April 1, 2015.

Dave Mabell

LETHBRIDGE HERALD

[email protected]

One disapproving poll doesn’t guarantee political disaster for the province’s Conservatives.

But Lethbridge political scientists say it could force Premier Jim Prentice to have second thoughts about calling a spring election.

“We’ll see how the premier responds to his internal (party) polling,” says Geoffrey Hale, a member of the political science faculty at the University of Lethbridge. If they’re similar to the results of a poll released by a national polling firm Tuesday, he could wait for a better time.

A Mainstreet Technologies poll of more than 3,000 Albertans, taken after the Conservatives tabled their tax-hike budget, showed Prentice’s party tied with the opposition Wildrose party at 30 per cent support.

The pollsters also reported 44 per cent of those who responded said Alberta should raise its taxes on corporations – a move the government refuses to do – while 49 per disapproved of the budget overall.

Particularly in Edmonton, they added, the New Democrats are also benefitting from voters’ rejection of the long-ruling Conservatives and their latest leader. In that city, leader Rachel Notley and her candidates are polling at 43 per cent of the decided voters.

Political scientist Faron Ellis, who leads a political opinion survey project at Lethbridge College, noted the Mainstreet poll was “a snapshot” taken just as Albertans were responding to the government’s plans for cradle-to-grave tax hikes.

“But they have been very accurate in the last few elections they’ve tracked,” Ellis said.

“They had a large sample size, and the patterns were very similar to ours” in recent Citizen Society Research Lab surveys.

Mainstreet said that sample gives it a margin of error of just 1.8 per cent, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.

Given the timing, Hale said, “It’s not surprising that the premier has had a bit of push-back.”

“The budget was heavy on slapping the general public,” but Albertans expected to see big business step up to the plate as well. “There was political room for an extra point on the business income tax,” he pointed out.

But instead Prentice – formerly a bank vice-president with CIBC – told Albertans any tax increase would drive the big companies out of the province.

Prentice had promised Albertans a “transformative” budget, Ellis noted.

“But instead he raised taxes across the board – 53 of them – while still running a deficit.

“He’s done nothing ‘transformational’, and a lot of people don’t like that business got off scott free.”

For Hale, last week’s document amounts to “a stop-gap budget.”

“The subtext is, ‘See us after the election.’”

How soon that will come is a little less certain, Hale added.

“A week ago, a lot of people thought he would do the cynical thing and take advantage of the opposition’s weakness.”

Prentice engineered that weakness, Hale asserts, by co-opting leader Danielle Smith and eight of her Wildrose cohorts and then “hanging them out to dry.”

Now Smith, Cardston-Taber-Warner MLA Gary Bikman and central Alberta member Rod Fox – three of the nine who quit Wildrose – have lost their nominations while three more have walked away from politics.

Bikman and others, says Ellis, fell victim to local voters’ repulsion over Smith and most of her caucus seemingly abandoning their supporters. For once, he suggests, Albertans have drawn a political line in the sand.

“This flagrant opportunism has created a line that politicians can’t cross without raising the ire of the voters.”

 

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Letters to the Editor

The Pincher Creek Voice

David McIntyre

Dear Premier Prentice,
Yesterday afternoon, without really knowing where I was headed, I arrived at an ancient limber pine that, growing from a thrust-faulted alter of sandstone, lies within a spectacular natural sandstone amphitheater.

My wife and I refer to the location as a vision quest site, but it isn’t a prehistoric site as far as we know, or can tell, although it affords views of such sites, and of a Serengeti-like landscape – it’s drop-dead gorgeous – that’s rich in archaeological and paleontological treasures.

Yesterday’s footloose escape took me past blooming wildflowers, flocks of migrating birds, parades of mule deer and flocks of displaying wild turkeys. Overhead, an adult golden eagle soared over a cliffside nesting site.

Deer and elk sign covered the rough fescue grasslands, where the season’s first emerging Columbian ground squirrels could be seen, and where the skeletal remains of a black bear left me to wonder what had caused the animal’s death.

Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away, … but in another sense, I was looking at them, and the reason for sleepless nights. I was looking at the Crown of the Continent landscape where AltaLink proposes to erect a view-degrading, ecologically-destroying array of overhead transmission lines.

This morning, from my home overlooking Rock Creek on the eastern flanks of the Livingstone Range, I’m viewing, as I write this message, two moose and herds of mule and white-tailed deer. And I can glance up, above my computer screen, to see a large elk herd that, moving slowly, is grazing its way northward.

Within this same view, if AltaLink’s $750-million wish comes true, I’ll soon look out at – and under and through – approximately 3 km of lattice towers and screaming-in-the-wind transmission lines … all paid for by cash-strapped Albertans.

David McIntyre
[email protected]

 

James Wood, Calgary Herald More from James Wood, Calgary Herald

Darcy Henton, Calgary Herald More from Darcy Henton, Calgary Herald

Published on: March 30, 2015
Last Updated: March 30, 2015 8:17 PM MDT

A longtime Tory barred by the party from running for a Progressive Conservative nomination says he’s hurt and disappointed and may jump to another party after the way he’s been treated by the PC brass and Premier Jim Prentice.

The party announced just after midnight Sunday that Jamie Lall had been disallowed as a candidate in Chestermere-Rocky View, leaving former Wildrose education critic Bruce McAllister to be acclaimed to represent the PCs in the riding.

No reason was given and Lall said in an interview Monday that he’s still in the dark about why he was blocked, just days before the riding’s April 1 nomination date.

“People are going to connect dots. That’s up to them. I am in a lot of ways still in shock. It’s upsetting, it’s hurtful. I think that if there was some sort of smoking gun or reason, common sense would suggest it would be brought out before that,” said Lall, who noted he was vetted twice before being appointed as the PC candidate in Calgary-Buffalo in the 2012 election.

Lall, who is also president of the PC’s Calgary-McCall riding association, said he has been a loyal Tory but hasn’t ruled out joining, or perhaps even running for, another party in the election that Prentice is expected to call this spring.

“Anything is possible. I never thought my party, the PCs, would do this to me,” he said, noting that he had been approached by multiple other parties.

McAllister is one of nine Wildrose MLAs who crossed the floor en masse to the government benches in December. Three of the defectors — Gary Bikman, Rod Fox and former party leader Danielle Smith — were defeated for PC nominations on Saturday just hours before Lall was texted at 11:27 by PC executive director Kelley Charlebois that his candidacy had been disallowed.

Some in Lall’s camp have suggested the party was motivated to stop Lall’s candidacy because of concern about losing another ex-Wildrose MLA.

Lall said he doesn’t know for sure but “the timing would probably suggest that.”

McAllister’s campaign manager, Ken Boessenkool, has said he was absolutely confident the former Wildrose MLA would have won a contested nomination.

The PC party has refused to comment on the reason for disallowing Lall’s candidacy.

Prentice also refused to disclose details Monday but defended the party’s decision.

“They made their decision in the case of Mr. Lall for good reasons,” the premier told reporters Monday in Calgary. “I’m satisfied that they made the right choice in terms of what is in the best interests of the Progressive Conservative party.”

Prentice said only “four or five” of several hundred candidates vying for nominations as PC candidates in the province’s 87 ridings were disallowed, and the party had excellent candidates nominated.

Prentice also defended the PC party’s use of a private investigator as part of the vetting process in Chestermere-Rocky View, which has raised eyebrows in some corners.

Charlebois suggested in an email on the weekend that it was not unusual, saying that “a private investigator was hired to assist with vetting in all 87 riding nominations.”

Lall said Monday that investigator Gordon Bull was “aggressive” in pressing him for phone numbers of family and friends.

Pollster and political analyst Janet Brown said Lall has been a “loyal Conservative soldier,” who appears to be well-regarded by many within the PC camp.

“The premier does have the power to step in and override a local riding association. He’s got to be careful about appearing undemocratic and, quite frankly, mean-spirited,” she said.

With files from Trevor Howell, Calgary Herald

[email protected]

[email protected]

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