I think it is less about needing a thank you and more about being sick of being told F-you. When Alberta wants to expand its industry through more tidewater access, something your article shows to clearly benefit all of Canada through outsized tax contributions, everyone lines up to tell them where to go. From Quebec, to BC to first nations. Kind of ironic that the people who pull the most financially from this country, are also the loudest voices against developing its economy. And for those who disagree that BC is a have not province. Just wait, Eby is working on that...
The other parts of Canada that'll accommodate a pipeline have got real concerns about potential environmental impacts, and they'll also benefit a lot less than Alberta. I think the environmental impacts are overblown (the risks aren't as high as people think, and they can be mitigated), but they're also not frivolous. So do the work to persuade them - that's what you have to do in a confederation. It sucks that big international activist groups targeted pipelines as part of their war on oil. That's also out of Alberta's (and Canada's) control.
Where Alberta has got really solid ground is pushing for reform to the regulatory approval process. It was snarled up before the Trudeau era, and Trudeau made it worse. Alberta should be able to find common ground with other provinces on that issue: Quebec faces hurdles for hydro projects, Ontario faces hurdles for nuclear and mining. Get that fixed and then a pipeline proposal has got a fair chance of making it through approval without getting jammed up by small and astroturfed activist groups. It still doesn't remove the need to persuade other Canadians to support a pipeline, though.
Alberta cannot simply dictate to people in British Columbia, and those in First Nations, to do this or not do that, simply because of "tidewater access".
Nor, for that matter, can Ottawa do so.
And no, of course I do not believe that every political approval process should be readily subject to impediments thrown up by vociferous minorities.
But the last thing we should be encouraging is dialogue that encourages a resort to violence and to attitudes that permit the majority to run roughshod over local sensibilities.
No federal government worth its salt would wish to run roughshod over local sensibilities. We are long past the NEP and Oka.
Any federal governing party that did decide to run roughshod over local sensibilities would pay the price for decades—just as the Liberals have done (until recently, if polls of voter intentions in Alberta and Saskatchewan are to be believed).
However, I was surprised by your failure to mention the way in which successive Conservative Party politicians have sought to play the populist blame game.
It happens almost all the time, often when the Government of Alberta has been embroiled in a corruption scandal, or has been called out in court rulings, or has deliberately pitted Albertans against other Albertans, as we saw during the manoeuvring that eventually led to last year’s disastrous teachers’ strike.
Decades of propaganda and conditioning, leading to a situation where, even now, people still claim that they were damaged by the NEP, which was ended more than four decades ago.
As an Albertan born and bred, but who now lives elsewhere in Canada, I am repelled by the claims of the separatists—and the perfidy of politicians who, like children playing with fire, encourage their the separatists’ grievances and rage.
I was not in Alberta during the NEP. But please note that the fallout from those times still affects families and individuals. It was nasty. Central Canada wanted to hurt the west. Get a grip.
I was living in Alberta as a young man. Just entering the job market. I found a job. My partner and I made a life for ourselves.
Four plus decades. It was a VERY long time ago. But apparently not long enough for every narrative-spinning politician and bloody minded partisan to continue milking it for political reasons.
Those 10 year old kids whose parents lost their house, and so they faced major unpleasant life changes, are now in their 50's. Many of their parents who went through it as adults are now in their 70's will still be alive for some time yet. No matter how well-to-do they are now, they will grasp that the party that caused the NEP awfulness is still at it, disadvantaging the west.
I note that the federal Liberals are not meeting the timeline of their agreement with the UCP. Neither are they paying for expenses that none of our competitor countries require.
For every one of those people you mentioned, I'll wager that I know several dozen who have prospered, and would not leave Alberta because of how good their lives there have been.
What I wrote was not meant to belittle the suffering of those who lost jobs because of the NEP. It was meant, instead, to put this into perspective. It was a historical event.
And I will also step out on a limb and argue that very, very few of these separatists who want to pull Alberta out of Canada have ANYTHING to do with families whose lives were upset by the NEP.
From my limited experience you are right that few separatists are people who were much affected by the NEP. When the same party is up to the same attitudes in the present, then people are getting a different perspective than you may be hoping for.
I'm not quite sure I understood the second half of your comment, though.
Was it your intention to refer to the succession of renamed centre-right parties that have held power in Alberta for 51 of the last 56 years, or the federal Liberal Party?
Alberta has all the cards and the ROC doesn't know it yet. That's my take. The minute Trump even whispers he would recognize Alberta independence it's over. This is a very very real possibility Canada must never ever ignore.
When I hear or read someone say The province has been demonized enough by folks who think the National Energy Program is whining, II typically figure it's another person who didn't live through "decades of propaganda and conditioning, leading to a situation where, even now, people still claim that they were damaged by the NEP, which was ended more than four decades ago."
I'm glad you found a place in Canada for yourself. I hope you never lose it because of Ottawa.
People lost everything during the NEP/ Everything. Kind of traumatizing, don't you think? Intergenerational trauma even.
Do you really think it would just be "we declare our independence" and that would be that?
As for the implication of your previous remarks, did you not read my previous comments?
QUOTE
I was living in Alberta as a young man. Just entering the job market. I found a job. My partner and I made a life for ourselves.
Four plus decades. It was a VERY long time ago. But apparently not long enough for every narrative-spinning politician and bloody minded partisan to continue milking it for political reasons.
AND
For every one of those people you mentioned, I'll wager that I know several dozen who have prospered, and would not leave Alberta because of how good their lives there have been.
What I wrote was not meant to belittle the suffering of those who lost jobs because of the NEP. It was meant, instead, to put this into perspective. It was a historical event.
And I will also step out on a limb and argue that very, very few of these separatists who want to pull Alberta out of Canada have ANYTHING to do with families whose lives were upset by the NEP.
I didn't suggest you belittled anybody, friend. Moreover, I didn't argue that Albertans would "declare our independence".
I suggested there is a possibility that Trump might recognize Alberta independence. For me there would, I suspect, be a geopolitical earthquake. Band-aids over local, provincial and federal grievances would be torn off leading to events that would unravel of the country.
Would Canada would likely cut off formal ties with the U.S? I would think the Canadian dollar would crash. Ottawa would move to block the decision somehow, perhaps using emergency powers. Could Canada call in the army? Sure but civil liberties would need to be suspended and this is a country that loses its shit if the wifi goes down.
For me, there would be destabilization of everything from house values to life savings, far more than the instability of this matter impacting current provincial and federal economies.
The pandemic changed the world and it is changing our corner of it,
I think we are a very, very long way from a hypothetical decision by a Trump presidency.
Much depends on how Albertans understand the process, the effectiveness of provincial politicians who advocate for Canadian unity and the position of the current premier.
She is playing a dangerous and partisan game, but her opposite number has demonstrated a decided lack of political nous.
And then, of course, there is Mark Carney. I worry about his political nous, as well.
My reading of this article says differently. It is NOT just about the "current government", but about attitudes and beliefs. These are not formed in years, but over decades.
Rob tangentially touches on a very good point: that is, that Ontario could be easily sliced up into several Provinces, given the varying political cultures found within different parts of the Province.
There is the North, the mid-North, Southwestern Ontario, the GTA, the Eastern Counties, and Niagara. On a map of individual political ridings, there is a lot of Blue in some areas, and a lot of Red in others.
I live in a London Ontario riding that would vote red if the Liberals ran a dead skunk, painted red. Ten minutes north of me the electoral map is nothing but blue.
Most of Ontario geographically, is not unlike Alberta itself. In fact, we are a lot more like Alberta than, perhaps, Alberta would like to admit.
Agree Ontario for one is a ripe candidate for a breakup into more culturally homogeneous pieces. And outside of Toronto the culture is definitely more maker than taker. Certainly West of Thunder Bay people relate more to Winnipeg than to the woke groomers of Metro Toronto. And IIRC when I lived in London in the late 60s it definitely was a white collar town with Insurance Companies and a University and a community college - that barely tolerated Ford’s assembly plant in St Thomas next door.
And breaking Ontario up would hopefully result in people paying less attention to a bozo like Doug Ford who can’t figure out how to pour whiskey from a bottle and has done more harm than anyone else to Canada’s ability to negotiate a trade deal with the US.
My experience is that Alberta’s expectation is that this gratitude should be expressed through voting for a Conservative government. Voting for the Liberals again is perceived as a slap in the face and no other party is viable at this point. Meanwhile, Alberta more than anybody, is pushing that Conservative party further and further right making them unelectable in most of the country without a massive vote split on the left.
Yes, this perception is being exacerbated by the Liberals and the media, but Poillievre is more right leaning than O’Toole or Scheer were. I don’t know how you’d argue otherwise, so its not like there is some effort being made to come to an alternative compromise. This pushes the rest of the country to believe that Alberta wants dominance, not compromise. Some in Alberta seem to feel like its their turn to be in charge, and the rest of the country should just deal with it.
The rest of the country forced Trudeau out. He’s not unemployed because Alberta and the West hates him. He was wildly unpopular and people were tired of him. He was replaced by Carney who is decidedly to the right of Trudeau. Its a step in the right direction, no? Do you want words or actual actions that the country is moving in the right direction.
When you say 'Alberta is more than anybody is pushing the conservative party right thereby making them unelectable' tell me how that works. Walk me through it.
Many Canadians might well view Albertans as folks who just fell out of the turnip truck on the way back from a prayer meeting. Out of touch with the rest of Canada's values, etc.
For Albertans (not all but a hell of a lot} Something in confederation is not working, I think. What say you?
For me, the way to fix this is to renegotiate everything, yes, another attempt at a Charlottetown accord. If that cannot work, then how can Canada work.? The only way to make Canada work is to make Canada work for Canadians. Right now, it seems to work quite well for Quebec,
“Stirring the pot” has worked for Politicians of all stripes in Alberta with the Conservatives leading the charge. The NEP maybe long gone but it left a legacy that was resurrected by Trudeau 2.0. My great grandfather came to the west as a NWMP recruit, long before Alberta was a province. Americans were creating havoc back then as they are now. Sadly, regional division has become an end in itself with many politicians. Threading the needle to victory has led to the unraveling of national unity.
I grew up hearing about the freight rates and how they enriched central Canada at the expense of the Prairie provinces. The National Energy Program I believe generated some permanent resentment in Alberta. Justin Trudeau's push for climate change I thought was a slap in the face to Alberta. It was also incredibly misguided. We were the only one of the top ten oil producers in the world talking about cutting our production. Covid produced a small group of enraged people in this province who, by taking out thousands of memberships in the UCP, have hijacked the party. Their fury has morphed from being anti-vaxxers to being separatists. I share the sense that Alberta doesn't get the respect we deserve but I don't see separatism as the answer.
For me, this was never about a pipeline. It is just a continuation of what a lot of folks in Alberta now in their 50s and older who lived through the National Energy Program know all too well.
Today's disgruntlement, I think, stems from that traumatic event followed by decades of government scandal (sponsorship) and ineptitude and only showing itself to be more interested in keeping Quebec separatists at bay. The oil is industry is embedded into the fabric of Alberta culture, I think. I'm not sure Canada gets that or that Ottawa gives a damn.
The NEP wasn’t just a policy; it was a rupture in trust.
It told Albertans, in the most direct way possible, that Ottawa was willing to treat one province as expendable in service of a national project designed somewhere else. Fourty four years since the constitution was repatriated and Quebec hasn't signed on yet and won't. Why should they - Quebec gets what it wants to keep them in Confederation.
Ten years of Katy Perry's preening boyfriend firing broadsides at Alberta - big ass broadsides - like trying to shut down the oil industry, and demonizing a province for its primary industry that bankrolls a significant part of Confederation. Are there reasons to trust Ottawa? Damned if I can think of one.
Oil has made Alberta rich.
I should mention there is this shitty Canadian habit whereby we like to tear down people who get too "big for their britches". (Code for making it big in life). We don't celebrate our success stories, we like to 'take 'em down a peg'. So, I think Alberta is a victim of this uniquely Canadian mindset.
Finally, I don't think Canadians know very much about their country and the people who live here. We are a nation that doesn't celebrate its own. Never understood that but here is what I can tell you: this country's national media does a piss poor job of covering Canada, say, in the way the BBC historically has done. (Yes, I know BBC has its share of CBC like problems.} Still, both have, in the past, produced damned good historical documentaries, for example. Same thing for most anything cultural. The history of that nation is central to its national identity. Canada? Not so much.
The best thing for CBC, I believe, is to move the whole damned thing to Regina for its HQ.
Interesting but really you miss all the major important points that underlie the Alberta feelings and drive the separatist agenda. Of note the Alberta Separatist agenda is totally unlike the Quebec one; in Quebec its all about money. They already own a Constitutionally guaranteed disproportionate sway in Ottawa and Lib-math knows this which is why they concentrate on barely winning enough ridings in Quebec, the east, Ottawa and Toronto. That's all they need so why waste time or effort elsewhere. (If you doubt this look at their handling of firearms owners, they literally do not give a thin watery crap about them because they are not located where the Liberals need them so they can abuse those people to gain votes where they DO want them. Watch the final payout from the confiscation; essentially zero dollars will go to any owners outside of Quebec because the Libs think they MIGHT get some votes there so they will risk paying a gun owner in Quebec before they will give a used wooden nickel to one west of there.) Quebec knows they can select the Prime Minister and run all things financial so they win. And win and win and win. And Alberta sees this and has gotten zero respect, thanks, or support for anything they want to do out of Ottawa. Pipeline anyone? Hell no, we will use Albertas transfer "payments" to buy LNG from Australia before we put in a pipeline to use Albertas.
Alberta literally pays for the east. And they have ZERO say about it. I don't think the latest turn coat Jeneroux is going to suddenly make Albertan's feel all loved in Ottawa. The amount of money extracted is set by Ottawa and enforced from there. Albertans are expected to puke up whatever Ottawa demands and then shut up. And I say this as an Ontarian watching this very closely because rural Ontario is also abused EXACTLY the same way as Alberta. Non-Toronto/Ottawa Ontario probably has more in common with Alberta than any other part of the country when it comes to gross under representation and fiscal complete non-representation.
Until the Constitution is rewritten to actually recognize that PEI deserves ONE seat in Parliament not 4 (NB, NS, and Quebec are also massively over represented), that Senators should actually represent Canadians first and be elected to office not appointed to rubber stamp whatever the current largest party in Parliament shoves their way, and that property ownership means something we will continue to have this fight.
Right now about the only thing that may save this country IS Alberta voting to hand Danielle Smith the papers to potentially separate. The loss of their bank is the only thing that might get the Laurentians to the table because we all know they think they are better than us AND they think that we should be happy to just be tolerated in their presence. Trudeau said it "Quebecers are better" (look up the interview) and Mr. Brookfield reinforced it at the WEF more than once. Until enough Canadians - and this means we need way more than the Libs - get together and change the Government we will continue to be abused by Ottawa and the CBC will tell you you are lucky! If Carney gets a majority and we get 4+ more years of continuing Tru-topian destruction of our history and wealth this country will be done. Alberta WILL leave and so will anyone that is at all portable. All to the benefit of the US. What's left here will rot while serving the Mr. Brookfields of the world.
Sigh. Quebec has 7000 fewer people per seat than Alberta. This is hardly an outrageous imbalance (they are also above the national average). Quebec, BC, Ontario and Alberta have roughly the same number. Everyone else is overrepresented. This information is trivial to find.
Freaking out about PEI having three extra MPs does not exactly suggest a well-balanced concern with actual issues in the federation. Saskatchewan has more extra MPs than PEI does.
It is that Albertans think they deserve more. Thus, they point to things they see as unfair. The problem is that dealing with Alberta makes it quite clear that as soon as things do become fair on a point, Albertans move on to 'well this other thing should be ours too.' Because it is about the feeling, not about concrete actual concerns. Quebec has a similar problem.
As I said, it is about the feeling. Jurisdictional overreach I might give you, and certainly federal energy and climate policies have been difficult - though the bit where the province tried to catch on fire last year suggests that that is a necessary balancing act. That said it seems to be far more a case of 'we're making less money than we could make' not 'we're not making money.'
But most of this is about the feelings, as you have seen amply demonstrated in the comment section by now. People routinely claim Quebec is over-represented with MPs when it isn't, for example. Or going 'no one built pipelines' when there literally is a Trudeau-built pipeline. Or clearly not understanding how equalization works. Actual facts are very rare, people's feelings very prominent, and given the feelings aren't based in facts that is VERY hard to do much about.
As I said, everyone except Alberta, Quebec, Ontario, and BC are overrepresented. Which includes Saskatchewan and Manitoba, I might add. Assuming that population should be the sole metric for these things, which is hardly mandatory.
There is also the question of just how much of the population of Alberta is Atlantic Canadians and others there for work, I might add...
EDIT: Oh, and the population was 4.4 million when the numbers were set. Rather an important difference.
Of course there is disparity—we are working off the 1867 model of Canada in the twenty first century. Of course Canada has long done national politics to keep Quebec placated—Liberal and CPC. We need to update the constitution for the era of wireless communication and electric cars
He will get his majority. For me. the CPC is currently divided under an extremely unlikeable leader and the polls show it. I expect the CPC will get their clocks cleaned when an election happens this year.
Certainly Albertan's (past and present) deserve recognition for harnessing their natural resources, but let's not forget that having those natural resources to harness is an accident of geography.
And clearly there are other provinces who don't do as good a job of harnessing their own.
Personally, I think the whole concept of a federation of provinces (fiefdoms, more like) is an anachronism and counterproductive to the overall health of the nation. I'm a Canadian, not an Ontarian. Ontario just happens to be the place in Canada where I live. (Because it has the best weather ;) )
You get 9 solid months of golf weather in Essex County and you even get to see the sun in the winter. It's also way more convenient to modern conveniences like a proper international airport and good hospitals and shopping.
Your middle paragraph says it all. The culture of a lot of the eastern provinces seems to be that it’s more lucrative to chase entitlements paid for by the fruit of other’s labor than to actually develop your resources yourself. And this is encouraged by the central Laurentian elites and Quebec French who steal the entitlement funding from the producing provinces. And the pity parties called Federal elections are basically about who will pay what to whom (like the 19th century Indian potlatches banned by the Colonial masters) and how much will be paid by current voters and how much by children born and unborn through borrowing.
I’m told that the weather in the Okanagan valley is second to none in Canada. But yes southwestern Ontario can be nice. It sure as hell isn’t in Ottawa 😹
Yes I did thank you. Makes a lot more sense than the current system.
The ratchet type means testing developed by Ottawa bureaucrats used with income supplements are also a disincentive. Typically when you reach a certain threshold your benefits start to be reduced until they disappear. This discourages seeking employment and drives workers into the cash economy. When I think of the costs to administer means testing I always wonder if it isn’t better to get rid of the testing and just let the tax system recover part of the benefits from high income earners.
Actually, under a negative income tax basic income, high earners would never get benefits.
The transition from being on a single basic income (as a negative tax) to positive tax on your income would be the same line for everyone (except say, seniors and the disabled).
e.g. simple numbers example, which is actually close to the real numbers worked out using 2017 data:
basic personal amount 25K, single rate 40%. So at 0 income, basic income equals 10K. As income increases it gets "taxed" or more accurately, clawed back at 40% so that at 25K there is no basic income and no tax paid. All income in excess of 25K is taxed at 40%. The 40% is a weighted average of fed+prov rates and as I said in the other post, would be a lot higher in QC and the Maritimes.
Make sense. The US has some benefits along that line IIRC. The big issue is to get people who would benefit to file. I know the IRS (I suspect Revenue Canada also) does not release filers’s info to other agencies. Undocumented immigrants who would qualify are still afraid of the info going to immigration law enforcement. And people who employ(illegally) these people would also be reluctant to issue Income documents (T4s or W2s depending in country.
A change in attitude is fine, but does not make up for central Canadas' continual efforts to keep Alberta and the west from reaching our economic potential. Central Canada seems to have a constant need to interfere in business in the west, to avoid the reality of situations, and to work hard to keep us down.
I am a federalist and do not want to leave Canada. I actively cooperate with environmental efforts such as recycling, energy efficient everything and so on. But it's obvious that when Canada as a whole produces some 1.5% of the world's greenhouse gases, climate change was weaponized to aggressively harm the west. If central Canada wants unproven carbon sequestration, they can raise money to pay for it, and should not burden us, investors, or taxpayers with the expense, especially since as they continually point out, oil prices rise and fall. .
Canada generates 1.5 percent of the world's anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, with only 0.5 percent of the world's population. Roughly speaking, we therefore generate about three times as much per capita than "the average" person globally.
Furthermore, more than 80 percent of Canadians live in urban settings. 73 percent of Canadians, moreover, live in the biggest cities. This means that we do not, as a matter of course, commute daily or even weekly from far-flung places in the country to the places where we work in urban centres.
Our GHG emissions are, therefore, more about industrial policy than they are about transportation needs.
We can reduce emissions (nuclear power instead of natural gas for rendering oil sands into crude oil, for example).
There are numerous countries that would like Canada to fall apart so that they could pick up the pieces.
With the war going on in the Middle East, I am always surprised by the number of geographically small countries. All these tiny countries rely on someone else to defend themselves. (Good reason for Canada to rebuild its military). The smaller they get, the less influence they have in their own destiny.
I lived in Quebec during both referendums. That was always my best reason, when talking to my French speaking neighbours, for staying united.
Everyone knows a family where one sibling, either by luck or hard work does better than everyone else. They also know that sibling gets way more attention now than before they started doing well. That sibling also tends to be resented behind their backs yet that doesn't stop all the demands.
I think it is less about needing a thank you and more about being sick of being told F-you. When Alberta wants to expand its industry through more tidewater access, something your article shows to clearly benefit all of Canada through outsized tax contributions, everyone lines up to tell them where to go. From Quebec, to BC to first nations. Kind of ironic that the people who pull the most financially from this country, are also the loudest voices against developing its economy. And for those who disagree that BC is a have not province. Just wait, Eby is working on that...
The other parts of Canada that'll accommodate a pipeline have got real concerns about potential environmental impacts, and they'll also benefit a lot less than Alberta. I think the environmental impacts are overblown (the risks aren't as high as people think, and they can be mitigated), but they're also not frivolous. So do the work to persuade them - that's what you have to do in a confederation. It sucks that big international activist groups targeted pipelines as part of their war on oil. That's also out of Alberta's (and Canada's) control.
Where Alberta has got really solid ground is pushing for reform to the regulatory approval process. It was snarled up before the Trudeau era, and Trudeau made it worse. Alberta should be able to find common ground with other provinces on that issue: Quebec faces hurdles for hydro projects, Ontario faces hurdles for nuclear and mining. Get that fixed and then a pipeline proposal has got a fair chance of making it through approval without getting jammed up by small and astroturfed activist groups. It still doesn't remove the need to persuade other Canadians to support a pipeline, though.
Alberta cannot simply dictate to people in British Columbia, and those in First Nations, to do this or not do that, simply because of "tidewater access".
Nor, for that matter, can Ottawa do so.
And no, of course I do not believe that every political approval process should be readily subject to impediments thrown up by vociferous minorities.
But the last thing we should be encouraging is dialogue that encourages a resort to violence and to attitudes that permit the majority to run roughshod over local sensibilities.
Actually interprovincial projects are exclusively federal jurisdiction.
No federal government worth its salt would wish to run roughshod over local sensibilities. We are long past the NEP and Oka.
Any federal governing party that did decide to run roughshod over local sensibilities would pay the price for decades—just as the Liberals have done (until recently, if polls of voter intentions in Alberta and Saskatchewan are to be believed).
Then what is the point of a federal government if it isn't to balance interests instead of just giving everyone a veto?
You can see where the Alberta separatists have a point. Why even be part of the Canadian project if it does nothing much you can't do yourself.
“Balancing interests” is an important federal function.
But surely being seen as the spoiler in a bitter inter-regional dispute was precisely what got the feds into trouble in 1980?
I'm not sure taking from one region to give to another qualifies the same way as building infrastructure connecting the country together.
That said, incentives have to be there to support a project. Why would someone support something with only downside for them?
Correct.
Sort of. As a separate country they actually can.
Thank you for this.
However, I was surprised by your failure to mention the way in which successive Conservative Party politicians have sought to play the populist blame game.
It happens almost all the time, often when the Government of Alberta has been embroiled in a corruption scandal, or has been called out in court rulings, or has deliberately pitted Albertans against other Albertans, as we saw during the manoeuvring that eventually led to last year’s disastrous teachers’ strike.
Decades of propaganda and conditioning, leading to a situation where, even now, people still claim that they were damaged by the NEP, which was ended more than four decades ago.
As an Albertan born and bred, but who now lives elsewhere in Canada, I am repelled by the claims of the separatists—and the perfidy of politicians who, like children playing with fire, encourage their the separatists’ grievances and rage.
I was not in Alberta during the NEP. But please note that the fallout from those times still affects families and individuals. It was nasty. Central Canada wanted to hurt the west. Get a grip.
I was living in Alberta as a young man. Just entering the job market. I found a job. My partner and I made a life for ourselves.
Four plus decades. It was a VERY long time ago. But apparently not long enough for every narrative-spinning politician and bloody minded partisan to continue milking it for political reasons.
Those 10 year old kids whose parents lost their house, and so they faced major unpleasant life changes, are now in their 50's. Many of their parents who went through it as adults are now in their 70's will still be alive for some time yet. No matter how well-to-do they are now, they will grasp that the party that caused the NEP awfulness is still at it, disadvantaging the west.
I note that the federal Liberals are not meeting the timeline of their agreement with the UCP. Neither are they paying for expenses that none of our competitor countries require.
For every one of those people you mentioned, I'll wager that I know several dozen who have prospered, and would not leave Alberta because of how good their lives there have been.
What I wrote was not meant to belittle the suffering of those who lost jobs because of the NEP. It was meant, instead, to put this into perspective. It was a historical event.
And I will also step out on a limb and argue that very, very few of these separatists who want to pull Alberta out of Canada have ANYTHING to do with families whose lives were upset by the NEP.
From my limited experience you are right that few separatists are people who were much affected by the NEP. When the same party is up to the same attitudes in the present, then people are getting a different perspective than you may be hoping for.
Indeed.
I'm not quite sure I understood the second half of your comment, though.
Was it your intention to refer to the succession of renamed centre-right parties that have held power in Alberta for 51 of the last 56 years, or the federal Liberal Party?
Alberta has all the cards and the ROC doesn't know it yet. That's my take. The minute Trump even whispers he would recognize Alberta independence it's over. This is a very very real possibility Canada must never ever ignore.
When I hear or read someone say The province has been demonized enough by folks who think the National Energy Program is whining, II typically figure it's another person who didn't live through "decades of propaganda and conditioning, leading to a situation where, even now, people still claim that they were damaged by the NEP, which was ended more than four decades ago."
I'm glad you found a place in Canada for yourself. I hope you never lose it because of Ottawa.
People lost everything during the NEP/ Everything. Kind of traumatizing, don't you think? Intergenerational trauma even.
Do you really think it would just be "we declare our independence" and that would be that?
As for the implication of your previous remarks, did you not read my previous comments?
QUOTE
I was living in Alberta as a young man. Just entering the job market. I found a job. My partner and I made a life for ourselves.
Four plus decades. It was a VERY long time ago. But apparently not long enough for every narrative-spinning politician and bloody minded partisan to continue milking it for political reasons.
AND
For every one of those people you mentioned, I'll wager that I know several dozen who have prospered, and would not leave Alberta because of how good their lives there have been.
What I wrote was not meant to belittle the suffering of those who lost jobs because of the NEP. It was meant, instead, to put this into perspective. It was a historical event.
And I will also step out on a limb and argue that very, very few of these separatists who want to pull Alberta out of Canada have ANYTHING to do with families whose lives were upset by the NEP.
END QUOTE
I didn't suggest you belittled anybody, friend. Moreover, I didn't argue that Albertans would "declare our independence".
I suggested there is a possibility that Trump might recognize Alberta independence. For me there would, I suspect, be a geopolitical earthquake. Band-aids over local, provincial and federal grievances would be torn off leading to events that would unravel of the country.
Would Canada would likely cut off formal ties with the U.S? I would think the Canadian dollar would crash. Ottawa would move to block the decision somehow, perhaps using emergency powers. Could Canada call in the army? Sure but civil liberties would need to be suspended and this is a country that loses its shit if the wifi goes down.
For me, there would be destabilization of everything from house values to life savings, far more than the instability of this matter impacting current provincial and federal economies.
The pandemic changed the world and it is changing our corner of it,
I think we are a very, very long way from a hypothetical decision by a Trump presidency.
Much depends on how Albertans understand the process, the effectiveness of provincial politicians who advocate for Canadian unity and the position of the current premier.
She is playing a dangerous and partisan game, but her opposite number has demonstrated a decided lack of political nous.
And then, of course, there is Mark Carney. I worry about his political nous, as well.
I put it at 50/50. The man is a lunatic and none can control him.
I thought he was writing about the current government. I imagine most folks would agree, don't you?
My reading of this article says differently. It is NOT just about the "current government", but about attitudes and beliefs. These are not formed in years, but over decades.
Such is life.
Rob tangentially touches on a very good point: that is, that Ontario could be easily sliced up into several Provinces, given the varying political cultures found within different parts of the Province.
There is the North, the mid-North, Southwestern Ontario, the GTA, the Eastern Counties, and Niagara. On a map of individual political ridings, there is a lot of Blue in some areas, and a lot of Red in others.
I live in a London Ontario riding that would vote red if the Liberals ran a dead skunk, painted red. Ten minutes north of me the electoral map is nothing but blue.
Most of Ontario geographically, is not unlike Alberta itself. In fact, we are a lot more like Alberta than, perhaps, Alberta would like to admit.
Agree Ontario for one is a ripe candidate for a breakup into more culturally homogeneous pieces. And outside of Toronto the culture is definitely more maker than taker. Certainly West of Thunder Bay people relate more to Winnipeg than to the woke groomers of Metro Toronto. And IIRC when I lived in London in the late 60s it definitely was a white collar town with Insurance Companies and a University and a community college - that barely tolerated Ford’s assembly plant in St Thomas next door.
And breaking Ontario up would hopefully result in people paying less attention to a bozo like Doug Ford who can’t figure out how to pour whiskey from a bottle and has done more harm than anyone else to Canada’s ability to negotiate a trade deal with the US.
My experience is that Alberta’s expectation is that this gratitude should be expressed through voting for a Conservative government. Voting for the Liberals again is perceived as a slap in the face and no other party is viable at this point. Meanwhile, Alberta more than anybody, is pushing that Conservative party further and further right making them unelectable in most of the country without a massive vote split on the left.
Yes, this perception is being exacerbated by the Liberals and the media, but Poillievre is more right leaning than O’Toole or Scheer were. I don’t know how you’d argue otherwise, so its not like there is some effort being made to come to an alternative compromise. This pushes the rest of the country to believe that Alberta wants dominance, not compromise. Some in Alberta seem to feel like its their turn to be in charge, and the rest of the country should just deal with it.
The rest of the country forced Trudeau out. He’s not unemployed because Alberta and the West hates him. He was wildly unpopular and people were tired of him. He was replaced by Carney who is decidedly to the right of Trudeau. Its a step in the right direction, no? Do you want words or actual actions that the country is moving in the right direction.
When you say 'Alberta is more than anybody is pushing the conservative party right thereby making them unelectable' tell me how that works. Walk me through it.
Many Canadians might well view Albertans as folks who just fell out of the turnip truck on the way back from a prayer meeting. Out of touch with the rest of Canada's values, etc.
For Albertans (not all but a hell of a lot} Something in confederation is not working, I think. What say you?
For me, the way to fix this is to renegotiate everything, yes, another attempt at a Charlottetown accord. If that cannot work, then how can Canada work.? The only way to make Canada work is to make Canada work for Canadians. Right now, it seems to work quite well for Quebec,
“Stirring the pot” has worked for Politicians of all stripes in Alberta with the Conservatives leading the charge. The NEP maybe long gone but it left a legacy that was resurrected by Trudeau 2.0. My great grandfather came to the west as a NWMP recruit, long before Alberta was a province. Americans were creating havoc back then as they are now. Sadly, regional division has become an end in itself with many politicians. Threading the needle to victory has led to the unraveling of national unity.
I grew up hearing about the freight rates and how they enriched central Canada at the expense of the Prairie provinces. The National Energy Program I believe generated some permanent resentment in Alberta. Justin Trudeau's push for climate change I thought was a slap in the face to Alberta. It was also incredibly misguided. We were the only one of the top ten oil producers in the world talking about cutting our production. Covid produced a small group of enraged people in this province who, by taking out thousands of memberships in the UCP, have hijacked the party. Their fury has morphed from being anti-vaxxers to being separatists. I share the sense that Alberta doesn't get the respect we deserve but I don't see separatism as the answer.
Absolutely agree with your comment.
For me, this was never about a pipeline. It is just a continuation of what a lot of folks in Alberta now in their 50s and older who lived through the National Energy Program know all too well.
Today's disgruntlement, I think, stems from that traumatic event followed by decades of government scandal (sponsorship) and ineptitude and only showing itself to be more interested in keeping Quebec separatists at bay. The oil is industry is embedded into the fabric of Alberta culture, I think. I'm not sure Canada gets that or that Ottawa gives a damn.
The NEP wasn’t just a policy; it was a rupture in trust.
It told Albertans, in the most direct way possible, that Ottawa was willing to treat one province as expendable in service of a national project designed somewhere else. Fourty four years since the constitution was repatriated and Quebec hasn't signed on yet and won't. Why should they - Quebec gets what it wants to keep them in Confederation.
Ten years of Katy Perry's preening boyfriend firing broadsides at Alberta - big ass broadsides - like trying to shut down the oil industry, and demonizing a province for its primary industry that bankrolls a significant part of Confederation. Are there reasons to trust Ottawa? Damned if I can think of one.
Oil has made Alberta rich.
I should mention there is this shitty Canadian habit whereby we like to tear down people who get too "big for their britches". (Code for making it big in life). We don't celebrate our success stories, we like to 'take 'em down a peg'. So, I think Alberta is a victim of this uniquely Canadian mindset.
Finally, I don't think Canadians know very much about their country and the people who live here. We are a nation that doesn't celebrate its own. Never understood that but here is what I can tell you: this country's national media does a piss poor job of covering Canada, say, in the way the BBC historically has done. (Yes, I know BBC has its share of CBC like problems.} Still, both have, in the past, produced damned good historical documentaries, for example. Same thing for most anything cultural. The history of that nation is central to its national identity. Canada? Not so much.
The best thing for CBC, I believe, is to move the whole damned thing to Regina for its HQ.
Interesting but really you miss all the major important points that underlie the Alberta feelings and drive the separatist agenda. Of note the Alberta Separatist agenda is totally unlike the Quebec one; in Quebec its all about money. They already own a Constitutionally guaranteed disproportionate sway in Ottawa and Lib-math knows this which is why they concentrate on barely winning enough ridings in Quebec, the east, Ottawa and Toronto. That's all they need so why waste time or effort elsewhere. (If you doubt this look at their handling of firearms owners, they literally do not give a thin watery crap about them because they are not located where the Liberals need them so they can abuse those people to gain votes where they DO want them. Watch the final payout from the confiscation; essentially zero dollars will go to any owners outside of Quebec because the Libs think they MIGHT get some votes there so they will risk paying a gun owner in Quebec before they will give a used wooden nickel to one west of there.) Quebec knows they can select the Prime Minister and run all things financial so they win. And win and win and win. And Alberta sees this and has gotten zero respect, thanks, or support for anything they want to do out of Ottawa. Pipeline anyone? Hell no, we will use Albertas transfer "payments" to buy LNG from Australia before we put in a pipeline to use Albertas.
Alberta literally pays for the east. And they have ZERO say about it. I don't think the latest turn coat Jeneroux is going to suddenly make Albertan's feel all loved in Ottawa. The amount of money extracted is set by Ottawa and enforced from there. Albertans are expected to puke up whatever Ottawa demands and then shut up. And I say this as an Ontarian watching this very closely because rural Ontario is also abused EXACTLY the same way as Alberta. Non-Toronto/Ottawa Ontario probably has more in common with Alberta than any other part of the country when it comes to gross under representation and fiscal complete non-representation.
Until the Constitution is rewritten to actually recognize that PEI deserves ONE seat in Parliament not 4 (NB, NS, and Quebec are also massively over represented), that Senators should actually represent Canadians first and be elected to office not appointed to rubber stamp whatever the current largest party in Parliament shoves their way, and that property ownership means something we will continue to have this fight.
Right now about the only thing that may save this country IS Alberta voting to hand Danielle Smith the papers to potentially separate. The loss of their bank is the only thing that might get the Laurentians to the table because we all know they think they are better than us AND they think that we should be happy to just be tolerated in their presence. Trudeau said it "Quebecers are better" (look up the interview) and Mr. Brookfield reinforced it at the WEF more than once. Until enough Canadians - and this means we need way more than the Libs - get together and change the Government we will continue to be abused by Ottawa and the CBC will tell you you are lucky! If Carney gets a majority and we get 4+ more years of continuing Tru-topian destruction of our history and wealth this country will be done. Alberta WILL leave and so will anyone that is at all portable. All to the benefit of the US. What's left here will rot while serving the Mr. Brookfields of the world.
Sigh. Quebec has 7000 fewer people per seat than Alberta. This is hardly an outrageous imbalance (they are also above the national average). Quebec, BC, Ontario and Alberta have roughly the same number. Everyone else is overrepresented. This information is trivial to find.
Freaking out about PEI having three extra MPs does not exactly suggest a well-balanced concern with actual issues in the federation. Saskatchewan has more extra MPs than PEI does.
I wonder why these "freak outs" happen? I wonder what could be driving it? What do you think?
It is that Albertans think they deserve more. Thus, they point to things they see as unfair. The problem is that dealing with Alberta makes it quite clear that as soon as things do become fair on a point, Albertans move on to 'well this other thing should be ours too.' Because it is about the feeling, not about concrete actual concerns. Quebec has a similar problem.
All Albertans? What things should be theirs too?
There must be a reason for why a great many Albertans want out.
Massive net fiscal contribution with little perceived return
Equalization program resentment
Federal energy and climate policies targeting Alberta's core industry
Historical precedents reinforcing exploitation narrative
Perception of political marginalization
Broader jurisdictional overreach
Lack of fair benefits from Confederation
Or are these not about concrete actual concerns.
"perceived"
"resentment"
"narrative"
"perception"
"fair"
As I said, it is about the feeling. Jurisdictional overreach I might give you, and certainly federal energy and climate policies have been difficult - though the bit where the province tried to catch on fire last year suggests that that is a necessary balancing act. That said it seems to be far more a case of 'we're making less money than we could make' not 'we're not making money.'
But most of this is about the feelings, as you have seen amply demonstrated in the comment section by now. People routinely claim Quebec is over-represented with MPs when it isn't, for example. Or going 'no one built pipelines' when there literally is a Trudeau-built pipeline. Or clearly not understanding how equalization works. Actual facts are very rare, people's feelings very prominent, and given the feelings aren't based in facts that is VERY hard to do much about.
For me, it's not a feelings issue. It's a mathematics issue.
There are 2.6 million people living in Atlantic Canada, who are represented in the House by 32 MPs
There are over 5 million people in Alberta, and we have only 37 MPs.
if you don't see disparity there, you;re trying VERY hard not to.
As I said, everyone except Alberta, Quebec, Ontario, and BC are overrepresented. Which includes Saskatchewan and Manitoba, I might add. Assuming that population should be the sole metric for these things, which is hardly mandatory.
There is also the question of just how much of the population of Alberta is Atlantic Canadians and others there for work, I might add...
EDIT: Oh, and the population was 4.4 million when the numbers were set. Rather an important difference.
Of course there is disparity—we are working off the 1867 model of Canada in the twenty first century. Of course Canada has long done national politics to keep Quebec placated—Liberal and CPC. We need to update the constitution for the era of wireless communication and electric cars
He will get his majority. For me. the CPC is currently divided under an extremely unlikeable leader and the polls show it. I expect the CPC will get their clocks cleaned when an election happens this year.
Certainly Albertan's (past and present) deserve recognition for harnessing their natural resources, but let's not forget that having those natural resources to harness is an accident of geography.
And clearly there are other provinces who don't do as good a job of harnessing their own.
Personally, I think the whole concept of a federation of provinces (fiefdoms, more like) is an anachronism and counterproductive to the overall health of the nation. I'm a Canadian, not an Ontarian. Ontario just happens to be the place in Canada where I live. (Because it has the best weather ;) )
Best weather?? Clearly need to visit southern BC...
Depends if you like 9 months of cloud and rain or not.
Talking about the southern Okanagan. 10 months of golf weather.
You get 9 solid months of golf weather in Essex County and you even get to see the sun in the winter. It's also way more convenient to modern conveniences like a proper international airport and good hospitals and shopping.
Each to his own.
Your middle paragraph says it all. The culture of a lot of the eastern provinces seems to be that it’s more lucrative to chase entitlements paid for by the fruit of other’s labor than to actually develop your resources yourself. And this is encouraged by the central Laurentian elites and Quebec French who steal the entitlement funding from the producing provinces. And the pity parties called Federal elections are basically about who will pay what to whom (like the 19th century Indian potlatches banned by the Colonial masters) and how much will be paid by current voters and how much by children born and unborn through borrowing.
I’m told that the weather in the Okanagan valley is second to none in Canada. But yes southwestern Ontario can be nice. It sure as hell isn’t in Ottawa 😹
My last post on equalization (in case you missed it!):
https://substack.com/@marktilley458099/note/c-219598351
Yes I did thank you. Makes a lot more sense than the current system.
The ratchet type means testing developed by Ottawa bureaucrats used with income supplements are also a disincentive. Typically when you reach a certain threshold your benefits start to be reduced until they disappear. This discourages seeking employment and drives workers into the cash economy. When I think of the costs to administer means testing I always wonder if it isn’t better to get rid of the testing and just let the tax system recover part of the benefits from high income earners.
Actually, under a negative income tax basic income, high earners would never get benefits.
The transition from being on a single basic income (as a negative tax) to positive tax on your income would be the same line for everyone (except say, seniors and the disabled).
e.g. simple numbers example, which is actually close to the real numbers worked out using 2017 data:
basic personal amount 25K, single rate 40%. So at 0 income, basic income equals 10K. As income increases it gets "taxed" or more accurately, clawed back at 40% so that at 25K there is no basic income and no tax paid. All income in excess of 25K is taxed at 40%. The 40% is a weighted average of fed+prov rates and as I said in the other post, would be a lot higher in QC and the Maritimes.
Make sense. The US has some benefits along that line IIRC. The big issue is to get people who would benefit to file. I know the IRS (I suspect Revenue Canada also) does not release filers’s info to other agencies. Undocumented immigrants who would qualify are still afraid of the info going to immigration law enforcement. And people who employ(illegally) these people would also be reluctant to issue Income documents (T4s or W2s depending in country.
A change in attitude is fine, but does not make up for central Canadas' continual efforts to keep Alberta and the west from reaching our economic potential. Central Canada seems to have a constant need to interfere in business in the west, to avoid the reality of situations, and to work hard to keep us down.
I am a federalist and do not want to leave Canada. I actively cooperate with environmental efforts such as recycling, energy efficient everything and so on. But it's obvious that when Canada as a whole produces some 1.5% of the world's greenhouse gases, climate change was weaponized to aggressively harm the west. If central Canada wants unproven carbon sequestration, they can raise money to pay for it, and should not burden us, investors, or taxpayers with the expense, especially since as they continually point out, oil prices rise and fall. .
Canada generates 1.5 percent of the world's anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, with only 0.5 percent of the world's population. Roughly speaking, we therefore generate about three times as much per capita than "the average" person globally.
Furthermore, more than 80 percent of Canadians live in urban settings. 73 percent of Canadians, moreover, live in the biggest cities. This means that we do not, as a matter of course, commute daily or even weekly from far-flung places in the country to the places where we work in urban centres.
Our GHG emissions are, therefore, more about industrial policy than they are about transportation needs.
We can reduce emissions (nuclear power instead of natural gas for rendering oil sands into crude oil, for example).
United we stand, divided we fall.
There are numerous countries that would like Canada to fall apart so that they could pick up the pieces.
With the war going on in the Middle East, I am always surprised by the number of geographically small countries. All these tiny countries rely on someone else to defend themselves. (Good reason for Canada to rebuild its military). The smaller they get, the less influence they have in their own destiny.
I lived in Quebec during both referendums. That was always my best reason, when talking to my French speaking neighbours, for staying united.
Yes, I was surprised to see no mention of active involvement by foreign bad actors.
Everyone knows a family where one sibling, either by luck or hard work does better than everyone else. They also know that sibling gets way more attention now than before they started doing well. That sibling also tends to be resented behind their backs yet that doesn't stop all the demands.
This article is thin gruel that refuses to list the real problems re. Alberta and ROC. Grade: D-.