DAY ONE; SMITH WALKS SEPARATION BACK
Sovereignty Act rollback: Incoming Alberta premier would follow rule of law on bill

Yesterday 

EDMONTON — The top adviser to incoming Alberta premier Danielle Smith says her proposed sovereignty act would respect Supreme Court decisions – a reversal of her core policy promise on how she would challenge Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government.


Sovereignty Act rollback: Incoming Alberta premier would follow rule of law on bill© Provided by The Canadian Press

Rob Anderson, Smith’s campaign chair for the United Conservative Party leadership and now executive director of her transition team, told CBC in a story published Saturday that Smith’s proposed sovereignty act won’t empower Alberta to disregard Supreme Court rulings.

But Anderson promised that the act, which has yet to be drafted, would “have a whole head of very sharp teeth” and “change the dynamic” with Trudeau’s Liberal government.

Smith’s spokesman Jonah Mozeson, responding to an email request for comment Monday, declined to answer specific queries about Anderson’s statement.

In a short statement, Mozeson said, “As the premier-designate has said, the sovereignty act will be drafted in accordance with sound constitutional principles.

“The premier-designate looks forward to working with caucus to draft legislation that protects and asserts Alberta’s constitutional rights in accordance with the rule of law.”

The sovereignty act is the signature policy for Smith, who is to be sworn in as premier Tuesday.

She won the UCP leadership race last week showcasing the act as a vanguard of a broader paradigm-busting challenge against what she has termed Trudeau’s "lawless" intrusion in areas of provincial scope, ranging from energy development to COVID-19 health rules.

The act as proposed by Smith would allow the province to refuse to follow federal laws and court rulings it deemed to be not in Alberta’s best interests and an illegal intrusion into its duly delegated spheres of influence under the Constitution.

As recently as a month ago, Smith said the sovereignty act would only be used in special circumstances using "special motions" requiring the consent of the legislature.

She also stressed Alberta would not consider itself bound by the courts.

“If a court stays or ultimately deems that the actions undertaken by the province under a specific Alberta sovereignty act special motion is unconstitutional, then the government and legislature will have to review the special motion actions in question and make a decision as to whether or not to amend, end or continue with them, understanding the legal implications such a decision could cause,” Smith said in a news release Sept. 6.

The sovereignty act dominated the debate throughout the summer-long leadership campaign to replace Jason Kenney as party leader and premier.

It was denounced by five of Smith's six leadership rivals, and by Kenney, as a profoundly illegal and dangerous plan doomed to ignite economic chaos as Albertans, investors and businesses wouldn’t know which laws they were to follow.

Alberta Lt.-Gov. Salma Lakhani entered the debate at one point, saying she is duty-bound not to sign into law a bill that violates the Constitution.

Martin Olszynski, an administrative law professor at the University of Calgary, who has written articles on the sovereignty act, said if Anderson’s reversal is as advertised, it is the legally proper way to proceed but represents a fundamental rollback of Smith’s original proposal.

“All of the sovereignty act, as it has been currently described, could only work if the premier and the legislature were prepared to ignore the courts. That’s been very clear. That’s why everybody was so alarmed,” said Olszynski in interview.

“We have to see the details, of course,” he added.

“But if suddenly now the premier-designate and her office are prepared to say, 'of course we're bound by the courts,' then the sovereignty act goes nowhere.”

Smith said the sovereignty act will be introduced in the upcoming fall session.

It grew out of the Free Alberta Strategy, a policy paper introduced last September by Anderson, University of Calgary political science professor Barry Cooper and lawyer Derek From.

In the paper, the trio call for radical action, such as refusing to implement federal laws and court rulings, in order to combat decisions deemed to be mortally wounding Alberta's development.

Cooper, in a June newspaper op-ed, said the unconstitutionality of such a proposal is not a bug in the program but its primary feature.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for BARRY COOPER 

In a National Post story published June 17, Anderson was quoted saying, “The idea is that it doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court or the federal government says about it, if it attacks Albertans, the interest of Albertans, and it attacks our jurisdictional rights, we simply won’t enforce it with any provincial agency.”

Anderson told the newspaper at that time that he expected the sovereignty act would likely be found unconstitutional but the province could ignore such a court ruling.

“The Alberta legislature would say, ‘Thanks for that, but we’re not going to enforce it. So you can’t make us.' And what are they going to do? Maybe send in the army? Is that the plan?” said Anderson.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 10, 2022.

Dean Bennett, The Canadian Press

United Conservative Party Leader Danielle Smith sworn in as Alberta's new premier

EDMONTON — Danielle Smith has become Alberta’s new premier.

United Conservative Party Leader Danielle Smith sworn in as Alberta's new premier

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Smith was sworn into office by Lt.-Gov. Salma Lakhani in a ceremony at Government House in Edmonton.

Smith will also serve as intergovernmental affairs minister and plans to announce a revised cabinet on Oct. 21.

In her first remarks as premier, the United Conservative Party leader promised to govern on core values of freedom, family, faith, community and free enterprise.

She also promised to challenge the federal carbon tax and to introduce a sovereignty act that would reject federal laws deemed against the province's interests.

The 51-year-old former Wildrose Party leader and journalist doesn't have a seat in the legislature but announced over the weekend that she will run in a byelection in Brooks-Medicine Hat.

That seat became vacant when the constituency's current representative, Michaela Frey, resigned on Friday.

Smith replaces Jason Kenney, who formally handed in his resignation as premier before Tuesday's swearing-in ceremony.

Smith won the UCP leadership race last week to replace Kenney as party leader and premier. Kenney announced he was quitting months earlier following an uninspiring 51 per cent vote of support in a party leadership review.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 11, 2022.

 

Who Is Danielle Smith, Alberta’s Controversial New Premier?

Stephen Magusiak | PressProgress | October 8

Last week, the United Conservative Party held their election to determine the new leader of their party after Alberta Premier Jason Kenney stepped down following the last leadership election (which he won, but by a margin he felt wasn’t enough). The winner of said race would also become Alberta’s premier. On the sixth ballot, Danielle Smith won with about 53 per cent of the vote, or about 0.9 per cent of the population of Alberta. People across the province are rightfully worried about what’s next. PressProgress has put together an article to explain why. Stephen Magusiak writes, “Lashing out at Ottawa is standard for Alberta conservatives, each of the leadership candidates did to varying degrees, but [Danielle] Smith’s Sovereignty Act took things much further than many of her UCP leadership rivals could stomach. Last month, four of her fellow leadership contenders denounced the Sovereignty Act in a joint press conference. Even Jason Kenney denounced Smith’s plan as ‘risky, dangerous and half-baked,’ predicting it would lead Alberta to become a ‘banana republic.’ So who is Smith, and how did she come to lead Alberta? Smith’s political career goes back to the 90s in Calgary. Along the way are a few highlights and surprise twists that could give you an idea of what to expect from Alberta’s controversial new Premier.” (5 minute read)

Smith Vows To Roll The Dice On A Radical Right-Wing Reordering Of Alberta

David J. Climenhaga | Rabble | October 6

And here’s another article on Smith, this one from Rabble. David J. Climenhaga writes, “An advocate of quack COVID cures and disseminator of dangerous pandemic conspiracy theories during her tenure in right-wing talk radio, [Danielle] Smith also plans a quick attack on the leadership and structure of Alberta Health Services. Decentralization will be the buzzword. Privatization will be the goal. Chaos will be the result. Don’t plan on getting sick in Alberta during Smith’s unelected premiership. Pensions, Mounted Police, and public services will all be for the wood chipper too, by the sound of it. This is the program the UCP’s backers had hoped outgoing Premier Jason Kenney would deliver. But for all his flaws, he proved too traditional a politician to fully take that risk.” (3 minute read)

Carson Jerema: Danielle Smith's Alberta sovereignty act is a set up for disappointment

Carson Jerema - National Post

UCP leadership candidate Danielle Smith speaks at a campaign rally in Chestermere on Tuesday, August 9, 2022. Azin Ghaffari/Postmedia


EDMONTON — Supporters of United Conservative Party leadership candidate Danielle Smith who are galvanized by her proposed Alberta sovereignty act are in for disappointment. They need only look at outgoing Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, who Smith hopes to replace. He came to power on a similar anti-Ottawa, anti-Trudeau message, which he, like Smith, blamed for policies that either worsened the downturn in the energy industry, or would ensure the oil patch could never fully recover.

While in office, Kenney held a referendum on removing equalization from the Constitution, established a “war room” to defend the energy industry, sued the federal government over the carbon tax and launched a lawsuit over Bill C-69, which is on its way to the Supreme Court. Yet this was not enough, and was never going to be enough for some. Kenney was seen as too weak, too ineffective — even, in some corners, as an agent of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He lost the UCP leadership, in part, because he wasn’t anti-Ottawa enough.

Smith herself has dismissed Kenney’s efforts as “ineffective letter-writing campaigns and empty rhetoric.” It is clear that Kenney over-promised what was possible, but within a federation like Canada, which is governed by the rule of law, it is not really clear what else he should have been doing.

This is especially true in Canada, where there are no national institutions that can effectively represent provincial interests, unless those interests belong to Ontario or Quebec. The Senate lacks democratic legitimacy and doesn’t represent provinces equally, like in other federations. Cabinet ministers have long since abandoned their role as provincial advocates as power has centralized in the Prime Minister’s Office, and representation in the House of Commons will skew even more towards Quebec under a proposed Elections Canada redistribution plan.

All that remains are the premiers, who have no authority beyond their borders and are left to bluster away, claiming powers they don’t have and making promises they can’t possibly keep.

Nonetheless, Smith is making even bigger promises than Kenney — ones that will be even more impossible to keep. As for the Constitution, she wants to pretend it works differently than it does. And anyone who disagrees is “woke,” part of the “political establishment,” and otherwise guilty of “fear mongering” and of “spreading disinformation.”

She presents her proposed sovereignty act as the “first step” in reasserting provincial rights against “the destructive overreach of Ottawa,” which has put the country “on a path of division and disunity.” Despite the separatist nods — why else call it the sovereignty act? — Smith claims this is “the only viable way for Canada to remain a unified nation long into the future.”

If passed, Smith claims, the act would give the Alberta legislature the authority to pass a “special motion” declaring that a federal law that encroaches on provincial jurisdiction, or otherwise violates the Constitution, “shall not be enforced by the provincial government within Alberta.” It would then be up to the federal government to litigate the non-enforcement of the law in court. Examples of federal laws this would apply to are mostly related to those that would impose production cuts on resource industries.

It isn’t difficult to understand why an approach like Smith’s would be appealing. Ottawa is happy to benefit from the tax revenues that Alberta generates, and use them to bolster Quebec with equalization payments. But the government’s green agenda is disproportionately targeted at Alberta, giving the energy industry more onerous emissions targets than others.

While oil revenues have returned to Alberta, new investment has not. Energy companies are wary of new projects as future regulations are uncertain. The jobs lost after the 2014 oil price crash have largely not returned and wage growth in Canada has been muted since the Liberals took power.

Quebec has successfully negotiated powers for itself and routinely passes legislation that would be unconstitutional, if not for the notwithstanding clause. Quebec is constantly testing the boundaries of the federation, so it isn’t surprising to see similar tactics being employed in Alberta.

Barry Cooper: The Alberta sovereignty act is unconstitutional on purpose

Danielle Smith: Alberta sovereignty is a constitutional right

However, while Smith may say her plan is “clearly constitutional,” it is clearly not. There is no provincial right to “nullification.” There is a federal right of disallowance, which gives Ottawa the ability to disallow provincial legislation, but it has fallen out of use. While it is still part of the “written” and legal Constitution, it isn’t part of what lawyers call the “political constitution.”

The only means for resolving such disputes are the courts. As imperfect and often frustrating as that may be for many Albertans, that is the reality in Canada. The rule of law demands governments not act outside constitutional bounds. Here is how Father of Confederation George Étienne Cartier put it: “The courts of justice will decide all questions in relation to which there may be differences between the two powers.”

The idea of a sovereignty act originated last fall under the Free Alberta Strategy. Barry Cooper, one of the authors of that document, has argued that the whole point of the strategy is to create a constitutional crisis. “But, but — gasp! — that would be unconstitutional! Indeed, that is the whole point,” he wrote in the National Post.

Cooper was referring to a version of the act he co-authored and not specifically to Smith’s proposal, but the two are close enough in concept to wonder what exactly Smith’s plan is here. Does she genuinely think her sovereignty proposal is constitutional? If so, she should maybe enlist better lawyers. If the point is to deliberately bring an unconstitutional law and to cause a crisis, then she should be honest with her supporters.

In either case, it is hard to imagine Smith will have more success than Kenney at forcing a Liberal government in Ottawa to reverse itself.

National Post

POT CALLING  KETTLE BLACK

Kenney defends Alberta lieutenant-governor, attacks 'cockamamie' sovereignty bill

Friday


EDMONTON — Premier Jason Kenney is defending Alberta’s lieutenant-governor after she suggested she may not automatically pass a sovereignty act bill proposed by a candidate vying to replace him as United Conservative leader.


Kenney, speaking on a radio show Friday morning, also renewed his criticism of Danielle Smith's signature proposal.

He characterized it as “cockamamie,” illegal and a recipe for business and investment to flee a province no longer committed to the rule of law.

Smith, should she win the UCP leadership race on Oct. 6, has promised to immediately introduce a bill allowing her government to ignore federal laws and court rulings deemed not to be in Alberta’s best interests.

Legal scholars and politicians, including Kenney and government house leader Jason Nixon, have sharply criticized the plan and questioned whether it would even pass in the legislature.

Lt.-Gov. Salma Lakhani, when asked by reporters Thursday whether she would pass Smith’s proposal, said she would not prejudge it but that she has a duty to ensure any bill she signs into law follows the Constitution.

“(Lakhani) was asked unprompted questions by media and I think she gave general answers about her duties as lieutenant-governor: that if she faces something problematic, she would take on expert advice and consider all the constitutional principles,” Kenney told Edmonton radio station CHED.

Kenney said the proposal has put Lakhani, and the entire province, in a potentially chaotic and dangerous bind.

“It’s really the anarchy act or, as one conservative constitutional scholar puts it, the Alberta suicide act,” said Kenney.

“It would put the lieutenant-governor in a very awkward position for the legislature to pass a law saying that it will not enforce the laws. That is without precedent, at least in Canadian and perhaps in British parliamentary history.

“It would also send a devastating message about investor confidence,” he added.

“If the government proposes (a law) saying that we will rip up contracts, we won’t enforce court orders, we’ll ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court, we’ll choose which laws we enforce, we’ll ignore the Constitution, well, what investor in their right mind would put money at risk in Alberta?”

Smith responded in a statement, urging Lakhani to retract her comments.

“The lieutenant-governor is an unelected figurehead, appointed by the prime minister, that plays a wholly ceremonial role in our system of government,” Smith said.

“She does not have authority to refuse assent to bills democratically passed in the provincial legislature.”

Smith also renewed her criticism of Kenney for abandoning his promise of impartiality in the leadership race to speak out against her.

“Never in our province’s history has an outgoing leader of a party so brazenly and inappropriately inserted himself into the election of his successor,” she wrote.

"I urge him to do a better job of acting like a responsible statesman.”

Two weeks ago, Kenney labelled Smith’s sovereignty plan “nuts.”

He has repeatedly defended his comments by saying he is not speaking on Smith’s proposal but on the underlying policy paper on which it is based.

That policy paper — titled the Free Alberta Strategy — was introduced a year ago by former Wildrose Party member Rob Anderson, University of Calgary political science professor Barry Cooper and lawyer Derek From.

In the paper, they call for radical action like refusing to implement federal laws and court rulings in order to combat decisions that are mortally wounding Alberta's development.

Cooper himself, in a June newspaper op-ed, said the unconstitutionality of such a proposal is not a bug in the program but its primary feature.

Smith grabbed headlines with the proposal in June as the campaign heated up, calling it necessary to administer a shock to a "lawless'" federal government undermining Alberta's economy.

However, as criticism of such a bill mounted in recent weeks, Smith began downplaying the original proposal.

She has recently been characterizing it as a lawful recitation of how Alberta views the separation of powers under the Constitution, prompting confusion over what it is she is really proposing.

Smith said she will answer that after the Labour Day weekend.

“The entire objective of the sovereignty act is to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of Alberta and the Charter freedoms of our people from continued unconstitutional attacks by Ottawa,” Smith wrote.

“I will be announcing further details of the proposed particulars and mechanics of the bill next week, with the actual language of the bill to be drafted.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 2, 2022.

Dean Bennett, The Canadian Press

Destroying the Federation

Link Byfield and his tax exempt foundation the so called Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democrary, funded by bankrupting the Alberta Report, will be holding a Right Wing Love in this fall in Calgary. Entitled ironically Renewing the Federation.

What they really want is to devolve all power to the provinces. More like destroying the federation. Whenever you have Citizens or Taxpayers in your name you know that the politics are to the right. Here is another irony, Alberta is a One Party State with far less accountability or transparency than any other government in the hemisphere. Yep this is real model for citizen democracy and freedom.

Included in his rouges gallery of speakers are several candidates for the leadership of the Alberta Party of Calgary, to replace Ralph. And Ralph will be speaking too. Presto Manning will be speaking. Its the Reform party alumni.

I have blogged about Byfield's right wing lobby effort before. His private club the CCFD wish to ban same sex marriage by allowing provinces to secede from Canada. That sums it up. Anyways they also can't spell.

The Sunday morning session begins with
Dr. Barry Cooper of the University of Calgary political science department, a prominent Canadian political author and commentator.

He will propose National Principle 3: "That national institutions and governments reflet (sic) and respect the exclusive responsibility of provinces for social and economic development."

And while there is a need for a new confederation in Canada, this is not it.

The Bankruptcy of Liberal Federalism

Also See:

Link Byfield

Macleans the New Alberta Report

Social Credit And Western Canadian Radicalism

Historical Memory on the Eve of the Election

Calgary Herald Remembers RB Bennet

Right to Life = Right To Work

Western Canadian Populism

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Calagry, Alberta, Manning, Byfield, Klein, Alberta-Report, Right-wing, Reform-Party, separatism, confederation, Canada, federalism, conference, Morton, Cooper

Supported by Cypress-Medicine Hat MLA, Free Alberta Strategy released


Wed., October 13, 2021

Published September 28, the Free Alberta Strategy is a policy paper written by Airdrie MLA and lawyer, Rob Anderson, University of Calgary political scientist, Barry Cooper, and constitutional lawyer, Derek From, in cooperation with the Alberta Institute.

The paper has two key objectives, which include establishing provincial sovereignty within Canada, and the end of equalization payments to have-not provinces.

“We believe that Alberta needs to declare itself a sovereign jurisdiction within Canada,” said Anderson. “Part of that is to pass a piece of legislation called the Alberta Sovereignty Act, which specifically states that the province of Alberta will not enforce federal laws that are unfair, that unfairly attack the province of Alberta, or that are outside of the jurisdiction of the federal jurisdiction of Ottawa. An example of that would be the carbon tax. If the legislature feels that the carbon taxes are an unconstitutional attack on Alberta and on our jurisdictional rights as a province, then we would simply say, under the Alberta Sovereignty Act, that he will not be enforcing that law within the boundaries of Alberta.”

The paper does not advocate for complete separation from Canada, points out Anderson, who believes that separatism is another option Albertans are tired of hearing of as the proposed only alternative to doing nothing about what is outlined in the strategy.

“The main issues that I'm hearing is, first of all, the lack of resource movement, is the fact that that Albertans are the best in the world at taking risk and safely extracting oil and gas are unable to get work unable to get work at the pay they used to, or they have to go hundreds of miles away to find work, and all the time the demand for oil and gas is increasing. So that would be the main one,” said Drew Barnes, MLA for Cypress-Medicine Hat. “Secondly, the fact that Alberta is such a cash cow to the rest of Canada, large parts of that through equalization, and the fact that equalization, and this money transfer is unfair in terms of giving some provinces, you know, sovereign funds as big as Alberta's. It's given them cheaper services. And it has created a problem where some provinces have not tried to increase their revenues or develop their resources, because they want to continue to collect equalization. It's an unfair system that hasn't worked well for anyone.”

Barnes noted a strong frustration in his constituency in the wake of the federal election, and said that “people are frustrated that elections are decided, you know, before we even finished counting our votes here.” Barnes said that seeing legacy parties adopt strategies to “keep Quebec and Ontario happy rather than protect the individual Alberta” definitely fanned the flames in the area.

“It starts with the fact that in Cypress-Medicine Hat, too many, too many of us are not able to work in the oil and gas industry, because of the fact that, you know, Ottawa has blocked pipelines, and that needs to change. Secondly, you know, the fact that, you know, taxes are so high in Canada, and the federal government does so little for us. People realize that there has to be a better system and opportunity for hardworking people and hardworking families to keep more of their own money. So they have more choices,” said Barnes.

There is confidence that with this sovereignty, Alberta would be fine operating on a much more individual scale, said Anderson.

“I will put my belief in Alberta, governing itself over Ottawa governing Alberta any day of the week,” said Anderson. “Obviously, there's going to be times when the government of Alberta doesn't do a great job. But that is a rare occurrence in comparison to the absolute gong show. That is the federal government in Ottawa and specifically, as it relates to Ottawa to Ottawa is consistent attacks on Alberta's energy and agricultural sectors. It's been unrelenting for the last 50 years. It doesn't stop. And so, you know, if there are from time to time, obviously provincial governments are going to screw up but at least at the very least, they have Alberta's best interests at heart. You cannot say that about Ottawa.”

Anderson believes that Alberta would not look much different in terms of healthcare or social programs, save for the improvement made by more of the revenue generated in the province being re-invested into the province itself.

“We'd have more resources under the free Alberta strategy,” said Anderson. “They contemplate the stopping equalization and, and net transfers out of the province, we've sent more than six over the last 60 years, we've spent more than a cent more than $600 billion to Ottawa, more than we've got back and in federal spending, and that 600 billion is largely gone to Quebec as well as as well as the Maritimes for vote buying schemes in those areas, by generally federal liberal governments, but also by conservative federal conservative governments as well, just to a lesser extent. but this with the strategy contemplates putting an end to that. And so that means more resources for Alberta, which means more healthcare dollars, more education, dollars, more social spending, and also fewer taxes.”

Anderson specifically notes that the money could be used to increase ICU capacity during this pandemic, and said that money being sent to Ottawa may be the cause of the lack of healthcare resources in the province.

“We’re sitting here with 300 ICU beds in the middle of a pandemic, well, of course there's gonna be problems when you run your health system like that,” said Anderson. “When you don't have enough resources. So that's why we're losing doctors and nurses to neighboring provinces right now. And we're not going to get them back so long as we continue to have our resources sucked dry by Ottawa.”

Anna Smith, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Prairie Post East

ALBERTA SEPERATISM IS AMERICAN DECSENDENTS IN ALBERTA, AND SOME AMERICAN SECOND GENERATION WHO PROPOSE THESE LETS SEPERATE AND JOIN AMERICA SCHEMES

IN THE PAST WE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS SEPERATIST PARTIES OF THE RIGHT SINCE PETER LOUGHEED FOUGHT OFF THE WESTERN CANADA CONCEPT (WCC) WHICH AROSE OUT OF THE COLLAPSED SOCIAL CREDIT PARTY/GIVERNMENT

IT AROSE IN SOUTHERN ALBERTA AS ALL THESE MOVEMENTS OF THE RIGHT DO.

CALGARY IS THE LARGEST AMERICAN CITY IN CANADA

RIGHT WING MORMONS PROMOTE ANTI TAX CAMPAIGNS AS THEY PAY THROUGH THEIR CHURCH TITHES INSTEAD.

DUTCH REFORM CHURCH RIGHT WING ACTIVISTS CAME HERE FROM SOUTH AFRICA 

AND PROMOTE THEIR NEO CALVANISM THROUGH GROUPS LIKE THE FAKE UNION CLAC AND THE CHRISTIAN FARMERS ASSOC OF CANADA WHO FOUNDED AND SUPPORTED THE REFORM PARTY 

SEE

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2006/10/cardston-home-of-bigots.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2005/07/conservatives-bash-canada.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2005/03/right-to-life-right-to-work.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2005/11/canadas-right-wing-union.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2006/01/calgary-herald-remembers-rb-bennet.html

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

http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2005/07/rebel-yell.html

John Baird In Exxons Pocket?

Is Harpers new Environment Minister, John Baird in the pocket of Exxon Mobil? After all their Canadian anti-Kyoto lobby is run by Barry Cooper part of the Calgary School which Harper is a graduate of. We will find out soon enough as he goes to Paris for the UN Climate Change Report.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has maintained any environmental plan for Canada must balance the need to reduce greenhouse gases with the need to profit from the country's vast energy resources.

See
Environment



ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Kyoto, Envrionment, carbon, carbon trading, emissions, greenhouse gas, climate change, global warming, Conservatives, Canada, Harper, John Baird,

What the Free Alberta Strategy gets wrong about Canada's banking system

Robert L. Ascah, Research Fellow, The Parkland Institute, University of Alberta

THE CONVERSATION
Mon, January 30, 2023 

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith speaks at a news conference in Edmonton in November 2022. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

What is the Free Alberta Strategy, the co-creation of two lawyers and a Calgary political scientist? And with a provincial election on the horizon this spring in Alberta, what will the sovereignty strategy mean for voters?

Bill 1, the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act, is the centrepiece of the Free Alberta Strategy. It was introduced late last year by Premier Danielle Smith in another salvo in the ongoing constitutional battle between Alberta and the federal government.

Let’s review the concept’s origin and focus on one of the least examined components of the Free Alberta Strategy — the proposed Independent Banking Act.

History

Alberta separatism in the 21st century began to rear its head when Ralph Klein was premier. The so-called firewall letter, a two-page missive to Klein, was published in the National Post in January 2001.

It was signed by future prime minister Stephen Harper, then the president of the National Citizens Coalition, a well-funded conservative advocacy group, and other signatories that included University of Calgary political scientists Ted Morton, Tom Flanagan and Rainer Knopff, Andrew Crooks of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Ken Boessenkool, a former policy adviser to Stockwell Day, leader of the Canadian Alliance.

Stephen Harper, then the president of the National Citizens Coalition, speaks with media in Calgary in October 2000. (CP PHOTO/Jeff McIntosh)

Many of the letter’s recommendations would reappear almost identically in 2020, in the Fair Deal Panel findings under Premier Jason Kenney. It proposed setting up a provincial police force, withdrawing from the Canada Pension Plan and effectively expanding the mandate of Alberta Revenue to collect personal income taxes.

When Harper was elected prime minister, western separatism died down. But the election of Justin Trudeau’s Liberals and Rachel Notley’s NDP in 2015 seemed to fuel dissent among some conservative elements in Alberta.

This resulted in the amalgamation of right-wing forces with the establishment of the Kenney-led United Conservative Party. Kenney easily won the 2019 election because the conservative vote wasn’t split.
Buffalo declaration

In February 2020, the Buffalo declaration was released. The 13-page letter argued that Confederation isn’t working for Alberta. It was signed by four Alberta MPs, led by Michelle Rempel Garner. It opened with a list of alleged historical injustices imposed on Alberta and its sister province, Saskatchewan.

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner asks a question during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in 2020. 

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

The alleged causes of the crisis included the National Energy Program of 1980 to 1985 — a “malicious” attack against Alberta’s resource sector, according to the declaration.

Policy recommendations included the recognition of Alberta as “a culturally distinct region within Confederation,” improved representation in Parliament and an acknowledgement of the “devastation” of the National Energy Program.

It also demanded changes to the equalization program and approval of the Teck Frontier mining project.

Meanwhile, Kenney was proving unable to control anti-Ottawa sentiment in Alberta, and his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic threatened party unity. He ultimately lost a leadership vote in 2022 and resigned.

A year earlier, the Free Alberta Strategy was launched by former Wildrose MLA Rob Anderson, libertarian Derek From and Barry Cooper, a political scientist at the University of Calgary.

The strategy, with the Alberta Sovereignty Act as its centrepiece, was championed by Smith in her successful leadership campaign. Kenney and many of Smith’s leadership opponents, meantime, were heavily critical of the concept.

Kenney and Travis Toews, the Alberta finance minister, expressed concerns about a flight of capital from the province.

Jason Kenney shakes hands with Travis Toews after swearing him in as finance minister in Edmonton in 2019. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

Alberta’s Independent Banking Act

Largely unnoticed in the Free Alberta Strategy’s recommendations is the creation of a provincial independent banking system.

Given my experience as an executive with ATB Financial, the government’s wholly owned full-service “bank,” I understand the difficulties of creating a private Alberta-regulated financial system.

A functioning banking system is critical to Alberta’s economic well-being. Banking, however, is under exclusive federal jurisdiction, including currency and the issuing of paper money.

The Free Alberta Strategy, however, purports to allow Alberta to incorporate and regulate banks, which is clearly unconstitutional. There’s no mention that this proposal is beyond the powers of the provincial legislature.

William Aberhart, premier of Alberta, is pictured at a rally in Calgary in 1937.

 (CP PHOTO/National Archives of Canada)

Few Albertans probably remember the attempts of onetime Alberta premier William Aberhart during the Great Depression to tax and regulate banks in an effort to forestall foreclosures that were disrupting the lives of thousands of Albertans.

These efforts failed due to the courts siding with the federal government, and by the federal government’s use of the rarely used powers of reservation or disallowance.

The idea of using a provincial banking system to thwart federal agencies or federally regulated banks therefore is nothing new. Aberhart tried it, including by using provincial powers over property and civil rights, taxation and judicial procedures. These laws were ultimately overturned.

When Alberta couldn’t fight the banks, it decided to join them. Alberta Treasury Branches — now ATB Financial — is the main surviving relic of Aberhart’s commitment to help Albertans during the Depression.

Cut off from Payments Canada

The Free Alberta Strategy’s authors, however, are failing to recognize the impracticalities of Alberta going ahead with its own banking system.

All banks — or quasi-banks like credit unions, ATB Financial and trust companies — participate in the neural network of the Canadian financial system known as Payments Canada. All banking institutions transfer value for their customers by dispensing cash and offering debit and credit card services.

In the unlikely event that Smith introduced legislation to incorporate banks, Canada’s federal finance minister would quickly point out that ATB and credit unions would be cut off from access to the payments system if the bill were to proceed.

ATB Financial CEO Curtis Stange is pictured at the ATB Financial offices in Edmonton in June 2018. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

This would also mean that ATB or credit unions would not be able to access the lender-of-last-resort services at the Bank of Canada. The lender of last resort can provide liquidity or cash resources to troubled financial institutions to stave off a run on the bank.

Without access to the payment systems and the central bank, ATB and credit unions would fail to meet customer needs for cash, payroll services or to close real estate or securities transactions.

The Free Alberta Strategy is in fact a road map for Alberta sovereignty, touching on the most essential compartment of sovereignty — banking and currency.

Canadian bankers and finance ministers need to understand that the inner workings of banking and central banking are well known to some Alberta sovereigntists in positions of influence — and that the constitution is only an obstacle if Alberta remains part of Canada.

This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

It was written by: Robert L. Ascah, University of Alberta.

Read more:

In Danielle Smith’s fantasy Alberta, Indigenous struggle is twisted to suit settlers

How Danielle Smith won in Alberta and what it means for Canada

Robert (Bob) L. Ascah is affiliated with Alberta NDP.

SEE

 LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for SOCIAL CREDIT 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: A History of Canadian Wealth, 1914. 

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESTON MANNING 

ON THE EVE OF CANADA'S 42ND ELECTION

19, OCTOBER 2015

Dear Mr. Manning;

Sir, I am writing you to appeal to you in these last days of this election, before voting day, to speak out about the undemocratic and downright Un Reform Party and actually Anti Reform Party principles and ethics on democratic governance  by the Prime Minister, your student and apprentice, Stephen Harper.

I know the old days were full of idealism like the West Wants In and that would change things for the good, like ending MP’s pensions.  Oops that’s perhaps not the best example since you and your MP’s did take them.

Ok how about Senate Reform, the triple EEE Senate, the PMO not appointing Senators but they be elected by the provinces. Sheesh sorry another Oops; how did that work out to become the PMO appoints Senators, 56  in all, the largest by any PMO which means larger than any Liberal Government ever appointed.

Recall, remember recall, if you didn’t like you MP you could get a petition together and kick em out between elections. Remember Recall the very core principle of the Reform Party, the Reform in the Reform Party.  How’s that going under Harper. Ahh come on I know, don’t blame Stevie you dumped that one yourself when you became Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

About Stornaway, that was of course foolish youthful braggadocio on your part as a green Party Leader, boasting that as leader of the Reform Party in Opposition you would never live there, so really this is not all on Stevie. The Reform Party of Preston Manning. reformed once in power as the Official Opposition you just became another parliamentary party.

 Heck you guys on the right split again, like an amoeba into three conservative parties and so the whole focus of Stephen Harpers campaign was to win power by bringing you all back together under the strong leadership of one man him.

Oh dear perhaps this is a bit farfetched to ask of you, to opine on how Stephen Harper is BAD FOR DEMOCRACY but you have since retirement from parliamentary politics set up a foundation  Manning Centre for Building Democracy  for the promotion of Edmund Burke’s and John Locke’s classical liberal interpretation of governance and democracy, the two not necessarily being synonymous.

I know like many in the old Reform Wing of the party, you harbor secret dreams of being a libertarian like those of your ideological counterparts south of the border. Even here you must admit that your libertarian shadow self must surely cringe at Harper’s draconian police state law Bill C51.

Of course you have had some victories with Steve in power  you and your Reform Party base did manage to undemocratically reform the Canadian Wheat Board out of existence as promised by you way way back when. However I am sure like many Albertans and Canadians who believe in a fair deal not a fixed one no effort was put into reforming the wheat board to become a democratically run producer cooperative.

 So congratulations your privatization ideology succeeded in destroying the farmers cooperative and having it sold , no pardon me, given away for free to a Saudi Arabian corporation owned by the Sovereign Wealth Fund of the Saudi Arabian Government.  This then is the free market principle in practice not in theory.  Another failure that began under you.

Perhaps you really can’t criticize Stephen Harper, because you like him have a fuehrer complex, the need to be the alpha male, the big man on campus, the boss.  Unfortunately for you you truly do love the ideal of reform, as with most conservative thinkers, it is an ideal, when it comes to political practice democracy is abandoned for power, and as we know from at least one other conservative thinker absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In this I think we can both agree that Stephen Harper has abandoned all principles except that of staying in power, and changing the country to fit his ideology, not yours, mine or anyone elses and certainly not the Conservative Party. And he learned that ideology at the feet of Barry Cooper, Tom Flanagan, and the right wing political think tank at the University of Calgary. That once hot bed of neo conservative braggadocio about how it was all new, an alternative to the failure of the government welfare state and the socialist economics of Keynes.

Add in a dash of prairie populist Reformism the spirit of recall, reform of the senate, and the right to vote on legislation by petition; Referendum, the three R’s of your Reform Party . All old Alberta ideas from even before they were adopted by you, the son of the Socred Premier of Alberta. The reform agenda was and is prairie populism spread by socialists and social creditors.

In fact in Alberta it was socialist labour and the United Farmers of Alberta that attempted to implement these practices, years before Social Credit.

You know that and so do I because I am a historian of the labour movement in this province.

Doesn’t Stephen remind you of someone?

Dare I say your father; Ernest Manning  and before him Bible Bill Aberhart the creators of the Social Credit movement and Party here in Alberta. Bible Bill despite his name was more  Fuhrer than Premier, he is actually Steve’s ideal, for after only being in power for a short time Aberhart brought in a draconian censorship law prohibiting criticism of his regime, which to its credit to this day the Edmonton Journal challenged to the Supreme Court and won in having it overturned.

Sounds familiar, ignore the charter and constitution and the principles of law, while declaring yourself a law and order government. These of course are the classical principles and practices of what we now call fascism. Harper declares himself a democrat a libertarian free marketer, but in reality as Tom Flanagan now admits to the ‘horror of'’ having created a Prime Minister who considers himself  The Great Leader, and it does not help that 9/11 Truthers believe he shares a birthday with the Fuhrer.

 One does not need to invoke Hitler, to remember that fascism arose following failed revolutions in the Twentieth Century, Aberhart’s Social Credit suffered as much from being a socialized credit system and a National Socialist ideology.

This ideology is still with us within the right wing around the world, at its base it has never changed, it is anti-parliamentary, anti-democratic, but you can vote, as you are told, because all this just gets in the way of the great leaders will.

Unfortunately now that I think of it perhaps it is too much to ask you the founder of the  Manning Centre » Preston Manning, President and CEO, to speak out for defence of our democratic freedoms, of speech, assembly, protest, etc. Principles now challenged by Harpers bill C51.

Or his bill C24 which strip Canadians of their citizenship in violation of UN principles and the principles of the Magna Carta

Or the bills to demand Unions provide financial information to the public, while political parties and corporations don’t have too. We have an identical bill used against First Nations when they receive government funds

We have the total destruction of Science and Research done by the Federal Government. Including libraries and research document holdings being destroyed, the only thing missing is the mass public bonfires. Perfect for Halloween or Guy Fawkes day.

Of course among conservatives there are those proponents of individual freedom and personal choice  that call themselves democratic or libertarian, as in civil libertarian, civil liberties do not conflict with conservative principles based on English jurisprudence.

On the other hand there is the right wing school of thought that embraces Pharaonism, Caesarism, the  Fuhrer Principle, the Strong Man theory of history. In this case the writings and teachings of two University of Chicago professors, Leo Strauss, and Carl Schmitt both idealized the leader of the nation ruling over and uninhibited by the peoples tribunes their parliament, judiciary, senate, all bodies of the state. The strong man simply walks over, tramples, or ignores, all such laws as he does not need or approve of. This of course was one of the schools of thought in the think tank that bred Harper at the University of Calgary.

It is time that those conservatives like yourself decide which side of history you are on those of civil libertarian democrat or those of the strong man Stephen Harper school.

Since you have not spoken out opposing his actions at the time, perhaps now in the final days of this historic election you can once again dig deep into your democratic morals and ethics to really see  Steve in that light how can you remain unmoved to speak out against him.

Mr. Manning you have a chance to make a real difference this election, one that says principles are more important than the party or the man running it. But rather the will of the people, and the people themselves rule, and are not ruled by the party or the leader.

This election we have seen quite clearly it is about one man, not his party, or the Conservative MP’s or Senators, it is about Stephen Harper, as much as he says its not about him. Of course it is.

You once believed that our MP’s were responsible to the voters, and to their constituents, not that they were party men and women who simply transmit the will of the PMO down to the peons.

Sir; as a conscientious compassionate conservative democrat and civil libertarian how can you sit by and remain silent.

Yours for Democracy,

Eugene Plawiuk

Notes and References

Manning Centre for Building Democracy - Facebook

Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat Or Corrective for Democracy? Populism and Democracy in Canada's Reform Party  

Preston Manning Wikipedia Bio

Number of years Ernest Manning was Premier of Alberta: 25 [1943–1968]

#elxn43 #cdnpoli #abpli #manning 

UCP prepares to roll out Ford-flavoured 
post-secondary changes in Alberta

EMMA GRANEY

Updated: May 6, 2019

The UCP government will require Alberta post-secondary institutions to adopt controversial free speech policies based on U.S. principles that allow speakers, no matter how “unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive,” say what they like on campuses.

They are called the Chicago principles.1

Hailed by Advanced Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides and others as the “gold standard,” they were developed by the University of Chicago in 2014 to demonstrate a commitment to free speech on U.S. college campuses.

But some worry they don’t allow universities to distinguish between groups or individuals who want to speak on campus, be it a flat-earth society, racists or a celebrity.

The UCP did not grant Postmedia an interview with Nicolaides.

However, in an emailed statement, he said applying the principles would ensure Alberta post-secondary institutions are competitive with those in the United States.

‘A crass political gesture’

The move echoes a recent edict by Doug Ford’s Ontario government.

Professor Sigal Ben-Porath, a University of Pennsylvania free speech scholar, helped Ontario institutions develop Ford-mandated policies.

Many ended up simply penning a policy saying they supported the Chicago principles, Ben-Porath said, despite the fact the policy cannot apply in Canada as it does in the States because of our hate speech laws.

Ben-Porath supports free speech, and thinks reasoned, adult conversations and guidelines are useful for campus administrators.

She doesn’t like speech codes, lists of acceptable words or academic censorship, and thinks navigating controversial ideas is — and should be — part of post-secondary civic education.

But she doesn’t think blunt instruments cut it.

“We are serving more and more diverse students…. (and) we need to be thoughtful in the ways in which we organize the environment in which they are learning,” she said.

“The Chicago principles have very little to do with any of that, because they don’t actually let you think as an institution what your values are, what your norms are, what is your history, what is the population that you’re serving.”

Gyllian Phillips, Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations president, watched the Ford policy roll out in her province. She called it an unnecessary, “crass political gesture.”

Like Alberta post-secondary institutions, Ontario universities are already governed by a host of regulations including hate speech laws, academic freedoms in collective agreements and student codes of conduct, Phillips said.

‘A very problematic precedent’

Then there are the funding implications.

Ford’s government decreed that any post-secondary institution failing to implement free speech policies could be fiscally punished.

Similarly, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March to bar post-secondary institutions from federal funds if they restrict free speech.

Trump’s action drew a swift rebuke from University of Chicago president Robert Zimmer, a fierce defender of the principles developed by his university.

The Trump order would interfere with the ability of universities to address free speech on their own, Zimmer wrote in a public message to his campus, and would set “a very problematic precedent.”

“It makes the government, with all its power and authority, a party to defining the very nature of discussion on campus,” he wrote.

Nicolaides wouldn’t say whether his government will financially penalize institutions that don’t adopt the principles, saying only the policies would give students and faculty “strong protection with respect to freedom of speech, which is essential to the academic experience.”

Tying funding to performance

The UCP has also promised to “measure labour market outcomes of post-secondary programs to identify the correlation between provincial subsidies and economic returns for taxpayers.”

A similar scheme under Ford tied 60 per cent of provincial funding to performance measures like graduate employment and pay, which Phillips worries will set in motion an “unprecedented” change.

“Instead of universities working together to build different regional or research based or education-based needs for the province, it creates winners and losers,” she said.

“The idea that we should turn universities into competitive entities absolutely ignores the reality that each university is autonomous, it’s different, it serves different populations, it has a different reason for existing.

“If they’re used to peg universities against one another, it’s not going to go well for the system as a whole.”

When asked via email if any post-secondary funding will be tied to labour market outcomes, Nicolaides didn’t answer.

“By working closely with our partners at universities and colleges, we will ensure that we meet the demands of the labour market in this province,” he wrote.

When Postmedia asked Jason Kenney during the election if the UCP would tie university funding to performance measures, he said “it’s not our intention to cut funds.”

Universities mum

The policy direction under the UCP is part of an increasing incursion into higher education by Alberta governments.

Take the NDP’s tuition freeze, which left universities scrambling to make up a funding shortfall; MacEwan University president David Atkinson likened it to “being stoned to death with popcorn.”

Jolene Armstrong, president of the Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations, worries that tying funding to labour market outcomes could damage education programs.

“I just don’t understand the sociological data that would be used to indicate that would be a good way to fund any program,” she said.

“I would guess that’s the intention, to try to reduce funding obligations on behalf of the government … but universities have already experienced a reduction in government funding.”

The presidents of Alberta’s two largest universities — David Turpin at the University of Alberta and Ed McCauley at the University of Calgary — both said it’s too early to comment on UCP post-secondary policy.

However, Turpin said the sector is “a key part of the economic engine of this province, providing the educated workforce and research needed for job creation, economic development and diversification.”

1.The So Called University Of Chicago Principles Are Based On The Fact That U Of C Is As Right Wing Economic And Political Departments As You Can Get 

Home To The Likes Of Leo Strauss And Former Nazi Judge Carl Schmidt, Fascist Romanian Mircea Eliade, And Of Course Who Can Forget The Chicago School Of Economists Hayek, Mises, Etc. 

In Alberta The Graduates Of The Chicago Poli Sci Department Program Created Their Own Program At The U Of Calgary Called The Calgary School

You Can Read About Them Here

It Led To The Creation Of The New Right In Canada, The Reform Party, The Alliance, Then The Conservative Party Of Stephen Harper. Academics Like Barry Cooper, Tom Flanagan, etc Were The Masterminds Behind The Rise Of The Right In Canada.

So You Can Imagine the Kind Of Principles These Will Be 

" … 'The government rolled this out with much less detail than you would expect given the magnitude of the change they're contemplating,' said Alex Usher, president of Higher Education Strategy Associates, a Toronto-based consulting firm.

Usher supports the principle of performance-based funding.

'It gives governments and taxpayers a sense that [universities and colleges] are spending money to a purpose,' he said in an interview.

'We've got $5 billion in public money going into the province's universities and colleges and I think people like to know that there are certain objectives that are being accomplished with that money.'

The issue, said Usher, is whether the metrics are well-designed.

'I don't think we know enough about the program yet to be able to say that with confidence one way or the other,' he said.

The ministry briefing document shows that starting in the 2020-21 academic year, 25 per cent of provincial grants to post-secondary institutions (about $1.27 billion) will be 'performance/outcomes-based funding.'

That will rise by 10 percentage points each year, until 2024-25, when it peaks at 60 per cent ($3.04 billion).

Currently, only 1.2 per cent of college funding and 1.4 per cent of university funding is tied to outcomes ...

Usher has seen details of the metrics and describes them as mixed. He said some are 'badly designed or just plain stupid' and puts the community/local impact metric in that category.

'If you really want to rig something so that Nipissing comes out well, just hand them the money, don't pretend it's a performance indicator.' NIpissing University is located in North Bay, the smallest Ontario city with a university.

One of the government's own agencies is advising it to choose the metrics carefully.

The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) was created by the province to assess post-secondary institutions on a range of measures. In a paper published last week, HEQCO says the performance-based metrics must be 'meaningful and informative.'

'Meaningful performance measurement must focus on impact and outcomes,' write the authors, led by HEQCO's president and chief executive Harvey Weingarten.

'What or how much have students learned, and what is the economic and social impact of the institutions and a well-educated province?'

The report says the key outcomes to be measured should be based on the priority goals for higher education, as identified by government policy ...

The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) is raising concerns about the plan, calling it 'a drastic move towards tying funding to performance outcomes.'

The move will 'create inequities and slowly but certainly undermine the integrity of Ontario's postsecondary education system,' OCUFA says in a new post on its website.

'This is something that's being used a lot in a number of different states in the U.S. and nowhere is there any research to suggest that it improves education,' said the association's president, Gyllian Phillips, in an interview …"

CBC.CA

Here's how the Ford government will decide university and college funding | CBC News

CBC News has learned more details on how the Ford government will measure the performance of Ontario's colleges and universities to determine the total funding they receive.