Craaaaack ...

I wanted to like Allison Redford, I really did.  But an ongoing series of missteps, clumsy decisions such as major cuts to education and overt hostility to this province's workers in the form of Bills 45 and 46 have thoroughly alienated this voter.

Yesterday, as Redford was at long least agreeing to pay back the $45,000 that she spent on flying to and from Nelson Mandela's funeral, veteran MLA Len Webber chose to cross the floor and sit as an independent.

This isn't a big deal in itself - but it does tell us that not all is well in caucus:

“I will sit as an independent. Because the things that the premier has been doing the last little while — actually for quite for some time — has really affected me in a negative way. I cannot continue ... with her as the leader of the party,” said Webber, the MLA for Calgary-Foothills since 2004 and cabinet minister in the Stelmach government.

This is a pretty clear indication that Redford's support in caucus is increasingly shaky, and likely to face a serious challenge in the coming months.  When Stelmach stepped down, I wondered just where his supporters went.  While Stelmach may have been a disaster as a Premier, he did have the support of his caucus.  I didn't think that Redford's support was a clear base so much as a coalition of the elements of the party focused on getting re-elected.

Ms. Redford has alienated the coalition of voters that swept her to power.  The PC's didn't get elected on having a great policy platform - they got elected by a whole lot of people who were horrified by the far right elements of the WildRose party, and Danielle Smith's naive libertarian response to a series of "bozo eruptions" by WRP candidates.

Labour, youth and centre-left voters shifted to back the PC's to keep the WRP out of office.  Cutbacks to education, ongoing bungling of the healthcare portfolio and actively hostile legislation in Bills 45 and 46 have alienated that voter support.  The PC party is experiencing this quite directly as their fundraising has slowed to a crawl.

I think Redford will find her ability to keep her caucus in line will be profoundly compromised in the coming months.

 

The Assault On Organized Labour In Canada

In Alberta, the Redford Government just passed one of the most offensive and blatant attacks on labour that we have ever seen.  It is uniquely focused on the civil service unions in the province, but that does little to ameliorate the degree of wrong that Bills 45 and 46 represent to Alberta's workers.

In Saskatchewan, the government recently passed another batch of legislation which very directly attacks organized labour.

Then, in Ottawa, the Harper Government is set to pass its own legislation designed to undermine Canada's unions. 

All of these laws ultimately are aimed at dismantling the ability of organized labour to engage with their employers through the time honoured process of collective bargaining, and if necessary the withdrawal of services should the employer prove unwilling to negotiate.

True enough, the Alberta and Federal laws are focused on the civil service.  One might argue that the government is really "protecting the taxpayers".  Except that, in a fit of irony, the civil servants are taxpayers as well.

These laws represent the leading edge of the wedge.  Other changes in labour law will come which more blatantly attack organized labour across the board, not just those who are in the employ of the government in the first place.  We have already had rumblings along these lines out of Ottawa, with Conservative MPs muttering aloud about laws to provide "exceptions" to paying union dues, and demanding onerous reporting of union activities.

I do not think that the timing of the legislation in these three jurisdictions is a coincidence.  In fact, I fully expect BC to follow suit with their next budget as well.  Should this happen, it would confirm my opinion that Harper has been arm-twisting premiers who are known to be sympathetic to his agenda.

This comes on the heels of one company in AB combining sick time and vacation into a single "pool" of time.  If this sounds a little screwed up to you, it should.  It has the nasty effect of ensuring that a protracted illness eats through your vacation time before you can apply for coverage under the company's short term disability program (if you are lucky enough to have one).

Labour at all levels is being cornered these days.  Our governments are actively working to undermine workers and worker's rights, and employers - even in traditionally white collar domains - are moving to take advantage of every opening they find to "minimize the cost of employees".  This is creating a pressure cooker environment that will become very volatile.

Alberta Bills 45 and 46

Others have spoke very eloquently about the problems with Bills 45 and 46.

What I want to bring to readers' attention is how the Redford Government is abusing not just legislative procedure, but democracy itself.

It is not unusual for this government to limit debate on bills.  What is unusual is to introduce a motion limiting debate prior to tabling the bill itself.  No MLA should ever have voted in favour of limiting debate on a bill without first having had the chance to vet it.  Yet, that is precisely what has happened here.  In the Hansard from Tuesday, November 26 Afternoon session:

Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a number ofnotices to provide to the House today. First, I would like to giveoral notice of intention to introduce Bill 45, the Public SectorServices Continuation Act, which will be sponsored by myself.I would also like to give oral notice of intention to introduceBill 46, the Public Service Salary Restraint Act, and Bill 42, theSecurities Amendment Act, 2013, which are sponsored by thehon. Provincial Treasurer and Minister of Finance.Mr. Speaker, I also would want to provide oral notice ofintention of introduce two motions. The first motion would be:Be it resolved that pursuant to Standing Order 77(2) Bill 45,Public Sector Services Continuation Act, may be advanced twoor more stages in one day and that if Bill 45 has not yet beenintroduced, then immediately following the passage of thismotion the Assembly shall revert to Introduction of Bills for theintroduction of Bill 45, Public Sector Services ContinuationAct.The second motion that I'd like to give notice of is:Be it resolved thatA. On Thursday, November 28, 2013, the Assemblycontinue sitting beyond its normal adjournment hourof 4:30 p.m. for consideration of Bill 45, PublicSector Services Continuation Act, and any relatedmotions; andB. Upon Government House Leader advising theAssembly no later than the time of adjournment onThursday, November 28, 2013, the Assemblyreconvene on Friday, November 29, 2013, at 10 a.m.for a special sitting, and the only business to beconsidered by the Assembly that day shall be Bill 45,Public Sector Services Continuation Act, and anyrelated motions.

If something about this smells a little strange, it is the pre-emptive issuance of motions to limit debate on these bills when there is no legislative crisis at hand.  When there is a crisis at hand, I can appreciate the need to be expedient.

So, the government is moving to push this legislation through with only the bare minimum of process.  With the excessive majority that the PCs have in the legislature, this is almost unnecessary window dressing.

The second item in the Hansard of interest comes from Thursday Afternoon's session:

Ms Notley: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. ...3:10The other action which occurred, frankly, just occurred, Mr.Speaker, in that it is now as far as I can tell 3:10, and I have notyet received a copy of either Bill 45 or Bill 46, yet I am advisedthat the media have received a briefing on this bill as of 2:45,which also amounts to a breach of the privilege of the members ofthis Assembly.

Note that the media was briefed on this
What's the big rush?  They only have to whip the votes to get this legislation through.

The short answer is that the government doesn't want us to look at the legislation too closely, nor do they want any amendments or scrutiny before it becomes law.

These two bills are arguably the most blatant attack on collective bargaining, and labour rights in general that we have seen in decades.  At best, parts of the legislative could be considered punitive - punishing all public sector unions for the wildcat strike that prison guards pulled earlier this year.  At worst, it demonstrates a government that is unwilling to negotiate in good faith, and legislation which is also arguably unconstitutional as well.

It is the willingness to subvert the core principles of our parliamentary democracy that is most concerning.  Whether Redford is taking a page from Harper's playbook, or Harper has modelled his approach to governing on the worst excesses we have seen in Alberta is irrelevant.  In both cases, we are seeing the processes of democracy being made a mockery, and laws being passed which grossly overreach the authority of the government.

Harper's "anti-bullying" law resurrects Toews' "spy on everyone" internet surveillance law which violates all sorts of principles of our constitution, and arguably the Redford government has passed a number of authoritarian laws which fundamentally overreach as well.

These are not conservatives in any reasonable understanding of the term - they are authoritarians.

Alberta's Sales Tax Phobia

Ever since I was a child growing up, Alberta has made a big deal about how we don't have a sales tax.  Back in the day, when resource revenues were perhaps more predictable because the markets didn't move as fast as they do now, perhaps that was a good thing.

I had started to advocate that we should consider a sales tax in Alberta back in the early 1990s when we were climbing out of the second brutal recession in a decade.  Even then, it was apparent that the government's revenues were far too unstable.

So, when Jack Mintz proposed an 8% PST for Alberta, I wasn't disappointed.  He even went so far as to propose structural changes to make it revenue neutral relative to current taxation levels.  So far, so good.

It comes as no surprise that the first thing out of the Premier's office is a flat out rejection of the concept:

In Alberta, the "no sales tax" mantra  has been around for so long that it has evolved into some kind of political sacred cow.  Nobody dares to suggest that we should change it for fear of being beaten up by the far right over "new taxes".

The article does point out the catastrophic failure of the HST in BC:

An HST was introduced in British Columbia, but proved hugely unpopular and was eliminated in a referendum in August 2011.

But, that overlooks a significant issue with the way in which the PST was introduced in BC.   In the 2009 election, Gordon Campbell promised not to introduce the HST, only to turn around a few short months later and do exactly that.

For the last year, while Mr. Campbell doggedly extolled the virtues of the HST as good for the economy, citizen unrest surfaced in the form of a campaign by former premier Bill Vander Zalm, who collected more than 700,000 signatures in favour of repealing the tax, prompting next year’s referendum under provincial legislation. 

Much of the anger stemmed from Mr. Campbell’s promise not to introduce the tax before being re-elected in May 2009.

Voters will forgive a great many sins in our politicians, but a lie of that magnitude is pretty much political suicide.  BC voters chose to dismantle the HST in a 2011 referendum which I still believe was more of a "venting of spleen" than an objective decision.  Rightly so, voters had every right to be angry over what happened in 2009/2010.

However, Alberta's stance is every bit as foolish as Campbell's was in BC, just for different reasons.

The mantra of "no new taxes" that started when Bush I was running for the Presidency in the late 1980s has become a blind mantra of "no taxes", especially in Alberta.

The language of politics has come to confuse debt and deficit as if they are the same thing.  They are not, nor should we see them as such.  Ironically, one of the things that Redford has done that I actually like is differentiate between capital budget expenditures for infrastructure, which we may well borrow to fund and operational expenditures which should not be financed through debt mechanisms.  A 20 year debt to fund building a new hospital is not a bad thing - that building will be in use long after the initial 20 years is elapsed.

The problem Alberta faces is that it depends far too much on a resource royalty regime that floats with market prices for bitumen, and similar for natural gas - both of which have been hovering at record low levels for the last several years.  Alberta's revenues are unstable.  We get surpluses when the price bumps up a bit for a few months, and deficits when a down cycle happens.  In short, our revenues at the provincial level are unnecessarily volatile.  Further, they are subject to manipulation by a market whose key stakeholders are those who benefit most by keeping the prices for bitumen low.  (and since the same corporate entities that are extracting the bitumen are the ones who own the refineries in Texas and Oklahoma which refine the bitumen into something more usable, it's not hard to see where there's a fairly obvious desire to manipulate the futures markets to their own ends.

Ultimately, a government has responsibilities to its people.  Any government that rules out the use of a specific tool for purely political reasons is run by fools.  Are people going to complain about a change in the tax regime?  Of course they are.  Does that mean we should not do it?  No.

I'd like to see a more detailed analysis of the revenue streams that would be impacted.  It's time for Alberta to grow up and move beyond the boom-and-bust wild west model of finances.  We are no longer a small province with a small population.  We have a lot of people, and a lot of pressures on our government to provide necessary services for those people.  We are rapidly reaching the point where the demands are going to be constant, and the government will not be able to afford to ignore the volatility of our current revenue model.

I do have concerns with the structure of an HST - I fear that it may put too much control in Ottawa's hands, just as the provincial government collecting property taxes has hamstrung school boards and cities in Alberta.  But that doesn't invalidate the discussion - and it is one which we are long overdue to have in this province.

 

In The Wake Of AHS Board Firings ...

Yesterday, Minister of Health Fred Horne fired the entire board in charge of running Alberta Health Services.

This is perhaps the second time since Redford came to power that she's done something I agree with.  (The first was reinstating funding for Gender Reassignment Surgery which was axed in 2009 in a fit of pique on the part of the Stelmach government).

Let me be clear about one thing.  Alberta Health Services is a mess.  As experiments in consolidation go, it is a disaster of unprecedented proportions.  There are serious issues when we are talking about handing out bonuses (retention, performance or otherwise) to executives at a time when front line services are being axed left and right is ridiculous.  I don't give a damn how "vital" it is to retain these executives.  If you are cutting front line services and the fat cats at the top are still getting bonuses, then something is seriously wrong with the priorities.

The issues in AHS are systemic - they start at the top and go all the way through the system.  AHS was created in large part as a way for the Stelmach government to continue the process of dismantling public health care in Alberta - a hobby horse issue that the Klein conservatives only took feinting strikes at, largely because Klein himself took a lot of the heat from Albertans.  Under Stelmach, the moves were more definite, and the results are predictable:  those at the top line their pockets and the staff on the front lines and patient care suffer.

I have personal experiences where a relative became ill with cancer recently which underscore the fundamental problems that exist when it comes to getting treatment initiated for a critical illness.  The cancer was first detected six months before treatment.  For six months, we went from doctor to doctor, specialist to specialist trying to get a clear diagnosis and more importantly, treatment.

I won't go into the number of dropped balls that I saw happen during that time.  Suffice it to say that it was appalling.  Treatment didn't start until the cancer had become a threat to the patient's life.

The problems we witnessed?  You name it.  I'm going to focus on the systemic and communications problems because those are the ones that AHS was supposed to address when it was created.

The first point is that emergency rooms and the doctors in them don't communicate with each other.  If you go to an emergency with a changing set of symptoms, and that hospital doesn't have the facilities to treat it directly, they send you home.  They don't refer to you another hospital which has the facilities unless they think your life is in danger.

This is complete nonsense.  When you are talking about diseases like cancer, early treatment is absolutely critical.  Cancer is life-threatening.  Period.  For the patient, sending them home is doing them a disservice.

Even more frustrating is the fact that there is no avenue to raise concerns over rapidly changing conditions.  When things are changing as rapidly (near daily) as they were, the system needs some kind of mechanism where a patient can demand a reassessment of their situation.  Instead, all that you get is a run-around that basically tells you to "talk to the hand".

We lack sufficient specialists to adequately diagnose and treat people.  In Calgary, there are 4 ENT specialists - for a city of over 1,000,000.  The wait times to get into see these specialists are months long, and yet that is an essential part of the diagnostic process.  With a fast moving cancer, it can go from localized and tiny to enormous and pervasive in that time.

To the credit of the treatment professionals, once you are connected to the treatment system, they do awesome work in absolutely terrifying conditions in terms of workload.

The issues I am raising speak to the fact that the parameters that exist for the front lines do not enable taking the correct steps to get issues dealt with.  If you don't have the connections already, you're stuck on the outside and it is just about impossible to get in.

Horne and Redford have an opportunity to start correcting the systemic problems that exist within AHS.  Let's hope that they take it.