Alberta between Canada and independence: an interview on the future of the Canadian West
A year ago Justin Trudeau won the Canadian federal election for the second time, albeit with fewer votes and seats than in 2015. Trudeau's center-left Liberal Party has essentially built its relative majority in the country's eastern provinces. , without winning virtually any seats west of Ontario. The Liberals failed to penetrate the "Prairies" in the slightest, and it is no surprise that the strongest rejection by the federal government of Trudeau emerged in Alberta, a province that voted massively for the Conservative Party.
However, once again, the will of Albertan citizens has been overturned by a majority expression of the progressive Eastern Canadian bloc. Alberta seems doomed to remain structurally in the opposition, with no possibility of having its say in federal politics.
Could things have changed? Is there still room for Alberta and other western Canadian provinces within the federal constitutional framework? And what are the long-term political alternatives for conservative Canadian provinces? We discussed all of these issues with Derek Fildebrandt, who was an Alberta MP from 2015 to 2019 for the conservative-libertarian Wildrose party and who is now the editor of Western Standard magazine. Fildebrandt has a clear "right libertarian" political profile and is a staunch supporter of Alberta self-government.
MARCO FARACI: Mr. Fildebrandt, a common expression to describe the malaise of the provinces of Western Canada is "Western alienation" . Do you think this expression correctly captures the feelings of the majority of Alberta citizens?
DEREK FILDEBRANDT: I think, in some ways, “Western alienation” is a dated concept. It's an expression that has been around since the 1970s and 1980s, but in my view it underestimates the current political conditions in Alberta. The word "alienation" merely suggests that the federal government ignores us. Unfortunately this is no longer the case. Ottawa doesn't just ignore Alberta; it is actively hostile to the interests of our province. I believe a more representative concept is "Western siege" . As I see it, Alberta is under siege. We are attacked and besieged by a government that we feel distant and increasingly "foreign".
MF: That's a pretty strong statement. Can you explain to our readers how the federal government harms Alberta and the interests of its citizens?
DF: It does this in many ways. Not just milking Alberta taxpayers, as has always been the case. Now with the advent of the "new green left", our oil and gas industry is openly threatened and this is very worrying for us. The federal government is putting in place policies that are disastrous for our economy.
MF: Do you think there are only economic interests at stake or do you think there is also a cultural conflict between Alberta and the dominant East? In other words, is Alberta “different”?
DF: I think the reasons for the conflict between Alberta and Ottawa are primarily economic: we want to keep more money here, and defend our right to work without confiscation and improper regulation. There are a number of cultural issues as well, but they are different from those that inspire Quebec nationalism. In Quebec, nationalism is based on ethno-linguistic claims; we don't have this kind of split with most of the Canadian provinces. We speak the same language, we eat the same food. Our cultural differences are more in terms of values: our approach to work, our approach to family, our approach to freedom. In these respects, we have more in common with Montana than with Toronto.
MF: Do you think a strategic alliance between the Alberta and Quebec nationalists is possible?
DF: Such an alliance actually occurred in the 1980s, when Brian Mulroney managed to form a broad coalition that brought together the discontented of the West and the nationalists of Quebec, but the truth is that the two approaches are quite distant. On the one hand, Quebec nationalists are mostly positioned on the left of the political spectrum. On the other hand, the kind of decentralization that Quebec pursues is different from what we seek. Quebec wants cultural and social decentralization as opposed to what it sees as a bullying "English" government, but is not interested in fiscal decentralization, because Quebec is and always has been a net beneficiary of the federal budget – while Alberta is and it has always been a net contributor. In other words, Quebec wants to decentralize the power to spend money, but strongly argues that taxation is done centrally.
MF: In your opinion, is Canada a "structurally progressive" country, in which conservatives will always be a minority?
DF: My point of view is that Canada is "structurally progressive" in the sense that it is "structurally Eastern". Since the eastern provinces are predominantly progressive, the result is that the federation ends up being progressive – but the crux of the matter is the imbalance of power between the different parts of the federation.
MF: And why is Canada "structurally eastern"? Is it a question of demographics?
DF: Certainly in demographic terms, there are more Canadians from the East than Canadians from the West, but it's not just a question of demographics. The dominance of the provinces of the East is engraved in the Constitution and there is little we can do to change this. Some provisions are ridiculous, such as the composition of the Senate. We are, in practice, the only democracy in the world with a non-elective Upper Chamber and we are the only federation in the world in which the Upper Chamber is not conceived in a logic of balance between the regions. Our senators are appointed by the federal prime minister, as if they were bureaucrats. Justin Trudeau, who is extremely unpopular here in Alberta chooses the Alberta senators. But the "question of the Senate" goes beyond this aspect. The Senate was created in 1867 and the distribution of seats was negotiated by the colonies that existed at that time. The western provinces had not yet been created and were subsequently assigned only a handful of seats. Alberta is the fourth largest Canadian province by population; it has twice the population of all four Atlantic provinces combined, but has about half the senatorial seats of New Brunswick alone.
Furthermore, Alberta's opportunities to play a role in federal institutions are damaged by official bilingualism. For those growing up in a province like Alberta, there is very limited incentive to learn French, but this also means that an Albertan is less likely to qualify for federal roles requiring bilingualism, including those in the Court. Supreme.
Alberta's position within Canada is much weaker than that of the "republican" states within the United States. The American institutional framework guarantees a much stronger system of checks and balances and no state is in a position to be structurally kept out of political dynamics.
MF: Do you believe at this point that Canada is a "lost cause"? Or is it still worth fighting to get it back on track?
DF: I believe it is worth trying to save Canada, but at the same time I have the impression that this cannot be achieved. We would need a reform of the Constitution that would allow for true free trade between the provinces; we would need an elective and fully representative Senate; we would need to abolish the “Equalization formula” which transfers Alberta taxpayers' money to the eastern provinces. But these reforms are practically impossible, because the process envisaged for constitutional amendments makes the status quo unalterable.
Canada is a beautiful country, with a largely honorable history, and I believe that you deserve to try and save it. I simply have very little faith that it is politically possible.
MF: Under these conditions, is independence a viable alternative for Alberta?
DF: Yes, it is. Alberta's per capita GDP is among the highest on the planet. We would be in the company of countries like Switzerland, Luxembourg and Singapore. An independent Alberta could retain between $ 20 and $ 30 billion a year from our taxpayers on the territory. Critics of independence say Alberta is landlocked. Yes, that's right, we are landlocked and there is nothing that can be done about it. But we are also "landlocked" as a province and, as a "landlocked" province, we are in an extremely weak position. We cannot push for free trade, for example – since, it must be remembered, in Canada we don't even have free trade between provinces. And we can't have the government we want. Alberta did not elect a single Liberal Party MP in the last election; yet we have a liberal federal government.
I think we would have more bargaining power as an independent "landlocked" state than as a "landlocked" province, barring unlikely scenarios of constitutional reform. A sovereign Alberta would be able to "force" free trade and market access while, as a province, the only thing we can do is continue to elect Conservatives who will be overtaken in terms of votes by the Liberals of the East.
MF: So you are saying that independence would be economically viable. But is there a viable political path leading to independence?
DF: There is certainly growing support for independence in Alberta, but the time is not yet ripe. I was the first elected deputy in Alberta since at least the 1980s to have advocated independence in the event of a failure of constitutional reform. I campaigned on a platform that involved a set of two referendums. The first referendum would have been to demand full equality with the other provinces. Then, if Ottawa or the other provinces rejected the constitutional reform to make Canada more equitable, the second referendum would have been on independence.
Polls currently show that 52 percent of Alberta's mainstream Conservative Party voters, the United Conservative Party , are in favor of independence. I, however, do not think mainstream Conservatives will ever be willing to take the independence flag in their hands – they are too divided on the subject and would prefer to evade it. However, new parties and movements with a clear independence conviction are gaining ground and I am sure they will play a political role.
MF: Well, do you think we will ever see an independent Alberta?
DF: The path will be long and certainly not downhill, but I believe that independence will be a realistic possibility, if things don't change.
The post Alberta between Canada and independence: an interview on the future of the Canadian West appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/lalberta-tra-il-canada-e-lindipendenza-intervista-sul-futuro-dellovest-canadese/ on Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:20:00 +0000.