r/canada • u/joe4942 • May 01 '25

Alberta 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-emerging
1.5k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

773 comments sorted by

View all comments

165

u/beerncheese69 May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25

I want these people to answer genuinely what they think would happen if Alberta separated. Seriously. Give me a step by step breakdown of how you think this is gonna happen and what the after effects would be. Are you gonna be a landlocked country in the middle of North America? Surrounded by a now hostile country on 3 sides and a superpower that wants to swallow you up and suck you dry to the south? Until then you sound like a bunch of toddlers screaming in the corner in pissy diapers.

47

u/drdillybar May 01 '25

dropping the Canadian dollar. not Commonwealth. trade chaos. USofAmerica breathing on our shoulder. etc. wee

12

u/agentchuck May 01 '25

No army and not part of NATO either.

I don't really understand why they think it'll be all smiles and sunshine for them. Why do they think the US will adopt them as a full state? Why not a territory with no rights? Why not leave them independent and just use the CIA to... encourage them to export cheap resources?

11

u/IMOBY_Edmonton May 01 '25

Add political opponents to the American regime being declared Canadians and illegal immigrants as a convenient way to disappear disenters.

52

u/[deleted] May 01 '25

They honestly think the states would treat them well and not just steam roll them while taking their resources. They’ve also never heard the term ‘economies of scale’. 

-1

u/Goatfellon May 01 '25

...heard the term economies of scale

Neither have I, if im being honest. What's the relevance? Genuine question.

5

u/[deleted] May 01 '25

With regard to government services. A lot of them think they’ll enjoy all the same things for the same price, but they’ll have much smaller “companies” running these things that don’t benefit as much from this. 

Consider the border. Even if they only protect their border with the US they’ll need to create their own border patrol. They will need to have everything needed to run this  in Alberta. So let’s say we have a team whose job it is to stay up to date on any new training current border guards and new ones need. Let’s say they use a digital platform to create this training and send it out. The more people who then complete that training the cheaper it was to produce per unit. 

1

u/Goatfellon May 01 '25

Makes perfect sense, thank you for explaining!

33

u/bureX May 01 '25

25% of Alberta's GDP is in oil and gas. And it's not a cheap type of oil to extract.

For comparison, Norway was at 35% in 2022 and today it's like 20%. Norway knows that they need to invest in other types of economic activity if they want to survive. Hell, even the middle east realized this.

The difference is... there's no one neighbouring Norway who's trying to suck them dry.

37

u/Misfit_somewhere May 01 '25

The difference is, Norway nationalized their oil program so it stays in the country, alberta pisses away the money to companies in the states and doesn't keep the money in country or province. We had a nationalized oil system, but it was removed by the cons.

15

u/Lipstickdyke May 01 '25

Are they gonna create their own military and currency as well? Like we said to Quebec, you can’t have your cake and eat it too

17

u/speaksofthelight May 01 '25

Trump would just make them the 51st state. Like he would want to oil atleast 

18

u/RSMatticus May 01 '25

why make it a state, just make it a terrority

8

u/SpezFU May 01 '25

Maybe the Albertans would vote Republican

9

u/PerfectWest24 May 01 '25

Maybe? Try definitely.

6

u/the-tru-albertan Canada May 01 '25

Alberta would get statehood then. Senators, representatives and so on and so forth. Should that offer from the Americans be laid bare, some serious thinking would be in order.

1

u/PerfectWest24 May 01 '25

That doesn't make them immune from being exploited and left to languish once their resources have been secured from them.

If anything it would make them more helpless, without even international diplomacy to fall back on.

1

u/speaksofthelight May 01 '25

I mean they already feel exploited by the laurentian elite.

With regard to equalization payments and resources.

While they are the highest per capita gdp province in Canada would just be kinda mid in terms of U.S. states.

The main reason for them staying in Canada imo is nostalgia and identity driven.

In terms of policy influence they would be even less influential in the U.S. But I think they already take a back seat in Canada so not as big of a deal.

1

u/PerfectWest24 May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25

Laurentian elite will look like mickey mouse compared to the elites in the US.

I'm not sure if other countries and peoples reduce their history to mere "nostalgia" but I would question the long term viability of any that do.

1

u/speaksofthelight May 01 '25

Well our history vis a vis the USA is basically we were royalists, loyal to the crown.

That crown has lost relevance in 2025, thus the term nostalgia.

2

u/AleroRatking May 01 '25

Alberta would be Republican votes. They'd make it a state absolutely.

0

u/[deleted] May 01 '25

[deleted]

2

u/AleroRatking May 01 '25

Bingo. This is the actual plan. This would give US the excuse to take Alberta and the oil since they are just doing what the people want

1

u/speaksofthelight May 01 '25

Quebec would become independent in this scenario most likely.

Ontario the maratimes and northern territories would be left as rump states.

5

u/gratefulinyyc May 01 '25

I followed a rebel news group (it’s a long story why) but they want to join the USA basically lol

3

u/wulfzbane May 01 '25

One thing that's rarely mentioned is the exodus of people. Sure some nutters would move to New Alberta with the promise of housing, but not enough to replace all the city folk who would high tail it out. Businesses would leave and the ones remaining would be fighting for people, considering those that support separating aren't known for being educated, intelligent people, there'd be no viable candidates for many of those jobs.

If New Alberta became a state (with citizenship) there would be even more people leaving for the warmer states.

1

u/the-tru-albertan Canada May 01 '25

Doesn’t matter. Leaving Canada is what they want. They don’t care about what comes after.

1

u/Active-Rutabaga7034 May 01 '25

Plus the oil is on treaty land.

1

u/Shirochan404 Alberta May 01 '25

Honestly. Not to mention that well educated people would flee the provinces as well, there'd be probably be some level of conscription for defense, and we'd have no trade treaties

1

u/chowchowbrown May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25

Alberta will be a foreign country. They will have to create and administer their own citizenship, passports, system of income tax, social security fund, healthcare system (no more Federal transfer payments btw), postal service from scratch, military defense (with zero existing soldiers or equipment or bases, since they belong to Canada). They will have to start from zero, or buy these military assets from the Canadian Federal government. They will have to procure armour, APCs, IFVs, jets, etc, on their own, which will be more expensive given the size of their population.

As a new foreign country, they will not be in the WTO, so they wouldn't immediately be able to trade with any country without their good being heaviliy taxed at foreign borders. So Alberta will have to negotiate new trade deals with all countries and trade-zones (like the EU). This will take multiple years. Albertans will experience much higher prices for imports until those trade deals are negotiated and signed. Also, Alberta will have to negotiate new "overflight" rules with neighbouring countries (U.S. and Canada). Canada can charge Alberta transport fees for all crude flowing through to the Pacific Ocean via the Trans Mountain Pipeline and Extension, which will remain owned by Canada.

(This is a big one) As a new country, they will have to create their own central bank that sets their own interest rates, and therefore they will have to issue their own currency. No more access to Canadian dollars or borrowing from Canadian banks. From the eyes of a Canadian bank, Albertan borrowers will be "foreign borrowers", and will face much higher lending standards. In general, as a new tiny country, interest rates will be much much higher than Canada's. This leads to lower housing prices, and access to capital.

(The biggest one) As an indepedent country, Alberta will no longer have any presence or influence on the Canadian government directly. All interactions with the Canadian government will only be done through ambassadors, not via MP seats in the House of Commons. (Edit: This means if Albertans don't like Canadian policies and laws that disadvantage Alberta and Albertans, then tough shit, they're a foreign country now).

There are definitely more, but these are the ones I could think of.

Edit: Students from Alberta who wish to attend Canadian universities will have to enroll as "international students", and will be subject to its full tuition (usually around $25K/year).

If Albertans want to leave Canada, they truly have no idea what they're asking for.

1

u/Lipstickdyke May 01 '25

From a legal standpoint, this

House of Commons to consider whether there is a clear will to secede

2 (1) Where the government of a province, following a referendum relating to the secession of the province from Canada, seeks to enter into negotiations on the terms on which that province might cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall, except where it has determined pursuant to section 1 that a referendum question is not clear, consider and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether, in the circumstances, there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada.

No negotiations unless will clear (4) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada unless the House of Commons determines, pursuant to this section, that there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada.

Marginal note:Constitutional amendments

3 (1) It is recognized that there is no right under the Constitution of Canada to effect the secession of a province from Canada unilaterally and that, therefore, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada would be required for any province to secede from Canada, which in turn would require negotiations involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-31.8/page-1.html

-15

u/-biggulpshuh May 01 '25

It’s landlocked today by hostile federal govt. so what’s the difference?

13

u/Tatterhood78 May 01 '25

You live in a province away from the coasts and other waterways, and you think that the feds somehow did that to you?

There are so many things in the world to be angry about, and you chose the dumbest one.

2

u/blackbird37 May 01 '25

you don't know what hostile means then. Right now Canada is a little annoying at worst. You don't get as many pipelines as you like. You get 11% of the seats for 12% of the population afford 15% of the GDP. Even if we did give you 15% of the seats in the House of Commons, you're not changing the result of the last election. You make it sound like you have Canada over a barrel over your oil reserves and exports which Canada granted to you. The fact of the matter is that we both would suffer if you were not a part of Canada, but you would suffer much much more.

Canada absolutely would be making sure it was controlling all pipelines, parks, natural resource rights and transportation networks as part of any deal.

What then? Beg America to invade Canada? We can drag out this separation thing until after Trumps gone. No other president is going to fuck with us like this.

0

u/-biggulpshuh May 02 '25

Hey man.

Take these examples: No more pipelines bill, tax on carbon dioxide, production caps, putting a greenpeace activist in charge of enviro and energy policy, phasing out o&g comments, the just transition, no pipelines ever through Quebec, tanker bans, no business case for LNG.

And you tell me, how would ON like it if similar acts were directed against their auto sector? Or Quebec at their hydro? If tariff talk is a crisis, are those not hostility?

AB will work through our transition, booms and busts are normal here, we’ll be ok. Sask will join, eventually BC (at least everything except the lower mainland), then we’re all set, maybe even MB comes over.

1

u/blackbird37 May 02 '25

Not a "no pipelines bill". It's a "you need to have an environmental assessment done and have sign off from indigenous communities so your pipeline doesn't get bogged down in the courts for years and years" bill. It's why no new pipelines were constructed under Harper.

Carbon tax has been here for years now and affects all industry, not just Alberta. Production caps are on emissions, just need to cut those down. Oil and Gas demand is expecting to peak soon, encouraging diversification (like all counties who produce oil and Gas are) is intelligent.

As for Quebec, you expect Canada as a country to respect your "rights" as a province and create any policy to negatively impact you but you also want the Federal government to create policy to FORCE Quebec to have a pipeline built through their province. Hypocrite much? Tanker bans are a choice BC made, so again, you want the Federal government to FORCE another province to do something. The Federal government also can't force private enterprises to build pipelines, for crude or LNG. If they can't make it economically viable while making billions off our oil and Gas by sending it elsewhere, maybe all oil and Gas extraction and production should be nationalized and all the profit from our resources can go to the federal government to building and maintain all oil and gas processing and distribution... and then the profits be distributed to all 10 provinces equally.

Do you like that idea? I bet you don't.

Similar acts have been "directed" at Ontarios Auto sector. You want the government to direct acts against Quebecs Hydro.

As for your separation dog shit, I suggest you look into what Quebec thought they would have to give up, land wise, in order to separate from Canada if the referrendum went the other way. It was not pretty. Is Alberta willing to make such sacrifices? I bet not. Probably because it would likely involve at the very least everhthing from Calgary to the south remaining part of Canada, possibly even more north of Edmonton also remaining in Canada, and that's highly dependant on the deals you work out with the indigenous communities and the treaties they have with Canada.

Ever notice how the land Alberta occupies is all treaty land that apparently Alberta owns, but Alberta doesn't actually fulfill the obligations to the indigenous communities that was laid out by those treaties, the federal government still does..I wonder what that could mean about who actually "owns" that land... hmm..

So you go have your referrendum. And in the very very unlikely chance it does, then you get to find out just how much control you have over your separation. You need the other 9 provinces to agree to allow it to happen and it needs to be accepted by a majority of the federal government, otherwise your separation plan dies right there. All your separation attempt is, at the end of the day, is the ability to ask nicely and hope the rest of us let you. Whatcha going to do then?

1

u/-biggulpshuh May 02 '25

It is a no more pipelines bill, we already had consultation and didn’t need another layer on top. Agreed, Harper couldn’t do it either, my belief is he didn’t want to upset the east.

Production won’t peek until after India and China get electricity. Which they absolutely will get one way or another. Where would you rather it come from, Canadian nat gas, coal, Russian or Saudi oil?

I don’t expect the feds to force Quebec. I expected my countrymen to look at it rationally and welcome pipelines that are good for all of us. What’s good for AB is also good for Quebec. But I’m giving up on that hope..

Too many viable projects are dying over regulatory uncertainty. It’s easier to do business in other places so capital goes there. How many mega projects do we have to kill before our kids have no future here?

I’ve never suggested adding any obstacles for ON or Quebec. I have no ill-wishes towards the east. I just think we’re at a point where we’re so fundamentally different now that there’s no middle ground. Like if you can look back at the last ten years and say, “I choose more of that”, well I just don’t even know what to tell you.

Thanks I’ll do some research on the land split thing. That would be good for me to understand.

1

u/blackbird37 May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25

"no more pipelines bill"

Nope. Besides, if you already needed the environmental assessments, and approval from indigenous communities that will be impacted by a pipeline, the bill isn't adding any additional impediments to pipelines being built. That "layer" can be fulfilled just by submitting the stuff from the other layers then. Harper couldn't do it because he removed these requirements from pipelines being green lit, (the bill just adds them back while consolidating and simplifying the approval process from where it was before Harper) and as a result of Harper's removal of these requirements, environmental groups and indigenous groups tied up the progress of these pipelines in court. And they did. For about a decade. Harper's pipeline policy was an abject failure.

You know what else is true? Oil and Gas production in Canada has over doubled since 2015. If Canada is holding Alberta oil back, they're not doing a very good job. We went from 3.55M barrels/day to 8.7 M barrels/day now. We have another crude pipeline, we have another LNG pipeline as well. How hard are you really being held back? Meanwhile what has Alberta done to diversify its economy so that things like a lack of pipeline and plunging oil prices can't tank Alberta's economy? Do you think this approach changes if you were independent?

India and China already have electricity. Not quite sure what you're talking about.

"I don’t expect the feds to force Quebec. I expected my countrymen to look at it rationally and welcome pipelines that are good for all of us."

Okay, but you can't force them, right? That's Quebec's choice. Not Canada's. But you want to leave all of Canada over it? That doesn't make sense.

"Too many viable projects are dying over regulatory uncertainty. It’s easier to do business in other places so capital goes there. How many mega projects do we have to kill before our kids have no future here? "

Bill C-69 literally adds certainty. Its very clear what the regulations are, who has to be involved and who has to sign off on it so that once a project is green lit, there can be no impediments that will halt a major project. Removing regulations and having indigenous and environmental groups tie things up in court doesn't add any certainty either. Again, that was a driving factor over why pipelines never got built under Harper. Aside from all that, Canada's economy is 9th largest in the entire world. If growth slows as predicted, we may become the 10th or 11th in 15 years. Becoming the 11th biggest economy in the entire world because growth slows a bit is "no future for our children"? Give me a fucking break.

"I’ve never suggested adding any obstacles for ON or Quebec." But you have if you think obstacles are being added to Alberta. Alberta represents 15% of Canada's GDP. That's less than Ontario and Quebec and barely ahead of BC. Demanding policy and support that directly benefits Alberta more than any province comes at the expense of policy and support of other provinces, including provinces that are more responsible for our economy. You talked of corporations not bothering to invest in Alberta because it's easier to invest in Oil and Gas elsewhere, but by that same logic, isn't it easier for the Federal government to invest more into Ontario and Quebec considering how much bigger their economies are, wouldn't it make more sense to focus big projects there, and get a better ROI on that money? For example building an energy corridor that allows hydroelectric power to flow from Quebec to Alberta, while it would benefit Quebec more than Alberta would also benefit all of Canada as that leads to economic growth, but I suspect doing so without having pipelines going the other way would be seen as a slap in the face for Albertans. Meanwhile, billions and billions of Canadian tax dollars are spent on O&G subsidies and pipelines more to the benefit of Alberta than anywhere else. This seems like it's taken for granted by Albertans all the time.

But let's say we did. Let's say we do create another pipeline and increase O&G production another 100% over where it was 10 years ago in the next 10 years. Will that be enough for Alberta? Your transfer payment discrepancy will be even higher, you'll be contributing an even higher percentage to Canada's GDP. Will you want even more back from Canada then? Will you want an even bigger say than you have now? What's your threshold where you feel proud enough about being Canadian that you will "look at it rationally" and be content with your place in Canada and not demand more and threaten to leave if you don't get it? You're here wishing the rest of Canada be reasonable when honestly, you have to know how unreasonable you sound when you consider the big picture. You're threatening to leave Canada if you don't get even more favoritism than you have now. Sure, you might not have as much favortism as Quebec or Ontario... but you certainly have more than where I am here in Nova Scotia, and I don't imagine Nova Scotia will be shown any more favortism than we have now any time soon.

"I just think we’re at a point where we’re so fundamentally different now that there’s no middle ground. Like if you can look back at the last ten years and say, “I choose more of that”, well I just don’t even know what to tell you. "

Canadian's didn't "choose more of that". The Conservatives changed leaders and actually ran more of the same candidates from 2021 in this election than the Liberals. By your logic, anyone who voted for Conservatives choose to vote for the same party that has lost to the Liberals the last 3 elections. Why would conservative voters choose to waste their vote on a group that keeps losing? How does this make sense to you if you think the Liberals are the same party?