Jen, you provide an emotional while at the same time rational response to Danielle Smith’s recent move regarding a dangerous referendum. You are to be commended for presenting your case, which is shared by the majority of Albertans, in such a clear manner. The reasons to squelch a potential alarming separatist referendum need to be presented loudly and frequently to justifiably angry Albertans.
"These politics are built on stoking grievances about real issues, and never solving them. They're about getting a plurality of constituents constantly amped up and angry in order to win elections..."
That sums up populism perfectly. Other than the brilliant anomaly of Teddy Roosevelt in the US, I can't think of any time in history when populists ever solved any of the problems they took advantage of to get elected. They just make a mess. It's worth remembering that one of the major factors in Quebec's relative impoverishment is the flight of business from Montreal to Toronto due to the uncertainty Quebec's separatist movement created. That's not the example Alberta should be emulating.
While it may have been on top of a pre-existing decline, the consensus of economists is that separatism did indeed cause significant and enduring harm to Quebec's economy.
Business thrives on stability, and hates uncertainty. Creating uncertainty may be good politics, but it's very bad economics.
Montreal was in decline through the 1960s. The Quiet Revolution wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. Neither was maitres chez nous. When your “nation” is one of serfs, the departure of the English business class leaves a big hole.
Fwiw, oil futures are crashing as we speak. No doubt this, alone, will have a negative impact on Alberta's economy, even without the referenda talk. You can always find external reasons to deflect blame for consequences of your actions; but surely nobody is arguing that injecting a whole bunch of investor uncertainty via a referendum is going to help an Alberta facing $50/barrel oil. JG
As a commodity producer we are a price taker, not a price maker. That means that we cannot really influence prices and we are simply at the mercy of world markets. Similar to prairie grain producers, similar to miners, etc., etc. In other words, no different than any other producer of primary products.
Therefore, the only real strategy that is successful on a long term basis is to ensure that one keeps costs in line and does not become too indebted. Simple stuff, huh? Well, not really; it is actually complex.
We have lived through many price declines, just as we have lived through many booms, and discipline is very important. Put differently, we will live through this and come out the other side just fine. We hope. But, hope is always an important component in business; along with planning, discipline and execution.
I live in AB. We’ve been saving for a down payment for many years. We’re now ready to buy - and I’m not sure if I want to right now. I don’t want to own a property that I can’t sell if this separatism thing takes off. I would move in a heartbeat if separation became real despite my connection and attachment to AB and having lived here my whole life. Not a chance I’d give up my Canadian citizenship.
Jen is wondering about cupboards. I’m wondering if I’ll actually get a chance to be a homeowner - this time not because of my finances, but because of the separatists who seem unable to consider the big picture.
Something doesn’t have to actually happen to have negative impact. The wise don’t assume things will remain the same and that the crazies won’t take over. I’m having far too many people who I thought were pro-Canada suddenly talking separatism to think that it’s impossible for this to reach a tipping point. I also know that the NDP wrecked rural AB and were bad for businesses. And I don’t know who wins the next election now. I’m not certain I will vote UCP again with this nonsense. Danielle being willing to walk the line to try and keep the fringe in the party is alienating to all the moderates. To be fair I guess I’m a swing voter - not overly loyal to any party because I think all parties can screw things up and blind loyalty leads to undesired election outcomes (see Trudeau as exhibit A).
I'm not an Albertan, so maybe you have a better idea of the situation on the ground. But short of Carney imposing a new version of the NEP or setting emissions caps at zero, I don't see separation support climbing all that much higher than the current polls with soft support in the 20% range. I do think some of the uncertainty comes from the fact that we just had a federal election and have almost no idea how our now-elected-PM is going to actually govern (thanks LPC voters!).
Based on what I know and can intuit, I think Danielle Smith is just following Quebec's (insanely awful) example and leveraging the threat as a way to extract concessions. The major risk is an accidental 'success' like Brexit but again I just don't see it happening.
There are possible knock-on effects of the threat of separatism even if it isn't realistic but the market, including housing, will likely price these in pretty quickly. Are you seeing any of that?
I agree, but when we look at the frequency of low-probability events happening -ie- every step of the Donald Trump story - I think now may be as good a time as ever to remember that people plan and God laughs.
My retirement portfolio which admitted is mostly fixed income at my age but still has a significant US equity exposure (because that's where the growth above inflation comes from, and still will), has not suffered a whit from the stock market ructions. Don't pay attention to the markets. The news media love "MELTDOWN!!!" stories.
He's all wet on tariffs, (I think) but this too shall pass. I don't see the Trump presidency as at all an existential threat to Canada. Annexation of Canada or any part of it IS NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES and so will never happen. I wouldn't make any plans driven by it. Selling vacation property in the U.S. as some Canadians are doing? All at once? Are you nuts? I ask them.
Planning to visit the Finger Lakes in August, just as we committed with New York friends last fall.
I'm of the same view. I've been buying at or near the bottom of all the recent fluctuations, after holding onto a decent amount of cash during the height of the market through January. Lo and behold, the markets have bounced back almost to their peak again.
Trump is an ineffectual idiot at everything other than self-marketing. Even the tariffs themselves represent a stupidly easy lever that he keeps pulling, rather than anything he has to pass through Congress or get anyone on board other than possibly his immediate minions, who get to become fabulously wealthy by receiving 15 minutes' notice of his moves. In fact I think the entire scheme is mostly a market manipulation scam by Trump and his friends. He's not going to re-shape global anything in any kind of durable way.
US annexation is the dumbest moral panic in a country prone to absurd moral panics. We are talking 'I'm afraid of falling space debris so I don't go outside my basement' level of risk aversion. You are right, it's not in the Americans' interest and that's the biggest reason it won't happen.
What's happened really is sophisticated urban Canadians are just butt-hurt at their world concept being turned upside down even slightly. They previously unconsciously assumed that the US would always protect us and trade with us favourably because we are "nice" and "everyone loves Canada" so we could avoid morally icky things like having a military or building environmentally damaging infrastructure to sell our resources anywhere else.
If I was younger I would have bought those lows, too. I'm glad you did well out of them. Congrats. But at least I never ever sold when the markets went down in 50 years of mostly passive buy and hold investing with dollar-cost averaging. The markets always come back. I was a little surprised to see how quickly the markets recovered from these tariff scares. I thought it would be more like six months, not six days -- lol Maybe it was the reverse of a pump and dump scheme, call it dump and Trump?
Haha "Trump and dump" has a nice ring to it, and covers the situation where insiders and Trump proxies buy up short positions and/or put options probably using a ton of debt and leverage right before Trump deliberately causes the market to 'dump' with an unexpected or more-insane-than-anticipated tariff announcement. Then buy the opposite positions right before the Truth Social post announcing tariff roll-back. Repeat this about five times and you could turn your re-mortgaged house into about a billion dollars... assuming you have even a few minutes' accurate advance knowledge of what Trump is about to do.
What's more likely: that 1) the former host of The Apprentice has complex and radical opinions about re-making the international trade system, for which he is willing to spend an unlimited amount of political capital, or 2) that he discovered that he has a big button he can press to "make market go down" at will, and someone told him how much money he can make with this?
And while she's doing this, she tells CTV her job is to "bring the temperature down"....while pouring gas on the fire. I still think Canada should be pumping every barrel and every metre of gas that it can right now. I think cancelling Energy East was an unbelievably short-sighted and stupid decision.
We'll see what the new guy does. Trudeau was a disaster. My hope is we get more economics and less politician for the next 4 years.
It was canceled because it was made uneconomic and unlikely to succeed give the roadblocks placed by the Libs. The cancelation was not short sighted The Libs policies were. Blaming TRP is misplaced.
It wasn't just the Liberal policies but mainly the strong resistance from Quebec as well as the little known, strong resistance from the Irving Family in NB not wanting to accept oil from Alberta at the only refinery on the East Cost. The Irving family makes quite a comfortable living importing and refining oil from other places.
So I asked AI since your comment didn't jive with my (admittedly poor) recollection:
Yes, Irving Oil was a strong advocate for the Energy East pipeline project. They supported the project because it would allow them to access Western Canadian crude oil for processing at their refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. They even partnered with TransCanada to build a marine terminal to connect the pipeline to the port.
Here's why Irving Oil was so supportive:
Access to Western Canadian Crude:
The Energy East pipeline would have allowed Irving Oil to import significant volumes of Western Canadian crude oil to their Saint John refinery.
Economic Benefits for Atlantic Canada:
The project was seen as a way to boost the economy of Atlantic Canada, where Irving Oil has a significant presence.
Job Creation:
Irving Oil highlighted the potential for job creation in Atlantic Canada as a result of the pipeline and related infrastructure.
Global Competitiveness:
The access to lower-cost Canadian crude would help Irving Oil compete with other refiners, particularly those in the Gulf Coast.
Partnering with TransCanada:
Irving Oil collaborated with TransCanada in the development of the Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal, demonstrating their strong support for the project.
Having once lived in the Maritimes, I know the Irvings are much reviled and resented out there. Maritimers, especially New Brunswickers, will believe anything nasty said about them as if it was the revealed word of God.
Thanks for taking the trouble to look that up.
P.S. Irving's gas stations/truck stops always served 18% real cream with their coffee, at a time when many restaurants were using those awful edible oil "Kreemers".
That's interesting because what was reported at the time (I was living in Nova Scotia then) was that the Irving's were against it. The main reason reported was the requirement for upgrading their facility to handle the product from the oil sands.
That's my poor recollection from that time, mainly because I was employed in the O&G business and felt this would have been positive sign for East Coast development.
Regarding Quebecs more recent takes on a pipeline searches are showing me positive poll results We shall see what happens IF push comes to shove.
Doomberg predicted Carney as PM in December , before he was even in the race. Also predicts pipelines are coming and climate change Carney is about to do a very quiet 180. And all the 51st state stuff was a red herring and Canada with Quebec is not going anywhere.
Geoffrey, it was economic when it was proposed; TransCanada took into account the vicissitudes of the resource industry in their planning. Then the governments (federal, Quebec, City of Montreal) stepped in and changed law, whipped up public sentiment, etc. and THEY made it uneconomic.
Please do not argue that the project was economic in and of itself as it was the governments that made it so.
Sorry, I don't know what TRP is. Whatever the reasons were that led to its cancellation were short-sighted IMHO. History has proven that out. Having two coasts as shipping options seems..to this day, like a no-brainer. I still think we should be shipping by rail until it's built. I think Quebec should be told to shut the hell up on the issue. And I still believe that 5% of profits should be put in escrow for cleanup later on.
Energy East was proposed by Trans Canada Pipeline. (TRP on the TSE).
Saying it was cancalled implies TRP was the issue. They weren't. The Liberal government was. As for Quebec, in theory the feds have authority for projects in the national interest and could force the project through. But it's unlikely any of our leadership would do so and risk the votes.
Thanks. I still suspect that the argument to Quebec about the benefits of a pipeline is "It's that, or start practising your American". From what I've read, the sentiments towards a pipeline have changed significantly. As I've said many times, Trudeau was a disaster. We'll see what happens in the next few months with the new guy. I'm hoping it's more action, and less talk.
Possibly the only upside of an Alberta referendum on independence would be to demonstrate that the people who want to separate from Canada are truly a minority if not fringe position. However, I don’t even think that would be helpful: one of the defining characteristics of current populist movements is they like to live in an information bubble where they can avoid contradictory views. Their campaign would be full of the same sort of disinformation and inaccuracies that characterized the Brexit referendum, further convincing would-be separatists they must succeed. When they fail, it would be treated as a conspiracy and further entrench them. I suspect that’s also why The Line is losing subscribers when the topic is Alberta separatism: those folks are already curating their media bubble, and the comforting reassurance they get from like-minded types in the comments section can’t compete with the cold water thrown on their feelings in the article copy.
One of my other concerns is that in such an information environment, we would have a lot of "well, separation isn't *actually* going to happen, so I'll just vote for it in a referendum as a giant 'fuck you' to Ottawa/the elites!" Then we've gone from using a referendum as a leverage tool to actually being stuck with the real consequences of this political rhetoric. JG
The next challenge is that the political mediocrities who blundered into the mess are suddenly in charge of complex, difficult negotiations related to implementing a separation. That took years in the UK with a far more competent policy establishment than the usual B-team talent that populates provincial politics.
Gaming out the other side, does Smith realize that a decisive defeat for separation in a referendum destroys her leverage in negotiations with the federal government? In going down this path, she effectively commits herself to winning a mandate for separation. Losing is a political career-ender one way or another.
I think AB is doomed for an NDP government next election at this point regardless. Heck I have no idea who I’ll vote for. I never wanted Danielle smith as leader but still voted UCP. Now I’m not sure if I’ll be able to in good conscience. But I also can’t vote NDP as I detest their lies and propaganda machine.
At this point I would vote to replace Danielle Smith as leader of the UCP. Maybe this recall legislation should be used on her and even if it failed maybe it would get her attention? She is stuck in a populist bubble right now and is already losing separatist support to the separatist parties so it’s a fools errand to try and cater to them.
Nobody's ever blamed her for seeing far down the road, but she did manage to claw her way back the Wildrose floor-crossing after it blew up in her and Prentice's faces. All she's worried about now is getting re-elected in 2027 and she'll figure out the rest later.
I agree. People should absolutely not vote for independence unless they really want it. That said, Canada is not going to just "let" Alberta leave when Alberta decides it's ready, the way the UK left the EU. The EU couldn't stop them. Canada can. Resistance to the idea from Canada will peel off the Fuck You voters pretty quickly, leaving only the ones who want to die on some Foothill.
If the Alberta Prosperity Project people are to be believed, the threshold for a referendum has been met. No, I am not a member.
The federalists' fearmongering is a sign of weakness. My well-heeled, university acquaintances are afraid of a referendum, exhibiting the usual, sneering condescension they unleashed upon the trucker folk. The others are not as enamored with the status quo, and they do not have the time or resources to subscribe to this echo chamber. They have their own.
This is a conservative, federalist source of opinions that tows "the line". If you want heterodoxy, try Quillette. Their articles can sometimes make your blood boil.
I think you need to take a closer look and consider whether what you think of as condescension is simply people pointing out flaws or errors in your assumptions. I think you're equating highlighting potential risks with fearmongering.
And therein lies the difference. There is no proof supporting my assumptions, there is none supporting theirs. Conjecture all round. The difference is they know the truth, because it serves their purpose. If I were Godly, as they are, I would see the truth as they do. Vericitas Dei.
Except they're drawing on precedent and case studies from other secessionist movements, such as the Brexit examples cited here. That's evidence. If you aren't aware of it, that's not the same as there being no evidence. If you want to disregard it, you're taking a risk of getting stung by things you could've otherwise forseen.
We end where we began. I lived and worked in Quebec through the 1980 Sovereignty-Association referendum. Almost immediately after the "No" vote, society was far more civil than it had been for quite a while. M. Levesque's gracious acceptance of the outcome was likely the salve needed. There was no gloating. Everyone had their say, the question was answered, we moved on, together.
Lived experience (current vernacular). Worth the risk for my kids? Absolutely.
They also thought this weeks press conference was to announce the threshold for the referendum has been met. Except that link was to “signup to sign the petition” - there’s no paper petition with the timeline in progress so far as I know. And if there was it would still be subject to the 20% previous elections voters and 90 day threshold and timeline respectively. So I’m fairly certain they haven’t started collecting signatures yet because I don’t think they can get that many signatures in 90 days. (They’d actually need more than that in case some were rejected.)
I joked with a friend the other day that the separatist talk I see from people I know feels like the early 20s equivalent of “We should buy a bar together!” - a great idea on paper but falls apart quickly when you need to start developing a business plan for it.
Back at the time of Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord I was speaking to Jim Hawkes who at the time was the Progressive Conservative MP for Calgary West. He told me that he thought that Alberta at that time had the second most hardcore separatists, second only to Quebec. The difference he thought was Alberta had no soft separatists. The politics of grievance moved from freight rates to equalization and Bill C69. Justin Trudeau mistakenly focused too much energy on hobbling oil sands development to the detriment of Alberta and Canada. But as Jen says Danielle Smith's playing footsie with the separatists is partly to cover up what I believe is an emerging scandal in Health care. I went to a UCP policy development training session in Calgary 4 years ago and sat with a group of people none of whom I knew. I had a nice chat with 2 women who eventually revealed that they were working for an independent republic of Alberta. I looked at them and said, " Do you know what the Americans will say to us after we gain independence? Bend over and we might use KY jelly and we might not." These women said "do you think so." I said "absolutely" I am dismayed by how much of this separation talk is based on emotion and how little based on facts.
I just had a conversation with a friend who pointed out separatism is based on feelings and not facts. I have to agree with this viewpoint. Which also means that facts won’t sway people to make better decisions.
Ice, not to argue with you but could you not make the same argument about separatism in Quebec? Put differently, the Quebec separatists argue that they are afraid that they will lose their language. I recognize that I vastly oversimplify but it does seem to me that it is feelings in both cases.
I have never lived in QC so can’t speak for it, but it’s possible it is based on feelings for QC too. May be why it subsided when a different type of existential fear emerged in the form of Trump.
Let's start with the important stuff. Good luck getting someone to renovate your kitchen any time soon, unless you are willing to take a second mortgage. The absence of qualified tradespeople is staggering, yet the universities graduate the useless at ever increasing numbers.
As someone who voted against Sovereignty-Association in 1980, I can understand your visceral response to a separatist agenda. I was young then. Fast forward 40 plus years; try practising your French in Montreal today, as soon as a youngster detects your accent they switch valley-girl English.
A referendum on sovereignty will not hurt Alberta, or its people. I sometimes wonder if Alberta federalists suffer from Stockholm syndrome. A referendum will allow for an open discussion on Confederation. If you would like to buy back my subscription, prorated, proceed. Silencing opposing opinion is very Canadian (see, we do have identity!).
Back to important stuff. The Maple Leafs must not win the Stanley Cup. Toronto must not be allowed to celebrate anything. Ever.
A referendum on sovereignty in AB will have the same effect on the AB economy as DT's incoherent policy is having on the US economy.
If you like it then it won't hurt, lol.
For some people (those not clipping oil and gas coupons), like plumbers, trades, all small business owners, folks who own property, folks who've leveraged, it will shrink their assets, and their opportunities. Fun!
This for the benefit of what 1 in 4, 1 in 5 who think this might, maybe, could be a good idea? And Danielle Smith likes to complain about the Canadian democracy ignoring AB... while she ignores the majority who think this idea is stupid.
Gotta love the left and right populists who wanna be something more than they wanna do something. Smith and Eby smell suspiciously similar.
I have yet to read or watch anything in the news about the lack of skilled trades people. The topic isn't even mentioned in news stories about the housing shortage, etc.
Red seal journeyman carpenters, especially those who build homes are as scarce as hen’s teeth in my little corner of Canada. Big crews are always looking for help and the really skilled workers don’t have to put up with shoddy worksites and terrible people because there is another job close by.
The small independents who do renos, decks and kitchen cupboards have all the work they want and there is a very small chance that anyone who isn’t booked solid is NFG. References are very important.
Danielle Smith may find that a 92% approval rating at a UCP convention can dissipate even faster than a 26% lead in the national polls when you pander to the fringe.
"I’ve grown tired to the point of despondency by the politics of grievance." Me too. I live in Alberta, I feel the real frustration of Albertans, and share it. But as I understand it, the majority don't want separation, and even entertaining the possibility can have unintended consequences for investment, economy, etc--as you point out, Jen. Constructive solutions from both the provincial and federal governments would be welcome at the moment.
If any such referendum took place, if the “separate” faction were to emerge victorious, if that result was even legal given First Nations treaty matters and other such issues, and if the path forward was 51st state, I suspect Jen that your house value could well increase handsomely - as there are might be many Canadians looking at Alberta as a potential lifeboat, particularly after most eastern Canadians voted to keep the ship of state on course to collide with the iceberg. Too many “ifs” I suppose to be of any comfort in your kitchen renovation conundrum!
I mean, that's completely possible. Housing stock is so tight at the moment, that we might actually make out like bandits if we had to sell. But, man, like most Canadians the bulk of our savings are tied up in our house. How much are we willing to gamble on a referendum windfall? If I want to engage in high-risk speculation, I would do that through the stock market, not through our primary asset. JG
Jen, I say you should buy the cabinet fronts that you really want. The investment would probably pay for itself if you had to sell, and if nothing comes of this, you will not be looking to redo it when you tire of the cheap updates that you settled on.
The Clarity Act doesn’t require any particular input from First Nations for a referendum vote to be “legal.” Where the rub comes is during the following negotiations. The First Nations would be at the table working their UNDRIP-emboldened mischief to thwart any progress toward an agreement that didn’t put their interests front and centre ahead of Alberta’s and Canada’s. It’s entirely possible that the only deal that Canada could endorse, for consideration of Parliament, would be an independent Alberta with indigenous sovereignty over all the Treaty 6, 7, and 8 lands, governed by an oligarchy of indigenous elites, such as a Governing Council of chiefs and tribal elders from the First Nations situated in Alberta. The name of the new country might not even be Alberta.
You don’t know what the worms will look like until you open that can.
Jen Gerson is a reliable messenger for Ottawa Central, ensconced in the western hinterlands, writing milquetoast 'doom and gloom' blather about Alberta and Albertans asserting themselves in the same manner and for the same valid reasons as Texans unapologetically relate to Washington D.C.
...we have no desire to live in a landlocked Hermit Kingdom of five million people, separated from our family by a border, and potentially unable to live or work anywhere else on the continent. This isn't a better future for ourselves or our kids...m
That your comment mischaracterizes Jen Gerson in this manner speaks volumes about the (lack of) credibility in the thinking used to come up with the notion.
Land locked is what I keep hearing, but, it's oil, right? I can't see the USA not wanting a pipeline from Canada. It's oil. Would anyone anywhere display interest in middle eastern affairs if the main export was dates?
The problem with being landlocked isn't that you can't get sell your product... you can absolutely sell it... to one customer... if you're willing to accept the price they want to pay.
This is exactly right. Being landlocked means no bargaining power. Even more than that though, who in the world do you think would want to trade with a « country » that took its toys and went home because they didn’t like the ideas of their playmates?
> who in the world do you think would want to trade with a « country » that took its toys and went home because they didn’t like the ideas of their playmates?
Everyone.
No one cares about our internal fights when it comes to trade. People trade with Saudi Arabia despite the fact that it's a horrendous country that does horrendous things to people.
I don’t think the group themselves could decide who would have conversations and what demands would be. Did you follow the prior separatist party and how it splintered at the AGM? That was partly because of conflict within the board of directors. Some wanting to follow procedure and others wanting to keep the same leader who was making salary demands but couldn’t sell party memberships on as leader. I believe that was the Wildrose party (V2) which then splintered into the Wildrose coalition or something like that. (The names were similar, the membership list was stolen and used by the splintered party. There were court cases and it was nasty. I’m sure there’s crossover in the people involved in the new separatist party(parties?) and these just aren’t serious people capable of acting like adults or knowing what it means to compromise or respect others.)
Landlocked countries can still trade with their neighbours and the world. What are called “transit states” are supposed to cooperate with trade across their territory and allow access to their seaports so as not to unfairly disadvantage the landlocked state. E.g., Switzerland.
What I think Jen is more referring to is that citizens of an independent Alberta would not be citizens of any other country (unless they were immigrants who retained birth-country citizenship) and so would be trapped there, unable to move to Canada or anywhere else, except by immigration, after independence was granted.
What's interesting about that quoted bit is that that actually has nothing to do with Alberta. That would have to do with the rest of Canada being absolute dicks. We know from experience how BC would respond to a separated Alberta. Sigh. I live in BC and was absolutely appalled by how Horgan handled pipelines. BC would be a great standalone country, if it weren't for the fact that nobody seems to know how to properly govern a resource-rich province with a vast coastline.
Is it because the late-arriving leftists can't push the already established ones into the sea so they just stack up, like an airport baggage carousel that has an odd-sized bag stuck in the chute?
Yes! Perfect! Thank you for a good laugh. Another factor may be the ..... ahem .... "schooling" ..... system. I think the BC government should be moved from Victoria to BC interior, say to Clinton, a ranching one-gas pump road stop in the middle of vast expanse. That might improve some of the attitudes.
Canadians are a funny bunch. Those with money, have properties in Florida and AZ and spend 6 months there. I have NS cousins and besties in the USA, and I never hear a peep from them about a non fulfilling life. If you get your cabinets from Home Depot, the Atlanta head office will thank you. I am not interested in joining the US as much as the same rights as Quebec with a triple E senate, and more rep by pop. Ottawa has royally fucked Alberta, started during Lougheed times. Not just oil and gas, but immigration, and hey, canola? Any mention from the PM about the 100 percent tariff on canola? No, we need a Buffalo Declaration and the West to move away from Central Canada aka, observe the Constitution Act and say out of provincial jurisdiction.
I read and listen to The Line because I don't always agree with you guys. And I continue to happily pay you for the privilege. Just sayin'... And, I'm happy to support your kitchen reno via subscription here. (My two cents - pay for the best cupboard doors you can, you never really know what is coming down the pipe and you may end up living there much longer than you think. Its never a waste to buy good quality.)
And I'm completely on board with you about the politics of grievance. I'm tired of it. It doesn't serve any of us well, and we must stamp it out. I've actully begun to speak up when I'm in conversations where talk adopts a "grievance for fun" tone; when people try to one up each other for how nihlist they can be and so on. I think this is my small way of protecting democracy. Respectful conversation, criticism where needed for sure, lively exchange of ideas - absolutely! But the grievance attitude has to stop. This will clear the space for new ideas to grow, which is what we need if we're to navigate our way out of this mess.
BTW - I almost always appreciate your writing... the metaphor of the controlled burn is a good one. Thanks for that. And even when I don't agree, you get me thinking. Keep going. You're doing great.
Jen, you provide an emotional while at the same time rational response to Danielle Smith’s recent move regarding a dangerous referendum. You are to be commended for presenting your case, which is shared by the majority of Albertans, in such a clear manner. The reasons to squelch a potential alarming separatist referendum need to be presented loudly and frequently to justifiably angry Albertans.
Are you, by any chance, related to Sharon Mueller Haskins?
No
"These politics are built on stoking grievances about real issues, and never solving them. They're about getting a plurality of constituents constantly amped up and angry in order to win elections..."
That sums up populism perfectly. Other than the brilliant anomaly of Teddy Roosevelt in the US, I can't think of any time in history when populists ever solved any of the problems they took advantage of to get elected. They just make a mess. It's worth remembering that one of the major factors in Quebec's relative impoverishment is the flight of business from Montreal to Toronto due to the uncertainty Quebec's separatist movement created. That's not the example Alberta should be emulating.
No. Montreal's economic descent preceded the PQ election in 1976. Proximity to US markets made TO far more attractive.
While it may have been on top of a pre-existing decline, the consensus of economists is that separatism did indeed cause significant and enduring harm to Quebec's economy.
Business thrives on stability, and hates uncertainty. Creating uncertainty may be good politics, but it's very bad economics.
Think Bill 22, replaced by Bill 101. That is what hurt Quebec.
Montreal was in decline through the 1960s. The Quiet Revolution wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. Neither was maitres chez nous. When your “nation” is one of serfs, the departure of the English business class leaves a big hole.
Fwiw, oil futures are crashing as we speak. No doubt this, alone, will have a negative impact on Alberta's economy, even without the referenda talk. You can always find external reasons to deflect blame for consequences of your actions; but surely nobody is arguing that injecting a whole bunch of investor uncertainty via a referendum is going to help an Alberta facing $50/barrel oil. JG
Dear Line Editor: you are correct. But.
As a commodity producer we are a price taker, not a price maker. That means that we cannot really influence prices and we are simply at the mercy of world markets. Similar to prairie grain producers, similar to miners, etc., etc. In other words, no different than any other producer of primary products.
Therefore, the only real strategy that is successful on a long term basis is to ensure that one keeps costs in line and does not become too indebted. Simple stuff, huh? Well, not really; it is actually complex.
We have lived through many price declines, just as we have lived through many booms, and discipline is very important. Put differently, we will live through this and come out the other side just fine. We hope. But, hope is always an important component in business; along with planning, discipline and execution.
Not sure how this comment connects with my actual point, Ken. I am not disputing that we're a price taker, so to speak. JG
June 25th contracts are $60 for WTI
Revising history is "de rigeur", so separatism as the cause, rather than the result, of events is convenient.
Agree it was a large hole. And the business class left for the same reasons that white colonialists left their black African colonies.
I live in AB. We’ve been saving for a down payment for many years. We’re now ready to buy - and I’m not sure if I want to right now. I don’t want to own a property that I can’t sell if this separatism thing takes off. I would move in a heartbeat if separation became real despite my connection and attachment to AB and having lived here my whole life. Not a chance I’d give up my Canadian citizenship.
Jen is wondering about cupboards. I’m wondering if I’ll actually get a chance to be a homeowner - this time not because of my finances, but because of the separatists who seem unable to consider the big picture.
I am sorry you are dealing with that. JG
I wouldn't make (or avoid making) major life decisions based on fear of low-probability events.
Something doesn’t have to actually happen to have negative impact. The wise don’t assume things will remain the same and that the crazies won’t take over. I’m having far too many people who I thought were pro-Canada suddenly talking separatism to think that it’s impossible for this to reach a tipping point. I also know that the NDP wrecked rural AB and were bad for businesses. And I don’t know who wins the next election now. I’m not certain I will vote UCP again with this nonsense. Danielle being willing to walk the line to try and keep the fringe in the party is alienating to all the moderates. To be fair I guess I’m a swing voter - not overly loyal to any party because I think all parties can screw things up and blind loyalty leads to undesired election outcomes (see Trudeau as exhibit A).
I'm not an Albertan, so maybe you have a better idea of the situation on the ground. But short of Carney imposing a new version of the NEP or setting emissions caps at zero, I don't see separation support climbing all that much higher than the current polls with soft support in the 20% range. I do think some of the uncertainty comes from the fact that we just had a federal election and have almost no idea how our now-elected-PM is going to actually govern (thanks LPC voters!).
Based on what I know and can intuit, I think Danielle Smith is just following Quebec's (insanely awful) example and leveraging the threat as a way to extract concessions. The major risk is an accidental 'success' like Brexit but again I just don't see it happening.
There are possible knock-on effects of the threat of separatism even if it isn't realistic but the market, including housing, will likely price these in pretty quickly. Are you seeing any of that?
I agree, but when we look at the frequency of low-probability events happening -ie- every step of the Donald Trump story - I think now may be as good a time as ever to remember that people plan and God laughs.
My retirement portfolio which admitted is mostly fixed income at my age but still has a significant US equity exposure (because that's where the growth above inflation comes from, and still will), has not suffered a whit from the stock market ructions. Don't pay attention to the markets. The news media love "MELTDOWN!!!" stories.
He's all wet on tariffs, (I think) but this too shall pass. I don't see the Trump presidency as at all an existential threat to Canada. Annexation of Canada or any part of it IS NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES and so will never happen. I wouldn't make any plans driven by it. Selling vacation property in the U.S. as some Canadians are doing? All at once? Are you nuts? I ask them.
Planning to visit the Finger Lakes in August, just as we committed with New York friends last fall.
I'm of the same view. I've been buying at or near the bottom of all the recent fluctuations, after holding onto a decent amount of cash during the height of the market through January. Lo and behold, the markets have bounced back almost to their peak again.
Trump is an ineffectual idiot at everything other than self-marketing. Even the tariffs themselves represent a stupidly easy lever that he keeps pulling, rather than anything he has to pass through Congress or get anyone on board other than possibly his immediate minions, who get to become fabulously wealthy by receiving 15 minutes' notice of his moves. In fact I think the entire scheme is mostly a market manipulation scam by Trump and his friends. He's not going to re-shape global anything in any kind of durable way.
US annexation is the dumbest moral panic in a country prone to absurd moral panics. We are talking 'I'm afraid of falling space debris so I don't go outside my basement' level of risk aversion. You are right, it's not in the Americans' interest and that's the biggest reason it won't happen.
What's happened really is sophisticated urban Canadians are just butt-hurt at their world concept being turned upside down even slightly. They previously unconsciously assumed that the US would always protect us and trade with us favourably because we are "nice" and "everyone loves Canada" so we could avoid morally icky things like having a military or building environmentally damaging infrastructure to sell our resources anywhere else.
That's really good! Right on.
If I was younger I would have bought those lows, too. I'm glad you did well out of them. Congrats. But at least I never ever sold when the markets went down in 50 years of mostly passive buy and hold investing with dollar-cost averaging. The markets always come back. I was a little surprised to see how quickly the markets recovered from these tariff scares. I thought it would be more like six months, not six days -- lol Maybe it was the reverse of a pump and dump scheme, call it dump and Trump?
Haha "Trump and dump" has a nice ring to it, and covers the situation where insiders and Trump proxies buy up short positions and/or put options probably using a ton of debt and leverage right before Trump deliberately causes the market to 'dump' with an unexpected or more-insane-than-anticipated tariff announcement. Then buy the opposite positions right before the Truth Social post announcing tariff roll-back. Repeat this about five times and you could turn your re-mortgaged house into about a billion dollars... assuming you have even a few minutes' accurate advance knowledge of what Trump is about to do.
What's more likely: that 1) the former host of The Apprentice has complex and radical opinions about re-making the international trade system, for which he is willing to spend an unlimited amount of political capital, or 2) that he discovered that he has a big button he can press to "make market go down" at will, and someone told him how much money he can make with this?
And while she's doing this, she tells CTV her job is to "bring the temperature down"....while pouring gas on the fire. I still think Canada should be pumping every barrel and every metre of gas that it can right now. I think cancelling Energy East was an unbelievably short-sighted and stupid decision.
We'll see what the new guy does. Trudeau was a disaster. My hope is we get more economics and less politician for the next 4 years.
It was canceled because it was made uneconomic and unlikely to succeed give the roadblocks placed by the Libs. The cancelation was not short sighted The Libs policies were. Blaming TRP is misplaced.
It wasn't just the Liberal policies but mainly the strong resistance from Quebec as well as the little known, strong resistance from the Irving Family in NB not wanting to accept oil from Alberta at the only refinery on the East Cost. The Irving family makes quite a comfortable living importing and refining oil from other places.
So I asked AI since your comment didn't jive with my (admittedly poor) recollection:
Yes, Irving Oil was a strong advocate for the Energy East pipeline project. They supported the project because it would allow them to access Western Canadian crude oil for processing at their refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. They even partnered with TransCanada to build a marine terminal to connect the pipeline to the port.
Here's why Irving Oil was so supportive:
Access to Western Canadian Crude:
The Energy East pipeline would have allowed Irving Oil to import significant volumes of Western Canadian crude oil to their Saint John refinery.
Economic Benefits for Atlantic Canada:
The project was seen as a way to boost the economy of Atlantic Canada, where Irving Oil has a significant presence.
Job Creation:
Irving Oil highlighted the potential for job creation in Atlantic Canada as a result of the pipeline and related infrastructure.
Global Competitiveness:
The access to lower-cost Canadian crude would help Irving Oil compete with other refiners, particularly those in the Gulf Coast.
Partnering with TransCanada:
Irving Oil collaborated with TransCanada in the development of the Canaport Energy East Marine Terminal, demonstrating their strong support for the project.
Having once lived in the Maritimes, I know the Irvings are much reviled and resented out there. Maritimers, especially New Brunswickers, will believe anything nasty said about them as if it was the revealed word of God.
Thanks for taking the trouble to look that up.
P.S. Irving's gas stations/truck stops always served 18% real cream with their coffee, at a time when many restaurants were using those awful edible oil "Kreemers".
That's interesting because what was reported at the time (I was living in Nova Scotia then) was that the Irving's were against it. The main reason reported was the requirement for upgrading their facility to handle the product from the oil sands.
That's my poor recollection from that time, mainly because I was employed in the O&G business and felt this would have been positive sign for East Coast development.
Regarding Quebecs more recent takes on a pipeline searches are showing me positive poll results We shall see what happens IF push comes to shove.
Doomberg predicted Carney as PM in December , before he was even in the race. Also predicts pipelines are coming and climate change Carney is about to do a very quiet 180. And all the 51st state stuff was a red herring and Canada with Quebec is not going anywhere.
>. . . Canada with Quebec is not going anywhere.
You can interpret that prediction a number of different ways. Some good, some not so good.
Who/what is doomberg?
Geoffrey, it was economic when it was proposed; TransCanada took into account the vicissitudes of the resource industry in their planning. Then the governments (federal, Quebec, City of Montreal) stepped in and changed law, whipped up public sentiment, etc. and THEY made it uneconomic.
Please do not argue that the project was economic in and of itself as it was the governments that made it so.
Ken, perhaps you mean ‘uneconomic’ in your final paragraph?
Huh? Did you read what I wrote or just the first line? Did you read what I was replying to?
Sorry, I don't know what TRP is. Whatever the reasons were that led to its cancellation were short-sighted IMHO. History has proven that out. Having two coasts as shipping options seems..to this day, like a no-brainer. I still think we should be shipping by rail until it's built. I think Quebec should be told to shut the hell up on the issue. And I still believe that 5% of profits should be put in escrow for cleanup later on.
Energy East was proposed by Trans Canada Pipeline. (TRP on the TSE).
Saying it was cancalled implies TRP was the issue. They weren't. The Liberal government was. As for Quebec, in theory the feds have authority for projects in the national interest and could force the project through. But it's unlikely any of our leadership would do so and risk the votes.
Thanks. I still suspect that the argument to Quebec about the benefits of a pipeline is "It's that, or start practising your American". From what I've read, the sentiments towards a pipeline have changed significantly. As I've said many times, Trudeau was a disaster. We'll see what happens in the next few months with the new guy. I'm hoping it's more action, and less talk.
Possibly the only upside of an Alberta referendum on independence would be to demonstrate that the people who want to separate from Canada are truly a minority if not fringe position. However, I don’t even think that would be helpful: one of the defining characteristics of current populist movements is they like to live in an information bubble where they can avoid contradictory views. Their campaign would be full of the same sort of disinformation and inaccuracies that characterized the Brexit referendum, further convincing would-be separatists they must succeed. When they fail, it would be treated as a conspiracy and further entrench them. I suspect that’s also why The Line is losing subscribers when the topic is Alberta separatism: those folks are already curating their media bubble, and the comforting reassurance they get from like-minded types in the comments section can’t compete with the cold water thrown on their feelings in the article copy.
One of my other concerns is that in such an information environment, we would have a lot of "well, separation isn't *actually* going to happen, so I'll just vote for it in a referendum as a giant 'fuck you' to Ottawa/the elites!" Then we've gone from using a referendum as a leverage tool to actually being stuck with the real consequences of this political rhetoric. JG
The next challenge is that the political mediocrities who blundered into the mess are suddenly in charge of complex, difficult negotiations related to implementing a separation. That took years in the UK with a far more competent policy establishment than the usual B-team talent that populates provincial politics.
Gaming out the other side, does Smith realize that a decisive defeat for separation in a referendum destroys her leverage in negotiations with the federal government? In going down this path, she effectively commits herself to winning a mandate for separation. Losing is a political career-ender one way or another.
Yes, it's all tactics, no strategy. JG
I think AB is doomed for an NDP government next election at this point regardless. Heck I have no idea who I’ll vote for. I never wanted Danielle smith as leader but still voted UCP. Now I’m not sure if I’ll be able to in good conscience. But I also can’t vote NDP as I detest their lies and propaganda machine.
At this point I would vote to replace Danielle Smith as leader of the UCP. Maybe this recall legislation should be used on her and even if it failed maybe it would get her attention? She is stuck in a populist bubble right now and is already losing separatist support to the separatist parties so it’s a fools errand to try and cater to them.
Nobody's ever blamed her for seeing far down the road, but she did manage to claw her way back the Wildrose floor-crossing after it blew up in her and Prentice's faces. All she's worried about now is getting re-elected in 2027 and she'll figure out the rest later.
Well said, Jen. It's unfortunate some people refuse to listen to and consider opposing views. Such is the sorry state of politics these days.
I agree. People should absolutely not vote for independence unless they really want it. That said, Canada is not going to just "let" Alberta leave when Alberta decides it's ready, the way the UK left the EU. The EU couldn't stop them. Canada can. Resistance to the idea from Canada will peel off the Fuck You voters pretty quickly, leaving only the ones who want to die on some Foothill.
If the Alberta Prosperity Project people are to be believed, the threshold for a referendum has been met. No, I am not a member.
The federalists' fearmongering is a sign of weakness. My well-heeled, university acquaintances are afraid of a referendum, exhibiting the usual, sneering condescension they unleashed upon the trucker folk. The others are not as enamored with the status quo, and they do not have the time or resources to subscribe to this echo chamber. They have their own.
This is a conservative, federalist source of opinions that tows "the line". If you want heterodoxy, try Quillette. Their articles can sometimes make your blood boil.
I think you need to take a closer look and consider whether what you think of as condescension is simply people pointing out flaws or errors in your assumptions. I think you're equating highlighting potential risks with fearmongering.
And therein lies the difference. There is no proof supporting my assumptions, there is none supporting theirs. Conjecture all round. The difference is they know the truth, because it serves their purpose. If I were Godly, as they are, I would see the truth as they do. Vericitas Dei.
Except they're drawing on precedent and case studies from other secessionist movements, such as the Brexit examples cited here. That's evidence. If you aren't aware of it, that's not the same as there being no evidence. If you want to disregard it, you're taking a risk of getting stung by things you could've otherwise forseen.
We end where we began. I lived and worked in Quebec through the 1980 Sovereignty-Association referendum. Almost immediately after the "No" vote, society was far more civil than it had been for quite a while. M. Levesque's gracious acceptance of the outcome was likely the salve needed. There was no gloating. Everyone had their say, the question was answered, we moved on, together.
Lived experience (current vernacular). Worth the risk for my kids? Absolutely.
They also thought this weeks press conference was to announce the threshold for the referendum has been met. Except that link was to “signup to sign the petition” - there’s no paper petition with the timeline in progress so far as I know. And if there was it would still be subject to the 20% previous elections voters and 90 day threshold and timeline respectively. So I’m fairly certain they haven’t started collecting signatures yet because I don’t think they can get that many signatures in 90 days. (They’d actually need more than that in case some were rejected.)
A bank of the willing. I suspect they will wait till the requirements change.
I joked with a friend the other day that the separatist talk I see from people I know feels like the early 20s equivalent of “We should buy a bar together!” - a great idea on paper but falls apart quickly when you need to start developing a business plan for it.
Of course, Patrick, I can't help but ask, "Which twenties? 19 or 20?"
Back at the time of Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord I was speaking to Jim Hawkes who at the time was the Progressive Conservative MP for Calgary West. He told me that he thought that Alberta at that time had the second most hardcore separatists, second only to Quebec. The difference he thought was Alberta had no soft separatists. The politics of grievance moved from freight rates to equalization and Bill C69. Justin Trudeau mistakenly focused too much energy on hobbling oil sands development to the detriment of Alberta and Canada. But as Jen says Danielle Smith's playing footsie with the separatists is partly to cover up what I believe is an emerging scandal in Health care. I went to a UCP policy development training session in Calgary 4 years ago and sat with a group of people none of whom I knew. I had a nice chat with 2 women who eventually revealed that they were working for an independent republic of Alberta. I looked at them and said, " Do you know what the Americans will say to us after we gain independence? Bend over and we might use KY jelly and we might not." These women said "do you think so." I said "absolutely" I am dismayed by how much of this separation talk is based on emotion and how little based on facts.
I just had a conversation with a friend who pointed out separatism is based on feelings and not facts. I have to agree with this viewpoint. Which also means that facts won’t sway people to make better decisions.
Yes, the proof is that people just voted in the fourth "Liberal" government.
Ice, not to argue with you but could you not make the same argument about separatism in Quebec? Put differently, the Quebec separatists argue that they are afraid that they will lose their language. I recognize that I vastly oversimplify but it does seem to me that it is feelings in both cases.
I have never lived in QC so can’t speak for it, but it’s possible it is based on feelings for QC too. May be why it subsided when a different type of existential fear emerged in the form of Trump.
Turn that frown upside down!
Let's start with the important stuff. Good luck getting someone to renovate your kitchen any time soon, unless you are willing to take a second mortgage. The absence of qualified tradespeople is staggering, yet the universities graduate the useless at ever increasing numbers.
As someone who voted against Sovereignty-Association in 1980, I can understand your visceral response to a separatist agenda. I was young then. Fast forward 40 plus years; try practising your French in Montreal today, as soon as a youngster detects your accent they switch valley-girl English.
A referendum on sovereignty will not hurt Alberta, or its people. I sometimes wonder if Alberta federalists suffer from Stockholm syndrome. A referendum will allow for an open discussion on Confederation. If you would like to buy back my subscription, prorated, proceed. Silencing opposing opinion is very Canadian (see, we do have identity!).
Back to important stuff. The Maple Leafs must not win the Stanley Cup. Toronto must not be allowed to celebrate anything. Ever.
A referendum on sovereignty in AB will have the same effect on the AB economy as DT's incoherent policy is having on the US economy.
If you like it then it won't hurt, lol.
For some people (those not clipping oil and gas coupons), like plumbers, trades, all small business owners, folks who own property, folks who've leveraged, it will shrink their assets, and their opportunities. Fun!
This for the benefit of what 1 in 4, 1 in 5 who think this might, maybe, could be a good idea? And Danielle Smith likes to complain about the Canadian democracy ignoring AB... while she ignores the majority who think this idea is stupid.
Gotta love the left and right populists who wanna be something more than they wanna do something. Smith and Eby smell suspiciously similar.
I have yet to read or watch anything in the news about the lack of skilled trades people. The topic isn't even mentioned in news stories about the housing shortage, etc.
Red seal journeyman carpenters, especially those who build homes are as scarce as hen’s teeth in my little corner of Canada. Big crews are always looking for help and the really skilled workers don’t have to put up with shoddy worksites and terrible people because there is another job close by.
The small independents who do renos, decks and kitchen cupboards have all the work they want and there is a very small chance that anyone who isn’t booked solid is NFG. References are very important.
Danielle Smith may find that a 92% approval rating at a UCP convention can dissipate even faster than a 26% lead in the national polls when you pander to the fringe.
"I’ve grown tired to the point of despondency by the politics of grievance." Me too. I live in Alberta, I feel the real frustration of Albertans, and share it. But as I understand it, the majority don't want separation, and even entertaining the possibility can have unintended consequences for investment, economy, etc--as you point out, Jen. Constructive solutions from both the provincial and federal governments would be welcome at the moment.
Well written Jen!
If any such referendum took place, if the “separate” faction were to emerge victorious, if that result was even legal given First Nations treaty matters and other such issues, and if the path forward was 51st state, I suspect Jen that your house value could well increase handsomely - as there are might be many Canadians looking at Alberta as a potential lifeboat, particularly after most eastern Canadians voted to keep the ship of state on course to collide with the iceberg. Too many “ifs” I suppose to be of any comfort in your kitchen renovation conundrum!
I mean, that's completely possible. Housing stock is so tight at the moment, that we might actually make out like bandits if we had to sell. But, man, like most Canadians the bulk of our savings are tied up in our house. How much are we willing to gamble on a referendum windfall? If I want to engage in high-risk speculation, I would do that through the stock market, not through our primary asset. JG
Jen, I say you should buy the cabinet fronts that you really want. The investment would probably pay for itself if you had to sell, and if nothing comes of this, you will not be looking to redo it when you tire of the cheap updates that you settled on.
The Clarity Act doesn’t require any particular input from First Nations for a referendum vote to be “legal.” Where the rub comes is during the following negotiations. The First Nations would be at the table working their UNDRIP-emboldened mischief to thwart any progress toward an agreement that didn’t put their interests front and centre ahead of Alberta’s and Canada’s. It’s entirely possible that the only deal that Canada could endorse, for consideration of Parliament, would be an independent Alberta with indigenous sovereignty over all the Treaty 6, 7, and 8 lands, governed by an oligarchy of indigenous elites, such as a Governing Council of chiefs and tribal elders from the First Nations situated in Alberta. The name of the new country might not even be Alberta.
You don’t know what the worms will look like until you open that can.
Jen Gerson is a reliable messenger for Ottawa Central, ensconced in the western hinterlands, writing milquetoast 'doom and gloom' blather about Alberta and Albertans asserting themselves in the same manner and for the same valid reasons as Texans unapologetically relate to Washington D.C.
...we have no desire to live in a landlocked Hermit Kingdom of five million people, separated from our family by a border, and potentially unable to live or work anywhere else on the continent. This isn't a better future for ourselves or our kids...m
That your comment mischaracterizes Jen Gerson in this manner speaks volumes about the (lack of) credibility in the thinking used to come up with the notion.
Land locked is what I keep hearing, but, it's oil, right? I can't see the USA not wanting a pipeline from Canada. It's oil. Would anyone anywhere display interest in middle eastern affairs if the main export was dates?
The problem with being landlocked isn't that you can't get sell your product... you can absolutely sell it... to one customer... if you're willing to accept the price they want to pay.
This is exactly right. Being landlocked means no bargaining power. Even more than that though, who in the world do you think would want to trade with a « country » that took its toys and went home because they didn’t like the ideas of their playmates?
Nobody.
> who in the world do you think would want to trade with a « country » that took its toys and went home because they didn’t like the ideas of their playmates?
Everyone.
No one cares about our internal fights when it comes to trade. People trade with Saudi Arabia despite the fact that it's a horrendous country that does horrendous things to people.
I don’t think the group themselves could decide who would have conversations and what demands would be. Did you follow the prior separatist party and how it splintered at the AGM? That was partly because of conflict within the board of directors. Some wanting to follow procedure and others wanting to keep the same leader who was making salary demands but couldn’t sell party memberships on as leader. I believe that was the Wildrose party (V2) which then splintered into the Wildrose coalition or something like that. (The names were similar, the membership list was stolen and used by the splintered party. There were court cases and it was nasty. I’m sure there’s crossover in the people involved in the new separatist party(parties?) and these just aren’t serious people capable of acting like adults or knowing what it means to compromise or respect others.)
I think you might have responded to the wrong comment.
Mine was that foreigners don’t generally care about internal arguments when it comes to trade.
I'm not an economist but we also need to look toward Hudson Bay for export.
Landlocked countries can still trade with their neighbours and the world. What are called “transit states” are supposed to cooperate with trade across their territory and allow access to their seaports so as not to unfairly disadvantage the landlocked state. E.g., Switzerland.
What I think Jen is more referring to is that citizens of an independent Alberta would not be citizens of any other country (unless they were immigrants who retained birth-country citizenship) and so would be trapped there, unable to move to Canada or anywhere else, except by immigration, after independence was granted.
What's interesting about that quoted bit is that that actually has nothing to do with Alberta. That would have to do with the rest of Canada being absolute dicks. We know from experience how BC would respond to a separated Alberta. Sigh. I live in BC and was absolutely appalled by how Horgan handled pipelines. BC would be a great standalone country, if it weren't for the fact that nobody seems to know how to properly govern a resource-rich province with a vast coastline.
Yes. I lived in BC, I understand you. It is the age-old problem of too many assorted leftists in one place.
Is it because the late-arriving leftists can't push the already established ones into the sea so they just stack up, like an airport baggage carousel that has an odd-sized bag stuck in the chute?
Yes! Perfect! Thank you for a good laugh. Another factor may be the ..... ahem .... "schooling" ..... system. I think the BC government should be moved from Victoria to BC interior, say to Clinton, a ranching one-gas pump road stop in the middle of vast expanse. That might improve some of the attitudes.
Great piece! Thank you, Jen.
Canadians are a funny bunch. Those with money, have properties in Florida and AZ and spend 6 months there. I have NS cousins and besties in the USA, and I never hear a peep from them about a non fulfilling life. If you get your cabinets from Home Depot, the Atlanta head office will thank you. I am not interested in joining the US as much as the same rights as Quebec with a triple E senate, and more rep by pop. Ottawa has royally fucked Alberta, started during Lougheed times. Not just oil and gas, but immigration, and hey, canola? Any mention from the PM about the 100 percent tariff on canola? No, we need a Buffalo Declaration and the West to move away from Central Canada aka, observe the Constitution Act and say out of provincial jurisdiction.
I read and listen to The Line because I don't always agree with you guys. And I continue to happily pay you for the privilege. Just sayin'... And, I'm happy to support your kitchen reno via subscription here. (My two cents - pay for the best cupboard doors you can, you never really know what is coming down the pipe and you may end up living there much longer than you think. Its never a waste to buy good quality.)
And I'm completely on board with you about the politics of grievance. I'm tired of it. It doesn't serve any of us well, and we must stamp it out. I've actully begun to speak up when I'm in conversations where talk adopts a "grievance for fun" tone; when people try to one up each other for how nihlist they can be and so on. I think this is my small way of protecting democracy. Respectful conversation, criticism where needed for sure, lively exchange of ideas - absolutely! But the grievance attitude has to stop. This will clear the space for new ideas to grow, which is what we need if we're to navigate our way out of this mess.
BTW - I almost always appreciate your writing... the metaphor of the controlled burn is a good one. Thanks for that. And even when I don't agree, you get me thinking. Keep going. You're doing great.