LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

For anyone with a hankering to put the progressive back in Alberta's conservative movement, Jason Kenney is making it pretty tough to support the UCP.

This week he touched off a firestorm with his education policy, which turns back the clock on provisions to protect LGBQT students, returns to heavily weighted provincial exams and pauses a sweeping curriculum renewal.

His plan which would allow teachers to out students who join gay-straight alliance clubs (GSAs) to their parents is causing the most ruckus, touching off a plan for a protest rally at the legislature building and a firestorm on social media.

The whole GSA issue has been a turning point issue for LGBQT rights in the province, evolving through various legislative versions for more than five years.

It appeared the NDP government, with its Bill 24, had settled the matter, requiring all schools, including private ones receiving government funding, to set up a GSA club if a student requests one and forbidding teachers from informing parents that a student had joined a GSA.

Kenney wants to leave the decision about informing parents up to teachers.  The Alberta Teachers Association does not want that responsibility.  Kenney's opponents charge his policy puts LGBQT kids at risk.

For a politician who argues the election is all about the economy and jobs, Kenney has made it all about human rights and social values.

There was already an inkling before the election was called that he planned to undo the curriculum revamp, a massive NDP project that has involved thousands of Albertans in consultations and several million dollars.

The backlash from his early statements on that rollback prompted him to soften up the policy to describe a "pause" on the curriculum change while the UCP does yet more consultations.  Of course, Kenney also plans to deep six the dreaded "discovery math," to go back to the fundamentals, a shift which the NDP had already begun but which Kenney is happy to adopt without giving the NDP any credit.

The education policy also calls for provincial exam weighting to return to 50 per cent of final grades, up from the 30 per cent the NDP had reduced it to and to reinstitute Grade 3 province-wide exams.

And the UCP takes a couple of shots at the powerful provincial teachers union by promising to remove school principals from union ranks and require periodic recertification of teachers.

These policies will all sound pretty familiar to Ontario residents who have seen education policy in the same vein from the Ford conservatives.

This all plays to the private (often religion-based) school advocates and those in favour of "parent's rights" a catch-all conservative approach to education.

Kenney has signalled at the policy announcements that he plans to approach religious schools with co-operation rather than confrontation.

The NDP government had started getting tough with private schools not toeing the government line on policies like GSAs.

Alberta already offers considerable funding for private schools compared to most provinces, but the private school lobby wants more autonomy and deregulation (without affecting that public funding.)  On the left of centre side, public school advocates would like to see public money entirely out of the private system.

Kenney has decided to go all in for the right wing of his base with this education policy.  He may have miscalculated just how much pushback the promises would prompt, particularly on the GSA front.

Some pundits who normally lean to the right have criticized the plan.  Stephen Mandel, the leader of the centrist Alberta Party, has called the policy abhorrent.

"And by him making that decision, he threw those kids out the door," said Mandel.  "I think it's terrible.  I think he should be ashamed."

On a lighter note, commenting on declining education standards under the NDP, Drew Barnes, the UCP finance critic, in amplifying a UCP assertion that 42 per cent has become a passing grade in Grade 9 Math in Alberta, tweeted: "42% has become acceptable as a passing great (sic).  Let that sink in.  That means it has become acceptable for children to not know 68% of the material they are taught in school."

The more serious math going on in the UCP camp is whether the education policy and its attendant backlash is enough to move the vote needle either way.

Unveiling what Kenney surely knew would be a contentious policy early in the race may allow the dust time to settle before the April 16 vote.  In the last two weeks of the campaign, Kenney will no doubt make a Herculean effort to swing the entire message back to more comfortable territory for him: the economy and jobs.

Photo Credit: The Globe & Mail

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


If the federal budget was a cunning plan to distract us from SNC-Lavalin it seems to have failed.  Not least because of the vicious leak about Manitoba chief justice Glenn Joyal.  But if it was a cunning plan to buy votes it seems to have failed.  Not least because everyone expects their vote to be bought.

Too cynical?  Well, I've been following responses to the budget and basically they divide up exactly as you'd expect.  A few small-government groups are unhappy that there's so much spending and the unquestioned assumption that the purpose of government is to give everybody everything (to steal a prescient phrase from Samuel Warren).  A few huge-government groups are unhappy that there's so little spending, nationalization and such like.  But everybody else cheered or booed depending on how much loot they got from the Treasury.  Nobody even expects reactions to the budget to be based on an assessment of its impact on the common good or whether something is a legitimate function of the state.  It's all just give me boodle.

When the Federation of Canadian Municipalities says "Today's budget delivers major results for Canadians directly through their local governments" it means they gave us lots of cash.  When the Canadian Association of University Teachers says "Budget 2019 takes small steps to improve access to post-secondary education" it means they gave us a bit of cash.  When the National Pensioners Federation says "Federal Budget Fails to Protect Canada's Defined Benefit Pensioners" it means they didn't give us enough cash.

If this observation seems trite, it only underlines how numb we've become to this serious distortion in our understanding of the state and correspondingly of its actual conduct.  Including that I was also buried in press releases about Liberals roaming around at public expense touting the benefits of the budget.  As in going to people who got money to recite variations on "Did you notice, we gave you money, vote for us, know what I mean?"

The good thing is it won't work.  The bad thing is why.  You'd think I'd consider its failure a happy thing since I don't like big government, vote-buying open or surreptitious or the current administration.  Instead I'm sad since it will fail because the vote-buying enterprise, as I've said before, is the victim of its own success.

During the Harper years I used to complain constantly about being buried in press releases about the Conservatives roaming about at public expense handing cheques to anyone with a hat in their hand or even on their head or in their cupboard.  Day after day they poured in about money given to blueberry farmers, laminated door makers, exporters of thneeds or whatever it was that day.  For which I was lucky to get a dismissive pat on the head about how the real world works.

As you may recall, the Conservatives were in principle the party of limited government, opposed to corporate welfare etc.  Why, Harper ran the National Citizen's Coalition before reentering politics and they were against the nanny state, picking winners and the gag law.  But that was then.  Once in power he discarded all these believes in favour of a cunning plan to get reelected that failed.  But I digress.

No, wait.  I don't.  The modern state, as Anthony de Jasay wrote in The State, has become a finely tuned instrument for exchanging money for support.  Not just votes, but general acquiescence in the size, scope and tenor of contemporary big government.  Regrettably the better it gets, the worse it gets, for two reasons.

First, it becomes harder and harder to improve on the offer, which is why modern electoral politics is such a vicious squabble over such trivial differences.  Second, as it is not possible to give everyone more than they pay in over time, it becomes harder and harder to keep the bargain.  Big, meddlesome government is bad for growth and interest on the debt eats more and more ravenously into the available handouts.

De Jasay likens this dilemma to being on a treadmill that keeps speeding up.  You can't go more slowly or you get flung off the back of it.  You can't jump off or you smash into the ground, a wall or some hard angular piece of gear.  And you can't make it stop.

Well, arguably you could.  You could challenge the whole premise that the purpose of government is to assist citizens in looting the Treasury.  You could argue that the functions of government ought to be defined by the principle that it should only do for citizens what they cannot do for themselves because of free rider, transaction cost or holdout problems.  And you could argue that it is dishonourable to seek to enrich yourself by claiming through the political process things you cannot earn from your fellows by persuasion.

Here I do mean you.  I do not mean politicians.  It would be nice to see them try, to see someone who believes what Stephen Harper believed between 1998 to 2002 campaign on it and then govern accordingly.  I even think they might get a chance, that such a campaign would work a lot better than it sounds as though it would.  Which admittedly might not be hard.  But people are so sick of oily pandering rhetoric that they flock even to politicians who are rude and illogical provided they say what's really on their so-called minds.

A genuine campaign on principle could go a long way.  As we may indeed find out with Maxime Bernier, despite the predictable chorus that he's a bigot.  Now I really digress.

The point is, you're not going to get this stuff from politicians until they're already getting it from you.  My friend Danny Hozack with the Economics Education Association of Alberta is fond of reminding people of Ralph Klein's aphorism "Show me a big enough parade and I'll be happy to lead it."

Right now the parade is marching right up to the Ministry of Finance and reaching in through the windows, cheering when they get a big fistful of cash and booing when they don't.  And that's why the politicians and bureaucrats are pushing their way to the window to help hand it out.

By all means throw the bums out over SNC-Lavalin.  But don't expect it to fix any other problems until we stop grabbing for the loot.

Photo Credit: National Post

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Per spring tradition in Ontario, the annual Sunshine List has been released and the typical refrain from the media is that there are no persons of colour or women in the top ten list of highest paid public sector employees.  Beyond predictable analysis, intrepid reporters — not sounding at all like the "far-left" journalists whose "cheese fell off their crackers", as Premier Doug Ford described them last weekend — pointed out how Ford decried the Sunshine List last year as "the list of Ontario's richest political insiders" as if he was a hypocrite for being on the list and not curbing the continued growth despite being in office for only half of last year.

But beyond those cliched tropes are several other important stories from the 2018 Sunshine List to consider.

First, and foremost, is the rapid increase in the number of people entering the $100,000 club in the Ontario public sector.  In 2016 the number of public sector employees on the list were 123,410, then 131,909 in 2017, and a whopping 151,197 names in the latest Sunshine List.  The over 19,000 people that joined the 2018 list is a far larger number than in the the previous few years and shows that as the province continues to be plagued by debt the public sector continues to enjoy a loose public purse.  As Premier Ford has already broken his promise of not firing anyone from the public sector through his disbanding of local health integration networks (LHINs) and the potential for teachers to lose their jobs over the increased class sizes, it's inevitable Ford will need to further clash with public employees by slashing and/or freezing salaries, as well as more significant layoffs, if he has any hope of meeting his revised target of getting the budget balanced by next election year.

Second, to dispel a myth repeated by the press, despite there being no woman or people of colour in the top-ten salaries on the list, within the top 100 there are plenty of women and people of colour.  To take only the top ten names is to misrepresent and distort the whole picture.  The most recent statistics from several years ago showed that 71 per cent of the public sector is made up of women.  There are generally better paying, safer jobs, with better pensions and vacation time, than those in the private sector.  For some reason Statistics Canada seems to have stopped looking at the distribution of women to men working in the public sector, yet there are plenty of other studies looking at fields where women are supposedly doing less well than men.  As I've written before, the gross generalization of the wage gap is still perpetuated by the left in this country, completely ignoring that women are actually doing better than men in many sectors of employment now in this nation.  To take the average of what all men make and then compare it to the average of what all women make and act as if this gives us any insight into what the actual income distribution between the sexes is at each class level is incredibly foolish.  The fact is many more women have good-paying public sector jobs in Ontario than men do.  Men also work far more dangerous jobs in the private sector and make up the vast majority of workplace fatalities.  Men on average also work longer hours (and, yes, motherhood has something to do with that) which translates to much higher income over time.

Third, as the universities complain about Ford lowering tuition it is interesting to look at the 19,514 people employed by these post-secondary institutions making over $100,000.  The administrations at these institutions have grown and grown over the years, something the Ford government might want to look at for finding some fat to cut.

Fourth, and finally but not least important, most of the press failed to mention the generous increases in salaries Wynne government staffers received in their departing years.  Despite being kicked out of office at the beginning of June, former Premier Wynne's chief of staff made $552,667, more than a $200,000 raise from the previous year's $313,992.  Others got significant raises in their salaries as well.  Whether or not it was severance packages, they do seem like quite generous amounts and further shows how the former Liberal government did not respect the government coffers.

This year Premier Ford can get a pass for the Sunshine List continuing to balloon, but next year it will be all on him if this debt-ravaged province continues to fork out overly generous salaries to public sector employees with money it doesn't have.

Written by Graeme C. Gordon

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.