Toronto Star columnist Gillian Steward wrote a critical piece on the Buffalo Declaration, mocking it as “riding the hobby horse of victimhood.” There are many responses that quickly come to mind for her run-of-the-mill, pro-centralist claims, but there’s one that needs special attention.
She writes that the four Conservative MPs who signed the Buffalo Declaration, “must have forgotten that they took an oath of loyalty to The Crown and Canada because the Buffalo Declaration warns that if the federal government doesn’t give Alberta exactly what it wants then a referendum on independence is ‘inevitable.’”
This is an accusation that has been made before: people who support Alberta independence are “disloyal.” Let’s take a closer look at that.
First of all, the Oath of Allegiance every MP takes is as follows: “I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. — The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.” It’s very important to note, however, that this is not understood to be an oath to the monarch as a particular individual but as a figure representing the country, its constitution and political system. The oath is essentially a promise to uphold the constitution.
The MPs who signed the Buffalo Declaration do not advocate Alberta independence, despite what Steward suggests. However, supposing she was correct, the question becomes: does an MP violate his or her Oath of Allegiance by supporting Alberta independence? Is support for Alberta independence through a referendum a violation of the Constitution?
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the answer to that question is a clear ‘no’. So long as someone advocates the process for achieving independence outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada, he or she cannot be accurately accused of disloyalty. How can advocating Canadian constitutional law – as delineated by the Supreme Court of Canada – be disloyal to the Constitution?
The key point is this: in a 1998 ruling known as Reference Re Secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada laid out a legal and constitutional process whereby a province could become independent. It established certain constitutional principles that provide the foundation for the legitimacy of secession. The Court ruled on this issue because Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government had formally asked it about the legality of Quebec seceding unilaterally from Canada after that province’s 1995 independence referendum.
In its decision, the Supreme Court referred at least twice to a provincial “right” to pursue secession. In the first instance it stated, “The rights of other provinces and the federal government cannot deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession, should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others.”
Later, it essentially made the same point: “The other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession, should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others.”
Ultimately, however, the key conclusion reached by the court was that, “a clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.”
That is, if a “clear majority” votes “on a clear question in favour of secession,” a province has the “democratic legitimacy” necessary to leave confederation, although the details must be negotiated with other key parties, especially the federal government.
Clearly, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that there is a legitimate constitutional path to independence for Canadian provinces. Provided that someone advocates the path outlined by the Supreme Court, an accusation of “disloyalty” is false because he or she is following Canada’s established constitutional law. How could Canada’s constitutional law be considered “disloyal” to the constitution?
If advocating Alberta independence through a referendum is somehow disloyal, then the ringleader of this disloyalty is the Supreme Court of Canada. It was that court that determined and legitimized the constitutional process for pursuing independence. Federalists who consider a referendum on independence to be disloyal have a quarrel with the Supreme Court of Canada.
Michael Wagner is a columnist for the Western Standard
MORGAN: Alberta needs less talk, and more action from Kenney
“Premier Kenney needs to pick a lane and to stick to it with authority.”
Support for the United Conservative Party under Premier Kenney’s leadership has collapsed. Exclusive polling for the Western Standard has the UCP languishing at an abysmal 26 percent support while the NDP is at 41 percent while the new and still leaderless Wildrose Independence Party has climbed to 9 percent province-wide. This trend is nothing less than catastrophic for the UCP and they will need to make some major changes if they hope to be re-elected in 2023.
With nearly two years in power now, it is tough to point to any concrete changes or policies from the Kenney government. While Jason Kenney talked a great game at campaign time, we have seen little follow-through. Where is the promised democratic reform through citizen’s initiated referenda and recall legislation? Where is the fiscal conservatism and moves to get the budget under control? When will the government act on even one of the Fair Deal panel recommendations?
While Premier Jason Kenney continues to try to be everything to everybody, he is losing support on all fronts. The NDP-left will never learn to love the UCP, yet Kenney remains reticent to take on the government unions which are opposing all efforts at fiscal reform or efficiencies. Kenney has talked tough with unions, but won’t act. It’s time to take a stand and start cutting spending, not just haircuts. We are running out of money and taxpayers are running out of patience. It won’t become any easier for waiting.
On the democratic reform front, Kenney needs to implement the promised referenda and recall legislation. It has been nearly two years and this doesn’t need to be studied any longer. We know what we need and we know what we voted for. Give it to us already.
On the Western alienation front, Kenney has been at his most disappointing. This again has been clearly indicated in the recent polling commissioned by the Western Standard. Support for independence is exploding to new records in Alberta. While the UCP was not elected with a mandate to pursue independence, they were elected as a party expected to stand up to Ottawa. It is time that they did it.
Ottawa has more control over Alberta today than when Jason Kenney came to office. Tough talk is clearly not working.
No more panels. No more “expert” studies. No more kicking the can down the road. Albertans want some leadership and they want somebody to protect Alberta’s interests from an increasingly hostile federal government.
We have made it clear that we want a provincial pension plan. I doubt that I will see it implemented before I am old enough to collect it, and I am only 49 years old.
Why more study on whether or not we want a provincial police force? We know we want it. Now start working on what it will take to create it. What did we get? The province commissioned yet another study.
Where is the Alberta Chief Firearms Officer we were told we would get? How hard is it to appoint somebody? Instead, we got an Alberta Firearms Advisory Committee. More talk.
We are getting a referendum on equalization at least, but Kenney has made clear that there will be no ‘or else’ consequences if Ottawa and the other provinces fail to make reforms.
We are living in tough times. Citizens want to see leadership and that means seeing leaders making tough, definitive decisions. Wishy washy approaches to issues aren’t acceptable.
Premier Kenney needs to pick a lane and to stick to it with authority. If you oppose lockdowns, don’t impose them. If you support lockdowns, do it unapologetically and do it in full. Trying to appease both sides only alienates both sides.
Talk is cheap and we are tired of hearing it. If the current government can’t discover how and where they want to actually act on things, they will be replaced in the next election, and I fear for what that replacement may be.
Cory Morgan is the Podcast Editor and a columnist for the Western Standard
OUELLETTE & SHAW: Freedom of expression is under attack in Canada
“While Canada is a relatively free country, the pandemic has exacerbated our pre-existing shortcomings in terms of freedom of expression.”
Our freedom of expression is under attack. In recent years, there’s been a significant trend toward censorship in the media, in academia, and among the general population. The controversy at the University of Ottawa over the use of the N-word is one example among others. Why do we need to worry about this trend? For one thing, an attack on our freedom of expression is also an attack on our standard of living.
The virtues of freedom of expression are widely recognized: It improves the quality of our democratic institutions, facilitates the exchange of ideas, and leads to sounder, more transparent public policies.
But aside from these benefits, there is also a strong link between freedom of expression and economic growth. This is confirmed by the economic literature and by many academic papers from different researchers at Stanford University, Dartmouth College, and the University of California, Berkeley, who all arrive at the same conclusion: The exchange of ideas stimulates innovation, and innovation is one of the main engines of economic growth and rising living standards.
Encouraging the exchange of ideas and the protection of freedom of expression is therefore intuitively beneficial, and this is confirmed by the scientific literature. But concretely, what would the average Canadian stand to gain if our governments put in place public policies encouraging greater freedom of expression?
According to our calculations and our econometric model, individual Canadians would be an average of $2,522 richer each year. Obviously, this amount wouldn’t be deposited directly into one’s bank account, but rather, a gradual increase in our living standards would result from the effects of more freedom of expression.
In the sample of 132 countries used in our study, Canada is among the top 15 per cent in terms of freedom of expression. But while it is true that we live in a relatively free society, taking this good ranking for granted would be a mistake.
Indeed, governments have a lot of room to grow when it comes to improving freedom of expression, especially if we compare ourselves to Norway, the top country in the ranking. There, it is standard practice for politicians to make constant efforts, encouraged by citizens, to better protect freedom of expression.
In contrast, in Canada, and especially in certain provinces like Quebec, the government can arbitrarily decide to subsidize one media outlet rather than another, which can potentially hinder media independence and lead to biased and less reliable information. Not to mention that it is increasingly difficult to obtain information from our governments through requests for access to information, which hampers proper public debate. This situation should alarm us.
In order to improve the country’s performance in terms of freedom of expression, thereby also improving our standard of living, we have three recommendations:
- Favour media independence from government by limiting arbitrary subsidies and, in their place, creating a regulatory and fiscal framework favourable to all media;
- Encourage Canadian public universities to protect freedom of expression in order to truly allow their researchers, professors, and students to express themselves freely without risk of reprisals;
- Increase the information and data available to the population by reducing the need to make requests for access to information, in order to facilitate public debate.
While Canada is a relatively free country, the pandemic has exacerbated our pre-existing shortcomings in terms of freedom of expression. We must not allow the current situation to become the new normal. For the sake of our standard of living and the wealth of our country, we must do more to promote and protect the freedom of expression of all Canadians.
GUEST COLUMN: By Miguel Ouellette, Director of Operations and Economist, and Maria Lily Shaw, Economist, Montreal Economic Institute
FILDEBRANDT: Kenney culls Rehn from the herd, but none of it adds up
“If Rehn was the sacrificial lamb, it raises even bigger question about why his head was on the block, and not the other six.”
The Great Snowbird Scandal has finally claimed its first real political victim. On Thursday morning, Jason Kenney fired Lesser Slave Lake MLA Pat Rehn from the UCP Caucus. But none of it adds up.
Rehn – for all his political sin of travelling to Mexico during his own government’s lockdown – was just one of seven snowbird MLAs.
Former Municipal Affairs Minister Tracy Allard was forced to resign from cabinet –a demotion to be sure – but she still remains comfortably in the UCP benches. Jeremy Nixon, Jason Stephan, Tanya Fir, and Tany Yao all still enjoy full membership in the UCP Caucus.
Why is Pat Rehn the only one to be exiled to northwest corner of the legislature – otherwise known as ‘Siberia’?
Publicly at least, Kenney’s statement on the unilateral firing did not mention the Snowbird Scandal at all.
“The most important job of an MLA is to represent his or her constituents,” Kenney wrote in his statement. “It has become clear that Lesser Slave Lake MLA Pat Rehn has failed to do so. He has made no meaningful effort to work in his constituency, or properly to represent his hard-working constituents.”
“I have repeatedly asked Mr. Rehn to be more present in his constituency. He has ignored calls from me, UCP Caucus leadership, and his constituents to do so.”
So the Snowbird Scandal had nothing to do with it, on paper at least. He was fired because he was an absentee MLA not working very hard, according to Kenney. It’s a curious reasoning that requires some scratching below the surface.
The Slave Lake Town Council issued a scathing letter on January 5 with a laundry list of sins committed by Rehn, including their claim that he doesn’t live in Slave Lake. In fact, they allege that he mostly lives in Texas, something Rehn denies.
While Texas would be a bit far aboard, I have a spoiler for readers: many, many MLAs and MPs do not reside full-time in their constituencies.
Even Jason Kenney himself does not live in his Calgary-Lougheed constituency. In fact, there is pretty strong evidence that he didn’t quite live in Alberta for much of the time that he was a Calgary MP.
It doesn’t really matter, so long as an MP or MLA works hard for their constituents, and earns their support come election day. At the end of the day, constituency boundaries are largely arbitrary lines on a map, drawn up by political appointees.
But for Pat Rehn alone, it appears to have mattered to Kenney.
Kenney official reason given – that he wasn’t working hard or around the constituency – holds no water.
Most backbench MLAs – especially those on the government side of the house – have remarkably little of importance to do. They read cue cards with pre-scripted puffball questions and pablum speeches written by staffers when the legislature is in session. When the legislation is not in session, their biggest job is to show up and be seen kissing babies at their local legion.
Most complaints about Rehn from his constituency is that he wasn’t kissing enough babies. Is that alone really cause to fire an MLA from the caucus?
For those not born yesterday, something clearly doesn’t add up.
So why was Pat Rehn really fired by Kenney?
Western Standard reporters have obtained some interesting documents that appear to cast a new shadow over Rehn. Our reporters will do their due diligence with these documents before we discuss them publicly, but if they are what they appear to be, then this is the real reason that Kenney sacked Rehn.
We can only hope that Kenney did his due diligence with these documents first.
But even if these documents prove the worst possible scenario, Rehn deserves a chance to explain himself fairly.
If the UCP had kept its promise to pass recall legislation, then his constituents could judge for themselves. But, they could also decide to pass judgement on the other six snowbirds.
Was Rehn just a sacrificial lamb for the other six Snowbird MLAs? A Mainstreet Research poll conducted for the Western Standard found 68 per cent of Albertans want Kenney to fire all seven (known) Snowbirds. Alarmingly, 41 per cent even wanted Kenney himself to resign over the matter, including 21 per cent of those who voted UCP last time.
If Rehn was the sacrificial lamb for this scandal, it raises even bigger questions about why his head was on the block, and not the other six.
Perhaps Rehn was a rogue and this was a convenient opportunity to cull him from the herd.
One way or another, we don’t know the whole story. I’d be surprised if we know half of it yet.
Derek Fildebrandt is the Publisher of the Western Standard
Ousted UCP MLA Rehn blames clerical error for expenses confusion
CTF calls on governments to get their pipeline act together
Ousted UCP MLA Rehn blasts Kenney over lockdown measures
‘My life had value’ – message from Calgary woman who died with pre-existing conditions
MUST-READ: Open letter from a doctor to Jason Kenney
Senior doc says Alberta politicians “playing medicine”, media driving “hysteria”
Sign up for the Western Standard Newsletter
News1 day ago
North Vancouver councillor says pickup truck is ‘glorification of violence’, ‘petro masculinity’
News4 days ago
Horgan seeking legal advice on banning other Canadians from entering BC
News4 days ago
Alberta relaxing some COVID restrictions
News4 days ago
WATCH: Police shown beating 64-year-old man in Ontario
Opinion4 days ago
FILDEBRANDT: Kenney culls Rehn from the herd, but none of it adds up
News5 days ago
EXCLUSIVE: Fired Kenney chief of staff lands $60K severance payout
News4 days ago
Kenney boots MLA Rehn from UCP caucus
News23 hours ago
Biden to cancel KXL pipeline first day in office, report says