To Albertans, I would suggest the grass isn't greener. Brexit turned out badly, but the people promoting it took their money and ran. I hope you stay. Every single Canadian, from every province and territory, will regret it if you go....including Albertans. We're stronger together.
I agree. However, that doesn’t mean Albertans need to swallow their grievances. We need to work together to understand each other and resolve our issues.
And, how, precisely - and I mean absolutely damned precisely - are we to resolve those issues when ROC has proven that it either a) doesn't give a damn about our issues and has no intention to change; and b) why should we believe any promises when promises have been made for decades but not resulted in anything substantive?
Certainly, but it gets a little tiring when the richest province in the country, the only one without a provincial sales tax, whines constantly about how badly they're treated. The country has huge challenges ahead. A pipeline in 5 years doesn't fix them.
For me, I suspect there is much more going on than whining. Do you think Alberta (and all the provinces) might want the same deal in confederation as Quebec? That's a pretty good reason frankly. (Unless someone can help me understand how not having the same deal in confederation as Quebec will address western grievances. )
These are historical grievances cemented in the west thanks to the NEP. (Some have said it is whining about the NEP and I say, screw you. I lived through it. That is a wound that is never going to heal with the current status quo.)
For me, everyone has to get back to the constitutional table and bring the document into the 21st century. We must change Canada for the better.
I lived through it to. It isn't even all about losing everything you owned, it is about the government of the country where you paid your taxes willfully hurting you. Then 30 years later there is a replay. There was more going on then just the NEP, but the NEP was aimed right at Alberta.
OK. The NEP ended 41 years ago. Isn't this now just holding a grudge? I don't know, but if it had been done right, could we not have a "slush fund" in the trillions like Norway?
The culture of English Canada and Quebec are different. I am also tired of their ass being kissed, and, like Alberta, they have no idea what they're looking at if they're on their own. My question is, what does Alberta want that it doesn't already have? What changes would you like to see?
So you basically want to blow up the country of a 40-year-old grievance with 2 dead Prime Ministers.
FWIW, I wanted to be rid of Trudeau for the last 6 years, SNC being the end of supporting him. I'll take Carney over Pierre 7 days a week.
What you want is an end to environmental regulations that slow oil production, and who cares about the world you leave behind as long as people make money today, you don't believe in climate Change even though your glaciers are melting at an unprecedented rate, and Fort McMurray almost burnt to the ground.
Basically, it sounds whiny, spoiled, short-sighted, and immature, considering you're the richest province in the country.
People lost everything, so no. Alberta wants the same deal as Quebec. That's pretty reasonable, don't you think? Unless you don't think Alberta should have the same deal as Quebec.
To quit supporting Quebec!!! They are the whiners, and they get every thing they want, to hell with some made up culture, French is an anchor on Canada. They can have it I don't want to support it.
There’s nothing stopping us from being like Quebec aside from nobody seriously wanting to be like Quebec with high taxes and high cost of living. And we have things as part of Canada that we’d lose without Canada.
We make more and pay less taxes and have a lower cost of living in AB than anywhere else. The we’re so hard done by line is just not going to fly by any reasonable evaluation.
Travel some. Experience more parts of the US. It becomes clear quite quickly how good we have it. (And don’t just go to the tourist clean places. Go to low income areas. Walk in parks. See what poverty looks like. Experience being a minority and having people look at you suspiciously if you say hi.
Travel to other parts of Canada and realize while there are some things that are slightly different, things are largely the same in some ways - just more costly.
I think it has less to do with economics and more to do with sentiment. I’m not from Alberta, but if a large group of Canadians started speaking out against the industry I chose for my career, something I believed in, I would feel defensive. Even if I was still making good money.
A fair point. However, that industry is chiefly responsible for the destruction of the planet and the fate of humanity. The world is moving away from it, whether Alberta wants to believe that or not. It's why there are so many questions about spending 5 years to build another pipeline that may not be needed in 20 years.
I think you should do some research. You could start by listening to Aaron Gunns' Fractured Nation. The federal government that was elected to protect Canadians wilfully destroyed the oil industry in the 80's which in turn destroyed lives. Then again in the Trudeau the second era.
I've been reading. Near as I can tell, the NEP lasted 7 years. It was a stupid plan poorly executed, and dumped 2 years after Mulroney took office (2 years after he promised he'd scrap it). Clearly, it didn't destroy the oil industry in any way, shape or form. There's no question its impact was felt most in Alberta. Still, it ended 40 years ago. You write history...you can't undo history.
I'll give it a listen.
Trudeau 2 was just useless, but it wasn't his fault he won.
It isn't all about the NEP, you know. Oil prices spiked after the Iranian Revolution, sharply declined afterwards, and then collapsed in 1986. That impacted oil industry employment *everywhere*. The 1970s boom was going to bust one way or another, and blaming it solely on an idiotic Liberal program is overly simplistic.
I think setting expectations is also important: even a major reform of the regulatory approval regime to permit construction of more pipelines and simplify oil & gas development isn't going to return Alberta to the economic boom experienced pre-2014.
This is not all about oil. That is simplistic. It is about charting Albertas future without Ottawa's interference. If the other provinces are okay with the direction Canada is heading, that is fine. We won't question that decision.
When we say strong and free, we really do mean strong and Free.
Give me a break. Anxiety over the oil industry is central to the entire movement. Otherwise, Alberta's basically just a broke version of Saskatchewan, just like it was in the '20s and '30s.
Whether Brexit turned out badly is a matter of opinion and I don't require or want a response as to how that is. I don't think that history will support your opinion but history hasn't get been set in stone yet. Right now, the people in that country are wrestling with getting their country back from the finagling that the EU imposed on them. Never cancel the ability of the Brits or any country for that matter, to actually rearrange their government to their satisfaction.
It's fucking diabolical that Brits went through Brexit primarily to get back control of their immigration and then their *Conservative* government repeatedly ramped up third world immigration anyway.
They might be a case study in the results when you put off allowing the right-wing-populist reaction that a large enough segment of the population craves. Reform UK will be interesting if they get elected and/or swallow the old Tory party. They put that off even further and the Moseley flags will start getting much more prominent.
Ah, yes, the suffering of the province with the highest average income and no provincial sales tax. Enjoy your time in court with Native Canadians, and your life under the Stars and Stripes with whatever you get to keep. They're already screwing you on oil prices, but I'm sure they'll take good care of you. You'll do a lot better with the ROC, but you're blind to all your suffered persecution. Best we stop now and stay friends.
I do appreciate the sentiments behind this article, but frankly, Mr. Dion bears responsibility for helping to create the conditions under which Alberta now threatens separation. To come in now and Liberal-splain why this will be difficult just drives the wedge a little further.
I'm looking forward to Mr. Dion's follow-up addressing the complex cultural, economic and political issues that have driven Albertans to this point and how the federal government, to which he is inextricably tied, will address our concerns.
Not a separatist here, but there's that old Liberal scaremongering about Trump. It doesn't have to be about Trump.
Now that Mr Dion has commented on the difficulties ahead for the leavers maybe The Line could invite him back to comment on how it was the Govt of which he was a part that actually is responsible for throwing the gas on this bonfire.
Sorry, how does it not have to be about Trump? Other than wishing that the US isn’t what it is now? Every time I hear people demand we stop “fearmongering” about Trump I just think — you guys are wishcasting that the US will “go back to normal”. No guarantee that happens.
Correct, no guarantees so maybe let's work at making the country stronger and more united. For me, the best way to handle Trump is to not take the bait and go about our business.
Maybe Alberta should just follow the Quebec separation theme and use the possibility of separation as a tool to extort the federal government to accede to its demands?
That's entirely a product of there being more Quebecois. And with their restricted immigration, too. Albertans clearly need to start having more babies.
Then you have the babies move to Quebec, take Quebec from the inside, and retire. Sounds easier than oilfield work anyway.
Brad, offering threats is foolish unless you are prepared to proceed with the threat. And we are.
A question for you. Given a) the semi and vague promises over the years with no progress, why would we believe anything now; and b) Given that it is impossible to amend the constitution and that many of our problems require constitutional amendment and/or the feds are violating the constitution, same question, why would we believe anything now?
Carole, you are correct in your expectations of (lack of) consideration on your truck.
It does seem to me that the commentary for "those them people" falls into a few broad categories: a) we are all better together (but no comment on how WE are better); b) quit yer whinin' and bitchin'; c) you are rich and undeservedly so; and d) We can work it out - just give us a chance to prove it.
In no response that I have seen has anyone actually made any concrete proposal about what ROC will do to ameliorate the issues that so bedevil us. Of course, absolutely none of the "we can work it out" crew recognize the constitutional impediments that the center has put in place to make working it out impossible.
We are not the ones who will cause Canada to not survive. That is entirely on them. If, after we leave, they find (quelle surprise!) that they are financially bereft (shock! horrors!) they still can survive as a remaining country if they recognize their ACTUAL problems and take appropriate action. No, we aren't killing Canada but we are allowing Alberta to survive and thrive.
I spent some time last week getting information on the amount of resources left in the ground in each province in Canada. Most provinces and territories have lots of resources they can harvest.
So, if Alberta left, contrary to us greedy Albertans leaving the rest of Canada in poverty we give them the opportunity to create their own provincial wealth.
What happens with the equalization payments is that we are paying the taxes that provincial governments don't charge their population for services.
This makes no sense. Yet, many Canadians think we are greedy, but it seems that they are being greedy by keeping their resources untouched.
Second, I am beyond caring about those who call us greedy. Thomas Sowell said, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
"Albertans need to overwhelmingly reject such a dangerous secession plan, in addition to all the reasons why they should continue to remain proud Albertans and Canadians.
A nice summary of the Laurentian Liberal position. With enough sprinkling of facts to make the entire conclusion seem logical. Funny though the end of the article states that under US law the resources “are controlled by the Federal government”. A quick google search reveals - in plain English - that the only resources the US federal government controls are those on the land it “owns” - whatever that means - some 30% of the total. And the 10th amendment to the US constitution reserves powers not specifically granted to the Federal government to be for the states. Canada I believe is the opposite but I stand to be corrected on the latter.
Some of Dions facts are questionable. FN's have 3 option and each tribe can pick one of the 3. Nothing changes in their world unless they want it to. And by the way the First Nations Chief, Allan Adam is getting paid 55k by a US lobby group is saying Smith should resign immediately.
As an Albertan I am unsatisfied with our treatment from Central Canada predominately thru decades of Liberal Party rule. The current Alberta Seperation Movement will not succeed but it does raise the issues higher up the country wide topic list. While I do not believe an independent Alberta is viable I do strongly believe a Western Canada can and could be achieved in less than a decade. Alberta & Saskatchewan become one province (yes Buffalo) and with Churchill becoming an important hub focused on Western Canadian resource riches we could convince them to join with the prospect of real growth for Manitoba. And last will be convincinving BC to join in. Most of the landmass of the province is much more like Alberta now and should be eager to join and after an another NDP government win and the continuing devastation it will do to the province even the liberal/progressives in the lower mainland and the Island will see this as their best path forward.
We stay within the framework of Canada but with a line at the Manitoba/Ontario border. We would have as many seats or more as Ontario or Quebec so the potential of a fair &equal Canada could be achieved. Just an idea.
A very good idea. The unity/confederation/federation of Western Canada makes most sense. However it is becoming clear that Canada must be subjected to a real breakup. Only then might the Central Canada perhaps listen.
Exactly. They will be just deliberately wasting time, like Carney now. That is why Western Canada better actually do something really substantive, the sooner the better. Time and money and human capital and opportunities are wasting away. Re. recent comments, in the end I did not pollute my ears with predictable verbiage. Easier on my blood pressure.
I DO have the honor of coming from Alberta - for 75 years now; in fact, I have already signed the petition to call the referendum.
A few points, Sir.
You start by saying that the Clarity Act requires a "clear" majority in favor of separation. Now, a "clear" majority is, technically, fifty per cent plus one additional vote, at least in a mathematical sense. I would refer you to Jacques Parizeau who advanced that proposition at the time of the last Quebec referendum. I would refer you further to the Newfoundland referenda to join Canada. On June 3, 1948 41.1% of voters wanted to join Canada; on July 22, 1948, 52.3% wanted to join Canada and that is what happened.
It follows, therefore, that Canada considers 52.3% to be a "clear" majority. As you correctly point out, that simply entitles the province to seek negotiations with the rest of Canada ("ROC" hereafter).
You point out that ROC would be under a duty to begin discussions on potential terms and conditions of a separation agreement but that there "would be no legal obligation to reach a secession agreement."
You mention the need to address minority rights, indigenous peoples' rights, etc. Allow me to cover that briefly and clearly. As to minority rights I expect fully that we would be willing to grant to French speakers in Alberta precisely the same rights that Quebec offers to English speakers in Quebec. With respect to indigenous matters, such as treaties, etc. we would be entirely willing to allow the various treaty groups (i.e. Treaties 6, 7 and 8) to choose to a) continue their relationship with the federal government; b) transfer that relationship on the same terms to Alberta; or c) to negotiate new treaty terms with Alberta. Completely at the choice of the native peoples of each Treaty group.
That means that those two issues can be resolved on terms that ROC currently finds acceptable. The other matters will require give and take. Just as one example, Alberta has calculated it's portion of CPP monies owed to it and has asked CPP to respond to that calculation. If CPP/ROC continue to stonewall and/or if the calculation offered is clearly oriented to causing negotiations to fail then, well, the phrase "UDI" comes to mind. I mention the CPP issue as representative of all the various issues. By contrast, we in Alberta must be reasonable; but "reasonable" does not preclude Alberta receiving what is correctly allocable to Alberta, even if ROC might find that disadvantageous. After all, ROC has been disadvantaging Alberta for many decades.
As to your question of "which government" I simply offer to you that our current government today will be the current government the day after the referendum with the exception that they will then have the benefit of having instruction from the citizens of Alberta. If Premier Smith were to take the position that, while she didn't vote for secession, her instructions from the citizens were clear, then she could carry on and deal with ROC. By contrast, if she took the position that she could not continue with such negotiations, the honorable course would be for her to resign and be replaced by another government member who could carry out the instructions.
To summarize, Sir, I recognize the "impediments" that you highlight but I think that they are not at all "impediments" but things with which we will deal as they arise.
Your Newfoundland example is pretty far off the mark. 52.3% was enough because the UK was trying to fob off responsibility for its bankrupt colony to somebody else. Also, there's a difference between "formerly independent country wanting to become part of your confederation" and part of that confederation trying to split off after 120 years.
It is not at all off the mark. Yes, the UK wanted out but that was the UK's problem not Canada's. Of course, when talking about 52.3% not being enough no one considers that 47.7% voted against Union. Same coin, different sides.
Oh, and in summary, no. You are wrong. Canada may not want it to apply but it does.
As the current Canadian voter who closely follows our politics and economy and understands the Clarity Act, the "Liberals" highway of continuously degrading Western Canada's economy with destructive laws is fraught with risk.
If a separation referendum wins, I do not expect the Central Canada to negotiated in good faith. They will abuse the Clarity Act and work and act as dirty as they can, they have a lengthy tract record in that, right in the open.
If a part of Canada is dead set on separating from Canada, the Clarity Act is not much.
"It cannot be done because we do not want it". Hahahaha .....
For me, this is a "worst-case scenario" to scare voters. An assumption Alberta would get the worst possible deal from the U.S. (losing all its resources. Maybe - the USA is currently in the process of becoming an authoritarian state. Neither of those is a guaranteed fact. There is a belief that a seceding province must adhere to the clarity act.
Fair enough, what if Alberta said, screw you to the clarity act. There is no mechanism in existence to stop them if they want out. There is an assumption that separating state cares about the domestic laws of the nation it is leaving. History shows the opposite: The United States did not ask Britain to leave. They just left. If Alberta holds a referendum and simply stops recognizing Ottawa's authority, the Clarity Act becomes a piece of paper with no enforcement mechanism other than force.
Moreover, who's to say that Quebec might look at Alberta's approach and adopt it. These are perilous times for this country.
The Clarity Act is pretty anodyne stuff: you have to ask a clear question. If you're going to make a momentous change like secession, it has to be supported by a clear majority of people. If Alberta separatists don't have a clear majority support among the population, they're going to have a hard time pulling off anything like "just leaving." Support for separation runs strongest in rural areas - in the more populous cities it's the opposite. How do you pull off an independence play without strong support in the 2 cities that represent 2/3 of the total population?
How is a Canada -wide corporation expected to run its' business when the most basic laws, tax structures and legal hiarchal frameworks are just "pieces of paper?"
Always curious about how voting on something like this works. If I’m born in Alberta, can I vote? Do I remain a citizen of Alberta in case they do separate? If they get absorbed by the States, do I suddenly become an American? I assume Alberta residents get a vote provided they can vote provincially, but how would citizenship work for those born elsewhere in Canada post-separation?
The main issue I see with these separation votes is people are voting blindly with no idea how it will all play out. No one knows how the land claims will play out. No one knows how the finances will play out. No one knows how international trade will play out, but everyone is expected to make a binding decision and then let things fall where they may… It’s ridiculous.
Find Keith Wilson K.C.'s YouTube channel. He is a constitutional lawyer and one of the many who explains how the succession of Alberta works. It is neither too easy or too hard but it is very doable.
Strange, I don’t recall this logical discussion occurring during the run up to the last, almost successful 50%+1 referendum in Quebec or is it just faulty memory.
Maybe the subject could be expanded just a tad to include the ROC addressing the issues that have caused almost 25% of Albertans to consider signing the petition in the first place..
Dion admits the core problem himself: Albertans may vote on secession, but Ottawa has no obligation to honour the result. That is not self-determination — it is permissioned democracy. The leap from referendum to invasion isn’t legal analysis; it’s fear management. When procedure replaces consent, legitimacy is already gone.
To some extent I see the sentiment behind Alberta secessionism as similar in kind (if not in degree) as that behind First Nation calls for Truth and Reconciliation.
That is: some hard shifts in power are asked (more Alberta control over pipeline approval through B.C., more control over Alberta pension funds), but mostly it’s a matter of apologizing for past injustices, setting a new tone, and having Alberta “at the table” as an equal voice on existential questions like climate/energy policy.
You can see it here — the lingering pain over Trudeau Sr and the NEP (50 years ago!), the desire to not have Laurentians “mock” Westerners, etc.
It’s a good reminder for Ontarians that our cultural biases can run deep, when it’s considered common sense that of course we should apologize for what Canada did to Indigenous people and celebrate their culture, but that Western culture is only to be mocked and belittled.
At the same time, this Ontarian also wants to say: grow up. Your flagship industry is also the one that is creating the single biggest global crisis of the 21st century, the one that is most likely to destabilize geopolitics in the long run. Alberta is rich because of it, but that’s not good enough, we also have to pretend that climate change isn’t real or they will pack up their toys and leave? You won’t be happy until I get down on my knees and tearfully recant my support for carbon taxes? (The “woke right” indeed.)
So I can see why this is inflammatory for both sides. And for what it’s worth, I think right now, voters like me need to hold our noses and let Carney do what it takes to keep the country together, including celebrating fossil fuels and building pipelines. I think my grandchildren will curse us for it, but given the alternative, the breakup of Canada, I think we have to do it.
You write, "... I think right now, voters like me need to hold our noses and let Carney do what it takes to keep the country together ...."
Yup, that certainly says it all. You are dismissive of our issues and are willing to placate us - temporarily. Not whatsoever permanently.
As for your demonizing our industry, first off, start by recognizing that China and India keep building new coal electric plants and we produce probably the most environmentally sound oil and gas in the world. But you go on with your certainty of self correctness.
And, of course, you just MUST comment upon our economic success. You may have heard of Thomas Sowell, a distinguished American (Goodness! He's referencing an American!) economist who has written many books. Among his writing he has said, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” Perhaps you can ponder that.
I don’t want Alberta’s money and I don’t begrudge the oil industry for having made that money. I’m an engineer, I can appreciate the technical triumph of Syncrude and the oil sands.
I am really, really concerned about climate change, and that’s not smug self-correctness, it’s driven by the consensus of every major scientific organization in the world.
To say my point again, though: I am saying that as a country, Alberta needs to be in the drivers seat for a while. Take the W! You don’t need to also enforce a purity test on what people are feeling!
(Aside: it’s not going to be smug Ontarians that eventually kill the oil industry. It’s going to be international pressure coming from the superpowers of the world when climate change starts having major impacts and they finally get to treating carbon like nuclear proliferation, with international monitoring and controls and punishments enforced by the superpowers. It won’t happen in 2030, but it’ll happen.)
The problem is that as far as I can tell a big chunk of Albertans, much like too many in Quebec, wants to live in a world where they get everything they want and everyone is happy to give it to them. When things go well, they must keep all they have, when things go badly we must help them.
If people do not want to be mocked, being so obviously ridiculous is probably not a good way to go about it.
Albertans are aware of the dangers and the positives of separation. There are some concerns as expressed in this article that will at this point be unknowable others that can be speculated upon. Quebec has held Canada ransom for decades over the issue of separation, if the people in Dion's province can push for the same as Albertans want, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander to quote an old phrase.
We Albertans ARE aware of the many issues. Certainly some new ones will arise that are a surprise but, by and large, all issues are manageable. As long as the feds negotiate in good faith and recognize that an orderly process is infinitely better for both parties than a disorderly one.
On the other hand .... I have a qualifier in there, i.e. that the feds operate in good faith, etc. If they don't and become obstructionist we just might have to have a UDI. Most distasteful and not at all what we wish but, if forced .... We want to leave this marriage in a dignified and co-operative way. If ROC, by it's non-co-operation and hostility so forces us to leave like a spouse fleeing an abusive marriage, well, we can deal with that as well.
To Albertans, I would suggest the grass isn't greener. Brexit turned out badly, but the people promoting it took their money and ran. I hope you stay. Every single Canadian, from every province and territory, will regret it if you go....including Albertans. We're stronger together.
I agree. However, that doesn’t mean Albertans need to swallow their grievances. We need to work together to understand each other and resolve our issues.
And, how, precisely - and I mean absolutely damned precisely - are we to resolve those issues when ROC has proven that it either a) doesn't give a damn about our issues and has no intention to change; and b) why should we believe any promises when promises have been made for decades but not resulted in anything substantive?
Certainly, but it gets a little tiring when the richest province in the country, the only one without a provincial sales tax, whines constantly about how badly they're treated. The country has huge challenges ahead. A pipeline in 5 years doesn't fix them.
For me, I suspect there is much more going on than whining. Do you think Alberta (and all the provinces) might want the same deal in confederation as Quebec? That's a pretty good reason frankly. (Unless someone can help me understand how not having the same deal in confederation as Quebec will address western grievances. )
These are historical grievances cemented in the west thanks to the NEP. (Some have said it is whining about the NEP and I say, screw you. I lived through it. That is a wound that is never going to heal with the current status quo.)
For me, everyone has to get back to the constitutional table and bring the document into the 21st century. We must change Canada for the better.
I lived through it to. It isn't even all about losing everything you owned, it is about the government of the country where you paid your taxes willfully hurting you. Then 30 years later there is a replay. There was more going on then just the NEP, but the NEP was aimed right at Alberta.
Yup.
OK. The NEP ended 41 years ago. Isn't this now just holding a grudge? I don't know, but if it had been done right, could we not have a "slush fund" in the trillions like Norway?
The culture of English Canada and Quebec are different. I am also tired of their ass being kissed, and, like Alberta, they have no idea what they're looking at if they're on their own. My question is, what does Alberta want that it doesn't already have? What changes would you like to see?
Yup, we all do hold a grudge. But, it is well earned.
On the other hand, we have such a litany of laws that are oriented against us so it is clear that ROC has deliberately chosen to attack us.
What would we like to see? Haven't you been listening over the last ten years?
So you basically want to blow up the country of a 40-year-old grievance with 2 dead Prime Ministers.
FWIW, I wanted to be rid of Trudeau for the last 6 years, SNC being the end of supporting him. I'll take Carney over Pierre 7 days a week.
What you want is an end to environmental regulations that slow oil production, and who cares about the world you leave behind as long as people make money today, you don't believe in climate Change even though your glaciers are melting at an unprecedented rate, and Fort McMurray almost burnt to the ground.
Basically, it sounds whiny, spoiled, short-sighted, and immature, considering you're the richest province in the country.
People lost everything, so no. Alberta wants the same deal as Quebec. That's pretty reasonable, don't you think? Unless you don't think Alberta should have the same deal as Quebec.
What "deal" is that?
To quit supporting Quebec!!! They are the whiners, and they get every thing they want, to hell with some made up culture, French is an anchor on Canada. They can have it I don't want to support it.
So ignore 9.5 million votes.....almost 25% of the country.....???
That's all Alberta wants?
There’s nothing stopping us from being like Quebec aside from nobody seriously wanting to be like Quebec with high taxes and high cost of living. And we have things as part of Canada that we’d lose without Canada.
We make more and pay less taxes and have a lower cost of living in AB than anywhere else. The we’re so hard done by line is just not going to fly by any reasonable evaluation.
Travel some. Experience more parts of the US. It becomes clear quite quickly how good we have it. (And don’t just go to the tourist clean places. Go to low income areas. Walk in parks. See what poverty looks like. Experience being a minority and having people look at you suspiciously if you say hi.
Travel to other parts of Canada and realize while there are some things that are slightly different, things are largely the same in some ways - just more costly.
I think it has less to do with economics and more to do with sentiment. I’m not from Alberta, but if a large group of Canadians started speaking out against the industry I chose for my career, something I believed in, I would feel defensive. Even if I was still making good money.
A fair point. However, that industry is chiefly responsible for the destruction of the planet and the fate of humanity. The world is moving away from it, whether Alberta wants to believe that or not. It's why there are so many questions about spending 5 years to build another pipeline that may not be needed in 20 years.
"the world is moving away from it"
...except global consumption of oil continues to grow, year after year after year.
There will be a viable oil industry a century from now.
Talk to you about it in a decade or two, and we can compare notes.
And, that, David, is precisely the attitude that we find tiring.
Have a good day.
I think you should do some research. You could start by listening to Aaron Gunns' Fractured Nation. The federal government that was elected to protect Canadians wilfully destroyed the oil industry in the 80's which in turn destroyed lives. Then again in the Trudeau the second era.
I've been reading. Near as I can tell, the NEP lasted 7 years. It was a stupid plan poorly executed, and dumped 2 years after Mulroney took office (2 years after he promised he'd scrap it). Clearly, it didn't destroy the oil industry in any way, shape or form. There's no question its impact was felt most in Alberta. Still, it ended 40 years ago. You write history...you can't undo history.
I'll give it a listen.
Trudeau 2 was just useless, but it wasn't his fault he won.
So what do you want to do about it now?
It isn't all about the NEP, you know. Oil prices spiked after the Iranian Revolution, sharply declined afterwards, and then collapsed in 1986. That impacted oil industry employment *everywhere*. The 1970s boom was going to bust one way or another, and blaming it solely on an idiotic Liberal program is overly simplistic.
No one likes being a sucker, even the wealthy. Just because Alberta has more doesn't people Alberta needs to accept being taken advantage of.
I think setting expectations is also important: even a major reform of the regulatory approval regime to permit construction of more pipelines and simplify oil & gas development isn't going to return Alberta to the economic boom experienced pre-2014.
This is not all about oil. That is simplistic. It is about charting Albertas future without Ottawa's interference. If the other provinces are okay with the direction Canada is heading, that is fine. We won't question that decision.
When we say strong and free, we really do mean strong and Free.
Give me a break. Anxiety over the oil industry is central to the entire movement. Otherwise, Alberta's basically just a broke version of Saskatchewan, just like it was in the '20s and '30s.
Whether Brexit turned out badly is a matter of opinion and I don't require or want a response as to how that is. I don't think that history will support your opinion but history hasn't get been set in stone yet. Right now, the people in that country are wrestling with getting their country back from the finagling that the EU imposed on them. Never cancel the ability of the Brits or any country for that matter, to actually rearrange their government to their satisfaction.
It's fucking diabolical that Brits went through Brexit primarily to get back control of their immigration and then their *Conservative* government repeatedly ramped up third world immigration anyway.
They might be a case study in the results when you put off allowing the right-wing-populist reaction that a large enough segment of the population craves. Reform UK will be interesting if they get elected and/or swallow the old Tory party. They put that off even further and the Moseley flags will start getting much more prominent.
All reform need do is sit back and watch as Labour and the Conservatives self-destruct.
France is a better model of the post-nation state's future. The LPC will do anything to stay in power, including selling the farm.
And, just why the he'll should we care about those people in ROC when they are And were complicit in disadvantage us?
Ah, yes, the suffering of the province with the highest average income and no provincial sales tax. Enjoy your time in court with Native Canadians, and your life under the Stars and Stripes with whatever you get to keep. They're already screwing you on oil prices, but I'm sure they'll take good care of you. You'll do a lot better with the ROC, but you're blind to all your suffered persecution. Best we stop now and stay friends.
David, you mention "we" are stronger together.
Got it.
But, what is in it for Alberta? We have been disadvantaged by ROC for so many decades to what is it that would cause us to agree to accept more abuse?
I do appreciate the sentiments behind this article, but frankly, Mr. Dion bears responsibility for helping to create the conditions under which Alberta now threatens separation. To come in now and Liberal-splain why this will be difficult just drives the wedge a little further.
I'm looking forward to Mr. Dion's follow-up addressing the complex cultural, economic and political issues that have driven Albertans to this point and how the federal government, to which he is inextricably tied, will address our concerns.
Not a separatist here, but there's that old Liberal scaremongering about Trump. It doesn't have to be about Trump.
Now that Mr Dion has commented on the difficulties ahead for the leavers maybe The Line could invite him back to comment on how it was the Govt of which he was a part that actually is responsible for throwing the gas on this bonfire.
Sorry, how does it not have to be about Trump? Other than wishing that the US isn’t what it is now? Every time I hear people demand we stop “fearmongering” about Trump I just think — you guys are wishcasting that the US will “go back to normal”. No guarantee that happens.
Correct, no guarantees so maybe let's work at making the country stronger and more united. For me, the best way to handle Trump is to not take the bait and go about our business.
Maybe Alberta should just follow the Quebec separation theme and use the possibility of separation as a tool to extort the federal government to accede to its demands?
We're trying! But Quebec is just much better at it (and has a lot more federal seats...).
That's entirely a product of there being more Quebecois. And with their restricted immigration, too. Albertans clearly need to start having more babies.
Then you have the babies move to Quebec, take Quebec from the inside, and retire. Sounds easier than oilfield work anyway.
I don't think anyone believes that that is not the case.
Brad, offering threats is foolish unless you are prepared to proceed with the threat. And we are.
A question for you. Given a) the semi and vague promises over the years with no progress, why would we believe anything now; and b) Given that it is impossible to amend the constitution and that many of our problems require constitutional amendment and/or the feds are violating the constitution, same question, why would we believe anything now?
It is interesting that all of a sudden there are all these people saying we should stay. I can't believe they think my Ram 3500 is acceptable.
I believe that they really want Canada to survive, but they don't understand that the Canada they want to survive is long gone.
Carole, you are correct in your expectations of (lack of) consideration on your truck.
It does seem to me that the commentary for "those them people" falls into a few broad categories: a) we are all better together (but no comment on how WE are better); b) quit yer whinin' and bitchin'; c) you are rich and undeservedly so; and d) We can work it out - just give us a chance to prove it.
In no response that I have seen has anyone actually made any concrete proposal about what ROC will do to ameliorate the issues that so bedevil us. Of course, absolutely none of the "we can work it out" crew recognize the constitutional impediments that the center has put in place to make working it out impossible.
We are not the ones who will cause Canada to not survive. That is entirely on them. If, after we leave, they find (quelle surprise!) that they are financially bereft (shock! horrors!) they still can survive as a remaining country if they recognize their ACTUAL problems and take appropriate action. No, we aren't killing Canada but we are allowing Alberta to survive and thrive.
I spent some time last week getting information on the amount of resources left in the ground in each province in Canada. Most provinces and territories have lots of resources they can harvest.
So, if Alberta left, contrary to us greedy Albertans leaving the rest of Canada in poverty we give them the opportunity to create their own provincial wealth.
What happens with the equalization payments is that we are paying the taxes that provincial governments don't charge their population for services.
This makes no sense. Yet, many Canadians think we are greedy, but it seems that they are being greedy by keeping their resources untouched.
First off, Carole, fine comment.
Second, I am beyond caring about those who call us greedy. Thomas Sowell said, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
Do you in fact do anything with your Ram 3500 that needs it to be a Ram 3500?
"Albertans need to overwhelmingly reject such a dangerous secession plan, in addition to all the reasons why they should continue to remain proud Albertans and Canadians.
And what are those reasons?
I have asked why we should stay a number of times so far no answer available that would change my mind.
A nice summary of the Laurentian Liberal position. With enough sprinkling of facts to make the entire conclusion seem logical. Funny though the end of the article states that under US law the resources “are controlled by the Federal government”. A quick google search reveals - in plain English - that the only resources the US federal government controls are those on the land it “owns” - whatever that means - some 30% of the total. And the 10th amendment to the US constitution reserves powers not specifically granted to the Federal government to be for the states. Canada I believe is the opposite but I stand to be corrected on the latter.
Some of Dions facts are questionable. FN's have 3 option and each tribe can pick one of the 3. Nothing changes in their world unless they want it to. And by the way the First Nations Chief, Allan Adam is getting paid 55k by a US lobby group is saying Smith should resign immediately.
As an Albertan I am unsatisfied with our treatment from Central Canada predominately thru decades of Liberal Party rule. The current Alberta Seperation Movement will not succeed but it does raise the issues higher up the country wide topic list. While I do not believe an independent Alberta is viable I do strongly believe a Western Canada can and could be achieved in less than a decade. Alberta & Saskatchewan become one province (yes Buffalo) and with Churchill becoming an important hub focused on Western Canadian resource riches we could convince them to join with the prospect of real growth for Manitoba. And last will be convincinving BC to join in. Most of the landmass of the province is much more like Alberta now and should be eager to join and after an another NDP government win and the continuing devastation it will do to the province even the liberal/progressives in the lower mainland and the Island will see this as their best path forward.
We stay within the framework of Canada but with a line at the Manitoba/Ontario border. We would have as many seats or more as Ontario or Quebec so the potential of a fair &equal Canada could be achieved. Just an idea.
A very good idea. The unity/confederation/federation of Western Canada makes most sense. However it is becoming clear that Canada must be subjected to a real breakup. Only then might the Central Canada perhaps listen.
Oh, they will listen. But they will do absolutely nothing substantive.
Exactly. They will be just deliberately wasting time, like Carney now. That is why Western Canada better actually do something really substantive, the sooner the better. Time and money and human capital and opportunities are wasting away. Re. recent comments, in the end I did not pollute my ears with predictable verbiage. Easier on my blood pressure.
Interesting idea but the seats mean diddly squat as Canada is ruled from the Prime Minister's Office and MPs are sock puppets.
Professor Dion:
I DO have the honor of coming from Alberta - for 75 years now; in fact, I have already signed the petition to call the referendum.
A few points, Sir.
You start by saying that the Clarity Act requires a "clear" majority in favor of separation. Now, a "clear" majority is, technically, fifty per cent plus one additional vote, at least in a mathematical sense. I would refer you to Jacques Parizeau who advanced that proposition at the time of the last Quebec referendum. I would refer you further to the Newfoundland referenda to join Canada. On June 3, 1948 41.1% of voters wanted to join Canada; on July 22, 1948, 52.3% wanted to join Canada and that is what happened.
It follows, therefore, that Canada considers 52.3% to be a "clear" majority. As you correctly point out, that simply entitles the province to seek negotiations with the rest of Canada ("ROC" hereafter).
You point out that ROC would be under a duty to begin discussions on potential terms and conditions of a separation agreement but that there "would be no legal obligation to reach a secession agreement."
You mention the need to address minority rights, indigenous peoples' rights, etc. Allow me to cover that briefly and clearly. As to minority rights I expect fully that we would be willing to grant to French speakers in Alberta precisely the same rights that Quebec offers to English speakers in Quebec. With respect to indigenous matters, such as treaties, etc. we would be entirely willing to allow the various treaty groups (i.e. Treaties 6, 7 and 8) to choose to a) continue their relationship with the federal government; b) transfer that relationship on the same terms to Alberta; or c) to negotiate new treaty terms with Alberta. Completely at the choice of the native peoples of each Treaty group.
That means that those two issues can be resolved on terms that ROC currently finds acceptable. The other matters will require give and take. Just as one example, Alberta has calculated it's portion of CPP monies owed to it and has asked CPP to respond to that calculation. If CPP/ROC continue to stonewall and/or if the calculation offered is clearly oriented to causing negotiations to fail then, well, the phrase "UDI" comes to mind. I mention the CPP issue as representative of all the various issues. By contrast, we in Alberta must be reasonable; but "reasonable" does not preclude Alberta receiving what is correctly allocable to Alberta, even if ROC might find that disadvantageous. After all, ROC has been disadvantaging Alberta for many decades.
As to your question of "which government" I simply offer to you that our current government today will be the current government the day after the referendum with the exception that they will then have the benefit of having instruction from the citizens of Alberta. If Premier Smith were to take the position that, while she didn't vote for secession, her instructions from the citizens were clear, then she could carry on and deal with ROC. By contrast, if she took the position that she could not continue with such negotiations, the honorable course would be for her to resign and be replaced by another government member who could carry out the instructions.
To summarize, Sir, I recognize the "impediments" that you highlight but I think that they are not at all "impediments" but things with which we will deal as they arise.
Your Newfoundland example is pretty far off the mark. 52.3% was enough because the UK was trying to fob off responsibility for its bankrupt colony to somebody else. Also, there's a difference between "formerly independent country wanting to become part of your confederation" and part of that confederation trying to split off after 120 years.
It is not at all off the mark. Yes, the UK wanted out but that was the UK's problem not Canada's. Of course, when talking about 52.3% not being enough no one considers that 47.7% voted against Union. Same coin, different sides.
Oh, and in summary, no. You are wrong. Canada may not want it to apply but it does.
A giant upvote for all points. The 52.3 % is a really substantial marker, and answers my wondering re. what could fairly be considered a plurality.
NS, I apologize for being pedantic but it is not a plurality but a majority. A damned clear majority!
Fine, I will take it !
As the current Canadian voter who closely follows our politics and economy and understands the Clarity Act, the "Liberals" highway of continuously degrading Western Canada's economy with destructive laws is fraught with risk.
If a separation referendum wins, I do not expect the Central Canada to negotiated in good faith. They will abuse the Clarity Act and work and act as dirty as they can, they have a lengthy tract record in that, right in the open.
If a part of Canada is dead set on separating from Canada, the Clarity Act is not much.
"It cannot be done because we do not want it". Hahahaha .....
For me, this is a "worst-case scenario" to scare voters. An assumption Alberta would get the worst possible deal from the U.S. (losing all its resources. Maybe - the USA is currently in the process of becoming an authoritarian state. Neither of those is a guaranteed fact. There is a belief that a seceding province must adhere to the clarity act.
Fair enough, what if Alberta said, screw you to the clarity act. There is no mechanism in existence to stop them if they want out. There is an assumption that separating state cares about the domestic laws of the nation it is leaving. History shows the opposite: The United States did not ask Britain to leave. They just left. If Alberta holds a referendum and simply stops recognizing Ottawa's authority, the Clarity Act becomes a piece of paper with no enforcement mechanism other than force.
Moreover, who's to say that Quebec might look at Alberta's approach and adopt it. These are perilous times for this country.
The Clarity Act is pretty anodyne stuff: you have to ask a clear question. If you're going to make a momentous change like secession, it has to be supported by a clear majority of people. If Alberta separatists don't have a clear majority support among the population, they're going to have a hard time pulling off anything like "just leaving." Support for separation runs strongest in rural areas - in the more populous cities it's the opposite. How do you pull off an independence play without strong support in the 2 cities that represent 2/3 of the total population?
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/rules-not-by-rules-alberta-scenarios-for-separation/wcm/4a9f5af1-9370-414e-9ae4-692c4b5824a8
I should have clarified. "Just leaving" is dependent on winning a referendum.
How is a Canada -wide corporation expected to run its' business when the most basic laws, tax structures and legal hiarchal frameworks are just "pieces of paper?"
Always curious about how voting on something like this works. If I’m born in Alberta, can I vote? Do I remain a citizen of Alberta in case they do separate? If they get absorbed by the States, do I suddenly become an American? I assume Alberta residents get a vote provided they can vote provincially, but how would citizenship work for those born elsewhere in Canada post-separation?
The main issue I see with these separation votes is people are voting blindly with no idea how it will all play out. No one knows how the land claims will play out. No one knows how the finances will play out. No one knows how international trade will play out, but everyone is expected to make a binding decision and then let things fall where they may… It’s ridiculous.
Find Keith Wilson K.C.'s YouTube channel. He is a constitutional lawyer and one of the many who explains how the succession of Alberta works. It is neither too easy or too hard but it is very doable.
The Hotel California is calling.
Strange, I don’t recall this logical discussion occurring during the run up to the last, almost successful 50%+1 referendum in Quebec or is it just faulty memory.
Maybe the subject could be expanded just a tad to include the ROC addressing the issues that have caused almost 25% of Albertans to consider signing the petition in the first place..
Dion admits the core problem himself: Albertans may vote on secession, but Ottawa has no obligation to honour the result. That is not self-determination — it is permissioned democracy. The leap from referendum to invasion isn’t legal analysis; it’s fear management. When procedure replaces consent, legitimacy is already gone.
Consent is a result of procedure...and, procedure = law.
"No state has become a member of the United Nations against the wishes of the predecessor state."
The former Yugoslavian countries would like a word.
If the US recognizes Alberta as independent it won't matter who else does, everyone will eventually fall in line.
To some extent I see the sentiment behind Alberta secessionism as similar in kind (if not in degree) as that behind First Nation calls for Truth and Reconciliation.
That is: some hard shifts in power are asked (more Alberta control over pipeline approval through B.C., more control over Alberta pension funds), but mostly it’s a matter of apologizing for past injustices, setting a new tone, and having Alberta “at the table” as an equal voice on existential questions like climate/energy policy.
You can see it here — the lingering pain over Trudeau Sr and the NEP (50 years ago!), the desire to not have Laurentians “mock” Westerners, etc.
It’s a good reminder for Ontarians that our cultural biases can run deep, when it’s considered common sense that of course we should apologize for what Canada did to Indigenous people and celebrate their culture, but that Western culture is only to be mocked and belittled.
At the same time, this Ontarian also wants to say: grow up. Your flagship industry is also the one that is creating the single biggest global crisis of the 21st century, the one that is most likely to destabilize geopolitics in the long run. Alberta is rich because of it, but that’s not good enough, we also have to pretend that climate change isn’t real or they will pack up their toys and leave? You won’t be happy until I get down on my knees and tearfully recant my support for carbon taxes? (The “woke right” indeed.)
So I can see why this is inflammatory for both sides. And for what it’s worth, I think right now, voters like me need to hold our noses and let Carney do what it takes to keep the country together, including celebrating fossil fuels and building pipelines. I think my grandchildren will curse us for it, but given the alternative, the breakup of Canada, I think we have to do it.
You write, "... I think right now, voters like me need to hold our noses and let Carney do what it takes to keep the country together ...."
Yup, that certainly says it all. You are dismissive of our issues and are willing to placate us - temporarily. Not whatsoever permanently.
As for your demonizing our industry, first off, start by recognizing that China and India keep building new coal electric plants and we produce probably the most environmentally sound oil and gas in the world. But you go on with your certainty of self correctness.
And, of course, you just MUST comment upon our economic success. You may have heard of Thomas Sowell, a distinguished American (Goodness! He's referencing an American!) economist who has written many books. Among his writing he has said, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” Perhaps you can ponder that.
I don’t want Alberta’s money and I don’t begrudge the oil industry for having made that money. I’m an engineer, I can appreciate the technical triumph of Syncrude and the oil sands.
I am really, really concerned about climate change, and that’s not smug self-correctness, it’s driven by the consensus of every major scientific organization in the world.
To say my point again, though: I am saying that as a country, Alberta needs to be in the drivers seat for a while. Take the W! You don’t need to also enforce a purity test on what people are feeling!
(Aside: it’s not going to be smug Ontarians that eventually kill the oil industry. It’s going to be international pressure coming from the superpowers of the world when climate change starts having major impacts and they finally get to treating carbon like nuclear proliferation, with international monitoring and controls and punishments enforced by the superpowers. It won’t happen in 2030, but it’ll happen.)
Thank you! We will take the W. But we will also separate.
Unless and until - it simply will never happen - Canada is totally reformed this will continue happening. So enough.
Again, thank you for your civil discourse.
The problem is that as far as I can tell a big chunk of Albertans, much like too many in Quebec, wants to live in a world where they get everything they want and everyone is happy to give it to them. When things go well, they must keep all they have, when things go badly we must help them.
If people do not want to be mocked, being so obviously ridiculous is probably not a good way to go about it.
Albertans are aware of the dangers and the positives of separation. There are some concerns as expressed in this article that will at this point be unknowable others that can be speculated upon. Quebec has held Canada ransom for decades over the issue of separation, if the people in Dion's province can push for the same as Albertans want, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander to quote an old phrase.
We Albertans ARE aware of the many issues. Certainly some new ones will arise that are a surprise but, by and large, all issues are manageable. As long as the feds negotiate in good faith and recognize that an orderly process is infinitely better for both parties than a disorderly one.
On the other hand .... I have a qualifier in there, i.e. that the feds operate in good faith, etc. If they don't and become obstructionist we just might have to have a UDI. Most distasteful and not at all what we wish but, if forced .... We want to leave this marriage in a dignified and co-operative way. If ROC, by it's non-co-operation and hostility so forces us to leave like a spouse fleeing an abusive marriage, well, we can deal with that as well.