What lies ahead for Alberta? Since confederation, the West generally – and Alberta specifically -have been subjects of the federal government’s Laurentian agenda. After over a century of struggle against Ottawa, the time has come for Albertans to decide which course they will take. .Moment of Truth: How to Think About Alberta’s Future is a compilation of chapters written by different authors and edited by Jack M. Mintz, Ted Morton, and Tom Flanagan. In it, readers are faced with the pressing discussion of Alberta’s place in confederation now, in the past, and in the future. Though sympathetic to independence, this book is by no means a manifesto for a sovereign Alberta. .Authors, who include famed Calgary School members such as Tom Flanagan, Ted Morton, Barry Cooper, and David Bercuson, clearly explain the problems faced by Alberta and outline possible solutions both in independence, or in a so-called “fair deal.” They also do not shy away in explaining the difficulties in independence, including increased defense costs and a lengthy constitutional process for peaceful secession. Nonetheless, the authors are agreed; as the title of Morton’s chapter suggests, “The status quo must go.” .As the Buffalo Declaration makes clear, “Our federation has reached a crossroads at which Canada must decide to move forward in equality and respect, or people in our region will look at independence from confederation as the solution.” For anyone concerned with the future of Alberta’s place in confederation, this book is a must read and comes at a perfect time, just as Canada chooses its path..In his chapter, Alberta and the myth of Sisyphus, Flanagan builds an Albertan political mythology, complete with heroes and villains beginning just after confederation. Every time a hero – always a Westerner – tries to make a gain in the direction of Albertan self-determination over natural resources, a villain – always from Ottawa – attempts to thwart it. .Our first hero is Louis Riel with his villain Sir John A. Macdonald. Macdonald’s federal government wanted control over Rupert’s Land which it had just purchased from the Hudson’s Bay Company. .“Canada had not stopped to consider that there was a civilized community already present [in Rupert’s Land] in the Red River Colony.” .Thus, Macdonald and Riel clashed over control of Rupert’s Land which resulted in the creation of Manitoba, and eventually Riel’s declaration of independence from Canada and the quelling of his North-West rebellion in 1885. Though failed, it was the first spark of Western secession in Canada..The twentieth century also saw its share of Western heroes and Laurentian villains. Frederick Haultain clashed with Sir Wilfrid Laurier over the provincialization of the West. Whereas Haultain wanted one large province —‘Buffalo’ — Laurier ordered the creation of two smaller provinces, ‘Alberta’ and ‘Saskatchewan.’ Ottawa still retained control over public lands and natural resources. .This brings us to our next hero, John Edward Brownlee. As premier of Alberta, Brownlee (hero) negotiated with William Lyon Mackenzie King (villain) over control of public lands and natural resources. Though delayed by lobbying in Quebec, an agreement to give Alberta control over its public lands was eventually reached in 1929..The federal government was not satisfied with its inability to control Alberta’s natural resources and in 1980, the National Energy Program was introduced by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (archvillain). As Flanagan points out, “… federal Energy Minister Marc Lalonde later said, the motive was ‘to transfer wealth from Alberta to central Canada.’” Thus emerged our next hero, premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed. One of Lougheed’s victories against the National Energy Program was “insertion of Sec. 50 into the Constitution Act, 1982, to confirm provincial control over ‘exploration for’ and ‘development, conservation, and management of’ non-renewable natural resources.’” This, along with the election of (Brian) Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives, led to National Energy Program’s eventual repeal in 1986..Finally, we are presented with our final villain, Pierre’s son, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Trudeau II has once again attempted to wrest control of Alberta’s natural resources by kiboshing pipelines and introducing a carbon tax. What we are not given is a clear hero. Will it be Jason Kenney? Someone else? And if we are given a hero, will they continue Alberta on its Sisyphean task and let the boulder of control over its natural resources roll back down the hill? Or, perhaps, will a new hero emerge who eventually breaks the curse and allows Alberta to take back its natural resources permanently? Alberta’s mythology is its own to create and the following chapters give Albertans a blueprint..Donald J. Savoie offers the thesis that “The treaty Macdonald and [George-Étienne] Cartier struck in 1867 put blinders on national institutions to ensure they would focus on Ontario and Quebec, and would limit regional considerations to Quebec” (p. 97). Though strong, in his chapter, “Canada’s national political institutions wear blinders,” Savoie offers compelling examples of how this is exactly the case. Two institutions which clearly suffer this defect are brought to light in Savoie’s chapter; they are the Supreme Court and the Senate..The Constitution guarantees Quebec three Supreme Court justices. No other province or region is given such a guarantee. While it might be thought that custom would protect regional interests in the supreme court, Savoie points out that this has not been the case, citing Justin Trudeau’s 2016 attempt to replace Nova Scotian Judge Thomas Cromwell with a judge from outside Atlantic Canada. Trudeau argued other forms of diversity beyond regional diversity were important when making appointment decisions. As Savoie asserts, “Political and administrative institutions matter” and the Supreme Court in no exception. Though writing in an American context, journalist Garet Garrett noted the importance of executive appointments of Supreme Court judges in shaping policy, in 1952. If some policy was previously considered unconstitutional, how is it that it can now be considered constitutional? Garrett responds; “By reinterpretation of the language of the Constitution. That is done by a sympathetic Supreme Court.” Thus, those concerned with their own regional interests cannot rely on that written document, the Constitution, alone for protection. They must also concern themselves with how that document is interpreted. While Quebec is guaranteed such sympathy, all other regions are at the mercy of the cabinet and governor general’s discretion in appointing judges..Canada’s Senate faces similar issues in giving preference to the Laurentian provinces. The obvious problem for Westerners is under-representation. With Ontario and Quebec each respectively guaranteed the same number of senators as the entirety of Western Canada (24) Alberta and British Columbia come out wildly underrepresented. As of 2018, Quebec had one senator per 350,904 constituents whereas Alberta had one senator per 721,701. While under-representation is a problem which some Westerners have sought to reform, Savoie points to another problem which reform may not altogether solve. He points out the Senate has no mandate. Are senators to be the voice of regional interests or are they a check on democracy? It is not clear. As Savoie argues, “In short, the Senate has no widely accepted mandate. It all depends on how individual senators define their role.” .Though some argue that the cabinet should play the role of ‘voice of the regions’ Savoie remarks that though we may have once had “powerful regional ministers,” this is no longer the case. “Justin Trudeau even did away with regional ministers in 2015. For some unexplained reason, he decided to re-introduce the position in 2019 but only for Quebec.” Without the Senate or the cabinet, who is to be the voice of the West in Ottawa?.Robert Mansell offers empirical research surrounding the redistribution of Albertan wealth to the other provinces in his chapter, “Alberta’s fiscal contribution to confederation.” Looking at “direct taxes,” “indirect taxes,” “investment income,” “final federal expenditures on goods and services in the region,” and “interest payments on the public debt to residents of the region,” Mansell tells Albertans just how much they are giving to other provinces. From 1961-2018 “the net federal fiscal contribution by Alberta has averaged $3,700 per person per year.” This is the cost of confederation for Albertans. .Other provinces have certainly reaped the rewards with the maritime provinces garnering a net negative annual federal fiscal contribution of over $5,000 and the territories garnering a negative contribution of $22,842. As Mansell’s research shows, we are not trending towards a more favorable outcome for Alberta. Between 2000 and 2009 Albertans had a net federal fiscal contribution of $5,645 per person per year and a contribution of $5,243 from 2010 to 2018. As Alberta becomes relatively more productive than other provinces, its pockets continue to be picked. Alberta sows, and the Eastern provinces reap..Mansell breaks down the contributions by source between various policies such as income taxes, equalization, employment insurance, and sales taxes. Most provinces pay in some categories and benefit in others with two exceptions. The first is that of New Brunswick which benefits in all categories outlined by Mansell. The second, which may come of no surprise at this point, is Alberta which pays in every category. The point made is clear: Albertans pay so that other provinces may live more comfortably..This brings us to Barry Cooper’s chapter, “Challenges for western independence.” Unafraid and unrelenting, Cooper asks a question to Western politicians..“How much more abuse will it take to persuade Westerners that serious action is required? How many times must polite petitions be answered with repeated injuries?”.For Cooper, that “serious action” might just be secession..Cooper’s most poignant argument is many problems which have hitherto appeared to be legal matters are not so at all. They are, in Cooper’s words, “political, all the way down.” Two such issues are equalization and referenda on secession. As Canada’s 1982 Constitution explains: “Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.” .For Cooper and other legal experts, the wording is totally unclear..“The several governments are committed to the ‘principle’ of equalization payments, but nothing is said about the actual practice. Nor is the meaning of a ‘reasonable’ or ‘comparable’ level of public services or taxation discussed. If Alberta has a lower level of taxation than other provinces, does this imply Alberta should have higher taxes or the other provinces should have lower ones? The question practically answers itself, which is why equalization has been called a welfare trap for provinces. For these reasons alone legal scholars have reached a consensus that Sec. 36 in non-justiciable. That is, in the view of these experts, no court can legitimately determine that Sec. 36 imposes any obligations on any of the governments that have pledged their ‘commitments.’ In other words, the actual working out of equalization payments is entirely political.”.The same is true for the Clarity Act, according to Cooper. After Quebec’s 1995 referendum on independence, it was decided power would be vested in the House of Commons to determine whether or not all future referendum questions regarding secession were clear and whether or not a clear majority in favour of secession had been established. What seems like a legal barrier for Albertans to cross to gain independence, Cooper points out, is a wholly political one..“Whatever the role and whatever the question, and however clear the question and the vote may be to common-sense or to the voters, the House can always ‘deem’ things to be otherwise.”.Cooper asks us to consider “… the following hypothetical: following an intensive and effective educational campaign detailing the long train of abuses suffered by the West, Alberta and Saskatchewan vote overwhelmingly (say, 95 %) in favour of a straightforward question: do you wish Alberta and Saskatchewan (and perhaps other parts of the existing country of Canada) to be independent of Canada?” .Cooper poignantly asks, “Then what?”.What is so troubling about the Clarity Act is that it vests the power of determining the clarity of the question and a whether a clear majority obtained in the House of Commons. We might consult a linguist, writer, or psychologist whether or not the question asked is clear. We might consult a statistician, mathematician, or political scientist whether or not a clear majority was obtained. Instead, non-experts with their own interests and agendas — Members of Parliament — are asked to determine the answer to these questions. What is more concerning is Cooper’s suggestion the House of Commons might determine a clear question was unclear, or a clear majority does not require us to suspect MPs of ignoble or immoral conduct. MPs are expected to represent their constituents. .Suppose a member of parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador is presented with Cooper’s above hypothetical. He must now decide whether or not 95% represents a clear majority. Some $3,000-plus per year per person is at stake for his constituents (as Mundell’s chapter tells us.) Should that MP agree 95% represents a clear majority and turn his back on the interests of his constituents? What should be expected of him in this case? Well-intentioned MPs may therefore, in a noble attempt to represent their constituents, go against all common sense and understanding of statistics and deem that 95% does not represent a clear majority..Perhaps Alberta should follow Quebec in rejecting the Clarity Act, as they courageously did with the passing of Bill 99 which gave Quebec the authority to determine whether or not a referendum question was clear and understood a majority to mean “50 % of the valid votes cast plus one.”.If you’re concerned with Alberta’s place in confederation, pick up this book. Alberta has spent more than a century being abused by the federal government. If Albertans do not feel those abuses, read this book and you will feel them. If you think there is no hope in secession, read this book and you will see what it takes for Albertans to overcome those obstacles..Alberta is at a crossroads. Which path will Alberta take? How will Alberta build its own mythology? This book may be a first step for readers in being part of that story..Andrew Allison is a Freelance Columnist for the Western Standard and is a PhD philosophy student at the University of Waterloo
What lies ahead for Alberta? Since confederation, the West generally – and Alberta specifically -have been subjects of the federal government’s Laurentian agenda. After over a century of struggle against Ottawa, the time has come for Albertans to decide which course they will take. .Moment of Truth: How to Think About Alberta’s Future is a compilation of chapters written by different authors and edited by Jack M. Mintz, Ted Morton, and Tom Flanagan. In it, readers are faced with the pressing discussion of Alberta’s place in confederation now, in the past, and in the future. Though sympathetic to independence, this book is by no means a manifesto for a sovereign Alberta. .Authors, who include famed Calgary School members such as Tom Flanagan, Ted Morton, Barry Cooper, and David Bercuson, clearly explain the problems faced by Alberta and outline possible solutions both in independence, or in a so-called “fair deal.” They also do not shy away in explaining the difficulties in independence, including increased defense costs and a lengthy constitutional process for peaceful secession. Nonetheless, the authors are agreed; as the title of Morton’s chapter suggests, “The status quo must go.” .As the Buffalo Declaration makes clear, “Our federation has reached a crossroads at which Canada must decide to move forward in equality and respect, or people in our region will look at independence from confederation as the solution.” For anyone concerned with the future of Alberta’s place in confederation, this book is a must read and comes at a perfect time, just as Canada chooses its path..In his chapter, Alberta and the myth of Sisyphus, Flanagan builds an Albertan political mythology, complete with heroes and villains beginning just after confederation. Every time a hero – always a Westerner – tries to make a gain in the direction of Albertan self-determination over natural resources, a villain – always from Ottawa – attempts to thwart it. .Our first hero is Louis Riel with his villain Sir John A. Macdonald. Macdonald’s federal government wanted control over Rupert’s Land which it had just purchased from the Hudson’s Bay Company. .“Canada had not stopped to consider that there was a civilized community already present [in Rupert’s Land] in the Red River Colony.” .Thus, Macdonald and Riel clashed over control of Rupert’s Land which resulted in the creation of Manitoba, and eventually Riel’s declaration of independence from Canada and the quelling of his North-West rebellion in 1885. Though failed, it was the first spark of Western secession in Canada..The twentieth century also saw its share of Western heroes and Laurentian villains. Frederick Haultain clashed with Sir Wilfrid Laurier over the provincialization of the West. Whereas Haultain wanted one large province —‘Buffalo’ — Laurier ordered the creation of two smaller provinces, ‘Alberta’ and ‘Saskatchewan.’ Ottawa still retained control over public lands and natural resources. .This brings us to our next hero, John Edward Brownlee. As premier of Alberta, Brownlee (hero) negotiated with William Lyon Mackenzie King (villain) over control of public lands and natural resources. Though delayed by lobbying in Quebec, an agreement to give Alberta control over its public lands was eventually reached in 1929..The federal government was not satisfied with its inability to control Alberta’s natural resources and in 1980, the National Energy Program was introduced by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (archvillain). As Flanagan points out, “… federal Energy Minister Marc Lalonde later said, the motive was ‘to transfer wealth from Alberta to central Canada.’” Thus emerged our next hero, premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed. One of Lougheed’s victories against the National Energy Program was “insertion of Sec. 50 into the Constitution Act, 1982, to confirm provincial control over ‘exploration for’ and ‘development, conservation, and management of’ non-renewable natural resources.’” This, along with the election of (Brian) Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives, led to National Energy Program’s eventual repeal in 1986..Finally, we are presented with our final villain, Pierre’s son, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Trudeau II has once again attempted to wrest control of Alberta’s natural resources by kiboshing pipelines and introducing a carbon tax. What we are not given is a clear hero. Will it be Jason Kenney? Someone else? And if we are given a hero, will they continue Alberta on its Sisyphean task and let the boulder of control over its natural resources roll back down the hill? Or, perhaps, will a new hero emerge who eventually breaks the curse and allows Alberta to take back its natural resources permanently? Alberta’s mythology is its own to create and the following chapters give Albertans a blueprint..Donald J. Savoie offers the thesis that “The treaty Macdonald and [George-Étienne] Cartier struck in 1867 put blinders on national institutions to ensure they would focus on Ontario and Quebec, and would limit regional considerations to Quebec” (p. 97). Though strong, in his chapter, “Canada’s national political institutions wear blinders,” Savoie offers compelling examples of how this is exactly the case. Two institutions which clearly suffer this defect are brought to light in Savoie’s chapter; they are the Supreme Court and the Senate..The Constitution guarantees Quebec three Supreme Court justices. No other province or region is given such a guarantee. While it might be thought that custom would protect regional interests in the supreme court, Savoie points out that this has not been the case, citing Justin Trudeau’s 2016 attempt to replace Nova Scotian Judge Thomas Cromwell with a judge from outside Atlantic Canada. Trudeau argued other forms of diversity beyond regional diversity were important when making appointment decisions. As Savoie asserts, “Political and administrative institutions matter” and the Supreme Court in no exception. Though writing in an American context, journalist Garet Garrett noted the importance of executive appointments of Supreme Court judges in shaping policy, in 1952. If some policy was previously considered unconstitutional, how is it that it can now be considered constitutional? Garrett responds; “By reinterpretation of the language of the Constitution. That is done by a sympathetic Supreme Court.” Thus, those concerned with their own regional interests cannot rely on that written document, the Constitution, alone for protection. They must also concern themselves with how that document is interpreted. While Quebec is guaranteed such sympathy, all other regions are at the mercy of the cabinet and governor general’s discretion in appointing judges..Canada’s Senate faces similar issues in giving preference to the Laurentian provinces. The obvious problem for Westerners is under-representation. With Ontario and Quebec each respectively guaranteed the same number of senators as the entirety of Western Canada (24) Alberta and British Columbia come out wildly underrepresented. As of 2018, Quebec had one senator per 350,904 constituents whereas Alberta had one senator per 721,701. While under-representation is a problem which some Westerners have sought to reform, Savoie points to another problem which reform may not altogether solve. He points out the Senate has no mandate. Are senators to be the voice of regional interests or are they a check on democracy? It is not clear. As Savoie argues, “In short, the Senate has no widely accepted mandate. It all depends on how individual senators define their role.” .Though some argue that the cabinet should play the role of ‘voice of the regions’ Savoie remarks that though we may have once had “powerful regional ministers,” this is no longer the case. “Justin Trudeau even did away with regional ministers in 2015. For some unexplained reason, he decided to re-introduce the position in 2019 but only for Quebec.” Without the Senate or the cabinet, who is to be the voice of the West in Ottawa?.Robert Mansell offers empirical research surrounding the redistribution of Albertan wealth to the other provinces in his chapter, “Alberta’s fiscal contribution to confederation.” Looking at “direct taxes,” “indirect taxes,” “investment income,” “final federal expenditures on goods and services in the region,” and “interest payments on the public debt to residents of the region,” Mansell tells Albertans just how much they are giving to other provinces. From 1961-2018 “the net federal fiscal contribution by Alberta has averaged $3,700 per person per year.” This is the cost of confederation for Albertans. .Other provinces have certainly reaped the rewards with the maritime provinces garnering a net negative annual federal fiscal contribution of over $5,000 and the territories garnering a negative contribution of $22,842. As Mansell’s research shows, we are not trending towards a more favorable outcome for Alberta. Between 2000 and 2009 Albertans had a net federal fiscal contribution of $5,645 per person per year and a contribution of $5,243 from 2010 to 2018. As Alberta becomes relatively more productive than other provinces, its pockets continue to be picked. Alberta sows, and the Eastern provinces reap..Mansell breaks down the contributions by source between various policies such as income taxes, equalization, employment insurance, and sales taxes. Most provinces pay in some categories and benefit in others with two exceptions. The first is that of New Brunswick which benefits in all categories outlined by Mansell. The second, which may come of no surprise at this point, is Alberta which pays in every category. The point made is clear: Albertans pay so that other provinces may live more comfortably..This brings us to Barry Cooper’s chapter, “Challenges for western independence.” Unafraid and unrelenting, Cooper asks a question to Western politicians..“How much more abuse will it take to persuade Westerners that serious action is required? How many times must polite petitions be answered with repeated injuries?”.For Cooper, that “serious action” might just be secession..Cooper’s most poignant argument is many problems which have hitherto appeared to be legal matters are not so at all. They are, in Cooper’s words, “political, all the way down.” Two such issues are equalization and referenda on secession. As Canada’s 1982 Constitution explains: “Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.” .For Cooper and other legal experts, the wording is totally unclear..“The several governments are committed to the ‘principle’ of equalization payments, but nothing is said about the actual practice. Nor is the meaning of a ‘reasonable’ or ‘comparable’ level of public services or taxation discussed. If Alberta has a lower level of taxation than other provinces, does this imply Alberta should have higher taxes or the other provinces should have lower ones? The question practically answers itself, which is why equalization has been called a welfare trap for provinces. For these reasons alone legal scholars have reached a consensus that Sec. 36 in non-justiciable. That is, in the view of these experts, no court can legitimately determine that Sec. 36 imposes any obligations on any of the governments that have pledged their ‘commitments.’ In other words, the actual working out of equalization payments is entirely political.”.The same is true for the Clarity Act, according to Cooper. After Quebec’s 1995 referendum on independence, it was decided power would be vested in the House of Commons to determine whether or not all future referendum questions regarding secession were clear and whether or not a clear majority in favour of secession had been established. What seems like a legal barrier for Albertans to cross to gain independence, Cooper points out, is a wholly political one..“Whatever the role and whatever the question, and however clear the question and the vote may be to common-sense or to the voters, the House can always ‘deem’ things to be otherwise.”.Cooper asks us to consider “… the following hypothetical: following an intensive and effective educational campaign detailing the long train of abuses suffered by the West, Alberta and Saskatchewan vote overwhelmingly (say, 95 %) in favour of a straightforward question: do you wish Alberta and Saskatchewan (and perhaps other parts of the existing country of Canada) to be independent of Canada?” .Cooper poignantly asks, “Then what?”.What is so troubling about the Clarity Act is that it vests the power of determining the clarity of the question and a whether a clear majority obtained in the House of Commons. We might consult a linguist, writer, or psychologist whether or not the question asked is clear. We might consult a statistician, mathematician, or political scientist whether or not a clear majority was obtained. Instead, non-experts with their own interests and agendas — Members of Parliament — are asked to determine the answer to these questions. What is more concerning is Cooper’s suggestion the House of Commons might determine a clear question was unclear, or a clear majority does not require us to suspect MPs of ignoble or immoral conduct. MPs are expected to represent their constituents. .Suppose a member of parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador is presented with Cooper’s above hypothetical. He must now decide whether or not 95% represents a clear majority. Some $3,000-plus per year per person is at stake for his constituents (as Mundell’s chapter tells us.) Should that MP agree 95% represents a clear majority and turn his back on the interests of his constituents? What should be expected of him in this case? Well-intentioned MPs may therefore, in a noble attempt to represent their constituents, go against all common sense and understanding of statistics and deem that 95% does not represent a clear majority..Perhaps Alberta should follow Quebec in rejecting the Clarity Act, as they courageously did with the passing of Bill 99 which gave Quebec the authority to determine whether or not a referendum question was clear and understood a majority to mean “50 % of the valid votes cast plus one.”.If you’re concerned with Alberta’s place in confederation, pick up this book. Alberta has spent more than a century being abused by the federal government. If Albertans do not feel those abuses, read this book and you will feel them. If you think there is no hope in secession, read this book and you will see what it takes for Albertans to overcome those obstacles..Alberta is at a crossroads. Which path will Alberta take? How will Alberta build its own mythology? This book may be a first step for readers in being part of that story..Andrew Allison is a Freelance Columnist for the Western Standard and is a PhD philosophy student at the University of Waterloo
