So, now that the UCP has rolled out their anti-trans legislation, we can take a long look at it. Yesterday, they tabled 3 related bills and earlier in the week they tabled their amendments to the "Alberta Bill of Rights". I'm not the fastest read of law, and I suspect that some of the legislation has been created to tangle the courts up. So ... this is probably part 1 of a series.
Anyways, let's dive in.
Yesterday, I talked about how fully 1/3 of the resolutions in the upcoming UCP AGM were distinctly anti-transgender. Today, I want to look at the picture that the overall resolutions document paints about the UCP in its current form.
Broadly speaking, the policy resolutions fall into a few big categories: (Note: I have summarized the resolution in my own words - so you'll find a significant amount of snark in there)
Resolution #5 - Ban carbon taxes
Resolution #6 - Ottawa is asserting too much control over Alberta
Resolution #10 - Ban on agreements with Ottawa by organizations that exist under the jurisdiction of the Alberta government. (Expansion of the "municipalities can't take money from Ottawa w/out Alberta government approval)
Resolution #15 - Alberta has to have control over immigration (honorary additional placement under racism - because we all know that this is about keeping Alberta white too)
Resolution #21 - Alberta should further distance itself from Ottawa (go Separatists!)
Resolution #1 - Eliminate Diversity Equity and Inclusion
Resolution #2 - Banning transgender women from washrooms/change rooms/etc.
Resolution #4 - Banning minors from "sexually explicit performances" (e.g. Drag events?)
Resolution #7 - Parental rights (anti-trans/anti-2SLGBTQ)
Resolution #8 - Parental rights / parents dictate curriculum
Resolution #12 - CO2 is really good for us!
Resolution #13 - Elected officials should not engage with WHO, WEF, or the UN (apparently)
Resolution #14 - Defund treatment for transgender people
Resolution #15 - Alberta has to have control over immigration (honorary additional placement under racism - because we all know that this is about keeping Alberta white too)
Resolution #16 - There can only be two sexes!!!!
Resolution #19 - Protect crown lands from seizure by the UN(? - clearly aimed at aboriginal rights, so it goes under racism.)
Resolution #23 - Hold the AHRC accountable for the decisions they make (Because apparently religious freedoms are being suppressed?)
Resolution #25 - No digital ID!!! (Uh - okay - why?)
Resolution #27 - No vouching for other voters! (because electoral fraud is rampant? I guess?)
Resolution #31 - DEI is evil and it creates reverse racism!
Resolution #32 - Force the so-called "Chicago Principles" on universities (because they're too left wing, donchaknow!)
Resolution #2 - Banning Unions from donating monies to political parties
Resolution #24 - The ATA is too powerful, so membership should be optional
Resolution #34 - Recall should be easier to accomplish! (Because they couldn't overthrow Gondek last winter)
Resolution #9 - Disclosure of funding sources for groups lobbying / protest against the government (This one also has tinges of conspiracy theory)
Resolution #11 - Utility Fees
Resolution #17 - Force municipal plebiscites on land use changes (might be reasonable - but I doubt it)
Resolution #18 - Hey, we should do something about getting better at managing our forests and dealing with fires. (Ya think?!)
Resolution #20 - Eliminate retention bonuses in the government bureaucracy. (Watch the exodus as long term staffers up and leave for private sector roles that pay better...)
Resolution #21 - Promoting trades and technical training in schools. (could be reasonable, although we know conservatives hate education in colleges and universities ... so ...)
Resolution #26 - We need to train more doctors in Alberta (No argument there - but don't bank on them hanging about afterwards any longer than they have to)
Resolution #28 - Ban cell phones in schools. (Ill informed at best, unrealistic in any real sense)
Resolution #29 - Rejig the food supply system to suit small production farms (Sure? Realistic? Nope)
Resolution #30 - Modify the flat tax structure (a bit - not nearly enough)
Resolution #33 - Landowner Rights - basically let's hamstring any kind of development or change by giving landowners a complete veto - that'll go well.
Resolution #35 - Build reservoirs to ensure a dependable water supply (sure ... but let's ignore the pollution that strip mining mountains is going to create?)
About 1/3 of these resolutions are topics that I would say are "legitimate matters of policy" - which is to say that it might be possible to have a meaningful and fulsome debate around the merits of the position being taken. The rest is either thinly veiled separatist rhetoric, or nonsense that is rooted in hate, fear, and ignorance. Think about that for a moment: 2/3 of the resolutions have nothing to do with reasonable and legitimate matters of government.
In the world of conspiracy theories and suchlike, the resolutions are outright attacks on "out groups" (them who isn't us - basically), whether that is attacking transgender people or First Nations doesn't matter. Attacking DEI is basically a claim of "reverse racism" (which isn't a thing - bias against minorities most definitely is). Throw in a few random grievances about "free speech", and you have a good picture of what is going on here.
The UCP isn't a party interested in making Alberta "better". This is a party that is interested in suppressing those it dislikes, poking a stick in Ottawa's eye at every opportunity, and generally being difficult on everything else. What does pass for serious(-ish) policy topics are often overly simplistic solutions to problems that are guaranteed to either fail or be impractical to implement.
This is a party that has been overtaken by single-issue zealots who have agreed to mutual support as long as they don't have to compromise anything with the target of their ire.
The UCP's policy resolutions were published on the party website the other day. It's about as bad as you might expect, worse if you're a transgender person.
Let's take a look, shall we?
So, you say you want to “depoliticize” the debate over your proposed horrors you wish to inflict on Alberta’s transgender youth?
The answer to that is “drop the legislation”. Do not proceed with it. Do not attempt to restrict transgender people through legislation.
To me, this is no different than your recent pandering to the fools who think “chemtrails” are a thing. You need to stop giving oxygen to the frothing lunatics who have detached themselves from reality. Not a single thing you have said about transgender people is true and making laws based not on evidence but misinformation is simply wrong.
I’m sure that the discourse within the UCP is that all this “hate” coming from “the left” is entirely just “politics” - after all “the left” is never willing to be “reasonable”. (Or so it seems to go within UCP circles).
Who did you consult with? You didn’t consult with the professionals who work with the transgender community, nor did you consult with the community itself and its organizations. Consulting with a handful of trans folk who happen to belong to the UCP (and apparently believe the same nonsense you’re spouting) isn’t consultation.
You want to talk about protecting trans youth? How about protecting them from the bullying and harassment that they are subjected to constantly? How about doing something to promote their humanity? Instead, you make them out as some kind of threat to society.
The Alberta “United Conservative Party” hates you - and it’s with a level of visceral loathing that is inexplicable. Live in an urban centre? Well, the cancellation of the Green Line is one of many examples of their loathing for anyone that isn’t “them”.
Then the National Post published some of the policy proposals that the party is looking at for this fall’s convention. To call it ‘hate-filled’ is perhaps the kindest thing I can say about it. The levels of ignorance and hatred contained in the motions is stunning, but also telling.
The UCP now owns the entirety of the Green Line debacle. Every last bit of its demise lands at their doorstep.
Let me explain a bit here. The current efforts to get this project underway date back to 2010 or so. By 2017, the City of Calgary, Province of Alberta, and Government of Canada had all agreed on funding, and an alignment had been worked out.
The City's own website on the project contains a huge history that goes back to 2011, and proposals around creating the line had been ongoing long before that. This is reflected by the reality that 52St SE has clear space along its west side from 130 Ave south into Auburn bay. Considering that MacKenzie Towne started development back in the 1990s, I think this particular project has a much longer history than 2010.
While I agree with much of what David Climenhaga argues about the immediate fallout from the UCP government's decision, I also think his argument overlooks some very important history - history that needs to be talked about here.
Political meddling in major infrastructure projects in Alberta isn't new. The original plans for the LRT in Calgary would have had lines run to all the major quadrants of Calgary by the end of the 1980s. Clearly that didn't happen, and goodness knows the original south leg alignment has more than a handful of decisions made by skinflint policy makers who panicked over costs instead of paying attention to long term functionality. Almost always the meddling came from the Provincial Government - usually in the form of withholding funding.
The 2019 budget tabled by a newly elected UCP government slashed funding to the cities, creating holes and delays for the project. Then, in 2020, McIver slammed the brakes on the Green Line project. In 2021, the government leaving its foot on the financial brakes meant that construction couldn't start that year and in 2022, the city had restart the bidding process to hire a company to do the construction. These aren't fast processes and the contracts are complex - plan on it taking the best part of a year (or more) for that to finish up.
Fast forward to 2024, in spring, Smith takes a swipe at Calgary over possible cost overruns on the Green Line. On the heels of that, city council goes back and refactors things to reduce cost risk. The province green lights it, only to completely pull its funding a week or so ago.
See the pattern here? The city works diligently to put together a plan, only to have an increasingly interventionist UCP government pull the rug out from underneath it. More importantly, while the city has been diligently trying to move the project along, it has been the province holding things up for reasons that are increasingly unclear and unreasonable.
Not only does this underscore the fact that the UCP has no respect for the municipalities, but it is perfectly willing to overturn any decision a municipality makes to satisfy its own political agenda. In this case, the "agenda" seems to be making people like Jim Gray happy, rather than focusing on Calgarians. I know Mr. Gray will swear up and down that he has Calgarians' "best interests at heart", but frankly he only does to the extent that he can profit from those interests. Add to that the sudden interest in building a rail link out to Banff - seemingly to benefit the owners of the Mt Norquay ski hill - one does have to become more than a little bit suspicious that the recent collapse of the Green Line project has much more to do with making certain UCP donors/supporters more wealthy than it does anything else.
Meanwhile, the province's actions have opened the City of Calgary up to a great deal of both legal and financial liability. Not only will it cost millions to wind up the current Green Line project, but it will also open the city to lawsuits from the various contractors who are finding their contracts cancelled abruptly based on the Province's actions.
While the municipality carries the liability for those contracts directly (yet another way the UCP is setting out to further punish Calgary for daring to elect NDP MLAs last election), there is an argument to be made that the City can, and should, sue the province for its actions as being damaging to the fiscal and legal interests of the City. In fact, recent legislation where the province explicitly gave itself the right to overrule municipal governments when it doesn't like what they are doing could be used in court to argue that the liability at least in part should be shifted to a provincial government that has decided that its authority supersedes that of everybody else.
In the realm of "unintended consequences", the actions of the province here are going to make it much more costly for Canadian municipalities to negotiate any kind of contract. It makes absolutely clear that unless the provincial government signs on the dotted line as well, that no contract with a municipal government is secure.
So … the UCP wants the Green Line to be above ground as it passes through downtown. The reasoning for this is ostensibly the “complexity” of dealing with water issues. I call bullshit on this for a number of reasons.
First, the original plan for the LRT was an underground line (yes, this goes back to the 1970s), and we ended up backing away from it “because of the costs”, and the result is the 7th Avenue “Transit Corridor” which has been a disaster from day one.
Why do I call it a disaster? For many of the same reasons that I consider the alignment of the original line with the railway lines running out of south Calgary. First and foremost, it created a “people hostile” zone along 7th Avenue. Some of the creepiest parts of downtown Calgary are along there because redevelopment along a transit corridor is hard - nobody wants to live there, and street level businesses get decimated because nobody actually wants to be along that chunk of real estate - lots of people “pass by”, but everybody is rushing to either get the next train / bus, or to get to some other part of downtown as quickly as possible.
Then there is the ongoing problems of pedestrian and vehicle interactions with the train at crossings. There is a regular stream of collisions with transit LRT vehicles along that corridor, and for all that officials keep reminding the public to be “careful around the trains”, it doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of difference.
It has long been my opinion that the “7th Avenue Transit Corridor” should have been slammed underground on day one. It wasn’t because Calgary is notoriously cheap about major infrastructure projects.
As for “the difficulties of managing water table issues”, the more you look at it, the less sense this makes. Every major city that has underground public transit has to deal with this issue. They all seem to be able to do it successfully. Arguing that it’s “too hard” with a relatively minor river the size of the Bow river in the vicinity. Compare the Bow to the major rivers in other cities with underground infrastructure and the answer is “no, it’s not that hard to deal with”. The Thames in London is much larger and more complex and subway infrastructure was being build under it back in the 1800s.
I find it laughable that the UCP is arguing against an underground alignment for the Green Line on the basis of “cost”. An above ground, or even elevated alignment is just going to carve Calgary up even further, and make it significantly harder to move around and through the areas where the LRT tracks exist - effectively isolating parts of downtown and inner city Calgary from each other.
This isn’t about cost - it never was. This is about a UCP government hell-bent on punishing Calgary for the perceived slight of having dared to vote NDP last election. They’re going to try and cast this as being about Nenshi and wanting a “caviar and champagne” solution for transit, and in the process they are going to fuck over decades of complex urban planning work which will end up costing Calgarians even more in the long run.
… and don’t get me started on so-called “PPP” options. Those are never a “win” for the public. NEVER.
So, now that the UCP has rolled out their anti-trans legislation, we can take a long look at it. Yesterday, they tabled 3 related bills and...
