Morton: A vote for change

In the past two weeks, I have participated in two referendum-related events — the Manning Centre's Alberta and the West virtual assembly and the Canada West two-day panel discussions in Calgary.

The clear takeaway consensus from both events was that there is no risk-free path to protecting Albertans' future prosperity. The secession option — short-term pain for long-term gain — is much too risky. The short-term pain is certain, huge and expensive, while the long-term gain is possible, but far from certain. This is why a majority of Albertans will vote to stay on Oct. 19.

But the stay option — the status quo — is equally risky. Albertans do not want the next 50 years to be a replica of the past 50 years; five decades during which Alberta was chronically vulnerable to predatory and destructive federal policies. Specifically, the very successful federal Liberal Party strategy of winning majority governments by promising policies that transfer wealth from the energy-rich, voter-poor western provinces to the energy-poor but voter-rich provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

This is how the Liberals have won 12 of the last 17 federal elections, and why Alberta is a net $631 billion poorer. And why over $100 billion of energy investments left Alberta during the past decade.

For the record, I am opposed to both options. What Alberta needs — what Canada needs — is a middle-ground path into the future — a set of constitutional reforms that restore the legal primacy of provincial governments for policies in health, education and social services. The problem is that the referendum question is binary. It is all-in or all-out. All or nothing. This is wrong.

It is my opinion, my hope, that the referendum will catalyze responsible change; that it will open a window of opportunity for a set of constitutional reforms that address not just Alberta's grievances but also Quebec's.

But to open this window, the "leave vote" on Oct.19 will have to be greater than 20 per cent. If it is less, the rest of Canada will reasonably conclude it is safe to ignore Albertans' concerns. And it would give the green light to the Liberal Party to keep using its strategy to win majority governments.

To create that political leverage needed for meaningful reforms, the leave vote will need to be in the 30 to 40 per cent range. This will only happen if enough Albertans who oppose separation still vote for Option B — not to separate but to "send a message" — that the status quo must go.

Critics will immediately point out that this is much too risky. What if the "send-a-message" voters push support for Option B to over 50 per cent? Are we out the door?

No! This is not a referendum to leave Canada. It is a referendum on a referendum — "to commence the process to hold a referendum" to leave Canada. This leaves plenty of time, if necessary, to defeat the separatist option in a second referendum.

More importantly, it opens the window of opportunity for the Alberta government to work with other provinces to develop a set of reforms that protect all provinces from undue federal intrusion into policy areas that clearly belong to the provinces.

Impossible, you say? Again, no! We came close to doing precisely this 40 years ago. To address the then imminent threat of Quebec secession, the Mulroney Conservative government put together a package of constitutional reforms — the 1987 Meech Lake Accord. Go back and take a look at the Meech reforms and then compare them to the constitutional reforms proposed in Questions 6 to 9 in Alberta's referendum.

Lo and behold, how similar! Provincial appointment of Supreme Court justices; increased provincial authority over immigration; the right to opt out of federal policies in areas of provincial jurisdiction with full compensation. At one point, these Meech reforms had the support of Ottawa and all 10 premiers.

And it could happen again. Premier Danielle Smith has already found allies in other provinces — including Ontario and Quebec — on a growing list of issues: the provincial appointment of Kings Bench and Court of Appeal judges; support for Quebec's use of the Notwithstanding power to protect provincial statutes from judicial vetoes; rebuilding the provinces' section 92A jurisdiction over the management and development of natural resources. And of course, last week's Quebec election of a new PQ separatist government puts the national unity issue back into play.

Bottom line: 50 years of Liberal policies of resolving the challenges of national unity with ever-increasing centralization have failed. They have given us a national debt of over $1.4 trillion and a 70-cent dollar. And now there are not one but two separatist movements. The one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best policies have not worked. And they will not work.

It's time for change. Positive change. The Oct. 19 referendum gives Albertans the opportunity to be a catalyst for this change. Not just for Alberta but all of Canada. Is it risk-free? Of course not. But neither are the other options.

Ted Morton is an executive fellow at the School of Public Policy and professor-emeritus at the University of Calgary. He served on the provincial advisory panel on the economic impacts of separation.