Connect with us

Opinion

LITTLEJOHN: Alberta as the 51st State isn’t a crazy as you might think

In the U.S., Alberta would likely be a coveted swing-state, like Florida and Ohio – with both major parties falling over themselves for electoral support.

mm

Published

on

Rebel Media owner Ezra Levant hosted a Calgary townhall meeting in October, 2019. He asked those in attendance if Alberta should become the 51st state. The room responded overwhelmingly, “No.”  A Research Co. Study found that only 22 per cent of Albertans say their province would be better off as an American state. In contrast, 40 per cent of Albertans believe the province would be better off as its own country. In short, those Albertans ready to cut the cord with Ottawa do not want to reconnect it with Washington. 

There are many reasons – both social and political – for this lack of enthusiasm. But leaving the maple leaf for the star-spangled banner merits consideration.

The economic benefits of becoming the fifty-first state are impressive. Albertans would save a huge sum of money if they no longer propped up the rest of Canada. The no-more-pipelines bill (C-69), the tanker ban (C-48), and the carbon tax would no longer hamper Alberta’s economy. The U.S. has no GST, and no direct equalization transfers. 

America’s 327 million person-strong market is ten times the size of Canada’s, and unlike Canada, they have much stronger internal free trade. Greater market access would be a boon, making it easier to diversify Alberta’s economy. There would also be increased access to global markets. The U.S. is the largest market for oil on the planet and has the largest concentration of refineries capable of handling Alberta’s heavy crude. Labour mobility would improve, and the strong U.S. dollar purchases far more than weak Canadian currency, which is artificially devalued to prop up Eastern manufacturing interests. 

Less critical – but still important – would be cheap gasoline and dairy, and access to U.S. Netflix and television without the CRTC shoving subsidized, amateurish CBC and can-con down our throats. 

The U.S. carries a massive debt, but it is still slightly smaller per capita than Canada’s on a combined federal-state/provincial basis. As of 2017, the United States had a public debt-to-GDP ratio of 82.3 per cent, and Canada, 89.7 per cent. Both countries continue to spend far beyond their means and force future generations to pay, but neither country has a material advantage on this front. 

Critics of independence claim that a national Alberta would be landlocked. While this is far from true if Alberta can secure free trade agreements, union with the United States would guarantee that this was not the case with their greater protections for internal free trade.  

While Washington does indirectly transfer some wealth from prosperous to less prosperous states, wealthier Americans – like wealthier Canadians – pay more in federal taxes than others. So, while Washington does move money around, it does not do so as directly or as aggressively as does Ottawa. Right now, Alberta pays $20 billion net more than it receives back from Ottawa every year, representing the largest regional transfer of wealth in per capita terms in the Western World.  

Suffice it to say, Alberta is the only consistent net contributor to the rest of Canada, but its votes count for less per capita than the rest of the country. The result of Alberta’s lackluster national influence is a federal government that plunders its wealth, while simultaneously working to stop it from generating that wealth. 

Alberta – with twice the population of all four Atlantic provinces – has not quite half the Senators of tiny New Brunswick. As a state, Alberta would have equal representation with New York and California in the Senate. Importantly, Alberta would have influential allies such as Texas.

In Canada, the Conservatives can take Alberta for granted, while the Liberals ignore Alberta outright. In the U.S., Alberta would likely be a coveted swing-state, like Florida and Ohio – with both major parties falling over themselves for electoral support. 

It is likely that Alberta would be welcomed as a U.S. state. Alberta has the third largest oil reserve on the planet, a world-leading GDP, and an educated workforce. While Alberta is Canada’s most conservative province, it would be ideologically in the centre of American politics, and therefore would not represent a threat to either the Republicans or Democrats. 

Geopolitical analyst Peter Zeihan said that if Alberta ever applied for U.S. statehood, he “would be stunned if more than a handful of people in Congress object.”

Staying under the boot of Ottawa is no longer an option for any self-respecting Albertan, and independence is the preferred option for sentimental reasons. But joining the United States could be the more pragmatic route to a positive future. The U.S. has a long history of successfully integrating new territories: the Louisiana Purchase, Hawaii, and Alaska to name a few. 

Trump recently offered to buy Greenland, not just to increase America’s geographic reach, but to build his legacy. It is conceivable that Americans might want to “buy” Alberta. By this, I mean: would the U.S. be willing to pay off Alberta’s provincial and share of the federal debt in return for joining? 

As difficult as it is for many Albertans to wrap their minds around independence, it is understandably even more difficult to countenance joining our southern neighbors; but when we set sentimentality aside, it’s a proposal that we should consider on its merits. 

Tessa Littlejohn is a Columnist for the Western Standard 

Opinion

ROYER: Eastern Canada was born of Imperial Loyalty. The West of Frontier Freedom.

It is difficult for those in the heartland to comprehend that there is an alternative; one that might actually be fairer and that it is firmly planted “out West”, in the hinterland.

Published

on

The Teck oilsands mine decision and the related “rescue package” for Alberta are emblematic of the gulf in thinking between East and West. Alberta doesn’t want handouts and dependency; it wants investment, jobs and opportunity. The federal government – rooted in colonial thinking – believes that it can buy peace and compliance by offering trinkets.

History tells the story of this gulf in thinking.

Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec) were colonies loyal to the top-down imperial system. In 1780, the United Empire Loyalists fled the American Revolution with its crazy ideas of freedom, democracy and individual rights and came to Upper Canada, reinforcing subservient loyalty. Similarly, the mostly French inhabitants of Lower Canada would rather stay subjects of the British Empire than govern themselves as a U.S. state.

American expansionism threatened to encircle the Canadas. In the great land grab of the mid 1800’s, it became clear that if you settle it, you own it. Mexico lost one-third of its territory (Texas to California) because it allowed Americans to settle in its lands. Americans were also drifting north. 

The Canadas decided to populate the prairies to stop the Americans.

However, there were not enough loyal British subjects to fill these vast lands. It was opened up to continental Europeans. They had no connection to the crown or the imperial power structure. Indeed, the opposite was true. They were fleeing the tyranny of Europe. They sought freedom, democracy and self-initiative as described coincidently in American recruiting.

The West became a colony of a colony. But its foundation was a desire for freedom, democracy and self-initiative. This is contrary to colonial loyalty in Upper and Lower Canada.

The Canadas were slow in relinquishing the colonial mindset. An Act of the British Parliament in 1931 finally cut the apron strings (Westminster Act). Australia held its independence referendum in 1902.   

When Canada did exert independence, its constitution of 1982 (with no pesky referendum) did more to cement the power of English Ontario and French Quebec than to create equality for all citizens. 

Over the years the Prime Minister’s Office assumed virtually all of the powers of the crown. Canada centralized and consolidated power (an imperial theme) even while Britain devolved it.

Canada’s Equalization Program is an economic cornerstone of colonial thinking. Central Canada takes 70 per cent of the wealth transfer. Canada is the only modern state to take from the hinterland to support the industrial heartland. In most modern countries, the opposite is true.

In the U.S. all states were admitted to the union with full and equal rights. Not so in colonial Canada. The prairies fought to gain control of their resources through the Progressive Party in 1925. The equality fight continues today.

The Sir John A. MacDonald’s National Policy was an instrument of economic colonialism, as was Pierre Trudeau’s National Energy Program. Today’s Teck oilsands mine decision is as well.

The historic legacy is that the West wants to be part of a representative democracy that supports freedom, democracy, self-initiative and the equality of all citizens. New arrivals take on that same thinking. Some of the most adamant supporters of the Western spirit have arrived from Eastern Canada. 

Understanding is possible. But a quirk of colonial thinking is that it ranks people by colonial value. It is difficult for those in the heartland to comprehend that there is an alternative; one that might actually be fairer and that it is firmly planted “out West”, in the hinterland.

In an age where differences are supposed to be celebrated, why is it so difficult to overcome colonial stratification and even consider that we in the west think fundamentally differently? 

Randy Royer is a Columnist for the Western Standard and the author of “Alberta Doesn’t Fit”

Continue Reading

Opinion

LETTER-WAGNER: Alberta is culturally distinct, but not so much for the reasons offered in the Buffalo Declaration.

The existence of the independence movement rises and falls like the stock market, depending on external factors. If, however, support for independence could be rooted in Alberta’s distinctiveness, then the movement could have staying power.

mm

Published

on

RE: The Buffalo Declaration

I was very pleased to read that four Conservative MPs had produced the Buffalo Declaration. It’s an important and articulate expression of the frustration many Albertans feel right now.

I was especially pleased that it contained a section entitled “Alberta is a culturally distinct region, but this has not been recognized.” In my view, one of the weaknesses of the Alberta independence movement is that it focuses almost exclusively on economic matters. This focus means that the movement rises and falls based on federal government policies. When those policies harm Alberta, support for independence rises; when those policies benefit Alberta, support for independence collapses. The existence of the independence movement rises and falls like the stock market, depending on external factors.

If, however, support for independence could be rooted in Alberta’s distinctiveness, then the movement could have staying power. Of course, economics will likely always be the main factor driving support for independence, but adding an element of cultural uniqueness would at least give it a foundation that doesn’t waver based on external factors.

Premier Kenney is certainly correct when he recently said, “A country is more than a balance sheet.” Although he was speaking of Canada, the same applies where Alberta is concerned. That is, there should be more to our Alberta patriotism than a desire for financial prosperity (important as that is). Hence, an emphasis on Alberta’s unique identity should form the basis of our Alberta patriotism.

That said, the Buffalo Declaration’s section on Alberta as a “culturally distinct region” is very disappointing. Some of it even seems to argue contrary to its intent. Saying, as it does, that “the percentage of Ontarians and Albertans of European descent are roughly the same,” does not point to uniqueness but to similarity. The fact that Alberta is populated by descendants of First Nations peoples and European settlers doesn’t seem particularly unique to Alberta, nor the fact that many Albertans have rural roots and want to be good stewards of our land.

There is much stronger evidence for Alberta’s uniqueness, but the Declaration inadvertently misses it. Perhaps this is a symptom of our society’s general historical amnesia. Providing a comprehensive account of Alberta’s uniqueness would take considerable space and effort, so here I will just suggest a glimpse.

During the 1950s, the University of Toronto Press produced a ten-volume series of books entitled “Social Credit in Alberta: Its Background and Development.” Included in the series were books such as Democracy in Alberta by C. B. Macpherson (a Marxist interpretation of the success of Social Credit in Alberta), Social Credit and the Federal Power in Canada by J. R. Mallory (an analysis of the conflict between Alberta’s Social Credit government and the federal government), and Sect, Cult, and Church in Alberta by W. E. Mann (an explanation of Alberta’s religious uniqueness that contributed to the success of Social Credit).

The purpose of all these books was to explain to the world why Alberta was so different from the rest of Canada. Different, as in unique. Academics in Eastern Canada thought Alberta was a weird place and they wanted to understand why. As these books explain, the Alberta Social Credit Party was not just another political party. It was an expression of Alberta as a “culturally distinct region.” What other province had three consecutive fundamentalist Christian premiers?

More could be added, but this is already too long. I hope it makes a point.

Yes, Alberta is culturally distinct, but not so much for the reasons offered in the Buffalo Declaration.

Michael Wagner is the author of Alberta: Separatism Then and Now

Letters to the Editor of the Western Standard are posted under this account. Letters do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of the Western Standard or its columnists.

Continue Reading

Opinion

FILDEBRANDT: Buffalo MPs draw a line in the sand with Ottawa

It’s a far fetch for the Liberal prime minister to take up the call of the Buffalo Declaration, but what of the Conservatives? What if they don’t?

mm

Published

on

At 5,922 words and 22 pages, the Buffalo Declaration is a bit of a read, but for any Alberta or Saskatchewan patriot, it’s a page-turner. Four Alberta Conservative MPs: Michelle Rempel-Garner, Blake Richards, Glen Motz, and Arnold Viersen, broke with the routine bland talking points that infect most politicians and penned the most bold statement Parliament has seen since the Bloc Quebecois was formed in 1991.

The Buffalo MPs laid out in considerable detail the long history of Ottawa’s colonial approach to the West, and to the Prairie provinces in particular. It reads as one-part history lesson, one-part manifesto. The language is serious, and bold, and, shockingly for something written by politicians, actually says something.

“They [Albertans] will be equal or they will seek independence.”

If this wasn’t intended to make the collective heads of the Laurentian consensus’ spin, it still had the effect. The Toronto Star ran an unsympathetic story quoting Mount Royal University professor Lori Williams, who said it was “sort of wing-nutty”, and “reflects a failure to understand” the constitution of the country.”

“This isn’t inviting, it’s not persuasive, it’s demanding, it’s entitled.”

That’s to be expected. Less predictable was Brad Wall quickly coming out with his support.

“You and your colleagues deserve credit for this Michelle. There needs to be national attention to and action on the abiding unfairness in the confederation toward Alberta, Saskatchewan and the west in general.”

The former Saskatchewan premier is a member of a group calling itself the “Buffalo Project”.

Rempel-Garner has been touted by many as the only possible contender left standing for the Conservative Party of Canada’s leadership that could challenge Peter MacKay. Her drawing of the line in the sand not just with the Liberals – but with the Laurentian federalist establishment – appears to have closed that door. She and three other signatories instead decided to put their careers on the line to try and force the current leadership contestants to see things their way.

“Any leadership contestant for the Conservative Party of Canada who seeks the support of Albertans should be prepared to address this declaration.”

“We are open to engage in bilateral meetings with any interested party to seek a productive resolution to this situation.”

That sound you hear is Peter Mackay and Erin O’Toole running down the halls of Centre Block to their offices to seek their endorsement. If they are willing to meet the bar they have set or not, is another matter.

The declaration lays out 12 “structural solutions” and 5 “policy solutions”, few of which Eastern establishment politicians are likely to be thrilled about.

Three of the structural solutions are largely symbolic, recognizing that Alberta is not yet an equal partner in Confederation, and recognizing “Alberta – or Buffalo – as a culturally distinct region within Confederation.”

The final symbolic solution would be a bit much for Justin Trudeau to swallow:

“Acknowledge, in the House of Commons, the devastation the National Energy Program caused to the people of Alberta.”

Justin Trudeau might be adept at apologizing for the actions of dead men hundreds of years ago, but apologizing for the devestation wreaked by his father could be more difficult.

Constitutional change might be verboten for Ottawa’s political class, but the Buffalo MPs demand it happen as a necessary condition for keeping Alberta in the federation.

They want Parliament rebalanced, ideally through Senate reform. There are several models to choose from, but Eastern Canada likes the deck stacked just the way it is. In the meantime, they want Trudeau to only appoint Alberta senators elected by its people. Even that easy ask might not pass muster with the Chief of all the Canadas.

They want Equalization abolished, or significantly overhauled. There are many good reasons for the have-not provinces to welcome Equalization changes, but none of which they are likely to accept.

They demand that Canada’s free-trade provisions in the Constitution be “entrenched and clarified”. That sounds easy on the surface, but the robber-baron premiers putting up roadblocks to trade are happy with the status quo.

Alluding to the Sword of Damocles hanging over the Teck oilsands mine, they want to entrench control over resource projects as the sole domain of the provinces. This should be easy for other provinces to accept, but the climate apocalyptics won’t easily relinquish their most blunt instrument with which to bludgeon Alberta’s energy industry.

After the big, structural changes, they list a page of easier, policy changes. The first is a six-part set of legislative changes mostly concerning the energy sector, including the repel of bills C-69 and C-48, approving the Teck Frontier oilsands mine, and building a national energy corridor.

If Parliament and Canada’s premiers took these demands seriously and passed them into reality, Alberta (and Saskatchewan) could probably live with Confederation. There would be quarrels with ups and downs, but no longer would the very existence of the Praire’s economic livelihood be put at stake every time the government changes in Ottawa. Federalists in the Rest of Canada would do the national union they love justice by taking up the challenge of the Buffalo Declaration.

But they probably won’t. Even friendly premiers in the East will wish to keep the constitution box closed, for fear of the ghosts of Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords escaping. It all hinges on Quebec; as usual.

Speaking to the Western Standard’s Dave Naylor, Rempel Garner said: “I sit three seats down from the leader of the Bloc, who speaks only on issues of concern to Quebec.” It seems his daily venom towards Alberta has grated on her.

And while the Bloc’s daily attacks on Alberta and the Teck oilsands project goes on, Justin Trudeau can be seen across the aisle, often nodding in approval.

It’s a far fetch for the Liberal prime minister to take up the call of the Buffalo Declaration, but what of the Conservatives? What if they don’t?

Derek Fildebrandt is Publish of the Western Standard and President & CEO of Wildrose Media Corp.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard owned by Wildrose Media Corp.