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.
Tag: Alberta
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.
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.
The province-wide results will not be officially announced until October 26.
But it was clear from municipal reports that on October 18, 2021 a majority of Alberta voters said yes to the question : “Should section 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 — Parliament and the government of Canada’s commitment to the principle of making equalization payments — be removed from the constitution?”
According to the Alberta government website: “A ‘yes’ vote means that Albertans are calling upon the federal government and other provinces to enter into discussions on a potential amendment to the Constitution of Canada in respect of equalization.”
Meanwhile, not long before the Alberta vote, on October 7, 2021 a committee of the Quebec National Assembly finished nine days of public hearings on the provincial government’s Bill 96.
This proposes that the government of Quebec unilaterally amend the Constitution of Canada to declare Quebec a nation, with French as its sole official language.
Back when Bill 96 was introduced this past spring, Liberal PM Justin Trudeau noted how the Canadian House of Commons had already recognized that “the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada,” in a late 2006 motion tabled by Conservative PM Stephen Harper.
Yet former prime minister Jean Chrétien’s chief of staff, Eddie Goldenberg, has expressed grave concerns about Bill 96. In a late May 2021 opinion piece he argued: “By allowing Quebec to change the Constitution, Trudeau is opening up a Pandora’s box.”
The box has now been opened wider by the Albertans who voted against federal equalization payments to some provinces, to ensure Canada-wide minimum standards of public services.
Canadian politics today involves still more issues with strong constitutional implications. One example is Indigenous policy — in the current limelight through the first Truth and Reconciliation Day this past September 30.
Another broad constitutional issue cluster looming quietly in the Canadian air as the autumn leaves of 2021 start to fall could be called “Democratic reform and the Monarchy.”
The same October 18 elections in which Alberta voters pronounced on the current federal constitutional commitment to provincial equalization also offered an opportunity for voters to “select 3 Senate nominees who may be summoned to the Senate of Canada, to fill a vacancy or vacancies relating to Alberta.”
This raises the ancient constitutional question of the still unreformed Senate of Canada (notwithstanding the recent related tinkering of both PM Harper and PM Trudeau).
At this point Canadian political leaders addicted to Eddie Goldenberg’s advice against opening up the Pandora’s box of the Constitution of Canada really start to raise their eyebrows.
They especially remember the late 1980s and early 1990s, when federal and provincial (and ultimately even Indigenous) leaders actually managed to agree on a diverse constitutional reform package, only to have their hard work rejected in a popular referendum in the fall of 1992.
In the fall of 2021, almost 30 years later, the Alberta equalization referendum and Bill 96 in Quebec at least quietly raise the prospect that it is time to reassess the Canadian constitutional lessons of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The deeper long-term message may not be that constitutional change of any serious sort is all but impossible in Canada, and constitutional debate is best avoided.
In fact there remain a number of serious Canadian constitutional issues. Ultimately doing something sensible about them is important for the country’s long-term future.
What happened in 1992 is that hard-won agreement among federal and provincial governments (and Indigenous leaders) was defeated by the Canadian people. In retrospect it is highly arguable that this had a lot to do with the “top down” process of “executive federalism” involved.
The fact that the process failed as a result of a popular referendum similarly suggests that some more “bottom up” approach could stand a much better chance of success.
In any case, in 2021 two provincial governments are arguably pointing to a growing need for some new constitutional debate in Canada.
Other governments may not want to wade into this problematic pond any time soon. But a debate from below or the “bottom up” — somehow involving the Canadian people from the beginning — could get the ball rolling more constructively than 30 years ago.
A few big questions do remain. Is this kind of debate possible in Canada today? And if it is, just what would it involve, and how might it unfold in a new digital age?
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.
Alberta’s new big city mayors aren’t much different from Alberta’s old big city mayors.
And that is not particularly good news for Premier Jason Kenney.
Kenney already has phoned Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek and Edmonton Mayor Amerjeet Sohi, presumably with the expected congratulations and assurances he is willing to play nice.
Municipal politics aren’t partisan, Kenney argued after the vote.
“Our government will work with all of the mayors and councillors elected to try to move in the same direction, obviously in addressing the COVID crisis, but in economic growth and recovery emerging from it.”
The mayors-elect are also saying some hopeful things about resetting the acrimonious relationship between city and province.
But already Gondek has suggested if the province can’t forge a day care agreement with Ottawa she is willing to try working directly with the feds on behalf of Calgary.
And despite his reputation as a consensus builder, Sohi’s baggage as a former Liberal cabinet minister must colour the relationship with Kenney.
Both new mayors were the clearly favoured candidates of predecessors Naheed Nenshi and Don Iveson, who both butted heads in public with Kenney over issues including the province’s pandemic response and the need for a big city charter for Alberta.
Gondek and Sohi defeated prominent right wing opponents Jeromy Farkas in Calgary and Mike Nickel in Edmonton. Nickel and Farkas were more aligned with the provincial government on fiscal policy, particularly the need to keep a tight rein on spending.
Gondek and Sohi campaigned on tackling issues which bleed significantly into provincial jurisdiction. Gondek has come out hard on climate change and the need to move beyond the oil and gas economy. Sohi wants to address inequity in terms of racism and homelessness.
Kenney probably hoped to have soul mates in the mayors chairs had Nickel and Farkas won. But the premier, already under the gun because of his brutal polls and poor Covid record, is not likely to get an easy ride from the ultimate victors.
The municipal vote also suggests that UCP MLAs may want to be door knocking in a hurry even though a provincial election is more than a year away.
Normally name recognition is an indicator of electability. Incumbents in theory have a leg up before the race starts. But in the vote this week a number of incumbents lost to newcomers both in the cities and in some smaller municipalities.
In Edmonton, four councillors failed to get re-elected, including three who supported Nickel in many votes. The shift to a more overall progressive council just further reflects how out of touch the UCP is with urban Alberta.
The two big city councils are now fresher, younger and more diverse. If these new teams jell, the provincial government, which has been trying to chip away at municipal powers and funding, will have an even rougher time asserting itself.
The one brightish spot out of the vote this week for Kenney was the equalization referendum. Although final results won’t be known until Oct. 26, it appears Albertans voted in favour of pulling equalization out of the Canadian constitution.
Alberta won’t be able to reach the bar of support from other provinces required for a constitutional change. But Kenney has made it plain he wanted a referendum win to exert some leverage when dealing wth Ottawa on the issue.
The leverage is a bit tepid, however. It appears the final result may hover around the 60 per cent mark, not an overwhelming win for the UCP, given the amount of time Kenney spends banging the drum that Alberta needs a “fair deal” with the rest of Canada.
The election this week underlined the big-picture trends in the Alberta political scene. The cities are becoming more progressive, leaning away from single-focus tax-cutting politicians. And the appetite for bare knuckle brawling wth central Canada may be waning.
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 you won’t get vaccinated to save your own life or your granny’s, or even for a chance to win $1 million or a vacation, is $100 gift card enough to get you to fulfill your civic duty?
For a more and more entrenched segment of Alberta’s populace the answer is probably not. Resisting immunization has become a misguided commitment to some libertarian ideal for a surprising number of people.
But Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is still willing to give a $100 incentive a try as Covid cases, hospitalizations and deaths mount in the province with the lowest vaccination rate in the country.
The unvaccinated can score the gift card for getting first or second shots. Close to 30 per cent of the population has yet to get both needles despite all the imprecations from politicians, doctors and public servants.
Kenney has been increasingly panicked in his pleas. On his return last week from an extended vacation, during which he probably wished the pandemic would just evaporate, he sincerely asked his fellow Albertans to “for the love of God” get the shot.
The $100 bribe has ticked off responsible adults who have had the jab and left even the most moderate Albertans wondering how the government has gone so far off the rails.
To be fair, the government hasn’t put all its eggs in the gift card basket. A province wide indoor mask mandate and curfew was announced at the same time as the incentive.
But even that wasn’t without controversy.
The political flack that rained down over the past year prompted the government to exempt churches and gyms from the indoor mask rules. And you can’t mess with rodeos in Alberta, so rodeos are exempted from a 10 p.m. liquor serving curfew.
The frenzied effort to pander to the right wing base must present quite a challenge to UCP policy writers and comms professionals.
The UCP’s ineffectual efforts have gone too far for some of its members. Peter Guthrie, the MLA for Airdrie Cochrane, tweeted out a letter expressing concern that the government’s tone during its recent press conference was too accusatory in discussing those who haven’t been vaccinated.
If the need to push up vaccination numbers is the key, why hasn’t Alberta created a vaccine passport and the support for commercial, entertainment and institutional venues to require it?
Kenney vowed to not impose a passport from the beginning. A passport won’t fly with the right wing of his party so it’s a no-go zone.
And so the carrot approach of gift cards and million dollar lotteries trumps the stick of requiring two jabs to participate in a normal life.
The government’s playbook for these “incentives” comes from the U.S. Certainly Alberta has often been described as the most American of provinces, so it’s no surprise that Kenney looks south of the border.
The million lottery for the vaccinated announced at the beginning of the summer came from Ohio.
First doses ticked up after the lottery announcement in Alberta but then plateaued.
“There really was not any kind of indication that the lottery made a huge difference,” Dr. Stephanie Smith, an infectious diseases specialist at the University of Alberta Hospital, told a CBC reporter.
The gift card idea came from Colorado, where a jab is worth a gift card to Walmart or Chipotle or a discount on entry to a state park.
So how is Colorado doing? On Sept. 8th the Denver Post reported Covid cases are at their highest level since mid January.
The UCP’s ineffective response to Covid, driven by its mania to appease the right wing, is allowing the NDP opposition to score points in the centre. A recent Leger poll shows more than 75 per cent of Albertans favour a vaccine passport system for venues like bars, restaurants, festivals and gyms.
The gift card bribe just angered the 70 per cent of the population who have heeded the call to get the shot.
Keeping the committed anti-vaxxers happy is eroding whatever moderate support the UCP still retains.
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.
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.
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.
Alberta Health Minister Tyler Shandro had a deer in the headlights moment during a press conference this week.
He admitted that there had been no technical briefing for reporters on the 200-page detailed report on continuing care, leaving the journalists with no time to leaf through the document before having to ask questions about it.
It was an inadvertent oversight, said the minister.
A senior member of the press gallery called him on that, saying he “didn’t buy” that the experienced health department communication staff has made the “inadvertent” mistake.
Shandro called a hapless assistant deputy minister to the podium to explain. The explanation was almost as dense as the report.
If just holding the press conference was that hard, how tough is implementing the report going to be? Probably just about impossible.
Covid-19 highlighted the major issues governments have to grapple with in continuing care. Those issues led to heartbreaking death tolls and spotlighted a system right across the country with far too many fracture points.
To its credit, the Alberta government contracted consultants MNP to do the continuing care review leading to this report in February, 2020, a month before Covid raised its nasty head.
They were able to pivot and add the lessons learned over the past 14 months.
The review is thorough and sweeping. As the various stakeholders plow through the contents it will also raise some controversies.
Alberta has a mashup of public, not-for-profit and private care facilities. The report doesn’t call for a change to that mix, which won’t go over well with critics of for-profit private healthcare.
The report recommends that accommodation fees charged to the residents of facilities be increased annually and the the government “provide flexibility to increase fees beyond the core inflation rate for Alberta if required.”
There will likely be hard-pressed families willing to protest that suggestion.
But some recommendations line up with what we’ve been hearing for months about these institutions. The report found problems with staffing levels, the number of part-time and casual staff, and the dire need for mental health staff and support.
“Another issue with FBCC (continuing care) workplaces is a shortage of full-time employment with related benefits such as sick time, vacation, and other fringe and pension benefits. … Some employers prefer to provide part-time employment as it lowers the facilities’ operating costs by reducing fringe and pension benefits,” says the report.
Shandro was happy to announce some immediate needed, but relatively easy, fixes to the system at the newser.
Ward rooms with more than two residents will be eliminated by July 1, he said. Plus inspections and audits of facilities will be made publicly available.
And the province will work to ensure couples in care don’t get split up.
But the answers got pretty vague when he was asked about staffing changes, sick leave, new construction and just about anything that would cost substantial dollars. Shandro kicked the big ticket and regulatory items into the fall, when the government will come up with an “action plan”.
It’s pretty clear MNP was directed to come up with solutions which would be zero sum in terms of implementation. So the consultant includes strategies to push more clients to home-care by beefing up that cheaper alternative. In the long run that strategy would save provincial dollars.
But in the short run implementing report recommendations will cost both the province and the facility owners.
The very items that will actually improve the system are anathema to the general philosophy of the provincial government. Increasing wages, guaranteeing sick pay and benefits for healthcare staff will be a tough hurdle for a government that hangs its budget hat on reducing the ever increasing cost of healthcare in the province.
And a government staking its reputation on reducing red tape is going to balk at increasing monitoring and “benchmarking” of private nursing home facilities.
The report specifies an Oct. 31 deadline for coming up with a plan.
The question is whether the government will set aside its own campaign rhetoric and do the right thing to prevent a repeat of the horrors Alberta’s most vulnerable seniors endured in the past year.
By October reporters and all the many folks touched by the continuing care crisis will have had time to read that report and craft some pretty tough questions.
Photo Credit: Red Deer Advocate
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.
