Federalists endlessly argue that Alberta could never become an independent nation because it is landlocked. It has been since Ottawa created the province in 1905 without negotiating with the First Nations and settlers here.
While being landlocked presents challenges for a national Alberta, those challenges are not as great as those currently facing a provincial Alberta.
How to deal with being landlocked is a frequent and fundamental question when talking about getting a fair deal for Alberta, as a province, or as an independent nation. While being landlocked is an issue, it is not the make-or-break issue for Alberta that federalists claim it to be. Instead, the federalists should consider how Alberta’s landlocked status could force it to seek independence if a genuine “fair deal” fails to be obtained.
In seeking a fair deal, we should consider what leverage a landlocked national Alberta would have in achieving market access.
As a province, there is little to no ability for Alberta to build adequate pipeline capacity. Politically and legally, we have run out of options. For more than a decade, Ottawa, B.C., and Quebec have blocked market access to the oceans that all functioning countries on the planet allow; that is, as a province. This is not how Canada’s founding fathers intended confederation to work in 1867, but it is where we are today.
Peter Lougheed secured Section 92A of the Constitution with the goal of ensuring provincial control over resource development in the 1982 negotiations, but successive federal governments have piled on unilateral environmental policies to limit that development. Now, not only are we landlocked, we are policy-locked and regulation-locked. These are not geographic facts. These are political facts. And unlike geography, political facts can be changed.
Federalists – both inside and outside of Alberta – point only to the geographic fact. An independent national Alberta would have no border with an ocean. They assume as a given that a post-independence Ottawa would build walls around the new nation and seek to starve it into economic and political submission. This ignores three vital considerations.
Firstly, most of Alberta’s trade goes neither east or west, but south. The Americans would be happy to continue trading with Alberta. In fact, our trading relationship with the U.S. would most likely be stronger than it currently is, hemmed in as it is by Ottawa’s obsession with Ontario and Quebec in trade negotiations. Without the need to protect Quebec’s supply-managed dairy cartel and Ontario’s auto and aluminum sectors, Alberta would be free to negotiate much more favorable trade terms with the Americans.
Secondly, it would not be in Ottawa’s interest to effectively embargo Alberta. As much as leftist governments in Ottawa and several provinces might protest, they still need Alberta’s energy. Without it, energy prices across Canada would skyrocket.
Thirdly – and most importantly – Canada needs to trade through Alberta much more than Alberta needs to trade through Canada. If a vengeful Ottawa were to disallow pipelines and trade westward through B.C., Alberta could stop all trade in both directions between B.C. and Eastern Canada. Unless Ottawa proposed to build a wildly expensive highway and railroad through the Arctic muskeg and permafrost, B.C. would be turned into a proverbial East Prussia; that is, an exclave separated by Alberta and two oceans from the rest of Canada. This option would be untenable for obvious reasons. Ottawa would be cutting of its nose to spite its face to vengefully try to isolate an independent Alberta.
As an independent nation, Alberta would have the legal and political right to play hardball with Ottawa to force market access. As a province, all Alberta can do is complain.
Also, being a landlocked nation is no guarantee of doom. On the contrary, some of the wealthiest nations on Earth are landlocked. Switzerland, Austria and Luxembourg are all in the top 20 highest GDP per capita in the world. An independent Alberta would place 11th, just below Switzerland and Luxembourg, and ahead of Austria without even accounting for all of the transfers that would stay at home.
These three countries are landlocked by larger nations, but they and their neighbours understand the mutually advantageous benefit of trade. And as independent nations, they cannot be so easily bullied – even by Germany, France, and Italy – as Alberta can be by Ottawa.
Many Albertans are ready to move toward independence right now. Some say that they are unconditional federalists. But many more want a fair deal within confederation that would see Alberta become autonomous, retain its wealth, and trade freely. And if this proves impossible, then seek independence.
Alberta has the capacity to be the freest, wealthiest place in the world to raise strong families, strong communities, as a strong province or nation. It is up to Ottawa to decide how that sentence ends.
Drew Barnes is the UCP MLA for Cypress-Medicine Hat
MORGAN: Free speech in comedy under siege
“What has happened to our society when a comedy festival may turn into a street battle? “
Standup comedians have always been on the front lines in battles over free speech and expression.
In the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, most of the pearl-clutching busybodies came from the ‘moral majority’ religious right. They feared obscenity within comedy acts would degrade the moral fabric of the nation and for a while, the law agreed. Comedian Lenny Bruce was convicted and sentenced to four months in a workhouse in 1964 for the crime of spreading obscenity in his act. George Carlin was arrested seven times during the 1970s for his famous “Seven Dirty Words” routine.
Bruce died before the appeal of his sentence was completed. He was posthumously pardoned in 2003. Charges against Carlin were all dropped before he could be convicted. Carlin and Bruce refused to back down and in the end, the state couldn’t win. We will never know how many comedians allowed themselves to be cowed into changing their acts due to state and social intimidation in those days. Not all of them had the will or support bases Carlin and Bruce enjoyed.
The ability for comedians to freely express themselves is just as threatened today as it was 50 years ago. The source of puritanical outrage against comedy routines has changed, though. These days the prigs demanding the curtailment of free speech in comedy acts are the snowflakes of the politically correct left.
Canadian comedian Mike Ward found himself dragged before human rights tribunals and the Canadian courts for nearly a decade over a routine in which he mocked a disabled young Canadian performer. The case ultimately went to the Canadian Supreme Court where it was ruled in a tight 5-4 split decision Ward’s right to free speech was to be protected, and jokes were not subject to judicial review. We came dangerously close to having a comedian convicted for his routine during this decade. The threat to free expression is real and it’s ongoing.
The prime target of the cancel-culture mob lately has been American comedian Dave Chappelle. Chappelle has long enjoyed poking fun at the hypersensitive underbelly of the LGBTQ activist community and has never backed down in the face of the enraged blowback following one of his acts. In Chappelle’s most recent Netflix comedy special he went out of his way to antagonize the usual suspects as he made jokes about transgender ideological orthodoxy. The response to his act was immediate and predictable. Activists demanded Netflix pull the special down and small groups of Netflix employees staged widely publicized walkouts in protest of Chappelle’s act.
Netflix never pulled Chappelle’s special down and Chappelle has remained unapologetic for it. The controversy generated by apoplectic snowflakes in response to Chappelle’s act likely only increased viewership of the special.
It has just been announced Dave Chappelle is going to be headlining a Netflix comedy festival this coming April in Hollywood Bowl. This signals Netflix has done well with Chappelle’s routine despite or perhaps even because of the controversy it generated. In having a set date at a large outdoor venue and in such a populated area, Netflix is upping the ante in their battle with cancel-culture activists. Not only are they saying they won’t pull Chappelle’s older content, but they are also expanding the reach for his next act.
American and Canadian courts have proven they will protect the rights of free expression for controversial comedians, albeit grudgingly. Anti-free speech activists will have to take their case to the streets now and I suspect they will. With as many as 17,000 attendees arriving for a comedy festival being potentially greeted by a sizable number of protesters, things may get ugly.
What has happened to our society when a comedy festival may turn into a street battle?
Chappelle’s showdown this spring could be a turning point for comedy. Will he and Netflix stand their ground in the face of protests? Will local authorities ensure the show can go on even if activists vow to shut it down? This comedy event is going to be an important one.
As with any art, the enjoyment of comedy is subjective. Some people like simple clean humour, some like complex satire, and some like vulgarity-laden shock comedy. The only people who can judge good comedy are the audience and they should only be able to render judgment through voting with their feet (and wallets). In other words, if you don’t like it, don’t watch it.
Comedians ply their trade by observing the world and poking at sacred cows. They dig into subjects people commonly avoid and force us to think about them through the lens of humour. They provide a public service by pushing the boundaries of free expression and ensuring no subjects are ever out of bounds. They often make us laugh and we need a whole lot more of that these days.
Comedians will not be able to effectively practice their art if they fear censors or legal repercussions. They will be restrained and they will leave subjects that need to be brought before public scrutiny untouched.
If the speech and expression of comedians are allowed to be suppressed, no speech is safe. We need to stand up for our comics for both their sake and our own.
Cory Morgan is Assistant Opinion & Broadcast Editor for the Western Standard
WAGNER: Hydrocarbon based fuels are here to stay
“Think of it as telling people to step out of a perfectly serviceable airplane without a parachute, with assurances that politicians will work out alternatives on the way down.”
Alberta’s future is threatened by a national campaign to dramatically reduce the production of hydrocarbons.
The political and media elite repeatedly assure everyone that such fuels can be replaced by new “green” energy sources such as wind and solar power. People currently employed in the oil and gas industry will supposedly transition into green energy production and life will continue on as before, except with fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Indeed, Justin Trudeau’s federal government has committed to transitioning Canada’s economy to producing net-zero GHG emissions by 2050.
Trudeau’s scheme is a fairy tale. Hydrocarbons are going to be required for a very long time because current green energy technology is nowhere near where it needs to be to replace them. Currently, there are no realistic alternatives to oil and gas, so reducing their production will only lead to energy shortages.
As Dr. Henry Geraedts put it recently in the Financial Post, “The ultimate goal of net-zero politics is to impose a radical energy transition that demands a top-to-bottom physical and social-economic restructuring of society, with no credible road map in sight. Think of it as telling people to step out of a perfectly serviceable airplane without a parachute, with assurances that politicians will work out alternatives on the way down.”
Geraedts’ Financial Post column is a brief description of a policy report he produced in June 2021, and how it was ignored because its conclusions contradict the ideological perspective that university professors are expected to support. He didn’t toe the party line, in other words, and therefore got the cold shoulder.
Geraedts’ report, Net Zero 2050: Rhetoric and Realities, is available online at the website of the Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy which is affiliated with both the University of Saskatchewan and University of Regina. It’s a very credible piece of work.
Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons and Geraedts points out “hydrocarbons are nature’s most efficient embodiment of primary energy: the combination of high energy density, abundance, stability, safety, portability and affordability is unmatched by any other source of energy.”
Currently, hydrocarbons comprise about 80% of global primary energy. This is essentially the same percentage as 30 years ago, when the global warming craze began. Despite years of favourable government policies and billions of dollars in government subsidies, green technology such as wind and solar energy remain relatively small contributors to the world’s energy supply.
Geraedts also describes the negative environmental impacts caused by so-called green energy technology. Among the most interesting details he mentions is: “Neither turbine blades nor solar panels nor lithium-ion batteries are physically or economically recyclable. They are instead, at an alarming rate, ending up in landfills leaching toxic chemicals — an estimated 10 million tons/year of batteries by 2030 alone.” So much for protecting the environment.
Geraedts is not a so-called “denier.” He points to data from reliable sources indicating global temperatures have increased by one degree Celsius since 1900. But he also explains “the projections used to justify net zero policies and the Paris Accord, are based on fundamentally flawed computer climate models that overstate warming by some 200%.”
Not only that, but “observational, empirical evidence remains agnostic as to what, with requisite confidence levels, is attributable to anthropogenic influences vs. natural variability.” In other words, it cannot be determined with certainty to what degree the gradual temperature increase is the result of human activities.
But climate change worries aside, there is still a fatal lack of realistic alternatives to hydrocarbons. The International Energy Agency forecasts that even if all countries fulfill their Paris Accord commitments — an unlikely prospect — hydrocarbons will still account for 60% of primary energy in 2040. With accelerating energy demand in Africa and Asia, Geraedts expects hydrocarbons will remain the dominant energy source for decades to come.
This is what it all means: If we put progressive ideology aside and take a hard, honest look at the energy situation, hydrocarbons are here to stay for quite a while. Knowing the ingenuity of human beings in a free society, the discovery of new energy sources is likely at some point in the future. For now, though, we need oil and gas, and Alberta has lots of both.
With strong international demand for hydrocarbons forecast to last for decades, there is no reason why these resources cannot continue to provide the foundation of economic prosperity for the province. The biggest obstacle to such prosperity, of course, is the federal government. Due to its determination to prevent the development of hydrocarbons, independence may be the only way to maintain and increase the resource-based wealth that is Alberta’s birthright.
An independent Alberta could implement policies maximizing economic growth and avoid the suffocating policies of Canada’s central government. A free Alberta would be a prosperous Alberta.
Michael Wagner is a columnist for the Western Standard
Stirling: Suzuki is a superspreader of alarmism
By actively denigrating people who hold rational, dissenting views on climate change, Suzuki and his fellow travelers have created a very dangerous situation today.
Guest Column by Michelle Stirling, Communications Manager for Friends of Science Society
In 2015, Reader’s Digest counted David Suzuki as the number one most trusted influencer in Canada. He had already lost his shine with the oil patch working people of the West thanks to his performance in the appalling 2011 CBC co-production shlockumentary, “The Tipping Point: Age of the Oil Sands.” Others recoiled at the equally dreadful, “Where Will Santa Live?” fundraiser which suggested to kids Santa will drown unless your parents send cash. Yet for many, he still resonates as a kind of wise elder.
People of influence should be very careful about what they say.
For decades, Suzuki has been calling scientists and scholars who challenge his climate catastrophe narrative ‘deniers.’ He’s called for them to be silenced and censored, despite the fact when interviewed in Australia on television, the self-styled king of climate change was unable to understand a question from the audience that referred to the commonly known temperature data sets used in climate science. It seems he’d never heard of them.
By actively denigrating people who hold rational, dissenting views on climate change, Suzuki and his fellow travelers created a very dangerous situation today. There are many people who are genuinely frightened there might be only “10 years left” as Suzuki claims and they are like a tinderbox looking for a flame. Suzuki lit a spark for them a couple of weeks ago with his irresponsible musing about pipelines being blown up. His tepid apology will not put that genie back in the bottle.
Imagine if we had had open, civil debate on climate change in the media for the past 20 years. Imagine if, when Suzuki claimed there was a climate crisis, an atmospheric scientist like Dr. Richard Lindzen could show him why this is imaginary and how claims of a climate emergency are just a means for renewables promoters to push their wares.
Imagine if when Suzuki claimed Santa would drown and take the polar bears with him, an expert like geoscientist Dr. Ian Clark, who actually hikes the Arctic for his research, could show him that during the Holocene Hypsithermal of about 8,000 years ago, the Arctic was ice-free, rather balmy, and the polar bears were all fine.
Imagine if when Suzuki invokes “consensus,” (which forms the basis of the Toronto Star’s refusal to run any report that conflicts with the alleged 97% consensus), if someone like astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv could have been invited to explain that science is not a democracy, it’s about evidence. While all scientists agree climate does change, they disagree on what ratio is human-caused versus natural influences like the sun and oceans. Scientists don’t all agree that taxing people will stop climate change, and most scientists are not convinced anymore that carbon dioxide is the control knob on climate.
This kind of open, civil debate, based on facts and evidence rather than emotional hyperbole would take society a long way toward more rational responses on climate and energy policies.
Unfortunately, it looks like things will get much worse as “The Climate Coverage in Canada Report” has run a consensus survey of its own, and Canadian journalists concluded that “large majorities … somewhat or strongly agree there is a climate crisis and the news media should report on it that way.”
In the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (AR6), the word “crisis” is only used once, and only in reference to media coverage on climate. Otherwise, there’s no crisis stated in that 4,000-page science report.
The mainstream media in Canada has been parroting Suzuki’s hyperbolic words, republishing his op-eds posted by the David Suzuki Foundation and obligingly blocking any dissenting views for decades.
Canadian media have made his incendiary words go viral — making him a super spreader of a contagious social disease called anarchy. Suzuki began this soft incitement years ago asking people if they were “radically Canadian” or not.
It’s time the media and Suzuki stopped the spread of alarmism and incitement and asked people to be rational instead.
Guest Column by Michelle Stirling is Communications Manager for Friends of Science Society. This op-ed expresses her personal opinion.
Trudeau’s beach denier demoted
Feds threaten regulated businesses with COVID fines
Firearms lobby group shoots down Liberal move to decriminalize gun laws
Dr. Bonnie Henry ordered to stand trial
The Western Standard Is Back
BC doc says he’s found blood clots in 62% of post-jab patients
- Feds threaten regulated businesses with COVID fines on
- Trudeau’s beach denier demoted on
- EXCLUSIVE: Fired CNRL staffer files lawsuit as lawyer warns hundreds could follow on
- WS POLL: Should Canada, like the US and Australia, do a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in China? on
- Feds threaten regulated businesses with COVID fines on
Petition: No Media Bailouts
We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.
News2 days ago
No more Moderna doses for young men, after millions already given
News24 hours ago
EXCLUSIVE: Fired CNRL staffer files lawsuit as lawyer warns hundreds could follow
News2 days ago
WATCH: Fully vaccinated Calgary woman forced into quarantine facility due to new Omicron measures
News3 days ago
Moe calls Unified Grassroots founder
News2 days ago
MAKICHUK: The West will rise, it’s only a matter of time
Opinion3 days ago
MORGAN: It’s time to break up the Alberta Teacher’s Association
News22 hours ago
Justice Centre sends warning to NB: ‘Depriving citizens of food constitutes an act of cruelty’
News2 days ago
Quebec’s language police fines realtor $1,500 for English Facebook posts