ALF V1

Les Steel is stepping down as the President of the Alberta Federation of Labour in order to take a new, Alberta-based position with the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC). He has served as President of Alberta's largest labour organization for three years. Prior to that, he was the full-time Secretary Treasurer of the organization for six years. He had one year left to serve of his current two-year term.

"I had already made it clear to people within the labour movement that I would not be seeking another term as President at the next AFL Convention in 2005," says Steel. "The only change is that I'm leaving the Federation a little earlier than expected."

For the immediate future, Mr. Steel's duties will be carried out by the current Secretary Treasurer, Ms. Kerry Barrett. A decision on how to deal with the vacant position will be made by the Alberta Federation of Labour Executive Council which is meeting in Calgary on May 6, 2004.

"Les made a personal decision to move on to new challenges," says Barrett. "I know he will continue to advance the interests of working people in his new position with the same passion and skill with which he led the labour movement in the past."

Steel was President during turbulent times in the Alberta Labour movement. When he took over, Federation membership was at its lowest level in the previous 30 years because of the defection of the province's largest union, and the organization was in trouble financially.

Under Steel's leadership, there were significant new affiliations - most notably, the United Nurses of Alberta and the Health Sciences Association of Alberta. Membership levels exceeded previous highs and the affiliated unions restored the organization's financial security.

Steel gained the respect of trade unionists across the country during the protests against the G8 summit in Calgary in 2002. He staunchly supported the Alberta teachers during their strike - forging closer ties between the Alberta Teachers Association and the labour movement.

Steel's relationship with the Alberta government was strongly oppositional - with his uncompromising stance on behalf of working people putting him at odds with the government's programs and policies.

-30-

For further information contact:

Kerry Barrett, AFL Secretary Treasurer  at 780-483-3021 (wk) or 780-720-8945 (cell)

The Alberta Federation of Labour has released data showing that real, inflation-adjusted wages in the province have fallen for the second year in a row, and for the fourth time in five years. According to figures published by the Government of Alberta, average weekly earnings in the province rose from $699.18 in 2002 to $708.24 in 2003, an increase of 1.3%. During the same period, the Consumer Price Index for Alberta, which measures inflation in the province, increased from 124.2 in 2002 to 129.7 in 2003, giving an inflation rate of 4.4%. The net result is a decline of 3% in real wages. (To see chart tracking the decline, click here.)

AFL President Les Steel said this latest data confirms a disturbing trend: "The fact is that, despite a booming economy, high energy prices and huge government surpluses, the average working Albertan is seeing a slow but steady decline in their standard of living."

"The amount of goods and services we can buy with our paychecks is dwindling, and at the same time we're getting fewer public services because of government cutbacks," said Steel. "If this is what the boom looks like, I don't look forward to seeing the next recession."

AFL researcher Tom Fuller said the figures confirm a trend of wage stagnation identified by the Federation in a study published earlier this year: "In our booklet Running to Stand Still, we pointed out the puzzling reality of stagnant real wages in a booming economy - something economic theory says shouldn't happen."

Steel points to government policy as the culprit, "You've got anti-worker labour laws that help hold down wages, but deregulation for industry that lets profits and prices shoot up. The average Albertan in caught in the middle. It's time the citizens of this province woke up and demanded their share of the benefits from this booming economy."

Since 1998, real weekly earnings in Alberta have fallen by a total of 5%.

- 30 -

For further information contact:

Les Steel, President   @  (work) 780-483-3021/(cell) 780-499-4135
Tom Fuller, Director of Research @ (work) 780-483-3021/(cell) 780-719-7840

Edmonton - The Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) is taking the opportunity of the 38th United Nations Day for the Elimination of Racism, which is Sunday, March 21, to renew calls to the provincial government for more action on tackling racism and hate crimes in Alberta.

"Police are reporting an increase in hate group activity in Alberta, and B'nai B'rith reports a large increase in anti-Semitic acts last year," says AFL Secretary-Treasurer Kerry Barrett. "We also continue to see discrimination against Muslims in the shadow of the Attack on Iraq. Clearly racism is alive and growing in Alberta."

"The provincial government puts very few resources into combating racism in its many forms," Barrett points out. "We are hoping that next week's budget contains new initiatives for both cracking down on hate crime and promoting education to end racism."

The AFL has long been committed to working to end racism. It regularly works with its union affiliates to reduce racial stereotypes and prejudice and to promote anti-racism work among workers. "The government should be embarking on similar strategies to bring people together."

Barrett also laments the rise in racist sentiment as fallout from the war on terror and the attack on Iraq a year ago. "It is more than a little ironic that the international day to eliminate racism coincides with the one year anniversary of the Iraq war - a war that can be seen as racist in its origins."

"To end racism, we also need to end the culture of violence and aggression against other peoples," Barrett concludes.

- 30 -

For Further information contact:

Kerry Barrett, AFL Secretary Treasurer  @ 780-483-3021 (wk)/ 780-720-8945 (cell)
Jason Foster, Director of Policy Analysis  @ 780-483-3021 (wk)

EDMONTON - The Alberta Federation of Labour is formally lifting a union-led viewer boycott of A-Channel as workers at the station head back to their jobs today after a grueling five month strike.

"We are tremendously happy with the support that Edmontonians showed for the strikers during this long and often bitter dispute," says AFL president Les Steel.
"But now that a fair agreement has been reached, we want to send the message that the best way to continue supporting the workers is to tune into A-Channel and watch the programs they produce."

A-Channel workers in Edmonton walked off the job on September 17, 2003 after negotiations towards a first contract broke down. After months of tension between the workers and Craig Media, A-Channel's parent company, an agreement was finally reached in mid February.

"It took a long time, but the workers eventually got almost everything they were looking for, including reasonable raises and a pay grid that recognizes experience," says Steel.
"But the real key to winning this strike was the support the workers received from rank-and-file union members and members of the broader community. We asked Edmontonians to stop watching A-Channel during the strike - and viewership for the station dropped by half. We're convinced that this was what really paved the way for a settlement."

In addition to the union-led viewer boycott, Steel says the labour movement demonstrated solidarity with the striking workers by raising about $40,000 for the strikers and their families during the Christmas season and another $15,000 at a special fund-raiser last Friday night.

The money raised at last week's fundraiser will go to a handful of strikers who lost their jobs permanently as a result of a management decision to transfer some tasks to its station in Calgary.

"Obviously, we're saddened that not all of the strikers are going back to work - and we're doing what we can for those workers," says Steel. "But, at the end of the day, this is really a hopeful, even inspiring story. It sends the message that, if they stand together, workers and members of the community can derail the agendas of even the largest corporations."

-30-

For more information call:

Les Steel, AFL President   @ 780-483-3021 (wk) 780-499-4135 (cell)
Gil McGowan, AFL Communications @ 780-483-3021 (wk) 780-910-1137 (cell)

EDMONTON - If Prime Minister Paul Martin doesn't want to see a "patchwork quilt" of maternity benefits in Canada - generous in places like Quebec and sub-standard in places like Alberta - then he needs to wake up and appeal a controversial court decision before it's too late, says the Alberta Federation of Labour.

In a letter sent to the Prime Minister today, AFL president Les Steel urged the federal government to appeal a January 27 decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal that said maternity benefits are a social program and therefore fall under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has only until February 26 to file its appeal.

"If your government doesn't appeal the Quebec decision it will open a dangerous door," wrote Steel in his letter to Martin. "Once provinces like Alberta begin asserting their new 'rights' over EI, we fear that maternity and paternity benefits as we now know them will be history."

Steel told Martin he has absolutely no confidence that the Alberta government would maintain the current level of benefits for new parents if jurisdiction for maternity programs was handed over to the provinces.

"In Quebec, given its progressive history on social policy, it may well be true that workers will get better benefits under a provincially administered plan," wrote Steel. "But the same cannot be said for other provinces. Do you really think that the Alberta government would have instituted maternity benefits even half as generous as those available under the existing EI plan if the program had fallen under provincial jurisdiction? Do you honestly think they would defend existing benefits with the same zeal as the federal government? From where we sit, the answer to both of these questions is clearly no."

If Martin doesn't want to go down in history as the Prime Minister who 'looked the other way' while Canada's system of maternity benefits was dismantled, Steel says he should act quickly to appeal the Quebec court decision.

"The clock (is) ticking," wrote Steel. "Please act now. Please appeal the decision & This is (the federal government's) chance to do the right thing. It's your chance to stand up for a program that means so much to so many Canadian workers and their families. Please don't squander this opportunity."

-30-

For more information call:

Les Steel, AFL President   @ 780-483-3021(wk) 780-499-4195 (cell)

Gil McGowan, AFL Communication @ 780-483-3021 (wk) 780-910-1137 (cell)

 

Attachment - Text of Letter

February 25, 2004

Sent by Fax:  (613) 992-4291

The Right Honourable Paul Martin
Prime Minister
Government of Canada
House of Commons
Room 313-S, Centre Block
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Dear Prime Minister:

As I write this letter, there are only two days remaining before your government can no longer appeal the controversial decision on Employment Insurance and parental benefits that was handed down last month by the Quebec Court of Appeal. With the clock ticking, I am writing on behalf of thousands of unionized workers in Alberta with an urgent plea. Please act now! Please appeal the decision!

If the federal government misses this opportunity to defend the Employment Insurance program, we are convinced that the consequences for working people across the country will be dire. In particular, we are worried that the benefits currently available for new parents - so recently introduced - will be eroded or, in places like Alberta, eliminated entirely. And by standing idly on the sidelines, your government will be largely to blame.

Of course, we've heard the arguments and reassurances put forward by the government of Quebec. They say that maternity and parental benefits are essentially a social program or, at the very least, akin to a commercial insurance plan - both of which would fall under provincial jurisdiction. The Quebec government has also promised that if it took over the plan, the benefits would be more generous than the under the existing program.

But, here in Alberta we have two major objections. First, we don't buy the argument that any portion of EI should be seen as a social program - and we think it is obvious that EI is not anything like a commercial insurance plan. From our perspective, the purpose of EI is clear: the program is designed to temporarily replace the income of workers faced with interruptions in their employment. That includes any interruption in employment, whether it is the result of lay-off, illness or pregnancy.

Page 2 -- The Right Honourable Paul Martin

That's not to say that the existing maternity program is without flaws. For example, we feel strongly that the plan needs to be expanded to cover contract workers and the self-employed. We also think the number of weeks of work required for eligibility needs to be dropped. But, those are questions of fine tuning. What the Quebec government wants would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. In our opinion, this whole case is nothing more than a thinly veiled power-grab by the Quebec government - and the federal government should not allow it.

The second - and probably more important reason - why we in the Alberta labour movement want you to appeal the court decision has to do with the impact we fear it will have on the access Alberta workers have to maternity and parental benefits. In Quebec, given its progressive history on social policy, it may well be true that workers will get better benefits under a provincially administered plan. But the same cannot be said for other provinces. Do you really think that the Alberta government would have instituted maternity benefits even half as generous as those available under the existing EI plan if the program had fallen under provincial jurisdiction? Do you honestly think they would defend existing benefits with the same zeal as the federal government? From where we sit, the answer to both of these questions is clearly "no."

That's the root of our concern: if your government doesn't appeal the Quebec decision it will open a dangerous door. Once provinces like Alberta begin asserting their new "rights" over EI, we fear that maternity and paternity benefits as we now know them will be history. The question for you and members of your government is this: do you want to see a patchwork quilt of policies in Canada, where some Canadian workers have access to generous parental benefits, and many other do not? And do you want to go down in history as the government that looked the other way as this kind of patchwork was created?

This is your chance to do the right thing. It's your chance to stand up for a program that means so much to so many Canadian workers and their families. Please don't squander this opportunity.

Sincerely,

ALBERTA FEDERATION OF LABOUR

Les Steel
President

Premier Ralph Klein is up to his old tricks. Once again, he's trying to convince Albertans that Medicare is unsustainable and that the only way to "save" the system is to carve it up and hand it over to profit-seeking corporations.

Les Steel, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, says it's time for Albertans to demand that Klein remove his "ideological blinders" when dealing with issues of health care delivery and reform.

"There's no doubt that our health system is facing some problems - largely resulting from poor planning by both federal and provincial governments," says Steel.

"But to say that privatization and two-tier health care are the only solutions for these problems is false and deliberately misleading. The truth is that there are many options for reform within the public system - reforms that are consistent with the spirit and intent of Medicare. That's what Albertans really want: they want public reform, not knee-jerk privatization."

Steel says that if Premier Klein really wants to save Medicare and improve the way health services are delivered, he should embrace the blueprint for reform outlined last year in Roy Romanow's highly-acclaimed report on the future of health care in Canada.

"Mr. Romanow did two very important things in his report," says Steel. "First, he debunked the myth that private health care is cheaper and that it can somehow 'relieve pressure' on the public system. Second, he gave us a detailed roadmap for strengthening Medicare by keeping it public. The fact that Premier Klein continues to reject the Romanow model says a lot about his government's real motives."

By refusing to consider public sector options for reform, Premier Klein - along with Conservative leadership hopeful Belinda Stronach who recently expressed similar sentiments - is going against the wishes and best interests of the majority of Canadians, says Steel.

"If one positive thing can be taken from Klein and Stronach's outrageous statements about gutting the Canada Health Act, it's that it reveals their true colours," says Steel. "All the evidence shows that public health care is cheaper, more equitable and is better for both individuals and the economy. By coming out against the Canada Health Act, Klein and Stronach are showing that they are willing to put blind ideology and the interest of a few large corporations ahead of the interests of the broader population. Let's hope that voters remember that at election time."

For further information, contact:

Les Steel, AFL President at (780) 499-4135

Gil McGowan, AFL Communications at (780) 483-3021

The Alberta Federation of Labour reacted with disappointment early today after the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with a case against the Labour Relations Board.

In particular, the court said it was unconvinced that the Labour Relations Board had acted inappropriately when it came to its handling of the provinces controversial new health care labour law, Bill 27.

"The court basically rejected our arguments that the government had exercised inappropriate influence over the LRB when it came to drafting and implementing Bill 27," says AFL president Les Steel.

"But, frankly, we in the labour movement don't feel reassured. We are not any more confident today than we were yesterday that the deck hasn't been stacked against health care workers."

Steel points out that the judge saw merit in the court challenge which was brought forward by the United Nurses of Alberta, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union and several other labour organizations. In fact, the court said the unions raised reasonable doubt about the role of both the government and the LRB.

"But the real problem was lack of evidence," said Steel. "The government simply refused to disclose all the relevant documents. They have been hiding behind the Freedom of Information Act. And that's what really made it difficult for us to make the case."

With that in mind, Steel said the AFL and other unions would proceed with a number of FOIP appeals aimed at getting more information about communication between the government and the LRB.

"The bottom line is that our system of labour relations can only work if workers and unions have trust in the impartiality of the LRB. For many of us, that trust simply isn't there right now," says Steel. "So we will continue doing everything we can to make sure the referee in labour relations doesn't take sides. Workers need to have confidence that the deck isn't being stacked against them."

- 30 -

For further information, contact: Les Steel, AFL President  at 780-499-4135 (cell)

EDMONTON - What do ordinary Albertans have to show for a decade of unprecedented growth and prosperity in their province? As it turns out, very little.

In a new research report released today - entitled Running to Stand Still - the Alberta Federation of Labour shows that Albertans have not seen their standard of living increase as a result of the so-called "Alberta Advantage."

"Our economy has been growing faster than any other province, our unemployment rates are low and we have the highest levels of productivity in the country," says AFL research officer Tom Fuller.

"But this has not translated into improved wages for working Albertans. In fact, once you adjust for inflation, wages in the province have remained stagnant. All the other economic indicators point up - but the one that matters most to people has remained stuck in the mud."

According to standard economic theory, real wages and the overall standard of living should increase as growth and productivity rise. That hasn't happened in Alberta over the past decade, and in his report, Fuller lays the blame squarely at the feet of the current Conservative government.

In particular, the report argues that government policies such as Alberta's low minimum wage, low welfare rates and cuts to seniors programs have acted as a significant drag on wages. Fuller also points out that Alberta's restrictive labour laws have acted to reduce wages by making it harder for workers to join unions.

"Union contracts are the tractor that pulls wages up, both in the unionized sector and the non-unionized sector," says Fuller. "By restricting the rights of people to join unions, the government is basically guaranteeing that wages will be lower for most people."

The problem of stagnant wages is compounded, the AFL report says, by other government policies that have dramatically driven up the costs of utilities, auto insurance and college and university tuition.

Taken together, the report concludes that the Alberta government's approach to things like welfare, deregulation and labour standards add up to a conscious and deliberately implemented low wage policy.

"The government doesn't use the phrase, and they certainly wouldn't brag about it during an election campaign, but what we're really talking about here is a low wage strategy. That's the reality of the Alberta Advantage," says Fuller. "And in a province as wealthy as our, that's simply not justifiable."

For more information contact:

Tom Fuller, AFL Research  @ 780-483-3021

Les Steel, AFL President   @ 780-483-3021 or 780-499-4135

Gil McGowan, AFL Communications @ 780-483-3021 or 780-910-1173

Backgrounder

Alberta's Booming Economy

• Among Canada's ten provinces, Alberta has enjoyed the highest rates of growth in provincial GDP for nine of the past ten years.

• Natural gas prices have jumped from an average of $1.66 per 1000 cubic feet in 1993 to more than $6 in 2003. This has fueled growth in both the provincial economy and revenues for the provincial government.

• Alberta's labour productivity is the highest in the country. Total value added per worker hour was 109 % of the national average in 2001.

The Truth About Wages

• Most economic indicators have been pointing up, with one notable exception: wages. After adjusting for inflation, average wages in Alberta have stagnated over the past decade. Measured in 2001 constant dollars, the average weekly wage in Alberta in 1993 was $676.79. In 2003, it was $676.14.

• Standard economic theory suggests that wages should go up as labour productivity increases. Alberta has led the country in productivity gains for more than a decade. But this has not translated into a higher standard of living.

Added Burdens for Working Families

• As if stagnant wages weren't enough to worry about, working Albertans have also been hit hard by the government policies in areas like utility deregulation, auto insurance and college and university tuition.

• Before deregulation, Albertans paid among the lowest utilities rates in the country. Now they pay the highest. Albertans are also paying substantially more for auto insurance than provinces with public systems.

• Between 1992-2002, Alberta had the highest increase in university tuition fees (161%) among all provinces, and the second highest increase in college tuition fees (293%).

• As a result of these increases, the number of young Albertans getting an advanced education is dropping. Alberta has slipped to seventh among all provinces when it comes to the percentage of our young people attending post-secondary institutions.

Elements of Alberta's Low-wage Strategy

• At $5.90 per hour, Alberta has the lowest minimum wage in the country. It is about 90 cents an hour below the national average.

• Alberta treats its citizens on welfare more harshly than do other provinces. We rank last when it comes to the annual welfare benefits paid to single parents with one child ($11,634).

• Seniors benefits worth about $563 million a year in 2002 dollars have been cut by the Klein government since 1992. This has forced many seniors back into the workforce - often the low-wage workforce.

• Alberta has the lowest rate of unionization in the country (about 25 percent versus a national average of about 33 percent). But surveys show Albertans are no less willing to join unions that workers in other provinces. The difference? Alberta's restrictive labour laws.

• Alberta labour laws are carefully drafted to hamstring unions and limit their ability to organize and effectively represent workers. For example, unlike other provinces, the Alberta Labour Relations Code, does not provide serious penalties for employers who refuse to bargain with duly elected union locals. It also gives Alberta employers much more latitude to pressure and intimidate employees during union membership drives.

Something is wrong in Alberta. Over the last decade, while the economy boomed and industry thrived, real wages in the province stagnated.

Real wages (adjusted to constant dollars to correct for inflation) measure what we are actually able to buy with our paycheques. In 1992, when the national economy was emerging from a brutal recession, the average weekly wage in Alberta (in constant 2001 dollars) was $676.79. In 2002, after a decade of "boom times," the figure was just $676.14.

What's important here isn't the minor decline in real wages (about 0.1%), it's that they remained stagnant during a period when they should have been growing.

We live in the richest province in Canada and our economy is creating wealth at a rate that is the envy of other regions. Year after year, we rack up the strongest economic growth and job-creation numbers in the country.

To top things off, Alberta also boasts high levels of labour productivity. According to the provincial government's own calculations : "Alberta's total economic productivity increased at an average annual rate of 1.3% between 1991 and 2001, which was the highest rate in Canada."

Common sense and standard economic theory say that when productivity goes up, so should wages. In the words of former U.S. president John F. Kennedy, a rising tide is supposed to lift all boats.

But that's not happening here in Alberta. The question is: why? Why haven't Alberta's growth and productivity gains translated into increasing real wages, as economic theory tells us they should?

A major part of the answer lies in the labour market policies of the Klein government. Alberta has:

1) The lowest minimum wage in Canada (about ninety cents an hour lower than the national average).

2) Some of the lowest welfare rates in the nation, rates deliberately kept at near-starvation levels to "encourage" welfare recipients to accept any jobs, no matter how low the pay. This policy ensures that minimum wage job vacancies will not go unfilled.

3) The most anti-union labour laws in Canada. The Alberta Labour Relations Code fails to protect the rights of workers who want to join a union. As a result, Alberta has the lowest unionization rate among provinces.

The point is that these policies don't just affect poor people, welfare recipients, or unions - they exert a downward pressure on wages that filters through the entire labour market.

Right-wing pundits and political commentators have convinced many Albertans that allowing the government to attack these "special interests" would somehow benefit the rest of us. But an economy is not a zero-sum game: wage gains won by others don't detract from our well-being. On the contrary, improving wages for one group of workers often means improving wages for others.

When employers and employees negotiate - formally through collective bargaining, or informally as individuals - a number of factors determine the outcome. The wages being paid to other workers in the same labour market are an important one of these factors.

Laws that punish the poor or hamstring unions don't make things better for the rest of us, they help depress everyone's wages. That's the "Alberta Advantage" in a nutshell: energy revenues and a low wage economic policy. When it comes to wages, it turns out the "special interest" group that is being kept down is not some faceless union or welfare mob: it's all of us.

The thing Albertans should be asking themselves is this: are we willing to allow this trend to continue? If we don't improve real wages during the boom times, what will happen when we hit an economic downturn?

Alberta is a wealthy province blessed with abundant natural resources and a highly productive workforce. We don't need or deserve government policies that deliberately victimize the poor and hold down wages.

Tom Fuller is a senior researcher with the Alberta Federation of Labour. His new booklet on wage stagnation in Alberta, entitled Running to Stand Still, was released this week.

If you were in Edmonton during the week or two before Christmas you can be forgiven for thinking that some miraculous change had transformed Alberta's political landscape.

The headlines in city papers proclaimed the happy news: a saviour had arisen who would lead the west out from the wilderness. Westerners - and Albertans in particular - would finally enjoy real power at the centre of the Canadian universe! Hallelujah!

The agent of this wonderful change was none other than Anne McLellan - former federal health minister and Liberal MP for Edmonton West. And the occasion for celebration, of course, was the decision by newly-minted Prime Minister Paul Martin to name McLellan as his second-in-command.

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan! And minister of post Sept. 11 overkill ( er& I mean national security) to boot! Cue the trumpets!

You'll forgive me if I don't join the chorus in praise of St. Anne.

You see, I'm one of thousands of left-of-centre Albertans who have watched McLennan's career over the past decade. And to put it bluntly, it has been a huge disappointment.

It wasn't always thus.

I remember back in 1994 when McLellan was making her first bid for election in Edmonton West. Many people who I respect were excited about her campaign.

She's a top professor at the U of A's law faculty, they told me. She's progressive. She's a feminist. She's savvy. Caring. Tough.

I have to admit, it all sounded good at the time. In a province where the forty or so percent of the population that doesn't support the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives is routinely denied representation by the vagaries of our first-past-the-post system, the prospect of electing a "social Liberal" in the Trudeau-Pearson mold was pretty appealing.

Ten years later, there are still some people - many of whom should know better - spouting the "Anne as Progressive" line. The problem is, we're still waiting for evidence.

Anne in Action

Political junkies in Alberta are familiar with McLellan's story. After winning a razor-thin victory in the 1994 general election, McLellan - as one of only a handful of western Liberals - was quickly brought into the Chretein cabinet: first as Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, then as Justice Minister, and most recently as Health Minister.

By virtue of these lofty postings, McLellan became a member of the federal government's inner circle. Despite all the current hoopla about her newest job in the Martin cabinet, the truth is that McLellan has been one of the most powerful and influential Liberals in the country for the past decade. The question is: what did she do with that power? The answer, unfortunately is: not much.

In fact, for all those who believed she would be a beacon of liberal light in a sea of mean-spirited Reform-Alliance darkness, McLellan has proven to be worse than a "do-nothing": she has often ended up supporting the very conservative politicians and policies many people thought she had been elected to oppose.

If you doubt this assessment, let's take a look at her record in three key areas: civil liberties, the environment and health care.

The War on Civil Liberties

Anne McLellan had the dubious honour of being Canada's Justice Minister during the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

At the time, there was tremendous domestic and international pressure on the government to enhance the security of Canadians and make it more difficult for would-be terrorists to operate in the country.

Given this atmosphere, politics dictated that McLellan had to do something in support of the so-called "war on terrorism": the question was, what?

Unfortunately, McLellan opted for legislative changes that lean more towards the American-style heavy-hand than towards traditional Canadian-style moderation.

The two anti-terrorism bills that McLellan produced - Bill C-36 and Bill C-35 - can best be described as draconian. In the eyes of many, the new laws' broad definitions of "terrorism" essentially act to criminalize legitimate dissent. And they profoundly undermine the rights and civil liberties of Canadian citizens - especial those who have the misfortune of sporting Arabic sounding names or who happen to have been born in Middle Eastern countries.

Significantly, it wasn't only progressives and activists who thought McLellan had gone too far. The list of those vehemently opposed to the new anti-terrorism laws also included such established groups as the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the citizen oversight committee for CSIS.

Today, Canada's anti-terrorism is in place - and some observers say it is at least as much of a challenge to civil liberties as the much reviled Patriot Act in the U.S. The question for supporters of Anne McLellan is this: what happened to her vaunted "progressive" values? And when, exactly, did appeasing the current hard-right administration in Washington become more important that preserving the democratic freedoms of ordinary Canadians?

Kyoto Lite

The next item on the list of "Most disappointing moments" for Anne McLellan came during the debate on the Kyoto Accord.

It was the fall of 2002 and Prime Minister Jean Chretein was finally showing some interest in implementing a "social-Liberal" agenda before stepping down. One of the main components of that agenda was, of course, action on global warming through support of the Kyoto Accord.

Poll after poll at the time showed that Canadians overwhelmingly supported the Accord. People understood the issue of global warming and they saw Kyoto as the first step in dealing with the problem.

Even here in Alberta, the majority of people backed Kyoto. In fact, the only two groups of any note that opposed the deal were the Calgary-based energy industry and members of the Klein government.

And who did McLellan side with in this debate? Did she honour the wishes of own constituents? Did she support the position staked out by her own government?

Unfortunately, the answer to these last two questions is 'no.'

Instead of standing behind the Prime Minister who appointed her and fighting for a policy that the majority of Canadians clearly supported, McLellan chose to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Klein government and their patrons in the energy industry.

To make matters worse, McLellan broke ranks just as the Kyoto debate was reaching a crescendo. And she didn't just choose to abstain from the vote on Kyoto implementation. She threatened to resign unless the government essentially exempted the energy industry (one of our countries biggest producers of greenhouse gases) from Kyoto targets.

Eventually, the federal government decided to go ahead with its plans for Kyoto - and McLellan voted in favour of a watered-down version of the bill to implement the deal. However, there can be no doubt that McLellan's intervention took a great deal of wind out of Kyoto's sails.

Most alarmingly, McLellan's views on Kyoto seems to be very similar to the views held by new Prime Minister Paul Martin. With these two in charge, the likelihood of any meaningful action towards reducing the emission of greenhouse gases seems to have been greatly reduced.

Score one for the oil barons.

Medicare's missed opportunity

Anne McLellan's track record on the Kyoto Accord and terrorism is highly questionable - and it certainly earns her a place on the list of "Most Conservative" Liberal cabinet ministers ever. But those are not the things that people are most likely to remember her for. Instead, if she is remembered at all, it will be as the Health Minister who missed the chance to save Medicare.

It was on her watch, after all, that Roy Romanow delivered his sweeping and widely praised report on the future of health care.

After touring the country, examining health systems from around the world and talking to literally thousands of experts and ordinary Canadians, Romanow concluded that Medicare was worth saving. And he said that the best way to save it was by keeping it public.

In many ways, Romanow made it easy for McLellan and our country's ten provincial premiers. He gave them a detailed and workable road map for reform. And, thanks to his tireless touring, he helped build the political momentum to do big things: Canadians overwhelmingly supported his vision and were willing to get behind major reforms.

But did McLellan take advantage of the ideas and the opportunity handed to her by Romanow? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

More than a year has passed since the Romanow report was released and only one of its major recommendations (the creation of a national health council) has been implemented. All the other recommendations - on things like Pharmacare, primary care reform and rural health care - are all but forgotten.

Obviously, the Premiers (especially conservative Premiers like Ralph Klein and B.C.'s Gordon Campbell) have to shoulder much of the blame for the failure of governments to embrace the Romanow roadmap.

But, as the federal Health Minister, Anne McLellan could have played a leadership role. She could have used the wide public support for the Romanow report as a tool to pressure the Premiers into action.

But she did none of that. In fact, it can be argued that McLellan's interventions actually encouraged the Premiers to reject Romanow. For example, she was quoted saying that private delivery of health services might actually make sense - contrary to all the evidence presented in Romanow's report. And she also made a point of praising Alberta's blueprint for health reform - the controversial Mazankowski report - even though it pointed in an entirely opposite direction from Romanow.

Based on her performance, it's not unreasonable to conclude that McLellan never really wanted Romanow's recommendations implemented - even though most other Canadians did. And it's also not a stretch to argue that her policy of benign neglect played a big role in smothering the Romanow baby in its crib.

Better than a Reformer?

Despite McLellan's track record, there are still left-leaning voters in Alberta who will say: better Anne than an Alliance-Conservative candidate. That's the argument that was used to such great effect by McLellan's camp during the federal election when Stockwell Day was used as the boogie-man of choice.

But you know what? Based on her performance over the past few years - and especially her shocking and profoundly disappointing record on health care, the environment and civil liberties - I've become convinced that a back bench Alliance-Conservative MP would actually have been preferable. Why? Because, they likely wouldn't be any more conservative than Anne has been - and, as opposition outsiders, they almost certainly would have done less damage.

In the end, what's the lesson in all this? It's that we should judge politicians on their actions, not on some misty-eyed nostalgia about the past of their party or on the rhetoric of their followers.

By any measure of her actual record, Anne McLellan fails the "progressive" test. She is a (reactionary) wolf in (liberal) sheep's clothing.

Worse than that, her record suggests that the new government under Paul Martin will be one of the most conservative we've seen in Ottawa for years. So brace yourselves everyone - with Paul and Anne in charge we're about to start a rocky ride back to a more conservative future.

Gil McGowan, AFL Executive Staff
January 2004