Ted Morton's Exit

Alberta's political drama continues:

 

Alberta Finance Minister Ted Morton has resigned from cabinet and will seek his party’s leadership.
Mr. Morton submitted his resignation to Premier Ed Stelmach on Thursday, two days after his threat to do so precipitated Mr. Stelmach’s own resignation announcement.
“It is my intention to seek the leadership of our party upon your departure,” Mr. Morton said in a letter.

 

This is the most obvious solution to the political problem Morton had created for himself. Yesterday, he expressed support for the upcoming budget but refused to commit to being the one to deliver it. That was obviously an untenable situation, and it raised many questions.

 

Those questions can now remain unanswered, because Morton can link his exit as Finance Minister to the upcoming leadership race. If need be, he can say he supported the budget. But if supporting the budget becomes a political liability for him, he can say that he stepped down rather than deliver it.

 

Morton was already the frontrunner in the leadership race, and now gives himself a headstart on the rest of the pack. But it won't be as easy for him as some think. This delicate balancing act he's already crafting is one he's going to need to continue: after all, he needs members of the Progressive Conservative party to support him.

 

The appearance that Morton is not a team player might prompt others in the party to launch an anyone-but-Ted campaign. But on the other hand, Morton will lead to win back Tories who have fled to the Wildrose Alliance - in order to do that, Morton is going to have to concede that there is much wrong with the Tory party and that he plans on making major changes.  

 

The other challenge for the government is if other cabinet ministers follow Morton's lead. If suddenly there is a mass exodus from cabinet, who will step forward to take on those roles? How might that affect how various provincial departments are run?

 

And of course, there's problem of the lame-duck-in-chief: is Stelmach still in charge?

 

Stay tuned - you never know what the next day will bring in this drama.

Ed's Exit

Wow. A bombshell announcement from the soon-to-be-former Premier:

 

The Premier says he won't be running again in the next election. Stelmach dropped the bombshell during a 11:45am news conference at the Alberta Legislature.

"Upon much reflection and consultation with family and close friends, I have determined after 25 years of public service, I am not prepared to serve another full term as premier. Therefore I have decided to announce today that I will not be running as a candidate in the next general election."

"There is no doubt that my decision today will come as a shock to many, and as a disappointment to my friends, and Albertans." says Stelmach, "At a further date I will provide written notice to the president of the PC party, my intention to resign as leader, in due course, a full, fair, and transparent process. A leadership race will be held to select my successor. Until I provide the formal notice of intent to resign, I will continue to fulfill the commitments I made in the last general election."

He says his successor will not be bound to the Spring 2012 election date that he had been targeting.

 

You can read Stelmach' statement here. This passage stood out to me:

 

So I say to you this as directly as I can.
There is a profound danger that the next election campaign will focus on personality and US style negative, attack politics that is directed at me personally.
The danger is that it could allow for an extreme right party to disguise itself as a moderate party by focussing on personality – on me personally.
This type of US style wedge politics is coming into Canada, and it comes at our peril.

How bizarre. How unbecoming. Those comments are the thrust of my Wednesday editorial comment:

 

The surprise resignation of Ed Stelmach could have been an opportunity to put politics aside and thank the Premier for his 25 years of public service.
However, the moment was very quickly tainted by partisan politics. Not from the opposition parties necessarily, but rather from Stelmach himself.
After announcing he would not seek another term as premier – and not really explaining why – Stelmach turned his sights on the Wildrose Alliance.
He never mentioned the party by name, but warned about a “profound danger” that the next election would bring "US-style negative attack politics". He then warned that such “wedge politics” would allow for an “extreme right party” to disguise itself as moderate.
One has to wonder why Stelmach would go out of his way to make such statements in the first place? What was the point? Moreover, what evidence does he have to back any of this up?
If anything, it makes Stelmach come off as petty and bitter. Were it not for the rapid surge of the Wildrose Alliance, perhaps Stelmach would not be resigning.
Not only that, though, but Stelmach comes off as disingenuous and hypocritical. Does he not see the contradiction between denouncing negative political politics while at the same time engaging in it himself?
No doubt had Stelmach stayed on, the other parties would have focused on him quite intently during the next election campaign. That's to be expected - the Premier ought to be held accountable for his decisions and for his record.
It's been very typical of this Premier and this government to always want the credit but to never want the blame.
One would have hoped that in bowing out, Premier Stelmach could have risen above such partisanship.
It is a fitting end to a disappointing tenure as Premier that Ed Stelmach goes out on such a disappointing note.

Meanwhile, at the National Post, Kevin Libin has a very interesting piece on how and why this all came about.

Herald Column: Let Market Decide What Speech is Acceptable

My latest Calgary Herald column:

 

As someone whose livelihood is directly connected to broadcast media, it is gratifying to see such a sudden and healthy interest in this area.
However, as someone whose livelihood is based on expressing opinions, it is alarming to see such an unhealthy interest in controlling what is said on Canadian airwaves.
From songs to news to raucous debate, there's no shortage of suggestions as to how to regulate or ban speech. Of course, if you're not pleased with what you're watching, or listening to, or reading, then you are certainly entitled to watch, listen to, or read something else.
Newspapers are free to print all sorts of nasty words. Yet despite a lack of government or regulatory oversight, it's quite rare to see such language.
The lyrics of a song from more than a quarter of a century ago have sparked a debate over naughty words on the radio.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) ruled last week that a Newfoundland radio station was in violation for playing the Dire Straits' song "Money for Nothing" which thrice contains the word "faggot."
Strangely, the CBSC has previously ruled on two occasions that the word "fag" is acceptable for broadcast. We're now told that "faggot" is somehow different, but it seems a rather trivial distinction.
In fact, this whole exercise seems quite trivial.
The word "faggot" has been repeated countless times in the past week, yet we're supposed to believe that someone listening to a rock station at night needs to be protected from hearing this same word.
Granted, when it comes to radio, some sort of entity is needed to oversee frequency distribution and signal strength -- there are only so many spots on the dial, after all.
And the CBSC approach is preferable to the heavy fines of the American FCC. All the CBSC requires is that its decisions be read on the air.
However, we shouldn't need the speech police, any more than a newspaper or website does; this antiquated notion of "public airwaves" leads to all sorts of double standards.
For example, the Toronto Star was sounding the alarm over the weekend about a proposed regulatory change by the CRTC which would ease the ban on reporting false or misleading news.
It might seem counterintuitive to make it easier to broadcast something false, but the CRTC seems to have rightly concluded that its current rules are too vague.
But again, we encounter this notion that broadcast media need to be held to a different set of standards.
Canada once had a law on the books regarding false news. Section 181 of the Criminal Code prohibited "wilfully publishing" a false statement or news that could cause "injury or mischief to a public interest."
In 1992, however, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Section 181 was an unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights.
So we need such rules for TV and radio stations, but not for newspapers?
The same Toronto Star article somehow manages to tie this regulatory change to the recent mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., referring to the debate over the "venomous, often grossly distorted, political discourse on the U.S. airwaves."
What is the point of such a reference?
How ironic that as the Toronto Star laments the "grossly distorted" rhetoric in the U.S., it seems to be vaguely implying that the CRTC's decision might somehow lead to bloodshed.
Of course, there's no evidence whatsoever that the man who attempted to murder congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was influenced by any sort of debate or commentary on radio or television.
Yet we've been subjected to a torrent of commentary on the need to "rein in" such rhetoric. However irresponsible some commentators might be, it strikes me as just as irresponsible to link someone to an horrific crime without a shred of evidence.
If there's a debate to be had over inflammatory rhetoric, where was that debate before the shootings?
Given that inflammatory, irresponsible, or offensive is clearly in the eye of the beholder, why not let the market make such a determination?
Let's dispense with the pointless double standards and the paternalistic urge to regulate speech.

Herald Column: Resolving the Raw Milk Debate

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at Canada's laws forbidding the sale of raw milk, and also what the science tells us:

  

How strange that as Ottawa announced last week new, large and graphic tobacco warning labels, raw milk proponents were still fighting even to get their product on the market. To be treated like tobacco would be a step up.
Our prohibition on the distribution of raw milk may be well-intentioned, but its enforcement seems increasingly unfair and unjust.
Our laws are perplexing. There's nothing prohibiting a farmer from consuming the raw milk from one of his cows, or even serving it to his children.
Yet, that farmer is forbidden by law from selling raw milk to a consenting adult with no other means of procuring the product. Who is the victim in that equation?
Clearly, there must be a victim, because raw milk distributors have been treated as though they are dangerous criminals.
In a 2006 raid on the farm of Ontario raw milk crusader Michael Schmidt, two dozen armed officers were involved. Not only was the contraband product seized, but also computers, files and other equipment.
Yet, one year ago, some vindication for Schmidt: he was acquitted of 19 charges.
Schmidt was quite clear that he wasn't selling milk per se, but rather selling a "portion" of a cow. His "cow-share" operation allowed people to be joint owners of a dairy cow.
Undeterred, provincial officials have appealed the verdict. So Schmidt's persecution will continue for now, at taxpayers' expense, in the name of "protecting" those members of his cow-share program, which includes some top Toronto chefs.
In B.C., a long-targeted Chilliwack cow-share is trying a new end-run around provincial regulations. Last week, it was reported the farm was selling raw milk products as "cosmetics," including "bathing milk" and "raw milk skin lotion."
In Alberta, a cow-share west of Edmonton received a cease-and-desist order from Alberta Health Services in November. The farm's owners were ordered to hand over "contracts, records, contact information and other relevant information" on others involved with the operation.
Must we go to such an extent to protect people from themselves? If people choose to drink raw milk, it is their choice. Perhaps the state's role is to ensure the decision is an informed one.
In one sense, it mostly is. Those purchasing raw milk are under no illusions about what they are obtaining.
However, these choices are perhaps not as informed as they could be. Advocates speak in glowing terms of the safety and benefits of raw milk, but most scientific evidence indicates they labour under many illusions.
Pasteurization is not some industry conspiracy, but a scientific success story. The number of food-borne diseases from milk has dramatically decreased since 1991, when Health Canada mandated pasteurization.
If we're going to have a debate about laws pertaining to raw milk, and we should, it must be an honest debate.
A 2009 review in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases concluded that "scientific evidence to substantiate the assertions of the health benefits of unpasteurized milk is generally lacking"
The paper also noted "despite concerns to the contrary, pasteurization does not change the nutritional value of milk."
Another 2009 review in the journal Foodborne Pathogens and Disease pointed out that "numerous epidemiological studies have shown clearly that raw milk can be contaminated by a variety of pathogens."
The risks are real, though they may be manageably low considering raw milk is consumed regularly in several U.S. states and many European countries.
Rather than prohibition and the unregulated and underground market it has spawned, a better approach would be to regulate and inspect dairy farms selling raw milk. We can even have some graphic warning labels drawn up, too.