Jim Mason holds a BSc in engineering physics and a PhD in experimental nuclear physicsIn a previous opinion piece, I argued that the two questions currently vying to become approved referendum questions in Alberta created a false dilemma fallacy by incorrectly partitioning the decision space into just two extreme positions when other options are also possible, and that the strategy currently being employed by the ‘Leavers’ had a significant risk of losing, thereby trapping Albertans in the status quo for the foreseeable future. I also suggested an alternative strategy that avoided this risk, offering the possibility of achieving the expected benefits of separation without the associated cost and risk, but also did not preclude separation if that turned out to be necessary..MASON: To leave or not to leave, that is the question.Many people made the effort to express their opinions about this argument in comments. Most of these could be expressed more or less as: “No thanks. We’ve been trying for 40 years to get the constitution changed to give Alberta a better deal in the federation but with no success. We’re done. We’re leaving. Get over it.”With respect … no you haven’t.There have been exactly two attempts to change the constitution and neither one of them were to specifically address Alberta’s grievances. The first, the Meech Lake Accord in 1987 was primarily directed at assuaging Quebec’s grievances. The second, the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 was another attempt primarily to assuage Quebec’s grievances, but secondarily to try to assuage Aboriginal grievances, and only thirdly to try to do something about Albertans’ grievances with a double-E senate. .So neither was really a focussed attempt to address the totality of Albertans’ grievances. As a result, both were grab-bags of disparate items, so too many people could find at least one thing with which they could not agree. But since they were ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ as complete packages, they both got defeated.Perhaps if the double-E senate had been on its own — or even in conjunction with other Alberta-specific changes, especially if the total package would equally benefit all Canadians — the amendment might have passed.But in any event, so what?It took William Wilberforce 46 years to effect the change that got slavery outlawed in the British Empire. In fact, it did not finally happen until after he died. Should he have abandoned the effort after 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years because it had been been so long and no success? Or how about Thomas Edison, who, while attempting to invent the lightbulb, said, “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”.MACLEOD: Alberta's oil and the leverage of nationhood.Or how about the Canadians at Vimy Ridge, successful after failures by both the French and the British, which success was largely the result of the innovative planning of Arthur Currie, an Easterner. Are we to take it that today’s Albertans are not as capable as yesterday’s Easterners?Some commenters pointed to the failed attempt to effect change by sending Reform Party MPs to Ottawa, even forming the Official Opposition for a time. However, this is really nothing more than one of Edison’s 10,000 attempts and, frankly, the failure should have been foreseeable with a little reflection. With Canada’s governance system, the Official Opposition can accomplish little on its own, so expecting opposition MPs to convince the ruling government to change the system that gives it its power is completely unrealistic..Furthermore, the operation of the Parliament is not conducive to grand schemes like changing the constitution. MPs are consumed by the everyday minutiae, the strategizing of how best to score some political points, and what questions to ask in Question Period to most effectively embarrass the government.In any case, that was then and this is now. The political landscape has changed significantly. There have been two referenda on Quebec separation, one of which was only narrowly defeated. We now have the federal Clarity Act and the Alberta Referendum Act. And we have had the Trudeau fils years.Where is the Albertan Wilberforce who is undeterred by the length of time because the cause is righteous? Where is the Albertan Edison, who can view past ways that did not work, not as failures, bit simply as approaches not to be repeated? Where is the Albertan Currie with the ingenuity to use the current ‘terrain’ to devise an approach that would be successful where others have failed?Giving up — especially without even really trying — is so not an Albertan characteristic!.ALBERS: I've met 'the enemy' — turns out they're better neighbours than Ottawa.And you could have already started with something where significant, effective results could be obtained without a constitutional change.One of Albertan’s perennial grievances is the Equalization Program. You even had a referendum on it, voting overwhelmingly to have it removed from the constitution. But to date, there has been no action on that — at least not from the provincial government.This Easterner, who shares Albertans antipathy for the program, set out to determine if there was a way to rectify the inequities of the program without a constitutional amendment, which, if possible, would seem to be a desirable thing.Indeed, a straightforward, constitutionally compliant eligibility-and-funding formula that uses data straight from audited provincial financial statements and a decision algorithm that is the universal standard in the world of science for making decisions about relative comparability, not only rectifies the inequities but effectively neuters the program, reducing the recipient provinces to typically one and the associated payout to just a few million dollars. Anyone interested can read the details here:.Some commenters seemed to have formed the impression that I was advocating for the ‘Remainers.’ Such is not the case. My only intent was to alert Albertans to the fact that the current trajectory may well end with them in an even worse situation than presently, with the population rejecting separation — which would undoubtedly be interpreted by Ottawa and the rest of Canada as being an endorsement of the status quo — and to suggest an alternative approach that would avoid this risk, have the prospect of actually achieving that long-wished-for—but never pursued — constitutional amendment, but not preclude separation if a satisfactory amendment cannot be achieved..SIMS: Smith must be the Iron Lady and say 'NO' to wasteful spending.This alternative approach can be likened to that used by the US in ending the war in the Pacific. Hold a referendum to overwhelmingly approve the equivalent of the Potsdam Declaration that was “a statement demanding the unconditional surrender of Japan in World War II, threatening "prompt and utter destruction" if it refused.”So … “unless these [clearly specified] changes are implemented, Alberta will separate”—the nuclear option. The Japanese ignored the declaration and suffered the devastation of two atomic bombs. One can always hope that the federal government and the other provinces would not be so self-destructively intransigent.Ne te a nebulonibus defatigentur.Jim Mason holds a BSc in engineering physics and a PhD in experimental nuclear physics
