Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Alberta

Project Confederation group urging UCP Leadership hopefuls to consider Alberta first

Published

6 minute read

Article submitted by Josh Andrus of Project Confederation

The current Alberta government has certainly talked the talk about standing up to the federal government much better than previous administrations.

Actions speak louder than words, though, and action has been sorely lacking.

It has been more than nine months since Albertans strongly voiced their opinion in favour of abolishing equalization from the Constitution.

In the aftermath, the muted response from the federal government speaks volumes – when we called, nobody answered.

It has, therefore, become glaringly obvious that the equalization referendum was not enough to convince Ottawa to come to the table and initiate constitutional talks.

It’s also important to make sure we keep focused not just on any one particular problem, but on the core issue itself – the jurisdictional fight between the federal government and the provinces.

That’s why we need to effectively communicate to every Albertan three things:

  1. How the Canadian federation is supposed to work
  2. How it’s actually being run at the moment
  3. How to fix the problem and get it back to how it should be

1 How Canada is supposed to work is misunderstood (or misrepresented, perhaps deliberately so) all the time by the media, academics, politicians, and many others.

Canada is designed as a federation, and that word actually means something.

A federation is a union of (at least partially) self-governing states or provinces.

The creation of Canada didn’t merge a bunch of provinces, territories, colonies and countries into a single new entity.

Canadian confederation created a system where there was a clear division of powers between the federal government and the provinces.

Many (especially in Ottawa) think that the federal government sits “above” the provinces, suggesting it is more important, more powerful, and can tell the “lower” level of government what to do.

In fact, the federal government has complete sovereignty over the issues they were given jurisdiction over, while the provincial governments have complete sovereignty over the issues they were given jurisdiction over.

In short, Alberta – and all the other provinces – are supposed to be equal partners in this country, not subservient to continuously hostile federal governments in Ottawa.

 

2 Unfortunately, over time, the federal government has exerted jurisdiction over things it’s not supposed to control, and because the federal government gets to appoint federal judges, the federal judges have tended, also over time, to let the federal government get away with this.

Historically, this has involved ever-increasing federal control of natural resources and environmental concerns and the current federal government continued this trend, spending the past seven years trampling all over the constitutional jurisdiction of Alberta – through Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the carbon tax, and more.

Worse, they haven’t just completely ignored Alberta’s complaints about this overreach – they’ve actually continued to make things worse.

Since the equalization referendum, the federal government has continued to roll out even more new federal policies that will take over Alberta’s jurisdiction on a wide range of issues – childcare funding, healthcare rules, agriculture and fertilizer constraints, environment regulations, and more.

The current relationship between federal and provincial governments in Canada is not how it is supposed to be, and it isn’t sustainable.

Something has to give.

 

3 Given this approach by the federal government, it has become abundantly obvious that the equalization referendum was not enough to convince Ottawa to come to the table and negotiate some kind of compromise with Alberta.

Alberta must stand up for itself.

Alberta needs to start saying no to Ottawa, not just asking Ottawa nicely to change their mind.

Alberta must also demand that the Canadian Constitution be re-opened.

If the federal government’s judges are willing to twist the words in the Constitution so much that they become meaningless, then we need to re-write sections of the Constitution to make it crystal clear, in plain language, that the federal government’s current actions will not be tolerated or permitted any longer.

At a minimum, these changes would involve:

  • Abolishing equalization
  • A fair House of Commons
  • An equal Senate
  • Unrestricted free trade (including pipelines)
  • Complete provincial control over resources

Yes, this would be a big change from the current status quo.

But, let’s be clear, that’s only because things have drifted so far from what they are supposed to be.

Albertans are not actually asking for anything unique or radical.

We are simply asking for the federal government to follow the rules of the Constitution as they are written, not as they’ve been twisted to mean since.

And if the federal government won’t even agree to something as simple as that, well… at least we’ll have our answer then

Regards,

Josh Andrus
Executive Director
Project Confederation

PS:  If you’re in a position to contribute financially to our important work fighting for Alberta, you can make a donation here.

 

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

More from this author
Brownstone Institute / 2 hours ago

The Plan: Lock You Down for 130 Days

Brownstone Institute / 1 day ago

The Fraying of the Liberal International Order

Brownstone Institute / 4 days ago

My Official Apology to the New York Post

Alberta

Alberta’s province wide state of emergency ends as wildfire situation improves

Published on

Continue Reading

Alberta

Saskatchewan landowners fight against illegal drainage washing out land, roads

Published on

WAWOTA, Sask. — Lane Mountney spreads a map over his kitchen table at his farmhouse in southeast Saskatchewan, pointing to yellow and orange arrows slithering across the document. 

Many of the arrows represent existing channels and ditches, moving across fields and out of wetlands to drain water. The arrows eventually make their way to a creek, causing what he describes as a deluge of problems downstream. 

“All these years, guys have gotten away with draining water and the next guy figures he can get away withit,” Mountney said in an interview at his farm near Wawota, Sask., about 200 kilometres southeast of Regina. 

“If this keeps going like it has, I don’t know what Saskatchewan’s going to look like in 10 years.”

Mountney’s map depicts what’s called the Wawken Drainage Project, a plan developed by the local watershed group that has since been taken over by the Water Security Agency, which is responsible for overseeing drainage in Saskatchewan. 

The project is nearly 14 square kilometres and contains 880 wetlands of various sizes representing a total of 2.4 square kilometres of water. 

A project document indicates that 88 per cent of these wetlands have been drained, partially drained or farmed. About 12 per cent remain intact.

Most of this water is supposed to flow into a creek that runs through a parcel of Mountney’s land. 

The plan developers believe the creek can handle the flows, but Mountney is not convinced. 

Last year, he and his wife, Sandra Mountney, dealt with flooding ontheir horses’ pasture. They decided not to use their well water at the time because it was yellow. 

“They were very excited to tell us that nobody inside the project area is going to lose acres, but they haven’t even looked at who’s going to lose acres miles down the line.” Sandra Mountney said. 

Brent Fry, who farms grain and livestock, said it’s common for his land to flood for three days when people upstream get 50 millimetres of rain. 

He said it has caused roads and access points to erode.

“There are about four farms out there and all they’re doing is draining whether they’ve got permission or not,” Fry said. “I don’t even know what to do because the government’s not doing anything — they’re siding with the big guys.”

Farmers have drained water in Saskatchewan for generations and many have done so illegally by digging ditches without permits.  

Most producers drain because it allows them to grow more crops, helping them pay for land that has become increasingly expensive. However, it has caused yearly flooding for people downstream. Roads also wash out and habitat gets lost.

At the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities convention in February, reeves passed a resolution asking the Water Security Agency to require those who are illegally draining to remediate their unapproved works. 

Saskatchewan legislation requires upstream landowners to receive permission from those downstream when they want to drain, but many say that’s not happening. 

Sandra Mountney said the Water Security Agency hasn’t been taking concerns seriously.

“It’s hard to know who’s really protecting our waterways,” she said.

The Wawken project began about three years ago but hasn’t been completed. It’s among many drainage projects underway.

Daniel Phalen, a watershed planner, worked on the project as technician before he left for another job. 

He said landowners had been draining water with no permits before the plan. His job was to determine how many wetlands were drained and what works had already been done. 

Phalen said the plan was to put in structures that would slow down the drainage to reduce problems downstream. 

It’s unclear what work had been done on the Wawken project to mitigate flows since Phalen left. The Water Security Agency did not respond to a request for comment.

Phalen said projects can get held up if affected landowners don’t come to an agreement. Expropriation is allowed but it’s rare, he said.  

Another nearby drainage plan, known as the Martin project, has stalled because of landowner concerns.

Researchers have estimated Saskatchewan has lost half of its total wetlands over time for crop production. 

Phalen, who also worked on the Martin plan, said it was concerning to see the number of wetlands sucked out. 

“The Water Security Agency doesn’t have the manpower to do much about it,” Phalen said. “There’s such low enforcement already that if they had any policies in place, people would just drain anyways. It’s kind of a scary problem to be in.”

Sandra Mountney said she’s worried about losing wetlands because they help recharge groundwater supplies and filter contaminants — particularly important when it’s dry. 

The Water Security Agency has released a drainage management framework that aims to prevent flooding and ensure Saskatchewan retains a “sufficient” number of wetlands. 

Leah Clark, the Interim Executive Director of Agriculture Water Management, told attendees at a Saskatchewan Farm Stewardship Association meeting earlier this year that 43 per cent of wetlands are retained within approved projects. She added the province has “thriving” wildlife populations.

However, she said under the policy, landowners would be able to select which wetlands to retain.

“It will achieve a working landscape for landowners to continue to use their land for farming and ranching. This approach will allow for new development while retaining current drainage,” she said. 

Phalen said Saskatchewan could look to Manitoba for solutions to retain wetlands. 

Manitoba has historically drained most of its wetlands in the agricultural regions, he said, but the province has since developed a policy where landowners are paid for retaining them. 

“You know, $100 an acre is not a ton of money, but it’s another incentive to help producers,” he said. “It’s such a complex problem where you got this huge financial incentive to drain.”

Lane Mountney said regulations just need to be enforced. 

“It’s almost too late,” he said. “They should have been out there checking stuff before we got this point.” 

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 4, 2023.

Jeremy Simes, The Canadian Press

Continue Reading

Trending

X