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.