It is not enjoyable writing about the Laurentian Elite (LE,) the centre of power in Canadian politics, business, the arts and almost everything else apart from oil and natural gas. (This, it is endeavouring to eliminate.) Former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna would be a Charter-member and his recent comment piece in the National Post by is especially disappointing because in so many ways, he's a decent sort who you want to get along with.Let me explain.Frank is a distinguished Canadian with a unique biography. My first awareness was his leadership campaign of the Liberal Party of New Brunswick, especially The Rolling Stones music at his rallies. Young and “with it,” the eventual leader also became premier, winning every seat in the legislature.Following his political career and the several blue-chip law firm appointments, McKenna became Canada’s Ambassador to the United States. Part of a group visiting Washington, we were all impressed by his personality, knowledge and classy representation our country. From there McKenna, now vice-chairman of TD bank, has added even more significant business responsibilities to his already impressive repertoire.This includes the Board of Directors of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, Canada's leading independent oil and gas company founded and led by Saskatchewan's Murray Edwards. (There goes another long-time Liberal-for-life.) In this role McKenna experienced the importance of one of Canada's outstanding industries, the culture of Alberta and the West and its treatment by central Canada.So, one would think his background, and hailing as he does from a small province far-distant from Ottawa, would make it easy for him to understand the longstanding grievances of the western provinces and the energy sector.But no. As his recent National Post comment shows, Frank has chosen narrative of the Laurentian Elite. For the rest of this column to make sense, please read his comment by clicking here.Among the many assertions, the first paragraph starts from an inaccurate premise: “the debate…. must not be confined to Alberta.” The rest of the country can debate all it wants, but this decision is Alberta’s alone.Not once as was Quebec mentioned. Decades ago, Quebec made the decision to proceed with its own pension plan, as Alberta is now considering. I do not recall Frank, or anyone else challenging Quebec’s constitutional rights. Different rules, or at least expectations, for provinces in the same country.Quebec’s plan, almost half the size of the $600 billion CPP, rebutting Frank’s assertions about potential inadequate diversification capability. He provides no support evidence as to appropriate fund size or shortcomings of the CPP when it was half its current size.It is also revealing that LE status, once again, includes the premise Quebec is not subject to the same rules as other provinces. It seems a little rich to also warn that withdrawal might create friction between Ottawa, which in Alberta and Saskatchewan is already at unprecedented levels. He does acknowledge “Alberta’s frustration…is understandable,” his only comment about the current hostility between the feds and Alberta and Saskatchewan.Notwithstanding my respect for Frank, he completely misses the big picture. Alberta and the West have always suffered a subordinate position in our federation, often exploited by central Canadian politicians, as is evident again today. The resource ownership struggle, supposedly resolved in the 1930s, was dishonoured by the National Energy Program and a myriad of actions since.If the LE is not willing to share power, what other remedy do the prairie provinces possess than exercising growing economic power? This is especially given the power block in Ontario and Quebec disapproves, as Frank’s comment suggests. At least we have their attention. (Finally!)Like Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan are going their own way within Canada. This may well include withdrawing from CPP. What other paths exist for the citizens of the under represented provinces than to protect, wherever possible, our financial future from a domineering and obstinate LE?Every sincere attempt to become a full participant in our federal state has been disregarded, often even derided, by the LE. Frank’s comment also hints at likely punitive repercussions. Like what, killing our prosperity generating energy sector? Or withdrawing the condescending promise of a “just transition?” A little late to warn about what is already happening.Frank and our LE superiors underestimate the change of mindset in the West. Expressed by a raft of spontaneous protest groups, sovereignty legislation, the withstanding clause, harsh words and increasing defiance of federal power, take notice that equalization will also be challenged.The status quo ante is over.
It is not enjoyable writing about the Laurentian Elite (LE,) the centre of power in Canadian politics, business, the arts and almost everything else apart from oil and natural gas. (This, it is endeavouring to eliminate.) Former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna would be a Charter-member and his recent comment piece in the National Post by is especially disappointing because in so many ways, he's a decent sort who you want to get along with.Let me explain.Frank is a distinguished Canadian with a unique biography. My first awareness was his leadership campaign of the Liberal Party of New Brunswick, especially The Rolling Stones music at his rallies. Young and “with it,” the eventual leader also became premier, winning every seat in the legislature.Following his political career and the several blue-chip law firm appointments, McKenna became Canada’s Ambassador to the United States. Part of a group visiting Washington, we were all impressed by his personality, knowledge and classy representation our country. From there McKenna, now vice-chairman of TD bank, has added even more significant business responsibilities to his already impressive repertoire.This includes the Board of Directors of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, Canada's leading independent oil and gas company founded and led by Saskatchewan's Murray Edwards. (There goes another long-time Liberal-for-life.) In this role McKenna experienced the importance of one of Canada's outstanding industries, the culture of Alberta and the West and its treatment by central Canada.So, one would think his background, and hailing as he does from a small province far-distant from Ottawa, would make it easy for him to understand the longstanding grievances of the western provinces and the energy sector.But no. As his recent National Post comment shows, Frank has chosen narrative of the Laurentian Elite. For the rest of this column to make sense, please read his comment by clicking here.Among the many assertions, the first paragraph starts from an inaccurate premise: “the debate…. must not be confined to Alberta.” The rest of the country can debate all it wants, but this decision is Alberta’s alone.Not once as was Quebec mentioned. Decades ago, Quebec made the decision to proceed with its own pension plan, as Alberta is now considering. I do not recall Frank, or anyone else challenging Quebec’s constitutional rights. Different rules, or at least expectations, for provinces in the same country.Quebec’s plan, almost half the size of the $600 billion CPP, rebutting Frank’s assertions about potential inadequate diversification capability. He provides no support evidence as to appropriate fund size or shortcomings of the CPP when it was half its current size.It is also revealing that LE status, once again, includes the premise Quebec is not subject to the same rules as other provinces. It seems a little rich to also warn that withdrawal might create friction between Ottawa, which in Alberta and Saskatchewan is already at unprecedented levels. He does acknowledge “Alberta’s frustration…is understandable,” his only comment about the current hostility between the feds and Alberta and Saskatchewan.Notwithstanding my respect for Frank, he completely misses the big picture. Alberta and the West have always suffered a subordinate position in our federation, often exploited by central Canadian politicians, as is evident again today. The resource ownership struggle, supposedly resolved in the 1930s, was dishonoured by the National Energy Program and a myriad of actions since.If the LE is not willing to share power, what other remedy do the prairie provinces possess than exercising growing economic power? This is especially given the power block in Ontario and Quebec disapproves, as Frank’s comment suggests. At least we have their attention. (Finally!)Like Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan are going their own way within Canada. This may well include withdrawing from CPP. What other paths exist for the citizens of the under represented provinces than to protect, wherever possible, our financial future from a domineering and obstinate LE?Every sincere attempt to become a full participant in our federal state has been disregarded, often even derided, by the LE. Frank’s comment also hints at likely punitive repercussions. Like what, killing our prosperity generating energy sector? Or withdrawing the condescending promise of a “just transition?” A little late to warn about what is already happening.Frank and our LE superiors underestimate the change of mindset in the West. Expressed by a raft of spontaneous protest groups, sovereignty legislation, the withstanding clause, harsh words and increasing defiance of federal power, take notice that equalization will also be challenged.The status quo ante is over.
