Written by Trevor Busch    Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:18

Wednesday’s all candidates forum in Taber drew a large crowd of locals looking to delve more deeply into the positions and platforms of the four party candidates vying for votes on April 23.
Gary Bikman of the Wildrose spoke first, outlining in his opening statement his extensive background in the shipping industry and municipal politics, while promising that as Wildrose MLA he would represent in government on issues like irrigation, reducing the regulatory burden, reducing power rates for consumers, and more parental rights. Bikman also promised the Wildrose would repeal contentious land bills, would not hike taxes, and advance their “10/10” plan for municipalities.
Helen McMenamin of the Alberta Liberal Party also slammed the PCs over their land-related legislation, and promised the Liberals would repeal the four bills previously passed. McMenamin characterized these bills as “draconian” and “an invitation to corruption”. She also promised the Liberals would tackle  long wait times for health care, double the current spending on home care, and deal with issues surrounding long-term care. McMenamin pledged what she called “appropriate care for seniors”.
Pat Shimbashi of the Progressive Conservative Party began his address with a discourse on the changing nature of Alberta as a great place to live and work, and continuing to grow in population. Shimbashi talked about his long experience in agriculture, business and local government, and pointed to various programs and initiatives rolled out under the previous government which had helped to preserve opportunity and nurture the province. He admitted mistakes had been made by the PCs, but that he would work to help rectify these issues if elected.
Aaron Haugen of the NDP began by addressing misconceptions about the direction of government desired by his party, such as hiking taxes. Haugen attacked the non-renewable resource revenue record of the PC government, indicating it had been “squandered” by past governments, and promised an NDP government would not centralize government, repeal controversial land bills, and lower electricity rates in the province.
At the conclusion of the opening address by candidates, the forum was opened to questions from the floor.
Shimbashi was questioned on the issue of power lines in the province and whether they were a need for the future.
“Alberta had grown a million people in the last 10 years,” said Shimbashi, who declined to comment on whether transmission upgrades would be repealed under a further PC mandate. “People moving in, there’s 130,000 people a year. They feel there is a shortage of power, with the influx of people, and the power required by industry cannot be supplied. It’s my belief that we need to build these power lines, and those power lines still have to go through a regulatory process.”
Bikman attacked the PC position on transmission lines as a massive overbuild that will cost Alberta jobs in the future.
“The Alberta Utilities Commission did not get a chance to rule on those bills,  on Bill 50 that created the powers lines. That was done in secret, in cabinet, and so were the contracts that were awarded. They’re estimated to cost around $16 billion, not $3 billion. Furthermore, the commercial users of power are very afraid that this overbuild will result in the tripling of power rates that will drive a lot of these businesses, taking much-needed jobs out of our jurisdictions. This is not right, and that is why we are going to repeal Bill 50.”
McMenamin promised electrical reform from a Liberal government.
“It’s not right, and we would look again at that whole business. None of these decisions should be made behind closed doors, whether it’s needs assessments or public consultation on routes.”
Haugen was firm in his and his party’s condemnation of the transmission line construction.
“Businesses don’t like this $16 billion boondoggle, residents don’t like it — I don’t like it. There are better ways to deal with our power shortages. One of the ways is to encourage the building of a national grid, so you have provinces that may have excess power, and provinces that may be in need of power. There’s no reason why we need to build these power lines — we’re not building new power plants, we’re just building lines. Power lines are short-term jobs, power plants are long-term jobs.”
The evening was punctuated by serious questions asked of candidates on plans and policy, however a series of off the cuff responses by Haugen of the NDP often evoked laughter in the audience, while sober responses on policy and reputation characterized Shimbashi and Bikman. McMenamin criticized both the right and left-leaning parties, presenting the Liberals as the choice of more centre left voters.
Candidates fielded questions from a variety of local officials and dignitaries, such as Audrey Krizsan, chair of the Horizon School Board, town Coun.(s) Murray Rochelle, Garth Bekkering and Louie Tams, and M.D. of Taber Coun. Don Johnson.
A question from the floor on the pre-election scandal over MLA pay as well as severance packages received a logical approach from Shimbashi.
“As a candidate representing you, I agree with what the premier has done, by getting an independent board. Justice Major has been having hearings all over Alberta and taking recommendations what MLAs should be paid, what their compensations for pensions are, and I’m willing to abide by that, whatever it happens to be.”
Bikman promised a Wildrose government would drastically reduce the remuneration of MLAs and cabinet ministers.
“We’ve pledged to reduce the pensions by 67 per cent, and we’ll do it. We’ve pledged to cut back cabinet ministers to 16, and cut their pay by 30 per cent. We’ll cut MLA pay by five per cent from its current level, and we think an independent board should determine how much MLAs are worth.”
McMenamin promised the Liberals would remove the veil that obscures the truth about MLA funding.
“We plan to cap the severance packages of MLAs at eight years, or two terms. We plan to reduce the number of MLAs, and to reduce their salary to a single, traceable salary that will be entirely be taxable, and it will be less than it is currently.”
Haugen offered a matter-of-fact response.
“The NDP voted against these golden parachutes, and we will get rid of them when we’re in power. I personally believe MLAs are paid too much. I don’t think they should make any more than the average Albertan is making. We work for you, and there’s no reason we should make more than you.”
Important topics covered a wide variety of subjects, and ranged from conscience rights to support for education, special needs funding, carbon capture and storage, family care clinics, and a wage freeze for public sector employees. Other areas covered by candidates included MLA freedom, the possible cancellation of the Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency (ALMA), the experience of non-PC candidates, urban encroachment on arable land, clear-cut logging in the Castle area, the proposed dismantling of the health superboard, and the recent negotiations between the Alberta Sugar Beet Growers and Lantic Inc.

By Peter O’Neil, edmontonjournal.com April 20, 2012

OTTAWA – Calgary-based Enbridge Inc. threatened to join other industry participants in pulling out of a federal government process to develop a West Coast oceans management plan due to fears that Tides Canada, an organization that would later be labelled “radical” by the Harper government, would “hijack” the process, according to internal government documents.

Enbridge, proponent of the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline from Alberta to the B.C. coast, warned that Tides’ role in funding anti-oilsands campaigns by environmental and First Nations organizations put into question the credibility of the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area initiative, according to a presentation company lobbyists gave to federal officials on Dec. 16, 2010.

PNCIMA is a federal initiative involving all levels of government, the commercial and sport-fishing sectors, industry representatives including Enbridge, First Nations and other community groups to develop by the end of 2012 an integrated management plan to ensure a “healthy, safe and prosperous ocean area” from the Canada-Alaska coast to as far south as Campbell River on Vancouver Island, according to PNCIMA’s website.

At the time, Enbridge was an alternate member of PNCIMA.

“The PNCIMA process is too important to allow it to be hijacked by parties with clear and specific motives beyond the creation of an oceans management plan,” Enbridge lobbyists warned federal officials in their slide presentation.

“Northern Gateway and other industry representatives may need to re-consider their participation in the PNCIMA initiative in these circumstances.”

Subsequent internal briefing notes highlighted Enbridge’s concerns that Northern Gateway opponents could use the PNCIMA process as a tool to advocate limits on tanker traffic on the northern B.C. coast, which would be fatal to a project that will require an estimated 200 or more supertankers a year arriving and leaving Kitimat after late 2017, when the pipeline is scheduled to be operational.

Eight months after the lobbyists made their pitch, the Harper government quietly announced it was withdrawing from the $8.3-million funding agreement with Tides.

Only PNCIMA participants were informed and no news release was issued when the decision became official last September, in keeping with a communications plan outlined in the internal documents that there would be a “low-key” approach to the decision with only a “reactive” approach to any media coverage.

Media communications materials prepared for political and government officials made no mention of concerns expressed by Enbridge or any other oil and gas and shipping interest about PNCIMA.

Instead, the federal government focused primarily on timing.

The federal government must “communicate clearly to stakeholders the reasons why DFO has made the decision to withdraw the MOU with an emphasis on ensuring that the planning process for PNCIMA is completed by the December 2012 timeline.”

None of the hundreds of pages documents released under the Access to Information Act mentioned any concerns that Tides Canada’s involvement might result in a delay behind the end-of-2012 deadline for a process that began in 2003.

Tides Canada president Ross McMillan said his organization’s role was to help expedite the process by funding scientific research work and covering costs so participants to participate in meetings.

He said the federal government was always clear when it signed the agreement in January of 2011 that Tides, which obtained the funding from the U.S.-based Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, wouldn’t be able to influence PNCIMA’s direction.

“The gap between when the government signed the deal and when they made the announcement they were pulling out was very, very short, and we never heard any indication from any part that there was a concern about the timelines,” McMillan said Friday.

Enbridge spokesman Todd Nogier acknowledged in an email this week that the company was concerned that Tides funding raised “serious questions about (PNCIMA’s) impartiality,” and acknowledged that Enbridge communicated its concerns to Ottawa.

“Whether or not our discussions with the federal government influenced their decision is not for us to answer,” Nogier said.

An unidentified Canadian journalist asked Fisheries and Oceans Canada in January what role Enbridge’s lobbying played in the decision to end the funding agreement. The reply, according to the internal documents, was that the department “made the decision to change its approach to PNCIMA to be more consistent with similar Large Ocean Management Areas.”

The internal documents said the September announcement disappointed almost everyone involved in PNCIMA except “shipping and oil and gas interests.”

Commercial fishing groups, environmental non-governmental organizations, First Nations, local governments, the tourism and recreation sectors, and the renewable energy sector “have expressed disappointment in the perceived political interference behind the decision, and in the implications of this decision for their capacity to engage in the planning process,” stated one November, 2011 briefing note.

“First Nations groups and the province are also disappointed.”

Two months later Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver would issue a provocative letter damning foreign-funded “radical” environmental organizations, and specifically singled out Tides Canada as an example in a subsequent media interview.

“Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydroelectric dams,” Oliver declared in his letter.

In words that echoed Enbridge’s private warning, he said these groups “threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.”

[email protected]

Twitter.com/poneilinottawa

Read his blog, Letter from Ottawa, at edmontonjournal.com/oneil

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

I have been a staunch supporter of PC and conservative parties both provincially and federally since I began voting in Canada. For the first time, I will not be voting for the PC party in Alberta. Alison Redford’s administration’s introduction of the latest education act, which died at the call of the election, threatens broad encroachment on personal liberty and conscience. It may not be the intent, but it gives the unscrupulous opportunity to invade home privacy on an unprecedented scale.

This legislation would enable my neighbour to spy for the government on what I teach my children in my home.

Worse, he could report this to the infamous Human Rights Commissions, widely recognized to have powers totally opposite to normally accepted rules of justice, and to which Alison Redford gives increased powers. I, along with many other past supporters of the PCs, feel abandoned, as the party takes this sharp turn left, forsaking the values that the majority of Albertans voted for. I’m surprised Alison has not learned the lesson of the federal PCs moving left, and leaving a vacancy on the right which eventually gave us the current Conservative party, via the Reform and Alliance parties.

Fortunately for Albertans, The Wildrose party has positioned itself to move into this provincial vacancy, and is attracting my vote. I dare not vote PC, for if Alison wins this election, her draconian legislation will become law.

Thus it is with regret that I will move to the only party in Alberta now giving freedom of thought and expression that is the hallmark of democracy.

Bryan Norford

Lethbridge

Two Key questions obscured in election issues critical to the long-term economic survival of Alberta are not getting much attention in major campaign coverage.

The first is a predictable property rights regime. Media attention about Alberta’s “land bills” and their declared negative impact on property rights was plentiful before the election. Some argue the rising fortunes of the Wildrose Alliance are at least partly due to a rural revolt over these bills. Economists tell us that economic growth and prosperity is intimately connected to strong property rights. The recently released International Property Rights Index (a measure of 130 countries by the U.S.-based Property Rights Alliance) remind us that property rights protections are connected with foreign direct investment inflows and with economic growth as measured by GDP per capita. But, perhaps politicos think the matter to be too abstract for the regular voter. Political campaign managers prefer tangible inducements to voters such as the “Dani-dollar” energy dividend, or new tax credits, or “free” tuition. Micro-targeting voters is becoming the norm.

The other matter being underplayed is the future of a water transfer market for Alberta, particularly relevant to the semiarid southern end of the province. Water is essential for human and ecological survival, no doubt, but Alberta’s industries and irrigated agriculture are dependent on sound water supplies. That truth may be scorned by the “water-is-a-human-right crowd,” but it is a hard truth nonetheless. Albertans earning their daily bread at businesses or agriculture who are dependent on water are also human beings. A limited water license exchange market has existed for several years now.

Like all the Western provinces, Alberta uses the “first in time, first in right” system that honours seniority in times of shortage.

In Alberta, the largest water license holders are southern-based irrigation districts. A water market, despite the misconceptions, is not about “privatizing” water given that the province is still the legal owner of the resource. The province oversees a regulated market in which senior holders can “sell” their water rights to other users.

The Alberta government said they were looking into an expanded water market, but the public is still awaiting answers. It wouldn’t be accurate to say either issue is not receiving any play. Careful monitoring of media coverage of all candidates forums reveals the public is curious how the candidates stand on these two matters.

Alberta landowners are expressing skepticism about how a property rights advocate (a new office created by the PC government) is going to ensure that they are properly compensated for property loss. Some observers argue the government’s Alberta Property Rights Task Force was simply about containing political anger over the land-use bills.

Larger questions such as what is a proper ground for land expropriation or how to take the question permanently out of the hands of elected politicians were avoided. Polls and pundits say this particular election campaign is historic and “interesting” because it appears to herald strong competition.

It is not a foregone conclusion that one specific party will win. A continuous dynasty may be coming to an end. So, we should care about what each of the smaller opposition parties advance on these two issues because they are so integral to our economic future. Their platforms give us mostly vague declarations, although the Wildrose is clearest on property rights.

When Liberals or NDP mention land use, it is usually to increase environmental controls. Those are necessary, but Alberta landowners need clarity so they can plan their economic futures.

The Alberta NDP and the Wildrose have singled out water markets. The NDP opposes them and criticizes the PC government’s interest in them. The Wildrose acknowledges the southern concern in water use, and the northern desire for quality, but details remain scant.

Premier Alison Redford has publicly declared her openness to water markets “where they are necessary.” Establishing necessity will likely need another government study but Albertans likely don’t want more staged consultations.

The case for prudently regulated water markets has already been made. Alberta parties concerned about economic prosperity need to present that vision now. The increasingly common tendency to adopt micro-targeting and voter segmentation campaign strategies may certainly be good politics and may elect the “right” government, but it has the potential to misdirect and weaken the policy discourse.

Joseph Quesnel is a Lethbridge-based policy analyst with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, where he writes mainly about Aboriginal, property rights, and water issues. See the website at www.fcpp.org.

Lethbridge Herald April 11, 2012.

A landowners group may have found a loophole in provincial third-party election laws by having property owners upset with land-use legislation become their own advertisers. For a couple of weeks the distinctive lime green signs have been sprouting along the Trans Canada and Crowsnest Pass highways stating, “Property Rights Yes! PC Bills 24-36-50 NO!” On the tag line is printed “Vote Responsibly” followed by a red circle with a line across PC. The signs also contain the website of the Alberta Landowners Council, an organization against recent land-use legislation and that counts St. Albert lawyer and property rights advocate Keith Wilson among its members.

President of the group, Colleen Boddez, said the signs don’t break Alberta’s third-party advertising because not only does the group not receive money for them, they don’t even pay for them.

Under the legislation passed by the Stelmach government in 2009, third parties — those outside of registered political entities — must follow certain guidelines. Among them are that any organization spending more than $1,000 must submit financial statements showing where the money is coming from and the group must register with Elections Alberta.

Boddez explains that since those wishing to purchase the signs do so directly from the printing company without the funds going to the Landowners Council, those regulations don’t apply to the group.

“They haven’t got anything to stop us on because we haven’t incurred any expenses,” said Boddez. “We can’t say those signs are ours, they were put up by individual Albertans who want the (land-use) bills repelled.”

She called the election laws another sign of “PC bullying, manipulation and control” which are part in parcel of the land-use legislation. Elections Alberta’s recent warning letter to the Alberta Medical Association to cease its advertising promoting heath care issues during the election highlights the problems with the advertising law, said Boddez.

“I don’t know why they put up this elections act. It’s a ridiculous piece of legislation and it’s meant to muzzle ordinary Albertans,” she said. A representative from Elections Alberta said they are aware of the property rights signs but couldn’t comment if they comply with the provincial election laws, though, they are looking into the matter.

The maximum penalty for breaching the third party election advertising laws is $100,000.

Saturday, 31 March 2012 02:01 Letter to the Editor

For over seven years my family has been forced to become familiar with how our laws work, what our property rights actually are, and how transmission lines are approved and built.
The Montana Alberta Tie Line, a 230,000-volt power line, will be constructed 120 feet from my bedroom window, and we may not be compensated one penny. Our regulatory boards, NEB, AUC, SRB, all know this and do not care. The industry standard minimum setback for a power line of this size is 60 metres from its centre line; my house is less than 50 m and no one cares. We have had hearings, appeals, access to the courts, everything Greg Weadick mentions, but it has not mattered.
Alberta has no rules for power companies to follow. Our laws would allow a power line to be constructed leaning against your home, and with no compensation if the line was on your neighbour’s land. Our regulatory boards are told what to do by the companies, and they do it, because they have no legislation to tell them to do otherwise.
I quote the Honourable Judge Miller from our most recent failed appeal, “[79] . . . it appears entirely possible that an individual landowner could suddenly find herself receiving notice of the potential construction of a huge power line tower only metres from her home, or right in the middle of her cattle operation, or right beside the dugout her family uses for drinking water, while the operator has been planning this use of the landowner’s property for years. This entire regulatory process exemplifies a weakened concept of landowner right.
“[81] As the legislative and regulatory scheme now stands the position and actions of a meticulous corporate entity can certainly supersede the rights of a landowner who naively assumes that they enjoy the right to enjoyment of their property. A careful judicial review in the current legislative climate cannot yield a result in favour of an aggrieved landowner. In order for landowners to gain enhanced protection of their property rights, the answer can only be found in legislative changes.”
He could not have stated the problem any clearer. It’s not just NIMBY landowners complaining, there is a real problem here. I was a naive landowner, but no longer. I now know Albertans do not have property rights. Your property is yours to enjoy only as long as a company can’t profit from it; once it can, it will.

David Swanson
Milk River

All Electrical bills now have two parts:  the actual energy charges and the delivery charges.  In 2003, the PC Government instituted what was called Electrical De-Regulation which introduced competition into the electrical generation sector.  There was a period of extreme billing disruption and problems, but by and large, the effort was successful.  New generation capacity was built and energy rates have come down, due in part to competition but also due to current depressed natural gas prices.

             While competition was introduced into the generation, the transmission and distribution sector, or Wire Service Providers (WSP) remained a virtual monopoly situation, regulated by the Alberta Utilities Commission.  Our escalating electrical bills are due to this aspect of the Alberta electrical grid or network that delivers our power to us.

            In October 2003, in response to the public outcry against the problems initially caused by electrical de-regulation, the Premier appointed a Consumer Utilities Advocate or UCA to mediate and seek ways to mitigate the problems.  The UCA  set up an advisory council of ordinary Albertans to bring grass roots input to the problem.  I was appointed, as an irrigator, to sit on that council which I did for 2 years.  We were given an intensive training course in the structure and operation of the electrical grid system.  Our appointed function was to help the UCA bring forth policy recommendations to the Government to protect  Consumer interests in the new electrical environment.  Incidentally, the objective was never reached, the government did not like our recommendations,  and the council was summarily dismissed 2 years later!

            One key Council recommendation that was not heeded was the need to rein in the escalating WSP costs, even back then!  These WSP rates are approved by the  AUC at Public hearings.  WSP companies like Fortis present their cost data to the AUC periodically at hearings and are then granted the right to set their rates based on those costs plus a guaranteed Rate of Return.  In the past, all these hearings were held in public and outside Interveners could also examine the cost data and question it before a decision was made.  Often inconsistencies and inaccuracies were found.  I observed this firsthand at the UCA.  The current PC government has stated its intention to “streamline” this process as it is deemed “inefficient”.  Inefficient for whom?  Among other things, the new proposals will limit access to the process by outside Interveners.  I am seriously concerned by these proposals based on my UCA Council experience.

            In this environment, the current PC government recently passed Bill 50, which authorized the building of two major and extremely costly transmission lines: $16 Billion! Not million but Billion.  This Bill bypassed the normal process of having public hearings to determine the need for the lines, their costs and the awarding of construction contracts if approved.  Cabinet made these decisions behind closed doors.  The result is that two tremendously expensive transmission lines are being built, paid for by you and me and our posterity, giving the builders a Guaranteed 9. 25%  return on their investment and also giving them ownership of the lines once built.

            Numerous competent industry groups and independent analysts, including the  government’s own UCA,  have stated that the lines also constitute a massive, unnecessary overbuild and that the costs will double and perhaps triple our current bills!  I am not competent to judge that.  However, I have noticed my own escalating power bills as an irrigator who pumps with electricity and I am concerned.   The culprit is primarily the escalating Transmission cost.  Incidentally, you may not have noticed the increases in your electrical power bills yet but you will!

Every year in February after all my prior year’s pumping bills are in, I review and analyze them and then use that data to project my cost for the upcoming pumping season.  I just completed a thorough review and analysis of my 2011 pumping Bills which reflect about 600 Hp total and I was shocked.  Although my pumping hours were only about 400 hours per pivot, which is about 50% of my long term average, my total bill was much higher than I had projected.  The cause was not energy costs.  I have a contract with Enmax, EasyMax, for energy and that cost is locked in for 5 years at 7 Cents/Kwh. (Their current rate is 8 cents). The cause of the much higher bill was increased WSP Charges assessed by Fortis.  Fortis applies in advance of each year for rate approvals which are always granted.  Those rates are published and you can get them on the Internet which I had done last year at this time.  However, Fortis applied for interim rate increases and used them for much of the irrigation season which is why they were higher than I expected in 2011 and will be higher again in 2012.

I have made a study for many years of the structure of electrical charges.  Fortis is now allowed to levy 2 specific types of charges:  1) Distribution Charges – which depend on the motor HP or Peak demand or transformer size for a farm yard or residence.  Generally these charges represent the local distribution cost of the single and 3-phase lines we see out in the country.    2) Transmission Charges – which are solely based on the amount of Kwh they carry to your service.  These charges generally reflect the costs of the metal tower high-voltage transmission lines carrying electricity from the generators out to the various local distribution networks.  These charges may be actual Fortis charges or flow-through charges that they are simply passing on.

For 2012, the already approved Fortis tariffs or charges are posted on their website although they are not prominently displayed!  Here is the link:  http://www.fortisalberta.com/Default.aspx?cid=191&lang=1  From that page, choose the link to “Rates, Options & Riders which will give you a PDF file with the various approved tariffs for the different kinds of services.  To view the prior year’s tariffs, choose the appropriate links on the left side of the opening page from this link.

For Irrigation, the 1) Distribution charge is up 5% ( not bad).  However the killer is the 2) Transmission Charge which is up 76%!!!  For farm residences, the Transmission increase is 35% and for regular residential the increase is 30%.   Something is clearly out of control!  I wish I were mistaken but I am not.  The total Transmission tariff for irrigation is now  up to 4.4 cents/Kwh or 55% of the Enmax Easymax Contract energy rate of 8 cents/Kwh and that does not include the Capacity charge!    For farm-irrigators who have hardly irrigated these past two wet years, there is going to be a massive shock when the pumping bills start to roll in for 2012 which is looking like a dry year!

Electrical Bills are fast becoming like our Telephone bills.   Long Distance charges are the least of our concern anymore; it is the fixed charges or monthly service charge we pay attention to.  Power bills are quickly following suite although the energy is still significant depending on your contract or provider.  I have no doubt that we are all collectively already beginning to pay for this massive transmission overbuild and I feel this is only the beginning!

The Regulatory System needs overhaul and the symptoms are two-fold:  1) insupportably high Guaranteed Rates of Return on poorly scrutinized WSP expense submissions and 2) the Massive Overbuild of transmission lines for which we are only just starting to pay!    This situation has to be fixed and it appears that the ballot box is the only remedy we have!  This is a “Shocking” election issue, one among many!