First off, this entire thing rang like a bell. Killer piece.
Secondly, I think we can all agree that yelling and screaming doesn’t calm people down, it just makes people want to yell and scream more. Anger is not heat or moisture or a fart to be aired out of a room. It’s a fire, not a match: Don’t blow on the embers expecting them to go out.
...quite the little rant, I hope it made you feel better Jen.
I feel it might be important to note that Smith has NOT in fact been stumping for seperation - in fact her rhetoric has been remarkably consistent on this point, she would far rather have a strong Alberta WITHIN confederation.
The legislative change she is proposing is to lower the requirements for how many signatures it takes to prompt a citizen-led referendum question.
This legislation is NOT separatist-exclusive at all, and it can be utilized for many good purposes, INCLUDING the referendum on provincial policing you believe rural Alberta is crying out for; this legislation would make it easier for that referendum to happen.
Smith is proposing that we enhance democracy in Alberta, and you are railing against it because you think democracy is dangerous if placed in the hands of mere citizens...? Just trying to grok your thinking here, it doesn't make sense to me.
Smith's rhetoric has been equivocal and self serving. She speaks on separatism in such a way that allows everyone to read whatever they want into her statements -- including the separatists.
Judge her by her actions. Judge her by the legislation she is introducing. Draw your conclusions from that. JG
Ottawa wants to crush Alberta. Smith would rather not secede. So she needs to make credible threats to force Ottawa to back down. Reducing the referendum threshold greatly increases the credibility of her threats, and therefore the likelihood that Ottawa backs down.
Maybe you are too young to remember the Cold War, or maybe you would have been marching around with a "better red than dead" sign, but I suggest you read some Cold War history: Smith is doing exactly the right things to actually stop Ottawa's attacks on Alberta.
Ottawa does not want to crush Alberta. Ottawa does want to try to find a way to govern in the interests of the whole country, which is not easy in a country like this.
We’ve got the first Prime Minister in 45 years who actually grew up in Alberta. Why don’t you wait and see what happens rather than pre-judging the question?
Everyone is taking it as a given that Ottawa has zero intention of allowing pipelines, reforming equalization, removing the emissions cap, or meeting any other of Smith's demands. Because, if Ottawa were to back down, support for secession would be non-existent, and we wouldn't be worrying about it.
Excellent column! Danielle Smith and Pierre Poilievre demonstrate Vichy-style “leadership.” I think revolutionaries look for whatever crack they can find in the firmament and fill it with revolution, the weaker the leadership the better.
Agree with your second paragraph. As to the first - isn’t that what all politicians do? And they will as long as the media lets them get away with it. I have yet to see an interview where the host kept at the dodging politician until the question was actually answered.
Judging leaders on the basis of actions taken, and the ensuing consequences of those actions, is indeed sound advice. Unfortunately, this is advice that the plurality of eastern Canadian voters seem to have eschewed in the federal election, instead curling up into a ball owing to Trump derangement syndrome, memory-holing a decade of Canadian economic and social carnage, and clearly not giving a damn about national unity insofar as the disaffected west in general, and Alberta's aspirations in particular, are concerned. Evidently, leaders need not be concerned over actions (or inactions) if a plurality of the electorate is similarly unconcerned.
Notwithstanding, I grant you that Danielle's fence straddling is far from the best look from a leader. I do wonder however you would advise her in the alternative. Alberta has pleaded, cajoled, implored, fumed, and screamed until it is blue in the face and been given the proverbial middle finger by the federal government, a creature of eastern Canada, for years now. Besides the political butt covering going on here, I think Danielle and a great many Albertans are simply at their wits' end. What else should they do - organize an Occupy Ottawa convoy?
Let's hope that Carney and his new cabinet (with a depressing number of holdovers from Trudeau's clown car show cabinet) do much better in the leadership department. The new government could easily defuse all of this by putting paid to climate virtue signalling, unachievable net zero timelines, "just transition" BS, and getting the hell out of the way of the oil and gas industry that funds the social programs and equalization scams of which their eastern Canadian power base is so fond.
Of course, hoping for leadership from a party that was just rewarded for a decade of unfathomable incompetence would seem to be utter desperation, but that's where we are.
If Albertan Conservatives want to achieve more influence over federal policy, they can start by taking a good hard look in the mirror. Albertan Conservatives who threatened breakup of the country if the Liberals win did an excellent job of convincing eastern Canadians that a Conservative government would be completely obedient to the keyboard warrior/rage-farmer constituency.
Albertan Conservatives think that the whole world revolves around them and that federal climate policies are "all about us". No, it's not about you. It's not some conspiracy against you if the federal government imposes a policy that you don't like. Federal governments impose policies that multiple provinces oppose, and this happens all the time. Alberta is much more than just its oil industry, and its oil industry is by all accounts still on a trajectory to grow regardless of current federal policies.
Your connection of Alberta conservative threats with convincing eastern Canadians of the dangers of a federal conservative government are spot on. But then, it appears the credulous nature of the plurality of the eastern Canadian electorate is simply off the scale, given the apparent belief that a fourth consecutive Liberal government led by Trudeau’s economic advisor represents change and renewal.
I was not born yesterday. A premier issued sovereignty threats weeks before the election and has now struck up talk about referendum policy, all while the op-ed industrial complex is in overtime manufacturing consent for an Albertan separatism crisis (thanks Preston!)
But yeah, this is actually about providing direct democracy for citizen input on provincial policing. Give me a break.
The legislation applies to ALL citizen referenda. If you have evidence it does not, please provide your evidence.
Smith did NOT "issue threats" about separatism, she delivered warnings that separatist sentiments were likely to get fanned into flame if Alberta's needs were ignored, and it seems her warnings were based in reality.
I’m not going to argue with someone playing the exact same game of rhetorical chicken the piece being discussed was written to condemn. Really sick of the lack of integrity on display here. Stop lying, folks. Might actually solve some problems for once if we can actually be honest with each other about what our goals and game plans are.
"The legislation applies to ALL citizen referenda."
You keep making this point, but I don't get it. She made this change now, for a succession referendum. So what if it applies for other referenda... irrelevant and nobody cares. She did it for her bs cynical reasons, to pander to a MAGA minority, and she's made it clear she loves being near Trump.
We can debate her reasons all day - because neither of us live between her ears.
But bluntly speaking, the rule she is changing here is not a radical one - and it allows for MORE direct democracy, not less.
Go ahead and argue otherwise, I'm all ears.
Your projections about her love for all things Trump are just silly - YES, she went directly to the States to plead Alberta's case - rather eloquently and effectively. ...and she even talked to some overtly Republican podcasters...!
Seems to me these actions bore good fruit - in the end, oil and gas got a lot less punitive tariffs than other good and services...
What are the democratic principles involved when you lower the threshold and make arrangements for a separation referendum, for the benefit of a small fraction of your community?
Is it just because you agree with the cause that this is democracy?
I mean if Danielle Smith said she was holding a referendum to cancel all oil and gas extraction because 15% of the AB population wanted it, I'm struggling to think you'd call it democracy, lol.
The legislation she is proposing does not discriminate between the validity of what these referenda are about.
If you want to sponsor a referendum on shutting down oil and gas production, go ahead - get the required signatures, and fill your boots.
It will get voted down though, because much like the other silly ideas above (lobbing a nuke at Toronto made me chuckle) it is an overtly silly idea, which will not appeal to the general public.
I personally am NOT an advocate for Alberta separation, but I do recognise that giving citizens an outlet to vent their frustrations can be helpful in bringing temperatures down.
"Nice Confederation you have there. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it", is basically what the Albertan Premier is saying here. I don't know how you deny that she's stumping for separation when she has consciously made herself the most prominent mouthpiece for separatist voices. Albertan separatism is in the national dialogue only because *she* made it so.
It's nothing other than a joke to entertain the idea that the lowered threshold for petitioning for a referendum is anything other than a deliberate sop to supporters of separatism. She's making policy demands of the federal government with threats of Western alienation as a premise, and the threat of separation is the only kind of teeth to push her demands, and she knows that lowering the threshold makes it easier to initiate a question on separation. She's not some goldfish who lacks memory of what she said and did the other day, she's fully aware of the cumulative effect of these various choices.
I disagree that she has "caused" the separatist anger currently boiling up in Alberta (and Saskatchewan, it should be noted).
She did warn this anger may occur, and is now trying to defuse these sentiments - in part by allowing them to be aired. You can disagree with HOW she is attempting to defuse the anger, but it seems plain that this is what she is attempting to do.
Ginning up anger is cheap, easy, and weak...it's pathetic.
Working against it, taking the bullets, proposing a positive vision, doing the work to persuade people and bring them along for your ideas, which includes a lot of listening to a lot of yelling... leadership.
I am 68 and have lived in Alberta my entire life. The concept of Western Alienation has flared up time and again over the last five and a half decades. Danielle Smith is fanning those flames.
In any place and time there's going to be citizens angry with their provincial and federal government. Singling out keyboard warrior separatists, who have no prior demonstrable movement momentum, for special recognition is a dubious choice.
This is simply a Premier who has pathetic judgment for who she specifically associates herself with, sharing spaces and platforms with convicts and with Tucker Carlson while she seemingly couldn't care less about meeting with the real downtrodden like homeless people.
Did you read Jen's article? She addresses each of your points and, while I understand you disagree with her conclusions I think you'd benefit from dropping the snide remarks and respond to the article as it was written.
She poses questions, either directly or by inference, that - assuming I were in disagreement with the piece - I'd see it as my responsibility to address before I'd even consider a tone of callow superiority. Here are a few questions that I pulled out of Jen's article:
- What is the appropriate threshold to hold a referendum on a question of sovereignty?
- How often are sovereignty referendums appropriate? (For example, would yearly be too often?
- What about the rights of the majority of Albertans not be thrown into an existential mud-wrestling match over their right to remain in the country of their birth? Do we care about these guys?
- How has 'government by referendum' worked out for other jurisdictions that have tried it?
To spark a meaningful discussion would you be willing to address any of these?
"To spark a meaningful discussion would you be willing to address any of these?"
If I were advocating for separation, sure, of course I would.
But I'm not.
All my original post pointed out was that (like me) Smith is ALSO not stumping for separation.
The legislative change she has proposed provides Albertans with the opportunity for more citizen-led direct democracy going forward. Full Stop.
Will the first "question" to use this system likely be about separatism? Perhaps.
But the change she made was NOT exclusively made for a separatism referendum.
So sorry, but 'no', I do not care to defend the separatist cause, and I also refuse to get swept up in a two minute hate directed towards Smith for trying to wrestle with this issue in a sensible way.
I guess I share her optimism that the most likely scenario with a quick vote would be a resounding 'no' vote. It's not going to go away if we let it fester....
er-satz: "being a usually artificial and inferior substitute or imitation." Merriam-Webster
If the foundation of this article is selfishness/self-interest as anathema to leadership, I'm pounding the fucking table. Ersatz leaders defined by their self-interest produce terrible results for the country. Period.
Has my rose-coloured memory manufactured leaders from the past, or have we actually had leaders who wanted do something more than they wanted to be something? I'm certain the public can smell the difference, and we suffer many fools.
For anyone who suspects Jenn's thoughts are pollyanna, drum circle, motherhood words... real leaders, credible by definition, have permission to lead because we believe they have our best interests at heart. "I don't care about what you're saying unless I think you care about me", is basic emotional intelligence, a leadership requirement.
Sidebar, on the topic of belief: real, caring, smart leaders know the difference between perception and reality is pointless; the fucking damage is done.
The hypocrisy and contradictions necessary to be Danielle Smith (David Eby, Justin Trudeau, Delirium Tremens...), obvious to all but their particular cult of true believers, means wasted time, wasted resources, misdirected strategy, less peace in the land, less collaboration, less trust and fair dealing, fewer folks willing to help, secrecy... tons of stinking piles of of bullshit and none of it good for us.
1. Leadership requires listening, and listening in good faith
2. Leadership requires compromise.
Premier Smith is advocating for a strong AB within Canada, in a Canada that respects the Constitution that nation was founded on. It is Canada that has strayed from its founding document, sometimes supported by an activist Supreme Court, and more recently now, ruled against by that same Court. The division of powers within the Constitution is supposed to (among other objectives) enforce points 1 and 2 on Federal leadership in order to get things done. That has been missing over the past decade.
Sometimes too the Federal government (and the Provinces) also ignore or game specific founding parts of the Constitution that are not debatable. Section 121 for example.
"All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces."
Why would Quebec have a "veto" over a pipeline? Why would BC? Why do we even discuss these things? Once you make the rules that your Federation (or even Corporation) is founded on, you need to live and die by them, for better and worse. Quebec may not "like" a pipeline running through their province, but this is not their purview. We agreed to compromise on this issue to support and strengthen the Union, ignoring or indulging that little detail now is at best bad faith, and at worst a breach of the agreement.
So I know you think the separatists are fringe wackos, and right now the ones leading the charge probably are (I'm being generous with the use here of "probably"). The fringe are just the ones who want it now, and are saying it out loud. But to say separatism is a "single issue" idea that should have its own party is also misreading things. I agree with Premier Smith, I want a strong and sovereign AB as a part of a strong and Sovereign Canada, I want the Constitution to be respected in letter and spirit for better and worse. But we can't control this in AB it seems, so if your partner(s) breaches the agreement, and does not or refuses to remedy the breach? Well I think all options have to be considered then. In light of the above, some sort of separatism is being considered by MOST UCP voters. Now it's most probably being considered as an option 'D' - certainly not MOST peoples preference. But it is being contemplated. So what this means then, is what Premier Smith is saying, isn't just voicing the fringe, it's voicing the majority of her party. The majority of her party that wants to stay in Canada, and wants Alberta and Canada to prosper, to abide by its Constitution. But is also clear eyed about the state we're in, and what our "partners" have been known to do. And so as result, all options need to be on the table.
I have signed up for Team Carney on a 6 month term - so I'm not wanting to go down this path. But there is a membership fee based full Economic Union with the USA, and a soft/friendly breakup pitch with Canada, that certainly would offer a viable path.
You write that, "all options need to be on the table", but apparently hardcore Conservatives in Alberta are steadfastly determined to ignore the one option of taking a good look in the mirror and understanding how their own behaviours contributed to their recent political disappointments. The federal Conservatives are undergoing a certain amount of coping and denial about how they alienated non-Conservative Canadians and their Albertan counterparts have shown interest in throwing a tamper tantrum accordingly, or as you say, considering "some sort of separatism". The problem for them is that this is continuing precisely the kind of behaviour that results in federal governments and other provincial governments with policies that Albertan Conservatives do not like.
No, I think you misread the root of the problem. It's not actually one of partisan politics, we can debate and disagree on income taxation and social policy all we want and it doesn't lead to this. The issue is the Liberals have shown themselves to ignore, disregard and/or game fundamental parts of our Constitution and the separation of powers - typically to benefit the whims of an Eastern voting base. There was no significant Western separatist sediment under Jean Chrétien/Paul Martin for example.
Should Carney make good on his Campaign promises, and fall back on the Constitution to justify potentially "unpopular" decisions, you'll see Western separatism vanish like a fart in the wind. You'll also probably see a dozen or more Liberals get elected in AB in a massive Liberal Majority government..
I’ve been saying for a decade that the fundamentals of the issue mean that decarbonization and the energy transition may lead to a national unity crisis.
You realize that this isn’t solely a matter of supposed Constitutional rights for pipeline transit? Regulation of pollution is legitimately the purview of government?
Fossil fuels are the basis of current modern civilization — and most of Alberta’s prosperity — but they’re also pollution. It’s this dual nature that makes it really hard.
But don’t pretend that the federal government somehow has no right to regulate carbon. It regulated asbestos too, even though that hurt certain regions. This is harder because oil is far more important than asbestos ever was, but the principle is the same. It’s a legitimate question for political debate.
“But don’t pretend that the federal government somehow has no right to regulate carbon.”
Sort of.
Insomuch as the regulation is applied equally and without prejudice it does. But when an industry based in AB has a cap on it, and when one based in Ont does not - it offends its constitutional jurisdiction (to say the least). Federal Carbon pricing was ruled constitutional as based on national minimum standards equally applied.
Furthermore (relative to C-69) applying the poison pill clause of factoring “downstream emissions” in assessing project approvals, which the Supreme Court did find unconstitutional and out of jurisdiction, was another naked shot at a specific industry.
Many people act as if domestic decarbonization and oil and gas production are in competition. It’s this tension that’s creating the tension - and federal overreach in that pursuit. I would be thrilled if AB bought BC hydro and commissioned Ontario nuclear plants while eastern Canada used AB/Sask hydrocarbons and petrochemicals - in whatever capacity their demand for them existed. But for Canada to disregard world demand (out of its control) and instead attack its own domestic supply side? Is madness.
But downstream emissions (Scope 3 in UNFCCC-speak) really are a thing though. If someone in the US burns that barrel of exported Alberta oil it really does contribute to the slow-motion global catastrophe of climate change.
Look, I’m with you that Canada unilaterally trying to shut down its own oil exports in the absence of coordinated action with the four polities that actually matter (China, USA, India, EU) is a supremely stupid thing to do.
I think the world will probably do nothing for 5 years and then this all needs to get reinvented as something much less UN COP kumbaya and much more like Reagan-Gorbachev nonproliferation negotiations (except… JD Vance/Xi Jinping I guess).
But we’re all grappling for what to do here. Even us horrible Ontario climate voters. Our main national export is helping destroy a stable climate — it is just a hard, complex problem. Trudeau went way harder after Scope 3 than comparable countries like Norway and that is directly causing the current national unity crisis. But it wasn’t done out of hatred for Alberta. Lots of voters are just really, really concerned about climate change.
Geoff, you don't seem to be allowing for the possibility that a democracy could decide that the benefits of unfettered burning of oil -- which you acknowledge is important to our modern way of life and will be for a long time -- outweigh the conjectural, far-in-the-future, and highly diffuse impacts of CO2 emissions. Anything that Canada does hurts only ourselves unless the countries we trade with suddenly get religion and tell us they will apply sanctions on us unless we decarbonize in lock step with them. Since as you imply, Vance and Xi will never collude to do that, never mind India, so we might as well continue with business as usual and earn the export dollars as well as supporting our own oil-intensive way of life while the party lasts. (On top of all that, the dirty little secret is that Canada will benefit from continued modest warning, even as the rest of the planet melts.)
If all those people die in India from heat waves you are always condemning me for not caring about, it's not going to be due to anything Canada did or didn't do. It's due to what Xi and Vance and Modi himself didn't agree to do. If they put the screws to us to decarbonize, you can bet we will, toute-de-suite. But not a moment before they tell us to.
This is prisoner's dilemma but with the wrinkle that the two prisoners have asymmetric power and both know what each decides to do (instead of being equal and both incommunicado.) The dominant player now dictates the optimum strategy to the subordinate one. In this version of the game, the subordinate player's best choice is to do nothing until the dominant player makes his move. If the subordinate player moves first, the dominant player will do the opposite, betraying him. There is no reason why the dominant player should cooperate with a subordinate one moving first.
Asbestos and other traditional pollutants don't behave at all like CO2. Traditional pollutants are local, with the injurious effects felt locally by people who see the effects and can see benefits to regulatory movements. (Remember Canada resisted killing asbestos because most of the harms were not in fact local, but suffered by far-away customers. The mineworkers in Quebec were happy to keep mining the stuff because the toxicity could be managed with occupational safety measures.) They also have limited scope: we can do without an asbestos industry. We can do without a pulp-and-paper industry if efforts by mills to curb mercury pollution are insufficient and the industry has to close down. But you yourself admit that closing down the oil industry will be ruinously difficult, because everything that moves depends on oil either as fuel or as the energy for building stuff. You seem to be saying that yes, oil is essential but in the final analysis you are going to make us do without it nonetheless if you get your way.
I don't think the people will accept that, not unless the dominant players force us to. And in a way we already know they won't: Carney axed the tax himself because he knew it was a winning issue for the Conservatives. Will he re-instate it now with his comfortable near-majority? Wait and see, I guess.
In the Chretien/Martin era Danielle Smith was not Premier, which goes some way to account for the then absence of "significant Western separatist sentiment", to whatever extent that is objective reality.
"It's not actually one of partisan politics... The issue is the Liberals have shown themselves to ignore, disregard and/or game fundamental parts of our Constitution and the separation of powers"
Those are talking points coming from the Conservatives, so this does then come down to partisan politics. If you neither accept election outcomes nor the rulings of courts nor the opinions of academia as objective determiners that the federal government is respecting the Constitution, then that's another way of saying that the Constitution is being broken until the Conservatives specifically say otherwise. In other words, Conservatives get a veto on the legitimacy of Confederation.
"Should Carney make good on his Campaign promises, and fall back on the Constitution to justify potentially "unpopular" decisions, you'll see Western separatism vanish like a fart in the wind."
Only until spoiled Western separatists manufacture their next of lies about what the federal government is or is not doing. Once you set the precedent for a province successfully imposing obedience upon the rest of the country, then the only inevitable outcome is a perpetually needy and whiny province.
Stefan, your first paragraph ignores earlier history when, in 1982, an avowed separatist was elected to the Alberta Legislature. Put differently, we have had separatists in Alberta for some considerable time and the sentiment clearly predates Chretien or Martin or Danielle Smith. In fact, I suggest that it well predates that 1982 date.
You argue that the point about ignoring separation of powers under the Constitution is simply a talking point of Conservatives. I respectfully ask what part of the country you live in? I ask that because there are many, many folks here in Alberta who do not like the fact that we are assigned some roles within the Constitution but then a group of people in Ottawa and Central Canada generally simply decide that they "know" what is best for us and then they do what they wish, no matter that the responsibility is supposed to be ours.
You argue that we are "spoiled Western separatists" when we want the Constitution to be applied as written. I suppose that you might wish to argue that the Constitution was written in 1867 (well, 1864 to 1867, given the Charlottetown Conference in 1864) and is, therefore, obsolete but that would ignore that the current constitution was updated in 1982. My point is that very recently the feds and the provinces agreed (I do not deal herein with the argument of Quebec not signing on) to the separation of powers and therefore it is valid to expect that the two levels of government follow that Constitution.
And, your final assertion that "... spoiled Western separatists manufacture their next [set] of lies about what the federal government is or is not doing ..." betrays your (apparent) perspective that it is not valid for we in Western Canada to expect the feds to follow the separation of responsibilities set forth in the Constitution. That, I conclude, means that you and I have nothing further to discuss.
I never said there was anything wrong with expecting the Constitution to be upheld. Establishing *when* and *whether* the Constitution has been upheld is very much a political question, especially when you have decided that the ruling of the courts do not have legitimacy on said question.
The Constitution is not necessarily being violated because the federal government adopts policies that the losers of the election do not like. So unless you are willing to identify non-partisan authorities who can definitively rule whether policies are in line with the Constitution of Canada, then you are in fact implying that the Conservatives, the losers of the election, get a veto on the legitimacy of Confederation. You are implying, "The Constitution is being violated until the Conservatives have the humility to say otherwise."
Gee, I wonder why the party of sore losers lost the election?
Years to get these opinions - and I know they are “non-binding” but the implications are very clear.
And then Section 121 of the Constitution.
This doesn’t need to be made clear - it’s simple. Trade shall not be restricted between or through provinces.
We can debate semantics all we want on these items, but I, nor Westerners aren’t interested. We want the spirit and the letter of the Constitution respected. Follow the Supreme Court opinions, stop gaming your lawmaking around constitutional restrictions. Use persuasion rather than authoritarianism.
“Once you set the precedent for a province successfully imposing obedience upon the rest of the country, then the only inevitable outcome is a perpetually needy and whiny province.”
Ahh. Quebec? Curious as to why the vitriol to AB when Quebec has been milking this cow for 50 years? And in a far more organized fashion. Also, I’d argue (and it seems most agree) that western alienation is rooted in something tangible and real. Not “lies.” I stand by my statement. Western separatism disappears quickly with very little in the way of a return to the set out division of powers and support for the Western resource economy.
I don't know of anyone who is arguing that we should adopt purportedly Quebec-favourable policies solely on the basis of separation threats from the Parti Quebecois or the Bloc Quebecois. If the Government of Canada were submissively obedient to the Quebec separatist movement, then we would not have the Clarity Act. But I am seeing sore losers of the election saying that the Government of Canada needs to be submissive to the interests of a minority within Alberta.
"Follow the Supreme Court opinions"
The Supreme Court has ruled that a province cannot unilaterally declare its separation from Canada. If you're talking about respecting Supreme Court opinions, that also means having the humility to admit the simple fact that Alberta's keyboard-warrior minority is nowhere close to being able to pull off a legal and legitimate separation of their province.
"I’d argue (and it seems most agree) that western alienation is rooted in something tangible and real. Not “lies.”"
Well it is easier to persuade a smaller group, such as a minority, with lies, than to persuade a majority with lies. It hardly even matters how factual the existing grievances of the minority within Alberta are - when you are committed to shaping national policy based on the whims of a small minority, you are committed to empowering whoever is dishonest and shameless enough to swindle that small minority.
The interests of AB as communicated by Danielle Smith are not the interests of a minority in AB. They are the interests of a strong majority in AB. I would also argue they are in the interests of a strong Canada.. it seems Carney and the CONS agree on this point if you take their campaign promises and rhetoric at face value.
You’re deflecting on my point of respect for court opinions and the spirit of the Constitution, and the lack thereof of the last Liberal admin. This is the root cause of the issue, which is back to my original point.
Lastly, keep in mind, Danielle Smith is not voicing support for separation. You can scoff and impugn this, but then you’re no better than those that won’t give Carney a chance to make good on his words. AB wants what it is entitled to under the Constitution in spirit, jurisdiction, SC opinion/ruling and law. It does not want to separate. However, if we cannot get back to that very reasonable and essential baseline - all bets are off.
If you think that Quebec is a whiny and needy province in the presence of its separatist movement, then what does that make the online keyboard warriors who want Alberta to copy Quebec's example?
1). Section 121 refers to goods, for trade. It’s about free trade between provinces. I don’t think it creates an obligation for a province to allow a pipeline to cross its territory by defining the pipeline as a tradeable “good”. At most, 121 just means Quebec can’t tariff the oil when it crosses in from Ontario.
Stepping back a bit, Quebec didn’t exercise any written Constitutional veto power. It just made sufficient political objection to Cabinet that, added to all the other objections, Cabinet killed the pipeline as a political decision in the national interest. Nothing explicitly says Quebec has a veto. We just all know it does because the federal government regards strong objections from Quebec as insurmountable.
2. You can’t have a sovereign Alberta in a sovereign Canada. There can be only one sovereign: border security, the currency, the military, citizenship, all those national things. Whatever powers Alberta or any other province might have, sovereignty can’t be one of those powers, not within a sovereign Canada.
Sovereignty means secession from the current Canadian sovereign.
Leslie, I respectfully disagree with your second point.
More specifically, the provinces and the federation itself (i.e. the sum of the provinces or "Ottawa") are EACH sovereign in their own spheres. Put differently, the Constitution assigns different areas of jurisdiction to the provinces and to the feds so they are each sovereign within those constitutional areas.
I offer an analogy. A city in my province of Alberta or in, say, the province of Ontario has certain powers granted to it in the legislation that created that municipality. Suppose that the province said, "Oh, no! We don't / do like / hate this or that and we, the province, will force you to do this or that." Then the municipality argues up and down but it loses simply because the municipality is a creature of the province and is subject to the whims of the province.
By contrast, both the province and the federation are created under the same document, i.e. the Constitution of Canada. The respective powers of the provinces and the federation itself are set forth in that Constitution so, again, each level, both provincial and federal are sovereign, but ONLY within their own spheres set forth in the Constitution.
Residual powers go to Ottawa. The federal government, as the sovereign, has the power to legislate in areas of provincial responsibility if necessary for the national purpose. That's why we have a federal Health Ministry even though health is a provincial domain. The provinces never have power to legislate in federal areas. Even purely on its provincial turf, a province can't do something that will hurt Canada. Since this is a political question, the government has to think hard about whether it can prevail politically when it ventures onto provincial turf. The political risk to a Liberal government steamrollering Alberta is less than steamrollering Quebec, simply because there are no Liberal seats at risk out there. (OK, there's one.) Y'all aren't going to vote for the Libs anyway, no matter what they do. So unless you start voting Liberal, to put Liberal majorities at risk, a Liberal government is going to get away with pulling rank on you, insofar as the Constitution permits it to. If you are out-voted, you're out-voted.
If a province disputes federal legislation on its turf, it can go to the Supreme Court. But it is bound by the Supreme Court's ruling, even if it doesn't like it. (The Supreme Court decision on Bill C-69 doesn't say exactly what many think it does.) The Supreme Court is mostly organized around supporting the primacy of the federal state in holding Canada together. The BNA Act was intended to provide peace, order, and good government. That means the Feds get the benefit of the doubt, unlike in the U.S. where residual powers go to the States (at least theoretically.)
On point 1. I disagree completely. By your logic you can’t put a tariff on but you can justifiably stop a truck or train. It doesn’t need to be overthought. It’s pretty clear and was probably made so intentionally. There is also the scenario of preventing another province say enacting a toll on certain goods transporting through their province, that I think buttresses my original argument. This is also likely way the Federal government has jurisdiction on inter-provincial infrastructure permits. On the Quebec point - that fact the Federal government even indulged them and ostensibly let it influence them (in relation to 121) is problematic. They have nothing to say about it under law and constitution.
2. Sure. Alberta does have sovereign control over certain areas of governance according to the constitution though. This is what I’m referring to.
My rule of thumb is that when someone says, "It doesn't need to be overthought" it means he's not prepared to listen to any more thinking about it so I will save my breath and leave you to it.
Thanks for this. The whole rage farming thing is divisive and dangerous. I particularly liked the point you made about what you will tolerate “in your own home.” In the dirty thirties my unemployed grandfather in England had a visit from a friend wearing the black shirt of Oswald Mosley’s fascists. He showed him the door. “Nothing stops you from supporting whatever you want, but do not bring that into my house.”
So beautifully thought out and written Jen. It puts words and coherence to what a lot of us are feeling but cant quite sort out.
Smith's inability to speak out of both sides of her mouth on these issues is impressive, but its really not fooling anyone.
My only counter would be something more simple, Smith is herself a separatist. She wants to be the queen of Albertastan. She herself IS the ultra right wing.
As a non-westerner who thinks the "threat" of Alberta separation is absurdly overblown - if Quebec can't do it in 50 years who can? - my biggest concern is that this issue will play right into the federal Liberals' hands.
As the other mostly-fake crisis with Trump and tariffs inevitably fades, our fearmongering government will try to make Alberta separatism the new boogeyman to work CTV/CBC-loving boomers into a pseudo-nationalist froth and wedge against Conservatives for being "weak on separatism". You know, while the Liberals most likely survive confidence motions with the help of the Bloc.
If the NDP gets a leader with some actual spine and sees some of that vote migrate back, they might be voting against the Liberals sooner than you think.
Or they might all cross the floor to be Liberals and close up shop, which is what Jagmeet would be doing if he was still an MP and still in charge. Could go either way.
This footsy-playing with the separatists will end badly. Lots of observers have drawn comparisons between this farce and what happened to David Cameron and Brexit. You dance with the devil, you're gonna get burned.
If I were an Albertan inhabiting the political middle ground (which is the vast majority - they just don't make as much noise as the extremists), then I would be baying for Danielle's blood. Between this and the AHS procurement scandal, she has shown her true colours. The blatant lack of integrity - and the contempt for the Albertan voter - is appalling.
Smith is playing a transparent political game. The AHS scandal has the potential to end her career, so she's trying to distract us with this farce. Yet another politician so intent on saving their political skin that they're willing to risk burning the house down.
Jen, that was a well-constructed argument. However, missing is the element of time. A stopwatch does not judge a true leader but, rather, it is his/her ability to respond to the direction OVER TIME.
Tried to get that across in pointing out the parallels with the PQ. Hate on the Quebec separatists all you like - they built their democratic legitimacy over decades, not months.
Alberta wannabes don't have that kind of patience. JG
The FLQ preceded the PQ. Hardly a force for democracy. Bombings, kidnappings and murder (not just M. Laporte - RIP).
That is the past. I cannot hate Quebec separatists. Having worked along side them, had them as family and friends, they are us. Unlike Anglo-Canadians, they aren't puritanical (add to the Canadian attributes of hypocritical and censorious). Perhaps reflecting the sin today, absolved tomorrow, religion?
"Briefly, this concept points out that a small, committed minority can hold entire institutions hostage if the leaders of those institutions lose their moral bearings and fail to assert norms and guardrails."
This sentence describes every school board in Ontario and their tiny but furious uber-woke factions that wants every subject and every lesson to be a critical race theory fueled rant.
Excellent piece! My question has been for quite a few years, is, why do Canadians pick such poor leaders? Federally it has been a heartbreaking collection for quite a few years (with a couple of exceptions maybe). Coming from Ontario, I feel equally disparing about our official leaders.
Few people of any quality want to go into politics. It’s a terrible job. People who really want power are usually demonstrating they can’t be trusted with it. Those who power seems unlikely to come their way are mediocre time servers.
Canada has too great a demand for politicians and civil servants, more than the supply of talent can meet. 28 Cabinet Ministers! As if!
Fighting for protection of Alberta’s place in confederation is a good thing. The devil, as always, is in the details. Like most of us Smith has watched Quebec skew the system to their wants and needs successfully through PA and BQ parties. Alberta is not Quebec. The creation of such a party simply invites the NDP to a perpetual rule. We also don’t have the population or built in constitutional advantages on a national scale to get our needs addressed so that avenue has been closed. Having a referendum this early would be a critical error or cure depending upon your opinion on the separation matter. Held too early it will fail spectacularly and that would be a good thing for the population as opinion is presently configured. The downside is added more upheaval to any hope of further investment in our province especially but not limited to oil and gas. The downside of waiting until the separation side may get closer to a win is the investment climate is stunted for an extended period much like in the Quebec (or Brexit) case. At minimum I believe that Smith should give Carney a bit more runway but I don’t see her opinion or follow through as being exactly Machiavellian inspired. Whether or not she is a true leader is in the eye of the beholder and perhaps a bit too early to call in any definitive way. Results and outcome are a better judge of leadership good or bad.
This comment has the essence which Jen did not mention, although I think Jen is aware of it. Perhaps lack of space or not directly topical for what she wanted to write.
Given that Carney is a decades-long Liebrano Laurentian insider and a policy-maker, he does not deserve any more runway that D. Smith seems to be giving him. He said to her some fuzzy words to buy himself some time. The end result of what he will be actually doing is to keep Western Canada's head under water until it becomes an impoverished economic wasteland so that all control continues to reside in Central Canada.
My impression is that Western Canada leans towards the U.S. while Central and Eastern Canada lean towards England/France/ Europe, the Motherland. Westerners are independent minded like Americans while Central and Eastern Canada want to be led by the nose and not think too much about the type of leadership leading them. Older Canadians want to be led by predictability and what has worked in the past and lean towards Europe, younger Canadians want change and lean towards the U.S. Change is coming as the older population dies off and the younger generation take over, 45% of Canadians currently want change and change will happen.
Clearly, the western provinces are Canadian. Clearly, also, much of the West was settled by immigrants. [For purposes of this paragraph, I will not deal with the wave of immigration after WW II.] A vast number of immigrants came from Europe, following the actions of Sir Clifford Sifton and the actions of the federal governments in the years prior to WW I. I expect that a large number of readers will understand that already.
What many readers may not understand is that a large component of citizens of western Canada are the descendants of Americans who came at the same time.
In my personal case, my one set of grandparents came from the Russian Empire prior to 1900 while my other set of grandparents came from the US a little after that date. At that time, the Canada - US border was sufficiently "irregular" that they simply came; no fuss, no bother, no formalities; they simply came and stayed.
Many in the West came for land and for freedom from the tyrannies of "the old country" in central and eastern Europe and many came from the US and brought the independent nature of the western part of that country.
By contrast, Central Canada and Atlantic Canada were (originally) populated with Europeans (British Isles and French, initially, and other Europeans subsequently) and their descendants.
So, yes, historically, we in western Canada come from a different mindset than folks in Central and Atlantic Canada. We look south more than we look to Europe; it is my belief that in Central and Atlantic Canada there is a great deal of looking to Europe.
Is it acceptable to wonder if history is destiny? I don't know. What I do know is that we in Western Canada seem to have a different perspective than Central and Atlantic Canada and that difference seems to be intolerable to the "Centrals" and "Atlantics." Put differently, we in the West expect that the "Centrals" and "Atlantics" will abide by their agreement - as documented in the Constitution - as to what we in the provinces are responsible for doing.
Blow, it is obvious when you live it, as we do in Alberta.
The truth is, I get so damned annoyed at those Central Canadians (a damned lot of Quebecers, particularly, in this group) who say that we have no distinctive culture and no distinctive society. Simply put, they are a) wrong; b) snobs; and, c) couldn't recognize any culture other than their own unless they checked the yogurt in their fridge. After it spoiled.
Thanks for the info, Ken. Very interesting information. I’m going to have to review the causes of Americans war of independence and see if Canada if the West is heading in that direction. Wasn’t that about taxes, too much oversight and control as well.
As for the American war in independence, the - please pardon the expression - kick off event is often deemed to be the Boston Tea Party in which Bostonians masquerading as Indians took over some British ships in Boston harbor and threw the tea overboard. The stated reason was a protest against the British tax on tea. That is often deemed the start and the reason given is the argument about taxation. I expect that if you look a bit further you will see that there are scholars who will argue that it was more (and less) complicated than a taxation protest.
Now, another point. Above I mentioned how ever so many Americans had come to Canada prior to WW I, and that is absolutely correct. Further, however, you may have noticed that oil and gas is a big economic driver here in Alberta. Starting in the late teens (19, that is) we started seeing US oil men migrate to Alberta. After WW II that migration was a flood, nay, a deluge of folks. Many Americans came here and after a period of time went home but far, far more came and stayed, married and had families. That affected dramatically the way of thinking in this part of the country.
Further - and I expect that very few readers outside of Alberta will be at all aware of this - the American oil companies that arrived hired a whole lot - a LOT, I tell you - of Canadians and employed them here. Many of those Canadians were world class talents and ended up being transferred back to head office in Houston, Dallas and a myriad of other US locations. In turn some of those Canadians finished their careers stateside but a whole lot came home. That meant that, again, we have American influence.
It is said that Calgary has the largest population of Americans in the world, living outside the US. Whether that is true or not I cannot say but I know absolutely that Americans are an integral part of our city. Pretty well all those permanent Americans, i.e. those who chose to stay here, are Canadian citizens.
So, my point is that Calgary - and southern Alberta - is a very sympathetic place to the ideas of freedom of expression, entrepreneurial thinking (something that, quite frankly, is not a real Canadian thingy) and just cantankerously independent (as in thinking for oneself, not in the separation sense) thought.
Jen expecting any moral guidance or leadership from the self-serving "Clown in the ass-less chaps" is a fools game. She conned her party and a bunch of Albertans in 2023, now she's trying to hold onto the strings so she's not kicked to the curb by the 0.003% of Albertans who affirmed her leadership in the UCP last year.
She's also apparently afraid to call by-elections?
It has however pushed her "CorruptCare Scandal" off the front pages. How convenient!
The UCP needs to be looking for its next leader now. Smith makes Kenney look like Churchill.
First off, this entire thing rang like a bell. Killer piece.
Secondly, I think we can all agree that yelling and screaming doesn’t calm people down, it just makes people want to yell and scream more. Anger is not heat or moisture or a fart to be aired out of a room. It’s a fire, not a match: Don’t blow on the embers expecting them to go out.
...quite the little rant, I hope it made you feel better Jen.
I feel it might be important to note that Smith has NOT in fact been stumping for seperation - in fact her rhetoric has been remarkably consistent on this point, she would far rather have a strong Alberta WITHIN confederation.
The legislative change she is proposing is to lower the requirements for how many signatures it takes to prompt a citizen-led referendum question.
This legislation is NOT separatist-exclusive at all, and it can be utilized for many good purposes, INCLUDING the referendum on provincial policing you believe rural Alberta is crying out for; this legislation would make it easier for that referendum to happen.
Smith is proposing that we enhance democracy in Alberta, and you are railing against it because you think democracy is dangerous if placed in the hands of mere citizens...? Just trying to grok your thinking here, it doesn't make sense to me.
Smith's rhetoric has been equivocal and self serving. She speaks on separatism in such a way that allows everyone to read whatever they want into her statements -- including the separatists.
Judge her by her actions. Judge her by the legislation she is introducing. Draw your conclusions from that. JG
Exactly.
She's being just as mature, responsible, and leaderly as if she'd suggested a referendum on:
"Shall we consider lobbing a nuke at Toronto?"
"Should we have a referendum on AB being a 'white only' province?"
I'm sure she could find a minority for either/both. Strong lady, brave leader.
If Danielle’s your definition of a brave, strong leader your bar is very low.
I was trying to be obviously ridiculous and sarcastic lol.
Whoops my bad. Haha sorry about that
Ottawa wants to crush Alberta. Smith would rather not secede. So she needs to make credible threats to force Ottawa to back down. Reducing the referendum threshold greatly increases the credibility of her threats, and therefore the likelihood that Ottawa backs down.
Maybe you are too young to remember the Cold War, or maybe you would have been marching around with a "better red than dead" sign, but I suggest you read some Cold War history: Smith is doing exactly the right things to actually stop Ottawa's attacks on Alberta.
Ottawa does not want to crush Alberta. Ottawa does want to try to find a way to govern in the interests of the whole country, which is not easy in a country like this.
We’ve got the first Prime Minister in 45 years who actually grew up in Alberta. Why don’t you wait and see what happens rather than pre-judging the question?
Everyone is taking it as a given that Ottawa has zero intention of allowing pipelines, reforming equalization, removing the emissions cap, or meeting any other of Smith's demands. Because, if Ottawa were to back down, support for secession would be non-existent, and we wouldn't be worrying about it.
“Demands”. I think that proves Gerson’s point.
...wow, a self-serving politician. Hold the presses.
The legislation she is introducing enhances direct democracy (on ALL issues).
Everybody who has ever put their faith in Danielle Smith as a leader has been disappointed.
When she inevitably lets you down, too, we'll be here for you. JG
Excellent column! Danielle Smith and Pierre Poilievre demonstrate Vichy-style “leadership.” I think revolutionaries look for whatever crack they can find in the firmament and fill it with revolution, the weaker the leadership the better.
Agree with your second paragraph. As to the first - isn’t that what all politicians do? And they will as long as the media lets them get away with it. I have yet to see an interview where the host kept at the dodging politician until the question was actually answered.
Judging leaders on the basis of actions taken, and the ensuing consequences of those actions, is indeed sound advice. Unfortunately, this is advice that the plurality of eastern Canadian voters seem to have eschewed in the federal election, instead curling up into a ball owing to Trump derangement syndrome, memory-holing a decade of Canadian economic and social carnage, and clearly not giving a damn about national unity insofar as the disaffected west in general, and Alberta's aspirations in particular, are concerned. Evidently, leaders need not be concerned over actions (or inactions) if a plurality of the electorate is similarly unconcerned.
Notwithstanding, I grant you that Danielle's fence straddling is far from the best look from a leader. I do wonder however you would advise her in the alternative. Alberta has pleaded, cajoled, implored, fumed, and screamed until it is blue in the face and been given the proverbial middle finger by the federal government, a creature of eastern Canada, for years now. Besides the political butt covering going on here, I think Danielle and a great many Albertans are simply at their wits' end. What else should they do - organize an Occupy Ottawa convoy?
Let's hope that Carney and his new cabinet (with a depressing number of holdovers from Trudeau's clown car show cabinet) do much better in the leadership department. The new government could easily defuse all of this by putting paid to climate virtue signalling, unachievable net zero timelines, "just transition" BS, and getting the hell out of the way of the oil and gas industry that funds the social programs and equalization scams of which their eastern Canadian power base is so fond.
Of course, hoping for leadership from a party that was just rewarded for a decade of unfathomable incompetence would seem to be utter desperation, but that's where we are.
If Albertan Conservatives want to achieve more influence over federal policy, they can start by taking a good hard look in the mirror. Albertan Conservatives who threatened breakup of the country if the Liberals win did an excellent job of convincing eastern Canadians that a Conservative government would be completely obedient to the keyboard warrior/rage-farmer constituency.
Albertan Conservatives think that the whole world revolves around them and that federal climate policies are "all about us". No, it's not about you. It's not some conspiracy against you if the federal government imposes a policy that you don't like. Federal governments impose policies that multiple provinces oppose, and this happens all the time. Alberta is much more than just its oil industry, and its oil industry is by all accounts still on a trajectory to grow regardless of current federal policies.
Your connection of Alberta conservative threats with convincing eastern Canadians of the dangers of a federal conservative government are spot on. But then, it appears the credulous nature of the plurality of the eastern Canadian electorate is simply off the scale, given the apparent belief that a fourth consecutive Liberal government led by Trudeau’s economic advisor represents change and renewal.
“I only handed them the gun, inspector, it’s not like I pulled the trigger!”
So your point is that democracy is bad...?
Alrighty then.
I was not born yesterday. A premier issued sovereignty threats weeks before the election and has now struck up talk about referendum policy, all while the op-ed industrial complex is in overtime manufacturing consent for an Albertan separatism crisis (thanks Preston!)
But yeah, this is actually about providing direct democracy for citizen input on provincial policing. Give me a break.
The legislation applies to ALL citizen referenda. If you have evidence it does not, please provide your evidence.
Smith did NOT "issue threats" about separatism, she delivered warnings that separatist sentiments were likely to get fanned into flame if Alberta's needs were ignored, and it seems her warnings were based in reality.
I’m not going to argue with someone playing the exact same game of rhetorical chicken the piece being discussed was written to condemn. Really sick of the lack of integrity on display here. Stop lying, folks. Might actually solve some problems for once if we can actually be honest with each other about what our goals and game plans are.
You can disagree with me without impugning my integrity, it’s allowed.
To my knowledge, I’ve told no lies in the posts we’ve exchanged.
You seem VERY eager to see devious intent in others.
Could we restrict our conversation to what has actually been said, rather than what YOU believe others are silently thinking..?
"The legislation applies to ALL citizen referenda."
You keep making this point, but I don't get it. She made this change now, for a succession referendum. So what if it applies for other referenda... irrelevant and nobody cares. She did it for her bs cynical reasons, to pander to a MAGA minority, and she's made it clear she loves being near Trump.
Pretty cheap, weak and not much like leadership.
We can debate her reasons all day - because neither of us live between her ears.
But bluntly speaking, the rule she is changing here is not a radical one - and it allows for MORE direct democracy, not less.
Go ahead and argue otherwise, I'm all ears.
Your projections about her love for all things Trump are just silly - YES, she went directly to the States to plead Alberta's case - rather eloquently and effectively. ...and she even talked to some overtly Republican podcasters...!
Seems to me these actions bore good fruit - in the end, oil and gas got a lot less punitive tariffs than other good and services...
...so that's called "doing her job", in my books.
What are the democratic principles involved when you lower the threshold and make arrangements for a separation referendum, for the benefit of a small fraction of your community?
Is it just because you agree with the cause that this is democracy?
I mean if Danielle Smith said she was holding a referendum to cancel all oil and gas extraction because 15% of the AB population wanted it, I'm struggling to think you'd call it democracy, lol.
The legislation she is proposing does not discriminate between the validity of what these referenda are about.
If you want to sponsor a referendum on shutting down oil and gas production, go ahead - get the required signatures, and fill your boots.
It will get voted down though, because much like the other silly ideas above (lobbing a nuke at Toronto made me chuckle) it is an overtly silly idea, which will not appeal to the general public.
I personally am NOT an advocate for Alberta separation, but I do recognise that giving citizens an outlet to vent their frustrations can be helpful in bringing temperatures down.
You have hilariously just proved the author's point, more or less word for word in the far-right scenario she proposed. Brilliant.
"Nice Confederation you have there. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it", is basically what the Albertan Premier is saying here. I don't know how you deny that she's stumping for separation when she has consciously made herself the most prominent mouthpiece for separatist voices. Albertan separatism is in the national dialogue only because *she* made it so.
It's nothing other than a joke to entertain the idea that the lowered threshold for petitioning for a referendum is anything other than a deliberate sop to supporters of separatism. She's making policy demands of the federal government with threats of Western alienation as a premise, and the threat of separation is the only kind of teeth to push her demands, and she knows that lowering the threshold makes it easier to initiate a question on separation. She's not some goldfish who lacks memory of what she said and did the other day, she's fully aware of the cumulative effect of these various choices.
I disagree that she has "caused" the separatist anger currently boiling up in Alberta (and Saskatchewan, it should be noted).
She did warn this anger may occur, and is now trying to defuse these sentiments - in part by allowing them to be aired. You can disagree with HOW she is attempting to defuse the anger, but it seems plain that this is what she is attempting to do.
Ginning up anger is cheap, easy, and weak...it's pathetic.
Working against it, taking the bullets, proposing a positive vision, doing the work to persuade people and bring them along for your ideas, which includes a lot of listening to a lot of yelling... leadership.
She doesn't have the wit, heart, or cojones.
I am 68 and have lived in Alberta my entire life. The concept of Western Alienation has flared up time and again over the last five and a half decades. Danielle Smith is fanning those flames.
What specifically has she said to fan those flames...?
In any place and time there's going to be citizens angry with their provincial and federal government. Singling out keyboard warrior separatists, who have no prior demonstrable movement momentum, for special recognition is a dubious choice.
This is simply a Premier who has pathetic judgment for who she specifically associates herself with, sharing spaces and platforms with convicts and with Tucker Carlson while she seemingly couldn't care less about meeting with the real downtrodden like homeless people.
Her rhetoric, to me, has seemed mealy mouthed, without commitment, or foundation. How is this pandering to a well-documented small minority democracy?
Did you read Jen's article? She addresses each of your points and, while I understand you disagree with her conclusions I think you'd benefit from dropping the snide remarks and respond to the article as it was written.
She poses questions, either directly or by inference, that - assuming I were in disagreement with the piece - I'd see it as my responsibility to address before I'd even consider a tone of callow superiority. Here are a few questions that I pulled out of Jen's article:
- What is the appropriate threshold to hold a referendum on a question of sovereignty?
- How often are sovereignty referendums appropriate? (For example, would yearly be too often?
- What about the rights of the majority of Albertans not be thrown into an existential mud-wrestling match over their right to remain in the country of their birth? Do we care about these guys?
- How has 'government by referendum' worked out for other jurisdictions that have tried it?
To spark a meaningful discussion would you be willing to address any of these?
"To spark a meaningful discussion would you be willing to address any of these?"
If I were advocating for separation, sure, of course I would.
But I'm not.
All my original post pointed out was that (like me) Smith is ALSO not stumping for separation.
The legislative change she has proposed provides Albertans with the opportunity for more citizen-led direct democracy going forward. Full Stop.
Will the first "question" to use this system likely be about separatism? Perhaps.
But the change she made was NOT exclusively made for a separatism referendum.
So sorry, but 'no', I do not care to defend the separatist cause, and I also refuse to get swept up in a two minute hate directed towards Smith for trying to wrestle with this issue in a sensible way.
I guess I share her optimism that the most likely scenario with a quick vote would be a resounding 'no' vote. It's not going to go away if we let it fester....
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
140 000 and counting. Without advertising.
The FLQ preceded the PQ. Long before JG's time, so didn't happen. Something we can dodge.
"She's not a leader."
er-satz: "being a usually artificial and inferior substitute or imitation." Merriam-Webster
If the foundation of this article is selfishness/self-interest as anathema to leadership, I'm pounding the fucking table. Ersatz leaders defined by their self-interest produce terrible results for the country. Period.
Has my rose-coloured memory manufactured leaders from the past, or have we actually had leaders who wanted do something more than they wanted to be something? I'm certain the public can smell the difference, and we suffer many fools.
For anyone who suspects Jenn's thoughts are pollyanna, drum circle, motherhood words... real leaders, credible by definition, have permission to lead because we believe they have our best interests at heart. "I don't care about what you're saying unless I think you care about me", is basic emotional intelligence, a leadership requirement.
Sidebar, on the topic of belief: real, caring, smart leaders know the difference between perception and reality is pointless; the fucking damage is done.
The hypocrisy and contradictions necessary to be Danielle Smith (David Eby, Justin Trudeau, Delirium Tremens...), obvious to all but their particular cult of true believers, means wasted time, wasted resources, misdirected strategy, less peace in the land, less collaboration, less trust and fair dealing, fewer folks willing to help, secrecy... tons of stinking piles of of bullshit and none of it good for us.
A couple missing points on leadership.
1. Leadership requires listening, and listening in good faith
2. Leadership requires compromise.
Premier Smith is advocating for a strong AB within Canada, in a Canada that respects the Constitution that nation was founded on. It is Canada that has strayed from its founding document, sometimes supported by an activist Supreme Court, and more recently now, ruled against by that same Court. The division of powers within the Constitution is supposed to (among other objectives) enforce points 1 and 2 on Federal leadership in order to get things done. That has been missing over the past decade.
Sometimes too the Federal government (and the Provinces) also ignore or game specific founding parts of the Constitution that are not debatable. Section 121 for example.
"All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces."
Why would Quebec have a "veto" over a pipeline? Why would BC? Why do we even discuss these things? Once you make the rules that your Federation (or even Corporation) is founded on, you need to live and die by them, for better and worse. Quebec may not "like" a pipeline running through their province, but this is not their purview. We agreed to compromise on this issue to support and strengthen the Union, ignoring or indulging that little detail now is at best bad faith, and at worst a breach of the agreement.
So I know you think the separatists are fringe wackos, and right now the ones leading the charge probably are (I'm being generous with the use here of "probably"). The fringe are just the ones who want it now, and are saying it out loud. But to say separatism is a "single issue" idea that should have its own party is also misreading things. I agree with Premier Smith, I want a strong and sovereign AB as a part of a strong and Sovereign Canada, I want the Constitution to be respected in letter and spirit for better and worse. But we can't control this in AB it seems, so if your partner(s) breaches the agreement, and does not or refuses to remedy the breach? Well I think all options have to be considered then. In light of the above, some sort of separatism is being considered by MOST UCP voters. Now it's most probably being considered as an option 'D' - certainly not MOST peoples preference. But it is being contemplated. So what this means then, is what Premier Smith is saying, isn't just voicing the fringe, it's voicing the majority of her party. The majority of her party that wants to stay in Canada, and wants Alberta and Canada to prosper, to abide by its Constitution. But is also clear eyed about the state we're in, and what our "partners" have been known to do. And so as result, all options need to be on the table.
I thinknyou have correctly identified the problems.
The issue with separatism is that idendepencr solves none of these problems - while massively incurring downside risks. JG
I have signed up for Team Carney on a 6 month term - so I'm not wanting to go down this path. But there is a membership fee based full Economic Union with the USA, and a soft/friendly breakup pitch with Canada, that certainly would offer a viable path.
You write that, "all options need to be on the table", but apparently hardcore Conservatives in Alberta are steadfastly determined to ignore the one option of taking a good look in the mirror and understanding how their own behaviours contributed to their recent political disappointments. The federal Conservatives are undergoing a certain amount of coping and denial about how they alienated non-Conservative Canadians and their Albertan counterparts have shown interest in throwing a tamper tantrum accordingly, or as you say, considering "some sort of separatism". The problem for them is that this is continuing precisely the kind of behaviour that results in federal governments and other provincial governments with policies that Albertan Conservatives do not like.
No, I think you misread the root of the problem. It's not actually one of partisan politics, we can debate and disagree on income taxation and social policy all we want and it doesn't lead to this. The issue is the Liberals have shown themselves to ignore, disregard and/or game fundamental parts of our Constitution and the separation of powers - typically to benefit the whims of an Eastern voting base. There was no significant Western separatist sediment under Jean Chrétien/Paul Martin for example.
Should Carney make good on his Campaign promises, and fall back on the Constitution to justify potentially "unpopular" decisions, you'll see Western separatism vanish like a fart in the wind. You'll also probably see a dozen or more Liberals get elected in AB in a massive Liberal Majority government..
I’ve been saying for a decade that the fundamentals of the issue mean that decarbonization and the energy transition may lead to a national unity crisis.
You realize that this isn’t solely a matter of supposed Constitutional rights for pipeline transit? Regulation of pollution is legitimately the purview of government?
Fossil fuels are the basis of current modern civilization — and most of Alberta’s prosperity — but they’re also pollution. It’s this dual nature that makes it really hard.
But don’t pretend that the federal government somehow has no right to regulate carbon. It regulated asbestos too, even though that hurt certain regions. This is harder because oil is far more important than asbestos ever was, but the principle is the same. It’s a legitimate question for political debate.
“But don’t pretend that the federal government somehow has no right to regulate carbon.”
Sort of.
Insomuch as the regulation is applied equally and without prejudice it does. But when an industry based in AB has a cap on it, and when one based in Ont does not - it offends its constitutional jurisdiction (to say the least). Federal Carbon pricing was ruled constitutional as based on national minimum standards equally applied.
Furthermore (relative to C-69) applying the poison pill clause of factoring “downstream emissions” in assessing project approvals, which the Supreme Court did find unconstitutional and out of jurisdiction, was another naked shot at a specific industry.
Many people act as if domestic decarbonization and oil and gas production are in competition. It’s this tension that’s creating the tension - and federal overreach in that pursuit. I would be thrilled if AB bought BC hydro and commissioned Ontario nuclear plants while eastern Canada used AB/Sask hydrocarbons and petrochemicals - in whatever capacity their demand for them existed. But for Canada to disregard world demand (out of its control) and instead attack its own domestic supply side? Is madness.
But downstream emissions (Scope 3 in UNFCCC-speak) really are a thing though. If someone in the US burns that barrel of exported Alberta oil it really does contribute to the slow-motion global catastrophe of climate change.
Look, I’m with you that Canada unilaterally trying to shut down its own oil exports in the absence of coordinated action with the four polities that actually matter (China, USA, India, EU) is a supremely stupid thing to do.
I think the world will probably do nothing for 5 years and then this all needs to get reinvented as something much less UN COP kumbaya and much more like Reagan-Gorbachev nonproliferation negotiations (except… JD Vance/Xi Jinping I guess).
But we’re all grappling for what to do here. Even us horrible Ontario climate voters. Our main national export is helping destroy a stable climate — it is just a hard, complex problem. Trudeau went way harder after Scope 3 than comparable countries like Norway and that is directly causing the current national unity crisis. But it wasn’t done out of hatred for Alberta. Lots of voters are just really, really concerned about climate change.
Geoff, you don't seem to be allowing for the possibility that a democracy could decide that the benefits of unfettered burning of oil -- which you acknowledge is important to our modern way of life and will be for a long time -- outweigh the conjectural, far-in-the-future, and highly diffuse impacts of CO2 emissions. Anything that Canada does hurts only ourselves unless the countries we trade with suddenly get religion and tell us they will apply sanctions on us unless we decarbonize in lock step with them. Since as you imply, Vance and Xi will never collude to do that, never mind India, so we might as well continue with business as usual and earn the export dollars as well as supporting our own oil-intensive way of life while the party lasts. (On top of all that, the dirty little secret is that Canada will benefit from continued modest warning, even as the rest of the planet melts.)
If all those people die in India from heat waves you are always condemning me for not caring about, it's not going to be due to anything Canada did or didn't do. It's due to what Xi and Vance and Modi himself didn't agree to do. If they put the screws to us to decarbonize, you can bet we will, toute-de-suite. But not a moment before they tell us to.
This is prisoner's dilemma but with the wrinkle that the two prisoners have asymmetric power and both know what each decides to do (instead of being equal and both incommunicado.) The dominant player now dictates the optimum strategy to the subordinate one. In this version of the game, the subordinate player's best choice is to do nothing until the dominant player makes his move. If the subordinate player moves first, the dominant player will do the opposite, betraying him. There is no reason why the dominant player should cooperate with a subordinate one moving first.
Asbestos and other traditional pollutants don't behave at all like CO2. Traditional pollutants are local, with the injurious effects felt locally by people who see the effects and can see benefits to regulatory movements. (Remember Canada resisted killing asbestos because most of the harms were not in fact local, but suffered by far-away customers. The mineworkers in Quebec were happy to keep mining the stuff because the toxicity could be managed with occupational safety measures.) They also have limited scope: we can do without an asbestos industry. We can do without a pulp-and-paper industry if efforts by mills to curb mercury pollution are insufficient and the industry has to close down. But you yourself admit that closing down the oil industry will be ruinously difficult, because everything that moves depends on oil either as fuel or as the energy for building stuff. You seem to be saying that yes, oil is essential but in the final analysis you are going to make us do without it nonetheless if you get your way.
I don't think the people will accept that, not unless the dominant players force us to. And in a way we already know they won't: Carney axed the tax himself because he knew it was a winning issue for the Conservatives. Will he re-instate it now with his comfortable near-majority? Wait and see, I guess.
In the Chretien/Martin era Danielle Smith was not Premier, which goes some way to account for the then absence of "significant Western separatist sentiment", to whatever extent that is objective reality.
"It's not actually one of partisan politics... The issue is the Liberals have shown themselves to ignore, disregard and/or game fundamental parts of our Constitution and the separation of powers"
Those are talking points coming from the Conservatives, so this does then come down to partisan politics. If you neither accept election outcomes nor the rulings of courts nor the opinions of academia as objective determiners that the federal government is respecting the Constitution, then that's another way of saying that the Constitution is being broken until the Conservatives specifically say otherwise. In other words, Conservatives get a veto on the legitimacy of Confederation.
"Should Carney make good on his Campaign promises, and fall back on the Constitution to justify potentially "unpopular" decisions, you'll see Western separatism vanish like a fart in the wind."
Only until spoiled Western separatists manufacture their next of lies about what the federal government is or is not doing. Once you set the precedent for a province successfully imposing obedience upon the rest of the country, then the only inevitable outcome is a perpetually needy and whiny province.
Stefan, your first paragraph ignores earlier history when, in 1982, an avowed separatist was elected to the Alberta Legislature. Put differently, we have had separatists in Alberta for some considerable time and the sentiment clearly predates Chretien or Martin or Danielle Smith. In fact, I suggest that it well predates that 1982 date.
You argue that the point about ignoring separation of powers under the Constitution is simply a talking point of Conservatives. I respectfully ask what part of the country you live in? I ask that because there are many, many folks here in Alberta who do not like the fact that we are assigned some roles within the Constitution but then a group of people in Ottawa and Central Canada generally simply decide that they "know" what is best for us and then they do what they wish, no matter that the responsibility is supposed to be ours.
You argue that we are "spoiled Western separatists" when we want the Constitution to be applied as written. I suppose that you might wish to argue that the Constitution was written in 1867 (well, 1864 to 1867, given the Charlottetown Conference in 1864) and is, therefore, obsolete but that would ignore that the current constitution was updated in 1982. My point is that very recently the feds and the provinces agreed (I do not deal herein with the argument of Quebec not signing on) to the separation of powers and therefore it is valid to expect that the two levels of government follow that Constitution.
And, your final assertion that "... spoiled Western separatists manufacture their next [set] of lies about what the federal government is or is not doing ..." betrays your (apparent) perspective that it is not valid for we in Western Canada to expect the feds to follow the separation of responsibilities set forth in the Constitution. That, I conclude, means that you and I have nothing further to discuss.
I wish you a good day.
I never said there was anything wrong with expecting the Constitution to be upheld. Establishing *when* and *whether* the Constitution has been upheld is very much a political question, especially when you have decided that the ruling of the courts do not have legitimacy on said question.
The Constitution is not necessarily being violated because the federal government adopts policies that the losers of the election do not like. So unless you are willing to identify non-partisan authorities who can definitively rule whether policies are in line with the Constitution of Canada, then you are in fact implying that the Conservatives, the losers of the election, get a veto on the legitimacy of Confederation. You are implying, "The Constitution is being violated until the Conservatives have the humility to say otherwise."
Gee, I wonder why the party of sore losers lost the election?
I’ll point you’re attention here.
https://mcmillan.ca/insights/publications/supreme-court-of-canada-rules-impact-assessment-act-unconstitutional-implications-and-future-directions/#:~:text=The%20IAA%2C%20previously%20known%20as,provincial%20jurisdiction%20and%20thus%20unconstitutional.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7030716
Years to get these opinions - and I know they are “non-binding” but the implications are very clear.
And then Section 121 of the Constitution.
This doesn’t need to be made clear - it’s simple. Trade shall not be restricted between or through provinces.
We can debate semantics all we want on these items, but I, nor Westerners aren’t interested. We want the spirit and the letter of the Constitution respected. Follow the Supreme Court opinions, stop gaming your lawmaking around constitutional restrictions. Use persuasion rather than authoritarianism.
“Once you set the precedent for a province successfully imposing obedience upon the rest of the country, then the only inevitable outcome is a perpetually needy and whiny province.”
Ahh. Quebec? Curious as to why the vitriol to AB when Quebec has been milking this cow for 50 years? And in a far more organized fashion. Also, I’d argue (and it seems most agree) that western alienation is rooted in something tangible and real. Not “lies.” I stand by my statement. Western separatism disappears quickly with very little in the way of a return to the set out division of powers and support for the Western resource economy.
I don't know of anyone who is arguing that we should adopt purportedly Quebec-favourable policies solely on the basis of separation threats from the Parti Quebecois or the Bloc Quebecois. If the Government of Canada were submissively obedient to the Quebec separatist movement, then we would not have the Clarity Act. But I am seeing sore losers of the election saying that the Government of Canada needs to be submissive to the interests of a minority within Alberta.
"Follow the Supreme Court opinions"
The Supreme Court has ruled that a province cannot unilaterally declare its separation from Canada. If you're talking about respecting Supreme Court opinions, that also means having the humility to admit the simple fact that Alberta's keyboard-warrior minority is nowhere close to being able to pull off a legal and legitimate separation of their province.
"I’d argue (and it seems most agree) that western alienation is rooted in something tangible and real. Not “lies.”"
Well it is easier to persuade a smaller group, such as a minority, with lies, than to persuade a majority with lies. It hardly even matters how factual the existing grievances of the minority within Alberta are - when you are committed to shaping national policy based on the whims of a small minority, you are committed to empowering whoever is dishonest and shameless enough to swindle that small minority.
The interests of AB as communicated by Danielle Smith are not the interests of a minority in AB. They are the interests of a strong majority in AB. I would also argue they are in the interests of a strong Canada.. it seems Carney and the CONS agree on this point if you take their campaign promises and rhetoric at face value.
You’re deflecting on my point of respect for court opinions and the spirit of the Constitution, and the lack thereof of the last Liberal admin. This is the root cause of the issue, which is back to my original point.
Lastly, keep in mind, Danielle Smith is not voicing support for separation. You can scoff and impugn this, but then you’re no better than those that won’t give Carney a chance to make good on his words. AB wants what it is entitled to under the Constitution in spirit, jurisdiction, SC opinion/ruling and law. It does not want to separate. However, if we cannot get back to that very reasonable and essential baseline - all bets are off.
I don’t think this an unreasonable ask.
Stefan, did you just describe Quebec in your last sentence?
If you think that Quebec is a whiny and needy province in the presence of its separatist movement, then what does that make the online keyboard warriors who want Alberta to copy Quebec's example?
Two comments:
1). Section 121 refers to goods, for trade. It’s about free trade between provinces. I don’t think it creates an obligation for a province to allow a pipeline to cross its territory by defining the pipeline as a tradeable “good”. At most, 121 just means Quebec can’t tariff the oil when it crosses in from Ontario.
Stepping back a bit, Quebec didn’t exercise any written Constitutional veto power. It just made sufficient political objection to Cabinet that, added to all the other objections, Cabinet killed the pipeline as a political decision in the national interest. Nothing explicitly says Quebec has a veto. We just all know it does because the federal government regards strong objections from Quebec as insurmountable.
2. You can’t have a sovereign Alberta in a sovereign Canada. There can be only one sovereign: border security, the currency, the military, citizenship, all those national things. Whatever powers Alberta or any other province might have, sovereignty can’t be one of those powers, not within a sovereign Canada.
Sovereignty means secession from the current Canadian sovereign.
Leslie, I respectfully disagree with your second point.
More specifically, the provinces and the federation itself (i.e. the sum of the provinces or "Ottawa") are EACH sovereign in their own spheres. Put differently, the Constitution assigns different areas of jurisdiction to the provinces and to the feds so they are each sovereign within those constitutional areas.
I offer an analogy. A city in my province of Alberta or in, say, the province of Ontario has certain powers granted to it in the legislation that created that municipality. Suppose that the province said, "Oh, no! We don't / do like / hate this or that and we, the province, will force you to do this or that." Then the municipality argues up and down but it loses simply because the municipality is a creature of the province and is subject to the whims of the province.
By contrast, both the province and the federation are created under the same document, i.e. the Constitution of Canada. The respective powers of the provinces and the federation itself are set forth in that Constitution so, again, each level, both provincial and federal are sovereign, but ONLY within their own spheres set forth in the Constitution.
Residual powers go to Ottawa. The federal government, as the sovereign, has the power to legislate in areas of provincial responsibility if necessary for the national purpose. That's why we have a federal Health Ministry even though health is a provincial domain. The provinces never have power to legislate in federal areas. Even purely on its provincial turf, a province can't do something that will hurt Canada. Since this is a political question, the government has to think hard about whether it can prevail politically when it ventures onto provincial turf. The political risk to a Liberal government steamrollering Alberta is less than steamrollering Quebec, simply because there are no Liberal seats at risk out there. (OK, there's one.) Y'all aren't going to vote for the Libs anyway, no matter what they do. So unless you start voting Liberal, to put Liberal majorities at risk, a Liberal government is going to get away with pulling rank on you, insofar as the Constitution permits it to. If you are out-voted, you're out-voted.
If a province disputes federal legislation on its turf, it can go to the Supreme Court. But it is bound by the Supreme Court's ruling, even if it doesn't like it. (The Supreme Court decision on Bill C-69 doesn't say exactly what many think it does.) The Supreme Court is mostly organized around supporting the primacy of the federal state in holding Canada together. The BNA Act was intended to provide peace, order, and good government. That means the Feds get the benefit of the doubt, unlike in the U.S. where residual powers go to the States (at least theoretically.)
Hi Leslie,
On point 1. I disagree completely. By your logic you can’t put a tariff on but you can justifiably stop a truck or train. It doesn’t need to be overthought. It’s pretty clear and was probably made so intentionally. There is also the scenario of preventing another province say enacting a toll on certain goods transporting through their province, that I think buttresses my original argument. This is also likely way the Federal government has jurisdiction on inter-provincial infrastructure permits. On the Quebec point - that fact the Federal government even indulged them and ostensibly let it influence them (in relation to 121) is problematic. They have nothing to say about it under law and constitution.
2. Sure. Alberta does have sovereign control over certain areas of governance according to the constitution though. This is what I’m referring to.
My rule of thumb is that when someone says, "It doesn't need to be overthought" it means he's not prepared to listen to any more thinking about it so I will save my breath and leave you to it.
Bravo for saying it so eloquently.
Thanks for this. The whole rage farming thing is divisive and dangerous. I particularly liked the point you made about what you will tolerate “in your own home.” In the dirty thirties my unemployed grandfather in England had a visit from a friend wearing the black shirt of Oswald Mosley’s fascists. He showed him the door. “Nothing stops you from supporting whatever you want, but do not bring that into my house.”
So beautifully thought out and written Jen. It puts words and coherence to what a lot of us are feeling but cant quite sort out.
Smith's inability to speak out of both sides of her mouth on these issues is impressive, but its really not fooling anyone.
My only counter would be something more simple, Smith is herself a separatist. She wants to be the queen of Albertastan. She herself IS the ultra right wing.
As a non-westerner who thinks the "threat" of Alberta separation is absurdly overblown - if Quebec can't do it in 50 years who can? - my biggest concern is that this issue will play right into the federal Liberals' hands.
As the other mostly-fake crisis with Trump and tariffs inevitably fades, our fearmongering government will try to make Alberta separatism the new boogeyman to work CTV/CBC-loving boomers into a pseudo-nationalist froth and wedge against Conservatives for being "weak on separatism". You know, while the Liberals most likely survive confidence motions with the help of the Bloc.
I fully expect central Canadians to make all of this worse. I'll be ranting about them too, believe me. JG
I look forward to comparing and contrasting the thesis of that article and the diverse commentary with this one.
The Liberals don't need the Bloc's help to survive confidence motions. All the Liberals need to survive confidence motions is for the NDP to abstain.
Given that half the NDP's base voted for the Liberals, I doubt that the NDP will be voting against them any time soon.
If the NDP gets a leader with some actual spine and sees some of that vote migrate back, they might be voting against the Liberals sooner than you think.
Or they might all cross the floor to be Liberals and close up shop, which is what Jagmeet would be doing if he was still an MP and still in charge. Could go either way.
Very powerful column Jen!
This footsy-playing with the separatists will end badly. Lots of observers have drawn comparisons between this farce and what happened to David Cameron and Brexit. You dance with the devil, you're gonna get burned.
If I were an Albertan inhabiting the political middle ground (which is the vast majority - they just don't make as much noise as the extremists), then I would be baying for Danielle's blood. Between this and the AHS procurement scandal, she has shown her true colours. The blatant lack of integrity - and the contempt for the Albertan voter - is appalling.
Smith is playing a transparent political game. The AHS scandal has the potential to end her career, so she's trying to distract us with this farce. Yet another politician so intent on saving their political skin that they're willing to risk burning the house down.
Jen, that was a well-constructed argument. However, missing is the element of time. A stopwatch does not judge a true leader but, rather, it is his/her ability to respond to the direction OVER TIME.
Tried to get that across in pointing out the parallels with the PQ. Hate on the Quebec separatists all you like - they built their democratic legitimacy over decades, not months.
Alberta wannabes don't have that kind of patience. JG
The FLQ preceded the PQ. Hardly a force for democracy. Bombings, kidnappings and murder (not just M. Laporte - RIP).
That is the past. I cannot hate Quebec separatists. Having worked along side them, had them as family and friends, they are us. Unlike Anglo-Canadians, they aren't puritanical (add to the Canadian attributes of hypocritical and censorious). Perhaps reflecting the sin today, absolved tomorrow, religion?
You had a "subtlety moment" (with the PQ parallels). I am unused to "Jen the Subtle". :-)
nothing about results?
I thought a real leader gets results.
Responding sounds performative.
Getting results IS performative...but you're correct, I could have been more clear by writing "his/her ability to achieve desired results over time".
"Time", however, was the essence of my post.
"Briefly, this concept points out that a small, committed minority can hold entire institutions hostage if the leaders of those institutions lose their moral bearings and fail to assert norms and guardrails."
This sentence describes every school board in Ontario and their tiny but furious uber-woke factions that wants every subject and every lesson to be a critical race theory fueled rant.
Excellent piece! My question has been for quite a few years, is, why do Canadians pick such poor leaders? Federally it has been a heartbreaking collection for quite a few years (with a couple of exceptions maybe). Coming from Ontario, I feel equally disparing about our official leaders.
Few people of any quality want to go into politics. It’s a terrible job. People who really want power are usually demonstrating they can’t be trusted with it. Those who power seems unlikely to come their way are mediocre time servers.
Canada has too great a demand for politicians and civil servants, more than the supply of talent can meet. 28 Cabinet Ministers! As if!
Fighting for protection of Alberta’s place in confederation is a good thing. The devil, as always, is in the details. Like most of us Smith has watched Quebec skew the system to their wants and needs successfully through PA and BQ parties. Alberta is not Quebec. The creation of such a party simply invites the NDP to a perpetual rule. We also don’t have the population or built in constitutional advantages on a national scale to get our needs addressed so that avenue has been closed. Having a referendum this early would be a critical error or cure depending upon your opinion on the separation matter. Held too early it will fail spectacularly and that would be a good thing for the population as opinion is presently configured. The downside is added more upheaval to any hope of further investment in our province especially but not limited to oil and gas. The downside of waiting until the separation side may get closer to a win is the investment climate is stunted for an extended period much like in the Quebec (or Brexit) case. At minimum I believe that Smith should give Carney a bit more runway but I don’t see her opinion or follow through as being exactly Machiavellian inspired. Whether or not she is a true leader is in the eye of the beholder and perhaps a bit too early to call in any definitive way. Results and outcome are a better judge of leadership good or bad.
I think good leaders can be lucky and bad ones can skate through on timing and chance. I am not willing to judge them solely on outcomes. JG
This comment has the essence which Jen did not mention, although I think Jen is aware of it. Perhaps lack of space or not directly topical for what she wanted to write.
Given that Carney is a decades-long Liebrano Laurentian insider and a policy-maker, he does not deserve any more runway that D. Smith seems to be giving him. He said to her some fuzzy words to buy himself some time. The end result of what he will be actually doing is to keep Western Canada's head under water until it becomes an impoverished economic wasteland so that all control continues to reside in Central Canada.
My impression is that Western Canada leans towards the U.S. while Central and Eastern Canada lean towards England/France/ Europe, the Motherland. Westerners are independent minded like Americans while Central and Eastern Canada want to be led by the nose and not think too much about the type of leadership leading them. Older Canadians want to be led by predictability and what has worked in the past and lean towards Europe, younger Canadians want change and lean towards the U.S. Change is coming as the older population dies off and the younger generation take over, 45% of Canadians currently want change and change will happen.
Leonard, you are accurate in your first sentence.
Clearly, the western provinces are Canadian. Clearly, also, much of the West was settled by immigrants. [For purposes of this paragraph, I will not deal with the wave of immigration after WW II.] A vast number of immigrants came from Europe, following the actions of Sir Clifford Sifton and the actions of the federal governments in the years prior to WW I. I expect that a large number of readers will understand that already.
What many readers may not understand is that a large component of citizens of western Canada are the descendants of Americans who came at the same time.
In my personal case, my one set of grandparents came from the Russian Empire prior to 1900 while my other set of grandparents came from the US a little after that date. At that time, the Canada - US border was sufficiently "irregular" that they simply came; no fuss, no bother, no formalities; they simply came and stayed.
Many in the West came for land and for freedom from the tyrannies of "the old country" in central and eastern Europe and many came from the US and brought the independent nature of the western part of that country.
By contrast, Central Canada and Atlantic Canada were (originally) populated with Europeans (British Isles and French, initially, and other Europeans subsequently) and their descendants.
So, yes, historically, we in western Canada come from a different mindset than folks in Central and Atlantic Canada. We look south more than we look to Europe; it is my belief that in Central and Atlantic Canada there is a great deal of looking to Europe.
Is it acceptable to wonder if history is destiny? I don't know. What I do know is that we in Western Canada seem to have a different perspective than Central and Atlantic Canada and that difference seems to be intolerable to the "Centrals" and "Atlantics." Put differently, we in the West expect that the "Centrals" and "Atlantics" will abide by their agreement - as documented in the Constitution - as to what we in the provinces are responsible for doing.
I enjoyed reading that angle of it Ken. I’d never thought about Canada like that before even though it seems so obvious.
Blow, it is obvious when you live it, as we do in Alberta.
The truth is, I get so damned annoyed at those Central Canadians (a damned lot of Quebecers, particularly, in this group) who say that we have no distinctive culture and no distinctive society. Simply put, they are a) wrong; b) snobs; and, c) couldn't recognize any culture other than their own unless they checked the yogurt in their fridge. After it spoiled.
Thanks for the info, Ken. Very interesting information. I’m going to have to review the causes of Americans war of independence and see if Canada if the West is heading in that direction. Wasn’t that about taxes, too much oversight and control as well.
Leonard, thank you for your kind words.
As for the American war in independence, the - please pardon the expression - kick off event is often deemed to be the Boston Tea Party in which Bostonians masquerading as Indians took over some British ships in Boston harbor and threw the tea overboard. The stated reason was a protest against the British tax on tea. That is often deemed the start and the reason given is the argument about taxation. I expect that if you look a bit further you will see that there are scholars who will argue that it was more (and less) complicated than a taxation protest.
Now, another point. Above I mentioned how ever so many Americans had come to Canada prior to WW I, and that is absolutely correct. Further, however, you may have noticed that oil and gas is a big economic driver here in Alberta. Starting in the late teens (19, that is) we started seeing US oil men migrate to Alberta. After WW II that migration was a flood, nay, a deluge of folks. Many Americans came here and after a period of time went home but far, far more came and stayed, married and had families. That affected dramatically the way of thinking in this part of the country.
Further - and I expect that very few readers outside of Alberta will be at all aware of this - the American oil companies that arrived hired a whole lot - a LOT, I tell you - of Canadians and employed them here. Many of those Canadians were world class talents and ended up being transferred back to head office in Houston, Dallas and a myriad of other US locations. In turn some of those Canadians finished their careers stateside but a whole lot came home. That meant that, again, we have American influence.
It is said that Calgary has the largest population of Americans in the world, living outside the US. Whether that is true or not I cannot say but I know absolutely that Americans are an integral part of our city. Pretty well all those permanent Americans, i.e. those who chose to stay here, are Canadian citizens.
So, my point is that Calgary - and southern Alberta - is a very sympathetic place to the ideas of freedom of expression, entrepreneurial thinking (something that, quite frankly, is not a real Canadian thingy) and just cantankerously independent (as in thinking for oneself, not in the separation sense) thought.
Live long and prosper, Ken. Thanks for info.
Jen expecting any moral guidance or leadership from the self-serving "Clown in the ass-less chaps" is a fools game. She conned her party and a bunch of Albertans in 2023, now she's trying to hold onto the strings so she's not kicked to the curb by the 0.003% of Albertans who affirmed her leadership in the UCP last year.
She's also apparently afraid to call by-elections?
It has however pushed her "CorruptCare Scandal" off the front pages. How convenient!
The UCP needs to be looking for its next leader now. Smith makes Kenney look like Churchill.
The phrase "ass-less chaps" is redundant redundancy.
It's like saying two-legged trousers...
There is no such thing as chaps which have an ass...
It makes me curious why you would use such a silly phrase to describe our Premier.
Chaps being worn by a person have an ass in them.
So ass-less chaps could be an expression vaguely like "all hat, no cattle."
You’ll have to ask Jen Gerson. She used the phrase in the run up to the 2022 UCP leadership contest.
Well aware what chaps (pronounced shaps) are but thanks. 😉
I always thought the expression had sexual connotations. Maybe I lived in Toronto too long 😆😆😆
Damned fine analysis, and I'm somewhat sympathetic at least to where Smith claims she's coming from.