Flatlander readers weigh in on Saskatchewan secession

Recently, The Flatlander ran an article Moe says he’s Canadian but wouldn’t stop vote on Saskatchewan separating from Canada, which noted that Saskatchewan law allows the public to bring forward a petition for a plebiscite, as long as 15 per cent of eligible voters sign on.

Flatlander readers were quick to point out that separatist talks are not good for the economy especially when Canada is facing an ongoing trade war with the U.S. 

Keith wrote:

The only thing I will say about all this separation talk is that it just makes investors skittish and our dollar usually takes a hit.

Indeed. Markets do not like chaos and we’ve seen this movie before. Quebec tried separating. Twice. In the ’80s and again in the ’90s. Both times, the referendums failed, but not before businesses and money bolted from the province. 

Sun Life Insurance, for instance, left Quebec in 1978 over the impending vote. And they weren’t alone—about 700 companies said “nope” and headed west to Toronto.

Saskatchewan’s economy is dependent on the price of oil and potash. These prices can drop or rise depending on the market and since the province has limited reserve funds, there would be no cushion in a market crash and no federal support net.

And start-up costs for a brand-new country would be expensive. A new currency would have to be created. Saskatchewan and Alberta would have to buy all the federal infrastructure inside its borders and it would have to take over pricy national programs, like employment insurance. 

Also worth noting: Saskatchewan and Alberta are landlocked whereas Quebec has the St. Lawrence River in which cargo ships can go inland to the port of Montreal. Typically, landlocked countries tend to struggle with productivity because moving stuff costs more when you have to go through someone else’s border. That someone else, Canada, could charge Saskatchewan and Alberta punishing tolls to move oil or wheat to port as a way of discouraging other provinces from separating. Saskatchewan and Alberta would likely be blocked from joining Canada’s existing trade agreements

Yes, maybe Alberta and Saskatchewan could join the U.S. But they would be going to the U.S. negotiating table with no leverage. Instead of statehood, Alberta and Saskatchewan could become a territory, like Puerto Rico.

The Clarity Act

Another reader wrote:

The First Nations need to write him (Moe) a letter. Saying this is treaty 6&7 land if you want to leave go wherever you want but you can’t touch our Land it belongs to us. (Saskatchewan is covered by 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10).

Interestingly, the provincial borders came after the treaties. The land itself was never “bought” by Canada. 

In 1930, Ottawa handed over control of natural resources to the western provinces via the Natural Resources Transfer Acts, giving them the keys to the oil-and-mining kingdom. But if those same provinces now want to walk out of Confederation it would be in breach of the 1930 agreement and one can’t draw a new country on a map without asking the Indigenous people whose land it actually is. Also, let’s not forget: reserve lands are under federal jurisdiction. 

That said there is a process for seceding under the federal Clarity Act, which came into effect in 2000 following the Quebec referendum in 1995. 

First step? Write a referendum question, which Ottawa can veto if it’s too vague, too tricky, or smells like political blackmail, where a group runs a campaign telling voters to choose to separate so Saskatchewan and Alberta will have a better bargaining position with Ottawa. 

What’s not clear in the Clarity Act is that it doesn’t actually say what counts as a “clear majority.” 51%? 60%? It’s deliberately fuzzy allowing Ottawa to decide what counts as a “yes.”

And even if the vote is successful, the feds will weigh how many people voted and any other circumstances Ottawa considers to be relevant. The Feds would need to consider the views of First Nations.

After that, the Constitution needs to be changed because there’s currently no section that says a province can just leave. A  constitutional amendment would be needed, which would take a whole lot of goodwill from the House of Commons, the Senate and seven out of 10 provinces. And those seven provinces have to represent at least 50 per cent of the population. 

And a constitutional amendment could not be proposed until the terms of secession have been negotiated, which would outline the division of assets, where to place borders and how to honour the territorial claims of Indigenous people.

Separating would be a very long and ugly process that would take years.

So yeah. Independence might sound cool at the bar after a couple Pilsners, but the economic hangover would be real.

Most Canadians don’t take Western secession all that seriously

According to a recent Angus Reid poll, only 36 per cent of Saskatchewanians say they’d maybe like to break up with Canada. But when it comes to people who’d “definitely” vote to leave? That drops to 15 per cent.

Meanwhile, 49 per cent of folks in Saskatchewan say they’d definitely vote to stay, and in Alberta, that number jumps to 52 per cent. So the majority is still swiping right on Canada.

Still the secession talks have the attention of the American media. Time Magazine noted this week that the threat to Canada’s sovereignty is coming from within.

Fox News pundits suggested the discontent could play into the larger trade and security negotiations between Canada and the U.S.

In the eyes of America, separation talks are a chink in Canada’s nationalism.

Hypothetically, the U.S. could try to meddle by turning up the volume on economic injustice narratives and quietly back the separatist movement financially. 

Now, again, this is all hypothetical and the U.S. would deny any interference. But the potential is there given the the U.S.’s history of intervening in other countries’ internal affairs.