When Christy Clark asserted B.C. didn’t need the federal government and also said, “We don’t need Alberta,” the B.C. premier demonstrated why Canada’s founding fathers were concerned about provincial politicians: When they think in isolation, such premiers harm the interests of all Canadians.
The context of Clark’s election-time remark was how B.C. could become an energy superpower if more natural gas were developed and delivered through pipelines, as opposed to “allowing” oil pipelines to crisscross B.C. more than they already do.
In particular, Clark’s position on the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, articulated last year, is based on extracting compensation from Alberta or the federal government. (She also demanded deals with aboriginals and environmental protection, but those are de rigeur these days and, thus, superfluous demands.)
Clark’s pay-to-play ultimatum was and is silly, and I say this as a temporarily exiled British Columbian. The constitution is clear that resource revenues belong to the provinces. (When this tête-à-tête erupted last year, Alberta’s Premier Alison Redford was entirely correct to remind Clark of that unassailable fact.) As for Ottawa, should it begin paying off premiers to “allow” national resource development, there will be no end to diverted federal tax revenues or the impairment of national prosperity.
And then, there’s the risk of retaliation — British Columbia’s government might need a friendly Alberta government one day. As Calgary Herald columnist Don Braid noted recently: “50 per cent of B.C.’s growing natural-gas production crosses Alberta to get to market.” Alberta’s politicians could just as easily demand a cut of revenues from that interprovincial flow as B.C.’s politicians do from any proposed new oil pipeline. What is good for the B.C. goose is just as easily extracted from the B.C. gander.
When provincial politicians protect their own constitutional turf, or object to federal transfers that rob taxpayers in policy-smart provinces to subsidize policy-challenged governments in others, they are on solid ground.
In contrast, protectionist politicking undermines greater Canadian prosperity, which is why so many founding fathers opposed such provincialism.
A royal commission from 1940 on dominion-provincial relations looked back to 1867 and noted that “economically, the first objectives of Confederation were to establish a free-trade area comprising the five old provinces and to develop inter-provincial transportation facilities.”
The reason was straightforward. Before Confederation, the provinces imposed tariffs and duties on each other’s goods. That punished consumers and business with higher prices and dampened the potential for greater economic growth in British North America.
Post-Confederation, provincial attempts to block interprovincial trade were annoyingly constant.
So what’s the relevance to the present? At Confederation, duties and tariffs were the main hindrance to interprovincial trade. Today, provinces often use the environmental excuse to block investment and development, even though Canada has plenty of environmental safeguards.
Such provincial thinking is shortsighted.
Provincial economies wax and wane, and the provinces need each other more than some people think.
When done right and accounting for the environment — and it can be done right — whether lumber, mined materials, or the export of oil and natural gas, Canada’s greater prosperity is helped when politicians follow the advice of Canada’s founding fathers and consider the greater prosperity of the entire country. The newly re-elected B.C. premier thus has a choice — she can continue with provincial politicking or do what is best for all of Canada and indeed, even for British Columbia: Take a national view.
Mark Milke is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.
