ALF V1

Re: "WCB to cover volunteer firefighters who get cancer on job; Bill provides same benefits as full-timers get," The Journal, May 11.

The Alberta Federation of Labour welcomes the news that Alberta will extend Workers' Compensation Board coverage to include volunteer firefighters.

These courageous people -whether professional or volunteer -put their lives on the line to protect the lives and property of Albertans. Theirs is a dangerous occupation. They deserve to be protected and are entitled to the same compensation benefits as other workers.

As Employment and Immigration Minister Thomas Lukaszuk says: "At the end of the day this is not about dollars and cents."

One wonders, then, how he can justify continuing to exclude agricultural workers from the same workplace compensation coverage. Theirs, too, is a dangerous occupation. In the nine years the Alberta government has been consulting on how to improve safety for agricultural workers, 160 people have died on farm work sites.

They do important work -putting food on the tables of Albertans. This is the only province that maintains 19th century rules, where farm workers are excluded from occupational health and safety laws, as well as legislation governing hours of work and overtime, statutory holidays, vacation pay, the right to refuse unsafe work, being informed of work-related dangers and compensation if they are injured on the job.

This is not about dollars and cents, it's about doing what's right -that means extending the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workers' Compensation Act to cover paid farm workers.

Gil McGowan, president, Alberta Federation of Labour

Edmonton Journal, Mon May 16 2011

Re: "Justice for firefighters," Editorial, May 12.

The Alberta Federation of Labour welcomes the news that Alberta will extend Workers' Compensation Board coverage to include volunteer firefighters. These courageous people -whether professional or volunteer -put their lives on the line to protect Albertans' lives and property. They deserve to be protected and are entitled to the same compensation benefits as other workers.

As Employment and Immigration Minister Thomas Lukaszuk says: "At the end of the day, this is not about dollars and cents." One wonders, then, how he can justify continuing to exclude agricultural workers from the same workplace compensation coverage. Theirs, too, is a dangerous occupation (in the nine years the Alberta government has been consulting on how to improve safety for agricultural workers, 160 people have died on farm work sites.) They do important work -putting food on the tables of Albertans. This is the only province that maintains 19th-century rules where farm workers are excluded from occupational health and safety laws, as well as legislation governing hours of work and overtime, statutory holidays, vacation pay, the right to refuse unsafe work, and being informed of work-related dangers and compensation if they are injured on the job.

This is about doing what's right. That means extending the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workers' Compensation Act to cover paid farm workers.

Gil McGowan, Edmonton Gil McGowan is president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

Calgary Herald, Mon May 16 2011

But there's another battle brewing closer to home that has more significance for working people in the U.S. and Canada.

It's a fight about democracy and whether North America will continue to have a viable middle class.

The most prominent battleground is Wisconsin, where hardline Republican Governor Scott Walker says it's necessary to strip middle-class, unionized, public-sector workers of their rights to bargain collectively in order to balance his state's books.

The truth is that Walker is using public-sector unions as scapegoats for problems that were caused by years of failed Bush-era policies.

It wasn't teachers or nurses who transformed the U.S. from a powerhouse into the sick man of the world economy.

That feat was accomplished by waves of de-regulation, budget cuts, trade deals and tax give-a-ways to the wealthy - policies that hammered the middle-class, impoverished schools and other vital public services and paved the way for the global financial meltdown.

The emptiness of Walker's arguments became apparent when it was revealed that almost all of his state's $140-million deficit is attributable to a $137-million tax cut given to corporations.

It's important to note that Walker is still calling for an end to union negotiating rights even though the unions have agreed to deep wage and benefit concessions.

So, if public-sector workers are ready to deal, why is Walker so hell-bent on killing unions?

Bankrolled Tea Party

It's because he - and people like the billionaire Koch brothers who bankrolled many Tea Party campaigns -understand something important about unions.

They understand unions are one of the last counter-balances to unbridled corporate power and conservative political dominance.

That's why Walker isn't backing down - he wants to use his manufactured budget crisis to stack the deck even more dramatically in favour of conservatives.

The good news is that most Americans understand that working people - union and non-union alike - need unions to protect the middle-class lifestyle that millions feel slipping away.

Despite massive and distorted coverage from media outlets like Fox News, a recent New York Times/CBS poll revealed that Americans oppose weakening union bargaining rights by a margin of nearly two to one (60% to 33%).

What does all of this have to do with Canada and Alberta?

In the past two weeks, the Sun and other major news outlets have published columns echoing the Tea Party attack on unions.

More ominously, the Tea Party's biggest funders, the Koch brothers, have significant interests in Alberta.

They are responsible for receiving and handling about 25% of the oilsands crude sent to the U.S. and they own Calgary-based Flint Hills Resources Canada.

Don't expect these guys to stay out of our politics.

In fact, they may already be funding the Wildrose Alliance and Tory leadership candidates (we can't know for sure because both parties refuse to reveal their donors).

War moving north

So, be prepared for the war on unions and the middle class to move north.

But rest assured, Canadian unions will be ready.

We'll make the case for quality public services. We'll defend decent jobs.

We'll remind the powers-that-be that, in Alberta, the only reason we have a deficit is because of massive and unjustified giveaways to hugely profitable energy companies.

In the battle to preserve Canada's middle class, Canadian unions will (as always) stand on guard for thee.

Calgary Sun, Thurs Mar 3 2011
London Free Press, Tues Mar 8 2011
Byline: Gil McGowan

Yaffe quotes former Reform MP Herb Grubel, who wants to deprive public servants of the right to strike. Wow!

The most recent example of someone trying to stop public servants from striking was Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. Nice company you're keeping. The right to collective bargaining and collective action is fundamental to democracy -and is largely responsible for all those things we enjoy, like 40-hour work weeks, statutory holidays, benefits and a strong economy fuelled by a strong middle class.

Next, Yaffe complains about the rate of pay increases for unionized public-sector workers between 1998 and 2009. Missing are figures for the previous decade, which saw a massive attack on the wages and jobs of public servants.

Then, the column blames bureaucrat raises for a large part of the federal deficit, but fails to point out the effect of massive tax cuts handed to corporations making billions and, in Alberta, to wealthy individuals making millions. If you really want to balance the books, try restoring taxation levels so everybody pays their fair share.

Albertans and Canadians have said time and time again that they want quality public services and are prepared to pay for them in the way of taxes. The alternative is privatizing services, which will result in an unacceptable decline in quality as corporations cut corners to improve bottom lines.

Edmonton Journal, Mon Feb 28 2011
Byline: Gil McGowan

Yaffe quotes former Reform MP Herb Grubel, who wants to deprive public servants of the right to strike. Wow! The most recent example of someone trying to stop public servants from striking was Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. Nice company you're keeping.

The right to collective bargaining and collective action is fundamental to democracy -and is largely responsible for all those things we enjoy, such as 40hour workweeks, statutory holidays, benefits and a strong economy fuelled by a strong middle class.

Next, Yaffe complains about the rate of pay increases for unionized public-sector workers between 1998 and 2009. Missing are figures for the previous decade, which saw a massive attack on the wages and jobs of public servants.

Then, the column blames bureaucrat raises for a large part of the federal deficit, but fails to point out the effect of massive tax cuts handed to corporations making billions and, in Alberta, to wealthy individuals making millions. If you really want to balance the books, try restoring taxation levels so everybody pays their fair share.

Albertans and Canadians have said time and time again that they want quality public services and are prepared to pay for them in the way of taxes. The alternative is privatizing services, which will result in an unacceptable decline in quality as corporations cut corners to improve bottom lines.

Edmonton Journal, Wed Feb 23 2011
Calgary Herald, Wed Feb 23 2011
Gil McGowan
Gil McGowan is president of the Alberta Federation of Labour

These seemingly disparate groups have raised $97,000 to build an outdoor hockey rink for the Lubicon Cree, a community of about 500 in Little Buffalo, a six-hour drive north of Edmonton.

Despite living in a wealthy province in a wealthy country, amid the operations of oil and gas companies making mega profits, they live in Third World conditions. Many homes lack running water or indoor toilets. There is no grocery store, no gas station, no health facility and no recreation facilities.

Why, you might ask, is everyone -- the provincial government, the federal government and private corporations -- able to make money from oil and gas operations on Lubicon territory, while the band members themselves are left with next to nothing?

This journey has taken more than 100 years, beginning with the Treaty 8 negotiators failing to include the Lubicon in 1899. It was followed by decades of foot-dragging and underhanded negotiating tactics by federal authorities. No progress has been made since the Lubicon were recognized as a distinct society with land rights in 1939. Attempts to negotiate a reserve have been met with delays and disappointments.

Independent, unbiased voices, including Amnesty International, have backed the Lubicon's calls for justice, to no avail. In 1986, after an 18-month inquiry, Judge Davie Fulton filed a report that supported the Lubicon. The Alberta government refused to discuss his recommendations and he was fired by the federal government.

In 1990, the United Nations found Canada in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights over its treatment of the Lubicon people. In 2005, the UN urged the Canadian government to resume negotiations with the Lubicon and find a solution.

Meanwhile, resource extraction in the area continued and by 2009 there were more than 2,000 oil and gas installations in Lubicon territory, leaving band members to deal with the downside of industrial operations -- declining moose population, scarce food supplies, less income from trapping and greater dependence on welfare -- while enjoying none of the benefits of increased income from operations on their land.

But today's story is not about gloom and doom. Despite the seemingly overwhelming issues faced by the Lubicon, they have found allies willing to come together to make a difference to the lives of band members. Operation Hockey was launched in July 2010 by the Human Rights and International Solidarity Committee of the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) and Amnesty International, to raise funds to build an outdoor hockey rink. This project was chosen because young band members said they needed somewhere to get together to spend time in a positive atmosphere.

Since then, unions (including the United Nurses of Alberta, the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees 3911, United Food and Commercial Workers 401 and 1118, Canadian Union of Postal Workers Edmonton and Calgary, the Health Sciences Association of Alberta, the Canadian Office & Professional Employees Union 458 and the AFL) have kicked in $58,000 toward the cost of the rink. Employers (including Harvest Operations Corp., Outsource Seismic, CCS Corporation, Roy Northern Land, Arsenal Energy Inc., Devon Standard, Triple K Trucking, Hi-Tech Reclamation, Norab Contracting and C-Six Water Hauling) added $39,000.

The band donated the land for the rink, played a vital role in fundraising, and band members have been involved in doing as much of the work themselves as possible, to make it more affordable.

Yesterday, the varying players involved in Operation Hockey celebrated by lacing up their skates and taking to the ice in a game against young band members on the newly minted rink. What better evidence can there be that seemingly disparate groups can work together in a just cause?

The project is not over yet. Another $70,000 needs to be raised to complete the rink. But the people involved in Operation Hockey are confident that this work will be completed.

Having proved what can be done when determined people work together, it is way past time for the federal and provincial governments to get their skates on and do the right thing -- negotiate a fair and just deal for these Albertans. It is time to end more than a century of injustice.

Christina Doktor is a member of the United Nurses of Alberta and is chair of the Alberta Federation of Labour Human Rights and International Solidarity Committee.

This is someone's livelihood and it's best to proceed with caution and with clear process. That's where unions -- and negotiated collective agreements -- can be a real benefit to an employer, as well as offering real protection to workers.

This issue has come to media attention recently concerning the case of Edmontonian Maia Soukonnik, who was killed by her mentally disturbed adult son in 2008. She had called 911, but the call was lost and the dispatcher may not have followed up. The dispatcher was dismissed and the Edmonton Police Association has filed a grievance against the dismissal. The issue will now go to an arbitration panel.

Any potential job dismissal will likely have boss and worker on edge, acting and reacting emotionally, with feelings sometimes overwhelming logic.

A case with tragic overtones such as this one is a perfect example and will also include outside observers and the public in those sentiments.

This is exactly why unions and employers work so hard to craft precise and clear terms, agreed upon by both sides at a time when heads are clear and emotions are calm. These policies act as a map through a minefield that allows the correct decision to be made.

The usual language in collective agreements concerning dismissal is that it must be for "just cause." It's a simple enough concept. Did the worker do something worthy of losing his job? Is dismissal justified?

A recent article by lawyer Howard Levitt in The Journal's Working section said that the "just-clause" requirement is one way unions erode employer control over the workplace.

This is far from the truth and it is disturbing to see a lawyer practising in the field so misrepresent the principle.

The just-cause element of collective agreements simply spells out the test to ensure that the employer's decision to terminate the worker is justified -- that it is a fair and reasonable response to what has happened. An employer who wants to be fair will welcome this.

If these conditions are met, the employer can relax in the knowledge that a difficult decision has been taken cautiously and that it was the right decision, not one based on anger or fear.

Employees, meanwhile, know that with this kind of process in place, they do not face the prospect of being unjustly fired and that they and their co-workers will be treated fairly.

The rigour applied to the process allows employer and employees to establish what really happened and in certain cases make changes to policy or procedures to avoid similar situations in the future. Instead of a war zone, a calm process allows for a successful resolution.

Unions are stakeholders in the workplace. They make sure that terms and conditions of employment reflect the needs and desires of the workers. They help workers feel secure and appreciated. A happy worker is, after all, a productive worker. A contract that reflects their needs encourages employees to apply and to stay put. Smart employers will recognize this and work with their unions.

Levitt's suggestion, to record all minor workplace errors, even for mistakes that may be fairly common, and his claim that workers would lie and that their unions would encourage such a thing creates a war-zone mentality.

Modern labour-relations policies recognize that these approaches are likely to create a toxic and unproductive workplace atmosphere and make having a union painful for the employer.

Levitt's advice to employers is to make the union and employees their enemy.

Although that might be good for his business, I suggest it isn't good for employers, their employees or their businesses.

Nancy Furlong is secretary-treasurer of the Alberta Federation of Labour and has been a full-time labour-relations professional since 1980. She has spent many years presenting arbitrations on behalf of unions in the Alberta labour relations community.

Edmonton Journal, Wed Jan 19 2011
Byline: Nancy Furlong

Finance ministers from across the country will gather in Kananaskis to discuss whether to expand the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) to address a looming crisis in retirement income.

If CPP is expanded to provide a more stable foundation for retirement security in Canada, it would represent one of our country's most important social policy changes since the introduction of medicare.

It would also be a timely Christmas present for the millions of Canadians who worry about their retirement savings and who have been badly burned by RRSPs and mutual funds.

The big question is this: will the nine provincial finance ministers who support CPP expansion find the courage to make a deal in the public's best interest?

Or will they give in to pressure from Alberta Finance Minister Ted Morton, who, for ideological reasons, has always opposed CPP expansion, and his new ally in opposition, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who recently withdrew his support for CPP expansion as a result of pressure from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the private investment industry?

Morton has been all over the media lately trying to downplay the need for change.

He has, for example, been trying to draw attention away from facts like these:

• That even here in wealthy Alberta, half of current seniors have no individual savings at all (that's right . . . zero)
• That only 35 per cent of working Albertans are covered by a workplace pension (and the number is falling each year)
• That only 38 per cent of Albertans made RRSP contributions in 2008 and the average contribution was just $3,200 (hardly enough to build a retirement nest egg).
• That the average fees charged by mutual funds are five times higher than the fees charged by CPP and can eat up between 40 and 60 per cent of an individual's investment earnings (no, that's not a typo)
• That CPP is financially sound and fully portable between jobs . . . but only provides maximum annual benefits of about $11,000 per year (with the average annual payout being only $6,000)

In addition to ignoring the scope of the problem, Morton has also been sowing confusion about what CPP expansion really means.

In particular, he has been deliberately leaving the impression that CPP is a "social program" financed by taxpayers - the implication being that an expanded CPP would be a reward to those who didn't have the foresight to save for themselves, paid for by those who did.

Nothing could be further from the truth. CPP is not a tax-funded program. It is financed by matched contributions from workers and employers.

An expanded CPP would simply mean that workers and employers would be required to put a little more into the system today so that Canadians could get bigger retirement benefits in the future.

In other words, an expanded CPP would provide better opportunities for Canadians to save for themselves (which, by the way, would have the effect of making them less reliant on tax-funded programs).

So, why are Morton and Flaherty opposed to helping Canadians save for themselves?

Sadly, the answer to that question can be boiled down to ideology and self-interest.

Ideologically, Morton is a right-winger who prefers policy solutions that help businessmen put profits in their pockets.

Flaherty is not nearly as rabidly ideological as Morton, but the federal Conservatives are close to Canada's banking and financial industry which has been waging an aggressive lobbying campaign against CPP expansion.

The industry fears that if Canadians are able to invest more of their money through CPP then they'll put less money into things like private mutual funds.

And reduced investment in mutual funds would mean fewer bonuses and fewer and BMWs for bankers and mutual fund managers (heaven forbid!)

The fact that Flaherty has allowed himself to be swayed by the ideology of Morton and the self-interest of the banking community is more than a disappointment - it's a betrayal.

Instead of supporting CPP expansion, Flaherty is now peddling a proposal for "pooled funds," which sounds suspiciously like a plan recently floated by the banking industry. These funds would (surprise, surprise) be run by banks, insurance companies and the mutual fund industry (for a reasonable fee, of course).

Unlike CPP, these new funds would not provide a guaranteed benefit, employers would not be required to make matching contributions (meaning most of them wouldn't) and they would be run by the same private players who have been underperforming and overcharging Canadians for decades.

In other words, these funds would be nothing more than glorified RRSPs - and we've seen how well that's worked for middle-class Canadians.

So, as our finance ministers head into their pivotal meeting in Kananskis, the battle lines have been clearly drawn.

On one side we have Morton, Harper and the banks. On the other side we have nine provinces, dozens of policy experts who endorse CPP expansion and the overwhelming weight of public opinion.

Clearly, the "noble nine" will have to fight hard to put the idea of CPP expansion back on the table as the preferred option.

If they don't, we could end up repeating the scenario that unfolded in 1979 when similar proposals for CPP expansion were scuttled by united opposition from conservative governments in Alberta and Ontario, supported behind the scenes by the big banks and mutual fund companies.

Will Canada's finance ministers stand up and do the right thing this weekend? For the sake of future generations of Canadians, let's hope they decide to make history.

Calgary Herald, Sun Dec 19 2010
Byline: Gil McGowan

Finance ministers from across the country will gather in Kananaskis to discuss whether or not to expand the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) to address a looming crisis in retirement income.

If CPP is expanded to provide a more stable foundation for retirement security in Canada, it would represent one of our country's most important social policy changes since the introduction of Medicare.

It would also be a timely Christmas present for the millions of Canadians who worry about their retirement savings and who have been burned by RRSPs and mutual funds.

The big question is this: will the nine provincial finance ministers who support CPP expansion find the courage to make a deal in the public's best interest?

Or will they give in to pressure from Alberta Finance Minister Ted Morton -- who, for ideological reasons, has always opposed CPP expansion -- and his new ally in opposition, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who recently withdrew his support for CPP expansion as a result of pressure from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the private investment industry?

Morton has been all over the media lately trying to downplay the need for change.

He has, for example, been trying to draw attention away from facts like these:

- -That even here in wealthy Alberta, half of current seniors have no individual savings at all (that's right ... zero),

- -That only 35 per cent of working Albertans are covered by a workplace pension (and the number is falling each year),

- -That only 38 per cent of Albertans made RRSP contribu-tions in 2008 and the average contribution was just $3,200 (hardly enough to build a retirement nest egg),

- -That the average fees charged by mutual funds are five times higher than the fees charged by CPP and can eat up between 40 and 60 per cent of an individual's investment earnings (no, that's not a typo), and

- -That CPP is financially sound and fully portable between jobs ... but only provides maximum annual benefits of about $11,000 per year (with the average annual payout being only $6,000),

In addition to ignoring the scope of the problem, Morton has also been sowing confusion about what CPP expansion really means.

In particular, he has been deliberately leaving the impression that CPP is a "social program" financed by taxpayers -- the implication being that an expanded CPP would be a reward to those who didn't have the foresight to save for themselves, paid for by those who did.

Nothing could be further from the truth. CPP is not a tax-funded program. It is financed by matched contributions from workers and employers.

An expanded CPP would simply mean that workers and employers would be required to put a little more into the system today so that the employees in question could get bigger retirement benefits in the future.

Helping Canadians save for themselves

In other words, an expanded CPP would provide better opportunities for Canadians to save for themselves (which, by the way, would have the effect of making them less reliant on tax-funded programs).

So, why are Ted Morton and, more recently, Jim Flaherty opposed to helping Canadians save for themselves?

Sadly, the answer to that question can be boiled down to ideology and self-interest.

Ideologically, Morton is a right-winger who prefers policy solutions that help businessmen put profits in their pockets.

Flaherty is not nearly as ideological -- but the federal Conservatives are close to Canada's banking and financial industry which has been waging an aggressive lobbying campaign against CPP expansion.

The industry fears that if Canadians are able to invest more of their money through CPP then they'll put less money into things like private mutual funds.

And reduced investment in mutual funds would mean fewer bonuses and fewer and BMWs for bankers and mutual fund managers (heaven forbid!)

The fact that Flaherty has allowed himself to be swayed by Morton and the banking community is more than a disappointment -- it's a betrayal.

Instead of supporting CPP expansion, Flaherty is now peddling a proposal for "pooled funds" which sounds suspiciously like a plan recently floated by the banking industry. These funds would (surprise, surprise) by run by banks, insurance companies and the mutual fund industry (for a reasonable fee, of course).

Unlike CPP, these new funds would not provide a guaranteed benefit, and employers would not be required to make matching contributions (meaning most of them wouldn't).

In other words, these funds would be nothing more than glorified RRSPs -- and we've seen how well that's worked for middle-class Canadians.

'Noble nine' face tough fight

So, as our finance ministers head into their pivotal meeting in Kananaskis, the battle lines have been clearly drawn.

On one side we have Morton, Harper and the banks. On the other side we have nine provinces, dozens of policy experts who endorse CPP expansion and the overwhelming weight of public opinion.

Clearly, the "noble nine" will have to fight hard to put the idea of CPP expansion back on the table as the preferred option.

If they don't, we could end up repeating the scenario that unfolded in 1979 when similar proposals for CPP expansion were scuttled by united opposition from conservative governments in Alberta and Ontario -- supported behind the scenes by the big banks and mutual-fund companies.

Will Canada's finance ministers stand up and do the right thing this weekend? For the sake of future generations of Canadians, let's hope they decide to make history.

Edmonton Journal, Sat Dec 18 2010
Byline: Gil McGowan

Labour Day has marked the contribution of the labour movement to Canadian society for almost as long as there has been a Canada.

Thanks to pressure from unions and others, most Canadians now enjoy eight-hour work days and 40-hour work weeks, weekends off, vacations, overtime pay, benefits, pensions and public health care.

The labour movement's role in creating a well-paid middle class is undeniable, as are the benefits it brings to our society. A large chunk of the population earning enough money to fuel the economy and pay taxes is a good thing.

But while we, in the labour movement, are happy to do our bit on taxes, it is disconcerting to note this Labour Day that the Alberta government is giving away billions of tax dollars.

This year the province will allow $2 billion to be wasted that would pay for extra health care and other vital public services. How? It is the consequence of tax cuts for large corporations implemented by the provincial government. Those tax cuts mean U.S. corporations operating in Alberta will pay $2 billion this year in taxes to the U.S. government.

Alberta charges a corporate tax rate of only 10 per cent for large corporations, by far the lowest in Canada. The federal government recently lowered its corporate rate to 15 per cent. Our combined corporate tax rate is 25 per cent, compared to 35 per cent in the United States.

But American companies don't benefit when Canadian rates are cut. U.S. tax rules stipulate that corporations have to pay a total of 35 per cent. Whatever is charged in Canada goes to the Canadian federal and provincial governments, and the difference between the Canadian and U.S. rates goes to the treasury in Washington.

So, Alberta takes its share (10 per cent), Ottawa takes its share (15 per cent), and the U.S. takes 10 per cent, to bring the total to 35 per cent.

Last year, that 10-per-cent difference flowing from U.S. corporations operating in Alberta was $2 billion. Alberta could double its rate and keep that $2 billion here and the bottom lines of those U.S. companies would remain the same.

We could get $2 billion more for public services without paying any more in taxes. We would just stop giving it to our U.S. neighbours.

The $2-billion giveaway is part of a larger pattern of tax madness in Alberta. We have the lowest personal income tax rate for the very wealthy, but among the highest tax rates for the lowest-income workers. Alberta is one of the only provinces to not charge a tax on financial institutions, but our small business rate is higher than many other jurisdictions.

Because some tax rates are far too low, we rely on unsustainable oil and gas royalty revenue to fund our programs. That's why the recent economic downturn has left so many Albertans scratching their heads. In a province blessed with the world's most sought-after natural resources, a highly educated workforce and one of the most sustained economic booms in history, it took only one global blip in the markets and our provincial cupboard was bare.

This instability is due to a tax system that does not work for the long-term health and prosperity of Albertans. We are not saving for the future. We take money from the investment gains of the Heritage Trust Fund and spend it. We have little capacity to weather changes in oil and gas prices. And we have no plan for a post-fossil-fuel economy. Some economists fear a double-dip recession is on the horizon. This makes it vital for the government to fix our broken revenue system now.

We can start to fix the system by acknowledging that while the Americans may be our closest friends, sending them $2 billion they haven't even asked for isn't being a good neighbour, it's being a fool.

And, you know what they say about a fool and his money ...

Edmonton Journal/Calgary Herald
Byline: Gil McGowan