Jim Mason holds a BSc in engineering physics and a PhD in experimental nuclear physicsTo leave, or not to leave, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of an outrageous federation, Or to make votes against it, And by opposing leave it.(With credit and apologies to William Shakespeare)This is the fundamental question Albertans may soon be facing as the following two questions try to garner enough support to be put to referenda.“Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?” (To leave?)“Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?” (Or not to leave?).Despite being clear questions as required by the Clarity Act, these are both bad questions and are very dangerous for Albertans. Before rushing out to add their names to the petitions to get either question adopted as a valid referendum question, Albertans need to be aware of these defects and dangers..Defective QuestionsBoth questions are defective because they are formulated to evoke an emotional rather than a thoughtful response, and both present a forced, false dichotomy, forcing a choice between only two extreme outcomes which are not the only two possible.The first question is formulated to evoke an emotional, “anti-Ottawa” response from people who perceive that Albertans have been consistently exploited and disrespected by the federal government in particular, and the rest of Canada in general, and denied their rightful place in the federation. The second question is formulated to evoke an emotional, “patriotic” response from people with a sentimental attachment to their personal, imagined, concept of Canada.A “Yes” to the first question is a vote for Alberta to leave Canada — Wexit, if you will — and a “No” is a vote to remain in Canada. The reverse is true of the second question. A “yes” is a vote to remain in Canada while a “No” is a vote to leave Canada (Wexit)..EDITORIAL: When cheap money betrays Canadians, the case for fiscal discipline.So these present just two extremes: leave or remain. But there is a third option that might be preferred by a large fraction — perhaps a “clear majority” even — of Albertans, namely to remain in Canada but if, and only if, the contract that is Confederation is renegotiated with acceptable terms and conditions.The questions might more appropriately read:“Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada, if an acceptable renegotiation of the Canadian federation cannot be achieved?”“Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada if nothing in the federation changes but all remains the same?”.These two formulations might evoke quite different responses than the current versions but forcing just the two extreme positions precludes the third option.And therein lies the danger.Dangerous QuestionsVoting to remain in Canada is a vote for the status quo. Albertans will have eliminated whatever bargaining chips they might have had for effecting beneficial changes to the federation. Liberal governments in Ottawa, already predisposed to ignore the interests or concerns of Albertans since Albertans don't vote Liberal anyway, will now have absolutely no reason to change their ways since Albertans will have clearly indicated that they are happy with the current situation. Any complaints from Albertans about their lot will justifiably be met with, “Look! Albertans clearly indicated that they are quite happy with Canada the way that it is since they voted to remain a part of Canada knowing what that situation was.”On the other hand, voting to leave is … well … voting to leave. It is not voting to leave unless acceptable changes to the federation are negotiated. It is a vote to negotiate, for sure, but only to negotiate the dissolution of the partnership and the enumeration and disposition of the assets and liabilities. And with no expectations of any sort of preferential or preferred treatment of Alberta post-separation by what might remain of Canada..HANNAFORD: The making of revolution in Alberta....“Hang on,” some might say, “this is really no different from Britain leaving the European Union.” Yes and no. Britain had centuries of existence as a separate nation before joining the EU. So its leaving was simply a reversion to that pre-existing state. Britain already had all the institutions, institutional memory, and expertise required to be a separate country. While Alberta has some of this — albeit acquired at the provincial level but likely transferable to the country level — it is missing certain important, even critical, aspects. It has no armed forces — indeed, not even a provincial police force — nor, most importantly, perhaps, a separate currency, all of which Britain had. While none of the missing pieces are insurmountable, neither are they trivial..And then there is the issue of “a clear majority.” Just what does that mean? Suppose the ‘leave’ option gets 70% of the vote but only 70% of the eligible voters vote. The ‘leavers’ thus represent only 49% of the eligible voters. What if the courts rule that this is not a “clear” majority, despite having gained 70% of the actual votes cast? The leave option is now lost, and with it goes the prospect of Albertans ever getting better treatment within Canada.A Better Way?Would it not be better to adopt an approach of seeking acceptable changes to the federation before committing to stay or go, and making it clear that a future decision to stay depends on these changes being made? Why not adopt the modified ‘leave’ question, vote overwhelmingly in favour, both in turnout and percentage of votes cast, present the rest of Canada with your list of required changes, and assess the response? Doing so does not preclude going, but potentially could achieve most, if not all, of the outcomes anticipated with separation but without all the costs and risks involved. To leave, or not to leave, that is the question — but not the whole question, and it does not need to be definitively answered immediately.Jim Mason holds a BSc in engineering physics and a PhD in experimental nuclear physics
