Note To Alberta Conservatives

In the last week or so there has been an amazing amount of near paranoid rantings about "Ontario raiding Alberta's riches". Granted, coming from King Ralph, it's hard to put much credibility behind these words. Ralph has been increasingly obnoxious and arrogant these past few years, and I doubt that many would put much stock in his pronouncements outside of the Alberta legislature these days.

However, I do believe there is some wisdom in the words of former Premier Peter Lougheed.

Alberta is part of Canada, and playing like the spoilt child trying to hoard all of the toys is not going to work. While times are good (and right now, they are exceedingly good), it is time to "make hay". Certainly, we should be building up the Heritage Savings Trust Fund further, rebuilding and enhancing infrastructure and other tasks desperately needed in Alberta. At the same time, we need to find ways to help the other provinces that are in, or heading into, tougher times.

In Lougheed's day, the compromise was to provide loans to other provinces at reduced interest rates. What is an appropriate approach today? I don't know - but it isn't Ralph's "Hands Off Or Else" approach.

Alberta is poised to move into a leadership role in Canada. It is financially well off, debt free, and moving forward comfortably. Its role in the political dialogue of our nation is changing. Alberta cannot gain by playing these childish games of political confrontation. We must move beyond that conflict-ridden approach and become the broker of positive solutions.

The fortunes of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative parties on the federal political scene speak loudly to how well petulant politics plays outside of Alberta.

Cogito, Ergo, Rant

I think, therefore I rant - or more to the point, ask for an opinion and ye shall receive.

Such is what the Gomery Inquiry has recently done:

I went to the Gomery Commission's website and found the "survey" page:

http://www.gomery.ca/en/invitationforpublicinput/consultationpaper.asp

Here are my comments:

1. Should government advertising and sponsorship programs be insulated from
political influence?

The practical realities of this are that government is political in the first place. To assert any program is "free of political influence" is inherently false.

However, in terms similar to the "terms of engagement" for a commission of inquiry, it seems to me that a mandate that is clear in its scope and is publicly available in its entirety is a reasonable thing to expect.

2. What protections should be afforded to public servants who believe they have
witnessed impropriety in the management of government programs
("whistleblowers")?

Protecting "whistleblowers" is a dodgy game. One must balance the need for public accountability with the realities of office politics and opportunism.

The bureaucracy needs an internal equivalent of the Ethics Commissioner to perform initial investigations of these allegations to ensure that they are legitimate, and escalate the real whistleblower cases to the appropriate ministers.

3. Ministerial responsibility requires that a minister be accountable to the House
of Commons for the exercise of power. Should there be exceptions to the
concept of full ministerial responsibility for all the actions of a department?

Ministers are ultimately responsible for their departments to the public. The "I didn't know" excuse is not acceptable. If a minister "did not know", then the senior bureaucrats who should have been apprising the minister of their department's activities should be fired immediately.
The minister should not only be accountable, but should have the authority to take corrective action when necessary.

4. Accountability is the requirement to explain and accept responsibility for
carrying out an assigned mandate in light of agreed upon expectations. What
would you do to promote greater accountability for the management and use of
public funds?

1. Criminal penalties for fraud can, and should be applied as vigorously in the public sector as they are in the private sector.
2. Construct compensation schemes so that those responsible for public monies are paid well enough that "lifting" a few million won't seem as tempting.

(Carrot, and Stick)


5. Should the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service be linked to specific
responsibility and accountability processes to safeguard against
wrongdoing?

I suspect that appropriate mechanisms already exist in our securities laws that could be adapted to this type of problem.

6. Is there anything else you would suggest to Justice Gomery in pursuing his
mandate?

It seems logical (to me at least) that the rules of engagement in the senior levels of the bureaucracy should be such that nobody is able to occupy a single senior post for more than five years. A regular reorganization of the bureaucracy is likely to be a good component of ensuring that the bureaucracy and its political masters are unable to become "too cozy" on any regular basis. An overly "comfortable" bureaucracy is likely part of the reason for the events that resulted in the Gomery Inquiry in the first place.

I must admit to being impressed with Justice Gomery in how he has conducted himself over the course of this most public of inquiries. To have the temerity to ask for public thoughts in a relatively open manner is both impressive and encouraging. Perhaps, just maybe, Gomery's report will contain some useful and insightful content. Whether the politicians and bureaucrats do anything constructive with it remains to be seen.

Someone Convince Me That Iraq's Not About Oil...

After reading this little crunchy bit of news, in which GWB attempts to once again self-justify the quagmire that is the Iraq War and Occupation; and this other little gem of inspired wisdom from Televangelist and former presidential candidate Pat Robertson on the topic of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Apparently, it's acceptable foreign policy (in Mr. Robertson's bent little universe) for the US to go around assassinating world leaders it doesn't like. Chavez has long been critical of American foreign policy (especially since 9/11) - no big surprise there when you think about it - Central and South America bore the brunt of Reagan-era aggression and interventions during the 1980s. Although those countries have mostly recovered, many are still picking up the pieces. (I'll quietly ignore the monumental errors made in Argentina and Chile prior to Reagan)

Sayeth Mr. Robertson:

stop his country [Venezuela] from becoming “a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.”

“You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,” Mr. Robertson said. “It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.”

So, fundamentally, we have a leader in a foreign country that is being openly critical of the United States. Further, that leader just happens to be sitting on top of a big chunk of Oil that the US purchases. Apparently, it's inconvenient for the US to have a leader of a resource supplying nation be critical of them - especially publicly. Sounds a lot like Iraq to me. (Yes, I know Saddam Hussein was a right royal bastard towards his people - but let's be honest, Saddam Hussein's abuse of his people wasn't the reason for US intervention)

Of course, coming from Pat Robertson, we do have to put his statements in context:

Mr. Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October, 2003, he suggested that the U.S. State Department be blown up with a nuclear device.

He has also said that feminism encourages women to “kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

[Aug 23, 2005 Update]

Apparently, Mr. Robertson claims that he was quoted out of context. I heard his words quite clearly on the morning news. There was no doubt in my mind what Mr. Robertson was referring to. A man with his public profile and experience knows damn good and well how his words were going to be interpreted.

If he didn't "mean" that, then he should have found other words to use - or better yet, shut his trap. A man who once ran for the US Presidency has long ago learned the hard lessons of public speaking. Mr. Robertson's plea about context is an insult to the intelligence of any reasonable, rational human being.

Well Duh!

Poking around the web this evening, I spotted this revelation from the Alberta Government.

My goodness - Ralph's boyz are finally figuring out that they actually have to spend money occasionally. Things like roads, public building (say - schools) actually need upkeep - for King Ralph and his merry court to recognize this is nearly as big a revelation as Sir Isaac Newton's Physics.

I was in University when Don Getty started blindly cutting things like University funding, while spending huge dollars to pave every back road in the province he could find. When Ralph's bunch of bandits took over, the cuts simply started coming fast and furious from all over the place. Spending is evil became the mantra. We had to slay the deficit. A few years later, the deficit slain, Ralph turned his gaze on the provincial debt. Not only was spending evil, debt was truly evil. The gutting on the province's infrastructure continued, with Ralph blindly chopping away at the debt.

Today, with a provincial government pulling down billions in budget surpluses, Ralph's Boyz look around and blink at the fact that the provincial infrastructure is crumbling. Brilliant thinking! You spend nearly 15 years playing hack-and-slash with the deficit, avoid spending so much as a plug nickel of public money if you can avoid it. If I don't do basic maintenance on my house - like paint it occasionally, or replace worn shingles on the roof, it's pretty much guaranteed to collapse around my ears sooner or later. I plan those expenditures - I replaced the furnace and water heater shortly after moving in; a year or so later, I put a new roof on the place, and next year, the trim will need painting. No big deal any of it - as long as you do a bit of simple planning. If you don't - it tends to pile up on you, all at once.

Oh - the "free market will provide for us" - I forgot about that little piece of mythology. Just like the "open market" will save health care. Tell me another fairy tale, pal. The cheque has just arrived at Alberta's table for the last dozen years of fiscal "prudence" which really meant "don't spend anything". Infrastructure, like health, is an investment in the province. The "Alberta Advantage" won't mean squat if the potholes make our roads impassable, or the cost of a toothache is enough to drive a family into bankruptcy.

It's all about balance. Deficit financing of a governments "day to day" operations is bad news - debt taken on to support long term infrastructure investments is not. (So far, Real Estate remains one of the safest investment vehicles out there!) Ralph's chimpanzees are all missing half their brains - causing them to constantly tilt to right, and they are blind in the left eye. If there was ever an argument to elect a sizable opposition next election, this surprised revelation on the part of the Klein Conservatives is it.

MIA: The CBC

With the CBC in the midst of a labour dispute, I've found it necessary to rely on other sources for news.

While my collection of on-line sources that I routinely read are adequate (The Globe and Mail, BBC, CNN) for world events, the Calgary newspapers (Calgary Sun, The Calgary Herald) are frankly pathetic, and less than revealing of anything.

However, I _like_ listening to CBC for news - when I'm driving, or when I'm at home. Lately, I've been scanning the other radio stations, looking to see if any of them are moving to fill in the gap. The closest I've found is QR77 - but comparing their idea of "talk radio" to CBC is like comparing The Western Standard to The Atlantic Monthly.

There's always been a certain amount of grumbling about the CBC - especially in Alberta (as always). While complaining that it is a waste of taxpayer dollars, it's amazing how many people tune into the morning show (The Eye Opener is consistently at or near the top of the local ratings for morning shows). Many people criticize it as a "mouthpiece for government propaganda". I'm afraid that I couldn't disagree more. (I won't speak to their television programming - I haven't paid attention to that in some years)

In Canada, CBC fills a void that commercial radio interests simply ignore - intelligent programming. We get a lot of amazingly good work out of the CBC, both in terms of journalism and analysis, but also in their other programming. Wether it's "As It Happens" going deep on the stories of the day, "Ideas" - a show that routinely challenges ones assumptions, "Writers and Company" discussing literature (I've been introduced to a couple of writers that I'd otherwise have left on the shelf through that program), or "Quirks and Quarks" making the rounds of science, the programming on CBC Radio has been consistently a cut above the tripe that passes for programming elsewhere.

Right now, I'm hoping that the CBC will get its labour dispute resolved - ASAP. Flipping through other radio stations doesn't cut it, and listening to lots of folk/country/whatever (CBC AM) or "The World's Longest, Most Noxious Symphony" (CBC FM) just isn't a substitute for CBC's normal programs. If QR77 is a civilized version of what passes for "talk radio" in the US, I shudder at the prospect of no CBC around.

One Last Bit on The GG Designate

The Globe and Mail has published what might be the only reasonably objective review of the Governer General Designate Michaelle Jean and her husband.

The article is a bit lengthy, but manages to touch on what is known about Mme. Jean, and the controversy swirling around her. For a change, there is relatively little editorializing in the article. (Let's hear it for a newspaper actually doing journalism instead of engaging in partisan politics!)

More or less, I come away from reading this article feeling that there is precious little reason to believe that there is any real substance to the objections raised against Mme. Jean. Most of the objections seem to center around whether she is sympathetic to Quebec Separatism, and whether she associates with former FLQ members.

Journalists across this country need to step back from what they've written in the last few weeks, and ask themselves if they are allowing partisan influences to make rumour news. I would note that in the media, the loudest outcry has come from the western Canadian Sun newspapers, and the Asper-controlled CanWest-Global group.

The media can legitimately question what is going on in our nation, but a degree of moderation is needed. Ask intelligent questions, but let's not continue to slime people for rumour. Dig, find facts, and reveal them - in proper context. (For example, a 15 year old video of someone only speaks to that person 15 years ago - in order for that piece to be truly relevant, you should be looking for corroboration that is more recent. Otherwise, you have merely dug up a historical artifact devoid of meaning in the current context.

What is the Role of Canada's Governer General

Since there is so much interest in the media of late over the designated successor to Governer General Adrienne Clarkson, it seems to me a good excuse to go review the authority of the Governer General in Canada.

On paper (e.g. in the Constitution), it would appear that the Governer General has quite a bit of power. As the Queen's representative in Canada, she is the head of our armed forces, has the power to dissolve parliament, and even - in theory - appoint ministers and the Prime Minister.
This page from Wikipedia.org does a very nice job of outlining the practical reality of those powers. By a combination of convention and history, they are rather dramatically curtailed. In fact, the wording of the Constitution Act very clearly bounds the powers of our government's "executive" branch in terms of various Acts of Parliament.

What it boils down to is that although the Governer General is the Queen's Representative in Canada, the blunt reality is that the Governer General really only acts on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Only the most extreme situations, such as a parliament that has "gone rogue", could the Governer General even consider intervening in the politics and policy of governance. The constitutional crisis that would ensue following such an intervention would make Pierre Elliot Trudeau's invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970 look trivial in its consequences.

So - let us presume that Michaelle Jean is a diehard separatist - what could she do? Not much, really. She might be able to refuse to sign a few pieces of legislation into law before the Prime Minister petitioned the Queen to remove her from office. Or, she might be able to funnel a few dollars from the Governer General's office to conspirators in Quebec for a while. (Until the Governer General's accounts were opened to the Parliamentary Accounts Committees that year).

One thing that is abundantly clear is that the Governer General's role is primarily symbolic in nature. Canada would have to suffer a crisis that would essentially be the breakdown of law and order in the nation before she could do anything significant. Although there is a great deal of innuendo about Mme. Jean's leanings lately, her expressed allegiance is to Canada. Since the bulk of the "evidence" being cited to associate her with Quebec Separatists ranges between 10 and 20 years old, I'm quite prepared to accept her at her word. People's political views and leanings change over time, and even if Mme Jean enjoys a glass of wine with sovereigntists from time to time, I don't believe that will stand in the way of her carrying out her role as the Governer General of Canada.