25 years later, how the ‘Alberta firewall’ letter reflects today’s political landscape

Alberta should exit the Canada Pension Plan in favour of its own. It should establish a provincial police force, rather than the RCMP. 

Twenty-five years after those notions were put forth as part of the “Alberta firewall” letter, they are very much a part of the provincial conversation today. 

Six prominent Alberta conservatives penned the open letter to then-premier Ralph Klein in 2001: Ted Morton, Ken Boessenkool, Andrew Crooks, Tom Flanagan, Rainer Knopff, and Stephen Harper, who at that time was the leader of the National Citizens Coalition. 

When it was published, many viewed it as a fringe proposal, unlikely to ever actually take shape. But a quarter century later, as Albertans ready for a potential referendum on their future in the country, it has a renewed relevance. 

This week, two of the letter’s signatories – Morton and Boessenkool – spoke to West of Centre’s Kathleen Petty about how it came to be, and how it relates to where the province stands now. 

The letter was published in January 2001, months after the federal election that saw Jean Chrétien’s Liberals win a third straight majority government. 

It had been more than a decade since the formation of the Reform Party, and rallying cries of “the West wants in.”

Now, some were becoming disillusioned, said Morton, about the chance of a conservative party in power in Ottawa, where the voices of Albertans could truly be heard. Votes on the right were being split between the Canadian Alliance (formerly the Reform Party) and the Progressive Conservatives.

That’s when the letter took shape, with a focus on what the province could do on its own. 

“Instead of more Alberta in Ottawa, it would be less Ottawa in Alberta,” said Morton. 

The letter to Klein called for the aforementioned policies, like withdrawing from the CPP and establishing an Alberta police force. It also called for Alberta to collect its own revenue from personal income tax, take more responsibility for health care, and force Senate reform onto the national agenda. 

Some of those ideas had precedent. Quebec already had its own pension plan and collected its own income tax revenue. It had its own police force, and so did Ontario. 

So why not Alberta? 

Harper was the one who first picked up the phone and started the conversation, serving as the catalyst for the letter, both men said.

And that would end up rankling the letter’s recipient. 

At the time, Morton thought Harper’s ambitions were provincial, and the letter would be a “launching pad” for him to run for the Alberta Progressive Conservatives.

Klein also saw it that way, Boessenkool said, and that did not sit well with him as the Alberta PC Leader of the day.

“He came out quite aggressively against it because I think he saw it as a political threat instead of seeing it as a political opportunity,” Boessenkool said. 

What followed was a trip to Edmonton by Boessenkool and Harper to sit down with Klein, to speak about their ideas and attempt to assuage him that Harper’s interests lied in federal politics. 

After initially rebuffing the letter, Klein would later come around on it.  

There were other aspects that dissuaded people from supporting the firewall letter, like the comparisons to a province where a sovereignty referendum was still fresh in the public consciousness. 

“I think even though separatism was not on anyone’s agenda, the fact that we kept mentioning Quebec’s already doing this, it made it easy for critics to say, ‘oh, this is a pseudo or crypto separatist initiative’, which it wasn’t,” said Morton. 

Some were also put off by the use of the word ‘firewall’ – which wasn’t even used in the letter’s first draft, said Boessenkool. 

“The word firewall really was what people picked up. And sort of the tone of the word is what people objected to,” he said. 

Sentiments around western alienation and grumblings about Ottawa overstepping would continue in the decades that followed. Keeping Ottawa out of Alberta’s affairs would remain a common refrain, most recently from Premier Danielle Smith’s United Conservative Party government.

Now, Albertans are expecting a wide-ranging referendum in October, where separation may or may not be on the ballot. 

Whether Alberta should pull out of the CPP will not be one of the questions asked this fall, although the Alberta Next panel did recommend putting it to a province-wide vote.

“The idea of pulling out of the Canada Pension Plan was a massive benefit for Alberta in 2001 and it’s become much less of a benefit to Alberta over time,” Boessenkool said.

He says that is due to the state of the province’s finances now compared to 2001, and that its workforce, while still young compared to other provinces, is not as young as it was 25 years ago.

And he describes some of the current referendum questions as akin to an “anti-firewall.” Rather than protecting against Ottawa intervention, they require just that. 

“Almost every question that Danielle Smith is asking in these referendum questions are things she can’t actually do as the premier of Alberta,” said Boessenkool. 

“If she really wants to do these things, she should quit her job and take over [Pierre] Poilievre’s job and run for national office.”

Many Albertans have their grievances with federal policies. But Morton says the separation question does not get to the heart of that.

“I think what we’re looking at now is sort of ridiculous, that there’s one side that says ‘let’s leave Canada,’ you know, the secession. And then the other is ‘no no, we love Canada, let’s stay,’” he said.

“Those are the two extremes. I think 80 per cent of Albertans are in between.”