Jim Mason holds a BSc in engineering physics and a PhD in experimental nuclear physics; he lived and worked in Alberta for 17 years and is currently retired and living near Lakefield, Ontario.I know that it is unconscionably presumptuous for an Easterner (ON) to tell Albertans … well … anything … but especially anything about Alberta independence or how to vote with respect to Question 10 in the October 19 referendum. But I’m going to do so anyway.Now … before you reflexively simply stop reading, let me try to establish some legitimacy for doing so.Those of you who read the comments after Western Standard articles should recognize that I consistently acknowledge the legitimacy of Albertans’ ‘grievances’ (which I consider to be nothing more than accurate observations about the defects in Canada’s governance structure) and support having those effectively addressed, but also acknowledge the practical difficulties associated with achieving independence and, indeed, also with achieving redress of these ‘grievances.’ Elsewhere I have described an alternative equalization formula that would effectively eliminate the program without requiring a (surely impossible) constitutional amendment, a redesign of our governance structure that would ‘fix’ all the defects Albertans have identified (and others) and have recently collaborated with the Editor-in-Chief of the C2C Journal on a three-part series exploring the Clarity Act and its implications.I hope that this will be enough for you to give yourself permission to read on.Regarding independence, there are really only two ways to achieve this: by a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) or by the process defined in the so-called Clarity Act..The Clarity Act — which, like it or not, is the law of the land — echoes the prior ruling by the Supreme Court, in the reference regarding possible Quebec secession, that there is no legal basis for a UDI in either the Canadian Constitution or international law. As the Court observed, however, this does not mean that it could not happen. People — even in Canada — have been known to deliberately break the law. However, the police — even in Canada — have also been known to enforce the law — think of the Freedom Convoy after the invocation of the Emergencies Act (EA). And, historically, UDIs have resulted in serious armed conflict. The US War of Independence is perhaps the best-known example.Given that the former Liberal federal government declared the EA in response to a few illegally parked trucks that certainly had no intent to break up the country (albeit, as subsequently determined by the courts, that invocation was unjustifiable), and that Mark Carney was on record at the time as saying that the truckers were guilty of sedition, it can reasonably be expected that that same Mark Carney, who is now the Liberal Prime Minister, would not hesitate to invoke the EA and deploy the Canadian Armed Forces at the mere suspicion of a possible — and, a priori, illegal — UDI — a true “apprehended insurrection.”Then there are the practical considerations of issuing a UDI.Who would do so? It would need to be someone widely recognized as having the legitimacy to do so. While the Alberta Premier might be such a person, Premier Smith seems an unlikely candidate, given her stated public position. Who then? And who would be the “George Washington” who would lead — and whom people would follow in — the likely battle against a far superior force?.So a UDI seems like a very risky approach, almost certainly doomed to failure, with potentially devastating results.Alas, as discussed in the aforementioned three-part essay, the process laid out in the Clarity Act is likely to reach the same unsuccessful outcome, albeit without the potentially devastating results.It seems to have been intentionally designed this way. The House of Commons, at its sole discretion, is specifically designated as being in control of all the major decisions, and the process must end with the adoption of a constitutional amendment according to at least the standard 7/10:50 rule — approved by 7 of the 10 provinces that contain at least 50% of the population. Which 6 provinces, with enough of the population, are going to side with Alberta?Which brings us to the October 19 referendum.Question 10 does not offer an independence option. It offers a “Let’s just stay in Canada” option and a “Let’s start a process that might end in independence” option.In the view of this Easterner, any Albertan who wants a better Alberta for themselves, their children, and their grandchildren (or anyone who might move there in the future) would be silly not to vote for the second option..A vote for the first option is an indication that you are happy with the status quo.There is no conditional phrase, no “remain … but only if the following things are done.” It’s just “remain.” What reason would there be for the federal government or any of the other provinces to seriously consider any changes to anything?Albertans will have indicated that they are entirely happy with things the way they currently are.On the other hand, a vote for the second option, while not a vote for independence, is a vote that indicates extreme dissatisfaction with the status quo.It implies that if changes are not made, actually pursuing independence is a potential outcome. But it does not irrevocably commit to this pursuit. It allows the federal government and the rest of the provinces to make the changes necessary to avert this. The ball is then in their court to take the required actions to obviate the need for a subsequent referendum or, at the very least, to put in place a set of changes that would render the independence option moot.For Albertans, voting “yes” to option 2 is a zero-risk, high-reward choice.So … disregard your emotion, discount your nostalgia for a mythical Canada of your memory or imagination, and, bearing in mind Samuel Johnson’s observation that “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel,” dismiss the faux patriotism being trumpeted by the “Remainers,” exercise your logic, your realism, and your real love for your country, and vote for Albertans’ best interests … and, for that matter, the best interests of those of us in the rest of Canada.Respectfully, your token Easterner.Jim Mason holds a BSc in engineering physics and a PhD in experimental nuclear physics; he lived and worked in Alberta for 17 years and is currently retired and living near Lakefield, Ontario.
