"A Kick In The Gut"

That's what Alberta's nurses are calling the move by Jason Kenney's UCP to roll back their wages by 3%. 

In Kenneyland, contracts apparently are notional, not legal, documents. In 2020, a four-year contract with a 0% wage increase was signed, but Alberta Health Services, under the obvious direction of a craven, feckless premier, says they just cannot afford the wages they are currently paying. 

Perhaps the government hopes nurses will take some comfort in the fact that people like Alberta's Finance Minister really do like them:

In a statement on Tuesday, Finance Minister Travis Toews commended the “invaluable role” nurses have played in the COVID-19 pandemic but noted Alberta needs to get its finances back on track.

“The need to bring wages in line with other large provinces does not diminish our deep respect for the exceptional work and dedication of public sector workers.

And that 'deep respect' was echoed by the man himself. 

The premier was asked about the negotiations with the nurses’ union on Thursday. While Jason Kenney said he didn’t want to comment too much out of respect for the negotiation process, he did thank all health-care workers for their services, especially during the pandemic.

As the following report makes clear, neither the nurses nor the public are impressed by political platitudes. 

If the political winds are blowing in the direction I suspect they are, after the next provincial election  the United Conservative Party will have ample opportunity to reflect on and review how they do politics. Sitting on the other side of the legislature will, no doubt, be a humbling experience for them. 

 

 

Pensée Du Jour

Nothing profound, other than to say it is good to know that amongst the provinces, Ontario is not alone in its government's ineptitude.

H/t Theo Moudakis

Now He Is Just Being Absurd

With all that is going on in the world, this is where Jason Kenney directs his fervour, railing against a Netflix cartoon called Bigfoot Family.

Love, From Ralph Wiggum

 I'm sure Jason's message will be well-received.

But I like the source material better:

Makes Sense To Me

I had this exact conversation with my son this week as he and his wife visited from the west.

Alberta, Ottawa set to clash over rent supplement cost, Dec. 27

This story reports another impasse over money between Alberta and Ottawa. Yet it fails to explain the full story as to why Alberta is so low on cash.

Alberta has been a tax haven for decades, and still has no provincial sales tax like almost all of the rest of Canada pays. For Ontario, the provincial sales tax is 8 per cent; for Alberta, it is 0. The revenue going to provincial coffers from this are huge in Ontario; zilch in Alberta.

So what does Alberta Premier Jason Kenney do? He expects federal funds to cover for the lack of Alberta provincial funds. He never mentions sales tax. That means taxpayers in other provinces, who pay provincial sales tax as well as other taxes, are expected to maintain the Alberta tax haven.

Why isn’t this fact included in every story about Alberta seeking federal money? Canadians would then better understand how Kenney is pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes.

Allan Fox, Toronto

Oops!

It seems that a candidate for Alberta's Wildrose party, Rick Strankman, has made a bit of a faux pas, one that he blames, as politicians are wont to do, on a volunteer:

A Wildrose candidate was forced to apologize and retract a poster Thursday that called on party supporters to bring their wives’ pies to a meet-and-greet.

The poster encouraged constituents in Drumheller-Stettler to attend an “old fashioned pie auction” next week and “BYWP (Bring Your Wife’s Pie!!)”

Meanwhile, rumours abound that Strankman has hired a new campaign manager:

Breaking News

Wow!

Seven Wildrose MLAs are planning to cross to Alberta’s governing Progressive Conservative party, CBC news has learned.

Two party sources said the seven are: party leader Danielle Smith, House Leader Rob Anderson, and MLAs Jeff Wilson, Gary Bikman, Pat Stier, Blake Pederson and Jason Hale.

Members of the 14-person caucus met Tuesday afternoon to discuss an offer from the PCs, led by Premier Jim Prentice.

MLAs Shane Saskiw, Drew Barnes and Rick Strankman said on social media that they were planning to stick with the Wildrose, which is the official opposition.

Currently, the PCs have 63 seats, the Liberals hold five, the NDP have four. There is one independent MLA.

The executive of the party is holding a teleconference Tuesday night to discuss what’s next.

The PCs are holding a caucus meeting on Wednesday.

A Merger In The Offing?

My son, who lives in Alberta, keeps me apprised of that province's politics. Will Wildrose join Jim Prentice's Progressive Conservatives? Speculation is rampant.

WildRose Revisited

The other day I wrote a post about the Wildrose Party's retraction of its definitive equal rights clause that covered almost every conceivable individual. Although leader Danielle Smith had enthused the day before about its inclusiveness, when party delegates voted it down, she quickly changed her tune, saying that the more generic substitute was better.

In this morning's Globe, Gary Mason offers his own view on what many see as a regressive step for Wildrose, and what he calls yet another 'bozo eruption.":

The change was important for a political institution that is still viewed suspiciously in some quarters. It is widely accepted that it lost the past provincial election when an old blog post written by one of its candidates was unearthed in the dying days of the campaign. In it, Allan Hunsperger condemned gays and lesbians to an “eternal lake of fire.” Ms. Smith lamented the “bozo eruption,” and pledged that the party would do a better job in future of weeding out those with bigoted and narrow-minded attitudes.

The policy alteration was designed to do just that:

Last year’s recommended alteration to its human rights policy was designed, in part, to show Albertans that Wildrose is as inclusive as any party in Canada. It was hoped the change would dispel any notion it is not ready to govern an increasingly multiethnic and socially liberal society.

The failure of the party is egregious in this regard, and is reflected in its recent loss in the four by-elections last month, which saw all taken by the newly-revived Conservatives under Jim Prentice.

Suddenly, Wildrose looks lost and uncertain. At the convention Ms. Smith blamed the media for many of the party’s woes, accusing news organizations of perverting or ignoring positive stories to instead perpetuate the image of a negative and angry political brand. This takes gall, considering that for much of Ms. Redford’s two-year tenure, the media focused almost entirely on the former premier’s near-constant travails. Wildrose was served up daily opportunities to take vicious, but legitimate, swipes at its main rivals.

Surely, part of the blame must be put on Danielle Smith, who after those losses urged a leadership review that was rejected by the party.

Gary Mason ends his piece with this ominous observation:

The decision to reject overwhelmingly a human rights policy change that would have made the party look decidedly more modern and inviting does nothing to help its cause. At one time, Wildrose seemed close to governing Alberta. Now it could not seem further away from power.

The lesson for the Alberta electorate, I suppose, is clear. No one should be surprised that when these 'bozos' remove their 'public face,' the same faces peer back at them in the mirror.

UPDATED: Perhaps They Forgot (In)Alien(able) Rights?

The Edmonton Journal reports the following story about the Wildrose Party:

Wildrose members on Saturday voted down a “definitive statement” on equality rights, one day after leader Danielle Smith trumpeted the motion that had been adopted by the party last year.

Perhaps its specificity offended some of the party's 'less progressive' members?

Delegates at the Wildrose annual general meeting in Red Deer voted 148 — 109 to reject a proposal to make policy a motion adopted last year defending the rights of all people, “regardless of race, religious belief, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons.”

Instead, party members opted to maintain their existing policy recognizing that “all Albertans have equal rights, privileges and responsibilities.”

With the kind of logic and language worthy of the Orwell imprimatur,

Smith described the vote as an affirmation of the party’s current policy, rather than as a defeat of the proposed plank.

“I think that the nature of the debate was that they were concerned there might be something excluded in that long list,” said Smith, who was not on the convention floor for the vote. “I think that’s a reasonable position to take. I certainly don’t think anyone should take offence to it.”

She's probably right. The defeated equality statement did seem to have one glaring omission. There was not one mention of (in)alien(able) rights, and it would would hardly pay to offend these denizens of Rigel V11 :



The farsightedness of Wildrose is indeed breathtaking.

UPDATE: Special thanks to Alison who, in her comment below, provided a link to some telling information:

Wildrose priorities ... not too big on inalienable equality rights for people but nonetheless want property rights entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Today, the Wildrose was joined by federal Conservative Lethbridge MP Jim Hillyer to announce a new legislative motion that will be the first step in entrenching Alberta landowner rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Introduced by Wildrose Lacombe-Ponoka MLA Rod Fox, the amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be brought about under section 43 of the Constitution Act, which states that

if a constitutional amendment applies to one or more provinces, but not all of them, the amendment requires only the support of the province to which it applies with resolutions by the Senate and House of Commons, and of the legislative assembly of each province where the amendment applies.

Wildrose leader Danielle Smith is wildly enthusiastic about entrenching property rights, since it gets government 'off the backs of the people,' a foundational tenet of the party:

“Landowners are the best stewards of our beautiful landscapes and they deserve to have their rights fully protected so they can manage their property with minimal interference from government,” Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said. “This kind of positive constitutional change is possible and critical for advancing property rights in Alberta. I hope that after Mr. Prentice’s campaign commitments this past summer, both he and his government will fully support this motion.”

Make of that what you will.

Now Here's An Interesting Idea

At a time when workers' rights are under constant attack, dangerous, Draconian, Orwellian and unconstitutional measures have been passed in Alberta that not only strip away the arbitration rights of public servants, but also limit their freedom of speech.

First, to the 'less contentious' of the two bills recently passed by Alison Redford's Conservative government. In Alberta, strikes by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, who have been without a contract since last March, are forbidden. However, recently passed Bill 46 removes the underpinnings enjoyed by most unions where strikes are prohibited: binding arbitration. With the removal of that right, Redford's government will now be able to impose the following after the negotiation deadline of January 31:

... a legislated four-year deal with no increases over the first two years and one-per-cent increases in each of the next two would come into effect.

However, there are even more grievous measures contained in companion Bill 45, ostensibly legislation to introduce a more comprehensive range of measures that can be applied when there is an illegal strike or threat of an illegal strike that goes much further.

As noted at Rabble.ca, the bill

... denies individuals the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Bill 45 introduces for the first time in Canada, a vague legal concept of "strike threat" which makes it illegal to canvass the opinion of "employees to determine whether they wish to strike" or to freely express a view which calls for or supports strike action.

So Bill 45 essentially attempts to strip away our constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech; it likely will not withstand a Charter challenge, but the bill's intent nonetheless provides a rather frightening look into the minds of legislators today, minds that seem to endorse the attack on essential rights and freedoms as somehow good and just. Even the Calgary Herald and Wild Rose leader Danielle Smith condemn such a worldview. The former describes the bills as marking a dark chapter in Alberta history.

How does one fight such a mentality? Writing in the Edmonton Journal, Lloyd Maybaum, an Alberta physician, draws upon his experience in 2012 during a period of protracted negotiations. He suggests an innovative strategy to combat this assault on basic rights: a virtual strike.

During a virtual strike, unlike an actual strike, there is no cessation or slowdown of work, and everyone earns their regular pay.

The power of the virtual strike lies in the strategic donation of earned income. In the case of a hostile, bullying government, one could follow the adage that the enemy of your enemy becomes your friend and donate income from virtual strike days to opposition parties in the legislature.

Every Wednesday, for instance, union leaders could encourage nurses from across the province to go online and donate $100 to the political party of their choice.

By so doing, the union would be taking its fight directly to the governing party, not allowing patients to become caught in the crossfire of negotiations.

And as Maybaum points out, every $100 donation would only cost $25 after the political donation deduction, and could prove a potent weapon in a jurisdiction that is apparently trying to cripple people's rights.

Should those of us not living in Alberta be concerned? Without question. Both federally and provincially, workers are increasingly seen as impediments to the unfettered profits of business. There is, for example, Tim Hudak in Ontario who wants to make the province a 'right to work' jurisdiction; the Harper cabal seeks to cripple unions through disclosure of expenditures via Bill C-377, legislation that has been weakened, fortunately, by a amendment in the Senate put forward by Hugh Segal.

Constant vigilance is required. Truly, the battle taking place in Alberta is everyone's fight.