When I led the Alberta Independence Party back in 2001, we received no fewer than a dozen proposed constitutions for what would presumably become an independent nation. Some were short, handwritten affairs of limited substance, and some were professionally formatted and printed in booklets. Many people wanted to make their mark on what they hoped would be a new nation. Email and online documents still weren’t a popular format yet, and physical copies were the norm.That made it surprising that there are so few proposed constitutions lurking out on the internet today. The Alberta independence debate is gaining momentum today more than it has since the 1980s, and publishing documents such as proposed constitutions is easier than ever. That’s not to say that there haven’t been any put out there. But I would have thought we would see dozens by now.A constitution is essential for a nation, and it’s difficult to expect people to vote to choose independence when the structure of the new nation hasn’t been codified. That said, a constitution won’t be created until after a positive referendum vote for independence has been held and a constitutional convention has been convened. At such an event, it is presumed that leaders and citizen representatives will sit down and hammer out a foundational document for the new country. It makes for something of a chicken-and-egg scenario.Since a definitive constitution can’t be created, prospective ones must be. And the Alberta Prosperity Project has released one called The Foundation of Freedom. They label it as a constitutional discussion document. Most of the document had been drafted over a year ago, but it had been shelved for quite some time over internal debates within the group. The release began with a little controversy as Keith Wilson and Bruce Pardy quickly and publicly disassociated themselves from the document, saying they had no part in its creation. The event held in Airdrie to formally release the constitutional proposal was sidetracked when a member of the Black Hat Gang who participated in creating the document said, “Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person — your own security, not some flip-flop, towel-headed police officer who doesn’t even speak Canadian.”.That speaker has since resigned from the organization, and Mitch Sylvestre of the Alberta Prosperity Project condemned the statements.Despite its delayed creation and more than rocky start, The Foundation of Freedom constitutional draft is actually quite good.The writers make it clear from the beginning that the document is for discussion rather than being the constitution the group anticipates being embraced by an independent Alberta. That distinction was part of the debate delaying its release. The format is designed as a functional constitution rather than a discussion paper, as some of the creators did indeed feel that it would be a foundational document.The document itself comes in at just over 50 pages, making it substantially longer than the US Constitution and much shorter than the Canadian one. The proposed system is a republican one with legislative, executive, judicial, and “oversight” branches of government, which would be distinct..The document is heavy on defining personal freedoms such as property rights, the right to arms, and speech, which are lacking under the current system. It gets a little prescriptive in going into digital rights by stating “every person has the right to access, correct, and delete any kind of personal data held by the State.” I can understand the principle behind such a clause but can also see it being problematic in a functional, modern government.Many aspects of the proposed constitution appear which perhaps would be better placed in legislation rather than entrenched in a constitution. There is a clause stating only four sections of the constitution may be amended and that judicial interpretations of the constitution shall not be permitted. The creation of such an inflexible document governing a nation would be problematic, to say the least. It’s the inability to change the Canadian constitution which has led to independence movements in the first place. It also takes something of a strong sense of vanity to feel that a document has been created in such perfection that it must be made impossible to amend it.There are a few spots that appear self-conflicting, such as a clause saying the courts shall interpret the laws and the constitution according to their original meaning and text, after having said the courts aren’t allowed to interpret the constitution. This is the risk that comes from making a document too large and comprehensive.The government structure itself allows for an equal, elected Senate, which could allow for some regional diversity, but still remains quite centralized in nature without allowing much leeway for local levels of government. .There are also some questionable and prescriptive sections in areas such as hard spending caps and debt assumption.All in all, as a discussion paper, The Foundation of Freedom presents a good starting point. In having perhaps too much content, it will bring the discourse into examining ways to pare it down rather than constantly adding content, as can happen with such things.While the Alberta Prosperity Project is welcoming discussion on the document, so far, it can’t be found anywhere on the internet. As far as I can find, there are only hard copies available. Hopefully, that is remedied soon so people can examine the proposals in their entirety and offer feedback.Bruce Pardy plans to expand on his constitutional proposals, and the White Papers from Keith Wilson’s organization should be released soon to help spur further discussion on what an independent Alberta may look like. The Alberta Prosperity Project’s Foundation of Freedom has given a good baseline to work from as other proposals enter the discussion sphere.
