Albertan separatists likely believe their agitation will pressure the federal Liberal govt into succumbing to their demands, "like Quebec gets."
These Albertans are apparently ignorant of how this strategy has not exactly made Quebec wealthier.
Since the 70s, the flight of capital and people from QC has profoundly changed their society to be less English and less affluent.
Montreal is still a jewel, and certainly elites still exist.
But the province's economy has declined, and it receives federal support because it needs it!
And this decline happened just from the threat of separation, not actual independence.
Albertan separatists are, as Chantal Hebert said, like children playing with matches. No plan, no serious analysis, no perspective, dragging everyone into great risk.
Albertans have the highest per capita income and low cost of living.
This noise is simply a partisan Conservative project to distract from the UCP govt's corruption by fighting the fed Liberals. Old playbook, that.
Also, Smith is terrified her party will split. Like Poilievre, Smith has been captured by her extreme base. She seems weak and cowardly.
I'm hoping the majority of Albertans will rebel against such blatant manipulation before too much damage is done.
I am visiting Alberta right now from Ontario. I can’t believe how high the food prices and gas prices are compared to home. My daughter is looking for a home here, and she may find a suitable one, but not for as low as she once thought. Prices are higher here than I expected. Oh, and since wages are higher — be prepared to pay through the nose for any services like car repairs. Low cost of living? Not from my limited experience.
Is a possible a leader will rise and build a plan that none of you can yet imagine?
Every seperatist i know will gladly admit we are fractured and leaderless. We cant seperate now like we are, with no plan.
But just because there isnt a leader now, doesnt mean there wont be one day. Just because you may not be smart enough to lay out a plan for the future doesnt mean someone else couldnt do it.
You live in literally one of the best places on earth - the richest province in a very wealthy, peaceful country with unsurpassed freedom and socio-economic mobility.
Where is better? Seriously, tell us all - what is your comparison?
Your Premier is using a familiar and obvious op: whipping up hatred against Liberal federal govts in order to hold on to her own power under pressure from her right flank. This tactic never fails to suck in a few loud, gullible Albertans.
Nobody even knows yet what PM Carney plans regarding resource development. His minister of Natural Resources sounds pretty solid. Are you aware?
Maybe give the guy a chance?
And maybe grab some perspective on your relative privilege in Canada and in the world.
I went through this entire thread and it confirmed that the desire is not for an independent Alberta but for a time when women, blacks and “Indians” knew their place, children were seen and not heard, white men were deferred to, dinner was on the table when the head of the household returned from work, abuse was “private” and not talked about, and social stigma was a vaunted means of control. A secession referendum will not bring any of those things back. Thinking that an independent Alberta will turn the clock back to 1950 is ignoring the reality that the world has moved on. Women have the vote and will not relinquish it. Women have bodily autonomy in Canada and will not relinquish it. Indigenous people have fought hard to throw off the chains of Colonialism and will not retreat.
Inflation, housing issues, social progress and environmental disparity is a global phenomenon. The high cost of living, the housing crunch, reduced opportunity for those without skills in demand isn’t a Canadian phenomenon; it’s a global phenomenon. But it requires one to be curious about the wider world to know that.
If separation is really just code for a return to the acceptance of racism, sexism, social exclusion and discrimination, then the only thing that will usher that in is finding a large plot of land and starting a cult of likeminded people - a la Waco or the LDS.
Very well stated. This William fellow expresses the current reactionary movement -- reacting against modernist ideas of liberty and equality of women, non-white people, and gender fluidity. As you say, they want to turn the clocks back a few decades.
Every nation has citizens who resist social change, and many political leaders harness that fear and anger to gain power (see the US, Hungary, Russia, or orthodox Muslim govts). They often borrow religion to reinforce tradition and pre-modern values. It's both understandable and acceptable that some people do not want change.
But it's breathtaking to read William's deep fear, anxiety, and personal threat. He shows us clearly how Conservative influencers have shamelessly intensified people's insecurities. There is no actual need to fear the bogeyman, but people eagerly believe and repeat the script that Conservatives broadcast.
I'm trying to listen and understand where William is coming from, why he feels so threatened. I suggest better critical analysis of media would help, and curiosity about the bigger world, as you said. E.g., educated young people are leaving wealthy northern Italy because of cost of living, lack of jobs, housing, etc.
Canada remains the land of unsurpassed opportunity. We must not squander it by despairing or fighting each other.
So we have it good so we should not strive to do better? No progress allowed cause we are privileged. Ok then. Privileged is earned and you have to keep earning it.
Honestly my comparison was Alberta 20-30 years ago. Life was much better not long ago. I remember a time when gas was 49.9 consitently for years, you could buy a really nice house for 80,000 you could leave your house unlocked and never worry. Those days are gone and now i talk with the youth who are doing basic math and realize they will never own anything because we have an affordability crisis.
The only reason i can think of that you would be ok with the decline of our country is becuase you are oblivious to it? Wealthy boomer with no mortgage living in a gated community or high end subdivision living in a little bubble? I dont know, maybe arrogance, apparently you have seen and done it all, so you know better? It was the 55+ crowd who voted for Carney mainly becuase the issues we have today dont affect you like they do the rest.
Is it possible that Danielle is responding to her constituents? Maybe she is doing what is being asked of her. Maybe its not a game. Its not like western seperation just became an idea when Carney got elected. This isnt new, i was interested in the idea before i even knew who Carney was. I could care less what Carney does. Never trust a politician.
Well, begin by not trusting Premier Smith. No Canadian politician has ever made it EASIER to hold a separation referendum. She should be working with the new fed govt, not kneecapping it.
Obviously we should always strive to improve our country. But separation is an absurd and extreme reaction that would only isolate and weaken AB.
I'm not a wealthy boomer. Proud daughter of an Edmonton plumber. Benefited from public education, but moved to more expensive Ontario for policy work. Three kids later, we finally bought a used van and then a century old house. Took a lot of hard work in university and various jobs. We'll have a mortgage forever.
I do have the privilege of perspective on both West and East in our great country. I've also worked for all three major political parties.
So yeah, I have seen a lot.
And I've never seen a politician as craven and irresponsible as Danielle Smith. Smooth talker, parochial ideas.
For years I've been explaining Albertans to Ontarians, including the perennial separatist movements. The vast majority of Albertans do not support separation, and never will, because they are not ignorant.
I wish you good fortune and enlarged gratitude for the wonderful place you call home. Start with no provincial sales tax!
I am definitely not a politician, but have worked with many from all parties in AB and in Ottawa. Seen a few bad but mostly good ones. They're all doing hard work to build compromises out of tough choices. The most important thing is to work in good faith and trust.
Governing a huge country like Canada, with all its regions and diverse interests, and facing external threats, is not easy.
Listening to people like you is important, and I am trying to understand what makes you feel so hopeless about Canada.
I feel that Quebec’s decline was caused by draconian language laws rather than the threat of separation. Govt sanctioned discrimination is not part of Alberta’s separation movement, it’s different.
The initial threat of separation, caused by the election of the PQ govt in 1976 and ensuing referendum (and again in '97), precipitated a flight of capital, corporate headquarters, and an exodus of mostly Anglophones.
The economic blow was heavy and persists. It's all about money.
Albertan separatists might want to "do their own research" into other separatist movements and see how much pain they are flirting with.
The tap started a slow, methodical leak of capital and people in the early 1960's.
Don't forget the FLQ Royal Canadian Mail post box bombs of the early 60's .... that set the tone to get things on edge. Then there was the St Jean Baptiste Parade riot of 68, the FLQ Crisis of 1970, and finally the icing on the cake, Robert Bourassa's language laws and the two big big general strikes of 74 & 76. All these were in advance of Levesque's winning the 76 election, and the PQ coming to power.
Stewart, you are a gifted writer! Thank for this piece, which is well researched, informative, and devoid of sensationalist rhetoric, yet drives home convincingly the dangers of the Smith government's reckless abandon.
A "prosperous, peaceful ... federation." Lol We are now the economic Haiti of the developed world. I've grown accustomed (and weary) of this kind of sophistry. So many words, so little salience.
Fair comment. I agree, but I also think that she is doing something any typical Canadian politician would do. There's not a leader in the Federal or Provincial governments free of disingenuity. It's all about constituencies and pandering and everyone does it. I've got no problem with folks like you evaluating her stated positions and political strategies; what I despise is no-nothing haters who call her names as though she is the second coming of Pol Pot.
Something I've been trying to figure out: if Alberta leaves Canada and joins the US, won't all the white collar jobs move to Houston? Forget Puerto Rico and Alaska; what's to keep Alberta from becoming North-most Dakota and Calgary from becoming a ghost town?
The majority don’t want separation, but separation from Danielle is definitely on the agenda. Corruption is unparalleled, the traitorous actions are unforgivable. She wants a referendum, let’s have one ON HER!!
The assumption appears to be that Alberta separation will be peaceful. I have news for Smith and her nest of separatists—no one is taking away my Canadian citizenship or my home!
The path is direct accession, not sovereignty followed by accession. Negotiate terms of statehood with the U.S., then hold a referendum to secede/accede. If it passes, Canada will have no choice but to quickly agrees to the terms of departure. Pretty much all your arguments for leaving fall away instantly other than the potential loss of Canadian citizenship. Though this is replaced with US citizenship.
The saddest part of these articles is that they lay bare the fact that Canada’s is completely devoid of arguments as to why Alberta should want to be part of Canada, and instead focus on the headaches and complications of leaving. Which actually sums up the Alberta experience within Canada - one giant, never ending headache.
What specifically gives you so much confidence that Alberta can achieve statehood status with the US and that those negotiations with the US would take place, while Alberta is still a province?
I don’t have a lot of confidence, but I also don’t see it as implausible. Alberta has a lot to offer including its natural resources, educated population, high workforce participation, and large fertile land mass that would bring the contiguous states much further north. It would also eliminate the U.S. trade deficit overnight. As to whether the negotiations would take place, that depends on U.S. willingness. Canada cannot stop Alberta from participating.
Assuming that the U.S. did engage, what do you see as the key counterpoints for why Alberta ought to stay put?
This is the exact self-centredness in Alberta's separatists that I mention in my other comment in this string. Does your plan to negotiate with the Americans include forcing a decision to join the States down the throats of Albertans who don't want to separate? How do you think that will go over with them, exactly? You probably don't believe the polls that say that about 70% of Albertans want to stay with Canada. What if the polls are accurate?
And how do First Nations peoples and their treaties factor into your scenarios? Again, I see no consideration of other stakeholders in your scenarios. Your scenarios do however include the US which has no say, but that Alberta would be welcoming as a party to the negotiations.
Regarding what Canada has to offer Alberta to beg it to stay, you know what Canada has to offer. Canada should be open to listen to Alberta's interests (not threats or positions) in any negotiation, but if after that we're still not "good enough" for you, then set your own course as will Canada. The fact that the threats from Alberta are coming at a point when Canada's own sovereignty is already under an unprecedented threat, is opportunistic at best. Your suggestion that Alberta negotiate with the US first is even more in bad faith than what is happening now. Why on earth should Canada negotiate with Alberta after it negotiates statehood with the US first? The only common interest at that point is how we get the Canadians back into Canada... similar to the brain drain that happened spontaneously to Quebec in 1995.
Again, none of this conversation about your scenarios makes any sense without considering the other stakeholders.
To add, the only US president who would consider meddling in an ally's sovereignty for its own benefit, would be Trump. Any other president would have crapped all over that idea.
Aa much as separatists don't want to be "governed by the east" or impacted by "decisions made in Ottawa", I wonder how many separatists realize that ultimately, they will still have to be governed by some entity, and how "globalist" that new government will have to be in order to sell their commodities to the rest of the world... and they're right back at square 1.
The only relevant stakeholders are Canadian citizens who reside in Alberta. They would vote in a referendum. That’s called democracy. If people vote no, you have nothing to worry about. And yes, it is opportunistic. Canada has treated Alberta opportunistically for over a hundred years, and when Alberta complains it is called selfish. I truly don’t know what Canada has to offer Alberta that the U.S. could not and then some, and no one I ask can tell me.
Your “still governed by some entity” comment says it all - you’ve already given up on the idea of democratic agency. Some of us out here still think that we the people should have a say in our governance, and not just be controlled by distant elites who clearly don’t view us as “stakeholders” when they make decisions.
I think your comment about "democratic agency" is again, self-centred. I look at this from the perspective of civil order, and that to avoid chaos, every society needs to be governed, in some way, shape or form. How that suggests being "controlled by distant elites" I'm not certain, so indulge me. More evidence of self-centredness: your plan is to negotiate with the Americans before an Alberta referendum... again I ask, where do the First Nations and their treaties come into this equation? Most separatists do not want to discuss indigenous peoples in Alberta; maybe you'd be the exception.
On the topic of what Canada has to offer over the US to get Alberta to stay, unless you're American, as I said, you know full well how the two societies differ with respect to what is afforded their citizens - why would anyone debate that with you? I'm certainly not; I don't beg people to stay if they're not happy. If the Alberta government is serious about staying with Canada, do you think it should formally bring forward its grievances to the federal government? Serious grievances... I'm confident mandating plastic straws ain't gonna cut it, as inhumane as imposing use of paper straws is. Do you think it would it be fair to the Albertans who are still considering staying in Canada to have its government do that first?
Soooo many other things I'd like to say but let's try and narrow it down a bit. What exactly do you mean by, "Canada will have no choice but to quickly agrees to the terms of departure"?
Alberta can’t hold a referendum on joining the U.S. without knowing whether the U.S. would even welcome Alberta, and on what terms. The negotiation has to occur first. If that all happens and Albertans approve, then Alberta would be on a fixed timeline to becoming sovereign U.S. territory. Canada would have to choose between Alberta departing on no terms, or the terms that would be agreed to on that timeline.
Stop avoiding my question of what Canada has to offer. Yes, they are different societies that afford their citizens different things, but how is what Canada affords its citizens better? What can Canada offer Albertans in terms of equal regional representation at the federal level? In terms of standard of living? In terms of access to the largest economy? It terms of job mobility? In terms of guaranteed personal liberties, like freedom of speech? In terms of provincial autonomy?
Alberta has enough refining capacity to serve its population but building more refineries here would just crash the margins and create a glut. Nobody ships gasoline, kerosene etc over great distances. Refiners elsewhere want oil or gas from Alberta but make their own gasoline locally.
This makes absolutely no sense. The oil is sold for a discount when you could sell refined products for world price. Do Albertans pay less for gas than anyone else?
I worked in the refining business and I would say yours is a very aggressive opening sentence for someone who clearly does not understand the economics of refining.
Refineries cost billions of dollars and take years to build. Nobody built one in 40 plus years in Canada, because they have to run full to be profitable. So the people who build and operate them and put those shareholder billions at risk are not thrilled when people like you and Rachel Notley glibly say they should just build more of them and thereby wreck any chance of them being profitable.
In the early 90s, there was too much refining capacity in Canada, so smaller, marginal refineries were closed until population growth matched the demand for existing plants. That is where we are today, with existing refineries being tweaked occasionally as demand warrants.
Also, while there is a global market for various grades of crude oil, nobody sells most refined products for "world prices". In fact, oil costs roughly the same per barrel around the world to refine, so the significant differences in gasoline prices between Alberta and BC or Canada and Italy are almost entirely due to major variations in tax. And yes, Albertans do pay less for gasoline than most places in Canada for that reason.
Gasoline is the ultimate, hyper competitive, local market, with prices posted on big signs visible from roads and very skinny margins. Gas station operators make much more margin on pop, chips and cigarette sales than on gasoline, which is why the number of gas stations has shrunk dramatically since the 1970s, when there seemed to be one on every street corner.
Re-read my previous comment about gasoline shipping. Nobody, anywhere in the world, ships gasoline over great distances by pipeline, for several reasons, including the chemical volatility of gasoline compared to oil, but also batching issues and the fact that local refineries have local gasoline demand covered.
If Alberta overproduces gasoline for the local market, we have nowhere to send it other than nearby parts of BC and Saskatchewan because transportation costs make export uneconomic. So the Notley idea of building more refineries, like most NDP schemes, ignores economic reality.
As for Alberta oil being sold at a discount, that is a different issue altogether. You will recall that the industry tried to build Energy East, which Trudeau obstructed with new rules, Northern Gateway, which he cancelled after Harper had approved it and Keystone XL, which Biden cancelled. That is the reason for the Alberta heavy oil discount. The refineries on the US Gulf Coast are huge and want to run Canadian heavy oil, but left wing politicians keep sabotaging that obvious win for both countries.
We still make ethylene at Joffre and various petrochemicals in Edmonton. Some refineries make lubricants, but mostly in Ontario where they make cars etc. There is increasing interest in hydrogen and ammonia as fuel, which are often stripped out of or made from natural gas feedstock.
"Refineries cost billions of dollars and take years to build. Nobody built one in 40 plus years in Canada, because they have to run full to be profitable. So the people who build and operate them and put those shareholder billions at risk are not thrilled when people like you and Rachel Notley glibly say they should just build more of them and thereby wreck any chance of them being profitable."
I suspect big oil and MAGA are pushing this referendum to capture Alberta for Trump and make it part of the USA. Alberta wouldn’t be left as an independent country. It might not even get statehood, but would more likely join Puerto Rico as a territory of the United States so that Trump’s regime could have even greater latitude to pillage and plunder Alberta’s natural resources without any “states rights” under the US Constitution.
The author articulates very clearly the enormous complexity and dire implications of Alberta sovereignty. While all of that is true, as it was with Quebec in 1995, there is a stark contrast in how each province has been depicted. Federalists, at the time, cautioned us to understand and respect Quebec's dissatisfaction, even as they advocated unity. Now, there is little of that conciliatory tone with Alberta or it's leadership. To reflexively deny or dismiss the legitimacy of Alberta's grievances carries the risk of further alienation and a more difficult path to resolution. Arguably, addressing the real or perceived disparities in a flawed confederation is a more enlightened approach.
I have lived in Alberta since forever. There are no legitimate Grievances whatsoever. Anyone can earn a decent living here and enjoy a comfortable retirement. There are hundreds, if not thousands of Albertans who live off of nothing more than their pensions and CPP/OCP. Alberta’s problem was over paying oilfield workers,who bought motor homes and motorboats and other recreational toys and houses beyond their means. Cry me a river! Too many Albertans are self absorbed, and totally unwilling to accept any responsibility for their lives. It’s always the Federal Government who is at fault to them.
I know the history well. My family arrived in Québec 15 generations ago. Your flawed generalization about Albertans inferred that their motivations are somehow less noble than Québecers similar desires.
There is no “nobility “ involved and my generalizations are not flawed or we wouldn’t be were we are. Up until Leduc No.1, we were a have not province, receiving equalization payments. As I said; all the whiners don’t know their place or their history. What Quebec wanted is what the treaty of Paris promised. Entirely different circumstances than the cry babies of Alberta
Generations of Albertans have been force fed the notion that they are being ill treated by the federal government, mostly by provincial politicians trying to deflect from their own inadequacies.
Is this separation really about economic independence, or is it driven by a base of isolationists who are still reeling from the "communist-like" COVID restrictions? You know... the ones who, for example, compare the "oppressive" requirement of having to wear a mask to the plight of the their grandparents in Belgium, who as children had to hide in mud-riddled trenches to protect themselves during WWII. (This is an actual comment from an Alberta separatists that I read on LinkedIn.) If they separate, they are going to be mighty surprised at the "globalist" approach their new government will have to take in order to trade commodities with the rest of the world.
Given indigenous territory and negotiations with Canada, is it even certain that Alberta would be a significant oil-exporter (oil sands and other producing areas being in contention)?
Pretty sure, despite the climate propagnda, we will be burning and utilizing petrochemicals for many centuries to millenia to come.
The demand will drive it, im fairly certain if the conditions are right the talent and money will come and build the infrastructure.
All the natives drive cars and heat their homes with gas, etc etc.
There are plenty of hypocrites who will tell you we dont need oil, but if the power went out they will all be screaming, turn the lights back on, build the pipelines, mine the tar sands etc.
100% guaranteed one of the largest oil deposits on earth is gonna be utilized. Just a question of by whom and when
Thanks Stewart, I too appreciate your well-researched analysis and thoughtful presentation. It is a wonderful contrast to the seemingly endless stories and discussions that focus on the apparent groundswell of right wing support for Danielle Smith's short-sighted separatist campaign, most all of which conveniently ignore (or at best sidebar) regular poll findings which indicate that the vast majority of Albertans support Alberta remaining in Canada. Unfortunately, Danielle Smith's small band of separatist followers are not drawn together by their shared commitment to a reasoned, inclusive and truly forward-thinking political and economic vision. Rather, their largely angry, emotionally-charged hearts are bound by disciple-like devotion to emotionally-satisfying, though in the end superficial, dishonest promises. I find it interesting and somewhat disturbing that a significant body of research indicates that the farther right people are on the political spectrum, the lower they score on measures of emotional intelligence. This explains not only their openness to self-serving, emotionally charged political rhetoric, but also their categorical dismissal of reasoned, fact-based analysis and discussion. My hope is thus that the 70% of Albertans (recent polling research by Angus Reid) that support remaining in Canada will take the time to vote when/if this ridiculously self-serving waste of political time and taxpayer money referendum is called.
Your cogent examination of an independent Alberta does not do justice to the irrational thought processes of the "Republicans". One of their complaints is that Canada will not allow natural resource access to tidewater. Their answer is to make Alberta a landlocked republic… when I asked about this of an advocate, they explained that an independent Alberta includes the Peace River block of northern BC giving Alberta access to the Pacific Ocean. This thinking is akin to that of the group during the Ottawa Blockade petitioning the GG to disband parliament and replacing it with a citizens committee. We live in a time of "because I feel slighted, irrational solutions make sense".
As an Albertan, I would vote with my feet to remain in Canada if it comes to that.
That being said, I think a point of leverage that Alberta does have is the portion of federal income tax that gets paid by Albertans, which are higher per capita than other provinces. Those dollars are shared via equalization. So if Alberta was gone, the level of payments in equalization would fall.
True, for now. But as Stewart points out, there are huge cleanup liabilities (towards which the Trudeau govt put up $1billion), and what happens when oil is no longer needed? Alberta is in budget trouble this year. True leverage is control of the snow melt rivers leading to Sask, Manitoba and NWT
Surely it would also put BC in a tough spot - they would be cut off from all but the northern most parts of Canada. Would they conclude that they would have to either join Alberta or the US? Both are unlikely but the isolation from the rest of the country may force the issue.
Albertan separatists likely believe their agitation will pressure the federal Liberal govt into succumbing to their demands, "like Quebec gets."
These Albertans are apparently ignorant of how this strategy has not exactly made Quebec wealthier.
Since the 70s, the flight of capital and people from QC has profoundly changed their society to be less English and less affluent.
Montreal is still a jewel, and certainly elites still exist.
But the province's economy has declined, and it receives federal support because it needs it!
And this decline happened just from the threat of separation, not actual independence.
Albertan separatists are, as Chantal Hebert said, like children playing with matches. No plan, no serious analysis, no perspective, dragging everyone into great risk.
Albertans have the highest per capita income and low cost of living.
This noise is simply a partisan Conservative project to distract from the UCP govt's corruption by fighting the fed Liberals. Old playbook, that.
Also, Smith is terrified her party will split. Like Poilievre, Smith has been captured by her extreme base. She seems weak and cowardly.
I'm hoping the majority of Albertans will rebel against such blatant manipulation before too much damage is done.
I am visiting Alberta right now from Ontario. I can’t believe how high the food prices and gas prices are compared to home. My daughter is looking for a home here, and she may find a suitable one, but not for as low as she once thought. Prices are higher here than I expected. Oh, and since wages are higher — be prepared to pay through the nose for any services like car repairs. Low cost of living? Not from my limited experience.
I've lived half my life each in Edmonton and Ottawa and I visit AB often.
I agree that food prices are higher in AB, quite shocking.
However, housing, property taxes, fuel, HST!, etc are all higher in Ottawa. The GTA is even more expensive.
Good luck to your daughter. AB is a beautiful!
Yeah - probably comparing big city to big city.
Is a possible a leader will rise and build a plan that none of you can yet imagine?
Every seperatist i know will gladly admit we are fractured and leaderless. We cant seperate now like we are, with no plan.
But just because there isnt a leader now, doesnt mean there wont be one day. Just because you may not be smart enough to lay out a plan for the future doesnt mean someone else couldnt do it.
You live in literally one of the best places on earth - the richest province in a very wealthy, peaceful country with unsurpassed freedom and socio-economic mobility.
Where is better? Seriously, tell us all - what is your comparison?
Your Premier is using a familiar and obvious op: whipping up hatred against Liberal federal govts in order to hold on to her own power under pressure from her right flank. This tactic never fails to suck in a few loud, gullible Albertans.
Nobody even knows yet what PM Carney plans regarding resource development. His minister of Natural Resources sounds pretty solid. Are you aware?
Maybe give the guy a chance?
And maybe grab some perspective on your relative privilege in Canada and in the world.
I went through this entire thread and it confirmed that the desire is not for an independent Alberta but for a time when women, blacks and “Indians” knew their place, children were seen and not heard, white men were deferred to, dinner was on the table when the head of the household returned from work, abuse was “private” and not talked about, and social stigma was a vaunted means of control. A secession referendum will not bring any of those things back. Thinking that an independent Alberta will turn the clock back to 1950 is ignoring the reality that the world has moved on. Women have the vote and will not relinquish it. Women have bodily autonomy in Canada and will not relinquish it. Indigenous people have fought hard to throw off the chains of Colonialism and will not retreat.
Inflation, housing issues, social progress and environmental disparity is a global phenomenon. The high cost of living, the housing crunch, reduced opportunity for those without skills in demand isn’t a Canadian phenomenon; it’s a global phenomenon. But it requires one to be curious about the wider world to know that.
If separation is really just code for a return to the acceptance of racism, sexism, social exclusion and discrimination, then the only thing that will usher that in is finding a large plot of land and starting a cult of likeminded people - a la Waco or the LDS.
Very well stated. This William fellow expresses the current reactionary movement -- reacting against modernist ideas of liberty and equality of women, non-white people, and gender fluidity. As you say, they want to turn the clocks back a few decades.
Every nation has citizens who resist social change, and many political leaders harness that fear and anger to gain power (see the US, Hungary, Russia, or orthodox Muslim govts). They often borrow religion to reinforce tradition and pre-modern values. It's both understandable and acceptable that some people do not want change.
But it's breathtaking to read William's deep fear, anxiety, and personal threat. He shows us clearly how Conservative influencers have shamelessly intensified people's insecurities. There is no actual need to fear the bogeyman, but people eagerly believe and repeat the script that Conservatives broadcast.
I'm trying to listen and understand where William is coming from, why he feels so threatened. I suggest better critical analysis of media would help, and curiosity about the bigger world, as you said. E.g., educated young people are leaving wealthy northern Italy because of cost of living, lack of jobs, housing, etc.
Canada remains the land of unsurpassed opportunity. We must not squander it by despairing or fighting each other.
So we have it good so we should not strive to do better? No progress allowed cause we are privileged. Ok then. Privileged is earned and you have to keep earning it.
Honestly my comparison was Alberta 20-30 years ago. Life was much better not long ago. I remember a time when gas was 49.9 consitently for years, you could buy a really nice house for 80,000 you could leave your house unlocked and never worry. Those days are gone and now i talk with the youth who are doing basic math and realize they will never own anything because we have an affordability crisis.
The only reason i can think of that you would be ok with the decline of our country is becuase you are oblivious to it? Wealthy boomer with no mortgage living in a gated community or high end subdivision living in a little bubble? I dont know, maybe arrogance, apparently you have seen and done it all, so you know better? It was the 55+ crowd who voted for Carney mainly becuase the issues we have today dont affect you like they do the rest.
Is it possible that Danielle is responding to her constituents? Maybe she is doing what is being asked of her. Maybe its not a game. Its not like western seperation just became an idea when Carney got elected. This isnt new, i was interested in the idea before i even knew who Carney was. I could care less what Carney does. Never trust a politician.
Well, begin by not trusting Premier Smith. No Canadian politician has ever made it EASIER to hold a separation referendum. She should be working with the new fed govt, not kneecapping it.
Obviously we should always strive to improve our country. But separation is an absurd and extreme reaction that would only isolate and weaken AB.
I'm not a wealthy boomer. Proud daughter of an Edmonton plumber. Benefited from public education, but moved to more expensive Ontario for policy work. Three kids later, we finally bought a used van and then a century old house. Took a lot of hard work in university and various jobs. We'll have a mortgage forever.
I do have the privilege of perspective on both West and East in our great country. I've also worked for all three major political parties.
So yeah, I have seen a lot.
And I've never seen a politician as craven and irresponsible as Danielle Smith. Smooth talker, parochial ideas.
For years I've been explaining Albertans to Ontarians, including the perennial separatist movements. The vast majority of Albertans do not support separation, and never will, because they are not ignorant.
I wish you good fortune and enlarged gratitude for the wonderful place you call home. Start with no provincial sales tax!
Oh so your a politician, cant trust you either.
Im all for kneecapping the liberals, bring the pain i say. Thanks for calling me names, really helps your cause.
I am definitely not a politician, but have worked with many from all parties in AB and in Ottawa. Seen a few bad but mostly good ones. They're all doing hard work to build compromises out of tough choices. The most important thing is to work in good faith and trust.
Governing a huge country like Canada, with all its regions and diverse interests, and facing external threats, is not easy.
Listening to people like you is important, and I am trying to understand what makes you feel so hopeless about Canada.
What specifically do you want to change?
I feel that Quebec’s decline was caused by draconian language laws rather than the threat of separation. Govt sanctioned discrimination is not part of Alberta’s separation movement, it’s different.
The initial threat of separation, caused by the election of the PQ govt in 1976 and ensuing referendum (and again in '97), precipitated a flight of capital, corporate headquarters, and an exodus of mostly Anglophones.
The economic blow was heavy and persists. It's all about money.
Albertan separatists might want to "do their own research" into other separatist movements and see how much pain they are flirting with.
They are playing a very dangerous game.
The tap started a slow, methodical leak of capital and people in the early 1960's.
Don't forget the FLQ Royal Canadian Mail post box bombs of the early 60's .... that set the tone to get things on edge. Then there was the St Jean Baptiste Parade riot of 68, the FLQ Crisis of 1970, and finally the icing on the cake, Robert Bourassa's language laws and the two big big general strikes of 74 & 76. All these were in advance of Levesque's winning the 76 election, and the PQ coming to power.
The language laws came much later. Essentially they are nothing more than “in for a penny, in for a dollar “ actions by the BQ…
Stewart, you are a gifted writer! Thank for this piece, which is well researched, informative, and devoid of sensationalist rhetoric, yet drives home convincingly the dangers of the Smith government's reckless abandon.
Thanks so much for the kind words! Glad the piece is resonating with readers—I thought it was important to say.
A "prosperous, peaceful ... federation." Lol We are now the economic Haiti of the developed world. I've grown accustomed (and weary) of this kind of sophistry. So many words, so little salience.
I, too, have found it impossible to not see Premiere Smith as anything other than deliberately disingenuous.
Fair comment. I agree, but I also think that she is doing something any typical Canadian politician would do. There's not a leader in the Federal or Provincial governments free of disingenuity. It's all about constituencies and pandering and everyone does it. I've got no problem with folks like you evaluating her stated positions and political strategies; what I despise is no-nothing haters who call her names as though she is the second coming of Pol Pot.
Something I've been trying to figure out: if Alberta leaves Canada and joins the US, won't all the white collar jobs move to Houston? Forget Puerto Rico and Alaska; what's to keep Alberta from becoming North-most Dakota and Calgary from becoming a ghost town?
Not much, in all honesty. Calgary and AB would be bargaining at a serious disadvantage just to hold on to the capital investment it currently has.
Would being geographically located near one of the largest oil deposits on the planet count for anything i wonder?
The majority don’t want separation, but separation from Danielle is definitely on the agenda. Corruption is unparalleled, the traitorous actions are unforgivable. She wants a referendum, let’s have one ON HER!!
The assumption appears to be that Alberta separation will be peaceful. I have news for Smith and her nest of separatists—no one is taking away my Canadian citizenship or my home!
The path is direct accession, not sovereignty followed by accession. Negotiate terms of statehood with the U.S., then hold a referendum to secede/accede. If it passes, Canada will have no choice but to quickly agrees to the terms of departure. Pretty much all your arguments for leaving fall away instantly other than the potential loss of Canadian citizenship. Though this is replaced with US citizenship.
The saddest part of these articles is that they lay bare the fact that Canada’s is completely devoid of arguments as to why Alberta should want to be part of Canada, and instead focus on the headaches and complications of leaving. Which actually sums up the Alberta experience within Canada - one giant, never ending headache.
What specifically gives you so much confidence that Alberta can achieve statehood status with the US and that those negotiations with the US would take place, while Alberta is still a province?
I don’t have a lot of confidence, but I also don’t see it as implausible. Alberta has a lot to offer including its natural resources, educated population, high workforce participation, and large fertile land mass that would bring the contiguous states much further north. It would also eliminate the U.S. trade deficit overnight. As to whether the negotiations would take place, that depends on U.S. willingness. Canada cannot stop Alberta from participating.
Assuming that the U.S. did engage, what do you see as the key counterpoints for why Alberta ought to stay put?
This is the exact self-centredness in Alberta's separatists that I mention in my other comment in this string. Does your plan to negotiate with the Americans include forcing a decision to join the States down the throats of Albertans who don't want to separate? How do you think that will go over with them, exactly? You probably don't believe the polls that say that about 70% of Albertans want to stay with Canada. What if the polls are accurate?
And how do First Nations peoples and their treaties factor into your scenarios? Again, I see no consideration of other stakeholders in your scenarios. Your scenarios do however include the US which has no say, but that Alberta would be welcoming as a party to the negotiations.
Regarding what Canada has to offer Alberta to beg it to stay, you know what Canada has to offer. Canada should be open to listen to Alberta's interests (not threats or positions) in any negotiation, but if after that we're still not "good enough" for you, then set your own course as will Canada. The fact that the threats from Alberta are coming at a point when Canada's own sovereignty is already under an unprecedented threat, is opportunistic at best. Your suggestion that Alberta negotiate with the US first is even more in bad faith than what is happening now. Why on earth should Canada negotiate with Alberta after it negotiates statehood with the US first? The only common interest at that point is how we get the Canadians back into Canada... similar to the brain drain that happened spontaneously to Quebec in 1995.
Again, none of this conversation about your scenarios makes any sense without considering the other stakeholders.
To add, the only US president who would consider meddling in an ally's sovereignty for its own benefit, would be Trump. Any other president would have crapped all over that idea.
Aa much as separatists don't want to be "governed by the east" or impacted by "decisions made in Ottawa", I wonder how many separatists realize that ultimately, they will still have to be governed by some entity, and how "globalist" that new government will have to be in order to sell their commodities to the rest of the world... and they're right back at square 1.
The only relevant stakeholders are Canadian citizens who reside in Alberta. They would vote in a referendum. That’s called democracy. If people vote no, you have nothing to worry about. And yes, it is opportunistic. Canada has treated Alberta opportunistically for over a hundred years, and when Alberta complains it is called selfish. I truly don’t know what Canada has to offer Alberta that the U.S. could not and then some, and no one I ask can tell me.
Your “still governed by some entity” comment says it all - you’ve already given up on the idea of democratic agency. Some of us out here still think that we the people should have a say in our governance, and not just be controlled by distant elites who clearly don’t view us as “stakeholders” when they make decisions.
I think your comment about "democratic agency" is again, self-centred. I look at this from the perspective of civil order, and that to avoid chaos, every society needs to be governed, in some way, shape or form. How that suggests being "controlled by distant elites" I'm not certain, so indulge me. More evidence of self-centredness: your plan is to negotiate with the Americans before an Alberta referendum... again I ask, where do the First Nations and their treaties come into this equation? Most separatists do not want to discuss indigenous peoples in Alberta; maybe you'd be the exception.
On the topic of what Canada has to offer over the US to get Alberta to stay, unless you're American, as I said, you know full well how the two societies differ with respect to what is afforded their citizens - why would anyone debate that with you? I'm certainly not; I don't beg people to stay if they're not happy. If the Alberta government is serious about staying with Canada, do you think it should formally bring forward its grievances to the federal government? Serious grievances... I'm confident mandating plastic straws ain't gonna cut it, as inhumane as imposing use of paper straws is. Do you think it would it be fair to the Albertans who are still considering staying in Canada to have its government do that first?
Soooo many other things I'd like to say but let's try and narrow it down a bit. What exactly do you mean by, "Canada will have no choice but to quickly agrees to the terms of departure"?
Alberta can’t hold a referendum on joining the U.S. without knowing whether the U.S. would even welcome Alberta, and on what terms. The negotiation has to occur first. If that all happens and Albertans approve, then Alberta would be on a fixed timeline to becoming sovereign U.S. territory. Canada would have to choose between Alberta departing on no terms, or the terms that would be agreed to on that timeline.
Stop avoiding my question of what Canada has to offer. Yes, they are different societies that afford their citizens different things, but how is what Canada affords its citizens better? What can Canada offer Albertans in terms of equal regional representation at the federal level? In terms of standard of living? In terms of access to the largest economy? It terms of job mobility? In terms of guaranteed personal liberties, like freedom of speech? In terms of provincial autonomy?
Well done.
That headache exists only in the minds of short term memory Albertans who are also susceptible to conspiracy theories and “what about me-ism
A thing I'm not getting - why does Alberta want pipelines, for which it needs other governments, rather than build a refinery, in Alberta?
Alberta has enough refining capacity to serve its population but building more refineries here would just crash the margins and create a glut. Nobody ships gasoline, kerosene etc over great distances. Refiners elsewhere want oil or gas from Alberta but make their own gasoline locally.
This makes absolutely no sense. The oil is sold for a discount when you could sell refined products for world price. Do Albertans pay less for gas than anyone else?
I worked in the refining business and I would say yours is a very aggressive opening sentence for someone who clearly does not understand the economics of refining.
Refineries cost billions of dollars and take years to build. Nobody built one in 40 plus years in Canada, because they have to run full to be profitable. So the people who build and operate them and put those shareholder billions at risk are not thrilled when people like you and Rachel Notley glibly say they should just build more of them and thereby wreck any chance of them being profitable.
In the early 90s, there was too much refining capacity in Canada, so smaller, marginal refineries were closed until population growth matched the demand for existing plants. That is where we are today, with existing refineries being tweaked occasionally as demand warrants.
Also, while there is a global market for various grades of crude oil, nobody sells most refined products for "world prices". In fact, oil costs roughly the same per barrel around the world to refine, so the significant differences in gasoline prices between Alberta and BC or Canada and Italy are almost entirely due to major variations in tax. And yes, Albertans do pay less for gasoline than most places in Canada for that reason.
Gasoline is the ultimate, hyper competitive, local market, with prices posted on big signs visible from roads and very skinny margins. Gas station operators make much more margin on pop, chips and cigarette sales than on gasoline, which is why the number of gas stations has shrunk dramatically since the 1970s, when there seemed to be one on every street corner.
Re-read my previous comment about gasoline shipping. Nobody, anywhere in the world, ships gasoline over great distances by pipeline, for several reasons, including the chemical volatility of gasoline compared to oil, but also batching issues and the fact that local refineries have local gasoline demand covered.
If Alberta overproduces gasoline for the local market, we have nowhere to send it other than nearby parts of BC and Saskatchewan because transportation costs make export uneconomic. So the Notley idea of building more refineries, like most NDP schemes, ignores economic reality.
As for Alberta oil being sold at a discount, that is a different issue altogether. You will recall that the industry tried to build Energy East, which Trudeau obstructed with new rules, Northern Gateway, which he cancelled after Harper had approved it and Keystone XL, which Biden cancelled. That is the reason for the Alberta heavy oil discount. The refineries on the US Gulf Coast are huge and want to run Canadian heavy oil, but left wing politicians keep sabotaging that obvious win for both countries.
Well said sir. I do believe it could be possible to make refined products here in AB and sell globally, if we didnt have the geopolitical barriers.
Are Plastics not an example of this now?
Your right gasoline by nature doesnt have the properites to be shipped and stored etc. is there anything else we can make that does?
We still make ethylene at Joffre and various petrochemicals in Edmonton. Some refineries make lubricants, but mostly in Ontario where they make cars etc. There is increasing interest in hydrogen and ammonia as fuel, which are often stripped out of or made from natural gas feedstock.
https://nwrsturgeonrefinery.com/
So that one was built, but it hasn't exactly been a soaring economic success https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/varcoe-danielle-smith-alberta-options-sturgeon-refinery-stake
"Refineries cost billions of dollars and take years to build. Nobody built one in 40 plus years in Canada, because they have to run full to be profitable. So the people who build and operate them and put those shareholder billions at risk are not thrilled when people like you and Rachel Notley glibly say they should just build more of them and thereby wreck any chance of them being profitable."
Wrong! Who can believe anything you say now?
I suspect big oil and MAGA are pushing this referendum to capture Alberta for Trump and make it part of the USA. Alberta wouldn’t be left as an independent country. It might not even get statehood, but would more likely join Puerto Rico as a territory of the United States so that Trump’s regime could have even greater latitude to pillage and plunder Alberta’s natural resources without any “states rights” under the US Constitution.
The author articulates very clearly the enormous complexity and dire implications of Alberta sovereignty. While all of that is true, as it was with Quebec in 1995, there is a stark contrast in how each province has been depicted. Federalists, at the time, cautioned us to understand and respect Quebec's dissatisfaction, even as they advocated unity. Now, there is little of that conciliatory tone with Alberta or it's leadership. To reflexively deny or dismiss the legitimacy of Alberta's grievances carries the risk of further alienation and a more difficult path to resolution. Arguably, addressing the real or perceived disparities in a flawed confederation is a more enlightened approach.
I have lived in Alberta since forever. There are no legitimate Grievances whatsoever. Anyone can earn a decent living here and enjoy a comfortable retirement. There are hundreds, if not thousands of Albertans who live off of nothing more than their pensions and CPP/OCP. Alberta’s problem was over paying oilfield workers,who bought motor homes and motorboats and other recreational toys and houses beyond their means. Cry me a river! Too many Albertans are self absorbed, and totally unwilling to accept any responsibility for their lives. It’s always the Federal Government who is at fault to them.
I'm sure the same could be said for Quebec.
Quebec is a different situation. Please learn some Canadian history.
I know the history well. My family arrived in Québec 15 generations ago. Your flawed generalization about Albertans inferred that their motivations are somehow less noble than Québecers similar desires.
There is no “nobility “ involved and my generalizations are not flawed or we wouldn’t be were we are. Up until Leduc No.1, we were a have not province, receiving equalization payments. As I said; all the whiners don’t know their place or their history. What Quebec wanted is what the treaty of Paris promised. Entirely different circumstances than the cry babies of Alberta
p.s. My family can trace back to the first Settlement in Quebec from France.
Generations of Albertans have been force fed the notion that they are being ill treated by the federal government, mostly by provincial politicians trying to deflect from their own inadequacies.
Is this separation really about economic independence, or is it driven by a base of isolationists who are still reeling from the "communist-like" COVID restrictions? You know... the ones who, for example, compare the "oppressive" requirement of having to wear a mask to the plight of the their grandparents in Belgium, who as children had to hide in mud-riddled trenches to protect themselves during WWII. (This is an actual comment from an Alberta separatists that I read on LinkedIn.) If they separate, they are going to be mighty surprised at the "globalist" approach their new government will have to take in order to trade commodities with the rest of the world.
Given indigenous territory and negotiations with Canada, is it even certain that Alberta would be a significant oil-exporter (oil sands and other producing areas being in contention)?
It's a very good question, as nothing at all is certain.
Pretty sure, despite the climate propagnda, we will be burning and utilizing petrochemicals for many centuries to millenia to come.
The demand will drive it, im fairly certain if the conditions are right the talent and money will come and build the infrastructure.
All the natives drive cars and heat their homes with gas, etc etc.
There are plenty of hypocrites who will tell you we dont need oil, but if the power went out they will all be screaming, turn the lights back on, build the pipelines, mine the tar sands etc.
100% guaranteed one of the largest oil deposits on earth is gonna be utilized. Just a question of by whom and when
Thanks Stewart, I too appreciate your well-researched analysis and thoughtful presentation. It is a wonderful contrast to the seemingly endless stories and discussions that focus on the apparent groundswell of right wing support for Danielle Smith's short-sighted separatist campaign, most all of which conveniently ignore (or at best sidebar) regular poll findings which indicate that the vast majority of Albertans support Alberta remaining in Canada. Unfortunately, Danielle Smith's small band of separatist followers are not drawn together by their shared commitment to a reasoned, inclusive and truly forward-thinking political and economic vision. Rather, their largely angry, emotionally-charged hearts are bound by disciple-like devotion to emotionally-satisfying, though in the end superficial, dishonest promises. I find it interesting and somewhat disturbing that a significant body of research indicates that the farther right people are on the political spectrum, the lower they score on measures of emotional intelligence. This explains not only their openness to self-serving, emotionally charged political rhetoric, but also their categorical dismissal of reasoned, fact-based analysis and discussion. My hope is thus that the 70% of Albertans (recent polling research by Angus Reid) that support remaining in Canada will take the time to vote when/if this ridiculously self-serving waste of political time and taxpayer money referendum is called.
Excellent piece. Thank you.
Your cogent examination of an independent Alberta does not do justice to the irrational thought processes of the "Republicans". One of their complaints is that Canada will not allow natural resource access to tidewater. Their answer is to make Alberta a landlocked republic… when I asked about this of an advocate, they explained that an independent Alberta includes the Peace River block of northern BC giving Alberta access to the Pacific Ocean. This thinking is akin to that of the group during the Ottawa Blockade petitioning the GG to disband parliament and replacing it with a citizens committee. We live in a time of "because I feel slighted, irrational solutions make sense".
As an Albertan, I would vote with my feet to remain in Canada if it comes to that.
That being said, I think a point of leverage that Alberta does have is the portion of federal income tax that gets paid by Albertans, which are higher per capita than other provinces. Those dollars are shared via equalization. So if Alberta was gone, the level of payments in equalization would fall.
True, for now. But as Stewart points out, there are huge cleanup liabilities (towards which the Trudeau govt put up $1billion), and what happens when oil is no longer needed? Alberta is in budget trouble this year. True leverage is control of the snow melt rivers leading to Sask, Manitoba and NWT
Surely it would also put BC in a tough spot - they would be cut off from all but the northern most parts of Canada. Would they conclude that they would have to either join Alberta or the US? Both are unlikely but the isolation from the rest of the country may force the issue.