IS ALBERTA’S PREMIER HAVING A PARIZEAU MOMENT?
Three weeks in, and it’s already a trying year in Canadian politics:
There’s the leadership vacuum. Justin Trudeau, prime minister of the moment, throws Alberta under the bus and frames premier Danielle Smith as disloyal. Deja vu all over again? In 1980, Trudeau (the elder) did much the same, lecturing Alberta on the imperative to share and deploying the National Energy Program “to cut Alberta down to size” (start the podcast at the 11:30′ mark to learn more).
While Donald Trump didn’t mention Canada in his inauguration speech, he later told journalists he planned to impose a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico as of February 1st. Liberal leadership candidate Chrystia Freeland huffs and puffs and promises “the biggest trade blow the United States has ever endured.” Golly! We imagine the United States is shivering with fear — not. Cold, maybe, hence Trump’s exhortation “drill baby, drill!”
Here in the (former) petroleum paradise, Albertans have had it with political has-beens finger wagging we’re not “Canadian” enough.
We told you this could happen (and caught hell for saying so)
In 2018, we warned CBC readers about the danger of fanning the embers of separation:
“Dark resentments thought buried in this part of the country have been reawakened. The ideas behind Canadian confederation are at risk. Albertans are perplexed, and now many are angry. Why is our prime minister, we say, so obsessively focused on his role as heroic defender of a post-nation world and in doing so, neglects the needs of his own country?”
In 2019, we explained Jacques Parizeau’s 1967 epiphany:
“Travelling by transcontinental train from Montreal to Banff in 1967, the future Quebec premier and leader of the Parti Quebecois realized the country was unworkable. “He got on board as a federalist,” a former colleague said, catching the train from the central station in Montreal, the birthplace of the Canadian Pacific Railway (which made Canada possible in the first place). Ironically, Parizeau had accepted an invitation to speak on the success of federalism. He hadn’t written the speech. The three-day train trip gave him time to reflect and put words to paper.
By the time he arrived in the shadow of the Rockies and the Banff train depot, he was of the view that Canada was not sustainable. It was a political contrivance that was doomed. And right then and there, the architect of Quebec’s financial system – with a separate pension plan and monetary clout to invest abroad – created the economy for an independent Quebec, to exist in association with the rest of Canada.”
Jacques Parizeau was pragmatic.
He understood what was plain as day by looking out the window of his train car. And he did something about it.
Which begs a question we take no pleasure in asking, but must:
Is Danielle Smith having a Parizeau moment? As leader, Smith’s emulating what the Bloc Quebecois accomplished in a political generation—shoring up economic security, advocating for independent policing, fighting for provincial rights—all in an effort to be maitre chez nous of our own territory.
Canadians need to wake up to the truth that our country doesn’t work anymore (certainly not as our founders envisioned). After nine years of Trudeau (the younger) and leadership that is clearly out of touch, our national identity has been undermined. No one knows exactly what it means to be Canadian any more.
Again — we take no pleasure in reporting this: We still believe in Canada. But if Canada insists on neglecting Alberta, well…and as we’ve said before…given future prospects, maybe that might be something to exploit, eh.
We’re at the end of the beginning. We’re now in unknown territory. Here be the dragons that will define the next generation or two ahead.
BEYOND POLARITY is the consensus opinion of the writers Donna Kennedy-Glans & Don Hill. If you haven’t already, please subscribe — scroll down on your phone or tablet, or look to the right in the panel beside this post. Enter your email to FOLLOW, a wheel spins, hamsters get fed.
Great article.
Donna, thank you for your thoughtful commentary, today and previously as well.
Now, as to substance, you note that “… our country doesn’t work anymore (certainly not as our founders envisioned) …”
I respectfully – very respectfully – suggest that you give yourself some time to the study of the provisions of the British North America Act which is, of course, substantially the basis of the Constitution Act that governs us currently. The original BNA Act very clearly was arranged to allow the center (i.e. Upper Canada and Lower Canada) to dominate and rule the regions. In those days, the regions were the Atlantic provinces; now, of course, the regions include the Atlantic and all provinces and territories west of Ontario. The center still dominates. Put differently, I must respectfully disagree with you: it operates precisely the way the founders envisioned – it has always been a fixed game.
My contention is that if M. Parizeau was correct in 1967, that has not changed and the Canada that he saw as being unworkable is still unworkable.
Of course, we had T1 who launched energy wars in the 1970s, culminating with the NEP. I recall and lived through the changes in taxation, etc. in the 1970s and the horror of the NEP in the 1980s. The fact that I am able to type this today means that I have lived through the awfulness of T2.
Today we were expecting tariffs from the US but we have been spared. Temporarily. I attribute a great deal of that deferral to the work of our premier. I may be wrong but that is what I feel.
What I can say further, however, is that this issue with the US is only deferred and we must, WE MUST, prepare for our worsers (for they certainly are not our betters!) in the federal government to again use us for “sharing.” As the audio clip that you included showed, the Trudeaux (both pere and fils) are really big on “sharing” our resources but aren’t at all much interested in sharing the resources of the center. Therefore, we must prepare our defenses.
Read this three times because I’m aghast. This would make sense if it was only Alberta risking its oil and gas revenue. But that’s not the case, is it?
In this case, context is everything and it seems you’ve left it out.
But it’s hard to argue against the idea that Alberta holds the Trump card here- with hydrocarbon exports being such a relatively large percentage of Canada’s export value to the US.
Jess, please excuse me for I am confused. Truly; I am not being critical; I am confused.
I certainly understand your instruction that I should read the material three times and I similarly understand that you are aghast. I apologize further but I am uncertain what you are saying and to which context you refer when you say it is left out. I respectfully request that you flesh out your comment further.
ideal! Scientists Create Artificial Photosynthesis System 2025 remarkable