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

[brihard]

Do you mind expanding on this?

I've been under the impression that equalization payments very much come from Alberta?

And that Alberta pays for more than it's fair share of CPP?

Equalization payments don’t ’come from’ provinces; it’s not a standalone system of raising money. It’s simply funded out of consolidated federal revenue. The arguments made about Alberta contributions to CPP specifically are because Alberta has had proportionately more people reaching the Yearly Maximum Pensionable Income and making full CPP contributions for the year- but that hits a cap, it doesn’t scale up indefinitely with income. More broadly it gets conflated with the higher average income and consequently the higher income taxes paid by Albertans because the population is younger and earning more money. But there’s no standalone levy on Alberta or Albertans for equalization.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Do you mind expanding on this?

I've been under the impression that equalization payments very much come from Alberta?

Equalization payments come from federal government general revenues, which are paid by individuals (mostly income and sales taxes) and corporations (mostly income tax) and other fees. Do people ever talk about how defence spending or health care spending or any other kind of federal spending "come from Alberta"?

And that Alberta pays for more than it's fair share of CPP?

There's no provincial "fair share".

Individuals pay income taxes and CPP premiums. Alberta skews young and high income, which makes its total contributions look high for the number of people. There is no practical way of distributing incomes throughout Canada so that the per capita average contribution per taxpayer is the same for all provinces, so this situation is always going to exist for one or more provinces.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I find interesting this passage in the article on Alberta's independence rally:

"In March, Smith threatened a “national unity crisis” if the next prime minister doesn’t acquiesce to a list of her demands within six months, but reiterated this week that she supports a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada."

I think I've seen that somewhere before. Ah! Yes! It was "souverainete-association", and IIRC, the rest of the country said "F.U.: you split or you stay - but not both."

I think its time for Alberta to also put the "oil and Gas Industry" thing behind them. There is more ( a lot more) to Alberta and its economy than just Oil and Gas, but lets add a little bit of perspective:

(1) If Alberta becomes independent, it will definitely not be able to put any pressure on any one to try and build more pipeline. In fact, its oil will become even more landlocked than it is now.

(2) The "Laurentian elites" are not preventing Alberta's oil and gas sector from producing their product. In fact, production of Alberta oil is currently at the highest level ever.

(3) There are no layoffs of oil and gas employees going on as of now. Employment is at its highest just about ever. Also, when there are layoffs in the industry these days, it is usually not the result of policy enacted in Ottawa, but as a result of the international price of oil being too low to justify exploration and the opening of new exploitation.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The CIA for one has a long history of secretly financing the destabilization of other countries, especially in Latin America. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they were in Alberta right now giving financial and strategic support to some of the separatist leaders.

Even ChatGPT says that might not be a great idea ....

ISSUE​

This briefing evaluates the strategic implications—opportunities and risks—of providing covert or overt support (financial, political, or informational) to separatist movements in Alberta, Canada, with the hypothetical aim of advancing U.S. geopolitical or economic interests.

BACKGROUND​

• Alberta is a resource-rich province within Canada, holding the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves.
• The province has experienced periodic surges in separatist sentiment, particularly during periods of perceived economic or political alienation from Ottawa (e.g., after federal environmental regulation or pipeline cancellations).
• The Alberta independence movement remains fringe, with no formal political traction at the federal level.
• Canada is the United States’ second-largest trading partner and closest diplomatic ally.
• U.S. energy security has been historically intertwined with Canadian supply routes and infrastructure.
  

CURRENT SITUATION​

• No credible evidence indicates significant momentum for Alberta separatism beyond online movements, disaffected voters, or minor political parties (e.g., Wildrose Independence Party).
• The Canadian federal government remains strongly opposed to any form of secession, and no province has a constitutional pathway to unilaterally separate.
• The U.S. publicly supports Canadian sovereignty and unity.
• Canada’s intelligence community is alert to foreign interference, especially from Russia and China—any indication of U.S. involvement could cause major diplomatic fallout.
  

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS​

Pros of Supporting Alberta Separatism​

• Energy Access: A friendly, independent Alberta may prioritize oil exports to the U.S. and allow infrastructure projects (e.g., Keystone XL) blocked by Ottawa.
• Geopolitical Leverage: Undermining Canadian cohesion could increase U.S. influence in North America.
• Precedent: Sets a model for regional autonomy aligned with U.S. interests in other areas (e.g., Arctic access or minerals strategy).

Cons of Supporting Alberta Separatism​

• Alliance Fracture: Any interference risks rupturing relations with Canada—NATO ally, NORAD partner, and key intelligence-sharing state in Five Eyes.
• Destabilization Risk: Encouraging secession in a liberal democracy would undermine U.S. credibility globally.
• Economic Blowback: U.S. trade with Canada (>$850B/year) could be severely disrupted.
• Domestic Repercussions: Sets dangerous precedent amid U.S. own internal divisions (e.g., California or Texas secessionist rhetoric).
• Legal & Ethical Violations: Covert support for separatist movements violates international norms and could be exposed via leaks or whistleblowers.

OPTIONS​

1. No Action (Status Quo)

• Continue formal support for Canadian unity and avoid all forms of involvement.
• Pros: Maintains strong bilateral ties; upholds norms.
• Cons: No leverage in Alberta’s internal politics.
  

2. Soft Support via Public Diplomacy and Energy Messaging

• U.S. officials express support for provincial energy autonomy, not separatism.
• Pros: Stays within acceptable norms; signals support for Alberta interests.
• Cons: Could still be seen as provocative.

3. Covert Strategic Influence Campaign (NOT RECOMMENDED)

• Use proxies, NGOs, or information ops to boost separatist narratives.
• Pros: Potential influence over future political direction.
• Cons: High risk of exposure, major backlash.

4. Economic Incentives for Alberta-Based Cooperation (Within Canada)

• Enhance U.S.-Alberta trade and energy ties without endorsing separatism.
• Pros: Strengthens bilateral ties while respecting sovereignty.
• Cons: Limited impact on separatist sentiment.

RECOMMENDATION​

Option 1: Maintain Status Quo and Option 4: Increase Alberta-specific engagement within a united Canada.

Supporting separatism in Alberta—covertly or overtly—would severely damage the U.S.-Canada relationship, violate international norms, and provide no guarantee of favorable outcomes. Strengthening economic ties with Alberta, within the Canadian federation, offers a low-risk path to enhance U.S. influence.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I find interesting this passage in the article on Alberta's independence rally:

"In March, Smith threatened a “national unity crisis” if the next prime minister doesn’t acquiesce to a list of her demands within six months, but reiterated this week that she supports a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada."

I think I've seen that somewhere before. Ah! Yes! It was "souverainete-association", and IIRC, the rest of the country said "F.U.: you split or you stay - but not both."
. . .

No Alberta government (or political movement) has ever ignored the opportunity to paint themselves as standing against Eastern Canada even when some of the aims align. Premier Smith is particularly adept experienced at trying to suck and blow at the same time. There is a small, yet vocal, element to the conservative base that lean to the independence/separation option and are/were significant in consolidation of the right in Alberta and Smith gaining leadership of the UCP. It is interesting that some of that base has parted ways with how the UCP government is performing.

Well-known conservative operative quits Alberta’s UCP, says party is ‘allergic to transparency’ | Globalnews.ca

Cameron Davies had been a key player in the Wildrose Party before its members merged with members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta to form the UCP.

globalnews.ca

A longtime behind-the-scenes member of Alberta’s conservative community says he is parting ways with the United Conservative Party (UCP) because he believes it has become “bloated, dishonest and corrupted by entitlement.”

“Today, I am resigning my membership in the United Conservative Party,” Cameron Davies wrote in an open letter posted to social media on Thursday.

“Let me be clear: this is no longer the party I helped build.”

Davies had also been a key player in the Wildrose Party before its members merged with members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta (PC) to form the UCP. He also spent time as co-campaign manager for Jeff Callaway in the 2017 UCP leadership race. . . .

Davies was recently (the day after the federal election) named as leader of the "Republican Party of Alberta" (RPA). The RPA was previously named the Buffalo Party of Alberta but changed its name in early February. In the past five days I've received five robo-calls from these numpties.

But it is not only the conservative spectrum of politics in Alberta that is adjusting.

Alberta NDP votes to allow opting out of federal party membership

Alberta’s New Democratic Party has voted overwhelmingly to cut traditional membership ties with its federal counterpart.

www.ctvnews.ca

Alberta’s New Democratic Party has voted overwhelmingly to cut traditional membership ties with its federal counterpart.

Delegates in Edmonton voted Saturday to allow provincial members to opt out of joining the federal NDP, a move Leader Naheed Nenshi campaigned on last year.

In adopting the measure, the party is shedding what many considered a political albatross.

Nenshi told reporters the party’s longtime practice of automatically signing up members to the federal party was a sticking point that scared some potential voters and members away.

The change, he said, will allow his NDP to build a bigger tent.

“It’s a great movement for the very, very many thousands and thousands of Albertans who really like what the Alberta NDP have to say, but don’t necessarily agree with the federal party — and this now gives them that choice," he said.

“We will welcome those people into our movement. While you’ll still have the option of joining the federal New Democrats, if you join the provincial New Democrats, you don’t have to,” he said.

Nenshi said his NDP is financially independent and dictates its own policy, but party candidates spoke out, saying they needed a better answer when voters at the door tied them to the federal party’s positions during the 2023 provincial election.

The membership practice has long been a target for the governing United Conservatives, who say Nenshi’s party answers to political masters in Ottawa that don’t support Alberta’s oil and gas industry.

Premier Danielle Smith, speaking in the legislature Thursday, said the weekend vote suggested Nenshi’s party wants to distance itself from a “damaged brand” after the federal NDP lost 17 seats and its official party status in Monday’s election.

Nenshi, like some members who spoke up Saturday, remains skeptical the policy change will shield the Alberta NDP from what they called disingenuous attacks.

“The premier treats Albertans with contempt. She takes us all for fools. She thinks that we’ll fall for the most obvious lies, and I believe that Albertans are so much smarter than that,” he said.

Saturday’s vote required more than two-thirds approval from delegates, and in a show of hands, some two or three dozen delegates in a crowd of more than 1,000 stood firmly against the move.

Some warned that allowing those who don’t share New Democrat values into the fold spells trouble, and that it could divide the political movement across the country.

Nenshi disagreed, saying the decision is ultimately unifying.

“It’s saying to everyone, ‘look, you’re welcome here’.”

In his first leadership review, Nenshi received 89.5 per cent support, a bump up from the 86 per cent he secured in the first ballot of the party’s leadership contest to replace Rachel Notley last June.

Saturday’s policy shift also represents a rejection of Notley’s allegiance to the federal brand. Last year, Notley called dissociating short-sighted and superficial.

But some of the loudest applause Saturday came when Nenshi got patriotic.

In a speech ahead of the vote, he asked the crowd of supporters whether Smith is a separatist, and the answer was a resounding yes.

Meanwhile on Saturday, hundreds of supporters who want the province to secede from Canada gathered at the Alberta legislature grounds, with some saying the fire was lit when the Liberals’ won a fourth consecutive federal win earlier this week.

It comes after Smith’s government introduced legislation early this week that would lower the threshold for citizens to call for a referendum on Alberta’s place in Canada, sparking a vocal tide of organizers pushing for a petition.

Premier Smith has said she supports a sovereign Alberta within a United Canada, and Albertans can petition for any ballot question they please.

A growing group of Indigenous leaders have warned talk of separatism risks violating treaties, and some have accused Smith of attempting to manufacture a national unity crisis by enabling a referendum, and fanatics.

Nenshi said Smith is dragging Alberta away from the rest of the country to feed their “extremist fringe agenda,” and addressed her directly.

“Stop pretending that it’s just a citizen-initiated process and you’re just standing around watching,” he said in a mocking tone during his convention speech.

“I will be damned if I, if we, ever let Danielle Smith tear (this) country down,” he said to a wave of cheers.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Perfect speech.

Threatening to isolate yourself as a landlocked sovereign nation in response to not being granted access to tidewater? Brilliant.
Threatening to turn your domestic customer base into a foreign customer base if they don't shape the market exactly as you demand? Brilliant
Complaining about Federal overreach while demanding Federal overreach? Brilliant.

 

[PrairieFella]

I don't know what your whining about. Practically everyone on this forum and polling suggests there is zero chance Alberta separates.

If there are enough signatures and the question gets put to a referendum, that is a great example of democracy.

No matter which way the referendum goes I want major issues like this to be voted on by the people. If it's a clear result in "NO" than everyone can STFU and carry on. If it's a clear "YES" then the process begins. Isn't that how free countries are supposed to work?

I don't know how to spell it out any clearer, so I suggest you reread what I said in the past couple comments. I figured a guy who cares as much about Chinese influence and interference as you do would care equally about American influence and interference.

 

[QV]

That you categorize the CCP and the USA into the same bucket tells me much.

 

[PrairieFella]

That you categorize the CCP and the USA into the same bucket tells me much.

I categorize them together as they're hegemonic superpowers who follow the realist schools of international relations, especially since the US election. They have no friends, they have interests. If it's in their interest to interfere amongst the Chinese diaspora in the GTA, they will. If it's in their interest to foment unrest and fund a separatist movement in Alberta, they will. As a middle power we should be equally wary of both and negotiate with both on the best terms possible.

That's just realpolitik, we didn't choose the cards the Americans and the Chinese are dealing. I'd prefer the Liberal Realism or English Rationalism of the last century but that died in Nov of 2024.

 

[Quirky]

Threatening to isolate yourself as a landlocked sovereign nation in response to not being granted access to tidewater? Brilliant.
Threatening to turn your domestic customer base into a foreign customer base if they don't shape the market exactly as you demand? Brilliant
Complaining about Federal overreach while demanding Federal overreach? Brilliant.

Enjoy the show.

 

[PrairieFella]

Threatening to isolate yourself as a landlocked sovereign nation in response to not being granted access to tidewater? Brilliant.
Threatening to turn your domestic customer base into a foreign customer base if they don't shape the market exactly as you demand? Brilliant
Complaining about Federal overreach while demanding Federal overreach? Brilliant.

The point isn't independence, it's untenable for the reasons you state. The point is American intervention. Be it sanctioned or little green men. The rhetoric isn't dissimilar to the Eastern Ukrainian rhetoric in 2010-2013.

 

[RangerRay]

At what point does this because actual treason? Like actually, I'm curious on the legality of such.

The same reason all those implicated in helping Beijing or taking their side in our disputes with them weren’t charged with treason: the statute isn’t written that way.

 

[Halifax Tar]

At what point does this because actual treason? Like actually, I'm curious on the legality of such.

Never. Part of being in a free society means people have the right to leave too, democratically decided of course.

Canada, its system of gov, laws and legislation is just a social construct. It can be abandoned. That's why equal representation and patriotism are important in keeping the country functioning. We need people to buy into it.

Its the same reason we put up with Quebec and their secession movement.

 

[brihard]

Never. Part of being in a free society means people have the right to leave too, democratically decided of course.

Canada, its system of gov, laws and legislation is just a social construct. It can be abandoned. That's why equal representation and patriotism are important in keeping the country functioning. We need people to buy into it.

Same logic applies to any First Nations who wish to remain a part of Canada should other parts of Alberta choose to separate. After all, the treaties predate the social construct known as “Alberta” that was legislated into existence. Those First Nations wouldn’t in any way be obligated to join an Alberta rump state in separating, nor to cede their lands or resources to the said Alberta separatist state. Without FNs and their lands partaking in such a separation, the economic calculus changes considerably.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Same logic applies to any First Nations who wish to remain a part of Canada should other parts of Alberta choose to separate. After all, the treaties predate the social construct known as “Alberta” that was legislated into existence. Those First Nations wouldn’t in any way be obligated to join an Alberta rump state in separating, nor to cede their lands or resources to the said Alberta separatist state. Without FNs and their lands partaking in such a separation, the economic calculus changes considerably.

You get no argument from me. The same applies to any province wishing to try its hand at succession.

But that's not what the @PrairieFella was asking.

At what point does this because actual treason? Like actually, I'm curious on the legality of such.

 

[IKnowNothing]

AKA having one’s cake and eating it too.

Kinda like self-identifying and taxing as rugged conservatives while spending and providing social services/ safety nets like socialists.

It's a house of cards propped up by O&G royalties, without a meaningful nest egg built up for "what comes next"

 

[brihard]

You get no argument from me. The same applies to any province wishing to try its hand at succession.

But that's not what the @PrairieFella was asking.

Oh I know. I just enjoy the tortured rationalizing of people who think that Alberta would have the unilateral right to secede from Canada, but that FNs with pre-existing treaties wouldn’t be just as free to decline to bring their people or lands along with them.

The same people who say that Canadian law is just made up, and that separatism could disregard it, don’t usually have an answer for the dependence big business has on the stable and predictable rule of law. Capital isn’t going to flock to develop expensive heavy oil in a legally and politically unstable jurisdiction.

 

[Remius]

It's interesting when Que was going through a referendum I remember an outpouring of My Canada includes Que ect ect for some reason Alberta seems to be getting the opposite response and they haven't even decided to hold a referendum or not yet.

There have been a few referendums. That one had a very specific charm campaign.

But don’t kid yourself. There were plenty of people that were saying let them go. As a non quebecer francophone living in a majority English province my community got it from both ends.

 

[JLB50]

Oh I know. I just enjoy the tortured rationalizing of people who think that Alberta would have the unilateral right to secede from Canada, but that FNs with pre-existing treaties wouldn’t be just as free to decline to bring their people or lands along with them.

The same people who say that Canadian law is just made up, and that separatism could disregard it, don’t usually have an answer for the dependence big business has on the stable and predictable rule of law. Capital isn’t going to flock to develop expensive heavy oil in a legally and politically unstable jurisdiction.

Case(s) in point, the two referendums that Quebec had in 1980 and 1990 were both preceded and followed by large exits of capital primarily to Toronto but also to western Canada.

 

[dapaterson]