A New Energy Policy for Canada

There is more and more conversation about a national energy policy for Canada.  We will likely have one in the not too distant future.  The debate and outcomes will be important to all Canadians.  On our way to such a policy, a number of questions suggest themselves for careful consideration.

Since energy production and consumption has such a powerful impact on the condition of our environment, one question would be — should energy policy be nested inside our environmental policy, or should our environmental policy be nested inside our energy policy.

It seems reasonable to conclude that energy policy should be nested inside environment policy, for at least five reasons.

1.            Almost everyone in the world is being impacted by environmental degradation and instability, and so far there appears to be more downside to the environmental instability than there is upside.  (The environment has a bigger and more enduring constituency than does big energy.)

2.            The environmental problems associated with energy are not primarily related to energy per se; they are primarily related to the inefficiency and waste arising from energy production, distribution, and use (and the deferred accruals associated with these).  There is going to be more attention and sanction focused on “dirty oil” and “net energy” and “energy to outcome” returns (and accounting that is more respectful of the future).  It is plausible to speculate that no matter what those terms mean today, the standard is going to be tougher tomorrow, and the day after.

3.            Most of the world uses far less energy per capita than Canadians do (regardless of the explanation), and there is no plausible scenario in which global per capita consumption of energy would rise to the Canadian level.  (Ultimately, there is a bigger constituency on the side of the environment than there is on the side of North America’s current level of energy consumption.)  To whatever extent global accords are negotiated or imposed, the environment is ultimately going to have the higher priority, at the expense of energy consumption.  The significant manifestation of that may be 5 years away, or 30 years away, but the trade-off seems inevitable.

4.            Our economy is driven by the search for substitutes.  In the current situation, the search for alternatives to oil, and gas, and bitumen is likely to be fierce, global, and persistent.

5.     The primary advocates for, and beneficiaries of “big energy” (to cast a broad net) are corporations.  Since they have been so closely tied to energy, the displacement of corporations by emerging political models, which is just beginning, will tend to label energy as a corporate issue secondary to the environment, which is treated as a political issue.

It appears that oil, gas, and bitumen are a temporary tactical advantage for Alberta/Canada but, at least as energy, they are not an enduring or strategic advantage.

The strategic question is simple.  Is our strategy, and then are our tasks and tactics, based on a wise consideration of the future, or a simple and selfish one?  Is our strategy aspirational, or fatalistic?  As political decisions move beyond provincial borders and national borders, and continental borders, would we carry an ever larger constituency of support into an ever larger decision-making agora?

Abraham LIncoln, on Money

“Money is the creature of  law, and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national government. …The monetary needs of increasing numbers of people advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the government.  Such needs can be met by the issue of national currency and credit through the operation of a national banking system.  The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by taxation, re-deposit and otherwise.  Government, possessing the power to create and issue currency and credit as money…need not and should not borrow capital at interest….The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress [my emphasis], and the conduct of the Treasury will become  matters of practical administration…Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity.  Democracy will rise superior to the money power.” (Abraham Lincoln, Senate document 23, p. 91, 1865)

 

With thanks to my friend Mark Anielski.

Edmonton – City of Creatives, or Spectators – City of Producers, or Consumers?

The unfolding developments surrounding the proposed new arena and entertainment district represent a significant fork in the road for Edmonton.  The discussion is almost entirely about the project itself, and its immediate impact, physically, economically, and socially.

Some very interesting questions, and the longer term future, are not being discussed:  perhaps they are not even being considered.

What are the essential characteristics of the world’s great cities – not necessarily the largest ones, but the ones that are known, respected, and attractive?

Is London, or Geneva, or Stockholm, or Paris, or Beijing, or Singapore known for the teams they host?  Is any of these cities famous because of its sports fans, or because of the after game night life?  Does the quality of life in Stanford, or Oxford, or Rome or Sidney suffer because they don’t host championship professional sport?

Basically, the new arena is a proposal to keep Edmonton on the same trajectory it has followed for 50 years, and infuse new energy into the trajectory.

Perhaps Edmonton’s trajectory should be deflected.  Perhaps instead of encouraging more spectating and entertainment, we should be encouraging more participation and productivity.  Perhaps instead of encouraging more low income employment in the food/beverage and entertainment industry we should be encouraging post-secondary education, research and development, and innovation.  Perhaps instead of further encouraging a consumer economy we should be encouraging a creative/productive economy.

The new arena involves more than $100M of community money, from the City and from the province, in the form of immediate and long-term support.  It is also private enterprise that depends on a non-compete provision.

Perhaps instead of putting $100M into maintenance and acceleration of Edmonton’s current trajectory, we should be considering using the money to deflect our trajectory in a somewhat different direction.

Could we use $100M to fund annual global awards, like the Nobel prizes, that would draw the best and the brightest into our community every year, and bring the eyes and ears of the world with them when they come?

Could we use $100M to fund annual trade fairs, like the Hamburg fairs, that would focus attention on design, and manufacturing techniques and technology, and focus the world’s attention on Edmonton year in and year out?

Could we use $100M to create a trans-polar “toll-road in the sky” that might make Edmonton the North American air traffic gateway to Europe and Asia?

Could we use $100M to make Edmonton the world’s premiere “winter city” – and improve the quality of life for all Edmontonians while attracting people here from every northern zone city in the world to see and enjoy how we live?

If/When we say “yes” to a new arena, are we consciously, deliberately, and happily continuing the current trajectory?  Does that trajectory really represent the best that Edmonton can be?  Is it truly the case that a better professional sport facility is one of the key building blocks of a world city?  Or are we building a coliseum precisely because we are in decline and want to be distracted?

Steve Jobs, “Occupy Wall Street”, and recreating the way we live

The outpouring over Steve Jobs death has been an almost unique experience in the western world in the past 50 years.  Why?

Jobs seems to personify the person who is “master of his fate”, the person who can create a future of his own imagination — a future markedly different from the trajectory that is commonly accepted.  He didn’t ‘distort’ reality, he changed it.  We know that the changes he wrought will endure and expand.

When so many people feel powerless, caught up in the machinations of “fate”, Jobs represented our preferred self-image — free-will, self-determination, creativity, energy.  He seems to be someone who invented, not simply devices but a different culture, and institutions, and ways of being in community.

When we consider the “Occupy Wall Street” phenomenon, or the Arab Spring, we see people who do not want to distort reality:  they want to make it markedly different from what it currently is.  The story of Steve Jobs is that he made (a big part of) reality markedly different from what it was.  His story may be the classic parable for our time.   Like any parable, his story should not be examined too closely.  Most of the people discussing his impact on us didn’t know him at all well enough to understand him on close examination.  But a parable is not a detailed story:  it makes one major point.  For us, perhaps, the one major point of Steve Jobs life is that humans, not institutions, can make reality markedly different from what it is.  Sometimes the person is a very singular individual; sometimes she or he is part of the whole that occupies Wall Street.  Change comes from – and with — people.

Politics in Alberta has taken an exciting turn for the better

Politics in Alberta has taken an exciting turn for the better.  The turn didn’t happen on Saturday, October 1^st, when the P.C. Party chose a new Leader – and I congratulate Alison Redford on her campaign.

The change began much earlier, but yesterday’s election was a happy confirmation that the turn is substantially complete.

The majority of Albertans have confirmed themselves as centrists, pragmatists, and uncomfortable with ideological positions and ‘the cult of leadership”.  Arguably, the particular conservative mindset represented by the Wild Rose Party has been relegated to marginal status.

The decision Albertans made through the P.C. process follows similar decisions Albertans made, within the past 5 months, through the Liberal and Alberta Party processes.  All these parties have followed through on the initiative demonstrated by the Reboot Alberta events, the Democratic Renewal Project, and Renew Alberta.

It may be true that the P.C. Party was dragged kicking and screaming into the 21^st century, but they did allow themselves to be dragged.  And 75,000 Albertans – most of whom are not P.C. Party stalwarts – were prepared to drag them into the 21^st century.  Clearly, Albertans want the next election to be fought in the centre of the political spectrum, not on the left or right fringe.

I wouldn’t minimize the significance of Ms. Redford’s victory, not in the least, but she has accomplished the easiest of three tasks she set herself this spring.

Next, she must dramatically change the culture of the Party she leads.  She must change the value system, and the characteristics of the organization.  Many of the people occupying many of the positions within the party must be changed.  Yet the incumbents are entrenched, convinced that the old way of doing things is the best way of doing things, and determined not to lose their grip on “power”.  Today and tomorrow, although Ms. Redford is the Leader, these people retain considerable capacity to slow her, stop her, distract her, or derail her.

At the same time, she must be a leader of leaders, so she must encourage many people who have been passive and submissive followers to become leaders with her.  She must encourage, and accept, moral strength from colleagues, when more than 20 years of experience has promoted acquiescence to the decision of the paramount leader.  She must persuade people who have viewed leadership as privilege to start understanding it as service.

Her challenge is compounded by the fact that, at the moment, she has a very small and shallow pool of talent to fish in.  Although this is not the sole determinant of election timing, her current caucus is not a hotbed of enthusiasm, imagination, energy, or conviction about the emerging political realities.  She needs a new caucus.

This leads into the 3^rd challenge, to win the next election.

Ms. Redford — with the help of many Albertans who are not P.C.s — has dragged the P.C. Party to the hall where the next dance will be held – the centrist hall.  It is not yet clear that the Party will learn the new dances or behave in keeping with the expectations of everyone else in the hall.  But at least they are moving in the direction of the popular hall:  they are not insisting that anyone who wants to dance must come to their decrepit hall, where obsolete and unpopular music has been the staple.

The next election will be interesting because Ms. Redford wants it to be fought in the centre.  She is trying to bring the P.C. Party to turf that the Party will share with current occupants – especially the Alberta Party, the Liberal Party, and others.  Her victory provides an important validation for what the Alberta Party and others have been saying and doing.  Her victory is an acknowledgement that these parties should not be going to the turf currently/formerly occupied by the P.C. Party.

In other words, her victory both confirms the initiative of the Alberta Party and makes the work of the Alberta Party more challenging.  Albertans should welcome both outcomes.

 

The Council of Albertans: A New Approach to Political Accountability

A strong democracy depends upon a strong sense that the elected Representatives are continuously accountable to their electorate:  not accountable only on election day.

In Alberta, public conversation is increasingly about the accountability – or perceived lack of accountability – of the provincial government.

How can we strengthen accountability, on an on-going basis, without putting obstacles in the way of the proper daily operations of government?

The conventional response to the challenge has been to have the entire Legislative Assembly appoint “Officers”, who are – nominally – accountable to the entire Legislative Assembly, including Members of the Opposition and Independent Members.  In this model, the Officers are not accountable to the Government, or the Cabinet.

The problem with the conventional response is that, when one Party has a dominant majority in the Legislative Assembly, and a long history of uninterrupted rule, it may use its position to:

•“shape” the job description and the role of the Officers;

•favour the appointment of people with a certain perspective or operating style;

•orchestrate the release of Reports, and

•blur the lines between “doers” and auditors.

What could be done?  How can we strengthen the monitoring, audit, and accountability aspects of democratic government?  Particularly, how can we make the monitoring, auditing, and accountability aspects of democratic government more continuous, rather than periodic, and more transparent, independent of government, and more informative for citizens?

The role of the Government is “to govern”.  Arguably, we need to create a formal on-going role for citizens, as a counterpoint to government.  The role should not be involved in government, but it should be involved in monitoring, auditing, and accountability

 

One way to do this would be to create an on-going “jury”, of 12 – 15 Albertans.  Let’s call it the “Council of Albertans”.  The Council would be innovative in two ways:  selection; and, mandate.

Imagine the possibilities if participation in the work of the Council was open to any Albertan who

–Is 18 years or older

–Has lived in Alberta for 3 years

–Is not in jail or in court ordered psychiatric treatment.

Imagine the possibilities if members are at random, to serve a 3-year term, and paid for their service, after which they would be ineligible to serve another term.

Random selection means that the Council would be broadly representative of all Albertans:

–The rich and poor

–Aboriginals, 4^th generation Albertans, new Canadians

–Cloistered academics and people with a wealth of life’s experience

–A.P., Liberals, N.D., Tories, and W.A.

The role of the Council would be:

• to Represent all Albertans in assuring the independence of important public offices

•to have Oversight of monitoring, auditing, and accountability, to assure transparency

• to Highlight recommendations from Officers, for the consideration of the public.

The Council would not make laws or adopt budgets.  Members of the Council would not have to be “experts”.

Imagine the possibilities if public officers were to be appointed by, and reporting to, the Council, including –

–The Auditor-General

–The Ombudsman

–The Human Rights Commissioner

–The Freedom of Information & Privacy Comm.

–The Chief Electoral Officer

Improving our democracy requires much work.  Albertans should be participants, not merely spectators.  In order for this to happen, we need to think outside the box.

In Alberta — in any democratic community –  the man on the street or the woman in the field is up to the challenge or strengthening the role of our “watchers”.

Contempt of Parliament is contempt for Canadians

Canadians often express cynicism about politicians.  The cynicism is at least partly responsible for a low voter turnout in elections – including federal elections.  We should look in the mirror.

The current federal election campaign is the direct result of the Conservative government having been found in contempt of Parliament, and rejected for its contempt.  This has never happened before in the 145 year life of our country.

Most Canadians seem unconcerned.  Perhaps some of us take a quiet satisfaction in the reality that Stephen Harper thinks pretty much the same thing we do about the goings on in the House of Commons.  After all, isn’t cynicism about politicians pretty much the same thing as contempt of Parliament.  Isn’t Prime Minister Harper just treating Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff and Gilles Ducette the same way we do in many of our conversations?  And deservedly so?

As Canadians, we need to think this through very carefully.  Important matters are at stake.

It’s true, politicians are sometimes (often?) too full of themselves.  Parties and the House of Commons are sometimes pre-occupied with their institutional selves, and partisanship.  They forget the people they are meant to serve.  But we – citizens – should never forget that every M.P. sits in the House of Commons as our servant – our agent.

Hundreds of years ago the idea of contempt of Parliament was a hard-won acknowledgement by someone with dictatorial powers (the King) that he (and his government) could not rule without the consent of the people’s representative, and he had to treat the people’s representatives with respect (the opposite of contempt) even if he disagreed with them.  Among other hard fought victories, the King and the government agreed that they had to tell the truth to the representatives of the people.  There had to be full and timely disclosure.

Today Mr. Harper is saying – if I may paraphrase, “We Conservatives can treat most of the representatives of the Canadian electorate with contempt and govern in that mode.”  If we Canadians accept that a government can withhold information, and dissemble, no matter what Parliament commands, then we accept contempt of Parliament, we accept the premise of dictatorship.  We accept contempt of Canadians.

Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff, and Gilles Duceppe are sometimes too full of themselves.  Sometimes they and their colleagues are too partisan.  Each one of them has platform planks that make me groan, or cause me worry about the future of Canada.  All of that is true of Mr. Harper, as well.

But, the core reality is that every Member of Parliament is elected as the representative of Canadians.  Whether I agree with Mr. Layton’s electors, or Mr. Ignatieff’s electors, or even Mr. Duceppe’s electors, they are my fellow Canadians.  We are all in this together.  When a government treats Parliament with contempt it is treating every Canadian with contempt.  When a government excuses contempt by falling back on partisanship, it is simply saying that it has no aspirations that drive its values – those values are not being driven upward:  they are on a downward spiral.

Perhaps we are unconcerned about these circumstances because our own M.P. was a Conservative.  Perhaps we are still pre-occupied with the cheap shots that we remember other parties dishing out in days gone by.  Perhaps we think that turnabout is fair play.

But it isn’t.  Football is not better if we tolerate and try to forget the cheap, vicious shot from the home team while booing the same kind of cheap shot from the visitors.  Coaches, players and teams are penalized for such performance.  The game on the field suffers and the reputation of the game suffers.

If we don’t care about democracy, and if we are satisfied to be treated with contempt by our government we will first get mediocre government and then we will get bad government.  We don’t even need to vote.

On Leadership — Peter Lougheed and Luis Urzua (Part 3)

MacGregor Burns wrote a great book on Leadership.  He made two important arguments that many have since adopted.

Burns proposed that there are three stages of leadership:  transmissional; transactional; and transformational.  Transmissional leadership is Joe Stalin (or the boss) saying, “Do this or I will fire you (or worse).”  Transactional leadership is Stephen Harper saying “If you do this for me, I’ll do that for you.”  Transformational leadership is Nelson Mandela saying, “We are going to recreate South Africa as the rainbow nation and each of us, whether black, or white, or mixed race, is going to be transformed – different in the result than we are now and in some important way, better off.”

Burns argued that both transmissional and transactional leadership are insufficient and inherently undermine democracy.  He thought that transformational leadership is essential and inevitable (but perhaps not imminent).

The second important insight that Burns had was that “leadership” is not really the label for the characteristics of the person who is the leader.  It is really the label for the characteristics of the relationship between the ‘Leader’ and the ‘followers’.  Burns characterized progress as being like a ricocheting bundle of energy that bounces back and forth between parallel rails ascending upward.  As Gandhi is reputed to have said:  “Sometimes I am the leader of my people; and sometimes they lead me.”

(Perhaps we should study leadership less and citizenship more, including both effective leadership and discerning followership.)

My personal experience with Peter Lougheed, and my reading about Luis Urzua support Burns arguments.

Transformational leadership:

• is all about relationships;

• respects every person, and helps each person grow and lead as best they can;

• moves people to a place where they may be better off, and changes them in the process;

• does not leave the sick, or wounded, or destitute, or grieving behind;

• is democratic;

• offers hope to the larger community, beyond where transformation is being worked.

Whether in a place as blessed as Alberta in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s and ‘80’s, or in a place as bleak as a deep and shattered mine in 2010, transformational leadership is what we need, and sometimes discover.  We need to look for it more often, and look for it inside ourselves and in our neighbours.

 

On Leadership – Peter Lougheed and Luis Urzua (Part 2)

Luis Urzua is the 54 year old shift commander who was trapped underground in Chile, with 32 co-workers, for 69 days.  What does it mean to be a “leader” in such circumstances?  Urzua and his co-workers and their circumstances have been described extensively, if not in depth.

First of all, cut off from the world, and as hope dimmed (before contact was reestablished) the title of “shift commander” meant nothing.  Urzua was leader because his co-workers trusted him in the first moment of crisis.  They trusted him on the basis of a close working relationship that was authentic.  The trust was maintained because he had experience, skill, and a prudent outlook that wasn’t daunted by the unknown.  He knew enough to know that he didn’t know enough, and he explored, but carefully.

Second, he knew that everyone had to be respected, everyone had to play a leadership role, and hope had to be maintained, not simply with words or body language, but with a commitment to the future.  For example, he limited 48 hours worth of rations so that they lasted more than two weeks.  He had an informal title for many of the men, with the expectation that they would play a corresponding role – spiritual guide, medical monitor, communications co-ordinator, and so on.  Leadership was distributed.

Urzua is credited with being level-headed, with a gentle sense of humour.  A co-worker who was not among the trapped described Urzua in this way:  “He is very protective of his people and obviously loves them.”  He was not going to leave the weak and wounded behind.  He was going to bring every worker home.  Leadership was not only competent.  It was not only selfless; it was very mindful of others.  As Urzua said of his colleagues:  “This is a group with different personalities and manners of being.  They’re different characters.”  He knew them as persons.  He could draw out their strengths and protect against their weaknesses.  As he said, “All the workers fulfilled their roles.”

It is likely the case that Urzua was responsible, more than any other single miner, for the success of the rescue.  He maintained a sense of order, primarily by promoting self-discipline.  He maintained group unity and, for everyone, a sense of individual purpose.  Yet, when he arrived at the surface, he credited majority decision-making for their survival.  Every important decision was put to a vote, after a discussion that listened to every voice.  Said Urzua, “you just have to speak the truth and believe in democracy.”

That’s leadership!

On Leadership — Peter Lougheed and Luis Urzua

I am at home, after a great weekend with Alberta Party people from across the province.  I’ve spent the weekend among leaders, and I am thinking about leadership – servant leadership.

Two names and stories come quickly to mind:  Peter Lougheed and Luis Urzua.  When the story is behind us, we remember Peter as a great leader and Premier of Alberta.  We remember Luis as the shift commander who was one of 33 miners trapped for 69 days in a Chilean mine.  I worked with Peter Lougheed, and the learning, character building experience was incredible.  I wish I could say that I know Luis Urzua personally.

We have important lessons to learn about leadership, and about ourselves, from Peter’s story and from Luis’s.

When Peter Lougheed was elected Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta in March, 1965, there were very few Albertans who would have called him charismatic.  He wasn’t an extrovert, he wasn’t a polished public speaker, and “working the crowd” didn’t come naturally to him.  It is fair to say that, two years later, when he and five other Progressive Conservative candidates were elected as Members of the Legislative Assembly, not one of the other five was elected because Peter Lougheed was Leader of the Party.  Dr. Hugh Horner, Lou Hyndman, Don Getty, Len Werry, and David Russell were all elected because they were well-known, active, solid, respected leaders in the local community.  They had enthusiastic local supporters and great local organization.  When voters in these five constituencies looked past their local P.C. candidate at the new Leader, they weren’t looking for a reason to vote P.C.; they were looking for confirmation that the provincial Leader wouldn’t be a drag on the local candidate they respected.

In the spirit of the old model of politics, the problem with wanting the next leader (of any party) to be charismatic is that ‘charisma’ is a superficial reference to the kind of character that is revealed in building strong teams, dealing with wicked problems, enduring losses and savouring significant accomplishments.  Peter had charisma in 1965, but I don’t think it was apparent to the public at that time.  I suspect that most of the people who might have been looking for a charismatic leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in 1965 might have chosen another candidate, if one was available.  What seems so obvious about Peter’s leadership, after the fact, was not at all clear, except to a small group of people, at the beginning of the story.

To understand this more, we should consider the story of Luis Urzua.