Do you get the feeling that Alberta separatists want to have their cake and eat it too?
Last weekend, a social media post from the so-called Alberta Prosperity Project offered this advice to nervous Albertans: “Sovereignty doesn’t mean losing what matters. You keep your identity, pension, passport – and gain a hopeful future.”
The wordy image accompanying the post on the social media platform previously known as Twitter went on to promise that if Alberta separated from Canada – or, at least, became sovereign,* – you’d get to keep your “OAS & Pension,” your Canadian citizenship, your Canadian passport, your “personal identity,” and your “hope for the future.”
Senator Kristopher Wells, appointed to represent Alberta, sharply tweeted back: “I can assure you. No Canadian passport, no citizenship, no pension, and no future if you want to leave Canada.”
This set off a phenomenon which is technically known in the field of social media studies as “a shitstorm,” most of which unfortunately has now disappeared or dissipated, probably because the APP seems to have removed its original tweet and Senator Wells has restricted responses to his.
Both, however, seem to have had a second go at their statements. In a follow-up tweet, Senator Wells conceded that birthright citizenship is still a thing in Canada. The APP, which officially describes itself as only wanting to “empower the Alberta government to restructure Alberta’s relationship with Canada,” published a mealy-mouthed revised graphic that had enough qualifications to pass for an Internet terms-of-service page.
OK, the APP now seems to be saying, if you get to have an Alberta passport instead, what’s the big deal?
Regardless, while the storm persisted, what was striking was just how angry it made some people (and some bot operators) to hear Mr. Wells say that in the event of Alberta separating from Canada, Albertans might not get to keep their Canadian passports, Canadian pensions, and perhaps even their Canadian political identities.
One irate gentleman even called Mr. Wells a traitor, which under the circumstances seemed a little rich.
And this from a part of the country where folks used to shake their heads wonderingly when they heard that many Quebeckers assumed before the Quebec sovereignty referenda in 1980 and 1995 that they would still get to send Members of Parliament to Ottawa in the event of secession.
Don’t you get the feeling, watching what passes for civil discourse in this province nowadays, that a lot of the Alberta separatists who just won’t shut up think exactly the same thing? I can’t say I’ve seen it put as explicitly as some of the other claims on the APP meme, but I sure wouldn’t be shocked to learn it’s so.
Here’s one thing you can be confident of, if Albertans were ever so foolish as to vote that their province become a landlocked petrostate, there is zero chance they would ever get to send an MP to Ottawa again and, for quite different reasons, precious little chance they’d ever get to send an elected representative to Washington either, the obvious wishes of the APP’s leadership notwithstanding.
But what about passports, pensions and the like?
Well, it is true right now that Canada allows citizens living in other countries to continue to collect their CPP pensions, also permits dual citizenship (interim Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, c’mon down!), and lets citizens abroad vote in Canadian elections.
So, in that regard, while misleading, the APP statement was correct.
At the same time, in the event of a separation vote by any part of Canada, things would be certain to change significantly after separation.
I chatted about this with University of Calgary political science professor Lisa Young, a thoughtful commentator on Alberta politics, last week after she warned in her Substack column that Alberta sovereignty could in fact mean losing passports and pensions.
“A more thoughtful analysis would say that Canada would have to sort out the citizenship question,” she told me. “I’m willing to go out on a limb and suggest that if Alberta were to separate, Canada would not be willing to allow five million people living next door to maintain Canadian citizenship and all its privileges.
“It would mean having to provide consular services and the like without being able to levy taxes to pay for it,” she explained. “True, Canada already has close to four million dual citizens, but presumably many of them are residents of Canada, pay Canadian taxes and so on.”
“Then there’s the question of democratic rights,” Dr. Young continued. “If you move to another country and maintain your Canadian citizenship, you can apply to join the international list of electors. You would then vote in the district where you most recently lived. So what would Canada do with a few million Albertans who wanted to vote in Canadian elections but had never lived anywhere outside Alberta?
“Presumably, if we ever got to this point, citizenship would be one of the items to be negotiated,” she said. “I suspect that someone who was born in Canada outside Alberta would be able to make a case for citizenship. But people born in Alberta? It would be open to negotiation.”
Of course, in the event it did get to that point – unlikely, notwithstanding The New York Times’s sophomorically one-sided report yesterday, which was worthy of a student newspaper – Canadians in the rest of the country would be furious. They would be in no mood to let the Alberta-dominated Conservative Party benefit from such an absurd situation.
And what could we Albertans do about it? Threaten to withhold our precious bitumen? I’ve got news for you, my fellow Albertans, there’s a reason they ship Saudi crude to New Brunswick and it’s got nothing to do with the ethics of a given barrel of fungible liquid.
As for the CPP, Dr. Young said, “Canada wouldn’t hand over the cash to Alberta. Folks like you and me who had paid into the CPP would still be able to collect it, just like we would if we moved to Panama. But Alberta would have to set up its own plan moving forward.”
Now, chances are high, as some suggest, that this nonsense is just being stage-managed by Premier Danielle Smith and the United Conservative Party to keep our eyeballs off the damage they’re doing to our province, and the metastasizing corruption scandal that just keeps getting worse every time The Globe and Mail publishes another headline like the one atop its reporters’ scoop on Monday.
But even former UCP premier Jason Kenney, who arguably started the ball rolling on this sovereignty-association scam, admits the Smith Government is playing with fire.
The trouble is, we could all get burned. And, if we do, don’t be counting on having an MP in Ottawa to complain to or having enough income from your Alberta-only pension to retire in B.C. or Nova Scotia. And don’t count on many foreign states to recognize your Alberta passport, either.
*A fact that a lot of Albertans, including some in our government, apparently don’t understand is that Canadian provinces and sub-national jurisdictions in all federations, are sovereign – within their jurisdiction and their territory, that is. Premier Smith’s definition of sovereignty, Alberta-style, however, clearly assumes it can intrude into federal jurisdiction, and all other provinces’ territory, whenever it pleases. That dog won’t hunt.
This reminds me very much of the unrealistic promises Quebec separatists made, particularly in the early 1990’s. Somehow saying yes was going to unleash an era of sunshine and roses. Just ignore the head offices leaving and those moving vans too, don’t believe your lying eyes.
Well we haven’t got that far yet, but the separatists target market here also seems to be the gullible. The quality of information on social media is uneven and it does not seem there is much scrutiny at times. It seems to be an era for big lies to thrive again. So these tactics are not surprising.
Perhaps departing Canadians leaving Alberta will be replaced by incoming from Houston or somewhere else, although I suspect most from the southern US will find it a bit too cool here. Of course it would also only be appealing to them if Alberta becomes part of the US. I suspect this is some of the separatists and Premier Smith’s real long term goal. I don’t know what she talked about in all those trips to the US. Perhaps the US leader encouraged that kind of thinking. He probably recognizes useful idiots when they pop up infront of him. But as those people who went to Trump University sadly found out, he doesn’t always keep up his end of the bargain, implied or otherwise.
This separation malarkey is a big joke. Maybe the UCP can leave Alberta, and take the sepatists with them?
Thomas Lukaszuk (bluesky, lisab. X, global news)
>> Has filed the ‘proper’ documentation with elections Alberta ie: Do Albertans NOT want to separate from Canada.
So apparently this is part of the official process and once that petition is accepted another one similar or 180°different variant question cannot be brought up.
Because the Ditchbillies don’t know how the government works, it seems @ any of the 3 levels, they are “huffing and puffing” on social media about leftists.
So one has to wonder, are they all so seemingly incompetent?
Given the advice they’ve been getting for years from the CRAP/REF/CON leadership, one would have thought that if they really wanted to separate, they would have done their homework a long time ago, crossed the ‘it’s, dotted the i’s .
Well, personally I’m not totally surprised, because being lazy seems a prerequisite :because they are alternately whining @the government to do something, or telling the government to stay out. They make as much sense as the self-proclaimed queen of Canada– who has been almost suspiciously quiet given all the separatist talk– not that I’m complaining.
Anyway– Bravo to Thomas, and kudos to Sen. Kris Wells.
Thanks for speaking out for the “majority” of Canadians who were either born in Alberta and stayed or moved, who moved to Canada and landed in Alberta, but are first and foremost proud Canadians.
I think it’s worth repeating, if you don’t like it here,
YOU ARE>>>FREE TO LEAVE
the country, we will definitely not stop you from going.
@randi-lee
I did a bit of digging into Mr. Lukaszuk’s proposed referendum question. If his legal analysis of Ditzy Dani’s referendum act changes is correct AND he gets the requisite number of signatures, the separatists are barred from even applying for 5 years.
Gerald– Thanks for the update. I don’t think he’ll have any problem getting the signatures, people are already lined up waiting to sign.
Also, ( from the Breakdown)
“Lawyer Rath” posted a pic of ‘BREAKING–Mitch Sylvester filed it’s independence referendum petition application in Edmonton @ 3:30 pm/ May 23rd.
So obviously Thomas was right, because now they’re scrambling . I suppose ‘if’ they had an shame, there’d be some pretty red faces right now, but we know that won’t be happening.
But just a thought– I’m guessing that, since this has to go through Elections Alberta, there would have to be an official form for people to sign; since they are working off of the list of last election >> registered voters <<
so that supposed list of signees that the APP already has, is basically useless (besides the obvious) and they are going to have start from the Legal "square 1" .
IMHO, this is where the chaff gets separated from the wheat….no pun intended LOL
@DJC
“On irate gentleman even called Mr. Wells a traitor, which under the circumstances seemed a little rich. ” Not to be “that guy” but I think you missed “ONE irate gentleman…”
And no, you don’t have to post this…just fix it cuz my editor brain went “ARGH” lol (I know my comments are often wiffle waffle but that’s due to my inability to actually read these little text boxes properly as opposed to when I’m actually writing for realsies)
Thanks, B. I will post it to say that I appreciate your letting me know about that typo, and because I rely on my readers to fix such errors when they slip by. It’s been fixed. DJC
The absolute gall to believe that Albertans would have a right to representation in Ottawa following a separation boggles my mind. Alberta would have an ambassador–if that. When was the last time a foreign ambassador had a say over *domestic* policy?
Therein lies the reality. If Alberta were to successfully separate–they would be a *foreign* government to the rest of Canada. For any separatists out there who haven’t thought that through, Alberta would be in the same situation as say, Haiti or Morocco or Kosovo. Maybe, carved up like Syria. Getting the picture, yet? Zero bargaining power against oil corporations, insurance companies, banks etc. because it’s only 5 Million people and a few resources. Not one more federal penny for cleanups, pipelines, pensions, healthcare etc.
All that would be left is an exploitable tiny landlocked state.
The now provincial government would become essentially…the federal government of Alberta. Mired in corruption and scandal there would be nobody to stop it. Just corporations supplying just enough cash to exploit it to the maximum.
Or, they could join the USA and become like Puerto Rico. Or be forced to join, like Hawaii. Paid any attention to what happened *there* during the wildfires? Or after? If not, I suggest separatists research it before they start cuddling up to the American Empire. Because you’re looking straight into your future as a “state” of the USA.
Meanwhile, I expect Manitoba and BC to carve out enough of a chunk to reach each other with Saskatchewan (or through there)
History repeats. Past behaviour predicts future behaviour.
Oh and have fun passing your “freedom manifest” by the UN who will disagree it on fundamental grounds due to indigenous rights.
Separatists need to stop threatening to run away from home as their myriad social problems are being caused from within their own borders as much or more than–problems the feds are causing them. Clean that up, then you can lecture the feds on “unfairness”.
That’s from someone with little love for the feds at this point, including Carney.
Surely such a fundamental disregard for reality suggests that the Alberta separation scheme is a US PSYOP (shudder), a UCP political strategy to distract the populace from their failures (eye roll), or evidence of the ideologically bankruptcy of Canadian Conservatism (thanks to Perulant Preston).
Or maybe all three.
Proof awaits invasion, further UCP grifting, or rampant gaslighting when the consequences of this idiocy become entrenched.
Writing this, I’ve convinced myself the separatists are shills for a UCP’s Melon Drop con and we are the marks.
US psyops are not real, they’re the product of the imagination of conspiracy theorists. When the University of Calgary hired a guy straight from duty at the Pentagon managing the US “sentiments” program in their Iranian petro-vassal to head the Political Science Department, it was just a coincidence. Just as there were no CIA people active in Quebec during the hot phase of Quebec nationalism. Why wouldn’t a Hungarian be the key figure in the largest arms heist ever attempted by Quebec nationalists? What’s more pure laine than a guy whose father served in the Hungarian Nazi puppet army during The Big One, who comes out of the French Foreign Legion after fighting in the dirtiest of dirty colonial wars in Algeria and moves to Canada in his twenties? Everybody knows that the Shah came to power through the will of the Iranian people who wanted British Petroleum to keep control of all the Persian oil. Why is there no apostrophe in “Tim Hortons”? This is the question for our age, to be sure.
@PJP
You’re not crazy IMO. I’ve been saying that since I sat on Zello for hours during the trucker’s protest. There were almost as many Americans egging it on as Canadians and the American voices were more strident. This American interference goes back decades.
Having done activism, this ain’t my first rodeo with the American playbook or with our own security forces or people within an activist movement quietly usurping the agenda for either a political gain or to disrupt it.
To be clear, agree or not with the trucker’s agenda, they had the valid right to protest. What *wasn’t* valid, IMO, was their leadership (most of whom were from Wexit and a couple were “ex” Canadian security forces) and the demands to meet with the Governor General to remove the Prime Minister. It was clear the American contingency had zero idea of how a parliamentary democracy works and thus, came up with that ludicrous plan–in the meantime, destroying any credibility their protest accrued. (Doesn’t matter if someone agrees or disagrees, protest is a fundamental right or this is not a democracy)
I respect the right to protest, even if I don’t agree with the agenda–but I’m also wary and cautious when there are no clear-cut demands that can be met. Start there and you’ll soon separate the wheat from the chaff.
B— choked on coffee over “wheat from chaff” ….I have my vase full of dried wheat stocks in view, family thing from the farm….we knew about these things.
As for the convoy and the right to protest, imo we are talking about what started off as a “legitimate peaceful protest by one group of truckers ” that quickly evolved into something, which as Murphy and yourself have noted , was hijacked by outside forces with a very different agenda. Foreign interference has been going on for a very long time, and the horses come in all shapes and sizes. The fact that all the interesting flags that showed up in Ottawa were readily available beforehand, interesting? no?
That certain trucks were carrying PP for Prime Minister flags, even more “interesting” . Nah!!
Just coincidence, again.
Goes in the Book of Nothing
to be looked back on some time in distant past if we are so lucky.
And for Murphy—
Why is there no apostrophe in Tim Hortons?
Curiosity, because I’ve always spelled it with ‘ …
It was removed after signs using the apostrophe was interpreted by some as breaking the sign laws of the province of Quebec in 1993.
✔ I learned something new today, which is ironic since I did actually work there for a few years. I assume that as in school, my English teacher had a bigger influence than my French teacher…and so the apostrophe stays, Tabernac.
Meanwhile, I’m thinking that Sensei is probably shaking his head or at least doing a Mark Carney eyebrow lift, lol.
Bow,bow…OSU 《》
Randi-lee: I almost hesitate to mention this, but Tim Horton lost is possessive apostrophe in 1993 to comply with Quebec’s French language law. DJC
Suppose a person living in Calgary wants to visit relatives in BC. Do they go through border patrol on the Trans Canada? Sneak out, sneak back in on country roads? Not to mention travel by air, bus or train.
I would expect Calgary and Edmonton to separate from the new Alberta nation and rejoin confederation.
Call it what it is… Alberta separation is greed, nothing more.
High income earners pay more taxes and get the same services as those in lower tax brackets. The “haves” subsidize the “have nots”.
Alberta has proportionately more people paying above average taxes. More “haves”. More tax money flows out of Alberta than is returned in transfers and services.
Wouldn’t it be great is we separated and reduced the number of “have nots” Albertans would have to fund? Perhaps we could then find ways to defund the Alberta “have nots” and really pad our bank accounts.
The basis for separation is greed, nothing more.
If Alberta elects to separate, which is slim, Canada has no obligation to allow them the right to vote in Canadian elections while they hold Alberta citizenship: Dual citizenship is a privilege, not a right.
And what about a currency? I doubt Canada would allow Alberta to use the Canadian dollar as a source of currency. Does Smith create Dani dollars out of nowhere? If so, who in their right mind would recognize it? The whole idea is a smoke screen to cover for the existential crisis the party has gotten itself into.
To be fair, any nation can adopt any other’s currency as their official method of exchange. It just means that Alberta would be forced to do most of their commerce with Canada in order to get hold of sufficient loonies…which kind of destroys the entire rationale for sovereignty.
From the NYT article: “I don’t like the way the Liberals treat Western Canada,” said Mr. Gablehaus, a retired government worker. “I think it’s unfair.”
Well, then.
Jessica: I didn’t have time last night to go into the contempt I felt upon reading that NYT article. Not for the dweebs who were quoted, but for the amateurs who wrote it. Now, when I taught journalism at two post-secondary institutions, I would have given that piece a fairly good mark, say a B+, and sent it back with a suggestion that more balance and a less credulous attitude were both needed. In fact, the original article may well have been considerably worse, since the Times is one of the few major newspapers left that still employs copy editors. But The New York Times should do better than a first-year J-School student, don’t you think? This makes its publication worse, in a way. Reading this, I must say, really made me wonder what I am paying big bucks to subscribe to the Times for. How far out to lunch are they in the articles published on Palestine, or Ukraine, or Argentina if this is what they produce about Alberta, which close, easy to get to, doesn’t require a second language, and is safe – thanks to the fact it’s part of Canada? Meanwhile, yesterday in the Washington Post, another expensive subscription, there was an op/ed by Liz Truss, the head of lettuce made incarnate, complaining about how the “Deep State” made her prime ministership a failure. Are there no editors left who know how to politely say, “Fuck off!”?
DJC— politely= ” 2 words and they aren’t Happy Motoring “…lol
@David, having lectured at journalism colleges several times about activism and housing, I can tell you that the level of daft is higher than you can possibly imagine. When in college, I managed to win the Ontario student journo award (whatever it’s called) *over top* of every journo student–university and college– in the province. Yeah, that–and I was taking a two-year social services course. That’s how fundamentally BAD journalism students were–twenty years ago! It’s only gotten worse.
America is particularly bad since Fox news won a court case that claimed that news outlets cannot be sued for lying as “news is entertainment”. And just read even top-notch newspapers–the where’s the copy editing? Misspellings, word mis-usage, horrid sentence structure.
Reporters used to work their way up from the mailroom. It was fundamentally a blue-collar, job. Now they go to uni and ring up a lifetime of debt then can’t string together a coherent sentence or check their facts.
If you haven’t read, “Operation Mockingbird” you need to crack that book, open. It explains a lot of what you’re seeing.
B: Most media eliminated copy editors years ago. Most reporters (who learn very little in J-school even if they have good instructors) file directly into content management systems. I have a cranky belief that giving reporters laptop computers ended the ability of anyone to teach them anything. There was nothing as effective as sitting down with a veteran copyeditor while he explained all the flaws in your story in blunt language. I shudder to think what some of those lads would say about this blog if they were still around. Typos escape us all, of course, no matter how hard we try. One good thing about the Internet is that you can go back and fix ’em. One of the post-secondaries I taught at was the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology in Calgary. One required course was attended by students from the broadcasting, print journalism, and library technician programs. The library students were by far the best, consistently producing better writing, better research, and better exam results, all with a better attitude. They were mostly a little older and almost exclusively female. Draw whatever conclusions you like from that. They were a delight to teach. There were some standouts in the other two programs too, of course, but on average, if you wanted to start a quality media publication, you could do worse than exclusively hire library technicians. DJC
DJC:
Sadly, I suspect most of the students showing up in journo school (with a few investigative reporter hound puppies sitting in the back, quietly) want to be what we see daily on American TV. Spokesmodels. Not reporters. OR they want to be stars of the reporting scene with little understanding of the decades of dedication it took well-known reporters to get there.
I spent time copy editing for a web stories mag and while some youngsters hated it–others were shocked at what they never learned about basic sentence structure, punctuation, writing rules then when, why and how to break those rules etc. On any given writing site it isn’t the strongest writers that are the stars–it’s people who can patiently edit and give comprehensive critiques.
So it’s not that the truly ambitious *don’t* want to learn or get help, it’s that they’re so limited in where they can find it. There are even tools that can streamline the editing process–but if someone doesn’t know *when* to ignore what that tool is suggesting, the writing becomes flat.
Also, a great deal of modern writing just doesn’t show those skills at full advantage so there’s little modelling if they aren’t encouraged to read some classics.
Dunno how old you are but I started with typewriters after hand-writing and editing. Maybe that’s the original thinking I learned compared to relying on the ability to alter, edit and AI their way through writing, now.
B: As noted, my theory is that you can’t get young most writers to pay attention to the changes made to their stories if they’re allowed to file them by computer and go home for the night. I am 73. (But I feel like I’m 15.) I started with a manual typewriter. I had my doubts about the job to electrics. DJC
I’ll read the NYT headlines online and occasionally, read it in the library.
Same for the G&M and other ‘newspapers of yore’ that have become gov’t stenographers (at best). None of my $ for them.
I check out headlines around the world from the mainstream press. The news that gets suppressed in various regions (including Canada) is as significant as the (often) slanted news they choose to print.
I like to read articles on AP, CP and the Al Jazeera sites.
And I do send $ to sites like the TYEE and Juan Cole’s ‘Informed Comment’.
@Ron
Ya mean scanning Twitter won’t give an accurate view of the world?
*GASP*
/snark over
I tend to read wide-ranging accounts of any conflict or major political development across the world.
And I agree that the most prominent mainstream sites are the absolute worst for government propaganda.
Seeing/hearing “an anonymous government official told us”–sets my back up, every time.
There are also some non-trivial matters like currency, bonds, tariffs, treaties, trans-boundary waters and air pollution, federal property (parks, military bases, buildings, etc.), and Indigenous land and rights.
The only “positive” I see is that the foofarah will likely split the right half of the political spectrum — ala Wildrose in 2010s Alberta and Reform in 1990s Canada — and enable a resurgence of sensible centre-left governments in the Prairies. The short-term positive is a potentially embarrassing issue for Poilievre in the upcoming federal by-election.
Canada owns about 10% of the land in Alberta including Jasper and Banff national parks and military bases. In an Alberta separation, that land would stay under Canada’s control and ownership.
Furthermore, if Canada is divisible, so is Alberta. Edmonton and the surrounding area would most likely stay in Canada. Calgary could be divided too.
That, or the Self-Harming Republic of Oilbeduh would have to pay for it.
And don’t forget that OAS is based on your years of residence in CANADA after age 18. So let’s assume you turn 38 in the year that Albertan sets sail. Subtract 18 and you’re left with 20. So, when you apply to Ottawa from Albertastan for your OAS, you will not receive 100%. Oh no my happy dilbits. You will receive 20\40 of the full pension, with 40 being the denominator used as the usual adult span of active North Americans or my dog’s age.
And n’oubliez pas mes amis, there is still the whole spectre of income-based clawbacks. Your generous pension from your former oil and gas employer may bite you!
Sovereignists who do not read history are doomed to repeat it … which is something this latest bunch of wingnuts will find out soon.
I wanted to be a ballerina when I grew up, but that didn’t happen, either. A four-year old’s fantasies mostly get outgrown. In Alberta, however, not so much.
Seriously, what do these “sovereigntists” think? That you can just Make-Your-Own-Country? Like, going to Mr. Sub and ordering what you want on your bunwich ? Or, going to the All-You-Can-Eat smorg and helping yourself to all your favourites, and extra gravy? Mind you, I have seen some of these dudes and- never mind, that’s catty.
The naïveté, though, is stunning, and even more so is Danielle Smith giving all this any legitimacy. Mind you, if it serves a purpose of distraction, which she desperately needs from all her governments’ messes and machinations, she’ll keep stoking their delusions.
At some point though, Albertans need to put on their big boy/girl pants and grow up.
I mean, I’m tempted sometimes to give in to fantasy, put on a tutu, and dance around. But …
Actually, that visual isn’t any more appealing than an over-stuffed dude in a cowboy hat sidling up to the buffet. Sorry. Please unsee that. Both of those things.
Thank you to Senator Wells for this. And thank you for showing up with a coat that fits in the shoulders and a suit jacket with no collar gap. (Derek Guy reference).
Thank you, Professor Young.
I get the feeling that the reason the séparatistes show up like they’ve just returned from slopping the barn is that they’re showing up *to* slop the barn. You can’t shovel sh!# dressed for business.
Anyone with a lick of sense would ask why we would separate from Canada if we want to be exactly like Canada in every way. Surely there’s a catch. Why, yes, friends, there is! The truth is that we would give up everything in exchange for nothing and possibly affix ourselves to the US as a wayward territory, not a state. How has that worked for Puerto Rico so far? I hope you don’t want a reliable electrical grid. Or perhaps we’d be the next Samoa. Our famous 2025 measles outbreak seems to be pointing in that direction.
Is Alberta worth more than a used car with the odometer rolled back?
Now “King” Donnie can truthfully say [which is amazing since every time except in this instance, when he opens his mouth, out comes a “lie”] that Americans pay less tax than Canadians – about 24+% for them and 28+% for us. However, one must include the cost of health care, even such as it is here, which is a big extra for Americans that must be added to their tax bill – if, indeed, many more of them now can even get medical insurance.
“Be careful what you wish for!”
From the “sophomoric” NYT article:
“Danielle Smith, Alberta’s MAGA-style conservative leader, says she is not personally in favor of Alberta breaking away from Canada.”
Well, at least they got that part right.
Political cartoon time! Picture Danielle Smith, driving on the Trans-Canada highway. Every lane, the shoulders, and the median, too, have signs reading “Property of Danielle Smith.” She’s driving a semi so covered in “F–k Trudeau”/ “F–k Carney” stickers and upside-down Canada flags that she can barely see through the windshield. She’s just plowed through the median, doing about 160 kph on the wrong side. She shouts at the terrified drivers facing her: “STAY IN YOUR OWN LANE!!!”
I very strongly doubt that the “stage-managing” of the separatist BS generator is a deliberate decision by Smith’s UCP malgovernment. It’s more likely a growth (think “abscess”) of Smith’s own not-hidden sympathy for Barry Smith’s “Free Alberta Fantasy.” That, plus a reflex-response grab for any distraction from the stupidity and damage of the CorruptCare scandal.
The utter denial of reality by the Oilberduh separatists is appalling. It also feels tragically inevitable. There’s a sub-culture throughout North America and beyond(!) that is fed by and feeds into “culture war” memes. I personally refuse to stick even a toe into these cesspools. But I strongly suspect they explain a LOT of the “We H8 Not-like-us” and “science is wrong” and “woke is evil” noise so common on the extreme right.
Then there’s corporate BS. Oilberduh governments in general, and Danielle Smith in particular, are the promoters, PR flacks, recruiters and apologists for the oilpatch. In other words, utterly, totally and completely captured. This “Ottawa hates our oil/ freedom/ rights” thing sounds like some weird projection to me. Is this because people in Alberta are scared the mess we’re in is really their fault? Sometimes I feel the entire province needs serious psychological help.
Mike: Barry Cooper? DJC
Oops. Yes, I meant Cooper. Dont’ know how that one got through.
Also from the NYT article:
“[Smith] says she is seeking leverage to radically renegotiate Alberta’s relationship with the federal government in Ottawa, primarily to unshackle the province’s oil industry from regulations meant to address climate change.”
Further proof, if you needed any, that Danielle Smith is the self-anointed Guardian of the Oilpatch.
The single biggest obstacle to Alberta—or ANY province—breaking Confederation is:
It’s illegal under the Constitution. (Not that that’d bother Danielle Smith or her fellow lunatics.)
Even a resounding “YES” vote to “Should Alberta become an independent nation?” would not mean Alberta’s suddenly its own boss. (Nope, it’d still be owned and operated by the oilpatch—which is mostly owned by US investors.) Instead, Smith & Lunatics would have to convince the rest of Canada to amend the Constitution to permit a province to withdraw from Confederation. That’s the Federal government, plus seven provincial governments that represent 70% of the country’s population.
Assuming a prolonged bout of national insanity (or maybe “Kick the dumb bastards out” disgust), that would only start the negotiation process. As our host points out, the ROC would have no reason at all to be generous. And that’s not even considering the First Nations’ treaty rights to say “No.”
In 1995, the Quebec PQ learned to their dismay (to put it mildly) that “If Canada is divisible, so is Quebec.” The lesson in law was taught by the First Nations of Quebec. Danielle Smith is currently trying to downplay and ignore the same lesson from Alberta’s First Nations. She will fail, as did Jaques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard.
Unlike Québec, Alberta did not “enter” Confederation in 1867, or any later year. It was carved out of the then much larger Northwest Territories by an act of Parliament, unimaginatively called the Alberta Act, in 1905.
I’ve often wondered in recent years, since this daft idea first gained traction, what might happen if Parliament simply repealed the Alberta Act (1905). Would the territory now known as Alberta simply revert to status quo ante, that is become once again part of the NWT? That would certainly torpedo the separatists’ cause.
Jerry: Seems to me it would revery top the NWT. Don’t know what the present territory of that name would make of that development. I rather think, though, that it would turbocharge the separatists’ case. DJC
Oops, one correction. Seven provinces with 50% of the population. Not 70%. (Note to self: proofread BEFORE clicking on “post comment.”)
OMG, I did need a good laugh.
Perhaps they think it would be more like dual citizenship. As a citizen of Canada and resident of B.C. I’m not keen on their “request”, etc. If you leave Canada and go to another country then you lose a few things. When you move to another country usually, i.e. European countries, you will receive upon reaching retirement age your pension calculated at what it would have been when you ceased working in your former country of residence. Getting to vote in your former country of residence, some countries you do others you don’t. My opinion, if your province decides to form another country, you lose your Canadian citizenship. You didn’t like Canada, you wanted your own country so I’m not in favour of those people deciding who will form government in Canada. These Albertan who want to leave Canada will no longer have the same rights as those who live in other parts of Canada. We aren’t the E.U. where countries decided to join. If the new country of Alberta wants a Canadian military, join Canada or be prepared to have to pay for the services of a Canadian military and no you don’t get to decide what that military does. No transfer payments, no money for health care, highways, etc. Provinces receive a fair amount of money from Ottawa. If you leave Canada that changes. Alberta’s position reminds me of a teenager who wants to be independent but still wants their parental units to feed them, provide them housing, have their laundry done, not have to do chores, oh and they want the parental units to continue to pay for college and give them an allowance.
Alberta will need to think long and hard about leaving Canada. If they think they can get a better deal as a stand alone, go for it, but this taxpayer isn’t keen on sending alberta money unless its foreign aid, the same as we send other undeveloped countries. My suggestion, shut up, get back to work, clean your room, and if you don’t like the rules, move. You aren’t Quebec.
e.a.f……As that disgruntled teenager would say…”Nailed it”
You just perfectly described a certain 17 yr old in our family right now.
alberta – too small to be country and too big to be a lunatic asylum. the separatists will have to go for saskatchewan as well.
The UCP and any member, or any way affiliated to this disgusting bunch, really piss me off
Now I will two things to our host with most! His swear jar will be filled by those who listen to all of my contraband! First a long story, https://youtu.be/IMr-ua9FmnQ Second a song, because I believe in music and a fine tuned sense of humour! https://youtu.be/ciK2n2MebTU?t=2
Can you think of a better way for Reformer Danielle Smith to force Albertans to accept a privatized healthcare and education system and make us Trump’s 51 state. You would be a damn fool to trust this woman, wouldn’t you, yet how many ignorant seniors do?
One important thing about a referendum that is not talked about is the required majority. As things stand now it is fifty percent plus one. Is it right that half the voters (not half the population even; an important point when voting is voluntary) should be able to impose separation on everybody else? I don’t think so.
Let’s say that push came to shove, and the UCP got a mandate to negotiate a separation. Who are the master negotiators in a party of nincompoops, incompetents, petty thugs, and second rate, small town rubes? Who is going to deliver the goods that they promise?
A few examples of failed UCP negotiations include dust-ups with the doctors and nurses (that the cons invariably lose), the Turkish Tylenol disaster, the Corrupt Care secret deals, appeasing the border blockade clowns, the Dynalife fiasco, the Australian coal lawsuit debacle, the Education funding failure (never mind negotiations with teachers and support staff), the daycare funding collapse, the withdrawal of support of alternative energy despite hard lobbying, the collapse of negotiations forcing energy companies, not the province, to clean up after themselves, and of course the grand daddy – our abysmal royalty rate that has given the energy companies billions over the the decades that could have/should have stayed right here. What made Lougheed great was that he knew how to negotiate – the present group only has the cudgel, or the white flag – and now watching PM Carney easily move in the negotiating world of business, finance, and geopolitical issues shows clearly to them that they are the B team – they are so over their heads, and yet they fight on, lashing out at anyone who pushes back, or worse, laughs at them.
I’m reminded of the electoral-systems debates in BC (the three provincial ones that were completed and the federal one that wasn’t). Perhaps because referendum is such a divisive devise by definition and plurality definitively such an impossibility that proponents for change, the ‘Yes’ side, come out of the blocks so hard and fast. Maybe because the status-quo ‘No’ side is presumed to enjoy the advantage of incumbency that its opponent feels the need to ‘steal a march’, tactically surprise with ethical brinksmanship, or “shock and awe” while defenders of the status quo, in this case single-member-plurality (“First-Past-the-Post”), are usually much less strident. It’s possible those inclined to vote ‘No’ to whatever form of proportional representation was on offer (over the four exercises mentioned above, several were considered) could confidently blow off the challenge, hardly bothering to defend their FPtP, certainly not with nearly the same fervour as it was being attacked.
Like Western separatism, pro-rep versus FPtP is a long-simmering issue. In each of the three BC Referenda friction between the two sides came to a boil instantly at the official kick-off, both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns being publicly funded from that point on. Although there is no official referendum scheduled in Alberta right now, never mind that there are important distinctions between a provincial referendum to decide electoral-systems change and one to decide secession from Canada, current circumstances affect at least an unofficial campaign for Alberta secession. Nevertheless, ‘Yes’ proponents’ tactics are typical whether in favour of changing how we elect or of Alberta seceding: quickly and rigorously flood the zone with propaganda extolling the claimed virtues of change while condemning the status quo, exaggerating the supposed benefits of change and the alleged perils of not changing, but omitting less-popular aspects of change, &c.
Highly motivated proponents of change use every psephological technique at their disposal to persuade voters to cast in favour of change, stumping that each one of those ‘Yes’ votes will turn imminent prospects from disastrous to paradisiacal. This is normal and precisely why referenda supposed to be about something that disqualifies partisanship, whether patriotism or how we elect political representatives, ends up commandeered, if not already initiated by partisan interests and riven with enduring faction. That’s probably a really good reason to set a supermajority threshold for any popular referendum about important or vital matters rather than risk a fifty-fifty split where either side insists its the real winner.
Official or not, the referendum campaign proceeds to line-by-line critique of ‘Yes’ side’s propaganda which is always propagated first, loudest, and flashiest. In the case of pro-rep I found it dead easy to punch holes in the many spurious or misleading arguments supposed in its favour that were first put. Perhaps in political debate this is opportunity for the proponent to clarify a line item obscured by overly biased, advertisement-like rhetoric or to draw out an opponent’s real agenda in order to attack it in turn—or even to look conciliatory and reasonable. Thing I found remarkable during all three BC Referenda was how proponents would double down on some of their most easily and demonstrably refutable propaganda points instead of looking reasonable, conceding the point in a favourable way and perhaps carrying the debate to more-cooperative ground. Defending the indefensible follows the predictably doomed pattern of digging the hole deeper with increasingly refutable rationalizations until they become preposterous or worse: falsehoods. Daring to take these spurious positions to task now invites ad hominem odium, blame, and accusations.
Meanwhile opposing political parties encourage intensification of more and more inappropriate partisanship by identifying with one or the other position at referendum—whereupon the exercise has gone completely off the rails—for example, the UCP, for whatever ulterior purpose, obviously identifies with the separatist sentiment and, therefore, so too must the NDP oppose, one presumably on the side of Alberta, the other of Canada. This is nonsense: many if not most Albertans who voted for the UCP don’t want to separate from Canada, and there is no reason why a dyed-in-the-wool Dipper mightn’t support Alberta independence if chi believed it were the only way to achieve ideal socialism.
That this unofficial propaganda campaign is going to devolve to the above-mentioned nether regions of usefulness and helpfulness is, I think, a foregone conclusion: the boundary of respectful political discourse has already been breached, lo these ten years, if not twenty. So many secessionist propaganda points are so easy to blow out of the water—virtually all of them. Secession—unlike changing the electoral system—is exceedingly complex and, digging into fact-checking research, only proves the patented absurdity of almost every aspect of putative secession and, presumably, confederation with the USA since true Alberta independence is the most absurd of all the goofy demands on Alberta Prosperity’s and the ARP’s wish lists. The fact that “independence” is the first, most accurate, and succinct single word that encapsulates the phenomenon sort of says where all this fuss is going: nowhere. Which also reminds me of neo-right prospects if it persists in trying to perfect a society of pious gulls.
Forgive me, but it’s fun too. Like, somebody’s bound to compare who’s more patriotic, obviously speaking from two different planets: I’m not the least surprised if a Wexiteer calls an Albertan who prefers to stay in Canada a “traitor.”
But let’s get serious. Do any of you Maverick Wexit Buffalo-brained separatists who fancy becoming the 51st state know how big the USA’s national debt is? Sheesh!
You can have your cake and eat it, too! But you can’t eat your cake and have it, too!
The Republican Party of Alberta can piss up a tree…….what shyster billionaires are filling this trash bag scene away?????……always divide conquer so that you may steal…….wake up people