Guest Blogger Kirk Schmidt on On-line Voting

Nation, from time-to-time it may become necessary to have someone else cover issues on this blog as their expertise dictates. Certainly, in the case of on-line voting, it's a much better idea to have someone who understands the technology involved to give their opinion than it is to have an Enlightened Savage who can just BARELY handle html try to tell you what is and isn't possible on the cutting edge of technology.

Today, we're going to hear from former candidate for the Parliament of Canada Mr. Kirk Schmidt. His text begins... now.



Let's face it. I am a computer geek, having received a math degree from Waterloo and having programmed computers since grade 5. I am a web developer, a database guru, and an all-around good IT analyst. I love politics, and I feel that politics is an exceptionally important facet in our lives. Shouldn't I be the first to line up for the idea of e-voting?

Elections Canada has announced its intentions. They want to push for legislation in the fall, and have electronic voting available by 2013.

And yet, when you look at the survey of candidates from the 2008 election, a startling number jumps out. 75% are in favour of being able to register online to vote. 46% are in favour of electronic voting (48% are against). I was one of those who responded in favour of online registration, but not online voting.

But why Kirk? Why deprive people of the chance to vote at their workplace? Their home? Overseas? From outer space? Inside the groupthink bubble?

Well, I'll tell you.

Let's first lay out what is important for an election here.
1) Votes should be verifiable. I should have a way to ensure that when I clicked for Candidate A, that the vote was recorded for Candidate A.
2) Vote was actually counted. There must be a way to ensure that the vote was actually used in official counts (it was not lost, deleted, changed, etc).
3) A voter can only vote once.
4) A voter's choice cannot be reverse engineered from the ballot.
5) A vote cannot be "listened to".
6) A vote is secure from tampering.

No, these are not redundant. I know what you're thinking. A verifiable vote means the vote is secure, doesn't it? No, not necessarily, because the whole question is what end we're looking from. From the users' end, it could look like the vote is verified, but it actually was tampered with. Yes, welcome to the wonderful world of computer security. These goals are all related to each other, but are written specifically with certain attacks on the system in mind. Follow along as I go through the "what could go wrong" scenarios.

Now, this DOES NOT MEAN that electronic voting is impossible. This is more of an "I'm going to scare the crap out of you and hope that we build a system that looks at all of this." I am not against electronic voting so much as fearful of its implementation and the possible problems.

Welcome to what's inside my head. Don't say I didn't warn you.

DoS
It used to be an acronym for Disk Operating System, but now DoS is used mostly in reference to a Denial-of-Service. Ever been to a website where you cannot access it because of load? That's what this is. Perhaps you remember having trouble finding out where you had to go vote because everyone else was checking at the same time... but let's not discuss server-load needs during an election. Oh, wait.

DoSes can happen for one of two reasons: Natural load, or attacks. We won't talk to much about DoS and DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks too much, but just keep in mind that there can be some groups out there who want to prevent you from voting, and so it's conceivable that this could happen. Interestingly enough, a friend of mine has a Ph.D. thesis where one section looks at Denial of Service resilience. http://www.douglas.stebila.ca/research/papers/Ste09/

Meanwhile, natural load would basically be what happens during an election. I think we could reasonably expect that most of the voting-online users will attempt before work, when they arrive at work, lunchtime, just before leaving work, just after getting home, and just before close of polls. In fact, I would say the likelihood is that the biggest load will be within the last hour of polls closing.

The problem here, of course, is that a denial of service at this point may very well prevent people from voting altogether. While encountering it early in the day might just give you resolve to get to the poll, what happens if you log in half hour before, and the system is down. 10 minute before. Are you getting to the polls? Are you even going to try or are you going to give up. I'm sure the people who ensure that they vote every election would make every effort, but keep in mind that Elections Canada is attempting this to try to help voter turnout problems. Are the people who don't go to the polls normally going to try to get on the system again, much less try to get to the polls at the last minute? I doubt it.

What we tend to see in the fundraising world is if the system is awful slow or down, people often will simply not donate. I would suspect the same is true here. If people attempt to vote online, and it's not working, you may have lost the chance. This is the inherent risk.

The other risk here is that people who *DO* vote and choose to do it online could also be alienated this way.

Voter Verifiable Ballot
First off, read "Brave New Ballot" by Dr. Aviel Rubin. That would be the professor whose students cracked the Diebold voting machines in the United States. Think paper ballots aren't important? Think again.

Voter Verifiable Ballot (which I will hereinafter abbreviate as VVB) is important from an auditing perspective. If we all submit our vote to a random machine half-way across the country, how do we know that what we voted for is what was counted? In the US, with the electronic machines, a VVB would be a paper printout of your ballot (of course, you're still assuming that the paper ballot is reading correctly what will be counted, and not giving you the answer "you wanted" rather than what it actually stored, but I digress).

Here's the wrench in the VVB. The system needs to be able to provide you the value of how you voted, WITHOUT providing the system with a way of reverse-engineering the vote to find out who voted what.

Some people may see that as unimportant, but our system has a lot of rules to ensure that you cannot be identified as having voted a particular way. Did you know if you write your name or anything else that can identify you on the ballot, the ballot must be removed?

Now, there are ways you can do this. For example, you could make a database entry where you have a cryptographic key, whereby another key that you have will combine to give you how you voted. It's actually pretty cool. But now the user has to have their key at all times, and one must not be able to run all keys against all vote results in order to determine who voted for what. There's some mathemagics involved - it's possible, but it's going to be complicated explaining that to the voter. Isn't electronic voting supposed to make things easier?

Anyway, I will touch upon this a bit later as well.

One Vote per Voter
One needs to be able to mark when a person votes. Anyone who has done database work knows that this is actually rather easy. But as part of this procedure, we need to make sure that only one link exists between the keys of voters and the keys of votes. This is more of a systems end, but it's about ensuring that the number of votes on Table "Votes" is the same number of people on table "Voters" where hasVoted is true.

So what happens when the numbers are off? Each ballot, as I mentioned, needs a link to the voters, but not in a way that the voters' individual votes can be reverse-engineered. The way we would do this would be to create some sort of link that allows us to verify that each vote is valid. Again, this would likely involve some sort of cryptographic hash (a hash is a random set of characters that is generated from something else, in layman’s terms. For example, when you enter a password into a website, it tends to be turned into a hash. And it compares the hash value of the password you entered with the hash value of the password that you created when you first signed up. That way a website administrator can't say, "ES uses the password KirkIsAwesome on our site, so let's try it on his bank account.") that is designed to ensure that a hash of (voter key + a vote key) = valid hash. It's mathemagical!

Marking vote as counted
Ideally, once votes are counted, it should mark the "vote" as "counted". Then, when you log in and grab the key of the vote you voted with, it will tell you that it was voted. Again, when you add your key to it, it then tells you how you voted. People at EC would have to be able to check random values for you (phone up from a payphone, tell them "LXV0034YHG" and they say, "HYFGFDHHH". Then you do some sort of fun thing on your end with your other key, "KIRKISGREAT", and it gives you an answer of "Kirk Schmidt" (as in, who you voted for).

Man in the Middle
Ok, back to doom and gloom.

You and I know that Elections Canada's website is elections.ca. Maybe the vote site is vote.elections.ca. But what if someone registers thisisaspoof.com and sets up the subdomain of vote.elections.ca.thisisaspoof.com. And, they get a valid security certificate, so it looks like a secure site. Except, unfortunately, they play the man in the middle. That is, they take your input, send it to Elections Canada on your behalf (aw, how nice), receive the values back from EC, and because they know everything about the keys you have, they change the keys so that they vote the way they want, and you still think you voted the way you attempted to.

Welcome to the wonderful world of security certificates and spoofs.

Oh, we won't all be fooled by them. But you can bet that it's being considered.

Recently at the Blackhat conference (what is this? Umm... move along...), hacker Moxie Marlinspike presented how one actually gets around SSL encryption. If you're a techie, read it. If you're not, know that for the most part, as long as you go to sites that you know and trust and specifically type the name of the site into your browser rather than googling it, you're fine. However, it presents topics on how one actually gets around secure websites and act as a go-between, getting whatever you want in the process.

This is why I say that the vote being secure from tampering and that the vote is verifiable are actually two different things. One can verify the ballot, but it does not mean the verification has been tampered with.

Systems Security
All of this is based on the idea that systems on both the Elections Canada end and the user end have not been compromised. This should go without saying, but one has to understand that even the compromising of one's own home system is enough to allow for the "wrong vote" to occur. Again, if you think of the man-in-the-middle approach, imagine how bad it would be if it was your own computer system providing you the wrong results. At least with a spoofed website you might be able to realize it and get out, or bring it up to Elections Canada. If your own system is compromised, you might never know.

Furthermore, remember that unless we see an open database schema, we do not know exactly what EC is storing. Let's say, for example, the primary key on the vote end was an auto-number (essentially, the first vote was #1, the second was #2, etc.). And then, what happens if the voter table timestamps your vote. Now, on a system like this, there will be multiple votes at the same millisecond. But there will also be times where there's not. (Also, remember we're separated into ridings, and then polls - what are the odds you vote at the same time as your neighbour to the millisecond?)

So, one sorts the timestamp on the votes ascending, divides it by riding and poll. Then sorts the primary key on the vote table ascending, separating it by the people on the ballot as per the riding one is in. Or by poll if that's stored. Huh. Well, screw the mathemagics, I'm just going to the database admin to find out who voted for what.

Paper or Peripherals?
One of the security decisions that needs to be looked at is what happens when people attempt to vote with both methods. One would assume they will have electronic voting stations at the polls to use the database's own locks to prevent it. Or, maybe they can just look up on the database whether you have voted or not...

Assuming no denial of service. Oh, hey, we've gone full circle.

Essentially, those of us entirely fearful of what could happen are likely going to have to rely on the system anyway... Or, they're going to have to be able to cancel the online vote if one goes and votes in person, too... without identifying who voted what.

I sound like a broken record. I'm actually laughing right now as I write this. You probably think I'm a paranoid freak. You're probably right. Anyway...

Declined/Spoiled/Nonconfidence Ballots
How will Elections Canada handle non confidence ballots. You know, where you grab your ballot, and put it in the box without marking it. Yes, you can do this. I have. And I checked with EC first that it would, indeed, be a valid vote cast for nobody.

So, will we be able to not click a radio button and click submit? Or will there be a none-of-the-above option?

Something to think about.

But I do online banking or my taxes all the time
I'm sure you've been paying attention, but let's say you missed some of my points. The difference between banking online or doing your taxes is that, at all times, the bank or CRA knows who is logged into its system, and provides you information based on knowing that.

The sheer complexity in an online voting system is trying to maintain voter verifiable ballots and a transparent voting system without compromising your right to anonymity at the ballot box. So at any given time, the system needs to know who you are, without knowing who you are. It needs to be able to tell that you've voted, but not be able to tell you how you've voted, but have the ability to give you something that you can use to tell you have voted.

In the End
Look. There's a way that this can be implemented well. It can be implemented to minimize possible attacks, made robust to handle load, made cryptographically possible to verify your vote without having to give away how you voted. Yes, this is all possible.

This isn't some simple login/logoff and vote in between system that any web developer with half a brain can create. This involves cryptography on a level that you probably don't even want someone with a Bachelors of Mathematics degree to be working on (although I would, if asked... and paid well). This is democracy, and we can't afford to screw it up.

Imagine, if you will, the implications of not implementing this properly. If Elections Canada is considering implementing this for the sole purpose of increasing voter turnout, imagine the dangers involved in screwing this up. We have one of the most secure voting systems in the world. It's archaic and environmentally unfriendly, yes, but the one thing that very few people exude as a reason for not voting is confidence in the electoral system itself (confidence in politicians is another thing). Imagine if that were to be compromised.

That's all I ask. That before we give this approval carte-blanche, that we know what we're getting into.

Proportional Response

Nation, the detractors of the Stelmach government in Alberta have been positively giddy over these past few weeks, with public miscues and sensationalistic headlines dominating the papers and the blogs.


From children-in-care committing horrifying acts (some writers, I suspect, had to stop themselves from grinning, so eager were they to take another shot at Minister Tarchuk) to continuing criticism of Bill 44 (rightfully so, in my opinion) to the past week's hullabaloo over remarks made by Minister Evans and Edmonton-Calder MLA Doug Elniski, critics of the Progressive Conservatives have found themselves in what could be described as a "target-rich environment".


Children committing murder is absolutely horrifying. The fact that there are pundits and politicos out there trying to turn it into a political issue is beyond heinous. The desire to find answers, to discover WHY something so tragic and needless happened is understandably strong. But for those with only partial information to jump immediately to a conclusion based more on personal political bias than actual evidence is intellectually lazy. We don't know WHY these children killed. To blame Janis Tarchuk, or her department, for the acts of a few extremely disturbed children at this point (all for political gain) is as ridiculous as if you were to hypothesize, based on the Lyle and Erik Menendez case, that all people who saw Michael Keaton as Batman went on to commit patricide, and so obviously the fault for those deaths rests squarely on Warner Brothers and Tim Burton.

WHY this happened is unclear. I'm just one voice, but here's a crazy idea: Before we start talking like these kids were all staying in Janis' basement in Cochrane, listening to her records backwards, why don't we - just for a lark - actually INVESTIGATE what happened? I'm a little old-fashioned that way, admittedly.

SPEAKING of old-fashioned... let's talk about what Iris Evans said last week. Everyone's entitled to their interpretation, and I'm sure I'll get the standard NDP and Liberal party lines showing up in this post's "comments" section, which I'll be happy to post (I've rejected fewer than a dozen comments in just about 3 years, most of them due to offensive language). When *I* first read Evans' comments, I thought she was making a comment about her own family. When she talked about "we", she was talking about her community. As Iris Evans, wife and mother and grandmother. Not as "Iris Evans, official spokesperson for the government and people of Alberta". Or, at least, that's how I think SHE thought of herself at that moment.


There is, however, a time and place to speak as an individual, and a time and place to speak as an employee of the Government of Alberta. AS an employee of that same government, I know this all too well: There are many times when my personal opinion on an issue is in stark contrast to government policy within my department. When the rubber hits the road, though, I have to use this general rule of thumb: If I'm speaking, and I'll get a paycheque for this time with the Alberta Government logo on it at the end of the month, then their opinion is the one that comes out of my mouth.

I imagine, should I be fortunate to sit as an MLA in the future, that personal rule will change somewhat to reflect the reality that I'd be getting paid to represent not the government per se, but rather specifically the people of the riding that elected me to represent them - so, OFF-THE-CLOCK, the opinions I express can be my own. ON the clock, however, a big part of my job is swallowing my own opinions in order to convey the message that my boss(es) tell me to.

Now, I'm a little unclear as to why, exactly, Iris Evans was at the meeting where this whole mess began. If she was invited to speak by organizers and was going to be paid directly by them, then she can say whatever the hell she pleases. If, in the Evans house, they call cribbage "backgammon", then she's perfectly within her rights to say so if she's speaking at a function as Iris Evans.

If, however, she was at that luncheon speaking as a representative of the government - and, therefore, the PEOPLE - of Alberta, then she made a big mistake in using that platform to express a personal opinion that, quite frankly, many people don't happen to agree with.

For the record: My mother stayed home with us until her youngest was in Grade One, and then she re-entered the workforce, because that's what she thought was best for us. I agree, it was what was best for US - for our particular family, and the particular children involved. Your circumstances are your own - and what is best for you and your kids is your own business, not mine or the government's.

If you listened quietly to the uproar from the Opposition parties following the Evans comments, you can hear almost a tinge of regret. Admittedly, they're massaging and spinning the heck out of this - and good on 'em. Kudos to their communications teams. However, you detect a hint of regret from them that the comments came from a FEMALE cabinet member... I'm sure they had press releases saved in the "just in case" folder decrying "Minister (fill in the blank) is a sexist and misogynist and this attitude pervades the Tory caucus", and instead they lost the ability to call Evans a sexist and misogynist, and instead have to sadly shake their heads for the cameras since Iris is so brutally and obviously backwards...

Just like my mother was.

And hundreds of thousands of other mothers in this province. And hundreds of thousands more who WANT to stay home with the kids, but can't afford to.

If Evans was waxing philosophical about her personal views on the company dime, that was wrong of her. But to attack her for her views is wrong on the part of the opposition - their focus should be whether she was representing the people of this province and went off-script into personal opinion. Her message, whether the Liberals or New Democrats like to hear it or not, is one that resonates with a LOT of people - and by attacking it, rather than the circumstances under which it was delivered, they're attacking a group that (minority opinion or not) deserves respect, not ridicule.

The response to the Evans comments was nearly instantaneous... the response, though, to Doug Elniski's comments has been absolutely contrived to draw them out and keep them in the media cycle (again, to the credit of the opposition communications teams). He made his tweets from the Pride event in Edmonton on June 13th... this "Twitter" thingy delivered the comments straight to my computer, eliciting a "yikes! Doug - what are you THINKING!?!" response from yours truly. Both of those things happened on June 13th. BEFORE the Iris Evans speech. The media and blogger outcry to the comment, which was public domain, began a full WEEK LATER, AFTER the Evans statements made headlines, when a special interest group decided that it had been offended, and sent out e-mail notices to bloggers and media. At which point it became "Elniski season", and his blog and tweets were gone over with a fine-toothed comb for any other potentially embarrassing statements - of which there were at least a few.

Now, full disclosure: I've met Doug Elniski. Not that he knows it, but I have. I *like* Doug Elniski. Doug Elniski is not a caveman, a woman hater, a pervert, or a homophobe.

What Doug IS is a man who, like many (perhaps MOST?) men, tries to be funnier than he's sometimes capable of being. In MY position, people just shake their heads and walk away. In YOUR position, they probably do the same. But, when you're an MLA - it's like a smorgasbord of "inappropriate comments and behaviour" for the people who are trying to take your job.

Now, once again (as above with Iris) I don't want to spend a whole tonne of time on Elniski's comments - he's apologized for making them, and I don't believe he feels the way he's been characterized and vilified in the media as feeling and thinking. I honestly believe he was trying to be funny, and missed the mark.

Where Doug's BIG mistake was - he made these tweets, blog posts, and comments in his capacity as an MLA. Once again, as with the Evans situation: If Elniski said these things over a beer with a friend, or in an email to a cousin, or to his High School Reunion class, the story would be over. But his blog and his Twitter account both have "MLA" right there in the name... it's understood that what he says, on either, is coming not from Doug Elniski, private citizen, but from Doug Elniski, MLA. He exercised poor judgement, he got raked over the coals for it, and he's ready to move on. Like the co-worker who tries to be funny, makes an inappropriate joke, gets yelled at by the boss and gets sent to a mandatory "sensitivity training seminar". I suggest that we let him move on... and here's why.

Because we're going to have to get used to the idea that the politicians and others who serve us (the people), are going to eventually embrace this "social media" thing if they feel it's worthwhile. And the ability to actually SPEAK with your representative, rather than mailing a letter and getting a form letter back from their constituency assistant, is a fantastic advance made possible by this medium. If we expect them to consider Social Media a worthwhile risk, we have to be willing to forgive some mis-steps in the name of the learning curve.

Put another way: If Doug Elniski loses his job over Twitter and a blog, how likely do you think it is that we'll see more politicians using either?

How likely do you think it is that we'll see politicians bailing on Social Media like rats off a sinking ship?

If they disengage from the masses so as to avoid being "Elniski'd" by their opponents, then any advances we've made in these past few years in trying to re-connect the people with their elected representatives will have been lost.

If the people of Edmonton-Calder decide to toss Elniski out on his rear end because they've decided, after 4 years, that he's not their cup of tea, then that's politics. But the current frenzy, by non-constituents, over his tweets and his blog and his speeches and something he said in line at a Mr. Sub and a note a dry-cleaner found in his pocket - this is all contrived, artificial rage being gleefully drummed up for partisan reasons because the man sits in an "in-play" riding, and his opponents smell blood in the Tory waters.

Doug made a mistake. Not out of malice, but out of ignorance. He learned from it. And if we don't want to lose Social Media access to our politicians altogether - if it's not too late already - I think we need to move past this, no matter what our political stripe, for the greater good - instead of crucifying this man in the name of party politics, and costing ourselves a chance at truly responsive and engaged representation and governance.

... or should we start hiring party staff to catalogue drunken text messages sent by the respective parties' Youth members at conventions, just in case they end up as MLA's someday? Keep them on-file in case the "wrong" person wins election, and then try to compel them to resign mid-term?

Wow. If this is where we're heading, maybe I DON'T want to run for office someday...

One (Glen)more Time!

With the resignation of Ron Stevens as MLA for Calgary-Glenmore, anticipation is building among bloggers, politicos running the gamut from wannabe to has-been, and supporters of all stripes in the City of Calgary. The recent stamping out of a potential summer federal election means that this by-election, likely to be scheduled for late autumn, may be the only outlet for partisan rancour for the foreseeable future.

With that in mind, I thought I'd take a quick look at the riding, the candidates both confirmed and rumoured, and the by-election itself.

Calgary-Glenmore has been an active constituency in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta since 1959, when "social media" was something they were hoping could be cured with penicillin. In that time, it has been represented by 4 Progressive Conservative MLA's (one of whom, Ernest Watkins, was Leader of the Progressive Conservatives for a period of a few years) and one member, Bill Dickie, who served as a Liberal for 6 years before crossing the floor to join a tiny, 6-member Official Opposition under Peter Lougheed's PC banner (things got substantially more comfortable for Dickie from 1971 to 1975, when he stepped aside).

Until the by-election is held and the new MLA sworn in, Jonathan Denis, MLA for Calgary-Egmont (and most definitely NOT the Enlightened Savage) will be representing the constituents of Glenmore.

44% of the riding's voters are over the age of 45 years. 46% of the riding's residents were born in the province of Alberta. 77% of the homes in the riding are occupied by the owners, and the average home value is $348,000. Only 16% of the homes in Glenmore are less than 30 years old. 43% of voters have completed Post-Secondary education, with the lion's share of those being in architecture, engineering, business, management, and administration. Average household income is $96,000. To whit: Your average Glenmore resident is middle-aged, educated, was born somewhere else but chooses to live in Glenmore, gives a lot more orders than s/he takes while on the job, and lives in a nice, albeit older, home.

Now, some candidate talk...

Eric Carpendale has been announced as the NDP candidate in the Glenmore by-election. Curious, though, that some New Democrats have been complaining that there didn't seem to be any sort of nomination race or process - interesting tactics, for a party with "Democratic" right there in the name...

Corey Hogan, a young and well-connected Liberal workhorse, will be running for the Liberal nomination against perennial also-ran Avalon Roberts, in a race sure to stir up some good, cross-generational dialogue within the ranks of Liberal supporters in Glenmore ("So, they tell me you can talk to voters on this 'inter-webs' thingy... do I have to join in on the 'twooter' thingamajig?").

Diane Colley-Urquhart, Alderman for Ward 13 on Calgary's City Council, was acclaimed as the Progressive Conservative candidate. Colley-Urquhart is by far the most well-known of the potential candidates, and has been a popular member of city council, with a reputation for being progressive socially and conservative fiscally - handy, considering the party she's representing, and the riding in which she's running.

Paul Hinman is the only declared candidate for the Wildrose Alliance Party. Hinman is the former MLA for Cardston-Taber-Warner, and former leader of the Wildrose Alliance - which might not give him huge name or face recognition in the riding, but certainly makes him a recognized figure to the more politically involved within the riding. The WAP will be looking to capitalize on discontent with the PC's handling of the economy, the deficit budget, and energy royalties. The nomination deadline for the WAP nomination is June 23.

Premier Ed's "drop dead" date to order a by-election is November 19th - which doesn't mean that the by-election needs to HAPPEN by then, it just means that it needs to be SCHEDULED by then. My money's on October - if for no other reason than October's going to be a very busy month for me, and that's just my luck. The Premier is said to be willing to wait as long as the PC team in Glenmore feels is necessary to get their candidate out to every part of the riding - and, should she win, there's talk that Colley-Urquhart could find herself elevated to a minor cabinet role (Tourism, Parks and Rec?) right off the bat in a late fall shuffle, to fill the Calgary-shaped hole left in cabinet by Stevens' departure. Other Calgary MLA's rumoured to be on the short list include the affable and able Len Webber (Calgary-Foothills) and the aforementioned Jonathan Denis (Calgary-Egmont, NOT the Enlightened Savage).

So THIS Is What "Responsible Governance" Looks Like...

Nation, the brinkmanship that's been floating like some heinous grey cloud over Parliament Hill over the past week or so has lifted somewhat, with the revelation that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Official Opposition Michael Ignatieff have actually come up with some sort of accord to ensure the survival of the current parliament through the summer.


Prime Minister Harper is quoted as saying this shows "willingness of the government and the Official Opposition to work together on an important public policy matter" - which is a good thing. My question is, shouldn't the government and the Official Opposition ALWAYS be willing to work together on important public policy matters? Isn't the public good absolutely, 100% of the time SUPPOSED to trump petty partisanship and political manoeuvring?

I'm not naive enough to believe that things work that way. Don't get me wrong. But, the bigger question is: SHOULDN'T they work that way?

I was recently nominated to address the issue of what makes a great opposition member. It's a task I'll be undertaking shortly, and I'll try not to re-tread any ground I'm about to cover here.

However, both the government and the opposition DO have an obligation to work together, to find common ground representing the vast majority of Canadians, on issues of importance. That's true whether the government has a rock-solid majority or a razor-thin minority. If the opposition is being honest and earnest in its pursuit of honest, accountable and transparent governance and policies that will make life better for Canadians, and if government is acting likewise, then there simply HAS to be room, time and an appetite to sit down and talk as statesmen, rather than as politicians.

This is something that Jack Layton, by most accounts a good guy, seems to have forgotten. His obligation to the people of Canada is not to "oppose Stephen Harper on all fronts, on all issues, without even bothering to read bills, budgets or reports". It is to hold government to account by reading EVERYTHING, and opposing where it is warranted and justifiable, and supporting where it is warranted and justifiable. Layton and his proxies do all of us a disservice by playing coy political games to try and win votes in the next election ("71 confidence votes and counting!") when we need statesmanship. (Not that Jack has been alone in these games - far from it. All of the parties have been guilty of this - his is just the most recent to irritate me. They ALL do, eventually.)

Harper and Ignatieff have a lot in common. Chief among those similarities is their unmistakable, avaricious pursuit of power and accolades. They both know that only one of them can be Prime Minister, and both also know that they can only trust the other up to the point at which their interests diverge, and not a millimetre past. Both men, however, are smart enough to recognize that they have too much to lose to be seen as the person responsible for an unnecessary election. A more jaded politico would suggest this is likely the one and only reason that the Liberals will not bring about the government's fall this Friday.

I have hope, though, that while this political survival instinct may be the primary motivation for the current detente, it might not be the ONLY motivation. Perhaps Harper and Ignatieff understand that, by working together collectively on an issue as critical as the economy, they can pool their efforts and make a real difference. That by putting aside their own interests and working to make our lives better, they can earn the accolades they so covet.

At least until one or the other feels they're in a majority position. Then the 40% of voters who will support them on Election Day are the only ones that matter.

Political theory, getting slapped upside the head by political realism.

"A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation."

- James Clarke

It's My Party, And I'll Cry If I Want To...

Nation, there's been much afoot as late, and I'll be all over it like delicious frosting on one side of a Mini-Wheat...

However, the first order of business today is dealing with one of my pet peeves.

You know what REALLY irks the Enlightened Savage?

I mean, REALLY irks him?

People who parrot criticism of politicians or political parties, without bothering to do their own research.

It's simply intellectual laziness - and, to my mind, it automatically makes anything else you have to say immediately suspect. After all, if you can't be bothered to form your own political opinion, what OTHER short-cuts are you taking to seem worldly and informed?

2 particular cases in point have raised my ire in the past several weeks, and both relate directly to 2 of Alberta's political parties.

Case One: "The Wildrose Alliance is no threat to the PC's"

Nation, let's make one thing perfectly clear: Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, with any political common sense is disregarding the WAP as a potential threat to the Alberta PC's and their thirty-year dynastic rule over Alberta's political landscape. The truth is, the Wildrose Alliance has some of the brightest and best-connected political minds in the province working with them. They've got people who were involved in founding what started as a "meaningless western protest movement rump of a party" called Reform - so they know what it takes to go from obscurity to a real political force. They've got a clean slate, as a party, with a leadership race underway. They've got the ability to raise huge sums of money - ask the Liberals how important that ability is.

But perhaps the greatest reason that the Wildrose Alliance may, in fact, present a clear and present danger to the Tories is the fact that it is a populist movement - every-day members feel as though their opinions are valued, and that they make a difference - because they are.

People who disregard the Wildrose Alliance do so at their own peril. This is folly, because the reality is that nobody yet knows what the policies of this party will be - beyond a somewhat safe assumption that there will be a focus on a business-friendly agenda. This party could end up being a business-friendly socially moderate party much like the Lougheed PC's, for all we know. There's a leadership race under way, as well as policy shaping taking place. With the WAP being designed specifically as a "bottom-up" organization, there's a real opportunity for well-organized people of ANY slant - be they moderate, progressive or conservative - to shape this party in their own image.

Now, the WAP-haters out there delight in pointing out that there are extreme, reactionary elements within the party. I hate to have to point this out, but there are extreme and reactionary elements in ALL political parties. There's no rule against allowing knuckle-draggers to buy party memberships. It's when they become the MAJORITY within a party that it's time to worry.

So, not knowing who is going to be leading the Wildrose Alliance, or what their policies are going to be, there are nevertheless political parakeets who insist, because they heard someone smart say it once, that the Wildrose Alliance will never get off the ground. I don't know, for a fact, that they will. But I know for a fact that they CAN. And I know for a fact that in 1965, Peter Lougheed (a former Edmonton Eskimo) gave up a lucrative Calgary law practice to take over a political party with 13% support and that hadn't held more than 3 seats in the Legislature at the same time for over 30 years. Hardly an Ignatieff-style "sure thing" of a career change. 2 years later, they won 6 seats. And 4 years after that, they won a majority - and have been in power ever since.

I bet - if you asked one of the parakeets around Ernest Manning's office in 1964, they would have told you that the Progressive Conservatives were absolutely no threat whatsoever.

I doubt Manning felt the same way. With Lougheed's elevation to PC Leader and the reforms, energy and policies he and his supporters brought to the party, Manning saw the writing on the wall after the 1967 election, and retired in 1968. The SoCreds lost power in 1971, and haven't elected a single MLA since the 1979 election.

Again, it bears repeating: I'm not saying, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the PC's are going to fall to the Wildrose Alliance - in 2012, or ever. But I AM saying that, with the right leader and the right policies (both of which are member-driven) on the part of the WAP, it COULD happen. And anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish.

Case Two: "Stelmach and the Tories are in the pocket of Big Oil".

The only thing I REALLY need to say in response to this statement is: "Do you KNOW anyone who works for a big oil company? ASK them how their management team feels about the Alberta Government."

Chances are, they're not exchanging Christmas cards.

The truth of the matter is, the Tories and the big oilsands companies are barely on speaking terms - and CERTAINLY not on "friendly terms". Stelmach has been criticised - again, by people with no understanding of political reality - as "the best premier that Big Oil can buy"... and yet, despite this assertion, he raised royalty rates and pissed off nearly every energy producer in the whole province as a result.

In reality, big oilpatch players like EnCana donate just as much to the Wildrose Alliance - and even (gasp!) the LIBERALS as they do to the Tories.

The lefties criticise the Stelmach Tories for being in the pocket of Big Oil, yet royalties were raised against the VOCIFEROUS objections of the oilpatch - which, the far left insists, is the group that bought and paid for the same Alberta Government which raised the rates in the first place. Even given the current economic climate, and the chill that low energy prices has had on the Alberta economy as a whole, the opposition parties on the left advocate raising royalties even HIGHER - because what stimulates long-term economic growth better than taxing companies so heavily on production during a recession that they stop doing business in your province altogether? (I believe this approach is referred to as "the final nail" economics)

Meanwhile, critics on the right criticise the Tories for raising royalties in the first place. Whether their argument is that Albertans were already receiving their fair share, or that Albertans aren't entitled to being compensated for the resources that belong to all of us, I'm not entirely sure. Whatever it is, though, we're led to believe that the world economic crisis and $40 per barrel oil was the fault of Ed Stelmach, 13th Premier of the Province of Alberta. It had nothing to do with OPEC, or a precipitous drop in world-wide demand. Nope - it was Ed and his damned royalty hike. Ed wrecked the world energy markets - and those darned PC members, who elected him leader after he promised to review royalty rates, are all accomplices. The PC's, we're led to believe, are "anti-business, and anti-energy producer".

Okay... so, the PC's are simultaneously in the pocket of Big Oil and have an anti-business, anti energy-producer bias.

Neat trick.

Any other brilliant observations, parakeets?

23,741

65 years ago today, on June 6th, 1944, thousands upon thousands of young men threw themselves into the meat grinder of the Atlantic Wall in an attempt to breach the impregnable Fortress Europe of Hitler's Nazis.

It wasn't glorious. It wasn't exciting. It wasn't the sanitary, shiny stuff we see in most hollywood depictions of war. It was brutal. Death and horrifying dismemberment were everywhere. The worst kind of hell could be found on the beaches of Normandy that day.

To the men who left their friends, their brothers, and parts of themselves on those beaches - we owe you an immeasurable and irreconcilable debt. How can you repay a man for 23,741 nightmare-filled nights? For 23,741 evenings when they laid down to sleep knowing that they were about to experience the horror yet again?

You can start with a thank-you.

Thank-you.

Bill 44 Passes Third Reading

Nation, the time is 1:33 am on Tuesday, the 2nd of June. As of about 10 minutes ago, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta essentially passed Bill 44 into law (there are still some i's to dot and t's to cross before it's official).

Analysis on this later today. In the meantime - what do YOU think?

... and That Makes 20!

Nation, notwithstanding my recently having been "outed" by the much-lamented AlbertaTory as former Seattle Seahawks head coach Mike Holmgren, I was happy to receive in my inbox early yesterday the 20th incorrect guess as to my true identity.

For posterity's sake, as well as for a little amusement, I thought I'd post the 20 incorrect guesses here (keeping in mind that some of these guesses have been made by several people).

I am NOT (in no particular order):

• Jonathan Denis
• Troy Wason
• A member of the Stelmach family
• Judy Wilson
• Larry Johnsrude
• Kirk Schmidt
• A member of the Herard family
• Don O'Beirne (sp?)
• A member of the Wojtaszek family
• AlbertaTory
• Dave Breakenridge
• Satya Das
• Robin Darsi
• Tyler Shandro
• Keith Marlowe
• Daveberta (when do you people think Dave has time to write ANOTHER blog?!?)
• Roger Holmes
• Courtney Luimes (does Courtney know she's been mistaken for a 31 year-old man?)
• Patrick Brown

... or, yesterday's guess...

• Cory Morgan

Some are closer than others. And, for the record: *I* don't think Courtney Luimes is a 31 year-old man.

Keep 'em coming, Nation. ;)

- E.S.

Breaking Down 44: Part 2

Alright, Nation... we've talked about the first concept behind Bill 44, and it seems that the E.S. Nation is in general agreement with my take that:

DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS WRONG

It's 2009, and most of us have joined the vast majority of western liberal democracies in that belief.

The second, and more controversial of the concepts, is what we'll talk about today.

BILL 44, CONCEPT 2: THE RIGHT OF PARENTS TO CONTROL THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN SUPERSEDES THE RIGHT OF THE CHILD TO A FULL AND BALANCED EDUCATION.

Now, this one is far more touchy than the first. A simpler solution to this conundrum would have been to present these 2 concepts in 2 different bills, however it's no secret that there is a very vocal minority in the PC Caucus, and in the province at large, that wanted absolutely NO space between Concept 1 and Concept 2: As soon as 1 was law, the 2nd had to be also.

Let's break this concept down into workable sub-concepts...

SUB-CONCEPT 1: Parents have the right to control the education of their children.

I say, "true". Before public education, the parental role in education was inextricable from the education itself: Mother and Father taught the child what s/he needed to know to survive in the world. If the child decided (or, sometimes, it was determined FOR the child) to go into a field that neither parent could offer an education in, the child would be "apprenticed" to someone who COULD provide that education. At any rate, the parent's right to control the education of their child was absolute.

Since the dawn of public education, this right has seen its scope limited. As class sizes grew, the parent's ability to sit down and discuss their own child's needs with the teacher was reduced; likewise with their ability to, in most cases, influence the curriculum - when your 4 children were in an 11-child, one-room school-house, your discussions with the teacher as to what was and was not appropriate for your children carried serious weight. When your child is one in a class of 25, in a school of 600, with regimented curriculum and standardized province-wide tests, then the teacher is somewhat more limited in how much they can change the lesson plan to accommodate the beliefs of your family.

Ultimately, the parent still has the choice to home school their child, enroll him/her in the public school system, enroll in a private, charter, or faith-based school... however, the lessons and core curriculum which the student is taught are determined by experts in order to ensure that all high school graduates, for example, can be assumed to have met the same basic threshold of applied learning.

So, while the parent can no longer control, to the same degree, what is taught in the public school classroom, it is ultimately their right to determine whether or not their child even ENTERS that classroom, or goes to a school or system more in keeping with their family's values and beliefs. Therefore, sub-concept 1 is, to my mind, truthful: Parents do have the right to control the education of their children.

SUB-CONCEPT 2: Children have the right to a full and balanced education.

We, as a society, have determined this to be true through our actions. The creation and public funding of an educational system which permits all children to attend, free of charge, is one of the greatest steps that any civilization can take to ensure its posterity. We in this country, as in many others, have created a system and embedded within that system a curriculum and series of standardized tests to ensure that the curriculum is being adhered to.

That curriculum is set by a central body, in our case Alberta Education, with the input of many highly-educated experts and after consultation with school councils - made up of teachers and parents - from across the province. The curriculum that the students are taught is intended to give them a foundation in logic, problem solving, analytical thought, critical thinking, and the ability to retain and use a base set of facts on a variety of subjects, from Language Arts and Mathematics to Science, History, Humanities, and Fine Arts.

The goal of this curriculum is to give students a well-rounded education. That is to say, to educate them as fully as possible in a group setting, in a number of different subjects as determined by the aforementioned experts and school councils.

Teaching a student is, at its core, simple: Introduce knowledge of which the student is not previously aware, discuss that knowledge, prove it to be factual through critical thinking, and test the student to determine if that knowledge was retained. Of course, there's MUCH more to being a teacher than just following those steps, but at its core, education boils down to those 4 steps. The KEY to the process, though, is the FIRST step: Introduce knowledge of which the student is not previously aware. Challenge the student's ignorance or pre-conception. Where we run into difficulty, and where our 2 sub-concepts collide, is at this point: Sometimes, the knowledge, or what we as a society have deemed "facts", bump up against what the student has been taught at home and brings into the classroom with them as a pre-conceived notion.

This is the system that we have created... a system that attempts to impart a societally-agreed-upon series of facts in a myriad of subjects, along with the ability to reason, critically think, and solve problems. Using this system as our barometer, then, we can determine that we do, in fact, believe sub-concept 2 to be correct: Children do have the right to a full and balanced education.

Having proven both sub-concepts, then, we come back to the 2nd core concept of Bill 44: THE RIGHT OF PARENTS TO CONTROL THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN SUPERSEDES THE RIGHT OF THE CHILD TO A FULL AND BALANCED EDUCATION.

There's the rub... WHO decides what constitutes a "full and balanced education"? Society as a whole. The same society that, once, accepted that some people could be the legal property of others. Or that the Earth was the centre of the Solar System. Or, more recently, that a "person" was defined as "a human being who is not an Indian". These are all ideas that were taught as facts in school, once. Clearly, society's values, the values and beliefs and accepted facts of the majority, are not always right or in keeping with what a child is taught at home.

The rights of parents superseding the rights of their children is always a sticky subject... we accept as a society, for example, that the right of a mother to have control over her own body supersedes any rights that her unborn child (or "fetus", depending on your social slant) may have. But DO we? There are examples of alcoholic mothers who have the babies taken by the province immediately upon birth, for the welfare of the child. Recently, a judgement in Manitoba suggested that teaching racism at home was a form of child abuse. Parents have the right to determine what medical care their child receives - unless the child's life is in danger, in which case doctors are empowered to take whatever steps are necessary - even if those steps are against the faith and wishes of the child's family - to save his or her life. A family that refuses to allow a life-saving procedure on religious grounds can be charged with abuse, or negligence.

So, is the act of a parent denying their child access to the full Alberta Education curriculum a case of "child abuse"? Or is it simply a case of the parent exercising their right to determine what is best for their child?

The obvious elephant in the room in this whole debate is religion. As I've stated before, I'm not a person of faith. However, I *did* attend Catholic school, and in Calgary, that means taking a course entitled "Religious Studies" each and every year. In elementary school, this course was essentially catechism: "Here's what we believe. You should believe it, too". Most of the students were Catholics, from Catholic families. It wasn't a big deal. By the time I got to high school, however, the message had changed drastically... it became "Here's what other people believe, and here's why". There was no indoctrination, no condemnation of different beliefs, it was just... knowledge. I was learning about the faiths of my neighbours and friends - they weren't being condemned or promoted, they were simply being discussed. As a result of that class, I grew in my understanding of others, how they thought, and why they thought that way. It was incredibly useful, and I would be a far poorer person for not having taken that course.

My parents *could* have pulled me from that course. They had the option, just as they had the option of pulling me from class when the curriculum called for the teaching of Human Sexuality. They didn't - in fact, in my 12 years of school, less than 5 students EVER left the class because of their parents' wishes regarding Sex Ed (and this was in the Catholic system, remember).

I *can*, however, see the side of parents who feel that their 8 or 9 year-old, who presumably they know better than anyone, is not ready for a discussion on human sexuality (the curriculum, I believe, starts discussing human reproduction in 3rd grade now). Those parents should, and do, have a recourse to pull their child out of the class when this discussion is happening. It's one thing to pull your 17 year-old out of Health class because a subject will be discussed that, statistically, he's probably already DOING, but quite another to be told by society that "your 9 year-old daughter NEEDS to know what a penis is for - and if you or your pastor isn't comfortable with that, then too bad". Dinner table conversations can clarify your position to your children, they can put today's school lesson in the context of your faith, but they can't erase the information that you feel your child wasn't ready to hear.

Discussion about religion is different, though. If a child will, as result of a simple classroom discussion, lose or act against their faith - then clearly the faith isn't being discussed and cultivated at home. Surely, faith that goes untested is not as strong as that which is tempered by being challenged. Remember the story of Job? (Hint: Check your Bible)

And let's not lose sight, by the way, of the fact that discussion ABOUT religion isn't even covered by Bill 44 - it's Religious Instruction, specifically. The classes I took in elementary - "write down 5 reasons you love Jesus" apply. The classes I took in high school - "what does it mean when someone says they are 'keeping kosher'?" - don't apply. And, as far as I know, they don't even teach those classes in the public system anyhow. Certainly not as mandatory courses, the way they are in the Catholic system.

My personal experiences and opinions notwithstanding, though, we as a society have a decision to make: Do we, as a society, get to decide what's best for kids regarding their education? Or do their parents? We've passed laws that say spanking a child is abuse. Whether or not the parent feels the child needs to be spanked is irrelevant: We have decided that a parent who strikes their child is wrong, and committing a crime.

Are we prepared, as a society, to say that a parent who causes their child to be excluded from a classroom discussion on human sexuality or explicitly religious instruction (catechism) that goes against the parent's, and presumably the child's, values system is similarly abusing their child?

If we accept that the child has a right to a full and balanced education, as I posited above, then it is indisputable that the child's rights are being denied in this regard. The fundamental question we have to ask, then, is this: Whose rights come first? The rights of parents, or the rights of the student?

They BOTH have rights. When those rights collide - as they do on this issue - which rights are we willing to sacrifice in deference to the other?

Power to the People!

Nation, I was up through much (but CERTAINLY not all) of last night's debate on Bill 44. A lot of good points were made in opposition, some good points were made in favour, and at the end of the night (or, if you prefer, in the early part of the morning) the Bill was passed through the Committee of the Whole.

Something... unexpected... happened during this all-night debate, however.

The people - severely normal Albertans - Martha and Henry - started talking about their thoughts on the Bill, through Twitter.

And the MLA's were RESPONDING.

Nation: This is, I believe, a harbinger of a brave new world in governance. As was pointed out by a Tweeter last night, when else in history has a citizen been able to speak to his elected representative, DURING debate on a Bill, after midnight in order to express his opinion?

Log-in to Twitter, and do a search for #ABLeg and #Bill44 - see for yourself the kind of discussion that was going on, well past 4 in the morning. Citizens, journalists (who are ALSO citizens, by the way), and MLA's alike - there was a real, honest-to-goodness dialogue going on about the Bill. I've got to believe that this will not be the last time we can expect this sort of thing. As the technology has advanced to the point now that we can watch our representatives debating a Bill at 1:30 am, and send them messages containing our opinions, and they can respond in kind - we are on the cusp of something extraordinary.

From this, good and transparent, truly representative and accessible democracy springs forth.

It's an exciting time to be an engaged citizen in this province.

(In particular, big kudos to the Twitter contributions of @taudette, @AllieW, @davecournoyer, @sirthinks, @DebraWard, @chrislabossiere, @Imparo, @tinyperfectblog, @KenChapman46, @lisa_mack, @brittanykustra, @BreakenNews and @Paulatics, and MLA's @RAndersonMLA, @KyleMLA, @JonoMLA, @GriffMLA, and @LindsayBlackett. You're all pioneers.)

For other perspectives on last night's events, check out Ken Chapman and Tiny Perfect Blog, as well as Capital Notebook.

For the Hansard transcript of last night's debate, click here.

Stories of My Demise...

... have been greatly exaggerated, Nation.

I've been ridiculously busy over the past 2 weeks, however there have been a great many developments on the political and local scene that I wanted to touch on. Also, there will be more discussion on Bill 44 in the next few weeks, so stay tuned for that.

The quick hits, in no particular order:

Ron Stevens resigns as MLA and Deputy Premier, is named to the Bench: Stevens is a good and decent man who will do very well as a Justice. His absence in the Tory caucus leaves a void that will take more than a by-election or cabinet shuffle to fill. I'm hearing about a minor cabinet shuffle and by-election in the fall. I'm betting that there won't be anyone named to the Deputy Premier's post - the posting for Stevens was an olive branch to the Calgary caucus, and the pickings for a new Deputy Premier from Calgary are somewhat slim at this point, without over-loading Minister Redford's plate.

Alberta's Legislative Assembly starts to get a little stir-crazy: The questions and answers in the Legislative Question Period are getting snarky, the preambles are getting out of hand, and the partisan rhetoric is reaching a fevered pitch. Could it be any more obvious that it's time for a summer recess?

The Enlightened Savage is the 7th most popular blogger in Alberta. Wait until they see me in the swim-suit competition. ;)

Harper's Tories launch attack ads on Iggy: Are the statements true? Sure... but trying to paint them as "information pieces" instead of attack ads is ridiculous - Kinsella would be proud of these ads if the shoe was on the other foot, the Tories should just stand by them.

Alberta PC Policy Convention comes to Calgary this week-end: The early line says that a lot of Tories are going to get together, discuss important issues related to health and the environment, vote on policy statements, make recommendations to the party, and those recommendations will likely be ignored by Caucus. At least the networking possibilities will be useful.

Calgary police officer shoots and kills an armed suspect: Not hearing a lot from the "usual suspects" about police conduct - could it be because they're busy blowing the horn to have Tasers taken out of service? A question for these critics - if you take all the Tasers away from the police, won't you see the "officers shoots and kills suspect" headline a LOT more often?

Doug Griffiths rumoured to be crossing the floor on Twitter - this was shocking news to a lot of insiders, especially to Griff himself. From Twitter, on May 21st: "Ha ha. Wow! I would like to announce that I am NOT crossing any floor."

Sabre-rattling on Parliament Hill regarding Employment Insurance: Harper: "Don't push me, Iggy." Iggy: "Don't make me pull the plug, Steve-o". Layton: "Does anyone remember who I am?"

Victoria Day Long Week-end sees a more orderly camping week-end than in past years: Fish & Wildlife Officers, Forest Officers, Conservation Officers, Alberta Parks staff, Sheriffs and RCMP are to all be commended. I was camping myself that week-end, and it was an absolute pleasure compared to previous years.

Harper announces $100M for South-East Ring Road in Calgary: Great, Stephen. Thanks. What we REALLY need is the promise that you have a rubber stamp waiting in Ottawa to approve the agreement between the Tsuu T'ina Nation and the province of Alberta regarding the South-WEST Ring Road. You know, Calgary South-West? You should talk to their Member of Parliament about the long-overdue road, I'm sure he gets a lot of letters about it. This road needed to be built 10 years ago, not 15 years from now.

The Flames fire Mike Keenan: Good. I like it when the Flames do well - as an Oilers fan, it ensures that MY team will keep trying to do well, instead of treading water. Keenan had to go. Flames, take it from an Oilers fan: You could do a LOT worse than former Oilers coach Craig MacTavish. He's a good coach, but a new voice was needed up North after the better part of a decade.

Star Trek was a phenomenal movie. That is all. See it.

Nation, I WILL be updating more frequently - keep coming back for more. If I've forgotten anything, please mention it in the comments and I'll get on it. :)

Breaking Down 44: Part 1

No, Nation, despite the promising title, this is NOT an evisceration of Chris Pronger - who no longer wears number 44 anyhow. Although, that DOES give me an idea for another post later...

No, this is the first of a 2-part series of posts about Bill 44. Or, rather, a launching point for a community discussion about Bill 44.

I know a lot of my readers are more socially conservative than myself. I also know, though, that I get a lot of traffic from moderates, such as myself. I'm counting on both of those statements to be true.

I'm going to, in the next 2 days, post my thoughts on the 2 big issues revolving around Bill 44. What I need YOU to do, is comment. Agree with me, disagree with me, agree and disagree with each other. I want an honest-to-goodness discussion going on in the "comments" section of these posts. Point/counterpoint, parry/thrust, jab/duck (unless you're Ricky Hatton)... we've seen the Bloggers go completely bonkers over the past little while in defence of this bill, or in their attacks on it. I want to see the *discussion* of the differing viewpoints - both from the Bloggers who come here, and the readers who care to venture an opinion. All I ask is that when we DO disagree - which I don't think is all that unlikely - that we remember to be respectful of the beliefs and ideas of others.

It's entirely possible that we all agree on the basics of the discussion, and it's just the fine details of the Bill that have everyone so worried. Let's find out.

In order to "break it down", we'll deal with the 2 big newsworthy sections of the Bill one at a time...



BILL 44, CONCEPT 1: DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS WRONG

Pretty straight forward. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on this a decade ago... the argument I've heard most often made in opposition to the statement above is that "it's not discrimination, it's a consequence of a choice that the person made - namely, the choice to engage in the homosexual lifestyle".

I don't think I could disagree with that statement a whole lot more if I tried.

First of all, it assumes that the idea of homosexuality as a "choice" is factual. I'm not exactly on the cutting edge of study on this subject, but let's assume, for the moment, that it IS a choice... so is religion. If religion is a choice, and it's a violation of human rights to discriminate against people for choosing to have certain beliefs, morals and thoughts... then why is it okay to discriminate against OTHER people who choose to have certain beliefs, morals and thoughts?

If, on the other hand, sexual orientation is a function of genetics... well, so is race. If race is a function of genetics, and it's a violation of human rights to discriminate against people based on the genetics with which they were born... then why is it okay to discriminate against OTHER people based on the genetics with which they were born?

To whit: Choice, or genetics, there is precedent to suggest that discrimination based on sexual orientation is flat-out wrong. A fact that is increasingly being accepted through much of the western world.

Look, Nation... I don't know who many of you are. Some, I do - even if you don't know I am who I am. I don't know what you do behind closed doors, and vice versa. But I think something we should ALL be able to agree on is that I should NOT know what goes on between you and your partner(s) of choice (if any). I have the right to ask you, and you have the right to refuse to answer, but I have no right to know. And if I *do* somehow find out what goes on between you and your partner(s) of choice (if any), I should have a right to form a personal opinion about that - but not to discriminate against you on that basis. You can't hire someone on the basis of their being a woman (genetics), virgin (choice), white-skinned (genetics), or a Jehovah's Witness (choice)... why should you be allowed to discriminate against them based on who they fall in love with, or the gender of the consenting adult(s) they spend their time with?

I would submit, Nation, that you should NOT be allowed to discriminate against them on that basis. I can't fire a girl from her job for sleeping around with men. Why should I be able to fire her for sleeping with women?

Answer: I shouldn't.

Discuss.

Late to the Bill 44 Party - But I Brought Donuts!

Nation, there i just about nowhere left on this Earth I can go without friends, relatives, or acquaintances tweeting/calling/IM-ing/sending smoke signals to me asking me what I think about Bill 44.

"You're a politically interested person", they say. "What do you think?"

No pressure. It's not like this is a controversial issue or anything.

[deep breaths]

Okay, this is one of the rare circumstances where you get to learn something about The Enlightened Savage, in the interest of full disclosure, before we dive in. My body of work doesn't paint a full enough picture of my own situation to plow forward unclarified.

• I am not a parent of a school-aged child. Or of any child whatsoever. Yet. A fact which the MOES (Mother Of Enlightened Savage) frequently mentions at Sunday dinner.
• I am not someone who would consider themselves a person of faith. I just don't hear the call. I'm sure if I run for office someday this statement will be used against me as proof of some fatal moral flaw. Regardless of that fact, though, I'd rather be condemned for who I *am* than pretend to be a pious man for the sake of political appearances (the true, Biblical definition of a hypocrite). I have nothing but respect for people of ALL faiths: Their paths are their own, and they are absolutely entitled to follow them. In a lot of ways, I envy them their certainty.
• I attended 12 years of Catholic school in Alberta.
• I have several close friends who work as teachers in Alberta's public schools.
• I'm about as socially progressive a person as you'll find, anywhere, in this province. I believe whole-heartedly in no-holds-barred religious tolerance.

Now, Bill 44 is an attempt, described by many as ham-handed, to update Alberta's Human Rights law. The most notable change is the inclusion of "sexual orientation" as a basis upon which discrimination is unlawful.

For example, the Bill would change THIS:

WHEREAS it is recognized in Alberta as a fundamental principle and as a matter of public policy that all persons are equal in: dignity, rights and responsibilities without regard to race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status;

to THIS:

WHEREAS it is recognized in Alberta as a fundamental principle and as a matter of public policy that all persons are equal in: dignity, rights and responsibilities without regard to race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation;

Likewise, it changes section 30 as follows:

30 (g) “marital status” means the status of being married, single,widowed, divorced, separated or living with a person of the opposite sex in a conjugal relationship outside marriage;

becomes THIS:

30 (g) “marital status” means the status of being married, single,widowed, divorced, separated or living with a person in a conjugal relationship outside marriage;

This is a long-overdue series of changes, which keep us in step with the rest of the country and, might I add, the Federal Government's laws in the same vein. Everyone has their own opinion on this, to which they're entitled, but from MY point of view, this is a good thing.

With these changes, though, comes a new wrinkle - and, sadly, the one that's been getting all of the attention - The addition to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act of the following:

9 The following is added after section 11:

Notice to parent or guardian

11.1(1) A board as defined in the School Act shall provide notice to a parent or guardian of a student where courses of study, educational programs or instructional materials, or instruction or exercises, prescribed under that Act include subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation.
(2) Where a teacher or other person providing instruction, teaching a course of study or educational program or using the instructional materials referred to in subsection (1) receives a written request signed by a parent or guardian of a student that the student be excluded from the instruction, course of study, educational program or use of instructional materials, the teacher or other person shall in accordance with the request of the parent or guardian and without academic penalty permit the
student
(a) to leave the classroom or place where the instruction, course of study or educational program is taking place or the instructional materials are being used for the duration of the part of the instruction, course of study or educational program, or the use of the instructional materials, that includes the subject-matter referred to in
subsection (1), or
(b) to remain in the classroom or place without taking part in the instruction, course of study or educational program or using the instructional materials.

"My GOD!" screams the liberal latte left: "They're trying to turn us into Alabama!"

The irony of this kind of statement isn't lost on me, Nation - and neither should it be lost on you. This is an illustration of the last, great allowable discrimination: Discrimination against Evangelical Christians.

We saw it when Stockwell Day led the Canadian Alliance into a Federal election, and we see it consistently on such late-night E.S. staples like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report: It's okay to make fun of the religious beliefs of Evangelical Christians. After all, they take themselves so SERIOUSLY. Some of them actually believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I mean, haven't you seen Religulous?

So, when you hear about the section of Bill 44 that enshrines parental rights into Human Rights law, it suddenly becomes open season on Evangelicals and their "silly, backwards beliefs". The attackers? The same highly evolved, empathetic liberal progressives who would in the very same breath scream obscenities at anyone daring to insult Jewish or Muslim beliefs. It's a textbook case of hypocrisy on the part of the opposition, and Orwellian in its undertones: All faiths are equal, worthy of respect and tolerance and protected from ridicule as far as the liberal masses are concerned, but some faiths are more equal, respectable, tolerable and protected than others.

So, let's cut through the garbage about evolution (the Premier's interpretation notwithstanding, evolution does NOT deal with an "explicitly religious" issue), fear-mongering and hypocrisy, and get to the heart of the matter: Is the inclusion of this passage a deal-breaker for the legislation?

The bottom line question is this: Do the rights of the parents to manage their child's education over-rule the rights of the child to a full and inclusive education? Who determines what should be included in a full education for a child - the experts who punch a clock for the government? Or the parents of the child, who assume full responsibility for the child's physical, mental and spiritual well-being from birth to... well, for as long as they can, in many cases?

A child who is raised without the opportunity to grow and question beyond the understanding of his/her parents will lack the necessary skills and understanding to function in a modern world. I attended Catholic school, as I mentioned above, and all of 3 kids were opted out of sexual education class by their parents in my 12 years, and none ever opted out of a religious studies class that discussed other faiths – and this was in a CATHOLIC school. I don’t think those numbers would radically balloon if the ability to exempt students was written into law, however the point is a good one that some pious parent looking to make a point could potentially just wait until a teacher mentioned Ramadan or Yom Kippur without a letter home first, and then file a Human Rights complaint against the teacher to “send a message”.

(A way around this could be borrowed from Alberta police forces, who have to, under law, post signs that photo radar is being used in the area. Their solution? Post permanent signs EVERYWHERE in the city, and then no matter where the photo radar is set up that day, they're covered. One letter home, at the start of the year: "Do you want your child removed from class when this comes up - yes or no?")

The bottom line is that while students might be the ones served by the educational system in this province, it's the parents who are the decision-making consumers of the system. As a non-parent and a person of no particular identifiable faith, I can nonetheless see the absolute hazard of government giving parents no recourse to object to curriculum. I worry that failing to reinforce parental rights in light of the addition of sexual preference to the protected groups could result in some parents pulling their children out of public school altogether, making an already BAD situation WORSE for those children, and for us as a society. Whether they resorted to home schooling, Charter schools or private schools, the loss of those young minds and voices from our discussion would be a lose/lose scenario for all of us.

I just have to wonder, though, if it's necessary to place those parental rights in this particular piece of legislation. Do parents need to have the recourse of filing a human rights complaint about what their children have been taught in a public school? Could this right for parents not be codified in the School Act, for example?

Supporters of the Bill say no. If you're going to extend human rights protection on the basis of sexual orientation, they argue, you should likewise ensure that the rights of parents to exert control over their child's public education are respected in the same piece of legislation - it's no less important.

After all (and this is an argument that really made me stop and think - it's a good one), you can't on the one hand demand that rights ALREADY guaranteed by the Federal Government (against discrimination based on sexual orientation) be enshrined in Provincial law, and then turn around and say that parental rights that have been in practice for decades shouldn't be granted full legal definition by the Province. If it's good for the goose...

Ultimately, all the naysayers and harbingers of doom have to admit that the final interpretation of what these amendments will mean will, in fact, be in the hands of the Human Rights Tribunals themselves. The irony is, neither side of the issue trusts the Tribunals: the liberals feel the Tribunals will rule Alberta back to the Dark Ages, and the social conservatives already have a serious case of the heebie-jeebies (not, not these guys, who are awesome, by the way) when they even hear the WORDS "human rights tribunal", thinking that they're the firm right hand of the liberal political correctness establishment.

The discussion WE need to be having, as a society, is about the rights of parents versus the rights of children. Because they USUALLY are in agreement... but when they're NOT, we need to have decided as a people what steps are to be taken, rather than leaving it to the political leaders of the day. Education, like child care, shouldn't be a political football to be tossed around and modified for the benefit of those seeking re-election.

Opposition members, if you want to talk about human rights this week, let's talk about them. But is it too much for me to ask that in so doing you at least TRY not to let your arrogant and smug sense of superiority over these "simple minded Christians" (who are so obviously unfit to have a say in their children's education) come through in your "sky is falling" objections to what SHOULD be a Bill celebrated for finally protecting Albertans from discrimination based on who they fall in love with?

No one seems all that happy with this Bill. Teachers are unhappy, school boards are unhappy, even the Social Conservatives and religious lobbies are unhappy because they feel the parental rights protection isn’t broad enough. The only group I HAVEN’T heard weigh in on this issue is the very group which inspired the initial attempt to refine the Human Rights rules: The GBLT community, which has been conspicuous in its silence.

The ideal, perhaps the ONLY, acceptable outcome here would be a free vote on the issue in the Legislative Assembly. But, politically speaking, the social Progressive/Conservative rift in the PC party is already showing a little bit in this furor. A free vote would split it wide open, for all to see - something I suspect will NOT be happening.

Bill 44, minus fear-mongering and worst-case scenario soothsaying, can be read here.

Municipal Madness

Well, Nation - we're a scant 16 months from Calgary's next Municipal Election, and already the dominoes are rumoured to be falling.


What was already certain to be an interesting election - given the unpredictability of the voter turn-out and the significant re-drawing of ward boundaries - will be ramped up a notch with an actual, honest-to-goodness race for Mayor this time around, as one of the current Aldermen (does anyone know the square root of 144?) is rumoured to be targeting the current spend-and-cry officeholder.

Of course, that presupposes that the current officeholder is even interested in running for the job again. He's certainly raising money, but in a textbook illustration of one of the delightful little quirks of our current system, he could very well decide to take that campaign war chest, drop out of the race and go on the mother of all Vegas benders. Once it's donated, it's his money, to do with as he pleases. Oversight, overschmite.

The boundaries for the wards, by the way, are far from set in stone. Despite what you've read on this blog, among many other less reliable (obviously!) sources, the recommendations of earlier this Winter have been shelved, and (as reported by Don Braid) the new ward boundaries will be determined by gerrymandering, behind closed doors, in the near future.

There are already rumours of several notable locals considering a run at Aldermanic office. Linda Fox-Mellway may be facing a legitimate challenge in Ward 14 (in 2007 she was acclaimed). North-East Calgary (ward to be determined, pending boundary re-drawing) is rumoured to be facing a ballot featuring the name of Friend Of Enlightened Savage Naheed Nenshi, of the Better Calgary Campaign (Naheed, by the way, would be an absolutely spectacular Alderman - his politics and mine vary somewhat, but he is of the highest character with great vision and would be a tremendous asset to the citizens of Calgary within their municipal government). And a ward that may find itself in need of an Alderman after the mayoral candidates are announced (how many faces are on a dodecahedron? Anyone?) is rumoured to be coveted by a former independent provincial candidate of some renown in the neighbourhood.

Aldermanic campaigns are tough to call, but the one universal truth to them is that the best organized campaign almost always wins. With such low voter participation, the campaign that establishes an edge in name recognition and runs the best Get Out The Vote organization will win. Potential candidates should be getting their ducks in a row NOW, if they hope to have any chance of defeating incumbents, or candidates with built-in organizations.

Also in the news: If you live in North-East Calgary, and your office isn't in your basement, you'll want to be taking a serious look at attending tonight's Open House on the new airport runway and the proposed tunnel underneath it - if a tunnel or alternative free-flow route doesn't get built, traffic will be an absolute NIGHTMARE in the North-East trying to drive East-to-West or vice versa, Ring Road be damned. The Open House is tonight at the Inglewood Community Hall, 174 24th Ave. S.E., running from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Huzzah!

Verily, members of that most exclusive of all Nations, I say unto thee: 'Tis good to once again grasp mine too-long neglected quill, and put point to parchment in the pursuit of fleeting Enlightenment. :)

Happy "Talk Like Shakespeare Day", everyone.

Nation, I've been off for a while (work - out of the country. Not my fault), and I'm glad to see that no one managed to set the E.S. Nation on fire in my absence.

I WOULD, however, be remiss if I didn't mention a couple of quick items in my return...

1) Auditor General's Report comes out. This is a BIG DEAL. I'm very much in favour of a fully-funded and empowered AG, which puts me at odds with the government. I'd encourage everyone to read this for themselves. I'd also strongly urge the Liberal Communications gurus to make sure not to overdo the cliches on their mailing list (which is a positive step for them, btw - is this new, or is the addition of my email address the only new thing about it?). The email to my inbox was splashed with the subject line "AG Report reveals culture of cronyism" - wow. Hot stuff, I think to myself. This should be quite a read. I open the email, to find what cronyism in particular is being decried. The answer? None whatsoever. There were allegations and suggestions of wasteful spending, but absolutely zero on alleged "cronyism". If you're going to make the allegations in the subject line, you've got to follow through in the body of the email, Lib staffers. Come on - be better than that. :)

2) The Plan for Parks is released. Are Provincial Parks for recreation, or for conservation? Both, it turns out. As a bonus, citizens can now nominate their own provincial parks. So, the $64,000 question becomes: what lucky stretch of land is destined to someday be named "Enlightened Savage Provincial Park"... anyone? Hey, if Colbert can get a treadmill on the ISS, surely I can get a Provincial Park!

3) Hinman steps down as leader of the Wildrose Alliance. While WAP members huddle in the pews praying fervently for Saint Preston to rediscover the fire in his belly, the rest of us wonder who will ACTUALLY step up to lead this group - and in what direction? The party itself has huge potential for growth, with the PC Party still on the energy sector's "crap list". Could this be the opening that some disaffected Tories on the party's right fringe were waiting for?

That's it for now, Nation - this Savage has some laundry to do.

Duff Man is Coming to Calgary!

OHHHHHHH yeah...




Sorry... what's that? Wrong Duff Man?


Well, he's pretty cool, too. In an unelected kind of way... ;)

That's right, Senator Mike Duffy will be in town for an evening reception with the Honourable Jason Kenney next Tuesday, the 14th of April.

If you'd like to rub elbows with the first Senator to interrupt his maiden speech in the Senate to check a message on his Blackberry (Duffy), OR to spend some time around the most famous Notre Dame Hound since Wendel Clark (Kenney), tickets can be purchased by emailing DuffyReception@shaw.ca

(h/t to Shane over at CalgaryRants)

Budget 2009 - Waiting to Exhale

Well, Nation, B-Day has come and gone. Alberta's Finance Minister, wearing the nicest pink ensemble seen on Budget Day since the famous Stockwell Day-in-fuchsia ensemble for Budget 1998, has laid down the business plan for Alberta's largest single employer and service provider.

The Premier and his cabinet have decided to play "wait and see" with this budget - much to the chagrin of more aggressive fiscal hawks than I. Many of the more vocal fiscal conservatives in the province were calling for Klein-era cutbacks, across the board and in every department. The thought of going back into debt or deficit was anathema. "You can't spend your way out of a recession", went the mantra.

And yet, when the rubber hit the road, the government put forward a budget yesterday that looked very much like it would have had the price of oil and gas remained at 2007 levels. With crude at $65 per barrel, we likely would have seen a bit more for infrastructure, a bit more for parks and for culture, modest tax cuts and an increase in the numbers of local police and fire/ems personnel. "Feel good" spending. Take away that extra income, though, and the "feel good" spending goes into the circular file, but overall the budget still meets the needs of most of us, most of the time. Some areas saw increases in spending where needed (AISH, for example), and some saw decreases where they could be afforded.

Overall, one gets the impression that the government tabled this budget knowing that the REAL action is going to happen in about 8 months. By December of this year, we'll either be well on the way to recovery in this province, or we'll be in full-on recession mode. The reality of our situation is that we are very much dependant on our energy industry - right or wrong, that's the reality and it's unlikely to change any time soon. Global energy prices are low, and either that has nothing whatsoever to do with Ed Stelmach's new Royalty regime, or our man Ed ruined the global energy sector. Which do you think is more likely, Ed-haters? If energy prices go back up, we'll be able to pay back the stabilization fund, we'll post a smaller Actual Deficit than the Budgeted Deficit of $4.7 Billion (if energy prices go high enough, we may even end up posting a surplus - which would be far from unwelcome). If the energy sector does NOT begin to recover, and Alberta's economic engine remains "stalled", then we're going to have to start looking at real and substantive cuts - starting with $2.2 Billion in this fiscal year, under the current budget plan.

I've got to say that while I'm less than enthralled with some of the specific line items and program expenditures or cuts in the budget, overall this is a budget I can live with. We're not blowing up the public sector workforce, and making a bad situation worse by kicking hundreds or thousands of government workers to the curb, adding to unemployment. We've cost ourselves, as a province, over a billion per year by eliminating Health premiums - and I don't think anyone's too upset by THAT loss of provincial government income. We're running a "record deficit", but we're running that deficit predicting Crude Oil at USD$55.50 per barrel (it's just under $51, as of this moment) and Natural Gas at C$5.50 per Gigajoule (currently sitting around $3, if I'm reading the business page correctly) - if those numbers prove to be low, and the actual numbers are higher, we'll have a smaller deficit - if any at all.

Deficit, by the way, is another one of those words that ideologues sometimes throw around to scare you - like "liberal". Anyone who uses a credit card or dips into their overdraft for a day or two until the next paycheque comes in has run a deficit in their own life. Heck, I ROUTINELY run a deficit, from day-to-day... I'm going to earn around $200 today. If I go out and spend $400 today, and it's my bad luck to have to report my financial ins-and-outs on a daily basis to the Future Mrs. Savage, then my books are going to have red ink in them. Luckily, I have savings to draw on, in order to make up today's shortfall. Likewise with Alberta. We're forecasting greater spending in 2009-10 than revenue. But we've got money in the bank, and provided the economy doesn't go into free-fall, we'll be fine. If things stay the way they are, we'll have reason to start worrying. If things get worse - out comes the axe.

And IF we get to that point... we need to get over our fearfulness, and start having a real discussion about what we WANT versus what we NEED in this province. Just like in our own families, when times get tough we sometimes have to accept that "Filet Mignon Night" might become "Kraft Dinner Night", and our planned Disneyland Vacation might turn into a long week-end camping trip to Mt. Kidd in Kananaskis.

In the Savage household, when money gets tight, the first place we look for potential saving is in the areas of greatest expense. In our case, that's the mortgage, then the auto expenses. In the province's case, that's Alberta Health and Wellness.

Ooooooooooooooo... kinda makes your spine tingle, hearing the scream of outrage from the Friends of Medicare and Raging Grannies and Brian Mason's Facebook Fan Club, doesn't it?

Look, Nation - we are ALL stakeholders in the Alberta health system - unless I have readers who are in perfect health and plan on living forever (Q?), we're ALL going to have to use the system. But, as I said above, we have to decide what it is about our system that we NEED to have, and what it is that the WANT to have. The stuff that we NEED, like doctors and nurses and hand sanitizer, should stay. The stuff that we WANT, like 600 thread-count sheets, plasma screen televisions in the hospital rooms, and ambulances with 5 cd-changers, we might have to forego.

I regularly see a chiropractor. The fact that Alberta Health isn't going to pick up half the tab for those visits anymore is going to hurt my bottom line. I will have to make decisions about my care, then, with an eye towards my wallet instead of simply towards my quality of life. But you know what? I've been doing that same set of mental gymnastics about dental care for my entire life! We've all bought generic pain relievers when money was tight, even though we were sure that Advil was going to work better. We've all gone 8 months between dental cleanings, when the car needed a new transmission in month 6 and we couldn't afford to get both done. Those are decisions we've made as individuals, based on our priorities.

I'm not saying that we should cut costs provincially by firing the surgeons and mailing every Albertan a scalpel and the "E.R." DVD box set, but the recent amalgamation of the regional health authorities is going to be one of those measures through which we can spend less on things we DON'T need - like money to hire "government relations staff" (lobbyists) to lobby the provincial government for more money (which, one assumes, would be used to hire more lobbyists) - and, instead, spend that money on things that we DO need.

We need to be able to have open and frank discussions in this province about departments like Alberta Health and Alberta Education without letting fear drive us to the default position of "cutting anything in this department is terrible, and every budget this department should get a 10% increase, at the minimum". We simply can NOT afford to keep operating this way, and we can NOT afford to let fear make our spending decisions for us. And having our leaders afraid to even START the discussion, for fear of huge protests and political repurcussions, doesn't help ANY of us in the long run, because we're burning through money that we MIGHT not have to be spending - if the protest groups with lyrics sheets ready-to-go would just let us talk to each other about realities and priorities, like grown-ups.

We're adults... we can talk about where we're spending our education dollars, and where there are savings to be had and inefficiencies to be resolved without someone from an opposition party or the ATA issuing a press release decrying an "attack on teachers and classroom conditions!", can't we? We can talk about cutting the fat out of the health system without someone screaming bloody murder about low birthweight babies being Ron Liepert's legacy, or that Ed Stelmach causes cancer, right?

So let's DO that, and contribute to the solutions that will help this province save money rather than holding onto our good ideas for partisan reasons. If a New Democrat has an idea that will make this province a better place, I don't want him or her holding onto it so as not to let it be said that someone's life was improved with government help while the Tories were in power... If a Tory has an idea on how to help the Alberta Liberals fix their funding problems, I'd hope they'll come forward and share it with the Grits, so we can have an effective Opposition to the current government - which is a benefit to ALL Albertans... as citizens, we have a civic obligation to try and improve the lives of our fellow citizens that transcends politics. So let's stop taking shots at each other, leave that to the professionals on Access at 1:30 pm today, and let's put all this brain power to good use for the betterment of all.

This province is in need of good ideas to help us fix this mess and avoid future ones - not just partisan bickering about who screwed up the province's economy, or what party used to have what fiscal policies back in the 80's.

Whaddya say?

Feel like being part of the solution?

Alberta Government releases Budget 2009

Find the budget overview here.

YOUR thoughts, below. MY thoughts tomorrow, when I'm not at work. ;)

Poll-Vault: The Next Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Nation, on March 25th I set-up a poll on the Blog, and asked for your comments on a Hill Times piece about the future of the CPC and their political leadership. Recent news stories have illustrated the stark divide between the old PC faithful and the Reformers who sit in the current caucus, so this is perhaps as good a time as any to go back and take a look at your responses to the question: WHOM is the most likely candidate to hold these factions together and go on electoral victory, when Stephen is gone (not just to Europe for meetings, but for good)?

Let's handicap this race...

Jim Prentice - the winner of the poll, with 39% support. I think Prentice is a hell of a good man, an outstanding minister, and one of the most "baggage-free" of the contenders, having been a candidate for the PC leadership, but never the actual Leader. The thing that works against Prentice here is basic geography - this party has been working its tail off since the day it was formed to cast off the stereotype as a "Western, Calgary-centric" party... to name its second consecutive leader from Calgary wouldn't help their case with Central Canada. Without Central Canada, there's no majority. The odds: 7:3

Jean Charest - garnered 26% among the E.S. Nation. Charest gives the Tories their best chance of winning in Quebec - although his own numbers have been sliding there lately. The huge liability with Charest is his political baggage: A former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, and a close associate of Brian Mulroney, Charest represents everything that the Reformers were protesting AGAINST when they formed their protest movement. He appeals to Central Canada - more than most of the contenders, anyway - but do you really see the old Reformers coming out to support someone who was very recently sitting under the banner of the Quebec Liberal Party? The odds: 3:1

Peter MacKay - scored 18% support in our poll. MacKay can be accused of peaking YEARS too soon. He's 44, and he's already been the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and deputy leader of the CPC. He's been a part of the public consciousness for 12 years, and has remained relatively scandal-free during that time. He was seen as Harper's heir apparent, however the party's implosion in Atlantic Canada has left him a lonely Tory voice in a sea of red. His PC roots and ties to Mulroney through his father are a bit of a problem within the party, but he IS after all the man who brought the PC's to the table with the Canadian Alliance in the first place. Also, the "disrespects women" label, right or wrong, could come back to light in an election campaign, costing much-needed women's votes for the young, photogenic leader and denying him his majority win. The odds: 8:3

Jason Kenney - captured 9% support in our poll. Kenney is another young MP, although his rise has been far less rapid than that of McKay, having just hit the national spotlight recently. He's gotten good press in his current role as Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. He first won office in 1997 as a member of the Reform Party, and is seen as a stalwart fiscal and social conservative. He's an engaging individual, and very quick on his feet in a debate. Where Kenney runs into trouble is with the fact that the current leader of the CPC is the MP for the riding next door to Kenney's Calgary South-East. The Progressive Conservative faction would have a hard time accepting Kenney's social stances, and the nation as a whole hasn't seen fit yet to give a majority government to a bilingual, socially and fiscally conservative former Reform Party member from South Calgary (not even after AdScam) - and the second time is unlikely to be the charm. The odds: 6:1

Stockwell Day - Having captured 5% support in our poll, Day has proven to be a much more capable Colonel than he ever did a General. As the former leader of the Canadian Alliance, who eventually saw members of his caucus split off to sit with the PC's in protest of his leadership, Day is a classic example of a good politician whose handlers tried to package him as more than he was. Stock did very well in Alberta as the Provincial Treasurer under King Ralph, and was seen as the White Knight of the Canadian Alliance when he ran for and won their leadership. His religious views were, in my mind, unfairly mocked in the press during the 2000 Federal Election - but those stigmas tend to stick in the public consciousness. His social policies are tough to swallow for the PC's and "Blue Liberals", making a successful leadership run and subsequent majority incredibly hard to achieve, and he is clearly the most baggage-laden, deserved or not, of all of our candidates. The odds: 15:1

I'll Take "Self-Righteous Knuckleheads" for Five Hundred, Alex...

The Answer: "This Topeka, Kansas-based church has made headlines by picketing at the funerals of homosexual murder victims, protesting at the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq and describing them as "lazy, incompetent idiots", called the Reverend Billy Graham a "hell-bound false prophet", celebrated the loss of life in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake while describing the victims and their survivors as "vile oriental ingrates", and threatened to cross the border to picket at the funeral of Tim McLean in Winnipeg, who had been viciously murdered on a Greyhound Bus in Alberta."

Ummmm... what is "the most heinous group of people you can possibly imagine"?

Let's go to the judges... yes, we'll accept that answer.


That same group, whom we will not dignify in this space by naming them, recently got themselves back in the news by stating that the flooding of the past few weeks in Manitoba was as result of God having sent the floodwaters to "cover the evil people of Canada."

WHY are we evil?

Because we elect politicians (even Stephen Harper) who would be "lefties", by American standards... our largest religious affiliation, nationally, is Roman Catholic... and same-sex marriages are performed here.

Meanwhile, in North Dakota (Republican governor, same-sex marriage illegal)...

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

A Rare "LOL" Moment at E.S. World Headquarters

Nation, I read both Calgary papers in person most days, plus some other provincial and national papers over the course of the day. One of Calgary's dailies has a regular columnist, Rick Bell - whose editorial slant changed radically about 6 or 7 years ago, after Rick made some changes in his life. Rick even ran unsuccessfully for Mayor a few years ago.

Well, the "Dinger" (his nick-name from when he was one of us "common people") rarely writes anything to make me laugh anymore - usually, I just yell at my paper, scaring the heck out of my cheerios (editors would say that so long as I read the column, they're satisfied, no matter what my reaction).

Imagine my surprise, then, when I found myself actually giggling at the imagery the Dinger threw at me earlier this week when he wrote:

"Getting someone disenchanted with the Tories to vote for any of the current opposition is like trying to get a devout Catholic who doesn't care for the Pope to become a Druid.

The person may stop going to mass, but they sure aren't going to go over and start worshipping trees."

Score one for the Dinger.

(column in its entirety can be found here)

More substantive content coming soon - got to get ramped up for the provincial budget. Stay tuned. ;)

Calgary West - the Aftermath

Well, Nation - the Calgary West CPC EDA AGM (how many acronyms can you fit into one event?) has come and gone... and brought with it the most hits to the corner of the blogosphere since the last Federal election (big props to the Bloggers who linked to my live-ish blogging of the event, in particular to Scott Tribe and Pierre Trudeau Is My Homeboy).

The question becomes: What now?

The Board of Directors for the Calgary-West EDA is a representative body elected by the membership of the Conservative Party of Canada in that riding. They are elected to represent the views of the local membership in their dealings with the National Party.

The Conservative Party of Canada nominee in Calgary West for the 41st General Election is, at this point, Rob Anders. He was acclaimed to this position, in accordance with a judgement by the Party. His role, as the candidate, is to represent the Conservative Party of Canada in the riding to the public-at-large, to seek election under the abnner of the Party, and to sit in the Party Caucus if elected. In this role, he answers to the Party directly, and to the Party's local membership, who can (in theory) dismiss him and choose another candidate under the rules set forth by the Party.

Anders also currently serves in another, separate role, as the elected Member of Parliament for the riding of Calgary-West. In this role, he is answerable to the voters of Calgary-West, who overwhelmingly (over 57%, in a field of 6) marked their "x's" next to his name, for whatever reasons they deemed important, in October of 2008.

Now, here's where it gets tricky...

No matter WHAT the Party does or doesn't do, on a local level or at Party Headquarters, Rob Anders will remain the Member of Parliament for Calgary West until the writ is issued for the 41st General Election. The Party could dump him , or the local membership could elect a new candidate TOMORROW, and Anders would still be the M.P. for Calgary West.

So... stories of Rob Anders' impending retirement are greatly exaggerated.

That said, though, undeniably there was some sentiment this past Saturday among the members of the CPC who live in Calgary West that Anders should face a challenge for the party's nomination. The membership, after all, elected a slate of candidates for the Board of Directors that were all on-the-record as being in favour of a nomination contest.

NOTE:
The Board candidates were all in favour of a NOMINATION CONTEST - NOT in favour, necessarily, of Dumping Rob Anders. While some of them - possibly MOST of them - likely prefer Donna Kennedy-Glans as a candidate over Anders, the truth is that the Board itself has little say in that decision. Ultimately, the decision as to who the candidate is lies with the party membership as a whole in Calgary West, and then with the National Party, who needs to decide whether to sign off on the locally chosen candidate.

The smoke has cleared as to the Next Step in the process, and it seems that what happens now is as follows: The Party will mail out a questionnaire to all registered Party members in Calgary West, asking them if they'd like to see a nomination race. If 66% of the party members (not 66% of respondents, but 66% of the total number of members on the roll) return the questionnaire indicating that they would, in fact, prefer a nomination race, then one will be held - with the newly-elected Board running the show (under the VERY watchful eye, no doubt, of the national Party brass - this riding has been more than enough of a headache for them already).

Now, we have every reason to believe, or at least little reason to doubt, that if a nomination vote were held tomorrow, Rob Anders would likely win it. There has been much conjecture - including some by yours truly - that the riding's voters don't WANT to vote for Rob Anders, but their desire to vote Conservative outweighs their distaste at voting for the party's candidate. It's important to remember, though, that suppositions like that are purely speculative: There's little evidence to support the idea that the majority of Calgary West Tories would dump Anders if given the chance. The little evidence that there IS, however, was bolstered by this past Saturday's AGM results.

It bears repeating that those in favour of a new board, those ON the new board, or even those who vote in favour of a nomination race, are not NECESSARILY anti-Anders. I agree that the likelihood is high, given that the man himself has made it pretty clear he'd rather not run a nomination contest. However, it's possible that there are a great many "true blue" Anders supporters (a description that makes one snicker, when one recalls that Anders, as a Reformer, was a "green" candidate before Green became synonymous with political cluelessness) that simply wish to see their man win a democratic nomination contest because, well, that's one of the basic founding tenets of the Reform movement: political accountability. You wouldn't see St. Preston or Queen Deb dodge a nomination race - they'd yell "BRING IT ON!". And that's what they want from Rob - even though they'd support him in the race itself.

Now, what makes dumping Anders as the Party candidate easier? The fact that the people who have lawful access to the local membership list, the minty-fresh Board of Directors for the Calgary West EDA, are in favour of the nomination vote going forward. Which makes the direct-mail smears of Anders' opponents leading up to the AGM much less likely in the case of a vote to hold a nomination (I believe all the candidates would get access to the member's list during a nomination race, so Ezra could rant to his heart's content during the race itself).

What COMPLICATES a dumping of Anders, though, is the fact that if a nomination race IS in fact to be held, it will be an OPEN nomination race - meaning anyone can jump in. There is already talk of another progressive conservative who might jump into the fray - which runs the real risk of splitting the progressive or "Anti-Rob" vote, and having Anders win in a 3 (or more) horse race. That's democracy, though. You live by the sword, and you die by it.

So where does the Board of Directors for Calgary West go from here?

Well, their current path is clear. They are elected, by the party membership in Calgary West, to represent them to the National Party. By virtue of their stated goals ahead of the AGM, they can make the case that the membership would like a chance to vote on whether or not a nomination race is to be held. The ballots will be mailed out, and then it's direct democracy in action - either there will be a nomination race to oversee, or there won't be.

In the meantime, though, this board has to work with Anders, the last person to be chosen by a majority of party members as the party's nominee. It's worth mentioning again that many of the new Board members probably voted for Anders in October in the General Election, and some would probably vote for him in a nomination race, were one to be held. They're not united by a desire to oust him, only by a desire to see him defend his status as the Party nominee in a democratic contest. But, in the interim, the business of the party needs to be done. The board and the nominee have to ensure election readiness, so that if the government falls tomorrow, they're ready to go to bat and to support their party's nominee in the riding - Rob Anders - in the 41st General Election. The board and the nominee have to ensure that they're planting the seeds for electoral victory in the riding. Where the candidate is hurting the cause, the board will have to point this out. Where the board is incorrect in their analysis, Anders (who has been elected enough times to know a thing or 2, at least) will have to set them straight.

And where they disagree?

Well... that's the thing...

If they disagree, what's the resolution apparatus? Do they poll the local membership, which selects both the Board and the nominee, and let them decide every issue of contention? Do they go to the party, and ask the Party to choose between alienating a nominee (and representative of a large portion of their core supporters, nation-wide) or alienating the duly-elected board of a local EDA, thus ticking off their ORIGINAL core of electoral Reformers and making the rest of the nation uneasy at their disregard for grassroots democracy in favour of a loose cannon M.P. whose very presence on the party's back-benches costs them thousands of votes across the country from moderate, former PC's?

The new Calgary West CPC EDA Board of Directors is making all the right noises about working with the nominee. I've yet to hear the same from the nominee, but I suspect we probably will.

When they CAN'T work together, though - who, exactly, is going to want to referee?

Live(ish) Blogging the Calgary West AGM

Nation, I'm not at the Calgary West AGM today myself, however I DO have sources on the inside, who will be feeding me information as today's events go down.

As of 1:00 pm, there are about 60 people milling about outside the hall - spirits are reportedly high.

UPDATED 1:18 pm

Both "candidates" (MP Rob Anders and Donna Kennedy-Glans) are at the hall. Kennedy-Glans approached the MP and offered him a handshake - he blew her off and refused to shake. Classy.

UPDATED 1:54 pm

Estimates suggest that the Calgary West PC AGM may, in fact, be a "standing room only" affair. A lot of people have turned out, which is either very good for the incumbent and his board, or very, very bad.

UPDATED 1:59 pm

Conservative (as oppsed to "closeted Liberal") estimates put the turn-out at 500 to 600 people. For an AGM and Board election.

The proceedings are about to get underway.

UPDATED 2:40 pm

Nominations came and went, the voting has finished, and the counting has commenced. Obviously, both sides want to be VERY sure that the ballots are counted carefully, and a result is expected by 5 or 6 o'clock.

UPDATED 3:23 pm

Reportedly, the meeting and the voting went very smoothly. No one with a valid membership was turned away, and everyone had the chance to vote for their choices for the Board of Directors. So, no shenanigans. With the media in attendance, the heat was on the EDA to get this one right.

UPDATED 4:11 pm

Just got off the phone with a source, who indicated that the voting and nominations were run in an extremely professional manner. Nominations were taken from those within the hall, as well as those who couldn't fit and had to stand outside. Supporters of both "sides" proved to be very civil (even if the MP couldn't bring himself to be), which bodes well for the party in Calgary West after all is said and done. Scrutineers have been brought in from other Tory EDA's to count the ballots and certify the results. When I know, you'll know.

UPDATED 7:02 pm

The Donna Kennedy-Glans-backed slate of candidates has been elected as the Board of Directors for the Calgary West EDA of the Conservative Party of Canada.
More as it develops.

It's never too early...

So, I'm doing my usual Wednesday-morning Blog reading, and I come across something interesting on Both Barrels (not that that's unusual - Mark's always a great read): A story about the worst-kept secret in federal politics, the schism within the Conservative Party of Canada.

It's no secret that the merger of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance left a bad taste in a lot of mouths, from both camps: A lot of rock-ribbed CA/Reform members had a hard time swallowing the fact that they were getting into bed with the party of Mulroney, which their entire party had come into existence to try and fight. Likewise, a lot of PC party members had more than a few qualms about becoming the centre-right flank of a party made up overwhelmingly of the old Reform Party apparatus, associating it with a regional rump protest movement, at best. There were differences in technical details of how the party should be run, how a leader should be selected, how the party constitution should be written, and (perhaps the most heated arguments) what the party's policies should be.

There has been a wrestling match going on for the heart and soul of the Conservative Party of Canada since the day it was founded. And the only thing that pushed the issue to the side was the fact that the stars aligned, Justice Gomery wrote his report, and the Tories found themselves in government - in a precarious minority situation, which called for closed-ranks party unity to be the order of the day.

That was 3 years ago.

Since that first minority government win for the Tories, they've had another kick at the cat - and ALMOST made it across the "majority government" threshold, but not quite.

We're almost certainly headed for an election within the next year - and the general consensus seems to be that the Tories will not be able to win a majority government - if, in fact, they can win at all.

A third minority win - or a defeat - would almost certainly lead to Stephen Harper deciding to step aside as leader of the Conservative Party. And at that point, leaderless and possibly out of government, the schism that's been kept mostly quiet for the past 3 years will very publicly fracture wide open, for all the world to see.

The split will be mainly along Social Policy lines, as the "2 solitudes" within the Tories are pretty similar in thier fiscal ideas (or similar enough to not fight about them) and the next party to win an election based on promises of electoral reform will be the first (sorry, Manning-ites - I'm with you, but that dog won't hunt out East, where they've got all the ballots and are disinclined to give up that power). The social moderates, who are former PC's, former far-left fringe CA members or are young enough centrists to never have been either but can't stomach the Liberals, will rally behind their choice for leader. The hard-liners, social conservatives, will look at this as a chance to "take the party back" now that they don't feel they have to pander to Eastern moderates to hold onto power, and will try to consolidate their core power base behind a like-minded leader in the Reagan Republican, social-conservative tradition.

The article Mark pointed to from the Hill Times mentions a few possible names from each side, as well as an intriguing possibility, which they mentioned right at the end.

My question to YOU, both in the poll to your right and in the comments section for this post, is this: Which of the listed possible leadership contenders do you think would have the best chance at leading the Conservative Party of Canada, however it is remade into their own image as Leader, to a majority government?

Plenty to consider, here... someone who would appeal to old PC's and soft Liberals would have a good chance at winning a General Election - but too MUCH appeal to the centrists could spell trouble if the right-wing of the CPC splits off or stays home in protest of what they perceive as "Liberal Lite" policies. Likewise, a unifying force that can keep both sides of the party together but has little charisma, or too much political baggage, will likely never win a majority government. And then, of course, there's the fact that the eventual leader is probably going to have to be able to out-debate a Harvard scholar on live television.

That said, here are your candidates, as suggested in the Hill Times piece:

• Jim Prentice (Alberta)
• Peter McKay (Nova Scotia)
• Stockwell Day (British Columbia)
• Jason Kenney (Alberta)
• Jean Charest (Quebec)

So, Nation? Let's hear it - not who you'd PREFER, but who on the list above you think, as astute political observers, would have the best chance of holding the Tories together and winning over the rest of the country.

Calgary West Conservatives Have a Chance to be Heard!

Nation, I often get up on this cyber soap-box to speak to the millions and millions of members of E.S. Nation all at once.

Today, however, I have a much narrower focus - with apologies to the rest of you.

Today, I'm going to talk only to the 487,031 of you who visit this site from locations in the Federal Electoral District of Calgary West (the numbers might be a little off - SiteMeter's been giving me problems).

More specifically, I want to have a word with those of you who LIVE in Calgary West, and are (or were, as of December 2008) members of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Not that this is a very well-kept secret, but you've all got a meeting to attend next Saturday, March the 28th.

"E.S.," you say, "I can't in good conscience lay down ten hard-earned dollars to support the CPC in my riding... look who my CANDIDATE is!".

And to you, I say... that is precisely WHY you have to go to this meeting.

The reality of Calgary West is that it will vote for the Conservative Party candidate, and handily elect them, whenever the opportunity presents itself. There is incredible support in the riding for the party. No matter WHOM is running under the party banner, or whom is running AGAINST them, the Conservative Party candidate will carry the day. Calgary West is, at its core, a small-c conservative and big-c Conservative riding. They're not interested in supporting Liberals, New Democrats, or any of their proxies. With this in mind, then, it's clear that the most important decision-making body in Calgary West is the Conservative Party of Canada Calgary West Electoral District Association.

They're the most important, because they set the rules governing the local CPC nomination race. The winner of that race becomes the Conservative flag-bearer in Calgary West - and, as result, the Member of Parliament. The 30-or-so members of the Calgary West EDA essentially get to set the rules that determine who the M.P. will be.

And on Saturday, March the 28th at 2 pm, the assembled members of the Conservative Party of Canada who reside in Calgary West will elect that board. The board that will go on to set nomination rules that will determine the Conservative Party candidate for the election that most agree will be less than a year from now.

The nomination itself is very much in flux at this point in time. Depending on who you ask, there may not even BE a race, as the Conservative Party seems fixated on protecting incumbent M.P.'s, including the one in Calgary West, from having to fight nomination battles. The reason we're given, which seems valid enough, is that in the minority parliament, M.P.'s need to be in Ottawa casting votes to keep the government in office, rather than in their ridings fighting nomination battles. A lot of the old Reform party members, the true believers in grassroots, bottom-up democracy, have a bit of a hard time swallowing this reasoning, though. And they're not the only ones.

Donna Kennedy-Glans met her husband at the Progressive Conservative National Convention in 1981. You read that right, "Progressive Conservative", not "Liberal", as some have accused her of being. She's been involved in federal big-c Conservative politics since Rob Anders was about 8 years old (and, thus, one can reasonably assume that if either of the 2 could be called a "recent" convert to the Conservative cause, it would have to be young Mr. Anders, unless he held a membership while gestating).

Kennedy-Glans made headlines during the last federal election, when she revealed the contents of a discussion that she and another gentleman had had with Anders over a dinner that was won through a charity auction. Anders has declared that, as Kennedy-Glans released information that hurt HIM, she was clearly working to sabotage the entire Conservative Party, and is thus obviously a Liberal saboteur (Rob, you'll recall, uses "Liberal" the same way McCarthy used "Communist" - it's a euphemism for "someone I don't like, and you shouldn't like them either because I know what's best for you" - not that Rob has shied away from calling people "Communist", either).

Now, having had enough of the notion that her sacred democratic franchise is in the hands of Rob Anders, to do with as he pleases without the input of the constituents of Calgary West or even the formal blessings of the riding's Conservative Party members through a nomination vote, Donna Kennedy-Glans has decided she wants to stand for nomination for the Conservative Party of Canada in the riding of Calgary West.

Kennedy-Glans wants to represent Calgary West in Parliament.

As a Conservative.

Which she's been since long before Anders even started embarrassing his own country as a paid Republican hit-man in senate races.

One problem:

The current CPC Calgary West EDA Board of Directors, as elected by the party's members in the riding, is more inclined to protect Anders' incumbency and NOT HOLD a nomination race than they are to let the party membership decide on whom should be carrying their banner (and, let's be honest, getting elected in the General Election).

So... Kennedy-Glans, like hundreds of successful politicians before her (and some not-so-successful), wants to get some people elected to the EDA's Board of Directors who are friendly to her - or at least open to the idea of an open nomination process - and will present a slate of candidates for Board membership at the Annual General Meeting of the Calgary West EDA on Saturday, March 28th at 2 pm.

How can YOU affect the results?

Easy... show up, and vote for a Board of Directors that shares your views on the democratic process.

MY view? Democracy is a pain in the butt. It's inconvenient. It's inefficient to have incumbents face challenges for nominations. And it is absolutely, 100% critical that it take place anyhow. On a party level - if you can't even cast a vote to say who you'd like representing your party in your riding during the election, why on earth would you want to be a member of that party in the first place? On a larger level - why on earth would we want to be governed by a party that doesn't even value the opinions of its own members - despite the populist movement that gave birth to the party in the first place?

You have the opportunity, Calgary West CPC members, to elect an EDA Board of Directors that values your opinion, and feels it should be heeded. Don't let that opportunity slip by.

"But E.S., I don't have a party membership, can I buy one at the door
and vote?"

No, you can't. You can buy one at the door and LISTEN, or even participate in discussion, but to vote at the AGM you have to have been a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, resident in Calgary West, no later than March 8th, 2009.

"What if I had a 2008 membership, but haven't renewed?"

DO it - the CPC has a 90-day "grace" period for lapsed memberships - so if you had a party membership that lapsed on December 31st 2008, you can still vote at the AGM. Contact the Conservative Party Membership Services Department in Ottawa, at 1-866-808-8407 or via email at membership@conservative.ca

Calgary West's Annual General Meeting for the purpose of electing a new board of directors, a report by the current board of directors and the presentation of financial statements will be held on:

Saturday, March 28 at 2pm at the Montgomery Community Centre, located at: 5003 16 Avenue NW.

Your membership must be in good standing, at least 21 days prior to March 28, 2009 for you to appear on the list of members eligible to vote for the new board of directors.

You will need to bring photo identification that verifies you are on the voting members list, and may be required to present further identification proving you currently reside within the electoral district boundaries of Calgary West.

If you have any questions you may contact Calgary West's Vice President of Communications at 403-608-8858.

If You Pay Peanuts...

... you get Monkeys.

Or so the old saying goes. Although, there's a flaw in the statement on its face, because who associates monkeys with peanuts? Nobody. When I saw "peanut", the first member of the animal kingdom that springs to mind is whom? That's right - the elephant.

But I digress. Which, at the START of a conversation, is pretty darned impressive.

Nation, the question of pay and benefits for our elected representatives has again reared its head, with the recent examples of Calgary City Council's decision to NOT actively participate in discussion of their own pay, and the severance packages paid out to former MLA's who retired prior to the last provincial election.

Now, there have been plenty of suggestions made about how, exactly, we should go about setting the pay of our elected officials. Whether it's a direct correlation to another position (in the case of provincial MLA salaries, they were linked to judges), or through an arcane equation that factors in inflation, quality of life measures, or economic health (or a combination thereof), there seems to be one over-riding sentiment:

We don't want politicians deciding how much they should be paid.

So, once we get past the fact that we seem to be in near universal agreement on the issue of what we DON'T want, the question becomes: What DO we want?

I've heard a lot of suggestions as late - some of them make sense to me and some of them don't, but if everyone had the same taste, you'd all be chasing the future Mrs. Savage - which, lucky for me, you're not. Some of the more notable ones include tying the salary for MLA's directly to the provincial minimum wage, and tying City council salaries to the annual budgetary property tax increases - as in, the more taxes go UP, the more Council salaries go DOWN.

I'm not thrilled with either of those plans. They're both a starting point, certainly, but the most obvious problems that apply to both proposals are twofold: Firstly, they assume that the only way to measure performance of a government is by using economic factors as a measuring stick. Secondly, they're both able to be directly affected by the politicians themselves - the provincial government can easily raise the minimum wage, to get themselves a raise as well (devastating small business-people in the process). Likewise, city council can hold the line on property taxes so as not to take a hit on their own paycheques - thus denying residents of much needed programs and services.

To my mind, there needs to be a way of measuring quality of life, and taking that into account when determining political pay.

One suggestion I read along those lines suggested letting the people of the constituency decide what their representative was worth. This would be all fine and good, except for the vast swaths of uninformed voters, who would shipped to the polls by the busload from churches and community centres by the incumbent's campaign, promising them NEW community centres and schools, etc, if they vote to give him/her a raise to a paltry $130,000/year.

Let's remember that many of these same voters consider Jarome Iginla underpaid at $7,000,000/year.

Plus, factor in that $75,000 goes a LOT further in, say, Cardston than it does in Fort Mac.

Ultimately, we're going to have to decide how it is that we determine pay variance, and how often it applies. Does the salary of a city councillor, for example, change every year? Or is it set for the 3 years of their term, and then reviewed and changed before the next election? Whatever we decide, though, we're going to have to STICK to it, and not rake our leaders over the coals when they refuse to directly intervene in the process (as Calgary's council did earlier this year). We want to set these structures up so that the politicians can't directly decide how much they should get paid - and we should remind ourselves that THAT particular blade cuts both ways - neither should they be able to decide how LITTLE they get paid.

Some public servants, after all, donate huge sums - in rare cases, the ENTIRETY of their salary - to charity.

We need to make sure, though, that we're compensating public officials fairly in comparison to the private sector. We don't want to OVER-pay, and end up with MLA's who are just in it for the money. Neither, though, do we want to UNDER-pay, and end up with underqualified people trying to run the business of government, because everyone with any expertise is making 4 times as much in the private sector.

This is far from a simple question - but it IS an important one. The entire reason I set up this blog in the first place wasn't so I could stand on my own soapbox and scream partisan slogans or spread rumours anonymously or get caught up in my own perceived importance - it's so I can help us, ALL of us, participate in an actual CONVERSATION from time to time, about issues that actually MATTER*.

So, I put it to you, Nation: What should we be paying our political representatives? How should that pay be determined? How often should we review it? By what means?









*statement does not apply to posts related to sports or e.s.'s lordship over the alberta political blogosphere

Poll-Vault

Okay, Nation... it's been over a year now since the most recent Provincial Election saw the "Opposition 11" sent to the Legislature to try their best to hold the government, and its 72 MLA's, to account over how this province is being run.

Many of the readers of this blog are the type who pay attention to the goings-on under the Dome in between elections and so for the next week, I'd like some analysis from YOU - as little as a vote, as much as a paragraph in the comments section - as to who the most effective Opposition member has been over the past year.

The new poll, posted to your right, casts you in the role of a PC Cabinet Minister.

"You're a Minister in the Alberta Government, and a damaging report is about to be issued about your department. Question Period starts in 2 minutes. The Opposition Member you LEAST want to see standing to ask you a question is..."

Your options, of course, are as follows:

• Dr. David Swann
• Laurie Blakeman
• Harry Chase
• Kent Hehr
• Darshan Kang
• Hugh MacDonald
• Bridget Pastoor
• Dr. Kevin Taft
• Dave Taylor
• Brian Mason
• Rachel Notley

So, sound off, Nation - which of the "Opposition 11" is the most extraordinary? Which one do YOU fear, Mr. Minister?

Things that probably seemed like a better idea on paper...

Okay, Nation, this one's going to take some technical know-how...

Open your favourite media player, and post the following URL into the "play URL" field:

http://davidakin.blogware.com/090312.Harper.mp3

I'm looking for reactions - about the content, please, not the sound quality.

Imported Discussion from TPB about the Responsibilities of Elected Members

Tiny Perfect Blog raised an interesting question on her blog in light of comments by the Premier about Tories asking pointed question of other Tories in the Legislature:

"Is Stelmach suggesting that most of the time they don’t reflect the views of their constituents?"

I thought I'd take her up on her question, and there have been good anonymous comments as well. Rather than highjack someone else's blog to post my own, long diatribes, I thought I'd re-post the discussion here.

Anonymous said (@9:15 am)...
I think he might be revealing the fact that most of the questions are written by Ministers staff. Alberta should end the ridiculous charade of PC backbenchers claiming to hold the Cabinet colleagues accountable in the Assembly.

Enlightened Savage said (@10:48 am)...
Good question, TPB. Let me ask another one...

When was the last time an NDP MLA tabled a letter from a constituent applauding the PC Government for something? Or are we expected to believe that none of the thousands of PC voters in the NDP ridings has EVER written a letter to their MLA?

Blind devotion to the mighty Party Line is not the exclusive domain of the Tories.

Anonymous said (@12:36 pm)...
ES: Decent point, though that's not really the opposition's job. The government has dozens of dutiful Tory backbenchers to pat them on the back. So it is surprising when, occasionally, a Tory backbencher asks a real question (even if the Minister still knows it's coming). This practice of Tories asking "questions" of Tories really should end.

The only party that doesn't seem to have a party-line these days is the Libs. Anybody know when a real shot will be fired in the so-called "revolution"?

The 2 highlighted portions really stirred up my blogging muscles. Which led to this, below...


Enlightened Savage said (@1:21 pm, but not on TPB)...
Anon@12:36 - It's not really ANYONE'S job to represent their party - an artifical construct within the political system - or its views, policies or aspirations ahead of those of their constituents.

Every single Member is obliged to ask questions and make statements on behalf of the citizens within their constituency - the same citizens who pay them, and hire them (through election) to represent them (even the ones who voted for someone else). Opposition MLA's are supposed to offer alternative solutions and hold the government to account - but they're also supposed to represent the people in their riding ahead of their own party, and when the people of Edmonton-Riverview support a government program or initiative, I want to hear Kevin Taft SAY so. Likewise, when they're opposed to a government program in Fort Mac, I want to hear Guy Boutilier stand up and say so (fat chance, in both cases).

PC MLA's have to ask questions of cabinet ministers in QP because the citizens of the constituency want and deserve answers, on the record, about their concerns (as opposed to "puffball questions", which are unfortunately present in EVERY parliament from the government back-benches). Our system doesn't recognize "this member is affiliated with the same party as the government, and therefore should already have the answer" - that's why the Speaker identifies members by constituency, rather than by name or party. When, for example, Dave Rodney asks a question, it is (in theory) the people of Calgary-Lougheed that want an answer, hence the Speaker's recognition of "The Honourable Member from Calgary-Lougheed".
Of course, the drawback to this is that the people of, for example, Calgary West seem NEVER to have a question of their provincial government - or at least, I can't find one in Hansard. Because ministers typically don't ask questions of other ministers - even if the people in their riding are clamouring for answers.

The fact that virtually all parliaments abuse this function to toss out "puffball questions" for ministers to promote various programs during time that should be spent earnestly asking - and thoroughly answering - important questions of the day is unfortunate - but is a sad reality of the hyper-partisan party system under which our political apparatus operates - it's ALWAYS time to get ready for the next election. :(


I've got no compunctions about highjacking MY blog for this discussion (I've already cleared it with myself, and myself is fine with it), so... discuss. :)

Crime Bill Death-Match: Bill 50 vs. Bill 201

Long time no see, Nation.

Before I get right into it, I wanted to touch very quickly on a couple of items that have crossed my desk in the past week-to-ten-days since we talked last.

Firstly, yes, I am aware that the much-lamented AlbertaTory dusted off his keyboard to make one last, gasping attempt at blogging before taking down his blog for good. I've been working on how to properly run a 3-4 Defence and balancing my approach to the running game as related to the passing game, so I didn't have a chance to read it - although, I understand there were veiled references to me in the piece. Can anyone "enlighten" me? We wish AlbertaTory all the best in his future endeavours - and we're in the market for a Defensive Co-ordinator. He knows how to get in touch...

Secondly, I was pleased and honoured to be able to take part in a great piece written by Trevor Scott Howell for FFWD Magazine this week, entitled "The Rise of Political Blogs". It was particularly humbling to be interviewed for the same piece that featured members of Alberta's blogging glitterati, including daveberta, the gang at AGRDT, and my Blog-father, Ken Chapman. Mr. Howell did a wonderful job taking my mental meanderings and forming them into something coherent - and he also blogs himself, so be sure to add him to your regular reads.

As a TOTAL aside - I'm hating the fact that most of the "heavy hitters" among Alberta's blogging community are in the Capital region. Come on, Calgary - where are your political opinions? As it stands right now, I *think* that Calgary could possibly field a BOWLING TEAM of bloggers (myself, djkelly, Kirk Schmidt and Shane from CalgaryRants). Do we need to lure CalgaryGrit back home?

NOW then, on to the Main Event of the Evening...

Regular readers of Capital Notebook, or people who, like myself, are cool enough that they read the Hansard for fun, will no doubt already be very aware of the civilized (mostly) steel cage match that has been developing since the Legislature came back into session between up-and-coming Liberal MLA and Twitterer (Tweeter?) Kent Hehr (Calgary-Buffalo) and Justice Minister Allison Redford (Calgary-Elbow). The ridings, for those of you wondering, are separated only by the lonely riding of Calgary-Currie, which (if things get any more heated between the 2) may be re-named "Calgary-Demilitarized Zone" in the redistribution. In all honesty, though, the exchanges have been for the most part respectful, and I was extremely pleased to see Hehr include in some of his questions to Redford the statement that he, in fact, applauds the government's support of Bill 50.

Much attention as late has been focused on the government's already-passed Bill 50 (Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Amendment Act) and its implementation and effect on criminal activity, in contrast to Hehr's own Private Member's Bill 201, Traffic Safety (Vehicles with Unlawfully Possessed Firearms) Amendment Act.

The Liberal argument goes something like "Bill 50 is good, but it's not enough. Bill 201 fills in some of the loopholes".

The Tory argument goes a little something like "Bill 201 actually makes enforcing Bill 50 more difficult, and targets the wrong people".

Now, I'll let you read the bills for yourselves (Bill 50) (Bill 201) and come to your own conclusions, however I DO see the validity of both sides of the argument.

The Tories have argued against Bill 201 on the grounds that, for example, I might have my vehicle confiscated if my passenger is found to posses an unlicensed firearm. I just want to go on the record saying that if I suspect that the person riding "shotgun" in my car might actually HAVE a shotgun with him, I'm probably going to ask a few questions. Such as, "are you legally allowed to carry that weapon?". Or, "Have you recently robbed a liquor store with that gun?". Or, "Do you have any warrants I should know about?". I'm just saying.

So, of course, I'm going to argue to the judge, as a law-abiding citizen, that if my passenger turns out to have been carrying a concealed weapon that I didn't know about, well Your Honour, I DIDN'T KNOW HE HAD A GUN. And I'll be telling the truth. The problem being, of course, that every 2-bit thug who appears on the docket that day, charged under Bill 201, will make the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. And it's very difficult to prove in a court of law what you did or didn't know, or have reason to suspect, or asked your passenger. Which now becomes a serious flaw in the legislation, since I wrongly lose my car (and gain a criminal record) for not being a better judge of character, while the gangbangers rightly lose their car for, well, being gangbangers.

The Liberals have a problem with Bill 50 in that it allows the government to seize the "proceeds of crime" (cars, guns, homes, boats, cash, and lots of other things that I don't have) and sell them to pay restitution to the victims of violent crime in Alberta. Which in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, the Grits concede. The problem that they have with the legislation is that it allows the seizure and sale of those proceeds BEFORE a conviction. Which begs the very relevant question: If my home is seized and sold under this legislation, and I am then found to be NOT GUILTY of the offence for which I was charged... how do I get my already-sold home back?

NOT going to happen, goes the response from the Justice Minister. The orders for seizure and sale have to come from a judge, which means the judge issuing the order would have to be satisfied not just that the offences are prosecutable and that a conviction is POSSIBLE, but that a conviction is ASSURED. The Liberals, depending on which one you ask, feel that either the government shouldn't be able to even SEIZE the items until a conviction occurs (which on a smaller scale is a ridiculous argument - the cops can't seize the drugs and paraphernalia they find on your person until you're convicted of posessing them?), or that they should be able to deny the accused access to their property until the prosecution for the offences runs its course (because, as we all know, a gangster who finds a notice posted on the front door to his gangster buddy's $4 Million home and a padlock on the front door will obviously obey the sign - being such a fan of the law - and go crash on his cousin's couch while the case takes 16 months to work its way through the courts).

Nation, neither one of these pieces of legislation is perfect - and there's a good reason for that. Because they CAN'T be. Legislation is imperfect by its very nature - written by imperfect beings, enforced and interpreted by imperfect beings. 2 well-educated, temperate judges can read the exact same piece of legislation and come to 2 completely and utterly different interpretations of what the law means and how it should be enforced - if at all.

That said, though, I applaud BOTH Minister Redford and the Honourable Mr. Hehr for their efforts to help curtail the crime that has more and more often found the front page of our local newspapers. Anything we can do to keep the bad guys away from the rest of us - and make them believe that crime does NOT, in fact, pay - is a good thing. Provided that in so doing, we don't also place an undue burden on the GOOD guys.

Ankle bracelets on dangerous offenders? Good.

Mandatory, trackable ID bracelets on ALL of us, for our own protection? NOT so good.

There IS a line between protecting us from the enemies of our civilized society and surrendering too much of our civil liberties to the state in the name of "the common public good".

Ask anyone whose families came here from Eastern Europe in the early-to-mid 20th century.

How They Voted - Coming Soon!

Word this week that the House of Commons is finally going to have an on-line, publicly accessible record of how MP's vote on bills and motions put before the House.

You would think this would be a no-brainer. After all, in order to have transparent and accountable representative government, you need to have transparent and accountable representatives, right? You need to know HOW they're exercising your franchise, so you can either approve, disapprove and tell them so, or disapprove, tell them so and vote them out of office if they don't seem to care about your disapproval.

I'd applaud Libby Davies and Peter Milliken for their action on identifying this accountability vacuum and addressing it, however the fact that this has been going on unchecked for so long is quite frankly an embarrassment.

That said, even if it SHOULD have been addressed long ago - at least it's being addressed NOW. Now, it's time for all levels of government to follow suit. The fact that we, as Calgarians, can't readily see how our elected MLA's or City Council voted on particular motions or bills is preposterous (as is the city's penchant for hiding any controversial votes in the "in camera" part of council meetings, for which there is no record, written-or-otherwise, available to the public).

Readers from coast to coast to coast: Are you aware of any jurisdictions within Canada that already offer an on-line Voting Record?

We often see from our friends to the South statements such as "Senator Triggerhappy has a 98% pro-gun voting record", and to a lesser degree the special interest groups keep track of similar statistics here in the Great White North - through painstaking research and reading of council meeting minutes, Hansards, etc. And while *I* read the Hansard for fun, I'll readily admit that most people don't have that warped a sense of what constitutes "fun" - or, for that matter, even tolerable.

Now, the $64,000 question becomes: Which Member of Parliament will break with their party's voting line most often? Any bets?

(Yet) Another One Bites The Dust

I'm hearing rumours that a dearly departed blogger, currently represented by a notch on my gun handle and a Blogger logo on my plane's fuselage, may be considering making a comeback.

Before he does something silly, he may want to consider the latest casualty of trying to elbow into The Enlightened Savage's world, centrebloq.com - which appeared, burned brightly as a source of "insider information" regarding the new political movement in Alberta for a few weeks, stopped updating after the story got picked up by the MSM, and has now completely disappeared.

cb - we hardly knew ye.

Now... in the words of Walt Kowalski: Get off my lawn. ;)

Winter Blunderland

For those of you who need to set your clocks...

1. Snow falls.

2. Local media run the "fighting the good fight" snow removal story, complete with the same tried-and-true cliches they trot out EVERY time they run this story, which is 3-4 times per year:

"City crews have been on the road non-stop since before the white stuff began falling"

"Our crews are working around the clock on the roads"

"65 plow-equipped sanders and nine graders spent all of yesterday clearing Priority 1 and 2 routes"

"snow removal crews will continue to prepare for further inclement weather and will make sure extra crews are on overnight"

... and you know what? It's still going to suck, just as badly as it did in December and January. And people will still be driving into each other on icy roads, both major and residential, that they pay taxes to have cleared. There will be injuries, and deaths, and increased insurance premiums across the board, because even the insurers know that snow removal in Calgary is a bad joke (that's the snickering you hear when you call them to say you're moving to the city, right before they tell you how much your premiums have jumped as a result of your change in address). In about a week, we'll get in irate Bronco in front of a camera, telling us we're all bad people for complaining about the hard-working snow crews. A few days later, we'll get a tired looking head of that department telling us they're doing all they can, but the city administrators set the budget and the priorities, and their hands are tied. And do-si-do.

But you'll still get a ticket if you don't shovel your sidewalk. Which, by the way, is city property.





Meanwhile, back in the Bronco Cave, the most important question the mayor can ask in the face of this destruction, chaos, and loss of life and limb gets asked:

"How can we blame this on Ed Stelmach?"

Now THAT'S leadership.