GIESBRECHT: The 'unknown unknowns' of Alberta independence

The Alberta independence referendum might not be that far away. The Western Standard has reported on the latest polling numbers. More Westerners are now open to independence as an option. But although polls can be useful, I suggest that on the independence issue current poll numbers might be of little value, because once a referendum is underway the unexpected can happen.We have seen that in past referendum situations, like in our own Meech Lake wild ride, or in Great Britain’s equally unpredictable Brexit debate. The politicians who initiated those referendums expected citizens to stick to the script and just answer the question posed on the ballot before them. But that’s not what happened. Instead, many citizens used their vote as an opportunity to address other grievances not strictly relevant to the referendum question..Who would have thought, for example, that Meech Lake would have been derailed by a Manitoba indigenous leader holding up an eagle feather, for reasons that few had even considered when the referendum was initiated?Or, consider the Brexit referendum. Then-prime minister David Cameron initiated it, fully expecting a vote that would put an end to complaints about the European Union (EU) that had been nagging Britain since it entered the EU. Instead, voters, with complaints about everything from soup to nuts, denied him the vote he expected, and removed Britain from the EU — and Cameron from office.So, when polls are taken about important national issues, like Western independence, they should be taken with a grain of salt. Because anything can happen once the writ is dropped. .As the late Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of Defence, famously put it:“There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.”The best we can do is to analyze the “known knowns,” and do our best trying to figure out the “known unknowns.” And only then, try to imagine what some of the “unknown unknowns” might be. Those “unknown unknowns” will only make themselves “known” when they suddenly jump up to bite us..Eric Adams, a law professor and constitutional scholar at the University of Alberta, speculated about some of the “known unknowns” in a recent Maclean's article that asked the question: “Is Alberta serious about separating?”His short answer to that question is that “the current intensity of the separatist chatter in some parts of the province feels unprecedented.”He then jumps immediately to the major ideological difference between Alberta and the Laurentian-dominated federal government Canada — namely the diametrically opposed ideas between the federal government and Alberta about what to do with fossil fuels. Adams puts the difference this way:“The argument from many in this province is: We should keep drilling and let future technologies solve the emissions problem. Practically speaking, those philosophical differences between the federal and provincial governments make a referendum almost inevitable.”Put another way, the federal government wants to end the use of fossil fuels, and Alberta doesn’t. A fundamental disagreement that can only be resolved by a referendum. When asked how he thinks events are likely to play out in the near future, he offers this:“We’re heading into a period of political instability, particularly between Alberta and the federal government. If a referendum goes ahead, we’ll see a heated campaign full of claims and counterclaims about Alberta’s future, many of which will be speculative or outright misleading. Crucially, it’ll consume political oxygen and distract from pressing issues like health care, trade, climate and economic diversification. If the referendum fails, as polling suggests it likely will, that could weaken Alberta’s negotiating position. Ottawa may conclude that it doesn’t need to take Alberta’s threats seriously. This whole maneuver is a gamble that could backfire. “.And when asked how our southern neighbours might react to all of this in the event of a “Yes” vote, he offers the following intriguing insight:“That’s another wild card. A new, resource-rich, militarily undefended country appearing on the U.S. border? That wouldn’t go unnoticed. The Americans might move to recognize Alberta’s sovereignty quickly and try to land a trading partner that would help quell their daily oil deficit. They might also take steps to prevent adversaries like Russia or China from gaining influence. There could be geopolitical consequences we can’t yet predict.”But Adams doesn’t directly address the possibility that a referendum would also expose the fragile fracture lines between Alberta and Quebec, such as the controversial equalization payments issue, as well as their very different views on fossil fuels. It seems highly likely to me that some of these sensitive points of difference would be forced out into the open.There would thus be a danger that the referendum will result in name calling between Alberta and Quebec. The major differences in attitudes makes this likely. Most Albertans believe that equalization formulas are unfair, and result in Alberta transferring much of their wealth to Quebec. Quebec is offended by this claim. Most Westerners believe that their fossil fuel industry is essential, and want restrictions on oil and gas production and marketing eased. The belief in Quebec, generally, is that oil is “dirty” and that the fossil fuel industry is a relic of the past that is on its way out. A major spokesman for that view is Steven Guilbeault, who advocates that “peak oil” will be reached by 2028 or 2029, and the entire oil and gas industry will then rapidly wither. If one accepts his claim why would anyone want to invest in pipelines, or any other part of an industry that has no future? Most Westerners, on the other hand believe that fossil fuels will be with us for some time yet, and we should develop the oil and gas industry..Hopefully the debate on these fraught points would be conducted respectfully, but some fireworks should be expected. There will be many other contentious issues as well that would have to be openly and frankly debated during a referendum campaign. There is even the possibility that such a campaign in Alberta might add gasoline to the separation fire that always smoulders in Quebec.We don’t know. These are “known unknowns.”.But could there be some “unknown unknowns” that we should at least guess at?What about this one? That perhaps Donald Trump was not serious about making Canada the 51st state? After all, Trump is a Republican, and campaigned against almost everything that progressive, anti-fossil fuel eastern Canada stands for. Why would he want 25 million, or so, eastern Canadians who would mostly vote Democrat and demand more government services, as well as insist on emissions caps, net-zero and all of the other policies he fought against?But what if all he was after all along was Alberta, and perhaps the other western provinces? Not only would America benefit significantly from their wealth of natural resources and agricultural potential, the amount of fresh water that could be diverted to their dry South West is enormous. Arizona could become a garden. But the strategic benefit would also be huge. In one fell swoop America would have a corridor to the eastern Arctic, and eventually a connection to both Greenland and the Northwest Passage? Russia and China’s northern ambitions could be more easily contained. Simply put, a U.S. that included Western Canada would be significantly more rich and powerful..This is pure speculation on my part — just a guess about a possible 'unknown unknowns' — but if any part of this is actually what is on Trump’s mind, it could change the entire independence equation.For example, if an independence referendum did proceed, there might be American involvement from the outset. Imagine, for example, a scenario where, at the end of the six months Premier Danielle Smith has set, Carney is seen as being unserious about Smith’s list of demands. Perhaps he has refused to lower the emissions cap, or make any other compromises on his net zero dream, and Alberta’s oil and gas aspirations appear to be stalled indefinitely. Imagine that Carney has introduced other measures seen by the West as undesirable, raising taxes and perhaps introducing a home equity tax. In short, aggravating Western alienation. Now imagine Trump stepping into that fraught situation and making attractive promises to Alberta..And if a referendum is held and the vote is a 'yes' for independence, imagine Trump actively courting Alberta. Promises, like drastically reduced taxation, the elimination of excessive restrictions on resource development, no emissions cap and Canadian dollar conversion at par to the U.S. dollar. That offer might be very attractive to many Albertans. It might also result in other Westerners wanting in. Imagine the prospect of one’s net worth doubling overnight, American universities becoming available for your children, and retirement homes in Florida and other American citizenship benefits becoming instantly available?And in the case of a “yes” vote, Trump’s big stick would prevent Eastern Canada from bullying Alberta in negotiations over secession terms.The obvious criticism of my scenario — that Trump might actively interfere in internal Canadian matters in this way — is that no American president has ever interfered in Canadian affairs to such an extent in the past. But then, no previous American president has referred to Canada as a “51st state” or our PM as “governor” before. Trump has shown time and time again that he is unlike any previous president, and he cannot be counted on to respect convention. Trump prefers to be both unique, and uniquely unpredictable. He has already interfered in a highly unconventional way in Canadian affairs, and he might choose to do so again..Exactly what would transpire if Trump did intervene in this way is an 'unknown'... But anything can happen once the writ is dropped. An "unknown unknown” can suddenly make itself known.If Trump did intervene and Alberta, and perhaps the other Western provinces, did ultimately succeed in leaving Canada, and entering into statehood, or some other kind of economic union with Trump’s America, those already committed to Alberta independence would be mightily pleased.However, as a Western Canadian who is still hoping that the new Carney government will make the ideological climb down on issues like climate emergency, net zero or EV mandate by (whatever date they set from time to time,) or any of their other radical ideological rigidities that will be necessary to keep Canada together, the prospect of a Trump intervention frightens me.But I see no evidence that the Carney Liberals are less ideological than the Trudeau Liberals. In fact, it is becoming increasingly evident that the Carney Liberals are just a more polished version of the same Trudeau Liberals who have so thoroughly weakened the country. Their plan, for example, to cling to their net zero utopia, by claiming that Canada will sell only "decarbonized oil,” is pure fiction. .FOURNIER: All you need to know about Carney's 'decarbonized' oil pipeline.Premier Smith’s plan appears to be to play along with their “decarbonized oil” fantasy in order to get the bitumen pipeline to the West coast built. Whether or not a plan built on such a shaky foundation can succeed remains to be seen..The fact is that net zero cannot be achieved without sacrificing economic growth. The Carney Liberals, like the Trudeau Liberals before them, refuse to admit that brutal fact.And I see no evidence that Eastern Canada believes Alberta’s determined march towards independence is anything but a negotiating tactic. They believe that it is just “Western whining” that will soon fizzle.That’s essentially the way the Macleans article concludes — essentially saying “Go back to sleep, nothing to see here.” Not even considering the possibility of “unknown unknowns.”For those who are committed to independence it is good news that they are sleeping.For those of us who are still hoping that the Canada we once knew and loved can be restored, it is not.Brian Giesbrecht is a retired judge and senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

GIESBRECHT: The 'unknown unknowns' of Alberta independence

Related Stories