With credit cards, there are no free plane trips

Last week, the B.C. Supreme Court certified a class-action lawsuit against Canada's banks and credit card companies, seeking billions in claims to repay what is called a civil conspiracy on transaction fees charged to merchants.

Similar suits in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec are being held in abeyance, pending the outcome of the action in B.C., which will probably take years to settle.

The B.C. suit was launched in 2011 — a year when credit card companies reported a profit of $18.5 billion, on credit card sales of $267 billion, with about $2 billion rolled over in monthly unpaid balances at usurious interest rates.

The part that's involved in the lawsuit is about $5 billion a year, which is charged to merchants in transaction fees. The lawsuit alleges a conspiracy to keep fees unreasonably high.

When a merchant agrees to accept any credit card, the credit card system says they must agree to accept them all. The banks and the credit card companies mostly charge 1.5 to three per cent of the final value of the sale, to handle the transactions. Some — the ones with generous Air Miles points — can charge as much as six per cent.

Merchants are not allowed to build the cost of fees into the sale price. This is not protection for consumers. Just the opposite. If they were, you could ask for a discount at the cashier, for paying cash. Banks and card companies don't want that option to be allowed. They don't want you to know the true cost of your card.

A similar suit against banks and credit card companies in the U.S. was settled last year for $7 billion. It was the largest class action settlement in U.S. history.

In the meantime, the value of retail sales in Canada transacted through credit cards is rising. For last January, StatsCan says the total of all sales was $40.67 billion.

It's getting to the point where the cost of buying things is affected more by credit card fees and related charges, than the GST everyone loves to complain about.

If you're low income, at least the GST refund provides you with a small cheque every 90 days.

If you're middle-income, the winter vacations you take with your Air Miles plan might actually cost you less if you never used a card, and just bought the plane tickets yourself.

However, (no surprise) there is actually a benefit to high credit card spenders with lavish rewards programs (business cards, mostly), who pay their total balances every month.Their rewards are (no surprise) subsidized by everyone else — other credit card holders, merchants, and even people who have no card at all.

Bottom line, there are no free rewards programs, there are no free seats on airplanes.

And if the various Canadian lawsuits prove to have traction, consumers could come to a much clearer understanding of the true cost of holding a pocketful of plastic.

A study done by the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago tried to explain that cost to consumers. One of the costs they looked at (beyond exorbitant interest charges, high transaction fees and unreasonable annual fees), was the cost of their so-called loyalty programs.

Even a straight one-per-cent cash back on purchases ended up costing consumers more. That's because holders of such cards ended up spending an average of $68 a month more, resulting for most in an average of $115 higher unpaid balance after three months. Triggering outrageous interest charges.

The popular travel plans likewise resulted in increased credit card spending (and an avoidance of competitors' cards), and increased costly debt.

But have you tried just paying for everything in cash? It's getting harder to live that way — and bank fees mitigate against it.

If you don't like the thought of carrying large cash sums on your person, you will need a debit card. It's the cheapest form of plastic for both you and the merchants (the transaction fees are much lower), but it requires you to be mindful of your current account balance.

If your bank's ATM machine isn't handy, the fees for using other institutions' cash machines will wipe out any savings you could expect from not holding a credit card.

The same studies that show increased use of credit cards via loyalty programs also show people generally spend less when using cash or debit.

Today, people will sell you a credit card swipe attachment you can plug into your smartphone. For a fee, on top of fees, on top of interest on your unpaid balance.

The gullibility of consumers has never been in question. At least now, merchants have begun to fight back.

Lies, damn lies and budgets

If you were a budget officer for any government in Canada, I'll bet you would lowball your revenue estimate for the coming year. And (except during election years) you would plan spending based on those estimates.

I'm ready to bet the authors of a report written for the C.D. Howe Institute would do the same, if they were tasked with budget responsibilities.

And when revenues — surprise! — pan out better than worst-case, I'd bet both you and the people at C.D. Howe would have a list handy, of priorities for the extra cash.

So I have to take some exception to the snarky tone of both their report and the reporting done on their report, which gives half the provinces a failing grade for budget transparency, with most of the other half receiving a barely-passing grade.

In brief, their report says most provinces vastly under-estimate their incomes at budget time, and then use the “surplus” revenue as a type of slush fund for pet projects and goodies, without needing legislative budget approval.

When you look at their chart of provincial spending above budget from 2003 to 2013, you might be shocked.

Saskatchewan overspent its budgets in that period by about 37 per cent, the highest in the country. Their $4.3 billion overspending earned them a D+.

Alberta “only” overspent by about 27 per cent, earning our province a C. Strange, though, because the dollar figure is a whopping $10.2 billion.

These budget methods have been the Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card Alberta has played for as long as most of us can remember.

The A grade given the federal government, in my view, should be classified as an Easy A, because federal revenues are far more stable and predictable, as are their expenses. Transparency, as defined in the report, is politically easier.

On the expense side, the federal government mostly just issues transfers to the provinces, which then have to make the real-world decisions. Then, they need to figure out how many unemployed people there are, and how many babies will need family support payments.

Easy, compared with actually building schools, roads, hospitals and bridges, while delivering the social services (like health care and education) the feds only partially pay for.

The skepticism expressed in the report is warranted, though. But the causes for it are hardly surprising.

Colin Busby is one of the report's authors, and he discussed it with the friendly audience on CBC's The Lang & O'Leary Exchange.

"Their revenue targets come in quite a bit higher than they forecast, and that’s normal given that they are getting their revenue from royalties,” Busby said. “But that does spill over on the spending side. For every dollar they get that they didn’t anticipate, about 75 cents is translating into new spending.”

Bingo. But should anyone be surprised? Here's a better question: Would anyone else do it differently?

The best aspect of the C.D. Howe report is the hardest to translate in detail for a TV news audience, or a newspaper critic.

That aspect lies in the methods all the provinces and territories use to report — and to sometimes disguise — their budget estimates, versus the actual outcomes later. You can't compare apples to apples across the country.

Prince Edward Island overspent its budgets by less than 15 per cent in the decade measured. The dollar figure was $200 million.

That's just a tiny slice of Alberta's overspending. Actually, provincial yearly overspending on the island is less than a rounding error on an Alberta budget.

Go figure. C.D. Howe apparently does. PEI was awarded a D- while Alberta got a C. But the mark reflects supposed transparency, not outcome. Which is kind of a joke.

There are lies, damn lies and budgets. Nobody expects Alberta's estimate for revenue to be anything else than a couple billion or more on the low side.

School boards that have to build honest budgets based on provincial spending predictions must later re-write them when Christmas comes and the province shouts hooray and doles out cash they never thought they'd ever have. For a few days of “good” news, of course.

For this, Alberta gets a passing grade?

The federal government doesn't even know the actual rate of job availability nationally anymore, because of their cuts to Statistics Canada. So they use a data trawl of Kijiji ads instead. And they get an A?

That's where skepticism passes into cynicism, and reports like this one from C.D. Howe appear somewhat less than reliable.

Democracy in Canada: less than advertised

Canadians are rightfully proud that our system of running democratic, honest elections are a model for the world. In fact, emerging democracies send delegations to Canada to study our electoral system, to help their own countries develop more free and fair government.

But as data mining becomes prevalent in our digital age, there are a few examples that raise red flags against copying our system entirely. Democracy here is becoming somewhat less than advertised.

And there doesn't seem to be much will in the halls of power to improve safeguards. Just the opposite, in fact.

It is already evident the current system does not give everyone equal consideration.

That is as much because a huge swath of our citizenry refuses to vote. But there is also little desire within our political system to acknowledge that its structure is skewed overwhelmingly toward older, richer voters, much less to do anything about it.

Three news stories over the weekend can illustrate.

First, let's look at a report from pollster Nik Nanos. Studying the data from the last federal election, he says that if 60 per cent of young voters had come to the polls in 2011 (instead of 40 per cent, as was the case), Stephen Harper would probably not have a majority government today.

As it was, 60 per cent of the general population voted in 2011, meaning the turnout of older voters exceeded that mark by quite a margin.

As a result, says Nanos, guess what issues were top of the agenda? Health care, taxes, jobs, right? If issues of importance to youth were included at the same degree, the 2011 election (and the policies of the winning party) would have been more about the environment and education.

As well, says Nanos, young voters showed themselves in polls to be much more likely to believe that good solutions to problems are available. Unlike older voters, who more strongly believe that change is difficult and expensive.

Ironic, then, that young people did not vote “because my vote doesn't count” in the current system. And not ironic at all, that the desires of older voters — who don't believe that change is possible — got what they voted for: no change.

Now switch to the next weekend news flash: the Parti Québécois is worried that young people — students in particular — might actually vote in their provincial election.

If you've lived in Quebec for six months, have a Quebec bank account, and reasonably believe you could make Quebec your home, you can vote.

But students who have been living (and paying taxes) in Quebec for years are being turned away from registration offices by government clerks.

Meanwhile, justice minister Bertrand St-Arnaud declared: “We don't want this election stolen by people from Ontario and the rest of Canada.” Meaning students.

Thus, the PQ created its new scapegoat. Remember how Jaques Parizeau said, after the loss of his referendum on independence, that “money and the ethnics” had stolen that vote. New times, new excuses — a new group to persecute.

So the PQ decided to get tough against an identifiable group of voters, and seek to deny them their right to vote.

Roger Rivard, an election official in St-Henri-St-Anne in Montreal said he had turned away dozens of would-be voters, who arrived with documentation in hand proving they were eligible to vote. Better safe than sorry, in his view. And then he quit his job.

More, the PQ is demanding that the verification process for new voters be extended long past the election, so that investigations could be demanded in lost ridings.

All the while, the Quebec elections office is reporting no great influx of new voter registrations. Nobody is “stealing” the Quebec election.

If anyone can steal elections it will be political parties themselves, under the federal government's new Fair Elections Act. This is News Story Three.

Parties — using temporary and untrained partisan volunteers — will be given unfettered access to voter lists, which could contain highly sensitive information (like bank and credit card numbers) of voters who used these statements to prove residency and eligibility to vote. Privacy laws do not apply to political parties, says former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley.

Party workers will also be able to quickly assess who has or has not voted on election day, to get their supporters out to the polls.

Well enough, but they can also be able to try to keep other voters out — perhaps using the next version of robo-calls, perhaps (like the PQ is attempting) — to deny citizens their voting rights in the first place.

The world is filled with examples of elections that are are neither fair or free. As we can see, even our own governments are unreliable protectors of democracy, especially once the campaign is on.

If you are eligible to vote, you must vote when called to do so. More, you must insist on it, or you may end up like the young voters in Quebec — a demographic whose rights are being denied.

Fat chances: you're better off with exercise

I knew it. Well, I didn't know it, but I suspected it strongly. This week, medical science is publicly admitting there's no link between the saturated fats you eat (butter, nuts, poultry, red meat, chocolate cake, etc.) and heart disease.

A lifetime of people telling you not to eat this or that evil thing, or conversely to eat something else much more virtuous — or you will die of a heart attack — is now known as bad science.

At least, this week, that's the case. Scientific studies get released quite regularly, with alarming and sometimes contradictory conclusions.

But debunking the bad fat/bad heart link isn't exactly news to the scientific community. If you do a quick search, you'll find reports questioning the link between diet and heart disease going back for years.

But Tuesday seemed to be a watershed day with the public release of a review of data compiled with funding from the British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, Cambridge National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and Gates Cambridge.

Like all news of this type, it circled the globe as fast as a shock wave from a volcano. And unless we take note, it will subside just as fast.

The review was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It studied medical data gathered from 600,000 people in Europe, North America and Asia. What they ate, and what they died of.

I myself happen to be the subject of a couple of these wide-ranging, long-term data studies. Once a year or so, somebody from the study calls me, and I answer questions on all sorts of topics relating to my physical and mental health.

To start, they took a few measurements, and drew a little blood.

The data will be compiled with that of many thousands of others, over many years, until I die. There. So you don't need to die before you donate your body to science. Who knew?

The benefit of the public release of this study is not just the debunking of myths about diet. I've believed all my life that “all things in moderation” was a better health plan than trying to keep lists of polyunsaturated omega-somethings straight in your head.

It's long been known that you can get fat on a low-fat diet. Doctors report heart patients with both high and low cholesterol counts.

If half of heart disease sufferers consumed too much of the so-called bad fats, it also means half of them didn't. So what's the link?

But we also know that heart disease and stroke are the top killers of humanity in developed countries — far exceeding all other causes of death.

So if avoiding saturated fat in one's diet isn't the answer to reducing your chances of dying too soon from the Number One killer, is there anything else we can do to put the odds better in our favour?

Yes, of course there is. The only medicine that is proven to better your chances against heart attack and stroke (and depression, high blood pressure, kidney disease, diabetes and even dementia) is free and public domain.

It is exercise. Steady, frequent, prolonged and strenuous enough that for some periods, you work hard enough that cannot sing while doing it.

In our busy world, people would rather take a pill, rather than go for a brisk walk. But the economic, individual and social costs of doing that are enormous — and rising.

Red Deer does not have any more space to accommodate any more dialysis patients. The Number One preventative for people to not need dialysis in the first place (not in every case, but for most) is regular exercise.

Obesity is a top cause of diabetes. Diabetes is a top cause of renal failure. Incidence of both is rising in our society. Obesity, of course, is also a high risk factor for heart disease and stroke.

A medically-prescribed program of vigorous exercise is not a magic bullet against all this, but it is the closest thing we've got. And the side effects are a lot more acceptable.

The road to maintaining good health is not cutting “bad” foods out of your diet. It is not chasing after obscure fruits or re-creating the menu of a cave man. And it is not putting blind faith in costly pills whose side effects can be as bad as the disease.

It is as simple as walking to work, and walking while you work. It is as free as going for a light run or bike ride, instead of watching TV.

And then, for simple pleasure's sake, having a nice slice of pizza afterword. Or putting sour cream or full-fat yogurt on your baked potato, instead of the horrid, insipidly disappointing fat-free kind.

Now that's my kind of science.

Without caucus support, Redford is done

Beware the Ides of March. I really didn't know what “Ides” meant until I looked it up one day. It's the day of the ancient Roman calendar which coincides with March 15, and marks the celebration of the ancient Roman New Year.

You now, that time when the caucus kills the tyrant, and drags the country into a long and bloody internal war that eventually leads to the downfall of the empire.

As in Rome, so it shall be in Alberta.

It was a spring day in 2011 when the Alberta Progressive Conservative caucus told premier Ed Stelmach to stand down. He made the announcement in May, and his last day on the job was Oct. 1.

The same may happen again for Allison Redford, the “not nice” lady who faced a four-hour grilling from party brass over the weekend, and as of this Monday morning writing, was to face another from her caucus.

News reports made much of the standing ovation she received from the party brass after the “frank and open” (some said brutal) talk she had with them. But no one should expect the same from caucus.

This could well be a blood-letting.

We're not talking about individual complaints here. Len Webber was already planning to leave provincial politics and run federally in Calgary Confederation when he quit the party last week. The former cabinet minister wasn't sacrificing much when he publicly called out Redford as an arrogant bully who doesn't listen to caucus, and resigned to sit as an independent while building his federal campaign.

He doubtless expects daily group hugs under prime minister Stephen Harper.

But Weber's tirade was just the sound of a dam breaking. By the end of last week, there were rumours that at least 20 Tory MLAs were ready to quit the party and sit as independents. If that is true, they could become the official opposition. The Wildrose Party only has 17 MLAs.

That was the first rush that forced Redford to repay the $45,000 spent on her trip to South Africa for Nelson Mandela's funeral. It won't be enough.

CBC reporters discovered a secret meeting of 10 MLAs, who gathered Saturday to “talk policy” at an Edmonton office building.

Among them was Red Deer North MLA Mary Anne Jablonski.

The group was tight-lipped when questioned as they walked to their cars after the meeting. But here's all you need to know: none would come out and specifically say they supported Allison Redford as leader and premier.

My reading of the entrails of news reports tells me it's game over.

In federal politics, the prime minister, inner cabinet and the PMO can stonewall the back benches, Parliament, everyone. The whip of party loyalty is much sharper when there is a threat a backbencher may not be re-elected, or if elected, returned to the backwaters of the opposition.

Not so in Alberta. Most Alberta MLAs were in high school or younger (some not even born yet), the last time the governing party lost an election. The 58 current Tory MLAs have never known a time when their caucus did not call all the shots.

Being Tory meant being government, and the sitting MLAs needed only to keep the leadership in line with them through to the next coronation. When leadership changed, MLA backing meant everything to the candidates.

That was before Alberta got a top-down Tory leader, who at the start of her leadership bid had only one MLA's public support.

That was before Wildrose arrived on the scene. Now, Tory seats aren't so safe anymore.

Redford may finally be repaying the $45,000 for her plane trip out of pocket, but it's the local MLAs who will finally pay the price at the polls.

Without the whip of party loyalty to keep MLAs in line, I can't imagine what Redford could offer caucus now to keep her leadership, much less win a standing ovation.

I expect there will be another leadership campaign, and this time, candidates won't win points offering teachers and health care workers nice deals on funding, in exchange for instant party memberships.

These workers may join again out of fear of what Wildrose would do in power — and that is its own kind of loyalty, I suppose.

But like the senators that disposed of Caesar in the Ides of March, hoping to restore the old republic, the plots to restore caucus control of the Alberta government will likely lead to an internal struggle that will leave the Tory empire weakened.

If I were Redford, I would apologize to caucus, step down, and let what happens, happen. This can't be saved.

Decorum, like democracy, only works when people are watching

Warning: This Session may involve incidents of verbal abuse, violent language, disrespect for authority and bullying behaviour that may be unacceptable for a young audience. Parental discretion is advised.

How long would it take for a committee to order up and install a sign containing the above on the doors to the Visitors Gallery at the Alberta Legislature? 

How long would it take for Speaker Gene Zwozdesky to enforce the rules of decorum needed for the sign not to be needed in the first place?

Well, at least you can say he's trying. But he'll accomplish nothing until voters demand it.

On Monday, CBC News reported that Zwozdesky interrupted question period to chide members over their rude behaviour.

“It's rude, it's disrespectful. You all saw the letter I sent you from one school,” he said. “I could send you more from other schools who have now said they're not even bringing their students here to question period anymore. How do you like that?"

Excuse me? How's that again?

There are two problems here. The first is that more than once, school teachers have felt the need to tell our government that they will no longer be taking tours into the legislature, because of the unacceptable behaviour of their duly-elected representatives. Without apparent effect.

The second is that the schools did not inform anyone else that such a decision was necessary. Public pressure, in my view, is the only way to gain effect.

A word to the wise should be sufficient, the saying goes. But a private letter to government about something like this has no effect until it is made public.

The school that we know about — thanks to CBC's digging — is Innisfail Middle School. CBC reported the original warning Zwozdesky made in the legislature (making its existence part of the public record) and then got a copy of the letter, plus an interview with Grade 6 teacher Tom Stones.

A study of government and democracy is part of the curriculum for middle school. The curriculum seems to be missing the part about the requirement of a public eye, for it all to work.

Instead, the students got to witness behaviour that would get them pretty severe consequences if they behaved that way themselves.

Schools have a zero tolerance for bullying. I say the power to enforce that policy comes from the knowledge that incidences of bullying can find their way into the newspaper.

The teacher team sent a letter dated Nov. 22 to the speaker, and the leaders of the provincial political parties. It referred to a visit the students made Nov. 6. The public didn't know about this until March 10.

“In the short time we were in session, we witnessed members tell each other that they ‘suck and blow,’ motions across the floor from one representative to another inviting them outside to fight, verbal invitation to fight, and again, numerous reprimands from the Speaker,” the letter says.

In an interview, Stones said the students were indeed impressed. “A number of the kids looked at me in the legislature and said,'Are they allowed to say that?'”

Later, the students agreed that such behaviour on their part would result in consequences. Again, it's the consequences, not the policy, that changes behaviour.

A few days later, Stones said, the students held a mock legislature. One class joker volunteered to be the guy who asked the other guy to step outside. At least he was paying attention.

The tour of the legislature was superb, the letter said. The guides were informative of the history of the building and the processes that go on within it. But seeing their MLAs in action? Not suitable for family viewing

I'm not averse to seeing a little passion find its way into the house. Question period is not a complete example of legislative work. If you really wanted to turn kids off politics, have them watch the enabling motion to amend Subsection 3b (iii) of Section 7 of some act or other — first reading.

What bothers me is the lack of understanding of the role of the Fifth Estate in a stable democracy. Democracy does not exist unless it is public and transparent.

When I was in Grade 6, we didn't get a tour of the Alberta Legislature. Instead, we toured the Edmonton Journal.

Newspaper tours made a lot bigger impression in the days of newsrooms filled with the noise of people shouting into phones to be heard above a dozen typewriters clacking — not to mention through the pall of tobacco smoke.

Molten lead in the production area was way more interesting than today's direct-to-plate laser printers. I swiped a lead representation of Colonel Sanders I found unattended in a tray, leaving a 4-H logo for somebody else. Choices.

That tour affected a lot of my later choices, just like a legislature tour might affect choices made by students today.

But I respected the work that went on in the newsroom. When teachers fear that respect for the democratic process would be lost on students if it ever became visible to them, democracy is in trouble.

It takes more than a letter to change that. It takes making the issue public.

Is close enough good enough in the new math?

Whenever the education experts (including media pundits), government bureaucrats, and parents would all line up to bemoan the latest international test scores of Alberta students — and then proceed to blame the teachers for them — I would always myself how glad I was that my kids were safely out of school.

And then I started having grandchildren. Does this mean I have to be invested in the next round of the “new math” debate, all over again? I guess so.

Here's a question from an international Grade 8 level math test: Find 1/3 minus 1/4.

Four possible answers below the question are presented to test whether the student knows the method to finding the answer: which is 4 minus 3 over 3 times 4. (That's 1 over 12 in the old math I was taught.)

According to university math instructor Robert Craigen, in the last round of testing, Alberta students did no better than random guessing on this question. He says this was a lower score than — gasp! — American students, whom everyone acknowledges as the world's back-row kids of the academic world.

I tried the question, and got it both wrong and right — which is the frustrating foundation of the new Discovery-Based method of teaching math. All in my almost-60-year-old head.

The mathematically-correct 1 over 12 is achieved by doing it right, using the method one of my least-favourite teachers tried to drill into me in junior high math. But the fuzzy-head method I used is just as correct (or so they would say these days).

Express 1/3 as 33.3 over 100. Express 1/4 as 25 over 100. Subtract. You get 8.3 over 100. Test the answer my multiplying by 12, and you get — wait for it — 99.6 over 100. Close enough? Without having the correct answer in advance, who would know?

The point here is that under the new curriculum that is supposed to be installed in Alberta this fall, I would likely have been rewarded with a good score on the question.

But a satellite guided by my calculations would probably have missed the planet Mars, or crash-landed, while the satellite guided by the rote-learning types would have landed safely, from whence it would be beaming really cool photos of the planet's landscape back to Earth.

The Discovery-Based math curriculum is about more than freeing elementary kids from having to memorize the times tables. It is about more than multiplying equations (or calculating compound interest) later on.

It is also about streaming kids early in the education system, by testing them at a time when math proficiency may not be fully-expressed in a kid's brain.

I don't really “get” math, but I get it more now than I did in junior high — and I hardly ever use it anymore. When I was streamed, I wasn't ready.

But students are placed into math streams as young as 15 — and that can have lifetime consequences.

We pushed our kids into the “academic” math program in high school, to ensure they had maximum choice for career paths in post-secondary.

But now, there's a new stream. There's Math 31, Math 30-1 and Math 30-2, each a gold standard unto itself for entry into university programs.

Want engineering? Take Math 31 and Math 30-1. Calculus until your head spins.

Want nursing? It's Math 30-2, which is more statistics and data than calculus.

Not sure what you want, while still in your teens? Join a rather large club, and take what your parents tell you to take. Chances are (statistics again), you'll be fine.

I only hope my grandchildren know what they want, and have the basics well in hand to make choices. And I have no idea which curriculum path is the right way to get there.

Here's another problem: two 60-ish couples share a condo in the mountains for the weekend, and agree to split the rental. The deposit (X) was made by Couple 1 for half the cost, but a later discount was applied to the final bill (Y) paid by Couple 2.

How much does Couple 2 owe Couple 1?

While the wives were digging calculators out of their purses to add up the basic rate, taxes and fees, the fuzzy math guy figured out it was half the value of X minus Y. In his head. Which, with the cash in his pocket, balanced within a margin of $1.50.

Close enough. Curiosity has landed.

And our incredibly smart grandkids (that's the only kind we ever have, right?) will do well enough in school, whatever.

Cities need more power to manage growth

I must be getting soft in my old age; I actually liked what I saw in the throne speech that kicked off the 2014 legislative session.

Further evidence: I disagree with the criticisms of both the NDP and the Wildrose party leaders, which were made following the speech.

The main problems faced by Alberta are not about balancing the budget, or how much the premier spends on plane flights, or the various definitions of debt. The main challenge our province faces is in dealing with growth.

It's been repeated for a long time, by a variety of pundits: Alberta adds population roughly equivalent to a city the size of Red Deer, every year.

In 1970, Alberta represented about 7.5 per cent of total Canadian population. Today, it is nearly 11 per cent — and growing fast. There are more people in Alberta than in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland/Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Yukon and Nunavut combined.

All those people want a home to live in, roads to drive on, schools, pools, rinks, parks, police, fire and health services. And the vast majority of the new Alberta residents every year want them in Edmonton and Calgary.

That's why I approve of a keystone promise made in the throne speech: to arrive at a new charter deal between the province and the two major cities, this year. As a Red Deer resident, I can only see benefits in the deal we get, once we see the details of how revenue and power sharing between the major cities and the province shakes out.

Red Deer sees its share of growth, too. Our population growth since 2000 has varied year to year, but the average has been 3.3 per cent.

Red Deer has challenges enough creating housing, transportation infrastructure, schools, pools, rinks, parks, police, fire and health services for about 3,000 or so new Red Deerians every year. Imagine what that must be like 10 times over, in Edmonton and Calgary.

In 2001, the combined populations of our two major cities was 1,889,000. In the 2011 census, it was 2,375,000. That's growth approaching half a million people since the turn of the century. Total up, that's more than the entire population of Alberta in 1986, when my kids started going to school.

Population growth is an economic blessing, to be sure. Just ask the planners in Newfoundland and Labrador, for whom the Conference Board of Canada has predicted a population decline in the next 20 years or so. Panic and denial there.

But dealing properly with that growth is a huge challenge.

That's why griping about Alberta's capital debt, from Wildrose Party leader Danielle Smith, is so off the mark.

People coming to Alberta (not to mention the people already here) want to live in a pleasant place, not a ghetto. Our province produces 70 per cent of all the job growth in Canada, and a lot of those jobs pay very well indeed.

People don't come to Alberta to earn six figures in the oil patch, to live in a camp permanently. They want good houses in good neighbourhoods, with access to amenities as good as, or better than those they left behind.

Alberta can't build new infrastructure for 95,000 new residents or more every year, without taking on debt. What I saw in the throne speech — more so than I've seen in the past — is a realization that the primary partner in providing those amenities and infrastructure is not the provincial government, but the cities.

Beginning with Edmonton and Calgary.

If the province will not accept that cities should have new taxation powers, the province must accept taking on the revenue role to pay the toll of our rapid growth. With debt, if need be.

For instance, the Municipal Sustainability Initiative grants and the Green Trip capital grants to cities need to be strengthened. Short of seeing the details in the budget at this writing, I am hopeful they will be.

Political realities must also be faced. Taxpayers may accept capital debt for roads, schools health care and such, but not for operating costs. That's where the NDP misses the mark.

We all agree on a certain tax rate, and government must agree to operate on that. There are still efficiencies to be realized in operations. As well, population growth does translate into revenue growth eventually.

Every time you poll the voters, they say government must live with that.

Red Deer isn't the Leave-It-To-Beaver town I moved to in 1976. We can't pretend it's the same now, only bigger. Cities today operate differently; they must be a good home to a much more diverse group of people.

A power devolution toward cities needs to be written into the provincial code if we are to manage growth properly. I might be getting soft, but after all these years, I sense that Alberta's Tory dynasty has finally woken up to that.

No surprise here: things work better when we co-operate

I'll bet very few Canadians know (or care) about the Manning Networking Conference that occurred in Ottawa over the weekend. But the value of networking couldn't have been better expressed by the agreement announced there, regarding the Canada Jobs Grant.

Some important deadlines needed to be met here; the Labour Market Agreements that currently take federal money to fund employment training programs in the provinces all expire on March 31.

The provinces seemed to be happy with their LMA programs and probably would have quickly signed on for another round of the same. But the feds and a lot of business groups were not happy.

The disconnect is most visible in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where unemployment is not the problem. Lack of skills in the labour force for the jobs available is. And for reasons not explained, LMAs haven't been filling the gap.

Consider: 2013 was a weak year for job growth in Canada. It was the weakest since 2009, actually — and that was during the so-called Great Recession.

You wouldn't know that here, because 70 per cent of all job growth in Canada took place in Alberta. But in reality, 95 per cent of all new net jobs created were part-time.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce suggests this reflects the large numbers of Boomers who are not going into full retirement, but are staying on as part-time workers. Older females taking part-time jobs, for instance, comprised a large component of that growth.

But even as unemployment remains stubbornly high in Canada, businesses are complaining they can't find workers qualified for the jobs they're offering. That may be explained by demographics — how many older workers want to be welders or long-haul truckers?

Just the same, the feds put about $4 billion a year into a whole platform of job training programs. It's the highest public investment in the OECD. For that much money, a government should expect better results in matching people with good jobs.

At the same time, Canadian business investment in skills training is the lowest in the OECD — yet a sector that invests very little is griping about the quality of workers the training programs produce. Kind of a disconnect there, wouldn't you say?

So in the 2013 budget, the Canada Jobs Grant was announced, to replace the LMA programs set to expire at the end of this month.

The plan was that the federal government, the provinces and industry would become equal partners in job training, for careers that Canadian industry can offer immediately. Each would contribute to a maximum total of $15,000 per worker — with a guaranteed job at the end for each participant.

Guess what? The provinces went ballistic. They weren't consulted.

A lot of current LMA funding is going to areas of chronic low employment: among aboriginals, disabled people and immigrants. By their own parameters, the programs are working. But not too many aboriginals want to leave home provinces to come to Alberta to work in camps building refineries or oil sands plants.

Small business groups also complained. You can't ask a contractor to put up $5,000 to train a worker, who will promptly leave for more pay at a larger firm — which then gets a trained worker for free.

In the end, the federal government discovered they had to play nice with everyone. After first asserting that they would proceed after March 31, with or without provincial participation (and the loss of funding for the LMAs), jobs minister Jason Kenney started listening.

Now, small businesses need only put up a few hundred dollars per worker — and even that much money can be accounted for in wages or presumably the supply of tools or equipment.

The provinces get four years to either wind down their LMAs, or slowly find provincial dollars to replace federal money that will be gradually withdrawn. The whole program gets a review in 2015. And nothing changes until July, instead of March.

Only Quebec remains outside of the program. But that province already has a European-style three-part program for jobs training that includes the co-operation of government, business and trade unions.

In fact, Kenney says he's soon to visit Germany to study their skills training network — and it looks a whole lot more like Quebec's than Alberta's.

Bottom line, everyone found out they need to co-operate, if they want to see the money put where it's needed. They all also need to put some skin in the game, if they want credible comment on the outcome.

And everyone needs to keep a little perspective here. The experience of Alberta and Saskatchewan is vastly different than that of high-immigrant B.C., for instance, or of Nova Scotia, which has far less wiggle room in its budget to replace any lost federal dollars. One size does not fit all.

Kenney likes to repeat he is confident the program will become so attractive, it will quickly be oversubscribed. Is that a signal of new re-allocations of their $4 billion-per-year training investment, of which the Canada Jobs Grant is only a small part?

If so, let's hope there's a bit more co-operation and consultation, next time around.