The Alberta Prosperity Project’s The Foundation of Freedom: A Constitutional Discussion Document demonstrates that a group of people have devoted considerable time and energy to thinking about Alberta’s future. As a discussion paper, it raises interesting possibilities and questions — both within the document itself and in the broader community. Some have questioned the timing of the Discussion Document’s release.There are two major hurdles that must be overcome when thinking about any constitution. The first is identifying the foundational principles; and the second is gathering the largest possible array of examples from other constitutions, then analyzing the origin and developmental history of those concepts. Professor Bruce Pardy of Queen’s University has published Articles of Freedom online. This is an interesting document, as its focus on “Prohibition of Force” permeates the entire set, producing a libertarian-style collection of articles. It offers a creative approach to thinking about constitutional principles.Furthermore, republics that employ a democratic process for representative selection based on population universally share the same fundamental unfair mechanism: that metropolitan areas with a large concentration of people can easily dominate the outcomes of the lower house, as we see in Canada. This, in turn, often means that revenues from suburbs, towns, villages, and rural areas disproportionately support the city, disadvantaging other areas. Illinois is a prime example, but it is certainly not alone. Chicago, with its 2.7 million residents, has been ruled by the Democrats for 95 years. However, the rest of the state consistently votes Republican, yet Chicago politics dominate. Several mechanisms must therefore be constitutionally embedded to prevent the disadvantaging of non-urban citizens.An important example of considering a wider historic range to understand precedents is that some responses to the Discussion Document claim that the proposed Oversight Branch is an “unprecedented” idea (Hiren Mansukhani, Edmonton Journal Aug 22, 2026) or use similar expressions. In summary, the responsibilities of this branch would be to audit, investigate, lay charges, and testify on findings to the Senate..However, the Constitution of Taiwan (the Republic of China) includes such a branch. Its English name is “The Control Yuan” (Jiancha Yuan, 監察院). The responsibility of this branch includes acting as both the auditor and an ombudsman. In general, it holds the government accountable and ensures integrity. It can bring cases to a Disciplinary Court, censure officials for negligence or incompetence, and audit the accounts of other branches. The Constitution of Taiwan has been in effect since 1947, providing a long historical record that can be drawn upon in discussions of similar proposals for an auditing branch of government.The Foundation of Freedom Discussion Document has also been inspired by various aspects of the US Constitution. The US Constitution is a well-composed and thoughtful document that has stood the test of time. It was adopted on September 17, 1787, and became law after ratification on June 21, 1788. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1 explains the original idea of how senators were to be chosen. There were to be two senators from each state, chosen by the state legislatures rather than by popular vote. The reason for this was the compromise between those who favoured population-based representation and those who wished to preserve significant powers for the independent states. Senators were therefore responsible for representing the state’s interests. These representatives balanced the lower house (the representatives of the people), acted as a sobering body against the tyranny of the majority, and if they failed their responsibilities, could be recalled by the state legislatures. The Seventeenth Amendment of 1913 changed the process to direct election by the people of each state. This is one of the four “Progressive Amendments,” which included the establishment of an income tax (Sixteenth), Prohibition (Eighteenth), and women’s suffrage (Nineteenth). Excluding the Nineteenth Amendment, the others — including the Seventeenth — have proved problematic.In particular, direct election by popular vote for senators did not include a recall mechanism if a senator failed to represent the state’s interests. Representing the state’s interests has been a customary practice but not mandatory, and there are cases in which senators voted against the state’s interests — typically to support party policy. The Discussion Document raises several unanswered questions regarding the Senate. Must senators always represent their district’s interests? With the recall mechanism proposed in the document, could it be invoked if the senator fails to represent the district’s interests?Additionally, the US Constitution, for example, originally imposed stricter qualifications for exercising the franchise. Voting required one to be male, at least 21 years of age, and to own property while paying property or poll taxes. Ownership, in short, was understood to represent a stake in the outcome. If the voter owned a farm — as was the case for most at the time — or a shop, leaving the state to escape disliked government policies was more difficult. This, in turn, was intended to encourage thoughtful and prudent consideration in the choice of a candidate. These requirements were later modified through amendments, a change driven by population growth and the advent of the Industrial Revolution. The underlying principle was that voters would ensure their representation and that their voices would be heard. Those voices included farmers advocating for farm interests, shopkeepers advocating for business interests, or shipwrights advocating for shipbuilding interests..In the modern context, large corporations undoubtedly exert influence, but many other important sectors are often heard far less or with considerably less impact. One way occupational interests have been addressed within a democratic process is through representation by occupational associations. An example of this can be observed in the city of London, UK, where 110 guilds are involved in electing the Mayor, Sheriff, and the Court of Common Council. A few of the guilds include the Mercers, information technologists, and others. A possible adaptation would be to form a ranchers association, a construction association, or a professional/technician association to elect some senators. This approach addresses the need to avoid an overwhelming majority of urban representatives who may lack understanding of the many supports on which they depend. The impact of proposed laws must be scrutinized by representatives from multiple sectors of society. The composition of these associations could change over time, for example, based on external measures such as contribution to GDP.The wording in such documents needs to be carefully considered. A possible example is Discussion Document, Part II, Foundational Principles, Article VI, which reads: “Every citizen possesses inherent dignity and rights which the Government shall recognize and protect, including the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, lawful sexual orientation, or religious belief.” To this list should be added “class” and “wealth.”North American societies are often uncomfortable with the idea of “class.” However, that only means that classes are frequently unacknowledged. We have classes stratified by economic status: working class, middle class, upper-middle class, and upper class. These are not necessarily stagnant or inherited. We also have classes distinguished by occupational descriptions: professional class, managerial class, intermediate class, and skilled working class, among others. Discrimination based on class standing does occur; however, it certainly ought not to be emanated from government.“Wealth” is an important consideration. As a society becomes more “statist,” there is a tendency to discriminate between the “rich” (or “one percent”) and everyone else. Voters can be persuaded to impose excessive taxation on the wealthy in an effort to achieve a system of wealth transfer. What constitutes the “rich” is continually defined downward. This anti-rich proposition is drawn directly from Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Discrimination based on wealth also occurs against the poor: citizens who lack sufficient resources may receive fewer legal opportunities, limited access to government services, or diminished service levels. Any government should treat all citizens equally. However, this principle must be understood to mean that the same rules apply to all citizens at some time or in the same instance..An example of such discrimination is the progressive income tax system. It can be deemed “equal” in the sense that any person making income level X pays the same tax amount, and every individual earning income level X2 pays the rate applicable to that bracket — this is often referred to as vertical equity. Nevertheless, the system is unfair because an increase in one’s income triggers a proportional increase in tax liability. One justification for progressive taxation is that the second individual can afford a higher “contribution.” Yet the mere fact that someone can afford more does not mean it is reasonable or ethically justifiable for the government to demand a larger share. The system does not take into account the work one had to undertake for the income. Other justifications such as social-welfare maximization, reduced income inequality, and the promotion of social mobility are essentially manifestations of social engineering. A government ought not be involved in social engineering; it cannot manage its own house.Europe provides an excellent example of the point at which governmental social engineering goes too far. Another justification, often not mentioned, derives from the Communist Manifesto itself. Marx writes that the revolution by the proletariat will require the employment of despotic means to undermine the rights of property and conditions of bourgeois production. “You will own nothing and be happy” is an updated way of saying this. Among the ten measures he lists is “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” Higher taxes reduce investment, lower capital formation, disincentivize hard work, encourage tax avoidance and black markets, and diminish entrepreneurship — among other negative outcomes.What is worse, however, is that with so much personal information online and accessible to corporations, some have justified — similar to governments — progressive pricing, termed “surveillance pricing” or “personalized pricing.” In short, the company knows you can afford to pay more, so it charges you more than someone who can pay less for the identical product. If the government can do it, why not corporations?Intellectual exercise is an important consideration in the creation of any new undertaking. A constitution should be the outcome of a constitutional convention in which those who will be governed have argued and convinced their fellow citizens of the merits of the ideas to be enshrined in such an important document. Dr. A. W. Barber is the former Director of Asian Studies at the University of Calgary. He is internationally active and has wide-ranging interests.
