ALF V1

Albertans are being "played for fools" by corporations making massive profits at the expense of provincial programs and services, says former Liberal leader and scholar Kevin Taft.

In a new book Follow the Money, published today, Taft explores the mystery of why one of the wealthiest jurisdictions in the world is experiencing deficits and program cuts while the profits of corporations in the province have climbed more than 300 per cent.

"It feels like we need a Danny Williams moment," he said referring to the feisty former Newfoundland premier. "We need to take control of government and make sure it is looking after the best interests of our resource owners."

Taft, who has spent a decade in Alberta politics, says he just wants to stir up "a more balanced debate" on taxation and royalty policies.

"We're leaving way too much wealth on the table and we're letting it flow out the door to investors on Wall Street or in Shanghai and Beijing," said the departing provincial MLA and author of four controversial books on Alberta government policy.

He writes that he doesn't blame corporations for making obscene profits. "I blame the trustee of the people's wealth - the government of Alberta - for failing every citizen and their future."

The book, created in partnership with the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) and Public Interest Alberta, questions the government's rationale for having the lowest corporate taxes in the country and a royalty program that focuses more on creating a competitive investment climate than collecting a fair share for Albertans.

AFL president Gil McGowan said the book is the beginning of a major campaign to spark a public debate about whether Alberta is getting its fair share for its resources and from the corporations profiting from its booms. "The real reason we have a deficit is successive Conservative governments have engaged in a race to the bottom in taxation and royalties," he said.

The AFL was one of several unions behind TV ads last election that attacked the Ed Stelmach government. The Tories subsequently passed a law to limit third party spending on election advertising.

The Stelmach government made an attempt to increase Alberta's oil and gas royalties, but many of the gains were rolled back in the face of angry opposition from the industry and a downturn in the economy.

Taft's book is based on research by University of Alberta economics professor Mel McMillan and Ph.D candidate Junaid Jahangir, who plowed through reams of studies and Statistics Canada tables to track Alberta's wealth.

Taft said Alberta better come to terms with the issue or its long-term future is in serious jeopardy. "For the next decade or maybe two we're positioned to do something really, really spectacular, but right now as a province and as a society we're really blowing it."

Calgary Herald, Wed Jan 18 2012
Byline: Darcy Henton

Yes! They did it!

All of their heart and determination have paid off to the tune of ONE MILLION signatures. This means Scott Walker will be forced to defend his seat as Governor in a special recall election. See the official announcement:

Wisconsinites showed an incredible amount of heart in the last year. Watch:

In addition to the 1 million signatures to recall Governor Walker, grassroots volunteers have collected enough signatures to force special recall elections for Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, Sen. Pam Galloway, Sen. Terry Moulton, Sen. Scott Fitzgerald and Sen. Van Wanggaard.

Signature Totals

Gov. Scott Walkter – 1,000,000

Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch – 845,000

Sen. Terry Moulton of Chippewa Falls – 21,000+

Sen. Pam Galloway of Wausau -21,000+

Sen. Van Wanggaard of Racine – 24,000

Sen. Scott Fitzgerald – 20,600

MoveOn.org, Tues Jan 17 2012

In early 2011 as the Ohio legislature was considering a measure that would have stripped collective bargaining rights for public employees, thousands of outraged citizens protested at the statehouse in Columbus, voicing their objection to this unprecedented attack on Ohio's middle class. Through a number of unscrupulous legislative maneuvers and attempts to silent dissenting voices by locking the statehouse doors, proponents of the bill were able to pass it by a single vote margin, which ignited a firestorm of opposition and a united front against the attack on workers' rights. Ultimately, the bill was put up for referendum in the fall of 2011 and Ohio voters from all walks of life and every region of the state soundly rejected the bill by more than a 20 point margin.

While the first part of this story might sound all too familiar to Hoosiers given the present circumstances surrounding the Indiana legislature's consideration of another attack on collective bargaining (aka the inaccurately titled "right to work" bill), all Indiana legislators should take heed. Ohioans, and I presume Hoosiers, are looking for is bipartisan cooperation and focus from politicians on creating jobs and getting the economy moving. Unfortunately, the Ohio and now the Indiana anti-worker legislation represent the same old politics of division that will further erode our middle class and accelerate the "race to the bottom" where all workers lose.

Indiana workers are both wise and just to fervently voice their opposition to these attacks and politicians in the Indiana Statehouse would be wise to listen to their concerns. The preponderance of evidence gathered from extensive independent research shows that the so called "right to work for less" policies are in fact damaging to local economies as they lower wages and often create an environment that is conducive to job flight instead of fulfilling the promises of their proponents. An examination of states that have passed these laws points this out very clearly. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167). Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549). Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life and, looking at the past four quarters, seven of the ten states with the highest unemployment rates are states with "right to work" laws.

If proponents continue to pursue this misguided measure, Indiana voters will likely see the effort for what it is-- a purely political attack that is dividing Hoosiers and preventing any real progress on economic recovery. Don't take my word for it though. Just ask Governor Kasich who in the aftermath of a resounding defeat of the issue openly acknowledged that taking away collective bargaining rights was the wrong move and that "when people speak like this in a campaign referendum, you have to listen if you're a public servant". As a result of the middle class backlash, Kasich's approval ratings dropped to the lowest in the country. It would be wise for Indiana's politicians to take warning from the Ohio experience and they should follow more closely their promises to improve the economy and support policies that will create good jobs instead of pursuing attacks on workers with a policy that will not create one single job.

Ohioaflcio.blogspot.com, Tues Jan 17 2012

EDMONTON — This province is a great place to do business, but if Albertans knew just how great, they might have some tough questions for the provincial government, Alberta's former Liberal leader says.

Corporations here pulled in profit at three times the rate, per capita, of the level any other province, says Kevin Taft's new book, entitled Follow the Money.

With all that wealth, there are questions as to why the province is struggling with a $2-billion to $3-billion deficit, squeezing public services and education and saving so little

Where did all the money go? That's the question Taft attempts to answer in this book written with University of Alberta economist Mel McMillan and researcher Junaid Jahangir using publicly available data from StatsCan, government documents and TD economic reports.

"There's nothing wrong with profitable companies. I want those in my pension plan, too," Taft said in an interview.

"But profits in Alberta are at double the rate of anywhere else, including the U.S., that's what we are looking at."

What does that mean for public services in Alberta? That's the issue, Taft said.

Taft's book, to be launched Wednesday night at the Garneau Theatre along with a video by Edmonton filmmaker Tom Radford. The event will kick off a pre-election campaign by the Alberta Federation of Labour and the advocacy group, Public Interest Alberta, said Gil McGowan, president of the AFL which covered the $50,000 to publish the book.

"In this election, the province needs to have a discussion about how we will pay for public services," McGowan said.

"The Wildrose party wants the election to be about deficits and cutbacks. We say it should be the province's low royalties and low corporate tax rates."

Public Interest Alberta boss Bill Moore Kilgannon said: "What Albertans really care about is high quality education and health care. But we should not base the number of nurses and teachers on the price of oil."

Taft's research suggests there's plenty of wealth in the province, but the provincial government is simply leaving too much of it on the table, he said. "We need to have an adult conversation about how to have the revenues to ensure the services. l

What's critical to understand is just how far ahead of the rest of the country Alberta sits with corporate wealth, Taft said. According to the 2005 and 2007 reports by TD Economics, corporate profits in Alberta as a share of GDP jumped to 22.8 per cent, compared with 12 per cent in the rest of Canada. In the U.S., corporate profits are historically 12 to 15 per cent of GDP.

The big jump in corporate profits here began in the 1990s, but accelerated in mid-2000s. In 1989, corporate profits in Alberta were $4,400 per person. By the mid-1990s, the number climbed to $7,000 per capita and from 2004-08, before the downturn, profits ran at $16,000 per person.

That's three times the average of $5,075 per person in the nine other provinces, Taft said.

Here's another historic view for comparison: In Alberta, corporate profits more than doubled their share of the GDP from 1989 to 2008 from 9.6 per cent to 22.8 per cent.

Some of those profits went into higher incomes for Albertans. Incomes here are up 35 per cent in the past 21 years after inflation is taken into account. Some of the money went into paying down government debt in the 1990s, Taft said.

But overall, the share of the wealth that goes into public services has shrunk from 23 per cent in 1989 to 14 per cent between 2005 and 2009.

So the next question, Taft said, is: Given the high profits in Alberta's corporate sector, is the government leaving too much money on the table?

That question is especially pertinent, given that the corporate sector's wealth mostly comes from companies developing publicly owned resources, particularly Alberta's vast energy reserves, Taft said.

"These numbers tell me we are leaving too much on the table. We have to channel the spirit of Danny Williams," said Taft, referring to former Newfoundland premier who drove a hard bargain with oil companies.

It doesn't necessarily mean Alberta needs to spend on public services, but it certainly means Alberta should do more saving, Taft said.

"My personal view is spending on public services is where it needs to be. We don't need to spend more, but we need to save. Otherwise, we face a painful reckoning in the future."

The most distressing number he said he uncovered was the falling value of the Heritage Fund, which is supposed to financially backstop Alberta when oil and gas run out.

In 1976, when it was set up, it was worth about $4,040 per capita and it peaked in 1982 at $9,870 per person. Now, it's at $3,934.

"That just drives home the fact we are selling the farm to live the high life today," he said.

Taft's book tackles a number of "myths" — first, that the province spends like drunken sailors. In reality, from 1989 to 1994, there was no increase in spending.

A second myth, he said, is that debt was dangerously high. While high, it was only half the average in the other provinces, Taft said.

Edmonton Journal, Mon Jan 17 2012
Byline: Sheila Pratt

The future of Canada's health care system is at a critical stage.

As leaders of the provincial and territorial Federations of Labour, we have issued a call to the country's premiers, who are meeting in Victoria, to put forward a united front and stand up for Canada's universal health care system and the millions of Canadians who depend on it.

In December, the Harper government sent a clear message that it intends to abrogate its responsibility to defend national health care standards and universality. It plans to walk away from its responsibility to lead the negotiations to develop a new Health Accord. The current Accord ends in 2014.

Instead, the federal government has laid out a take-it-or-leave-it funding formula that will see Ottawa contributing a lot less to health care by 2017, tying increases in funding to economic growth.

This is an attempt by the Harper government to hijack the real debate. The real debate should be how we, as Canadians, tackle and bring about meaningful and positive change. The real debate must be how we build and enhance our public health care system. The current Health Accord has shown us that with stable long-term funding and common goals and targets, we can deliver better health care.

Our most valued social program — something that unites all Canadians — deserves a plan that tackles growing disparities in health outcomes and growing gaps in access to care.

While Canadians need to see stable funding for health care, there are also the issues of accountability, national standards and targets, equality of access and quality. How will these issues be addressed if the federal government washes its hands of its responsibility?

As provincial labour leaders representing workers from coast to coast, we are calling on our premiers and provincial leaders to take a strong stance in defence of every resident. This is not just about dollars and cents it's about values — values that Canadians have embraced for half a century.

These are values that include a publicly funded and administered health care system in which all Canadians have access to the same quality health care regardless of income and no matter where they live in our country.

It's about a Canada where families with loved ones battling diseases that threaten their lives are not also forced to contend with poverty and inadequate care.

The next generation of Canadians deserves a high-quality health care system, not one starved for funds. Our children need to know that their right to decent health care is based on their rights as citizens and not the limits on their credit cards.

If our federal government is acting unilaterally against the interests of Canadians, then it is incumbent upon our premiers to act as the front line of defence of the public interest and to fight for adequate and sustainable funding that protects our health care system.

Some of our premiers have already come to the conclusion that the Flaherty plan will erode our universal health care system and values. Working people agree.

In fact, we believe the federal Conservative plan of further corporate tax cuts, on the one hand, and reduced funding for health care, on the other, will simply further reward the 1 per cent and punish the 99 per cent.

As our premiers attend the Council of the Federation meeting, they will be sitting down to discuss the very values that Canadians embrace: equality, fairness, access for all regardless of income.

Those who came before us created a health care system based on the solidarity of Canadians with each other. It is our collective duty to ensure its survival for generations to come. Unfortunately, what the federal government is proposing does not meet this test.

Now is not the time to be looking for a better deal for any individual province or territory. Now is the time to be united.

Every Canadian should join us in calling upon our premiers to reject the federal proposal, to reject a framework that leaves Canadians out of the discussion and to embrace the values upon which our nation and our health care system were built.

It is time for our premiers to stand up to a Harper government that appears hell-bent on eroding the social foundation of our country and become true health care champions. The choice is clear, but our premiers must rise to the challenge.

Sid Ryan is president, Ontario Federation of Labour, and writes on behalf of the other presidents of provincial and territorial labour federations: The Presidents of the Provincial and Territorial Federations of Labour: Jim Sinclair, British Columbia; Don Austin, Yukon; MaryLou Cherwaty, NWT and Nunavut; Gil McGowan, Alberta; Larry Hubich, Saskatchewan; Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba; Michel Boudreau, New Brunswick; Carl Pursey, PEI; Rick Clarke, Nova Scotia; Lana Payne, Newfoundland and Labrador.

thespec.com, Mon Jan 16 2012

The Presidents of the provincial and territorial Federations of Labour are calling on Canada's Premiers to reject an irresponsible Federal Conservative "plan" for health care.

In an open letter from the labour leaders to the premiers, attending a meeting of the Council of the Federation in Victoria today, the Premiers are asked to stand up and support Canada's most important social program: universal health care.

"We believe, as many Canadians do, that the Harper Government's December announcement is an abdication of its responsibility. Our letter to the premiers is a call for true leadership on health care - leadership that we are not getting from Ottawa," says Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, which represents 145,000 workers.

"Harper's 'no-strings' approach to funding is a recipe to allow for increased privatization and two-tier health care, something that the vast majority of Canadians reject. The federal government has a duty to defend public health care, but Harper wants to abdicate from that responsibility," says McGowan.

As the federation presidents outline in their letter, the Harper Government has proposed significant cuts to health-care funding, beginning in 2017. The announced cuts come after the federal government made the decision to ignore the issue of establishing a new Health Accord, the latest of which is set to expire in 2014.

"In a style that has become typical of the Harper government, the provinces are going to be handed a take-it-or-leave-it decision without any meaningful dialogue whatsoever. If Prime Minister Harper is not willing to play a leadership role in securing the future of the health-care system, then the premiers must make a stand on behalf of Canadians, on behalf of the values upon which our nation and our health-care system are founded."

- 30 -

Media contact: Gil McGowan, AFL president, 780-218-9888

Then we're agreed. Canada needs a national energy strategy, says the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Canada needs a national energy strategy, the Council of Canadians concurs. What this country needs is a national energy strategy, asserts the Energy Policy Institute of Canada, an industry group. Or what about a national energy strategy, counters the Alberta Federation of Labour, not an industry group. The country's energy ministers discussed the need for a national energy strategy at their meeting last summer, since which time not a week has passed without someone demanding to know why we have not yet got one.

Given the idea has such universal support across the land, it might seem strange to find the prime minister, of all people, in some uncertainty as to its meaning. Asked his views on a Calgary radio show, Stephen Harper confessed, "the honest truth is I don't know precisely what it means. I'm looking forward to having some discussions with some provinces to find out what they have in mind." But in fact the prime minister's confusion is entirely appropriate.

When so many disparate groups with such disparate aims are all in support of the same thing, it's usually a sign they have very different things in mind. As with most proposals for a "national strategy" for anything, the words "national" and "strategy" are essentially placeholders. If they mean anything at all — a debatable proposition — they are stand-ins for "my preferred policy." But a call to adopt "my preferred energy policy" lacks a certain something, especially when compared to the grandmasterly, world-historic sweep of "a national energy strategy."

Why a strategy, rather than a policy? Experience teaches that where "strategy" goes, "strategic" is never far behind. Why do we need a national strategy for energy and not, say, for shampoo? Because, dear child: energy is a "strategic" sector. And what makes it so strategic? Perhaps the Energy Policy Institute can shed some light. "Canada's rich abundance of resources and its success in building an open and vibrant energy market," it explains in a policy paper, "has created a significant and strategic sector for the Canadian economy." So: "large," then.

Well, not quite. If the need for a strategy is implied by the strategic nature of the industry, the word strategic is usually taken to mean it possesses certain unique qualities that exempt it from the ordinary laws of economics, such as might govern lesser commodities: rather, some sort of government intervention is in order. In other words, it's strategic on account of the need for a strategy. Or as former TransCanada Corp. CEO Hal Kvisle puts it, "there's some room for some central planning here. Not in the Communist sense of the word, but somebody has to come up with a game plan."

Ah, but whose game plan is it to be? When industry and business groups talk about a national energy strategy, they mean a concerted push to expand sales of Canadian oil abroad, together with the regulatory approvals needed to make it happen at home: a big broom to sweep away local objections to energy infrastructure projects, such as Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline, the subject of just-opened hearings in British Columbia. But when labour and environmental groups talk about a national energy strategy, they mean policies to reduce Canada's use of fossil fuels, whether through conservation or alternative energy sources.

For some, it's about diversifying our energy exports away from the United States, to China and points east; for others, such as the AFL, it means building pipelines "connecting west and east within our own country," rather than supplying refineries overseas — or indeed refining the oil in Alberta, which activity its proponents consider more befitting our dignity (more refined?) than mere resource extraction. Still other strategic thinkers have other energy sources in mind: it's about a national electricity grid, they'll say, or the need to "build out our nuclear capacity," or perhaps to diversify the economy away from energy altogether. It's a dog's breakfast of conflicting agendas, in other words, most of them amounting to this: though the market may be signalling we should produce crude oil for export — $100 a barrel is a pretty strong hint — we should instead be doing something else.

To see the government of Alberta leading the charge for an NES, after its experience with the NEP, is surely the oddest part of all this. Natural resources are, after all, within provincial jurisdiction, a point the province was pretty adamant on back in the day. But whereas thirty years ago Alberta felt besieged by the energy-hungry east, today it thinks it can use its newfound clout in Confederation to impose its own regulatory preferences on other provinces. But provincial interests in the matter aren't necessarily the same. Most of the benefits of the Gateway pipeline, for instance, would accrue to Alberta; most of the environmental costs, if any, would fall on British Columbia. It's not obvious the national interest requires one to override the other.

Oh all right: nobody likes to be a party pooper. You say we need a national energy strategy? Here's mine: prices. If the returns to producing oil are greater than to other activities, we should produce oil; if China will pay us more for our oil than we could get elsewhere, we should sell it to them; if prices do not include all costs including environmental costs, we should adjust them with a carbon tax. Other than that I can't see the point.

Edmonton Journal, Fri Jan 9 2012

OTTAWA and EDMONTON - Politically, the Northern Gateway project isn't risk-free for Canada's western provinces.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark has refused to take a position until the National Energy Board panel has ruled. The board begins hearings this week in northern B.C., with a decision expected in late 2013, well after the scheduled provincial election to take place in the spring of that year.

But her centre-right government is sure to get squeezed on both sides during an expected protest campaign against Northern Gateway to be waged by environmentalists and First Nations organizations.

B.C. New Democratic Party Leader Adrian Dix, leading in most polls, hasn't made a formal declaration on the project but is expected to announce soon that his party is opposed. Conservative Leader John Cummins, who is bleeding considerable support from Clark's right flank, is an enthusiastic supporter.

B.C. political analyst Norman Ruff predicts that Clark will soon be forced off the fence.

"Pressures from Ottawa, the business community and within her own cabinet — not to mention the ever-rising political threat from Cummins — will sooner or later force her to take her gloves off," said the retired University of Victoria political scientist.

While there is far less organized opposition to Northern Gateway in Alberta, Premier Alison Redford – an enthusiastic supporter of selling Alberta bitumen in Asian markets – risks being blamed if the project gets stalled.

"I think there's an awful lot of pressure politically to support the Gateway pipeline, and for all sorts of good reasons," said Ken Chapman, executive director of the Fort McMurray-based Oilsands Developers Group.

As an industry group representative, Chapman – who has worked with the Progressive Conservative party and Alberta Human Resources Minister Dave Hancock in the past – would not discuss the impact Gateway might have on a provincial election expected this spring.

"There will be those who will try and make this a political issue," he said.

One of them will be Redford's key opponent on the right, Wildrose Alliance Leader Danielle Smith, who has already lambasted the premier for failing to convince Clark to become a supporter.

Smith's criticism finds fertile ground among some Albertans who are becoming more vocally defensive of Alberta's oil industry. Recent efforts by big-name companies to avoid Alberta bitumen-based fuel, for example, have resulted in social media firestorms as some Albertans promise to counter-boycott everything from personal beauty products to bananas.

Alberta's long-sitting Tory government faced some criticism last fall when the Keystone XL pipeline extension through the United States was put on hold. Throughout the U.S. review process of the pipeline, aimed at taking bitumen to the Gulf Coast, the government purchased advertisements in leading U.S. newspapers, made multiple visits to the U.S., and had been successful in offering more oilsands tours to foreign dignitaries and journalists than ever before.

On Redford's left, her support for export pipelines draws a different kind of criticism.

"She's thrown her lot in with the energy companies," said Alberta Federation of Labour president Gil McGowan, who hopes to persuade Alberta's left-leaning political parties to include opposition to the Northern Gateway in their election platforms.

McGowan questions the provincial government's decision to promote the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL rather than encouraging the construction of refineries in Alberta, which he says would ensure long-term sustainable job growth.

"It should be part of the election debate," McGowan said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, meanwhile, faces little risk in Alberta, where he won 27 of 28 seats in May. But some of his critics wonder if he's gambling in B.C., a Tory power base where voters in 21 of 36 seats elected Conservatives in the 2011 election.

The NDP's Nathan Cullen, whose vast Skeena-Bulkley Valley riding includes the Kitimat port where tankers would dock if the pipeline is built, said Harper is making a huge mistake by aligning his party so closely to the project.

He said opposition to Northern Gateway cuts across party lines, with Tory-voting hunters, fishermen, snowmobilers and even energy industry workers concerned about the implications of a bitumen pipeline in B.C.'s wilderness.

"It doesn't matter what kind of voter you are, British Columbians care about our coasts and rivers."

University of B.C. forest resources management professor George Hoberg, a frequent blogger on the Northern Gateway issue, said environmental concerns "resonate widely" with swing B.C. voters who would ordinarily vote Liberal or Conservative provincially and Conservative federally.

"So I think there is a significant chance that Clark, and Harper, will feel political pressure on the pipeline from B.C. voters," Hoberg said.

University of Victoria political scientist Kimberly Speers agreed that "many of the B.C. outdoors folks who vote Conservative might be apprehensive about oil spills or any other natural disaster that might affect their livelihood."

University of Northern B.C. political scientist John Young said there is some risk Harper could lose some support in urban ridings, but said pegging political ramifications is pure guesswork at this stage.

University of Lethbridge political scientist Chris Kukucha, meanwhile, questioned whether Harper's base in Western Canada is at any risk.

"Knowing this government, I'm sure they already have polling numbers that suggest this won't be a major long-term threat to support," Kukucha said.

Edmonton Journal, Sat Jan 7 2012
Byline: Peter O'Neil and Trish Audette

Close to half of all the jobs created in Canada were in Alberta and the province also maintained the lowest unemployment rate, according to numbers released Friday.

Through 2011, about 98,800 positions were created in Alberta — about 50% of jobs gained nationwide at 199,200, accounting for a 1.2% employment rate increase nationally.

StatsCan reported Alberta's jobless rate in December dipped to 4.9% from 5% the previous month.

While job creation appears to be on the upswing and the number of unemployed is going down in Alberta, the same isn't true nationally with jobless rate average pegged at 7.5% last month, which spiked a tad from 7.4% in November. Labour critics are cautioning Alberta against complacency in spite of the latest numbers.

Gil McGowan, president of Alberta Federation of Labour, said the figures are optimistic for Alberta but the province must make sure growth continues. McGowan said the job growth is attributable to increased investment in the oilsands, but warns the "rosy" path could end if the trend of sending raw bitumen outside the country continues.

"Our concern is that the story may change down the road if our (Canadian) government continues to focus on extraction-only oilsands projects as opposed to value-added projects dealing with refining and upgrading," said McGowan.

"If we're not building upgraders and refineries, then we won't be creating long-term jobs for the future."

He said the trend of shipping bitumen out of the province instead of processing it locally could end the good employment scenario in a few years. "I'm afraid that the rosy employment picture that we're enjoying today simply won't last," he said.

Darrell Winwood, a spokesman with Alberta Human Services, said the job increases in the province are a sign of a strong economy and growth.

Winwood also said the latest figure was the fourth month the unemployment rate has dropped.

While unemployment numbers are going down in the province, the rate in the Calgary area has risen from 5.4% in November to 5.5% in December. In December 2010, the Calgary region had an unemployment rate of 6% while the provincial average was 5.5%.

Calgary Sun, Fri Jan 6 2012
Byline: Renato Gandia

OTTAWA - The second half of the NDP leadership race is starting much like the first, with candidates striving to demonstrate momentum through a raft of endorsements from New Democrat and labour heavyweights.

Brian Topp snagged arguably the most influential name Friday: former Saskatchewan premier Lorne Calvert.

As one of the few New Democrats to actually run a government, Calvert's endorsement was coveted. Indeed, one of Topp's chief rivals, Montreal MP Thomas Mulcair, has repeatedly cited Calvert and former Manitoba premier Gary Doer as role models who've proved NDP governments can balance the books without compromising their social democratic values.

But Mulcair unveiled an endorsement of his own Friday: Reg Basken, former president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

Not to be outdone in the quest for the influential labour vote, Ottawa MP Paul Dewar announced an endorsement from James Clancy, national president of the 340,000-member National Union of Public and General Employees, one of Canada's largest unions.

Earlier in the week, Toronto MP Peggy Nash touted the backing of award-winning actress Sarah Polley and Quebec MP Dany Morin.

With no other way to tell how each of the eight candidates is faring in the seven-month race, endorsements are the only tangible — although not necessarily reliable — measure of momentum.

Anyone signed up as an NDP member Feb. 18 will be eligible to participate in the March 24 vote to choose a successor to Jack Layton, who died in August just months after leading the NDP to a historic finish in the May 2 election. At last count, the party boasted some 95,000 members but there's no accurate way to gauge which of the eight leadership candidates those members are supporting.

The ability to raise money is often another gauge of a campaign's health. But the party does not plan to publicly release interim financial statements that are to be filed with its chief financial officer next week.

In the absence of ways to measure real progress, Topp was accorded the title of presumptive front runner last fall, after amassing the most impressive roster of endorsements from party luminaries. His backers include Calvert's predecessor in Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow, and former national leader Ed Broadbent.

However, his campaign was perceived to have faltered last month, after he turned in a mediocre debate performance in Vancouver. By contrast, Mulcair seemed to be the one with momentum, performing well in debates and benefiting from polls suggesting the NDP's support in Quebec has begun to slip away.

The Montreal MP has positioned himself as the contender best able to hold onto the New Democrats' newfound Quebec base. The party won a record 103 seats in May, vaulting it into official Opposition status thanks primarily to a surge of support in Quebec.

As a former provincial Liberal cabinet minister, Mulcair is well known in the province and is the only candidate who currently represents a Quebec riding. He's captured the support of just over half the NDP's 59 Quebec MPs.

Topp used Calvert's endorsement Friday to try to regain the momentum and present himself as a more well-rounded contender, who can win in both Quebec and the rest of the country.

Calvert noted that the fluently bilingual Topp was born, raised and cut his political teeth in Quebec. Although he currently resides in Toronto, Topp has said he intends to run for a seat in Quebec.

But Calvert stressed that Topp also has deep roots in the West, particularly in Saskatchewan where he served as deputy chief of staff to Romanow. And he said it is Topp's pan-Canadian appeal that will take the party from opposition to government in the next election.

"Brian has the national experience necessary to lead our party and form a national government," Calvert said in the text of remarks made in Saskatoon.

"Brian knows how to win in Quebec and that is an asset absolutely necessary in our next leader. But winning in Quebec is not enough to get the job done. We must also win here in Saskatchewan and across the country.

"Brian can do that too."

A longtime senior backroom strategist, Topp has been criticized in some quarters for never having sought elected office. But Calvert argued that the best politicians are also good strategists.

"We need a good strategist to lead our party. Brian's ability for strategic thinking is a huge asset, particularly in taking on the current prime minister (Stephen Harper), who is not a bad strategic thinker himself."

He also touted Topp as a "man of integrity" and praised his "courage" in advocating tax increases for the wealthy in order to pay for programs to boost the economy and opportunities for low and middle-income Canadians.

"While most leaders will shy away from the discussion about the need to rebalance our tax system, Brian has tackled it head on because Brian understands that if we are going to govern well we have to be honest about how we are going to pay for our priorities," Calvert said.

The other candidates in the race are B.C. MP Nathan Cullen, Quebec MP Romeo Saganash, Manitoba MP Niki Ashton and Nova Scotia pharmacist Martin Singh.

They'll face-off in five all-candidates debates sponsored by the party over the next three months, as well as a number of unofficial debates, such as one planned for Toronto on Jan. 18.

Winnipeg Free Press/Canadian Press, Fri Jan 6 2012
Byline: Joan Bryden