Danielle Smith is at her politicking again

I don't like to give Danielle Smith - and Alberta in general - any more attention than necessary. She tends to make my blood boil, which is not good for me medically. But she does keep making announcements that, well, make my blood boil.

The latest, in the aftermath of a federal election, in which "her" party failed to win but all but swept the board in Alberta and Saskatchewan, is more whining and victim-playing about how badly Alberta is being treated by the federal government (by which she means the rest of the country that voted them in). It just so happens that Ontario and Quebec have bigger populations, and so they often decide elections - that is not a flaw in democracy, that's the way it's supposed to work. And sometimes those large populations will vote overwhelmingly Conservative, just not this time.

Ms. Smith has a way of speaking that particularly grates, and which usually requires translation into the language that the rest of the country speaks. She is at pains to appear straight-talking and reasonable, but hides a barb behind almost every statement she makes.

For example, she talks of "hostile acts" from Ottawa, meaning policies that the rest of the country approves of, but that happens not to benefit Alberta, with its 20th-Century attitudes to oil and gas among other things (most things she says have a link to Alberta oil on some level). 

She says that Albertans are "deeply frustrated" at the election of another Liberal government, indeed that they are "crushed" by it. Well, maybe, but so probably are NDP voters, but you don't hear them whining in the same way. That's just the way democratic elections work: the party with the most seats gets to form a government. Does she want to change that system?

And she is still talking about "Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada", whatever that actually means, as she has for some time now, all while doing her level best to foment divisiveness and fanning the flames of an independence vote. How does that help United Canada? She tends to blame Ottawa (i.e. Liberals) for threatening national unity by their policies (i.e. the ones she happens not to agree with), but she is the one almost single-handedly destroying any national unity that may have existed with her words and her actions.

She says " we will no longer tolerate having our industries threatened and our resources landlocked by Ottawa". Furthermore, "Alberta didn't start this fight, but rest assured we will finish it". Fighting talk indeed. So what is she going to do about it?

Well, with that in mind, she has put forward Bill 54 that would make it easier for a potential secession referendum to be brought forward by Alberta citizens, lowering the threshold from 20% to 10% of voters. She says the timing of this, just after a Liberal election victory is coincidental. 

She is careful to to stress that SHE will not be the one to bring such a separation vote - in fact she says, in very clear language, that "I do not support Alberta separating from Canada" - but if enough Albertans want to, then so be it, what can she do? She even points out that polls suggest that most Albertans don't want to separate from Canada, but she is nevertheless doing everything she can behind the scenes to encourage it. She visibly bristled when a reporter suggested she was being disingenuous in these apparent contradictions.

So, there you have Danielle Smith. Firebrand activist? Principled statesperson? Sneaky backroom wheeler-dealer? You decide. Meanwhile, though, Alberta's economic credibility is taking a hit. Secession remains a highly implausible scenario, but the very fact that the government is even talking about it is enough to put the willies up current and potential investors.

Australian election follows the Canadian trajectory

In an extraordinary parallel to the recent Canadian election, Australia has seen a dramatic late turn-around in their general election too.

Just as with Canada, the Australian Liberals (right of centre, despite the name) were expected to roll over the incumbent Labour Party (left of centre, and the equivalent of Canada's Liberal Party - confusing, eh?)

On the day, though, after a short election campaign totally dominated by Donald Trump and who is best positioned to deal with him, just as in Canada, Australia's Labour Party came through with a comfortable majority, despite the Liberals' apparent dominance in the polls just two months earlier (just as in Canada). Liberal leader, Peter Dutton, lost his own seat, just like Pierre Poilievre did in Canada. Like Poilievre, the  hard-line conservative Dutton was considered too close to Trump for comfort, the kiss of death in the current circumstances.

Quite a turn-around - just as in Canada. It seems like Donald Trump is doing a good job of scaring the world away from hard-right governments.

Germany classifies AfD as "extemist", and USA declares a diplomatic row

Germany's BfV domestic intelligence (spy) agency has officially labelled the country's far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party as an "extremist" organization, publishing as evidence a 1,100-page report on the party's racist, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim profile, its activities in deliberately stirring up "irrational fears and hostility" towards individuals and groups, and its incitement to undermine democratic institutions.

This might not seem like a big deal, but the designation legally allows BfV to officially and unofficially monitor the organization, to recruit informants, and to intercept party communications. It open up the way to closer surveillance of the organization, even clandestine spying. Other political organizations classified as "extremist" in Germany include the far-right National Democratic Party, Islamic State and the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany.

Given that AfD is now one of Germany's major political parties, coming in second to the conservative coalition of Friedrich Merz in last February's elections, and even topping some current nationwide polls, the new "extremist" designation puts an unwelcome spotlight on the party and its machinations.

The AfD is predictably apoplectic at the announcement, calling it politically motivated and defamatory and "a blow against democracy". It has promised legal action, although it has already lost a court case in which it tried to challenge the BfV. 

Almost as predictably, that other right-wing extremist organization, the Trump administration in the USA, has condemned the move, setting off a major diplomatic row between the two countries. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the BfV's announcement "tyranny in disguise", and Vice President JD Vance called it the rebuilding of the Berlin Wall by the German establishment.

*Sigh* When America feels obliged to publicly support such illiberal, anti-democratic organizations as AfD as a knee-jerk reaction, how far down that road has it already travelled itself? Is there any way back?

CUSMA-compliant auto parts are to be exempt from US tariffs - wait, what?

In his latest tariff flip-flop, Donald Trump is now saying that the 25% tariff that is to apply to auto vehicles and parts imported from Canada into the USA will not actually apply to CUSMA-compliant auto parts.

This is seen - on this side of the border at least - as a major carveout and climb-down. But it raises the question: which auto parts are, and are not, covered by the Canada United States Mexico Agreement of 2018? Is it not ALL auto parts? (If not, why not?) I have not seen a simple guide to what this exemption actually means in concrete terms for the Trump tariffs.

Given that auto parts can cross the Canadian and US border several times during production, as we know, it would be a logistical nightmare to identify non-American components of cars and their various parts. If there is a further distinction between CUSMA-compliant and non-CUSMA-compliant parts, the task becomes even more onerous. Is anyone keeping track of the time, effort and cost of the extra admin involved?

The big auto companies are already responding to the imposition of the tariffs, even before they take effect. For example, GM is eliminating one shift at its Oshawa assembly plant, driven, it says, by soft demand and trade uncertainty, involving cuts of over 700 jobs. Does this take into account the latest tariff carveout? Who knows?

Talk about chaos and uncertainty! The announcements are coming so thick and fast that even the people most affected can't keep track if it all. What a mess!

Mental health system not to blame for Vancouver tragedy

After a Vancouver man drove his SUV into a crowded Filipino cultural festival earlier this week, killing 11 people and injuring scores more, there have been many pointed questions about why it happened and why it was allowed to happen and, more specifically, what role the man's mental illness played in the tragedy.

Adam Lo is an involuntary outpatient under the care of a Vancouver mental health team following a forced hospital stint in 2024. He suffers from schizophrenia, paranoia and delusions, and is considered at high risk for his mental health to decline, especially given his occasional refusal to take medications. 

More specifically, Mr. Lo, like thousands of others, has been on what is known as "extended leave", where he has been released from a treatment facility for supervised, mandatory care in the community. This means that his condition is severe enough to warrant forced treatment (e.g. mandatory medication injections), but not so severe that they must be held at a mental health facility. In this way, it is argued, he gets the treatment he needs, but without too much of an infringement of his civil liberties (hence, Mr. Lo still has a valid drivers license, for example).

Lo's Vancouver Coastal Health care team has commented that there was no change to his condition or his non-compliance with medications before the incident that might have warranted involuntary hospitalization. He seems to fit squarely into the parameters for extended leave, with nothing suggesting the need for enforced sequestering in a mental health facility. His act came out for the blue, with no possible way of predicting it.

Many people are understandably angry, and looking for answers (and preferably a scapegoat). But, however much people are looking for somewhere to lay blame for the tragedy, all indications are that Vancouver's mental health system was not to blame.

Poilievre is offered a safe Tory seat

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, whom many Tories seem to look on as the Second Coming (of something or other), was soundly beaten in his own riding of Carleton in last week's federal election, and by a Liberal political neophyte at that.

But so convinced are Conservatives in the man's value to the Party that they have prevailed on a long-time successful Tory MP to stand down and offer up his safe seat to Poilievre, who clearly cannot get himself elected any other way. 

It's an embarrassing climb-down for a party that has now lost to the Liberals in four consecutive elections. But Damien Kurek, who has easily won the Battle River-Crowfoot riding in Alberta since 2019, says he is more than happy to lend Poilievre his safe Tory seat. For he so loved his party that he gave his only begotten seat... If he'd had a sword handy, he would almost certainly have fallen on it. 

Bizarrely, both Kurek and Poilievre say that this is just a "temporary resignation", and that Kurek intends to run in the riding again for the next general election. Who knows how that will work. Poilievre will need to find a new riding that will take him? And that he thinks he can win?

"An unstoppable movement has grown under his leadership", quoth Kurek. "This is what's best for Canada, and is what's best for Battle River-Crowfoot". Well, except the movement just got stopped in its tracks in the last election, and Canada decided that the Liberals are best for it at the moment. How people get caught up in hype and propaganda!

This is a strange and embarrassing situation for Poilievre, although the man is not easily embarrassed. It's also a rather strange move for the Conservative Party, which lost the last election because (among other reasons) Poilievre is so unlikable, and because of his angry demeanour and tedious three-word slogans. Still, if that's what they want to do...

Poilievre is not a humble man. "Sorry" or "regret" are not in his vocabulary. He has got to where he is today by being aggressive, acerbic and in-your-face; he does not do touchy-feely. It seems inconceivable to us outsiders that the Tories would even want to keep him as leader of the Party, especially given that his particular brand of divisive, populist politics has not yielded the results he promised, and he has brought the Conservatives no closer to power than Erin O'Toole and Andrew Scheer before him (arguably further away, given that the Liberals are now just a few seats short of a majority).

I wonder if this will play into the hands of the Liberals who are, as we speak, rumoured to be having talks with Conservative and NDP MPs with a view to getting a small handful of them to "cross the floor" to give the Liberals a majority in parliament.

And if Poilievre were to lose this by-election too? Well, wouldn't that be something?

Ukraine resources deal is morally very grey

I have mixed feelings about the recent minerals and resources deal struck between Ukraine and USA. But first, what's actually in the deal? 

What's significantly NOT in the deal is any mention of Ukraine paying back $350 billion in US wartime aid to Ukraine that Trump was insisting on when this was last publicly discussed (remember that embarrassing Oval Office interview streamed live to air for all the world to see). This, then, seems to have been a win for Ukraine, although of course Trump would never admit that publicly.

Specifically mentioned is that the deal should not hamper Ukraine's ambitions to join the EU. Ukraine already has a strategic partnership with the EU on raw materials, and the text of the deal acknowledges that and pledges that the US deal will not step on any European toes.

The wording of the deal is also distinctly more anti-Russian than the Trump administration usual employs (maybe the Trump-Putin bromance is petering out?) which will hearten Ukraine and its other allies. For example, for almost the first time, the deal calls out "Russia's full-scale invasion".

On the other hand, the deal as it stands also includes Ukraine's oil and gas, not just its strategically important rare earth minerals (in fact, Ukraine has hardly any rare earth minerals, certainly not as much as Trump thinks it does, but it does have significant reserves of natural gas, oil and coal - I guess someone explained that to him recently). This marks a step up from the US's previous ambitions, although the document states that the resources in question will technically stay "in Ukrainian ownership" (for what that's worth).

There are still no concrete security guarantees built into the deal, and technically the US could walk away from it at any time. Implicit in the agreement is the idea that the US would not want to walk away from it because it is in its own commercial interests. This is not a strong guarantee, but it may be the best that can be negotiated with this intransigent American administration. 

Of course, the payback for Ukraine for giving away a share of its precious mineral wealth, is a renewed commitment of military assistance from the US. However, this is not spelled out in detail, and it will probably not be on the scale of Joe Biden's previous commitments, even if it is the whole raison d'etre for the deal as far as Ukraine is concerned.

One interesting element of the agreement (or at least of an additional "technical" deal that is proposed to accompany it) is that, for its first ten years, the USA will forego its share of the proceeds, which will be fully invested in Ukraine's economy, either in new projects or reconstruction. This seems very generous and un-Trumplike, so let's see whether it gets included in the final deal.

So, the deal represents a strange hybrid of the expected cynical realpolitik from the Trump administration, and something altogether more humanitarian and unexpected. Of course, coming from Trump's America, I really would not trust it to come to fruition or be upheld without a bunch more last minute changes.

I'm also very unsure about this kind of hard-negotiation arm-twisting in order to provide something that was freely given for years under the previous administration. Equating Ukraine's existential issues with commercial transactions and "filthy lucre" seems morally reprehensible somehow. But you can see why a desperate Ukraine might be tempted to agree to it, when their very existence is on the line.

Doug Ford goes full Trump

Doug Ford has gone off on a rant again - he admits as much himself. Still smarting from an Ontario Supreme Court ruling that stops him from taking out a bunch of recently installed bike lanes in Toronto, which Mr. Ford finds inconvenient on his commute into Queen's Park, he has gone full Trump, painting the whole judicial system as full of "terrible, terrible, bleeding heart judges" who make decisions based on "ideology". 

This comes about a month after another Ontario judge ruled against Ford's ill-advised (and apparently illegal) plan to shut down all supervised drug consumption sites. So, maybe Ford's oversized ego is feeling a little bruised.

"I can't wait until they retire", he rants, "matter of fact, I'll pay them to retire early ... just get out of the system". He went further: "Let's start electing our judges, holding them accountable".

Of course, what Ford means is that he respectfully disagrees with their decisions, decisions made impartially on their own merits, based as they were on Canadian and Ontario case law and statutes. But that's a long way from what he actually said, and he overstepped his boundaries by a long chalk. Clearly, it is actually Ford who is acting on ideology. He is saying that these respected judges' considered decisions are wrong just because they don't jibe with his own political views.

And calling for American-style elected judges? - and we've seen how THAT is going - that is just beyond the pale. Maybe Ford was just having a bad, frustrating day, but a professional politician just doesn't say these things out loud, whatever they may say in the privacy of their own toilet. 

This was an unfortunate and embarrassing rant, and it even elicited a joint statement by Ontario's three chief justices, chastising Ford for his inappropriate outburst and defending an independent judiciary as "a cornerstone of our constitutional democracy", reminding Ford that "an independent judiciary protects the public, not just judges. It means a society governed by the rule of law."

For a guy who set himself up as a bulwark against the excesses of Donald Trump during the recent provincial election, he sure sounds like Donald Trump sometimes.