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.

 

Chandra Lye, CTV Edmonton
Published Thursday, March 5, 2015 10:07AM MST
Last Updated Thursday, March 5, 2015 10:51AM MST

The leader of Alberta’s NDP is calling on Premier Jim Prentice to apologize after saying that Albertans need to “look in the mirror” if they want to know who is responsible for the province’s fiscal crisis.

“I think that is a profoundly insulting comment to all Albertans,” Rachel Notley said.

“If Jim Prentice were to look in the mirror what he would see is the leader of a very tired, 43-year-old government. A government that is completely, and totally, and solely responsible for the fiscal crisis that we are in right now.

“We are calling on Jim Prentice to issue an apology to Albertans for the profoundly insulting statement that he made and to take responsibility for his record and for his government records.”

Notley also called the comments arrogant.

“These guys are the ones that have been at the controls. These guys are the ones that have made the decisions. It is their decisions that put us here. How dare they blame the families that are struggling to make ends meet under the circumstances that these guys have created?

“If this is what the premier will say to Albertans now, six weeks before an election, heaven forbid what he is going to say to Albertans after the election if they give them a four year mandate. I would be troubled and worried about where we are going.”

The hashtag #PrenticeblamesAlbertans has been trending and includes sarcastic comments and memes.

In many tweets, Albertans sarcastically blame themselves for everything from the demise of the dinosaurs to the blown play call that cost the Seattle Seahawks the Super Bowl.

Others say Prentice is right on, given that Albertans have voted to keep the Progressive Conservative party in power for more than 40 years.

Prentice has promised to remake the budget radically this month, since low oil prices have drained billions of the dollars from the treasury.

He says there will be “pain” for everyone, but says corporate taxes and oil royalties will be off

With files from The Canadian Press

Chris Varcoe, Calgary Herald

March 5, 2015
Last Updated: March 5, 2015 8:27 AM MST

Alberta Premier Jim Prentice speaks with the media following a luncheon speech to the Rotary Club at the Palliser Hotel on Tuesday March 3, 2015.

Gavin Young / Calgary Herald

Premier Jim Prentice says Albertans should “look in the mirror” when it comes to the financial woes now squeezing the province — and defends his decision to reject corporate tax hikes while his government eyes higher levies and deep spending cuts.

Opposition critics, however, say the Tory premier is trying to make all Albertans scapegoats for years of financial mismanagement by the long-serving Progressive Conservative government.

Speaking on a CBC radio program Wednesday, Prentice continued to warn about the tough medicine that awaits Albertans in this month’s provincial budget. In recent weeks, the government has been raising the prospect of spending reductions and higher taxes to make up for a revenue shortfall caused by low commodity prices.

“We all want to blame somebody for the circumstances that we are in,” Prentice said. “But the bottom line is we’ve had the highest cost and the best public services in the country, and we haven’t built, basically, a revenue model that sustains them.”

The government has said it’s facing a potential $7-billion revenue hole this year triggered by the collapse of crude prices from $100 US a barrel last summer to $51 a barrel on Wednesday, constraining energy royalties.

The province is considering a range of options to deal with the shortfall, including altering the personal income tax system, re-introducing health premiums, hiking the gasoline pump levy — the lowest in the country at nine cents per litre — and increasing taxes on liquor and cigarettes.

Finance Minister Robin Campbell has also indicated spending will be chopped by $2 billion annually, an overall five per cent cut from last year’s levels.

Prentice said the government is busy preparing a 10-year financial plan and will take steps to address the broader issue of public services being funded by volatile oil prices.

“In terms of who is responsible, we all need only look in the mirror, right. Basically all of us have had the best of everything and have not had to pay for what it costs,” he added.

“Collectively we got into this as Albertans and collectively we’re going to get out of it and everybody is going to have to shoulder some share of the responsibility.”

Wildrose critic Drew Barnes said he’s amazed the premier would blame all Albertans for the fiscal crisis since the Progressive Conservatives have been in power uninterrupted since 1971.

He noted that just a decade ago, the province had $17 billion in its rainy day contingency fund and that has since dwindled to around $6 billion.

“After 43 years of being in power and having control over the provincial chequebook, how could it be anybody else’s responsibility but the PC government,” said the Wildrose MLA for Cypress-Medicine Hat.

Barnes said there would be no need to raise any taxes if the government was committed to cutting spending and rooting out waste.

NDP critic Brian Mason said the PC government gave up billions of dollars in revenues by chopping corporate taxes by about a third a decade ago and by moving away from a progressive income tax system to a 10 per cent flat tax.

“I’m appalled that he would talk to Albertans like that, when it’s his government that’s made all of these key decisions all along,” said Mason.

“It’s a transparent effort to avoid accountability — and to blame the very people who are going to be hurt by his government’s incompetence is breathtaking.”

Mason said the province must look at hiking corporate taxes, something Liberal MLA Kent Hehr said should be on the table as the province scrambles to find additional revenue.

Hehr said the province’s 10-per-cent tax on businesses could be raised modestly and still keep the province competitive.

“If everyone is going to share the pain, our corporate sector should also be part of it,” said Hehr, who also disagreed with the premier that Albertans have the best public services in the country.

At 10 per cent, Alberta has the lowest corporate tax in Canada. British Columbia is next at 11 per cent, with Nova Scotia and P.E.I. on the other end at 16 per cent.

Hiking the corporate tax rate to 12 per cent would bring in an estimated $1 billion, but Prentice said it would lead to companies relocating jobs and shifting head offices to other provinces.

“We are hanging on to every single job that we can in Alberta right now — that’s a focal point of the government,” he said.

Political analyst David Taras said it appears Prentice’s political honeymoon is ending as public unease grows over issues such as cutting the auditor general’s funding and raising taxes.

Pointing fingers at the public is unlikely to work as the premier strives to build consensus for the tough decisions ahead, Taras said. The premier’s comments on Albertans having the best public services also fall short, given the troubles within the education and medical systems, said the Mount Royal University professor.

“We don’t have the best services in the country, that’s the whole point,” Taras said.

With files from The Canadian Press

[email protected]