I cannot believe how anybody cannot see where Canada is headed. The liberal government is purposely bankrupting Canada and it’s going to take Alberta with it unless we separate. It is the only sensible thing to do.
> The liberal government is purposely bankrupting Canada
Good grief, be serious.
Canada faces serious headwinds and we need serious people. Fantasizing that people who disagree with you politically are Disney cartoon villains isn't serious.
Canadians elected Trudeau 3 times and his father even more than that. Canadians aren't serious people. We are colonials. They just care about hand to mouth politics when they aren't obsessed with Americans.
We elected Trudeau because the recent Conservative party leaders have not been serious people. Speaking as a lifelong Albertan Canadian, I want grownups in charge, not whiny lying teenagers like Poilievre or Scheer who would just lick Trump's boots every chance they got.
Considering the recent line article strongly suggesting that Mark Carney is about to fold to Trump with nothing in return, I find the complaint that Andrew Scheer would hypothetically “lick Trump’s boots” rather funny.
This is the problem, the conservative space. And it’s a very real one.
The LPC gets the benefit of the doubt on dealing with the Americans. The conservatives have overcome someone’s belief of what they would have done in an alternate universe.
That’s not a complaint. That’s just an observation. Politics isn’t fair.
Liberals are the "real Canadians." The Conservatives are just the American representatives to Canada. If the whole point of Canada is as an antithesis to the US, then the Liberals are the good guys.
I'll note that in the two provinces not settled primarily by the progeny of the losers of the US War of Independence, Alberta and Saskatchewan, this dynamic doesn't exist. I'd wager that this is a major reason why the Conservatives are the benefit of the doubt party in those provinces.
Living in BC, I notice how a lot of the "western alienation" narrative to use an older term just ignores BC's existence when it doesn't fit the narrative.. which is often.
In your opinion. The Liberal Government is stuck dealing with the reality that our and Alberta's number 1 trading partner can no longer be trusted on anything. The word of this administration...deal or no deal, is worthless. Yet, you're putting your trust in that...when they're already buying your oil at a discount?
Carney intentionally caused this rift. Can you not look beyond your dislike for Trump and see that? Our friend and neighbour for 150 years and the longest undefended border in the world and you wanna throw that away and deal with communist China? The US buys our Oil at a discount because Ottawa stops us from transporting our petroleum to either coast. What the hell is wrong with you?
You're kidding, right? Who tariffed us the day he took office? Who tariffed our steel and aluminium industries? Who has tried to tear up CUSMA, "the greatest trade deal in history"? Who is adding a 509% tariff on CUSMA-protected items in 20 days? Who has made it crystal clear that the word of the US government is meaningless?
Jason Kenney cost Alberta billions both in oil shipped and cancellation fees when he killed Rachel Notley's tank car lease in favour of pipelines that didn't exist and were going to be difficult to build.
China sucks, but they're rational and pragmatic. Our 150-year-old relationship with the US is over, and it won't be back for generations. On this, Carney is absolutely correct. And the rift 100% started in Trump's Oval Office. No one else on Earth is questioning our right to exist as a country.
Trump had three reasonable request when Carney took office. Carney told him to go fuck himself. That’s what started this. Carney is simply here to complete the destruction of Canada that the Trudeau’s started.
Trump was talking 51st state before Carney ever took office. Retaliatory tariffs were in place before Carney took office.
Trump's word is not trustworthy - just listen to enough of his speeches to see the word patterning and hyperbole and then watch how he turns around and backpedals.
This editorial was about Alberta independence and yet all of the comments degenerate into Trump,bad, Carney, good. How about we discuss the real issues affecting Alberta, such as unequal representation in Parliament, the Senate, Judicial appointments, control of immigration, Provincial interference from BC and Quebec. Nothing will change until the Eastern power block admits that they get the gold while we get the shaft.
But Canada could never survive a balanced federation. Besides, westerners aren't "real" Canadians. West of the Nipigon Bridge is another country as far as they are concerned.
lol . The carney admin will likely be near balance or surplus by the next election ( if he survives full term ) . This kind of blind nonsense js why the conservatives are getting killed in the polls . Their online commenters are just spewing the same script no matter what the reality is
There's no evidence of even the inkling of an idea of a plan to balance the budget, really ever, or any desire to even try. This would require such a massive rollback of spending that I don't even think the frothingly far right version of a Poilievre government that lives inside Liberals' heads would be willing to do it.
No, no, the plan is to borrow more money each year, in perpetuity, direct it to the various vote-buying groups, and blame it on the Trump administration.
We are wasting so much energy, money and time focusing on the grievances (some real, most imagined) of a small minority of unserious and poorly informed Albertans.
It will be of significant interest as to what this has cost the Province, and the province's economy in both direct costs and wasted effort, thought and productivity while the system of governance has been forestalled by this "keep the seppies happy" UCP government.
Thank you pointing out the potential consequences for voting option B , or “leave”. It seems very dire and cumbersome, very much the “stick”comparison of the option.
My concern is …. Where, or who, is going to dangle the “carrot” ??
Frustrated federalist, which I guess I could be labeled, are seeking real change in the way we are governed.
Who is offering an Elected Senate, to help balance the levers of power.
Who is looking to re jig the equalization scheme that clearly punishes the “have” provinces?
These two random suggestions would also take years of consideration and consultation which could be seen to some as de stabilizing and cumbersome, therefore not worth the effort.
Using fear and anxiety to influence a decision to “stay” with the current situation we live and operate in, is not effective.
It seems Disruption is inevitable, and to many desirable!!! So where are the big thinkers on the “stay” side.
We need an equal and elected senate, we also need an equal voice in the house...the carrot needs to be constitutional reform to address these issues...equalization could have been addressed anytime since we voted in a previous referendum, that Liberals have ignored!!!
I have yet to see any carrots on offer, expensive bribes that include interprovincial extortion, yes, carrots, no.
The federalist position is entirely emotion and fear, the latter being the driver of this article!
A bicameral legislature has been a complete disaster for the United States - they've experienced decades of worsening gridlock trying to get anything meaningful through the House and Senate. Why would we aspire to that model?
Yours has only become dysfunctional since the hyper polarization of the parties that is really the legacy of Obama. This will turn around and work itself out post Trump. Our unelected, politically appointed senate is a complete joke. We have 120 total Seats of which 90 cuttingly sitting senators were appointed by Liberal Prime ministers because we also do not have term limits on our PM like you have on you President in the USA.
I prefer checks and balances myself. Canada's fusion of the executive and the legislative coupled with the judicial dependant on the executive for their position isn't enough transparency IMHO.
The carrot is Alberta remaining part of a G7 country rather than becoming the next Venezuela. If the Premier isn't getting Albertans a good deal in federalism, pick a new leader who will.
By “pick a new leader who will” means getting a “New” Prime Minister , I agree.
Daniel Smith has absolutely championed Alberta , Nationally, where she is called a whiner, Internationally, where she is called a traitor….
Mark Carney with more political capital and momentum behind him than any politician I have ever seen… with all his knowledge and wisdom is offering us what…. A new pipeline that could have been built 15 years ago, but now comes with a 22 billion carbon scheme attached to it….
And Venezuela, under a democratic , responsible government could have done great things…. I guess they just needed the right leaders to do the right things…. Sound familiar??
Danielle Smith is the worst premier Alberta ever had. She governs badly, is willing to let our drinking water be poisoned if the data centres don't use it all up first, and she has attacked legitimate Alberta industries such as the clean energy industry which we need for the future.
Canada is only a G7 country because the US insisted. Heck, Canada only exists because the US allows it. If you mean Alberta becomes a protectorate of the US, that can happen. But Alberta is the only Canadian province that competes in standard of living with wealthier US states. Perhaps the rest of Canada should focus on producing more wealth instead of depending on Ottawa (which depends on Alberta)
I disagree about the equalization comment. Every Canadian pays the same federal tax rate proportional to their income. Equalization influences how much federal tax money comes back into the province. You could argue that provincial taxes would need to be increased due to less federal funds being returned to the province, but AB has the lowest provincial tax rate in Canada last I checked, and we're the only province without a provincial sales tax. We also have the lowest cost of living in Canada.
The conversation around equalization is often dishonest because it makes it sound like Albertans pay more to be in Canada - but that is not the truth. Governments have made it an issue because they always want more money, especially if they can get it without increasing taxes. But Alberta is not hard done by with the lowest provincial tax rate and no provincial sales tax.
Now, IceSkater, her is my rebuttal….full discloser… I’m at the lake enjoying the sun and some bevies… so forgive my posdible inaccuracies ….BUT… This is absolutely what Quebec , and the feds, rely on to skew the books. Alberta is aggressively pushing the natural resources to generate real cash flow dollars… this requires many man hours, investment income and big tax inflow to the province. Quebec, by contrast calibrates its finances and exploits the golden hand shake with Ottawa’s Rules on equalization by intentionally not including their hydro at a realistic rate..have resources that they choose not to exploit… control their own immigration levels, collect and distribute their own taxes to Ottawa, and have their own Foreign Affairs desk in other countries. ….
Sounds like they got shit figured out … for sure…fine .. but the majority of the Maritimes, and even occasionally Ontario fall into the “have not “ segment and belly up to the trough….not right in my books…
...in exchange for granting BC the ability to charge a TOLL for the oil to move - apparently the new Liberal version of "free trade between provinces"....
But more to the point, it is an MOU, not a pipeline. ie: it may never happen - there are still numerous hurdles to clear, quite a few of which could derail the deal.
....and as it stands, the deal has a $20-30 Billion dollar albatross explicitly tied to it which will do nothing productive for ANYONE except make money for Brookfield (and by extension, will personally enrich Carney himself).
So in other words, that MOU guarantees BC some cash, and it also guarantees Carney some cash down the road.
What is does NOT guarantee ....is a pipeline to tidewater.
I thought i was about to read (finally) reasons to stay. A justification of why staying would be best for Alberta, but all we get with this post is yet another laundry list of why "leave" is going to be hard. Ok remainers, we all understand the roadblocks. Now give me the list of pros for staying. Do you not think if Ottawa wanted to address the issues, they would have done it sometime the last 40 years? Alberta has no leverage and never will as long as Ottawa doesn't want that. Alberta CANNOT lead under the current climate and it's doubtful it will change. If Ottawa wanted to do something to make the independence movement go away, the opportunity sits today at Carney's feet. Yet...he doesn't. That tells you all you need to know.
Meanwhile will somebody, anybody please up up with 1 compelling, non-emotional eason to stay.
Leaving aside the difficulty of doing that, some do and some don’t.
And that’s an entirely different question with an entirely different set of reasons of why it’s a bad idea and why remaining in Canada is better.
But that’s the problem with separatists in most places. They promise incompatible things to different groups. It shows a great deal of contempt for their fellow citizens.
The ones who genuinely think Alberta can actually stand as an independent country are delusional, and (I think) small in numbers.
I’m more concerned about the one who want to join the United States. They’re smarter, and that’s a much more realistic threat. We need to show that remaining in Canada is a better option than joining the USA.
I dunno. I know a lot of separatist sympaizers but none of them are interested in being part of the US. A direct quote from a friend " why replace our masters in Ottawa with one's in Washington" Which is a good point. But the reality is that the US will not admit another state especially not a conservative leaning. One
Ain't happening
But if you want Alberta to stay my suggestion would be to cool the insults and show some love along with some substantive change proposals to SOME grievances. Suck it up and deal with ain't gonna work anymore
I will take your plea to cool it with the insults and show some love and some substantive change proposals seriously the moment I observe separatists taking their duty to consult with Alberta First Nations seriously.
Why should I take the feelings of a tiny inconvenient minority seriously if they don't take the feelings of other tiny inconvenient minorities seriously?
"Meanwhile will somebody, anybody please up up with 1 compelling, non-emotional eason to stay."
Because creating a landlocked country heavily dependent not just on exports, but complex infrastructure for those exports like pipelines and rail, is the world's dumbest idea.
Because defraying the costs of government across 40 million people makes it substantially cheaper than defraying it across 4 million people, even if those 4 million people were previously contributing disproportionately - or did you think Canada was going to provide air defence for the Republic of Alberta for free?
I know I’m a broken record, but the actual serious leaders in the Alberta separatist movement, the ones who can actually get shit done and work levers of power and build a coalition — I do think they exist, they’re just quiet since what they’re proposing is basically treason — their Plan A is joining the United States.
They think that with the oil and gas, they can get full statehood not just Puerto Rico status. They’re smart enough to get a commitment from Trump for this before they unilaterally secede, but once the low-level civil war with the Alberta First Nations kicks off after that, they’ve lost all their leverage as they need the intervention of the U.S. Army and will accept American help at any cost. Trump will then break the deal and they’ll become Puerto Rico of the north. Not smart!
Any delusions of being an independent Alberta state are just that, delusions. I have more respect for my ideological opponents than that — my assumption is the “no masters in Ottawa or Washington” line is marketing to make the whole movement more palatable. It’s not what they actually think will happen.
While all of these arguments seem reasonable it fundamentally starts from an assumption that is questionable. That is, that there is an option available to Alberta to lead change in confederation. How exactly or even generally can that be done?
Alberta has little to no leverage to change the structures of power that consistently favour central Canada at the expense of the other provincial “colonies.”
The Laurier government aligned Quebec and the West against the central interests and had some success in the early 1900’s but is this possible now? Probably not.
Separation has serious costs, and would be painful in ways most have not considered, but it holds hope that short to medium term pain will result in unimagined prosperity. This is a difficult argument to counter as it is likely that Alberta will never have an equal seat at the confederation table.
To keep Canada together we need arguments that clearly articulate why it is better for everyone to stick together. That is getting harder to rationalize every passing year we suffer under less than competent federal governance.
The article begins with a negative premise: "it is big, bad work to continue to assess Alberta separation". Let's be instructed by history: Quebec has threatened, voted and continues to threaten "separation". Let's observe how terrible things got when the threat materialized TWICE--1980 and 1995 as Quebec, even today, enjoys special positive status within Canada.
1. Quebec received exclusive responsibility for selecting independent immigrants and almost HALF A TRILLION (in 2026 dollars) to handle integration. No other province gets that control and largesse.
2. Quebec has regularized use of the "Notwithstanding" clause to great effect. Quebec usage = 106 times. ROC? 12. It continually emphasizes it's "specialness"
3. No other province has guaranteed seats on the Supreme Court. Quebec got its third in 1949.
4. By operating its own unique pension plan, Quebec determines its own investment strategy.
Seems to me that becoming "special" might be worth considering in Alberta. It doesn't seem to have "hurt" too badly elsewhere even when it remains only a threat.
This is low stakes, both Carney and Smith are on the same side, I have total confidence that they would negotiate a way for Alberta to STAY in canada...I would hope a constitutional amendment that created equal riding all across the country and removed all the grandfathered seats in the Altantic region and quebec... Quebec would reject this in a national referendum, but since they never signed the original constitution who cares... For me the structural unfairness of the constitution where house and senate seats are outlined is the dealbreaker!
We have friends from a foreign country who truly believe under the status quo, Canada cannot survive as a confederation for much longer, end of story!
Because the issue is an unequal number of voters per MP, you don’t need to remove the minimum seats for Atlantic Canada. Instead, you simply increase the number of seats everywhere else so that they match the number of voters per seat in Atlanta Canada.
This would significantly increase the number of MPs in the House of Commons, which is a very good thing since it makes controlling caucus more difficult. There are only so many plum appointments and “insider” status is a limited good.
The greater the number of MPs who aren’t holding out for a plum appointment because they know that have absolutely no chance, the greater the independence within parliament. The same holds true for the opposition.
Kind of, but more that the UCP has no plan for what comes next. Who will secure the 4 hardened borders without the RCMP? Who will put out the fires without the CAF? How will people eat in a new country that doesnt grow its own food? Who will work in the oil patch, Healthcare, feedlots etc when Canadians need work permits to work in the jobs albertans won't? Who will build the new nation when the post secondary institutes close and Albertans have to pay international student tuition in Canada? Who even counts as Albertan in this whole scheme (those who were born here, those who work here, those who own shares here)? The list goes on...
Until there is an actual plan, this whole endeavor is just a fantasy.
LOL. Workers in the 'Patch come from across Canada AND from around the world. Work hard and earn good money. Workers will come, as always.
Guarding borders - pretty sure we can do as well as the Federal Gov't. The US defended our airspace because they could scramble jets faster. We can keep migration to a flow that has proper background checks, I hope. Seriously, other countries have successfully formed. And the fiscal capacity didn't match ours. So we do the hard work of organizing, funding, managing. But let's not keep the status quo because it's just easier.
How is remaining status quo good for Alberta. Continue allowing Carney to bankrupt Canada as the bankers are saying we are on a path to. Continue giving Canadian taxes to international countries and not to Canadians. Continue to allow Brookfield and China to buy Canaduan resources so they profit and not Canadians. Use tax payer money to fund a road in Nunavut so China can access their resources. Continue jet setting and living high on the hog while tax payers starve. Take away tax payers land and homes. Continue with unreal debt to bankrupt Canada. Silence Canadians who speak out. Make Alberta pay carbon capture to Brookfield when all other countriez have stoppec this as it does nothing for Canadians but puts money to Brookfield. Who are these policies good for, not Canadians. As Carney said "The Canada we knew is gone". No point staying part of a bankrupt vommunist country
Every time this idiotic: IMHO, debate comes up, I wonder how much land Albertans will get to keep after the legal proceedings with First Nations play out? I wonder if any new east or west pipelines ever get built? I wonder if BC reduces oil flow through Vancouver...or bans tanker traffic completely? I wonder what price the US will pay for Alberta oil, knowing they have a captive audience? I wonder who would invest a cent in Alberta with that much uncertainty? I wonder what the effect of separation would be on Alberta's impending water crisis?
Dear Alberta:
I really hope you stay. No, it's not perfect and I agree completely that Quebec is getting a deal no one else is getting. I agree that should be addressed. It won't be as long as Quebec has the political leverage it has. But I hope that isn't a reason to blow the whole thing up. This most certainly isn't the right time for the debate. The grass is never greener once you have to live in it. So I hope you'll stay.
> It won't be as long as Quebec has the political leverage it has.
Personally I fail to see how Quebec has ANY political leverage at this point. Seriously, what are Quebec's options if it has to suffer getting a fair deal that every province gets? Separate and try to go it alone against a hostile Canada and a hostile USA?
What leverage does it have against the LPC? "Give us what we want or we'll bring down your government... and get Pierre Poilievre elected who will surely favour Quebec over everyone else".
I think the "give Quebec a sweetheart special deal" crowd only has fantasy leverage.... leverage that only exists because people are still mistakenly believe in it. I don't think any province, including Quebec has any real options other than working together with our fellow Canadians to avoid really bad consequences.
All of those bad outcomes that Jen and Matt talk about only get worse for a province deciding to go it alone.
76 seats in Parliament. That's it. That's all. Quebec won't leave. I can't quite get to the point where they're stupid enough to think they can make it on their own...after their own legal challenges with First Nations. The solution requires real political courage. It doesn't appear to exist. It needs to.
Sure, but what leverage is that? The power of those 75 seats is in the power to vote against the government. So what's the play here? "Give Quebec special treatment or else!"?
Or else what? Or else you'll vote down the LPC and get a better deal from the cabinet of Prime Minister Pierre? It's a bold strategy Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for them.
Quebec can't form government on it's own. It's the same problem the NDP faces. An LPC government is the best deal they can get which means they have little to no true leverage. What's worked in the past is having a Prime MInister who WANTS to give Quebec a special sweetheart deal. They don't have that because we now have a government who understands just how deep a hole we're in and we don't have the luxury of being able to give sweetheart deals to anyone.
I have no idea what Quebec is thinking...but I never have. They've just always gotten away with it. I don't think the time will ever be better to bring them back to reality. And I agree with you completely on the circumstances we find ourselves. Not to mention what reeling them in would do for national unity. And yet, here we have another example from yesterday where Stadler will build a factory to manufacture locomotives in Montreal. Why not Halifax? Winnipeg? Backbones are required. They aren't in sight.
You said that Alberta's economy would suffer by even just having this referendum and it certainly hasn't. In fact major investments are coming faster than in years. We have a multi billion dollar aircraft factory announced just in the past couple weeks.
Seems "knife to the throat" works when used on "nice" people back east
As for separation. Alberta isn't going to ask nicely. It will just leave and know Canada won't do anything about it. It can't. The only thing that matters is recognition or not from the US. Once the US recognizes an independent Alberta it's done. If it refuses to recognize an independent Alberta it's done. Besides, every business person in Alberta would prefer the US market 100 times over instead of the Canadian market.
I'd highly suggest laying off on the fantastical hyperbole. It's boy who cried wolf stuff.
The X factor is the US in all this. Canada only exists because the US allows it. I'd suggest the federalists start lobbying Washington privately to keep Alberta in Canada.
One of the things which blows holes in this theory (that "Alberta is building its influence in Confederation", and that we should "negotiate from a position of strength WITHIN Confederation", etc.) is that we have been TRYING to have these conversations with Canada for decades now.
We've loudly expressed ourselves democratically repeatedly (Senators-in-waiting, Equalization Review...) and the short but extremely accurate reality is that Ottawa has NOT been receptive.
My opinion only, but the "Lead Not Leave" initiative seems to be really stuck on the idea that somehow people who want to vote for separatism ONLY wish to do so because they mistakenly think separatism would be "easy". They seem to think that if they just explain to us all ONE MORE TIME just how DIFFICULT this would all be, it will magically heal all wounds and we can all sing Kumbaya...
But I have yet to meet a separatist sympathiser who actually believes that separation from Canada would be easy, quick, painless or cheap. They KNOW actual separation would be difficult - but almost uniformly, they believe we have ALREADY exhausted our reasonable options.
I continue to be amazed that the primary "reaction" to this referendum question being asked is to denigrate those who would vote for such a thing, and completely ignore their valid concerns.
Maybe you think Carney is ushering in some new era of cooperative federalism, but MOUs are not pipelines, Carbon Capture is transparently a boondoggle designed to enrich Brookfield (and Carney personally, by extension) and allowing BC to charge a toll on oil is NOT free trade among provinces.
I fail to see how we have materially moved forward over the past 18 months in any meaningful way.
For me, since pandemic, it is 'anything can happen' day. In view of this, the author is doing what I feared would happen: start giving reasons why separation won't happen. Scare them straight, etc. It is within the realm of possibility that separatists don't care what the cost would be, though. They are to be taken seriously even if some of them sound like they fell head first out of a turnip truck at harvest.
For me, the crazy POTUS might just recognize an independent Alberta. Or worse, he could imply that he would. This needs to be prepared for. All bets are off.
The predictions, and there are a lot of them here, are assumptive. Of course everyone knows what they say about the word assume ....
At the end of the day, even if 15% of Albertans are separatists, that is a large chunk of the population.
Because talk of separation worked wonders for the Quebec economy…
If a motivated minority is able to continue with their fever dreams past October, I’m sure Alberta’s neighbours will welcome the outflow of talent from Alberta when the Alberts Advantage disappears.
I cannot believe how anybody cannot see where Canada is headed. The liberal government is purposely bankrupting Canada and it’s going to take Alberta with it unless we separate. It is the only sensible thing to do.
> The liberal government is purposely bankrupting Canada
Good grief, be serious.
Canada faces serious headwinds and we need serious people. Fantasizing that people who disagree with you politically are Disney cartoon villains isn't serious.
Canadians elected Trudeau 3 times and his father even more than that. Canadians aren't serious people. We are colonials. They just care about hand to mouth politics when they aren't obsessed with Americans.
We elected Trudeau because the recent Conservative party leaders have not been serious people. Speaking as a lifelong Albertan Canadian, I want grownups in charge, not whiny lying teenagers like Poilievre or Scheer who would just lick Trump's boots every chance they got.
Considering the recent line article strongly suggesting that Mark Carney is about to fold to Trump with nothing in return, I find the complaint that Andrew Scheer would hypothetically “lick Trump’s boots” rather funny.
This is the problem, the conservative space. And it’s a very real one.
The LPC gets the benefit of the doubt on dealing with the Americans. The conservatives have overcome someone’s belief of what they would have done in an alternate universe.
That’s not a complaint. That’s just an observation. Politics isn’t fair.
Liberals are the "real Canadians." The Conservatives are just the American representatives to Canada. If the whole point of Canada is as an antithesis to the US, then the Liberals are the good guys.
I'll note that in the two provinces not settled primarily by the progeny of the losers of the US War of Independence, Alberta and Saskatchewan, this dynamic doesn't exist. I'd wager that this is a major reason why the Conservatives are the benefit of the doubt party in those provinces.
Then I learned that BC isn't in the west?
Living in BC, I notice how a lot of the "western alienation" narrative to use an older term just ignores BC's existence when it doesn't fit the narrative.. which is often.
In your opinion. The Liberal Government is stuck dealing with the reality that our and Alberta's number 1 trading partner can no longer be trusted on anything. The word of this administration...deal or no deal, is worthless. Yet, you're putting your trust in that...when they're already buying your oil at a discount?
Carney intentionally caused this rift. Can you not look beyond your dislike for Trump and see that? Our friend and neighbour for 150 years and the longest undefended border in the world and you wanna throw that away and deal with communist China? The US buys our Oil at a discount because Ottawa stops us from transporting our petroleum to either coast. What the hell is wrong with you?
You're kidding, right? Who tariffed us the day he took office? Who tariffed our steel and aluminium industries? Who has tried to tear up CUSMA, "the greatest trade deal in history"? Who is adding a 509% tariff on CUSMA-protected items in 20 days? Who has made it crystal clear that the word of the US government is meaningless?
Jason Kenney cost Alberta billions both in oil shipped and cancellation fees when he killed Rachel Notley's tank car lease in favour of pipelines that didn't exist and were going to be difficult to build.
China sucks, but they're rational and pragmatic. Our 150-year-old relationship with the US is over, and it won't be back for generations. On this, Carney is absolutely correct. And the rift 100% started in Trump's Oval Office. No one else on Earth is questioning our right to exist as a country.
Trump had three reasonable request when Carney took office. Carney told him to go fuck himself. That’s what started this. Carney is simply here to complete the destruction of Canada that the Trudeau’s started.
What were the requests?
Tighten up border, security, stop the fentanyl, and contribute properly to the military commit commitment
The rift predates Carney
Yep. Katy Perry's BF.
Trump was talking 51st state before Carney ever took office. Retaliatory tariffs were in place before Carney took office.
Trump's word is not trustworthy - just listen to enough of his speeches to see the word patterning and hyperbole and then watch how he turns around and backpedals.
Trump was convicted of 34 counts of fraud. Too bad they didn't jail him for it.
Interesting. Can you walk me through how Carney caused the rift because I am not seeing it.
This editorial was about Alberta independence and yet all of the comments degenerate into Trump,bad, Carney, good. How about we discuss the real issues affecting Alberta, such as unequal representation in Parliament, the Senate, Judicial appointments, control of immigration, Provincial interference from BC and Quebec. Nothing will change until the Eastern power block admits that they get the gold while we get the shaft.
But Canada could never survive a balanced federation. Besides, westerners aren't "real" Canadians. West of the Nipigon Bridge is another country as far as they are concerned.
The USA is $39 trillion in debt. Long way for Canada to go to reach bankrupt levels.
When you are the superpower with the reserve currency you can do things other countries can't.
It's the Canadian dollar that is sinking and being shorted, not the USD.
Stick to music, because you know absolutely nothing about Global Economics.
Is the Canadian dollar not losing value compared to the US Dollar? This is all easily verifiable.
A few years ago the Canadian dollar was higher than the American one. The loonie just can't win.
lol . The carney admin will likely be near balance or surplus by the next election ( if he survives full term ) . This kind of blind nonsense js why the conservatives are getting killed in the polls . Their online commenters are just spewing the same script no matter what the reality is
There's no evidence of even the inkling of an idea of a plan to balance the budget, really ever, or any desire to even try. This would require such a massive rollback of spending that I don't even think the frothingly far right version of a Poilievre government that lives inside Liberals' heads would be willing to do it.
No, no, the plan is to borrow more money each year, in perpetuity, direct it to the various vote-buying groups, and blame it on the Trump administration.
Reality!! "near balance or surplus by the next election" - lol blind nonsense you say?
We are wasting so much energy, money and time focusing on the grievances (some real, most imagined) of a small minority of unserious and poorly informed Albertans.
It will be of significant interest as to what this has cost the Province, and the province's economy in both direct costs and wasted effort, thought and productivity while the system of governance has been forestalled by this "keep the seppies happy" UCP government.
And yet 80% of job growth and investment in Canada the past few quarters are in Alberta.
The rest of Canada acts like it is more consequential and prosperous than it is.
Thank you pointing out the potential consequences for voting option B , or “leave”. It seems very dire and cumbersome, very much the “stick”comparison of the option.
My concern is …. Where, or who, is going to dangle the “carrot” ??
Frustrated federalist, which I guess I could be labeled, are seeking real change in the way we are governed.
Who is offering an Elected Senate, to help balance the levers of power.
Who is looking to re jig the equalization scheme that clearly punishes the “have” provinces?
These two random suggestions would also take years of consideration and consultation which could be seen to some as de stabilizing and cumbersome, therefore not worth the effort.
Using fear and anxiety to influence a decision to “stay” with the current situation we live and operate in, is not effective.
It seems Disruption is inevitable, and to many desirable!!! So where are the big thinkers on the “stay” side.
When do we get to see the carrot??
We need an equal and elected senate, we also need an equal voice in the house...the carrot needs to be constitutional reform to address these issues...equalization could have been addressed anytime since we voted in a previous referendum, that Liberals have ignored!!!
I have yet to see any carrots on offer, expensive bribes that include interprovincial extortion, yes, carrots, no.
The federalist position is entirely emotion and fear, the latter being the driver of this article!
A bicameral legislature has been a complete disaster for the United States - they've experienced decades of worsening gridlock trying to get anything meaningful through the House and Senate. Why would we aspire to that model?
Yours has only become dysfunctional since the hyper polarization of the parties that is really the legacy of Obama. This will turn around and work itself out post Trump. Our unelected, politically appointed senate is a complete joke. We have 120 total Seats of which 90 cuttingly sitting senators were appointed by Liberal Prime ministers because we also do not have term limits on our PM like you have on you President in the USA.
Ours is bicameral as well, except one side is unelected. I'd rather have elected and "gridlocked" than unaccountable.
Ours isn't meaningfully bicameral. What the House wants to pass, the House passes.
I prefer functional government, thank you very much.
I prefer checks and balances myself. Canada's fusion of the executive and the legislative coupled with the judicial dependant on the executive for their position isn't enough transparency IMHO.
The carrot is Alberta remaining part of a G7 country rather than becoming the next Venezuela. If the Premier isn't getting Albertans a good deal in federalism, pick a new leader who will.
By “pick a new leader who will” means getting a “New” Prime Minister , I agree.
Daniel Smith has absolutely championed Alberta , Nationally, where she is called a whiner, Internationally, where she is called a traitor….
Mark Carney with more political capital and momentum behind him than any politician I have ever seen… with all his knowledge and wisdom is offering us what…. A new pipeline that could have been built 15 years ago, but now comes with a 22 billion carbon scheme attached to it….
And Venezuela, under a democratic , responsible government could have done great things…. I guess they just needed the right leaders to do the right things…. Sound familiar??
Danielle Smith is the worst premier Alberta ever had. She governs badly, is willing to let our drinking water be poisoned if the data centres don't use it all up first, and she has attacked legitimate Alberta industries such as the clean energy industry which we need for the future.
Canada is only a G7 country because the US insisted. Heck, Canada only exists because the US allows it. If you mean Alberta becomes a protectorate of the US, that can happen. But Alberta is the only Canadian province that competes in standard of living with wealthier US states. Perhaps the rest of Canada should focus on producing more wealth instead of depending on Ottawa (which depends on Alberta)
I disagree about the equalization comment. Every Canadian pays the same federal tax rate proportional to their income. Equalization influences how much federal tax money comes back into the province. You could argue that provincial taxes would need to be increased due to less federal funds being returned to the province, but AB has the lowest provincial tax rate in Canada last I checked, and we're the only province without a provincial sales tax. We also have the lowest cost of living in Canada.
The conversation around equalization is often dishonest because it makes it sound like Albertans pay more to be in Canada - but that is not the truth. Governments have made it an issue because they always want more money, especially if they can get it without increasing taxes. But Alberta is not hard done by with the lowest provincial tax rate and no provincial sales tax.
Now, IceSkater, her is my rebuttal….full discloser… I’m at the lake enjoying the sun and some bevies… so forgive my posdible inaccuracies ….BUT… This is absolutely what Quebec , and the feds, rely on to skew the books. Alberta is aggressively pushing the natural resources to generate real cash flow dollars… this requires many man hours, investment income and big tax inflow to the province. Quebec, by contrast calibrates its finances and exploits the golden hand shake with Ottawa’s Rules on equalization by intentionally not including their hydro at a realistic rate..have resources that they choose not to exploit… control their own immigration levels, collect and distribute their own taxes to Ottawa, and have their own Foreign Affairs desk in other countries. ….
Sounds like they got shit figured out … for sure…fine .. but the majority of the Maritimes, and even occasionally Ontario fall into the “have not “ segment and belly up to the trough….not right in my books…
No one is ever going to dangle a carrot to Alberta.
Alberta gets all the stick, all the time.
To be more specific, Alberta gets the bill, along with a heaping helping of disrespect.
Canada wants nothing from Alberta but our cash.
I must have hallucinated the MOU Carney just brokered with BC to get more Alberta oil to tidewater.
...in exchange for granting BC the ability to charge a TOLL for the oil to move - apparently the new Liberal version of "free trade between provinces"....
But more to the point, it is an MOU, not a pipeline. ie: it may never happen - there are still numerous hurdles to clear, quite a few of which could derail the deal.
....and as it stands, the deal has a $20-30 Billion dollar albatross explicitly tied to it which will do nothing productive for ANYONE except make money for Brookfield (and by extension, will personally enrich Carney himself).
So in other words, that MOU guarantees BC some cash, and it also guarantees Carney some cash down the road.
What is does NOT guarantee ....is a pipeline to tidewater.
I thought i was about to read (finally) reasons to stay. A justification of why staying would be best for Alberta, but all we get with this post is yet another laundry list of why "leave" is going to be hard. Ok remainers, we all understand the roadblocks. Now give me the list of pros for staying. Do you not think if Ottawa wanted to address the issues, they would have done it sometime the last 40 years? Alberta has no leverage and never will as long as Ottawa doesn't want that. Alberta CANNOT lead under the current climate and it's doubtful it will change. If Ottawa wanted to do something to make the independence movement go away, the opportunity sits today at Carney's feet. Yet...he doesn't. That tells you all you need to know.
Meanwhile will somebody, anybody please up up with 1 compelling, non-emotional eason to stay.
> A justification of why staying would be best for Alberta,
That's a really short article. Here you go.
Any separating province is now a much weaker and smaller place in an increasingly hostile world. Bigger is better in such a world. Smaller is worse.
The same logic applies to a separate Alberta, Quebec or British Columbia. Separate means smaller... which means weaker, which means more vulnerable.
Not being weaker and more vulnerable is better than being those things.
They don’t want to be independent, they want to join the United States.
Leaving aside the difficulty of doing that, some do and some don’t.
And that’s an entirely different question with an entirely different set of reasons of why it’s a bad idea and why remaining in Canada is better.
But that’s the problem with separatists in most places. They promise incompatible things to different groups. It shows a great deal of contempt for their fellow citizens.
The ones who genuinely think Alberta can actually stand as an independent country are delusional, and (I think) small in numbers.
I’m more concerned about the one who want to join the United States. They’re smarter, and that’s a much more realistic threat. We need to show that remaining in Canada is a better option than joining the USA.
I dunno. I know a lot of separatist sympaizers but none of them are interested in being part of the US. A direct quote from a friend " why replace our masters in Ottawa with one's in Washington" Which is a good point. But the reality is that the US will not admit another state especially not a conservative leaning. One
Ain't happening
But if you want Alberta to stay my suggestion would be to cool the insults and show some love along with some substantive change proposals to SOME grievances. Suck it up and deal with ain't gonna work anymore
I will take your plea to cool it with the insults and show some love and some substantive change proposals seriously the moment I observe separatists taking their duty to consult with Alberta First Nations seriously.
Why should I take the feelings of a tiny inconvenient minority seriously if they don't take the feelings of other tiny inconvenient minorities seriously?
Using your logic Canada should then join the USA.
Is it emotional to say that I'm want to stay because Canada is the best country in the world?
"Meanwhile will somebody, anybody please up up with 1 compelling, non-emotional eason to stay."
Because creating a landlocked country heavily dependent not just on exports, but complex infrastructure for those exports like pipelines and rail, is the world's dumbest idea.
Because defraying the costs of government across 40 million people makes it substantially cheaper than defraying it across 4 million people, even if those 4 million people were previously contributing disproportionately - or did you think Canada was going to provide air defence for the Republic of Alberta for free?
I know I’m a broken record, but the actual serious leaders in the Alberta separatist movement, the ones who can actually get shit done and work levers of power and build a coalition — I do think they exist, they’re just quiet since what they’re proposing is basically treason — their Plan A is joining the United States.
They think that with the oil and gas, they can get full statehood not just Puerto Rico status. They’re smart enough to get a commitment from Trump for this before they unilaterally secede, but once the low-level civil war with the Alberta First Nations kicks off after that, they’ve lost all their leverage as they need the intervention of the U.S. Army and will accept American help at any cost. Trump will then break the deal and they’ll become Puerto Rico of the north. Not smart!
Any delusions of being an independent Alberta state are just that, delusions. I have more respect for my ideological opponents than that — my assumption is the “no masters in Ottawa or Washington” line is marketing to make the whole movement more palatable. It’s not what they actually think will happen.
Trump is 80 and will be gone soon. You also have the folks that say being a US vassal state is better than being a Canadian vassal state.
"They are worse" isn't a valid strategy to counter the separatists.
While all of these arguments seem reasonable it fundamentally starts from an assumption that is questionable. That is, that there is an option available to Alberta to lead change in confederation. How exactly or even generally can that be done?
Alberta has little to no leverage to change the structures of power that consistently favour central Canada at the expense of the other provincial “colonies.”
The Laurier government aligned Quebec and the West against the central interests and had some success in the early 1900’s but is this possible now? Probably not.
Separation has serious costs, and would be painful in ways most have not considered, but it holds hope that short to medium term pain will result in unimagined prosperity. This is a difficult argument to counter as it is likely that Alberta will never have an equal seat at the confederation table.
To keep Canada together we need arguments that clearly articulate why it is better for everyone to stick together. That is getting harder to rationalize every passing year we suffer under less than competent federal governance.
Thanks for outlining the pathways so clearly. Happy to have something so clear to share.
The article begins with a negative premise: "it is big, bad work to continue to assess Alberta separation". Let's be instructed by history: Quebec has threatened, voted and continues to threaten "separation". Let's observe how terrible things got when the threat materialized TWICE--1980 and 1995 as Quebec, even today, enjoys special positive status within Canada.
1. Quebec received exclusive responsibility for selecting independent immigrants and almost HALF A TRILLION (in 2026 dollars) to handle integration. No other province gets that control and largesse.
2. Quebec has regularized use of the "Notwithstanding" clause to great effect. Quebec usage = 106 times. ROC? 12. It continually emphasizes it's "specialness"
3. No other province has guaranteed seats on the Supreme Court. Quebec got its third in 1949.
4. By operating its own unique pension plan, Quebec determines its own investment strategy.
Seems to me that becoming "special" might be worth considering in Alberta. It doesn't seem to have "hurt" too badly elsewhere even when it remains only a threat.
This is low stakes, both Carney and Smith are on the same side, I have total confidence that they would negotiate a way for Alberta to STAY in canada...I would hope a constitutional amendment that created equal riding all across the country and removed all the grandfathered seats in the Altantic region and quebec... Quebec would reject this in a national referendum, but since they never signed the original constitution who cares... For me the structural unfairness of the constitution where house and senate seats are outlined is the dealbreaker!
We have friends from a foreign country who truly believe under the status quo, Canada cannot survive as a confederation for much longer, end of story!
Because the issue is an unequal number of voters per MP, you don’t need to remove the minimum seats for Atlantic Canada. Instead, you simply increase the number of seats everywhere else so that they match the number of voters per seat in Atlanta Canada.
This would significantly increase the number of MPs in the House of Commons, which is a very good thing since it makes controlling caucus more difficult. There are only so many plum appointments and “insider” status is a limited good.
The greater the number of MPs who aren’t holding out for a plum appointment because they know that have absolutely no chance, the greater the independence within parliament. The same holds true for the opposition.
So in summary - it's not important to stay because it's the best option... stay, because it's a lot of effort to to try for a better future.
Kind of, but more that the UCP has no plan for what comes next. Who will secure the 4 hardened borders without the RCMP? Who will put out the fires without the CAF? How will people eat in a new country that doesnt grow its own food? Who will work in the oil patch, Healthcare, feedlots etc when Canadians need work permits to work in the jobs albertans won't? Who will build the new nation when the post secondary institutes close and Albertans have to pay international student tuition in Canada? Who even counts as Albertan in this whole scheme (those who were born here, those who work here, those who own shares here)? The list goes on...
Until there is an actual plan, this whole endeavor is just a fantasy.
LOL. Workers in the 'Patch come from across Canada AND from around the world. Work hard and earn good money. Workers will come, as always.
Guarding borders - pretty sure we can do as well as the Federal Gov't. The US defended our airspace because they could scramble jets faster. We can keep migration to a flow that has proper background checks, I hope. Seriously, other countries have successfully formed. And the fiscal capacity didn't match ours. So we do the hard work of organizing, funding, managing. But let's not keep the status quo because it's just easier.
How is remaining status quo good for Alberta. Continue allowing Carney to bankrupt Canada as the bankers are saying we are on a path to. Continue giving Canadian taxes to international countries and not to Canadians. Continue to allow Brookfield and China to buy Canaduan resources so they profit and not Canadians. Use tax payer money to fund a road in Nunavut so China can access their resources. Continue jet setting and living high on the hog while tax payers starve. Take away tax payers land and homes. Continue with unreal debt to bankrupt Canada. Silence Canadians who speak out. Make Alberta pay carbon capture to Brookfield when all other countriez have stoppec this as it does nothing for Canadians but puts money to Brookfield. Who are these policies good for, not Canadians. As Carney said "The Canada we knew is gone". No point staying part of a bankrupt vommunist country
Every time this idiotic: IMHO, debate comes up, I wonder how much land Albertans will get to keep after the legal proceedings with First Nations play out? I wonder if any new east or west pipelines ever get built? I wonder if BC reduces oil flow through Vancouver...or bans tanker traffic completely? I wonder what price the US will pay for Alberta oil, knowing they have a captive audience? I wonder who would invest a cent in Alberta with that much uncertainty? I wonder what the effect of separation would be on Alberta's impending water crisis?
Dear Alberta:
I really hope you stay. No, it's not perfect and I agree completely that Quebec is getting a deal no one else is getting. I agree that should be addressed. It won't be as long as Quebec has the political leverage it has. But I hope that isn't a reason to blow the whole thing up. This most certainly isn't the right time for the debate. The grass is never greener once you have to live in it. So I hope you'll stay.
Sincerely, an old fart from Ontario.
> It won't be as long as Quebec has the political leverage it has.
Personally I fail to see how Quebec has ANY political leverage at this point. Seriously, what are Quebec's options if it has to suffer getting a fair deal that every province gets? Separate and try to go it alone against a hostile Canada and a hostile USA?
What leverage does it have against the LPC? "Give us what we want or we'll bring down your government... and get Pierre Poilievre elected who will surely favour Quebec over everyone else".
I think the "give Quebec a sweetheart special deal" crowd only has fantasy leverage.... leverage that only exists because people are still mistakenly believe in it. I don't think any province, including Quebec has any real options other than working together with our fellow Canadians to avoid really bad consequences.
All of those bad outcomes that Jen and Matt talk about only get worse for a province deciding to go it alone.
76 seats in Parliament. That's it. That's all. Quebec won't leave. I can't quite get to the point where they're stupid enough to think they can make it on their own...after their own legal challenges with First Nations. The solution requires real political courage. It doesn't appear to exist. It needs to.
> 76 seats in Parliament. That's it.
Sure, but what leverage is that? The power of those 75 seats is in the power to vote against the government. So what's the play here? "Give Quebec special treatment or else!"?
Or else what? Or else you'll vote down the LPC and get a better deal from the cabinet of Prime Minister Pierre? It's a bold strategy Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for them.
Quebec can't form government on it's own. It's the same problem the NDP faces. An LPC government is the best deal they can get which means they have little to no true leverage. What's worked in the past is having a Prime MInister who WANTS to give Quebec a special sweetheart deal. They don't have that because we now have a government who understands just how deep a hole we're in and we don't have the luxury of being able to give sweetheart deals to anyone.
I have no idea what Quebec is thinking...but I never have. They've just always gotten away with it. I don't think the time will ever be better to bring them back to reality. And I agree with you completely on the circumstances we find ourselves. Not to mention what reeling them in would do for national unity. And yet, here we have another example from yesterday where Stadler will build a factory to manufacture locomotives in Montreal. Why not Halifax? Winnipeg? Backbones are required. They aren't in sight.
Why should we believe you?
You said that Alberta's economy would suffer by even just having this referendum and it certainly hasn't. In fact major investments are coming faster than in years. We have a multi billion dollar aircraft factory announced just in the past couple weeks.
Seems "knife to the throat" works when used on "nice" people back east
As for separation. Alberta isn't going to ask nicely. It will just leave and know Canada won't do anything about it. It can't. The only thing that matters is recognition or not from the US. Once the US recognizes an independent Alberta it's done. If it refuses to recognize an independent Alberta it's done. Besides, every business person in Alberta would prefer the US market 100 times over instead of the Canadian market.
I'd highly suggest laying off on the fantastical hyperbole. It's boy who cried wolf stuff.
The X factor is the US in all this. Canada only exists because the US allows it. I'd suggest the federalists start lobbying Washington privately to keep Alberta in Canada.
Oooo, scary.
One of the things which blows holes in this theory (that "Alberta is building its influence in Confederation", and that we should "negotiate from a position of strength WITHIN Confederation", etc.) is that we have been TRYING to have these conversations with Canada for decades now.
We've loudly expressed ourselves democratically repeatedly (Senators-in-waiting, Equalization Review...) and the short but extremely accurate reality is that Ottawa has NOT been receptive.
My opinion only, but the "Lead Not Leave" initiative seems to be really stuck on the idea that somehow people who want to vote for separatism ONLY wish to do so because they mistakenly think separatism would be "easy". They seem to think that if they just explain to us all ONE MORE TIME just how DIFFICULT this would all be, it will magically heal all wounds and we can all sing Kumbaya...
But I have yet to meet a separatist sympathiser who actually believes that separation from Canada would be easy, quick, painless or cheap. They KNOW actual separation would be difficult - but almost uniformly, they believe we have ALREADY exhausted our reasonable options.
I continue to be amazed that the primary "reaction" to this referendum question being asked is to denigrate those who would vote for such a thing, and completely ignore their valid concerns.
Maybe you think Carney is ushering in some new era of cooperative federalism, but MOUs are not pipelines, Carbon Capture is transparently a boondoggle designed to enrich Brookfield (and Carney personally, by extension) and allowing BC to charge a toll on oil is NOT free trade among provinces.
I fail to see how we have materially moved forward over the past 18 months in any meaningful way.
For me, since pandemic, it is 'anything can happen' day. In view of this, the author is doing what I feared would happen: start giving reasons why separation won't happen. Scare them straight, etc. It is within the realm of possibility that separatists don't care what the cost would be, though. They are to be taken seriously even if some of them sound like they fell head first out of a turnip truck at harvest.
For me, the crazy POTUS might just recognize an independent Alberta. Or worse, he could imply that he would. This needs to be prepared for. All bets are off.
The predictions, and there are a lot of them here, are assumptive. Of course everyone knows what they say about the word assume ....
At the end of the day, even if 15% of Albertans are separatists, that is a large chunk of the population.
.
Because talk of separation worked wonders for the Quebec economy…
If a motivated minority is able to continue with their fever dreams past October, I’m sure Alberta’s neighbours will welcome the outflow of talent from Alberta when the Alberts Advantage disappears.
That is quite the crystal ball you've got there.