You could drive one of those tar sands heavy haulers through the gaping holes in the latest Fraser Institute ‘study’ of Alberta’s finances

A worker in Fort McMurray prepares to drive this truck through the holes in the Fraser Institute’s “report,” which claims Alberta’s finances are in worse shape than those of places like Texas, North Dakota and Louisiana. Below: The Norwegian oil port of Stavanger, which, according to the Fraser Institute, doesn’t exist!

Alberta should adopt a sales tax, according to the latest press release from the Fraser Institute.

But don’t worry, the latest piece of far-right puffery from the market-fundamentalist “think tank” – which prefers to refer to this bumpf as a “study” or a “report” – only advocates a consumption tax like those in Texas and Wyoming so that income and business taxes can be eliminated for the very rich people who bankroll the legal charity to the tune of $11 million a year.

Both of those known-to-be-enlightened states have eliminated income taxes and taxes on businesses in favour of sales taxes, the Fraser Institute says, so we Albertans should hurry up and do the same thing.

Just thought I’d start with this point because there’s bound to be plenty of uncritical media coverage of the Fraser Institute’s “findings” in the morning that fails to mention it.

Indeed, the Edmonton Journal was first out the gate with just such a report, complete with the predicted omission. It did, however, gloomily proclaim that “Alberta’s finances are in worse shape than other energy-producing provinces and states,” while quoting Progressive Conservative spokespeople who meekly accepted many of the Fraser Institute’s dubious claims while maintaining they’ve already done much of what the group demanded.

The Fraser Institute’s media statement about its conclusions emphasized, however, that Alberta’s recent deficits were not caused by “lack of revenues” – a point that is contentious to say the least given that Alberta taxpayers, as the province’s resource royalty review stated, in 2007, “do not receive their fair share from energy development and they have not, in fact, been receiving their fair share for some time.”

The government of premier Ed Stelmach timorously implemented some of the independent government panel’s recommendations, and then ran screaming from what it had done in 2010 when resource companies threatened a capital strike and began seriously funding the market-fundamentalist Wildrose Party, which was named after Alberta’s popular licence plate slogan.

That retreat got Alberta back in the race to the bottom advocated by groups like the Fraser Institute. Speaking of which, in fairness to the organization, its “study” released yesterday barely deals with the important question of resource royalties, which is only mentioned once, in passing, in its 66 pages. Nor is this the effort’s only significant oversight.

Quite naturally given that omission, this latest pronouncement from the group reaches conclusions other than that a modest increase in oil revenues might be part of the solution to the province’s budgeting conundrum. No, no, it’s all about too much spending!

So, the Fraserites argued: “Had the government simply maintained spending rates based on inflation and population growth, Alberta would have enjoyed successive balanced budgets,” thus passing over the huge infrastructure deficit left by the regime of premier Ralph Klein, not to mention the need for a growing province to plan for continued population growth.

Also strangely – or, perhaps not so strangely given what has already been noted – the Fraser Institute compared Alberta only with nine other North American jurisdictions said by the group’s propagandists to be “energy rich.”

So the Fraserites conveniently only looked at Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland in Canada, and Alaska, Colorado, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming south of the Medicine Line.

None of the jurisdictions cherry-picked for comparison have resource extraction development on the scale of Alberta’s. Several have their extraction industries concentrated in sectors like offshore drilling that are far less labour intensive than Bitumen Sands extraction.

Moreover, the Fraser Institute’s North American focus is highly convenient – and obviously quite intentional – because it effectively allows the authors to concentrate on low-tax jurisdictions with mostly smaller energy sectors in which many other economic factors are at play. This lets their “research” jostle the pinball machine in favour of the group’s predetermined conclusions.

But the Fraser Institute document also ignores North American jurisdictions that do not meet its not-so-mysterious criteria. To wit: California, No. 3 among U.S. states in current proved onshore oil reserves, after only Alaska (No. 2) and Texas (No.1) in this category. Also missed by the Fraserites, New Mexico (No. 6).

Moreover, according to a USA Today summary of U.S. states’ oil reserves published last year, in addition to proved onshore oil reserves in 2011 of more than three billion barrels, shale deposits in the southwest part of the state could mean California will soon surpass Texas in oil production.

So why these peculiar and glaring North American omissions? Most likely because both states’ governments are in the hands of the Democratic Party, which is ideologically impure from the Fraser Institute’s perspective.

Of the seven states considered for this comparison by the Fraser institute, all are controlled by the Republican Party, now dominated by the market-fundamentalist right, but for Colorado

Simply ignoring higher-tax, higher-royalty jurisdictions like Norway, the United Kingdom and elsewhere allows the Fraser Institute’s “researchers” to avoid having to confront the obvious – that as long as oil prices are high, corporations will extract the stuff, regardless of the tax rate or structure.

In other words, a modest increase in royalties in Alberta, just like a modest increase in taxes and a fair progressive income tax system, would not harm the economy and might do a lot of good. They are simply policy choices, which the Fraser Institute doesn’t like because the people they work for don’t like them – their oft-repeated claims to produce independent, peer-reviewed research notwithstanding.

Look, one can’t blame oil companies and other corporations for financing the kind of drivel put out by the Fraser Institute – which is certainly not an “institute,” by the way, and is not “non-partisan” either, as it claims, just because the political activities it engages in constantly and in violation of Canada Revenue Agency rules are not declared in either its press releases or its tax returns.

By the way, this lack of accurate information in its tax data is apparently not a problem for the CRA, which nowadays only goes after charities that say things in opposition to the Harper Government’s preferred policies.

In fact, it’s hard to get all that worked up about this nonsense. The Fraser Institute is not a serious research organization. Indeed, it is not a serious organization al all, except in the sense it pursues its market-fundamentalist propaganda mission quite seriously.

But we need to keep in mind that all the Fraser Institute produces is market-fundamentalist propaganda, and we are dangerously deluded when we to treat it as if it were serious economic research, as the mainstream media habitually does for reasons of its own.

NOTE: This story has been updated with information on U.S. jurisdictions left out of the Fraser Institute’s “research.” This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Anti-gay pastor, denied by Ric McIver, endorses the PC leadership candidate anyway for his ‘traditional Alberta values’

Pastor Artur Pawlowski and members of his flock march uninvited in 2012 at the head of the Calgary Stampede Parade, also known as the March for Mammon. Pastor Pawlowski, who holds extreme views about homosexuality, also has his own parade, which he calls the March for Jesus. Below: Ric McIver, whom Pastor Pawlowski yesterday endorsed as PC leader, at the pastor’s parade; and the pastor with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The Calgary pastor who believes gays aren’t merely being duped by Satan, but are practically on the demonic payroll, endorsed Tory leadership candidate Ric McIver yesterday.

Artur Pawlowski of Calgary’s so-called Street Church, a well-known nuisance violator of civic noise bylaws and leader of the annual March for Jesus attended several times in his political career by Mr. McIver, yesterday told the Calgary Herald the candidate is the best man to preserve “traditional Alberta values.”

Never mind that Mr. McIver disavowed his connection with the Pastor Pawlowski’s beliefs at least thrice, if not quite his relationship with the pastor himself, after his 2014 appearance in the preacher’s annual “March for Jesus.”

No sooner had Mr. McIver allowed himself to be photographed at the June 15 parade than his political opponents were Tweeting links to the Street Church’s contentious views about participants in the city’s Pride Parade – “that they are not ashamed to declare the name of their master (Satan).”

Mr. McIver hid out for a few days, and then gingerly backed away from the Street Church’s views, declaring that “if chosen premier, I do and will continue to defend equality rights for all Albertans as defined in the Charter, including sexual orientation.” Eventually, he issued a statement calling Pastor Pawlowski’s opinions “ugly” and “nasty.”

Pastor Pawlowski didn’t shed any tears about that disavowal, though. He went straight to the media and explained that “Albertans would be stupid not to vote for that man.”

Anyway, no roosters crowed before or after Mr. McIver’s disavowal of the pastor and at least some of his doctrines – thanks at least in part to Provincial Court Judge Catherine Skene’s 2012 ruling that the Cowtown bylaw prohibiting Calgarians from keeping chickens in their back yards is constitutional. (That’s enough obscure Bible references — Ed.)

The pastor told the Herald that real Albertans were disappointed by Mr. McIver’s disavowal, but they understood why he had to do it. “We have, in the Bible, very similar circumstances,” he said, referencing the same chicken story noted above.

He had some unkind words for both of Mr. McIver’s opponents – frontrunner and former federal cabinet minister Jim Prentice and former deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk, slamming the former for being too inclusive in his campaign staff and the latter for not living up to the pastor’s fiscal views.

The important question now, though, is whether Pastor Pawlowski’s endorsement and the votes of his flock will help or hinder Mr. McIver’s leadership bid.

As argued here, posts passim, they could actually boost Mr. McIver’s leadership campaign, since the Calgary-Hays MLA has now almost cornered what’s left of the extreme social conservative vote left among the PC Party’s supporters.

It’s even possible, if unlikely, that they could push him over the top. And they will certainly make the winner and future premier of Alberta – most likely Mr. Prentice – think twice about not putting Mr. McIver into his cabinet to shore up the province’s hard-core Christianist vote.

But if Mr. McIver did win, his association with Pastor Pawlowski’s flock would destroy him and the Progressive Conservative Party.

They may also sink the chances of any other candidate who wins, because between them, Mr. McIver and Pastor Pawlowski have torpedoed two years of concerted efforts by PC strategists to brand the Wildrose Party as a bunch of homophobic nuts for remarks discovered in a blog by a candidate in the 2012 election campaign.

Since both conservative parties stand for pretty much the same thing on most other issues, they have frittered away about the only significant advantage held by the PCs.

Thus endeth the lesson.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Tory candidate Ric McIver to voters: No to green light speed enforcement; yes to booze sales at 4 a.m.; maybe to chain gangs

Edmonton’s Whyte Avenue at 4 a.m., as imagined by Ric McIver, would-be Tory leader and premier. Actual Alberta street scenes are unlikely ever to be as described with regard to the availability of taxicabs. Below: Mr. McIver, candidates Jim Prentice and Thomas Lukaszuk.

Well, no one can say that Ric McIver hasn’t set himself apart from the other two candidates for the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party leadership.

While frontrunner Jim Prentice and tail gunner Thomas Lukaszuk have each offered five largely meaningless anodyne platitudes as their priorities, Mr. McIver has been right out there with some fairly definitive ideas.

Not good ideas, mind you. And they’d be bound to be highly controversial if anyone except me thought he had any chance of winning. So if I’m right, and everyone else is wrong, this could end up making a lot of people very unhappy.

I’m not talking, by the way, about Mr. McIver’s March for Jesus faux pas, in which he claimed not to have noticed the extremely homophobic views of a religious group whose annual Calgary parade he’s made a practice of marching in, an association that might actually help him sell memberships.

And I’m not talking about his placement – if we believe in guilt by association, at any rate – at the embarrassingly socially conservative end of the conservative movement.

Rather, this is about his views on speed enforcement, liquor sales and the treatment of inmates in (and out of) Alberta’s provincial jails.

Last Friday, Mr. McIver announced that, as far as he’s concerned, speed-on-green-light radar cameras are nothing but tax-collection devices.

“‘Speed-on-green’ cameras don’t control speed,” the former infrastructure minister said in his “justice policy,” released Friday. “A Ric McIver government will ban the use of speed-on-green cameras in Alberta.”

I’m not sure I understand his logic when he says speeding is bad and needs to be enforced, but it’s OK if you happen to be speeding through an intersection. He cites statistics from Calgary that, as far as I can see, neither support his case nor indicate anything other than the fact more people speed through green lights than drive through red lights – which ought not to be a revelation.

I can tell you this: Speed-on-green lights have made the highway that runs through my Edmonton bedroom suburb significantly safer, and it would be unfortunate if the province banned a safety measure that apparently works. What about local democracy?

Mr. McIver also thinks it would be just dandy if patrons in Alberta’s bars were able to drink for two more hours, until 4 a.m., before they drive home. Not, of course, that he will say that they should be driving, but it’s a certainty that some of them will – with their judgment and their driving abilities that much more impaired.

Mr. McIver’s argument is that if everyone has to go home at 2 a.m., as they technically do now, there aren’t enough cabs and some folks are tempted to drive drunk, whereas if they have to go home at 4 a.m., they’ll have plenty of time to share the available cabs around. There’s a flaw with this plan, since it assumes lots of die-hard drinkers will leave the bar between 2 and 4 a.m. instead of just sticking around and getting boiled as owls, as somebody is bound to learn hard way in the wee hours if Mr. McIver has his way.

It’s an interesting observation that when Alison Redford became premier 2011, the first thing she tried to do was make it harder to drive drunk, and if Mr. McIver becomes premier the first thing he wants to do is make it easier to get a drink at an hour when the temptation to drive will prove irresistible to many.

As an aside, it’s a wonderment to me how social conservatives like Mr. McIver and the Wildrose Party activists who are anxious to control what we smoke and whom we marry take such exception to regulating the nexus of booze and automobiles. I must be missing something.

Getting back to Mr. McIver’s ideas about justice, as stated last Friday, the candidate offered a vague idea about putting prisoners in provincial jails to work – outside jails. At first glance, this sounded suspiciously like former Ralph Klein minister Steve West’s Mississippi-style highway-cleanup chain gangs, a national embarrassment that has thankfully disappeared from Alberta’s highways.

But Mr. McIver says the inmates would be asked to volunteer for this duty – which, presumably, they would do if they wanted more fresh air or planned to escape and needed to be close to a place suitable for helicopter landings. It wasn’t clear where they would work, but it occurs to me that if they could bake donuts and run a cash register, this might be the solution to Ottawa’s currently controversial Temporary Foreign Workers Program.

I wonder how the Chamber of Commerce would react to an Alberta Temporary Incarcerated Workers Program? You don’t have to pay them anything, but heaven only knows what they might do to the burgers when you aren’t looking!

Meanwhile as for Messrs. Prentice and Lukaszuk, there’s not much to separate their five policy points. They say they stand for:

  • Sound conservative principles (Prentice) and fiscally conservative principles (Lukaszuk)
  • Ending entitlements and restoring trust (Prentice) and open, trustworthy government (Lukaszuk)
  • Planning for our economic future (Lukaszuk) and maximizing the value of our natural resources and respecting property rights (Prentice)
  • Increasing access to basic health and education services (Lukaszuk) and ensuring Alberta leads the way on health care and education training (Prentice)
  • Being an environmental leader (Prentice)
  • Encouraging new ideas (Lukaszuk)

In fairness, Mr. Prentice is a little more specific in gatherings with his supporters – I’ve heard him promise no end to the flat tax, no changes to Alberta’s petroleum royalty structure, “choice” in education (i.e., more tax funding for private schools) and “pipelines in every direction” at recent meetings.

But I doubt either Mr. McIver or Mr. Lukaszuk would disagree with him on any of that stuff.

Apparently they’ve all fallen in love with LRT lines too, although you have to wonder how long that’ll last once they start competing seriously with the fiscal conservatives in the Wildrose Party.

On the grounds it’s a good thing to actually know where your leaders stand out there on the fringes, kudos to Mr. McIver. I guess.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Russia must be stopped! And Peter Goldring’s just the man to do it! We’ll fight to the last Frenchman and German!

After we’ve won the war with Russia, a beachhead in the Caribbean! Edmonton MP Peter Goldring as illustrated by Press Progress. Below: Rob Ford, Louis Riel, Ann of Green Gables and last year’s military licence plate, which is presumably the same as this year’s military licence plate.

Whenever you think it’s safe to start ridiculing Toronto Mayor Rob Ford again, Peter Goldring opens his mouth, proving that this province remains Canada’s Home Sweet Alabamberta of egregious political bufoonery.

Mr. Goldring, 69, is the Member of Parliament for Edmonton East and the source many of the more entertaining if inconsequential political stories in Alberta. Yesterday he was back in the thick of it, using the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine as an excuse to demand Canada declare war on Russia.

Well, in fairness, all Mr. Goldring was really calling for was “total economic warfare,” but that, he added, should only be “the first precursor to much more strident efforts” – which will be fought, presumably, to the very last German, Frenchman and Italian.

Thoroughly in tune with the sprit of the era, Mr. Goldring also demanded the West start a religious war by establishing a competing Patriarchy for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to compete with one inside Russia’s borders. Maybe later we can argue about whether it should be Canada’s state church.

Mr. Goldring has long had a lively interest in foreign policy, and indeed is best known as the country’s most enthusiastic advocate of bringing the Caribbean’s Turks and Caicos Islands into Confederation, an idea that for some reason has failed generate much enthusiasm elsewhere in Ottawa’s halls of power throughout his 17-year Parliamentary career.

He argued that the Turks and Caicos would be just like Prince Edward Island – only, you know, farther away, and without potatoes, Anne Shirley or Green Gables.

But Mr. Goldring’s latest effort should find considerably more sympathy in the bellicose PMO of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as the Top Tory Banana attempts with his friends at Post Media and the Sun News Network to revive the Cold War.

Last December, Mr. Goldring engaged in a little “freelance diplomacy,” visiting Kiev on his own dime to whip up the crowds in support for the rebels who later toppled the former Ukrainian government in last spring’s coup. Later, the Harper Government sent him back to Ukraine in May and June to make impartial observations about the current Ukrainian government’s election.

On the Home Front, Mr. Goldring is also well known for his view that this homelessness stuff is vastly overstated. “You don’t want to look at it coldly, but they’re really not in desperate need until they’re holding that eviction notice in their hand,” he explained in 2012.

In 2009, he railed against what he called the effort to “unhang” Louis Riel, whom he dismissed as a villain.

While he has spent most of his career in Parliament as an MP for the Conservative-Reform-Alliance Party, Mr. Goldring spent all of 2012 and bits of 2011 and 2013 in the doghouse after he was accused of refusing to provide a breath sample to a police officer who pulled him over on his way home from a dinner at the Ukrainian Hall. In June 2013, he was acquitted of that change and welcomed back in to the Conservative fold.

Mr. Goldring has long been a fervent opponent of roadside Breathalyzer tests on what he calls civil liberties grounds. During his spell in political Coventry, he described himself as a Civil Liberties MP.

+ + +

Alberta honours troops with new licence plate

IMPORTANT BLOGGER’S NOTE: As a public service, to save taxpayers money and government information officers time, I have updated last year’s Redford Government news release on Alberta’s new licence plates honouring the military to serve as today’s announcement by the Hancock Government of Alberta’s new licence plates honouring the military. Changes are shown in italic type. Remember, people, it’s not plagiarism if you’re plagiarizing yourself – a rule firmly adhered to on this blog:

The Redford Hancock government is giving Albertans another way to support the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces with the launch of a new licence plate.

The plates, which bear the Yellow Ribbon and the Support our Troops slogan, will be available for pre-order early next later this year. The new plates will cost Albertans $150. This includes the regular registration fees as well as expenses for production and delivery. Revenue beyond these costs will go directly to the Support our Troops campaign to assist members of the Forces and their families in Alberta.

Manmeet S. Bhullar Heather Klimchuk, Minister of Service Alberta Culture, will make the announcement at K-Days in Edmonton today.

Under the Building Alberta Plan Jim Prentice’s Keeping Alberta Strong Plan, our government is investing in families and communities, living within our means, and opening new markets for Alberta’s resources to ensure we’re able to fund the services Albertans told us matter most to them without the words “Wild Rose Country” appearing anywhere on anything. We will continue to deliver the responsible change Albertans voted for. Uh, never mind that last bit.

The first half of this post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Canada’s anti-union lobby is at the heart of the deceptive campaign for more Temporary Foreign Workers – why’s that, d’ya think?

Canadians need not apply? Actual Canadian store displays may not appear exactly as illustrated. But the intent of the AstroTurf TFW lobby is to bust unions and weaken the bargaining power of Canadian workers. Below: Employment Minister and former Canadian Taxpayers Federation operative Jason Kenney; former Canadian Federation of Independent Business president and current “Working Canadians” spokesperson Catherine Swift; and CTF board member and Canadian Labour Watch Association President John Mortimer.

Judging from what they read and hear in the news, Canadians can be forgiven for concluding a large number of organizations representing a broad range of opinions are lobbying public-spiritedly for more access to Temporary Foreign Workers by Canadian businesses.

But while many individual business owners would no doubt love to have a direct pipeline to the huge international pool of compliant, vulnerable and easy-to-exploit foreign workers instead of yielding to market pressure to pay Canadians a living wage, the seeming multitude of public voices calling for more access to TFWs originates mainly with a small group of individuals and well-financed interlocking organizations.

It turns out that this network involves many of the same people sitting on the boards of each other’s groups. What’s more, these groups are repeating the same key messages and skillfully feeding press releases to Canada’s dysfunctional mainstream media to generate sound and fury against the modest restrictions on Ottawa’s TFW Program.

As readers will recall, those restrictions were put in place by Employment Minister Jason Kenney last spring. The minister was responding to public revulsion at the program’s apparent goals of exploiting vulnerable foreign workers and suppressing Canadian wages.

So it cannot be mere coincidence that in almost every case the main groups calling for more TFWs turn out to have a long history of anti-union advocacy. In some cases, before the TFW issue came along, their sole purpose was attacking the right of working people to bargain collectively.

This web of anti-union advocacy groups includes the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Restaurants Canada, the Workplace Democracy Institute of Canada, the Merit Contractors Association, “Working Canadians,” and the Canadian Labour Watch Association.

Even the mysterious National Citizens Coalition, the granddaddy of all Canadian far-right AstroTurf groups, once headed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, puts in a cameo appearance in this convoluted tale!

Each of these groups is not forthcoming about its finances and, it is reasonable to conclude given their purported mandates to represent to represent a different segment of the Canadian economy from “taxpayers,” to restaurant owners, to ordinary working stiffs who just want a little “freedom” in their workplace, is deceptive about its true objectives.

So it should surprise no one that this same web of organizations has emerged as the leading advocate for the exploitation of vulnerable and poorly paid foreign workers to replace uppity Canadian young people in low-wage, low-skill Canadian workplaces, or, in the case of the CTF, to use the purported need for foreign workers as a way to attack unemployment insurance for working Canadians.

Perhaps the best way to understand the revelation that the TFW lobby has many heads but is only one beast is to look at what little we know about the secretive Canadian Labour Watch Association, founded by several of the other groups in 2000.

While the CLWA describes itself as an organization that “advances employee rights in labour relations,” it is fair to say after a review of its materials that its principal goal is to advance the goals of employers who are opposed to unions in their workplaces. In other words: union busting.

According to Canadians for Responsible Advocacy, the “industry organizations” that founded the CLWA in 2000 included Restaurants Canada (formerly the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association), the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Retail Council of Canada and the Merit Contractors Association of Alberta, which represents a group of non-union contractors.

The CLWA does not disclose financial statements, identify major contributors, indicate its membership policy or criteria, list its bylaws or identify its connections to other right-wing advocacy organizations, the CFRA reports. However, we do know about its members and board of directors, a list that tells an interesting story.

The CLWA’s president and only listed employee is John Mortimer, a prominent member of the board of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Member associations include the CFIB, Merit Contractors associations in several provinces, the Retail Council of Canada, Restaurants Canada and the National Citizens Coalition.

The CLWA’s board, according to its website, includes representatives of the CFIB, the Retail Council of Canada, Restaurants Canada, the Merit Contractors, the Canadian Taxpayers Association (although this relationship is not declared) and the Conseil du Patronat du Québec (the Quebec Business Council), another consistent opponent of unionization.

Restaurants Canada, by the way, was founded in 1944 as the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association to fight against the Mackenzie King Government’s food rationing and menu price-control policies when the war against Nazi Germany, to which many Canadians were sacrificing their lives, started to cut into profits.

Whether there is a formal connection between the CLWA and its associated groups with the so-called “Working Canadians” AstroTurf organization and the “Workplace Democracy Institute of Canada” can only be speculated upon because all these groups are very economical with information about their operations.

Working Canadians may be little more than a website and an advertising budget provided by someone with deep pockets. It appears to have been set up to counter the Working Families Coalition created in Ontario by 15 unions, which openly declared their involvement on the Working Families website.

Working Canadians, by contrast, provides no information about its funding and purports to be a “volunteer organization” that is “concerned that union leaders have too much influence over government.”

But it is evocative that Working Canadians’ only known volunteer is Catherine Swift, president of the CFIB in 2000 when the CLWA was founded and well known for her opinion that “what would be ideal is getting rid of public-sector unions entirely.” So it is hard to imagine that the mysterious principals behind both Working Canadians and the CLWA, and the network that supports them, are not well known to one another.

As for the WDIC, its way into the web of TFW Program advocates comes via the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, through CTF board member Karen Selick and a CTF staffer, Atlantic Canada Communications Director Kevin Lacey.

There are probably many other such groups, because the corporate-financed right prolifically cooks up fake AstroTurf organizations with positive-sounding mandates, inclusive-sounding names and disguised agendas.

The links among this well-established network of anti-union agitators have been obvious for many years.

That the same players who hold the most virulently anti-union views and the most offensive opinions about the supposed shortcomings of Canadian workers should turn out to be the loudest advocates, and in some places the only advocates, for the TFW Program suggests the true agenda behind the vociferous TFW lobby.

It is quite apparent the goals of the Canadian Taxpayers Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, and the various trade associations involved are to weaken the bargaining power of Canadian families (including many of their own naïve members), keep wages low, keep all workers vulnerable and re-elect the Harper Government.

If the Harper Government is re-elected, of course, even today’s modest restrictions on the TFW Program are sure to soon disappear, snipped away as so much “red tape.”

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Tories shut down any possibility leadership candidate Thomas Lukaszuk will get to shine

Thomas Lukaszuk is an entertaining speaker with a full range of facial expressions. His party is going to make darned sure he doesn’t have a chance to use those talents in the service of his leadership bid. Below: PC leadership frontrunner Jim Prentice and candidate Ric McIver.

While Thomas Lukaszuk’s chances of succeeding in the race to become leader of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party always seemed like a long shot, one has to feel a certain sympathy with the Edmonton MLA’s protest his party won’t permit a real unscripted debate to take place among the three candidates for the job.

The forums organized by the party are tightly scripted and aimed at party insiders, not potential new members who might sign up to back a candidate that impressed them, he complained to a local newspaper late last week.

The explanation is pretty simple, though. The PC Party establishment is going to make darned sure that this time the heir apparent wins – unlike the 2006 and 2011 leadership races, both of which ended up in the elevation to premier of a person the party’s old warhorses had deemed not quite up to the job.

Actually, the same thing happened in 1992 as well, but Ralph Klein worked out rather well for the party in the role of premier of Alberta, thank you very much, something that can’t really be said of Ed Stelmach or especially Alison Redford.

This time the party is determined to see the frontrunner win, and the frontrunner is Jim Prentice, not Mr. Lukaszuk. In other words, the old fixaroo is more than halfway in!

From the perspective of ordinary Albertans, as from that of Mr. Lukaszuk, this is a pity.

Us because we’ll deprived of what could be a highly entertaining hour or two of television, as Mr. Lukaszuk, with the desperation of a last-place candidate, threw caution and the hopes of a future cabinet post to the wind and tried to trip up Mr. Prentice.

Mr. Lukaszuk because he’s the only one of the three who is a really entertaining public speaker, capable of delivering a little bombast along with the usual anodyne platitudes. Unlike the other two, Mr. Lukaszuk also has a full range of facial expressions, plus just the faintest echo of the accent of his native Poland. It’s an appealing combination to most people who hear him speak.

Calgary MLA Ric McIver, notwithstanding the No. 2 candidate’s apparent far-out social conservative views and the loony right types he hangs with, has a speaking style that’s about as exciting as a block of wood. He seems to have the facial expressions to match.

And Mr. Prentice – a former banker, corporate lobbyist and federal politician – has a way of speaking that would be earnestly persuasive in a boardroom or a one-on-one meeting, but is unlikely to light many voters afire on the stump.

In other words, Mr. Lukaszuk’s best chance to shine was in a real rough and tumble debate, and he’s not going to get it because the PC grandees aren’t going to give him the chance.

Their objective is certainly to ensure that Mr. Prentice can’t be pinned down on what he really plans to do in a number of areas. The frontrunner is running a classic low-bridge campaign designed to reveal as little as possible and alienate no voter who might be persuaded to give the tired old PC dynasty one more chance. This, without doubt, is why Mr. Prentice has been skipping debates organized by third parties whenever he can.

Farther down the road, the party also wants to make sure opposition leaders aren’t tipped off to the best potential lines of attack.

This indicates recognition by at least some of the Tory leadership that the world has turned and Alberta isn’t what it used to be, thanks in particular to the bizarre spectacle of Ms. Redford’s brief and chaotic tenure at the helm.

The fiction peddled to generations of Albertans has been that they really should buy a party membership for a small sum and vote for the premier (for that’s what the Tory party leader always turned out to be) because this was the only true expression of democracy when general elections were a sure thing.

There was always just enough truth to this notion to make it dangerous.

Now, though, there are two parties that could conceivably form the government, even if they are manifestations of the same right-wing political movement. The Tories will be extremely fortunate if 50,000 members new and old turn up to vote for a leader on Sept. 6, compared with 133,000 in 2006 and 78,000 in 2011.

In other words, once he’s been selected the leader, Mr. Prentice faces a real election campaign that he could very well lose, and it behooves the party’s strategists to take no chances with the leadership-selection process that could wound their leader at the ballot box later on.

This is bad news for Mr. Lukaszuk.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

The most important Duffy trial must be held in the court of public opinion

Mike Duffy, back in pre-Senatorial days, but already feeling the heat. Below: A more recent shot of Senator Duffy; former prime ministerial chief of staff Nigel Wright.

How could the handoff of a $90,000 cheque to Senator Mike Duffy by the prime minister’s chief of staff not be worthy of prosecution while the acceptance of the same piece of paper by the senator is?

Wherever the trial of Mr. Duffy leads us in the months and years to come, this is the question ordinary Canadians are scratching their heads about today as they pick up a whiff of something not quite as it should be on the breeze from Ottawa – like the ephemeral scent of a distant skunk’s perfume on a summer’s night.

This will not be the question at Mr. Duffy’s trial, however, although it is certainly now one of the key political questions about the PMO-Senate Expenses Scandal that must be answered in the court of public opinion.

As Donald Bayne, Mr. Duffy’s lawyer, put it in the news clip played on CBC Radio in Edmonton yesterday morning: “I am sure that I am not the only Canadian who will now wonder openly how what was not a crime or a bribe when Nigel Wright paid it on his own initiative became however, mysteriously, a crime or bribe when received by Senator Duffy.”

Mr. Bayne got that one right, for sure! It is what we used to call the $64,000 Question, which inflation and other factors have apparently now increased to $90,000.

Many of us with some knowledge of the law, I suspect, thought the charges must be more complicated than that. But it would appear not. Here is the explanation of the charge in question, summarized by the Globe and Mail yesterday: “Directly or indirectly corruptly accept, obtain, agree to accept, or attempt to obtain, for himself, money ($90,000 from Mr. Wright).”

I had always thought that offering and accepting bribes was one of those situations that, as we put it in the vernacular, take two to tango. You know, like participating in illegal prostitution… But perhaps not.

Perhaps, as a lawyer consulted by Global News suggested, the RCMP believed Mr. Wright didn’t corruptly offer the money – or “that his testimony against Duffy is stronger if he’s not charged himself.” In other words, a common variation on the oldest prosecutorial trick in the world.

Meanwhile, I was struck by the sleaze exhibited by Prime Minister Harper and his PMO staff as they tried to have it both ways, implying Senator Duffy is guilty while hiding behind the sub judice rule to avoid commenting on their own part in the affair.

Said Jason MacDonald, Mr. Harper’s communications director, in a carefully parsed statement: “Those who break the rules must suffer the consequences. The conduct described in the numerous charges against Mr. Duffy is disgraceful. As this is now a criminal matter that is before the courts, we have nothing further to add.”

Very well. But in that case, please shut up!

Mr. Bayne is right too that it is important for us ignoramuses in the general population not to pre-judge Mr. Duffy’s guilt or innocence. And it is quite true that, up to now, Senator Duffy has had a fair hearing in neither the Senate nor the media, and certainly not at the hands of the PMO.

But in reality there are two concurrent trials that must take place.

The first, in the judicial system, is to determine the validity of the 31 charges laid by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police against Senator Duffy. That will take a long time and will most certainly not render a verdict until well after the next Canadian general election.

The other is in the court of public opinion, where it behooves all of us who are citizens of Canada to consider the matter much more quickly than the wheels of Justice can be expected to grind.

Like a juror instructed by the judge not to consider a certain statement made by a witness, we may have to set aside the question of Senator Duffy’s guilt or innocence while we proceed with the much more important matter of the actions of the Prime Minister’s Office, and the prime minister himself.

In such a case, we may legitimately bring down a Scotch Verdict: Not Proven … but worthy of consideration nevertheless.

In the mean time, we are all forgiven if we await with a little shiver of anticipation the witnesses Mr. Duffy’s counsel can be expected to call – including Mr. Wright, and Mr. Harper himself – to make his case that “when the full story is told, as it will be, and shown to be supported by many forms of evidence, it will be clear that Senator Duffy is innocent of any criminal wrongdoing.”

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

If you can’t trust Postmedia when it reports on oil and the environment, when can you trust it?

If you can’t trust your Postmedia website, who can you trust? I mean, other than Alberta Diary. Regardless, don’t blame these poor guys. They’re just trying to earn a living. Below: Economist Robyn Allen, Postmedia CEO Paul Godfrey.

Industry self-regulation doesn’t work and never will for a simple reason: He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Companies that tell fibs to their customers don’t like being regulated by their own tame “watchdogs” any more than they like being told what to do by the government. The difference is, in the case of in-house regulation, they’re big enough to kick the dog.

So DeSmog Canada needn’t have held out much hope that Advertising Standards Canada would do or say anything about its complaint that Postmedia has been passing off paid advertising from the petroleum industry as unlabelled editorial content.

And a news organization that gives its readers the impression that advertising copy was written by real journalists is telling a fib. So, not to be needlessly cynical, you could see where this was going as soon as DeSmog complained to the industry self-regulatory body about stories that were really ads in the Vancouver Sun and the Regina Leader-Post, both newspapers and websites owned by Postmedia Network Canada Corp.

Advertising Standards Canada describes itself as “the national not-for-profit advertising self-regulatory body.” DeSmog Canada calls itself an organization that “exists to clear the PR pollution that is preventing us from having sensible public conversations about critical issues around the environment, social justice and the economy.”

The story in question, which ran on both papers’ websites last December, told about an executive for Enbridge Inc., the company that wants to build the Northern Gateway pipeline. The cheerful yarn made a claim that the loss to Canada of not having sufficient access to export markets for its oil is $50 million a day.

Some environmentalists and economists took issue with this statement.

B.C.-based economist Robyn Allen submitted an opinion piece to the Sun arguing the $50-million claim was untrue. What happened next, said DeSmog, was that “she was informed it couldn’t be run because the article she was responding to was actually a paid advertisement.”

DeSmog’s complaint cited one of the points in the group’s “Canadian Code of Advertising Standards” called “disguised advertising techniques,” which declares “no advertisement shall be presented in a format or style that conceals its commercial intent.”

After a couple of months, said DeSmog, they got a letter from the watchdog that the case was closed, and Advertising Standards Canada would not be issuing a ruling against Postmedia.

The article was later quietly pulled from the Sun’s website, but the same thing has happened again since, DeSmog said, as Postmedia works with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers to pass off stories about the oil industry’s commitment to the environment as works of journalism, not advertising.

The problem, as DeSmog’s writer correctly noted, is that the news business in general, and the newspaper industry in particular, is in deep financial doo-doo. Publishers are desperate to find new ways to generate revenue in a desperately shrinking market that’s beset by low-cost and no-cost Internet competitors and changing technologies that keep leaving them in the dust.

Last week, long since the DeSmog story appeared, Postmedia reported third-quarter financial results that showed some improvement from last year, but in the context of the industry do not really inspire confidence in the company’s future. Net loss for the quarter was only $20.6 million, certainly better than the loss of $103.3 million the company reported in the same quarter a year earlier.

Postmedia’s own newspapers gave the story an upbeat spin – worthy of a paid advertisement, some might say. It’s rolling out a new four-platform-based digital strategy this week at the Ottawa Citizen, it said – completely different content for mobile smartphones, tablets, desktop computers and even those literate dinosaurs who still like to get their news on paper.

The same scheme will be introduced at the company’s other papers over the next year and a bit.

“Postmedia’s revenue for the three months ended May 31 was $171-million, a drop of $20.8-million from the same period last year as advertising continued to slip, consistent with the North American industry-wide trend,” the Financial Post story said, as cheerfully as possible under the circumstances.

“The owner of the National Post and another nine metro dailies across the country said print advertising revenue slipped 16.5 per cent to $94.7-million while digital ad sales dropped 4.3 per cent to $23.1-million,” said the Globe and Mail, owned by another company facing the same challenges, in a report that took a decidedly more negative view of Postmedia’s troubles.

But hey, the Post quoted Chief Executive Paul Godfrey saying, Postmedia’s “still a very young company.”

So all this cool new stuff, explained the Post, “is part of a leading transformational effort aimed at positioning Postmedia to adapt to the enormous upheaval in the industry in recent years, with a significant proliferation of new on-line competition and rapidly shifting audience habits.”

Well, good luck to Postmedia with this. Alas, while it may be a young company, it’s a young company that bought up a lot of very old newspapers and can’t squeeze sufficient revenue out of them.

The company’s dirty little secret is that while it really has made some gains figuring out how to increase readership in different technological platforms, like everyone else large and small who is trying to eke a living out of the Internet, it doesn’t have a collective clue in a carload how to make any money from it.

You’ve heard of companies that are too big to fail. Given the nature of the Internet, Postmedia may be a company that’s too big to succeed.

But one thing they do have that actually works – which neither the Post’s own story, nor the Globe’s, undoubtedly written in part from Postmedia’s news release, remembered to mention – is something called editorial partnerships.

These aren’t the special advertising features of old, which were either clearly marked as “advertorial,” as we used to say back in the day, or which were published to sell ads to a niche market, but maintained a strict division between church (news writing) and state (advertising).

Instead, they are paid ads unethically masquerading as news in the pages of Postmedia’s newspapers and their websites.

The problem with this, of course, is that over time it’s going to make readers distrust the real news printed by Postmedia, if any.

Indeed, thanks to DeSmog’s efforts, we know now that you can’t completely trust anything Postmedia writes about Alberta’s bitumen sands, pipelines to British Columbia, New Brunswick or Texas, or the environmental record of companies that engage in these activities.

Why? Because it just might turn out it was written by the companies themselves.

So what else that Postmedia publishes can’t you trust?

Election coverage comparing Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives to the Justin Trudeau’s Liberals or Thomas Mulcair’s NDP?

Say it ain’t so, Paul!

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Could Ric McIver still win the Alberta Tory leadership race? Actually, yes, he could!

Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets. All the money’s on Jim Prentice – but is it the smart money? Below: Ric McIver, Jim Prentice, Jim Dinning and Gary Mar.

CALGARY

Could Ric McIver actually win the Alberta Progressive Conservative leadership race?

Or, to put that another way, could Jim Prentice lose?

Maybe that seems like a theme for a political science fiction story to you. After all, Mr. Prentice – the former banker, corporate lobbyist and federal cabinet minister – is the choice of the PC establishment.

What’s more, he’s now backed by 49 of 59 PC Members of the Legislative Assembly. All the political oddsmakers say he’s a sure bet to win. He acts like a guy who’s on a holiday cruise to victory.

But if he astonished everyone by losing, he wouldn’t be the first front-runner preferred by the mighty PC establishment to drop the ball on voting night, would he?

As a matter of fact, he’d be the third in less than a decade! The fourth in a row if you want to count Ralph Klein’s victory over Nancy Betkowski in 1992, although that one seemed like more of a real contest at the time.

Alert readers will recall that in 2006 Jim Dinning’s ascension to the throne of Peter Lougheed appeared to be all but a certainty. The smart money was all on his candidacy. The PC establishment wanted the former Alberta provincial treasurer in the job – 38 caucus members supported him, compared with 13 for the next most popular candidate. The polls showed him leading by a mile. And all the hot Alberta political strategists were supposedly in his corner.

For his part, Mr. Dinning acted like a man on his way to an easy victory, and an easy general election after that.

Turned out Mr. Dinning was running a terrific general election campaign, visiting every riding in the province, reaching out to all kinds of Albertans. Alas for him, though, a leadership campaign is not a general election. The number of memberships you sell counts more than the number of ridings you visit.

Perhaps Mr. Dinning paid insufficient attention to the riding associations with the votes. Perhaps he didn’t concentrate on what die-hard Tories wanted, or where their loyalties actually lay. Whatever it was, when the dust had settled, a guy named Ed Stelmach was the premier. As we all asked at the time: Ed Who?

Then in 2011, after Mr. Stelmach said to heck with the abuse that automatically goes with the job of being premier, and after a short interregnum during which the party took a look at candidates like Ted Morton and Doug Horner, the smart money settled on Gary Mar.

Mr. Mar was a former minister under Mr. Klein, and tout le monde political Alberta reached the conclusion all at once that he was the front-runner, favoured by the Tory establishment and backed by some of the same hot political strategists who had worked for Mr. Dinning.

I don’t think that Mr. Mar’s ascension to the throne was ever seen as quite the sure thing Mr. Dinning’s appeared to be. Just the same, he had the most backing in caucus – 27 members compared with 14 for Mr. Horner and 11 for Dr. Morton. The smart money settled on him early and stayed there until the night in October on which the party selected … Alison Redford.

If you like, you can blame teachers and other public employees who bought party memberships to support Ms. Redford – whom they’d mistakenly decided was some kind of progressive. But, in their defence, buying memberships is what the PC Party asked them to do. What? It wasn’t supposed to make any difference?

As for the party establishment, Ms. Redford was backed by only one caucus member other than herself, and none of the party’s big movers and shakers.

Now, here it is 2014, Ms. Redford has been fired by her own caucus, Dave Hancock is premier pro tem, and Mr. Prentice is assumed by all the same people to be the front-runner with such a massive lead that no one could possibly catch him.

Mr. McIver, who seemed like he might have had a slight chance at the start, apparently shot himself in both feet by joining something called the March for Jesus last month. Remember that? When it turned out the organizers behind the march had some astonishingly homophobic views, the punditocracy reached the conclusion he was done like dinner. After all, the whole thing smacked of the Lake of Fire debacle, the discovery in 2012 of the undiplomatic blog post by an evangelical Wildrose candidate that appears to have sunk the Wildrose Party in the 2012 general election.

But are you sure? Don’t forget that Mr. McIver, the MLA for Calgary-Hayes, was well known in Calgary before his career in provincial politics as an alderman universally known as Dr. No – for his habit of saying no to spending proposals backed by other city councillors. I’m just saying, but it seldom hurts to have a nickname in politics.

In 2010, Mr. McIver ran for mayor of Calgary – and was favoured to win, so he knows what that’s like – and did well, even if he lost to a more liberal guy named Naheed Nenshi. The next year, he ran for the Legislature and got elected.

People all over Alberta – and especially in Calgary and the south – know who he is and what he stands for. A lot of them like that Dr. No stuff, and a fair number may even not have cared about – or noticed – the story about the March for Jesus.

Name recognition alone might not be enough to float his boat, but in the meantime, Mr. Prentice is campaigning a lot like … Jim Dinning.

He’s running a good general election campaign designed to persuade Alberta voters that he’s not scary and, even after the flip-flops and entitled behaviour of Alison Redford, he can be trusted.

That may work with the masses in Edmonton, where a lot of voters at the moment plan to vote NDP, and in Calgary, which seems to be leaning the Wildrose way nowadays. But how will it play in Ponoka? More importantly, how will it play inside the PC Party – where most activists are still plenty to the right of the general populace?

I don’t know about you, but at this point in the contest, it feels to me like Mr. Prentice’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep – and that he may have forgotten that in a party leadership race, memberships sold count for more than where they were sold.

Meanwhile, Albertans know who Ric McIver is, and a fair number of them may very well like what they see. Mr. McIver is capable of selling thousands of memberships in his south Calgary powerbase, not to mention to supporters of the March for Jesus.

Jim Prentice, the same people may ask … who’s he?

And you’ve got to admit, the whole PC leadership campaign sure hasn’t caught on fire – just yet, anyway. Blogger Dave Cournoyer called it the world’s most boring political leadership race, and I’d say he just about nailed it.

So could Ric McIver actually win?

It’s unlikely, I suppose. The Tory establishment isn’t going to make it easy for him. For one thing, there’s no way it wants to lose for a third time in a row … or a fourth if you count Mr. Klein, although that one worked out better for them.

And maybe I’m just a political blogger pipe dreaming about a race that’s actually interesting.

But the answer is yes, Mr. McIver could still win – notwithstanding the self-inflicted holes in both of his feet.

Could he go on to beat the Wildrose Party? That’s a story for another day.

And could Thomas Lukaszuk, the MLA for Edmonton-Castle Downs and once Ms. Redford’s Deputy Premier and the owner of the best hair in Alberta politics, also pull off another “miracle on the prairies” and eke out a victory?

The answer to that one is easier: No.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.

Climate change divestment movement gains ground in church – but not in Canadian media or political circles

Ho-hum... Some typical Canadian reporters, hard at work … Actual Canadian newsrooms may not appear exactly as illustrated. Below: Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Is he more influential than we imagined in Alberta?

CALGARY

When retired South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu visited Alberta’s Tarpatch capital of Fort McMurray last month and called the output from bitumen mining “filth,” the commentary here in Alberta was pretty predictable.

The right-wing rage machine creaked briefly to life, complained bitterly about celebrities who don’t know what they’re talking about just passing through, and then moved on to other complaints.

About the kindest thing said about the retired Anglican churchman by officials and media in these parts was the suggestion he was a naïve do-gooder who should stick to his theological knitting, never mind that he was a veteran of South African politics during and after the apartheid era and thus probably knew a thing or two about persuasion.

As for his contention that “the oilsands are emblematic of an era of high carbon and high-risk fuels that must end if we are committed to safer climate,” Alberta politicians and oilpatch commentators forgot about his brief appearance almost as soon as he had departed. A few Twitter trolls defamed him for a couple of extra days before they too lapsed into forgetfulness.

Perhaps they should have paid a little more attention, though.

From the Guardian, Britain’s faintly progressive daily newspaper, comes a report that the World Council of Churches, an umbrella group that represents about half a billion Christians around the world, including Anglicans like Archbishop Tutu in both Canada and South Africa, plus members of the United Church of Canada, has decided to pull all of its investments out of fossil fuel companies.

Back in April, Archbishop Tutu told the same U.K. newspaper that “people of conscience need to break their ties with corporations financing the injustice of climate change.”

Now, whether this divestment is a big deal or just a blip on the political radar is hard for a layman (as it were) like me to predict. For one thing, some pretty big churches, like the Roman Catholic Church, are not affiliated with the WCOC, and there may be plenty of investors to buy up they stocks they divest. For another, the WCOC doesn’t have that big an investment portfolio anyway, the Guardian pointed out, and no one yet knows if its member churches will all go along with this.

Still, it’s a powerful symbol, and it’s bound to result in some additional pressure being put on the energy industry – and on the Alberta Tarpatch in particular. What’s more, it’s evidence that when Archbishop Tutu speaks, people listen – even if Alberta’s various varieties of conservative, used to getting their own way without too much backchat, think that’s an outrage.

So at the very least you’d think there’d be some interest out here in the Lone Tar State in this development – if only to dismiss it as inconsequential.

But here in Alberta, and across Canada, the mainstream media seem not to have touched this development with the proverbial 10-foot bargepole. (That’s 3.05 metres to those of you born after 1970.)

Here in the Alberta ’patch, not one of the Calgary Herald, the Edmonton Journal or even Fort McMurray Today seemed to have mentioned it as of yesterday.

They need feel no embarrassment, though, for the national media has ignored it too – leastways, there’s not been a word about it that I could Google up from the Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Toronto Star or the CBC.

Last May, also writing in the Guardian, the United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres encouraged religious groups to “provide a moral compass to their followers and to political, corporate, financial and local authority leaders” on this issue.

She noted in that article that Archbishop Tutu had called “for an anti-apartheid style boycott and disinvestment campaign against the fossil fuel industry.”

And as the Guardian observed last week, “studies have suggested the fossil fuel divestment campaign, which began in the US, has been faster than any previous divestment movement such as tobacco and apartheid.”

So even if Canada’s tame and obedient media and Alberta’s influential conservatives of various stripes don’t like the message, they might want to pay attention to the story just the same.

I have a feeling that just pretending to have a climate change strategy, as Alberta does, isn’t going to be a very good strategy for dealing with a global divestment movement.

And whether or not it gets covered in Canada just yet, this story isn’t going to go away. Ignore it at your peril.

This post also appears on Rabble.ca.