Government officials are so concerned about the potential for strife over changes to Alberta's labour code that they have beefed up security at the legislature.

"We expect individuals to come and voice their displeasure with what we're doing," said Alberta Employment Minister Hector Goudreau Monday.

Goudreau said extra sheriffs have been brought in this week, but he would not provide any details.

"We're trying to minimize conflicts by just being more on the cautious side."

The changes announced to the labour code Monday are the first in 20 years. Among other things they will ban strikes by ambulance workers and prevent unions from subsidizing contract bids by unionized contractors competing with non-union firms.

The new legislation will also prevent union organizers from joining a non-union company to kick-start the process of unionizing the firm - a practice known as "salting."

CBC News , Tuesday, June 3, 2008

EDMONTON - The Alberta government moved swiftly today towards passing controversial labour code amendments, despite ongoing criticism from labour groups.

Just before debate started on Bill 26, the government made a motion to limit time spent on the matter. Opposition parties accused the government of stifling its opponents.

An NDP press release said the government was jamming the bill through the legislature "in time to hit the golf courses and barbecue circuit."

Liberal Hugh MacDonald said the sooner the government passes the bill, the less chance they will face opposition. "It's restricting and limiting public debate on a public bill," MacDonald said. "They want to steamroll this through and they do not want people get organized to oppose this legislation."

Conservative MLAs argued that opposition members will still have plenty of time to make their case during the seven hours the bill is in committee.

"What argument cannot be made by the opposition members within their allocated 30 or 40 minutes?" Tory Neil Brown asked.

A spokesman for the premier's office said they are hoping to have the bill passed by the end of the week, but are prepared to go into next week if the opposition prolongs the debate.

Union leaders continued to bash the bill, which was introduced Monday. It bans ambulance workers from striking and puts limits on so-called "salting" and "MERFing" practices.

Salting is when a union employee or sympathizer gets a job at a non-union workplace in order to organize workers or disrupt the company's operations. Unions argue the practice is rare, but contractors' associations say it is fairly common.

Market Enhancement Recovery Funds, or MERFs, are used by unions to help union contractors win bids. They are used, for example, to help employers provide benefits or higher salaries to their workers. The government has argued these funds distort the marketplace and harm non-union shops.

Stephen Kushner of the Merit Contractor's association says it's about protecting workers from unwanted salting practices and protecting non-union shops from unfair bidding.

"It's long overdue," he said. This morning, union leaders met for about 30 minutes with Employment Minister Hector Goudreau. They emerged unhappy. "The minister called us together not to hear our concerns or consider our suggestions, but rather to tell us the way things were going to be," said Alberta Federation of Labour President Gil McGowan.

McGowan said the bill isn't about making the market more fair or about worker choice. "What it's really about is tilting the playing field even further in favour of the merit contractors and other friends of the government."

Elisabeth Ballermann, the president of the Health Sciences Association of Alberta, said the government did little or no consultation with unions. She said the bill does nothing but hurt working people.

"There's nothing there but stripping away workers' rights, whether it's construction workers, ambulance workers, et cetera, et cetera," Ballermann said.

The NDP and others accused the government of hitting back at unions who bankrolled an advertising campaign last election attacking the government.

Goudreau said it was a hot issue on the hustings during the last election, particularly after the ads began to air.

"The ad campaign triggered a pile of discussions as we knocked on doors. They were saying why would they do that? So part of that enhanced that type of discussion. Now that's not the only reason. We've been talking about salting and MERFing for seven or eight years."

Speaking to reporters in Calgary, Stelmach said the bill came up now not because of revenge, but because the government finally had time to do it.

"I'm taking a bunch of issues off the backburner," Stelmach said. "There was only so much I could do in the first 14 months."

Debate continues today.

Edmonton Journal, Tues Jun 3 2008
Byline: Archie McLean

The president of a national union was "shocked" and "dismayed" this morning to learn of the federal government's approval of two pipelines via a phone call from Today.

A further twist shortly after that phone call revealed the National Energy Board had also not been informed of the government's decision. That board gives final approval for pipeline applications.

These applications, according to Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, were not supposed to have been approved before considering a request from the federal natural resources standing committee. CEP has a formal petition before cabinet asking that the pipelines not be approved.

A press release issued by Enbridge Tuesday lauding the decision is what prompted the call to CEP, a known opponent of the pipelines, citing the need for better Canadian energy security.

One pipeline will run from Hardisty, Alta. to Superior, Wis.; its initial capacity will be 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil.

The other pipeline will transport diluent, a liquid used to allow non-upgraded oilsands to travel by pipeline, from the U.S. Midwest to Edmonton.

The standing committee urged the federal government to delay the decision of the two applications "until the standing committee has reviewed all of the implications on this, and other proposed pipelines on Canada's energy security ... development, public interest, and that the standing committee has reported its findings to the house."

The request was only tabled, not passed, and remains on the books.

"This is an official government standing committee (asking) the gov to hold on until they get to look at it, and make recommendations to the government -- they get the centre finger .... they gave them the royal salute," said Coles from his Ottawa office.

A response from the federal government about the approvals isn't expected until later this afternoon.

Coles said he can't understand why the prime minister wouldn't listen to his own standing committee, chaired by a Conservative, on such an important issue.

"These guys are like drunken sailors just doing the bidding for big oil.

"I was in Louisiana when (Stephen) Harper went on about the huge role Canada has to play in the energy security of the United States ... Canada has no national energy security; people in eastern Canada are completely at the mercy of the Yanks.

"What is going on here?"

Asked what he was going to do now, Coles replied first, "Get over the shock of having you tell me."

Then "We are not going to sit on our hands," he promised. "Why is the prime minister concerned about the energy needs of the U.S. and not the energy needs of Canada? Why is that question not in the public eye?"

The Alberta Federation of Labour is another opponent to the pipelines which it has likened to a bitumen superhighway, taking Alberta resources and jobs south.

Disappointed but not surprised at the federal approval, Gil McGowan, president, said the federal and provincial governments seem to be blind to what's going on.

"The energy companies are in the process of establishing a continental energy system in which Alberta is being assigned the role of low value extractor, and the Americans are reserving for themselves, the role of high value upgrader and refiner."

And that is neither in the Alberta public interest nor the broader Canadian public interest, said McGowan.

"Our leaders, both at the federal and provincial level, don't seem to care. We feel very strongly they're letting the public down."

"Instead of letting energy companies, and the American state department determine our energy future, our leaders should be blazing their own path, but clearly that's not happening."

Fort McMurray Today, Page A1, Wed May 14 2008
Byline: Carol Christian

Provincial NDP Leader Brian Mason thinks it's unfair that unions outspent his party on television advertising by a margin of more than 10 to one in the recent provincial election.

"The main conversation that took place in the election was not between the opposition parties and the government -- it was between Albertans for Change and the government," Mason told The Journal on Thursday.

Just whose fault was that? The government's? Albertans for Change's? Or our sad-sack opposition parties'?

I'll grant it's odd that the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, the Health Sciences Association of Alberta, the United Nurses of Alberta and the Alberta Building Trades Council chose to form a front group -- Albertans for Change (AFC) -- to present voters with their case against the long-standing Tory government, rather than throwing their money -- estimated at $2 million -- and organization might behind Mason's party.

But the very fact the unions did not support their traditional allies in the NDP shows precisely why a gag law limiting advertising by third parties -- special interests, unions, citizen organizations, etc. -- would be a threat to democracy, rather than an enhancement of it.

In the coming weeks, if the Tory government goes ahead with a bill curtailing ads such as those by the AFC, expect all those in favour to claim it is necessary to preserve our democracy.

But don't believe a word of it.

If Mason's NDP had offered unions the solid chance they were seeking to unseat the Tories, the unions would have backed the NDP. But the unions looked at the two opposition parties on the left -- the Liberals and the NDP -- and decided neither was capable of upsetting the Tory government that organized labour so despises. So they chose instead to form their own umbrella organization, the purpose of which was to convince Albertans to vote for some party other than the Tories.

Thankfully, we live in the one province left in all of Canada where groups of voters such as AFC can still legally launch their own campaign for change during elections. In every other province (and federally), such an independent advertising strategy would have been prohibited. Severe restrictions on third-party ads during elections have given the registered parties a monopoly over the agenda.

Hence Mason's whiney complaint dressed up as a defence of fairness in elections is really a demand for spending laws that ensure parties and their leaders are the only game in town during elections. If Alberta has a gag law in place by the next provincial election, the unions will be forced to funnel their money through a party or parties or forget about trying to have an impact on the outcome.

Why are so many people in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada convinced that elections must be the exclusive purview of official political parties or otherwise they are unfair?

I can understand why party leaders have swallowed this tripe: It serves their selfish interests. Third-party advertising bans ensure parties have no competition for voter attention. Issues the parties don't want raised don't get raised because no one other than the official political parties is permitted enough advertising on television or radio or in newspapers to raise voters' awareness.

Why shouldn't groups of dissatisfied citizens be permitted the same spending limits as official parties?

We are told by the parties, the courts and ethics watchdogs that gag laws prevent Big Money from buying elections, that they preserve a level playing field. But level for whom?

Gag laws give official parties monopolies over debate during the most crucial event in a democracy -- an election.

If such laws level the field, it is only for official parties, not for official parties and third parties and ordinary citizens.

What if you are a voter on the right who favours massive tax cuts, but the only party on the right is so eager to prove itself moderate that it won't advocate the depth of cuts you favour? The parties on the left aren't going to take up your case, so you and others who agree with you are shut out of the debate when only parties are permitted to spend significant sums on ads.

Similarly, what if you are on the left and you believe free trade must be ended but no left-of-centre party is prepared to go so radical? How do you ensure your issue is debated if all the parties can ignore you?

Perhaps low voter turnout is connected to the lack of alternatives the official parties offer. Gags laws would only make that apathy worse.

Finally, consider how foolish it is of the Stelmach government to propose third-party spending limits right after an election in which Alberta witnessed the biggest third-party campaign in its history and yet the government that was the target of the ads was returned with an expanded majority.

If ever you needed proof that gag laws are unnecessary, our recent provincial election is it.

Massive third-party spending failed to sway voters when they didn't want to be swayed.

Money doesn't automatically buy elections.

Edmonton Journal, Sun May 11 2008
Byline: Lorne Gunter

Months after the provincial election, with the closure of the spring legislature session now a beacon of light at the end of a long, dark tunnel, there's still a lot of denial out there.

Apparently, what happened on March 3 when Ed Stelmach defied the wise guys and won a massive landslide victory didn't actually happen.

Or if it did, there was some kind of underlying skulduggery that tricked dopey Albertans into voting Tory for the 12th consecutive time.

They really, really wanted change, but voted against change anyway.

What a bunch of dummies.

Alberta Liberal leader Kevin Taft was warming up to the theme last week based on two inconsequential events that have been blown up into mega-proportions.

The first is a meeting that Calgary MLA David Swann held (reports put the massive crowd at "25 to 30") to discuss the need to not only unite the left, but perhaps start a brand new party.

An overwhelming majority of Albertans rejected the Liberal, NDP and Green brands in the last election - for a number of very good reasons.

The other catalyst for change is a paper that Alberta Federation of Labour president Gil McGowan sent to select members of the denial media trying to rally the troops on the left - and the loony left.

McGowan's most recent attempt to change the course of Alberta political history turned into a train wreck when his "No Plan" anti-Stelmach attack ads back-fired and building trades, AUPE and other union members saw $2.2 million in dues flushed down the toilet.

"It worked in our favour," the premier winked last week.

He talked about the cards and calls received from "upset" union members.

Now the premier wants to put a tight noose on third-party advertising as part of his proposed "full package" of election reforms.

McGowan's new plan is the same-old, same-old excuse that vote-splitting, and not offensive policies and lacklustre leaders, caused the demise of the left on March 3.

So he wants the Liberals, NDP and Greens to cut a deal and not run against each other.

But it's Swann's apparent delusion that the Liberals, NDP and Greens are fundamentally the same thing that defies all logic.

Of course, it was Swann who talked the Liberals into campaigning on shutting down oilsands expansion and winter natural-gas rebates.

That allowed Stelmach to resurrect the ghost of Pierre Trudeau's NEP. It was a landslide winner. Even Taft occasionally comes in from his space walk.

While he insisted "we should be looking at all the options," there really is only one.

"Going to a new party and trying to build a new party from the ground up doesn't make sense," he confessed.

"The Liberals have the chassis that everyone else needs to bring about political change," Taft added.

That's if you buy into Kevin and his media buddies' untested theory that change is in the air. Thousands on March 3 didn't.

"There could be a different name, could be a different leader, could be different policies," he said.

"But there is a very strong base here."

That's exactly the point that Swann clearly doesn't get.

One-in-four Alberta voters are red-scarf-wearing, big "L" Liberals. Heck, they even get misty-eyed when Pierre Trudeau's name comes up.

There's no known cure.

Among them, there's a faction that see Liberalism not as a political philosophy, but a means to an end.

As long as there are Liberal governments from time to time in Ottawa, being an outpost Alberta Liberal can become very lucrative.

That was the case for Senator Grant Mitchell and Senator Nick Taylor, who both paid their dues as Alberta Liberal leaders. They're just the tip of the iceberg.

"I've worked hard to keep our distance from the federal Liberals," insisted Taft. But now he's hinting he's as good as gone, attitudes could change.

He called Liberals' attempt to reinvent themselves "a very organic process."

But so is compost.

Edmonton Sun, Sun May 11 2008
Byline: Neil Waugh

EDMONTON - The Alberta government is considering changes to campaign finance laws that would effectively mute groups such as Albertans for Change, which ran high-priced attack ads during the March election, says Premier Ed Stelmach.

The legislation would also bring party leadership races under the umbrella of campaign finance laws, a move that was loudly demanded by critics during the 2006 Tory leadership campaign.

Stelmach said he would like to introduce the legislation as a package this fall. He was unclear if the legislation would ban third-party spending or simply put limits on it.

"It's something that really piqued my curiosity during this last campaign, though I believe the strategy backfired on whoever came up with the idea," Stelmach said of the campaign.

Albertans for Change was a union-backed effort that ran splashy election advertising attacking the government's record. The ominous voice accusing Stelmach of having "no pla-a-a-a-n" was easily the most recognizable refrain of the campaign.

The exact cost of the ads -- which were supported by the Alberta Building Trades Council, the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, the Health Sciences Association of Alberta and the United Nurses of Alberta -- has never been made fully clear, but estimates have pegged it at more than $2 million, more than double the NDP and Liberal budgets combined.

AFL president Gil McGowan accused Stelmach and the Conservatives of trying to muzzle opponents with the new laws. "This is a disturbing development and it doesn't bode well for democracy in this province," McGowan said. "He's just trying to shut down the voice of the labour movement as a voice of dissent on the left."

NDP Leader Brian Mason said it's unfair that unions could outspend his party on TV ads by a more than 10-to-one margin.

"The main conversation that took place in the election was not between the opposition parties and the government -- it was between Albertans for Change and the government," Mason said. "And I think that had a serious impact on the election."

Mason, who has pushed for new campaign finance laws, wants Stelmach to ban corporate and union donations and implement a system of public campaign financing, as the federal government and some provinces have done.

Stelmach has shown little enthusiasm for the idea.

Liberal Leader Kevin Taft said the Albertans for Change ads may have hurt his party.

"We had nothing to do with that spending whatsoever," Taft said. "And yet, on the doorsteps, we were often getting lectures about how 'You guys are running those terrible attack ads on Ed Stelmach.' So we got dragged into it."

While Albertans for Change was essentially delivering the same message as his party, Taft said their involvement could set an ugly precedent.

"I mean, they've opened the door now. What's to prevent next time any group from advancing all kinds of extreme views? I think we have to think that through."

Duff Conacher, co-ordinator of Ottawa-based Democracy Watch, said Alberta remains a laggard in Canada in implementing election campaign finance reforms.

He praised the province for considering limits on third-party advertising, which the Supreme Court has said is constitutional.

Federal rules cap the total amount of third-party spending at roughly $172,500 for national campaigns.

Conacher, like Mason, also called for a ban on union and corporate donations.

"If you believe in one person, one vote, you should be limiting what any one person can spend in politics," Conacher said.

Stelmach and his Tory leadership opponents faced strong criticism for not disclosing all the donors to their campaigns, which under current laws they were under no obligation to do.

Some candidates, including current cabinet minister Ted Morton and former minister Lyle Oberg, have never disclosed any of their backers.

Stelmach also came under attack -- and was investigated by Alberta's ethics commissioner -- for offering "exclusive" access to people willing to pay $5,000 to attend private soirees that were intended to raise money to pay off leadership debts. Stelmach quickly cancelled the private receptions after they were reported by the media.

"Alberta has the best provincial premier in government that secret money can buy," Conacher quipped. "That's both undemocratic and unethical."

With the Liberals and NDP facing possible upcoming leadership races, the timing of Stelmach's changes come at a politically opportune time.

"I don't plan on going anywhere for the next four years," Stelmach said. "But others may."

Edmonton Journal, Fri May 9 2008
Byline: Archie McLean, with files from Jason Markusoff

The Alberta government is considering changes to campaign finance laws that would effectively mute groups such as Albertans for Change, which ran high-priced attack ads during the March election, Premier Ed Stelmach said.

The legislation would also bring party leadership races under the umbrella of campaign finance laws, a move loudly demanded by critics during the 2006 Tory leadership campaign.

Stelmach said he wants to introduce the legislation this fall, however he was unclear on whether the legislation would ban third-party spending or simply put limits on it.

"It's something that really piqued my curiosity during this last campaign, though I believe the strategy backfired on whoever came up with the idea," Stelmach said of the ads.

Albertans for Change was a union-backed effort that ran splashy election advertising attacking the Stelmach government's record.

The cost of the ads is still unknown but estimates peg it at more than $2 million, or more than double the NDP and Liberal budgets combined.

Alberta Federation of Labour president Gil McGowan accused the Conservatives of trying to muzzle its opponents with the new laws.

"This is a disturbing development and it doesn't bode well for democracy in this province," McGowan said. "He's just trying to shut down the voice of the labour movement as a voice of dissent on the left."

McGowan said the timing of the move smacks of political opportunism, not of a real desire for reform.

But NDP Leader Brian Mason said it's unfair the unions could outspend his party on TV ads by more than a 10-to-one margin.

"The main conversation that took place in the election was not between the opposition parties and the government -- it was between Albertans for Change and the government," Mason said. "And I think that had a serious impact on the election."

Mason, who has pushed hard for new campaign finance laws, also wants Stelmach to ban corporate and union donations and implement a system of public campaign financing like the federal government and some provinces.

Stelmach has shown little enthusiasm for the idea.

Alberta Liberal Leader Kevin Taft said the Albertans for Change ads may have actually hurt his party.

"On the doorsteps, we were often getting lectures about how 'you guys are running those terrible attack ads on Ed Stelmach.' So we got dragged into it," said Taft.

Duff Conacher, co-ordinator of Ottawa-based Democracy Watch, said Alberta remains a laggard in implementing election campaign finance reforms. He praised the province for considering a ban on third party ads.

Conacher, like Mason, also called for a ban on union and corporate donations.

"If you believe in one person, one vote, you should be limiting what any one person can spend in politics," Conacher said.

Edmonton Journal, Fri May 9 2008
Archie McLean, with files from Jason Markusoff

Alberta Liberal Leader Kevin Taft said Wednesday he is open to discussing the future of his party, but dismissed one of his MLA's moves toward starting a new party.

"Trying to build a new party from the ground up is an interesting idea maybe, but it's not realistic," Taft said. "I'd much rather build on the strengths that we've got."

Taft was responding to Calgary MLA David Swann's informal proposal to start a new party in Alberta based on environmental politics, government accountability and democratic reform.

Since the March 3 election, Swann has been meeting with other MLAs and interested people about the idea.

Swann said he is simply interested in reinvigorating Albertans disillusioned with the political process.

"Whatever that takes," Swann said. "It may not be a new party. It may be that what we can do in this Liberal party is re-ignite people through a renewal and a reorganization and some new people in this party.

"Whatever it takes, I'm prepared to help that process move forward and re-ignite a real commitment in the citizens of Alberta in the political process."

At the very least, Swann said he favours a new name for the Liberals, a suggestion Taft said was a possibility, though not enough on its own.

"What we really need to do is reach out, not just to the left, which everybody is talking about, but also on the right," Taft said.

After losing seats in the March 3 election, many opposition party members began to question the status quo. Since then, they have batted around various suggestions -- from name changes to political alliances to new leaders.

Alberta Federation of Labour president Gil McGowan recently proposed an alliance between the Liberals and NDP that would see them divvy up seats to prevent vote splitting on the left and centre-left. McGowan said he floated the idea to give shape to discussions that were already taking place informally.

But local NDP MLA Rachel Notley was skeptical that her party's members would join a new party.

"I think New Democrats are very committed to the party and the principles of the party. And I just don't believe they would be prepared to change or dilute or altogether abandon certain key principles the NDP hold that are simply not reflected in either the Liberal or the Green agenda."

Notley said some of these ideas sound good in theory, but don't withstand strong scrutiny. She said a diversity of opinions in the legislature is important and that the NDP has been a strong advocate on a number of issues, including energy royalties.

Edmonton Journal, Thurs May 8 2008
Byline: Archie McLean

Calgary Liberal MLA David Swann has the right idea about solving the malaise of political opposition in Alberta.

When he talks in principle about a new political movement, and when explains that "We have to move where Albertans want us to move" -- he recognizes that the goal is service, not power, and that the needs and aspirations of the population, and not those of political parties, must be the focus.

Alberta Federation of Labour president Gil McGowan, on the contrary, walks the wrong path when he talks about electoral pacts "because vote splitting is keeping the Conservatives in power," however much he deserves credit for pushing against the divided-opposition status quo.

It might well be that more opposition MLAs would be elected if those who wish to terminate the Tories' four-decade dominance were forced accept a single alternative -- but herding voters into corrals they wouldn't have chosen on their own is unlikely to boost their confidence that that the ranch is being run for their benefit.

In a province that places great store in the value of choice, surely offering a new one makes more democratic sense than the very negative-sounding step of taking choices away.

In a way, the electoral-pact approach places blame on voters for Liberal and NDP failure, rather than respecting citizens' preference for the Conservatives, and forcing opposition politicians and their backers to confront their own shortcomings.

On the federal scene, it took Reformers and Progressive Conservatives a only a decade to learn this lesson, despite having to overcome animosities and policy differences that make Alberta's opposition rivalries look like schoolyard squabbles.

Surely Albertans of an opposition mindset -- both those currently engaged and those sitting with chagrined resignation on the sidelines -- have an equal creativity and sense of sacrifice for the sake of public service.

Perhaps, in the foregoing remarks, some readers will see an anti-government political agenda. That's not the intention.

The fact is, the majority of Albertans who generally approve of the provincial Conservatives should value a more effective opposition just as much -- because a government looking over its shoulder naturally works harder and better to keep power.

It's instructive to contemplate the recent dead-duck controversy up in the oilsands region, and wonder if -- say -- fear of a politically effective conservation-oriented opposition would have had government more worried about those tailings ponds before national and international pressure got the Stelmach government jumping like a scalded cat.

Who knows what a new political movement would look like, or even whether it would ultimately make sense to absorb both of the current main opposition movements?

If it deals merely with cosmetics such as the name, or fails to deliver a genuine, sincere common purpose, or is unable to bring in new blood and ideas, it probably can't succeed.

But trying to manipulate Albertans into changing behaviour by limiting choice is not the way to go.

Edmonton Journal, Thurs May 8 2008
Byline: Archie McLean

Alberta Liberals are divided over how to reinvigorate an opposition movement that was crushed in the provincial election, with the Grit chief arguing one of his MLA's proposals to possibly create a new party "is not realistic."

Liberal MLAs are all over the map on whether to ditch the party name, with some insisting it has to go and others unwilling to cut ties with the historic brand name.

Calgary-Mountain View Liberal MLA David Swann recently met with MLAs and supporters of the Grits, NDP and Alberta Greens about starting a new party based on environmental politics, accountability and democratic reform.

While Swann insists that debate on how to reenergize the opposition in Alberta must include talk of creating a new party -- or a new name for the Grits, at the very least -- Liberal Leader Kevin Taft argued Wednesday that creating a new political machine isn't the way to go.

"Going to a new party, trying to build a new party from the ground up doesn't make sense," Taft told reporters, adding that the concept "is not realistic."

Taft acknowledged there could be a different name and even a new leader by the next election, but the Liberal base is in place and shouldn't be gutted.

"There's no other realistic alternative," he added. "It's like the Alberta Liberals have the chassis that everybody else needs to bring about political change."

But Swann said change is certainly needed, after the Tories captured 72 of 83 seats in the March provincial election, leaving the Official Opposition Liberals with only nine seats and the NDP with two.

A reorganization and renewal of the opposition is what's needed, and that may include a new party and brand, he said, although he noted the final decision will rest with the grassroots members.

"Whatever it takes," Swann said. "I think there's a new name needed."

He plans to meet with former Reform party leader Preston Manning to talk about his experiences launching a new party and about green politics and democratic accountability.

Swann's musings come as the Alberta Federation of Labour has proposed an alliance between the Liberals and NDP in hopes of preventing vote splitting, and to steal back a chunk of support from the Conservatives, who've ruled for 37 consecutive years.

Liberal house leader Laurie Blakeman backs Swann's suggestions of looking at all possibilities, including launching a new party. But she noted there could be some divisions in the party ranks about what is the best option.

"I'm open to anything. I think we have to be innovative here," Blakeman said.

Calgary-McCall MLA Darshan Kang was adamant Wednesday that the party stick with the Liberal brand name.

"We should work hard to reinvent the party under the Alberta Liberal party," Kang said.

Calgary Herald, Thurs May 8 2008
Byline: Jason Fekete