The Government Promised to Make Roads Safer - Have They?

For more than two years we've been told that the new distracted driving law would make Alberta streets safer.
More more than a year we've been told that the new impaired driving law would make Alberta streets safer.
While it's still too early to draw any final conclusions, the early signs are not encouraging. Quite the opposite in fact, as the number of fatal collisions is up 20 per cent from last year.
Calgary Police Chief Rick Hansen, for example, wants to see the province impose demerit points to distracted driving tickets. He believes that the $172 fine isn't enough and drivers aren't fearful enough of the consequences. Whatever the case, distracted driving is on the rise - not the decline.
Maybe drivers don't think they're going to get caught. Or maybe they feel that some provisions, like the ban on reading a text while you're stuck at a train crossing or in the drive-thru lineup - are just plain silly. One of the concerns many critics had was that the law might make some motorists try and hide their devices, which would make their actions even more dangerous.
Meanwhile, it was just back in September that Hansen was claiming the new provincial impaired driving law was working. But as 2012 draws to a close, police are on pace to lay over 1400 charges for being over point-zero-eight. Over 1200 such charges were laid last year.
And let's note the obvious: if the number of crashes and offenses had been down this year, then certainly the government and police would be touting the success of both laws.
Instead, we're now looking again at what more can be done.
Maybe more can be done, but we should be skeptical of the notion that the government has the answer.

Alberta's Queue-Jumping Inquiry is a Waste of Time & Money

My latest Calgary Herald column:

If a health care queue-jumping inquiry is held in the forest, and no is there to care, does it still make a sound?
It may well be that the public inquiry into queue jumping will prove to be so uneventful that Albertans will simply fail to notice it. However, if it is uneventful by design, and therefore a pointless $10-million expenditure, maybe we ought to pay attention.
After all, most Albertans would surely agree that there are challenges facing our health-care system. There may be differences of opinion as to what the most pressing and formidable challenges are, but it hardly seems as though the question of queue jumping should rise above them all.
It might be another story if we had evidence suggesting systemic and widespread manipulation of the health-care system by MLAs or other top government officials — in other words, the sort of evidence that would make this inquiry appear to be something other than a waste of time and money. Of course, we have nothing of the sort.
Despite that lack of evidence, despite a police investigation that turned up nothing, and despite the existence of far more serious questions of wrongdoing and shenanigans within the health-care system, it is the issue of queue jumping — and only the issue of queue jumping — that was deemed worthy of investigation via public inquiry.
That may explain why the government felt it was safe to call this inquiry.
However, as recently as February, Premier Alison Redford was pledging a much more wide-ranging public inquiry that would examine issues of doctor intimidation and political interference as well as queue jumping. As to whether she thought such issues needed to be examined, Redford stated unequivocally that “they have to be.”
That same month brought us further confirmation that there were troubling questions still unanswered as to why and by whom Alberta doctors were intimidated and muzzled. A report from the Health Quality Council confirmed that such bullying was widespread. But rather than the report being a jumping off point to a broader inquiry, it ended up being the last word on the subject.
Even after the narrow terms of reference for this inquiry were announced, the premier still tried to insist the inquiry could “follow the evidence” where it might lead.
We can now see how empty that assurance was. No such evidence has been explored, and when Liberal Leader Dr. Raj Sherman attempted to present such evidence during his testimony, he was shut down for straying outside the terms of reference.
Rather than hearing about the intimidation of doctors, the lawyer for the inquiry was much more interested in whether Sherman might have offered medical advice or examinations at his MLA office to his fellow politicians. To somehow argue that this constitutes queue jumping or that this would even occupy the time and resources of this inquiry, shows how absurd this whole exercise is.
So while Sherman was thoroughly interrogated, others with potentially useful or incriminating evidence have been allowed to skate through with softball questions.

Stephen Duckett, the former CEO of Alberta Health Services whose memo ordering an end to preferential treatment precipitated all of this, had little to say. He wasn’t directly aware of any queue jumping, and there was much he couldn’t recall. It was much the same from other notable witnesses, such as former health minister Ron Liepert and top health officials Lynn Redford and Brian Hlus.
Short of any tough questions, the only hope for any sort of explosive revelations seems to lie in the vain hope that witnesses would or will take the stand and directly incriminate themselves. Don’t hold your breath for that.
In the end, we’re still left with all sorts of unanswered questions about more pressing matters such as doctor intimidation, lengthy wait times and questionable expense claims.
It struck me that the government at this point might actually hope for a damaging bit of evidence, if only to justify this whole charade. However, such testimony might actually make people sit up and take notice of this inquiry with all its limitations and shortcomings.
That may be the last thing the government wants.

Ottawa Obfuscates on Foreign Investment

Finally we got some clarity today regarding foreign investment in Canada, yet in the process we also got more uncertainty.
The Harper government has approved (PM's statement here) the takeover of Calgary-based Nexen by China's CNOOC. Additionally, Ottawa gave the greenlight to the takeover of Progress Energy Resources by Malaysia's Petronas.
Both decisions were correct. These were decisions made by the shareholders of two Canadian companies and there was no need for the government to interfere.
If these foreign entities want to pour in billions in new foreign investment, then Ottawa should be getting out of the way.
However, Ottawa has indicated that it may indeed get in the way of future transactions. The government announced that future takeover deals in the oilsands involving state-owned companies will only be allowed in "exceptional circumstances". The Prime Minister says while Canada is open for business to foreign investors, it's not for sale.
But our government does not own these private companies. We might own the resources and we might set the laws, but none of that is up for sale.
If the government is so worried about the detrimental impact of state-owned enterprises, perhaps then we could start eliminating the crown corporations that still exist in our country. But in the meantime, the basis for the government's new policy is unclear. As Andrew Coyne points out:

Yes, it is true that they “play by different rules,” that they “have different incentives,” or have access to “different resources” than private firms. Yes, yes, yes. So what?
What precise harm they could do to us with these “different resources” is never explained. There’s no doubt that they can overpay us for things, as CNOOC may well have done for Nexen. If so, we should shut up and take their money before they have time to reconsider. They might even sell us stuff for less than they should. Again, why would we want to stop them?
What the critics are really saying is that state-owned enterprises sometimes do dumb things, owing to their tendency to pursue political rather than commercial objectives. That is indeed why, as the Prime Minister noted, state ownership has rather fallen out of favour in this country.

The fact is, foreign investment is needed to help develop the oilsands. and moreover, foreign investment is a net benefit to Canada. As the IRPP notes (PDF):

A dispassionate analysis of the evidence shows that the benefits of foreign investment far outweigh any real or imagined drawbacks. Foreign firms operating in Canada are more innovative and productive than their Canadian counterparts, and they pay higher wages. More importantly, they import significant amounts of technology from their parent companies, and the benefits of these technologies spill over to domestic firms. In addition, though the stock of inward FDI did increase somewhat as a share of GDP in the late 1990s, it has held steady since then at just over 30 percent — the same share as in 1970.

Worries about corporate takeovers and the “hollowing out” of high-value head office functions in Canada are also misplaced. Foreign takeovers have actually increased head office activities in Canada in recent years, because foreign firms typically find it to their advantage to keep such activities geographically close to their Canadian operations.

But in this case, the dumb state-owned enterprises are somebody else’s problem. The costs of their mistakes fall on foreign taxpayers, not ours, while the benefits accrue to us. Why self avowed free marketers, amongst whom the Prime Minister once counted himself, should fail to understand this is yet another puzzle.

More specifically, as economist Stephen Gordon notes, foreign investment is crucial to oilsands development:

The first is that foreign investment is very important. Investment spending must be financed by savings, and those savings can come from Canadians or from foreigners. Canadians investors already own 65 per cent of the assets in the oil and gas sector (this share is 47 per cent in the manufacturing sector) and are unlikely to significantly increase their holdings, if only to avoid putting all of their eggs in one basket. The Conservatives’ policy of favouring the development of the oil sands while simultaneously making life difficult for foreign investors, then, seems self-defeating.

If we're really open for business, let's start acting like it.

Premier Should Stop Playing Victim Card

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the latest controversy swirling around Premier Alison Redford, and her assertion that she is the subject of "personal attacks":

The word “attack” can simply mean to take the offence, but it can also imply a particular aggressiveness or nastiness.
Certainly, the latter applies when speaking of political attacks, so it’s ironic that claiming to be on the receiving end of such an attack can in its own way be a form of going on the offensive.
It’s a tool frequently deployed to garner sympathy or to avoid answering difficult questions (usually both). Criticism, however, in no way constitutes an attack, nor does asking legitimate questions.
Premier Alison Redford would have us all believe that she’s been the victim of an ongoing series of personal attacks, not only perpetrated upon her, but also members of her family. In fact, judging by her remarks last week, these “personal attacks” are even traumatizing her daughter’s schoolyard playmates.
And indeed, who would stand for such a thing?
But could it be that all we actually witnessed here was scrutiny, criticism and a demand for answers? Understandably, it’s much more effective to raise the spectre of “personal attacks” without ever specifying the nature of the attacks themselves or from whom they originate.
Recent weeks have produced a series of controversies for the Redford government, so it’s not surprising that they’d just as soon turn the page to something else.
We’ve had revelations, for example, about the sizable donation to the PC party from billionaire Daryl Katz, and whether loopholes were used to help underwrite a flagging Tory campaign. We’ve had revelations that the premier’s sister, while a top executive with the Calgary Health Region, attended Tory fundraisers and billed those expenses back to the health region.
And, of course, last week brought revelations about the manner in which the province selected the law firm to handle a multibillion-dollar lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Documents surfaced showing that while Justice minister in December 2010, Redford wrote a memo declaring that of the three firms shortlisted, the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers consortium would be “the best choice.”
That consortium includes the law firm where her ex-husband, Robert Hawkes, happens to be a senior partner. Not only were the two once married (granted, many years ago), they remain close enough that Hawkes went to work for Redford’s subsequent leadership campaign and even led the transition team when Redford became premier.
Despite this potential conflict, Redford apparently made the decision anyway. Perhaps it was not truly a conflict, at least by the letter of the law, but one that was never addressed, or even, it seems, considered at the time. But rather than argue that no conflict existed, Redford instead tried to argue that she didn’t make the decision. It’s true that the agreement was finalized in 2011 under Justice Minister Verlyn Olson, but as even Olson conceded last week, there was a “preferred candidate” when he took office, and negotiations commenced. Certainly a negotiating partner is needed for there to be negotiations in the first place.
Not only that, but further documentation emerged indicating that officials interpreted Redford’s memo as a decision. Memos were sent to the “successful” and “unsuccessful” consortiums and a briefing note from the assistant deputy minister in January 2011 states that “shortly before Christmas, Minister Redford selected the (International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers).”
So not only did we have legitimate questions about a possible conflict of interest, we had questions about whether the premier had been less than honest. It should go without saying that we deserved answers to those questions, but instead, this was twisted to somehow represent an attack on the premier.
Late Monday, Speaker Gene Zwozdesky said he believes Redford’s version of events — that she did not pick the firm.
Last week, the premier informed us all that there are “lots of issues that we need to talk about” and that MLAs need to be “getting down to the business of . . . governing the province.”
It remains to be seen how interested the Tories are in involving the other parties in “governing the province,” but if we’ve been distracted from other pressing matters, then that is the fault of the government.
The premier is no victim here. Should this gambit succeed, the only victims will be those demanding accountability from their government.

Albertans Deserve a Say on Debt Plans

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at how the Alberta government's borrowing plans help make the case for citizens' initiative:

We’re only about seven months removed from the provincial election, so recalling what was said and what was not said during the campaign should be a relatively straightforward task.
For example, it was immediately obvious that the recent decision by the Redford government to go into debt to pay for new infrastructure was not something the Tories discussed at all during the campaign.  Even the premier herself conceded as much last week, but argued that economic circumstances had changed dramatically in the intervening months.
Perhaps if we were to concede that the government’s spring economic assessments were accurate, then maybe the premier’s claim would be believable. However, the Tories seemed to be virtually alone in their rosy assumptions.
If the claim that circumstances have changed is therefore exposed to be hollow, we’re left with a reasonable assumption that the plans now being sprung on Albertans could have and should have been presented before we cast our ballots. Were that the case, Albertans could have rendered a verdict on this new approach.
It may well be that the vision now being articulated by the government would have found an audience. Perhaps a majority of Albertans support this approach, or at least could be convinced.
And while the Tory campaign said nothing at all about going back into debt, they had plenty to say about direct democracy, and in particular, the idea of citizens’ initiatives.
The notion of allowing Albertans the opportunity to gather signatures on petitions and possibly put issues to a referendum was portrayed by the Tories as dangerous and irresponsible. They claimed that this policy was tantamount to “abdicat(ing) leadership on important issues of the day” by “opening up divisive questions . . . to public vote.”
The Tories declared that “Albertans want to know what their leaders think on the issues, so they can trust them to provide the leadership the province needs.”
If anyone is abdicating leadership, it’s the party leader, who lacked the candour and courage to try and sell Albertans on the need to go into debt, and instead took the easy way out.  It’s no doubt true that Albertans “want to know what their leaders think on the issues,” but I don’t think it’s presumptuous to suggest they’d prefer that information before an election.
According to the government, however, they’ve “consulted” with Albertans, and they want the government to press ahead with building more infrastructure. But that actually concedes the point that voters should have a say in shaping government policy.
Consulting does not bind the government in any way. As long as “some” Albertans are asking for the very thing the government intends on doing anyway, they can spin it to appear as though they’re listening. Of course, it’s easy to listen to those who are telling you what you want to hear.
The very mechanism that was the subject of so much Tory demagogy is the one way Albertans could truly be consulted on the government’s new debt scheme. It is also a means of ensuring governments are held accountable when they try and shield their plans from the voters.
There’s nothing stopping the Tories from putting this matter to a vote, but we know that is not in the cards. And maybe Albertans don’t want a referendum on this matter. If so, a petition drive to try and initiate one may well fail.   It’s not a perfect mechanism, and could potentially be open to abuse, depending on how it’s implemented. However, it’s far preferable to the status quo.
We saw earlier this month in the U.S. election how this tool can allow voters to make historic change and address issues that the politicians are too afraid to address.  Voters in Washington state and Colorado approved measures to legalize marijuana. Voters in four other states voted to legalize same-sex marriage. These votes occurred because of citizens’ initiatives.
Voters in B.C. have this tool at their disposal, too. A group called Sensible BC is now organizing to try and force a vote on decriminalizing marijuana.
The politicians work for and answer to us. If Alberta’s politicians have forgotten that, then we need new ways of reminding them

On "The Source" Talking Alberta & Debt

Holding Politicians Accountable for What They Promise (Or Don't Promise)

So now Alison Redford has confirmed what was obvious to everyone else - her government's new plans to go into debt were not something they felt compelled to mention during the recent provincial election.

 

Yesterday, the Premier admitted that the Tories didn't campaign on a pledge to go into debt - in fact, they campaigned on a promise to balance the budget. Not only that, but they were quite optimistic about the economy moving forward. Now, less than seven months later, the Premier is trying to argue that things have changed dramatically. She claims the economy has worsened since the election and the government must adapt.

 

However, all the uncertainties plaguing the economy in November were there in April, too. In fact, everyone other than the Tories seemed to be pointing them out.

 

During that same election campaign, Alison Redford was quite dismissive of the notion of citizens-initiated referendums.

 

One release for example slammed the Wildrose Party for, "abdicat(ing) leadership on important issues of the day" by supporting for citizens initiative. Redford said, "Albertans want to know what their leaders think on the issues, so they can trust them to provide the leadership the province needs."

 

Well, Albertans do want to know what their leaders think, for example, if their leaders believe the province should to go back into debt.

 

If anyone is abdicating leadership here, it's the party leader who didn't have the courage to try and sell Albertans on the need to go into debt, and instead took the easy way out

 

Listen to what Redford had to say yesterday:

 

 

Balanced Budget? Meh...

While it's disappointing to see the federal conservatives again break their promise on balancing the budget, what's really disappointing is how little they appear to be troubled by the fact.
Yesterday, finance minister jim flaherty announced that the deficit will hit $26 billion this year - $5 billion more than predicted. Additionally, the feds say it will now take them one year longer to balance the budget then they had orginally pledged.
Flaherty is expecting a higher the deficit in each of the next four years, before finally reaching a balanched budget in 2016-17.
But like their previous pledge, this latest assessment looks more like a guess than a plan. They think they budget will be balanced, but they don't appear to sure about that. Maybe it won't.
Yes, there is uncertainty in the global economy. But we all knew that. We knew that when the government made it's initial balanced budget promise.
If Ottawa was serious about balancing the budget they wouldn't be offering excuses - they would be reacting to changing circumstances. Instead, the government's response is to shrug their collective shoulders and hope for the best.
The feds have yet to undertake any sort of serious cost-cutting measures, and unfortunately we still see many ways in which money is being wasted in Ottawa. On top of everything else, the government is still reaping record levels of tax revenue.
If the government wanted flexibility in balancing the budget, they shouldn't have offered a firm date. They did, and we have to assume they did because they felt it mattered.
And it does matter. This is a promise the feds should keep.

US Voters Cast Ballots in Referendums; Sky Doesn't Fall

The American electoral system is sufficiently different from our own that there probably aren't many lessons for Canadians to draw from Tuesday's vote.
However, there is one way in which Americans flexed their democratic muscles that would be worth noting - especially since it was such a major issue in the recent Alberta provincial election.
In Colorado and Washington State, voters approved measures to leagalize marijuana. In four different stated, voters approved measures to allow same-sex marriage.
These historic votes would not have occured in these states without citizens having the right to initiate referendums.
The idea of citizens initiative was proposed by the Wildrose Party in April's provincial election. Sadly, the idea was met with shrill fearmongering and shameful demagoguery.
We heard all sorts of awful stories about how abortion rights and gay rights would be taken away by Alberta voters, and infrastructure would be left crumbling thanks to selfish taxpayers.
Tuesday showed us how voters can be trusted with the responsibility to deal with important and sophisticated issues. Even on issues of taxation, voters are open to convincing arguments.
For example, in Glendale, Arizona - home to the Phoenix Coyotes - voters overwhelmingly rejected measure that would reverse a recent hike in the city's sales-tax.
We saw this tool at work recently as voters in BC were able to have their say on the HST.
It's too bad that so many politicians and pundits in Alberta don't think we can be trusted with the same responsibility.

Government Monopolies on Liquor Retail Are Not the Answer

My latest Calgary Herald column makes the case that when it comes to retail, we should treat alcohol like tobacco:

It may not always result in wise policy, but governments in this country have taken on the role of discouraging tobacco consumption.   Governments may go too far at times, but through taxation and other policy initiatives, we’ve brought about a reduction in smoking rates in Canada.
And while we have seen some intrusive and confusing interventions into the retail market (for example, governments turning cigarette packages into anti-smoking billboards, but then banning the retail display of those same packages), at no point has anyone seriously entertained the idea of government becoming the retailer.
It’s a delineation that works. The retailing of tobacco is left to the private sector — through grocery stores, convenience stores, even specialty tobacco shops — and governments set and enforce the conditions under which it can be sold and to whom it can be sold.   Given that the consumption of alcohol is much more socially acceptable than the consumption of tobacco, there’s no reason why we cannot apply the tobacco model to the sale of alcohol.
Certainly Alberta has made bold reforms in the privatization of liquor retail, but we can and should go further.   Instead, however, the message we heard last week from two left-leaning think-tanks is that Alberta has gone too far already.   As Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall entertains the idea of allowing future liquor stores to be privately owned (but leaving in place the existing publicly owned liquor stores), the Parkland Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives are coming to the aid of their public sector allies who are fighting to maintain the status quo.
In a joint report entitled Impaired Judgement: The Economic and Social Consequences of Liquor Privatization in Western Canada, the organizations make a case that Saskatchewan’s government monopoly on liquor retail offers the best of all worlds: lower prices, lower consumption, higher revenue and reduced social harms.   It is a surprisingly weak case, making one wonder if their conclusion resulted from the evidence or if the evidence resulted from their conclusion.
For starters, a report that castigates Alberta and B.C. (where a hybrid private-public system exists) for allegedly ushering in increased social harms manages to overlook a very serious social harm related to the consumption of alcohol. According to MADD Canada’s most recent report on the matter, Saskatchewan has Canada’s highest per-capita rate of impaired driving deaths.   That’s not to say that government-run liquor stores are to blame, but one can be fairly certain that if that dubious distinction went to Alberta or B.C., this report would have trumpeted that fact.
But the underlying assumption here is that increased consumption leads to increased social harms. Even if one accepts that premise, it is not an argument in favour of a government monopoly on the retail of alcohol, as the tobacco model shows us. If governments wish to discourage consumption or raise additional revenues, it has the wherewithal to do so without having to go into the liquor retail business.
What’s striking here, however, is the same report that praises Saskatchewan for mitigating harm reduction also boasts of lower alcohol prices in Saskatchewan. A government monopoly can ensure low prices for consumers or it can focus on discouraging consumption and mitigating social harms. It cannot do both.   The authors state quite clearly that “if liquor is cheaper and easier to find, more will be consumed.” Yet, we’re also informed that public stores in Saskatchewan and B.C. offered the lowest prices.   The report, though, concedes that Saskatchewan’s rate of consumption is nearly identical to B.C.’s, and it also fails to mention that Alberta’s rate of consumption declined after privatization.
While these two think-tanks would have us go back to the days of government-owned liquor stores operating under banking hours in nondescript brown buildings, they fail to make a case that it benefits anyone beyond the public sector unions whose members would staff these outlets.   Genuine competition can and will lower prices. Governments can then choose whether to offset those savings through taxation.   Saskatchewan would do well to follow Alberta’s lead, but our lead isn’t good enough. If we can trust grocery and convenience stores to sell cigarettes, we can trust them to sell beer and wine.
 

Time for Redford to Keep Her Promise on Section 3

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at last week's ruling (PDF) from the Alberta Court of Appeal in the Stephen Boissoin case, and why it should compel the Redford government to action:

As the Alberta legislature commences its fall sitting today, there will be much focus on how the actions of the government are to be reconciled with the promises made by Premier Alison Redford.
Ideally, there would be no conflict. As we’ve seen in practice, unfortunately, that’s not always the case.
Let’s not forget that Redford has been premier for over a year now, and the campaign of 2012 was not her first foray into the realm of promise making. Albertans may recall, for example, broken or compromised promises on such matters as fixed election dates and an inquiry into the intimidation of Alberta physicians.
There is another promise made by Redford that has not been kept and which deserves the government’s attention, as an authority no less than the Alberta Court of Appeal made clear last week.
While seeking the PC leadership, Redford was unequivocal about the need to protect freedom of expression by repealing Section 3 of Alberta’s human rights legislation.  Upon assuming office, however, the justice minister was merely ordered to “assess the appropriateness of amending or repealing Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act.”   If Redford had questions about the “appropriateness” of repealing Section 3, one wonders why she would have made such a clear promise.
However, it is safe to say that the inappropriateness that exists in this area applies to the law itself, not those who believe it needs to be changed.
Section 3 of the act reads: “No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that . . . is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt.”   Subsection 2 then informs us that “nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.”
In lieu of any concrete government action, the courts have had a chance to weigh in on the matter following an appeal and counter appeal of an atrocious decision from a panel of the Alberta Human Rights Commission. In 2002, the Red Deer Advocate ran a letter to the editor from a pastor named Stephen Boissoin, in which he rants about the “militant homosexual agenda” that is pushing “damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system.”
University of Calgary professor Darren Lund filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, and in 2007, a panel found that Boissoin’s letter was in violation of Section 3. He was fined $5,000 and was eternally barred from making “disparaging remarks” about homosexuals.
A Court of Queen’s Bench judge overturned that decision in 2009, leading to an appeal. Last week, the ruling came down from the Alberta Court of Appeal. The three justices unanimously upheld Boissoin’s freedom of expression, and raised concerns about the legislation and the way it was used to convict him.
The justices state that “Boissoin and others have the freedom to think . . . that homosexuality is sinful and morally wrong . . . (and) they have the right to express that thought to others.” As to the legislation itself, the ruling examines the paradoxes presented by subsection 2, and notes “the words ‘nothing in this section’ cannot be interpreted reasonably as sometimes permitting interference with the free expression of opinion.”
In other words, we need to differentiate between expression of opinion and publication of words that would amount to discrimination, such as a sign reading “whites only.”   The court warns that this “lack of clarity” will “cast a chill” on freedom of expression, and as such, Albertans are “entitled to certainty when it comes to exercise of their fundamental rights.”
Had Redford kept her promise, we might now have that certainty. Despite the damage done by the status quo, it’s not too late to make it right.

Previous writings on this matter here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Corportate Taxes and Yummy Cake

Further to my column this week on corporate tax cuts, David Campanella from the Parkland Institute responds in the letters pages of the Calgary Herald to argue for higher corporate tax rates:

Rob Breakenridge would like to have his cake and eat it, too - corporate tax  cuts and higher revenues. Conservatives love promoting corporate tax cuts  because it enriches their corporate friends and means less money to support a  generous welfare state. The latter isn't popular, so is generally left out of  the talking points. Fantastically, Breakenridge attempts to sever this connection by suggesting that corporate tax reductions have led to an increase in corporate income tax payments. If only life were so grand!
Breakenridge's argument rests on a grand misrepresentation of the  evidence.
In absolute terms, corporate income tax in Alberta did increase between 2001  (when the rate was reduced) and 2008. What else happened during that period,  which Breaken-ridge neglects to mention? A massive oil boom. Is it any wonder  revenue from corporate taxes increased when you consider that corporate profits  were skyrocketing?
The same dynamic played out at the federal level. During a period of solid  GDP growth, corporate profits more than doubled between 2001 and 2007, yet  revenue from corporate income tax increased by less than a third. The real  question is how much revenue have we forgone over the last decade as a result of  the declining corporate tax rate?
While Breakenridge would like to claim corporate tax cuts have been a major  success story, this political decision has undoubtedly cost Canadians billions  of dollars in lost revenue. Breakenridge can keep his cake.

Well, first of all, as I stated in my column: "It would be simplistic to claim that revenues will automatically rise with a reduction in the corporate tax rate".
Secondly, Campanella seems to be guilty of the "anthropomorphizing" that I spoke of in my column. Corporations are not people; they are certainly not "friends" with anyone. Whatever "corporate friends" conservatives might have, those people pay income taxes. If Campanella wishes for them to pay more, then he should look to other forms of taxation. In any event, those "corporate friends" won't be the ones paying for higher corporate tax rates.
Campanella also overlooks the costs of raising corporate taxes, and the overall benefits dervived from lower rates, beyond the revenue equation. Higher wages, productivity, and employment are all associated with lower rates. Those benefit not the "corporate friends" of conservatives, but all workers. As economics Ben Dahlby and Ergete Federe note (PDF):

Our results imply that there would have been significant welfare gains in 2011 from reductions in provincial corporate income tax rates with a revenue neutral increase in personal income tax or the introduction of a provincial sales tax. The implication of our results is that the cost of raising revenue is the highest when provincial governments use corporate income tax and the lowest when they use sales taxes.

Campanella is therefore assuming a connection between rates and revenues that simply does not exist. Higher rates might lead to an increase in revenues, but people like Campanella are guilty of "static analysis" - assuming that higher rates can be implemented without any broader effect.
Economists Jack Mintz and Duanjie Chen expand on this point in their 2012 Global Tax Competitiveness study (PDF):

...what is typically ignored is the impact of rate changes on the incentive for corporations to shift profits into and out of jurisdictions. Profit-shifting is much more responsive in the short-term, since financial and transfer pricing practices are fairly easy to change without making costly alterations to production or investment decisions.
(...)
Three Canadian studies suggest substantial corporate tax-base sensitivity to statutory corporate tax rate changes. Jog and Tang find quite large reductions in debt financing for Canadian multinationals when corporate income tax rates decline. Mintz and Smart estimate that a point reduction in the provincial statutory tax rate increases the corporate tax base by 4.9 percent for large corporations that do not allocate income across provinces, and 2.3 percent for those that allocate corporate income. Dahlby and Ferede estimate that a one-point increase in the federal-combined corporate tax rate reduces the tax base by 2.3 percent in the short run.16 Federal and provincial governments have been reducing corporate income tax rates since 2000 (when the combined federal-provincial corporate rate was over 42 percent) to a combined federal-provincial corporate rate of 26.1 percent in 2012. From 2000 to 2010, the period for which complete financial and taxation statistics for enterprises are available, the statutory tax rate has fallen from 42.4 percent to 29.4 percent (i.e., by over 25 percent).
Yet, given the severity of the 2009 recession on corporate profits, as well as the effect of ongoing rate reductions, we have not seen a significant reduction in corporate taxes as a share of GDP, which is consistent with the implications of profit-shifting studies. A counter argument was that corporate profit as a share of GDP has been up over the past decade, mainly owing to advances in technology and globalization that raised the return to capital, compared to the compensation for labour, around the world. Our analysis shows that, while net profit as a share of GDP in Canada fluctuated along with the economic cycle, taxable income, as a share of GDP, has been steadily trending upward even in recent recessionary years.

So while Campanella speaks of the "boom years" in the energy sector (an oversimplification of the first decade of this century), he neglects to mention the more recent recessionary years, which, as Mintz & Chen explain, offer compelling evidence as to the negative effects of higher corportate tax rates.
Campanella's belief that the provinces (those that reduced their rates) and the federal government are forsaking corporate tax revenue that is harmlessly there for the taken is premised on a counterfactual not supported by the evidence.
To quote me, Canada’s corporate tax reductions have been a major success story.

Hooray for Corporate Tax Cuts

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at recent evidence vindicating the corporate tax cuts at the federal and provincial levels:

From Wall Street shenanigans to the more recent accounts of mistakes and  shortcomings at XL Foods in Brooks, those looking to demonize corporations have  no shortage of ammunition at their disposal.
As such, calls for higher corporate taxes seem to resonate with a great many  Canadians.
In our recent provincial election, the Liberals and New Democrats proposed  raising Alberta’s corporate income tax rate.
In last year’s federal election, both the federal Liberals and New Democrats  campaigned against the Conservatives’ planned corporate tax reductions.
We’re even to the point, it seems, of anthropomorphizing these entities with  constant referrals to “rich” and “wealthy” corporations, as though these  corporations are living in large houses and driving fancy cars.
Certainly “rich” and “wealthy” people exist, but such individuals pay  personal income taxes, not corporate income taxes. If you wish the “rich” and “wealthy” to pay more, your focus should be on the former, not the latter.
In bemoaning Alberta’s tax structure, advocacy groups claim that the  reduction in Alberta’s rate from 15.5 per cent in 2001 to 10 per cent today is  costing us revenue. However, a look at the numbers suggests that the reality is much more  complicated than these advocates of higher rates would have us believe.
For example, for the fiscal year 2001-02, Alberta’s corporate income tax  revenues were $2.2 billion. But the lower rate did not lead to reductions in  corporate tax revenues; quite the opposite, in fact.
By 2005-06, corporate income tax revenues were $2.9 billion. That number rose  to $3.6 billion the following year, and was up to $4.75 billion by 2009-10.
We’ve seen much the same at the federal level. Beginning in 2001, the federal  Liberals initiated a series of reductions in Canada’s corporate tax rates. The  rate fell from 28 per cent in 2001 to 21 per cent in 2004. The rate fell again  under the Conservatives, going to 19.5 per cent in 2008 to 15 per cent in  2012.
Corporate tax revenues followed a different trajectory. Revenues increased  sharply in 2002, levelled off from 2003 to 2005, and then rose again before  dropping off in the 2008 recession.
New data released this week, however, show another increase in corporate  income revenues despite the much lower rate. In 2010-11, Ottawa took in $30  billion from corporate taxes — last year, that number was up to $31.7  billion.
So instead of saying revenue was up “despite” the lower rate, could you argue  that the revenue was up “because” of the lower rate?
It would be simplistic to claim that revenues will automatically rise with a  reduction in the corporate tax rate, but it’s even more simplistic — and  incorrect — to argue that revenues will automatically increase with higher  corporate tax rates.
Virtually no one is arguing the former point, but there is no shortage of  those arguing the latter.
Late last month, the U of C’s School of Public Policy released the 2012 annual global tax competitiveness ranking, which notes how successful Canada has  been in reducing its corporate tax rates and broadening the tax base. As a  result, we are now the most tax-competitive jurisdiction in the G7.
As for the effect on government revenues, authors Jack Mintz and Duanjie Chen  shed some light on the behaviour of corporations, which can help us understand  the relationship between rates and revenues.
For example, large, multinational corporations have shifted profits to Canada  to take advantage of the lower rates. To call for higher tax rates then is to  ignore “the impact of rate changes on the incentive for corporations to shift  profits into and out of jurisdictions.”
Meanwhile, a study released last year (PDF) by Edmonton economists Bev Dahlby and  Ergete Ferede found that raising corporate taxes is the most harmful form of tax  increase.
That study also contains two other important points: on a per-capita basis,  Alberta has the largest corporate tax base; and that three provinces — Ontario,  Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-Labrador — likely would see an increase in revenues  resulting from cutting corporate tax rates.
We need to get past our tendency to vilify corporations. We need to ignore  the simplistic calls for higher corporate tax rates. Canada’s corporate tax  reductions have been a major success story.
 

The Freedom to Mock Religious Beliefs

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the furor surrounding "Innocence of Muslims", and specifically how the controversy has played out here at home:

On the surface, it’s peculiar that a story about a film made in America that  has sparked protests, riots and other acts of violence overseas should have much  of a Canadian or Albertan context.
Nonetheless, that’s indeed the case with regard to Innocence of Muslims, a  film that virtually no one has seen, yet has sparked worldwide outrage,  including here in Canada.
There’s been mystery and confusion as to the exact origins of this film,  specifically, who was responsible for making the film and what exactly the point  of it was. Actors who appeared in the film are claiming they were misled about  the content and nature of the film, and that references to “Islam” and “Muhammad” were added post-production.
It’s even unclear as to whether a full-length version of the film exists.  What does exist is a 14-minute trailer for the film that has been posted on  YouTube. What is clear about the video is that the production values are  atrocious. It is unclear, though, whether the content is intended to be serious  or satirical.
Either way, it depicts a character who is apparently supposed to be the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. It is, however, a quite unflattering portrayal.  Muhammad is implied to be a liar, a fraud, a womanizer and a pedophile, among  other things. Clearly then, those who hold up the historical figure Muhammad as  something much more are going to take deep exception to this video.
That’s nothing new. Christians took great exception, for example, to the film  The Last Temptation of Christ, which many felt portrayed Jesus in an inaccurate  and insulting manner.
However, in this case, it’s odd that a film so ridiculous would be taken  seriously at all. It would not take one long to find all sorts of bizarre and  laughable videos on YouTube making all manner of unfounded or biased assertions  about religious figures, religions, historical events, and more.
More broadly, however — much like the Danish cartoon controversy from seven  years ago — the film has led to a debate about freedom of expression. That is,  many seem to believe that the film (and even the trailer for the film) should be  censored and that those responsible for it should face criminal charges.
Of course, as is always the case, the push to censor something ensures only  that more people will be exposed to the words or ideas contained therein.
For example, a posting about the film on the Muslim Council of Calgary’s  website demands we “punish the criminals for their crime” and asserts that “freedom of opinion should stop before violating the sanctity of others and  transgressing against them.”
A rather large demonstration over the weekend near the U.S. Consulate in Toronto featured notorious Khomeinist Zafar Bangash, who called for the movie to be censored and for the filmmakers to be prosecuted for hate speech.
In fact, one Toronto protester was caught on video arguing that the  filmmakers should be hanged to death.
The latter may be (hopefully) a view of a tiny minority, but the idea that a  crime has been committed here in the content of Innocence of Muslims seems to be  rather widespread, even in Canada.
It is indeed an absurd notion, and is compounded by the fact that for many,  the film’s criminality exists only due to the violent reaction to it. In other  words, if no one reacts violently to your claims or portrayal of a historical  (or mythical) religious figure, then you remain entitled to your freedoms.
To succumb to this notion that we must prohibit “offensive” portrayals of  religious figures is to then mandate by law that such figures are only portrayed  in a manner decided upon by their followers.
In this country, you are free to believe what you want to believe, and  certainly free to try and convince others of what you perceive to be the truths  of your beliefs. It is that freedom that is entitled to respect and protection — not the beliefs themselves.
Quite the opposite: religious beliefs — all beliefs, in fact — should be open  to criticism and even ridicule. Anything less is an affront to the idea of a  free society.

Here's the "trailer" for the film - judge for yourself:

Minimum Wage Increases Don't Help the Poor

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the recent increase to Alberta's minimum wage, and whether this policy is of any use:

It didn’t attract anywhere near the attention of the changes to Alberta’s impaired driving laws, but Sept. 1 also marked a change in the province’s minimum wage.
Alberta now has the second-lowest minimum wage in Canada, as the rate increased from $9.40 per hour to $9.75 per hour.
Perhaps one of the main reasons why the change took effect with such little fanfare is that there are very few Albertans who actually stand to benefit from the change.
For one, very few workers in this province actually earn minimum wage — the lowest percentage, in fact, in the country.
That should come as little surprise. Alberta’s hot economy has resulted in higher wages — a direct result of supply and demand. Workers are in shorter supply; the demand for them is up, and therefore, the costs (i.e., wages) rise accordingly.
Recent statistics bear this out. As of June, Alberta’s average hourly wage was $25.17 — more than three dollars above the national average. Now, of course, this figure includes energy sector wages — for those in oil and gas extraction, for example, the average hourly wage is $57.28 per hour.
However, when it comes to low-skill, entry-level jobs — the kind that might typically pay at or near minimum wage — we see these factors at play. Retail jobs pay an average of $14.07 per hour, gas stations pay an average of $13.07 per hour, and full-service restaurants pay an average of $12.39 per hour (not including tips).
For the vast majority of these workers, a higher minimum wage is rendered moot by the fact that they already earn well above that.
There are indeed some workers in Alberta who do earn minimum wage, yet it’s important to note that not all of them will necessarily benefit from the increase.
In an economy where employers are paying more to attract workers, even to low-skill jobs, it is clearly those with the lowest of margins who are paying the bare minimum.
But if those employers can’t afford to pay beyond the minimum, what’s likely to happen when a wage increase is forced on them? Wages are costs, after all, and do we really expect businesses to swallow a cost increase and do nothing in response?   Some may respond by raising prices, although presumably their prices are already as high as they deem to be feasible. Higher prices may hurt their business even more.
Either way, higher prices hurt low-income earners the most — the very low-income earners that we’re ostensibly trying to help here.
What’s more likely to result is a loss of jobs, a loss of hours, or a loss of training and benefits. So yes, for those who keep their jobs, and their current level of hours and benefits, the higher minimum wage will result in a very slight benefit.   For those who have their hours cut or lose out on additional training or benefits, their situation is worsened as a direct result of a policy specifically intended to help them.
This is borne out in the literature. For example, a recent study published in the journal Labour Economics by economists at the University of Waterloo found that a 10 per cent increase in the minimum wage correlated with a drop in teen employment and an increase in the percentage of families living in poverty.
In other words, minimum wage increases can exacerbate the very problems they’re supposed to be addressing. One would think that anti-poverty activists would be abandoning this strategy in droves. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The argument from labour groups and anti-poverty activists in Alberta is that the increase in the minimum wage should be even more substantial than it is.
It may well be that the harms resulting from minimum wage increases are less evident in a province like Alberta, but a policy where the best-case scenario is minimal harm is by definition a useless policy.
It’s easy, though, for governments to raise the minimum wage. Others do the heavy lifting, and governments can boast that they’re “doing something.”
But if the goal is helping the less fortunate, then minimum wage increases are the wrong policy prescription.

How Governments Undermine Their Own Pro-Vaccine Message

Amid the barrage of news stories about executive excesses and other shenanigans at Alberta Health Services, it would be easy to become cynical about those tasked with administering the health-care system.
It may be true that such stories overshadow news about the positive work being done, and the efforts by AHS and Alberta Health to increase vaccination rates would certainly fall into that category. But not only does the negative coverage overshadow these efforts, it also serves to undermine them if Albertans start to lose confidence in the health-care system.
A multitude of reasons exist as to why the government and AHS need to deal with matters of compensation and transparency, but certainly restoring confidence in the system is one of them.
In the meantime, as we reach this midway point of Alberta’s 10-year plan to bolster vaccination rates, the leadership on the medical side needs to ensure its campaign is as effective as possible.
Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, Dr. James Talbot, says they intend on bringing in help from outside the province to develop new strategies and better understand why vaccination rates remain persistently low and how best to effectively communicate the importance of vaccines.
Given everything they’re up against, it’s a formidable challenge.
For example, as Alberta Health turns to the Internet as a means of getting its message out, it’s up against a torrent of anti-vaccine websites. Certainly suspicion of vaccines predates the Internet and social media, but the abundance of anti-vaccine websites has created an echo chamber that has hardened such views and undoubtedly influenced those who were wavering or had doubts.
Vaccines can also be a victim of their own success. Once diseases are confined to the history books, or at least perceived to be, complacency can then arise.   Suspicion and complacency can be a dangerous mix, as we’ve seen recently with declining rates of whooping cough vaccination and the recent outbreaks here in Alberta and in other parts of Canada and the U.S.
However, anti-vaccine sentiment is not just emanating from the dark corners of the Internet. Various levels of government may be inadvertently contributing to the problem, and if the efforts by Alberta Health and AHS are to succeed, this will need to be confronted.
Within the circles of so-called alternative health, vaccines are often seen as conventional medicine, and therefore something to be wary of. For example, in a study last year, Toronto researchers found that parents who rely on naturopaths for health guidance were far more likely to have unvaccinated children.
More recently, the advocacy group Bad Science Watch called attention to the sale of homeopathic nosodes, which are being touted by some homeopaths as an alternative to vaccines.   The branches of alternative medicine have been given legitimacy by governments. Alberta recently followed other provinces in regulating naturopaths and giving them status as medical professionals. And as Bad Science Watch has noted, Health Canada has approved the sale of these very homeopathic nosodes that are touted as vaccine replacements.
It’s one thing for governments to wish to respect choice in health care, but if our aim is to counter anti-vaccine sentiment, then health officials must be willing to confront and criticize the beliefs and practices of those alternative health practitioners who are sowing such sentiment.
It may also mean confronting high-ranking religious figures.
The publicly funded Calgary Catholic School District refuses to allow the HPV vaccine to be administered in schools, meaning that HPV vaccination rates for girls in the district remain very low.   Despite mounting public pressure, Calgary Bishop Fred Henry’s intransigence on the issue ensures that the status quo will prevail. And by framing this as a religious and moral issue, rather than the health issue it truly is, Henry’s stance creates a controversy over this vaccine that should not exist. From there comes doubt and suspicion.
The effort by officials at Alberta Health and AHS to promote the importance of vaccines is commendable and deserving of public praise.   But if those efforts are to succeed, it may require some uncomfortable confrontations. Above all, though, it will require the public to trust the messenger.
(Original link)

Mocking the "Nose Hill Gentleman" Does Not Constitute a Serious Debate About Guns

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the furor that erupted after the now-infamous letter to the editor from the man now dubbed the "Nose Hill Gentleman"

The concept of citizens being allowed to carry firearms for self-defence is indeed a controversial one, and it strikes me that if one were looking to discredit the idea, one might write something similar to the now-infamous letter penned by one Walt Wawra.
The Nose Hill Park incident and its dramatic retelling on this pages have generated so much media attention in the past week that it might seem superfluous to recount any of the details here.
Nevertheless, it is certainly worth noting that while Wawra’s letter was ostensibly bemoaning the lack of legislation allowing for firearms to be carried for self-defence purposes, he justified his argument based on an encounter that seemed to be so benign as to call into question the author’s suitability as a firearms owner in the first place.
Of course, Wawra is a veteran police officer back home in Kalamazoo, Mich., and so his career has mandated the carrying of a weapon on a daily basis for many years.
Why, then, would anyone — let alone a veteran police officer — feel that “Been to the Stampede yet?” is sufficient provocation to brandish a weapon?
It was two young men who approached Wawra and his wife in Nose Hill Park and asked (aggressively, we’re told) if they’d “been to the Stampede yet.” The encounter abruptly ended with Wawra’s brusque rejoinder: “Gentlemen, I have no need to talk with you, goodbye.”
Had Wawra’s letter simply been about what he perceived to be an unpleasant and potentially hostile encounter while visiting Calgary, perhaps more people would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. It is possible, after all, that the two young men had a more sinister intent (although that wouldn’t explain why they were so easily vanquished by Wawra’s stern tone).
However, since the letter was framed as an argument in support of concealed gun carrying laws, the debate and discussion have morphed into something much larger.
Certainly for those who support such freedoms, the letter is cringe worthy. If Wawra had described being beaten or robbed or worse, then his argument would have been quite powerful and compelling.
The timing of Wawra’s letter has been another major catalyst for the media frenzy that followed. Coming on the heels of the mass shooting in a Colorado movie theatre, there was already a great deal of discussion and debate around gun laws in both the U.S. and Canada.
Even on these pages, there has been much hand-wringing about the lax gun laws in the U.S., levels of violence in the U.S., and the perceived American obsession with firearms. And then along comes Wawra, who seems to embody everything that these critics see as the problems facing America.
But if the debate is about gun laws and gun violence, then Wawra is not the only stereotype we are dealing with here.
It is true that, generally, the United States has looser gun laws than Canada and, generally, has a much higher homicide rate than we do. But that is an overly simplistic summation of the situation, and it hides some deeper truths.
Broadly speaking, the homicide rate in Canada has been declining for the past three decades — the same, though, is true of the U.S. The rates in both countries have fallen more or less in unison during that time, despite some rather stark differences in both gun laws and approaches to criminal justice.
Furthermore, there are some considerable differences between U.S. states in terms of gun laws and homicide rates. If we wish to speak of concealed gun carrying laws, then one might note that such laws exist in many states which have murder rates similar to — or even lower than — Canada’s.
The mocking of Walt Wawra certainly feeds into the smug sense of superiority on the part of some Canadians, and it also feeds into the stereotypes that others seem to have about those gun-crazy Americans and their blood-soaked streets.
If, however, you wish to make the case that citizens should not be able to carry firearms for the purposes of self-defence, merely sneering at Wawra’s perceived paranoia does not constitute a serious argument.

Alberta Government Should Approach "Alternative Medicine" With Trepidation

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the Alberta government's recent decision to regulate naturopaths:

It's commendable that Health Minister Fred Horne wishes to respect choice in health care.
However, acknowledging that various health options exist need not lead to an endorsement - tacit or otherwise - of those options.
Last week, the Alberta government announced changes to the Health Professionals Act to officially recognize naturopaths and to establish the College of Naturopathic Doctors of Alberta. The changes also spell out which procedures naturopaths are licensed to perform.
The government's news release pledges that "Albertans can be assured they are receiving safe, effective services from qualified professionals."
It also offers a definition of naturopathy that could have been written by the industry itself: "focus(es) on health promotion, illness prevention and treating disease using natural therapies and substances that promote the body's ability to heal."
However, this branch of so-called alternative medicine is viewed with much apprehension by those who adhere to a belief in evidence-based medicine.
For example, Dr. Kimball Atwood, an assistant clinical professor at the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston and associate editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, says naturopathy stems from a 19th-century health movement espousing "the healing power of nature."
He writes that present-day naturopathy is "replete with pseudo-scientific, ineffective, unethical and potentially dangerous practices."
At some level, the Alberta government concurs, because the health system does not cover naturopathic services or treatments, and the government made it clear that the status quo in that regard is not changing.
Therefore, the government's position appears contradictory. If indeed naturopaths offer "safe and effective" treatment, then why wouldn't they be covered? However, if these services do not meet the evidentiary standard laid out by our health-care system, then why is the government giving what surely amounts to tacit approval of naturopathy?
The health minister has a broader duty, I dare say, to uphold the integrity of the health-care system and to ensure that his department's decisions are doing nothing to undermine important public health initiatives.
Take, for example, the importance of vaccines. Alberta Health Services has been advancing this cause on a number of fronts recently, with respect to pertussis, HPV and chickenpox. The AHS website devotes an ample amount of space to providing information about the importance of vaccination and some of the myths around vaccines.
A study last year from researchers in Toronto found that parents who rely primarily on naturopaths were more likely to have a partially vaccinated or unvaccinated child. Do we now risk exacerbating this problem here in Alberta?
Vaccination is a choice, just as visiting a naturopath is, but it serves to illustrate how the Alberta government can respect the existence of choice, while at the same time taking a stance in favour of the scientific evidence.
To speak of "traditional medicine" and "alternative medicine" is to offer a meaningless and useless distinction. The only distinction that ought to concern us is the distinction between that which works (medicine) and that which does not (hooey).
A recent study by University of Alberta researchers Tim Caulfield and Christen Rachul found that naturopaths in Alberta and B.C. are regularly offering services that are "of questionable value and have no scientific evidence of efficacy beyond placebo."
Those include chelation therapy, colon cleanses and homeopathy.
Homeopathy, which posits that "like cures like" and the more diluted a substance, the more powerful it is, may be shunned by some naturopaths, but all are trained in it. Even the website of the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors lists homeopathy as an example of a naturopathic treatment.
If naturopaths are offering treatments with little or no scientific basis, it seems to me that rather than weeding out such practices, the Alberta government's decision only further entrenches them and ensures more Albertans receive them.
Homeopathy, for example, may be "safe" in the sense that there's nothing in it to cause harm, but the danger arises when unsound practices becomes a substitute for medically sound and medically proven treatments.
The Alberta government may have a role to play in ensuring the safety of so-called alternative health products and services, but it should be careful about not undermining the health-care system in the process.

More Evidence on the Failings of Distracted Driving Laws

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the latest evidence on the ineffectiveness of distracted driving laws, and what it tells us about bad policy and government promises:

While there's often an expectation on government to devise a policy to address a certain problem, the mere creation of the policy does not mean the problem has been solved.   Were that the case, the distinction between good and bad policy would be meaningless.
One can therefore oppose a specific policy and still share the concern about the problem that the policy is ostensibly designed to fix.   That may seem reasonable on paper, but it is not always recognized in practice. Often, opponents of a policy are accused of being indifferent to the problem, or even opposed to it being solved.
For example, a desire to reduce gun-related homicides was the impetus for creating the national long-gun registry. However, a study published last October in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence demonstrated quite conclusively that the registry had no significant bearing on Canada's homicide rate.
Despite those findings, there was - and continues to be - much maligning of gun registry opponents and their purported intransigence to taking steps to save lives.
Here in Alberta, we saw something similar with the debate around Bill 16, the government's so-called solution to the problem of distracted driving. The law passed in November 2010 and officially took effect in September 2011.
Many legitimate questions were raised about the failings of similar laws elsewhere and the absurd provisions of Bill 16 (for example, texting or talking in a drive-thru lineup or while stopped at a train crossing constitute distracted driving), but the government merely declared that it was "making roads safer," and therefore opponents of the bill were obstacles to that end.
We've not yet reached a full year of the law being in effect, but already we have evidence pointing to its failings.
Calgary police report that the number of distracted driving tickets they are issuing continues to rise.  That might be considered a success if the goal is to raise revenue, but it is hardly something to celebrate if the goal is to change behaviours and make roads safer. Last October, 416 tickets were issued. The number dropped the following month, but was back up to 529 for April.
And while it's still early days here in Alberta, a new review of the experience in Manitoba thus far gives us even more cause for concern.
Manitoba's distracted driving law took effect in the middle of 2010, so there's now more than a full year of data to examine, which is exactly what a new study from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy does.
The report finds that highway collisions in 2011 had increased to above the total for 2009, despite the fact that highway crashes involving speed and alcohol decreased during that time.
These results would appear to confirm what other studies have found about the ineffectiveness of distracted driving laws.
Earlier this year, the Swedish National Road and Transport Institute concluded in a report done for the Swedish government that there is no basis for a legislated ban.   Last year, the Governors Highway Safety Association in the U.S. released a study that analyzed more than 350 scientific papers on distracted driving. They found that there is really no evidence suggesting these bans actually work. The association is now urging states to hold off on such laws.
A study released in 2010 by the U.S. Highway Loss Data Institute found that states with cellphone bans saw no decrease in crashes compared to states with no bans. Another study found the same for states with bans on texting while driving - three of the four states with such bans actually saw increases in crashes among young drivers.
Researchers suspect drivers are holding their devices low to avoid detection, therefore making their behaviour even more dangerous.
None of this is to suggest that people should be texting while driving, or that there aren't ways of discouraging such behaviour.   Rather, it's an illustration of how empty political assurances are without evidence to back them up. Simply declaring you're going to make the roads safer does not automatically mean that you are.
It's something to bear in mind as the government's new impaired driving law begins taking effect - a law sold to Albertans with similar unequivocal assurances.

Bishop Henry is Undermining the Very System He's Trying to Defend

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at Calgary Bishop Fred Henry and his intransigence over allowing the HPV vaccine to be administered in Calgary Catholic schools:

Calgary Bishop Fred Henry seems convinced that he’s in a battle to save Catholic education, but his quixotic quest may instead prove to be destructive to his cause.
As someone who has declared himself to be mandated to speak authoritatively on moral issues, Henry is doing his utmost to ensure his views are regarded as irrational. In the process, he is undermining the cause for publicly funded Catholic education.
Henry is digging in his heels on his opposition to the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, amid increasing pressure on Calgary Catholic schools to allow the vaccine to be administered alongside the other vaccines given to children.
Last week, a coalition of public health experts and concerned parents went public with their campaign to convince Catholic school trustees, and Henry himself, to reconsider their stance.
In Alberta, Grade 5 students receive a hepatitis B vaccine, plus the HPV vaccine. Grade 9 students get a meningitis vaccine and a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-polio booster shot. Parents still have the final say as to whether their children are vaccinated.
Offering vaccines in school has proven to be an efficient way of ensuring high immunization rates. One would be hard-pressed to find examples in our health-care system where efficiency and effectiveness are hallmarks, but the immunization of children would certainly seem to fit the bill.
The HPV vaccine was added to the immunization schedule in 2008. It’s estimated that over 70 per cent of Canadians will have at least one HPV infection in their lifetime. Certain types of HPV infections are responsible for virtually all cases of cervical cancer, which claims over 400 lives each year in this country.
HPV is transmitted sexually. To Henry, that makes this a moral issue, and he is stridently opposed to the vaccine being administered in Catholic schools.
Most other Catholic schools boards have decided to allow the vaccine, including Edmonton’s. In Calgary, Catholic school trustees have simply deferred to Henry — he says “no,” so they say “no.”
It certainly calls into question the point of electing these trustees, or even having them in the first place. If, for all intents and purposes, Henry is calling the shots, why not formalize that?
Henry, though, isn’t content to just have Calgary’s trustees under his thumb — he’s trying to intimidate Edmonton Catholic trustees into reversing their position, suggesting they’re “offside” in their interpretation of doctrine.
It’s worth noting the discrepancy in vaccination rates between the two jurisdictions — in Edmonton, it’s approximately 70 per cent, while in Calgary the number is less than 20 per cent.
But Henry is not concerned about vaccination rates, or apparently even about rates of HPV infection and cervical cancer.
In an interview last week, Henry declared his only concern is the church’s teachings on sexuality, and if people ignore those teachings then “there are consequences and they have to acknowledge that.”
It’s much like arguing that to teach young people to drive safely, we must remove seatbelts and airbags so they will fear the consequences of ignoring their lessons.
Such a stance ignores the circumstances beyond the individual’s control. With HPV, even if a woman saves herself for marriage, her husband could be carrying the virus. Young women can also be exposed to HPV through unwanted sexual contact.
Rather than viewing the vaccine as protection, Henry seems to view it instead as a licence to promiscuity.
The evidence supports the vaccine’s safety and efficacy — it also shows that the vaccine does not lead to promiscuity. In fact, the vaccine makes young women more acutely aware of the risks involved in having sex.
Henry’s stance is not only at odds with the evidence, it is at odds with common sense.
The more he touts that position, the more he reminds the rest of us that this irrationality is being foisted upon the duly elected representatives entrusted with administering a publicly funded school district.
Henry may indeed be spoiling for a fight on this, but perhaps he should be careful what he wishes for.

Herald Column: Time to Rethink Our Drug Laws

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at recent comments from BC's chief medical officer about the drug ecstasy specifically and our drug laws generally:

Given the recent spate of deaths in Calgary linked to tainted ecstasy, there’s a surprising dearth of voices here calling for smarter drug policy.
Instead, what we continue to hear from politicians and police is the same old circle of empty logic: ecstasy is bad because it’s illegal and it’s illegal because it’s bad. It’s a position which, among other things, is immune to evidence about harm and more specifically, harm reduction.
There’s clearly a difference between pure MDMA, the chemical typically known as ecstasy, and the drug sold on the streets billed as ecstasy, which can contain little or no MDMA. The overdose deaths in Calgary and elsewhere in Alberta have been linked to the chemical PMMA.
Rather than the law addressing these problems, it’s increasingly clear that the law is exacerbating them.
With no one in a position of power in Alberta willing to point all of this out, we must instead look for insight to our neighbours to the west.
B.C.’s chief medical officer last week sparked controversy by pointing out some rather self-evident truths about the drug ecstasy. The reaction to Dr. Perry Kendall’s remarks suggests we have a long way to go in rethinking drug policy in this country.
Kendall noted that the perceived dangers of MDMA are overblown, and that the real dangers are posed by the various chemicals being added by those selling the drug on the streets. He also noted that in its pure form and in small doses, MDMA is actually relatively safe.
Kendall seemed to stop short of an outright call for legalization, but pointed out that the risks of MDMA could be mitigated if the drug were legalized and regulated.
It’s hard to see what’s controversial about any of this, except for the fact that it goes against the prohibitionist mentality which remains so pervasive in this country.
Kendall would certainly seem to have the evidence on his side.
A study published last year in the journal Addiction found that the use of MDMA did not impair cognitive function. A 2007 study in the journal Psychopharmacology found much the same thing. Researchers studied the impact of low doses of MDMA and found no significant effect on memory or attention.
Perhaps of more significance is how MDMA compares to other drugs. Not all drugs are illegal, of course. Alcohol and tobacco (nicotine) are both legal despite the addictive nature of these drugs and the risks involved in consumption.
A 2010 study published in the medical journal The Lancet studied 20 different drugs and ranked them based on a combined score of harm to the user and harm to society. Alcohol ranked No. 1. MDMA was ranked 17th.
Additionally, a 2004 study published in the journal Addiction found that MDMA has a better safety ratio than alcohol.
Yet, under our laws, it’s perfectly legal (and incredibly dangerous) to get wasted on a bottle of rum. Yet it’s illegal (and apparently not all that dangerous) to ingest a small amount of MDMA.
So when a spokesman for the Calgary Police Service declares that: “I’m not sure there’s such thing as safe MDMA,” he is offering a position which is clearly at odds with the available evidence and is illustrative of the hypocrisy inherent in our drug laws.
There is also the potential MDMA appears to have in treating, among other conditions, post-traumatic stress disorder. It’s certainly the case, too, that our laws, and the attitudes which create and sustain them, are complicating those lines of research.
None of this is to endorse or encourage the use of MDMA. That’s certainly not Kendall’s intent.
Rather, it’s the need to recognize what prohibition has wrought. As Kendall observes: I don’t think (prohibition) keeps drugs out of the hands of vulnerable people, and I don’t think it does much to reduce harmful use, and I think it has other harmful effects, like putting billions of dollars into the hands of criminal enterprises.”
He’s absolutely right. That’s the reality of what our drug laws have created, and given the resistance to a serious rethink, it’s going to be the prevailing status quo for the foreseeable future.

Anti-Gay Islamic Scholar Shouldn't be Welcome in Calgary

My Calgary Herald column from last week looks at the invitation extended to the controversial Dr. Bilal Philips from the Muslim Council of Calgary:

Alison Redford has already made history as Alberta’s first female premier, and later this week, she will make history once again.
On Saturday, Redford will become the first Alberta premier to appear at the Edmonton Gay Pride Parade. She is set to make the opening statements at the celebration directly following the parade.
Colleen Sutherland, co-chair of the Edmonton Pride Festival Society, describes Redford’s appearance as “quite significant.”
With regard to anti-gay comments by Wildrose Party candidate Allan Hunsperger, which surfaced during the recent provincial election, Sutherland says Redford’s appearance takes a stand against such sentiments.
Hunsperger, of course, wrote on his website about homosexuals spending eternity in a “lake of fire.”
Clearly, such views were highly disturbing to a great many Albertans, and no doubt badly damaged the prospects of the Wildrose Party.
As ugly as Hunsperger’s comments were, later this month a Calgary audience will hear from a man who believes homosexuality is worthy of the most severe of penalties: execution.
Dr. Bilal Philips is a Jamaican-born, Canadian-raised convert to Islam who now resides in Qatar. He is billed as a leading Islamic scholar, and is read and watched by Muslims around the world.
Philips is the main speaker at an event organized by the Muslim Council of Calgary called The Power of Unity Conference, which is billed as a “celebration of Islam in a Multi-Cultural Canada.”
For as much as eternal damnation for gays seems to be the extent of Hunsperger’s views, for Philips, that’s the least of it.
Philips describes homosexuality as “evil and dangerous,” and believes that AIDS represents divine punishment for gays.
But Philips is not content to leave the punishment of gays to the afterlife. He is firmly of the belief that the Qur’an mandates the death penalty for practising homosexuals (not lesbians, mind you — their punishment is “only” lashes).
It’s a belief that got Philips expelled from Germany last year, but the folks at the Muslim Council of Calgary have no such qualms.
This is no fringe organization, either. The council describes itself as the “main umbrella” and the “official representatives” of Sunni Muslims in Calgary.
That’s not to suggest that the council speaks for every single Muslim in the city; quite the opposite, I’m sure.
That was clear last September when Calgary’s first Muslim mayor, Naheed Nenshi, became the first mayor to lead the city’s annual gay pride parade.
No one for a moment would suggest that Nenshi is in anyway sympathetic to the views of Philips, so should he be expected to condemn Philips’ appearance in Calgary? I think it would send a strong message.
Keep in mind, though, that the mayor saw fit to speak out about Hunsperger’s views.
And what about the premier herself — the very same premier who will be taking a strong stand against homophobia this weekend?
Last year, when Philips spoke at a conference in Toronto, politicians of all stripes condemned his beliefs. In fact, the gay rights group EGALE and a Toronto MPP both filed complaints with police.
I wouldn’t advocate involving the police; Philips should have the right to be an Islamic extremist and a virulent bigot. However, I would hope to see a powerful condemnation of not only his views, but his very presence in our city.
By basing his views in religion, Philips — and those who embrace him as a figure of authority — sends the message that Muslims are intrinsically and fundamentally opposed to even tolerance for homosexuals, never mind equality.
It’s also worth noting that Philips is not the only speaker at this event who should concern us. Also on the agenda is Dr. Hatem Alhaj, who was recently dismissed from his job at the Mayo Clinic over his controversial support for female genital mutilation.
British MP George Galloway, a notorious apologist for the Syrian and Iranian regimes — as well as terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah — is slated to speak, too.
How tragically ironic that an event billed as a celebration of unity and multiculturalism would so brazenly demean and desecrate those very concepts.

Let's Not Follow Toronto's Lead on Plastic Bags

Following Toronto city council's rushed and ill-conceived ban on plastic bags, one Calgary Alderman is suggesting we go down the same path:

Ald. Gian-Carlo Carra said the bags “don’t have a place in the future of the planet and civilized society.”
“Let’s embrace the inevitability of the future and get rid of those things,” Carra said.

That's quite a statement, but it doesn't really offer anything useful. If we "get rid of these things", what will we use instead? Paper bags are actually worse for the environment in many ways, and reusable bags have their own problems.  
Moreover, it's unclear whether banning plastic bags will have any measureable impact on landfill use. Plastic bags typically make up less than one per cent of what ends up in landfills. so banning plastic bags is going to have a very small impact either way. In fact, in San Francisco, the percentage of plastic bags in the trash actually increased following that city's ban.
Plastic bags are, of course, recyclable (Toronto's recycling program includes plastic bags - although, Toronto's recycling program has other issues to deal with). Additionally, many people re-use the plastic bags they receive from retailers - as garbage bags or picking up after their dogs, for example. So if stores aren't giving out the plastic bags any more, people will just have to purchase plastic bags themselves.
Banning plastic bags might satisfy the inate desire many politicians have to "do something" about a perceived problem, but this is one "problem" we don't need the government to solve.

Herald Column: Mulcair Should Stay Home

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at NDP leader Thomas Mulcair's recent comments about "Dutch disease" and how that relates to his planned visit to Alberta:

After having established Western Canada as the villain in his calculated political narrative, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair plans on visiting Alberta, the centre of his axis of evil.
Mulcair arrives here next week for a two-day visit which may or may not include a trip to the oilsands.
In fairness, his views on the "petrodollar" or "Dutch disease" or even his "polluter pay" policy should not be predicated on having to witness oilsands development first hand - just as one need not visit Ontario to reject Mulcair's views about what ails that province's manufacturing sector.
Frankly, it's difficult to see what purpose this trip will serve. There's little ambiguity when it comes to Mulcair's views on oilsands development, so he's not coming to learn anything.
I'm sure it will be easy to dig up some Albertans for Mulcair to meet who share his views on oilsands development. That will reinforce what he already believes, and he can then claim to have "gone to Alberta and spoken to Albertans."
In that sense, it would appear the only purpose to this trip is political damage control. While Mulcair clearly sees political benefit in pitting Ontario against the West, he has perhaps realized the pitfalls of being so brazen about it.
For all his talk about the Harper government being his intended target, it lacks credibility and believability when he is targeting western premiers, calling them Harper's "messengers."
And whatever points Mulcair might have to make about the federal government's commitment to environmental sustainability and stewardship, he has deliberately made the issue about much more than that.
By invoking Dutch disease - the term used to describe a high currency resulting from energy development and the resulting harm then inflicted on exporters - Mulcair is tapping into the economic angst in Ontario and offering them a scapegoat: the West.
Of course, manufacturing is but one sector of Ontario's large and diverse economy, so it's curious that national economic policy debates must revolve around it.
While Mulcair may be trying to position himself as a defender of Ontario's economic interests, it's difficult to see how any "cure" to Dutch disease would be beneficial to Ontario, let alone the rest of the country.
Presumably, it would mean severely limiting economic development in the energy sector and then hope for a depreciated Canadian dollar, or specifically manipulating the currency to achieve such an outcome.
Either way, our economy would not benefit.
As several economists have pointed out in this debate, resource development and a higher Canadian dollar are net positives for the Canadian economy.
Economist Stephen Gordon has noted the resource boom of the 21st century and the accompanying rise in the Canadian dollar have meant job growth and real wage growth.
The Canadian Energy Research Institute has concluded that after Alberta, Ontario stands to benefit the most from oilsands development.
Although manufacturing in Canada has long been in decline, recent development in the resource sector has given it a boost. Last week, for example, Statistics Canada reported a strong rise in manufacturing sales for March, led by the petroleum and coal industries.
If Mulcair has a soft spot for manufacturing jobs, then perhaps he should put forth a plan to boost that sector rather than knocking down other sectors. Mind you, one might hope the NDP's economic concerns are broader than just one specific sector.
Further, if Mulcair truly wishes to pursue an agenda of increased environmental accountability and responsibility, then he should perhaps decouple that from his ill-informed economic views.
Although, it's hard to take the NDP seriously when they talk of making the "polluter pay," given their strong opposition to higher gasoline prices and support for subsidized home heating costs.
But whichever policy course Mulcair pursues, he should save his Alberta trip for a time when he's genuinely curious about what's going on here - not when he's trying to put out political fires.