The Canada West Foundation’s release of “Alberta in Confederation” is an anthology of political opinions from federalists rather than a formal report, as it has been presented to be. Granted, the authors are respected Albertans who don’t deny the imbalance within Canada’s federation or Alberta’s challenges within it, but the document doesn’t offer a balanced view as citizens contemplate how to vote on unity on October 19.The assumptions of assumed costs upon independence expose the slant of the collection of opinions quickly. Premier Danielle Smith was harshly criticized when she claimed it would cost upwards of $400 billion for Alberta to become independent. Much of the reason for that critique is that her numbers assume a new cost by assuming hundreds of billions in national debt.Lennie Kaplan takes the same tact in implying Alberta’s share of the debt would be in the range of $200 billion, but neglects to mention Alberta is on the hook for that debt either way. Independence would begin with some debt, but it won’t be new debt on the books for Albertans. Responsibility for the debt would be directly in the hands of Albertans, though, and there is a much better chance of reducing it in an independent Alberta rather than leaving it to Ottawa. That said, Alberta’s provincial government hasn’t always been responsible with the provincial finances either. Either way, it’s disingenuous to act as if the debt would be a novel item to deal with in an independent Alberta.The anthology also underweights the annual $16 billion (and historically much larger) net contribution as an ongoing cost of staying. That is a certainty, not a risk.Ted Morton provided an excellent summary of Alberta’s ill-treatment within the federation over the last 40 years. He points out how Alberta has lost policy and constitutional ground since Lougheed: Section 92A eroded in practice, the Regional Veto Act restoring a Quebec-style brake, court-driven expansion of Section 35, failed Senate reform, and an economic-political imbalance that lets central Canada legislate against Western resources. The net fiscal numbers are not invented: on the order of $631 billion out of Alberta since 1961, of which $322 billion was since 2007..After an extended description of the inequity of the federation, Morton concludes, “So, many Albertans are asking themselves, ’Do we want the next 40 years to be like the last 40 years? And if not, then what do we need to do?’”Morton then concludes Alberta should stay the course and points to the relationship between Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney as an example for optimism. He says, “It is not unreasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt.” Even if Carney and Smith managed to accomplish something on the energy front (MOUs aren’t worth anything), they won’t achieve any structural change within Canada. That’s why we have a 40-year record of failure in attempts to reform Canada from within, coming from Alberta. Leaders come and go. But the system remains the same.Dwight Newman comes at it from the perspective of pointing out how the process of secession isn’t an easy one. The Secession Reference requires a clear question, a clear majority, and then good-faith negotiations and a constitutional amendment. Just because the process won’t be easy, does that mean Albertans should throw their hands up and accept the status quo? If Albertans were that weak-willed, the West would never have been developed. One thing we do know for sure is that the process of staying in the federation isn’t exactly an easy one to endure either. Procedural difficulty is no reason for surrender. Audrey Doerr’s contribution delves into the indigenous treaty question. There are complexities and obligations involved, and independence advocates can’t pretend otherwise. Indigenous people are hardly faring well under the current system, and it shouldn’t be assumed they all would oppose Alberta’s independence or couldn’t benefit from it. An independent Alberta would inherit treaty obligations and would need to negotiate deals with indigenous bands. It’s not impossible to navigate, though. “Consent and complexity” is a reason to negotiate in good faith and to design institutions that recognize indigenous governments. It is not a reason to conclude that sovereignty is “unlikely to benefit” anyone..Herb Emery talks about the importance of interprovincial labour flows. If an independent Alberta were to have hard borders with the remainder of Canada, it could cause labour shocks. This is all true, but again, it doesn’t present an insurmountable hurdle. Hundreds of countries manage these things every day. Common travel, credential recognition, and transitional labour agreements are ordinary tools. The report consistently models the uncooperative, high-friction path and then announces that the path is too hard.The pattern is consistent within the anthology. The authors begin by pointing out the problems within the federation but then make the case that the independence option would be just too darn difficult to pursue; thus, we should accept the status quo. Nobody reasonable within the independence movement is claiming the process will be easy. A serious independence case does not deny the legal and operational work. It denies that the work is a reason to keep sending the surplus and the policy control to Ottawa.The writers gloss over the nature of the October 19 question on the ballot. Albertans are not voting on October 19 to declare independence the next morning. They are voting on whether to start a constitutional process. The report’s real function is to make that first step look reckless by cataloguing every subsequent difficulty. From a pro-independence view, that is the wrong lesson. The federation has already demonstrated it can impose high, lasting costs on Alberta without a negotiation and without a veto Alberta can use.The report, if you can call it that, is admitting that Alberta gets a raw deal in the federation, but offers no option to Albertans other than surrendering to a broken system. Independence is the option the authors dare not consider. But it’s the only option remaining to break the status quo.
