I would add to Jenn's suggestion to get politically active. It seems to me that the answer to Western alienation is not separatism but participation the political process. What easterners can do much more powerfully than westerners is advocate for the remedying of these grievances. Much of what fuels western alienation is actually bad for Canada. If you live out east, chances are that your MP is a Liberal. Email them and advocate that you want to see these things addressed. Liberals have very good self preservation instincts. If they feel that their own political future rests on addressing some of this historical rot, then they will act. I believe Carney is trying, but he is fighting his own caucus along the way. ROCs can get results by advocating directly to their MPs for change. And in doing so you take the wind out of separatists' sails.
Re moderation: Albertans say they believe these things...and then vote otherwise. It is kind of amazing to watch. Bar Notley, Alberta's had a huge Conservative Party or equivalent majority since 1971. Before that, Social Credit since 1935. That's hard to take seriously on a few levels, but the most obvious way is the idea that Albertans are moderate. Or, in fact, think about things much at all.
Also, while I do not think much of Quebec separatism, Quebec had an existence before Canada and has had a distinct culture for centuries in a way that Alberta hasn't. I'd think it silly if most of the American western states had independence movements for basically the same reason.
I moved from Ottawa in 1983 to work in Alberta for thirteen years. My two daughters were born on Alberta. We moved to Saskatchewan in ‘96 and have lived here ever since.
Yes, Western alienation has long been a reality but almost nobody that I have met here in the past forty-plus years has ever suggested that separation from Canada would help the situation. Addressing the issues that cause the alienation would go a long way to quieting the dissenters.
Meanwhile, a ‘no’ vote to a secession referendum is needed.
I’d love to read some follow up articles outlining the historical grievances and contributions of AB for the rest of the country (bonus points if there’s a French version) + vision for Alberta’s future in a strong, united Canada. I think that to be most impactful, those stories need to come from AB but be widely read throughout the rest of Canada, and be based on balanced, well-researched historical facts & current data. Living in various AB communities for much of my life, with a broad acquaintance across the political spectrum, I observe that what bothers many Albertans is not the fact of Confederation, but the perception of contempt. I wonder what would happen if there was a strong sense here of being seen, heard, and deeply valued in the federation. And what would make that so (beyond pipelines).
Of course First Nations, Leftists and Boomer's fight the hardest to stay in Canada. Their income stream comes from Ottawa.
The FN Chiefs, the same ones who criticize Canadians and Ottawa in one breath are the biggest defenders of Alberta in Canada the next. Why? Follow the dollars. I don't even blame them for that.
Same with leftists and their sinctures from a benevolent Ottawa and boomers with all their Ottawa handouts.
Who supports Separatism the most? High income younger men. Why? Because they pay the most into it.
As for Alberta's future, the Americans couldn't care about what the FN or Ottawa thinks.
I have subscribed to leave this comment: bravo. Many succinct, diamond-cut turns of phrase that I will pass on. Everyone who read the article should read it again and then pass it on.
My problem with the separatist cause more than anything, is you can not debate any serious post-separation policy. If you attempt to ask serious questions about how they would deal with things such as currency, debt markets, credit ratings, trade deals, intelligence agencies, (the list is enormous) you eventually end up being name called, or "we got this", or something to that effect. If they had an actual serious plan, could talk serious and real world policy in detail, and engaged people in a professional way other than flooding the media and internet space with complaining, they might have a better go of it. But building a nation from scratch is hard F-ing work... "being mad" is easy. They don't have the work ethic to build a party, win a majority, negotiate replacement frameworks for the numbered treaties, negotiate constitutional issues with premiers, fully cost out the first 10 years, and then hold a referrendum. That is too much hard work. The way things are, if the people of Alberta actually get their say, this question goes down resoundingly in the fall and the Liberals quadruple their Alberta seat count next election.
Well, Ottawa is not going to bribe Alberta with money to remain in Canada. …as Premier Eby (BC) pointedly noted to PM Carney, it is B.C., (my province) Alberta and Saskatchewan that pay the generous transfer payments but get little in return. He thought it was time that this was acknowledged and by the way, some appreciation from Ottawa for our money sent east, was far overdue.
Could just join the US. Problem solved. Alberta's business community would be happy. Many already have most of their assets in the US since Canada is such a crap culture to grow a business in.
Well, I can grant you that would be a better out come than trying to start a brand new country with all the long list of issues to face. But a path to statehood would not be easy; blue states would not be friendly to the idea for Senate reasons, and as a "territory" without full states rights you can bank on the US taking full advantage of the resources to their benefit over Alberta's. It is still a highly risky move.
BC is also short of seats. This is not a new thing but a historical wrong perpetrated on the western provinces. From the time of Laurier… a hell of a long time.
This arrogant policy of short changing the west is insulting and just plain unfair.
And the consistent way that Ottawa swats away the west like we are pesky flies is infuriating and insulting.
To follow up on the Avi Lewis comment: I would recommend that people remember separatists can in fact read, and some of them even read French. So while the Alberta referendum-on-whether-to-hold-a-referendum is this year, and a Quebec referendum wouldn't be until next year at the earliest if the PQ win this year's election in Quebec, I would recommend you try to keep one set of standards. If you have wildly varying thoughts like Lewis that only one separation debate is 'legitimate', or that Alberta should be threatened with massive economic damage if they separate while Quebec needs to be talked to like a child with appeasement, your words will be thrown back in your face.
There is a big difference between a province with a four hundred year history that speaks a different language going 'we're too different, we need to leave' and a province with a hundred and twenty year history that doesn't saying that.
Note that I do not agree with either, and do not think Quebec separatists should be coddled. Large chunks of what they say is nonsense. But the two situations are not entirely the same.
Avi Lewis will NEVER be in a position to lead the federal government, much less lead a political party that will have any significant role in the federal parliament again.
Opposition? Yes.
But only effective opposition in the context of a minority parliament when the Conservatives and Bloc choose to work with the NDP to bring down the government.
Which will NOT benefit the NDP (as we saw during the previous psuedo-condominium that existed under the leadership of Justin Trudeau and then-NDP leader Jagmeet Singh).
What ticks me and others off is central Canadians who either will not consider, or do not grasp, the legitimate grievances affecting the west and specifically Alberta. So far, the Carney Liberals as represented by Carney himself, show disastrous signs of slowness in moving Canada into a better place. There is no substitute for a pipeline approval that garners private sector buy in, and Carney has started on that one but whether anything will happen is on Doubt. There is no substitute for attention to representation on the Hill, and for attention to what enters the equalization formula. If having the worst GDP record in the G7 in recent quarters does not move the Liberals, what will.
And this is from me, a lone Albertan who has limited political contacts and wants to stay in Canada.
The Senate situation is less fair, but the Senate does not just consider population (or PEI would have 0.1 Senator or something like that). And requires constitutional amendment, which I don't think is anyone's view of what we should be spending our time on, including most Albertans.
In the before times, a pipeline with private backing that passed regulatory scrutiny was in the public interest. The details of minimizing environmental impacts were just that - important details, but always achievable. So in some sense, the federal MOU’s major concession is to apply the law as written without injecting political considerations into the public interest.
Except that the pipeline in question did not pass regulatory scrutiny. While it was approved by a Joint Review Panel and by the federal Cabinet its approval was struck down by the Federal Court of Appeal for inadequate consultation with First Nations.
Fair enough, but I'm not sure what has been conceded. Pipelines that received regulatory approval and were declared in the public interest - TransMountain expansion, Coastal GasLink - got built and a pipeline that didn't meet regulatory requirements - Northern Gateway - got canned.
With respect, your framing begs the question. NG lost at the FCA owing to Cabinet’s purported failure to discharge its duty to consult relative to new information provided on top of the NEB report. Then Trudeau said “a rainforest is no place for a pipeline.” Energy East pulled the plug immediately after downstream emissions were scoped into the review. The relevant part of the MOU is essentially the feds saying they won’t do that this time.
Jen you say "... get your asses out here, and start making the case for Canada ..."
I have been noting on your comment board for some time that I am an Alberta separatist. On that basis, I have here and elsewhere stated that, while I don't believe that I have chosen incorrectly, I am open to discussion about what Alberta would lose by not being part of Canada and have requested that folks tell me just what it is that that is.
The few responses that I have seen have been emotional ["Oh, we would miss you!"], abusive [I don't need to enumerate that stuff], foolish argumentation ["Oh, but we are democratic!" as if Alberta is not democratic], simply irrelevant ["You would be landlocked!" as if we would lose access to our current Pacific port in Banff or not recognizing that BC would be landlocked from ROC and the reverse] and so on and so on.
I therefore, suggest that you might take your own advice above and write an essay that makes the case for Canada. Yes, you can be lyrical but please recognize that a whole lot of arguments can easily be countered. I suggest that you would do the greatest service by developing unique responses rather than the tired, hackneyed arguments.
I would note that Danielle Smith has recently made assertions of the "cost" of separation but, as with all of such assertions (including assertions from my side), they start from assumptions that entirely suit her needs. Put differently, there are copious and sensible responses to most assertions from both sides; what is needed is thoughtful argument.
And there you have your challenge. I do hope that you accept that challenge, not as an opportunity to rant (a skill that you have, to be certain) but as a chance to skillfully argue for your position.
Ken, I’ve been thinking a lot on this question lately. It’s a good and valid question.
First off, it’s fair and reasonable to consider the downsides. Only a fool would not do this - and they are considerable. But setting aside those things for a moment, setting aside the acrimony and potential loss of mobility, relations, and business with Sask, BC and the Maritimes (just to name a few), places Alberta and Albertans have strong personal and business connections with. Let’s look at what we’re leaving.
We’re leaving one of the most beautiful, and fantastically resource rich landscapes on the planet. We’re leaving all of that future opportunity behind, and narrowing our focus to only Alberta. Life is long and things are malleable. We’re walking away from the future potential of this Country. And the separatists answer to that - is only cynicism. Canada has had its ups and downs, but if we’re being honest and real. It’s been a ride more like the stock market over the last 80 years that it has a plummet to the bottom of the ocean. Not smooth - but our prosperity (and our population) has grown at a rate greater than the rest of Canada at minimum despite the rocky ride.
When I’ve also considered that cynical response (which is not based outside of reality), another realization occurred to me. I personally know very little about Eastern Canada. And even fewer people from there. I’m not super unique in this. We (Alberta) don’t do much business comparative to what we do with the US or our direct provincial neighbors. And we haven’t built bonds with the East. That does not absolve the East from the same criticism, but let’s own our end of the deal here and take some responsibly. Albertans are largely pretty awesome. Our culture and attitude is inclusive and infectious, people from other parts generally like us. And certainly we’ve been the most successful Province at attracting inter-provincial migration. We “immigrate” and assimilate more Canadians into AB than any other province does (someone should fact check me here - but it feels accurate). It’s no small thing to have a culture welcoming enough that it makes other Canadians feel comfortable enough to make it their permanent home, and raise families into it. Want evidence? Look to all the wonderful Maritimers we have here now. It’s been a beautiful relationship and connection. Why aren’t we exporting this attitude and aptitude to the rest of the Country? Why aren’t we making connection? There is opportunity everywhere, and we’re good at this business thing. We’ve got a good thing going here, so we don’t “have” to, but why aren’t we and what are we leaving on the table. Confession. I’ve been all over the US, Europe and even large parts of Asia - I’ve never been to Toronto or Montreal… embarrassing really.
So the answer here is 2 fold really. It’s what could be, and what we (as Albertans) haven’t yet truly tried. (And I’m not talking politically, I’m talking in business and personal). Seems a bit pre-mature to leave without truly taking our best swing first no?
Chris, thank you for your lyrical response. I will respond to your comments pretty much in the order that you raise the points - well, I hope that I do; I might be a bit scattered.
Yes, we would suffer loss of mobility, relations, etc. with all of Canada but particularly with Saskatchewan and BC. Truth to tell, I do see some formality in respect of mobility but the actual "loss"? I don't see a real big loss there, more a bit of formality as we cross the frontier. I see cross-border business being just a bit (really, just a bit) more complex but not much of anything major. In my working life I dealt with many US companies working in Canada and it seems to me that it was more a matter of being aware of the border than a real problem with the border; I expect for an independent Alberta it would be similar.
Ah, what we're leaving. Yes, Canada is resource rich. On the other hand, how hard is it for Canada to develop and exploit those resource riches? Damned hard. Canada just isn't willing to make decisions that might, just might, even microscopically offend some group or other with the result that nothing gets done or if it is done it is at major time lines and unforgettable cost. That isn't something that I find attractive. You speak of future potential but that potential is worthless unless it can be realized and as things stand now, it simply isn't being allowed to be realized.
Actually, I have spent some time in O & Q, having lived there for a few years. Actually some interesting places but, well, they aren't home - I am definitely an Alberta boy. In some respects, they are like any other locale in that they are very self-absorbed; the difference is that they believe that the rest of Canada should revolve around them and their interests. So, such things as resource development fall afoul of the Stephen Guilbealts of this world and, of course, his ilk, who are very concentrated in that part of the world. To say that he is no longer in government misses that many of his acolytes remain in the LPC government and in O & Q, very much finding our "dirty oil" [that damned epithet!] a reason to not work fairly with us.
As I say, I have spent a fair bit of time in O & Q; I was at one time the Calgary managing partner of a national accounting firm headquartered in Montreal so, in addition to living a few years in Toronto I was in and out of Montreal on a regular basis. A lot of good people but, well, most of them weren't very interested in a Calgary or Alberta perspective on things.
You say that we haven't built bonds with the east. Perhaps. The truth is that our business bonds are north-south not east-west. That has always been so. Our first cattle ranches arose from cattle brought north, just as one example.
I absolutely agree that we have accepted and welcomed ever so many folks from other parts of Canada and of the world. That is what we should continue to do. But only, of course, based on our ability to provide basic services (education, health, housing, etc.), which is something that the federal government, despite their claims to the contrary, isn't doing even yet. As for why we are not exporting our attitude of welcome, etc. to the rest of Canada, that is - please pardon me for being offensive - at best a silly question. Simply put, if the ROC isn't interested in being welcoming to newcomers they certainly aren't going to listen to us lecture them on their failings.
As for saying that we "haven't tried" with the ROC, well, I must politely and respectfully disagree as it has been tried for decades with no success. At best, we get indifference; when we don't get indifference we get hostility.
I wish you well with your (I infer) plans to launch a charm drive with ROC.
Fair comments. I don’t have the previous experience with the ROC that you do. I agree our trade is N-S, very significantly. In my future endeavors, I plan to explore opportunities E-W a little more.
The biggest point for me is that things are malleable and subject to change. Nothing in life is static. At one time, in living memory, Canada did big things. I am a 40 something. I believe the appetite is there from a majority of my generation to move away from Canada’s current modus operandi and back to that and a pragmatic approach to development and prosperity. Last election’s conservative support by the under 45 demo seems to support this view. Not to mention the guy that eventually got elected ran on the conservative platform anyways.
So things you cannot change are the things Canada inherently has. And despite the challenges with what are basically clueless urban voting bases in 3 large cities, the underlying culture and values of Canada everywhere else is more cohesive than we likely give it credit for.
End of the day, there are still good bones to this country. And now that we have finally ridded ourselves of “he who shall not be named” I’m not inclined to throw in the towel.
Chris, for purposes of discussion, I will accept what you say.
Now, two points.
You reference "... basically clueless urban voting bases in 3 large cities ..." and I will agree but I think it is a wider spread. In any event, to me the problem is that the center continues to violate the constitutional separation of powers and that doesn't seem to change at all. Further, those same "clueless" folks want free stuff that cannot be free as someone has to pay for it. A lot of that payment is from we in Alberta.
A second point is that even if the populace is getting more conservative (which may or may not be so; I cannot say) I recognize that all it takes is another demagogue such as the Face Painter to argue that the government should do A or B or C and to then again violate the constitutional separation of powers and try to again kill our industry.
Why or why would we take such a gamble.
But, let's say that you are entirely correct. What is the benefit to we in Alberta staying in Canada? No one has yet provided me with any positive commentary about Canada offers A or B or whatever. The responses are always negative ("You would lose 'X'") or abusive (no examples needed here) or foolishly argumentative ("You would be landlocked" but no recognition that BC would be landlocked from ROC and vice versa) and so forth. So, again, again, again, what are the actual SPECIFIC benefits that we receive by staying in Canada? Not negatives, such as losing X (we probably wouldn't) but the actual positives of staying Canada?
Your comment of saying don’t tell me what we would lose doesn’t provide an opportunity to say what we benefit. To lose something, you have to possess it in the first place. Meaning there is inherent value to be lost. It’s a null response. But to indulge it, I’ll list a few.
- we can work freely or travel anywhere we chose in the 2nd largest country, and most beautiful country on the planet.
- we are afforded the free and fair opportunity to expand our businesses and employment across the same nation.
- we are a part of a diversity of people and culture from Maritimers, to Ouebekers, to flat landers, to our crazy black sheep of the family BCer’s.
- The Jasper/Banff/Waterton Rocky Mountains alone are reason enough for me. And it seems that our National Parks would in fact remain within Canada as they are under federal governance and control.
If the argument for separation is reduced to economics and economics alone as to why we should leave Canada. It’s flimsy at best and vain at worst. Our resource egress will at best remain the same, and that is unlikely. If we think it’s hard getting a pipeline now… wait until there is zero reason for Canada to provide access. If we think some William Wallace in a cowboy hat is going to somehow “convince” Canada otherwise. This is laughable, improbable, and not worth the gamble above
As to this.
“Why or why would we take such a gamble.”
You can’t make the same argument you are disqualifying from the federalist camp. Because truly - the gamble you are promoting is much much bigger. We don’t even know who is in charge of this separatist movement. It has nothing in respect to governmental organization or credible leadership. There are so many questions unanswered (which I’ve covered before) it makes my head spin.
“I recognize that all it takes is another demagogue such as the Face Painter to argue that the government should do A or B or C and to then again violate the constitutional separation of powers and try to again kill our industry.”
And this. Do we really think AB - who LOVES their populists (I am firmly in this number - can’t help it) is less susceptible to the same fraud and victimization just from the other side? I’d argue the potential for corruption and tampering is far greater once we consolidate power with even fewer people.
I enjoy our conversations Ken. But I have yet to be provided with a detailed, credible and positive plan forward from the Separatist’s camp. It’s grievance and grievance alone, relying on the unstable footing that Canada can and will never change despite evidence to the contrary right in front of our faces.
Until I hear a detailed and credible plan that addresses also the things we have/ and stand to lose. (Boring things like banking and currency), I will remain dismissive. If the plan is to try and join the US (which is the only tenuously viable idea), then Separatist’s should come out and say it.
The point of wanting information of what we would lose is to get to those areas where there are issues and to deal with those issues.
Yes we can work, live, etc. freely across Canada. Truth to tell, I rather expect that Canada’s economy will be pretty sad for a long time so that is of marginal benefit to me (well, I’m retired so it is of no benefit to me, but I digress). On the other hand, Canadian citizens can arrive into Canada at any time and can reside, work, etc. with no limitation. As it happens, I was born in Alberta so I qualify as a Canadian, as do most Albertans. You might respond that citizenship is subject to negotiation, as discussed in the Supreme Court reference decision and I agree. I then respond that the feds have just passed into law legislation that allows foreign citizens (this actually REALLY benefits many Americans) who had Canadian ancestors going back many, many generations to apply for Canadian citizenship. Bottom line, your sounds much, much worse than it is.
I agree that our National Parks are wonderful; Banff is overfull but wonderful. I get from your response that you expect that on separation Alberta would lose access to our National Parks. I actually think not because, as noted above, any process of separation is subject to negotiation. Just to be overly simplistic, one could argue that Albertans own one tenth of Banff, etc. and, that if ROC retained ownership of Banff, etc. then we want our pro-rata share of the value. A truly silly conversation, no? However, carrying that forward, it follows that we also own one tenth of, oh, Riding Mountain NP, Yoho NP, Point Pelee NP, Georgian Islands NP, PN Mont-Tremblant, PN Jacques-Cartier, Bruce Peninsula NP and all the other National Parks. So, if the feds became obstreperous during negotiations we could demand that they compensate us for the National Parks outside of Alberta. Silly, right? Easy answer is you keep yours and we keep ours.
You note that our resource egress is through ROC. That is currently the case and it seems highly unlikely that the ultimate customer would be keen on any interruptions however if ROC wanted to play that game (foolishly, I might add), we do have a southern border that would allow a fix. On the other hand, any suggested interruption might well see interruptions of trains carrying goods from Vancouver to Toronto or vice versa. Oh, transit across Alberta by highway? Air transit over Alberta air space? All incredibly stupid games that would and should be dealt with during the above referenced negotiations.
Yes, demagogues can pop up anywhere, including here in Alberta. The difference that I offer you is that a demagogue in Alberta cannot seize powers allocated to other governments whereas the feds have been doing it to us for decades and simply refuse to recognize that action. To put it differently, our future demagogues (if any) can hurt only us, not folks external to us.
Now, you do hit on a good item. Yes, we need more definition to the future, oh, something like a plan. The problem is that such planning costs a lot of money and the separatists to this point have not had the bucks to develop that. Danielle Smith for years has been accused of being a separatist. She has recently shown that she is a serious federalist. Very tellingly, however, something that her critics do not acknowledge, is that she has not had the provincial bureaucracy develop separation plans, etc. So, yes, this is an issue. Having said that, one needs to start someplace and indicating our dissatisfaction and setting forth a direction is a good starting point.
The problem is that the Under 45 demo still gets swamped by the Over 60 demo. The Over 60's are the ones who created the modern Canada, they are the ones who vote and they are the ones who unashamedly demand more and more funded services that the under 45's will have to pay the debt on. This is the crux of the problems with underachievement in Canada, but they are problems that will eventually turn over.
My concern is that they will damage Canada's prosperity and future irreparably before they move on. Meanwhile the under 30 crowd plan their exits from Canada.
Jen, you write in part, "It is First Nations people who are standing up for Canada, here. Clearly. Unequivocally. Boldly."
Are they really "standing up for Canada" or are they being selfish and trying to keep their own petty sinecures in each of their "nations"? Are they simply working to ensure that federal monies (pretty much unaccountable, it would seem) keep coming?
Ah, Avi Lewis .... the Leap Manifesto himself. If ever he were to be elected PM [not gonna happen], that alone would justify Alberta separation.
It's always about motivators and money in the end.
You'll note that the federalists are using the "we will scare away business" line as their go to line. They never actually give examples (because it isn't true) but they have figured out how to mobilize people. Threaten their motivators.
Thankfully the separatist are so terrible at their jobs they won't figure this out, but if the separatists professionalize, watch out.
Roki, in a sense, the problem with we separatists [I include myself in that descriptor but I am not so arrogant to assume that includes you] is that we are all amateurs. Certainly, the "leadership" of the separatist movement are amateurs. To expect, oh, Jeff Rath to be a statesman is, well, unexpected. And so forth. As far as leaders go, I think that the Alberta Prosperity Project, led by Mitch Sylvester has done well but, again, amateurs.
By contrast, the federalist side led by the provincial government has access to professionals in the legal, economic, etc., etc., etc. professions and lots of money to pay those folks. Especially the money.
What is needed is for the separatist side to have a lot of bucks available to hire folks to counter the federal arguments. Just as one f'r instance, Danielle Smith has been quoted as saying that it would cost $400 billion to separate. Then the next day she speaks of appointing "experts" to evaluate the cost. That raises the issue of where she got the $400 B number if she is only now appointing a panel to evaluate the cost. Truth is, she is a federalist and I fully expect her to use her office to push her view of things.
What she and her fellow travelers are doing is to look for ANY cost that might accrue to the cost of separation but ignoring the benefits that might accrue to Alberta. So, for example, they would say that we would have to buy, oh, the national parks in Alberta but there is no consideration of our share of the national parks in Quebec, Ontario, BC, etc., etc. that would have to be purchased from us.
Similarly, they assert that we would have to set up all sorts of agencies, boards, etc. from scratch at immense cost and ignore that a condition of separation under federal law is that there be a negotiation between the various parties. I would expect that negotiation to have Alberta simply assume the existing federal structure and employees at minimal cost.
My point is that we separatists need a champion who can fund a major study to deal with these mistruths. [I deliberately avoid using the "l" word.]
Pushing away the Americans if this is the case, and I think it is, was a giant mistake.
The business community is the obvious source of those funds, but the business community wants to be plugged in more with the US. Not less. I know polling in Canada shows most Canadians want less to do with the US, but those polls also show that those with higher incomes and assets understand how the world really works.
If Elon Musk were to fund the separatists, or if you started having thought and business leaders sharing "we would invest in an independent" Alberta, it would professionalize quickly.
The truth is that if you study history it is very rare that an independence movement comes from the bottom up. Even the Soviet Union collapsed in a quasi-KGB coup.
A lot of people are turned off by the "Mickey Mouse" operation of the separatist movement. The lack of funds is an indictment of the separatist movement and just tells me that these folks are terrible at marketing, sales or too hard to work with.
Of course the rest of Canada knows this and these folks only serve to hurt the reputation of Alberta.
To think that there is a path without the US involved is so naive it disqualifies anyone who espouses it.
For the record, I'm a federalist but I think Canada needs a new Constitution and devolution. Something like the relationship between the Isle of Man or Channel Islands and the UK would be ideal.
Roki, I respectfully argue that there is a vast difference between "pushing off the Americans" and seeking to have the US as a trusted and valued ally. Put differently, most of we separatists don't want to get out from being governed by faraway Ottawa just so they can be governed by faraway DC.
Going further, it is highly unlikely that Alberta would become a state in the union and, probably, at best would be a territory with no seats in Congress, etc. Any push to admit As a state has to go through Congress and, given that some folks would view us as a state, you can expect that the Democrats would only agree if Puerto Rico and DC were also admitted as states, i.e. one red stand two blue states, which the Republicans would not accept.
So, the best that Alberta could become is an independent and trusted ally of the US.
We can respectfully disagree on this one. Independence as any parent knows is a spectrum. It took Canada over 100 years to achieve full independence as an example.
I think in 2026 that Alberta will be associated with either the US or Canada, it doesn't have much of a choice. Even landlocked states like Switzerland and Mongolia have to work with their much larger neighbours.
Thanks so much for this. I voted in the 1995 Quebec referendum, so I get the tension. As an Easterner, I need to bone up on the history of long standing grievances, from an Alberta perspective. Maybe you can help??
I would add to Jenn's suggestion to get politically active. It seems to me that the answer to Western alienation is not separatism but participation the political process. What easterners can do much more powerfully than westerners is advocate for the remedying of these grievances. Much of what fuels western alienation is actually bad for Canada. If you live out east, chances are that your MP is a Liberal. Email them and advocate that you want to see these things addressed. Liberals have very good self preservation instincts. If they feel that their own political future rests on addressing some of this historical rot, then they will act. I believe Carney is trying, but he is fighting his own caucus along the way. ROCs can get results by advocating directly to their MPs for change. And in doing so you take the wind out of separatists' sails.
Re moderation: Albertans say they believe these things...and then vote otherwise. It is kind of amazing to watch. Bar Notley, Alberta's had a huge Conservative Party or equivalent majority since 1971. Before that, Social Credit since 1935. That's hard to take seriously on a few levels, but the most obvious way is the idea that Albertans are moderate. Or, in fact, think about things much at all.
Also, while I do not think much of Quebec separatism, Quebec had an existence before Canada and has had a distinct culture for centuries in a way that Alberta hasn't. I'd think it silly if most of the American western states had independence movements for basically the same reason.
I moved from Ottawa in 1983 to work in Alberta for thirteen years. My two daughters were born on Alberta. We moved to Saskatchewan in ‘96 and have lived here ever since.
Yes, Western alienation has long been a reality but almost nobody that I have met here in the past forty-plus years has ever suggested that separation from Canada would help the situation. Addressing the issues that cause the alienation would go a long way to quieting the dissenters.
Meanwhile, a ‘no’ vote to a secession referendum is needed.
I’d love to read some follow up articles outlining the historical grievances and contributions of AB for the rest of the country (bonus points if there’s a French version) + vision for Alberta’s future in a strong, united Canada. I think that to be most impactful, those stories need to come from AB but be widely read throughout the rest of Canada, and be based on balanced, well-researched historical facts & current data. Living in various AB communities for much of my life, with a broad acquaintance across the political spectrum, I observe that what bothers many Albertans is not the fact of Confederation, but the perception of contempt. I wonder what would happen if there was a strong sense here of being seen, heard, and deeply valued in the federation. And what would make that so (beyond pipelines).
Of course First Nations, Leftists and Boomer's fight the hardest to stay in Canada. Their income stream comes from Ottawa.
The FN Chiefs, the same ones who criticize Canadians and Ottawa in one breath are the biggest defenders of Alberta in Canada the next. Why? Follow the dollars. I don't even blame them for that.
Same with leftists and their sinctures from a benevolent Ottawa and boomers with all their Ottawa handouts.
Who supports Separatism the most? High income younger men. Why? Because they pay the most into it.
As for Alberta's future, the Americans couldn't care about what the FN or Ottawa thinks.
I have subscribed to leave this comment: bravo. Many succinct, diamond-cut turns of phrase that I will pass on. Everyone who read the article should read it again and then pass it on.
My problem with the separatist cause more than anything, is you can not debate any serious post-separation policy. If you attempt to ask serious questions about how they would deal with things such as currency, debt markets, credit ratings, trade deals, intelligence agencies, (the list is enormous) you eventually end up being name called, or "we got this", or something to that effect. If they had an actual serious plan, could talk serious and real world policy in detail, and engaged people in a professional way other than flooding the media and internet space with complaining, they might have a better go of it. But building a nation from scratch is hard F-ing work... "being mad" is easy. They don't have the work ethic to build a party, win a majority, negotiate replacement frameworks for the numbered treaties, negotiate constitutional issues with premiers, fully cost out the first 10 years, and then hold a referrendum. That is too much hard work. The way things are, if the people of Alberta actually get their say, this question goes down resoundingly in the fall and the Liberals quadruple their Alberta seat count next election.
Good points. What is the plan to keep Alberta in confederation?
Well, Ottawa is not going to bribe Alberta with money to remain in Canada. …as Premier Eby (BC) pointedly noted to PM Carney, it is B.C., (my province) Alberta and Saskatchewan that pay the generous transfer payments but get little in return. He thought it was time that this was acknowledged and by the way, some appreciation from Ottawa for our money sent east, was far overdue.
I am not aware of any response from Carney.
My hunch is that won't go over well. What would have to exist for Alberta to get the same deal in confederation?
Could just join the US. Problem solved. Alberta's business community would be happy. Many already have most of their assets in the US since Canada is such a crap culture to grow a business in.
Well, I can grant you that would be a better out come than trying to start a brand new country with all the long list of issues to face. But a path to statehood would not be easy; blue states would not be friendly to the idea for Senate reasons, and as a "territory" without full states rights you can bank on the US taking full advantage of the resources to their benefit over Alberta's. It is still a highly risky move.
Agreed, but I'll note that the riskiest move for Alberta is to just follow "steady as she goes."
I know Canadians pathologically dislike risk, but there is no avoiding it in Canada's near future.
Alberta should qualify for an additional 4 seats in the House of Commons based on the 2021 census data.
BC is also short of seats. This is not a new thing but a historical wrong perpetrated on the western provinces. From the time of Laurier… a hell of a long time.
This arrogant policy of short changing the west is insulting and just plain unfair.
And the consistent way that Ottawa swats away the west like we are pesky flies is infuriating and insulting.
A positive: the maple leaf on the new driver's licenses.
Separatism is stupid, DEI is stupid, NetZero is stupid, carbon capture is stupid, mandates are stupid, woke is stupid.
Stupid ideas have a way of gaining traction.
To follow up on the Avi Lewis comment: I would recommend that people remember separatists can in fact read, and some of them even read French. So while the Alberta referendum-on-whether-to-hold-a-referendum is this year, and a Quebec referendum wouldn't be until next year at the earliest if the PQ win this year's election in Quebec, I would recommend you try to keep one set of standards. If you have wildly varying thoughts like Lewis that only one separation debate is 'legitimate', or that Alberta should be threatened with massive economic damage if they separate while Quebec needs to be talked to like a child with appeasement, your words will be thrown back in your face.
There is a big difference between a province with a four hundred year history that speaks a different language going 'we're too different, we need to leave' and a province with a hundred and twenty year history that doesn't saying that.
Note that I do not agree with either, and do not think Quebec separatists should be coddled. Large chunks of what they say is nonsense. But the two situations are not entirely the same.
There are similarities. Read up on the history of Alberta.
Avi Lewis will NEVER be in a position to lead the federal government, much less lead a political party that will have any significant role in the federal parliament again.
Opposition? Yes.
But only effective opposition in the context of a minority parliament when the Conservatives and Bloc choose to work with the NDP to bring down the government.
Which will NOT benefit the NDP (as we saw during the previous psuedo-condominium that existed under the leadership of Justin Trudeau and then-NDP leader Jagmeet Singh).
Hear!Hear!
I support the tone in this article.
What ticks me and others off is central Canadians who either will not consider, or do not grasp, the legitimate grievances affecting the west and specifically Alberta. So far, the Carney Liberals as represented by Carney himself, show disastrous signs of slowness in moving Canada into a better place. There is no substitute for a pipeline approval that garners private sector buy in, and Carney has started on that one but whether anything will happen is on Doubt. There is no substitute for attention to representation on the Hill, and for attention to what enters the equalization formula. If having the worst GDP record in the G7 in recent quarters does not move the Liberals, what will.
And this is from me, a lone Albertan who has limited political contacts and wants to stay in Canada.
...Alberta has more MPs per capita than Ontario.
The Senate situation is less fair, but the Senate does not just consider population (or PEI would have 0.1 Senator or something like that). And requires constitutional amendment, which I don't think is anyone's view of what we should be spending our time on, including most Albertans.
No we do not.
You did when they set it out. The population has grown a surprising amount in three years, that's all.
Agree
In the before times, a pipeline with private backing that passed regulatory scrutiny was in the public interest. The details of minimizing environmental impacts were just that - important details, but always achievable. So in some sense, the federal MOU’s major concession is to apply the law as written without injecting political considerations into the public interest.
Except that the pipeline in question did not pass regulatory scrutiny. While it was approved by a Joint Review Panel and by the federal Cabinet its approval was struck down by the Federal Court of Appeal for inadequate consultation with First Nations.
Except that I was making a point about the MOU relative to pipeline approvals generally, and not pointing - at all - to Northern Gateway as a totem.
Fair enough, but I'm not sure what has been conceded. Pipelines that received regulatory approval and were declared in the public interest - TransMountain expansion, Coastal GasLink - got built and a pipeline that didn't meet regulatory requirements - Northern Gateway - got canned.
With respect, your framing begs the question. NG lost at the FCA owing to Cabinet’s purported failure to discharge its duty to consult relative to new information provided on top of the NEB report. Then Trudeau said “a rainforest is no place for a pipeline.” Energy East pulled the plug immediately after downstream emissions were scoped into the review. The relevant part of the MOU is essentially the feds saying they won’t do that this time.
Consultation with the First Nations is a subjective moving target. What is adequate changes every day and that is the problem.
We are a flaky people and people don't want to invest with us
Jen you say "... get your asses out here, and start making the case for Canada ..."
I have been noting on your comment board for some time that I am an Alberta separatist. On that basis, I have here and elsewhere stated that, while I don't believe that I have chosen incorrectly, I am open to discussion about what Alberta would lose by not being part of Canada and have requested that folks tell me just what it is that that is.
The few responses that I have seen have been emotional ["Oh, we would miss you!"], abusive [I don't need to enumerate that stuff], foolish argumentation ["Oh, but we are democratic!" as if Alberta is not democratic], simply irrelevant ["You would be landlocked!" as if we would lose access to our current Pacific port in Banff or not recognizing that BC would be landlocked from ROC and the reverse] and so on and so on.
I therefore, suggest that you might take your own advice above and write an essay that makes the case for Canada. Yes, you can be lyrical but please recognize that a whole lot of arguments can easily be countered. I suggest that you would do the greatest service by developing unique responses rather than the tired, hackneyed arguments.
I would note that Danielle Smith has recently made assertions of the "cost" of separation but, as with all of such assertions (including assertions from my side), they start from assumptions that entirely suit her needs. Put differently, there are copious and sensible responses to most assertions from both sides; what is needed is thoughtful argument.
And there you have your challenge. I do hope that you accept that challenge, not as an opportunity to rant (a skill that you have, to be certain) but as a chance to skillfully argue for your position.
Ken, I’ve been thinking a lot on this question lately. It’s a good and valid question.
First off, it’s fair and reasonable to consider the downsides. Only a fool would not do this - and they are considerable. But setting aside those things for a moment, setting aside the acrimony and potential loss of mobility, relations, and business with Sask, BC and the Maritimes (just to name a few), places Alberta and Albertans have strong personal and business connections with. Let’s look at what we’re leaving.
We’re leaving one of the most beautiful, and fantastically resource rich landscapes on the planet. We’re leaving all of that future opportunity behind, and narrowing our focus to only Alberta. Life is long and things are malleable. We’re walking away from the future potential of this Country. And the separatists answer to that - is only cynicism. Canada has had its ups and downs, but if we’re being honest and real. It’s been a ride more like the stock market over the last 80 years that it has a plummet to the bottom of the ocean. Not smooth - but our prosperity (and our population) has grown at a rate greater than the rest of Canada at minimum despite the rocky ride.
When I’ve also considered that cynical response (which is not based outside of reality), another realization occurred to me. I personally know very little about Eastern Canada. And even fewer people from there. I’m not super unique in this. We (Alberta) don’t do much business comparative to what we do with the US or our direct provincial neighbors. And we haven’t built bonds with the East. That does not absolve the East from the same criticism, but let’s own our end of the deal here and take some responsibly. Albertans are largely pretty awesome. Our culture and attitude is inclusive and infectious, people from other parts generally like us. And certainly we’ve been the most successful Province at attracting inter-provincial migration. We “immigrate” and assimilate more Canadians into AB than any other province does (someone should fact check me here - but it feels accurate). It’s no small thing to have a culture welcoming enough that it makes other Canadians feel comfortable enough to make it their permanent home, and raise families into it. Want evidence? Look to all the wonderful Maritimers we have here now. It’s been a beautiful relationship and connection. Why aren’t we exporting this attitude and aptitude to the rest of the Country? Why aren’t we making connection? There is opportunity everywhere, and we’re good at this business thing. We’ve got a good thing going here, so we don’t “have” to, but why aren’t we and what are we leaving on the table. Confession. I’ve been all over the US, Europe and even large parts of Asia - I’ve never been to Toronto or Montreal… embarrassing really.
So the answer here is 2 fold really. It’s what could be, and what we (as Albertans) haven’t yet truly tried. (And I’m not talking politically, I’m talking in business and personal). Seems a bit pre-mature to leave without truly taking our best swing first no?
Chris, thank you for your lyrical response. I will respond to your comments pretty much in the order that you raise the points - well, I hope that I do; I might be a bit scattered.
Yes, we would suffer loss of mobility, relations, etc. with all of Canada but particularly with Saskatchewan and BC. Truth to tell, I do see some formality in respect of mobility but the actual "loss"? I don't see a real big loss there, more a bit of formality as we cross the frontier. I see cross-border business being just a bit (really, just a bit) more complex but not much of anything major. In my working life I dealt with many US companies working in Canada and it seems to me that it was more a matter of being aware of the border than a real problem with the border; I expect for an independent Alberta it would be similar.
Ah, what we're leaving. Yes, Canada is resource rich. On the other hand, how hard is it for Canada to develop and exploit those resource riches? Damned hard. Canada just isn't willing to make decisions that might, just might, even microscopically offend some group or other with the result that nothing gets done or if it is done it is at major time lines and unforgettable cost. That isn't something that I find attractive. You speak of future potential but that potential is worthless unless it can be realized and as things stand now, it simply isn't being allowed to be realized.
Actually, I have spent some time in O & Q, having lived there for a few years. Actually some interesting places but, well, they aren't home - I am definitely an Alberta boy. In some respects, they are like any other locale in that they are very self-absorbed; the difference is that they believe that the rest of Canada should revolve around them and their interests. So, such things as resource development fall afoul of the Stephen Guilbealts of this world and, of course, his ilk, who are very concentrated in that part of the world. To say that he is no longer in government misses that many of his acolytes remain in the LPC government and in O & Q, very much finding our "dirty oil" [that damned epithet!] a reason to not work fairly with us.
As I say, I have spent a fair bit of time in O & Q; I was at one time the Calgary managing partner of a national accounting firm headquartered in Montreal so, in addition to living a few years in Toronto I was in and out of Montreal on a regular basis. A lot of good people but, well, most of them weren't very interested in a Calgary or Alberta perspective on things.
You say that we haven't built bonds with the east. Perhaps. The truth is that our business bonds are north-south not east-west. That has always been so. Our first cattle ranches arose from cattle brought north, just as one example.
I absolutely agree that we have accepted and welcomed ever so many folks from other parts of Canada and of the world. That is what we should continue to do. But only, of course, based on our ability to provide basic services (education, health, housing, etc.), which is something that the federal government, despite their claims to the contrary, isn't doing even yet. As for why we are not exporting our attitude of welcome, etc. to the rest of Canada, that is - please pardon me for being offensive - at best a silly question. Simply put, if the ROC isn't interested in being welcoming to newcomers they certainly aren't going to listen to us lecture them on their failings.
As for saying that we "haven't tried" with the ROC, well, I must politely and respectfully disagree as it has been tried for decades with no success. At best, we get indifference; when we don't get indifference we get hostility.
I wish you well with your (I infer) plans to launch a charm drive with ROC.
Fair comments. I don’t have the previous experience with the ROC that you do. I agree our trade is N-S, very significantly. In my future endeavors, I plan to explore opportunities E-W a little more.
The biggest point for me is that things are malleable and subject to change. Nothing in life is static. At one time, in living memory, Canada did big things. I am a 40 something. I believe the appetite is there from a majority of my generation to move away from Canada’s current modus operandi and back to that and a pragmatic approach to development and prosperity. Last election’s conservative support by the under 45 demo seems to support this view. Not to mention the guy that eventually got elected ran on the conservative platform anyways.
So things you cannot change are the things Canada inherently has. And despite the challenges with what are basically clueless urban voting bases in 3 large cities, the underlying culture and values of Canada everywhere else is more cohesive than we likely give it credit for.
End of the day, there are still good bones to this country. And now that we have finally ridded ourselves of “he who shall not be named” I’m not inclined to throw in the towel.
Chris, for purposes of discussion, I will accept what you say.
Now, two points.
You reference "... basically clueless urban voting bases in 3 large cities ..." and I will agree but I think it is a wider spread. In any event, to me the problem is that the center continues to violate the constitutional separation of powers and that doesn't seem to change at all. Further, those same "clueless" folks want free stuff that cannot be free as someone has to pay for it. A lot of that payment is from we in Alberta.
A second point is that even if the populace is getting more conservative (which may or may not be so; I cannot say) I recognize that all it takes is another demagogue such as the Face Painter to argue that the government should do A or B or C and to then again violate the constitutional separation of powers and try to again kill our industry.
Why or why would we take such a gamble.
But, let's say that you are entirely correct. What is the benefit to we in Alberta staying in Canada? No one has yet provided me with any positive commentary about Canada offers A or B or whatever. The responses are always negative ("You would lose 'X'") or abusive (no examples needed here) or foolishly argumentative ("You would be landlocked" but no recognition that BC would be landlocked from ROC and vice versa) and so forth. So, again, again, again, what are the actual SPECIFIC benefits that we receive by staying in Canada? Not negatives, such as losing X (we probably wouldn't) but the actual positives of staying Canada?
Your comment of saying don’t tell me what we would lose doesn’t provide an opportunity to say what we benefit. To lose something, you have to possess it in the first place. Meaning there is inherent value to be lost. It’s a null response. But to indulge it, I’ll list a few.
- we can work freely or travel anywhere we chose in the 2nd largest country, and most beautiful country on the planet.
- we are afforded the free and fair opportunity to expand our businesses and employment across the same nation.
- we are a part of a diversity of people and culture from Maritimers, to Ouebekers, to flat landers, to our crazy black sheep of the family BCer’s.
- The Jasper/Banff/Waterton Rocky Mountains alone are reason enough for me. And it seems that our National Parks would in fact remain within Canada as they are under federal governance and control.
If the argument for separation is reduced to economics and economics alone as to why we should leave Canada. It’s flimsy at best and vain at worst. Our resource egress will at best remain the same, and that is unlikely. If we think it’s hard getting a pipeline now… wait until there is zero reason for Canada to provide access. If we think some William Wallace in a cowboy hat is going to somehow “convince” Canada otherwise. This is laughable, improbable, and not worth the gamble above
As to this.
“Why or why would we take such a gamble.”
You can’t make the same argument you are disqualifying from the federalist camp. Because truly - the gamble you are promoting is much much bigger. We don’t even know who is in charge of this separatist movement. It has nothing in respect to governmental organization or credible leadership. There are so many questions unanswered (which I’ve covered before) it makes my head spin.
“I recognize that all it takes is another demagogue such as the Face Painter to argue that the government should do A or B or C and to then again violate the constitutional separation of powers and try to again kill our industry.”
And this. Do we really think AB - who LOVES their populists (I am firmly in this number - can’t help it) is less susceptible to the same fraud and victimization just from the other side? I’d argue the potential for corruption and tampering is far greater once we consolidate power with even fewer people.
I enjoy our conversations Ken. But I have yet to be provided with a detailed, credible and positive plan forward from the Separatist’s camp. It’s grievance and grievance alone, relying on the unstable footing that Canada can and will never change despite evidence to the contrary right in front of our faces.
Until I hear a detailed and credible plan that addresses also the things we have/ and stand to lose. (Boring things like banking and currency), I will remain dismissive. If the plan is to try and join the US (which is the only tenuously viable idea), then Separatist’s should come out and say it.
Chris, thank you for your response.
The point of wanting information of what we would lose is to get to those areas where there are issues and to deal with those issues.
Yes we can work, live, etc. freely across Canada. Truth to tell, I rather expect that Canada’s economy will be pretty sad for a long time so that is of marginal benefit to me (well, I’m retired so it is of no benefit to me, but I digress). On the other hand, Canadian citizens can arrive into Canada at any time and can reside, work, etc. with no limitation. As it happens, I was born in Alberta so I qualify as a Canadian, as do most Albertans. You might respond that citizenship is subject to negotiation, as discussed in the Supreme Court reference decision and I agree. I then respond that the feds have just passed into law legislation that allows foreign citizens (this actually REALLY benefits many Americans) who had Canadian ancestors going back many, many generations to apply for Canadian citizenship. Bottom line, your sounds much, much worse than it is.
I agree that our National Parks are wonderful; Banff is overfull but wonderful. I get from your response that you expect that on separation Alberta would lose access to our National Parks. I actually think not because, as noted above, any process of separation is subject to negotiation. Just to be overly simplistic, one could argue that Albertans own one tenth of Banff, etc. and, that if ROC retained ownership of Banff, etc. then we want our pro-rata share of the value. A truly silly conversation, no? However, carrying that forward, it follows that we also own one tenth of, oh, Riding Mountain NP, Yoho NP, Point Pelee NP, Georgian Islands NP, PN Mont-Tremblant, PN Jacques-Cartier, Bruce Peninsula NP and all the other National Parks. So, if the feds became obstreperous during negotiations we could demand that they compensate us for the National Parks outside of Alberta. Silly, right? Easy answer is you keep yours and we keep ours.
You note that our resource egress is through ROC. That is currently the case and it seems highly unlikely that the ultimate customer would be keen on any interruptions however if ROC wanted to play that game (foolishly, I might add), we do have a southern border that would allow a fix. On the other hand, any suggested interruption might well see interruptions of trains carrying goods from Vancouver to Toronto or vice versa. Oh, transit across Alberta by highway? Air transit over Alberta air space? All incredibly stupid games that would and should be dealt with during the above referenced negotiations.
Yes, demagogues can pop up anywhere, including here in Alberta. The difference that I offer you is that a demagogue in Alberta cannot seize powers allocated to other governments whereas the feds have been doing it to us for decades and simply refuse to recognize that action. To put it differently, our future demagogues (if any) can hurt only us, not folks external to us.
Now, you do hit on a good item. Yes, we need more definition to the future, oh, something like a plan. The problem is that such planning costs a lot of money and the separatists to this point have not had the bucks to develop that. Danielle Smith for years has been accused of being a separatist. She has recently shown that she is a serious federalist. Very tellingly, however, something that her critics do not acknowledge, is that she has not had the provincial bureaucracy develop separation plans, etc. So, yes, this is an issue. Having said that, one needs to start someplace and indicating our dissatisfaction and setting forth a direction is a good starting point.
The problem is that the Under 45 demo still gets swamped by the Over 60 demo. The Over 60's are the ones who created the modern Canada, they are the ones who vote and they are the ones who unashamedly demand more and more funded services that the under 45's will have to pay the debt on. This is the crux of the problems with underachievement in Canada, but they are problems that will eventually turn over.
My concern is that they will damage Canada's prosperity and future irreparably before they move on. Meanwhile the under 30 crowd plan their exits from Canada.
And right on cue.
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/alberta-premier-danielle-smith-quebec-partnership
Jen, you write in part, "It is First Nations people who are standing up for Canada, here. Clearly. Unequivocally. Boldly."
Are they really "standing up for Canada" or are they being selfish and trying to keep their own petty sinecures in each of their "nations"? Are they simply working to ensure that federal monies (pretty much unaccountable, it would seem) keep coming?
Ah, Avi Lewis .... the Leap Manifesto himself. If ever he were to be elected PM [not gonna happen], that alone would justify Alberta separation.
It's always about motivators and money in the end.
You'll note that the federalists are using the "we will scare away business" line as their go to line. They never actually give examples (because it isn't true) but they have figured out how to mobilize people. Threaten their motivators.
Thankfully the separatist are so terrible at their jobs they won't figure this out, but if the separatists professionalize, watch out.
Roki, in a sense, the problem with we separatists [I include myself in that descriptor but I am not so arrogant to assume that includes you] is that we are all amateurs. Certainly, the "leadership" of the separatist movement are amateurs. To expect, oh, Jeff Rath to be a statesman is, well, unexpected. And so forth. As far as leaders go, I think that the Alberta Prosperity Project, led by Mitch Sylvester has done well but, again, amateurs.
By contrast, the federalist side led by the provincial government has access to professionals in the legal, economic, etc., etc., etc. professions and lots of money to pay those folks. Especially the money.
What is needed is for the separatist side to have a lot of bucks available to hire folks to counter the federal arguments. Just as one f'r instance, Danielle Smith has been quoted as saying that it would cost $400 billion to separate. Then the next day she speaks of appointing "experts" to evaluate the cost. That raises the issue of where she got the $400 B number if she is only now appointing a panel to evaluate the cost. Truth is, she is a federalist and I fully expect her to use her office to push her view of things.
What she and her fellow travelers are doing is to look for ANY cost that might accrue to the cost of separation but ignoring the benefits that might accrue to Alberta. So, for example, they would say that we would have to buy, oh, the national parks in Alberta but there is no consideration of our share of the national parks in Quebec, Ontario, BC, etc., etc. that would have to be purchased from us.
Similarly, they assert that we would have to set up all sorts of agencies, boards, etc. from scratch at immense cost and ignore that a condition of separation under federal law is that there be a negotiation between the various parties. I would expect that negotiation to have Alberta simply assume the existing federal structure and employees at minimal cost.
My point is that we separatists need a champion who can fund a major study to deal with these mistruths. [I deliberately avoid using the "l" word.]
Pushing away the Americans if this is the case, and I think it is, was a giant mistake.
The business community is the obvious source of those funds, but the business community wants to be plugged in more with the US. Not less. I know polling in Canada shows most Canadians want less to do with the US, but those polls also show that those with higher incomes and assets understand how the world really works.
If Elon Musk were to fund the separatists, or if you started having thought and business leaders sharing "we would invest in an independent" Alberta, it would professionalize quickly.
The truth is that if you study history it is very rare that an independence movement comes from the bottom up. Even the Soviet Union collapsed in a quasi-KGB coup.
A lot of people are turned off by the "Mickey Mouse" operation of the separatist movement. The lack of funds is an indictment of the separatist movement and just tells me that these folks are terrible at marketing, sales or too hard to work with.
Of course the rest of Canada knows this and these folks only serve to hurt the reputation of Alberta.
To think that there is a path without the US involved is so naive it disqualifies anyone who espouses it.
For the record, I'm a federalist but I think Canada needs a new Constitution and devolution. Something like the relationship between the Isle of Man or Channel Islands and the UK would be ideal.
Roki, I respectfully argue that there is a vast difference between "pushing off the Americans" and seeking to have the US as a trusted and valued ally. Put differently, most of we separatists don't want to get out from being governed by faraway Ottawa just so they can be governed by faraway DC.
Going further, it is highly unlikely that Alberta would become a state in the union and, probably, at best would be a territory with no seats in Congress, etc. Any push to admit As a state has to go through Congress and, given that some folks would view us as a state, you can expect that the Democrats would only agree if Puerto Rico and DC were also admitted as states, i.e. one red stand two blue states, which the Republicans would not accept.
So, the best that Alberta could become is an independent and trusted ally of the US.
We can respectfully disagree on this one. Independence as any parent knows is a spectrum. It took Canada over 100 years to achieve full independence as an example.
I think in 2026 that Alberta will be associated with either the US or Canada, it doesn't have much of a choice. Even landlocked states like Switzerland and Mongolia have to work with their much larger neighbours.
Thanks so much for this. I voted in the 1995 Quebec referendum, so I get the tension. As an Easterner, I need to bone up on the history of long standing grievances, from an Alberta perspective. Maybe you can help??