William D. Marriott is a retired economist who specialized in public policy analysis of the oil and gas industry.Things are starting to get both real and serious. If you’ve been ignoring the debate or hoping it doesn’t matter, it is time to wake up. The Stay Free Alberta (SFA) petitions have been delivered. At this point, there is north of 700,000 Albertans who want to vote “stay” or “leave” on an independence referendum. This is a substantial voting bloc that cannot be ignored. So, what’s the current state of play?First, language matters. It influences how we think and thus how we vote. Both sides should choose respect, although I am not optimistic. “Loaded” keywords broadcast intent; separatist vs secessionist or sovereigntist, independence vs separation. The name-calling by Don Braid in a recent Calgary Herald column shows both the short-sightedness and the desperation of the stay strategists. This sort of talk may encourage certain folks to keep their minds firmly closed, but it is not going to change the minds of anyone in the leave camp. The “curious” look at this hyperbole and a “too much” quote from Shakespeare immediately comes to mind.Second, we should be alert to fakes. For example, the claim that in an independent Alberta, the feds would not pay Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) benefits to retirees. Hopefully, this fake policy would not extend to the thousands of retired Canadians currently living permanently in foreign countries. Alberta will need its own pension plan for those working in Alberta. But for those already retired or with pension benefits in the CPP, an option may be to pick one — either the Alberta plan or the CPP. If you choose the Alberta plan, then the negotiators will try their best to get your benefits transferred from the CPP. But if you prefer to stay with the CPP, then you would be free to do so.More serious distractions are claims concerning constitutionality or that the wording of the Alberta question is subject to approval by Mark Carney. The heavy lifting on constitutional matters is the Supreme Court’s Quebec Secession Reference and Jean Chrétien’s response to this in the Clarity Act. These are available to those with further interest in summaries on Wiki. Suffice it to say that the Clarity Act is a bit heavy-handed and would be challenged in court either by Alberta or Quebec if it were used inappropriately. The last paragraph of the Reference is interesting as it says that in the event of international eg Donald Trump recognition, this recognition would “de facto” create an independent state regardless of Canada’s laws or jurisprudence. Would Canada then send in the military as Britain did with Northern Ireland? That worked well..Which brings us to the current decision in the claims of “Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation and other First Nations vs. His Majesty the King et al.” Paragraph 1 of the Cree claim states, “This case is about the consent of First Nations that is required for any separatist process in Alberta.”The judge dismissed the claim of “irreparable harm” to the Cree Nation. But First Nations will still be involved in the negotiations between Alberta and Canada. The most likely outcome is a trilateral agreement to cooperatively sort the issues. Where First Nations wish to remain under Canadian administration, they would no doubt be free to do so.But we have world precedents for peaceful and cooperative negotiation for two nations to establish autonomy. For example, look to the Swedes and the Norwegians who also have indigenous populations. Or the Czechs and the Slovaks, who negotiated a harmonious split. We, overly polite Canadians, will surely be able to do it too.What is more likely is that First Nations rights would be extended, e.g., to audited band financial reports and independently regulated elections. This explains the significant signing of the SFA petition by individual First Nations people. Like the independence movement, they feel they can make a better deal with Alberta than they have with Canada..But the judge did rule that the government failed in its duty to consult the First Nations. Danielle Smith and Jeffery Rath are both planning to appeal this decision. The appeals will likely succeed because of previous case law that addressed this very issue. But more than that, how was it that Smith could possibly consult on a policy that her government did not initiate and which her government repudiates? Remember, it was a citizen-led initiative, not a government initiative. Then there is the not-insubstantial matter of Thomas Lukaszuk’s Forever Canada referendum. It is still a “stay” vs. “leave” question and thus a “separatist process.” Will the chiefs then also challenge the Lukaszuk petition? Probably, and they will also challenge any referendum question posed by the Alberta government as well. However, on these matters, they will fail in the initial hearing as the Canadian apartheid policies concerning First Nations are increasingly losing support amongst everyday Canadians.But the biggest impact of this decision is on the dynamics of the independence process itself. The leave faction has been galvanized and will work even harder. A substantial section of the soft “leave” vote just moved into the leave camp.But what say the current talking heads?.Smith needs to demonstrate not only that Canada can work for Alberta, but that Canada can work at all. This may be a losing battle. And a pipeline pseudo announcement may not be enough to shift the current momentum.Naheed Nenshi is increasingly becoming irrelevant, as he has really not grown politically into the job of opposition leader. He is out of touch, not only with the voters but with reality as well.Thomas Lukaszuk will not debate the issues, but will provide anti-Smith quotes for perhaps another run at provincial politics? His denial that he asked for a referendum has provided him with zero credibility..Jason Kenney is making common cause with the federal Liberals, becoming the champion of the stay side. He is trying to milk the current anti-Trump sentiment to herd votes his way. And this may be an attempt to set the stage for the leadership of the Conservatives when they finally dump Pierre Poilievre. Sadly, he is very much yesterday’s man. Jeffery Rath will talk to anyone, anytime, but is just used by an anti-independence media to present a caricature of a typical independence supporter. Mitch Sylvestre has been largely quiet, maintaining his backroom role.That leaves Keith Wilson as the most important independence champion. Try looking at his X feed. And he recently debated Kenney in a closed forum and will shortly do it again publicly. There will be YouTube videos. Might be worth an hour of your time.William D. Marriott is a retired economist who specialized in public policy analysis of the oil and gas industry.
