A Big Win in Alberta? Let’s Read the Fine Print First

What’s written, what’s missing, and who decides next...

This morning, I opened my emails to see something unfold that should concern everyone… no matter what side you’re on.

A major advocacy group declared a “massive victory” in Alberta.

They claimed:

• SOGI is being removed

• Pornographic books are gone

• Ideology has been eliminated from classrooms and libraries

It sounded decisive. Final. Done.

There’s just one problem.

None of that is actually written in the law.

And to be clear, I have the utmost respect for Tanya Gaw and the team at Action4Canada. They’ve worked tirelessly to raise concerns that many Canadians share, and they’ve mobilized people who felt like no one was listening.

But respect doesn’t mean we stop asking questions. And when I saw that headline, I did what more of us need to do: I went to the source.

Because here’s the problem: When something is framed as a “massive win”…
but the legislation doesn’t actually say what’s being claimed, we need to pause.

So I read the bills. Not the summaries. Not the posts. Not the emails, the actual text. And what I found was not what was being celebrated.

The first thing that stood out wasn’t what was in the bills…

It was what wasn’t… Definitions.

Because in law, definitions are everything. Yet the key terms driving this entire conversation are never clearly defined:

• “Ideology”

• “Neutrality”

• “Bias”

• “Sexually explicit”

• “Inappropriate material”

Why does that matter?

Because when terms aren’t defined:

• They become subjective

• They become flexible

• They become enforceable by interpretation

The law doesn’t decide. People do… and that power is concentrated within the ministry.

Let’s look at Bill 25.

This is the one being promoted as removing politics and ideology from classrooms.

Here’s what it actually says.

It calls for:

• a wide range of perspectives

• critical thinking

• alignment with Alberta’s “common values and beliefs”

It also requires content to be:

• impartial

• fair

• neutral

• free of personal bias

All of that sounds reasonable. Until you ask the obvious question:

Who decides what “neutral” means?

Because the bill doesn’t.

It also:

• does not define ideology

• does not name SOGI

• does not list any banned materials

What it does do is allow government to set provincial strategic priorities for education. Direction is moving upward, not outward.

Now let’s look at Bill 28.

This one is being framed as removing inappropriate materials from libraries. Here’s what it actually does. It gives the Minister power to:

• appoint inspectors

• review materials

• question staff

• access records

It allows rules to:

• restrict access based on age

And most importantly: The Minister can make any order they consider appropriate

Again, sounds strong. Until you notice what’s missing:

• No definition of “explicit”

• No list of books

• No automatic removals

This is not a ban.
This is discretionary authority.

What exists is not removal.
It’s interpretation.

And this is where it clicked for me.

Because this isn’t the first time I’ve seen this pattern.

I stood at a Fort McMurray city council meeting and raised concerns about how inclusion frameworks were being introduced locally. What I found wasn’t random. It was structured. There were clear connections between:

• policy frameworks developed outside the municipality

• and how local programming and strategy were being implemented

And then something interesting happened. After those concerns were raised publicly…that same individual later transitioned out of municipal administration and into a role at a local college.

I’m not here to speculate. But I am here to say this: When policy, influence, and implementation intersect that closely,
people deserve transparency.

So why are so many calling this a win?

Because it feels like one. We all want:

• clarity

• progress

• change

So when something complex shows up, most people don’t read it. They look for a signal: Is this good… or bad? And once that answer is given, by a headline, a group, or someone they trust, the details stop mattering.

Most people aren’t reading the bill.
They’re reading the reaction to it.

And that’s where this becomes dangerous.

Because when we believe we’ve already won … we stop paying attention.

Meanwhile, the real shift happens quietly.

This didn’t start with these bills.

Across multiple areas, we’ve seen the same movement:

• public health decisions centralized

• municipal authority increasingly directed

• education frameworks guided from above

• critical resources like water firmly controlled at the provincial level

The power has always existed. What’s changed is how directly, and how often, it’s being used.

This creates a pipeline:

Framework to Policy to Implementation to Regulation

This isn’t left vs right.

One side says:
“We’ve won”

The other says:
“We’re losing”

But neither outcome is actually written.

What is written:

• broad authority

• undefined terms

• discretionary enforcement

So what does this really mean?

When definitions are missing: Power shifts from clear law TO human interpretation

And that interpretation depends on:

• who is in power

• who is making decisions

• and how rules are applied later

This isn’t a victory. This isn’t a loss. This is a restructuring.

Before we celebrate what’s been removed…we should probably understand what’s actually been written. And maybe more importantly:

When definitions disappear, power doesn’t go away,
it just becomes harder to see

.