New Zealand scientists find tremor link that could predict volcanic eruptions

Researchers develop system to track shaking within volcanoes that could provide up to 4 days notice of an eruption

Strong tremors have become more frequent near Mount Ruapehu, an active volcano on New Zealand’s North Island. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images

Eva Corlett in Wellington
@evacorlett

Wed 20 Apr 2022 

Researchers in New Zealand are developing a new warning system that tracks shaking within volcanoes and could one day provide two to four days’ notice of whether an eruption is more likely.


Tonga says volcanic eruption and tsunami an ‘unprecedented disaster’

After the deadly Whakaari eruption in 2019, researchers at the University of Canterbury set out to determine whether patterns in seismic frequency (the shakes felt in the volcano) could help forecast eruptions and prevent the loss of life.

Natural Resources Engineering postdoctoral fellow Dr Alberto Ardid studied recordings from GeoNet seismometers – an instrument that measures ground noises and shaking – prior to 18 eruptions across six active volcanoes around the world, including three in New Zealand; Ruapehu, Tongariro, and Whakaari.

A machine-learning algorithm allowed Dr Ardid to sift through thousands of recordings and highlight particular frequency patterns that occurred regularly before an eruption.

The findings, which are published in Nature Communications, showed that in the three weeks, and then the few days before an eruption, there were similar changes in frequencies within some of the volcanoes.

The shakes would become slower – suggesting there was a blockage in the shallow part of the volcano and that a seal or lid had formed, which traps hot gas, builds pressure, and sometimes triggers an explosion.

“This pattern started to emerge, in our experience, around three weeks before the eruption and it peaks around two and four days before the event,” Ardid said.

“However, it is important to point out that we have observed this sealing mechanism without any eruption related,” he said. Sometimes the pressure will passively release, and other times it can explode. “That’s when it is dangerous.”

The research has picked up that Mount Ruapehu, an active volcano in the country’s North Island, is showing signs of a seal forming, Ardid said. “At this point, we’re able to say that an eruption is much more likely to happen now.”

Over the past month, strong tremors are becoming more frequent, hot gas and liquid is flowing into the crater lake and sulphur slicks are appearing on the battleship grey water near Mount Ruapehu. GeoNet, which monitors New Zealand’s geological hazards, has issued a warning over elevated volcanic unrest, saying the activity in the last four weeks is “the longest period of tremor recorded over the past 20 years”. It cannot predict if the volcano will blow – unrest does not always lead to an eruption.

A tool to definitively predict if a volcano is going to erupt does not exist. As Ardid puts it: “the holy grail of volcanology is trying to anticipate when an eruption is going to happen”. But what this research does is allow scientists to determine with greater accuracy the probability, or likelihood, an eruption will occur.

The research’s co-author, Dr David Dempsey, a Civil and Natural Resources Engineering lecturer at the University, said once the warning system has been through enough testing, and the scientists are confident enough in its accuracy levels, it could be used across the world.

Dempsey hopes they can get the tool to a stage where scientists can say there is a 10-20% chance of an eruption in the next 48 hours. “That would be considered a very, very high level of certainty.”

Determining the relative risk of eruption is important – for example, determining if there is a one-in-10 chance of eruption versus a one-in-1000. “With that information you may or may not decide to delay your visit to a mountain.”

New Zealand has 12 active volcanoes and in many cases, including Mount Ruapehu, are popular tourist destinations, or are bordered by residential areas.

“Active volcanoes, including Whakaari, Ruapehu, Tongariro, and others around the world where visitors and skiers are likely to be nearby, are unpredictable and sometimes hazardous,” Dempsey said. “Early warning systems could save lives and avoid debilitating injuries.”

Biden admin launches $6 bln nuclear power credit program

Tue, April 19, 2022, 

By Timothy Gardner

WASHINGTON, April 19 (Reuters) - The Biden administration on Tuesday opened applications for a $6 billion program to help nuclear power plants struggling with rising costs as it seeks to stop the generators from shutting down.

The U.S. nuclear power industry's 93 reactors generate more than half of the country's carbon-free electricity, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). But 12 reactors have closed since 2013 in the face of competition from renewable energy and plants that burn plentiful natural gas.

In addition, safety costs have soared after the 2011 tsunami at Japan's Fukushima plant and after the Sept 11, 2001 attacks; the industry produces toxic waste, currently stored on site at plants across 28 states.

The DOE said it will take applications from owners of nuclear plants for the first round of funding in its Civil Nuclear Credit Program until May 19. It will prioritize reactors that have already announced their intention to close. The program, intended for plants in states with competitive electricity markets, was funded by the infrastructure bill that passed last year.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said the administration is "using every tool available" to get the country powered by clean energy by 2035, a goal of President Joe Biden's, including by prioritizing the existing nuclear power fleet.

The $6 billion in funding is designed to be distributed gradually. The DOE can appropriate $1.2 billion over the next four years with the last four-year period ending in 2035. Officials said in February they hope the program can begin to help one or more plants this year.

PG&E plans to shut its two Diablo Canyon reactors in California in 2024 and 2025. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The program could also help a range of utilities, including PSEG and Constellation Energy Corp although they have not yet announced plans to shut plants.

The plan was praised by Senator Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat who has so far stymied Biden's clean energy legislation in the massive Build Back Better bill, but has said in recent weeks he could go along with legislation that makes investments to fight climate change.

"This program will keep our reactors operating, preserving American jobs, reducing emissions, and bolstering our energy security," Manchin said. (Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Aurora Ellis)

LANDLORD AND RENTIER CAPITALIST

Poilievre defends investments in rental properties while campaigning to address housing affordability

Glen McGregor
CTV National News Senior Political Correspondent
Updated April 21, 2022 

OTTAWA -

Even as he decries government policies for pushing up the cost of housing, Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre is defending investments he and his wife made in rental properties of the kind that some economists say contribute to rising real estate prices.

Poilievre co-owns a real estate investment company that owns a rental property in Calgary and his wife owns a rental home in Ottawa.

“We're helping solve the problem by providing affordable rental accommodations to two deserving families,” Poilievre said at a press conference in North York, Ont., on Thursday, where he discussed the housing crisis.

While the Ottawa-area MP and his family live in a $550,000 lakeside home in Greely, Ont., south of Ottawa, his wife, Anaida Poilievre, owns a rental property in a semi-detached home in the Ottawa suburb of Orleans.

She paid $238,000 for the property in 2012, before they were married, but last June took out a $425,000 mortgage against it from Tangerine Bank.

With interest rates climbing, economists have cautioned Canadians against using their homes as “ATMs” – borrowing against their rising equity. But Poilievre defended his wife’s decision to leverage the value of the property.

“She followed all of the rules and used the equity that she has built up through a very responsible and intelligent investment, to maximize the best interests of her financial position,” the MP said Thursday.

After the press conference, Anaida Poilievre approached a CTV News journalist to say she was proud of her investment and that, next time, the reporter should ask her to her face.

Pierre Poilievre also followed up with CTV News after the event to say, “My wife started off with humble beginnings and she invested in a rental property to protect her financial independence.”

He said he was proud of her investment savvy.

Poilievre controls 50 per cent of the voting shares in Liberty West Properties Inc., an Alberta corporation that owns a unit in a townhouse complex on 90th Ave. S.E. in Calgary.

The remainder of the shares in the firm are controlled by his friend, former Alberta justice minister Jonathan Denis, and Denis’s mother, Marguerite, according to corporate records.

The company bought the home in 2006 for $249,000.

It is not unusual for MPs to own rental properties. A CTV News review of conflict-of-interest disclosures filed with the federal ethics commissioner show at least 59 MPs received income from rental properties or own a stake in a real estate holding company. Nearly 90 MPs did not have their ethics filings publicly available at this time.

But owning second homes to rent out is blamed by some for increasing competition in an already overheated real estate market.

A Statistics Canada report last week said that Canadians who buy second homes as investments contribute to rising prices.

“Owners seeking additional properties contribute to increased competition in already tight real estate markets,” the report said, making “it more difficult for prospective homeowners to purchase a home.”

In his bid for leadership of the Conservative Party, Poilievre has repeatedly assailed the Trudeau government for policies that he blames for pushing the price of housing out of reach for most Canadians. This week, he has repeatedly targeted what he calls “gatekeepers” – provincial and municipal officials who enforce zoning and development rules that he contends slow down new housing construction.

Several members of the federal cabinet also dabble in rental properties, including Housing Minister Ahmed Hussen, who got into the lucrative Ottawa market in July 2021. He paid $434,255 for a newly-built townhouse near the South Ottawa neighbourhood of Findlay Creek. Property listings show the home was rented for $2,300 monthly.

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and her husband together own a small row house not far from Waterloo Station, in London, U.K. They bought the property in 2002 for £405,000 (CAD $660,0900) and lived in the home while working in London. They now rent out the home, which is valued in excess of £1 million (CAD $1.6 million).

Freeland also owns a home in Toronto’s Summerhill neighbourhood.

Also in London, Innovation Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne collects rent on a half-double in the Notting Hill area. He paid £820,000 ($1.3 million) for the unit in 2009, when he worked in London. His ethics declaration also lists co-ownership of another rental property north of the city’s financial district.

With files from Mackenzie Gray and BNN Bloomberg

01:22
Pierre Poilievre on his rental property

ABOLISH THE MONARCHY

More than half of Canadians want independence from the monarchy, survey finds


Ben Cousins
CTVNews.ca Writer
Published April 21, 2022

Canada’s support for the monarchy is waning and could reach new lows in a post Queen Elizabeth II era, a new poll found.

The poll, released Thursday from the Angus Reid Institute, found that 51 per cent of respondents are in favour of abolishing the monarchy in the generations to come, while 24 per cent of respondents are unsure.

Those in Quebec (71 per cent) and Saskatchewan (59 per cent) were most likely to call for an abolition of the monarchy, while the rest of the country hovered around 45 per cent in favour of leaving the Royal Family behind.

Additionally, 49 per cent of respondents believe the Royal Family represents outdated values and 50 per cent said the Royal Family is “no longer relevant at all” to them.

RELATED LINKS

ARI: Canadians support growing monarchy abolition movement, would pursue after Elizabeth II dies

Canada’s support for the head of state, plummets even further in the event of Queen Elizabeth II’s death, as 65 per cent of respondents oppose recognizing Prince Charles as king and Canada’s official head of state, while 76 per cent of respondents oppose recognizing Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, as the queen.

Elizabeth has stated that she wants Camilla to be named “queen” one day.

The Queen celebrated her 96th birthday on Thursday and has been on the throne for 70 years.

Since October, Elizabeth has battled COVID-19, visited the hospital for an unspecified ailment, and has quipped publicly about not being able to move very much anymore.

Overall, 63 per cent of respondents had a favourable view of the Queen and 58 per cent would feel sad when she dies.

SUPPORT FOR OTHER COUNTRIES LEAVING THE MONARCHY

More countries appear willing to move on from the monarchy as well.

Barbados formally left the monarchy behind in November 2021 and Jamaica followed suit in March when Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness announced during a visit from Prince William and Kate that it too wants independence.

Nearly 60 per cent of Canadians feel that countries choosing to leave the monarchy are following down the right path, while just eight per cent think it’s a mistake.


In 2019, the Monarchist League of Canada, which describes itself as “Canada’s premier organization at the forefront of the promotion, education, and nonpartisan defence of the Canadian Crown,” found that Canadians payed $58.7 million in tax dollars to the Crown, a nearly six per cent decrease from the 2016 survey.

METHODOLOGY

The Angus Reid Institute conducted an online survey from April 5-7, 2022 among a representative randomized sample of 1,607 Canadian adults who are members of Angus Reid Forum. For comparison purposes only, a probability sample of this size would carry a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding. The survey was self-commissioned and paid for by ARI.

If You Like Democracy, You Should Oppose Capitalism

Liberal democracy gives us essential rights like free speech and civil liberties. But without challenging the domination of capital, liberal rights will always be curtailed by the power of the rich.

By the end of his life, philosopher John Rawls had become a persistent critic of capitalism.

 (Frederic Reglain / Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)

BY MATT MCMANUS

 Jacobin

Review of Socialism for Soloists by William Edmundson (Polity, 2021)

John Rawls was arguably the greatest liberal philosopher of the twentieth century. But by the end of his life — he died in 2002, at the age of eighty-one — he had become a persistent critic of capitalism.

In his 2001 book, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Rawls argued that competitive capitalism, and even an extensive Nordic-style welfare state, didn’t meet the requirements of a just society. “Welfare state capitalism,” he wrote, “permits a small class to have a near monopoly of the means of production,” which undermines two of the core principles of justice: that political liberties are held equally by all and that the social order works to the greatest advantage of the least well-off.

Rawls’s preferred alternative was a social order — either a “property-owning democracy” or “liberal socialist regime” — that would “set up a constitutional framework for democratic politics, guarantee the basic liberties with the fair value of liberties and fair equality of opportunity, and regulate economic and social inequalities by a principle of mutuality.” Firms would be democratically managed, but would still “carry on their activities within a system of free and workably competitive markets” with “free choice of occupation” also guaranteed. Unfortunately, he passed away without providing much more in the way of details.

In his great book John Rawls: Reticent Socialist (2017), the philosopher William Edmundson took Rawls’s positions seriously and worked out his radical egalitarianism in far greater depth. Now Edmundson has released a new book, Socialism for Soloists, which builds on his earlier work to contend that “justice requires socialism,” and of a liberal-democratic kind. Most innovatively, Edmundson questions the popular notion that socialists must have the bloodiest of bleeding hearts by insisting that even the staunchest individualists should be socialists.

Much of Edmundson argument is technical and scholarly. But it nevertheless arms us with extremely useful intellectual arguments in the battle of ideas.

Socialism and Equality

Edmundson’s aim is to demonstrate how an individualist commitment to liberal principles should lead to a further commitment to democratic socialism. This kind of enterprise will disappoint some leftists for its lack of political economy, and it leaves Edmundson open to the objection that his abstract moral theorizing is ahistorical and insufficiently materialist.

But to my mind, a socialism that doesn’t ground itself in a morally defensible conception of justice is one that will prove unappealing in the long run. Without a substantive, persuasive vision of the principles of justice that underpin socialism — and an account of how they cash themselves out practically — anti-capitalist critique becomes an exercise in trashing the status quo without offering any meaningful alternative. Edmundson provides us with a plausible philosophical basis for democratic socialism that doesn’t ask us all to suddenly become angels — and for that he deserves a lot of praise.

The basic principles Edmundson develops are clearly modeled on Rawls’s famous principles of justice, asking what kind of society “soloists” — self-interested and rational individualists who “recognize the pressing need for social rules and a common power to enforce them” — would choose to create through a social contract. Edmundson argues that a just society would respect a “principle of political equality: citizens who are equally able and equally motivated should have an equal chance to influence political decisions, regardless of wealth and income” and a “principle of reciprocity: economic inequality is allowed so long as it can be seen to benefit all representative social classes.”

Of the two principles he gives the second considerably shorter shrift, which is disappointing given its importance. Edmundson simply argues that individuals “contracting into” society would be willing to tolerate some forms of economic inequality if they would make everyone better off.

This is partly Edmundson’s response to the well-worn charge that socialists are motivated less by a concern for the poor than by envy of the well-off. And he is correct that any argument which says the poor can be poorer so long as the gap between rich and destitute is narrower will appeal to no one. As Edmundson points out, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels themselves weren’t strict egalitarians. In the Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx lampooned strict egalitarians, arguing that the unequal needs of equal individuals would require them to receive unequal shares to ensure the flourishing of all.

Yet Edmundson provides little sense of how much economic inequality is too much, arguing that “empirical research” may point us to the sweet spot in the future. We’re fortunate that scholars like Thomas Piketty and David Harvey are helping us fill this gap in knowledge. But it’s hard to shake the feeling that Edmundson could have provided more immediate guidance on this important point.
Socialism and Equal Political Liberties

Edmundson spends far more attention defending the socialist implications of the first principle, which is where the real innovation in his argument kicks in.

He points out that most contemporary liberal thinkers express a nominal commitment to equal political liberties for all. Yet virtually none of them have taken seriously how private ownership of the means of production — which Edmundson defines as “those resources and instrumentalities [which] . . . are widely indispensable means of productive activity (or their products are); and they are impossible to be severally owned” — fundamentally undercuts this commitment to equal political liberties for all. In a capitalist society, those individuals — including wholly artificial people like corporations — who own the means of production have far more power and influence than those who do not. They get far more value from their political liberties and can even use those liberties to exclude others from participation, ensuring even laws and regulations meant to benefit everyone equally in fact largely benefit them.

Edmundson’s argument isn’t just a principled one. He marshals both historical and contemporary evidence to show that the equal value of political liberties for all and private ownership of the means of production can never be harmonized. His evidence ranges from the immense influence of industrial capital on the politics of anglophone nations from the early nineteenth century onward to the power that modern big tech wields over the freedom of speech and expression of billions across the globe. Consequently, he says, we have a choice: either maintain our liberal-democratic convictions or accept the domination of capital.

Edmundson argues that no rational individualist could opt for the latter since it generates tremendous instability and ensures that, far from being an efficient system of cooperation for the benefit of all, political rules elevate the wealthy and powerful to still higher peaks of wealth and power. The vast majority of us are left on the outside looking in. A just society, Edmundson says, would forbid private ownership of the means of production and bring it into public hands, democratically managing the economy for the benefit of all.

This is a very powerful argument, showcasing how genuinely democratic liberalism not only can coexist with socialism but requires it.

The means of production Edmundson lists include “the currency, the highway system, the broadcast spectrum, telecommunications, power generation and distribution, navigable waterways, credit, investment banking, insurance, weaponry and munitions, airways, railways, hospitals, agribusiness, any extractive industries, petrochemicals, internet service provides, Facebook, Amazon (especially Amazon Web Services), Google, and so on.” He argues that the public takeover of the means of production could be carried out through something like the Meidner Plan (named for socialist economist Rudolf Meidner) from 1970s Sweden. The plan proposed a high tax on corporate profits paid in new stock, which would be held in a wage-earner fund managed by labor unions. Over time, workers would gain a controlling interest in all major Swedish corporations.

Beyond just public ownership of the means of production, Edmundson argues that there should be caps on the intergenerational transfer of wealth and suggests that certain kinds of public services should be provided — though which kinds are left ambiguous. He also argues that much of the economy would remain within individuals’ hands because many kinds of personal ownership don’t entail private control of the means of production. The line remains necessarily blurred, since much will depend on historical and material circumstances.

Making Liberty Real

Edmundson’s book is short — barely 150 pages — but richly suggestive and clearly argued. He builds on Rawls to show what an appealing liberal-democratic socialism might look like in the future, and demonstrates why those of us committed to the equal value of political liberties should endorse it.

The book’s biggest faults are its frustrating lack of specifics on the degree of economic inequality that would be permitted and what kinds of resources might be publicly provided. But these are minor quibbles next to the achievement of giving us a workable blueprint upon which to innovate and riff.

Socialism emerged from the French Revolution’s demands for liberty, equality, and solidarity, and democratic socialists have long prided ourselves on our concern for equality and solidarity. Socialism for Soloists reminds us that political liberty is absolutely central to socialism, too.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Matt McManus is a lecturer at the University of Calgary. He is the author of The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism and Myth, the coauthor of Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson, and editor of Liberalism and Socialism: Mortal Enemies or Embittered Kin?

Saving digital history: U of A librarian part of global effort to preserve Ukrainian culture amid Russian invasion

Peter Binkley, a University of Alberta digital scholarship technologies librarian, is volunteering with a global effort to preserve Ukrainian digital culture 

(CTV News Edmonton/Dave Mitchell).

Adam Lachacz
CTVNewsEdmonton.ca 

Digital Producer
Follow | Contact
Updated April 20, 2022

A University of Alberta librarian is part of a global effort to help preserve Ukrainian websites and archives as Russia invades the country.

While Peter Binkley, a digital scholarship technologies librarian, may not be in the trenches at the frontlines of the war in Ukraine, he considers himself to be playing a critical role in their resistance by preserving Ukrainian culture.

The academic is part of more than 1,300 volunteers working on the Saving Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Online (SUCHO) project identifying important historical materials, digital content, and archives at-risk of being lost forever.

"No doubt (many of) those archives have their own backup systems, and they might be okay, but those systems are vulnerable too," Binkley told CTV News Edmonton. "The point is to copy this stuff outside of Ukraine onto servers that aren't under threat of bombardment."

"We just have to assume everything is vulnerable, and we are going to save it all," he added. "Even if at the end of the day, only 0.01 per cent of what we save is actually needed because something was destroyed, we don't know what 0.01 per cent that is going to be be."

The effort has saved more than 30 terabytes of data from 3,500 websites ranging from scanned documents, site backups, and artwork.

"There's an awful lot there that should be saved," Binkley said.

"If it (backing up data) weren't done, and stuff is lost, that's a gap in the record," he said. "As a librarian, I hate that. I don't want that to happen."

One of the first sites Binkley helped preserve was the Kharkiv School of Photography digital exhibition database, dating back more than 20 years.

"You click through these pages, and you see all kinds of things," Binkley said. "Like, when teenagers (there) were adopting punk style. Saving that snapshot of their lives from that period is really important."

"What's made this fun for me was being exposed to Ukrainian culture on the web in a way that I've never looked at before," Binkley added.

The collective of volunteers works with software that converts websites into a single file that can be stored outside Ukraine.

Binkley cites one example from early into the Russian military conflict where the team secured more than 100 gigabytes of data from a Ukrainian state archive, only for that server to go dark hours later.

"I don't even know if we know what happened," Binkley added. "Whether it was bombed or lost power or just lost network.

"Clearly, the timeliness of saving this stuff is important. It's very vulnerable. It's very much under threat during the fighting."

Anyone can join the SUCHO team, Binkley said, with a particular need for people who read Ukrainian or Russian.

Preserving Ukrainian culture seems even more important now as the Russian invasion inches closer to its second month, Binkley says.

"What we've seen is that the Russian theory of this action is that there's no such thing as Ukrainian culture," the librarian said.

"So if they take over," he added, "if they put in a new administration in a university, along with all the other changes they make, they might say, get that Ukrainian stuff offline.

"So if that happens, we'll have a record. Hopefully, it won't come to that."

For more information, visit SUCHO's website.

With files from CTV News Edmonton's Carlyle Fiset

Edmonton to ask Ottawa for drug decriminalization, despite objections of 2 councillors

Edmonton City Council in a file photo.

Sean Amato
CTV News Edmonton
Updated April 19, 2022 

A motion to decriminalize "simple personal possession" of illegal drugs in the Alberta capital was approved 11-2 by city councillors Tuesday.

The policy of decriminalization is an attempt to "reduce drug poisoning injuries and deaths." In 2021, 624 people in Edmonton died of opioid overdoses and poisonings.

Mayor Amarjeet Sohi voted for the motion. He called decriminalization an "additional tool" to help people suffering from addictions by reducing the stigma and fear they face.

"These are loved ones. These are people who have families. These are people who are Edmontonians like everyone else," Sohi said.

"They deserve dignity, they deserve to live and they deserve the support from the community, but unfortunately that support is lacking because we don't have all the tools."

City staff will prepare a submission to Health Canada for a section 56(1) exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Toronto, Vancouver and British Columbia have all made similar requests, but none have been approved yet.

Edmonton will also lobby the provincial and federal governments for advancements on "safe supply, safe consumption sites, treatment and supportive housing."

Last week, some harm-reduction advocates and medical professionals urged councillors to move forward on decriminalization, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he'd welcome the city's request.

Councillors Jennifer Rice and Karen Principe voted against the part of the motion seeking decriminalization.

"I do have the concern to do this. And specifically from like a jurisdiction authority perspective and also from a legal perspective," Rice said during the meeting. "We do have federal and provincial governments take initiatives to look after this matter."

"I agree with her. I think this is a little bit redundant," Principe said. She also previously expressed concerns about open drug use in public areas and on transit.

City officials have been directed to work with Alberta Health Services, Alberta Health, Edmonton Police Service, public health and medical experts and Indigenous people, among others, to develop the new drug polici

RELATED STORIES
Edmonton moves forward on decriminalizing 'simple personal possession' of drugs

'Not ready': Alberta police association says it won't support drug decriminalization

'Extremely worried' about opioids, Trudeau welcomes Edmonton drug decriminalization pitch

Alberta house leader Jason Nixon accused of trying to intimidate opponent in chamber


Dean Bennett
The Canadian Press
Staff
Published April 20, 2022 


EDMONTON -

Alberta government house leader Jason Nixon is facing accusations of intimidation following a fiery exchange in the house that saw him lob a swear word toward the Speaker.

Independent legislature member Todd Loewen asked Speaker Nathan Cooper on Wednesday to sanction Nixon, saying Nixon tried to intimidate him from pursuing his work - a fundamental breach of his rights as a parliamentarian.

“This legislature is not a one-man show and, no, it doesn't revolve around a small group of people that feel it is their personal playground that they can manipulate,” Loewen told Cooper in the legislature chamber.

The exchange happened three weeks ago, when Loewen was introducing documents for the legislature record and, while doing so, publicly accused Nixon of making false statements about him.

That caused Nixon to shout back and, when Cooper intervened, Nixon directed a profane word so loudly in Cooper's direction that it was captured on the written parliamentary record.

Nixon then told the house he may change the rules to prevent or put limits on the tabling of documents, which Loewen said is grounds for intimidation.

“This has affected myself and all members who now worry about tabling documents in case the house leader finds further personal offence and does in fact bring forward changes stopping this important part of members' business,” said Loewen.

Opposition NDP house leader Christina Gray agreed Wednesday with Loewen.

“There has been a very chilling effect by the government's house leader's words,” Gray told Cooper.

“Through his action he has not only breached the privilege of (Loewen) but has committed a contempt against the entire assembly.”

Nixon was not in the house and his case was argued by deputy government house leader Joseph Schow.

Schow said Nixon had been responding to provocative, unwarranted and spurious accusations by Loewen. He said Loewen was breaking the rules by making “drive-by smears” with his comments and that Nixon, and anyone else in the house, is free to propose changes to make things run more smoothly.

“This government caucus is always looking to find ways to improve how the business of the assembly is managed and how to prevent abusive behaviour,” Schow told Cooper.

“The government house leader did not threaten any member of the assembly.”

There's a recent history of bad blood between Loewen and the United Conservative Party government.

Loewen was elected as a member of the government in the 2019 election but was voted out of caucus almost a year ago for questioning Premier Jason Kenney's leadership and publicly urging Kenney to resign. He now sits as an Independent.

During debate on March 31, just before the house adjourned for an extended two-week break, Loewen was tabling documents to underscore his criticism of Kenney. He also wanted to refute accusations from Nixon that Loewen was an NDP sympathizer and had advocated for mandated COVID-19 vaccinations.

That prompted Nixon to shout at Loewen across the floor.

When Cooper intervened, Nixon turned to Cooper and said, “Mr. Speaker, the guy just called me a f---ing liar in the middle of the damn legislature.”

That brought Cooper to his feet to loudly rebuke Nixon.

“Using language that's unparliamentary, including an F-bombdirected at the Speaker, is wildly inappropriate,” said Cooper.

Cooper had Nixon apologize for the profanity and for using Loewen's proper name in the legislature - another procedural no-no - when Nixon told Loewen during the exchange: “What a joke. That's why your career is over, Todd.”

Loewen, at Cooper's direction, apologized for accusing Nixon of misleading the assembly.

Cooper said he will deliver a ruling on Loewen's complaint in the next few days.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 20, 2022.

'Soap opera': Kenney says he's been too tolerant of open dissent

'If I've made a mistake in the past three years, perhaps it's (that) I've been far too tolerant of public expressions of opposition'

Author of the article:
CP, The Canadian Press
Dean Bennett
Publishing date: Apr 21, 2022 

 

Premier Jason Kenney says Albertans are unimpressed with the intraparty melodrama of his United Conservative government and adds that, if anything, he has been too soft on dissenters.

“What Albertans expect from their government isn’t a constant soap opera, and they certainly don’t want to see a family feud,” Kenney said, responding to questions Wednesday night during a Facebook town-hall meeting.

“Conservatives know that we must be united, and unity requires a degree of discipline.”

United Conservative Party members are currently voting by mail on whether Kenney should remain leader. If he receives less than 50 per cent support, the party must call a leadership race.

The vote has exposed deep discontent with Kenney’s leadership. Some members of his caucus have openly called for him to resign for the good of the party.

Kenney said while he respects free speech in his caucus, he has probably been too tolerant of open dissent.

He said he learned the importance of discipline while he was in the cabinet and caucus of former prime minister Stephen Harper.

“Sometimes (Harper) was criticized for being too strong in maintaining that discipline, but in retrospect I think it was necessary to maintain the unity and coherence of our government, party and movement,” said Kenney.

“If I’ve made a mistake in the past three years, perhaps it’s (that) I’ve been far too tolerant of public expressions of opposition.

“There are totally legitimate times when MLAs should be able to speak out for their constituents or share somewhat different views on policy. But if that becomes nothing but a constant effort at an internal civil war, I don’t think that’s acceptable.”

Almost 60,000 party members are eligible to vote in the leadership review. Results are to be announced May 18.


MORE ON THIS TOPIC

Braid: Former Wildrose leaders, like crocuses, spring back to political life

Kenney reiterated that if he fails to get 50 per cent, he will step aside, but if he gets the support he needs to continue, he expects everyone in caucus to fall in line so that the party can present a united front to defeat the Opposition NDP in the 2023 election.

Kenney has been dealing with dissent for more than a year, a situation exacerbated by and stemming from low poll popularity ratings.

Opponents have criticized his COVID-19 decisions, but have also said he has ditched the party’s grassroots ethos for top-down, centralized command and control.

Who gets punished and who doesn’t for public criticism has been hit and miss. A year ago, backbenchers Todd Loewen and Drew Barnes were voted out of caucus for criticizing Kenney. Soon after, Leela Aheer was dumped from cabinet for doing the same.

  

Leela Aheer, former minister for culture, multiculturalism and status of women, appears at a press conference with Premier Jason Kenney before she was removed from cabinet. 

PHOTO BY GREG SOUTHAM /Postmedia, file

Others have spoken out against the premier but have been allowed to stay in caucus, including two backbenchers who recently renewed calls for Kenney to quit.

The highest profile dissenter is Brian Jean, the newest member of the legislature. Jean won a recent byelection for the UCP on a promise to fight to have Kenney ousted. Some UCP members support Jean, while others have accuse him of being an Opposition NDP collaborator.

A revised seating chart in the house this week reflects the rift. Most of Kenney’s critics are now seated in the back row of the government benches. Jean is at the far end in the corner, furthest away from Kenney and the door.

On Tuesday, backbencher Jason Stephan renewed an earlier attack on Kenney in a speech to the house.

“Some say that unity requires you to follow the leader, but what if you’re being led over a cliff?” said Stephan. “Should you fall like a lemming? No.”

He added that “unity cannot be forced or coerced. Without trust, there is no unity.”

Braid: UCP member startles legislature with leadership blast

When the party changed to mail-in voting it extended the whole drama for another month

Author of the article: Don Braid • Calgary Herald
Publishing date: Apr 19, 2022

The Alberta legislature on Nov. 5, 2020. 

PHOTO BY IAN KUCERAK /Postmedia, file

As the legislature reopened Tuesday, criticism of Premier Jason Kenney came right from the heart of his own government.

It was dramatic and unexpected. Even some of Kenney’s most ardent opponents were surprised.

“Some say unity requires you to follow the leader,” UCP MLA Jason Stephan said in a formal member’s statement before the daily question period

“But Mr. Speaker, what if you’re being led over a cliff? Should you follow like a lemming? No.”

The place fell into deep silence followed by some applause, even on the government side.

Stephan was one of the seven who stood on the legislature steps after the party moved from in-person to mail-in voting, demanding that Kenney switch back or resign.

That was striking. But taking the leadership struggle to the legislature floor is another level entirely.

The UCP vote is the business of a political party, and thus not open for legislature discussion.

But Stephan adroitly found a way around the rule.

The MLA for Red Deer-South didn’t mention the premier by name, or the party. He talked about unity, trust, cheating and leadership.

But everybody knew what he was getting at.

  

United Conservative Party Red Deer-South MLA Jason Stephan (at podium), several UCP constituency association presidents, and several MLAs, speak about their discontent with recently announced changes to the UCP Special General Meeting voting rules during a press conference held below Premier Jason Kenney’s office at the Alberta Legislature in Edmonton, on Thursday March 24, 2022. 

PHOTO BY DAVID BLOOM /Postmedia

Stephan hit on what I believe has been Kenney’s big mistake with the party — his contention that the UCP is threatened “by lunatics who want to take over the asylum.”

Mental-health advocates weren’t the only ones appalled by that comment. Kenney has convinced many reasonable UCP members that he thinks they’re bigots and racists just because they oppose him.

Kenney also wraps himself in the mantle of party unity, saying it will collapse without him.

Stephan tackled all that when he told the house: “There is too much division. Albertans need more unity.

“Some say, of course we can have unity, if only you will agree with me.

“That’s not unity.

“What about labelling and calling people names? Is that going to produce unity? No.

“If you’re a member of a team and there is cheating, are you supposed to look the other way for the sake of unity?

“No. Winning does not justify cheating.”

Listeners could only take that as a reference to the leadership race, and the ensuing mistrust over the mail-in leadership vote.

Stephan told me afterward that Kenney only switched to mail-in voting because he knew he was about to lose

“Of that I have no doubt. As a political party, you have hit the jackpot when 15,000 people are going to come to the biggest meeting in Alberta history. Why would you cancel it?”

Regarding his speech, Stephan said, “I just want the public to have faith in the integrity of government. I want our integrity to be trusted. I did not run to be part of a government that is not trusted.”

Concluding his statement in the legislature, he said, “unity without integrity makes unity unvirtuous. Unity cannot be forced or coerced.

“But what if the truth angers some? Should we forsake truth for the sake of unity? No.

“Can we sow disunity and expect to reap unity? No.”

Kenney wasn’t in the house to hear all that. But he’ll have to wonder what’s coming next.

When the party changed to mail-in voting it extended the whole drama for another month.

All return votes have to be received by May 11, so there’s still nearly three weeks more of this to come.

Kenney has his own campaign team on the ground. Many of his staffers are on unpaid leave to work full-time on securing a positive vote.

Dissident riding groups are still active, now calling for the resignations of both the party president and executive director.

And Jason Stephan is not the only MLA with a lot more to say.

Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Herald.
Twitter: @DonBraid
Facebook: Don Braid Politics