The ‘stay-out-of-my-backyard’ (‘no-funds-for-you!’) bill

Ric McIver, the Minister for Municipal Affairs, is the point man on Bill 18, the Provincial Priorities Act or as Danielle Smith like to call it, the ‘stay-out-of-my-backyard’ bill (images of cranky old men shaking their fists at kids cutting across their lawns spring to mind).

Bill 18 will force municipalities and provincially regulated entities (housing authorities, universities, health authorities) to get provincial government consent before they can enter into, amend, extend, or renew agreements with the federal government.

Ric McIver and Danielle Smith

Why?  

It’s not as if Trudeau’s most recent housing announcement is the first time the feds have signed funding deals with municipalities. Or awarded research grants to professors working at universities.  

Never fear, Smith has her reasons, including the following:

Jurisdiction: Smith says the feds giving money directly to municipalities and other provincial entities is (yet another) example of the federal government’s overreach. These entities fall within the province’s sole jurisdiction, therefore the feds should not be doling out money to them.

However, instead of taking her nifty sovereignty act out for a spin or suing the feds on some hokey constitutional grounds, she’s going to pass Bill 18 to make it illegal for municipalities and other entities to accept federal funds without her consent.

In other words, the alleged federal overreach is fine, provided Smith can interpose herself between the feds and the municipalities so she can control who gets the money and what it’s used for.  

Strings attached: Smith railed against the fed’s “unrelenting and ideological push” towards net-zero housing, net-zero electricity and safer drug supply programs, saying Alberta has its own policies to address these issues.

Really?

Smith’s Emissions Reduction and Energy Development Plan is a year old and her government has yet to provide details of how it will meet its 2050 net-zero target. She is still relying on yet-to-be-invented technologies and yet-to-be-passed regulations and yet-to-be-set interim targets to get us there.

And Smith’s program to address toxic drug deaths is a dismal failure.  

Smith may criticize the fed’s “ideological push” all she wants, but until the UCP’s ideological push offers something better she doesn’t have a leg to stand on.     

Alberta should be treated like Quebec: The Alberta government may wish to be treated like Quebec, but the municipal governments and universities don’t care. They just want the money.

BTW: A study of five major multi-lateral federal/provincial agreements entered into since 2015 said that despite some provinces (we’re looking at you Alberta) whining about Quebec receiving “asymmetric” treatment, none of them triggered the clause in their agreements that would have allowed them to take the same deal as Quebec.

In any case Smith’s argument that Alberta should be treated like Quebec is irrelevant because it’s not an issue for the municipalities and other entities don’t care how Quebec’s municipalities and other entities are treated.    

Duplicative programs cause waste: Smith says Bill 18 will prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted on “duplicative programs like pharmacare and dental care.”

How?

Municipalities are not responsible for pharmacare and dental care. Requiring them to get the Smith government’s consent to access federal funding will have no impact on tax dollars slated for pharmacare and dental care.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Manipulation: Smith says she had to step in because the feds are manipulating municipalities into rewriting their by-laws in exchange for federal funds.

In other words, the duly elected municipal politicians cannot be trusted to do their jobs so Smith will do their jobs for them.

This Big Brother scenario became even more bizarre when in Question Period, McIver said Bill 18 is necessary because without it 220 municipalities out of 230 will get nothing from the feds.

He didn’t explain how he came to this conclusion (did 230 municipalities ask for federal funds only to be turned down?).

If McIver is so concerned about these 230 municipalities he can stop eroding their tax base by forcing oil companies to pay their property taxes and not forcing municipalities to pay for their own (unwanted) provincial police forces.

About that red tape

Critics have suggested that Bill 18 will create more red tape and slow down or kill municipalities access to federal funding.

McIver says this is nonsense. It only takes a “couple of minutes, or 10 minutes to review five or eight different agreements.”

[Pause here while every lawyer in the province has a good laugh].

McIver seems to believe the government will pop in at the end of the process, after the deal is fully negotiated and its terms have been recorded in binding agreements.

He’s forgetting what it take to get such agreement (or more likely a briefing sheet) onto his desk for a 2 minute review.  

The agreement would come into the government, be sent to the appropriate departments (legal, environment, municipal affairs, energy, and anyone else who may have a policy which may be impacted by the deal).

It would be reviewed by all of the worker bees who will determine whether the deal undermines one or more of Smith’s policies. (It’s risky to second guess an ideological boss so the safe bet would be to reject the deal). On the off chance that everyone recommends approval, they’ll send their recommendation up the chain to their various deputy ministers and chiefs of staff and whoever else needs to agree with the recommendation, before their cabinet ministers skim the briefing document for 2 to 10 minutes and also agree with the recommendation.  

Then the cabinet ministers will take the agreement to Smith to see if she’s onside or wants to kill it for ideological reasons that everyone else in the chain had failed to consider.

This will take months, not minutes, meanwhile all the other government entities in all the other provinces and territories will be scooping up every penny of free fed money because none of them (not even Ontario and Saskatchewan) intend to enact their own ‘not in my backyard’ laws.

And, in case we’ve forgotten, this process is brought to you by the bright lights who locked Alberta taxpayers into the Dynalife and Turkish pain meds deals.

But hey, it’s worth it if Smith can “own” Trudeau, right?  

Posted in Danielle Smith, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 85 Comments

NDP Leadership Candidates’ Slogans: A brief discussion

According to those who know about these things, political slogans, those short pithy statements plastered across websites, banners, and lawn signs, are an important part of a candidate’s brand.  

The experts say that in addition to being short, slogans should be vague and inspiring. Because it’s not so much what they say but what the voters hear that matters.

Weird, eh?

Some NDP slogans

Two provisos here: (1) I’m focusing on the three candidates who appear to be the front runners but it’s early days and this could change in a nanosecond, and (2) this is a discussion about the candidates’ slogans, not which candidate would be the best NDP leader.

Okay, with that out of the way, here are the slogans:  

Naheed Nenshi: For Alberta. For all of us.

Kathleen Ganley: A Leader You can Trust

Sarah Hoffman: Health + Housing + Climate

All three slogans are short (under 10 words is optimum) and, to varying degrees, vague and inspiring.

Nenshi’s slogan is the broadest and the vaguest. This allows me to read into it, to consider the difference between being ‘for’ something and being  ‘against’ something (like, say, ‘Ottawa’). Being ‘for’ something allows me to root for Alberta and to root for us. This makes it an inspiring slogan, particularly in the age of rage-farming politicians who are urging their supporters to tear everything down.

Ganley’s slogan focuses on trusted leadership. This raises the question of who the untrustworthy leaders would be. There are two possible interpretations: (1) that of all the NDP leadership candidates, Ganley is the one we can trust the most, or (2) that as NDP leader Ganley would be more trustworthy than the UCP leader, Danielle Smith. Given that none of the NDP leadership candidates have led a provincial political party, I’ve interpreted the slogan to mean that Ganley would be more trustworthy than Smith. While I believe this to be true, the next election is 3 years out and god knows who’ll be leading the UCP by then. So for me, the slogan is confusing.   

Hoffman’s slogan is the least vague of them all. It sets out three priorities and the + signs between health, housing, and climate give it a punchy, no nonsense feel which suits Hoffman’s personality. The slogan successfully conveys Hoffman’s brand but could leave the impression that the three things mentioned in the slogan are her only priorities.     

Bottom line

Catchy slogans, like cool websites and peppy YouTube videos, don’t guarantee success, but they do reflect how the candidates wants us to see them (their brand) and for that reason, slogans are interesting. But at the end of the day, they’re just window dressing. What the candidates have to say in person at fundraising events and in the debates is more persuasive.

As an aside, while I was cruising through the internet looking for political slogans I came across a list prepared by Barnes & Noble of book quotes that would make great campaign slogans.

This one from Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland would be perfect for the UCP:  

We’re all mad here

The slogan meets two out of the three criteria. At four words, it’s pithy. The word ‘mad’ is  vague, it could mean ‘unhinged’ or ‘angry’ or both. However, it’s not terribly inspiring.

But then again neither are the UCP.

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 49 Comments

Happy Easter…

It’s Easter Sunday and the world is a mess.

(Cue brief political interlude)

Here in Alberta we’ll have an opportunity to improve things…if we don’t get derailed in the run up to the NDP leadership race.

We have a lot of policy to debate so let’s not get cross-threaded with fellow party members over:  

Who is or isn’t a true NDPer. If the party is serious about expanding its membership, it doesn’t matter when someone joined the party; all that matters is the new guys are here inside the tent building the party, not outside ignoring it or trying to knock it down.  

Whether or not membership in the provincial NDP should automatically make you a member of the federal NDP:  I get it, this linkage is a barrier for those who like the provincial NDP but not its federal counterpart. We need to sort this out, but we don’t have to do it before June 22 when we vote for a new leader.  

My point here is this leadership race has given us a chance to reinvigorate and grow the party, it is incumbent upon us that we (in the words of a famous drag queen) don’t F*** it up.

Because there’s nothing the UCP would like more than to see the Alberta NDP tear itself apart between now and the next provincial election on May 31, 2027.

(Cue Easter message)

Easter, like so many celebrations at this time of year, signals the start of fresh beginnings.

To all of you everywhere, let’s put our petty differences aside and remember that together we can make a difference.

HAPPY EASTER!

Posted in Celebrations, Politics and Government | Tagged , | 57 Comments

Some Thoughts on the NDP Leadership Race

Rachel Notley was elected as an NDP MLA in 2008. She became the leader of the NDP in 2014 and will be stepping down as leader in 2024. She led the party through three elections and served as premier from 2015 to 2019.

She was a formidable leader and premier and will be a tough act to follow.

Since she announced her resignation, six candidates have stepped forward to fill her (mighty big) shoes. They are:

  • Jodi Calahoo Stonehouse
  • Kathleen Ganley
  • Gil McGowan
  • Sarah Hoffman
  • Naheed Nenshi
  • Rakhi Pancholi

NDP supporters are thrilled with this slate of highly qualified candidates. Which is more than most UCP members would say about their last leadership race where on the sixth and final ballot Danielle Smith finally emerged as leader with 53.8% of the vote (beating Travis Toews who had 46.2%).

Given the caliber of these six candidates, how will the members decide who to vote for on June 22?

Naheed Nenshi, Kathleen Ganley, Sarah Hoffman, Gil McGowen, Rakhi Pancholi, Jodi Calahoo Stonehouse

One way…or maybe not    

Some political pundits and strategists have offered guidance. They’re urging us to vote for the candidate most likely to beat Danielle Smith in the next election.

However the “beat Danielle” strategy misses the mark, for the same reason that Pepsi has failed for 65 years to beat Coke.

Compare the slogans of these two companies:

Coke: Put a can of coke within arm’s reach of everyone on the planet.

Pepsi: Beat Coke

Management consultants raved about Pepsi’s slogan. It was simple, clear, easy to understand. And yet after decades of competition, 50% of the world prefers Coke while 42% prefer Pepsi.

Why? Because Coke has a broad marketing plan, it strives to be the beverage of choice for all soda drinkers, whereas Pepsi has a narrower focus, it is targeting a subset of soda drinkers—those who drink Coke.

To put this in the context of the NDP leadership race; a candidate can choose to:

  • Position themselves the leader of the party of choice for all Albertans in 2027 or
  • Position themselves as the leader of the party for the protest voters, the ones who can’t bring themselves to vote for Danielle in 2027. (The NDP went with that strategy in 2023. It didn’t work).  

There are other issues with the “beat Danielle” strategy.

  • How do we know which candidate is the most likely to beat Danielle in 2027? Is it the quiet, thoughtful candidate, the loud boisterous candidate, or someone in the middle?
  • How do we know Danielle will even be premier in 2027? What if, like her predecessor Jason Kenney (and the four premiers who preceded him) she’s run out of office before she can finish her term? What’s Plan B?  

A different strategy

Instead of focusing on beating the existing UCP leader, the NDP leadership hopefuls should be focused on broadening the NDP’s appeal to all Albertans, to maximize the number of Albertans who will support the NDP in 2027 regardless of who’s leading the UCP.

This means going beyond simple slogans and taking the time to demonstrate how NDP values are the foundation of the kind of government that helps all Albertans succeed. Public education and public healthcare are givens, the price of entry. What else have you got?  

What’s your vision for the future? How will you, as premier, grapple with climate change, an economy in transition, affordability, and the protection of human rights?  

It’s a lot to pack into a leadership race that ends on June 22, but then again someone who expects to become the next premier of Alberta had better be able to deliver.   

I don’t know who this leader is yet, but that’s the leader I’m looking for.   

What about you?  

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , | 85 Comments

Budget 2024: Gotcha!

In case you didn’t catch Danielle Smith’s bizzarro Address to the Province last week, the one where she signalled what we could expect in the 2024 Budget, here’s a brief synopsis. (Smith’s comments are edited for tone and appear in bold).

Premier Smith’s pre-budget address to the province

We need to get off the oil and gas revenue rollercoaster.

Agreed!

But according to economist Trevor Tombe, the 2024 budget is even MORE reliant on the price of oil than the last one. Last year the government needed an oil price of $68/barrel to balance the budget; this year it’s up to $73/barrel. So the question is: when?

Not right now, today, obviously, but we need to implement a long term strategic financial plan with “predictable and stable revenues” to fund core social programs.

Great idea! Like the kind that comes from higher taxes and a provincial sales tax?

Are you kidding? We won’t follow that “failed model.”

What failed model? You mean Norway?

This is not where I talk about Norway (which has a general income tax rate of 22% and a general VAT of 25%). I am proposing an “alternative solution.” It’s the Heritage Trust Fund (okay, now we can talk about Norway) Norway’s fund is so large it no longer relies on resource revenue.

So we’re supposed to cherry pick facts about Norway, it’s a great model for the HTF but a bad model for predictable and stable revenues to fund core programs.

Yes, moving on, I am going to deliver a plan to grow the HTF to $250B to $400B by 2050.

Good luck with that. Lougheed established the Fund in 1976. Conservatives have raided it ever since. If they’d left Lougheed’s initial investment in the Fund alone there would be $250B in the Fund right now.    

Oh, let’s not “bemoan” how we got here. Instead, I’m telling you this is our last chance to get this right. We will be making an annual investment in the HTF. By 2050 we will have anywhere from $250B to $400B in the Fund earning an annual income of $12B to $20B. Won’t that be grand!

Nice use of the word “bemoan” but I’d like to point out the word “annual” means occurring once every year. You’ve budgeted a $2B investment this year, but ZERO for the next two years. You just broke your promise.  

And while we’re on the topic of broken promises, didn’t you promise a tax cut for people earning under $60,000 (now postponed) and didn’t you promise no new taxes without a referendum but you’re implementing new taxes ($200/year EV tax, increased taxes on cigarettes, vaping, and registry services) without a referendum?

It’s taken you less than a year to make and break these promises, how can we trust you and your successors not to break your promise to make annual investments every year for the next 25 years and, more importantly, not touch the Fund until 2050?   

Never mind that, the global energy transition will take several decades, our province is on the cusp of a prolonged and unprecedented resource boom that will provide investment and jobs in the production of fossil fuels and in designing and building the most advanced emissions reduction technologies on earth.

I see. The future is rosy. But how will deferring investment in infrastructure and public services for 25 years will help those in need of healthcare, education, and other public services today.

Oh wait, your “alternative solution” is not meant to help ALL Albertans today, just the wealthy ones and the fossil fuel companies that will benefit from the “prolonged and unprecedented resource boom.”

Gotcha!

Posted in Danielle Smith, Economy, Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , | 99 Comments

Danielle Smith’s Parental Rights Agenda

Last week in pursuit of her “parental rights” agenda, Premier Smith announced a set of policies that limited medical treatment for transgender youth and did a whole lot more.

I tried to imagine what it would be like to explain these policies to someone not living in cloud cuckoo land.

Here goes:  

Smith says this policy is necessary because…

The decision to access transgender medical treatment is an “adult choice.” It cannot be made by a minor because, as we all know, adolescence is a difficult and confusing time and the minor may make a decision they’ll regret for the rest of their lives. So the decision is reserved for adults…

Ah, so the intent of the policy is to ensure minors can’t access medical treatment without their parents’ consent. I thought this was already the case in Alberta.   

The Premier tweeting

Yes, it is but…

It turns out not all adults can be trusted to make this decision on behalf of their minor children. In fact some well-intentioned but misguided adults may encourage or enable their children to alter “their very biology or natural growth.” This poses a “risk to that child’s future” that the Smith will not allow.

Okay, so the intent of this ‘parental rights’ policy is to take away a parent’s right to consent to their children getting medical treatment.  Isn’t this another version of ‘welcome to 1984’ where the government tells you how to care for your children?

Yes, but…

Smith is going to let parents consent (or not) to schools teaching their kids about gender identity, sexual orientation or human sexuality by making the schools get parental consent every time the subject comes up.

So the kids who learn nothing about gender identity, sexual orientation or human sexuality at home because their parents think it’s nasty will be left in the dark?

Yes, but there’s also this…

For those parents who have no idea what’s going on in their children’s lives Smith will make the schools get the parent’s consent (if the kid is 15 or under) or notify the parents (if the kid is 16 or 17) if their kid wants to change their name or their pronouns.

What if that blows up in the kid’s face and their families abuse them or thrown out of the house?    

No problem, Smith says the abused and traumatized kid can talk to Child Welfare Services who, according to their government website will notify the family and endeavor to keep the family together as they work through this with the folks.

I’m sure that’s comforting to the kid who just got thrown out into the street.

But wait, there’s more…

Smith says the “risks and unfair advantages” that young women and girls experience when competing against “biologically stronger transgender female athletes” in sports has grown too high…

What risks and unfair advantages?

She didn’t say. But she’s going to talk with sports organizations so ensure women and girls have the choice to compete in “women’s only” division while at the same time setting up co-ed and gender-neutral athletic competitions for the transgender female athletes to compete in.

Is this something athletes have been clamouring for? How is she going to get sports organizations to rip up their existing divisional structure in order to create new “women’s only and “co-ed” and “gender-neutral” division?

I don’t know, stop asking questions.

You know what I think? Smith’s policies will increase intolerance for transgender people and will increase ignorance about gender diversity and human sexuality.

Also I would note that the stigmatization of sexual and gender minorities is a classic tactic of right-wing populist parties who oppose teaching sexual and gender diversity in schools and want to take away a woman’s right to abortion.

Is that where she’d headed?

Hold on please, we’re getting David Parker on the line.

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Danielle Smith, General Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 148 Comments

Rachel Notley Steps Down

“We didn’t get everything right, but we governed with integrity, an ambitious agenda and an earnest desire to make life better for Albertans.”—Rachel Notley

The first time I met Rachel Notley was after she’d won the NDP leadership race. She was hosting a meet-and-greet at a coffee shop in Calgary. It was mid morning and the shop was practically deserted. Which was a good thing because it gave us time to talk.

I told her I had run for the Liberals in a recent by-election and was trounced, but the NDP candidate had done far worse. Would the NDP ever gain traction in Alberta’s true blue political landscape?

I asked for her opinion of the Alberta Party, would they peel off voters who might otherwise vote NDP?  

Rachel didn’t mince words. The sun was setting on the provincial Liberals and the Alberta Party was a nonstarter. The only way to oust the PCs (now UCP) was to vote NDP.

History proved her right.

Since then I’ve been to many NDP events. The venues got bigger, the crowds got larger, but one thing never changed. Every time Rachel took the stage she electrified the audience with her intelligence, compassion and integrity. Every single time. 

Rachel Notley and her husband Lou Arab

Sure, while in government she made some mistakes, but she never wavered in her belief that the government owed it to the people to deliver on its promises, to serve the people by strengthening public services (not tearing them down), to reduce emissions without crippling the economy, and to prepare for a future that addressed climate change.   

She showed us that Alberta could thrive within Confederation, that we could challenge federal and provincial policies without throwing a tantrum every time they said something we didn’t like.   

Notley was authentic. She didn’t have to drive around in a blue pickup truck pretending to be an Albertan. And she certainly didn’t have to put out YouTube videos espousing screwball theories to pander to looney-tune voters.  

Notley was herself from Day One.  

Thanks to Notley we now have an enduring two-party system. We have the largest Official Opposition in Alberta’s history. And after three more years of watching the UCP erode our public services and waste our tax dollars subsidizing the private sector, Albertans will be ready to vote in a new government. One that remembers that we’re here for each other, not just ourselves.

Thank you, Rachel. Without you, none of this would have been possible.

NOTE: You may have noticed it’s taking me longer to respond to comments than in the past. I’m working on a project that’s gobbling up my time. I’ll keep posting, just not as often.

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , | 67 Comments

The AESO Emergency Alert

Last night Alberta’s electric system operator (AESO) issued a province-wide emergency alert asking Albertans to immediately reduce their electricity use to minimize the potential for rotating outages across the province.

First the good news, Albertans responded to the call. Within minutes usage dropped significantly and rotating power outages were avoided. Well done, Alberta!

Now the bad news, the bozos are out in full force blaming the emergency alert on Justin Trudeau (he’s pushing a net-zero power grid by 2035, you know) and Rachel Notley (she “shut down” coal plants, you know).  

Really?    

Trudeau’s renewable power agenda is not yet in force and under Notley’s 2015 regs the coal-fired plants didn’t disappear; they were converted to natural gas-fired plants. Industry moved so quickly that it beat the deadline for conversion by seven years. See what you can do when you put your mind to it.   

Furthermore, as the U of A prof Andrew Leach, pointed out on Twitter/X “there are only two rules preventing the construction of new power plants in Alberta, one imposed by Stephen Harper and one imposed by Danielle Smith.”

In other words, if you want to blame someone, blame Harper and Smith.  

The facts are important

Actually, let’s not blame anyone. Let’s acknowledge that we had a close call on Saturday and spewing misinformation is not helpful, it’s downright dangerous.  

Why?

Because these kinds of power shortages will happen with more frequency as we move deeper into climate change. We can expect more days of extreme cold and extreme heat which will drive up demand and put even more pressure on the power grid.  

We need to be prepared, not angry. We need answers, not ideological bozos spreading misinformation.

We could start by getting a better understanding of how AESO went from predicting everything would be fine on Thursday to issuing an emergency alert on Saturday. They have the system supply experts; if anyone should have seen this coming it was AESO.

Most importantly we need a comprehensive plan that delivers reliable and affordable power while at the same time addresses the imperative to reduce GHG emissions so we’re not a dog chasing its tail, going in circles and making things worse.     

What we don’t need is Danielle Smith and her supporters using Saturday’s emergency alert as an excuse to deep-six Alberta’s renewable energy industry and make our electricity supply problems worse.

For a quick refresher on the role of coal, natural gas, and renewables in the generation of electricity you may want to check out Blake Shaffer’s article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/opinion-alberta-end-coal-power-natural-gas-solar-wind-nuclear-1.6300606

Posted in Climate Change, Danielle Smith, Energy, Energy & Natural Resources | Tagged , , , , | 66 Comments

Squid Game

The UCP’s “bread and circuses”* approach to government is no longer working. The “bread” (low taxes and high employment) is no compensation for our crumbling healthcare, education, and social services. The “circus” of blaming the federal government for everything is wearing thin.

And to make matters worse, the folks at Take Back Alberta (TBA) and Free Alberta Strategy (FAS) tell us they’re setting Danielle Smith’s agenda, and if she doesn’t play along, she’s out.

The TBA/FAS ploy is a game changer which shifts the UCP government from “bread and circuses” mode to Squid Game: The Challenge.

How you play is who you are

For those who haven’t seen it, Squid Games: The Challenge is a reality TV show in which 456 contestants compete for $4.56 million.  

The show’s tag line is: “How you play is who you are.”

It turns out most of the contestants will do anything for money. They rationalize their ruthlessness and lies by saying God made them this way, or they’re in debt, or they have a sick child, or they will give half of the money to charity.

Maybe they believe this, but the audience doesn’t, and the show is a soul-destroying parade of people who’ll abandon humanity for money.

Which brings me back to Smith and the UCP.

By fluke Albertans find themselves sitting on the third largest oil reserves in the world. Fossil fuels have driven our boom/bust economy for decades.

Today we’re in a boom. We have a budget surplus of $5.5 billion. We could tackle the problems of overcapacity hospitals, closed ERs, overcrowded classrooms, rising incidents of mental illness, homelessness, and drug addiction, or we could trickle out a few bucks here and there and call it done.

Smith’s UCP has chosen to do the latter.

She deflects the electorate’s attention from her refusal to shore up public health, education and social services by blaming the Trudeau government which has no jurisdiction in these areas, the NDP who haven’t been in power for five years and the administrators who are expected to do more with less. This is “bread and circuses.”

She promises to make Albertans richer by grabbing 53% of CPP to fund the Alberta pension plan and ignoring federal policies she says will harm Albertan prosperity even if they’re legitimately within federal jurisdiction. This is Squid Game, I’ll do anything for money.

But here’s the thing. Squid Game only works if the audience doesn’t know it’s being manipulated by the show’s creators.

Who’s pulling the strings?

After Squid Game aired some contestants came forward to say:

  • It took seven hours to film the five-minute “red light, green light” segment. This allowed certain contestants (favoured by the show’s creators) to cross the finish line when they should have been eliminated.    
  • The clip of the guy being bullied in the “umbrella game” was heavily edited to make the bullies appear more evil and the victim appear more pathetic.  
  • The contestants who fell through the glass floor on the glass bridge were replaced at the last minute by a stuntmen to make their fall look even more perilous.

The audience had no idea. Why should it? This was part of the game.

And this is where TBA and FAS made their mistake.

FAS says Smith is doing exactly what they want her to do by enacting the Sovereignty Act and other legislation (including going after CPP) to pull Alberta away from Canada.

TBA says Smith is delivering on their far-right anti-vaxx, anti-LBGTQ, anti-woke (whatever that means) agenda.  

Instead of staying hidden behind the curtain, TBA and FAS are at centre stage taking credit for everything Smith is doing.

There are three things wrong with this picture.

First, Albertans (by a slim majority) elected Smith and the UCP, not TBA and FAS, and are tiring of their interference in government.

Second, Smith is making a huge mistake by bending to the will of TBA and FAS because they don’t understand Albertans. We will not choose to enrich ourselves with tax savings at the expense of those who need good healthcare, education and public services and we will not support a government determined to marginalize our LBGTQ community or anyone else they consider “woke.”

Lastly, we will not enrich ourselves at the expense of our friends and family in the rest of Canada, let alone firewall ourselves from the rest of Canada.

We are a community; we will not choose money over humanity.

How you play the game matters.

*Bread and circuses: a situation in which a government tries to take attention away from real problems or issues by providing people with things which seen to make their lives more enjoyable – Collins dictionary

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Climate Change, Culture, Danielle Smith, Economy, Education, Energy & Natural Resources, Environment, Law, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , | 51 Comments

Merry Christmas!

Every family has its own holiday traditions. In the Soapbox house on Christmas Eve we play Rummicub and eat ourselves silly (I don’t know what they put in caramel popcorn but I can’t get enough). On Christmas morning we get up early to open presents and enjoy Mr Soapbox’s outstanding Frittata and tonight we’ll have a traditional turkey dinner complete with Christmas crackers and silly paper hats.   

In keeping with tradition here’s Rudy the rescue dog to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New year.

We’ll talk again in 2024. In the meantime feel free to share your traditions for this special time of year.

Susan

Posted in Celebrations | Tagged | 36 Comments