Kelly McParland: How decades of Liberal indifference created Danielle Smith
- Thread starter The_Foxer
- Start date
Which is exactly what she has stated. If it's in the Charter, fine but if Ottawa is "dictating" to the Provinces and it's not in Federal jurisdiction, then no, Alberta would not necessarily follow along because the Feds wouldn't have the right to impose restrictions that are only for Provinces to make. That's the point I was trying to make, (poorly).
Exactly! So whatever is NOT in the Act is NOT under Federal Jurisdiction - it belongs to the Provinces!
Diane Francis: Danielle Smith a much-needed counterbalance to Ottawa's excesses — Financial Post
A new power-sharing deal in Canada is long overdue
Rex Murphy: Danielle Smith isn't threatening our Confederation. She may be saving it — National Post
The only thing I can find wrong about the new Alberta premier's approach is how long it took to be undertaken
Alberta's new premier puts Ottawa on 'notice,' vows to defend provincial control of oil and gas — Financial Post
'Get tough with Ottawa' message comes as Saskatchewan gears up for similar battle over natural resources
'Defending Saskatchewan': Moe prepared to take legal actions over pollution laws — The Canadian Press
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe says he's prepared to take legal action over federal regulations on pollution.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith softens stand on proposed sovereignty act, says she would respect Supreme Court decisions — The Globe and Mail
New Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says unvaccinated people are ‘the most discriminated against group that I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime’
Michael Taube: The Karens come for Danielle Smith — National Post
The attacks against Alberta's new premier are similar to those endured by Ontario's Doug Ford four years ago
Murray Mandryk: Moe's western grievances sound like what we've heard from Quebec — Leader Post
There's no longer much of a political price to be paid for being little more than a regionalist who's uncompromising or a little irrational.
Opinion: Is Canadian federalism unravelling? — Montreal Gazette
Two recent election results could have a negative impact on the already fractious constitutional order in this country.
Trudeau’s aggressive federalism may leave Ottawa weaker than before
It may be Justin Trudeau’s most ironic legacy if his aggressive federalism ends up leaving Ottawa weaker than when he arrived in 2015
www.theglobeandmail.com
When Stephen Harper was prime minister, he practised passive federalism. Ottawa raised revenue and sent money to the provinces to help fund health care, education and other services. It did not try to impose programs or standards or taxes on provincial governments without their consent.
After a decade of Mr. Harper’s Conservative rule, the last separatist Parti Québécois government had come and gone in Quebec, at least for the foreseeable future. At the federal level, the separatist Bloc Québécois was virtually extinct, and after a contretemps with Newfoundland and Labrador premier Danny Williams that eventually blew over, Ottawa and the provinces were at peace – something not seen since the 1950s.
But Mr. Trudeau, when he became Prime Minister in 2015, wanted to “get things done.” And he wasn’t prepared to waste time seeking provincial consent. Aggressive federalism.
Things began well, with the Prime Minister and then-finance minister Bill Morneau convincing the premiers to increase Canada Pension Plan premiums to enhance the program.
Seas got stormier when the Trudeau Liberals promised additional funding for health care, but only if provincial governments agreed to improve the quality of mental-health services and home care. It took a while, but all provinces eventually agreed, some more reluctantly than others.
Then Ottawa demanded that the provinces impose some form of carbon tax to fight climate change. Those that refused had the tax imposed on them. This infuriated the premiers in Ontario and the Prairies.
In an effort to show Ottawa was not completely opposed to further developing the oil sands, the Liberals nationalized and forced through the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which angered British Columbia’s government.
The latest federal-provincial agreement involves subsidized child care, and there is a new dental program for children in low-income families that Ottawa is funding on its own.
Progressives across the country have every reason to support the Trudeau government’s record of new social and environmental programs. With more action coming on housing, what’s not to like?
Setting aside the fact these programs have contributed to record deficits and increased government debt, there is the cost to national unity. Aggressive federalism takes its toll.
Quebec is effectively self-governing. After almost voting to leave the country in 1995, the province has demanded and been given a broad range of powers by both Conservative and Liberal governments.
It now invokes the constitution’s notwithstanding clause at the drop of a hat to protect its cultural and language legislation. Premier François Legault’s Coalition Avenir Quebec, fresh off another election win, is demanding increased control over immigration. Quebec will get it, eventually, under this or another prime minister.
When Mr. Trudeau came to power seven years ago, the sovereigntist Bloc Québécois held 10 seats in the House of Commons. They now hold 32 of Quebec’s 78 seats. Mr. Trudeau pushed provinces on social and environmental programs; Quebec voters pushed back.
Albertans are so angry at Ottawa that premier-designate Danielle Smith is promising to introduce a sovereignty act, which would effectively nullify federal legislation in areas of the province’s jurisdiction.
It sounds wildly unconstitutional, and the NDP will probably scrap the new law if it comes to power after next year’s election. But Central Canadians should ask themselves how much responsibility they bear for supporting a Liberal government that makes Westerners this angry. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe is only one step behind Alberta in demandingautonomy for his province.
“There may have not been a formal declaration, but make no mistake: Saskatchewan is at war with Ottawa,” historian Bill Waiser wrote in The Globe and Mail in August.
The only good news for Mr. Trudeau is that Ontario Premier Doug Ford has toned things down. But that province has joined with others in demanding the same control over immigration that Quebec enjoys.
It may be Justin Trudeau’s most ironic legacy if his aggressive federalism ends up leaving Ottawa weaker than when he arrived.
One more for ya.
Diane Francis: Danielle Smith a much-needed counterbalance to Ottawa's excesses — Financial Post
A new power-sharing deal in Canada is long overdueapple.news
Rex Murphy: Danielle Smith isn't threatening our Confederation. She may be saving it — National Post
The only thing I can find wrong about the new Alberta premier's approach is how long it took to be undertaken
Alberta's new premier puts Ottawa on 'notice,' vows to defend provincial control of oil and gas — Financial Post
'Get tough with Ottawa' message comes as Saskatchewan gears up for similar battle over natural resources
'Defending Saskatchewan': Moe prepared to take legal actions over pollution laws — The Canadian Press
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe says he's prepared to take legal action over federal regulations on pollution.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith softens stand on proposed sovereignty act, says she would respect Supreme Court decisions — The Globe and Mail
New Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says unvaccinated people are ‘the most discriminated against group that I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime’
Michael Taube: The Karens come for Danielle Smith — National Post
The attacks against Alberta's new premier are similar to those endured by Ontario's Doug Ford four years ago
Murray Mandryk: Moe's western grievances sound like what we've heard from Quebec — Leader Post
There's no longer much of a political price to be paid for being little more than a regionalist who's uncompromising or a little irrational.
Opinion: Is Canadian federalism unravelling? — Montreal Gazette
Two recent election results could have a negative impact on the already fractious constitutional order in this country.Canada is dangerously divided. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s aggressive federalism is to blame.Trudeau’s aggressive federalism may leave Ottawa weaker than before
It may be Justin Trudeau’s most ironic legacy if his aggressive federalism ends up leaving Ottawa weaker than when he arrived in 2015
When Stephen Harper was prime minister, he practised passive federalism. Ottawa raised revenue and sent money to the provinces to help fund health care, education and other services. It did not try to impose programs or standards or taxes on provincial governments without their consent.
After a decade of Mr. Harper’s Conservative rule, the last separatist Parti Québécois government had come and gone in Quebec, at least for the foreseeable future. At the federal level, the separatist Bloc Québécois was virtually extinct, and after a contretemps with Newfoundland and Labrador premier Danny Williams that eventually blew over, Ottawa and the provinces were at peace – something not seen since the 1950s.
But Mr. Trudeau, when he became Prime Minister in 2015, wanted to “get things done.” And he wasn’t prepared to waste time seeking provincial consent. Aggressive federalism.
Things began well, with the Prime Minister and then-finance minister Bill Morneau convincing the premiers to increase Canada Pension Plan premiums to enhance the program.
Seas got stormier when the Trudeau Liberals promised additional funding for health care, but only if provincial governments agreed to improve the quality of mental-health services and home care. It took a while, but all provinces eventually agreed, some more reluctantly than others.
Then Ottawa demanded that the provinces impose some form of carbon tax to fight climate change. Those that refused had the tax imposed on them. This infuriated the premiers in Ontario and the Prairies.
In an effort to show Ottawa was not completely opposed to further developing the oil sands, the Liberals nationalized and forced through the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which angered British Columbia’s government.
The latest federal-provincial agreement involves subsidized child care, and there is a new dental program for children in low-income families that Ottawa is funding on its own.
Progressives across the country have every reason to support the Trudeau government’s record of new social and environmental programs. With more action coming on housing, what’s not to like?
Setting aside the fact these programs have contributed to record deficits and increased government debt, there is the cost to national unity. Aggressive federalism takes its toll.
Quebec is effectively self-governing. After almost voting to leave the country in 1995, the province has demanded and been given a broad range of powers by both Conservative and Liberal governments.
It now invokes the constitution’s notwithstanding clause at the drop of a hat to protect its cultural and language legislation. Premier François Legault’s Coalition Avenir Quebec, fresh off another election win, is demanding increased control over immigration. Quebec will get it, eventually, under this or another prime minister.
When Mr. Trudeau came to power seven years ago, the sovereigntist Bloc Québécois held 10 seats in the House of Commons. They now hold 32 of Quebec’s 78 seats. Mr. Trudeau pushed provinces on social and environmental programs; Quebec voters pushed back.
Albertans are so angry at Ottawa that premier-designate Danielle Smith is promising to introduce a sovereignty act, which would effectively nullify federal legislation in areas of the province’s jurisdiction.
It sounds wildly unconstitutional, and the NDP will probably scrap the new law if it comes to power after next year’s election. But Central Canadians should ask themselves how much responsibility they bear for supporting a Liberal government that makes Westerners this angry. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe is only one step behind Alberta in demandingautonomy for his province.
“There may have not been a formal declaration, but make no mistake: Saskatchewan is at war with Ottawa,” historian Bill Waiser wrote in The Globe and Mail in August.
The only good news for Mr. Trudeau is that Ontario Premier Doug Ford has toned things down. But that province has joined with others in demanding the same control over immigration that Quebec enjoys.
It may be Justin Trudeau’s most ironic legacy if his aggressive federalism ends up leaving Ottawa weaker than when he arrived.
Moe says federal climate policies could cost Saskatchewan $111 billion by 2035
Federal climate policies could cost Saskatchewan's economy more than $100 billion by 2035, according to Premie...
www.ckom.com
you can only push so long and so hard until someone starts pushing back .
I have some very good news for you, Danielle Smith: over here in Toronto, the centre of the universe, your recent legislation — the Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada act — is being rebuked, dismissed and ridiculed.
In the Toronto Star — that fountain of sensitivity and social justice — Toronto-based columnist Andrew Phillips suggested that you look like you’re “flailing around like a bad drunk in a bar,” and that your bill “isn’t a serious law.”
This is the language of raw insult, normally reserved for the darker sewers of anonymous Twitter postings. But what you must understand, Premier Smith, is that you are the Premier of Alberta, a province of rednecks, truck drivers and oil workers (all most unsavoury types) and as seen from the cloud-capping top of the CN Tower, Alberta is an outland of rustic hicks — and thereby the approved target of rude language and calculated insults.
Also, of course, Alberta is not Quebec. If that were the case, legislation securing your economy from the manic impulses of the global warming fanatics in the Liberal government would be seen as a courageous rebuttal of federal interference in the affairs of a “distinct society.”
I have other good news for you, Premier Smith: NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh — he who rides two horses: Twitter Singh, who deplores the Trudeau Liberals; and actual Singh, enabler, protector and guarantor of whatever Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wants — is also deeply disturbed by your legislation.
apple.news
There are quite a number of people tuned in to the mood and thinking of Albertans, and for that matter the state of their collective eyebrows. Yet Trudeau and most of the federal cabinet are, emphatically, not among them. Politically speaking, to this bunch, Alberta (and Saskatchewan, for that matter) is terra incognita — an unknown land.
And on the subject of Smith’s groundbreaking legislative initiative, the prime minister went further, saying that while he was not “looking for a fight” (something usually said in the prelude to a fight), he was “not going to take anything off the table.”
In the Toronto Star — that fountain of sensitivity and social justice — Toronto-based columnist Andrew Phillips suggested that you look like you’re “flailing around like a bad drunk in a bar,” and that your bill “isn’t a serious law.”
This is the language of raw insult, normally reserved for the darker sewers of anonymous Twitter postings. But what you must understand, Premier Smith, is that you are the Premier of Alberta, a province of rednecks, truck drivers and oil workers (all most unsavoury types) and as seen from the cloud-capping top of the CN Tower, Alberta is an outland of rustic hicks — and thereby the approved target of rude language and calculated insults.
Also, of course, Alberta is not Quebec. If that were the case, legislation securing your economy from the manic impulses of the global warming fanatics in the Liberal government would be seen as a courageous rebuttal of federal interference in the affairs of a “distinct society.”
I have other good news for you, Premier Smith: NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh — he who rides two horses: Twitter Singh, who deplores the Trudeau Liberals; and actual Singh, enabler, protector and guarantor of whatever Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wants — is also deeply disturbed by your legislation.
Rex Murphy: When Trudeau, Singh and the Toronto media are all against Danielle Smith, you know she must be doing something right — National Post
In one fell swoop, the premier has managed to incite the ire of Canada's liberal elite
There are quite a number of people tuned in to the mood and thinking of Albertans, and for that matter the state of their collective eyebrows. Yet Trudeau and most of the federal cabinet are, emphatically, not among them. Politically speaking, to this bunch, Alberta (and Saskatchewan, for that matter) is terra incognita — an unknown land.
And on the subject of Smith’s groundbreaking legislative initiative, the prime minister went further, saying that while he was not “looking for a fight” (something usually said in the prelude to a fight), he was “not going to take anything off the table.”
Rex is not the writer he once was in his old age. He often rambles for ages without really settling on a point or leading the reader to any kind of conclusion.
He spent a lot of time just repeating himself there. The entire article could have been "Justin doesn't like it, Jagmeet doesn't like it, and ontario doesn't. And all three consider themselves above you". There - i just rewrote the whole thing without leaving any important details out.
Obviously Alberta intends to use the new 'act' as a cudgel to beat ottawa over the head with for policies it doesn't feel are in alberta's best interest. And that's fine.
He spent a lot of time just repeating himself there. The entire article could have been "Justin doesn't like it, Jagmeet doesn't like it, and ontario doesn't. And all three consider themselves above you". There - i just rewrote the whole thing without leaving any important details out.
Obviously Alberta intends to use the new 'act' as a cudgel to beat ottawa over the head with for policies it doesn't feel are in alberta's best interest. And that's fine.
Just wondering why anyone not bunkered in OntariOWE should give a flyin fukk what some jerkoff in Toronto thinks?I have some very good news for you, Danielle Smith: over here in Toronto, the centre of the universe, your recent legislation — the Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada act — is being rebuked, dismissed and ridiculed.
In the Toronto Star — that fountain of sensitivity and social justice — Toronto-based columnist Andrew Phillips suggested that you look like you’re “flailing around like a bad drunk in a bar,” and that your bill “isn’t a serious law.”
This is the language of raw insult, normally reserved for the darker sewers of anonymous Twitter postings. But what you must understand, Premier Smith, is that you are the Premier of Alberta, a province of rednecks, truck drivers and oil workers (all most unsavoury types) and as seen from the cloud-capping top of the CN Tower, Alberta is an outland of rustic hicks — and thereby the approved target of rude language and calculated insults.
Also, of course, Alberta is not Quebec. If that were the case, legislation securing your economy from the manic impulses of the global warming fanatics in the Liberal government would be seen as a courageous rebuttal of federal interference in the affairs of a “distinct society.”
I have other good news for you, Premier Smith: NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh — he who rides two horses: Twitter Singh, who deplores the Trudeau Liberals; and actual Singh, enabler, protector and guarantor of whatever Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wants — is also deeply disturbed by your legislation.
Rex Murphy: When Trudeau, Singh and the Toronto media are all against Danielle Smith, you know she must be doing something right — National Post
In one fell swoop, the premier has managed to incite the ire of Canada's liberal elite
There are quite a number of people tuned in to the mood and thinking of Albertans, and for that matter the state of their collective eyebrows. Yet Trudeau and most of the federal cabinet are, emphatically, not among them. Politically speaking, to this bunch, Alberta (and Saskatchewan, for that matter) is terra incognita — an unknown land.
And on the subject of Smith’s groundbreaking legislative initiative, the prime minister went further, saying that while he was not “looking for a fight” (something usually said in the prelude to a fight), he was “not going to take anything off the table.”
Because the jerkoffs in ontario control about 36 % pf the federal seats in Canada.
That is a large part of the problem. Large rural ridings do not get the same power in government as small city ridings.
Here are five things you need to know about the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act.
1. The act will work by a motion in the legislature
Under the act, a legislator will introduce a motion saying a federal policy is unconstitutional or harmful to Alberta. If the motion passes, it will make recommendations to cabinet on how to fight back. It will be up to cabinet on how to proceed.
2. Cabinet will be able to direct various provincial entities
This will include municipalities, provincial agencies and groups tasked with administering provincial programs. It could also include school boards and hospitals.
They could be told how to enforce — or not to enforce — federal laws.
3. The UCP government already has ideas on what to use it against
The government says it could be used in the case of Bill C-69;
the federal government’s firearms buyback; planned fertilizer emissions reductions; strings-attached health-care funding.
But, so far, it’s unclear how it could be used in these situations.
4. It won’t apply to court cases
Early talk about the Sovereignty Act suggested it would empower the Alberta government to ignore court rulings, but Premier Danielle Smith’s people had rejected that idea. The government now says it will respect court decisions.
5. It gives the cabinet unilateral powers to amend legislation
If the motion passes in legislature debate, cabinet will be able to amend legislation on its own. But the government has tried to argue these amendments will be debated.
apple.news
1. The act will work by a motion in the legislature
Under the act, a legislator will introduce a motion saying a federal policy is unconstitutional or harmful to Alberta. If the motion passes, it will make recommendations to cabinet on how to fight back. It will be up to cabinet on how to proceed.
2. Cabinet will be able to direct various provincial entities
This will include municipalities, provincial agencies and groups tasked with administering provincial programs. It could also include school boards and hospitals.
They could be told how to enforce — or not to enforce — federal laws.
3. The UCP government already has ideas on what to use it against
The government says it could be used in the case of Bill C-69;
the federal government’s firearms buyback; planned fertilizer emissions reductions; strings-attached health-care funding.
But, so far, it’s unclear how it could be used in these situations.
4. It won’t apply to court cases
Early talk about the Sovereignty Act suggested it would empower the Alberta government to ignore court rulings, but Premier Danielle Smith’s people had rejected that idea. The government now says it will respect court decisions.
5. It gives the cabinet unilateral powers to amend legislation
If the motion passes in legislature debate, cabinet will be able to amend legislation on its own. But the government has tried to argue these amendments will be debated.
Five things to know about the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act — National Post
Much remains unknown about Danielle Smith's controversial act, including whether it is constitutional
Well, geographically large but population wise about the same. But yes that is a bit of the problem. But that is the problem with democracy at the best of times - democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. It's the tyranny of the majority. The bigger population is always going to push aside the smaller one.
We try to compensate for that by having our constitution, a party system, and in theory the senate was supposed to help with that too (but doesn't really in it's current form).
But - that's what we've got to live with unfortunately. "Democracy is a horrible system for governing people, with it's sole redeeming quality being that it's better than any of the others".
Here's the interesting thing. The courts have long ruled that the provinces are under no obligation to enforce a federal law. Like... none. They cannot lawfully get in the way of it but they don't have to enforce it.
SO if a province has a tight grip on it's police force and its various institutions, they could very well instruct their people not to enforce any federal law and still remain within the constitution. That wouldn't make it impossible for ottawa to enforce it but it might very well make it very difficult or awkward. Which is largely what the bill is about i suspect - a way to visibly protest laws they don't approve of.
Interesting, but we’ve recently seen how things like this can selectively be enforced or dismissed or “ interpreted more broadly” at the Federal level…with secret legal opinions that we’re not allowed to see or question.
NDP defends vote for Saskatchewan First Act
The Saskatchewan NDP has been getting jabs from all sides this week after members voted for The Saskatchewan F...
www.cjme.com
I’m seeing something like that blowing in the Prairie wind. Marco Mendicino trying to use the RCMP to enforce the NDP/Liberal gun seizure (for example) and the province not interested in paying for that to happen.
"The government of Saskatchewan does not support and will not authorize the use of provincially funded resources for any process that is connected to the federal government proposed 'buy back' of these firearms," Tell (Saskatchewan's minister of policing and public safety) wrote.
Trudeau’s federal Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino doesn’t like that. Will the Liberal/NDP’ers respect that the courts have long ruled that the provinces are under no obligation to enforce federal whims or laws? Will Trudeau/Singh/Mendicino/Freeland claw back a portion of the 30% that Ottawa gives back that goes towards funding the RCMP in Saskatchewan (?) sort of like freezing a bank account? The Feds are already playing this game with healthcare & certain provinces already are they not (?) or is that still just a threat?
Sure - but unless an actual supreme court ruling agrees with that it doesn't mean anything. The feds still can't force the provinces to do something.
Good question - but a dangerous game for the feds. The provinces could easily then use that as an excuse to form a provincial police force - possibly sharing training facilities and costs across multiple (eventually all) western provinces. All three of the westernmost provinces have seriously considered ditching the RCMP. That would be a blow to the feds and a black eye for Trudeau, AND wouldn't win him any friends that's for sure.
So they'd have to be a little careful with how hard they played that card.
And all of this distracts from trudeau's attempts to win people over. There's no point spending massive amounts of money to buy votes if nobody notices or talks about it.
Who is he trying to win over? Seriously? Outside of the GTA, GVA (taking a liberty here re Vancouver), Montreal, Ottawa, the IPCC, the UN in general, those that donate to the Trudeau Foundation, perhaps a strip along the upper St.Lawrence, various Woke “flavour of the moment” causes, etc…?
The rest is just fodder to use divisively in the “Us vs Them” with the “Them” being all misogynistic racist fringe that surely don’t know what’s in their own best interests.
The sooner anyone outside these areas realize regardless of their personal beliefs or political (fiscal or social) stripe that to Trudeau and his Merry NDP/Liberal Peoples…the sooner they’ll understand that they they are “Them” to Trudeau.
The wind seems to be blowing that way…
So? Outside of his “Us” in his “Us vs Them” mentality…does it really matter if it doesn’t win him any friends?
Black Eye? He’ll blame it on the “Them’s” ‘cuz they’re to ignorant to know what’s in their own best interests anyway. Might even get him re-elected.
Just like he carefully (with Serenity) imposed the Emergencies Act? Just like he carefully avoided the other countless scandals that his government has been involved in so far to date? There’s three years to go and we may not have seen anything yet.
About 5 minutes is all it should take to create that idiot!
Kelly McParland: How decades of Liberal indifference created Danielle Smith
The conclusion has clearly been drawn that the only way to get Ottawa’s attention is to create a crisisnationalpost.com
Well... not entirely wrong that's for sure. It is probably true that albertans demand more respect than they SHOULD get, and get less respect than they deserve.
Many think the feds make most of their money from alberta oil, which is no where remotely close to true. A large percent think somehow that albertans pay more into "equalization". This is false, equalization is paid from taxes and they pay the same tax rate as everyone else.
At the same time they're a "have" province that draws less in gov't transfers and money overall than most provinces, the success of their people means they normally pay higher than average income taxes due to their higher than average incomes and oil is an important strategic and economic resource that keeps our dollar stronger and such.
And alberta does get dumped on. Trudeau before getting elected said westerners and albertans were unfit to lead the country and it 'doesn't work' when they're allowed to try. The NEP was a horrid disaster for a generation of younger albertans. Alberta culture and heritage is utterly ignored other than to occasionally show up at a stampede.
So... this probably is the inevitalbe result which is a shame because it's the last thing alberta needs to be focused on right now.
He's grown weaker in the GTA and Quebec (and the maritimes tho that hardly matters much). The ndp and the undecided has begun moving towards the CPC, and the bloc still commands half of Quebec.
If he's going to get a majority, he needs to win over a lot of those voters. Sure - Greater vancouver and the island would be nice but realistically you're talking about a handful of possible seats there. He's realistically got to pick up at least about 20 seats to get a comfortable majority (i'm not looking at the new ridings, they'll just be old ridings that are broken up).
So - gun control legisation (steal hunter's guns now), more social spending, etc etc. Win over quebec, win over more of ontario - maybe win a majority. If he happens to pick up 2 or 4 seats in bc all the better, and who knows, maybe he can even pick up a couple in the prairies.
And of course prevent anyone else from going over to Pierre the nazi Polievre
I dunno about Alberta but the US wouldn't take Quebec if we stuck a gun to their heads. The RoC isn't the only place that has trouble collecting bills from Quebec and Quebec-based companies.