To summarize, Western countries now have compelling evidence that Putin's hold on power is significantly more shaky than they had previously assumed. The West's top priorities will now be to prevent the collapse of the Russian state and to manage the growing possibility of Moscow violating the nuclear taboo. They will trump prior joint NATO-Ukraine war goals such as driving Russian forces out of Donbas, cutting off their land bridge to Crimea, and, most probably, attempting to evict Russia entirely from Crimea and Sevastopol. Ironically or not, Prigozhin's failed coup has almost guaranteed that Ukraine's current counter-offensive will be its last. Behind-the-scenes pressure to move rapidly to the negotiating table will be persistent, particularly among Europe's NATO allies who are most vulnerable to the possibility of a splintered Russia and rightly terrified of nuclear escalation.This weekend was a watershed moment in this fight. Ukraine and NATO's strategic objectives no longer coincide. The cold hard calculus that will now guide the war's future course is one in which the benefits of defeating Russia in Ukraine are not worth the risks of courting the implosion of Putin's destabilized regime or creating the conditions for a desperate leader to justify acting on stated nuclear doctrine.
On Thursday, June 22, 2023, Sean Speer
The Hub's editor at large, spoke at an event hosted by the Runnymede Society's Edmonton attorneys chapter. His remarks (available below) provided a brief history of federal spending power, its increasing prevalence under the Trudeau government, the implications for federal and provincial public policy, and alternatives for eventually constraining it. Thank you to tonight's organizers and the Runnymede Society in general. I've already stated that the Runnymede Society is the most intriguing institutional development in the realm of Canadian ideas, policy, and politics in some time. That so many of you are here on a balmy June night in Edmonton proves my thesis. I imagine many of you are as disappointed as I am by Russell Brown's retirement from the Supreme Court. However, it seemed to me that the Runnymede Society's expanding ambition and enthusiasm are critical to how we can eventually make progress on the concepts and principles that he came to personify on the bench. As I previously wrote in The Hub, "We need more Russell Browns." I believe there may be some of you in the room tonight. My family and I are happy to be in Edmonton. We have many fantastic pals in the city. But, regretfully, we have not spent much time here. I arrived once as a 15-year-old to a hockey competition. We stayed in billets at St. Albert, and my most memorable experience was a hospital visit for a broken arm.
I'm going to spend the next twenty minutes or so
discussing the Alberta election and its ramifications for Canadian federalism. Hopefully, it doesn't hurt as much as a broken limb. The actual federalism challenge: consensus instead of conflict. Now is probably a good moment to outline my thesis. My slightly contrarian viewpoint is as follows: I believe our country has a huge federalism dilemma, but I doubt the Alberta election will have a significant impact on it. That's because, as I've come to understand it, the difficulty is a little different than most people imagine. The popular story, particularly in Alberta, is one of conflict between the federal and provincial governments. It refers to the Alberta Sovereignty Act. It is about Western alienation. It even addresses the growth of Albertan secession. Those things are genuine and deserve our attention and concentration. If you value political stability and social cohesiveness, such events should alarm you. But I believe they conceal something more significant and interesting. I believe that the true tale of Canadian federalism today is not one of strife. Consensus is key. There is widespread support for a broad vision of federal spending power, ranging from the Liberal administration in Ottawa to conservative governments across the provinces.
Yes, there will be federal-provincial disagreement
perhaps most notably in Alberta over the impending federal plan for an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector—but these disagreements, while significant, obscure the extent to which both orders of government have come to accept Ottawa's expansive role in using its spending power to dictate provincial action within their own exclusive jurisdictions. It is startling when you think about it. On the one hand Premier Smith threatens to utilize the Alberta Sovereignty Act to prevent federal action in clearly defined areas of federal jurisdiction, such as handgun legislation. On the other hand, her government's contentious legislation appears unable to prevent Ottawa from spending conditional cash on provincial health care or child care.My contradictory argument is that there is both too much and too little disagreement when it comes to federalism and the separation of powers. We debate too much about federal activity that, for better or worse, is clearly within Ottawa's purview, and too little about federal action that is not.The implications of distraction federalism This sort of "distraction federalism," as I've come to call it, has a variety of repercussions.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment