If you have ever been in a room with my husband when I was asked one of many times, “Would you ever go back into politics?” his face would have told you that I was not at all considering going back into politics. Though I have worked many campaigns since leaving Rachel Notley’s office in 2019, a full-time return to the all-consuming job of political staffer was something my family and I agreed long ago, I wouldn’t do again.

But this was different (it always is, isn’t it?). This was time-limited. It was an opportunity to contribute to an accomplished NDP government and experience the vantage point of the top political job in BC, while at the same time stepping in for a dear friend, Jim Rutkowski, who was about to undergo cancer treatment. And the job was in Victoria.

I mentioned it in passing to my husband in a sort of can-you-believe-it tone, knowing full well the commitment I had made to him to never return to a Legislature. To my surprise, he jumped up and said, “You have to do it!” And so we did. Along with our five-year-old daughter, we moved to Victoria.

Though politics is never dull, 2026 has been especially capricious. During my first weeks on the job in BC, there was a Council of Federation meeting, the 2026 Budget, the opening of the legislative session, and the terrible tragedy in Tumbler Ridge, where a shooter opened fire on a school, killing six students. February was an emotional crucible and a sobering reminder of the multi-faceted onslaught politics can be.

In the months that followed, the US-Canada trade war escalated, DRIPA and the implications of the Gitxaala decision commanded headlines, Alberta ramped up its push for a new west-coast pipeline, BC began negotiating its own agreement with the federal government, a former Conservative-turned-independent, Amelia Boultbee, crossed the floor to the NDP, and the BC Conservatives elected Kerry-Lynne Findlay as their leader.

The coming months promise to be just as tumultuous. Premiers are working to insulate their provinces from the implications of the US trade war, and in many jurisdictions leaders are already posturing for the next election. These leaders will have to balance the impulse to score easy points in a political narrative where the villain is clear, with the social imperative that their policy choices do indeed protect the country and build a stronger economy. My time inside the Premier’s Office sharpened three things I already believed into something I can now argue with certainty:

Subscribe now

1. The next corner is visible, if you’re looking

Politics is moving fast right now, but it’s not fluid and it’s not a straight line. It’s moving in lurches: trade shocks, coalition shifts, and an evolving world order. Entire sectors are being repositioned in a single announcement; some are being decimated, others are being reinvigorated and fortified for the long term. From the outside, that can look chaotic, but from inside government it is easier to see the forces accumulating well before a decision becomes public. There are organizations that are successfully repositioning right now, but they are not the ones that are reacting fast (though that doesn’t hurt), they are the ones that saw a shift coming before it happened and had the foresight to be waiting around the corner. This kind of strategic hedging takes months of deeply informed prep work to execute. In my first weeks in the Premier’s Office, I watched two different kinds of organizations respond to the shifting economic landscape; one had been building a relationship with the government for months, engaging strategically and offering industry insights with no strings attached. When a decision affecting their industry landed, they weren’t surprised; their insights had shaped the thinking behind it. The other kind of organization called the day after the announcement, asking for a meeting.

2. Governments are running out of easy answers

Affordability and healthcare stubbornly remain the top issues in every jurisdiction in the country. At the same time, the federal government, along with every provincial government, is projecting a deficit this year, the first time this has happened since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Though some are narrowing, debt-to-GDP ratios will remain a concern, and there is little public appetite for new or increased taxes or revenue levers. That means governments will have to get creative about how they tackle these top issues. Writing cheques and adding a few percentage points to the healthcare budget is getting harder and harder to do. Governments are going to get more comfortable with the idea that they can’t solve every problem alone. Even governments that have historically been cautious about private-sector partnerships will need to look for outside expertise, capacity and capital and find partners they trust to help achieve public policy goals. Affordability is a great example of this: how do governments make citizens’ lives less expensive without spending money? One answer may be consumer protection: protecting hard-earned personal paycheques from predatory practices, encouraging competition and banning snowballing hidden fees. In other areas, the answer may be finding new ways for governments, the private sector and civil society to work together. Fiscal constraint is going to force some creativity, including from governments that might not naturally be inclined toward it.

3. Crisis creates political permission

When I think back to that message I received in January, I’m struck less by how much has happened than by how much is still in motion. I didn’t expect to have such a front-row seat to the precarity of today’s politics, but I’m grateful to have been close enough to see that crisis can sometimes create a kind of political permission. Trade-offs that would normally be impossible because they are too costly, too controversial or too bold, become more than possible; they become necessary. Prime Minister Carney has chosen to leverage this moment and stake his political capital on big moves that will deliberately re-orient the budget, public policy and future trade relationships around Canada’s sovereignty. For example, Canada’s defence spending hit $63 billion this past year. It received its largest annual increase in generations as Canada aims for 3.5% of GDP by 2035 and a half-trillion dollars in investment over the next decade. At the same time, the federal government has revamped co-operative federalism and is bringing it to fruition through detailed agreements with its provincial partners. For example, the newly inked BC Canada Cooperative Prosperity Agreement, a multi-billion-dollar agreement negotiated between BC and Canada, will shape BC’s economy and job market for a generation. The agreement was quietly negotiated over months as the two sides worked and reworked a list of shared priorities and trade-offs. Through these new spending priorities and partnership agreements, you see the path Canada is forging, and it is intended to be durable. The procurement, investment and private-sector commitments that come with them mean many will be resistant, and in some cases nearly immune, to changes in government.

All this to say, I come away from my time in the Premier’s Office with a much clearer view of the moment Canada is in. You’ve heard of the duck on the water, right? Calm on the surface, feet moving furiously underneath. That’s a little like what government feels like right now. Although I’m not sure anyone would describe the surface as particularly calm at the moment.

Inside the Premier’s Office, I was reminded of just how much is happening behind the scenes. Governments are feverishly working through choices, implications and trade-offs that most people won’t see until they emerge as an announcement, an agreement or a budget line. The status quo is shifting, old assumptions are being reconsidered, and ideas that would have been dismissed a few years ago are suddenly back on the table.

There is a lot of furious work happening beneath the surface right now. It is in that work that the next chapter of our country’s politics, and perhaps the country itself, is being written.

I’ve watched with interest as so many of my friends and colleagues dread this birthday, stress about it, hide from it, shrug it off as nothing- or worse use it as a painful ledger by which they measure what they have and haven’t accomplished. As this birthday has approached, I’ve certainly taken stock of my life, what I’ve done and all the things I still want to do and learn- but that self-reflection has not made me want to hide from this birthday- rather, to embrace it. I usually use this platform to write about politics and current events- but today, on this milestone- I’m so overwhelmed with gratitude, that this post is far more self-indulgent than usual.

Subscribe now

There are a couple of reasons why I’m genuinely excited to turn 40.

The first is simple: Not everyone gets here.

In my twenties, I loved a remarkable man who was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer in his mid-thirties. Tragically, we lost him before his 38th birthday despite the extraordinary fight he put up. Losing Ian at such a young age shattered my view of the world in ways I still can’t fully articulate. It cracked something open in me that has never closed, and I’m grateful for that. Through that loss, I have come to acutely appreciate how ephemeral and precious my life is. I’m aware of this every time my five-year-old daughter climbs into bed with me for a morning snuggle and every time my husband kisses me goodbye. These are gifts I know well enough to receive- precious memories of wonderfully simple things I would ache for if they were suddenly gone.

Since Ian died, I have also come to treasure my own health. I watched his body fail him little by little, until he was only a shell of the vibrant man he had been. And I remind myself each time I lace up my shoes that I am partly here, in good health, by luck. Each time I head out for a run, I silently thank my legs for their strength. I think of Ian and all the others who didn’t make it to their 40th birthday. I think of the people in hospital beds who would give anything to run and play with their kids, and I brim with gratitude not only because I can run, but because I know how priceless a gift it is to appreciate what you have long before you’re faced with losing it.

The second reason I’m celebrating this milestone is because my life is so abundantly full.

I have had the chance to experience so much. I started my career as a journalist, asking hard questions, giving a voice to marginalized groups and telling people’s stories. That work took me all over Alberta and eventually to Ghana, where I taught human rights reporting at the African University College of Communications. After a brief stint teaching CrossFit and competing in Mexico, I came back to Canada and jumped straight into politics, where I have worked on seven provincial election campaigns and served two Canadian premiers. I worked in private sector consulting for nearly 5 years with GT & Co, advising corporate and civil society organizations across Canada and learning every day from some of the greatest minds in the business. My career has taken me to four continents, including a two-year stint with NDI in Kyrgyzstan. It has so far been a wild, improbable ride, and I would not trade a single detour. (some of my favourite photos below).

But my biggest flex is not professional; it is the man I married.

It’s hard to put into words all that Aaron is and has been in my life- but I’m going to try because I don’t share this often enough or loudly enough. I’m not the easiest person to be partnered with. I am restless- in body and in mind. My brain is constantly churning, and I’m quick to begin implementing ideas even before they are fully formed or thought through. I have dragged us across provinces, across the globe (with 2 cats in tow) and into “adventures” that required more patience than most people have. And Aaron is a great sport through it all. He is my true partner in every sense of the word. After my hardest days- both personal and professional- Aaron is my sanctuary. He is kind, patient and steady in ways I am not. He encourages me to pursue what I want, celebrates me when I get there, and genuinely appreciates how my brain works (most of the time). Our daughter Rio is our greatest accomplishment. She sparkles with intelligence, is endlessly curious and is the most strategic one in our house. She asks questions I can’t answer and remembers everything I wish she’d forgotten. She has pushed me to be more patient, more present and more honest with myself than I have ever been. Every day I get to wake up to the sleepy call of “mama?” is a good day.

At 40, there is so much more I want to do and see and learn, but I don’t feel behind. I feel so grateful for this birthday, for the awesome experiences I’ve had, for all the forever friends I’ve made along the way, and for the chance to keep going.

Cheers to the next 40 years! and also a big Happy Birthday to my twin sister, Tammy!

If you have a great memory of an experience we shared together- please leave it below!

My twin sister Tammy and I.

Coaching CrossFit in Bucerias- 2014

Head of Communications for Premier Rachel Notley- 2015

Chief of Staff to Premier Eby- 2026

Erika and I were booked for a weekly segment during the 2023 Alberta election to offer updates from our respective party perspectives on the latest campaign developments. It was nothing unusual, we were easy content for Power & Politics. What was unusual was how much we enjoyed it and the great feedback we received from both sides of the aisle during the four-week writ period. We disagreed openly and clearly on live TV, and for the most part, neither of us felt attacked, dismissed, or offended.

Subscribe now

Over the course of that summer, we heard from many people, some joking, some serious, that we should find a way to keep doing it. That was the moment something clicked. We realized how rare that experience had become. Not disagreement itself, but disagreement without defensiveness or posturing - without the need to win.

We are both deeply committed to our political convictions. But we are also secure enough in them that disagreement does not feel like a threat. That combination turned out to be the seed of The Discourse.

What we discovered early on is that most people do not hate disagreement itself. What they hate is being talked down to, caricatured, or treated as morally suspect because of how they see the world. Politics has trained us to assume bad faith first. If someone disagrees with you, they must be ignorant, malicious, or corrupted by the wrong sources. That framing makes real conversation impossible before it even begins.

The last segment of our final episode of 2025 really crystallized this for me. As we talked with Ryan Jespersen ( host of Real Talk and a supporter of The Discourse since day one) about holiday dinner tables, family dynamics, and political boundaries, a few things became very clear. First, not every conversation is worth having. Second, not every relationship can carry political disagreement. Third, when a conversation is worth having, the posture you bring matters far more than the points you make.

I think a lot of this comes down to choosing your partners carefully. If you’re talking to someone who comes to the conversation with curiosity, naturally, it’s going to be a much better conversation. Most days, my first thought when someone disagrees with me is not, “My gosh, you’re such an idiot, you’re wrong and now I’m going to tell you all the ways you’re wrong.” On my best days, my first thought is, “I like you, I respect you, I think you’re a really intelligent person, there must be a reason you see the world so differently than me.” And it’s that humility, I think, that helps these conversations become rich and rewarding, rather than an opportunity to prove that one person knows more than the other.

One thing Erika said in that final segment stuck with me. The goal is not conversion, the goal is understanding. When you are trying to convert someone, you are performing. When you are trying to understand someone, you are relating to them.

That is what The Discourse has become for us. A place where disagreement is not a failure; strong views are welcome. We know we don’t need to feign neutrality or soften our beliefs, and we trust each other to treat our curiosity as a strength rather than a concession.

Politics is not going to get less contentious anytime soon. Parties will realign. Labels will keep shifting. Incentives will continue to reward outrage over understanding. We cannot fix all of that from a podcast. But we can model something different. We can show that it is possible to argue, laugh, and push back while still respecting each other at the end.

That is why we started The Discourse. Not to convince people what to think, but to remind them it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

On the eve of the UCP AGM, she finally got a win: through an MOU with Alberta, the federal government backed down on seven of Smith’s nine bad laws, and Mark Carney agreed to let her try to get a pipeline built to BC’s north coast.

Many conservatives believed Smith would walk into her AGM to fanfare and take her victory lap. Instead, she was met with hostility from her own members. It was a surprise, even for a “united” party that has elevated internal turbulence to an art form.

But the booing isn’t the story. It is a symptom. The real story is that the once-united base that delivered Smith to power is fracturing, and Mark Carney - whether intentionally or not- is quietly prying open that crack.

What struck me, listening to reports from people who were in the room, and talking with my podcast co-host, Erika, about her conversations with members standing in line wearing “independence slate” buttons, was how profoundly the pipeline MOU has disrupted the emotional logic of the UCP grassroots. This is a party that, for years, has defined itself by being at war with Ottawa. Around being ignored, punished, and disrespected. Around fighting enemies, not negotiating agreements.

Then along comes Mark Carney with an MOU that actually gives Alberta what Smith has been demanding, and suddenly the fight evaporates. The temperature drops. And the base doesn’t know how to metabolize that politically.

What happens to a movement built on grievance when the grievance gets solved?

Here’s what happens: the most organized, loudest parts of the base, the same faction that ultimately toppled Jason Kenney, double down. They call the MOU a “piece of paper.” They boo their own premier. They warn of betrayal. They insist nothing has changed.

And then there is another faction that simply wants to take the win.

As Erika put it bluntly: members she spoke with, even the ones who flirted with independence, now see a path to work with the federal government. The symbolism Ottawa is offering matters. The tone matters. And Carney has become a safe political landing place for conservatives who don’t actually want to burn the place down.

That is the shift no one is talking about. Not the booing. Not the resolutions about flags or fluoride or late-term abortions. The real shift is that the premier’s base is being pulled in two opposite directions: the old identity-politics right that needs the fight, and the more pragmatic conservatives who look at Carney’s approach and think, honestly, “I can live with this.”

Smith’s leadership challenge isn’t the fringe itself, it’s that the MOU threatens the glue that holds her coalition together. If she’s no longer leading the fight against Ottawa, what is she leading?

Meanwhile, Carney is doing something remarkably effective: he is lowering the emotional temperature in Alberta politics. He is showing conservative voters that they can have an economic partnership without cultural humiliation. He is demonstrating what it looks like to govern without making Alberta the villain in its own story.

None of this means unity overnight. But it does mean the old battle lines are fading. And for a premier who has defined herself by battle lines, that’s new and potentially dangerous terrain.

The conservative movement in Alberta is splitting into two sides. One that still wants the war. And one that is ready to exhale.

And the truth about the UCP AGM is this: Danielle Smith didn’t walk into a hostile room because she failed to get the pipeline MOU. She walked into a hostile room because she succeeded, and her success robbed a segment of her base of the emotional project that brought them to her in the first place.

And that shift will shape Alberta politics far more than one night of booing.

When Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney announced their memorandum of understanding this week, a lot of people focused on the headline — Alberta gets a pathway to pursue a pipeline to Asia. But if you read past the headline, you’ll see the deal is less about a specific infrastructure project and more about something Alberta has wanted for a decade: to feel seen, heard, and taken seriously in Confederation again.

Because a pipeline? Alberta has wanted that before. Alberta has had that before. The novelty isn’t the project; this time, it’s the politics.

I was at the Calgary Chamber event where Carney spoke, and I’ve been in that room a lot over the years. Let’s just say it is not a crowd known for its generosity with applause. The Prime Minister received two standing ovations, one before he had even said a word. It felt like the Calgary business community was thanking him for finally taking Alberta seriously. And let’s be honest: that’s what Premier Smith and every Premier before her have been fighting for.

Premier Smith had laid out some very specific demands, and many in Alberta didn’t believe Ottawa would meet them. A lot of pundits (including… me, on national TV the night before the announcement) had very low expectations for what this agreement would end up being.

But the MOU is far more substantial, detailed, and deadline-driven than I expected, and that has led to a sudden shift in the entire tone of the relationship.

Subscribe now

What’s Actually in the Deal

The pipeline pathway is in there, but there’s much more in the deal

Ottawa agreed to scrap the federal oil and gas emissions cap, suspend the clean electricity regulation, and fast-track project approvals to a maximum of 2 years.

And, in exchange, Ottawa gets a clear plan to reach net-zero by 2050, and a commitment from Alberta to strengthen its industrial carbon pricing.

That’s the heart of the grand bargain. Not pipe. Policy.

The Pipeline Paradox

Despite this being called “the pipeline deal,” there is no actual pipeline project right now. There is no route, no private proponent, no assessment, no deal with the coastal First Nations whose consent, legal or political, would make or break it. BC has made its position very clear: nothing moves without those communities, and those communities are currently saying that there is nothing that could entice them to sign on to a pipeline project.

The pipeline was never the point. The point was recognition: of Alberta’s economic contribution, of the province’s energy expertise, and of its legitimate frustrations.

The deal gives Alberta regulatory certainty. It gives Ottawa emissions reductions.
And it hopefully gives both sides a political ceasefire.

You could feel that in the room, Alberta business leaders weren’t just relieved, they were optimistic. And it’s been a long time since optimism has been the default emotion in downtown Calgary.

So Where Does This Leave the Pipeline?

Today, the pipeline is still hypothetical and still politically explosive. Though the project is yet to be defined, it’s already facing significant constitutional, economic, and Indigenous rights realities and is still a long way from being real.

But the pipeline was never the real prize.

The real prize was a working relationship between Alberta and Ottawa. A relationship where both sides compromise, where Western alienation doesn’t define every conversation, and where Alberta can stop fighting and start building again.

Subscribe now

Then: recall politics boomerangs on the UCP as Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides faces a petition under their own looser rules. Plus, Thomas Lukaszuk’s “Forever Canadian” petition accidentally hands separatists the referendum oxygen they craved (yikes). We close on what happens next: task forces vs. caps, data vs. delay, and how both sides can win (or torch) the post-strike moment.

Subscribe now

This week on The Discourse, Erika and I unpack a series of decisions that reveal a lot about how this government governs: through confrontation, control, and a steady erosion of public trust.

Subscribe now

The Teachers’ Strike: “Back to Work” or Back to Square One?

The government is preparing to legislate Alberta’s teachers back to work, ending the largest education strike in the province’s history and almost certainly stepping on teachers’ Charter rights in the process.

This isn’t just about salary. It’s about a system that’s been stretched to its breaking point; overcrowded classrooms, rising complexity, underfunded supports, and burned-out educators who have been quietly patching holes for years while being asked to do more.

The province has said it will use its power to legislate teachers back to work next week, and though parents may applaud their kids returning to classrooms, the move is a quick fix to a political problem, rather than a solution to the education crisis the province currently faces. Other provinces have learned the hard way how politically dangerous this move can be. Ontario backed down in 2022. Saskatchewan chose negotiation in 2024. Smith, as usual, is charging ahead anyway.

The Alberta Teachers’ Association has a tough decision to make: return to work as ordered, or work-to-rule, doing only what their contracts require and nothing more. No coaching, no field trips, no after-hours marking, no relationship-building with students or parents.

Erika argues people won’t even notice the difference, that many teachers already “work to rule.” I couldn’t disagree more. There are so many amazing teachers who spend their own money to create inviting classrooms, stay after class to help kids, and volunteer for extracurriculars. You’ll notice when they stop doing the unpaid labour that keeps the system running. You’ll notice when the compassion is gone.

And so will the government.

Two-Tier Healthcare: Prevention or Privatization?

While the province fights teachers in the streets, it’s quietly rewriting the rules of healthcare. The Smith government just announced it will allow private payment for diagnostics, including MRIs, CT scans, bloodwork, and other tests.

On its face, it’s wrapped in the language of prevention: early detection, patient choice, less strain on the system. But beneath that spin, it’s the oldest play in the conservative policy handbook: build the case for privatization by breaking confidence in the public system.

Here’s what happens in every jurisdiction that’s tried this: the rich jump the line, radiologists follow the money, and the public system starves. The data is overwhelming. Routine, non-risk-based health screening does not improve outcomes, but it does increase unnecessary procedures and false positives that flood the public system.

I said on the show that it’s the equivalent of handing someone a private health check and sending the bill for interpretation to the public. It’s not prevention, it’s redistribution, from the public to the profitable.

Erika sees it differently. She argues that early detection saves lives and reduces downstream costs. The problem is that Alberta’s public system isn’t struggling because people can’t buy private MRIs. It’s struggling because people can’t even get a family doctor.

When you can’t fix the system, selling a shortcut starts to look like leadership.

The Wyant Report: “Cleared” — But Only If You Don’t Read It

And then there’s the Wyant Report, the so-called independent investigation into Alberta Health Services procurement.

The government’s press release claimed the premier, her cabinet, and her staff were “cleared of any wrongdoing.” Media headlines across the province dutifully repeated it. And in pure comms-shop terms, it was a masterclass. That single word, “cleared,” shaped the entire news cycle.

Except the report doesn’t say that.

Judge Raymond Wyant explicitly notes that he had no power to subpoena witnesses, no ability to take testimony under oath, and no mechanism to assess credibility. He even writes that some participants “did not appear to be fully candid.” In other words, this was not an exoneration; it was a polite shrug.

More damningly, Wyant confirms that procurement rules were broken, conflicts of interest went undisclosed, and taxpayers paid for products that never benefited Albertans. The only reason it doesn’t reach higher is that the government drafted the terms of reference to prevent it.

The government set the boundaries and terms of reference for the investigation, but the Premier and her cabinet didn’t participate. It’s more than a stretch to declare innocence.

The Common Thread: Power Without Transparency

From education to healthcare to accountability, the pattern is the same. Danielle Smith is consolidating control not through persuasion or policy success, but through confrontation and narrative dominance.

Every conflict becomes a test of loyalty. Every report becomes an opportunity to rewrite reality. And every public service, whether classrooms or clinics, becomes a stage for ideology instead of governance.

It’s effective politics. But it’s corrosive leadership.

The Pipeline to Nowhere (For Now)

Smith wants a pipeline to B.C.’s North Coast. The problem? There’s no company lined up to build it - no proponent, no plan, no business case. And this is where the comparison to the Trans Mountain expansion falls apart. TMX had a company, a design, and billions of private dollars before Ottawa took it over. Smith’s version is still a headline, not a project. And while she calls B.C. Premier David Eby’s opposition “un-Canadian,” Eby’s counterpoint (that forcing a heavy oil project through could blow up fragile First Nations consensus on LNG) is both true and politically savvy.

So why push it? Because the fight itself is the point. Smith’s best political terrain is perpetual conflict, against Ottawa, against B.C., against whoever looks like they’re standing in Alberta’s way. She doesn’t need a ribbon-cutting to win headlines. Still, the longer this drags on without a real proponent, the easier it is for voters to see through the theatre.

The Teachers’ Strike and the Politics of Patience

On the education front, Smith’s government is learning the hard way that you can’t negotiate a labour dispute by press release. Teachers aren’t just asking for a raise, they’re asking for respect and resources. There are qualified teachers sitting on sub lists while classrooms balloon past capacity, and parents have noticed.

Polls show Albertans overwhelmingly side with teachers and when that happens, dragging this labour dispute out starts to get politically dangerous for the government. Once the public sees a strike as justified, the policy argument is lost.

The government can hold the line, but every day they do, they bleed a little more goodwill. Teachers have leverage and the public mood on their side.

Subscribe now

License Plates: The Shiniest Distraction

“Strong and Free,” the United Conservative Party’s official slogan and tag line, is now the slogan on Alberta’s new license plates, which the government unveiled right in the middle of a province-wide teachers’ strike. The public is being invited to vote on their favourite design (hay bales, mountains, or classic red and white), but the timing feels a little too convenient. While parents are scrambling for childcare, the province is launching an online contest about font styles.

It’s the oldest play in politics: when things get messy, release something shiny. The new plates may look fine, but they’re also a reminder of a government that would rather talk about symbols than solutions.

Listen to the full episode of The Discourse:
“Pipelines and Picket Lines: The Fights Danielle Smith Can’t Afford to Lose.”
🎧 Available wherever you get your podcasts.

Subscribe now

Meanwhile in Ottawa, the House is back and Carney vs. Poilievre is the main event—minus the fireworks (for now). I noticed a tonal shift: fewer rhymes, more discipline, and a Leader of the Opposition testing angles ahead of a budget that promises austerity and investment. That’s a tightrope, and it’s where the real story is headed. The Liberals have blunted a bunch of easy hits by adopting or reframing policies conservatives liked anyway, which leaves Conservatives with one clean line of attack: “you’re not moving fast enough.” It’s not nothing, but it’s not everything either. Also: nobody wants an election today, and everyone knows it. Which brings me to my least favorite topic that still matters: municipal elections. Parties are now allowed in Calgary and Edmonton. Do voters care? I’m not convinced. A slate can help clarify positions and share resources, but these brands are new and undefined, and half the electorate isn’t tuned in.

Subscribe now

Let’s also be honest about the Smith’s video. It’s slick, effective, and it mobilizes. But it doesn’t convert. If you already agree with her, you loved it. If you don’t, you didn’t. The bigger political play was the meeting optics: collaborative tone, optimistic tweet, “more to come.”

Immigration: Math vs. Memes (and Why the Rhetoric Matters)

We also waded into the week’s other bonfire: immigration. The viral “15 million” number is not what people think it is. Permits ≠ people, as Andrew Coyne skillfully pointed out in his column on the topic. His analysis shows that the TFW program accounts for a tiny share of total employment. That doesn’t mean the system is fine. It means scapegoats make bad policy. If Alberta wants full employment and functioning services, we need to take a broader look at the problems and be open to more complicated solutions.

Alberta Next: Consultation or Content Factory?

If you haven’t watched one yet, the Alberta Next panels are half consultation, half content harvest. You can see the strategy: put the Premier in a room, take every question, look accessible, and manufacture a hundred short videos that say, “She’s listening.” As a brand play, it works. As policy design, it’s painful. Moderation has been chaotic in places, and the expert bench is underused because the Premier is the show. Will any of this feedback change the destination? Maybe. But if you’re asking me what the government needs from the tour, it’s this: receipts that say “we consulted,” plus clips that reinforce the Accessibility Brand™.

Subscribe now

The Anatomy of a Culture War

Here’s the playbook: find the most shocking example possible, hold it up to cameras, and claim it’s a systemic problem. That’s what Premier Danielle Smith’s government did with four books to justify sweeping new rules.

Erika argued on the pod that the content really was explicit enough to be pulled. And fair enough - some of the images described are not what you’d expect in a middle school library. But I pushed back: this isn’t a “blowjob book crisis.” It’s politics. Four books became 200. A handful of panels became proof, in government’s telling, that Alberta’s classrooms are overrun with porn.

The end result? A political wedge issue that has more people talking about book bans than the state of education itself.

Teachers on the Brink

And speaking of education, teachers are once again at the bargaining table- and maybe the picket line.

On one side: the government and TEBA (the Alberta Teachers Employer Bargaining Association) offering 12% raises over four years and a promise of 1,000 new teachers per year. On the other: the ATA, pointing to crowded classrooms, chronic underfunding, and wages that don’t keep up with inflation.

Erika framed it as unions making politics out of a fair deal. My counter: if you don’t fund enrollment growth, every new student means less money per kid. That’s not sustainable. When 95% of teachers vote in favour of strike action, you know it’s not just about union brass. It’s about classrooms stretched past the breaking point.

Pierre Poilievre’s “Stand On Guard” Moment

Pierre Poilievre used his by-election win to roll out a “Stand On Guard” proposal, framed as a means of protecting Canadians’ right to defend their homes. Sounds strong. Sounds simple. But here’s the problem: Canadians already have that right. Harper’s government codified it years ago, and the statistics don’t show a wave of homeowners being jailed for self-defense.

So why is Poilievre pushing it? Because fear sells. Because “victims shouldn’t be villains” fits nicely on Facebook.

So… Porn or Politics?

The through-line in all three stories is the same: take a small, extreme example, amplify it, and turn it into a cultural wedge.

• Sexy books become a province-wide morality crisis.

• Teachers become greedy unions instead of front-line workers.

• A handful of break-and-enters become proof that Canadians are unsafe in their own homes.

It’s clever politics. In many cases, it works. But let’s be clear: these aren’t solutions to systemic problems. They’re distractions.

And in Alberta, distraction politics have consequences: underfunded classrooms, a demoralized teaching profession, and a political culture that rewards outrage over outcomes.

What do you think? Is the UCP “protecting kids” or just picking fights? Is Poilievre offering safety, or fear? Drop your take in the comments.

Subscribe now

They don’t just walk away quietly. They blow the whole thing up.

On this week’s episode of The Discourse Podcast, we sat down with Pete Guthrie (former UCP cabinet minister) and Scott Sinclair (former UCP MLA) for an absolutely wild interview about their exits from Smith’s caucus, their plan to resurrect the Progressive Conservative brand, and why they think Alberta desperately needs a new political home.

It’s not just inside baseball. It’s skeletons in the closet, backroom power plays, and a premier who they say has divided Alberta.

In this episode, we dig into Alberta’s latest by-elections and what they actually reveal about the political landscape. Nenshi’s landslide may have stolen headlines, but the real story is buried in Edmonton-Ellerslie and Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Is the UCP leaking support in key bases? Is the NDP losing its grip on Edmonton? And what should we make of the Republicans pulling 18% in rural Alberta?

Cheryl and Erika break it down — the good, the bad, and the quietly alarming for all three major parties.

Subscribe now

Also in this episode:

🗣️ Danielle Smith’s New Panel: Listening Tour or Soft Separatism?
We dive into the latest “public consultation” from the Premier. The questions are leading, the framing is loaded, and the outcomes feel predetermined. Is this a legitimate engagement — or a reheated Fair Deal fantasy?

🧬 Inside Alberta’s Biomanufacturing Playbook
Andrew MacIsaac of Applied Pharmaceutical Innovation joins us to explain how Alberta’s chemistry advantage could make us a national health security leader. From Turkish Tylenol to trade tariffs, he lays out the case for why homegrown pharma is the next economic frontier.

Subscribe now

🎓 Segment 1: Teachers on the Edge
The Alberta Teachers' Association delivers a stunning 99% strike vote. Cheryl defends their demands for classroom caps and support funding, while Erika goes off on unions and PD days. It’s heated, it's personal, and it’s the debate Alberta parents are already having.

🌍 Segment 2: G7 Summit Breakdown
Kananaskis gets the world stage. From Mark Carney’s statesmanlike debut to Danielle Smith's pro-oil charm offensive, we break down who won the global optics game.

📊 Segment 3: By-Election Predictions
With three Alberta ridings up for grabs, we make bold predictions on whether the UCP can gain ground in Edmonton — and whether the Republican Party of Alberta is a punchline or a potential spoiler. Spoiler alert: Erika promises to shotgun a beer if they break 20%.

On this episode of The Discourse, Cheryl and Erika unpack why Canada keeps losing the pipeline wars and whether the political landscape may finally be shifting. With premiers suddenly talking about "economic corridors" and Mark Carney promising to fast-track projects, is there a narrow window for national energy projects to succeed?

Subscribe now

Joining the show is Gitane De Silva — former Deputy Minister in the Alberta government, former CEO of the Canada Energy Regulator, and someone who’s been inside the rooms where these make-or-break decisions happen. She pulls back the curtain on:

• Why so many projects (like Northern Gateway and Energy East) failed

• How First Nations consultation has (and hasn't) evolved

• What it would take to truly approve a major project in just two years

• The "chicken-and-egg" problem stopping private sector proponents from stepping up

Plus:

• The political evolution of Wab Kinew, David Eby, and Danielle Smith on energy

• Cheryl and Erika debate who really "got a pipeline built"

• Why Alberta keeps demanding pipelines — and why the rest of Canada often tunes them out

• The famous bitumen bubble that still lives rent-free in Erika's head

• Advice to premiers ahead of the G7 summit — and how Trump’s temper still looms large

  Cheryl’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

• How the AHS scandal first came to light

• Why new delays in the government's investigation are raising eyebrows

• What journalists actually do behind the scenes to get these stories published

• Why this story still matters, and how far it could still go

  Subscribe now

PLUS: We break down this week's First Ministers meeting in Saskatoon, where Mark Carney continues to rewrite the script on federal-provincial relations. Danielle Smith has pivoted — and looks surprisingly comfortable playing national stateswoman. Can she keep it up?

AND: A rare stumble for the Carney Liberals: the government loses a House vote — but does it matter?

If you want to understand where Alberta politics is heading — and how Ottawa and Edmonton are suddenly getting along — you won’t want to miss this one.

Subscribe now

🫅 The King Reads the Script. Carney Steals the Show.
For the first time since 1977, the monarch delivers Canada's Speech from the Throne. Cheryl and Erika break down the symbolism, the strategy, and whether Carney’s curtain-raising moment can carry him through a budget delay.

📚 Book Bans or Political Spin?
Alberta’s government announces it's pulling “sexually explicit” books from schools. Erika says it's about protecting kids. Cheryl says it’s a smokescreen for censorship. Things get spicy.

🗳️ By-Elections Are On: Nenshi, Republicans, and Riding Realities
Three Alberta by-elections are set. The NDP’s new leader is running. A separatist party is gaining steam. And conservatives are quietly eyeing gains in Edmonton. We name the ridings, the players, and the stakes.

🤝 First Ministers Meeting: Can Unity Survive the Photo Op?
Western premiers show surprising alignment on economic corridors—but can that consensus hold in front of the cameras in Ottawa? Cheryl reflects on what’s real, what’s spin, and who’s most likely to break ranks for a soundbite.

💸 Travel Budget Blowback
A million-dollar increase in government travel—Erika wants to see ROI. Cheryl wants accountability. Both agree: this is one story that could snowball if the receipts aren’t tight.

We start with a deep dive into the UCP health procurement scandal. Alberta Health Services’ former CEO, Athena Mentzelopoulos, dropped a $1.7M lawsuit accusing the government of shady dealings with private surgical contracts. Now, former Chief of Staff Marshall Smith is punching back with a $12M defamation suit against Mentzelopoulos and the Globe and Mail. Is it a desperate move or a dangerous miscalculation?

Then it’s on to Alberta’s separatist movement. Between the Republican Party of Alberta, the Alberta Prosperity Project, and Thomas Lukaszuk’s pro-Canada counter-petition, the province’s political fringes are making noise. But are they making sense? Erika and Cheryl discuss public sentiment, the real economic risks, and whether this movement has any legs beyond Facebook pages and town halls.

Subscribe now

We wrap with some spicy commentary on upcoming by-elections—especially the one in Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, where Republican leader Cam Davies is running—and a questionable “MLA Dashboard” that outs politicians as separatists… according to who, exactly?

🔑 Topics Covered:

• UCP health procurement scandal: who’s suing whom and why

• Why Marshall Smith’s lawsuit might have backfired

• Separation anxiety: the rise of Alberta's independence movement

• Thomas Lukaszuk's surprising re-entry into the chat

• Political strategy vs. personal brand-building

• The most awkward "scorecard" in Alberta politics

• By-election battles that could change the game

Subscribe now

The hosts break down:

• Why Alberta’s political culture is uniquely flammable—and why Danielle Smith keeps adding fuel.

• How a new federal cabinet and a looming by-election are turning up the heat on Premier Smith to finally pick a side.

• What the Saskatchewan NDP is doing right by reframing the separation debate—and why Alberta’s NDP should take notes.

• How government chaos inside the Alberta legislature is being buried by chaos outside it, and what consequential bills are slipping through the cracks.

• Plus: deputy minister shuffles, federal cabinet reactions, and a very honest trip down memory lane on the 10-year anniversary of Alberta’s NDP win.

If you’re trying to keep up with the current pace of Alberta politics… good luck. But start here.

Subscribe now

From there, your hosts tackle:

• Whether Alberta’s “Fair Deal 2.0” will be an actual educational tool — or just more grievance theatre.

• Naheed Nenshi’s fiery “just do it” dare to Smith, and why Cheryl thinks it’s playing with fire.

• The Carney-Trump Oval Office meeting: why both hosts were (cautiously) impressed.

• Smith vs. Ford: two premiers, two very different tones on working with Prime Minister Carney.

• What the Alberta NDP’s new federal opt-out means — and whether 89% is really a strong number for Nenshi.

• And a preview of three coming by-elections in Alberta: what each party’s strategy might be, and whether the UCP will continue to drag out the timeline for Nenshi’s seat.

Listen now for a fiery debate on democracy, discontent, and the future of Alberta.