Friday, April 28, 2023

Big Risks, Long Hours, Low Pay: The Lives of BC Log Truckers

As forests shrink, drivers work 16-hour days to deliver single loads of logs to BC sawmills.


Ben Parfitt 
12 Apr 2023
TheTyee.ca
Ben Parfitt is resource policy analyst for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives BC Office.

Longer and longer days, bigger risks and less pay for logging truckers. 
Photo via Shutterstock.

When Eugene Wilson started driving a logging truck 24 years ago, he worked out of the Bulkley Valley community of Houston three hours west of Prince George.

He recalls the trips as if they were yesterday. He’d begin the morning driving a short distance west out of town. Then he’d turn off the highway onto the first of two industrial roads that he’d follow for about 70 kilometres before arriving at the logging site.

After pulling up at a landing — a flattened, dirt-packed area where stacks of logs awaited loading — he would wait as his truck bed was filled with tens of thousands of kilograms of logs. He’d then secure the load and head back to town to drop the logs off at the sawmill.

Every day he made three round trips before heading home for supper and bed. The days behind the wheel were long. But the pay was steady and he had few complaints.

The longer he drove, though, the more things changed. The sawmills in Smithers, Houston, Burns Lake, Fort St. James, Vanderhoof and Prince George all needed lots of logs, some of them a million or more a year. Feeding them required constant logging.

The Tyee is supported by readers like you Join us and grow independent media in Canada


The more the logging progressed, “the further and further away from the mills the trees were,” Wilson says. Now, instead of delivering three loads of logs a day to the mill, he was down to delivering half as much.

The hauling distances became so great that it took Wilson 10 hours to make one round trip with one load of logs. To keep the logs flowing and the good paycheques coming, he would turn around after those 10 hours and drive five hours back to the logging site.

He’d sleep at a nearby camp overnight, then at first light the next day he’d drive back to the mill with one load and make one more round trip after that. Away from home every other night, Wilson and his wife, who does the family’s household and business accounting, decided they’d had enough.

Before dawn to after dusk

Wilson’s experiences behind the wheel are a brutal reality for many others. As British Columbia’s primary forests (those forests never before subject to industrial logging) shrink further still, the distance from forest to mill increases, necessitating longer and longer log hauls.

Earlier this year, The Tyee published an analysis by the B.C. office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives noting that a crash in forest industry employment is underway in B.C. partly because the best and easiest to access trees are gone.

The article noted that logging truck drivers who started work at daybreak are on the highway past midnight driving through the darkness toward Fort St. James to pick up logs somewhere far beyond town. The article questioned how long such drivers must work each day.

In response, a logging truck driver contacted The Tyee to say he wanted to speak about his experiences. He said many drivers routinely work brutal hours and there is a tacit agreement between drivers and their employers that records must be falsified sometimes so that drivers appear to be at or below the maximum number of hours they are allowed to be behind the wheel.

According to National Safety Code regulations, logging truck drivers are restricted to driving no more than 13 hours each day — a work day 62-per-cent longer than most Canadians work on average.

Other rules specify that drivers’ combined driving and non-driving work hours (non-driving work includes the time waiting for logs to be loaded and offloaded, putting chains on and off trucks, doing brake checks) cannot exceed 15 hours, and that they must have at least nine consecutive hours of non-driving time per day.

To protect his job, the driver requested anonymity. A second driver did the same. Both drivers were unaware the other had spoken. Coincidentally, both drivers worked recently in B.C.’s remote northwest region. Key aspects of their stories aligned and were corroborated by information in online job postings for logging truck drivers.

The first driver, who we will call Shane, is relatively new to the logging industry and describes his brief time on the job as a trial by fire.

When Shane called me one day in early February, he was near the small community of Kitwanga, which is where Highway 37 — also known as the Stewart-Cassiar Highway — begins. The highway is one of two northern transportation corridors connecting B.C. to Yukon and traverses some of the most remote and sparsely populated terrain in the province.

Shane was on the return leg of a trip that saw him begin his day at 2 a.m. when he woke for breakfast at a remote work camp near Dease Lake, a community of a few hundred people about 230 kilometres south of the Yukon border. Twelve hours later he was heading back to that camp having delivered one load of logs to Houston, a journey of 662 kilometres.

“They tell us we should be able to do the return trip in 13.5 hours. It takes closer to 15 or 16 if the weather is crap,” Shane said. But there are opportunities to hide the long hours. “If you have a paper log, you can manipulate that as much as you want.”

Shane added that the log load he dropped off in Houston did not stay there but was destined to be picked up by a second truck that would take the logs another 307 kilometres to a sawmill in Prince George. The total trip for one load of logs from the Dease Lake area to Prince George is nearly 1,000 kilometres.


Unbroken transportation

Prior to the arrival of trucks, conveying large numbers of logs great distances was limited by the energy required to move such heavy objects. Two key ways to save energy were exploiting gravity to move logs downhill or reducing friction.

On steep slopes in winter or during wet weather, logs could literally be slid downhill (at considerable cost in terms of damaged soils) on ground slides or on slides made of wood.

Logs could also be moved very effectively by floating or towing them on water or by damming streams. When the impounded water behind the dams was released by opening a sluice gate, tens of thousands of penned up logs would shoot downstream in the current. When logjams occurred as they often did, dynamite could be used to break up the logjams and get them moving again.

Cables were also used to elevate logs, allowing them to be moved above ground rather than across it to points where they could be put on slides or hauled away by horses or oxen pulling wagons or sledges.

For centuries, the movement of large numbers of logs occurred in three stages involving a short initial “skidding” phase where logs were dragged or wheeled a short distance along the ground, then an intermediate phase where they were slid or towed further, then a final journey by water or, later, by rail.

The arrival of the logging truck effectively reduced the transportation phases to two, with the logs simply having to be moved out of a cut block to the roadside for pickup by a truck, introducing a new “system of unbroken transportation” that remains to this day.

A not-so-novel idea — make the trucks bigger

By the 1940s, logging trucks became the primary way almost all logs were moved in the province. Harnessing the energy of the combustion engine both in the logging operations themselves and in log transportation changed everything. Now, forests that had once seemed impossible to reach were there for the taking.

One way to understand just how deep that reach became is to look at the number of “resource roads” in the province, the off-highway transportation corridors used primarily by the logging industry, but also by the mining and oil and gas industries.

Today, there are roughly 700,000 kilometres of resource roads of varying age and condition in the province. The roads reach into virtually every corner of B.C. and when combined stretch far enough to circle the Earth 17 times.

As B.C.’s forest companies grew and amalgamated, some of the largest sawmills on the planet emerged and the demand for more trees to process into lumber skyrocketed, requiring truck drivers to travel into ever more remote and in some cases extreme territory. The higher up mountainsides or the further north they went, the smaller, on average, the trees were.

This meant more forest had to be cleared to extract the same volume of wood. Data analyzed by the CCPA show that about 10 per cent less “fibre” — the logging industry’s word for trees — came out of the forests per hectare between 2011 and 2019 as came out of the forest between 2001 and 2010.

With more forests being cleared to extract the same amount of logs, the costs inevitably went up, leading transportation engineers working for the not-for-profit research and development organization, FPInnovations, to come up with a not-so-novel idea: make some trucks bigger by adding a ninth axle.

As mills are farther and farther away from logging sites, truckers face new challenges. Photo via Stand.earth.

The new monster trucks feeding the monster mills, which were approved for some routes in B.C. in 2017, were capable of delivering 15 per cent more logs per trip. This resulted in energy savings of about 10 per cent, because less fuel was needed per unit of wood delivered.

But the bigger payloads did nothing in terms of energy saving for the drivers themselves.

A world of extremes

Shane describes the area he drives in and out of each day before reaching the highway as “steep terrain,” before chuckling and correcting himself. “That’s an understatement. You’re driving at maybe 10 kilometres an hour because you’re basically on the edge of a cliff. This is extreme logging. ‘This is where people die.’ That’s what an old-timer told me and I believe him.”

The second driver, who also spoke anonymously and who we will call Phil, confirmed that the driving conditions on some logging roads in the Cassiar Timber Supply Area — the most remote forest administration zone in northwest B.C. and where Dease Lake is located — are, indeed, extremely challenging.

He most recently hauled logs out of Bell II, an unincorporated community south of Dease Lake which gets its name because it marks the second bridge crossing of the Bell-Irving River.

“That Bell II country is for the very experienced,” Phil said. “It’s very adverse there, very adverse. You’re driving on anywhere from a 25- to 30-per-cent grade carrying 140,000 pounds.”

Phil said to make one round trip from the Bell II area to Houston is 14 hours. And that’s for an experienced driver, someone like Phil with 40 years’ driving experience. Even so, Phil said experience only takes you so far.

“Even the experienced guys will have trouble every once in a while and you have to accept that. Weather is a major factor, right. You’ve got snow, freezing rain, every variable Mother Nature will throw at you. If it was easy, everybody’d be doing it.”

Phil said most of the time he was driving out of the Bell II region, he was dropping off logs in Houston where they were stored for subsequent trucking to Prince George. The odd load of logs he took, though, had to go directly to Prince George. In that case, he’d do one day of at least 14 hours, then overnight in Smithers, and make a trip to Prince George the next day. Two days of driving to deliver one load of logs.

Fudging the books

This summer, all commercial truck drivers, including logging truck drivers and their employers, will no longer be able to skirt the rules limiting the hours behind the wheel — at least not as easily. Using paper logs to record hours at the wheel will be eliminated, and all truck drivers will be required to drive in vehicles equipped with electronic logging devices.

Dave Earle is president and CEO of the BC Trucking Association. The association’s members include the owners of 400 trucking fleets in the province and account for more than half of the roughly 45,000 commercial trucks on the road, including some logging trucks.

Earle says the introduction of the electronic monitors is a welcome development.

“The carriers have been calling for this — my members have been calling for this — for years,” Earle says. “The industry has known for a long time that there’s many people in the community that cheat and fudge the books.”

Earle stressed that while certain drivers falsify written travel logs, they are not doing so in a vacuum. Who they pick the goods up from and who they deliver the goods to may place entirely unreasonable expectations on drivers that result in unsafe conditions.

“Exploitation of drivers absolutely happens,” Earle says. “The Motor Vehicle Act says that no person can pressure a driver to work more than the permissible time. But I have never seen where a customer has been written up.”

Two things that are immutable are distance and time, Earle says. You start at point A and end at point B. Electronic logging devices will capture both distance and time. What they won’t capture, but other equipment increasingly installed on many commercial vehicles will, is speed.

Earle admits that with the installation of electronic logging devices the temptation to speed may be there. But his hope is that more companies will adopt technology that’s already in place in some fleets — including fleets owned by companies in his association.

That monitoring equipment “can detect things like speeding in specific speed zones, hard acceleration or braking, or sudden stops. Driver performance is measured not just by getting the job done, but getting it done safely and efficiently,” Earle says.

He added that such technology, if widely deployed, would improve working conditions for drivers themselves and for those who share the road with them.

Stay home or haul?

For years, Eugene Wilson drove trucks owned and maintained by local trucking companies. The expense of buying his own truck and being his own boss was a daunting financial proposition.

But after nearly two decades on the road, he and his wife decided to take the plunge. He put a down payment on a new tandem axle Kenworth that all-in cost $220,000.

And that was just for the truck itself. The trailers that would hold the logs were extra.

“You’re up to $300,000 just to haul logs,” Wilson says, adding that’s all you need to know about why you sometimes see big, shiny new logging trucks parked outside mobile homes. The truck is worth way, way more than the house a driver lives in, the house the person rarely sees because they’re always on the road.

Wilson says he did everything he could to lower the amount of interest the bank got by paying down the principal as fast as he could. For the first year, he paid $5,200 a month on the truck and another $1,200 on the trailers.

“The name of the game is to pay it off as quickly as possible,” Wilson says.

That means working constantly.

“When the mill says they have wood for you to haul, are you going to stay home or are you going to haul? You’re going to haul if you want to continue running your business. There’s no stopping.”

When Vladmir Putin invaded Ukraine and gas prices shot through the roof pushing prices past the $2-a-litre mark, Wilson had enough.

“I was completely burned out. I couldn’t do it anymore,” he says. “We weren’t making any money. We could afford a pickup and a house, but there was no other money.”

An early grave

As he drove back toward Dease Lake, Shane said he was mystified about how what he and others are doing can possibly be sustained.

“How they’re making money out of this I do not know,” Shane said. “They’re using diesel from Alberta to cut down trees in B.C. My fuel consumption is going to be anywhere between 500 and 750 litres of diesel a day.”


How Monster Mills Ate BC’s Timber Jobs
READ MORE

For each day that he’s on the road driving out of B.C.’s remote northwest corner, Shane gets about $700, which is the only reason he’s sticking with it. He says he won’t last long.

The driving conditions are too hair-raising and the constant pressure to exceed maximum hours to ensure that the logs are delivered are too intolerable to continue for much longer, he says.

“I was talking to another driver who said what’s happening in our company shouldn’t be happening,” Shane said. “The squeezing that’s going on, the pressure and the squeezing to make the mill turnaround... I could keep working here all year and not have a day off. But I don’t want to do that. It will send me to an early grave.”

Life after trucking

When Wilson sold his Kenworth, he took a job as a forklift operator at Seaton Forest Products, a small sawmill in Witset, a short drive north of his home in Smithers. He likes the scale of the operation where a relatively modest 80,000 cubic metres of logs is all that is needed each year to keep more than two dozen mill employees working.


Running on Empty: The BC Forestry Crash
READ MORE

In his years hauling logs, pretty much everything Wilson delivered went to West Fraser or Canfor, two companies that dominate the Interior forest industry and whose mills are among the biggest consumers of logs in the province.

But that industry, dominated by big mills with huge appetites for wood, is now in a full-blown “timber supply crisis.” There’s simply not enough wood to go around, forcing mill after mill to close.

Seeing that crisis build over 20-plus years of driving, Wilson decided it was time to change course. He thinks others should too, before it’s too late.

“I’d love to see our province go back to the smaller mom-and-pop mills. My folks homesteaded out of Houston. They had a little sawmill behind our house and everybody had a little piece of the pie. And now two companies own the whole thing — West Fraser and Canfor. Government should take back the rights to the timber and let the people of the province have a share in it.”
These Rare BC Reefs Are No Longer Threatened by Offshore Drilling

ExxonMobil and Chevron gave up exploratory rights after a lawsuit challenged the legality of their permits.


Michelle Gamage 
25 Apr 2023
TheTyee.ca
Michelle Gamage is a Vancouver-based journalist with an environmental focus who regularly reports on climate for The Tyee. You can find her on Twitter @Michelle_Gamage.

Glass sponge reefs create an important habitat for aquatic life. As of Friday these reefs are protected from oil and gas drilling in BC. Image still from Moonless Oasis.

Glass sponge reefs, which are ancient living creatures only found in B.C.’s cold, deep waters are no longer threatened by future oil and gas drilling.

It’s the latest development in a story The Tyee reported earlier this year.

Two multinational oil companies, ExxonMobil and Chevron Canada, have voluntarily given up offshore exploratory oil and gas permits they held in B.C. after the environmental law charity Ecojustice, on behalf of environmental organizations the David Suzuki Foundation and World Wildlife Fund Canada, challenged the legality of the permits.

In July Ecojustice sued both companies and the federal government, claiming the 20 permits held by the companies issued 50 years ago had been given multiple unlawful extensions by the federal government and were no longer valid.

ExxonMobil gave up its permits in March. Chevron gave up the permits named in the lawsuit Friday.

The Tyee is supported by readers like you Join us and grow independent media in Canada


These 20 permits were particularly concerning because they overlapped with areas that are hotbeds of biodiversity and vital ecosystems for a number of different species, according to the lawsuit. Before the lawsuit ExxonMobil held one permit to explore within the Scott Islands marine National Wildlife Area and Chevron held 19 permits to explore the Scott Islands and one permit to explore within the Hecate Strait/Queen Charlotte Sound Glass Sponge Reefs Marine Protected Area.

The Scott Islands are located off the northern tip of Vancouver Island and are a human-free refuge for millions of shorebirds. The HS/QCS MPA protects reefs that are thousands of years old and found nowhere else on the planet. Glass sponge reefs found in the cold waters of the Pacific Northwest suck up and store 227 tonnes of carbon per day as they filter bacteria out of the ocean, marine ecologist Jessica Schultz previously told The Tyee.

In early March ExxonMobil voluntarily gave up all nine permits it held for B.C.’s offshore, including the one that overlapped with the Scott Islands. Chevron gave up the 19 permits named in the lawsuit on Friday.

ExxonMobil was dropped from the lawsuit once it gave up its permits and now that Chevron has also given up its permits the lawsuit has been discontinued entirely, says Ian Miron, a staff lawyer with Ecojustice.

“This results in the outcome we’d asked the court to reach: we had asked the court to say that [Chevron’s remaining] 19 permits were not lawful and to essentially get rid of them,” he told The Tyee.

“We didn’t get the declaration they’re unlawful but we did get rid of them and from an on-the-ground perspective that’s a really big win. It means these two areas are entirely free of oil and gas permits so they can be fully protected from that activity.”

When protection for the Scott Islands and Hecate Strait glass sponge reefs was originally drafted the door was kept open to the possibility of future oil and gas exploratory drilling.

“There was always a chance that the permits could be exercised,” says Hussein Alidina, lead specialist in marine conservation with World Wildlife Fund Canada, which has been working to get rid of offshore oil and gas permits for 20 years.

Friday’s update “removes any risk of that,” Alidina adds.

This is good news for the glass sponge reefs and the five islands that make up the archipelago of the Scott Islands, but it doesn’t get rid of the “lurking threat” of future oil and gas drilling in B.C., Miron says.

There has been a federal moratorium on offshore exploration in B.C. since 1972, but a moratorium is not legally binding and could be lifted in the future.


Oil and gas companies, including Chevron, still hold permits that could one day allow them to do offshore drilling in B.C., Miron says. It’s not entirely clear how many permits still exist but Miron estimates the number is around three dozen.


These Rare and Beautiful BC Reefs Fight Climate Change
READ MORE

There’s also the permits in the arctic to consider, Alidina says.

“We’re seeing relinquishment but even better would be extinguishment,” he says.

Many oil and gas permits lie within the Northern Shelf bioregion, stretching from northern Vancouver Island to the southern tip of Alaska, Alidina says. This is an area where First Nations, B.C. and the federal government are working on creating a network of Marine Protected Areas.

In early February the federal government said Marine Protected Areas established after April 25, 2019 will have minimum protection standards that prohibit “industrial activities, such as oil and gas exploration and exploitation, mining, dumping and bottom trawling.”

It’s not clear if these minimum protection standards would extinguish existing oil and gas permits or grandfather them in.


Hype or Hope? Can the Blue Economy Transform Coastal Communities?
READ MORE

Ending the lawsuit before it went to court means “we don’t get to have a court decide whether or not the permits were legally invalid which could have had broader implications for these other permits in the offshore,” Miron says. “That’s a question that will have to be decided another day.”

Jay Ritchlin, the western Canada director for the David Suzuki Foundation, told The Tyee he is “very pleased” that Chevron gave up its permits but adds “we need to get to a spot in society where we realize we don’t need to go and drill for more oil.”

Offshore oil projects pose an “incredible threat to marine life,” and run contrary to advice from the global authority on oil, the International Energy Agency, which said there should be no new fossil fuel projects as of 2021, he says.

For now it’s a good news update for Hamish Tweed, a highly trained diver and citizen scientist who has been working to research and raise awareness about glass sponge reefs for a decade. He even helped create a documentary about them.


What Are Oil Giants Doing to Stop Climate Change? Media Won’t Ask the Hard Questions READ MORE

Tweed says it feels like a “huge relief” to know the Hecate Strait/Queen Charlotte Sound Glass Sponge Reefs Marine Protected Area is no longer threatened by drilling. “I applaud Chevron for doing it,” he adds. “I’m feeling positive that everyone together is taking steps in the right direction to protect these animals today and into the future.”

The Tyee asked Chevron Canada why it gave up the 19 permits and how many permits the company still holds in B.C.

Spokesperson Jennifer Werbicki did not answer the questions but directed The Tyee to the company’s Friday press release, which says the 19 permits covered 5,700 square kilometres which can now be counted towards Canada’s marine conservation targets.

The company says in the release that it has been talking with Natural Resources Canada about “opportunity to contribute to the Government of Canada’s international marine conservation targets” since 2020.

The press release does not mention the lawsuit.

A film called 'How to Blow Up a Pipeline' prompts warning from Alberta Energy Regulator

Film director says focus should be on preserving the planet

NOT THE MEMORIES OF LUDWIG WIEBO
A man in a winter jacket looks out at an oil rig in a winter landscape.
In the film How to Blow Up a Pipeline, a crew of young environmental activists execute a daring mission to sabotage an oil pipeline. (TIFF)

A new fictional film about activists taking criminal action against pipeline infrastructure in the U.S. has led the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to warn of possible activism against local oil sites.

The AER released a statement this week, announcing "additional measures" on pipeline sites over concerns of violent activism prompted by the new film How to Blow Up a Pipeline.

In the statement, the agency accused the film of promoting violent actions, and says the release of the movie, which is based on a book, "should not be taken lightly."

The director of the movie, Daniel Goldhaber, told CBC the film is a work of fiction focused on bringing attention to the climate crisis.

"The problem is climate change. The problem is an unsustainable way of living and I think the focus needs to be on how to reform that system so that we can continue to live on planet Earth," Goldhaber said.

The film was inspired by Andreas Malm's non-fiction book How to Blow Up a Pipeline, which does not offer a set of instructions on how to do so, but rather suggests direct action against oil infrastructure from activists is necessary to make change in climate policy.

"If somebody sabotages an oil pipeline, it's not because we made a movie about it. It's because we're staring down the barrel of a climate apocalypse," Goldhaber said.

In its statement, the AER said federal and provincial agencies across North America are preparing for scenarios where activists have been inspired by the film and put themselves and the industry in danger.

"We recommend that operators conduct enhanced surveillance and monitoring of surface pipelines and verify that leak detection systems and emergency shutdown valves are functioning properly," the statement said, in part.

Reports that the FBI has also contacted local law enforcement agencies over concerns about the movie and subsequent action have been circulating online, but the agency would not confirm this to CBC.

In an emailed statement from the FBI National Press Office, spokesperson Christina Pullen said: "While our standard practice is to not comment on specific intelligence products, the FBI regularly shares information our law enforcement partners to assist in protecting the communities they serve."

Goldhaber said he has not been contacted directly by any federal or provincial agencies regarding concerns over the film.

The film, which was released earlier this month, premiered at the Toronto Film Festival in September and follows eight young people who decide to blow up an oil pipeline in the U.S. They are motivated by environmental activism. 

Previously, the province petitioned against the 2021 animated movie Bigfoot Family which also included themes about the oil industry and environmental activism.

The Canadian Energy Centre started a petition against the movie, urging people to send Netflix Canada letters saying the film vilifies energy workers and tells lies about the oil sector.

Goldhaber said he hopes How to Blow Up a Pipeline sparks conversations and heightened attention to the climate crisis and environmental preservation. 

I Back Saboteurs Who Have Acted With

Courage And Coherence, But I Won’t Blow

Up a Pipeline. Here’s Why

By George Monbiot
April 28, 2023
Source: The Guardian


I understand the argument that our escalating climate crisis justifies direct action, but I can’t urge anyone to do things I wouldn’t do myself.

There’s a fundamental principle that should apply to every conflict. Don’t urge others to do what you are not prepared to do yourself. How many wars would be fought if the presidents or prime ministers who declared them were obliged to lead their troops into battle?

I can see why How to Blow Up a Pipeline, the book by Andreas Malm which has inspired a new film with the same title, has captured imaginations. It offers a lively and persuasive retelling of the history of popular protest, showing how violence and sabotage have been essential components of most large and successful transformations, many of which have been mischaracterised by modern campaigners as entirely peaceful.

Malm shows how violence was a crucial component of the campaigns against slavery, imperial rule in India, apartheid and Britain’s poll tax, of the demand for women’s suffrage and even of the famously “peaceful” revolutions in Iran and Egypt. He argues that by ruling out violence and sabotage, those of us who seek to defend the habitable planet are fighting with our hands tied behind our backs. He urges us to develop a “radical flank”, prepared to demolish, burn, blow up or use “any other means necessary” against “CO2-emitting property”.

It’s essential that we know these histories. Malm forces us to confront questions of strategy and to justify or reject those we have chosen. No one can deny that current campaigns have failed: capital’s assaults on the living planet have only accelerated. Nor can we deny that, as he says, we have been too “placid and composed” or that the climate crisis is insufficiently politicised. Should we, as he urges, begin a campaign of violent attacks on the industrial economy? While his case is compelling, I feel something is missing.

Malm’s strongest comparisons are with the heroic struggles of women’s rights and civil rights activists, anti-slavery, independence, anti-apartheid and economic justice campaigners. These movements directly confronted massive powers. Their outcomes were, in most cases, binary. Either the British Raj persisted or it didn’t. Either women would get the vote or they wouldn’t. Either there was a poll tax or there wasn’t.

But the revolt against environmental collapse is a revolt against the entire system. To prevent the destruction of the habitable planet, every aspect of our economic lives has to change.

Malm reduces our task to “the struggle against fossil fuels”. But fossil fuels are just one of the drivers of climate breakdown, albeit the largest, and climate breakdown is just one aspect of Earth systems breakdown. You could take out all the obvious targets –pipelines, refineries, coalmines, planes, SUVs – and discover that we are still committed to extinction. For example, even if greenhouse gases from every other sector were eliminated today, by 2100 current models of food production alone would bust the entire carbon budget two or three times over, if we want to avoid more than 1.5C of global heating.

Soil degradation, freshwater depletion, ocean dysbiosis, habitat destruction, pesticides and other synthetic chemicals might each be comparable in scale and impact to climate breakdown. Only one Earth system may need to go down to take others with it, causing cascading collapse. In other words, in this struggle we are contesting not only fossil capital and the governments that support it. We are fighting against all capital and, perhaps, most of the people it employs.

Our demands are – and have to be – more complex than any that have gone before. While I believe that taking out pipelines, refineries, abattoirs, coal plants and SUVs is morally justified, do we really imagine we can bring down the Earth-eating machine this way? Can we really hope that government, industry, oligarchs and those they employ or influence will conclude, “Because we cannot tolerate the sabotage, we will surrender the economic system?” If you are holding a virtual gun to someone’s head, you need to know exactly what you are demanding and whether they can deliver it.

The world has not stood still while we ponder these questions. Governments and corporations are now equipped with greatly increased surveillance and detection powers. If sabotage escalates beyond the mild actions Malm has taken (letting down the tyres of SUVs with mung beans, helping to breach two fences), not many people will get away with it. Some will face decades in prison. Just last week, two climate campaigners in the UK were jailed for between two and three years merely for occupying a bridge. Are we comfortable with goading other people – mostly young people – to step over the brink?

In the US, we see the growing paramilitarisation of politics. It cannot be long before far-right militias there, already committed to armed vigilantism, evolve into death squads on the Colombian model. As soon as they perceive a violent threat to the capital they defend, they will respond with greater violence of their own. Fascism has been famously described as “a counter-revolution against a revolution that never took place”. You don’t have to succeed in generating a new movement committed to a campaign of violence to create a monster much bigger than you are: a monster that will close down the last chance of saving Earth systems. If you are going to take a physical shot at capitalism, you had better not miss.

I cannot say that Malm is wrong, and that non-violent action is more likely to succeed. After all, none of us have been here before. But if you are pushing other people towards decades in prison while risking a backlash that would close down the last possibility of success, you need to be pretty confident that the strategy will work. I have no such confidence.

My own belief is that our best hope is to precipitate a social tipping: widening the concentric circles of those committed to systemic change until a critical threshold is reached, that flips the status quo. Observational and experimental evidence suggests the threshold is roughly 25% of the population. I find it hard to see how this could happen if we simultaneously engage in violent conflict with those we seek to swing. But I concede that our chances are diminishing, regardless of strategy.

In the meantime, I will support people who have already committed coherent and targeted acts of sabotage in defence of the living planet that do not endanger human life. But I won’t encourage anyone to do so, because I’m not prepared to do it myself. This, at least, is one clear line in a world where everything is blurred.
How Not to Handle an Oilsands Spill

Alberta Energy Regulator refuses to answer MP’s questions on what the UCP government knew, and when it knew it.


David Climenhaga 
25 Apr 2023
Alberta Politics
David J. Climenhaga is an award-winning journalist, author, post-secondary teacher, poet and trade union communicator. He blogs at AlbertaPolitics.ca Follow him on Twitter at @djclimenhaga.

Edmonton MP Heather McPherson said AER head Laurie Pushor showed contempt for Parliament and ‘contempt for Canadians, particularly the impacted First Nations and Métis communities.’ Image from committee hearing video.


Anyone who watched the head of the Alberta Energy Regulator refusing to answer questions Monday during the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development’s hearings into Imperial Oil’s Kearl site tailings pond spill last May has to wonder what the actual purpose of the provincial agency is.

But don’t worry. The AER wants you to know it’s on the job — closely examining Hollywood’s output to ensure no impressionable moviegoer is influenced to blow up critical infrastructure.

As we’ve said before and will probably say again in commentaries about politics in Alberta, you just can’t make this stuff up.

Alberta Energy Regulator CEO Laurie Pushor repeatedly refused to answer Edmonton Strathcona MP Heather McPherson’s pointed questions Monday about when the so-called “regulator” informed Alberta’s United Conservative Party government of the spill.

The federal parliamentary committee’s hearing was called to discover why continuing seepage from the site wasn’t reported to Environment Canada or nearby First Nations communities for nine months, until a 5.3-million-litre spill became known in February.

“By failing to answer my questions, Pushor has shown extreme contempt for Parliament,” McPherson said in a statement.


“More importantly,” the NDP MP continued, “he has shown contempt for Canadians, particularly the impacted First Nations and Métis communities.”

She said the federal NDP will raise a point of privilege in the House of Commons “to compel the AER to provide clarity on when Danielle Smith and the UCP knew about the ongoing seepage and spill.”

The same day, however, the AER issued a statement of its own, assailing American film director Daniel Goldhaber’s How To Blow Up a Pipeline, which the Guardian’s reviewer dubbed “a propulsive eco-thriller.”

The 2022 film may make it clear, as the Guardian noted, that “these characters are extremists whose actions will have potentially devastating consequences,” but that’s not good enough for the AER.

“The release of this movie should not be taken lightly,” huffed the regulator in a statement published Monday. “Provincial and federal agencies across North America are preparing for scenarios where activists, inspired by the film, may turn to sabotage to get their message across, putting themselves, their communities and industry in danger.”

Plus, presumably, since the boss was on the stand facing a question he’d really prefer not to answer, they’d rather you got caught up in a saga about fictional terrorists.


Meanwhile, in Ottawa, Pushor was dodging and weaving to avoid McPherson’s questions, arguing there was no need for him to answer her simple question because the AER’s board of directors is conducting a review and it will be made public in due course, in the fullness of time, one of these days.


On the Hot Seat: Alberta Energy Regulator CEO Laurie Pushor
READ MORE

McPherson: Can you tell me, when did you inform any provincial government representative of the seepage that you first learned of in May 2022?
Pushor: Me personally?
McPherson: The AER. When was any representative from the provincial government notified?
Pushor: Well, you know, we do have a review that’s being conducted by our board of directors and so I think it would be best to leave that...
McPherson: So you can’t tell us that date that you let the provincial government know that this was happening?
Pushor: I think it’s best that we let that review be a full independent review. And all of those answers and all of those questions will be addressed in that review, and the board has made a commitment that those findings will be released publicly.
McPherson: Mr. Pushor, you’re in front of a parliamentary committee. I would ask that you tell us the date that the provincial government knew when this spill was happening. The date that any representative from the Province of Alberta knew that this spill was happening.
Pushor: So we have extensive relationships at the field level...
McPherson: That is not a date Mr. Pushor! I would like to know the date the provincial government knew that this was happening in Indigenous communities in northern Alberta.
Pushor: So what I’m saying is that that’s part of the review that the board will do and we’ll find out all of the places that...

You can watch the rest of the exchange online between McPherson and Pushor, which was posted by the MP’s office on social media.

In her statement, McPherson explained that she was seeking “what information the AER provided to the government that led to Premier Danielle Smith’s claim on March 6 that there was no environmental impact from the ongoing seepage and the spill.”

“It was a very good question and Mr. Pushor had no reason not to answer it,” tweeted University of Calgary environmental law professor Martin Z. Olszynski Monday afternoon. “Certainly, the so-called ‘independent third-party review’ ordered by the AER board (and currently out for tender!) in no way precluded him from answering.”

A thorough report on the backstory of the parliamentary committee’s hearing, for which Pushor was required to testify under oath at McPherson’s insistence, was published yesterday by the Canadian Press.


Ottawa Has Questions About that Oilsands Toxic Waste Spill
READ MORE

As for the AER’s statement on a the movie, it sternly advised that “operators and licensees should increase their level of awareness, review their security and emergency response protocols, and monitor this evolving situation.”

“Furthermore,” it added, “we recommend that operators conduct enhanced surveillance and monitoring of surface pipelines and verify that leak detection systems and emergency shutdown valves are functioning properly.”

Well, you can’t fault that advice, I guess.

As for those moviemakers, they’ve already seen what happened to Bigfoot Family. The makers of How To Blow Up a Pipeline are now on notice that they can be next.

We Albertans may not be able to be confident our provincial officials are working very hard to prevent leaks and spills of toxic materials, but at least we know that when the going gets tough, the tough review movies. 
ELECTION MAY 29
Unpacking Stephen Harper’s Strange ‘Endorsement’ of Danielle Smith

In which a certain member of the rich global elite gives less than his all for Alberta’s populist premier.

26 Apr 2023
TheTyee.ca
Michael Harris, a Tyee contributing editor, is a highly awarded journalist and documentary maker. Author of Party of One, the bestselling exposé of the Harper government, his investigations have sparked four commissions of inquiry.

Former Conservative PM Stephen Harper’s half minute of voiced support for Alberta’s United Conservative Party never mentioned the name Danielle Smith. Photo of Stephen Harper via the UK Prime Minister’s Office; Danielle Smith via the Alberta government.

First it was Jason Kenney, then Pierre Poilievre, and now Danielle Smith.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper has once again elbowed his way back into active politics in Canada, this time with an “endorsement” for Alberta’s embattled premier.

According to the most recent polls, Alberta’s May 29 election could be headed for a photo finish. In some polls, Smith and the not-so-United Conservative Party trail Rachel Notley’s NDP by five points, a finding still within the margin of error.

But Harper, who is currently an advocate for electing right-wing governments around the world through his work as chairman of the International Democrat Union, isn’t taking any chances. He has once again put his prestige on the line in what looks like an increasingly desperate attempt to keep the wobbly UCP in power.

Harper’s endorsement came in the form of a video message which was posted on social media. It was then texted to conservative voters by the UCP.

Smith seemed not to notice that Harper didn’t mention her name in the “endorsement.” That didn’t stop her from mentioning his. She called Harper an “exceptional leader” with an unwavering commitment to the economy, employment and the energy sector. No mention that the “exceptional leader” was skunked in the 2015 election, and that his ongoing legacy has led the Conservative Party of Canada to three straight federal election losses.

So what did Harper actually offer up to aid Smith’s cause? Stuff so staid, so stale that it was clear he wasn’t exactly trying out for the Danielle Smith cheerleading squad. As Alberta Politics commentator David Climenhaga noted last week, Harper came across looking more like a weary actuary than a hyped-up advocate. “Vote for Alberta, vote Conservative.” His delivery of those words had all the verve of a clerk reading out the particulars of a ticket in traffic court.

Even the standard kicks at the NDP were tired and predictable. Notley would “derail” Alberta’s economy, usher in mass layoffs, business closures and a recession. Harper forgot to add that an NDP victory would bring on earthquakes, famine and pestilence. But then he only spoke on the video for 32 seconds.

Anyone who remembers Harper’s fulsome endorsements of Kenney and Poilievre will be struck by the zestless video that the UCP seems to think will attract progressive voters in swing ridings around Calgary and Edmonton. Without that support, Smith’s lock on rural Alberta may not be enough to carry the day when Albertans go to the polls in just over a month.

In the case of Poilievre, Harper went out of his way to publicly put his thumb on the scales of the last Conservative leadership race, calling his acolyte a “strong minister” and the CPC’s most effective critic of Justin Trudeau. But it was crickets when it came to Danielle Smith’s credentials for being premier, and with good reason.

Smith’s political career has been a series of faceplants. It all started with her ill-starred decision in 2014 to quit as leader of the Wildrose Party to join Jim Prentice and his Progressive Conservatives.

After that highly unpopular move, Smith lost the nomination in her own riding, and Prentice lost the election, ending 80 years of right-wing government in Alberta, divided between Social Credit and the Conservatives. Like a lot of bloviating, failed politicians, Smith turned to talk radio, one of the last public venues where no one checks your homework.

Former ace Harper cabinet minister Kenney was driven from his premiership in just three years, partly because of plummeting oil prices, but also because of disapproval within the party of his COVID-19 restrictions, including masking mandates. He was replaced by the talk-jock, and Smith quickly resumed her practice of stepping on every rake on the political lawn.

On day two of her premiership, Smith was forced into apology mode. She had made the ludicrous comment that the treatment of people who refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19 was the worst human rights abuse she had seen in her lifetime.

Murdered and missing Indigenous women, residential schools, dreadful discrimination against racialized Albertans and the LGBTQ2S+ community weren’t part of her cultural memory. What did cross her mind was changing the province’s human rights legislation so that unvaccinated Albertans could no longer be discriminated against.

The first bill Smith introduced into the Alberta legislature was something of an oxymoron — the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act. It was so bad that former premier Kenney described it as “nuts” and warned that it would make Alberta a “laughing stock” across the country. Just an hour after the legislation was introduced, Kenney resigned his seat and retired from politics, getting as far away from Danielle Smith as possible.

Since then, Smith has demonstrated a stunning ignorance of basic facts about the country and her powers as premier.


In claiming the right to opt in and out of federal law, Smith coined this beauty: “It’s not like Ottawa is a national government.”


Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: More Evidence
READ MORE

While seeking the top job, Smith had promised to “pardon” people who had been convicted on non-violent charges stemming from violations of pandemic restrictions. It took her awhile in office to realize that she wasn’t the president of the United States, and she didn’t have the power to pardon a hamster, let alone a felon.

Was one of the people she hoped to pardon Calgary street pastor Artur Pawlowski, an ardent anti-masker? She told Pawloski in a recorded conversation that she called justice officials “almost weekly” to discuss cases like his, and told him “leave it with me.” The conversation took place just weeks before Pawlowski’s charges for breaching a release order and inciting protesters during the Coutts border blockade went to trial.

When she finally realized that she had no pardon powers, and that cases like Pawlowski’s were the exclusive business of an independent judiciary, Smith belatedly backed off. But the lights went on a little late. The premier’s alleged meddling in the justice system is currently the subject of an investigation by Alberta’s ethics commissioner.


Why Is Stephen Harper So Tight with the ‘Moonie’ Church?
READ MORE

How did Artur Pawlowski feel about it all? As far as he was concerned, Smith was merely Jason Kenney 2.0. As he put it to the CBC, “She is a flip-flopping political pancake. Whatever works for her, that’s what she’s going to pursue.”

Is it now a little clearer why the ex-PM offered a generic endorsement of the UCP, rather than a personal one of its leader? The fact that Danielle Smith is a dubious political bar of soap from a marketing point of view is only part of the story.

The other part is, just what is an endorsement from Stephen Harper worth these days?

After all, he is no longer the populist boy-politician collecting donations in KFC barrels in Calgary basements. Six-and-a-half years after leaving politics, Harper is now a full blown globalist entrepreneur raking in big money with his consulting firm Harper & Associates. His job description apparently entails cozying up to human rights violator Saudi Arabia and tweeting his congratulations to authoritarian politician Viktor Orban for his latest win in Hungary.

And there is hay to be made right here in Canada. A case in point. Harper’s firm is paid $240,000 a year by the province of Saskatchewan, in part to open doors for Premier Scott Moe that Harper walked through as prime minister. That’s why Harper was included on a recent provincial government trip to India, a junket that created controversy for Moe back home. Why did he have to drag a highly paid consultant along?

Who can tell the exact angle Harper is trying to play by inserting himself now into Alberta’s election conversation? But here’s one way to read it.

What we have in Danielle Smith is a politician who is hard to sell, being promoted by a self-styled champion of the little guy who is now very much a member of the elite he has spent so much time demonizing.

The beneficiary of Stephen Harper’s tepid endorsement of Danielle Smith may turn out to be Rachel Notley.
ELECTION MAY 29
NDP would repeal Alberta Sovereignty Act, labour critic tells AFL convention

by David J. Climenhaga
April 24, 2023

In a short video before Labour Critic Christina Gray took stepped up to the microphone, NDP Leader Rachel Notley told the 400 union members in the hall she has tested positive for COVID-19.
Alberta NDP Labour Critic Christina Gray addressing the AFL convention.

An NDP Government will repeal the Sovereignty Act and other controversial United Conservative Party (UCP) laws while creating better jobs in a more affordable Alberta, Opposition Labour Critic Christina Gray told delegates to the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL)’s biennial convention today.

Appearing before about 500 delegates in the Calgary Convention Centre, Gray said they can expect an NDP government to deliver big changes and many outright policy reversals to health care, education, community support, economic diversification and labour legislation.

Vowing to restore balance to the province’s workplace legislation, Gray said an NDP government would “repeal Bill 32’s attacks on workers’ rights, repeal Bill 47’s attacks on workplace safety, and repeal the horrendous Sovereignty Act that is attacking investment in this province.”

“Unlike Danielle Smith’s UCP, we will protect your Canada Pension,” she went on, promising the NDP will end efforts to pull Alberta out of the Canada Pension Plan, “risking your retirement security just to stick it to Ottawa.”

It will also halt the UCP’s unpopular scheme to replace the RCMP with new force under the control of the provincial government, she said.

Gray said the NDP will also freeze auto insurance rates and cap utility rates – “because payday loans are not the answer to high power bills!”

There was plenty more in Gray’s comprehensive policy speech, too, which was originally to have been delivered by Opposition Leader and former premier Rachel Notley.

In a short video message before Gray stepped up to the microphone, however, Notley told the 500 union members in the hall she has tested positive for COVID-19.

“I know how important it is for me to do my part and make sure everyone in that room is safe,” she said. “I’m fine. I’m just isolating at home and resting so I can get better before we all set out on this campaign.”

Gray, a former labour minister in Notley’s cabinet, laid out an ambitious NDP agenda to reverse many unpopular UCP policies implemented under premiers Jason Kenney and Danielle Smith, including the school curriculum almost universally reviled by educators and the UCP’s efforts to suppress wages for low-wage workers.

Instead, she said, the NDP would build better future for Alberta by “investing in capital infrastructure, building the hospitals, schools, rec centres, roads, and bridges we need to keep our economy strong.”

And that, she said to the cheers of the crowd, will mean “good-paying jobs in construction, and under an Alberta NDP government, union jobs,” a sentiment that echoes many comments made since his election by U.S. President Joe Biden. “Through community benefit agreements we will make sure more of our infrastructure is union-built,” she added.

“With an NDP government, Albertans will see real action to grow and diversify the economy,” she promised. “We’ll diversify within our oil and gas with a major boost to petrochemical refining in the Heartland and find new ways to use our bitumen.

“Our party supports energy workers and supports our proud legacy of developing energy in this province,” she said. “This means being visionary when it comes to developing hydrogen fuels, exploring geothermal wells, and extracting more rare earth minerals.”

“We’ll do that while cutting emissions and drawing more investment in our abundant wind and solar resources,” Gray continued. “We’ll diversify outside of our energy sector with new diversification funds that support the development of advanced technology, digital media, value-add agriculture, and more.”

The NDP, she said, has a plan to attract $20-billion in private-sector investment that will create “jobs that pay the mortgage and support families, so that workers can come home and pay the bills.”

Gray mocked the approach taken by the UCP and Premier Smith: “We don’t want to ‘Take Back Alberta,’ we want to lead Canada!

“But we can’t do that with Danielle Smith and the UCP and all her extreme friends and corrupt insiders. Under Danielle Smith, public health experts get fired and Conservative insiders get big paycheques to rewrite health laws!”

Meanwhile, Gray said, while “Albertans continue to struggle against record inflation. These so-called ‘affordability payments’ – if you were lucky enough to get one – all end in June.

When that happens, she said, “the cheques stop flowing – unless you’re Preston Manning!”

“You want to know how we know Danielle Smith can’t be premier?” Gray asked. “Because right now she holds the highest position of power in the entire province, and it only took an extremist like Artur Pawlowski 11 minutes to steamroll her into interfering in our system of justice!”

Likewise, Ms. Gray said, the UCP’s refusal to take the advice of health care experts led to the near collapse of the health care system, the impacts of which are still evident today. “Now she’s talking about privatization, user fees, and fund-raising for health care.”

Noting that it was Smith herself who said that, not anyone who disagrees with her policies, Gray remarked: “Makes you wonder – when is she going to sue herself for defamation?”

The NDP will return to the work of eliminating poverty and the social impact of poverty in Alberta by housing 40,000 Albertans building more permanent supportive housing and increasing rental supplements, she said.

“We will restore fair overtime pay, fair holiday pay, and, yes, we will increase the minimum wage to match inflation,” she said.

And if you work in Alberta, she added, “you should be able to take care of those you love, which means having sick leave, and parental leave, and affordable child care, and predictable schedules that give your family some stability.”

“We will invest directly in union-run training centres, recognizing Labour’s role in skilling up our workforce,” she said, addressing issues of concern to her audience.

“We will restore workplace health and safety laws. We’ll expand the right to refuse unsafe work. And we’ll put the ‘worker’ back into Workers’ Compensation.”

“We’ll expand general presumptive coverage for PTSD, and we will expand coverage for the brave firefighters who fought the Fort McMurray wildfire! Every last one of them.”

Gray also promised to restore card-check certification, which limits the opportunities for anti-union employers to bend the law to stop union organizing drives, and to restore first-contract arbitration, which provides a legal mechanism for newly unionized employees to reach a first collective agreement with an employer that refuses to negotiate.

And she said the NDP would end the practice of “double-breasting,” running affiliated companies, union and non-union, to suppress wages while being able to bid on union-only work.

ELECTION MAY 29
In Alberta, It’s All Power to the Premier
How the Kenney and Smith governments have subverted separations of power and the rule of law.
Yesterday
The Conversation
Jared Wesley is a professor of political science at the University of Alberta. 
Democracy itself is on the ballot in Alberta’s upcoming election, writes a University of Alberta political scientist. Photo via Wikimedia.

During typical election campaigns, reasonable people can disagree about whether a government is competent, its policies are effective or its priorities are in step with society.

Stay Sharp on Alberta. Sign up for Alberta Edge

The Tyee launches a new free newsletter with fresh reporting and curated must reads. Just in time for the big vote.

In Alberta, the United Conservative Party (UCP) government’s actions over the past four years have made it clear: the ongoing provincial election campaign is far from typical. It’s about something more fundamental.

Throughout its time in office, the UCP has shown disregard for the separation of powers and the rule of law. With the writ about to be officially dropped for the May 29 election, that means the vote is not just about right versus left or conservative versus progressive.

It’s about whether Albertans want to place their trust in democratic institutions or continue to erode the safeguards that protect us from arbitrary abuses of power. Any policy debates are moot without settling that question.

How did the UCP put Albertans in this position?

Sweeping powers

For one, the party has repeatedly attempted to seize power from independent bodies and other branches of government, often successfully.

In the opening months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UCP handed sweeping legislative powers to the health minister, removing the ability of members of the legislature to review changes to laws and regulations.


What Do Albertans Demand of Their Politicians?
READ MORE

Only when faced with legal threats and public backlash from allies — but against the wishes of his own caucus — did former premier Jason Kenney relent and return the authority to the legislative branch.

The UCP has also removed the boards and heads of numerous arms-length agencies. This included replacing the entire Alberta Health Services Board with a single commissioner.

These patronage appointments were meant to centralize control within the UCP government over health care, post-secondary education and other sectors.

The Sovereignty Act had the same intent. The original version would have stolen powers from the federal government, the Alberta legislature and the courts and granted them to the premier.

Once again, the government had to be shamed into amending the bill, making Alberta a national and international laughing stock. And once again, the UCP’s anti-democratic impulses were laid bare.

A series of misdeeds

More fundamentally, the UCP has demonstrated a passing fancy for the rule of law. Since coming to power four years ago, there have been several examples:


This Is ‘Kenneyism’
READ MORE

The firing of the election commissioner before he could complete his investigation into Kenney’s leadership campaign;

The then-health minister confronted a neighbour in his own driveway about the doctor’s critical social media post about him;

The then-attorney general called up a police chief to discuss his traffic ticket;
Premier Danielle Smith’s refusal to call a byelection despite the legal requirement to do so;
Smith’s stated wish that she could provide “political solutions” to criminal prosecutions of her supporters, denigrating the courts as legitimate checks on their authority;
Smith’s threat to sue a major media outlet in an effort to avoid questions.

One thing is clear. Mired in multiple ongoing investigations into prosecutorial interference, professional misconduct and the party’s inaugural leadership race, the UCP’s actions indicate it considers itself above the law and beyond reproach.

The sheer volume of misdeeds is shocking and Albertans shouldn’t be lulled into thinking that it’s politics as usual. Just because many of these episodes happened in plain sight, in front of cameras and microphones, that doesn’t make them any less egregious.

Consolidation of power

As much as outsiders attribute these episodes to Alberta’s “Wild West” culture, the UCP’s anti-democratic approach to governing is not a matter of right-wing political norms.

It’s about consolidating power into the hands of the Premier’s Office by taking over mechanisms of oversight and control, removing checks and balances altogether and pretending that the rules do not apply to the UCP and its followers. This is a feature of UCP, not a bug. Conservatives usually stand against those sorts of things.

Indeed, not too long ago, Albertans could count on their elected government officials to put a stop to these anti-democratic activities. Those days are behind us, but the election is not. Normal political campaigns usually feature rousing debates over leadership, priorities, policies and ideas. Voters choose between different governing agendas, not entirely different systems of government. Those days, too, are behind us.

The UCP’s record in office now means that a vote for that party is about far more than endorsing a policy platform or conservatism — it’s about choosing party over province. People contemplating casting their ballot for the UCP should understand precisely what that means.

Albertans deserve better. But they’ll need to demand it. That’s what democracy requires of us from time to time.