Apparently, "Canada Strong" requires Alberta quiet.
Mr. Carney, put the taxpayer-funded Normandy butter cups down for a minute.
You told Albertans not to be fooled into thinking they could send a message with their vote. What the hell do you think your party was afraid of when it replaced Justin Trudeau with you? A strongly worded casserole?
The Liberals understood unhappy voters perfectly well when their own jobs were involved. But Albertans want Ottawa to hear something unpleasant, and suddenly the electorate requires your particular brand of patriarchal supervision, complete with dangerously divisive sermons and speeches on national unity. You didn’t even look convinced of your own words.
Then you told them to say no to the nine. Nine different questions… one blanket rejection. Seems lazy and irresponsible to me. 🤔
There are ten questions overall. The first nine concern immigration powers, eligibility for provincial services, citizenship documents for voting and constitutional reforms. The tenth separately asks whether Alberta should remain a province or pursue the legal process toward a future binding separation referendum.
They are not ten different ways of asking whether somebody hates Canada. An Albertan can oppose separation and still support changing how the province operates inside Confederation. Surely a prime minister understands that distinction. Which makes your blanket rejection considerably more insulting.
Take the first question. Alberta is asking whether it should pursue greater immigration control, reduce immigration to sustainable levels, prioritize economic immigration and give Albertans first priority for new employment opportunities.
And you want them to vote no? To the entire proposal? What, exactly, is so objectionable about Alberta wanting immigration matched to what the province can accommodate?
Quebec already negotiated broader responsibility for selecting economic immigrants destined for its province. Alberta has a nominee program, but it does not have Quebec’s wider selection authority. So essentially, Quebec gets an agreement, but Alberta gets a slogan telling it to reject pursuing greater control. Justify that little arrangement Mark.
My argument is with Ottawa and the political leadership securing these deals, not ordinary Quebec households trying to pay their bills. Quebec’s government obtained powers reflecting its priorities. Alberta is entitled to pursue its own. You cannot keep presenting Quebec’s distinct circumstances as grounds for accommodation while treating Alberta’s circumstances as something a sufficiently patriotic speech should dissolve.
Give one child the keys and tell the other to demonstrate family loyalty by remaining on the porch, and eventually supper gets uncomfortable. Anybody with more than one kid could have explained this before you booked the rally.
Frankly, I would prefer federal politicians stayed out of campaigning on Alberta’s ballot altogether. That includes Pierre Poilievre. Have your opinions. Explain your responsibilities where federal powers are involved. But stop turning a provincial decision into another production starring the federal party leaders.
Albertans cast these ballots. They should not have to fight through a travelling federal campaign to have a conversation about their own province.
And question five? It asks whether voters should have to produce documents proving Canadian citizenship. Citizenship is already required; the proposal concerns proving it. Permanent residence, a study permit or a temporary work permit does not confer the right to vote in Alberta’s election.
I support requiring proof. A Canadian address establishes where somebody lives. It does not, by itself, establish citizenship. Yet your sweeping instruction tells voters to reject that proposal too. Nine separate decisions reduced to one obedience exercise. Saves you the inconvenience of discussing them individually, I suppose.
Your own election platform acknowledged that immigration had grown unsustainably and housing and public services could not absorb the numbers. Recently, you discussed when to resume a controlled population increase, while your government continues promoting targeted recruitment and international talent partnerships.
So you recognize that immigration needs managing and selecting at the federal level. Why should Alberta reject seeking a stronger role in managing its share? “Targeted” cannot be sensible when it comes out of your mouth and objectionable merely because Alberta wants a hand in choosing the target.
Meanwhile, Blacklock’s Reporter reported on October 15 that your housing department had quietly dropped its minimum 500,000 annual housing-starts target and was moving away from housing-unit counts. Where are people supposed to live, Mark? Is the next housing announcement an igloo-building course? Saskatchewan summers might complicate the warranty.
“Targeted immigration” does not make a new house spring up at the end of the street. More arrivals still need places to live, children still need school spaces, and patients still need doctors. Albertans are entitled to want greater control over those pressures. They have noticed that a press release does not pay the rent.
If you oppose particular proposals, argue against those proposals. Don’t shovel nine different questions into the separation argument and expect everyone to swallow the lot. An Albertan can love Canada, want greater immigration control and support citizenship verification. Those positions do not contradict one another. Your slogan bulldozes over the distinctions.
And that is what pisses me off: the audacity of arriving in a province with real grievances, prescribing nine rejections, and warning people against thinking their votes can send a message.
Just who the hell do you think you are? You are the prime minister. You are supposed to answer the people, not act irritated that they have found a way to ask. And if Saskatchewan eventually pursues similar changes, is this what we can expect? Another federal lecture telling us which provincial concerns to set aside for the greater convenience of Ottawa?
Absolutely not! Not in any universe at any time! Whatever today’s result, Alberta’s concerns will still exist tomorrow. Remaining Canadian would not mean everything is fine. Pursuing another referendum would not make the complaints disappear either.
People can send a message with their vote, Mr. Carney. Damn right they can! The problem is that you want their complacent agreement considerably more than you want to hear their answer.
- Melanie in Saskatchewan
🔷️
🙏🏻 While I have you here, please sign my petition demanding Canadians have a vote before any EU membership or association agreement, with costs and obligations disclosed upfront. Whatever your political stripe, we all have to live with the outcome. We should all have a say. Already signed? Please share it and help reach those who haven’t.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7823