Members of Alberta’s labour relations community were scratching their heads Monday and yesterday about Bill 5, the Public Sector Employer Amendment Act, 2023, last on the list of the first five bills to be introduced by the United Conservative Party in the new session of the provincial Legislature that began Monday.
Public sector employers and unions were not expecting legislation in this area, and as a result speculation was rife about what Bill 5 could mean.
Here’s some, starting with a question: Is the Smith Government proceeding with its plan to implement parts of the separatist Free Alberta Strategy during this session?
There wasn’t a hint of this in the campaign leading up to the May 29 Alberta election, of course.
In fact, there were concerted, deceptive efforts by Premier Danielle Smith and many UCP candidates to deny that any such game was afoot – especially when it came to the plan to hijack the Albertans’ retirement savings in the Canada Pension Plan and create a huge slush fund to keep the fossil fuel industry on life support as the world electrifies.
Although by now on the radar of 90 per cent of the adults in Alberta, Premier Smith’s planned CPP grab was also not mentioned in Monday’s Throne Speech.
So why would amendments to the Public Sector Employers Act be required or desired? After all, under former Premier Jason Kenney the UCP had already given itself near-absolute power to secretly direct all public-sector bargaining, despite the fact that amounts to prima facie evidence of bargaining in bad faith.
This question is especially pertinent since many changes to employment law can be implemented through regulation, and do not require legislation to be passed by the Legislature.
Well, there’s the so-called Free Alberta Strategy – one of whose three authors is Rob Anderson, the former Wildrose Party House Leader who is Premier Smith’s ideological Svengali and conveniently also the executive director of her office.
In addition to calling for the creation of an Alberta Revenue Agency to collect all provincial taxes (a massive expense and huge red-tape hassle for Albertans if it ever comes about), on page 26 the separatist manifesto calls for creation of an “Office of the Alberta Public Sector Employer.”
It states:
Create the Office of the Alberta Public Sector Employer (“APSE”), which would become the official payor of all Alberta public sector employees. There would be no changes of to any collective bargaining agreements, salaries, pensions, or other benefits for these workers as negotiated by their current provincially funded public employers. The only change would be that the APSE would become the provincial agency issuing their paycheck [sic] (much like a private corporation paying its staff through an independent payroll company). The APSE would then remit these withholdings to the Alberta Revenue Agency.
Late yesterday, the government sent a notice to media saying Finance Minister Nate Horner would hold an embargoed news conference this morning saying he is about to “introduce two bills that propose a new governance model for public sector compensation and would help ensure Alberta’s tax system remains up to date.” (In the language of public relations, “remains up to date” can mean anything.)
Putting aside the absurdity of an “embargoed news conference,” does this mean the Smith Government indeed intends to introduce this aspect of the Free Alberta Strategy – which would be more accurately termed the “Free Alberta agenda” – in the form of Bill 5?
That is not immediately clear. Mr. Horner’s message to media speaks of two bills. Really this could be anything from a couple of minor administrative matters to another outrageous attempt like the UCP’s pension policy to create a constitutional crisis and upset the apple cart of Confederation.
There is no question, though, that creating a massive and redundant new government bureaucracy to pay all public employees would avoid the hurdle now faced by Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s attempt at overturning the rule of law described in this space yesterday. At least Alberta’s government wouldn’t have to ask executives of Alberta Health Services to violate criminal law if the UCP decided not to pass federal taxes on to Ottawa. They will have created their own political/financial agency to break it.
Then, presumably, they could use their unconstitutional Sovereignty Act to say they were entitled to break federal laws, even the Criminal Code – and we Albertans would have a chance to find out if Ms. Smith was telling the truth in October 2022 when she pledged to abide by any decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada involving the legislation. Mr. Anderson made the same promise at about the same time.
Otherwise, I guess, the UCP’s best chance might be to use ATB Financial to create the constitutional crisis they clearly desire.
Whatever the purpose of Bill 5 turns out to be, there is much more extremely troubling stuff in the openly separatist Free Alberta screed, including calls to drop out of the Canada Health Act and Employment Insurance, create that Alberta pension plan, unconstitutionally declare Alberta’s courts to be independent of Supreme Court oversight, set up a fake diplomatic corps, and, on page 38, adopt a strategy to “prepare Alberta for national political sovereignty should … independence become the only viable option for the province.
“In short, it sets up Alberta for independence in the event that independence must be considered.”
Their words, not mine.
Mr. Anderson’s Free Alberta co-authors are lawyer Derek From, whose potted biography boasts that his legal specialties include “firearms rights,” and University of Calgary political scientist and right-wing commentator Barry Cooper. Dr. Cooper has notoriously stated that “precisely the idea” of the pension grab is “to inflict a little pain on Canada.”
None of this should surprise anyone. It’s been obvious almost from the day Ms. Smith launched her campaign to lead the UCP that the former right-wing talk radio host had the potential to lead the party to a dark place.
From here on, though, Albertans need to start paying attention to the separatist project that now animates the governing party and measure all UCP policies against the Free Alberta agenda’s dangerous potential to create the constitutional crisis advocated by Dr. Cooper.
Contrary to the blog post, the throne speech did mention the pension withdrawal scheme, but they used the words “retirement savings” instead. Based on this language it seems to me they are going to try to pivot the CPP exit into a supposed affordability measure. Here is the excerpt from the throne speech:
“Albertans will reap the benefits of these tax cuts and consumer protections. They will keep more of their hard-earned money for the things that are important to them, whether that’s nutritious food, hockey fees, dance lessons, further education, family vacations or retirement savings.”
Cam: I read that passage several times to confirm I had it write when I said the speech did not mention the pension scheme. I stand by that decision as correct. DJC
“write” or “right. When I read, the context corrects the error, 9 times out of 10!
Why did some Albertans vote for a government that might just intend to destroy democracy completely and rule by iron fist? How shameful that many people whose families fled Europe after WWII and others who fled more recent conflicts elsewhere saw fit to install the very kind of government they sought to escape, right here in Alberta.
Why would Albertans who voted for the UCP want “to inflict a little pain on Canada”? We are Canada. All of us will pay the price for letting these loons run this province into the ground. If the UCP turn their attention to a crown corporation in their lust for separation, and that crown corporation happens to be ATB Financial, watch Alberta turn into a money laundering and pyramid scheme haven. Doesn’t the provincial Treasury guarantee this particular crown corporation? What if the citizens refuse to pay provincial taxes and withdraw their money? Is Smith hoping for financial collapse in order to seize power for life? Nothing seems implausible or impossible now. It’s all been done in the past, elsewhere. Autocrats profit from chaos. None of this benefits ordinary citizens.
Well, a lot of the people who fled Europe after the Big One, headed west with the Red Army hot on their heels to due to their affinity for a particular government that was similar to the one their progency support in support in Alberta.
“Putting aside the absurdity of an embargoed news conference…”
To find the historical meaning of “embargo” I referenced dictionary.com. “An order of a state forbidding foreign ships to enter, or any ships to leave, its ports.” My knowledge of Alberta geography tells me Minister Horner will be safe from attack.
Hello DJC,
All of this, especially the Alberta premier’s touting of independence for Alberta, would seem to discourage investment in Alberta. Businesses prefer stability when investing. Without investment, Alberta likely would have less cash flow to operate the province.
The oil and gas industry seems inclined to press for low taxes and royalties, and to rely on government subsidies for a portion of their profits. I don’t think that the provincial government can rely on the oil and gas industry to provide enough income for the government to support a well-off population.
The whole sovereignty agenda and the intention to subvert pay and other matters in public sector bargaining don’t bode well for the economy of the province either.
If the economy is poor, it is likely that citizens will choose to live in other parts of Canada. I cannot see a benefit for anyone in this scenario.
For so called conservatives, creating new government agencies to deal with the public service employees, pensions and expanding Alberta’s tax administration system seems to be contradictory. It is an exercise in bureaucratic expansion and empire building that would make Quebec proud or blush. However, I fear Alberta’s UCP has learned the worst lessons from other provinces and not even learned them well.
For instance, it perhaps bears frequent repeating that Quebec never left the CPP, because it never joined it. Its pension system actually integrates well and plays nicely with the CPP. I doubt Alberta’s exit from the CPP would go so well. It would be more like a messy divorce, we already have plenty of spite and anger from the UCP and whoever the Federal government is will have to look after the rest of Canada’s interests, not Alberta’s. Without good integration, being able to move or retire to another province could become a serious problem for Albertans.
In a way I am glad the separatist sentiments of the UCP are become clearer, even though they tried to downplay and hide them during the recent provincial election. It is becoming more likely, they will over reach and the courts will strike them down. Of course, the UCP will then play the victim and try use humiliation to their political advantage. I don’t know if that will work, I feel it may not and they will just end up looking foolish, much as past Alberta governments who tried to pass clearly unconstitutional laws did.
In any event, for all its political manoeuvring, petty and manufactured grievances the UCP forgets one thing. Whether we are more or less part of the Canadian system, Alberta is still physically landlocked. The people who should actually be the most alarmed by the UCP’s separatist inclinations, should be the Federal Conservatives. Should Alberta leave, they lose around 30 seats in the House of Commons, so it becomes less likely they will govern in the future. This all seems to me, to be an exercise in cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I don’t think PeePee or Fraulein Schmidt are too concerned about losing votes. They are both too blinded by arrogance to even consider the possibility of losing the next federal election to the Liberals. In the tragic case that actually happens, once PeePee is crowned PM (sorry, President) of Canada all this brain dead Alberta separation talk will come to a crashing halt. In the meantime the petty posturing and sociopathic lying will continue until the coronation takes place.
I believe we should all take Mr. C’s prognostication of the Alberta Separation Agenda to heart as he has been so accurate in his calls from the past. The guy is a regular Nostradamus. As well, we should heed Mr. C’s clarion call for the citizens of Alberta to rise up as it would appear the Alberta NDP are simply not up to the task of bringing the UCP to heel. It pains me to say this but the NDP have too many dreamy eyed romantics and are too busy playing nice.
My new posting ritual! The daily Dani song! https://youtu.be/lOfZLb33uCg?t=1
“In short, it sets up Alberta for independence in the event that independence must be considered.”
That particular “consideration” has been a decades long academic (hobby horse or intellectual monomania for ‘intellectuals’ with too much free time on their hands) developmental process. It is certainly not ‘populist’ (even as it is packaged that way), rather it is top down and not bottom up and it’s repetitive distorted messages are constructed, carefully packaged, spun, and delivered to captive and eager audiences and useful idiots alike.
The goal has been well advertised:
“Alberta’s 1776 is fast approaching. Stay tuned.” (i.e., The official beginning of the ‘nation of Alberta’.)
https://lawliberty.org/albertas-coming-declaration-of-independence/
As far as my reading of Bill 5 goes
– it allows the minister to dictate to public sector employers the terms they can agree to before during and after negotiations
– and if the employer (cuz they have souls) goes beyond what gov dictates, the gov can appoint an auditor to investigate
– and these overpayments (ie payments beyond terms dictated by the minister) are then deemed employer debt that is owed back to the gov
Do recall, Kenney settled many public sector contracts so as to avoid job action during his last election. However all the post-secondaries and many of the school board contracts are all coming up on a similar time line.
I suspect the UCP would like to avoid a general strike from public sector. That would be embarrassing to the conservatives if their poor handling of the economy was too obvious.
Here’s a clue: Nate Horner wants to make compensation for top levels in the civil service more “nimble”:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/new-bill-paves-way-for-increased-compensation-for-public-sector-executives-non-union-staff-1.7015795
I guess this means they’re trying to split the union and non-union workers in the government. “Class warfare,” anyone?
Mike: I don’t fully agree with this statement. At any rate, there is already a class structure in most workplaces. What this does is recognize the UCP’s serious error under Kenney of not giving managers – yes, those notorious middle managers that Premier Smith says should be redundant but who are necessary to the operation of AHS and other government enterprises – even the modest raises rank and file workers with union representation were able to negotiate. Interestingly, it imposes a collective-bargaining structure on how the employer determines what managers and excluded workers are paid. This is a significant and interesting development. The government may not be fully aware of what they’ve done. I hope to write more about this in the near future. DJC
In the form of these “employer associations”, formed as corporations over which the Minister has great control (hand picking board members, including board seats that represent the GoA). I work for the Alberta Securities Commission. The effect of the (8-year?) wage freeze on the organisation has been real. But I’m extremely suspicious of anything UCP does.