About “Forced Treatment” and Homelessness

I need to comment on the political pressure to force people experiencing addiction into treatment. Superficially, it seems to address a problem in society, but the reality is that this is a political approach to the wrong problem. 

Is addiction (and the deaths resulting from a toxic drug supply) a problem?  Absolutely.  Is this a solution to the social issues that are being assigned to addicts?  No.

Let me explain myself. 

Let’s assume for a moment that forced treatment will actually work, and produces a stream of people who are now former addicts.  Most of the people we are going to push into these programs are likely homeless, and therefore living fairly rough lives.  If they’re “lucky” they might be able to sleep in shelters, or have a room in a decrepit old hotel now being used as housing.  (Neither environment is exactly a good place to live - and a lot of the same factors that lead to drug use exist in both). 

At the end of the treatment program, we (theoretically) are going to release these newly sober people back into society.  Guess what?  You’ve just released a “newly sober” homeless person back into the same environment they were in before.  How long do you think it’s going to be before they relapse when suddenly all their old buddies are around, and urging them to participate in the same activities?  

Sure, creating these “shiny” facilities that we can sweep the homeless people into makes all the suburban types happy -  they don’t have to look at the people who have ended up at the bottom of the social and economic ladders any more. 

But, unless you are addressing all of the issues that lead to homelessness in a constructive manner, guess what?  You’re just creating the same “revolving door” problem that we complain about in the criminal justice systems.  Once that door starts spinning, not only do you have problems with relapse, but the risk of overdose goes up as well.  Oh, and let’s not ignore the effects of “institutionalization” that happen when someone spends extended periods in an environment where they have little or no control over their daily existence.

There are a myriad of issues that need to be addressed:  housing, income, mental health, addiction, socialization (including integration with society), and a dozen other factors.  Treatment for addiction is but one facet of a much more complex problem that we need to think about intelligently.  Reactionary politics aimed at people freaking out over seeing a discarded syringe somewhere is missing the point, entirely.  

These problems didn’t appear overnight, and they won’t “go away” overnight because suddenly we give police the ability to round people up and force them into treatment.  At best you’re sweeping things under the carpet and hoping they’ll go away on their own after that.  They won’t.  They don’t.  The solutions to these problems require all of us to take notice and realize that the systems we live in aren’t working the way they should and major change is needed. 

When a person working full time can’t afford a decent place to live, we have created a problem - and no, the “invisible hand” of the free market isn’t going to fix that.  There are fundamental problems in our society that are the precursors to homelessness and addiction.  

Alberta's Anti-Trans Legislation

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.

The UCP AGM Resolutions - Part 2

 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)

Separatist / Ottawa Is Evil Grievances

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!) 

Conspiracy Theories / Hate Mongering / Racism

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!)

Cheap Political Shots At Opponents

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) 

Possibly Reasonable Stuff

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 2024 UCP AGM Policy Resolutions

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? 

Dear Marlaina (Danielle)

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 UCP Hates You

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 Owns The Green Line Project Fallout

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.