In a recent United Conservative Party of Alberta (UCP) leadership debate, a number of the candidates talked about “working with” or “negotiating with” Ottawa to secure a more favourable position for Alberta within Canada..Despite five previous generations of Albertans relying on the same strategy to eke out a more tolerable relationship with Ottawa, somehow these candidates will succeed. It came off sounding both arrogant and ignorant to me..Alberta’s modern grievances are genuine and legitimate. From Ottawa’s carbon tax and its tanker ban to the ever-increasing regulatory hurdles and burdens that encumber our energy industry, Ottawa expressed contempt for Alberta and the Constitution of Canada. But the problems don’t end there, the regime currently in control in Ottawa seems bent on grinding Albertans into the dust. Alberta is treated as a bond servant, not a partner in confederation..Genuine and legitimate grievances go back historically, from the National Energy Program of the 1980s to the federal government extracting more than $600 billion from Albertans over the last 60 years. Examples of Western alienation finding deep roots in Alberta are no more difficult to uncover than good reasons for that alienation..But many of the UCP’s candidates want us to believe they can succeed where no others have before. Excuse me if I roll my eyes. Why should any of us believe that once again adopting the same failed strategy will produce better results this time?.One candidate spoke forcefully about his plans to negotiate a new deal with Ottawa, specifically mentioning the Supreme Court of Canada’s Quebec Secession Reference decision. With all due respect to the candidate, that decision presents no clear path forward..To explain, I need to quote paragraphs 68 and 69 of the court’s reasons at length:.A democratic system of government is committed to considering those dissenting voices, and seeking to acknowledge and address those voices in the laws by which all in the community must live..The Constitution Act, 1982 gives expression to this principle, by conferring a right to initiate constitutional change on each participant in confederation. In our view, the existence of this right imposes a corresponding duty on the participants in Confederation to engage in constitutional discussions in order to acknowledge and address democratic expressions of a desire for change in other provinces. This duty is inherent in the democratic principle which is a fundamental predicate of our system of governance..Please read those paragraphs carefully again. If you’ve got time, read the entire decision here. While the court did say Ottawa and our other partners in confederation have a duty to meet a disgruntled Alberta at the negotiation table, it does NOT mean Alberta will achieve anything more than to have its desire for change acknowledged, considered, and summarily dismissed..Alberta is in an impossible position and — dare I say — an intolerable one. How can we negotiate with terrorists? How can we negotiate with a regime that desires to phase out and eliminate our most critical industry? How can we negotiate with a lawless federal government that has clearly expressed Albertans will have no say in the matter? Frankly, any candidate who plans to negotiate would better spend our tax dollars writing ineffective letters..Ottawa has the upper hand. The days of begging for permission from central Canada are over. Alberta is facing an existential threat. It’s time for decisive, unilateral action to solve this otherwise intractable problem. Does Quebec get treated this way? If not, perhaps Alberta should act more like Quebec..The plan offered by these UCP candidates must be understood as what it is–a plan to maintain the status quo.
In a recent United Conservative Party of Alberta (UCP) leadership debate, a number of the candidates talked about “working with” or “negotiating with” Ottawa to secure a more favourable position for Alberta within Canada..Despite five previous generations of Albertans relying on the same strategy to eke out a more tolerable relationship with Ottawa, somehow these candidates will succeed. It came off sounding both arrogant and ignorant to me..Alberta’s modern grievances are genuine and legitimate. From Ottawa’s carbon tax and its tanker ban to the ever-increasing regulatory hurdles and burdens that encumber our energy industry, Ottawa expressed contempt for Alberta and the Constitution of Canada. But the problems don’t end there, the regime currently in control in Ottawa seems bent on grinding Albertans into the dust. Alberta is treated as a bond servant, not a partner in confederation..Genuine and legitimate grievances go back historically, from the National Energy Program of the 1980s to the federal government extracting more than $600 billion from Albertans over the last 60 years. Examples of Western alienation finding deep roots in Alberta are no more difficult to uncover than good reasons for that alienation..But many of the UCP’s candidates want us to believe they can succeed where no others have before. Excuse me if I roll my eyes. Why should any of us believe that once again adopting the same failed strategy will produce better results this time?.One candidate spoke forcefully about his plans to negotiate a new deal with Ottawa, specifically mentioning the Supreme Court of Canada’s Quebec Secession Reference decision. With all due respect to the candidate, that decision presents no clear path forward..To explain, I need to quote paragraphs 68 and 69 of the court’s reasons at length:.A democratic system of government is committed to considering those dissenting voices, and seeking to acknowledge and address those voices in the laws by which all in the community must live..The Constitution Act, 1982 gives expression to this principle, by conferring a right to initiate constitutional change on each participant in confederation. In our view, the existence of this right imposes a corresponding duty on the participants in Confederation to engage in constitutional discussions in order to acknowledge and address democratic expressions of a desire for change in other provinces. This duty is inherent in the democratic principle which is a fundamental predicate of our system of governance..Please read those paragraphs carefully again. If you’ve got time, read the entire decision here. While the court did say Ottawa and our other partners in confederation have a duty to meet a disgruntled Alberta at the negotiation table, it does NOT mean Alberta will achieve anything more than to have its desire for change acknowledged, considered, and summarily dismissed..Alberta is in an impossible position and — dare I say — an intolerable one. How can we negotiate with terrorists? How can we negotiate with a regime that desires to phase out and eliminate our most critical industry? How can we negotiate with a lawless federal government that has clearly expressed Albertans will have no say in the matter? Frankly, any candidate who plans to negotiate would better spend our tax dollars writing ineffective letters..Ottawa has the upper hand. The days of begging for permission from central Canada are over. Alberta is facing an existential threat. It’s time for decisive, unilateral action to solve this otherwise intractable problem. Does Quebec get treated this way? If not, perhaps Alberta should act more like Quebec..The plan offered by these UCP candidates must be understood as what it is–a plan to maintain the status quo.
