Back to the West of Centre interview
The Premier said that she is taking the slim margins of support as “proceed with caution.” A website called thebattleforalberta.ca has colour-coded the questions into each riding, which makes it very easy to see where support existed and where it does not.
She said she thinks that “a lot of the problems” can be solved “by focusing our newcomer population on the jobs that are available because when somebody comes with a high-paying job, they probably don’t need to rely on social services…”
“If we can fix that part, then I think it will reduce some of the stress on our healthcare and education and other systems.”
Is she saying that there should be income cutoffs for healthcare and education? She has long been a proponent of paying for “better” services that are the same as the ones offered to the public, but inaccessible to those who couldn’t afford to pay.
She says she gave a presentation to a business council yesterday and asked them if they think costs for education and healthcare should be shouldered by the worker or by the business. She added that “they can’t expect the general taxpayer to shoulder it if they’re making the argument that this is something that’s going to be good for the general public.”
I can’t even follow the logic of that statement.
I’ll say again that perhaps this is why no other province has rock-bottom business tax rates. Because businesses taxes… help cover publicly-funded services… for their staff…
The Premier says that this would all be better if these workers could become permanent residents and long term taxpayers.
Someone moving to Alberta from Saskatchewan doesn’t have to commit to staying in Alberta and neither do permanent residents. They can move freely from province to province, working, accessing health and education, and leaving.
“If you’re only here temporarily, are you really entitled to the same programs as somebody who is a lifelong taxpayer?” She asked.
No one is forced to be a “lifelong taxpayer.” Not someone born here, not someone who moves here from Ontario, not someone who becomes a permanent resident.
And one more time for the people in the back, business taxes help fund public education (and private and charter and separate, too) and healthcare (privately delivered at new and improved higher fees!). If temporary workers cost the public system an extra billion dollars more than Danielle Smith believes she’s getting from the businesses themselves, she already has the levers to fix that. Because she’s the Premier.
She then pivots to talking about how we need more labourers. Oil sands projects, data centres, factories— these are jobs that will require more workers than we currently have (apparently). She said she doesn’t want “immigrants” being brought in to work as frontline fast food workers, she says. She wants them to “fill the high-skilled, high-paying, good career option jobs.”
I don’t know if you remember Question 1, but this is the opposite of what she asked Albertans to give her a mandate for.
"Do you support the government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purposes of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities?"
Are we decreasing immigration or desperately seeking more people to fill jobs? Our unemployment rate is still over 6 per cent.
“Our work that we need to do, for our Alberta work permit, is to say ‘these are the 30 key professions that we know we’re going to have shortages’ and it will have a couple of benefits. It will not only tell Alberta kids what programs they should go into, it’ll tell our fellow Canadians what jobs it is that we’re looking for, but it will also allow us to recruit internationally when we have to.”
Like, we can already recruit internationally.
And if anyone wants to know which jobs we’re looking to fill, the ALIS (Alberta Learning and Information Services) website also has a labour market forecast. That’s an Alberta government resource. It existed before she spent more than $100 million on a referendum.
Of course not everyone knows about this site. One of my 27 previous jobs was with the Learning Clicks Program where we went into classrooms and talked to students about career and education planning. We introduced this site to them every time. Another job I had was career coaching adults. Also used this site. I’m just saying that this information is already available and Danielle Smith didn’t need to go after temporary workers or blow almost as much as they supposedly pay in taxes over a full year on these questions.
But I digress.
Rural urban divide
On what the referendum questions say about where Danielle Smith and the UCP’s priorities are in relation to those of the two biggest cities, she responded that the jobs she’s talking about aren’t happening in those cities but in rural. Where she has more support for targeting temporary workers.
As if that’s somehow… better?
“I’d say it’s just not the same priority as it is maybe, because if it was a strong priority, they might have voted differently. In Calgary and Edmonton, I hear about traffic. Affordability. I hear about hospitals and kids in crowded classrooms,” she said.
“But when it comes to the boom and where the jobs are going to be, that’s the active conversation we’re having outside of Calgary and Edmonton, which doesn’t surprise me there was a stronger mandate.”
To restrict their access to healthcare and education?
What?
Kathleen Petty asked why she would put those questions to the two largest cities if she knew it wasn’t a priority. The Premier responds that it’s so she could talk to the Prime Minister about it.
“Section 95 says we have the right to co-manage immigration and every time I’ve approached the federal government to ask for co-management they’ve turned us down cold.”
So… she’s already been doing this? Then why did we have to… nevermind.
Apparently the Prime Minister said he’s open to having this discussion with her; whatever it’s about.
The Premier was then asked about something she said on another show, regarding a drop in Conservative support in the cities.
“I looked it up a little while ago and I think there’s something like 240 seats in urban centres and Conservatives only have 45. We’ve seen this across the country, a slow erosion or fast erosion of Conservative vote in our big cities and why is that? Well maybe it’s because Conservative parties do tend to talk about some of the resource development, farming issues. I think we talk a lot more about free enterprise, and faith, family, communities— like, there’s just different things we talk about that may have more resonance in rural Alberta but that doesn’t mean we can’t focus on the things that matter in the cities. And finding out exactly what those are in a way that allows for us to connect with voters and win seats, that’s sort of the purpose of an election.”
Aside from that stream of consciousness that began with a one and went to cabbage, it’s like she remembered that little trick of responding to a job interviewer with “weaknesses that are actually strengths.”
This is actually a fabulous demonstration of why I refused to interview politicians about anything substantial. Tell me more about this legislation or program? Sure. Tell me something meaningful? Why waste both our time?
Oh, look, a segue.
A party for separatists
How will Danielle Smith enforce her no separatist MLAs or board members in the UCP? Well, they just have to tell her they’ll respect the will of the people.
“If you don’t want to do that, you don’t have to run for our party. You don’t have to put your name forward for the provincial board.”
She cackled overmuch when she was asked whether the separatists played a role in helping make her leader of the party. She said it wasn’t them— it was people who were really concerned about the COVID response. In the last five minutes or so, Jason Markusoff joins Kathleen to respond to the Premier’s comments and says she has to be aware of the throughline from anti-mandate to separatism.
But then… does she? I’m still trying to figure out what we can reasonably expect our Premier to be aware of when she somehow manages to be aware of so little.
She adds that her supporters were the ones trying to make U.S. culture wars a thing here. I paraphrase.
“The people supporting me were the ones who were concerned about some of the DEI ideology that was in classrooms. They were the ones who were concerned about young children being transgendered behind their parents backs. Those are the people who voted for me.”
Right. The ones trying to make far right conspiracies from the U.S. a thing here, too. I wish I could forget.
She brushed off the questions about Mitch Sylvestre and David Parker. She doesn’t say that she deferred to the Alberta Prosperity Project’s influence and allowed them to maintain it over her, but she very much did.
It’s possible that she actually believes she can break away from that influence she helped build because the separatist question was trounced.
She may be right— sort of.
Most of them have admitted they don’t want to start a new party and that they want to stay in the government one.
Shockingly enough.
Mitch Sylvestre said he’s not going to be responsible for breaking up the right and that the “progressives” can leave the UCP instead. Their Overton Window is way over on the shores of St. John, New Brunswick by now, so I don’t even know who he’s aiming that at.
In the last place you look
The Premier vowed to appeal the court ruling that said First Nations deserved consultation when their rights were being put to a vote. When asked if she would withdraw her appeal since the separatist question did not receive enough support, she said no.
“No, because the issue of the appeal is around whether or not citizens have a right to even do a petition campaign.”
Maybe the government could make it a law that Charter rights aren’t put to a random vote.
“That’s what we’re fighting is the right of citizens to be able to organize to be able to ask their government a policy question.”
“Policy question” or “unconstitutional question?” I can’t keep up with the spin.
When asked if, in light of her own sinking popularity, the multi-million dollar price tag, and the division, it was all worth it, Danielle Smith says it was absolutely worth it. She then says that “so many” people became separatists in April of 2025 because the Liberals were re-elected.
She said that the referendum provided certainty and closure.
“We now know that we have to work with Ottawa.”
Well.
Glad you finally figured that out, Premier; and only four years after being elected, too.
Becoming a paid subscriber not only supports my work but makes it possible for me to report from places none of us want to go. I’ve signed up for another $329 worth over the next 30 days so if you’ve been waiting for a reason to become a paying subscriber— now would be helpful! To those who already do; I’m grateful!
Salty (She Always Lies to You) Premier Measles can't keep it straight as to if she's bored, drilled, milled, punched or broached.
Will someone, anyone really, just drop a house on her and take the ruby red slippers?
Holy moly!! Is she confused or what? If it wasn’t all so sad I’d be laughing. Danielle has herself all tangled up in webs of her own spinning. Can’t wait to see what happens next!