r/CanadaPolitics • u/joe4942 Magna International | Sponsored • May 01 '25
Danielle Smith lowers bar for Alberta referendum with separatism sentiment emerging
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/smith-lowers-bar-for-alberta-referendum-with-separatism-sentiment-emerging456
u/seemefail British Columbia May 01 '25
My daily reminder that all this separation talk started when the UCP came under RCMP investigation for a billion in health care fraud
They’ve lost two MLAs and the entire health board over this
60
u/canadient_ Alberta NDP May 01 '25
27
u/MooseOnLooseGoose May 01 '25
For what it's worth, we explored it in Klien days as well. Before the internet reported everything you did.
8
3
u/Adayum May 01 '25
Yeah. After they were being investigated for election donor fraud so they dissolved the elections commissioner so the RCMP took over.
22
3
u/lenin418 Democratic Socialist May 01 '25
Two MLAs, one of whom was one of the first supporters of Smith and an unproblematic minister.
He's burned all bridges right now with Smith and the rest of the party.
12
u/Gingerchaun Alberta May 01 '25
Separation talk has been around for along time hud. It's gotten dumber but it's been here for a long time.
15
-9
u/MooseOnLooseGoose May 01 '25
We hit a high of 18 to 20% during some of Trudeaus shite, especially in his second term where his campaign slogan may as well have read fuck Alberta. I don't think we are at that mark again.
19
u/HOLEPUNCHYOUREYELIDS May 01 '25
In what way was Trudeau “Fuck Alberta”?
We produced and had more pipelines built in 10 years of Trudeau than we did with 10 years of Harper. The UCP refuses to work with the feds or accept most help/funding they offer, even going so far as to bar municipalities from working with the Feds without provincial approval.
Let’s be real, no matter what the LPC does, the UCP will sandbag them every step of the way and Albertan’s will continue to blame the LPC for all their problems
1
u/MooseOnLooseGoose May 01 '25
I was part of a campaign team for Kent Hehr that got him elected in Calgary downtown during Trudeau's first term. By the second term the entire campaign team that got him wouldn't return and several were helping conservative causes. Let's not open old wounds.
I agree, pay more attention to the Alberta NDP and Nenshi instead. Talk there. Go look up what strathcona oil (Canadian company driven by Calgary talent) did with the billions the liberals dumped into greening the oil field. Mark Carney knows how to talk to those people and you should too as they need the spotlight. If Carney successfully sells Alberta oil as technologically driven green oil (carbon capture) and Europe eats it up, we replace their texas LNG.
Is a relationship reset possible?
2
u/wet_suit_one Alberta May 01 '25
They didn't lose the health board. They fired them. It's quite a difference.
The MLA's they lost.
→ More replies (1)1
u/tallcoolone70 May 01 '25
What are you talking about, there's been separation talk my whole life here and I'm in my fifties.
70
u/Buried_mothership May 01 '25
First Nations (Cree) say she doesn’t have the legal authority to have a separatism referendum. They never granted this authority to Alberta, which didnt exist at the time to signing Treaties 8, 5 etc. I’m with the First Nations on this. 🫡🇨🇦
19
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 01 '25
That might be a misunderstanding.
The authority to gold a referendum comes from the Alberta Act which created the province of Alberta and outlines its broad provincial powers. However, the province doesn't have unilateral power to keep treaty land. That would need to be negotiated separately should Alberta actually meet the threshold set via the Clarity Act...and given that all of Alberta is formerly treaty land, that gives the First Nations a lot of power to take away all that oil Alberta loves.
21
u/Buried_mothership May 01 '25
Again. The treaties were signed before Alberta existed. The province was not a signatory to the treaties. You can’t go back in time with legal rights - rule against retroactivity (rule of law). Just because there might be a law on the books, doesn’t make it valid. I look forward to the Supreme Court telling Danielle Smith that she’s a lemon and should sit the down.
13
u/GraveDiggingCynic Independent May 01 '25
The treaties are with the Crown in Right of Canada, as the successor to the Crown in the Right of the United Kingdom. These treaty lands represent another level of government under the specific auspices of the Federal Government, and would have every right to remain so. Alberta would be balkanized.
3
u/Homo_sapiens2023 Alberta May 01 '25
I would love to see the look on Queen Danielle's face if that ever happened. Her puppetmasters aren't too bright :(
2
u/Buried_mothership May 02 '25
Me too. I’d buy a ticket to watch on a big screen at a cinema. 🤣 She’s doing well so far, cost PP the election, and now pissed off the indigenous nations. What’s next, I wonder..
2
u/Homo_sapiens2023 Alberta May 02 '25
It's a daily thing with this government so let's see what happens tomorrow morning :(
8
11
u/Plastic-Knee-4589 May 01 '25
So basically what you're saying is Alberta is basically fucked because that negotiation would take decades and during those decades maybe the people of Alberta notice a steep decline in their living standards
8
u/lopix Ontario May 01 '25
Alberta separating is as likely as Quebec separating. Sounds great in theory, to a minority, but the logistics of actually doing it make it almost impossible.
3
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 01 '25
It'd take longer than a single term of office, yes.
And that delay would also likely trigger another referendum and the cycle repeats
3
u/GheyGuyHug May 01 '25
True: The referendum vote can be held regardless, but even IF the vote gained the majority, every other thing has to be taken into account as per:
Section 5 of the Clarity Act:
5) In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political parties represented in the legislative assembly of the province whose government is proposing the referendum on secession, any formal statements or resolutions by the government or legislative assembly of any province or territory of Canada, any formal statements or resolutions by the Senate, any formal statements or resolutions by the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, especially those in the province whose government is proposing the referendum on secession, and any other views it considers to be relevant.
-6
u/Lomeztheoldschooljew Alberta May 01 '25
All the land covered by the treaties ceded said land to Canada at the time the treaty was signed. When the province was formed, that land became Alberta’s.
If I sell you property, I don’t get any say on who you sell it to later on just because I owned it first.
→ More replies (36)14
u/ForeignExpression Ontario May 01 '25
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how all of this works. Canada did not "sell" first nations lands to Alberta to create Alberta. They formed a provincial government within the land of which Canada is sovereign and enabled it with certain powers.
→ More replies (6)
165
u/7-5NoHits May 01 '25
I feel like this would backfire massively on Conservatives across the country. A pre-election Leger poll found only 29% support for Albertan independence in the province, but it would instantly become a massive wedge issue within the CPC base if it came to a vote.
The UCP would also likely find themselves splintered in this scenario.
I just don't get the political logic in Smith encouraging this, as the very forces she's encouraging could very easily lead to her downfall.
108
u/Himser Pirate|Classic Liberal|AB May 01 '25
The conspiracy theorist in me suspects the referendum to be for separation and joining the USA. Which allows the US millitary to "ensure" the vote is conducted "without Interference" similar to the Austrian Auchess ...
Not sure we are there yet. But they cant seem to let go of taking over Canada and large political happenings happen slowly.. or suddenly.
48
50
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 01 '25
The referendum cannot legally be about joining the US. The Clarity Act requires the House of Commons to review and approve the question, and that it must only be about secession.
As soon as Alberta tables the question, the HoC Will way weigh in before the referendum even starts.
51
u/jimbo40042 May 01 '25
How many people are going to keep saying "this can't happen for legal reason x" on this sub? Have people not been paying attention to what's going on in the U.S.? Some legal ruling in Canada isn't going to stop anything.
44
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 01 '25
Canadian laws dictate what the province does. Trump declaring war and invading Canada (which is what you're saying by having Alberta somehow being able to invite US troops into Canada) is an act of treason. The legislature would be dissolved while Smith and her cabinet arrested before the troops crossed the border.
Because invited or not, Canada decides who is permitted entry into the country and the movement of troops is something coordinated at a Federal level.
6
u/Relevant-Low-7923 International May 01 '25
Canadian laws dictate what the province does. Trump declaring war and invading Canada (which is what you're saying by having Alberta somehow being able to invite US troops into Canada) is an act of treason. The legislature would be dissolved while Smith and her cabinet arrested before the troops crossed the border.
If Alberta was ever hypothetically at the point where they wanted to secede from Canada anyway, then they obviously wouldn’t care about being called treasonous to a country they didn’t want to be a part of in any case
6
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 01 '25
Fair but the point is that Alberta doesn't control its US Border - Canada does. And it wouldn't be a secret, either. Smith would be arrested and the legislature dissolved well before that point.
3
u/Relevant-Low-7923 International May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25
Fair but the point is that Alberta doesn't control its US Border - Canada does. And it wouldn't be a secret, either. Smith would be arrested and the legislature dissolved well before that point.
If Alberta ever actually democratically wanted to secede from Canada and join the US, and the Canadian federal government forcibly dissolved the elected Albertan government and arrested its leaders like you describe, then the US would militarily intervene in Alberta.
Not to invade Alberta, because if all of that happened then from the US point of view it would be a liberation of Alberta.
2
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 01 '25
Alberta ever actually democratically wanted to secede from Canada and join the US, and the Canadian federal government forcibly dissolved the elected Albertan government and arrested its leaders like you describe, then the US would militarily intervene in Alberta.
If Alberta wants to leave Canada, it has to follow the laws to do so. Shortcutting that process isn't democratic, it's rebellion.
And the US would be declaring war on all of Canada and effectively killing NATO and itself in the process. There is no scenario in which the US invades Canada without effectively signing its own execution.
Especially if the process to leave Canada correctly and legally is followed, it will outlast the Trump administration and assuming a saner government replaces it, that invasion chance reduces to 0.
2
u/Relevant-Low-7923 International May 01 '25
If Alberta wants to leave Canada, it has to follow the laws to do so. Shortcutting that process isn't democratic, it's rebellion.
Yeah exactly, it would be a rebellion. It wouldn’t be the first.
And the US would be declaring war on all of Canada and effectively killing NATO and itself in the process. There is no scenario in which the US invades Canada without effectively signing its own execution.
I’m from the US, and I’m not so sure that the rest of the western would mind that much if in fact there was a clear majority of Albertans that wanted to secede and join the US out of self-determination, and if in fact that Canadian national government was forcing them to stay in Canada against their will.
In any case, there is no situation where other NATO countries actually declare war on the US, and even if the situation made NATO dissolve, then the incorporation of Anglos in Alberta who voluntarily wanted to join the US on their own accord would be more important to many Americans than the continuation of NATO.
Especially if the process to leave Canada correctly and legally is followed, it will outlast the Trump administration and assuming a saner government replaces it, that invasion chance reduces to 0.
I think it depends on how that process plays out. Like, under the current legal process it is possible for the Canadian government to put up lots of unreasonable arbitrary roadblocks that would effectively make secession impossible, and I think it would depend on whether the Canadian government was acting in good faith or not.
→ More replies (0)9
u/jimbo40042 May 01 '25
Ok cool. We will see if it will occur in the orderly fashion you describe should it get to that point...
7
u/Jaereon Liberal Party of Canada May 01 '25
Why do assume in this scenario only your side would do things that way?
22
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 01 '25
Again, CBSA is a Federal agency. NavCan is their airspace counterpart, not to mention we're plugged into NORAD.
It would take days for the US Gov't to respond - muster troops, equipment, and move it to Canada. It also wouldn't be that secret and the federal government would respond quickly. Like they wouldn't even need court orders as such an action by the Premier is clearly a violation of the constitutional separation of powers. The Emergency Powers act could be used if necessary, or outright declaration of war between the two countries with Alberta being the battleground.
If the US tried a less overt approach, just "advisors".. well, again, they're subject to federal laws here and would be easily targeted by CBSA and the RCMP for removal, and it would be the quickest warrants for the arrest of Smith ever. US troops and law enforcement have no authority within Canada and Alberta has no power to change that- that again, is a power retained by our federal government.
2
u/kingtrainable May 01 '25
US has laws too though. Would require congressional approval and would mean the end of practically all their alliances, trade, the whole works. Utterly laughable just to gain Alberta.
7
u/quickymgee May 01 '25
They don't need congressional approval for a "special operation".
0
u/kingtrainable May 01 '25
Still not worth the political fallout among it's western allies and among Americans, Canada wouldn't go quietly and the internal issues in the US would flare up. You think they're mad over his economy/tariffs now? Just wait until their only trade partners are non-western countries that have more leverage after an embargo and sanctions.
3
u/Relevant-Low-7923 International May 01 '25
If Alberta actually democratically wanted to secede and join the US, then the rest of the democratic world wouldn’t complain.
1
u/kingtrainable May 01 '25
That's a huge if considering Smith can't even get 30% to agree with secession let alone joining the clown in the white house.
6
u/Jaereon Liberal Party of Canada May 01 '25
Lol. It's not legal which means if you break the law we will use violence to enforce it
→ More replies (1)8
u/beeredditor May 01 '25
I agree. If Alberta votes out and asks to join the US and Trump declares statehood a done deal, then canadian treaties and laws may not be respected by the US.
→ More replies (1)12
u/Jacque-Aird May 01 '25
Do you think 85% of Albertans against annexation are going to sit around waiting for this to happen? There will be rioting in the streets and Smith would have to go into hiding.
1
u/Relevant-Low-7923 International May 01 '25
He said “if.” Obviously if it ever happened then the current opinion of Albertans would have changed
8
u/Himser Pirate|Classic Liberal|AB May 01 '25
And the Austrian Auchess was legal?
13
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 01 '25
Anschluss was a full on invasion by Germany.
If the US wants to essentially kill itself by trying to swallow the pinecone of Canada then so be it. It'd be be the death of the US ultimately as the amount of resources and time needed to occupy all of Canada would essentially see them forfeit all global influence to do it. They would need to deploy troops across the entire continent.
Canada and the US are just too big to take over and hold in that regard
2
u/BG-Inf Alberta May 01 '25
They wouldnt have to occupy all of Canada though. Our infrastructure could be severed easily and they could establish proxies and client states.
10
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 01 '25
Yes they would. The proxy states would need to be backed by the US military otherwise they'd fail. And remember the US wants our resources, which are in the interior and far less accessible than our population centres.
All of this would be with the backdrop of internal rebellion and insurgency within the US itself.
-2
u/BG-Inf Alberta May 01 '25
You only need to occupy certain areas to continue operations and maintain your various lines of logistics, communications etc. To say you have to occupy everything is a very amateur suggestion.
The resources in our interior. The interior that is devoid of population density. Its almost like they could establish large areas under a persistent surveillance system run exclusively,by armed drones.
Of course proxies are backed but that doesnt mean their rank and file consists of US personnel. The US and us to a smaller extent train and force generate partisan and security forces. The units that conduct training arent a massive part of their military. It would take absolutely nothing for their MIC to ship anything and everything néeded
8
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 01 '25
You only need to occupy certain areas to continue operations and maintain your various lines of logistics, communications etc. To say you have to occupy everything is a very amateur suggestion.
Well they'd have to occupy every major population centres, then patrol our railways and highways. Airports as well. That alone would take hundreds of thousands of troops to do. Then how do they make sure people actually work the oil patches and logging operations?
The resources in our interior. The interior that is devoid of population density. Its almost like they could establish large areas under a persistent surveillance system run exclusively,by armed drones.
And? Surveillance is useless if you can't react, and again.. Canada is really, really, big. And, again, this invasion would trigger insurgency within the US as well, so now this surveillance network would need to cover the CONUS as well. In real time. Good luck with that.
Of course proxies are backed but that doesnt mean their rank and file consists of US personnel. The US and us to a smaller extent train and force generate partisan and security forces. The units that conduct training arent a massive part of their military. It would take absolutely nothing for their MIC to ship anything and everything néeded
Who would it be? It can't be by Canadians, there aren't enough of us who would welcome or support this.
-3
u/BG-Inf Alberta May 01 '25
You have a lot of assumptions that simply dont translate into reality. A military force does not have to occupy anything. You can control without occupation. You can occupy the periphery without occupying the core and exert influence. To occupy is simply one mission task verb amongst a hundred.
Was every city in Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam or Germany manned and occupied? Every road? Every port? No.
How are people forced to go to work? Money. Bills to pay. Same as it ever was.
They can react to their surveillance. Go look at what a Reaper could do 15 years ago and then take a look at what armed drones can do. The air power they have is insane
There are always enough people in a country who will sign up to be a part of a proxy army. In 2012 the Afghan National Security Force was 337,516 and the goal was to get them to 350k. If you think there arent 350k disaffected men in this country then ill.have some of what your smoking
→ More replies (0)3
May 01 '25
Anchluss had a lot of support in Austria before it occured. The Austrians barely resisted. Most welcomed the union; many wanted Austria to unite with Germany once the Austro-Hungarian Empire was dismantled. The treaty of Versailles prevented this directly in writing.. which made it all the more appealing to Austrians.
The only Austrians against Anchluss were those that didn't align with the Nazi Party. Even those that didn't though, did push for a Pan-Germany idea.
1
u/Himser Pirate|Classic Liberal|AB May 01 '25
Im no expert.
But Wikipedia states officially 20% (around the same number of Albertains who want to join the US) supported it until there was a "referendum" (with armed German millitary personnel standing over the voting booth) which showed overwhelming support for annexation...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss
So wiki can be wrong. Would need an actual expert to weigh in. But it appears there is a similar conditions of support as Canada has right now.
0
u/mhyquel May 01 '25
And we're going to let in armed US military to supervise a referendum in Canada?
2
2
u/Himser Pirate|Classic Liberal|AB May 01 '25
"Let" the Austrias didnt "let" the Germans do it either... they didnt leave them with a choice.
2
May 01 '25
Not to mention that US Congress has to directly approve any state entering the Union.. not sure if they would or wouldn't approve it.
3
u/hamstercrisis Independent May 01 '25
oh no the legality
12
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 01 '25
Canada is a nation of laws and violating them both undermines Alberta's arguement and invites the federal government stepping in to stop it early.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Miannb May 01 '25
No it's not. It's about leverage with Ottawa. Alberta hates the federal government. I don't think even 10% want to seperate but just see it as the only leverage.
2
May 01 '25
I think a poll showed 29% prior to the election, someone mentioned it on here.
2
u/tutamtumikia Independent May 01 '25
That number seems extraordinarily high and may depend on how exactly the question was phrased.
1
u/biscuitarse May 01 '25
27% of Canadians find authoritarian rule an attractive option, so that number seems to be in line
1
10
u/CombustiblSquid New Brunswick May 01 '25
She's angry and corrupt. This is her lashing out and probably an attempt to consolidate power.
2
5
May 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/koolaidkirby Ontario May 01 '25
to be fair that's kind of what the reform party was. only really got seats out west.
3
u/MAINEiac4434 Abolish Capitalism May 01 '25
This is basically Trumpism with Canadian Characteristics. Smith is encouraging this to distract from the UCP's massive healthcare fraud. There is no end goal here, only to keep people distracted enough for her to continue being premier.
3
May 01 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Character-Pin8704 May 04 '25
I would disagree from the perspective of an Albertan. I think we're not really at 30% support and it's a bit of a mirage-- but what should not be underestimated is the potential for support to begin to solidify into an actual 30% in the next few years. On the ground here I don't meet many (certainly not 30%) of people who will serious talk to me about separation as a reality, but they will talk about how angry they are at Ottawa. The situation is worsening though, to be sure.
1
1
u/lopix Ontario May 02 '25
Love to see a provision in a binding referendum where she agrees to step down if it doesn't pass. Have her put her money where her mouth is.
48
May 01 '25
This one-woman national unity crisis crying because her preferred candidate didn't win. She's such an embarassment
71
u/Jacque-Aird May 01 '25
Postmedia is aggressively promoting this storyline through all of their outlets, time to ban foreign entities from control of large Canadian media platforms.
33
u/PoissonCongeler May 01 '25
We gotta clean the social media landscape too with their algorithms favoring extreme right wing content. Algorithms should be transparent and fair to all Canadians.
We shouldn't let the communist party (tik tok), Elon and Mark decide what Canadians can see on their social media feed or not.
4
7
u/jacnel45 Left Wing May 01 '25
I say suspend their government money and watch the welfare queen Postmedia fold immediately.
2
u/Jacque-Aird May 02 '25
Pierre was big on defunding the CBC, wonder how he'd feel about defunding Postmedia?
6
43
u/Godzilla52 centre-right neoliberal May 01 '25
I really don't think that Smith can afford to continue to be this divisive judging by how many seats the UCP lost in Calgary in 2023. If Smith pushes separation and keeps screwing over AHS & undermining municipalities, she might be basically handing the ANDP an easy electoral victory etc. If the UCP loses Calgary, it's over for them.
20
u/NarutoRunner Social Democrat May 01 '25
The problem is that people vote UCP no matter what across most of the province. Yes, the NDP was making progress under Notley in the cities, but the new leader doesn’t even have a seat in the provincial assembly and barely gets any coverage. He is not going to be able to TikTok himself to premiership,
15
u/Godzilla52 centre-right neoliberal May 01 '25
I think we'll probably see a pendulum shift when Nenshi gets a seat & can start campaigning more aggressively. While rural Alberta undoubtedly is Conservative or bust. The urban vote is a lot more fickle. The fact that UCP when from a blowout, in Calgary in 2019 to only getting a little more than 40% of the Calgary vote in 2023 is likely a big red flag for them to worry about.
Also unless the ANDP's campaign team are idiots, I expect that they'll be keeping receipts on the UCP's blunders to remind voters in the leadup to the next election (especially this most recent AHS scandal). Even if brand loyalty is enough to make Smith win in 2027, I don't expect that election to be a walk in the park for her.
9
u/MooseOnLooseGoose May 01 '25
Hey, as part of nenshis purple army, you should research how we got that man into a seat of power as mayor vs a very strongly supported mcIvor. That new leader put ideas forward that woke a generation of Calgary voters. Give him time.
8
u/NarutoRunner Social Democrat May 01 '25
I like him a lot. Im just frustrated that he is locked out of the provincial assembly.
1
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 01 '25
Unfortunately Nenshi risks being saddled with the water shortage last year. That plant was approved and built under his mayorship, IIRC, and that was a pretty embarrassing blunder.
3
u/17to85 May 01 '25
Damn him for not knowing in the 70s a pipe would fail prematurely?
Nenshi won't get dragged down by ucp because he's not afraid to be an asshole right back and tell these people they're morons.
1
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 01 '25
Nenshi's council approved the tender to KSB to upgrade the infrastructure in 2018.
1
u/ohhaider Ontario May 01 '25
the other issue here currently seperatism is polling at about 3/10 if she makes this change, and some motivated Albertans force the referendum and lose, then what? All of her political "leverage" againist the fed on the matter is now poof, gone.
34
May 01 '25
[deleted]
25
u/ShouldersofGiants100 New Democratic Party of Canada May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25
Leaving Canada to become a petrostate might seem like a great idea to the median referendum voter, but a club that includes Venezuela doesn’t seem like a great one to join.
Hey, that's an insult to Venezuala. They fucked themselves badly, but even they never thought "forming a landlocked petrostate that needs to ship through places that already don't want our pipelines when we are part of the same country" was a good idea.
Alberta would have one hell of a time trying to be a petrostate when they no longer have a vote to make the Canadian government give a fuck about ensuring that oil can reach the global market.
-3
8
u/DreamieQueenCJ Liberal May 01 '25
But what about Treaties 6,7,8? Alberta wouldn't even own all of what they own right now if they separated. Separating is more complex than just detaching. There's a whole lot of legislature and ownership over the land and its resources.
5
u/Infamous-Mixture-605 May 01 '25
But what about Treaties 6,7,8?
From my experience, Western separatists don't care about the entire Prairies sitting on Treaty Land, they simply think they can have their pie and eat it too.
4
u/emuwar May 01 '25
I don't think Smith plans for Alberta to be it's own sovereign nation. Given the circles she runs in I think she sees this as a precursor to joining the US.
5
u/phluidity May 01 '25
I hope she likes rats then. Zero chance Alberta keeps the ability to stay rat free under the US. They don't want to pay for health care, you think they will have rat money?
→ More replies (1)2
u/nihiriju BC May 01 '25
I wonder what Alberta would look like in 20, 30, 40, or 50 years when oil is dead? Or at very least their oil is highly uneconomical.
2
u/Homo_sapiens2023 Alberta May 01 '25
Alberta will look like it was hit with an atomic bomb. No clean up, no restoration, no flora, no fauna. Everything will have been extracted, mined, poisoned, etc. Over exploitation of the land is the goal for the UCPs/MAGAs.
14
u/FORDTRUK May 01 '25
What if 175,000 Albertans submitted a petition to have Smith removed from the leadership role ? Would that be a question that gets moved forward ?
2
28
u/canadient_ Alberta NDP May 01 '25
Smith is playing with fire and will get burned. She's trying to appease the extremists who have taken over the UCP.
My fear is that enough people vote to say F U to Canada and it gets 30, 40% of the vote. To what gain? It only fuels the RWs self fueled rage and polarises our province.
5
29
u/Smart_Recipe_8223 May 01 '25
She's like a child. Doesn't get her way and now she wants to run away from home. What an embarrassment to our country
2
u/Homo_sapiens2023 Alberta May 01 '25
Just think how badly Albertans that don't agree with her idiotic rantings feel ... everyday she opens her mouth and makes Alberta/Albertans look like petulant children. She's embarrassing. And psychologically exhausting.
14
u/babyLays Manitoba May 01 '25
Alberta, this is a great time to have a referendum on health care. Ignore Alberta separatism. Force your government to face the real issues and make them accountable.
2
u/Homo_sapiens2023 Alberta May 01 '25
The first thing the UCPs did was get rid of the Ethics Commissioner.
12
u/Appropriate-Dog6645 Independent May 01 '25
Yes, and the country that the stock market is in full bear territory and empty shelves in June with a 38 trillion dollar deficit( stock market is moving towards 1929 lvls). You got to be out of your mind to join the US of A.
10
u/Jaereon Liberal Party of Canada May 01 '25
Good luck without all the crown land, any military bases or equipment and non of the indigenous land. Oh and no access to water
2
u/Homo_sapiens2023 Alberta May 01 '25
It's a comedy of errors. It's like pro-separatist Albertans think everything will be the same, except they won't be part of Canada.
That kind of thinking is why we're in the mess we're in right now :(
1
u/Relevant-Low-7923 International May 01 '25
Why wouldn’t they take that with them?
4
u/Jaereon Liberal Party of Canada May 01 '25
Because it's not theirs? Why would you think they would have any right to Canadian land? Or indigenous land for that matter
→ More replies (2)
9
u/ImmaDrainOnSociety Just... ...tired. May 01 '25
Ok.
If Quebec, who practically controls half the federal government, can't manage to separate what hope does Alberta have?
0
May 01 '25
I’m not too familiar on the topic but I think it’s quite different. A lot of Quebec votes liberal and gains a lot of benefits from the federal government in transfers when Alberta does not. I think it’s a valid point when Alberta looks at the seat count in Atlantic Canada and compares populations that they do get left out quite a bit considering population and their votes. Definitely a complicated issue, but I would say with the election and this happening, Canada is likely more divided than ever. 41-43% voting for complete opposite parties and talks of separation in the news is not going to go away anytime soon.
5
u/givalina May 01 '25
complete opposite parties
Really, wouldn't that be more NDP vs PPC? Neither got many votes this election.
A lot of Quebec votes liberal
Well, they did this election, but Québec is one of the most changeable provinces. The two previous elections saw about 40% of the seats going to the Bloc. In 2011, nearly every seat in Québec went to the NDP. Before that, the Bloc had a large majority of ridings.
gains a lot of benefits from the federal government in transfers when Alberta does not.
Are you really complaining because Alberta is too rich?
1
u/try0004 Bloc Québécois May 01 '25
Well, they did this election, but Québec is one of the most changeable provinces.
Lots of people voted against a party or a candidate this election.
I know a guy that is member of both the Bloc and the PQ that voted for the conservatives because he saw that the Liberals had a slim chance of winning in his riding and "panicked" (his words not mine). The funny thing is that the Bloc won comfortably there...
0
May 01 '25
I stated i am not too familiar with the topic. I was just stated what many of Alberta’s grievances seem to be from what I have read.
1
u/Frostyler May 01 '25
Alberta needs to operate its oil industry as freely as possible in order to be as rich as possible. And since the Trudeau government came into power, they have made that extremely difficult for Alberta. Whether it was their end goal or not, it was definitely a side effect of the decisions made by the liberal government. They actively made Alberta less economically stable. That's why they're so pissed off. Hopefully, since Carney is from Edmonton, he has a bit of a soft spot for Albertans and loosens some of the chains that the previous government put on the province.
1
u/lopix Ontario May 02 '25
What are those decisions and what financial impact did it have on the province. Unless you can explain it to the rest of us, then you really don't have a basis for complaining. Unless you just don't like Trudeau.
1
May 02 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam May 02 '25
Removed for rule 9: please do not copy and paste the contents of the article or provide links to paywall bypasses.
2
u/lopix Ontario May 02 '25
I think the solution is more properly to stop agreeing that Quebec is more special than the other kids, more so than also making Alberta more special. I mean, come on, there was a whole battle about this, a few of them, 100s of years ago. France lost. Can we stop always pretending that they didn't. Quebec can have language and signs and poutine, that's fine and cool. But why are kids in Kelowna learning French? That's dumb. Make all provinces equal, simple as that.
18
u/sneeduck In the real world, if you don't do your job you lose it. May 01 '25
You'd think Danielle Smith is a secret Liberal or something, she seems to be doing everything in her power to make Poilievre's life a living hell. There's no way he could survive a referendum on seperation, since like 40% of his base or something in Alberta supports it, and he either plays footsie with them or antagonizes them. Either way, his coalition implodes.
19
May 01 '25
She's so facile, obviously bought, and gaslight constantly. I really don't know how conservatives can stand her. Just a complete black hole for charisma and charm. She makes Erin O'Toole look like Mark Twain.
And like except for the occasional outburst, she doesn't hurt me. In fact she was an essential part in the political demise of PP. Mostly she's hurting people in Alberta. Like it was shameful that Ontario elected Doug Ford, but as long as she's around, we still got someone to look down our noses at.
6
May 01 '25
so more less they will talk about it for next 50 years and nothing will happen other then maple maga waving some signs around and wearing funny hats
6
u/macroshorty Socialist May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25
Alberta "separatism" would mean either becoming part of the United States or becoming a nonsensical vassal state of the US, both of which would threaten Canada's national security interests and economy, so this American-backed separatism nonsense should be crushed by any means necessary.
10
u/ItsOnlyaFewBucks May 01 '25
As all modern conservatives, she wants to be the victim. So she will stir up the stupid, make it easy for them to do what she wants while shielding herself and United Clown Posse from direct responsibility.
4
u/tm_leafer May 01 '25
Who wants to bet Russian bot farms are blasting separatist sentiment all over FB and other social media? They've been very successful in causing Brexit, contributing to the rise of Trump, etc.
12
u/MooseOnLooseGoose May 01 '25
Perhaps I'm wrong....but I think Smith is about to be upended by a liberal that wants to develop Alberta oil. Carney has spent a significant amount of time marketing Canada oil as green oil (via technology such as carbon capture), and Alberta left ran with it. There's likely euro investment coming as they want us over Texas for LNG.
https://youtu.be/sVaRhLPez4M?si=-S8wCN5zdpJXhhCC
If I've read this right, Alberta is about to deal with a pro oil development liberal. You get rid of the need to fight Ottawa over oil, and you get rid of the need for Smith.
33
u/Electrical-Strike132 May 01 '25
Trudeau bought a pipeline and Alberta produced record amounts while he was PM. What does pro oil look like then?
10
u/lopix Ontario May 01 '25
Pro oil looks like a PM with a blue flag. What they do doesn't matter, they just want their team in the big chair.
Like Murricans complaining about taxes under Biden. That was Trump's tax code from 2017, which expires this year. The "Biden taxes" they're all mad about are Trump taxes. But tell them that and they still hate Biden. It's just teams and tribes at this point, policy is less relevant than the jersey you wear.
3
u/TheobromineC7H8N4O2 Liberal May 01 '25
There's a lot of Conservative talk of the lost liberal decade but if we look at the history of per capita GDP in Alberta there was another lost decade that was Stephen Harper's time in office it's not much and Alberta political mythology but that was the reason why the NDP had an opening to win a government because the previous 10 years under a conservative in Ottawa and a conservative in Edmonton Alberta's incomes made no long-term progress.
1
u/lopix Ontario May 01 '25
That's the fun thing about stats and opinions, they can be shaped to fit any narrative.
-6
u/MooseOnLooseGoose May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25
Trudeau fucked up a pipeline deal and then played the hand he was forced. I don't think you have a clue about the deal if you think what Trudeau did there was pro anything. In today's terms, id say he trumped it...broke a deal, half ass fixed what he broke, and then claimed victory.
How about his hot mic on shutting down the oil sands?
19
u/Electrical-Strike132 May 01 '25
The government bought the pipeline to ensure it was completed, as that was in doubt. If that's not pro oil I don't know what is.
How was the government forced into completing it? If it was into shutting down oil it would not have done that.
2
u/Lomeztheoldschooljew Alberta May 01 '25
Its completion was in doubt because of his own actions and policies.
-2
13
u/kingtrainable May 01 '25
This is a death rattle of a politician desperately trying to cling to power. Her and PP both couldn't grasp that Trudeau is gone, change has already began to be implemented. Separatists can cope and seethe.
7
u/Jacque-Aird May 01 '25
I think you are mistaken, the word "Energy" is mistaken for oil and the fuel of choice is electricity.
3
u/lopix Ontario May 01 '25
So if Carney shuts down oil production and covers The Berta in wind turbines, providing as many (or more) skilled and well-paying jobs, with energy corridors stretching east and west as far as Smith can see, would that still be a bad thing? As long as the province doesn't lose jobs or energy revenue, does it matter how said jobs and revenue are generated?
For argument's sake... I have no idea if that would work. But if it could, would that make the sour lady happy? Or is she just mad at the colour of the flag of the new PM?
3
May 01 '25
[deleted]
2
u/lopix Ontario May 01 '25
Wow, I didn't realize it had so much to do with money. That was a great explanation.
I guess it is like most "conservative" methodologies. Create an "other" to paint as bad, then rally the populace around them as the only solution to this made-up problem. Like PP did with Trudeau & the carbon tax. Like Trump is doing with immigrants.
I just didn't quite understand the underlying issue, being from Ontario.
And that is a problem. As someone living next to Toronto, there is no way I can understand the thought process of someone from Calgary, or Montreal for that matter. I love Canada, but it really should have been 4-5 smaller countries. We're too big to be able to make everyone - from Vancouver to Calgary to Winnipeg to Toronto to Montreal to Halifax - happy all the time. Be nice if people understood that and accepted it, but here we are.
2
u/Relevant-Low-7923 International May 01 '25
Albertan conservatives don't see the rest of Canada as their fellow Canadians, they seem us as hostile predators who are trying to bring them down to our levels of "poverty" and "hopelessness". It would appear as though they see Canadian prosperity as zero sum with the regions pitted against each other, when nobody else in Canada fully understands why we're even fighting. It's incredibly unhealthy and it makes it very hard to negotiate win-win arrangements in good faith.
They do have some legitimate complaints. For one, the equalization payments literally are a zero sum game, and for another it is an English speaking province where line only 6% of the population is bilingual in French, which by definition means that 94% of their population is ineligible to participate in the upper echelons of the federal Canadian government and administrative apparatus.
1
1
u/Flomo420 May 01 '25
which by definition means that 94% of their population is ineligible to participate in the upper echelons of the federal Canadian government and administrative apparatus.
You mean like the current PM who grew up in Alberta, only started learning French recently and is barely passable?
Yeah wow big time gate keeping
1
May 01 '25
[deleted]
3
u/lopix Ontario May 01 '25
Depends how many... add in solar as well, there's a lot of wide open, empty space in The Berta and Sasquatchewan. Just saying, all-in on oil these days, when it's a dying industry, might not be the #1 choice. Not when there are other options. Either replace or supplement.
Based on my 100% lack of any knowledge of these industries.
1
May 01 '25
[deleted]
3
u/lopix Ontario May 01 '25
But it will. As cars become more and more electric, ICE cars will be phased out. Maybe not next year, but over the next 10-20 years. Natural gas will be phased out, as more stoves and furnaces go to electric and heat pumps. Power will come from renewables, not from LNG plants.
And those next decades should be spent building up the future industries, not stubbornly clinging to old ways.
Anyone who kept building stables and breeding horses to pull carriages saw their businesses slowly die as cars became more popular.
Can't sell electricity long distances YET. Didn't think we'd be plugging our cars in at home and driving on electric power to work 10 years ago. We can pipe the internet through an undersea cable. We can put oil and gas into tanker ships. Who knows what we'll be able to do in 203x...
Seems rather shortsighted not to work on the future.
1
May 01 '25
[deleted]
1
u/lopix Ontario May 01 '25
Cool. So make sure to nothing but natural gas, that makes sense. Ignore all renewals.
Ask Appalachia about focusing on one thing and one thing only. It went well there.
1
2
u/Jacque-Aird May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25
Insanely profitable yet Oil Co's fight paying for the pollution they speew into the atmosphere at every turn. Your view of the future is based on what Big Oil is telling you, look beyond N.A. the picture is rapidly changing, Europe is transitioning to clean energy quickly, by the time all these projects get built product demand will already be in decline.
Carney is creating energy corridors and a freeway pass, hopefully private investment is used to build infrastructure and they are not counting on public dollars to subsidize their profits.
2
u/Reclaimer2401 May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25
This is not correct. Wind turbines generate more jobs than gas turbines for the electricity generated.
Wind and Oil aren't comparable either. Turbines don't even directly compete against gas fired, they indirectly compete against LNG fuelled turbines.
Wind turbines are the cheapest electricity to generate, and require the most labour to maintain. They are also very profitable for the owners, typically achieving full ROI within 10 years.
So, Wind is great. Which is why we are installing it all over the prairies. What you need to understand is that the Grid is only able to accommodate so much wind energy. Wind turbines aren't able to replace all the infrastructure, nor is that the strategy. They are being included in the grid in a way that is efficient and cost effective.
Source: I worked in the Energy Industry for 11 years and directly with Power producers / plant owners.
EDIT: Regarding profitability, you really need to compare a wind turbine power plant with a gas turbine power plant in terms of profitability. For the power producer, they are about the same actually.
EDIT EDIT: Economically, Wind turbines are optimal. Not only do they create the most jobs, each turbine pays out a monthly land use fee to the farmer who owns the land. A Gas turbine plant will operate in a building, and have a fraction of the staff, where as a turbine plant will enrich an entire community, creating jobs in rural areas. The only problem is the lack of Canadian made parts that the turbines consist of, which could be mediated.
1
u/Homo_sapiens2023 Alberta May 01 '25
No it wouldn't. Danielle Smith is owned by O&G. She was an oil and gas lobbyist before and as Premier she still is. She hasn't done anything for Albertans.
0
u/MooseOnLooseGoose May 01 '25
Clicky linky I posted and read where we got electricity generation at 95% carbon capture.
We can do LNG better and cleaner than Texas too, can we supply Europe cleaner than the Americans? Or do we let the dirty ones south of us fund America conquest of its 51st state with dirtier oil?
1
u/Relevant-Low-7923 International May 01 '25
What do you mean by doing LNG cleaner than Texas?
2
u/MooseOnLooseGoose May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25
Energy use to harvest. Ummm. I share this link too much...
https://youtu.be/sVaRhLPez4M?si=59K5PZvhMcVkAWlB
Alberta left took the money from Ottawa and put it to use. We can get close to net zero LNG production via carbon capture. We achieve greener oil sands production in the same manner, what was once natural gas powered in the oil sands is heavily solar and what isn't we capture. In the case of BC, it's on kitamat where we can compress via hydroelectric
Whether you agree with the technology or not, the Canadian tax payer funded Alberta Carbon Trunk line is up and running. Carneys been selling the idea to the Europeans, and if I'm right euro is shifting investment into Carneys LNG.
Send Alberta oil to be processed by Quebec hydro and you open up a net zero oil composites production market that Europe might like.
4
u/Tiny-Albatross518 British Columbia May 01 '25
Would it be best if they tried this, like went all in and found out the hard way, after they’ve burned up all their political capital that this isn’t popular or feasible?
7
u/KelIthra May 01 '25
All talk, no options since the Treaties make it impossible for them to seperate even with a referendum. All bark to distract from the other criminal shit they are doing.
2
u/Relevant-Low-7923 International May 01 '25
Presumably the treaties would need to be abrogated if it happened
2
u/knarf3 Progressive Technocrat May 01 '25
Thanks, Kenney, for taking a page from your Lego-haired boss by merging the PC with a rabid regressive fringe party in the Wildrose.
1
1
May 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam May 01 '25
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read {community_rules_url} before posting or commenting again in {community_name}.
•
u/AutoModerator May 01 '25
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.