Referendum will help Albertans kickstart national conversation about unfair Equalization, Danielle Smith

This is an exert from a newsletter by Danielle Smith. Click here to register to receive Danielle’s future newsletters.

Equalization referendum…

During the Stampede I met a pollster doing some polling on the equalization referendum in the fall. It has me worried. If the vote were held today there would be a lot of undecided. While it would likely still pass, we need the vote to be resounding so there can be no mistake how Albertans feel they are being treated.

For those of us who are diehard activists, voting “Yes” to remove equalization from the Constitution is a no brainer. When Brian Jean first proposed it I thought it was a waste of time. What’s is the point of having the province vote on a federal program? I initially thought.

Then Jean explained it to me in an interview and I thought the strategy was brilliant. By voting yes to delete a section of the Constitution it gets the ball rolling for a bigger conversation about Alberta’s role in Confederation. Under our parliamentary system – advised by court rulings and conventions – constitutional scholars say a “yes” vote will initiate a process that will unroll across the country. The federal government will be obligated to negotiate with Alberta in good faith and the other provincial legislatures will be compelled to consider a similar question in their provincial legislatures.

Here’s how it would work…

Here’s what could happen if we have a yes vote.

The other provinces will be compelled to consider and vote on the issue. If there are 7 out of 10 representing 50 per cent of the population it will be removed from the Constitution.

Admittedly, this is an unlikely outcome. I think we could convince AB, BC, SK, ON and NF that we are all being similarly hosed under the existing equalization program, but how would you ever convince net recipients such as QC, NS, PEI, NB and MB? Still, it would get a national conversation going about why the net payers are so frustrated.

If we don’t get others to agree, the principle of equalization stays in the Constitution, but we have a meaningful two-way dialogue about how it should be restructured, and that means designing it so QC no longer receives any money through the program from the rest of us.

I told you I went to the Fairness Alberta breakfast over the Stampede. Executive Director Bill Bewick is doing a terrific job digging into the numbers and explaining how absurd the entire program is.

Consider this: Newfoundland and Labrador is on the brink of bankruptcy and doesn’t qualify for equalization. Quebec has been running surpluses and paying down debt and they receive $10 billion from the program.

If I had my druthers, my starting point would be that only small provinces should be allowed to qualify for equalization. I think PEI has it particularly tough – attempting to run all the provincial programs that are available in other provinces with a population the size of Red Deer. Providing a top up for provinces in this situation is what the program should be all about. I want Islanders to have the same quality of health care, education, social services and infrastructure as we do.

But we need to be frank about this. The equalization formula has been manipulated and massaged mainly so federal politicians can give money to Quebec. Maybe it began with good intentions, as francophones began to assert themselves and their right to operate their businesses primarily in French and needed a hand up to catch up. Maybe it was justified when Quebeckers were sharply divided on whether it was worth it to stay in Canada, as evidenced by the 50-50 referendum result in 1995.

But today, it’s just taking advantage. In fact, it’s bordering on abuse.

Quebec is taking advantage of our goodwill…

Last week, Quebec’s Environment Minister Benoit Charette announced that Quebec would be rejecting a $14 billion project that would have seen GNL Quebec bring liquefied natural gas from Western Canada – principally Alberta – to Port Saguenay, Quebec so it could be exported on to Europe and Asia. Charette said it did not meet his standards for the environment:

“The promoter has not succeeded in demonstrating this, on the contrary,” he said, adding that the government is worried it would discourage natural gas buyers in Europe and Asia from moving to cleaner energy sources. “This is a project that has more disadvantages than advantages.”This is truly the last straw for me. If the Quebec government hates our energy industry this much and is actively working to destroy our natural gas industry I’m done with appeasement.

On the contrary, Minister…

Liquefied natural gas offers the best opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world. It is already “the cleaner burning fuel” as the ads used to say when I was growing up. It can easily replace coal in power plants and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in both China and India (which are adding coal-fired powerplants at a rate that dramatically exceeds the addition of wind and solar power everywhere in the world). Coupled with carbon capture and storage (underground) or utilization (for useful products including carbon nanofibre, concrete, industrial minerals, alcohol and ethylene) the greenhouse gas emissions problem can be solved. It is also going to be the base fuel for the new and emerging hydrogen economy, which will power all the heavy transportation we need to continue operating our global trade economy – marine vessels, trucks, trains, maybe even airplanes one day.

I am tired of placating the fantasy that our modern industrial economy is going to be powered by wind and solar and nothing else. Yes, hydrogen now offers a meaningful way for wind and solar to store the energy they produce, finally moving them towards being a reliable source of energy for our power grid. But once you’ve generated hydrogen at a wind or solar site, how do you transport it anywhere so it can be used for other purposes? The natural gas business can move it in pipelines. You can’t move hydrogen on powerlines.

But wind and solar are also not carbon neutral until concrete, steel, fibre glass, rare earth materials and transportation are carbon neutral. Wind and solar are not more environmentally friendly until they stop killing migratory birds and bats. Wind and solar are not environmentally neutral until we find a way to recycle them at the end of use (rather than dumping everything in a landfill).

If Quebec wants to interfere with the development of our resources, damage our economy and cost us jobs, I refuse to send them any more of our money. We cannot continue being economically hobbled by Quebec and damaged by federal government policy and expected to keep on shipping out dollars to Quebec. I would be delighted to see a financially independent, strong Quebec paying for their subsidized day care all on their own.

If they want to stand on their own two feet, bravo, let’s help them out. Let’s cut off the money pipeline.

Let’s help Quebec become financially independent…

Fairness Alberta has said three simple changes could cut the cost of the program in half and make sure Quebec is cut off almost entirely.

Stop adjusting the program to increase expenditures with GDP growth. This just makes logical sense. As provinces get wealthier and develop more own-source revenue they should need fewer federal transfers.
Adjust the payments to take into account inflation and different costs of delivering services in different provinces. It’s a lot more expensive to hire a nurse in Alberta than in PEI, for instance.
Add four cents to Quebec hydro. Quebec subsidizes electricity rates which lowers the amount of revenues available to government. Imagine if Alberta sold oil and natural gas below market value and then asked Ottawa to make up the shortfall. It’s bananas.

None of this negotiation can happen unless Albertans send a strong message that they have had it with the status quo.

Voting yes in the referendum means you are voting to eliminate or renegotiate. Voting no means you are happy being treated as the doormat of Confederation. Vote yes and make sure to tell your neighbours and friends to also.

Because as Bill points out on his Fairness Alberta website, this particular program is only one way that extra money gets transferred out of Alberta. As of 2019, Alberta has transferred nearly $325 billion to the rest of the country. We have to start changing this. Equalization is just the start.

Related Topics:#AlbertaReferendum #BillBewick #BrianJean #DanielleSmith #EqualizationReferendum #FairnessAlberta feature

Up Next

Nurses vs. MLAs: A Real Solution

Don't Miss

Utility Deferral Program: Adding Insult to Injury

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Today’s federal government—massive spending growth and epic betting

Environment / 2 hours ago

Journalism Misrepresent Climate Science

Brownstone Institute / 2 hours ago

Book Burning Goes Digital

Alberta

Canada’s postal service refuses to help with Trudeau’s gun ban buyback program: report

Published on May 5, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

According to a report, Canada’s mail service notified the Trudeau government via a letter that it would not participate in the buyback scheme, citing safety concerns for its employees.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government crackdown on legal gun owners through a buyback scheme has hit a major roadblock after Canada Post, a federal-run institution, signaled it will refuse to participate in scooping up thousands of legally purchased firearms at the bequest of the government.

According to government sources in a recent Radio-Canada report, the Trudeau Liberals were hoping Canada Post would help collect approximately 144,000 “assault” and “military-style” firearms that were recently banned by the government. Canada Post currently delivers guns via mail that are legally purchased to those with firearms licenses.

The inside source, who chose not to be named, noted that Canada Post notified the Trudeau government via a letter that it would not participate in the buyback scheme, citing safety concerns for its employees.

According to the source, Canada Post is still talking with the federal government, with one idea being to allow it to transport guns but not oversee getting them from their legal owners.

“It’s a challenge, but we do not think this jeopardizes our timetable or the government’s desire to move forward,” said one source, adding, “We want the discussions to continue.”

As for the Trudeau federal government, it continues to say that having Canada Post be involved in the gun buyback is the “most efficient” as well as “least costly” way to get the guns back from owners.

Trudeau’s gun grab was first announced after a deadly mass shooting in Nova Scotia in May 2020 in which he banned over 1,500 “military-style assault firearms” with a plan to begin buying them back from owners.

Late last year, the Trudeau government extended the amnesty deadline for legal gun owners until October 30, 2025. It should be noted that this is around the same time a federal election will take place.

The Canadian government’s controversial gun grab Bill C-21, which bans many types of guns, including handguns, and mandates a buyback program became law on December 14, 2023, after senators voted 60-24 in favor of the bill.

Alberta and other provinces promise to fight Trudeau’s gun grab tooth and nail

On the same day news broke that Canada Post said it would not participate in Trudeau’s gun buyback, Alberta chief firearms officer Teri Bryant last Wednesday issued a statement saying, “We urge the federal government to abandon this ill-advised program and meaningfully consult the provinces as we work to address the actual causes of firearms crime.”

“Canadians are still waiting for concrete details about the federal firearms confiscation program that has been in the works since 2020, and Canada Post’s refusal to participate in the federal government’s firearms ‘buy-back’ program is just one more example of how little forethought or engagement has gone into implementation of this program,” Bryant said.

Bryant noted that the buyback will not “significantly improve public safety” because it does not target those “involved in criminal activity and gun violence, and Albertans can be assured that our government will continue to advocate for our law-abiding firearms community.”

“We believe in a principled and informed approach to firearms policy that preserves public safety and recognizes the immense responsibility that comes with firearms ownership,” she noted.

Bryant observed that the federal confiscation program is not only causing uncertainty for many firearms businesses, but it is also “pulling attention and resources away from programs and initiatives that would help address public safety.”

“It is also undermining public confidence in the fairness of our entire firearms regulatory scheme,” she added.

Indeed, LifeSiteNews reported in February that despite Trudeau’s crackdown on legal gun owners, Statistics Canada data shows that most violent gun crimes in the country last year were not committed at the hands of legal gun owners but by those who obtained the weapons illegally.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, along with premiers from no less than four additional provinces, are opposed to C- 21.

Late last year, Smith promised she would strengthen the gun rights of Albertans because of Trudeau’s gun grab.

Alberta

Alberta threatens to fight Trudeau government restrictions on Canada’s plastics industry

Published on May 4, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

“If the federal government refuses to abide by the constitution, we will take them to court again to defend our jurisdiction and the thousands of Albertans who work in the petrochemical sector”

Alberta has rejected the Liberal government’s “unconstitutional” federal plastics registry and production limit.

In an April 25 press release, Alberta’s Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz promised to take Liberal Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault to court over his proposal to create a plastics registry, mandating companies to report their plastic production and implementation.

“If the federal government refuses to abide by the constitution, we will take them to court again to defend our jurisdiction and the thousands of Albertans who work in the petrochemical sector,” Schulz declared.

“This unilateral announcement is a slap in the face to Alberta and our province’s petrochemical industry, and the thousands of Albertans who work in it,” she continued.

Guilbeault’s plan, set to be implemented in September 2025, would mandate that businesses record how much plastic they place on the market in addition to the amount of plastic waste generated on their commercial, industrial, and institutional premises.

Companies would then report that amount to the federal government. The plan exempts small businesses which produce less than one tonne of plastic each year.

However, Schulz explained that the registry would negatively affect Alberta, as “plastics production is a growing part of Alberta’s economy, and we are positioned to lead the world for decades to come in the production of carbon neutral plastics.”

“Minister Guilbeault’s proposal would throw all of that into jeopardy and risk billions of dollars in investments. This includes projects like Dow Chemical’s net-zero petrochemical plant in Fort Saskatchewan, a $9-billion project that will create thousands of jobs,” she warned.

“If the federal government limits plastic production in Canada, other countries like China will just produce more. The only outcome that this federal government will achieve will be fewer jobs in Canada,” she explained.

Schulz’s statement comes after the November decision by the Federal Court to rule in favor of Alberta and Saskatchewan, declaring that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government overstepped its authority by classifying plastic as “toxic” and banning all single-use plastic items, like straws.

Essentially, the ruling overturned Trudeau’s 2022 law which outlawed manufacturing or importing plastic straws, cutlery, and checkout bags on the grounds of government claims that plastic was having a negative effect on the oceans. In reality, most plastic pollution in the oceans comes from a few countries, like India and China, which dump waste directly on beaches or in rivers.

The November ruling was only one of two recent court rulings that have dealt a blow to Trudeau’s environmental laws.

The second ruling came after Canada’s Supreme Court recently sided in favor of provincial autonomy when it comes to natural resources. The Supreme Court recently ruled that Trudeau’s law C-69, dubbed the “no-more pipelines” bill, is “mostly unconstitutional.” This was a huge win for Alberta and Saskatchewan, which challenged the law in court. The decision returned authority over the pipelines to provincial governments, meaning oil and gas projects headed up by the provinces should be allowed to proceed without federal intrusion.

The Trudeau government, however, seems insistent on defying the recent rulings by pushing forward with its various regulations.