For me, this piece is essentially an establishment defense of the Canadian status quo that everyone knows is broken badly. It asks Albertans to play the "long game" of building national consensus and changing federal politics from within, rather than flipping the table.
Why is it Alberta's job to lead? Ottawa spent the last 10 years sh*tting on the province. Also, consensus? Because Ottawa has been doing a bang up job of it? Consensus? In Canada?
Not effing likely.
Saying no to everything has worked pretty darned well for Quebec. Shouldn't this piece be directed at Quebeckers? Why Albertans?
The country is badly broken. The Line has done a stellar job alerting me to this fact over the two years since I became a subscriber. We can't fix things in Canada. We can't get anything done. We are not a serious country.
The only saving grace at the moment is observing the cluster f@ck that comprises the separatists in Alberta. A five alarm fire of dysfunction, piss-poor planning and garbage communications. Hard to take seriously when they actually come off more unserious that Canada itself. They lack any kind of unifying leadership and it shows.
The family metaphor just made me snort coffee through my nose.
How about some recognition of the way our HOC and Senate provide for a very unbalanced representation of the various components of our confederacy with that imbalance heavily biased towards the maritimes and segments of Eastern Canada. Maybe by collectively addressing and correcting these imbalances a good start would be made towards a stronger case for confederation and a weakening of separatist sentiment. At the same time maybe the federal government could start by reducing their meddling in what are and should be provincial / territorial concerns. The separatists aren’t necessarily the only bad guys here. A much stronger case than mere sentimentality needs to be made and concrete steps taken to address the reasonable elements of the separatist concerns and case. That might help contribute to a strengthened confederation .
While I agree with the points you are making, one area of contention between provinces and the Federal Government is the environment. At the time of Confederation the concept of the environment and protection was unknown and not considered. The natural world does not respect the artificial lines drawn on a map. In the interests of both environmental and human health, it is one area where national standards should exist.
Interesting and insightful. The balance of federal vs provincial control over various aspects of life is difficult.
Recently, there has been a push from Ottawa regarding the removal of interprovincial trade and mobility barriers. The provinces have, for the most part, given lip service to the concept but have done little in the way of concrete action.
Based on the issues that you have noted as examples, where do you think the line is with regard to regulations for things like trucking, cross border sale of goods, or licensing of professions and trades?
To the contrary. We have the New West Partnership Trade Agreement (NWPTA). works well. Alas who doesn't play well with others, ON an QC. shocking I know.
The NWPTA is better than nothing but is sadly lacking in all three of the areas that I noted. While Alberta may be slightly less protectionist than some provinces, all provinces are nearly equally responsible for the many barriers that exist.
I’ll leave some constructive criticism in that I found this article uncompelling as a defense of federalism. I think the promise of Confederation, and our founding Constitution is compelling. But I think our Federal Government, the SCC, and our Provincial Governments have fallen short in their upholding and execution of these ideals. This is a problem, and we’re best not to sweep it under the rug.
We need a return to first principles as it pertains to our interpretation of, and actions in accordance to our Constitution and Confederation. Section 121 for example needs no further complication. To me it is simple for a reason and effective in that simplicity. Every provincial non-tariff barrier to trade in both goods and services is an affront to it. Every act of another province and/or the Federal government to hamper another Province’s ability to pursue their own jurisdictional economic prosperity or governance is an attack on Confederation. Does this mean there aren’t still competing interests that need to be managed? Of course not.
But it means in all instances good faith and adherence to both the spirit and letter of the Constitution needs to be kept. We need to agree that it is important each Province is respected and supported in the pursuit of their fullest economic development - insomuch as it is defined within the division of powers of the Constitution.
So what is my criticism beyond feeling it just isn’t compelling? Sell me something that gives me hope, that we’re going to do better. We can, and there is support, not just in AB, but across the country to do so. And that there is a foundation we can rely on to insure it. Truly, if we only had the last 10 years to go on, I’d probably be voting in the separatists ranks. Or more likely leaving Canada altogether. It hasn’t been a good run friends.. but there are some nuggets of good things here that should be able to provide some hope no?
If we’re purporting to lead, then let’s lead. Show us where and what that means and let’s see who else there is who jumps on board. The status quo hasn’t been good enough to defend (and don’t convince yourself it has - that’s not going to end well), and running on fear isn’t going to land well with Albertans. So looks like there is only one place to go. Hoping to see it from this group.
Totally agree to this view of federalism. However we must also face differences within a province looking towards municipal entities. Provinces must stick to their roles and allow munipicalities to oversee libraries, EMS,etc.
At a recent debate the federalist side argued that Alberta was the most Canadian of all the provinces. I would agree.
I was born in Ontario, raised in Alberta, met my future partner , another native Ontario while working in Calgary. Went to Toronto to start my career and became engaged and returned to Alberta to get married in front of friends and families. We left Toronto permanently when starting a family became a priority. We knew Calgary was home in our hearts. We both left good jobs with the confidence that Alberta would “provide” and it did.
My family has a long history in Alberta. Long before it ever became a province. The United States was up in “our grill” back then. Whatever your thoughts about our first Prime Minister he clearly saw the potential for a united Canada which included first nations.
The submission reads to me like a wish list of how things should be and maybe could be if we all just tried & respected each other. I agree with most of what the article proposes but feel I must say if we had most of this over the last decades we most likely wouldn't be where we are now.
Do I see large portions of Canada suddenly realizing a new path forward and many or the wrongs Albertans have perceived being changed -NO.
Alberta is different from the vast majority of Canada in that we have a CORE BELIEF in conservatism while the rest is much more progressive/socialist. Alberta has overwhelmingly voted for a right of center political party for 55 straight years with just one 4 year pause. The vast majority of other provinces & federally voters have swung back & forth and voted for which ever flavor was best at the time.
I'm not saying what has happened in Alberta is the best way, but my god, this truly reflects a commitment to voting based on perceived values & what most believe is a better way.
All the other issues are based on this measuring tool; family, religion, work ethic, fairness for all and yes a strong community based ethos. Just take a moment and ask yourself why are so many people going to Alberta while many other provinces are losing people?
While Alberta may not be a distinct society it is unique.
I think Albertans need to travel more and broaden their parochial view. Kelowna isn't that different from Calgary in terms of culture. You'd be hard-pressed to figure out if a farmer was from rural Alberta or rural Saskatchewan unless they told you. A Cape Bretoner is likely just as flinty about conservative values as anybody from around Red Deer. What's different is the Alberta mythology that they're conservative while demanding high levels of government spending and apparently being oblivious to the inconsistency of having a government-run bank like Alberta Treasury Branch.
One of the areas where Ottawa has an intrusive heavy hand, and needs to back off, is in the area of policing and gun control.
As it is the standards are urban and Quebec dominated. This is because of a quarter millennium Quebec was ruled by the British with the complicity of the Catholic Church. Firearms were effectively not allowed or even considered except for predator control and game harvesting during this period.
So now you have the RCMP basically morphing into a red serge wearing Stetson hatted Geheime Staatspolizei whose main function appears to be enforcing Ottawa bureaucratic edicts and where DEI and the ability to speak French are keys to promotion. Like police forces everywhere they are not mandated to protect you as an individual only come in and clean up the mess afterwards and hope to nab someone and have him/her/it tried before the two year maximum time expires. This basically screws any Canadian living outside urban areas since if they need to defend themselves effectively they will become criminals or at least charged with firearms offenses at great legal expense.
The answer is pretty evident. Have each province set up its police force and priorities, administer firearms law
In accordance with local necessity, and take over criminal law. I live half the year in one of the many states where the county sheriff is elected and this leads to a level of support for the law unheard of in Canada where the provincial RCMP heads are appointed by faceless Laurentian bureaucrats, and viewed as primarily loyal to the Ottawa Borg.
Quebec was “ruled by the British” for a quarter millennium Misleading Britain took Quebec in 1763. Direct British colonial rule lasted until Confederation in 1867 — about 104 years, not 250. If someone loosely counts from 1763 to today, that reaches about 263 years, but that is not the same as saying Quebec was continuously “ruled by the British” in the same colonial sense.
Encyclopedia Britannica
1
This happened with the complicity of the Catholic Church Partly true, but oversimplified The Catholic Church did become a major social and political force in Quebec, and British authorities accommodated it to help stabilize rule after conquest. But “complicity” is a political interpretation, not a settled historical fact. A more defensible statement is that the British worked with Catholic institutions and the Church often acted as a conservative stabilizing force in Quebec society.
Wikipedia
2
Firearms were effectively not allowed in Quebec under British rule False Historical evidence does not support a broad firearms ban. There was a short post-conquest military period when authorities seized or restricted arms, but those measures ended in 1764 when civil government replaced military rule. Later militia laws even required inspection of arms, and historians note that many rural households had hunting guns, though firearms were not universal.
Firearms were only considered for predator control and game harvesting Too narrow / misleading Hunting was important, but firearms were also tied to militia service, local security, and later sporting/shooting culture. The idea that guns existed only for predator control and hunting is not historically accurate.
Ok my bad my math was off. More like 200 years Plains of Abraham battle 1759 to the 1959 Death of Duplessis and start of the quiet revolution and the removal of the Catholic Church from power.
Were militias using their personal firearms? Would have been a real mess with no common ammunition standards. I understood that firearms were kept in armories to be issued to militias. Definitely hunting guns were allowed yes.
Sporting shooting culture is well on its way to destruction in the last 30 years. Acquisition and use in many cases of firearms effective for sport shooting is now prohibited by Order in council. Local security is now moot since permits to carry for self protection are impossible to get. (Except for protecting money - not your life) The only exception is Olympic style where a few handgun models are still allowed.Even cowboy shooting which restricts firearms to 1898 and earlier designs will die off since handgun transfers are now prohibited.
For me, this piece is essentially an establishment defense of the Canadian status quo that everyone knows is broken badly. It asks Albertans to play the "long game" of building national consensus and changing federal politics from within, rather than flipping the table.
Why is it Alberta's job to lead? Ottawa spent the last 10 years sh*tting on the province. Also, consensus? Because Ottawa has been doing a bang up job of it? Consensus? In Canada?
Not effing likely.
Saying no to everything has worked pretty darned well for Quebec. Shouldn't this piece be directed at Quebeckers? Why Albertans?
The country is badly broken. The Line has done a stellar job alerting me to this fact over the two years since I became a subscriber. We can't fix things in Canada. We can't get anything done. We are not a serious country.
The only saving grace at the moment is observing the cluster f@ck that comprises the separatists in Alberta. A five alarm fire of dysfunction, piss-poor planning and garbage communications. Hard to take seriously when they actually come off more unserious that Canada itself. They lack any kind of unifying leadership and it shows.
The family metaphor just made me snort coffee through my nose.
How about some recognition of the way our HOC and Senate provide for a very unbalanced representation of the various components of our confederacy with that imbalance heavily biased towards the maritimes and segments of Eastern Canada. Maybe by collectively addressing and correcting these imbalances a good start would be made towards a stronger case for confederation and a weakening of separatist sentiment. At the same time maybe the federal government could start by reducing their meddling in what are and should be provincial / territorial concerns. The separatists aren’t necessarily the only bad guys here. A much stronger case than mere sentimentality needs to be made and concrete steps taken to address the reasonable elements of the separatist concerns and case. That might help contribute to a strengthened confederation .
While I agree with the points you are making, one area of contention between provinces and the Federal Government is the environment. At the time of Confederation the concept of the environment and protection was unknown and not considered. The natural world does not respect the artificial lines drawn on a map. In the interests of both environmental and human health, it is one area where national standards should exist.
Interesting and insightful. The balance of federal vs provincial control over various aspects of life is difficult.
Recently, there has been a push from Ottawa regarding the removal of interprovincial trade and mobility barriers. The provinces have, for the most part, given lip service to the concept but have done little in the way of concrete action.
Based on the issues that you have noted as examples, where do you think the line is with regard to regulations for things like trucking, cross border sale of goods, or licensing of professions and trades?
To the contrary. We have the New West Partnership Trade Agreement (NWPTA). works well. Alas who doesn't play well with others, ON an QC. shocking I know.
The NWPTA is better than nothing but is sadly lacking in all three of the areas that I noted. While Alberta may be slightly less protectionist than some provinces, all provinces are nearly equally responsible for the many barriers that exist.
I’ll leave some constructive criticism in that I found this article uncompelling as a defense of federalism. I think the promise of Confederation, and our founding Constitution is compelling. But I think our Federal Government, the SCC, and our Provincial Governments have fallen short in their upholding and execution of these ideals. This is a problem, and we’re best not to sweep it under the rug.
We need a return to first principles as it pertains to our interpretation of, and actions in accordance to our Constitution and Confederation. Section 121 for example needs no further complication. To me it is simple for a reason and effective in that simplicity. Every provincial non-tariff barrier to trade in both goods and services is an affront to it. Every act of another province and/or the Federal government to hamper another Province’s ability to pursue their own jurisdictional economic prosperity or governance is an attack on Confederation. Does this mean there aren’t still competing interests that need to be managed? Of course not.
But it means in all instances good faith and adherence to both the spirit and letter of the Constitution needs to be kept. We need to agree that it is important each Province is respected and supported in the pursuit of their fullest economic development - insomuch as it is defined within the division of powers of the Constitution.
So what is my criticism beyond feeling it just isn’t compelling? Sell me something that gives me hope, that we’re going to do better. We can, and there is support, not just in AB, but across the country to do so. And that there is a foundation we can rely on to insure it. Truly, if we only had the last 10 years to go on, I’d probably be voting in the separatists ranks. Or more likely leaving Canada altogether. It hasn’t been a good run friends.. but there are some nuggets of good things here that should be able to provide some hope no?
If we’re purporting to lead, then let’s lead. Show us where and what that means and let’s see who else there is who jumps on board. The status quo hasn’t been good enough to defend (and don’t convince yourself it has - that’s not going to end well), and running on fear isn’t going to land well with Albertans. So looks like there is only one place to go. Hoping to see it from this group.
Totally agree to this view of federalism. However we must also face differences within a province looking towards municipal entities. Provinces must stick to their roles and allow munipicalities to oversee libraries, EMS,etc.
At a recent debate the federalist side argued that Alberta was the most Canadian of all the provinces. I would agree.
I was born in Ontario, raised in Alberta, met my future partner , another native Ontario while working in Calgary. Went to Toronto to start my career and became engaged and returned to Alberta to get married in front of friends and families. We left Toronto permanently when starting a family became a priority. We knew Calgary was home in our hearts. We both left good jobs with the confidence that Alberta would “provide” and it did.
My family has a long history in Alberta. Long before it ever became a province. The United States was up in “our grill” back then. Whatever your thoughts about our first Prime Minister he clearly saw the potential for a united Canada which included first nations.
The submission reads to me like a wish list of how things should be and maybe could be if we all just tried & respected each other. I agree with most of what the article proposes but feel I must say if we had most of this over the last decades we most likely wouldn't be where we are now.
Do I see large portions of Canada suddenly realizing a new path forward and many or the wrongs Albertans have perceived being changed -NO.
Alberta is different from the vast majority of Canada in that we have a CORE BELIEF in conservatism while the rest is much more progressive/socialist. Alberta has overwhelmingly voted for a right of center political party for 55 straight years with just one 4 year pause. The vast majority of other provinces & federally voters have swung back & forth and voted for which ever flavor was best at the time.
I'm not saying what has happened in Alberta is the best way, but my god, this truly reflects a commitment to voting based on perceived values & what most believe is a better way.
All the other issues are based on this measuring tool; family, religion, work ethic, fairness for all and yes a strong community based ethos. Just take a moment and ask yourself why are so many people going to Alberta while many other provinces are losing people?
While Alberta may not be a distinct society it is unique.
So true, and why the separation question keeps getting worse as central Canada becomes more left/socialist all the time and we can’t escape it.
I think Albertans need to travel more and broaden their parochial view. Kelowna isn't that different from Calgary in terms of culture. You'd be hard-pressed to figure out if a farmer was from rural Alberta or rural Saskatchewan unless they told you. A Cape Bretoner is likely just as flinty about conservative values as anybody from around Red Deer. What's different is the Alberta mythology that they're conservative while demanding high levels of government spending and apparently being oblivious to the inconsistency of having a government-run bank like Alberta Treasury Branch.
One of the areas where Ottawa has an intrusive heavy hand, and needs to back off, is in the area of policing and gun control.
As it is the standards are urban and Quebec dominated. This is because of a quarter millennium Quebec was ruled by the British with the complicity of the Catholic Church. Firearms were effectively not allowed or even considered except for predator control and game harvesting during this period.
So now you have the RCMP basically morphing into a red serge wearing Stetson hatted Geheime Staatspolizei whose main function appears to be enforcing Ottawa bureaucratic edicts and where DEI and the ability to speak French are keys to promotion. Like police forces everywhere they are not mandated to protect you as an individual only come in and clean up the mess afterwards and hope to nab someone and have him/her/it tried before the two year maximum time expires. This basically screws any Canadian living outside urban areas since if they need to defend themselves effectively they will become criminals or at least charged with firearms offenses at great legal expense.
The answer is pretty evident. Have each province set up its police force and priorities, administer firearms law
In accordance with local necessity, and take over criminal law. I live half the year in one of the many states where the county sheriff is elected and this leads to a level of support for the law unheard of in Canada where the provincial RCMP heads are appointed by faceless Laurentian bureaucrats, and viewed as primarily loyal to the Ottawa Borg.
Verdict: Mostly false / misleading.
Claim Fact check Why
Quebec was “ruled by the British” for a quarter millennium Misleading Britain took Quebec in 1763. Direct British colonial rule lasted until Confederation in 1867 — about 104 years, not 250. If someone loosely counts from 1763 to today, that reaches about 263 years, but that is not the same as saying Quebec was continuously “ruled by the British” in the same colonial sense.
Encyclopedia Britannica
1
This happened with the complicity of the Catholic Church Partly true, but oversimplified The Catholic Church did become a major social and political force in Quebec, and British authorities accommodated it to help stabilize rule after conquest. But “complicity” is a political interpretation, not a settled historical fact. A more defensible statement is that the British worked with Catholic institutions and the Church often acted as a conservative stabilizing force in Quebec society.
Wikipedia
2
Firearms were effectively not allowed in Quebec under British rule False Historical evidence does not support a broad firearms ban. There was a short post-conquest military period when authorities seized or restricted arms, but those measures ended in 1764 when civil government replaced military rule. Later militia laws even required inspection of arms, and historians note that many rural households had hunting guns, though firearms were not universal.
Firearms were only considered for predator control and game harvesting Too narrow / misleading Hunting was important, but firearms were also tied to militia service, local security, and later sporting/shooting culture. The idea that guns existed only for predator control and hunting is not historically accurate.
Department of Justice Canada
1
Ok my bad my math was off. More like 200 years Plains of Abraham battle 1759 to the 1959 Death of Duplessis and start of the quiet revolution and the removal of the Catholic Church from power.
Were militias using their personal firearms? Would have been a real mess with no common ammunition standards. I understood that firearms were kept in armories to be issued to militias. Definitely hunting guns were allowed yes.
Sporting shooting culture is well on its way to destruction in the last 30 years. Acquisition and use in many cases of firearms effective for sport shooting is now prohibited by Order in council. Local security is now moot since permits to carry for self protection are impossible to get. (Except for protecting money - not your life) The only exception is Olympic style where a few handgun models are still allowed.Even cowboy shooting which restricts firearms to 1898 and earlier designs will die off since handgun transfers are now prohibited.