Twenty-one years ago this summer, I was held up at gun point in a parking lot on Crescent Street in Montreal. A man pointed a .38 at me and said: “Toé, mon petit riche, il faut partager la richesse (You, little rich one, you must share the wealth).” By the robber’s judgement that night, I was rich, richer than he perceived himself to be, so gun in hand he would force me to share the “wealth” he imagined I possessed. He was, in a sense, an equalization expert outside the law. This morning, as I read the headline in the National Post (Klein must share: expert –Country will be in danger if Alberta keeps riches), I experienced a similar feeling than I had when I was being robbed that Montreal summer evening. Like the Montreal thug who held me up, a so-called expert on equalization from Ontario’s Queen’s University and working for Montreal’s Institute for Research in Public Policy, Thomas Courchene, has declared that Alberta SHOULD share its energy wealth. (Update: The story also appears in the Edmonton Journal).
Courchene said [that Alberta’s] continued financial growth would prompt Canadians to flock to Alberta, weakening all the other provinces in the process.
This line and much of Courchene’s thinking carry several assumptions that are worth exposing. The above assumes that Canadians coming to Alberta would produce some sort of irreversible evil to the country. Yet, when Atlantic Canadians flock to Central Canada, no one argues that the Central Canadian economy should be pillaged and plundered in order to avert that reality. The Charter-granted mobility of the Canadian worker is only to be decried if working Canadians are moving to Alberta.
Who’s about to live in Saskatchewan…? You could just go to Alberta and be unemployed and probably get welfare that’s a bit more than you could earn in Saskatchewan.
Courchene paints here the picture of an army of welfare entrepreneurs crashing the gates of Alberta. It may happen. But if that were to be the case, all other provinces would welcome the scenario. For every welfare recipient gone to Alberta, there would be one less in Saskatchewan or Ontario. How would that be bad for those provinces? But Courchene statement hides his real intentions behind the appearance of protecting welfare recipients in Saskatchewan. He is patronizingly concerned with hard-working, enterprising Central Canadians moving to Alberta, which clearly would leave Ontario at a disadvantage.
A trend of massive migrations from Quebec and Ontario to Alberta would necessarily –in the long run– alter the demographic make up of Canada. It means that the number of voters in Alberta would increase at the expense of Central Canada. It’s not about protecting welfare recipients and the unemployed. This is as much about a brain drain benefitting Alberta as it is about future seats in the House of Commons; it’s about political power.
The real difficulty that Canada faces is that if Alberta starts spending [its wealth] on infrastructure [sic]. It can have a health system, an education system, an environmental –anything it wants– that no other province can afford. If that happens, the confederation [sic] is gone.”
The would-be theft is disguised as a moral imperative to save Canada. But it assumes that Canada means Central Canada. The successes of Alberta must be curtailed for Central Canada’s sake, as though Alberta were not part of Canada. It’s as it has been. To the Central Canadian elites, the good of Central Canada is the “good of the country.” What Courchene is in fact advocating is another National Energy Policy (NEP), though he lacks the fortitude to call it so. Peter Lougheed, who battled the Trudeauite Liberals of the NEP in the 1970s, warns in the Calgary Herald this morning, they will use euphemisms like “balancing measures.” We all know that they are coming.
Furthermore, Courchene assumes that Albertans are undeserving of their energy wealth. Why would a bunch of knuckle-dragging cattle ranchers and farmers be so fortunate? Surely, the Queen’s/UofT/York-educated Central Canadian elites would put Alberta’s wealth to better use. Great Canadians will make things happen. The position is also patronizing to hard-working Ontarians willing to move to Alberta. It suggests that they’d be better off under the leadership of a province that is close to turning it into a have-not society rather than coming to one that has excelled through innovation, hard-work and good fortune. It belittles Central Canadians who want better as much as it belittles Alberta’s achievements and the sacrifices Albertans have made to clean up their fiscal house.
To many Canadians, Alberta’s wealth has become an intolerable wrong which must be rectified. Courchene’s logic springs from that sentiment and is deceivingly simple: “I don’t think Ottawa can tolerate [Alberta’s] $7 billion [surplus] a year.” A strong Alberta is detrimental to Canada, he suggests. As Courchene argues that Alberta’s strength will weaken other provinces, and therefore the country, he is implying that weakening Alberta will strengthen the other (Central Canadian) provinces, and therefore strengthen Canada.
Provinces, like most of us, have no insurance against thugs ambushing us in parking lots. With the sophistication of Ottawa-made law instead of a .38 handgun, Courchene is prepared to dispossess us of some of our collective wealth in contravention of established constitutional jurisdictions, all under the guise of saving the country. Envy is a powerful motivator of men, and it is soon becoming the accepted wisdom. “The pressures on the rest of the country [meaning Ottawa politicians] will be too hard [to resist],” Courchene says.
Pillage Alberta’s wealth to save Canada. The message is clear.
Cross posted from Civitatensis
George Freeman wrote:
Thanks for bringing Courchene’s view forward. It’s fascinating that again these guys don’t even address the political reality on the ground in Alberta. Alberta is foreign territory for them politically. And furthermore, the “we’re all Canadian” crowd doesn’t seem to get how many Albertans are already pissed off at the rest of the country. The thought of another NEP must have Alberta separatists just giddy. If they know what’s best for Canada, which they likely don’t, the feds should avoid being so stupid.
I like how Mr. Cerber signed off a few posts back: “And Dick Cheney is visiting Alberta.”
Posted on 27-Aug-05 at 12:46 pm | Permalink
kaqchikel wrote:
George: Our political reality is no reality to them. Even if we all voted for them, as we almost did in 1984, what we want/think is of no consequence in light of the seat distribution in the Commons. The question is: What are we going to do about it, if and when the plundering comes?
Posted on 27-Aug-05 at 3:02 pm | Permalink
Tom Cerber wrote:
From Washington’s perspective, their economy is threatened by the likes of the Wabbhists in Saudi Arabia, Chavez in Venezuela, and Nigeria’s dictators/Islamists. That’s quite a crowd for Dalton McGuinty to be associated with.
So, what does Alberta do? Keep open channels with major figures in the US administration, including the upper layers of the Treasury Department (not just the White House), as well as key senators.
Alberta should also have a battle plan to withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan. If Alberta withdraws from it, Kaqchikel’s mugger won’t have so a great pension to draw from. Either will Dalton McGuinty.
Even though it may not make as much economic sense (short-term), Alberta may as well start collecting its own income tax.
Posted on 27-Aug-05 at 3:59 pm | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
True. Alberta needs a game plan. The problem here though is that politics in Alberta is not so hot either. Given the historical tendency of Albertans to see their interests threatened by an overreaching federal government, “group think” and a dynastic party system hasn’t exactly been good grist for the political grind. While Albertans may be known for their populism, populism is never all that deep. Rarely can it sustain the clear strategic game plans necessary for what we are addressing here, nor can it foster the respect for traditional insitutions of government necessary to get the job done. I’m sorry to say but as far as parliamentary government goes, Alberta is bit of a backwater (even compared to the rest of Canada). Few know how government in the province works, who the lieutenant governor is, and as far as MLAs go, rarely are they independently minded, articulate leaders in their own right—there are exceptions of course.
While Alberta does need to be very wary of the federal government, as a province it needs to get its own parliamentary house in order. The province requires political saviness, certainly more than Klein’s token grumblings from on high can offer, if it is to take the federal threat for what it is—a threat. Alberta needs political leaders who understand the place of Alberta in Canada with more acumen than can be mustered by Central Canada’s “two founding nations” dorks. Even the question of Alberta independence is apart of the larger, never-ending debate over what Canada is, or what it was supposed to be about.
While Alberta has a bright and shining intelligentsia, and there are prospects on the horizon of Alberta politics that look like they have what it takes, I fear the province might be in a real pickle between Klein and the next great premier of the province. God knows Alberta doesn’t need another “same old, same old” in office, a Harry Strom or Don Getty when the feds decide to make their move. I guess it just seems imperative that the up and comer, education and healthcare, Jim Dinning, never get to sit in the Premier’s chair.
If Alberta doesn’t get its own house in order, it might be its own worse enemy. And a parliamentary system is made great or not by those of good character and imagination that fill its offices. Other examples in Confederation can be had of this internal threat to Alberta, just take note of Newfoundland’s not so glorious union with Canada.
Admittedly, I’m not entirely clear on what I’m trying to get at here, I just think the next serious political campaign can’t be another “Vote this way, because Albertans vote this way” campaign. This may sound corny but Alberta really needs to inspire its best and brightest to step up to the plate and liven up political conversation in the province.
Posted on 27-Aug-05 at 8:34 pm | Permalink
OTOH wrote:
While I don’t agree with the tone that Courchene is taking, I find it intriguing - and significant - that Peter Lougheed is making statements that reflect some of Courchene’s logic.
Former premier warns of oil envy
The key point that Lougheed makes is that Alberta has to find _CONSTRUCTIVE_ ways to work with the other provinces. It is sad - if not pathetic - that Ralph is retreating once more into the rhetoric of confrontation instead of finding constructive approaches to these situations.
Confrontation is a necessary and useful tool, but sadly it seems to be the only tool currently in Klein’s toolbox. It’s one thing to say “hands off”, but it’s another altogether to come up with constructive ways that benefit both Alberta and Confederation. I had quite forgotten about Lougheed’s program of loans to other provinces via the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. Yes, the fund “underperformed” as an investment, but on the other hand, other provinces gained from it while Alberta still reaped something from those dollars. Not perfect, but better than a “kick in the head”, and arguably a “win-win” for Canada and Alberta overall.
I agree with much of what George Freeman has said in his post above - Alberta is in the position where not only does it need to take a leadership role, it must do so if it is to take the place at the political table of this nation it deserves. Klein’s rumblings are those of a politician, not a statesman.
Posted on 28-Aug-05 at 8:49 am | Permalink
Tom Cerber wrote:
OTOH: Giving out loans from the Heritage Fund would be a useful measure, though a short-term one.
I think the undercarriage of these debates isn’t so much Alberta is rich, everyone else is poor, but rather everyone else has failed to make necessary restructuring in the way they govern themselves. Consider how much public sector unions suck out of Ontario budget coffers. McGuinty and other premiers are using the Alberta question as a way of making difficult decisions regarding their own budgets.
The notion that Ontario is poor is laughable.
Posted on 28-Aug-05 at 10:22 am | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
I think Klein had his day of glory when Alberta became debt free, and Albertans should be proud of the sacrifices they made to accomplish such a goal. And because of these sacrifices, and not just oil, Alberta does have a bright future. This future, as I posted above, carries its own dangers as far as getting good or bad government when Klein signs off.
Cerber does make a very good point about the rest of Canada, something Albertans are not responsible for. Albertans are not responsible for other provinces ability, or inability, to get their own houses in order.
Might I suggest that big abstractions are now the norm for avoiding responsibility in politics. People seem to like to talk about the giant forces that move them, expecting that when they want something they should be able to get it. Part of what allowed Klein to make his “revolution” in Alberta — steep budgetary cuts across the board — was a willingness of Albertans to see that they had to re-evaluate their priorities and tough it out. When you consider how Harris tried to do the same in Ontario, succeeded for a while, but eventually saw his revolution undermined from within his own party and an eventual loss to the Liberals, you see a stark difference between Alberta and Ontario. The willingness of Ontarians to be suckered by the big and the abstract — whether it be equalisation, American imperialism, or even sexual orientation (taking a broadview of different issues today) — makes clear the type of threat Alberta is facing. Central Canada is avoiding reality, it doesn’t want to see a political reality in Alberta that is not amenable to its own lies.
Alberta can’t bail on Canada yet and as OTOH says, it should try to get along. But just to second Cerber, “The notion that Ontario is poor is laughable.”
Posted on 28-Aug-05 at 11:16 am | Permalink
Warwick wrote:
Maybe we can make it a hanging offence for Quebec Professors to comment on Alberta. That’s two in a week.
Can’t we put a mussle on these idiots?
Posted on 28-Aug-05 at 11:48 am | Permalink
OTOH wrote:
George - you make one statement that is intriguing:
“Central Canada is avoiding reality, it doesn’t want to see a political reality in Alberta that is not amenable to its own lies.”
Just to be a bit contrarian, perhaps it is the political environment in Alberta that is distorted. After all, we have had what amounts to single party rule for over 30 years, and with minimal or no real opposition the last ten.
It would seem to me that Alberta’s governing party has had plenty of opportunity to distort the picture considerably, and I would go as far as to assert that they have done so - the extent of the distortion will likely not be clear until the second term after the PCs have been turned out. (It will take that long for PC control over the bureaucracy to start to dissipate at the senior levels)
Posted on 28-Aug-05 at 12:32 pm | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
Interesting point but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
Your view lends itself to a Machiavellian conception of politics that I don’t think is necessarily true of the Alberta government. All things considered, and with the exception of maybe Aberhart’s administration, Alberta really hasn’t had radical government—or should I say, government that is radical towards the rest of Canada. Like I said, Aberhart is a prominent exception if you consider the original drive of the Socred administrations to wrestle control of banking for the province.
For the most part, however, people know Alberta for its populism, demonstrated as recently and as radically visa vis the rest of Canada with the emergence of the Reform Party. By all accounts, Preston Manning emerged as a respectable Alberta statesman, leader of a remarkably successful Western political party, and with little to no help from the Alberta government. We should not forget the series of constitutional talks that led to the overwhelming success of the Reform Party in Western Canada.
The Alberta Government signed on to both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords (recall that Getty was an unpopular Premier of Alberta), the Mulroney Tories were fully committed to both, BUT surprise surprise Western Canadians were not. I think this scenario points very clearly to the fact that Western Canadians have a fundamentally different view of what Canadian federalism should be about. Distinct society for any province is a non-starter, democratic reform to make the federal government more accountable is a starter. And the reason distinct society is a non-starter is because Westerners, especially Albertans, do not buy the “two founding nations” mythology of Central Canada—as far as they are concerned, it’s fabricated crap.
The simple truth is that Central Canada never could make sense of the Reform party, and never has come to terms with the Western Canadian view of the country. Central Canada always feigns moral outrage and disbelief, reinforcing their bias that Western Canadians don’t always know what’s good for them. I think the political rhetoric has demonstrated this very clearly over the last 15 years of federal politics.
The discontent between Alberta and Ontario does not only pertain to the question of Canada. Think about it in more basic terms. The recent legislation on same-sex marriage is a perfect example of Alberta public opinion showing constant opposition to such an idea. A greater percentage of Albertans than Ontarians are unwilling to compromise on traditional marriage. To put it another way, more Ontarians than Albertans are suckered by the pathological and therefore stupid view of human sexuality put forward in Canada’s jurisprudence on “sexual orientation”. There is stable opposition in Alberta towards same sex marriage as an equality right; which is how it was justified in Central Canada. Same sex marriage is non-sense in Alberta (How can same sex marriage and traditional marriage be equivalent? Without the flakey sob stories please.), while it appears more salient in Ontario.
Other issues abound demonstrating how Ontario public opinion is much more conducive to being suckered by the big and the abstract. This is clear whether it be medicare or gun control or terrorism: Albertans are open to private healthcare; think the current gun control regime is stupid, unjust and expensive; and by and large understand that stopping terrorism requires taking the fight to the terrorists—they are less opposed to the war in Iraq than Ontarians.
Time and again, Ontario cannot make sense of Western Canada except to dismiss it as the homeland of rednecks and other hicks, less civilised than we—REAL Canada. They condescend towards the West as being “alienated”, thereby giving token appreciation for Western frustration without ever having to accept any of it as valid concern.
Posted on 28-Aug-05 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
ThePolitic - Canadian Political Weblog » Blog Archive » wrote:
[…] Tom Courchene, the equalization expert who is now advocating the confiscation of Alberta’s wealth in order to soften the consequences of the idiotic fiscal policies of other provincial government and, of course, the federal government, is a difficult man to describe. But I believe I’ve found a way to do so: If there were an intellectual Ed the Sock, he would call Courchene a flaming promosexual. Read Courchene’s describe his own selfless motivations for diving into the debate and tell me that it doesn’t have Lyndsay Lohan all over it: “This is the beginning of a ‘let those eastern bastards freeze in hell’ type of scenario,” he [Courchene] said. “I guess someone has to say it.” […]
Posted on 30-Aug-05 at 12:10 am | Permalink