Trudeau: “They should also put their country first, as every single premier — except Danielle Smith — did.”
Smith: “His Dad crushed the lives of thousands in our province…we won’t let his son do it to our people again. Never.”
What if the unthinkable occurs, and Alberta leaves? What then?
Prime Minister Trudeau and his new friends are calling for a trade war with Trump’s America. They want to use Alberta as the sacrificial lamb. Premier Smith basically says, “Fool me once.”
We are headed for the cliff. Maybe we should think this through.
The idea of Alberta and western separation has been around for a long time. It began to be publicly discussed in the 1970s when Pierre Trudeau started playing fast and loose with Alberta’s gas and oil, but it turned into a raging fire when Pierre was re-elected in 1980, and brought in his infamous National Energy Program (NEP.) Those of us of a certain age well remember Elmer Knutson, and the even more passionate Doug Christie.
But western alienation also comes from the fact that Albertans have long struggled against a Laurentian elite that seemingly uses them as “hewers of wood and drawers of water”.
This doesn’t mean that Albertans are less attached to Canada than others. It does mean they understand what it means to be disrespected by their eastern overlords. In short, there could be a tipping point for Albertans.
If Trudeau, playing his Captain Canada role, insisted on sacrificing Alberta to — not “save Canada” but “save the Liberals” — that point might come sooner rather than later.
But, back to history. The NEP finally became history when Brian Mulroney put an end to it. During the time of both Preston Manning and Stephen Harper, western separatism just simmered quietly. But the 2015 election of Pierre’s son, Justin, brought it back to a rolling boil. Justin not only showed the same contempt for Alberta that his father did, but he also had what seems to be a visceral hatred for anything coming out of the ground that wasn’t a vegetable. Increasingly, since 2015, the topic of Alberta and western separation has been on many Albertans’ minds.
So, it should not surprise anyone that when Justin Trudeau seems to be performing his last dramatic role before finally exiting the stage — the savaging of Alberta’s gas and oil industries — that the forces of separation are now white-hot, although politicians are doing their best to deny it.
We have no idea how this will play out. Perhaps it can all be talked out, and we can go back to watching the hockey game, and discussing the weather.
But if things go south, perhaps those of us left behind waving goodbye to Alberta should consider what such a departure would mean for the rest of the country.
The consensus is that Canada will not become the 51st state, as Trump has mischievously suggested. This wouldn’t work for many reasons, including the fact that Americans wouldn’t want what we have become — namely, a rather poor, self-absorbed, socialist wokeaucracy.
But is it conceivable that America would want Alberta as a 51st state? You bet. Albertans are hard working, prosperous, and not so woke — and their province is a virtual piggy bank full of natural resources.
And is it conceivable that Albertans would accept an offer to become the 51st state? Although the first response might be a patriotic “No thanks,” once the reality that every Canadian dollar Albertans earned and owned might instantly become an American dollar, the answer would more likely become “Give me a minute here.”
Suddenly, the cost of a trip to Florida would be cut almost in half. A loaded F-150 would cost $60,000, instead of $100,000, no carbon tax, less income tax. Now, you are interested.
American citizenship would also mean that American universities and careers in California and New York would be available for one’s children.
And on and on. So, while some might still refuse the offer, many would accept.
This is all hypothetical, and we don’t know if the offer would be made or if made, would be accepted. But, play along with me here, if Alberta did become the 51st state, what would happen to the Canada that remained?
Quebec, for instance. Just as western separatism has been simmering since at least the 1970s, it has been in Quebec for even longer. There is no need in this short piece to go through that history in any detail — just to add that two factors might cause Quebecers to pull the plug finally.
First, in the next federal election — probably May of this year — there is a distinct possibility that the Bloc Québécois will become the official opposition. With a separatist party on full display in Ottawa helping a separatist provincial party, their “favourable conditions” referendum test might have arrived.
But, at least as important, if Alberta chose to leave Canada, would what remained even be of interest to Quebec? After all, Quebec’s “attachment” to English Canada has always been mainly about the money.
Quebecers, generally, have a commitment to Canada that differs from the one most non-Quebecers feel. Ours is largely emotional. Theirs isn’t. Their loyalty is to Quebec. They have remained in Canada primarily because most Quebecers believe — so far — that staying is in their best economic interests. But if more Quebecers stop believing that, and believe that they could separate with their distinct culture intact, they might do so. And it appears that is exactly what might be happening.
Oddly, Quebec is one of the reasons why Alberta might go. The “Fossil Fobia” that controls Quebecers’ minds — that peculiar Quebec mindset that hydro, wind, and solar are “clean” while Alberta’s oil and gas are “dirty” — has prevented the building of pipelines to eastern domestic and overseas markets, and that causes much of the angst in Alberta. It is not lost on Alberta that the eastern politicians are the very people who want Albertans to be the sacrificial lambs in the “trade war” they eagerly foment to save their own political skins.
And it is mainly Quebec that benefits from equalization payments largely paid by Alberta taxpayers — which drives at least some of the western unhappiness with the status quo.
Will the Trump factor be the tipping point that causes both Alberta and Quebec to leave?
If it leaves, Quebec could certainly not become a state. Its culture and language laws would not withstand a U.S. constitutional challenge. But perhaps some special status, like that of Puerto Rico, might be carved out for it. Or perhaps it could stand alone as a small country, if it could develop strong economic ties with United States, and whatever was left of Canada.
Would Saskatchewan leave with Alberta? Or perhaps parts of British Columbia as well? I suppose that would depend, in part, on whether America wanted them.
It’s hard to see them wanting my province, Manitoba. We depend on equalization money to get by. And even then, some people die in emergency rooms, or their own homes, waiting for health care. We have abundant natural resources, but any developer knows that any project will immediately be swarmed by Indigenous chiefs wanting their “duty to consult” Danegeld.
That, plus excessive environmental regulation, and stifling bureaucracy, leaves us in semi-invalid status. Northern Ontario and northern Quebec aren’t much better. (If Quebec separates, there is no guarantee that its northern indigenous occupied areas — or even Montreal, will leave with it.)
And, unless they begin developing their natural resources, the Atlantic remain little more than a picturesque retirement community, dependent on subsidies from the “have” provinces.
Can Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver survive with what is left, if Alberta and Quebec go? Would what is left even be worth preserving as a separate and sovereign country?
The answer, of course, is “Who knows?” This is all speculation that will hopefully become irrelevant if calmer heads prevail.
But right now, Danielle Smith seems to be the only “calmer head” around. She appears to have thought through some of the deeper questions when she argues for a reasoned approach, against the all-out war that Trudeau and some of the premiers seem to be lusting for. She also reminds us that we are in the mess we are today because Trudeau and his anti-fossil fuel zealots refused to let Alberta build the east and west pipelines that would have given it options, instead of just having the United States as a customer.
Trudeau himself insisted that there was “no business case” for developing our huge LNG potential and cultivating the eager Germans and Japanese as customers. Trudeau and his acolytes have put every roadblock they could think of in the way of Alberta’s efforts to develop and market its enormous natural resource potential.
So, let’s talk with Trump, as Smith advises, while Trudeau and his new friends go dashing “madly off in all directions.” And let’s not be fooled by Ontario Premier, Doug Ford, who is clearly exploiting the issue to consolidate his power.
Talking with Trump and his people, not flag waving, is the way to go on this file. Lower the temperature. In truth, Canada is probably far down on the list of the many important things Trump is thinking about right now. Poking the beast with our little spears is the last thing we should be doing.
Let’s calm down and listen to Danielle Smith. She is the adult in the room on this one. Beefing up our border security and military, and properly defending our north — Trump’s biggest demands — are things we should have done long ago anyway.
And Smith appears to be convincing at least two other premiers that her policy of non-belligerence is correct. Both Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, and Quebec Premier Francois Legault, appear to be moving over to her side.
So, let’s keep our heads, while others all around us are losing theirs. And let’s convince both Alberta and Quebec that staying in Canada is in everyone’s best interest.
Because Canada is worth saving.
Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
