Project Confederation group urging UCP Leadership hopefuls to consider Alberta first

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:

How the Canadian federation is supposed to work
How it’s actually being run at the moment
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.

Up Next

Global food shortage? So what! Governments want to reduce the use of fertilizer anyway

Don't Miss

More dollars going into classrooms to support today’s students

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

Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Alberta / 12 hours ago

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Crime / 13 hours ago

Everything you need to know about the failed assassination attempt of Donald Trump

Alberta

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Published on July 26, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

To understand Ottawa’s negative impact on Alberta’s economy and living standards, juxtapose two recent pieces of data.

First, in July the Trudeau government made three separate “economic development” spending announcements in Alberta, totalling more than $80 million and affecting 37 different projects related to the “green economy,” clean technology and agriculture. And second, as noted in a new essay by Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential structures) in Canada’s extraction sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) fell 51.2 per cent from 2014 to 2022.

The productivity gains that raise living standards and improve economic conditions rely on business investment. But business investment in Canada has declined over the past decade and total economic growth per person (inflation-adjusted) from Q3-2015 through to Q1-2024 has been less than 1 per cent versus robust growth of nearly 16 per cent in the United States over the same period.

For Canada’s extraction sector, as Green documents, federal policies—new fuel regulations, extended review processes on major infrastructure projects, an effective ban on oil shipments on British Columbia’s northern coast, a hard greenhouse gas emissions cap targeting oil and gas, and other regulatory initiatives—are largely to blame for the massive decline in investment.

Meanwhile, as Ottawa impedes private investment, its latest bundle of economic development announcements underscores its strategy to have government take the lead in allocating economic resources, whether for infrastructure and public institutions or for corporate welfare to private companies.

Consider these federally-subsidized projects.

A gas cloud imaging company received $4.1 million from taxpayers to expand marketing, operations and product development. The Battery Metals Association of Canada received $850,000 to “support growth of the battery metals sector in Western Canada by enhancing collaboration and education stakeholders.” A food manufacturer in Lethbridge received $5.2 million to increase production of plant-based protein products. Ermineskin Cree Nation received nearly $400,000 for a feasibility study for a new solar farm. The Town of Coronation received almost $900,000 to renovate and retrofit two buildings into a business incubator. The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada received $400,000 for marketing and other support to help boost clean technology product exports. And so on.

When the Trudeau government announced all this corporate welfare and spending, it naturally claimed it create economic growth and good jobs. But corporate welfare doesn’t create growth and good jobs, it only directs resources (including labour) to subsidized sectors and businesses and away from sectors and businesses that must be more heavily taxed to support the subsidies. The effect of government initiatives that reduce private investment and replace it with government spending is a net economic loss.

As 20th-century business and economics journalist Henry Hazlitt put it, the case for government directing investment (instead of the private sector) relies on politicians and bureaucrats—who did not earn the money and to whom the money does not belong—investing that money wisely and with almost perfect foresight. Of course, that’s preposterous.

Alas, this replacement of private-sector investment with public spending is happening not only in Alberta but across Canada today due to the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies. Lower productivity and lower living standards, the data show, are the unhappy results.

Author:

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Alberta

‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial

Published on July 25, 2024

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ray McGinnis

Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert are on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and firearms charges in relation to the Coutts Blockade into mid-February 2022. In opening her case before a Lethbridge, AB, jury on July 11, Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns stated “This is a political, criminal trial that is un Canadian.” She told the jury, “You will be shocked, and at the very least, disappointed with how Canada’s own RCMP conducted themselves during and after the Coutts protest,” as she summarized officers’ testimony during presentation of the Crown’s case. Burns also contended that “the conduct of Alberta’s provincial government and Canada’s federal government are entwined with the RCMP.” The arrests of the Coutts Four on the night of February 13 and noon hour of February 14, were key events in a decision by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, and the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, to advise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act. Chief Justice Paul Rouleau, in submitting his Public Order Emergency Commission Report to Parliament on February 17, 2023, also cited events at the Coutts Blockade as key to his conclusion that the government was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.

Justice David Labrenz cautioned attorney Burns regarding her language, after Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnson objected to some of the language in the opening statement of Olienick’s counsel. Futher discussion about the appropriateness of attorney Burns’ statement to the jury is behind a publication ban, as discussions occurred without the jury present.

Justice Labrenz told the jury on July 12, “I would remind you that the presumption of innocence means that both the accused are cloaked with that presumption, unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the charge(s).” He further clarified what should result if the jurors were uncertain about which narrative to believe: the account by the Crown, or the account from the accused lawyers. Labrenz stated that such ambivalence must lead to an acquittal; As such a degree of uncertainty regarding which case to trust in does not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a conviction.”

On July 15, 2024, a Lethbridge jury heard evidence from a former employer of Olienicks’ named Brian Lambert. He stated that he had tasked Olienick run his sandstone quarry and mining business. He was a business partner with Olienick. In that capacity, Olienick made use of what Lambert referred to as “little firecrackers,” to quarry the sandstone and reduce it in size. Reducing the size of the stone renders it manageable to get refined and repurposed so it could be sold to buyers of stone for other uses (building construction, patio stones, etc.) Lambert explained that the “firecrackers” were “explosive devices” packaged within tubing and pipes that could also be used for plumbing. He detailed how “You make them out of ordinary plumbing pipe and use some kind of propellant like shotgun powder…” Lambert explained that the length of the pipe “…depended on how big a hole or how large a piece of stone you were going to crack. The one I saw was about six inches long … maybe an inch in diameter.”

One of Olienick’s charges is “unlawful possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.” The principal evidence offered up by RCMP to the Crown is what the officers depicted as “pipe bombs” which they obtained at the residence of Anthony Olienick in Claresholm, Alberta, about a two-hour drive from Coutts. Officers entered his home after he was arrested the night of February 13, 2022. Lambert’s testimony offers a plausible common use for the “firecrackers” the RCMP referred to as “pipe bombs.” Lambert added, these “firecrackers” have a firecracker fuse, and in the world of “explosive” they are “no big deal.”

Fellow accused, Chris Carbert, is does not face the additional charge of unlawful possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose. This is the first full week of the case for the defence. The trial began on June 6 when the Crown began presenting its case.

Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy who recently attended several days of testimony at the Coutts Two trial.