Regardless of what the Carney government does, Alberta's Smith will use Ottawa as a foil to keep her position. And that means pushing the "Ottawa Bad" button and pushing Alberta is better outside of Canada, at least by inference.
"Alberta, in particular, needs to be brought into these conversations — not as a problem to be solved, but as a partner in addressing national challenges." But how do you bring in Premier Danielle Smith when her agenda appears to be heavily invested in divisive rhetoric to create chaos and multiple smoke screens in an attempt to deal with "allegations of corruption" against her government.
Hi. In my opinion you focus on bringing in Alberta and Albertans. If the Premier opts out, then you can be honest with the rest of Albertans that you tried and will continue to try and work. That allows Albertans to push their premier in the direction of cooperation. Jared points out and I agree, most Albertans want their governments to work together. For the common good.
Perhaps Smith doesn't/shouldn't speak for AB? It's still unclear what her motivation is - financial, removal of all regulation on O&G and any resource development?
I believe that, at the moment, Smith's motivation with all the rapid fire changes to voting, pension announcements, and the like is to put up smoke screens to distract from the health care scandal she and her minister of health created. As others here, I also wonder how one gets any Alberta Conservative let alone UCP cabinet ministers to buy into the kind of reforms that Jared says are necessary. Alberta Conservative voters have heard so much for so long how big bad Ottawa mistreats them. Getting them onside to rebuild the intergovernmental institutions. They and their Federal counterparts seem at odds with cooperative federalism. The problem will be getting Alberta conservatives on side with Smith and the CPC sniping at every move the Liberal government has and will make. Until we in Alberta get a level headed leader, I see little chance of the UCP or any conservative government getting on the Confederation Cooperation Bus.
I was part of a fractious debate on Bluesky this week prompted by a pundit suggesting giving attention to separatists, with the warning that the country could fracture without it. I resisted, because so much of what passes for grievance seems to amount to superficial issues inflamed for partisan advantage.
In that context this is a refreshing reminder that the grievances are real, but are more structural. Here’s hoping the newfound focus, drive and determination exhibited by the new PM will mark a beginning of such a shift.
One of ways in which you can bring in “recalcitrant” provinces into intergovernmental processes is to approach some issues bilaterally with the provinces around some very general pan-Canadian principles. This has been the practice in health care since 2017 where quite general pan-Canadian statements of priorities are backed up with relatively detailed bilateral agreements that start by recognizing where the provinces are in a particular area. It’s not a perfect approach and the health bilaterals still have a long way to go, but there is a framework there that, if refined and supported, could prove quite useful in other areas like climate goals.
The fly in the ointment that you haven't addressed is foreign interference from not just the U.S., but those states (and movements) clearly intent on disrupting Canadian federalism. I suggest that the Liberal government has to overcome that before it can meaningfully undertake the course of action you recommend. I don't need to tell you that politicians respond to perceptions of public opinion, and when the apparent public opinion is framed by malign interests, that will weigh heavily on any attempts to move in a more cooperative direction.
On the one hand it must be acknowledged that the UCP won the 2023 election, and with that, the right to speak for Alberta inter-provincially and internationally. On the other hand, this article fails to acknowledge that 44% of the population didn't vote UCP. The UCP also never campaigned on a separatist policy platform and actually has no mandate, no matter how artfully manipulated, to pursue and implement one. Effectively, post election they've pursued legislative actions that have taken them down the path of governing only for a rump faction of the Alberta population. That may or may not be successful for them in the 2027 or 2028 elections. So pursuing theses structural reforms as outlined is indeed a worthwhile idea, and one of the benefits of having these regular meetings at various levels would be to provide the feedback from other provinces that may burst the information bubble that many Alberta Conservatives live in. This is critical because many of the six demands that Smith makes amount to using Federal power to impose Alberta favourable developments on other provinces where they pose a huge environmental risk with little reward. Ending the oil tanker ban on Prince Rupert and developing Churchill Manitoba as an oil terminal are two of them. An oil pipeline across Quebec, which is far closer to the Kalamazoo pipeline break disaster than Albertans are, is another. Bluntly put, for all of its rage farming, Alberta needs the Feds far more than the Feds need Alberta. One may reach out to dialogue and negotiate with Conservatives in Alberta, but not lose sight of that fundamental case. Nor of the other half of Alberta that doesn't support them.
Whether the PM decides to shift to adult relationships, and whether Smith is wise enough to pick up an olive branch, will greatly define the next 28-48 months, oh plus that little annoyance in DC.
Danielle Smith wants power and money and is willing to go down the Project 2025 path and the separation path if she thinks doing that will give her and her friends money and power and control. Canada should NOT give up control over resource or climate change to someone who denies climate change and will ignore it and give her resources to people she thinks are friends, regardless of whether that is good for Canada.
Resource development mostly causes local impacts, both positive and negative, and should be managed locally. "Believing" in climate change is a distraction.
Regardless of what the Carney government does, Alberta's Smith will use Ottawa as a foil to keep her position. And that means pushing the "Ottawa Bad" button and pushing Alberta is better outside of Canada, at least by inference.
But, there is the rest of Canada: Elbows Up!!
"Alberta, in particular, needs to be brought into these conversations — not as a problem to be solved, but as a partner in addressing national challenges." But how do you bring in Premier Danielle Smith when her agenda appears to be heavily invested in divisive rhetoric to create chaos and multiple smoke screens in an attempt to deal with "allegations of corruption" against her government.
Hi. In my opinion you focus on bringing in Alberta and Albertans. If the Premier opts out, then you can be honest with the rest of Albertans that you tried and will continue to try and work. That allows Albertans to push their premier in the direction of cooperation. Jared points out and I agree, most Albertans want their governments to work together. For the common good.
That's it.
Perhaps Smith doesn't/shouldn't speak for AB? It's still unclear what her motivation is - financial, removal of all regulation on O&G and any resource development?
I believe that, at the moment, Smith's motivation with all the rapid fire changes to voting, pension announcements, and the like is to put up smoke screens to distract from the health care scandal she and her minister of health created. As others here, I also wonder how one gets any Alberta Conservative let alone UCP cabinet ministers to buy into the kind of reforms that Jared says are necessary. Alberta Conservative voters have heard so much for so long how big bad Ottawa mistreats them. Getting them onside to rebuild the intergovernmental institutions. They and their Federal counterparts seem at odds with cooperative federalism. The problem will be getting Alberta conservatives on side with Smith and the CPC sniping at every move the Liberal government has and will make. Until we in Alberta get a level headed leader, I see little chance of the UCP or any conservative government getting on the Confederation Cooperation Bus.
This is a really good piece…a very thoughtful prescription for moving forward.
I was part of a fractious debate on Bluesky this week prompted by a pundit suggesting giving attention to separatists, with the warning that the country could fracture without it. I resisted, because so much of what passes for grievance seems to amount to superficial issues inflamed for partisan advantage.
In that context this is a refreshing reminder that the grievances are real, but are more structural. Here’s hoping the newfound focus, drive and determination exhibited by the new PM will mark a beginning of such a shift.
One of ways in which you can bring in “recalcitrant” provinces into intergovernmental processes is to approach some issues bilaterally with the provinces around some very general pan-Canadian principles. This has been the practice in health care since 2017 where quite general pan-Canadian statements of priorities are backed up with relatively detailed bilateral agreements that start by recognizing where the provinces are in a particular area. It’s not a perfect approach and the health bilaterals still have a long way to go, but there is a framework there that, if refined and supported, could prove quite useful in other areas like climate goals.
The fly in the ointment that you haven't addressed is foreign interference from not just the U.S., but those states (and movements) clearly intent on disrupting Canadian federalism. I suggest that the Liberal government has to overcome that before it can meaningfully undertake the course of action you recommend. I don't need to tell you that politicians respond to perceptions of public opinion, and when the apparent public opinion is framed by malign interests, that will weigh heavily on any attempts to move in a more cooperative direction.
I agree but I think it should all be engaged at the same time. It is priority however. Fix the hole in the boat first.
On the one hand it must be acknowledged that the UCP won the 2023 election, and with that, the right to speak for Alberta inter-provincially and internationally. On the other hand, this article fails to acknowledge that 44% of the population didn't vote UCP. The UCP also never campaigned on a separatist policy platform and actually has no mandate, no matter how artfully manipulated, to pursue and implement one. Effectively, post election they've pursued legislative actions that have taken them down the path of governing only for a rump faction of the Alberta population. That may or may not be successful for them in the 2027 or 2028 elections. So pursuing theses structural reforms as outlined is indeed a worthwhile idea, and one of the benefits of having these regular meetings at various levels would be to provide the feedback from other provinces that may burst the information bubble that many Alberta Conservatives live in. This is critical because many of the six demands that Smith makes amount to using Federal power to impose Alberta favourable developments on other provinces where they pose a huge environmental risk with little reward. Ending the oil tanker ban on Prince Rupert and developing Churchill Manitoba as an oil terminal are two of them. An oil pipeline across Quebec, which is far closer to the Kalamazoo pipeline break disaster than Albertans are, is another. Bluntly put, for all of its rage farming, Alberta needs the Feds far more than the Feds need Alberta. One may reach out to dialogue and negotiate with Conservatives in Alberta, but not lose sight of that fundamental case. Nor of the other half of Alberta that doesn't support them.
I do hope the powers that be read your articles. Your opinions are spot on!
Whether the PM decides to shift to adult relationships, and whether Smith is wise enough to pick up an olive branch, will greatly define the next 28-48 months, oh plus that little annoyance in DC.
Guaranteed Carney will be there.
Are you proposing joint cabinet meetings as in a meeting of the federal cabinet with that of a province?
Yes. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2011.00173.x
Danielle Smith wants power and money and is willing to go down the Project 2025 path and the separation path if she thinks doing that will give her and her friends money and power and control. Canada should NOT give up control over resource or climate change to someone who denies climate change and will ignore it and give her resources to people she thinks are friends, regardless of whether that is good for Canada.
Resource development mostly causes local impacts, both positive and negative, and should be managed locally. "Believing" in climate change is a distraction.