Time for Alberta to exit, stage right?

[BiscuitDérable]

Voici un article bien intéressant de Link Byfield, un journaliste pour le Calgary Sun, qui traite d'indépendance... Albertaine.

A University of Alberta professor I know sent me a lengthy article he's trying to get published, entitled: "Let's get while the getting's good."

In it, Leon Craig, professor emeritus of political science, lays out a case for Alberta to declare unilateral independence. And he lays it out well.

Craig makes no bones about it.  Alberta, he says, should go it alone.  Almost overnight, we would become one of the most prosperous nations in the world. 

But -- and this is his key point -- the main reason to secede is not because Albertans would have more money. Not that there's anything wrong with money.

More importantly, we would create a country that reflects our own political and social beliefs, values and traditions, and our understanding of the common good. 

Canada, says Craig, has been so badly governed since the Trudeau era, it has doomed itself to a Third World, banana republic fate.  We will become -- are in fact becoming -- the Argentina of the 21st century.

Political corruption gets rewarded instead of punished, productivity slides, and the opportunistic politics of envy becomes the basis of our whole system of national government.  The only promising place left in Canada, he concludes, is Alberta.  And Alberta owes it to itself, to its future citizens, and to like-minded people in the rest of the country to save itself.

As a sovereign and independent nation, he suggests, our population -- viable to begin with -- would double in 10 years, even allowing for a welcome exodus of Albertans who would be happier back in Canada.  Far more good people move to take advantage of opportunity than flee from it.

Our social policies -- marriage and family matters, medicare, civil and religious freedoms, etc. -- would no longer be imposed by the Supreme Court and a handful of Ottawa mandarins.  We could establish our own laws to deal with crime and punishment, and our own separate relationship with the Americans.  If we don't do these things now, he says, we'll sink with the Canadian ship.  The professor dismisses the idea of "refederating" Canada along its original lines of strong provinces and a small central government.  He thinks the rest of the country is too far gone to change back to what it was.  He even gives short shrift to the "West."

Any attempt to create a new federalism, even in the West, he believes will fail. If other western provinces, or parts of provinces, want to join Alberta, by becoming part of it, they should be welcomed.  All that binds Albertans to Canada, he concludes, is sentiment -- an attachment to Canada's once-illustrious military and pioneer past, and to our own provincial part in it.  We must now face the fact that the old Canada is gone forever and the new Canada is disgusting.

So what are we to make of all this?  It's hard to argue against his analysis of the problem.  The Trudeau delusion that you can build a credible nation with "national social programs" is so shallow it's absurd.  And given the stern rejection of the Reform party by eastern Canadians, it's impossible to refute that the only forceful thing Albertans can do is to separate.  Where I disagree with my friend is whether we owe any allegiance to other Canadians.

What is driving more and more Albertans towards separatism is the fact that our original constitutional arrangement -- the political bargain on which Canada was built -- has long since been obliterated by the national government.  Had that not happened, Canada would not be in its present ugly mess.  Alberta is the only province with both the means and the motive to force a restoration of those original terms. Not by asking. By telling.  But we owe it to our nine federal partners -- the other provinces -- to state the terms on which we would be willing to stay. This is something we have never done.

Only if those terms are refused should we decide on independence.

Merci de ne pas faire en sorte que ce fils devienne bordélique!

Biscuit.

Modifié 17 juillet 2005 par BiscuitDérable

[Petit-Lion]

Au Québec on n'a pas de pétrole, mais on a des idées

[Seila]

Apparemment sur ce forum, tout le monde s'en fout de l'Alberta!!!

[Laurence Nadeau]

Y'a Daddy qui est à Edmonton en Alberta.

Daddy, Daddy ? !

Laurence

[Monikebek]

Je ne suis pas en Alberta, mais j'aime cette province (Rocheuses obligent ), et je viens de lire un autre article sur le même sujet et dont l'auteur parle différemment. Je vous le copie ici parce que je ne sais pas si le lien marcherait (c'est un document que j'ai reçu à l'interne donc je ne suis pas sûre...).

En tous cas, je me marre bien avec ces attitudes puisqu'apparemment l'Alberta pense que leurs sous vont pour grande partie au Québec pour essayer de retenir le Québec au sein de la confédération, et le Québec pense que tous ses sous vont ailleurs aussi... Mais QUI reçoit donc l'argent des Québécois et des Albertains ? Ah je sais: le YUKON, tadaaaa! C'est sûr que si l'Alberta ET le Québec quittent la confédération, chu cuite moé... Ferais mieux de mettre les bouchées doubles pour mon B & B moé et être indépendante Maman Yuki tout court avec mes pommes de terre, tomates et autres salades et fraises sans oublier le pain et les pâtisseries et la viande de caribou et d'orignal voire d'ours!

Bon courage à ceux qui lisent l'anglais, voici l'article qui parle de l'Alberta qui reste dans la confédération:

PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald

DATE: 2005.07.17

EDITION: Final

SECTION: Observer

PAGE: D7

BYLINE: Roger Gibbins

SOURCE: For The Calgary Herald

ILLUSTRATION: Graphic: (See hard copy for graphic).; Photo: HeraldArchive, Canadian Press / Confetti flies in the air at the kickoff for the Alberta centennial celebrations.; Photo: Calgary Herald Archive / Despite its flowing rivers and wide-open spaces, Alberta would be cloistered and claustrophobic as an independent state, says Gibbons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Better off in Canada: Alberta could thrive as an independent state, but it is better off being a strong component of the nation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the wake of a bruising spring session of Parliament, arguments for political independence are starting to bubble up once again in Alberta. Although the bubbles have been small and erratic to this point, the issue could come to a boil if the national political environment continues to deteriorate as Alberta's wealth increases.

Unfortunately, the possibility of further deterioration is not remote, given that the next federal election could produce a photocopy of the existing Parliament.

I therefore thought this would be an opportune time to re-examine the case for Canada, to explore the advantages that Canada offers for Albertans. I will do this in a very personal way, in essence making "my" case rather than "the" case for Canada. It is not for me to judge whether my reasons will be compelling for others.

Up front, however, I want to stress that I bear no ill will toward those who advocate independence. Like me, they are trying to build a better world for themselves and their families, to chart a course forward in a complex and difficult world.

Let me begin making my case for Canada by removing some arguments from the table. First, I am quite willing to concede that Albertans would be materially better off outside than inside Canada. Although it is difficult to know the magnitude of the difference, it is reasonable to conclude that Albertans in an independent country would have more jingle in their jeans.

I am also prepared to admit that the national economy is less relevant today for Albertans than it was in the past. The relative importance of inter-provincial trade has declined and trade with the United States has increased. The economic ties that historically bound the provinces together have weakened.

I'm prepared to yield on the economic arguments because they do not go to the heart of the matter, which is to be found in the nature of identities. These are not grounded in economic facts and figures, and are virtually immune to partisan conflict. It is possible, therefore, to defend Canada without necessarily defending the current federal government or its policies.

I have spent a good part of my career ranting in one form or another about a federal government that is insufficiently attuned to western Canadian interests and aspirations. Nonetheless, my rants have not corroded my affection for Canada.

Why? Maybe it is because large parts of my life, and thus large parts of my identity, remain essentially untouched by political discontent. As I walk beside the Bow River in Calgary, have a drink with friends (at least with some friends), or drive past the magical fields of yellow canola on Highway 2, the political tensions that come with living in Alberta fall away. Life goes on, and life is generally good.

The essential reality is that in many ways, Canada has worked well. Despite ongoing problems, Canada has delivered a high level of material well-being, personal security and civility. Although the country sometimes falls frustratingly short of its potential, in the broad sweep of international comparisons it has worked, and should not lightly be put aside.

This does not mean that my case for Canada is not based on the sentimental assertion that Canada is the best place in the world in which to live, although I often believe this to be true. In July, under the vast canopy of the prairie sky, it is difficult to believe anything else. But then there are also times in the winter, or when walking through European cities, when my faith is shaken. However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Canada is a good place to live, a fortunate country.

At the same time, my case for Canada does not spring from any dislike for Alberta. I have felt truly blessed since my wife and I moved to Calgary in 1973. Alberta has been an exceptional place to live, to raise a family, and to pursue a career. Indeed, strong attachment to Alberta has strengthened my attachment to Canada.

So how do I explain this national attachment co-existing with the ongoing political frustration that comes from living in the West?

A large part of the explanation comes down to the nature of identities. While a discussion of identities seems much more abstract than a discussion of the financial implications of separation, it takes us to the very core of the debate on the future of Alberta.

There is no question that my identity has been shaped by the Alberta experience. It is rooted in the province's sweeping landscapes, in urban walks along the Bow River, in the mountain parks and the Edmonton Fringe, all parts of my identity that would remain intact if Alberta decided to go it alone.

However, my identity has not been shaped by Alberta alone. Parts of it have been forged by California, by the Oregon coast, by Long Beach on Vancouver Island, by Stanley Park and Vancouver's West End, even by the endless Australian beaches south of Sydney. And, to paraphrase Humphrey Bogart, my wife and I will always have those 10 days in Paris as part of our identity.

I find that I need anchors in a very complex world, and those anchors come through the identities I have. Among the mix of possibilities, the Canadian identity looms large. I need somewhere to call home, and that somewhere, my port in the storm, continues to be Canada. My national identity provides a platform for participating in the global community. While an independent Alberta would also provide a platform, it would be a smaller, weaker platform.

We live in a delightful world of multiple, shifting identities. I can simultaneously be a Canadian, an Albertan, a Calgarian, a male, a Willie Nelson fan, a liberal (although not necessarily a Liberal). The question, then, is whether I would be better off if one of those identities, the Canadian identity, were to be stripped away?

Quite frankly, I do not want my identity to be collapsed into being an Albertan. I want Alberta to remain an important part of who I am, but not to push other parts of my identity aside. And yet this is what would happen in the effort required to assert Alberta as a new national community.

Supporters of an independent Alberta have reached a tipping point, where their identity with Alberta overwhelms any latent identification with Canada. Others, and I include myself, have not reached that tipping point. We continue to see our Canadian and western Canadian identities as complementary. Whatever problems I have with the federal government, they have not pushed me to that tipping point, nor is this likely to happen.

Nations are communities that have done great things together in the past, and aspire to do great things together in the future. While I admire what Alberta has done in the past, and look forward to what Albertans might be able to achieve together in the future, my nationality still rests with Canada.

It would be strange, to say the least, that my son and father in Vancouver would be living in another country, as would my wife's relatives living in Prince George. Retirement choices would become much more complex -- moving to Vancouver would be leaving one country for another.

Another set of concerns about an independent Alberta relates to matters of scale. Canada is already a relatively small player in the global economy, and an independent Alberta would be smaller yet. We would have roughly the population of San Diego County, a 10th of the population of California, less than a 20th the population of Mexico. We would be the Monaco of North America.

This small, independent Alberta would be too claustrophobic. I remember taking my then-young sons up on the Calgary Tower during an earlier brush with Alberta separatism in the early 1980s. I thought at the time that in an independent Alberta, they would be able to see virtually their entire domain, sweeping from Brooks to Canmore, from Red Deer to Lethbridge. And I thought how awful that would be -- I wanted them to be able to play upon a larger stage.

My older son, who went on pursue graduate studies in Kingston and now lives in Vancouver, and my younger son who has traveled with his theatrical group to fringe festivals across Canada and dreams of living in the United Kingdom, deserved more.

I did not want to fence in their dreams and aspirations, just as today I do not want to fence in my own.

Canada is a society of migrants. Many began their journey outside the country, and indeed most of us did in a family sense. But we are also migrants within our own lives, growing up in one region, working in another (or across many regions), perhaps retiring in yet another. Furthermore, we are migrants in our minds, playing across a broad canvas that is sometimes local, sometimes provincial, and sometimes national.

So, do I want to tie myself down to this small corner of the world, no matter how blessed it might be? No, I need, I would argue we all need the ventilation of new ideas and perspectives. Even Alberta grating against the national community is a stimulus for new thoughts and creativity.

A related point comes from the founding fathers who put together the American federal system in 1789. They believed that personal liberty is best protected in relatively large and thus heterogeneous communities. Smaller communities tend to be relatively homogenous in interests and thought, and thus are less tolerant of diversity of opinion. The Americans hit upon a fundamental truth -- I am more at liberty to be myself within the larger Canadian community than I would be within a smaller Alberta alone.

Parliamentary institutions, including those in Alberta, tend to concentrate political power in the hands of cabinet and the prime minister or premier. We have few of the checks and balances that exist in the United States. About the only effective checks we have apart from the courts come from the federal system. Provincial governments constitute a reservoir of power beyond the reach of the prime minister, just as the federal government provides a reservoir beyond the reach of provincial premiers.

If Alberta were to leave Confederation, we would lose this essential check on the exercise of power. This leaves me uneasy, not because of the character of those who hold power in Alberta, but because of the undeniable risks in the unfettered concentration of power in the hands of one person.

It is important to keep in mind, of course, that these arguments reflect the views of one person at a particular stage in his life. It may be that advancing age predisposes me toward inertia, that this old dog is unwilling to learn new tricks. Perhaps, and yet I would argue that the views expressed here have not changed much over the years.

To love Alberta is not to love Canada less. Here I am always reminded of Peter Lougheed's assertion during the difficult times surrounding the constitutional deliberations in the early 1980s. Lougheed argued with great passion and insight that he was a Canadian through being an Albertan, that the two identities were two sides of the same coin.

Today, I am both a resident of Alberta and a citizen of Canada. If Alberta were to become independent, I would of course still have Alberta. The often breath-taking landscapes would still be here, the Bow River would still flow, and the energy wealth would remain beneath the ground. However, I would no longer have Canada, and I cannot believe that I would be better off.

I would not be better off as an Albertan, full stop, than I am as an Albertan within Canada. In fact, it is not even a close call.

We live today in a truly global village where barriers between nations and within our minds are tumbling down. It is no time to shrink in on ourselves, to create a smaller, more cloistered country. Alberta's motto, now more than ever, should be: "Don't fence me in."

Roger Gibbins has lived in Alberta since 1973, and is president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation.

Where Do You Stand?

Do you think Alberta should go it alone?

Or should we continue to do our part in Confederation? Send your thoughts to: [email protected] or fax them to: 235-7379.

[BiscuitDérable]

De toute façon, il ne faut pas s'énerver le poil des jambes. C'est bien beau avoir de l'argent, mais ça prends plus que cela pour devenir une nation.

Par contre, ce que l'on peut retenir des ces 2 articles, c'est que la "confédération" du Canada commence à déplaire aux gens. Il faudrait la revoir. Pour ma part, je crois que le Canada devrait se limiter aux domaines suivants :

-Monnaie

-Sécurité nationale/ armée

Point final! Les provinces auraient ainsi carte blanche pour gérer tout le reste selon leurs propres convictions.

Biscuit.

[Seila]

Bref, un état-gendarme et non un état-providence, libre à chaque province de choisir son orientation politique. Pourquoi pas?

[dinoulet]

Voici un article bien intéressant de Link Byfield, un journaliste pour le Calgary Sun, qui traite d'indépendance...  Albertaine.  ...

←

Très intéressant en effet.

Le Canada est un immense pays. Quoi que de plus normal qu'il ait tendance à se disloquer ? Ce qui est inquiétant par contre, indépendance albertaine ou non, c'est que toute forme de vie communautaire, de la part des francophones en Alberta (environ 10%, semblerait-il) pourrait être perçue avec de moins en moins de bienveillance de la part des séparatistes.

Quant à l'enjeu politique sous-jacent, je me suis demandé ce que signifie l'allusion (dans cet article) au rejet du "reform party" dans l'Est du pays.

- Reform party, ça veut dire uniquement le choix d'un capitalisme débridé style US ?

- Est du pays, c'est uniquement le Québec ?

[Bill Boquet]

Bon alors je vais jeter une pave dans la mare glauque !!

Si la perfide albion ne sait pas gerer son etat canadien, je propose que la France en reprenne possession !!

Qu'en pensez vous ? ce serait pas mal et hop plus de procedure dimmigration !

A bientot

[dinoulet]

Si la perfide albion ne sait pas gerer son etat canadien, je propose que la France en reprenne possession !!

←

Belle idée ... !

Quant à l'Alberta, il faudrait carrément, (tant qu'à faire, encourager l'Allemagne à reprendre un peu du poil de la bête. Si je ne me trompe, il y a plus de germanophones (et d'ukrainiens ??) là-bas que de francophones.

[camarguais001]

et la traduction svp

c'est trop longue pour moi et pour d'autres cent doutes

mercitte