AUBUT: To leave or stay, that is the question

 https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/aubut-to-leave-or-stay-that-is-the-question/72424

How Ottawa's unchecked power, bilingualism bias, and constitutional failures have pushed Alberta toward independence — or something bolder.

 

Published April 2, 2026 

R.T. Wells recently had an interesting, at least to me, take on independence, Alberta style. He is 100% correct that what took place in Quebec is different. Very different. In Quebec’s case, the result was not really independence so much as leverage through extortion. Transfer payments are one of the clearest examples. 

In the case of Quebec, it was never about going separate ways. It was, and still is, all about getting special privileges without earning them. Take language, for example. Every time I looked up what “culture” meant, it never included language. The two are related, yes, but they are not the same thing. Lots of countries share a common culture or civic identity without sharing a single language. Switzerland has four national languages. Belgium has three official languages. Spain has regional languages alongside Spanish. Yet each remains a distinct nation.

No, Quebec has always wanted the best that Canada had to offer without the associated costs. To do that, it has made extortion a science. I remember well when Maclean’s declared Quebec the most corrupt province in Canada. Quebec’s reputation for scandal did not come from nowhere. A couple of highlights from too long a list include the Charbonneau inquiry and the SNC-Lavalin scandal. The record speaks for itself.

So what was the result? The rest of Canada must kowtow to every Quebec demand. Want to work for the federal government? Too often, supervisory or management roles require fluency in both official languages, whether warranted or not. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as a Bill of Rights. Discrimination is supposedly not condoned, yet, thanks to Quebec being the main driver, it is.

You may be wondering why I bring this point forward. Sure, my last name is French in origin. My father spoke the Canadian dialect, but not at home. I am pretty adept at learning a lot of different things, but I have always struggled with language to the point that the only class I ever failed was French. For many years, I was embarrassed by that fact. Obviously, no longer, as I do not condone extortion, no matter the reasons given to try to legitimize it.

As for Alberta, I lived there for three years, and it left me with many positive memories. The beauty of the Rockies. The friendliness of the many people I met there, especially the drivers. To illustrate, soon after arriving in Edmonton to continue my education at the University of Alberta, my wife and I were standing on a street corner wondering where we should go next. We were not trying to cross, but standing back from the curb. Even so, drivers from both directions stopped to let us cross. We waved them off but appreciated the kindness given without demanding it. That was something we had not experienced back in Northwestern Ontario, where we had come from.

We bought our very first brand new automobile there, an early model Honda Civic. No sales tax to complicate the purchase. What was on the sign was what we paid. And our oldest son was born there and is now back in the province, as are several other family members. We loved Alberta then and still do.

Yet we left. Why, you may ask? Simply because the part of Northwestern Ontario where both my wife and I grew up is a place we love. We are on the north edge of Lake Superior. Lakes, rivers, and small streams abound. As does wildlife. I especially had, and still have, a passion for the outdoors. That is why I became a geologist. And where we live still provides us both with enjoyment. But at a cost.

Over the years, I have come to despise government overreach. It has pained me terribly to realize that Canada was built on a shaky foundation at best. As I described in my previous essay, The Divergent Paths of Liberty and Loyalty, I did not fully appreciate until recently how few real checks and balances Canada has against those determined to strip away rights and freedoms.

Many Canadians gripe about the Americans, but that is often jealousy, to borrow Heinlein’s phrase, “a symptom of neurotic insecurity.” I have never made it part of who I am to be insecure by refusing to acknowledge strengths and weaknesses, whether my own or those of others. I usually sit on the sidelines observing, analyzing, and processing what I see and hear. As a result, I have come to greatly admire the American Constitution and its related Bill of Rights, both designed to limit government.

Here in Canada, all we really have are limits on us. In practical terms, we do not truly own even land in the full sense people imagine. Yes, a person can hold a title. But use of that land remains subject to taxation, zoning, land-use controls, and expropriation powers. So when Canadians talk about ownership, they too often confuse possession with true control. 

For a long time, Canadians did not really have too many issues because those we elected usually at least tried to represent us, the people. But beginning, I would say, about fifty years ago, things started to change. Those in government did more and more to make themselves wealthy and place themselves above the law. At the same time, they enacted more and more legislation to take away what rights we felt were truly ours, freedom of speech and the right to protect oneself being two examples.

The American Constitution was built on one major concept: do not trust government, because in the hands of the wrong people, bad things can happen. That was based on a thorough study of history beginning with the origins of what is now called democracy. A system whereby citizens get to select who rules them by giving each person an equal vote. But a vote only has real value when the voter has skin in the game. If you have something to lose, you are more likely to pay attention and vote accordingly. If you have little or nothing at risk, then “free” becomes very appealing, especially when someone else will be forced to pay for it. That is how democracy becomes a tool for legalized plunder and, eventually, tyranny by the majority.

How do you protect yourself from that happening? By having checks and balances. In the United States, they have three primary branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Each is meant to keep the other two under control. Then there is another layer. The legislative branch is itself divided into two houses. One reflects popular majorities. The other gives the states, including smaller ones, a voice that can check the passions of the moment and the sheer weight of numbers. A bill must pass both houses. That is not perfect. Nothing designed by man is. But the Americans at least understood the danger and built checks on top of checks. 

As for meaningful checks on federal power in Canada, I cannot think of one. Yes, formally we have a Senate, but it is now too often a partisan rubber stamp. Legally, bills must still pass both the House of Commons and the Senate before receiving royal assent. In practice, the Senate has far too often served as cover rather than a real barrier when one was needed. 

The only true check we had was the Fifth Estate, the independent media. But that is, in essence, gone, as too much of it has allowed itself to become a bought-and-paid-for shield for whichever faction it chooses to favour.

That brings us back to Alberta, a province that is supposed to have jurisdiction over its own economy, natural resources, and education, to name three examples. Yet for far too long, the federal government has taken control where it should not. And what has there been to stop it? Nothing. 

As former US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter stated, “If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny.” That is uncomfortably close to the situation we now live in, where party machinery, cabinet discipline, and a Senate that too often falls into line leave far too much power concentrated in the hands of those few we have elected. 

Over the last decade, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has proven to be a worthless piece of paper as a restraint against a determined government. Unlike the US Constitution, it does not limit what those in power can do. Instead, Section 1 tells the story of how our rights are subject to “reasonable limits.” But who gets to decide what is reasonable? The very system seeking power.  “Reasonable” is one of those weasel words that means whatever those in authority need it to mean at the time. Thus, in Canada, those who govern decide, and not we, the people. 

So, is Alberta justified in questioning the experiment in constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy? I believe so. Our system has no real internal restraints and far too many excuses for expanding central power.

There are three options available: fix the government in Canada, extricate oneself from Canada to form an independent country, or join the United States of America. The first is designed never to happen. The second is fraught with its own dangers. At least the third has a constitutional framework already established, and the US remains by far our largest trading partner. 

In short, if I were living in Alberta, I think you already know what I would do.