I Survived A Secondary Suite...

Some might consider me a survivor. Others might have called me the scourge of West Lethbridge. I was young and wasn't really paying attention. I was just happy to have somewhere to live. To the surprise of some, I spent a year at the University of Lethbridge in hopes of getting into accounting. I'm relatively good with numbers and I took every high school accounting class I could, so it only seemed logical. So during that year, I needed a place to live (my first away from the farm). It didn't take me long to find a place. Found it on Temple Boulevard. Nice middle-aged man had the house to himself and was looking to rent out the basement. I suppose it wasn't a FULL secondary suite as I didn't have my own kitchen, but everything else was my own. Entrance, bathroom, bedroom and even a parking spot connected to the back alley. He was a Christian chap, so I tried to mind my P's and Q's and didn't have parties or anything. My place was basically to sleep in anyways, as I was a full-time student with a part-time job (and as it turned out, volunteering at the university radio station took up the rest of my time). As I've watched the on-going battle over secondary suites in Calgary, I can't help but look back on my days in my old place and wonder if someone is missing out on an opportunity that I had. The debate has been heated on both sides, with those against claiming it will ruin their communities, with everything from a lack of parking to an influx of drugs and prostitutes (that was actually one argument made). Those for the suites say nothing will really change as most of the suites are already in place, they're just considered "illegal" unless the owner has gotten the proper permits, etc. What I have found interesting in this whole debate is that it feels like an "us vs. them" argument again, but someone is missing in this whole equation: the homeowner/landlord. I was lucky in that Gerry (I think that was his name, it's been a few years hahaha!) was an upstanding guy. He actually lived in the place, cut his grass, checked in on me. He was the opposite of a "slumlord." Maybe I'm being too much of an optimist here, but is it possible that most who are anti-secondary suite aren't actually opposed to the renters, but they're opposed to the idea that there will be homeowners who will rent out every single room in their home without actually checking in, only there to rake in the profits? Hate to burst any bubbles here, but I saw it when I first moved to Calgary. I went to a place in Inglewood where the owner showed me a room (Room #4 with an actual number on the door). It was one of six or eight rooms (can't remember) being rented. The room would have fit a bed and a dresser. That's it. You shared everything else. Needless to say, I didn't move in there. It really feels like this whole argument is over something that no one has been able to actually eloquently address. It's about the homeowner/landlords. The renters want something resembling choice (aka affordable) and a safe place to live, while residents want their community to remain safe and everyone to be responsible. They want to be able to trust their neighbours, yet they don't. So instead of having to deal with it later (aka those "personal interactions" we all seem to deplore), they're being proactive and saying "no" outright. It's "nothing personal" for the potential renters, it's just there's that possibility that a bad apple could move in and they don't want that. And really, no one does. But therein lies the problem. There are bad apples in every single group involved in these debates. The majority of renters are just simply looking for a place to live. The majority of potential landlords are mindful of their community but might also need some income, or wouldn't mind having someone in the house, or they feel they can help ease the housing crunch a bit. I'd also like to think the majority of communities are welcoming to the idea of legalizing secondary suites as they realize it will have little to no impact, especially if the first two groups are good apples. Unfortunately, this is kind of like the debate over policing the Red Mile during the Calgary Flames playoff run. Police say the vast majority of revelers are good. But there are the few they need to keep a watchful eye on. The "bad apples" who ruin it for everyone else. There's a difference between the two though. Police are letting the Red Mile party continue while they weed out the bad apples, while the Secondary Suite party was shut down before it even started. And the good apples are being left with a court summons even though they didn't do anything wrong. By no means am I saying that concerns on either side of the argument are misguided. I just hope to add a little insight into the back-and-forth, and that everyone keeps an open mind.

OFF-BEAT: Best Tunes of All-Time

I was compiling a list of my favorite tunes of all-time (for an upcoming roadtrip) and it got me thinking about what my top tunes would be.  For anyone who knows me, trying to break that down is like picking a favorite child.  I own a LOT of music, both CDs and through iTunes.  It's almost unhealthy (it's better than drugs, right mom?)  Anyways, I think I've narrowed down the list to my Top 11 Tunes of All-Time.  (11 was my football number, for those who weren't at that post-game party 15 years ago).  Let the countdown BEGIN!

#11. Papa Roach - Do or Die
One of those gems that you find at the end of an album.  This is off the "Getting Away With Murder" album and I've always gravitated to songs with a positive life message (you'll get that feeling through this countdown).  "It's never too late / To live your life / The time is now / It's do or die" is pretty awesome.  The beat gets your foot tappin' and it's definitely one of those songs that makes you wanna drive 180 down the highway (but I don't because I'm a law-abiding citizen).  Enjoy!



#10. Matchbox Twenty - Bright Lights
Now to go to the polar-opposite of "Do or Die".  "More Than You Think You Are" was an album that came out while I was starting university and remember listening to this song, thinking I wasn't going to be able to handle life in the "big city" (yes it was Lethbridge but for me, that was the big city).  Plus I'm a sucker for good piano and a sing-along chorus.  Check and check!



#9. Black Stone Cherry - Remember Me
I could technically plunk almost any BSC song in here and I'd be okay with it.  This is one of my favorite bands of all-time and, while this is a fairly new tune, it's quickly become of my favorites.  A sing-along chorus (which I can actually sing along with thanks to my deep voice), crunchy guitars and a breakdown near the end (after the last chorus) that gets you rockin'.  Southern rock at its best.



"A Little More Off-Beat"
Just to give you a bit of a breather, I should be clear that there are a ton of other songs I love.  For example, I have a playlist on my iPod called "Chillout Mix", which are tunes that I can pretty much always fall asleep to.  And there are some songs that I think would shock a few people that I even own.  For example: Chantel Kreviazuk's "Imaginery Friend", Dave Matthews Band's "Crash Into Me" and Doc Walker's "Beautiful Life".  All are wonderful tunes that I recommend if you're looking for something to relax with.

#8. Shinedown - In Memory
A few people would probably be surprised that this band isn't higher up on the list.  Again, another band I could pick any song from and would be okay with it.  This is off their first album "Leave A Whisper" and no one really knows it.  I have no idea why, but when Brent Smith sings "Because I can't wait for you / To catch up with me / And I can't live in the past / And drown myself in memories", it makes my spine tingle.



#7. Meatloaf - I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)
This might surprise a few people, but I believe Meatloaf is one of the best singers of his generation.  Plus rock operas are awesome.  And this song screams exactly that.  I remember listening to this song on my Walkman going out to Christmas in Queenstown, singing along.  Totally forgot everyone else wasn't listening to my music.  But I didn't care.  And how this song goes from quiet to a full-blown orchestral bombardment of music: epic!



#6. Our Lady Peace - Right Behind You
I had to get some Canadian content in here.  Okay, that's a lie.  Going back to that theme of songs that inspire me with positive life messages, this is it.  "No matter what you say / No matter what you do / No matter what I'm always / I'm right there behind you" is like a mission statement from me to the people I hold close to my heart.



#5. Alter Bridge - One Day Remains
Talk about driving tunes, this is another one of 'em.  Off their debut album, 3 members of Creed along with Myles Kennedy formed a bond that became one of my favorite bands of all-time.  They have failed to disappoint me.  And again, the lyrical content in the chorus is what draws me to this song.  "Because I see in you / More than you'll ever know / And I ask you why / You question the strength inside / And you need to know / How it feels to be alive" is powerful in my mind.



"More Off-Beat Ramblings"
Just breaking things up again.  Before we went with chillout tunes.  And now we go with the "punch a hole in the wall" tunes.  My tastes can get pretty heavy.  I'm not a black metal guy, but I do like a good heavy tune.  I have the standards like Metallica, Pantera and Godsmack (among many others).  Slipknot's "Spit It Out" comes to mind (I would never get myself into a moshpit with them on stage though).  Trivium's "Strife" and Killswitch Engage's "My Curse" get me going as well.

#4. Badfinger - Baby Blue
This one might stick out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of these songs.  I remember seeing something about this, written in my baby book that my parents put together and it seems to me the writing was my dad's.  I don't remember the story behind the song, but I do know the Badfinger greatest hits album was one of the first CD's we ever owned as a family and I always gravitated to this song.  I think of my dad every time I hear this song.  So how can I not like it?



#3. Collective Soul - Under Heaven's Skies
Another one of those bands that I could pick any tune from and it'd be awesome.  The "Youth" album is still one of my favorites, as it's solid from front to back.  It's not a typical rock song, but it doesn't matter what mood I'm in, it always seems to put a smile on my face.  And it's extra big when you have a live version like this one, with an orchestra.  Everything is better with an orchestra.



#2. Pearl Jam - Betterman
I'm gonna take a lot of flack for this but I was never really a big Pearl Jam fan until I saw them live.  Newfound appreciation for them.  I still rank this song as one of my top five "saw in concert" moments.  It was in Rexall Place and when they started playing this song, the lighters went up, lit the whole place up, then the crowd started singing.  It made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.  It was insane.



And finally...

#1. Foo Fighters - Everlong
No one should be surprised that this song is at the top of my list.  This is my favorite band.  This was the first song I taught myself how to play on guitar.  It's the perfect rock song and the title is kind of appropriate given how you want it to be everlong.  I'm not ashamed to admit that I shed a tear seeing this song played live and probably will in August.  Because it just makes me so happy.  Doesn't matter the mood I'm in, the Foo Fighters make me smile.



As it turns out, I have something in common with David Letterman, as two of his last guests happened to be Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam and the Foo Fighters.

Anyways, thanks for tuning in and we'll be back to our regular-scheduled politics and other random ramblings next time!

What Did We Just Do?

We've had a few days to soak in what we've just done in Alberta.  We voted in a majority NDP government.  That's correct.  "Redneck Alberta" went off the rails and went with a non-PC government for the first time since 1971.  I've known nothing but PC governments my entire life.  It was certainly something few people thought was possible.  But here we are.  And, as usual, here's a few random thoughts I've had over the last few days when it comes to the 2015 election.

#1. Who did we vote for?
It sounds like a weird question, but let me put it another way: did Albertans vote for the NDP or did they vote against the PCs?  I'm sure it's a combination of the two, but I know many people who simply said they were done with the PCs and a change was needed, regardless of whether it was the NDP or the Wildrose.  What it also feels like is that there's still a lot of uncertainty when it comes to Wildrose in the cities (have they really gotten rid of their "Lake of Fire" connections?) while the NDP doesn't have many fans in the rural areas (they hate unions, etc).  Which begs another interesting question: which party will be able to galvanize both urban and rural Albertans, or is it even possible?  As a sub-plot to the "who did we vote for" question, what will Rachel Notley's cabinet look like?  There's a lot of new blood in there.  That doesn't mean they're not capable.  That just means that they are going to have to rely on advisors and other government officials who are already sitting in the legislature to get up to speed, and fast.  They have to build a budget and keep things in Alberta rolling.  Because with the low price of oil, no one wants a government to do nothing while they learn the ropes.

#2. Calgary Foothills
You have to feel for the people of Calgary Foothills.  They went to the polls last October in a byelection and voted for the PC's Jim Prentice.  Then they were forced back to the polls in the general election and again, voted for Prentice.  Then he took his ball and went home after the loss, forcing constituents into another eventual byelection.  Rightfully so, those residents are not happy campers.  That being said, I'm really interested to see how each party handles that byelection.  The NDP finished second in that race, while the Wildrose would love to make some headway in the city somehow.  I'm curious if the NDP runs an "all-star candidate" with plenty of connections to the oil industry, in hopes of electing an eventual energy minister and maybe winning over some of the naysayers who believe the industry is dead with an NDP government.  The Wildrose would probably love to find a candidate well-loved in Calgary who could be viewed as trustworthy and can show just how far the party has come.  I'm not sure what the PC's do there.  But they might have bigger fish to fry, like finding a leader.

#3. Education and health care
The NDP has a pretty daunting task ahead of it.  There are a lot of issues left behind by a party that at one point had gotten rid of deficits and debt, but failed to build infrastructure before or during a boom, and is now playing catchup.  The one worry everyone should have is that if the economy continues to struggle, will people start to leave?  And if they do, are we building all of these new schools and infrastructure for no reason?  On top of that, the NDP made plenty of campaign promises which they will be expected to deliver on.  They're not going to be able to change things overnight, but I do believe that the two most important portfolios they need to address are health care and education.  If they can get wait times in hospitals back to respectable levels and clear up all of the issues surrounding "fat" in the system, they'll turn some heads.  Same with education.  If they can address the space shortage and deliver on getting some sort of funding formula put together for boards, they will win over a lot of detractors.  I know parties aren't supposed to be focusing on the next election, especially after just winning one, but if they clear up some of the mess in those two portfolios, it'll be hard for a lot of Albertans to not re-elect them in four years.

#4. What happens to the PCs, Liberals and Alberta Party?
I'm really curious what happens with all three parties.  Plenty of prognosticators are already making predictions about the demise of the PCs, much like the Social Credit after '71.  I think it might be too soon to write them off, but they have a daunting task ahead of them.  After Ralph Klein, it was kind of expected that Jim Dinning would be the poster boy for the party, but he was beaten by Ed Stelmach in the party's leadership way back when, and that set off a wild chain events that I think wrapped up last Tuesday.  The party has always had a "next one" and I'm not sure if they have that right now.  Is there an all-star leadership hopeful coming down the line?  The key for the party over the next couple of years is to search for that person that can bring the electorate back to centre-right, and potentially unite Albertans, both urban and rural.  At one point during the leadership race that was won by Alison Redford, I thought that person was Doug Griffiths (young, new ideas, well-spoken).  Do they have that person waiting in the wings?  I've thought Manmeet Bhullar, who has handled a number of key portfolios, could be that person.  Maybe they need to find someone outside the party, who can claim that they're coming at it with a clean slate.  I'm not sure.  But that'll be their focus for the foreseeable future.  As for the Liberals, they have just one MLA left (interim leader David Swann).  Do they keep him on as leader or do they have a new leader not sit in the legislature?  Does this re-open talks of joining another party?  Maybe he jumps ship to another party and the Liberals disappear?  It's a bizarre time for that party.  And then there's the Alberta Party.  They have their first MLA in Greg Clark in Calgary Elbow.  This could be an important turning point for the party.  Could an MLA or two cross the floor to join them, much like Rob Anderson and Heather Forsyth did when they went to the Wildrose after Paul Hinman won the Calgary Glenmore byelection a few years back?  And if they go from a "one-member caucus" to a three- or four-member caucus, does that make the Alberta Party the true centrist party and make life even harder for the PCs?

#5. Self-fulfilling prophecies
There's been a lot of doom and gloom about the NDP taking over in Alberta.  People are threatening to leave.  They're saying "haven't you seen what they did in other provinces?"  While it's hard to ignore their points, there's also a part of me that has to ask "what if this is different?"  What if this NDP government (which I think is closer to centre than some of the other examples) is ready to listen to all stakeholders and steer this province back in the right direction, and is more transparent and realistic than other parties?  What if things actually end up better in this province?  There's also been a lot of attention drawn to the individual candidates.  There's a movement abound to get rid of one candidate for questionable pictures on Facebook.  Should they have been posted by a soon-to-be politician (or at least someone contemplating public office)?  Probably not.  But you know what else shouldn't be done while in public office?  How about soliciting prostitutes?  Or flipping the bird on camera like Ralph Klein did?  And then there's the whole "they don't know how to run a multi-billion dollar business" side, as some will argue.  I hope these people realize that there are people in the legislature that will help with the learning curve.  Will they make mistakes?  Sure.  You know what I hope happens though?  I hope that this new set of politicians will own their mistakes and apologize when they're made.  Because there was a previous crop of politicians that never apologized for a no-meet committee, a SkyPalace, government plane debacles and much, much more.

I'm not advocating for the NDP or any other party for that matter.  I'm just saying I'm not going to wave the white flag before they've had a day in office.  Maybe I'm too much of an optimist.  But some people are already thinking of giving up before the game's even started.  The NDP has an opportunity to prove that they're different from others in this country and different from other political parties in Alberta.  The Wildrose has an opportunity to prove to be an effective opposition and if they succeed, could be buoyed into a position of power in short time.  The PC's have an opportunity to re-invent themselves and re-connect with an electorate that has lost faith in them.  The Liberal Party has an opportunity to also take a step back and think about how to make themselves better.  And the Alberta Party has an opportunity to prove that they are for real and should be considered a party to vote for in the future.

But most importantly, I think Albertans have an opportunity to see life through a different set of political lenses.  They've been eating steak and eggs for breakfast since 1971.  And now they've ordered pancakes and bacon.  Will it be as tasty as others have told them, or will they go back to steak and eggs in a few years?

So many questions.  And many, MANY more to come.

FHRITP & Other Garbage

Dear gentlemen (and I use that term really loosely),

Stop it.  Just stop it.

I get it.  You like to have fun.  So do I.  But never in my life have I ever thought that it was okay to harass a woman, all in the name of my team winning a playoff game or series.  Never have I ever been enticed to walk up to a TV reporter doing a live report, grab the microphone, and yell obscenities into it.  And never have I ever needed to use the line "just trying to have some fun" to validate ridiculous behaviour.

Because I don't make it a regular habit to make others around me feel uncomfortable.  Yet here we are, talking about basic manners again, thanks to the Calgary Flames playoff run.

It all kind of started with someone walking up to a Global Calgary reporter, grabbing the microphone and yelling some ridiculous saying that is apparently making the rounds on the internet.  Now all of a sudden it's "cool" for everyone to do the same.  Then we started hearing about reporters like the Herald's Erika Stark being disrespected and cat-called.  And it's just taken on a bit of a life of its own, with women coming forward saying they don't feel safe walking along that stretch of road on game nights because they fear being assaulted, harassed or worse.

Granted, I assume most revelers aren't the problem (much the same as we shouldn't be labeling all Canucks fans as rioters).  But this does paint Calgary fans as rude and idiotic.  It paints men with the same brush, whether you like it or not.

As I've said in the past when it comes to Stampede, for some reason, we think that "I was drunk" is an acceptable excuse.  I'm here to say it's NOT.  Straight-up bro.

"No one cares."  You probably should.  Some don't feel safe trying to celebrate their team's victory or even doing their jobs while these "shenanigans" are going on.  Imagine being in that person's shoes, even for a few brief moments.

"Well what do you expect?"  We should be expecting better of ourselves.  We should be acting like we've been here before.  Instead, some are acting like it's their first cotton-pickin' college kegger.  And it's painting OUR team's supporters (and I'll take it a step further and say our CITY) with a pretty nasty reputation.

"If you don't like it, don't go."  Really?  So now, celebrating a team's victories is only reserved for those who want to openly harass others and be ignorant idiots?  Gimme a break.  EVERYONE should feel welcome to celebrate a team's success.  Not a select few.

I would also argue that those who don't believe this is "news" in Calgary really don't like having the spotlight shining down on them.  Just like with Stampede, it seems a select few try to put a darkness on what should be a good time.  And whether you like it or not, that side of the story needs to be told as well.  So if you don't like being singled out as a moron, then maybe you should take a step back and think about what you're doing.  Show a little respect to everyone around you, everyone has a good time, and we can go back to doing what we're really supposed to be here for: celebrating success.

Sincerely,

Vulture
#SafeRedMile

Wow me...

My message to all political parties (and all candidates for that matter) is simple.

Wow me.

Over the next 22 days or so, you will be bombarded with announcements, news conferences, door-knocking, advertisements and a boatload of other attempts to try to garner your vote on May 5th.  The parties are going to be ruthless.  They will boast whatever their party stands for while shooting down all of their competition.  You will hear about all sorts of polls, debates and issues that will surely get everyone up in arms.

But what you will be hearing, more than anything else this campaign, is promises.  Here's a couple:
- "We promise to build schools."
- "We promise to cut the fat at AHS."
- "We promise to get our economy back on track."

Perhaps you've heard some of these promises already.  Maybe you haven't but want to hear more.  And right now, I want you to stop.  Think about it.  Really, think about it.

Time and time again, elections are seemingly won by whoever promises the most.  But here's the thing: voters constantly complain about promises unfulfilled AFTER the fact.

Here's what I recommend: if a candidate or party or a leader approaches you and says they will promise something, ask them HOW they plan to do it.  Make them go into detail about it.  Don't accept the cliches.  For example, let's look at the three promises above:

#1. "We promise to build new schools."
This is indeed a noble promise.  It's no secret that the big city schools are bursting at the seams.  So when you hear this promise, ask "how?"  Think about it.  We're supposedly in a tough spot financially, so someone must have a plan on how to get the funding for big projects like this.  Are we going back to our credit card?  Are we looking at P3's again?  And ask them about funding for the ongoing costs of these schools.  It's one thing to build a building.  It's another to put teachers and support staff in it.  What about maintenance?  Have they thought about this beyond the initial ground-breaking ceremony?  Make each of the candidates answer.

#2. "We promise to cut the fat at AHS."
I've blogged about this before.  This might be one of the most worn-out cliches I've heard in the last year or so.  But does anyone really know how much "fat" there is and how much "mission critical" substance there is?  We're so unclear on what the hierarchy at AHS actually looks like.  I'd love to see a flow chart of what the typical hospital in Alberta looks like.  If I was in charge of a political party, I'd show that flow chart to EVERYONE, then show a new chart of what I'd want AHS to become (ie a "lean, mean, health care machine").  Voters should be asking for both charts.  Voters should also be asking how each party plans to deal with each of the unions that represent all of these workers.  Because to enable ANY kind of cuts, you're going to have to get the unions on board.  It's not going to be as easy as some make it out to be.

#3. "We promise to get our economy back on track."
Maybe I'm off my rocker here, but as far as I know, Alberta has two major sources of revenue: taxes and oil.  So when one goes down, the other goes up.  That's what the last budget seemingly showed.  So when oil goes down (as it has), your taxes are going up, because the government needs to fund all the promises it made from before.  We've heard all sorts of promises already about how we're going to get off the roller-coaster of the price of oil.  You're also hearing promises of how "we'll keep taxes low."  Again, ask the question: "how?"  Such as: "how do you plan to keep taxes low while also staying off the oil roller-coaster?"  Or try: "how do you plan to diversify the economy?"  Are we talking trades and technology?  Are we talking wind and solar energy?  Are we talking manufacturing?  And if you're focus is on spending, "what do you plan on cutting?" is a good question to start off.

It's an interesting crossroads for Albertans, with four parties headed up by a new leader (PC, Wildrose, Liberal, NDP) and one party with the same one (Alberta Party), although that one party didn't have an MLA in the legislature when the writ was dropped.  I obviously haven't made up my mind on who I'm voting for.  But it is clear to me that Albertans seem to be willing to weigh their options here, even though they may very-well go back to what's familiar when all's said and done.

What I do hope is that they do their research.  Look past all the glitzy promises and really demand more from all the parties.  They say they are here for a "better Alberta."  But can they actually deliver on that promise?  That's why the question of "how" is so important here.  Because if you don't ask that question, you might be crying "broken promises" again.  Albertans should be looking for a party/candidate that is looking to the future.  How do they plan to fix what's been broken?  How do they plan to build and do things better?  How do they plan to energize and empower the electorate?

Wow me.

How Hard Can It Be?

Why does it feel like health care is rocket science in Alberta?

The latest move by the province to go back to the "good ol' days" of health regions...errrrr... operational districts is a fascinating one.  Fascinating because it's making everyone wonder why we are where we are.  Seven years ago, the province dissolved all of the health regions into the AHS superboard to "save money."  And now we're going back to the way things were to "save money."  How in the heck is that supposed to happen?

Let me try to dissect this whole situation.  Keep in mind, I'm not a professional and I wasn't a fly on the wall during the closed-door meetings between the province and the individual health regions, then later AHS.  What I am good at, though, is optics and what it looks like from an outsider's perspective.  So here goes nothing.

The decision to dissolve the boards into the AHS superboard was seemingly two-fold.

One surrounded money.  Each board had its own agenda and its own needs.  Some were more outspoken than others.  I do remember covering old Calgary Health Region meetings where the main message always seemed to be "we need more money."  It became a bit of a contest, because you had each region pounding its chest saying it needed more money, and who was the province going to listen to?  Likely the board with the loudest voice (aka the most voters).  So you saw Calgary and Edmonton get the brunt of the attention.  It created divisions with the more rural regions.  So after the bickering (and if memory serves me right, even heated words between certain higher-ups), the province decided enough was enough and got rid of the boards, because frankly, if you get one board, you'll be able to spend the cash as needed without it getting hyper-politicized.

Two surrounded doctors.  Right in the midst of the first big boom in Alberta, family doctors were at a premium.  You couldn't get enough of them.  So it became a fight amongst the different regions over resources (not just with doctors, but with nurses and support staff as well).  The rural guys were saying "we need help attracting family doctors to our area because the big cities are stealing them all away" while the big city guys were saying "we need all the doctors we can get because of the population base."  Even that got politicized.  Creating the superboard would allow for a handful of people to make the "right decisions" to support each community and region properly without political bias.

But a funny thing happened (note the hint of sarcasm on the word "funny").  AHS was created, but some decisions were made and some failed.  So in an attempt to buffer themselves from taking the heat for bad decisions, layers of management were built in.  The "fall guys".  The fall guys had fall guys.  And the fall guys' fall guys had fall guys.  Instead of looking at ways to save money (which, remember, was the original intent of AHS), more money was being spent.  If I remember the quote correctly, it cost Alberta $8-billion to run health care ten years ago.  Today, it costs $17-billion.  That's just a tad more than inflation plus population growth, if my math is correct.

Look at the doctor situation.  Did AHS actually fix the shortage?  Did we attract and maintain more doctors?  (I actually don't know the answer, although judging by the issues we've seen, I'd say if we did, we didn't keep up with population growth).  So instead of attacking the real issue (doctor shortage), we created alternate ways of getting health care.  You used to have two options: family doctors (for non-emergency stuff) and emergency rooms (emergency stuff).  Because you didn't have enough family doctors, people were going into the emergency rooms for minor stuff (I once saw an older gentleman in the waiting room who was complaining about a hangnail, not a word of a lie).  So the province, in trying to fix the backlog in the ER's, created primary care networks and family care clinics.  And the province was never really clear on how each was supposed to work.  Where do you go when you have a cough or cold?  What about a pain in your back?  You've created extra steps for people in trying to find simple care.  So they're going to default back to what they know: the emergency room.  And we're suddenly back at square one.

Meantime, you have a superboard that hasn't been overly-super.  You've had firings and controversies and everything you don't want out of that group.  They have been tasked with managing an entire system and knowing what is going on in every corner of the province.  Yet, they didn't.  They tried to blanket solution for each region and it didn't work.  Will family care clinics work better in Grande Prairie than family doctors?  What do the people of Lethbridge gravitate towards?  Do we have enough infrastructure in Calgary to have a bigger hospital or should we go after primary care networks?  The board just always seemed to be finding ways to start open heart surgery when all the taxpayers had was mild chest congestion.  All people want is to be able to see a doctor when they have the sniffles.

You used to be able to do that in every community in this province.  And thanks to amalgamation and centralization, you have to go to the big cities to get most things checked out.  So now the big cities are having to deal with not only their regular workloads, but also the workloads of the smaller communities.  They had a doctor shortage in Brooks a few years ago and a woman went into labour.  She was 60-ish minutes from Medicine Hat and 90-ish minutes from Calgary.  Guess who gave birth in an ambulance on the side of a highway?  Even today, look at all the news surrounding EMS and ambulances being logjammed at city hospitals.

You also have the issue of specialists upon specialists.  Whatever happened to a "general practitioner"?  Someone who could check you over and make sure you're not dying.  I've heard stories of something simple like a broken arm going to three different doctors.  All because they "didn't do that kind of thing" or "you have to see this type of doctor."

And now we're going back to health regions.  What I hope comes out of it is that the province will listen to all of the local concerns and that we won't re-develop the over-political, under-productive ways of the past.  What I hope is that each region will be able to utilize a provincial strategy on recruiting and retaining doctors, nurses and staff, so that everyone has proper access to health care.  Each region has its own unique needs (distances between facilities, population bases, etc).  The province will need to treat them all differently because what works well in Fort McMurray might not work in Fort Macleod.  That being said, understand that ALL Albertans deserve the same level and access of care, whether they be in a rural or urban setting.

But most importantly I hope the province finally shows Albertans what they should expect from this new/old governance model.  Explain to us what each level of governance is going to control, even if that means showing a flow chart of where the managers and assistant managers are supposed to be, and how that compares to the number of doctors and nurses.  Then we can actually say there's fat to be trimmed.  Because right now, we know it's there, we just can't seem to differentiate between the meat and the fat.  And beyond that, it's time to communicate with Albertans about how they should be accessing health care.  Eliminate the question of "should I be going to the ER for this or to the family care clinic?"  Explain to people what the issues are and help them understand the navigation of the system.  Things have become so complicated and that's why everything ranging from expense scandals and patients waiting for hours for care are falling through the cracks.

I know it sounds silly, but "keep it simple stupid" really comes to mind here.  I know health care isn't simple, nor should it be.  But it's up to the province and the health authorities to make it as easy as possible for the patients.  Whether that be to understand where their taxpayer dollars are going, or how to get rid of that ugly rash.

Where Do We Go From Here?

I'll never claim to be an economist or even someone who has an absolute 100% knowledge on everything economics in this province. My understanding is pretty basic.  I did take a year of university accounting where I learned about micro- and macro-economics among other things.  Unfortunately, I'm good with numbers but horrible with theories.  So I ended up in radio. Makes a lot of sense...

I digress. The current state of Alberta's economy has more than a few people perplexed. How did we get in this mess? Where did we go wrong? Where do we go from here? Just a few questions that are being tossed around. And frankly, does anyone really know the answers to all of these questions? Let's face it, you could ask each political party what their definition of "asset", "liability" or "debt" is and you'd probably get different answers. I'm not accusing anyone of cooking their books, but over the last few years, it sure feels like you're not getting straight answers (or at least answers that make a lick of sense). So I'm here to try to simplify the issues as much as I can.

Let's assume that this $7-billion "problem" is the real number (although I'm still curious as to whether that's the real number or not as I haven't seen the books and I don't know if this includes the credit card debt that we've accumulated over the last few years).  Anyways...it's a $7-billion problem.  We could argue until the cows come home on why we're in this mess, etc.  But I'm not interested in the past anymore.  Tell me how to fix it.  And as far as I can see, there's four ways we could fix it (with household comparisons):

#1. More debt (aka "Where's my Mastercard?")
We all know this won't go over well with many, especially fiscal conservatives who believe this should be a last resort.  Which is kind of weird given we're in a province where EVERYONE seems to have second and third mortgages to pay for all the toys (house, vehicles, boats, summer cottages, motorcycles, etc).  The one bad thing about credit card debt is that you have those outrageous interest payments.  And we all know it's really easy to get lazy and just throw in the minimum payment each month.  However, we're doing this anyways (I believe that number is anywhere from $3-billion to $5-billion, depending on who you ask).  An extra $7-billion on the credit card might not be the best option, but maybe we can put a little bit of on the card and hope it doesn't get rejected.

#2. Cut spending (aka "No more cake or allowance")
There's been some interesting developments on this one that I don't think are getting as much play as they could.  Interim Wildrose leader Heather Forsyth has said that there aren't $7-billion worth of cuts to be made.  Premier Jim Prentice says he could fire everyone employed by the province and it wouldn't equal the $7-billion problem.  So where does this leave us?  We could "cut the fat" (like many want at AHS, and it sounds like something Prentice is priming for eventually), which would, in my estimation, be nothing more than window dressing and good for the optics.  But the #1 expense for any organization (including government) is salaries and benefits.  And do you really think for a second that the worker groups and unions are going to be happy about this?  And really, neither should you because we can't be cutting employees (you know, doctors, nurses, teachers, support), especially when the overwhelming majority of people think we need MORE doctors, nurses, teachers and support.  I've even seen Wildrose candidates campaigning on getting more supports, which costs money (weird from someone who is supposed to be a fiscal conservative).  Needless to say, as much as some of you believe that cutting spending is going to answer all of our problems, you're living in a dream world.  I know opposition parties like to say that the PC's "don't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem."  But when you have a laundry list of wants and needs from the electorate, as well as employees, you can't help but feel like the problem might be a bit self-fulfilling.

#3. More taxes (aka "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!")
I reckon this one will fly like a lead balloon.  But there are more than a few ways you could look at this one.  We've heard everything from replacing the flat tax with a progressive tax regime (aka go after the big companies), health care premiums (which I'm still torn on), a PST (gasp!), and even a small gas tax.  The interesting thought with the PST or gas tax that was brought up by one person was if you made either one 3%, you could say 1% goes to education, 1% goes to health and 1% goes to infrastructure.  As a farm kid, I don't like the gas tax idea only because you're being penalized for living out in the sticks and needing groceries all of a sudden gets even more expensive.  Admittedly, I haven't done the full math on the flat tax but from what I can see, we have wiggle room to make it work without losing the "Alberta Advantage".  And making the rich guys pay a little more?  Sounds great.  Except for when you're looking for donations to your party come pre-election time.  Yikes.  And remember that comment that the PC's "don't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem."  Well, they must have at least a little bit of a revenue problem.  Because some groups keep claiming that spending "shouldn't be on the roller-coaster ride provided by the price of oil."  Government doesn't have a ton of options when it comes to revenue.  So...there's that.

#4. Heritage Savings Trust Fund (aka "Remember that secret bank account we created when you were a kid?")
This one has me a little perplexed and intrigued all at the same time.  Admittedly, I don't know the process in how or even if we could liquidate assets.  But I did a little reading and it appears the value of that thing sits at $17.2-billion.  Here's my question: is this not referred to by many as the "rainy day fund"?  That would lead to a follow-up question: what is your definition of a "rainy day"?  That would lead to a third question: is this not a "rainy day"?  And if it wasn't set up for a rainy day and was set up more as being "for our grandkids' grandkids", at what point does it constitute our grandkids' grandkids' era?  Is there a "best before" date on the fund?  Is there a "can't open until 2030" sticker on the fund?  Now, I understand that the value of this fund hasn't dipped below $11-billion since the '90's, so taking the full $7-billion would be uncharted territory.  But what would be stopping us from utilizing some of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund to soften the blow so that we're not forcing something else down the taxpayers' throat?  Buys the government a little bit of time to maybe look into some other options (ie the above three options) and come up with a scheme on how to build the fund back up over time.  And who knows, maybe diving into that fund now might actually help us avoid creating a PST that lasts into the days of our grandkids' grandkids, who will be shaking their fists at us, wondering why we tied their hands "back in the day."  That'd be a legacy, now wouldn't it?

I'd imagine the Prentice government is going to introduce some hybrid of all four options (assuming they don't find an extra $7-billion sitting under the couch cushions).  Here's my bold prediction though: they'll introduce their solution and then call an election.  It will be their dare to the other parties: "let's see you do better."  And Albertans will be left in a tricky predicament.  Ultimately, you want to choose the party that presents the best plan to get us out of these turbulent times.  But what happens if that party is the one that steered us into these turbulent times in the first place?  Do you pick the second-best plan?  Or do you give them one last chance?