A Poor People’s Pandemic: Report Reveals Poor Died from COVID at Twice the Rate of Wealthy in U.S.

STORY

APRIL 05, 2022

GUESTS
Rev. Liz Theoharis
co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign and executive director of the Kairos Center at Union Theological Seminary.

LINKS
Rev. Liz Theoharis on Twitter
"Poor People's Pandemic Report"
Image Credit: @anewppc

The newly released “Poor People’s Pandemic Report” shows poor people died from COVID at twice the rate of wealthy Americans and that people of color were more likely to die than white populations. “Our country has gotten used to unnecessary death, especially when it’s the death of poor people,” says Rev. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign.

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

As the United States nears 1 million deaths from COVID-19, those living in poor and low-income communities suffer twice as many deaths as wealthier counties. That’s the finding of a new report by the Poor People’s Campaign and economists at the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

This is Dr. Sharrelle Barber, director at the Ubuntu Center at Drexel University School of Public Health, announcing the report Monday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Yes, she’s the daughter of the Poor People’s Campaign founder, Bishop William Barber.


SHARRELLE BARBER: This poverty and pandemic report is painful. An invisible airborne virus has proven to us that we are caught up in an inescapable network of mutuality, and has shown us, with vivid detail, the deadly consequences of systemic poverty and systemic racism in our nation. But even more troubling is our inhumane acceptance of mass death.

AMY GOODMAN: The “Poor People’s Pandemic Report” draws on testimony from members of the Poor People’s Campaign. This is Tyrone Gardner and Fred Womack in Mississippi, followed by Jessica Jimenez, a single mother of three who lives with both her parents in the Bronx.


TYRONE GARDNER: I do have a health concern. I have sarcoidosis, which is an autoimmune disease. And so, I was stricken with COVID. My wife, she has lupus. She was also — contracted COVID. And because I don’t have money, it was 17 days before they even told me I had COVID.


FRED WOMACK: Coronavirus hit our family real hard here in Mississippi, especially in the Jackson central area. You know, we went through periods where we lost three or four family members at a time, you know, having four funerals in one day, you know.


JESSICA JIMENEZ: Not being able to pay my rent and bills on time was one of my biggest worries. You know, I was scared not being able to have a home for my children, not having a rent-control apartment, not getting any help to pay bills. And it was either paying my bills or having to spend that money on food and things that were necessary for my children.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by the Reverend Dr. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign. She’s joining us from Martinsburg, West Virginia, where they’re launching a protest against Senator Joe Manchin, which we’ll talk about in minute.

Reverend Theoharis, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you lay out the findings of the “Poor People’s Pandemic Report,” which was released on the 54th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s assassination in Memphis, Tennessee, where he was fighting for the rights of low-wage sanitation workers?

REV. LIZ THEOHARIS: Well, good morning, Amy, and thanks for having us on today.

We’re not celebrating this report. We’re deeply mourning the fact that — the extent of loss, the gravity of how much death, and how much of it was completely necessary. But indeed, what is shown in this “Poor People’s Pandemic Report” is that, overall in the pandemic, twice the number of poor people from poor counties died from COVID — and in various waves of the pandemic, up to five times the number of people in poor counties — than in richer counties died.

And so, the report is — there’s an interactive map. There’s a storyboard. I really encourage folks to go to PoorPeoplesCampaign.org and check out. There’s many, many findings, but it kind of overlays COVID deaths county by county, looking at about 3,200 counties across the country, and looks at income levels in those counties, look at healthcare coverage in those counties, looks at racial demographics and other demographics in those counties, and clearly shows that after that first wave of when COVID hit in early of 2020, really the mass death and loss has been amongst poor people.

And vaccination status doesn’t explain this alone. You know, there’s counties that we explore in this that are highly vaccinated. There’s double-boosted. There’s counties that are with lower vaccination rates in all income areas. But what is clear also, across all of the income groups and counties, is that poor people are dying at least two times as much.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Reverend Theoharis, why choose West Virginia as the place for this Poor People’s Campaign march, the 23 miles from Harpers Ferry to Martinsburg?

REV. LIZ THEOHARIS: Yes, indeed. So, we’re here. You know, we launched this report yesterday showing how our country has gotten used to unnecessary death, especially when it’s the death of poor people, low-income people. And here in West Virginia, where I am currently, you know, it’s one of the poorest states. There are 710,000 people in the state who are poor and low-income. And yet you have senators in the state who have refused to expand healthcare, expand — you know, raise wages, pass any kind of Build Back Better and extend the child tax credit. And that doesn’t just hurt folks in West Virginia, but it hurts people across the country.

And so, leaders of the West Virginia Poor People’s Campaign and other community leaders decided to organize a march. It’s a moral march on Senator Manchin. We will be marching from Harpers Ferry, from Storer College, where the second meeting of the Niagara Movement and, you know, Du Bois and so many powerful leaders, freedom fighters in our country’s history, met and figured out how do we keep a struggle going. And we’ll march to Martinsburg to Senator Manchin’s offices there. There will be demonstrations at various places, including the coal waste plant where Manchin makes his money off of coal, and, you know, really highlighting the connection between the evils, the interlocking injustices that the Poor People’s Campaign has taken up — you know, poverty and racism and ecological devastation and militarism and this distorted, this false narrative of religious nationalism that kind of covers up these wide and deep injustices that just do not have to be.

You know, people here in West Virginia deeply need and want to lift the load of poverty and to address these issues, and see the connections between environmental issues and health issues, as well as poverty and labor and racism. And yet, the elected officials here are not putting forward the kinds of programs, on a state level or on a national level, to actually address these injustices and make life better for the people.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you and Bishop Barber and other members of the Poor People’s Campaign have called on President Biden to meet at the White House with a delegation of poor and low-wealth people and religious leaders. Certainly at the Democratic convention, when Biden was nominated, a lot of attention was paid to the issues of the poor, but has there been any response from the president about this?

REV. LIZ THEOHARIS: Well, it does seem that the president’s handlers are kind of holding this up. We have gotten every indication that President Biden is interested in meeting. You know, when he addressed the Poor People’s Campaign in the election and after the inauguration, he said that ending poverty would be not just an aspiration but a theory of change.

And so, what the report that we launched yesterday shows is just one more kind of exclamation point on the fact that we need this meeting between poor and low-income people, folks that have been — who have lost loved ones in this pandemic and who are losing loved ones to poverty and racism and the destruction of our environment and militarism, you know, even before, and made worse during this pandemic. And so, indeed, it’s impossible to be able to really hear the pain and come up with the solutions that are at hand, that we do have, without such a meeting. And so we’re calling for that meeting.

And then we’re also organizing for a massive poor people and low-wage workers’ assembly, a moral march on Washington and to the polls, this coming June 18th, where thousands upon thousands of poor and low-income people from all across the country will be in Washington, D.C., making sure that our voices are heard and our agenda is clear, that we can’t keep on letting people die and have lives diminished because of this injustice and because of poverty. In this, the richest country in human history, how is it that we can have half of the U.S. population experiencing some form of poverty, when it just doesn’t have to be?

AMY GOODMAN: Reverend Dr. Liz Theoharis, I want to thank you so much for being with us, joining us from West Virginia, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, also executive director of the Kairos Center at Union Theological Seminary here in New York. We will link to your “Poor People’s Pandemic Report.”

That does it for our show. Democracy Now! is currently accepting for applications for a news producer. Check it out at democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Stay safe.

This is viewer supported news. Please do your part today.DONATE

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

HARPERS WAR

The fall of Panjwaii casts a long shadow over Canada's Afghan war veterans

Murray Brewster  CBC

© Murray Brewster/The Canadian Press A Canadian CH-147 Chinook helicopter takes off outside a combat outpost in Panjwaii, Afghanistan in June 2011.

The declaration that Panjwaii — a wild, angry district of Kandahar province in Afghanistan — had fallen to the Taliban was greeted this week with a mixture of shock, numbness and resignation by many of the Canadian soldiers who fought in that part of the country for the better part of five years.

A lot of Canadian blood was spilled on that lonely, scorched patch of land. Some of it belonged to former corporal Bruce Moncur.

There was also a lot of sweat and heartbreak folded into the gnarled, sun-bleached grape and marijuana fields in this region west of Kandahar City.

Just ask retired leading seaman Bruno Guevremont.

In many ways, both men left a little bit of themselves behind in Panjwaii — a sprawling, once-prosperous checkerboard of sand, farmland and ancient, dead volcanic hills that rise steeply out of the desert floor.

When soldiers referred to the killing fields of Kandahar, more often than not they were talking about Panjwaii — where Canadian troops did most of their fighting and dying amid endless fields, mud-walled compounds and empty villages.

Against an often-unseen enemy, they fought for the place over and over again throughout the five-year combat mission, which formally ended a decade ago this week.

The Taliban — the enemy that Canadian soldiers managed to keep at bay but never quite defeat — swept through Panjwaii last weekend, handing Afghan Army troops a significant defeat and delivering a major psychological blow in the wake of the American withdrawal.

'It's never going to end'

Following up on their victory in Panjwaii, Taliban insurgents reportedly penetrated Kandahar City late in the week. The Taliban desperately wanted control of Kandahar City, the second largest in Afghanistan, and spilled a lot of their own blood trying to get there — mostly with the Canadians standing in the way.

The city and its surrounding region was their spiritual home, birthplace and first seat of power, a place from which they projected their own brutal version of Islam in the 1990s.

Guevremont said he was shaken by the thought that the villagers he'd protected, and sometimes shared tea and flatbread with, were about to return to that kind of misery.

"What's the feeling I got when I heard that Panjwaii, (the Afghan National Army) had withdrawn and the Taliban was moving back in? It was anxiety. It was exhaustion," said Guevremont, who dismantled insurgent bombs and disarmed a live suicide bomber single-handed in the spring of 2009.

"It's like, this is never-ending. It's never going to end. I'm thinking about the local population. I mean, I made friends over there."

He said the news brought back vivid memories of the three times his team was called in to defuse bombs at schools.

"Once, we got there too late where an IED had actually detonated on a school, so a lot of children had died," said Guevremont. "There were two where IEDs were prepared to go off when the kids came out of school and we got there in time and dismantled those IEDs."

While he worries about the ordinary Afghans caught in the path of the advancing Taliban, he said he also remembers the insecure feeling of being an outsider among Afghans — of not knowing who could be trusted.

Guevremont recalled being asked by locals to respond to a report of a rocket strapped to the underside of a bridge — only to discover that he'd been led into a minefield. He had to dig and tiptoe his way out.

Ten years later, he is left with a sense of dismay — and futility.

"So, you're thinking, 'What did we do for 20 years? What did we do there for the whole time that we were there?'" he said.

He's not the only one asking those questions.

'It was an inevitability'

The hardened resolve and patient, wait-and-see attitude shared by the 40,000 Canadians troops who served in Afghanistan showed cracks here and there on social media this week.

What was it all for? It's a question that, over the past decade, has been answered with the claim that Canada's intervention empowered Afghans to choose their own destiny.

But for some former soldiers, fatalism has taken over.

"It was an inevitability," said Moncur, who suffered a major head wound in 2006 at the onset of Operation Medusa, the biggest battle fought by Canadians during the war.

"I honestly thought it was going to happen. I never thought the Taliban stranglehold on Kandahar was going to be broken for that long."

© CBC News Bruce Moncur (right) in southern Afghanistan in 2006.

Moncur and many soldiers like him take a pragmatic view of their service in Afghanistan: they had a job to do — keeping the Taliban at bay — and they did it.

"It's been 20 years now, a generation, and we lost a lot of blood and guts. But they lost too," he said, referring to the full sweep of western involvement in Afghanistan following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

There is a phrase the Taliban liked to use in their propaganda against western forces: "You have the watches, but we have the time."

Moncur said he has grown to appreciate the truth of that claim.

"The inevitability was, unless we were willing to retain that presence for a millennia, they were ultimately going to come out on top," he said.

'We didn't finish the job'

Moncur said he believes the war was not worth the sacrifice in lives and treasure. As a veterans' advocate who is married to NDP MP Niki Ashton, there is an important political dimension to his feelings about Panjwaii.

If Canada, he said, was serious about everything it claimed (and sometimes continues to claim) about its presence in Afghanistan, it would have not walked away from combat operations in 2011 and would not have left the country entirely in 2014.

"I have a hard time grappling with some of the politics that come after this, the decisions to leave," he said. "I mean, we didn't finish the job."

For soldiers like Moncur, mixed in with that remorse and dismay over the fall of Panjwaii is a sense that Canada's war in Afghanistan is ancient history now.

"I've moved on," he said. "I think a lot of the vets have moved on from this.

"I think if you had to ask them what they're more concerned about, the Taliban taking over Kandahar province or perhaps the state of the military within our country, I'm pretty sure most guys would be talking about what is going on with the Canadian military now."

But Canada left some loose ends behind in Afghanistan — flesh-and-blood ones.

Growing calls for Ottawa to rescue the local Afghan translators who worked for the Canadians and were left behind after 2014 have put the Liberal government on the spot in recent days.

Those calls started with ordinary soldiers but are now coming from some of the country's top former commanders — who say they're not prepared to see people who risked their lives for Canada sacrificed to the Taliban.

KENNEY'S WAR ROOM

CP NewsAlert: Judge dismisses attempt to quash 'anti-Alberta' activities inquiry

JUDGE IS BIASED, RELATED TO CONSERVATIVE POLITICOS

DOUG HORNER AND STEPHAN HARPER***

CALGARY — A judge has dismissed an attempt to quash the United Conservative government's inquiry into whether foreign groups have conspired against Alberta's oil industry.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Court of Queen's Bench Justice Karen Horner says the environmental law firm Ecojustice failed to prove the inquiry was called to intimidate charities that have raised concerns about the industry.

She also says there's no reason to believe that the political context around the inquiry suggests it's biased.

The provincial government and some industry leaders have said Canadian environmental charities that accept U.S. funding are part of a plot against Alberta's energy industry.

The province has said the plot aims to block pipelines and landlock Alberta's oil to benefit its American competitors.

Legal scholars and non-profit groups say the inquiry is an attempt to bully and silence industry critics.

The inquiry's final report, already delayed, is due May 31.

***Stephan Harper's & Doug Horner's cousin Justice Karen ...

https://rhondasails.blogspot.com/2014/04/stephan-harpers-doug-horners...

[72] At 11:43 a.m. Justice Karen Horner continued to have Ms. Achtem carry out malicious cross-examination, over documents not adduced and NEVER produced into the action. For Ms Achtem's exhibits N to R could only have be adduced in if this was a Summary Trial, provided the documents were produced into the action.

• Estimated Reading Time: 9 mins

Sherry L. Kachur, partner at WK Family Lawyers in Calgary, is appointed a justice of the Court of Queen's Bench. Justice Kachur replaces Justice Karen M. Horner (Calgary), who elected to become a supernumerary judge effective April 26, 2020.

Three judges appointed to Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench - The Lawyer's Daily (thelawyersdaily.ca)

FIREWALL ALBERTA REDUX FAIR DEAL (SIC) PANEL

LONG READ

Separation? Special interest groups? The fair deal panel approaches its final report

CBC March 6, 2020

Alberta's "fair deal" panel was formed to explore how to strengthen the western province's place within confederation — emphasis on within.

But in the homestretch, less than a month before recommendations are due, the panel's latest online engagement includes a question on separation — a choice opposition leader Rachel Notley says stokes the fires of a fringe movement.

The original list of mandates, as announced by Premier Jason Kenney in Red Deer Alta., includes exploring things like an Alberta Pension Plan, a provincial police force and more.


Kenney said he's looking forward to the report and plans to act on the recommendations thoughtfully and deliberately — according to Alberta's timelines, not Ottawa's.

"Within those prospective reforms lie a series of measures fully to assert Alberta's autonomy within the Canadian Federation in ways that other provinces have done, to use every tool at our disposal to ensure a prosperous economic future," said Kenney.

The latest survey, however, asks Albertans a new question: "Would Alberta alone or with other Western Provinces separating from the rest of Canada help improve the province's place in the federation?"

Separation question was debated

Panel-member Donna Kennedy-Glans says it was a tough choice for the eight pastelists to decide whether to include the question, but in the end they all felt it was important.

"Everywhere that we went in the province, every town hall, somebody would raise the question of separation," Kennedy-Glans said.

"So it is something we've heard. Our mandate is to work within Confederation. It is not to propose or support a separatist agenda. But we want it to reflect the fact that we were listening to people."

Along with public consultation, Kennedy-Glans said the panelists are meeting with special interest groups and experts to round out what they learn. She said these include think-tanks like the Pembina Institute, business groups, community groups and more.

Panel has had hundreds of private meetings

While separatist groups have been in touch, they are not on the panel's meeting calendar.

"We decided that it probably didn't make sense for us to sit down with them," she said. "Our mandate is not to recommend anything. That doesn't envision Alberta within Confederation."

Mount Royal University political scientist Duane Bratt sees no problem with including the question.

"I think one of the purposes of a fair deal panel was to change the conversation, from separatism to greater autonomy inside of Canada," Bratt said. "So it makes sense to have the separatism question on there."

Helen Pike/CBC


Notley, the NDP leader, disagrees.

In a statement, she wrote the province is hurting, people continue to lose jobs and the government has moved funding to already profitable corporations.

"This premier is intentionally stoking the fires of separation in order to distract from his own economic failures," Notley wrote.

"He is attacking our pensions, our health care, our education, and our public services. This is not what Albertans need right now. We need a premier who will do the job he was elected to do, and focus on getting people back to work."

While Bratt saw the logic of including a question on separation, he did take issue with some aspects of the survey, including lumping together the establishment of different hypothetical institutions in one question.

"Based on the news reports I've seen at the town halls there may be support for the police force, some support for tax collection, but I'm not hearing a lot of support for the pension plan," he said. "What if you support an Alberta police force, but you don't support a pension plan? How do you answer that?"

By the numbers
The panel heard from 2,500 people directly at town halls.
4,000 people responded to an early survey.
The latest survey has already had 17,000 responses and closes on March 15th

The eight-member panel includes former Reform Party leader Preston Manning and Stephen Lougheed, the son of former premier Peter Lougheed.

It's chaired by Oryssia Lennie, who was previously the deputy minister of Western Economic Diversification Canada.

The panel is expected to submit recommendations to the government by March 31. The government says any bold proposals would need to be approved by Albertans through a referendum.

THE ALBERTA FIREWALL LETTER

Alerta Agenda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The Alberta Agenda is a loosely organized political movement initiated by a letter written by prominent Albertans, including future Prime Minister Stephen Harper and 2006 Alberta PC leadership candidate Ted Morton, urging Albertan Premier Ralph Klein to fully exercise Alberta's constitutional powers. The letter was published by the National Post on January 27, 2001, in the wake of the Alberta-based Canadian Alliance's defeat in the 2000 Canadian federal election.

The letter has been referred to as the Firewall Letter from its use of the phrase "build firewalls around Alberta," a reference to the computer software programs which block unwanted intrusions from outside sources. Its main recommendations were:

• Allowing the province's contract with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to expire in 2012, establishing a provincial police force to take the RCMP's place. Alberta had a separate police force from 1917 until 1932.
• Withdrawal from the Canada Pension Plan and establishing a separate Alberta Pension Plan. Many Albertans believe that given the province's youthful demographics, staying in the CPP makes little sense since a separate "APP" would provide higher benefits for a lower premium.
• Separate collection of the province's income tax, as opposed to letting the Canada Revenue Agency handle tax collection. Alberta already collects its own corporate tax.

Klein personally responded to the letter, but rejected implementing the authors' requests for the duration of his premiership.

The Alberta Agenda should not be confused with Alberta separatism.

IT IS ONLY ONE STEP REMOVED FROM ITS SEPARATIST ROOTS IN

THE WCC AND RIGHT WING OF THE REFORM PARTY

An original author of the 'firewall' letter pleased with UCP-appointed fair deal panel
STEPHANIE BABYCH POSTMEDIA Updated: November 12, 2019

An author of the original firewall letter said a fair deal panel appointed by Premier Jason Kenney is better late than never, nearly 20 years after a group of conservative heavyweights drafted a plan to strengthen Alberta’s autonomy

Though the policies being addressed by the panel are the same as they were in January 2001, when the firewall letter was published in the National Post, there’s more appetite for change now because the province is struggling and frustration with the federal government is rising, according to Ted Morton, executive fellow at the School of Public Policy.

At the time of Ralph Klein’s government 18 years ago, the province was prospering, so people accepted the status quo.

“There’s a growing number of Albertans who find the status quo increasingly unacceptable but they don’t want to go as far as separation or independence, so this agenda represents a number of options that are in between the two extremes,” Morton said Monday. “These are positive reforms that would strengthen Alberta’s position and give the Kenney government leverage to negotiate reforms at the federal level.”

At a speech in Red Deer on Saturday, Kenney said the panel would answer questions including whether Alberta should pull out of the Canada Pension Plan and form its own plan; whether it should create a provincial police force instead of relying on the RCMP for rural policing; and whether it should opt out of some cost-sharing programs with the federal government.

Kenney’s list is a near carbon copy of the firewall letter signed by Morton, Stephen Harper and other conservatives in 2001, according to Mount Royal University political science professor Duane Bratt.

“The policies are the same. The difference is that this has the full weight of the provincial government behind it, whereas Klein largely resisted it. It’s one thing to, a couple years from now, fill a backbench MLA committee, it’s another to appoint a high-profile person like Preston Manning to give a big address like Kenney did,” said Bratt.

The panel wasn’t in Kenney’s election platform but the premier hinted that something was coming shortly after the federal election, said Bratt. He said changes to the tax system and police service would increase expenses, but pulling out of the Canada Pension Plan is a mystery because a province hasn’t left in more than 50 years.

Morton said he’s pleased that the panel will open the discussion on benefiting through structural change. He said the province would be in a better position today if his suggestions had been implemented in the early 2000s. But the original firewall letter received strong criticism from Klein, who described it as “defeatism” on Feb. 25, 2001.

On Jan. 30, 2001, the conservative premier responded to the public letter by saying that building walls around the province wasn’t the answer to unfair treatment from the federal government.

“I don’t think we need a firewall around Alberta,” Klein told Postmedia. “I think we need to be vocal, we need to be forceful in our desire to be treated fairly within the federation of Canada because we’ve always said ‘We’re a player’.”

The UCP-appointed fair deal panel consists of well-known conservative figures, such as Manning and Stephen Lougheed, three MLAs and a Blackfoot chief. Their mandate from the provincial government is to listen to Albertans and their ideas for the future, focusing on ideas that would strengthen the economy, offer the province a stronger voice within Confederation and increase provincial power over institutions.

“We’ve had it with Ottawa’s indifference to this adversity. Albertans have been working for Ottawa for too long, it’s time for Ottawa to start working for us,” Kenney declared in his speech to the Alberta Manning Networking Conference. “We Albertans will not lose our heads, we are practical people, we are not unreasonable people. Nothing we are asking for is unreasonable.”

Regional chief Jason Goodstriker is excited about his role on the panel, gathering information from people to forge a new path for Alberta.

“The panel, itself, is going to seek out the voice of grassroots and corporate and all kinds of Albertans who are involved in what makes our region work,” Goodstriker said Monday. “People in our region have had an opinion for a long time so I don’t think it will take a great amount of time to say what’s being said.”

Donna Kennedy-Glans, a former Calgary MLA, is also among the panellists and is ready to hear people’s concerns and ideas.

“People are concerned about what’s going on and people are unclear about what the choices are within Confederation,” said Kennedy-Glans.

Kenney said during his speech that any measures coming out of the panel that warrant serious consideration would be subject to a provincial referendum. “I can assure Albertans that we would not make a decision . . . unless the majority of Albertans were to endorse those proposals in a fair and democratic referendum,” he said.

The panel will begin public consultations Nov. 16 and conclude Jan. 20, 2020, with the panel’s recommendations going to the government by the end of March.

— With files from Tyler Dawson

SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2007/08/ted-morton-racist.html

ANOTHER OF THE BRAIN TRUST BEHIND THE FIREWALL IS STEPHEN HARPERS BRAIN; HIS MENTOR TOM FLANAGAN (AKA A DEFENDER OF KIDDIE PORN)
HE HAS PENNED THIS WHICH IS PUBLISHED BY RIGHT WING CALVINISTS WHO RUN THE FAKE UNION CLAC, AND CONTROVERSIAL CALVINIST UNIVERSITIES THAT DENY LGBTQ RIGHTS C2C WAS FORMERLY THE WORK RESEARCH FOUNDATION I DOCUMENT ABOUT HERE. THEY REPRESENT THE DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH FROM SOUTH AFRICA .
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2005/03/right-to-life-right-to-work.html

THIS IS A LONG READ 

The Return Of The Alberta Agenda
Tom Flanagan
November 22, 2019
What’s old is new again, and that extends well beyond aviator shades and flat-billed caps into the political realm. New again and, sometimes, even more urgent than the first time. The federal votes had barely been counted last month before calls erupted to dust off the Alberta Agenda, aka, the “Firewall Letter” of 2001. Some see its measures as forming Alberta’s first big step towards independence; others hope the same policies would help douse separatist flames. Just as quickly, opponents confidently pronounced all of the Agenda’s items unworkable. Tom Flanagan, co-author of the original Alberta Agenda, reviews its five policy recommendations and evaluates their merits in the light of current circumstances.In early 2001, six Albertans led by Stephen Harper published an open letter to then-Premier Ralph Klein advocating adoption of an “Alberta Agenda.” The letter was a reaction to the 2000 federal election campaign, in which Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien had deliberately targeted Alberta as a bogeyman. This was partly because of Alberta’s growing economic and political prominence, but it was not least because Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day, who had become a serious electoral threat to the Liberals, was an Albertan. Chrétien’s cynical ploy succeeded.

In expectation of years of further hostility from Ottawa, the Alberta Agenda proposed a number of policy innovations that were within the constitutional power of Alberta and that, if enacted, would reduce Ottawa’s power over the province. Equally important, adopting the Agenda’s items would signal that the province wasn’t simply going to accept federal abuse and that it had options other than remaining a compliant province. Publication of the Alberta Agenda triggered a lot of public discussion, but no serious political action. Influential Alberta political leaders such as Ralph Klein and Preston Manning were cool to it. A committee of the Alberta legislature dismissed it after perfunctory study that included serious errors of interpretation. The Agenda’s informal name, the “Firewall Letter”, also proved unfortunate by raising in some minds the imagery of burning buildings and scorched earth.

Alberta Agenda authors: (clockwise from far left) Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper, Ken Boessenkool, Ted Morton, Rainer Knopf, Andy Crooks.

When the Canadian Alliance held a leadership race later in 2001, Harper decided to run for the position and the co-authors mostly supported his candidacy. Harper won, then rolled the Progressive Conservative remnants into the new Conservative Party of Canada, and a few years later became prime minister. The Alberta Agenda seemed to lose much of its relevance; no one could accuse Prime Minister Harper of being hostile to his home province. It did, however, continue to have some support in the provincial Progressive Conservative and Wildrose parties, though never to the extent of becoming government policy.

Now, however, the environmentalist onslaught on Alberta’s oil industry, coupled with the return to power of the Liberals under Justin Trudeau, has revived the Alberta Agenda. In a dramatic move, Premier Jason Kenney incorporated most of its points into a more extensive “Fair Deal” for Alberta, which he unveiled to instant national attention at a conference on November 9. The Fair Deal proposal is to be studied by a nine-member panel chaired by Manning, which is to report by January 20. Kenney’s political methodology seems reminiscent of his approach to his first budget, appointing the MacKinnon Panel to study the budgetary situation. I hope it indeed is so, for Kenney then implemented most of the budgetary recommendations. The nascent “Wexit” movement also favours the Alberta Agenda items, evidently seeing them as foundation blocks for independence. In a recent open letter to Kenney, Wexit Canada leader Peter Downing called upon the premier to implement an “enhanced” version of the Agenda.

As one of the original co-authors, I’m pleased at the renewed attention to the Alberta Agenda, but the passage of time does require a second look. Along with Stephen Harper, the other co-authors were Ted Morton, professor of political science at the University of Calgary, a former Alberta Senator-elect and a former senior provincial cabinet minister; Rainer Knopf, professor of political science at the University of Calgary; Andy Crooks, a Calgary lawyer who is active in politics and philanthropy; and Ken Boessenkool, who has held senior federal and provincial political positions. The ideas in this article are my own, and I have not consulted with the other co-authors regarding what follows.

Certain things have changed dramatically since the Alberta Agenda was composed almost 20 years ago. Economically, Alberta was on a roll in 2001, the Klein government had erased the deficit, and oil prices were high. Now, in contrast, the economy is hurting, the province has gone deeply into debt, and the new government is once more fighting to get out of the cycle of deficit spending. What is even more frightening, the environmental movement has declared war on the oil and natural gas industry, with the goal of capping exports of our oil production (or “landlocking” Alberta), ending new investment in the oil sands and, within decades, ending all hydrocarbon production in favour of so-called “green energy.”

Dousing the “Firewall”: then-Alberta Premier Ralph Klein was cool to the Alberta Agenda and buried it using a provincial study panel.

The change in circumstances has driven a change in priorities. Whereas 18 years ago Alberta was growing rapidly and the only questions seemed to be just how far we might go and how we might get there, today the province and its population are fighting for their very livelihoods and security. In turn this implies that a new Alberta Agenda may need to be somewhat different from the original. The original Alberta Agenda consisted of five main policy proposals. Let’s look at these in the light of today’s circumstances, both as policy and as politics. The following headings are the opening sentences from the letter’s five agenda items.

Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan offering the same benefits at lower cost while giving Alberta control over the investment fund.

There is little question about the legality of this. Alberta has the right to create its own pension plan under section 94A of the Constitution Act, 1867, and Quebec did so in 1966. Because Alberta has a younger population with greater participation in the labour market and higher average wages and salaries than in the rest of Canada, an Alberta Pension Plan could offer the same benefits with lower premiums than the Canada Pension Plan (while premiums for the CPP without Alberta would have to go up). The potential savings are believed to be in the order of several billion dollars per year. Premiums for the current CPP keep on rising, and every 1 percentage-point drop that an APP could deliver would leave more than $500 per year in the pocket of every employee paying under maximum pensionable earnings.

A credible threat to withdraw from the CPP would shake Canada politically and might lead to concessions in other areas to keep Alberta inside the tent. It is truly the ace-in-the-hole of the Alberta Agenda.Tweet

Alberta could also claim a share of the CPP Investment Board’s fund, currently about $410 billion, though the size of that share would have to be negotiated. An APP would likely be administered by the Alberta Investment Management Company, which manages about $110 billion in provincial pension assets (and would need to add capacity to administer an APP). It’s important to realize that, despite its pool of invested funds, the CPP isn’t a genuine pension plan, but rather a pay-as-you-go transfer from current working contributors to current retirees. Its financial viability therefore depends almost entirely on maintaining a population base in which plenty of people are working and not too many people are drawing benefits. Canada as a whole is aging; Alberta could go either way, depending on its economic fortunes in the coming decades.

A credible threat to withdraw from the CPP would shake Canada politically and might lead to concessions in other areas to keep Alberta inside the tent. It is truly the ace-in-the-hole of the Alberta Agenda.

Ace in the whole: an Alberta Pension Plan would put billions of dollars per year in the pockets of wage-earners.

One issue needs to be carefully studied, however. Insurance and pension plans are generally considered more secure as larger numbers of members are included. An APP outside the CPP would move from a population base of 36 million to about 4.5 million. That, combined with a deteriorating economy caused by the environmentalists’ war against oil, could lead to financial problems for Alberta down the road. On the other hand, since the CPP includes multiple provinces with weaker economies and millions of people with lower incomes and higher rates of unemployment, the degree of risk reduction delivered by such diversification is uncertain. And Alberta alone isn’t all that small. Thousands of pension plans worldwide have fewer members with weaker foundations. And even in its currently reduced straits, Alberta’s economy would place it among the world’s top 50 countries.

There are further arguments for distancing ourselves from the CPP. Since 2000 its Investment Board has mushroomed from a lean team of five people costing $3.7 million per year (or about $750,000 per employee) to a bloated organization of 1,500 spending an astonishing $3.2 billion per year (over $2 million per employee) merely to maintain themselves and the fund, as this C2C Journal article illustrated. It’s hard to imagine Alberta being unable to operate its APP with greater proportionate efficiency.

In addition, as the same article indicates, there are worrying signs the Investment Board is being pressured or is choosing to make politically motivated investment decisions, such as uneconomic green energy schemes. That not only flies in the face of Albertans’ priorities but bodes ill for future investment returns. What’s next, the CPP selling off its oil and natural gas holdings, as many international funds are doing, due to “environmental ethics”? Bringing pension management under provincial control would at least align the APP’s with the province’s priorities.

Nonetheless, because there are credible arguments on both sides of this issue, an APP would require study by a team of accountants, actuaries, economists, and lawyers to make sure it would be financially sound. This will be a pocketbook issue for all Albertans for generations to come, so it is important to get the details right.

Collect our own revenue from personal income tax, as we already do for corporate income tax.

Here, too, the constitutionality is not in doubt; Quebec already does this. It would be another political signal of Alberta’s intention to be self-determining. The policy implications, however, are more mixed. Alberta might receive its provincial income tax revenue more quickly, but it would have to enlarge its existing tax bureaucracy to collect it. From a policy point of view, the most serious problem is not that Ottawa collects the revenue for us but that the overly graduated federal rates and the morass of credits and deductions often stymie investment in Alberta.

Still, at the very least, collecting our own income tax would mean a few more well-paying jobs in Alberta and additional technical expertise on the financial side. It would send additional, relatively low-key, political signals that the status quo is unacceptable and that province is assembling the capabilities to take a different path if pushed hard enough.

Start preparing now to let the contract with the RCMP run out in 2012 and create an Alberta Provincial Police Force.

This can’t be accomplished as originally written because in 2011 Alberta and Canada renewed the RCMP policing agreement for another 20 years. It allows for cancellation with two years’ notice, however. The arguments for a provincial police force are at least as compelling as they were in 2001. Canada is the world’s only federal democratic country in which the federal government looks after local policing. Maybe the Australians, Americans, Swiss, Germans, etc., are on to something. 

With rural crime at crisis levels, a provincial police force could help Albertans regain control over their fate.

It is difficult to see how bringing policing one government level closer to the affected population would not result in improved services. An important example is rural policing. The RCMP’s performance has been far from ideal, as testified not only by long response times to calls by victimized property owners but by the years it took to develop a targeted strategy. The provincial government must deal with this issue regardless of the RCMP contract, and effective reform would probably be easier if Alberta had its own provincial police force. Dealing with certain politically charged law enforcement issues in a way reflecting the views of most Albertans should also become easier were the force provincially controlled.

The main argument in favour of the current arrangement is financial; Ottawa pays 30 percent of the cost of the contract. But that does not necessarily mean the cost of a provincial police force would be that much higher. The RCMP carries a costly load of political correctness in its hiring and operations, with preferences for Francophones, women, racial minorities, and Indigenous people. A more businesslike Alberta police force should be able to operate more efficiently. There should also be efficiency gains from integrating the existing Alberta Sheriffs Branch into a larger Alberta Provincial Police (and perhaps a catchier name for the force would emerge as well).

The arguments for a provincial police force are at least as compelling as they were in 2001. Canada is the world’s only federal democratic country in which the federal government looks after local policing. Maybe the Australians, Americans, Swiss, Germans, etc., are on to something.Tweet


This is not in itself a radical step, and the argument that Alberta is too small to have its own police force is specious. Ontario and Quebec have had theirs since Confederation, when both provinces were much smaller than Alberta is today. Even Ontario did not reach Alberta’s current population until about 1950, and Alberta today has a larger population not only than multiple U.S. states with their own forces, as well as every Canton of Switzerland, but also about 100 other countries. In any case, a majority of Alberta residents are already protected by the police forces of Edmonton, Calgary, and other communities. Lastly, creating an Alberta Provincial Police would be a strong political signal that Alberta is no longer willing to accept second-class status.

Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts. If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties that Ottawa may try to impose under the Canada Health Act.

A referendum on equalization could send a powerful political message.

This remains a desirable policy if we are ever to overcome the creeping catastrophe of long waiting times for essential medical services and the other critical shortcomings and inefficiencies in our health care system. Unfortunately, at a time when our provincial finances are so deeply in the red, Alberta cannot afford the loss in federal health transfers, which could more than offset savings generated through other Alberta Agenda elements. Moreover, exiting the strictures of the Canada Health Act would impose no loss on the rest of Canada; indeed, it would provide a financial windfall.

Lastly, even a man of Kenney’s immense energy and intelligence can only fight on so many fronts at once, and an extended battle over the Canada Health Act could preoccupy a provincial government. Consequently, I believe the opportunity for serious health care reform that Alberta had in the early part of this century has passed for the time being.

Use Section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference [of 1998] to force Senate reform back onto the national agenda. [The Alberta Agenda authors’] reading of that decision is that the federal government and other provinces must seriously consider a proposal for constitutional reform endorsed by “a clear majority on a clear question” in a provincial referendum.

Senate reform is no longer a major issue because the Trudeau government has made substantial changes to Senate appointments, whose implications are still working themselves out. Alberta will continue to hold senatorial elections, but more sweeping reform of the Senate is not on the table for now.

At a minimum, a referendum on Equalization communicates to the rest of Canada how unhappy Albertans are over the threat to the prosperity of their province, and implies that if we don’t get something, we may consider next steps.Tweet

Revivalist: Premier Jason Kenney’s Fair Deal for Alberta will give the Alberta Agenda its second and, it seems, more serious examination.

The provincial referendum strategy remains viable for other constitutional issues, however. Premier Kenney has often mentioned the possibility of holding a referendum on the Equalization program. Critics have argued that this would be futile because Equalization is a federal policy funded wholly by federal tax revenues, and that other federal programs cause a bigger loss to Alberta than Equalization.

These criticisms have some merit in terms of policy, but they miss the political point. A successful referendum could serve as a lever for forcing open a debate on Equalization as well as other policies that disadvantage Alberta. Quebec has gained enormous negotiating victories through use of its referendum strategy. What is there to lose if Alberta does something similar? Nothing else has so far moved the needle; the opposite, in fact, as the Trudeau government responded to Alberta’s even-tempered concerns over Equalization by sending even more money to Quebec. At a minimum, a referendum on Equalization communicates to the rest of Canada how unhappy Albertans are over the threat to the prosperity of their province, and implies that if we don’t get something, we may consider next steps.

The Alberta Agenda’s Enduring Value

There are legitimate fiscal and policy questions about the five items of the original Alberta Agenda. The health care proposal is impractical at the present time. The other four, however, remain relevant – one or two of them more than ever – and I believe implementing them would be beneficial to Albertans. Further, they have a political value that transcends the details of policy. Business as usual is not an option when you are under existential threat from outside political forces. Call it “Alberta Agenda II.” Their enactment would send a powerful message to the rest of Canada that Alberta is not prepared to roll over and play dead as outsiders seek to destroy its principal industry.

The “greening” of Pincher Creek: any new Alberta Agenda will have to pay extra attention to the province’s ailing economy.

The original Agenda can form part of the foundation for a strategy crafted to suit Alberta’s perilous current circumstances. This time around, greater focus needs to be placed on the economy, particularly on saving what is not only Alberta’s principal industry but the driver of so much of the province’s overall success. Premier Kenney was on the right track to incorporate the Alberta Agenda into his newly announced Fair Deal for Alberta. It will be not an end in itself but the beginning of a long process of “Re-Confederation,” of getting fair treatment for Alberta within Canada.

Tom Flanagan is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Calgary and a former campaign manager for conservative political parties.SEE 

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2007/04/leo-strauss-and-calgary-school.html

Western Canada: First, it was the ‘firewall letter’. 

Twenty years later, the Buffalo Declaration tries to encapsulate Alberta’s grievances

WENDY COX AND JAMES KELLER
VANCOUVER AND CALGARY
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 22, 2020

Voice
Good morning! It’s James Keller in Calgary.
Two decades after the infamous “firewall letter” signed by Stephen Harper and other prominent names in conservative politics, Albertans have another document that’s trying to capture the frustration in the province and force federal politicians to act.
The Buffalo Declaration, which was posted online on Thursday and signed by four Conservative MPs from Alberta, spends 13 pages laying out a list of grievances that stretch back before Alberta had become a province and warning that a referendum on separation is inevitable if they are not addressed. It includes the National Energy Program in the 1980s, the equalization system, carbon taxes and, more recently, the continuing rail blockades linked to a B.C. natural gas pipeline.
It includes more than a dozen proposals, including:
Constitutional changes to “balance representation” in Parliament, such as through an overhaul of the Senate.
The repeal of environmental legislation such as C-69.
Expanded free trade among provinces.
The creation of a national energy corridor (which was a key Conservative campaign promise).
Changes to the equalization formula.
A formal acknowledgement in Parliament of the harms of the National Energy Program, in which the government of Pierre Trudeau attempted to exert greater control over the oil industry.
Recognition that Alberta should be recognized as “culturally distinct."
Many of the ideas are not new within conservative circles and the frustrations echo what Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and others in the province have been saying for quite some time. Those sentiments have been amplified since the federal election that returned the Liberals to power, albeit with a minority.
Mr. Kenney said he hadn’t read the document in detail and didn’t comment on its contents, but said it reflected real frustrations in his province. Still, when asked if he supported the declaration, he said his focus was on his own government’s work to get a “fair deal” for Alberta. He has struck a panel to study a series of ideas designed to give the province more autonomy, such as by starting its own pension plan, creating a provincial police force and collecting its own taxes.
Calgary Nose Hill MP Michelle Rempel Garner, who signed the document, is considering running for the Conservative leadership, and even if she doesn’t run, the declaration will likely inject these issues into the leadership race.
Candidates running for the Conservative leadership weren’t eager to engage with the ideas put forward in the declaration.
Erin O’Toole issued a statement that acknowledged real anger in Alberta, but otherwise did not comment on the document. Peter MacKay’s campaign did not respond to an interview request and Marilyn Gladu declined to comment.
This is the weekly Western Canada newsletter written by Globe & Mail B.C. Editor Wendy Cox and Alberta Bureau Chief James Keller.  

ANOTHER RIGHT WING HACK WHO CO WROTE THE ORIGINAL FIREWALL LETTER

HAS A LONG  PIECE  ABOUT THIS FAKE CAMPAIGN TO SEPARATE ALBERTA AS A NATION STATE LIKE QUEBEC

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/fair-deal-panel-firewall-letter-ken-boessenkool-1.5363753

MARK MILKE IS ANOTHER FRASER INSTITUTE HACK AND RIGHT WING 

PUNDIT PUBLISHED  IN THE SUN NEWSPAPERS, HE OPPOSES THIS SO CALLED 

FAIR DEAL FIREWALL 2.0 ANOTHER LONG READ

https://markmilke.com/blog/2019/12/1/firewall-fantasies


Cost of a fair deal: experts break down Alberta government panel’s mandate

BY ADAM MACVICAR GLOBAL NEWS
Posted December 9, 2019 7:00 am



WATCH: As an Alberta government panel investigates measures to give Alberta more autonomy within Confederation, experts break down the pros and the cons of the province’s ‘Fair Deal’ proposals. Adam MacVicar reports.

This story is part of a special on western alienation. Click here for more coverage.

Alberta’s proposals that are currently being explored by a government-appointed panel may result in higher costs for Albertans, according to some experts.

The Fair Deal Panel, chaired by Oryssia Lennie, formerly the deputy minister of Western Economic Diversification Canada, has been tasked with exploring nine proposals aimed at giving the province a ‘fair deal’ in confederation.

READ MORE: Alberta’s ‘Fair Deal Panel’ begins town hall tour in Edmonton

Premier Jason Kenney announced the panel in early November during a keynote address to the Manning Centre conference in Red Deer.

Collecting income taxes

The first proposal on the panel’s mandate is to explore whether Alberta should establish its own provincial revenue agency to collect directly, as well as seek an agreement to collect federal taxes within the province.

According to University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe, the move would be costly, with Albertans paying around $500 million per year. 

Trevor Tombe is an economics professor at the University of Calgary. Adam MacVicar / Global News

“We would be spending money to do something that is currently being done for us with no identifiable benefit other than this vague sense of having additional flexibility in terms of how we structure our personal income taxes,” Tombe said. “But it would be expensive and an additional hassle for Alberta individuals.”

Under this model, Tombe said that Albertans would file taxes with the Canada Revenue Agency and a second form with the Alberta agency. The move is similar to one Quebec has undertaken, where Revenue Quebec was created, costing the province $1.1 billion annually. Right now, Canadians and Albertans only fill out one form at tax time.

Tombe said it would most likely result in an increase in taxes due to the creation of a new government agency.

“It would add to the total size of the Alberta government, it would increase total spending by about one per cent, so it’s not something that would be phenomenally large to an individual taxpayer,” Tombe said.
“But it would result in a larger government in Alberta and therefore lower spending elsewhere or higher taxes for Albertans.”

Pulling out of Canada Pension Plan

When it comes to pulling out of the Canada Pension Plan to establish an Alberta Pension Plan, the costs remain relatively unknown.

According to Tombe, no province has ever attempted to pull out of the CPP. Quebec established its own pension plan as the federal plan was created.

“It would be a pretty complex undertaking for the province to separate from the CPP,” Tombe said.

READ MORE: Kenney says proposal to pull Alberta out of CPP due to hostility from others

However, Alberta’s younger population would mean lower contributions in the short- and medium-term, with similar benefits offered in the CPP, and could increase what the rest of the country contributes in Alberta’s absence, Tombe said.

Tombe does admit there are long-term risks in establishing a provincial pension plan, as Quebec now pays the highest contribution rates in the country due to a population that aged differently than forecasts predicted decades ago.

“Alberta withdrawing might have some short-term gains for us, it might have some short-term costs for contributors elsewhere, but who knows what the future holds?” Tombe said. “It would be riskier for Alberta to have its own pension plan.”

According to Tombe, other potential hazards include how the pension funds are invested, as well as the potential to make inter-provincial migration more complicated.
Establishing a provincial police force

Another major bullet point in the panel’s mandate is the proposal to establish a provincial police force.

Alberta had its own police force in 1917, but it was dissolved in 1932 as a measure to cut costs during the Great Depression.

READ MORE: Justice minister promises Albertan-inspired changes to address rural crime

Currently, Alberta spends $235 million per year for the RCMP to provide policing to communities without their own police force. Municipalities larger than 5,000, like Red Deer, can also contract out the RCMP for policing. Depending on the population, between 70 and 90 per cent of the costs could be covered by the municipality.

According to Doug King, a justice studies professor at Mount Royal University, establishing an Alberta provincial police force would likely be a costly venture, but could have benefits that aren’t financial in nature.

 

Doug King has been a criminal justice professor for 25 years, and worked with the Calgary Police Service research and planning department. Adam MacVicar / Global News

“We’re talking a sizable investment of money, more than we’re currently paying for sure,” King said. “But then the question is, does it achieve a non-cost benefit in terms of being able to deploy people more quickly, respond to crime initiatives like rural crime more effectively?”


READ MORE: Alberta municipalities to pay portion of cost for extra policing

Alberta’s contract with the RCMP expires in 2032, and King said if the government got started on a provincial police force in 2020, it would take at least until 2025 or even 2030 to work out logistics like recruitment, patrol vehicles, training and infrastructure.

“I personally would not say, ‘Let’s use it as a method of saving cost,’ because it won’t. But let’s use it as a method of saying we’re going to get something more for Alberta,” King said.

The panel will also explore opting out of federal cost share programs, an exchange of tax points for federal cash transfers and establishing a formalized provincial constitution.

Are the costs worth it?

The ideas presented for the panel to investigate are similar to those included in the Firewall Letter, written by six Albertans to then-Premier Ralph Klein in 2001 to take these steps.

Then in 2004, an MLA committee was formed by Klein to study and report on the proposals. The committee found that the proposals weren’t feasible and too costly for Alberta taxpayers.

Ken Boessenkool, one of the authors of the Firewall Letter, believes that the benefits shouldn’t be measured in costs despite the high price tag to achieve the fair deal proposals. 

Ken Boessenkool was one of the original signatories of the firewall letter, sent to Premier Ralph Klein nearly two decades ago. Global News

“It’s going to cost more for the government to deliver an Alberta Pension Plan, it’s going to cost the government of Alberta more to have a provincial police force, it’s going to cost the government of Alberta more to have its own income tax, but the benefits of this flow to the population of Alberta,” Boessenkool said.

“If the benefits outweigh the costs, then let’s go for it.”

But one potential benefit that Boessenkool sees from moving forward on the fair deal proposals is suppressing the separatist sentiment stewing in Alberta since the 2019 federal election.

“I’m excited about these proposals. I think the timing, giving Alberta a project to work on, to push away this really dumb and stupid idea of separatism is also very healthy, that is a side benefit,” Boessenkool said.

Alberta’s Fair Deal Panel will hold public consultations on the proposals until Jan. 30, 2020, and will report their findings to the government in March.

‘Firewall’ tactics won’t do much to boost Alberta

By Doug Firby on November 11, 2019

As cathartic as it may be, it’s unclear that anything Kenney has prescribed will do much to improve the business climate in this province


Managing our own affairs is good for business. That, at least, is what Alberta’s premier would like us to believe, following a policy speech delivered to a conservative crowd in Red Deer on Saturday.

But is it?

It depends on how you turn the coin.

Premier Jason Kenney said he was up all night writing his speech to the Alberta Manning Networking Conference. And if the ideas sound familiar to you, there’s good reason.

Kenney said a new panel will look at whether Alberta should pull out of the Canada Pension Plan and form its own pension fund, create a provincial police force to replace the RCMP, and opt out of some cost-sharing programs with the federal government.

The premier also vowed to try to retroactively lift the cap on fiscal stabilization back to 2014-15. That could generate an equalization rebate of $1.75 billion – no chump change.

Longtime Alberta residents will recognize a lot of these themes. Many were included in the “firewall letter” penned in 2001 by Stephen Harper before he was prime minister and Ted Morton, a University of Calgary academic who would become a cabinet minister during the late 2000s in Alberta’s then-Progressive Conservative government.

Kenney told the delegates that he’s seeking “a fair deal” for our province, after years of neglect from what is commonly known as Laurentian Canada – essentially the entitled elites in southern Ontario and Quebec.

He took the federal Liberal government to task for overregulation and a seeming ambivalence toward the province’s oil and gas economy. Federal policies, Kenney argued, have driven investment out of Alberta and to the friendly fields of the U.S.

This is pretty standard stuff, and certainly balm to the ears of frustrated Albertans who have witnessed a steady decline in our fiscal fortunes with the troubles in the oil and gas industry. But, as cathartic as it may be, it’s unclear that anything Kenney has prescribed will do much to improve the business climate in this province.

Along with a steady source of revenue, businesses like certainty and predictability. Pulling out of the Canada Pension Plan, for example, does nothing to advance us toward greater certainty. Nor does the creation of our own police force. If anything, those two moves would actually add a level of uncertainty because of the complexities and possible costs associated with the transition.

Could we make better investments with our own pension plan? There’s little evidence to support it. Could we police our small towns and rural communities better with an Alberta-based police force? It seems doubtful and more likely to simply introduce new administrative costs.

The same applies to raising the cap on equalization. It may feel good to ask for a break but what in heaven’s name would lead us to believe the other provinces will agree?

The purpose of these actions, of course, is to start to distance this province from the federation, in the faint hope that such newfound activism will grab the attention of other Canadians. This, it’s hoped, will lead to more proactive support for our ailing province. Faint hope indeed.

While a new pipeline would certainly improve our fortunes, Alberta remains at the mercy of global developments. For example, the New York Times reported on Nov. 3 that a flood of crude oil is coming even as worldwide oil demand is slowing – from Brazil, Norway, Guyana and, yes, Canada. On Sunday, Iran’s president announced that his country has discovered a new field with more than 50 billion barrels of crude oil.

These challenges are likely to mean that it will be many years before Alberta returns to the good old days of $100 oil. Probably never.

Kenney said Saturday that Alberta is well on its way to becoming “the most responsible barrel of oil produced in the world.” We’ve learned through bitter experience, however, that much of the world is indifferent to our “ethical oil” pitch. As is so often the case, price trumps principles.

To his credit, Kenney once again declared his commitment to the federation. After all, there isn’t much of a business case for Wexit. Kenney wisely knows that Alberta stands a better chance of recovering faster if the federal government finally recognizes our hour of need and gives us a hand up.

Are Kenney’s tactics likely to help Alberta climb out of its economic malaise?

Not unless the federal government and other provinces respond with real compassion and recognition of the vital role the province plays in the federation. In other words, don’t hold your breath.

They will, however, help us work off some frustration. Maybe that alone makes them worthwhile.

Doug Firby is president of Troy Media Digital Solutions and publisher of Calgary’s Business, Edmonton’s Business and Troy Media.

Former chair of Alberta 'firewall' committee weighs in on UCP-appointed 'fair deal' panel
LISA JOHNSON lijohnson@postmedia.com  November 11, 2019

Edmontonian Jean Innes with then-MLA Ian McLelland (L) and government minister Stan Woloshyn after receiving an award at the fourth annual Minister's Seniors Service Awards on June 7, 2001. JOHN LUCAS

Former MLA Ian McClelland, chair of a 2003 committee that looked into — and ultimately rejected — ideas contained in the famous “firewall” letter, said he was “terribly disappointed” by the announcement of a new panel that will study many of the same concepts 16 years later.

“This is really just an exercise in blowing off steam,” the former Alberta Progressive Conservative MLA and Reform Party MP said.

In its final recommendations, the MLA Committee on Strengthening Alberta’s Role in Confederation said that withdrawing from the Canada Pension Plan and creating a separate Alberta pension plan “is not in the best interests of Albertans.” Collecting our own personal income taxes “would be a costly venture,” and incur “higher out-of-pocket costs” for individuals and businesses.

“If we had to separate that and do our own public service, that would be another building full of public servants doing taxes. So what’s the point?” McClelland said.

The committee also suggested studying alternatives to the RCMP and looking more carefully at the costs, efficiencies and levels of service.

Many of the recommendations were not followed through, including establishing an Alberta office in Ottawa, an idea that also appears under the mandate of Premier Jason Kenney’s Fair Deal Panel announced Saturday, along with potential provincial arms for policing, pension, and income tax proposals.

“There are things that could be done in strengthening the link with other Canadians that haven’t been done,” he said.

McClelland said he was not optimistic that the fair deal panel would lead to constructive policy decisions.

“I’m 100 per cent confident that they’re going to absorb a lot of steam being blown off, and I don’t think they’re going to come up with one damn thing.”

The structural imbalance of power between the west and Ontario and Quebec remains the underlying problem. MPs in Ottawa don’t understand the concerns of Albertans, and these proposed changes will do nothing to alter that, he said.

“The problem has to do with our ability to be represented in parliament.”

While Kenney argued on Saturday that isolation — especially from trade deals like the USMCA — would not benefit Alberta, the panel cannot risk stirring up a conversation about separatism, McClelland said.

“His only danger is in letting people encourage themselves into a position which cannot be fulfilled.”

While the panel appears to be treading much of the same political ground as the 2003 committee, social media has dramatically changed how we talk about political issues.

“We didn’t want to make it a siren call for separation, because we didn’t see that as a viable alternative,” he said.

In 2003, meetings were small and media coverage was scarce. Now, expectations from this panel are high, the conversation is more polarized than ever and populism has run amok, he said.

“(Social media) allows for a mass evangelical movement instantly — we just didn’t have that. If an idea catches fire, it doesn’t really matter if the idea makes sense or not, but if it makes people feel good, that’s what’s likely going to happen.”

---30---