Welcome to Lead Not Leave: a team of academics, policy wonks, political activists and journalists forging a practical path forward for our fellow frustrated federalists.
Is the entirety of Alberta's well-being seriously that contingent upon one specific potential pipeline? Does nothing else matter on a question of separation?
The intentional stifling of the industry that is by far Alberta's largest is quite important. If the federal government had limited the auto industry or hydroelectricity in Ontario or Quebec, those provinces would doubtless make a real end to those limitations a litmus test.
What astonishes me is the federal government's fanatical commitment to throttling oil and gas. From where I sit in Toronto, it seems insane to endanger the integrity of the country over climate policy which can have no practical impact whatsoever.
There is no "fanatical commitment to throttling oil and gas" by the federal government. Canada has one of the highest per-capita emissions in the world, and no climate plan by any recent federal government would have done anything to likely change that fact. The separatists seem to be in favour of Canada giving the international community the middle finger on climate policy, without any sensitivity to the consequences of that reputational loss for the rest of the country.
I can certainly say as a voting Ontarian that I would not make any one policy issue a litmus test for the province's presence in Confederation. I would only consider supporting separatism if it were demonstrable that the province's quality of life *as a whole* is stagnating as a result of federal policy, and if there were convincing evidence that the federal government cannot be reformed in such a case. Neither is true of Alberta, since its oil production and revenue are in fact increasing and since Albertan Conservatives can in fact form federal government when they give off less loser energy.
Literally any climate policy that endangers national unity is fanatical. I am far more concerned about Canada's reputation in Alberta than our reputation in Davos.
It's not the policies that endanger national unity, it's the Conservative loser energy and sense of entitlement that losing elections is never the fault of Conservatives themselves, either in their self-indulgent whining or their demands for policy obedience from the rest of the country - but the lost elections are somehow always the fault of others, and therefore a purported justification for separation.
It is certainly true that, if Albertans just did what they were told and happily obeyed the enlightened orders coming from Central Canada, there would be no secession issue. I think we have reached agreement here.
Of course there is an intentional throttling if not by stated policy then by inserted procedures. That's what earns so many votes! Whether by 'necessary' conditions for approval followed by application processing delays combined with permit restrictions incumbent on a cascade of environmental reviews subject to ongoing multiparty consultations interrupted by changes in government, the effect is to kill wealth creation through natural resource extraction. It's a no go. The real litmus test for a nation is wealth creation and we are losing two dollars for every dollar invested. Do the math. (Only a mere trillion lost since 2015 but I guess lost righteously.)
The trillion lost in investment is Canada wide and over more than decade in the making, which I included here because it demonstrates a vastly underreported and under-addressed deepening national problem caused and maintained by the federal government... a problem Alberta alone is calling out as needing immediate correction. Environmentalists fooled into thinking it's all about personal carbon footprints are the front line champions of this idiocy (versus advocates trying to change the energy system the world currently uses and be willing to research climate mitigation to give it time to adjust). All of us - certainly including those who enjoy calling themselves 'Canada First' but seem determined not to act in its best interests - should be demanding an immediate correction. MoU(s) are not a correction; (ironically?) they are the go-to tool for gaslighting Canadians at home into thinking changes are somewhere on the way. In reality, MoU(s) are also applying the stamp of approval for increasing the acceptability from the federal government's point of view for more foreign interference from abroad. Real interference. Political. Economic. Social. Legislative. Legal. China's interests - especially its Ministry of Public Security - have a welcoming home here in Canada under this federal government not just in special permits for mining rights and operations of rare earth minerals and nary a word of condemnation or concern having Chinese entertaining of Tribal Chiefs of lands with rare earth minerals with lots of trips to China but a directive for the RCMP to better cooperate and coordinate with our new Friends Who Are Not American. Canadians who share this view generally have no means to differentiate the terms 'Canadian' with 'anti-American'. They assume they are synonyms when, in fact, they are antonyms. As I said, the national trends of disintegration are clear but 'patriotic' and 'well informed' Canadians are to align with anti-American sentiment under the false flag of the maple leaf and think of themselves as The Good Guys. But are they really?
On the contrary, anyone who believes in an energy transition knows that fossil fuels left in the ground will become worthless stranded assets long before we run out. Rapid exploitation and sale is the only rational strategy.
Are you kidding? Why do we not have approvals for pipelines, west and east, and possibly to Hudson's Bay? Why did the feds and leftist BC overwhelm the private sector TransMountain with regulation, until the federal Liberals needed the money and then, insultingly, paid largely their own supporters to satisfy every last regulation? The international community - do any of our oil and gas competitors have Canadian type regulations and industrial carbon tax?
Alberta has often been compared to Norway. For years, on QR770, Ms. Smith decried the questionable use of Heritage Fund funds. She is not wrong on that, but she is also not correct in describing Alberta as a direct comparable with Norway.
We are part of a federation. Norway is not part of the Economic Union and yet benefits from association with it. Alberta is landlocked. Norway is not. Norway also continues to invest in fossil fuel endeavours just not at home. Sovereign investment funds, and various pension funds often find themselves supporting something globally that they could not invest in within their own backyard. Fiduciary duty trumps everything.
Russia uses the proceeds of its oil and gas to bomb Ukranians. Europe still buys their energy, China has set up a cottage industry of refineries to illicitly refine it. Iran uses their proceeds to fund Middle East terrorism and its blood lust agains its own people. The Saudi’s stone women for adultery and chop up western journalists who raise objections.
But Alberta is giving the world the finger with its oil and gas?
Whatever ESG framework ever brought that conclusion so clearly upon eastern Canada? to self righteously deny Alberta’s “dirty oil” pipelines? To score political points opposing ‘Les Petroliers?” To disregard court findings that their malignant regulatory framework violated the constitution? All the better to throttle your industry my dear.
Let me say it plainly:
Whatever moral calculus you’re using to say ALBERTA oil and gas gives the finger to the world is transparently garbage. Any righand knew it in their bones.
Frankly the ghg argument evaporates when you account for things like - I don’t know - the wars.
I’d buy a Canadian made car in a heartbeat.
The ROC undertook a decade long project to scare off private investment, effectively nationalize the throttle of Albertas main industry - with a stated preference to keep it in the ground.
I did not say that the Albertan oil and gas industry has given the international community the middle finger. I said that Albertan separatists, *specifically*, are demanding policies by the federal government that would amount to giving the international community the middle finger.
It's fine to be critical of federal policies affecting the oil sands, but separatists who protest against *any* greenhouse-reduction policies existing at all - as a supposed direct threat to their impossible fantasy of exponential growth - are being truly insufferable.
1) Since most of the energy is exported, the emissions incurred in its production should be assigned to the ultimate end customer. Inability to account for trade flows is the critical flaw of all climate agreements to date
2) No customer has stepped up to pay a premium for lower emission oil. The countries that threatened border adjustment taxes haven't followed through and some of them have come begging for Canadian energy. Canada's reputation is in the dumpster due to its obstructionist political system and overall hostile investment environment. The middle finger is to unaccountable NGOs, activists and political operators
But they aren’t anymore . Trans mountain ( which the feds spent 40 billion on ) is in the process of greatly expanding its capacity . And the “one more pipeline “‘argument is a grift . Let’s say it gets constructed to the west coast .. then what ? The same people will complain they need “one more pipeline”.. Alberta has less than 100 years of the stuff left . You can’t build a new nation on something with that short of a lifespan ; you need to be part of a diversified country when you run out of it .
The pipeline is a symbol. Alberta was founded as land of opportunity and re-invention. Growth, contrianism and ahistoricity are baked into the province's DNA. Political obstructionism is an affront to Alberta's identity and hence has become an emotional issue on top of an economic one.
It’s representative of a lot of things Stefan. Notably that political and parochial interests from other parts of the country can subjugate to Alberta’s and Canada’s rational economic interests. Albertans do not consider the government funded expansion of an existing pipeline route to be evidence of this. We see this as an embarrassing market failure brought about by unreasonable and bad faith obstructionism.
I suspect most Canadians see this market failure as a silver lining. Now the feds control more of the oil and gas industry. They trust the feds more than private business.
The federal treatment of the pipeline and much touted MoU(s) is purely political posturing by Carney to fool Albertans and hit the Oct1st date prior to the 19th vote... probably sold to them as a project of 'national interest'. How very important. See? Confederation (supposedly) works.
The problem is that the real purpose is to mollify some potential voters to believe that the federal government is somehow in support of a pipeline when the necessary conditions for that support are such (imposed by the federal government) that has all major oil sands companies already admit it is not economically feasible to undertake. As anyone who understands how carbon capture works in then real world, that caveat alone kills any future oil and gas pipeline development because it costs more carbon producing energy to capture a carbon unit than it does to 'clean' it. (Shhh... don't disturb the environmentalists from their dream world.)
The only pipedream here is implementing at scale carbon capture without pricing the final product well above all other sources and all but guaranteeing no future pipeline to the coast makes economic sense! And so that caveat avoids the whole messy 'consultation' problem that would then be necessary with the BC elected government and its environmentalist/sacred indigenous but unelected co-government lobby.
Yes, it's perfectly obvious that nothing will result from the MoU and its only purpose is to delay. That's why I think people who accuse Smith of closet separatism are being so unfair: she is obviously doing everything actually workable to scotch secession.
I don’t think that is true at all. I get the distinct impression that Carney knows the country needs money and he told Eby last week in no uncertain terms to get out of the way.
I will certainly admit I am likely wrong when building begins on a new pipeline. When will MoU believers admit they are wrong if construction has not begun?
2.5 years from Carneys election I will need to see one approved. Provided it has been applied for by a private proponent. So Oct 2027 next year. Provided there is a proponent.. what is your time frame?
I already have a bet with a friend - shovels in the ground before the next election. He loses if no proponent has come forward because it is the government's job to create a welcoming environment. "There's no business case" won't work for the government again. Globally, there is plenty of investment in oil and gas.
Funny how a “business case” can be in the eye of the beholder… in fairness I’m going to give Carney and Hodgson some credit here for this deal. Convincing the Germans to buy NG from the pacific coast would’ve taken some salesmanship. They picked a good time to make the pitch…
Interestingly, you’re probably giving Carney more time than I am now. You’re probably closer to accurate than I am. I think it happens though. Too much energy behind it and too much at stake now.
For the record, as someone who grew up in Alberta in the 1960s and lived there until the mid-1990s, I remember well the constant, almost daily exposition at the time from politicians and business leaders, as well as academics, about the importance of diversification in Alberta's economy.
Yet here we are in 2026, in a province that is still under the control of what is essentially the successor of the Progressive Conservatives of that era, complaining about Alberta's vulnerability because of its over-dependence on one sector (oil and gas).
Ironic, and a little pathetic, to be honest. Not to mention incredibly un-self-aware.
Oil and gas are 70% of provincial exports. Federalists could certainly try "we're helping you diversify by throttling oil & gas, so you should thank us". It might work.
The point being that for the better part of 1/2 a century, successive generations of Albertans have blathered about "economic diversification", and yet in the end they've done nothing, for all intents and purposes.
Economic diversification and maximizing potential oil and gas development are not incompatible despite attempts to frame team oil as being opposed to team everything else. In fact, the opposite is true.
As the owner of the resource, the givenment of Alberta is the oil and gas industry. It has a duty to maximize the value of the resource.
No. I am not looking for the Federal government or any other government to build a pipeline. I want a clear and viable path for one, and a reasonable, predictable and efficient regulatory process and environment. I will judge the success or failure of this by private industry’s response to the policies made or not made (as the case may be). Building pipelines should be the sole purview of private industry. I have full confidence the market will respond, provided the former objectives are achieved. (even though long range forecasts are basically a waste of time - even the IEA is now saying “peak oil” is 2050, meaning increasing demand for 24 more years…). BUT private industry must play its part, and this will be informed by the market. So no it’s not either a pipeline or not that determines this for me.
Yes the next 5 months are going to be messy, will the Oct Referendum bring an end to issue -NO.
While some, maybe even most, strongly question how & why we are on this path at all but to someone like me a right leaning Albertan of 72 years it is the culmination of years of anger & frustration with the relationship and the treatment we have received from most of the ROC throughout the decades. The list is long and includes items from culture to economics.
But I would ask all of you to not just focus on the "where are we now" but look much deeper into what I call the "Root Cause" of how we got here.
For the ROC now is the time to really try & understand the deep rooted frustration many Albertans have and hopefully see that yes there is something here and yes maybe we have been negligent in the way we have treated you & taken you for granted.
Don't just talk about your desire for us to stay in Canada you need to start a TRUE process of recognizing our concerns & actually doing something to address them. For example:
-congratulations Quebec, Ont & BC you were blessed with green Hydro -we weren't so should we freeze?
-my guess is because 95% plus of Albertans can't speak fluent enough French we can never be considered of a senior political or bureaucratic post -is this right?
-unfair allocation of political ridings based on population.
-judicial picks that do not share our values
I could easy list another 10 of these irritants but you get my drift.
So ROC is now the time to step up & make meaning changes to address this long simmering list of issues. All for now. Let the games begin.
What do you want to bet Alberta's population will be offered a veritable avalanche of what looks like positive and welcomed future polices and procedures... but nothing delivered except restrictions and 'necessary' conditions? Sound familiar?
What irks me is the assumption that urban populations swollen by a wave of immigration somehow understand 'Alberta' better than those who see the ongoing negative changes to the vast promise the province once held (which takes time and familiarity to see the trend clearly). Rather than address the negative changes directly, so much time and effort by so many is spent vilifying those who do see and are willing to try to chart a different direction. The lack of common values among today's crop of 'Canadians' I think plays a central role in supporting the ongoing dysfunction out of sense of fear and panic that the sinking ship of state must settle evenly and equitably rather than disrupt the process with various kinds of bailing (like a referendum to empower the government to consult all parties) and perhaps repair (like altering the political arrangement with federal government to equality rather than subservience).
I'm 58. I've watched this country tear itself apart over the Quebec movement. This has led unfortunately to the separatist cause whose living memory is firmly implanted with the NEP as when the break with Ottawa began. I could be wrong but I sure remember those days and it was awful.
Downplaying the impact of the NEP by saying it is ancient history is lazy thinking and perhaps a bit of denial even, who knows?
For decade we had a PM content to go after the oil industry so he could talk big in his socks and tell the world how moral they should be. That man did more damage to national unity and progressivism than anyone I can think of in my life. I remember Trudeau 1.0 was hated when he went walking in the snow. Trudeau 2.0 is despised for entirely different but no less important reasons. If we are going to save Canada, we first need to recognize and acknowledge the unfairness to Alberta in confederation.
74% of Alberta's population lives in the Calgary and Edmonton greater metropolitan areas. By the numbers (and it *is* by the numbers, because this is a democracy), they ARE Alberta and are actually far more representative of the provincial population than rural Albertans.
It takes time to appreciate a new country after moving from elsewhere. Calgary and Edmonton have a huge population who have not been here long enough to become citizens, yet are able to vote.
Non-citizens don't have a right to vote in elections. Unless you're implying that Canadian citizens who've migrated from elsewhere in Canada somehow aren't citizens.
It is, but it seems especially pronounced in Alberta where the zeitgeist has seized on imagery of cowboy and rig workers. People *feel* like Alberta's more rural, but it's really just below the national average in terms of urbanization and closer to Ontario, BC, and Quebec than less urbanized provinces like Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Maritimes.
Generations of PC and UCP governments have also had a base of strength in rural ridings, and their gerrymandering has given rural Albertans disproportionate influence. It was pretty obvious as far back as Ralph Klein's day when the Supreme Court had ruled that the size of ridings should not deviate more than 25% from the average (the Carter decision in 1991). Pretty soon rural ridings were clustered around the lower limit, and the urban ridings at the upper limit. When that wasn't sufficient, they'd crack up suburban ridings and graft them into a hybrid riding with a rural area. The catch is that it's not really sustainable: almost all population growth in Alberta since the '60s has occurred in the cities. A lot of the current right wing populist angst is fed by the fear of what happens when they lose that influence.
Proudly Canadian? Proud of what? Help me out here: what is it that we are supposed to be proud of when it comes to Canada that is still proudly supported? I am truly at a loss of whatever this list contains that I can share coast to coast to coast that once was filled with opportunity and optimism and achievements that now either aren't being vilified by Canadian institutions or doesn't directly interfere and reduce the quality of life of Canadians.
True dat. But so sad if that's the best we come up. I'm not Slovenian either but I don't carry some kind of contempt for anyone who is. Yet we put Americans into this contempt framing, I tend to think, so that we can create an imaginary divide to POOF! a Canadian identity into being. Familiarity breeds contempt, if I recall correctly, and it seems we so familiar that we are American in almost all ways but name (and spelling).
Maybe "proudly" is the wrong word. How about happily Canadian?
But I'd be a lot happier if things were different than what they are now. (See my other post here.)
Two things that bother me about pride - it goes before a fall, as the saying goes. Also, pride in one's country is too close to nationalism and tribalism, both of which I abhor.
For clarity, NotoriousSceptic wasn't suspended for this comment, which was fine, but for another comment that was mostly fine until, ahem, it wasn't.
Things are going to get passionate and heated here. We get it. But this is a forum hosted by a private business. This isn't a public square, it's a saloon that we own. Disagreement is fine. Arguing is annoying but fine. But don't insult and curse each other. There's going to be no flexibility here.
2. I see no Eastern Laurentian names on the list ( read: Federal Liberals).
3. The MOU is political theater at best: between BC, aboriginal buy in and a massive Carbon Capture boondoggle, we may as well just admit that all pipelines will run south.
2. I would rather there be no Laurentian names on this list. Let this be a mainly internal debate.
3. This remains to be seen. To be fair. Set a reasonable deadline for action and judge accordingly. For me it’s 2 years from Carney being elected. If nothing has tangibly changed - I take your point. The Carbon Capture piece is not as big a deal as it’s being made out to be. Frankly the Carbon price agreed too is pretty low… surprisingly low. I haven’t run the calculations yet, but I don’t even know if it’s escalation clauses ramp with expected inflation…
Sorry but I don't see how this will be successful without tons of aggrieved whining and stamping of feet - I don't see a single reference to Trudeau OR the NEP!
Life is for the living. A great many humans have come and gone in 40+ years. If separatists are still aggrieved about policies from that long ago, they really need to learn to move on with their lives!
> they really need to learn to move on with their lives!
You can say that, but saying it doesn't help.
I mean, would you approach reconciliation with "if indigenous people are still upset about [insert harm here], they really need to learn to move on with their lives".
And I say this without equating the issues. That's not the point.
The point is that you can tell people all you want that they should "just get over it", but saying it doesn't help much.
I accept your counter-point. I did not mean that the people affected by the NEP need to *individually* move on with their lives. Life experiences are real and cannot and should not be easily forgotten. But there's so many hundreds of thousands of Albertans now with no experience of the NEP, so it is preposterous in principle for this one distant lived experience so be anything remotely pivotal in current debates about the future of the province.
Many newcomers to Alberta came from neighbouring provinces and/or married into Albertan families who were in Alberta for the NEP. Sure, a minority of Albertans were unaffected personally, but mostly those unaffected are recent immigrants to Canada who have not been here long enough or are not committed enough to seek citizenship. That's partly the result of the Trudeau Liberal's immigration policy that overwhelmed housing, health and education everywhere in Canada. Surprised that you are bringing this up to remind us of how the Liberals hurt everyone, both newcomers and citizens, in this decade.
I was a young adult in Alberta when the NEP was in place. I was also a young adult when the Mulroney government brought it to an end.
That was 40 plus years ago.
The separatists are just clutching at every possible straw to spin up anger and angst... and I've had representatives of that movement admit to me on these fora that most of the separatists have no direct experience of the NEP and its effects.
The NEP is a situation that exemplifies the negativity toward the west and Alberta that emanates from the Liberals and from some voters in Central Canada. Since then, a lot of their actions have confirmed negative results on the Alberta economy and Albertans as individuals.
I want to stay in Canada. Carney's latest attempt to avoid making any lasting changes, today by telling people that he will not listen to Alberta voters trying to send a message, is not helping. Bringing up Brexit, where he ignored his civil service responsibilities, got involved in politics, and racked up considerable disdain in Britain, does not help either.
He needs to come forward with a list of irrevocable items that he has already started putting in place, or has accomplished in June, July, August and September.
"In a March 2024 letter, Premier Smith asked federal Immigration Minister Marc Miller to double Alberta's allotment under the Provincial Nominee Program to 20,000, along with 10,000 additional spots for Ukrainian evacuees, citing the need to fill jobs and support the economy."
Danielle Smith herself sought and invited more immigration to Alberta, whatever her shift on rhetoric more recently.
That is true. The NEP is well in the past as is Pierre Trudeau. Justin Trudeau and his “the problem is Albertans” is also in the past. Not as far, but Mr. Carney is rather obviously not Justin Trudeau.
That said, he's not that far in the past. And there was a smooth transition from his tenure as Prime Minister to Mr. Carney's. And notably, Mr. Carney put Mr. Guilbeault in cabinet. Given Mr. Guilbeault's desire to shut down Alberta's largest industry and economic engine, this was an unfortunate choice from the perspective of reassuring Albertans. (Yes, he's probably an important figure for the Quebec wing of the LPC, but politics is about choices and the consequences of different choices and the decision to put Mr. Guilbeault in cabinet has consequences for how Albertans view Mr. Carney and the degree to which this is a new LPC or the same old LPC with different spin.
This is the problem the LPC faces. The LPC would not be your first choice if you were tasked with picking a political party solely by which one Albertans would say "these guys will never put us below the other provinces and will always protect our provincial industry". The LPC can turn over a new leaf and strive to be that province, but the consequences of past choices will drag on their success.
The success of the LPC has been built to a large extent of keeping Quebec happy by (from the perspective of many outside Alberta), giving Quebec special treatment and prioritizing Quebec concerns over those of others. That strategy not only won't work in the future, the future has to deal with the consequences of choosing that strategy in the past.
Do tell that to the people and businesses who lost everything. Perhaps if you had lived their lives you might not be able to get on with yours,, I suspect.
At some point we can’t continue to hold the country responsible for the sins of one of its Father’s though.. To be fair, Trudeau #2 was a kick in the crotch for the West. It reopened an old wound. But… I also think it’s fair to allow Carney, a guy who grew up in Edmonton, to write his own story. Give him the benefit of the doubt at least. We’re not going to agree with everything all the time. But the more I see (and things like fuckface Gillbeault resigning only adds to its credibility) he does seem sincere in what he’s trying to do. And what he’s trying to do is basically the Conservative agenda. With a bit more climate policy sprinkled in. From what I’ve seen so far as well, the Climate policy piece does not seem to be the poison pill Trudeau made it. We will see - I could be proven wrong here.
>>At some point we can’t continue to hold the country responsible for the sins of one of its Father’s though.. To be fair, Trudeau #2 was a kick in the crotch for the West. It reopened an old wound.<<
For me, that's not what's going on. I am a federalist who is deeply pissed off with having to go through this crap now for a third time in my life.
In Mark Carney's government, 13 MPs served under Justin Trudeau are Trudeau-era cabinet veterans, while 15 positions are filled by Liberal caucus members who had never served in a cabinet before.
It's the same bunch that got us into the mess we're in for the past ten years. So, for me, it's open season on Mark Carney as it relates to this matter.
That’s fair. I just think most of them are feckless losers who will follow dear leader no matter what. So I’m not sure how much they matter.. on the bright side. Guillbeault looks like he’s leaving the LPC altogether over Carney’s direction.
Central Canada voters do not apply that "it's past" reasoning to anything else. Do not have double standards. Albertans who were children when the NEP came into being had major, searing and threatening life changes then, and those are not forgotten because Central Canadians want to obliterate part of other peoples' lives. Double standards are a clear sign of nasty intentions.
Who in Central Canada is arguing that we should potentially make permanent and pivotal decisions on the Constitution of Canada on the basis of policies that were pursued and then abandoned 40 years ago?
I believe that NEP trauma is real, but any separation of Alberta would primarily affect current and future Albertans who never had any experience with it.
Please recognize intergenerational harms that justify a lot of talk and expenditures for everyone else except when Alberta has the intergenerational harms.
I see what you’re getting at Lois, but let’s not overplay this hand here… Hardship is a badge of honor in AB. I don’t like the victim angle. The NEP was super shitty, but going broke also is not the same as some of the other things we’re alluding too.
The NEP is more recent than the Plains of Abraham or the American Revolution, both of which continue to influence Canadian (mostly Laurentian) political direction
I wonder what might happen if Alberta started hearing why they should stay in Canada? Right now the bulk of opposition points out apocalyptic scenarios that would befall a suddenly independent Alberta. And most of it is done, I think, in a sneering tone in opinion columns. For me, it's anything for Canada. Always.
For me, the time has come for all of us to ask ourselves, 'What does the country need to do to save itself from itself?'
Hmm. Excessive immigration. No background checks on immigrants. No economic criteria for immigrants. Massive fentanyl industry. Money laundering. Gun confuscation. Government by judiciary. Tampons in men's rooms. Foreign nationals in the CAF. Muslim values. Chinese interference. Chinese spy EVs. Chinese slave-produced imports. Recognizing Gaza. $80B in ineffective housing initiatives. SNC. WE. STDC. DEI. Men in women's shelters. Bill C-22. No CUSMA.
I have that same reaction. I am staying out of this fray as an easterner other than to say I would hate to see Alberta leave. And maybe I am missing something as I don't have the bandwidth to fully invest in this story, but I am not seeing any sort of affirmative case for Canada being put forth. It sounds more like (and worse, *exclusively* like), "yeah, Alberta, you are getting screwed by TROC but life will be even worse if you leave" - full stop. And while I suspect that is true, I don't see that as being any sort of productive argument.
To be fair. As an Albertan, I think Carney presents a generally appealing economic vision for the country. I think (know) there is a lot of mistrust and cynicism around the Liberal’s commitment to that vision.
He is certainly a vast improvement on his predecessor (the ultimate damning with faint praise) although the proof will be in the pudding.
But my point was more directed at the separatism debaters and what I see as the deficient arguments I am hearing from the "Remain" side to date. Still early though and I know Jen is saying on Twitter that the affirmative case is coming. I will be interested to read it.
The pro-Canadian argument is something the federalist side should leverage with Canada Day coming up in a month. Meanwhile, I'd suggest dusting off the National Film Board archives and making "O Canada" ubiquitous for the next several months. https://www.nfb.ca/film/o_canada/
I question if the MOU is getting its traction because of the level of separation. Alberta will never be able to lead with a minority stake in the parliament and Senate. I hope this groups starts educating the rest of Canada on what would happen if Alberta leaves, currency death spiral, huge tax increases etc. We need less “Hey Alberta” if you leave your going to have to work talk and more holy crap we are going to hurt even more if they leave talk.
No but they have equal or better representation. The fact that most elections are decided by the time Toronto is counted. That means the rest of the country doesn’t matter. Ideally parliament should stay the same, but the senate should be equal seats and elected by the people. This would stop terrible bills from getting approved.
It's time for actual conservatives to stand up to illiberal right wing populists like the separatists. The populists wallow in grievance, but don't offer any productive contributions to actually solving problems. In fact, their nonsense has been sabotaging the prospect of real reform by discrediting it with their crankery.
The trucker convoy was one such instance: there was a real case against Trudeau's blatantly political overreach into vaccine passports and travel bans, and a genuine weariness and rejection of progressive overreach and governmental incompetence. Then along comes a bunch of anti-vaccine and COVID conspiracy theorists, occupying the streets of the capital in a noisy, angry, incoherent protest. 70% of Canadians were against the protests, and it gave the Trudeau government another year or two of life. Throwing in with the protesters also did Pierre Poilievre no favors in the 2025 election, fueling doubts about his judgement and creating an opening for the Liberals with new leader Mark Carney.
Alberta separatism is another example: Trudeau's environmental policies exacerbated the regulatory and legal sclerosis that's been strangling the Canadian economy. It's not just about another oil pipeline: it's about an inability to build *any* sort of infrastructure or major projects. However, the separatists have stolen the focus from a pan-Canadian issue as they indulge in a quixotic temper tantrum.
The American conservative movement couldn't make any real progress towards winning political power until they expelled the Birchers in the 1960s. Time to purge the populists who are holding back conservativism in Canada.
I see no net loss to the CPC if it disavows social conservatism. There are a hell of a lot of voters out there who stopped voting CPC when it became apparent the socons controlled the party and its message. There are more of us than there are of them.
The big problem I have with social conservatives is not their viewpoints or values (who's got two thumbs, believes in the sanctity of marriage, the importance of families, and goes to church on Sundays? This guy...) but the way they want to legislate morality. You can't create virtue through coercion, and they never seem to get that through their heads.
Where the CPC seemed to have gone very wrong was when they started leaning into fear and anger to drive fundraising back in the Harper era. I'd get fundraising calls where the script was basically "Look at what those Liberal SOBs are trying to do now! If we don't get more money to fight them, they'll be back with another risky coalition!!" That struck me as kind of pathetic a year or two into a Conservative majority government, but it was obviously effective for them. I eventually told them to stop calling unless they actually could talk about some positive Conservative policies instead of negative complaints about the other parties. However, I think that negative, grievance-based approach metastasized into the populism gripping the party today.
While the "Need to lead" initiative is a thoughtful and creative concept, I believe it is not realistically implementable--at least not in any meaningful timeframe.
"The East" is the creator and implementor of "The West is second class". The NEP was a blatant resource raid. Business finance was always subject to "Eastern Head Office Approval". "The West" lacks the respect, trust or reverence to lead "The East".
Quebec is a syncophant--a taker not a team player. They are about themselves. Period. Quebec accepting western leadership on national issues? Give your head a shake.
Power, once tasted, is addicting. And more so over time. Just imagine the notion of the Calgary Petroleum Club membership having influence over les maires des petites villes in directing an West>East pipeline route. Laughable. And the Laurentian elite won't be friendly either.
Alberta is only learning to lead. It must successfully challenge many more "energy issues", "constitutional pitfalls" and interprovincial relationships before it earns national "leadership chops".
When the MoU doesn't lead to any new pipelines, will you admit that reconciliation with Canada has failed?
Or is that a can that can be endlessly kicked?
Is the entirety of Alberta's well-being seriously that contingent upon one specific potential pipeline? Does nothing else matter on a question of separation?
The intentional stifling of the industry that is by far Alberta's largest is quite important. If the federal government had limited the auto industry or hydroelectricity in Ontario or Quebec, those provinces would doubtless make a real end to those limitations a litmus test.
What astonishes me is the federal government's fanatical commitment to throttling oil and gas. From where I sit in Toronto, it seems insane to endanger the integrity of the country over climate policy which can have no practical impact whatsoever.
There is no "fanatical commitment to throttling oil and gas" by the federal government. Canada has one of the highest per-capita emissions in the world, and no climate plan by any recent federal government would have done anything to likely change that fact. The separatists seem to be in favour of Canada giving the international community the middle finger on climate policy, without any sensitivity to the consequences of that reputational loss for the rest of the country.
I can certainly say as a voting Ontarian that I would not make any one policy issue a litmus test for the province's presence in Confederation. I would only consider supporting separatism if it were demonstrable that the province's quality of life *as a whole* is stagnating as a result of federal policy, and if there were convincing evidence that the federal government cannot be reformed in such a case. Neither is true of Alberta, since its oil production and revenue are in fact increasing and since Albertan Conservatives can in fact form federal government when they give off less loser energy.
Literally any climate policy that endangers national unity is fanatical. I am far more concerned about Canada's reputation in Alberta than our reputation in Davos.
It's not the policies that endanger national unity, it's the Conservative loser energy and sense of entitlement that losing elections is never the fault of Conservatives themselves, either in their self-indulgent whining or their demands for policy obedience from the rest of the country - but the lost elections are somehow always the fault of others, and therefore a purported justification for separation.
It is certainly true that, if Albertans just did what they were told and happily obeyed the enlightened orders coming from Central Canada, there would be no secession issue. I think we have reached agreement here.
Of course there is an intentional throttling if not by stated policy then by inserted procedures. That's what earns so many votes! Whether by 'necessary' conditions for approval followed by application processing delays combined with permit restrictions incumbent on a cascade of environmental reviews subject to ongoing multiparty consultations interrupted by changes in government, the effect is to kill wealth creation through natural resource extraction. It's a no go. The real litmus test for a nation is wealth creation and we are losing two dollars for every dollar invested. Do the math. (Only a mere trillion lost since 2015 but I guess lost righteously.)
That is plainly false, Alberta has not lost a trillion dollars in potential revenue.
Do you understand that a finite resource like oil cannot in principle have development growth that is both exponential and sustained?
The trillion lost in investment is Canada wide and over more than decade in the making, which I included here because it demonstrates a vastly underreported and under-addressed deepening national problem caused and maintained by the federal government... a problem Alberta alone is calling out as needing immediate correction. Environmentalists fooled into thinking it's all about personal carbon footprints are the front line champions of this idiocy (versus advocates trying to change the energy system the world currently uses and be willing to research climate mitigation to give it time to adjust). All of us - certainly including those who enjoy calling themselves 'Canada First' but seem determined not to act in its best interests - should be demanding an immediate correction. MoU(s) are not a correction; (ironically?) they are the go-to tool for gaslighting Canadians at home into thinking changes are somewhere on the way. In reality, MoU(s) are also applying the stamp of approval for increasing the acceptability from the federal government's point of view for more foreign interference from abroad. Real interference. Political. Economic. Social. Legislative. Legal. China's interests - especially its Ministry of Public Security - have a welcoming home here in Canada under this federal government not just in special permits for mining rights and operations of rare earth minerals and nary a word of condemnation or concern having Chinese entertaining of Tribal Chiefs of lands with rare earth minerals with lots of trips to China but a directive for the RCMP to better cooperate and coordinate with our new Friends Who Are Not American. Canadians who share this view generally have no means to differentiate the terms 'Canadian' with 'anti-American'. They assume they are synonyms when, in fact, they are antonyms. As I said, the national trends of disintegration are clear but 'patriotic' and 'well informed' Canadians are to align with anti-American sentiment under the false flag of the maple leaf and think of themselves as The Good Guys. But are they really?
On the contrary, anyone who believes in an energy transition knows that fossil fuels left in the ground will become worthless stranded assets long before we run out. Rapid exploitation and sale is the only rational strategy.
There are 160B bbl’s of proven reserves in the AB oil sands. That is over 100 years of production even accounting for escalating production.
Are you kidding? Why do we not have approvals for pipelines, west and east, and possibly to Hudson's Bay? Why did the feds and leftist BC overwhelm the private sector TransMountain with regulation, until the federal Liberals needed the money and then, insultingly, paid largely their own supporters to satisfy every last regulation? The international community - do any of our oil and gas competitors have Canadian type regulations and industrial carbon tax?
Norway is an oil exporter and a country with a carbon tax more ambitious than Canada's own carbon tax.
Alberta has often been compared to Norway. For years, on QR770, Ms. Smith decried the questionable use of Heritage Fund funds. She is not wrong on that, but she is also not correct in describing Alberta as a direct comparable with Norway.
We are part of a federation. Norway is not part of the Economic Union and yet benefits from association with it. Alberta is landlocked. Norway is not. Norway also continues to invest in fossil fuel endeavours just not at home. Sovereign investment funds, and various pension funds often find themselves supporting something globally that they could not invest in within their own backyard. Fiduciary duty trumps everything.
Norway produces light oil and is a unitary state. There is no comparison
Have you really thought that deeply on this?
Canada: the irresponsible oil producer.
Russia uses the proceeds of its oil and gas to bomb Ukranians. Europe still buys their energy, China has set up a cottage industry of refineries to illicitly refine it. Iran uses their proceeds to fund Middle East terrorism and its blood lust agains its own people. The Saudi’s stone women for adultery and chop up western journalists who raise objections.
But Alberta is giving the world the finger with its oil and gas?
Whatever ESG framework ever brought that conclusion so clearly upon eastern Canada? to self righteously deny Alberta’s “dirty oil” pipelines? To score political points opposing ‘Les Petroliers?” To disregard court findings that their malignant regulatory framework violated the constitution? All the better to throttle your industry my dear.
Let me say it plainly:
Whatever moral calculus you’re using to say ALBERTA oil and gas gives the finger to the world is transparently garbage. Any righand knew it in their bones.
Frankly the ghg argument evaporates when you account for things like - I don’t know - the wars.
I’d buy a Canadian made car in a heartbeat.
The ROC undertook a decade long project to scare off private investment, effectively nationalize the throttle of Albertas main industry - with a stated preference to keep it in the ground.
I did not say that the Albertan oil and gas industry has given the international community the middle finger. I said that Albertan separatists, *specifically*, are demanding policies by the federal government that would amount to giving the international community the middle finger.
It's fine to be critical of federal policies affecting the oil sands, but separatists who protest against *any* greenhouse-reduction policies existing at all - as a supposed direct threat to their impossible fantasy of exponential growth - are being truly insufferable.
Why do you think Albertans care about the international community? The Americans, Chinese, Russians, Iranians, etc. certainly don't.
Perhaps the culture between Ontario and Alberta is just too vast a gulf to bridge.
1) Since most of the energy is exported, the emissions incurred in its production should be assigned to the ultimate end customer. Inability to account for trade flows is the critical flaw of all climate agreements to date
2) No customer has stepped up to pay a premium for lower emission oil. The countries that threatened border adjustment taxes haven't followed through and some of them have come begging for Canadian energy. Canada's reputation is in the dumpster due to its obstructionist political system and overall hostile investment environment. The middle finger is to unaccountable NGOs, activists and political operators
Interesting points. For me, the moment it becomes performative is the moment it becomes fanatical. Funky socks notwithstanding.
But they aren’t anymore . Trans mountain ( which the feds spent 40 billion on ) is in the process of greatly expanding its capacity . And the “one more pipeline “‘argument is a grift . Let’s say it gets constructed to the west coast .. then what ? The same people will complain they need “one more pipeline”.. Alberta has less than 100 years of the stuff left . You can’t build a new nation on something with that short of a lifespan ; you need to be part of a diversified country when you run out of it .
The pipeline is a symbol. Alberta was founded as land of opportunity and re-invention. Growth, contrianism and ahistoricity are baked into the province's DNA. Political obstructionism is an affront to Alberta's identity and hence has become an emotional issue on top of an economic one.
100% in agreement (for the 2nd time in this comment section with Doug). Couldn’t be explained any better than this.
It’s representative of a lot of things Stefan. Notably that political and parochial interests from other parts of the country can subjugate to Alberta’s and Canada’s rational economic interests. Albertans do not consider the government funded expansion of an existing pipeline route to be evidence of this. We see this as an embarrassing market failure brought about by unreasonable and bad faith obstructionism.
I suspect most Canadians see this market failure as a silver lining. Now the feds control more of the oil and gas industry. They trust the feds more than private business.
The federal treatment of the pipeline and much touted MoU(s) is purely political posturing by Carney to fool Albertans and hit the Oct1st date prior to the 19th vote... probably sold to them as a project of 'national interest'. How very important. See? Confederation (supposedly) works.
The problem is that the real purpose is to mollify some potential voters to believe that the federal government is somehow in support of a pipeline when the necessary conditions for that support are such (imposed by the federal government) that has all major oil sands companies already admit it is not economically feasible to undertake. As anyone who understands how carbon capture works in then real world, that caveat alone kills any future oil and gas pipeline development because it costs more carbon producing energy to capture a carbon unit than it does to 'clean' it. (Shhh... don't disturb the environmentalists from their dream world.)
The only pipedream here is implementing at scale carbon capture without pricing the final product well above all other sources and all but guaranteeing no future pipeline to the coast makes economic sense! And so that caveat avoids the whole messy 'consultation' problem that would then be necessary with the BC elected government and its environmentalist/sacred indigenous but unelected co-government lobby.
Yes, it's perfectly obvious that nothing will result from the MoU and its only purpose is to delay. That's why I think people who accuse Smith of closet separatism are being so unfair: she is obviously doing everything actually workable to scotch secession.
I don’t think that is true at all. I get the distinct impression that Carney knows the country needs money and he told Eby last week in no uncertain terms to get out of the way.
I will certainly admit I am likely wrong when building begins on a new pipeline. When will MoU believers admit they are wrong if construction has not begun?
2.5 years from Carneys election I will need to see one approved. Provided it has been applied for by a private proponent. So Oct 2027 next year. Provided there is a proponent.. what is your time frame?
I already have a bet with a friend - shovels in the ground before the next election. He loses if no proponent has come forward because it is the government's job to create a welcoming environment. "There's no business case" won't work for the government again. Globally, there is plenty of investment in oil and gas.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/article/canada-to-sign-deal-with-germanys-sefe-for-ksi-lisims-lng-source-says/
Funny how a “business case” can be in the eye of the beholder… in fairness I’m going to give Carney and Hodgson some credit here for this deal. Convincing the Germans to buy NG from the pacific coast would’ve taken some salesmanship. They picked a good time to make the pitch…
Interestingly, you’re probably giving Carney more time than I am now. You’re probably closer to accurate than I am. I think it happens though. Too much energy behind it and too much at stake now.
So it's only and ever about pipelines?
Gotcha.
For the record, as someone who grew up in Alberta in the 1960s and lived there until the mid-1990s, I remember well the constant, almost daily exposition at the time from politicians and business leaders, as well as academics, about the importance of diversification in Alberta's economy.
Yet here we are in 2026, in a province that is still under the control of what is essentially the successor of the Progressive Conservatives of that era, complaining about Alberta's vulnerability because of its over-dependence on one sector (oil and gas).
Ironic, and a little pathetic, to be honest. Not to mention incredibly un-self-aware.
Oil and gas are 70% of provincial exports. Federalists could certainly try "we're helping you diversify by throttling oil & gas, so you should thank us". It might work.
The point being that for the better part of 1/2 a century, successive generations of Albertans have blathered about "economic diversification", and yet in the end they've done nothing, for all intents and purposes.
That's on Alberta, not the rest of Canada.
Economic diversification and maximizing potential oil and gas development are not incompatible despite attempts to frame team oil as being opposed to team everything else. In fact, the opposite is true.
As the owner of the resource, the givenment of Alberta is the oil and gas industry. It has a duty to maximize the value of the resource.
Kicking the can down the road is a Canadian tradition. It should be a protected activity under the Charter.
Avoiding making hard decisions is what Canada's elite does best.
No. I am not looking for the Federal government or any other government to build a pipeline. I want a clear and viable path for one, and a reasonable, predictable and efficient regulatory process and environment. I will judge the success or failure of this by private industry’s response to the policies made or not made (as the case may be). Building pipelines should be the sole purview of private industry. I have full confidence the market will respond, provided the former objectives are achieved. (even though long range forecasts are basically a waste of time - even the IEA is now saying “peak oil” is 2050, meaning increasing demand for 24 more years…). BUT private industry must play its part, and this will be informed by the market. So no it’s not either a pipeline or not that determines this for me.
Yes the next 5 months are going to be messy, will the Oct Referendum bring an end to issue -NO.
While some, maybe even most, strongly question how & why we are on this path at all but to someone like me a right leaning Albertan of 72 years it is the culmination of years of anger & frustration with the relationship and the treatment we have received from most of the ROC throughout the decades. The list is long and includes items from culture to economics.
But I would ask all of you to not just focus on the "where are we now" but look much deeper into what I call the "Root Cause" of how we got here.
For the ROC now is the time to really try & understand the deep rooted frustration many Albertans have and hopefully see that yes there is something here and yes maybe we have been negligent in the way we have treated you & taken you for granted.
Don't just talk about your desire for us to stay in Canada you need to start a TRUE process of recognizing our concerns & actually doing something to address them. For example:
-congratulations Quebec, Ont & BC you were blessed with green Hydro -we weren't so should we freeze?
-my guess is because 95% plus of Albertans can't speak fluent enough French we can never be considered of a senior political or bureaucratic post -is this right?
-unfair allocation of political ridings based on population.
-judicial picks that do not share our values
I could easy list another 10 of these irritants but you get my drift.
So ROC is now the time to step up & make meaning changes to address this long simmering list of issues. All for now. Let the games begin.
What do you want to bet Alberta's population will be offered a veritable avalanche of what looks like positive and welcomed future polices and procedures... but nothing delivered except restrictions and 'necessary' conditions? Sound familiar?
There is that possibility. Surely they would not add fuel to the fire that's already giving off sparks.
What irks me is the assumption that urban populations swollen by a wave of immigration somehow understand 'Alberta' better than those who see the ongoing negative changes to the vast promise the province once held (which takes time and familiarity to see the trend clearly). Rather than address the negative changes directly, so much time and effort by so many is spent vilifying those who do see and are willing to try to chart a different direction. The lack of common values among today's crop of 'Canadians' I think plays a central role in supporting the ongoing dysfunction out of sense of fear and panic that the sinking ship of state must settle evenly and equitably rather than disrupt the process with various kinds of bailing (like a referendum to empower the government to consult all parties) and perhaps repair (like altering the political arrangement with federal government to equality rather than subservience).
I'm 58. I've watched this country tear itself apart over the Quebec movement. This has led unfortunately to the separatist cause whose living memory is firmly implanted with the NEP as when the break with Ottawa began. I could be wrong but I sure remember those days and it was awful.
Downplaying the impact of the NEP by saying it is ancient history is lazy thinking and perhaps a bit of denial even, who knows?
For decade we had a PM content to go after the oil industry so he could talk big in his socks and tell the world how moral they should be. That man did more damage to national unity and progressivism than anyone I can think of in my life. I remember Trudeau 1.0 was hated when he went walking in the snow. Trudeau 2.0 is despised for entirely different but no less important reasons. If we are going to save Canada, we first need to recognize and acknowledge the unfairness to Alberta in confederation.
If that can't happen ..... (insert scenario here)
74% of Alberta's population lives in the Calgary and Edmonton greater metropolitan areas. By the numbers (and it *is* by the numbers, because this is a democracy), they ARE Alberta and are actually far more representative of the provincial population than rural Albertans.
It takes time to appreciate a new country after moving from elsewhere. Calgary and Edmonton have a huge population who have not been here long enough to become citizens, yet are able to vote.
Non-citizens don't have a right to vote in elections. Unless you're implying that Canadian citizens who've migrated from elsewhere in Canada somehow aren't citizens.
The urban-rural divide is pretty standard in other provinces isn't it? (I think it is.)
It is, but it seems especially pronounced in Alberta where the zeitgeist has seized on imagery of cowboy and rig workers. People *feel* like Alberta's more rural, but it's really just below the national average in terms of urbanization and closer to Ontario, BC, and Quebec than less urbanized provinces like Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Maritimes.
Generations of PC and UCP governments have also had a base of strength in rural ridings, and their gerrymandering has given rural Albertans disproportionate influence. It was pretty obvious as far back as Ralph Klein's day when the Supreme Court had ruled that the size of ridings should not deviate more than 25% from the average (the Carter decision in 1991). Pretty soon rural ridings were clustered around the lower limit, and the urban ridings at the upper limit. When that wasn't sufficient, they'd crack up suburban ridings and graft them into a hybrid riding with a rural area. The catch is that it's not really sustainable: almost all population growth in Alberta since the '60s has occurred in the cities. A lot of the current right wing populist angst is fed by the fear of what happens when they lose that influence.
A policy of delay (MOU) plus voter replacement (mass immigration) can be very effective at keeping Alberta quiescent indefinitely.
Welcome initiative, thanks for doing this.
Proudly Canadian? Proud of what? Help me out here: what is it that we are supposed to be proud of when it comes to Canada that is still proudly supported? I am truly at a loss of whatever this list contains that I can share coast to coast to coast that once was filled with opportunity and optimism and achievements that now either aren't being vilified by Canadian institutions or doesn't directly interfere and reduce the quality of life of Canadians.
It means, I think, Proudly Not American
True dat. But so sad if that's the best we come up. I'm not Slovenian either but I don't carry some kind of contempt for anyone who is. Yet we put Americans into this contempt framing, I tend to think, so that we can create an imaginary divide to POOF! a Canadian identity into being. Familiarity breeds contempt, if I recall correctly, and it seems we so familiar that we are American in almost all ways but name (and spelling).
Maybe "proudly" is the wrong word. How about happily Canadian?
But I'd be a lot happier if things were different than what they are now. (See my other post here.)
Two things that bother me about pride - it goes before a fall, as the saying goes. Also, pride in one's country is too close to nationalism and tribalism, both of which I abhor.
Thank you for doing this. We need and want Alberta in Canada.
Easy words. But federal governing actions, policies, and practices strongly indicate otherwise. Now what?
For clarity, NotoriousSceptic wasn't suspended for this comment, which was fine, but for another comment that was mostly fine until, ahem, it wasn't.
Things are going to get passionate and heated here. We get it. But this is a forum hosted by a private business. This isn't a public square, it's a saloon that we own. Disagreement is fine. Arguing is annoying but fine. But don't insult and curse each other. There's going to be no flexibility here.
Remainer here: but.....
1. Renaming The West Wants In is thin gruel.
2. I see no Eastern Laurentian names on the list ( read: Federal Liberals).
3. The MOU is political theater at best: between BC, aboriginal buy in and a massive Carbon Capture boondoggle, we may as well just admit that all pipelines will run south.
I’ll counterpoint a couple things.
2. I would rather there be no Laurentian names on this list. Let this be a mainly internal debate.
3. This remains to be seen. To be fair. Set a reasonable deadline for action and judge accordingly. For me it’s 2 years from Carney being elected. If nothing has tangibly changed - I take your point. The Carbon Capture piece is not as big a deal as it’s being made out to be. Frankly the Carbon price agreed too is pretty low… surprisingly low. I haven’t run the calculations yet, but I don’t even know if it’s escalation clauses ramp with expected inflation…
Sorry but I don't see how this will be successful without tons of aggrieved whining and stamping of feet - I don't see a single reference to Trudeau OR the NEP!
Absolutely critical because the NEP is still living memory for boatloads of Albertans - like Gen X who grew up under it.
Life is for the living. A great many humans have come and gone in 40+ years. If separatists are still aggrieved about policies from that long ago, they really need to learn to move on with their lives!
> they really need to learn to move on with their lives!
You can say that, but saying it doesn't help.
I mean, would you approach reconciliation with "if indigenous people are still upset about [insert harm here], they really need to learn to move on with their lives".
And I say this without equating the issues. That's not the point.
The point is that you can tell people all you want that they should "just get over it", but saying it doesn't help much.
I accept your counter-point. I did not mean that the people affected by the NEP need to *individually* move on with their lives. Life experiences are real and cannot and should not be easily forgotten. But there's so many hundreds of thousands of Albertans now with no experience of the NEP, so it is preposterous in principle for this one distant lived experience so be anything remotely pivotal in current debates about the future of the province.
Many newcomers to Alberta came from neighbouring provinces and/or married into Albertan families who were in Alberta for the NEP. Sure, a minority of Albertans were unaffected personally, but mostly those unaffected are recent immigrants to Canada who have not been here long enough or are not committed enough to seek citizenship. That's partly the result of the Trudeau Liberal's immigration policy that overwhelmed housing, health and education everywhere in Canada. Surprised that you are bringing this up to remind us of how the Liberals hurt everyone, both newcomers and citizens, in this decade.
I was a young adult in Alberta when the NEP was in place. I was also a young adult when the Mulroney government brought it to an end.
That was 40 plus years ago.
The separatists are just clutching at every possible straw to spin up anger and angst... and I've had representatives of that movement admit to me on these fora that most of the separatists have no direct experience of the NEP and its effects.
The NEP is a situation that exemplifies the negativity toward the west and Alberta that emanates from the Liberals and from some voters in Central Canada. Since then, a lot of their actions have confirmed negative results on the Alberta economy and Albertans as individuals.
I want to stay in Canada. Carney's latest attempt to avoid making any lasting changes, today by telling people that he will not listen to Alberta voters trying to send a message, is not helping. Bringing up Brexit, where he ignored his civil service responsibilities, got involved in politics, and racked up considerable disdain in Britain, does not help either.
He needs to come forward with a list of irrevocable items that he has already started putting in place, or has accomplished in June, July, August and September.
I found this from Google AI:
"In a March 2024 letter, Premier Smith asked federal Immigration Minister Marc Miller to double Alberta's allotment under the Provincial Nominee Program to 20,000, along with 10,000 additional spots for Ukrainian evacuees, citing the need to fill jobs and support the economy."
Danielle Smith herself sought and invited more immigration to Alberta, whatever her shift on rhetoric more recently.
And please let us know how many immigrants Alberta actually attracted, including those who landed elsewhere and moved here for jobs.
That is true. The NEP is well in the past as is Pierre Trudeau. Justin Trudeau and his “the problem is Albertans” is also in the past. Not as far, but Mr. Carney is rather obviously not Justin Trudeau.
That said, he's not that far in the past. And there was a smooth transition from his tenure as Prime Minister to Mr. Carney's. And notably, Mr. Carney put Mr. Guilbeault in cabinet. Given Mr. Guilbeault's desire to shut down Alberta's largest industry and economic engine, this was an unfortunate choice from the perspective of reassuring Albertans. (Yes, he's probably an important figure for the Quebec wing of the LPC, but politics is about choices and the consequences of different choices and the decision to put Mr. Guilbeault in cabinet has consequences for how Albertans view Mr. Carney and the degree to which this is a new LPC or the same old LPC with different spin.
This is the problem the LPC faces. The LPC would not be your first choice if you were tasked with picking a political party solely by which one Albertans would say "these guys will never put us below the other provinces and will always protect our provincial industry". The LPC can turn over a new leaf and strive to be that province, but the consequences of past choices will drag on their success.
The success of the LPC has been built to a large extent of keeping Quebec happy by (from the perspective of many outside Alberta), giving Quebec special treatment and prioritizing Quebec concerns over those of others. That strategy not only won't work in the future, the future has to deal with the consequences of choosing that strategy in the past.
Do tell that to the people and businesses who lost everything. Perhaps if you had lived their lives you might not be able to get on with yours,, I suspect.
At some point we can’t continue to hold the country responsible for the sins of one of its Father’s though.. To be fair, Trudeau #2 was a kick in the crotch for the West. It reopened an old wound. But… I also think it’s fair to allow Carney, a guy who grew up in Edmonton, to write his own story. Give him the benefit of the doubt at least. We’re not going to agree with everything all the time. But the more I see (and things like fuckface Gillbeault resigning only adds to its credibility) he does seem sincere in what he’s trying to do. And what he’s trying to do is basically the Conservative agenda. With a bit more climate policy sprinkled in. From what I’ve seen so far as well, the Climate policy piece does not seem to be the poison pill Trudeau made it. We will see - I could be proven wrong here.
>>At some point we can’t continue to hold the country responsible for the sins of one of its Father’s though.. To be fair, Trudeau #2 was a kick in the crotch for the West. It reopened an old wound.<<
For me, that's not what's going on. I am a federalist who is deeply pissed off with having to go through this crap now for a third time in my life.
In Mark Carney's government, 13 MPs served under Justin Trudeau are Trudeau-era cabinet veterans, while 15 positions are filled by Liberal caucus members who had never served in a cabinet before.
It's the same bunch that got us into the mess we're in for the past ten years. So, for me, it's open season on Mark Carney as it relates to this matter.
That’s fair. I just think most of them are feckless losers who will follow dear leader no matter what. So I’m not sure how much they matter.. on the bright side. Guillbeault looks like he’s leaving the LPC altogether over Carney’s direction.
That's typically what happens with them. Guilbeault is a good sign albeit it took a hell of a long time for him to decide to quit =.
Central Canada voters do not apply that "it's past" reasoning to anything else. Do not have double standards. Albertans who were children when the NEP came into being had major, searing and threatening life changes then, and those are not forgotten because Central Canadians want to obliterate part of other peoples' lives. Double standards are a clear sign of nasty intentions.
Who in Central Canada is arguing that we should potentially make permanent and pivotal decisions on the Constitution of Canada on the basis of policies that were pursued and then abandoned 40 years ago?
I believe that NEP trauma is real, but any separation of Alberta would primarily affect current and future Albertans who never had any experience with it.
Please recognize intergenerational harms that justify a lot of talk and expenditures for everyone else except when Alberta has the intergenerational harms.
I see what you’re getting at Lois, but let’s not overplay this hand here… Hardship is a badge of honor in AB. I don’t like the victim angle. The NEP was super shitty, but going broke also is not the same as some of the other things we’re alluding too.
Separation from Canada would cause Albertans themselves intergenerational harms!
The NEP is more recent than the Plains of Abraham or the American Revolution, both of which continue to influence Canadian (mostly Laurentian) political direction
I wonder what might happen if Alberta started hearing why they should stay in Canada? Right now the bulk of opposition points out apocalyptic scenarios that would befall a suddenly independent Alberta. And most of it is done, I think, in a sneering tone in opinion columns. For me, it's anything for Canada. Always.
For me, the time has come for all of us to ask ourselves, 'What does the country need to do to save itself from itself?'
Hmm. Excessive immigration. No background checks on immigrants. No economic criteria for immigrants. Massive fentanyl industry. Money laundering. Gun confuscation. Government by judiciary. Tampons in men's rooms. Foreign nationals in the CAF. Muslim values. Chinese interference. Chinese spy EVs. Chinese slave-produced imports. Recognizing Gaza. $80B in ineffective housing initiatives. SNC. WE. STDC. DEI. Men in women's shelters. Bill C-22. No CUSMA.
I could go on.
I have that same reaction. I am staying out of this fray as an easterner other than to say I would hate to see Alberta leave. And maybe I am missing something as I don't have the bandwidth to fully invest in this story, but I am not seeing any sort of affirmative case for Canada being put forth. It sounds more like (and worse, *exclusively* like), "yeah, Alberta, you are getting screwed by TROC but life will be even worse if you leave" - full stop. And while I suspect that is true, I don't see that as being any sort of productive argument.
To be fair. As an Albertan, I think Carney presents a generally appealing economic vision for the country. I think (know) there is a lot of mistrust and cynicism around the Liberal’s commitment to that vision.
He is certainly a vast improvement on his predecessor (the ultimate damning with faint praise) although the proof will be in the pudding.
But my point was more directed at the separatism debaters and what I see as the deficient arguments I am hearing from the "Remain" side to date. Still early though and I know Jen is saying on Twitter that the affirmative case is coming. I will be interested to read it.
The pro-Canadian argument is something the federalist side should leverage with Canada Day coming up in a month. Meanwhile, I'd suggest dusting off the National Film Board archives and making "O Canada" ubiquitous for the next several months. https://www.nfb.ca/film/o_canada/
Everyone right now, go to the NFB website and watch Helicopter Canada from 1967. Still is a great way to see the country: https://www.nfb.ca/film/helicopter_canada/
That was fabulous. Thanks.
I question if the MOU is getting its traction because of the level of separation. Alberta will never be able to lead with a minority stake in the parliament and Senate. I hope this groups starts educating the rest of Canada on what would happen if Alberta leaves, currency death spiral, huge tax increases etc. We need less “Hey Alberta” if you leave your going to have to work talk and more holy crap we are going to hurt even more if they leave talk.
But no province has a majority in the House or Senate.
No but they have equal or better representation. The fact that most elections are decided by the time Toronto is counted. That means the rest of the country doesn’t matter. Ideally parliament should stay the same, but the senate should be equal seats and elected by the people. This would stop terrible bills from getting approved.
It would be a murder - suicide situation. Nobody wins here and prospers more if we get divorced.
A very credible team! Go Team!
Sad that you have to do this, excellent that you do. I support.
I look forward to reading the opinions and insights from the members of the distinguished panel. Not so much from the many of the comment writers.
It's time for actual conservatives to stand up to illiberal right wing populists like the separatists. The populists wallow in grievance, but don't offer any productive contributions to actually solving problems. In fact, their nonsense has been sabotaging the prospect of real reform by discrediting it with their crankery.
The trucker convoy was one such instance: there was a real case against Trudeau's blatantly political overreach into vaccine passports and travel bans, and a genuine weariness and rejection of progressive overreach and governmental incompetence. Then along comes a bunch of anti-vaccine and COVID conspiracy theorists, occupying the streets of the capital in a noisy, angry, incoherent protest. 70% of Canadians were against the protests, and it gave the Trudeau government another year or two of life. Throwing in with the protesters also did Pierre Poilievre no favors in the 2025 election, fueling doubts about his judgement and creating an opening for the Liberals with new leader Mark Carney.
Alberta separatism is another example: Trudeau's environmental policies exacerbated the regulatory and legal sclerosis that's been strangling the Canadian economy. It's not just about another oil pipeline: it's about an inability to build *any* sort of infrastructure or major projects. However, the separatists have stolen the focus from a pan-Canadian issue as they indulge in a quixotic temper tantrum.
The American conservative movement couldn't make any real progress towards winning political power until they expelled the Birchers in the 1960s. Time to purge the populists who are holding back conservativism in Canada.
I see no net loss to the CPC if it disavows social conservatism. There are a hell of a lot of voters out there who stopped voting CPC when it became apparent the socons controlled the party and its message. There are more of us than there are of them.
The big problem I have with social conservatives is not their viewpoints or values (who's got two thumbs, believes in the sanctity of marriage, the importance of families, and goes to church on Sundays? This guy...) but the way they want to legislate morality. You can't create virtue through coercion, and they never seem to get that through their heads.
Where the CPC seemed to have gone very wrong was when they started leaning into fear and anger to drive fundraising back in the Harper era. I'd get fundraising calls where the script was basically "Look at what those Liberal SOBs are trying to do now! If we don't get more money to fight them, they'll be back with another risky coalition!!" That struck me as kind of pathetic a year or two into a Conservative majority government, but it was obviously effective for them. I eventually told them to stop calling unless they actually could talk about some positive Conservative policies instead of negative complaints about the other parties. However, I think that negative, grievance-based approach metastasized into the populism gripping the party today.
They are slaves to their fund raising stunts and bozo eruptions. It's gotta go, I think.
Please let me know what I can do to help.
Thank you all for doing this. Together we are strongest.
While the "Need to lead" initiative is a thoughtful and creative concept, I believe it is not realistically implementable--at least not in any meaningful timeframe.
"The East" is the creator and implementor of "The West is second class". The NEP was a blatant resource raid. Business finance was always subject to "Eastern Head Office Approval". "The West" lacks the respect, trust or reverence to lead "The East".
Quebec is a syncophant--a taker not a team player. They are about themselves. Period. Quebec accepting western leadership on national issues? Give your head a shake.
Power, once tasted, is addicting. And more so over time. Just imagine the notion of the Calgary Petroleum Club membership having influence over les maires des petites villes in directing an West>East pipeline route. Laughable. And the Laurentian elite won't be friendly either.
Alberta is only learning to lead. It must successfully challenge many more "energy issues", "constitutional pitfalls" and interprovincial relationships before it earns national "leadership chops".