Wednesday, September 14, 2011

CBC's PC Leadership debate: Part 2

Despite heavy opposition from the weather, gorgeous blue skies and just a hint of breeze, I managed to push through the next section. Just remember that; I stared at old guys in suits, rather than work on my tan, just for you.

Ted Morton's question: How will you make sure we Albertans get our fair share of the oil revenue?

We need to control our environment in the north. Growth is the key. We will do so through the land stewardship act.

DG: It's not fair -We need the right balance, jobs, environment, and help.

RO: It's not the stewardship act - that can control the revenue too much. Development needs to come through repeal of bill 36 and proper infrastructure.

TM: We need improved activity in the north, since we're global now. Bill 36 must be good because industry supports it.

AR:  It's ultimately about community and programs, we need to manage these better so we feel proud and successful, regardless of our actual share.

(Gary mar talks over the announcer) That's not it - it's about being competitive. We need to undo the royalty change that happened four years ago (was boo-ed at this point)

Doug Horner's question: How will you make sure government is open, transparent and accountable?

These issues are critical so we can engage our citizens. It is not our job to have great ideas, but to lead and let citizens have great ideas. We can't do it without you or without showing you what we're doing. Not just in finances, but also decision making.

DG: There is a tendency to withhold info, and lead the people to the decisions we want them to make.

GM: We're already open on electronic tools, town hall meetings. We should use live streaming.

DH: Connection should be in person too, a live dialogue.

RO: Why haven't we been open? 4 members here, who have previous been in, will uphold the status quo, if you want that.

AR: We need a long term policy plan; there must be dialogue. I will hold cabinet ministers accountable to conversation with the public.

TM: I plan to strengthen the auditor general to reduce government waste and scandal.

(Was reminded by the announcer the question was about openness, reminding him he had been in the news lately for reason similar)
TM: That wasn't me, that was Frederick Lee (his legal name).
AN: (laughs)
TM: I am working with the privacy minister, on the case about internal communication. I have email.

Announcer asks the people who have been on cabinet, "Are emails shredded when you resign?"

AR: The next day after resigning the accounts have been closed. I never considered it before.

DH: It's true, the emails are either transferred to the new person or deleted. Relevant ones may be saved.

TM: how do you shred email?

AN: We know what they mean.

TM: All emails are achieved. Every thing's documented. It would be illegal, a FOIP issue, to wander out with confidential paperwork.

RO: I just want to know why were there confidential emails and a pseudonym? I think you were disenfranchising metis people about their rights.

TM: I was repeating legal advice, the same you get from a lawyer.

Allison Redford's question: Why, in a wealthy province like ours, are our class sizes expanding and we are reducing the number of teachers. What are you going to do about it?

Eliminate the cut. Classrooms matter. Why are we making these decisions based on a fiscal imperative, rather than our values?

DH: We need to change our view; need to budget for the outcome that we want. Not a cap. Teachers need to be honored, and given resources. (applause)

RO: So why were the members not making this argument when they were making policy? Don't sign contracts you can't uphold.

DH: That's what I'm saying. You voted for it too.

RO: You were deputy premier!

DH: That's why I hate this!

GM: We end up like this because we don't have adequate long term planning.  (talks over announcer) It seems like terrible planning.

TM: I proposed a $2000 tuition credit for post-secondary students.

Next Question to Rick Orman: This week we welcomed 6000 students who could predict their tuition thanks to the tuition freeze. Will you maintain this freeze as premier?

I can't say if we will or not, but I know that institutions need funding. I plan to give them a long-term funding structure so they can stabilize.
GM: Absolutely I would, I will also look at student financing. No more parental income requirement. Look at housing situation.

DG: I would totally get rid of it, it just limits the money that goes to post-secondary institutions. I would rather give students more loans then offset their income tax.

DH: Students need the money upfront, and the cap is reasonable. We could allow the students to take part in this decision. I agree with RO, which surprises me, it's not just about tuition. We could use digital textbooks to save money and such.

AR: We need the cap to establish predictability for students. We do need incentives to keep graduates here but we need predictability more.

Friday will wrap up the whole debate, with some single question directed at individual candidates that all are invited to answer. 

No comments: