Alberta Politics Thread v2

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I don't think the Feds do that though if they lost. They might eventually but I think it would be a striking blow and take quite some time to craft. Then, how do you go to provinces that support you and try and negotiate that?

The Liberal government who implemented a carbon tax wouldn't implement a carbon tax?! Sorry, please explain that logic more.

[GordonBlue]

well, I checked out all the candidates for my riding.

my most recent MLA was an NDP member, of whom I could not find any accomplishments in the past 4 years.
it's as if all she did was take up space and vote for whatever aunt Rachel told her to.
the NDP and her website bios are very thin.

worst of all the parties for their candidates.

except the liberal party. 10 candidates on their website. did they not know an election was this year?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Tooth and nail with the understanding that what may actually be wrong about the carbon tax was that federal taxes are supposed to be implemented equally across the country, allowing provinces to implement their own (again under constraints set and approval received from the federal government) was what was wrong. If they win, all it means is that the federal (Liberal) government will have to come up with the exact carbon tax giving no control to the province. So winning is losing until the Liberals are out.

Which seems to me to be the plan - this system falls by the wayside, the matter is reverted back to the federal government, and the Liberals don't have time to enact new carbon tax legislation before the next election. The CPC then promises to just leave it in the grave. Not a terrible strategy, on the whole.

It still needed to get approved at the federal level. Not really sure what you think could have been implemented that would have been "benign."

Tax policy is pretty malleable. I don't have a specific carbon tax proposal because no one is paying me to develop one, but there are plenty of offsets you could design to take the sting out of it or otherwise improve it. Even BC's version is better than Alberta's, in my view, but I'm sure I'd get some pushback on that from the resident UCPers.

Preventing pipelines in your province is a different beast than constructing them in a different province. It shouldn't be, but of course it is.

Perhaps, but there are some crazy options out there to really put the screws to BC and create an "if you don't do something to fix this we're going to make things difficult for everyone else" situation for the federal government. You might say that many of those are unconstitutional, or abuses of process, or otherwise illegal, or in any event generally underhanded. But in the view of many people in this province, so is what's been done to Alberta, so nothing's off the table. As I say, I can fully understand that sentiment, even though I'm sure some of the vengeful options that might be floated are nothing I'll sign on for.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

The Liberal government who implemented a carbon tax wouldn't implement a carbon tax?! Sorry, please explain that logic more.

Taking away the power from BC and Quebec wouldn't be as easy as you are making it out to be.

But maybe you are right, Saskatchewan Ontario and probably soon to be Alberta are all just surely wasting their time and money.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Muta

Uh, right from that article:

...James Muir, an associate professor with the department of history and faculty of law at the University of Alberta, cast doubt on Kenney’s promise.

“The referendum would have no legal effect and his reference to the Quebec referendum either suggests he doesn’t understand constitutional law or he’s using it to essentially lie to people,” said Muir, explaining the Supreme Court decision was about how a province can separate from Canada not about how it can amend the constitution.

So, about this big-time legal history professor declaring other people don't understand constitutional law or else are liars, I am wondering what his erudite interpretation of the actual text of the SCC decision would be.

I wonder for example did the SCC have anything to say about whether a province separating would legally be defined as an amendment of the constitution? The professor probably read all of the paragraphs except 84:

The secession of a province from Canada must be considered, in legal terms, to require an amendment to the Constitution, which perforce requires negotiation. The amendments necessary to achieve a secession could be radical and extensive. Some commentators have suggested that secession could be a change of such a magnitude that it could not be considered to be merely an amendment to the Constitution. We are not persuaded by this contention. It is of course true that the Constitution is silent as to the ability of a province to secede from Confederation but, although the Constitution neither expressly authorizes nor prohibits secession, an act of secession would purport to alter the governance of Canadian territory in a manner which undoubtedly is inconsistent with our current constitutional arrangements. The fact that those changes would be profound, or that they would purport to have a significance with respect to international law, does not negate their nature as amendments to the Constitution of Canada.

He's probably still totally right about the fact that a referendum to seek an amendment to the constitution would have no legal effect though...let's see, did the SCC say anything on that topic? Oops, the professor missed another paragraph it seems (Para 88):

...The corollary of a legitimate attempt by one participant in Confederation to seek an amendment to the Constitution is an obligation on all parties to come to the negotiating table. The clear repudiation by the people of Quebec of the existing constitutional order would confer legitimacy on demands for secession, and place an obligation on the other provinces and the federal government to acknowledge and respect that expression of democratic will by entering into negotiations and conducting them in accordance with the underlying constitutional principles already discussed.

I am not sure how one could craft a more profoundly wrong attack on a politician's campaign promise than this professor did.

Holding a referendum to obtain a clear mandate of the political will of a province to renegotiate the constitution is literally confirmed by the SCC in the Quebec secession reference as a legally binding method of having one province force the feds and the other provinces to a good faith negotiation on the point.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Taking away the power from BC and Quebec isn't as easy as you are making it out to be.

Sorry what? Again, explain that logic.

BC implemented a carbon tax in 2008. Emissions in the province are priced at $35 per tonne, and will increase each year by $5 until the cost reaches $50 per tonne in 2021.

The federal policy is $20 a ton that caps at $50 in 2020. BC wouldn't care less about it.

Quebec had a cap-and-trade system since 2013.

Neither province had to change anything to be compliant with the federal policy, they already exceeded it. So neither province would care at all if there was one policy across the board. Less taxes for them, more tax money. Yeah, I'm sure that they would hate that..

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Sorry what? Again, explain that logic.

BC implemented a carbon tax in 2008. Emissions in the province are priced at $35 per tonne, and will increase each year by $5 until the cost reaches $50 per tonne in 2021.

The federal policy is $20 a ton that caps at $50 in 2020. BC wouldn't care less about it.

Quebec had a cap-and-trade system since 2013.

Neither province had to change anything to be compliant with the federal policy, they already exceeded it. So neither province would care at all if there was one policy across the board. Less taxes for them, more tax money. Yeah, I'm sure that they would hate that..

Not sure how you think they won't care about less tax money but ok I guess. Surely Quebec never complains when their tax power gets taken away.

[Oling_Roachinen]

They could still make up the difference themselves like they have been doing for a decade?

You picked two provinces that already had carbon taxes completely 'unprovoked' by the federal government as a reason why the Liberals wouldn't implement a carbon tax. I don't get it.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Sure, because it had some teeth to it. Had the "leave" side won, they actually could have left. This is just nonsense with nothing behind it. The only discussion it will spur is that Albertans are a bunch of yokels and wasted millions of dollars on a vote that couldn't actually have any impact on anything at all. It's embarrassing.

What would it mean? Because from where I sit, I can't think of anything that a provincial government could possibly do that would be more meaningless or worthy of being ignored by the feds.

There are plenty of "fighting dirty" tactics that can be employed in retribution for the dirty tactics employed by BC, if that's what you want in a government. This isn't one of them. It's totally ineffectual, yet very, very expensive.

Question: Do you vote for Alberta to leave Canada if section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is not repealed?

Yes? or No?

I mean I spent 60 seconds on this, so maybe there's a better way to put it but I am pretty sure this would cause massive turmoil.

I have commented about this strategy before on this forum. I do not think people realize how incredibly risky and damaging this could be.

But I say again, in a post-Brexit world (and watching what they are going through right at this time period) people should stop dismissing this as something that is silly and could never be done or would have no impact.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MBates

Question: Do you vote for Alberta to leave Canada if section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is not repealed?

Yes? or No?

I mean I spent 60 seconds on this, so maybe there's a better way to put it but I am pretty sure this would cause massive turmoil.

If that's the question, then fine, but I'm pretty sure that there are relatively few people dumb enough to want Alberta to leave Canada. I don't think that's a credible threat. Moreover, there's no actual need for a referendum if all the UCP wants to do after they form government is enter into negotiations with the Feds and other provinces about restructuring the equalization program. That's already within their purview.

The problem is with the suggestion that we can just stop sending equalization payments if we wanted to. That's the result of a general misunderstanding of what equalization payments are and how they work.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If that's the question, then fine, but I'm pretty sure that there are relatively few people dumb enough to want Alberta to leave Canada. I don't think that's a credible threat. Moreover, there's no actual need for a referendum if all the UCP wants to do after they form government is enter into negotiations with the Feds and other provinces about restructuring the equalization program. That's already within their purview.

The problem is with the suggestion that we can just stop sending equalization payments if we wanted to. That's the result of a general misunderstanding of what equalization payments are and how they work.

The continued conflation of whether it is dumb or credible or needed with whether it is fancifully impossible is the problem I am trying to combat.

It can be done plain and simple as the question I wrote. Kenney can follow through precisely on the promise he is making...and yet law professors just declare him a liar without reading the legal precedent.

Which, I think you may have done also because you dropped the link to the Quebec Secession Reference as the SCC authority confirming "that a province has the ability to unilaterally determine whether it will secede."

This is, not what the SCC case says at all...they can unilaterally force a negotiation by a clear referendum saying they want to secede...but then its a full blown negotiation with the whole federation that may or may not result in an agreement.

In principle, the same process could be followed by any province to force the rest of the country into any constitutional amendment negotiation they see fit.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

The point is there is a big difference between a province wanting to leave the country, hence no longer being governed by the constitution, vs one province saying "We want to change the constitution".

Certainly there is a mechanism to do the latter, but it in no way involves a referendum.

Following the legal principles set out in the Quebec Secession Reference, a province can hold a referendum with a clear question and create the legal obligation for the rest of confederation to come to the negotiating table to seek a constitutional amendment.

Secession is one type of constitutional amendment that can be pursued via this process. There is nothing that would be principally different about seeking any other constitutional negotiation by way of a clear provincial referendum:

The Constitution is the expression of the sovereignty of the people of Canada. It lies within the power of the people of Canada, acting through their various governments duly elected and recognized under the Constitution, to effect whatever constitutional arrangements are desired within Canadian territory, including, should it be so desired, the secession of Quebec from Canada.

Although the Constitution does not itself address the use of a referendum procedure, and the results of a referendum have no direct role or legal effect in our constitutional scheme, a referendum undoubtedly may provide a democratic method of ascertaining the views of the electorate on important political questions on a particular occasion.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

First, I'm not actually sure the question you wrote is permissible. A call to negoatite the secession of a province is fine, a call to re-negotiate the structure of confederation at the point of the gun of secession may not be.

But in any event, I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's fancifully impossible to invite a negotiation about re-structuring equalization payments. It's just fancifully impossible to think that a UCP government would be able to do anything about equalization by pursuing those negotiations. Secession is just an inherently different animal; provided that Quebec had engaged in good faith in those negotiations and treated other provinces fairly, there would have been no basis to prevent the province from leaving. There's plenty of room to argue, if you're the feds, that the current equalization structure is fine and effectively just deny Alberta any concessions at all.

Again, if Kenney is just saying "we want to start negotiations with the provinces and federal government to change this structure", I think it would be viewed as a lot more reasonable. But why would you hold a provincial referendum for that? Just make it part of your party platform and do it once you're elected.

[DiracSpike]

Here's the direct quote from Kenney on a YouTube vid about his greater "Fight Back" strategy:

"Not waiting for renegotiation but immediately, by triggering the 1998 Quebec Secession reference of thr supreme court of Canada which says that if a province holds a referendum on a constitutional amendment with a clear question and a clear majority voting in favor, it imposes on the Crown a binding obligation to negotiate that amendment in good faith with the province. I would be prepared, in principle, to hold a referendum in Alberta on Section 36 of the constitution, equalization. That would impose on the Federal Government an obligation to sit down and discuss with us the terms of equalization."

The link to the video is here, I've posted it before but I think in the Federal politics thread. It's a good source for people wondering about the UCP approach to pipelines and resource defense, highlight points include supporting pro-development First Nations monetarily and attacking these environmental NGOs by suing them for defamation and reporting them to the CRA : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxH8Sz2vSGQ

So it looks like this is possible and what Kenney is saying goes around with what MBates is saying. Now, what part of equalization will they talk about with the Federal government? Certainly it's not as easy as just not giving a cartoon sized cheque to Ottawa. Is opening up the constitution a good idea? Will it help get pipelines built? All relevant and important questions but it does look like this is possible so let's move past that.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Doesn’t the article also say that referencing Quebec in this situation either shows a lack of understanding of law, or outright lying to the public?

I think that point is that “much like Quebec did the same thing in regards of separation” is actually not a very good comparable.

Kenneys/UCP's attorneys dont agree with the conclusion of the prof from UofA.

At any rate, the entire thing would be a step to getting the feds to the table to do what they can to get TC built. As i said, this is now a fight, a fight that Notley cant stomach or doesnt care to.

Edit: Aaaand im late to the party i see. All much better explained above.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by MBates

Following the legal principles set out in the Quebec Secession Reference, a province can hold a referendum with a clear question and create the legal obligation for the rest of confederation to come to the negotiating table to seek a constitutional amendment.

Secession is one type of constitutional amendment that can be pursued via this process. There is nothing that would be principally different about seeking any other constitutional negotiation by way of a clear provincial referendum:

Fair enough, but what is being sold by Kenny is more akin to him saying:

"If Quebec had voted yes, they could have left. So if we vote yes, we can change equalization"

The question in in that decision was more akin to "Can one province compel the Federal Government to negotiate on a constitutional amendment" and the answer was "Sure".
The decision didn't say they could succeed, only that they could make the Government come to the table.

What Kenny is selling is "We can make them change it".
Well no we can't.
What we can do is make they talk about it, and follow the usual process to amend the constitution, which, as anyone will tell you, without Ontario and Quebec on board, ain't gonna happen.

[Ozy_Flame]

The NEB said the country needs more pipelines as it is at max capacity, and that rail options are not ideal. This was a news article about it from Friday.

In good faith, we should wait to see what comes from the consultations done (target is in the Spring) before getting hostile towards the Feds again about this. Bitching and complaining before the next review is done would be counter-productive IMO.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Fair enough, but what is being sold by Kenny is more akin to him saying:

"If Quebec had voted yes, they could have left. So if we vote yes, we can change equalization"

The question in in that decision was more akin to "Can one province compel the Federal Government to negotiate on a constitutional amendment" and the answer was "Sure".
The decision didn't say they could succeed, only that they could make the Government come to the table.

What Kenny is selling is "We can make them change it".
Well no we can't.
What we can do is make they talk about it, and follow the usual process to amend the constitution, which, as anyone will tell you, without Ontario and Quebec on board, ain't gonna happen.

He's really not though, right after the part of his speech I quoted in my previous post from that video he says this:

"It doesn't mean we would get our desired outcome, but what it would do is to take a page out of the playbook of Quebec political leaders who have been so effective at asserting their province's agenda at the national level"

So unless you have a quote from him post-October 2018 saying "we can make them change it" you're completely misrepresenting Kenney's approach to the issue. Anyone guaranteeing anything about this fight is an idiot, it's about taking approaches that maximize or enhance Alberta's points of leverage within this Federation of which we have precious few. We can chat about whether we think they would work or not but let's not purposely misrepresent view points.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Yep, here we go.

April 16th is the election date.

Notley going hard on the fear mongering.

It will be a smear and fear campaign by Notley.

[Looch City]

How much of it is a smear and fear campaign versus the UCP screwing themselves over?

The smear and fear is literally writing itself with the UCP at the moment.