Being a fan of the Alberta premier, I was encouraged by her strident remarks related to Equalization payments at recent town halls in Fort McMurray and Lloydminster. My wife could hear me shouting “Bully! Bully!” at my computer as I listened to the clips of her responding to audience questions. Straight talk, finally.Now there is the small matter of direct action flowing from the straight talk. What are you going to do about it, Madam Premier? Your own comments indict you. “$600 billion dollars in the last 40 to 50 years that have been taken out of this province. You don’t think we might be able to do a bit more on social spending?”.LYTLE: Elbows up Mr. Carney.Given that the dollar value is so high and the length of time so long, one might reasonably expect something beyond angry words. Don’t get me wrong. I love the angry words. But I would also like access to the $5000 of my money that is subsidizing Quebec. And I would like it sooner rather than later. And that requires action, now.When I regularly solve the world’s problems over coffee with friends, I am often told, “Well, the government is constrained by the constitution.”That may or may not be true. Does Section 36(2) spell out with specificity the Equalization formula? That subsection says as much about taxation levels as it does about comparable levels of public services. We don’t know about the constitutionality of today’s Equalization formula because tests of it have not reached the Supreme Court. .In case you are listening, Madam Premier, perhaps a good reference question would be, “Can a province receive Equalization payments if it refuses to develop its own resources, thus losing internally generated tax revenue?"Looked at another way, when Mr. Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act (and a host of other legislation), did he consider the constitutional implications of his actions? Apparently not because those actions were subsequently judged to be unconstitutional. The Federal court ruling on the Emergencies Act is now under appeal to the Supreme Court, and it will be another year before they rule. So, it will have been five years between the declaration of the Emergencies Act and a final ruling of its constitutionality. Regardless of the court’s opinion, Mr. Trudeau won..DUCKWORTH: Think big or get left behind: The West’s moment to redefine its destiny.The Alberta government will undoubtedly provoke a court action if it unilaterally collects federal taxes and then renders those taxes to the federal government based on an average provincial, pro rata payment. The legal case will center on the constitutionality of the Equalization formula, and no one, at this time, knows how the court will decide. But, as it considers its decision, Alberta will be collecting its $25 billion per year, and I might see some of my $5,000 share. If, like the Emergencies Act, the court decision takes five years, we will be $125 billion richer, and the federal government will be considerably chastened. .Who knows what sort of negotiating leverage Alberta will gain simply by using the constitution as it has been designed to resolve such conflicts. In full disclosure, I am partial to an independence vote to resolve the Equalization issue, but a vote to pursue independence and a court case over Equalization are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Madam Premier, given your preference for remaining within confederation, you could become Mr. Carney’s bestie by taking him to court. If the court action results in a rethink of Equalization, the wind will be taken from the sails of independence, and Canada might remain unified, strong, and free, or unified at least. .MINDERHOUD: When conservatives concede the classroom to gender identity warriors.Therefore, I look forward to hearing your plan to take full control of the Alberta economy by collecting and then remitting federal taxes according to Alberta’s Equalization formula.Your words are thrilling. Now, close the deal.
