Update on Dylan

Back in November I did a post on a resident of Airdrie. To no surprise no headway was ever made with Alberta Health to provide service to this young man, instead they wrote it off as depression.

I am happy to say that a doctor out of the United States agreed to do the surgery for free, and successfully operated on Dylan on the December 23, 2009. The doctors in the U.S. not only removed one tumor, but also found and removed a second one. Since getting them removed Dylan has been able to live a normal life as every teen should.

The problem comes in that our system failed so miserably in providing care to the resident. Raj Sherman had came down to discuss the issue with the family prior, to no avail. Now sadly the family is still stuck with the burden of a $100,000.00 bill for the costs incurred while in recovery. I think this is one of the things our health care should cover. Not only did our system failure cost a local teen 5 years of his life he can never get back, but humiliated the family by claiming they were mistaken and it was depression. Our system forced them to beg and go from doctor to doctor looking for help. Luckily Dylan did not die from this, and hold our system negligent, which is exactly what it was. There is some info for donating on my previous post. Also if you could write a letter to the health minister demanding help for the family, I think it is necessary for them to be held accountable.

Update: Dylan's new website is www.dylannielsen.ca For those wondering I have confirmed that his MLA (Rob Anderson) had requested a meeting with Minister Zwodesky for the Nielsens, which he has agreed to. However nothing else has been heard yet on a date.

Alberta Party "Listening to Some Albertans"

Much to my amazement today I read on the merger of the Alberta Party and Renew AB.

This is quite an odd merger in the fact that it involves a right wing fringe party, as well as a left of center political movement in Renew. What I found most entertaining was this from the website " Today begins an exciting new era in Alberta politics. Our efforts to build a new political party have taken a giant leap forward: we are pleased to announce that that Renew Alberta has become part of the new Alberta Party." What? Their efforts to build a NEW political party, ha ha, Sorry guys but the Alberta Party has been around a while, and has run along with almost every right wing fringe including the Alberta Alliance, who they would have merged with if it didn't have to delist from Elections AB. Here's what they stood for:

Alberta Party Political Association
The Alberta Party was formed in 1985, initially calling itself the Alberta Alliance Political Association and running candidates in the 1993 election. It changed its name to the Alberta Party in 1998.
With a mandate to "protect Albertans from negative federal policies," many of the party's founders found a home with the newly formed Reform Party and put their provincial interests on hold.
The party has been revived over concerns about the merging of Reform's successor, the Canadian Alliance, with the federal Progressive Conservatives. According to the Alberta Party's website, "The only way that Alberta is going to change federal political institutions is through a determined push by a provincial government that understands its first responsibility to be the protection of its people and the promotion of their interests."

Now when I go to the right wing fringe website here, they claim they are listening to Albertans. Here is the background text:

The joining of these two parties demonstrated the power of conversation. Over one weekend, two very different groups of people met to explore the vision we have for our province. We started by listening to each other, and in doing so we found remarkable commonality and we overcame our doubts. This is how the future of Alberta politics will be written.
Albertans – whether young or old, urban or rural, labourers or professionals – have more in common than our current politicians give us credit for. While they would divide us along the political spectrum and pit us against one another, we refuse to ignore our shared history and our mutual values.
So where are our policies? As of today we have none. Unanimously our Board has decided to suspend our old policies and has committed to building new ones through face-to-face conversations, around the province, starting March 1st. The Alberta Party’s Big Listen is an Alberta-wide convention, with your kitchen table as its venue. By the time the next provincial election is announced, our party will reflect what your friends, your family – and you –have told us you’re looking for.
The Alberta Party has a strong legacy in Alberta and its roots run deep and wide. But we’ve never been more excited than we are today. We’re thrilled to join with the Renew Alberta movement, and we look forward to your help in getting all Albertans a better government.
We’re listening.
Edwin EricksonLeader Alberta Party Chima NkemdirimCo-Chair of Renew Alberta

Nicely put, and who wouldn't want this for Alberta? Even Daveberta is blogging on it. Now I have a few friends that are members in the Alberta Party, so I called one up to get his take on it. Big surprise no one had discussed this move with him, and was he pissed. As he has a copy of the Alberta Party constitution he has not been able to find where executive gets to set the policy. In Janes Blog her contact notes the same. Difference is the right leaning gentleman I talked to is going to pursue it and challenge their right to do so. Which brings me to the next question of what is in their constitution that the new members don't know about? Is this suspension of policies legal? I guess we will find out fairly soon, as no one will support a party that stands for nothing at all outside of talking. We do that at the coffee shop.

In the end the Alberta Party is claiming to be a party listening to Albertans, and claiming they have wiped the policy slate clean. Where will they leave their right wing supporters? How is it communicating with them and listening? Nearest I can see they must be listening to someone, and it will be interesting to see where the current members take the violation in the constitution, and try to merge in with their political opposites. Yeah a real big change from the normal..yawn. Will they end up splitting the vote on the left and center, forcing in a Wildrose majority or simply fizzle out with the infighting? Time will tell, but I am sure I have heard these lines before.

Up Yours Bed, Bath, and Beyond!!

So Bed Bath and Beyond chooses to boycott Alberta's resources. Well so be it. I simply boycott Bed Bath and Beyond.

Yesterday when I learned of the boycott I was so outraged I was ready to throw a sign on my truck and go park in front of their new store at Cross Iron. I still might. This company has had no problems coming into our province and making money off of Albertans. One thing they may want to consider before the make such a ridiculous move is that our energy sector plays a very significant role in our economy. Not only do they shun Albertans with this move, but place in jeopardy their own people that invested in the franchise as well as the employees that rely on the jobs there. I wonder if the local franchises share this view.

I have no problem with these large chains wanting to show environmental stewardship, however try reducing emissions in their shipping methods. This is a move that will make a bigger impact environmentally than the showboating they try and acheive here. It is my hope that the Alberta government will stand up for it's industry that they obviously rely heavily in their back in black in three years plan. We have listened to our GOA claim they need to change the perception of the industry so here is your chance.

My family has made a decision to support busineses that will help our economy, not hurt it and would advise Albertans to really consider doing the same. This is a U.S. based company that reaps the profits while also refuses to support provinces that allow them to do so.

To Bed Bath and Beyond- if word of mouth is the best advertising, your budget is now cut!

UPDATE: Bed Bath and Beyond is backpeddling. I am sorry but the "Our intent was to encourage our ...transportation providers to be aware of the issues in the context of our attempts to decrease our own greenhouse gas impacts." does nothing for me. You are saying we wanted our transporters to be aware of "dirty oil" and the impact if they use it. MUCH BETTER-NOT

Alberta Budget 2010

Yesterday the Progressive Conservative government released Alberta's budget for the 2010-2011 period. To the shock of I believe almost everyone, the slash and cut expected was not there, rather a 6% increase in spending.

As conservative as I am, I have to say this budget was far from fiscally responsible. Does this make the budget a bad move? Let me surprise you all by saying NO. Since the GOA had no plan on how to cut spending effectively I think we are much better off to ride out the storm, even though we will completely spend the sustainability fund. We have witnessed the cuts that were being proposed by the GOA in the PDD sector as well as assisted living. The GOA was not starting with cuts to the executive and bringing down the costs of administration, rather taking it from the people that rely on this funding.

You have to remember this is a budget to place the money in certain areas, and provide an idea of where the funding will go. Will the increase in health care provide better delivery or make it sustainable? Far from it, but what it does do is keep the band-aid on it until someone puts a plan forward. Since the unions contract is due in March I think much of this increase will go to cover off the increase. Paying off the deficit in health care was also a smart move, after all it is still GOA debt even if it is not on their books.

The extra money in our education system is also a key move, but again the spending is not being done wisely. We will not receive any improvements due to the increase, it will simply cover off the additional 4000 students expected to enroll.

The trimming we saw in the other areas again are not planned out, and will simply be handed over to the executives to make the cuts. I do not like this simply because executive will never voluntarily make the cuts that affect them. As shown in previous posts ridiculous amounts of money is spent, before the front line sees a dime.

Now I could go in depth in every dept. on the budget and what could be done to effectively reign in spending without affecting the services, but this is for another day. What I think the biggest question on this proposed budget to be back in black by 2012, is do they believe that in 2012 they will actually increase revenue by $6 Billion dollars and only increase their spending by $1 Billion dollars. As far as the estimates on the oil and gas price forecast I think they have made reasonable forecasts on a very volatile commodity. For their sake they better hope they hit it right, because our revenue forecast is heavily reliant on it. It is a gamble and high risk game they have chosen to play here, which could take them either way. Hero to Zero is a fine line.

We can complain that we are draining the rainy day fund, but folks it's pouring. Like it or not the world is in recession. Does this mean we need to spend until it is gone? Not in my opinion, it could however be used this year while they carefully plan out how to get our spending under control. The resources will not be there forever, so by not having any money going to a future savings account they also set us up for a future pitfall. They need to have a plan in place, and so far I see nothing of the sort. Department specific budget can be found here. The spending buffet is still open and now it includes dessert, but I wouldn't trust them to do it any other way.

The person I felt the most sympathetic for was Dr. Morton, who had to sign his name to something he never wrote. Well known as a fiscal hawk, and the perception that he was being placed in the position to reign in spending, is nothing short of a strategy. I have to say that I do not blame him for getting choked up at the end when he delivered the budget, I am sure it tore him up inside to present it.

B.C. also released their speech from the throne yesterday. Some of the most interesting points from it I find are:

1. "New forms of schooling will be developed to provide greater choice and diversity, centred on students' special interests and talents."
2. "Enable the establishment of neighbourhood preschools for four-year-olds and three-year-olds within communities over the next five years."
3. " A new Family with Children Property Tax Deferral Option will be provided to all B.C. families with children under the age of 18. Those families will be given the right to defer their property taxes under a new property tax deferral program similar to the one already available to seniors and those facing financial hardship."
4. "Voluntary, full-time kindergarten for five-year-olds will be implemented this September. It will be fully funded and in every school by September 2011."
5. " Innovation in health-support services, new hospitals and public-private partnerships will be introduced to give patients new choices, to reward performance in health delivery and to protect public health care for future generations."

Take from it what you will.

Official Party Status

Apparently two Alberta opposition parties say they’re being shortchanged in the legislature. Stop and think about this for a minute, what are the rules regarding official party status? The last time I checked you were required to have four MLA's in the Legislature to achieve official party status.

Those of you who follow my blog know I am absolutely a supporter of the Wildrose, but I will also give the criticism when it is due. The Alberta NDP have enjoyed special status since 1997 when Ralph Klein made the provision after they dropped below the required four. Does this mean that this should continue? With all of the cuts and fiscal responsibilities being tossed around, how responsible is it to fund these two parties that simply do not meet the criteria? Ken Kowalski has been in the legislature for 30 years as a PC, do you really think he cares if you call him partisan? Is 30 years maybe enough time that everyone realizes this? Lets get to Guy Boutillier, the independent that was removed from the PC caucus for speaking out. Should he receive the funding and get special status as well? Why not, he is only one member behind the NDP, I am sure he could use the funding and research money as well. Why does he only get a question a week? Fair is fair.

It is time for the Alberta Government to get a backbone and follow the rules of the Legislative Assembly. Remove all special privilege and status, and spend our tax dollars on things they were meant to be spent on. My hope is that the Wildrose will be a different opposition party than the status quo, although with the joining of the NDP and their habitual bitching I don't know that we will be. I realize how important this funding and questions are to the Wildrose, but in party principle we need to practice what we preach and wasting more tax dollars is not the what we claim. Democratic reform is also preached so how is demanding special treatment democratic?

In short to Mr. Kowalski I would like to thank you for recognizing the Wildrose as an official party even though we are not. Thank you for being non-partisan and allowing 1-2 questions per day (time permitting) when we are only entitled to as many per week. You could have played the partisan card easily here and you rose above the fray, a reason you have been in the Legislature for the past 30 years. (Update: I know this was over the top, it was to make a point!!)

To my friends at the Wildrose please don't turn into the standard opposition party, stick to your roots. Use your time wisely to make Alberta a better place. Change the old habits of government and give us the refreshing change we expect from you, it may hurt in the short term but in the long run it will come back ten fold! By sticking to your principles now, you define the party so no one else can define it for you.

Update: Wildrose News Release

Shared Responsibility

An article in the Calgary Herald today announced that Alberta's workplace deaths drop sharply in '09. This is great news, but I wonder if it is really due to safe work practices or simply the decline in activity. With the amount of job losses are employees ensuring they do things properly to ensure they do not lose their job?

Gil McGowan the president of Alberta Federation of Labour is not happy that Alberta has enjoyed a lower amount of prosecutions compared to other jurisdictions. What this has to do with the safety of workers, I have no idea. I can't reasonably believe an employer's decision whether or not to put a life in danger, would be based on fines and prosecution.

Alberta has some of the most stringent safety regulations and the companies strive on their own initiative to ensure worker safety. The COR program is a voluntary partnership which sets a high standard for safety, and is implemented by many companies. Alberta was one of the first places to implement this, and has the highest participation.

Bob Barnetson, who specializes in labour relations at Athabasca University, suggests government get tougher on companies breaking safety rules. In 2005 the Alberta government collected $5,000,000.00 in fines, which seems fairly steep to me. The problem I have, is not that government is cracking down on safety violations, rather what they classify as a safety violation. In the research I have done on the violations and prosecutions in Alberta, it would seem to me that the workers have no shared responsibility when it comes to safe work practices. There are many safety measures and equipment supplied to these workers by employers that simply are not used or followed. Workers that do no use their safety harnesses, safety glasses, steel toed boots, gloves, etc... are not liable for their actions. Companies have written policies that discuss not only what equipment is required, but also the proper care and maintenance of it. When the employee makes the decision not to use them, the employer is at fault for not ensuring workers safety.

Saying that an employer is responsible for ensuring an employee is adhering to the safety practices is not always practical. The only possible way is to have a safety officer watching each employee, which is not at all reasonable. Employees must learn that these measures are in place for their safety and take responsibility for themselves and the public as well. When an employee chooses to go their own way they place themselves in danger, and place the employer in a vulnerable spot, and as we have seen in Calgary the public as well. Is there no common sense at all to know when something may be dangerous? This decision could be the one that forces a company to close it's doors, all because of one persons stupidity. Is an employees laziness, or bad judgement reason to prosecute the employer? I realize there are companies that take shortcuts on safety, and yes these should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. What about these employees though, shouldn't they be open to the same recourse? Do employees not share safety responsibility? After ten years of doing the same job, are they really improperly trained?

If an employer needs to hold employees hands every step of the way, then they may as well do the job themselves. You will always find a way after an incident or accident that could have prevented it, however is prosecuting the company the best prevention? I think if the responsibility was shared, it would be best.