The West's paradox--the only way we can change Canada is by finding ways to leave it

by Ted Byfield


OF the four options open to western Canada, as outlined here in the last two issues, the first two just don't work. The Chretien Plan--that we accept the status quo, shut up and do as we're told by Ontario and Quebec--is both offensive and fatal. That has been the path taken by Atlantic Canada, reducing it to its present state of economic serfdom.


The second, the Harper Plan, advanced by political scientist Stephen Harper--that we follow the Quebec example by somehow managing to assert the maximum possible provincial autonomy within the present system--is belied by past experience. In various ways, three Alberta premiers tried it: William Aberhart, Ernest Manning and Peter Lougheed. All three were trumped by the federal authority. How much autonomy we assert will be entirely decided, that is, by Ottawa.


Moreover, we should recognize how Quebec has acquired as much autonomy as it has, namely by threatening to separate. That is the real Quebec example, and it argues not for the Harper Plan but for Option No. 3, the Gibson Plan, that we actually embark on a movement to separate. Its proponent, former B.C. Liberal leader Gordon Gibson, maintains that all we now lack is a leader like René Lévesque.


Just examine the platform announced last month by Jean Charest as Quebec Liberal leader. He wants Quebec constitutionally recognized as a distinct society. He wants the provinces to nominate Supreme Court judges, and he wants Quebec's right to name three of the nine written into the constitution. He wants the present constitutional amending formula abolished. And on and on.


Not one of these policies can be instituted by a Quebec government; they all represent demands made on Ottawa and the other provinces. Can you imagine, for example, B.C. Liberal leader Gordon Campbell announcing that he'll run for office on a platform which would see B.C. demanding constitutional recognition of its special geographic status, special powers over environmental questions, elected senators and more B.C. Senate seats?


People would assume he had lost his mind, yet similar demands in Quebec raise not one eyebrow. Why so? For one reason only. Behind Mr. Charest's demands lies an implicit "or else." Or else what? Or else Quebec will leave Canada, obviously. Mr. Charest can point to a separatist government in office at Quebec City. Mr. Campbell can point to no such phenomenon at Victoria. Everyone assumes Quebec really might leave, and that B.C. never would.


This fact alone voids B.C.'s ability to win any significant concessions from Ottawa or Canada. The same disability cripples all four western provinces. Unless we make credible threats to set up on our own we will get absolutely nothing by way of constitutional change, or any other kind of change. We will be bashed down every time. If we threatened to leave and meant it, we would have enormous clout in Canada, more even than Quebec. By refusing to entertain such an idea, we have no clout whatever. That is the message of history--and of the last three federal elections.


So am I advocating separatism? No. What I'm advocating is this: the Canadian Constitution, as regards provincial authority, was negotiated in the 1860s. And "negotiated" is the correct word; there was nothing mystical about the process--it was hard-headed trading. At that time the whole prairie region and the interior of what is now B.C. were a vast wilderness with no railways, no roads, no industry, and no farms apart from a few tiny gardens along the banks of the Red and North Saskatchewan Rivers. Aside from some fur traders, the people were Natives who had only recently acquired the horse, living in an essentially stone-age culture. This was the western Canada that the negotiators looked upon when they figured out how it would be governed. And the formula they devised for governing it has never been significantly changed.


But the time has surely come to change it. We should go back to the negotiating table, just as Quebec is proposing to do, and we should go back as Quebec goes back--with other options clearly in view--such as an independent state, or joining the American union. If we go to the table with these alternatives thoroughly explored, tenable and widely understood, we will come away with quite a bit, and a very new Canada will emerge. If we go to the table without those options, we will come away with nothing whatever. All central Canada need do is stymie the negotiational process and we will have to slump back into the status quo as we always have.


In other words, we are presented with a paradox. The only way we can change Canada is to develop ways of getting out of Canada. We must possess other options. How these can be developed and how the result would affect existing federal parties, in particular the Canadian Alliance, will be considered next time.

Klein urged to trim ties to Ottawa
Albertans make case for radical reform


Sheldon Alberts
National Post, January 5, 2001

OTTAWA - A group of prominent Alberta conservatives is urging Ralph Klein, the Premier, to fight federal "attacks" on its jurisdiction by introducing sweeping political reforms that include creating a provincial police force, withdrawing from the Canada Pension Plan and openly defying the Canada Health Act.

In a letter to Mr. Klein, the six high-profile academics and political activists call on the Premier to build a political "firewall" around Alberta to prevent Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, from launching a raid on the province's wealth with costly federal programs.

The letter also proposes Alberta collect its own income tax and use the Supreme Court's Quebec secession ruling to force Ottawa to accept the province's longstanding demand for a triple-E Senate.

"As economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta's prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power," says the letter, whose authors include Stephen Harper, a former Reform MP and now president of the National Citizens' Coalition, and Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary political scientist and former Reform strategist.

"It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction."

The letter to Mr. Klein was also signed by Andy Crooks, chairman of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Ken Boessenkool, former senior advisor to Stockwell Day during his tenure as Alberta's treasurer, Ted Morton, a University of Calgary political scientist and Canadian Alliance "senator-elect," and Rainer Knopff, a University of Calgary constitutional expert.

With an election expected in Alberta in March, the group is hoping to pressure Mr. Klein into a more aggressive stance against an "increasingly hostile" federal government. In their letter to Mr. Klein, the conservatives argue Mr. Chrétien and the federal Liberals marginalized and demonized Alberta during last fall's election campaign by running television ads accusing the province of allowing U.S.-style two-tier health care.

Those advertisements were a portent of future aggressions to which Alberta -- currently in the midst of an economic boom fuelled by high energy prices -- is vulnerable, the letter says.

"In our view, the Chrétien government undertook a series of attacks not merely designed to defeat its partisan opponents, but to marginalize Alberta and Albertans within Canada's political system," it says. "If the government concludes that Alberta is a soft target, we will be subjected to much worse than dishonest television ads."

In an interview with the National Post, Mr. Flanagan says he fears Ottawa is eyeing Alberta's oil and gas riches and may seek to redistribute those riches across Canada with a 21st century version of the National Energy Program.

"I'm worried about future raids on Alberta's income and wealth. Any time you get a relatively small population that is doing very well, it becomes politically exposed when you have much bigger voting majorities elsewhere in the country," Mr. Flanagan said. "Alberta is kind of riding the crest of a wave right now ... It is going to be extremely tempting for politicians elsewhere to try and cut themselves a slice of that."

Adds Mr. Harper: "The message that came out of that election was extremely threatening. The Liberals sent a real strong signal that Alberta is a legitimate whipping boy and will be if the country enters a recession."

The letter's authors say they hope to channel post-election feelings of Western anger into "positive" action in Alberta. While the letter-writers propose increased autonomy for the province, they are distancing themselves from other movements such as the fledgling Alberta Independence Party.

Mr. Harper said the NCC hopes to establish a non-partisan Alberta affiliate that will advocate ideas similar to those proposed in the letter to Mr. Klein.

Mr. Flanagan and his colleagues say their proposals are both politically achievable and affordable because of the strength of Alberta's economy. The steps can be taken using the province's existing constitutional power, the letter says.

The most confrontational proposal suggests Mr. Klein and the Alberta government ignore orders -- or threats of financial punishment -- from Ottawa when considering future health care reforms.

Alberta and Ottawa clashed last year over the province's Bill 11, which allows private surgical clinics. Alberta should fight in the courts any federal challenge to its health care policy, the letter says. Mr. Klein is also being urged to ignore federal threats to cut health care transfer payments.

"If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties that Ottawa may try to impose," the letter says.

The group also urges a more aggressive campaign to "force Senate reform back on to the national agenda" by holding a referendum asking Albertans whether they favour an elected, equal and effective Senate. The Supreme Court decision setting out rules for secession would require Ottawa to respond because it requires the federal government to "seriously consider a proposal for constitutional reform endorsed by a 'clear majority on a clear question.' "

The group proposes Alberta collect its own income taxes and divorce itself from the CPP, replacing it with its own plan "offering the same benefits at lower cost."

Finally, the group proposes Alberta let its contract with the RCMP expire in 2012 and replace it with a new provincial service, similar to Ontario's and Quebec's.

"I frankly think there is nothing that Albertans can't do better in Alberta that can be done for them in Ottawa," said Mr. Harper.

Jan. 15/01

Guilty


I have something to confess. I am guilty of being unCanadian.

I am tired of being quiet and polite.

I am tired of having over 50% of my wages taken from me and used to fund programs that are in turn used to enslave me.

I am not a slave.

I will not be treated like one.

I am a free man.

We have forgotten that democracy is not simply Œmajority rules¹. My rights are not open to debate nor are they subject to a vote. Government was not meant to be used like a sledge hammer to force me into some mold that I do not fit into. Remember preschool and kindergarten? Remember the simple wooden puzzles with the round pegs and the square blocks? If five year olds can figure out how it works then how come a nation full of adults can¹t?

I do not wish to sit any longer and watch as my rights - as granted to me by nature or God - are wasted and violated by a group of men who believe it is their duty to meddle in every aspect of my life.

I do not wish to see what little freedom I have left squandered in the halls of power in some mythical far off land called Ottawa.

I am tired of being told what to do.

And I¹m not going to take it anymore.

This weekend I am joining the Western Independence Party.

This is not a good thing even by my own standards but I see little other choice.

At the tender age of twenty seven I have come to the conclusion that my own children will be born into something that more closely resembles a police state than a free country. I have decided it is unacceptable that they should not know the same freedom my father and grandfathers had.

The courts, the government and a variety of special interest groups have made it impossible to achieve the goal of political liberty through any traditional means. The only way to once again achieve some semblance of freedom in this country is to start again.

It¹s time for westerners to put up or shut up. It¹s time to say goodbye to eastern politics and power and to Œgo it¹ on our own.

It¹s time to free the west.



Scott Carpenter is a free lance writer who currently resides in North Eastern, BC. Scott can be reached for comment at:


nanook@pris.bc.ca

Letter to the Calgary Herald

In the opinion of Barbara Jaffe, Calgary Herald, Jan.8/01 I should like to point out a couple of questionable assertions.

First of all, an Alberta decision to separate would not be an idle threat to gain handouts , or special status under confederation. As Mr. Chretien, so eloquently put it "Albertans are a different breed". Albertans believe in fair play. We do not lie, and we do not break our word. We respect other peoples rights and we expect them to do the same.

If Alberta were to hold a referendum and 51 per cent of our people voted to separate I believe we would do precisely that. It would be good bye,  not ok now buy us off.

As for the baseless assertion that secession would cause us economic stagnation, the exact opposite is more likely to be true. We would see a substantial non-captive increase in free trade with our neighbors to the south including suggestions of economic and future political union as well as considerable economic opportunities for Albertans.

Instead of our present nightmare, it is far more likely that Alberta would enjoy unparalleled prosperity and freedom from our current Western yoke.   We would no longer be gored by excessive taxes and a valueless dollar.