns over climate change, education based on skills needed for the 21st century, how we can rethink our economy to reposition ourselves globally as we come out of the recession. What about our relations with America - where the puck was, and China and India where the puck is going. None of these issues are in isolation, they are all integrated and impact on each other.
Canadians recognize that we need a change from another minority government but we are not sure yet which way we want to go to create that change. An election will focus us on how we really want to answer that question. The Conservatives are feeding fear that an election will shut down government and the home reno provisions will not be passed. Not true but in uncertain times feeding fear is a powerful political strategy.
Elections have never destabilized the continuing work of government in Canada. And the home reno issue is assured and need not be political at all, unless Mr. Harper decides he wants to make so. I still don't understand why Harper did not just pass it all in his budget last April. Why did he not just get the home reno program done when he had the chance? We have enough uncertainty and his approach to suggest it might not go through if an election were called this fall is not true and intended to add to the angst and uncertainty of the recession.
Harper wants to avoid an early election because he wants the media attention of the international meetings that are coming up, including another session with President Obama. He will likely do what it takes to defer any efforts to personally present a confidence motion on an issue that he would like to be defeated on, like EI reform. He will at least wait to play that kind of political card until after he gets to rub shoulders with the truly powerful politicians on the world stage.
The Liberals already voted for the Budget and want it finished and effectively implemented so they are not going to scuttle the home reno program. They also want to see the results of the fiscal update the PM has to deliver to the nation by the end of September. They are just starting to talk about hope and are staking out a place presence for their leader on the Internet and traditional media with a new advertising campaign. That needs time to gel too.
But but neither Conservative fear or Liberal hope is in itself an effective method to prove either leader is ready to govern in these perilous uncertain times in our country. We will want more meaningful policy meat from these camps if we are forced to go to the polls this fall. The economy, health care and the environment are likely the top of mind issues for most of us. No polls that I have seen are exploring what the issues are going to be in the next election and our attitudes are towards them. Pity!
The punditry is all about talking up the horse race between the leaders, as meaningless and trivial as that is to the real concerns of the country. Commentary is presented without clarification nor with the contextual reality that the race has not yet started so all this chatter is just that, much ado but signifying nothing. The polling focuses to date are just about positioning politicians and parties like people in elevators. They are either coming in and on their way up or they are going down and on their way out. Sadly we don't yet know for sure who is who in the zoo.
We are going to have an election eventually. The timing will be based on if Mr. Harper's minority government can still sustain the confidence of the House of Commons. The Liberals are now on record that they are ready to go any time. So now the Bloc and the NDP have the finger on the trigger of the starting gun that will cause the election. It is up to either them to tip the scales and determine when Mr. Harper's leadership has to face the nation. It is an open question when it will start, who will start it, Layton or Duceppe, and what issue they will use to trigger it.
As to what the ballot question will be in the next election, it is always based on a theme of leadership, change and vision. The next election will also be about those themes and how do we achieve an majority government so we can get back to some stability in our politics and governance. That means the underlying and animating ballot question will be which leader do we, as a nation and in our collective wisdom, trust with the absolute governing power of a majority government - Harper or Ignatieff.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Can Pre-Election Opinion Polls Do More Harm Than Good?
I don't have much faith and even less trust in opinion polls. Not because I think they are wrong or a waste of time. I just think they are too trapped in time and context and only a superficial snap shot of "opinion." So they are a pretty meaningless predictor of actual behaviours.
So I was interested to read this piece on polling in yesterday's Edmonton Journal. Ipsos Reid is one of the best brand names for polling around. It was good to see the discussion on the role and limitations on opinion polling.
It is getting harder to get folks to respond to polls these days, and when they do to ensure you have a truly random sample and that participants are telling you the truth. One of my favourite bumper stickers from many years ago was "Save Democracy, Lie to a Pollster."
I think this attitude about intentionally lying to pollsters is more prevalent than many realize. Also, the random sample may be demographically pure but there are so many more phone calls that have to be made to get people to actually participate. As a result we get a self-selection skew in the randomness of sampling. This self-selection skewing is especially true in on-line polling techniques.
I know lots of people who admit lying to pollsters, intentionally. Others give normative but untrue answers that do not reflect reality either. For example less than 60% of Canadians voted in the last federal election but polls indicate a much larger number say they did. Are they lying? some are. Did they forget that they did not vote but intended to vote and re making a mistake? Are they giving what they know is the proper (normative) answer even though they know it is not the truth?
Mr Bricker of Ipsos Reid also notes in the article that the order and syntax of questions will make a big difference in the answers polls generate. So with all this, I take opinion poss with a grain of salt. Those unscientific "surveys" you see in websites of traditional media are actually dangerous. This is because they have a air of unwarranted credibility about they because of the authority of the newspaper, radio or television broadcaster who is hosting them. They often get hijacked by special interests or competing interests, like political parties. The results mislead an unsuspecting public and can have a significant impact on the actual beliefs of many well intentioned but ill-informed people. Look how many Americans still think 911 terrorists came through Canada, even the US Cabinet Secretary involved made a recent comment to that effect. Mistaken initial beliefs are had to change, regardless of the amount and credibility of the subsequent evidence to the contrary.
That said, let the polls proceed. We just need to ensure we have some general literacy in our society about what opinion polls do, what they mean and don't mean and what they "prove" - if anything. I often do commentary and analysis on political opinion polls in the blog. I think the real value they have is, over time and with many sources on similar questions and issues, they can collectively provide a sense of trend or direction of public sentiment. But unless we are into an actual election, asking a hypothetical "how would you vote tomorrow if an election was called" generates pretty meaningless data.
Elections matter and campaigns create consequences that generates real results that truly matter to the good of the country. Poll away but don't let them have any sway until the reality of an actual election is happening, then, and only then should people pay them some heed.
So I was interested to read this piece on polling in yesterday's Edmonton Journal. Ipsos Reid is one of the best brand names for polling around. It was good to see the discussion on the role and limitations on opinion polling.
It is getting harder to get folks to respond to polls these days, and when they do to ensure you have a truly random sample and that participants are telling you the truth. One of my favourite bumper stickers from many years ago was "Save Democracy, Lie to a Pollster."
I think this attitude about intentionally lying to pollsters is more prevalent than many realize. Also, the random sample may be demographically pure but there are so many more phone calls that have to be made to get people to actually participate. As a result we get a self-selection skew in the randomness of sampling. This self-selection skewing is especially true in on-line polling techniques.
I know lots of people who admit lying to pollsters, intentionally. Others give normative but untrue answers that do not reflect reality either. For example less than 60% of Canadians voted in the last federal election but polls indicate a much larger number say they did. Are they lying? some are. Did they forget that they did not vote but intended to vote and re making a mistake? Are they giving what they know is the proper (normative) answer even though they know it is not the truth?
Mr Bricker of Ipsos Reid also notes in the article that the order and syntax of questions will make a big difference in the answers polls generate. So with all this, I take opinion poss with a grain of salt. Those unscientific "surveys" you see in websites of traditional media are actually dangerous. This is because they have a air of unwarranted credibility about they because of the authority of the newspaper, radio or television broadcaster who is hosting them. They often get hijacked by special interests or competing interests, like political parties. The results mislead an unsuspecting public and can have a significant impact on the actual beliefs of many well intentioned but ill-informed people. Look how many Americans still think 911 terrorists came through Canada, even the US Cabinet Secretary involved made a recent comment to that effect. Mistaken initial beliefs are had to change, regardless of the amount and credibility of the subsequent evidence to the contrary.
That said, let the polls proceed. We just need to ensure we have some general literacy in our society about what opinion polls do, what they mean and don't mean and what they "prove" - if anything. I often do commentary and analysis on political opinion polls in the blog. I think the real value they have is, over time and with many sources on similar questions and issues, they can collectively provide a sense of trend or direction of public sentiment. But unless we are into an actual election, asking a hypothetical "how would you vote tomorrow if an election was called" generates pretty meaningless data.
Elections matter and campaigns create consequences that generates real results that truly matter to the good of the country. Poll away but don't let them have any sway until the reality of an actual election is happening, then, and only then should people pay them some heed.
Obama Speaks to Student's About Their Responsibility
I have never had a guest blogger and this post is not one either. However, it is the transcript of the remarks he will make live tomorrow to school kids all over America. The rest of us will watch on television or on the Web. I wanted to post the speech here so you could read them and have them sink in as you watch the President deliver them tomorrow.
The message is clear and much of it can be considered serious challenges for many citizens. This is particularly true for those who have given up on democracy, have withdrawn from the politics and no long choose to be informed about the issues of our times. I hope you read this and share the text with your friends and family who no long feel they have a contribution to make to create a better society through informed citizenship and political participation.
The message is clear and much of it can be considered serious challenges for many citizens. This is particularly true for those who have given up on democracy, have withdrawn from the politics and no long choose to be informed about the issues of our times. I hope you read this and share the text with your friends and family who no long feel they have a contribution to make to create a better society through informed citizenship and political participation.
Prepared Remarks of President Barack ObamaBack to School Event
Arlington, Virginia September 8, 2009
Arlington, Virginia September 8, 2009
The President: Hello everyone – how’s everybody doing today? I’m here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we’ve got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through twelfth grade. I’m glad you all could join us today.
I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it’s your first day in a new school, so it’s understandable if you’re a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. And no matter what grade you’re in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could’ve stayed in bed just a little longer this morning.
I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday – at 4:30 in the morning.
Now I wasn’t too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I’d fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I’d complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster."
Now I wasn’t too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I’d fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I’d complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster."
So I know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I’m here today because I have something important to discuss with you. I’m here because I want to talk with you about your education and what’s expected of all of you in this new school year.
Now I’ve given a lot of speeches about education. And I’ve talked a lot about responsibility.
I’ve talked about your teachers’ responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn.
Now I’ve given a lot of speeches about education. And I’ve talked a lot about responsibility.
I’ve talked about your teachers’ responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn.
I’ve talked about your parents’ responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox.
I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve.
I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve.
But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.
Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide.
Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide.
Maybe you could be a good writer – maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper – but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor – maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine – but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.
And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job.
You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.
And this isn’t just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.
And this isn’t just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.
You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You’ll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy.
We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.
Now I know it’s not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.
I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in.
I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in.
So I wasn’t always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I’m not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse.
But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams. My wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama, has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn’t have much. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the best schools in this country.
Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don’t have adults in your life who give you the support that you need. Maybe someone in your family has lost their job, and there’s not enough money to go around. Maybe you live in a neighborhood where you don’t feel safe, or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren’t right.
But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying.
Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.
That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.
That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.
Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn’t speak English when she first started school. Hardly anyone in her hometown went to college, and neither of her parents had gone either. But she worked hard, earned good grades, got a scholarship to Brown University, and is now in graduate school, studying public health, on her way to being Dr. Jazmin Perez.
I’m thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who’s fought brain cancer since he was three. He’s endured all sorts of treatments and surgeries, one of which affected his memory, so it took him much longer – hundreds of extra hours – to do his schoolwork. But he never fell behind, and he’s headed to college this fall.
And then there’s Shantell Steve, from my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Even when bouncing from foster home to foster home in the toughest neighborhoods, she managed to get a job at a local health center; start a program to keep young people out of gangs; and she’s on track to graduate high school with honors and go on to college.
Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell aren’t any different from any of you. They faced challenges in their lives just like you do. But they refused to give up. They chose to take responsibility for their education and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of you to do the same.
That’s why today, I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education – and to do everything you can to meet them. Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. Maybe you’ll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn. Maybe you’ll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. And along those lines, I hope you’ll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.
Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it.
I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things.
But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you study. You won’t click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.
That’s OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who’ve had the most failures. JK Rowling’s first Harry Potter book was rejected twelve times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
These people succeeded because they understand that you can’t let your failures define you – you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time. If you get in trouble, that doesn’t mean you’re a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave. If you get a bad grade, that doesn’t mean you’re stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying.
No one’s born being good at things, you become good at things through hard work. You’re not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don’t hit every note the first time you sing a song. You’ve got to practice. It’s the same with your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a paper before it’s good enough to hand in.
Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don’t know something, and to learn something new. So find an adult you trust – a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counselor – and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals.
And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.
The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.
It’s the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.
So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?
Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Wildrose Alliance Invites Bloggers to Their Leadership Convention
My hat is off to Jane Morgan the Executive Director of the Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta. I recently made a suggestion to her on Twitter that bloggers should be accredited media at their leadership convention in Edmonton on October 17, 2009. Almost immediately she responded - and favourably to the idea. OnTwitter she is @wildrosejane and I am @kenchapman46 if you want to follow us.
Her blog is "Up Close and Personal With Jane." Here is her recent blog post on the point and accepting the challenge. I am returning from out of the country the day before the event but I plan to be there and posting on my impressions from the floor of the WAP convention. I expect others more adept at social media than me will be live blogging the results in real time. There will be quite a few of us political bloggers who will take up the invitation and be posting from the floor of the convention.
Some tweets have expressed concern about allowing "overly partisan bloggers who are strong supporters of other parties" into the WAP convention. I understand the angst at one level but in reality, we will be blogging anyway. By not being there we will not have the advantage and responsibility of accountability that come with actually being there. The fact that bloggers of any and all stripes will be there in person will add authenticity and authority to the social media dialogue that will happen.
I also applaud Jane for also saying that no anonymous bloggers will be allowed. That will add to the accountability and responsibility of the bloggers who post about the WAP leadership. That does not mean blogger's nom-de-plumes can't be used, just that the real name of the blogger has to be published too. Putting the real name of registered bloggers on the WAP website would solve that identity and political perspective problem for readers. This way readers will be able to judge the content, context and credibility of the bloggers...critically important stuff in a vibrant dialogue on policy and politics in the province.
This initiative will be good for the credibility of the WAP. It frames them as an open and accountable party who are demonstrating a commitment to free speech and supporting serious citizen engagement in politics. They also get enormous amounts of free publicity and new media coverage that will be more fact based and biases (like mine) more exposed as well.
Now I wonder if my party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta will do the same thing at its November Annual General Meeting in Red Deer. That is when the party delegates will have a confidence vote on Premier Stelmach's leadership. Again the blogosphere and the social media will be alive with commentary in any event. It would be better if the citizen journalists who want to attend the AGM could do so and write their posts in real time from the actual event itself. But again lets not allow anonymous bloggers into the event and lets post the names and URLs of the registered bloggers on the Party website for all to see. Anonymous bloggers will still write stuff but readers can discount their commentary because they don't know if the source is informed and trustworthy.
Yes the bloggers at the PC Party AGM and the WAP Leadership Convention will be looking for interviews with party members and delegates in attendance. Yes they will be asking the key questions about perceptions of Premier Stelmach's performance as party leader and who should lead the WAP and why. Yes there will be biases in the blogging. But there will also be a wide array of bloggers and postings, not all of them supportive of the "host" political parties. That again is the essence of free speech, freedom of association and the price any political party should be prepared to pay as part of it role to promoting a dynamic, vibrant democracy in Alberta.
The old days of controlling the content, context and timing of political messaging is gone. Now it is about the Internet based conversation that happens within social, political, economic and environmental networks of concerned citizens. These exchanges of ideas and opinions are in the open, unfiltered and unmediated by traditional one-way messaging of the conventional news sources.
Political parties are pretty much private clubs, with too much power, in my humble opinion. Anyone can join but few do because they are seen by the general population as closed and constricting. To include and accept social media, and bloggers in particular, into the media mix of such political and partisan events will open them up to scrutiny and accountability but how can that be a bad thing for democracy?
So I applaud Jane Morgan and the Wildrose Alliance Party. Congratulations for having the courage and taking the initiative to be open and accountable as a political institution. Kudos too for being nimble enough to see and accept the new media reality of the 21st century. It can only be a good thing for your organization and for politics in Alberta.
Her blog is "Up Close and Personal With Jane." Here is her recent blog post on the point and accepting the challenge. I am returning from out of the country the day before the event but I plan to be there and posting on my impressions from the floor of the WAP convention. I expect others more adept at social media than me will be live blogging the results in real time. There will be quite a few of us political bloggers who will take up the invitation and be posting from the floor of the convention.
Some tweets have expressed concern about allowing "overly partisan bloggers who are strong supporters of other parties" into the WAP convention. I understand the angst at one level but in reality, we will be blogging anyway. By not being there we will not have the advantage and responsibility of accountability that come with actually being there. The fact that bloggers of any and all stripes will be there in person will add authenticity and authority to the social media dialogue that will happen.
I also applaud Jane for also saying that no anonymous bloggers will be allowed. That will add to the accountability and responsibility of the bloggers who post about the WAP leadership. That does not mean blogger's nom-de-plumes can't be used, just that the real name of the blogger has to be published too. Putting the real name of registered bloggers on the WAP website would solve that identity and political perspective problem for readers. This way readers will be able to judge the content, context and credibility of the bloggers...critically important stuff in a vibrant dialogue on policy and politics in the province.
This initiative will be good for the credibility of the WAP. It frames them as an open and accountable party who are demonstrating a commitment to free speech and supporting serious citizen engagement in politics. They also get enormous amounts of free publicity and new media coverage that will be more fact based and biases (like mine) more exposed as well.
Now I wonder if my party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta will do the same thing at its November Annual General Meeting in Red Deer. That is when the party delegates will have a confidence vote on Premier Stelmach's leadership. Again the blogosphere and the social media will be alive with commentary in any event. It would be better if the citizen journalists who want to attend the AGM could do so and write their posts in real time from the actual event itself. But again lets not allow anonymous bloggers into the event and lets post the names and URLs of the registered bloggers on the Party website for all to see. Anonymous bloggers will still write stuff but readers can discount their commentary because they don't know if the source is informed and trustworthy.
Yes the bloggers at the PC Party AGM and the WAP Leadership Convention will be looking for interviews with party members and delegates in attendance. Yes they will be asking the key questions about perceptions of Premier Stelmach's performance as party leader and who should lead the WAP and why. Yes there will be biases in the blogging. But there will also be a wide array of bloggers and postings, not all of them supportive of the "host" political parties. That again is the essence of free speech, freedom of association and the price any political party should be prepared to pay as part of it role to promoting a dynamic, vibrant democracy in Alberta.
The old days of controlling the content, context and timing of political messaging is gone. Now it is about the Internet based conversation that happens within social, political, economic and environmental networks of concerned citizens. These exchanges of ideas and opinions are in the open, unfiltered and unmediated by traditional one-way messaging of the conventional news sources.
Political parties are pretty much private clubs, with too much power, in my humble opinion. Anyone can join but few do because they are seen by the general population as closed and constricting. To include and accept social media, and bloggers in particular, into the media mix of such political and partisan events will open them up to scrutiny and accountability but how can that be a bad thing for democracy?
So I applaud Jane Morgan and the Wildrose Alliance Party. Congratulations for having the courage and taking the initiative to be open and accountable as a political institution. Kudos too for being nimble enough to see and accept the new media reality of the 21st century. It can only be a good thing for your organization and for politics in Alberta.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Al Franken is a Quality Politician
Here is Al Franken, who get belittled for being a comic, having a rational and respectful conversation with Americans on healthcare. This is not the disruptive town hall the Republicans have perpetrated in the name of democracy. This is how the system of discussing issues ought to be.
http://viralvideochart.unrulymedia.com/youtube/franken_talks_down_angry_mob?id=SCNs7Zpqo98
We need more politicians like this and more respectful real information and genuine concern sharing in all "mature" democracies.
I hope the Harper Con War Room is rethinking its standard operation procedure in the next election and decides to show some respect for voter's intelligence this next election.
http://viralvideochart.unrulymedia.com/youtube/franken_talks_down_angry_mob?id=SCNs7Zpqo98
We need more politicians like this and more respectful real information and genuine concern sharing in all "mature" democracies.
I hope the Harper Con War Room is rethinking its standard operation procedure in the next election and decides to show some respect for voter's intelligence this next election.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Mr. Harper, Your Time is UP!
So the Federal Liberals have their political mojo back and are ready to be a political party and a political force once again. The key message from Michael Ignatieff coming out of the Liberal Caucus meeting this week is "Mr. Harper, your time is up!" Yes it is and it is about time too!
The Liberals are back, they have some buck and bravado to boot. So will we have a fall election? That depends on Jack Layton all of a sudden. The NDP have to shed their sheep's clothing of the past 4 years and now have to stifle their sanctimony. They loved to talk about how they were "consistently" not supporting the Harper government as if that was some symbol of political integrity. It was pure positioning and political opportunism, and a safe bet because of how weak an unprepared the Liberals were to face another election. But that was then and this is now.
Layton met privately with Harper recently. I am sure they are working on a deal to prop up Deceivin' Stephen for a while longer. Harper is hoping to buy some time by doing some Dipper pandering. He want to give the economy time to really turn around so his Con Artists can take credit for it. Layton will trade an early election for regulated credit card rates. Harper will give him an all-party committee to study the issues like with EI!
This gamesmanship is not new for Harper or Layton. Layton cut a deal to prop up Martin' s minority and even had the nerve to claim the Martin budget as an NDP budget in the bargain. Hyperbole and histrionics are part of the political game but Layton can go overboard. Harper was cutting a deal with the Bloc a few years back to force the non-confidence vote to defeat the Martin government. So Harper has proven that he will even hop into bed with separatists for the purposes of gaining personal political power. Old-time Reformers (are there any other kind?) must be fuming at the prospects of a repeat of that possibility.
So we have had at least two recent and really unnecessary elections - both caused by Mr. Harper's hubris. First, when he defeated the Martin minority when Canadians had just elected it. We were insisting we wanted our politicians to learn to work together for the good of the country. That was our political agenda in electing a minority government. But that was not the goal of Deceivin' Stephen. He cut a deal with the separatists and pushed us to the polls.
The next unnecessary and unwanted election was the last one. That was when Harper was too scared to face the House of Commons. Instead he shut down Parliament and prorogued the House then slithered off to ask the Gov Gen for an election. That too was and election that nobody wanted and to prove our discontent, we stayed home from the polls in record numbers.
Now Deceivin' Stephen is saying, rather sanctimoniously, that he "...hasn't met a single Canadian who's saying they want to see an election right now." As if that matters to him as some kind of foundational principled way that he stands by. The last two unnecesasry election were one that he caused. We didn't want or need them but that did not matter to Harper because he was on a mission to gain absolute personal political power.
So will we have an election this fall? Ask Jack Layton. It is in his hands right now. After the Bloc news conference today we may also see a different scenario emerging. Will Duceppe try to take the stage as the primary prop manager to keep the limp and languishing Harper government afloat? What price will we have to pay and what is Harper's price? What will he pay to Jack and/or Gilles to retain the Hill and preseve his personal political power?
The only federal party that will be talking to, for and about Canadians now will be the Federal Liberals. All the rest of them will be in back rooms "cutting up the cash" as Lyin' Brian used to say.
Remember when Mulroney was one of Harper's mentors and role models? Harper officially shunned Mulroney politically when he finally had to fulfill his promise to call the inquiry into the Mulroney/Schreiber affair. Speaking of cutting up the cash, Mulroney proved to be pretty good at that all by himself as he admitted in his inquiry testimony.
The next election is inevitable, it is only a matter of time. One thing for sure Harper's time is up! It is time for Canadians to shun Deceivin' Stephen just like he did over the Schreiber Affair and just Canadians did to Lyin' Brian in the 1993 election leaving his majority government with only 2 seats.
With some luck and an informed, activist and engaged citizenry maybe we can get back to some peace, order and good government with a Liberal majority. the only way to get it done is with an election So let's get on with it! Over to you Jack - or Gilles! What do you say?
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Recession Over? Where is the Recovery?
Mark Twain once famously sent a telegram saying “Rumours of my death are greatly exaggerated.” I get a sense that same sentiment needs to be conveyed about rumours of economic recovery are also greatly exaggerated – and confounding as well.
We have the technical talk from economists telling us the recession is over in Canada. The June Stats Canada report shows our GDP rose 0.1% that month after 10 months constant and precipitous declines. This “turnaround” is just so much decimal dust in the big scheme of things, but it has spawned headlines like “Canadian Economy Back in the Black” in the Sun newspapers. Yes indeed rumours of recovery are greatly exaggerated. Let’s look at some context to help us determine the truth of the times.
The Globe and Mail rightly says while June GDP tipped-toed into positive territory the last quarter (April to June) was down 3.4% annualized and that was worse than expected. They say, “It doesn’t mean things are necessarily better, it just means they aren’t as bad as the last time data was collected.” Cold, hard truth and a side-order of reality are in that comment.
The US Federal Reserve Chair, Ben Bernanke says the economy teetered in February and warned of the “destructive powers of the ‘adverse feedback loop, in which weakening economic and financial conditions mutually reinforce.’” That is simple know as a vicious cycle. The key to the US recover according to Bernanke is for consumer to start spending again. Temper that hope with the fact that the American consumer has personal debt piled up that is equal to the entire US annual GDP. Spending is not likely to be the main concern of the typical American for the next while.
In Alberta we have the Canada West Foundation saying in a recent report entitled “A Rough Patch” in the Alberta economic profile. While oil prices have started to recover, unemployment is still high, investment is down means “…that the news is more bad than good.” CFW notes Alberta is very dependent on the US recover which it predicts will not start to turn around until sometime in 2010. CWF says energy prices will start to turn around too but “…last year’s contraction, the first since 1986, came as a bit of a shock to them (Albertan.)” They predict Alberta in 2009 will do worse than the Canadian average.
The recession may be at the bottom of the cycle in the minds of the economists but the issue for the rest of us is the recovery. Will it be a “V”, a fast drop and a quick recovery? Will it be a “U” fast decline lingering at the bottom and then a rapid recovery? Will it be a “W” with a false sense of recovery sparked by the infrastructure spending but not sustainable so we return to recession after the public infrastructure project spending is done? Will it be an “L” like in Japan? That reality of the “lost decade” in Japan recently caused a wholesale change in their politics and the demise of its “natural governing party in the recent election.
Nobody knows so use a skeptical eye and ear to whatever you are reading or hear from the “experts” in the area. I think we need to use this recession for a thorough review and rethink about the infallibility of the market place. That does not mean government control of everything either. What I would like to see is the economy returned to its rightful place –and that is to serve the society, not the other way around. I would also like to see the economy as repositioned to be the wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.
The economy is a man-made concept so mankind can change the content and context of the concept. Growth is good but like anything else, too much of a good think is harmful. Like many Albertans, L am longing for a Lougheed kind of leadership who will warn us to take heed and to adapt to new realities as we come out of this recession.
Lougheed is on record saying we Albertans, as owners of our natural resources, need to be sure our government and industry exercise some restraint, especially in how we develop the oilsands. The past economic policy of unfettered growth has only enriched a few but, in the process; it has set up the destruction of our society and our environment.
When it comes to the oilsands we can do better, and we better do better...and it better be green going forward.
We have the technical talk from economists telling us the recession is over in Canada. The June Stats Canada report shows our GDP rose 0.1% that month after 10 months constant and precipitous declines. This “turnaround” is just so much decimal dust in the big scheme of things, but it has spawned headlines like “Canadian Economy Back in the Black” in the Sun newspapers. Yes indeed rumours of recovery are greatly exaggerated. Let’s look at some context to help us determine the truth of the times.
The Globe and Mail rightly says while June GDP tipped-toed into positive territory the last quarter (April to June) was down 3.4% annualized and that was worse than expected. They say, “It doesn’t mean things are necessarily better, it just means they aren’t as bad as the last time data was collected.” Cold, hard truth and a side-order of reality are in that comment.
The US Federal Reserve Chair, Ben Bernanke says the economy teetered in February and warned of the “destructive powers of the ‘adverse feedback loop, in which weakening economic and financial conditions mutually reinforce.’” That is simple know as a vicious cycle. The key to the US recover according to Bernanke is for consumer to start spending again. Temper that hope with the fact that the American consumer has personal debt piled up that is equal to the entire US annual GDP. Spending is not likely to be the main concern of the typical American for the next while.
In Alberta we have the Canada West Foundation saying in a recent report entitled “A Rough Patch” in the Alberta economic profile. While oil prices have started to recover, unemployment is still high, investment is down means “…that the news is more bad than good.” CFW notes Alberta is very dependent on the US recover which it predicts will not start to turn around until sometime in 2010. CWF says energy prices will start to turn around too but “…last year’s contraction, the first since 1986, came as a bit of a shock to them (Albertan.)” They predict Alberta in 2009 will do worse than the Canadian average.
The recession may be at the bottom of the cycle in the minds of the economists but the issue for the rest of us is the recovery. Will it be a “V”, a fast drop and a quick recovery? Will it be a “U” fast decline lingering at the bottom and then a rapid recovery? Will it be a “W” with a false sense of recovery sparked by the infrastructure spending but not sustainable so we return to recession after the public infrastructure project spending is done? Will it be an “L” like in Japan? That reality of the “lost decade” in Japan recently caused a wholesale change in their politics and the demise of its “natural governing party in the recent election.
Nobody knows so use a skeptical eye and ear to whatever you are reading or hear from the “experts” in the area. I think we need to use this recession for a thorough review and rethink about the infallibility of the market place. That does not mean government control of everything either. What I would like to see is the economy returned to its rightful place –and that is to serve the society, not the other way around. I would also like to see the economy as repositioned to be the wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.
The economy is a man-made concept so mankind can change the content and context of the concept. Growth is good but like anything else, too much of a good think is harmful. Like many Albertans, L am longing for a Lougheed kind of leadership who will warn us to take heed and to adapt to new realities as we come out of this recession.
Lougheed is on record saying we Albertans, as owners of our natural resources, need to be sure our government and industry exercise some restraint, especially in how we develop the oilsands. The past economic policy of unfettered growth has only enriched a few but, in the process; it has set up the destruction of our society and our environment.
When it comes to the oilsands we can do better, and we better do better...and it better be green going forward.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Day 6: What Led Up to Mr. Ouellet Being Found in Contempt of Court
One of the most fascinating documents I read from the Court of Appeal file was the transcript of the discovery of Mr. Ouellet, part of the Foster Mother’s application to find him in contempt of court. Examination for Discovery is part of the litigation process to determine facts and other information in a legal action where questions are asked by lawyers and the answers are given under oath. They can become evidence in the litigation.
What Did the Director Know About the Case & When?
I took notes from the transcript and will share the answers and the questions they beg. The testimony indicates some interesting circumstances and realities of the Director’s position, case participation and responsibilities of the office, at least in this case, and presumably others. Remember this saga is all about determining and delivering to meet the best interests of the child. Consider who determines what those best interests are, based on what evidence and how do those responsible actually make the judgment calls about the safety, security and needs of at-risk kids in government care?
Did the Director get Bad Advice?
My impressions from reading the sworn testimony of Mr. Ouellet, I have developed more sympathy for his plight in this case. I think he got some bad advice. He also failed to do his own due diligence in his Director role as he decided to remove the child from the Foster Mother. That failure is not my opinion. That is the opinion of both the original Appeal Panel and the Court of Appeal.
Here is the background and circumstances that Mr. Ouellet found himself in and how he responded, based on his sworn testimony.
According to Mr. Ouellet, he did not know anything about the Court of Appeal order to return the child until a departmental meeting on June 5, 2009. That meeting was called by his staff responding to a Court of Appeal’s letter "clarifying" its outstanding order, from January 30, 2009. The Court of Appeal said its court order meant that the child had to be returned to the Foster Mother. Mr. Ouellet was the senior person in charge and also the official guardian of the child. He said he did not know this matter had been through two levels of court and now going back to court of allegations of his personal contempt of court until June 5, 2009.
What Power and Duties Did the Director Have?
How can there be no such communication to him from his departmental staff or legal counsel who were dealing with the matter, especially given his personal and professional accountability in the case? Is it oversight, lax procedures, poor leadership, poor training, overworked staff? If it is any or all of these concerns, does it all this add up to a serious management and leadership shortcoming in how matters are dealt with in this department? I tend to believe Mr. Ouellet saying he did not know what was happening in this case, since, after all, he was testifying under oath. Perjury is a tougher consequence than contempt.
He goes further saying in the management model in CYSA there is no obligation for workers to inform him as the Director of issues or concerns of any particular matter. The only permissions needed by the social worker and middle management staff are to seek prior permission of the Deputy Minister if the government wants to take matters into litigation.
June 5th Meeting Sealed the Director's Fate.
So let’s look at the events leading up to the June 5th meeting and the actions taken as a result. CYSA received a letter from the Court of Appeal on June 4, 2009 confirming its prior order meant that the child was to be returned to the Foster Mother. The lawyer for the Foster Mother had written to the court requesting directions and clarification of the court order because CYSA had not yet returned the child. That court order had been outstanding and ignored by CYSA for over 4 months by this time.
The June 5th meeting included the Director, a government lawyer and other senior department management people. In requesting the meeting the senior staff said to the Director that they needed to meet about "an interesting and challenging case." Yes indeed it was interesting and challenging but this seems euphemistic considering the seriousness of the matter, especially as to consequences for the child as well as for the Director "best interests" now too.
Four days later an application was made by the Foster Mother seeking an order finding the Director in contempt of court. In preparation for the June 5th meeting the Director was faxed background of the case on June 4th. But he did not read it before or even after the June 5th meeting. Why didn’t he read the file?
Could it be willful blindness, indifference, insouciance, inexperience, naivety or was it neglect and/or negligence? I don’t know, but in hindsight, I am sure the Director wished he had read the material and prepared himself better for that meeting. According to his testimony he was not told about the June 4 letter from the Court of Appeal at the time of the June 5th meeting either. Perhaps it was in the background material, but in any case, it is a very material piece of evidence in the child’s case and soon, in his own contempt of court case.
The Director testified that after the June 5th meeting it was clear that the child had to be returned to the Foster Mother. Curiously he did not direct the staff responsible for the child’s file to return the child. Strange, don’t you think? Well not so strange when you consider this part of the testimony where the June 5th meeting decided that the child should be returned but in this context: "provided all legal avenues had been exhausted." This language indicates a conscious decision to not follow the court order, at least not with any alacrity. That statement is so inappropriate and inconsistent with the rule of law.
What is the Consequence of Ignoring a Court Order?
You don’t ignore a court order – EVER! You can go back to the original judge and seek another order to set aside, vary of discharge the original order. Variations are permitted to correct errors in the original court decisions or to consider and reflect new facts that came to light subsequent to the original order.
Revisiting the court process is not a "do over" or a try again" option. It does not permit anyone to revisit any issue simply because they are dissatisfied with the decision or later thought of a better argument. Otherwise there would be no finality to litigation. This option to go back to the judge to apply vary or set aside the order was open to CYSA but they did not take it. CYSA and the Director had legal counsel throughout these deliberations, so it is not as if they missed knowing about this alternative. Instead they decided to continue to ignore the court order. Shocking!
The Director did acknowledge in his testimony that if he was aware staff was ignoring a court order that is would be "his duty to play a role." Interestingly there was also a statement in his testimony that neither he nor the Director’ office "had a role or involvement in decision making in management of the department." He also testified that a predecessor in the Director’s office had delegated duties to the region child and family services authorities.
But he still had 49 staff under his authority that provided administrative support, analysts and managers all "with a responsibility for provincial policy and direction…and implement provincial policy programs across the province." He said this group monitored standards and process review sections in the department. You would think with that kind of mandate, if any policy or process systems were not working in CYSA, the Director and his team would know about and ought to be doing something about it.
I can muster some sympathy for the Director because he may have gotten bad advice, as Justice Cote mentioned in sentencing in his contempt of court finding. But he was also the architect of his own demise in so many ways. For that he does not get a pass or any absolution just because he may have relied on bad advice. He had a duty to inquire more and it is apparent from the court record that the duty he owed to the child and the duty to respect and enforce the court order was left unfulfilled for too long. He has been in the public service for 32 years and is on the record saying "It’s absolutely essential that court orders be compiled with." His actions in this matter did not reflect his allegiance to that principle.
So with this testimony, it pretty much sealed the Director’s fate that he could be found in contempt of court, and, in the end, he was. He got sentenced to 8 days jail time as a result. He was given the option to do 40 hours of community service in lieu of prison. He also had to pay all the Foster Mother’s costs, including lawyer fees and disbursements, right back to the beginning of this sad and sorry saga. The court, in acknowledgement of Mr Ouellet perhaps getting bad advice from people who were assisting him within the government, allowed those costs to be paid by the government on his behalf.
What Should We Learn From this Case?
In my mind that would be entirely fair under the circumstances. The court also accepted one of Mr. Ouellet’s submissions that contempt of court may also be found against others in CYSA over their handling of this file. As a result, Justice Cote ordered his decisions to be sent to the Minister of CYSA and the Minister of Justice and encouraged them to look deeper into that question. So this aspect may not be over yet. Will that go anywhere? If it doesn’t, it will speak volumes about the character of the leadership in these departments.
I don’t think Mr. Ouellet should be dismissed either. I think he is too valuable as a symbol and talisman to remind people about how much things have to change within the management and leadership culture of this department. He could take this personal experience, and with cooperation of some sound management and some enlightened leadership, turn it into an opportunity to fix the problem. The courts have already fixed the blame on him and encouraged the government to pursue an inquiry about if others are also guilty of contempt of court.
Good people in a bad system are not good enough as an excuse for shoddy management and governance in this case and who knows in how many others in CYSA. Let’s hope there are lessons learned and a renewed commitment to doing this most difficult of public servant jobs both right and rapidly and in the real best interests of children in care. This matter is now about the political will, character of the leadership and personal commitment to do the right thing, especially in times of recession and restraint.
If the future of at-risk kids is determined by dollar costs alone then the social contract of government to society is going to be broken. If that happens then citizens have to respond politically, publically and purposefully and tell our politicians that they have to make sure that our most vulnerable citizens are properly cared for and respected, including those 13,000 at-risk kids in our collective care; who are our society’s children.
What Did the Director Know About the Case & When?
I took notes from the transcript and will share the answers and the questions they beg. The testimony indicates some interesting circumstances and realities of the Director’s position, case participation and responsibilities of the office, at least in this case, and presumably others. Remember this saga is all about determining and delivering to meet the best interests of the child. Consider who determines what those best interests are, based on what evidence and how do those responsible actually make the judgment calls about the safety, security and needs of at-risk kids in government care?
Did the Director get Bad Advice?
My impressions from reading the sworn testimony of Mr. Ouellet, I have developed more sympathy for his plight in this case. I think he got some bad advice. He also failed to do his own due diligence in his Director role as he decided to remove the child from the Foster Mother. That failure is not my opinion. That is the opinion of both the original Appeal Panel and the Court of Appeal.
Here is the background and circumstances that Mr. Ouellet found himself in and how he responded, based on his sworn testimony.
According to Mr. Ouellet, he did not know anything about the Court of Appeal order to return the child until a departmental meeting on June 5, 2009. That meeting was called by his staff responding to a Court of Appeal’s letter "clarifying" its outstanding order, from January 30, 2009. The Court of Appeal said its court order meant that the child had to be returned to the Foster Mother. Mr. Ouellet was the senior person in charge and also the official guardian of the child. He said he did not know this matter had been through two levels of court and now going back to court of allegations of his personal contempt of court until June 5, 2009.
What Power and Duties Did the Director Have?
How can there be no such communication to him from his departmental staff or legal counsel who were dealing with the matter, especially given his personal and professional accountability in the case? Is it oversight, lax procedures, poor leadership, poor training, overworked staff? If it is any or all of these concerns, does it all this add up to a serious management and leadership shortcoming in how matters are dealt with in this department? I tend to believe Mr. Ouellet saying he did not know what was happening in this case, since, after all, he was testifying under oath. Perjury is a tougher consequence than contempt.
He goes further saying in the management model in CYSA there is no obligation for workers to inform him as the Director of issues or concerns of any particular matter. The only permissions needed by the social worker and middle management staff are to seek prior permission of the Deputy Minister if the government wants to take matters into litigation.
June 5th Meeting Sealed the Director's Fate.
So let’s look at the events leading up to the June 5th meeting and the actions taken as a result. CYSA received a letter from the Court of Appeal on June 4, 2009 confirming its prior order meant that the child was to be returned to the Foster Mother. The lawyer for the Foster Mother had written to the court requesting directions and clarification of the court order because CYSA had not yet returned the child. That court order had been outstanding and ignored by CYSA for over 4 months by this time.
The June 5th meeting included the Director, a government lawyer and other senior department management people. In requesting the meeting the senior staff said to the Director that they needed to meet about "an interesting and challenging case." Yes indeed it was interesting and challenging but this seems euphemistic considering the seriousness of the matter, especially as to consequences for the child as well as for the Director "best interests" now too.
Four days later an application was made by the Foster Mother seeking an order finding the Director in contempt of court. In preparation for the June 5th meeting the Director was faxed background of the case on June 4th. But he did not read it before or even after the June 5th meeting. Why didn’t he read the file?
Could it be willful blindness, indifference, insouciance, inexperience, naivety or was it neglect and/or negligence? I don’t know, but in hindsight, I am sure the Director wished he had read the material and prepared himself better for that meeting. According to his testimony he was not told about the June 4 letter from the Court of Appeal at the time of the June 5th meeting either. Perhaps it was in the background material, but in any case, it is a very material piece of evidence in the child’s case and soon, in his own contempt of court case.
The Director testified that after the June 5th meeting it was clear that the child had to be returned to the Foster Mother. Curiously he did not direct the staff responsible for the child’s file to return the child. Strange, don’t you think? Well not so strange when you consider this part of the testimony where the June 5th meeting decided that the child should be returned but in this context: "provided all legal avenues had been exhausted." This language indicates a conscious decision to not follow the court order, at least not with any alacrity. That statement is so inappropriate and inconsistent with the rule of law.
What is the Consequence of Ignoring a Court Order?
You don’t ignore a court order – EVER! You can go back to the original judge and seek another order to set aside, vary of discharge the original order. Variations are permitted to correct errors in the original court decisions or to consider and reflect new facts that came to light subsequent to the original order.
Revisiting the court process is not a "do over" or a try again" option. It does not permit anyone to revisit any issue simply because they are dissatisfied with the decision or later thought of a better argument. Otherwise there would be no finality to litigation. This option to go back to the judge to apply vary or set aside the order was open to CYSA but they did not take it. CYSA and the Director had legal counsel throughout these deliberations, so it is not as if they missed knowing about this alternative. Instead they decided to continue to ignore the court order. Shocking!
The Director did acknowledge in his testimony that if he was aware staff was ignoring a court order that is would be "his duty to play a role." Interestingly there was also a statement in his testimony that neither he nor the Director’ office "had a role or involvement in decision making in management of the department." He also testified that a predecessor in the Director’s office had delegated duties to the region child and family services authorities.
But he still had 49 staff under his authority that provided administrative support, analysts and managers all "with a responsibility for provincial policy and direction…and implement provincial policy programs across the province." He said this group monitored standards and process review sections in the department. You would think with that kind of mandate, if any policy or process systems were not working in CYSA, the Director and his team would know about and ought to be doing something about it.
I can muster some sympathy for the Director because he may have gotten bad advice, as Justice Cote mentioned in sentencing in his contempt of court finding. But he was also the architect of his own demise in so many ways. For that he does not get a pass or any absolution just because he may have relied on bad advice. He had a duty to inquire more and it is apparent from the court record that the duty he owed to the child and the duty to respect and enforce the court order was left unfulfilled for too long. He has been in the public service for 32 years and is on the record saying "It’s absolutely essential that court orders be compiled with." His actions in this matter did not reflect his allegiance to that principle.
So with this testimony, it pretty much sealed the Director’s fate that he could be found in contempt of court, and, in the end, he was. He got sentenced to 8 days jail time as a result. He was given the option to do 40 hours of community service in lieu of prison. He also had to pay all the Foster Mother’s costs, including lawyer fees and disbursements, right back to the beginning of this sad and sorry saga. The court, in acknowledgement of Mr Ouellet perhaps getting bad advice from people who were assisting him within the government, allowed those costs to be paid by the government on his behalf.
What Should We Learn From this Case?
In my mind that would be entirely fair under the circumstances. The court also accepted one of Mr. Ouellet’s submissions that contempt of court may also be found against others in CYSA over their handling of this file. As a result, Justice Cote ordered his decisions to be sent to the Minister of CYSA and the Minister of Justice and encouraged them to look deeper into that question. So this aspect may not be over yet. Will that go anywhere? If it doesn’t, it will speak volumes about the character of the leadership in these departments.
I don’t think Mr. Ouellet should be dismissed either. I think he is too valuable as a symbol and talisman to remind people about how much things have to change within the management and leadership culture of this department. He could take this personal experience, and with cooperation of some sound management and some enlightened leadership, turn it into an opportunity to fix the problem. The courts have already fixed the blame on him and encouraged the government to pursue an inquiry about if others are also guilty of contempt of court.
Good people in a bad system are not good enough as an excuse for shoddy management and governance in this case and who knows in how many others in CYSA. Let’s hope there are lessons learned and a renewed commitment to doing this most difficult of public servant jobs both right and rapidly and in the real best interests of children in care. This matter is now about the political will, character of the leadership and personal commitment to do the right thing, especially in times of recession and restraint.
If the future of at-risk kids is determined by dollar costs alone then the social contract of government to society is going to be broken. If that happens then citizens have to respond politically, publically and purposefully and tell our politicians that they have to make sure that our most vulnerable citizens are properly cared for and respected, including those 13,000 at-risk kids in our collective care; who are our society’s children.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Will Wall Street Return to its Old Ways?
Thanks to blogger Albertasaurus Talks I just came across a Toronto Star piece by David Olive entitled "The Era of Big Government Already in Retreat." It is worth a read.
David Olive says "Never in history, perhaps, has avarice spent so little time in hibernation." The meltdown of capitalism last September saw job losses for 7 million people in North America and an "abrupt global credit freeze" that wiped out "trillions of dollars of net worth of retirees and others as stock market property values plunged 40% and more." Olive says "Capitalism failed, again."
"Capitalism had failed, again. If a few avaricious pinheads in the financial markets could wreak such havoc so swiftly on the general population, then we would reinvent capitalism to make it more socially beneficial. It was that belief, of an urgent renaissance on the horizon, that helped keep the terror at bay last winter and spring."
Instead of using this recession to retool and rethink the regulation of capital markets, Olive argues the opportunity is lost and "We have gone back to living in ordinary times." This is because the Obama reforms, according to Olive, have already been stymied by "Wall Street lobbyists" and the argument is reform would be too expensive.
The same people who crated this crisis in confidence in the financial sector blithely discount the trillions of taxpayer bailout dollars for Wall Street in buying up their unregulated "toxic assets" that have devastated the wealth of ordinary people. That has not been too expensive because without real reform to ensure uncontrolled greed and avarice, we will not have learned from these mistakes in governance and be doomed to repeat them.
If Wall Street is allowed to return to business as abnormal without real regulatory reform, we are only one more greed induced disaster away from depression and devastation.
Canadians governments mostly followed the American lead and act as policy takers, not policy makers. Without some serious self-interest to decouple that political and policy approach we too will be sucked into the next American demise. This is not the kind of political discourse that gets sound bites or slogan journalism coverage. It is too complex and confounding to be approached from a simple-minded communications. To happen, it will have to emerge from citizens in op-ed, think-tanks, universities, thought leaders and maybe even a few bloggers.
It is time for some made in Canada and made for Canada economic and environment policy that just isn't American lite. We have done it in our social policy for years. Just look at the differences in health care, abortion, guns, public education, immigration, gay marriage to name a few.
The best chance for this to happen will be in Alberta and British Columbia because they are still exporters of commodities that beg for more local value added production and new markets beyond the U.S. As well the energy commodities produced have significant environmental issues that should and must be resolved locally and aimed at setting new planet-friendly standards globally.
David Olive says "Never in history, perhaps, has avarice spent so little time in hibernation." The meltdown of capitalism last September saw job losses for 7 million people in North America and an "abrupt global credit freeze" that wiped out "trillions of dollars of net worth of retirees and others as stock market property values plunged 40% and more." Olive says "Capitalism failed, again."
"Capitalism had failed, again. If a few avaricious pinheads in the financial markets could wreak such havoc so swiftly on the general population, then we would reinvent capitalism to make it more socially beneficial. It was that belief, of an urgent renaissance on the horizon, that helped keep the terror at bay last winter and spring."
Instead of using this recession to retool and rethink the regulation of capital markets, Olive argues the opportunity is lost and "We have gone back to living in ordinary times." This is because the Obama reforms, according to Olive, have already been stymied by "Wall Street lobbyists" and the argument is reform would be too expensive.
The same people who crated this crisis in confidence in the financial sector blithely discount the trillions of taxpayer bailout dollars for Wall Street in buying up their unregulated "toxic assets" that have devastated the wealth of ordinary people. That has not been too expensive because without real reform to ensure uncontrolled greed and avarice, we will not have learned from these mistakes in governance and be doomed to repeat them.
If Wall Street is allowed to return to business as abnormal without real regulatory reform, we are only one more greed induced disaster away from depression and devastation.
Canadians governments mostly followed the American lead and act as policy takers, not policy makers. Without some serious self-interest to decouple that political and policy approach we too will be sucked into the next American demise. This is not the kind of political discourse that gets sound bites or slogan journalism coverage. It is too complex and confounding to be approached from a simple-minded communications. To happen, it will have to emerge from citizens in op-ed, think-tanks, universities, thought leaders and maybe even a few bloggers.
It is time for some made in Canada and made for Canada economic and environment policy that just isn't American lite. We have done it in our social policy for years. Just look at the differences in health care, abortion, guns, public education, immigration, gay marriage to name a few.
The best chance for this to happen will be in Alberta and British Columbia because they are still exporters of commodities that beg for more local value added production and new markets beyond the U.S. As well the energy commodities produced have significant environmental issues that should and must be resolved locally and aimed at setting new planet-friendly standards globally.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Are Canadians Losing Our Sense of Belonging?
Here is a long but thoughtful and relevant essay about how we Canadians are coming to see ourselves. Social cohesion is a key to effective citizenship. This Valpy essay courtesy of the Globe and Mail is a good reflective Sunday morning read.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Alberta Budget Cuts Coming - Can We Do Them Better This Time?
Well we are going ot see a $430M set of budget cuts this fiscal ending March 31, 2010and a requirement for an additional $2B in the year after that. Lets hope this time we do the cutting judiciously and strategically so we maintain key programs and services, especially to vulnerable Albertans.
Already we are seeing cutbacks in departments and memos are coming out from Deputy Ministers with staff directives eliminating overtime, out of province travel and so forth. This is all consistent with the fiscal update announcements earlier this week. It should not be a surprise.
Here is a window on "yesteryear" back in 2001 and a memo from Richard Ouellet, the fellow in Children's Services who was recently found in contemtp of court. It was a cost cutting exercise then, just as we face now. Question is, have we learned anything from those past experiences? This time can we avoid the kind of damage done to kids and others like the last time government had to impose budget cuts? Time will tell, but are you optimistic?
> From: Richard Ouellet
> Sent: November 16, 2001 11:42 AM
> To: Interim - CFS10 All
> Subject:
>
> 16 November 2001.
>
> To all staff.
>
> Bill has asked me to share the following with you on behalf of the
> Management Team. As Bill mentioned in his letter to staff yesterday we
> need to continue to scrutinize expenditures to meet our budget targets.
> In order to achieve this it is critical that we continue to assertively
> implement cost management strategies that have been developed over the
> past several weeks. These strategies are based on the principle that any
> changes will not affect the safety of children.
>
It is imperative that all staff are aware of, understand and support
> these strategies. The next few months will require your help to ensure
> that we continue to provide quality and responsive services to the
> children and families we support.
>
The first phase of our cost management involved a structural review
> of our organization. While there are a few areas yet to be completed we
> have made significant progress in reducing the administrative costs of the
> Authority.
>
A second key element of our strategy was the development of a Cost
> Management document that was distributed to all NCCYFs and CFRO in early
> November. I encourage you to read the document and discuss these
> strategies with your manager and co-workers, as well as bring forward any
> other ideas you may have.
>
The third phase has been a detailed review of all contracted
> services which has resulted in the reduction or termination of several
> Agency contracts and a request for a 1% reduction in contract costs for
> the remaining agencies. While these adjustments have been difficult we
> have remained true to the underlying principles inherent in the four
> pillars of our service plan. I have provided each NCCYF and CFRO manger
> with a copy of the attached listing of Agencies who received notice of
> contract reduction or termination on November 15, 2001. I should note that
> while the notice was given yesterday the effective date for the changes is
> February 15, 2002.
>
We know there are a lot of pressures on you, your peers, on
> agencies, stakeholders and the community. These have not been easy times.
> Management is asking a great deal from you and it is important for you to
> fully understand the measures being implemented and how they will affect
> you and the people we serve. We are confident that together we can
> achieve our goals.
>
> M. Richard Ouellet
Isn't it interesting how the more things change the more they stay the same. Lets hope we are wiser this time in how we implement program cuts that in the Klein days. I am optimistic by nature but will be watching carefully to see if my faith is well founded.
Already we are seeing cutbacks in departments and memos are coming out from Deputy Ministers with staff directives eliminating overtime, out of province travel and so forth. This is all consistent with the fiscal update announcements earlier this week. It should not be a surprise.
Here is a window on "yesteryear" back in 2001 and a memo from Richard Ouellet, the fellow in Children's Services who was recently found in contemtp of court. It was a cost cutting exercise then, just as we face now. Question is, have we learned anything from those past experiences? This time can we avoid the kind of damage done to kids and others like the last time government had to impose budget cuts? Time will tell, but are you optimistic?
> From: Richard Ouellet
> Sent: November 16, 2001 11:42 AM
> To: Interim - CFS10 All
> Subject:
>
> 16 November 2001.
>
> To all staff.
>
> Bill has asked me to share the following with you on behalf of the
> Management Team. As Bill mentioned in his letter to staff yesterday we
> need to continue to scrutinize expenditures to meet our budget targets.
> In order to achieve this it is critical that we continue to assertively
> implement cost management strategies that have been developed over the
> past several weeks. These strategies are based on the principle that any
> changes will not affect the safety of children.
>
It is imperative that all staff are aware of, understand and support
> these strategies. The next few months will require your help to ensure
> that we continue to provide quality and responsive services to the
> children and families we support.
>
The first phase of our cost management involved a structural review
> of our organization. While there are a few areas yet to be completed we
> have made significant progress in reducing the administrative costs of the
> Authority.
>
A second key element of our strategy was the development of a Cost
> Management document that was distributed to all NCCYFs and CFRO in early
> November. I encourage you to read the document and discuss these
> strategies with your manager and co-workers, as well as bring forward any
> other ideas you may have.
>
The third phase has been a detailed review of all contracted
> services which has resulted in the reduction or termination of several
> Agency contracts and a request for a 1% reduction in contract costs for
> the remaining agencies. While these adjustments have been difficult we
> have remained true to the underlying principles inherent in the four
> pillars of our service plan. I have provided each NCCYF and CFRO manger
> with a copy of the attached listing of Agencies who received notice of
> contract reduction or termination on November 15, 2001. I should note that
> while the notice was given yesterday the effective date for the changes is
> February 15, 2002.
>
We know there are a lot of pressures on you, your peers, on
> agencies, stakeholders and the community. These have not been easy times.
> Management is asking a great deal from you and it is important for you to
> fully understand the measures being implemented and how they will affect
> you and the people we serve. We are confident that together we can
> achieve our goals.
>
> M. Richard Ouellet
Isn't it interesting how the more things change the more they stay the same. Lets hope we are wiser this time in how we implement program cuts that in the Klein days. I am optimistic by nature but will be watching carefully to see if my faith is well founded.
Day 5 Society's Child: Children's Services Takes Action But Within the Rule of Law?
Society's Child is a blog series emerging out of a Director in Alberta Children's Services being found in contempt of court. This series deals with how the best interest of the child in question has been handled by those involved. It is based on the records filed in the Court of Appeal in Alberta.
If you are just joining us here is a synopsis of the facts:
A child was in foster care with the same family almost from birth to 4.5 years old. He was removed from that foster family based on a Children’s Services investigation about alleged abuse. The Foster Mother appeal the removal decision. A Children's Services Appeal Panel reversed the Director's decision and ordered the child returned to the Foster Mother.
Children’s Services appealed that decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench sided with the government, said the Appeal Panel erred in law. That court reversed the Appeal Panel decision saying it could not "second guess" the government and confirmed the child should be removed from the foster home.
The Foster Mother then went to the Court Of Appeal who found the Court of Queen’s Bench erred in law, not the Appeal Panel. They ordered the child returned to the Foster Mother. Later the Court of Appeal found the Director to be in contempt of court for failing to follow the court order to return the child to the Foster Mother.
What events and actions that led to the contempt of court is where we pick up the story on this Day 5 of "Society's Child."
Children's Services Petitions for Adoption of the Child in the Face of the Court Order:
While waiting for the Court of Appeal decision on the future of the child the government Director who was also guardian of the child, petitioned the courts for adoption of the child by the extended family, which was caring for him at the time. It is an interesting question as to why this was done and at this time.
This seems to me to be unduly hasty given that the Court of Appeal decision to return the child to the Foster Mother had been made on January 30, 2009 but had not yet been file. In the meantime a Petition for Adoption of the child is filed by the government. One would think the prudent course would be to wait for the Court of Appeal decision to be filed. It would have some serious implications as to where the Child ought to be residing and even if this adopted was appropriate. Is this further ineptness, a continuing disregard for the courts or a tactical move to add pressure on the Foster Mother's pursuit of the government for the return of the child to her care as ordered by the court?
Foster Mother Responds With Actions of Her Own:
Faced with the government's adoption petition of the child, the Foster Mother took some significant legal steps of her own. First she had her lawyer write to the government and the Court of Queen's Bench in mid-March 2009. She was advising them that the Foster Mother was considering instructions to her lawyer about the adoption. The lawyer asked that no further steps be taken without notice to the Foster Mother.
The Foster Mother also wrote to Children’s Services on February 5, 2009 asking for the return of the child to her saying that the court had determined his return to her care was in the child’s best interest. She also suggested a meeting with Children’s Services to discuss the government’s expectations regarding the child. Interestingly, on February 5, 2009, the same day, the government’s lawyer sent a letter to the Foster Mother’s lawyer. It said to the effect that while the Court of Appeal concurred with the Appeal Panel’s decision to return the child to the Foster Mother, “…neither the Appeal Panel, nor the Court of Appeal indicated it was in the child’s best interest to return the child to your client’s care.” (Emphasis added)
If you are just joining us here is a synopsis of the facts:
A child was in foster care with the same family almost from birth to 4.5 years old. He was removed from that foster family based on a Children’s Services investigation about alleged abuse. The Foster Mother appeal the removal decision. A Children's Services Appeal Panel reversed the Director's decision and ordered the child returned to the Foster Mother.
Children’s Services appealed that decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench sided with the government, said the Appeal Panel erred in law. That court reversed the Appeal Panel decision saying it could not "second guess" the government and confirmed the child should be removed from the foster home.
The Foster Mother then went to the Court Of Appeal who found the Court of Queen’s Bench erred in law, not the Appeal Panel. They ordered the child returned to the Foster Mother. Later the Court of Appeal found the Director to be in contempt of court for failing to follow the court order to return the child to the Foster Mother.
What events and actions that led to the contempt of court is where we pick up the story on this Day 5 of "Society's Child."
Children's Services Petitions for Adoption of the Child in the Face of the Court Order:
While waiting for the Court of Appeal decision on the future of the child the government Director who was also guardian of the child, petitioned the courts for adoption of the child by the extended family, which was caring for him at the time. It is an interesting question as to why this was done and at this time.
This seems to me to be unduly hasty given that the Court of Appeal decision to return the child to the Foster Mother had been made on January 30, 2009 but had not yet been file. In the meantime a Petition for Adoption of the child is filed by the government. One would think the prudent course would be to wait for the Court of Appeal decision to be filed. It would have some serious implications as to where the Child ought to be residing and even if this adopted was appropriate. Is this further ineptness, a continuing disregard for the courts or a tactical move to add pressure on the Foster Mother's pursuit of the government for the return of the child to her care as ordered by the court?
Foster Mother Responds With Actions of Her Own:
Faced with the government's adoption petition of the child, the Foster Mother took some significant legal steps of her own. First she had her lawyer write to the government and the Court of Queen's Bench in mid-March 2009. She was advising them that the Foster Mother was considering instructions to her lawyer about the adoption. The lawyer asked that no further steps be taken without notice to the Foster Mother.
The Foster Mother also wrote to Children’s Services on February 5, 2009 asking for the return of the child to her saying that the court had determined his return to her care was in the child’s best interest. She also suggested a meeting with Children’s Services to discuss the government’s expectations regarding the child. Interestingly, on February 5, 2009, the same day, the government’s lawyer sent a letter to the Foster Mother’s lawyer. It said to the effect that while the Court of Appeal concurred with the Appeal Panel’s decision to return the child to the Foster Mother, “…neither the Appeal Panel, nor the Court of Appeal indicated it was in the child’s best interest to return the child to your client’s care.” (Emphasis added)
The government goes further in this letter to say, "In any event, my client does not believe that it is in the child's best interest to be moved from the home of is prospective adoptive parents where he has resided for over two years." (Emphasis added). There seems to be no appreciation in this position that the child had lived with the Foster Mother for over the first four years of his young life. But there are other serious concern about the content of this letter.
This letter from the government’s lawyer appears on its face to say that notwithstanding what the Court of Appeal decided it did not consider the best interest of the child and the government has decided otherwise. And so Children's Services, in this letter, appear to put itself above the courts and states it will not be complying with the order of the court. How can this be happening in a country and a province that ascribes to the rule of law?
Optional Courses of Action for Children's Services:
If the government did not like the Court of Appeal decision it could have appealed to the Supreme. But their time for such an appeal has already lapsed, and you have to wonder who was at fault for that? Alternatively and according to the rules of Court 390(1), they could have gone back to the court to ask for the decision to be reconsidered, varied or set aside. If they had new evidence that would influence or change matters they should have brought it to the attention of the court. They didn’t do that, instead they wrote a letter the opposing counsel saying they, the government, did not agree with the court and therefore they would not be following the order of the court. Astonishing!
This Rule of Court is there to enable variations of court orders to correct errors in the original decision or to reflect important facts that subsequently come to light. There is a court case, Public School Boards Association v. Alberta AG (1998) in the Alberta Court of Appeal that explains the scope of Rule 390. Rule 390 “…it is not a try again or a do over.” “It does not permit an applicant to revisit any issue because he is dissatisfied with the original decision and has thought of better arguments. Otherwise there would be no finality to litigation.”
Instead of revisiting the court decision, Children’s Services “believed" the court order was not in the child’s best interest. They took the position they were simply not going to comply with the decision of the courts. With that attitude it appears that they believed they were above the law and did not have to obey the law. This attitude to be above the rule of law, from a government, simply invites anarchy. It is amazing to me to see this attitude of appearing to be above the law expressed in any way by government in a free and democratic society like Canada and Alberta. To actually see it in writing, from my government, is even more demoralizing and unsettling.
Children's Services Tries To Negotiate a Deal:
The government officials and the Foster Mother met February 20, 2009. The government agreed to contact the extended family, who still had the child, to facilitate the Foster Mother having visits with him and to arrange “post-adoption” visits for her with the child. The government was unsuccessful in negotiating such arrangements with the extended family. The Foster Mother was advised of this failure in a letter dated February 26, 2009. The Director then petitioned for adoption of the child by the extended family on March 13, 2009.
Foster Mother Writes to Court of Appeal for Clarification of Their Order:
Through all of this, the Foster Mother still had not seen the return of the child as order by the court. On April 14, 2009 her lawyer wrote to the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal asking to appear again before the original panel of Justices to “…appeal for guidance, direction or clarification” of their decision to return the child to the Foster Mother.
Instead of re-appearing in the Court of Appeal the Deputy Registrar wrote to the Director on June 4, 2009 confirming the direction in the court’s decision that the child had to be returned to the Foster Mother.
This letter from the Court of Appeal triggered Children’s Services middle management to “…canvass the availability of upper management t arrange a meeting the following day.” That meeting happened on June 5, 2009 and included departmental senior management people, Director Ouellet, his lawyer. And according to a filed affidavit of a government employee, not the Director, these people “discussed how we could respond to the Court’s direction in a manner that would least impact the child.”
Theses Children’s Services people seem to be oblivious to the duty of care they have to serve the best interest of the child and their duty to follow the rule of law. Both duties required them to return the child to the Foster Mother as decided and ordered by the Court of Appeal. Children's Services had still not even contemplated how and when they were going to comply with the law and return the child as order by the courts in this June 5, 2009 meeting.
In fact on June 8, 2009, according to the same affidavit, the government game plan was to develop a plan that would entail returning the child to the Foster Mother “…for a period or time.” (Emphasis added). Even when they were finally considering obeying the court order they were still equivocating about fully respecting the court decision.
On June 9, 2009, the Director’s government lawyer advised the group that they had received notice that the Foster Mother had, on the previous day, filed a court application to find the Director in contempt of court. We will pick up this part of the story in the next post on Day 6 of Society’s Child.
NOTE TO READER: Here is a link to a blog post the puts all posts of the Society's Child Services in one place so you can go back and put the whole matter in context.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Hancock Steps Up to the Plate to Defer Bill 44 to Avoid Disaster for Teachers
Terrific developments on the Bill 44 fiasco. Looks like Minister Dave Hancock has asked Minister Lindsay Blackett to delay proclamation of the offensive sections that are part of the Alberta Human Rights Act. Hat tip to Chris Labossiere for bring this to my attention.
We need progressive voices in the PROGRESSIVE Conservative party to take back their place in the party. Progressive party members and MLAs need to promote socially progressive and fiscal conservative ideals that are at the heart of the party.
Failing to do this leaves the Alberta Progressive Conaservative Party vulnerable to the same fate as the federal PC party - takeover by the Reform/Alliance social conservatives.
This action by Hancock to delay proclamation is a practical reality to ensure that the efforts to make this "law" effective and enforceable. The language in the new act now is the usual wishy-washy weasel words used by politicians when they try to skirt around the hard job of trading off one competing principle for another.
It is this poor legislative drafting and fuzzy policy process that force judges to "make law" in their decisions. That is the job but the judiciary but they often have to exercise their power of interpretation because the politicians do a substandard job of drafting a clear law in the first place.
So good for Hancock. Here's to Blackett to do the right thing and leave this ill conceived laws in limbo and then to press for its repeal in the fall session.
We need progressive voices in the PROGRESSIVE Conservative party to take back their place in the party. Progressive party members and MLAs need to promote socially progressive and fiscal conservative ideals that are at the heart of the party.
Failing to do this leaves the Alberta Progressive Conaservative Party vulnerable to the same fate as the federal PC party - takeover by the Reform/Alliance social conservatives.
This action by Hancock to delay proclamation is a practical reality to ensure that the efforts to make this "law" effective and enforceable. The language in the new act now is the usual wishy-washy weasel words used by politicians when they try to skirt around the hard job of trading off one competing principle for another.
It is this poor legislative drafting and fuzzy policy process that force judges to "make law" in their decisions. That is the job but the judiciary but they often have to exercise their power of interpretation because the politicians do a substandard job of drafting a clear law in the first place.
So good for Hancock. Here's to Blackett to do the right thing and leave this ill conceived laws in limbo and then to press for its repeal in the fall session.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)