ALF V1

What a year it's been for workers! From Wisconsin to Washington, D.C., on the football field and the factory floor, we've seen unprecedented attacks on working families from big corporations and their friends in elected office. But what the folks behind these attacks didn't anticipate was that their actions would ignite a movement -- that the worst moments for workers in 2011 might just be the beginning of a great political awakening for the 99 percent.

The Worst

1.Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker strips public employees of their collective bargaining rights -- Last spring, anti-worker legislators in Wisconsin rammed through a bill that strips the state's public employees of their right to collectively bargain. After initially using the state's fiscal challenges as the rationale for his bill, Gov. Walker publicly admitted that the collective bargaining repeal saved the state absolutely no money. This revelation affirmed that the nationwide attacks on public employees were solely designed to hurt workers and their unions -- not balance the budget.

2.SB 5 passes in Ohio -- In early March, Ohio Gov. John Kasich signed Senate Bill 5 into law. The bill scaled back public employees' ability to bargain together for better workplace conditions and improved safety, marking a major victory for the corporate-backed lawmakers playing politics at the expense of the 99 percent.

3.Income inequality soars to new heights -- In September, the Census Bureau reported that one in six Americans are living in poverty. Meanwhile, CEO pay has continued to skyrocket. The result? Income inequality that puts the United States on par with countries like Cameroon and Uganda. And recent studies show that the rise in inequality here in the U.S. is directly tied to declining union membership.

4.Right-wing attacks on the NLRB endanger workers' rights -- Instead of creating jobs, GOP politicians in Congress spent the year launching more than 50 attacks on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the National Labor Relations Act -- the only recourse workers have when their rights to form unions and bargain collectively are violated. These cynical political games have not only threatened employee safeguards, but the unprecedented overreach by lawmakers has jeopardized the fundamental American principle of due process.

5.Amazon workers face sweatshop conditions -- This fall, an investigative report revealed that employees at Amazon.com's Breinigsville, Pa., warehouse had been working on their hands and knees at a frantic pace in temperatures so high that the company kept ambulances parked outside. Amazon has yet to address the core problems at the warehouse, including brutal working speeds and overuse of temporary employees, for whom organizing for better working conditions is extremely difficult.

The Best

1.The 99 percent fights back -- With the attacks on workers escalating from Wisconsin to Washington, D.C., everyday Americans decided it was time to fight back. Beginning this fall, the Occupy Wall Street movement has succeeded in shifting the debate -- highlighting the income inequality that puts our whole economy at risk and bringing our nation's focus back to where it belongs: on the 99 percent.

2.Ohio voters repeal SB 5 -- Voters took a stand for workers on Election Day -- striking down Ohio's controversial Senate Bill 5 by a stunning margin of 61 percent to 39 percent. The victory restored collective bargaining rights for public workers throughout the state, and reenergized the middle-class Americans fighting back against anti-worker initiatives nationwide.

3.NLRB rules help protect workers' rights -- This summer, the NLRB issued a rule that requires employers to display a free poster advising employees of their workplace rights. And just this month, the Board voted to approve a resolution that will help ensure a fairer union election process for workers. In this upside down economy, even this modest progress for employees is good news.

4.IKEA workers gain a voice on the job -- Despite IKEA's reputation as a top notch employer in Europe, workers at IKEA's Swedwood plant in Danville, Va., struggled for years with pay cuts, racial discrimination, and dangerous working conditions. But in late July, they voted overwhelmingly to form a union with the Machinists -- a landmark victory for workers and a testament to the continued need for balance in America's workplaces.

5.NFL lockout ends -- The long-awaited end of the NFL lockout this July wasn't just good news for sports fans. For the tens of thousands of stadium workers and small businesses who depend on NFL football to make ends meet, the resolution of the lockout meant their jobs were safe. And for all of us, it was a powerful reminder of the benefits of workers standing together for respect and a voice on the job.

What do you think were the best and worst moments for workers this year?

huffingtonpost.com, Fri Dec 16 2011

A bill that would slash Jill's federal unemployment benefits by more than half is headed to the U.S. Senate after passing the House on a largely party-line vote. Watch this 2-minute video, then call your Senators and Members of Congress.

Call 888-245-3381 and tell your U.S. Senators to reject the massive cuts to unemployment insurance in the House leadership's bill.

Then, use this easy message page to quickly send emails to your Senators, Congressional leaders and your Members of Congress, urging them to oppose cuts to unemployment insurance (UI) and support full renewal of the federal UI program. More than 100,000 messages have been sent already -- send yours now.

The National Employment Law Project (NELP) has issued a detailed legislative briefing on all of the harmful unemployment insurance provisions in the House leadership's bill (HR 3630). Read the full report here.

unemployedworkers.org, Tues Dec 13 2011

When Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL), walked into a conference room in Kananaskis to observe the meeting of energy ministers from across Canada in July, he expected to find a seat in the section reserved for environmental groups, or concerned citizens groups. There was no such section. Looking around the room, bedecked in energy company sponsorship banners, McGowan realized he was the only person there who wasn't with an oil and gas company.

He shouldn't have been surprised. After all, when he called then energy minister Ron Liepert's office to get a seat at the meeting, which was open to interested stakeholders, he was rebuffed.

"So I'm the president of the federation of labour, (but) the only way I got in, even as an observer, was to phone my counterpart in Newfoundland who has a good relationship with their government, which happens to be a Conservative government," says McGowan. "And so she talked to their energy minister. So I was invited by the Newfoundland energy minister to attend the conference here in Alberta.

"To make matters even worse, when Liepert got up to give his introduction, he said 'I'm so pleased that we're together here with all the relevant stakeholders.'"

It's a surreal representation of what many say is an undue influence on the government of Alberta by the energy industry. Although the government does engage stakeholders, from labour to environmental organizations and beyond, many say that the energy industry has the greater pull. Critics point to the government ignoring the findings of multi-stakeholder discussions, the sheer imbalance between the well-funded oil and gas machine and those of civil society groups, and the amount of interaction between the government and the energy industry compared to other stakeholders as a sign that the cards are stacked.

CAPP and the Act

The AFL represents 29 unions with a combined membership of 145,000 people, some of whom work in the energy industry. This isn't an environmental organization calling for a halt to all oil and gas exploration in the province, but it is concerned about the environment and "the responsible and sustainable development of our resources," according to McGowan.

AFL is also concerned about the influence that the industry has over government policy making. While the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) lists 81 different issues they will talk to the government about in the next six months, the AFL meets with the government only a handful of times each year. And so, they filed a freedom of information request looking at the interaction between CAPP and the government of Alberta.

The documents they received showed that the government and CAPP wanted to collaborate on a joint public relations campaign around shale gas fracking and water use. The federation believes that these documents demonstrate a breach of Alberta's lobbyist act, which sets out stringent rules for engaging the government. For one, the people working on CAPP's behalf were not among the 41 lobbyists registered by the organization.

So, the AFL sent the documents to the lobbyist registrar and asked for an investigation. What they didn't do was check their package of documents carefully, highlighting only the unlisted lobbyists and the fact that a briefing note seemed to indicate that it was CAPP that approached the government about the public relations campaign. It's an important distinction. If the government approached CAPP, the act would not apply. That's exactly what the registrar ruled on November 28.

"We sort of assumed that he would do a thorough investigation, including a search of the documents," says McGowan. "It turns out he didn't do that. He only interviewed a couple of people and concluded that everything was hunky-dory because they said it was hunky-dory."

After looking more carefully at the package of documents, the AFL realized they had emails that appeared to contradict the ruling. An email dated June 8, 2011 from Doug Bowes, the director of unconventional gas in the energy department, says that CAPP approached the government to discuss its desire to "strike a committee to develop a public relations strategy focused on fracturing and water use associated with shale gas development."

The federation has called for a new investigation, but it's unclear if that will happen. The act forbids the registrar from commenting on the matter, even to acknowledge whether an investigation is underway.

Travis Davies, a spokesperson for CAPP, doesn't see any need for further investigation. He also doesn't care much for the federation's views. "I think the AFL's characterization of the matter is really, one, inaccurate and pretty disingenuous," he says.

"I think it goes back to, the AFL was upset that the commissioner did find that we were in compliance, produced these documents, which I would assume were part of the body of work that the commissioner looked at. I can't of course speak for him. If you look at the findings, clearly it falls within the parameters."

But for McGowan, it isn't necessarily about registered lobbyists and who approached who. "This is about a broader concern about the proper relationship between government and industry. We feel very strongly that there needs to be a line between government and industry, even industries that are very important to the provincial economy.

"We're afraid that that line has not always been observed. This is one of those examples where we feel the line has clearly been crossed."

Meanwhile in the ivory tower

In a recent paper published in the Canadian Journal of Political Science, George Hoberg and Jeffrey Phillips make a similar argument. Their analysis of the Alberta government's engagement with stakeholders in the oilsands concludes that despite an opening up of the conversation, it's still mostly a back-and-forth between the two dominant players — the energy industry and government — when it comes to policy decisions.

The paper looks at several events, including the Radke report. Released in 2007, the report's mandate was to look at the challenges of rapid expansion in the oilsands and to provide a short-term action plan. The first and most prominent recommendation is investing in infrastructure to support continued growth. Environmental recommendations are sparse and vague.

Another area of concern for the authors is the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA), a standing body that produces research into the cumulative effects of the oilsands region and makes recommendations to government. Hoberg and Phillips argue that it is ineffectual.

In one major example, the Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group within CEMA called for a partial moratorium on new oilsandsleases until it could complete its work. The group was worried about the effects of rapid expansion. The government refused. When the group did produce its report, it called for 20 to 40 per cent of the region to be protected and for intensive developments to be carried out in only five to 14 per cent of the area.

The report did not receive consensus among CEMA members, which includes oilsands companies, and the government didn't implement it. Instead, the government started its new Land Use Framework deliberations. This led to the Pembina Institute and two other environmental groups walking away from CEMA.

Hoberg, a professor at the University of British Columbia who specializes in environmental politics, says by phone that Alberta is "an example of a jurisdiction that is heavily dependent on one particular industry, and in circumstances like that, it's not uncommon to have an extremely close power relationship between that industry and the government."

That relationship is almost inevitable, given oil and gas's heft in our economy. And it's something the government feels is appropriate. "Across government, ministries work with stakeholders. It's not only not uncommon, it's necessary. The oil and gas industry drives this economy, it's responsible for one in seven jobs in this province and it would seem absurd to not meet with the organization that represents that industry," says Bart Johnson, a spokesperson for Alberta Energy. "We share common interests. They certainly have some interests in policy development with the government."

Hoberg's paper examines the introduction of multi-stakeholder discussions meant to address the rising tide of criticism of Alberta's oilsands and to stem the perception that the energy industry dominates the conversation. While those processes allow for more voices to be heard, the authors looked at the policy outcomes of those deliberations and recommendations and found that industry tends to get its way.

"The history of multi-stakeholder discussions on oilsands in Alberta is one of talk and drill," says Hoberg.

Talking points

It's a sentiment that many environmental organizations agree with. While many have participated in multi-stakeholder processes, there are also many who have pulled away. The reasons extend from the mundane concerns of operating budgets and the drain on resources that comes with participation, to the composition of the groups, to anger at the end product.

"Whether it's citizens or industry or public interest organizations, all of them ask prior to joining whether this is the best use of our time, and is it better to be at the table, or not at the table?" says Joe Obad, associate director of Water Matters. "And those are tough decisions to make."

When Water Matters was called Bow Riverkeeper, the organization was involved in the Alberta Water Council, a multi-stakeholder process designed to address concerns over industry's affect on watersheds and wetlands in the province. It pulled out of the process.

"We felt it restricted our ability to speak out, so we left the Alberta Water Council because we felt we're going to speak out about this and we're going to speak very clearly and not use the process as the means to speak about the things we support," says Obad.

"That was a difficult decision to make, but it was based on the idea that every group should be allowed to champion its objectives by whatever means it sees fit."

The Alberta Water Council is a process that comes up again and again when speaking to environmental groups about the concerns they have over industry influence. Chief among their complaints is the decision by the government to scrap a no-net-loss wetlands policy that would force industry to protect watersheds, or to replace ones that they destroy.

After three years of discussion and study, of the 25 organizations represented on the council, 23 supported the measure and, according to the Pembina Institute, 90 per cent of Albertans who were polled supported the idea. The only two non-consensus votes were CAPP and the Alberta Chamber of Resources (ACR), which sent dissenting letters to the government.

ACR boasted on its website at the end of 2008 that it had effectively lobbied the government not to follow through on the recommendation.

In an abridged version of a speech posted on the site, given by the executive director of ARC, Brad Anderson, he says: "One of the most influential things ACR was able to accomplish in 2008 was to do a really good job explaining where industry's line in the sand is when it comes to critical issues. A prime example of this was the position the Chamber took on the proposed Provincial Wetlands Policy."

It says that it successfully lobbied the government to accept three of the four changes it requested in its dissenting letter, including scrapping no-net-loss. This was posted on the ACR website before the government made its announcement.

When the Canadian Press reported on the claim and the anger of those who participated in the Water Council discussions, the report was removed from ACR's website. A copy of the website post was saved and given to Fast Forward Weekly.

Mike Hudema, a tarsands campaigner with Greenpeace, says the organization has not participated in any multi-stakeholder processes since setting up shop in the province in 2007. "The story that we heard was the same, that it was a lot of time and resources spent and at the end of the day what came out was not reflective of the conversation that many of the groups had," he says.

Regulations

Of course, no conversation about oil and gas in Alberta can ignore the regulations set in place to protect our environment and ensure that companies are following the rules. There seems to be no middle ground when people discuss the Energy Resources and Conservation Board (ERCB), the arm's-length government body responsible for approving or denying oil and gas projects. It's either a pawn of the industry, or a world-class regulator, or an overbearing obstacle. You either love it, or you hate it.

For many critics, you simply have to look at the overwhelming number of approved applications and the relatively few denials: in 2011, the ERCB approved 79 applications while denying seven.

"It's an overly simplistic view," says Darin Barter, a spokesperson for the ERCB. "What you're not seeing is the requirements that companies are bound to prior to even applying to the ERCB."

Barter argues that companies have jumped through so many regulatory hoops by the time they go before the ERCB that approval is virtually guaranteed. "Companies can take months to years to put together an application for a project," he says.

"The transparent part is seeing the approvals or denials, the less transparent part is seeing the regulatory framework."

And there's no doubt that the regulatory framework is intimidating. To the layman, it's a Byzantine and dense set of rules that requires an in-depth knowledge to navigate, But critics maintain that it doesn't go far enough. The wetlands policy debacle is one instance.

In the case of the oilsands, where no project has been denied, Pembina points to an agreement by Royal Dutch Shell to reduce its emissions to the tune of 900,000 tonnes in order to gain approval of its Jackpine Mine and Muskeg River Mine Expansion projects. The promise convinced Pembina to remove its objection to the project. Shell then reneged on that promise.

In a 2009 release, Pembina's Simon Dyer wrote: "In approving Shell's projects, the joint review panel struck by the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) and the Government of Canada explicitly noted that they would review Shell's approval in the event that the company failed to fulfil commitments that had been presented as evidence."

Pembina and EcoJustice petitioned for a review. That review did not happen.

The future

In Hoberg's paper, the hopeful component of his less-than-rosy conclusion is that by opening the door to groups outside the traditional power structure, the government has given them credibility and will have to take their concerns seriously.

"And I do think the government and the industry, it took them a while, but now they have to acknowledge the significance of the environmental impacts of the oilsands and of environmental interest groups," says Hoberg.

In the conclusion to his paper, he argues that it's the government that must now save face. "In the oilsands case, the government of Alberta has formally acknowledged the legitimacy of environmental critics by giving them a formal voice in the consultation processes," he writes. "Now that environmentalists have denounced those processes and withdrawn, the government's own strategy has lost its legitimacy."

No one interviewed for this article tried to argue that the government did not address a broad range of stakeholders. "I would say, in general, governments try to meet with all stakeholders," says Obad. "They don't tend to leave anyone out altogether. But it does seem that there's a degree of difference in terms of frequency and accessibility."With vast financial resources, teams of lobbyists, ready access to decision-makers and a proven track record of being able to influence policy decisions despite being in a minority on stakeholder decisions, the oil industry has proven it has pull. On the opposite side, many groups are skeptical of engaging in discussions that seem to accomplish little more than depleting their sparse resources.

"The government has a responsibility to look after the public interest first and in cases where the public interest conflicts with the narrow interests of the energy industry, then the government has to fall on the side of the public interest, but I'm not sure that happens enough in Alberta, or even at all," says McGowan.

"I'm certainly not suggesting that the labour movement or any other groups in civil society should be calling all the shots for government; what I am suggesting is that neither should industry."

fastforward weekly, Thurs Dec 15 2011

Issue: The MacEwan Staff Association is seeking a new collective agreement for the more than 700 non-academic staff at MacEwan University in Edmonton.

Actions Requested: Join the workers as they hold an information picket/walk at all MacEwan University campuses.

When: Over the noon hour tomorrow, Wednesday, December 14th.

Backgrounder: Non-academic staff at MacEwan University are in negotiations for a new collective agreement.

AFL's Position: The more people who join these workers on an information picket/walk tomorrow (Wednesday), the louder the message to employers that the labour movement is united in support of these workers and that they need to offer them a fair deal. Their last agreement expired June 30th .

Action: Show your support for the workers and send a message to the employers. Join the workers as they hold an information picket/walk at all MacEwan University campuses over the noon hour tomorrow (Wednesday), December 14th.

EDMONTON - Alberta Premier Alison Redford will host her counterparts from Saskatchewan and B.C. on Tuesday to discuss the direction of the New West Partnership.

The partnership, established in April 2010, is an attempt to create "an economic powerhouse of nine million people with a combined GDP of more than $550 billion."

"It's the premier's first meeting as the host province," Alberta intergovernmental affairs spokesman Bill Strickland said Monday in advance of the meeting. "They're going to be discussing the Canadian Energy Strategy, employment insurance reform and replacing the Building Canada Infrastructure Program. ... They want to look at the future, and what the New West Partnerships role will be in the energy strategy."

Strickland was unable to provide details concerning discussions about the infrastructure program.

Redford, B.C. Premier Christy Clark and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall are also expected to talk about the importance of immigration in meeting growing labour market needs.

The meeting will take place at Government House in Edmonton, beginning at 2 p.m., Strickland said.

Richard Truscott of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said he is pleased to hear the premiers will discuss immigration, which is crucial for supporting small independent businesses in Alberta.

"Immigration is at the top of our list," Truscott said. "We are going to have to be very innovative and engaged on the immigration file for years to come. If we don't we're definitely going to see the impacts."

In under two years, the partnership has helped establish unprecedented co-operation among the provinces, governments say.

In May 2010, former premier Ed Stelmach, former B.C. premier Gordon Campbell and Wall travelled to China and Japan on a joint mission to encourage trade.

During the trip, they announced the opening of the Western Canada Trade and Investment Office in Shanghai, China, which promotes natural resources, agriculture and green technology.

In October 2010, Stelmach backed Wall in Saskatchewan's fight against BHP Billiton's hostile takeover bid for Potash Corp., and in July 2011 the provinces streamlined regulations for truckers, a move lauded by the shipping industry.

The partnership's most controversial work followed the Dec. 16, 2010, signing of an energy memorandum of understanding. The memorandum was designed to encourage streamlining of regulations, promotion of Western energy and faster development and use of green energy," a government statement said at the time.

The governments initiated consultations with stakeholders, including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

In August, the Alberta Federation of Labour alleged that CAPP was improperly lobbying the provincial government by offering to help "enhance" the government's public relations strategy concerning controversial shale gas development.

The federation pointed to leaked cabinet documents that suggest the province is worried about environmental groups undermining public support for shale gas development by spreading "misinformation" about health and environmental effects of chemical fracking.

"Environmental non-government organizations are supporting an ill-informed campaign on hydraulic fracturing and water-related issues in British Columbia and this is expected to grow as shale gas development expands into Alberta and Saskatchewan," the outline says. "The New West Partnership lacks a cohesive inter-governmental and inter-agency strategy to address growing public concern in the rapid expansion or shale gas development."

Alberta's lobbyist registrar investigated and cleared CAPP of wrongdoing, largely because the MOU invited the association's input. Alberta's ethics commissioner is now reviewing the investigation.

The government has since embarked on its own public relations strategy, without CAPP's input.

Edmonton Journal, Mon Dec 12 2011
Byline: Karen Kleiss

Issue: The Harper government's bid to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and undermine rural Prairie communities through Bill C-18, now before the Senate.

Action Requested: Take part in an urgent campaign to get the Senate to stop passage of the bill while the matter is before the courts.

When: Before Dec. 14. The government has said it intends to push the legislation through before Christmas even though a Federal Court judge has ruled the Agriculture Minister broke the law by failing to consult farmers. The government says it will appeal that ruling, but won't wait to have the appeal held and is pressing ahead with the legislation.

Issue:

The Harper government is seeking to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board with the passage of Bill C-18. This move is illegal because the law requires the government to consult with farmers on any changes to the CWB, but the government has refused to consult. It is undemocratic because it ignores a vote held by farmers in which the majority said they wanted to keep the board.

AFL's Position: This is not about wheat. The government's move is fuelled by its ideological opposition to collective action. It wants to undermine the ability of farmers to work collectively to get a better price for their product in the same way it has undermined the ability of workers to bargain collectively by forcing them back to work in recent disputes at Canada Post and Air Canada. If the government succeeds in dismantling the Wheat Board, the only winners will be large corporations. The losers will be smaller family farms who will no longer be able to compete on an equal footing with larger corporate farms and will no longer be able to negotiate with the large corporations that buy their products. Studies show Prairie farmers will lose hundreds of millions of dollars every year – money that is vital to the survival of many of our rural communities. For more details, read the joint statement issued by the Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba Federations of Labour.

Action: Join the campaign by the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance (CWBA) to contact senators and the Governor-General by email, phone and fax to let them know that if they pass this bill they will be flaunting the law and not acting in the best interests of the Western Canadian farmer and their communities, or in Canada's best interests. The CWBA is asking for messages to be sent by phone and fax as well as email, because the senators' e-mail risks getting backed up, so phone and fax may be the fastest way to get your message through. Provided here is contact info for Alberta senators, followed by a list of other senators provided by the CWBA, whom they feel are most likely to change their vote or not show up for the vote. Contact info for the Governor-General is also provided.

Alberta Senators:

• Elaine McCoy: Tel. 613-995-4293 or 1-800-267-7362; Fax. 613-995-4304; Email. [email protected]

• Tommy Banks: Tel. 613-995-1889 or 1-800-267-7362; Fax. 613-995-1938; Email [email protected]

• Bert Brown: Tel. 613-944-3434 or 1-800-267-7362; Fax. 613-944-3438; Email [email protected]

• Joyce Fairbairn: Tel. 613-996-4382 or 1-800-267-7362; Fax. 613-995-3223; Email. [email protected]

• Grant Mitchell: Tel. 613-995-4254 or 1-800-267-7362; Fax. 613-995-4265; Email. [email protected]

• Claudette Tardif: Tel. 613-947-3589 or 1-800-267-7362; Fax. 613-947-3609; Email. [email protected]

Other Senators to contact:

Last name First name Phone Fax Prov

Boisvenu Pierre-Hugues 613-943-4030 613-943-4029 QC

Demers Jacques 613-992-0151 613-992-0128 QC

Rivard Michel 613-947-4107 613-947-4110 QC

Champagne Andrée 613-995-3999 613-995-4034 QC

Nancy Ruth 13-995-4174 613-995-4188 ON

Segal Hugh 613-995-4059 613-995-5259 ON

Andreychuk Raynell 613-947-2239 613-947-2241 SK

Angus W. David 613-947-3193 613-947-3195 QC

Cochrane Ethel M. 613-992-1577 613-995-6691 NL/T

Comeau Gerald J. 613-943-1448 613-943-1556 NS

Di Nino Consiglio 613-943-1454 613-943-1800 QC

Johnson Janis G. 613-943-1430 613-992-5029 MB

Kinsella Noël A. 613-992-4416 613-992-9772 NB

LeBreton Marjory 613-943-0756 613-943-1493 ON

Meighen Michael A. 613-943-1421 613-943-1565 ON

Nolin Pierre Claude 613-943-1451 613-943-1792 QC

Oliver Donald H. 613-943-1445 613-943-1502 NS

St. Germain Gerry 613-947-2242 613-947-2244 BC

Stratton Terry 613-947-2224 613-943-1563 MB

Tkachuk David 613-947-3196 613-947-3198 SK

Rivest Jean-Claude 613-947-2236 613-947-2238 QC

Governor General:

Rt. Hon. David Johnston: Tel. 613-993-8200; Fax 613-998-8760

The Alberta government must do a better job of collecting revenue to provide the vital public services Albertans have clearly said they want, according to the 2012 Budget submission sent today to Finance Minister Ron Liepert.

"Alberta is one of the wealthiest places in the world, but that wealth isn't benefitting all Albertans," says Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL), which represents 145,000 workers.

"Our broken revenue system means the province is running deficits even during good times. Rather than fix the revenue system, the government has previously chosen to slash spending and throw our public services into chaos. We need look no further than the situation in our schools, hospitals and long-term care to see the tragic results of this folly," he says.

Today is the deadline set by the government for the public to make suggestions for the 2012 Budget. The AFL's submission shows that the government's fiscal problem is on the revenue side of the ledger, not on the spending side. It points out that Alberta is wealthy, with a bigger economic pie than other provinces, with corporate profits hitting new highs (up 450 per cent from 1998-2008) and astronomical investment in capital projects. Meanwhile, spending as a percentage of the province's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has fallen by nearly 40 per cent since 1989. On a per-capita basis, expenditures are about the same as the rest of Canada.

"What this tells us is that if there is any province in Canada that should be able to afford high-quality public services, it's Alberta," says the AFL submission. "The evidence is clear and incontrovertible: we are running deficits even during strong economic times because tax and royalty policies pursued by the government over the last 20 years have essentially blown a hole in the revenue base that the province needs to fund public services. In other words, the cupboard is bare because we've decided to make it bare," says the submission.

The AFL calls on the government to consider real solutions that can be included in Budget 2012:

• replace the flat tax on personal incomes with progressive taxation;

• introduce a surtax on high-income earners;

• increase corporate taxes to at least the Canadian average; and

• increase royalties to at least the rates proposed by the 2007 Royalty Review Panel.

"These solutions would bring in billions of dollars every year, eliminating the deficit and removing the threat to services, while still leaving Alberta a great place to do business and to live," says McGowan. "We urge the Redford government to take the same approach as other right-of-centre politicians – including Peter Lougheed, Danny Williams and Sarah Palin – and do a better job of getting value for the resources Albertans own."

-30-

MEDIA CONTACT:

Gil McGowan, AFL president, 780-218-9888 (cell)

EDMONTON - Two days after an investigation declared the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers not guilty of breaking lobbying laws, Alberta's ethics commissioner said he will review newly released government documents to see if the case should be reopened.

The documents, obtained by the Alberta Federation of Labour through freedom of information laws, appear to conflict with the investigation's findings.

"Based on the evidence that (the lobbyist registrar) had at the time, he came to the right conclusion," Ethics Commissioner Neil Wilkinson said Wednesday. "However, if there is new evidence ... we will take a look at reopening the investigation."

The allegations against CAPP first made headlines in August, when leaked cabinet documents suggested the association offered to work with the government to "enhance" public relations efforts. The document also shows CAPP would be the only non-governmental organization consulted.

The AFL, which obtained the leaked documents in August, asked the lobbyist registrar to investigate.

In a report released Monday, Lobbyist Registrar Bradley Odsen ruled that "collaboration to enhance public communication" is not lobbying.

"Quite the contrary," Odsen wrote. "If anything, the communication in this case clearly amounts to an offer from CAPP to work collaboratively with the Government of Alberta ... in an effort to benefit government."

Odsen also found the provincial government sought the association's input, which does not constitute lobbying under Alberta law. In Alberta, communication is only considered "lobbying" when the lobbyist initiates the discussion.

On Wednesday, the labour federation released several pages of new internal government documents that say CAPP initiated contact with government. That would constitute lobbying and therefore conflict with Odsen's verdict.

AFL president Gil McGowan asked for a new investigation.

"The government has forgotten that their responsibility is to protect the public interest, not promote the narrow interests of corporations," McGowan said. "The government shouldn't become the public relations arm of industry, no matter how important that industry is."

CAPP spokeswoman Janet Annesley said the new documents do not conflict with the ruling. She explained that CAPP was communicating with government under the terms of a memorandum of understanding signed long ago, and reiterated the registrar's finding that "once the conversation begins, whether ... a particular topic is first raised by government or a stakeholder is of no consequence."

She added the association would fully co-operate with any new investigation.

Energy Minister Ted Morton said he hadn't reviewed the new documents but that government always strives to consult knowledgeable stakeholders when developing policy.

"If we're developing an education policy, we are going to talk to teachers. If we are developing a health-care policy.

It is not known when the commissioner will decide whether to reopen the investigation or whether that decision will be made public.

Edmonton Journal, Wed Nov 30 2011
Byline: Karen Kleiss

EDMONTON – The Alberta Federation of Labour today released new evidence that sheds more light on the energy industry's extraordinary influence over government public communication plans on shale gas and water use (copy of the documents can be found here).

On Monday, the Lobbyist Registrar released a report clearing the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) of wrongdoing in the case. But that report didn't consider the new evidence released today, so the AFL is calling for a new investigation.

"The newly released documents show that CAPP took the lead in talks with the government to develop a communications strategy that both industry and government would use to spin the public on shale gas water use," says Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL), which represents 145,000 workers. "The documents show that senior government officials worked in concert with CAPP to shape public opinion on shale gas and water use, and that they were prepared to hide their collaboration from the public."

The Alberta Federation of Labour obtained the documents through a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The heavily redacted documents show that CAPP told the government to develop a public communications plan for shale gas and water use and the highest levels of government obliged.

"The Registrar of the Lobbyist Registry did not have access to these documents during his initial investigation of CAPP's lobbying activities," says McGowan. "So we're calling for another investigation based on this new evidence which has recently come to light."

"We filed FOIP requests for these documents because we've been worried for some time that the energy industry is calling too many of the shots for government and that government has forgotten its role as protector of the public interest," says McGowan. "These documents suggest our concerns are well-founded."

"It's troubling that the energy industry has this much influence over our government. Even more troubling are the lengths the government will seemingly go to help industry to shape and change public opinion rather than leading with policies for responsible development."

"The documents show that four government ministries and the supposedly independent Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) joined with the energy industry to develop a secret public communications plan on a resource that's obviously lucrative and but also potentially controversial," says McGowan.

"It's the government's duty to consult with relevant stakeholders, including stakeholder from the energy industry," adds McGowan "But the new documents show that what went on here goes far beyond consultation. What they show is that the line between government and the energy industry has become so blurred that it's virtually indistinguishable," says McGowan.

"The government mishandled the oil-sands file by spinning, foot dragging and allowing industry to set the agenda instead of having a plan developed in partnership with the public for the responsible development of the resource. It looks like the government didn't learn any lessons and is set to make the same mistakes with shale gas as it did with the oil sands. Namely, the government of Alberta has abdicated its responsibilities to an industry lobby group," concluded McGowan.

• Click here for backgrounder document

-30-

MEDIA CONTACT:

Gil McGowan, AFL president, 780-218-9888 (cell)