I have just a quick comment before I start listening / viewing. I just read your written preamble wherein you speak of the "loss of Canadian passports" and I must comment.
If a Canadian moves to, oh, Germany, and becomes a German citizen, he still remains a Canadian citizen unless he specifically renounces his Canadian citizenship. I recall full well Jean Charest making that same silly statement in the 1995 Quebec referendum. If you use a Canadian passport as a symbol of the rest of Canada then that is fine but there is no circumstance by which I, or anyone, would lose our passport short of Alberta agreeing to that as a condition of leaving Canuckistan. And Alberta won't do that.
Just to go further, one should consider the innumerable people who have come here from various countries and become citizens after the requisite number of years. Then, they went "home" i.e. to their country of origin. But, of course, they remained Canadian citizens. You may recall in years past some of those countries of origin - Lebanon was one but there were others - erupted into civil war and those fine "Canadian" citizens demanded that Canada rescue them Which Canada did. And, once the fighting declined they again went "home." All quite legal. And you think that we would lose our Canadian passport? Nope.
Oh, and we are frustrated with Ottawa all right. But, the way the voting system is set up so that our section of the country doesn't have the number of seats proportional to our population and other, shall we say, more "agreeable" [to the ruling class] parts of the country are over represented, that is not going to change.
Hand waving away the potential for citizens of a secessionist Alberta to lose their Canadian passports is typical of the wishful thinking from separatists. Yes, some Canadians continue to hold Canadian passports despite having another citizenship and residing in a different country. It does not follow that Canada has to extend that privilege to citizens of an independent Alberta. It might be something a secessionist government can negotiate in exchange for other concessions. An angry Canada might just tell Alberta to stuff it.
I understand what you say. What you miss in your comment is that if we are Canadian citizens today we would be Canadian citizens then.
I would further note that the Clarity Act reference case requires that the parties negotiate in good faith. By taking away a right that we already have certainly demonstrate just the opposite of good faith.
That's not how it worked with Brexit - UK citizens lost EU citizenship. It's also not how it worked when Czechoslovakia broke up: citizens had to choose whether they would be Czech or Slovak.
Again, you're hand-waving away a problem instead of acknowledging it exists. Maybe citizens of a separate Alberta can retain Canadian citizenship. You don't know. That's something that'll have to get worked out. The unwillingness to take a serious and realistic look at all the details and issues related with secession is a serious flaw of the secessionist movement.
Yes, I also find the separatist movement in AB is built on hand-waving away awkward problems. There is a consistent projection onto an independent AB/51st State of their personal fantasy of the future and then argue from that point of view.
The federal government would have to take steps to remove the Canadian citizenship of seceded Albertans, yes. I doubt it would be a move that took much convincing for Parliament to do, the tricky bit is making sure the legislation is constitutional.
As to good faith...the default position being 'you get nothing and must convince us to give you stuff by also giving us stuff' is not a bad faith position. It is, at worst, aggressive. Or do Albertans no longer think being strict with separatists is the right way forward?
Go back to the Quebec separatism drama in the mid-90s, and you'll find that many (probably most) Albertans were in no mood to tolerate the Quebec separatist notion that Quebecers would retain Canadian citizenship or keep using the Canadian dollar.
Yes. To me the loss of the Canadian citizenship, as KS points out, already a longtime severely devalued item of convenience, is much less important than the need to cut through the chokerchain of oppression and illiberal domination from the permanently mentally diseased Central Canada. I wonder if I should pollute my ears by listening to this ... have not done so yet.
The point is that you cannot counter an argument unless you hear/read it. For that reason, I (with difficulty) sometimes read The Tyee. Remember always that "you" [and, particularly, I] are not the smartest guy in the room. [Obviously - sarcasm - that is MC!] As a result, believe it or not sometimes folks on the other side do have a point that needs to be considered.
Your Germany argument doesn't hold a lot of water. From a practical perspective, the Clarity Act specifically acknowledges citizenship as a negotiation point in a secession. Secession entails a change in state boundaries and sovereignty. A move to Germany does none of this.
From a theoretical perspective, a citizen moving to Germany isn't a rejection of Canada in the way secession is. I've lived abroad, but I wouldn't have done so if it precluded coming back to Canada. I am Canadian first and foremost. Notably, many other states do prevent dual citizenship, so it's not an unconscionable approach (see the Netherlands for one example).
Secessionists wanting to leave and keep their passport without participating in the building of Canada smacks of a toddler having a meltdown and then getting upset they can't still have dessert. I don't want Alberta to secede, but if Alberta does, then just own it.
Wouldn't they have contributed to the building of Canada prior to wanting a national divorce or does becoming a secessionist mean that everything you did before signing that petition is irrelevant?
Let me get this straight. You imagine that if Alberta becomes a separate country the citizens will continue to use the Canadian passport? And probably the Canadian dollar? That’s funny. Talk about clinging to Mummy’s apron.
Alberta has a population of 4.4 million and 37 Commons seats. Ontario has 14.8 million and 122 seats. Alberta gets slightly more parliamentary seats for its population than Ontario does (8.4 per million vs 8.2). BC is around Ontario, as is Quebec (all are at about 8.2 seats per million people). Manitoba gets more than Alberta (9.something), as does Saskatchewan. The Atlantic region gets more (8.7), but less than Manitoba or Saskatchewan. This is trivial to look up.
When you are getting treated better than Ontario and Quebec on an issue in Canada, you are winning on that issue.
While it does not surprise me to find that the top grievance mentioned in the comments here is not in fact true, I did at least expect it to be something that could not be trivially disproven.
Basing Canadian federalism off PEI would amuse me greatly but is probably not an ideal solution. Though frankly I think PEI's MP:constituent ratio works a lot better than the one more typical in the wider country. It made sense when the country was founded, and I expect time will eventually make it make more sense again.
Also PEI voted consistently blue from 57-84. The whole place is about twenty to thirty years behind the rest of the country. If THAT place is a Liberal bastion that should be a big warning to the CPC.
Polls close in the Maritimes before the election has been settled by the vote in Ontario and Quebec. They've got just as little impact on election outcome, just that the time zones go the other way and they don't whine about it.
...most of the population of the country lives east of you. Among other things, you're the second-most Western province, that's...going to be how elections are unless the rotation of the Earth changes suddenly. BC has the exact same problem, if not moreso. They do not think it a justification for significant grievance.
There's 38 million people in the country. 14.8 million of those are in Ontario. 8.5 million are in Quebec. Another 2.2 million-odd in Atlantic Canada. 67% of the population having voted is going to make election results pretty predictable by the time they reach you, yes.
I don't like how a lot of people live in Ontario either, but unfortunately we can't round them up and distribute them more evenly around the country. Also then they wouldn't be in Ontario (let's face it, Toronto), they'd be out here with the rest of us, and I'm not sure that's an improvement Beyond that your grievances would appear to be with concepts like 'time' and 'numbers' and I'm not sure Ottawa can be blamed for those things.
We can go back to the constitutional table and bring the constitution into the 21st century. In Alberta. There are about a million people in Alberta who support a divorce, I think. Out of a population of 3.2 million. It would be wise for Ottawa to reopen constitutional talks. (Again, bear in mind this might be completely moot if Trump even muses that America would recognize and independent Alberta. And that is a strong possibility because he isn't right in the head.)
I think a strategic partnership with China, shared law enforcement, shared media and cyber security etc included have fueled the movement. I for one was ambivalent but when Carney announced the deal and I saw the details ( not discussed in the legacy networks I note) I decided to sign and did so. I have been to China. It is oppressive as can be and utterly foreign in culture. China is thoroughly enmeshed in Canada and I can not and will not submit to any more of that as long as I have options. The first option is separation regardless of how difficult ( Albertans have never been intimidated by difficult) , the second is to emigrate. My three children have considered doing so and if we can’t shake either the federal liberals or the rest of Canada I encourage them to do so
Right on. Clarity in thinking, no useless sentimentality, no useless clinging to the false "patriotism" inserted by the brainwashing-to-the-left CBC, MSM.
Juno News: funded by a few right-wing interests (legacy media: not trustworthy. Repurposed charity that got half a million from an SNC Lavalin exec and seems worryingly pro-Proud Boy: trustworthy), and I can't find anything there that seems to line up.
The Bureau is notoriously anti-China (and correctly so, frankly), but doesn't seem to have much besides being REALLY disturbed by the language around letting Chinese media in.
Brian Lilley seems to have some very well documented and backed up "why this is all a terrible idea" stuff (and I think him largely correct on it), but doesn't have much comment on any details of the agreement.
Doug Ford isn't even a reliable source about Doug Ford, let alone anything else.
I'm 58. I grew up in Ontario and in Alberta. My family moved to Calgary literally weeks before the NEP. I don't believe those in the east truly understand how the NEP literally @#%$ people out of their life savings, they lost their homes. Business closed. Investment dried up and major construction projects stopped and sat idle for years.
For the past ten years we have had a PM who literally demonized Alberta. Oil money, like it or not, pays for Canada. Ottawa wanted/wants to shut down the oil industry. The anger is real and it isn't going away. I want Alberta to stay in confederation and I think this is the most dangerous time for Canada in our lifetimes. If Trump even muses about recognizing Alberta independence, it's over. All of it.
The worst thing we can do is demonize those who want out. There are a million reasons for Alberta to remain in confederation, but something will have to change in Ottawa.
Also still waiting for the elbows up elimination of provincial trade barriers to happen. It appears to have fallen off the radar because it's still there.
I have listened to the podcast and nothing in it surprised me. There is a sizeable minority by polling that is so frustrated with Ottawa's rule that they are more than willing to threaten breaking Confederation. Whodathunkit? The polling then tries to break down percentages of those who lean towards independence as a sizeable minority of that minority while another sizeable minority leans towards US affiliation. And so on. Jen is quite satisfied to then use this polling to justify her claim that each of the subsections can be seen against the entire population as a 'fringe'. While watching, I thought to myself, did The Line pay for this polling? Of course any population so angered by its federal oversight political arrangement that a sizeable minority wants a New Deal can be broken down this way. I suspect I could take Iran's 90% population actively dying trying to protest its federal government and, by a similar polling approach, break down the vast majority into small enough minority subsets (perhaps by specific complaints - price of gas, price of food, not enough water, dirty air, too secular, too religious, and so on) to call each a 'fringe' movement and sit back in smug satisfaction as if this justified me calling each 'group' of protesters 'fringe'. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Does the West want out? Of course not... in a better world than the current one (previous generations of Albertans were well known in the CAF to be particularly patriotic and very quick to anger if this were questioned.) But the large minority today and the growing resentment of the younger population against the status quo is not in any way 'fringe'. That's the central point. And, if the US produced a federal statesman that offered Alberta separation honey in the form of, say, parity of currency or preferred trade and duel citizenship, I suspect a sudden and sizeable majority of Alberta and Saskatchewan people - even the disconnected-from-reality older mobile urbanites who believe we inhabit a world long gone - would emerge quickly. I also think an untold number of other mobile Canadians denied by circumstances to establish meaningful roots - especially the young - would flock to these provinces in surprisingly large numbers. If one were to run a poll about what it would take to convince a majority of Albertans to leave Confederation, I think the ROC would be shocked to discover how little was needed.
You didn’t mention that the polling reveals that a sizeable majority of the separatists are uninformed about the consequences of leaving Canada, and that they are “politically unengaged”, can’t even articulate what precisely they claim to be upset about and merely parrot talking points fed to them.
I didn't mention it because the consequences are unknown as yet (other than vapid notions like losing the Canadian passport) and cannot be known in full until an actual question is informed. You should be able to figure this out on your own. Also, the massive discrepancy between rural and urban support is not a trivial but very meaningful chasm left unaddressed. As for polling recipients sympathetic to some kind of more radical political solution 'articulating' their specific concerns, this very much depends on the specific polling questions, doesn't it? This is why I mentioned how one could just as easily break down the Iranian uprising into equivalent 'fringe' elements, but this method in no way accurately reflects the overall dissatisfaction/dismay many in the province and throughout the country are facing in total. Your comment seems aimed at dismissing the major concerns these folk have while denigrating those who do not meet your qualifications of quality complaints you present as if a majority ignorance and political disengagement. Well, that's one tactic of dismissal but I don't think problems get solved by equivalently waving them away as you've 'explained' here. I assure you that many well informed, politically engaged, and very knowledgeable Canadians quite rationally view the breaking down of Confederation as it is occurring right before our eyes and think of provincial separation (in whatever form it eventually takes) as a step up, a step forward, a better response than pretending the problem is a 'fringe' problem. These seem to be the only folk trying to regain some measure of rational control of the Canadian identity over the oncoming post national chaos from growing social dysfunction, paralysis in building toward the future, and the massive overreach by the federal government in response to its own promoted anti-Canadian policies and consequences of them. What you wave away today I think is what will smack you upside the head and in all our pocketbooks in the not so distant future.
Consequences are completely foreseeable, you said it yourself, as did the economist Trevor Tombe on the Alberta Next panel, Alberta would be the poorer for it. (But let’s not spoil the pleasure of cutting off our separatist nose to spite our face!) Indeed, the discrepancy between urban and rural is very interesting and I’ll not get into that here for fear of a complete brawl on this page. I’m not arguing that Alberta doesn’t have some beefs about its place in the country, but separation talk is flat out stupid. I do know of highly educated people (elites!) that are in favour of separation but they are completely insulated from the consequences of separation financially or any other way. The detestation of the East and the “changes modernity has brought” have become a tribal identity for many in the separatist camp and they compete to amp each other up. Alberta conservatives have always needed the East as a punching bag - on the infinitesimal chance Alberta did separate, who would they have to blame when things went awry? BTW, what is this former “Canadian identity” you pine for anyway?
I also wondered who commissioned the poll as the conditional questions will likely be skewed to get the answers they want. After all, ya gotta dance with the one who brung ya. Perhaps the editors will share that information?
Need to have the Forever Canadian referendum to gauge the commitment to Confederation. Cancelling transfer payments, a lynch pin of Confederation, was supported by over 60% of Albertans. My guess is the No vote would have the same degree of support.
Didn't watch the 2016 US election results as the outcome was clearly going to deliver a President H. Clinton. I understand the falling ceiling was repurposed to celebrate Dr. Gay's selection as President of Havard...
Having been provided with a rebuttal against proposed Alberta independence, an argument for remaining in Canalot is needed.
By remaining in Confederation Alberta maintains its place in a great nation with a shared history and value set that are the envy of the world. A place where democracy has evolved to allow for regional development and prosperity independent of political differences and ideology. A nation that allows for the exploitation of Alberta’s natural resources while simultaneously preparing for a time when they are depleted, or no longer needed. A country that has welcomed people of different nations and cultures, integrating the positives of these new citizens into the fabric of society while they in turn integrate.
One people, one nation. A people proud of their judicial system that is free of subjectivity and treats all equally. Where every vote across the country is of equal value, regardless of place of residence, demonstrating a commitment to enfranchisement. A nation strong and free, with a military up to the external challenges that all sovereign states must face.
Of course, none of this is true of the mythical Canalot.
Excellent piece Jen, super to look at both the Albertan (good for GJ to mention Saskatchewan also - note Wab Kinew’s Manitoban view) and the Quebecois aspects of potential referenda, and how very different they are.
Dear Albertans: please consider that there are many in Canada who want real election reform, and agree that Alberta’s shit deal from the Crow’s Pass rates to the massive destruction of theNEP are totally justifiable grievances.
There are actually virtually no similarities between Quebcois perceived grievances and those of Alberta. Quebec has been endlessly pampered to the cost of ALL the provinces certainly since 1960. There is no contrary press to the belief that they are in all ways continually hard done by - they actually believe they contribute more than receive from Equalization.
I would ask ALL Albertans to look at Brexit. GB is in all ways now quite fucked. The benefits were overplayed criminally, and the costs downplayed dishonestly.
Alberta would have a monstrous challenge to create progress or advantage when faced with 1) its share of the national debt, 2) losing its military (a lot of Albertan jobs), 3) creating its own Pension Plan vs the CPP, negotiating freight and oil transport rates in ANY direction, or getting adequate capital to build what is definitely needs and deserves. Capital ingress requires long term stability and security.
4) if anyone thinks the US would treat 4 million Albertans as more than chattel, look not only at Puerto Rico, but at Guam, Hawaii to some degree, and to Venezuela now. What advantage to bringing you in as equals when you would be walled in and “hoping” (I do not say “begging”as I have no desire to be misinterpreted as belittling your concerns) for a good export deal.
There is a new PM, who is actually talking with and listening to provinces- and I believe slowly Shunting the LE out to the sidelines. He didn’t cancel the gun reg stupidity, better politics to let it die and no one enforce it. He’s not going to be signing MOU and putting Smith and Eby together so he can rejuvenate the Carbon Tax.
Please look around.. the pendulum swings slowly, I believe it is in your direction. As they say in recovery, stick around and give the miracle a chance.
My understanding of history is that majorities are not needed to make significant change. History shows that as little as 15-20% of well organized vocal groups can win over a the majority of the citizenry that are frequently followers.
I will put my name on the petition to seperate primarily to provide inertia to create a bigger conversation -basic labor union strategy. I have no desire to become part of the USA -dead stop. In this podcast you do discuss leverage and I believe Alberta would have great leverage in any conversation with the ROC.
Seperation would isolate both BC & the Yukon and lock them out from the rest of Canada. I believe this would create an untenable situation within Canada and WOULD enable a serious conversation dealing with Albertas long list of grievences. The similar would happen with the Quebec sepeartion with the Maritimes being set adrift.
Alberta exists entirely because Canada carved it out of existing Canadian territories, and those territories are acquired pretty much entirely through treaties with Indigenous groups. It gets all its rights to the territory through Canada, and the treaties are (and continue to be) with Canada, not Alberta. Patriation complicates things, but fundamentally I think there would be serious difficulty with trying to claim separation of anywhere covered by a treaty.
Also, Quebec was delusional when it thought it'd separate as it currently is constituted - as Chretien said, if Canada is divisible so is Quebec. Alberta would be in the same boat but worse, because while you could maybe argue Quebec has an independent right to what it had at Confederation, Alberta's a creation of Parliament.
Many countries were created with the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. So too goes Canada. The crown had treaties south of us prior to the American Revolution.
The only rights any of us have are those we can defend.
If you are suggesting the US and/or China will participate in the partition of Canada in a way Albertans will support, I am skeptical.
In any armed contest between Alberta separatists and the rest of Canada, I am prepared to bet on the rest of Canada. Among other things, contact with reality is a great force multiplier, and if this comment section has made one thing clear it is that many Alberta separatists don't have it.
What are you talking about? The amending formula for the Constitution requires a majority of Parliament plus 7 provinces representing at least 50% of Canada's population.
Garbage! There is no ball to get rolling. By that time everyone was completely sick of the endless constitutional debates and wanted a gov't that focused on running the country instead of "getting the ball rolling". The constitution of Canada is effectively frozen.
“Everyone was sick of endless constitutional debates”. That’s a pretty thin argument to let Mr Harper (a founding member of the Reform Party dedicated to empowering the west) off the hook.
We have heard the frustrations coming from the west. Seldom, however, do we see a concerted effort from Ottawa to address them; from equalization to pipelines how is the west valued with the same measure as voter rich Ontario and Quebec. My observation of the subtitle was simply if Ottawa would embrace the west as it does central Canada. Full disclosure: I live in Cambridge ON, work in Brampton, did my undergrad in Winnipeg, was stationed at CFB Gagetown. I’ve seen a fair share of the country. Love to holiday on PEI.
Hi bud, please elaborate. To me, a plain frustration with Ottawa is not directional enough, nor focused enough, nor actively constructive enough; only a determined will to finally cut will do.
I have just a quick comment before I start listening / viewing. I just read your written preamble wherein you speak of the "loss of Canadian passports" and I must comment.
If a Canadian moves to, oh, Germany, and becomes a German citizen, he still remains a Canadian citizen unless he specifically renounces his Canadian citizenship. I recall full well Jean Charest making that same silly statement in the 1995 Quebec referendum. If you use a Canadian passport as a symbol of the rest of Canada then that is fine but there is no circumstance by which I, or anyone, would lose our passport short of Alberta agreeing to that as a condition of leaving Canuckistan. And Alberta won't do that.
Just to go further, one should consider the innumerable people who have come here from various countries and become citizens after the requisite number of years. Then, they went "home" i.e. to their country of origin. But, of course, they remained Canadian citizens. You may recall in years past some of those countries of origin - Lebanon was one but there were others - erupted into civil war and those fine "Canadian" citizens demanded that Canada rescue them Which Canada did. And, once the fighting declined they again went "home." All quite legal. And you think that we would lose our Canadian passport? Nope.
Oh, and we are frustrated with Ottawa all right. But, the way the voting system is set up so that our section of the country doesn't have the number of seats proportional to our population and other, shall we say, more "agreeable" [to the ruling class] parts of the country are over represented, that is not going to change.
Hand waving away the potential for citizens of a secessionist Alberta to lose their Canadian passports is typical of the wishful thinking from separatists. Yes, some Canadians continue to hold Canadian passports despite having another citizenship and residing in a different country. It does not follow that Canada has to extend that privilege to citizens of an independent Alberta. It might be something a secessionist government can negotiate in exchange for other concessions. An angry Canada might just tell Alberta to stuff it.
I understand what you say. What you miss in your comment is that if we are Canadian citizens today we would be Canadian citizens then.
I would further note that the Clarity Act reference case requires that the parties negotiate in good faith. By taking away a right that we already have certainly demonstrate just the opposite of good faith.
That's not how it worked with Brexit - UK citizens lost EU citizenship. It's also not how it worked when Czechoslovakia broke up: citizens had to choose whether they would be Czech or Slovak.
Again, you're hand-waving away a problem instead of acknowledging it exists. Maybe citizens of a separate Alberta can retain Canadian citizenship. You don't know. That's something that'll have to get worked out. The unwillingness to take a serious and realistic look at all the details and issues related with secession is a serious flaw of the secessionist movement.
Yes, I also find the separatist movement in AB is built on hand-waving away awkward problems. There is a consistent projection onto an independent AB/51st State of their personal fantasy of the future and then argue from that point of view.
Would all current Canadian citizens be granted citizenship in Alberta? Even if non-resident AND no birth certificate there?
The federal government would have to take steps to remove the Canadian citizenship of seceded Albertans, yes. I doubt it would be a move that took much convincing for Parliament to do, the tricky bit is making sure the legislation is constitutional.
As to good faith...the default position being 'you get nothing and must convince us to give you stuff by also giving us stuff' is not a bad faith position. It is, at worst, aggressive. Or do Albertans no longer think being strict with separatists is the right way forward?
Seems odd that Canada wouldn't extend that privilege. Scratching my head at that because if feels retaliatory if it is extended elsewhere.
Go back to the Quebec separatism drama in the mid-90s, and you'll find that many (probably most) Albertans were in no mood to tolerate the Quebec separatist notion that Quebecers would retain Canadian citizenship or keep using the Canadian dollar.
Oh I remember it quite well. This is going to get ugly.
I don't think there's a way to stop another country from using your currency. Is there?
Yes. To me the loss of the Canadian citizenship, as KS points out, already a longtime severely devalued item of convenience, is much less important than the need to cut through the chokerchain of oppression and illiberal domination from the permanently mentally diseased Central Canada. I wonder if I should pollute my ears by listening to this ... have not done so yet.
NS, pollute away!
The point is that you cannot counter an argument unless you hear/read it. For that reason, I (with difficulty) sometimes read The Tyee. Remember always that "you" [and, particularly, I] are not the smartest guy in the room. [Obviously - sarcasm - that is MC!] As a result, believe it or not sometimes folks on the other side do have a point that needs to be considered.
I will pollute my own ears in a bit.
Your Germany argument doesn't hold a lot of water. From a practical perspective, the Clarity Act specifically acknowledges citizenship as a negotiation point in a secession. Secession entails a change in state boundaries and sovereignty. A move to Germany does none of this.
From a theoretical perspective, a citizen moving to Germany isn't a rejection of Canada in the way secession is. I've lived abroad, but I wouldn't have done so if it precluded coming back to Canada. I am Canadian first and foremost. Notably, many other states do prevent dual citizenship, so it's not an unconscionable approach (see the Netherlands for one example).
Secessionists wanting to leave and keep their passport without participating in the building of Canada smacks of a toddler having a meltdown and then getting upset they can't still have dessert. I don't want Alberta to secede, but if Alberta does, then just own it.
Wouldn't they have contributed to the building of Canada prior to wanting a national divorce or does becoming a secessionist mean that everything you did before signing that petition is irrelevant?
yes.
Oh yeah, walk me through how that might work.
Let me get this straight. You imagine that if Alberta becomes a separate country the citizens will continue to use the Canadian passport? And probably the Canadian dollar? That’s funny. Talk about clinging to Mummy’s apron.
Alberta has a population of 4.4 million and 37 Commons seats. Ontario has 14.8 million and 122 seats. Alberta gets slightly more parliamentary seats for its population than Ontario does (8.4 per million vs 8.2). BC is around Ontario, as is Quebec (all are at about 8.2 seats per million people). Manitoba gets more than Alberta (9.something), as does Saskatchewan. The Atlantic region gets more (8.7), but less than Manitoba or Saskatchewan. This is trivial to look up.
When you are getting treated better than Ontario and Quebec on an issue in Canada, you are winning on that issue.
While it does not surprise me to find that the top grievance mentioned in the comments here is not in fact true, I did at least expect it to be something that could not be trivially disproven.
PEI? Those responsible for propping up a minority government. Sophistry.
Basing Canadian federalism off PEI would amuse me greatly but is probably not an ideal solution. Though frankly I think PEI's MP:constituent ratio works a lot better than the one more typical in the wider country. It made sense when the country was founded, and I expect time will eventually make it make more sense again.
Also PEI voted consistently blue from 57-84. The whole place is about twenty to thirty years behind the rest of the country. If THAT place is a Liberal bastion that should be a big warning to the CPC.
The demise of the Confederation will be a death of a thousand cuts.
Correct. Elections are done before the polls close in Red Deer. Needs to be said, repeatedly.
Polls close in the Maritimes before the election has been settled by the vote in Ontario and Quebec. They've got just as little impact on election outcome, just that the time zones go the other way and they don't whine about it.
...most of the population of the country lives east of you. Among other things, you're the second-most Western province, that's...going to be how elections are unless the rotation of the Earth changes suddenly. BC has the exact same problem, if not moreso. They do not think it a justification for significant grievance.
There's 38 million people in the country. 14.8 million of those are in Ontario. 8.5 million are in Quebec. Another 2.2 million-odd in Atlantic Canada. 67% of the population having voted is going to make election results pretty predictable by the time they reach you, yes.
I don't like how a lot of people live in Ontario either, but unfortunately we can't round them up and distribute them more evenly around the country. Also then they wouldn't be in Ontario (let's face it, Toronto), they'd be out here with the rest of us, and I'm not sure that's an improvement Beyond that your grievances would appear to be with concepts like 'time' and 'numbers' and I'm not sure Ottawa can be blamed for those things.
We can go back to the constitutional table and bring the constitution into the 21st century. In Alberta. There are about a million people in Alberta who support a divorce, I think. Out of a population of 3.2 million. It would be wise for Ottawa to reopen constitutional talks. (Again, bear in mind this might be completely moot if Trump even muses that America would recognize and independent Alberta. And that is a strong possibility because he isn't right in the head.)
You need a federal majority plus 7 provinces representing 50% of Canada's population to do it. Start counting.
...So you are agreeing that this grievance is entirely unreasonable and you guys are mad about nothing in this regard?
So who cares! We all get our vote. Born and raised in AB. Not an issue to me. I think a little maturity is in order.
I think a strategic partnership with China, shared law enforcement, shared media and cyber security etc included have fueled the movement. I for one was ambivalent but when Carney announced the deal and I saw the details ( not discussed in the legacy networks I note) I decided to sign and did so. I have been to China. It is oppressive as can be and utterly foreign in culture. China is thoroughly enmeshed in Canada and I can not and will not submit to any more of that as long as I have options. The first option is separation regardless of how difficult ( Albertans have never been intimidated by difficult) , the second is to emigrate. My three children have considered doing so and if we can’t shake either the federal liberals or the rest of Canada I encourage them to do so
Right on. Clarity in thinking, no useless sentimentality, no useless clinging to the false "patriotism" inserted by the brainwashing-to-the-left CBC, MSM.
Got a source for these details, then?
Juno news, the Bureau, Brian Lilley I think. That’s just off the top of my head. Doug Ford.
Juno News: funded by a few right-wing interests (legacy media: not trustworthy. Repurposed charity that got half a million from an SNC Lavalin exec and seems worryingly pro-Proud Boy: trustworthy), and I can't find anything there that seems to line up.
The Bureau is notoriously anti-China (and correctly so, frankly), but doesn't seem to have much besides being REALLY disturbed by the language around letting Chinese media in.
Brian Lilley seems to have some very well documented and backed up "why this is all a terrible idea" stuff (and I think him largely correct on it), but doesn't have much comment on any details of the agreement.
Doug Ford isn't even a reliable source about Doug Ford, let alone anything else.
My children and nephews are similarly inclined. Not a question asked by the pollsters, it seems.
I'm 58. I grew up in Ontario and in Alberta. My family moved to Calgary literally weeks before the NEP. I don't believe those in the east truly understand how the NEP literally @#%$ people out of their life savings, they lost their homes. Business closed. Investment dried up and major construction projects stopped and sat idle for years.
For the past ten years we have had a PM who literally demonized Alberta. Oil money, like it or not, pays for Canada. Ottawa wanted/wants to shut down the oil industry. The anger is real and it isn't going away. I want Alberta to stay in confederation and I think this is the most dangerous time for Canada in our lifetimes. If Trump even muses about recognizing Alberta independence, it's over. All of it.
The worst thing we can do is demonize those who want out. There are a million reasons for Alberta to remain in confederation, but something will have to change in Ottawa.
Also still waiting for the elbows up elimination of provincial trade barriers to happen. It appears to have fallen off the radar because it's still there.
How is Ottawa supposed to eliminate provincial trade barriers? They removed all of the federal ones. The provincial ones are up to the provinces.
I'm aware of that. I need to reread my posts clearly.
I have listened to the podcast and nothing in it surprised me. There is a sizeable minority by polling that is so frustrated with Ottawa's rule that they are more than willing to threaten breaking Confederation. Whodathunkit? The polling then tries to break down percentages of those who lean towards independence as a sizeable minority of that minority while another sizeable minority leans towards US affiliation. And so on. Jen is quite satisfied to then use this polling to justify her claim that each of the subsections can be seen against the entire population as a 'fringe'. While watching, I thought to myself, did The Line pay for this polling? Of course any population so angered by its federal oversight political arrangement that a sizeable minority wants a New Deal can be broken down this way. I suspect I could take Iran's 90% population actively dying trying to protest its federal government and, by a similar polling approach, break down the vast majority into small enough minority subsets (perhaps by specific complaints - price of gas, price of food, not enough water, dirty air, too secular, too religious, and so on) to call each a 'fringe' movement and sit back in smug satisfaction as if this justified me calling each 'group' of protesters 'fringe'. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Does the West want out? Of course not... in a better world than the current one (previous generations of Albertans were well known in the CAF to be particularly patriotic and very quick to anger if this were questioned.) But the large minority today and the growing resentment of the younger population against the status quo is not in any way 'fringe'. That's the central point. And, if the US produced a federal statesman that offered Alberta separation honey in the form of, say, parity of currency or preferred trade and duel citizenship, I suspect a sudden and sizeable majority of Alberta and Saskatchewan people - even the disconnected-from-reality older mobile urbanites who believe we inhabit a world long gone - would emerge quickly. I also think an untold number of other mobile Canadians denied by circumstances to establish meaningful roots - especially the young - would flock to these provinces in surprisingly large numbers. If one were to run a poll about what it would take to convince a majority of Albertans to leave Confederation, I think the ROC would be shocked to discover how little was needed.
You didn’t mention that the polling reveals that a sizeable majority of the separatists are uninformed about the consequences of leaving Canada, and that they are “politically unengaged”, can’t even articulate what precisely they claim to be upset about and merely parrot talking points fed to them.
I didn't mention it because the consequences are unknown as yet (other than vapid notions like losing the Canadian passport) and cannot be known in full until an actual question is informed. You should be able to figure this out on your own. Also, the massive discrepancy between rural and urban support is not a trivial but very meaningful chasm left unaddressed. As for polling recipients sympathetic to some kind of more radical political solution 'articulating' their specific concerns, this very much depends on the specific polling questions, doesn't it? This is why I mentioned how one could just as easily break down the Iranian uprising into equivalent 'fringe' elements, but this method in no way accurately reflects the overall dissatisfaction/dismay many in the province and throughout the country are facing in total. Your comment seems aimed at dismissing the major concerns these folk have while denigrating those who do not meet your qualifications of quality complaints you present as if a majority ignorance and political disengagement. Well, that's one tactic of dismissal but I don't think problems get solved by equivalently waving them away as you've 'explained' here. I assure you that many well informed, politically engaged, and very knowledgeable Canadians quite rationally view the breaking down of Confederation as it is occurring right before our eyes and think of provincial separation (in whatever form it eventually takes) as a step up, a step forward, a better response than pretending the problem is a 'fringe' problem. These seem to be the only folk trying to regain some measure of rational control of the Canadian identity over the oncoming post national chaos from growing social dysfunction, paralysis in building toward the future, and the massive overreach by the federal government in response to its own promoted anti-Canadian policies and consequences of them. What you wave away today I think is what will smack you upside the head and in all our pocketbooks in the not so distant future.
Consequences are completely foreseeable, you said it yourself, as did the economist Trevor Tombe on the Alberta Next panel, Alberta would be the poorer for it. (But let’s not spoil the pleasure of cutting off our separatist nose to spite our face!) Indeed, the discrepancy between urban and rural is very interesting and I’ll not get into that here for fear of a complete brawl on this page. I’m not arguing that Alberta doesn’t have some beefs about its place in the country, but separation talk is flat out stupid. I do know of highly educated people (elites!) that are in favour of separation but they are completely insulated from the consequences of separation financially or any other way. The detestation of the East and the “changes modernity has brought” have become a tribal identity for many in the separatist camp and they compete to amp each other up. Alberta conservatives have always needed the East as a punching bag - on the infinitesimal chance Alberta did separate, who would they have to blame when things went awry? BTW, what is this former “Canadian identity” you pine for anyway?
They'd still blame the East. The separation deal would have been tricky and designed to screw them over, you see.
Like most political issues about people's feelings, reality would not need to enter into it.
I also wondered who commissioned the poll as the conditional questions will likely be skewed to get the answers they want. After all, ya gotta dance with the one who brung ya. Perhaps the editors will share that information?
Need to have the Forever Canadian referendum to gauge the commitment to Confederation. Cancelling transfer payments, a lynch pin of Confederation, was supported by over 60% of Albertans. My guess is the No vote would have the same degree of support.
Didn't watch the 2016 US election results as the outcome was clearly going to deliver a President H. Clinton. I understand the falling ceiling was repurposed to celebrate Dr. Gay's selection as President of Havard...
There is only one poll that counts.
And the vast majority of those in favour of cancelling transfer payments don’t have a clue how the system works.
Having been provided with a rebuttal against proposed Alberta independence, an argument for remaining in Canalot is needed.
By remaining in Confederation Alberta maintains its place in a great nation with a shared history and value set that are the envy of the world. A place where democracy has evolved to allow for regional development and prosperity independent of political differences and ideology. A nation that allows for the exploitation of Alberta’s natural resources while simultaneously preparing for a time when they are depleted, or no longer needed. A country that has welcomed people of different nations and cultures, integrating the positives of these new citizens into the fabric of society while they in turn integrate.
One people, one nation. A people proud of their judicial system that is free of subjectivity and treats all equally. Where every vote across the country is of equal value, regardless of place of residence, demonstrating a commitment to enfranchisement. A nation strong and free, with a military up to the external challenges that all sovereign states must face.
Of course, none of this is true of the mythical Canalot.
The argument is only needed by a small (nearly fringe small) number of people.
The rest have better things to do.
Excellent piece Jen, super to look at both the Albertan (good for GJ to mention Saskatchewan also - note Wab Kinew’s Manitoban view) and the Quebecois aspects of potential referenda, and how very different they are.
Dear Albertans: please consider that there are many in Canada who want real election reform, and agree that Alberta’s shit deal from the Crow’s Pass rates to the massive destruction of theNEP are totally justifiable grievances.
There are actually virtually no similarities between Quebcois perceived grievances and those of Alberta. Quebec has been endlessly pampered to the cost of ALL the provinces certainly since 1960. There is no contrary press to the belief that they are in all ways continually hard done by - they actually believe they contribute more than receive from Equalization.
I would ask ALL Albertans to look at Brexit. GB is in all ways now quite fucked. The benefits were overplayed criminally, and the costs downplayed dishonestly.
Alberta would have a monstrous challenge to create progress or advantage when faced with 1) its share of the national debt, 2) losing its military (a lot of Albertan jobs), 3) creating its own Pension Plan vs the CPP, negotiating freight and oil transport rates in ANY direction, or getting adequate capital to build what is definitely needs and deserves. Capital ingress requires long term stability and security.
4) if anyone thinks the US would treat 4 million Albertans as more than chattel, look not only at Puerto Rico, but at Guam, Hawaii to some degree, and to Venezuela now. What advantage to bringing you in as equals when you would be walled in and “hoping” (I do not say “begging”as I have no desire to be misinterpreted as belittling your concerns) for a good export deal.
There is a new PM, who is actually talking with and listening to provinces- and I believe slowly Shunting the LE out to the sidelines. He didn’t cancel the gun reg stupidity, better politics to let it die and no one enforce it. He’s not going to be signing MOU and putting Smith and Eby together so he can rejuvenate the Carbon Tax.
Please look around.. the pendulum swings slowly, I believe it is in your direction. As they say in recovery, stick around and give the miracle a chance.
Ms. Gerson debated Ms. Gerson on the risk-benefits of Alberta separating, and won...
I wonder if I should pollute my ears by listening to this ... have not done so yet.
Is the author suggesting that opinions change when the individual thinks through the consequences? How very unCanadian.
As mentioned we need to have new constitutional talks. This isn't going away
My understanding of history is that majorities are not needed to make significant change. History shows that as little as 15-20% of well organized vocal groups can win over a the majority of the citizenry that are frequently followers.
I will put my name on the petition to seperate primarily to provide inertia to create a bigger conversation -basic labor union strategy. I have no desire to become part of the USA -dead stop. In this podcast you do discuss leverage and I believe Alberta would have great leverage in any conversation with the ROC.
Seperation would isolate both BC & the Yukon and lock them out from the rest of Canada. I believe this would create an untenable situation within Canada and WOULD enable a serious conversation dealing with Albertas long list of grievences. The similar would happen with the Quebec sepeartion with the Maritimes being set adrift.
Alberta exists entirely because Canada carved it out of existing Canadian territories, and those territories are acquired pretty much entirely through treaties with Indigenous groups. It gets all its rights to the territory through Canada, and the treaties are (and continue to be) with Canada, not Alberta. Patriation complicates things, but fundamentally I think there would be serious difficulty with trying to claim separation of anywhere covered by a treaty.
Also, Quebec was delusional when it thought it'd separate as it currently is constituted - as Chretien said, if Canada is divisible so is Quebec. Alberta would be in the same boat but worse, because while you could maybe argue Quebec has an independent right to what it had at Confederation, Alberta's a creation of Parliament.
Many countries were created with the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. So too goes Canada. The crown had treaties south of us prior to the American Revolution.
The only rights any of us have are those we can defend.
If you are suggesting the US and/or China will participate in the partition of Canada in a way Albertans will support, I am skeptical.
In any armed contest between Alberta separatists and the rest of Canada, I am prepared to bet on the rest of Canada. Among other things, contact with reality is a great force multiplier, and if this comment section has made one thing clear it is that many Alberta separatists don't have it.
Steven Harper had the power and seats do something about this constitutionally but chose not to.
What are you talking about? The amending formula for the Constitution requires a majority of Parliament plus 7 provinces representing at least 50% of Canada's population.
He declined to get the ball rolling.
Garbage! There is no ball to get rolling. By that time everyone was completely sick of the endless constitutional debates and wanted a gov't that focused on running the country instead of "getting the ball rolling". The constitution of Canada is effectively frozen.
“Everyone was sick of endless constitutional debates”. That’s a pretty thin argument to let Mr Harper (a founding member of the Reform Party dedicated to empowering the west) off the hook.
The subtitle says it all and offers hope to those who will acknowledge it.
I do not have the remedy for this but I do know the west feels under valued in Confederation.
Give them the same deal as Quebec? I got nothing.
We have heard the frustrations coming from the west. Seldom, however, do we see a concerted effort from Ottawa to address them; from equalization to pipelines how is the west valued with the same measure as voter rich Ontario and Quebec. My observation of the subtitle was simply if Ottawa would embrace the west as it does central Canada. Full disclosure: I live in Cambridge ON, work in Brampton, did my undergrad in Winnipeg, was stationed at CFB Gagetown. I’ve seen a fair share of the country. Love to holiday on PEI.
Hi bud, please elaborate. To me, a plain frustration with Ottawa is not directional enough, nor focused enough, nor actively constructive enough; only a determined will to finally cut will do.