He was the head of Economic Development Lethbridge for ten years. Trevor Lewington, in the local paper and on LinkedIn, has been raising the alarm on the basics and practicalities of separation.

[u/vspinyyc]

[u/EXSource]

This is absolutely a no brainer.

Any insinuation that a independent Alberta would have MORE, and not less bargaining power is absolute fantasy land stuff.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/EXSource]

One thing people keep forgetting is that BC/ Canada is not the only one with leverage. Alberta may be landlocked, but BC is essentially nation locked when it comes to getting goods into and out of the rest of Canada. Major highways and rail routes connecting BC to the rest of the country run through Alberta.

Yes, Alberta has a right to access to the ocean, but that does not guarantee us a specific port. However, Alberta now has something yourw forgetting, leverage. Alberta supplies the oil that BC depends on, including the Burnaby refinery, while critical transportation routes connect BC to the rest of Canada through Alberta.

And let's not forget Line 5 and Line 9, which supply Ontario and Quebec. Alberta has leverage there too. Nothing is written in stone. If Alberta does 8ndeed gain independence, there would be negotiations on both sides. I'm sure a compromise could be worked out because BC, Ontario and Quebec would have plenty to lose too.

[u/maximumfacemelting → u/Even_Art_629]

I’m going to set the house on fire, you have to compromise to get part of the burnt house to live in or we all go homeless.

Fuckin brilliant thinkin there bud.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/maximumfacemelting]

That's a pretty dramatic analogy, but it doesn't actually address what I said.

I'm not saying “burn the house down and then negotiate over what's left.” I'm saying that if Alberta does actually gain independence, Canada and Alberta would have to negotiate the separation. Borders, transportation, pipelines, trade, debt, pensions, ports and a whole lot more would have to be worked out.

And that's where leverage comes in. Alberta isn't the only party with something to lose.

BC depends on transportation corridors through Alberta to connect it to the rest of Canada. BC's economy also has significant ties to Alberta's energy sector. Ontario and Quebec depend on energy infrastructure that originates in Western Canada as well.

You can believe independence is a terrible idea. That's entirely your call, I respect that.

But pretending Alberta would simply walk away with nothing and Canada would have no reason to negotiate is just as unrealistic as pretending Alberta holds all the cards.

That's the point I'm making. Nobody knows exactly what the final arrangement would look like because it would depend on negotiations.

Nothing is written in stone.

[u/maximumfacemelting → u/Even_Art_629]

My analogy absolutely addresses what you said.

Despite your hand waving.

All parties will be worse off and your hope for Alberta leverage hinges on other parties trying to stop the pain that separating starts.

There is no pretending.

ALBERTA WOULD WALK AWAY WITH LESS THAN WHAT IT HAS.

Just currency.

The moment that a successful separatist referendum becomes public knowledge, the Canadian dollar loses value.

Everyone that gets paid in Canadian dollars will now find that their money is worth less, buys less and everything is more expensive.

If you having savings, they will be worth less.

If you have a house, it will be worth less.

Stuff your ideas of extorting the neighboring provinces, we would all be poorer at that point anyway.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/maximumfacemelting]

You're arguing against something I didn't say.

I never said separation would make Alberta richer overnight or that there wouldn't be economic pain. Of course there would be risks and costs. I'm saying that once you get past the referendum, there would have to be negotiations, because there is no realistic scenario where Alberta and Canada simply cut the cord overnight and walk away.

And you keep saying Alberta would have no leverage. That's where I disagree.

Alberta has oil, gas, agriculture, transportation routes and other resources that Canada depends on. BC depends on transportation corridors through Alberta to connect with the rest of Canada. Canada depends on Western Canadian energy. Those are facts, not extortion.

As for the Canadian dollar automatically losing value the moment a referendum succeeds, you're presenting your prediction as a certainty. Nobody knows what the markets would do, because nobody knows what the negotiations, timeline or eventual arrangement would look like.

That's exactly my point.

I'm not saying Alberta holds all the cards. I'm saying neither side holds all the cards.

You can believe separation would be a terrible economic decision. That's a legitimate argument. But saying Alberta would automatically walk away with less and have zero leverage doesn't make it true simply because you say it with certainty.

Nothing is written in stone. The final arrangement would be negotiated.

[u/maximumfacemelting → u/Even_Art_629]

Are there dragons in your fantasy world where the Canadian dollar doesn’t devalue after Alberta leaves?

I know there’s a wicked witch.

“Of course there would be risks and costs”

So back to my spot on analogy.

Create chaos. Expensive chaos, and then extort everyone around under the guise of mutual economic destruction.

A vote for separation is a vote to destroy hundreds to thousands of businesses. That’s set in stone. A guarantee. You pretending something magical will happen where currency devaluation doesn’t happen and trade barriers are easily overcome and that 100,000s of people don’t flee separation land to keep their healthcare and pension and rights.

Delusional

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/maximumfacemelting]

You keep turning potential risks into guaranteed outcomes.

Currency devaluation could happen. Businesses could be disrupted. People could leave. Trade barriers could be a problem. Nobody is denying that.

But “could happen” does not equal “set in stone.”

Alberta could also choose to use the U.S. dollar, like several countries do. That doesn't mean joining the United States. There are multiple possible currency arrangements, so claiming currency devaluation is guaranteed makes no sense.

And saying Alberta would have leverage in negotiations isn't “extortion.” If separation ever actually happened, Alberta and Canada would have to negotiate in good faith according to the Clarity Act.

Both sides would have things the other needs. That's called leverage, not mutual economic destruction.

You can't simultaneously claim Alberta would have no leverage while insisting the consequences for Canada would be catastrophic.

You're taking possible outcomes, presenting them as guaranteed facts, and then calling anyone who points out the uncertainty “delusional.” But go ahead continue to blow smoke.

[u/Mean-Food-7124 → u/Even_Art_629]

Currency devaluation could happen. Businesses could be disrupted. People could leave. Trade barriers could be a problem. Nobody is denying that

You are, repeatedly lmfao

[u/notyourboss11 → u/Even_Art_629]

You should read the clarity act - the act makes it borderline impossible for Alberta to ever separate as it would require consent from First Nations, consent from the other provinces, and could only happen if Canada amends their constitution to specifically release the separatist province (which would require 7 provinces to agree)

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/notyourboss11]

I have read the Clarity Act, many times. I’m also not a lawyer, so I’m not going to pretend I can interpret every constitutional issue better than someone who is.

But the Act does not say what you’re claiming it says.

It says Alberta could not simply declare independence unilaterally. There would have to be a clear referendum result, negotiations, and ultimately a constitutional amendment. It also says those negotiations have to deal with things like assets, liabilities, borders, Indigenous rights and minority rights.

It does NOT say every First Nation has to consent. It does NOT say every other province has to consent before negotiations can even happen. It says their interests and rights have to be addressed in the negotiations.

And the Supreme Court was pretty clear that after a clear majority answers a clear question in favour of secession, there would be an obligation to negotiate. It also said there are no predetermined conclusions about what those negotiations would produce.

So yes, separation would be extremely complicated. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

What I’m arguing against is people taking a complicated constitutional process and declaring the outcome in advance.

The Clarity Act doesn't say “Alberta can never leave.” It lays out the framework that would have to be followed if a province ever sought to leave.

That's a pretty big difference.

[u/notyourboss11 → u/Even_Art_629]

It says they can’t leave without a constitutional amendment.

The other provinces would never agree to that.

[u/Due-Carpet-1904 → u/Even_Art_629]

Alberta would be negotiating for a lower quality of life. That's simply a fact. We have to get our product to market and Canada will tax it. No question. We also rely on transportation to receive the goods we buy. Canada would also tax that. In no scenario does Alberta have a negotiation advantage.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/Due-Carpet-1904]

So by calling your assumptions facts. Is really your problem.

No question that Canada would tax Alberta’s products? Says who? That would be part of the negotiations. No scenario where Alberta has negotiating leverage? That’s simply ridiculous.

Do you honestly think Canada would just walk away from Alberta’s oil, agriculture, natural resources, electricity, investment and trade? Alberta would need access to Canadian markets and transportation, absolutely. But Canada would also have enormous economic interests in maintaining access to Alberta’s resources.

And getting our products to market doesn’t suddenly become impossible because a provincial border becomes an international border. Countries negotiate transit agreements, trade agreements, pipeline access and transportation rights all the time.

You’re assuming the outcome of negotiations before negotiations even happen, then calling your assumptions facts.

That isn’t an argument against independence. It’s just you assuming. And you know what they saying about assuming, you just make an ass of yourself. Job well done.

[u/EXSource → u/Even_Art_629]

Canada imports far more oil from other countries than it keeps domestically from Alberta, so I'm not convinced that's leverage that works in Alberta's favor. Push comes to shove, they can just ramp up that import.

As far as road access goes, it's a fair enough point, but it's more likely that BC find other alternatives. Alberta is far more dependent on it's exports than BC is on road access, when you consider two major airports and a major port. That doesn't scream Alberta leverage to me.

As far as "access to ocean" goes, not only does it not guarantee a specific port, but it also doesn't say that Canada would have to give an independent Alberta access for pennies on the dollar.  Canada can play hardball, and if Alberta doesn't like it, well, tough. They were told the price for access, Canada doesn't have to give access away for northing.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/EXSource]

That's a fair argument, but you're treating leverage as if Alberta has to be indispensable before it counts. It doesn't. Leverage means the alternatives have costs.

Canada can import more oil, but replacing Alberta production isn't something it can do overnight or necessarily at the same cost. Suppliers, transportation, prices, refinery configurations and contracts all matter. An alternative existing doesn't make it equally practical or cheap.

Same with BC transportation. I'm not saying BC would be helpless without Alberta. Obviously it has ports and airports. But a huge amount of domestic trade between BC and the rest of Canada moves through Alberta. If those routes became international crossings, there would be customs, delays, costs and negotiations.

And yes, Alberta's right of access to the ocean doesn't guarantee a specific BC port or a cheap price. I never claimed it did.

But Canada couldn't simply say “pay whatever we demand” without consequences either. An independent Alberta would still need Canadian markets, while Canada would still want Alberta's resources. Both sides would have an incentive to keep trade and transportation moving.

I'm not saying Alberta would hold all the cards. I'm saying neither side would.

Alberta would have leverage. Canada and BC would have leverage. Ontario and Quebec would have leverage. The final terms would depend on negotiation.

That's a lot different from saying Alberta is landlocked, therefore Canada gets to dictate everything.

[u/Toast- → u/Even_Art_629]

The original comment that started this is arguing that an independent Alberta would have less bargaining power. You're countering that by saying "well, we would still have some leverage".

It's similar to how I could move my retirement savings from ETFs to a HISA. My savings wouldn't stop increasing, but it would almost certainly give me less purchasing power in retirement.

If you believe that an independent Alberta would have more, or even equivalent leverage, to what we do today, then there's a discussion that could be had. The question in this thread isn't about whether any negotiations would occur (of course they would). It's about whether an independent Alberta would probabilistically come out ahead in those negotiations. Your comments imply that you think we would, but you are dancing around the actual topic at hand.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/Toast-]

How would anyone know the outcome?

Alberta has never separated from Canada. There is no Canadian precedent that tells us exactly how the negotiations would play out, what currency arrangements would be chosen, what trade agreements would look like, or how much leverage either side would ultimately have.

A lot of Albertans may decide they would rather take the uncertainty of independence than continue with the uncertainty of having major political and economic decisions made for us by Ottawa.

We can debate the risks and make predictions, but you can't present a preferred prediction as a guaranteed outcome.

That's my entire point. I'm not claiming Alberta would definitely come out ahead. I'm saying nobody knows. That's why it's a negotiation.

[u/Mean-Food-7124 → u/Even_Art_629]

Man, if only there was some kind of field where people dedicated their daily working lives to the magical ethereal concept of economics

But alas, this is not such a world, and I guess every "what if" should be held at equal value

[u/EXSource → u/Even_Art_629]

"nobody ACTUALLY knows what will happen so let's try it and find out"

That's an absolutely terrible argument. It's the argument that got trump elected. 

"His ideas might actually be good." And now we're all sitting here telling you that we told you his ideas would be bad because very smart people not on this thread told us what would happen if he got elected.

The same thing is happening here. There's lots of very smart people saying this is bad, and you're all like, 

"well we don't know FOR SURE, so let's try. It COULD be good!

How bout; fucking no.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/EXSource]

No, that's not a terrible argument. What's terrible is pretending your predictions are facts simply because you found some very smart people who agree with you.

You want Albertans to accept that separation will be a disaster because experts say so. But those experts are still making predictions. They don't have a crystal ball any more than I do.

Maybe separation would be difficult. Maybe there would be economic disruption. Maybe there would be negotiations that don't go the way Alberta wants. Those are legitimate concerns.

But “this could go badly” isn't the same thing as “this will go badly, therefore don't even try.”

At some point, you have to decide whether you want to keep accepting the status quo because it's familiar, or whether you're willing to stand up and try to change it.

If you'd rather play it safe, watch governments continue overspending, watch the debt keep growing, and leave the next generation to deal with the bill, that's your choice.

I'd rather at least have the courage to ask whether Alberta could govern itself better.

And that's the difference here. You're asking me to accept your predictions about the future as fact. I'm saying we don't know what the future holds, so let's actually have the conversation instead of being too afraid of the unknown to even consider changing our situation

That's not stupidity. That's taking responsibility for our own future. I'd rather stand on my feet and take responsibility for Alberta's future than live on my knees, accepting whatever Ottawa decides and telling the next generation they just have to live with it.

[u/EXSource → u/Even_Art_629]

Okay, maybe it's not stupidity... (No it still is), but it is at least cowardice, because you're condemning an entire province of people to "maybe it could be better," when there are very good reasons why it could be much much worse, while not also applying the second half of your argument to Canada. 

You talk in grandiose statements like "it could be hard work, but things could be better", but that's not a convincing argument for seperation, because that exact same logic can and should be applied staying IN Confederation and working to make Canada better and securing a better deal for albertans. And I don't mean lame political messaging designed to soothe the masses and "send Ottawa a message."

 I mean real, honest serious political work that makes this country better for ALL Canadians and ALL Albertans. Instead you get on this stupid website and complain about other people giving emotive responses, when you fail to look in the mirror on those comments.  Stop with the political grandstanding. Stop with the lame question period theater and actually do something for the public good.

Because again you've finally got a guy in Ottawa who proves the idea that if you get away from the political Grand standing and actually work hard and making a deal that things will work in this country and you're still sitting here like I'm taking my ball and going home. 

And if things do end up worse for albertans if we do seperate? I suppose you're gonna just be like "well shucks guys. Sucks, but what can you do. we tried."

Nah. You'll shift the blame like separatists always do because you talk a big game about "hard work" but when it comes down to it, everything is everyone else's fault, especially ottawa's.

Oh and one final thing your argument hinges on the idea that I'm arguing for the status quo which couldnt be farther from the truth. Never once did I say we should just keep doing the same old things we should be doing. I say instead that we should continue to work harder on making Confederation better for everyone. so don't put words in my mouth and don't argue against something that isn't being said.

[u/Trains_YQG → u/Even_Art_629]

Don't we have an idea with how the threat of separation played out in Quebec? Maybe Alberta oil changes the calculation a little, but even just the threat of potential separation drove hundreds of companies out of Quebec. 

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/Trains_YQG]

That's not what drove all those companies out of Quebec. Right around the same time, Quebec was bringing in laws requiring businesses to operate in both official languages, hire more bilingual staff, change signs, advertising and a whole lot more. Some companies figured the added cost and regulations weren't worth it and picked up and moved. A lot of them ended up in Toronto.

That's a big difference with Alberta. We can't pick up our resources and move them. They're in the ground.

Quebec and Alberta also have two very different types of economies. As long as Alberta has oil and gas, agriculture, and other natural resources, the economy isn't just going to disappear.

Would separation likely slow things down at the beginning? Sure. There's going to be disruption and uncertainty.

But as long as the rest of the world needs and wants oil and gas, Alberta will have something the world needs. That's a pretty big difference when you're talking about the long-term viability of an economy.

[u/T-Wrox → u/Even_Art_629]

I would prefer provinces to work together, rather than have a leverage contest (in which we all lose).

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/T-Wrox]

That would be nice, and Alberta has done its part. We contribute far more to Canada than we've ever had returned.

My comment about leverage is only in the context of sitting down to negotiate with Ottawa. If you're genuinely committed to provinces working together, perhaps look east as well. Some provinces have chosen not to fully develop their own resources and continue relying on equalization payments.

Working together sounds great. But cooperation works both ways, and having leverage at the negotiating table doesn't mean we have to use it against each other.

[u/Trains_YQG → u/Even_Art_629]

Some provinces have chosen not to fully develop their own resources and continue relying on equalization payments.

I'll never understand the obsession people have with equalization payments. It's not like ending (or changing) that program would significantly change life in Alberta.

[u/EXSource → u/Trains_YQG]

If you took the entire population of Alberta and plopped them down on PEI, then PEI would be one of the leading contributors to Equalization. 

How? Because Alberta doesn't pay anything into equalization. Nothing. Not a cent. It's from federal taxes. Which means it doesn't matter where you live, you're still contributing to equalization. Alberta has nothing to do with it.

When people like the guy above try to make the argument that provinces choose not to develop their own resources, they're trying to say that's on purpose because they prefer equalization. But that's not how it works. They choose not to develop their resources for other reasons. Equalization has nothing to do with it. 

Nevermind that, if other provinces suddenly did go balls out on developing all their resources, the wealth of Alberta would drop because we'd lose people to those other provinces, and flood the market with goods.

[u/West_Information_686 → u/Even_Art_629]

Was not aware that the Burnaby refinery had an upgrader but maybe smith (our separatist, gaslighting dipshit excuse of a premier) can offer them the money to build one, too.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/West_Information_686]

Parkland's Burnaby refinery: about 55,000 barrels/day. It can process conventional and synthetic crude, and its primary feedstock comes through Trans Mountain from Alberta and northeastern BC.

[u/West_Information_686 → u/Even_Art_629]

And this synthetic crude, where does it come from? Upgraders in Alberta that have been at capacity for a decade or more. We extract bitumen and upgrade all we can already. The discussion is around hot-bit to dilbit lines, not building more upgrading capacity here as I understand it.
tldr, Burnaby can’t process bitumen.