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.

I had a particularly frustrating debate via email tonight with a friend who asked a very good question, knowing full well however that I could not answer it. The question:

"what on earth IS a progressive? I'm just not sure, at all.  I know exactly where my ideology is, but I have no idea if it is progressive or not. And all the Rethinks, Renews, Reboots haven't really articulated it in a succinct way at all."

We debated and debated, and I realized that we were talking on different topics. I THINK my friend wanted to nail-down what a government would look like to a Progressive, and that is a VERY good question. I am very much looking forward to how an existing party, or a new party, can some how embrace many of the philosophies of the very motivated and active members of the latest Progressive movement in Alberta, Reboot Alberta. But there is no party that seems to be providing that solution to at least these Albertans today, which is why they have created a movement in the first place.

So I need to turn this around and ask my friend, what of the current parties would really capture the imagination and interest of these dissatisfied Albertan's in the existing parties? It's ridiculous to suggest that they are all Liberals, or they would simply join the Liberal party. But again, why are they also not supporting the Progressive Conservatives or Wildrose Alliance?

And that brings me back to the title of this post. I think these engaged citizens are looking for Progress and not necesarrily a Progressive party. Sure, many have expressed an interest in a new party, that embraces progress, but not all of them. Many are simply casting off partisanship altogether as the reason we continue to get worse and worse governance.

So in my continuous soul-searching, I was reading this very interesting Washington Post article on Conservatism, and why it seems to have lost it's intellectual founding. I tend to agree with much of it in our current context (I don't agree that applies with a broad brush, so there, you smarty-pants). However to me it seems the Alberta Conservative movement seems to be harkening for something that USED to exist, instead of accepting that "times they are a changing". My best example is the way that the right-wing social conservative movement and the libertarian movement, very different animals, have come together to fight "Liberalism". That's not presenting solutions, that's trying to win a political fight, even if it means aligning with your ideological opposites. I don't belong to the Liberal Party just because I consider myself a Progressive, anymore than I belong to the Conservative Party because I am a Capitalist.

Until I see REAL and substantive policies from the Wildrose Alliance or the Progressive Conservative party on things that are important to other Progressives like me, I will ignore both of them as parties only interested in holding onto, or fighting for power (or I will go away and find a new interest). I was close to buying some of the Wildrose argument until they lost me on the political opportunism they deployed on accepting floor-crossers, instead of using the chance to change the way politics could be done in representing the constituent. That was exacebated when they suggest that supporting recall legislation is important to them, just not in this case (in the form of a by-election) because of course it would not serve their need for party status and a voice in the Legislature. A decision that I actually UNDERSTAND, but I have to file under POLITICAL REALITY and not idealism and desire to invoke real change in the way they would govern.

Frankly, it is intellectual dissonance to try and label the Reboot Alberta movement as anything partisan. When a new party emerges from it, then all bets are off, and that party will be under the same scrutiny as any other. Not just by me, but by Liberals, Progressives, Conservatives, Communists and the like.

I look forward to more policies developing from all of the parties, and I really look forward to the outcome of the Manning Center for Democracy event being held her in Edmonton in a few weeks. THAT is something that I can get excited about. Smart people talking about what a Conservative government looks like in the modern era. That said, I also look forward to the next Reboot Alberta event, and for some of the same reasons.

Until then though. I actually believe that this quote from that Post article is really indicative of the lack of solutions coming from the conservative parties of Alberta.

The single largest defect of modern conservatism, in my mind, is its insufficient ability to challenge liberalism at the intellectual level, in particular over the meaning and nature of progress. In response to the left's belief in political solutions for everything, the right must do better than merely invoking "markets" and "liberty.

~ Steven F. Hayward - Washington Post

I for one would welcome a true intellectual debate, and maybe we will see it from the Manning event, but I haven't seen it yet from the other "Conservatives" involved in existing political parties. My good friend's included.

If you watch this video (embedded below), you will see 8 minutes of hilarity as star-struck "Conservatives" speak at length on why they are standing in line to have Sarah Palin sign their copy of her book "Going Rogue". This video is produced by New Left Media, two obvious liberal citizens and a camera.

Like Ken Chapman, I AM NOT comparing Sarah Palin to Danielle Smith. Sarah Palin makes me want to move to Russia, just so I can live in her backyard and throw flaming bags of caribou dung over her fence. I mostly like what I see in Danielle Smith and frankly I think that she has a better political radar, communication skills, and more scrappy tenacity than our current Premier Ed Stelmach.

That said, I think there are many good reasons to question the motives of her party and it's insiders, and/or her political experience. This week, Smith was questioned by the public in an online forum sponsored by the Edmonton Journal, and was asked "where do you stand on gay rights?". Her response was so mystifying and evasive, it can only make you question the reason she evaded it. Smith said "Our party does not take positions on divisive social issues".  

There are only two possible scenarios behind this comment:

1) She is so naive to think that a party can simply ignore the basic human rights of an entire group of citizens, offend them by not standing up for them, and pretend that falls into some kind of safe label like "libertarianism". Same-sex marriage, and fair treatment regardless of sexuality is protected in Canada under the Human Rights Act and Civil Marriage Act.

2) She is fighting to hold onto the base of Social Conservative party members, and this serves as code for "I hear your concerns about sexuality, how it offends your religious beliefs, and your idea of family values. I am willing to foresake their vote and protection, to pander to your more active electorate".

It can't be anything but either of those, and since I am confident in Smith's intellect and understanding of something so basic as individual human rights in Canada, I can't help but think that the second scenario is more likely.

I am not going to get into her comments basically suggesting that the science behind Global Warming is largely unproven, or that she has spent all of her time talking to and about the Calgary based oil interests. I will forgo the issue about her promising to lead a transparent government, yet refusing to disclose her list of party donors. Believe it or not, in my mind anyways, these are all debatable from one perspective or another.

But as I have blogged about before, if you look at her parties policy on removing the troublesome hate-speech protections (Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights and Multiculturalism Act), and yet refusing to remove the equally troublesome Section 9 (which ironically increases the risk of teachers being thrown in front of the same Human Rights Commission for free-discussion on religion and sexuality in the classroom), a section Smith herself said was redundant and unnecassary, I HAVE TO ASSUME that her party is the desired home of right-wing religious conservatives.

While watching the video below, I laughed at the truly idiotic response of the interviewed. But I am not naive enough to dismiss them as a non-political force. Nor am I willing to make the same mistake here in Aberta, and all the more reason I am questioning who is partying in the basement of the Wildrose Alliance Party's "Big-Tent-Basement". Sign me up for some good 'Ol Fashioned fiscal responsibility, and some 'By Gosh individual rights and freedoms, but I'll pass on the bullying of others because you think you can impose your religious belief on others.

I am sorry Ms. Smith, but I just can't give you a free pass on this one. You are throwing Libertarian and Big-Tent around as your catch-all defense of these issues. That's not leadership, that's politicking. Which might be fine for many, perhaps even the majority, but not good enough for me.

My last blog post, where I have decided to take a break from the PC Party of Alberta, has gotten too much discussion in my opinion. I woke up this morning and was met with many comments in person and on Twitter, suggesting that I had taken a revolutionary step, or put myself at some kind of political risk. In my opinion, that just exemplifies how people put way to much emphasis on political parties, and not near enough on in-depth discussion about governance. By being a moderately read blogger, people seem to have assumed that I am more interested in forwarding some kind of partisan agenda, or the flip-side of that, that I will be put at some kind of political harm for doing so.

This emphasis on strictly adhering to political labels and a "win at all cost" game where everything relies on getting your party across the finish line is what's harming progress in current government. I concede that all parties need to focus on winning elections, but they must do so from an intelligent and defensible position. Speaking against my party is exactly what I think the average Albertan does every day in the coffee shops, lunch-rooms and boardrooms of our province.

So I was not really surprised when I was alerted to a blog by a local Edmonton Whitemud organiser for the Wildrose Alliance, basically using my blog posts, which are largely a public reflection of my ongoing political introspection, as a largely incorrect and strictly partisan attempt at futhering their story. The problem, in my opinion, is that the post is not as honest as I have been, and suffers from a rather serious bout of congnitive dissonance.

In the post, written by Brian Dell, he actually alludes that the Wildrose Alliance might be a great home for people like me who are disenfranchised about Bill 44. His argument seems flawed, so I guess I need to chime in and offer my two cents.

Basically Dell suggests that since Leader Danielle Smith gave a speech against the need for Bill 44, in his words in the "Heartland of Alberta Social Conservatism". He uses that as evidence she is against the law. He then suggests that her position is in line with the Sheldon Chumir Foundation, and even invokes that the namesake of that organization is Liberal. I guess he is trying to suggest that maybe she is partly Liberal or something.

So, here is the problem and why I have immeasurable concern for his argument, and the officially publicised policy of the Wildrose.

In that speech in Nanton, Smith tells the citizens of that town this:

"We didn't need to come through with a parental rights clause. The concern they have is free speech. They already know they had the right to pull their kids under the School Act."

Yet the party refuses to follow that up with concrete policy against Section 9 of the Bill, ironically ignoring the part she said was wrong. Yet they have an official policy position to see Section 3 removed, which is the part of the law that protects individuals from hate language. Why did the party ignore the useless and redundant Section 9, yet focused on removing the anti-hate section?

I can't think of any explanation for this, other than the common perception that Wildrose Alliance Policy is being steered by Social Conservatives that find sexuality, religious debate and sexual education as something that should not be discussed in our classrooms. The removal of Section 3 is clearly the wishes of hard-righters like Ezra Levant (who has some good points on the abuse of the HRC). Why does Dell use the position of the Chumir Foundation for his argument when it serves his parties position, but ingores that the foundation suggess the entire legislation is "a disaster"? I can only assume it's basic partisan politics, ignoring the inteligence and sensibilities of Albertans.

Dell goes on to suggest that I might be more "Liberal" than their party and may not fit, because I think Smith is "too corporate". I can't imagine where he would get this, as I am a 15 year veteran of big-business, and run a very rapid growth business as an entreprenuer. I am active on two boards in Edmonton, who's primary goals are to grow business in the City. What he might be alluding to is that I have questioned why she seems to have exclusivly focused on discussions around the oil and gas sector, or Bill 50. She seems very comfortable in chumming up to the Oil and Gas sector of Calgary, but I haven't seen her addressing issues of poverty, homelessness, economic diversification, sustainable development, or the environment. Sure their policy document addresses these, but every parties does. Her actions have largely ignored them. The scan of news items on the Wildrose website, going back a full year, ignores what they are doing in these areas.

Sorry if I am offended Brian, but I am willing to listen. Is Danielle Smith or the party willing to address these issues? Will she be able to convince her party that Section 9 of Bill 44 should be removed as well, as she aluded in her speech delivered to the Social Conservative heartland?

I am a political free agent now. Convince me and you might see that I am no bleeding heart Liberal and am actually lookig for a fiscally responsbible (note the difference from conservative, which is a partisan label) alternative. But don't argue that life is so simple that people who care about typical Liberal issues are not part of the political discussion or important to Albertans.

It's time for complicated and compassionate leadership for this Province.