Why it is that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is still desperately trying to sell Alberta separation as an option? It now seems there’s growing frustration with that option. That’s coming from a population only too willing to sign a petition telling Smith to forget about it.
Still, at first glance most news watchers would have assumed that Alberta’s teacher strike was Headline Number One, on Oct. 25, when over 10,000 Albertans STILL showed up on the steps of the Edmonton’s Legislature to conduct what was to become a pro-separation rally.
Despite her being a member of PM Mark Carney’s Team Canada trying to manage Canada’s economic climate while skirmishing with the USA in what is President Donald Trump’s declaration of a Tariff World War, Smith has never been silent about her “hopes” that Canada will eventually strike a deal that stabilizes resource traffic management between our two nations.
Unlike Premier Moe, who seems almost frightened whenever commenting upon the speed bumps that keep slowing down an agreement process (e.g.: his disfavour with Doug Ford’s Free Trade advertisements that have recently run on American television), Smith’s bogeymen start with former Jason Kenney staffer David Parker, whose “Take Back Alberta” cultists almost insanely believe that the province has already given away too much power to the federal government in allowing them to stifle economic growth, mostly as a result of postponed or waiting for approval projects touted by Big Oil lobbyists, while demonstration a complete disdain for standard provincial vs federal duties or responsibilities as are highlighted in Canada’s Constitution.
It therefore comes as no surprise to me that with Smith’s less-than-subtle way of “insisting” that voters must be given the choice in moving Alberta out of our Confederacy, pro-separatism speakers at the Oct. 25 rally came to Edmonton with absolutely no idea as how that process would work, and certainly knowing even less about how a nation formed on the backs of treaties negotiated between Great Britain and Indigenous leaders could take years or even decades to become accepted under international laws.
Even if Albertans were to vote for separation, few seem to understand that it must be assured of a strong economic base that won’t last if all that is supporting it is a royalty stream based upon oil resource export that in less than 30 is going to simply disappear. What’s more, even if Quebec separatists had won the 1995 referendum, the very idea simply died when the province’s future leaders in this new national identity would be without its northern lands and the economic stimulator known as the James Bay Development, its structure based upon lands covered by treaty with its Cree people.
To Smith, however, “getting the message out” to the sycophants and non-thinkers seeking to make Alberta a nation is the key to remaining in power after the next election, whether the eventual referendum returns a “Yes” or “No” on the ballot. Rob Breakenridge, a major contributor to “The Line: Alberta” podcast, sees that message being delivered in typical Trump style: confuse and baffle voters, to the point where they have absolutely NO idea as to what “benefit” future legislation will have upon the province’s economic pathway, but be certain that when an answer is arrived at, be certain that the feds will be blamed for any failure.
Nothing could be more obvious in our believing Breakenridge’s predictions than to take a look at the newly recalled legislature last week and what legislative gems were highlighted. For instance, it should have been obvious that Premier Smith’s first move would be to get striking teachers back to work – and Bill 2, the “Back to School Act”, complete with its Notwithstanding clause designed to roil organized labour leaders into considering a general strike in the near future did just that.
Wait a minute – Bill 2? WHAT was more to the UCP than the chance to beat up teachers? Why, Bill 1, of course, the “International Agreements Act”. What’s its purpose, you ask? To Breakenridge, it is merely a “follow-up” touting the same message as did the “Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act”, smoke and mirrors legislation that does absolutely nothing in a true legal sense save for voicing disfavour with any form of constitutional “meddling” into the affairs Alberta that the feds might undertake in imposing its will upon and of the province’s intended economic ventures when it comes to dealing with international concerns.
Bill 1 further implies that “any international agreement pertaining to a matter of provincial jurisdiction would have to first be approved by the Alberta legislature”, as might happen, UCP spokespersons suggest, were the UN and WHO to come up with an international policy that addressed the need for a battle plan finally be drawn up to deal with a future pandemic. Theoretically at least, Bill 1 would then allow the Alberta legislature to veto Ottawa’s acceptance of the WHO’s action, most likely by obliquely mentioning the “possibility of having to administer full public inoculation by untested vaccines” or patient quarantining due to the contagious nature of this future virus.
Missing from this theoretical debate comes the question, “What if Alberta refuses to take the necessary steps mandated by pandemic protocol? That answer is simple to form: ALL Canadian economic activity across international borders would cease, including personal travel – because this is an INTERNATIONAL agreement, not one between two entities, one of which resents the reality that it’s only a branch plant operation susceptible to the rules set down by head office and its national shareholders.
Now that Smith has acted, though, will Scott Moe stupidly follow Alberta’s moves as quickly as he has in the past? I’d hold my breath before answering that one…
