Eby didn't say that people advocating separatism is are traitors. He said that people going to a foreign country that wants our destruction and seeking its assistance in breaking us up is treason. It is, both in the way the term in commonly understood and under the law, if one war to include hybrid warfare.
In the modern world, war isn't only conducted with boots on the ground. War is also conducted through disinformation (see Russia's current attacks on the West), economic coercion, and dark money operations.
Trump and his administration have been explicit that they want to destroy Canada as an independent nation. They have overtly encouraged Alberta's separatist movement. They are currently using economic coercion and disinformation to achieve their ends.
Any Canadian who makes common cause with a foreign country that seeks to dismantle and/or absorb our country is a traitor. Their acts are treachery. It is absolutely possible to acknowledge Alberta's grievances and attempt to redress them in house while still being able to call a spade a spade when describing those who publicly conspire against our survival.
Separatism and bashing other provinces is a tactic of mediocre and irresponsible politicians.
Smith and Eby are of a kind that way: Eby is flailing in BC, barely avoiding an election loss to a ramshackle right of center opposition party and having turned a series of surpluses from his NDP predecessor into steadily growing deficits as the wheels come off his progressive agenda. Bashing Alberta and especially Danielle Smith still gets a favorable response from his base.
Smith seems to be struggling with a fractious caucus and the populist crowd that caused so much trouble for Jason Kenney has turned to separatism. Toss in ominous undercurrents of corruption in her government and party, plus an agenda that’s offside with most Alberta opinion, and she’s turned to the old trick of blaming it all on Ottawa and punching the hippies in BC.
Smith seems to be struggling with a fractious caucus and the populist crowd that caused so much trouble for Jason Kenney has turned to separatism. Toss in ominous undercurrents of corruption in her government and party, plus an agenda that’s offside with most Alberta opinion, and she’s turned to the old trick of blaming it all on Ottawa
So if meeting with a foreign country that has openly stated it is willing to to do what it takes to force Canada to give up it’s sovereignty and ask that country for money and assistance to break up Canada doesn’t meet the definition of treason, please tell me why not?
There is no attempt to overthrow the government, no attempt to assist an enemy to undermine the government, and taking up of arms against the government.
America has protected Canada when it suits America to protect Canada. When Canada was facing retaliation and bullying from China for being a good ally and arresting a Chinese telecom executive *for America*, America did nothing. America trades with Canada when it's in America's interest. If the trade conflicts with parochial American interests like the long-running softwood lumber dispute, America caters to its own special interest groups even when dispute resolution bodies set up by international agreements *American ratified* ruled that America was in the wrong.
America has protected our Country militarily for 80 years or so.
America has protected the trade routes we and the rest of the world use to create wealth and improve our standards of living.
America has allowed us incomparable access to its market, & its capital, both human and financial.
America has respected & protected our sovereignty.
We have had disagreements with every US President in my lifetime, back to Kennedy. Some of those were quite serious, and some were repairable with some careful diplomacy.
Donald Trump and national conservatives like JD Vance, Eldridge Colby, and Pete Hegseth are a sharp break from history. You'd have to go back to James Polk to see a similar situation, and in that case Canada needed the British Empire to deter America.
All history. Living in the past ignores the specific direct threat that this president represents to Canada. He has demonstrated that he is willing to destroy historical allies by attempting to annex part of a nation that is a member of NATO. Time to face the present
The suggestions that Dr. Carney's comments in Quebec were a faux-pas are typical of the oversensitive filter that diminishes the past. Quebecers didn't lose the Battle of Quebec (BoQ1), France did. Quebecers then refused to join the American "liberators" just two decades later (BoQ2). They fought alongside the British in the stalemate of 1812. If Quebecers take umbrage over facts, so be it. They have, and always will, act solely in their best interests.
Mr. Breakenridge's comment that the Alberta separatists movement "goes scorched earth on all things Canada" puts too much emphasis on a small group and ignores the equally incendiary comments of rabid federalists. Should there be a referendum on independence, in Alberta and/or Quebec, there will be no place for a rational discussion. Now is the time for federalists to put forward a reasoned argument in favour of Confederation.
“Absurdly high support” is a HUGE exaggeration even if you attach the Abacus poll that shows conditional pipeline support at +60% from 1800 Canadians. Why start your column in such a misleading way? And if the UCP leaders in Alberta are okay with playing their dark game they better get a tougher skin if they think polite politicians in Canada are a threat because they dare to say what the rest of us are thinking. I notice you didn’t quote the recent Angus Reid poll that many (an absurdly high number;) of those against separation would pack up and leave Alberta if separatists are successful in breaking up Canada.
The 15 per cent and 30 per cent numbers are going to look very quaint after the same Liberal voters, award the same Liberal Party Government a majority, and Albertans realize- once again, and for several more years- they are on the outside looking in.
Part of the problem for Albertans is that they've been cheap dates for conservative parties for decades. Other parties don't really see the point of competing for votes in Alberta because Albertans keep running up supermajorities for the right wing parties. Even when the right wing parties win power, they can take Alberta for granted for the same fact - winning or losing hinges on persuadable voters elsewhere.
The way Alberta has won has been when Albertans have become part of the government and represented Albertan interests. Stephen Harper. Jason Kenney. Joe Clark. Even a premier like Peter Lougheed was smart enough to engage with the federal government to influence them in the direction of Albertan interests.
Quit whining. Stop indulging in a loser's mindset. Do the work, and win the arguments. Democracy is always about arguments.
I think Carney signed a MOU regarding the MOST IMPORTANT THING Ms. Smith said needs to happen. I'm guessing your position requires that it can never be built.
Also, blaming the voters, although a popular starting position for the nut job edge of the right and left wings in Canada, is the usual loser talk. The same people who say, "very bad Canadians vote for the very bad party", foam at the mouth for their democratic referendum, lol.
How does the MOU attract capital investment and a private pipeline proponent?
Would you invest borrowed, private capital on a project given Canada’s current political, economic, regulatory and cultural environment? Of course not.
Premier Smith has played Prime Minister Carney very well.
He will wear the pipeline issue for many years.
Canadians have voted for the exact policies that have led to the exact results with which they now struggle.
Either wittingly, or unwittingly, Canadians are to blame for the current and myriad problems and failures faced by our Country.
I have not suggested Canadians are bad or good depending on their vote, and I am not foaming at the mouth for reform.
I am pointing out that elections have consequences, and that choices create outcomes.
We tried it their way, and their way doesn’t work.
How does one signal to a business community a positive message, when one refuses to remove the tanker ban?
If you were wise, you would deploy your capital where it would receive the greatest return, with the least risk. That’s what Enbridge, TCP, et al are doing.
I don’t understand the loser talk comment. Are you referring to the fact elections are decided based the voting habits of two Provinces? I live in a riding that would vote Liberal even if the Liberals ran a dead stump painted red. I still work for my Conservative riding association, sit on the board, and am active recruiting and growing our base. If that makes me a loser, well, so be it. I am then a happy loser warrior.
Question Rob, and I ask because I have heard it in the past. Could it be that Alberta “separatists” are angling for the same relationship with Ottawa that Quebec has? That being, specifically, greater autonomy?
It would be a mistake to assume that. The hard core of the separatist movement wants Alberta as an independent nation or to join the U.S. They’re counting on Albertans who just want to “send a message” to support their cause. Then they’re going to push their agenda no matter whether the support was sincere or not. Quebec separatist Jacques Parizeau called it “getting the lobsters into the trap”: do whatever it takes to win the question, then charge ahead. Something similar happened with Brexit, where support for Brexit was around 30% for months, reaches a majority to pass the referendum, then dropped back to 30% because people didn’t really want to separate - they just wanted to make a statement about the EU or immigration or whatever.
Want the deal that Quebec has? Demand that. Don’t support the extremists who are pushing a different and radical agenda.
Anyone who had spent time in Britain in the years preceding the Brexit referendum would have predicted the outcome. London, effectively a city-state, benefited from the EU. The rest of Britain is a third world country. Mr. Cameron was out of touch, as too Dr. Carney. That is where the similarity ends.
Dr. Parizeau was highly educated, thoughtful, fully bilingual, and witty in both official languages. I didn't agree with his goals, at the time, but his analysis of Confederation was as correct then as it is now. That is why the separation question recurs, the "root cause" is never addressed by federalists.
Parizeau and Brexit proponent Nigel Farage were both bigots, and engaged in rampant fabulism about the supposed benefits and lack of negative consequences for what they advocated.
Is David Eby 'accidentally' inflaming the separatist cause in Alberta with his comments?
Or is it intentional?
Keeping in mind that:
1. Mark Carney wants a majority government, and is close.
2. David Eby is lock step with Premier Carney on the climate change issue historically (perhaps currently, despite recent sleight of hand by Carney) - so broadly speaking, Eby and Carney are ideological allies.
3. Mark Carney has been 'playing nice' with Danielle Smith and Alberta's oil industry, crafting an MOU with the province that only partially paves the way for a west coast pipeline - lots of hurdles still exist, including the lack of a private proponent (thought one is rumoured), American-funded First Nations lobby groups in BC, and, of course, Eby and the BC NDP.
4. Mark Carney and David Eby KNOW the majority of Albertans do not want to separate.
5. With Danielle Smith hamstrung within her own party by separatist pressure within her caucus and cabinet, Carney also knows that will drive (particularly urban) voters to vote Liberal federally (with the continuing irrelevance of the federal NDP) to boost the federalist muscle of the Carney government in the rumoured spring election.
6. With a majority government in place, Carney can reward Eby for his 'service to Canada'.
I think his comments were deliberate, and crafted for maximum effect to inflame Alberta's separatists and spook Alberta's urban liberal voters to support Carney.
Respectfully, I think calling the actions of the separatist's 'treason' when they are actively pursuing support and funding from a foreign country to break up Canada is 100% accurate. That is exactly what it is.
So fun watching Smith all tied up in knots as she tries to ride two horses at the same time, as she panders to and support separatists (because that is what she is), while blathering about a 'sovereign Alberta within a united Canada' crap. No matter how nutty and right wing she gets, it's never enough for the tinfoil crowd.
The loss of capital, infrastructure and more importantly the intelligent/educated skilled workforce if Alberta was to separate would be staggering. Thankfully its nothing more than a hyped-up group of whining discontents who'd rather whine about Alberta's largess, rather than work with the rest of Canada on improving it.
Is Smith cheering for "Alberta" in the Olympics?? She has been remarkably silent on that. Come to think of it, she's also been completely silent on the disaster that is health care. Strange for someone who blows her horn on every little topic and detail.
"there are all kinds of questions about the appropriateness of Alberta separatist leaders taking meetings in Washington"
"unclear as to what the exact nature of these meetings has been"
"The optics of these meetings aren’t great and the separatist movement embraces Trump and MAGA at their own peril"
Look, Eby's a narcisleazist of the highest order. Every major policy is a failure of intellect, ethics, process, and results. His legacy is $5b debt service and leaving things demonstrably worse than he found them. He's got nothing to do but wait for the drubbing the whole province knows is coming.
But the author makes the case for Eby's comments. His spin (examples above) sound like a parent terrorized by their child, unable to meet out the necessary discipline, couching language for fear of escalation, and downplaying behaviour that needs to be corrected.
If we were at war, these morons would be in jail, at best. Wars have the odd silver lining. Publish the names and photos so we'll all remember who these scumbags are, forever.
The comparisons to Brexit are valid. A lot of people in Britain were frustrated with their government and voted "Leave" to signal their unhappiness. It was not a thoughtful consideration of the pluses and minuses and they're paying for that now. As someone who grew up in Calgary, now lives in Ontario and returns regularly I see a significant inequality problem. My white collar friends have done very well and my blue collar friends haven't got ahead in the last 25 years. There is a lot of discontent as they work on other people's monster homes. Add to that Alberta's unique penchant for sticking with a governing party for four and five decades at a time allows the ruling party to blame all its inevitable incompetence on Ottawa and the dreaded "Laurentian Elites". Now I ask my Alberta friends "Who has been a better Premier than Peter Lougheed?" That usually changes the conversation.
"The comparisons to Brexit are valid. As demonstrated by a number of investigations since, Brexit was a test case for how SM can be used to manipulate the public against it's own interests. The most compelling testimony comes from the former head of ethics at Facebook, a retired CIA psyops officer who detailed the use of tools honed by the gaming industry."
There isn't a single metric to support Brexit in hindsight and the U.K. has already reached out to the EU, as reported, to undo as much as possible.
The changing economy hasn't been kind to a lot of working class men, especially ones without much education past high school. Alberta had almost 2 decades of a booming oil economy where a kid fresh out of high school could find themselves making a 6 figure income so long as they were willing to work. That ended around 2015, and probably is never going to come back in the same way: the energy market has changed, with more unconventional producers everywhere and a growing renewable energy sector. Improvements in technology and productivity have reduced the need for labour in the oil & gas sector just as it has everywhere else.
Alberta was a boon for working class men for a long time, but the secular trends in productivity and automation are catching up just as they hit manufacturing workers in places like Ontario and the US midwest Rust Belt a generation earlier. Part of the attraction of Alberta separation (or MAGA in the US) is the idea that it's possible to roll back the clock and bring back those sorts of jobs. That's not going to happen, and it's incumbent on governments to help figure out new opportunities and policies that are going to prevent an increasingly resentful left-behind cohort of working class men.
Well said. Thanks. There's a lot of rear view mirror thinking going on. Having a Premier that does not understand that Oil Industry Lobbyist and Provincial Premier have different responsibilities is not helping.
Eby didn't say that people advocating separatism is are traitors. He said that people going to a foreign country that wants our destruction and seeking its assistance in breaking us up is treason. It is, both in the way the term in commonly understood and under the law, if one war to include hybrid warfare.
In the modern world, war isn't only conducted with boots on the ground. War is also conducted through disinformation (see Russia's current attacks on the West), economic coercion, and dark money operations.
Trump and his administration have been explicit that they want to destroy Canada as an independent nation. They have overtly encouraged Alberta's separatist movement. They are currently using economic coercion and disinformation to achieve their ends.
Any Canadian who makes common cause with a foreign country that seeks to dismantle and/or absorb our country is a traitor. Their acts are treachery. It is absolutely possible to acknowledge Alberta's grievances and attempt to redress them in house while still being able to call a spade a spade when describing those who publicly conspire against our survival.
100% agree
Separatism and bashing other provinces is a tactic of mediocre and irresponsible politicians.
Smith and Eby are of a kind that way: Eby is flailing in BC, barely avoiding an election loss to a ramshackle right of center opposition party and having turned a series of surpluses from his NDP predecessor into steadily growing deficits as the wheels come off his progressive agenda. Bashing Alberta and especially Danielle Smith still gets a favorable response from his base.
Smith seems to be struggling with a fractious caucus and the populist crowd that caused so much trouble for Jason Kenney has turned to separatism. Toss in ominous undercurrents of corruption in her government and party, plus an agenda that’s offside with most Alberta opinion, and she’s turned to the old trick of blaming it all on Ottawa and punching the hippies in BC.
QUOTE
Smith seems to be struggling with a fractious caucus and the populist crowd that caused so much trouble for Jason Kenney has turned to separatism. Toss in ominous undercurrents of corruption in her government and party, plus an agenda that’s offside with most Alberta opinion, and she’s turned to the old trick of blaming it all on Ottawa
END QUOTE
Precisely this.
So if meeting with a foreign country that has openly stated it is willing to to do what it takes to force Canada to give up it’s sovereignty and ask that country for money and assistance to break up Canada doesn’t meet the definition of treason, please tell me why not?
There is no attempt to overthrow the government, no attempt to assist an enemy to undermine the government, and taking up of arms against the government.
splitting the thinnest of hairs, lol
I would say seeking help to break up the country is a blatant attempt to undermine the government.
I disagree that there is no attempt to assist an enemy to undermine the Canadian government, but thanks for your reply.
The U.S. is not our enemy.
They are not our adversary.
They are an ally that has protected us and traded with us for a very long time.
That is precisely why the actions of a few are not considered treasonous by any reasonable standard.
huh? I'm not sure if you've missed some recent news...
They are not our ally any more.
They have protected themselves, and we've died for their stupid adventures.
They trade only on their own terms and break every deal they make.
What’s the weather like back there in 2024?
Not sure if you’ve seen the news but, uh, the US isn’t what it was for the last 80 or so years. They’ve made that very clear.
America has protected Canada when it suits America to protect Canada. When Canada was facing retaliation and bullying from China for being a good ally and arresting a Chinese telecom executive *for America*, America did nothing. America trades with Canada when it's in America's interest. If the trade conflicts with parochial American interests like the long-running softwood lumber dispute, America caters to its own special interest groups even when dispute resolution bodies set up by international agreements *American ratified* ruled that America was in the wrong.
America has protected our Country militarily for 80 years or so.
America has protected the trade routes we and the rest of the world use to create wealth and improve our standards of living.
America has allowed us incomparable access to its market, & its capital, both human and financial.
America has respected & protected our sovereignty.
We have had disagreements with every US President in my lifetime, back to Kennedy. Some of those were quite serious, and some were repairable with some careful diplomacy.
Donald Trump and national conservatives like JD Vance, Eldridge Colby, and Pete Hegseth are a sharp break from history. You'd have to go back to James Polk to see a similar situation, and in that case Canada needed the British Empire to deter America.
All history. Living in the past ignores the specific direct threat that this president represents to Canada. He has demonstrated that he is willing to destroy historical allies by attempting to annex part of a nation that is a member of NATO. Time to face the present
Again. I disagree. One person can be charged with treason. And history is history we need to deal with the present.
The suggestions that Dr. Carney's comments in Quebec were a faux-pas are typical of the oversensitive filter that diminishes the past. Quebecers didn't lose the Battle of Quebec (BoQ1), France did. Quebecers then refused to join the American "liberators" just two decades later (BoQ2). They fought alongside the British in the stalemate of 1812. If Quebecers take umbrage over facts, so be it. They have, and always will, act solely in their best interests.
Mr. Breakenridge's comment that the Alberta separatists movement "goes scorched earth on all things Canada" puts too much emphasis on a small group and ignores the equally incendiary comments of rabid federalists. Should there be a referendum on independence, in Alberta and/or Quebec, there will be no place for a rational discussion. Now is the time for federalists to put forward a reasoned argument in favour of Confederation.
“Absurdly high support” is a HUGE exaggeration even if you attach the Abacus poll that shows conditional pipeline support at +60% from 1800 Canadians. Why start your column in such a misleading way? And if the UCP leaders in Alberta are okay with playing their dark game they better get a tougher skin if they think polite politicians in Canada are a threat because they dare to say what the rest of us are thinking. I notice you didn’t quote the recent Angus Reid poll that many (an absurdly high number;) of those against separation would pack up and leave Alberta if separatists are successful in breaking up Canada.
The 15 per cent and 30 per cent numbers are going to look very quaint after the same Liberal voters, award the same Liberal Party Government a majority, and Albertans realize- once again, and for several more years- they are on the outside looking in.
Part of the problem for Albertans is that they've been cheap dates for conservative parties for decades. Other parties don't really see the point of competing for votes in Alberta because Albertans keep running up supermajorities for the right wing parties. Even when the right wing parties win power, they can take Alberta for granted for the same fact - winning or losing hinges on persuadable voters elsewhere.
The way Alberta has won has been when Albertans have become part of the government and represented Albertan interests. Stephen Harper. Jason Kenney. Joe Clark. Even a premier like Peter Lougheed was smart enough to engage with the federal government to influence them in the direction of Albertan interests.
Quit whining. Stop indulging in a loser's mindset. Do the work, and win the arguments. Democracy is always about arguments.
I think Carney signed a MOU regarding the MOST IMPORTANT THING Ms. Smith said needs to happen. I'm guessing your position requires that it can never be built.
Also, blaming the voters, although a popular starting position for the nut job edge of the right and left wings in Canada, is the usual loser talk. The same people who say, "very bad Canadians vote for the very bad party", foam at the mouth for their democratic referendum, lol.
How does the MOU attract capital investment and a private pipeline proponent?
Would you invest borrowed, private capital on a project given Canada’s current political, economic, regulatory and cultural environment? Of course not.
Premier Smith has played Prime Minister Carney very well.
He will wear the pipeline issue for many years.
Canadians have voted for the exact policies that have led to the exact results with which they now struggle.
Either wittingly, or unwittingly, Canadians are to blame for the current and myriad problems and failures faced by our Country.
I have not suggested Canadians are bad or good depending on their vote, and I am not foaming at the mouth for reform.
I am pointing out that elections have consequences, and that choices create outcomes.
We tried it their way, and their way doesn’t work.
The MOU is a necessary signal to the business community the Feds want this to happen.
Yes, I would, after a meeting with Carney that answered my questions.
That's a lot of predictions about the future... I guess we'll see. Every time sad baby opens his milkshake hole, the pipeline becomes more likely.
More loser talk. Sorry dude, but that's what it is.
How does one signal to a business community a positive message, when one refuses to remove the tanker ban?
If you were wise, you would deploy your capital where it would receive the greatest return, with the least risk. That’s what Enbridge, TCP, et al are doing.
I don’t understand the loser talk comment. Are you referring to the fact elections are decided based the voting habits of two Provinces? I live in a riding that would vote Liberal even if the Liberals ran a dead stump painted red. I still work for my Conservative riding association, sit on the board, and am active recruiting and growing our base. If that makes me a loser, well, so be it. I am then a happy loser warrior.
David Eby is irritating, no question.
However, in the end, Albertans must decide if his irritating rhetoric, and what other grievances each may have, merits the destruction of Canada.
For that is what it all boils down to.
I would argue that Premier Eby, in both sentiment and conduct, is far more dangerous to Canada than merely an irritant.
And I would agree wholeheartedly! Eby is a dangerous menace, at the very least.
Question Rob, and I ask because I have heard it in the past. Could it be that Alberta “separatists” are angling for the same relationship with Ottawa that Quebec has? That being, specifically, greater autonomy?
It would be a mistake to assume that. The hard core of the separatist movement wants Alberta as an independent nation or to join the U.S. They’re counting on Albertans who just want to “send a message” to support their cause. Then they’re going to push their agenda no matter whether the support was sincere or not. Quebec separatist Jacques Parizeau called it “getting the lobsters into the trap”: do whatever it takes to win the question, then charge ahead. Something similar happened with Brexit, where support for Brexit was around 30% for months, reaches a majority to pass the referendum, then dropped back to 30% because people didn’t really want to separate - they just wanted to make a statement about the EU or immigration or whatever.
Want the deal that Quebec has? Demand that. Don’t support the extremists who are pushing a different and radical agenda.
Anyone who had spent time in Britain in the years preceding the Brexit referendum would have predicted the outcome. London, effectively a city-state, benefited from the EU. The rest of Britain is a third world country. Mr. Cameron was out of touch, as too Dr. Carney. That is where the similarity ends.
Dr. Parizeau was highly educated, thoughtful, fully bilingual, and witty in both official languages. I didn't agree with his goals, at the time, but his analysis of Confederation was as correct then as it is now. That is why the separation question recurs, the "root cause" is never addressed by federalists.
Good old shxx disturber Parizeau. Didn't get what he wanted and went back to live in France. Never cared about Quebecers, only wanted power.
Parizeau and Brexit proponent Nigel Farage were both bigots, and engaged in rampant fabulism about the supposed benefits and lack of negative consequences for what they advocated.
Are you saying Brexit was a success?
Is David Eby 'accidentally' inflaming the separatist cause in Alberta with his comments?
Or is it intentional?
Keeping in mind that:
1. Mark Carney wants a majority government, and is close.
2. David Eby is lock step with Premier Carney on the climate change issue historically (perhaps currently, despite recent sleight of hand by Carney) - so broadly speaking, Eby and Carney are ideological allies.
3. Mark Carney has been 'playing nice' with Danielle Smith and Alberta's oil industry, crafting an MOU with the province that only partially paves the way for a west coast pipeline - lots of hurdles still exist, including the lack of a private proponent (thought one is rumoured), American-funded First Nations lobby groups in BC, and, of course, Eby and the BC NDP.
4. Mark Carney and David Eby KNOW the majority of Albertans do not want to separate.
5. With Danielle Smith hamstrung within her own party by separatist pressure within her caucus and cabinet, Carney also knows that will drive (particularly urban) voters to vote Liberal federally (with the continuing irrelevance of the federal NDP) to boost the federalist muscle of the Carney government in the rumoured spring election.
6. With a majority government in place, Carney can reward Eby for his 'service to Canada'.
I think his comments were deliberate, and crafted for maximum effect to inflame Alberta's separatists and spook Alberta's urban liberal voters to support Carney.
Excellent article. I hope this runs in the Herald. Or has it?
Respectfully, I think calling the actions of the separatist's 'treason' when they are actively pursuing support and funding from a foreign country to break up Canada is 100% accurate. That is exactly what it is.
So fun watching Smith all tied up in knots as she tries to ride two horses at the same time, as she panders to and support separatists (because that is what she is), while blathering about a 'sovereign Alberta within a united Canada' crap. No matter how nutty and right wing she gets, it's never enough for the tinfoil crowd.
The loss of capital, infrastructure and more importantly the intelligent/educated skilled workforce if Alberta was to separate would be staggering. Thankfully its nothing more than a hyped-up group of whining discontents who'd rather whine about Alberta's largess, rather than work with the rest of Canada on improving it.
Is Smith cheering for "Alberta" in the Olympics?? She has been remarkably silent on that. Come to think of it, she's also been completely silent on the disaster that is health care. Strange for someone who blows her horn on every little topic and detail.
Alberta has legal right to secede from Canada. Any province does. Written in the Clarity Act.
"there are all kinds of questions about the appropriateness of Alberta separatist leaders taking meetings in Washington"
"unclear as to what the exact nature of these meetings has been"
"The optics of these meetings aren’t great and the separatist movement embraces Trump and MAGA at their own peril"
Look, Eby's a narcisleazist of the highest order. Every major policy is a failure of intellect, ethics, process, and results. His legacy is $5b debt service and leaving things demonstrably worse than he found them. He's got nothing to do but wait for the drubbing the whole province knows is coming.
But the author makes the case for Eby's comments. His spin (examples above) sound like a parent terrorized by their child, unable to meet out the necessary discipline, couching language for fear of escalation, and downplaying behaviour that needs to be corrected.
If we were at war, these morons would be in jail, at best. Wars have the odd silver lining. Publish the names and photos so we'll all remember who these scumbags are, forever.
Positive mention for the paragraph containing "Eby's a narcisleazist of the highest order".
Disagree or not sure re. the rest of the comment.
The comparisons to Brexit are valid. A lot of people in Britain were frustrated with their government and voted "Leave" to signal their unhappiness. It was not a thoughtful consideration of the pluses and minuses and they're paying for that now. As someone who grew up in Calgary, now lives in Ontario and returns regularly I see a significant inequality problem. My white collar friends have done very well and my blue collar friends haven't got ahead in the last 25 years. There is a lot of discontent as they work on other people's monster homes. Add to that Alberta's unique penchant for sticking with a governing party for four and five decades at a time allows the ruling party to blame all its inevitable incompetence on Ottawa and the dreaded "Laurentian Elites". Now I ask my Alberta friends "Who has been a better Premier than Peter Lougheed?" That usually changes the conversation.
"The comparisons to Brexit are valid. As demonstrated by a number of investigations since, Brexit was a test case for how SM can be used to manipulate the public against it's own interests. The most compelling testimony comes from the former head of ethics at Facebook, a retired CIA psyops officer who detailed the use of tools honed by the gaming industry."
There isn't a single metric to support Brexit in hindsight and the U.K. has already reached out to the EU, as reported, to undo as much as possible.
The changing economy hasn't been kind to a lot of working class men, especially ones without much education past high school. Alberta had almost 2 decades of a booming oil economy where a kid fresh out of high school could find themselves making a 6 figure income so long as they were willing to work. That ended around 2015, and probably is never going to come back in the same way: the energy market has changed, with more unconventional producers everywhere and a growing renewable energy sector. Improvements in technology and productivity have reduced the need for labour in the oil & gas sector just as it has everywhere else.
Alberta was a boon for working class men for a long time, but the secular trends in productivity and automation are catching up just as they hit manufacturing workers in places like Ontario and the US midwest Rust Belt a generation earlier. Part of the attraction of Alberta separation (or MAGA in the US) is the idea that it's possible to roll back the clock and bring back those sorts of jobs. That's not going to happen, and it's incumbent on governments to help figure out new opportunities and policies that are going to prevent an increasingly resentful left-behind cohort of working class men.
It is not only a cohort of working class men that has been left behind.
Well said. Thanks. There's a lot of rear view mirror thinking going on. Having a Premier that does not understand that Oil Industry Lobbyist and Provincial Premier have different responsibilities is not helping.