THE AMERICAN HALF OF THE PROVINCE

Early results suggest SOUTHERN Alberta votes in favour of removing equalization from Canada's constitution

While a final tabulation for the whole province won't be available from for another week, unofficial results were reported in several of the province's largest municipalities

Author of the article: Tyler Dawson
Publishing date:Oct 19, 2021 •

 

In Calgary, roughly 58 per cent of voters cast a "yes" vote for the equalization referendum. 

EDMONTON — Voters in Calgary, Alberta’s largest city, appear to have cast their votes in favour of removing equalization from Canada’s constitution, according to unofficial results in the province’s referendum on equalization payments.

While a final, official tabulation for the whole province won’t be available from Elections Alberta for another week, unofficial results in the referendum were reported in several of the province’s largest municipalities, including Lethbridge, Red Deer and Medicine Hat, in addition to Calgary, forecasting the possible outcome of voting.

Edmonton, the capital and second-largest city, chose not to release unofficial votes in this referendum, or a second on daylight saving time. (The cities, which are collecting referendum results while they also run a municipal election, have until next Monday to report results from the referenda and Senate elections to Elections Alberta.)

It was not clear Monday night, across all municipalities, what percentage of electors actually voted in the municipal election.

In Calgary, roughly 58 per cent of voters cast a “yes” vote for the equalization referendum, which asked if the equalization program should be removed from the Canadian constitution, compared to 42 per cent who voted “no.”

While that margin appears large — 16 percentage points — it’s small in comparison to margins seen in other cities in the province. In Medicine Hat, at times Monday night, the “yes” side had netted 70 per cent of voters. In Red Deer, early returns showed around 67 per cent voted “yes.” In Lethbridge 59 per cent voted in favour.

While the numbers were likely to shift overnight Monday into Tuesday, the “yes” side is clearly leading in several of Alberta’s major population centres, and equalization is a longstanding grievance in parts of the province.

For the United Conservative Party government, which has struggled to deliver on a number of election promises related to the economy, and has polled poorly over its management of the COVID-19 pandemic, the referendum was a badly needed win.

Kenney’s popularity has slumped badly, with just 22 per cent of Albertans — and only 39 per cent of 2019 UCP voters — voicing approval of his performance, according to ThinkHQ polling released in early October, underscoring his need for a win on the referendum question.

Duane Bratt, a political scientist at Calgary’s Mount Royal University, said even more than needing a win, Kenney needed “not to lose” this vote.

“This is a major plank of the UCP,” Bratt said Monday afternoon.

Still, it remains unclear what will happen next.

“It’s a very complicated affair, to say the least,” said Bratt.

Amending the constitution to remove equalization, a program that has existed since 1957, requires support in the House of Commons and the Senate, plus two-thirds of provincial legislatures, representing more than 50 per cent of the Canadian population.

ITS FIREWALL ALBERTA ALL OVER AGAIN

This is a result Alberta is unlikely to achieve. Still, supporters of the referendum, including former Alberta finance minister Ted Morton, have argued that a 1998 Supreme Court reference case about Quebec secession says that a win on a referendum necessitates negotiation between the federal government and provinces on constitutional amendments.

“If Albertans vote a ‘clear majority on a clear question,’ then Ottawa and the other provinces have ‘a duty to negotiate’ with us,” wrote Morton recently in the Calgary Herald .

Kenney has argued similarly: “A positive vote on a proposed constitutional amendment … (would) compel the government of Canada to engage in good faith negotiations with Alberta about the proposed constitutional amendment.”

But, that’s by no means guaranteed.

Eric Adams, a constitutional law professor at the University of Alberta, argued that the duty to negotiate is triggered — as in the case of Quebec — exclusively when there’s a constitutional crisis, such as secession, brewing. Not simply because one province wants to secure a change to the constitution.

“Let’s imagine ascenario in which any time a province holds a vote on any constitutional topic, and the positive outcome of that required every other province and the federal government to immediately engage in constitutional negotiations … it’s unfathomable, because of the dysfunction,” Adams told the National Post.

The United Conservatives, who swept to power in Alberta in 2019 by promising to get the economy roaring again and secure more autonomy — à la Quebec — for the province, have linked the referendum to other policy goals, such as equalization reform (not elimination) and changes to policies affecting the oil and gas industry.

“Even the premier is telling people to answer the question that’s not on the ballot, that this about leverage and this is about sending a message, and this isn’t about the constitution. But the question is about the constitution. That’s kind of the problem,” Bratt said.

The party’s 2019 platform promised to hold the referendum “if substantial progress is not made on construction of a coastal pipeline, and if Trudeau’s Bill C-69 is not repealed,” and refers to it as a tool for “leverage for federal action to complete a coastal pipeline and to demand reforms to the current unfair formula.”

Kenney himself has made these arguments in discussing the referendum.

“The point of it (the referendum) is to get leverage for constitutional negotiations with the federal government about reform to the entire system of fiscal federalism, which treats Alberta so unfairly,” said Kenney, according to The Canadian Press .

Monday’s vote, which occurred in conjunction with municipal elections for mayors, councillors and school board trustees, plus a vote for new Alberta senators, and a second referendum question on daylight saving time, represents the culmination of a United Conservative promise.

After the 2019 election, Kenney convened a panel to traverse the province, seeking feedback on how Alberta might gain greater autonomy over its affairs.

In May 2020, the panel reported back, making 25 recommendations to government, one of which was to hold a referendum on removing equalization from the constitution. In the 64 years since the equalization program was created, Alberta has been a “have not” province just eight times, and not since the mid-1960s.

“Albertans are frustrated and there is a growing perception that the equalization system is broken and fundamentally unfair to Alberta, pulling billions of dollars out of our province — even during times of economic recession,” wrote Finance Minister Travis Toews in an opinion piece published recently in the Edmonton Journal.

Results of Alberta's equalization, daylight saving votes to be announced Oct. 26

Author of the article:Lisa Johnson
Publishing date:Oct 18, 2021 •

Albertans got to weigh in Monday on whether the principle of making equalization payments should be removed from the Constitution — a non-binding vote, since equalization payments are set by Ottawa and paid for through money collected through federal taxes.

Albertans will have to wait until Oct. 26 for the results of two provincial referendums and a vote for preferred Senate candidates.

Among the three extra votes added to the ballot for Monday’s municipal elections, the referendum question on daylight saving time is the only binding vote. If Albertans opt to end the practice of changing clocks twice a year and move to permanent daylight time, which is observed in the summer, it will take effect in the fall of 2022.

When the province surveyed more than 140,000 Albertans online in 2019, 91 per cent were in favour of scrapping time changes and moving to permanent daylight time, or summer hours. However, some experts have warned the ballot question ignores a better option — going to permanent standard time — and that the switch to permanent daylight time would have negative effects on the health of Albertans.

Albertans also got to weigh in Monday on whether the principle of making equalization payments should be removed from the Constitution — a non-binding vote, since equalization payments are set by Ottawa and paid for through money collected through federal taxes. Making changes would require approval from the House of Commons, the Senate, and at least two-thirds of the provincial legislative assemblies.

The equalization program is based on the idea that provinces should have enough revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at comparable levels of taxation. Transfers are sent to provinces with lower incomes. Provinces with higher incomes — like Alberta — do not receive them.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has said the referendum vote isn’t about spurring a constitutional amendment or the end of equalization, but is meant to be used to get leverage in negotiations with Ottawa over equalization and other programs.

Albertans were also asked to choose up to three candidates among 13 Senate hopefuls on the ballot for the prime minister to consider.

The results of the Senate vote are similarly non-binding. Although Senate candidates from Alberta have been approved by previous federal governments, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has noted that the Senate appointment process, instituted in 2016, is based on merit. An independent advisory committee goes through applications and creates a short list of nominees for the prime minister and Privy Council Office to consider.

Municipalities will count the votes and have the option to release unofficial referendum and Senate election results. Edmonton’s Senate and referendum tallies will be sent to Elections Alberta, which will release official results on Oct. 26, including those reported from each municipality. Calgary, however, was set to release results on election night.

Rush Limbaugh dead at 70: A media blowhard for American capitalism

Patrick Martin
WSWS.ORG



Longtime right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh died February 17 at the age of 70, to gushing praise from Donald Trump, Fox News and the far-right media empire he played a key role in building. Limbaugh was not the first radio spokesman for ultra-right politics, but he was the most successful since the fascist “radio priest” Charles Coughlin in the 1930s. He now has hundreds of imitators on radio networks large and small, and on Fox television and its even more right-wing competitors like Newsmax and OAN.

Rush Limbaugh speaking with attendees at the 2019 Student Action Summit hosted by Turning Point USA at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Florida. (Wikimedia Commons)

The obituaries that have appeared in the mainstream corporate media have catalogued many of Limbaugh’s verbal outrages, from his denigration of black athletes, to his bullying attack on Georgetown University grad student Sandra Fluke, whom he vilified as a “slut” for suing to force the university to provide birth control pills as part of its health care program, to his ridiculing of Michael J. Fox after the actor contracted Parkinson’s disease.

Lacking in such assessments, however, is an analysis of what Limbaugh’s career reveals about the nature of American capitalism and the trajectory of its political system. He was a thoroughly disgusting human being, a mouthpiece and apologist for reaction and defender of everything backward and benighted in American society. But his rise to wealth, fame and political influence came under definite historical conditions, and these deserve consideration.

Born into a politically prominent Republican family in southeastern Missouri, Limbaugh grew up as something of a disappointment. His grandfather had been a state legislator, then ambassador to India under President Eisenhower, and the local courthouse carried his name. His uncle was a federal judge, and his father a prominent lawyer and chairman of the county Republican Party. But Limbaugh dropped out of college after a year in 1970 to pursue his childhood dream of becoming a radio disc jockey and announcer.

Despite the glibness he would later demonstrate, he was fired repeatedly for inserting political commentary and insults into his announcing, and quit radio for five years to work in promotions for the Kansas City Royals baseball team. He returned to radio in 1984 at a station in Sacramento, California, succeeding another right-wing talk show host, Morton Downey Jr.

In 1987, towards the end of the Reagan administration, as part of a bipartisan campaign of deregulation, Congress repealed the “fairness doctrine,” which required broadcasters to provide equal time to those attacked by radio or television commentators. Limbaugh celebrated what he called “liberation” by moving to New York City and launching a right-wing talk radio program on WABC, flagship of the ABC radio network, which was soon syndicated nationally.

In 1990-1991, Limbaugh’s audience mushroomed as he denounced protesters opposing the Persian Gulf War, entailing the mass slaughter of the Iraqi army. The war of aggression was engineered and carried out by the administration of Republican President George H. W. Bush to cement the domination of American imperialism in the Middle East.

The timing of Limbaugh’s rise is significant. It coincided with the collapse of the Soviet bloc, from 1989 to 1991, which touched off a wave of euphoria in the American ruling elite, whose main political precept had been virulent anti-communism. Ronald Reagan was hailed as the destroyer of the “evil empire,” and pundits like Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the “end of history.”

Also important for the American political stage was the utter collapse of the US labor movement, with the trade union bureaucracy’s betrayal and defeat of strike after strike, beginning with Reagan’s smashing of the 1981 air traffic controllers’ strike. The AFL-CIO embraced a corporatist policy of labor-management “partnership,” through which the unions were transformed into organizations that blocked strikes, cut wages and drove “troublemakers” from the workplace.

The resulting political disorientation and confusion within the working class, compounded by the suppression of the class struggle, facilitated the rise of a form of right-wing populism, of which Limbaugh was one of the foremost practitioners. Political and media figures pretended to be voicing the complaints of ordinary people, “middle America,” against the dictates of “elites” based in Hollywood and New York City.

In the absence of mass working class struggles over jobs, wages, benefits and working conditions, the burning issues of the day were said to be “cultural” in nature: abortion, gun ownership, the environment, or racial and gender divisions.

This was abetted by the shift in the Democratic Party, which more and more abandoned even a limited identification with economic policies that raised wages and otherwise benefited the working class as a whole, in favor of identity politics. The latter furthered the narrow interests of sections of the upper-middle class, particularly among women and ethnic minorities, who hoped to benefit from a redistribution of privileges within the upper classes rather than their diminution, let alone abolition.

Thus Limbaugh could claim to be defending the interests of workers against “environmental wackos,” or of male workers against “feminazis,” without openly declaring his loyalty to Wall Street and his hostility to the working class. In the process, of course, he became fabulously wealthy, raking in as much as $80 million a year, building a mansion in south Florida patterned after Versailles, and purchasing a $50 million private jet.

Limbaugh helped create the template for hundreds of radio acolytes, as well as Fox News, founded in 1996 by Roger Ailes at the behest of Rupert Murdoch. Ailes had been the producer for Limbaugh’s four-year venture into television (1992-1996), and the format of much of the network’s programming was patterned directly on Limbaugh.

A major political breakthrough for the American ultra-right came in 1994, when the Republican Party swept the congressional elections, taking advantage of the collapse of Bill Clinton’s promise to implement a national health care program, which he failed even to bring to a vote despite Democratic Party control of Congress and the White House.

Newt Gingrich became the first Republican speaker of the House in 40 years, and his majority depended on an influx of extreme-right congressmen endorsed and publicized by Limbaugh and other right-wing talk-radio hosts. The Republican caucus even voted to make Limbaugh an honorary member, a tribute to his role in promoting their campaigns.

Through the subsequent twenty five-year period, both capitalist parties continued to move to the right, with the Democratic Party taking on the role of advocate for the stock exchange and the Wall Street banks—previously the mainstay of the Republicans—while the Republican Party incorporated southern racists, anti-immigrant bigots and outright fascists, culminating in the nomination and election of Donald Trump in 2016.

Limbaugh followed a similar trajectory, sometimes leading, sometimes lagging behind. He was a fervent proponent of right-wing conspiracy theories against the Clintons, which culminated in the 1998 impeachment, as well as the “birther” campaign that alleged Barack Obama was not an American citizen. He supported unsuccessful right-wing challengers for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and 2012, and Ted Cruz against Trump in 2016 before going over to Trump lock, stock and barrel.

At the same time, Limbaugh suffered the consequences of what might appear to be divine retribution, except that it came so late. He went mostly deaf, likely the result of an addiction to oxycodone, for which he was ultimately to spend six weeks in drug rehab and narrowly escape prosecution. A heavy smoker, with a predilection for cigars (and a habit of dismissing the dangers of second-hand smoke), he contracted lung cancer last year and announced in October that the disease was terminal.

In the course of 2020, Limbaugh denied the dangers of COVID-19, comparing it to “the common cold” and claiming it was being “weaponized by the media and by opponents of Donald Trump.” He denounced the wearing of masks, opposed mask mandates, and encouraged young people “to live their lives and spread herd immunity.”

He gave a two-hour interview to Trump (a rare exception—nearly all his radio programs were interminable monologues with no guests). And he upheld the lie that Trump had actually won the 2020 election and helped stoke the insurrection of January 6. In other words, he spent the last year of his life as he had the previous 35, bullying anyone opposed to American capitalism and pav

An Environmental History of Canada - UBC Press

https://www.ubcpress.ca › asset

 PDF

by LS MacDowell - ‎Cited by 57 - ‎Related articles

Canadian environmental history was perhaps sparked by Ramsay Cook's comment in 1990 that early Canadian historians such as W.L. Morton and Arthur Lower 

UBC PRESS SAMPLE WITH INTRODUCTION, CHAPTER I 

Five Things You Might Not Have Known About Canadian Environmental History

   January 22, 2015    on Five Things You Might Not Have Known About Canadian Environmental History

“Dynamic Serenity” by Andrew E. Larsen

By  Sean Kheraj

Canadian environmental history is a burgeoning sub-field of Canadian history, but it is not very well known outside of academia. This is my own research speciality. On many occasions, I have had to answer the question: what is environmental history? Periodically, this is a question that environmental historians ask themselves. There have been several reflective articles about Canadian environmental history, including a recently published forum in Canadian Historical Review, edited by Alan MacEachern. You can actually read MacEachern’s full introduction to that forum here.

In short, environmental history is the historical study of the changing relationships between people and the rest of nature. It is an alternative way of thinking about the past that can offer new insights into understanding Canadian history. To help illustrate this point, I thought I would share five open-access journal articles that reveal things about Canadian environmental history that you might not have known about.

1. In 1815, the Tambora volcano on the island of Sumbawa in Indonesia erupted and spewed a global “dust veil” into the atmosphere, causing a sudden cooling of the Earth’s climate. The following year, this resulted in what was known as the “year without a summer” in colonial New Brunswick. Both agriculture and forestry were affected as farmers in the British North American colony struggled with hunger and economic insecurity caused by the global cooling.

Source: Piper, Liza. “Backward Seasons and Remarkable Cold: the Weather over Long Reach,
New Brunswick, 1812-1821″ Acadiensis 34, no. 1 (Autumn 2004): 31-55.

2. Between 1890 and 1920, the development of Banff National Park in Alberta resulted in the exclusion of the Nakoda First Nation from its traditional hunting and resource-gathering territories. The federal government and the Parks Branch sought to exclude the Nakoda from the park in the interests of game conservation, tourism, sport hunting, and Aboriginal assimilation policies.

Source: Binnema, Ted and Melanie Niemi. “‘Let the line be drawn now’: Wilderness, Conservation, and the Exclusion of Aboriginal People from Banff National Park in Canada” Environmental History 11, no. 4 (October 2006): 724-750.

3. One of the biggest challenges for early twentieth-century prairie farmers in Manitoba was not a lack of water but an abundance. Drainage was central to the establishment of agriculture in southern Manitoba, an area best characterized as a “wet prairie.”

Source: Stunden Bower, Shannon. “Watersheds: Conceptualizing Manitoba’s Drained Landscape, 1895–1950” Environmental History 12, no. 4 (October 2007): 796-819.

4. Before the re-development of it sewage infrastructure, Vancouver’s English Bay was often closed to public swimming due to sewage contamination.

Source: Keeling, Arn. “Sink or Swim: Water Pollution and Environmental Politics in Vancouver, 1889-1975” BC Studies No. 142/143 (Summer/Autumn 2004): 69-104.

5. During the Second World War, the federal government implemented energy conservation programs targeted mainly at female consumers in an effort to control Canadian energy use. The purpose, however, was not to reduce the overall consumption of energy in the country but to divert energy resources away from ordinary consumers toward industrial manufacturing for wartime purposes.

Source: Evenden, Matthew. “Lights Out: Conserving Electricity for War in the Canadian City, 1939-1945” Urban History Review 34, no. 1 (Fall 2005): 88-99

Sean Kheraj is an assistant professor of Canadian and environmental History at York University. He is the co-editor of http://niche-canada.org and producer of Nature’s Past: Canadian Environmental History Podcast.

FIREWALL ALBERTA REDUX FAIR DEAL (SIC) PANEL

LONG READ

Separation? Special interest groups? The fair deal panel approaches its final report

CBC March 6, 2020

Alberta's "fair deal" panel was formed to explore how to strengthen the western province's place within confederation — emphasis on within.

But in the homestretch, less than a month before recommendations are due, the panel's latest online engagement includes a question on separation — a choice opposition leader Rachel Notley says stokes the fires of a fringe movement.

The original list of mandates, as announced by Premier Jason Kenney in Red Deer Alta., includes exploring things like an Alberta Pension Plan, a provincial police force and more.


Kenney said he's looking forward to the report and plans to act on the recommendations thoughtfully and deliberately — according to Alberta's timelines, not Ottawa's.

"Within those prospective reforms lie a series of measures fully to assert Alberta's autonomy within the Canadian Federation in ways that other provinces have done, to use every tool at our disposal to ensure a prosperous economic future," said Kenney.

The latest survey, however, asks Albertans a new question: "Would Alberta alone or with other Western Provinces separating from the rest of Canada help improve the province's place in the federation?"

Separation question was debated

Panel-member Donna Kennedy-Glans says it was a tough choice for the eight pastelists to decide whether to include the question, but in the end they all felt it was important.

"Everywhere that we went in the province, every town hall, somebody would raise the question of separation," Kennedy-Glans said.

"So it is something we've heard. Our mandate is to work within Confederation. It is not to propose or support a separatist agenda. But we want it to reflect the fact that we were listening to people."

Along with public consultation, Kennedy-Glans said the panelists are meeting with special interest groups and experts to round out what they learn. She said these include think-tanks like the Pembina Institute, business groups, community groups and more.

Panel has had hundreds of private meetings

While separatist groups have been in touch, they are not on the panel's meeting calendar.

"We decided that it probably didn't make sense for us to sit down with them," she said. "Our mandate is not to recommend anything. That doesn't envision Alberta within Confederation."

Mount Royal University political scientist Duane Bratt sees no problem with including the question.

"I think one of the purposes of a fair deal panel was to change the conversation, from separatism to greater autonomy inside of Canada," Bratt said. "So it makes sense to have the separatism question on there."

Helen Pike/CBC


Notley, the NDP leader, disagrees.

In a statement, she wrote the province is hurting, people continue to lose jobs and the government has moved funding to already profitable corporations.

"This premier is intentionally stoking the fires of separation in order to distract from his own economic failures," Notley wrote.

"He is attacking our pensions, our health care, our education, and our public services. This is not what Albertans need right now. We need a premier who will do the job he was elected to do, and focus on getting people back to work."

While Bratt saw the logic of including a question on separation, he did take issue with some aspects of the survey, including lumping together the establishment of different hypothetical institutions in one question.

"Based on the news reports I've seen at the town halls there may be support for the police force, some support for tax collection, but I'm not hearing a lot of support for the pension plan," he said. "What if you support an Alberta police force, but you don't support a pension plan? How do you answer that?"

By the numbers
The panel heard from 2,500 people directly at town halls.
4,000 people responded to an early survey.
The latest survey has already had 17,000 responses and closes on March 15th

The eight-member panel includes former Reform Party leader Preston Manning and Stephen Lougheed, the son of former premier Peter Lougheed.

It's chaired by Oryssia Lennie, who was previously the deputy minister of Western Economic Diversification Canada.

The panel is expected to submit recommendations to the government by March 31. The government says any bold proposals would need to be approved by Albertans through a referendum.

THE ALBERTA FIREWALL LETTER

Alerta Agenda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The Alberta Agenda is a loosely organized political movement initiated by a letter written by prominent Albertans, including future Prime Minister Stephen Harper and 2006 Alberta PC leadership candidate Ted Morton, urging Albertan Premier Ralph Klein to fully exercise Alberta's constitutional powers. The letter was published by the National Post on January 27, 2001, in the wake of the Alberta-based Canadian Alliance's defeat in the 2000 Canadian federal election.

The letter has been referred to as the Firewall Letter from its use of the phrase "build firewalls around Alberta," a reference to the computer software programs which block unwanted intrusions from outside sources. Its main recommendations were:

• Allowing the province's contract with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to expire in 2012, establishing a provincial police force to take the RCMP's place. Alberta had a separate police force from 1917 until 1932.
• Withdrawal from the Canada Pension Plan and establishing a separate Alberta Pension Plan. Many Albertans believe that given the province's youthful demographics, staying in the CPP makes little sense since a separate "APP" would provide higher benefits for a lower premium.
• Separate collection of the province's income tax, as opposed to letting the Canada Revenue Agency handle tax collection. Alberta already collects its own corporate tax.

Klein personally responded to the letter, but rejected implementing the authors' requests for the duration of his premiership.

The Alberta Agenda should not be confused with Alberta separatism.

IT IS ONLY ONE STEP REMOVED FROM ITS SEPARATIST ROOTS IN

THE WCC AND RIGHT WING OF THE REFORM PARTY

An original author of the 'firewall' letter pleased with UCP-appointed fair deal panel
STEPHANIE BABYCH POSTMEDIA Updated: November 12, 2019

An author of the original firewall letter said a fair deal panel appointed by Premier Jason Kenney is better late than never, nearly 20 years after a group of conservative heavyweights drafted a plan to strengthen Alberta’s autonomy

Though the policies being addressed by the panel are the same as they were in January 2001, when the firewall letter was published in the National Post, there’s more appetite for change now because the province is struggling and frustration with the federal government is rising, according to Ted Morton, executive fellow at the School of Public Policy.

At the time of Ralph Klein’s government 18 years ago, the province was prospering, so people accepted the status quo.

“There’s a growing number of Albertans who find the status quo increasingly unacceptable but they don’t want to go as far as separation or independence, so this agenda represents a number of options that are in between the two extremes,” Morton said Monday. “These are positive reforms that would strengthen Alberta’s position and give the Kenney government leverage to negotiate reforms at the federal level.”

At a speech in Red Deer on Saturday, Kenney said the panel would answer questions including whether Alberta should pull out of the Canada Pension Plan and form its own plan; whether it should create a provincial police force instead of relying on the RCMP for rural policing; and whether it should opt out of some cost-sharing programs with the federal government.

Kenney’s list is a near carbon copy of the firewall letter signed by Morton, Stephen Harper and other conservatives in 2001, according to Mount Royal University political science professor Duane Bratt.

“The policies are the same. The difference is that this has the full weight of the provincial government behind it, whereas Klein largely resisted it. It’s one thing to, a couple years from now, fill a backbench MLA committee, it’s another to appoint a high-profile person like Preston Manning to give a big address like Kenney did,” said Bratt.

The panel wasn’t in Kenney’s election platform but the premier hinted that something was coming shortly after the federal election, said Bratt. He said changes to the tax system and police service would increase expenses, but pulling out of the Canada Pension Plan is a mystery because a province hasn’t left in more than 50 years.

Morton said he’s pleased that the panel will open the discussion on benefiting through structural change. He said the province would be in a better position today if his suggestions had been implemented in the early 2000s. But the original firewall letter received strong criticism from Klein, who described it as “defeatism” on Feb. 25, 2001.

On Jan. 30, 2001, the conservative premier responded to the public letter by saying that building walls around the province wasn’t the answer to unfair treatment from the federal government.

“I don’t think we need a firewall around Alberta,” Klein told Postmedia. “I think we need to be vocal, we need to be forceful in our desire to be treated fairly within the federation of Canada because we’ve always said ‘We’re a player’.”

The UCP-appointed fair deal panel consists of well-known conservative figures, such as Manning and Stephen Lougheed, three MLAs and a Blackfoot chief. Their mandate from the provincial government is to listen to Albertans and their ideas for the future, focusing on ideas that would strengthen the economy, offer the province a stronger voice within Confederation and increase provincial power over institutions.

“We’ve had it with Ottawa’s indifference to this adversity. Albertans have been working for Ottawa for too long, it’s time for Ottawa to start working for us,” Kenney declared in his speech to the Alberta Manning Networking Conference. “We Albertans will not lose our heads, we are practical people, we are not unreasonable people. Nothing we are asking for is unreasonable.”

Regional chief Jason Goodstriker is excited about his role on the panel, gathering information from people to forge a new path for Alberta.

“The panel, itself, is going to seek out the voice of grassroots and corporate and all kinds of Albertans who are involved in what makes our region work,” Goodstriker said Monday. “People in our region have had an opinion for a long time so I don’t think it will take a great amount of time to say what’s being said.”

Donna Kennedy-Glans, a former Calgary MLA, is also among the panellists and is ready to hear people’s concerns and ideas.

“People are concerned about what’s going on and people are unclear about what the choices are within Confederation,” said Kennedy-Glans.

Kenney said during his speech that any measures coming out of the panel that warrant serious consideration would be subject to a provincial referendum. “I can assure Albertans that we would not make a decision . . . unless the majority of Albertans were to endorse those proposals in a fair and democratic referendum,” he said.

The panel will begin public consultations Nov. 16 and conclude Jan. 20, 2020, with the panel’s recommendations going to the government by the end of March.

— With files from Tyler Dawson

SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2007/08/ted-morton-racist.html

ANOTHER OF THE BRAIN TRUST BEHIND THE FIREWALL IS STEPHEN HARPERS BRAIN; HIS MENTOR TOM FLANAGAN (AKA A DEFENDER OF KIDDIE PORN)
HE HAS PENNED THIS WHICH IS PUBLISHED BY RIGHT WING CALVINISTS WHO RUN THE FAKE UNION CLAC, AND CONTROVERSIAL CALVINIST UNIVERSITIES THAT DENY LGBTQ RIGHTS C2C WAS FORMERLY THE WORK RESEARCH FOUNDATION I DOCUMENT ABOUT HERE. THEY REPRESENT THE DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH FROM SOUTH AFRICA .
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2005/03/right-to-life-right-to-work.html

THIS IS A LONG READ 

The Return Of The Alberta Agenda
Tom Flanagan
November 22, 2019
What’s old is new again, and that extends well beyond aviator shades and flat-billed caps into the political realm. New again and, sometimes, even more urgent than the first time. The federal votes had barely been counted last month before calls erupted to dust off the Alberta Agenda, aka, the “Firewall Letter” of 2001. Some see its measures as forming Alberta’s first big step towards independence; others hope the same policies would help douse separatist flames. Just as quickly, opponents confidently pronounced all of the Agenda’s items unworkable. Tom Flanagan, co-author of the original Alberta Agenda, reviews its five policy recommendations and evaluates their merits in the light of current circumstances.In early 2001, six Albertans led by Stephen Harper published an open letter to then-Premier Ralph Klein advocating adoption of an “Alberta Agenda.” The letter was a reaction to the 2000 federal election campaign, in which Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien had deliberately targeted Alberta as a bogeyman. This was partly because of Alberta’s growing economic and political prominence, but it was not least because Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day, who had become a serious electoral threat to the Liberals, was an Albertan. Chrétien’s cynical ploy succeeded.

In expectation of years of further hostility from Ottawa, the Alberta Agenda proposed a number of policy innovations that were within the constitutional power of Alberta and that, if enacted, would reduce Ottawa’s power over the province. Equally important, adopting the Agenda’s items would signal that the province wasn’t simply going to accept federal abuse and that it had options other than remaining a compliant province. Publication of the Alberta Agenda triggered a lot of public discussion, but no serious political action. Influential Alberta political leaders such as Ralph Klein and Preston Manning were cool to it. A committee of the Alberta legislature dismissed it after perfunctory study that included serious errors of interpretation. The Agenda’s informal name, the “Firewall Letter”, also proved unfortunate by raising in some minds the imagery of burning buildings and scorched earth.

Alberta Agenda authors: (clockwise from far left) Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper, Ken Boessenkool, Ted Morton, Rainer Knopf, Andy Crooks.

When the Canadian Alliance held a leadership race later in 2001, Harper decided to run for the position and the co-authors mostly supported his candidacy. Harper won, then rolled the Progressive Conservative remnants into the new Conservative Party of Canada, and a few years later became prime minister. The Alberta Agenda seemed to lose much of its relevance; no one could accuse Prime Minister Harper of being hostile to his home province. It did, however, continue to have some support in the provincial Progressive Conservative and Wildrose parties, though never to the extent of becoming government policy.

Now, however, the environmentalist onslaught on Alberta’s oil industry, coupled with the return to power of the Liberals under Justin Trudeau, has revived the Alberta Agenda. In a dramatic move, Premier Jason Kenney incorporated most of its points into a more extensive “Fair Deal” for Alberta, which he unveiled to instant national attention at a conference on November 9. The Fair Deal proposal is to be studied by a nine-member panel chaired by Manning, which is to report by January 20. Kenney’s political methodology seems reminiscent of his approach to his first budget, appointing the MacKinnon Panel to study the budgetary situation. I hope it indeed is so, for Kenney then implemented most of the budgetary recommendations. The nascent “Wexit” movement also favours the Alberta Agenda items, evidently seeing them as foundation blocks for independence. In a recent open letter to Kenney, Wexit Canada leader Peter Downing called upon the premier to implement an “enhanced” version of the Agenda.

As one of the original co-authors, I’m pleased at the renewed attention to the Alberta Agenda, but the passage of time does require a second look. Along with Stephen Harper, the other co-authors were Ted Morton, professor of political science at the University of Calgary, a former Alberta Senator-elect and a former senior provincial cabinet minister; Rainer Knopf, professor of political science at the University of Calgary; Andy Crooks, a Calgary lawyer who is active in politics and philanthropy; and Ken Boessenkool, who has held senior federal and provincial political positions. The ideas in this article are my own, and I have not consulted with the other co-authors regarding what follows.

Certain things have changed dramatically since the Alberta Agenda was composed almost 20 years ago. Economically, Alberta was on a roll in 2001, the Klein government had erased the deficit, and oil prices were high. Now, in contrast, the economy is hurting, the province has gone deeply into debt, and the new government is once more fighting to get out of the cycle of deficit spending. What is even more frightening, the environmental movement has declared war on the oil and natural gas industry, with the goal of capping exports of our oil production (or “landlocking” Alberta), ending new investment in the oil sands and, within decades, ending all hydrocarbon production in favour of so-called “green energy.”

Dousing the “Firewall”: then-Alberta Premier Ralph Klein was cool to the Alberta Agenda and buried it using a provincial study panel.

The change in circumstances has driven a change in priorities. Whereas 18 years ago Alberta was growing rapidly and the only questions seemed to be just how far we might go and how we might get there, today the province and its population are fighting for their very livelihoods and security. In turn this implies that a new Alberta Agenda may need to be somewhat different from the original. The original Alberta Agenda consisted of five main policy proposals. Let’s look at these in the light of today’s circumstances, both as policy and as politics. The following headings are the opening sentences from the letter’s five agenda items.

Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan offering the same benefits at lower cost while giving Alberta control over the investment fund.

There is little question about the legality of this. Alberta has the right to create its own pension plan under section 94A of the Constitution Act, 1867, and Quebec did so in 1966. Because Alberta has a younger population with greater participation in the labour market and higher average wages and salaries than in the rest of Canada, an Alberta Pension Plan could offer the same benefits with lower premiums than the Canada Pension Plan (while premiums for the CPP without Alberta would have to go up). The potential savings are believed to be in the order of several billion dollars per year. Premiums for the current CPP keep on rising, and every 1 percentage-point drop that an APP could deliver would leave more than $500 per year in the pocket of every employee paying under maximum pensionable earnings.

A credible threat to withdraw from the CPP would shake Canada politically and might lead to concessions in other areas to keep Alberta inside the tent. It is truly the ace-in-the-hole of the Alberta Agenda.Tweet

Alberta could also claim a share of the CPP Investment Board’s fund, currently about $410 billion, though the size of that share would have to be negotiated. An APP would likely be administered by the Alberta Investment Management Company, which manages about $110 billion in provincial pension assets (and would need to add capacity to administer an APP). It’s important to realize that, despite its pool of invested funds, the CPP isn’t a genuine pension plan, but rather a pay-as-you-go transfer from current working contributors to current retirees. Its financial viability therefore depends almost entirely on maintaining a population base in which plenty of people are working and not too many people are drawing benefits. Canada as a whole is aging; Alberta could go either way, depending on its economic fortunes in the coming decades.

A credible threat to withdraw from the CPP would shake Canada politically and might lead to concessions in other areas to keep Alberta inside the tent. It is truly the ace-in-the-hole of the Alberta Agenda.

Ace in the whole: an Alberta Pension Plan would put billions of dollars per year in the pockets of wage-earners.

One issue needs to be carefully studied, however. Insurance and pension plans are generally considered more secure as larger numbers of members are included. An APP outside the CPP would move from a population base of 36 million to about 4.5 million. That, combined with a deteriorating economy caused by the environmentalists’ war against oil, could lead to financial problems for Alberta down the road. On the other hand, since the CPP includes multiple provinces with weaker economies and millions of people with lower incomes and higher rates of unemployment, the degree of risk reduction delivered by such diversification is uncertain. And Alberta alone isn’t all that small. Thousands of pension plans worldwide have fewer members with weaker foundations. And even in its currently reduced straits, Alberta’s economy would place it among the world’s top 50 countries.

There are further arguments for distancing ourselves from the CPP. Since 2000 its Investment Board has mushroomed from a lean team of five people costing $3.7 million per year (or about $750,000 per employee) to a bloated organization of 1,500 spending an astonishing $3.2 billion per year (over $2 million per employee) merely to maintain themselves and the fund, as this C2C Journal article illustrated. It’s hard to imagine Alberta being unable to operate its APP with greater proportionate efficiency.

In addition, as the same article indicates, there are worrying signs the Investment Board is being pressured or is choosing to make politically motivated investment decisions, such as uneconomic green energy schemes. That not only flies in the face of Albertans’ priorities but bodes ill for future investment returns. What’s next, the CPP selling off its oil and natural gas holdings, as many international funds are doing, due to “environmental ethics”? Bringing pension management under provincial control would at least align the APP’s with the province’s priorities.

Nonetheless, because there are credible arguments on both sides of this issue, an APP would require study by a team of accountants, actuaries, economists, and lawyers to make sure it would be financially sound. This will be a pocketbook issue for all Albertans for generations to come, so it is important to get the details right.

Collect our own revenue from personal income tax, as we already do for corporate income tax.

Here, too, the constitutionality is not in doubt; Quebec already does this. It would be another political signal of Alberta’s intention to be self-determining. The policy implications, however, are more mixed. Alberta might receive its provincial income tax revenue more quickly, but it would have to enlarge its existing tax bureaucracy to collect it. From a policy point of view, the most serious problem is not that Ottawa collects the revenue for us but that the overly graduated federal rates and the morass of credits and deductions often stymie investment in Alberta.

Still, at the very least, collecting our own income tax would mean a few more well-paying jobs in Alberta and additional technical expertise on the financial side. It would send additional, relatively low-key, political signals that the status quo is unacceptable and that province is assembling the capabilities to take a different path if pushed hard enough.

Start preparing now to let the contract with the RCMP run out in 2012 and create an Alberta Provincial Police Force.

This can’t be accomplished as originally written because in 2011 Alberta and Canada renewed the RCMP policing agreement for another 20 years. It allows for cancellation with two years’ notice, however. The arguments for a provincial police force are at least as compelling as they were in 2001. Canada is the world’s only federal democratic country in which the federal government looks after local policing. Maybe the Australians, Americans, Swiss, Germans, etc., are on to something. 

With rural crime at crisis levels, a provincial police force could help Albertans regain control over their fate.

It is difficult to see how bringing policing one government level closer to the affected population would not result in improved services. An important example is rural policing. The RCMP’s performance has been far from ideal, as testified not only by long response times to calls by victimized property owners but by the years it took to develop a targeted strategy. The provincial government must deal with this issue regardless of the RCMP contract, and effective reform would probably be easier if Alberta had its own provincial police force. Dealing with certain politically charged law enforcement issues in a way reflecting the views of most Albertans should also become easier were the force provincially controlled.

The main argument in favour of the current arrangement is financial; Ottawa pays 30 percent of the cost of the contract. But that does not necessarily mean the cost of a provincial police force would be that much higher. The RCMP carries a costly load of political correctness in its hiring and operations, with preferences for Francophones, women, racial minorities, and Indigenous people. A more businesslike Alberta police force should be able to operate more efficiently. There should also be efficiency gains from integrating the existing Alberta Sheriffs Branch into a larger Alberta Provincial Police (and perhaps a catchier name for the force would emerge as well).

The arguments for a provincial police force are at least as compelling as they were in 2001. Canada is the world’s only federal democratic country in which the federal government looks after local policing. Maybe the Australians, Americans, Swiss, Germans, etc., are on to something.Tweet


This is not in itself a radical step, and the argument that Alberta is too small to have its own police force is specious. Ontario and Quebec have had theirs since Confederation, when both provinces were much smaller than Alberta is today. Even Ontario did not reach Alberta’s current population until about 1950, and Alberta today has a larger population not only than multiple U.S. states with their own forces, as well as every Canton of Switzerland, but also about 100 other countries. In any case, a majority of Alberta residents are already protected by the police forces of Edmonton, Calgary, and other communities. Lastly, creating an Alberta Provincial Police would be a strong political signal that Alberta is no longer willing to accept second-class status.

Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts. If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties that Ottawa may try to impose under the Canada Health Act.

A referendum on equalization could send a powerful political message.

This remains a desirable policy if we are ever to overcome the creeping catastrophe of long waiting times for essential medical services and the other critical shortcomings and inefficiencies in our health care system. Unfortunately, at a time when our provincial finances are so deeply in the red, Alberta cannot afford the loss in federal health transfers, which could more than offset savings generated through other Alberta Agenda elements. Moreover, exiting the strictures of the Canada Health Act would impose no loss on the rest of Canada; indeed, it would provide a financial windfall.

Lastly, even a man of Kenney’s immense energy and intelligence can only fight on so many fronts at once, and an extended battle over the Canada Health Act could preoccupy a provincial government. Consequently, I believe the opportunity for serious health care reform that Alberta had in the early part of this century has passed for the time being.

Use Section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference [of 1998] to force Senate reform back onto the national agenda. [The Alberta Agenda authors’] reading of that decision is that the federal government and other provinces must seriously consider a proposal for constitutional reform endorsed by “a clear majority on a clear question” in a provincial referendum.

Senate reform is no longer a major issue because the Trudeau government has made substantial changes to Senate appointments, whose implications are still working themselves out. Alberta will continue to hold senatorial elections, but more sweeping reform of the Senate is not on the table for now.

At a minimum, a referendum on Equalization communicates to the rest of Canada how unhappy Albertans are over the threat to the prosperity of their province, and implies that if we don’t get something, we may consider next steps.Tweet

Revivalist: Premier Jason Kenney’s Fair Deal for Alberta will give the Alberta Agenda its second and, it seems, more serious examination.

The provincial referendum strategy remains viable for other constitutional issues, however. Premier Kenney has often mentioned the possibility of holding a referendum on the Equalization program. Critics have argued that this would be futile because Equalization is a federal policy funded wholly by federal tax revenues, and that other federal programs cause a bigger loss to Alberta than Equalization.

These criticisms have some merit in terms of policy, but they miss the political point. A successful referendum could serve as a lever for forcing open a debate on Equalization as well as other policies that disadvantage Alberta. Quebec has gained enormous negotiating victories through use of its referendum strategy. What is there to lose if Alberta does something similar? Nothing else has so far moved the needle; the opposite, in fact, as the Trudeau government responded to Alberta’s even-tempered concerns over Equalization by sending even more money to Quebec. At a minimum, a referendum on Equalization communicates to the rest of Canada how unhappy Albertans are over the threat to the prosperity of their province, and implies that if we don’t get something, we may consider next steps.

The Alberta Agenda’s Enduring Value

There are legitimate fiscal and policy questions about the five items of the original Alberta Agenda. The health care proposal is impractical at the present time. The other four, however, remain relevant – one or two of them more than ever – and I believe implementing them would be beneficial to Albertans. Further, they have a political value that transcends the details of policy. Business as usual is not an option when you are under existential threat from outside political forces. Call it “Alberta Agenda II.” Their enactment would send a powerful message to the rest of Canada that Alberta is not prepared to roll over and play dead as outsiders seek to destroy its principal industry.

The “greening” of Pincher Creek: any new Alberta Agenda will have to pay extra attention to the province’s ailing economy.

The original Agenda can form part of the foundation for a strategy crafted to suit Alberta’s perilous current circumstances. This time around, greater focus needs to be placed on the economy, particularly on saving what is not only Alberta’s principal industry but the driver of so much of the province’s overall success. Premier Kenney was on the right track to incorporate the Alberta Agenda into his newly announced Fair Deal for Alberta. It will be not an end in itself but the beginning of a long process of “Re-Confederation,” of getting fair treatment for Alberta within Canada.

Tom Flanagan is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Calgary and a former campaign manager for conservative political parties.SEE 

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2007/04/leo-strauss-and-calgary-school.html

Western Canada: First, it was the ‘firewall letter’. 

Twenty years later, the Buffalo Declaration tries to encapsulate Alberta’s grievances

WENDY COX AND JAMES KELLER
VANCOUVER AND CALGARY
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 22, 2020

Voice
Good morning! It’s James Keller in Calgary.
Two decades after the infamous “firewall letter” signed by Stephen Harper and other prominent names in conservative politics, Albertans have another document that’s trying to capture the frustration in the province and force federal politicians to act.
The Buffalo Declaration, which was posted online on Thursday and signed by four Conservative MPs from Alberta, spends 13 pages laying out a list of grievances that stretch back before Alberta had become a province and warning that a referendum on separation is inevitable if they are not addressed. It includes the National Energy Program in the 1980s, the equalization system, carbon taxes and, more recently, the continuing rail blockades linked to a B.C. natural gas pipeline.
It includes more than a dozen proposals, including:
Constitutional changes to “balance representation” in Parliament, such as through an overhaul of the Senate.
The repeal of environmental legislation such as C-69.
Expanded free trade among provinces.
The creation of a national energy corridor (which was a key Conservative campaign promise).
Changes to the equalization formula.
A formal acknowledgement in Parliament of the harms of the National Energy Program, in which the government of Pierre Trudeau attempted to exert greater control over the oil industry.
Recognition that Alberta should be recognized as “culturally distinct."
Many of the ideas are not new within conservative circles and the frustrations echo what Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and others in the province have been saying for quite some time. Those sentiments have been amplified since the federal election that returned the Liberals to power, albeit with a minority.
Mr. Kenney said he hadn’t read the document in detail and didn’t comment on its contents, but said it reflected real frustrations in his province. Still, when asked if he supported the declaration, he said his focus was on his own government’s work to get a “fair deal” for Alberta. He has struck a panel to study a series of ideas designed to give the province more autonomy, such as by starting its own pension plan, creating a provincial police force and collecting its own taxes.
Calgary Nose Hill MP Michelle Rempel Garner, who signed the document, is considering running for the Conservative leadership, and even if she doesn’t run, the declaration will likely inject these issues into the leadership race.
Candidates running for the Conservative leadership weren’t eager to engage with the ideas put forward in the declaration.
Erin O’Toole issued a statement that acknowledged real anger in Alberta, but otherwise did not comment on the document. Peter MacKay’s campaign did not respond to an interview request and Marilyn Gladu declined to comment.
This is the weekly Western Canada newsletter written by Globe & Mail B.C. Editor Wendy Cox and Alberta Bureau Chief James Keller.  

ANOTHER RIGHT WING HACK WHO CO WROTE THE ORIGINAL FIREWALL LETTER

HAS A LONG  PIECE  ABOUT THIS FAKE CAMPAIGN TO SEPARATE ALBERTA AS A NATION STATE LIKE QUEBEC

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/fair-deal-panel-firewall-letter-ken-boessenkool-1.5363753

MARK MILKE IS ANOTHER FRASER INSTITUTE HACK AND RIGHT WING 

PUNDIT PUBLISHED  IN THE SUN NEWSPAPERS, HE OPPOSES THIS SO CALLED 

FAIR DEAL FIREWALL 2.0 ANOTHER LONG READ

https://markmilke.com/blog/2019/12/1/firewall-fantasies


Cost of a fair deal: experts break down Alberta government panel’s mandate

BY ADAM MACVICAR GLOBAL NEWS
Posted December 9, 2019 7:00 am



WATCH: As an Alberta government panel investigates measures to give Alberta more autonomy within Confederation, experts break down the pros and the cons of the province’s ‘Fair Deal’ proposals. Adam MacVicar reports.

This story is part of a special on western alienation. Click here for more coverage.

Alberta’s proposals that are currently being explored by a government-appointed panel may result in higher costs for Albertans, according to some experts.

The Fair Deal Panel, chaired by Oryssia Lennie, formerly the deputy minister of Western Economic Diversification Canada, has been tasked with exploring nine proposals aimed at giving the province a ‘fair deal’ in confederation.

READ MORE: Alberta’s ‘Fair Deal Panel’ begins town hall tour in Edmonton

Premier Jason Kenney announced the panel in early November during a keynote address to the Manning Centre conference in Red Deer.

Collecting income taxes

The first proposal on the panel’s mandate is to explore whether Alberta should establish its own provincial revenue agency to collect directly, as well as seek an agreement to collect federal taxes within the province.

According to University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe, the move would be costly, with Albertans paying around $500 million per year. 

Trevor Tombe is an economics professor at the University of Calgary. Adam MacVicar / Global News

“We would be spending money to do something that is currently being done for us with no identifiable benefit other than this vague sense of having additional flexibility in terms of how we structure our personal income taxes,” Tombe said. “But it would be expensive and an additional hassle for Alberta individuals.”

Under this model, Tombe said that Albertans would file taxes with the Canada Revenue Agency and a second form with the Alberta agency. The move is similar to one Quebec has undertaken, where Revenue Quebec was created, costing the province $1.1 billion annually. Right now, Canadians and Albertans only fill out one form at tax time.

Tombe said it would most likely result in an increase in taxes due to the creation of a new government agency.

“It would add to the total size of the Alberta government, it would increase total spending by about one per cent, so it’s not something that would be phenomenally large to an individual taxpayer,” Tombe said.
“But it would result in a larger government in Alberta and therefore lower spending elsewhere or higher taxes for Albertans.”

Pulling out of Canada Pension Plan

When it comes to pulling out of the Canada Pension Plan to establish an Alberta Pension Plan, the costs remain relatively unknown.

According to Tombe, no province has ever attempted to pull out of the CPP. Quebec established its own pension plan as the federal plan was created.

“It would be a pretty complex undertaking for the province to separate from the CPP,” Tombe said.

READ MORE: Kenney says proposal to pull Alberta out of CPP due to hostility from others

However, Alberta’s younger population would mean lower contributions in the short- and medium-term, with similar benefits offered in the CPP, and could increase what the rest of the country contributes in Alberta’s absence, Tombe said.

Tombe does admit there are long-term risks in establishing a provincial pension plan, as Quebec now pays the highest contribution rates in the country due to a population that aged differently than forecasts predicted decades ago.

“Alberta withdrawing might have some short-term gains for us, it might have some short-term costs for contributors elsewhere, but who knows what the future holds?” Tombe said. “It would be riskier for Alberta to have its own pension plan.”

According to Tombe, other potential hazards include how the pension funds are invested, as well as the potential to make inter-provincial migration more complicated.
Establishing a provincial police force

Another major bullet point in the panel’s mandate is the proposal to establish a provincial police force.

Alberta had its own police force in 1917, but it was dissolved in 1932 as a measure to cut costs during the Great Depression.

READ MORE: Justice minister promises Albertan-inspired changes to address rural crime

Currently, Alberta spends $235 million per year for the RCMP to provide policing to communities without their own police force. Municipalities larger than 5,000, like Red Deer, can also contract out the RCMP for policing. Depending on the population, between 70 and 90 per cent of the costs could be covered by the municipality.

According to Doug King, a justice studies professor at Mount Royal University, establishing an Alberta provincial police force would likely be a costly venture, but could have benefits that aren’t financial in nature.

 

Doug King has been a criminal justice professor for 25 years, and worked with the Calgary Police Service research and planning department. Adam MacVicar / Global News

“We’re talking a sizable investment of money, more than we’re currently paying for sure,” King said. “But then the question is, does it achieve a non-cost benefit in terms of being able to deploy people more quickly, respond to crime initiatives like rural crime more effectively?”


READ MORE: Alberta municipalities to pay portion of cost for extra policing

Alberta’s contract with the RCMP expires in 2032, and King said if the government got started on a provincial police force in 2020, it would take at least until 2025 or even 2030 to work out logistics like recruitment, patrol vehicles, training and infrastructure.

“I personally would not say, ‘Let’s use it as a method of saving cost,’ because it won’t. But let’s use it as a method of saying we’re going to get something more for Alberta,” King said.

The panel will also explore opting out of federal cost share programs, an exchange of tax points for federal cash transfers and establishing a formalized provincial constitution.

Are the costs worth it?

The ideas presented for the panel to investigate are similar to those included in the Firewall Letter, written by six Albertans to then-Premier Ralph Klein in 2001 to take these steps.

Then in 2004, an MLA committee was formed by Klein to study and report on the proposals. The committee found that the proposals weren’t feasible and too costly for Alberta taxpayers.

Ken Boessenkool, one of the authors of the Firewall Letter, believes that the benefits shouldn’t be measured in costs despite the high price tag to achieve the fair deal proposals. 

Ken Boessenkool was one of the original signatories of the firewall letter, sent to Premier Ralph Klein nearly two decades ago. Global News

“It’s going to cost more for the government to deliver an Alberta Pension Plan, it’s going to cost the government of Alberta more to have a provincial police force, it’s going to cost the government of Alberta more to have its own income tax, but the benefits of this flow to the population of Alberta,” Boessenkool said.

“If the benefits outweigh the costs, then let’s go for it.”

But one potential benefit that Boessenkool sees from moving forward on the fair deal proposals is suppressing the separatist sentiment stewing in Alberta since the 2019 federal election.

“I’m excited about these proposals. I think the timing, giving Alberta a project to work on, to push away this really dumb and stupid idea of separatism is also very healthy, that is a side benefit,” Boessenkool said.

Alberta’s Fair Deal Panel will hold public consultations on the proposals until Jan. 30, 2020, and will report their findings to the government in March.

‘Firewall’ tactics won’t do much to boost Alberta

By Doug Firby on November 11, 2019

As cathartic as it may be, it’s unclear that anything Kenney has prescribed will do much to improve the business climate in this province


Managing our own affairs is good for business. That, at least, is what Alberta’s premier would like us to believe, following a policy speech delivered to a conservative crowd in Red Deer on Saturday.

But is it?

It depends on how you turn the coin.

Premier Jason Kenney said he was up all night writing his speech to the Alberta Manning Networking Conference. And if the ideas sound familiar to you, there’s good reason.

Kenney said a new panel will look at whether Alberta should pull out of the Canada Pension Plan and form its own pension fund, create a provincial police force to replace the RCMP, and opt out of some cost-sharing programs with the federal government.

The premier also vowed to try to retroactively lift the cap on fiscal stabilization back to 2014-15. That could generate an equalization rebate of $1.75 billion – no chump change.

Longtime Alberta residents will recognize a lot of these themes. Many were included in the “firewall letter” penned in 2001 by Stephen Harper before he was prime minister and Ted Morton, a University of Calgary academic who would become a cabinet minister during the late 2000s in Alberta’s then-Progressive Conservative government.

Kenney told the delegates that he’s seeking “a fair deal” for our province, after years of neglect from what is commonly known as Laurentian Canada – essentially the entitled elites in southern Ontario and Quebec.

He took the federal Liberal government to task for overregulation and a seeming ambivalence toward the province’s oil and gas economy. Federal policies, Kenney argued, have driven investment out of Alberta and to the friendly fields of the U.S.

This is pretty standard stuff, and certainly balm to the ears of frustrated Albertans who have witnessed a steady decline in our fiscal fortunes with the troubles in the oil and gas industry. But, as cathartic as it may be, it’s unclear that anything Kenney has prescribed will do much to improve the business climate in this province.

Along with a steady source of revenue, businesses like certainty and predictability. Pulling out of the Canada Pension Plan, for example, does nothing to advance us toward greater certainty. Nor does the creation of our own police force. If anything, those two moves would actually add a level of uncertainty because of the complexities and possible costs associated with the transition.

Could we make better investments with our own pension plan? There’s little evidence to support it. Could we police our small towns and rural communities better with an Alberta-based police force? It seems doubtful and more likely to simply introduce new administrative costs.

The same applies to raising the cap on equalization. It may feel good to ask for a break but what in heaven’s name would lead us to believe the other provinces will agree?

The purpose of these actions, of course, is to start to distance this province from the federation, in the faint hope that such newfound activism will grab the attention of other Canadians. This, it’s hoped, will lead to more proactive support for our ailing province. Faint hope indeed.

While a new pipeline would certainly improve our fortunes, Alberta remains at the mercy of global developments. For example, the New York Times reported on Nov. 3 that a flood of crude oil is coming even as worldwide oil demand is slowing – from Brazil, Norway, Guyana and, yes, Canada. On Sunday, Iran’s president announced that his country has discovered a new field with more than 50 billion barrels of crude oil.

These challenges are likely to mean that it will be many years before Alberta returns to the good old days of $100 oil. Probably never.

Kenney said Saturday that Alberta is well on its way to becoming “the most responsible barrel of oil produced in the world.” We’ve learned through bitter experience, however, that much of the world is indifferent to our “ethical oil” pitch. As is so often the case, price trumps principles.

To his credit, Kenney once again declared his commitment to the federation. After all, there isn’t much of a business case for Wexit. Kenney wisely knows that Alberta stands a better chance of recovering faster if the federal government finally recognizes our hour of need and gives us a hand up.

Are Kenney’s tactics likely to help Alberta climb out of its economic malaise?

Not unless the federal government and other provinces respond with real compassion and recognition of the vital role the province plays in the federation. In other words, don’t hold your breath.

They will, however, help us work off some frustration. Maybe that alone makes them worthwhile.

Doug Firby is president of Troy Media Digital Solutions and publisher of Calgary’s Business, Edmonton’s Business and Troy Media.

Former chair of Alberta 'firewall' committee weighs in on UCP-appointed 'fair deal' panel
LISA JOHNSON lijohnson@postmedia.com  November 11, 2019

Edmontonian Jean Innes with then-MLA Ian McLelland (L) and government minister Stan Woloshyn after receiving an award at the fourth annual Minister's Seniors Service Awards on June 7, 2001. JOHN LUCAS

Former MLA Ian McClelland, chair of a 2003 committee that looked into — and ultimately rejected — ideas contained in the famous “firewall” letter, said he was “terribly disappointed” by the announcement of a new panel that will study many of the same concepts 16 years later.

“This is really just an exercise in blowing off steam,” the former Alberta Progressive Conservative MLA and Reform Party MP said.

In its final recommendations, the MLA Committee on Strengthening Alberta’s Role in Confederation said that withdrawing from the Canada Pension Plan and creating a separate Alberta pension plan “is not in the best interests of Albertans.” Collecting our own personal income taxes “would be a costly venture,” and incur “higher out-of-pocket costs” for individuals and businesses.

“If we had to separate that and do our own public service, that would be another building full of public servants doing taxes. So what’s the point?” McClelland said.

The committee also suggested studying alternatives to the RCMP and looking more carefully at the costs, efficiencies and levels of service.

Many of the recommendations were not followed through, including establishing an Alberta office in Ottawa, an idea that also appears under the mandate of Premier Jason Kenney’s Fair Deal Panel announced Saturday, along with potential provincial arms for policing, pension, and income tax proposals.

“There are things that could be done in strengthening the link with other Canadians that haven’t been done,” he said.

McClelland said he was not optimistic that the fair deal panel would lead to constructive policy decisions.

“I’m 100 per cent confident that they’re going to absorb a lot of steam being blown off, and I don’t think they’re going to come up with one damn thing.”

The structural imbalance of power between the west and Ontario and Quebec remains the underlying problem. MPs in Ottawa don’t understand the concerns of Albertans, and these proposed changes will do nothing to alter that, he said.

“The problem has to do with our ability to be represented in parliament.”

While Kenney argued on Saturday that isolation — especially from trade deals like the USMCA — would not benefit Alberta, the panel cannot risk stirring up a conversation about separatism, McClelland said.

“His only danger is in letting people encourage themselves into a position which cannot be fulfilled.”

While the panel appears to be treading much of the same political ground as the 2003 committee, social media has dramatically changed how we talk about political issues.

“We didn’t want to make it a siren call for separation, because we didn’t see that as a viable alternative,” he said.

In 2003, meetings were small and media coverage was scarce. Now, expectations from this panel are high, the conversation is more polarized than ever and populism has run amok, he said.

“(Social media) allows for a mass evangelical movement instantly — we just didn’t have that. If an idea catches fire, it doesn’t really matter if the idea makes sense or not, but if it makes people feel good, that’s what’s likely going to happen.”

---30---