Bill #44 opens a Pandora’s box

Bill #4, is a very problematic solution to a very simple problem.  Morinville will get secular public school education.  This is long past due, and Sturgeon School Division is the appropriate provider.

With Bill #4 the Redford government is acknowledging that Greater St. Albert Catholic Regional Division has been acting unconstitutionally for the past 18 months.  The Redford government is saying, “at a time of our choosing (forget the parents and students), this will not continue.”

But the fact is, the Redford government has sacrificed the interested parents and their children, for more than 15 months, in order to create a distraction.

Morinville could have had genuinely public school education at any time, by simple Ministerial Order transferring jurisdiction for Morinville from the Greater St. Albert public school jurisdiction to Sturgeon School Division.

The Redford government has strung this issue out, not in order to solve the “Morinville problem”, but in order to play a constitutional shell game in the City of St. Albert.

With the introduction of Bill #4 the Redford government has taken the first transparent  step toward unilaterally disestablishing the only operating Protestant separate school jurisdiction in Alberta.  For all practical purposes, the rights of Protestants to establish separate school education in any local community will be completely extinguished when Bill #4 is given Royal Assent, since there are no Protestant separate school regions in Alberta and the proposed new Education Act only allows separate school establishment in the context of a corresponding separate school region.

Individual members or informal groups of the Protestant faith may regret this development, but the church courts themselves are apparently accepting, either because they have no interest in Protestant separate school education or because they accept the argument that all separate school education in Alberta should be Roman Catholic.

There is a good case to be made that the Bill is unconstitutional, for two reasons.

The School Ordinance of 1901 is the constitutional foundation of separate school education in Alberta.  It does not make provision for using changing demographics to justify disestablishing separate school education.  The current School Act does make provision for separate school electors to conduct a plebiscite and decide to disestablish their own jurisdiction, but the Redford government was certainly not prepared to leave their chosen solution to the uncertain outcome of a plebiscite among Protestant school supporters.  (Perhaps citizen democracy is a good thing in theory, but not in practice.)

Since the proposed new Education Act provides only one means of establishing a separate school district, and that process relies upon a so-called separate school region, and since there are no Protestant separate school regions in Alberta, and can’t be when St. Albert Protestant separate school district is dissolved, Bill #4 eliminates forever the possibility of Protestants being able to establish a separate school district anywhere in Alberta.

The fact remains, the legislation, once Assented to, will be operative — and presumed to be constitutional unless and until it is challenged in court, which is costly, time consuming, and requiring of courage.  As a Minister told a small group about a decade ago — “I’m the Minister of Education.  I can do whatever I want until the Courts say no.  Don’t hold your breath.”

On the one hand, the Bill is another unfortunate exercise in government, by a Party that makes decisions in secret, acts unilaterally, and moves in haste to forestall debate.

The Redford government is ending Protestant separate school education in Alberta without asking the Protestant electors of St. Albert what they think of the move — because the Redford government knows best.  The Redford government brought this forward in secret because it does not want informed public debate until after the fact (in the hope that discouraged Albertans will turn their attention to other matters).

Most likely, the Redford government will make sure that this Bill is passed within a week.

The Bill is an elaborately constructed ruse that sacrificed parents and students for 18 months so that the government could “deliver” to a different constituency in a different place.  The Bill is likely unconstitutional, because it disregards the effected minority and because it extinguishes any prospect for Protestant separate school education anywhere in Alberta in the future.  The Bill is another example of the Redford government proceeding in secret, acting unilaterally, and without regard for effected citizens, and acting in haste to forestall public debate.

On the other hand, with Bill #4 the Redford government reminds us of section 51 of the 1901 School Ordinance (“The Lieutenant Governor in Council may by order notice of which shall be published in the official gazette declare that on and after a day therein to be named any district shall be disorganized and thereupon the same and the board thereof shall cease to have or enjoy any of the rights, powers and privileges vested in such corporations by this Ordinance…”)

 

The Redford government is asserting its constitutional right to disestablish any school board, including any separate school board, unilaterally  — including all separate school jurisdictions in the province.  The operative provisions of the Bill do not set out any objective criteria for dissolution.  Particularly, the electors of the separate school district do not have to demonstrate support for dissolution, by a plebiscite or any other means.

For those who favor the separation of Church and State, and the end of separate school education, the precedent will be very helpful.

Bill #2 (Alberta) – the 2012 Education Act: Part Two

The new Education Act suffers in comparison to all the announcements of its coming.  Ministers and M.L.A.s talked about a “new paradigm”, framing the conditions for a system that would anticipate the future and nurse it to reality.

The new Act simply doesn’t deliver.  Ordinarily, Albertans could overlook the hype and be glad to see an important piece of legislation “cleaned up”, “sharpened”… — choose your adjective for modest incremental improvement.

The problem is that the Government of Alberta itself – and insistently — raised the subject of the 21^st century being radically different from the 20^th.  The Government of Alberta, through the Inspiring Education process, encouraged Albertans to think about education in new ways, and repeatedly assured us that startling insights could be harnessed.  The new Act, we were told, could assuredly be – would be — quite different from the familiar School Act.

It is a mixed blessing that Albertans bought the government’s line.  Albertans were persuaded to see that we can’t continue educating as we have done in the past.  They were persuaded to imagine a variety of new, positive, and possible educational outcomes, as well as a variety of new ways of organizing to provide education.  They were persuaded to believe that Alberta could be “first into the future”.

The new Education Act suggests that we are going to be “last out of the past”.

Having been awakened, by the government and others, to the virtual certainty of great change, Albertans are now frustrated by the government’s lack of imagination and lack of courage.

Have you read Sir Kenneth Robinson’s latest book on what is coming to education? (Out of Our Minds:  Learning to be Creative)

Are you familiar with what is happening in Finland?  (Pasi Sahlberg – Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland?

Have you watched Sebastian Thurn, on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkneoNrfadk&feature=player_embedded)?

There are three quick and effective measures of innovation in any piece of legislation.

First, does the legislation contain new words or phrases that are important enough to be defined for the purposes of the legislation.  The proposed Education Act has two such words or phrases:  “bullying”, and “non-school building” are not defined in the current School Act.  Their context in the Act makes clear that they simply acknowledge longstanding practice:  they are no springboard to the future of education.

Second, does the legislation have Parts and Divisions that suggest a new way of looking at the subject?  The new Education Act has 2 new Parts (Opportunities for Learning; Responsibilities and Dispute Resolution), yet the sections contained within the Parts are lifted almost entirely from the existing School Act.  Aside from legislating Bullying Awareness Week, and creating a Student Advisory Council, and implementing a Complex Education Needs Tribunal there is nothing new.  Bullying Awareness Week can be celebrated without a legislative mandate, the previous Minister created a Student Advisory Council without the need of legislation, the Complex Education Needs Tribunal is an incremental improvement on a system already in  place.

What is really interesting about Part 3, Division 1 (Responsibilities and Disputes Resolution:  Responsibilities) is that the responsibilities of students, parents, boards, and trustees are specified (basically, these are consolidations of what is found in the current Act).  The one critical actor left without specified responsibilities is the provincial government, notwithstanding the fact that for three years, throughout the Inspiring Education process, the government insisted that its role was “assurance”.  The bullied might be more comforted if the government accepted responsibility for assuring freedom from bullying, perhaps by assuring that gay-straight clubs could operate in any publicly funded school in the province.  Parents might be more comforted if the government accepted responsibility for assuring access to secular public education, on a timely basis, and in schools that are safe, healthful, and well-maintained.  The parents of special needs students might be more comforted if the government accepted responsibility to assure funding for high cost special programs.

As a reader digs into the proposed new Education Act, are there any hidden gems?

Section 51(1) extends natural person powers to school boards.  That is hardly an innovation, since municipal government has had the same benefit for more than 15 years.  Nevertheless school boards have been lobbying for this:  they should be grateful, shouldn’t they?

The problem is, the innovation is put forward in section 51(1) and rudely snatched away in section 51(2)  “With respect to any right, power, or privilege exercisable by a board, the Minister may , by regulation, (a) prohibit or restrict the use of the right, power, or privilege; (b) provide that the right, power or privilege is to be exercised subject to any terms or conditions prescribed in the regulations.”

The Minister, without reference to the Legislative Assembly, can compromise the natural person powers of a school board, at any time, and in any way, and without any need to justify the compromise.  Tomorrow, he could make it illegal for them to be doing something that is might be legal for them to do today.

The corresponding section in the Municipal Government Act says this:  “6.  A municipality has natural person powers, except to the extent that they are limited by this or any other enactment.”

The corresponding section of the Business Corporations Act says this: 16(1)  A corporation has the capacity and, subject to this Act, the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person.

The introduction, in the new Education Act, of “natural person powers” for school boards is nothing but cynicism writ large.  If the provincial government treated corporations the same way, the reaction would be immediate, immense, and unbearable for the provincial government.

The provincial government is not easily going to loosen its grip on school boards.

Yet, in the face of uncertainty, when the future cannot be known with confidence, experience and the natural sciences all confirm that the most intelligent way to confront the future is with diversity.  As Willis Harmon once noted — in uncertain times, the best thing to do is decentralize (decision-making), disperse (resources), and diversify (responses).  One only wants a highly centralized system when one is convinced that the central authority will be 100% correct, 100% of the time, about 100% of the issues.  To put it another way, said Harmon, we don’t engineer survivability, in nature or in build systems, by making key components bigger.  We introduce redundancy.  Nature has not improved our eyesight by working on one better eye in the middle of our forehead:  she has given us two eyes.  NASA doesn’t improve the shuttle by concentrating on one computer:  they connect redundant computers.

The proposed new Education Act should be rejected in principle.  It embodies two principles, both of which are wrong.  In principle it is mediocre, and we should expect better from our provincial government, especially when they themselves set a higher bar, especially when public conversation and evidence from other jurisdictions makes clear that we can do better.  In principle, it faces us squarely into the past, rather than into the future.  It is wrong that we should stifle our imagination and use our considerable resources to be the last out of the past, when we need to be – and can be – the first into the future.

Bill #2 (Alberta) – the 2012 Education Act: Part One

In 2008 the then Minister of Education initiated a province-wide conversation about the future of K – 12 education in Alberta.  The department contributed to the conversation by providing a structure – Inspiring Education – and Albertans contributed by providing content.

Although many of the participants felt that the government’s management of the Inspiring Education process was biased in favour of self-interest, and that this bias was reflected in the wrap-up, nevertheless the conversation was valuable.

From it came ‘standards’ by which to draft new legislation.  These standards were never codified and agreed to in a formal way, but it would probably be fair to characterize public consensus around the following points.

1. The new Act should be clear about the foundational principles.  (As the Minister of the day said, the new Act should be principle-based.)
2. The legislation should oblige the government to uphold foundational principles, without discretion to abdicate responsibility.  The government itself claimed that its primary responsibility was to “assure” needful outcomes.  (The legislation should hold the government’s feet to the fire, as much as the government sometimes holds others’ feet to the fire.)
3. The new Act should represent a commitment to the future (with all the attendant risk and uncertainty), rather than to the past.  (Albertans want to be first into the future, rather than last out of the past.)
4. The role of the provincial government, as reflected in the new Act, should be to declare the goal and set the direction (by looking at the stars), and the role of the school operators should be to cover the ground and achieve the objectives that move us toward the goal(s).
5. The new Act should provide a legislative framework for oversight for all types of educational delivery, with as much operational freedom as is useful for good government, sufficient boundaries to be clear about public purposes and goals, and openness to as yet unimagined types of educational delivery.

Assuming agreement about the ‘standards’, the next important focal point should be on principles.  What principles should be clearly expressed in the new Act?  Again, based on the Inspiring Education conversations, the following suggest themselves.

1. The new Act should explicitly acknowledge and commit to the principle that public education is the preferred institution for education, recognizing that public school education is unique for three reasons:  1)  it is inclusive without pre-conditions of any kind and it is inclusive of all who are students and of all adults as part of the community that governs it; 2)  it is a deliberate model of a civil democratic community, so the government of public school education is democratic and public school education exists to promote an understanding of, and commitment to, democracy; and, 3)  local democracy and local community are the ground from which springs every other community and democratic understanding.  Public school jurisdictions should be given meaningful natural person powers.
2. The new Act should explicitly acknowledge and commit to the principle that the public interest in assuring education for every child is not only for the benefit of the child:  education serves the public purpose of creating and sustaining our society, and the provincial government controls education for the purpose of assuring that children are exposed to ideas and practices of good citizenship in a civil democratic society;
3. The new Act should explicitly acknowledge that public school boards are a local general purpose government, dealing on a daily basis with the mandate of more than a dozen provincial government departments, and their range of freedom should reflect this.
4. The new Education Act should embody democracy, including the following ideas:

• all participants are worthy of trust;
• inclusion, respect, and diversity, without pre-conditions of any kind;
• the people who will be most effected by decisions are the people who should have most responsibility for making and implementing the decisions, and public school jurisdictions should have the capacity to accept mandates from local electors and accomplish locally determined mandates;
• open, transparent government, at all levels; and,
• elected representatives are accountable to their electorate, not to other elected representatives.
• all participants(for example, students as well as teachers) are producers of education, not merely consumers of it.

The Education Bill introduced to the Alberta Legislative Assembly today (February 14^th) should be tested against these standards and principles.

Probably the first thing that strikes a reader of the Bill is that it is very similar to the current School Act.  It relies upon concepts and organizational structures that are more than 100 years old.  Most notably, it relies upon well-used words and phrases because they have been tested in the courts (often more than 60 years ago), and their meaning is well known to anyone who wants to continue living and working in the historic paradigm.  The government’s stated reason for rejecting new ideas and new language is that newness represents risk for the government, since the ideas and words have not been tested in the courts.  In its organization and language the Bill represents an explicit rejection of new ways of thinking, new models, new language.

The second thing that might strike a reader is that there is no declaration of aspirations or principles within the body of the Act.  Some of the “Whereas” clauses allude to aspirations and principles, but “Whereas” clauses are advisory only; they are not decisive.  The Whereas clauses may make all of us feel good, but they are not in any way binding.  There is no description, in the body of the Act, of the intended outcomes that the provincial government or local school operators are accountable for assuring.  Consequently, the entire Act is procedural:  it focuses on means, without regard for ends.  The Minister and the department can direct or sanction any school operator at any time, for any reason, because, in the absence of ends statements in the Act the Minister and department can enforce whatever end they choose, and their choice can change from day to day.  On the other hand, in the absence of clearly stated expectations in the Act, the Minister and the department can decline to assure anything.  For example, the general public may believe that every child is entitled to access a public education that is non-denominational in flavour, and the Minister may agree that such access is fundamentally important for every child, while at the same time declining to act in a timely fashion to assure it.  Or, the  Minister may say that safe and healthy schools are essential to good education, while the government defers school renovations.

The Act treats all delivery systems as being essentially equal.  There is only a procedural definition of public school education, or of any other form of education.  There is nothing suggesting that public school education is the preferred means of education, and no statement that public school education is important to the attainment of public policy.  There is nothing to make clear that a necessary work of education is to create and sustain a civil democratic society.  There is no statement that the government of education is to be democratic.

More, in an upcoming post.

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.