Connect with us


NATHANSON: Barnes is right, we need an Alberta Constitution

Constitutions are more than legal documents. They are also symbols.




With the Government of Alberta’s Fair Deal report now public, a turning point has been reached. The debate over whether Alberta is being treated fairly within confederation is now over. The question moving forward is simply this: What are we going to do about it?

The Fair Deal Panel offered up 25 recommendations. Most of them are good ideas, but the report doesn’t offer much of anything in the way of teeth. Take recommendation No. 1: “Press strenuously for the removal of the current constraints on the Fiscal Stabilization Program…”

That’s a no brainer. But Alberta has been doing this for quite some time, and has nothing to show for it. What possible use is this recommendation when you’re dealing with a federal government that simply does not care what Alberta wants?

If Alberta is going to get anywhere, the focus needs to be on steps we can take unilaterally without the federal government. The report includes several of these, and they are all worth pursuing. However, there is one potential option that is noticeably absent: the creation of an Alberta constitution.

As panelist and MLA Drew Barnes pointed out in his personal letter to the Premier, the creation of an Alberta constitution does not lead directly down a one-way path to full independence. Rather it would provide an “opportunity for Albertans to lead the way, for by finding equality and fairness for ourselves, we can create the framework for others to find the same.” 

I love that quote. People don’t talk like that anymore, but they should. It is the language of statesmanship that has been sorely missing from conservative politics for many years.

Why a Constitution?

As government documents go, constitutions are unique. While the typical laws and regulations put in place by governments restrict the freedoms of citizens, constitutions are the best way for citizens to effectively restrict the powers of governments.

Laws made by the legislature can just as easily be changed or eliminated by the legislature. Take, for example, the Klein government’s balanced budget law. It was supposed to be a game-changing victory for those who sought to restrain the size of government, his own party killed it four years later and went on a decade-long spending binge that hasn’t yet ended.

The lesson here is straightforward: like the medieval monarchs of England, our elected governments of today also despise being restricted. Over time, they will use every tool at their disposal to expand their reach.

If Premier Klein’s balanced budget legislation can be turfed in an afternoon session of the legislature, so too can the Alberta Taxpayer Protection Act, which requires a referendum before imposing a provincial sales tax. And, if you are a conservative voter who voted UCP because you would support the idea of electoral recall or citizen initiated referendums, you just better hope that no other party (to its left) ever wins a majority in the legislature. 

The only way to effectively limit the size and scope of government, and to impose restrictions and accountability on politics over the long term, is through a constitution.

Why now?

There is never a bad time to restrict the size and reach of government. However, recent developments are worrying.

Of the many freedoms we enjoy dating back to the Magna Carta, one of the most important is economic freedom. We rightly believe that the individual should be the primary beneficiary of their own labour, and that individuals have the right to own and use their private property as they see fit. Ottawa’s willingness to cede jurisdiction to international organizations that do not recognize such rights should be a wake up call. In Alberta, previous governments have run roughshod over property rights.

Furthermore, the Canadian constitution is currently under attack from the Canadian government. Under the constitution, provinces have the right to develop natural resources. The oil under the feet of Albertans, belongs to Albertans. Premier Lougheed fought for this key concession from Trudeau the Elder. Clearly, the federal government does not like this arrangement, and over the past 30 years it has looked for ways to alter the deal. Not content to redistribute Alberta’s wealth through a rigged equalization program, the Ottawa has enacted a series of regulations designed to landlock Alberta’s oil. It’s a strong-arm tactic worthy of a medieval monarch. If Ottawa is willing to so brazenly flout the Canadian constitution, are we Albertans not obligated to protect their own rights through our own constitution?

What should the constitution include?

Everybody has their pet issue they would like to see included in the constitution. For me, it might be protecting the rights of disabled citizens. For you, it might be the right to recall elected representatives. But we have to start somewhere, so it might as well be at the beginning. And, as Rudyard Kipling wrote: 

At Runnymede, at Runnymede, oh hear the reeds at Runnymede

You musn’t sell, delay, deny, a freeman’s right or liberty.

The Magna Carta is considered one of the most important documents in world history for a reason. From the lowliest English serf to the authors of the American Declaration of Independence, it continues to inspire those who oppose tyranny and protect freedom. The Great Charter was about ending the divine rights of monarchs and replacing it with the divine rights of individuals. Or, as our American cousins put it, “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

It was at Runnymede that the king first recognized the concept of private property rights. To this day, governments around the world seek to deprive free men and women of this right, including here in Canada. 

At Runnymede, the king was forced to accept the idea that no individual is above the law, and the concept of due process was born. While Justin Trudeau’s recent attacks on prosecutorial independence may seem shocking by today’s standards, the barons of Runnymede were all too familiar with this kind of chicanery.

Another major change dating back to the Magna Carta was the idea that there can be no taxation without the consent of the “council of the realm.” The Americans rephrased it as “no taxation without representation.”

This quickly became the real source of all power behind our parliamentary system. Monarchs and dictators around the world despise this change more than any other. To this day, there are many who game the system to allow the expenditure of tax dollars without proper transparency or accountability. As the world veers towards globalism, the principle of “no taxation without representation” must be retrenched. 

Another concept born at Runnymede was the individual’s right to engage in trade. At first, this freedom was restricted only to the lords and it took some time for the lower classes to fully realize their rights. Local lords would accept bribes to sell monopolies to the various guilds in their towns, and the guilds in turn would restrict every aspect of the trade, from worker training, to prices, to how many goods could be produced. Not only did the system gridlock the economy, but also reinforced a rigid class system that kept the peasants “in their place.”

Of course, the innate human desire for freedom resists such tyranny and eventually the peasants started producing goods outside of the towns, creating what is still known as “cottage industries.” They sold their goods in black markets located just outside of the towns, in areas known as “liberties.” These markets quickly became hot beds of activity where people could do and speak as they chose. For example, William Shakespeare’s plays were performed in theatres located in liberties. The economy flourished, prosperity was born, and with it the rigid social class structure of the day began to dissolve. In the end it was trade, not politics, that freed the peasants. 

Social mobility continues to be a major issue in our modern world. The divide between the rich and poor is growing, despite the fact that more wealth is now redistributed than ever before. Part of the problem is that we have failed to learn the lessons of history, and allowed governments to increase their control over the economy. Through regulation and corporate welfare, our governments continue to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, and award monopolies to their supporters. At the same time we have allowed supply management organizations and labour organizations far too much control over certain segments of our economy, to the point where individual liberties have become unfairly restricted. If Alberta is to have its own constitution, we must look for ways to restore the rights of all citizens to freely engage in in our economy.

A gift to future generations

In recent days, much has been made of Premier Kenney’s statement that he would never pursue sovereignty from Canada because, either you “love your country or you don’t.”

While I appreciate his candor, this is exactly the wrong sentiment for the times. When I look back at the generations who fought for the freedoms we enjoy, I wonder how many of them were accused of being traitors. I wonder how many times they were told, “either you love the Crown, or you don’t.” 

These folks, like frustrated Albertans of today, did not hate their country. Rather, they loved their families and communities, and they wanted to bestow future generations with the greatest gift that can be given: freedom.

Constitutions are more than legal documents. They are also symbols. The creation of an Alberta constitution would help us renew our commitment to both our ideals, and future generations. 

For, as Mr. Barnes said, “By finding equality and fairness for ourselves, we can create the framework for others to find the same.” 

Patrick Nathanson is a guest columnist for the Western Standard


ANDRUS: A change in governance, not just a change in government is needed

Canadian democracy is one-person-one-vote, but votes are worth much more in some parts of the country than in others!




The results are in, another federal election is over, and what does Alberta get?


I wrote last week about how Alberta is left out of most federal election debates and discussions because of the need for politicians to appeal to the vote-rich centers of Quebec and Ontario.

Some of you quite fairly asked what should be done about this and, while Project Confederation spent considerable time discussing these challenges since we launched two years ago, we also have many new supporters who have joined us recently.

So, now the federal election results are known, a recap is perhaps in order.

There are two major issues with how federal elections work in Canada.

First, seats in the House of Commons are not distributed proportionally to population.

The Maritimes, representing Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have a combined 32 seats for 2.3 million people, or one seat for every 73,000 people and Quebec has 78 seats for roughly 8 million people, or roughly one seat for every 100,000 people, while Alberta has 34 seats for four million people, or about one for every 120,000 people.

Canadian democracy is one-person-one-vote, but votes are worth much more in some parts of the country than in others!

The second issue is the relative sizes of Canadian provinces.

The truth is, even if seats were perfectly distributed according to population, Ontario and Quebec would continue to dominate Canadian politics.

There are roughly 30 seats in the “905” region of Ontario — which represents Durham, York, Peel and Halton — plus another 25 seats in Toronto proper. Add in another 78 in Quebec, and a party can almost win a majority in just those two provinces alone.

One solution to this is to grow the West.

As more people move to the West to create lives and earn livelihoods made possible by our superior public policies and freedoms, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the West in general will increase in population and influence compared with the rest of the country.

This isn’t some fanciful dream, it’s already been happening for years, the West now has much more influence than it used to, and the trend is continuing.

But that is a long-term change.

For the foreseeable future, Ontario and Quebec will continue to have an outsized influence.

The policies causing Alberta the most harm, such as equalization, are designed to benefit eastern Canadians at the expense of voters in Alberta, and this is unlikely to change any time soon.

So, how is it that Alberta — the economic engine of the federation — has such little representation in Ottawa?

We contribute $20-plus billion per year to the rest of the country through equalization and various other transfer programs and yet election after election we are treated as the doormat of Ontario and Quebec.

Other countries solve this problem by having a second house of parliament — a Senate — explicitly designed to protect the interests of their provinces or states.

The House of Commons should represent, and protect the rights of us commoners while the Senate should represent and protect the rights of the provinces.

Instead, in Canada the Senate is appointed by the prime minister, and acts as a tool to help consolidate power, not distribute it.

In 1993, the Reform Party dominated Western Canada, sweeping the West on a platform centred around a Triple-E (equal, elected, and effective) Senate.

A Senate with effective powers, an equal number of senators per province, and chosen by popular vote would provide a regional balance to parliament, one that could allow for the Senate to act as a check on the House of Commons that is dominated by eastern interests.

Without regional representation in Ottawa, the federal government will continue to take advantage of Alberta and our economy.

The constitutional structure is rigged against us, an institutional problem caused by an unfair separation of powers between the federal government and the provincial government.

This is why systematic changes, not just tinkering, are absolutely necessary.

Albertans will be going back to the polls October 18 to vote in the municipal elections, along with a referendum to abolish equalization from the constitution.

Premier Jason Kenney’s equalization referendum is a good first step, but it must lead to significant reforms to the constitution — otherwise anything that changes with equalization can be undone with ease by the federal government in Ottawa.

Next month’s vote also includes elections for Senators-in-Waiting.

While not quite a Triple-E Senate, it’s a move in the right direction, though the likelihood of any elected senators being appointed by Canada’s current prime minister is low.

If the West wants a “Fair Deal,” then next month’s equalization referenda and senate election must be seen as the first step on a long journey, not the destination itself.

We need a change in governance, not just a change in government.

Josh Andrus is a Columnist for the Western Standard

Continue Reading


EDITORIAL: Kenney must resign, now

“For the good of the conservative movement, for the good of the United Conservative Party, for the good of Alberta, and for the good of restoring our freedoms, Kenney must resign. Now.”




Premier Jason Kenney has so badly bungled his responsibilities to Alberta that the time has come for him to resign. 

In fact, massive sections of his own party are demanding it.

His own caucus is rife with MLAs that have “no confidence” in his continued leadership. More than 30 party constituency association presidents have agreed to push for an emergency leadership review. The UCP’s vice-president (of policy) and a member of the party’s central board of directors says that he must resign now

Kenney has failed to live up to nearly all of his major election platform commitments: a successful fair deal fight with Ottawabuild pipelinesend corporate welfarekill the carbon taxbalance the budget, implement recall legislation, and most importantly: make Alberta “Strong and Free”. 

The premier was dealt a difficult hand with COVID-19, but his handling of it has been nothing short of disastrous. Rather than make Alberta “Strong and Free,” he has overseen an authoritarian growth in the power of the government over the private lives of Albertans. 

Acting on his orders, police attacked a kid playing hockey

Acting on his orders, police raided churches and erected barricades to keep worshipers out

Acting on his orders, police arrested pastors for refusing to stop preaching.

Acting on his orders, police jailed small business owners and seized their property

Acting on his orders, protests and rodeos were outlawed

Acting on his orders, Health Minister Tyler Shandro failed to build sufficient hospital capacity for a predictable surge in COVID-19 cases, to point where now the Alberta government is begging the Canadian military to intervene.

Acting on his orders, private businesses are now legally required to discriminate against citizens that do not have a mandatory vaccine passport

While Albertans suffered under the weight of a creeping tyranny, Kenney enjoyed a nice dinner on the rooftop of Alison Redford’s Sky Palace, in clear violation of his very own restrictions. In that dinner, he was joined by Finance Minister Travis Toews, Environment Minister Jason Nixon, Sandro, and a group of young staffers. 

Kenney is expected to make Shandro walk the plank this afternoon, and offer his political head up to appease his caucus and party that are demanding his own.

As terribly as Shandro has conducted himself as health minister, the buck does not stop with him; it stops with Kenney.

Shandro was not a rogue minister operating without supervision. He was following orders from his boss. 

Kenney is a well-known micromanager. Kenney and Shandro both are members of the Priorities & Implementation Cabinet Committee (PICC) that oversees all of the major COVID-19 decisions. The decisions to impose, rescind, and reimpose restrictions were made not just by Shandro, but by Kenney and the rest of this powerful cabinet committee. The decision to retract Kenney’s solemn pledge never to impose a mandatory vaccine passport was made not just by Shandro, but by Kenney as well. 

Shandro is to blame, but so too is Kenney and much of the inner circle around him. 

If Albertans are right in demanding Shandro’s resignation, then they are at least as right in demanding Kenney’s. 

It’s sad Kenney’s earlier, brilliant political career has degenerated to this. He was a smart and capable minister in the federal Harper government. He operated with boundless energy in his efforts to unite the Progressive Conservative and Wildrose parties. He triumphed in the UCP’s leadership race, and did Alberta a great service in dispatching Rachel Notley’s NDP after just a single term in office. He campaigned on a mandate of fighting for a fair deal for Alberta.

But Kenney’s continued presence in the premier’s office is now a grave threat to all of those accomplishments. 

He played a significant role in Erin O’Toole’s defeat at the hands of Justin Trudeau, leaving Alberta in weakened position. 

He risks splitting the United Conservative Party back up into its PC and Wildrose elements, something that’s already well underway with the growth of the Wildrose Independence Party. 

His continued leadership seems certain at this point to lead to a return of the Notley NDP to power. 

His presence creates the very real risk that Albertans will vote ‘no’ in the equalization referendum, as an opportunity to send him a message.

“You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately … Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.”

For the good of the conservative movement, for the good of the United Conservative Party, for the good of Alberta, and for the good of restoring our freedoms, Kenney must resign. Now.

This editorial was jointly written by the Editorial Board of the Western Standard

Continue Reading


NAVARRO-GENIE: The endemic path is the way out

“As a result, it is not people declining vaccination who are putting us in the gravest danger. It’s those who, perhaps fewer in numbers, continue to dream of, and push for, a global eradication of SARS-CoV-2.”




Marco Navarro-Genie a columnist for the Western Standard

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney’s plan to treat the coronavirus as endemic was the way out of the COVID-19 crisis. That he again adopted restrictions, lockdowns, and vaxports for the province does not vaporize the endemic approach. For those keeping count, this is Alberta lockdown number four. 

But his declaration, paraphrasing Joe Biden, that we have “a crisis of the unvaccinated” offers no solution. The newest health impositions reveal a “vaccine” that doesn’t act like traditional vaccine. Old vaccines simultaneously provided individual immunity and a barrier against the spread of infection. The COVID-19 shots do not all that well either. 

The COVID-19 shots are no infection barrier, especially among elders. Alberta Government statistics show comorbidities are a better predictor of infection than the absence of vaccination. For those older than 60 with pre-existing conditions, over the last 120 days the rate of infection is higher for vaccinated people than for the non-vaccinated. Among those aged 80-plus with pre-existing conditions, the vaccinated have acquired the virus at three times the rate of the unvaccinated. 

For all its risks and failures, the COVID-19 shot lowers the rate at which the infected end up in hospital or succumb to the illness. This is certainly good. But we should come clean on the abysmal infection result among the older cohorts, even among those with no comorbidities.

Medical bureaucrats, legacy media, and governments have made the pandemic out to be all about case numbers, and in this sense we continue to fail our elders despite the rhetoric about vaccination. Not surprisingly, instead of immunization or the risks, the debate has moved to how vaccines help avoid the harsher reactions to the virus.

The central question about how to exit the crisis, however, is this:  if everyone were vaccinated tomorrow, it’s clear now from existing data the spread of infection would not stop. Oscillating somewhere between 30 and 50%, those vaccinated still contract and spread the infection. Data from Israel show, and manufacturers now admit, the efficacy of the COVID-19 shot declines within months and the limited protection it offers may not last past six months.

The COVID-19 shot is not the promised silver bullet. Booster shots, we now hear, are the immediate and longer-term solution. But the rush impulse to give everyone boosters, already being indulged in the United States, bring us to significant ethical and practical problems.

In ethical terms, rich countries offering boosters further delays the first shot for half the planet’s population. The policy universalizes the Justin Trudeau approach: rob vaccines from the poor to give to the rich. 

On the practical side, more variants will arise in a world where half the population has not been “vaccinated” and in which a quarter to half the vaccinated can still transmit infection. The catalogue already includes more than 3,000 mutations of SARS-CoV-2, and there will be more. As the Brazil and India variants have shown, populous countries like Nigeria, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and so forth might, be ripe for generating more “variants of concern.”

These variants have great potential to find their way to Canada each time, challenging the efficacy of the shots and producing waves of new cases among vaccinated and unvaccinated. Given the speed at which medical bureaucrats make politicians panic, and given the speed at which healthcare systems are brought to the brink of collapse, new infection waves will push toward the only alternative leaders know: restrictions and lockdowns. 

All of this, let me repeat, has the potential to occur and likely will, even when every single person in Canada has been vaccinated. 

Therefore, a better exit strategy from leaders is needed than just relying on the limited ability of the vaccine. Failure to devise and implement such strategy will condemn us to live in a repeating cycle of clamping and reopening. It will continue to weaken economies, increase anxieties, family violence and mental health disorders, augment unemployment, keep deaths by overdose at rates as high or higher than we have had, continue school closures, bankruptcies, restrictions on elective and not-so-elective procedures for chronic and other diseases, and maintain the focus of fear on COVID-19 that has caused more death than the virus.  

As a result, it’s not people declining vaccination who are putting us in the gravest danger. It’s those who, perhaps fewer in numbers, continue to dream of, and push for, a global eradication of SARS-CoV-2. They drive the policies that subject us to lockdown cycles.

They are far more dangerous than the virus itself.

Marco Navarro-Genie a columnist for the Western Standard and is president of the Haultain Research Institute, a senior fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. With Barry Cooper, he is co-author of COVID-19: The Politics of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2020).

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

Recent Comments


Petition: No Media Bailouts

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

355 signatures

No Media Bailouts

The fourth estate is critical to a functioning democracy in holding the government to account. An objective media can't maintain editorial integrity when it accepts money from a government we expect it to be critical of.

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

**your signature**

The Western Standard will never accept government bailout money. By becoming a Western Standard member, you are supporting government bailout-free and proudly western media that is on your side. With your support, we can give Westerners a voice that doesn\'t need taxpayers money.

Share this with your friends:


Copyright © Western Standard New Media Corp.