We don't allow these special interest groups to lobby our government for "Mandatory Canadian Content", yet we do for books, television, radio content and the like. It's ridiculous, especially when you consider that it's new technology which allows little heard of Canadian artists, products and content to spread easily around the World, and yet we allow our government to restrict our personal benefit for the same technology if the content is coming from across the "border". We have no reason to "protect" ourselves from outside world content, anymore than we should underestimate ourselves when it comes to using technology to spread OUR talent.

It's stories like this, where the Canadian Booksellers Association wants to restrict Amazon from opening a distribution centre in Canada, that make my blood boil.Here's an excerpt, which I actually can't even believe is in writing:

A Canadian Heritage spokesman said the government has ordered a review of Amazon's proposal to open a Canadian distribution centre to determine if the investment "will be of net benefit to Canada."

Spokesman Tim Warmington said the proposal is reviewable under the Investment Canada Act, "if it falls within a prescribed specific type of business activity that is related to Canada's cultural heritage or national identity, and if the governor-in-council considers it in the public interest."

What many people don't understand is that Amazon has probably done significantly more for Canadian companies than the Federal Government has ever done. Amazon owns the popular EC2 cloud computing infrastructure which probably allows thousands of Canadian small companies to host and grow their online business.

In media, print, audio, video, and internet, there are no more borders. By allowing fake markets to be sustained by archaic legislation, we will always end up paying more for something we rarely want, and yet still consuming that which we do want (for a needless premium).

Dear Government, protect our borders and our citizens who can't help themselves, and forget trying to protect "my culture".

Frankly, I am more of a free market guy, but it's hard not to want to be a Keynesian after wathcing the video. i mean who doesn't want to grab that bottle of Amaretto the morning after a stock market crash?

So back to my point. I don't care what a progressive is. I continue to refuse to be added to a list, bucket or ideology based on YOUR interpretation of what that means. Another way to say this, is that I don't suppose any one party will represent ALL progressives.

But why do I self-identify as a Progressive?

I find that the People involved in the Reboot Alberta movement, are very much like me (The research survey is a good representation of the types of people I have met along the way). I enjoy that they come into the conversation with some basic principles already in place, even though we still have differences. According to Reboot, which commissioned the third-party and scientific survey of people who self-identified as "Progressive", the VALUES of a self-identified progressive are as follows (Top-Ten):

1. Integrity
2. Honesty
3. Accountability
4. Transparency
5. Environmental Stewardship
6. Wisdom
7. Well-being
8. Equity
9. Fiscal Responsibility
10. Respect for Diversity

As Ken has identified in his blog today, the top four are almost redundant and probably apply across all ideologies (we all want Honest politicians). The bottom six begin to shape PRIORITIES that start to align with existing political parties. But I think that's where the problem begins.

These are simply values that I tend to align with. There are many Conservatives, Liberals or Democrats who would also align with these and who feel that their existing party provides them with appropriate representation along these lines. That's cool.

As you have read time and again, I simply don't feel that any EXISTING mainstream Alberta political party does enough in these areas, IN A BALANCED MANNER, to provide me with the level of comfort to give them my vote. The Wildrose Alliance Party would be the closest to something new for me that I might get excited about and get behind. The problem is that the policies and some of the original founders of the party simply leave me concerned with their committment to some of these, and namely Equity and Respect for Diversity.

So here I am. As you know, I am going to put everything I can behind the new Alberta Party, simply because it feels to me like the best balance of the things that are important to me, and the people involved in it continue to make me feel comfortable with my order of the priority.

I would love to hear why you align with a particular political party, or even why you don't align with any at all. But if you are going to try and challenge that my definition of Progressive is inacurrate, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 (This is not written to slight Ken's Reboot movement, the amazing work he and his team has done to help this discussion along, or the numerous people who have already taken a stab at defining a Progressive)

Launch Party Founders and Organizing Committee: Mark Donovan, Ken Bautista, Cindy Fulton, Cam Linke)

Photo by Mack Male

Startup Edmonton is more than just a party planning group. It is part of  a sophisticated community building strategy by some fantastic community leaders. Their goal is to create a tech community environment which rivals other creative class cities. An event based organization, Startup Edmonton includes under it's banner:

• Startup Drinks
• DemoCamp
• Launch Party
• Founders & Funders
• Startup School
• Startup Weekend

Also, loosely associated and organized by most of the same great people, is:

• TEDx Edmonton
• artsScene Edmonton

The idea behind having all of these great events, is simply to create an environment where Edmonton's "Creative Class" can collaborate, socialize, grow businesses and ultimately to stay in Edmonton. As an internet application company owner, I can tell you that these types of initiatives really help us find employees, market ourselves locally, and perhaps more importantly market Edmonton's tech products to the World.

I have said it time and again. the volunteers behind these initiatives are doing this without budgets, bylaws, government mandates or ANY staffers. In my opinion more is done by the groups and volunteers above, at least for the local startup tech community, than several government funded economic development organizations and programs combined. It's understandable that our economic development organizations focus on large, often patentable technologies, and of course attempt to capitalize on the $1B worth of research being done at the University of Alberta. However the small software companies being created here in Edmonton are also a significant part of the fabric of our creative class community, and will be integral to creating jobs, and sculpting entrepreneurs.

These are the companies which were highlighted last night at the party, ours included.

FJstartuptimelapse from Rob & Lauren on Vimeo.

We must stand-up against intolerance and bigotry.

Jason Kenney used his political position to go against the wishes of his bureuacratic staffers, and erase any reference to our Same Sex Marriage rights, in a guidebook for new Canadians. This might seem less newsworthy if this was his first position on gay marriage. Sadly, it is not.

We must question our leaders when they impose their own religious beliefs, or that of a special interest agenda, on our country.

It's a damn shame that we are continuing to fight this type of bias and hatred. It's a bullshit argument when he states that the booklet didn't previously mention gay rights, or that he needed to maintain it's brevity. It's obvious that he used his political office to interfer with good governance. It's one thing to be religious, that is a right and should be respected, it's another when you use your personal beliefs, and publicly awarded power to shape public position.

Shame on you Jason Kenney.

If you want to express your concern to Mr. Kenney directly, please do so below:

Constituency Office:
1168 137 Ave SE
Calgary, AB
T2J 6T6
P. 403-225-3480
F. 403-225-3504

Ottawa Office:
325 East Block
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
P. 613-992-2235
F. 613-992-1920

Email:

kennej@parl.gc.ca

I am on a wireless aircard, accessing the internet, whilst Jill LaBossiere is driving her environmentaly friendly VW Turbo Diesel which consumes 4.6 litres per 100 km's, my kid is playing web-based applications on an iPhone with friends back home, and I am having concurrent conversations with people on Twitter from all around the World, (Oh, and checking work emails). So it seems appropriate that this post is about Reboot and PROGRESS.

I am very excited about this weekend for a couple of reasons. First, we are coming as a near-full family. Jill will be part of the events, and our youngest daughter is coming to take in the swimming pool and they will both enjoy some skiing at Nakiska. Secondly, there will be a more evolved discussion from the first Reboot, where we will get talking about real solutions and ideas for improved citizen involvement in government.

Much work has been done by the Reboot organizers to help define "What is a Progressive?". This is important as it will help people better understand how we are similiar, and what we want from our government. But my big wish from this weekend is the important discussion on specific ideas and actions that might define what a better government would look like in 2010. Government, AND Governance, not necessarily Politics. 

If we can accomplish that, then that would be PROGRESS in my little mind. Which may just be my simple definition of a progressive. In one of my favourite blog posts from the past, where I tried to define myself better politically, I wrote this brief description:

Progressive to me means changing with the times. Adapting our policies, laws and values with the advent of new information and technology.

Basically this sums it all up for me. I just don't think that the same old political solutions and structures will solve the problems of a far more complicated World. As we learn about new environmental problems; as information is shared openly and in real-time on the internet - breaking down old geographic, institutional and political barriers; or as science changes our understanding of humanity and increases our individual potential; we must adapt.

Our political systems must adapt with the following.

• We must use technology to increase transparency in government
• We must use "full-cost" accounting when considering how our government pays for things like healthcare and other public services
• We must take many of the important decisions made by our 4-year elected officials and place them into the hands of people who think beyond "winning the next election"
• We must find a way to implement better direct democracy, where our elected officials can act for their consituents, instead of always having to tow the party line
• We must find a way for Albertans to feel relevant in thier own governance.

I know that this sounds like a long list of unicorns and rainbows, and one that most people think may be impossible when we are speaking about government. Even worse when we think in terms of politicans. BUT, I have no doubt that the only way to PROGRESS, is to start with passionate people having organized discussion in a respectful manner. So, this is why I am excited about Reboot.

If you want to read a much better series on "What is a Progressive", I suggest reading DJ Kelly's great posts.

It's funny that everything I know about and am most prooud about my country is so perfectly described and designed by an American network, but maybe that's part of what makes us Canadian. At least with national pride, we are less self-aggrandizing than our neighbours to the south

But as the video states, we are also great friends, partners and allies. With all of their blemishes, I think that we are lucky to have such great neighbours in the United States.

EAVB_FYKDNTPCTP

Here are the titles, links and some excerpts from the three posts that she made since Friday. In every case she is plain wrong. Beyond that, she is borderline disrespectful as well, assuming we were ignoring the constitution of the party. Of course we were not.

Post #1  -  Interesting Way to Operate a Political Party

"All I have read about the two progressive (read: frustrated liberals) groups indicates that they support democracy. A very honorable stance; yet they have choosen to totally disrespect it when it came to the Alberta Party. How can they say they have "united", when it clearly is more of a hostile takeover."

Post #2   -  Take your constitution and Shove It! (I love the title, even though it is grossly innacurate)

"The AP held their last AGM in October 2009 and I can confirm there was no motion to "remove all policies". Nor has there been any "assembly" of the members since then."

Post #3  -   Alberta Party the Plot Thickens

 "Let's take a tally. So far they have:

- Ignored the constitutiion by "suspending" policies without a majority vote from the members.

- Ignored the fact that they already have principles embedded in their constitution and are using the principles of the "Renew" group.

- Ignored the constitution by appointing new board members where no vacancy exists and appointed members who don't meet the requirements.

So, my summary of Ms. Morgan's posts. WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG.

Jane has been a fun and admired debater on Twitter and within these very blog posts, and I have even given her her due when I made a mistake one blog post about the Wildrose not releasing the names of their party donors, when I had meant to say that their leader Danielle Smith has refused to release the name of her leadership sponsor/supporters.

But I expect that she should now write an apology, not unlike how I have in the past, stating that she was incorrect. I don't expect her to apologize for her tone and attitude, because we all fall for that from time to time. I must confess however that I was offended when she stated in one of her comment replies, that she felt the people involved were naive. We will admit to being human and we will make mistakes, but it could also be argued that writing three completely incorrect blog posts about a meeting where you supposedly attended part of and have the minutes of, could also be argued as being naive.

THE TRUTH

In short, and not to bore you with pages of resolotions and meeting minutes, the bottom line is this. The Alberta Party at their own AGM this last fall, was visionary enough to recognize that their constitution and their principles must be respected, but they also recognized that if they wanted to break out as a mainstream party, may have to make changes to their policies and constitution as required, and in between annual meetings. These changes could be made by the Board of Directors as seen fit, and then ratified at the next AGM. This created an Omnibus Resolution that allowed just that.

This forward thking piece of resolution, was actually moved and seconded by two long-standing party members, and not any of the new Alberta Progress Party board members, or of course any new director since that meetng. You can read the comment that our President Charles Relland has posted in response to Ms. Morgan's posts here, and this should sum up the issue:

Ms. Morgan,

Thank you for your interest in the Alberta Party – an interest that brought you to the first portion of the Annual General Meeting of the party last October in Red Deer.  Unfortunately, your recent blog entries are factually incorrect and it is important that I set the record straight:

First, Mr. Erickson ran on a platform that clearly stated that he wanted to bring the Renew Alberta team into the Alberta Party.

Second, the portion of the Annual General Meeting that you walked away from saw the presentation of my Omnibus Motion #10-24-09-20, overwhelmingly passed by the party membership who were in attendance at that meeting, and who represented more than 40% of the total membership of the party.  This motion completely negates the points you have made in your blog postings.  For your reassurance, and for the information of your readers, I quote two pertinent portions of this motion: 

Whereas the Constitution can only really be applicable to our Party after we sustain some growth, to work in practice, (and the Party, since 2005 is trying to follow it in principle), we have to admit to ourselves that we have to concentrate on growth with our secondary objective [that] of making the Constitution workable…"

And

“… That the Provincial Board may make any operational policy, between General Assemblies, to regulate the provincial affairs of the Party, including, but not limited to the bylaws and sections of the Party Constitution…"

The party constitution and the omnibus resolution give the board clear authority to suspend the party policies. (should also read appoint new directors, as this is within the same resolution)

Third, and most significant, the board of the Alberta Party proceeded with this course of action because traditional policy development simply doesn't work.  Clearly, we intend to be a new type of party.  We are inviting the involvement of all Albertans.

I suspect that your vehement opposition to the Big Listen is based entirely on the fact that you have no interest in seeing the Alberta Party broaden its base of support and actually listen to people who may disagree with your own point of view.  Fortunately for you, there is a party (in which you apparently hold an official position) which will accommodate your narrow minded, old-school political perspective.

Yours truly,

Charles Relland,

President

Alberta Party

An Afterthought: It is not my intention to get into a mud-slinging debate here. But I felt that these were very serious alegations that must have been responded to, so the Alberta Party was not unfairly labeled for something that it is not.

I have been a member of the Alberta Party Board of Directors now for over a month. I joined the Party and the Board, in advance of the recently announced "merger" with the Renew Alberta movement; although I certainly supported the idea if it was done with some conditions. I say movement because Renew was not and never has been a registered party. That said, the people behind it are a passionate and sophisticated bunch, who have expressed the same concerns I have about the way politics and power have interfered with good governance. I like that they don't talk in the old partisan language of left vs right. I like that they seem to see a more complicated World, where simple "pick a side" mentality gets us no where.

I joined the Alberta Party for one reason, it was an opportunity to help be part of something truly different. I met and talked with each of the Board members over the last few months, and was very comfortable that they represent what I would call average Albertans; who cared. Contrary to the typical uneducated first-response to what people THINK the party is about, I found a group of people who are actually quite reasonable and non-agendized, but simply concerned with the future of Governance and Democracy in Alberta. They reaffirmed that by being open to working with the Renew Alberta movement since it had much of the same goals. Of course everyone had their own special reason for why they were involved, but it was important to everyone that the party would feel comfortable to all Albertans. At least those who are open-minded, tolerant and cared about democracy.

You will hear from those who don't actually know this group, that the Alberta Party is a right-wing fringe party, which doesn't align with a more moderate political spectrum. That is simply not the case. In fact, if you know the unique and interesting history of this very small group of people, they have actually resisted time and again the "right-wing factions" that have tried to merge with them. The current Wildrose Alliance Party (called the Alliance Party at the time) being one of them.

But let me also be clear, I am "right-wing" on some things, and more centrist on others. Old style labels don't fit me anymore. And I will be careful not to apply them too broadly here. But a parties actions and it's policies will have to be what defines them.

The other major misconception in the early days of this announcement, has been that the Alberta Party has thrown out it's policies, and by doing so has shown disrespect to the long-standing party members who helped develop them. Again this is simply not true, and typical of an opposition that must find something bad about it's competitors instead of recognizing this for what it really is.

The real truth is that the Alberta Party Board (not Renew Alberta) unanimously accepted a resolution to suspend the existing policies, while the party engages in a very sincere and grassroots campaign to engage as many Albertans as possible in what is being labeled The Big Listen. The Board actually showed great vision and humility, and agreed that the small set of policies that they had in place, were the ideas of a very small group of Albertans developed over the last 25 years, and may not actually reflect what so many more Albertans would want to see in a party that really listens to it's constituents. They also showed openness and humility in accepting that perhaps Alberta has changed as well. Within the resolution, the policies that were suspended will be reintroduced at a policy convention in the future, and considered again with all of the policies that will percolate from the Big Listen campaign. They smartly recognized that Renew Alberta has the passion and ideas to run this campaign successfully, with the support of and under the guidance of a new and bigger, more diverse board.

The great thing about The Big Listen, is that you don't have to be a party member to say your piece. You will be asked what concerns you, your family or your community about government today. It is recognized that 60% of Albertans chose not to vote last election, and less than 95% of Albertans choose not to join a political party. These folks still have concerns, hopes, and a vision for Alberta, and they should have a say in how our government functions.

Every other political party has a completely different model, and one that creates distrust and barriers for the disengaged to participate. Here is what you hear time and again from existing parties; "If you want to change our policies, join our party and contribute your ideas. Submit a policy resolution into our process and good luck convincing the established biases, power centres and special interests which have already formed within our party" (Cynicism added where I think it is often applied by people like me).

Thanks, but that doesn't get me too excited. Especially since my personal experience, at least with the PC Party, is that this process sounds good on paper, but it hits a brick wall if the idea is contrary to the existing power structures holding onto self-serving power or influence. (Bill 44 was my personal example).

So, for me personally, this Alberta Party has at least provided a place where I can try to improve my Province, and feel that I can actually make a difference. Of course I am not naive and will be wary of the same command and control power struggles developing within it. However, since at least this Party is approaching politics from a bottom up perspective, I have that much more confidence that me and the rest of the people who are willing to participate in The Big Listen and eventually in policy development, will be able to bake-in some real and lasting cultural, policy and technical differences that can change the way the game is played.

Finally, there are those who will argue that this will actually harm the process by vote splitting or distracting the electorate with too many choices. I am sorry, but in my personal opinion, these folks are stuck in the old mindset of winning is everything, even if it means accepting something we are unhappy with. I couldn't disagree any more. I'd rather be part of something that I believe in.

Winning an election is less important to me than changing the way we govern and allow our citizens to participate in democracy. But of course, if the latter is done properly, the former should take care of itself.

I'll step out and say that I like what the budget was designed to do. I like that this government HAD savings to dip into, and we can still lay claim to being the lowest tax province in the Country. I like that the long-term trend for energy revenues seems to support holding tight on slashing services, and maintaining a committment on capital projects while the development cost structure for them remains low, but I am also concerned about a few things:

• There seems to be a major disconnect between healthcare spend (17% increase in this budget) and services received by Albertans. This efficiency gap is scary, and I tend to agree with the Wildrose Alliance that decentralization is the answer, plus a follow-the-patient formula.
• I am concerned with a no-tax increase statement, when we should be looking at different ways to increase revenues for this government. Maybe not income tax, and of course PST would never fly, but what about reintroducing healthcare premiums? As I recall, the elimination of the same was a $2B pick-up just two years ago, when times were cooking. This kind of user-pay at least hits employers for those who pay employee expenses, and that would mitigate the tax cost on average Albertans.
• I get a sense that there is no plan should we not see an increase in Oil and Gas prices. Leaving much of the problem to be addressed, very quickly.

All in all, as I stated earlier today, I think this was a moment where the PC's were drawing a line in the sand between what they stand for and what the Wildrose Alliance stands for. If they stick to their guns, and resist falling for the slash-and-burn mentality that is the far right-wing, they will have a chance at holding on.

The risk of course, is that Premier Ed Stelmach is lacking the ability to create a vision for Albertans which compels us to think above the "No New Taxes" mindset, and reminds Albertans that with budgets like these, we are trading some of our tax dollars for a maintained higher standard of life for our families. So in a way, at least in my opinion, he is backing himself into a corner that he lacks the ability to vision his way out of.

Regardless of your opinion of this budget, it must be recognized that this wil buy time for the PC's to try and create a greater narrative. I just don't believe that they have the ability to do so if they continue to try to be everything to all people.