Vince Byfield is a political commentator and manages TheChristians.com, which publishes the 12-volume history book series The Christians: Their First Two Thousand Years.The year is 1942. Canada is in the thick of the largest and deadliest war in human history. The demands of that war are growing, and pressure is mounting on Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King to provide more soldiers for the front lines.But King had a problem. His government had made a solemn promise that there would be no conscription for overseas service, a pledge under which it had been returned to office in the 1940 election. Much of English Canada now wanted conscription, but Quebec remained fiercely opposed. King knew the issue had the potential to tear the country apart. So he did something interesting. Rather than simply breaking his government’s promise, King felt it a “moral obligation” to go back to Canadians.On April 27, 1942, he held a national referendum (called a plebiscite at that time) asking Canadians to release his government from its previous commitment restricting the methods by which men could be raised for military service. Importantly, Canadians were not being asked to impose conscription. They were being asked to give King’s government the freedom to use it if circumstances made it necessary.Canadians voted “Yes.”King later summarized his position in the House of Commons with a phrase that would follow him into history: “Not necessarily conscription, but conscription if necessary.” A key element of this decision was an important democratic principle buried within those words: Giving yourself an option is not the same thing as exercising it..Quebec’s Political GeniusQuebec’s relationship with Confederation has evolved enormously since King’s day. Twice, Quebecers have voted on sovereignty. In 1980, they rejected it decisively. Fifteen years later, Canada came within a whisker of losing Quebec when just 50.58% voted “No.”Yet in spite of such a critically close vote to separate, here we are, three decades later, and Quebec still remains a part of Canada.But over the decades since, Quebec has established a degree of autonomy within Confederation that other provinces envy, including distinctive arrangements involving immigration and taxation and, of course, sweeping authority over language within the province.Premier Danielle Smith has repeatedly summarized Alberta’s aspiration in very simple terms: we want what Quebec has. That brings us to the choice now confronting Albertans..Alberta’s Opportunity to Keep All Options OpenThere are Albertans passionately committed to independence, and there are others equally determined that Alberta must never leave Canada. I’m not talking to either group.I’m talking about what my brother Link called the “muddle ground.” These are the Albertans (and likely the largest group) that I believe will make or break our nation. These Albertans don’t want to leave Canada. They have family, history, and fond memories deeply rooted throughout this country, and they would much rather repair Confederation than abandon it. Nevertheless, these same Albertans often know there are serious flaws in our political system and that every effort by the West to fix them has thus far failed.Alberta’s grievances are real, legitimate, and not going away. Instead, with each passing year, they have accumulated. We have protested. Negotiated. Elected governments promising change. We have even held a referendum on equalization. Yet the underlying problem persists.And every time another serious attack from Ottawa on our economic prosperity goes unresolved, there is a danger that more Albertans move from “Canada needs to change” to “Canada cannot change.” This is the danger Canada-First Albertans ignore at their peril: that Option One (i.e. do nothing) has the potential to doom the very nation these Canadian patriots are trying to save.Because independence sentiment is not something that can simply be wished away. Independence sentiment rises and falls depending on the poll and how the question is asked, but few deny that it has grown into a serious political position for a substantial number of Albertans from something that was once considered politically unthinkable..This is why I believe voting for Option Two (i.e. to allow a vote on independence to take place) should be carefully considered by all Albertans before voting. Option One essentially means nothing changes, and the grievances that are motivating independence sentiment are free to keep festering.Option Two does not mean you have stopped loving Canada. It does not mean Alberta becomes an independent country the following morning. And it does not mean you have concluded that independence is inevitable.But voting for Option Two does mean that you have refused to take the option off the table. More importantly, it moves the political dial. Our province and our premier now have the kind of political leverage that has fortified Quebec’s negotiating position for decades.Let’s learn the lesson Quebec has taught us: when dissatisfaction with Confederation becomes sufficiently serious, the rest of Canada finally pays attention. Few things have forced Ottawa to contemplate serious structural change as effectively as Quebec’s willingness to put its future in Confederation to a vote.Those of us who would prefer a renewed Confederation should be among those most concerned about allowing the present situation to drift. Because there is another possibility we rarely discuss. If frustration continues to accumulate, there may eventually come a point when enough Albertans conclude that Confederation simply cannot be repaired. And by then, the opportunity for meaningful reform through re-federation may already have passed.That would be the great irony. By voting for more of the same through Option One, we could ultimately lose the Canada that so many Albertans still want, simply because we were too afraid to use the democratic leverage that might have helped save it.Mackenzie King understood that distinction 84 years ago. Canada gave his government an option that didn’t require him to exercise it. Perhaps that is the choice facing Alberta’s muddled ground today: Independence if necessary, but not necessarily independence.Vince Byfield is a political commentator and manages TheChristians.com, which publishes the 12-volume history book series The Christians: Their First Two Thousand Years.
