Friday, 27 April 2012 02:01 Letter to the Editor

I would like to thank Mr. Torrie for his comments in the April 14 Lethbridge Herald. I too have seen a huge increase in my power bill, due only to transmission and maintenance fees.
Last fall I shut off power to my property, so any increases in my bill are the result of only maintaining a power pole and electrical box. Since 2010 my power bill has almost doubled. I am now forced to have the electricity completely removed and to use a portable generator when the need arises. This does not seem right to me.

Linda Olivier

Taber

Tuesday, 24 April 2012 02:01 Lethbridge Herald

Caroline Zentner

The Wildrose Party has put an end to a 25-year Conservative dynasty in the riding of Little Bow.
Ian Donovan, a grain farmer from the Mossleigh area, had a solid victory of more than 2,000 votes.
“I’m very excited. We poured our heart into this,” Donovan said in a telephone interview. “The candidates I ran against — John and Everett and Bev — truly it was a pleasure to run against them because we kept sticking to the policies and the parties and there was absolutely no personal comments, no personal attacks.”
Several issues were top of mind for voters in Little Bow, Donovan said. They included Bill 2, the Education Act, Bill 50, the Electric Statutes Amendment Act and  Bill 36, the Land Stewardship Act.
“Property owners are not happy with it so I hope to be able to bring that forward and either make some amendments or get the province to repeal them and we’ll figure out from there what happens,” he said.
Donovan brings 16 years of political experience as a councillor in the County of Vulcan. He was first elected when he was 19 years old and he said that track record stood him in good stead with voters.
“I’ve sat on county council for 16 years, I was reeve for two years, that came up very key to people because there’s a trust level,” he said.
Voters in Little Bow obviously felt it was time for a change and Conservative candidate John Kolk was quick to congratulate Donovan via text message.
The rural riding of Little Bow, which encompasses a large area that includes Coaldale, Enchant, Vulcan, Picture Butte and the Siksika Nation, has a history of giving elected politicians longtime support.
The Conservative riding was held by Barry McFarland for 20 years. He was first elected in 1992 and was elected to a sixth term in 2008 with 58 per cent of the vote. McFarland recently announced he would be retiring from provincial politics. Before McFarland, Ray Speaker had represented Little Bow as a Conservative since 1987.
“There was frustration with the Conservative party and they had an option and they took it,” Kolk said. “We worked hard, we ran a very above-board campaign with no poison and people had the opportunity to make a choice and they did. I have enough respect for democracy that I was honoured I could run. I enjoyed it and now I get to play with my grandchildren and do a little farming.”
Kolk said the Conservative majority was a good outcome for Alberta although he’s concerned that more than half of Alberta’s agricultural sector is now represented by members who aren’t part of the ruling party.
“We don’t have anybody who has a clue about irrigation, about the intense cropping that we do down here, in government and so for southern Alberta this is a bad news story,” he said.

 

Written by production

Tuesday, 24 April 2012 05:09

The blue wave that swept through Alberta during the federal election coloured the province again tonight — at least in Calgary and to the north.
Alberta’s largest city helped the Progressive Conservatives earn 62 seats to gain another majority government. The Wildrose Alliance came in second at 17 seats, while the NDP and LIberals pulled in four seats each.
Locally, the Cardston-Taber-Warner riding went Wildrose, like every other southern Alberta riding but three. Gary Bikman swept into office with 6,110 votes, as he upended Progressive Conservative candidate Pat Shimbashi, who earned 4,270 votes. Bikman was pleased with the win.
“We’re all here, obviously we’re celebrating, it’s great to win, and we recognize that it’s a team win,” he said from his campaign headquarters. “We had representatives on our team from all corners of the riding, and they really did a good job of representing their area’s needs and wishes to us, so that we could address them, and try to understand them.”
Bikman added his party spoke to people in this area.
“When people feel understood, they feel like they’ll have confidence in you to represent them. I really sensed that people felt that we were getting what their concerns were. Certainly in the rural parts of the riding — big concerns about property rights. They have not felt listened to, and over the course of the election, going out an meeting people, knocking on doors and talking to people, in all walks of life, we had a sense that these were true conservatives, they had true conservative values. And they felt disenfranchised within the PC party.”
The Wildrose MLA for Cardston-Taber-Warner added the area’s former PC MLA summed up the Wildrose rural influence well.
“I think Broyce Jacobs, the former PC MLA, expressed it as well as anyone did. He said when somebody asked him why did you switch from being a PC to being a Wildrose, he said ‘Because I’m a conservative.’ Well, what do you mean? ‘Because I’m a true conservative, and there’s only one party that’s representing true conservative values.’ Obviously, I was complimented and flattered by that, but he really has identified the main focus of Wildrose, and that’s to represent the people and to speak up for the people, to be grassroots and to recognizing that the leadership doesn’t have all the answers — we need to consult with all stakeholders — and that message resonated with the people in our riding.”
A message was left on the cellphone of PC candidate Pat Shimbashi, who did not return the call by 11 p.m. Monday night.

Tuesday, 24 April 2012 00:00 Alex Mccuaig

ALEX McCUAIG

It has to be considered an upset victory in Medicine Hat as the Wildrose Party and Blake Pedersen wrestled the city riding from the PCs after the Tory’s 35-year stranglehold on the constituency.
“You get into this and it’s a dream to try to chase something that may be out of reach — to be here today, standing where I am, it’s pretty amazing, awesome,” said Pedersen.
Pedersen’s lead was established within the first six polling stations reporting and it never let up.
While PC Darren Hirsch’s campaign office tracked and recorded the latest poll-by-poll results and the mood grew increasingly tense, Pedersen appeared relaxed and more than happy to forgo the polling board and watch the results trickle in on TV.
It wasn’t until Hirsch stepped inside the Wildrose campaign office to concede did it appear to sink in for Pedersen that he’d taken the seat.
As for the issue which played the most in his favour, Pedersen replied, “the fact the PCs made promises and broke them down here more than once and I think it was one of those things that resonated and we just didn’t seem to be getting the attention.
“I think voters just said we needed a change, at least in this part of the country.”
Pedersen said the race was a battle, something he gave credit to all candidates for fighting.
But he said it will be up to him and fellow Wildrose MLA Drew Barnes to stand up for southeastern Alberta in the provincial opposition.
“I know this election was a little bit divisive and I guess we’ll have to see how it all plays out,” said Pedersen.
“We don’t hold the government so we’re definitely going to have to hold the PCs accountable.”
The Hirsch camp appeared to share what the PC candidate called “shock” at the riding election result.
The one issue which played on the Medicine Hat voter, Hirsch said, was the ‘forgotten corner’ stigma that appeared to resonate with the electorate.
“I’m honestly not too surprised,” said Liberal candidate Matthew Sandford about the local results. While every candidate wants to win, Sandford said Pedersen has always been a friendly face throughout the campaign, always going out of his way to talk with him.
“To have someone as personable as Blake, I’m certainly happy for him.”
NDP riding president Wally Regehr said the disdain over land-use legislation was a particular reason for the area’s shift to the Wildrose.
“There’s no doubt the property rights issue was huge,” said Regehr.
“Danielle Smith was on that two years ago before it was even on the radar. They played it extremely well.
“I went to a meeting that had 400 people, and they were mad, yelling and screaming. With that kind of hatred — it was hatred plain and simple… there’s no point saying look at this clause or that clause (in the election). It was way too late for that.”
Unofficial final results are: Pedersen (Wildrose) 6,030 votes, Hirsch (PC) 5,341, Perrier (NDP) 1,168, Sandford (Liberal) 1,101, Graham Murray (EverGreen) 212.

Tuesday, 24 April 2012 00:00 Gillian Slade

GILLIAN SLADE

It was a bittersweet moment for the two frontrunners in the Cypress Medicine Hat race. Wildrose candidate Drew Barnes won but without the Wildrose majority government and PC incumbent Len Mitzel lost his seat even though his party won a large majority.
“It has finally sunk in that I’ve won,” said Barnes, who picked up 5,372 votes through 70 polls of 82 reporting, 1,600 more than Mitzel. Jon Mastel of the Liberals finished third and Manual Martinez of the NDP was fourth.
“I promised to give my best and I look forward to fulfilling that. I am excited about going to the Legislature to fulfill my campaign promises.”
He listened to the sound of his new title — MLA Drew Barnes — and smiled.
The disappointment Mitzel was feeling at not being personally re-elected was evident.
“I’ve lost my seat. The vote did surprise me. I did not expect to lose my seat,” said a sombre Mitzel. “It goes to show pollsters don’t necessarily know what they’re doing.”
The enthusiasm at the Barnes campaign party at Turner’s Restaurant on Monday night was tempered with disappointment at not having won the majority government the Wildrose had expected.
“I am totally surprised at the PC majority,” said a Barnes campaign volunteer, Marco Jansen. “I’m not sure what effect the recent ‘moral issues’ had on how people voted.”
Barnes supporter Glen Ebel said he had had a sneaky suspicion the PCs would win a majority.
“People don’t like change. It would have been a very big swing for the Wildrose to get a majority government,” said Ebel. “There were so many Wildrose candidates that are rookies. If they’d got a majority government without experience there was the possibility of them failing.”
When Wildrose leader Danielle Smith appeared on the television,there was a surge of excitement from Barnes’ supporters.
Smith’s assertion that she was not discouraged drew applause as did her comment that it was time for Wildrose to prove itself as the official opposition.
Any joy at the PCs winning a majority government was overshadowed by the personal loss for Mitzel. He reflected on his significant accomplishments since he was elected in 2004.
“I am proud I could represent my constituents and I have no regrets,” said Mitzel. “I thank my team and everyone who voted for me and in fact the people who did not vote for me too because I have got my life back.”
Long working hours, lots of travel and being away from home so much is something Mitzel says he will not miss. Reflecting on the campaign Mitzel says he was not aware of a tide turning that would have suggested the loss of his seat.
“Did people forget all that I did?” he asked.
Mitzel said it was too early to reflect on what he will do in future or whether he will run again.
Wally Regehr, the president of the local NDP Constituency Association, said the PCs didn’t handle land-use legislation controversies well. The Wildrose Party made a major issue out of it for years leading up to the election, and the Tories didn’t help themselves on other local issues.
“You can’t forget about the flood (in June 2010), from the PCs point of view I don’t know why they didn’t handle that better,” said Regher. “Saskatchewan did a simple thing, they immediately sent out $3,500 cheques and said let’s sort it out later. It was an act of good will. I don’t care what your political affiliation is, just good common sense says ‘help these people.'”
Jon Mastel Liberal candidate indicated he wasn’t surprised about the local results.
“They’ve made a change and hopefully it’s for the better,” said Mastel.

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.