UCP fast tracks separation referendum

In Bill 14, Danielle Smith and the UCP have dropped the mask; and the gloves.

Desperate to address yet another of the United Conservative Party’s own blunders, the UCP introduced a mishmash of miscellaneous amendments to their own legislation, as well as fun new bans on words political parties can use in the freest province in Canada. Last Thursday, Alberta’s Justice Minister introduced Bill 14 to save Danielle Smith’s face from being eaten by the leopards in her party. They also needed to save themselves from their own disrepute as a legitimate representative of their supposed “legacy parties”.

There were egregious oversteps all around.

The first was in removing the clause in their April amendments that protected Albertans and Treaty Rights holders from having their rights and freedoms put to a referendum as if it was as insignificant an ask as having one’s say on a proposed licence plate design.

I realize that our sovereignty remains under grave threat and that Danielle Smith, as the pickme girl who wants to be the first domino to fall to a hostile foreign power, doesn’t care for the rights and freedoms granted to Canadians by our Charter, but until such time as we become second-class citizens under the tangerine tyrant, those rights still exist for all of us; notwithstanding the UCP’s objections.

It was a slap in the face to every Albertan but especially to First Nations and Indigenous Peoples, whose very public and valid concerns were the reason it was included in the first place. Unfortunately, Danielle Smith cannot be trusted to do anything but save her own skin and after the comeuppance she received at her AGM, she put her tail between her legs and rolled over for the conspiracy nuts who yanked on her leash.

She and her tiny tot Justice Minister even had the gall, once again, to try and override a court decision on the question of whether the separatist referenda was a breach against our constitutional rights.

I expect Mickey Amery had asked for a heads up about the decision, despite the fact that it had yet to be released publicly by Thursday afternoon, because the UCP’s legislation singled out the clause which referenced the Charter for repeal. We know that Justice Feasby was able to add an epilogue which referenced Bill 14’s attempt to disqualify the decision.

While that part was simply offensive, they also couldn’t resist trying to enshrine their own pettiness into law.

It’s not you, it’s them

I like to think that if Danielle Smith and the UCP would have campaigned on forcing a separation referendum on Albertans that they would not have been elected. I like to think that but throughout the dismantling and outsourcing of Alberta’s health services to friends and family of the governing party, and refusing to fund our children’s future through public education, there’s been little effective pushback.

I don’t doubt the NDP is doing their level best to hold the UCP accountable, I just don’t think they’re effective and it’s not even their fault— it’s the hand they were dealt.

In comparison, I’ve thought the Wildrose was incredibly effective at holding the Progressive Conservatives to account for two specific ways in which they differ from the NDP: they were vying for the same voters and they lied with ease.

To the first, this is not to say they were vying for all of the same voters. The separatists and healthcare banning social conservatives in the Wildrose didn’t want PCs getting in their way and many PCs wanted nothing to do with Danielle Smith and the floor crossers who had fled the same people she now takes orders from. However, they had some conservative values in common; or at least they did a good job of convincing voters this was true. It just goes to show how good they were at lying.

It has been somewhat instructive to watch how the UCP has completely given up on the charade of caring about personal, fiscal, civic or social responsibility even a smidgeon as much as they once claimed. It was apocalyptic while they were in opposition but is just same old Alberta now that they’re in charge, but that’s not even the worst of it. The heaps of utter BS they spewed about public accountability and fiscal responsibility and built their political careers on is awe inspiring. I’ll admit it— I thought they were earnest.

And no, the fact that these people were full of it does not change my values in the least. I’m disappointed that the strongest voices holding governments to account for decades in Alberta have lost their will to object now that they’re personally benefitting. I’m disappointed that page six of the SUN has turned into a government love letter, and I’m angry with the people who lied about their commitments and values. Mine haven’t changed.

In my lifetime, I don’t think the Alberta government has ever been as trustworthy as it was when a majority of people didn’t trust the people running it. The same people who scrutinized every move the government made then can’t stop looking away now. One can certainly debate whether it was because they were mistrusted and under such intense public scrutiny that they made more of an effort not to adopt corrupt practices; I do love a good thought experiment, after all.

To the second reason why I think the Wildrose was a better opposition than the NDP, that they aren’t good at lying, is because they’re in a radically different position where neither their supporters and potential supporters, nor those who will never be their supporters, would put up with it. It’s a very different space.

They won’t blame the federal government for failures they know are a provincial responsibility. They won’t pretend that making deals with the federal government is a bad thing, and they won’t make grand promises like saying they can reset the economy and bring back oil and gas jobs because they know they don’t control that. It shouldn’t put them at a disadvantage but somehow, it does.

They have to find a way to reach people that doesn’t include lying and offering fodder for page six, while representing a party that people are still unfamiliar with. And what they’re doing isn’t working.

It’s not even just a feeling I get. The latest provincial opinion polling has the UCP down 10 points since the last election, from 54 to 44. The NDP? They’re down one point, from 40 to 39. Wtaf.

All about identity

Rumours were circling over the last couple of weeks that the UCP was going to ban the word “progressive” from political party names. It seemed like an odd choice because, obviously, the UCP have nothing to fear from political parties using that word. I’ve been saying for years that the NDP’s biggest hurdle in Alberta is an identity problem but it was somewhat satisfying to watch the governing party admit they rely on that being true even more than I do at this point.

Instead, the UCP used a portion of Bill 14 to ban new parties from using some of the names of political parties currently registered in the province. I say some because they offered to ban a new party from using the word “democratic” rather than “democrat”.

I will posit that it’s darkly amusing— if you’re even remotely familiar with Danielle Smith and the UCP’s concerning attack on our democracy and the rule of law— that they would object to a political party calling themselves “democratic” in Alberta, in 2025.

Conservatism has more branches than a Charlie Brown Christmas tree. They agree on some core values, like small (meaning not unnecessarily intrusive) government, and a litany of responsibility; personal, civic, fiscal, and though some would argue against my including it, even ideological conservatives care about social responsibility. These diverge sharply within conservatism once you layer in outside factors like religion, authoritarianism, as well as a host of -isms that ruin the party for everyone.

Pun intended.

The UCP wasn’t afraid of more Wildrose or Independence parties because they knew those people were willfully, and happily, propping them up. The other branches of conservatives, though? Those people who actually believe that government can be a force for good? The ones who respect the rule of law, are patriotic to their country regardless of who is elected government, and those who believe that they have strong responsibilities personally and to others because of a social contract we all want to uphold?

“United” conservatives are so afraid of them that they have banned the use of the word “conservative” in any form, in any new party. Strong and free, right?

This addition was, of course, aimed at the Honourable Pete Guthrie, Scott Sinclair, and the Alberta Party, along with its former interim leader Lindsay Amantea, who the United Conservative Association (the apparatus that “runs” the United Conservative Party) is suing for reputational damage over their publicly stated intention to revive the Progressive Conservative name.

It tickles my funny bone to think anything is more damaging their reputation as a legacy progressive conservative party than the people they have chosen to represent the UCP in the Alberta Legislature.

Though I’ll deign to consider the Honourable Peter Lougheed might have been somewhat impressed with the Sovereignty (within a united Canada) Act, I truly believe he would be appalled at the lack of accountability, the blatant disdain for maintaining even the appearance that this government cannot be bought, abuse of power against marginalized constituents, and flippant disregard for their fiduciary duty to Albertans.

Jason Kenney and the rest of the Wildrosers may have been able to crush the PCAA, and Danielle Smith may be able to stop new parties from registering as “progressive conservative”, but they haven’t managed to displace the identity that still resonates with many Albertans. And if the UCP didn’t believe it, too, they wouldn’t be doing everything they can to stop it from being associated with another party.

Unfortunately for them, they can’t legislate away identity, no matter how hard they try. “PC Alberta” may have been a branding exercise but it went far beyond that for many Albertans. Progressive conservatives didn’t disappear with the loss of the party and they don’t need another party to rename itself to get their attention; what they need is a party that is willing to stand up for their values and principles and be the progressive conservative choice.

Progressive conservatism isn’t just a name; it’s an ideology, and it’s a political identity that is completely incompatible with whatever the UCP has become.

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!