Mr. C Are You Serious?

Not that I think the critics are that unreal that they do not know what the policies of the WAP really mean, but since many of the so called "Progressive" group want to buy into the David J. Climenhaga Theory which is NDP based, I will explain them from a real perspective. (although I do not know why, as the majority of Albertans get it)

Lets start with his Coded – “support ‘School Choice’ Legislation” as he puts it. Well Mr. C no code here as you would like to think. I was in on the conversations regarding this topic and it means what it means. Why shouldn't I as a parent be able to choose where my children attend school? If my daughter has an issue with other students or school staff shouldn't I be able to move her where she is comfortable? If it is truly a bad school with sub par teachers shouldn't I be able to ensure she gets a good education. Not according to my big union buddy Mr. C, in his eyes all teachers are created equally, which is simply ridiculous. What if I simply move 20 blocks and my child is to graduate next year, should they not have the right to graduate with the peers they have went to school with for the other 11 years? Of course not that wouldn't be fair to the school system according to him, in fact it would weaken it. What a load of crap. Let's look at the voucher system, I personally don't like the paperwork side but is it really that bad? Mr. C says it is a mechanism for racial segregation, wow what a bold statement that Albertans are so full of racists that we would take over whole schools, go ahead drink it up! Do I think that there is anything wrong with a taxpayer placing their kid in a private school, and the school receiving the portion of funds that are paid when the student attends public system? Not at all, they have paid the education taxes like anyone else, sure I am jealous because I can't afford it but to the point of saying they don't deserve the same funding as any other AB student is ridiculous. In a socialist view though, the rich are very bad people that should subsidize everyone elses share.

10) “Implement a timely and effective Social Assistance to work program.” Does this mean “work for welfare”? Until informed otherwise, we’d better assume it does. Oh my goodness, work for welfare- this is a horrible idea, who would dream of making someone earn their way when we have taxpayers to pay it. Not that this is what the policy means but I like the idea. I have to pass drug and alcohol tests, as well as work to get my cheque, so why not if the assistance recipient is capable of working? What it really means is to get people off the system by assisting in finding them work they are capable of doing in a reasonable time frame. Never heard the phrase "I wouldn't work for that"-and they don't. I am sure Mr. C would rather tax high income earners more and more.

9) “Expand the role of sheriffs to handle Provincial justice issues.” Does this mean getting rid of the RCMP and creating a provincial police force? Sure sounds like it. Excuse me, but I believe that the Sheriffs are our provincial police force. Why can't they deal with a wider variety of provincial issues and free the RCMP to deal with the more severe and federal issues. What's the matter are the sheriffs not part of your union? This is a great policy to give the sheriffs a route to be more effective, and help improve our crime rates. (got a grow op going on Mr. C?)

8) “Provide health care funding that will follow the service to the health care provider and approved facility of choice” – this is code for privatization of services, a guaranteed precursor to add-on fees and a two-tier health care system. I love the thought of making our health care facilities more competitive. In fact I will now drive across town because I think the staff and care are way better, yet my portion of funding goes to the one closest to me that has poor service. I think if the money followed the patient not only would service improve, but the spending by the hospitals would also become more efficient, as they would invest in equipment that is most needed and streamlines their service. In the end it is the patient that will win here. As for his two tier bogeyman tactic- surprise Mr. C we already have a four tier system.

7) “Provide less expensive and more patient-friendly alternatives to hospital care” – the streets? Your kids have to take care of you? More stupid comments Mr. C. Is it patient friendly to kick them to the streets? Maybe in your world. Alternative would be allowing doctors in clinics to do more routine procedures such as stitches or use of alternative medicines. Preventative care is also something we need to do more of, which IMHO would ease the burden on our system. I have a friend with Cystic Fibrosis that relies on protein shakes which are not covered by our system. About three to five times a year they hit the point they can not afford them and she has to be admitted to the hospital where they are then provided. Ridiculous when the alternative is to give them the shakes before they need admission. Seems more patient friendly to me and far from a kick to the curb.

6) “Deliver an annual individual statement of benefits to each resident of Alberta” – this would cost money, tie up health care staff and do no good. It’s goal? Who knows? Maybe to explain to Albertans “how much their health care costs”? Sounds like another precursor to privatization. Delivering a statement is a precursor to privatization as much as getting a pay stub is to a layoff. We did this in Alberta for a number of years and it is important for people to know what the cost of health care provided to them is. If the expense of health care needs to be open. It would not tie up health care staff, because it is already being accounted for so again more asinine comments Mr. C.

5) “Implement legislation protecting the ‘conscience rights’ of health care professionals” – is this code for restricting the right of women to abortions? No doubt that this one may have controversy. Is it designed to restrict the right of women to abortions? Of course not, but hey it's your rant. Health care professionals are there to help, not to limit care. There are however instances where it may go against the conscience of a health care professional. Since Mr. C brought up abortion, lets use it. If a doctor is against performing abortions, should we force him to perform one? Is this safe for the patient? There are hundreds of other doctors that are more than willing to perform it, so why should we force doctors to do so? How about gender reassignment, should they have to perform it? If the doctor is not comfortable doing it should we again force him when there are so many others willing to do so? As a patient I do not want a doctor performing any medical procedure on me that he is against performing, a recipe for disaster IMHO. Maybe though this doctor is better at other surgeries, and we could leave the others to doctors willing to perform it.

4) “Oppose unfair and industry specific taxation from the federal government” – in other words, fight for more tax breaks for the oil industry, which is, after all, the chief funder of the Wildrose Alliance Well Mr. C we all know how you feel about non-union industry. This is actually something the current government is looking at doing right now with Minister Morton. How would you like for, lets say health care industry, to pay higher taxes base on they are in the health care industry? Even if it was all oil industry based, what do you find so horrible about Govt. sticking up for it's core industry that has helped keep the province in a have status? Some things Mr. C are smart decisions that impact your union in a positive way, especially if they are paid with tax $$. This policy however is based on all sectors, not just the oil industry. By all means convince Albertans to give up the billions in AB this industry provides and have the taxpayer fund it, this is why the NDP is where it is, almost extinct.

3) “Allow competition to the Workers Compensation Board” – code for handing over the functions of Workers Compensation to private insurance companies. If you think WCB is bad now, just wait for this idea to become reality! This one absolutely needs to be done carefully, but none the less needs to be done. WCB is legislated by government for employers to provide for it's workers. The problem is it is not government owned, rather a private company that does operate for a profit. Now you could not just let this one go to an open market because of the nature of it and the need for it to pay on long term claims. This being said there needs to either be a choice to ensure better delivery to the claimants or have it run by Govt. Right now both employers and employees hands are tied when it comes to dealing with them, and they are free to operate within their own scope.

2) “Allow individual workers the choice to determine their membership in labour organizations” – this is code for so-called “right to work” legislation, which, as Martin Luther King observed, “provides no ‘rights’ and no ‘works.’ Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining...” ’Nuf said. Force our workers to be part of a union? How ridiculous is this one. People who do not wish to pay a union to represent them should be within their rights. There may be positives to unions, but there are also many negatives as well. People should have the right to decide if they do not wish to be part of a union, the same as members have the right to remain members. Collective bargaining is an easy out for not promoting job accountability and also does nothing to recognize those that are above average in how they do their job. This being said it is much easier to bargain collectively. The problem with the unions are that the compensation required is as much as 40% higher than the same job in the private sector. The topic of unions is a post in itself, but like it or not it should be up to the employee to decide if they wish to pay the union dues. None the less Mr. C since you are the Communications Director of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, which with more than 76,000 members is Alberta's largest union, your views do not surprise me.

1) “Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan…” There’s a qualifier, but don’t believe it. If you want to know what it is, go read it yourself! This is a policy that would be a hard one to implement and take over, however can you be sure that there will be funds in the CPP when you need it? Alberta could have it's own Pension fund and manage it much better to provide a better payout than the current portfolio under the Canadian govt. Pretty easy to slam this one Mr. C however why don't you look at the CPP fund and see for yourself the losses it has incurred. If you look at the Ontario Teachers fund it has far exceeded the net back of the CPP.

So all of my critics that dislike extreme right wing nut views, you don't like the way things are. You want more and more, without taking the cuts. You want to drive businesses and wealthy people from the province, along with their jobs and capital. You want low taxes, but expect people more well off than you to cover more of your share. It would be an interesting thing, and not one I would be part of, to watch you exist without businesses and investment money, the oil industry, or the jobs provided by these people you loathe. Forcing you to pay for all the services you currently enjoy with their money. Go ahead and drive them out, you will pay in the end.

Can't be both ways, either things change or they stay the same, but you believe you can have your cake and eat it too. Classic indeed.