Archives for March 2015

By Amy Minsky and Vassy Kapelos Global News

OTTAWA — She came within inches of forming government in Alberta, then crossed the floor where she had to battle for her seat, but in the end lost it all. Now, former Wildrose Party leader Danielle Smith is leaving public life.

Asked Sunday afternoon via text message whether she had a few minutes to talk about Saturday night’s shocking upset, Smith responded, “No. I am leaving public life.”

A follow up message asked whether that ruled out any future runs for public office.

“P#ss off,” Smith responded.

She later apologized, saying her response was inappropriate and that she wasn’t ready to speak to the media.

Despite losing the PC nomination, Smith remains MLA for Calgary’s Highwood riding until she either resigns or an election is called.

Smith found herself in a tough race to win the PC nomination for her riding after crossing the floor from the Wildrose Party last year. Several senior cabinet ministers campaigned on Smith’s behalf over the weekend in High River, fuelling speculation Alberta Premier Jim Prentice would simply appoint her as the candidate.

After 972 ballots were cast on Saturday, however, Okotoks councillor Carrie Fischer won the Highwood PC nomination.

Following her defeat, Smith said she didn’t regret crossing the floor, adding she looked forward to “seeing Carrie be successful,” urging all conservatives to “unite under Jim Prentice’s leadership.

Smith had many supporters in her riding before she crossed over to the Tories, but it remained unclear whether their support would carry over after what some felt was a betrayal.

Smith shattered her caucus in December when she led an en masse floor crossing, saying she no longer had the fire in the belly to oppose the premier.

Smith and eight of her Wildrose party colleagues were accepted into Prentice’s Progressive Conservative caucus, leaving behind a five-member rump while elevating the Tory majority to an overwhelming 72 seats in the 87-seat legislature.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story was first published on Sunday, March 29 at 2:45 p.m. EST. It was later updated to include Danielle Smith’s apology. 

Global News reporter Vassy Kapelos’ text message exchange with former Wildrose leader Danielle Smith.

THE CANADIAN PRESS (WITH LETHBRIDGE HERALD FILES)

March 29, 2015

The former leader of Alberta’s Official Opposition and another former Wildrose member have paid a political price after crossing the floor to join the governing Progressive Conservatives. Danielle Smith lost the Tory nomination to Carrie Fischer in the riding of Highwood, south of Calgary, on Saturday while Gary Bikman lost the Cardston-Taber-Warner PC nomination to M.D. of Taber Reeve Brian Brewin.

Smith led eight of her colleagues of the Wildrose party, including Bikman of Stirling, across the floor to join the government last December in a stunning move that created a national stir among political watchers. More than 1,200 votes were cast in the Cardston-Taber-Warner nomination. Smith says she has mixed feelings with the loss. She says she’s disappointed but believes she helped make Alberta a better place.

Bill Graveland, The Canadian Press
Published Saturday, March 28, 2015 9:50PM EDT
Last Updated Saturday, March 28, 2015 10:42PM EDT

HIGH RIVER, Alta. — The former leader of Alberta’s Official Opposition paid a high political price on Saturday after creating a national stir when she crossed the floor to join the governing Progressive Conservatives.

Danielle Smith lost the Tory nomination to Carrie Fischer, a town councillor in Okotoks, in the provincial riding of Highwood, south of Calgary.

Smith led eight of her colleagues of the Wildrose party across the floor to join the government last December in a stunning move that created considerable buzz among political watchers.

“This is of course a mixed emotions day for me. I did want to get a mandate to be the PC candidate for Highwood but of course residents felt otherwise,” she said in her concession speech.

“I’m grateful for the residents of Highwood for coming out and participating in the process. I think it was an invigorating process. I think it was good for the party.”

Smith still believes switching parties was the right thing to do and she has no regrets about crossing the floor four months ago.

“No. Absolutely not. I believe that Jim Prentice is exactly the leader that we need right now. I think it’s important for Conservatives to unify under his leadership,” said Smith.

Smith’s loss happened on the same day that the Wildrose picked former federal Conservative MP Brian Jean as the new leader of the opposition party in a leadership vote.

The Progressive Conservatives did not give a breakdown on the nomination results but say 972 people voted.

Fischer said she understands that the floor crossing did have an impact on the outcome.

“I think it was on the minds of some of the voters but I hope my conversations with them earned their trust and support,” said Fischer.

Smith said she has no immediate plans but intends to join her parents on a trip to Mexico in May.

She told reporters earlier this year that she underestimated the amount of public anger that resulted from her decision to abandon the Wildrose Party.

Saudi producers have the money to hold out for two years, but U.S. can’t afford to let frackers fail

Gwynne Dyer is an independent London-based journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

I’m in Alberta, the province that produces most of Canada’s oil, and there’s only one question on everybody’s lips: How long

will the oil price stay down? It has fallen by more than half in the past nine months — West Texas Intermediate is $48 per

barrel today — and further falls are predicted for the coming weeks.

This hits jobs and government revenues hard in big oil-producing centres like Alberta, Texas and the British North Sea, but its effects reach farther than that. “Clean” energy producers are seeing demand for their solar panels and windmills drop as oil gets

more competitive. Electric cars, which were expected to make a major market breakthrough this year, are losing out to traditional gas-guzzlers that are now cheap to run again. Countries that have become too dependent on oil revenues are in deep trouble, like Russia (where the rouble has lost half its value in six months) and Venezuela. Countries like India, which imports most of its oil, are getting a big economic boost from the lower oil price. So how long this goes on matters to a great many people.

The answer may lie in two key numbers. Saudi Arabia has $900 billion in cash reserves, so it can afford to keep the oil price low for at least a couple of years. The “frackers” who have added four million barrels a day to U.S. oil production in the past five years (and effectively flooded the market) already owe an estimated $160 billion to the banks. They will have to borrow a lot more to stay in business while the oil price is low, because almost none of them can make a profit at the current price. Production

costs in the oil world are deep, dark secrets, but nobody believes that oil produced by hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) comes in at less than $60-$70 per barrel. The real struggle is between the frackers and Saudi Arabia, because the latter is the “swing

producer” in OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries), the cartel that has dominated the global oil market for the past fifty years.

All oil exporters want to keep the price high, but Saudi Arabia was the one OPEC member that could and would cut its production sharply for a while when an over-supply of oil in the market was driving prices down. It could afford to do that

because it has a relatively small population, very large savings — and a cost of production so low that it can make some profit

on its oil at almost any price. But even the Saudis cannot work miracles. They can aim for maximum production or maximum price; they cannot do both at the same time. Normally they would cut production temporarily to get the price back up. This time they refused to cut production and let the price collapse, despite the anguished pleas of some other OPEC members that need money NOW. The Saudis are thinking strategically. OPEC only controls about 30 per cent of world oil production, which is a very low share for a cartel that seeks to control the price. If fracking continues to expand in the United States, then OPEC’s market share will fall even further. So it has to drive the frackers out of business now. At first glance the Saudis look like sure

winners, because they can live with low prices a lot longer than the deeply indebted frackers can. The banks that have lent the frackers so much money already won’t get it back if the industry implodes in a wave of bankruptcies, but they don’t want to throw good money after bad.

The real wild card here is the U.S. government, which wants the “energy independence” that only more domestic oil production through fracking can provide. Will it let the American fracking industry go under, or will it give it the loan guarantees and direct subsidies that would let it wait the Saudis out? Stupid question. Of course it will do what is necessary to save the fracking

industry. Ideology goes out the window in a case like this: you can get bipartisan support in Washington for protecting a key American industry from “unfair” foreign competition. That will certainly be enough to keep the frackers in the game for another two or three years. Meanwhile, the OPEC members that depend on oil income to keep large populations well fed and at least

marginally content (e.g. Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela) will be facing massive public protest, and possibly even the threat of revolution. Their governments will be putting huge pressure on Saudi Arabia to save them by cutting production and driving the price back up.

It’s impossible to say how this game will end, but it’s pretty easy to say when. Two years ought to do it. Once the outcome is clear, the price of oil will start going back up no matter which side wins, but it will go up relatively slowly. We are unlikely to

see $100-a-barrel oil again before 2020 at the earliest.

I hope Albertans take note of being blamed for the political mess — a looming crisis the PCs have got us into over the past 44 years. Mr. Prentice, you must accept responsibility. It was your party with power that set policies, laws and direction and tinkered with regulations to suit the big guy. You tried to prep us offering to take a cut and now when it suits, you try to tell us “we’re in this together.” You continue to favour big business and industry and now want the small guy again to suffer, most of whom try to eke by, many on little more than minimum wage.

Let me remind you how over the years those near the bottom of the scale were getting two, three or, if lucky, four per cent, and when a couple years ago MLAs awarded themselves a 30 per cent increase, yes, it should be easy for you to take a five per cent reduction. No thanks; we’re not fooled! It’s no wonder the banks have been increasingly concerned about the steadily increasing

debt-load of average Canadians and you resolutely refuse to consider a sales tax or return to progressive taxation which, if adopted, judging by B.C., would increase revenues by $11.6 billion.

We ask, what have you done to curtail spending or to diversify our economy and get us away from this “boom and bust” economy? Why threaten education? Is health care next? Mr. Prentice, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that it’s

much easier for you, with salary of a couple hundred thousand per year and MLAs with $127,000 per year plus expenses including travel, as well as your industrial and big-business cronies, most on even bigger salaries and benefits, to go after those on close to minimum wage or not much more.

Yep! Easy to talk and “good try” trying to psych us into believing we must go along with you. It’s high time the opposition got a chance at re-balancing things. The only way we can establish some balance is, and I plead with you my fellow Albertans, vote for the opposition in the upcoming election.

Michael Cormican

Lethbridge

Recently a Letter to the Editor (“Accuracy lacking in minutes from AltaLink meetings,” March 4) appeared in your paper and I would like to take the opportunity to respond and clarify AltaLink’s role in Alberta’s electricity system. Many people believe that AltaLink decides which transmission projects are needed. This is incorrect.

The need for transmission projects in Alberta is determined by the independent, not-forprofit Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO).

A need then requires approval from the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC). In the case of the Castle Rock Ridge to Chapel Rock Transmission Project, the need was approved in 2014. This project is driven by the need to connect clean, green wind energy in southwest Alberta to the electric grid to ensure all Albertans reap the benefits of green energy. The AESO has directed AltaLink to build the project. As a public utility, we’re required by law to complete the project. As an Alberta company, we respect the magnificence of the area in which the project will be built and understand that landowners have concerns about the impact infrastructure development might have on the landscape. Working together with community members, we believe a solution can be found that makes sense. Some factors taken into account as we identify potential route options include the

residential, environmental, visual, agricultural, and electrical impacts of the proposed line and substation. As a regulated utility, we must also consider the cost of the solution to Alberta ratepayers.

It is early in the process and the right time for stakeholders to get involved, and stay involved, as we move forward. In addition to input received from more than 500 visitors to our interactive feedback sessions, we have received numerous letters from landowners and interest groups, and had many valuable face-to-face meetings with landowners in the area. All of this information is crucial to our consultation process.

Our meeting summary is meant to act as a general record of main topics discussed during the meeting. We strive to create an accurate record of the meeting and continue to work with community representatives present at the meeting, as we committed to at the time, to ensure the summary presents an accurate reflection of the discussion. Your input helps guide our decisions, and

ultimately, the location of the line. We look forward to continuing the conversation to ensure that together we find a low-impact

solution.

Pam Kean

Director, Consultation

AltaLink

Wednesday, February 25, 2015
David McIntyre

The attached letter – it might be entitled Assessing AltaLink – presented here in shortened form to remove the name of a third party individual, was sent to AltaLink following the company’s presentation of meeting minutes that, in the opinion of participants, fell far short in presenting a meaningful rendering of actual outcomes. The meetings addressed a proposed $750-million overhead transmission line from Pincher Creek to Crowsnest Pass.

The letter to AltaLink:

I’ve read AltaLink-recorded minutes from two December (2014) meetings, and AltaLink-recorded minutes from another event, an open house in Lundbreck.

There are, as reported to me by several participants, more than a few factual errors in one of the December meeting minutes and, in all cases, the minutes present a profound and distorted – decidedly pro-AltaLink – rendering of the actual dialogue and outcomes.

I don’t see any value in trying to correct the minutes at this late date, but wish to reflect the fact that I am disturbed that AltaLink, seemingly present to record full-spectrum concerns and the essence of full-dialogue discourse, failed miserably in recording the voices and concerns of the AltaLink-threatened populace. Other participants have expressed similar concerns.

My thought: The distributed minutes create the on-paper impression that AltaLink, an unassailable authority on the land and over the people, was kind enough to listen to, and quickly squelch, all of the populace’s silly and/or ill-founded concerns.

AltaLink’s presence – it turns lives upside down – threatens life, lifestyles, and quality-of-life issues. The name AltaLink fosters fear and feelings of despair. Lifelong dreams and investments are on the chopping block.

AltaLink’s open houses and various other meetings cost residents dearly in terms of time, energy, money, unwanted travel and extreme stress. Worse, the open houses allow AltaLink, an outsider, to come in and, for a day or two, take over our community and “invite us” to come in and see how the company plans to degrade, and potentially destroy, an iconic Alberta landscape … and everything we’ve worked to achieve by making this landscape our home.

It would appear that residents participating in these exchanges – as long as the populace is trapped in this pro-AltaLink, discriminatory process of “engagement” – need to, in addition to being present, assume the role of recording the outcomes of these meetings. This would appear to be the only way to ensure that a clear and honest record exists.

Another alternative: hire a third-party to record meeting minutes.

What I’m addressing, more than the need for factual reporting, are the issues of honesty and trust.

Does anyone other than AltaLink feel that AltaLink is honest and trustworthy, or that its process of public engagement is just and legitimate?

Sincerely,
David McIntyre

Monday, March 9, 2015
Pam Kean, Director, Consultation, AltaLink

Recently an editorial* (Accuracy lacking in minutes from AltaLink meetings, February 25, 2015) appeared in your publication and I would like to take the opportunity to respond and clarify AltaLink’s role in Alberta’s electric system and how homeowners’ and landowners’ input is critical to the decisions we make in identifying locations for new transmission lines.

Many people believe that AltaLink decides which transmission projects are needed. This is incorrect.

The need for transmission projects in Alberta is determined by the independent, not-for-profit Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO). A need then requires approval from the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC). In the case of the Castle Rock Ridge to Chapel Rock Transmission Project, the need was approved by the AUC in 2014.

This project is driven by the need to connect clean, green wind energy in southwest Alberta to the electric grid to ensure all Albertans reap the benefits of green energy.

The AESO has directed AltaLink to build the project to satisfy this need. As a public utility, we’re required by law to complete the project.

As an Alberta company, we respect the magnificence of the area in which the project will be built and understand that landowners have concerns about the impact infrastructure development might have on the landscape.

Working together with community members, we believe a solution can be found that makes sense. Some factors taken into account as we identify potential route options include the residential, environmental, visual, agricultural, and electrical impacts of the proposed line and substation. As a regulated utility, we must also consider the cost of the solution to Alberta ratepayers.

In an effort to gather input we have reached out to landowners in the project area. It is early in the process and the right time for stakeholders to get involved, and stay involved, as we move forward. In addition to input received from more than 500 visitors to our interactive feedback sessions, we have received numerous letters from landowners and interest groups, and had many valuable face-to-face meetings with landowners in the area. All of this information has been crucial to our consultation process.

We have participated in large group meetings with landowners to discuss the project. Our meeting summary is meant to act as a general record, at a high level, of main topics discussed during the meeting. We strive to create an accurate record of the meeting and continue to work with community representatives present at the meeting, as we committed to at the time, to ensure the summary presents an accurate reflection of the discussion.

Your input helps guide our decisions, and ultimately, the location of the line. We look forward to continuing the conversation with landowners to ensure that together we find a low impact solution.

Yours truly,
Pam Kean
Director, Consultation

*Editor’s note: for clarification, the item in question that the above is in response to was a letter to the editor, not an editorial.

Dr. Harpreet Kochhar says consumers not at risk because of Canada’s BSE safeguards

By John Cotter, The Canadian Press Posted: Mar 08, 2015 8:51 AM MT Last Updated: Mar 08, 2015 8:56 AM MT

BSE is a fatal and untreatable wasting disease of the brain and nervous systems caused by rogue proteins called prions, which can be spread through contaminated feed. (Jeff McIntosh/Canadian Press)

Canada’s chief veterinary officer says some cattle associated with the investigation into a case of mad cow disease in Alberta were slaughtered over the last few years and entered the human food chain.

But Dr. Harpreet Kochhar said consumers are not at risk because of Canada’s bovine spongiform encephalopathy safeguards.

• BSE cow born on Alberta farm, says Canadian Cattlemen’s Association

“There is no food safety concern here because any of these animals would have been slaughtered and the specified risk material, which is the material which actually harbours prions, (would) have been removed completely — and that is because of the enhanced feed ban,” Kochhar said in an interview.

.”And none of the animals, if they had ever shown any symptoms, would have been brought to the slaughterhouse because of other controls like surveillance.”

Less than 250 human cases worldwide

BSE is a fatal and untreatable wasting disease of the brain and nervous systems. It is caused by rogue proteins called prions, which can be spread through contaminated feed. Humans who eat infected beef can develop a fatal disease called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Fewer than 250 human cases have been reported worldwide.

Last week, a report posted on the World Organisation for Animal Health website indicated that 317 cattle out of 750 associated with the BSE investigation had been slaughtered.

The information about the BSE cow’s so-called “birth cohort” was submitted to the Paris-based organization, also known as the OIE, by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The numbers refer to cattle born within one year of the BSE cow’s March 2009 birth. Both numbers have since been removed from the OIE website.

Kochhar said the posting was an initial draft and the slaughter number was not correct. He said the final number could be higher.

Kochhar said the 750 number was “approximately right within 95 per cent confidence.”

Investigators are still working to confirm both totals, which will be submitted to the OIE, he said.

Numbers released accidentally

OIE spokeswoman Catherine Bertrand-Ferrandis said the numbers were accidentally posted on the web due to a computer glitch and were later removed because they are not yet considered to be official by the Canadian government.

She said that the OIE hopes to receive a followup report from Canada in the coming days.

The beef breeding cow with BSE was discovered last month on a farm near Edmonton and was born on a nearby farm.

Another cow born on the same farm in 2004 tested positive for the disease in 2010. No parts of the BSE cows got into human or animal food, the agency has said.

Kochhar said in a typical BSE investigation, up to half of the cattle involved have already been slaughtered.

Another 10 per cent are still alive, about 10 cent have been exported and 10 per cent can’t be traced, he said. The rest would have died for different reasons.

Investigators continue the complex task of checking cattle born on the farm and which may have been exposed to the same feed as the BSE cow.

Kochhar said records suggest that other cattle had access to the same feed, but it is too early to say how many.

A typical BSE investigation takes about six months before a final report can be submitted to the OIE, he said.

COLIN PERKEL

TORONTO — The Canadian Press

Published Sunday, Mar. 08 2015, 8:35 PM EDT

Last updated Sunday, Mar. 08 2015, 8:48 PM EDT

Four rural families who lost their fight against the construction of wind farms near their homes will have to pay a total of $67,000 to the companies they took to court.

The costs award is far less than the $340,000 the three wind companies were demanding because, as Ontario’s Divisional Court ruled, the families’ battle was more than a personal crusade.

Shawn Drennan, whose home near Goderich, Ont., is a short distance from a 140-turbine project, said he was pleased the ruling has cut his bill to $25,000 from more than $200,000.

“I’m feeling relieved,” Mr. Drennan said in a weekend interview. “$25,000 is not a small number but it’s manageable.”

In a decision released late Friday, Divisional Court rejected arguments from the Drennans, Ryans, Dixons and Kroeplins that they should have to pay none of the companies’ legal bills. But the court also rejected the companies’ contention that the families had been purely selfish in launching the turbine challenge.

“Although the appellants obviously had a private interest in the litigation, their appeals contained a strong public-interest component – raising, as they did, the constitutionality of part of the legislative regime governing the construction and operation of wind farms in this province,” the court said.

“Any award of costs must reflect that strong public-interest component.”

At any rate, the court found, the amount demanded by K2 Wind, Armow, and St. Columban was unreasonably high.

It also took the companies to task for failing to explain exactly how they had arrived at the amount they were asking for.

The families had argued Ontario’s turbine-approvals process was unconstitutional because it exposes citizens to a reasonable prospect of serious harm to their health. In December, Divisional Court rejected that challenge.

In asking for $340,000 in costs, the companies said the families knew the risks of losing. They also said the high-stakes fight had forced them to deploy considerable legal resources to defend projects they say are safe and properly approved.

The families’ lawyer Julian Falconer, who had denounced the companies’ initial bill as intimidation aimed at discouraging legal challenges, said the costs award captured the larger issues in play.

“The court ruling is very important because of the recognition that these cases are not all about money,” Mr. Falconer said on the weekend.

“What these families have on the line went well beyond protecting their backyards.”

The families are hoping Ontario’s top court will hear an appeal of the December ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the provincial rules and allowed the three wind projects to proceed.