Tom Flanagan: Securing Alberta's future,

ALBERTA'S FATE HAS BEEN THE OPPOSITE OF QUEBEC'S. THE MORE ALBERTA HAS CONTRIBUTED FINANCIALLY, THE LESS IT HAS RECEIVED POLITICALLY ... SINCE 1960, OTTAWA HAS TAKEN A NET $630 BILLION OUT OF ALBERTA.

In our new book, “Moment of Truth: How to Think about Alberta's Future,” we document how Alberta today is much worse off, much more vulnerable to predatory and destructive policies from Ottawa, than it was 30 years ago. While recognizing and respecting the efforts of such outstanding Alberta leaders as Peter Lougheed, Preston Manning, Stephen Harper and Rachel Notley, we conclude that the strategies of the past generation have not worked. For Alberta to secure its future, it is time for a new strategy.

We identify three basic options. The first is a set of institutional reforms that would increase Alberta's influence in Ottawa. The second are policy initiatives that would increase Alberta's policy autonomy by taking over programs that are now federally administered. The third is separation. Is one of these options preferable to the others?

None of us favours separation as a first choice. Like most Albertans, we are also proud Canadians. And Canada has much to be proud of. Separation would be a giant leap of faith. It might provide significant long-run benefits to the province, but it also risks weakening Alberta over time. The uncertainty created by separation would be costly in the short run not only for Alberta but for Canada as well. It would be an option not to be taken up lightly.

But we also agree with the arguments made by Derek Burney in his chapter in our book that “the only way Alberta can grow and prosper economically is through the continued development of its energy and related industries and if (it) can't do it under the Canadian federal system, Albertans will be obliged to look at an alternative political regime.”

Note that Burney is not an Albertan and was Canada's former ambassador to the United States. He gets the big picture: without economically competitive access to global markets and global prices for our oil and gas, the policy-induced recession that has devastated Alberta for the past five years will become permanent. For us — and for most Albertans — this is unacceptable. So, what is the path forward?

Our first choice would be the reforms that would increase Alberta's voice and influence in Ottawa — reforms to the Senate and Supreme Court — plus a national infrastructure corridor. These reforms would realign our 19th-century political system with our 21st-century economy, and end Alberta's systemic vulnerability. In plain speak, we would achieve the political stability and economic balance enjoyed by other federal states like Australia, the United States and Germany.

Unfortunately, given that Quebec has been given a de facto veto over such reforms, the first two reforms do not seem feasible at this point. With respect to a new sea-to-sea-tosea infrastructure corridor, it would require national leadership, which is highly uncertain.

Accordingly, we support the second set of options: autonomism — increasing Alberta's ability to be self-governing with greater controls over its own destiny by taking over programs that are currently administered by Ottawa, such as policing, pensions and tax-collection. While significant, these reforms are not radical. Each is already being done by Quebec. As explained in our book, each of these reforms has risks as well as rewards. To minimize the risks, they will have to be designed and implemented thoughtfully and thoroughly. But at this point in Alberta's history, they are our best choice.

We are encouraged by the Fair Deal Panel's report, and Alberta Premier Jason Kenney's response to develop these options over the next several years. We also support his decision that before major changes, such as an Alberta pension plan, are legally adopted, they must first be approved by Albertans by a referendum. We anticipate a robust and informed public debate over reforms. Albertans deserve no less.

We acknowledge that the “more Alberta, less Ottawa” reforms by themselves may not resolve Alberta's current vulnerability. But the alternative — continuing on as we have for the past 30 years — guarantees more of the same. The reforms should create the political leverage that Alberta needs to persuade fellow Canadians that the status quo is no longer acceptable. The threat of separatism would have to be taken more seriously if Alberta were already collecting its own taxes, doing its own policing and running its own pension plan.

To repeat, none of us favour separation as a first option. But we also see it as a viable last resort if all else fails. It may be that in order to stay in Canada, Alberta must be able and willing to leave it. Otherwise, our grievances — our request for a fair deal — will never be taken seriously. Asking Ottawa and the rest of Canada to be “fair” to Alberta has not worked. For political change of this scale, appeals to fair play and equity do not work. Albertans must make the rest of Canada see that it is in its self-interest to keep Alberta in Canada for the contributions we make.

This may be Alberta's paradox: that we need to go halfway down a road to a destination that we don't want, in order to get the policy and constitutional changes necessary to stay in a Canada we love.

IT MAY BE THAT IN ORDER TO STAY

IN CANADA, ALBERTA MUST BE ABLE AND WILLING TO

LEAVE IT.

Jack M. Mintz, Ted Morton and

Tom Flanagan are the editors of the new book Moment of Truth: How to Think about Alberta's Future, now available

from Sutherland House.