Calgary Sun columnist Paul Jackson seems to be back on the Alberta Alliance bandwagon. In today's column he describes Paul Hinman as "bubbling with ideas". Based on the number of quotes from Hinman contained in the column, it would appear that Paul Jackson recently interviewed the faltering Alberta Alliance leader.
That must have been quite an interview.
I wonder if anyone brought up the fact that Jackson has recently (i) called for Hinman to step down, and (ii) described the Alberta Alliance as "seemingly dead" under Hinman's leadership. Hehehe.
But I digress.
This column is noteworthy because it contains a couple of contradictions.
Firstly, Hinman makes the remarkable observation that Kevin Taft's Liberals may be the beneficiaries of Ed Stelmach's recent victory in the Alberta PC leadership race, and that the Alberta Alliance will then rise to power after "the shock is over":
He believes Stelmach's term will turn out to be only a "babysitting" government, and Liberal Leader Kevin Taft may be right in predicting his own party will make gains come the next election.
"The Liberals might go up the middle, but the Liberal gains will be short-lived. In the best-case scenario, we might see a minority government, but after that shock is over, Alberta voters will be looking for a solid, Conservative alternative."
That alternative, Hinman, 47, contends will be the Alliance.
This position contradicts the usual dogma Alberta Alliance members spurt, namely, that the Alliance will blow away the PC's in a sudden, massive, electoral sweep - much like the PC sweep of the Socreds back in 1971. Now, it would appear that Hinman believes there may be a Liberal government in between the PC dynasty and the Alliance coming to power.
Oh well.
Next, he indicates that he would hire more public servants:
To encourage more doctors, nurses, teachers, firefighters and other essential service workers to move to Alberta or stay in their jobs, he'd give them tax incentives, too.
But would then reduce the total size of the public service at the same time:
He'd reduce the size of the provincial public service.
Because, according to Hinman, there are simply too many public servants in Alberta:
"On a per capita basis, Alberta has more government employees than any other provincial government and even more than the federal government, yet the private sector is crying out for employees."
But, according to Statistics Canada, Alberta has the lowest number of public sector employees per capita in the country. From Table 1-3:
| Province | Public Sector Employees per 1,000 population | |
| 1. | Alberta | 83 |
| 2. | Ontario | 85 |
| 3. | B.C. | 88 |
| 4. | Quebec | 92 |
| 5. | N.B. | 104 |
| 6. | Nfld. | 109 |
| 7. | N.S. | 117 |
| 8. | Manitoba | 123 |
| 9. | P.E.I. | 128 |
| 10. | Saskatchewan | 137 |
| 11. | Yukon | 168 |
| 12. | N.W.T. | 183 |
| 13. | Nunavut | 207 |
What is Hinman going on about? Based on this data, he couldn't be more wrong.
I assume there must be an explanation for this contradiction, but Paul Jackson wouldn't appear to have even noticed it.
Perhaps I should endeavor to email Paul Hinman and see if he'll provide it to me.
Source (click for full size):
