This whole scenario is a debacle on Danielle Smith’s head. . Comes at a terrible time when the country is shifting dramatically out of necessity and working hard to build resilience. I am furious that US political interests are supporting the intended chaos of a traitorous small cabal of ill informed separatists -and Danielle Smith’s weaselly leadership - who are undermining a lot of good work for Alberta and Canada. What a
Hard to disagree with your conclusion: "A leader could have said, “I want no part of this pointless adventure. You want to take Alberta out of Canada and deliver it to the United States, you’re going to have to go through me.” A leader of a very different kind could have said, “To hell with this country, we’re out, let’s go.” The person who says, “Please just let me hang on for a few more months” is… not leading."
You can’t work up TOO much anger? It’s a BIT pathetic? Someone willing to prioritize her partisan political fortunes over the future of her country should be worthy of a great deal of ire at any time and a tremendous amount of it now given the increasing dangers related to the rogue covert and overt U.S. meddling in Albertan and Canadian affairs.
Danielle’s political hero is Thatcher. Thatcher would have crushed the separatists and fought to make Alberta a leader within Canada. Danielle may admire her, but she is no Thatcher.
Ah, but we are not in rule-of-law times, and I suspect the leaders of this secession movement know it. Use every tool in the box, and the best tool right now is the one in the White House desperately looking for a new episode of the great reality show to distract from the terrible ratings of the Iran episode.
That is: What if the hardcore separatists (the ones who really want to leave, not just build their political clout) have no intention of going through a generation of Clarity Act and First Nations treaty negotiations, and know that all they need to do is get something close to a majority on even an “exquisitely annoying” question, and then count on Trump to declare that the U.S. is recognizing Alberta and take it by force?
It would probably be conspiracy theorizing to say that they’re already inviting the Americans to do this in their many trips down to Washington. But if one assumes that one’s enemies are smart, one has to at least consider the possibility, right?
Thanks Paul. I am 100 percent on board with the last paragraph. As a province with a lot of advantages, we sure have a lot of problems with the basics - Healthcare, education, affordable and clean energy, environment, and looming on the horizon, water. That's where we need leadership. And that's why, unlike you, this direction the Premier has chosen bothers me immensely. But it doesn't surprise me.
Tell us you don't understand Alberta without using the words "I don't understand Alberta." You are obviously missing the entire point of what Danielle Smith is trying to accomplish by adding a separation question to the referendum. Telling Albertans either "you want out, you’re going to have to go through me” or, conversely, "we’re out, let’s go” is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what's needed at this time. Danielle Smith understands Albertans and she knows that the process is just as important — probably more so for many — than the actual outcome. Alberta will survive either way. The attitude and approach you are suggesting is exactly what Albertans are so tired of and she would treat Albertans like that at her own peril. Allowing Albertans a say in their own destiny would go a long way toward assuaging their discontent and frustration with Confederation.
Could you explain more clearly why the process is more important than the outcome? If the outcome is a foregone conclusion, why waste time on the process?
Giving Albertans a mechanism to have some say, some feeling of control, over their own destiny and place in Confederation is important. It's been thwarted for decades leading to frustration and simmering anger. The referendum is a release valve. (Keep in mind that very, very few 'frustrated-with-Confederation' Albertans are of the Rath/Parker variety.) Being told by their premier what's going to happen, as suggested by Mr. Wells, would not help the situation in the least.
Giving Albertans a mechanism to have some say, some feeling of control, over their own destiny and place in Confederation is important. It's been thwarted for decades leading to frustration and simmering anger.
END QUOTE
Wow. I wasn't aware that Albertans:
* had been denied the vote during successive federal elections
* were unable to vote for parties other than the Progressive Conservatives/UPC
* could not exercise rights accruing to the province under the Constitution of Canada.
All news to me.
NB: For the record, I was born in Alberta, spent half my life there and have regularly visited over the decades (after leaving). Why? Because much of my family still lives there.
So, yes, I feel like I have real stakes in this issue.
No one is suggesting that Albertans were ever denied the right to participate in elections. That's just a silly stretch. But I'm sure you know there's more to their festering resentment than your attempt to make it about being denied a vote lol. If not, books have been written on the subject which you might find interesting.
It seems that there is much that the separatists have NOT explained, beyond "we don't like JT" (he's gone, folks), "Equalization is unfair to Alberta" and "we want to be able to sell as much oil and gas as we want".
My view?
That this group is a fringe and the only reason that they are getting oxygen now is related to the political calculus of Smith and her supporters. As I suggested elsewhere, this approach is eerily like that which David Cameron of the UK indulged in... and they got Brexit and a shrinkage of potential GDP growth, not to mention an outflow of hundreds-of-thousands of young people who saw no opportunities in the UK after they were shut out of the EU.
Bottom Line?
No concession (or bevy of them) would be enough to shift this group's views.
What Smith is trying to accomplish is to protect her own political behind, and stay in power. Jeff (Did I Mention I Went to the London School of Economics?) Rath basically threatened her on national television last week. That’s why she’s doing this now. It’s not about understanding Albertans.
More like simmering for decades. I lived in Alberta during the 1980's and it was a hot topic then. The way eastern Canada dismissed it as "whining" or "will never happen" just added fuel to the fire and brought us to where we are now.
And when AB did try to get some action on equalization, the referendum results were completely ignored by the Trudeau government. It was never even acknowledged
My take on my Premier is that she is picking what she believes is the best hedged outcome given the predicament she is in, given that a majority of her party are separatists.
Option 1 - this. she pushes for a referendum happen, one that if it goes poorly, scares the shit out of lazy federalists or creates enough negative consequences (fleeing capital, people leaving) that the second vote goes better. Or the stay side wins. Essentially playing chicken, somewhat limited downside. Option 2 - embrace the separatists, disavow federalism. I'm no UCP fan, but she didn't do this. Option 3 - quash the vote, have her party revolt, either they kick her out as leader and get replaced by Jeff Rath or they start another party. Either way, the ABNDP likely wins the next election in that scenario, and then, just like in 2015... you have fleeing capital and people leaving, as conservatives, mainly in downtown Calgary, throw a predictable tantrum (similar to in Mamdani's NYC) and make things worse for others just because their team didn't win.
I'm not at all convinced that this is a nothingburger and already contemplating where I would move if this turns out to be another example of Trump will never win / Brexit will never happen / Trump will never win again. But I don't know what else Smith could have done, which in itself is beyond depressing.
Yes, it certainly feels like she is incredibly insecure in her role as leader. I think if I lived in Alberta, I would want a clear statement of intent. This is the opposite.
Did you listen to her speech? It couldn't get more clear than that, at least to this Albertan. The referendum question, unfortunately, is not so clear as she is hamstrung by the court ruling denying her the ability to ask a direct question.
It's impossible to have a sensible discussion about the issue you mention, because the gulf between people who believe that these legal games are illegitimate tricks meant to thwart the democratic will, and those who affect to believe that they are merely objective manifestations of a sacred "process", is so vast.
Nobody ever talks about the 3rd way, The Autonomist Way. Many “separatists” are only looking for more freedom to conduct this province, like Quebec is allowed. The question in not to break away but to bring more power to conduct our economy. Trudeau put so many laws against the province development, they feel cornered.
I disagree with your analysis Paul, Premier Smith is doing exactly the right thing in trying to bring this to a head and have a democratic vote. The issue of separation needs to be dealt with and if she does not address the issue with a vote the problem will just fester. She made her own position on the issue pretty clear and I don't believe she is calling the vote so she can outlast Jason Kenney, that is a pretty shallow and flippant argument. If you want to use words like "pathetic" and a leader "stalling and hedging" I think you should review the past decade of Liberal rule in Canada which is the definition of pathetic and which included a lot of stalling and hedging, not to mention wasting and flip-flopping.
Ms. Smith covered more than just separation in her speech, I especially liked her pushback on Federal interference in provincial issues and her calling out the Trudeau/Singh disaster for exactly what it was. The Premier is battling for more than just her job, she is fighting for the rights of provinces to conduct their own affairs without interference from the feds.
It’s just a little bit boring to read “If you’re going to criticize this person over here, then whyyyyyy do you never criticize this other person over there?” I wrote a book about Justin Trudeau and I’m pretty sure he’s not giving away copies of the thing. You could look it up. For the love of God.
Oops, sorry I hurt your feelings Paul. I did buy and read your book on Trudeau so I know that you know he was a disaster for this country. I was trying to point out that in my humble opinion you are incorrect in your assessment that she is only doing this to outlast Kenney. There was more to her speech than the issue of separation. Your description of her behaviour as pathetic, and accusing her of stalling and hedging, makes me wonder how you really feel about Carney and the other Liberal Ministers he inherited, and whether we can rely on your use of those type of undiplomatic terms in describing their stumbling, bumbling performance.
It might be playing with matches, igniting a three alarm blaze by setting up circumstances that get out of control. The Brexit referendum in Britain is a useful reminder that taking any public sentiment for granted is a fool's gambit when votes are counted.
The hardline rump of the UCP are motivated and a dangerous threat to the party leader's ability to hold the job. (See: Jason Kenney). So Premier Smith is showing instincts for survival, which is good for her but not necessarily for the sake of her citizens.
Perhaps the other motivation to keep the referendum idea in the public realm is for leverage with Ottawa over oil and gas politics. Smith has bet her political farm over a new pipeline heading to the west coast. The Prime Minister is coyly playing along but the MOU is salted with enough punitive taxes and carbon capture costs that Trudeau era climate activism still looms large. Does separatist sentiments and a looming secession referendum work in her favour while negotiating with Ottawa? I have no idea myself.
The way I see it, Danielle Smith is in a "dammed if you do, dammed if you don't" situation, and letting Albertans decide is the best/most democratic solution. I am sure the taxpayers of BC would have liked to have been consulted before the Federal government essentially gave away their property rights to a handful of indigenous tribes. (P.S. I am not an Albertan.)
This whole scenario is a debacle on Danielle Smith’s head. . Comes at a terrible time when the country is shifting dramatically out of necessity and working hard to build resilience. I am furious that US political interests are supporting the intended chaos of a traitorous small cabal of ill informed separatists -and Danielle Smith’s weaselly leadership - who are undermining a lot of good work for Alberta and Canada. What a
waste of time and energy.
Hard to disagree with your conclusion: "A leader could have said, “I want no part of this pointless adventure. You want to take Alberta out of Canada and deliver it to the United States, you’re going to have to go through me.” A leader of a very different kind could have said, “To hell with this country, we’re out, let’s go.” The person who says, “Please just let me hang on for a few more months” is… not leading."
You can’t work up TOO much anger? It’s a BIT pathetic? Someone willing to prioritize her partisan political fortunes over the future of her country should be worthy of a great deal of ire at any time and a tremendous amount of it now given the increasing dangers related to the rogue covert and overt U.S. meddling in Albertan and Canadian affairs.
Danielle’s political hero is Thatcher. Thatcher would have crushed the separatists and fought to make Alberta a leader within Canada. Danielle may admire her, but she is no Thatcher.
Ah, but we are not in rule-of-law times, and I suspect the leaders of this secession movement know it. Use every tool in the box, and the best tool right now is the one in the White House desperately looking for a new episode of the great reality show to distract from the terrible ratings of the Iran episode.
That is: What if the hardcore separatists (the ones who really want to leave, not just build their political clout) have no intention of going through a generation of Clarity Act and First Nations treaty negotiations, and know that all they need to do is get something close to a majority on even an “exquisitely annoying” question, and then count on Trump to declare that the U.S. is recognizing Alberta and take it by force?
It would probably be conspiracy theorizing to say that they’re already inviting the Americans to do this in their many trips down to Washington. But if one assumes that one’s enemies are smart, one has to at least consider the possibility, right?
Thanks Paul. I am 100 percent on board with the last paragraph. As a province with a lot of advantages, we sure have a lot of problems with the basics - Healthcare, education, affordable and clean energy, environment, and looming on the horizon, water. That's where we need leadership. And that's why, unlike you, this direction the Premier has chosen bothers me immensely. But it doesn't surprise me.
Tell us you don't understand Alberta without using the words "I don't understand Alberta." You are obviously missing the entire point of what Danielle Smith is trying to accomplish by adding a separation question to the referendum. Telling Albertans either "you want out, you’re going to have to go through me” or, conversely, "we’re out, let’s go” is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what's needed at this time. Danielle Smith understands Albertans and she knows that the process is just as important — probably more so for many — than the actual outcome. Alberta will survive either way. The attitude and approach you are suggesting is exactly what Albertans are so tired of and she would treat Albertans like that at her own peril. Allowing Albertans a say in their own destiny would go a long way toward assuaging their discontent and frustration with Confederation.
Thanks for the explanation. You've done a great job of explaining why no Albertans disagree with their skilful Premier.
Could you explain more clearly why the process is more important than the outcome? If the outcome is a foregone conclusion, why waste time on the process?
Giving Albertans a mechanism to have some say, some feeling of control, over their own destiny and place in Confederation is important. It's been thwarted for decades leading to frustration and simmering anger. The referendum is a release valve. (Keep in mind that very, very few 'frustrated-with-Confederation' Albertans are of the Rath/Parker variety.) Being told by their premier what's going to happen, as suggested by Mr. Wells, would not help the situation in the least.
QUOTE
Giving Albertans a mechanism to have some say, some feeling of control, over their own destiny and place in Confederation is important. It's been thwarted for decades leading to frustration and simmering anger.
END QUOTE
Wow. I wasn't aware that Albertans:
* had been denied the vote during successive federal elections
* were unable to vote for parties other than the Progressive Conservatives/UPC
* could not exercise rights accruing to the province under the Constitution of Canada.
All news to me.
NB: For the record, I was born in Alberta, spent half my life there and have regularly visited over the decades (after leaving). Why? Because much of my family still lives there.
So, yes, I feel like I have real stakes in this issue.
No one is suggesting that Albertans were ever denied the right to participate in elections. That's just a silly stretch. But I'm sure you know there's more to their festering resentment than your attempt to make it about being denied a vote lol. If not, books have been written on the subject which you might find interesting.
It seems that there is much that the separatists have NOT explained, beyond "we don't like JT" (he's gone, folks), "Equalization is unfair to Alberta" and "we want to be able to sell as much oil and gas as we want".
My view?
That this group is a fringe and the only reason that they are getting oxygen now is related to the political calculus of Smith and her supporters. As I suggested elsewhere, this approach is eerily like that which David Cameron of the UK indulged in... and they got Brexit and a shrinkage of potential GDP growth, not to mention an outflow of hundreds-of-thousands of young people who saw no opportunities in the UK after they were shut out of the EU.
Bottom Line?
No concession (or bevy of them) would be enough to shift this group's views.
What Smith is trying to accomplish is to protect her own political behind, and stay in power. Jeff (Did I Mention I Went to the London School of Economics?) Rath basically threatened her on national television last week. That’s why she’s doing this now. It’s not about understanding Albertans.
This started long before Rath threatened her. This has been simmering here for years.
More like simmering for decades. I lived in Alberta during the 1980's and it was a hot topic then. The way eastern Canada dismissed it as "whining" or "will never happen" just added fuel to the fire and brought us to where we are now.
And when AB did try to get some action on equalization, the referendum results were completely ignored by the Trudeau government. It was never even acknowledged
So the vote is just an illusion and it is all just about feeling heard?
Should we just refresh the “Tax This Brian!” bumper stickers from the 1980s with “Capture This Mark!” stickers for the 2020s?
My take on my Premier is that she is picking what she believes is the best hedged outcome given the predicament she is in, given that a majority of her party are separatists.
Option 1 - this. she pushes for a referendum happen, one that if it goes poorly, scares the shit out of lazy federalists or creates enough negative consequences (fleeing capital, people leaving) that the second vote goes better. Or the stay side wins. Essentially playing chicken, somewhat limited downside. Option 2 - embrace the separatists, disavow federalism. I'm no UCP fan, but she didn't do this. Option 3 - quash the vote, have her party revolt, either they kick her out as leader and get replaced by Jeff Rath or they start another party. Either way, the ABNDP likely wins the next election in that scenario, and then, just like in 2015... you have fleeing capital and people leaving, as conservatives, mainly in downtown Calgary, throw a predictable tantrum (similar to in Mamdani's NYC) and make things worse for others just because their team didn't win.
I'm not at all convinced that this is a nothingburger and already contemplating where I would move if this turns out to be another example of Trump will never win / Brexit will never happen / Trump will never win again. But I don't know what else Smith could have done, which in itself is beyond depressing.
I live in central Toronto, so if they go ahead with secession, talk to me about a house swap.
Yes, it certainly feels like she is incredibly insecure in her role as leader. I think if I lived in Alberta, I would want a clear statement of intent. This is the opposite.
Did you listen to her speech? It couldn't get more clear than that, at least to this Albertan. The referendum question, unfortunately, is not so clear as she is hamstrung by the court ruling denying her the ability to ask a direct question.
It's impossible to have a sensible discussion about the issue you mention, because the gulf between people who believe that these legal games are illegitimate tricks meant to thwart the democratic will, and those who affect to believe that they are merely objective manifestations of a sacred "process", is so vast.
Agree! And such a shame we are at this point.
I'm concerned that lowering the stakes like this increases the chances of a "leave" vote.
Nobody ever talks about the 3rd way, The Autonomist Way. Many “separatists” are only looking for more freedom to conduct this province, like Quebec is allowed. The question in not to break away but to bring more power to conduct our economy. Trudeau put so many laws against the province development, they feel cornered.
I disagree with your analysis Paul, Premier Smith is doing exactly the right thing in trying to bring this to a head and have a democratic vote. The issue of separation needs to be dealt with and if she does not address the issue with a vote the problem will just fester. She made her own position on the issue pretty clear and I don't believe she is calling the vote so she can outlast Jason Kenney, that is a pretty shallow and flippant argument. If you want to use words like "pathetic" and a leader "stalling and hedging" I think you should review the past decade of Liberal rule in Canada which is the definition of pathetic and which included a lot of stalling and hedging, not to mention wasting and flip-flopping.
Ms. Smith covered more than just separation in her speech, I especially liked her pushback on Federal interference in provincial issues and her calling out the Trudeau/Singh disaster for exactly what it was. The Premier is battling for more than just her job, she is fighting for the rights of provinces to conduct their own affairs without interference from the feds.
It’s just a little bit boring to read “If you’re going to criticize this person over here, then whyyyyyy do you never criticize this other person over there?” I wrote a book about Justin Trudeau and I’m pretty sure he’s not giving away copies of the thing. You could look it up. For the love of God.
Oops, sorry I hurt your feelings Paul. I did buy and read your book on Trudeau so I know that you know he was a disaster for this country. I was trying to point out that in my humble opinion you are incorrect in your assessment that she is only doing this to outlast Kenney. There was more to her speech than the issue of separation. Your description of her behaviour as pathetic, and accusing her of stalling and hedging, makes me wonder how you really feel about Carney and the other Liberal Ministers he inherited, and whether we can rely on your use of those type of undiplomatic terms in describing their stumbling, bumbling performance.
I think her point is,but for JT much of what is happening now, wouldn't be.
It might be playing with matches, igniting a three alarm blaze by setting up circumstances that get out of control. The Brexit referendum in Britain is a useful reminder that taking any public sentiment for granted is a fool's gambit when votes are counted.
The hardline rump of the UCP are motivated and a dangerous threat to the party leader's ability to hold the job. (See: Jason Kenney). So Premier Smith is showing instincts for survival, which is good for her but not necessarily for the sake of her citizens.
Perhaps the other motivation to keep the referendum idea in the public realm is for leverage with Ottawa over oil and gas politics. Smith has bet her political farm over a new pipeline heading to the west coast. The Prime Minister is coyly playing along but the MOU is salted with enough punitive taxes and carbon capture costs that Trudeau era climate activism still looms large. Does separatist sentiments and a looming secession referendum work in her favour while negotiating with Ottawa? I have no idea myself.
Should Smith quit or be forced out she could have a second career with the Cirque de Soleil.....as a tightrope walker.
The way I see it, Danielle Smith is in a "dammed if you do, dammed if you don't" situation, and letting Albertans decide is the best/most democratic solution. I am sure the taxpayers of BC would have liked to have been consulted before the Federal government essentially gave away their property rights to a handful of indigenous tribes. (P.S. I am not an Albertan.)
What angers me is the focus on appeasing separatists at the expense of addressing real problems such as homelessness, addiction and mental health.