Dear Mr. McClelland

An Open Letter to Ian McClelland, MLA Edmonton-Rutherford- Chairman of the MLA Committee on Strengthening Alberta?s Role in Confederation;

Dear Mr. McClelland,

As a lifelong resident of the province, I am similar to many of my fellow Albertans in that I have become disaffected by the role Albertans have become resigned to playing within the Canadian Confederation. Having grown disenchanted with previous efforts by Albertan and western Canadian political movements, and their numerous futile attempts to integrate western aspirations in to the Canadian agenda, I agree that now is the time to re-evaluate Alberta?s role within Canada. However, far from being an open, inclusive form where Albertans are “asked to provide input on how Alberta?s role in Canada can be strengthened and improved”, I find the Alberta government-appointed MLA Committee on Strengthening Alberta?s Role in Confederation to be a biased, superficial, half-hearted attempt at consulting all Albertans regarding their vision of what Alberta?s role within Confederation should be.

The official line being fed to us by organizers is that the committee will be a series of inclusive, open-minded consultations with Albertans, where initiatives such as the Alberta Agenda will be seriously considered. However, comments by several Progressive Conservative MLA?s and the Premier regarding secession and the Alberta Agenda, both prior to the formation of the committee and after the period of consultation commenced, seem to indicate otherwise:

- -”The goal of Alberta isn’t to build walls?It’s to build bridges?Most Albertans aren’t interested in taking their ball and going home?Most care too much about Canada to let a government in Ottawa alienate them from their fellow Canadians.” — Alberta Premier Ralph Klein commenting on the implementation of ?firewall? legislation at the October 23rd Premier?s dinner in Fort McMurray. (Source: October 24, 2003, ?And the firewall came tumbling down?–Neil Waugh, Edmonton Sun)

- “We don’t need protection from the federal government?We need to continually remind the federal government they ought to operate in their area of jurisdiction and leave us to ours. Most Albertans aren’t interested in taking their ball and going home?Most care too much about Canada to let a government in Ottawa alienate them from their fellow Canadians.”?Alberta Justice Minster Dave Hancock?s comments on implementing the Alberta Agenda. (Source: November 13, 2003, ?Tories about to burn down the firewall? –Neil Waugh, Edmonton Sun)

- ??[Hancock] talked about “broad discussion” and “not for immediately legislating against the federal government.” ? Further summation of Hancock?s feelings on the Alberta Agenda. (Source: November 13, 2003, ?Tories about to burn down the firewall? –Neil Waugh, Edmonton Sun)

- ?Tory delegates and government ministers showed very little support for the “firewall” proposals up for discussion Saturday at their policy conference.

Almost every speaker from the floor also criticized the proposals. Many expressed frustration with the federal government’s treatment of Alberta and the West. But very few suggested that adopting any of the firewall ideas was a good move.?? An excerpt from a November 16, 2003, Edmonton Journal article by Tom Barrett: ?Tories knock down ‘firewall’ idea: Party delegates speak out against proposal.?

- “Do we get to agree?” ? Alberta Finance Minister Pat Nelson, in response to 22-year-old University of Alberta student Luke Manca, a delegate at the PC Policy Conference on November 15th, when he asked, “I question why we are even discussing [the Alberta Agenda]. I don’t really care about these issues?? (Source: Sun 16 Nov 2003, ?Tories knock down ‘firewall’ idea: Party delegates speak out against proposal? –Tom Barrett, The Edmonton Journal)

- ?Nelson and Revenue Minister Greg Melchin had already outlined their views on the major economic downside of the province collecting its own taxes.

?One delegate described the discussion that followed as “a love-in with the RCMP.”– Further excerpt from, ?Tories knock down ‘firewall’ idea: Party delegates speak out against proposal.?

Therefore, with the dye apparently already cast, one has to wonder what exactly you, your committee and the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta are trying to accomplish by paying lip service to a concept that you seemingly have no real intention of implementing.

Secondly, while this committee claims to be soliciting the opinion of Albertans on ?the current state of relations between Alberta and the federal government?, comments that you have made to the media seem to indicate that you are not interested in hearing any opinions that may compromise the federalist whitewash that is currently in progress.

A glaring example of this is your committee’s outright refusal to address the topic of Alberta separation. In your comments to the media at the Committee?s first public meeting in Hinton on January 15th, you made it quite clear that any talk of separation is unwelcome, and not to be considered:

?”Separation is not on the table,” said McClelland, a Conservative backbencher and former Edmonton Reform member of Parliament. “We don’t want to give that any traction.”? .” (Source: January 16, 2004, ?Tories take it to the people but talk of Alberta Separation is taboo? — Darcy Henton, Canadian Press)

You seem quite unrepentant about this attitude, despite the fact that numerous polls and studies in the past year have clearly indicated that a significant number of Albertans have expressed a willingness to at least discuss separation as a means of defending Alberta?s interests in certain circumstances:

-The Canada West Foundation in their publication ?Looking West 2003? asked Albertans to respond to the statement: ?Alberta would be better off economically if it separated from Canada.? Of those who responded, 25.5% agreed (13.5% strongly) that Alberta would be better off economically if it separated from Canada.

-JMCK Communications Ltd. conducted a poll in November 2002 in response to the pending ratification of the Kyoto Accord, in which they posed the question to Albertans: ?If the federal government ratifies Kyoto against the wishes of the Alberta government, what do you think Alberta should do?? Of those polled, 46.8% of those who responded agreed that ?Albertans should begin to explore other options such as independence?, while another 9.4% felt that Alberta should chose to join the United States.

-When a March 2003 poll by JMCK Communications Ltd. asked Albertans, ?When considering Alberta?s role within Confederation, which of the following scenarios would you support??, 16.4% responded that Alberta should become ?independent from Canada.?

In failing to acknowledge the existence of secessionist sentiment amongst a potentially significant number of Alberta taxpayers, you are further entrenching the alienation that a great many Albertans feel from federal and provincial levels of government. If your committee is unwilling to discuss separation, a perfectly legal and attainable option for Alberta, as a means of defending the interests of Albertans, then your committee, and your party, does so at its own political peril. As the true motivation behind the convening of this panel seems more political than practical, this should be of great significance to you.

In addition to the deliberate exclusion of groups and individuals with an alternative vision for the province, there is no representation from any of the rural southern Alberta constituencies on this committee. This is despite the fact that support for the Alberta Agenda been strong in the rural south, with a coalition of twelve southern Alberta municipal districts and counties (the Municipal Districts of Foothills, Willow Creek, Ranchlands, Pincher Creek, Cardston, Taber and the Counties of Lethbridge, Warner, Forty Mile, Cypress, Vulcan and Newell) going as far as to put forward a resolution at the 2003 convention of Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties in support of adopting the Alberta Agenda.

With your party having stated their opposition to the Alberta Agenda prior to convening this committee, and having excluded significant geographic and political constituencies from engaging or possessing a meaningful role on the MLA Committee on Strengthening Alberta?s Role in Confederation, it is hard to believe that a serious attempt at consulting all Albertans on their province’s role in Confederation was intended. It seems blatantly obvious that the purpose of this committee is solely political in nature, merely a toothless gesture to pacify volatile constituencies within the Progressive Conservative Party, not a bona fide attempt at political reform.

Having eliminated independence from the discussion altogether, and with the implementation of the Alberta Agenda seeming highly unlikely, what possible conclusion could this committee be coming to other than to reinforce the status quo? This hollow attempt by the Progressive Conservative Party of consulting favourable constituencies would be laughable if the true intentions of this exercise in futility were not inherently undemocratic, unrepresentative of a large number of Albertans, and quite indicative of the stale, dictatorial style of governance we have become accustomed to from this government.

It appears the only legitimate opportunity Albertans will have at determining the direction their province heads within Confederation will be at the ballot box. I intend to exercise mine.

(Ed note: This letter was submitted to the MLA Committee on Strengthening Alberta?s Role in Confederation for their perusal on January 22, 2004)