The Globe and Mail reports that “Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is mulling seizing ownership of information oil and gas companies collect about greenhouse gases in her province and banning the release of such intelligence without her government’s approval, as she escalates her fight with Ottawa over its proposed emissions cap.”
Whenever someone brings up the Sovereignty Act and Alberta separation with me, I enjoy yanking their chain by suggesting that the Federal Government might simply respond by repealing the Alberta Act (equally unconstitutionally), thereby causing the province to cease to exist and re-establishing direct rule of its former territory from Ottawa.
Seriously, though, this is just more theatrics from Danielle Smith designed to keep the UCP base in line. I’m confident that the Alberta government knows the limits of its own power.
All this jiggery-pokery would be relatively harmless examples of 'parliamentary cretinism' except for the fact that there are going to be a very small number of rubes that are going to believe all this nonsense. And when it deflates into nothing, they are going to become radicalized into thinking this is evidence of the 'deep state' and 'Trudeau as dictator'. And when that happens, recruitment for groups like Atom Waffen, Soldiers of Odin, and, Diagolon just goes up a notch. And some of them are actually going to believe the propaganda these groups pump out. Which will eventually increase the harassment of politicians and the number of stochastic (so-called 'loan wolf') terrorist incidents.
I would so like to figure out how to force some of these politicians to actually listen to what the research says---.
It needs to be said clearly that the anti-constitutional, pointless claims made in the Alberta Sovereignty Act originate in American political interference, imitation, and immigration by ex-patriot Americans to Alberta.
As in all sovereign nations the will of the people is the will of the whole, not of villages, towns, provinces, or "states" putting their interest or points of view ahead of the national will and the common good.
"Canada is not half a dozen provinces; Canada is One Great Dominion" is how Canada's founding prime minister described the new country within what was then the British Empire, rather than a handful of squabbling villages, towns, provinces or "states", each declaring a right to obey or not to obey the laws of the nation. No surprise that a highly centralized federation should be the outcome of the negotiated terms of Confederation.
No surprise because the Fathers of Confederation, coming from all of the soon to be former colonies in British North America could see first hand the horror of the US Civil War resulting from "states rights" federalism and the issue at the heart of it, the choice to sustain the economies of slave states by that odious practice.
Today the greater harm comes in Canada from the choice in Alberta to sustain the economy of a petro-province unwilling to change according to the laws passed by the Government of Canada for the greater good against the existential threat to humanity of climate change - fueled by petty politicians in Alberta, and to a lesser extent in other smaller western provinces, who blame the democratic will of all Canadians in parliament, Ottawa, as a source of alienation.
Like slave states blaming Washington, the petro-province (like Quebec for other historical reasons) blames Ottawa for what they describe as grievance and alienation.
Just as this today this has led to the rise of a neo-fascist Far Right in America and libertarianism, so the American example is echoed in a coming neo-fascist Far Right in Canada, in each case claiming to be grievance against alienating elites when in reality it is failed understanding of their own economic failure to face the future boldly, with confidence, guided by the rule of law as the cornerstone of democracy.
We can and we must do better.
Post Script: The Supreme Court's constitutional architecture argument present in the 2014 Senate Reference and elsewhere (for example concerning the unconstitutionality of proportional representation and fixed date elections) is vital, definitive of Canadian federalism, parliament, and our evolved parliamentary democracy. I am aware that you wrongly describe reliance on the constitutional architecture argument as arbitrary and so on but you are unquestionably wrong. Constitutional architecture is the framework, the actual constitution on which all political activity relies and must remain consistent to be lawful and constitutional. The politics of the moment, instead, is arbitrary and unreliable; hence the misunderstanding that political life and parliamentary democracy concern party relationships and party representation. That misunderstanding - that party representation rather than riding representation - has become all the more dangerous as parties have become agencies of "movements" and, worse, agency of populism and populist demagoguery.
The great Peter Russell failed in his not acknowledging this defining aspect of our constitutional life. Constitutional architecture is defined by principles, not temporary party politics or party/movement mission statements, manifestoes, party principles or agendas.
To say nothing of the stone cold stupid part of Alberta’s ‘strategy’ She’s fighting last years war. Like the War Room. Which arrived after the war. And started an unnecessary one. Alberta’s political gene pool should get out more often. They haven’t had a policy/issue win for a couple of decades.
No win for decades?? Stephen, you jest. Alberta has won two very consequential cases on federal over-reach recently, during Danielle Smith's tenure. You need to get out more often.
Albertans are sick and tired of being the divorced dad of confederation - the party who pays all of the equalization bills (among many other more hidden transfers) while being shown no gratitude for it by the rest of Canada. Indeed, while being constantly disrespected and criticized mercilessly by the spoilt children of confederation. The rest of Canada plays this game at their own ultimate peril. A lot of Albertans will be supporting Quebec separation in the next referendum, in the hope that the dominoes will fall and Alberta will be able to abandon their colonial oppressors in eastern Canada.
Alberta's O&G sector almost single-handedly props up the Canadian dollar in foreign exchange; it is almost the only thing Canada makes these days that the world wants to buy from us. As Trudeau has killed investment in this industry, the Canadian dollar has fallen to near-historic lows. Every Canadian is unwittingly paying for this folly with more expensive imports. How clever.
Albertans don't really care if the Sovereignty Act is constitutional anymore. In the present case, as long as matters are tied up in court and can't be enforced until PP becomes Prime Minister and repeals all of the idiotic Trudeau regulations, it will have served its purpose.
The federal government may pass whatever laws it pleases, and dress them up to make them appear to fit a federal jurisdiction. But law enforcement is a provincial jurisdiction. Provincial agencies, including police forces, have no legal or constitutional obligation to enforce federal laws. Let the federal government send in their own thugs to enforce their stupid laws, and use their own courts to issue orders.
I understand how Alberta gets screwed in confderation quite well enough, Hope. At least $13billion in wealth created in Alberta every year gets spent elsewhere in Canada, mostly in Quebec, simply to buy votes for eastern politicians. The nuances and subtleties in how this heist is accomplished might make an "Ocean's 11" movie script, but you don't need to know that for the plot summary. Describing an Albertans' reaction to this rapaciousness as "pathetic self-pitying nonsense" hardly qualifies as informed and intelligent expertise. It is typical Laurentian Elite bullshit.
When the corps do collect the information on emissions does not ensure the data provided to the government would necessarily be accurate. Living in limbo land here in Alberta how low will the limbo stick go?? Corporations may also have more than one set of records. The music of the oil barrel drums is far more attractive than the emissions going into the fresh air at the top. The layers of black clouds hanging in the air early in the morning leaves far more clear evidence.
Your short piece here proceeds on the assumption that the federal exercise of powers in this instance *is* consistent with the existing constitutional division of powers.
You don't make the case for it just as in your earlier arguments you don't really demonstrate how the Sovereignty Act is unconstitutional or even anti-constitutional. You just assert that your point is correct.
If this is so and is so obviously so as you assert then there is absolutely nothing to worry about since - on the face of it - the provincial action is unenforceable. Yet you are agitated to the point where there evidently *is* something to be very worried about. These two notions cannot live in the same space yet here we are.
If this Sovereignty Act and anything flowing from it is actually unconstitutional, then the courts will sort it out just as they did with the IAA and may well do again with the IAA version 2.
What seems to be more potentially problematic is the notion that information owned by private corporations is in fact public information.
My goodness man, no, it doesn't proceed on that assumption. In fact, you're gonna want to re-read it. Try keeping an eye out for the little paragraph that starts "On the other hand,..."
Whenever someone brings up the Sovereignty Act and Alberta separation with me, I enjoy yanking their chain by suggesting that the Federal Government might simply respond by repealing the Alberta Act (equally unconstitutionally), thereby causing the province to cease to exist and re-establishing direct rule of its former territory from Ottawa.
Seriously, though, this is just more theatrics from Danielle Smith designed to keep the UCP base in line. I’m confident that the Alberta government knows the limits of its own power.
Thanks for the update.
The Government of Alberta does not play well in the sandbox of Confederation.
All this jiggery-pokery would be relatively harmless examples of 'parliamentary cretinism' except for the fact that there are going to be a very small number of rubes that are going to believe all this nonsense. And when it deflates into nothing, they are going to become radicalized into thinking this is evidence of the 'deep state' and 'Trudeau as dictator'. And when that happens, recruitment for groups like Atom Waffen, Soldiers of Odin, and, Diagolon just goes up a notch. And some of them are actually going to believe the propaganda these groups pump out. Which will eventually increase the harassment of politicians and the number of stochastic (so-called 'loan wolf') terrorist incidents.
I would so like to figure out how to force some of these politicians to actually listen to what the research says---.
It needs to be said clearly that the anti-constitutional, pointless claims made in the Alberta Sovereignty Act originate in American political interference, imitation, and immigration by ex-patriot Americans to Alberta.
As in all sovereign nations the will of the people is the will of the whole, not of villages, towns, provinces, or "states" putting their interest or points of view ahead of the national will and the common good.
"Canada is not half a dozen provinces; Canada is One Great Dominion" is how Canada's founding prime minister described the new country within what was then the British Empire, rather than a handful of squabbling villages, towns, provinces or "states", each declaring a right to obey or not to obey the laws of the nation. No surprise that a highly centralized federation should be the outcome of the negotiated terms of Confederation.
No surprise because the Fathers of Confederation, coming from all of the soon to be former colonies in British North America could see first hand the horror of the US Civil War resulting from "states rights" federalism and the issue at the heart of it, the choice to sustain the economies of slave states by that odious practice.
Today the greater harm comes in Canada from the choice in Alberta to sustain the economy of a petro-province unwilling to change according to the laws passed by the Government of Canada for the greater good against the existential threat to humanity of climate change - fueled by petty politicians in Alberta, and to a lesser extent in other smaller western provinces, who blame the democratic will of all Canadians in parliament, Ottawa, as a source of alienation.
Like slave states blaming Washington, the petro-province (like Quebec for other historical reasons) blames Ottawa for what they describe as grievance and alienation.
Just as this today this has led to the rise of a neo-fascist Far Right in America and libertarianism, so the American example is echoed in a coming neo-fascist Far Right in Canada, in each case claiming to be grievance against alienating elites when in reality it is failed understanding of their own economic failure to face the future boldly, with confidence, guided by the rule of law as the cornerstone of democracy.
We can and we must do better.
Post Script: The Supreme Court's constitutional architecture argument present in the 2014 Senate Reference and elsewhere (for example concerning the unconstitutionality of proportional representation and fixed date elections) is vital, definitive of Canadian federalism, parliament, and our evolved parliamentary democracy. I am aware that you wrongly describe reliance on the constitutional architecture argument as arbitrary and so on but you are unquestionably wrong. Constitutional architecture is the framework, the actual constitution on which all political activity relies and must remain consistent to be lawful and constitutional. The politics of the moment, instead, is arbitrary and unreliable; hence the misunderstanding that political life and parliamentary democracy concern party relationships and party representation. That misunderstanding - that party representation rather than riding representation - has become all the more dangerous as parties have become agencies of "movements" and, worse, agency of populism and populist demagoguery.
The great Peter Russell failed in his not acknowledging this defining aspect of our constitutional life. Constitutional architecture is defined by principles, not temporary party politics or party/movement mission statements, manifestoes, party principles or agendas.
To say nothing of the stone cold stupid part of Alberta’s ‘strategy’ She’s fighting last years war. Like the War Room. Which arrived after the war. And started an unnecessary one. Alberta’s political gene pool should get out more often. They haven’t had a policy/issue win for a couple of decades.
Hard to tell over the volume of noise being made over a policy that’s dead.
No win for decades?? Stephen, you jest. Alberta has won two very consequential cases on federal over-reach recently, during Danielle Smith's tenure. You need to get out more often.
Par for the course for this nutcase Premier.
Albertans are sick and tired of being the divorced dad of confederation - the party who pays all of the equalization bills (among many other more hidden transfers) while being shown no gratitude for it by the rest of Canada. Indeed, while being constantly disrespected and criticized mercilessly by the spoilt children of confederation. The rest of Canada plays this game at their own ultimate peril. A lot of Albertans will be supporting Quebec separation in the next referendum, in the hope that the dominoes will fall and Alberta will be able to abandon their colonial oppressors in eastern Canada.
Alberta's O&G sector almost single-handedly props up the Canadian dollar in foreign exchange; it is almost the only thing Canada makes these days that the world wants to buy from us. As Trudeau has killed investment in this industry, the Canadian dollar has fallen to near-historic lows. Every Canadian is unwittingly paying for this folly with more expensive imports. How clever.
Albertans don't really care if the Sovereignty Act is constitutional anymore. In the present case, as long as matters are tied up in court and can't be enforced until PP becomes Prime Minister and repeals all of the idiotic Trudeau regulations, it will have served its purpose.
The federal government may pass whatever laws it pleases, and dress them up to make them appear to fit a federal jurisdiction. But law enforcement is a provincial jurisdiction. Provincial agencies, including police forces, have no legal or constitutional obligation to enforce federal laws. Let the federal government send in their own thugs to enforce their stupid laws, and use their own courts to issue orders.
All this pathetic self-pitying nonsense doesn't change constitutional basics, thankfully.
The unsoundness of your judgment is matched only by the shallowness of your insight.
Says a very biased man not even comprehending Equalization, to a very informed & intelligent Expert!!
I understand how Alberta gets screwed in confderation quite well enough, Hope. At least $13billion in wealth created in Alberta every year gets spent elsewhere in Canada, mostly in Quebec, simply to buy votes for eastern politicians. The nuances and subtleties in how this heist is accomplished might make an "Ocean's 11" movie script, but you don't need to know that for the plot summary. Describing an Albertans' reaction to this rapaciousness as "pathetic self-pitying nonsense" hardly qualifies as informed and intelligent expertise. It is typical Laurentian Elite bullshit.
Like I said, YOU do NOT comprehend Equalization!!
But as always Albertans keep cultivating their booming Whine Industry!!
When the corps do collect the information on emissions does not ensure the data provided to the government would necessarily be accurate. Living in limbo land here in Alberta how low will the limbo stick go?? Corporations may also have more than one set of records. The music of the oil barrel drums is far more attractive than the emissions going into the fresh air at the top. The layers of black clouds hanging in the air early in the morning leaves far more clear evidence.
Your short piece here proceeds on the assumption that the federal exercise of powers in this instance *is* consistent with the existing constitutional division of powers.
You don't make the case for it just as in your earlier arguments you don't really demonstrate how the Sovereignty Act is unconstitutional or even anti-constitutional. You just assert that your point is correct.
If this is so and is so obviously so as you assert then there is absolutely nothing to worry about since - on the face of it - the provincial action is unenforceable. Yet you are agitated to the point where there evidently *is* something to be very worried about. These two notions cannot live in the same space yet here we are.
If this Sovereignty Act and anything flowing from it is actually unconstitutional, then the courts will sort it out just as they did with the IAA and may well do again with the IAA version 2.
What seems to be more potentially problematic is the notion that information owned by private corporations is in fact public information.
My goodness man, no, it doesn't proceed on that assumption. In fact, you're gonna want to re-read it. Try keeping an eye out for the little paragraph that starts "On the other hand,..."