Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

JASON KENNEY -- To put it more bluntly ... ‘If you want to benefit from our oil and gas wealth, stop blocking oil and gas pipelines’


Premier Jason Kenney issued the following statement in response to Quebec Premier Francois Legault’s comments on equalization:

“Quebec Premier François Legault’s comments reflect a misunderstanding of the history of equalization, and Alberta’s demand for fairness in the federation.

“Equalization has not ‘been in the Constitution since Day One of Canada.’ The principle of equalization was included for the first time in the 1982 Constitution Act, which Quebec refused to sign.

It is historically inaccurate to say that ... ‘When Quebec got into Canada, equalization was in the plan. It is part of the original deal. We can’t change the original deal.’

In fact, equalization began as a unilateral federal program in 1957, and has undergone many significant changes since then.

“It is also completely false to suggest, as Premier Legault does, that I am ‘starting to become separatist.’ As I have said repeatedly, I always have been and always will be a proud Canadian patriot and a federalist, without condition. It was at my urging that the merger agreement creating the United Conservative Party included ‘loyalty to a united Canada’ as a founding principle. For me, that loyalty is non-negotiable.

“I have also been clear that most Albertans are proud to have shared much of our province’s good fortune with other Canadians, and that we do not object to equalization in principle. However, we cannot abide other governments benefiting enormously from our resources while trying to obstruct the development and sale of those resources. Nor is it acceptable that other provinces benefit from equalization payments generated in part from our energy resources while refusing to develop their own energy resources.

The Government of Quebec’s assertion that it can block approval of an interprovincial pipeline clearly violates the letter and spirit of the original Constitution.

“Albertans have made a net contribution of over $620 billion to the rest of the federation through their federal taxes since 1957. We make a net contribution of approximately $20 billion to fiscal federalism each year. Alberta has been a great source of shared prosperity and social progress in Canada, and we hope to continue to be in the future.

“Our call for a fair deal in the federation simply means this: If Ottawa and other provinces want to benefit from Alberta’s resources, then they must not oppose the transport and sale of those resources.

“To put it more bluntly: If you want to benefit from our oil and gas wealth, stop blocking oil and gas pipelines. As I said at the Council of the Federation last month, ‘If you aren’t willing to accept our resources, why are you willing to accept the money that comes from them?’ Or as Quebecers say, ‘On ne peut pas vouloir le beurre, et l’argent du beurre.’

“That is why our government is committed to holding a referendum on Section 36 of the Constitution Act – the principle of equalization – if we do not see substantial progress on coastal pipelines and a repeal of devastating policies like Bill C-69, the ‘No More Pipelines Act.’ We make this commitment as a way of putting our struggle for fairness at the top of the national agenda.

“As I said in French on election night, Albertans admire and respect Quebecers. We have been and should be close partners in the federation, and in shared prosperity. I have also appreciated developing a positive working relationship with Premier Legault, whom I respect.

“Unfortunately, Premier Legault was mistaken when he said that equalization ‘is connected to the very existence of Canada. When Quebec got into Canada, equalization was in the plan. It is part of the original deal. We can’t change the original deal.’

“I would, however, remind him that exclusive federal jurisdiction over interprovincial pipelines is, in fact, part of the original deal of Confederation. It is enshrined in Section 92(10) (a) of the Constitution, which makes it clear that provinces cannot regulate ‘Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province.’

This constitutional fact was recently confirmed by a unanimous decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The Government of Quebec’s assertion that it can block approval of an interprovincial pipeline clearly violates the letter and spirit of the original Constitution.

“We simply ask that other Canadian governments respect the Constitution and help us get a fair price for our resources, so that we can continue to be partners in prosperity.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FORSETH -- Given the noted infractions of this agreement with OneBC leader Dallas Brodie, I request the Party immediate suspend the leadership campaign of Yuri Fulmer

I have personally emailed the following to the Board and Administration of the Conservative Party of BC:   TODAY (03/30) Yuri Fulmer, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of BC, made a pact with ONEBC leader Dallas Broldie, that if he is elected will commit the Conservative Party to the following. Specifically, the pact states : This Memorandum of Understanding outlines the definitive electoral and governing alliance that will be executed upon Yuri Fulmer’s election as Leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia OneBC Party commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in 88 of British Columbia’s 93 electoral districts. In exchange, the Conservative Party of BC, under the leadership of Yuri Fulmer, commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in five (5) specific electoral districts . OneBC will be the sole standard-bearer for the right in those five districts. The specific ridings will be determined through mutual negotiation and fin...

Delays to the replacement of the Red Bridge? Kamloops North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer says they are, “Totally Unacceptable.”

I think it’s totally unacceptable that on one hand the Ministry of Transportation and Transit (MoTT) is saying they’re going to be responsible for putting together multiple replacement options with public engagement, and then in the same breath they're saying, ‘Oh, and by the way, we're going to start our geotechnical environmental and archaeological site assessments on both sides of the river, possibly beginning this summer.’ According to Stamer, that should already have been done. “Obviously, we're pretty sure it will be in the same location because there's really no other place to put it. So, if you're going to put in a bridge, you think that at least you'd be doing the archaeological assessments first off”, stated Stamer.   “If it's determined it has to be a free-span bridge, and it can't have anything or very minimal impact in the riverbed, they should already be determining that. It would help in the design, wouldn't it?” Stamer indicated...

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...

Labels

Show more