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.

U of C Scolded (Again) for Trampling Free Speech

Once again the University of Calgary has been taken to task for it's failure to appreciate and protect freedom of expression.

How many more times will it take until the University gets the message?

Back in March, a Court of Queen's Bench Judge upheld a lower court ruling which found the U of C had violated the charter rights of anti-gay activist Bill Whatcott who was handing out pamplets on campus nearly four years ago.

 

We've also seen the university - and the students union, too - impose all sorts of restrictions on the Campus Pro-Life club. When members of the club were charged with trespassing, the charged ended up being stayed after the University failed to explain exactly what the students had done wrong.

 

It's not surprising then that a recent report on campus freedom (PDF) from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms ranked the U of C near the bottom.

Yesterday, we got another example to add to the list.

 

The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled (full ruling here - PDF) that the University is not a charter-free zone, and has ruled in favour of two students who had criticized their professor on Facebook.

 

Back in 2007, the university found ten students guilty of non-academic misconduct after they criticized the professor online. They were even threatened with expulsion. Not only that, but the students were not given an opportunity to present any evidence to support their case, nor were they able to have a lawyer cross examine the professor in question.

 

As the court found:

 

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the disciplinary proceedings undertaken by the university. The decision of the Review Committee failed to take into account the Pridgens' right to freedom of expression under the Charter. The decision breached the Pridgens' freedom of expression and cannot be saved by the Charter. Moreover, the Review Committees' decision was unreasonable from an administrative law perspective. The decision of the chambers judge to quash the Review Committee's decision is upheld and the appeal of the university is dismissed."

 

Maybe now, instead of stomping on rights and fighting people in court, the University of Calgary can finally get around to taking a more enlightened view of freedom of expression.  

Herald Column - MLA Pay Promises Go Out The Window

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the Premier's response to the MLA compensation review, and how that response clashes with her previous promises:

Last fall, in announcing the creation of an MLA compensation review, it appeared as though Premier Alison Redford had finally set us on a course to a fundamental overhaul of the way Alberta politicians are paid. Instead, we have a fair amount of uncertainty as to what’s going to change. Additionally, we have what clearly amounts to a broken promise from the premier herself.
With the tabling of the report last week from former Supreme Court justice John Major, we now know the specifics of what this MLA compensation review process has concluded is appropriate for elected Alberta politicians.
We do not know, however, what from this report will become reality.
Perhaps, then, given the controversial nature of some of Major’s recommendations, some uncertainty might be preferable. However, certainty is what we were promised. This was made clear on many occasions during the recent election campaign.
For example, a news release from the PC party, dated April 9, makes several unequivocal declarations.
We are told that, “Premier Redford has committed to implementing the recommendations of the independent review of MLA pay,” and that, “Premier Redford’s plan takes MLA pay out of the hands of politicians.”
But one need not rely solely on what the Tory war room was churning out. In the televised leader’s debate, Redford was just as unambiguous.
In one exchange, Redford committed to “accept the recommendations of that report.” She then challenged Wildrose Party Leader Danielle Smith to “decide if you want an independent process or to control your own salary.”
Later, Redford reiterated that we “had to accept the recommendations of the Major report.”
Yet, barely two weeks removed from election day, and less than a week removed from the release of the report, we can already conclude that the government’s response will not be the response that was promised.
The day after the report’s release, Redford was asked for her thoughts on Major’s recommendation that the salary for the premier rise from its current level of $211,000 to $335,000 over the next two years.
Redford admitted she was “surprised” by that recommendation, and immediately rejected it.
But wait, if this was truly an independent process, shouldn’t every recommendation come as a “surprise” to the premier? Were her promises on the campaign trail based upon assumptions as to what Major’s recommendations would be?
Remember, this premier did not commit to “consider” or “review” Major’s recommendations. She did not pledge to use them as a “guide,” nor did she pledge to implement only those she liked or those she thought made sense. She promised to “implement all the recommendations.”
By deciding what the premier’s salary should or shouldn’t be, Redford is now herself exerting the sort of control over salaries that she explicitly warned against.
Once the legislature resumes, this report will be referred to the member services committee, whose members will review it further. Other recommendations may fall by the wayside as MLAs decide which aspects of the report ought to be implemented.
In other words, the very plan, which was to “take MLA pay out of the hands of the politicians,” seems, for the moment, to be placing it directly into the hands of the politicians.
To be sure, there are flaws in some of Major’s recommendations. Even the scope and mandate of the review itself was problematic, in that MLA salaries are compared to other salaries in the public sector without any consideration as to why the latter has so rapidly ballooned.
Additionally, there is no comparison to how politicians in other jurisdictions are compensated, or for that matter, any evidence offered that higher levels of compensation really do attract better people and lead to better governance.
Nonetheless, this is the process we got. And these are the recommendations resulting from it. If the premier is true to her word, she should commit to implementing all the recommendations, and if she dislikes her higher salary, I’m sure there are charities that could use the extra money.
Regardless of whether the premier’s new position of reviewing and considering each recommendation is the correct one, it is clearly at odds with her previous position.