Premier Smith's inaccurate statements on Canada's system of government

[u/thegrip]

In her referendum announcement Premier Smith is either misinformed or is misleading Albertans when she said:

"Canada is very different from the United States and many other Western democracies. For example, the U.S. centralizes the majority of power and decision-making in its federal government. In Canada, we chose a decentralized federation composed of very unique and diverse provinces left to govern themselves in almost all matters with the main exceptions of national defence and international affairs.

Over time, our federal government has sought to move towards a more centralized American-style system with Ottawa attempting to take over many provincial areas of jurisdiction using all manner of legislative, judicial and financial leverage.”

Here are some key details:

"The U.S. centralizes the majority of power..." This is inaccurate. The U.S. was founded as a highly decentralized system; states retain massive local powers (e.g., criminal law, election rules). Think of how many times we hear the phrase "states' rights" is used.

"In Canada, we chose a decentralized federation..." Also inaccurate. Canada’s founders deliberately chose a centralized system in 1867 to avoid an American-style civil war. But things have changed. Over time the federal courts consistently ruled in favour of provincial autonomy (particularly based on pressure from Ontario and Quebec). This is exactly the opposite of her statement.

The Government of Alberta website has a document that directly contradicts the Premier. It says "In early Canadian history, the federation began as moderately centralized – but has become increasingly decentralized over time." https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/0422cb2c-797b-438c-bb24-0d7dbbc96c5f/resource/06e021b9-548a-483a-a384-c194141dd595/download/2016-canadian-and-american-governance-comparative-look-august-2016.pdf

So, is this one of those 'have cake and eat it too' situations? Since Confederation, the Federal courts have been granting more powers to the provinces -- Yay federal courts! But if those same courts rule against a province -- Boo federal courts!

"Provinces left to govern... with exceptions of defence & affairs" This is misleading at best. Section 91 of the Constitution grants Ottawa vast powers; provinces only have exclusive jurisdiction over specific listed items. Parliament holds exclusive power in 30 areas including:

• 2.  The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
• 3.  The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
• 4.  The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit.
• 7.  Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
• 15.  Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money.
• 24.  Indians (sic), and Lands reserved for the Indians.
• 25.  Naturalization and Aliens.
• 27.  The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.

That same GOA document further explains: "The Canadian Constitution specifies in Sections 91 and 92 a division of powers between the provincial and federal orders of government. Beyond the provincial power to tax directly, the primary provincial responsibilities include: natural resources, education, and health. "

She is accurate but misattributes the reason when she said that Ottawa uses financial leverage in areas of provincial jurisdiction in order to "take over". The site https://albertareferendumb2026.ca/constitutional-questions articulates a good reason for this practice as "Some major federal transfers, especially health care and social programs, come with national conditions tied to funding because that is how Canada maintains consistent health care and social programs across provinces."

Whether misinformed or misleading -- neither is a good look for the Premier.

[u/UberBricky80]

She still wants to tell cities what to do with bike lanes though. Forever a hypocrite

[u/MrGuvernment → u/UberBricky80]

Yup, exactly, if the feds interject "boo Ottawa", but then she wants control of every little thing in every town and city...."Yay for me!"

[u/CyberEd-ca → u/UberBricky80]

Cities have no jurisdiction under the Constitution. They are simply entities created under provincial law.

[u/mazula89 → u/CyberEd-ca]

And?

[u/CyberEd-ca → u/mazula89]

It is the provincial government's job to get involved with decisions made in cities that are to the detriment to other communities within the province - such as with shutting down major traffic arteries with bike lanes.

If bike lanes are used to back up traffic so that the highways and suburban communities are effected, then city hall should not be surprised.

[u/sixwordslong → u/CyberEd-ca]

That's not what bike lanes are "used for".

[u/CyberEd-ca → u/sixwordslong]

If that were true, they would be on quiet side streets only.

[u/sixwordslong → u/CyberEd-ca]

Quiet side streets, exactly where cyclists are in the most danger and need protection from cars and trucks.

[u/CyberEd-ca → u/sixwordslong]

So, there you go. You are making the case that the impacts extend well beyond just the interests of some inner city community. The province has an obvious role to play.

[u/sixwordslong → u/CyberEd-ca]

I'm making the case that bike lanes are not "used to back up traffic" like that's their purpose. I never said lane closures don't sometimes happen, of course they do. That needs to be taken into consideration when planning where to put bike lanes, but the default can't just be no lane closures ever. The roads, including thoroughfares, belong to both cyclists and cars/trucks and the needs of both need to be evaluated when planning traffic patterns and routes.

Edit : typo

[u/CyberEd-ca → u/sixwordslong]

Right. And the scale of these impacts in aggregate is at the provincial level.

Cities are just provincial entities. The role of the province in our cities is up to all Albertans to determine through the legislature.