You know what it really infuriating? Everything you have written here is true and there is absolutely no evidence that the MSM has figured this out.
We told off Germany and Japan who are absolutely desperate for energy because of the Ukraine war and expect them now to discuss trade deals to help us detach from the US? Good ^#**## luck with that. Couldn’t close trade deals with Australia and Britain because of the dairy cartel? Well, it is going to cost a heck of a lot more now to get it done.
You are absolutely right about the past 10 years. This didn’t just fall out of the sky. It was right there and we did nothing about it. Now we pay.
"a low-productivity, highly centralized griftocracy that is more invested in expanding entitlements, symbolic action and emotional gratification than actually doing anything"
Pierre will win. But when it comes to ideas, planning, executing and implementing ideas, outside of axe the tax, "he doesn't know if he's shot, fucked or snakebit". And it should be comedy gold watching him answer questions for the first time in his life.
Feel free to offer a reason for optimism. We're bringing a peashooter to a gunfight, with economic clout that is zero. The only question is how much economic pain the US wants to inflict on itself to accomplish its goals. In the end, despite the face-saving "negotiations", we'll do what we're told or face ruin.
What a mess. The only way out of this is to call an election. Every province for themselves is a receipt for disaster. The Americans are going to do what they will do. But for Canada to continue working normally on an assumption that America will look after the best interests of Canada is infantile. We need to pivot and build pipelines, mines, and refineries. Think of this as a war time initiative. We have lost 10 years in this race but I believe we can no do it. We simply need a national will to start with. An election is the only instrument of state that will give us this will.
The obligation to consult thoroughly and meticulously with aboriginal bands before any resource project is approved is a Constitutional obligation unaffected by election mandates. The Supreme Court says so and this is not a part of the Constitution that the Government can over-ride with the Notwithstanding Clause. The honour of the Crown is at stake. There is no formal veto right but many activists think UNDRIP does give a veto and who knows? perhaps the Supreme Court will agree there is now that Canada has ratified the Resolution and passed legislation enshrining it.
No pipelines or mines on the horizon any time soon, I should think.
Sorry Susan, I disagree. When 4% of the population can hold your country hostage because of an interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court, then you have already lost your country. If what you say is true, then let us fold our cards and join the USA. The constitution means nothing if we have no country. Time for major change is coming to Canada. One way or the other.
There doesn’t seem to be any way to fix this when we have a woke Supreme Court whose judges were appointed because they are steeped deep with reconciliation. The Constitution parts dealing with treaty rights were written by woke leftist premiers late at night when they were tired and jotted them down as afterthoughts that sounded good. They didn’t take the time to consider what would happen when demand for rights became irreconcilable with Canada’s other priorities.
If Canada became part of the U.S. republic, the honour of the Crown would go out the window just like it did in the 13 Colonies in 1776. The Canadian treaty obligations would evaporate since the treaties were signed with the Canadian Crown, an entity which would no longer exist. The United States would never let itself be bound by promises made by or to a foreign government. Not surprisingly, the AFN is furious at President Trump’s “disrespectful” annexation proposal.
I think Native Canadians are more than smart enough to see the various options in their future, and understand that becoming American is dead last. This might be an excellent time for a chat.
Agreed but not so certain the whole lot of the various bands, er nations, can arrive at a common objective. Their failure to accept the reasonably, er very, generous settlement on child welfare is a point in fact.
Parliament needs to work to narrow the duty to consult as much as possible. I am far from a legal scholar, but my understanding is that the treaties provide indigenous people the right to sustain themselves through hunting, trapping and fishing on public lands. Is it not relevant that few actually do so? A way to look at it is an oilsands operation may impact 50 sq km of a 1,000 sq km tract of land where a only a few hundred people at best engage in hunting, trapping and fishing to an extent that it provides sustenance. Wouldn't the concepts of expropriation or beneficial use come into play?
Susan, there is consultation and there is CONSULTATION and this government has never pushed back when reasonable consultation was provided but some malcontents wanted unreasonable additional consultation, primarily to delay and derail projects.
There is ample room for consultation with natives (oh, is that a bad term?) but don't forget that the current stupid law requires all sorts of other consultation (including "the intersection of gender and ...." stupidity?). The point is that we CAN have consultation and it can be designed to be quick and truly consultative but get the damned laws fixed! The laws? The No More Pipelines Act and similar absurdities.
I highly recommend this occasional blog by retired litigation lawyer Andrew Roman. He knows pipeline regulatory law backwards and forwards and has many knowledgeable and thought-provoking entries on the No More Pipelines Act, UNDRIP and indigenous consultation, the Trucker Protest and many other topics.
Trudeau and Guilbeault basically left us at the mercy of the US. They cut off routes to save us from this kind of action. No business case? How is that going now?
The covid years showed that all constitutional protections are highly malleable when justices see necessity. The obligation to consult was nebulous to begin with.
Mark, the problem is that the law simply called for consultation. It did not define consultation and allowed for endless appeals that were oriented to delay and derailment of projects. First thing needed is a good definition of what is a consultation.
If the Supremes don't happen to agree, figure out some method to pack the court, impeach a Supreme or two and so forth. Better yet. the PM (but not an LPC PM, please) needs to make clear that the Supremes have stepped over the line and the consequences are .... The Supremes have stepped into the political arena and the consequence will be the politicians stepping into the legal arena.
Fully agree. And the new PM should concentrate minds by asking everyone, especially including the Supremes personally, if they think they would be better off if Canada were ruled from Washington.
Analysis paralysis and the stakeholder consultation filibuster are a part of the culture now, No amount of lawmaking will change that. Only a hard reboot can help now, but are Canadians willing to take that hard medicine?
I think a necessary but not sufficient skill for dealing with Trump is to invest just 5% of the energy one is willing to devote to him in reacting to what he says and 95% reacting to what he actually does. Most have the ratios the other way around (if not precisely those ratios in reverse) which is both (a) part of Trump's plan and (b) a very bad approach to dealing with him.
And OF COURSE Junior committed to subsidies for EV plants in southern Ontario (something for which, as you rightly point out, there was a scant "business case" before, and virtually none now that Trump has decided to scrap EV subsidies) while actually saying out loud there was no business case for for selling our natural gas to Germany/Japan. He, and, to be fair, WIDE swaths of Canadians has utter contempt for markets (or is it a complete misunderstanding?) so the fact he would get it bass ackwards is to be expected - to hear him pontificating about "business cases" just compounds one's aggravation. Again, until the griftocracy ends and there is the slightest nod to free market principles this country is well and truly fucked.
Tariffing BYD and NIO and subsidizing other suppliers isn't stopping the Chinese makers from rapidly gaining market share. Their products are simply far better
Trump fancies himself as a great negotiator and dealmaker. His actual record in business doesn't support his self-image: a trail of high profile deals where he overpaid and overleveraged himself, leading to bankruptcy. His attempts at more complex deals like his '80s "Television City" project in New York foundered because he couldn't successfully reach a deal with a number of different stakeholders - a skill that's core to the serious NYC developers who do such things repeatedly. Looking at his high profile renegotiation of NAFTA, he got ground down and outmaneuvered by Canada and Mexico to the point that "the worst trade deal in history" was mostly changed by renaming it "USMCA". Where he *has* had success in "negotiation" has been when he's been able to bully and cheat business partners, suppliers, and construction trades out of being fairly paid for contracted work.
There's several lessons for Canada in all of that:
1) Trump gets easily distracted and has poor follow-through. You can grind him down and wait him out.
2) Sometimes being able to claim a win is enough for Trump, even if it's symbolic or barely plausible. (USMCA: Now the US comes first!!)
3) He's a bully, and he'll try to score wins with heavy-handed tactics when he feels he holds the leverage.
Flatter Trump, drag out the process, distract him, and definitely don't overreact when he's trying to provoke a reaction and establish dominance. He's got just a couple of tricks, so don't play his game. This is a 4 year marathon, so it's best to pace ourselves now.
Certainly, let the games begin. Today, Trudeau tells us that he supports 'dollar-for-dollar matching tariffs'. Trudeau also said “Our focus is on remaining calm, remaining strong, and responding as necessary to actions by the United States.” And Trudeau also said that Canadians should not worry if the lib/dips move forward on tariffs for the United States. He pledged that his government “will be there to support and compensate Canadians and Canadian businesses”. That puts me in mind of the Covid debacle of printing money and handing it out to anyone who asks for it.
Poilievre said Canada must hit the U.S. administration hard, retaliating with tariffs and recalling Parliament. (I agree with the recalling of the parliament, if only to start the election process). The rest of his comment is just plain stupid and certainly is not remaining calm– and I like Poilievre.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, Smith is staying there until Thursday, meeting with U.S. governors, elected officials and industry leaders. In my mind, that makes Smith the adult.
Canada would have a very hard time finding lenders and I fear it would fall to the Bank of Canada to fund any "compensation" via buying government paper. There's no way the loonie doesn't swoon if that happens. It could get downright ugly, and Macklem will refuse to raise rates. Playing chicken with currency traders almost always ends badly.
Rick, I agree completely. No sensible investment banker is going to be particularly interested in underwriting Government of Canada bonds (or provincial bonds either, really - perhaps except Alberta) for fear of the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. The only way to borrow would be to borrow in a non-Canadian currency, say USD or Yen or Euro.
As you point out, the Central Bank will be the banker of last resort and any money printing will only push CAD much lower.
And, finally, you are right, playing chicken with the currency markets almost always ends badly for the country. Ask George Soros.
Right. Canada was able to borrow to fund Covid relief because the whole world was in the same boat and the lenders knew it would eventually be over, with payments being made again everywhere. But lending into a death spiral unique to Canada would be folly.
It is absolutely galling to see Trudeau still up at the microphone, trying in vain to project that everything is all under control, with Mel & Dom nodding away in the background like bobbleheads, as if his intention to resign speech had never happened. All that was missing was Chrystia. Wonder what happened to her, anyway?
Not sure if our Line subscribers have been paying attention to the many interviews with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith on mainstream and sorta-kinda-not-really mainstream media, but she has come across as the most credible of all our leadership, provincial or federal, when it comes to understanding how businesses work between Canada and the United States AND the roles governments play in the relationships between those businesses and the two countries. Read that last bit carefully, as both aspects are critical for elected provincial and federal leaders to understand.
Before I get lit up in the comments about being a D. Smith fanboy, I most certainly am not - for example, I disagree with her stance on Eastern Slopes coal exploration - but I do admire her approach in this fraught time.
I first met Ms. Smith in 1993, and have followed her career from her property rights advocacy days through her school board career, print and broadcasting stints, her Wildrose misadventures, and finally to the premiership of Alberta. She's been more than a bit erratic over that track, and has made some glaring mistakes, one of which led to the New Democrats forming a majority government in this province (much to the shock of the NDP). What Danielle Smith is NOT is stupid - to the contrary, she's whip-smart, knows how to do her homework, and from my decades of observing her, has learned quite a bit from her many past gaffes. Underestimating Premier Smith is unwise.
From at least their public pronouncements, it would seem that federally, no one outside of (perhaps) Mark Carney has a grasp on the Canada-US relationship in the Trump era, and it would be tough to believe even he does based on his public pronouncements in the last month. Provincially, it's tougher to tell, but good ole Dougy surely does not (grandstanding fool), and based on limited public comments from the rest of the premiers (Legault being the noteable exception as noticed by our Line Editors), it would seem they are adhering to the wise advice that it's better to keep one's mouth shut at the risk of folks assuming you're an idiot than to open it up and remove all doubt.
Woe that Smith is not our PM at the moment, or at the very least our federal minister of international trade - we would be much better served if she were instead of the lame-duck clown show we're treated to now, not to mention the (gulp) federal government in waiting, who seem to be stuck at repeating 'Carbon Tax Insert Liberal Leadership Candidate Name Here.' Perhaps their strategists are secretly hoping that it all blows up in the Liberals face, but I'm not sure there will be much for them to salvage of Canada if it does - they may assume the captaincy of a sinking ship, or negotiating the terms of our surrender to the Great Satan.
I need a drink....any Live Line Dispatches coming up this week?
As for needing a drink, perhaps if we in Alberta can leave the fools on the (Parliament) Hill behind in the dust.
I very much agree with your assessment of Danielle Smith. I have to say that the coal file is a puzzlement to me as I understand what both sides are saying but both sides seem to be talking past each other and not TO each other.
And, yes, Smith would have been a much better interlocutor on behalf of Canada but all that "Traitor" crap should sour her on that possibility.
Check the comments from Moe and Legault today. Not everyone is slagging Smith. To be fair, they're not praising her directly, but they are signalling away from dollar for dollar tarrifs. Only the Trudeau Team & Dumb Dougy are still vowing to dollar for dollar Trump.
Published today in the Calgary Herald: “The leader of the Bloc Quebecois says Canada is playing with fire by suggesting it could cut oil or electricity exports to the United States if President Donald Trump makes good on his promise to impose tariffs on Canadian goods... If you disrupt the habit of Americans sourcing energy from Quebec and Canada, once they have found other sources of supply, you will be in a very disadvantageous position to negotiate new contracts. “In the long term, it’s a bit of a scorched-earth policy,” he said.
Well, he's right. Stopping your exports is dumb idea Numéro Un. No one does that unless they can sell them to someone else they like better....and unless the customer you're embargoing will starve without them.
The "Québec and Canada" bit is annoying, as it was intended to be.
He’s not a traitor. Just like Hitler was not a traitor to France or England. He’s just the leader of a foreign country. And Canada is stupid enough to let him send representatives to its parliament.
I have posted my ideas on the 51st State scenario in a different comment section in “The Line,” - I need someone to debunk it for me. I will start by saying I think it’s a bit of hubris and not frankly a particularly sound assumption to say this Trump administration will be as chaotic and unfocused as the last one. It’s also never a smart idea to underestimate one’s adversary. There were a lot of lessons learned by Trump and those around him, and they seem to have responded to them. There is a far more ideologically coherent and loyal team around Trump this time. People who largely see the world the same way Trump does.
I feel there is too much consistency and smoke around the “51st State” message for it to simply be bullying or trolling anymore. Explicitly discussing using economic force to bring us into the fold, suggesting to the Prime Minister tariffs could be avoided if we become the 51 State, hypothesizing of how great off we would both be if we got rid of that arbitrary line, discussing how much better our tax situation would be under the United States. Not to mention reference to “Manifest Destiny” and explicitly saying the America will be territorially expansive in the inaugural address. I see someone who has an idea and an accurate assessment of us as a Nation - our strengths and weaknesses, and our potential, and has concluded there is no “business case” for Canada to continue as a country completely reliant on the USA for its survival while the US pays to defend us and maintains a trade deficit (regardless of what contributes to it). In my view, we are 3 moves away from checkmate and our leaders are discussing which pawn of theirs we want to take off the board here. To me it looks something like this.
1. 25% tariffs on all Canadian manufactured goods, exemptions for minerals, energy, oil and gas. Grace periods given for companies moving their manufacturing operations into the USA from Canada. Our dollar plummets, and Canada plunges into a recession with Ontario and Quebec hardest hit.
2. Canada responds with retaliatory tariffs and an export tax on oil, gas and minerals in order to try and leverage the Americans and keep Eastern Canada afloat.
3. The USA offers state status and 1 to 1 currency conversion for any Canadian provinces who wish to secede and join America.
Alberta is the weak point and the prize if you’re the USA here. And sorry to say Canada, but without Alberta, you’re screwed.
Can someone please tell me how I’m misreading this?
We built a railway to BC because we were afraid the the US had designs of taking over BC. We should build pipelines for Alberta as quick as possible to prevent the same thing.Its in Canada's best interest,will it happen I have my doubts.
If you're referring to traitor as a description for Trump, it's dead on accurate. Anyone who tries to overthrow his own government is a traitor. Anyone who shares his nation's secrets is a traitor. If you're referring to someone else, well this was a waste :)
I'm talking about the use of the T word to describe Danielle Smith who is the only Canadian politician who is doing any good on this file.
As for DJT, his countrymen can call him what they want but Canadians had better be careful in calling him names.
Put it differently: The LPC and NDP have spent the last few years trying to defame PP by comparing him to Trump in the most negative way. Do you or any sentient Canadian (obviously, the adjective "sentient" does not include member of the LPC or NDP) really believe that DJT will forgive and forget? So, can any member of the LPC or (God forbid!) NDP negotiate with DJT? The answer is no.
Ah yes, Danielle. Sorry, I so ignored that comment that I forgot about it already. No, she's not a traitor. She's just petrified. The same way that people across the country are petrified about their future and lashing out a little irrationally. Fear does funny things
I look at it a little differently. I think Trump cares deeply about what people in his "stratosphere" say about him. I don't think he cares what the average peon thinks. I am pessimistic enough to say that I don't think he cares what Canada thinks. The only thing that matters to him is how much pain his actions will cause him and his clique. If they decide it means annexing Canada is to their benefit, it will happen regardless of what we think.
I'm quite comfortable saying the NDP will never be in a position to negotiate anything with anyone.....at least in the 25 or so years I hope to still have on earth.
Funny. Even Jack Smith couldn't bring a federal grand jury to indict President Trump for treason. I believe Jack Smith is an honourable diligent man eager to please his boss but also not willing to use the law to persecute an innocent man or to bring a case that he would lose in Court. If the evidence had been there he would have got an indictment for treason instead of some chicken-shit document possession stuff. Traitor is kind of a nebulous term, means anything you want it to mean. The crime is "treason", not "being a traitor."
But we're not talking about Trump. Try to change the subject.
No, he didn't. There may be some difference between what you can prove in court and what the reality was. In the Trump cases, convictions were imperative. And based on how much he spent to avoid them, he was guilty.
See, that’s where you just don’t understand the rule of law. A conviction is never “imperative.” It’s up to a jury to decide if a crime was committed and if so, did the accused do it without lawful excuse. You say the President shouldn’t be above the law. Well, he should be entitled to all the protections of the law which includes mounting a vigorous defence and throwing roadblocks in the path of the prosecution.
Sorry that he slipped through your fingers. Better luck next time.
This is not the first time that folks from the US have told Albertans that they would be better off as a US state. I have been hearing that, and seeing the graphs for at least 20 years. Albertans for the most part were not interested. However, lately, I don’t find that too many of the people in Alberta (or from Alberta) who are not pondering the idea.
We all know the reasons that Alberta might want to leave, and the more we get of Trudeau/Carney/Freeland/Wilkinson/Guilbeault et al, the more it seems impossible to stay.
One more glaring error on the part of Canadian voters and that whisper from Alberta will turn into a roar. No one knows for sure how PP will perform if he gets in but it seems beyond science fiction that he could be worse than what we have now.
We wouldn’t be made ten states or even one state if we were annexed. That’s the first thing. We would be made one territory with all the provincial boundaries and governments dissolved until the Congress got around to figuring out what to do with us in a way that satisfied existing U.S. political realities. With Alaska it took from 1867 to 1959 to be made a state, and Puerto Rico and a few other island dependencies are territories to this day. Territories don’t have Senators or voting seats in the House and therefore no Electoral College votes. Residents of territories therefore don’t vote in U.S. federal elections and can’t influence U.S. foreign or domestic policy even toward those territories themselves. They can move to a state and vote in that state if they are U.S. citizens.
Second thing is, other than Manifest Destiny, what’s in it for the U.S. to annex us politically and inherit all our structural problems and have to welfare us as poor cousins? The U.S. wouldn’t get our resources for free. Customers in the U.S. would have to pay people in ex-Canada to dig them out of the ground just like now. The “U.S.” doesn’t buy “our” oil. American energy companies owned by investors buy oil from Canadian oil and gas companies also owned by investors. “Our” role is only to regulate and collect royalties. The only difference would be that U.S. law, not Canadian or Alberta law would apply to the transaction. Is this worth enough to them to bother annexing us? Dunno.
The best plan they can come up with is to trade Alberta for no tariffs on the rest of Canada. Trudeau might even throw in Saskatchewan because it is too hard to spell.
The US produces about 13 million barrels of oil per day but consumes about 20 million barrels. Additionally, of the oil produced, some is exported, not a lot so ignore those exports for this discussion.
That leaves about 7 million barrels of oil to be imported. Canada provides the majority of those imports but they also import from Venezuela (low amount, soon to be zero per DJT), Mexico and others.
DJT wants to ramp up drilling and increase domestic production but that is a longer term proposition and it is unlikely that the US can actually produce as much as it consumes at any time in the near horizon. Therefore, Alberta's oil provides a very secure source of oil. Of course, if the Face Painter put an export ban on then Alberta will not be seen as being very secure and things will change dramatically.
You're not understanding energy independence. Looking at how many **barrels of oil** the US exports to calculate its energy independence is the wrong thing to look at. Why? Because that's the US also exports finished product and other energy. The shale revolution is rather significant after all.
Your way assumes that much of the gasoline Canadians use in Canada is "US consumption" because the US exports a refined product to the US.
The US is energy independent and has been for a few years. It oscillates a bit depending on markets and demand and will continue to do so because the US is not at war with the world and if energy companies can make money on world markets it will.
Ultimately, the United States doesn't need Alberta. It's nice to trade with when it can get oil cheaply, but it doesn't in any way **need** Alberta. And the really crappy detail is this... it can get Alberta oil on the cheap without any need to give all those pesky non-Americans living there any kinds of rights, (much less citizenship or the right to work in the US and take American jobs), because Alberta doesn't really have any alternative market, not even in Canada. That's why the US companies don't have to pay the global market rate for Alberta crude... they pay a discount rate because (quality issues aside) Canada just doesn't have a lot of alternative markets.
This is not to say that Alberta has nothing. It happens to have a great energy resource. That's fantastic. But it's not the trump card some people seem to think it is.
Thanks Susan. Good counter arguments. Here’s my thoughts though.
1. I don’t believe Trump see’s the world in maybe the way you and I do. And think the idea of having all of Canadas resources under US jurisdiction and control is what is underlying the thought. At the end of the day, the US is still relying on a foreign country in Canada for its energy and economic security.
2. The welfare state piece is a good point. It’s a liability for sure. That said, we’re kind of small potatoes. The US could absorb it easily, there is also likely a thought that our future resource potential offsets our liabilities - which under proper management is true.
3. I think State status could be offered, and would need to be. The configuration I don’t know what it would look like yet. Put in a business analogy- this is best gamed out as a “friendly” takeover. Normally you sweeten the pot to sell your offer.
4. I think with Alberta specifically, the tax potential is attractive. I agree they are not “their“ resources, but the federal government takes corporate taxes, and taxes on all the employment attached Alberta workers which include high paying oil industry workers. Alberta is a net positive contributor to Federation, I believe we pay something like 6000 more per person into the federal coffers then we get back? Plus we make equalization payments in the tens of billions as well on top. On Alberta, as a standalone, it is a financially attractive and viable proposition.
Kind of famous for American history buffs is that Texas was the only new state admitted directly into the Union as a state, and the residents were clamouring to be loyal Americans and to be independent from Mexico. The Alamo and all that (some of it myth, yes.) All the other states were carved out of territories in the West as the Indians were gradually pacified and the states came to be populated with settlers moving west *who were already Americans.* Many in Congress today would doubt Alberta's loyalty and willingness to vote in Congress with U.S. national interests, being so recently part of a leftist foreign country with a long history of smug, parochial anti-Americanism that *really* grates on American ears. Not saying this is true of Alberta, but of Canada as a whole.
Chris, in your penultimate paragraph you say, ".... sorry to say Canada, but without Alberta, you're screwed."
As an Albertan I offer an observation and a conclusion.
My observation: You are correct. We pump so much extra revenue into Canada that if we were gone Canada would of necessity need to cut back on just a truly large amount. Or ..... Argentina.
My conclusion: Not only are you correct but, dammit, Canada, you are pushing us away and you deserve to lose us. Oh, a second conclusion: I'm not at all sorry about Canada being so stupid.
I refer you to Jen's analysis offered in the last podcast wherein she predicted that if the Face Painter et al levied an export ban on our oil Alberta would promptly announce a separation referendum. Of course, a separation referendum is legal and Canada MUST negotiate in good faith (the Supremes). Thank you, Quebec. Jen also predicted that Alberta would also announce a desire to seek union with the US.
My only response to Jen's prediction is to ask, "So, Donny, like what is your offer?"
The degree to which Alberta contributes to Canada's well-being makes you wonder what we would have become as a country if the internal combustion engine had not been invented, what, 30 years after Confederation, which stimulated the search for petroleum to run it on, which eventually led to Leduc blowing in in 1954. (We had a small petroleum industry in southwestern Ontario before that, just as Pennsylvania did. Some farmers still have little pump jacks working in their fields.) I'm very sympathetic to Alberta's position.
I'm not a lawyer. I just take more interest in this than is healthy probably. That said, I'm not sure that you even need to negotiate separation from Canada, which would take years unless a gun was pointed at everyone's head. (The aboriginals would have to agree, for one thing, before Parliament would pass the going-away legislation. They never would.) No, the legislature of Alberta could simply pass a bill declaring unilateral secession from Canada in response to an offer of annexation from the United States. The reason this wouldn't work for Québec is that Québec frames its separation project as a sovereign state. The international community would not immediately recognize unilateral Québec independence because Canada would claim that Canadian law, including the obligation of Québec residents to pay federal taxes to Ottawa, still applied in Quebec and it might use force to back it up. This would make Québec unattractive to invest in or lend sovereign credit to, because no one would know who the debtor really was and an investor might be faced with double taxation, or losing his investment entirely due to violence. Only after Canada decided to concede Québec's independence, or had demonstrated our inability to contest it, would anyone want to invest there.
But Alberta would have the United States backing it. Canada would not be in a position to force Albertans, once annexed with the U.S., to pay taxes to Ottawa. The U.S. would use force to defend the interests of its new citizens in its new territory. Alberta would not have trouble borrowing on world markets because its credit (to the extent that states/territories are allowed to borrow at all) would be backed by the U.S. Treasury and Uncle Sam's taxation power once Congress had approved the annexation. The United States would discuss with Canada how to deal with Canadian federal property (Canadian Forces Bases and the National Parks) and what to do about indigenous treaty claims with the Crown that the U.S. would not be obligated to recognize but would want to make some accommodation with, just as they do American Indian Nations in the U.S.
Your hand is is stronger than maybe you realize, assuming the U.S. makes an official offer to annex you, which I am skeptical of. Canada would surely protest U.S. meddling in Canada's domestic affairs. The U.S. could take note of the protest and tell Canada to pound sand. But hey, you never know. These things sometimes take on a life of their own.
I'm still not convinced on the 1-1 currency conversion, mostly because American citizens would see that as unfair to everyone else.
I'm also not convinced Albertans would ever entertain a referendum mostly because Alberta and Canadian culture value stability, perseverance and peacefulness, even to the absurd degree of hurting yourself.
If Alberta leaving or joining the US ever comes, it will be an elite led move, not from the bottom up. Your average Albertan will have nothing to say about it. Most revolutions after all come from the top and from the intelligensia, and those two groups in Alberta don't care enough. They just move instead of fighting.
That's a really good point, Milo. Thanks for making it. I have a feeling you speak from experience. The Clarity Act requires that a province win a clear majority on a clear question in a fair referendum before negotiation with Canada can start. But if the provincial legislature wanted to, it could just pass a unilateral independence bill with a simple majority in the legislature. The Premier might call an election first to ask for a mandate but I agree she would probably not want to stake the project on a popular referendum, which is a highly irregular process in Canada. I don't see why she would have to if she wasn't going to use the Clarity Act. The Provincial Lieutenant-Governor would, by convention, have to give royal assent, a most ironic act. If he didn't, it would precipitate a constitutional crisis and he would probably be arrested by the Legislature, which would then declare itself a republic. This would be a pre-requisite for joining the United States anyway.
Agree that Americans might baulk at 1:1 currency conversion, especially if the CDN dollar had tanked, as it probably would have by the time annexation happened. What did the two Germanys do at re-unification?
West Germany basically bankrolled the East to catch up to the West. The Berlin Wall has been down longer now than it was ever up and still the East isn't anywhere near caught up with the West, meaning money can't completely change culture.
Communism is a chronic debilitating disease, like tuberculosis used to be before antibiotics cured it. You could spend years in a sanitarium, struggling to regain your strength, having various treatments but having relapses that would set you back. Then even if you were pronounced cured, you would stay sickly for the rest of your life, and you would likely still die of reactivated TB. Terrible, malignant ideology.
“I'm also not convinced Albertans would ever entertain a referendum mostly because Alberta and Canadian culture value stability, perseverance and peacefulness, even to the absurd degree of hurting yourself.”
I like this comment Milo. There some solid truth to it. That said, no shots have been fired in an economic war yet. If it gets real, and suddenly Alberta is facing economic disaster due to policies of their eastern countrymen, with no internal solution (ie pipelines) being credibly
presented. I think this changes the calculus.
I don’t feel however, a one V one currency conversion would be much of an issue for most Americans.
I'm quite unhappy about it but it seems to me that the scenario you lay out is realistic. If we had a shrewd federal government that put more priority on Canada's survival than its own re-election, then defeating the menace of annexation would be easy enough. With any luck the Liberals will soon be gone. But I have no real confidence that a CPC government could resist the electoral pressure from central Canada to tax the west to provide shield the east from some of the impacts of US tariffs. Our best hope is that Trump is not seriously interested in annexation. Hope, of course, is not a strategy.
The CAQ in Québec are not polling very high, it is more likely than not that the PQ will win the next election. And Mr Plamondon, who is going for the nationalist populist vibe, has stated firmly that he will never, never, never accept a pipeline. So….maybe he might change his mind if it could be proved to him that it is in ‘his’ national interest, with the understanding of course that he does not mean Canada. BTW all of this is in a twitter conversation between Polievre and Plamondon, so look it up. He also wants more equalization payments and unless he sees some money on the table, that no one should call him. Basically he wants something for nothing. I really would not recommend that any Canadian nation building goes through Quebec. It is like building on quicksand. Hudson Bay pipeline anyone?
It's the new Trump team's first day at work. Let's hold off for a few weeks at least before speculating on the extent to which their performance might qualify as evidence of 'disarray.' For all we know, they could turn out to be the smoothest-operating administration in U.S. history, whatever we think of their objectives. At bare minimum they can hardly avoid being more competent than the team they're replacing.
You must admit that the chance of Trump’s administration being the smoothest-operating administration in US history is vanishingly small. We have seen four years of an administration run by him.
Watch the Bank of Canada very closely. Trudeau talks about support for affected businesses, but where is that money coming from? The government cannot go to the market without borrowing at exorbitant rates - non-government lenders will demand to get paid for buying risky Canadian paper. And if the BOC becomes the sole buyer, a crashing loonie and a huge resurgence of inflation is on the horizon.
I have no faith that Macklem won't make a tragic mistake. If he does and ends up having to defend the currency with rate increases, and Trudeau can't borrow, we are f*cked.
Exactly. Where’s the money for that coming from? The liberals credit card mindset came up again when Carney was banging on about universal basic income. Cha ching, swipe that credit card!
'Double down on the strategy of doing nothing' (paraphrasing here) was my favourite take in the piece. At least our frustration can be well-expressed, even as nothing appears to be done about it.
We picked fights with India over a plumber. Now their Foreign Minister was in the first row of Trump's inauguration, ahead of Japan & Australia. They prepared for a Trump Presidency, meanwhile our Global affairs has been absolute amateur hour. BTW India is coordinating with Trump to get their illegal immigrants back.
Hi Dan, it seems you support plumbers threatening diplomats and Canadian citizens with terrorism. You are very much responsible for the mess we are in. Now go away and enjoy your OAS checks.
You have a problem of priorities. You waste time trying to defend a plumber on comment section. That time could have been better spent tackling real issues of Money laundering, foreign interference, gang warfare and defending national security. Go back to enjoying your OAS checks and reflect on your failures.
I recommend that you read Willful Blindness and include that book in your Library. You could use it to understand what folks like Dan have allowed to fester and thrive in this country.
Every Prime Minister leaves a legacy. Trudeaus? MAID in and for Canada. I can just await the Ottawa tariff on Alberta oil. Oh boy. This will be the end of Canada and the start of Alberta51.
You know what it really infuriating? Everything you have written here is true and there is absolutely no evidence that the MSM has figured this out.
We told off Germany and Japan who are absolutely desperate for energy because of the Ukraine war and expect them now to discuss trade deals to help us detach from the US? Good ^#**## luck with that. Couldn’t close trade deals with Australia and Britain because of the dairy cartel? Well, it is going to cost a heck of a lot more now to get it done.
You are absolutely right about the past 10 years. This didn’t just fall out of the sky. It was right there and we did nothing about it. Now we pay.
Bingo. Business 101 - never reject anyone who has their credit/debit card out and wants to buy a product from you.
Wait what? Didnt we get the TPP in?
"a low-productivity, highly centralized griftocracy that is more invested in expanding entitlements, symbolic action and emotional gratification than actually doing anything"
Good one.
Orange jesus, the carnival huckster, elected at a tech-bro glory hole. (Free tweezers. BYO lube.)
Unfortunately, our black face tween lined up after the fact, thinking he was a bro.
And PP looks lost.
SNAFU
Are you all right? Seriously.
Yeah but now what? Do Canadians have the courage to vote for someone who is going to do the right thing?
Do we have a candidate on whom we can rely to do the right thing? Do we even agree on what the right thing is?
Yes. His name is Pierre. Unlike the other Pierre offspring that caused this disaster
Pierre will win. But when it comes to ideas, planning, executing and implementing ideas, outside of axe the tax, "he doesn't know if he's shot, fucked or snakebit". And it should be comedy gold watching him answer questions for the first time in his life.
You're taking an unhealthy joy in predicting that things will fall apart.
Comedy gold?
Seriously, you aren't helping.
Feel free to offer a reason for optimism. We're bringing a peashooter to a gunfight, with economic clout that is zero. The only question is how much economic pain the US wants to inflict on itself to accomplish its goals. In the end, despite the face-saving "negotiations", we'll do what we're told or face ruin.
And no, Pierre is in no way equipped for that.
John, I would instead ask a different question: "Do Canadians have the intelligence ....?"
History shows that, rather than intelligence, Canadians so often are attracted to the shiny new penny (a considerably over valued one, at that!).
I liked that tasty chunk of a sentence, too!
Good news is that the escallatory clause should save us.
So if the us pays more $$$, we do, but it goes the other way around too.
What a mess. The only way out of this is to call an election. Every province for themselves is a receipt for disaster. The Americans are going to do what they will do. But for Canada to continue working normally on an assumption that America will look after the best interests of Canada is infantile. We need to pivot and build pipelines, mines, and refineries. Think of this as a war time initiative. We have lost 10 years in this race but I believe we can no do it. We simply need a national will to start with. An election is the only instrument of state that will give us this will.
The obligation to consult thoroughly and meticulously with aboriginal bands before any resource project is approved is a Constitutional obligation unaffected by election mandates. The Supreme Court says so and this is not a part of the Constitution that the Government can over-ride with the Notwithstanding Clause. The honour of the Crown is at stake. There is no formal veto right but many activists think UNDRIP does give a veto and who knows? perhaps the Supreme Court will agree there is now that Canada has ratified the Resolution and passed legislation enshrining it.
No pipelines or mines on the horizon any time soon, I should think.
Sorry Susan, I disagree. When 4% of the population can hold your country hostage because of an interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court, then you have already lost your country. If what you say is true, then let us fold our cards and join the USA. The constitution means nothing if we have no country. Time for major change is coming to Canada. One way or the other.
There doesn’t seem to be any way to fix this when we have a woke Supreme Court whose judges were appointed because they are steeped deep with reconciliation. The Constitution parts dealing with treaty rights were written by woke leftist premiers late at night when they were tired and jotted them down as afterthoughts that sounded good. They didn’t take the time to consider what would happen when demand for rights became irreconcilable with Canada’s other priorities.
If Canada became part of the U.S. republic, the honour of the Crown would go out the window just like it did in the 13 Colonies in 1776. The Canadian treaty obligations would evaporate since the treaties were signed with the Canadian Crown, an entity which would no longer exist. The United States would never let itself be bound by promises made by or to a foreign government. Not surprisingly, the AFN is furious at President Trump’s “disrespectful” annexation proposal.
I think Native Canadians are more than smart enough to see the various options in their future, and understand that becoming American is dead last. This might be an excellent time for a chat.
Agreed but not so certain the whole lot of the various bands, er nations, can arrive at a common objective. Their failure to accept the reasonably, er very, generous settlement on child welfare is a point in fact.
At 4% of the population, their chat voice is not going to be very loud.
Parliament needs to work to narrow the duty to consult as much as possible. I am far from a legal scholar, but my understanding is that the treaties provide indigenous people the right to sustain themselves through hunting, trapping and fishing on public lands. Is it not relevant that few actually do so? A way to look at it is an oilsands operation may impact 50 sq km of a 1,000 sq km tract of land where a only a few hundred people at best engage in hunting, trapping and fishing to an extent that it provides sustenance. Wouldn't the concepts of expropriation or beneficial use come into play?
Susan, there is consultation and there is CONSULTATION and this government has never pushed back when reasonable consultation was provided but some malcontents wanted unreasonable additional consultation, primarily to delay and derail projects.
There is ample room for consultation with natives (oh, is that a bad term?) but don't forget that the current stupid law requires all sorts of other consultation (including "the intersection of gender and ...." stupidity?). The point is that we CAN have consultation and it can be designed to be quick and truly consultative but get the damned laws fixed! The laws? The No More Pipelines Act and similar absurdities.
Edit: Oops, forgot the link. Added at bottom.
I highly recommend this occasional blog by retired litigation lawyer Andrew Roman. He knows pipeline regulatory law backwards and forwards and has many knowledgeable and thought-provoking entries on the No More Pipelines Act, UNDRIP and indigenous consultation, the Trucker Protest and many other topics.
https://andrewromanviews.blog/
Trudeau and Guilbeault basically left us at the mercy of the US. They cut off routes to save us from this kind of action. No business case? How is that going now?
Without commenting on the substance of UNDRIP, the adoption of UNDRIP by one parliament can be undone by any future parliament.
The covid years showed that all constitutional protections are highly malleable when justices see necessity. The obligation to consult was nebulous to begin with.
Mark, the problem is that the law simply called for consultation. It did not define consultation and allowed for endless appeals that were oriented to delay and derailment of projects. First thing needed is a good definition of what is a consultation.
If the Supremes don't happen to agree, figure out some method to pack the court, impeach a Supreme or two and so forth. Better yet. the PM (but not an LPC PM, please) needs to make clear that the Supremes have stepped over the line and the consequences are .... The Supremes have stepped into the political arena and the consequence will be the politicians stepping into the legal arena.
Fully agree. And the new PM should concentrate minds by asking everyone, especially including the Supremes personally, if they think they would be better off if Canada were ruled from Washington.
Analysis paralysis and the stakeholder consultation filibuster are a part of the culture now, No amount of lawmaking will change that. Only a hard reboot can help now, but are Canadians willing to take that hard medicine?
I think a necessary but not sufficient skill for dealing with Trump is to invest just 5% of the energy one is willing to devote to him in reacting to what he says and 95% reacting to what he actually does. Most have the ratios the other way around (if not precisely those ratios in reverse) which is both (a) part of Trump's plan and (b) a very bad approach to dealing with him.
And OF COURSE Junior committed to subsidies for EV plants in southern Ontario (something for which, as you rightly point out, there was a scant "business case" before, and virtually none now that Trump has decided to scrap EV subsidies) while actually saying out loud there was no business case for for selling our natural gas to Germany/Japan. He, and, to be fair, WIDE swaths of Canadians has utter contempt for markets (or is it a complete misunderstanding?) so the fact he would get it bass ackwards is to be expected - to hear him pontificating about "business cases" just compounds one's aggravation. Again, until the griftocracy ends and there is the slightest nod to free market principles this country is well and truly fucked.
Stellantis and VW are in dire financial straights and could walk away from those plants
Very likely. Stellantis is rolling back the EV push and bringing a renewed focus in the US on gas powered vehicles.
And VW is shuttering plants in Germany as China eats their lunch.
Tariffing BYD and NIO and subsidizing other suppliers isn't stopping the Chinese makers from rapidly gaining market share. Their products are simply far better
This probably means they won't get the money. Frees up money for something else.
Trump fancies himself as a great negotiator and dealmaker. His actual record in business doesn't support his self-image: a trail of high profile deals where he overpaid and overleveraged himself, leading to bankruptcy. His attempts at more complex deals like his '80s "Television City" project in New York foundered because he couldn't successfully reach a deal with a number of different stakeholders - a skill that's core to the serious NYC developers who do such things repeatedly. Looking at his high profile renegotiation of NAFTA, he got ground down and outmaneuvered by Canada and Mexico to the point that "the worst trade deal in history" was mostly changed by renaming it "USMCA". Where he *has* had success in "negotiation" has been when he's been able to bully and cheat business partners, suppliers, and construction trades out of being fairly paid for contracted work.
There's several lessons for Canada in all of that:
1) Trump gets easily distracted and has poor follow-through. You can grind him down and wait him out.
2) Sometimes being able to claim a win is enough for Trump, even if it's symbolic or barely plausible. (USMCA: Now the US comes first!!)
3) He's a bully, and he'll try to score wins with heavy-handed tactics when he feels he holds the leverage.
Flatter Trump, drag out the process, distract him, and definitely don't overreact when he's trying to provoke a reaction and establish dominance. He's got just a couple of tricks, so don't play his game. This is a 4 year marathon, so it's best to pace ourselves now.
I feel like Vance will be the president before the 4 years is up. Just saying.
Or Elon's choice toady.....
Certainly, let the games begin. Today, Trudeau tells us that he supports 'dollar-for-dollar matching tariffs'. Trudeau also said “Our focus is on remaining calm, remaining strong, and responding as necessary to actions by the United States.” And Trudeau also said that Canadians should not worry if the lib/dips move forward on tariffs for the United States. He pledged that his government “will be there to support and compensate Canadians and Canadian businesses”. That puts me in mind of the Covid debacle of printing money and handing it out to anyone who asks for it.
Poilievre said Canada must hit the U.S. administration hard, retaliating with tariffs and recalling Parliament. (I agree with the recalling of the parliament, if only to start the election process). The rest of his comment is just plain stupid and certainly is not remaining calm– and I like Poilievre.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, Smith is staying there until Thursday, meeting with U.S. governors, elected officials and industry leaders. In my mind, that makes Smith the adult.
Canada would have a very hard time finding lenders and I fear it would fall to the Bank of Canada to fund any "compensation" via buying government paper. There's no way the loonie doesn't swoon if that happens. It could get downright ugly, and Macklem will refuse to raise rates. Playing chicken with currency traders almost always ends badly.
Rick, I agree completely. No sensible investment banker is going to be particularly interested in underwriting Government of Canada bonds (or provincial bonds either, really - perhaps except Alberta) for fear of the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. The only way to borrow would be to borrow in a non-Canadian currency, say USD or Yen or Euro.
As you point out, the Central Bank will be the banker of last resort and any money printing will only push CAD much lower.
And, finally, you are right, playing chicken with the currency markets almost always ends badly for the country. Ask George Soros.
Right. Canada was able to borrow to fund Covid relief because the whole world was in the same boat and the lenders knew it would eventually be over, with payments being made again everywhere. But lending into a death spiral unique to Canada would be folly.
It is absolutely galling to see Trudeau still up at the microphone, trying in vain to project that everything is all under control, with Mel & Dom nodding away in the background like bobbleheads, as if his intention to resign speech had never happened. All that was missing was Chrystia. Wonder what happened to her, anyway?
Not sure if our Line subscribers have been paying attention to the many interviews with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith on mainstream and sorta-kinda-not-really mainstream media, but she has come across as the most credible of all our leadership, provincial or federal, when it comes to understanding how businesses work between Canada and the United States AND the roles governments play in the relationships between those businesses and the two countries. Read that last bit carefully, as both aspects are critical for elected provincial and federal leaders to understand.
Before I get lit up in the comments about being a D. Smith fanboy, I most certainly am not - for example, I disagree with her stance on Eastern Slopes coal exploration - but I do admire her approach in this fraught time.
I first met Ms. Smith in 1993, and have followed her career from her property rights advocacy days through her school board career, print and broadcasting stints, her Wildrose misadventures, and finally to the premiership of Alberta. She's been more than a bit erratic over that track, and has made some glaring mistakes, one of which led to the New Democrats forming a majority government in this province (much to the shock of the NDP). What Danielle Smith is NOT is stupid - to the contrary, she's whip-smart, knows how to do her homework, and from my decades of observing her, has learned quite a bit from her many past gaffes. Underestimating Premier Smith is unwise.
From at least their public pronouncements, it would seem that federally, no one outside of (perhaps) Mark Carney has a grasp on the Canada-US relationship in the Trump era, and it would be tough to believe even he does based on his public pronouncements in the last month. Provincially, it's tougher to tell, but good ole Dougy surely does not (grandstanding fool), and based on limited public comments from the rest of the premiers (Legault being the noteable exception as noticed by our Line Editors), it would seem they are adhering to the wise advice that it's better to keep one's mouth shut at the risk of folks assuming you're an idiot than to open it up and remove all doubt.
Woe that Smith is not our PM at the moment, or at the very least our federal minister of international trade - we would be much better served if she were instead of the lame-duck clown show we're treated to now, not to mention the (gulp) federal government in waiting, who seem to be stuck at repeating 'Carbon Tax Insert Liberal Leadership Candidate Name Here.' Perhaps their strategists are secretly hoping that it all blows up in the Liberals face, but I'm not sure there will be much for them to salvage of Canada if it does - they may assume the captaincy of a sinking ship, or negotiating the terms of our surrender to the Great Satan.
I need a drink....any Live Line Dispatches coming up this week?
I agree completely. Whether you like her or not, following her X feed right now is a must. Just filter out the sniping at Trudeau.
Look at this statement from yesterday. I'm betting Harper is advising her closely.
https://x.com/ABDanielleSmith/status/1881419357189976093/photo/1
CP, I also agree.
As for needing a drink, perhaps if we in Alberta can leave the fools on the (Parliament) Hill behind in the dust.
I very much agree with your assessment of Danielle Smith. I have to say that the coal file is a puzzlement to me as I understand what both sides are saying but both sides seem to be talking past each other and not TO each other.
And, yes, Smith would have been a much better interlocutor on behalf of Canada but all that "Traitor" crap should sour her on that possibility.
Check the comments from Moe and Legault today. Not everyone is slagging Smith. To be fair, they're not praising her directly, but they are signalling away from dollar for dollar tarrifs. Only the Trudeau Team & Dumb Dougy are still vowing to dollar for dollar Trump.
https://x.com/ABDanielleSmith/status/1882161375721451728?t=mQE8AC34UpX5tKabsVoK-A&s=19
Published today in the Calgary Herald: “The leader of the Bloc Quebecois says Canada is playing with fire by suggesting it could cut oil or electricity exports to the United States if President Donald Trump makes good on his promise to impose tariffs on Canadian goods... If you disrupt the habit of Americans sourcing energy from Quebec and Canada, once they have found other sources of supply, you will be in a very disadvantageous position to negotiate new contracts. “In the long term, it’s a bit of a scorched-earth policy,” he said.
Well, he's right. Stopping your exports is dumb idea Numéro Un. No one does that unless they can sell them to someone else they like better....and unless the customer you're embargoing will starve without them.
The "Québec and Canada" bit is annoying, as it was intended to be.
Yet, is he called a traitor?
He’s not a traitor. Just like Hitler was not a traitor to France or England. He’s just the leader of a foreign country. And Canada is stupid enough to let him send representatives to its parliament.
He’s a separatists, so it’s kind of implied. We just tolerate it.
I have posted my ideas on the 51st State scenario in a different comment section in “The Line,” - I need someone to debunk it for me. I will start by saying I think it’s a bit of hubris and not frankly a particularly sound assumption to say this Trump administration will be as chaotic and unfocused as the last one. It’s also never a smart idea to underestimate one’s adversary. There were a lot of lessons learned by Trump and those around him, and they seem to have responded to them. There is a far more ideologically coherent and loyal team around Trump this time. People who largely see the world the same way Trump does.
I feel there is too much consistency and smoke around the “51st State” message for it to simply be bullying or trolling anymore. Explicitly discussing using economic force to bring us into the fold, suggesting to the Prime Minister tariffs could be avoided if we become the 51 State, hypothesizing of how great off we would both be if we got rid of that arbitrary line, discussing how much better our tax situation would be under the United States. Not to mention reference to “Manifest Destiny” and explicitly saying the America will be territorially expansive in the inaugural address. I see someone who has an idea and an accurate assessment of us as a Nation - our strengths and weaknesses, and our potential, and has concluded there is no “business case” for Canada to continue as a country completely reliant on the USA for its survival while the US pays to defend us and maintains a trade deficit (regardless of what contributes to it). In my view, we are 3 moves away from checkmate and our leaders are discussing which pawn of theirs we want to take off the board here. To me it looks something like this.
1. 25% tariffs on all Canadian manufactured goods, exemptions for minerals, energy, oil and gas. Grace periods given for companies moving their manufacturing operations into the USA from Canada. Our dollar plummets, and Canada plunges into a recession with Ontario and Quebec hardest hit.
2. Canada responds with retaliatory tariffs and an export tax on oil, gas and minerals in order to try and leverage the Americans and keep Eastern Canada afloat.
3. The USA offers state status and 1 to 1 currency conversion for any Canadian provinces who wish to secede and join America.
Alberta is the weak point and the prize if you’re the USA here. And sorry to say Canada, but without Alberta, you’re screwed.
Can someone please tell me how I’m misreading this?
We built a railway to BC because we were afraid the the US had designs of taking over BC. We should build pipelines for Alberta as quick as possible to prevent the same thing.Its in Canada's best interest,will it happen I have my doubts.
All good ideas, but what is it that they say about, "A day late and a dollar short?"
Multiple years late and many, gazillions of dollars short.
But then, I'm an Albertan.
Oh, and stop this "Traitor" crap coming from various sections of the peanut gallery, if you please.
If you're referring to traitor as a description for Trump, it's dead on accurate. Anyone who tries to overthrow his own government is a traitor. Anyone who shares his nation's secrets is a traitor. If you're referring to someone else, well this was a waste :)
No, dammit!
I'm talking about the use of the T word to describe Danielle Smith who is the only Canadian politician who is doing any good on this file.
As for DJT, his countrymen can call him what they want but Canadians had better be careful in calling him names.
Put it differently: The LPC and NDP have spent the last few years trying to defame PP by comparing him to Trump in the most negative way. Do you or any sentient Canadian (obviously, the adjective "sentient" does not include member of the LPC or NDP) really believe that DJT will forgive and forget? So, can any member of the LPC or (God forbid!) NDP negotiate with DJT? The answer is no.
Ah yes, Danielle. Sorry, I so ignored that comment that I forgot about it already. No, she's not a traitor. She's just petrified. The same way that people across the country are petrified about their future and lashing out a little irrationally. Fear does funny things
I look at it a little differently. I think Trump cares deeply about what people in his "stratosphere" say about him. I don't think he cares what the average peon thinks. I am pessimistic enough to say that I don't think he cares what Canada thinks. The only thing that matters to him is how much pain his actions will cause him and his clique. If they decide it means annexing Canada is to their benefit, it will happen regardless of what we think.
I'm quite comfortable saying the NDP will never be in a position to negotiate anything with anyone.....at least in the 25 or so years I hope to still have on earth.
Funny. Even Jack Smith couldn't bring a federal grand jury to indict President Trump for treason. I believe Jack Smith is an honourable diligent man eager to please his boss but also not willing to use the law to persecute an innocent man or to bring a case that he would lose in Court. If the evidence had been there he would have got an indictment for treason instead of some chicken-shit document possession stuff. Traitor is kind of a nebulous term, means anything you want it to mean. The crime is "treason", not "being a traitor."
But we're not talking about Trump. Try to change the subject.
No, he didn't. There may be some difference between what you can prove in court and what the reality was. In the Trump cases, convictions were imperative. And based on how much he spent to avoid them, he was guilty.
See, that’s where you just don’t understand the rule of law. A conviction is never “imperative.” It’s up to a jury to decide if a crime was committed and if so, did the accused do it without lawful excuse. You say the President shouldn’t be above the law. Well, he should be entitled to all the protections of the law which includes mounting a vigorous defence and throwing roadblocks in the path of the prosecution.
Sorry that he slipped through your fingers. Better luck next time.
I think that your arguments are sound.
This is not the first time that folks from the US have told Albertans that they would be better off as a US state. I have been hearing that, and seeing the graphs for at least 20 years. Albertans for the most part were not interested. However, lately, I don’t find that too many of the people in Alberta (or from Alberta) who are not pondering the idea.
We all know the reasons that Alberta might want to leave, and the more we get of Trudeau/Carney/Freeland/Wilkinson/Guilbeault et al, the more it seems impossible to stay.
One more glaring error on the part of Canadian voters and that whisper from Alberta will turn into a roar. No one knows for sure how PP will perform if he gets in but it seems beyond science fiction that he could be worse than what we have now.
We wouldn’t be made ten states or even one state if we were annexed. That’s the first thing. We would be made one territory with all the provincial boundaries and governments dissolved until the Congress got around to figuring out what to do with us in a way that satisfied existing U.S. political realities. With Alaska it took from 1867 to 1959 to be made a state, and Puerto Rico and a few other island dependencies are territories to this day. Territories don’t have Senators or voting seats in the House and therefore no Electoral College votes. Residents of territories therefore don’t vote in U.S. federal elections and can’t influence U.S. foreign or domestic policy even toward those territories themselves. They can move to a state and vote in that state if they are U.S. citizens.
Second thing is, other than Manifest Destiny, what’s in it for the U.S. to annex us politically and inherit all our structural problems and have to welfare us as poor cousins? The U.S. wouldn’t get our resources for free. Customers in the U.S. would have to pay people in ex-Canada to dig them out of the ground just like now. The “U.S.” doesn’t buy “our” oil. American energy companies owned by investors buy oil from Canadian oil and gas companies also owned by investors. “Our” role is only to regulate and collect royalties. The only difference would be that U.S. law, not Canadian or Alberta law would apply to the transaction. Is this worth enough to them to bother annexing us? Dunno.
Susan, what's in it for the US is we in Alberta and our oil. We being part of the US provides them energy security.
The ROC, not so much.
Trudeau and his crew say they have a plan.
The best plan they can come up with is to trade Alberta for no tariffs on the rest of Canada. Trudeau might even throw in Saskatchewan because it is too hard to spell.
Smith would make a good governor.
The United States already has energy security. It does not need Alberta to give it energy security.
Not so, Andrew.
The US produces about 13 million barrels of oil per day but consumes about 20 million barrels. Additionally, of the oil produced, some is exported, not a lot so ignore those exports for this discussion.
That leaves about 7 million barrels of oil to be imported. Canada provides the majority of those imports but they also import from Venezuela (low amount, soon to be zero per DJT), Mexico and others.
DJT wants to ramp up drilling and increase domestic production but that is a longer term proposition and it is unlikely that the US can actually produce as much as it consumes at any time in the near horizon. Therefore, Alberta's oil provides a very secure source of oil. Of course, if the Face Painter put an export ban on then Alberta will not be seen as being very secure and things will change dramatically.
You're not understanding energy independence. Looking at how many **barrels of oil** the US exports to calculate its energy independence is the wrong thing to look at. Why? Because that's the US also exports finished product and other energy. The shale revolution is rather significant after all.
Your way assumes that much of the gasoline Canadians use in Canada is "US consumption" because the US exports a refined product to the US.
The US is energy independent and has been for a few years. It oscillates a bit depending on markets and demand and will continue to do so because the US is not at war with the world and if energy companies can make money on world markets it will.
Ultimately, the United States doesn't need Alberta. It's nice to trade with when it can get oil cheaply, but it doesn't in any way **need** Alberta. And the really crappy detail is this... it can get Alberta oil on the cheap without any need to give all those pesky non-Americans living there any kinds of rights, (much less citizenship or the right to work in the US and take American jobs), because Alberta doesn't really have any alternative market, not even in Canada. That's why the US companies don't have to pay the global market rate for Alberta crude... they pay a discount rate because (quality issues aside) Canada just doesn't have a lot of alternative markets.
This is not to say that Alberta has nothing. It happens to have a great energy resource. That's fantastic. But it's not the trump card some people seem to think it is.
Thanks Susan. Good counter arguments. Here’s my thoughts though.
1. I don’t believe Trump see’s the world in maybe the way you and I do. And think the idea of having all of Canadas resources under US jurisdiction and control is what is underlying the thought. At the end of the day, the US is still relying on a foreign country in Canada for its energy and economic security.
2. The welfare state piece is a good point. It’s a liability for sure. That said, we’re kind of small potatoes. The US could absorb it easily, there is also likely a thought that our future resource potential offsets our liabilities - which under proper management is true.
3. I think State status could be offered, and would need to be. The configuration I don’t know what it would look like yet. Put in a business analogy- this is best gamed out as a “friendly” takeover. Normally you sweeten the pot to sell your offer.
4. I think with Alberta specifically, the tax potential is attractive. I agree they are not “their“ resources, but the federal government takes corporate taxes, and taxes on all the employment attached Alberta workers which include high paying oil industry workers. Alberta is a net positive contributor to Federation, I believe we pay something like 6000 more per person into the federal coffers then we get back? Plus we make equalization payments in the tens of billions as well on top. On Alberta, as a standalone, it is a financially attractive and viable proposition.
Kind of famous for American history buffs is that Texas was the only new state admitted directly into the Union as a state, and the residents were clamouring to be loyal Americans and to be independent from Mexico. The Alamo and all that (some of it myth, yes.) All the other states were carved out of territories in the West as the Indians were gradually pacified and the states came to be populated with settlers moving west *who were already Americans.* Many in Congress today would doubt Alberta's loyalty and willingness to vote in Congress with U.S. national interests, being so recently part of a leftist foreign country with a long history of smug, parochial anti-Americanism that *really* grates on American ears. Not saying this is true of Alberta, but of Canada as a whole.
Chris, in your penultimate paragraph you say, ".... sorry to say Canada, but without Alberta, you're screwed."
As an Albertan I offer an observation and a conclusion.
My observation: You are correct. We pump so much extra revenue into Canada that if we were gone Canada would of necessity need to cut back on just a truly large amount. Or ..... Argentina.
My conclusion: Not only are you correct but, dammit, Canada, you are pushing us away and you deserve to lose us. Oh, a second conclusion: I'm not at all sorry about Canada being so stupid.
I refer you to Jen's analysis offered in the last podcast wherein she predicted that if the Face Painter et al levied an export ban on our oil Alberta would promptly announce a separation referendum. Of course, a separation referendum is legal and Canada MUST negotiate in good faith (the Supremes). Thank you, Quebec. Jen also predicted that Alberta would also announce a desire to seek union with the US.
My only response to Jen's prediction is to ask, "So, Donny, like what is your offer?"
The degree to which Alberta contributes to Canada's well-being makes you wonder what we would have become as a country if the internal combustion engine had not been invented, what, 30 years after Confederation, which stimulated the search for petroleum to run it on, which eventually led to Leduc blowing in in 1954. (We had a small petroleum industry in southwestern Ontario before that, just as Pennsylvania did. Some farmers still have little pump jacks working in their fields.) I'm very sympathetic to Alberta's position.
I'm not a lawyer. I just take more interest in this than is healthy probably. That said, I'm not sure that you even need to negotiate separation from Canada, which would take years unless a gun was pointed at everyone's head. (The aboriginals would have to agree, for one thing, before Parliament would pass the going-away legislation. They never would.) No, the legislature of Alberta could simply pass a bill declaring unilateral secession from Canada in response to an offer of annexation from the United States. The reason this wouldn't work for Québec is that Québec frames its separation project as a sovereign state. The international community would not immediately recognize unilateral Québec independence because Canada would claim that Canadian law, including the obligation of Québec residents to pay federal taxes to Ottawa, still applied in Quebec and it might use force to back it up. This would make Québec unattractive to invest in or lend sovereign credit to, because no one would know who the debtor really was and an investor might be faced with double taxation, or losing his investment entirely due to violence. Only after Canada decided to concede Québec's independence, or had demonstrated our inability to contest it, would anyone want to invest there.
But Alberta would have the United States backing it. Canada would not be in a position to force Albertans, once annexed with the U.S., to pay taxes to Ottawa. The U.S. would use force to defend the interests of its new citizens in its new territory. Alberta would not have trouble borrowing on world markets because its credit (to the extent that states/territories are allowed to borrow at all) would be backed by the U.S. Treasury and Uncle Sam's taxation power once Congress had approved the annexation. The United States would discuss with Canada how to deal with Canadian federal property (Canadian Forces Bases and the National Parks) and what to do about indigenous treaty claims with the Crown that the U.S. would not be obligated to recognize but would want to make some accommodation with, just as they do American Indian Nations in the U.S.
Your hand is is stronger than maybe you realize, assuming the U.S. makes an official offer to annex you, which I am skeptical of. Canada would surely protest U.S. meddling in Canada's domestic affairs. The U.S. could take note of the protest and tell Canada to pound sand. But hey, you never know. These things sometimes take on a life of their own.
Correct on all points. The sooner the Liberal destruction team realizes this, the better. Not likely
You’re right on! 👏👏👏👏
I'm still not convinced on the 1-1 currency conversion, mostly because American citizens would see that as unfair to everyone else.
I'm also not convinced Albertans would ever entertain a referendum mostly because Alberta and Canadian culture value stability, perseverance and peacefulness, even to the absurd degree of hurting yourself.
If Alberta leaving or joining the US ever comes, it will be an elite led move, not from the bottom up. Your average Albertan will have nothing to say about it. Most revolutions after all come from the top and from the intelligensia, and those two groups in Alberta don't care enough. They just move instead of fighting.
That's a really good point, Milo. Thanks for making it. I have a feeling you speak from experience. The Clarity Act requires that a province win a clear majority on a clear question in a fair referendum before negotiation with Canada can start. But if the provincial legislature wanted to, it could just pass a unilateral independence bill with a simple majority in the legislature. The Premier might call an election first to ask for a mandate but I agree she would probably not want to stake the project on a popular referendum, which is a highly irregular process in Canada. I don't see why she would have to if she wasn't going to use the Clarity Act. The Provincial Lieutenant-Governor would, by convention, have to give royal assent, a most ironic act. If he didn't, it would precipitate a constitutional crisis and he would probably be arrested by the Legislature, which would then declare itself a republic. This would be a pre-requisite for joining the United States anyway.
Agree that Americans might baulk at 1:1 currency conversion, especially if the CDN dollar had tanked, as it probably would have by the time annexation happened. What did the two Germanys do at re-unification?
West Germany basically bankrolled the East to catch up to the West. The Berlin Wall has been down longer now than it was ever up and still the East isn't anywhere near caught up with the West, meaning money can't completely change culture.
Communism is a chronic debilitating disease, like tuberculosis used to be before antibiotics cured it. You could spend years in a sanitarium, struggling to regain your strength, having various treatments but having relapses that would set you back. Then even if you were pronounced cured, you would stay sickly for the rest of your life, and you would likely still die of reactivated TB. Terrible, malignant ideology.
I have lived for long periods of time in five provinces. Alberta's culture is as unique as Quebec's.
“I'm also not convinced Albertans would ever entertain a referendum mostly because Alberta and Canadian culture value stability, perseverance and peacefulness, even to the absurd degree of hurting yourself.”
I like this comment Milo. There some solid truth to it. That said, no shots have been fired in an economic war yet. If it gets real, and suddenly Alberta is facing economic disaster due to policies of their eastern countrymen, with no internal solution (ie pipelines) being credibly
presented. I think this changes the calculus.
I don’t feel however, a one V one currency conversion would be much of an issue for most Americans.
I'm quite unhappy about it but it seems to me that the scenario you lay out is realistic. If we had a shrewd federal government that put more priority on Canada's survival than its own re-election, then defeating the menace of annexation would be easy enough. With any luck the Liberals will soon be gone. But I have no real confidence that a CPC government could resist the electoral pressure from central Canada to tax the west to provide shield the east from some of the impacts of US tariffs. Our best hope is that Trump is not seriously interested in annexation. Hope, of course, is not a strategy.
The CAQ in Québec are not polling very high, it is more likely than not that the PQ will win the next election. And Mr Plamondon, who is going for the nationalist populist vibe, has stated firmly that he will never, never, never accept a pipeline. So….maybe he might change his mind if it could be proved to him that it is in ‘his’ national interest, with the understanding of course that he does not mean Canada. BTW all of this is in a twitter conversation between Polievre and Plamondon, so look it up. He also wants more equalization payments and unless he sees some money on the table, that no one should call him. Basically he wants something for nothing. I really would not recommend that any Canadian nation building goes through Quebec. It is like building on quicksand. Hudson Bay pipeline anyone?
It's the new Trump team's first day at work. Let's hold off for a few weeks at least before speculating on the extent to which their performance might qualify as evidence of 'disarray.' For all we know, they could turn out to be the smoothest-operating administration in U.S. history, whatever we think of their objectives. At bare minimum they can hardly avoid being more competent than the team they're replacing.
You must admit that the chance of Trump’s administration being the smoothest-operating administration in US history is vanishingly small. We have seen four years of an administration run by him.
Thanks, I needed that.
Mmmmm, “griftocracy”, I LIKE IT!!!!!
Watch the Bank of Canada very closely. Trudeau talks about support for affected businesses, but where is that money coming from? The government cannot go to the market without borrowing at exorbitant rates - non-government lenders will demand to get paid for buying risky Canadian paper. And if the BOC becomes the sole buyer, a crashing loonie and a huge resurgence of inflation is on the horizon.
I have no faith that Macklem won't make a tragic mistake. If he does and ends up having to defend the currency with rate increases, and Trudeau can't borrow, we are f*cked.
Where’s that money coming from? An export tax on Alberta oil, with revenues heading straight to Ottawa to be sprinkled around in Liberal held ridings.
Exactly. Where’s the money for that coming from? The liberals credit card mindset came up again when Carney was banging on about universal basic income. Cha ching, swipe that credit card!
'Double down on the strategy of doing nothing' (paraphrasing here) was my favourite take in the piece. At least our frustration can be well-expressed, even as nothing appears to be done about it.
"And what did this country do with that time?
Jack all."
We picked fights with India over a plumber. Now their Foreign Minister was in the first row of Trump's inauguration, ahead of Japan & Australia. They prepared for a Trump Presidency, meanwhile our Global affairs has been absolute amateur hour. BTW India is coordinating with Trump to get their illegal immigrants back.
It’s ok to kill a plumber?
Hi Dan, it seems you support plumbers threatening diplomats and Canadian citizens with terrorism. You are very much responsible for the mess we are in. Now go away and enjoy your OAS checks.
Au contraire tough guy, I have an issue with foreign states murdering Canadians. That’s it.
You have a problem of priorities. You waste time trying to defend a plumber on comment section. That time could have been better spent tackling real issues of Money laundering, foreign interference, gang warfare and defending national security. Go back to enjoying your OAS checks and reflect on your failures.
Yes, because you know everything
I recommend that you read Willful Blindness and include that book in your Library. You could use it to understand what folks like Dan have allowed to fester and thrive in this country.
Every Prime Minister leaves a legacy. Trudeaus? MAID in and for Canada. I can just await the Ottawa tariff on Alberta oil. Oh boy. This will be the end of Canada and the start of Alberta51.
Suits this Albertan.