When Christy Clark asserted B.C. didn鈥檛 need the federal government and also said, 鈥淲e don鈥檛 need Alberta,鈥� the B.C. premier demonstrated why Canada鈥檚 founding fathers were concerned about provincial politicians: When they think in isolation, such premiers harm the interests of all 91原创s.
The context of Clark鈥檚 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 鈥渁llowing鈥� oil pipelines to crisscross B.C. more than they already do.
In particular, Clark鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 t锚te-à-t锚te erupted last year, Alberta鈥檚 Premier Alison Redford was entirely correct to remind Clark of that unassailable fact.) As for Ottawa, should it begin paying off premiers to 鈥渁llow鈥� national resource development, there will be no end to diverted federal tax revenues or the impairment of national prosperity.
And then, there鈥檚 the risk of retaliation 鈥� British Columbia鈥檚 government might need a friendly Alberta government one day. As Calgary Herald columnist Don Braid noted recently: 鈥�50 per cent of B.C.鈥檚 growing natural-gas production crosses Alberta to get to market.鈥� Alberta鈥檚 politicians could just as easily demand a cut of revenues from that interprovincial flow as B.C.鈥檚 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 91原创 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 鈥渆conomically, the first objectives of Confederation were to establish a free-trade area comprising the five old provinces and to develop inter-provincial transportation facilities.鈥�
The reason was straightforward. Before Confederation, the provinces imposed tariffs and duties on each other鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 鈥� and it can be done right 鈥� whether lumber, mined materials, or the export of oil and natural gas, Canada鈥檚 greater prosperity is helped when politicians follow the advice of Canada鈥檚 founding fathers and consider the greater prosperity of the entire country. The newly re-elected B.C. premier thus has a choice 鈥� 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.
听
Mark Milke is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.
