For those of us more concerned with the interests of Alberta as distinct from those of Laurentian Canada, the recent news emanating from that place was not all bad.Let’s start with the silly stuff. Top of the list was the announcement by Pascale Déry, minister of higher education in Quebec, of changes in the funding formula for university students who lived beyond the borders of the province. Starting in 2024, fees for non-Quebec students would effectively double to around $17,000 a year.Because the English-language universities, Concordia, McGill and Bishop’s, attracted more non-Quebecers than, say Université du Québec à Rimouski, they would be most affected.Déry and Premier François Legault said the changes would end the terrible practice of having Quebec taxpayers subsidize anglophone students from outside Quebec — who are all rich, as Quebec mythology has maintained for several generations. Besides, they just come to Montreal or Lennoxville to go to school. Then they leave! Worse, they speak English! In Montreal! Can you believe it? Quel scandale!Legault said such behaviour “contributes to the decline of French in the province.” In fact, the data tell a different story. The 2021 census showed 94% of Quebecers speak French, up from 83% a couple of generations ago. The problem that agitates Monsieur Legault n’existe pas.The real economic reason is not because non-Quebecers are rich but because the government of Quebec is terrified to raise student tuition. The last time they tried it led to riots. So: squeeze the Anglais.That’s why French students, foreigners from la France, will not have to pay any increased tuition. Pourquoi pas? Well, my dear, they speak French. So do a lot of Canadians who live outside Quebec. But never mind.For normal persons, Legault’s decision looks like another skirmish in his version of the culture war being waged by the English against Quebec. It’s the battle of the Plains of Abraham all over again.So, here’s a modest proposal: increase the tuition for French-speaking Quebec students in Canada. At the University of Calgary, foreign students pay approximately four times what Canadians pay. Sounds about right for Quebec francophones. Oh yes, let’s add a quota too.A second story was nearly as silly. This was the response to the announcement that the Government of Alberta was seriously considering withdrawing from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and using the accumulated proceeds to create an Alberta Pension Plan (APP).Starting with the CPP Investment Board, charged with managing the Canadian pension scheme, the squawking began. The great problem was that Alberta, for perfectly obvious demographic and economic reasons, had hugely contributed to this 'national' plan but drew relatively few benefits. In a word, young productive Alberta workers were supporting older non-productive non-Albertans during their golden years.The Investment Board called this arrangement “one of the best examples of co-operative federalism.”A few economists got in on the act. Like the Investment Board, they didn’t like the implications of an APP, so they criticized the methodology of the LifeWorks report that provided the solid reasoning for Alberta’s concern. And, just for the record, a couple of decades ago, when I managed the Calgary office of the Fraser Institute, we commissioned a similar study with the same result: Alberta would be way better off outside the CPP.The final bit of silliness came from that well known comedian, Justin Trudeau, whose 'open letter' to Premier Smith warned of “undeniable” harm to Alberta if we left the CPP. He provided zero evidence. He did say that Canadians would be adversely affected and there he was arguably correct.He said nothing of how for a generation Albertans had been ripped off and that retribution visited upon non-Albertans was also called justice.The meaning of these Laurentian complaints is obvious: Alberta now has a way of fighting back against a long train of abuse and the Laurentians don’t like it one bit.A third story was slightly more serious, the reference decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the No-More-Pipelines Act, also known as the Impact Assessment Act (IAA).In a 5-2 split decision, the Court ruled that the IAA was “in part” unconstitutional because it “overstepped the mark” of federal jurisdiction, as Chief Justice Wagner, who wrote the majority decision, put it. The two dissenting justices, both Laurentians, thought the entire Act was within the jurisdiction of Parliament.Premier Smith and former premier Jason Kenney were both pleased with the decision.The grounds for the Court’s decision were essentially that what the IAA called “designated projects” was too broad and that giving responsibility to the federal minister and to federal bureaucrats to decide whether such projects were in line with Ottawa’s priorities was also too broad.Before Albertans rejoice in the thought that the Supreme Court had finally seen the error of its previous decisions, such as the decision on the carbon tax, a few additional factors need to be considered.First, this was the third or fourth federal impact assessment. Each of them has grown wider in scope. The early ones dealt entirely with the environment, which is a shared federal-provincial jurisdiction. The last one considered several 'impacts' that were only notionally connected to the environment, such as the federal ability to regulate the harvest of mallards.Second, it was a reference case that resulted in an advisory opinion by the Supremes on another advisory opinion by the Alberta Court of Appeal. The No-Pipelines-Act is still on the books, which is why Steven Guilbeault said it would not be repealed but only “aligned” with the Court’s decision. This is also why Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz said that Steven just wasn’t listening. “Ottawa still doesn’t get it,” she said.Third, Chief Justice Wagner allowed that environmental protection was one of the most pressing challenges facing governments today; the minority said the future of “humanity as a whole” was at stake in getting environmental regulation right. In other words, the entire Supreme Court is in the grip of a panic over an alleged environmental crisis the existence of which is far outside their competence to judge.Fourth, Chief Justice Wagner praised the Court’s “flexible approach to federalism” and said he expected Parliament and the provincial legislatures to exercise their powers “in the spirit of cooperative federalism.” Like the Investment Board of the CPP, “co-operative federalism” meant doing what Ottawa says. The minority opinion was even more bizarre. They assumed, in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, “that legislators enact laws with a good-faith intent to stay within the limits of their jurisdiction.”Alberta Environment Minister Schulz sensed something was amiss when she observed refusing to repeal the law added to the confusion regarding the effects of impact regulation.She was unquestionably correct. But suppose that was the intention from the start?The Government of Canada has many times declared their intention to destroy the economy of Alberta. They are acting in 'good faith' regarding that objective. But it is naïve to the point of stupidity to think the No-Pipelines-Act was ever drafted in good faith.
