Oct 3, 2022·edited Oct 4, 2022Liked by Dave Cournoyer
I welcome the clarity and perspective of this much needed voice in a province that bears its self-administered, roughly hewn and bruised chip on its shoulder - to the delight of many outsiders and the embarrassment of Albertans who tire of "the woe is me, hard done by crowd" - that serves none other than its "I'm alright Jack" brethren.
The rage & paranoia of Daniellezebub & her fellow travellers is breathtaking. The entire basis for Alberta separatism is a farrago of lies & disinformation. The rest of Canada isn’t out to get Alberta, Alberta doesn’t cut Québec City or Ottawa a cheque, & the federal government isn’t encroaching on provincial jurisdiction — although when it comes to health care & housing, many Canadians probably wish it would. In fact, Alberta is encroaching on exclusive federal jurisdiction in its stated resistance to the federal assault weapons buyback programme — and has also long infringed on federal jurisdiction over international relations by establishing offices in other countries.
Whoever wins this thing will have several months as Premier before they have to go the polls in May 2023 — this is, of course, presuming they don’t either ignore the fixed election date legislation & drop the writ this fall, or decide to govern beyond it out to the Constitutional limit of five years. I shudder to think how much damage they can do to the Alberta polity in that time.
The most important thing to remember about Smith is that when the going got tough she ran away.
In 2014, Smith abandoned her post as leader of the Wild Rose Party to join the Progressive Conservatives under Jim Prentice. In essence, Smith ran favour of a big, strong, white man, Jim Prentice. It was spun as "returning to her roots" but it was always just running away from problems in her own party. So what can we expect from Smith as leader of the UCP?
Our little runaway!
Compare that to Leela Aheer. When a 1200 kg rampaging bull threatened a cowboy, Leala didn't run away, she acted, and jumped into the fray with others to save the day.
It's funny how he uses the term "Alberta Patriots" to imply that anyone who supports Canadian unity isn't a 'true' Albertan. It'll be interesting to see how his support for Smith squares with her advocating Alberta playing a positive role in Confederation.
Hmmm .... I started with your synopsis [Thank you for that: it allows the juices to start percolating without even having to read the whole column! But, I DID read the whole column - because nuance is important.].
So Danielle Smith's Alberta Sovereignty Act is "...designed to create a political crisis..." I have to say that this is a case of potato / potahto. Your political crisis is my assertion that Ottawa should stay on it's own Constitutional turf. Do you agree that Ottawa should stay within the jurisdiction set forth in the Constitution or do you think it acceptable that Ottawa should violate the jurisdictions set forth in the relevant sections (91 - 95, as I recall)?
Sure, Smith would be tickled if a federal Liberal would criticize it or if the LG withheld consent. On the other hand, doesn't every province like it when the feds tell that province what they must and must not do? It just allows that province - sorry, EACH and EVERY province - to run against Ottawa. After all, how much more Canadian can you get than that?
Yup, no Peter Lougheed present and none on the horizon. On the other hand, the 1982 tempest was absolutely in a teapot but this one? Oh, this is serious. And that is why there is no such person available right now because none of the usual suspects really know what to do and they really do understand (to the extent that they understand anything) that Alberta does not get treated the same as, oh, say, Ontario, let alone like that other province. You know the one that is violating the Constitution and not getting punished through the use of loopholes and simply brass.
So, Rachel Notley is salivating at the idea of taking on Danielle Smith. May the better woman win! And I fully expect that Danielle will do so.
I do find "delicious" your reference to Jason Kenney's apparent fruit of choice: bananas. Well, of course, JK is going to dispute the possibility that the ASA is a valid idea; he is a federalist before he is an Albertan. [Is he really an Albertan at all? After all those years in Ottawa being brainwashed by the Ottawa folk, can one really tell?]
So kind of you to mention Barry Cooper and his opinions. Too bad that he hasn't read the proposed law as it hasn't yet been presented to the Legislature. On the other hand, everyone - even Barry and even you - is entitled to an opinion, even if it is wrong. The one thing that Barry Cooper said that is absolutely, positively, demonstrably true is that the Constitution of Canada was created to benefit the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada - O & Q, as they are known today - and it continues to operate to the benefit of O & Q. If you want to verify that you can take pretty much any university level course on the Canadian Constitution. Does it work to the detriment of Alberta? Of course.
Ah, you yell "separation" and "separatism!" I have had occasion to correspond with folks who find the ASA to be too milquetoast for their liking and would prefer to separate; they wonder why I might be so foolish as to be wishing to remain an Albertan in Canada. My response is that any separation might well - eventually - work in Alberta's favor but that between the present and that particular nirvana would be much difficulty and great cost so best to swallow some water with that wine! If Cooper wants a referendum, he can hope; I am not going to hope for one.
You raise the specter of the old WCC. Yup, so what? Idiotic notions put forth by idiots. That was then; this is emphatically now.
So, to conclude, Dave, I did read that whole column and I do and did enjoy it. I expect that I will enjoy your future commentary as well.
Now, a few - dare I say, kind of personal? - comments. I do not mean these as criticisms but I view them as explanatory. Well, at least to me. I apologize in advance if these comments seem to be criticisms; they are not; they simply allow me to put your commentary in some perspective.
Okay, so first, it seems to me from previous reading of your commentary that you are a supporter of the NDP. Again, I do not say that as a criticism but as perspective. So, given that starting point, I do not expect you to agree with the UCP or any of the candidates now running for the leadership and, particularly, I would not expect you to agree with Danielle Smith. Like I say, I am simply considering perspective.
I do not criticize your support for the NDP and Rachel Notley; it is simply that I roundly disagree. As two people, we can be civil and agree to disagree.
Now, given my comments about your perspective, I think that you have provided a good starting point on discussion - actually, I would really like to have the chance to go back and forth with you over a pot or two of coffee; good discussion, even with different starting points, can be quite useful, not to mention entertaining.
One final comment. Thank you for putting your time - and a few bucks, I am certain - into this endeavor. This sort of commentary is a very valuable addition to public discourse.
I mislead you: a final, final point. Full disclosure, I am (now, for the first time in my life - since April) a member of a political party - the UCP - and I have voted for Danielle Smith in the leadership election. I am quite certain that you are astounded by these revelations.
I welcome the clarity and perspective of this much needed voice in a province that bears its self-administered, roughly hewn and bruised chip on its shoulder - to the delight of many outsiders and the embarrassment of Albertans who tire of "the woe is me, hard done by crowd" - that serves none other than its "I'm alright Jack" brethren.
Great start to the column—thanks. Appreciate the clear, nuanced insights.
Appreciate the historical back ground Dave.. a person forgets about Kessler and his win in the Olds Constituency 👏
I just subscribed now! Looking forward reading more!
The rage & paranoia of Daniellezebub & her fellow travellers is breathtaking. The entire basis for Alberta separatism is a farrago of lies & disinformation. The rest of Canada isn’t out to get Alberta, Alberta doesn’t cut Québec City or Ottawa a cheque, & the federal government isn’t encroaching on provincial jurisdiction — although when it comes to health care & housing, many Canadians probably wish it would. In fact, Alberta is encroaching on exclusive federal jurisdiction in its stated resistance to the federal assault weapons buyback programme — and has also long infringed on federal jurisdiction over international relations by establishing offices in other countries.
Whoever wins this thing will have several months as Premier before they have to go the polls in May 2023 — this is, of course, presuming they don’t either ignore the fixed election date legislation & drop the writ this fall, or decide to govern beyond it out to the Constitutional limit of five years. I shudder to think how much damage they can do to the Alberta polity in that time.
The most important thing to remember about Smith is that when the going got tough she ran away.
In 2014, Smith abandoned her post as leader of the Wild Rose Party to join the Progressive Conservatives under Jim Prentice. In essence, Smith ran favour of a big, strong, white man, Jim Prentice. It was spun as "returning to her roots" but it was always just running away from problems in her own party. So what can we expect from Smith as leader of the UCP?
Our little runaway!
Compare that to Leela Aheer. When a 1200 kg rampaging bull threatened a cowboy, Leala didn't run away, she acted, and jumped into the fray with others to save the day.
One runs away, the other faces the risks.
Barry Cooper is a disgrace to his profession.
It's funny how he uses the term "Alberta Patriots" to imply that anyone who supports Canadian unity isn't a 'true' Albertan. It'll be interesting to see how his support for Smith squares with her advocating Alberta playing a positive role in Confederation.
Cooper seems to blithely overlook the fact that separation would kill any chance of new pipelines stone dead, send investors running for the hills, and let Alberta be carved up like a turkey under the Clarity Act. Here're some more details: https://jared-milne.medium.com/letter-i-love-alberta-too-much-to-support-separation-43c3a7d5265c
I Love Alberta Too Much To Support Separation.
Hmmm .... I started with your synopsis [Thank you for that: it allows the juices to start percolating without even having to read the whole column! But, I DID read the whole column - because nuance is important.].
So Danielle Smith's Alberta Sovereignty Act is "...designed to create a political crisis..." I have to say that this is a case of potato / potahto. Your political crisis is my assertion that Ottawa should stay on it's own Constitutional turf. Do you agree that Ottawa should stay within the jurisdiction set forth in the Constitution or do you think it acceptable that Ottawa should violate the jurisdictions set forth in the relevant sections (91 - 95, as I recall)?
Sure, Smith would be tickled if a federal Liberal would criticize it or if the LG withheld consent. On the other hand, doesn't every province like it when the feds tell that province what they must and must not do? It just allows that province - sorry, EACH and EVERY province - to run against Ottawa. After all, how much more Canadian can you get than that?
Yup, no Peter Lougheed present and none on the horizon. On the other hand, the 1982 tempest was absolutely in a teapot but this one? Oh, this is serious. And that is why there is no such person available right now because none of the usual suspects really know what to do and they really do understand (to the extent that they understand anything) that Alberta does not get treated the same as, oh, say, Ontario, let alone like that other province. You know the one that is violating the Constitution and not getting punished through the use of loopholes and simply brass.
So, Rachel Notley is salivating at the idea of taking on Danielle Smith. May the better woman win! And I fully expect that Danielle will do so.
I do find "delicious" your reference to Jason Kenney's apparent fruit of choice: bananas. Well, of course, JK is going to dispute the possibility that the ASA is a valid idea; he is a federalist before he is an Albertan. [Is he really an Albertan at all? After all those years in Ottawa being brainwashed by the Ottawa folk, can one really tell?]
So kind of you to mention Barry Cooper and his opinions. Too bad that he hasn't read the proposed law as it hasn't yet been presented to the Legislature. On the other hand, everyone - even Barry and even you - is entitled to an opinion, even if it is wrong. The one thing that Barry Cooper said that is absolutely, positively, demonstrably true is that the Constitution of Canada was created to benefit the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada - O & Q, as they are known today - and it continues to operate to the benefit of O & Q. If you want to verify that you can take pretty much any university level course on the Canadian Constitution. Does it work to the detriment of Alberta? Of course.
Ah, you yell "separation" and "separatism!" I have had occasion to correspond with folks who find the ASA to be too milquetoast for their liking and would prefer to separate; they wonder why I might be so foolish as to be wishing to remain an Albertan in Canada. My response is that any separation might well - eventually - work in Alberta's favor but that between the present and that particular nirvana would be much difficulty and great cost so best to swallow some water with that wine! If Cooper wants a referendum, he can hope; I am not going to hope for one.
You raise the specter of the old WCC. Yup, so what? Idiotic notions put forth by idiots. That was then; this is emphatically now.
So, to conclude, Dave, I did read that whole column and I do and did enjoy it. I expect that I will enjoy your future commentary as well.
Now, a few - dare I say, kind of personal? - comments. I do not mean these as criticisms but I view them as explanatory. Well, at least to me. I apologize in advance if these comments seem to be criticisms; they are not; they simply allow me to put your commentary in some perspective.
Okay, so first, it seems to me from previous reading of your commentary that you are a supporter of the NDP. Again, I do not say that as a criticism but as perspective. So, given that starting point, I do not expect you to agree with the UCP or any of the candidates now running for the leadership and, particularly, I would not expect you to agree with Danielle Smith. Like I say, I am simply considering perspective.
I do not criticize your support for the NDP and Rachel Notley; it is simply that I roundly disagree. As two people, we can be civil and agree to disagree.
Now, given my comments about your perspective, I think that you have provided a good starting point on discussion - actually, I would really like to have the chance to go back and forth with you over a pot or two of coffee; good discussion, even with different starting points, can be quite useful, not to mention entertaining.
One final comment. Thank you for putting your time - and a few bucks, I am certain - into this endeavor. This sort of commentary is a very valuable addition to public discourse.
I mislead you: a final, final point. Full disclosure, I am (now, for the first time in my life - since April) a member of a political party - the UCP - and I have voted for Danielle Smith in the leadership election. I am quite certain that you are astounded by these revelations.
Again, thank you for your work.