Turmoil in Conservative Land in BC

s͏p͏o͏t͏e͏o͏n͏S͏r͏d͏g͏1͏i͏3͏a͏8͏a͏8͏1͏g͏0͏1͏c͏2͏8͏1͏h͏g͏i͏a͏i͏h͏i͏0͏5͏3͏6͏0͏4͏m͏7͏m͏a͏u͏l͏h͏u͏1͏u͏i͏9͏7͏7͏l͏6͏1͏3͏  

 From an article posted on Facebook the other day.

 

Holy smokes! 13 BC Conservative MLAs have left/been booted out of their party - down from 44 BC MLAs after the 2024 BC election, and now with only 31 MLAs remaining...and apparently more will exit the BC Conservative-MAGA Party soon 

 

Conservative anti-environmentalists must never ascend to power in BC, nor in Canada. There is too much at stake.  Luckily BC Conservative-MAGA Party leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay and her friend Pierre Poilievre will ensure that this is the case - as long as they are party leaders.

 

In the Canadian Press:

 

Here's how the B.C. Conservatives have lost 13 legislators:

 

The B.C. Conservatives came within three ridings of victory in the 2024 provincial election, winning 44 seats.  But since then, the party's caucus has been thinned by more than a quarter, amid differences over its ideology, and questions about its direction under both former leader John Rustad and new leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay.

 

Here are the 13 legislators who have exited the party, and why.

 

DALLAS BRODIE, JORDAN KEALY AND TARA ARMSTRONG:

 

Brodie (Vancouver-Quilchena) is thrown out of the caucus by Rustad on March 7, 2025, over remarks that Rustad says mocked residential school survivors. Armstrong (Kelowna-Lake Country-Coldstream) and Kealy (Peace River North) follow later that day, in sympathy with Brodie. Armstrong briefly joins Brodie as a member of the new OneBC party before they split. Because OneBC lacks official party status, both now sit as Independents, as does Kealy, who was charged with sexual assault this year. He denies the accusation.

 

ELENORE STURKO:

 

Sturko (Surrey-Cloverdale), a former RCMP officer, was a star recruit for Rustad's Conservatives when she left BC United in June 2024, ahead of the election. But he fires her from caucus on Sept. 23, 2025. She says Rustad accuses her of plotting against his leadership, a charge she denies. Sturko now sits as an Independent.

 

AMELIA BOULTBEE:

 

Boultbee (Penticton-Summerland) resigns from the Conservative caucus on Oct. 20, 2025, accusing Rustad of telling her to "get the F out." Rustad questions her health and state of mind. She sits as an Independent before joining the NDP caucus on July 3, 2026, saying that the Conservatives have swung toward "Trump-style populism" under new leader Findlay, who succeeded Rustad in May.

 

HON CHAN:

 

Chan (Richmond Centre) is removed from the Conservative caucus on March 26, 2026, by interim leader Trevor Halford, after Chan is charged with assault, assault by choking and uttering threats in a case of alleged intimate partner violence. Chan, now sitting as an Independent, says he disagrees with the allegations dating back to 2024, and plans to defend himself in court.

 

PETER MILOBAR:

 

Milobar (Kamloops Centre) quits the caucus on Aug. 14, citing a lack of "ideological alignment" with Findlay. Milobar, a former leadership contender and finance critic for the Opposition, had clashed with Findlay in a debate when she accused him of having a conflict of interest because Milobar's Indigenous wife once held paid positions with the local Indigenous band.

 

REANN GASPER:

 

Gasper (Abbotsford-Mission) resigns her seat on Aug. 22 so Findlay can run in a byelection. Gasper is appointed Findlay's deputy chief of staff.

 

IAN PATON:

 

Paton (Delta South) quits the party on Monday, saying the Conservatives' direction under Findlay no longer aligns with his beliefs and he intends to form a new party with Milobar. Milobar says at the announcement that he and Paton could be a party of two, but suggests there could be more defections.

 

ROSALYN BIRD:

 

Bird (Prince George-Valemount) quits the Conservatives on Tuesday. She says she will sit as an Independent, issuing a statement warning about divisive leadership. She says legislators "should be able to firmly reject racism, antisemitism, homophobia and hatred while still having difficult and necessary conversations about immigration, Indigenous reconciliation, addiction, crime, gender, religion and the many other issues on which reasonable people sometimes disagree."

 

TERESA WAT:

 

Wat (Richmond-Bridgeport) resigns from the party on Wednesday to sit as an Independent. She accuses Findlay of reneging on a promise to apologize over "serious and unfounded accusations" reportedly made by Findlay about Wat, calling her "CCP," a reference to the Chinese Communist Party. Wat says she cannot remain in a party whose leader has questioned her loyalty to Canada, while Findlay says Wat's departure is a "betrayal of the hardworking volunteers, campaign workers and voters who helped get her elected."

 

BRENNAN DAY:

 

Day (Courtenay-Comox) exits later Wednesday, saying he no longer supports the direction of the party under Findlay. Day says he has lost confidence in the judgment, conduct and ethical standards of Findlay's leadership and the people she surrounds herself with. He says he will sit as an "Independent Conservative."

 

BRUCE BANMAN:

 

Banman (Abbotsford South) quits to sit as an Independent on Thursday, rallying other Conservatives to join him "regardless of political affiliation." He says many have told him Findlay is "unelectable," and that under her another election win by the NDP is becoming increasingly likely. Banman gave the B.C. Conservatives official party status in the legislature in 2023 when he crossed the floor to join Rustad, in a key moment on the party's path to becoming the official Opposition.

 

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 28, 2026.

 

 

Canada's New Identity?

[This was posted earlier to Facebook, originally an article from the G&M.  I'm posting it here verbatim and unedited.]

 

"This was in the Globe and Mail. Worth a read and some thought. Canada has been carving out a new identity, slowly but surely. What are we becoming?  Our bold declaration of sovereignty is just the latest signal that this country, long defined by cautious evolution, is both changing and being changed.

 

by Stephen Marche, author of "The Next Civil War" and the host of the podcast, "Gloves Off".

 

In the aftermath of the collapse of trade negotiations with the U.S., it has become clear that Canada’s refusal was so much more than a mere economic decision. It was an almost revolutionary statement of independence.

 

Canada is not, by its nature, a revolutionary country. A series of crises have forced our evolution, from colonies to Confederation to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Slowly but surely, bit by bit, we’ve become a little more Canadian over time. Now, the global position we used to hold – sidekick to America in the liberal world order – has fallen apart. Some people are still managing to pretend, at least to themselves, that the old times will return, but there’s no going back. And nobody can articulate a sensible strategy that would rely on such misplaced optimism.

 

While it is hard, nearly impossible, to see past the current dumpster fire of moment-by-moment fury to see the larger picture, Canada is changing, fundamentally and permanently – partly because of outside events, but also because of choices we are making in how we react to those events. Canada’s refusal last week to be vassalized by the United States is one such small, vital choice.

 

So nearly two years into the second Trump administration, it is time to ask: Where is this all going? What is Canada becoming?

 

The world is changing so rapidly that any articulation of Canada’s place in it can only be partial and temporary. The second Trump administration is a global crisis as much as a Canadian one; after all, Mr. Trump’s neo-imperialist 51st-state rhetoric soon morphed into serious musing about an invasion of Greenland, which sent NATO members scrambling earlier this year. This complicates any effort to define what Canada is and is trying to be.

 

Since Mark Carney’s speech at Davos in January, Canada has become a leader. This country has always been quite popular – which is fairly easy when you don’t have a secret service or a taste for starting wars, and you have (until recently) an open immigration policy – but the reasons for our current prominence are mostly accidental.

For one thing, Canada was first to understand that the U.S. was curdling. We have the clearest eyes on America. As far as any country can know where America is heading, it’s us. For another, every country has strengthened their bonds with other countries as a natural defence against America’s retreat, and Canada is at the centre of those expanding connections. This strategy of variable geometry is well under way, and its progress has been stunning. When Gloves Off mapped all the connections that have been established since Mr. Trump returned to power, we found that 116 agreements had been announced between 31 countries excluding the United States.

 

When you change your relationship to the rest of the world, you change who you are. Our material reality is changing; our spiritual reality will change as a result, too.

One way to read this change is to say that Canada is turning toward Europe and away from the United States. “This fall we will begin intense discussions with the European Union, build a much stronger and deeper economic and security partnership,” Mr. Carney announced the day after the U.S. trade negotiations collapsed. Even minor distinctions, like the fact that we’re joining the Eurovision Song Contest, matter. But this political push and pull between Europe and the United States has long existed in Canada. We have always found a balance between the economic freedom, frontier mentality and general openness of the new world, and the social democratic values and more collective approach to politics of European states. Once upon a time, that balance was the basic value proposition of this country, and the political debate between liberal and conservative sides here were ultimately questions of emphasis – sometimes a little bit more American in style, sometimes a little bit more European.

 

In a sense, that political division remains more in force now than ever. Mr. Carney’s Liberals are seeking to make us more European; the Conservatives want us to remain more American in spirit. Their problem is that they have great difficulty in articulating in what sense, because the America that they want to attach us to has vanished, the America we all loved has vanished. And so they dwell with ghosts, or simply deny that the American threat is real, or argue that the variable geometry isn’t working, or cannot work, even when it is evident that it is working.

 

They also ignore this key fact: It is not Canada who has turned away from America. It is America that has become less like us.

 

Canada’s reaction to the threat from the United States, and the revelation that the networks that dominate trade have become vulnerabilities, has been twofold. The first is an absolute insistence on sovereignty. There has never been a time in this country’s history when that word has been used more regularly and with such vehemence. Sovereignty is not just some political status; it has become the essence of Canada’s economic, technological and military policy. Even though we have the most to lose, we have stood up against the new American threat more strongly than any other country in the free world.

 

The second is that, rather than shutting down, Canada has opened up. The path to more sovereignty comes from expanding our connections around the world. This double movement – toward sovereignty, by way of expanding connections – has defined the country over the past two years. And it’s what the world wants: That’s why our Prime Minister is the most trusted political figure in Australia right now.

 

But Canada reflects the current moment in another strange, almost depressing, way: Our natural hard-headedness is oddly well-suited to the geopolitics of 2026.

 

There’s been a quote making its way around the world since the advent of the second Trump administration: “The old world is dying and the new world is struggling to be born. Now is the time of monsters.” It’s attributed to the Italian Communist writer Antonio Gramsci, and while he never actually said those exact words, whatever – it works. It sums up so thoroughly where we stand.

 

But what new world is struggling to be born? Gramsci was an old Communist, so he had a vision of a utopian future: a world where human potential was liberated into a collective freedom. Today, however, utopian visions have completely evaporated. We are obviously in a moment of breakdown, of grand failure.

 

Canada, though, has never been a country of utopias. It’s too damn cold, too rough. In fact, it’s a country in resistance to utopia in several senses.

 

The first came at its founding. While the Americans dreamed of a shining city on a hill, Canadians just wanted a garrison that made it through the winter. They had the Revolution; we had Dominion status. They had “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”; we had “peace, order and good government.”

 

Soon, we became home to a bunch of diasporic communities fleeing from their own failed utopias, whether it was Italians from fascist Italy, Ukrainians from Stalinism, or Persians from the Islamic Republic. And through this, too, Canada became a place defined by simpler promises: common sense, common decency, a chance for your kids to have a slightly better life than you. That’s the idea, anyway.

 

In the Canadian ideal – radically distinct from the Canadian reality – there is no all-Canadian boy or girl. There is only a world in which every culture has something to contribute to the enrichment of the whole. Paradise on Earth is largely understood here as a contradiction in terms, though wilderness can be preserved. Government does not exist to realize the redemption of humanity, but to preserve the basic stability that enables people to build lives for themselves. The equality that the cold forces on us is its own distinct kind of social justice. These ideals are very different from dreams of the end of history as socialists or neo-liberals have conceived of it.

 

In short, Canada is the utopia of no utopia. It is not about the pursuit of some skewed dream of dominance or some false idol of historical greatness. Where the other countries of the Anglosphere – the U.S., Britain – have been consumed by their own sense of historical self-importance, Canada has retained its brute practicality. So it is little wonder that, with the world falling apart, it hired a greying banker to lead it.

 

Crisis shapes people and countries, and Canada has been in crisis since the beginning of the second Trump administration. The disorientation of the new world disorder has provoked an intense flurry of activity, but this moment will fade, and it is much too soon to know exactly who we will turn out to be.

 

But a few hints are emerging. Stubbornness appears to be a trait. Distrust of grand visions and get-rich-quick schemes is another. The Americans’ offer was an unprecedented attempt to end Canadian sovereignty – and its rejection was an equally unprecedented insistence on Canadian independence.

 

“Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,” Marshall McLuhan said in 1963. He might have been right six decades ago, but his insight no longer applies. We are forming ourselves, even as we are being formed."

 

 

Apocalypse Now?

 Forest fires over the past few weeks, especially in the past week, have made air quality rather grim around here.  This is a screenshot of the air quality in south-central-eastern BC and northern Washington and Idaho. 

Air quality on August 9th, 2026 at around 8 am

 It's interesting to see the climate chance deniers rush to claim that 1) humans aren't the cause, 2) CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, 3) it's been hotter in the Earth's past, 4) China is to blame, 5) fires are all caused by arsonists, 6) poor forest management practices are to blame, 7) the Earth isn't warming up, 8) CO2 is plant food..... you get the picture.

 To be clear,  climate change, natural or human caused, didn't start these fires.  It's just made everything much worse.  A recent fire just outside Summerland, BC, that forced the evacuation of the whole community of 12,000, has been described as exploding like a bomb.

 Meanwhile, we're wearing masks when we have to go outside, we have air filters running inside and I'm working on sprinkler systems that might help to protect the house in the event of a fire.

 This is partly why I've started disliking summer. 

Charllie Kirk - One Viewpoint

 Copied from Facebook

 by Cory Nichols

  ·

The misinformation surrounding Charlie Kirk is astounding - and I’m not talking about average people sounding off on social media - I’m talking about the BS being spread by major news outlets.

While Kirk’s shooter was obviously overly steeped in internet whackadoo memelord culture - the “normies” don’t have a clue about how internet culture works at all.

Charlie Kirk wasn’t someone who was looking for honest debate. He was a political operative spreading hate and divisiveness. When you show his fans his racist, sexist or bigoted rhetoric - they defend it by saying “That’s not (racist, sexist, bigoted) - it’s true.” And that was his goal.

The whole “Prove Me Wrong” setup that made Kirk famous wasn’t really about proving anyone wrong. It was about creating content. Kirk mastered a specific type of performance that looked like debate but functioned more like a carefully orchestrated show designed to make his opponents look foolish and his positions seem unassailable.

The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.

First, there’s the obvious setup problem.

Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready.

Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It’s like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined.

Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method. Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he’d ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He’d start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.

The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - “What is a woman?” - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he’d demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he’d find edge cases or exceptions to exploit.

The goal wasn’t understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory.

Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

The editing process was equally important. Kirk’s team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.

What’s particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn’t interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.

The “Prove Me Wrong” framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk’s format did the opposite.

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.” Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.

The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren’t just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.

Kirk’s approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren’t just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.

The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can’t lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine.

The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it’s worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged.

Climate Cover Up - Book Review

Climate Cover-Up

by James Hoggan

Worth reading if you want to understand how vested interests have hijacked all discussions about 1) whether climate change exists, and  2) the human industrialized role in that change, and  3) whether there is much disagreement between scientists about the causes of climate change, and 4) whether we can/should do anything about it.

 This review is from Greystone Books:

An insider's view of how the energy industry has fuelled a bogus controversy about climate change.

This book rips the lid off the campaign to discredit scientists, confuse journalists, and deny climate change. The tactics have been slick, but PR expert James Hoggan and investigative journalist Richard Littlemore have compiled a readable, accessible guidebook through the muck. Beginning with leaked memos from the coal industry, the oil industry and the tobacco-sponsored lie-about-science industry, the authors expose the plans to "debunk" global warming; they track the execution of those plans; and they illuminate the results—confusion, inaction, and an epidemic of public mistrust.

Climate Cover-Up names names, identifying bogus experts who are actually paid lobbyists and flaks. The authors reveal the PR techniques used to misinform, to mangle the language, and to intimidate the media into maintaining a phony climate change debate. Exposing the seedy origins of that debate, this book will leave you fuming at the extent, the effect, and the ethical affront of the climate cover-up.

The REAL Menace on Our Streets?

 We've all seen them.  Riding along the streets, almost without effort.  That menace to the established order.  E-bikes.

  The online publication Electrik posted a partly tongue-in-cheek essay about the "menace of e-bikes".  

 Electric bikes are a menace. They go almost as fast as a car (if the car is parking), they’re whisper quiet (which makes them impossible to hear over the podcast playing in your headphones), and worst of all, they’re increasingly ridden by teenagers.

By now, we’ve all seen the headlines. Cities are cracking down. Lawmakers are holding emergency hearings. Parents are demanding bans. “Something must be done,” they cry at local city council meetings before driving back home in 5,000 lb SUVs.

And it’s true – some e-bike riders don’t follow the rules. Some ride too fast. Some are inexperienced. These are real problems that deserve real solutions. But if you think electric bikes are the biggest threat on our roads, just wait until you hear about the slightly more common, slightly more deadly vehicle we’ve been quietly tolerating for the last hundred years.

 They’re called cars. And unlike e-bikes, they actually kill people. A lot of people. Over 40,000 people die in car crashes in the US every year. Thousands more are permanently injured. Entire neighborhoods are carved up by high-speed traffic. Kids can’t walk to school safely. But don’t worry – someone saw a teenager run a stop sign on an e-bike, so the real crisis must be those darn batteries on two wheels.

 The REAL menaces on our streets are cars, specifically large, heavy cars, distracted drivers, speeding drivers, lack of bike lanes, lack of decent shoulders on roads and simply too much traffic - car and truck traffic.  Bikes are one solution to most of those menaces.

 

Oh Alberta - Grievances?

 

Copied from Facebook on May 28th, 2025

eoropntdsS3l  ·  

Let’s drop the phoney Alberta versus Canada nonsense. The province has met the enemy — and it is them

 

by Jim Stanford - Toronto Star

 

Because the Liberal party won the most seats in a national election (the fourth time in a row), but most Alberta ridings went Conservative (for the umpteenth time in a row), Canada is now said to be facing a national unity crisis.

Premier Danielle Smith facilitates separatism (while claiming she doesn’t support it).

Alberta business leaders play the national unity card in demanding fast approval of more pipelines: unless the oil industry (assumed to proxy Alberta’s general interests) gets what it wants, national unity is in jeopardy.

Federal Conservatives, while disavowing explicit separatism, reinforce the claim Alberta has been mistreated by the country. Interim leader Andrew Scheer, on X, complains Ottawa has “attacked Canada’s oil and gas industry for 10 years.”

An aspiring Alberta MP-in-waiting, Pierre Poilievre, echoes that view. While saying he personally opposes separation, Poilievre complains “Albertans have a lot of legitimate grievances,” the result he says of a decade of attacks on oil. This rhetoric will excite the voters of Battle River-Crowfoot. Whether it helps Mr. Poilievre contest a future federal election, however, is a different question.

Many Albertans are indeed frustrated and angry — and with reason.

There is no province where real incomes and living standards have deteriorated more in the past decade than Alberta. According to StatsCan, Alberta has experienced the second-biggest increase in incidence of low income of any province since 2015.

Workers have endured a 10 per cent decline in real wages(adjusted for inflation) over the last decade, worse than any other province. Minimum wages haven’t budged in seven years.

Despite falling real wages, living costs remain among the highest in Canada, and Alberta suffered the highest inflation of any province last year. Electricity prices, auto insurance, and tuition fees — all governed by provincial rules — have soared faster than anywhere else in Canada.

But can any of these problems be blamed on the rest of Canada, or the federal government? In particular, does Alberta’s hardship stem from suppression of Alberta’s oil industry, as Mr. Poilievre claims?

This is an obvious attempt at diversion that Albertans should dismiss.

During this decade of relentless federal “attacks,” Alberta’s oil production grew by 52 per cent. Production records are being broken again in 2025, tracking more than 4.4 million barrels a day so far. The expanded TMX pipeline — bought and completed at federal expense — has boosted both output and prices, modestly reducing the long-standing discount on Canadian oil sales in the U.S Midwest.

Oil industry profits have also never been higher, thanks to record volumes, cost-cutting, and the 2022 oil price spike.

Petroleum producers and refiners pocketed after-tax profit of $192 billion over the last four years alone — four times more than in the entire 2010s. Corporate profits gobble up a huge slice of Alberta’s GDP: about 40 per cent of total output over the last five years, twice as much as the rest of Canada.

In short, there’s never been more oil wealth generated in Alberta, despite (or perhaps because of) the Liberals holed up in Ottawa.

Yet average Albertans aren’t getting their share of it.

The boom in oil production and profits certainly isn’t translating into jobs.

Oil extraction and service firms shed more than 30,000 jobs in the province over the last ten years, even as production boomed.

In 2014 the industry hired 128 workers for every million barrels of oil produced. Last year, thanks to self-driving trucks, automated facilities, and downsizing, that number halved to just 61.

So it’s no surprise residents of my home province are cranky.

Their economy produces more GDP per worker than any other. The economic pie they bake is bigger than ever. But the average Albertan’s standard of living is lower than a decade ago.

It wasn’t Ottawa that laid them off, cut their pay, froze the minimum wage, drove up electricity and insurance costs, and put their health care at risk. It was the enemy within.

Alberta’s oligarchs aren’t speaking for the province, they are speaking for themselves.

And the sooner the rest of the population can get past the phoney Alberta versus Canada narrative, the sooner they’ll start toward a genuine solution to their woes: namely, winning a fairer share of the abundant wealth they already produce.