I read with great interest the Preston Manning interview carried in the National Post on June 2. As my former leader, a colleague, and a great friend, I’m always impressed by his wisdom and intellect and pay close attention to his well-thought-out opinions.The headline stated, “…sticking to status quo in the face of Alberta separation is extremely unwise.” I agree. But then the article went on to say Preston believes that when the majority of the province’s citizens vote for Alberta to “remain” in Canada, the sovereignty option within the federation will need “a push.” However, not for the first time, I find myself in disagreement.“A push” for sovereignty within a united Canada will ultimately only produce more disillusionment, frustration and anger. As it has for the last 120 years, since Alberta and Saskatchewan joined Canada. Upper and Lower Canada, and the East, never designed Confederation to treat the West fairly. Repealing a few anti-resource development laws won’t change that. To permanently fix Canada’s federation requires constitutional change to eliminate future governments (read Liberals) from simply passing new laws that continue the subjugation of the West. For those who haven’t seen or read the Post article, Preston’s interview dealt with the current hot topic of the Alberta referendum Premier Danielle Smith has called for October 19 of this year. Or at least, while it’s the current hot topic on the Prairies, it remains to be seen if many in central and eastern Canada are paying attention to the issue. And if they are … whether they care about it? The last of ten questions posed to eligible Albertans in the referendum is a convoluted, multiple-choice question that deals with whether Albertans want our province to remain a part of Canada or consider leaving. A “leave” result would require our provincial government to begin the process to hold a binding referendum on independence at some point in the future. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Manning declared he intends to cast his ballot for Alberta to remain in Canada. I intend to do the opposite..Why? Because I believe that a “remain” vote outcome will result in Ottawa and the Rest of Canada (ROC) heaving a sigh of relief, shrugging their collective shoulders while muttering “there, crisis averted” and going on with their lives. Nothing will change. Certainly, nothing that cannot be undone in the future.But there is another option. By voting “yes,” you would consider the option of leaving Canada, it ensures negotiation will continue with Ottawa and sends a strong message that the status quo arrangement is truly unacceptable. A “no” vote ensures nothing more than endless dialogue. Not negotiating from strength. But more of the same, continued begging, pleading, and whining … and Ottawa dictating Alberta’s future.I have experienced much good fortune throughout my lifetime. To have had the opportunity to transition from a grain farm and employment in the natural gas fields of northeastern British Columbia, to seventeen years as a Member of Parliament and a seat at the federal cabinet table and finally wrapping things up with a successful small business, I have been equally humbled and gratified. This experience has given me a unique understanding of how Canada works … or doesn’t. Six years ago, when I and a small group of other rebellious Westerners took over a federal political party named Wexit, we attempted to reform it from a singularly Western separatist party to a party that would truly represent Western Canadians. We wanted to offer Westerners a choice to elect Members of Parliament that would be free from party discipline to represent only their constituents, and our region’s best interests. Sort of like a Western Bloc Quebecois party.Like Premier Smith’s referendum question, we also presented two options. Option “A” involved promoting five amendments to the Constitution of Canada. They dealt with guaranteed market access, provincial rights, property rights, provincial autonomy, and fair representation. The first three would fall under the existing 7/50 amending formula, while the last two would require unanimity of all ten provinces and both Houses of Parliament. Option “B” was for the Maverick Party to pursue outright independence for the West. .Once our members recognized there was virtually no appetite in the ROC for meaningful constitutional reform, most of us came to the realization that left only one choice. Independence. How many Albertans remember the last provincial referendum when they voted almost 62% in favour of removing the principle of equalization payments from Canada’s Constitution, where Pierre Trudeau had it embedded in 1982? What happened to that? If Premier Smith wants to convince us of the sincerity of Mark Carney, why doesn’t she demand that he support that “voice of the people?” If you believe, as Preston does, that status quo federalism is a non-starter but are not convinced that Alberta as an independent nation is the way to go, you should still vote to pursue independence. For it is the only choice that will keep the pressure on Ottawa and the ROC to finally address our legitimate grievances. And, just because you vote for independence in October doesn’t mean you have to vote for it again if there is ever a binding referendum. Regardless of which side of Alberta independence you support … remain or leave, I urge both sides to present respectful and factual arguments supporting their positions. In the days, weeks, and months ahead, please manage your emotions and resist inflated rhetoric that Armageddon is about to descend based on a vote one way or the other.Stay calm and carry on.
