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.
Perhaps you can provide a few examples of exactly where the federal government has strayed from its "constitutional turf" without either direct support from the provinces ($10 day care, for a recent example) or without explicit constitutional support from multiple levels of the judiciary (see the Carbon Tax)? Regardless of what you might think of the Liberal's handling of the pandemic, the federal government stayed well within constitutional boundaries when it imposed its vaccination mandates.
Prior to Trudeau, the last major attempt a eroding constitutional jurisdictional boundaries was the Harper's government attempt to force a national securities regulator onto the provinces. And that failed miserably.
Clearly, a specific party affiliation and ideology is not a prerequisite to tinkering with constitutional boundaries.
What lies behind both Kenney's "battle" with Ottawa, and this idiotic sovereignty act by Smith, is a desire for more money from Ottawa. Both Kenney and Smith, are in their own ways, begging the feds for cash.
Whereas Kenney framed his approach as fighting for Alberta, he was on his knees at every opportunity. Smith's approach is like a 5-year threatening to hold a public tantrum to bring Ottawa to the negotiating table. Neither Kenney nor Smith, however, have any legitimate proposal to better balance federal spending in Canada. Barry's Cooper's idea that all federal tax raised in Alberta should be spent in Alberta is nonsense and belies the very basis of Canada's constitutional bargain.
The irony is that the Alberta government has everything it needs to sort out the financial mess the Conservatives and NDP have made without a single red penny from Ottawa. The Alberta political class simply refuse to do so. This is not a failing of Ottawa but Edmonton.
The Carton Tax is a great example of fiscal stupidity - why allow Ottawa to collect tax revenue from Alberta emitters and then spend the money elsewhere? It's a good, old-fashion political irritant but poor fiscal management. If Kenney and Smith want control over the finances, start with repatriating the Carbon Tax, not promising a political tantrum that will make Alberta a laughing stock.
Please also keep in mind, candidates have been saying what they need to say to get elected since Quintus advised Cicero. In a trillion-channel universe, candidates have to stand out to be heard. In this case, Smith has taken advice from others (white men) on how best to stand out from the pack! She has no original ideas of her own. Also, how you get elected leader of a political party is not how you get elected to govern. Promising to be radical is not the same thing as being radical. Advice to both Smith and PP.
You provide some good commentary and you also provide a good example with your immediate comment on day care. I absolutely agree that the $10 day care is an example of federal-provincial co-operation but it is, in truth forced co-operation. The federal government decided on it's own that the day care issue should be a federal program and, with the very much greater federal spending power, announced that it would role out such a program even though it was a clearly provincial jurisdiction. The various provinces were effectively coerced into participating as their populations would be financing that program nationally but would have no benefit whatsoever unless they participated in that program.
When I look at the childcare program I am absolutely reminded of medicare. The federal government and the provinces agreed on a medicare program where the feds agreed to pay fifty percent of the costs. Now, many decades later, the feds have time and time again unilaterally decreased their share of funding so that they now pay somewhere about twenty-six or twenty-seven percent or some such.
So, it is not simply the intrusion into provincial space it is that the federal government simply cannot be trusted to keep it's commitments.
As for the pandemic, you brought that up, I didn't. I didn't like what any government did but clearly they had to do something; I felt that the federal government was incompetent in many respects in the pandemic, as the current level of inflation is showing, but competence is quite another issue.
Ah, the national securities regulator. Yup, it was flawed and I am glad that it did not come to pass. Now, having said that, it was a solution in search of a problem and showed the mind set of those who hang around Ottawa.
You say, "a specific party affiliation and ideology is not a prerequisite to tinkering with constitutional boundaries" and I agree. Again, "Ottawa think" is a disease that must always be fought. I do believe that politicians are like babies diapers: they both must be changed regularly for much the same reason.
You mention the idea that the JK and DS are interested in more money from Ottawa. I suppose that is true. Many of the responsibilities assigned to the provinces require much financial capacity, of which the feds have an overwhelming share. Or, put it differently, the feds have taken such a share of the overall revenue pie that the provinces have much reduced room to maneuver fiscally. So, the feds announce a grand program and the provinces are fiscally coerced into participation.
You don't like the Sovereignty Act. Fine. Who cares? Not me. In fact, if the feds stay on their side of the line there is no issue, is there?
"Canada's constitutional bargain" is a wonderful phrase that you offer. That "bargain" was, is and always (under the current Constitution) be for the benefit of O & Q. If you don't believe that, look at the number of seats provided to Alberta in the Commons and the Senate as compared to population and then make that comparison to, oh, say, Quebec. You could also look at the number of appointments to the SCC guaranteed to a particular province and the number of appointments guaranteed to Alberta. My point is that the system is skewed to ensure that O & Q have their concerns and representations guaranteed while Alberta is required to hope that our concerns might be taken up by our "worsers" - absolutely not our betters.
You use the Carbon Tax as a bludgeon to "prove" that Alberta is "stupid." And, again, we have the feds using their taxing power to try to get us to meet their goals and objectives. What if we didn't want a Carbon Tax but used other means? Hmmm? Oh, you say only a CT was valid? Horsefeathers! Ottawa decided and then proceeded.
So, in conclusion, again, thank you for your response. I request of you that we politely agree to disagree for there is no way, I expect, that I will convince you and I can certainly tell you that you have not convinced me.
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.
Thanks for reading and for the feedback!
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.
Perhaps you can provide a few examples of exactly where the federal government has strayed from its "constitutional turf" without either direct support from the provinces ($10 day care, for a recent example) or without explicit constitutional support from multiple levels of the judiciary (see the Carbon Tax)? Regardless of what you might think of the Liberal's handling of the pandemic, the federal government stayed well within constitutional boundaries when it imposed its vaccination mandates.
Prior to Trudeau, the last major attempt a eroding constitutional jurisdictional boundaries was the Harper's government attempt to force a national securities regulator onto the provinces. And that failed miserably.
Clearly, a specific party affiliation and ideology is not a prerequisite to tinkering with constitutional boundaries.
What lies behind both Kenney's "battle" with Ottawa, and this idiotic sovereignty act by Smith, is a desire for more money from Ottawa. Both Kenney and Smith, are in their own ways, begging the feds for cash.
Whereas Kenney framed his approach as fighting for Alberta, he was on his knees at every opportunity. Smith's approach is like a 5-year threatening to hold a public tantrum to bring Ottawa to the negotiating table. Neither Kenney nor Smith, however, have any legitimate proposal to better balance federal spending in Canada. Barry's Cooper's idea that all federal tax raised in Alberta should be spent in Alberta is nonsense and belies the very basis of Canada's constitutional bargain.
The irony is that the Alberta government has everything it needs to sort out the financial mess the Conservatives and NDP have made without a single red penny from Ottawa. The Alberta political class simply refuse to do so. This is not a failing of Ottawa but Edmonton.
The Carton Tax is a great example of fiscal stupidity - why allow Ottawa to collect tax revenue from Alberta emitters and then spend the money elsewhere? It's a good, old-fashion political irritant but poor fiscal management. If Kenney and Smith want control over the finances, start with repatriating the Carbon Tax, not promising a political tantrum that will make Alberta a laughing stock.
Please also keep in mind, candidates have been saying what they need to say to get elected since Quintus advised Cicero. In a trillion-channel universe, candidates have to stand out to be heard. In this case, Smith has taken advice from others (white men) on how best to stand out from the pack! She has no original ideas of her own. Also, how you get elected leader of a political party is not how you get elected to govern. Promising to be radical is not the same thing as being radical. Advice to both Smith and PP.
So ho hum nothing has changed.
Thank you for your response.
You provide some good commentary and you also provide a good example with your immediate comment on day care. I absolutely agree that the $10 day care is an example of federal-provincial co-operation but it is, in truth forced co-operation. The federal government decided on it's own that the day care issue should be a federal program and, with the very much greater federal spending power, announced that it would role out such a program even though it was a clearly provincial jurisdiction. The various provinces were effectively coerced into participating as their populations would be financing that program nationally but would have no benefit whatsoever unless they participated in that program.
When I look at the childcare program I am absolutely reminded of medicare. The federal government and the provinces agreed on a medicare program where the feds agreed to pay fifty percent of the costs. Now, many decades later, the feds have time and time again unilaterally decreased their share of funding so that they now pay somewhere about twenty-six or twenty-seven percent or some such.
So, it is not simply the intrusion into provincial space it is that the federal government simply cannot be trusted to keep it's commitments.
As for the pandemic, you brought that up, I didn't. I didn't like what any government did but clearly they had to do something; I felt that the federal government was incompetent in many respects in the pandemic, as the current level of inflation is showing, but competence is quite another issue.
Ah, the national securities regulator. Yup, it was flawed and I am glad that it did not come to pass. Now, having said that, it was a solution in search of a problem and showed the mind set of those who hang around Ottawa.
You say, "a specific party affiliation and ideology is not a prerequisite to tinkering with constitutional boundaries" and I agree. Again, "Ottawa think" is a disease that must always be fought. I do believe that politicians are like babies diapers: they both must be changed regularly for much the same reason.
You mention the idea that the JK and DS are interested in more money from Ottawa. I suppose that is true. Many of the responsibilities assigned to the provinces require much financial capacity, of which the feds have an overwhelming share. Or, put it differently, the feds have taken such a share of the overall revenue pie that the provinces have much reduced room to maneuver fiscally. So, the feds announce a grand program and the provinces are fiscally coerced into participation.
You don't like the Sovereignty Act. Fine. Who cares? Not me. In fact, if the feds stay on their side of the line there is no issue, is there?
"Canada's constitutional bargain" is a wonderful phrase that you offer. That "bargain" was, is and always (under the current Constitution) be for the benefit of O & Q. If you don't believe that, look at the number of seats provided to Alberta in the Commons and the Senate as compared to population and then make that comparison to, oh, say, Quebec. You could also look at the number of appointments to the SCC guaranteed to a particular province and the number of appointments guaranteed to Alberta. My point is that the system is skewed to ensure that O & Q have their concerns and representations guaranteed while Alberta is required to hope that our concerns might be taken up by our "worsers" - absolutely not our betters.
You use the Carbon Tax as a bludgeon to "prove" that Alberta is "stupid." And, again, we have the feds using their taxing power to try to get us to meet their goals and objectives. What if we didn't want a Carbon Tax but used other means? Hmmm? Oh, you say only a CT was valid? Horsefeathers! Ottawa decided and then proceeded.
So, in conclusion, again, thank you for your response. I request of you that we politely agree to disagree for there is no way, I expect, that I will convince you and I can certainly tell you that you have not convinced me.