Using lawfare, Liberal-appointed judges, and Liberal-funded chiefs to tell the population that they aren't even allowed to express themselves is the riskiest possible option.
It is literally telling 30% (at least) of Albertans that there is no legal democratic solution within our current political system, despite the clear precedent of Quebec.
I can't thing of anything more likely to lead to trouble, including for the First Nations participating in this folly.
It would be so much wiser for federalists to convince Albertans that they should expect and will receive respect and decent treatment as Canadians, within Canada.
The status quo is not the one who has to prove their option superior. The ones wanting to turn life as we know it upside down and destroy the coming and split families and friends for generations are the ones who have to justify it and they won’t be able to even agree amongst themselves about the basics like who gets citizenship or what currency is used. It is folly and I think when the NDP wins the next provincial election the folly will become clear to some. At least it will kill the separatist urge for 4 years since they won’t have even a listening ear in the legislator.
I was UCP but stopped my membership and donations because of this. It was the only way to send a message. I will vote for the new Tory party in the next election though as that’s much more palatable than NDp which is a disaster of its own. But I won’t be surprised if NDP wins.
This is a perfectly reasonable position. The problem is that federalists are manifestly unwilling to make the case democratically, and would rather engage in chicanery to prevent the debate.
Which speaks to a certain lack of confidence in the quality of their argument.
This is not chicanery, to say so, is to show a blatant disregard for Alberta’s origins and its founding peoples. Alberta has obligations to the First Nations. It must show that it is willing to acknowledge and meet those obligations and that requires hearing them out.
On top of that, isn’t it ridiculous that a 100k people can force such a massive constitutional question? Is it really fair to the people to bring this to them when that wasn’t even in the UCP’s mandate? If the petition had 2.5 million signatures, I’d be more concerned about suppressing democracy but it doesn’t
Not really, from my perspective you need 50% + 1 to force a constitutional referendum. Alberta’s 5 million people as I recall so 2.5 million should be the number.
On top of that, it really would be better if Danielle Smith had campaigned on this originally. As is, it’s a gross overextension of her mandate.
Good points. I thought for a constitutional question AB would need signatures from 10% of the total of votes cast in the last provincial election. 100,000+ people cannot change the Constitution, I don't think. The process is Petition, Verification, Referendum, Negotiation.
It would be so much wiser for federalists to convince Albertans that they should expect and will receive respect and decent treatment as Canadians, within Canada.
END QUOTE
As someone who lived in Alberta for half-a-lifetime, and who now lives in another part of Canada (not the only place outside Alberta where I've lived, I would add), I find this to be an astonishing statement to make.
Tell me, is it the case that Albertans who engage their fellow citizens elsewhere in Canada feel "disrespected" or treated "indecently"?
Are there frequent and documented cases of such "disrespect" and "indecent treatment"?
Certainly here in Toronto, many many people accept that we are financially mistreating Alberta (indecent) but are quite confident that Alberta will never do anything about it (disrespect).
Very different from Albertans living out of province - nobody objects to them as people in person.
Certainly here in Toronto, many many people accept that we are financially mistreating Alberta (indecent) but are quite confident that Alberta will never do anything about it (disrespect).
END QUOTE
What people? And in what manner is Alberta being "mistreated financially" by other Canadians?
This reminds me of how Trump makes the case for the outrageous things he does ("we're being treated very badly, very badly by [fill in the blank]").
Who needs substantiation and fact when repeated exaggerations and half-truths (or outright misrepresentation of truth) will do?
Why is there a west coast tanker ban, but not an east coast tanker ban?
END QUOTE
Because the BC First Nations are well-organized and have won much support from non-indigenous peoples there. People on the West Coast also remember the damage done to local ecology when the Exxon Valdez foundered in 1989, and more recently in 2016, when the Nathan E. Stewart released more than a 100,000 litres of diesel fuel on to clam beds controlled by the Heiltsuk First Nation.
QUOTE
Why can we build a massively subsidized high-speed railway that few will use, but not a privately funded pipeline?
END QUOTE
The line has not been built and there is a lot of pushback from local observers along the proposed right-of-way. I myself have written to my local MP telling her that I support Pierre Poilievre's opposition to the line, because Canada as a nation has many other priorities (defence being a very important one) that precludes the expenditure of such sums on a rail line like that).
I think the issue about respect is between the Feds and the Province: it leaks over into the personal level for Albertans because they equate the Fed disrespect as a product of the votes cast by ROC.
Albertans do get decent treatment. As to respect...if Albertans want respect, they could try acting in ways that are actually deserving of respect.
Things like going 'oh we'll just ignore the laws we don't like' or complaining about things that take five seconds on Google to disprove do not exactly inspire respect. Nor does the bit where we're apparently all supposed to think you're wonderful. This is Canada. If you can't come up with negative stereotypes about every single province, you're not trying.
And the negative stereotypes about Albertans are that they're self-involved, want their own way on everything without regard to things like 'consistency' or 'facts,' and like to blow all their money on the short-term with zero consideration of the long term and then whine for help about it when the bill comes due. Which bits of the process of Alberta separatism so far would you say have disproved that, as opposed to making it clear it's basically accurate for a surprisingly large chunk of Albertans?
Nothing fuels the independence movement more than eastern Canadians in whose direct interest it is to misunderstand the fundamentals of Alberta’s current grievances against it by the ROC.
I have had them laid out for me many times. They mostly boil down to two things: the factually untrue (we don't have enough MPs, no one ever builds us pipelines) and complaining the nation is not run wholly for the benefit of Alberta.
It is not that we do not understand the issues. We understand them just fine. We just look at the same data and come to very different conclusions. I'd have more respect for that diversity of opinion if it weren't for that first bit where a huge chunk of the complaints are demonstrably untrue. Raises questions about whether your views of what is reasonable are worth paying attention to.
This is the problem, you actually do not understand. We don’t really care about the MPs/representation thing as long as Ottawa just left us alone, stopped interfering in provincial matters, let us do our own thing and stop trying to make Alberta a clone of Ontario. As for nobody builds us pipelines, that is directly due to federal policies, so that also ties back directly to point one above. We get it. ‘Canada’ doesn’t like our dirty oil and wants to shut it in and eventually eliminate it altogether. We can read those tea leaves. We just don’t agree with that and if we have to go south for pipelines we will. I don’t think we care about the respect thing anymore. We seem to be moving on from that one.
Every time separatists are challenged to address practical problems and conceptual errors in their program, the response is to dismiss it as sowing "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" or whine that things are stacked against them and the process isn't fair. When they can't come up with real, practical answers, it serves to highlight how ridiculous and improbable their utopian claims are. This is the easy stuff - if you can't sort this out, the odds of resolving the difficult problems to build a successful state are slim to none.
As I keep saying, they are not serious people and they are flim flamming the good Albertans who are signing the petition with no awareness of what this will actually take, cost, and how hard it will be on the Alberta economy. Its just this loser mentality of "its rigged" , "its liberals" , etc... no, its real life and real situations that they won't face.
Lawfare? Come on. The petitioners have until May 2 to collect signatures. Once they submit to the Chief Electoral Officer he has 21 days to decide whether it meets the statutory requirements. All the court did here was issue a stay for about a month, not on the collection of signatures, but on the CEO making his determination.
This gives time for the parties to properly argue the matter. It's a complex issue. My gut is that the referendum would not go against treaty rights, because the Succession Reference confirms that even with a clear majority on a referendum, there cannot be unilateral separation without taking into account, inter alia, aboriginal interests in negotiation. But what do I know? Let's have a proper record and legal argument. The CEO's decision can still be rendered in the original timeline (May 2 + 21 days).
The judge at issue may have been appointed under the Liberal government, but she was in the military and then a top prosecutor. She's not from the Legal Institute of Instituting Wokeness or something.
Sure, it's only a warning shot now. But using a tendentious legal process to shut down a referendum would be nuts, as I say. This is perfectly obviously a political question, and no judge is impartial, especially a Liberal appointee.
This is a thorny issue of constitutional law and it's not "lawfare" for the parties to have time to properly argue it. Succession (and how we get there) is not only a political question, it is a constitutional and legal question as well.
The idea that letting the public express their non-binding opinion is somehow unconstitutional is absurdly Canadian. It's like when the supreme Court ruled that the PM could consult a cat, a criminal, the governing Council of U of T, or a Ouija board when deciding whom to appoint to the Senate, but couldn't ask the people of the province the Senator represents. Laughable and obviously fake.
It is not illegal to have consultative elections, or for the Prime Minister to take those into account. It IS illegal to make those elections a constitutional requirement without all the provinces consenting to that fundamental change in the nature of the Senate. Note that the Constitution explicitly says changes in the "method of selecting Senators" require amendment under the 7 provinces, 50% of population formula. The Supreme Court could all be desperate for senate reform and they'd still basically be stuck giving the answer they gave. The plain meaning of the words is pretty straightforward. Note as well that they went through things like "what John A said in Parliament in 1865" to point out that it is very clear the whole point of the Senate is that it not be elected, specifically so it doesn't really have the democratic legitimacy to argue with an elected House of Commons. So yes, adding elections IS changing it in a way that should in principle engage constitutional amendment. And I don't necessarily like that answer myself.
In short, the decision respects both plain language and the expressed intent of our proud Conservative forebears, so on paper should be exactly what Albertan separatists want. The only difference is this time it's a pet separatist issue, so of course it's unfair and wrong and unelected judges wah wah wah we don't get exactly what we want at all times.
I look forward to you explaining how you not knowing this does not invalidate your opinion and somehow further justifies Alberta separatism. Feel free to get other easily verifiable facts wrong when you do so, it seems to be a pretty standard move for you guys.
Would you say that about a different possibly unconstitutional question?
Say some group wants to have a referendum on denying certain people the right to vote. Let's make it more interesting. It gets challenged in court and there's a court order temporarily preventing that from going on the ballot while a court looks into whether or not it would be constitutional?
This is exactly why Smith wrote the law to exclude unconstitutional questions, which the judge is currently misusing. If there were significant public support for something unconstitutional like that, the public should still be able to express it. But there isn't.
With respect, it does seem like "misusing" means "might make a decision I don't like".
I rather expect that if the petition was to put "take away voting rights anyone who has ever expressed a desire to separate from Canada" and the EXACT same judicial decisions were made, you wouldn't consider the judge's actions to be "misusing" anything.
But hey, I could be wrong.. but it does *seem* like your judgement of what's "misusing" is more about what you like than anything else.
"But hey, I could be wrong.. but it does *seem* like your judgement of what's "misusing" is more about what you like than anything else."
That's because he's an Albertan separatist.
If watching them comment on the Line over the fast few months has convinced me of anything, it is that 'get easily verifiable facts wrong' and 'expect exactly what we want at all times on all issues' are the two founding principles of the movement.
Alberta was created out of Crown land acquired via treaty. Quebec was already a colony before Confederation. This is not comparable. You can't pick and choose what laws you like and don't. The problem with the seperatist voices is they are trying very hard to avoid any discussions on what actually has to be done to create a new nation (costs especially).. The best they can do is blame "Liberals" and say "we will be fine". And then huff and puff when they don't get their way. It's not being run by serious people who have serious plan to actually achieve independence.
Many things about reality are unpopular with Albertans (to be fair, not a trait unique to them). That doesn't change it. Quebec has an independent pre-Canada legal existence, and a bunch of land that isn't covered by numbered treaties. Alberta basically doesn't.
Of course, if separatism is so great, it should be an easy sell on-reserve too, right?
The latest reason which may have strengthened the separation movement is the bogus majority Liberal federal government we (Western Canadians in general) have been lumbered with due to eastern voters and 5 unprincipled MPs who essentially disenfranchised those who voted for them and the party whose banner they ran under by defecting to the Liberals. It’s not a good look.
I'm all for the requirement for a by-election if someone wants to cross the floor. I think the current practice is grossly undemocratic. But there is a certain hypocrisy in calling people "unprincipled" because they leave your party, but you have no issues when they come to yours.
David: when they run under one banner, disparage the other party (see Marilyn Gladu) then compromise everything they’ve portrayed themselves as standing for then I think by any definition they are unprincipled. As to those who cross to your party who could possibly trust them.
It's not my party. I have voted for 4 different ones in the last 5 elections. I hate it every time it has happened at any time, to the benefit of any party, for the reasons mentioned. The voters should have the final say. The nonsense that you elect the candidate and not the party is utter nonsense IMHO.
...because what our system needs is to centralize even more power in the leader's office and take more power away from individual MPs.
Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again.. .it's not just that banning floor crossing is a bad idea, (although it is a bad idea)... it's that it's functionally impossible to ban it. Trying to ban it would just mean that people wouldn't officially cross the floor... but they'd vote with the government, attend government caucus meetings as a guest and maybe get appointed to cabinet.
I remember when David Emerson crossed the floor to join the Harper government. I don't remember hearing anything in Alberta saying bad things about it.
Jen's right. Floor crossing is a sign of poor leadership on Mr. Poilievre's part. Like it or not, he's not doing a necessary part of his job properly which is to keep his caucus together.
(The other possibility is that Mr. Poilievre is just fine and Mr. Carney is just so unbelievably amazing that even good leaders look like idiots and losers standing next to him, but I don't buy that one.)
Can we truly say we live in a democracy if the rules are written or interpreted in such a way that by trying to exercise the right of choice is not permitted?
Personally, I think they should go ahead with the Thomas Lukaszuk question, and run the referendum based on that.
Who cares that he personally doesn't want that? IT was his own folly that got him here - he thought he was being SO clever, co-opting the separatist agenda by setting his own preferred question and gathering his signatures first. His intent was to leverage the "only one question on a topic" rule and bar the separatists from even getting started.
It seems to have not occurred to him until after spending his whole summer running around the province gathering signatures... that ANY yes/no question is, for all intents and purposes, a separatism question.
...at which point he pivoted, and asked for his signatures to NOT be applied to a referendum. Suddenly he wanted the Legislature to hold a "purity test" vote on his question instead, as if that would AT ALL calm the waters on the topic.
And now he and his acolytes try very hard to pretend that he never wanted a referendum, ever - which is just objectively untrue. The people who thronged to sign his petition thought they were signing to agree with a referendum question.
So let's hold a petition based on his question. He did submit the paperwork....
I would hope that Smith could frame her own question using Pro canada language that reflects a clear question with a yes no answer, BUT I do not know the legalities of this. I posted a very similar response to yours, before reading all the comments posted! This has always been my preferred approach for her, especially since it neuters Nenshi in the process!
Hahaha. Of course, the hope would then be that the question wasn't clear enough to count. The biggest challenge for the Alberta separatists (given that Canada is going all out to convince Albertans that they will never be respected within confederation) is to get a Premier actually willing to proceed with secession once there is a mandate. Smith is a federalist, and I'm sure she is furious with her allies for pulling these crazy stunts and putting her in the spot. A federalist victory in a referendum makes the whole issue go away: that's what federalists should be working toward.
I think at this point, it's clear that Ms. Smith isn't on the fence. She's a separatist. She's just dishonest about what she wants because if she had campaigned honestly on it, she'd be "former politician Danielle Smith".
Ridiculous. The separatists have no institutional leaders, and are still polling pretty well. If she were a separatist, she could make a speech saying that, in her opinion, Alberta will never receive respect or fair treatment from Ottawa, and that would boost separatist sentiment over the finish line. Then she would become a Prime Minister, not a Premier.
I think so too. I have met her personally (very briefly) and everything I hear would say she is sincere, bright, and caring, but not bloody-minded or ruthless. She would prefer the status quo, but I think has limits to how much she is willing for Albertans to be humiliated.
Well said Rob. This is issue, as it relates to Smith is very simple. She's a separatist. She has gone to great lengths to support/enable and amplify the separatist message. Hopefully in the next year we can vote on this so the separatists can be quiet or leave, either one would be great.
What I cannot understand is why the efforts made by the official opposition and its leader in Alberta (former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi) appears to have garnered fairly little attention in the news media outside the province.
Has the effort really been so ineffectual?
I also find it difficult to understand why the Prime Minister and his crew think that they have to remain silent. Albertans ARE Canadians and many would likely appreciate some indication of support from outside the province for their embrace of that affiliation.
AC, I am a Calgarian and I despise Nenshi; put that down to having had to live under his maladministration of my city. As for Nenshi's "effectiveness" I simply offer the query, what effectiveness? I have heard only noise from him.
As for Carney et al making comment? I simply want them to mind their own business; this is a matter for Albertans to deal with. Oh, you say, but anything that Alberta decides will affect ROC and therefore .... etc. ... well, ROC doesn't seem to want Alberta as anything but a cash cow so, no, non-Albertans are not welcome to participate in the commentary.
I find it surprising to read your view that non-Albertans (people in the rest of Canada) perceive Alberta as "only a cash cow".
Is that what you saw when you read CBC news reporting about the wildfires that consumed much of Fort McMurray a decade ago, or the town of Jasper, that suffered terribly in 2024?
Is that how flooding in Calgary was handled by the CBC and other "Canadian" news agencies?
What about stories regarding Alberta's marvellous cultural attractions (including the amazing theatre scene in Edmonton and Calgary's magnificent new library)?
There is much interest in and appreciation for Alberta outside the province (in the rest of Canada).
- - -
As for the fiscal issues, I would argue that Canadians for the most part are quite clueless about how Equalization (as a policy) is structured and how it has operated over many decades. Indeed, Albertans do appear to be more sensitized, but I would argue that the main reason for that is the decades during which successive Albertan politicians have talked up / developed a certain narrative for political effect.
Which is not to say that Equalization as a policy is perfect or should not be revisited.
But the separatists are not talking about policy change. They are talking about destroying our country.
You can bet that many, many people (both inside and outside Alberta) are emotionally invested in this as a result.
I love how the typical go-to Canadian response to Alberta's completely valid complaints is to assume we don't understand how Equalization works.
We do, trust me.
...and what we take away from your thoughtful input is that you believe us all to be rubes and hicks who do not understand how things work in Canada. THIS is the attitude which is driving us away.
===============
You say: "But separatists are not talking about policy change...."
Want to know why...?
Because we held a referendum just a few years ago, suggesting democratically (and quite loudly) that the federal government should consider amending the Equalization formula.
What did the Liberal choose to do with that democratically arrived at input?
If you guessed "IGNORE IT, and make a show of skipping any debate whatsoever, and re-enacting the exact same formula for another five years" you would be correct.
And I love how you twist what I wrote into something that more closely resembles your perception of the "the typical go-to Canadian response".
As I recall, I acknowledged that Equalization could use improvement. As for the difference between "a few years ago" and "today", surely you would be prepared to admit that the current federal government is not the same one as that which you claimed was keen to simply ignore Alberta's entreaties?
NB: I do not accept for a minute that Alberta was ignored. In fact, despite all of the trials it took to finish, the fact that the federal government ended up dropping CAD 36bn on completing the expansion of TMX suggests that Alberta's interests--and Canada's--were considered important in Ottawa.
Let me check. Hmm, it says here the federal government was Liberal in 2021, and the current government is ...the very same Liberals. So NO, this is NOT a "new" government. We do have a new PM, which is NOT the same thing.
And yes, that referendum was IGNORED.
So were our Senators-in-waiting, who we elected to place them on the PM's list to choose from. He opted to IGNORE that list, and select his favourite progressives to "represent" us instead.
So yes, when we made reasonable requests, we were IGNORED.
Repeatedly.
=================
Since you insist, thank you SO MUCH for wasting $36 Billion taxpayer dollars on a pipeline which could have been built with ZERO public finds, if we only had a regulatory system which worked, and a federal government will to enforce the regulations as written.
This may shock you , but the story of TMX plays out very differently in Alberta than it does in Toronto or wherever you are from - Easterners seem to think this was something Trudeau did FOR Alberta, whereas we see it it as several years of needless delay on a no-brainer TWINNING of an existing pipeline.
...and Trudeau didn't do that because he wanted to - he did it because he was forced to by his own blunders.
=====
Looking back now with 2026 goggles on, with the decisions this government made since 2015, Canada really missed the boat BIGLY on the Energy file.
Killing the Northern Gateway project is going to go down in history as one of the most expensive virtue signals ever made by any political leader.
We allowed 17 LNG projects to die on the vine under regulatory burden, with only one measly little project squeaking through - while Australia built out their entire LNG system from scratch, and the Americans went from being an importer on LNG to being the world's largest EXPORTER of LNG.
We increasingly moved the goalpost on Energy East until the proponent threw up their hands and left the playing field in disgust.
We chased away TECK from expanding (clean) in-situ oilsands development.
The Liberals did everything possible to kill the cash cow, and now want to pretend they are interested in building it back - but FIRST let's blow Billions on carbon sequestration and building a carbon credit system to benefit Brookfield....
Our government has carefully steered us in EXACTLY the wrong direction, and arguably continues to do so. Do you HONESTLY believe Carney will build a single inch of pipeline in this term?
Had we moved to build out LNG infrastructure a decade ago, we would be highly relevant in the world today, rather than the laughing stock and punchline we are so swiftly becoming.
Since you insist, thank you SO MUCH for wasting $36 Billion taxpayer dollars on a pipeline which could have been built with ZERO public finds, if we only had a regulatory system which worked, and a federal government will to enforce the regulations as written.
END QUOTE
On what grounds would you make such a claim? In fact, the main stumbling block was the view amongst investors and oil sector executives that the thing was not something they wanted to risk their capital on.
You sought to back up your claim by redirecting attention away from the pipeline to other projects that were rejected. Not fair dinkum, in my view, even if a reasonable debate could be had about regulatory failings on the part of bureaucrats in Ottawa (and Victoria, in some cases).
Let me check. Hmm, it says here the federal government was Liberal in 2021, and the current government is ...the very same Liberals. So NO, this is NOT a "new" government. We do have a new PM, which is NOT the same thing.
END QUOTE
Perhaps I should submit that statement to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary so that they can use it as an example of what it means to be "obtuse".
The party has changed significantly under Mark Carney, who it should be noted did secure a narrow lead over all of its opponents in the House of Commons during the last federal general election.
Yes, his government has since benefited from five floor crossers, four of whom left the Conservative Party. But the election wins during the three by-elections that occurred last Monday certainly underscored that his government has changed sufficiently to ensure continued popular support.
NB: Remember that the Liberals were on the cusp of electoral destruction according to polling taken during the dying months of the Trudeau regime.
Finally, and this has to do with your claim about going in "the wrong direction", surely you understand that the further expansion of fossil fuel exploitation runs exactly counter to global concerns about the verified and increasingly devastating effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions?
All of this stuff takes place in a broader context, one which your entreaties seem to miss.
The idea that the wildfires or the flooding signify very much is (how to be polite, here?) - not indicative of anything, really. An ongoing disaster in say, Armenia, gets lots of attention.
As for most Canadians being "clueless" about equalization, well, that is because the feds talk up how "generous" federalism is and conveniently ignore that it is largely Alberta that funds it.
Is equalization perfect? Quite frankly, that is a conversation that is so silly that I am not interested in it; the federal government simply has expanded it so greatly and skewed the formula in politically "convenient" ways so it is a pointless conversation.
As for folks outside of Alberta having opinions, where the hell were you folks when we raised these issues over the decades?
The attention paid to (and sympathy expressed for those who suffered as a consequence of) the wildfires was not the only thing I mentioned.
As for Equalization, you may think it is "silly", but it is a fundamental element of our uniquely decentralized federation. With Equalization came the devolution of revenue-raising rights. Alberta, like other provinces, has benefited greatly from that.
WRT Mr Nenshi, TBH, I also have serious doubts about his political nous. I think the NDP made a dreadful mistake when they selected him as leader.
The party seems to have a habit of making such mistakes... both provincially and at the federal level (although I thought that Rachel Notley was an excellent politician and provincial premier).
I'm treading on dangerous ground here commenting as a non-Albertan, but I think there would be room for Canadian politicians to say that we will stop using Alberta as a cash cow and that we will stop throttling your economy, which would legitimately impede the separatist cause. After all, that's what the MoU was. It would be much better, though, if it were sincere and not a mere delaying tactic until mass immigration solves the "problem" once and for all.
E, you and other non-Albertans are quite welcome, of course, to have opinions just please don't expect us to really pay a whole lot of attention to them.
ROC can make all the noises that it wants about dealing with equalization but it is pointless for the simple reasons that a) the principle of equalization is part of the constitution and we all know how easy it is to change the constitution; and b) the formula calculating equalization is set by the PM and a benign PM one year is replaced by someone with other thoughts in another year.
Going further, you suggest that ROC might promise to not treat us as a cash cow and not throttle our economy. Please see my point b) above.
I neglected to respond to your comment about the MOU which, I infer, you seem to view favorably. I suspect that you haven't read the MOU but I have. I highly recommend that you do read it.
It is highly conditional, a lot of goals, a lot of promises to consult and negotiate further. A terrifically important date was April 1st. By that date some really important negotiations were supposed to conclude with respect to Carbon Capture and Storage. That date was important because the feds had scheduled an increase in the Carbon Tax for that date. The CCS agreement is a prior condition for CONSIDERING a pipeline. The tax increase came in on April 1st, no CCS agreement. Personally, I expect the MOU to crash and burn.
You know what would have been easier than negotiating the MOU? Publicly stating that the bad laws were bad for Canada and promising to reverse them. Interestingly the feds didn't do that and instead we have this highly conditional MOU that is already failing.
Oh, no, I vote the MoU as a complete crock, good only as evidence that Smith is a federalist. Obviously Carney has zero intention of ever allowing another pipeline or oil production expansion.
In fact, I have a $100 bet with a friend that says there will be no shovels in the ground for any pipeline while Carney is PM.
What's your definition of an Albertan, Ken? Is it enough to have grown up here, which Carney did? Do you have to be here year-round, or is anybody going to university out of province no longer part of your nation? What about my family who recently moved to BC after living here for 20 years? What about someone who showed up here two months ago from the Maritimes looking for work?
All Canadians are entitled to participate in the conversation about how to handle traitors fomenting secession.
On the whole, an Albertan is one who ordinarily lives in Alberta; historical Albertans are simply that: historical but no longer. Therefore, you and your family who have chosen to leave and now ordinarily in BC are no longer Albertans. When Alberta leaves Canada, I suspect that Canada will have an opinion as to whether I am a Canadian; of course, Canadian law now allows many, many, many people whose family were citizens in prior generations to be citizens. As for a university student who is (temporarily) out of the province while getting an education but was a resident before leaving for university and is planning to return, that person, on the surface, does sound like an Albertan.
Now, as for MC, he arrived in Alberta from the NWT when he was six and he left on completion of high school - normally, about age 18. He has not resided in Alberta since that time so one cannot say that he is normally an Alberta resident.
As for your final sentence, I note that you seem to wish to defy the laws of Canada insofar as the Clarity Act and the Supreme Court reference case clearly contemplate actions in support of separation. Your nonsensical commentary about "traitors" is simply that: nonsense and does not meet any legal standard of traitorous activity. By contrast, we separatists are rigorously following the law, both provincially and federally in this context so that suggests that we are - at this time - loyal Canadians.
Canadian identity is so strong that it persists even if I leave the country for 20 years. If attachment to Alberta means so little that one's Alberta identity is snuffed out only a few months after leaving Alberta, it's not worthy of sovereign status.
The Cambridge dictionary definition of a traitor is "a person who is not loyal or stops being loyal to their own country". We appear to disagree about whether it is possible to be loyal in any meaningful sense to a country that you are actively seeking to secede from.
The Quebecois were a conquered people given away to their mortal enemies by their metropole in peace negotiations after a world war. You have to be loyal in the first place to be a traitor.
Please understand that being an Albertan insofar as this debate is concerned is for residents of Alberta who are legally allowed to vote in the referendum.
Former Albertans and wannabe Albertans are certainly entitled to their opinions but we don't have to take their opinions into account simply because the right to vote is note extended to formers and wannabes.
As for your dictionary definition, I suggest that the legal definition is instructive for that is the basis of any legal action. Your dictionary definition is quite adequate for you to shun we separatists and, again, you are fully entitled to so discriminate among various folk.
Oh, I understand your position perfectly: no matter how long a person lived in Alberta and regardless of whether they were born here, if they aren't in Alberta presently, they're not an Albertan.
And like I said, it reflects a remarkably pathetic view of Alberta identity that is grossly inadequate to found a nation on.
What if she uses the Lukasuk question and frames a stay in Canada question... people can vote yes or no on that too? The judge ruled on this referendum, not the other one, which was not challenged. Personally I believe this should have always been her strategy! As Premier she needs to maintain a federalist position, this is a winning question for her, the separatist get to vote no, forever canadian people get to vote yes and the indigenous can decide what they want as well!
So off that First Nations would choose the same federal government that put their parents into residential schools over Alberta and increased sovereignty. Makes no sense unless it's all about the money. The feds being an easier mark to squeeze for cash.
I wish someone would call out the FN on their hypocrisy.
As for courts stopping even a non binding referendum? What are they so afraid of? If they are so confident of winning let the separatists fail.
The Breakenridge/NDP need to grasp that their Political games are harmful to the result they say they want. If they want to stay in Canada, then they need to deal with the separation questions directly. Why stay in Canada? What harms will result from leaving?
I want to stay in Canada. But I dislike being on the same side as the people this opinion revs up.
For example - ... was the government dragging its feet; or did the Lucazuk group say that they wanted their petition to go to the Leg and not to a referendum? Which is it? The inability to grasp the importance of that question calls into question anything said in the rest of this opinion piece. Sometimes one can't have things both ways.
We are well past the too far point. @#$% is going to get real the closer we get to October.
For me, the Sovereignty Act is a game of constitutional chicken. Maybe Smith is betting that Ottawa will blink to avoid a crisis and it's a safe bet the Supreme Court will strike it down ASAP. I think. She can simply ignore court rulings which would likely make Andrew Coyne's head explode.
I think Smith has more to gain than to lose. She can direct provincial ministries to ignore the rulings. She doesn't need to win in court to be effective. If Ottawa fires back at Alberta with the political equivalent of caltrops, then it's a precedent that would have to apply to Quebec. She can threaten to ignore federal environmental regulations; Alberta will protect their projects even if Ottawa doesn't.
A final observation is I suspect an adversarial approach from Ottawa is going to energize separatists and fence sitters in Alberta and definitely in Quebec. My gut tells me this is going to be the biggest issue in Canada this summer into fall.
"... then it's a precedent that would have to apply to Quebec ..."
Sean, the feds have FOREVER had different rules for Quebec than for the remaining nine provinces. Therefore, the feds can say things like, "Oh, but this is different ..." when it is not - but that is the game in Ottawa.
As for Ottawa being adversarial, I suggest that that will not occur prior to the referendum so that Ottawa can attempt to sway the referendum vote against separation. If a referendum vote was (sadly!) defeated then, yes, adversarial is highly likely. If, on the other hand, a referendum vote is successful then adversarial is guaranteed simply because ROC is, under federal law, required to negotiate with Alberta.
Ken, I have a feeling that Danielle Smith is being massively underrated on this matter. What I believe is that Ottawa thinks Alberta's beef (see what I did there?) is economical and ideological. The Liberals will come at them with a big stick (lawfare, etc) and I think that will be the biggest mistake Ottawa can make in this. There are a lot of fence sitters in Alberta and this will energize them, I think.
Okay, I will agree with that but I think that you have to consider before/after the referendum and the relative effect on our populace of Ottawa's actions in each time frame.
Ottawa might have enough sense to keep its mouth shut during the campaign. Toronto (ie govt and subsidy media) won't. And the BQ/PQ will actually help their cause by riling up Alberta.
Using lawfare, Liberal-appointed judges, and Liberal-funded chiefs to tell the population that they aren't even allowed to express themselves is the riskiest possible option.
It is literally telling 30% (at least) of Albertans that there is no legal democratic solution within our current political system, despite the clear precedent of Quebec.
I can't thing of anything more likely to lead to trouble, including for the First Nations participating in this folly.
It would be so much wiser for federalists to convince Albertans that they should expect and will receive respect and decent treatment as Canadians, within Canada.
But that would have to be true.
The status quo is not the one who has to prove their option superior. The ones wanting to turn life as we know it upside down and destroy the coming and split families and friends for generations are the ones who have to justify it and they won’t be able to even agree amongst themselves about the basics like who gets citizenship or what currency is used. It is folly and I think when the NDP wins the next provincial election the folly will become clear to some. At least it will kill the separatist urge for 4 years since they won’t have even a listening ear in the legislator.
I was UCP but stopped my membership and donations because of this. It was the only way to send a message. I will vote for the new Tory party in the next election though as that’s much more palatable than NDp which is a disaster of its own. But I won’t be surprised if NDP wins.
This is a perfectly reasonable position. The problem is that federalists are manifestly unwilling to make the case democratically, and would rather engage in chicanery to prevent the debate.
Which speaks to a certain lack of confidence in the quality of their argument.
This is not chicanery, to say so, is to show a blatant disregard for Alberta’s origins and its founding peoples. Alberta has obligations to the First Nations. It must show that it is willing to acknowledge and meet those obligations and that requires hearing them out.
On top of that, isn’t it ridiculous that a 100k people can force such a massive constitutional question? Is it really fair to the people to bring this to them when that wasn’t even in the UCP’s mandate? If the petition had 2.5 million signatures, I’d be more concerned about suppressing democracy but it doesn’t
We don't know how many signatures they have, and we won't know until May 2
If they had a million signatures, would it sway your thinking on how seriously to take this?
(Not saying they have a million signatures, asking "what if"...)
Not really, from my perspective you need 50% + 1 to force a constitutional referendum. Alberta’s 5 million people as I recall so 2.5 million should be the number.
On top of that, it really would be better if Danielle Smith had campaigned on this originally. As is, it’s a gross overextension of her mandate.
Good points. I thought for a constitutional question AB would need signatures from 10% of the total of votes cast in the last provincial election. 100,000+ people cannot change the Constitution, I don't think. The process is Petition, Verification, Referendum, Negotiation.
QUOTE
It would be so much wiser for federalists to convince Albertans that they should expect and will receive respect and decent treatment as Canadians, within Canada.
END QUOTE
As someone who lived in Alberta for half-a-lifetime, and who now lives in another part of Canada (not the only place outside Alberta where I've lived, I would add), I find this to be an astonishing statement to make.
Tell me, is it the case that Albertans who engage their fellow citizens elsewhere in Canada feel "disrespected" or treated "indecently"?
Are there frequent and documented cases of such "disrespect" and "indecent treatment"?
I can tell you that I have experienced neither.
Certainly here in Toronto, many many people accept that we are financially mistreating Alberta (indecent) but are quite confident that Alberta will never do anything about it (disrespect).
Very different from Albertans living out of province - nobody objects to them as people in person.
QUOTE
Certainly here in Toronto, many many people accept that we are financially mistreating Alberta (indecent) but are quite confident that Alberta will never do anything about it (disrespect).
END QUOTE
What people? And in what manner is Alberta being "mistreated financially" by other Canadians?
This reminds me of how Trump makes the case for the outrageous things he does ("we're being treated very badly, very badly by [fill in the blank]").
Who needs substantiation and fact when repeated exaggerations and half-truths (or outright misrepresentation of truth) will do?
Why is there a west coast tanker ban, but not an east coast tanker ban?
Why can we build a massively subsidized high-speed railway that few will use, but not a privately funded pipeline?
Why can we ignore all but the criminal laws to build that railway, but not to build a refinery or a mine?
QUOTE
Why is there a west coast tanker ban, but not an east coast tanker ban?
END QUOTE
Because the BC First Nations are well-organized and have won much support from non-indigenous peoples there. People on the West Coast also remember the damage done to local ecology when the Exxon Valdez foundered in 1989, and more recently in 2016, when the Nathan E. Stewart released more than a 100,000 litres of diesel fuel on to clam beds controlled by the Heiltsuk First Nation.
QUOTE
Why can we build a massively subsidized high-speed railway that few will use, but not a privately funded pipeline?
END QUOTE
The line has not been built and there is a lot of pushback from local observers along the proposed right-of-way. I myself have written to my local MP telling her that I support Pierre Poilievre's opposition to the line, because Canada as a nation has many other priorities (defence being a very important one) that precludes the expenditure of such sums on a rail line like that).
I think the issue about respect is between the Feds and the Province: it leaks over into the personal level for Albertans because they equate the Fed disrespect as a product of the votes cast by ROC.
Albertans do get decent treatment. As to respect...if Albertans want respect, they could try acting in ways that are actually deserving of respect.
Things like going 'oh we'll just ignore the laws we don't like' or complaining about things that take five seconds on Google to disprove do not exactly inspire respect. Nor does the bit where we're apparently all supposed to think you're wonderful. This is Canada. If you can't come up with negative stereotypes about every single province, you're not trying.
And the negative stereotypes about Albertans are that they're self-involved, want their own way on everything without regard to things like 'consistency' or 'facts,' and like to blow all their money on the short-term with zero consideration of the long term and then whine for help about it when the bill comes due. Which bits of the process of Alberta separatism so far would you say have disproved that, as opposed to making it clear it's basically accurate for a surprisingly large chunk of Albertans?
Condescension, mockery, and belittlement from commenters like this are loved by Alberta Separatists.
Tell me which bit is wrong, then.
Nothing fuels the independence movement more than eastern Canadians in whose direct interest it is to misunderstand the fundamentals of Alberta’s current grievances against it by the ROC.
I have had them laid out for me many times. They mostly boil down to two things: the factually untrue (we don't have enough MPs, no one ever builds us pipelines) and complaining the nation is not run wholly for the benefit of Alberta.
It is not that we do not understand the issues. We understand them just fine. We just look at the same data and come to very different conclusions. I'd have more respect for that diversity of opinion if it weren't for that first bit where a huge chunk of the complaints are demonstrably untrue. Raises questions about whether your views of what is reasonable are worth paying attention to.
This is the problem, you actually do not understand. We don’t really care about the MPs/representation thing as long as Ottawa just left us alone, stopped interfering in provincial matters, let us do our own thing and stop trying to make Alberta a clone of Ontario. As for nobody builds us pipelines, that is directly due to federal policies, so that also ties back directly to point one above. We get it. ‘Canada’ doesn’t like our dirty oil and wants to shut it in and eventually eliminate it altogether. We can read those tea leaves. We just don’t agree with that and if we have to go south for pipelines we will. I don’t think we care about the respect thing anymore. We seem to be moving on from that one.
Every time separatists are challenged to address practical problems and conceptual errors in their program, the response is to dismiss it as sowing "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" or whine that things are stacked against them and the process isn't fair. When they can't come up with real, practical answers, it serves to highlight how ridiculous and improbable their utopian claims are. This is the easy stuff - if you can't sort this out, the odds of resolving the difficult problems to build a successful state are slim to none.
As I keep saying, they are not serious people and they are flim flamming the good Albertans who are signing the petition with no awareness of what this will actually take, cost, and how hard it will be on the Alberta economy. Its just this loser mentality of "its rigged" , "its liberals" , etc... no, its real life and real situations that they won't face.
Lawfare? Come on. The petitioners have until May 2 to collect signatures. Once they submit to the Chief Electoral Officer he has 21 days to decide whether it meets the statutory requirements. All the court did here was issue a stay for about a month, not on the collection of signatures, but on the CEO making his determination.
This gives time for the parties to properly argue the matter. It's a complex issue. My gut is that the referendum would not go against treaty rights, because the Succession Reference confirms that even with a clear majority on a referendum, there cannot be unilateral separation without taking into account, inter alia, aboriginal interests in negotiation. But what do I know? Let's have a proper record and legal argument. The CEO's decision can still be rendered in the original timeline (May 2 + 21 days).
The judge at issue may have been appointed under the Liberal government, but she was in the military and then a top prosecutor. She's not from the Legal Institute of Instituting Wokeness or something.
Sure, it's only a warning shot now. But using a tendentious legal process to shut down a referendum would be nuts, as I say. This is perfectly obviously a political question, and no judge is impartial, especially a Liberal appointee.
This is a thorny issue of constitutional law and it's not "lawfare" for the parties to have time to properly argue it. Succession (and how we get there) is not only a political question, it is a constitutional and legal question as well.
The idea that letting the public express their non-binding opinion is somehow unconstitutional is absurdly Canadian. It's like when the supreme Court ruled that the PM could consult a cat, a criminal, the governing Council of U of T, or a Ouija board when deciding whom to appoint to the Senate, but couldn't ask the people of the province the Senator represents. Laughable and obviously fake.
Not what the Supreme Court ruled.
It is not illegal to have consultative elections, or for the Prime Minister to take those into account. It IS illegal to make those elections a constitutional requirement without all the provinces consenting to that fundamental change in the nature of the Senate. Note that the Constitution explicitly says changes in the "method of selecting Senators" require amendment under the 7 provinces, 50% of population formula. The Supreme Court could all be desperate for senate reform and they'd still basically be stuck giving the answer they gave. The plain meaning of the words is pretty straightforward. Note as well that they went through things like "what John A said in Parliament in 1865" to point out that it is very clear the whole point of the Senate is that it not be elected, specifically so it doesn't really have the democratic legitimacy to argue with an elected House of Commons. So yes, adding elections IS changing it in a way that should in principle engage constitutional amendment. And I don't necessarily like that answer myself.
In short, the decision respects both plain language and the expressed intent of our proud Conservative forebears, so on paper should be exactly what Albertan separatists want. The only difference is this time it's a pet separatist issue, so of course it's unfair and wrong and unelected judges wah wah wah we don't get exactly what we want at all times.
I look forward to you explaining how you not knowing this does not invalidate your opinion and somehow further justifies Alberta separatism. Feel free to get other easily verifiable facts wrong when you do so, it seems to be a pretty standard move for you guys.
Would you say that about a different possibly unconstitutional question?
Say some group wants to have a referendum on denying certain people the right to vote. Let's make it more interesting. It gets challenged in court and there's a court order temporarily preventing that from going on the ballot while a court looks into whether or not it would be constitutional?
I'll tell you what the ballot question is later.
This is exactly why Smith wrote the law to exclude unconstitutional questions, which the judge is currently misusing. If there were significant public support for something unconstitutional like that, the public should still be able to express it. But there isn't.
With respect, it does seem like "misusing" means "might make a decision I don't like".
I rather expect that if the petition was to put "take away voting rights anyone who has ever expressed a desire to separate from Canada" and the EXACT same judicial decisions were made, you wouldn't consider the judge's actions to be "misusing" anything.
But hey, I could be wrong.. but it does *seem* like your judgement of what's "misusing" is more about what you like than anything else.
"But hey, I could be wrong.. but it does *seem* like your judgement of what's "misusing" is more about what you like than anything else."
That's because he's an Albertan separatist.
If watching them comment on the Line over the fast few months has convinced me of anything, it is that 'get easily verifiable facts wrong' and 'expect exactly what we want at all times on all issues' are the two founding principles of the movement.
Alberta was created out of Crown land acquired via treaty. Quebec was already a colony before Confederation. This is not comparable. You can't pick and choose what laws you like and don't. The problem with the seperatist voices is they are trying very hard to avoid any discussions on what actually has to be done to create a new nation (costs especially).. The best they can do is blame "Liberals" and say "we will be fine". And then huff and puff when they don't get their way. It's not being run by serious people who have serious plan to actually achieve independence.
Saying "Alberta is naturally inferior to Quebec, and always will be" is not likely to be popular with Albertans.
You say they can't pick and choose laws. Why not? What are you (or Canada) gonna do about it?
The only thing Canada should be doing is trying to fairly win the referendum.
Many things about reality are unpopular with Albertans (to be fair, not a trait unique to them). That doesn't change it. Quebec has an independent pre-Canada legal existence, and a bunch of land that isn't covered by numbered treaties. Alberta basically doesn't.
Of course, if separatism is so great, it should be an easy sell on-reserve too, right?
The latest reason which may have strengthened the separation movement is the bogus majority Liberal federal government we (Western Canadians in general) have been lumbered with due to eastern voters and 5 unprincipled MPs who essentially disenfranchised those who voted for them and the party whose banner they ran under by defecting to the Liberals. It’s not a good look.
I'm all for the requirement for a by-election if someone wants to cross the floor. I think the current practice is grossly undemocratic. But there is a certain hypocrisy in calling people "unprincipled" because they leave your party, but you have no issues when they come to yours.
David: when they run under one banner, disparage the other party (see Marilyn Gladu) then compromise everything they’ve portrayed themselves as standing for then I think by any definition they are unprincipled. As to those who cross to your party who could possibly trust them.
It's not my party. I have voted for 4 different ones in the last 5 elections. I hate it every time it has happened at any time, to the benefit of any party, for the reasons mentioned. The voters should have the final say. The nonsense that you elect the candidate and not the party is utter nonsense IMHO.
...because what our system needs is to centralize even more power in the leader's office and take more power away from individual MPs.
Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again.. .it's not just that banning floor crossing is a bad idea, (although it is a bad idea)... it's that it's functionally impossible to ban it. Trying to ban it would just mean that people wouldn't officially cross the floor... but they'd vote with the government, attend government caucus meetings as a guest and maybe get appointed to cabinet.
I remember when David Emerson crossed the floor to join the Harper government. I don't remember hearing anything in Alberta saying bad things about it.
Jen's right. Floor crossing is a sign of poor leadership on Mr. Poilievre's part. Like it or not, he's not doing a necessary part of his job properly which is to keep his caucus together.
(The other possibility is that Mr. Poilievre is just fine and Mr. Carney is just so unbelievably amazing that even good leaders look like idiots and losers standing next to him, but I don't buy that one.)
The Liberals are quite happy to add insult to injury.
Can we truly say we live in a democracy if the rules are written or interpreted in such a way that by trying to exercise the right of choice is not permitted?
Personally, I think they should go ahead with the Thomas Lukaszuk question, and run the referendum based on that.
Who cares that he personally doesn't want that? IT was his own folly that got him here - he thought he was being SO clever, co-opting the separatist agenda by setting his own preferred question and gathering his signatures first. His intent was to leverage the "only one question on a topic" rule and bar the separatists from even getting started.
It seems to have not occurred to him until after spending his whole summer running around the province gathering signatures... that ANY yes/no question is, for all intents and purposes, a separatism question.
...at which point he pivoted, and asked for his signatures to NOT be applied to a referendum. Suddenly he wanted the Legislature to hold a "purity test" vote on his question instead, as if that would AT ALL calm the waters on the topic.
And now he and his acolytes try very hard to pretend that he never wanted a referendum, ever - which is just objectively untrue. The people who thronged to sign his petition thought they were signing to agree with a referendum question.
So let's hold a petition based on his question. He did submit the paperwork....
I would hope that Smith could frame her own question using Pro canada language that reflects a clear question with a yes no answer, BUT I do not know the legalities of this. I posted a very similar response to yours, before reading all the comments posted! This has always been my preferred approach for her, especially since it neuters Nenshi in the process!
I hope the language would be neutral.
Hahaha. Of course, the hope would then be that the question wasn't clear enough to count. The biggest challenge for the Alberta separatists (given that Canada is going all out to convince Albertans that they will never be respected within confederation) is to get a Premier actually willing to proceed with secession once there is a mandate. Smith is a federalist, and I'm sure she is furious with her allies for pulling these crazy stunts and putting her in the spot. A federalist victory in a referendum makes the whole issue go away: that's what federalists should be working toward.
I think at this point, it's clear that Ms. Smith isn't on the fence. She's a separatist. She's just dishonest about what she wants because if she had campaigned honestly on it, she'd be "former politician Danielle Smith".
Ridiculous. The separatists have no institutional leaders, and are still polling pretty well. If she were a separatist, she could make a speech saying that, in her opinion, Alberta will never receive respect or fair treatment from Ottawa, and that would boost separatist sentiment over the finish line. Then she would become a Prime Minister, not a Premier.
I think if Ottawa comes at Alberta swinging there is a good chance she might well get off the fence.
I think so too. I have met her personally (very briefly) and everything I hear would say she is sincere, bright, and caring, but not bloody-minded or ruthless. She would prefer the status quo, but I think has limits to how much she is willing for Albertans to be humiliated.
Well said Rob. This is issue, as it relates to Smith is very simple. She's a separatist. She has gone to great lengths to support/enable and amplify the separatist message. Hopefully in the next year we can vote on this so the separatists can be quiet or leave, either one would be great.
Go ahead. Have your vote. Live with the consequences. I'm so tired of this whining separatist bullshit.
What I cannot understand is why the efforts made by the official opposition and its leader in Alberta (former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi) appears to have garnered fairly little attention in the news media outside the province.
Has the effort really been so ineffectual?
I also find it difficult to understand why the Prime Minister and his crew think that they have to remain silent. Albertans ARE Canadians and many would likely appreciate some indication of support from outside the province for their embrace of that affiliation.
AC, I am a Calgarian and I despise Nenshi; put that down to having had to live under his maladministration of my city. As for Nenshi's "effectiveness" I simply offer the query, what effectiveness? I have heard only noise from him.
As for Carney et al making comment? I simply want them to mind their own business; this is a matter for Albertans to deal with. Oh, you say, but anything that Alberta decides will affect ROC and therefore .... etc. ... well, ROC doesn't seem to want Alberta as anything but a cash cow so, no, non-Albertans are not welcome to participate in the commentary.
I find it surprising to read your view that non-Albertans (people in the rest of Canada) perceive Alberta as "only a cash cow".
Is that what you saw when you read CBC news reporting about the wildfires that consumed much of Fort McMurray a decade ago, or the town of Jasper, that suffered terribly in 2024?
Is that how flooding in Calgary was handled by the CBC and other "Canadian" news agencies?
What about stories regarding Alberta's marvellous cultural attractions (including the amazing theatre scene in Edmonton and Calgary's magnificent new library)?
There is much interest in and appreciation for Alberta outside the province (in the rest of Canada).
- - -
As for the fiscal issues, I would argue that Canadians for the most part are quite clueless about how Equalization (as a policy) is structured and how it has operated over many decades. Indeed, Albertans do appear to be more sensitized, but I would argue that the main reason for that is the decades during which successive Albertan politicians have talked up / developed a certain narrative for political effect.
Which is not to say that Equalization as a policy is perfect or should not be revisited.
But the separatists are not talking about policy change. They are talking about destroying our country.
You can bet that many, many people (both inside and outside Alberta) are emotionally invested in this as a result.
I love how the typical go-to Canadian response to Alberta's completely valid complaints is to assume we don't understand how Equalization works.
We do, trust me.
...and what we take away from your thoughtful input is that you believe us all to be rubes and hicks who do not understand how things work in Canada. THIS is the attitude which is driving us away.
===============
You say: "But separatists are not talking about policy change...."
Want to know why...?
Because we held a referendum just a few years ago, suggesting democratically (and quite loudly) that the federal government should consider amending the Equalization formula.
What did the Liberal choose to do with that democratically arrived at input?
If you guessed "IGNORE IT, and make a show of skipping any debate whatsoever, and re-enacting the exact same formula for another five years" you would be correct.
So sorry, but we've TRIED that...
And I love how you twist what I wrote into something that more closely resembles your perception of the "the typical go-to Canadian response".
As I recall, I acknowledged that Equalization could use improvement. As for the difference between "a few years ago" and "today", surely you would be prepared to admit that the current federal government is not the same one as that which you claimed was keen to simply ignore Alberta's entreaties?
NB: I do not accept for a minute that Alberta was ignored. In fact, despite all of the trials it took to finish, the fact that the federal government ended up dropping CAD 36bn on completing the expansion of TMX suggests that Alberta's interests--and Canada's--were considered important in Ottawa.
Let me check. Hmm, it says here the federal government was Liberal in 2021, and the current government is ...the very same Liberals. So NO, this is NOT a "new" government. We do have a new PM, which is NOT the same thing.
And yes, that referendum was IGNORED.
So were our Senators-in-waiting, who we elected to place them on the PM's list to choose from. He opted to IGNORE that list, and select his favourite progressives to "represent" us instead.
So yes, when we made reasonable requests, we were IGNORED.
Repeatedly.
=================
Since you insist, thank you SO MUCH for wasting $36 Billion taxpayer dollars on a pipeline which could have been built with ZERO public finds, if we only had a regulatory system which worked, and a federal government will to enforce the regulations as written.
This may shock you , but the story of TMX plays out very differently in Alberta than it does in Toronto or wherever you are from - Easterners seem to think this was something Trudeau did FOR Alberta, whereas we see it it as several years of needless delay on a no-brainer TWINNING of an existing pipeline.
...and Trudeau didn't do that because he wanted to - he did it because he was forced to by his own blunders.
=====
Looking back now with 2026 goggles on, with the decisions this government made since 2015, Canada really missed the boat BIGLY on the Energy file.
Killing the Northern Gateway project is going to go down in history as one of the most expensive virtue signals ever made by any political leader.
We allowed 17 LNG projects to die on the vine under regulatory burden, with only one measly little project squeaking through - while Australia built out their entire LNG system from scratch, and the Americans went from being an importer on LNG to being the world's largest EXPORTER of LNG.
We increasingly moved the goalpost on Energy East until the proponent threw up their hands and left the playing field in disgust.
We chased away TECK from expanding (clean) in-situ oilsands development.
The Liberals did everything possible to kill the cash cow, and now want to pretend they are interested in building it back - but FIRST let's blow Billions on carbon sequestration and building a carbon credit system to benefit Brookfield....
Our government has carefully steered us in EXACTLY the wrong direction, and arguably continues to do so. Do you HONESTLY believe Carney will build a single inch of pipeline in this term?
Had we moved to build out LNG infrastructure a decade ago, we would be highly relevant in the world today, rather than the laughing stock and punchline we are so swiftly becoming.
WRT the following claim you made:
QUOTE
Since you insist, thank you SO MUCH for wasting $36 Billion taxpayer dollars on a pipeline which could have been built with ZERO public finds, if we only had a regulatory system which worked, and a federal government will to enforce the regulations as written.
END QUOTE
On what grounds would you make such a claim? In fact, the main stumbling block was the view amongst investors and oil sector executives that the thing was not something they wanted to risk their capital on.
You sought to back up your claim by redirecting attention away from the pipeline to other projects that were rejected. Not fair dinkum, in my view, even if a reasonable debate could be had about regulatory failings on the part of bureaucrats in Ottawa (and Victoria, in some cases).
QUOTE
Let me check. Hmm, it says here the federal government was Liberal in 2021, and the current government is ...the very same Liberals. So NO, this is NOT a "new" government. We do have a new PM, which is NOT the same thing.
END QUOTE
Perhaps I should submit that statement to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary so that they can use it as an example of what it means to be "obtuse".
The party has changed significantly under Mark Carney, who it should be noted did secure a narrow lead over all of its opponents in the House of Commons during the last federal general election.
Yes, his government has since benefited from five floor crossers, four of whom left the Conservative Party. But the election wins during the three by-elections that occurred last Monday certainly underscored that his government has changed sufficiently to ensure continued popular support.
NB: Remember that the Liberals were on the cusp of electoral destruction according to polling taken during the dying months of the Trudeau regime.
Finally, and this has to do with your claim about going in "the wrong direction", surely you understand that the further expansion of fossil fuel exploitation runs exactly counter to global concerns about the verified and increasingly devastating effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions?
All of this stuff takes place in a broader context, one which your entreaties seem to miss.
The idea that the wildfires or the flooding signify very much is (how to be polite, here?) - not indicative of anything, really. An ongoing disaster in say, Armenia, gets lots of attention.
As for most Canadians being "clueless" about equalization, well, that is because the feds talk up how "generous" federalism is and conveniently ignore that it is largely Alberta that funds it.
Is equalization perfect? Quite frankly, that is a conversation that is so silly that I am not interested in it; the federal government simply has expanded it so greatly and skewed the formula in politically "convenient" ways so it is a pointless conversation.
As for folks outside of Alberta having opinions, where the hell were you folks when we raised these issues over the decades?
The attention paid to (and sympathy expressed for those who suffered as a consequence of) the wildfires was not the only thing I mentioned.
As for Equalization, you may think it is "silly", but it is a fundamental element of our uniquely decentralized federation. With Equalization came the devolution of revenue-raising rights. Alberta, like other provinces, has benefited greatly from that.
WRT Mr Nenshi, TBH, I also have serious doubts about his political nous. I think the NDP made a dreadful mistake when they selected him as leader.
The party seems to have a habit of making such mistakes... both provincially and at the federal level (although I thought that Rachel Notley was an excellent politician and provincial premier).
Yup.
I'm treading on dangerous ground here commenting as a non-Albertan, but I think there would be room for Canadian politicians to say that we will stop using Alberta as a cash cow and that we will stop throttling your economy, which would legitimately impede the separatist cause. After all, that's what the MoU was. It would be much better, though, if it were sincere and not a mere delaying tactic until mass immigration solves the "problem" once and for all.
E, you and other non-Albertans are quite welcome, of course, to have opinions just please don't expect us to really pay a whole lot of attention to them.
ROC can make all the noises that it wants about dealing with equalization but it is pointless for the simple reasons that a) the principle of equalization is part of the constitution and we all know how easy it is to change the constitution; and b) the formula calculating equalization is set by the PM and a benign PM one year is replaced by someone with other thoughts in another year.
Going further, you suggest that ROC might promise to not treat us as a cash cow and not throttle our economy. Please see my point b) above.
Haha, does that really mean a PM can just insert a minus sign in the formula?
I neglected to respond to your comment about the MOU which, I infer, you seem to view favorably. I suspect that you haven't read the MOU but I have. I highly recommend that you do read it.
It is highly conditional, a lot of goals, a lot of promises to consult and negotiate further. A terrifically important date was April 1st. By that date some really important negotiations were supposed to conclude with respect to Carbon Capture and Storage. That date was important because the feds had scheduled an increase in the Carbon Tax for that date. The CCS agreement is a prior condition for CONSIDERING a pipeline. The tax increase came in on April 1st, no CCS agreement. Personally, I expect the MOU to crash and burn.
You know what would have been easier than negotiating the MOU? Publicly stating that the bad laws were bad for Canada and promising to reverse them. Interestingly the feds didn't do that and instead we have this highly conditional MOU that is already failing.
Oh, no, I vote the MoU as a complete crock, good only as evidence that Smith is a federalist. Obviously Carney has zero intention of ever allowing another pipeline or oil production expansion.
In fact, I have a $100 bet with a friend that says there will be no shovels in the ground for any pipeline while Carney is PM.
What's your definition of an Albertan, Ken? Is it enough to have grown up here, which Carney did? Do you have to be here year-round, or is anybody going to university out of province no longer part of your nation? What about my family who recently moved to BC after living here for 20 years? What about someone who showed up here two months ago from the Maritimes looking for work?
All Canadians are entitled to participate in the conversation about how to handle traitors fomenting secession.
Allow me to address a few of your points.
On the whole, an Albertan is one who ordinarily lives in Alberta; historical Albertans are simply that: historical but no longer. Therefore, you and your family who have chosen to leave and now ordinarily in BC are no longer Albertans. When Alberta leaves Canada, I suspect that Canada will have an opinion as to whether I am a Canadian; of course, Canadian law now allows many, many, many people whose family were citizens in prior generations to be citizens. As for a university student who is (temporarily) out of the province while getting an education but was a resident before leaving for university and is planning to return, that person, on the surface, does sound like an Albertan.
Now, as for MC, he arrived in Alberta from the NWT when he was six and he left on completion of high school - normally, about age 18. He has not resided in Alberta since that time so one cannot say that he is normally an Alberta resident.
As for your final sentence, I note that you seem to wish to defy the laws of Canada insofar as the Clarity Act and the Supreme Court reference case clearly contemplate actions in support of separation. Your nonsensical commentary about "traitors" is simply that: nonsense and does not meet any legal standard of traitorous activity. By contrast, we separatists are rigorously following the law, both provincially and federally in this context so that suggests that we are - at this time - loyal Canadians.
Have a good day.
Canadian identity is so strong that it persists even if I leave the country for 20 years. If attachment to Alberta means so little that one's Alberta identity is snuffed out only a few months after leaving Alberta, it's not worthy of sovereign status.
The Cambridge dictionary definition of a traitor is "a person who is not loyal or stops being loyal to their own country". We appear to disagree about whether it is possible to be loyal in any meaningful sense to a country that you are actively seeking to secede from.
One thing occurred to me that I had not asked of you.
Are you bloviating in a similar fashion about Quebec separatism and calling Quebec separatists traitors?
I thought not.
The Quebecois were a conquered people given away to their mortal enemies by their metropole in peace negotiations after a world war. You have to be loyal in the first place to be a traitor.
Please understand that being an Albertan insofar as this debate is concerned is for residents of Alberta who are legally allowed to vote in the referendum.
Former Albertans and wannabe Albertans are certainly entitled to their opinions but we don't have to take their opinions into account simply because the right to vote is note extended to formers and wannabes.
As for your dictionary definition, I suggest that the legal definition is instructive for that is the basis of any legal action. Your dictionary definition is quite adequate for you to shun we separatists and, again, you are fully entitled to so discriminate among various folk.
Oh, I understand your position perfectly: no matter how long a person lived in Alberta and regardless of whether they were born here, if they aren't in Alberta presently, they're not an Albertan.
And like I said, it reflects a remarkably pathetic view of Alberta identity that is grossly inadequate to found a nation on.
Opinion piece by a shill for unelected corrupt "Liberal" dictatorship and their "useful" corrupt idiots.
What if she uses the Lukasuk question and frames a stay in Canada question... people can vote yes or no on that too? The judge ruled on this referendum, not the other one, which was not challenged. Personally I believe this should have always been her strategy! As Premier she needs to maintain a federalist position, this is a winning question for her, the separatist get to vote no, forever canadian people get to vote yes and the indigenous can decide what they want as well!
The separatists have 7% that would even seriously consider the question.
Let them pose the stupid question and waych them get destroyed.
The 30% number being throw around is a lie and a manipulation by the corruption plagued Smith UCP.
So off that First Nations would choose the same federal government that put their parents into residential schools over Alberta and increased sovereignty. Makes no sense unless it's all about the money. The feds being an easier mark to squeeze for cash.
I wish someone would call out the FN on their hypocrisy.
As for courts stopping even a non binding referendum? What are they so afraid of? If they are so confident of winning let the separatists fail.
The Breakenridge/NDP need to grasp that their Political games are harmful to the result they say they want. If they want to stay in Canada, then they need to deal with the separation questions directly. Why stay in Canada? What harms will result from leaving?
I want to stay in Canada. But I dislike being on the same side as the people this opinion revs up.
For example - ... was the government dragging its feet; or did the Lucazuk group say that they wanted their petition to go to the Leg and not to a referendum? Which is it? The inability to grasp the importance of that question calls into question anything said in the rest of this opinion piece. Sometimes one can't have things both ways.
Will Smith go too far?
We are well past the too far point. @#$% is going to get real the closer we get to October.
For me, the Sovereignty Act is a game of constitutional chicken. Maybe Smith is betting that Ottawa will blink to avoid a crisis and it's a safe bet the Supreme Court will strike it down ASAP. I think. She can simply ignore court rulings which would likely make Andrew Coyne's head explode.
I think Smith has more to gain than to lose. She can direct provincial ministries to ignore the rulings. She doesn't need to win in court to be effective. If Ottawa fires back at Alberta with the political equivalent of caltrops, then it's a precedent that would have to apply to Quebec. She can threaten to ignore federal environmental regulations; Alberta will protect their projects even if Ottawa doesn't.
A final observation is I suspect an adversarial approach from Ottawa is going to energize separatists and fence sitters in Alberta and definitely in Quebec. My gut tells me this is going to be the biggest issue in Canada this summer into fall.
"... then it's a precedent that would have to apply to Quebec ..."
Sean, the feds have FOREVER had different rules for Quebec than for the remaining nine provinces. Therefore, the feds can say things like, "Oh, but this is different ..." when it is not - but that is the game in Ottawa.
As for Ottawa being adversarial, I suggest that that will not occur prior to the referendum so that Ottawa can attempt to sway the referendum vote against separation. If a referendum vote was (sadly!) defeated then, yes, adversarial is highly likely. If, on the other hand, a referendum vote is successful then adversarial is guaranteed simply because ROC is, under federal law, required to negotiate with Alberta.
Ken, I have a feeling that Danielle Smith is being massively underrated on this matter. What I believe is that Ottawa thinks Alberta's beef (see what I did there?) is economical and ideological. The Liberals will come at them with a big stick (lawfare, etc) and I think that will be the biggest mistake Ottawa can make in this. There are a lot of fence sitters in Alberta and this will energize them, I think.
Okay, I will agree with that but I think that you have to consider before/after the referendum and the relative effect on our populace of Ottawa's actions in each time frame.
Could be. For me, this is going to be a huge mess if Ottawa blows it (And they will.)
Ottawa might have enough sense to keep its mouth shut during the campaign. Toronto (ie govt and subsidy media) won't. And the BQ/PQ will actually help their cause by riling up Alberta.