You can love this country and still want fair federalism. Honourable federalism. Not federalism that’s selective and weighed in favour of some provinces and against others..Nevin Markwart has been making the rounds. It’s the first time that I can recall national news platforms featuring the economic views of a twice-defeated SaskParty candidate — unless, that is, he has other aspirations, and Liberal backers have pitched him out to ideologically-onside journalists.In a recent Globe and Mail op-ed, Markwart — a former Boston Bruins player and Regina investment manager — writes that as part of a federal reset, “Saskatchewan must work together with Ottawa.” He includes other appeasement bromides that we “build bridges,” “lean forward,” and “walk side by side” the federal government with “clear-eyed purpose.”Parroting the NDP’s talking points, Markwart accuses Premier Moe of appearing at a recent “separatist-promoted convention.” Ridiculous. That would be the “Canada Strong and Free” conference, founded in 2005, which the Globe and Mail itself described as a “prominent Canadian conservative think tank.” According to the Globe, the CSF in April hosted a “who’s-who of premiers, former politicians and Conservative strategists.” That list included top U.S. tariff broker Robert Lighthizer, whose meaty keynote was moderated by Brian Mulroney’s son, Mark — hardly a raging separatist.In fact, what was refreshing about the conference (which I also attended) was that delegates weren’t made to feel ashamed about being conservative. They engaged in serious discussions about everything from healthcare to housing without being subjected to the usual labels — including variations on Markwart’s groaner that conservatives use “ambiguity to create chaos and instill fear.”Markwart praises former Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall, who “passionately argued in national and global forums that Saskatchewan success is key to strengthening healthcare, education, and other critical infrastructure at home and across the country.”.Well yes, I guess he did. But Wall also launched a constitutional challenge against the federal carbon tax, has said repeatedly that Saskatchewan's economic success has been thwarted by federal policies — and that the economic powerhouse that could have been an Alberta-Saskatchewan-joined province, or “Buffalo,” was thwarted by Sir Wilfred Laurier in 1905.Before the federal election, commenting on Carney’s proposed idea of a retaliatory export tax, Wall said: “And what’s the only sector Carney has used as an example? Why it’s energy! It’s oil and gas — and Saskatchewan uranium — not the auto sector, not cheese… Heaven forbid Quebec dairy be part of the retaliatory option!” And that’s precisely the point missed by Markwart. You can love this country and still want fair federalism. Honourable federalism. Not federalism that’s selective and weighed in favour of some provinces and against others. Not federalism whose non-transparent equalization system transfers money from near-bankrupt Newfoundland to Ontario — or doesn’t honour the constitutional law of the land and tramples on provincial exclusive rights again and again.Markwart says that the Saskatchewan Party under Moe has “left no room for discussion of the province’s legitimate concerns about its place in Confederation.”Not so. As former minister of Energy and of Justice, I was deeply involved in those discussions. Where to begin? Perhaps with my 14-page letter to then-federal energy minister Jonathan Wilkinson, which outlined in detail the economic harm of specific federal policies, from the oil and gas cap to federal fuel standard. (I also highlighted Saskatchewan’s substantial methane reductions, which Steven Guilbeault himself praised).What about Saskatchewan’s position on federal Bill C-69? The Supreme Court ultimately agreed (with ten provinces) that the feds had taken a “wrecking ball” to provincial jurisdiction. Was that not worth establishing? How about challenging the carbon tax on home heating, exempted for Atlantic Canada but not Saskatchewan? Wasn’t that tax supposed to be applied nationally, not politically?.Or how about the carbon tax itself — hich we were once mocked for fighting? PM Carney finally removed it himself, singlehandedly lowering inflation in the process! These were all important policy fights, whose prime goal was precisely to “strengthen Saskatchewan’s economic success.” Sure, there were some cordial fed-prov discussions along the way. But how were we supposed to criticize the quashing of pipelines, the $2.1 billion in sustainable development (aka “Green Slush”) subsidies to Liberal friends, or federal energy gag law (Bill C-59) without sounding, as Markwart says, “ad hominem”?On a recent podcast, Brian Zinchuk and I interviewed Craig Lothian — CEO of Lex Capital and founder of 11 Saskatchewan oil companies — who said this about the state of the Canadian energy sector (and economy) after ten years of federal Liberal rule: “We’re doing well, but not when you look at how well we could be doing. We’ve been under duress for so long. We’ve been able to eke out the best economics we can…We’ve driven our cost structures as low as possible…We’ve moved away from using debt as a tool to be able to grow quickly because of the volatility of the energy industry—the talk by the feds of sunsetting it. So we’ve returned money to shareholders through dividends and share buy-backs. Companies with 20, 30, 40 years of proven reserves of oil and gas are returning around nine percent in dividend yields per year…“…We have two trillion dollars of federal-provincial debt. Two trillion dollars with 40 million people! And we’re #1 producers of potash, #2 of uranium. We have the third-largest reserves of oil on the planet, we’re the fifth-largest producers of natural gas. American friends ask me, ‘How much money are you sitting on, in Canada?’ (And they know we also have timber, fresh water and critical minerals, gold and diamonds…) They say, ‘Your country must be so rich! But no, we’re not. We have all this debt. Why?”.Good question — and surely of potential interest to Markwart, who told Murray Mandryk that he handles “billions in pension investments.”In his push to work with the federal Liberals as a “team,” Markwart risks being out-‘conservatived’ by the provincial NDP. Boldly going where conservatives have gone for years, Carla Beck’s own road to Damascus suddenly includes — among other pro-energy stances — repealing Bill C-69 and “revising” the federal Clean Electricity Regulations. Where was she when we actually challenged both? Markwart’s grand plan? “The next step for Saskatchewan is figuring out where the stuff is that’s bringing in capital from external sources. But we also need the means to get those resources out of the province, basic transportation structure…”No guff. The “stuff bringing in capital” would be the investments that Saskatchewan has doggedly pursued for years, including with some creative economic incentives: the BHP Jansen mine. Lithium. Helium. Critical minerals. New uranium exploration. Oil drilling expansion. Ag biotech.As for getting stuff to market — well, that would be by truck, federal train or port…and, er, pipelines — which circles back to why we’re regularly frustrated with the feds. Let alone with Quebec in recent years, for rejecting “dirty Western oil” or cancelling LNG projects. We all hope for brighter days when it comes to Canada’s economy and sense of unity. But provincial strength is preferable to weakness. And getting the right balance is complex. .The late Brian Mulroney, for one, realized that provincial decentralization had to happen (remember Meech Lake?). More recently, Quebec and Alberta have mused about an “autonomy alliance” to wrest back constitutional provincial rights and the basic ability to govern as provinces without federal micro-management. They’ve also mused about using the Notwithstanding Clause to prevent courts from infringing on their democratic, legislative powers. No wonder. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court recently denied an Ontario government request to appeal a lower court ruling that its climate change plan must comply with “life, liberty and security” provisions under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms!In 2023, an Ontario Superior Court Justice wrote, “It is indisputable that, as a result of climate change, the applicants and Ontarians in general are experiencing an increased risk of death and risk to the security of the person.” Said a lawyer for Ecojustice: “This effectively boxes Ontario into a corner and subjects their climate record to the full scrutiny of the Charter.”The case—originally brought by seven young environmental activists (a similar one is working its way through Saskatchewan courts)—is now heading back for a new hearing..At the same time, Ontario is being stymied from fast-tracking exploration of the northern Ring of Fire over threats of violence. Ontario First Nations chiefs recently warned that Ontario’s Bill 5 could spark a revival of the 2012 ‘Idle No More’ protests. BC recently watered down a similar bill over similar threats.“Energy superpower” you say?Demonizing as “separatist” anyone who’s fed up with this current state of affairs and provincial-fed status quo is the last thing we need. And who’s not being a team player? Certainly, Western farmers didn’t ask for Chinese canola tariffs, imposed in response to unworkable Canadian EV tariffs. The same goes for those targeted by federal industrial favouritism or concerned about our plummeting national productivity.The proof of an economic “reset” will be less general team talk and more specific action—which starts with actually scrapping harmful federal programs. In other words: if ever there was a time for “trust but verify,” it’s now.
