Election hint: to ensure campaign funding, win

Everyone knows that it takes money to run for office; the higher the office, the more money it takes.

That's why we have laws governing how campaign money can be raised, and more more laws governing how it can be spent. And more laws again requiring full disclosure of where every dollar came from, and where it all went.

This week, Canadians discovered that from as far back as the last three federal elections, there are still 39 candidates who together owe almost three quarters of a million dollars in borrowed funds that has not been repaid.

The percentage of deadbeat candidates for Parliament, compared to the general populace, is not encouraging.

Much of those debts, the candidates likely owe themselves. Raising money via donations isn't easy (just ask the manager of any of Red Deer's non-profits), but I imagine raising money to finance an election campaign must be even harder.

Therefore, many people running for office must necessarily be wealthy enough to largely finance their own campaigns.

Except doing so exclusively isn't legal.

Unlike the United States, where spending money on electioneering is considered part of free speech guaranteed by their constitution, Canadians have embraced a far more frugal view of democracy.

The right to hold office must not be restricted to billionaires, or to people willing to promise favour to wealthy individuals who back their candidacy.

That's the theory, anyway. Cynics are invited to insert their comments here.

But suppose you want to lead a federal political party. Getting there — especially in Canada where such a campaign involves a whole lot of travel — requires a serious outlay of cash.

There are legal budget limits, however. These days, Liberal candidates seeking to become the next Justin Trudeau are allowed a total of $950,000 for their camapigns. Given the vast amounts we are used to seeing spent by parties in federal elections, that doesn't seem like much.

But try raising it $1,200 or less at a time. That's the current allowable donation limit (the figure is subject to change due to inflation). The result is that only the perceived favourite — like Trudeau — would ever be able to gather the hundreds of thousands of individual donations that would bring one even close to that limit.

So “loans” for these campaigns are allowed. They must all be reported to Elections Canada, and they all must be paid back within 18 months of the end of the campaign, or they risk being ruled as illegal donations.

You can see how a losing candidate would have an extremely difficult time raising hundreds of thousands to repay loans for expenses in an election they have already lost.

In the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign that elected Stephane Dion, the borrowing and spending limits were much higher, leading to the embarrassing picture of a Ken Dryden still unable to settle accounts with Elections Canada for his campaign. Even after he was given multiple extensions to the rule that requires him to pay back the money ($225,000, much of which he likely “borrowed” from himself).

Would you be willing today to fork out a couple hundred at a fundraising dinner to hear Dryden speak on, say, social development (a portfolio he held as a member of cabinet)? He did manage to secure national agreements on early learning and child care, you know.

Not interested? Understandable. Understandable also is Dryden's predicament.

Likewise the alacrity of the federal Conservatives to press the point. The guys who wrote the new rules for election spending midway through the Liberals' 2006 leadership campaign are not happy that the commissioner for Elections Canada is not taking these deadbeat bums to court.

Yves Cote ruled the laws requiring the payback of these loans are not enforceable in a criminal court. Therefore, he can only suggest that the people who still owe money for their losing campaigns work a bit harder to settle accounts.

Raising large amounts of cash in bits and pieces has become a specialty of the federal Tories. The new rules definitely favour their team.

They introduced legislation in 2011 to fix what chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand said renders the Canada Election Act incoherent and ineffective, but those corrections didn't get a ticket on the Conservative omnibus.

As far as I can see, “incoherent and ineffective” give a big advantage to the Conservatives.

The other parties will need more coherent and effective platforms to win the widespread support that is now needed to fund their campaigns. To win, you must . . . well, win.

What's the real reason for the drop in crime rates?

When the news is good, everyone wants a share of the credit. Through most of Canada — including in Red Deer — crime rates continue their steady decline.

Fear of rampant criminality on our streets is as high as ever, but with each year that passes, the foundation of those fears also declines.

Both the rates of crime, and the the severity of crimes have been dropping for more than two decades. The national crime rate today is about the same as it was when I graduated high school — a time when people routinely left their cars unlocked and running in cold weather, and walked on shopping trips through their downtowns unconcerned.

Yes, I'm that told. So old, that I remember when downtown was the only place where you could shop, actually. We'll return to that a bit later.

During its time in government, the federal Conservatives have introduced at least 30 bills designed to crack down on crime. If there is a real correlation between declining crime rates and prime minister Stephen Harper's campaign to get tough on crime, then some credit is due.

But it's all certainly come at a cost.

In the past 10 years, crime rates have dropped 28 per cent, says the most recent Stats Canada report. That's the period of time wherein the 30 anti-crime bills were sent through Parliament. In that same period of time, though, the cost of fighting crime has risen 23 per cent — to $20 billion a year.

Three quarters of that $20 billion cost falls on the provinces.

The most expensive change is Harper's controversial mandatory minimum sentencing law. Long mandatory prison sentences are costly.

Has it been a good investment? Is one reason for the continuing drop in crime (and crime severity) due to the fact that more of Canada's violent criminals are already locked up?

Right now, the answer seems to depend on which social scientist or demographer you ask.

Here at home, Red Deer spends just over $2 million a year on policing.

Last year, when Macleans declared Red Deer the most dangerous city in Canada, crime was still in decline. But fear of crime led to a public outcry and a petition to hire more officers. That, and a city council review of whether the RCMP was really doing its job here.

The result was confirmation of our relationship with the RCMP and the hiring of eight more officers, though they won't be showing up for duty until October.

But let's get back to the Red Deer of the 1970s.

Robberies and car thefts were definitely on the social radar back then, but the fear quotient was no where near as high as it is today, even though crime rates are roughly the same then as now.

I'm going to suggest people walked with a lot less fear through our downtown in those days, because everybody walked through our downtown in those days.

The Bay, Eaton's, Woodward's, they were all downtown. Everybody who ever went on a shopping trip went downtown. So did the police. We felt as safe there as we feel in the hallways of our big malls today.

Could it be possible that as we emptied our downtown region of shoppers and walkers, a part of that gap was filled with the growing underclass created by our changing society? The homeless, the drug-addicted and the mentally ill.

That is where the cheap housing could be found, and that's where the social agencies that serve them came to be located.

Even though crime rates in these two eras are about the same (though on the rise in the 1970s, until peaking in 1991), the reduction in general street traffic made the social underclass more visible. And fear of this underclass just grew out of that.

Fast forward to today, and Red Deer is evolving. Local police are putting a much higher emphasis on being visible downtown, and I will suggest that accounts greatly for the big decline that I notice in panhandling, on-the-street drug trade and open intoxication in the area.

Better community policing, and a determination by city council to revive and rebuild the downtown area are having a good effect.

I doubt we'll see a major department store downtown again. That's not how people tend to shop these days.

But the program of building Riverlands, for instance, as a primarily residential zone is going to accelerate the decline in crime in the whole of downtown.

That's going to keep Red Deer the safe, progressive place that it is, as much as our crime-fighting federal government ever will.

And for less cost to taxpayers, too.

Banks hold the key to resolving credit card dispute

When you shop for anything and pay by cash, cheque or debit, you're being ripped off. When you pay by credit card, both you and the merchant are sharing the cost of some of the highest consumer transaction fees in the world.

When you pay by credit card, and do not pay the full balance owing each month, you're a sucker, pure and simple.

None of this is illegal, but the federal government is so concerned about the usury over credit card fees that finance minister Jim Flaherty is going to speak to a committee. Hoo boy!

Canadians buy a lot of stuff. Annual retail sales, posted by Stats Canada for 2011 showed more than $472 billion in gross revenue. Gross margin for all stores was 26.9 per cent. Both those figures are rising well, this year.

Inside all that is the cost we pay for our love of plastic. On a $400 purchase, for instance, the merchant can typically lose $12, if the customer pays with a regular-type credit card. If the customer is collecting premium air miles bonuses, the cost will be even more.

The total cost of credit card transactions carried by merchants is propitiatory information. But it is estimated at between $4 billion and $5 billion a year.

Considering that margins are just shy of 27 per cent, you can reasonably assume that some of those costs are hidden in the price of stuff you buy. Therefore, if you do not pay by credit card, you are sharing the costs for customers who do.

That means the system is skewed to reward consumers who use credit cards, forcing both merchants and other consumers to share the costs.

If the customer pays by debit, the cost is a flat 12 cents. Pay by cash, and there is no deduction for the merchant, other than the cost of counting and managing the cash.

Guess which method of payment the merchant would like you to use? Guess which one the banks behind VISA and Mastercard would like you to use?

One in four Canadians with a credit card (that's most of us) also carries a monthly balance. One in four Canadians who carry a balance say they carry that balance for more than a year. At interest rates hovering at 20 per cent per year.

For those who make only the minimum payment each month, that $400 purchase will cost about $240 in interest. The definition of stupid.

One in 20 Canadians who carry a balance say they fear they will never pay their credit card debt. For them, the cost of the purchase is infinite, and they are indeed suckers — the legitimate prey of credit card companies.

This week, Canada's major retailers got the results of a Competition Bureau ruling on their complaint that the rules around accepting credit cards — including some of the world's highest fees — is unfair.

No dice, said the bureau. The complaint was rejected on a technicality — it was based on a section of law that did not apply, they said. At any rate, relief would have to come through legislation, not through anti-competition complaints. Over to you, Mr. Flaherty.

Thus the finance minister's promise to convene his committee. Stay tuned.

Actually, without any need to change any laws, relief is already at the hands of every bank and credit union in Canada.

Instead of rewarding credit card purchases, by making everyone carry the cost hidden in the price of everything, we can reward debit card users by reducing the cost of overdraft protection.

It's already cheaper to carry an overdraft than credit card debt, and for anyone who gets a regular paycheque, the interest compounding would be vastly less.

Any consumer who has a balance on their credit card should talk to their banker about transferring as much of that debt as possible to an overdraft chequing account, into which their paycheques are also deposited.

Minimum payment amounts will automatically be exceeded, and consumers will be able to gauge their progress at getting out of debt — with a hugely lowered interest rate burden.

The real cash incentive to use debit/overdraft is much larger than any credit card loyalty program could ever be. So consumers will eventually switch payment preferences at the stores where they shop.

The ripoff costs of credit cards will slowly reduce, giving credit card companies a real incentive to lower their fees to regain their share of the action.

Merchants, consumers — and even local bank branches — win.

You're welcome.

Pact of trust is broken: Allen must step down

One of the jobs I did as a volunteer director of a local non-profit was to help re-write our constitution and bylaws. It's one of those tasks boards need to do periodically, to keep their associations relevant with their mandate in a changing society.

Amid all the discussion involved with that, came the pronouncement of the expectation that if any member of the board of directors were charged with a crime, that member must step down until the matter is settled.

The board may hold the position open during that time (depending on circumstances), but the understanding was made clear: once you're charged, you cannot sit on the board, you cannot represent your constituency to the agency, nor can you represent the agency to your community.

The trust relationship between charities and the communities they serve is sacred. When you are constantly asking for money and volunteer support, even suspicion of bad ethics raises an unacceptable cloud.

That being the case for community non-profits, Mike Allen, MLA for Ft. McMurray-Wood Buffalo must step down. Trust is trust, and in his case, trust has been broken.

This has nothing to do with Allen's ability to understand and represent his northern Alberta constituency. It has everything to do with accountability, trust and personal integrity.

From all reports, Mike Allen is a capable, respectful and honest MLA. Except for that hugely ironic lapse in judgement.

According to police in Minnesota, Allen contacted a sex trade worker, travelled to a hotel room, negotiated for a fun-filled threesome for one hour and was undressing, when the police broke in. The “prostitute” was an undercover officer. Busted. Now, charged.

Here's irony for you. Allen won his seat following the ouster of his once-popular predecessor, Guy Boutilier, who was also an honest, capable and accountable Tory MLA. 

Boutilier believed in accountability so much, that when the government reneged on a long-standing promise to improve long-term care services for seniors in his riding, he spoke up.

Governments love the notion of accountability. When a sitting MLA criticizes the party publicly, he is held fully accountable.

The voters in Ft. McMurray-Wood Buffalo would not support their once-popular mayor, MLA and provincial cabinet member as an Independent. They opted in the next election for Tory Mike Allen.

Now, Allen finds himself expelled from the Progressive Conservative Party. Does his straight-up apology and request for forgiveness from voters qualify him, ethically, to continue representing Ft. McMurray-Wood Buffalo, where Boutilier was somehow not qualified?

If so, what would that say about the voters in Ft. McMurray-Wood Buffalo?

I think we can surmise the answer. Outside of membership in Club Tory, how could anyone represent the riding and region that provides more economic activity for the country than any other region in Canada? No one can, not unless Ft. McMurray-Wood Buffalo, plus all of Alberta, plus the rest of Canada all decide in unison to change governments.

In Alberta, working the sex trade is not a crime. But communicating for the purposes of paying for a sex act is. That's in Alberta.

I doubt police plan that many sex-trade sting operations in Alberta, much less one that might snag a visiting politician.

It's also reasonable to believe that police in any number of U.S. states do engage in sting operations surrounding prostitution, for a variety of reasons, which includes the publicity that comes from publicly shaming customers.

Just think what Mike Allen must be going through. Think about what, in his life, has been shattered.

Think also about what Mike Allen thus far believes has not been shattered. The trust arrangement between himself and voters, and his credibility in assisting conversations between government and the international corporations that produce all that economic activity in Ft. McMurray-Wood Buffalo.

It just won't wash. Mike Allen isn't former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, the famous “Client Number 9” caught in a prostitution scandal. Nor is he an Anthony Weiner, the U.S. congressman who resigned after emailing lewd pictures of himself to women, and who is now seeking to become mayor of New York.

Allen is only 51. A bit early to retire. And as a first-time MLA, the pension package will hardly be liveable.

He says he's going to consult his local community and come back with an announcement concerning his political career by Oct. 28, when the Legislature is called for the Fall Session.

Then again, he could be in a U.S. jail by Oct. 28, which would obviate any consultations.

I think Mike Allen, even now, understands the concept of personal honour. We won't be seeing much of him in the future.

So it's time for the voters of Ft. McMurray-Wood Buffalo to consider if Guy Boutelier is good enough now to represent them as a Wildrose MLA . He has joined the party and said in hindsight that being expelled from the Tories was “the best thing that ever happened to me in my political career.”

Or, if only a Tory can represent Ft. McMurray-Wood Buffalo.

I just know that if I were ever caught with my pants down, I wouldn't be able to speak for people who need some community support to get through their lives.

Allen shouldn't make us demand the same standard for MLAs.

Harper's “new generation” shuffles further into paranoia

The unveiling of prime minister Stephen Harper's newly-shuffled cabinet almost passed successfully: with a yawn.

This was to be the “new generation” of conservative thought in the government's idea bank; proof that there is talent to spare on the government benches, enough to secure yet another majority in the next election.

One, maybe two cycles of happy news at best, and then a summertime yawn.

But the leak of an internal email from within the prime minister's own staff killed all thought of that.

Now, instead of portraying a confident prime minister welcoming the next wave, we have the picture of an increasingly paranoid prime minister building walls against anyone and anything he doesn't like. And this will likely wear longer than the senate scandal that just won't go away.

The talk was to be about the 12 females now in the 39-member new cabinet. Since the entire Conservative caucus is but 17 per cent female, the talking point was supposed to be of inclusiveness.

But gender equality is only relevant (in a news sense) when it is grievously abridged. There is no talk of lack of ability among the new appointees. All appear to be capable individuals, and that should be the only thing that matters.

That the four new female appointees were described in a Reuters report as “hyper-partisan” and “fiercely loyal” to the prime minister should not surprise anyone. Partisanship and loyalty are qualities admired by every prime minister.

Except in the context of a leaked email that went to the CBC, the Globe and Mail, Postmedia and others — which pretty well means everyone in Canada.

The leak describes the transition books that were given to the 27 people appointed to new posts in cabinet. These books are actually substantial binders that help bring the new ministers up to speed in their portfolios.

What killed all the good-news talk around the shuffle was the inclusion of a Nixonian friends and enemies list.

“Who to engage or avoid: friends and enemy stakeholders,” was one heading included in the transition books. “Who to avoid: bureaucrats who can't take no (or yes) for an answer,” was another (but which was later dropped before printing).

These entries are not standard practice. How do we know this? Because some staffers in the PMO itself were appalled by them. CBC reports that staffers who balked at including them were cut from further communications in the matter.

At least one was appalled enough to leak it to the media.

What does this tell us? To me, it shows a prime minister who's afraid of shadows, and a guard-dog PMO that's out of control.

So who's the enemy? Environmental groups, certain non-profits, civic and industrial associations (dare we say unions?) with views that differ from the government.

Garry Neil, executive director of the Council of Canadians described the government mentality thus: “They don't view us as citizens with strongly held opinions that come from places of principle.They view us as eco-terrorists. They see us as standing with the child pornographers. I mean, that's the way they view politics.

This from the Globe and Mail: “To talk about it in terms of enemies and friends is just unheard of,” said Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, representing scientists and professionals in government, including the federal civil service.

“Now it’s about enemies and friends, not people who have different opinions. And that’s really what they’re saying: if you have a different opinion, you are the enemy,” Mr. Corbett said.

In my own way, I engage in partisan debate and advocacy. And I've received my share of opposing viewpoints — and hate mail — over the years.

But I know this: your harshest critic can sometimes be your best friend. People who disagree with you are still worthwhile people; so there must be some valid basis behind disagreement. Examine that, and what comes out is better for everyone.

That is the chief strength of our style of government.

Stephen Harper does not feel confident enough to engage dissent, so he builds walls of hyper-partisanship around himself. He ruthlessly silences critics within his elected Tory ranks and within the civil service. He names you “the enemy” if you cross him in any way.

Harper likes his politics polarized. He operates at the polar opposite of leadership.

Aid today, but not tomorrow — a good decision

Not counting Monday's showers, Red Deer has received 205 mm of rain since the first of May, according to the federal weather office. Believe it or not, that's only about 15 mm more than the long-term average to this date.

But as I watched the Monday morning downpour shoot out of my eaves troughs, and considered the province's latest pronouncements on life in a floodplain, I have to say, it gives one pause.

Obviously, I haven't made a real land survey here, but I conclude that since the last two 100-year floods of the Red Deer River didn't reach my house, my street is not likely to show up on the province's new map of places where people shouldn't build houses.

But across the river from me, at the Lions Campground and the businesses along Riverside Drive? I'm not so sure.

Over the weekend, premier Alison Redford announced there would be disaster aid for the thousands of families and businesses still assessing their losses from this summer's flooding in Calgary and High River regions.

Aid today but not tomorrow, if people decide to build again on land prone to flooding.

Further, Redford said changes are in the works to the province's municipal act that will forbid any new development on land their maps show are at risk in the 100-year floods to come.

Details of both announcements have yet to be worked out, but my bet is that the cost of this will match the billion dollars the province has set aside so far for direct disaster aid — and probably more.

Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi has already pointed out that his city is built at the confluence of two rivers. Fully 10 per cent of Calgary's population needed evacuation in this flood. A much higher proportion of neighbouring High River needed the same.

Not to mention that a large tract of Alberta's most valuable downtown business district was kept empty for days on end, while the basements of office towers and underground parking garages were pumped and inspected.

Not all of the area that experienced flooding this year appears in the red or pink zones of the province's map of places where development will not be allowed, or where, if people rebuild, they do so at their own risk (with a warning placed on their property titles to alert future buyers of the risk).

But when the developed areas in these zones is added up — one assumes all over the province — I can't imagine how a billion dollars of could possibly cover the loss in land value.

Redford says her government wants to be fair to all Albertans. I doubt there's anyone left in the province who hasn't had a conversation with friends about taxpayers covering the flood risk for people who want to live on scenic riverfront property, or for sharing the risk in their homeowner insurance plans.

But for the landowners directly affected, I imagine perspective differs.

Therefor, I think this recent announcement must be viewed as leadership. The province has obviously learned some lessons about how governments should act in cases of natural disaster.

The delays and confusion that followed the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans provided a textbook for developed countries around the world on the value of being prepared, and the value of putting a good disaster plan into action quickly.

But planning for disaster has to include amelioration before the disaster occurs, where ever possible.

There will be large up-front costs in forbidding new development in regions prone to flooding, and warning homeowners of the real risks of living in these areas.

The best outcome we can hope for in the decades to come will be that people will complain how money was spent and restrictive regulations were created in anticipation of a disaster that is extremely unlikely to happen (again).

It's easy to approve of this plan, for people whose homes and possessions aren't already located on a spot of a provincial map coloured red. People whose personal wealth isn't tied up in a plot of ground that likely cannot be sold in the future.

The details will be revealed when cities and towns built along rivers release their own sections of the province's maps.

How many 100-year floods can one see in a lifetime? How many 100-year floods does it take to recognize nature has an unpredictable power over everything you've worked to build in a lifetime?

The Canadian Advantage: government you expect to be honest

Nothing damages the value of your citizenship like the perception of dishonest government.

The indignation people express over the ever-lengthening news coverage of senators lining their pockets, or of city mayors resigning their seats over revelations of civic fraud, is not evidence of sickness in our society. Rather, that people people get worked up over these things is evidence of health.

If Canadians want to keep our system honest and healthy, our first line of defence is a well-paid, professional civil service.

When we begin to devalue the people who do the legwork of public service, we begin to devalue the notion of citizenship. Things that societies ought to do out of duty should not become commodities with a cash value, for sale to those who can afford it.

Canadians — despite the stories about senators taking money they shouldn't, and about mayors being paid off by criminal organizations to build shoddy roads and rotting bridges — may not appreciate the global advantages we have because we actually expect our governments to be honest.

No matter how people may roll their eyes at the notion politicians in Canada seek office for idealistic reasons, I suspect many of us really have no idea how lucky we are that we can actually trust our public institutions to act in our interest. No matter how people gripe at the cost of a well-run civil service, we have no notion how much more it costs not to have one.

Around the world, honest government is not an expectation.

Transparency International is a Berlin-based study group which recently published a global report card on corruption. They interviewed 114,000 people in 100 countries to assess public perception of government honesty.

The results are not encouraging.

More than half the people in their study said they believe corruption has gotten worse where they live in the last two years.

More than one in four people interviewed said they paid a bribe to receive government services in the past year.

Imagine the fees we pay for freedom of information requests. They're already steep enough that major requests can only be made by large, well-funded groups. But imagine having to add a “fee” to the person behind the counter before he will hand you the envelope with the information you already paid for.

Common practice around the world, in places where civil service itself is low-paid, but where the jobs are coveted (and sold) for their value in bribery.

Canadian drivers would consider it a serious breach to try to blow past a Check Stop. But in many places that's the smart thing to do. Police in a lot of countries do not stop you to prevent crime, but to shake you down for payment to ignore whatever violation they can imagine they saw.

Around the world, people accept corruption with a shrug, says Transparency International. But the world is shrinking. Market values are creeping in to replace civic duty closer and closer to home.

Philosopher Michael J. Sandel recently wrote in the Atlantic, describing how public services have been transformed into marketable items.

You can pay to upgrade your prison cell in some U.S. states. You can pay — the government, not a poacher — to shoot an endangered black rhino in South Africa.

Women here can be paid to be a surrogate mother, though a woman in India will outsource that service for a third the price, plus the cost of official bribery for the paperwork.

Sandel also questions what happens when nations hire mercenaries to fight their battles, rather than counting on the patriotism of their own people.

In countries (mostly poor countries) where this idea has no shock value at all, the cost of corruption keeps them from progress and development.

Thus, it pays to be wary when government seeks to devalue its own civil service, and to put market values on things that should not be marketable.

A couple of months ago, the Boston Globe reported a Democratic Party directive to newly-elected members of the House of Representatives “to devote at least four hours a day to the tedious task of raising money.”

If Canadians ever discovered that their MPs were being told to put that big a chunk of every working day into party fundraising, we'd be outraged. In the U.S., how many people even know this happened, much less care?

I see the difference as a sign of health. Staying healthy puts us at a huge global advantage, and is worth the cost of both a trustworthy civil service and of reasonable pay for elected office.

Stockwell Day doing business as usual: scaring Canadians into being foolish with resources

Let's see . . . it's the Canada Day long weekend, Red Deer's Centennial party, and the weather hasn't been this good for over a year. I have an idea: I'll check the news sources and see what Stockwell Day has been up to!

That wasn't my plan for the weekend, but CBC's online news site served up an opinion piece by Red Deer's most ambitious former MLA, and I got stuck there.

Canada's former minister of public safety, international trade and head of the Treasury Board hasn't exactly followed my lead into retirement. But he's four years younger than me, so he probably needs to work a bit longer before he can enjoy gardening and grandkids.

He started a private consulting firm, Stockwell Day Connex, and he's putting experience gained from his successful 25-year political career to good use.

It's a good gig. Recently, he's been consulting in Angola, one of Africa's greatest success stories. That he's at the centre of a region of such potential is a great thing.

What's harder to take is the message he's relaying back to Canada.

Here's his thesis: Canada risks not only losing its place in global energy market, but risks losing its major export customer (the United States) and becoming an increased energy importer from the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates.

Why? Because while we waste time on "internal debates over small geographic areas like Fort McMurray and Kitimat," the South Atlantic Basin (Africa, in this case) is stealing a march on us.

It's an old trope; our resources will rot in the ground, unless we develop them all right now, as fast as possible, before they go out of style. That was the line of attack in Day's years in the Alberta legislature, and it hasn't changed since.

After decades of destructive civil war, Angola has marched into a democratic and socially responsible 21^st Century. Their region on the east coast of the African continent is blessed with natural resources the world (mainly China) desperately needs.

If you believe Day's article, Angola has managed to fast forward from colonialism through war, into a modern Western-style economy that is developing its resources at a spectacular rate — without raping the environment and without massive corruption and internal theft.

Maybe they have, and good on them for it.

But Canadians (Albertans in particular) have learned a few things about what happens during periods of spectacular development. It hasn't all been good, and the benefits have not been spread equally between stakeholders and resource owners.

In fact, this overly-fast pace of resource development is the primary source of the Alberta government's economic woes right now.

We have more capacity to produce crude oil coming online soon than we can ship. That overproduction relative to marketability has caused a price drop. Not for oil globally, which is at its highest price point in history — but just for the oil we produce. Thus the “bitumen bubble” and a huge drop in royalties to the people of Alberta.

Production has vastly outpaced our ability to upgrade and refine bitumen into products that would create more stable employment, more government revenue and higher prices.

Yet Day threatens us with dire outcomes if we don't buckle down and go even faster.

The U.S., Days says, will surpass Russia in natural gas production in two years. It will also surpass Saudi Arabia in oil production two years after that. How that links to Africa, Day doesn't explain.

The U.S. has also become a net exporter of refined petroleum products. Day doesn't mention that this in on the strength of supply of bitumen from Alberta.

I would remind Day that headlong development often leads not so much to a cliff, but to a brick wall. Taking our foot off the gas, and developing according to a more rational and sustainable plan is a better idea.

A pipeline to Kitmat — even if it were approved today — won't move any oil until 2020, and global conditions then will likely not be the same as today.

Shipping an even higher percentage of our oil as raw bitumen in a pipeline to U.S. refiners (where the real profits reside) doesn't look like such a hot idea to a lot of Canadians.

It's like a hockey team constantly dealing away its top draft picks, so it can continue to get top draft picks in the future. Good draft picks, but never a championship.

Thus, the “internal debates” that Day is bemoaning.

Our resources will not spoil in the ground. Nor will using them go out of style. Let's not equate pace of development with getting value for them.

Energy development is the biggest engine driving the Canadian economy. Don't you think we should treat our engine better?