.>What, exactly, is the purpose of this? Because nobody here wanted to hear the truth: that living in a Confederation entails both benefits and compromises. That existing in a nation requires negotiation between both the federal government and other provinces.< <
A very thoughtful column and one can feel JG's frustration with separatist talk and town halls that are more about looking like you are doing something about something when you are not. For me, provincial autonomy for Western Canada is necessary in a confederation that can't get anything done for fear of losing Quebec and Ontario voters. And this is the crux of the problem: Quebec gets different treatment and a better deal. So, for me, we need another round of constitutional talks that nobody wants to do let the rickety apple cart gets upset.
I was in high school when the western Canada concept began talking of separating. I've lived all over Canada but i grew up in Alberta and these are long held and legitimate grievances. Now arguing that either a CPC or Liberal government is corrupt, etc., as a reason for grievance, I call BS. Both parties have screwed the pooch on this because this is still happening. Nobody has clean hands on this and it has festered for too long. Let's all remember one reason for how the Reform party came to be; Mulroney and CF-18 fiasco for me, was the single most powerful driver of Western alienation after the NEP. It confirmed the belief that even a government with strong Western representation (Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives) would prioritize Quebec's interests over the West's economic and political interests. (Which they did. Why? to keep Quebec in confederation even though they have not signed the constitution. is it any wonder that this is where we are at now?)
I know that a lot of us don't take Smith seriously. She's kooky, right? She's Maga, right? All I know is she appears to be unflappable and I do believe the way to respond to those who think Albertans are whining is to simply repeat over and over and over and over and over and over: Alberta wants the same deal as Quebec. Alberta wants those receiving equalization to grow their economies and that is not happening.
The last thing I will say is even those who are against separatism in the west must admit something isn't working in Confederation. We have to get back to the table and talk this out and create a future for all of us because the goddamned world is going to hell and back and we need each other like we need air to breathe.
The more one looks at governance in this country, the clearer it becomes that doing what's best for the province or country as a whole has left the building. It's about friends and donors first, staying in power second, and there is no third. The situation has spiralled so completely out of control that they have no idea what to do to undo the damage they've done, for as I've said before, you can't get elected telling people they have to give things up. We have to give things up that we can't afford.
This is the intra-Canadian version of all the liberals and progressives who've looked at me over the years after I criticize some Canadian problem and tell me I should move to America if I hate it so much here.
I'll happily kiss at any time but let's not pretend that you weren't doing the exact "You should go to America" move I'm sure you've had dropped on you once or twice on your time. Reflect on that after the afterglow of my world-class smooch goes away.
This is the best commentary on Canada in Canada. I've been a customer for a good length of time. Sometimes Jen and Matt indulge themselves a bit liberally and need a nudge back to form. I must read it to nudge it.
The useless ignoring of the entire substance of the article, and suggesting folks who dont like it should leave. Maybe try something more thoughtful next time Tom
AE, I think that we in Alberta are fated to be ruled by the Laurentians evermore. I don't think that the separatists will come anywhere close now that Danielle Smith has given MC so much runway.
In truth, I don't at all see MC as likely to do anything to justify that runway but unless a separation movement is led by the provincial government - more on that below - I don't see anything at all other than continuation of the present state.
For those who argue that Danielle Smith is a separatist I offer that they are incredibly deluded - at this time, anyway - as she has definitely shown herself as a Canadian first.
So, AE, I think that Alberta is going to continue to be strangled by the Laurentians who absolutely "know" how we should behave and live because they (the Laurentians) "know" that we don't know those things.
I am already sick of Canada abusing us. I have been for decades.
As for Vance, I have a couple of comments. First, barring an early accession to the Presidency due to death of DJT you are talking about three years hence and a lot can happen in that time frame. Second, I expect that you correct that Canada and many Canadians would (further) lose their minds at such an event. Third, well, go back to point one and wonder if Vance - or anyone - would make particular comments or policy announcements about Alberta (a clear no-no in international relations, of course).
It's pretty easy to point to previous Alberta governments that were better. The current government is incompetent. The fact that other governments are incompetent is no distinction nor is it a recommendation.
Good point. But I always find it hard to compare performance over time given that the environment also changes over time as well. IMO the only way to reduce cat shit in the kid’s sandbox is to have fewer cats. IMO the least government possible.
Yep. Like 10 year moratoriums on retired politicians and civil servants and their relatives serving on boards or management of companies they used to regulate or purchase from.
Tom, she described her vision of Alberta quite clearly in the column.
"What I want is a province that demonstrates competence in the areas it does control: get the spending in line. Resolve the teachers’ dispute. Put the health-care system on more sustainable footing without miring the system in corruption and internal conflict."
All I can say is I didn’t go to any town halls because I didn’t believe they’d be a serious event. Your examples of responses to genuine questions convinces me of that. And it makes me glad I made the decision when all the separatist talk started to not donate to the UCP as long as this dog and pony show continues. Not sure how I’ll vote next election. But I think smith lacks the moral authority to lead and has demonstrated poor leadership skills over and over. It’s stunning to have a town hall, then not actually seriously respond to questions. And to think that’s actually ok.
I went to Edmonton Town Hall because I wanted to see what it is like. And I liked it. Getting input from across the population. That it closer to practicing democracy than no townhalls.
I agree getting input is important. But is it effective and true democracy if they don't respond to actual concerns and engage with residents without bias? The town hall Jen describes seems to pay lip service to democracy and sounds like "taking input but not listening." Anyone can set up a townhall, but if the citizen input isn't registered and truly responded to, then it just looks like going through the motions to me and not actual commitment to doing the hard work of practicing democracy.
Jennifer, I get it: you are - how to put this politely? - "not a fan" of what I will call the grievance "industry;" actually, I think that was your phrasing in a recent column. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
By way of clarification, I am of "advanced years" (74) and am willing to listen to the "grievance" folks as I try to figure out who may - or may not - have something, anything, resembling a solution. And I do believe that solutions are needed both in my province of Alberta but also in Canada as a whole.
I quite accept that you make some very good points. But I humbly request that you address not simply your points but the logical extension of your points. To wit:
I agree that Alberta cannot get everything it wants. I ask you, however, what "special" thing has Alberta gotten in the last ten or so years - and please don't tell me "TMX" as that pipeline was already underway until the Face Painter shut it down by his actions and inactions before he revived it and incompetently overspent on it.
You write, in part, "... “more money for the provincial government” is not a phrase that lights the dark void in my soul ..." So, does that mean that you want relatively "more" money with the federals? It seems to me that that is really a question that should be dealt with because if you criticize the former are you a proponent of the latter.
[Oh, and I agree that Alberta's fiscal management is very poor.]
You criticize Danielle Smith's assertion that net debt to GDP [a foolish statistic even when the federals use it and Smith really should be better than that - all politician should, but that is a different matter] is "only" eight percent. Here is my suggestion for your extended commentary - it was last at zero when, oh, that "buffoon" Ralph Klein was Premier, so who subsequently increased that indebtedness? You know, you offer the criticism - justified in my mind - but context is all is it not?
As for policing and replacing the horsemen, it should be pointed out that the Mounties themselves, as well as their federal masters, seem to want out of contract policing so a replacement strategy should at least be considered, no?
You note that you do not trust Albertans to handle more of their own business. Fair enough, although I am of the opposite opinion. My suggestion, however, is that you make a case for Ottawa to handle/continue to handle that business. Has Ottawa proven itself to be competent? Well, more competent than you project Alberta to be? Please note, I am asking you to clearly delineate your projection of competence against proven competence.
Ultimately, my point is that your column is your emotions - and that is quite acceptable - but to be more than simply emotion would require more from you. Kinda, sorta something along the lines of comparisons of alternatives. But, if you want to stay with emotions, I will continue to read you.
I take two over-riding points from this article. Firstly, that these town-halls are a microcosm of how this gov't operates: use distraction, blame others, and belittle those with different views.
As such, it fails the test of competence. That leads to the second point that this gov't should stick to what it has before it rather than run around beating the drums for yet more areas in which to exercise its incompetence.
IMO Jen doesn't need to offer alternatives. The Smith gov't has illustrated how it goes about business in Alberta by how it carried out this and other townhalls. The self incriminating evidence of these townhalls is what is being discussed.
For example, if you want to know how this gov't would run an AB Police Force, reflect on the attitude presented, not just at this townhall but virtually all of them, by the moderators when different opinions were offered.
DS, I don't know if you are a resident of Alberta (I am) and I quite concede that the topics of the town halls are not uniformly positively received. On the other hand ....
I can say that from personal experience I run into many people who voice the particular opinions that Smith enunciates. You can say that is simply because I am a "fellow traveler" or some such but I would politely respond with a denial of that way of dismissing. My point is that there are a number of people who feel that way or at least are willing to explore if the options listed by Smith et al have any sort of merit. I know that Jen dismisses all of the issues (well, Jen, it certainly seem that way to me) but they are issues.
As for Jen pointing out her perceived lack of competence I respond that there are some folks who think those things actually show competence. In other words, it depends on where you stand. As always.
I did not attend the Calgary town hall as, quite simply, I would have been unable to hear. What I have read on the matter has caused me to conclude that those who previously favored the "favored" tenor of the discussions did not change their mind and those who dis-favored the "favored" tenor of the discussions similarly went away with unchanged minds. In other words, I don't think anyone appears to have changed their opinions.
However, however.
I absolutely think that the issues are pertinent and should be discussed. What conclusions one might draw is, of course, up to each person. It sounds to me as if you think these issues are not at all something that should be discussed and I respectfully disagree with hiding our collective heads in the manure.
In this context I will say that it is a while ago that I have decided to downgrade the value - to me - of Jen's opinions re. Alberta separatism. She does see she the local problems, while not acknowledging the problems stemming from the big federal picture.
Jen writes "What I want is a province that demonstrates competence in the areas it does control: get the spending in line. Resolve the teachers’ dispute. Put the health-care system on more sustainable footing..."
I just wanted to note that her number one issue is "get spending in line"
Her second issue, "resolve the teacher's strike" and her third issue "make healthcare more sustainable" (sure sounds like code for "spend more money on it") both conflict badly with her first issue.
Healthcare and Education combined comprise 60% of the province's entire budget.
How does one spend MORE on both of these, but also "get spending in line"...?
The fact is that governments of all stripes simply are a reflection of we the electorate and it is clear that not any one individual in that "we" wants to take/receive/benefit from less spending but it is only by less spending that will allow us to "get spending in line" which is Jen's first wish.
Put differently, yes, we may need to spend more on health care and we may need to spend more on education so that means that Jen - and the rest of us in Alberta - need to clearly identify just where we should spend less.
And no politician has the courage to do that. That statement very definitely includes the opposition NDP, as well as the governing UCP.
"How about we just think about, you know, governing for once?" That is very unlikely. Smith leads a populist government. Populists trade on the politics of resentment and grievance, not solutions. Whether the grievances are real, exaggerated, or imaginary (usually some of each), the “solutions” are almost invariably nonsense. The only example I can think of where a populist politician actually solved any problems is Teddy Roosevelt. In general, populist governments (especially authoritarian populists such as Smith) solve nothing and leave their jurisdictions worse off both financially and politically.
McAllister's behavior was a complete disgrace, and Smith's arrogant dismissal of it was equally gross. It simply just exposed to everyone that these AB next panels were a complete sham all along, built to appease her RW base, and fan the flames of separation. The propaganda videos, the scripted talking points that could only ever lead to one pre-determined conclusion.
Smith lacks the intellect and moral character to lead, so she relies on distraction and petty fringe issues, because tackling actual issues like the budget, education, health care, AISH, diversifying the economy, requires hard work. She'd rather build a loyal group of thugs to exchange bribes, foment separation, actively destroy education and health care through ever greater pushes for privatization.
She and her team are a total joke and the rest of the country knows it, and most Albertans are slowly seeing it whether they want to or not.
Oh well, at least she's not doing silly things like banning queer books, diverting money into private schools and health care, quadrupling bureaucracy in health care and pushing for an AB pension/police force that nobody wants.
I've always been annoyed with progressive governments who want to take on bold social engineering programs when they can't do basic functions like keeping infrastructure maintained. This shows that overreaching ambition is a non-partisan problem. This is another government trying to take on big ambitious projects when they can't manage their current responsibilities.
For decades, it's been easy for Alberta governments to just spend money to make problems go away. Calgary Health Region blew its budget again? No need to fix the management - just cover the cost overrun. Government employees unhappy? Give them a raise. Infrastructure underbuilt for decades but costs are insanely high due to an overheating economy? Just spend more money now and get 'er done! That approach works until you run out of money: that was the dilemma for the PCs when the oil market crashed in 2015, and it's the problem for the UCP now that their spending has outpaced revenue. Instead of actually fixing problems with effective management, Smith's government has been taking swipes at targets that please her base and is looking for more money to spend by changing equalization terms.
I think every government has the same problem, but it's more of a disease of left wing governments. Alberta has always spent like a left wing government even though Albertans think they're conservative. It's basically the Dennis Duffy approach: socially conservative, fiscally liberal.
“Alberta has always spent like a left wing government even though Albertans think they're conservative. It's basically the Dennis Duffy approach: socially conservative, fiscally liberal.”
You completely nail this. Albertans cosplay as conservatives, and have exclusively since the Ralph Klein era. A 6B projected deficit with a projected 16B in resource revenue? (it was 25B 2 years ago) What a joke. Part of that cosplay includes the progressive public unions and service in Alberta, and the conservative government, taking an adversarial approach with each other over everything but money. JG is on point. Get on with running the government competently, and stop with the theatre. Use your conservative pragmatism, and business centered bonfides to fix the goddamn issues (health care and education are a couple that come to mind), and stop with the emotive bullshit - you’re spending like the NDP anyways.
Yes, this factually describes the internal AB situation as was and is. For a long time I wondered how they - AB govs - can consistently blow away the surpluses.
NS, you write, "For a long time I wondered how they - AB govs - can consistently blow away the surpluses."
It's easy. We, the foolish electorate demand it of them and we threaten to de-elect them if they don't spend it on us. Remember Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Perhaps demonstrating an adequate level of proficiency re. provincial economics by passing a mandatory test before being granted a vote at each provincial election is a partial solution. Yes it is a conditional democracy, but I no longer believe that one person - one vote unconditionally is capable of maintaining a reasonably functioning near-democratic society.
I know someone who was fairly high up in procurement at AHS who left when these shenanigans were going on, in large part because they were concerned they'd get caught up in it. They've been very reluctant to say much, but have indicated that even more wild shit went on. There really needs to be a full public inquiry followed by serious prosecution of all involved.
It's incredible how poorly governed Alberta has been, for decades. We've pissed away billions on Keystone XL, oil for rail contracts, the Northwest Upgrader, Turkish Tylenol, PPE, and a litany of other things. But the voting public has the memory of goldfish and sadly these dog and pony shows do work on a large enough group that we keep repeating the same stupid cycle.
No Democracy Party with Nenshi is considered a viable option ? If one want to completely ruin AB, then yes. But why bother with NDP when Oddaua is doing a stellar job of ruining AB already.
It's pretty sad that you're so far down the reverse partisan hatred rabbit hole that you respond to a post that makes no mention of the NDP with a comment about them. Corruption is bad, no matter who does it, okay? This is why we can't have nice things!
I agree. Smith should just say "As long as we remain in Canada, there will never be another pipeline, nor any new oil & gas development, equalization will remain unchanged, immigration policy will ignore Alberta, and the government will keep taking your guns. If you don't like it, launch a petition and win a secession referendum. Otherwise, I will focus on the things I can do something about."
Separation isn't going to solve the pipeline problem - it'll make it worse. When Alberta had strong support with the Harper government, it was still a struggle. An independent Alberta isn't going to have a voice in Canada's federal government. And the problems with Keystone XL were in the US, not Canada.
As for the other issues, get a government with Alberta representation elected again.
Yes, pipelines were an issue even under Harper. But.
Things like the Alberta Clipper, the Keystone (not to be confused with KXL), Enbridge line 9 reversal and the Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop were built under Harper.
Now for the "but."
The Northern Gateway and Energy East started under Harper but were killed by the Face Painter. The TMX was approved under Harper but effectively killed by the Face Painter before the FP bought it and wildly overspent to finish it.
The funny thing being that Trump would not be likely to be an impediment to oil flowing out of an independent Alberta towards US refineries (although a future Democrat President might be, if Keystone XL is any indication).
So the real question is whether Canada would respect the international "right of way"conventions.
One of the reasons Alberta has been seeking more pipelines is to export to places *other* than the US. Being restricted to US has meant that Albertan producers have been selling at a considerable discount. That discount only gets worse when there's more supply through that pipeline network.
You're basically hanging your hopes on a UN convention that also champions a parallel right of nations to protect their own interests with respect to landlocked states transiting their borders to access the sea. The UN convention doesn't have any real teeth, and even if it did, you're going to be running the gamut of environmental advocacy that's hamstrung previous pipelines. Only this time, Alberta won't have a voice in the Canadian federal government and *probably* has pissed off everybody by seceding.
"Things won't improve even if we are independent" is a legitimate argument in the secession debate. Carney and Smith are both holding out false hope to Albertans in order to prevent that debate entirely.
Except Alberta doesn't pay equalization. Alberta doesn't cut a cheque. Alberta taxpayers contribute more to the federal pot than they get back in transfers. It's a tax issue in that Albertans earn more and are taxed more because they earn. Which probably sounded great over 40 years ago under Trudeau 1.0. We watched the Queen and 1.0 sign it on TV in social studies. For me, this is a shell game. Smith needs to start saying 'we want the same deal as Quebec' repeatedly. Will it upset Quebec? She should reframe it as well: "Albertans are penalized for living in a 'have' province."
I'd be happy with a Town Hall that actually *does* listen to *all* Albertans instead of only preaching to the choir and cutting everyone else off. Well, and then a government that actually puts things into action, instead of talking and talking and talking.... Why do so many people mistake rhetoric (ranting?) for action?
No one is stopping you from doing that - go ahead, organise a townhall, and make it a completely open forum. I bet you would even attract politicians, perhaps from both sides of the divide...
THESE townhalls, on the other hand, had very specific topics of discussion.
Jen knows (because she was there) that at the beginning of each session it is carefully explained that anyone raising issues NOT directly pertaining to the topics of discussion WILL have their microphones cut off, and the moderator will move on.
But I guess its just easier to rag on the government for 'not listening' than it is to admit people were stepping up to that microphone and completely ignoring the topics of discussion, wasting everyone else in the room's time.
I’ve been here 47 years. I’m still a transplant to many. But,I still recognize bad governance when I see it. We lived thru several strikes by teachers. Everyone was painful,for working parents and their kids. This time,teachers and their union has a hate on for the government.
Thanks Jen. Speaking from over here in Ontario, I can only say: 1. Albertans daily generate my deepest sympathy: you are absolutely not getting the government you deserve, and 2. Ontario under Doug Ford is nevertheless winning the corruption sweepstakes hands down. Despite the ongoing horror of the AHS saga, we have any number of cozy encounters at Queen's Park that make your crew look like amateurs. Best of luck.
.>What, exactly, is the purpose of this? Because nobody here wanted to hear the truth: that living in a Confederation entails both benefits and compromises. That existing in a nation requires negotiation between both the federal government and other provinces.< <
A very thoughtful column and one can feel JG's frustration with separatist talk and town halls that are more about looking like you are doing something about something when you are not. For me, provincial autonomy for Western Canada is necessary in a confederation that can't get anything done for fear of losing Quebec and Ontario voters. And this is the crux of the problem: Quebec gets different treatment and a better deal. So, for me, we need another round of constitutional talks that nobody wants to do let the rickety apple cart gets upset.
I was in high school when the western Canada concept began talking of separating. I've lived all over Canada but i grew up in Alberta and these are long held and legitimate grievances. Now arguing that either a CPC or Liberal government is corrupt, etc., as a reason for grievance, I call BS. Both parties have screwed the pooch on this because this is still happening. Nobody has clean hands on this and it has festered for too long. Let's all remember one reason for how the Reform party came to be; Mulroney and CF-18 fiasco for me, was the single most powerful driver of Western alienation after the NEP. It confirmed the belief that even a government with strong Western representation (Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives) would prioritize Quebec's interests over the West's economic and political interests. (Which they did. Why? to keep Quebec in confederation even though they have not signed the constitution. is it any wonder that this is where we are at now?)
I know that a lot of us don't take Smith seriously. She's kooky, right? She's Maga, right? All I know is she appears to be unflappable and I do believe the way to respond to those who think Albertans are whining is to simply repeat over and over and over and over and over and over: Alberta wants the same deal as Quebec. Alberta wants those receiving equalization to grow their economies and that is not happening.
The last thing I will say is even those who are against separatism in the west must admit something isn't working in Confederation. We have to get back to the table and talk this out and create a future for all of us because the goddamned world is going to hell and back and we need each other like we need air to breathe.
The more one looks at governance in this country, the clearer it becomes that doing what's best for the province or country as a whole has left the building. It's about friends and donors first, staying in power second, and there is no third. The situation has spiralled so completely out of control that they have no idea what to do to undo the damage they've done, for as I've said before, you can't get elected telling people they have to give things up. We have to give things up that we can't afford.
"How about we just think about, you know, governing for once?"
How about, Jen, you describe your vision of an Alberta you'd be more positive about. Sounds like a moving van is likely in your future.
This is the intra-Canadian version of all the liberals and progressives who've looked at me over the years after I criticize some Canadian problem and tell me I should move to America if I hate it so much here.
Not so, Matt. It's an intra-Canadian fatigue at over-gripe.
Nah. It's what I said. Deflection of specific criticisms by sheltering behind suggestion that someone should just leave.
Nah. No suggestion of "going away". Your readers got it right. The piece sounded like a prediction. Let's just kiss and go to our separate corners.
I'll happily kiss at any time but let's not pretend that you weren't doing the exact "You should go to America" move I'm sure you've had dropped on you once or twice on your time. Reflect on that after the afterglow of my world-class smooch goes away.
Multiple accusations don't make things so. You are correctly accused of misunderstanding my original comment.
Then why read it?
This is the best commentary on Canada in Canada. I've been a customer for a good length of time. Sometimes Jen and Matt indulge themselves a bit liberally and need a nudge back to form. I must read it to nudge it.
"Everyone who disagrees with me should leave" is *one* way to go about functioning in society, I'll grant. JG
JG...that quote is of Matt's imagination and interpretation.
The useless ignoring of the entire substance of the article, and suggesting folks who dont like it should leave. Maybe try something more thoughtful next time Tom
I made no suggestion that anyone "leave", C. ...as I wrote in my followups to Matt. But perhaps apologies for creating your misunderstanding.
The only realistic vision of Alberta within Canada is regression to the Canadian mean.
How about a Quebec2?
Actually, Tom, I think that is what AE meant!
If secession doesn't at least get to a close referendum now, it will be impossible to make the threat ever again.
AE, I think that we in Alberta are fated to be ruled by the Laurentians evermore. I don't think that the separatists will come anywhere close now that Danielle Smith has given MC so much runway.
In truth, I don't at all see MC as likely to do anything to justify that runway but unless a separation movement is led by the provincial government - more on that below - I don't see anything at all other than continuation of the present state.
For those who argue that Danielle Smith is a separatist I offer that they are incredibly deluded - at this time, anyway - as she has definitely shown herself as a Canadian first.
So, AE, I think that Alberta is going to continue to be strangled by the Laurentians who absolutely "know" how we should behave and live because they (the Laurentians) "know" that we don't know those things.
If Vance wins, you'll have plenty of time for Canada to abuse Albertans until you get sick of it.
I am already sick of Canada abusing us. I have been for decades.
As for Vance, I have a couple of comments. First, barring an early accession to the Presidency due to death of DJT you are talking about three years hence and a lot can happen in that time frame. Second, I expect that you correct that Canada and many Canadians would (further) lose their minds at such an event. Third, well, go back to point one and wonder if Vance - or anyone - would make particular comments or policy announcements about Alberta (a clear no-no in international relations, of course).
Hmmmm....
Yep. To Ottawa. Free French lessons thrown in.
Let’s point to another Canadian government that’s better ( whatever that means)
It's pretty easy to point to previous Alberta governments that were better. The current government is incompetent. The fact that other governments are incompetent is no distinction nor is it a recommendation.
Good point. But I always find it hard to compare performance over time given that the environment also changes over time as well. IMO the only way to reduce cat shit in the kid’s sandbox is to have fewer cats. IMO the least government possible.
Cover the box when kids are not playing in it. :-)
Yep. Like 10 year moratoriums on retired politicians and civil servants and their relatives serving on boards or management of companies they used to regulate or purchase from.
That indeed is a big one not many notice.
Tom, she described her vision of Alberta quite clearly in the column.
"What I want is a province that demonstrates competence in the areas it does control: get the spending in line. Resolve the teachers’ dispute. Put the health-care system on more sustainable footing without miring the system in corruption and internal conflict."
How much more clarity do you need.
PT, I sought no "clarity". I sought a "vision of an Alberta you'd (Jen) be more positive about."
Another banger Jen. Bravo.
All I can say is I didn’t go to any town halls because I didn’t believe they’d be a serious event. Your examples of responses to genuine questions convinces me of that. And it makes me glad I made the decision when all the separatist talk started to not donate to the UCP as long as this dog and pony show continues. Not sure how I’ll vote next election. But I think smith lacks the moral authority to lead and has demonstrated poor leadership skills over and over. It’s stunning to have a town hall, then not actually seriously respond to questions. And to think that’s actually ok.
I went to Edmonton Town Hall because I wanted to see what it is like. And I liked it. Getting input from across the population. That it closer to practicing democracy than no townhalls.
I agree getting input is important. But is it effective and true democracy if they don't respond to actual concerns and engage with residents without bias? The town hall Jen describes seems to pay lip service to democracy and sounds like "taking input but not listening." Anyone can set up a townhall, but if the citizen input isn't registered and truly responded to, then it just looks like going through the motions to me and not actual commitment to doing the hard work of practicing democracy.
Ever been to an "information session" as put on by the City of Calgary?
100% going through the motions, ZERO actual input being collected.
Remember Trudeau's town halls? Remember how anyone who asked an impertinent question was bodily removed from the space...?
Cutting off microphones on off-topic questions seems mild by comparison.
Jennifer, I get it: you are - how to put this politely? - "not a fan" of what I will call the grievance "industry;" actually, I think that was your phrasing in a recent column. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
By way of clarification, I am of "advanced years" (74) and am willing to listen to the "grievance" folks as I try to figure out who may - or may not - have something, anything, resembling a solution. And I do believe that solutions are needed both in my province of Alberta but also in Canada as a whole.
I quite accept that you make some very good points. But I humbly request that you address not simply your points but the logical extension of your points. To wit:
I agree that Alberta cannot get everything it wants. I ask you, however, what "special" thing has Alberta gotten in the last ten or so years - and please don't tell me "TMX" as that pipeline was already underway until the Face Painter shut it down by his actions and inactions before he revived it and incompetently overspent on it.
You write, in part, "... “more money for the provincial government” is not a phrase that lights the dark void in my soul ..." So, does that mean that you want relatively "more" money with the federals? It seems to me that that is really a question that should be dealt with because if you criticize the former are you a proponent of the latter.
[Oh, and I agree that Alberta's fiscal management is very poor.]
You criticize Danielle Smith's assertion that net debt to GDP [a foolish statistic even when the federals use it and Smith really should be better than that - all politician should, but that is a different matter] is "only" eight percent. Here is my suggestion for your extended commentary - it was last at zero when, oh, that "buffoon" Ralph Klein was Premier, so who subsequently increased that indebtedness? You know, you offer the criticism - justified in my mind - but context is all is it not?
As for policing and replacing the horsemen, it should be pointed out that the Mounties themselves, as well as their federal masters, seem to want out of contract policing so a replacement strategy should at least be considered, no?
You note that you do not trust Albertans to handle more of their own business. Fair enough, although I am of the opposite opinion. My suggestion, however, is that you make a case for Ottawa to handle/continue to handle that business. Has Ottawa proven itself to be competent? Well, more competent than you project Alberta to be? Please note, I am asking you to clearly delineate your projection of competence against proven competence.
Ultimately, my point is that your column is your emotions - and that is quite acceptable - but to be more than simply emotion would require more from you. Kinda, sorta something along the lines of comparisons of alternatives. But, if you want to stay with emotions, I will continue to read you.
I take two over-riding points from this article. Firstly, that these town-halls are a microcosm of how this gov't operates: use distraction, blame others, and belittle those with different views.
As such, it fails the test of competence. That leads to the second point that this gov't should stick to what it has before it rather than run around beating the drums for yet more areas in which to exercise its incompetence.
IMO Jen doesn't need to offer alternatives. The Smith gov't has illustrated how it goes about business in Alberta by how it carried out this and other townhalls. The self incriminating evidence of these townhalls is what is being discussed.
For example, if you want to know how this gov't would run an AB Police Force, reflect on the attitude presented, not just at this townhall but virtually all of them, by the moderators when different opinions were offered.
DS, I don't know if you are a resident of Alberta (I am) and I quite concede that the topics of the town halls are not uniformly positively received. On the other hand ....
I can say that from personal experience I run into many people who voice the particular opinions that Smith enunciates. You can say that is simply because I am a "fellow traveler" or some such but I would politely respond with a denial of that way of dismissing. My point is that there are a number of people who feel that way or at least are willing to explore if the options listed by Smith et al have any sort of merit. I know that Jen dismisses all of the issues (well, Jen, it certainly seem that way to me) but they are issues.
As for Jen pointing out her perceived lack of competence I respond that there are some folks who think those things actually show competence. In other words, it depends on where you stand. As always.
I did not attend the Calgary town hall as, quite simply, I would have been unable to hear. What I have read on the matter has caused me to conclude that those who previously favored the "favored" tenor of the discussions did not change their mind and those who dis-favored the "favored" tenor of the discussions similarly went away with unchanged minds. In other words, I don't think anyone appears to have changed their opinions.
However, however.
I absolutely think that the issues are pertinent and should be discussed. What conclusions one might draw is, of course, up to each person. It sounds to me as if you think these issues are not at all something that should be discussed and I respectfully disagree with hiding our collective heads in the manure.
In this context I will say that it is a while ago that I have decided to downgrade the value - to me - of Jen's opinions re. Alberta separatism. She does see she the local problems, while not acknowledging the problems stemming from the big federal picture.
Jen writes "What I want is a province that demonstrates competence in the areas it does control: get the spending in line. Resolve the teachers’ dispute. Put the health-care system on more sustainable footing..."
I just wanted to note that her number one issue is "get spending in line"
Her second issue, "resolve the teacher's strike" and her third issue "make healthcare more sustainable" (sure sounds like code for "spend more money on it") both conflict badly with her first issue.
Healthcare and Education combined comprise 60% of the province's entire budget.
How does one spend MORE on both of these, but also "get spending in line"...?
Bravo.
The fact is that governments of all stripes simply are a reflection of we the electorate and it is clear that not any one individual in that "we" wants to take/receive/benefit from less spending but it is only by less spending that will allow us to "get spending in line" which is Jen's first wish.
Put differently, yes, we may need to spend more on health care and we may need to spend more on education so that means that Jen - and the rest of us in Alberta - need to clearly identify just where we should spend less.
And no politician has the courage to do that. That statement very definitely includes the opposition NDP, as well as the governing UCP.
"How about we just think about, you know, governing for once?" That is very unlikely. Smith leads a populist government. Populists trade on the politics of resentment and grievance, not solutions. Whether the grievances are real, exaggerated, or imaginary (usually some of each), the “solutions” are almost invariably nonsense. The only example I can think of where a populist politician actually solved any problems is Teddy Roosevelt. In general, populist governments (especially authoritarian populists such as Smith) solve nothing and leave their jurisdictions worse off both financially and politically.
Well said Jen!!
McAllister's behavior was a complete disgrace, and Smith's arrogant dismissal of it was equally gross. It simply just exposed to everyone that these AB next panels were a complete sham all along, built to appease her RW base, and fan the flames of separation. The propaganda videos, the scripted talking points that could only ever lead to one pre-determined conclusion.
Smith lacks the intellect and moral character to lead, so she relies on distraction and petty fringe issues, because tackling actual issues like the budget, education, health care, AISH, diversifying the economy, requires hard work. She'd rather build a loyal group of thugs to exchange bribes, foment separation, actively destroy education and health care through ever greater pushes for privatization.
She and her team are a total joke and the rest of the country knows it, and most Albertans are slowly seeing it whether they want to or not.
Oh well, at least she's not doing silly things like banning queer books, diverting money into private schools and health care, quadrupling bureaucracy in health care and pushing for an AB pension/police force that nobody wants.
I've always been annoyed with progressive governments who want to take on bold social engineering programs when they can't do basic functions like keeping infrastructure maintained. This shows that overreaching ambition is a non-partisan problem. This is another government trying to take on big ambitious projects when they can't manage their current responsibilities.
For decades, it's been easy for Alberta governments to just spend money to make problems go away. Calgary Health Region blew its budget again? No need to fix the management - just cover the cost overrun. Government employees unhappy? Give them a raise. Infrastructure underbuilt for decades but costs are insanely high due to an overheating economy? Just spend more money now and get 'er done! That approach works until you run out of money: that was the dilemma for the PCs when the oil market crashed in 2015, and it's the problem for the UCP now that their spending has outpaced revenue. Instead of actually fixing problems with effective management, Smith's government has been taking swipes at targets that please her base and is looking for more money to spend by changing equalization terms.
I think every government has the same problem, but it's more of a disease of left wing governments. Alberta has always spent like a left wing government even though Albertans think they're conservative. It's basically the Dennis Duffy approach: socially conservative, fiscally liberal.
“Alberta has always spent like a left wing government even though Albertans think they're conservative. It's basically the Dennis Duffy approach: socially conservative, fiscally liberal.”
You completely nail this. Albertans cosplay as conservatives, and have exclusively since the Ralph Klein era. A 6B projected deficit with a projected 16B in resource revenue? (it was 25B 2 years ago) What a joke. Part of that cosplay includes the progressive public unions and service in Alberta, and the conservative government, taking an adversarial approach with each other over everything but money. JG is on point. Get on with running the government competently, and stop with the theatre. Use your conservative pragmatism, and business centered bonfides to fix the goddamn issues (health care and education are a couple that come to mind), and stop with the emotive bullshit - you’re spending like the NDP anyways.
Yes, this factually describes the internal AB situation as was and is. For a long time I wondered how they - AB govs - can consistently blow away the surpluses.
NS, you write, "For a long time I wondered how they - AB govs - can consistently blow away the surpluses."
It's easy. We, the foolish electorate demand it of them and we threaten to de-elect them if they don't spend it on us. Remember Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Perhaps demonstrating an adequate level of proficiency re. provincial economics by passing a mandatory test before being granted a vote at each provincial election is a partial solution. Yes it is a conditional democracy, but I no longer believe that one person - one vote unconditionally is capable of maintaining a reasonably functioning near-democratic society.
Speaking of all that corruption, there were further developments last week. Weird how many connections keep popping up all over the place!
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-adviser-on-albertas-use-of-private-clinics-was-also-working-for/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-alberta-health-services-supplier-procurement-mhcare/
I know someone who was fairly high up in procurement at AHS who left when these shenanigans were going on, in large part because they were concerned they'd get caught up in it. They've been very reluctant to say much, but have indicated that even more wild shit went on. There really needs to be a full public inquiry followed by serious prosecution of all involved.
It's incredible how poorly governed Alberta has been, for decades. We've pissed away billions on Keystone XL, oil for rail contracts, the Northwest Upgrader, Turkish Tylenol, PPE, and a litany of other things. But the voting public has the memory of goldfish and sadly these dog and pony shows do work on a large enough group that we keep repeating the same stupid cycle.
No Democracy Party with Nenshi is considered a viable option ? If one want to completely ruin AB, then yes. But why bother with NDP when Oddaua is doing a stellar job of ruining AB already.
It's pretty sad that you're so far down the reverse partisan hatred rabbit hole that you respond to a post that makes no mention of the NDP with a comment about them. Corruption is bad, no matter who does it, okay? This is why we can't have nice things!
I agree. Smith should just say "As long as we remain in Canada, there will never be another pipeline, nor any new oil & gas development, equalization will remain unchanged, immigration policy will ignore Alberta, and the government will keep taking your guns. If you don't like it, launch a petition and win a secession referendum. Otherwise, I will focus on the things I can do something about."
Separation isn't going to solve the pipeline problem - it'll make it worse. When Alberta had strong support with the Harper government, it was still a struggle. An independent Alberta isn't going to have a voice in Canada's federal government. And the problems with Keystone XL were in the US, not Canada.
As for the other issues, get a government with Alberta representation elected again.
Yes, pipelines were an issue even under Harper. But.
Things like the Alberta Clipper, the Keystone (not to be confused with KXL), Enbridge line 9 reversal and the Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop were built under Harper.
Now for the "but."
The Northern Gateway and Energy East started under Harper but were killed by the Face Painter. The TMX was approved under Harper but effectively killed by the Face Painter before the FP bought it and wildly overspent to finish it.
Not a certainty. There are international rules for how landlocked countries get treated by their neighbours.
Allowing them access to oceans is one of the things which happens to have very specific rules.
I would not, in the age of Trump, put my trust in any "international rules".
It is BC lunacy / Quebec chauvinism that is more of a problem.
The funny thing being that Trump would not be likely to be an impediment to oil flowing out of an independent Alberta towards US refineries (although a future Democrat President might be, if Keystone XL is any indication).
So the real question is whether Canada would respect the international "right of way"conventions.
One of the reasons Alberta has been seeking more pipelines is to export to places *other* than the US. Being restricted to US has meant that Albertan producers have been selling at a considerable discount. That discount only gets worse when there's more supply through that pipeline network.
You're basically hanging your hopes on a UN convention that also champions a parallel right of nations to protect their own interests with respect to landlocked states transiting their borders to access the sea. The UN convention doesn't have any real teeth, and even if it did, you're going to be running the gamut of environmental advocacy that's hamstrung previous pipelines. Only this time, Alberta won't have a voice in the Canadian federal government and *probably* has pissed off everybody by seceding.
"Things won't improve even if we are independent" is a legitimate argument in the secession debate. Carney and Smith are both holding out false hope to Albertans in order to prevent that debate entirely.
Look at the electoral map of the last election. The Liberals won pretty much only Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Ottawa. Which is a majority.
They’re a minority government, not a majority.
Sure, no kidding, technically. But the NDP won't support AB. My point is that "wait for a pro-Alberta" govt in Ottawa is likely a waste of time.
A minority kept afloat by separatists.
Except Alberta doesn't pay equalization. Alberta doesn't cut a cheque. Alberta taxpayers contribute more to the federal pot than they get back in transfers. It's a tax issue in that Albertans earn more and are taxed more because they earn. Which probably sounded great over 40 years ago under Trudeau 1.0. We watched the Queen and 1.0 sign it on TV in social studies. For me, this is a shell game. Smith needs to start saying 'we want the same deal as Quebec' repeatedly. Will it upset Quebec? She should reframe it as well: "Albertans are penalized for living in a 'have' province."
I'd be happy with a Town Hall that actually *does* listen to *all* Albertans instead of only preaching to the choir and cutting everyone else off. Well, and then a government that actually puts things into action, instead of talking and talking and talking.... Why do so many people mistake rhetoric (ranting?) for action?
No one is stopping you from doing that - go ahead, organise a townhall, and make it a completely open forum. I bet you would even attract politicians, perhaps from both sides of the divide...
THESE townhalls, on the other hand, had very specific topics of discussion.
Jen knows (because she was there) that at the beginning of each session it is carefully explained that anyone raising issues NOT directly pertaining to the topics of discussion WILL have their microphones cut off, and the moderator will move on.
But I guess its just easier to rag on the government for 'not listening' than it is to admit people were stepping up to that microphone and completely ignoring the topics of discussion, wasting everyone else in the room's time.
I’ve been here 47 years. I’m still a transplant to many. But,I still recognize bad governance when I see it. We lived thru several strikes by teachers. Everyone was painful,for working parents and their kids. This time,teachers and their union has a hate on for the government.
Thanks Jen. Speaking from over here in Ontario, I can only say: 1. Albertans daily generate my deepest sympathy: you are absolutely not getting the government you deserve, and 2. Ontario under Doug Ford is nevertheless winning the corruption sweepstakes hands down. Despite the ongoing horror of the AHS saga, we have any number of cozy encounters at Queen's Park that make your crew look like amateurs. Best of luck.
Looks like there's a lot more of that corruption just came out into the open: https://www.thetrillium.ca/news/politics/clients-of-lobby-firms-connected-to-premier-his-nephew-given-tens-of-millions-in-training-funds-11312462
O crumb. It's the neverendingstory.