First posted: Thursday, April 18, 2013 07:54 PM MDT | Updated: Friday, April 19, 2013 07:41 AM MDT

The Alberta provincial government claims it will spend $36.4 billion on operations in the coming year.

Of that sum, $17.1 billion (47%) will go to health care — nearly half.

Of that $17.1 billion, $10.9 billion will be given to Alberta Health Services (AHS) to run the public system of hospitals, clinics and care centres.

That means AHS is responsible for a full 30% of all the money the Alberta government spends in a year — not just on health care, but on all operations including education, environment, welfare, municipalities, transportation and so on.

More accurately, AHS is irresponsible for nearly a third of the province’s operating funds. AHS is the elephant in the provincial treasury.

But while Albertans have focused on the role of AHS in the myriad spending scandals that have spewed out of the public health-care system over the last nine months, it is time to begin pinning the blame where it squarely belongs: on Health Minister Fred Horne, Premier Alison Redford and the Tory government.

After all, it is the government that hands over nearly a third of its operating budget to AHS and the government that then seems to wash its hands of any culpability.

Albertans will pay $14.8 billion in provincial income tax in the coming year, meaning the equivalent of 75 cents of every $1 we pay goes to AHS. Then when AHS blows millions upon millions on expense accounts for its army of vice-presidents, regional managers, local managers, consultants and just plain old managers, Fred Horne expresses his regret that he can do nothing.

Wednesday, the Wildrose opposition revealed yet another spending irregularity at AHS. Former Executive Vice-President for Strategy and Performance Alison Tonge, a Brit, was reimbursed $1,570 for health care tests to support her immigration application to Canada.

This doesn’t strike me as all that outrageous. Lots of private-sector employers do the same for employees they are recruiting from other countries. If you want someone to say yes to your job offer, you have to pay their relocation expenses, and immigration health tests are a relocation expense.

What is outraging about the Tonge file, though, is that she was here just 26 months (Nov. 2009 to Jan. 2012), after which she returned to Britain. Yet Alberta taxpayers paid her nearly $427,000 in severance. That’s more than $16,000 a month for each month she was here. That’s quite the parting gift.

More significantly, it is standard for the scores of executives that have traipsed in and out of AHS or its precursors over the past decade. Exorbitant goodbye packages for short-term work are the norm.

Yet each time a new scandal tumbles out of AHS (almost tripping over the corpse of the one before it), Minister Horne and Premier Redford shrug their shoulders, turn their palms skyward and claim to be powerless to do anything.

Last summer, when Allaudin Merali was exposed for having expensed more than $350,000 for butlers, Mercedes repairs and fancy trips, Horne said there was little he could do because it was an AHS matter.

Ditto when AHS Chairman Stephen Lockwood quietly cancelled the audits of nearly 30 top execs, ordered by Horne in the wake of the Merali affair.

It was the same after the auditor general discovered $100 million in AHS expenses over just 17 months in 2011 and 2012, and when the AHS announced last month that it would be paying out millions in executive bonuses. Each time Horne claimed to be angry, but simultaneously insisted he lacked the authority to change things.

The AHS is a train wreck that cannot put itself back on track. It is precisely Horne, Redford and the Tories who must act.

Click here for the Video

Ms Notley: Mr. Speaker, in Washington the Premier told the story, and I quote: the truth is that Alberta is home to some of the most environmentally friendly, progressive legislation in the world. Clearly, the Premier is confused about how to use the word “truth” in a sentence. As renowned scientist David Schindler said last week: just because you shut your eyes and say the oil sands are clean four times doesn’t mean they are. So to the Premier: why don’t you understand that intentionally and knowingly making public statements that are not correct jeopardizes our industry in the long run?

Mrs. McQueen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier was quite accurate in her statements. I’d like to actually mention a few statements that Dr. Schindler has made in the past as well about when we look at the work that we’re doing with regard to land-use planning, with regard to the monitoring in the oil sands, and doubling that monitoring. Dr. Schindler has actually made very positive comments about from where we were to where we moved to. The Premier was very accurate in her statements in Washington.

Ms Notley: Well, interestingly, given that Dr. Schindler said that even the village idiot couldn’t deny the significant impact the oil sands have on the environment and given Alberta’s inaction and denial on almost every facet of environmental protection means that this government has not yet risen to village idiot status, why is this minister standing by while the Premier intentionally and knowingly makes public statements . . . [interjections]

Mrs. McQueen: Mr. Speaker, let’s talk about the facts about Alberta, the first jurisdiction in North America to put a price on carbon, to have a technology fund to reduce emissions. As we grow the oils sands region to supply access to markets, worldwide markets, we continue to make sure that on integrated resource management, land-use planning, monitoring, and the climate change policy – show me anywhere else that has the kind of environmental policies that this Premier and this government have taken.

Ms Notley: Well, Mr. Speaker, given that this PC government just handed over most environmental protection in this province to the founding member of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and given that Alberta will miss its reduction targets by miles and has absolutely no plans to fix that, why won’t the minister admit that the failed PC environmental record seriously damages Alberta’s international credibility and simultaneously hurts industry and the environment?

Mrs. McQueen: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. You can do solid environmental policies while being efficient and effective in the regulatory process, and that is exactly what this minister is doing along with the Energy minister. As well, we’re making sure that our environmental policies are being reviewed as they pertain to climate change policy to make sure that our emissions will be reduced. That is the commitment we have made.

Written by Trevor Busch

Wednesday, 10 April 2013 16:53

A controversial proposal by the province to radically boost levies on carbon production and place imposing greenhouse gas emissions targets on large-scale oil producers has been viewed with surprise by industry insiders and the federal government.
The long-term plan, which calls for emissions reductions of up to 40 per cent per barrel of production, was dropped by Environment Minister Diana McQueen during a recent meeting  in Calgary with senior oil executives and representatives of the federal government.
Reaction to the proposal has been swift, with industry warning emissions targets that are too ambitious could serve as an impediment to international investment in the oil sands sector at a time when it is striving for increased competitiveness.
“I think we need to be very careful that we’re not sending industry a message that creates some nervousness or some uncertainty about just what exactly is going to be happening,” said Cardston-Taber-Warner MLA Gary Bikman.
“Capital investment craves certainty — they want to be able to invest with confidence that things aren’t going to change.”
While acknowledging a need for increased emissions reductions, Bikman is wary of the approach until more details have been revealed.
“Having said that, do we need to be good stewards of the environment? Of course we do. Do our customers, the countries that we do business with expect us to be good stewards? Yes they do. It is important that the province send a clear, consistent message about real plans, genuine plans, that will actually produce good results, not just make good headlines.”
Critics have attacked the proposal as a bargaining chip with the U.S. government in pushing for approval of TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline project.
“I think that is probably true, that there would be an aspect of that,” said Bikman. “The premier has said we need to send a message out to our customers. Danielle Smith (provincial opposition leader) has said the same thing, that people need to know that we are good stewards. We have suggested some real ways to cut back on emissions, as well as particulate contamination, by moving towards natural gas-powered (electrical) generation, as opposed to coal-fired generation. If you phase that in over time, then you’re going to have a much greater impact in an economical way, and a productive way, on reducing carbon emissions. Whatever contribution that plays toward global warming, it will happen in a significant way, as opposed to just raising the price.”
Regulations introduced in 2007 in Alberta required oil sands producers and large-scale emitters to reduce per-barrel emissions by 12 per cent per base year, as well as implementing $15 per tonne penalties for every ton of emissions over their limit.
McQueen’s plan, already being dubbed “40-40”, would require 40 per cent reduction in per barrel emissions and a $40 per tonne penalty when the limit is exceeded. Estimates indicate the regulation could increase the cost per barrel by $2 for oil sands producers.
While an improved environmental policy is a laudable goal, Bikman is concerned about what this plan might entail.

“The best time was 20 years ago. The next best time is today. If our record hasn’t been all that our customers think it should be, we need to give serious weight to their opinion. I think everything needs to be a balanced approach, it needs to be a cadenced approach that’s phased in, so you’ve got the environmental reality versus the economic reality.”
Bikman stressed that Alberta’s oil needs to be considered not just from an environmental perspective, but from an ethical one.
“You can meet both of those realities if you’re consulting all of the stakeholders, because some of those stakeholders are obviously customers for our oil. And what are they doing in their own countries? They can say ‘We think that its dirty oil’, but its ethical oil, in the sense that its not being produced in countries that support terrorism. It needs to be part of the discussion.”
Describing the proposal as a possible “knee-jerk” reaction to speculative pressure by the Obama White House over Keystone XL, Bikman counselled a more cautious approach to emissions reduction.
“Sometimes I get the feeling that some politicians and government people talk out of both side of their mouth, and I’m thinking more about our customers than I am necessarily within our own province. But we don’t knee-jerk. Maybe the premier is getting a clear message that Keystone XL won’t get support from the Obama administration if we aren’t making efforts to make our oil cleaner. Well, that’s a reality. You don’t knee-jerk to that. You say you have a serious plan after some lengthy and intense discussions — when I say intense I don’t mean heated, but deep — about what the science really is. Politicians aren’t scientists, and we shouldn’t mix politics and science.”
More specific details of the proposed plan have not yet been revealed, and it would still require official approval by the provincial cabinet.

Written by Trevor Busch

Wednesday, 03 April 2013 15:42

Town council is investigating the advantages of further enrolment in a province-wide municipal energy aggregation program designed to save costs on electricity and natural gas.
Currently, the Town of Taber is enrolled in the 2009-2013 energy aggregation program administered by the Alberta Municipal Services Corporation (AMSC), which fixed base load electricity rates at $82.97/Wh, and natural gas rates at $8.52/GJ. The current contract is set to expire on Dec. 31, 2013.
In preparation for the expiration of the contract, AMSC has announced a partnership with TransAlta and the offering of a new program, the 2014 AMSC Energy Program, relating to the further aggregated procurement of electricity and natural gas for municipalities.
“They came to us with some information, and they’re basically looking for support from municipalities to start their first rounds,” said Dale Culler, director of corporate services, at the March 25 meeting.
“If you’re not locking in your rates, you would be subject to market rates and fluctuations at the time. This may not be our only option — there are other ways to lock in prices. This is one we’ve participated in for a number of years.”
Incorporated in 2005, the AMSC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA), and provides aggregated services to member municipalities and other related organizations.
The current 2009-2013 energy program had 768 participants.
Coun. Randy Sparks commented under the previous aggregation program contract, the Town of Taber had been “hooped” when paying a locked-in rate due to a drastic reduction in the price of natural gas in the marketplace.
“If memory serves me right, has not the town been waiting for this day to come, that we got out of this previous contract? Because the previous contract did not work to the town’s advantage at all, and I think we actually got hooped pretty good on the last one. So I think we’ve got to be very prudent and wary of locking in at this time, because of what happened the previous time. We need to make sure that all of the ducks are in line here before a commitment is made. I think they need to come up with a pretty sweet deal — as sweet as possible — before the town would venture into such a thing again.”
Culler pointed out the timing of the previous contract had been unfortunate considering the current cost of natural gas, but this had hardly been a foreseeable outcome.

“The timing of the last one happened just before the market corrected, and there was actually a lot of interest in municipalities wanting to lock in, because prices were going up fairly steadily. Based on the market price at the time, the amounts that were being offered over a five year period were lower than the market. In other words, there was some advantage.”
Rolling the dice on energy costs by not participating in an aggregation program will expose the town to possible market fluctuations and increased risk, according to Culler.
“One of the things you look at when you’re considering these is where has the market gone, and has the market pulled back to a point in which you’re comfortable, and where’s the risk point. If you feel that energy prices are going to be lower, then you would hold off. If you feel that they’re going to be slowly coming back up, you might want to consider locking it in. The unknown is always a difficult thing to try to manage. Do we want to have risk in price, or not really, is what it boils down to with these programs.”
Mayor Ray Bryant came out in favour of participation in the program, while still noting the previous contract had not been advantageous with regard to natural gas.
“It would seem to me with the information they’ve provided that certainly there are more options, more flexibility, this time around. I think from what I gather with the power we were in the ball park, but it was the natural gas that we took a hit on, keeping in mind our power costs are about $1.2 million per year and our natural gas was about $400,000. Now, knowing full well that natural gas is down, maybe if that is the bottom and it’s starting to trend up this might be a good time.”
Following discussion, council voted unanimously to authorize town participation in the 2014 Energy Aggregation Program administered by AMSC for the first round of aggregations, but reserved any final decisions on the matter until any potential advantages or disadvantages of a renewed contract have been fully investigated.
The first aggregation round of negotiations is scheduled for this month, with a requirement that all requisite documentation to be submitted by April 5.

By Graham Thomson, Edmonton Journal April 8, 2013

Tuesday, March 26th, 2013 The Camrose Booster

Due to the appointment of Alberta’s first property rights advocate (the first such office in Canada) the government claims that Albertans can now get information to help them with property rights problems.

However, frustrated landowners at the Alberta Surface Rights Federation annual general meeting, at the Norsemen Inn in Camrose on March 8, didn’t receive the patronage appointment with a lot of optimism.

Alberta’s first property rights office was officially opened in Lethbridge on Feb. 6 and is estimated to cost taxpayers up to $1 million a year. The office opening follows the appointment of Lee Cutforth as Alberta’s first property rights advocate.

The vast majority of Alberta landowners wanted several controversial Bills repealed by the province last year. The government didn’t want to relinquish the ultimate power over landowners, so it turned the matter over to a task force.

Instead, the creation of a property rights advocate and the opening of a property rights office was due to a recommendation of the Property Rights Task Force.

Cutforth made his first visit to Camrose at the Alberta Surface Rights Federation annual general meeting at the Norsemen Inn on March 8. “It has been almost three months since I have been back in the saddle and it has been a lot of back and forth talk of what I can and can’t do,” said Cutforth. “I have been a lawyer for over 25 years, but before that I came from a farm. It is a huge change going from working in the private sector to working with the government.”

The advocate is based in Lethbridge and was appointed to a three-year term following a competitive recruitment process. “In theory, there is going to be a branch office in Edmonton, as well as a deputy advocate, a policy researcher, a communications officer and two administrative assistants on staff. I can’t say what the time frame is going to be for staffing that. As all of you know, there are some budget issues coming out and I don’t know how that filters down to my office.”

The office was formed to give three basic tools to property owners. “One is information to help landowners with the process and we overlap with the farmers’ advocate office,” explained Cutforth. “The second tool is a complaint mechanism. If you are facing expropriation, or compensative taking, and if the authority is not playing by the rules, you can file a complaint with our office. We will look into it and prepare a report.

The third tool is the annual report to the government. “It gets sent in at the end of every year. I can make recommendations and send it on to the speaker. He then tables it and then it is up to the elected politicians to do something with it,” added Cutforth. “My office does not get into civil disputes between private parties. We don’t deal with private contract issues.”

The newly formed office has been criticized for having no power. “I have three tools in my box and the only thing I can promise is that I will use them the best that I can,” said Cutforth. “I hear that we wouldn’t really need the office if we didn’t have that controversial Bill 2 land stewardship act. This office is important because property rights are important.”

Actually Bill 36 is the Land Stewardship Act and Bill 2 is the Responsible Energy Development Act. Cutforth pointed out that governments change over the years. “We don’t want to leave something as important as property rights, left with the government of the day,” added Cutforth. “Property rights are necessary for a free society and a stable economy. If you are not fairly compensated, you begin to feel that you as a landowner are subsidizing the cost of utilities, gas, transportation and whatever is trying to cross your land. You begin to feel that you are bearing an unfair share of the cost of public good, rather than having that cost passed on to the consumer.”

Several unconvinced landowners voiced their displeasure over the advocate’s “lack of teeth” when it comes to going against the government. Cutforth then encouraged people to write him letters. “It is not my place to carry the government’s water. My job is to represent the interests of property owners to give public voice to those concerns through the annual report,” explained Cutforth. “I can’t impose my will, only my recommendations, and I can’t give public voice to it. I can raise the profile and that can be helpful. I can’t change things. That is left with the people in legislation.”

Landowners questioned Cutforth, from the floor, on the lack of democracy in government, bullying tactics used by both oil companies and by government, what his definition of public interest is, why food supply is not the government’s number one priority, and he was challenged to help some landowners who have been fighting with an oil company on clean-up for about 25 years.

“All I can do is look at it,” Cutforth said. “It sounds like a civil matter. I’ll pass this on to Peter.” Peter Dobbie of the office of the Farmers’ Advocate said “We can look at it and get back to you.”

Cutforth wants to raise awareness and when challenged from the floor about his previous support of involvement with donations to the current government, he brushed them aside by saying, “The real issue is not what I did up to the appointment; it is with what happens after that,” said Cutforth. “I can help people with their concerns by trying to get them information.”