“Too Many Gotchas”

Posted on January 22, 2023 by susanonthesoapbox

“Nothing to see here, move along.” – Movie trope

Last week the CBC published a story saying that a staffer in Danielle Smith’s office sent a series of emails to Crown prosecutors challenging their assessment and direction on criminal cases arising from the Coutts border blockades and protests.

You remember Coutts, the place where the trucker convoy blocked the border for 2 weeks and the RCMP seized long guns, handguns, multiple sets of body armour, a machete, ammunition, and a high-capacity firearm magazine. Thirteen people were arrested on charges including mischief, weapons charges and conspiracy to murder RCMP officers.

Smith’s office responded to the story in a statement saying Smith had not been in contact with Crown prosecutors and had no knowledge of any of her staffers doing so, but if it happened “appropriate action” would be taken. Smith did not clarify what the “appropriate action” might be.  

Pressure mounted. The NDP (and others) demanded an independent investigation.

Smith offered an “independent public service” review. The public service together with the IT department would review the emails of her 34 staff and the 400 crown prosecutors. She’d get back to us “early next week.”

This is nowhere near enough.

Public Service Review

Smith can talk about the “independence” of the public service all she likes, but an “independent” public service review is not the same as an independent investigation because it lacks accountability and it is not transparent. .  

If Smith insists on turning this review over to a subset of the 25,000 public servants working in government then we need to know who’s leading the team, who’s on the team, and who the team reports to.

We also need to know the team’s mandate. What have they been instructed to look for? Is it any and all  correspondence between a staffer (or former staffer) to a prosecutor (or former prosecutor) or is it more limited in scope. Does it include deleted emails and emails that have been deleted from the deleted files?

Who decides which emails are relevant and which are not? The IT guys? the team leader? the team leader’s boss? Danielle Smith?

Who is going to write the report on the results of the review?

We wouldn’t be asking these questions if Smith agreed to an independent investigation.

Frankly if Smith’s predecessor, Jason Kenney, agreed to allow an independent investigation (by retired Justice Adele Kent) into the conduct of his justice minister Kaycee Madu who called the Edmonton chief of police over a traffic ticket, it boggles the mind that Smith won’t agree to an independent investigation into allegations of political interference with Crown prosecutors’ working on the prosecution of people charged with conspiracy to commit murder, weapons charges, and mischief.

Too many gotchas

So here’s the kicker.

Even if Smith’s independent public service review turns up nothing, no incriminating emails, nada, she’s cooked.

As a caller told Smith on her radio show, her past comments give her “zero credibility.” and there have been “too many gotchas” to take her at her word if she announces there were no incriminating emails from her staff to Crown prosecutors.

Smith responded by reminding the caller that in the leadership race she’d been asked if there was an avenue for amnesty now that the public health orders had been rescinded and the people who’d enacted them were gone. She said it was “in that context” she asked the AG if there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction and whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute.

We get that, but the caller (like the rest of us) isn’t demanding an independent investigation into dropping fines for people who violated covid public health restrictions.

He (and we) are demanding an independent investigation into whether Smith’s staff politically interfered with the Crown’s decision to prosecute people who are charged with conspiracy to commit murder, weapons charges, and mischief.

Too many gotchas

This is big and Smith’s refusal to treat it as such is astounding…but in keeping with her consistent lack of judgement.

From comments signalling sympathy for Russia in the Ukraine war, to insisting the unvaccinated are the most discriminated in her lifetime, to telling Rebel News she regularly checks in with prosecutors on covid cases (then backtracking to say everyone knows a politician can’t do that), to promising to check into amnesty for those convicted of covid health restrictions (then saying some Albertans (Smith?) confuse American law with Canadian law)…the list goes on.

But this is more than a gaffe. It’s a a potential political scandal.  

The only way we’ll know for sure whether the CBC story is true or false is if there’s an independent investigation, but Smith refused to go there. Nothing to see here; move along.

One can’t help but wonder why.

Posted in Crime and Justice, Danielle Smith, Law, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , | 73 Comments

Political Interference in the Administration of Justice (Again!) 

Posted on January 15, 2023 by susanonthesoapbox

“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”—Proverb, originated 1562

Did you catch all that?

Premier Smith has been all over the airwaves saying that regardless of what it looks like she wasn’t trying to interfere with the administration of justice.

On Thursday Jan 12 in a discussion about the prosecution of people who’d violated covid public health restrictions, Smith said she regularly asked crown prosecutors: “Is it in the public interest to pursue and is there a reasonable likelihood of conviction?”

This followed comments she’d made last December to Rebel News where she said, “I’ve put it to the prosecutors, and I have asked them to do a review of the cases with those two things in mind and I’m hopeful that we’ll see a true turning of the page,”

So Smith admitted she talked to public prosecutors, right?

Ah, no.

On Friday Jan 13 the Alberta Attorneys’ Association issued a statement saying prosecutorial independence is fundamental to their role and a central component of an open and fair justice system;  they must be able to perform their duties independent of political influence and they were not aware of any case where an elected official tried to contact a specific prosecutor to ask about a prosecution.

On the same day Smith said “Of course, I’ve never called a Crown prosecutor. You’re not allowed to do that as a politician. Everyone knows that.”

So Smith lied to Rebel News, she didn’t talk to the prosecutors?

No, she didn’t lie, it was just a silly mix up.

Smith said she “may have used some imprecise language, but [her] contact with the Justice department has always been through the appropriate channels, and that’s the attorney general…[she] had discussions with the attorney general and deputy attorney general and asked them to look into what options were available with respect to outstanding covid-related cases.”

So it’s all good now, right?

Wrong.

SNC Lavalin

Cast your mind back to the spring of 2019 when Justin Trudeau was embroiled in the SNC Lavalin scandal.

The RCMP charged SNC Lavalin with corruption and fraud. The Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to give SNC a deferred prosecution agreement. Jody Wilson-Raybould, the attorney general, said she felt pressured by Trudeau to override the Director of Public Prosecutions decision when Trudeau and others asked her to consider “other solutions.”

The justice committee investigated Wilson-Raybould’s allegations and the Ethics Commissioner found Trudeau had improperly pressured Wilson-Raybould to halt the criminal prosecution of SNC.  

As we say in law, the Trudeau case and the Smith case are “on all fours” (very similar). Both heads of government spoke directly to the attorney general—and in Smith’s case the deputy attorney general as well—about a matter being handed by the Crown prosecutors, and they both asked the AG (and in Smith’s case the deputy AG) to consider something other than prosecution.

The big difference between the two cases is the evidence.

In Trudeau’s case the evidence was in the form of “he said/she said” testimony (Trudeau said he didn’t pressure Wilson-Raybould, she said he did).

While in Smith’s case the evidence is “she said, period.” Every damning word, every contradiction, came directly from Smith’s lips. The only person contradicting Smith is Smith.

This should worry Albertans because it leads us to wonder whether Smith lied when she said she’d talked to prosecutors. Furthermore her explanation that she spoke only to the AG and the deputy AG raises the question of whether she tried to use political influence to interfere with the administration of justice.

There are enough questions about Smith’s conduct to warrant an investigation or public inquiry into who Smith talked to, what she said, and why.   

Where is the law and order party?

The NDP are asking for such an investigation. One would think the UCP, those stalwart champions of law and order, would support them.

Their federal brethren pounced on Trudeau in 2019 demanding answers to these questions after Wilson-Raybould’s allegations became public. In addition to the judicial committee hearing, the conservatives demanded additional investigations, a public inquiry and Trudeau’s resignation.  

Why? Because all parties regardless of political stripe abhor the whiff of political interference in the administration of justice.

No wait, we’re talking about the party of Kaycee Madu. The UCP will happily accept Smith’s explanation. The former radio show host, hailed as intelligent and articulate, simply used imprecise language.

Really? What is vague and inexact about the word “prosecutors”? She either spoke to them or she didn’t.

What is vague and inexact about the words “attorney general” and “deputy attorney general” in the context of asking them to look into “options” other than prosecution? That’s either interference with the administration of justice or it’s not.

So why the free pass? As the ancient proverb says, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Or to put it more precisely, what’s good for the gander (Trudeau) is good for the goose (Smith).

Posted in Crime and Justice, Danielle Smith, Law, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 62 Comments

Free Money? No Thank You!

Posted on January 8, 2023 by susanonthesoapbox

Many years ago the (then) Progressive Conservative government offered energy companies bags of money if they undertook projects the government thought were necessary. The CEO I worked for told us to create such a project (even though it would be of little value to the company) and apply for the funds. We did and were awarded millions of dollars. Why did he do it? Because when someone offers you free money, you take it…

…unless your Danielle Smith in which case you toss the money back in the federal government’s face with a pithy comment like ‘stay in your lane, you filthy blackguards!’

This, in a nutshell, was Smith’s response to Canada’s “just transition” plan. Canada agreed to the “just transition” of the workforce to decent, quality jobs in the low-carbon economy when it signed on to the Paris Agreement to reduce GHG emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Danielle Smith

You remember climate change, that thing that poses an existential threat to humanity.

Smith huffs…

Smith says Alberta won’t shut down its oil and gas industry and it won’t transition its well paid oil and gas workers into, heaven forbid, installing solar panels.

Sadly, Smith is stuck in yesteryear while other fossil fuel producing countries move ahead with ambitious legislation to reduce domestic emissions and embark on meaningful climate action.*

She complains that Prime Minister Trudeau hasn’t even picked up the phone to tell her what he has in mind.

Since July 2021 the fed’s engagement included 17 roundtables with industry, unions, and experts, 30,000 submissions, and meetings (still ongoing) with the provinces, territories and Indigenous groups. Perhaps the Alberta government was too busy enjoying the Best Summer Ever to attend.  

If Smith wants to know what’s on offer she can read the “Just Transition” discussion paper: the feds have committed to investing billions to deliver 500,000 new training and work opportunities, decarbonize industry and identify skills for the future, etc.    

And they puff…

Smith’s supporters (or bosses, take your pick) are equally outraged.

Project Confederation and Free Alberta Strategy argue “Just Transition” is worse than Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s National Energy Policy because it would shut down the industry all together. It doesn’t.  

Free Alberta Strategy praised Alberta’s “firebrand” premier for firing back at Ottawa. Yawn.  

Project Confederation said “Just Transition”:    

  • is illegal because it’s unconstitutional and infringes the province’s rights. How is an investment in supporting and retraining the workforce in an industry undergoing fundamental change unconstitutional?  
  • its ‘explicitly stated goal” is to eliminate the oil and gas industry. Not true. Jonathan Wilkinson, Natural Resources minister says the words ‘just transition’ have been misinterpreted and suggests we need a more positive conversation about where we’re heading…[one] that will create opportunities in a range of different areas, including the traditional energy sector.” That doesn’t sound like the elimination of the oil and gas sector to me.
  • it’s “insane” because Canada can’t abandon its fossil fuel industry in the blink of an eye; current or even foreseeable renewables can’t entirely replace oil and gas. The result will be reduced incomes and higher costs. This is true, but no one is suggesting the transition happen instantly.
  • it’s “immoral” because millions of people around the world burn coal, wood, and dung to survive and we owe it to them to expand the sector. Our exports will raise their standard of living. Really? villagers burn dung cakes because it’s cheaper than the alternative. What are they proposing, that energy companies ship their oil and natural gas to Africa and Asia and give it away?   
  • it’s unjust because the Feds are promising a “pipeline” to a new “green energy” jobs but given Trudeau’s track record on pipelines it will fail. Oh, and the moratorium on cod fishing was a disaster. Excuse me, Trudeau delivered a pipeline, it’s called TMX. Mulroney imposed the moratorium on cod fishing. It came far too late to prevent the collapse of the cod fishery which was decimated by (1) the shift from schooners to steam and diesel engines in the 1900s and (2) advances in sonar, radar, and other fish finding technologies which resulted in overfishing in Canadian and international waters. The moratorium illustrates what happens when a government fails to intervene fast enough to preserve an ecosystem. ‘Just transition’ is part of the federal government’s plan to address the existential threat of climate change and try to preserve the biggest ecosystem of all, our planet.  

It should be noted that Stats Canada reports that total employment in Alberta’s oil and gas sector is down by 25% compared to where it was in 2014. Which brings us back to the original question: Why wouldn’t the Alberta government support a federal proposal designed to help unemployed oil and gas workers transition to another job?

And they blew the house down

If Smith and her ilk are worried about the federal government using unconstitutional means to shut down the oil and gas sector, they can challenge the feds in court or use the sovereignty act (which will land them in court as well).

What they can’t do is lie about the “Just Transition” plan (OMG! It’s worse than the NEP!!!) to create a convenient enemy on the eve of the May 2023 election, because too many Albertans will need the fed’s support.

Or in the words of my CEO, it’s free money, you’d have to be an idiot not to take it.

Posted in Danielle Smith, Energy & Natural Resources, Environment, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , | 35 Comments

Seasons Greetings!  

Posted on December 24, 2022 by susanonthesoapbox

The Soapbox family and Rudy the rescue dog would like to wish you and yours a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and a peaceful and happy holiday.   

Some of you may have noticed that Rudy has become rounder and furrier; but then again, who hasn’t.

See you next year!  

Posted in Celebrations, Uncategorized, Vacation | Tagged , , | 21 Comments

A Tale of Two Strategies (okay, one strategy and one gong show)

Posted on December 18, 2022 by susanonthesoapbox

Congratulations to all of you for surviving the Smith government’s first session in the Legislature. It started on Nov 29 and ended on Dec 15 and it felt like an eternity.

Smith has been premier for two months. she sat in the Legislature for 15 days and already she’s created more chaos than Hurricane Fiona.

Tempting though it may be to rage about the Sovereignty Act, or the fact that roughly half of the UCP MLAs are in cabinet, or that Smith quietly appointed Tracey Allard the new parliamentary secretary of civil liberties (she’s responsible for free speech on campus, property rights, the rights of the unvaccinated, and something to do with federal laws on gun ownership and online news), we won’t.

Instead we’ll step back and ask ourselves what Smith has in store for us in 2023. What’s her strategy? Does she have one other than yelling at Ottawa every chance she gets?

Smith and Notley

Smith’s Strategy

It appears that Smith’s strategy, indeed her very existence as premier, is derived from the Free Alberta Strategy (FAS), that wacko document penned by Rob Anderson, Barry Cooper, and Derek From.  

So let’s see what the kind folk at FAS have in store for us in 2023.

In an email sent out last week they congratulated themselves on a job well done. “In 2022, our Free Alberta Strategy swept a new Premier to power, our Sovereignty Act swept through the Legislature, and our agenda for Alberta swept across the country.”

In 2023 they will pursue their remaining priorities, including:

  • An Alberta Revenue Agency to collect provincial taxes, with the ultimate goal of a single tax return where Alberta collects all revenues and remits what we owe to Ottawa
  • An Alberta Pension Plan that would guarantee every retiree the same benefits as the CPP at a lower cost, or even more benefits at the same cost.  
  • An Alberta Police Service which would be more focused on Alberta’s priorities (public safety, rural crime, gang activity, theft, not federal priorities like gun confiscations, covid fines and environmental regulation enforcement).

Smith is aligned with these priorities having already tasked Finance minister Toews to review and provide recommendations on the first two agenda items and Justice minister Shandro to work with the minister of Public Safety & Emergency Services to finalize the decision on the Alberta Police Service.

It’s important to note that the business community, you know, those folks who actually drive the economy, do not appear to be on board with Smith’s strategy.

Right from the start people like Deborah Yedlin, the head of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, condemned the Sovereignty Act. One can only imagine the Chamber’s reaction when Smith dutifully delivers on FAS’s expectation of legislation creating Alberta regulated banks and financial institutions, an Alberta unemployment insurance scheme, a provincial tax court, and banning federal judicial appointments.

Notley’s strategy

While Smith and her FAS backers have been busy trying to create a sovereign nation within (or perhaps outside) of Canada, Rachel Notley has been laying the foundation for a return to a “stable, no surprises government” that’s focused on growing the economy and providing strong public healthcare and education.

Last week she addressed a crowd of 375 at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce. The event was sold out in 72 hours and had a waitlist.

In it Notley laid out the NDP’s Competitiveness, Jobs and Investment Strategy which promises:  

  • an Alberta’s Future Tax Credit targeting emerging sectors like critical minerals, clean technologies, etc
  • expanding the Alberta Petrochemical Incentives Program to include for example,  recycled plastics, end products and partial upgrading,
  • consulting on expanding the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation (which now includes projects like the Northern Corridor and the Lindbergh Co-Gen facility) to include energy projects of a smaller scale and other sectors
  • establishing a Regulatory Performance Fast Pass (like a Nexus card) for companies with a proven track record for compliance and adding experienced staff (“navigators”) to fast track approvals in sectors like clean energy, agriculture, life sciences and advanced manufacturing, and
  • repealing the Sovereignty Act which creates instability and uncertainty

Notley’s speech emphasized the fact that Alberta’s economy is changing and Alberta must be willing to collaborate in order to be ready to meet the future.

Yedlin said Notley’s speech was well received.

No one stomped out in disgust when they heard words like “emerging sectors” or “clean technologies” or “recycled plastics” and most importantly no one pushed back on Notley’s promise that an NDP government would repeal the Sovereignty Act.

As Yedlin put it, “Everybody in the room is very, very focused on certainty and stability.”

It would appear that the UCP government’s strategy of waving an angry fist in Ottawa’s direction and threatening to leave the country if Ottawa doesn’t yield simply doesn’t cut it, notwithstanding what Barry Cooper, or Rob Anderson, or Derek From (did I miss anyone…oh yes, their lackey Danielle Smith) think.

This bodes well for the May 2023 election.

  

Posted in Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , | 60 Comments

What Just Happened?    

Posted on December 11, 2022 by susanonthesoapbox

“…the folks who literally spent seven days telling us that what was written in their bill was not written in their bill [will] determine what is…unconstitutional on the part of the federal government…” Rachel Notley, Hansard, Dec 7, p 235

What happened over the last 7 days in Alberta politics simply takes your breath away.

It started with Danielle Smith and her caucus demonstrating an astonishing lack of understanding of the sweeping powers granted by Bill 1, the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act, and ended with the Free Alberta Strategy folks taking credit for both the Act and Smith’s entire agenda.

If that doesn’t give you nightmares, nothing will.

Let’s start with the debate.  

The debate

When the UCP government finally realized that Bill 1 granted cabinet far greater powers than Smith said it did, they amended it. After that everything went downhill.

As Rachel Notley pointed out, the rest of the Bill still contains unconstitutional elements, lacks clarity as to the government’s power to direct those with whom it had a fiscal relationship (including some in the private sector) to disobey federal law, and demonstrates utter disregard of reconciliation and treaty rights as the government failed to consult with the treaty chiefs prior to passing the legislation.  

As a result of this gross incompetence, the Bill will damage Alberta’s reputation as a good place to invest, and, more importantly, has diverted the government from addressing the worst flu, COVID, RSV epidemic to hit our children in decades. Smith is unprepared to recommend children get the flu vaccine but she’s all over the radio waves saying the Sovereignty Act would have stopped the federal government’s ban of plastic straws. (Aside: The ban goes into effect in Dec 2022, but businesses have until Dec 2023 to get rid of their plastic straw stock. If Smith feels strongly about this issue—pity the children who need 4 paper straws to suck up a root beer float—she should deploy the Act.)

Smith et al responded to the Opposition’s criticism with the usual word salad: carbon tax, coal phase-out, emissions cap, Northern Gateway, Energy East, Bill C 49 (tanker ban), Bill C 69 (no more pipelines), 2035 emissions targets, etc. These are talking points from Smith’s leadership campaign. They don’t address the flaws in Bill 1 nor explain how Bill 1 will remedy the horrors Bill 1 is supposed to remedy.  

Then it got really interesting

It was past midnight when NDP MLA Shannon Phillips reminded the Assembly that Bill 1 was “essentially indistinguishable” from what was contained in the Free Alberta Strategy (FAS) document. And that one of the architects of the FAS document, Barry Cooper said Bill 1 was intended to be unconstitutional and to give the Legislature the powers of the courts to determine whether a federal statute is unconstitutional.  

Earlier Phillips said the attack on the judiciary was an attack on civil society. By attacking the rule of law, our collective knowledge, liberal democratic institutions, and ultimately trust, Bill 1 wasn’t setting up a war with Ottawa. It was setting up a war with ourselves.

This is dramatic language, but read the FAS document, you’ll see Phillips is correct.  

Separation?  

During the course of the debate Smith made a number of questionable (that’s being charitable) statements.

She said, “The Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act has nothing to do with leaving the country.”

Barry Cooper, together with Rob Anderson, Smith’s top advisor, and Derek From drafted the FAS document. Cooper made it crystal clear that if Ottawa fails to yield to Alberta’s demands, the province will separate from the country. As Cooper put it: “I want the Constitution to be changed, or we’ll have another referendum.” He was referring to the Quebec independence referendums, folks.

Smith could have disavowed Cooper’s comments. She didn’t. Remember that in May 2023.  

Who drafted this mess?

Smith said, “It was our Justice minister who wrote this legislation—it wasn’t some outside party.”

In the most recent Free Alberta Strategy Bulletin dated Dec 9, 2022, the Free Alberta Strategy team said they wrote the Alberta Sovereignty Act last year. They boasted “It’s not often you get to take on the federal government, change the law, and set a bold new course for an entire province—all in one year!”

As far as the FAS folks are concerned, they’re running the show.

Sovereignty?

The debate got weirder as the night dragged on. Smith declared “It’s not like Ottawa is a national government.”

Political scientist Duane Brat says, “Yes it is. You might not like it, but a government made up of elected representatives from across Canada is a national government.”

Smith said, “The way our country works is that we are a federation of sovereign, independent jurisdictions. They [the federal government] are one of those signatories to the Constitution and the rest of us, as signatories to the Constitution, have a right to exercise our sovereign powers in our own areas of jurisdiction.”

Bratt replied, “No. Wrong again. Smith is confusing Canada with the EU. Canada has shared sovereignty between two orders of government.”

Ack!!!

The Alberta government is being led by a premier who has no idea how provincial or federal governments work. She’s supported by spineless ministers who swore they did not support Bill 1, then folded like a cheap tent when Smith made them cabinet ministers.

The UCP thought it was electing a leader. Instead it got a puppet beholden to the whims of a fringe group who’s prepared to separate from Canada if it doesn’t get its way.

Remember that in May 2023.

Posted in Danielle Smith, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , | 86 Comments

Danielle Smith’s Bill 1: The Wrecking Ball Effect

Posted on December 4, 2022 by susanonthesoapbox

Wrecking ball: A heavy steel ball hung from a crane, used to demolish large buildings. Commonly used during the 1950s and 1960s. Considered one of the most common forms of large-scale coarse demolition.—Wikipedia  

Last week, Premier Danielle Smith unveiled the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act (Bill 1). It was the centrepiece of her leadership campaign.

She promised her supporters “a constitutional shield” that would protect them from unconstitutional federal laws and harmful federal policies. No more would federal overreach. No more would Ottawa be allowed to sabotage Alberta’s economy and prospects for growth. Enough is enough!

Her “constitutional shield” turned out to be a wrecking ball, whipping indiscriminately this way and that, banging off the Constitution and battering democratic institutions and the rule of law.

Danielle Smith

Bill 1: you want to see overreach; I’ll show you overreach!

Bill 1 gives Cabinet ministers the power to put a motion before the Legislature. The motion would identify a federal matter as unconstitutional or harmful (whatever that means) to Albertans and propose measures for Cabinet to take in response.

If the motion passes Cabinet would meet behind closed doors to suspend, amend, or add laws and/or direct provincial entities to ignore the impugned federal law or policy.

Smith argued Bill 1 did not give “authoritative” new powers to Cabinet because the motion would “enumerate” the ways Cabinet would address the federal violation and the Legislature would somehow validate the way Cabinet changed the laws before they actually changed them.

This is nonsense.

Before Bill 1, law making occurred on the floor of the Legislature (ie. all of the MLAs, not just the Cabinet ministers made law). Law makers would table bills, debate and (sometimes) amend bills as they moved through first, second, and third readings, before being passed into law.

It was a transparent process which allowed the public, interested parties, academics, and the media to observe and hold the law makers to account if they were not satisfied with what they saw.

Sorry, Danielle, but anything less than that is undemocratic.

Smith’s rationale

There is just one word to describe Smith’s rambling rationale for Bill 1.

Bizarre.

She filled much of her time in the debate by reading large chunks of the Constitution and the Charter into the record, and explaining how we came to be in Confederation in the first place (Ron Orr also shared his historical knowledge about the origin of confederation so this must be a UCP speaking point).

She addressed the Opposition’s challenge that she lacked the mandate to propose Bill 1 (what with being elected on the 6th ballot by only 1% of Alberta’s population) by claiming she did have a mandate because…wait for it…when “our people” voted to remove the principle of equalization in the referendum they wanted us to “stand up to Ottawa.” (Hmmm, a referendum on equalization is a vote for sovereignty. I can’t wait to find out what mandate we gave Smith when we voted to keep daylight savings time).

Quebec figured prominently in her justification. She said we want to be treated just like Quebec, then rambled off to talk about John Kerry and Quebec wanting to keep its resources in the ground. Trust me, it didn’t make any more sense in Hansard than what I’ve set out here.

She tried to rationalize Bill 1 by saying it would rarely be used but had no response when the Opposition pointed out she’d instructed her ministers to comb through their files to identify each and every instance of federal “overreach.” Her position was further contradicted by Mr Shandro, her Justice minister, who said federal overreach happens “very, very often”.    

She was adamant that Bill 1 would not negatively impact investment in the province. This, despite the fact that people like Deborah Yedlin, the CEO of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce  had been all over the media telling anyone who would listen that Bill 1 would drive away investment because it creates regulatory uncertainty. Yedlin said investors like a stable regulatory environment where all levels of government work in a cooperative and collaborative fashion. They’re not interested in combative jurisdictions, they’re too risky.

Amendments to Bill 1 .

On Saturday Smith announced there would be changes to Bill 1 to address the concern that the bill would give Cabinet unfettered power to rewrite laws behind closed doors. (“You never get things 100% right all the time” she said. True, and sometimes you get caught red-handed doing something you shouldn’t be doing).

Incidentally, when Yedlin was asked how she would like to see Bill 1 amended, she said she wanted to see the elimination of Cabinet’s power to rewrite laws. She also suggested Bill 1 be softened to make it less combative and more collaborative. A change that would not be welcomed by Smith’s Free Alberta supporters.

It’s hard to see what changes Smith can put forward without gutting Bill 1 altogether. For one thing if she doesn’t eliminate the Legislature’s ability to deem a federal law unconstitutional (that’s the Court’s job) it still violates the rule of law.

But then again, Smith is a wrecking ball. Wrecking balls are used in large scale, coarse demolition, not in nuanced operations. I’m not expecting much. Are you?

Posted in Law, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 84 Comments

A Letter to my Conservative-voting Neighbour: A Guest Post by Lloyd Lovatt

Posted on November 27, 2022 by susanonthesoapbox

Lately Ms Soapbox has been thinking about how to talk to her conservative friends without falling even further down the rabbit hole of polarization. Then a friend sent me this letter which acknowledges the sadness a Lougheed conservative must feel at the loss of their party and suggests we reach out to our neighbours and share information so we can elect the representative best able to serve us.

It’s worth a try. And if you have other suggestions, please share them because the Legislative Assembly is sitting for 11 days, after that we’re going into election mode.

Dear Conservative-voting Neighbour,

Thank you for leaving your groceries in the trunk long enough this morning to hold my ladder while I finished that string of lights. Decorations are up everywhere. Soon we will be writing “2023” on our cheques. Then election signs will poke through leftover snow like bright, new, multi-coloured tulips. Just watch!

I remember what you said about health care this morning, and the family around the corner whose child was taken to hospital last week. You told me how it made you feel to see emergency vehicles turn into that street and stop in front of a young family’s home. “Any of us could be in Emergency in an hour,” you said, watching me stretch just a little too far to reach one more hook!

You mentioned Premier Peter Lougheed. “Would health care be better if we had him back?” you wondered. We never had anything like COVID-19 in those days, but would Premier Lougheed have treated a broken leg or cancer the way Premier Smith treats COVID-19? Food for thought. Then we talked about whether the political party which best lives into the Lougheed legacy might be the New Democrats. You said that calling the NDP conservative made you feel sad, like something had been stolen from you.

Rachel Notley and Danielle Smith

Sadness aside, it makes me smile that we quibble about electoral politics. (“Quibble” is not always a bad word). A writ gets dropped, I put up a progressive party sign and you, the next day, have a conservative-minded one in your yard, positioned as closely as possible to mine, both competing for attention! One year you had your sign out first.

We laugh, maneuvering signs for the best lines of sight. And I’ll never forget the day I saw you through our front window, straightening your sign and ours after a strong wind had knocked them both down. I love the neighbourly respect, especially at election time. I value learning your perspective, feeling no threat from difference. It is a gift that usually gets hidden, but hopefully never lost.

So it’s in that context of respect that I remember this morning’s talk of leadership, conservatism, and health care. Dear neighbour, it’s my new conclusion that, in Canada, in our provinces and territories, there is only one jurisdiction that no longer has a conservative party: Alberta.

“What?!” you say. “Of course we have a conservative party, an ‘imperfectly united’ one. How can Alberta’s concentrated conservative institutions, conservative conversations, and conservative people not have a conservative party? Most cows are conservative!”

How indeed! We agree that Alberta needs a conservative party because, without strong parties, we wander and fall apart. And that’s what’s happening, we are wandering, falling apart, failing to protect the land and protect, serve, and care for the people. We try to educate the children and protect them from viral spread, while nurses and doctors work to keep the sickest ones breathing. Yet our government must, for some reason, find or create new fights. In what world is that conservative?

Remember how Premier Kenney declared victory over COVID-19. Then he tried to lead us into the Greatest Summer Ever. That’s why our health care infrastructure nearly foundered. That wasn’t conservatism, it was arrogant recklessness. Now Premier Smith declares the virus to be endemic, and she centres her new normal on blaming, finger pointing, and replacing boards and experts with people who take nonsense for wisdom. That’s not conservatism either, and the Premier’s agenda moves full-tilt, even though she has yet to win more than fifty or sixty-thousand votes in any kind of election.

Conservative offices, conservative Legislature seats, and the UCP’s “big tent” are all occupied by a sovereigntist and populist movement. No Progressive Conservatives remain in caucus. The party that has left you is in the hands of people whose goals seem reducible to the conversion of our province, including education and health care infrastructure, into capital for sale to investors. Alberta has many conservative people, but it no longer has a conservative party, united or otherwise.

Well. You must be glad I didn’t try to say all this while thrusting and swinging my arms atop our tipsy ladder! But yes, if you think I worry that something has just shifted alarmingly in Alberta partisan politics, you’re right. I hope you will ask yourself the same thing. What do you think? By May will you and I know enough about the candidates to choose a sign for our lawns? What are their positions, not just on health care, but also on policing, natural resources, pension plans, sovereignty, and children’s education? 

Hey, listen to this! What if we gathered data and shared notes with each other every few months from now until election day? It’s up to parties to win enough seats to form government. But it’s up to neighbours to choose the best person to sit in the Legislative Assembly seat that bears our constituency’s name.

Signed,

Lloyd Lovatt*

On behalf of Whitemud Citizens for Public Health. WCPH  is a small group of citizens, your neighbours, who first organized in Edmonton Whitemud. It has expanded to include Albertans in other parts of the province. WCPH is concerned about the quality, support and universal accessibility of health care in Alberta. It is non-partisan and believes in active engagement with people elected to office.

Posted in Guest Bloggers, Politics and Government | Tagged , , | 51 Comments

A Short Break

Posted on November 20, 2022 by susanonthesoapbox

Dear Readers:

I’m working on a project so there will be no blog this week.

However if you’d like to share your thoughts about the UCP’s latest missteps (there certainly are enough to choose from) feel free.  

See you next week.

Susan

Posted in Uncategorized | 42 Comments

The Reign of Misinformation

Posted on November 13, 2022 by susanonthesoapbox

The last six months have been hell and the next six months will be worse.

By election day, May 29, 2023, we’ll have transitioned from Jason Kenney, the politician who went to great lengths to convince ‘the people of destiny” that their sense of victimhood was justified to Danielle Smith, the politician and journalist who will add her unique blend of conspiracy theorist thinking to the list of indignities Albertans believe they’ve suffered at Ottawa’s hands.     

It will be trickier to hold Smith to account because she offers her own experience as a journalist to reject the role of journalism in democracy.

Premier Smith

As Marsha Lederman said in the Globe and Mail, “Her depiction of journalism as a clickbait endeavour was more than a shot at reporters; it demonstrates a dismissal of a fundamental aspect of democracy – and perhaps more concerning, one she should be intimately familiar with.”  

This is no trivial matter.

Facts, truth, trust

Maria Ressa is a Filipino-American journalist, together with Russian journalist Dmitry Muratov, she won the Nobel peace prize for their fight to safeguard freedom of expression.

Ressa says that without facts there is no truth, without truth there is no trust, and without trust there is no shared reality and we can’t work together on the problems that confront us.

Ressa cites the historian Timothy Snyder who said: to abandon facts is to abandon freedom.

If you’re wondering whether Alberta under a Smith government will descend into tyranny, consider this.

Lovefest or Occupation?

Depending on where you get your news, you believe the Freedom Convoy was the biggest lovefest since Woodstock or a lawless band of hooligans who took Ottawa and some border crossings hostage.

How can this be?

We all saw the TV footage, read the newspaper accounts, some of us were there or knew people who were there and experienced it firsthand. And yet our opinions about the Convoy are radically different.

The testimony of convoy organizer James Bauder provides some insight.

Bauder testified that:   

  • he graduated from high school and became a consultant who traveled the world advising clients on policy, corporate governance, and risk management
  • as he passed through international airports, he developed an understanding of how CNN/BBC “distract” the government
  • he prayed for an answer to divisiveness in Canada and God said “unity”
  • he founded Canada Unity to unify Canada
  • the 2019 United We Roll convoy was a response to Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau “ganging up on us.”
  • the 2022 Freedom Convoy was a response to Bauder’s conclusion that vaccines were dangerous and mandates were unlawful   
  • Bauder, his wife and another trucker drafted a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to be signed by Canada Unity, the Governor General and the Speaker of the Senate.
  • if they signed the MOU Bauder would remove the Bearhug (Bauder described the Bearhug as a sign of love so it’s unclear why its removal would be an incentive for the GG and the Speaker to sign the MOU)  
  • the MOU signatories would order the federal, provincial and municipal government to cease all unconstitutional activity, reinstate all fired employees, and waive all covid fines.

It’s unclear who was going to force Justin Trudeau, the premiers, the mayors, etc to bend to the will of the MOU’s signatories, but Bauder assured the Commission that the Senate was the “root of all law” under the Helsinki Act and the Nuremberg codes (??) and had the power it needed.

Bauder declared the Convoy a success (if it unified Canada I missed it) and went home to prepare a lawsuit against those who he said had harmed him and his family.  

I’ve got a law to fix that

Bauder’s testimony is rife with factual errors which underpin his lack of trust in experts and his ignorance of the legal and political processes. Bauder acted on this misinformation and created havoc.

That’s Bauder, what’s Smith’s excuse?

Smith used misinformation to gain power and once elected doubled down on misinformation by using it to enact new laws.     

Smith’s Bill #1, the Alberta Sovereignty Act, will strengthen Albertans’ belief that they’ve been abused by Ottawa. It will harden their resolve if Ottawa fails to yield and they’ll become even more entrenched in their fantasy that they’re better off splitting from Canada.  

Smith’s legislative changes to make anti-vaxxers a protected class under Alberta’s human rights legislation tells the anti-vaxxers they were right to flout public health safeguards and will increase the risk of illness and death the next time around. It’s also extremely disrespectful of minorities that require protection from discrimination.

The Sovereignty Act and the ‘rights’ of anti-vaxxers will be challenged and defeated in the Courts, but the harm Smith will have inflicted on Alberta by passing these ‘laws’ in the first place will live on.  

Because, as Maria Ressa said, without facts, there is no truth, without truth, there is no trust, and without trust we cannot work together to solve the real problems we face.

Posted in General Health Care, Law, Politics and Government, Science | Tagged , , , , , , , | 48 Comments