Premier Danielle Smith – yup, this is Alberta, so she almost certainly can just apologize and walk away from her unethical and illegal actions (Photo: Alberta Newsroom/Flickr).

Irfan Sabir, the NDP Opposition’s justice critic, wasn’t wrong when he complained on Saturday that Danielle Smith shouldn’t be able to rattle off a meaningless apology in the Legislature and then just sashay away from any consequences for breaking the law.

Alberta NDP Justice Critic Irfan Sabir – his outrage is understandable, but obviously of not much utility (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).

“Today Danielle Smith claimed that her apology to the Legislature closed the book on her unethical and illegal actions,” Mr. Sabir said Saturday in response to fairly predictable remarks Premier Smith made earlier that day on the radio program CORUS Entertainment provides for her. 

Well, guess what? She almost certainly can!

Asked by the show’s obsequious host about the NDP’s calls for a criminal investigation by the RCMP of the premier’s ethics breach, which was identified by Ethics Commissioner Marguerite Trussler in her May 18 report on Ms. Smith’s meeting with extremist preacher Artur Pawlowski and her subsequent conversations with former justice minister Tyler Shandro, the premier glibly shot back: 

“Well, look, it came up during the election, and people made their decision in the election. We got a majority government. I’ve taken responsibility, and we’re going to move on from that.”

Extremist preacher Art Pawlowski (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).

There’s more, but it’s not really significant. Readers can listen to the show for themselves if they wish. 

The point is that Mr. Sabir was correct when he said, “Danielle Smith broke the law and interfered in the justice system.” Moreover, he was backed up on that point by Ms. Trussler’s report.

But he was only theoretically right when he went on to say, “she’s not above the law.”

This is Alberta, and I’m afraid that doesn’t mean, in Mr. Sabir’s words, that the premier “can’t just apologise and walk away from the consequences for her actions.”

She just did, and it’s going to work.

The response of most Albertans, including a significant number who would have preferred to see the NDP elected on May 29, is going to be a bored shrug. 

There are a couple of reasons for this: First, as the premier rightly implied, voters do not view this as a serious matter – or at least not enough of them to prevent Ms. Smith from winning a majority government. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Photo: Justin Trudeau/Flickr).

The public had much the same reaction when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was accused in 2019 of doing much the same thing in the SNC/Lavalin case. It’s mildly ironic, but not much more, that the same Conservative supporters who are now shrugging off Ms. Smith’s ethical failings were screaming bloody murder then. 

Performative foot stomping by Conservatives then had no effect, and performative foot stomping by the Alberta NDP now won’t either. 

That’s not a good thing, but as anyone who has observed Alberta politics for long understands, Conservatives act as if they are entitled in this province for good reason – they are. 

The concept of the rule of law in Alberta is subject to certain caveats – and that won’t change matter how loud and long Mr. Sabir shouts about this. 

Alberta Ethics Commissioner Marguerite Trussler (Photo: Office of the Ethics Commissioner).

Mr. Sabir is a smart lawyer, and it seems likely he understands this perfectly well. The NDP under Rachel Notley has obviously decided that notwithstanding their lack of victory in May 29, this is a worthwhile strategy for the NDP to pursue with an ethically challenged government. 

In other words, they are continuing with exactly the same strategy in Opposition that failed to win the election campaign for them.

OK, I get it. It’s outrageous to see people like Ms. Smith waltz back into office. But it should now be obvious that basing an Opposition strategy on pointing out her obvious faults isn’t going to do much good. 

So maybe the NDP should take the premier’s advice on this one and move on from attacking her character – which everyone, including those Albertans who vote for her, knows is deeply flawed – and start offering an alternative platform to the terrible polices that the UCP is going to start implementing soon. 

Just for starters, how about being brave and advancing some policies that would be popular with voters – like government auto insurance or setting up a provincial telecommunications Crown corporation to help put an end to price gouging by the UCP’s corporate pals? 

Because pursuing the same strategy as in the last election campaign isn’t likely to produce a different result. And you all know what they say about that. 

Join the Conversation


  1. I watched a video about America’s crumbling “democracy” that made an interesting point and got me thinking about Canadian Conservatives (the Federal Conservatives have devolved into basically a more articulate version of Albertan Conservatives). No democratic society in history has ever transitioned between racial majorities. Ever. America’s political woes being caused by an ever-shrinking group of scared white supremacists trying to protect their rut using a bunch of deliberately antidemocratic institutions (electoral collect, SCOTUS, filibusters, gerrymandering, etc etc etc) has a lot of explanatory power IMO.

    Perhaps Canada’s white supremacists are watching with alarm, seeing their future. The politicians they’ve voted for have, shall we say, economically disincentivized non-rich people born in Canada from having kids, and most white people aren’t rich. As the boomers age our health care costs are going to skyrocket, and there are going to be fewer workers to pick up the slack. Also those workers are going to make a lot less money for the same work than the boomers did, because of, once again, Conservative policies. The economy is going to be kept going by immigration. There aren’t going to be “enough” white people who want to come to Canada to fill that demand. Good golly gosh, what if in twenty years you’re a minority in “your” own country?

    I think it’s fair to say most people in Canada who find Tucker Carlson persuasive vote Conservative. I think it’s also fair to say that they are over-represented in rural constituencies in Alberta and Manitoba.

    If this is the case, than reasoned arguments aren’t going to make any difference. Whatever contemporary Conservatives are willing to say in public is going to be BS, because it is just camouflage for their real concern – the looming spectre of a country with actual (as opposed to performative) racial equality. Lazy white people have a lot to lose if the deck is no longer stacked in their favour. Lazy people tend to remain ignorant and mediocre – learning things and gaining skills takes work. If being white no longer compensates for being lazy, they’re going to be in a bad spot. Keep in mind that white people willing to put in an honest day’s work have no reason for concern. I’m not throwing shade at white people in general, just positing that the root of a lot of contemporary white racism is lazy people scared of experiencing consequences for a lifetime of sloth, ignorance and mediocrity.

    If this is the case, any effort put into engaging with Conservative arguments is completely wasted, because none of their arguments are being made in good faith. Maybe the best tactic is to try to run out the clock? Focus on what matters most (climate change, preventing blatant atrocities, etc) and try to stall and contain their more outrageous policies. Every day that passes more of their supporters are dying and more non-white people are coming to the country. Over a long enough timeline, the white supremacists lose, defeated by their own policies.

    For anyone who is interested:

    1. It’s an interesting perspective, but worth pointing out 2 examples from the island of Ireland – while not racial transition, involved transition between sectarian and ethnonationalist majorities. The first, following the civil war of 1922-23, which saw parties comprised of the opposing sides sitting together in a democratic government within a decade. One hundred years later, those same parties governed together as a coalition. Northern Ireland has also just witnessed a monumental shift, beyond the consociational arrangements built into the Good Friday Agreement, in which Sinn Féin now represents the largest party in the regional assembly and across local councils – unthinkable in a state *designed* to ensure a permanent protestant/unionist majority. While currently at a standstill over Brexit, the democratic government remains in force.

    2. “If being white no longer compensates for being lazy, they’re going to be in a bad spot. Keep in mind that white people willing to put in an honest day’s work have no reason for concern. I’m not throwing shade at white people in general, just positing that the root of a lot of contemporary white racism is lazy people scared of experiencing consequences for a lifetime of sloth, ignorance and mediocrity.”

      What utter nonsense and a complete failure in attempting to communicate a fairly straight forward representational reality.

      One supposes that missing the forest for the trees and confusing maps for territory is a pseudo intellectual de rigueur posturing that is both demanded and required
      in certain cultural circles. There are reasons and justifications for [the elaborate and labored posturing] and why it should be so. They are as flawed as are the assumptions that accompany them. For example,

      1. “The Achilles heel of modern economies is the exponential nature of economic growth. Based on what economists consider a ‘healthy’ growth rate of about 3 per cent, the economy would have to double in output roughly every 23 years. If such growth is difficult to imagine, that’s because it is absurd. Imagine economies such as the United States with 16 times the output in 100 years, 256 times in just 200 years, or 5,000 times in as little as 300 years. There is one diagram in economic theory, writes Kate Raworth in Doughnut Economics (2018), that ‘is so dangerous that it is never actually drawn: the long-term path of GDP growth’.”

      2. “In the same way, McCartin said, tropes about today’s labor shortages in sectors such as trucking, healthcare and service get linked to the idea that people don’t want to work. “But that sidesteps the key issue, which is that a lot of jobs, for the amount of wear and tear and the hard labor involved — they just don’t pay enough,” he said. “Very often what this kind of rhetoric, whether it’s people don’t want to work or there’s a labor shortage, what that often speaks to is that wages simply aren’t attractive enough for workers.”

    3. Interesting post Neil.
      I have come to the realization, some time ago, that conservatives, of whatever stripe, are fundamentally the same; dishonest, ignorant and obsequious to power. It doesn’t matter what flag they fly, what name they claim, indeed even what policies they propose; they are all in favor of taking from regular folks and giving it to the wealthy few, usually corporations.
      It takes time and energy to understand today’s problems, most importantly, how today’s problems are different from yesterday’s. Because, of course, today’s problems require contemporary solutions. Often something that has never been tried, perhaps never been thought of before, not just some failed exercise endlessly repeated in the past. It’s all too much for lazy, white people or even just lazy, slothful, ignorant and belligerent people of whatever color.
      Conservatives, however, are the champions for this class. The ideological party of white, intolerant, belligerent trash. Not a smart idea to be found anywhere.

    4. “No democratic society in history has ever transitioned between racial majorities. Ever.”

      Toronto just elected Olivia Chow.

  2. So kinda like the federal Liberal’s game plan?! – actions and …
    performative “consideration” (but then rejection) of UBI and other more obviously socialist policies.

    Appeases the more radical lefties; convinces the center of the NDP’s “moderation”; and distracts the right into an unelectable frothing.

    1. I agree with your overall point, but I’d like to clarify what the radical left is actually about. They want to eat the rich. There are no electable politicians in Canada advocating for destroying the billionaire class and redistributing their wealth. No Liberal or NDP government is ever going to try to appeal to radical lefties. They are advocating for the “middle class” (whoever that is). Radical lefties are advocating for a “classless society” (whatever that is).

      I’m not trying to convince you we should do this btw, just trying to explain that the people mainstream Canadians think of as “radical lefties” are in no way radical and are barely even leftists. Far left ideologies can and have been used to justify large scale atrocities, and if we don’t know what they are we won’t see them coming. I think it’s fair to say most of us know the radical right is real, active, and violent. The radical left is also all of these things*, it’s just that our media is owned and operated by the billionaire class, and for some reason, they don’t want to platform people who advocate for the destruction of the billionaire class. Or anything else that might be against their interests. This is why we think of policies that are actually center-right as being leftist.

      *Far right people will often point to the fact that far left people are also violent to try to draw an equivalency between them. It’s worth pointing out that a person can choose to stop being a billionaire or a fascist. A person cannot choose to stop being non-white. Again, I’m not advocating violence, just trying to promote a better understanding of the ideas at play.

  3. It seems the NDP are like a gang of snooty schoolyard snitches who go running to the teacher to report any minor infraction committed by their fellow classmates. A change of pace would be refreshing.

    Speaking of the NDP did you see that recent piece in The Breach? Seems the current day NDP is run by a clique of corporate lobbyists who shuffle back and forth between their day jobs to run various election campaigns. Rachel Notley’s recent campaign team was stacked with party insiders who have a long list of corporate clients like the Bank of Montreal, Airbnb, CN and a U.S. coal company. Yes that’s right. It’s part of a grand strategy where the NDP replaces the Liberal Party and realigning Canadian politics. If it seems the NDP no longer wants to rock the boat and uninspiring election campaigns it’s because they really don’t want to rock the boat.

    Judge for yourself.

    1. If Alberta NDP Justice Critic Irfan Sabir is truly serious about the rule of law, he should know he can undertake a private prosecution of the Premier for interfering in the Judaical process. These are often taken over by a Provincial Crown Prosecutor of what we might call “medium virtue” who then discontinues the process. But doing so would expose the UCP for what they are.

      On the other hand, if I’m ever ticketed by a cop, or have any other trouble, I’ll just claim I’m a close friend of the Premier, and they might want to consider ‘forgetting about it’ lest they end up being sent to a tuberculosis-infested location three hours by gravel road from the nearest town.

  4. Maybe someone from the NDP brain trust will read what you are suggesting and cease their pearl clutching and offer up alternative policies. However, I am not optimistic.

  5. The NDP seem to excel at telling us things we already know, such as “Danielle Smith bad.” As a consequence, Albertans are constantly underwhelmed by the NDP. They need to leave the bulk of that work to a third party group, like a democracy watchdog. That way the NDP can instead spend time on telling us things we don’t know, such as what they would offer us if they were given the keys to government. If they carry on with their current strategy they will be a perpetual opposition.

    If you ask an NDP insider, they will tell you they do spend time putting forward propositional messages, such as the Alberta’s Future campaign. However, this too frequently takes a back seat to their oppositional messaging.

    Rachel Notley should say things like “You don’t need me to tell you that the UCP’s policy on X will hurt Albertans because of Y. An NDP government would solve this problem by implementing strategy Z.”

    Notley only needs to land a glancing blow to underscore the dangers of the UCP, rather than beating us over the head with it. Then move on to the aspirational message and look like a premier rather than a complainer.

  6. It’s rural Alberta that seems to have no problem electing a corrupt government!

  7. “…some policies that would be popular with voters – like government auto insurance…”

    Government auto insurance is anathema to conservative governments. That said, the conservative government in Saskatchewan has had years to get rid of their government auto insurance and they haven’t done it, likely because they know what the political consequences would be.

    1. Bob: Exactly. Same story in B.C., even though the Conservative government there called itself Liberal. But they call themselves the BCUPs, so go figure. The fact Conservatives would hate it but it would still appeal to voters is what it would would make it a great policy for a social democratic party. The fact the Alberta NDP won’t consider it is part of why I believe they are a progressive conservative party. DJC

      1. Totally agree that the Alberta NDP is not socially democrat. I also think the federal NDP isn’t either. If you are anywhere left of Neoliberal, you are an orphaned voter IMO.

  8. Meanwhile, the preacher at the centre of all this was found guilty of mischief and breach of conditions. He was found guilty of breaking the CIDA too, but that was set aside. The show must go on! He’s on tour at the moment, with a scheduled appearance in Victoria tonight. Is remorse un-Canadian? Any word on his sentencing hearing?

    1. Abs — If I was going to start a rumor, I’d be asking if he came with Danielle who was in Victoria for the western Premiers meeting being hosted by Mr Eby……but that would just be brazen, right??

      Thanks for the head’s up that he’s on the island, I just thought the wind had shifted from the pulp mill …eoaw!! I’m guessing that the ex pickle Premier is probably involved as well , and as the saying goes—” there goes the neighborhood ” …..groan !!

  9. I listened to the episode of the Breakdown featuring Collin May and it sounds like the NDP aren’t much more ethical than the UCP.

    1. Rick: I’m going to allow this comment, but it’s on the edge of irrelevance without an explanation of what this supposedly unethical behaviour by the NDP is or was. DJC

      1. It’s not a matter of the NDP’s “unethical” behaviour. It’s a matter of the NDP trying, attempting, and mimicking a more moderate version of the UCP. If you’re inclined to a more social-democratic bent, this is grave development that will stymie the advance of workers’ rights in Alberta. For example, could the NDP turn on Pride flags? No. Could they make them less relevant because they have become too controversial? (But when has a Pride flag not been controversial, apart from its reduction to ready-made corporate branding?)

  10. UCP-TBA supporters will vote for a criminal if they think their “enemies” will be punished.

    The majority of Albertans are selfish and myopic. They refuse to grow up. They revel in their ignorance.

  11. I know full well what the issues are here. Newspaper columnists, and others in the media were kissing the butt of Danielle Smith. They didn’t look at the UCP’s poor track record of governance, and vilified Rachel Notley and the NDP, who had to contend with faltering oil prices and the worst kinds of pricey shenanigans, and harmful austerity measures done by the Alberta PCs, who turned the good things Peter Lougheed did for us into a horrific mess. Now we have four more years of the UCP who will do even more pricey shenanigans, that cost us billions of dollars, further cheat us out of our oil and tax wealth, destroy public healthcare and public education, so it ends up being privatized, increase our utility and insurance costs further, make the less fortunate and seniors struggle further, and not care about the environment. None of this makes sense.

  12. If there were any other game in town, I would assuredly give up on my financial and voting support for the NDP. As the recipient of almost daily email party appeals for donations, I am becoming thoroughly exasperated with what purports to be “strategy” in the minds of the party’s leaders. The emails promise to hold back all of the “awful” things that Danielle the Demented and her coterie of mindless cabinet minions will do, without saying how the NDP will do it. With the zeal of a tel-evangelist they promise that I will be saved if only I give more and more. Communications and administrative efficiency are a complete void in the party. My repeated emails to the party and my MLA are ignored, even when I ask how to increase my current monthly donation. A request to my MLA, Christina Gray, for constituency association contact information, an easy one you might think, still has no response. Messages to the Contact email on the NDP website are not answered, presumably because the mailbox is not monitored. To someone knocking on their door, it looks like the party is under the leadership of the Three Stooges. A total shame because the candidates and volunteers that I met during the election were giving it their all in terms of energy, support and enthusiasm. Too bad the party leaders and administration are so deficient. I have read that the central body of the NDP (and also the NDP govt. during the past glory days) is overrun with fossil fuel lobbyists as advisors. If so, they are clearly the B team based on performance. Looks like the UCP cornered the A team.

  13. Despite what Smith said, she didn’t really take responsibility for this. However while the substance of her non apology apology was weak, she got the tone right or close enough. All those years of being on radio and working in communications have paid off. Whether they should or not, most people are not going to care to delve into the details here and this is just going to become inside baseball or debating points. The sort of things everyone except the most avid political followers tune out, especially after an election.

    As the Federal Liberals wisely from years of governing know there is a Lucy and Charlie Brown football situation here. The Alberta conservative sort of dynasty has also sort of figured this out. If a leader becomes too unpopular and the opposition’s attacks are successful, then just replace them with another before the next election.

    So yes, the NDP beat Kenney over the last few years, but that all didn’t matter because he was gone before the election. They almost beat Smith too, but almost doesn’t count and if they continue to focus on her, even if they are successful later, you can bet the UCP will conveniently find a different leader some time before the next election.

    It is not one individual or leader. Until the opposition realizes it is a pattern of behavior by a party in power they need to successfully focus on they will not be successful. This is why, in the end, the Alberta PC’s were defeated. The accusations of corruption, arrogance and entitlement stuck to the party as a whole, not just one leader. Who successfully led these particular attacks against the Alberta PC’s? Smith. She does have many shortcomings, but she sure does know more about communications strategies than her political opponents.

  14. Hi DJC,
    I agree that many in Alberta do not understand that Danielle Smith’s flouting of conventional ethics or the law is important. Anecdotally, I would say that these Albertans think that, as long as what Smith does aligns with their personal preferences, it is fine because the law isn’t appropriate, so they and their elected representatives don’t need to follow it. They see it as situational rather than being guided by democratic principles. If, say, the NDP acted in the same way but the NDP’s views were contrary to their own, they would be outraged.
    Although I am progressive in many areas, I would never want a requirement to enroll in government-provided auto insurance. For-profit auto insurance has problems, but government auto insurance is, it seems to me, worse.
    Required enrollment in provincial auto insurance also leaves it open to a B C-style situation where the Christie Clark government required ICBC to pay “excess optional capital” to the provincial government. These were, in effect, phantom “profits” which left ICBC with financial problems. This loss of its ability to operate more independently almost certainly prevented ICBC from lowering auto insurance premiums when this would have been appropriate.

    1. “For-profit auto insurance has problems, but government auto insurance is, it seems to me, worse.”

      I see where you’re coming from, especially your reference to BC’s situation under their “Liberal” party. Worth pointing out two things though.

      Firstly, the people of BC voted out that party. They could not have voted out a privately owned for-profit company. Worth considering that if, for example, Mark Zuckerberg, had to stand for re-election of Facebook, he would probably be behaving differently.

      Secondly, if you give something to the private sector, it ends up costing you (actual cost) + (profits). They are always going to try to get the profits as high as possible. Therefore, you will always end up paying as much as they can possibly make you pay, and they are always going to be scheming to try to make you pay even more.

      If you give something to the government, it ends up costing you (actual cost) + (waste) + (corruption). Government at least has some incentive to limit waste and corruption – we can punish them in two ways: voting them out (now they don’t have their nose in the public trough anymore) and voting in their opponents (now they have to watch someone they don’t like do “the wrong thing”). Just a thought.

  15. Not really a winning strategy is it. Danielle bad, Rachel good, vote for us. If my donations to the NDP paid the person or persons that came up with this strategy, I want my money back.

  16. So are we going allow Smith to continue what’s she’s doing with interference. It appears so. They don’t care until it affects them . Smith is corrupt.

  17. Christine , there is one little difference my B.C. relatives pay about a third as much as we do, and aren’t experiencing increases of 32% to 38% like some of our senior friends have seen, and we haven’t forgotten what privatization of our power industry has done to this province, not to mention liquor stores, vehicle registration fees, long term health care fees, university tuition fees, or licensing fees for young drivers. When Lougheed was collecting proper royalties and taxes he was funding these services properly and it didn’t take long for our property taxes to triple under these Reformers, did it?

  18. Danielle Smith can just make her amazing ethical lapses go away by not talking about them. Or, refusing to let others talk about them. Or, causing people to be fired for bringing them up.

    At some point, I suspect that the Office of the Ethnics Commissioner will be abolished as a cost-saving measure. I mean why waste precious tax dollars on a means to attack the government that funds the whole thing? Or, let’s take it to the next level and create an independent ethics commissioner, independently funded, of course. Oh, and created as a private corporation that’s not bound by FOIP? (The War Room has taught them well.)

    Welcome to the reality of a Danielle Smith podcast, where reality is manufactured to serve the whims of Danielle Smith. No one will hear a despairing word about the bad things in Alberta every again. And if it does happen, they’re commies! Putin’s Russia is moulded the same way and everything’s fine. Victory in Ukraine is … eminent, so stop complaining and stay away from open windows.

    The next four years are going to be hilarious.

    1. JM: I think you mean imminent, but if it is, that would be eminent, too, I suppose. DJC

  19. The dominant mythos, folklore, and noble lie [Where it is correctly noted that: “The (economic noble) lie is supposed to promote social welfare and harmony, but it also divides and manipulates the people.”] of our time is one of “free markets, private enterprise and economic independence”; even as, government and central bank interventions are the necessary normal state of affairs for propping up the entire charade. [For example, “Canada’s grocery business is controlled by large players and needs government assistance to encourage new entrants to bring down prices, a report from the Competition Bureau says.”, or “Most of the Progressive Conservative caucus didn’t understand Alberta taxpayers would be on the hook for $26 billion when they approved a deal to build a bitumen refinery north of Edmonton, says former PC finance minister Ted Morton.” Additionally, planned shortages and the deliberate destruction of surplus goods due to over production are usually met with dead silence in the MSM. ]

    The numerous and consistent contradictions apparently only serve to reinforce and strengthen the mythos in the mind of the public, the political class, and the academic class; even as, simple observation reveals the nature of the illusion [Where it has been stated that, “The goal (of government intervention) is to get the engine of capitalism going as productively as possible,” said Nancy Koehn, a historian at the Harvard Business School. “Ideology is a luxury good in times of crisis.” Which can be compared and contrasted with, “Beginning with Jean Monnet, the first director of the General Commissariat for Planning, the government managed public enterprises and drafted five-year plans in order to shape long-term economic development. It was, by any measure, a great success. Nationalized industries and five-year plans may transgress the treasured tenets of neoliberal orthodoxy, but they didn’t stop France from enjoying three decades of sustained economic growth and prosperity. In the period between 1950 and the first oil shock in 1973, recalled in France today as les trente glorieuses (the “thirty glorious years”), its economy grew at the impressive clip of 5 percent a year (while United States growth averaged 3.6 percent), unemployment was virtually unknown (2 percent in France, compared to 4.6 percent in the United States), and French women and men experienced dramatic increases in their standard of living. . . . Perhaps the greatest achievement of the Washington Consensus was to wipe our national memory clean of the more ecumenical views that prevailed before the 1980s.”

    In any case, it is hardly a coincidence that numerous and consistent contradictions are also both starkly evident and representative in many of the current individuals chosen as ‘leaders’, with much of the same outcomes, i.e., a doubling down and a reinforcement of questionable belief systems, their very long term outcomes, and associated spillovers.] .

    Any vigorous and long lasting structural changes will only be forthcoming when the self interested “I, Me, and Mine.” is replaced by “Us and Ours.” (Our water, our air, for example) because one can both imagine and find examples where the unrestrained pursuit of ‘self interest’ leads to collective ruin. A pithy and cynical observer might be moved to comment that, ‘”the morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it is performed.”

    Regarding the Provincial telecommunications file it was observed 2 years ago that, “For the Alberta taxpayers, the book has yet to be written. One clear downside was the loss of a head office to Burnaby when BC Tel and TELUS were put together.”

  20. She’s (aka Batshit) is not above the law?

    Really? You want to bet? She already owns the “ethics” Commissioner.
    She plans on installing her own provincial police force (aka Getapo). All her ministers, and the public health officer are ineffectual puppets. She’s disbanded the AHS Board. She installed DynaLife as our province-wide lab service. She enriched Murray Edwards and the rest of the Flames owners by using taxpayer money to build a hockey palace in Calgary. I could go on, but you get the point. She can basically do anything she wants, whether it is legal or not. Just think, stupid Albertans gave her a majority and therefore a carte blanche to do it. Oh, and thank you Rachel Notley (NDP) for running the stupidest and most ineffective election campaign ever.

    So, yeah Batshit is above the law, whether you like it or not.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.