The main purpose of this separatism talk is to distract from the Alberta Health Services scandal. Premier Smith will do anything to make sure that this will get as little attention as possible.
The rest of Canada (this time including Quebec) should not try to dictate terms of a hypothetical separation. Just ask questions:
- will the new country of Alberta accept dual citizenship?
- will the new country of Alberta accept Canadian permanent residents currently residing in Alberta? What about permanent residents from the rest of Canada?
- will Alberta honour free trade agreements that Canada has signed?
- after separation, would Canadians not currently in Alberta be able to settle in Alberta?
- how much of the public debt is Alberta willing to absorb?
- own currency or Canadian dollar (US Dollar?)
- and a really hard one, what about the treaty lands?
Etc.
If Albertans are serious about separating, they should first come up with a coherent definition of what that separation should look like. Until they are able to do so, the rest of Canada should refrain from commenting.
If Alberta chooses to separate, then that country should not receive a growing away present of any portion of the CPP holdings. Any Canadian who resides there should receive CPP in proportion to their contributions as of the date of separation on achieving 65 years of age, and OAS should be treated the way it is for any ex-pats. GIS is tight out.
The CPP is “property” of the people that paid into the CPP. It is not property of Alberta, Ontario or Canada for that matter.
The question who is managing the funds and pensions. I don’t believe there will be a lot of appetite to make the case that the Province of Alberta should be managing the pensions instead of the federal government of Canada. A quick look at the complexities of the arrangement between the Quebec system and the CPP should be enough to extinguish any enthusiasm for this.
Actually, Dan, that is kinda but not totally correct.
Yes, the money is "mine" or "yours" but there is no ability to receive it as a bulk payment.
There is, however, an agreement that covers the CPP. As you might imagine, the law is called the Canada Pension Plan Act. That Act was passed after the nine provinces (excluding Quebec) agreed (in writing) to the provisions in the Act.
As noted above, there is no ability for "you" or "me" to take any money out of CPP except by way our regular monthly payment. By contrast, however, the legislation specifically contemplate the possibility that a province might choose to withdraw from the Plan. That section requires that the withdrawing province offer a pension plan and benefits that is substantially the same (or better) as does the CPP.
You may not be aware but Alberta has already commissioned a study to determine how much Alberta should receive and what the benefits would be to Albertans. That study was done by LifeWorks, formerly known as Shepell Morneau, (former Finance Minister Bill Morneau's old company) and found that Alberta should receive just a whack of bucks (a technical term to be sure!). Alberta made public the LifeWorks report and the assumptions, working papers, etc. and asked CPP to comment. CPP - which already has all the information - took about a year and said, "Nope, much less" or words to that effect but refused to provide details of assumptions or working papers.
So, a couple of points: a) Alberta has the very specific right to leave and set up it's own Alberta Pension Plan; b) CPP MUST turn over an "appropriate" amount to the APP (definition of "appropriate" to be determined); c) as a retired accountant (albeit in Alberta) I had occasion to work with QPP recipients and I can tell you clearly that the federal tax system is already set up to deal with the QPP so it seems to me unlikely that there would be a difficulty in working with an APP.
Yes, that is why I used “”s. It is of course not really individual property. But the point is that the province of Alberta owns nothing of this. The question is if Alberta wants to manage a pension fund just like Quebec, but that is if Alberta stays part of Canada!
If Alberta decides to be a separate country, then all bets are off. It would need a tax treaty with Canada from day one to avoid a massive loss in pension value for Albertans.
Dan, it is property that is held in trust for the beneficiaries; that is what a pension plan is, whether a private plan or a public plan such as the CPP. The Alberta government, indeed, doesn't own the monies but it has the right (some of the public would say the provincial government has the responsibility) to manage the monies. In fact, the provincial government HAS made it clear that it would like to take on that responsibility; the delay at this point is simply getting public buy in. And that is with Alberta remaining in Canada. If Alberta were to separate then you can be certain that Alberta would hold out it's hand to receive the monies.
As for a tax treaty with Canada, that is a separate issue from the CPP/APP issue. A tax treaty is absolutely a good thing to have but, as I say, in and of itself, a tax treaty doesn't affect the pension issue. After all, if an APP pays Alberta residents, there is no foreign tax issue.
As for "... a massive loss in pension value ..." if the assets were held in, say, US/Germand/Japanese/etc. securities there would be no issue of diminished value. By contrast, if the assets were held in, say, Canadian securities and in particular Canadian government bonds, then it is quite likely that portion of the portfolio would be hit severely whether held by CPP or APP.
You are assuming that nobody ever moves to or from Alberta. Suppose an Albertan, born in Alberta, but now working in Ontario, moves back to Alberta in retirement. After separation he has now a foreign pension, which will be worth a lot less without a comprehensive tax treaty (and even with a tax treaty the value will still likely be less).
The same applies in the other direction. The Newfoundlander returning to the Rock for retirement after 30 years in Fort McMurray now has a foreign pension.
Keith, I don't know if you are simply trying to be punitive or if you have thought about this at all.
First off, OAS right now is available to someone who otherwise qualifies and leaves the country as long as they meet the other requirements such as filing an information return with CRA to prove that their income is not so high as to justify the clawback.
Secondly, when one is employed or self-employed one contributes based on one's income. Then, that income level goes into the calculation of the amount that one is paid. Again, currently a valid recipient of CPP would still receive it if they moved out of the country. I am a retired accountant so I had to deal with those things over the years. I cannot recall precisely but it is my vague memory that non-resident tax may have been levied the same as if one received employment or investment or other income from Canada while a non-resident.
In other words, the payment of OAS and CPP to non-residents is already a thing. Therefore, my question remains, did you make your comment simply to be punitive? If so, all you would possibly do is to frighten ten people so that they vote against separation and piss off twenty people who now would vote for separation. Me, for example.
I was not trying to be punitive, Alberta has already estimated the the amount that should be transferred to any Alberta Pension Plan, an astounding 53% as I recall, for a province with an estimated population of just under 5 million, or c. 11% of the population of Canada. All I am saying is that Canada is quite capable of supplying pensions to Canadian citizens living in a foreign country based on their contributions to the CPP, and that I don't see the sense in providing a portion of those funds to another country to do with as they wish. Alberta's government has already demonstrated poor fiscal responsibility in the way they took over Alberta government pensions and in they way they misspent their sovereign fund, so it would be to Canadian citizens advantage to retain the funds in the CPP to be paid as it is currently. As for the OAS, all I suggested was that Canadian citizens resident in the country of Alberta be treated the same way as other ex-pats. If you see that as 'punitive' then I see that as another expression of Alberta petulance. If that is all it takes to anger you to such an extent that you are willing to vote for separation, maybe you should become an ex-pat.
I’m not sure whether the people suggesting Albertans should lose their citizenship are the same ones who defended dual citizens and ex-pats, but I agree with your core point: if we’re talking about actual separatists actively trying to dismantle the country, then it’s a different conversation. But if we’re talking about Canadians who simply end up on the wrong side of a new international border after a referendum they opposed—then suggesting they’d somehow lose their citizenship is absurd.
As for the case against Alberta separation—yes, the economic and logistical challenges are massive, and largely ignored by the those stirring that particular pot. But the far greater loss is something harder to quantify. I know most Albertan’s are not at all interested in separation, but for those that may be…
Canada isn’t just a place—it’s a shared project. A country built on the principles of fairness, pluralism, and democratic compromise. A place where we hash things out—imperfectly, sometimes messily—but within a framework that protects rights and values reason.
It’s a country that still believes in public institutions. That tries to balance prosperity with equity. That invests in healthcare, education, the arts, and science. That’s part of global forums not just because of size, but because of the reputation we’ve earned over time—as a stable, thoughtful, cooperative nation.
And yet, some are asking Albertans to walk away from that—to trade it all for a smaller, more volatile, and more isolated experiment... It seems like a disastrously poor trade. Not just in dollars and cents, but in purpose and identity.
I get that people are angry. But tossing aside Canada over pipelines and paper straws doesn’t sound like strength. If the goal is real change, real voice, real reform—then stay and fight for it here, within Canada - constructively. Because breaking away won’t fix what’s broken. It will just leave us smaller and more alone.
Bill, some points. [I am an Albertan of 74 years so I have seen this and that.]
I agree that such a separation is more complex than proponents are making it. But, to tell the truth, that is always the way with damned politicians and their damned supporters.
On the other hand, from what I have seen, read, personally experienced, etc. the challenges can be dealt with; hard but possible. I have separately responded to Evan's thesis and I respectfully think that he glosses over some pretty good considerations to the challenges that he enumerates. That doesn't mean that there would be no challenges; that would be ludicrous to expect but there are a lot of workable ways of doing things.
Ah, "Canada isn't just a place - it's a shared project." Yup. Now, please address the issues that bother we in Alberta. You offer a lot of words, what about, well, rubber, road, etc. You say, "... we hash things out ..." When precisely - and I mean absolutely, damned PRECISELY is "Canada" going to hash out with us the things that bother us and have bothered us for generations?
You say, "... I get that people are angry ..." Yup. And just what is being done about the issues that have inspired that anger.
Please, Sir, I mean no disrespect to you; or to others who feel the same way. What I damned well do disrespect is that all this feel good, fuzzy sentiment is being expressed but there is no discussion of our issues. None. So, why is anyone surprised that some folks - actually, a fair number of folks - are reacting this way?
I’m not at all surprised that some folks are drawn to the idea of separation. All federations like ours deal with this—tensions flare when parts of the country feel unheard, underrepresented, or disrespected. And sometimes that feeling grows strong enough to push people to imagine blowing the whole thing up.
You’re right, too: major challenges can be overcome if the will is strong and the vision is clear. People have built nations from less. But as you say, it’s hard. It can take generations to really pay off - if it ever does. I think it’s fair to ask: what’s the long-term goal? What would be gained that couldn’t be fought for and built within Canada? What would define this new nation—what lasting, unifying value or vision would hold it together across generations? And what gives you confidence that those willing to abandon—and break apart—the nation they were part of will stick together when inevitable disagreements arise in the new one?
Albertan's want to know when Canada will hash out the province's long-standing issues. That’s fair. But I might ask back: what does hashing it out look like? Is it greater provincial control? More equalization reform? Senate reform? Energy policy realignment? I think these are legitimate discussions, but they happen better through political negotiation than by blowing up the table.
And if a new country is born out of this, what happens when global prices drop or when a Conservative majority is elected federally the very year Alberta gains independence? Will that vision still hold? Will the sacrifices still seem worth it?
I don’t doubt the anger, or the capability. I just want to question whether the destination is better than the road we already share—because leaving Canada means giving up not just what’s broken, but also what’s not.
Something will always be broken in a free democracy like ours but most people around the world seem to agree that Canada is one of the best places on earth. Prosperous and free. It's a lot to give up.
Connecting conversations. This is a very good extension on the practicalities of Alberta independence. What if Alberta did vote to leave? A dark and uncertain path would await, with no guarantee of anything at the end.
Evan, you correctly note that there would be costs that a newly independent Alberta would have to bear.
One of the things that you note is the idea of staffing embassies. I will ignore the possibility that a deal could be struck with a "friendly" country to provide some assistance and deal simply with the cost of staffing, etc. Right now, Canada pays $X a year to pay all of our diplomats, etc. The question, of course, is where that money comes currently from and the answer is that it comes taxpayers, including Albertans. So, if Alberta separates, it keeps it's portion of the money that pays for embassies and staff. Is it sufficient to pay for a "robust" foreign services? Probably not, but it could certainly pay for a reasonable start of a foreign service.
I'm sorry, did you really write that if we separate the control over the oilsands would be with the Liberals? Perhaps I read that wrong but, what do you not understand about "separate?"
Or, perhaps you mean that our current (and presumably future) export pipelines travel over Canadian territory once outside Alberta. That is true. As for current pipelines please consider the source of oil that is available for B.C.'s only oil refinery. You coulllllddd interrupt TransMountain but .... Further, consider the source of oil for Ontario's petrochemical complex at Sarnia and oil refineries in Ontario. You could, interrupt the Enbridge mainline but the Sarnia complex and the refineries in Ontario are fed by Line 5 which is a spur off the mainline. Curiously, Line 5 crosses the Strait of Mackinac and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has been trying to shut down that line for a few years now. Environmental nonsense. Until it isn't.
Hmmm .... the cost of a military; the cost of a pension plan; the cost of a tax agency. Our military would, of necessity be oriented to being able to repel incursions from Canada's "boutique" military of completely obsolete equipment; of course, we would not be required to have a navy - landlocked, ya know?
A pension plan? It is to laugh! See above about our share of costs that we already incur. Oh, yeah, and we have already been exploring an Alberta Pension Plan to take over from CPP, even if we do stay in Canada; haven't done it yet, but the groundwork has been done.
A tax agency? Oh, did you mean Alberta Tax and Revenue Administration? ATRF has been collecting corporate income taxes in Alberta for forty years. Oh, yeah, a shame about all those CRA folks who will be out of work. A shame that those offices will be empty and the landlords unable to rent them immediately. I expect that any independent Alberta would start from the basis that all the then current laws of Canada would be the laws in the new Alberta until formally changed. So .... all those CRA people could simply move on over to ATRF.
As for currency, on a provisional basis we could choose to keep the Canadian dollar but there are other countries that denominate their currency in dollars. Oh, Australia or New Zealand. Or some other country whose name just escapes me right now ...
A final point. I am old and I lived through two Quebec referenda and it is my recollection that there were no threats such as these in those discussions. [Perhaps I am wrong but that is my recollection.] Again, recollection: it seems to me that on these issues the discussions were more sanguine and recognized that there would be decisions to be met but that Quebec would have to deal with the absence of equalization which was (and remains, dammit!) a large portion of their budget. By contrast, Alberta contributes a large sum more than we use in our "day to day" operations within Alberta.
A final, final point. A lot of stuff has been written in opposition to the separatists in Alberta. Pretty well NONE of it deals with the issues that we find important but instead is threatening or argues some element of doom if we did go ahead. I suggest that a much more fruitful way of dealing with us is to vigorously discuss with us the issues that bother us so greatly and to recognize that there are ways for you to hurt us but there are also ways for us to hurt you. An adult, rational discussion is the best way forward for all.
The concept of trying to eliminate my Canadian citizenship if the majority in Alberta choose to separate is simply the idiots of the country being punitive.
Right now, people come to Canada and get citizenship and then go right back to Lebanon or whatever hellhole from which they came and, when times get tough in said HH, they expect Canada to "rescue" them. And we usually oblige. And, of course, there are the Neil Youngs, the Joni Mitchells, the Mike Meyers, et all who live in the sun year round but argue that they are Canadian.
So, now, you want to punish me if my neighbors choose to vote for separation?
Hell, I can fix that! All I would do is to get an accommodation address in Vancouver [the lower mainland would NEVER vote to separate] for six months and then I would emigrate to .... Alberta. Therefore, I would be just like the folks from Lebanon to whom I referred above.
Oh, and by the way, we in Alberta would very likely retain the right to vote so ....
The main purpose of this separatism talk is to distract from the Alberta Health Services scandal. Premier Smith will do anything to make sure that this will get as little attention as possible.
The rest of Canada (this time including Quebec) should not try to dictate terms of a hypothetical separation. Just ask questions:
- will the new country of Alberta accept dual citizenship?
- will the new country of Alberta accept Canadian permanent residents currently residing in Alberta? What about permanent residents from the rest of Canada?
- will Alberta honour free trade agreements that Canada has signed?
- after separation, would Canadians not currently in Alberta be able to settle in Alberta?
- how much of the public debt is Alberta willing to absorb?
- own currency or Canadian dollar (US Dollar?)
- and a really hard one, what about the treaty lands?
Etc.
If Albertans are serious about separating, they should first come up with a coherent definition of what that separation should look like. Until they are able to do so, the rest of Canada should refrain from commenting.
If Alberta chooses to separate, then that country should not receive a growing away present of any portion of the CPP holdings. Any Canadian who resides there should receive CPP in proportion to their contributions as of the date of separation on achieving 65 years of age, and OAS should be treated the way it is for any ex-pats. GIS is tight out.
Oh, one other point, Keith.
If "Canada" can withhold CPP that is correctly the property of Alberta ...... well, about a share of the national debt ....
The point, quite simply, is that if either side wishes to be stupid about it the the other side has severe levers that it can use.
The CPP is “property” of the people that paid into the CPP. It is not property of Alberta, Ontario or Canada for that matter.
The question who is managing the funds and pensions. I don’t believe there will be a lot of appetite to make the case that the Province of Alberta should be managing the pensions instead of the federal government of Canada. A quick look at the complexities of the arrangement between the Quebec system and the CPP should be enough to extinguish any enthusiasm for this.
Actually, Dan, that is kinda but not totally correct.
Yes, the money is "mine" or "yours" but there is no ability to receive it as a bulk payment.
There is, however, an agreement that covers the CPP. As you might imagine, the law is called the Canada Pension Plan Act. That Act was passed after the nine provinces (excluding Quebec) agreed (in writing) to the provisions in the Act.
As noted above, there is no ability for "you" or "me" to take any money out of CPP except by way our regular monthly payment. By contrast, however, the legislation specifically contemplate the possibility that a province might choose to withdraw from the Plan. That section requires that the withdrawing province offer a pension plan and benefits that is substantially the same (or better) as does the CPP.
You may not be aware but Alberta has already commissioned a study to determine how much Alberta should receive and what the benefits would be to Albertans. That study was done by LifeWorks, formerly known as Shepell Morneau, (former Finance Minister Bill Morneau's old company) and found that Alberta should receive just a whack of bucks (a technical term to be sure!). Alberta made public the LifeWorks report and the assumptions, working papers, etc. and asked CPP to comment. CPP - which already has all the information - took about a year and said, "Nope, much less" or words to that effect but refused to provide details of assumptions or working papers.
So, a couple of points: a) Alberta has the very specific right to leave and set up it's own Alberta Pension Plan; b) CPP MUST turn over an "appropriate" amount to the APP (definition of "appropriate" to be determined); c) as a retired accountant (albeit in Alberta) I had occasion to work with QPP recipients and I can tell you clearly that the federal tax system is already set up to deal with the QPP so it seems to me unlikely that there would be a difficulty in working with an APP.
Yes, that is why I used “”s. It is of course not really individual property. But the point is that the province of Alberta owns nothing of this. The question is if Alberta wants to manage a pension fund just like Quebec, but that is if Alberta stays part of Canada!
If Alberta decides to be a separate country, then all bets are off. It would need a tax treaty with Canada from day one to avoid a massive loss in pension value for Albertans.
Dan, it is property that is held in trust for the beneficiaries; that is what a pension plan is, whether a private plan or a public plan such as the CPP. The Alberta government, indeed, doesn't own the monies but it has the right (some of the public would say the provincial government has the responsibility) to manage the monies. In fact, the provincial government HAS made it clear that it would like to take on that responsibility; the delay at this point is simply getting public buy in. And that is with Alberta remaining in Canada. If Alberta were to separate then you can be certain that Alberta would hold out it's hand to receive the monies.
As for a tax treaty with Canada, that is a separate issue from the CPP/APP issue. A tax treaty is absolutely a good thing to have but, as I say, in and of itself, a tax treaty doesn't affect the pension issue. After all, if an APP pays Alberta residents, there is no foreign tax issue.
As for "... a massive loss in pension value ..." if the assets were held in, say, US/Germand/Japanese/etc. securities there would be no issue of diminished value. By contrast, if the assets were held in, say, Canadian securities and in particular Canadian government bonds, then it is quite likely that portion of the portfolio would be hit severely whether held by CPP or APP.
You are assuming that nobody ever moves to or from Alberta. Suppose an Albertan, born in Alberta, but now working in Ontario, moves back to Alberta in retirement. After separation he has now a foreign pension, which will be worth a lot less without a comprehensive tax treaty (and even with a tax treaty the value will still likely be less).
The same applies in the other direction. The Newfoundlander returning to the Rock for retirement after 30 years in Fort McMurray now has a foreign pension.
Keith, I don't know if you are simply trying to be punitive or if you have thought about this at all.
First off, OAS right now is available to someone who otherwise qualifies and leaves the country as long as they meet the other requirements such as filing an information return with CRA to prove that their income is not so high as to justify the clawback.
Secondly, when one is employed or self-employed one contributes based on one's income. Then, that income level goes into the calculation of the amount that one is paid. Again, currently a valid recipient of CPP would still receive it if they moved out of the country. I am a retired accountant so I had to deal with those things over the years. I cannot recall precisely but it is my vague memory that non-resident tax may have been levied the same as if one received employment or investment or other income from Canada while a non-resident.
In other words, the payment of OAS and CPP to non-residents is already a thing. Therefore, my question remains, did you make your comment simply to be punitive? If so, all you would possibly do is to frighten ten people so that they vote against separation and piss off twenty people who now would vote for separation. Me, for example.
I was not trying to be punitive, Alberta has already estimated the the amount that should be transferred to any Alberta Pension Plan, an astounding 53% as I recall, for a province with an estimated population of just under 5 million, or c. 11% of the population of Canada. All I am saying is that Canada is quite capable of supplying pensions to Canadian citizens living in a foreign country based on their contributions to the CPP, and that I don't see the sense in providing a portion of those funds to another country to do with as they wish. Alberta's government has already demonstrated poor fiscal responsibility in the way they took over Alberta government pensions and in they way they misspent their sovereign fund, so it would be to Canadian citizens advantage to retain the funds in the CPP to be paid as it is currently. As for the OAS, all I suggested was that Canadian citizens resident in the country of Alberta be treated the same way as other ex-pats. If you see that as 'punitive' then I see that as another expression of Alberta petulance. If that is all it takes to anger you to such an extent that you are willing to vote for separation, maybe you should become an ex-pat.
I’m not sure whether the people suggesting Albertans should lose their citizenship are the same ones who defended dual citizens and ex-pats, but I agree with your core point: if we’re talking about actual separatists actively trying to dismantle the country, then it’s a different conversation. But if we’re talking about Canadians who simply end up on the wrong side of a new international border after a referendum they opposed—then suggesting they’d somehow lose their citizenship is absurd.
As for the case against Alberta separation—yes, the economic and logistical challenges are massive, and largely ignored by the those stirring that particular pot. But the far greater loss is something harder to quantify. I know most Albertan’s are not at all interested in separation, but for those that may be…
Canada isn’t just a place—it’s a shared project. A country built on the principles of fairness, pluralism, and democratic compromise. A place where we hash things out—imperfectly, sometimes messily—but within a framework that protects rights and values reason.
It’s a country that still believes in public institutions. That tries to balance prosperity with equity. That invests in healthcare, education, the arts, and science. That’s part of global forums not just because of size, but because of the reputation we’ve earned over time—as a stable, thoughtful, cooperative nation.
And yet, some are asking Albertans to walk away from that—to trade it all for a smaller, more volatile, and more isolated experiment... It seems like a disastrously poor trade. Not just in dollars and cents, but in purpose and identity.
I get that people are angry. But tossing aside Canada over pipelines and paper straws doesn’t sound like strength. If the goal is real change, real voice, real reform—then stay and fight for it here, within Canada - constructively. Because breaking away won’t fix what’s broken. It will just leave us smaller and more alone.
Bill, some points. [I am an Albertan of 74 years so I have seen this and that.]
I agree that such a separation is more complex than proponents are making it. But, to tell the truth, that is always the way with damned politicians and their damned supporters.
On the other hand, from what I have seen, read, personally experienced, etc. the challenges can be dealt with; hard but possible. I have separately responded to Evan's thesis and I respectfully think that he glosses over some pretty good considerations to the challenges that he enumerates. That doesn't mean that there would be no challenges; that would be ludicrous to expect but there are a lot of workable ways of doing things.
Ah, "Canada isn't just a place - it's a shared project." Yup. Now, please address the issues that bother we in Alberta. You offer a lot of words, what about, well, rubber, road, etc. You say, "... we hash things out ..." When precisely - and I mean absolutely, damned PRECISELY is "Canada" going to hash out with us the things that bother us and have bothered us for generations?
You say, "... I get that people are angry ..." Yup. And just what is being done about the issues that have inspired that anger.
Please, Sir, I mean no disrespect to you; or to others who feel the same way. What I damned well do disrespect is that all this feel good, fuzzy sentiment is being expressed but there is no discussion of our issues. None. So, why is anyone surprised that some folks - actually, a fair number of folks - are reacting this way?
I’m not at all surprised that some folks are drawn to the idea of separation. All federations like ours deal with this—tensions flare when parts of the country feel unheard, underrepresented, or disrespected. And sometimes that feeling grows strong enough to push people to imagine blowing the whole thing up.
You’re right, too: major challenges can be overcome if the will is strong and the vision is clear. People have built nations from less. But as you say, it’s hard. It can take generations to really pay off - if it ever does. I think it’s fair to ask: what’s the long-term goal? What would be gained that couldn’t be fought for and built within Canada? What would define this new nation—what lasting, unifying value or vision would hold it together across generations? And what gives you confidence that those willing to abandon—and break apart—the nation they were part of will stick together when inevitable disagreements arise in the new one?
Albertan's want to know when Canada will hash out the province's long-standing issues. That’s fair. But I might ask back: what does hashing it out look like? Is it greater provincial control? More equalization reform? Senate reform? Energy policy realignment? I think these are legitimate discussions, but they happen better through political negotiation than by blowing up the table.
And if a new country is born out of this, what happens when global prices drop or when a Conservative majority is elected federally the very year Alberta gains independence? Will that vision still hold? Will the sacrifices still seem worth it?
I don’t doubt the anger, or the capability. I just want to question whether the destination is better than the road we already share—because leaving Canada means giving up not just what’s broken, but also what’s not.
Something will always be broken in a free democracy like ours but most people around the world seem to agree that Canada is one of the best places on earth. Prosperous and free. It's a lot to give up.
Connecting conversations. This is a very good extension on the practicalities of Alberta independence. What if Alberta did vote to leave? A dark and uncertain path would await, with no guarantee of anything at the end.
https://open.substack.com/pub/stewartprest/p/what-if-alberta-did-vote-to-leave?r=40pe3q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
thank you
Get real, Alberta isn't going anywhere. Smith is a crackpot.
Evan, you correctly note that there would be costs that a newly independent Alberta would have to bear.
One of the things that you note is the idea of staffing embassies. I will ignore the possibility that a deal could be struck with a "friendly" country to provide some assistance and deal simply with the cost of staffing, etc. Right now, Canada pays $X a year to pay all of our diplomats, etc. The question, of course, is where that money comes currently from and the answer is that it comes taxpayers, including Albertans. So, if Alberta separates, it keeps it's portion of the money that pays for embassies and staff. Is it sufficient to pay for a "robust" foreign services? Probably not, but it could certainly pay for a reasonable start of a foreign service.
I'm sorry, did you really write that if we separate the control over the oilsands would be with the Liberals? Perhaps I read that wrong but, what do you not understand about "separate?"
Or, perhaps you mean that our current (and presumably future) export pipelines travel over Canadian territory once outside Alberta. That is true. As for current pipelines please consider the source of oil that is available for B.C.'s only oil refinery. You coulllllddd interrupt TransMountain but .... Further, consider the source of oil for Ontario's petrochemical complex at Sarnia and oil refineries in Ontario. You could, interrupt the Enbridge mainline but the Sarnia complex and the refineries in Ontario are fed by Line 5 which is a spur off the mainline. Curiously, Line 5 crosses the Strait of Mackinac and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has been trying to shut down that line for a few years now. Environmental nonsense. Until it isn't.
Hmmm .... the cost of a military; the cost of a pension plan; the cost of a tax agency. Our military would, of necessity be oriented to being able to repel incursions from Canada's "boutique" military of completely obsolete equipment; of course, we would not be required to have a navy - landlocked, ya know?
A pension plan? It is to laugh! See above about our share of costs that we already incur. Oh, yeah, and we have already been exploring an Alberta Pension Plan to take over from CPP, even if we do stay in Canada; haven't done it yet, but the groundwork has been done.
A tax agency? Oh, did you mean Alberta Tax and Revenue Administration? ATRF has been collecting corporate income taxes in Alberta for forty years. Oh, yeah, a shame about all those CRA folks who will be out of work. A shame that those offices will be empty and the landlords unable to rent them immediately. I expect that any independent Alberta would start from the basis that all the then current laws of Canada would be the laws in the new Alberta until formally changed. So .... all those CRA people could simply move on over to ATRF.
As for currency, on a provisional basis we could choose to keep the Canadian dollar but there are other countries that denominate their currency in dollars. Oh, Australia or New Zealand. Or some other country whose name just escapes me right now ...
A final point. I am old and I lived through two Quebec referenda and it is my recollection that there were no threats such as these in those discussions. [Perhaps I am wrong but that is my recollection.] Again, recollection: it seems to me that on these issues the discussions were more sanguine and recognized that there would be decisions to be met but that Quebec would have to deal with the absence of equalization which was (and remains, dammit!) a large portion of their budget. By contrast, Alberta contributes a large sum more than we use in our "day to day" operations within Alberta.
A final, final point. A lot of stuff has been written in opposition to the separatists in Alberta. Pretty well NONE of it deals with the issues that we find important but instead is threatening or argues some element of doom if we did go ahead. I suggest that a much more fruitful way of dealing with us is to vigorously discuss with us the issues that bother us so greatly and to recognize that there are ways for you to hurt us but there are also ways for us to hurt you. An adult, rational discussion is the best way forward for all.
The concept of trying to eliminate my Canadian citizenship if the majority in Alberta choose to separate is simply the idiots of the country being punitive.
Right now, people come to Canada and get citizenship and then go right back to Lebanon or whatever hellhole from which they came and, when times get tough in said HH, they expect Canada to "rescue" them. And we usually oblige. And, of course, there are the Neil Youngs, the Joni Mitchells, the Mike Meyers, et all who live in the sun year round but argue that they are Canadian.
So, now, you want to punish me if my neighbors choose to vote for separation?
Hell, I can fix that! All I would do is to get an accommodation address in Vancouver [the lower mainland would NEVER vote to separate] for six months and then I would emigrate to .... Alberta. Therefore, I would be just like the folks from Lebanon to whom I referred above.
Oh, and by the way, we in Alberta would very likely retain the right to vote so ....