Connect with us

Alberta

Why the Sovereignty Act is good for Alberta – Jason Stephan

Published

6 minute read

Submitted by Red Deer South MLA Jason Stephan

The Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act is Good for Alberta

There is a lot of fear mongering on the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act. My purpose is to share why this Act is good for Alberta.

Eastern politicians do not like the Act. It threatens the status quo they benefit under.

Their status quo has enabled a pattern of abuse and economic warfare on Alberta, disrespecting its jurisdiction over its resources, creating chaos and injecting commercial uncertainty, chasing away billions in private sector investments and thousands of Alberta jobs. They are a threat to our freedom and prosperity.

Some of them are using straw men to misrepresent the Act and then attack the worst version of it manufactured out of their misrepresentations, only existing in their minds. The Act says Alberta possesses a unique culture and shared identity within Canada.

What is Alberta’s culture and identity?

Alberta is a land of freedom and prosperity. To many Albertans, this inheritance and heritage is an integral part of our culture and identity.

Why is Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act necessary?

Is it because there are concerns we are sleepwalking towards disaster? Yes.

Is it because the morally and fiscally bankrupt Trudeau, Canada’s first NDP prime minister, government is a hostile, one trillion plus fiscal train wreck, attacking Alberta, threatening to drag us down with it? Yes.

Yet, in spite of this incompetent Ottawa, Alberta still succeeds. But they are a growing danger. We need to protect ourselves.

If Alberta was not a part of Canada, and was invited to join this rigged partnership, under current terms, would we join? No.

Is Alberta compelled to be a “host” in a parasitic relationship? No.

Alberta is not compelled to suffer constant harassment and attack.

But, what about unity? For the sake of unity, are we forced to allow ourselves to suffer attacks from politicians seeking power? No.

Albertans do not need to unite with political corruption. Unity without integrity is fake.

Canada is a dysfunctional partnership. That is the truth. Alberta is a rainmaker partner. A partnership that undermines and attacks its rainmaker partner would never survive in the real world.

There are some partners, such as Quebec, that “game” this partnership and take from Alberta families and businesses for political gain. This partnership is becoming corrupt.

A partnership where “producing” is displaced with “taking” as a ruling principle will never survive.

A foundational principle of the Act is accountability. Accountability can take a partnership that is dysfunctional and corrupt, restore integrity and make it competitive.

There are dark clouds in the horizon. Trudeau is the paymaster of the CBC and others, seek to fill our minds with mush, virtue signaling pablum.

Yet, we must prepare, we cannot be slothful, we cannot be neglectful, we cannot sit in a thoughtless stupor, not understanding, sticking heads in the sand.

The more truth, the better.

Doesn’t Ottawa seek to do indirectly, what constitutionally it is not allowed to do directly, such as with Alberta’s constitutional authority over its oil and gas resources? Yes.

Didn’t Alberta’s Court of Appeal describe Trudeau’s carbon tax as a sneaky “constitutional trojan horse”? Yes.

Isn’t Trudeau now proposing a new carbon tax or cap and trade that singles out and disproportionately punishes Alberta? Yes.

Wouldn’t that inflict more economic “chaos”, chasing out additional billions in investment and Alberta jobs with it? Yes.

Is this part of a pattern of hostile behavior from Ottawa seeking to attack and take advantage of Alberta, holding it back? Yes.

How have sternly worded letter served us?

Isn’t the purpose of this Act, to assert and defend constitutional parameters that Ottawa habitually ignores and attacks? Yes.

Under section 92A of the Constitution Act, Alberta has jurisdiction over its natural resources, not Ottawa. This Act should be invoked and say NO to Ottawa and their “discussion paper” and leave Alberta and their constitutional jurisdiction alone.

The unfortunate truth is that Ottawa has made itself an unpredictable and hostile variable, a threat to the freedom and prosperity of Alberta businesses and families that should not be underestimated. Alberta is compelled to protect itself.

Boundaries support accountability, boundaries are integral to normal adult relationships. This Act seeks to impose boundaries that Ottawa continually disrespects, to discriminate, attack, and force itself into Alberta’s constitutional jurisdictions.

Ottawa is the risk that we can no longer afford, not a law that seeks to do something about it!

The Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act is good for Alberta.
Alberta is a land of freedom and prosperity. We must be vigilant to keep it that way.

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

Alberta

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Published on

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.

Continue Reading

Alberta

‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial

Published on

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

X