The current PM, the current Opposition Leader, and the Interim Leader of whatever the NDP is, were all born and raised in Alberta. I may be incorrect, but I believe that's unprecedented.
Also, the G7 Leadership is coming to Alberta in a month.
If there were ever an opportune time to work WITH, rather than AGAINST, the federal political leadership of Canada, it would be RIGHT NOW.
Despite throwing bones at the separatist sentiment in her caucus and the province, I sincerely hope that it is Smith's strategy, as she has publicly stated, that Alberta AND Canada are strongest with Alberta as an integral, contributing part of Canada, not threatening to split from it.
Reconciliation with Alberta should start with ending talk of an emissions cap, repealing C48 and reforming the IAA. If the Feds can't move on these, they aren't serious
Marcel: could you please put forward in clear words where the corruption you are referring to exists and what that corruption is? Thank you for taking the time to do so.
We won't know everything that's gone on without a public inquiry, and this whole separatism push is just the ticket to distract the public from demanding one.
The western alienation is an issue that’s been going on for long before the current discussion. As to the corruption charges at this point they are nothing more than unproven allegations. I agree that a public inquiry would be useful but a witch hunt is not a useful approach to use.
You're absolutely correct that the prevailing political and business elites in Alberta have long ginned-up supposed alienation in order to distract from their horrendous governance and corruption, especially in the last 20 years. That's why we've had the same people in power for 50 of the last 54 years, can't balance a budget with oil at $70/barrel and will soon be back to deficits measured in the tens of billions. And half the province will still convince itself it's "conservative" while government spending has gone from 50 billion a year to 80 under the UCP.
You're apparently a very unhappy person. Perhaps if you come down someday from your perch in Edmonton and meet the "ilk tribe" you seem to despise, you'll find they have the same basic needs and wants as you do and every right to express them in a democracy. Judgement (opinions based solely on personal impressions) is one thing, discernment (opinions based on analysis of facts as well as personal bias) is another; which, do you think, leads to a better outcome? That's worth considering by all of us. In my opinion, of course. Enjoy your day.
I strongly disagree with you. A separation referendum almost guarantees an ndp government in 2027. Although new right wing parties arriving on the scene like the Alberta republicans might accomplish that anyways. 🤦♀️
Ottawa is actively working to destroy Alberta's wealth while sucking out cash where it can. Smith has drawn a line in the sand saying reverse your 10 years of destroying our economy. Canada can easily do that. Canada should do that because that is the only reliable source of foreign cash in the near term. It is simplicity and condescending to say this is frustration with Ottawa. In actively working to destroy Alberta and Saskatchewan oil and gas Canada has impoverished itself. Smith is talking about steps necessary for Canada the country to grow. How Canada reacts to Smith will determine more than Alberta's future, it is Canada's future that is at risk. This is a wake up call for Ottawa not an expression of frustration. In terms of Brexit and haphazard thoughts, in Canada, unlike the UK, we have the Clarity act where 50% +1 on a clear question determines the foundation for separation which would be aided by foreign recognition and triggers negotiations. We have been through a 50 +.05% separation battle in the past which created the need for the Clarity Act. Hence it's name. We have processes in place for precisely this kind of event. Doomberg has been prescient in calling the steps that have been unfolding here in Canada since last October. His prediction and I agree, is we wind up in a constitutional crisis triggered by Smith with major compromise by both parties resulting in more oil and gas unencumbered by caps going to tidewater in BC and potentially Churchill Falls. As his forecast for Canada turned out eerily accurate I now hope he is right. Smith has to do what she is doing. Trudeau set this table purposefully. Time for Carney to step up.
You have made a number of statements that are opinion rather than fact. The federal government has not been trying to actively destroy Alberta’s economy. It has been trying to reduce Canada’s CO2 emissions in response to climate change. This, the motivation is not to destroy Alberta, but to combat climate change. This is an important distinction in motivation.
As for the Clarity Act, it calls for a clear result based on a clear question. A result of 50%+1 does not meet the first threshold.
All this is not to recommend that Alberta should stay quiet. I cannot confess to understanding all the concerns of Alberta. I do know that demonising the federal government and Canada will inhibit resolving the issues.
What do you think a clear result means if not 50% +1? Is it 60% , 100%? Quebec would take offence at your declaration that 50% + 1 is not clear. 55000 votes out of 4500000 cast was good enough to keep Quebec in. Smith outlined the facts about how the feds have created roadblocks and limited Alberta, and Saskatchewan's oil and gas economy. She also is proposing solutions. For another example Freeland threw Saskatchewan Canola farmers under the bus last fall with 100% tariffs to keep cheap and efficient Chinese EV's out of the Canadian market last fall. Despite Chinese immediate decision to put Canola under review and then subject it to equivalent, retaliatory tariffs. Billions of dollars in Saskatchewan farmer losses to protect EV production in Ontario. There is very little EV manufacturing in Ontario happening today. Maybe I am demonizing the federal government but their actions sure appear to favor particular areas of the country. I hope I am wrong and you are right and the federal government comes to the table and helps Alberta and Saskatchewan with their energy and agriculture issues. The ball is in their court.
The federal government does favour central Canada more than Alberta and Saskatchewan because there are more seats in Toronto than there are in all of Alberta or close anyway. It’s a quirk of population distribution.
Canada definitely needs a mechanism to act as a counterweight to that. As the Reform Party suggested years ago, something like an elected Senate with equal representation from each province. Note that it would give PEI the same representation as Alberta though.
Three points. Agreed on Senate, currently Maritimes have 30 senators with 2 million plus and Alberta has 6, with 4 million plus. In the Commons there would a better representation if we truly had one vote being equal in all ridings. The Maritimes and Quebec have fewer people per seat than Alberta. To true up Alberta and the Maritimes Alberta should have 15 more seats. That would significantly change the government's viewpoints. Second our economy and our export profits are driven by oil and gas. That is the way central Canada gets the wonderful lifestyle they have. Despite refusing to accept Western oil in Quebec. Third I agree with your overall viewpoint but am now in a mode, even as an Ontario resident, where I have seen decisions that put the west at risk and that is huge danger to the country. That most people I know in Ontario refuse to acknowledge. I lived and worked in Alberta in the late 70's and early 1980s and witnessed firsthand the casual destruction of the economy there under Trudeau the First. History doesn't repeat itself but as Twain said it often rhymes and I am seeing a rhyme right now which is why I choose to be outspoken and to fight about it. It can't happen again.
50% + 1 isn't a clear result - that's a statistical fluke. If the +1 had stayed home, it would've gone the other way. There isn't a simple number because it isn't a simple issue to decide. If you had 59% of Albertan in every riding in the province vote for separation in a referendum with 70% turnout, are you going to claim there's no clear mandate because it was just shy of 60%? Conversely, if you got 61% with a poor turnout of 39%, disproportionately from areas outside of Calgary and Edmonton, can you really claim that's a clear mandate?
The other part of the Clarity Act is the requirement for a clear question - none of the mushy language in the 1995 Quebec referendum: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?" The separatists were going to treat 50%+1 as a mandate for an immediate declaration of independence; Parizeau likened it to luring lobsters into a trap. With an amorphous question that made it sound like they could simply be seeking a revised constitution, they *still* couldn't get the barest of majorities. That's one reason you haven't seen efforts at another Quebec referendum on secession: they know they can't rig the game again, and their chances have steadily been worsening as the old generation dies off.
It's pretty obvious Danielle Smith is inclined to try the same wordplay BS as the 1995 Quebec referendum, judging from the rationales floating out there about "getting leverage for negotiations". If she actually favors separation, she's going to have to come out and say it. Otherwise, it's all just petty posturing.
Despite what I say below, i believe the best path forward is to build a better place in Canada for Alberta and Saskatchewan. That is up to Carney and he could be our greatest nation builder if he does that.
If the question is like Quebec's it won't count as a clear question, agreed. In fact the question should be first vetted through consultation with courts in my opinion so it's clarity is not an issue. If you are concerned with turnout and complex participation ratios do you apply the same discussion to our elections? By your argument if we don't have 70% in participation in a particular riding we don't have a clear decision on the elected. All our elections aren't even 50% plus 1. Why would 50 +1 be different? In the 90's when Quebec lost by less than 1 percent of votes, no one was concerned with who did or did not vote in a Montreal suburb on the winning side. Seems the historical reference for a clear mandate on a succession vote in Canada is over 50%. Clear as a bell. If you disagree with the historical precedent show us a formula that defines clarity. Otherwise accept what has worked in the past.
Here’s a big difference between a regular election and a referendum: in the case of a regular election, you’re just making a choice about who gets a chance to run the government for the next 4 years. Then there’s another election. A separation referendum isn’t easily reversible, and comes with much more serious consequences. Frankly, for all the talk of parties having a “mandate” for their electoral platform, it’s largely nonsense: the only mandate they’ve won is a shot at holding the confidence of the legislature and forming a government. Everything else has to be debated and passed by the legislature.
Not really we are always making a choice sometimes we do not consider the ramifications of our choices on others. The law says it is Alberta's choice.. it is their business i am simply a supporter who lived there in 1982 and saw Canada step on Alberta and resolved never again.
How do you justify a law that forbids tankers from taking Oil & Gas product from Canada on the West Coast... and yet tankers bringing product from foreign Oil &Gas producers are welcomed to use the East Coast? Sure you can put that in the Combat Climate Change theory?
I will not defend the Liberal government under Trudeau. It was the worst in my lifetime. My point is that its actions were not taken for the purpose of attacking Alberta. In the case of the tanker ban, one could easily argue that it was easy to put in place because it was in BC, a rather “green” province, and the optics are good for a government that cared only about optics.
So, the government uses the CO2 argument to defend its actions. Despite Trudeau's assertion that "the science is settled" on this issue, neither he nor his environment minister Guilbeault nor natural resources minister Wilkinson are in any way qualified to make that statement. It's understandable that this is the public perception - it was created by selective reportage.
If you care to review the reams of scientific evidence both for and against the hypothesis that CO2 is responsible for climate change, you will find that the science is very much not settled and the IPCC doesn't hold a monopoly on knowledge. My conclusion is that it isn't, and definitely not Canada's 1.5% contribution, based on reviewing the work of credible scientists with differing views who advance information the MSM doesn't generally present because it goes against the accepted narrative. Some of them have substacks; Pielke is one of the most scientifically adept commentators, in my opinion.
There are other factors in play that have influenced climate change and have produced similar trends to those we see today that have affected human civilizations in the last few hundred years and nonrenewables had no influence on those. Much has been done in the last 20 years to curb emissions of various gases. And it is becoming obvious that petroleum and particularly natural gas are going to be needed for decades yet to power an increasingly power-dependent society, one which less advanced nations are eager to join.
I'm sure hoping Carney's interim environment appointee Duguid understands this; I went to graduate school with him and we were both supposed to learn critical thinking skills in our core curriculum. He has access to information and should be spending whatever time it takes to develop his own "big picture".
Carney, if he's not Trudeau, will have a broader view of the global economy and realize that energy *is* the economy. He could leverage what he wrote about in his book to elevate Canada's importance as a clean and ethical world supplier of petrol and natural gas even if he's still convinced after weighing the evidence that CO2 is the culprit. If he's smart, Guilbeault and Wilkinson will be reassigned and he'll resume discussions with Alberta.
Your insights do not have sufficient depth and scale to have any real weight. The apocalypse mongering cult needs to prevent an industrial center, an innovation center, a research center, a financial center from arising in the Canadian West.
You do have to consider the possibility that as the world moves away from fossil fuels that the price will go down. When it gets to a certain level the foreign companies that run the oil sands will just padlock the gates, walk away and leave the tailing ponds as a special gift to Albertans. That day must be planned for and when Smith canceled the renewable investments out of the blue a while back (clearly at the behst of her oil industry masters) it was a real blow to diversifying Alberta's future industry. She's backing the province into a corner.
200 years from now, and that is a maybe. Liebrano Sleazoids and related climate mongers are strangling Alberta and Canada today. Danielle Smith, flawed and imperfect as she is, is the best Premier AB has had in a long time. Indirectly, her efforts are more likely to save Canadian union than anything the low-on-basic-comprehension Liebrano Sleazoids will do.
You write that my comments have no weight, yet you write of an “apocalypse mongering cult”, a cult consisting of thousands of scientists from around the world who have spent years investigating climate change.
Anyway, do you have any specific comments about what I wrote?
You write in your final paragraph, "... I cannot confess to understanding all the concerns of Alberta...." I respectfully request that you attempt to obtain an understanding of those things that we find so grievously wrong before you criticize us.
You then conclude by saying "I do know that demonising the federal government and Canada will inhibit resolving the issues." It seems to me that your request that there be no demonizing of the federal government or of Canada should similarly request that various folks - including you, of course - similarly refrain from demonizing Alberta and the Alberta government. You know, sauce - goose, sauce - gander.
Please allow me to summarize my conclusion after reading your post: You believe that a) it is invalid for we in Alberta to accuse Canada or the federal government in the areas which you identify; b) you offer your interpretation of what the Clarity Act does require - YOUR interpretation; c) you admit that you don't understand our concerns; and d) you want we in Alberta to not criticize Canada or the federal government but you do not call on anyone to refrain from criticizing Alberta or the Alberta government.
I think that your analysis fails in all respects but primarily it fails because you don't understand us; but, in fairness you admit you don't understand us.
I respectfully suggest that you ponder these points because, it seems to me, that your self-confessed deficiencies actually disqualify you from making serious comment.
I don't support Alberta separatism but this article is very likely unpersuasive to those that do. It should not be surprising to anyone that a lot of Albertans don't appreciate a federal government intent on destroying Canada's oil and gas industry and which places climate change ideology ahead of other issues to the detriment of everyone, not just westerners. Unless and until the Carney Liberals fix these problems, Alberta separatism will continue to get worse.
It's weird that a Federal government "intent on destroying Canada's oil and gas industry" oversaw a roughly 50% increase in oil and gas production over the last 10 years. Not to mention overseeing the successful completion of Coastal Gas Link and the LNG Canada terminal (with several other LNG terminals either under construction, or fully permitted and awaiting investment decisions by the proponent), along with the purchase and completion of the TMX pipeline expansion.
Have you considered that you've been brainwashed by propaganda?
So I guess that Trudeau telling the German chancellor of the day that there was no “business case” for Canada sending LNG to Germany was propaganda? What do you need for a business case? Eager customer - check. Plentiful product - check. Of course Trudeau wouldn’t know a business case if it walked up to him and slapped him in the (black) face. The Libs would never have had to buy TMX if they (and the anti pipeline crackpots in BC) had not made the project so politically untenable when it was in private hands.
There is no business case for building a 3,000-4,000km LNG pipeline from Alberta to the East Coast that won't be in service for a decade. The tolls necessary as well as current and predicted LNG prices, not to mention Europe's rapid decarbonization, make it totally uneconomical. Our natural gas is on the wrong side of the continent to serve Europe.
You are correct. However, US nat gas is on the right side of the continent to serve Europe. Had Canada been more firendly, it would have several LNG facilities on the west coast to serve Asia, freeing up US LNG for Europe. It is crazy that US LNG crosses the Panama Canal to go to Asia.
Also, Quebec and New Brunswick have considerable gas reserves that could service the European market. Of course developing those would result in less Equalization due to Canada's official policy of welfare traps
The Liberal government has been anti-oil and gas and anti-business in general since taking power. Taxes and over-regulation along with an obsession with climate change have resulted in a decline in Canadian productivity and investment over the past decade and, based on his book, I reluctantly predict more of the same from Mr Carney. Not good for Alberta and not good for Canada. I hope Mr Carney changes direction but it's hard to see how he can with the same team as before. New boss, same as the old boss.
And, no, I haven't considered that I've been brainwashed by propaganda. Have you?
It is Not the federal gov that oversaw a roughly 50% increase in oil and gas production over the last 10 years. It is the oil and gas industry itself, as supervised by the Alberta gov.
No shit, thanks tips. Again, the claim is that the Feds were "intent on destroying Canada's oil and gas industry". It's odd that instead production went up by 50% or so while 2 major export pipelines were permitted and built. Maybe you and your ilk are operating under false premises?
...it's not odd at all. The O/G industry works on long time scales.
Building a pipeline is useless if there is no accompanying upswell in production. There were several pipelines in late stages of proposal at the time the Liberals swept into power - and there were simultaneously many new extraction projects and expansions of current projectsm all of which were counting on a future increase in pipeline capacity.
If all the proposed pipelines had gone forward (as they should have) the industry would have grown by 100% (or more) during that same decade.
So yes, the industry DID grow under the Trudeau Liberals, but it is ALSO true that the Trudeau Liberals inhibited the growth of the industry.
That is a disingenuous claim. The oilsands lifecycle is very unique:
-large upfront capital investment with no production for 5-10 years
-surge of production as main facility comes online
-debottlenecking efforts that yield 5-10% more production for comparatively little incremental capital
-expansion phases that are shorter cycle than the initial investment, but not as lucrative as debottlenecking
-eventually hit a threshold requiring a major investment cycle similar to the initial
Most of the investment decisions to initiate the facilities ocurred in the 2000s. Most of these facilities came online in the mid 2010s, so the production surge was baked in far in advance of the Trudeau government. Had the pipeline bottlenecks and regulatory malaise not ocurred, debottlenecking, expansion and possibly even new facilities might have happened. The true benchmark of the Trudeau regime is how much production was discourage due to its incompetence and hostility.
Surely Mr Quinn was not seeking to convince blindly partisan Alberta separatists? My reading of his op-ed was that it was intended to serve as a bit of much-needed political advice to a premier who seems to operate on the basis of bad political counsel.
Why is everyone so opposed to letting Albertans decide. That is what a referendum would do not just some separatists in the UCP party. I respect her for giving Albertans that voice. If everyone is so certain that most people want to stay in Canada then let them express that in a vote. it would put to bed the speculation and be “democratic” in doing so. Besides I heard Matt Gurney once say on the Line Podcast that Albertans are always talking about separation/change but they never do anything about it. Your bargaining chip gets larger if you do something about it. Ask Quebec..they are the reason we have the Clarity act. If the Canadian government is so opposed they should never have passed bill C-20. As a non UCP party member but as an Albertan I think there is nothing wrong with asking all its citizens what they think.
I don't have a problem with it either, but there is always the caution of "careful what you wish for." But heck, the threat to separate has always worked wonders for Quebec. Confession: I have always thought they (Quebec) should separate, figuring that when they try to get back into the country, the ROC could set the terms. I don't blame Alberta for wanting to separate. The rest of the country are total jerks to them.
The point of this is not that Albertan shouldn't get to decide, it's that government should be wary of using such a referendum to manage internal political issues. That's a risky approach because there's a chance the process runs away from you and leads to an outcome with serious consequences.
There already WAS a way for Albertans to force a referendum on separation if they wanted to do it via the citizen's initiative legislation. When proponents of separation couldn't even surmount *that* minimal hurdle, they don't deserve further assistance from government making a referendum happen. If you can't get the number of signatures you need in the allotted time period, that's your answer: there's no significant constituency for separation, and you don't need to hold a referendum.
Never underestimate the power of populist movements. Mr. Quinn makes mention of Prime Minister Cameron’s inability to “read the room”, so to speak and it’s this very elitist snobbery that fuels populist politics.
A populist revolt gave the world Magna Carta, and that has been a very successful template for building democracy from the ground up. Canada is slowly eroding into a top down country where those close to the center of power (the PMO) are doing very well and the walls are closing in on the commoners. Albertans who work with their hands and backs aren’t happy with being a perennial Ottawa whipping post and are calling things as they are. It might be impolite in the drawing rooms of Ottawa but it would be really something if Parliament Hill paid attention to the anger and frustration for once instead of dissing it off as whining.
Yes, Magna Carta came at a huge cost of war/dead. The Bolshevik revolution produced a lot of war/dead too, but the commoners were duped by slick salesmen peddling the fiction of the struggle being alleviated by a powerful state.
Moral: People can be easily manipulated by their misery. Buyer beware.
If staying in Canada is the best path (I personally lean this way but I am persuadable depending on how the rest of Canada behaves), then make the case.
Currently, the separation and referendum movements are run by a disparate group of perpetual grievance peddlers that will descend into infighting over what the question on the petition will be. By the end of May there will be 5 petitions and they will all be snarking at each other over social media.
She is ahead of it right now. But the parade is forming fast. If, and it's really more like when, someone credible takes charge, it won't matter what the legislation is or how many warning letters are published.
If you think it's a bad idea, then help her. Maybe more people should have helped David Cameron.
But asking Albertans to continue to play nice as they get financially and culturally abused isn't the answer, either. At some point, regardless of how hard it will be, Mom has had enough.
In the interests of providing balance to this piece would you consider presenting a counterpoint view from someone on the other side of the debate that would highlight some of the factors such as the original Trudeau created NEP, the Canadian Wheatboard plus ten years of Trudeau junior policies that have worked together to create such a strong feeling of western (note western as opposed to solely Alberta based) alienation. There is a connection that can be made right back to confederation that provides the roots for the current separation movement.
The author in this instance is using a subtle form of fear mongering to bolster his points. Now let’s hear from the other side for those of us with open reasoning minds who prefer to consider both sides before making a firm decision.
"The federal government also needs to do its bit and show that it understands the anger of Albertans and Western Canada, and that it has a plan to address these."
...and when EXACTLY is this supposed to theoretically begin?
Not in the next four years...
The Liberals have a long established playbook of purposefully annoying Alberta, and then leveraging the outrage Albertans express to portray them as an "other" to play against while trolling for urban Toronto votes.
Until that ploy stops working, I don't see a Liberal government willingly trying to "make Alberta happy".
I am on the record as having signed on to Team Carney with a 6 month renewable term, with terms and conditions attached. I agree with my fellow poster, it seems hard to believe his campaign promises which seem to be in opposition to his “Values.” But I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to find out..
Yes David, we all recognize your undying faith in Mark Carney, and your expectation that he will now refute everything he has ever stood for - to instead do what he explicitly promised during this election campaign.
....you'll forgive me if I'm not holding my breath waiting for the entire Liberal Party to turn on a dime and negate everything they've spent the past decade doing.
Yes. Ever stood for. He's been PM for about a month. There's a big difference between what you'd like to do and what you need to do. Like all parties, the Liberals want to stay in power.
Look, green energy is essential to the global future because oil is a finite resource. It will not last forever. And when you're sitting on the sidelines, you can say anything you want. When you become the PM of a country $1.5 trillion in debt, perspectives need to change to match the moment. Personally, I think we should be selling every barrel and cubic metre we can extract. I think the companies extracting it should be forced to put 5% of returns aside for cleanup when they're done. I think Alberta should have been shipping it by rail back in 2019, but Kenney liked that. Better to get it to market than leave it in the ground.
So perhaps we should both shut up for a couple of months and see what he actually does. How about September 1, we come out of our corners and exchange opinions? :)
From my perch in Edmonton, it's incredibly frustrating to see the organization and effort put behind this divisive agenda. And worse, to see it actually working. Many of the grievances being touted to justify this are partially or completely false.
And the reality is that Smith is doing this not because she believes in it, but because it's both her re-election strategy and a convenient way to distract from the egregious corruption that's swirling around her and Marshall Smith.
Sadly, it looks like a very sizable part of the population here is buying the bullshit, and we're all going to be worse off because of it.
Alberta is in the enviable position of producing significant wealth with a relatively small population. Its population means that it does not send nearly as many MPs to the House of Commons as central Canada. This is exacerbated by Alberta’s tendency to vote a little more to the right than central Canada. (Note that our first-past-the-post system does not reflect the popular vote very well.) Canada does not have an effective mechanism to mitigate against population distortions like this.
It seems to me that Canada could adopt a voting system that reflects the popular vote more accurately. It could show that the major parties are more national in scope than our current system. It could also provide more even representation in government from across the country.
Another option would be a Senate that is equal across the country. This does sound much like the Triple E Senate proposed by the Reform Party in the 90s. It could serve as a counter-balance to population-driven House of Commons.
Just some thoughts. Something needs to be done. Even if the support for separation never rises above 20% in Alberta, it is still a problem that requires attention.
Using a formula of dividing the population of each province by that of the smallest province (PEI), rounding up and adding one would result in the following seat distgribution.
Province Population StatsCan Q1-2025 Population Estimate Total MPs Average population per MP Rep by Pop Change
Ontario 16,182,641 122 132,645 92 -24.6%
Quebec 9,111,629 78 116,816 52 -33.3%
British Columbia 5,722,318 43 133,077 33 -23.3%
Alberta 4,960,097 37 134,057 29 -21.6%
Manitoba 1,504,023 14 107,430 10 -28.6%
Saskatchewan 1,250,909 14 89,351 8 -42.9%
Nova Scotia 1,079,627 11 98,148 8 -27.3%
New Brunswick 858,963 10 85,896 6 -40.0%
Newfoundland and Labrador 545,579 7 77,940 5 -28.6%
Landlocked, how would Alberta get its resources to market? An independent Alberta would be at the mercy of its neighbours. At best, it could join the US and have even less clout. Look before you leap.
British Columbian here. I would hope that we wouldn't be assholes and block Alberta from getting its goods to the ocean. That said, I firmly believe we would indeed be assholes.
"Have been" more like . Particularly Horgan. He opposed pipeline projects at every turn. And then when he left politics, he took a job in the coal business. Because you know .... oil bad, but coal fine. (That job ended up not panning out as I understand it. Oh well ...)
Please understand, it is not that I think that the BC people are all assholes. But yes, the BC government have been assholes to Alberta on occasion. Not saying Alberta cannot be the same way. But the big difference is that you have a coastline, and we do not. An asshole with more power is always more of a threat than an asshole with less power.
The truth is the USA would be a main cast character in this drama if anything ever happened here. In fact they may even be involved in it now and we just don’t know yet (or ever). There is no realistic scenario Alberta could/would prosper as a sovereign country all on its own. But it certainly could with some kind of union or formal affiliation with the US… maybe a simple economic union that had some membership fees? (Ie taxes). Statehood has already been offered, but every US territory also basically has a different unique deal with the US Federal government..
Under the Law of the Sea for Landlocked States, transit states (those that lie between the landlocked state and the sea) are supposed to permit free passage (no taxes or tariffs) of the landlocked state’s goods to their seaports for export. They also aren’t supposed to harass commerce across their territory by, say, charging Alberta trucks more for diesel than they charge BC trucks, or imposing lower speed limits or more onerous weight restrictions on Alberta trucks.
Canada should expect Alberta to reciprocate for goods from eastern Canada transiting its territory on the way to B.C. But the Law of the Sea doesn’t require Alberta to, because neither side of Canada is a landlocked State.
There is negotiation here. Since Alberta taxpayers would no longer be paying federal taxes that help maintain ports in B.C., it would be reasonable for Canada to collect taxes for the purpose on truckloads (or trainloads) of goods from Alberta that arrive in B.C. ports.
The similarity between Brexit and the Alberta independence is that the drivers are over-regulation by an outside force and the maldistribution of benefit accrued by the union. Outside of London, GB is a third world country. The economic problems in GB are due to the triumph of ideology over economics. Net zero is bankrupting them, as outlined by Tony Blair. In Mr. Farage, is the cure worse than the disease?
Alberta separatism isn't going away. A referendum will put it to bed for a generation. The development of organizations to examine the possibilities, good and bad, is a positive.
Quebec separatism isn't going away. M. Plamondon and the Parti Québécois will win Quebec in 2026. They will have a referendum. If Ms. Smith and M. Plamadon hold their respective referendums simultaneously, the contrasting response by federalists will be instructive.
If federalists had the courage of their convictions they would welcome the questioning of Confederation. They don't because, in their hearts, they know it is broken.
Yes. I have long said that Canada is a failed experiment in federation. Let them have their referendum. I doubt it will pass, but I've been wrong before 🤣
Isn't it interesting that 'Canada' is treated as a colonizing genocidal nation by First Nations, including both Quebec and Albertan tribes... right up until the spigot of billions of dollars from the feds is suddenly threatened by an independence movement? Funny that. And equally strange is how suddenly patriotic these believers in this anti-all-things-Canadian false narrative - strongly represented and supported by so many governmental funded urbanites who seem to be clueless that the Canadian economy is to large extent a resource extracting one - suddenly become when the surety of their public subsidy is threatened. Who could have possibly foreseen the multi-decades process to get permits and approvals for extraction driving new investment elsewhere might cause a ripple of resentment from those whose economic lifeblood is held hostage to these policies that play so well politically to the populace of the disconnected-from-reality urban bubble world? This is the same population that seems all too willing to warmly welcome foreign influence and crime and import all kinds of people with anti-western values but oh so ready to man the ramparts against the Evil Empire to the south.
This country is so broken and holding it together by fear as this article implies we should do is just so typical of what's wrong with it.
Let’s hope our Alberta friends and neighbours who are just fed up heed the concerns of informed, experienced advisors about the perils of separating, and opt to explore less dramatic and chaotic threats.
As the descendent of fur traders in Alberta in the early 1800s and as a Métis woman whose family lived throughout Rupertsland and the Northwest before Alberta took shape I find it offensive that the entitled people who reside in Alberta today and wish to extort her resources with abandon are the leading voices for separation. As an Indigenous person I understand that “When the natural world is understood as a gift instead of private property there are ethical constraints on the accumulation of abundance that is not yours to own.” (The Serviceberry p.34) Premier Smith and the UCP are not the owners of Alberta nor are the separatists having their moment and they would be wise to reconcile themselves with that. Who am I to judge but the Creator will.
The truth is: we DO get why Quebec, Toronto, anywhere East of Manitoba want to maintain the status quo... to keep the gravy train flowing. And Quebec uses its votes to leverage Ottawa to support Quebecs wants. Pretty simple really.
I don't think anyone wants to maintain the status quo as there is no gravy train flowing in any direction after ten years of Liberal mismanagement. In fact, until Trump stirred up a surge of latent nationalism in our "post-national" state with his anti-Canada blather we were well on the way to throwing the Liberals under the bus and for good reason. Ontario may have voted Liberal because of Trump but I don't think it means the people here want another 4 years of bad government and that's very likely what we're going to get unless Carney makes a dramatic course adjustment, something he'll have a lot of trouble with working with pretty much the same wrecking crew as before.
The current PM, the current Opposition Leader, and the Interim Leader of whatever the NDP is, were all born and raised in Alberta. I may be incorrect, but I believe that's unprecedented.
Also, the G7 Leadership is coming to Alberta in a month.
If there were ever an opportune time to work WITH, rather than AGAINST, the federal political leadership of Canada, it would be RIGHT NOW.
Despite throwing bones at the separatist sentiment in her caucus and the province, I sincerely hope that it is Smith's strategy, as she has publicly stated, that Alberta AND Canada are strongest with Alberta as an integral, contributing part of Canada, not threatening to split from it.
Reconciliation with Alberta should start with ending talk of an emissions cap, repealing C48 and reforming the IAA. If the Feds can't move on these, they aren't serious
She's doing it to distract from her corruption and to set herself up for re-election in 2027. And it's about as blatantly obvious as it could be.
Marcel: could you please put forward in clear words where the corruption you are referring to exists and what that corruption is? Thank you for taking the time to do so.
Take your pick:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/rcmp-investigating-complaint-against-ahs-amid-corruption-allegations/
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/mraiche-led-company-made-300k-in-three-months-on-land-sale-to-alberta-government-defends-deal-as-a-very-traditional-transaction
We won't know everything that's gone on without a public inquiry, and this whole separatism push is just the ticket to distract the public from demanding one.
The western alienation is an issue that’s been going on for long before the current discussion. As to the corruption charges at this point they are nothing more than unproven allegations. I agree that a public inquiry would be useful but a witch hunt is not a useful approach to use.
You're absolutely correct that the prevailing political and business elites in Alberta have long ginned-up supposed alienation in order to distract from their horrendous governance and corruption, especially in the last 20 years. That's why we've had the same people in power for 50 of the last 54 years, can't balance a budget with oil at $70/barrel and will soon be back to deficits measured in the tens of billions. And half the province will still convince itself it's "conservative" while government spending has gone from 50 billion a year to 80 under the UCP.
Thanks for making your position so clear. Enjoy your day.
You're apparently a very unhappy person. Perhaps if you come down someday from your perch in Edmonton and meet the "ilk tribe" you seem to despise, you'll find they have the same basic needs and wants as you do and every right to express them in a democracy. Judgement (opinions based solely on personal impressions) is one thing, discernment (opinions based on analysis of facts as well as personal bias) is another; which, do you think, leads to a better outcome? That's worth considering by all of us. In my opinion, of course. Enjoy your day.
Fully agree that the AB government massively overfunds public services
People throw the word corruption on people they dont agree with like candy these days.....
And "racist". To the point the word will evolve to mean not woke. Just as "woke" now means an unthinking follower.
I strongly disagree with you. A separation referendum almost guarantees an ndp government in 2027. Although new right wing parties arriving on the scene like the Alberta republicans might accomplish that anyways. 🤦♀️
Ottawa is actively working to destroy Alberta's wealth while sucking out cash where it can. Smith has drawn a line in the sand saying reverse your 10 years of destroying our economy. Canada can easily do that. Canada should do that because that is the only reliable source of foreign cash in the near term. It is simplicity and condescending to say this is frustration with Ottawa. In actively working to destroy Alberta and Saskatchewan oil and gas Canada has impoverished itself. Smith is talking about steps necessary for Canada the country to grow. How Canada reacts to Smith will determine more than Alberta's future, it is Canada's future that is at risk. This is a wake up call for Ottawa not an expression of frustration. In terms of Brexit and haphazard thoughts, in Canada, unlike the UK, we have the Clarity act where 50% +1 on a clear question determines the foundation for separation which would be aided by foreign recognition and triggers negotiations. We have been through a 50 +.05% separation battle in the past which created the need for the Clarity Act. Hence it's name. We have processes in place for precisely this kind of event. Doomberg has been prescient in calling the steps that have been unfolding here in Canada since last October. His prediction and I agree, is we wind up in a constitutional crisis triggered by Smith with major compromise by both parties resulting in more oil and gas unencumbered by caps going to tidewater in BC and potentially Churchill Falls. As his forecast for Canada turned out eerily accurate I now hope he is right. Smith has to do what she is doing. Trudeau set this table purposefully. Time for Carney to step up.
You have made a number of statements that are opinion rather than fact. The federal government has not been trying to actively destroy Alberta’s economy. It has been trying to reduce Canada’s CO2 emissions in response to climate change. This, the motivation is not to destroy Alberta, but to combat climate change. This is an important distinction in motivation.
As for the Clarity Act, it calls for a clear result based on a clear question. A result of 50%+1 does not meet the first threshold.
All this is not to recommend that Alberta should stay quiet. I cannot confess to understanding all the concerns of Alberta. I do know that demonising the federal government and Canada will inhibit resolving the issues.
What do you think a clear result means if not 50% +1? Is it 60% , 100%? Quebec would take offence at your declaration that 50% + 1 is not clear. 55000 votes out of 4500000 cast was good enough to keep Quebec in. Smith outlined the facts about how the feds have created roadblocks and limited Alberta, and Saskatchewan's oil and gas economy. She also is proposing solutions. For another example Freeland threw Saskatchewan Canola farmers under the bus last fall with 100% tariffs to keep cheap and efficient Chinese EV's out of the Canadian market last fall. Despite Chinese immediate decision to put Canola under review and then subject it to equivalent, retaliatory tariffs. Billions of dollars in Saskatchewan farmer losses to protect EV production in Ontario. There is very little EV manufacturing in Ontario happening today. Maybe I am demonizing the federal government but their actions sure appear to favor particular areas of the country. I hope I am wrong and you are right and the federal government comes to the table and helps Alberta and Saskatchewan with their energy and agriculture issues. The ball is in their court.
You are not demonizing anyone. They are ably demonizing themselves, for decades on end now.
The federal government does favour central Canada more than Alberta and Saskatchewan because there are more seats in Toronto than there are in all of Alberta or close anyway. It’s a quirk of population distribution.
Canada definitely needs a mechanism to act as a counterweight to that. As the Reform Party suggested years ago, something like an elected Senate with equal representation from each province. Note that it would give PEI the same representation as Alberta though.
Three points. Agreed on Senate, currently Maritimes have 30 senators with 2 million plus and Alberta has 6, with 4 million plus. In the Commons there would a better representation if we truly had one vote being equal in all ridings. The Maritimes and Quebec have fewer people per seat than Alberta. To true up Alberta and the Maritimes Alberta should have 15 more seats. That would significantly change the government's viewpoints. Second our economy and our export profits are driven by oil and gas. That is the way central Canada gets the wonderful lifestyle they have. Despite refusing to accept Western oil in Quebec. Third I agree with your overall viewpoint but am now in a mode, even as an Ontario resident, where I have seen decisions that put the west at risk and that is huge danger to the country. That most people I know in Ontario refuse to acknowledge. I lived and worked in Alberta in the late 70's and early 1980s and witnessed firsthand the casual destruction of the economy there under Trudeau the First. History doesn't repeat itself but as Twain said it often rhymes and I am seeing a rhyme right now which is why I choose to be outspoken and to fight about it. It can't happen again.
Currently NL, NB and NS have more Senate seats than AB:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Canadian_Senate_Divisions.png
50% + 1 isn't a clear result - that's a statistical fluke. If the +1 had stayed home, it would've gone the other way. There isn't a simple number because it isn't a simple issue to decide. If you had 59% of Albertan in every riding in the province vote for separation in a referendum with 70% turnout, are you going to claim there's no clear mandate because it was just shy of 60%? Conversely, if you got 61% with a poor turnout of 39%, disproportionately from areas outside of Calgary and Edmonton, can you really claim that's a clear mandate?
The other part of the Clarity Act is the requirement for a clear question - none of the mushy language in the 1995 Quebec referendum: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?" The separatists were going to treat 50%+1 as a mandate for an immediate declaration of independence; Parizeau likened it to luring lobsters into a trap. With an amorphous question that made it sound like they could simply be seeking a revised constitution, they *still* couldn't get the barest of majorities. That's one reason you haven't seen efforts at another Quebec referendum on secession: they know they can't rig the game again, and their chances have steadily been worsening as the old generation dies off.
It's pretty obvious Danielle Smith is inclined to try the same wordplay BS as the 1995 Quebec referendum, judging from the rationales floating out there about "getting leverage for negotiations". If she actually favors separation, she's going to have to come out and say it. Otherwise, it's all just petty posturing.
Despite what I say below, i believe the best path forward is to build a better place in Canada for Alberta and Saskatchewan. That is up to Carney and he could be our greatest nation builder if he does that.
If the question is like Quebec's it won't count as a clear question, agreed. In fact the question should be first vetted through consultation with courts in my opinion so it's clarity is not an issue. If you are concerned with turnout and complex participation ratios do you apply the same discussion to our elections? By your argument if we don't have 70% in participation in a particular riding we don't have a clear decision on the elected. All our elections aren't even 50% plus 1. Why would 50 +1 be different? In the 90's when Quebec lost by less than 1 percent of votes, no one was concerned with who did or did not vote in a Montreal suburb on the winning side. Seems the historical reference for a clear mandate on a succession vote in Canada is over 50%. Clear as a bell. If you disagree with the historical precedent show us a formula that defines clarity. Otherwise accept what has worked in the past.
Here’s a big difference between a regular election and a referendum: in the case of a regular election, you’re just making a choice about who gets a chance to run the government for the next 4 years. Then there’s another election. A separation referendum isn’t easily reversible, and comes with much more serious consequences. Frankly, for all the talk of parties having a “mandate” for their electoral platform, it’s largely nonsense: the only mandate they’ve won is a shot at holding the confidence of the legislature and forming a government. Everything else has to be debated and passed by the legislature.
Not really we are always making a choice sometimes we do not consider the ramifications of our choices on others. The law says it is Alberta's choice.. it is their business i am simply a supporter who lived there in 1982 and saw Canada step on Alberta and resolved never again.
How do you justify a law that forbids tankers from taking Oil & Gas product from Canada on the West Coast... and yet tankers bringing product from foreign Oil &Gas producers are welcomed to use the East Coast? Sure you can put that in the Combat Climate Change theory?
I will not defend the Liberal government under Trudeau. It was the worst in my lifetime. My point is that its actions were not taken for the purpose of attacking Alberta. In the case of the tanker ban, one could easily argue that it was easy to put in place because it was in BC, a rather “green” province, and the optics are good for a government that cared only about optics.
Yet tankers from Alaska have traversed BC waters since the 70s
So, the government uses the CO2 argument to defend its actions. Despite Trudeau's assertion that "the science is settled" on this issue, neither he nor his environment minister Guilbeault nor natural resources minister Wilkinson are in any way qualified to make that statement. It's understandable that this is the public perception - it was created by selective reportage.
If you care to review the reams of scientific evidence both for and against the hypothesis that CO2 is responsible for climate change, you will find that the science is very much not settled and the IPCC doesn't hold a monopoly on knowledge. My conclusion is that it isn't, and definitely not Canada's 1.5% contribution, based on reviewing the work of credible scientists with differing views who advance information the MSM doesn't generally present because it goes against the accepted narrative. Some of them have substacks; Pielke is one of the most scientifically adept commentators, in my opinion.
There are other factors in play that have influenced climate change and have produced similar trends to those we see today that have affected human civilizations in the last few hundred years and nonrenewables had no influence on those. Much has been done in the last 20 years to curb emissions of various gases. And it is becoming obvious that petroleum and particularly natural gas are going to be needed for decades yet to power an increasingly power-dependent society, one which less advanced nations are eager to join.
I'm sure hoping Carney's interim environment appointee Duguid understands this; I went to graduate school with him and we were both supposed to learn critical thinking skills in our core curriculum. He has access to information and should be spending whatever time it takes to develop his own "big picture".
Carney, if he's not Trudeau, will have a broader view of the global economy and realize that energy *is* the economy. He could leverage what he wrote about in his book to elevate Canada's importance as a clean and ethical world supplier of petrol and natural gas even if he's still convinced after weighing the evidence that CO2 is the culprit. If he's smart, Guilbeault and Wilkinson will be reassigned and he'll resume discussions with Alberta.
It's the sunspots!
Your insights do not have sufficient depth and scale to have any real weight. The apocalypse mongering cult needs to prevent an industrial center, an innovation center, a research center, a financial center from arising in the Canadian West.
You do have to consider the possibility that as the world moves away from fossil fuels that the price will go down. When it gets to a certain level the foreign companies that run the oil sands will just padlock the gates, walk away and leave the tailing ponds as a special gift to Albertans. That day must be planned for and when Smith canceled the renewable investments out of the blue a while back (clearly at the behst of her oil industry masters) it was a real blow to diversifying Alberta's future industry. She's backing the province into a corner.
And yet consumption of oil — and coal! — continues to rise even as the world is supposedly decarbonizing. Fancy that.
200 years from now, and that is a maybe. Liebrano Sleazoids and related climate mongers are strangling Alberta and Canada today. Danielle Smith, flawed and imperfect as she is, is the best Premier AB has had in a long time. Indirectly, her efforts are more likely to save Canadian union than anything the low-on-basic-comprehension Liebrano Sleazoids will do.
You write that my comments have no weight, yet you write of an “apocalypse mongering cult”, a cult consisting of thousands of scientists from around the world who have spent years investigating climate change.
Anyway, do you have any specific comments about what I wrote?
Hmmm .....
You write in your final paragraph, "... I cannot confess to understanding all the concerns of Alberta...." I respectfully request that you attempt to obtain an understanding of those things that we find so grievously wrong before you criticize us.
You then conclude by saying "I do know that demonising the federal government and Canada will inhibit resolving the issues." It seems to me that your request that there be no demonizing of the federal government or of Canada should similarly request that various folks - including you, of course - similarly refrain from demonizing Alberta and the Alberta government. You know, sauce - goose, sauce - gander.
Please allow me to summarize my conclusion after reading your post: You believe that a) it is invalid for we in Alberta to accuse Canada or the federal government in the areas which you identify; b) you offer your interpretation of what the Clarity Act does require - YOUR interpretation; c) you admit that you don't understand our concerns; and d) you want we in Alberta to not criticize Canada or the federal government but you do not call on anyone to refrain from criticizing Alberta or the Alberta government.
I think that your analysis fails in all respects but primarily it fails because you don't understand us; but, in fairness you admit you don't understand us.
I respectfully suggest that you ponder these points because, it seems to me, that your self-confessed deficiencies actually disqualify you from making serious comment.
I don't support Alberta separatism but this article is very likely unpersuasive to those that do. It should not be surprising to anyone that a lot of Albertans don't appreciate a federal government intent on destroying Canada's oil and gas industry and which places climate change ideology ahead of other issues to the detriment of everyone, not just westerners. Unless and until the Carney Liberals fix these problems, Alberta separatism will continue to get worse.
It's weird that a Federal government "intent on destroying Canada's oil and gas industry" oversaw a roughly 50% increase in oil and gas production over the last 10 years. Not to mention overseeing the successful completion of Coastal Gas Link and the LNG Canada terminal (with several other LNG terminals either under construction, or fully permitted and awaiting investment decisions by the proponent), along with the purchase and completion of the TMX pipeline expansion.
Have you considered that you've been brainwashed by propaganda?
So I guess that Trudeau telling the German chancellor of the day that there was no “business case” for Canada sending LNG to Germany was propaganda? What do you need for a business case? Eager customer - check. Plentiful product - check. Of course Trudeau wouldn’t know a business case if it walked up to him and slapped him in the (black) face. The Libs would never have had to buy TMX if they (and the anti pipeline crackpots in BC) had not made the project so politically untenable when it was in private hands.
There is no business case for building a 3,000-4,000km LNG pipeline from Alberta to the East Coast that won't be in service for a decade. The tolls necessary as well as current and predicted LNG prices, not to mention Europe's rapid decarbonization, make it totally uneconomical. Our natural gas is on the wrong side of the continent to serve Europe.
You are correct. However, US nat gas is on the right side of the continent to serve Europe. Had Canada been more firendly, it would have several LNG facilities on the west coast to serve Asia, freeing up US LNG for Europe. It is crazy that US LNG crosses the Panama Canal to go to Asia.
Also, Quebec and New Brunswick have considerable gas reserves that could service the European market. Of course developing those would result in less Equalization due to Canada's official policy of welfare traps
Europes rapid decarbonization? Ask the hood folks in Spain and Portugal how that is going…..
The Liberal government has been anti-oil and gas and anti-business in general since taking power. Taxes and over-regulation along with an obsession with climate change have resulted in a decline in Canadian productivity and investment over the past decade and, based on his book, I reluctantly predict more of the same from Mr Carney. Not good for Alberta and not good for Canada. I hope Mr Carney changes direction but it's hard to see how he can with the same team as before. New boss, same as the old boss.
And, no, I haven't considered that I've been brainwashed by propaganda. Have you?
That production growth was mostly baked in from investments made in the 2000s.
CGL wnet way over budget for numerous reasons. The only one that was controllable was regulatory delay.
It is Not the federal gov that oversaw a roughly 50% increase in oil and gas production over the last 10 years. It is the oil and gas industry itself, as supervised by the Alberta gov.
No shit, thanks tips. Again, the claim is that the Feds were "intent on destroying Canada's oil and gas industry". It's odd that instead production went up by 50% or so while 2 major export pipelines were permitted and built. Maybe you and your ilk are operating under false premises?
...it's not odd at all. The O/G industry works on long time scales.
Building a pipeline is useless if there is no accompanying upswell in production. There were several pipelines in late stages of proposal at the time the Liberals swept into power - and there were simultaneously many new extraction projects and expansions of current projectsm all of which were counting on a future increase in pipeline capacity.
If all the proposed pipelines had gone forward (as they should have) the industry would have grown by 100% (or more) during that same decade.
So yes, the industry DID grow under the Trudeau Liberals, but it is ALSO true that the Trudeau Liberals inhibited the growth of the industry.
That is a disingenuous claim. The oilsands lifecycle is very unique:
-large upfront capital investment with no production for 5-10 years
-surge of production as main facility comes online
-debottlenecking efforts that yield 5-10% more production for comparatively little incremental capital
-expansion phases that are shorter cycle than the initial investment, but not as lucrative as debottlenecking
-eventually hit a threshold requiring a major investment cycle similar to the initial
Most of the investment decisions to initiate the facilities ocurred in the 2000s. Most of these facilities came online in the mid 2010s, so the production surge was baked in far in advance of the Trudeau government. Had the pipeline bottlenecks and regulatory malaise not ocurred, debottlenecking, expansion and possibly even new facilities might have happened. The true benchmark of the Trudeau regime is how much production was discourage due to its incompetence and hostility.
Seriously? What do you think Net Zero means?
Ten downvotes for this comment. For blatant ignorance.
Surely Mr Quinn was not seeking to convince blindly partisan Alberta separatists? My reading of his op-ed was that it was intended to serve as a bit of much-needed political advice to a premier who seems to operate on the basis of bad political counsel.
Why is everyone so opposed to letting Albertans decide. That is what a referendum would do not just some separatists in the UCP party. I respect her for giving Albertans that voice. If everyone is so certain that most people want to stay in Canada then let them express that in a vote. it would put to bed the speculation and be “democratic” in doing so. Besides I heard Matt Gurney once say on the Line Podcast that Albertans are always talking about separation/change but they never do anything about it. Your bargaining chip gets larger if you do something about it. Ask Quebec..they are the reason we have the Clarity act. If the Canadian government is so opposed they should never have passed bill C-20. As a non UCP party member but as an Albertan I think there is nothing wrong with asking all its citizens what they think.
I don't have a problem with it either, but there is always the caution of "careful what you wish for." But heck, the threat to separate has always worked wonders for Quebec. Confession: I have always thought they (Quebec) should separate, figuring that when they try to get back into the country, the ROC could set the terms. I don't blame Alberta for wanting to separate. The rest of the country are total jerks to them.
The point of this is not that Albertan shouldn't get to decide, it's that government should be wary of using such a referendum to manage internal political issues. That's a risky approach because there's a chance the process runs away from you and leads to an outcome with serious consequences.
There already WAS a way for Albertans to force a referendum on separation if they wanted to do it via the citizen's initiative legislation. When proponents of separation couldn't even surmount *that* minimal hurdle, they don't deserve further assistance from government making a referendum happen. If you can't get the number of signatures you need in the allotted time period, that's your answer: there's no significant constituency for separation, and you don't need to hold a referendum.
Never underestimate the power of populist movements. Mr. Quinn makes mention of Prime Minister Cameron’s inability to “read the room”, so to speak and it’s this very elitist snobbery that fuels populist politics.
A populist revolt gave the world Magna Carta, and that has been a very successful template for building democracy from the ground up. Canada is slowly eroding into a top down country where those close to the center of power (the PMO) are doing very well and the walls are closing in on the commoners. Albertans who work with their hands and backs aren’t happy with being a perennial Ottawa whipping post and are calling things as they are. It might be impolite in the drawing rooms of Ottawa but it would be really something if Parliament Hill paid attention to the anger and frustration for once instead of dissing it off as whining.
Getting Magna Carta required a lot of war/dead. Civil war. Rebellion etc. I think the pope might have banned it.
Yes, Magna Carta came at a huge cost of war/dead. The Bolshevik revolution produced a lot of war/dead too, but the commoners were duped by slick salesmen peddling the fiction of the struggle being alleviated by a powerful state.
Moral: People can be easily manipulated by their misery. Buyer beware.
I will buy the separation no problem, sight unseen, as is where is.
If staying in Canada is the best path (I personally lean this way but I am persuadable depending on how the rest of Canada behaves), then make the case.
Currently, the separation and referendum movements are run by a disparate group of perpetual grievance peddlers that will descend into infighting over what the question on the petition will be. By the end of May there will be 5 petitions and they will all be snarking at each other over social media.
She is ahead of it right now. But the parade is forming fast. If, and it's really more like when, someone credible takes charge, it won't matter what the legislation is or how many warning letters are published.
If you think it's a bad idea, then help her. Maybe more people should have helped David Cameron.
But asking Albertans to continue to play nice as they get financially and culturally abused isn't the answer, either. At some point, regardless of how hard it will be, Mom has had enough.
In the interests of providing balance to this piece would you consider presenting a counterpoint view from someone on the other side of the debate that would highlight some of the factors such as the original Trudeau created NEP, the Canadian Wheatboard plus ten years of Trudeau junior policies that have worked together to create such a strong feeling of western (note western as opposed to solely Alberta based) alienation. There is a connection that can be made right back to confederation that provides the roots for the current separation movement.
The author in this instance is using a subtle form of fear mongering to bolster his points. Now let’s hear from the other side for those of us with open reasoning minds who prefer to consider both sides before making a firm decision.
"The federal government also needs to do its bit and show that it understands the anger of Albertans and Western Canada, and that it has a plan to address these."
...and when EXACTLY is this supposed to theoretically begin?
Not in the next four years...
The Liberals have a long established playbook of purposefully annoying Alberta, and then leveraging the outrage Albertans express to portray them as an "other" to play against while trolling for urban Toronto votes.
Until that ploy stops working, I don't see a Liberal government willingly trying to "make Alberta happy".
Based on your assumptions. Maybe give Carney a little time and see what he actually has planned before you start packing.
I am on the record as having signed on to Team Carney with a 6 month renewable term, with terms and conditions attached. I agree with my fellow poster, it seems hard to believe his campaign promises which seem to be in opposition to his “Values.” But I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to find out..
I'm in.
Yes David, we all recognize your undying faith in Mark Carney, and your expectation that he will now refute everything he has ever stood for - to instead do what he explicitly promised during this election campaign.
....you'll forgive me if I'm not holding my breath waiting for the entire Liberal Party to turn on a dime and negate everything they've spent the past decade doing.
Yes. Ever stood for. He's been PM for about a month. There's a big difference between what you'd like to do and what you need to do. Like all parties, the Liberals want to stay in power.
...."ever stood for" as in he wrote a book just a few years ago - in which he explicitly called for MOST fossil fuels to stay in the ground.
But now you would have us believe he plans to gleefully expand the Canadian oilpatch. I guess we'll see, won't we?
Look, green energy is essential to the global future because oil is a finite resource. It will not last forever. And when you're sitting on the sidelines, you can say anything you want. When you become the PM of a country $1.5 trillion in debt, perspectives need to change to match the moment. Personally, I think we should be selling every barrel and cubic metre we can extract. I think the companies extracting it should be forced to put 5% of returns aside for cleanup when they're done. I think Alberta should have been shipping it by rail back in 2019, but Kenney liked that. Better to get it to market than leave it in the ground.
So perhaps we should both shut up for a couple of months and see what he actually does. How about September 1, we come out of our corners and exchange opinions? :)
From my perch in Edmonton, it's incredibly frustrating to see the organization and effort put behind this divisive agenda. And worse, to see it actually working. Many of the grievances being touted to justify this are partially or completely false.
And the reality is that Smith is doing this not because she believes in it, but because it's both her re-election strategy and a convenient way to distract from the egregious corruption that's swirling around her and Marshall Smith.
Sadly, it looks like a very sizable part of the population here is buying the bullshit, and we're all going to be worse off because of it.
The election is too far away for separation discussions to serve as a distraction.
Alberta is in the enviable position of producing significant wealth with a relatively small population. Its population means that it does not send nearly as many MPs to the House of Commons as central Canada. This is exacerbated by Alberta’s tendency to vote a little more to the right than central Canada. (Note that our first-past-the-post system does not reflect the popular vote very well.) Canada does not have an effective mechanism to mitigate against population distortions like this.
It seems to me that Canada could adopt a voting system that reflects the popular vote more accurately. It could show that the major parties are more national in scope than our current system. It could also provide more even representation in government from across the country.
Another option would be a Senate that is equal across the country. This does sound much like the Triple E Senate proposed by the Reform Party in the 90s. It could serve as a counter-balance to population-driven House of Commons.
Just some thoughts. Something needs to be done. Even if the support for separation never rises above 20% in Alberta, it is still a problem that requires attention.
Rep by Pop and Triple E Senate are the way to go
Using a formula of dividing the population of each province by that of the smallest province (PEI), rounding up and adding one would result in the following seat distgribution.
Province Population StatsCan Q1-2025 Population Estimate Total MPs Average population per MP Rep by Pop Change
Ontario 16,182,641 122 132,645 92 -24.6%
Quebec 9,111,629 78 116,816 52 -33.3%
British Columbia 5,722,318 43 133,077 33 -23.3%
Alberta 4,960,097 37 134,057 29 -21.6%
Manitoba 1,504,023 14 107,430 10 -28.6%
Saskatchewan 1,250,909 14 89,351 8 -42.9%
Nova Scotia 1,079,627 11 98,148 8 -27.3%
New Brunswick 858,963 10 85,896 6 -40.0%
Newfoundland and Labrador 545,579 7 77,940 5 -28.6%
Prince Edward Island 179,280 4 44,820 3 -25.0%
Northwest Territories 45,074 1 45,074 1 0.0%
Yukon 47,126 1 47,126 1 0.0%
Nunavut 41,414 1 41,414 1 0.0%
41,528,680 343 1,153,793 249 -27.4%
Landlocked, how would Alberta get its resources to market? An independent Alberta would be at the mercy of its neighbours. At best, it could join the US and have even less clout. Look before you leap.
British Columbian here. I would hope that we wouldn't be assholes and block Alberta from getting its goods to the ocean. That said, I firmly believe we would indeed be assholes.
"Have been" more like . Particularly Horgan. He opposed pipeline projects at every turn. And then when he left politics, he took a job in the coal business. Because you know .... oil bad, but coal fine. (That job ended up not panning out as I understand it. Oh well ...)
Please understand, it is not that I think that the BC people are all assholes. But yes, the BC government have been assholes to Alberta on occasion. Not saying Alberta cannot be the same way. But the big difference is that you have a coastline, and we do not. An asshole with more power is always more of a threat than an asshole with less power.
Oh, I agree. Horgan was a total dick to Alberta, and Eby is just an all-around total dick, so I already know what he would do.
My sentiments exactly!
Hoorgan is the name..
The truth is the USA would be a main cast character in this drama if anything ever happened here. In fact they may even be involved in it now and we just don’t know yet (or ever). There is no realistic scenario Alberta could/would prosper as a sovereign country all on its own. But it certainly could with some kind of union or formal affiliation with the US… maybe a simple economic union that had some membership fees? (Ie taxes). Statehood has already been offered, but every US territory also basically has a different unique deal with the US Federal government..
Under the Law of the Sea for Landlocked States, transit states (those that lie between the landlocked state and the sea) are supposed to permit free passage (no taxes or tariffs) of the landlocked state’s goods to their seaports for export. They also aren’t supposed to harass commerce across their territory by, say, charging Alberta trucks more for diesel than they charge BC trucks, or imposing lower speed limits or more onerous weight restrictions on Alberta trucks.
Canada should expect Alberta to reciprocate for goods from eastern Canada transiting its territory on the way to B.C. But the Law of the Sea doesn’t require Alberta to, because neither side of Canada is a landlocked State.
There is negotiation here. Since Alberta taxpayers would no longer be paying federal taxes that help maintain ports in B.C., it would be reasonable for Canada to collect taxes for the purpose on truckloads (or trainloads) of goods from Alberta that arrive in B.C. ports.
The EU never made it official policy to end the British investment banking industry.
The similarity between Brexit and the Alberta independence is that the drivers are over-regulation by an outside force and the maldistribution of benefit accrued by the union. Outside of London, GB is a third world country. The economic problems in GB are due to the triumph of ideology over economics. Net zero is bankrupting them, as outlined by Tony Blair. In Mr. Farage, is the cure worse than the disease?
Alberta separatism isn't going away. A referendum will put it to bed for a generation. The development of organizations to examine the possibilities, good and bad, is a positive.
Quebec separatism isn't going away. M. Plamondon and the Parti Québécois will win Quebec in 2026. They will have a referendum. If Ms. Smith and M. Plamadon hold their respective referendums simultaneously, the contrasting response by federalists will be instructive.
If federalists had the courage of their convictions they would welcome the questioning of Confederation. They don't because, in their hearts, they know it is broken.
Yes. I have long said that Canada is a failed experiment in federation. Let them have their referendum. I doubt it will pass, but I've been wrong before 🤣
Isn't it interesting that 'Canada' is treated as a colonizing genocidal nation by First Nations, including both Quebec and Albertan tribes... right up until the spigot of billions of dollars from the feds is suddenly threatened by an independence movement? Funny that. And equally strange is how suddenly patriotic these believers in this anti-all-things-Canadian false narrative - strongly represented and supported by so many governmental funded urbanites who seem to be clueless that the Canadian economy is to large extent a resource extracting one - suddenly become when the surety of their public subsidy is threatened. Who could have possibly foreseen the multi-decades process to get permits and approvals for extraction driving new investment elsewhere might cause a ripple of resentment from those whose economic lifeblood is held hostage to these policies that play so well politically to the populace of the disconnected-from-reality urban bubble world? This is the same population that seems all too willing to warmly welcome foreign influence and crime and import all kinds of people with anti-western values but oh so ready to man the ramparts against the Evil Empire to the south.
This country is so broken and holding it together by fear as this article implies we should do is just so typical of what's wrong with it.
Let’s hope our Alberta friends and neighbours who are just fed up heed the concerns of informed, experienced advisors about the perils of separating, and opt to explore less dramatic and chaotic threats.
As the descendent of fur traders in Alberta in the early 1800s and as a Métis woman whose family lived throughout Rupertsland and the Northwest before Alberta took shape I find it offensive that the entitled people who reside in Alberta today and wish to extort her resources with abandon are the leading voices for separation. As an Indigenous person I understand that “When the natural world is understood as a gift instead of private property there are ethical constraints on the accumulation of abundance that is not yours to own.” (The Serviceberry p.34) Premier Smith and the UCP are not the owners of Alberta nor are the separatists having their moment and they would be wise to reconcile themselves with that. Who am I to judge but the Creator will.
The truth is: we DO get why Quebec, Toronto, anywhere East of Manitoba want to maintain the status quo... to keep the gravy train flowing. And Quebec uses its votes to leverage Ottawa to support Quebecs wants. Pretty simple really.
I don't think anyone wants to maintain the status quo as there is no gravy train flowing in any direction after ten years of Liberal mismanagement. In fact, until Trump stirred up a surge of latent nationalism in our "post-national" state with his anti-Canada blather we were well on the way to throwing the Liberals under the bus and for good reason. Ontario may have voted Liberal because of Trump but I don't think it means the people here want another 4 years of bad government and that's very likely what we're going to get unless Carney makes a dramatic course adjustment, something he'll have a lot of trouble with working with pretty much the same wrecking crew as before.