LATEST ARTICLES

Saskatchewan climate action lawsuit ruling shows need for more accountability

Ken MacDougall
-
0
Saskatchewan climate action lawsuit ruling shows need for more accountability

When our Sask Party government first passed the Saskatchewan First Act, it seemed to be nothing more than an act of petulance, or just another day in the power struggle between two governments when the lower branch of power can’t properly manage its finances.

In enacting the SFA, all the provincial government has done is turn this province into an “Opposition of One” standing in the way of Canada developing a national plan of action on climate change and global warming concerns and making our citizens out to be nothing more than scientific illiterates denying the reasons why California’s summers are marked by massive fire destruction (as is now the case in our north) or that the east coast of the United States will be spending the next two weeks thawing out, and then unburying their regular modes of getting to work.

When Canada signed the Paris Accord in 2016, most of us assumed that climate change denialism had gone the way of the dodo; however when the feds introduced their first plan of action in dealing with the problem in the form of the 2018 “Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act”, it had to literally warn an intransigent Saskatchewan government that if the province did not produce a plan for climate action as had most of the other provinces, it would become subject to the terms of this legislation, which meant we’d then have to contribute to carbon tax levies. Instead, the Moe government challenged the “right” of the federal government to impose the tax in court, and lost – in effect costing our already overstressed taxpayers some $62 million in experimental project development, some $500,000 for “outside” legal assistance, a further four to ten times that amount for the government’s own legal services.

As I pointed out in last week’s column, this province is in crisis meltdown. We are currently managing to survive despite running a $39.8 billion deficit, have added some $11 billion to SaskPower’s debt load “experimenting” with carbon gas capture and storage at the Boundary Dam Site 3 coal-fired generating station, and must either add another $8 billion to the budget in order to provide the same capability to coal-fired reactors at Poplar River, Shand and Boundary Dam, or shut them down in 2030 under the terms specified in the GGPPA.

Incidental to these factors, yet still important for us to consider, is the intrusion of a court case that last week I asked readers to familiarize themselves with. It was reported in the Herald in its Oct. 21 edition, titled “Judge shuts down Saskatchewan climate action lawsuit”. The story was reporting on an Oct. 10 King’s Bench case in which Madame Justice Holli Kuski Bassett decided to strike down the right of a citizen’s group and Climate Justice Saskatoon to seek an end to the Saskatchewan government providing even more energy from either constructing or refurbishing coal or gas-fired power plants. While she acknowledged that while environmental protection issues remain important, since the legal principles involved in the case had yet to be considered in law, namely air quality and pollution concerns as they relate to the sequestering of carbon gases, the presenter (CJS) must first seek remediation in legislation under the principles of “democratic accountability”.

For the SFA to insist upon Saskatchewan having control of economic policy within its own borders ignores the legal precedents already established in the “Love Canal” environmental suit portrayed by Julia Roberts Oscar-winning performance in “Erin Brockovich”. Environmental disasters are almost never confined to a province’s political boundaries, and its legal application of sole jurisdictional authority is thereafter relegated to either federal or international courts.

It is almost impossible to believe that the Saskatchewan government, in including project “emissions” as a portion of its jurisdictional review processes under terms of the SFA, could not foresee the possibility of such action being taken against its minimalistic approach to having SaskPower power generating sites better control its output of carbon gases, especially when the production of air pollutants are so markedly linked to respiratory illnesses in particular. The Saskatchewan Party, however, has never been short of individuals all too willing to ridicule those who oppose its political agenda, and take to the Disinformation Highway to do so.

Brian Zinchuk, a resident of Estevan with heavy ties to the Saskatchewan Party (his co-partner host on his podcast “Pipeline Online” is Bronwyn Eyre, a law graduate who never practiced law, but was once Moe’s Minister of Justice) has gleefully stepped up as the unofficial mouthpiece. First of all, he applauded Madame Justice Barrett’s decision, as otherwise this would have meant that “three power plants, two coal mines, three communities (Estevan, Bienfait and Coronach), and 1,100 direct jobs” would have suffered its negative consequences. Next, he took a few shots at the litigants of the CJS suit, wondering in ridicule as to “whether a 12 year old student, a 55 year old university student who hosts an environmental podcast, and a farmer activist who is neither an Saskatchewan resident nor a SaskPower customer, along with two environmental groups, can reverse a decision made by said democratically-elected government”, then flailing case legal counsel Glenn Wright as “a professional engineer-turned lawyer” and a “five-time unsuccessful political candidate” just sitting around and “awaiting an opportunity to take the Saskatchewan government to court over environmental policy regarding coal”.

Unfortunately for Mr. Zinchuk, his portrayal of Mr. Wright as a political opportunist are neither supported by his academic record nor that of the constituents of the ridings in which he ran – usually second only to a far more conservative candidate offered up by either the national Conservative or the Sask Parties. As a successful small farmer who runs most of his operation utilizing solar energy, he is constantly bombarded by even his most conservative neighbours querying his methods in order to incorporate his ideas into their own operation. As for his having been a “professional engineer turned lawyer”, he holds a Master’s degree in an Engineering field that most academics will concede are even more complex and demanding of even a general practitioner, and spent most of his time as an Engineer honing his environmental knowledge working in the uranium industry.

As for the litigants themselves, Mr. Zinchuk’s comments are almost sickeningly childish. We all are aware that the Saskatchewan Party will gleefully accept membership funds from a 12-year-old child, yet allows them no say as to policy, even IF that same child may suffer from asthma or a lung-related illness. Then, there’s also this “tree hugging” environmental podcaster who just happens to also be a 55-year-old university student STILL interested in learning, and is making it a point to further explore the nature of environmental concerns, such as those U.S. eastern coast Americans wondering what the Hell is happening to them with this now two-week barrage of cold weather and snow measured in feet instead of inches.

Lastly, there’s that Manitoba “activist farmer” who isn’t even “a SaskPower customer”, but was most certainly one of the very FIRST recipients of the smoke disaster that was last summer’s fire season that just happened to also force authorities in The Big Smoke (Toronto) to warn its 5 million citizens at least four times last year to limit their outdoor activities if they had respiratory health concerns.

In short, could Madame Justice Bassett have been more of a “judicial activist” and demand that the Moe government address its “democratic accountability” shortfalls, and then let the case proceed?

Let’s wait until some overly ambitious American lawyer looking for his next big score takes this same case before a U.S. court before we answer that question…

Ken MacDougall is a retired school teacher and former election candidate for the federal NDP.

Climate issues still a hoax? SaskPower’s increasing rates say otherwise

Ken MacDougall
-
0
Climate issues still a hoax? SaskPower’s increasing rates say otherwise

When it comes to procrastination, the Scott Moe government’s reticence in having SaskPower incorporate carbon capture technology into their energy production schedule should now be worthy of mention in the Guinness World Records. In 2011 the Sask Party began building a carbon capture / storage facility at Estevan’s Boundary Dam Unit 3, budgeting $1.14 billion for its completion, hoping that this would not only become their standard way of removing carbon gases contributing to anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change from coal fuel generating plants, but once running online would become a “tease” to attract private enterprise to eventually purchase the Crown corporation and its patented technology.

Political hopes notwithstanding, some twelve years later and at a cost overrun of some $400 million the plant was only operating at a 40% extraction rate level and nowhere close to the 90% hoped-for result. In addition, during production runs it was found that at least 10% of the site’s generating capacity was being used just to power the capture / storage process. However, having found a buyer (oil companies extracting bitumen from the Athabasca Sands) prepared to utilize this compressed gas to enhance oil recovery (EOR), and knowing that between 2014 and 2025 that they’d successfully captured in excess of 7 million metric tons of carbon product, the experiment was continued.

In 2025 the government, having been shown production figures by SaskPower to suggest that refinements made to the technology would very soon result in the project meeting its capture expectations, decided to set aside some $900 million to refurbish coal-fired sites in Poplar River, Shand and Boundary Dam, which would then provide power necessary for the economy to get by until its Small Nuclear Reactor (SNR) sites came online in 2035 or later.

Unfortunately, politics in the form of the Saskatchewan government being loathe to provide the federal government with any idea as to how it was planning to contribute to Canada’s overall plan to reduce carbon gas emission as a contribution to its Paris Accord commitment, left Ottawa with no other choice but to  legislate a solution, namely to require that ANY coal-fired electricity generating stations not equipped for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) by January 1, 2030 would have to be shut down.

To say that the ensuing legislation “displeased” the Moe government might be an “understatement”, as it meant that if the government intended to utilize the refurbished plants as stop-gaps for power supply until the SNR project came online, they would now have to budget a further $5 billion in addition to the $900 million to bring the Poplar River, Shand and Boundary Dam sites up to CCS technology standards to assure that the province had sufficient electrical energy supply between 2030 and 2035.

Neither the idea of modifying the budget to refurbish the currently offline generating stations to conform with CCS requirements nor begging Ottawa to exempt the project from the federal mandate appealed to the Moe government as possible solutions to the problem, and Sask Party trolls on the Disinformation Highway were soon complaining that Ottawa was in “too much of a rush” to meet its Paris Accord commitments. When that excuse failed to gain public traction, fingers began pointing at India and China, whose overall carbon gas emission rates were higher than Canada’s, and asking why “they” should act responsibly, but these two nations were getting aways with climate “murder.”

The reality is, both India and China are making massive inroads in reducing their atmospheric contribution to carbon gas emissions. Even if some of their generating stations are coal-fired, both nations were taking older plants offline and replacing the same with CCS-equipped technology. As well, China now leads the world in research, production and export of solar technology. Even when comparing the “per capita” emission rates per nation for carbon gases, Canada ranks first (15.1 TPC), while China is fifteenth (7.1 TPC) and India is thirty-first (1.7 TPC), although India’s position will probably move upward as it continues to modernize its economy.

All of these factors point to a Saskatchewan government that is not paying attention to the rapidity with which new “green” technologies are being developed, much less even concerned that such ignorance and “couldn’t care less” attitude shows complete disrespect for voters not necessarily pleased with having to address climate change concerns but knowing full well that sooner or later such issues would have to be dealt with. However, with the province’s budgetary situation finally getting the public attention it requires, we’re now starting to find voters seeing through the double-speak about our fiscal disorder, the extent to which the Crown corporations have been handicapped by the government’s attempts to hide its overspending ways, and its attempts to mask ever-increasing fee increases, especially by SaskPower, that they can no longer pretend are actually the result of Ottawa’s carbon tax “assault” upon carbon-based products.

Ever since 2011 SaskPower has raised its fees at least eight times (2012: 3.9%; 2013: 5.5%; 2014: 5%; 2015: 5%; 2016: 3.5%; 2017: 3.5%; 2022: 4%; 2023: 4%), eleven if you also count the increase in 2009 and the proposed increases scheduled for 2026 and 2027.These figures when properly compounded represent a 43% in our power rates over that period, increases to 51% if we include proposed rate increases for 2026 and 2027, and DOUBLES the 2009 rate.

The Moe government, in trying to deceive the public as to how haphazardly they were spending tax dollars, decided in 2017 to “allow” the Crowns to carry a greater debt load, then transferred $50 million governmental expenses to SaskTel and another $100 million to SaskEnergy, paltry amounts when compared with the amount SaskPower has had to add to its own books – some $11 BILLION to date.

Today, Sask Party MLA’s maintain that Saskatchewan has the second lowest NET (currently reported at $17.5 billion) debt-to-GDP ratio in Canada. However, IF you adjust that figure by including the debt now owed by the Crowns, the actual GROSS deficit is actually more like $39.3 billion – or $32,750 (plus interest) per family member living in the province today.

It’s important that Saskatchewan voters understand the severity of our fiscal woes; however, my real purpose in keying on SaskPower’s unfortunate part in this story is to take the facts relating to an environmental law case that was denied the right to proceed in King’s Bench in October, without the protection of an unconstitutional Saskatchewan First Act and greater public participation in taking climate change concerns more seriously, our financial crisis might yet become much worse.

The story to which I refer was written by the Leader Post’s Brandon Harder, and written up in the October 21 edition of the Herald, and titled “Judge shuts down Saskatchewan climate action lawsuit”.

In next Saturday’s column, I will explore that linkage in more detail.

Ken MacDougall is a retired teacher and former candidate for the federal NDP. His column typically appears on Saturday.

“Hey, baby, have you heard the news?” Probably not…

Ken MacDougall
-
0
“Hey, baby, have you heard the news?” Probably not…

Lately it’s becoming increasingly harder for me to choose a topic for my columns. This frustration is a result of there being far too many issues of concern “happening” at the moment that depressingly shut off any mechanism that might be prompting us to feel positive or upbeat.

One of my “New Year’s resolutions” was to be more “optimistic”, and maybe even humorous at times, but it’s really hard to do so when the only major news items drawing media attention are those created by a politician whose moral imperative is hopelessly rooted in self-interest and greed – and yes, I am referring to Donald J. Trump.

In going through this period of introspection, I’m curious as to when was the last time that as a reader of this column, you’ve watched a serious news clip, yet still managed to find something humorous or upbeat in its content. For myself, I have to drift back to the good old days when PM Jean Chretien, upon finding an intruder in his home on Sussex Drive, tuned in this “criminal” long before his RCMP security detail could respond.

Yes, I know; someone reporting on our PM pummeling an intruder isn’t “funny”. What annoys me about persons sharing such an attitude, though, is that they actually believe themselves to be “progressive” and “opposed to violence of any form”. This is probably a healthier and more respectful way of viewing the incident, but in today’s political parlance, they’d most likely would be described by the latest curse word entering the vocabulary of hard-core conservatives: “woke”.

I’m sorry, my fellow “progressives”, but I honestly believe that this story could have taken a more culturally significant tone had there been an audio-video taping of the incident, just so I could hear and see Mr. Chretien’s enunciation of the profanity escaping his cartoon-prone lips while accomplishing this task. What further annoys me is that when it comes to “wokeness”, which implies a “knowingness” into an individual’s personal sensitivities, be they coming from a position of political correctness, sexual identity or validating the utilization of personal pronouns, our “liberalness” in imposing such correctness in our speech patterns upon their audience are merely exuding a pretentiousness that most people find annoying as Hell.

In trying to explain “why” the American public elected Donald Trump as their president – twice, no less, Bill Maher often cites this aura of “smugness” as being the attitude that turns off even the voters who have some sympathy for the construction and deployment of progressive principles into our management of the economy (climate change, green energy, etc.), only to instead vote for policies regressive to their own personal beliefs and direction.

Gabriel Iglesias, a Mexican-American comedian also known as “Fluffy”, tells a story as to how such liberal pretentiousness made for classic comedy material in one of his own stage performances. As he was once about to be introduced to a club manager who would be hosting his comedy special, his “handler” asked him to “describe” himself for his audience. Baffled by the question, Iglesias proceeded to utter a string of one-liners all making fun of his weight, only to be finally told in frustration that the question really meant was, “Was he a ‘them’ or a ‘him’ in describing his personal pronouns?”

Simply put, you cannot presume to take a more “woke” approach to the person with whom you’re trying to communicate if the either don’t understand the principle, much how it applies to their own lifestyle and language. This understanding must also be considered when one is attempting to utilize a concept of political correctness, for which we will utilize an example a situation as recently occurred here in Prince Albert, that being the burning down of the former Salvation Army building.

Ask yourself this: Why try to change the meaning of the term “homeless” to something more “gentle”, such as “housing displaced”? What’s the point of doing this, when the very sorrow of such an existence, let alone the conditions that led to such a situation now plaguing even small towns is taken away from the tragedy of that occurrence? Yes, these people are without a home, but that’s only a small portion of the ingredients that went into their current social condition. The majority of these individuals are without means to support loved ones, deprived of employment, and in Prince Albert’s case, literally “lured” to this location with the hopes of obtaining future employment as was once promised by a future reopening of the mill.

One has to understand that “homeless” numbers are raised by the young seeking refuge from family strife, adults needing mental health treatment, women escaping abuse, and even veterans finding themselves displaced in a civilian world. What right, then, do we have to criminalize or ridicule, particularly by those who see a parallelism within their own lives, but still take to our dysfunctional social media platforms to disparage their very existence?

We have far greater concerns to resolve than to allow ourselves to get sidetracked by pretentiously advertising our “wokeness”. As Canadians”, we are now under siege by a once southern friend now led by a president that rebukes a trade agreement he signed into agreement, and now attacks us with the pejorative of claiming that the U.S. “does not need anything” Canada has to offer, yet continues to covet our natural resources and fresh water supply.

Equally concerning , we now have to consider whether Prime Minister Carney’s recent trade and diplomatic mission to China was “successful”, even knowing full well that China’s “sensitivity” to our nation’s democratic principles is suspect at best. No matter what was accomplished by that mission, whether it was successful in having the duties on our agricultural commodities lightened or duties on electrically powered vehicles made in China lowered, even these may end up being defined in terms less likely to relay optimism, especially from Donald Trump.

Fortunately, every nation on Earth must deal with Trump’s chicaneries, and for what it’s worth, it seems that the “final solution” to his aggressive diplomacy is for the rest of the world, including ourselves, to treat him as being irrelevant in any future world economic resolution.

In short, we can’t continue to just ignore the gloom and doom of our news headlines, and hope that they just go away; we have no choice but to try to come up with solutions to these concerns…

And while at it, perhaps find some humor within the abysmal nature of their storytelling…

Ken MacDougall is a retired teacher and former candidate for the federal NDP. His column typically appears on Saturday.

Things ‘having to get better’ in 2026? Trump begs to differ…

Ken MacDougall
-
0
Things ‘having to get better’ in 2026? Trump begs to differ…

In last Friday’s column, I mentioned being “hopeful” for 2026 as people began acting more as Canadians looking after one another’s interest without further reference to what only can be called the political “Hate Agenda”: Pitting rural versus urban populations, the alleged economic “stifling” of Alberta and Saskatchewan under the “woke” policies being delivered by the Trudeau “Liberals” in Ottawa, and lately the “separatist” drivel coming from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

By now, though, the most concerning issues that should be being addressed by Canadians are the threats being made against our very nationhood by United States President Donald Trump. Buoyed by his narrative respecting the need for the U.S.A. to “become great again”, he has found his flock of worshipful minions burdened by economic hardship, failing to recognize that it is Trump’s policies creating their personal mayhem. Equally disturbing, their nation founded on the principles of secularism now must rely upon American “evangelical Christians” influenced by religious networks portraying him as a “vessel” of God, a “masculine” warrior preparing the world for the Archangel Gabriel to come and blow the Last ‘Trump’et signaling our very demise.

To the “traditional” followers of Christ, though, he’s just another wannabe who makes soothing promises to not participate in proxy wars, no longer see American soldiers coming home in body bags, and no longer entertaining the idea of “regime changes” that in Iraq’s case not only led to the death of Suddam Hussein, but the creation of ISIS, the rise of al Qada and the horror of 911. So what does he then do in practice? Well, in Venezuela’s case he allowed the American military to invade Venezuela, arrested Dictator/President Nicolas Maduro to face questionable charges relating to narco-terrorism, tells the world that he has “taken back OUR oil”, and will now govern Venezuelan affairs for “as long as is necessary”.

Having now threatened the sovereignty of Mexico, Columbia, Iran, Greenland AND Canada, is there anything the world can offer that might give pause to Trump moving on to his next conquest? Will a Congress dominated by Republicans or six justices on the Supreme Court soldered to his hip in rewriting the Constitution intervene? Not bloody likely. IF the 2026 mid-terms can return control of Congress to Democrats, and they impeach him, who’s to say that the most powerful military force on the planet now purged of its most competent leaders, and now led by a skirt-chasing, alcoholic Secretary of War, will they support their government or merely let the Capitol grounds turn into a bloodier January 6th? Fortunately, we now know that even the United Kingdom will come to the aid of Denmark OR Canada should Trump move against their interests, but that move would forever destroy the NATO alliance, and at the same time embolden Russia and China to turn Ukraine and Taiwan into potential killing fields and ripe for take-over. What potentially might “save” us from such disaster is that Trump only acts when it best benefits him or his family, or has been convinced to act in such fashion by major business interests, and in Venezuela’s case, that being “Big Oil”. 

In his 2023 Fort Worth Weekly article, “Operation Unresponsive”, Zac Aitch repeated the sentiment expressed by one of comedian George Carlin’s favourite punch line by maintaining that “It’s almost like Big Oil has its own military”. It’s not just “Big Oil”, though; it could be any wealthy citizen or company demanding that their government act on its behalf: the United Fruit Company in Guatamala, the Bay of Pigs invasion funded by a Cosa Nostra attempting to re-establish its gambling operations in Havana, or Henry Kissinger rationalizing the overthrow and murder of Chile’s newly elected President Salvadore Allende by suggesting that its voters were dangerously naïve in believing that they could trust an alleged “socialist-communist” provocateur to properly lead them through any economic crisis. 

It’s also worthy of note that even Trump’s actions in introducing regime change to Venezuela are not “unique” in the annals of U.S. international relationships that have ended really badly for the United States, even if we left out Vietnam or Afghanistan. For instance, in 1901 the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (now British Petroleum) was granted an exclusive right to oil concessions in Iran. In 1951, a government frustrated by the lack of revenue being paid in royalties finally nationalized AIOC, resulting in British and American oil interests agitating dissent that ended when Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was installed as absolute ruler of Iran through a coup-like change in government. 

The plot of the movie “Argo”, starring Ben Affleck, only partially demonstrated how well that action turned out for the United States when religious fundamentalists drove the Shah from power, and the repercussions that would follow in the Middle East when the new regime started funding multiple terrorist groups while trying to also become a nuclear power. 

Trump’s actions in Venezuela originated from similar event structure. In 1976 the Venezuelan government decided to nationalize the nation’s oil infrastructure, which eventually led to the government of Hugo Chavez relying upon its royalty profits to fund the social and health care programs that kept him in public favour. However, when oil prices began sagging and infrastructure investment waned, Chavez refused to cut back on spending for his most popular programs, the economy collapsed and inflation rose by 30per cent almost annually, until it exploded when Maduro took over the government.

Economists have already conceded that inflation would have finally destroyed the nation’s economy even if Maduro hadn’t replaced Chavez, so the question must be asked as to why Trump chose to act against Maduro at this time: Was it due to the social turmoil unleashed upon Venezuela’s poor by Maduro that allowed Trump to demonize that nation by further aggravating America’s alleged illegal immigration status? Was Trump driven to act because he could no longer resist his covetous urges to control Venezuela’s massive oil reserves, much as he drools over Greenland’s rare mineral wealth or Canada’s fresh water supply? OR, was it the fact that Maduro wouldn’t change Chavez’s policy of having “preferred clientele” such as China and Cuba receiving Venezuelan crude, but felt that he could also use American business loans to further fund such ventures and reinvigorate the nation’s economy by so doing?

It really doesn’t matter, does it, as Canada is still overshadowed by the potential harm that a Trump economic blitz could do to our economy. Quite obviously, we must continue to expand our international market for Canadian goods and services, move more rapidly to a greener economy, and expand our ability to harvest our resource wealth while maintaining its potential manufacturing usage in Canada. 

Unfortunately, we also have to extricate ourselves from purchasing U.S. built military equipment and rely more on our own ability to protect our borders, so right now that only means this: When is PM Carney going to make that phone call to Sweden’s royal family and upgrade our air defense system with Saab Gripens instead of America’s F-35?

That to me would be as good a place to start as any…

Ken MacDougall is a retired teacher and former candidate for the federal NDP.

Why things HAVE to get better in the 2026 New Year

Ken MacDougall
-
0
Why things HAVE to get better in the 2026 New Year

This is my last column in 2025, and although I still hear the occasion complaint about how things were so restricting during the Covid-10 pandemic, I’m starting to feel “hopeful” that in spite of people griping about grocery prices and less cash to spend on Christmas goodies, our family still managed to check off all of the kids for gifts, and here on New Year’ Eve, we’ll be going out to celebrate the New Year’s arrival instead of just popping a bottle of wine before retiring for the rest of the night.

It’s been a long time since I’ve even felt some measure of positivity just before this consumer-orientated “holiday”, where after it is over, people don’t seem to be happy at all. Maybe it was the way things started out in that first teaching job when I decided to bring our family to Saskatchewan in 1979, and reacquaint myself with my province of birth. After being an Air Force brat moving around every 24 months or so, it was becoming boring, and upon entering this new town for the first time, I hoped it’d be my last “move” in a long time. In hindsight, maybe I should have taken the “hint” embellished on the first bulletin board we encountered turning off Highway 1: the town had over 20 “houses of worship” available for its rather meagre 2,300 souls – NONE of them with an “other” religion such as Jewish, Muslim, or even Mormon.

The school board had arranged for us to rent a temporary home, so we quickly unpacked, then decided to go “uptown” to find out what businesses were available and get a closer lay of the land. At the time my daughter was barely eight months old, so when we decided to walk around a bit, I tucked her into a bunny pack I wore on my chest. Wed barely gone a block down the main street of town when the suddenly we heard someone “gunning” a half-ton’s engine, followed by the standard squealing tires one expects to hear whenever a teenager just got to drive the family vehicle in front of friends. Turning around, I immediately had to duck as a medium sized green apple struck my shoulder where two seconds earlier had been my daughter’s head. Sticking his head out the window of the vehicle, a 13-year-old yelled, “Get out of town, Squaw Man…”

Our “introduction” to cattle country in no way resembled the experiences we’d previously enjoyed when visiting relatives in the Canora-Yorkton area. Simply put, if your family hadn’t “settled” there in 1918 or earlier, you were a “newcomer” – an insult to the local Indigenous community members, none of whom would bother to show up for entertainment after the sun went down. Even in school, the religious “divide” was palpable; for instance, if you had a young man in your class who was constantly despondent, already an alcoholic in Grade 10, and constantly thinking about committing suicide, his parents were most likely to be fundamentalist “Christians”. To their sisters, their defense is one of becoming a fatalist with a sense of humor; why else plunk yourself in my Physics class because Darwin’s theories are heretical, graduate with honours, yet know full well that in about 10 months Mom and Dad are going to take you on a thousand kilometer journey where you will meet your future husband, have lots of kids, that is unless you like the regular visits of a church Elder searching your home for contraceptive devices, and never again be able to attend a learning institution to seek betterment in your intellect and future outlook?

It’s not as if the behaviour of the “main stream Christians” was any different. Their teenage kids all drove way too fast, often drunk through purchase of liquor in Alberta, and stood a good chance that they’d end up being traffic casualties. As for their parents, when the father of one of my Grade 9 students unexpectedly died in mid-year, I went to the United Church funeral service to show support and give comfort for his passing. The following Monday a fellow teacher suggested that this might not have been a good idea, as some of the mothers were complaining of my having never been at one of their regular church services before that event.

Forty-five years later, I’ve found myself in a better place, and the only moving I’ll now do is either try to visit my kids more often, or spend eight months of the year teaching in Indigenous schools where both my male and female students tolerate my teaching math or science because I also coach basketball. Living in Indigenous communities, however, has reawakened my early recollections of relatives of all shapes and sizes would sit around a relative’s living room on some Sunday, and passing the time waiting for the turkey to be done by arguing about politics – which is the main reason why I continue to write these columns, still hoping that they’ll understand that I write longish pieces because in order to understand what it is that I’m saying, you first have to know the facts that led me to take such an opinion.

What may yet end up putting a wet blanket over my semi-optimistic views of the future, however, still remain those same two sentiments that I endured when I returned here: racial prejudice and self-entitlement being expressed by those who have little to complain about, and whose thinking has been dulled by our political masters collectively moaning that if only nothing changed, we’d be so much better off, particularly if we could only join “the greatest nation on Earth” turning itself into the Crackpot Jungle under the leadership of President Pumpkin.

As for racism’s continuing stain upon our society, it’s about time that both the sons and daughters of our colonialist nations who’ve thrived on racially charged economic activities and the Indigenous leaders who won’t tell their young men that becoming a gang member doesn’t mean you’re “helping” your people by putting your sisters out as “working girls” or burning down your home cooking up a new batch of crystal meth.

Grow the Hell up. Right now there are only two politicians in Canada who practice this approach: Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew and Prime Minister Mark Carney. Works for them, what’s wrong with the rest of us?

Come 2026, we need a new direction in which to head, governmentally speaking, particularly as it pertains to economic activity and providing opportunity for everyone.

Smile; the New Year offers us opportunity beyond all belief; we as individuals just have to start believing this may well be true.

Ken McDougall is a retired teacher and former candidate for the federal NDP.

What? I’m agreeing with the CTF? Must be Christmas…

Ken MacDougall
-
0
What? I’m agreeing with the CTF? Must be Christmas…

During my twenty-some years living in Saskatoon, I often found myself “cursing” Op-Ed pieces mostly written  by male dominated non-profit organizations such as the Fraser Institute or the Canadian Taxpayers Federation preaching some capitalistic principle bypassing Jesus’s moral teachings. Most of their disciples not only contend that they’re “self-made” men who refuse to recognize the existence of even basic public services, including the highways upon which they transport their goods to market.

I usually pigeonhole CTF Prairie Director Gage Haubrich into this group, but after reading his Dec. 9 article in the Herald, “Saskatchewan debt has been climbing too high for too long”, I’m giving him a “pass” for the moment, even though he left out most of the facts as to the historical “why” our provincial budget is in such a crisis mode.

In 1982, Saskatchewan was in relatively “good” budgetary shape, even though interest rates on personal loans and mortgages were hovering around 21 per cent. We were about to elect a surging “Progressive” Conservative government led by Grant Devine, its principal “sales pitch” being that it felt it was time to get in on the oil boom now hyperventilating Alberta’s economy – which at the time would have been fine IF they’d had a plan other than sheer greed in pursuing this agenda, as the 1972 formation of the Oil Cartel, led by Saudi Arabia, had already wreaked its hyperinflationary influence on Canada’s economy, and the Trudeau government in Ottawa was having problem explaining that in order to protect Canada from being backlashed again by this now all-powerful cartel, Canada as a NATION had to have a plan in place to either resist or marginalize any future attacks on the economy.

By 1980, however, when the federal government introduced its National Energy Program, a plan to consolidate energy production and distribution in the hands of Canadian industries, it was about four years too late for that idea to catch on; Alberta and Saskatchewan, already being hypnotized by the huge wealth American-led petroleum interests were claiming were theirs for the taking, called the NEP a blatant attempt by the federal government to redirect future wealth into Ottawa’s coffers, and “communist” in its approach. Alberta, as yet to learn the lesson that most American “capitalists” have never read Karl Marx nor can define their favourite curse word, rejected the plan outright.

Equally unfortunate, in 1980 our six national banks were still being run by courtesan “managers” whose ethics would reclassify “working girls” as saints, as they literally went to war attempting to “romance” any and all who would seek sustenance from their ever-open vaults in pursuit of this new “liquid gold”. Principal among these targets was “Smiling Jack” Gallagher, then the head of Dome Petroleum, whose goal was to unlock the Fountain of Wealth that lay at the bottom of the Beaufort Sea. He was literally capable of walking into any Bay Street establishment and in less than an hour walk out with billions in cash, leaving nothing in collateral but his vision as to just how high would be the cash mounds once his vision became reality – that is, until some tiny Bob Cratchit shareholder realized that were even ONE of Dome’s many loans to default, a bank “share” wouldn’t be worth the paper on which it was printed upon.

Thus, it came to pass that interest rates to the common folk would have to rise – except, of course, Dome Petroleum’s.

Back in present day 2025, we’ve finally clued into our greed-fed plans for the nation’s future, with American Big Oil interests now controlling Canada’s petroleum future even as Alberta’s premier Danielle Smith, knowing that her province is “selling” bitumen to its Texas-based market at “everything must go” prices, has resorted to stoking “separatist” sentiment in both Alberta and Saskatchewan by maintaining that their oil market has been sabotaged by a federal government and excessively “harmful” environmentally influenced legislation, and not for the far truer reason that Canadian “investors” prefer to invest elsewhere.

So, how did Saskatchewan’s economy fare in this malaise? Well, as my friend and former Deputy Premier under Grant Devine might now say, his plans for government that we would discuss over sips of Chivas Regal did NOT “finally shred the socialist yoke” of economic constraint placed upon Saskatchewan by successive NDP governments, but instead put our province into a fifty year economic recycling vortex, starting with the Devine Comedy’s $24 billion debt acquisition, successive NDP governments righting the economic ship and returning the province to Douglas-like surpluses, only to eventually see a new Messiah of the Right, Brad Wall, reinstate a Saskatchewan Party’s now seventeen year plundering of the provincial treasury, a debt now sitting at close to $31 billion.

Today, Scott Moe’s “plan of action” to get our economy back on course is nothing more than a plagiarized version of Alberta’s namely, “blame the feds”, all while still trying to curse the former NDP premiers, Romanow and Calvert, of “closing hospitals” that somehow always manage to invoke front page news stories maintaining that their emergency department services have to be closed, due to medical staff burn-out and increasing doctor and nurse shortages, as but one example. Equally troubling, instead of pursuing plans to diversify the provincial economy, such as its huge potential for a “green” economic future, it rails at so-called “woke” policies that defend the very rights of women and children to not be exploited or bullied by a society desperately trying to recreate the 1950’s, but without labour unions.

Still, Scott Moe claims that “his” government is STILL “the true voice of rural Saskatchewan”.

Mr. Haubrich, despite leaving out most of the historical circumstances that have led us to this economic brink, is right: WE are IN TROUBLE, governmentally speaking.

Mr. Haubrich, I suspect, still believes that only tax relief and governmental spending cuts can bring us back around to economic reasonableness, but my question to him is this: WHAT CAN this government CUT that isn’t already torn asunder by chronic underfunding?

I have some ideas on this matter, but rather than continually deferring to the aftertaste of family fiscal sickness, let’s leave these answers to the new year when we can again begin this debate.

Until then, have a Merry Christmas…

Lessons unlearned: How Covid-19 has destroyed our concept of democratic freedoms

Ken MacDougall
-
0
Lessons unlearned: How Covid-19 has destroyed our concept of democratic freedoms

More than two years after the Covid-19 pandemic destroyed the lives of more than seven million people world-wide, I find it sickening that some are now attempting to misdirect blame for this carnage onto the preventative measures undertaken to arrest its onslaught.

Even more depressing is that the three-headed hydra of disinformation, fake religion, power and patriotic chicanery continue to override attempts to restore order to our health system, and only hate and resentment dominating this conversation.

So-called “Christian evangelists”, ever vigilant in their efforts to treat the human anatomy as some form of “temple of God”, continue to resist scientific and medical attempts to fully unlock the mysteries of cure for Covid-19 by placing roadblocks into research that of necessity must use stem cell materials in conducting such investigations. Even when such results provide positive clues as to the direction the next phase of research must take, even these notes of hope are questioned and brought into suspicion. Take, for instance, the manner in which the two vaccines developed utilizing m-RNA technology were critiqued. No mention was made of the deep knowledge science has garnered since Mendel first made his primitive investigations into the structure of DNA, genetic combination and the role that m-RNA plays in the replication of cellular structure; instead, they focus upon the reconstruction of the sequence of genes that might originally have been part of the mechanism that allowed the virus to penetrate a human cellular wall and infect that organism, but now will immunize that cell to prevent such infection. 

What these people are really saying to humanity is, “Can we trust this ‘artificial pairing’ of nucleotides to mere scientific mortals”, when in the past we have relied upon prayers to heal our wounds? Such doubt is then allowed to reverberate its concern upon other constructs utilizing this technology, such as Tylenol, where the U.S. court system is now being “encouraged” to revive a 2023 class action lawsuit allegedly maintaining that prenatal exposure to acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, resulted in some 500 children becoming inflicted with autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The case was originally thrown out of court for lack of evidence that such linkage between these supposed “side effects” and the drug existed, but unfortunately when someone is only too willing to repeat an obvious fallacy, sooner or later “true believers” will arise from their caves of ignorance and champion the cause to its extreme limits.

In watching the seriously unnerving documentary, “In the Same Breath”, we also have opportunity to see how political machination of events and its handmaiden, patriotic zeal, pushed the leadership of the two most powerful nations on Earth, China and the USA, to gild their handling of this pandemic into a campaign demanding congratulations for their efforts, as opposed to the condemnation both so richly deserved. 

In this film “must watch”, Nanfu Wang, the Chinese-born American director of the piece, will in the end ask the standard questions as to why so many need have died, when IF the Chinese government, upon “discovering” the virus, had acknowledged its potential for creating disaster, advised nations to encourage its citizens to take precautions such as limiting social activity and wearing a face mask due to the virus being airborne, AND the world had replied in kind, followed suit and cooperatively worked upon finding a vaccine solution, millions less would have succumbed to this illness.

Unfortunately, none of this happened…

Irrespective of the many theories bantered about and suggested as to the actual origin of the virus itself, all we know is that this pandemic started in China’s Wuhan province, and it was left to its people to put forward their best face in demonstrating just how well the Chinese government was handling the situation, all without “burdening” its inhabitants by restraining their freedom to move, socialize and work. During the festive seasons, a government-controlled media presence eagerly shot film showing citizens out on the streets celebrating, even if only wearing masks for preventative purposes. Behind the scenes, however, a different picture was being painted, as funeral homes were overwhelmed in their capacity to handle the 20,000 to 30,000 deaths being sustained within the province – far above the 2,300 or so the Chinese government would eventually report as being casualties of this affliction.

Donald Trump, it seems, bought this picture of tranquility hook, line and sinker, even as friendly European nations at the forefront of the pandemic invasion claimed otherwise. Even up to his own illness and being aware as to how many unprotected participants in political rallies were dying after attending his campaign stops, Trump insisted that this new virus was nothing more than a “flu” variant, and by Spring it would be gone – a message the more Trump-friendly media outlets would continue to push even as the nation’s death toll was spiraling towards its million-plus casualty count. Trump’s message, like Premier Xi’s of China, was that nothing could keep their respective nations from “allowing” its citizens to bask in the freedoms each nation pretended were the foundation of their power and economic stability.

Today, however, we have a public that having been put on hold by world governments trying to paint the world in rainbow colours, all while creating an atmosphere of despair and depression in our children, and an element within that population that not only suggests but believes that such inconvenience in treatment of the pandemic’s ills severely “inconvenienced” them, all while allegedly and somehow violating their personal rights and freedoms, and even turning others to simply ignore the medications and advice of health officials that have saved us from plagues of diseases, mumps, polio and others among them, that we long ago felt safe to ignore. 

More than ever, we need a plan for dealing with any potential pandemic activities. With the increasing deterioration of our health care system, we need action, and soon…

The Canada-Alberta M.O.U. solves nothing; bigger problems lie ahead

Ken MacDougall
-
0
The Canada-Alberta M.O.U. solves nothing; bigger problems lie ahead

If one were to take the pundits on CBC or CTV to heart, one would have to seriously believe that the Memorandum of Understanding signed by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney is either a capitulation by the federal government to the demands of a premier brandishing the separatist sword, or is a signal being sent to the people of British Columbia that whatever their opinion might be with respect to building yet another pipeline over the Rockies to carry Alberta’s bitumen oil product to foreign markets, they won’t have any other choice but to accede to Alberta’s wishes.

Both contentions lack substance. Not only did BC Premier David not participate in discussions leading to the drafting of the MOU, but the agreement requires Alberta to overcome any challenge to its terms to the diplomatic skills of Danielle Smith. For instance, the federal government has made it clear that it won’t be contributing federal monies to any pipeline construction, thereby requiring either Big Oil American firms or Canadian and foreign interests to front pipeline construction costs – a result that is being challenged by an Alberta Federation of Labour report citing American investor greed uncontrolled by provincial governmental legislation leaving Alberta to bear costs associated by the need to convince companies to reinvest in resource extraction, all while watching manpower involvement in the industry plunge by 30,000 workers over the last four years, with thousands more layoffs to occur in 2026.

Add to this the reality that Smith is going to have to actually be diplomatic in dealing with Indigenous leaders in BC whose reserves will be in the pathway of pipeline construction and coastal communities worried about the potential for environmental disaster should the current oil tanker ban on the northern BC coast be lifted. In short, all that the MOU is providing is that the federal government is prepared to concede certain points of jurisdictional authority over the pipeline’s management should Smith succeed in her negotiations with BC and its 9 reserve nations so affected.

Despite such limitations, however, Carney appears to have bought himself some serious credit with Alberta’s business leaders in signing this exchange. Still, the question prevails as to what the federal government must further address in its quest to diversify its trading practices while beating off President Trump’s constant tariff rainfall on Canada in particular. Steel and aluminum issues notwithstanding, these issues include addressing Quebec’s environmental concerns, cost of living, food shortages and a lack of planning within the agricultural sectors, not to mention the reforestation of the Prairie provinces’ northern Boreal lands due to the destruction of these resources by annual forest fires.

Principal among these is the need to strengthen our Armed Forces both in manpower and hardware upgrade. By reaching out internationally, Carney has found many partners willing to contribute to its resolution following President Trump’s petulant withdrawal from trade negotiations with Canada. His call for discussion on these matters has resulted in a lot of proposals coming forward. A German-Norwegian consortium and South Korea have both offered to rebuild our submarine fleet, with a substantive amount of such work to be done in Canada. South Korea has also offered to build K9 Thunder howitzer for deployment in Latvia, an area where Russian expansionist ambitions are threatening redirection should Ukraine fall. As well, Vietnam is anxiously awaiting word on its proposal to build merchant vessels, tankers, container ships, and specialized vessels such as offshore and high-speed patrol boats, again in Canada.

Topping this list of potential acquisitions, however, is that of replacing our aging fleet of CF-18 Hornet fighter jets. Initially Canada had committed to acquiring 88 Lockheed Martin F-35’s built in the U.S.A.; however, that offer has been dropped to 16 units, with the remaining 72 planes being delayed by a recent offer by the Swedish aerospace company Saab reoffering its Gripen E high performance aircraft as an option, with some serious “upside” to Canada’s current employment conditions, including the establishment of manufacturing, repair and parts plants in Canada, transferring technology enhancements to Canada as they are created, thereby creating over 10,000 manufacturing and research jobs in Quebec and Nova Scotia.

Sweden has its altruistic concerns, including a desire to enhance its aeronautical engineering shortages with well trained Canadians in the field. However, Sweden’s offer has not gone down well with U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra, who recently has threatened Canada with disruptions to the Canada-U.S. NORAD arrangement should Carney goes with the Swedish offer, a threat that the Scandinavian nation not only views as bullying, but suggesting that the U.S. can no longer be trusted to maintain its contractual obligations in any past or future agreements, a point underlined more than once by Trump and V.P. J.D. Vance, his possible successor in 2028.

As it stands, Lockheed Martin’s obligations to Canada’s involvement in the production of these units is minimalist at best. Not only do the majority of jobs go to American firms, but the firm has total control of any future software updates remain the exclusive property of the provider, so access to such upgrading is further threatened by a “behave yourself – or else” mentality undertaken by American interests. Equally ironic in the implication of this threat is that Lockheed Martin’s software developers have already drawn complaints of both incompetence and unreliability, as it was their lackadaisical attention to standards that created the control management issues in Boeing’s 737 MAX flight controller system’s design that saw two planes nose dive to the ground, killing over 340 persons in 2018.

Canada further benefits by taking the Swedish offer in that not only would its aeronautical engineering prowess be restored to that of the AVRO Arrow era, but it would also enable Bombardier, one of Sweden’s proposed developmental partners to later expand its knowledge in the development of high speed rail transit technology, thus lessening federal budgetary overkill in its constant need to expand airport capacity.

In effect, this is an offer with a “Made in Canada” feel that Carney has been looking for since becoming Prime Minister, lessens the handicap of U.S. domination of our trading partnerships, and is literally a “no brainer” by comparison with the existing terms binding it to a subservient trading role.

The question is, does the Prime Minister actually have the courage to take this deal on its obvious merits?

SP Convention motion demonstrates contempt for democratic principles

Ken MacDougall
-
0
SP Convention motion demonstrates contempt for democratic principles

Tomorrow’s my birthday, and although I’ve been having a rough week trying to get business issues resolved, the only thing I can think about at the moment is how mind bendingly bizarre it was last Saturday to start listening to a post in Facebook coming online and an opinion being expressed on voting rights by Brittney Senger, NDP MLA for Saskatoon South.

I really wasn’t paying that much attention to what she was saying, so much as what I what I was beginning to read in the Comments section, because, quite frankly, virtually none of them were even dealing with the topic that she was discussing. I’d only met Brittney some six months ago, and even though I’ve only had two conversations with her exchanging opinions on political matters, she makes her point by referencing all points of consideration for discussion, then calmly awaits an intelligent response disagreeing, modifying or even supporting her contentions – you know, like in the good old days where Thanksgiving dinners were the time when you tolerated Uncle Buck’s “strength of the individual” philosophy because your Aunt Mary could keep him from overembellishing the point.

Several of the commentators agreed with Brittney, but by and large the posts echoed that “Only people who are over the age of 18 and are Canadian citizens should have the right to vote in Canada”. While the online SP trolls are pretending to reference our legal limitations on laws pertaining to our right to vote, what Brittney was ACTUALLY pointing out to anyone who happened to be listening to her was that the ONLY Order of Business conducted at the Saskatchewan Party’s Annual Convention (other than puffing up Scott Moe’s leadership ego) was the passage of an amendment to their PARTY’s Constitution TAKING AWAY the voting rights of party members who just happened to be under the age of 18 or had yet to receive Canadian citizenship. – begging the question as to why these same individuals now having to renew same, then look forward to their being completely ignored in any future debate.

Why would ANY political party want to do that? To the best of my knowledge, the age “restriction” on membership to the Saskatchewan Party is 14. For the NDP, the “Youth” category alone starts at 13 and goes to 30 with a membership fee of $7 to encourage young people stuck in this age category having a voting participation rate being the lowest of the low to participate in the democratic process.

Why place such a restriction on youth delegates? There are already too many issues in this province requiring “fixing” legislation applicable to youth; any teacher I know could quote dozens of such issues, including class size, curriculum minimization due to lack of subject qualified candidates at the high school level, lack of incentivization to improve one’s teaching abilities and credentials, shrinking academic standards, bullying and increasing tendency of governments to silence such voices through punitive legislation such as Alberta’s Premier Danielle Smith denying teachers the right to appeal back-to-work legislation by incorporating the Notwithstanding clause into Bill 2.

NOWHERE in that list is a reference made towards “woke” culture being imposed upon youth, or that our educational system “suddenly” taking away a parent’s “right” to “educate” their children according to their family’s beliefs; the ONLY common factor here is that our current government is becoming increasingly willing to deny youth a voice in mapping the future pathway of democracy in the creation of much needed progressive legislation for themselves.

The complete absence of debate on members’ proposed resolutions to influence governmental direction issues in future legislative sessions while at convention should also be a warning to SP delegates that the party is internally torn between the choice of following Alberta Premier Smith and her march towards separation being moved towards final irrelevance were Saskatchewanians to create a petition opposing such political direction and the rapidity in which its signature commitment was completed in record time.

So, ask yourselves: WHAT was this SP constitutional amendment all about, or was it just a “wedge issue” that is being floated to the troops just to demonstrate that only “they” should have the “right” to direct our province and nation’s destiny?

Were you to be of southeastern Asian heritage, believe in a God with a different name, or even if your idea of a suntan is “different” from my own – AND you’re not yet eligible for Canadian citizenship, I’d be worried about what that message is saying to you. Parties on the “right” of the political spectrum have recently been insinuating that our governments are now “vulnerable to foreign influence”, and particularly China; thus in order to guard against such danger here in Saskatchewan it has become necessary for the SP to “restrict” the “influence” of components within its membership that might share the concerns of their previous homelands. Such an approach is not only a farce but deflects our government from focusing upon resolving what is our ONLY current major economic crisis: finding a way out of the economic chaos created by our overreliance upon the United States as our economic trading partner.

Ask the now disenfranchised members of the Saskatchewan Party if they would agree…

Better still, teachers; ask your students to write an essay as to how they feel about their being candidates for disenfranchisement…

Smith’s agenda: Confuse the press and public – then repeat

Ken MacDougall
-
0
Smith’s agenda: Confuse the press and public – then repeat

Why it is that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is still desperately trying to sell Alberta separation as an option? It now seems there’s growing frustration with that option. That’s coming from a population only too willing to sign a petition telling Smith to forget about it.

Still, at first glance most news watchers would have assumed that Alberta’s teacher strike was Headline Number One, on Oct. 25, when over 10,000 Albertans STILL showed up on the steps of the Edmonton’s Legislature to conduct what was to become a pro-separation rally.

Despite her being a member of PM Mark Carney’s Team Canada trying to manage Canada’s economic climate while skirmishing with the USA in what is President Donald Trump’s declaration of a Tariff World War, Smith has never been silent about her “hopes” that Canada will eventually strike a deal that stabilizes resource traffic management between our two nations.

Unlike Premier Moe, who seems almost frightened whenever commenting upon the speed bumps that keep slowing down an agreement process (e.g.: his disfavour with Doug Ford’s Free Trade advertisements that have recently run on American television), Smith’s bogeymen start with former Jason Kenney staffer David Parker, whose “Take Back Alberta” cultists almost insanely believe that the province has already given away too much power to the federal government in allowing them to stifle economic growth, mostly as a result of postponed or waiting for approval projects touted by Big Oil lobbyists, while demonstration a complete disdain for standard provincial vs federal duties or responsibilities as are highlighted in Canada’s Constitution. 

It therefore comes as no surprise to me that with Smith’s less-than-subtle way of “insisting” that voters must be given the choice in moving Alberta out of our Confederacy, pro-separatism speakers at the Oct. 25 rally came to Edmonton with absolutely no idea as how that process would work, and certainly knowing even less about how a nation formed on the backs of treaties negotiated between Great Britain and Indigenous leaders could take years or even decades to become accepted under international laws. 

Even if Albertans were to vote for separation, few seem to understand that it must be assured of a strong economic base that won’t last if all that is supporting it is a royalty stream based upon oil resource export that in less than 30 is going to simply disappear. What’s more, even if Quebec separatists had won the 1995 referendum, the very idea simply died when the province’s future leaders in this new national identity would be without its northern lands and the economic stimulator known as the James Bay Development, its structure based upon lands covered by treaty with its Cree people. 

To Smith, however, “getting the message out” to the sycophants and non-thinkers seeking to make Alberta a nation is the key to remaining in power after the next election, whether the eventual referendum returns a “Yes” or “No” on the ballot. Rob Breakenridge, a major contributor to “The Line: Alberta” podcast, sees that message being delivered in typical Trump style: confuse and baffle voters, to the point where they have absolutely NO idea as to what “benefit” future legislation will have upon the province’s economic pathway, but be certain that when an answer is arrived at, be certain that the feds will be blamed for any failure.

Nothing could be more obvious in our believing Breakenridge’s predictions than to take a look at the newly recalled legislature last week and what legislative gems were highlighted. For instance, it should have been obvious that Premier Smith’s first move would be to get striking teachers back to work – and Bill 2, the “Back to School Act”, complete with its Notwithstanding clause designed to roil organized labour leaders into considering a general strike in the near future did just that. 

Wait a minute – Bill 2? WHAT was more to the UCP than the chance to beat up teachers? Why, Bill 1, of course, the “International Agreements Act”. What’s its purpose, you ask? To Breakenridge, it is merely a “follow-up” touting the same message as did the “Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act”, smoke and mirrors legislation that does absolutely nothing in a true legal sense save for voicing disfavour with any form of constitutional “meddling” into the affairs Alberta that the feds might undertake in imposing its will upon and of the province’s intended economic ventures when it comes to dealing with international concerns. 

Bill 1 further implies that “any international agreement pertaining to a matter of provincial jurisdiction would have to first be approved by the Alberta legislature”, as might happen, UCP spokespersons suggest, were the UN and WHO to come up with an international policy that addressed the need for a battle plan finally be drawn up to deal with a future pandemic. Theoretically at least, Bill 1 would then allow the Alberta legislature to veto Ottawa’s acceptance of the WHO’s action, most likely by obliquely mentioning the “possibility of having to administer full public inoculation by untested vaccines” or patient quarantining due to the contagious nature of this future virus.

Missing from this theoretical debate comes the question, “What if Alberta refuses to take the necessary steps mandated by pandemic protocol? That answer is simple to form: ALL Canadian economic activity across international borders would cease, including personal travel – because this is an INTERNATIONAL agreement, not one between two entities, one of which resents the reality that it’s only a branch plant operation susceptible to the rules set down by head office and its national shareholders. 

Now that Smith has acted, though, will Scott Moe stupidly follow Alberta’s moves as quickly as he has in the past? I’d hold my breath before answering that one… 

123...15Page 1 of 15