Alberta And Sovereignty—

/ brianpeckford

Anyone who thinks of the word Alberta will likely say, oh, yes, that’s an area in the western part of Canada —a Province of Canada. 

I think that is how it is known now. 

Constitutionally it is a Province of Canada, 

There are no other Constitutions of this nature to which Alberta is a part. 

The Constitution of Canada through the BNA Act defines Canada as a Federal  State composed of Provinces  and the Federal  Government and hence powers  under the Act are divided among the Provinces and the Federal Government. 

Under Section 91 of the Act the powers of the Federal Government are enumerated .

Under Section 92 of the Act the powers of the Provinces are enumerated. 

There are some areas that are shared jurisdiction like the Environment , Agriculture and even Fisheries and others. 

Over time it has been determined and worked out how the two Governments handle this overlapping. Not always pretty but it has been accommodated or negotiated. 

Alberta feels particularly aggrieved in that its oil and gas resources resources, which are under the Province , have resulted in huge revenues to the Province and there has over time been an imbalance in how much Alberta pays into the Federal Government and how much it gets back. 

This has been exacerbated by the appearance over time of equalization  and other social programs with a definition / formula of equalization where some of the Provinces are have and others who are have not—those that qualify for extra equalization payments and those that do not . 

In essence , the have not Provinces  through the Federal Government receive extra money to assist in maintaining reasonably the same standards across the country . And , of course , the Federal revenue comes indirectly in large measure from the have Provinces who pay more revenue into the Federal Government .

The equalization formula is negotiated among the Federal  Government and the Provinces every five years. Alberta has been unsuccessful in negotiating a new formula that would be fairer for that Province  because there are more have not Provinces  than there are have Provinces , or if equal number , some of the have Provinces are just barely have and could fall back into have not status quickly. The largest Province of Ontario( most Federal seats)   in recent times, for example , has gone from have , to have not, back to have. 

And other Programs like health care which is Provincial under the Constitution have seen all the Provinces including Alberta accept federal heath transfer payments  to prop up an ever growing , expensive health care system . This is also happening in social services and higher education , both under Provincial jurisdiction . 

The Federal Government , therefore , has gained over time huge bargaining  leverage when it comes  to the equalization formula and better balancing the the revenues and expenses of have and have not provinces and what is included to determine whether  you receive equalization or not. For example , are non renewable resource revenues used to too great a degree , as Alberta would see it ,in determining the equalization formula?

Over  many decades this has not been resolved and Albertans are more and more frustrated that some recognition is not given to them in how much money has been provided by then to indirectly finance even in some cases richer social programs to have not Provinces than they have themselves. 

Its  a tough issue because if it was easy PM Mulroney and PM Harper for whom Alberta gave almost all their federal seats in their elections would have solved it. And both PM’s  enjoyed majority governments and big western  presence in the Cabinets of these Governments.

Danielle Smith’ s proposed Sovereignty Act  I see it is the manifestation of this frustration. Obviously, a Province cannot unilaterally usurp Federal Jurisdiction, anymore than the Federal Government can usurp unilaterally Provincial jurisdiction. And where there is a conflict it has been determined that the Federal jurisdiction prevails .

But as we have seen the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments together have done agreements that blur the traditional black and white lines of the BNA Act. The Canada Health Act is a prime example . 

Another is where the Supreme Court of Canada  ruled that the Province of Newfoundland Labrador had no jurisdictional power to levy royalties from the developments of its offshore oil and gas resources and yet within months after this decision  a deal was struck  whereby that is exactly what happened and is happening today. One could say, outside the Constitutional parameters. 

So short of invoking the Clarity Act involving a process of separation from Canada , Alberta must put on it bargaining shoes and with the other Provinces and the Federal Government come up with a new more flexible agreement for sharing that reflects ever changing economic and fiscal realities across the country. 

I hope the Sovereignty Act action is that first bargaining chip.   

Honourable A. Brian Peckford P.C. 

30 thoughts on “Alberta And Sovereignty—”

  1. I think that Alberta has a lot more oil than anybody is letting on. I also think that the u.s. rockies are sitting on a million years worth of oil. This is one of the reasons the psychopaths want to end these two gov’ts. They don’t want to have to share anything with anybody. They want to do like the Brits have done in Jamaica with the aluminium. Get poor Jamaicans to dig it up, they die when they’re 40 from the poison. They get nothing at all. The Brits keep all of the revenues. It’s why they killed Bob Marley. He could have put an end to that and british rule quite easily.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  2. The whole of equalization is a socialist perversion and is deeply unethical. It needs to be ended completely so that all Provinces have the incentive to explore and develop their own resources, rather than sucking the teet of Alberta.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

      • Whatever it takes to remove an immorality, it ought to be done. Its a lose-lose proposition to both Alberta and “beneficiary” provinces. One is a sacrificial sheep, and the other becomes a dependent never developing itself.

        Liked by 3 people

  3. THANK YOU Brian for providing the history and clarity to the sovereignty act being proposed for Albertans. As thinking westerners understand best, there is little balance in this country when it comes to having a voice on critical issues due to our system in Canada. PQ have benefitted hugely throughout much of Canada’s history and an Alberta Sovereignty Act appears to have been instigated to provide the same for Albertans.

    Many in Canada and in AB think this is terrible. Is it though? Over and over again we have seen the lack of attention to the west and now ALL OVER THE WORLD promotion of and adherence to the GREEN ‘Plan’ has destroyed every industry in this country and abroad causing Loss of Farms, killing of livestock by our own federal government, the fertilizer bull crap promulgated by his highness and the killing of our most critical natural resource, oil and gas as well as manufacturing, trucking, transportation, steel, forestry, farming and ranching. Meanwhile Ontario is churning out crickets in their factory as per Trudeau, Gates and the cabal in lieu of real food.

    There never was a PLAN to GRADUALLY move away from oil and gas by ensuring we actually had the alternatives that could do the job, which I do not believe we have. It was right now! we need to shut down all we have relied on immediately so that even the most ridiculously arrogant virtue signaling state in the US is now suffering with massive brownouts to their electrical grid, as they have for years while at the same time pushing electric vehicles which they cannot charge often or sufficiently to a reduction in air conditioning and other necessities of life, all so there will be a shut down of oil and gas. And that illustrious state of fools have their solar panels in their last days, most are over 25 years old and California does not know what to do with these toxic expired solar panels. A minor detail ignored by the greenies and the useless politicians who push this lie against life in the world. Check on that greenies, the waste from solar panels is highly toxic so where will they dump them?

    And as we all know both the US and Canada could be providing our resources to the world right now to help ensure warmth for humanity all over Europe and wherever it is needed including cooling where needed, food transport, etc. But no, the holier than God types are out to look good to their new gods of greenie virtue based on fiction and deceit and with not one bit of attention to what is to be used meanwhile, to replace oil and gas. A travesty beyond comprehension.

    Instead, many people will be so cold this year, they will perish. Get ill and die. The UK is pushing Heat Banks translated as – take a bus or walk to the nearest public building and stand in their lobby to get warm, then grab your umbrella and face the rain and damp cold as you return home. My Lord, are they freakin nuts, just how warm will the folks in the UK be by the time they get soaked all over again. INSANITY.

    And the same for no air conditioning in homes, hospitals etc. which will be the result if the green nuts get their way. NO thinking, NO care about humanity whatsoever. Our earth and humanity matter and we can achieve solutions for both if we stop the lying and stupidity.

    Let’s starve freeze or boil the humans we got so the ones in the dystopian future can survive that is where the ‘thinking’ is now.

    So having rights like Quebec has enjoyed for years, in Alberta, may be a start toward some level of critical thinking for the future of all Canadians. Because the feds have done and will continue to wield their powers to kill every dam thing that was ever good about this country. And very little good remains in this totalitarian state called Canada. It is time the goodie goodie canucks woke up or woke off!

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

      • Brian P responded to my post which noted that PQ have more rights than other Canadian provinces. Among the reasons I have said this because I believe it is the case, is shown below which could be a good start to discussing the ‘specialness’ of Quebec since the 60’s but in fact, special considerations were given to Quebec in 1867.. The following is lengthy Brian but it is one of many articles on Quebec’s special status within Canada that is worth reading I believe.

        Quebec, the Constitution and Special Status

        Claude Bélanger,
        Department of History,
        Marianopolis College

        Special status is a method used historically to deal with Quebec’s distinct culture and a formula proposed since the 1960’s by which Quebec would be given further special considerations and powers so that its distinct culture could be protected and developed while continuing to be part of the Canadian federal system.

        At various stages of its history, the authorities governing Canada have explicitly recognised that Quebec “is not a province like the others” and thus was accorded special constitutional protection. The first of these recognitions was made in the Quebec Act when Quebec was given by Britain a constitution quite unlike that granted to other parts of the Empire: there was no assembly, few taxes, no anti-Catholic Test Oath, and French civil laws were recognised. The latter two exceptions were maintained, through subsequent constitutions to this day.

        The special character of Quebec was consecrated in several articles of the Constitution Act of 1867. It was at Quebec’s insistence that federalism was adopted, thus enabling French Canadians to control fully the government of a province for the first time. The federal system took care of most of the fears that the francophone and anglophone minorities might have had; francophones were worried about the minority position which they were to occupy in the federal government, while the anglophone minority was anxious about the prospect of living in a province which would be dominated politically by French Canadians. While it is clear that what predominates in the Constitution Act is the equality of status granted to all of the provinces, as they would all live under a similar constitutional regime and would all exercise roughly the same juridical powers, the equality did not mean that fundamental differences were not recognised. In this respect, Quebec obviously stood out and several articles demonstrated its special position:

        The Senate:

        The Constitution Act granted equality of representation between regions in the Senate of Canada. Each region was to have 24 Senators who had to own property or reside in the province for which they were appointed. In the case of Quebec, each of the 24 Senators had to be appointed for one of the 24 Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada (s.22-3) and had to own property or be resident not only of the province but also of the Electoral Division for which they were appointed (s.23-6). The purpose of this article was to provide for an adequate representation for both the French-catholic and the Anglo-protestant groups of Quebec in the Senate. It would be difficult for the government to appoint a senator that did not share the cultural characteristics of the district for which the appointment is made.

        The House of Commons:

        The method of calculation adopted to implement Representation by Population in the House of Commons was rather unorthodox. Quebec was to have a fixed number of 65 seats (s.51-1) and the representation that the other provinces would receive was to be calculated on the Rep. by Pop. ratio obtained in Quebec (s.51-2). In this way, even if Quebec’s population did not keep pace with that of the rest of the country, it would always continue to have a block of 65 seats. Ultimately, if Quebec continued to vote as a block, as was fully expected, it would always be assured to play a significant role in federal politics. Cartier apparently insisted that the system of representation be based on Quebec so as to protect the political weight of the province in Confederation.

        The Provincial Constitution:

        In two respects, the provincial constitution of Quebec was different from that of the other provinces: the Legislative Council of Quebec (non-existent in Ontario) was to have 24 members who were to represent each an Electoral Division and generally have the same qualifications as the Senators coming from Quebec (ss.72-73). There was no fixed number of councillors in provinces where a Legislative Council existed. The aims of these articles were to assure an adequate representation for the Anglo-protestant minority on the Counci,l and to make sure that the minority would not be swamped by a rash of appointments in the future (by simply increasing the number of members in the Legislative Council).

        As well, a restriction was introduced upon the capacity by the province to alter the electoral boundaries of 12 electoral districts in Quebec. Changes could only be made in the boundaries of these districts if a majority of their representatives agreed to the change. All 12 of these districts had an anglophone majority in 1867 (s.80).

        Education:

        Quebec’s right to legislate on education was subjected to restrictions in relation to the denominational school rights that Roman Catholics and Protestants enjoyed by law at the time of the Union. Similar restrictions existed also for Ontario (s.93 1-2). The rights that Catholics enjoyed by law in Ontario, at the time of the Union (1867), were extended to the Catholic and Protestant minorities of the school districts of Quebec outside of Montreal and Quebec City.

        Legal system and Courts:

        Provisions were made in the Constitution Act for the possibility of unification under federal jurisdiction of property and civil rights laws in Canada. This provision reflected the centralist vision that prevailed in the common law provinces at the time of the Union. Quebec was excluded from this system and was thus guaranteed to control, forever, its French civil law system. This is, by far, the most important special consideration given to Quebec (s.94). Judges for the courts of Quebec had to be selected from the Bar of that province (s.98). Judges from the courts of the other provinces would also be picked from the Bar of their respective provinces until the unification of laws would be achieved; thereafter, they could be picked from anywhere in the English provinces.

        Language:

        Quebec was the only province for which provisions for linguistic rights were written. By virtue of s.133, English or French could be used in the debates of the Legislature of Quebec [National Assembly] and in the courts of the province. English and French had to be used in the official records and journals of the Legislature and in the laws passed by the province.

        Miscellaneous provisions:

        S.134 stipulates that the Solicitor-General would be a member of the Cabinet in Quebec (this was not so in the other provinces). Presumably, a larger cabinet would afford greater opportunity to have minority groups in the province more easily represented in the cabinet. In any case, a larger cabinet also met the approval of those who wished to endow the Government of Quebec with as much dignity and power as possible.

        S.144 specifically empowered the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec to create extra townships in Quebec. This would assure that the anglophone minority would be easily given the opportunity to settle and develop in the environment most suited to please them. Note that the Lieutenant-Governors are appointed by the federal government.

        Thus, the Fathers of Confederation did not worry about what Christopher Dunkin called “the special exceptions made in her (Quebec) favor” (Confederation Debates, p.509). They recognised the special role and character of Quebec and introduced clauses to protect and maintain that character. Since 1867, the special position of Quebec has been enlarged by several pieces of legislation. Provisions in the Supreme Court Act (1875) make it compulsory for 1/3 of the judges of the Court to come from Quebec; appeals on civil law cases from Quebec were somewhat restricted while they were not for the other provinces. In the post-Second World War period, as the trend for centralisation mounted, Quebec distinguished itself more and more. By 1952, Quebec was the only province to have refused the tax rental agreements. In 1954, it became the only province to collect income tax directly from the people while the other provinces collected theirs through the federal government. It was also the only province to refuse federal grants to universities.

        In the 1960’s under the opting-out formula, Quebec pulled out of some 30 joint programmes while the other provinces stayed in. Some of the distinguishing features that have resulted are:

        1) Quebec Pension Plan: Quebec has its own compulsory contributory pension plan while the other provinces all contribute to the Canada Pension Plan.

        2) Family Allowances: The federal government pays uniform rates to all other provinces while in Quebec the federal rates are distributed differently and the province pays directly certain sums to the parents of children.

        3) Quebec Housing Corporation: By virtue of an agreement reached in 1967 the role of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been reduced in Quebec to providing loans and subsidies. The task of implementing programs in housing (locating and planning of projects, finding personnel and upgrading construction) is assumed by the Quebec Housing Corporation.

        Quebec was also very active in International affairs on a scale unparalleled by the other provinces. In the field of immigration, arrangements have been made between the governments of Quebec and Ottawa by which Quebec has a great deal to say about who immigrates to Quebec (agreements of 1975 and 1978).

        Hence, overall, by the mid-1960’s, Quebec had enlarged considerably the special status that it had been given in 1867. That special status developed as a result of the centralisation of the post-World War period when English Canadians generally supported an increase in the scope of activities of the federal government while French Canadians fought that trend and demanded to be excepted from centralising measures. Thus, the recent additions in Quebec’s special status are not made up of transfers of fields of jurisdiction from the federal government to the government of Quebec but rather exceptions to provincial powers being transferred to the federal government: all other provinces let the federal government occupy the field while Quebec did not.

        Quebec had obvious socio-cultural reasons to demand and obtain a freedom of action which the other provinces, for reasons of their own, did not want. From these piecemeal and pragmatic beginnings the theory of special status for Quebec came to be formulated in more concrete terms in the mid-1960’s: Quebec needed a special status if its government was to play fully its role in the development of the province. Both the governments of Jean Lesage and Daniel Johnson were committed to working toward a new constitution which would recognise more fully the special position of Quebec. Jean Lesage declared in December of 1965:

        “Pour répondre aux voeux de notre population, nous cherchons à obtenir tous les pouvoirs nécessaires à notre affirmation économique, sociale et politique. C’est là un objectif logique, sain et positif. Dans la mesure où d’autres provinces, pour des raisons tout à fait acceptables, n’ont pas besoin de se fixer le même objectif, et il semble bien que ce sera le cas- le Québec verra, par rapport à elles, son statut se différencier davantage.”

        The most forceful exposition of the necessity and justification of a special status for Quebec is to be found in an article written on June 30, 1967 by Claude Ryan then editor of Le Devoir, and later to become leader of the provincial Liberal Party and head of the no committee in the referendum of 1980 on sovereignty-association. On that occasion he wrote:

        “Le texte actuel (Constitution Act) se prête mal à la réalisation harmonieuse des deux dynamismes fondamentaux qui sous-tendent tous les espoirs de survie du Canada en tant qu’entité politique distincte, à savoir le nationalisme anglo-canadien, qui tend à polariser ses aspirations autour de l’idée d’un gouvernement central fort, et le nationalisme canadien-français qui, sans être fermé sur le reste du Canada cherchera, du moins pour l’avenir prévisible, son principal point d’appui dans le gouvernement du Québec. Sous le régime actuel, les Canadiens français apparaissent aux yeux de leurs compatriotes anglo-canadiens, comme de dangereux empêcheurs de danser en rond. Les Canadiens anglais apparaissent, en retour, aux yeux des Candiens français comme des centralisateurs invétérés. Cette tension donne lieu à des confrontations incessantes qui s’accompagnent d’interminables querelles de droit et de procédure. Tout cela nuit à l’action. Bien des projets sont mis de côté, retardés indéfiniment, ou encore entrepris quand même au mécontentement de l’un ou l’autre des deux groupes.”

        [Translation of the French quotation: The present text of the constitution is not conducive to the harmonious fulfillment of the two fundamental dynamisms that underlie the hopes of survival of Canada as a distinct political entity, ie. English Canadian nationalism that centers its aspirations around a strong federal government and French Canadian nationalism that – without closing itself to the rest of Canada – and for the foreseeable future, identifies the Government of Quebec as its main point of support. Under the present system, French Canadians appear as a royal pain in the neck to their English-speaking compatriots. In turn, French Canadians view English Canadians as inveterate centralizers. This dichotomy leads to constant confrontations and endless quarrels over law and procedure. All of this stands in the way of action. Projects are set aside, or delayed indefinitely, or else started to the dissatisfaction of one or the other of the two groups.]

        Thus, the position of many in Quebec during the discussions on the new constitution from the late sixties on was that:

        Quebec was the political expression of the French Canadian culture and people
        Its government was to be empowered with specific responsibilities which the governments of the other provinces might not wish to exercise and tended, in any case, to devolve to the Federal Government.
        Several concrete proposals were made, over time, to suit these views. Quebec was to have full jurisdiction or a priority in the following sectors: family allowance, old age and contributory pension plans, social assistance, housing, bursaries to students, insurance and trust companies, urban and regional development, scientific research in universities, marriage and divorce, linguistic policy, organisation of tribunals; in financial matters, the spending power of the federal government was to be limited and certain fiscal powers were to be transferred to the provincial governments. To a large degree, many of these fields of jurisdiction were already in provincial hands through opting out or other arrangements; what many proposed in Quebec was that these arrangements be formalised in a new constitution. There were also demands for greater provincial roles in immigration and international affairs, as well as proposals for reform of the Senate and Supreme Court along binational lines. Later proposals would also transfer jurisdiction over cable television to the provinces. There is no doubt that these propositions would have gone a long way to meet the new expectations of the people of Quebec and, had they been implemented, they would have likely resolved the constitutional dilemma from the Quebec point of view. But, despite some favourable support in some corners, most of English Canada was not prepared to go as far to resolve the constitutional problems. It was this failure to fully recognise the special position of Quebec and to shape the constitution accordingly, which fuelled nationalism in Quebec and ultimately led to the election of the Parti Québécois in 1976.

        The new constitution of 1982, and the Charter of Rights, failed to address completely any of the proposals made by Quebec in the twenty years that preceded them. Only article 59, dealing with rights to English schools in Quebec, concerned itself with subject matter that touched on Quebec. If we add the lack of recognition of a right of veto on constitutional matters to Quebec to the disregard of the demand for decentralisation and the rejection of a special status, one sees why the province refused to sign the constitution. There could not have been a clearer rejection of the distinctiveness of Quebec, and thus of its need of special clauses, than the rejection of a right of veto to Quebec. While Trudeau blamed the failure of recognition of a veto on Levesque, who dropped this demand against some other protection, it is clear that the other provinces were not prepared to recognise a veto to Quebec and that Trudeau found the idea of a need for “special protection” for Quebec very distasteful. This view he expressed on many occasions. Even if we consider that the Victoria Charter included, in practice, a veto for Quebec that was solely because the population of the province exceeded 25% of the total Canadian population. Thus, the veto was proposed because the province was large in population, not because it was “special” or “distinct”.

        The last attempts to incorporate elements of special status, albeit in a reduced form, were made in the Meech Lake Accord (1987) and in the Charlottetown Accord (1992). In both instances, the clauses aimed at recognizing the distinctiveness of Quebec, and thus the limited recognition of a special status came sharply under attack and justified the rejection of both accords in English speaking Canada. Such rejection, rooted in a wide range of conflicting sentiments and views from outside of Quebec, including an under current of anti Quebec feelings, was legitimised by the virulent denunciation of these Accords by Pierre Trudeau. One could hardly claim that the opposition to the Meech Lake Accord was rooted in intolerance when Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien were opposed to it! The failure of Meech altered perceptibly attitudes in Quebec and led to more radical demands, as illustrated by the Allaire Report. Trudeau, and the centralists that support his vision of Canada, forced the province into increasing polarization between separatists and status quo federalists. The province moved away from a position of compromise which the proposals of special status had always represented. This is why the people of Quebec narrowly rejected the Charlottetown Accord at the time of the referendum on the document and came very close to supporting sovereignty in the 1995 referendum.

        Thus, special status federalism now appears dead. It neither receives the support it would require in the English-speaking provinces, increasingly focused, as they are, on the principle of “equality” as a corner stone of Canadian federalism, nor from large parts of Quebec determined more and more to claim full sovereignty as the only acceptable solution to the dilemma of cultural survival and development. It is almost as if the country has a death wish…

        © 1998 Claude Bélanger, Marianopolis College

        Liked by 1 person

      • Once again Quebec more equal than other provinces

        Appeared in the Calgary Herald and Winnipeg Free Press
        In the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown Accord, British Columbians rejected the proposed amendments to Canada’s constitution with the highest “no” vote in the country (68.3%). Also in the “no” camp were Manitoba (61.6%) and then Alberta (60.2%). Four other provinces also turned it down and the package barely passed in Ontario.

        In B.C. and Alberta, a prime reason why the Charlottetown Accord failed so miserably was fierce opposition to the proposed “distinct society” clause for Quebec. It was a nebulous concept with the potential to continually exempt Quebec’s government from norms applicable to other provinces, including on individual rights. (It is why Pierre Trudeau opposed it). In another Charlottetown section, on the Senate, any issue involving French language and culture would have needed the approval of a majority of Francophone senators, not just a bare majority of all Senators.

        Two decades later, there’s no shortage of politicians who act as if Quebec deserves continual special policy treatment. Examples abound: $2-billion from Ottawa to Quebec this year for a GST-provincial sales tax harmonization that occurred two decades ago; protection of Quebec’s dairy cartel; ignoring the Quebec government’s discriminatory policies against one of Canada’s two official languages; and winking at Quebec-first policies on labour and government contracts.

        Defenders of the foregoing justify the exceptions with an observation followed by an irrelevant assertion: French language and culture in Quebec makes that province unique; that merits special treatment.

        Now enter the latest example—the federal government’s attempt to backtrack on pre-election promises to award 30 new seats to Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. That was the plan under the now-dead Bill C-12, this after opposition from Quebec. In the newest legislation, the Fair Representation Act, Ontario receives only 15 seats while BC and Alberta will get six apiece, or 27 in total. The missing three seats? They go to Quebec.

        The Conservative government’s justification is that this will ensure “the proportional representation of Quebec according to population.”

        But the attempt to maintain such precision for Quebec in parliament—without an equally exacting formula for voters in Ontario, B.C. and Alberta—is distinct society status in legislative drag.

        Here’s why: at present, nationally, the average riding represents 111,957 constituents. Broken down, the average Quebec riding has 106,396 people, 5,562 fewer people than the national average.

        In contrast, the average Ontario riding has 126,160 people; B.C., 127,037; Alberta, 134,977.

        For a variety of constitutional reasons and political deals, the big four provinces have always been at a disadvantage in parliamentary representation compared to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Atlantic provinces. Regrettably, that is unlikely to change soon. At least under the previous bill, giving 30 seats to the three fastest-growing provinces would have meant some redress in those numbers. In that case, Ontario and British Columbia ridings would, respectively, have an average of 5,827 and 4,336 more people in them compared to the new national average; Quebec’s ridings would also have had 4,375 extra people above the national average. Thus, under the previous bill, Quebec would finally have been treated akin to two of the other major provinces, though Alberta would still have been an outlier with an average of 12,506 more people per riding (compared to the national average).

        As for the new legislation, it instead re-entrenches the special status of Quebec vis-à-vis the other major provinces. Using July population figures, Quebec, at 23.1% of Canada’s population will have 23.1% of the seats.

        In contrast, Ontario, BC and Alberta have 63% of the population but will have only 58.3% of the seats. That 4.7% difference may not seem like much, but it represents 2.1 million people who must now “share” MPs with others.

        The disparities among the provinces will likely grow over time. In the past decade, Ontario and B.C.’s population grew about one-and-a-half times faster than Quebec; Alberta’s rate of growth more than doubled Quebec’s.

        Assume this growth pattern continues in the decade ahead. That would mean that by 2021, under the new bill, the average federal riding will contain 112,261 people. However, British Columbia’s average riding will have 120,757 people; Ontario: 122,678 people; and Alberta will bulge with 132,389 people per average riding. Meanwhile, the average Quebec riding will have just 109,722 people.

        In 1992, Pierre Trudeau wrote a book opposing the Charlottetown Accord entitled “A mess that deserves a NO.” As policy, the Fair Representation Act is not nearly as messy as that pot of constitutional porridge. But the latest attempt to gerrymander Parliament shortchanges voters in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. It is thus in the spirit of the long-defeated Charlottetown Accord.
        Author:

        Mark Milke
        Subscribe to the Fraser Institute
        Get the latest news from the Fraser Institute on the latest research studies, news and events.

        First Name *
        Last Name *
        Email *
        Postal/Zip Code *

        Like

      • Hello Brian When I wrote what I did regarding Quebec’s status I believed you understood and knew far more than I will ever know about our political situation in this country. I speak from a place of observing what I have perceived to be over many years, concessions given to Quebec and it has appeared to be that any liberal government catered to that province more than the others. It seemed to be that their unique position within Canada might be something to examine further to see how it compares to the sovereignty act proposed by D Smith.

        Many Canadians in Ontario and in the west have viewed Quebec has having special status since the mid 60’s as those were common discussions among people my folks knew and some kids at school at the military base in Ottawa. I wanted to explore it further Brian, with all your readers. And would have been happy to read opinions from any of them, especially yourself as you could provide far more information beyond perception or from brief research which is how I gathered mine. I was hoping for more information from yourself and others as I explore the sovereignty act proposed by D Smith. She claimed some time ago along with other candidates that it was illegal and recently she posted a lengthy description of what she meant and how it could be useful which I will not elaborate on here. I think examining that and PQ further would be interesting and particularly useful at this point in time for Alberta especially.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Are you saying Quebec doesn’t have special rights that the rest of Canada doesn’t have? This is murky. I respectfully ask, will you please answer your own question for us Brian?

        Like

      • Sweeping changes to the Freedom of Information Act will reverse advances which had briefly shone a light on the royal finances – including an attempt by the Queen to use a state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace – and which had threatened to force the disclosure of the Prince of Wales’s prolific correspondence with ministers.

        such a lovely person! always thinking of others, knowing that the paupers will be stronger if they have to freeze all winter so the castle will be warmer.

        Like

      • yes, I see it went to the wrong thread and responded to the wrong person. I’m not that interested in Canada except to hear that somebody caused a p rojectile to trace a path across the weird grey and white organ inside the skull of Fidel’s illegitimate son. Make it happen. Maybe find some old person who realizes that he’s on his way out because of the fake “vaccine” and has nothing to lose and can go end this arsehole’s regime with 5 grams of lead. That’s not violence, it’s justice. Just as soon as there’s business first. (Bonnie Raitt)

        Like

  6. Some interesting discussion here. I believe that Quebec does indeed get awarded contracts, and special treatment in countless ways over the rest of Canada particularly when the Libs are in power, no question.

    I believe the west is largely ignored when the libs are in power and this government is the most disastrous of any we have had but then the globalists are pulling all the strings for the puppet and we face three more years of his insane spending and his tyrannical threats of mandates and restrictions, ALL OF WHICH have been proven NOT TO WORK. And this is planned for fall and winter which will gravely harm our children and all of us if 85% do not take the jabs he has planned for us. And if we take them, the harms will be immeasurable.

    When that arrogant immature prodigy of trudy senior got in very quickly we saw what he aimed to do and he has done it. He has worked to destroy our farming and ranching industries (I can share some true horror stories on the animals one day as I have it first hand from our farmers). He has done his best to screw with forestry, manufacturing, steel and oil and gas. He screwed with all levels of transportation including air and he does give special treatment to his fav province. He spends OUR money without consequence and he has crippled this country and the future for our children and for those of us still breathing.

    And then many wonder why any province might wish to leave this country. The bigger question to some is what country! how much respect has been given to the west and the one major resource that kept the country above the water line in tough times and good has been the oil and gas industry. And Alberta has established other industries in recent years but look at the world now. Alberta is not the only province with oil and gas as all of you know. All of the west have it and the Maritimes. But his nibbs aims to destroy it and our country and his aims are being met.

    Tell me these toxic “windmills” with their hogging up of thousands of acres of land or sea are good for the environment and the birds and animals. Take a look at solar and how the large plants harm so much animal and bird life. And farmland! And what the heck is this with the cricket factory and I have seen the food products now that contain this crap already on the shelves not to mention Mr. Depopulate the World Gates’ beyond beef products on the shelves. And how about the concentration camps our leader built.

    Meanwhile he does his best to destroy the one industry we and the planet needs. We have no alternatives that we are willing to use, as in nuclear in this country. Hydrogen is a way off.

    THINK about how we could help the world by exporting our products to countries now in desperate need but no, the pipelines are not built. As I said in my earlier post this will result in many people suffering and dying in the UK and US and eventually in our country too.

    And, do not forget Quebec got to VETO having the pipeline through its province and they were not overturned on that one! That is the best case of how one province, namely Quebec, got preferential treatment as trudy made no attempt to change that outcome now did he?

    The other key thing to remember: our carbon footprint in Canada is less than one percent. But the greenies are busy listening to old Hollywood Jane in California and Leonardo and Neil Young and the pitiful child Greta and believing every word these idiots spout. Not a one of them boarded a plane to China or India to discuss their carbon footprint.

    The west is not well treated nor respected in this country. Quebec does get preferential treatment and has done for decades. And Canada is in more of a mess than most will admit. Dangerously so.

    We need to change the ways we are doing things now and also the ways we ACCEPT the things this government imposes. Our very existence as a country depends upon it.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      • I appreciate your feedback. I write to a few politicians and have lobbied them on many issues. It is to me critical that the libndps be halted in their quest to destroy this country and its people. I am hoping some concrete moves will be made in the coming months. Hope lives….. Wendy

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment