• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All Things AB Separatism (split fm Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???)

There was a lot of talk about US invasion and Canadians becoming insurgents, making the US pay for every inch of ground in blood and so on.

I wonder if these same Canadians will be as ready to do violence against Albertans should they actually separate.
I haven’t seen anyone outside of Alberta suggesting they would do so.

In a worst case extreme, I could see resistance, violent if necessary, from indigenous people who don’t consent to Albertan separatists trying to drag them or their lands out of Canada. Alberta has a lot of vulnerable yet economically critical infrastructure and is economically over-dependent on a single industry sector that would not respond well to that kind of instability. A newly independent Alberta would find itself rather short of law enforcement or military resources to deal with that. Any independent Alberta project is going to need to actually come up with a practical and consent-based approach to dealing with the First Nations and their lands. Trying to wave that away and pretend it wouldn’t be an issue is a non-starter.

To be clear, I consider actual Alberta separation to be a fantasy. It’s an emotional outlet for grievances, some valid, some less so. I think that if and when it comes to a referendum, there will be a ton of information out out there highlighting why it would no go as smoothly or as prosperously as separatist leaders would try to have people think. I don’t for a moment believe that a majority of Albertans would consider separation to be the rational choice. That makes it easier to bat around the more extreme hypotheticals.
 
Surely no entity with a population of about 5 million or less could possibly make it as an independent nation.

Cost of government - absolute or per capita - would necessarily increase, but some functions - fisheries and oceans, defence, diplomatic representation - could certainly be scaled down. We already know that AB's contributions to federal Canadian revenues are disproportionately high. How those two facts should translate to an impoverished independent AB struggling to provide all the trappings of a federal government is a mystery, though.

The major weaknesses of an independent AB are lack of a seaport and coming to a political resolution that results in one citizenship status and two levels of government (federal and municipal).
Independent is separate from prosperous. A landlocked nation of 5 million could exist, but would struggle immensely to get resources to tidewater. At that point they could become an American resource colony or pony up some very favourable concessions to Canada for tidewater access. This is especially true in such a resource extraction heavy economy.
 
Her 'tyranny of the minority" (the irony here) and hypothetical example about "debating the jewish problem" as some sort of extreme analogy to Smith's decision to open the possibility for a referendum. The "chickenshit" comment... stating DS knows her actions are "destructive to the province"... etc etc.

The whole article is an over-emotional piss-take.
 
Can anyone show me where Smith has lobbied for separation? Saying she supports it? Saying that separation is her end goal? Because I haven't seen her calling for it.

All I've seen, from her, is a move to lower the conditions for a citizen driven referendum. Personally, I'd like to see those changes Canada wide.

Referendums can be used for any number of initiatives, not just a sovereignty bid. Although that seems to be the one people are concentrating on.

The only thing I would add, is that a set of facts, real ones, legal ones, for and against or hybrid be made available to the voters before a vote is taken. Remove the emotion. What will be the cost, what will be the national and international impacts, what legal recourse will people have? Things like that.

I also believe that if a province wants to separate, the nation should have input.
 
Can anyone show me where Smith has lobbied for separation? Saying she supports it? Saying that separation is her end goal? Because I haven't seen her calling for it.

All I've seen, from her, is a move to lower the conditions for a citizen driven referendum. Personally, I'd like to see those changes Canada wide.

Referendums can be used for any number of initiatives, not just a sovereignty bid. Although that seems to be the one people are concentrating on.

The only thing I would add, is that a set of facts, real ones, legal ones, for and against or hybrid be made available to the voters before a vote is taken. Remove the emotion. What will be the cost, what will be the national and international impacts, what legal recourse will people have? Things like that.

I also believe that if a province wants to separate, the nation should have input.

Reasonable.
 
I haven’t seen anyone outside of Alberta suggesting they would do so.

In a worst case extreme, I could see resistance, violent if necessary, from indigenous people who don’t consent to Albertan separatists trying to drag them or their lands out of Canada. Alberta has a lot of vulnerable yet economically critical infrastructure and is economically over-dependent on a single industry sector that would not respond well to that kind of instability. A newly independent Alberta would find itself rather short of law enforcement or military resources to deal with that. Any independent Alberta project is going to need to actually come up with a practical and consent-based approach to dealing with the First Nations and their lands. Trying to wave that away and pretend it wouldn’t be an issue is a non-starter.

To be clear, I consider actual Alberta separation to be a fantasy. It’s an emotional outlet for grievances, some valid, some less so. I think that if and when it comes to a referendum, there will be a ton of information out out there highlighting why it would no go as smoothly or as prosperously as separatist leaders would try to have people think. I don’t for a moment believe that a majority of Albertans would consider separation to be the rational choice. That makes it easier to bat around the more extreme hypotheticals.

Do you accept that there are grievances?
 
Do you accept that there are grievances?
This is a copy and paste, but I think there are a good number of significant points favouring the West.

When I first came to Canada, I landed in Alberta.
And I’ll be honest, it felt familiar. The people had a spark in their eye, the land breathed ambition, and the culture rang with a deep, honest pride. To me, Alberta wasn’t all that different from Texas. It was a land of risk-takers, builders, doers. Of families who made their living from the land, who didn’t ask for handouts, and who believed in something very old and very precious: that your life is your own.
And so for years, I assumed Canada was like that everywhere. That Alberta was simply one reflection of a larger national spirit.
But then I went further west, Vancouver, Victoria. And I felt a shift. Not just in politics or preferences, but in the very framework of belief. The worldview was different. The relationship to government was different. The definition of freedom, even, was different.
And that’s when I realized something that shook me: Alberta isn’t just a province with a different opinion. Alberta is a nation within a nation.
This isn’t about hostility. It’s about incompatibility.
You see, Alberta, and its soulmates in Saskatchewan, in the Yukon, in the Northwest Territories, in rural Manitoba and northern B.C., were not forged in boardrooms or by policy theorists. They were carved out of rock and frost, born in cattle fields and oil rigs, in mines and mills and frontier homesteads. These were places where survival meant strength, where freedom wasn’t philosophical, it was practical. It was necessary. You didn’t wait for Ottawa to tell you what to do, you just did it.
But much of the rest of Canada now operates on a fundamentally different ideology, one built on collectivism, central planning, and a trust in bureaucracy over the individual. These aren’t bad people. They aren’t villains. But they are living a different system, and one that increasingly can’t understand or tolerate Alberta’s.
It’s not that the rest of Canada is horrible. It’s not that Ontario or Quebec are wrong to live the way they do. It’s that the fit no longer works. It’s like trying to jam a round peg into a square hole, over and over again, until the wood starts to splinter and the structure begins to crack.
And the truth is, Alberta is not alone in this. The same pain lives in Saskatchewan. In northern B.C. In the far reaches of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Places that still value territorial integrity, individual sovereignty, and earned freedom. Places that feel more American in spirit than the government ruling them from 3,000 kilometers away.
But here’s where the grief turns into something deeper, something existential.
Because it’s no longer just a matter of cultural friction. This is now a collision between two systems of thought, two incompatible blueprints for how society should function.
One believes that the government is the solution. The other believes that the government is the problem.
One sees taxes as a duty. The other sees them as an obstacle.
One prizes conformity in the name of unity. The other prizes freedom even if it leads to disunity.
And these two systems, these two philosophies, cannot coexist forever in the same house. One will inevitably swallow the other.
That’s the tragedy playing out now, not just in Alberta, but in the heart of Canada itself. A cold war between two visions of the nation. And Albertans feel it acutely. The slow suffocation of their voice. The erosion of their industries. The cultural gaslighting that tells them they’re cruel, or backward, or radical simply for wanting the same freedoms their ancestors bled to preserve.
And that leads to grief. Not just anger, but grief. The grief of being pushed away from neighbors who once felt like family. The sorrow of watching your country become foreign to you. The ache of raising your children in a land that no longer values the things that built it.
Most Albertans don’t want to burn bridges. They want to build something better. But how do you do that when the very structure you live under is designed to dismantle your autonomy?
You can call on Ottawa. You can plead with federal ministers. But if they don’t share your values, if they don’t even recognize them, what hope is there of being heard?
So Alberta, and its kindred provinces and territories, are left with an impossible question:
Do we stay and be swallowed? Or do we step away, and begin again?
And this question isn’t about hate. It’s about hope. It’s about the hope that somewhere beyond the noise and judgment, there is still a place where people can live free, build without asking permission, raise families on their own terms, and pursue prosperity without being punished for it.
Maybe that place is within a renewed Confederation. Maybe it’s within a new federation. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s something entirely new.
But one thing is clear:
If a nation forces one half of its people to abandon their identity just to keep the peace, it’s not peace, it’s conquest by attrition.
And Albertans are tired of being conquered in slow motion.
What they seek is not conflict, but clarity.
Not rebellion, but recognition.
Not destruction, but dignity.
And if the rest of Canada can’t offer that, then perhaps it’s time Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and those who share their spirit stand together and create a home where their values aren’t tolerated as a nuisance…
…but honored as the foundation.
-- Copied and Pasted
Written by & borrowed from Megan Patrick, CEO of Saber Tech Inc
 
This is a copy and paste, but I think there are a good number of significant points favouring the West.

When I first came to Canada, I landed in Alberta.
And I’ll be honest, it felt familiar. The people had a spark in their eye, the land breathed ambition, and the culture rang with a deep, honest pride. To me, Alberta wasn’t all that different from Texas. It was a land of risk-takers, builders, doers. Of families who made their living from the land, who didn’t ask for handouts, and who believed in something very old and very precious: that your life is your own.
And so for years, I assumed Canada was like that everywhere. That Alberta was simply one reflection of a larger national spirit.
But then I went further west, Vancouver, Victoria. And I felt a shift. Not just in politics or preferences, but in the very framework of belief. The worldview was different. The relationship to government was different. The definition of freedom, even, was different.
And that’s when I realized something that shook me: Alberta isn’t just a province with a different opinion. Alberta is a nation within a nation.
This isn’t about hostility. It’s about incompatibility.
You see, Alberta, and its soulmates in Saskatchewan, in the Yukon, in the Northwest Territories, in rural Manitoba and northern B.C., were not forged in boardrooms or by policy theorists. They were carved out of rock and frost, born in cattle fields and oil rigs, in mines and mills and frontier homesteads. These were places where survival meant strength, where freedom wasn’t philosophical, it was practical. It was necessary. You didn’t wait for Ottawa to tell you what to do, you just did it.
But much of the rest of Canada now operates on a fundamentally different ideology, one built on collectivism, central planning, and a trust in bureaucracy over the individual. These aren’t bad people. They aren’t villains. But they are living a different system, and one that increasingly can’t understand or tolerate Alberta’s.
It’s not that the rest of Canada is horrible. It’s not that Ontario or Quebec are wrong to live the way they do. It’s that the fit no longer works. It’s like trying to jam a round peg into a square hole, over and over again, until the wood starts to splinter and the structure begins to crack.
And the truth is, Alberta is not alone in this. The same pain lives in Saskatchewan. In northern B.C. In the far reaches of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Places that still value territorial integrity, individual sovereignty, and earned freedom. Places that feel more American in spirit than the government ruling them from 3,000 kilometers away.
But here’s where the grief turns into something deeper, something existential.
Because it’s no longer just a matter of cultural friction. This is now a collision between two systems of thought, two incompatible blueprints for how society should function.
One believes that the government is the solution. The other believes that the government is the problem.
One sees taxes as a duty. The other sees them as an obstacle.
One prizes conformity in the name of unity. The other prizes freedom even if it leads to disunity.
And these two systems, these two philosophies, cannot coexist forever in the same house. One will inevitably swallow the other.
That’s the tragedy playing out now, not just in Alberta, but in the heart of Canada itself. A cold war between two visions of the nation. And Albertans feel it acutely. The slow suffocation of their voice. The erosion of their industries. The cultural gaslighting that tells them they’re cruel, or backward, or radical simply for wanting the same freedoms their ancestors bled to preserve.
And that leads to grief. Not just anger, but grief. The grief of being pushed away from neighbors who once felt like family. The sorrow of watching your country become foreign to you. The ache of raising your children in a land that no longer values the things that built it.
Most Albertans don’t want to burn bridges. They want to build something better. But how do you do that when the very structure you live under is designed to dismantle your autonomy?
You can call on Ottawa. You can plead with federal ministers. But if they don’t share your values, if they don’t even recognize them, what hope is there of being heard?
So Alberta, and its kindred provinces and territories, are left with an impossible question:
Do we stay and be swallowed? Or do we step away, and begin again?
And this question isn’t about hate. It’s about hope. It’s about the hope that somewhere beyond the noise and judgment, there is still a place where people can live free, build without asking permission, raise families on their own terms, and pursue prosperity without being punished for it.
Maybe that place is within a renewed Confederation. Maybe it’s within a new federation. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s something entirely new.
But one thing is clear:
If a nation forces one half of its people to abandon their identity just to keep the peace, it’s not peace, it’s conquest by attrition.
And Albertans are tired of being conquered in slow motion.
What they seek is not conflict, but clarity.
Not rebellion, but recognition.
Not destruction, but dignity.
And if the rest of Canada can’t offer that, then perhaps it’s time Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and those who share their spirit stand together and create a home where their values aren’t tolerated as a nuisance…
…but honored as the foundation.
-- Copied and Pasted
Written by & borrowed from Megan Patrick, CEO of Saber Tech Inc

Joel Garreau's Nine Nations is still a good jumping off point.

1747251754317.png1747251955138.png


Overlay Canada's Electoral Ridings on the map though and you get a slightly different picture.

The Empty Quarter is First Nations land predominantly. And it includes everything north of 60 (YK, NT, NU), as well as Northern BC, Northern AB, Northern SK, Northern MB, Northern ON (Lowlands and Ring of Fire), Northern and Eastern Quebec and the entirety of Labrador.

Put all the people in those territories together an you would have trouble scraping up 1,000,000 inhabitants. Add in Greenland and Alaska and you might get to 1,500,000.

Those lands are not empty but there certainly isn't a lot people rushing north to fill them.


...

Vancouver is a charter member of the Ecotopian community that extends north from Malibu. The Empty Quarter begins where those Ecotopian metropolises end. Not much more than an hour inland until you get to the Bay Area. Then you might have to drive two hours to make it through the Valley.

....

The St Lawrence Basin (Quebec, New England, The Foundry and The Eastern Breadbasket - Manitoba, Minnesota, Wisconsin), they are all one cultural construct, with the locals struggling hard to differentiate themselves because they are so similar. They may speak different languages but their ways of life, their economies, are all similarly structured.

Up here on the Prairies I see something of the same. Some of the best Country Music stations are the First Nations stations. The natives are proud contributors to the Calgary Stampede. Horses and rodeo culture are shared by both Cowboys and Indians.

It is kind of like Cumbrians and Geordies. Absent a Scot in the room then they will happily beat up on each other. With the Scot in the room then he becomes the target.

...

The secret to all of this is still Sir John A's solution: Confederation. The alliance of autonomous polities that decide to co-exist by tolerating the other, by knowing when it is appropriate to stick your nose in your neighbour's business and when it is appropriate to let them carry on and do things their way.

Interprovincial trade was always going to be a sticking point, so strangely enough it was dealt with in the very first contract. There was free passage of goods, services and people guaranteed by federal authority.

That is all that Alberta wants. To sell what it has available and to live as it chooses with friendly neighbours.
 
Can anyone show me where Smith has lobbied for separation? Saying she supports it? Saying that separation is her end goal? Because I haven't seen her calling for it.
Good point - but do hints count? This from the Toronto Sun:
... Smith can’t argue for a united Canada while also saying all sorts of things that essentially agitate for and invite a referendum on Alberta separation ...

... I also believe that if a province wants to separate, the nation should have input.
The Supreme Court agrees: any separation would have to be based on a mutually-agreed-to deal between Alberta and Ottawa, not to mention needing a constitutional amendment - and we all know how easy THAT'll be to get.
 
Do you accept that there are grievances?
Of course. I’ve never said otherwise. Look through my post history and you’ll find me rolling my eyes at the separatists, but I don’t chuck shit at the province, and I accept that there’s validity to at least some of the complaints from there. While I think Alberta has ‘self inflicted’ some future harm by spending the oil money as fast as it’s come in, I recognize that there’s been some negative impact of federal climate policies and impact assessment, and that provincial resistance to cross-country energy infrastructure has constrained export options. I’ve been openly pro-pipeline.

Were you sitting there thinking I don’t accept that Alberta has some grievances? You’ve always been welcome to ask.
 
Good point - but do hints count? This from the Toronto Sun
I don't see anywhere that Smith lobbied for separation. Nor do I think making the rules easier for a citizens referendum, on anything, as a move to spur separation. A positive, realistic referendum is the will of the people, not the Premier. I see a biased opinion piece. One built on emotion, not fact. Two pages of comments I read, share no agreement with what was penned. I say biased because she claims it was carney that navigated Britain through the problems and pitfalls of Brexit, when in fact, he went far outside his portfolio in order to sewer Brexit. I have yet to see any realistic article, by Britons, that carney was good for their country. Not that I've been looking mind you.

If anything, a referendum will force the feds to quit dictating on provincial matters and sit down and take the West's grievances seriously. If they don't, the consequences won't be the West's fault. They will fall directly on the current federal government.
 
Last edited:
Plus they have to negotiate to move trade goods in, out and across the borders. They would basically be selling their soul to get away from Ottawa to go crawling to Washington. Then Obama 2.0 gets in.......
An interesting aspect of that is rail. I've heard cogent arguments that the land occupied by both our Class I railways (CN and CPKC) is either privately owned by them or is, in fact, Crown land with a perpetual easement. Legally, I don't know which way it goes. If it is private property, I suppose an independent Alberta would be free to regulate freight rates for goods crossing its territory. If Crown land, I guess it would be added to the items they get to buy from Ottawa.

Would an independent Alberta have automatic membership into the Commonwealth of Nations, and would that alleviate some of the stressors around the indigenous ?
No and no. The Commonwealth is a voluntary organization and not all members recognize the King as Head of State. It's basically a club. I doubt maintaining the Crown as Head of State would be popular but it would be a requisite to retain the FN treaties intact (and they would be responsible for all the costs). Even if they did, I suspect the FNs would see right through it.
 
This is a copy and paste, but I think there are a good number of significant points favouring the West.

When I first came to Canada, I landed in Alberta.
And I’ll be honest, it felt familiar. The people had a spark in their eye, the land breathed ambition, and the culture rang with a deep, honest pride. To me, Alberta wasn’t all that different from Texas. It was a land of risk-takers, builders, doers. Of families who made their living from the land, who didn’t ask for handouts, and who believed in something very old and very precious: that your life is your own.
And so for years, I assumed Canada was like that everywhere. That Alberta was simply one reflection of a larger national spirit.
But then I went further west, Vancouver, Victoria. And I felt a shift. Not just in politics or preferences, but in the very framework of belief. The worldview was different. The relationship to government was different. The definition of freedom, even, was different.
And that’s when I realized something that shook me: Alberta isn’t just a province with a different opinion. Alberta is a nation within a nation.
This isn’t about hostility. It’s about incompatibility.
You see, Alberta, and its soulmates in Saskatchewan, in the Yukon, in the Northwest Territories, in rural Manitoba and northern B.C., were not forged in boardrooms or by policy theorists. They were carved out of rock and frost, born in cattle fields and oil rigs, in mines and mills and frontier homesteads. These were places where survival meant strength, where freedom wasn’t philosophical, it was practical. It was necessary. You didn’t wait for Ottawa to tell you what to do, you just did it.
But much of the rest of Canada now operates on a fundamentally different ideology, one built on collectivism, central planning, and a trust in bureaucracy over the individual. These aren’t bad people. They aren’t villains. But they are living a different system, and one that increasingly can’t understand or tolerate Alberta’s.
It’s not that the rest of Canada is horrible. It’s not that Ontario or Quebec are wrong to live the way they do. It’s that the fit no longer works. It’s like trying to jam a round peg into a square hole, over and over again, until the wood starts to splinter and the structure begins to crack.
And the truth is, Alberta is not alone in this. The same pain lives in Saskatchewan. In northern B.C. In the far reaches of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Places that still value territorial integrity, individual sovereignty, and earned freedom. Places that feel more American in spirit than the government ruling them from 3,000 kilometers away.
But here’s where the grief turns into something deeper, something existential.
Because it’s no longer just a matter of cultural friction. This is now a collision between two systems of thought, two incompatible blueprints for how society should function.
One believes that the government is the solution. The other believes that the government is the problem.
One sees taxes as a duty. The other sees them as an obstacle.
One prizes conformity in the name of unity. The other prizes freedom even if it leads to disunity.
And these two systems, these two philosophies, cannot coexist forever in the same house. One will inevitably swallow the other.
That’s the tragedy playing out now, not just in Alberta, but in the heart of Canada itself. A cold war between two visions of the nation. And Albertans feel it acutely. The slow suffocation of their voice. The erosion of their industries. The cultural gaslighting that tells them they’re cruel, or backward, or radical simply for wanting the same freedoms their ancestors bled to preserve.
And that leads to grief. Not just anger, but grief. The grief of being pushed away from neighbors who once felt like family. The sorrow of watching your country become foreign to you. The ache of raising your children in a land that no longer values the things that built it.
Most Albertans don’t want to burn bridges. They want to build something better. But how do you do that when the very structure you live under is designed to dismantle your autonomy?
You can call on Ottawa. You can plead with federal ministers. But if they don’t share your values, if they don’t even recognize them, what hope is there of being heard?
So Alberta, and its kindred provinces and territories, are left with an impossible question:
Do we stay and be swallowed? Or do we step away, and begin again?
And this question isn’t about hate. It’s about hope. It’s about the hope that somewhere beyond the noise and judgment, there is still a place where people can live free, build without asking permission, raise families on their own terms, and pursue prosperity without being punished for it.
Maybe that place is within a renewed Confederation. Maybe it’s within a new federation. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s something entirely new.
But one thing is clear:
If a nation forces one half of its people to abandon their identity just to keep the peace, it’s not peace, it’s conquest by attrition.
And Albertans are tired of being conquered in slow motion.
What they seek is not conflict, but clarity.
Not rebellion, but recognition.
Not destruction, but dignity.
And if the rest of Canada can’t offer that, then perhaps it’s time Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and those who share their spirit stand together and create a home where their values aren’t tolerated as a nuisance…
…but honored as the foundation.
-- Copied and Pasted
Written by & borrowed from Megan Patrick, CEO of Saber Tech Inc
Nicely written but I suspect the author has never been in northern Ontario.

Nobody want the State in their lives, until the want the State in their lives. There are two extremes to State involvement. At one end is, for what of a better term, the 'Scandinavian Model'; cradle-to-grave support, but you need taxes (or a really healthy wealth fund like Norway) to pay for it. The other end is pure personal autonomy. I don't know if such a country exists (it might - I just don't know) but the US is a lot closer to that end. Some countries simply can't afford to support their less fortunate because they are poor. Other just don't care that much. The most unfortunate, benighted 'housing project' in Canada can't hold a candle to the abject poverty in some parts of the US.
 
An interesting aspect of that is rail. I've heard cogent arguments that the land occupied by both our Class I railways (CN and CPKC) is either privately owned by them or is, in fact, Crown land with a perpetual easement. Legally, I don't know which way it goes. If it is private property, I suppose an independent Alberta would be free to regulate freight rates for goods crossing its territory. If Crown land, I guess it would be added to the items they get to buy from Ottawa.


No and no. The Commonwealth is a voluntary organization and not all members recognize the King as Head of State. It's basically a club. I doubt maintaining the Crown as Head of State would be popular but it would be a requisite to retain the FN treaties intact (and they would be responsible for all the costs). Even if they did, I suspect the FNs would see right through it.

Interesting comment about rail. I recently saw a cogent argument that pipelines created space for dry goods that could not be transported by pipeline. If they are hauling oil and lng by rail they aren't hauling wheat, lentils, hogs, potash, uranium, coal, logs or Chinese sneakers.

One interesting proposal is to slurry up potash and other critical minerals and pump them instead. Could even transport potash on a dilbit slurry and separate the two at the point of export.
 
An interesting aspect of that is rail. I've heard cogent arguments that the land occupied by both our Class I railways (CN and CPKC) is either privately owned by them or is, in fact, Crown land with a perpetual easement. Legally, I don't know which way it goes. If it is private property, I suppose an independent Alberta would be free to regulate freight rates for goods crossing its territory. If Crown land, I guess it would be added to the items they get to buy from Ottawa.

I've read Alberta consists of 60% Provincial crown land, 30% privately owned, 10% Federal crown land.
 
Nicely written but I suspect the author has never been in northern Ontario.

Nobody want the State in their lives, until the want the State in their lives. There are two extremes to State involvement. At one end is, for what of a better term, the 'Scandinavian Model'; cradle-to-grave support, but you need taxes (or a really healthy wealth fund like Norway) to pay for it. The other end is pure personal autonomy. I don't know if such a country exists (it might - I just don't know) but the US is a lot closer to that end. Some countries simply can't afford to support their less fortunate because they are poor. Other just don't care that much. The most unfortunate, benighted 'housing project' in Canada can't hold a candle to the abject poverty in some parts of the US.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference.

210914-tents-GettyImages-1231272943.jpg-1255119361.jpg
Homeless Encampment - United States

victoria-homeless-camp-2270220868.JPG
Homeless Encampment - Canada
 
Good point - but do hints count?
Like demanding that the federal government remove Pacific federal tanker restrictions - clearly within the federal mandate - as a 'condition' of Alberta staying?

I don't believe for a moment Smith is a dispassionate, neutral facilitator. 'The people' have a mechanism to express their views. She apparently feels that mechanism needs a leg up.

You simply can't take the emotion out of a process such as this. Each side will present their facts and figures in the most favourable light and disparage the claims of the other side. Most of the claims and conclusions are ultimately speculative.
 
Back
Top