It's time for some diversity on The Line. You've had 6 full months to disparage, detract, scare and caution about plunking a lure, God forbid, in border waters. Enuff, already.
There is a Canadian audience out here who admires the reconstruction being undertaken by President Trump and the determination and speed with which it's happening. Yet the Canadian government continues its lethargy. Eight more warships (?) on the scrap heap and not even a whiff of capability--let along funding--to replace them.
Six months of American achievements and Canada cannot get its pipeline-building, interprovincial trading, house in order. C'mon Line, give us some balanced perspectives. We need more Trump and less unearned self-satisfaction and national narcissism.
Without a change in Canadian determination, like the Brothers in Law wrote..."We'll be just before Connecticut in the third row from the right."
Having actually read past the headline of the article about the retirement of the Kingston-class patrol ships, the answer is that their missions have been taken over by the newer, larger DeWolf-class patrol ships and also the smaller Orca class patrol vessels.
Guilty as charged George. I did not follow this in significant detail. However, my point was about Canadian inability from a motivation, financial and logistics perspective.
“There is a Canadian audience out here who admires the reconstruction being undertaken by President Trump and the determination and speed with which it's happening. Yet the Canadian government continues its lethargy”
Best comment I have read from a Canadian on Substack! Amen 🙏
The only things the Carney New and Improved Liberals 🤮 have moved quickly since the election 3 months ago is
- More funding for the CBC
- More funding for MP Freeland’s riding of Kyiv
- More powers via Bill C-5 for the Liberal regime to override Canadian and Provincial laws and regulations for “projects” deemed in the national interest. From here on in - every initiative the Liberals bring forward will be classified as a “project” 😬
My understanding is that the fishing issue is a key element of the question of the U.S. Coast Guard’s boarding of foreign-flagged vessels in U.S. waters.
Even though the U.S. is not a Signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), they do broadly adhere to its provisions based on other nation-specific treaties.
Article 19 of UNCLOS is quite clear that fishing in another country’s territorial waters is a violation. If the vessel in question was neither fishing nor violating any other provision of Article 19, the U.S. Coast Guard would have no lawful right or reason to board.
Something else for Canadians to keep in mind is the substantial difference between the Canadian Coast Guard and the U.S equivalent.
The Canadian CG is under the Department of Transport and has a focus on the safe passage of vessels. The USCG Is under the Department of Defence and has a much stronger military and enforcement stance.
F’instance … the USCG does not need a warrant to board and search any U.S. flagged vessel at any time anywhere in U.S territorial waters or on the high seas. The 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply in those circumstances.
The incident took place in Lake Champlain which is just south of Montreal. This is a classic inland waters issue and UNCLOS has no jurisdiction. USCG is part of Department of Homeland Security and is only seconded to DoD during times of war or national emergency.
Thanks for the clarification of the USCG reporting structure. Much appreciated. My knowledge was out of date. My point was to help Canadians understand the key difference between the USCG and their Canadian counterparts. One being a military organization; the other not.
The inland waters point is very important as it renders the fishing question irrelevant. By crossing the international boundary on inland waters the fellow in question entered US sovereign territory illegally. The USCG were well within their rights to detain and deport him. Again, thanks helping me understand the situation better.
The Quebecer will have an interesting time of it if ever he attempts in future to enter the U.S. at a border crossing.
Anyone who believes the Quebecer was onside is naive. GPS will tell all. He was booking it to get back and got knocked over, but lived to weave a yarn.
Pointing out the Green Slush Fund and the invocation of the
Emergency Act to freeze bank accounts and the Liberal mishandling of SNC Lavalin and mistreatment of Cabinet Minister Raybould Wilson, and too many other wrongs perpetrated by our Canadian government in the Lost Decade... You see, Jen, we are living in a Banana Republic. To claim avoiding Seperation is the only way to stay out of a Banana Republic is illogical.
So first time I disagree with Jen. I live in a border town. I have many town and have many US friends. They are kind sweet people and do not like Trump also. And the border is great. Where everyone is having issues is coming back and facing Canadian CBSA.
For me, there is no easy way to talk about the feasibility of Alberta separation because you just can't. It's unimaginable. I believe that Smith, who has made huge mistakes, might be serious on this one though she is trying to straddle the fence. I imagine that will change as the stoking of separatism will only continue if Ottawa moves on the oil industry.
There is anger. It exists and people are not crazy; they're likely fed up. Everything on planet Earth is changing for the worse. The rules were chucked out the window last November. We need to take care of what is happening at home because we need each other now more than ever. I take the threat seriously.
Ahhhh ..... Jen, what do you really believe about Alberta? You really should be more clear.
Jen, you argue against the - I will call them independentistes - that there is a lot of crap being stated in favor of "independence" and you are absolutely correct. [Disclosure: I am an Albertan of senior years and am watching this; further disclosure below.]
I would suggest that when the referendum comes, and it certainly looks like it will, that the provincial government, in the implementing legislation learn from the last Quebec referendum.
In that 1995 Quebec referendum it was mandated that there be two committees, a "Yes" [pro separation] committee and a "No" [anti separation] committee. As I recall the rules, all advertising, etc. had to be through one of the committees. I admit that, as I live and lived then in Alberta, my understanding of the rules is real fuzzy. But.
I further recommend that implementing legislation to call the referendum require that if the committees make claims, promises, etc. there has to be reference to actual studies, details of who carried out the study, etc. For example, if someone says, "Trump will exchange currency on X basis" then that has to be accompanied by details of when Trump specifically offered that, and so forth.
As for the CPP correctly allocable to Alberta in the event we choose to start an APP, Alberta's claim was based on an analysis by LifeWorks, which was formerly known as Morneau Shepell (named after Bill Morneau's - former Finance Minister - father). LifeWorks is now a subsidiary of Telus. I read the report and it seemed credible - to the extent that I, a neophyte could understand matters. What I did understand is that LifeWorks made clear that they tried to get information from CPP but CPP refused so LifeWorks stated that if that information had been available the conclusions might have been different. I also recall that CPP never did produce it's own analysis of Alberta's share and it never did even say it was $x. CPP just went turtle. I therefore have no way of knowing the correct number but the lack of a response indicates to me that LifeWorks number is closer to the mark (by what amount I cannot say) than CPP would like.
Oh, yes, further disclosure. I am not an independentiste but I am definitely willing to listen to sober and rational discussion. Where that discussion would lead me to any conclusion I cannot say but I am absolutely willing to listen. And, in truth, I would listen with the attitude of, "Canada, you have made promises to us previously and ....... so ......."
It will, indeed, be very interesting to see if MC can square the circle and get everyone onside for "particular" major projects or will that be another of Central Canada's promises?
I am a conditional independiste who agrees with this comment. It is a smaller and so more achievable step for Alberta to stay as a dominion under the Brit Crown. Even that step is not necessary to substantially improve Alberta's situation (or position, if you want to see it so) w.r.t. Ottawa.
Alberta has not yes exhausted the means available to it under the existing Constitution, that severely outdated rag made more shitty by The Idiot King. You know what he did with it, not once, for all to see.
So Alberta has a period of time available to deliver to Ottawa a workover by sharp elbows (!!) and hard knees, sorry, I meant to say a workover by intense diplomacy. If it then becomes absolutely clear that Ottawa has no intention other than to fare with MC giving a shaman's dance blowing smoke and flashing mirrors, then it will be time for Alberta's other steps. And Ottawa's behaviors will by then be clearly added to Ottawa's existing the record on this matter.
The current Alberta Premier is exactly the type of politician and personality needed for this kind of "negotiation" between a province and an increasingly grasping and grabbing and usurping capital. Regardless of the opinion some of my well regarded acquaintances may have about this humanely flawed, determined premier.
NS, the "usual crew" who dismiss Alberta's "whining" start with something like, "So you want to argue about the National Energy Program! That is so 1980s and it was repealed in full. Grow up!' In case you missed it in the words, the tone used is absolute dismissiveness.
Yes, I remember the NEP and, yes, I do blame Otterwer for that but, again yes, it is gone. What almost no one remembers is the 1970s. People think that the energy wars started in the 1980s. Not so. In the 1970s T1 took a massive run at all the energy producing provinces, particularly, Alberta.
Please bear with me. It has been a feature of income tax law for pretty much forever that a business could deduct the costs incurred to generate revenue. There have always been minor and modest exceptions that have always been understood but that is the philosophy in Canadian tax law. In the 1970s T1 changed that. He simply made so that any payments to provincial governments for royalties, etc. would not be deductible. That had two consequences.
Firstly, it made taxable income much higher so that corporate taxes were much, much, much higher. Who cares about corporations, right? Well, the oil companies found that they simply couldn't afford to drill on a lot of prospects in the provinces and stopped drilling; the provinces had to devote just a whole whack of bucks to help the oil companies. As a result, the provinces had higher taxes but lost a lot because of the royalty tax credits and other similar provincial programs.
Second, the feds made out like bandits with higher tax revenue.
So, why did they do that? Simple. They didn't like that the provinces - western provinces, you know - were becoming wealthier and the economic focus of the country was migrating westerly. That changed matters dramatically. The NEP was a further attempt in that same vein but was, of course, ultimately repealed.
Oh, but the non-deductibility of crown royalties and such? Still non deductible and still favoring Otterwer over the provinces. Of course, the general rule that costs incurred to generate revenue for all businesses in Canada is still in force. Except for resource companies.
Perhaps too technical for some folks but the bottom line is that Otterwer has been finding ways to steal from us for decades.
I remember the Quebec separation problem in the early 90s. I was in Dallas at the time and all my neighbours were asking me if Canada was splitting up. The Canadian dollar took a tumble. At the time, I said it was impossible and the same is true of Alberta today. Decades later, Quebec has, apparently, more control of its immigration than the rest of Canada. It also has its own police force and pension plan.
Assuming the UCP is a highly cynical political machine, a lot of what they are doing makes sense. If the polls show a majority wants a pension fund or a police force they can do it and if not let it die. Separation for Quebec however is as likely as it was for Scotland.
You couldn't pay me to go to the GoA's dog-and-Pony Show, but am annoyed that I have paid to listen to an equally mindless rebuttal.
Ms. Gerson, congratulations on being an Albertan for ten years. Transposed to Quebec, would you be considered Québécoise? Certainly not Laine Pur.
What is happening to Ms. Tait is obscene. Not dissimilar to how your brethren, the paparazzi, behave. We cannot choose family.
As a soft Alberta nationalist (evolved from a staunch, Quebec federalist), there is no doubt a referendum on sovereignty will fail. The proviso is, if Mr. Carney drops the ball, game on.
The G&M analysis of an Alberta Pension Plan is... economically sound (and I am no economist). Trusting any government to run it is another question.
Having an Alberta Provincial Police makes as much sense as the OPP, or Sûreté du Québec. Costs more than the RCMP, but run by, and populated with, Albertans. Same for collecting taxes, with the addition of the Golden Rule. Those with the gold make the rules.
Control over immigration? Something all provinces will demand in the near future as the effects of Trudeau Minor's generosity comes home to roost.
Confederation is a marriage, with the Meech Lake Accord (or Charlottetown's, your pick) as a second iteration. A marriage on the rocks.
'Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.' Oscar Wilde
Ps: The only value to this link is that Americans are even considering our future.
There is something strangely familiar about Trump and his minions reacting to Canadians response to the Tariff War. Canadians may call it unprovoked but Trump had tariffs on his mind. It was no secret that Trump would find a way to justify them. I can think of other wars, beyond the economic, that have been called unprovoked. Grievances, perceived or real, especially historical, will be rebooted if money and/or status can be made. Wealth and power redistribution to the most aggrieved has led to a feedback loop that incentivizes being aggrieved. Grievance has morphed into both national and international movements. Grievance studies in academics has bled out into the real world to create a global industry. The Trump Republicans are riding the gravy train of grievance. Canadians need to recognize that grievance has been driving our own politics for over a decade. Our political masters have used this to their advantage. The end game of this strategy is playing out to the south of us. I am hopeful Canadians will learn the lesson before we suffer the same fate.
Matt is right, any Alberta (or Quebec) sovereignty won't be democratic. Albertans will just be told what will happen next like the polite confrontation adverse Canadians we all are.
Being polite means eating a lot of shit, and if Alberta didn't leave after the National Energy Program Alberta won't leave.
Albertans like to think of ourselves as the bold ambitious types but history has proven that we aren't, when it comes to politics.
That said, you can say "F America" but if Trump were to allow full mobility rights for Canadian born families you would see a significant number of young people decamp. It would be like Eastern Europeans moving west after joining the EU. Canada is tilted politically and even culturally towards the boomers, always has been since the 60s, and there just isn't a place for those under 35 families in most of Canada compared to the US.
I saw the poor victimized Quebec fisherman who messed with U.S. Border patrol, crying on the CTV in the few minutes I can tolerate watching CTV or any other Canadian MSM.
He found out the hard way that there is a big difference with the U.S. border protection and the Liberal Roxham Road Hamas/ISIS/MS13 Liberal Welcome to Canada Center. Maybe the Elbows Up crowd can start a GoFundMe for him to buy a new boat.
The sad thing about the Lake Champlain fisherman getting arrested by ICE over a location dispute is that Canada has NO Coast Guard presence on the Lake.
It's time for some diversity on The Line. You've had 6 full months to disparage, detract, scare and caution about plunking a lure, God forbid, in border waters. Enuff, already.
There is a Canadian audience out here who admires the reconstruction being undertaken by President Trump and the determination and speed with which it's happening. Yet the Canadian government continues its lethargy. Eight more warships (?) on the scrap heap and not even a whiff of capability--let along funding--to replace them.
Six months of American achievements and Canada cannot get its pipeline-building, interprovincial trading, house in order. C'mon Line, give us some balanced perspectives. We need more Trump and less unearned self-satisfaction and national narcissism.
Without a change in Canadian determination, like the Brothers in Law wrote..."We'll be just before Connecticut in the third row from the right."
Having actually read past the headline of the article about the retirement of the Kingston-class patrol ships, the answer is that their missions have been taken over by the newer, larger DeWolf-class patrol ships and also the smaller Orca class patrol vessels.
Guilty as charged George. I did not follow this in significant detail. However, my point was about Canadian inability from a motivation, financial and logistics perspective.
“There is a Canadian audience out here who admires the reconstruction being undertaken by President Trump and the determination and speed with which it's happening. Yet the Canadian government continues its lethargy”
Best comment I have read from a Canadian on Substack! Amen 🙏
The only things the Carney New and Improved Liberals 🤮 have moved quickly since the election 3 months ago is
- More funding for the CBC
- More funding for MP Freeland’s riding of Kyiv
- More powers via Bill C-5 for the Liberal regime to override Canadian and Provincial laws and regulations for “projects” deemed in the national interest. From here on in - every initiative the Liberals bring forward will be classified as a “project” 😬
My understanding is that the fishing issue is a key element of the question of the U.S. Coast Guard’s boarding of foreign-flagged vessels in U.S. waters.
Even though the U.S. is not a Signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), they do broadly adhere to its provisions based on other nation-specific treaties.
Article 19 of UNCLOS is quite clear that fishing in another country’s territorial waters is a violation. If the vessel in question was neither fishing nor violating any other provision of Article 19, the U.S. Coast Guard would have no lawful right or reason to board.
Something else for Canadians to keep in mind is the substantial difference between the Canadian Coast Guard and the U.S equivalent.
The Canadian CG is under the Department of Transport and has a focus on the safe passage of vessels. The USCG Is under the Department of Defence and has a much stronger military and enforcement stance.
F’instance … the USCG does not need a warrant to board and search any U.S. flagged vessel at any time anywhere in U.S territorial waters or on the high seas. The 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply in those circumstances.
The incident took place in Lake Champlain which is just south of Montreal. This is a classic inland waters issue and UNCLOS has no jurisdiction. USCG is part of Department of Homeland Security and is only seconded to DoD during times of war or national emergency.
Thanks for the clarification of the USCG reporting structure. Much appreciated. My knowledge was out of date. My point was to help Canadians understand the key difference between the USCG and their Canadian counterparts. One being a military organization; the other not.
The inland waters point is very important as it renders the fishing question irrelevant. By crossing the international boundary on inland waters the fellow in question entered US sovereign territory illegally. The USCG were well within their rights to detain and deport him. Again, thanks helping me understand the situation better.
The Quebecer will have an interesting time of it if ever he attempts in future to enter the U.S. at a border crossing.
I agree...your "fishing" and my "fishing" are quite different! Your interpretation is much more likely. :-)
Anyone who believes the Quebecer was onside is naive. GPS will tell all. He was booking it to get back and got knocked over, but lived to weave a yarn.
Pointing out the Green Slush Fund and the invocation of the
Emergency Act to freeze bank accounts and the Liberal mishandling of SNC Lavalin and mistreatment of Cabinet Minister Raybould Wilson, and too many other wrongs perpetrated by our Canadian government in the Lost Decade... You see, Jen, we are living in a Banana Republic. To claim avoiding Seperation is the only way to stay out of a Banana Republic is illogical.
Excellent on all points.
So first time I disagree with Jen. I live in a border town. I have many town and have many US friends. They are kind sweet people and do not like Trump also. And the border is great. Where everyone is having issues is coming back and facing Canadian CBSA.
For me, there is no easy way to talk about the feasibility of Alberta separation because you just can't. It's unimaginable. I believe that Smith, who has made huge mistakes, might be serious on this one though she is trying to straddle the fence. I imagine that will change as the stoking of separatism will only continue if Ottawa moves on the oil industry.
There is anger. It exists and people are not crazy; they're likely fed up. Everything on planet Earth is changing for the worse. The rules were chucked out the window last November. We need to take care of what is happening at home because we need each other now more than ever. I take the threat seriously.
Ahhhh ..... Jen, what do you really believe about Alberta? You really should be more clear.
Jen, you argue against the - I will call them independentistes - that there is a lot of crap being stated in favor of "independence" and you are absolutely correct. [Disclosure: I am an Albertan of senior years and am watching this; further disclosure below.]
I would suggest that when the referendum comes, and it certainly looks like it will, that the provincial government, in the implementing legislation learn from the last Quebec referendum.
In that 1995 Quebec referendum it was mandated that there be two committees, a "Yes" [pro separation] committee and a "No" [anti separation] committee. As I recall the rules, all advertising, etc. had to be through one of the committees. I admit that, as I live and lived then in Alberta, my understanding of the rules is real fuzzy. But.
I further recommend that implementing legislation to call the referendum require that if the committees make claims, promises, etc. there has to be reference to actual studies, details of who carried out the study, etc. For example, if someone says, "Trump will exchange currency on X basis" then that has to be accompanied by details of when Trump specifically offered that, and so forth.
As for the CPP correctly allocable to Alberta in the event we choose to start an APP, Alberta's claim was based on an analysis by LifeWorks, which was formerly known as Morneau Shepell (named after Bill Morneau's - former Finance Minister - father). LifeWorks is now a subsidiary of Telus. I read the report and it seemed credible - to the extent that I, a neophyte could understand matters. What I did understand is that LifeWorks made clear that they tried to get information from CPP but CPP refused so LifeWorks stated that if that information had been available the conclusions might have been different. I also recall that CPP never did produce it's own analysis of Alberta's share and it never did even say it was $x. CPP just went turtle. I therefore have no way of knowing the correct number but the lack of a response indicates to me that LifeWorks number is closer to the mark (by what amount I cannot say) than CPP would like.
Oh, yes, further disclosure. I am not an independentiste but I am definitely willing to listen to sober and rational discussion. Where that discussion would lead me to any conclusion I cannot say but I am absolutely willing to listen. And, in truth, I would listen with the attitude of, "Canada, you have made promises to us previously and ....... so ......."
It will, indeed, be very interesting to see if MC can square the circle and get everyone onside for "particular" major projects or will that be another of Central Canada's promises?
I am a conditional independiste who agrees with this comment. It is a smaller and so more achievable step for Alberta to stay as a dominion under the Brit Crown. Even that step is not necessary to substantially improve Alberta's situation (or position, if you want to see it so) w.r.t. Ottawa.
Alberta has not yes exhausted the means available to it under the existing Constitution, that severely outdated rag made more shitty by The Idiot King. You know what he did with it, not once, for all to see.
So Alberta has a period of time available to deliver to Ottawa a workover by sharp elbows (!!) and hard knees, sorry, I meant to say a workover by intense diplomacy. If it then becomes absolutely clear that Ottawa has no intention other than to fare with MC giving a shaman's dance blowing smoke and flashing mirrors, then it will be time for Alberta's other steps. And Ottawa's behaviors will by then be clearly added to Ottawa's existing the record on this matter.
The current Alberta Premier is exactly the type of politician and personality needed for this kind of "negotiation" between a province and an increasingly grasping and grabbing and usurping capital. Regardless of the opinion some of my well regarded acquaintances may have about this humanely flawed, determined premier.
NS, the "usual crew" who dismiss Alberta's "whining" start with something like, "So you want to argue about the National Energy Program! That is so 1980s and it was repealed in full. Grow up!' In case you missed it in the words, the tone used is absolute dismissiveness.
Yes, I remember the NEP and, yes, I do blame Otterwer for that but, again yes, it is gone. What almost no one remembers is the 1970s. People think that the energy wars started in the 1980s. Not so. In the 1970s T1 took a massive run at all the energy producing provinces, particularly, Alberta.
Please bear with me. It has been a feature of income tax law for pretty much forever that a business could deduct the costs incurred to generate revenue. There have always been minor and modest exceptions that have always been understood but that is the philosophy in Canadian tax law. In the 1970s T1 changed that. He simply made so that any payments to provincial governments for royalties, etc. would not be deductible. That had two consequences.
Firstly, it made taxable income much higher so that corporate taxes were much, much, much higher. Who cares about corporations, right? Well, the oil companies found that they simply couldn't afford to drill on a lot of prospects in the provinces and stopped drilling; the provinces had to devote just a whole whack of bucks to help the oil companies. As a result, the provinces had higher taxes but lost a lot because of the royalty tax credits and other similar provincial programs.
Second, the feds made out like bandits with higher tax revenue.
So, why did they do that? Simple. They didn't like that the provinces - western provinces, you know - were becoming wealthier and the economic focus of the country was migrating westerly. That changed matters dramatically. The NEP was a further attempt in that same vein but was, of course, ultimately repealed.
Oh, but the non-deductibility of crown royalties and such? Still non deductible and still favoring Otterwer over the provinces. Of course, the general rule that costs incurred to generate revenue for all businesses in Canada is still in force. Except for resource companies.
Perhaps too technical for some folks but the bottom line is that Otterwer has been finding ways to steal from us for decades.
And, yes, I am bitter.
Well said. I lived through the NEP. It was terrible and the scars are still there.
Yes after the lost 10 years, soon to be 15 lost years of Liberal rule - Canada is definitely a BANANA republic.
Build
Absolutely
Nothing
And
Nothing
Anywhere.
🍌 🇨🇦
Albertans aren't children to be patronized. We don't need you to blow smoke up our asses before you tell us what you really think.
The nonsense being spread around Alberta independence sounds like the Brexit fantasies being spread back in the day.
Lived in Britain?
Maybe more like Scottish independence. The UK at least had its own currency, military, etc.
I remember the Quebec separation problem in the early 90s. I was in Dallas at the time and all my neighbours were asking me if Canada was splitting up. The Canadian dollar took a tumble. At the time, I said it was impossible and the same is true of Alberta today. Decades later, Quebec has, apparently, more control of its immigration than the rest of Canada. It also has its own police force and pension plan.
Assuming the UCP is a highly cynical political machine, a lot of what they are doing makes sense. If the polls show a majority wants a pension fund or a police force they can do it and if not let it die. Separation for Quebec however is as likely as it was for Scotland.
You couldn't pay me to go to the GoA's dog-and-Pony Show, but am annoyed that I have paid to listen to an equally mindless rebuttal.
Ms. Gerson, congratulations on being an Albertan for ten years. Transposed to Quebec, would you be considered Québécoise? Certainly not Laine Pur.
What is happening to Ms. Tait is obscene. Not dissimilar to how your brethren, the paparazzi, behave. We cannot choose family.
As a soft Alberta nationalist (evolved from a staunch, Quebec federalist), there is no doubt a referendum on sovereignty will fail. The proviso is, if Mr. Carney drops the ball, game on.
The G&M analysis of an Alberta Pension Plan is... economically sound (and I am no economist). Trusting any government to run it is another question.
Having an Alberta Provincial Police makes as much sense as the OPP, or Sûreté du Québec. Costs more than the RCMP, but run by, and populated with, Albertans. Same for collecting taxes, with the addition of the Golden Rule. Those with the gold make the rules.
Control over immigration? Something all provinces will demand in the near future as the effects of Trudeau Minor's generosity comes home to roost.
Confederation is a marriage, with the Meech Lake Accord (or Charlottetown's, your pick) as a second iteration. A marriage on the rocks.
'Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.' Oscar Wilde
Ps: The only value to this link is that Americans are even considering our future.
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-is-a-land-swap-a-win-win-solution-to-the-canada-u-s-crisis
There is something strangely familiar about Trump and his minions reacting to Canadians response to the Tariff War. Canadians may call it unprovoked but Trump had tariffs on his mind. It was no secret that Trump would find a way to justify them. I can think of other wars, beyond the economic, that have been called unprovoked. Grievances, perceived or real, especially historical, will be rebooted if money and/or status can be made. Wealth and power redistribution to the most aggrieved has led to a feedback loop that incentivizes being aggrieved. Grievance has morphed into both national and international movements. Grievance studies in academics has bled out into the real world to create a global industry. The Trump Republicans are riding the gravy train of grievance. Canadians need to recognize that grievance has been driving our own politics for over a decade. Our political masters have used this to their advantage. The end game of this strategy is playing out to the south of us. I am hopeful Canadians will learn the lesson before we suffer the same fate.
The last 15 years have proven that a majority of Canadians do not learn some important lessons. At least not willingly.
Ahhh, I love being first to a comment
Bud, then you should have written more of a comment. Or maybe you wanted to leave just a paw print in the wet concrete. Sometimes I am like that too.
Matt is right, any Alberta (or Quebec) sovereignty won't be democratic. Albertans will just be told what will happen next like the polite confrontation adverse Canadians we all are.
Being polite means eating a lot of shit, and if Alberta didn't leave after the National Energy Program Alberta won't leave.
Albertans like to think of ourselves as the bold ambitious types but history has proven that we aren't, when it comes to politics.
That said, you can say "F America" but if Trump were to allow full mobility rights for Canadian born families you would see a significant number of young people decamp. It would be like Eastern Europeans moving west after joining the EU. Canada is tilted politically and even culturally towards the boomers, always has been since the 60s, and there just isn't a place for those under 35 families in most of Canada compared to the US.
I saw the poor victimized Quebec fisherman who messed with U.S. Border patrol, crying on the CTV in the few minutes I can tolerate watching CTV or any other Canadian MSM.
He found out the hard way that there is a big difference with the U.S. border protection and the Liberal Roxham Road Hamas/ISIS/MS13 Liberal Welcome to Canada Center. Maybe the Elbows Up crowd can start a GoFundMe for him to buy a new boat.
The sad thing about the Lake Champlain fisherman getting arrested by ICE over a location dispute is that Canada has NO Coast Guard presence on the Lake.
Where is the video
Why ? You surely know what they look like by now.
Just A weird thing I have lol.