What, exactly, is Alberta's delegation to America playing at? PLUS: Exclusive new poll, done for The Line, on western separatism. And we'll show our numbers.
Literally no one is suggesting Alberta hold a referendum "right now, today" so this is quite the elaborate straw man you've built, just to knock it down. Let's check back on this in the Fall, okay?
Maybe the whole thing is a moot point. Maybe Poilievre wins, and the shackles come off our resource industries. If this happens, all this brewing discontent would evaporate overnight.
But maybe the polls are actually correct, and Carney romps to a Liberal majority.
In that case, we would begin finding out what his ACTUAL policies are in the coming months (if anyone believes he actually wants to 'axe the tax' and build the pipelines, I have a lovely bridge for sale) and sentiments on the Prairies will adjust accordingly.
...it is not some conspiracy theory, and does not require the prognostication powers of Nostradamus to predict that separatists will gain traction in such an environment.
I believe the point is that we've got a team of Alberta separatists (aka traitors) who represent a small minority of Albertans, going down to the USA moonlighting as "representatives". That they're *aware* of the fact they'd lose right now doesn't mean they're loyal Canadians. They're not. They're separatists. They're traitors to their country.
Imagine that we had a group of committed separatists "representing" Canada and travelling to a neighbouring hostile France that wanted to carve up our country so they could talk about strategies to do that.
It doesn't become acceptable just because they speak English.
I was in second year during the 1995 referendum. I’ll admit that all my patience for that garbage got used up back then and now it just makes me angry.
You make the mistake that you assume people should be loyal to a capital 2,000km away instead of their own region. You call it traitorous to be loyal to your own region first.
They can just as easily call you a traitor for being loyal to a distant government that subjugates Albertans as little more than a resource extraction colony.
See how quickly that narrative can change?
Address their concerns instead of "othering" them. You can find out quickly that you become the other.
Being Canadian is a choice, one protected by the Charter, nonwithstanding that the Charter is a deeply flawed document.
In the end it is about power and control. The victors write the history.
If Alberta's elite class and outside powers were motivated to leave, Alberta would be gone. Central Canada just isn't strong enough. But they aren't. Alberta's elite who don't like Canada just leave, most have foreign passports and/or property. Canadians just don't have the rebellion epigenetics to do anything is my hypothesis. The risk aversion is real, even if doing nothing in reality is the riskier option. (Yes, I'm saying Albertans don't have the balls to do anything substantial on this topic).
One thing is absolutely certain, this debate will be fought by elites and us peasants opinions will be secondary. It will be like many social questions in Canada like usual.
If Quebec had hydrocarbons and Alberta had an abundance of hydroelectric power, Canada would have pipelines everywhere and electricity use would be heavily taxed. That's just who we are.
Alberta has two options; leave, or remain in Canada and support the rest of the country. If Alberta joins the US it will have little influence on national issues but, like Texas, it will be free to develop, and profit from, its natural resources. This is not an option in Canada.
Yes yes, we'll absolutely be treated by the Americans with respect and autonomy allowing us to achieve our greatest potential just like... Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa.
Alberta is not a small province. It ranks third in GDP and fourth in population. It would not be a small American state. Its population and GDP are close to the medians for US states. It isn't Texas or California... it resembles Oregon and Utah in terms of population and GDP and it's triple the size of states like Maine, Idaho, North Dakota and South Dakota. More importantly, it may grow quickly once the Canadian yoke is removed.
You say fourth. That sounds big. But the population number is 11%. The GDP number is 15%. That’s NOT big.
GDP numbers also easy to look up. All figures in USD
The comparisons
Puerto Rico: $113 billion
Alberta: $231 billion (2x Puerto Rico)
Kentucky: 234 billion (closest to Alberta and ranked 46th in ranked state GDP or 4th poorest state if you prefer)
Texas: $2.4 trillion (10x Alberta)
Median state GDP: $235 billion
Average state GDP: $535 billion
Call the Albertan economy one tenth of Texas or two Puerto Ricos…. the conclusion is the same. That’s not a lot in the USA. It’s only 15% of Canada’s GDP. 46 US states are richer than Alberta.
As much as it pains this BC interior boy to say… the big cheese is Ontario.
Say what you want, but Alberta would be a typical US state in terms of both population and GDP, and typical is neither big nor small, it is average. Texas is big, Puerto Rico is small, and Alberta is about average for a US state.
Also, Kentucky is not 46th in the state GDP rankings - it is near the middle of the pack. You must be looking at the state per capita GDPs, not the state GDPs.
The US treats those territories pretty poorly, especially messing around with debt instruments over the years via Puerto Rico to avoid US Law and Congressional oversights. Alberta would not be treated like Texas, it would be treated as an opportunity to make money from resources without the usual checks and balances actual states have against the federal government.
With respect.. that's delusions of grandeur. They have a GDP one **tenth** that of Texas.
The correct phrase is "like Kentucky"... except I find it laughable that they're falling for the false carrot of statehood. The correct phrase is "Alberta could be like two Puerto Ricos" under the American government.
But would Trump offer statehood for the 4th largest oil reserves on Earth? Respectfully, I think AB offers more economically than some of the comparable US territories being discussed. Lots of “ifs” in this discussion of course, but there is an angle that probably has more traction than people think
It would be up to the U.S. Congress, not the President, to add any new states. The President has a free hand in foreign policy but anything that affects the republic like a treaty or a new state has to be ratified by the Legislature. All new states during the westward expansion started out as U.S. federal territories and states were later carved out of them as the population increased, with boundaries set by Congress. Texas was the exception because Texans were fighting (with guns, the Alamo and all that) to get free of Mexico and join the U.S.
The population of Alberta lies between Kentucky and Alabama. If Alberta became a state it would have six seats in the House, as opposed to 34 seats out of 338 in Canada's smaller House. (Montana has two.) No matter how wealthy the state is, it still only gets House Reps according to population. But there's a catch. The size of the House is fixed at 435 seats. So to squeeze in those six seats, the other states would have to lose some, which they would bitterly oppose. You might come out with only three or four. But what do ex-Canadians care about what happens in the U.S. Congress or who the President is?
The real barrier to statehood is that Alberta would probably elect two Democrat Senators -- you are Canadians after all, right, you will still want free health care and that is a Dem thing in the U.S. -- and that would de-stabilize the Senate. It's one reason why Puerto Rico and DC have never been made states. There is no reliable Republican territory to balance them.
In the final analysis, though, why does the U.S. need Alberta to be a state just to get its oil? It can buy all it wants right now with Alberta part of a foreign country. It won't get Alberta's oil for free if it's a state. Corporations in the U.S. that own refineries would still have to pay corporations in Alberta to pump it out of the ground and ship it to them. Alberta being sovereign U.S. territory doesn't make the crude any cheaper for them, does it? And couldn't the U.S. tell you that you can't ship any oil out to Vancouver or via Line 5 to Ontario but you must make it all available to your fellow Americans? What would that do the price you can get if the mythical unicorn customers in the Pacific Rim clamouring for oil sands bitumen, whoever they are, can't buy it?
All these arguments for statehood seem to imply that the United States will do Alberta a favour by annexing it. What's in it for the U.S. to acquire a new territory that it will have to defend, and a longer border it will have to police? What are you prepared to give the United States to make it worth their while to annex you, that they can't get already just by normal trade transactions? Will you provide more soldiers to their armed forces to help them meet recruiting targets, say? Will you contribute to their own equalization scheme where wealthy states subsidize social programs in poor states? (Sound familiar?) Medicare and Social Security are on shaky ground in the U.S. They might want a very large infusion of cash from their new prize as the price of rescuing you from Laurentian tyranny.
Only that Alberta is constitutionally under the sovereign authority of the Canadian Crown and can’t legally just pack up and leave, taking a substantial chunk of Canada’s land, resource wealth, and human capital with it. So the value proposition for Alberta is that we in the RoC will make it more costly for you to leave than you will gain as an independent land-locked nation, and hopefully Alberta will see the value in that proposition.
Sort of like two business partners who realize they don’t much like each other but can’t afford to buy the other out and neither has the skill set to run the business by himself, so they put up with each other. Once the Union Jack came down, Canadians in different parts of the country don’t have much other than a mistrustful business relationship.
It’s what Confederation was all about. There was no pressing need for us to amalgamate except that Britain was getting out of the colony business and wanted us to stand on our own feet without the British Army. We have to whip up anti-American hysteria now and then to have any semblance of national unity.
But essentially, Canada would expect to be compensated for the loss of wealth and by the time you took on your share of the national debt you wouldn’t be able to afford independence. Unless a foreign sugar daddy like China or the U.S. comes to your sovereign rescue for its own cynical calculation about the value proposition for itself.
You make the Canadian fallacy that the rest of the world is as nice and law abiding as Canadians. Why would Albertans care about what is "legal?" The Supreme Court is already discredited in many quarters of Canada for making up their judgements to fit their personal narratives. Why would Albertans trust Canadian law this time?
Perhaps it is my past Balkan experiences, but what is legal is written by whoever has control of the territory, and quite frankly the ROC doesn't have the power to enforce their law against the will of Albertans. Include the Americans and forget it.
Oh, for sure he would *offer*. He’s doing it right now.
As you will recall, he offered to build a wall across the border with Mexico and make Mexico pay for it.
And the offer got him what he wanted… the Presidency and making illegal immigration a live political issue. There isn’t a wall across the border…. Mexico didn’t pay for it…. but the *offer* achieved his goal because enough people believed it.
Don't confuse offers with promises. He promised tariffs and he delivered them. He promised to deport undesirable aliens and he is doing that....and avoiding the "babies in cages" kerfuffle from the last time around.
I agree it would be very dangerous to take an offer from President Trump at his word, though. We know campaign promises aren't worth much but you are supposed to be able to take an offer to the bank if you agree to it.
I'm not just playing with words. A promise to annex Alberta is just gas coming out of his mouth. An offer from the President to annex part on one's country depends on:
1) is he sincere or just yanking your chain or intimidating you?
2) does he have the power to deliver on it? Both Canada and the U.S. Congress have a say in the matter, not just the President
3) what recourse do you have if he renegs on his offer after Alberta goes to the trouble of seceding from Canada? Ha Ha, April Fool! I was only kidding. So sue me.
No, I didn't say that. I said you can pretty much ignore his promises, except the ones he decides it's good for him to keep. You can't afford to ignore anyone's offer - it might be a good one --, but you have to be very careful because an offer is supposed to be non-revokable by either side if you accept it and exchange consideration. You are in more dangerous territory when you are discussing offers with President Trump because there is nothing to stop him -- certainly not his moral scruples or fear of being sued -- from revoking an offer you thought you had accepted and shaken hands on.
This is an interesting article, coming right on the heels of a Preston Manning Op-Ed published in the G&M yesterday talking about a looming constitutional crisis if another Trudeau clone government (or worse) is elected.
Of course the other side of Prairie discontent, referendum threats etc. is what everyone else east of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba thinks. This matters because it is how the political class in “seat rich” Ontario and Quebec will frame the response. To get a sense of this, it is very enlightening to read the comments section with the Manning article in the G&M. The antipathy towards Alberta in general and Manning, Smith and others is in plain view.
This is a very discouraging time for social cohesiveness and the ability of the political and chattering classes to marshal everyone onto the same page to work towards common, nation building goals. Having a substantial number of Canadians sneering down at the cash cow/golden goose is a serious problem.
Correct. And why do so many apparently smart, intelligent and well rounded people decade after decade miss these few points that are cardinal to the cohesion of this country ?
Well, the country is pretty much built on the unionized civil service which hews exactly to that, so you're pretty close to the truth. You just have to add that promotion to the military rank of major (naval lieutenant-commander) and beyond -- and I'm assuming roughly equivalent pay grades in the civilian service are similar -- requires English-French bilingualism, another non-merit-based criterion.
Canada was founded by managers and professionals and is run as such. Canadians raise their kids hoping they become managers or professionals, because becoming a rich business owner is so vulgar and unfair to others.
Danielle Smith is Canada's Quisling. Look deeper than the populist anger she's taking advantage of, to how she actually operates, and you find authoritarianism. She resonates with Trump for the same reason Trump resonates with Putin.
Authoritarians find populism useful. Not that there aren't real issues that people are angry about, but the authoritarian leaders who use populist anger for their own ends generally don't fix any of those issues. They just advance themselves.
Describing Smith as a quisling or traitor is absurd. By that standard, every Quebec Premier since at least 1970 has been a traitor. Which you may believe, but it rather robs the term of impact.
Imagine if Smith were a Rene Levesque or a Jacque Parizeau: she would be actually advocating for independence, pointing out how much better off Albertans would be economically without the drag of Canada on them, setting referendum rules that favour secession, etc.
I think there's a clear distinction: Quebec politicians fomenting about seceding is not the same as Alberta politicians courting another nation to help them join it.
What do you call a politician who acts in the best interests of a foreign nation, against the interests of their own nation? Do we have a word for that?
False comparison. Which foreign leader threatening Canada's sovereignty did any Quebec premier suck up to? Smith is a quisling, not because she is an Alberta separatist but because she is selling Canada out to an authoritarian foreign power. That's what the term means, and it fits.
And there's no evidence that Québec separatists put him up to it. (Was there?) I think he was just expressing contempt for Canada for having helped rescue his country from the Germans. Twice.
De Gaulle's France wasn't an aggressive authoritarian government threatening Canada's sovereignty. He may have favoured independence for Quebec but he didn't fancy owning it, nor was he talking of annexing the rest of Canada.
He, however, in his speech did imply that France would support the Separatists in their effort. He also juxtapositioned his Phrase "Vive La France, with vive le Quebec libre.
We already know Carney will fold like a cheap tent if he is able to use the tariffs to win the election. Smith is just 6 months ahead of the Liberals, trying to get the best deal for Albertans, and maybe Canadians.
Trudeau implied Smith was a traitor for negotiating just a day or two before calling up Trump to negotiate the one-month reprieve.
And one wonders, is the CPC stalled from the friction of focusing on revenge, at the expense of a vision for Canada? Is this the root of their continued misfires, why the tone doesn't match the moment... still?
Revenge politics is part of how Trump got where he is, seemingly without a coherent plan, no discernible vision past the word "Great", and a whole bunch of unwelcome surprises, lol.
Canadians, keenly aware of the new culture of crazy under orange baby may see a cautionary tale, and vote accordingly.
I think describing Daniel Smith as an authoritarian doesn't match her observed behaviour. I think she is shameless about the quest to remain in power, willing to throw anybody, any principle in order to achieve it. But doesn't that describe 90% of the politicians in this country?
It's worth reading the Jan/Feb 2025 issue of Alberta Views. It includes an in-depth discussion of the characteristics of authoritarianism, and Alberta's UCP pretty much ticks the boxes. Are politicians unprincipled? Sure, lots are, but unprincipled and authoritarian are not synonymous.
If a law is found unconstitutional the government doesn't have to legislatively repeal or revoke it. It is simply null and unenforceable because the Supreme Court said so. What I suspect the government is doing by ignoring it is hoping the investment community assumes that the climate for approving pipelines is no more favourable than it was before the Supreme Court ruling. The government still wants no more pipelines regardless of what the Court said about its specific law, so investors will assume that the government will still somehow frustrate any future efforts to build any. They'll look elsewhere outside Canada for opportunities, which is of course what the Liberals want them to do anyway.
Additionally, the government can simply decline to set up a regulatory process to replace what was struck down by the Supreme Court. If there is no way for a pipeline company to get regulatory approval it can't proceed. The No-More-Pipelines Bill lives on in its mission to prevent the building of pipelines even though it is itself unenforceable because unconstitutional. Brilliant job, there, Minister Guilbeault and the Green Cabal.
Because someone liked this comment, I was reminded of Andrew Roman's take on the Supreme Court decision about C-69 which explains it better than I did. Essentially, the Court found only that parts of C-69 were unconstitutional. The parts that were found to be constitutional remain in force and these are the parts the Government will use to make sure Canada's oil and gas stay in the ground. That's why the Liberals have not repealed it and why we -- yes, including us in Ontario -- need a Conservative Government to repeal it entirely.
I get frustration with good old Ottawa but missing from these Quixotic endeavours for independence and/or joining up with the Excited States of 'Murica, is the reality of shifting from one administration to another. You either have to recreate the infrastructure provided by Ottawa in the federal realm or subsume the Great and Glorious State of Alberta to that of Washington. Not sure you're ahead. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence and the difficulties are always wished away.
I will note that America doesn't care at all for any country but theirs as helpfully demonstrated by the Trump administration. You can bet your last dollar that any accession agreement will not be to the benefit of Alberta. Territory at best. Colony at worst. Full statehood with senators and congressmen is highly improbable. Negotiators from Alberta will be cap in hand and treated with contempt. Greenland seems to get this.
Alberta and the west in general would do itself a favour by electing a few Liberals, apostasy I know, so as to represent western interests in Cabinet and Parliament. Electing monochrome conservatives is suboptimal and, of course, about half of the prairie provinces vote other than conservative but such is the 'efficiency' of the vote very few non-conservatives get elected (some in Winnipeg, Edmonton and occasional strays elsewhere). A western caucus of Liberal MPs in a Liberal government would be extremely helpful.
The opposite applies elsewhere - Maritimes and Quebec could use more conservatives, as they elect disproportionate numbers of Liberal or Bloc MPs. I seem to recall Trudeau promising to fix this problem..........
The two Liberal MPs elected in Alberta have not helped raise Alberta issues in Ottawa. Randy had to quit the cabinet due to a scandal & the other MP was caught stealing election pamphlets.
Well, Alberta keeps saying it's rich... you can't say that it's rich and simultaneously nothing is going your way.
Also, how quickly we forget... Stephen Harper was Prime Minister and I seem to recall how it was different when "Albertans were in charge". (That was Trudeau's whining you will recall.... he was a divisive complainer ... sure... but it's not like Harper was trying to supress Alberta.)
Your point? He was a good prime minister and the conservatives under him ran the country for quite a while
Unless I missed an anti Alberta streak he was hiding the claim that Alberta never get representation is silly. You do.
Alberta is 11% of the country. Ontario is 38%. Of course Ontario dominates our politics
What about BC? We’ve only had two prime ministers! Kim Campbell and Mark Carney! Should I be complaining about how the only prime ministers we get are the ones whose time in the job is measured in weeks?
Why would I vote Liberal when their key policies are about hurting Alberta? Vote for my own economic destruction? I don't think so. If the Libs weren't so fixated on hurting Alberta perhaps they'd get some votes. Bigger question is why Ontario supports a party fixated on hurting another province? I know if a party ran on destroying the Ontario economy, never in a million years, would I support them. Any party wanting to harm any region of my country is despicable.
I am not sure that the federal Liberals have been fixated on hurting Alberta. They have been fixated on climate change, that is true. With the tar sands in Alberta being the single biggest source of carbon dioxide in Canada, the federal Liberals will spend much time considering them. You may think that Canadian CO2 reduction is silly because we produce only such a small amount on a global basis, but this is not done to hurt Alberta.
Let’s not forget that the TMX pipeline was built with federal money. It is the only salt water port for Alberta oil, thus freeing Canada from having a single market for its oil.
Liberal-friendly Canadian companies export 50 Mt of coal a year. That represents about 150 Mt of CO2, or the equivalent of more than 20% of Canada's total emissions. The oil sands produce 70 Mt.
I don’t think that I am being obtuse. The exported coal is not combusted in Canada and thus does not contribute to Canada’s emissions of CO2. The extraction of oil sands does emit CO2 in Canada.
Sorry Rob. I find your comment confusing. Are you saying that if Alberta produces more coal and less natural gas, that the world as a whole is better off? China and India are building coal-fired electricity plants at an alarming rate, because of market scarcity for LNG — this is to the world’s detriment. If Canada could/would supply enough natural gas to rid these 2 countries of even a third of their (growing) reliance of coal, my simple farm-boy math says the world is likely better off, assuming your goal is to decrease global carbon emissions.
Does this at all seem reasonable? The earth’s atmosphere is like a large swimming pool and if people are peeing in it, at which end of the pool they are standing likely matters very little.
Your swimming pool analogy is absolutely correct, but not relevant to my initial comment. I claimed that the extraction of Alberta’s oil sands is Canada’s single largest source of CO2 emissions, which is why it attracts so much attention from people looking to reduce CO2 emissions. It’s not because they are in Alberta.
Jerry Grant responded with a comment about the coal we export. (Well, he actually mentioned coal exported by Liberal-friendly companies. Presumably, the CO2 content of coal exported by Conservative-friendly companies is the same.) When that coal is burnt, the CO2 is emitted in another country and does not count towards Canada’s emissions. It was a successful bit of deflection, but my original point remains valid.
But it's not really about saving the planet. It's getting brownie points for local emissions reductions to please the activist NGOs and Mark Carney's personal ideology. He also thinks we are going to switch our trade away from the U.S. and more toward Europe, and so we have to have similar Green policies to them. So in that sense it does matter which end of the pool you are standing in.
There are two points to make about natural gas. (Rob was talking about upgrading the bitumen sands for crude oil, not natural gas extraction.) First, when a new supply of energy is added, it doesn't reduce the use of everything else. By increasing the total supply of energy it _increases_ the use of everything else. The world burns more coal today than it did back when coal and steam drove everything. Why? Because adding new energy sources allows more economic growth, which increases the demand for all fuels, not just the new one. We don't burn less oil just because we now have nuclear and wind and solar. We burn more oil because there are more things we can do with oil, because we are wealthier. More people can afford to drive cars and use diesel equipment for agriculture, for example. So selling gas to China means they will burn it on top of coal, not instead of coal, if history is a guide. Coal is too cheap not to burn in enormous quantities for electricity (and for making steel), no matter what alternative fuels are available.
Second, natural gas is not necessarily better for global warming than coal. A guy called Jacobsen, a big wind promoter at Princeton University, calculates that because natural gas escapes into the atmosphere from leaks in valves and pipe fittings between the wellhead and your furnace burners, the impact on warming from gas over-all is just as bad as burning coal. Gas isn't valuable enough for the companies to try to stop every single leak. Methane is 50-100 X more heat-absorbing than CO2. (It doesn't last as long in the atmosphere before it eventually breaks down into CO2.) So over the course of a century, the warming effect of gas (CO2 from burning plus CH4 from leaks) is about the same as the same number of BTUs from burning coal. (Jacobsen is a shameless wind promoter who has sued scientists who disagree with him. Maybe we don't believe him, but those are his numbers.) So perhaps there is no benefit to the climate at least in the short term (100 years) from burning gas. Burning liquid fuels is the sweet spot because they emit less CO2 than coal and don't escape as gasses. They are also very convenient for motor fuels.
The thing is, the Liberals are destroying Ontario as well.
I can’t figure out how ending mass immigration isn’t the number one issue for everyone who lives in the GTA. They are essentially the cartoon dog in the burning house in the “this is fine” meme.
Every road is gridlock at all times of day, half the city has been or is being turned into massive condos, while the suburbs sprawl disgustingly eating all the farmland, no new infrastructure is being built to keep pace with population growth, and even if they turned off the taps tomorrow it would take decades for things to stabilize.
Boomers reminisce about the Toronto of the 70’s-90’s but don’t think about the fact that the last 10 years did more to visibly bury that old world than any other time.
I agree that radically reducing immigration should be a defining part of his platform, and to double down in the face of any criticism.
Every Canadian should know what the Century Initiative is. As it stands I have to carefully explain to others how it's not an Illuminati-adjacent conspiracy theory because it sure sounds like one.
This would put a major tangible change as ballot question, not 'who has the best vibes about standing up to Donald Trump' which is the dumbest ballot question in the history of ballot questions.
Here's the problem with that... Canadians just aren't having kids.
Total immigration for 2023 was higher than Canadian births from 2013 to 2023.
Why aren't Canadians having kids? The main reason is money. If you want to cut immigration quickly, you need to find a way to SLASH the cost of raising kids... hate to say it, but "tax cuts" aren't going to do it because far too many could have their taxes cut to ZERO and having kids would still be a bad economic move. (Not to mention that young married couples need to be able to afford to buy a house and they CAN'T.)
Things just have to get cheaper, but we've gutted services for families in favour of spending on other things. Town over from me... swimming pool falling apart, needs rebuilding ... heavily used by families. Plan to rebuild it was voted down.
Care to guess the age demographic opposed and in favour?
I used to ride the bus to school even though I was out of catchment. Now my kids have to be driven because we're outside the catchment and all bussing for that has been cut to zero. I could pull my kids out of French immersion and harm their education by removing a second language... but that's another example of how we've cut all the things that make raising a kid cheaper in Canada.
Mass immigration is making all the things families need more expensive and more difficult. Reversing it isn't a panacea - there will still be boomers for a while - but it is necessary for any solutions.
Mass immigration didn’t make my province degrade K-12 education. It didn’t end school bussing. Neither did it make the place I live trade off lower property taxes in exchange for roads my kids can’t walk safely on so I have to drive them or keep them home. It didn’t end the $200k starter home.
The increased immigration is just the icing we put on the cake.
We have been prioritizing anything but families for a long time. How long?
About the time the baby boomers kids grew up and the boomer voting block started wanting things.
This is the most common argument in favour of immigration. And as far as keeping the population stable or slowly growing, it's a fair point. But what this conveniently ignores is the scale of the population growth we have engineered.
There's no excuse for the numbers we have brought in over the last five years. Depending on the stats you look at the population growth since 2020 is up to 4 million people. 2023 saw some of the highest per capita growth of any country on earth. Not only did we throw the doors open, we actively advertised in India for people to come. Keeping the population from dropping isn't what this is about.
This did overcrowd our cities and roads, strain our social services and especially medical care, make many jobs much harder to get, and contributed significantly to the cost of housing.
Less immigration will immediately make housing more affordable and obviate the need for government to spend billions of dollars to try to build housing (which will definitely be a clusterfuck of the highest order if they do). It's basic math. Carney's $25B will build about 50,000 units of housing, optimistically, over who even knows how long. You know what else will do this for free and right away? Letting in 100,000 fewer people.
Actually, ever since Free trade, Ontario has supported destroying its own economy. Manufacturing is almost gone, mining hobbled, energy costs soared (thank you Butts) housing pricing out of control, homeless everywhere.
The Trudeau years didn’t feature ONE Liberal MP from the Prairies that held a senior cabinet position. Not one. There were also opportunities to bring in Senators to the Cabinet table to balance out the regional tensions and to ensure that voices with differing opinions were heard.
Policy made in an intellectual strait jacket that marginalized a significant chunk of Canadians may win elections but is not a nation building process.
Generally agree, except for the voting Liberal part. They are utterly corrupt, and will literally say and 'promise' anything to get elected. Wonder what will happen afterward?
The West sending Liberal MP's to Ottawa has *never* worked, and especially now with the PMO-PM power consolidated more than ever before. They simply don't need Alberta at all, to win. At best, you will get more Liberal 'handouts' bribing us with our own money.
Electing more Liberals would only do the same as it has in Alberta for electing the PC-UCP - remember Edmonton voting PC during the Klein era?
A one-party province (or country) is NEVER a good thing.
As for joining the US, I couldn't agree more. We would simply be shifting our anger and frustration from Ottawa to Washington, DC. I'd expect colony over territory. Think North Dakota without representation.
We must maintain an economic relationship with the USA - it's madness not to, given our obvious geographic ties. That is not to say we shouldn't diversify our trading partners overseas (we definitely should) but abandoning the US as a trading partner is madness. The best way to do this, with all its shortcomings, is with the backing of nine other provinces and three territories, not by going it alone. Smith is fooling herself if she thinks we are in a strong negotiating position by Alberta going it alone with the US.
America will absorb Alberta, much as the Borg do to species and cultures in Star Trek:
'We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.'
Friend, which part of the decades long trajectory do you not get ?
To elaborate: "A western caucus of Liberal MPs in a Liberal government would be extremely helpful." Yeah, in eagerly assisting the Laurentian oligarchs in shutting down oil and gas industry, shutting down the ranching and agriculture, ripping out the roads, depopulating Alberta and turning it into a quaint no-development zone. To be used as an occasional playground for the Laurentian oligarchs.
I think you are right there. A Western caucus of Liberal MPs would still have to do exactly what they are told by the party leader, just like all MPs in all parties have to.
The last couple months have only reinforced to me why Alberta needs to leave Canada.
My perception is that Canadians have responded to the tariffs and the rhetoric around the 51st like spoiled rich kids throwing a tantrum, and because of this are willing to give the Liberals another 4 years. Which is insane.
I honestly can't think of 1 pro for Alberta staying in Canada righr now. It's all Cons in my opinion.
Canadians are ridiculously prone to moral panics and hysterical fear when circumstances so much as poke gently at their comfy little bubble.
It's the same demographics who wore Covid masks for a year longer than necessary, who decided that hatred for anti-vaxers was the biggest issue in the 2021 election, who are delivering it for our three-week prime minister this time around.
So far daily life is totally normal other than not being able to buy Kentucky bourbon, and half the country has gone completely mental.
It only works if you can immediately upon seceding join the United States as a territory. That’s the only way you’ll avoid capital flight, sovereign debt default, and invasion by Canada to protect the interests of Canadians, both those loyal subjects in Alberta and in the rest of Canada.
But how can you negotiate an iron-clad agreement with the Americans while you are still part of Canada? That would be the Americans trying to de-stabilize a foreign ally. Canada would vigorously protest, and probably arrest the Canadian ringleaders of the cabal trying to negotiate with foreigners. The Americans would stop returning your calls once that got out.
Thanks for adding to the list of reasons to find a way to leave Csnada.
Canada: Alberta, if you try to leave we will invade you.
This encapsulates Canada perfectly. All hypocrisy and faux virtue. We are not Americans, we are more enlightened, and just better (nose up in the air), but if a province gets sick of the BS, Canada will invade and you can't leave!!!
It makes sense though, the rest of Canada is not productive and are like parasites. Reminds of a story a buddy told me. He was visiting Family in PEI. and a cousin was complaining about not having enough money because he worked in fisheries and had to take EI for half the year every year.. My buddy suggested the cousin move to Alberta and he will help get the cousin a job and give him a lla e to stay, which would have been very easy at the time due to the lack of workers. Well the cousin said no because he liked having a half a year off. Turns our he just wanted EI to pay him a "living wage". The PEI cousin is Canada in my opinion. They are takers not makers nowadays.
“Nobody in Canada works as hard as Albertans. We have to carry the country on our backs. Look! I have the story of a cousin of a friend in PEI to prove it.”
Ontario remains the economic engine of Canada, producing 38% of Canada’s GDP in 2023. This far higher than Alberta’s contribution of 15%. So, no, the rest of Canada are not parasites.
But Ontario at 16 million people has 3.3 times Alberta's population, yet its GDP is only 2.5 x. So Ontario is the economic laggard. Its population, not its productivity, gives it its clout in the Canadian federation.
Jen, me thinks you are needing to put the tin foil hat back on. I am not hearing suggestions that there be a referendum today but rather if there is no change in Ottawa then it needs to be discussed and, fair enough. Quebec has bee3n playing the 'we will take our poutine and leave' card for how long and it hasn't hurt them much has it - granted some Anglos left during the first scare but as you point out equalization certainly works in their favour.
As to blaming the LPC for the President's tariffs, let's consider a few things; 1) JT, the LPC and the MSM bad mouthed the now President repeatedly even after the election, 2) we have allowed our government to be influenced and infiltrated by the CCP despite repeated warnings that it was happening, 3) drugs flowing from Asia and Mexico have infiltrated North America through Canada - read Sam Cooper's book for proof) and we have done nothing much about it, 4) we have stripped our military to the bone, 5) the LPC government tried to have gender rights and other social justice issues addressed in the last free trade agreement, 6) our own JT told the President that Canada couldn't last if tariffs were imposed and the list goes on. So, why are you surprised that the Premier blames the federal government for a lot of what we are facing from the US right now?
A final comment, if you think that four more years of LPC leadership (???) under Carney the international elite is going to be better than I have some lake front property in Florida that I can get you for a song. Want proof that Carney and JT are interchangeable? The Chiang issue was a 'teachable moment that WE CAN ALL LEARN FROM' according to Carney. Now, where have I heard that before?
Parson Manning, first mover of populism in Canada, destroyer of the "Progressive" middle in the CPC (and the reason I left and feel homeless)... defends his failing strategy.
Toothless, and pissing in the wind.
If the defeat is as bad as it looks, his coda is sad.
Yah, this story is being used to attack Pierre Poilievre today in the papers. Because, you see, Conservatives have to answer for every controversial thing said by any right-wing figure in the entire country, ever, while Liberals don't have to answer for their own governing record.
That and the highly suspect release of the months-in-waiting Convoy organizer mischief verdict. We live in a functioning democracy with fair elections!
I mean other than the fact that our government can unilaterally suspend Parliament for as long as they want, control the entire process for appointing a new leader like they are picking a book club president, select both the timing and duration of an election to coincide with an external crisis and new leader polling bump, pay off the media with $100M starting right at the election outset, and weaponize the security service and possibly the judiciary to do oppo drops for them, totally fair.
Thank you for the specifics. My trust in the smarts of the fellow voters - that they will see through the superficial bs, and will vote for substance - went out the window in 2025, and will never recover. I had to admit, as many noted, that a substantial portion of voters choose foolishly no matter which country one examines. Since Canada is no exception, and since this time we truly are in a massively consequential 2025 election, the post-election consequence are likely to be, well, massively consequential. The status quo will not hold.
Wow. I hadn't read this prior to my downthread comment but it certainly rings true to me from what I'm hearing on the ground in Alberta and Saskatchewan - not from older urbanites who experienced a Canada prior to being altered to a 'post-national state' and presume succession is just another fringe movement but from younger people divorced through their public education from their historical inheritance and who are facing a rather bleak economic future sorely lacking in stability, opportunity, and growth potential and offered nothing but more of the same from the ballot choices.
17-20% is in the range of 800.000 people. If we use the 30% Jen suggested on a previous podcast, it's entirely possible that 20% is the starting figure and that's a million people in a province of five million. These aren't hicks. This isn't cousin Bob who fell of a turnip truck when he was a kid. These are fellow citizens who, for whatever reason, want a divorce. Is Smith a separatist? Only she knows. I know she has a history of really bad decisions. For me, Canada needs to take this seriously and figure out a method to address historical grievances. Probably won't get complete agreement, but you might get some and that's a start isn't it?
Because, as I said in a previous comment. Canada needs Alberta more than Alberta needs Canada. The moment the con man in the Whitehouse recognizes Alberta as a separate country, that's it. Thanks for coming out. Should Canada (all of us take this seriously) For me, absolutely. I don't think this is bluster any more.
Canada can’t function without buy-in from everyone. The country needs Alberta’s resources, productivity, and labor. Everyone knows that, right?(Land locked? Meh, pipeline into the USA. We just bought you a pipeline. All objections can be overcome because when they want out, they want out.)
I'm 57. Born in Ontario but moved out to Calgary 45 years ago. Part of the great migration from mostly Ontario and Quebec (who hate oil apparently). I saw first-hand what the NEP did to the province, the city and citizens. Add to a decade of Trudeau demonizing Alberta. Ottawa doesn't care. Smith, to my mind, has been doing her job in spite of her bad decision history. For me, I don't like where all of this is leading but we can't rule out anything anymore. Everything has changed and we all have to decide how much each of us love this country.
We appear to have offended federalist sensibilities. Part of being an asshole Albertan/Canadian, I suppose.
Your poll is at a time of historic (histrionic?) patriotism, due in no small part to the anger generated when the helpless are threatened. As a soft, Alberta nationalist (see Quebec for definition), the conditions would have to be right to vote for sovereignty. Given a choice, I would rather see Quebec leave, and with the PQ set to trounce Mr. Legault, they will be asked. Perhaps Alberta can give Quebec an almighty push?
While we are on the topic of "right conditions", Mr. Legault's requirement to allow for an Eastern Canada pipeline is that the conditions be right. What he has actually said was "Non" (read La Presse).
A strong like for using the entirely fitting expression of histrionic patriotism. After a decade of ripping down and kicking down anything that is connected to Canadian identity and history, the Liberals all of a sudden wrap themselves in the Canadian flag. On the eve of an election that they were to lose due to their policies and track record. We will see soon if their shallow phoney histrionic patriotism is any good for them.
If the polls prove true and Canada elects these Liberals to a fourth term, this whole episode is going to be used in polysci and sociology classes for decades to come as a case study in the power of mass hysteria.
This is just bad. Every dumb move by Smith or these other kooks makes a Liberal majority more likely. Thats not good for Alberta. It's not good for Canada.
When/if Quebec refuses to permit the construction of pipelines across its territory the federal government should immediately halt equalization payments to that province. That’ll get their attention.
I can't speak to the motivations of the goofballs, but for Smith she is clearly preparing for the 2027 election. She knows that a bunch of skeletons are going to be dancing out of the closet with regards to procurement shenanigans. (loved Staples' column the other day where Mraiche made it clear to the public that his corruption is strictly non-partisan, and provided Staples with a picture of Mraiche and Notley that any normal person would think "holy shit that dude looks shady")
So she's going to set off a national unity crisis to distract from her horrific governance. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that. And as Jen mentioned, it's anyone's guess how many Albertans will fall for it.
I disagree. The current healthcare corruption scandal is being eclipsed by the federal election and tariff discussions. The next AB election is more than two years and several yet to happen scandals away. Smith is rightfully ratcheting up the stakes to discourage the Feds from making a revenue play against AB to fund, for example, auto industry bailouts. This election is shaping up to be 1980 all over again with the Feds using a short term crisis (tariffs vs. Quebec separatism) to justify scope creep and the ensuing need for revenue.
I commend you for releasing your data. However, the displayed slides show the question is still structured to show support for remaining in Canada. If secession happens, it will be a two stage process:
Stage 1: Remain in Canada or Secede?
Stage 2 (post independence): join USA?
This matters, because asking "Remain in Canada or join the USA" tends to put people who want Alberta independence into the remain group. In practice, the people who want independence and the people who want to join the USA will band together.
I strongly encourage polling with a three choice question - that will show the real support for remaining in Canada under an imagined Carney government.
Separately from the poll, it's obviously absurd to hold the position that a) Trump is seriously intent on undermining Canada's sovereignty, AND b) Trump will not make any effort to drive a wedge between Alberta and a Carney-ruled Canada, by making it clear just how much Alberta could benefit economically from independence. My personal view is that he is not now seriously intent on undermining Canada's sovereignty, but that if we hand him a gratuitous opportunity, that place on Mount Rushmore will become awfully tempting.
I'm curious - how expensive is a poll like this to commission? Obviously you have every right not to disclose this, but for those of us who are, shall we say, dubious about the (situational) ethics of polling companies, its instructive to see what these things cost. As we know, poll results also drive public opinion at least as much as they are reflective of it (at least in a snapshot).
An Angus-Reid poll is also quite interesting with its questions based on a majority Liberal government. The numbers are higher but the breakdown by age cohorts should raise a much louder alarm in that support for some kind of independence from ROC (Rest of Canada, to borrow from Quebec nationalists) is generally linear by age in that younger folk are much more interested. Also of interest is just how diverging is the line (excuse the pun) between male and female in that men are WAY more interested than women.
Nowhere in Jen's article do I find anything informative or explanatory about either this sex split or the divergence by age. Without that indication of a very real rising trend towards some kind of significant political affiliated change between the province (and we haven't even talked about Saskatchewan whose numbers in some areas are even higher for a significant change) based on more independence and self direction, we get a typical media article casting all of this more like a fringe we in the ROC can put aside. That's very dangerous if one truly wishes to be patriotic rather than patronizing.
to get it right where Newfoundland didn’t. There is a strongly held view is some quarters that Newfoundlanders should have chosen to join the US given the choice.
Was it ever a choice? Sounds like Newf would have gotten all the benefits from joining the U.S. Why would the U.S. have been interested? They weren’t. At all.
So the sentiment in Newf for joining the U.S. was that it was a wealthier sugar daddy than Canada to bail you out of poverty and bankruptcy. No thanks, said the Yanks.
Already did. 80% of Newfs wanted to join the U.S. when Britain put the bankrupt colony up for sale. No takers in the U.S. I think the Newfs enjoyed having American money and sailor lads hanging around during the war when Britain leased some naval bases to the U.S. in exchange for convoy escort warships.
Thank you, that is very high. I like Newfs, down to earth. Looks like the US did not think ahead and missed an opportunity. These days, Trump would take it sight unseen. I would too.
Agree 100%. Anyone can structure the question to get the right answer. The Canadian elites have been doing this for years. Or you can structure the question to be vague enough that you can interpret the results to justify whatever you want.
Under the Clarity Act, Canada is entitled to see a clear majority on a clear question before it has to start negotiations. If Canada doesn't think the question was clear, no talks.
I agree but lawyers could feast for years on what “clear” means. And with all members of Canada’s Supreme Court now having to be fluently bilingual in French and English without a translator, this means that the justices will be primarily drawn from the French component of the population. So Anglos such as. Albertans will be screwed.
The decision about what "clear" means is up to Parliament when it debates the legislation to begin negotiations. It's not a lawyer-judge decision, it's a political decision. In reality, if the Liberal Prime Minister -- it will always be a Liberal PM until the end of time -- doesn't think it's a clear majority on a clear question, he will decline to introduce the legislation. Or he might introduce the legislation and tell his MPs to vote against it. (It would not be a confidence bill, in which defeat would cause the government to fall.)
In essence, no matter what the referendum says, unless the PM supports the idea of secession, no negotiations happen. That's how Canada works. The PM has almost absolute power. Unlike in the States where the President can be reigned in by Congress if they have the courage to stand up to him.
That assumes the Act would matter if Quebec or Alberta really wanted to leave. This may sound like Jean Chretien and overly American but governments normally need the consent of the governed to govern. In Quebec’s case Quebec never signed Pierre Trudeau’s repatriated constitution. If Alberta really wanted to leave I doubt anyone could stop it especially virtual slave owners from Central Canada. And if Canada tried armed force I believe a request for a couple of airborne divisions from Alberta’s good neighbor to the south would not fall on deaf ears.
There is a general right of self-determination that all people have in various UN declarations. But forming into your own independent state and taking the land out of an existing state without its consent is another matter, usually called rebellion. The parent state (e.g., Canada) also has the right to exist in its intact form, not have pieces bitten out of it. In its mildest form it would consider that the residents of the breakaway state still had to pay federal taxes to Canada (if we are talking about unilateral secession of a Canadian province) and it has a number of ways to enforce that, e.g., capital controls and seizure of bank accounts through the federally regulated banking system, the "de-banking" we learned about with the Convoy occupation. In more severe forms it could use armed force to suppress a rebellion, as states almost always do. No country just lets, say, the Kurds, walk off with a chunk of Iraq, Turkey, and Syria just because they want their own state and homeland. Canada wouldn't just let you walk away with the oil and coal reserves that are the property of the Crown. That's one of the things that would have to be settled in a negotiated split: How much are you willing to pay Canada to buy them from us? Right now the province owns the reserves but only because it is provincial *Crown* land. If you secede, you would be converting Crown land (which the King owns, but lets you as a province use) to land held by your own sovereign government. If you couldn't agree on terms, there would be no agreement to put before Parliament to legislate the secession.
The big problem with unilateral independence, that usually leads to war, is that the parent national government can't just ignore the residents of the breakaway state who want to remain loyal citizens of the parent state, and leave them to their fate. Of course Albertans being basically nice say they would respect the rights of people who had wanted to remain Canadian. But as time goes on you would eventually start to see them as untrustworthy intriguers against your independence project and you would need to ethnically cleanse them. Québec would surely do this to the Anglos -- to a large degree they already have. The 13 Colonies drove out the Loyalists for the same reason. In a fight, you have to know who's on your side and who isn't. If you're not with us, you're against us. No room for neutrals or those who won't swear allegiance to the new government.
Unilateral rebel states have to get recognized by foreign governments in order to borrow money on their sovereign credit, otherwise the creditor won't know for sure that the rebel government has taxing power to service the debt. That's how the United States got started: the French king was willing to lend them enormous sums of money to fight against his old adversary, Britain. (The Seven Years War ended only in 1763. Recent history.) Alberta would have to hope for immediate recognition as a sovereign state by the United States. But since the U.S. and Canada aren't officially enemies it would be awkward for the U.S. to be encouraging discussions like what Jen describes here if the folks they're negotiating with were actual Alberta government officials. Canada would be furious.
Unilateral declaration of independence is one of those things that is legal under international law, but so is the violent suppression of insurrection with military force.
From what I recall of my history readings many of the UEL were part of the new world entitled elite and left of their own accord waiting for King George’s redcoats to kill off the pesky rebels. - which never happened of course. It’s interesting that the structure of having entitled families (seigneurs in Quebec/lower Canada) run all the institutions in Canada started then and continues to this day.
Somewhat OT but still pertinent to this: a small good news story. I am currently enjoying a tea at a café patio (about-face weather from yesterday's snow and rain). The server was a young guy from Russia who had high praise for the proprietor who is from Odessa, Ukraine. The hidden graces of life off-line.
Literally no one is suggesting Alberta hold a referendum "right now, today" so this is quite the elaborate straw man you've built, just to knock it down. Let's check back on this in the Fall, okay?
Maybe the whole thing is a moot point. Maybe Poilievre wins, and the shackles come off our resource industries. If this happens, all this brewing discontent would evaporate overnight.
But maybe the polls are actually correct, and Carney romps to a Liberal majority.
In that case, we would begin finding out what his ACTUAL policies are in the coming months (if anyone believes he actually wants to 'axe the tax' and build the pipelines, I have a lovely bridge for sale) and sentiments on the Prairies will adjust accordingly.
...it is not some conspiracy theory, and does not require the prognostication powers of Nostradamus to predict that separatists will gain traction in such an environment.
I believe the point is that we've got a team of Alberta separatists (aka traitors) who represent a small minority of Albertans, going down to the USA moonlighting as "representatives". That they're *aware* of the fact they'd lose right now doesn't mean they're loyal Canadians. They're not. They're separatists. They're traitors to their country.
Imagine that we had a group of committed separatists "representing" Canada and travelling to a neighbouring hostile France that wanted to carve up our country so they could talk about strategies to do that.
It doesn't become acceptable just because they speak English.
Andrew gets it. JG
I was in second year during the 1995 referendum. I’ll admit that all my patience for that garbage got used up back then and now it just makes me angry.
You make the mistake that you assume people should be loyal to a capital 2,000km away instead of their own region. You call it traitorous to be loyal to your own region first.
They can just as easily call you a traitor for being loyal to a distant government that subjugates Albertans as little more than a resource extraction colony.
See how quickly that narrative can change?
Address their concerns instead of "othering" them. You can find out quickly that you become the other.
I call it traitorous because they ARE Canadian. It is their country.
Arguing that they shouldn’t be loyal because they don’t want to be is simply saying that being a traditional is good, not that they aren’t.
Fair enough I suppose
One thing though…
“Subjugates”. Oh don’t make me laugh with the melodrama. That’s absurd. I got subjugated with a these free elections and self government!
Being Canadian is a choice, one protected by the Charter, nonwithstanding that the Charter is a deeply flawed document.
In the end it is about power and control. The victors write the history.
If Alberta's elite class and outside powers were motivated to leave, Alberta would be gone. Central Canada just isn't strong enough. But they aren't. Alberta's elite who don't like Canada just leave, most have foreign passports and/or property. Canadians just don't have the rebellion epigenetics to do anything is my hypothesis. The risk aversion is real, even if doing nothing in reality is the riskier option. (Yes, I'm saying Albertans don't have the balls to do anything substantial on this topic).
One thing is absolutely certain, this debate will be fought by elites and us peasants opinions will be secondary. It will be like many social questions in Canada like usual.
If Quebec had hydrocarbons and Alberta had an abundance of hydroelectric power, Canada would have pipelines everywhere and electricity use would be heavily taxed. That's just who we are.
Alberta has two options; leave, or remain in Canada and support the rest of the country. If Alberta joins the US it will have little influence on national issues but, like Texas, it will be free to develop, and profit from, its natural resources. This is not an option in Canada.
Yes yes, we'll absolutely be treated by the Americans with respect and autonomy allowing us to achieve our greatest potential just like... Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa.
Historically, culturally, geographically and economically wrong context.
To be fair... they'd be **two** Puerto Ricos because that's their economic equivalent.
Canada is a small country compared to the US... and Alberta is a small province within Canada. It's nice... but it's small within small.
I like small.
Alberta is not a small province. It ranks third in GDP and fourth in population. It would not be a small American state. Its population and GDP are close to the medians for US states. It isn't Texas or California... it resembles Oregon and Utah in terms of population and GDP and it's triple the size of states like Maine, Idaho, North Dakota and South Dakota. More importantly, it may grow quickly once the Canadian yoke is removed.
You say fourth. That sounds big. But the population number is 11%. The GDP number is 15%. That’s NOT big.
GDP numbers also easy to look up. All figures in USD
The comparisons
Puerto Rico: $113 billion
Alberta: $231 billion (2x Puerto Rico)
Kentucky: 234 billion (closest to Alberta and ranked 46th in ranked state GDP or 4th poorest state if you prefer)
Texas: $2.4 trillion (10x Alberta)
Median state GDP: $235 billion
Average state GDP: $535 billion
Call the Albertan economy one tenth of Texas or two Puerto Ricos…. the conclusion is the same. That’s not a lot in the USA. It’s only 15% of Canada’s GDP. 46 US states are richer than Alberta.
As much as it pains this BC interior boy to say… the big cheese is Ontario.
Say what you want, but Alberta would be a typical US state in terms of both population and GDP, and typical is neither big nor small, it is average. Texas is big, Puerto Rico is small, and Alberta is about average for a US state.
Also, Kentucky is not 46th in the state GDP rankings - it is near the middle of the pack. You must be looking at the state per capita GDPs, not the state GDPs.
Yep. You’re right. That table was per capita.
Pulling 2025 total gdp numbers, Alberta ranks with Kansas. And still only two Puerto Rico’s.
I suppose we can both say what we will
It send odd to avoid the fact that two Puerto Rico’s make an Alberta.
Up to you though.
But you can’t say average. Median yes. Average no.
Average? Alberta would need to more than double its GDP.
The difference is that Alberta shares a land border with the US and Alberta is majority White Anglo Saxon Protestant. Culture and identity matter.
Also Alberta is much wealthier per capita.
It's that culture that is the reason I don't think Albertans have the gumption to actually do anything btw
Are you suggesting Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa aren't free to develop their natural resources?
The US treats those territories pretty poorly, especially messing around with debt instruments over the years via Puerto Rico to avoid US Law and Congressional oversights. Alberta would not be treated like Texas, it would be treated as an opportunity to make money from resources without the usual checks and balances actual states have against the federal government.
If Quebec had Alberta’s oil and was forced to subsidize the rest of the country they would have separated in 1995.
> like Texas
With respect.. that's delusions of grandeur. They have a GDP one **tenth** that of Texas.
The correct phrase is "like Kentucky"... except I find it laughable that they're falling for the false carrot of statehood. The correct phrase is "Alberta could be like two Puerto Ricos" under the American government.
But would Trump offer statehood for the 4th largest oil reserves on Earth? Respectfully, I think AB offers more economically than some of the comparable US territories being discussed. Lots of “ifs” in this discussion of course, but there is an angle that probably has more traction than people think
It would be up to the U.S. Congress, not the President, to add any new states. The President has a free hand in foreign policy but anything that affects the republic like a treaty or a new state has to be ratified by the Legislature. All new states during the westward expansion started out as U.S. federal territories and states were later carved out of them as the population increased, with boundaries set by Congress. Texas was the exception because Texans were fighting (with guns, the Alamo and all that) to get free of Mexico and join the U.S.
The population of Alberta lies between Kentucky and Alabama. If Alberta became a state it would have six seats in the House, as opposed to 34 seats out of 338 in Canada's smaller House. (Montana has two.) No matter how wealthy the state is, it still only gets House Reps according to population. But there's a catch. The size of the House is fixed at 435 seats. So to squeeze in those six seats, the other states would have to lose some, which they would bitterly oppose. You might come out with only three or four. But what do ex-Canadians care about what happens in the U.S. Congress or who the President is?
The real barrier to statehood is that Alberta would probably elect two Democrat Senators -- you are Canadians after all, right, you will still want free health care and that is a Dem thing in the U.S. -- and that would de-stabilize the Senate. It's one reason why Puerto Rico and DC have never been made states. There is no reliable Republican territory to balance them.
In the final analysis, though, why does the U.S. need Alberta to be a state just to get its oil? It can buy all it wants right now with Alberta part of a foreign country. It won't get Alberta's oil for free if it's a state. Corporations in the U.S. that own refineries would still have to pay corporations in Alberta to pump it out of the ground and ship it to them. Alberta being sovereign U.S. territory doesn't make the crude any cheaper for them, does it? And couldn't the U.S. tell you that you can't ship any oil out to Vancouver or via Line 5 to Ontario but you must make it all available to your fellow Americans? What would that do the price you can get if the mythical unicorn customers in the Pacific Rim clamouring for oil sands bitumen, whoever they are, can't buy it?
All these arguments for statehood seem to imply that the United States will do Alberta a favour by annexing it. What's in it for the U.S. to acquire a new territory that it will have to defend, and a longer border it will have to police? What are you prepared to give the United States to make it worth their while to annex you, that they can't get already just by normal trade transactions? Will you provide more soldiers to their armed forces to help them meet recruiting targets, say? Will you contribute to their own equalization scheme where wealthy states subsidize social programs in poor states? (Sound familiar?) Medicare and Social Security are on shaky ground in the U.S. They might want a very large infusion of cash from their new prize as the price of rescuing you from Laurentian tyranny.
To be fair, what does Ottawa offer Alberta right now that it couldn't get from the US or itself?
What is the value proposition for Alberta to stay in Canada other than inertia and laziness?
Only that Alberta is constitutionally under the sovereign authority of the Canadian Crown and can’t legally just pack up and leave, taking a substantial chunk of Canada’s land, resource wealth, and human capital with it. So the value proposition for Alberta is that we in the RoC will make it more costly for you to leave than you will gain as an independent land-locked nation, and hopefully Alberta will see the value in that proposition.
Sort of like two business partners who realize they don’t much like each other but can’t afford to buy the other out and neither has the skill set to run the business by himself, so they put up with each other. Once the Union Jack came down, Canadians in different parts of the country don’t have much other than a mistrustful business relationship.
It’s what Confederation was all about. There was no pressing need for us to amalgamate except that Britain was getting out of the colony business and wanted us to stand on our own feet without the British Army. We have to whip up anti-American hysteria now and then to have any semblance of national unity.
But essentially, Canada would expect to be compensated for the loss of wealth and by the time you took on your share of the national debt you wouldn’t be able to afford independence. Unless a foreign sugar daddy like China or the U.S. comes to your sovereign rescue for its own cynical calculation about the value proposition for itself.
You make the Canadian fallacy that the rest of the world is as nice and law abiding as Canadians. Why would Albertans care about what is "legal?" The Supreme Court is already discredited in many quarters of Canada for making up their judgements to fit their personal narratives. Why would Albertans trust Canadian law this time?
Perhaps it is my past Balkan experiences, but what is legal is written by whoever has control of the territory, and quite frankly the ROC doesn't have the power to enforce their law against the will of Albertans. Include the Americans and forget it.
Offer?
Oh, for sure he would *offer*. He’s doing it right now.
As you will recall, he offered to build a wall across the border with Mexico and make Mexico pay for it.
And the offer got him what he wanted… the Presidency and making illegal immigration a live political issue. There isn’t a wall across the border…. Mexico didn’t pay for it…. but the *offer* achieved his goal because enough people believed it.
Don't confuse offers with promises. He promised tariffs and he delivered them. He promised to deport undesirable aliens and he is doing that....and avoiding the "babies in cages" kerfuffle from the last time around.
I agree it would be very dangerous to take an offer from President Trump at his word, though. We know campaign promises aren't worth much but you are supposed to be able to take an offer to the bank if you agree to it.
I'm not just playing with words. A promise to annex Alberta is just gas coming out of his mouth. An offer from the President to annex part on one's country depends on:
1) is he sincere or just yanking your chain or intimidating you?
2) does he have the power to deliver on it? Both Canada and the U.S. Congress have a say in the matter, not just the President
3) what recourse do you have if he renegs on his offer after Alberta goes to the trouble of seceding from Canada? Ha Ha, April Fool! I was only kidding. So sue me.
You seem (to me) to be saying that Trump’s “promises” are not to be trusted.. but his “offers” are something you can 100% take to the bank.
If so that’s a distinction I don’t think it’s wise.
No, I didn't say that. I said you can pretty much ignore his promises, except the ones he decides it's good for him to keep. You can't afford to ignore anyone's offer - it might be a good one --, but you have to be very careful because an offer is supposed to be non-revokable by either side if you accept it and exchange consideration. You are in more dangerous territory when you are discussing offers with President Trump because there is nothing to stop him -- certainly not his moral scruples or fear of being sued -- from revoking an offer you thought you had accepted and shaken hands on.
This is an interesting article, coming right on the heels of a Preston Manning Op-Ed published in the G&M yesterday talking about a looming constitutional crisis if another Trudeau clone government (or worse) is elected.
Of course the other side of Prairie discontent, referendum threats etc. is what everyone else east of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba thinks. This matters because it is how the political class in “seat rich” Ontario and Quebec will frame the response. To get a sense of this, it is very enlightening to read the comments section with the Manning article in the G&M. The antipathy towards Alberta in general and Manning, Smith and others is in plain view.
This is a very discouraging time for social cohesiveness and the ability of the political and chattering classes to marshal everyone onto the same page to work towards common, nation building goals. Having a substantial number of Canadians sneering down at the cash cow/golden goose is a serious problem.
Correct. And why do so many apparently smart, intelligent and well rounded people decade after decade miss these few points that are cardinal to the cohesion of this country ?
Canada is a country built on seniority
A good observation. We do need to note that the foundation is rotten and needs to be replaced.
For a second there I thought you folks were union organizers obsessed with seniority as opposed to merit. ;)
Well, the country is pretty much built on the unionized civil service which hews exactly to that, so you're pretty close to the truth. You just have to add that promotion to the military rank of major (naval lieutenant-commander) and beyond -- and I'm assuming roughly equivalent pay grades in the civilian service are similar -- requires English-French bilingualism, another non-merit-based criterion.
Canada was founded by managers and professionals and is run as such. Canadians raise their kids hoping they become managers or professionals, because becoming a rich business owner is so vulgar and unfair to others.
Danielle Smith is Canada's Quisling. Look deeper than the populist anger she's taking advantage of, to how she actually operates, and you find authoritarianism. She resonates with Trump for the same reason Trump resonates with Putin.
Authoritarians find populism useful. Not that there aren't real issues that people are angry about, but the authoritarian leaders who use populist anger for their own ends generally don't fix any of those issues. They just advance themselves.
Describing Smith as a quisling or traitor is absurd. By that standard, every Quebec Premier since at least 1970 has been a traitor. Which you may believe, but it rather robs the term of impact.
Imagine if Smith were a Rene Levesque or a Jacque Parizeau: she would be actually advocating for independence, pointing out how much better off Albertans would be economically without the drag of Canada on them, setting referendum rules that favour secession, etc.
What would the polls say then?
"By that standard, every Quebec Premier since at least 1970 has been a traitor."
Hear me out...
I think there's a clear distinction: Quebec politicians fomenting about seceding is not the same as Alberta politicians courting another nation to help them join it.
What do you call a politician who acts in the best interests of a foreign nation, against the interests of their own nation? Do we have a word for that?
False comparison. Which foreign leader threatening Canada's sovereignty did any Quebec premier suck up to? Smith is a quisling, not because she is an Alberta separatist but because she is selling Canada out to an authoritarian foreign power. That's what the term means, and it fits.
How about De Gaulle "Vive Le Quebec libre"
And there's no evidence that Québec separatists put him up to it. (Was there?) I think he was just expressing contempt for Canada for having helped rescue his country from the Germans. Twice.
Or he'd drunk too much Calvados at lunch.
De Gaulle's France wasn't an aggressive authoritarian government threatening Canada's sovereignty. He may have favoured independence for Quebec but he didn't fancy owning it, nor was he talking of annexing the rest of Canada.
He, however, in his speech did imply that France would support the Separatists in their effort. He also juxtapositioned his Phrase "Vive La France, with vive le Quebec libre.
“Treason never prospers. What’s the reason? Why if it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.”
Poor old Vikud Quisling. If Norway had thrived under Hitler, he’d be a hero of nation-building today.
We already know Carney will fold like a cheap tent if he is able to use the tariffs to win the election. Smith is just 6 months ahead of the Liberals, trying to get the best deal for Albertans, and maybe Canadians.
Trudeau implied Smith was a traitor for negotiating just a day or two before calling up Trump to negotiate the one-month reprieve.
.... STILL taking about Trudeau?
And one wonders, is the CPC stalled from the friction of focusing on revenge, at the expense of a vision for Canada? Is this the root of their continued misfires, why the tone doesn't match the moment... still?
Revenge politics is part of how Trump got where he is, seemingly without a coherent plan, no discernible vision past the word "Great", and a whole bunch of unwelcome surprises, lol.
Canadians, keenly aware of the new culture of crazy under orange baby may see a cautionary tale, and vote accordingly.
I think describing Daniel Smith as an authoritarian doesn't match her observed behaviour. I think she is shameless about the quest to remain in power, willing to throw anybody, any principle in order to achieve it. But doesn't that describe 90% of the politicians in this country?
It's worth reading the Jan/Feb 2025 issue of Alberta Views. It includes an in-depth discussion of the characteristics of authoritarianism, and Alberta's UCP pretty much ticks the boxes. Are politicians unprincipled? Sure, lots are, but unprincipled and authoritarian are not synonymous.
Danielle Smith and the UCP pale in comparison to the Trudeau Liberals on the Authoritarian scale.
1. Invocation of the emergencies act deemed unconstitutional by the courts
2. C-69 found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court- has not been revoked and is not being planned to.
3. Government funding of the media
I could go on… this is not even close.
If a law is found unconstitutional the government doesn't have to legislatively repeal or revoke it. It is simply null and unenforceable because the Supreme Court said so. What I suspect the government is doing by ignoring it is hoping the investment community assumes that the climate for approving pipelines is no more favourable than it was before the Supreme Court ruling. The government still wants no more pipelines regardless of what the Court said about its specific law, so investors will assume that the government will still somehow frustrate any future efforts to build any. They'll look elsewhere outside Canada for opportunities, which is of course what the Liberals want them to do anyway.
Additionally, the government can simply decline to set up a regulatory process to replace what was struck down by the Supreme Court. If there is no way for a pipeline company to get regulatory approval it can't proceed. The No-More-Pipelines Bill lives on in its mission to prevent the building of pipelines even though it is itself unenforceable because unconstitutional. Brilliant job, there, Minister Guilbeault and the Green Cabal.
Because someone liked this comment, I was reminded of Andrew Roman's take on the Supreme Court decision about C-69 which explains it better than I did. Essentially, the Court found only that parts of C-69 were unconstitutional. The parts that were found to be constitutional remain in force and these are the parts the Government will use to make sure Canada's oil and gas stay in the ground. That's why the Liberals have not repealed it and why we -- yes, including us in Ontario -- need a Conservative Government to repeal it entirely.
https://andrewromanviews.blog/2023/10/30/the-supreme-court-of-canada-finds-part-of-the-federal-impact-assessment-act-unconstitutional-so-what/
LOL
If we notice that our not-best are suddenly surprisingly well organized or well funded, we’ll understand. Thanks for keeping an eye on this.
Are those "our not-best* you speak of the same as those *fringe minority with unacceptable views"?
Nope. Totally different. They're traitors because they want to break up our country.
Say what you will about the convoy... they weren't plotting the breakup of Canada.
I get frustration with good old Ottawa but missing from these Quixotic endeavours for independence and/or joining up with the Excited States of 'Murica, is the reality of shifting from one administration to another. You either have to recreate the infrastructure provided by Ottawa in the federal realm or subsume the Great and Glorious State of Alberta to that of Washington. Not sure you're ahead. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence and the difficulties are always wished away.
I will note that America doesn't care at all for any country but theirs as helpfully demonstrated by the Trump administration. You can bet your last dollar that any accession agreement will not be to the benefit of Alberta. Territory at best. Colony at worst. Full statehood with senators and congressmen is highly improbable. Negotiators from Alberta will be cap in hand and treated with contempt. Greenland seems to get this.
Alberta and the west in general would do itself a favour by electing a few Liberals, apostasy I know, so as to represent western interests in Cabinet and Parliament. Electing monochrome conservatives is suboptimal and, of course, about half of the prairie provinces vote other than conservative but such is the 'efficiency' of the vote very few non-conservatives get elected (some in Winnipeg, Edmonton and occasional strays elsewhere). A western caucus of Liberal MPs in a Liberal government would be extremely helpful.
The opposite applies elsewhere - Maritimes and Quebec could use more conservatives, as they elect disproportionate numbers of Liberal or Bloc MPs. I seem to recall Trudeau promising to fix this problem..........
Alberta elected several federal Liberals throughout the last decade.
What did that accomplish for us? How were Alberta's needs wants and concerns addressed during that time when we "had a seat at the table"?
The two Liberal MPs elected in Alberta have not helped raise Alberta issues in Ottawa. Randy had to quit the cabinet due to a scandal & the other MP was caught stealing election pamphlets.
How Canadian. European politicians steal millions of Euros and use them to support their mistresses. Canadian politicians steal pamphlets.
There's an old joke Mordechai Richler told about covering an NDP leadership convention many years ago:
"You go to a Conservative convention to get drunk,
to a Liberal convention to get laid,
and to an NDP convention to get twenty-five pounds of pamphlets."
> What did that accomplish for us?
Well, Alberta keeps saying it's rich... you can't say that it's rich and simultaneously nothing is going your way.
Also, how quickly we forget... Stephen Harper was Prime Minister and I seem to recall how it was different when "Albertans were in charge". (That was Trudeau's whining you will recall.... he was a divisive complainer ... sure... but it's not like Harper was trying to supress Alberta.)
...seriously?
"bbbut Harper"
Your point? He was a good prime minister and the conservatives under him ran the country for quite a while
Unless I missed an anti Alberta streak he was hiding the claim that Alberta never get representation is silly. You do.
Alberta is 11% of the country. Ontario is 38%. Of course Ontario dominates our politics
What about BC? We’ve only had two prime ministers! Kim Campbell and Mark Carney! Should I be complaining about how the only prime ministers we get are the ones whose time in the job is measured in weeks?
“Not sending their best.”
Why would I vote Liberal when their key policies are about hurting Alberta? Vote for my own economic destruction? I don't think so. If the Libs weren't so fixated on hurting Alberta perhaps they'd get some votes. Bigger question is why Ontario supports a party fixated on hurting another province? I know if a party ran on destroying the Ontario economy, never in a million years, would I support them. Any party wanting to harm any region of my country is despicable.
I am not sure that the federal Liberals have been fixated on hurting Alberta. They have been fixated on climate change, that is true. With the tar sands in Alberta being the single biggest source of carbon dioxide in Canada, the federal Liberals will spend much time considering them. You may think that Canadian CO2 reduction is silly because we produce only such a small amount on a global basis, but this is not done to hurt Alberta.
Let’s not forget that the TMX pipeline was built with federal money. It is the only salt water port for Alberta oil, thus freeing Canada from having a single market for its oil.
Liberal-friendly Canadian companies export 50 Mt of coal a year. That represents about 150 Mt of CO2, or the equivalent of more than 20% of Canada's total emissions. The oil sands produce 70 Mt.
And don't be obtuse about TMX.
I don’t think that I am being obtuse. The exported coal is not combusted in Canada and thus does not contribute to Canada’s emissions of CO2. The extraction of oil sands does emit CO2 in Canada.
Sorry Rob. I find your comment confusing. Are you saying that if Alberta produces more coal and less natural gas, that the world as a whole is better off? China and India are building coal-fired electricity plants at an alarming rate, because of market scarcity for LNG — this is to the world’s detriment. If Canada could/would supply enough natural gas to rid these 2 countries of even a third of their (growing) reliance of coal, my simple farm-boy math says the world is likely better off, assuming your goal is to decrease global carbon emissions.
Does this at all seem reasonable? The earth’s atmosphere is like a large swimming pool and if people are peeing in it, at which end of the pool they are standing likely matters very little.
Your swimming pool analogy is absolutely correct, but not relevant to my initial comment. I claimed that the extraction of Alberta’s oil sands is Canada’s single largest source of CO2 emissions, which is why it attracts so much attention from people looking to reduce CO2 emissions. It’s not because they are in Alberta.
Jerry Grant responded with a comment about the coal we export. (Well, he actually mentioned coal exported by Liberal-friendly companies. Presumably, the CO2 content of coal exported by Conservative-friendly companies is the same.) When that coal is burnt, the CO2 is emitted in another country and does not count towards Canada’s emissions. It was a successful bit of deflection, but my original point remains valid.
But it's not really about saving the planet. It's getting brownie points for local emissions reductions to please the activist NGOs and Mark Carney's personal ideology. He also thinks we are going to switch our trade away from the U.S. and more toward Europe, and so we have to have similar Green policies to them. So in that sense it does matter which end of the pool you are standing in.
There are two points to make about natural gas. (Rob was talking about upgrading the bitumen sands for crude oil, not natural gas extraction.) First, when a new supply of energy is added, it doesn't reduce the use of everything else. By increasing the total supply of energy it _increases_ the use of everything else. The world burns more coal today than it did back when coal and steam drove everything. Why? Because adding new energy sources allows more economic growth, which increases the demand for all fuels, not just the new one. We don't burn less oil just because we now have nuclear and wind and solar. We burn more oil because there are more things we can do with oil, because we are wealthier. More people can afford to drive cars and use diesel equipment for agriculture, for example. So selling gas to China means they will burn it on top of coal, not instead of coal, if history is a guide. Coal is too cheap not to burn in enormous quantities for electricity (and for making steel), no matter what alternative fuels are available.
Second, natural gas is not necessarily better for global warming than coal. A guy called Jacobsen, a big wind promoter at Princeton University, calculates that because natural gas escapes into the atmosphere from leaks in valves and pipe fittings between the wellhead and your furnace burners, the impact on warming from gas over-all is just as bad as burning coal. Gas isn't valuable enough for the companies to try to stop every single leak. Methane is 50-100 X more heat-absorbing than CO2. (It doesn't last as long in the atmosphere before it eventually breaks down into CO2.) So over the course of a century, the warming effect of gas (CO2 from burning plus CH4 from leaks) is about the same as the same number of BTUs from burning coal. (Jacobsen is a shameless wind promoter who has sued scientists who disagree with him. Maybe we don't believe him, but those are his numbers.) So perhaps there is no benefit to the climate at least in the short term (100 years) from burning gas. Burning liquid fuels is the sweet spot because they emit less CO2 than coal and don't escape as gasses. They are also very convenient for motor fuels.
"Let’s not forget that the TMX pipeline was built with federal money."
Disingenuous? Simplistic? Tell me your version of the TMX story.
Immigration since 2020 has added more than total oilsands emissions to Canada's emissions.
The thing is, the Liberals are destroying Ontario as well.
I can’t figure out how ending mass immigration isn’t the number one issue for everyone who lives in the GTA. They are essentially the cartoon dog in the burning house in the “this is fine” meme.
Every road is gridlock at all times of day, half the city has been or is being turned into massive condos, while the suburbs sprawl disgustingly eating all the farmland, no new infrastructure is being built to keep pace with population growth, and even if they turned off the taps tomorrow it would take decades for things to stabilize.
Boomers reminisce about the Toronto of the 70’s-90’s but don’t think about the fact that the last 10 years did more to visibly bury that old world than any other time.
Mass immigration would be the top issue if Poilievre had the courage to take go for it.
He's said he will cut the new numbers by 80%, but we also need at least 3 million to remigrate.
I agree that radically reducing immigration should be a defining part of his platform, and to double down in the face of any criticism.
Every Canadian should know what the Century Initiative is. As it stands I have to carefully explain to others how it's not an Illuminati-adjacent conspiracy theory because it sure sounds like one.
This would put a major tangible change as ballot question, not 'who has the best vibes about standing up to Donald Trump' which is the dumbest ballot question in the history of ballot questions.
Here's the problem with that... Canadians just aren't having kids.
Total immigration for 2023 was higher than Canadian births from 2013 to 2023.
Why aren't Canadians having kids? The main reason is money. If you want to cut immigration quickly, you need to find a way to SLASH the cost of raising kids... hate to say it, but "tax cuts" aren't going to do it because far too many could have their taxes cut to ZERO and having kids would still be a bad economic move. (Not to mention that young married couples need to be able to afford to buy a house and they CAN'T.)
Things just have to get cheaper, but we've gutted services for families in favour of spending on other things. Town over from me... swimming pool falling apart, needs rebuilding ... heavily used by families. Plan to rebuild it was voted down.
Care to guess the age demographic opposed and in favour?
I used to ride the bus to school even though I was out of catchment. Now my kids have to be driven because we're outside the catchment and all bussing for that has been cut to zero. I could pull my kids out of French immersion and harm their education by removing a second language... but that's another example of how we've cut all the things that make raising a kid cheaper in Canada.
Mass immigration is making all the things families need more expensive and more difficult. Reversing it isn't a panacea - there will still be boomers for a while - but it is necessary for any solutions.
Mass immigration didn’t make my province degrade K-12 education. It didn’t end school bussing. Neither did it make the place I live trade off lower property taxes in exchange for roads my kids can’t walk safely on so I have to drive them or keep them home. It didn’t end the $200k starter home.
The increased immigration is just the icing we put on the cake.
We have been prioritizing anything but families for a long time. How long?
About the time the baby boomers kids grew up and the boomer voting block started wanting things.
This is the most common argument in favour of immigration. And as far as keeping the population stable or slowly growing, it's a fair point. But what this conveniently ignores is the scale of the population growth we have engineered.
There's no excuse for the numbers we have brought in over the last five years. Depending on the stats you look at the population growth since 2020 is up to 4 million people. 2023 saw some of the highest per capita growth of any country on earth. Not only did we throw the doors open, we actively advertised in India for people to come. Keeping the population from dropping isn't what this is about.
This did overcrowd our cities and roads, strain our social services and especially medical care, make many jobs much harder to get, and contributed significantly to the cost of housing.
Less immigration will immediately make housing more affordable and obviate the need for government to spend billions of dollars to try to build housing (which will definitely be a clusterfuck of the highest order if they do). It's basic math. Carney's $25B will build about 50,000 units of housing, optimistically, over who even knows how long. You know what else will do this for free and right away? Letting in 100,000 fewer people.
Actually, ever since Free trade, Ontario has supported destroying its own economy. Manufacturing is almost gone, mining hobbled, energy costs soared (thank you Butts) housing pricing out of control, homeless everywhere.
The Trudeau years didn’t feature ONE Liberal MP from the Prairies that held a senior cabinet position. Not one. There were also opportunities to bring in Senators to the Cabinet table to balance out the regional tensions and to ensure that voices with differing opinions were heard.
Policy made in an intellectual strait jacket that marginalized a significant chunk of Canadians may win elections but is not a nation building process.
Generally agree, except for the voting Liberal part. They are utterly corrupt, and will literally say and 'promise' anything to get elected. Wonder what will happen afterward?
The West sending Liberal MP's to Ottawa has *never* worked, and especially now with the PMO-PM power consolidated more than ever before. They simply don't need Alberta at all, to win. At best, you will get more Liberal 'handouts' bribing us with our own money.
Electing more Liberals would only do the same as it has in Alberta for electing the PC-UCP - remember Edmonton voting PC during the Klein era?
A one-party province (or country) is NEVER a good thing.
As for joining the US, I couldn't agree more. We would simply be shifting our anger and frustration from Ottawa to Washington, DC. I'd expect colony over territory. Think North Dakota without representation.
We must maintain an economic relationship with the USA - it's madness not to, given our obvious geographic ties. That is not to say we shouldn't diversify our trading partners overseas (we definitely should) but abandoning the US as a trading partner is madness. The best way to do this, with all its shortcomings, is with the backing of nine other provinces and three territories, not by going it alone. Smith is fooling herself if she thinks we are in a strong negotiating position by Alberta going it alone with the US.
America will absorb Alberta, much as the Borg do to species and cultures in Star Trek:
'We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.'
Friend, which part of the decades long trajectory do you not get ?
To elaborate: "A western caucus of Liberal MPs in a Liberal government would be extremely helpful." Yeah, in eagerly assisting the Laurentian oligarchs in shutting down oil and gas industry, shutting down the ranching and agriculture, ripping out the roads, depopulating Alberta and turning it into a quaint no-development zone. To be used as an occasional playground for the Laurentian oligarchs.
I think you are right there. A Western caucus of Liberal MPs would still have to do exactly what they are told by the party leader, just like all MPs in all parties have to.
Sock puppets. The lot of them.
The last couple months have only reinforced to me why Alberta needs to leave Canada.
My perception is that Canadians have responded to the tariffs and the rhetoric around the 51st like spoiled rich kids throwing a tantrum, and because of this are willing to give the Liberals another 4 years. Which is insane.
I honestly can't think of 1 pro for Alberta staying in Canada righr now. It's all Cons in my opinion.
Canadians are ridiculously prone to moral panics and hysterical fear when circumstances so much as poke gently at their comfy little bubble.
It's the same demographics who wore Covid masks for a year longer than necessary, who decided that hatred for anti-vaxers was the biggest issue in the 2021 election, who are delivering it for our three-week prime minister this time around.
So far daily life is totally normal other than not being able to buy Kentucky bourbon, and half the country has gone completely mental.
It only works if you can immediately upon seceding join the United States as a territory. That’s the only way you’ll avoid capital flight, sovereign debt default, and invasion by Canada to protect the interests of Canadians, both those loyal subjects in Alberta and in the rest of Canada.
But how can you negotiate an iron-clad agreement with the Americans while you are still part of Canada? That would be the Americans trying to de-stabilize a foreign ally. Canada would vigorously protest, and probably arrest the Canadian ringleaders of the cabal trying to negotiate with foreigners. The Americans would stop returning your calls once that got out.
Thanks for adding to the list of reasons to find a way to leave Csnada.
Canada: Alberta, if you try to leave we will invade you.
This encapsulates Canada perfectly. All hypocrisy and faux virtue. We are not Americans, we are more enlightened, and just better (nose up in the air), but if a province gets sick of the BS, Canada will invade and you can't leave!!!
It makes sense though, the rest of Canada is not productive and are like parasites. Reminds of a story a buddy told me. He was visiting Family in PEI. and a cousin was complaining about not having enough money because he worked in fisheries and had to take EI for half the year every year.. My buddy suggested the cousin move to Alberta and he will help get the cousin a job and give him a lla e to stay, which would have been very easy at the time due to the lack of workers. Well the cousin said no because he liked having a half a year off. Turns our he just wanted EI to pay him a "living wage". The PEI cousin is Canada in my opinion. They are takers not makers nowadays.
“Nobody in Canada works as hard as Albertans. We have to carry the country on our backs. Look! I have the story of a cousin of a friend in PEI to prove it.”
Ontario remains the economic engine of Canada, producing 38% of Canada’s GDP in 2023. This far higher than Alberta’s contribution of 15%. So, no, the rest of Canada are not parasites.
But Ontario at 16 million people has 3.3 times Alberta's population, yet its GDP is only 2.5 x. So Ontario is the economic laggard. Its population, not its productivity, gives it its clout in the Canadian federation.
Ontario is a have not province. Give it a rest.
Jen, me thinks you are needing to put the tin foil hat back on. I am not hearing suggestions that there be a referendum today but rather if there is no change in Ottawa then it needs to be discussed and, fair enough. Quebec has bee3n playing the 'we will take our poutine and leave' card for how long and it hasn't hurt them much has it - granted some Anglos left during the first scare but as you point out equalization certainly works in their favour.
As to blaming the LPC for the President's tariffs, let's consider a few things; 1) JT, the LPC and the MSM bad mouthed the now President repeatedly even after the election, 2) we have allowed our government to be influenced and infiltrated by the CCP despite repeated warnings that it was happening, 3) drugs flowing from Asia and Mexico have infiltrated North America through Canada - read Sam Cooper's book for proof) and we have done nothing much about it, 4) we have stripped our military to the bone, 5) the LPC government tried to have gender rights and other social justice issues addressed in the last free trade agreement, 6) our own JT told the President that Canada couldn't last if tariffs were imposed and the list goes on. So, why are you surprised that the Premier blames the federal government for a lot of what we are facing from the US right now?
A final comment, if you think that four more years of LPC leadership (???) under Carney the international elite is going to be better than I have some lake front property in Florida that I can get you for a song. Want proof that Carney and JT are interchangeable? The Chiang issue was a 'teachable moment that WE CAN ALL LEARN FROM' according to Carney. Now, where have I heard that before?
Important read. Connect this with Preston Manning oped in The Globe and Mail https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-mark-carney-is-a-threat-to-national-unity/?utm_source=Shared+Article+Sent+to+User&utm_medium=LinkCopy&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links
Yup.
Parson Manning, first mover of populism in Canada, destroyer of the "Progressive" middle in the CPC (and the reason I left and feel homeless)... defends his failing strategy.
Toothless, and pissing in the wind.
If the defeat is as bad as it looks, his coda is sad.
Bye, Canada.
Yah, this story is being used to attack Pierre Poilievre today in the papers. Because, you see, Conservatives have to answer for every controversial thing said by any right-wing figure in the entire country, ever, while Liberals don't have to answer for their own governing record.
That and the highly suspect release of the months-in-waiting Convoy organizer mischief verdict. We live in a functioning democracy with fair elections!
The last sentence is, of course, sarcasm.
I mean other than the fact that our government can unilaterally suspend Parliament for as long as they want, control the entire process for appointing a new leader like they are picking a book club president, select both the timing and duration of an election to coincide with an external crisis and new leader polling bump, pay off the media with $100M starting right at the election outset, and weaponize the security service and possibly the judiciary to do oppo drops for them, totally fair.
Thank you for the specifics. My trust in the smarts of the fellow voters - that they will see through the superficial bs, and will vote for substance - went out the window in 2025, and will never recover. I had to admit, as many noted, that a substantial portion of voters choose foolishly no matter which country one examines. Since Canada is no exception, and since this time we truly are in a massively consequential 2025 election, the post-election consequence are likely to be, well, massively consequential. The status quo will not hold.
Wow. I hadn't read this prior to my downthread comment but it certainly rings true to me from what I'm hearing on the ground in Alberta and Saskatchewan - not from older urbanites who experienced a Canada prior to being altered to a 'post-national state' and presume succession is just another fringe movement but from younger people divorced through their public education from their historical inheritance and who are facing a rather bleak economic future sorely lacking in stability, opportunity, and growth potential and offered nothing but more of the same from the ballot choices.
17-20% is in the range of 800.000 people. If we use the 30% Jen suggested on a previous podcast, it's entirely possible that 20% is the starting figure and that's a million people in a province of five million. These aren't hicks. This isn't cousin Bob who fell of a turnip truck when he was a kid. These are fellow citizens who, for whatever reason, want a divorce. Is Smith a separatist? Only she knows. I know she has a history of really bad decisions. For me, Canada needs to take this seriously and figure out a method to address historical grievances. Probably won't get complete agreement, but you might get some and that's a start isn't it?
Because, as I said in a previous comment. Canada needs Alberta more than Alberta needs Canada. The moment the con man in the Whitehouse recognizes Alberta as a separate country, that's it. Thanks for coming out. Should Canada (all of us take this seriously) For me, absolutely. I don't think this is bluster any more.
Canada can’t function without buy-in from everyone. The country needs Alberta’s resources, productivity, and labor. Everyone knows that, right?(Land locked? Meh, pipeline into the USA. We just bought you a pipeline. All objections can be overcome because when they want out, they want out.)
Perhaps the same deal as Quebec?
"We just bought you a pipeline."
That, from an Easterner, is the crux of the problem. Do not assume that anyone, especially Albertans, have forgotten the TMX story.
(I am in SW Ontario and hope Alberta could expand its national borders to include my house.)
I'm 57. Born in Ontario but moved out to Calgary 45 years ago. Part of the great migration from mostly Ontario and Quebec (who hate oil apparently). I saw first-hand what the NEP did to the province, the city and citizens. Add to a decade of Trudeau demonizing Alberta. Ottawa doesn't care. Smith, to my mind, has been doing her job in spite of her bad decision history. For me, I don't like where all of this is leading but we can't rule out anything anymore. Everything has changed and we all have to decide how much each of us love this country.
We appear to have offended federalist sensibilities. Part of being an asshole Albertan/Canadian, I suppose.
Your poll is at a time of historic (histrionic?) patriotism, due in no small part to the anger generated when the helpless are threatened. As a soft, Alberta nationalist (see Quebec for definition), the conditions would have to be right to vote for sovereignty. Given a choice, I would rather see Quebec leave, and with the PQ set to trounce Mr. Legault, they will be asked. Perhaps Alberta can give Quebec an almighty push?
While we are on the topic of "right conditions", Mr. Legault's requirement to allow for an Eastern Canada pipeline is that the conditions be right. What he has actually said was "Non" (read La Presse).
A strong like for using the entirely fitting expression of histrionic patriotism. After a decade of ripping down and kicking down anything that is connected to Canadian identity and history, the Liberals all of a sudden wrap themselves in the Canadian flag. On the eve of an election that they were to lose due to their policies and track record. We will see soon if their shallow phoney histrionic patriotism is any good for them.
If the polls prove true and Canada elects these Liberals to a fourth term, this whole episode is going to be used in polysci and sociology classes for decades to come as a case study in the power of mass hysteria.
Quebec will NEVER vote to secede. That would negate the profitable shakedown. Quebecois know this unconsciously - secession is a bluff charge.
They can be goaded into voting to separate and then painted into a corner. Contempt and humiliation sit poorly with anyone.
How we get them out is of no consequence, as long as they go.
This is just bad. Every dumb move by Smith or these other kooks makes a Liberal majority more likely. Thats not good for Alberta. It's not good for Canada.
Liberals and Canada deliberately abusing Alberta for decades on end is not good for Canada.
When/if Quebec refuses to permit the construction of pipelines across its territory the federal government should immediately halt equalization payments to that province. That’ll get their attention.
"Who benefits from this?"
I can't speak to the motivations of the goofballs, but for Smith she is clearly preparing for the 2027 election. She knows that a bunch of skeletons are going to be dancing out of the closet with regards to procurement shenanigans. (loved Staples' column the other day where Mraiche made it clear to the public that his corruption is strictly non-partisan, and provided Staples with a picture of Mraiche and Notley that any normal person would think "holy shit that dude looks shady")
So she's going to set off a national unity crisis to distract from her horrific governance. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that. And as Jen mentioned, it's anyone's guess how many Albertans will fall for it.
I disagree. The current healthcare corruption scandal is being eclipsed by the federal election and tariff discussions. The next AB election is more than two years and several yet to happen scandals away. Smith is rightfully ratcheting up the stakes to discourage the Feds from making a revenue play against AB to fund, for example, auto industry bailouts. This election is shaping up to be 1980 all over again with the Feds using a short term crisis (tariffs vs. Quebec separatism) to justify scope creep and the ensuing need for revenue.
I commend you for releasing your data. However, the displayed slides show the question is still structured to show support for remaining in Canada. If secession happens, it will be a two stage process:
Stage 1: Remain in Canada or Secede?
Stage 2 (post independence): join USA?
This matters, because asking "Remain in Canada or join the USA" tends to put people who want Alberta independence into the remain group. In practice, the people who want independence and the people who want to join the USA will band together.
I strongly encourage polling with a three choice question - that will show the real support for remaining in Canada under an imagined Carney government.
Separately from the poll, it's obviously absurd to hold the position that a) Trump is seriously intent on undermining Canada's sovereignty, AND b) Trump will not make any effort to drive a wedge between Alberta and a Carney-ruled Canada, by making it clear just how much Alberta could benefit economically from independence. My personal view is that he is not now seriously intent on undermining Canada's sovereignty, but that if we hand him a gratuitous opportunity, that place on Mount Rushmore will become awfully tempting.
This was a quick poll. Perhaps we will crowdfund for something more detailed and extensive. Jg
I'm curious - how expensive is a poll like this to commission? Obviously you have every right not to disclose this, but for those of us who are, shall we say, dubious about the (situational) ethics of polling companies, its instructive to see what these things cost. As we know, poll results also drive public opinion at least as much as they are reflective of it (at least in a snapshot).
Remember to appeal for money. I'd put some where my mouth is, if it's before the election. Afterwards will be moot.
An Angus-Reid poll is also quite interesting with its questions based on a majority Liberal government. The numbers are higher but the breakdown by age cohorts should raise a much louder alarm in that support for some kind of independence from ROC (Rest of Canada, to borrow from Quebec nationalists) is generally linear by age in that younger folk are much more interested. Also of interest is just how diverging is the line (excuse the pun) between male and female in that men are WAY more interested than women.
Nowhere in Jen's article do I find anything informative or explanatory about either this sex split or the divergence by age. Without that indication of a very real rising trend towards some kind of significant political affiliated change between the province (and we haven't even talked about Saskatchewan whose numbers in some areas are even higher for a significant change) based on more independence and self direction, we get a typical media article casting all of this more like a fringe we in the ROC can put aside. That's very dangerous if one truly wishes to be patriotic rather than patronizing.
A 3 part poll would be a chance for Alberta
to get it right where Newfoundland didn’t. There is a strongly held view is some quarters that Newfoundlanders should have chosen to join the US given the choice.
Was it ever a choice? Sounds like Newf would have gotten all the benefits from joining the U.S. Why would the U.S. have been interested? They weren’t. At all.
So the sentiment in Newf for joining the U.S. was that it was a wealthier sugar daddy than Canada to bail you out of poverty and bankruptcy. No thanks, said the Yanks.
Interesting! Had anyone talked to the US?
Yes, interesting. Someone could dig into the history archives. I nominate Susan :-).
Already did. 80% of Newfs wanted to join the U.S. when Britain put the bankrupt colony up for sale. No takers in the U.S. I think the Newfs enjoyed having American money and sailor lads hanging around during the war when Britain leased some naval bases to the U.S. in exchange for convoy escort warships.
Thank you, that is very high. I like Newfs, down to earth. Looks like the US did not think ahead and missed an opportunity. These days, Trump would take it sight unseen. I would too.
Managing the question is key to running a referendum. If Smith actually wanted Alberta to secede, she could do that.
Agree 100%. Anyone can structure the question to get the right answer. The Canadian elites have been doing this for years. Or you can structure the question to be vague enough that you can interpret the results to justify whatever you want.
Under the Clarity Act, Canada is entitled to see a clear majority on a clear question before it has to start negotiations. If Canada doesn't think the question was clear, no talks.
I agree but lawyers could feast for years on what “clear” means. And with all members of Canada’s Supreme Court now having to be fluently bilingual in French and English without a translator, this means that the justices will be primarily drawn from the French component of the population. So Anglos such as. Albertans will be screwed.
The decision about what "clear" means is up to Parliament when it debates the legislation to begin negotiations. It's not a lawyer-judge decision, it's a political decision. In reality, if the Liberal Prime Minister -- it will always be a Liberal PM until the end of time -- doesn't think it's a clear majority on a clear question, he will decline to introduce the legislation. Or he might introduce the legislation and tell his MPs to vote against it. (It would not be a confidence bill, in which defeat would cause the government to fall.)
In essence, no matter what the referendum says, unless the PM supports the idea of secession, no negotiations happen. That's how Canada works. The PM has almost absolute power. Unlike in the States where the President can be reigned in by Congress if they have the courage to stand up to him.
Not without the consent of the rest of Canada and with a mutually acceptable plan for secession, just like Quebec.
I’m puzzled. If you want a divorce you just leave. Consent is optional. No consent only means more lawyers fees. Just like Quebec
Quebec must follow the Clarity Act as does any other province wishing to leave Canada.
That assumes the Act would matter if Quebec or Alberta really wanted to leave. This may sound like Jean Chretien and overly American but governments normally need the consent of the governed to govern. In Quebec’s case Quebec never signed Pierre Trudeau’s repatriated constitution. If Alberta really wanted to leave I doubt anyone could stop it especially virtual slave owners from Central Canada. And if Canada tried armed force I believe a request for a couple of airborne divisions from Alberta’s good neighbor to the south would not fall on deaf ears.
There is a general right of self-determination that all people have in various UN declarations. But forming into your own independent state and taking the land out of an existing state without its consent is another matter, usually called rebellion. The parent state (e.g., Canada) also has the right to exist in its intact form, not have pieces bitten out of it. In its mildest form it would consider that the residents of the breakaway state still had to pay federal taxes to Canada (if we are talking about unilateral secession of a Canadian province) and it has a number of ways to enforce that, e.g., capital controls and seizure of bank accounts through the federally regulated banking system, the "de-banking" we learned about with the Convoy occupation. In more severe forms it could use armed force to suppress a rebellion, as states almost always do. No country just lets, say, the Kurds, walk off with a chunk of Iraq, Turkey, and Syria just because they want their own state and homeland. Canada wouldn't just let you walk away with the oil and coal reserves that are the property of the Crown. That's one of the things that would have to be settled in a negotiated split: How much are you willing to pay Canada to buy them from us? Right now the province owns the reserves but only because it is provincial *Crown* land. If you secede, you would be converting Crown land (which the King owns, but lets you as a province use) to land held by your own sovereign government. If you couldn't agree on terms, there would be no agreement to put before Parliament to legislate the secession.
The big problem with unilateral independence, that usually leads to war, is that the parent national government can't just ignore the residents of the breakaway state who want to remain loyal citizens of the parent state, and leave them to their fate. Of course Albertans being basically nice say they would respect the rights of people who had wanted to remain Canadian. But as time goes on you would eventually start to see them as untrustworthy intriguers against your independence project and you would need to ethnically cleanse them. Québec would surely do this to the Anglos -- to a large degree they already have. The 13 Colonies drove out the Loyalists for the same reason. In a fight, you have to know who's on your side and who isn't. If you're not with us, you're against us. No room for neutrals or those who won't swear allegiance to the new government.
Unilateral rebel states have to get recognized by foreign governments in order to borrow money on their sovereign credit, otherwise the creditor won't know for sure that the rebel government has taxing power to service the debt. That's how the United States got started: the French king was willing to lend them enormous sums of money to fight against his old adversary, Britain. (The Seven Years War ended only in 1763. Recent history.) Alberta would have to hope for immediate recognition as a sovereign state by the United States. But since the U.S. and Canada aren't officially enemies it would be awkward for the U.S. to be encouraging discussions like what Jen describes here if the folks they're negotiating with were actual Alberta government officials. Canada would be furious.
Unilateral declaration of independence is one of those things that is legal under international law, but so is the violent suppression of insurrection with military force.
From what I recall of my history readings many of the UEL were part of the new world entitled elite and left of their own accord waiting for King George’s redcoats to kill off the pesky rebels. - which never happened of course. It’s interesting that the structure of having entitled families (seigneurs in Quebec/lower Canada) run all the institutions in Canada started then and continues to this day.
Somewhat OT but still pertinent to this: a small good news story. I am currently enjoying a tea at a café patio (about-face weather from yesterday's snow and rain). The server was a young guy from Russia who had high praise for the proprietor who is from Odessa, Ukraine. The hidden graces of life off-line.
This is nice to know.