I’ll be honest; I couldn’t fit everything I wanted to include in the Alberta newsletter this week and I think the best solution is to add a second one that focuses Beyond AB.
Canada
MPs are in the House
CPC
It’s an exciting week for the adults in Ottawa and those who are glued to the spectacle, celebrating their own ‘back to school’ days, but in their case, “school” is a verb; not a noun. Yes, Question Period is back and it started off with something I’ve never heard before: the Leader of the Official Opposition, Pierre Poilievre saying things like “in the spirit of non-partisanship.”
Don’t get me wrong — I think this is what Canadians are looking for in their leadership right now, but Mr. Poilievre’s statements afterward were the same old uncharitable and unhelpful remarks. It reminded me of the “no offence, but” pretext before someone then takes potshots at your vehicle or hair colour choice.
Non-obsessive observers are unlikely to notice but it struck a chord because I’ve been watching the fairytales being churned out down south. While many of us like to get away from it all and lose ourselves in a nice story, very few of us have the luxury of staying there and not dealing with the reality and responsibilities of our lives.
Which is why the following was even more of a red flag.
The very next day, the MP for Brantford-Brant South-Six Nations posted a short video of himself and a few other CPC MPs sitting alone in a boardroom demanding to know where the government MPs were. Turns out, the Justice Committee wasn’t scheduled to meet until Thursday.
I’m not thrilled that we’re going to be plunged into the icy depths of someone else’s fantasy; it’s far too close to what we’re watching happen down south as the Administration tries to bend reality to its will. Governments cannot make good decisions by wishing the facts were different and watching them careen into a recession that didn’t have to happen is anxiety-inducing.
NDP
The NDP is holding a leadership race and did draw some attention from their least favourite fans in the conservative opinion sphere after releasing the rules for candidates. I’ve linked the CBC but you can certainly find disdainful takes (from the left and right) with ease. I’ll admit my initial reaction to their limiting half of the signatures to “non cisgendered white men” was not dissimilar; just why?
Thanks to The Strategists’ podcast newest member, former Alberta NDP Environment Minister and current partner at Meredith, Boessenkool, and Phillips, Shannon Phillips, the answer was far less insidious than the conservative-leaning opinion sphere would have us believe. In olden times, she said on a recent episode, they would simply have said that at least half of the signatures should come from “women”. It still set off a little fire storm about “identity politics” — which is alive and well everywhere — the vast majority of our published and broadcasted commentators and thought leaders, who most often lean conservative and are “cisgendered white men”, don’t like it because it has limitations for them.
It’s like that book I bought about writing for late night television (published in 2014) and I realized how uncomfortable it was for me that the author kept referring to a writer as male. I was 27 pages in before he thought to include a potential female but by then I had already internalized the feeling that the book was not intended for anyone without a Y chromosome. The experience was unsettling, and I haven’t managed to convince myself to pick it back up. All this is to say that language matters and I’m confident one can be inclusive without excluding those who might internalize the feeling that it’s not for them and unnecessarily deter them from finding out what else the book, or party, has to offer.
Liberals
There is a lot happening on the government side of the House already; federal project approvals are coming quickly — too quickly for Green Party leader Elizabeth May — and a few attempts so far to prepare Canadians for a bad news budget. I hear some are urging the Liberals to delay the budget further than November of this year because as the US Administration continues to push their economy on a downward spiral, every country will be dealing with the effects, and it might allow some grace if Canada isn’t the first to admit it. Though, who are we kidding? The CPC isn’t about to hand any grace to the government but would certainly be demanding it if they were in the government’s shoes. Apparently hypocrisy is the point, but still.
While I expect the budget to be bad, particularly as we are intricately tied to the U.S. economy and they seem hell bent on smashing theirs apart, I am at least grateful we don’t have an imbecile relying on wishes and unicorns to run ours.
That low bar of optimism aside, there’s trouble brewing with the other usual suspects after the Liberals sent a request to the Supreme Court of Canada asking it to impose limits on what the Charter’s notwithstanding clause, Section 33, can be used for.
In its filing, the federal government urged the court to set limits on how the notwithstanding clause could be invoked, saying repeated use of the clause amounts to "indirectly amending the Constitution" and that the court should be able to rule on whether it can result in the "irreparable impairment" of Canadians' rights.
Quebec Premier Francois Legault and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith took immediate offence as the former used the notwithstanding clause to violate freedom of religion for public service employees, and the latter wishes to limit healthcare providers from prescribing puberty blockers (which are not akin to “sterilization” as Ms. Smith often claims) to those under age 16 (when puberty usually begins), as well as the right of Alberta children to access them, and the rights of parents to consent to their receipt of the medication, and disallowing transgender girls to play school sports on “all female teams”.
Personally, I think they’re all crap laws, but I’m not religious and I don’t care if other people are, and I’m not a competitive athlete who thinks junior and senior high school sport should be restricted by gender. I was, however, a competitive athlete back in those days. I would have preferred all-gender teams at school because I was in a small school and I’m certain we could have had better teams if we were allowed to have the best players on a team instead of restricting some of them to the best “girls.” As I said, I was “competitive.”
Initially, I was under the impression that the late Premier Peter Lougheed and his “Gang of Eight” fought to include the notwithstanding clause to ensure a provincial government had the option of refusing to implement restrictions on the rights and freedoms of a protected class of citizens by the federal government. I was, sadly, mistaken. I realize it was a different time, but it was still disappointing.
The Liberals are also introducing new restrictions on “hate symbols,” so, this is a fun dance within the confines of the paradox of tolerance.
Unlike the U.S., Canadians do not have absolute freedoms. Also unlike the U.S., our government isn’t using its power to silence us for making fun of them, or saying mean things about them — in the most direct violation of their First Amendment right — so, even with “reasonable limitations” on our rights and freedoms in Canada, ours are apparently more far reaching than supposed “absolute” freedoms down there.
We have agreed to limit speech that incites hate or violence, or that which is used to harass, intimidate, or threaten. We do this because we want to feel safe, and we think others should be able to feel safe as well, therefore accepting it as a reasonable limitation on our freedom of expression.
It would not, then, seem like a leap to include specific symbols that are used to also harass, intimidate, or threaten.
I’m sure they’re ready for some pushback as we used to have a fairly standard agreement and understanding of which symbols were used in, or could be taken this way, but in an age of memes and internet rabbit holes, compounded by a disjointed reality, I’d personally struggle to identify more than a historic few.
Canada plus
Brewing
Parliamentary Secretary (combatting crime) Vince Gasparro announced “the members of Kneecap have been deemed ineligible to enter Canada.” One of the reasons cited by Mr. Gasparro was that a member of the band is charged with a serious offence. A Globe and Mail report says the government was ”asked” by interested groups to do so. The band issued a statement saying they have directed their lawyers to initiate legal action.
One of the band’s members, Liam Og O hAnnaidh, was in court in August answering to a terror-related charge after displaying a flag they said was tossed onto the stage. The U.K. has designated Hezbollah as a terror group and as such the flag is considered a “symbol of hate”. Probably relevant information for above…
The argument before the court is that Mr. O hAnnaidh was not charged within the timeframe from his arrest in November, and a judge is set to rule on September 26.
Breaking
The FCC (background by John Oliver, four months ago) threatened media-conglomerate executives with their broadcasting licences this week if Disney didn’t get rid of late night host Jimmy Kimmel. The monologue in question was extremely tame by late night standards (on X). Rolling Stone got the inside track on what was happening after the executives got the call, and CNN has a good recap as well. In the end, Disney, Mr. Kimmel’s show was cancelled while people were waiting in line to get in. His fellow comedians came out swinging. Ish.
Stephen Colbert did a segment called “the Words”, Jimmy Fallon’s opening (on BlueSky) included a voiceover with state-approved (or at least not disapproved) messaging, Jon Stewart and cast showed up for an “all new, government-approved” show.
Boycotts are being called on Disney subscriptions, and people who might not have been aware of just how bad it’s getting down there may start to take a slight interest. Maybe.
Not everyone disapproves of the clampdown, obviously.
Pardon us while we exercise of our freedom of expression, Mr, Hoekstra
The U.S. Ambassador to Canada doesn’t like hearing Canadians are unhappy with the Administration that pays his salary. He said he’s disappointed he came to Canada and, looking around, that feeling appears quite mutual.
Though it occurred to me that perhaps Mr. Hoekstra, a Trump appointee, was less unhappy with what he was hearing than the fact that we, in a free and democratic country, were allowed to say it at all.
As Trump’s appointees in various departments apply pressure to broadcasting mega-conglomerates to remove people who make fun of Mr. Trump, or academics who quote people the Trump Administration no longer wants them to quote, or newspaper publishers who allow journalists and opinion columnists to exercise their First Amendment rights, maybe the real problem for Mr. Hoekstra is that he doesn’t the like the freedom we have here in Canada.
Yes, Mr. Hoekstra appears to be quite uncomfortable having to listen to people who don’t like what the Trump Administration is doing. He seems to have thought his job was to sit back while Canadians sing Mr. Trump’s praises. He doesn’t seem to appreciate that people are just allowed to publicly state their frustrations with an Administration that can’t be counted on to keep its word, or negotiate in good faith, or that we have the freedom to choose to spend our money elsewhere.
He seems doubly affronted by the fact that we continue to enjoy the very freedoms his dictator in chief is stripping away from the people who elected him; even if he’s only aiming for those who were repelled by the idea.
He can bend his knee — as if he had a choice — I’m keeping my elbows up.
Final Thoughts
Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!
I like very much your having a Beyond Albert blog on the state of the world outside Alberta. Thanks for doing this!
"They hate us for our freedoms" said someone, once.