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 have long been of the opinion that this will be interpreted by the federalists — especially the current federal government — as indicating that Albertans are happy with the status quo, with Albertans continuing to be taxed to subsidize provincial government services and industries in other provinces, while Alberta’s oil and gas industry continues to be burdened with punitive legislation, smothering regulations, and uneconomic, ideologically driven political restrictions, and that the defeat of Option 2 means that any chance for meaningful change in the federation would be lost.Or maybe not…On March 6, 1836, an overwhelming force supporting the centralist government of Mexico decisively defeated a small cadre of Texas independence seekers in the Battle of the Alamo. It looked like the end of the Texas independence movement. However, just six weeks later, at the Battle of San Jacinto, another vastly outnumbered group of Texans just as decisively routed the centralists, securing Texas’ sovereignty.The successful group chose a different battlefield and used different tactics to defeat the centralists and secure their cause. They had a new leader, General Sam Houston — indeed, the entire group was new, the Alamo defenders having all been killed — and went on the offensive, attacking the centralists in their own camp. They employed a new tactic of moving their artillery during the course of the battle.I suggest that Alberta independence seekers need to emulate the Texans. Don’t abandon the fight. Don’t wait too long for a counterattack. Don’t persist with the same tactics. Choose a new battlefield. And maybe even get new leaders.What might this look like?Many (most?) prominent “Remainers” — including Lukaszuk, Nenshi, Smith, and Carney — have acknowledged that Albertans have legitimate grievances but have claimed that the best way to resolve these grievances is within Canada … although they have been largely silent as to the specifics of how to do so and have proposed no approaches to addressing these grievances.So ‘attack’ the Remainers in their own ‘camp,’ putting them on the defensive by providing a list of grievances with an indication of what needs to be done to address them, and shift the ‘tactic’ to requiring them to publish a plan and a schedule for doing so … and then insist that they do it..I would suggest dividing the list into three distinct groups: immediate actions the federal government can take on its own, longer-term independent federal actions, and constitutional amendments that the federal government can introduce and promote.While the specific content of these lists would be up to Albertans to define, my suggestions would be as follows.The federal government can take immediate action on its own by repealing the nine bad laws, eliminating all direct and indirect taxes on oil and gas, and removing the carbon capture system requirement for pipeline approval.Things the feds can do on their own in the near term (given that the Liberals have a majority).Changing the equalization formula is well within the federal government's purview, as the Equalization Program is a federal initiative. Although provincial agreement has been sought in the past, it does not appear to be a constitutional requirement. Unilaterally updating the formula to a more rationally unassailable standard would effectively neuter the program's current negative impacts.To change the senator selection process, legislation should be introduced that binds the prime minister to appoint senators for a province only from a list provided by that province's government. Additionally, this legislation should stipulate that any future changes to it would require a majority vote from both the members of Parliament (MPs) and senators representing every province.To change the judge selection process, legislation should be introduced that binds the prime minister to appoint judges in any province only from a list provided by the government of the province in which the judge will operate. Additionally, this legislation should stipulate that any future changes to it would require a majority vote from both the MPs and senators representing every province.To change the definition of an official party, the Parliament of Canada Act should be amended to require that a party run candidates in at least 50% of the ridings in every province during the immediately prior election, as well as elect a number of MPs that represents at least 5% of the total number of MPs..Constitutional amendments the feds could sponsor and promote.Senators would be limited to ten-year terms, with the longest-serving senator being replaced each year. They would be selected randomly from among provincial residents who meet specific qualification requirements. To be eligible, individuals must be Canadian-born citizens who have lived in Canada for at least 20 years, be between the ages of 40 and 60, and have been residents and taxpayers in the province they will represent for at least a decade. Additionally, candidates must have no criminal record and must have indicated their preparedness to serve.It is worth noting that senators are not elected. Electing them would simply transform the Senate into another partisan chamber, shifting their allegiance from their respective provinces to a political party, which undermines the Senate's intended purpose.To change the judge selection process, the approach described above should be utilized at a minimum, or alternatively, the process outlined in the previously linked essay within the Senate section could be adopted.Decoupling the legislative and executive branches is essential, as their complete integration is the root of many federal problems. When cabinet ministers both make the laws and decide how they are implemented, it creates opportunities to favour "friends and family" through legislation and unrestrained partiality during implementation. A clear example of this is the recent act granting cabinet ministers the authority to suspend laws for favoured companies.A new, non-overlapping list of allocated powers should be created to eliminate shared responsibilities. By default, powers should reside with the provinces unless all provinces agree to allocate them to the federal government. Additionally, individual provinces should have the option to delegate specific authorities upward, provided they also grant the federal government permission to tax their residents for the associated costs.All the items in the first set are within the purview of the current ruling Liberal Party, since it has a majority in the House. A single bill could repeal all the acts. Removal of regulations could be done by order in council. Carney could change his MOU.The second set is also within the purview of the current Liberal government, although these changes might take a bit longer because legislation would need to be drafted. This would require little beyond what I have already written..The third set would take a bit longer since constitutional amendments would need to be drafted. However, since these amendments are intended to address Albertans’ grievances, there would be no need for the federal government to discuss or negotiate any of them with any government other than the government of Alberta. Once agreement had been reached with the Alberta government, the federal government could put the amendments before the House and Senate with a recommendation for approval and forward them to the provincial governments with the same recommendation.The response by the federalists to such an initiative by the independence seekers would be revealing.If enthusiastically embraced, it could lead to a transformation of Canada into a vibrant, dynamic, economically robust country, where people would gladly remain “forever Canadian” and a ‘battle of San Jacinto’ would be rendered moot.If met with resistance of any degree, it would clearly demonstrate to those who voted in favour of Option 1 in the hope that real change would result that their hope was misplaced and, federalist rhetoric aside, no real change would result. This could dramatically change the conversation so that a ‘battle of San Jacinto’ would be readily won.This brings us to the question of leadership.IMO, as much as it may pain some people, Premier Smith seems the best positioned to be Alberta’s Sam Houston. She currently is the leader of the Alberta government and has consistently advocated for a “sovereign Alberta within a united Canada,” which is consistent with the new ‘battle plan.’ Give her the task — and the list of objectives — and then hold her accountable.Poilievre should be able to help, as most of the things on the above list are unarguably rational and would require passage in the House of Commons.Whatever you do, do not give the job to Nenshi or Lukaszuk … although both should be pressed to support the effort. Nenshi can lobby the federal wing of the NDP to support the issues in Parliament, and Lukaszuk can mobilize his “Forever Canadian” followers to present a united Albertan front so as to ensure that they remain that.Instead of “Remember the Alamo,” the cri de guerre for all could be “Remember Question 10.”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.
