Does independence mean sovereignty?

Written by ECA Review

Again, we seem to have a big political problem in Alberta. 

A new poll out last week showed the UCP under the leadership of Jason Kenney to be close to 20 points behind Rachel Notley and her NDP. 

God help Alberta if they get in for another term. We have an almost insurmountable debt to overcome from the last time that they governed. 

Their idea of job creation was to increase public sector jobs by the tens of thousands while leaving private-sector jobs flat. 

Socialists have absolutely no idea how new wealth is created through private sector entrepreneurship. Public sector jobs consume wealth, they do not create it. 

What I am getting to is that the UCP lost its way at the founding convention when the old PC operatives took control of what was supposed to be a united party. 

Kenney allowed the party to continue its progressive policies that are simply adding to the accumulated debt instead of charting a new direction for Alberta. 

If we continue with the UCP or the NDP, Alberta will become irrelevant in no time. 

Alberta has been exploited by various Federal Governments ever since it was founded in 1905. 

The closest Alberta came to be being in control of its own destiny was when the Social Credit government was elected in 1935. 

That was a grassroots movement. We came close again in 2012 when the Wildrose Party lost the election in the last week of the campaign due to sloppy campaign management. 

So, we are back to square one. The only way we will get out of this mess is for another grassroots movement to garner enough support to form government and make real fundamental changes with the Canadian Government. 

Maybe we have made a start. 

On June 29, 2020 at a founding convention the Wildrose Independence Party of Alberta was founded. Last week I had a conversation with its interim leader Paul Hinman. 

He sent me a link to the party’s website, and I printed 16 pages off it to study. 

For the most part, I would say it is on the right track that if its beliefs and principles were achieved it would put Alberta in charge of its own destiny. 

However, I do have a concern with one issue in the document.

The document has a strong emphasis on sovereignty which means becoming a separate country. Part of the title has the word independence in its name. To me, independence does not necessarily mean separation.

Included in its mission statement are the principles that were listed in the old firewall document that was circulated when Stephen Harper was at the head of the National Citizens Coalition. 

They are: establish an accountable Alberta police force; establish the Alberta revenue agency to collect all taxes; establish our own pension plan; establish our own employment insurance plan; and, establish our own immigration policy. 

These things have been discussed several times in Alberta and it immediately puts the Federal Government on the defensive. 

The province of Quebec administers all of these principles today and it does not seem to bother the Federal Government at all. 

To me, this makes Quebec Independent without separation. 

Why can’t Alberta do the same thing?

My concern is that the new party when campaigning must emphasize independence and not separation or it will not get the support to form government. 

I clearly understand that the threat of separation has to be there to get the attention of the Feds, but they have to be careful how that is communicated. 

Putting this to a referendum is a good idea but you will not get a majority of Albertans to agree to separation any more than Quebec did, and they spent 25 years trying to achieve it. 

However, Alberta could achieve independence if a government had the courage to implement the firewall.

 

by Herman Schwenk

About the author

ECA Review