Great rebuttal.

Copied ⬇️

Uh-oh… Someone from Ottawa must have had a word with National Post mucky mucks last April about the money they receive from the federal government.

It probably went something like this: “Hi guys! Did you get our check? Would you like to get next month’s too? Then how about publishing an editorial on what a bad idea Alberta independence is. You’re welcome. No need to thank us.”

Well, Jamie Sarkonak’s editorial, "Alberta independence is a pipe dream," must be the result of that phone call.

Let’s take a moment to see who exactly would end up a basket case if Alberta were to be independent of the federal government’s leadership.

What’s that you say, Jamie?

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is completely correct in not entertaining the whims of Alberta separatists

What else could someone who wants to be Prime Minister of Canada say? Especially one who declares he wouldn’t make “big changes” to the equalization program roundly condemned by Albertans.

This next paragraph’s a gem:

"Rath’s vision for an independent or Americanized Alberta naively focuses on the imagined positives: 'no federal income tax, no carbon tax, no GST, no equalization payments, no more interference in our industries, and full control over our borders, our immigration, and our natural resources.' To that, I’d add: no ports, and no control over pipelines outside our borders, probably no military capacity to defend our borders from the US and Canada, and therefore no 'full' control over our natural resources — points he somehow forgets to include."

With regards to ports, Alberta is landlocked because of confederation. As an independent nation, Alberta would enjoy access to ports (like landlocked economic basket case Switzerland – where the GDP is 187% of Canada’s) under The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which recognizes the right of landlocked states to freedom of transit through the territory of transit states via any means of transport.

As for Sarkonak’s other points… how is any of that different from Alberta’s current position? Certainly, Canada has no control over pipelines outside its borders, and seemingly no military capacity (or political will) to defend against ongoing border raids, er, rather… against uncontrolled illegal immigration.

Sarkonak’s reference to the Alberta Prosperity Project was amusing. Albertastan wants independence from Soviet Canuckistan! Hmmm… How many billions has Canada spent helping Ukraine achieve independence from Russia? Kiev is 760 kilometers from Moscow. Edmonton is 2900 kilometers from Ottawa. The word “subsidiarity” comes to mind.

Further, I doubt very much that the personalities involved in Alberta’s independence movement are concerned with Sarkonak’s opinions regarding their credibility. Unlike the National Post columnists, they seem to have developed a following without a forced subsidy from the taxpayer.

I’m surprised her editorial referenced Preston Manning. All one needs to know is that Mr. Manning was a strong Canadian nationalist. Now he seems to think a case can be made for the breakup of Canada. And I’m doubly surprised at the reference to former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney.

Sarkonak neglected to mention that Premier Kenney was forced to resign three years after winning a solid majority in Alberta’s 2019 general election; it took three years for fed up Albertans to fire a leader who did not perform as advertised. Contrast that to the ten years it took Canada to remove the minority government of Prime Minister Blackface. You can’t say Albertans are afraid to make a change.

Let’s have some fun, and edit Sarkonak’s next paragraph for an alternate reality:

"Imaginary Independent Alberta is landlocked, completely unable to get its products to port. It's suffered brain drain and depopulation due to the mass immigration of loyalists. It struggles to raise capital because it’s a volatile state, with a Looney Tunes constitution, and low likelihood it’ll even make it into the next decade. It’s forced to pay high transit fees to get any oil through the US or Canada. Because it’s physically cut off from the global shipping network, it’s forced to sell its goods, including oil, to the US and Canada at criminally below-market prices."

Here's the alternate reality version:

Imaginary Independent Alberta has had its borders closed by Canada’s Federal Government, and now the Ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert are useless, completely unable to move imports and exports. Canada has suffered a brain drain (not depopulation though, because their other borders are still wide open) due to its entrepreneurial class moving to low tax, freedom-oriented Imaginary Independent Alberta.

Canada, which won’t enforce its existing constitution, struggles to raise capital because it’s driven its economic engine out of the country, and there’s low likelihood it’ll even make it into the next decade once other western provinces see how Alberta has prospered, and decide to leave confederation themselves.

Canada’s federal government is so mad at Alberta’s rejection, they force their remaining citizens to pay high transit fees to get oil from Prime Minister Carney’s new best friends in Venezuela and Russia. Newly Independent Imaginary Alberta, on the other hand, can sell its goods worldwide due to a productivity increase resulting from no longer bankrolling Canada’s federal government.

In truth, no one knows the future. Let us hope neither of the above scenarios come to pass. Let’s plan for a future where, if Albertans choose to be independent of Canada’s federal government, all concerned work to have neighbourly relations. There’s no need for Alberta and Canada to be at loggerheads.

Moving on, Sarkonak does not seem to understand the sentiment of many Albertans. Whether the province becomes an independent nation, a US state, or a territory of the US is immaterial — anything would be better than the current arrangement. And with regards to having local representation in the federal government… we don’t have representation now! And perhaps she’s not aware that in Alberta, the phrase "Crown land" encompasses both provincial and federal government lands. The province manages most public land, while the federal government manages the remaining areas, including national parks, military land, and First Nations reserves.

Since 2017, forester Ken Hodges had warned now-former Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault that if deadwood was not removed, Jasper would burn. His warnings were ignored. He testified that what little was done was “insignificant and poorly thought out."

Similarly, someone should probably let her know about former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s Clarity Act. She will need to complain to her MP if she objects to the ability of a province of Canada to secede from confederation. She’s right about some things. A lot of Alberta’s existing problems can be solved right now — by becoming an independent nation! It would be DOGE on steroids in terms of rightsizing government. Albertans have come to realize that Canada’s federal government adds cost disproportionate to its value.

Oh, and Jamie’s right about another thing. Federal matters are out of our hands — that is why so many yearn to be free of confederation. And let’s be honest, Alberta’s provincial civil servants aren’t going to be seconded to Ottawa to become federal bureaucrats (unless they speak French).

Now, I don’t want to be mean spirited, and I complement Jamie Sarkonak for taking an interest in politics. But I think it’s important Albertans be able to consider their options without fearmongering by journalists on the Liberal Party of Canada’s payroll. I look forward to Ms. Sarkonak’s next editorial, which will no doubt lecture Quebecers on the stupidity of their imaginary utopian breakaway province. Or is it only Albertans that don’t "have the depth of competence to accomplish independence"?

Stewart Jeanes is an Alberta businessman.

https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/jeanes-fearmongering-from-the-propaganda-wing-of-canadas-federal-government/70030