Gordon Prentice Blog - Gordon Prentice at Large

Details: Written by Gordon Prentice; Published: 16 October 2026

Newmarket’s candidate for Deputy Mayor and Regional Councillor, Tom Vegh, told Newmarket Today he had only missed two meetings of York Region and the Town in the 2022-2026 term when he missed 18.

The true number of missed meetings was readily available from Council minutes - authoritative and incontrovertible evidence. The paper subsequently confirmed the “two” wasn’t a typo.

I thought it was a big story as it pointed to Vegh's willingness to invent stuff. It's like he lives in his own alternative universe with his own alternative facts.

In the same article, Vegh claimed his expense record:

“… reflects a responsible and careful approach to public funds. Each year, I used approximately 50-75 per cent of my allowable office budget,” treated public funds with care and accountability.”

In fact, he claimed 78.55% of his office budget in 2023 and 85.06% in 2025 but why should I make a big song and dance about that? Both figures were below the allowable threshold. Cut the man some slack.

Message Received

But there is a pattern to Vegh’s politics. He makes claims he cannot substantiate and no one takes him to task, sticking with the question. When I contacted Tom via his election website to ask him about his attendance record I got an automated reply saying he had received my message. When I asked about his 2018 promise to triple the number of subsidised seniors housing units, giving me the baseline figure he used and the current number, I got the same "message received".

Vegh believes If he says nothing it will all blow over and he'll be back on the public payroll again.

In the United States Donald Trump has normalised lying. It is impossible to keep up with him. Every day there’s a torrent of new lies. Americans have learned to live with it.

Fact-checking

All that got me thinking about Newmarket Today and whether it has any responsibility to its readers to fact-check. I started out thinking NT had an absolute duty to correct statements that were manifestly untrue. Then, on reflection, I realised this was simply asking too much. Where does it all end? Do we expect NT to verify the accuracy of Vegh’s statement that he attended 900+ events in the 2022-2026 Council term? Of course not.

When so many places in Canada are news deserts, we are very lucky to have Newmarket Today which provides us with some terrific journalism.

It doesn’t do fact checking. It reports what it is told.

And that’s OK.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details: Written by Gordon Prentice; Published: 16 October 2026

Monday 19 October 2026 is referendum day in Alberta.

For just one moment, imagine yourself to be a voter in Alberta.

You want to be informed. You want to do the right thing.

You are asked to decide on the following questions, marking “x” next to the options of your choice on the ballot paper. The referendum is non-binding.

Brow furrowed. Pencil poised.

Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?

Option 1: Alberta should remain a province of Canada.

Option 2: The Government of Alberta should commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada

Do you support the Government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purposes of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities?

Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law mandating that only Canadian citizens, permanent residents and individuals with an Alberta approved immigration status will be eligible for provincially-funded programs, such as health care, education and other social services?

Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for social support programs as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring all individuals with a non-permanent legal immigration status to reside in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for any provincially-funded social support programs?

Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for public health care and education as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta charging a reasonable fee or premium to individuals with a non-permanent immigration status living in Alberta for their and their family’s use of the healthcare and education systems?

Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate or citizenship card, to vote in an Alberta provincial election?

Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to have provincial governments, and not the federal government, select the justices appointed to provincial King’s Bench and Appeal courts?

Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to abolish the unelected federal Senate?

Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education, and social services, without a province losing any of the associated federal funding for use in its social programs?

Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to better protect provincial rights from federal interference by giving a province’s laws dealing with provincial or shared areas of constitutional jurisdiction priority over federal laws when the province’s laws and federal laws conflict?

That's quite a fistful of questions.

And to help voters make their minds up we have a bunch of organisations offering advice. Elections Alberta doesn't provide any information on the issues themselves. Voters may choose to rely on information from the Government of Alberta, the separatists, the Federalists and sundry others. And here is a snapshot on Alberta separatism from wikipedia.

So where do I stand?

On the main question I tend to agree with Professor Kent McNeil at York University's Osgoode Law School who wrote in the Globe and Mail on 23 February 2026:

"Some Albertans seem to think that separation from Canada can be achieved by a majority vote in a provincial referendum. It’s not that simple."

"The minority of Albertans who appear to think they can just walk away and take all this with them are deluding themselves. They have no unilateral right to do so under the Canadian Constitution or international law. Nor could they do so without the consent of the Indigenous peoples in Alberta."

(Click "Read more" to read the Globe and Mail piece.)

Professor McNeil's argument is developed in much greater detail here: Alberta’s Creation: A Historical and Legal Analysis:

"Unlike the four original Canadian provinces or the provinces, such as British Columbia, that joined later, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were carved out of the North-West Territories that were already part of Canada. At the time of their creation, it would have been unthinkable that any one of the Prairie Provinces would have had the right to separate from Canada. Likewise, when Canada transferred public lands and resources to the Prairie Provinces in 1930, it would have been on the clear understanding that they would remain in Canada and contribute to the national economy. Alberta cannot simply walk away and take all this with her.

Moreover, Canada and Alberta both owe constitutional obligations to the Indigenous peoples of the province, including obligations to respect and protect First Nation treaty rights. If Alberta were to become independent, the treaty territories of most of the First Nations in Alberta would be severed by international borders, restricting access to constitutional hunting and fishing rights. First Nations would also lose the rights they now have under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples because Alberta has not adopted the Declaration and would be under no obligation to do so.

A unilateral declaration of independence by Alberta would be illegal. In the Secession Reference, the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution of Canada does not permit provinces to secede. The Court found as well that Quebecers do not have a right to self-determination that would allow them to leave Canada without a negotiated agreement grounded in Canada’s foundational constitutional principles of “federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minority rights”, despite the fact that Quebec is a distinct society with its own culture and language. Respect for minority rights includes the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada. If Quebec does not have a legal right to secede from Canada, a fortiori Alberta does not either."

The UK's recent experience of referendums

The Brexit Referendum shows how easily things can go off the rails when the voters are not given detailed information on the alleged benefits and drawbacks of the proposition put before them.

People were told they - and the country - would be better off outside Europe. Indeed, Boris Johnson promised £350M a week for the National Health Service as a direct result of leaving the EU. This figure was plucked out of thin air but never challenged by the nation's most trusted source of news, the BBC. It sat on the fence, terrified of being accused of bias.

When he was Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney had a front row seat in the Brexit drama.

He warned that leaving without a deal would shrink the UK economy by about 8% in the first year. In the event, a deal was struck but it turned out to be truly disastrous. The economy is now about 6%-8% smaller than it would have been if the UK had remained in the EU.

Scottish Independence

A referendum on Scottish independence was held on 18 September 2014. The "No" side won 55.3% of the vote and the "Yes" side 44.7% on an 84.6% turnout.

Unlike Alberta, Scotland was once an independent country in its own right. The Union of the Crowns 1603 was followed by the Union of the Parliaments in 1707 to create a new state called Great Britain.

But even if a future referendum on Scottish independence were successful, the job of unravelling the UK state after 300+ years would be an administrative nightmare quite beyond parallel.

Alberta is part of Canada and must remain so.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

See also: The Globe and Mail's Andrew Coyne: Canada is a historically successful country. Now malcontents are trying to destroy it.

Should Newmarket Today fact-check election candidates? Discuss.

The Alberta Referendum

York Regional Council is taking down on-line video recordings of its meetings. They must go back up.

Using photos of uniformed York Regional Police officers as stage props in election campaigns

Tom Vegh skips 18 key Council meetings in the 2022-2026 term and swears he only missed two.