Quote:
Originally Posted by MBates
For someone who is attacking another person for misleading discourse on a topic, there are some interesting parts of this article worth highlighting.
For example, on the equalization referendum:
Literally a clear vote in a referendum would stop a Prime Minister from behaving in this manner. The SCC has unanimously declared there is a legal obligation on the feds and all other provinces to come to negotiate in good faith. Alberta would be in the position to go to the courts to say the feds failed in its legal obligations and the courts would be obligated to order the feds back to the table.
And why throw in the word 'necessarily' in the last sentence? Could it be because the author knows a referendum could give Alberta more leverage than it currently has and nobody will ever know unless it is tried?
I am quick to remind that I actually do not think this is a very good idea because I am rather wary of what opening up the constitution on one issue for one province could lead to. I just do not see why now journalists seem to think they are qualified to definitively predict constitutional law outcomes. Peter Hogg has for decades been a leading constitutional law expert who said Marc Nadon was legally permitted to sit on the SCC. Last I checked, Peter Hogg was completely wrong.
Then on the carbon tax...talk about theatre:
She cannot even maintain her own definitive constitutional opinion for one paragraph in her own article. If the challenge to the federal government's 'right' to impose the backstop is successful, then by definition the federal government is not 'entirely within its rights to invoke its backstop'.
Again, I am not trying to say it is a smart move or not. But I think that a lot of Albertans in this election have decided they are willing to give these things a shot because they have watched 4 years of another strategy that has not worked and so they will take some risks on a completely different approach.
Why does that have to mean they have been tricked into buying snake oil?
|
On the first point, she isn't suggesting Trudeau would literally say "nah"...it's more like he'd do a repeat of electoral reform and make a show of a 'good faith' attempt. Of course, since the intelligent/strategic folks surrounding Trudeau seem to be disappearing at an alarming rate, I've stopped putting much faith in him doing the 'smart' thing in a given situation...
The point remains - however it plays out, it's unlikely there is a big pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.
The carbon tax situation seems much foggier, but again, it's unlikely that many paths actually lead to prosperity. Carbon taxes were originally a conservative idea - I know I'd prefer to see proposals for how they could/should work better (but of course I understand why neither team is willing to give up such a decisive rallying cry in the instead of doing work to actually make the country better).
I'm not going to reprimand Gerson for hedging/not really predicting outcomes - I think the point is that it's highly unlikely that we hit every green light from an Alberta perspective on these fights, and that even if we did, it's unclear whether it will materially change our circumstances, or if we'll just find something else to be mad at the rest of Canada for (as is our custom).