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

Premier Jason Kenney and Health Minister Tyler Shandro take part in a press conference in Edmonton on Thursday, March 18, 2021.

There’s no doubt some doctors voted against Tyler Shandro as much as the deal itself in

turning down the tentative pay agreement

with the UCP government.

Emotions got very hot last year. The health minister didn’t manage to cool them with several recent conciliatory gestures.

His March 24 letter to all doctors

, saying he wanted to “rebuild trust,” actually made some physicians angrier.

There’s often a point in bitter disputes when nothing a party says will be believed. For some docs, that’s what it came down to.

And so, raw anger played a part in a fairly close vote: 53 per cent of doctors against the deal, 47 per cent in favour.

The obvious question is whether Premier Jason Kenney will shuffle Shandro, moving him to another post and installing a conciliator without his turbulent history.

But it appears that for now at least, Kenney will stand by his minister.

“Minister Shandro has my full, 100 per cent confidence,” the premier said in response to a question after an appearance in Lethbridge.

“Being minister of health has always been the toughest job in any provincial government.

“That is particularly the case during a historic pandemic of this nature, and at a time when we have to manage our costs.

“And I think he’s made tremendous effort to demonstrate flexibility, with a very generous package for retention of rural physicians, for dropping some of our initial requests including around complex modifiers, for example, and coming to what we thought was a solid agreement.”

Kenney also made it clear that controlling the cost of doctor pay is still a major goal.

When I asked if he’d stick to the annual budget number negotiated in the defeated deal — $4.571 billion — the premier didn’t answer.

And there’s the risk to doctors. Without a signed agreement that has some defined limits, the government can do whatever it wants in managing the system.

The UCP also believes that because the Alberta Medical Association isn’t actually a union, there’s no obligation to negotiate or sign another master agreement.

The government is also still armed with Bill 21, which allows the health minister to unilaterally change a master agreement.

After he did that the first time on Feb. 20, 2020, doctors were justly worried that they might approve the new agreement only to have him do it again.

But the doctors negotiated a remarkable concession — if the deal was approved, the government would bring in legislation guaranteeing there would be no changes for the full four-year term.

The trade-off for that, as I understand it, was that the doctors would drop their lawsuit against the government for shredding the initial agreement.

The government really wanted the AMA to abandon that suit. The doctors were equally firm about the legislation to protect their deal from changes.

Now, neither side has what it wanted. This makes for a murky situation that could easily deteriorate again.

The initial tone from both sides is conciliatory.

Shandro himself said: “While this result is disappointing, it does not erase the meaningful collaboration and mutual understanding that was gained throughout this process.

“The momentum gained over the past few months will not be lost. Our government will seek to further renew our relationship with the AMA in the weeks and months to come as we work together to ensure Albertans continue to benefit from quality health care.”

Promising, but notice what’s missing. There is no mention of reaching another formal agreement.

Both sides have learned a lot from this fiasco. The government realized that in some complex matters, you can’t make something happen by tearing up a deal and issuing orders.

The doctors, for their part, realized they had considerable public support and political power of their own. They’ve inspired the public sector unions now heading into talks.

For now, both sides are in rough equilibrium and want a period of calm. It isn’t guaranteed to last.

Don Braid's column appears regularly in the Herald

dbraid@postmedia.com

Twitter:

@DonBraid

Facebook:

Don Braid Politics


Paul Boucher, president of the Alberta Medical Association.

Alberta doctors have voted down a negotiated offer to settle their long-standing dispute with the government, sources told Postmedia early Tuesday evening.

At 10:30 pm, the Alberta Medical Association confirmed that members voted 53 per cent to 47 per cent against the deal. Turnout was 59 per cent of about 11,000 doctors eligible to vote.

The announcement was scheduled for Wednesday morning but released sooner because of the “early media coverage.”

AMA president Paul Boucher said; “I know this was a difficult decision for many.

“The questions now are: What comes next? How do we deal with these issues without an agreement?

“I have reached out to the minister (Tyler Shandro) and we will meet soon to begin priority discussions.”

Shandro also put out a late-night message with a conciliatory tone.

“After months of negotiations with the Alberta Medical Association, the vote to ratify a tentative agreement was ultimately unsuccessful,” he said.

“While this result is disappointing, it does not erase the meaningful collaboration and mutual understanding that was gained throughout this process.

 Health Minister Tyler Shandro.

He thanked Boucher, the AMA and section heads, saying “their effort has not been misspent.

“The momentum gained over the past few months will not be lost. Our government will seek to further renew our relationship with the AMA in the weeks and months to come as we work together to ensure Albertans continue to benefit from quality health care.”

Boucher said AMA priorities include “physician supply, ensuring Albertans have access to the physician they need,” and “the sustainability of community practice.”

He added that overall challenges include “the fragile economy, changes arising from new health legislation and a third wave of COVID-19 as the care deficit caused by the pandemic continues to grow.”

The AMA board had

tentatively approved the deal

, subject to the member vote.

The government negotiated one of its key demands,

an annual budget cap of $4.571 billion

on physician pay.

Although the agreement has never been made public, sources previously told Postmedia there would have been no overall spending increases in the first two years of a four-year contract.

The budget would have risen by one per cent in each of the final two years.

Mistrustful after

last year's conflicts

, doctors negotiated a promise from government to bring in legislation saying the deal could not be cancelled.

On

Feb. 20, 2020

, the UCP unilaterally terminated its previous master agreement with doctors.

But some doctors against the proposed new agreement believed nothing would prevent Health Minister Shandro from cancelling another one.

Many physicians were also upset that the agreement did not include provisions for binding arbitration.

The doctors won some significant points in negotiations, including a promise that any new initiatives from the government would not be funded from the proposed budget, but with new money.

They also won back funding for AMA-administered benefits that seemed to be threatened — maternity leave, medical liability insurance, medical education, and the physician and family support program.

Related

Clearly aware that the deal was in trouble,

Shandro made some separate peace offerings recently

.

In the legislature last week, he said: “Changes to complex modifiers was a policy that we never should have pursued in the first place, and there will be no changes being made going forward.”

Last year, Shandro proposed changes to these modifiers that allow doctors to bill for extra time with patients who have complex needs.

He cancelled that change after doctors rebelled.

On March 24 Shandro also send a conciliatory letter to all doctors. But for some, it backfired. They found the letter to be insincere and a sign of desperation.

The heated public rhetoric cooled early this year as the AMA and the government began serious negotiations.

But it appears that the agreement collapsed both because of terms the voting physicians didn’t like, and the profound bitterness that lingers from the past year’s disputes.

dbraid@postmedia.com

Twitter: @DonBraid

Facebook: Don Braid Politics


Alberta’s draft elementary school curriculum has already achieved one important educational benchmark: it has ignited a detailed and rigorous debate.

For the UCP government, the true test will be whether the government pays any attention to the many critical voices out there and actually tweaks the final version. Given past experiences with Jason Kenney’s administration, it’s likely to flunk.

The draft curriculum dropped this week is a huge document but that hasn’t stopped parents, teachers and academics from plowing through the detail and coming up with a conclusion.

Not surprisingly those conclusions depend on whether the reader is a fan or not of the UCP.

Conservative columnist Licia Corbella claimed educational experts made privy to the curriculum before its release were universally giving it an A-plus.

The firestorm on Twitter and Facebook after the release indicate the admiration is not so universal.

It’s like the people who wrote this have never met a child, said University of Alberta education prof Carla Peck.

If nothing else, Education Minister Adriana LaGrange deserves a few marks for posting the curriculum for review. Way too many UCP initiatives, from coal mining policy to doctors pay, have been done by pronouncement without consultation or even a glimmer of warning.

A demerit or two should be awarded, however, for the plan to implement the curriculum in some schools as a pilot this September. That seems like a pretty tight timeline and puts the kids who are in pilot schools at some risk of being stranded with a deficient curriculum for a year.

The process calls for the new curriculum to roll out in 2022.

There’s also the underlying questions about the entire process. The curriculum has been a document in progress through the waning days of the Progressive Conservatives and the four-year NDP government. The UCP tossed much of the previous work, particularly in terms of the social studies portion, in favour of a revision that largely cut the Alberta Teachers Association out of any involvement.

LaGrange says the government heard from parents during the 2019 election campaign that it was time for a renewed focus on essential knowledge and skills. LaGrange said.

Some of the new curriculum is getting praise, including inclusion of financial literacy from early grades and a focus on computer skills. Changes the previous administrations had proposed to math teaching remained and are considered to be an improvement on current curriculum.

The plan for teaching history has attracted the most criticism.

While indigenous topics pop up each year from Grade 1 to Grade 6, critics argue delay of discussion of treaties to Grade 4 and residential schools to Grade 5 is problematic. Critics say that doesn’t match up with the call to action out of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The list of topics to be covered by the Grade 2 social studies curriculum is particularly bonkers.  Alberta’s seven-year-olds will be learning about everything from ancient Greece and Rome to world religions, Charlemagne and Kublai Khan. The bullet point description reads like a Fringe festival comedy on the history of the world in 45 minutes.

Some academics see this scatter-gun approach as regressive and old fashioned, stuffed with lots of facts to memorize and precious little thinking or context. Plus they predict it will turn the little guys off history altogether.

It does sound a bit like a turn of the 20th-century English private school education.

The curriculum also is stuffed with references to religion. It’s not limited to the Christian religion, but it seems an odd concentration in an increasingly secular society.

There is one clangingly odd detail which has particularly drawn attention.

Kenney’s grandfather, Mart Kenney, was a band leader in the 40s. Whoever wrote the curriculum (Jason Kenney swears he was not involved) decided to revive Mart’s fame with a reference to how band leaders like Mart and Glenn Miller gave jazz a bigger sound.

This has led to a spirited debate on Twitter about a) is swing really jazz; b) who ever heard of Mart Kenney; and c) if you want to talk about jazz and Canada where are Oscar Peterson and Tommy Banks?

LaGrange claims she wants to hear the views of Albertans on the draft curriculum. The Alberta Teachers Association is asking all teachers in the province to offer their views to its own special review of the draft.

The government will hear plenty of opinions to consider from academics, teachers and parents. Voters will eventually get to grade them on their listening skills.

Photo Credit: Calgary Home Tutoring

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.


For a government so obsessed with communications, you'd think they'd be better at it.  But, no, no they're quite bad at the thing they're most focused on.

Earlier this week, the government in Prince Edward Island abruptly cancelled appointments for young people getting the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine.  Why?  Very good question.

When reporters started asking around — they'd received a number of calls from people wondering why they all of a sudden didn't have appointments to get vaccinated — the PEI health ministry said, "Appointments at pharmacies for AstraZeneca vaccine for those 18-29 are on hold pending anticipated further information from Health Canada and NACI," according to the CBC.  "We expect more information on this later today."

Later that day indeed.  Of course the news didn't come with someone with a face or name — that would come later, with a dreadful zoom press conference with departmental officials — but rather through anonymous leaks to a national CBC reporter at about 1 p.m.

Turns out that the National Advisory Committee on Immunization was recommending a pause on the AZ vaccine while it waited for more data and analysis on a possible clotting side effect.

In the meantime, speculation was allowed to run rampant.

For starters, the first person to give any actual information was Ontario Premier Doug For, probably the last person you want as a primary source conveying delicate facts involving science.

"I won't hesitate to cancel that in half a heartbeat… we just won't use it, simple as that," he said.  "I would rather wait if it means one or two months for Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson than roll the dice on this AstraZeneca."

Which is, uh, yikes.  Not ideal.

The issues of the AZ vaccine have to do with a very rare, but possible side effect that can cause clots in people under 55, particularly women.  There's not a ton of data on it yet, and, frankly I haven't read enough of the science — or know enough, generally — to understand whether this is a good or bad call by NACI.

But I can say with little hesitation that leaving a massive information gap for hours is a gigantic mistake.

When ever talking to someone — friends, family, neighbours — about vaccines, it's clear people are hesitant about the AZ formula.  People are concerned that it might not be as good, or even as safe, as the other vaccines on offer.  Conversations often lead down the road of 'I think I'll wait until I can get when of the other ones.'

So in that kind of environment, why would you dick around?

One useful thing Ford did say was that his government was informed the night before of the incoming NACI decision.  Presumably so were the other provinces.

What this means is plenty of people knew what was coming.  It's also not hard to see why, when told the panel was going to be recommending a pause on deploying the vaccine while waiting for more data, that the provinces were going to actually follow that advice as soon as possible.  Keeping vaccinations going until the moment the feds could get their shit together to hold a press conference is a non starter.

So for anyone with a functioning brain stem, the obvious thing to do is to call a press conference for first thing in the morning.  Otherwise, some dim boor — like, say, Doug Ford — is going to be the first one in front of the microphone telling people things.  Or, and I'm just spitballing here, a province will cancel a whole part of its vaccination program and then not tell anybody why.

We've been doing this stuff for more than a year now.  The Liberal government likes going on — and on, and on — about how we should trust the science, and follow the science and so on.  But when the time comes to explain what the science actually is, their first instinct is to leak the news, after hours of radio science.

This is not helpful for the vaccine program specifically, or for trust in government generally.

Getting people to come along with what you want means explaining why you are doing things.  It especially requires you to explain when they are asking you why you are doing things.  The public sets the timelines here, not the comms staffs.

If you're going to be coming out with massive news about a vaccine program pause, you should be ready to explain that as soon as possible, not at your leisure.

The people at the federal level don't seem to understand that, to their great discredit.

But there should be no expectation they'll figure this out any time soon.  The tone is set from the top.  Noting, absolutely nothing, can leave the lips of anyone anywhere within the federal bureaucracy without it being planned and cleared by full battalions of communications staffers.  This was a trend started under the government of Stephen Harper, but has been perfected under prime minister Justin Trudeau.

Saying nothing is the rule, even when saying something is the right thing to do.

The rot in this government can always be traced back to its iron grip on messaging.  It will never change, no matter how desperately it needs to.  That's just the way it is in this country.

Photo Credit:  CBC News

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.


The Alberta legislature.

A Calgary woman whose story of domestic violence pressed the government to create a version of Clare’s Law says she’s grateful it “turned (her) nightmare into a change worth fighting for” as the legislation comes into force this week.

Alberta’s

Disclosure to Protect Against Domestic Violence Act, or Clare's Law,

allows people who have experienced or are at risk of domestic violence to obtain information from police about whether their partner has a violent or abusive past.

Government leaders announced Tuesday it will come into effect April 1.

“My nightmare is only one of many,” said Dianne Denovan, who survived a

near-death assault at the hands of her former partner in 2016

. “I believe that I would have benefited greatly if Bill 17 would have existed when I first met Michael (Richard) Cole. Now, so many women and men can be protected.”

Denovan wasn’t aware of Cole’s history of violence until years after the attack. He had previous convictions dating back decades, including charges for assault, uttering threats and domestic incidents.

Alberta will now be the second province in Canada, after Saskatchewan, to introduce a version of Clare’s Law, which is modelled after legislation implemented in the U.K. in 2014.

That law was named for Clare Wood, who was killed by her former partner in 2009. She was unaware of his violent past, which included a six-year sentence for holding a woman captive at knifepoint for 12 hours.

The provincial law will allow Albertans to ask for information on their current or former partners.

Law enforcement can then inform eligible applications of potential and severity of risk. They are able to disclose behaviours of concern to an intimate partner, such as a past history of assault, or harassment following the termination of a relationship.

Police can also apply through Clare’s Law to proactively provide information to individuals they believe are at risk.

Staff Sgt. Vincent Hancott, with the Calgary police’s domestic violence unit, said they support the new law.

“Any laws that are enacted that allow individuals to gather information to make informed decisions about their intimate partner relationships is a great thing,” said Hancott.

When it comes to privacy concerns, he said any issues with respect to confidentiality “have been looked after.”

All personal information will be safeguarded, said the province, and only relevant details will be disclosed. The person of disclosure will not be made aware of any applications and the applicant cannot share any information received.

During the Clare’s Law process, applicants will be asked if they want to be connected to social services.

Andrea Silverstone, executive director of

Sagesse

, said providing supports during the process is critical to the success of the legislation.

“The Clare’s Law application process provides a crucial window of opportunity for violence prevention,” she said. “The bottom line is if you’re worried enough to fill out a Clare’s Law application, you can benefit from social service support.”

YW Calgary’s Talia Bell said the rollout of Alberta’s new domestic violence tool brings together services from across the province, which will help support women in a variety of ways. She sees it as complementary to existing supports related to issues such as housing, counselling and financial help.

Alberta is facing the fourth highest rate of police-reported intimate partner violence in the country, said Social Services Minister Rajan Sawhney. Lethbridge is facing the highest rate for both police-reported family violence and intimate partner violence in Canada.

“Between 2008 and 2019, we lost 204 Albertans to family violence-related deaths,” she said. “This is unacceptable.”

Alberta RCMP pledge 'full participation' to Clare's Law

Local victims-advocate agencies were concerned when Alberta’s RCMP were noncommittal to the law after it passed in the Alberta legislature in October 2019.

But government officials confirmed on Tuesday the RCMP’s “support and full participation” days before it comes into effect.

When Saskatchewan’s version of Clare’s Law came into effect last June, Saskatchewan RCMP

refused to participate, citing privacy concerns related to federal law

. Mounties are currently reviewing their role.

Beginning Thursday, Clare’s Law applications will be available at

alberta.ca/clareslaw

alsmith@postmedia.com

Twitter:

alanna_smithh


Premier Jason Kenney responded, from Edmonton on Thursday, March 25, 2021, to the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the federal carbon tax.

Starting Thursday, your federal April Fools’ prize arrives in Alberta.

Gasoline prices will go up 2.21 cents per litre as the latest carbon tax increase kicks in.

The total carbon tax on a litre will be 8.84 cents, up from 6.63 cents.

The hike isn’t massive, but it stings as the surge in crude prices drives up the price of gasoline to nearly $1.20 per litre.

That’s the least of it, though. There are federal carbon tax increases for 22 fuels in total. Together, they affect nearly every sector of the Alberta economy.

Crucially, natural gas rises by nearly two cents per cubic metre, which exacerbates electricity and heating charges that are already spiking.

The Kenney government has to get us out of this federal carbon tax system, and fast.

Following last week’s

Supreme Court ruling that the tax is legal

, all provinces are still free to craft equivalent carbon price regimes that suit their needs.

The NDP had one, of course. The UCP campaigned on ditching it, won, and did. That led straight to the court ruling.

The only way

Premier Jason Kenney

eludes a decision is if Erin O’Toole’s Conservatives defeat the Liberals and keep their promise to abolish the federal tax.

Wouldn’t count on that, premier.

Meanwhile, there’s little evidence that the federal tax does anything for Alberta.

The feds say they rebate all the carbon tax paid in Alberta to consumers and economic sectors. They print figures to prove it.

But it’s like watching a rabbit go down one hole with your money and the Easter Bunny popping out of another with magic eggs.

Ottawa expects the carbon tax to take $1.805 billion out of Alberta in 2021-22, an increase of nearly $500 million over last year.

Of this, $1.61 billion will be rebated to individuals and families; $130 million goes to small and medium enterprises; and $65 million is to support municipalities, universities, schools, hospitals, non-profits and Indigenous communities.

The take and the give dutifully balance off at exactly $1.805 billion.

But do they really?

 An oil derrick near Black Diamond, Alta. on Thursday, March 25, 2021.

Last month, it came out that three provinces — Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick — were shorted a total of $200 million in rebates. The reason, apparently, is that the tax collected more revenue than expected.

The money goes round and round, leaving your pocket and possibly coming back, with benefits that are unclear if they exist at all.

And yet the ultimate question may not be whether taxpayers can afford this, but whether Ottawa can.

The Fraser Institute estimates that when the carbon price reaches $170 a tonne over nine years, loss of revenue elsewhere in the tax system will force Ottawa to borrow an extra $22 billion a year to pay rebates.

Fraser is a well-known scold of all things Liberal. But if their detailed study is wrong, the feds could point to their own.

But they appear to have none.

Thursday’s tax hike will reflect a notional carbon price of $40 per tonne. By 2030, according to the latest Liberal plan, it will rise to $170.

The tax hikes will get much more onerous through this decade. For consumers and business, there’s no relief until tax returns are filed the next year.

And other prices are rising. On Tuesday, the NDP called for action in the face of shocking hikes in electricity and overall utility bills.

They called once again for regulated electricity rates, as well as direct relief for consumers.

Energy Minister Sonya Savage said the UCP provided months of utility payment deferrals during COVID-19. She blasted the NDP for taxing home heating when in office.

 An Enmax power station near the community of Douglasdale in Calgary on Thursday, March 25, 2021.

The fight over what to do with the carbon tax will be bitter and partisan, but the goal doesn’t have to be.

Kenney is a fan of provincial autonomy. On the carbon tax, the NDP has already used it. They can agree on that much.

The challenge is to create a regime that spares consumers as much as possible, while helping the provincial economy and reducing emissions.

Kenney said last Friday that he

hadn't really thought much about a plan

because he expected to win in court.

But he did mention cap and trade, the system for buying and selling emission credits that’s used by both Quebec and Nova Scotia.

The effective carbon price in Quebec is said to be half of Ottawa’s — about $20 per tonne — and emissions are falling.

There’s no general carbon tax, although Montreal area drivers do pay a tax of three cents a litre on gasoline.

Since it’s Quebec, the Liberals approve. If Alberta does something similar, how could they disapprove?

Don Braid's column appears regularly in the Herald

dbraid@postmedia.com

Twitter:

@DonBraid

Facebook:

Don Braid Politics