www.ChrisLaBossiere.com

Well it looks like my predictions were largely correct.

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.

Today, with high hopes and 100 other "Conservatives", I attended the Manning Centre's Conference on Alberta's Future. I use quotations for a reason and will come back to that. First my thoughts on the event.

Largely, I felt frustrated and like I was being "herded" to a pre-determined set of conclusions. Unlike the Reboot Alberta conference I attended last October, which was for "Progressives" or people dissatisfied with their current choices in government, the Manning event had a much more structured agenda. I had hoped that there would be more listening going on, but largely it was a place for the Manning Centre to have pre-selected speakers on pre-determined topics, give presentations. In those presentations, the speaker would give opinionated speeches, and a "Grade" to the current Conservative government. Then our table would discuss the presentation and determine if we agreed with the grade or not. 

Not surprisingly, nearly each speaker gave a low or failing grade to the goverment on the topic already chosen by the Manning Center. Here is a list of the speakers, and hopefully someone can add in the comments the grades given, as I failed to write these down.

1. Fiscal Responsibility by Mike Milke, Director of Research, Frontier Centre for Public Policy
2. Balanced Economic Growth by Michael Percy, Dean, U of A Business School
3. Environmental Conservation, by Marlo Raynolds, Pembina Institute
4. Democratic Participation by Peter McCormick, Political Science Profession, U of Lethbridge
5. Health & Education by Nadeem Esmail and Peter Cowley, Fraser Institute
6. Leadership on the National Stage by Monte Solberg, former MP

So, to start with my comments, I have to explain on why I felt like my participation was actually being used as a way to endorse a pre-determined agenda.

As I mentioned, unlike the Reboot Alberta event, the day started with and focused on the topics chosen by the Centre. In my opinion, the event could have easily been ran as an "unconference" and asked for the participants to suggest or make argument for certain topics to be discussed, and we could have voted on which we wanted to discuss. This is the same format used at Changecamp and Reboot, and it would have allowed for a greater sense of ownership and democratic process for the attendees. I don't doubt for a second that the topics would have been much the same as we discussed, but I also have no doubt that some new ones would have appeared.

Mine would have been, What is a Conservative? Which goes to my comment about the quotation marks. I consider myself a Conservative in many ways. I enjoyed the much conversation about fiscal policy and responsibile governance, but I have many problems with the fact that Social Conservatism and Fiscal Conservatism seem to be bundled together as a fact. This is a discussion that I think Albertans need to be having. At the very least, I expected conversation around the point. I was orginally exited to attend because I believe that Preston Manning has the stateman like qualities to have this conversation with Albertans in a respectful way.

Then, after the speeches and dicussions were over, we were given a presentation of what the organizing committee had noted from the table discussions. In a few cases, there was a fairly wide difference between what was at least discussed at my table, and what the Centre considered the concensus of the group. The problem in my mind began when we were asked to vote in support of these comments, supposedly so they could become back-up for a report the Centre would develop on the day, and report back to Albertans as concensus. Of course, even though many of us voted that there were definite differences, each of the "Grades" were passed as gospel.

The other observation that had to be made, by everyone there and has already been made by the media, was the absence of any notable Progressive Conservative MLA's and the Premier was evident. (I overheard that one backbencher was in attendance). To add to that mystery was that Danielle Smith, the leader of the Wildrose Alliance Party was there and in full blown discussion with Manning organizers, Fraser Institute speakers, and of course the media. Now, I applaud Smith for being there, but it almost felt like the day was planned for her and her party. Because if you buy the definition of what was important to "Conservatives', and of course the current government was being crriticized with a failing grade, her party would be the natural benefactor. But at least she was there to listen and participate. (As a side not, it should also be mentioned that Edwin Erickson, the leader of the Alberta Party, was also in attendance, and actually participated at a table in the excercises, unlike Smith).

Looking closer at the PC's absence, and especially the Premier's, I had to come to only three possible conclusions:

1. He was not invited. (I was told he was)
2. He didn't think it was worth his time
3. By attending, he would be giving weight to the process and didn't want to, or he was "advised" not to be.

The problem with any of these is that it is an indicator of what we already know. Either he is not considered to be relevant, or perhaps worse, does not feel he is relevant to a discussion around what Conservatives in Alberta feel is important to discuss. No matter how you look at it, this is a very bad omen for the Premier being able to build grassroots support from this demographic.

But this brings me to my final thought. I felt like I was being patronized, because the definition of what it means to be Conservative was left for someone else to make. As I mentioned earlier, many of the discussions resonated with me. The presentations on democratic participation and healthcare were very intereesting. As a conserative, I applaud the discussion around things like balanced budgets, transparent governance and efficient program delivery. BUT, there was no discussion around dealing with other issues like poverty, social values, tolerance, listening to Albertans, and progressiveness.

A tweet I made from the event summarized it all for me. "My "feeling" so far about #projectab. It's all about money. I love money, but I don't think it's all about money". The reality is that the conservative movement in Alberta is moving even further to the right, and the concept of "Progressive Conservatism" is very much under attack. This scares me, and is the reason I am going to talk to my friends and work to organize our voices for a more moderate government.

If you want to read what was being said on Twitter today about the conference, click here to follow the discussion. Interestingly, the Twitter phrase #projectab which is the "hashtag" for the event, was at one point this afternoon the number one discussion on all of Twitter in Canada. If you're a Manning Centre Conservative, this is not necassarily a good thing as you can see in the discussion. I think that many people are like me, and worried that we are losing our way as moderate conservative, and in fact the most contentious of the "votes" at the end of the event, was the topic about how Alberta was being perceived on the National Stage. I had a very open moment at the microphone with Monte Solberg, where I questioned how things like Bill 44, and it's percieved lack of tolerance of certain segments of our society, is making Alberta seem like it is going backwards from the rest of the Country and the World.

We shall see. I could be wrong, but if I am, I am pretty sure that there will be thousands of Albertans who agree with me.

Perhaps ironically, the Edmonton Journal captured an image at the exact time I was voting AGAINST what the committee had presented back to the group on Alberta on the National Stage. As I mentioned, it was in this particlaur dicussion, the slides and points the Manning Centre collected on the topic were completely different than the actual discussion itself. Sadly, that will NOT be what shows up in their report.

Ted Morton has been appointed as the new Provincial Finance Minister, and according to the Premier's website, the third in order of precedence of all of the ministers in the legislature. It is obvious that Morton is considered the furthest right of the conservative cabinet and I am glad there are others in cabinet, including the Premier, who are more moderate in their social politics. There is little doubt that his appointment to Finance, as well as his power in the Cabinet, is a direct response to the concerns of Albertans who are concerned about the fiscal management (or mismanagement) of the current government. I would agree that this government has failed in managing it's spending.

Things have changed now, in my opinion, when it comes to fiscal leadership. I predict we will see a hard right-turn to balanced, pragmatic budgets. This is a good thing. A little belt-tightening will help more in the long-run than it hurts.

However, in our inadequate single political-spectrum reality, right-wing politics does not just mean fiscal hawkishness. To many, Conservatism means resisting progress in areas of social and family values. The dangerous mixture of religion and politics, government and education and legislating morality etc.

Interestingly, Morton is also a very vocal Social Conservative.

Here is some valuable insight into our new finance minister, gleaned from an Edmonton Journal Article written on May 26th, 2009 by columnist Paula Simons.

A decade ago, a Calgary professor and conservative activist named Ted Morton went to Geneva to deliver a speech to the World Congress of Families, an event sponsored by a U.S. think-tank called the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society. Morton's speech was a passionate attack on "gender feminists and the gay rights movement" -- groups, he said, which "target the natural family as public enemy No. 1."

"According to the feminist-gay gospel, the great evils of this world are sexism and homophobia, and their breeding ground is the traditional family," Morton told his audience. "Hence, the gay-feminist project has become a social engineering project -- to use the coercive power of the state to undermine the existing family and to reconstruct in its place their gender-equal utopias."

To avoid the "soft despotism" of those he dubbed the New Egalitarians, Morton said it was vital to persuade governments around the world to subject all new legislation to a values test, to make sure that each new law supported "natural" family life. New laws, he argued, should be drafted to consider their impact on "parental rights and responsibilities -- especially the right to educate their children in the moral and spiritual traditions of their choice."

"Enlisting the coercive power of the state to force people to 'approve' homosexual relations is the antithesis of toleration," he said. "Toleration loses any meaning if we are not allowed to continue to disapprove of what we tolerate!"

What scares me, especially considering the above position of one of Governments most powerful ministers, is that there are many who would argue the Conservative party is no longer a Conservative party at all. That it is not far enough right, or that it is not doing enough to forward "conservative values".

Perhaps now we will get to see the dividing line on social issues between right, and right of right. Perhaps we will now get to learn if the Progressive in Progressive Conservative was meant for their stance on social progress.

At this point, at least in my very humble opinion, the PC Party has figured out half of the reason for discontent in this Province, I wonder if they have any idea what the other half is?