The Soapbox family is not terribly religious, but every Easter we gather with the girls and their partners (if they’re around) for our favourite Easter tradition: colouring eggs. This year Mr Soapbox won in the Ugly Politician category with his orange topped Trump egg. Given that you’ve already had enough of Trump, I’m posting a picture of Mr Soapbox’s prize. A sweet little Lindt chocolate bunny.
Sometimes Easter, Passover and Ramadan overlap, sometimes they don’t. But now more than ever, we must remember that we’re one big community who need to support each other. Now more than ever.
“She’s playing with fire with a foreign adversary.” Political scientist, Duane Bratt in an interview with Mark Hislop
This week Alberta’s premier, Danielle Smith, gave Canadians another reason not to support her pick, Pierre Poilievre, for prime minister in the upcoming federal election.
Smith met with Prime Minister Mark Carney, and issued a list of demands that “the next Prime Minister, regardless of who that is, must address within the first six months of their term to avoid an unprecedented national unity crisis.”
Let’s think about that for a moment:
The dynamic duo
The next prime minister
Right now, it’s jump ball as to who will become Canada’s next prime minister; but even if it’s Smith’s pick, Poilievre, she’s not cutting him any slack. Her message is clear: Accede to my demands within six months or face a national unity crisis.
Guaranteeing Alberta full access to unfettered oil and gas corridors to the north, east, and west
Repealing Bill C-69 (aka. “no new pipelines act”)
Lifting the tanker ban off the B.C. coast
Eliminating the oil and gas emissions cap, which is a production cap
Scrapping the so-called Clean Electricity Regulations
Ending the prohibition on single use plastics
Abandoning the net-zero car mandate
Returning oversight of the industrial carbon tax to the provinces
Halting the federal censorship of energy companies
No export tax or restriction on Alberta’s oil and gas to the US
No more “subsidizing other large provinces who are fully capable of funding themselves” and
Rectifying the “federal mismanagement of Jasper and Banff national parks” which she says resulted in the Jasper wildfire and the endangering of Banff.
While it’s true that the PM and his government can repeal the federal laws and policies Smith finds objectionable, the PM cannot accede to her demand that Alberta has “full access to unfettered oil and gas corridors to the north, east, and west” without violating Section 35 (the recognition of aboriginal and treat rights) and Sections 91/92 (the division of federal and provincial powers).
Nor can the PM unilaterally allow Alberta to stop “subsidizing other large provinces who are fully capable of funding themselves” without violating Section 36(2) (equalization).
Smith may have MAGA stars in her eyes, but Canada is not ruled by an authoritarian dictator.
The threat
If the PM, whoever it may be, fails to satisfy Smith’s demands within six months there will be “an unprecedented national unity crisis” presumably triggered by Smith on behalf of Alberta.
Here’s what’s “unprecedented” about Smith’s threat. Unlike the PQ who were elected on the promise of holding a referendum on Quebec’s sovereignty, Smith never once campaigned on taking Alberta out of Confederation.
She had no mandate and does not speak for Albertans and yet she’s making demands which, if not met, she says will result in an “unprecedented national unity crisis.” Has she lost her mind?
Patriotism
Lastly, Smith’s demand that the PM agree that there will be no export tax or restriction on Alberta’s oil and gas is unpatriotic and stupid. Donald Trump started the trade war to weaken Canada’s economy so that he can force Canada to become the 51st state. The last thing a good negotiator threatened with annihilation does is take his bargaining chips off the table before the game has begun.
The ballot question
Before Smith issued her edict, there was just one ballot question: Who can best protect Canada from the threat of Donald Trump: Mark Carney or Smith’s pick, Pierre Poilievre?
Now there’s a second ballot question: Who can best protect Canada from the threat of Danielle Smith: Mark Carney or Smith’s pick, Pierre Poilievre?
You may have noticed that Ms Soapbox has been a little quieter than usual. Like many of you, I’m trying to come to terms with the state of the world, including:
Living next door to a raving lunatic.
Living in a province where the premier appears to be more interested in making excuses for the MAGA king than being a full-fledged member of Team Canada,
Watching our social services crumble under the weight of the UCP government’s ineptitude.
Anyway, there’s a lot going on in the world, our country and our province, and I’m working on a project which means I am not able to devote as much time as I’d like to this blog, so I’m taking a brief Sabbatical, but I’ll be back.
On the third Monday in February eight Canadian provinces will celebrate a special day.
Alberta, BC, New Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan call it Family Day. Manitoba celebrates Louis Riel Day; Nova Scotia celebrates Heritage Day and PEI celebrates Islander Day.
Although not all Canadians will be off tomorrow, I’d like to wish all Canadians a Happy Canadian Family Day in honour of our Canadian family.
This year a bully president is threatening tariffs to force Canada to become the 51st state. To join the great American family as it were.
This isn’t the first time America has tried to take over Canada.
Canadians sing the National Anthem
In 1866 president Andrew Johnson repealed a trade treaty with Britain in the hopes that the colonies would collapse and agree to join America. The ploy backfired and in 1867 Canada, a new country, was founded on America’s northern border.
In 1890 another president, William McKinley, imposed tariffs (even higher than the Trump tariffs) to gut our economy and force us into America’s loving embrace.
What’s that old saying: with friends like these who needs enemies.
Canada boosted its exports elsewhere and in the words of the then Minister of Trade and Commerce “our neighbours are cutting off their own noses to spite us.”
History has shown that when the USA attacks our Canadian family, we get stronger, not weaker.
We have the will and the fortitude to rebuff Trump’s ‘advances’ and build our own future without the assistance of the bullyboy south of our border.
Happy Canadian Family Day!
*This post is based on the Globe and Mail editorial “Trump’s bully tactics are nothing new” Feb 15, 2025, p O20
NOTE: WORD PRESS HAS POSTED THIS BLOG TWICE. IF YOUR COMMENT ISN’T HERE YOU CAN TRY CLICKING ON THE LINK WITH THE SAME NAME ABOVE TO SEE IF IT’S THERE.
“This isn’t mismanagement—it’s a scandal”—Mike Parker, president of the Health Sciences Association. Calling for an independent investigation into the Alberta Surgical Initiative (a $400 Mill effort to outsource surgeries to for-profit organizations).
Ms Soapbox has wrecked her back and, as such, can’t sit still for very long, however she has a few words to say about the recent Globe and Mail article in which Ms Mentzelopoulos (Ms M), former CEO of AHS, made a number of incendiary allegations about the Alberta government interfering with the procurement and contracting procedures at AHS.
The gist of Ms M’s allegations is that AHS (ie the Alberta taxpayer) may have been pressured by the government (the Alberta taxpayer’s proxy) into overpaying for for-profit healthcare services (including services it would not necessarily receive).
After three days of saying nothing, Premier Smith issued a brief press release in which she said:
She’s asking the AG for an expedited review and directed her officials to be “fully transparent with the AG
She wants AHS to finish its internal review as quickly as possible so “we can study the results and make improvements or adjustments to these processes”
AHS has paused contracting for these surgical facilities, and
“As Premier, [she] was not involved in any wrongdoing. Any insinuation to the contrary is false, baseless and defamatory.”
Of those points, it’s the last one that’s most interesting.
Why?
Because the AG doesn’t have to prove “wrongdoing” (certainly not in the criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt sense). All he has to do is show a lack of compliance with AHS and Alberta Health procurement and contracting policies, which no doubt include a series of checks and balances to ensure maximum bang for the buck, ie every single taxpayer dollar is spent wisely and is properly accounted for.
If there’s a scintilla of substance to Ms M’s allegations,we’ll hear about it. And heads will roll.
So, on the topic of rolling heads, this might be a good time to remind the premier—who seems to think the private sector is the holy grail for public services—that this is one thing the private sector does very well.
When something goes horribly wrong on a CEO’s watch, they resign—BP’s CEO, Anthony Bryan Hayward, did not install the defective blow-out-protector used in the Deep Water Horizon oil well—but he resigned when it exploded.
The premier’s record with outsourcing healthcare services, be it DynaLife lab services, Turkish Tylenol, or the Alberta Surgical Initiative, leaves a lot to be desired.
But if the AG determines that Ms M’s allegations have substance, that’s the last straw.
NOTE: WORD PRESS HAS POSTED THIS BLOG TWICE. IF YOUR COMMENT ISN’T HERE YOU CAN TRY CLICKING ON THE LINK WITH THE SAME NAME ABOVE TO SEE IF IT’S THERE.
“This isn’t mismanagement—it’s a scandal”—Mike Parker, president of the Health Sciences Association. Calling for an independent investigation into the Alberta Surgical Initiative (a $400 Mill effort to outsource surgeries to for-profit organizations).
Ms Soapbox has wrecked her back and, as such, can’t sit still for very long, however she has a few words to say about the recent Globe and Mail article in which Ms Mentzelopoulos (Ms M), former CEO of AHS, made a number of incendiary allegations about the Alberta government interfering with the procurement and contracting procedures at AHS.
The gist of Ms M’s allegations is that AHS (ie the Alberta taxpayer) may have been pressured by the government (the Alberta taxpayer’s proxy) into overpaying for for-profit healthcare services (including services it would not necessarily receive).
After three days of saying nothing, Premier Smith issued a brief press release in which she said:
She’s asking the AG for an expedited review and directed her officials to be “fully transparent with the AG
She wants AHS to finish its internal review as quickly as possible so “we can study the results and make improvements or adjustments to these processes”
AHS has paused contracting for these surgical facilities, and
“As Premier, [she] was not involved in any wrongdoing. Any insinuation to the contrary is false, baseless and defamatory.”
Of those points, it’s the last one that’s most interesting.
Why?
Because the AG doesn’t have to prove “wrongdoing” (certainly not in the criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt sense). All he has to do is show a lack of compliance with AHS and Alberta Health procurement and contracting policies, which no doubt include a series of checks and balances to ensure maximum bang for the buck, ie every single taxpayer dollar is spent wisely and is properly accounted for.
If there’s a scintilla of substance to Ms M’s allegations,we’ll hear about it. And heads will roll.
So, on the topic of rolling heads, this might be a good time to remind the premier—who seems to think the private sector is the holy grail for public services—that this is one thing the private sector does very well.
When something goes horribly wrong on a CEO’s watch, they resign—BP’s CEO, Anthony Bryan Hayward, did not install the defective blow-out-protector used in the Deep Water Horizon oil well—but he resigned when it exploded.
The premier’s record with outsourcing healthcare services, be it DynaLife lab services, Turkish Tylenol, or the Alberta Surgical Initiative, leaves a lot to be desired.
But if the AG determines that Ms M’s allegations have substance, that’s the last straw.
“This isn’t mismanagement—it’s a scandal”—Mike Parker, president of the Health Sciences Association, calling for an independent investigation into the Alberta Surgical Initiative (a $400 Mill effort to outsource surgeries to for-profit organizations).
Ms Soapbox has wrecked her back and, as such, can’t sit still for very long, however she has a few words to say about the recent Globe and Mail article in which Ms Mentzelopoulos (Ms M), former CEO of AHS, made a number of incendiary allegations about the Alberta government interfering with procurement and contracting procedures at AHS.
The gist of Ms M’s allegations is that AHS (ie the Alberta taxpayer) may have been pressured by the government (the Alberta taxpayer’s proxy) into overpaying for for-profit healthcare services (including services it would not necessarily receive).
After three days of saying nothing, Premier Smith issued a brief press release in which she said:
One of these people is in big trouble.
She’s asking the AG for an expedited review and directed her officials to be “fully transparent with the AG
She wants AHS to finish its internal review as quickly as possible so “we can study the results and make improvements or adjustments to these processes”
AHS has paused contracting for these surgical facilities, and
“As Premier, [she] was not involved in any wrongdoing. Any insinuation to the contrary is false, baseless and defamatory.”
Of those points, it’s the last one that’s most interesting.
Why?
Because the AG doesn’t have to prove “wrongdoing” (certainly not in the criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt sense). All he has to do is show a lack of compliance with AHS and Alberta Health procurement and contracting policies, which no doubt include a series of checks and balances to ensure maximum bang for the buck, ie every single taxpayer dollar is spent wisely and is properly accounted for.
If there’s a scintilla of substance to Ms M’s allegations, we’ll hear about it. And heads will roll.
So on the topic of rolling heads, this might be a good time to remind the premier—who seems to think the private sector is the holy grail for public services—that there is one thing the private sector does very well.
When something goes horribly wrong on a CEO’s watch, they resign—BP’s CEO, Anthony Bryan Hayward, did not install the defective blow-out-protector used in the Deep Water Horizon oil well—but he resigned when it exploded.
The premier’s record with outsourcing healthcare services, be it DynaLife lab services, Turkish Tylenol, or the Alberta Surgical Initiative, leaves a lot to be desired.
But if the AG determines that Ms M’s allegations have substance, that’s the last straw.
“I know Canadians are famous for being nice. Thoughtful. Decent. Those are great qualities in human beings. But in a knife fight with Donald Trump, none of them matters”—Bradley Tusk, American venture capitalist, political strategist.
It’s been an interesting ride since Trump was re-elected.
He mused about using tariffs to force Canada to fix its “lax” border security, asserting that we were flooding the US with fentanyl and illegal migrants. (Less than 1% of the fentanyl and illegal crossings into the US come from Canada). He said the US had paid “hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada.” And that the US didn’t need anything Canada produces and should become “our Cherished 51st State.”
When Canada didn’t jump at the chance to join the USA (a slam dunk decision, who wouldn’t want to become an American?) he retaliated with economic force.
Just as he said he would.
Despite all this, some Canadians are still asking themselves: What does Trump want?
Good Lord, people, he’s spelled it out in his actions (25% tariff) and his words (from Truth Social to Davos). He wants us, more specifically, our natural resources.
Uncle Sam want Canada
The only question Canadians should be asking themselves is this: Are we going to give Canada to Trump?
Which brings me to Prime Minister Trudeau’s speech last night.
The PM said many things about Canada being America’s friend and standing by America’s side when it counted, including fighting and dying with Americans in Afghanistan and sheltering Americans who were stranded here after 9/11. Apparently, this is no longer enough. Now America wants our energy and our water and our critical minerals, the list goes on.
We’re nice, but we’re not stupid. As Bradley Tusk said, we’re in a knife fight with a bully. It’s sad it’s come to this, but here we are.
Canada will impose a package of retaliatory tariffs totaling $155 billion on goods–$30 will go into effect on Feb 4 and the remaining $125 B kicks in three weeks later.
Furthermore, “all options remain on the table.” These options include non-tariff options which could restrict the supply of critical minerals, potash, and energy to the US if Trump doesn’t back off.
Tomorrow is Monday. The stock market will let us know what corporate America (all those CEOs who thought Trump was their friend) thinks of Trump’s plan to annex Canada by economic force. I predict they won’t be happy.
It will be a rough ride, but remember, this isn’t the first time we’ve been attacked by our “friends” to the south. America came after Canada with military aggression in 1775 and 1812 and economic aggression in 1930.*
We repelled them then and we will repel them now.
*Confederation didn’t occur until 1867, but Canada has been around as a “vaguely defined place” since the mid-1500s.
Last November Danielle Smith said she wasn’t worried about tariffs on oil and gas products (at that time Trump was threatening a 10 to 20% tariff on Canadian goods). Last week after her “constructive” meeting with Trump she did a 180 and said Canada should get ready because tariffs are coming (Trump’s now threatening a 25% tariff across the board).
“Don’t worry” to “Get ready” in less than two months. The fact Smith has any credibility left is remarkable.
Trade war
Trump started this trade war with the specious argument that the 25% tariff was necessary to make Canada stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into the US. Then when Canada responded with meaningful measures to address the problem, Trump revealed his real agenda.
He’s prepared to use “economic force” to make Canada give the US whatever it wants, ie minerals and water and whatever else we have that he likes the look of. Apparently deeply discounted oil and natural gas are not enough.
Premier Smith, President-elect Trump and a hanger on
The historian, Timothy Snyder, who’s written extensively on Putin’s expansionist plans, says Trump’s threats should be taken seriously.
Which is why I’m glad the federal government and the provincial/territorial premiers (with the exception of Danielle Smith) are pushing back, hard.
Canada’s response
Experts tell us that Trump’s 25% tariff on everything could throw Canada into a recession. They also say Canada can fight back. Its oil, potash, uranium, and other critical minerals are worth an estimated $1.1 trillion—that’s trillion with a T—and a good chunk of that is shipped across the border to feed the US’s voracious appetite.
Canada’s Natural Resources minister says nothing was off the table. This is consistent with comments by the economist Kevin Milligan who says: “This will be a total trade war and restricting ourselves to putting cutesy tariffs on stuff is a strategic error.”
Got that? Trade war. Canada can’t enter one of the most important negotiations in its history with one hand tied behind its back. But that’s exactly what Smith insists the country should do.
Smith’s response
Smith spent part of her vacation taking selfies with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. She smiled sweetly and made her case for exempting oil and natural gas from Trump’s 25% tariff. She failed.
Nevertheless, when she teleconferenced into the First Ministers meeting to strategize how Canada should respond to the Trump tariff, she refused to support export tariffs or curtailing the supply of Alberta’s oil and natural gas to the US. It should be noted that Alberta is not the only province being asked to make this sacrifice. The rest of the provinces and territories support the Team Canada approach.
But I get it. Smith wants to protect Albertans’ jobs.
Fine, what’s her plan?
She says she’ll be “travelling to Washington DC…for the inauguration, and will be returning to the United States several times over the coming months to meet with US lawmakers and officials to continue to make the case against the imposition of tariffs on Canadian products and to strengthen and grow the trading relationship between our two great and independent nations.”
Ah, she’s deploying the shmooze offensive. The one that was so successful when she hung around the golf course at Mar-a-Lago last week. Brilliant.
This is serious business
The unprovoked 25% tariff is Trump’s shot across our bow. He wants to see what nice, polite Canada will do in response. We must take Trump’s threat of “economic force” seriously.
As Doug Ford said, “You can’t let someone hit you over the head with a sledgehammer without hitting them back twice as hard…Nothing is more important than keeping every tool in our toolbox, no matter if it’s energy, or other commodities like high-grade nickel form Ontario or aluminum from Quebec, [or] potash from Saskatchewan. You don’t negotiate through weakness. You negotiate through strength.”
Smith has more than enough bravado when she’s fighting with Justin Trudeau, but it all goes up in smoke when she’s talking to Trump.
I suppose coming face to face with her hero made Smith go ga-ga, but we’re on the cusp of an existential crisis. It’s time for Smith to stow her MAGA hat and show some real leadership.
Because when you give into a bully, it only gets worse.
“In the most dangerous of times, those who escape and survive generally know people whom they can trust. Having old friends is the politics of last resort. And making new ones is the first step toward change.” — Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny.
How do we stay sane, let alone optimistic, knowing that we’re stuck with two and a half more years of Smith’s UCP government and Lord only knows how many years of the Poilievre conservatives after Justin Trudeau vacates the prime minister’s office. To say nothing of the chaos coming at us from four years of Donald Trump. (A friend said, if nothing else the internecine battles of his supporters—Musk and Bannon come to mind—will be entertaining).
At times it feels so overwhelming that all I want to do is hide under the bed until all this blows over.
This represents chaos theory. I have no idea what it means.
But it’s not going to blow over. So here’s what I’ve decided to do.
Community
In addition to writing scathing letters to government ministers and donating like crazy to progressive causes, I’m going to focus on community (my family, friends, and people with whom I share other interests) because I’ve noticed that my community pulls together when confronted with a difficult situation, regardless of how the members of that community vote on the provincial or federal level.
My community is a place where I can have meaningful conversations with others who don’t think the same way as I do. .
For example, when a friend told me that he was tired of people telling him what to think, I asked who was telling him what to think and what exactly they wanted him to think.
It turned out my friend had a beef with people who wanted him to refer to them as “he”, “she” or ‘they.” Our conversation went like this:
Q: Which people?
A: Well, no one in particular, it was in the media.
Q: And why do you find this offensive?
A: It’s just weird.
Q: Surely, it’s no weirder than asking people to call you Apple?
A: True.
Q: So, if it makes them comfortable, what’s the big deal?
A: Mumble, mumble.
Our conversation didn’t devolve into name calling because my friend and I are part of a community. A decade ago, we both worked for the same company, and we’ve known each other for 30 years.
I don’t know if I changed his mind, but hopefully our conversation helped him understand that someone who’s asking to be treated with respect is not “telling him what to think.”
Obviously, that’s a simple example.
The more difficult conversations are like the one I had with four friends over lunch where we were talking about who we’d support in the next federal election. Everyone at the table had been stalwart Liberal party supporter but was now so fed up with Trudeau that one had decided to spoil his ballot, the other was going to vote for the NDP (an option I too am considering) and the other two said they’d vote for the Poilievre conservatives.
Vote for the CPC? Really?
We discussed this for a while, but I didn’t get a good sense of why my progressive friends would be prepared to throw their lot in with the CPC.
These people are members of my community of politically engaged (one might say hyper engaged) friends, so we’ll keep talking. Perhaps the three of us who wouldn’t consider voting for Poilievre will be able to talk the other two out of it, but no matter what, they’re part of my community, generally speaking we share similar values and it’s important we not give up on each other.
Your turn
That’s my plan.
I would be interested in hearing how you are going to navigate the coming chaos without driving yourself batty.
Susan on the Soapbox 