Jared Wesley & Ken Boessenkool: The "love" of federalism must grow both ways

Too often federalism is reduced to a crude ledger: dollars in, dollars out; grievances paid, grievances owing.

The Line is partnering with Lead Not Leave to provide credible arguments for why Alberta should stay in Canada. Click on the link below to learn more about the initiative.

By: Jared Wesley & Ken Boessenkool

Federalism offers Alberta a path to lead, not leave, Canada. It gives us a way to think beyond the false choice between submission and separation to ask a more constructive question: how can Alberta be stronger while making Canada better?

Howard Anglin made a significant contribution to this discussion by writing a thoughtful and much-needed defence of federalism. He sees it as not merely a transactional arrangement, but a moral and social order rooted in “civil friendship.”

Practically speaking, Canada is not a corporation, and our constitution is not a contract for services. Too often in Alberta, federalism is reduced to a crude ledger: dollars in, dollars out; demands made, grievances unmet. By that logic, Confederation is no more than a commercial deal, and the test of fairness is whether a province receives more than it contributes.

That sort of zero-sum thinking is the opposite of federalism, which holds that Canada is more than a sum of its parts. Canada, at its best, is not merely a bargain among strangers who remain strangers. Anglin is right that the loyalty and friendship of Confederation is closer to family than to commerce — he uses the word “love.”

Anglin sees the provinces as the natural scale for much of Canada’s political life. Smaller than a nation, bigger than a town, provinces are where regional communities can pursue their own visions of prosperity without interference from Ottawa or more populous provinces. Where critics warn that decentralized federalism risks sliding into separatism, Anglin treats “looseness” as a source of strength. It offers flexibility for provinces to protect their distinctiveness and serve their peoples and the rest of Canada without being pressed into a single national mould.

Nova Scotia ship-builders, Alberta nurses, northern Ontario nickel miners, and British Columbian bureaucrats each reflect the geography of their place. But, regardless of their politics, all can find common cause with Stephen Harper’s recent call to arms: “I would be prepared to impoverish the country and not be annexed, if that was the option we’re facing. I would accept any level of damage to preserve the independence of the country.”

That love for Canada is not hard to find in Alberta.

Federalism helps provinces protect their distinct ways of life by respecting differences in geography, resources, language, and culture. But it also brings people together without requiring them to become identical. This is why people in our province relate to our region and country in different ways. Some of us feel Albertan first and Canadian second. Others feel more Canadian than Albertan. And many rankle at being asked to rank their identities at all.

The vast majority of Albertans feel that overlap in their bones and reject the separatist project that would eliminate it altogether. They understand that union without uniformity has been central to the Canadian project since the beginning, and that it is our collective responsibility to nurture that spirit.

John A. Macdonald did not imagine a country of isolated provincial outposts, each guarding itself against the others. While he took cultural, geographic, and economic differences as given, he wanted to create an economic union from coast to coast to coast. The aim was not simply to acknowledge, valourize, or accommodate differences. It was to forge a broader political community out of that difference. For over a century, Albertans have been at the forefront of reshaping that union, ensuring Canadians are treated fairly regardless of where they live.

Our successes — from securing control over natural resources to improving federal-provincial transfers — show that Alberta is not fully itself apart from its provincial cousins. Nor is it helpless in the face of an intrusive federal government. The province is influenced by the broader Canadian project, and has influence on that nation in turn.

That is at the heart of our argument that Alberta should lead, not leave.

Federalism prevents any single national political faction from permanently declaring the broader public interest in favour of any other region.

We would vigorously oppose federal standards in education, for example, and have fought repeatedly and successfully to ensure that regional economies are regulated closer to home. Alberta should be free to develop its resource sector, just as Atlantic provinces should be free to develop their fisheries and Quebec, Manitoba, and B.C. their hydro industries. Each province has its own economic character and its government exists to defend and expand those strengths for the betterment of all Canadians.

But the opposite is true, too. Federalism also prevents provincial majorities from running roughshod over more local minorities whose rights, identities, interests, or aspirations connect them to Canadians elsewhere. Provinces are not always havens of civil friendship. A provincial majority can be every bit as overbearing as a national one. Sometimes more so, because it is closer, more culturally confident, and less checked by countervailing forces.

And so our parliament, in conversation with our courts, abide by a common constitution and set of laws to recognize gay marriage, respect treaties with First Nations, and find a balance between federal and provincial responsibilities in economic, environmental, and social spheres.

They don’t always get this right, which sets up important national debates. We would, for example, prefer provincial dental and pharmacare programs to federal ones. We see value in provincial carbon pricing systems and disadvantages in a nationwide approach. But we also see the advantages of nationwide regulations on air travel, banking, border security, and food and drug safety. We respect national institutions like the Armed Forces, the foreign service, and the Bank of Canada as more than lines on the federal budget or easily replaceable in the event of separation.

As co-authors, we disagree just as vehemently on the value of national standards in health care, a federally-run employment insurance system, and a federated approach to securities. But we agree wholeheartedly that good decisions on these matters require a properly functioning federalism, where regional interests are not just accommodated at first ministers meetings, but integrated into national institutions like the federal cabinet, senate, and political parties.

This is what separatists miss. They speak the language of provincial sovereignty, but too often they reduce that term to shallow defiance. They measure the value of Canada by whether they get everything they want. They tell Albertans, for instance, that self-respect means saying no: no to Ottawa, no to all national programs and standards, no to compromise, no to sharing, no to the idea that fellow Canadians may have legitimate claims upon us just as we have on them. They portray every federal initiative as domination and every national obligation as a burden.

Ottawa can be intrusive. National programs can be designed with too little regard for provincial differences. Pan-Canadian standards can become moral strictures if they are imposed without humility, flexibility, or respect for local circumstance.

But the answer is not to break every shared national commitment or shy away from the hard work of consensus-building in the name of going it alone. That amounts to quitting when you don’t get your way. Instead, it is to find balance and forge a better federalism committed to brokering regional differences in the decisions we make together. Provincial autonomy, yes. But a more respectful form of federalism for those things we choose to do together.

The case for Canadian federalism should remind us all of our commitment to defend and rise above provincial interests to find a broader, national common good.

Not federalism as mutual avoidance or federal overreach. Federalism as flexibility and cooperation that allows Alberta to lead, not leave, Confederation.

---

The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded. No federal subsidies, no bailouts. If you value our work, please consider supporting us by subscribing or making a donation. Donations are not subscriptions and do not unlock paywalled content, but they help keep The Line independent

---

To contact The Line with a general inquiry or comment, please email info@readtheline.ca. For other ways to connect with us or to follow us on social media, please see our LinkTree.