Rob Breakenridge: Alberta's 'leave' crowd would prefer that everyone else stay quiet

The separatists really don't like it when their fanciful claims are challenged.

By: Rob Breakenridge

In a speech signalling his grand entrance into the conversation about Alberta’s future in Canada, federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre emphasized the value of a conciliatory approach.

“Those who might vote to separate from Canada are not our enemies, they are our fellow citizens,” he declared. As such, he warned, “Demonizing people who have lost hope is no way to restore it. Name calling, fearmongering and ostracizing will only worsen and broaden the divide.”

It’s a nice sentiment and perhaps even a wise strategy. Poilievre is likely well-positioned to resonate with many of those voters who have legitimate concerns and might be open to voting for separation.

But is this idea of positive and respectful dialogue a two-way street? Are the leaders of the pro-Canada side holding themselves to a different standard than their counterparts on the other side?

Those organizing and agitating for separatism don’t seem bound by any such notions. That could ultimately be to their own detriment, and perhaps it even demonstrates a degree of insecurity. But it does help to demonstrate a curious double standard that’s emerged.

After months on the sidelines waiting for an official campaign declaration, organized federalist movements are now just getting off the starting blocks. The other side, though, has most definitely not been biding their time.

For the past year or so, separatists have had the stage largely to themselves. Fortunately, that’s no longer the case, but it’s revealing to now see their reaction to being pulled out of that echo chamber.

Separatist leaders seem surprised and even offended to learn that they’re not the only ones with strong feelings on this matter and that there are those who are prepared to push back on their fanciful claims.

For more than a year now, separatist leaders have been making all kinds of wild, unchallenged claims about Canada and its defenders — and suddenly they’re crying foul about what the other side has dared to put forth.

Direct criticism is perceived to be an “attack.” Counterarguments are perceived to be “fearmongering,” a standard to which they’d never hold themselves or their own claims and arguments.

Case in point was the reaction to Premier Danielle Smith’s comments earlier this month about the potential price tag of Alberta separation.

Smith’s government intends on releasing a formal analysis to that end later this summer, but she noted the rather obvious and significant costs that transitioning from a subnational government to an independent state would entail.

That includes Alberta’s share of the national debt, which the premier estimates would be roughly $170 billion. Then there’s the cost of national defence, border control, embassies, trade offices. Alberta would take on the responsibility — and expense — of a national tax collection agency and administering programs such as OAS, the Child Tax Benefit, CPP, and EI. The full list would be much longer.

As Smith notes, that’s potentially hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of start-up costs and tens of billions in ongoing costs. That hardly seems controversial, but those comments were not well received by those who have been suggesting that separation is a cheap and easy path to wealthy utopia.

According to Jeffrey Rath, lawyer for the Alberta Prosperity Project and Stay Free Alberta and a prominent face and voice for the separatist cause, the premier is spreading fear.

Rath accused Smith of cranking out “silly numbers to try to scare Albertans into not wanting to leave Canada.”

That’s an interesting accusation coming from someone who has claimed that Alberta has “the highest GDP per capita in the world” (Alberta’s per-capita GDP is roughly on par with Australia and Sweden — outside the top 10 globally and less than half that of those at the top of the list).

Or, as detailed by journalist Richard Warnica, Rath’s colleague Mitch Sylvestre, who headed the Stay Free Alberta petition drive, has claimed that Canada has both the “lowest GDP in the industrialized world” and the “highest and most individual taxes of any country in the world.” Both claims, of course, are demonstrably false and absurd (it’s hard to imagine how Alberta could have the highest per-capita GDP in the world while Canada has the industrialized world’s lowest GDP).

There is more to the separatist cause than just economic arguments, but those are surely the most prominent and compelling for the cause’s supporters and sympathizers. But if those are exaggerated and untrue claims about our current reality or our hypothetical pollyannish future, that should be challenged.

As Smith said, “it’s responsible for us to be very forthright about the costs associated” with separation so that voters “can make an informed decision.” It’s not fearmongering to do so, especially in the face of what separatist leaders are pushing.

The Poilievre case for selling hope instead of “telling Albertans how bad separation would be” might still have merit, but we also need to be honest about what’s at stake.

The reality of this referendum campaign, coupled with some of that sober analysis, could be starting to affect public sentiment. A pair of new polls suggest the support for separation is sagging, sitting at around 20 per cent.

According to another prominent voice in the separatist movement, though, this is much more sophisticated and sinister than mere public-opinion tracking. David Parker, of Take Back Alberta and Centurion Project fame, declared that these polls “are a psychological operation meant to demoralize people.”

It’s not right to demoralize people, according to the same person who has suggested that Canada has “changed in horrible and truly evil ways, into a culture of death,” that it’s “going full communist,” and that its leaders have engaged in an “intentional destruction of our middle class.”

That’s not to say we shouldn’t take these individuals seriously, in that they have clearly exerted some influence within the separatist movement. But there’s no reason to take them at face value when they bemoan the political discourse or suggest their opponents are acting unfair or in bad faith.

Poilievre’s not wrong when he says the goal should not be to “beat” one another in the referendum. It should be to “unite when it is over,” because we will need to find a way to unite after once we’re past all of this.

But, for now, the reality is that we’re locked in a referendum campaign that has two possible and significant outcomes. The side that’s been pushing for this vote is definitely doing everything it can to “beat” the other side.

Federalists should make the most compelling argument for the “remain” side, and should strive to do so based on facts and evidence. But there should be no apologies for trying to win.

There’s no need to refrain from rebutting separatist claims, let alone walking on eggshells or donning kid gloves.

Rob Breakenridge is a Calgary-based podcaster and writer. He can be found at robbreakenridge.ca and and reached at rob.breakenridge@gmail.com

---

The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded. No federal subsidies, no bailouts. If you value our work, please consider supporting us by subscribing or making a donation. Donations are not subscriptions and do not unlock paywalled content, but they help keep The Line independent

---

To contact The Line with a general inquiry or comment, please email info@readtheline.ca. For other ways to connect with us or to follow us on social media, please see our LinkTree.