CDN NEWS | 
US NEWS 
By David Yager
October 14, 2020
In an advanced, civilized and internationally respected country like Canada, should one or more region of the country be permitted to exploit another for political gain?
Should the well-documented concentration and application of political power from central Canada continue in the 21st century despite the continued and growing objections from Alberta and Saskatchewan?
These questions are the basis of a new book titled Moment of Truth, a new collection of essays about Alberta and Canada compiled and edited by Calgary academics Jack Mintz, Tom Flanagan and Ted Morton. The other 12 contributors are a variety of university professors, business leaders and statesmen from across Canada.
It is the latest and surely the most cerebral addition to a series of responses by western Canadians to the difficult economic situation in which oil producers Alberta and Saskatchewan find themselves after five years of the latest Trudeau-led, central Canadian supported Liberal government.
What the 15 authors have in common is a shared belief that the current legal, constitutional and political structure of Canada is once again serving the western provinces very poorly. And that many of the economic challenges facing the oil industry in Saskatchewan and Alberta in particular are punitive and avoidable.
These structural issues date back to the formation of the country in the 1800s, fundamental flaws that can and have been regularly exploited by the federal government to penalize one region of Canada in favor of another for political gain.
This is not an unfortunate coincidence. Two Trudeau-led Liberal governments in 40 years have introduced policies that penalize the western oil producing regions with the support of Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario. And they have both been about oil.
The first was the late 1970s and early 1980s when oil prices were too high, petroleum was in short supply, and the producing provinces of the west were accumulating too much money. Under Quebec-based Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, this culminated in the National Energy Program of 1980 which threatened to split the country.
The first time.
This time around it is his son, Quebec-based Justin Trudeau. This time there is too much oil, it doesn’t cost enough, and it is destroying the world’s climate. Canada, largely Alberta, is the world’s fifth largest producer. For five years the Liberal response has been pipeline obstruction, tanker bans, carbon taxes, confidence destroying regulatory reform and a commitment to “net zero by 2050” which will require the country to all but get out of the oil business entirely in the next thirty years.
The second time.
Moment of Truth revisits the history of Canada from a western perspective with specific analysis of how Upper and Lower Canada – Quebec and Ontario – stacked the deck in their own favor when the country was created. The legendary and historically celebrated “Fathers of Confederation” put in place the legal tools to treat what is now the four western provinces like colonies in perpetuity because they were, at the time, colonies. They didn’t exist as provinces and no provision was made for a time when they might.
The authors feel so strongly about the basic unfairness after 153 years that they not only discuss separation as a tool for extracting fairness, but they explain how to do it within the existing legal framework.
It is not a political rant or manifesto. The tone of the book is separation if necessary, but not necessarily separation. Canada has been, and compared to many parts of the world remains, a great place to live. Most of the rest of the world would love to have our problems.
But in a country that regularly preaches and espouses fairness, equality, compassion and individual opportunity, the treatment of the growing west at the hands of the parts of the country that perceive no material benefit – or even a threat – from the lesser populated regions, flunks the standing Canadian myth of fair play hands down.
There are four major elements to the thesis behind Moment of Truth.
The first is mathematical, a clear violation of the political principal of representation by population.
Canada’s Senate has been a long-standing joke for anyone who follows politics. But it has important legal powers if they can be engaged. In the summer of 2019 there was a full court press by Alberta to have Bills C-48 and C-69 either stopped or materially amended in the Senate because of their damaging long-term impact on the oil industry.
This failed. Here are the numbers.
Assuming the four western provinces were completely aligned on anything, they would still only have 23% of the senate votes despite housing 31% of the population. In Atlantic Canada four provinces have 29% of the senators but only 7% of the people.
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and PEI combined have four times as many senators as Alberta with less than half the residents. Simple “rep by pop” math makes an Atlantic Canadian over eight times more powerful than an Albertan in the senate.
The first discussions about Senate reform began in 1874 after BC and Manitoba became provinces but have gone nowhere. Seeking protection from central Canada after the National Energy Program, the Triple E senate concept – Equal, Elected, Effective – gained popularity as did the Reform Party with its slogan, “The wests wants in.” Attempts to elect senators provincially and have them appointed have been tried. Electing all senators would require a constitutional amendment and the approval of 7 provinces representing over half the population. The provinces enjoying control over the Senate have yet to see any need to do this.
For Alberta, senate reform to turn the chamber of “sober second thought” into something useful to protect regional interests against partisan exploitation of representation by population in the House of Commons has been pursued for decades. The ideal model is the US senate which has two representatives per state to ensure the states with lower populations are not overpowered by the densely populated regions.
When the US constitution was drafted, the senate was structured to protect the less populated regions. The authors of Moment of Truth explain in detail how the Canadian constitution achieved the exact opposite.
The next areas where the game is rigged against the west are the constitution and the Supreme Court. The chapter by Ted Morton carries the subtitles “From provincial equality to the Quebec veto” and “Aboriginal control over our natural resources.”
The first is what Morton calls the Quebec veto. Reviewing Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s actions after the country narrowly won a Quebec separation referendum Morton wrote, “To do this, his government restored Quebec’s unilateral veto power with a piece of legislation called the Regional Veto Act. This act divides Canada into five regional blocks and states that the federal cabinet will refuse to introduce any constitutional amendments unless it has first been approved by Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and at least two of the Atlantic provinces with 50 percent of the region’s population, and at least two of the Prairie provinces with 50 percent of the region’s population.”
Simply put if Quebec doesn’t like it won’t ever happen.
The other issue involves the composition and behavior of the Supreme Court. Of particular interest is Section 35 of Pierre Trudeau’s repatriated constitution of 1982 which outlines aboriginal rights. While the actual wording contains no reference of “duty to consult”, since 1990 Supreme Court interpretations have expanded the clause to include this requirement.
Morton asserts that the willingness of the Supreme Court to write the law instead of interpreting the constitution has been effectively exploited by pipeline opponents to have approvals by the National Energy Board overturned through Supreme Court challenges under Section 35. This is how Northern Gateway was overturned in 2016 which, combined with Trudeau’s promised legislated northern BC coast tanker ban, caused proponent Enbridge to give up and cost Alberta valuable access to export markets.
This issue was clarified earlier this year when the latest Supreme Court challenge of the Trans Mountain pipeline by First Nations over “duty to consult” was denied. But not before it cost billions in investment losses and resulted in considerable delays and project cancellations.
In the U.S. the composition of the Supreme Court is a major political issue. It gets nowhere near the same attention in Canada. Now provinces are challenging the federal carbon tax in the Supreme Court. Will a final decision be made on the interpretation of the constitution? Or saving the world from climate change?
The book also highlights how international investor interest in Canada and the oil sands evaporated as pipelines were killed or delayed. Bills C-48 and C-69 have been routinely cited as sending a message to international oil investors that Canada now carries high risk for long term capital returns and investment security. The recent one-year delay of the Alberta’s Nova gas pipeline expansion by TC Energy as the federal cabinet deliberates about a decision the regulators have already made is a striking example.
Quebec is also guaranteed by law three appointments to the Supreme Court. There are currently nine judges, meaning the province with 23% of the population controls 1/3 of the Supreme Court. Quebec can, should its judges so choose, exert undue influence in the highest court the land.
The authors look at Quebec’s powerful influence on multiple aspects of modern Canada and conclude that the structure of the country serves that province much better than the upstarts in the west like Alberta. After reading the book it is impossible to disagree with the collective assertion that the west is destined by law to be a secondary player in the future direction of the country.
Another chapter by New Brunswick’s Donald Savoie explores the cultural differences among Canadians. While we are constantly reminded how the Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario have deep roots in history and tradition, Savoie explores what it means to be born and live in the west which, in global terms and thanks to oil and agriculture, is surely one of the most important regions of the world with less than 150 years of history beyond small settlements.
Savoie’s chapter is titled “Canada’s national political institutions wear blinders” by refusing to acknowledge what has emerged in western Canada, or that the country was built wrong in the first place.
He writes, “The fathers of confederation did not spend much time designing political institutions that would accommodate regional interests, other than those of Canada East. They also ensured that the Canadas (upper and lower) would be top dogs in confederation. They did this by importing political institutions lock, stock, and barrel from Britain. Therein lies the problem, at least for Western Canada and Atlantic Canada.”
This is because of geography which never really meant anything in the small island of Britain. He says that everything relates back to where you live, not the laws of the land. Savoie asserts that regionalism, or the recognition of the rights and powers of regions, was specifically avoided because of the tensions that had existed in Upper Canada (French) and Lower Canada (British) when the country was created. Further, the American civil war from 1861 and 1865 made the founders nervous about what might happen when regions with different cultures and aspirations clash. Particularly once they gained population and economic influence.
As importantly, Savoie acknowledges that people in the west are indeed different, more inclined to focus on the future than the past because of the absence of the traditions and behaviors inherent with longevity.
Alberta has long been called “next year country”, where if an exploratory well is dry or the crop is poor due to bad weather, next time or next year things will be better. Albertans are optimistic about the future because without a past, that’s why they live here. The original settlers came from nothing and built the province with their sweat and commitment. Recent arrivals came from elsewhere for a better life. The good old days were awful. Sod huts or log houses without utilities are still fresh in the memories and photo albums of many early Alberta families.
Looking at other regions of Canada, you can easily conclude that too many Canadians actually fear the future. Quebec worries about its language. Ontario is concerned about what the Americans are doing and that province’s vast importance within the country. The lower mainland of BC and Vancouver Island see no future for anything unless the environment is protected and climate change is brought under control.
If all this costs Alberta billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs, that doesn’t matter.
The western response to the latest round of partisan economic persecution by the rest of Canada has been negative and multifaceted. These are analysed in detail. There is a new political party called Wexit determined to elect separatist candidates in the next federal election. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney delivered on his promised Fair Deal panels and hearings that suggested taking more control of matters like the police force, taxation and pensions.
Meanwhile, multiple lobby groups and political action committees have emerged to try all manner of methods of changing the channel on everything from equalization to restructuring the entire country.
Jack Mintz contributed a chapter titled “Why do small regions secede from a country (sometimes).” He looked at Western Australia, the former Czechoslovakia, former Yugoslavia, Malaysia/Singapore, Sweden/Norway, Belgium, and the ongoing struggle involving Catalonia in Spain. In several cases this involved the creation of new countries, while in others it was the restructuring within a country to provide a region with greater autonomy.
While in some cases they were cultural, the greater driver has been economics.
Looking at Alberta, the cost of assuming greater control of federal functions like policing and pensions is regularly cited as expensive. Quebec’s determination to leave Canada resulted in significant financial consequences and disruption.
For Alberta, the economic damage has already been done. Hundreds of billions of dollars have left the province through asset sales, evaporated from business and property values, or have been redeployed to other jurisdictions with more stable regimes or predicable outcomes.
Like the old Bob Dylan song goes, “When you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose.”
Moment of Truth is published by Sutherland House and is available in e-book or printed version from Amazon. The pitch reads, “Alberta is at a crossroads. Its situation in Canadian confederation is unfair. It is unequal. So…what comes next?”
The most succinct and focused review of Canadian history as it relates to Alberta you’ll ever read.
David Yager is an oil service executive, energy policy analyst, oil writer and author of From Miracle to Menace – Alberta, A Carbon Story. More at www.miracletomenace.ca
Share This:
Canadians Should Decide What to do With Their Money – Not Politicians and Bureaucrats