What's going on Canada?
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
π Sports
Baseball
Basketball
Curling
Hockey
Soccer
π» Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
π΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales
π£οΈ Politics
π Social / Culture
π Other Relevant Communities
Rules
Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Provide sources when making a claim. Do your research or google it doesn't cut it. The one making the claim is responsible for backing it.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
Those pushing for separation know this. They're looking to benefit themselves not Albertans.
Harper is smart enough to know that the entire case for separatism is built on lies and ommissions of relevant details, but instead of using his influence to call them out he's legitimizing the question by avoiding the same truths the separatists glaze over.
He's in league with them just unwilling to stand with them in public.
Wanting more autonomy for Alberta is not the same as wanting Alberta to leave Canada. The UCP is absolutely a separatist party. The CPC, while absolutely going full MAGA, is not. And I've not seen any actual evidence yet that Harper falls in either camp. Happy to be corrected, though.
Again, it's what Harper doesn't say that tarnishes him. He's not a dumb person and definitely sees through the separatist ππ©.
But does he say anything like that? No. Instead we get the weak and insipid headline statement.
Here's a rundown of the truly flawed arguments made by the separatists: https://dougaldlamont.substack.com/p/reminder-not-one-of-the-free-alberta?publication_id=2010569&post_id=218443307
He could call them out on any of these issues, but does he? Instead he validates the Alberta vs Ottawa framing that has no basis in truth.
Does the Quebec versus Canada framing also have no basis in truth? Was Canada wrong for allowing Quebec to have the autonomy it currently has? Because that's what Harper's spent years arguing for, including with his Alberta firewall letter addressed to Alberta's at the time not separatist Premier. I mean, I personally don't think Quebec should be allowed to have and run its own pension plan, but it does. If that's something Alberta's demanding, can we really be surprised?
But that's not what's under discussion here. If Alberta wants what Quebec has they can already do it. No referendum or new laws required.
They can't have the ridiculous amount they "calculated" from the CPP as theirs, nor make a go of a pension fund with only 4.2 million peoples. Which is why the idea died.
Harper made all those arguments, yes.
However I stand by my point here; Harper is validating the separatism by discussing it seriously, and failing to call out the deceptive "research" put forward in argument for. Anyone arguing AB should stay without debunking these is in league as far as I'm concerned.
Harper's using the moment to enhance his public image while giving the separatists a free pass.
So your opinion is that the "research" put forward in favour of separation should be taken seriously? Because that's what engaging with it is doing.
π€¦
No it should not be taken seriously, it should be debunked for the fraudulent word salad it is.
It should not be given airtime at all. If you give it airtime, then you are taking it seriously.
I can agree with that. Movements that have been long incubated in silos can't be suffocated, and these days they're just "big tenting" their way to legitimacy. Dismissal without correction withholds legitimacy about as well as shame affects the shameless.
He is one of the voices that fueled this fire in previous decades, and now he is speaking against it?
That's like Sam Altman warning about the risks of AI...
Waitasec. When did he explicitly advocate for separation? He advocated for more autonomy, which is not unprecedented (see also: Quebec), but I've always seen him as pushing for more freedom within confederation, not freedom from confederation. Happy to be corrected.
He brought the Reform Party into the Conservatives. That's why the crazies seem so loud nowadays.
He also lead the IDU and works for the UCP controlling the thing he hates most since he was young: Alberta pension.
And he did so because they had no possibility of remaining a relevant party without servicing their crazies a little more, just like Reagan did and Bush escalated, bringing us this.
Or Jason Kenney with the Wildrose.
I mean, sure. But that's not exactly advocating for Alberta separation. And if memory serves, a guy named Peter won the PC leadership and then promptly folded like a cheap shirt.
When did he explicitly advocate for separation?
That's not what I was referring to.
He stored the fires of western alienation and anger at Ottawa.
Eh. I'd say he had help. Trudeau senior wasn't exactly Alberta's friend. Not to mention the 90's were all about Quebec.
You have to do a lot more gymnastics to put the blame of the current state of Alberta separatism on those two things than Stephen Harper's actions and effect on conservatives across the country.
No gymnastics required. There's been a separatist thread running through Alberta since it joined confederation. Literally they were complaining about Canada controlling what Alberta could do with Alberta's resources in 1905. They've just never had actual government support. Quebec is exactly the opposite - most of the last 50 years was a PQ government, including the 1995 referendum, and it went about as you'd expect it to.
That isn't explaining how there's no gymnastics required. Besides that, the point was that there's a mod direct throughline with Harper's actions.
There's no gymnastics required because every time Ottawa oversteps (their words, not mine), they get pissed off. And they usually think Ottawa is overstepping when Ottawa starts telling Alberta what it can do or not do with its resources. It happened in the 80's (NEP), it happened in the 90's (Kyoto Accord), and it happened in 2016 (no business case). The difference is in the80's and 90's the Alberta government itself wasn't advocating for separation. Smith, today, is doing exactly that, and all of the changes made to the original 2021 law that enabled this referendum were made by Smith's government.
Now connect the dots between Smith's UCP government and Harper's effect on conservative parties around the country, and then the dots with those other situations. Which path has less dots?
How does "Alberta should have more autonomy" translate to "Alberta should leave Canada"? That's the dot your line's missing.
This entire conversation is all about the current separatist sentiment. It always was.
And the current separatist sentiment starts in the Premier's office. Every change to the citizen initiative law that enabled this referendum, from requirements that it be vetted for constitutionality to the lowering of minimum signatures required, was performed by Smith's government.
Harper work for Big Oil Canada, what he is saying is « donβt go pwease, my boss will loose their government subsidies oil fieldΒ Β»
I mean, they shouldn't leave, it benefits no one but given his neoliberal background, Harper's motives are always suspect
He didn't anticipate that the leopards would eat his country.
He's a reform party architect masquerading as a federalist. This is his fault.
Reform party =/= Separatist party. He's been advocating for more autonomy for Alberta, not Alberta separation. Come Monday you'll get to see what an actual separatist party looks like.
Harper is showing face to make Kenney's hypocritical federalism seem convincing.
He is ONLY showing his young-earth-creationist, IDF-leading face to get Jason "separatist-light" Kenney in power.
I'm gonna need a very large citation on that.
Separation would bring no benefit, but separatism may have had a hand in the next pipeline being declared in the "national interest". That's a benefit for somebody.
I mean anything's possible, but when did the government start talking about this pipeline and when was the referendum announced? Separation or not, we've needed to reduce our dependence on the US since the start of Trump 2.0. We actually should have started before that.
GenX here. A very tiny subset of us were screaming not to do the FTA, way back in the 90s.
Not so tiny.
I had a "Free Canada, Trade Mulroney" shirt. Smaller text suggested we would accept the return of Michael J. Fox in trade.
That would have been the ideal, yes. Also acceptable: not being lazy and using that as a crutch for 30 freaking years.
I don't remember things around a western pipeline really picking up until Carney and Smith signed their MOU, and separatism was definitely a thing before that. The referendum being announcing just changed the appeasment from trying to avoid a referendum to trying to get a good result from the referendum.
If even Stephen Harper thinks it won't affect the people bankrolling him - nor the people of Alberta - then it's next-level bad.
Did they name the Landfill after him as hoped?