With their nomination papers filed and $40,000 deposits firmly in the hands of the Progressive Conservative Party, it only took two days for all six leadership hopefuls to start piling on their leader and the decisions he has made. The first subject is the government's approach to education spending, but any criticism of Premier Ed Stelmach's decisions automatically begs the question, didn't most of the candidates help make it?
Rick Orman, Gary Mar, Doug Horner, Alison Redford, Doug Griffiths and Ted Morton were speaking out against Stelmach's treatment of education over the last two years that saw the government first withholding funds earmarked to increase teachers' salaries per the five-year deal in place, then giving teachers their cash this year but holding out on school boards with no promises of any significant relief in sight.
Orman and Mar can be forgiven in this case because neither was a sitting member of the government at the time. But of the four remaining candidates, Horner, Redford and Morton were cabinet ministers before they resigned their posts to run for the leadership. And Griffiths is a PC MLA who served on several different committees and as a parliamentary secretary. So the question naturally follows - weren't Redford, Horner, Morton and Griffiths a part of the decision to withhold funding from education both this year and last? And if they now find it so detestable as to criticize their soon-to-be former party leader, why didn't they do or say anything about it at the time?
Only Orman and Mar can claim innocence in this debate and in others that are sure to arise as a result of Stelmach's tenure, but the rest will face guilt by association. Starting with the first debate in Vermilion on Thursday, it will be an important tactic for the former cabinet ministers and lone MLA to distance themselves from their leader on this particular issue and others that will arise. But besides criticizing the approach they supported when they were in cabinet, what will Horner, Redford, Morton and Griffiths have to offer in terms of sustainable education funding?
It seems everyone except Morton is ready to do something, but the specifics are murky, as is usually the case in a campaign of any kind. Morton has already stated he believes school boards receive more than enough government money, meaning no additional funding is necessary - his sights are set on post-secondary education. Orman believes in honouring agreements, such as the five-year deal the government struck with Alberta teachers, but doesn't want to give the school boards any more money in a time of deficit. Both Griffiths and Redford have issued little more than "the children are our future" statements in calling for more funding for education, while Horner and Mar are both committed to "adequate" and "sustainable funding."
All have their pet projects, but the biggest question that plagues education right now is the issue of funding, where it will come from and whether or not it will be reliable and sustainable. Saying you're committed is one thing but proving it is quite another. PC members and, later on, Albertans as a whole will need to hear and see a lot more than what's being offered before they are willing to accept that these candidates aren't just Stelmach in another form.
- St. Albert Gazette, a Great West Newspaper
