Budget Time

The Issue

It's budget day in the Alberta Legislature, and before the main event begins I thought I'd offer up a few thoughts and predictions.

This will be the public's first chance to see how Minister Ted Morton performs in his new role: will he really offer up the changes Albertans want to see? Can he strike an effective middle ground within his own party between the pressures from the progressive wing, which would love to minimize cuts to their programs, and the fiscal conservative wing, which realizes the need to get spending back in line with reality? Will this budget be more business-friendly, incorporating the recent PC conversion to support for the petroleum industry?

I'm a fiscal conservative myself, so I'm all for the cuts: but they have to be done in the right places and in the right way. Yanking budgets from social service agencies before Christmas was a good example of the wrong cut exacerbated by being made in the wrong way: it will be interesting to see if the new cabinet has found the right way to do it.

Policy Options

Here are some policy predications I think you Won't find in this budget, but that many of us wish were there:

1. Reduction program for the civil service. When Alberta companies like Suncor realize they have a spending problem, they announce programs to reduce staff, and those programs usually incorporate generous separation allowances to help those layed off find new jobs. I don't expect you'll see any program to reduce the size of the bureaucracy - and any who are let go at a senior level will continue to cash in on outrageous lump sum severance payments.

2. Elimination of CCS spending. Despite what her critics said at the time, it looks more and more like Danielle Smith was right: the science of global warming, as produced by the IPCC, looks like advocacy wrapped up in flawed and biased science. But our provincial government presses on with a commitment to spend two billion of our tax dollars developing a technology for which the market may soon dry up.

3. A halt on debt. The Alberta government is gleefully selling debt. Future governments will be left the task of getting us back out of the hole that our current government is digging us into.

4. A true accounting of the deficit. It seems bizarre that the government continues to maintain the pretense that Alberta Health Services' growing debt is not somehow part of the overall debt that the province owes. How many health dollars are now being allocated to cover the interest payments on the billion-dollar AHS debt?

I predict that you won't find the answers to these questions in today's budget, but I look forward to being proven wrong!

Update on My Recall Challenge!

I had issued a challenge in my last post related to recall and floor-crossing. It's been around 30 days now, and there is no sign of a petition coming from either Heather Forsyth or Rob Anderson's ridings: this shows that there is support in the community for the floor-crossers, and that the Wildrose recall policy would impose a sufficiently-high burden to filter out frivolous recall challenges. However, there's another 30 days to go, so I'm waiting to hear about those petitions!

Floor-Crossing, Recall and a Challenge

The Issue

MLA Thomas Lukaszuk is prepared to throw centuries of Westminster-style parliamentary tradition out the window because he's mad - really mad! - at floor-crossing MLA's Heather Forsyth and Rob Anderson. And in other news, the Wildrose Alliance proposes to introduce recall legislation. Some people see both the floor-crossers, and the proposed recall legislation, as hypocritical or perhaps immoral; but is that really the case?

Policy Options

It seems pretty clear that the policy that is most important to Albertans, and to MLA's Forsyth and Anderson, is fiscal conservatism - changing our government so that it spends less than it earns. There should be no doubt that introducing fiscal conservatism to our government is going to require hard work, some tough decisions, and a lot of planning - things that the current incarnation of the PC party hasn't demonstrated it can do simultaneously. Folks who are opposed to Wildrose success keep poking at the party as some sort of far-right Creature from the Black Lagoon that will empty the welfare rolls onto the streets, close our hospitals, and impose a theocracy in our fair province. But they either don't comprehend or choose to ignore that fiscal conservatism is the number one policy that Albertans care about. The PC's are the only party that has a record in this area, and it isn't a good one these days. Wildrose has hung its hat on fiscal conservatism, and Albertans are responding in the polls.

Is floor-crossing somehow immoral? I say no. If you know that your party has no plan to address the number one policy issue for your constituents, and another party does, a representative is doing the right thing by their constituents by joining that party to advocate for the issue to be resolved.

I also think recall is a great idea, as long as the bar is set high enough. In BC, recall requires 40% of the voters to sign a petition within 60 days and can only happen 18 months after an election - a very high standard to meet, that has only compelled one MLA to actually resign. I think the time limits provide a good model for us to use for similar legislation in Alberta. Anyone who thinks that recall legislation will result in no MLAs making tough decisions has never tried to get 33% of the voters in a riding to sign a petition within 60 days.

And here's my challenge part: I challenge anyone who says floor-crossing MLAs should face a byelection to produce a petition within the next 60 days signed by 33% of the voters in either Calgary-Fish Creek or Airdrie-Chestermere, calling for a byelection. This would prove to be a great test, both of how recall legislation would work in practice, and of whether there is support in those constituencies for the floor-crossers. If such a petition materializes, I will gladly add my voice to the apparent chorus of angry protest calling for these MLAs to step down.

I don't think it's going to happen - but I'll eat crow if I'm proven wrong!

Shuffle Delayed

The Issue

This story has just surfaced stating that Premier Ed Stelmach will hold off on his cabinet shuffle for another two weeks while he participates in a trade mission to the United Arab Emirates.

I find the slip in timing of a cabinet shuffle interesting because of the proximity it places the shuffle into with the next provincial budget, which is supposed to be coming in February. Some of the ideas I've heard floated are to move some ministers around and potentially combine a couple of ministries to reduce the size of cabinet. If the shuffle finally happens a week or two before the new budget is released, that will leave any ministers with an altered portfolio very little time to prepare for what we're promised will be dramatic cuts.

Policy Options

It's that lack of planning that keeps rearing its ugly head in ministerial decisions like PDD funding, Alberta Hospital bed closures, and the H1N1 vaccine debacle. Throwing a new minister or two to the wolves with budget cuts a week or two after they're appointed doesn't give them much of a fighting chance to speak intelligently about the cuts to their departments, let alone have input into what cuts are made in the first place.

The government should also consider what effect this kind of delay has on the public service. Uncertainty drains productivity. If you don't know if the boss is going to change, if new programs are going to be introduced, and if current initiatives are going to be dumped, the temptation is high to wait out the intervening weeks and use the time to polish up your resume. If a change is planned, it's always to get it over with sooner rather than later.

This is also a decision that has subtle overtones of disregard for the kind of change Albertans are crying out for, and that Premier Stelmach promised at the PC party convention. The polls make it obvious that Albertans want to see changes in our government. That change is suddenly low on the list of priorities for our premier won't win him any more fans in our Province.

The Floor-Crossing Begins

The Issue

Welcome to 2010 and the first two floor-crossings to the Wildrose Alliance - MLA's Heather Forsyth and Rob Anderson.

MLA Rob Anderson laid out his reasons for crossing very clearly this morning, both on his website and in the news conference. The message that comes across from him is frightening: that the elected representatives aren't in control of our government; and that the power of the bureaucracy limits the ability of fiscal conservatives to reduce spending.

MLA Heather Forsyth brings a huge amount of experience to the Wildrose party, especially in the area of her work as a cabinet minister on childrens' and social issues. She spoke eloquently about democracy and how it isn't respected by the PC party in Alberta today. Attracting her to the party reinforces where I believe a majority of Albertans sit on threats that the Wildrose represents only a hotbed of social conservative (I've even heard Wildrose described lately as neo-conservative - we're ramping up!) rednecks: there's just nothing to it. Wildrose represents an opportunity to craft new policies that will restore the Alberta Advantage for all of us.

Lots of talk about the evils of floor-crossing this morning. Chris Labossiere lead off with saying he wanted the floor-crossers to sit as independents, and others have suggested they should resign and face a byelection. Really though, it's only the party losing members that ever suggests that. Floor-crossing has existed in the Westminster parliamentary system for as long as it has been around, and I'll bet complaints from the PC party were muted when they gained two floor-crossers prior to the 1971 general election.

A few rumours are being generated in the blogosphere that this move will result in Heather Forsyth stepping aside to allow Danielle Smith to run, or that this will somehow lead to Ted Morton stepping aside. I don't think there's anything to the Heather Forsythe rumour - Archie McLean of the Edmonton Journal has tweeted that she has stated to him that she plans to run in the next election. As for the Ted Morton rumour: he seems to get a lot of Wildrose intent pinned on him by others, but I have yet to hear him say he's bought a membership. I'll believe it when I see it, and until then I'll file that one in the same Ken Chapman bin with the green oil book and Reboot Alberta.

What's next? My predictions:

1. The Progressive Conservatives will try the old Jedi mind trick on us all: "these aren't the MLA's you're looking for, move along." Oh wait, it's already started. They will tell you that this isn't a significant event and represents no threat to them.

2. More floor-crossers throughout the year. Each new one will keep Wildrose in the news. The next one will not be from the Calgary area.

3. MLA Guy Boutilier will join Wildrose outright, raising the MLA count to four.

4. Speaker Ken Kowalski will take the high road and grant Wildrose official party status.

5. It will come out in the next Stelmach government budget that they have been unable to find $2-billion in savings, but this will be glossed-over and not immediately obvious.

6. 'Progressives' continue to get scared as they see their access to the public purse restricted after 2012. Their 'Wildrose==So-Con' rhetoric will increase exponentially.

Happy 2010, and may we all continue to live in interesting times!

Update: 4:30 PM

- Will anything come of prediction #2 at tomorrow's Wildrose press conference in Edmonton?

- Prediction #3, Guy Boutilier still learning about Wildrose according to Capital Clicks.

- Already correct on prediction #6: Chris Labossiere plays the Craig Chandler card

When More Really Is Less

The Issue

It began with this bizarrely-titled blog post on cuts for funding to Persons with Developmental Disabilities Program - but this issue has now mushroomed to the point where the affected agencies are telling the government they won't give the money back. And why should they? According to Ken Chapman, the money these agencies receive is more of a contract than a grant. They in turn have made their commitments to their clients based on the contract that was negotiated.

It seems to be becoming common practice for the Progressive Conservative government in Alberta to reneg on its agreements. This practice started before the last election with Suncor and Syncrude, and progressed to fiddling with royalties for the entire oil and gas industry. Then it used its vast majority in the legislature to push through bills the citizens don't want, like Bill 44 and Bill 50. If the government was able to push the oil companies and the electorate around, a few social service agencies don't stand much of a chance.

The Progressive Conservatives promised Albertans 2 billion dollars in cuts back in the last fiscal update - now we finally see how they are going to achieve them.

Policy Options

First off, I think a good public policy to employ in this case would be: "A deal's a deal". As has been pointed out elsewhere, if the department needs to make some quick cuts, there plenty of opportunity to do so at the ADM level. Making the cuts in this way imposes needless friction on the agencies, because they have already made their plans based on the contracts that were negotiated. The government, the agencies, and the people they both serve, would be much better off if the government gave them plenty of advance notice that these cuts would be in place for the next fiscal year. That would give them time to plan - a valuable commodity these days.

As a fiscal conservative, I believe cuts in spending are necessary. I also believe that organizations in the local community are more efficient at delivering some services, and that the citizens are well-served if the government supports them. There are going to have to be some tough decisions made on spending, but they can still be made with finesse and careful planning, so as not to impact Albertans unduly. The "finesse and careful planning" part seems lost on this government - a fact that's being reflected in the polls over and over and over again...

Danielle Smith, Climate Change Realist

The Issue

While 190 nations argue at the Copenhagen summit, Wildrose Alliance leader Danielle Smith spoke at the Canadian Club of Calgary yesterday, urging Canada to avoid signing on to another climate change treaty. Her critics immediately launched into calling her a "climate change denier", but is that really what she said?

The Herald article has three quotes from Smith:

"I'm worried about us embarking on costly schemes to try to reduce our overall emissions rather than doing the obvious things that will come easier."

"We would be better off making a pretty clear statement: 'Yes, we want to be an environmental steward. Yes, we want to make the right decisions, but we believe that those decisions need to be made locally in Canada or locally in our individual provinces.'"

"The science isn't settled. If we're going to embark on this path, we've got to be darn sure that the science makes sense."

I don't see anywhere there that Smith is denying that the climate is changing. In fact, almost nobody denies it, least of all the so-called "climate-change skeptics." Over vast periods of time, scientific data shows that the climate has always changed and probably will continue to do so. So Brian Mason, in a quote calling Danielle Smith a "climate change denier", comes off looking rather silly.

Smith's statement that "the science isn't settled" is referring to a few inconvenient truths that are coming to light with the so-called scientific consensus on global warming; that the data supporting the consensus appears to have been cherry-picked and statistically fudged (by both NASA's GISS and the UEA's Climate Research Unit); that there's been no warming in the last ten years; and that the climate change industry has stifled any real scientific debate in the peer-reviewed literature.

Becoming more energy efficient as a province is in itself a worthwhile goal, whether or not you believe in climate change. It's a policy that can have real, measurable outcomes in saving Albertans' money. Applying our science and engineering know-how towards that goal just makes sense, and will do far more for our environment than any climate change treaty.

Policy Options

The policy Danielle Smith proposed in her speech is a common-sense one for Alberta: that our money is better spent managing our environment here at home, and that our national government should not be signing onto climate change treaties that are all about taxing Canadians and redistributing their wealth to the third world. There are other implications to this sort of a policy as well: for example, that free markets will promote innovation by companies if at some point the science does become settled. For a great example of this, look no further than the idea of using Sulphur Dioxide in the upper atmosphere to combat climate change. For a tiny fraction of the costs that the Copenhagen summit is debating, engineers could actually apply science to solve the problem - but you won't hear the climate change alarmists talking about that, because it wouldn't support their real goal of enriching themselves and effecting a massive world-wide redistribution of wealth.

I also believe that this is a policy that is going to really catch on with a significant portion of voters, who aren't interested in being taxed back into the stone age. One could argue that we've already had one national election on such issues, which the Liberals with their Green Shift policy badly lost; and in Australia, the Liberal party is reeling from the resignation of five parliamentarians over climate change policies. My prediction is that "climate change realist" policies that espouse a return to common sense are going to be election-winners all over the world, and in particular, here in Alberta in 2012.

Update

New poll: Majority of Canadians Reluctant to Commit to Treaty in Copenhagen

Who Comes Out to an Initial CA Meeting In a Blizzard?

I haven't blogged for the last couple of weeks because I've been devoting my time to setting up a Constituency Association for the Wildrose Alliance Party in Calgary-Elbow. Last night was the night of the meeting and wouldn't you know it: there was a minor blizzard in Calgary from 4:00 until around 5:00. Of course, this being Calgary, that means traffic ground to a halt! Who, I wondered would come out to this thing in the middle of a snowstorm?

People who want to see change in Alberta and value fiscal conservatism, that's who. We had folks from all walks of life, and all of them were looking for the same thing - better government in Alberta. What impressed me the most was the wealth of experience of the people who attended, and particularly those who volunteered their services for the constituency association board. These were people with backgrounds in finance, law, engineering, and small business, and all of them were willing to devote their spare time to growing the party in Calgary-Elbow. It was amazing to watch and be a part of.

By the end of the meeting, we had a full board, some initial donations, and a group of members who were fired up and ready to do the hard work to grow the party and prepare for an election. They all want to replicate the party's success in the neighbouring constituency of Calgary-Glenmore, and the party is stepping up with tools, templates, and training to help them do it. If the same process is happening in the other constituencies in Alberta, the other parties will be in for a shock come election day!

My prediction: Ed Stelmach drags out his mandate for the full length of time allowed to him under the constitution.