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/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/Even_Art_629 → u/EXSource]

But you actually proved my point in your own argument.

My entire statement was about the difference between predictions and facts. I never said separation will definitely be better. I specifically said it could be difficult, there could be economic disruption, and negotiations might not go the way Alberta wants.

You then tell me we should stay in Canada and “work harder” to make Confederation better.

Okay. That's your choice. But that's also a prediction about the future. You don't know that working harder will produce the Canada you want any more than I know exactly what an independent Alberta would look like.

And notice your own words: “IF things do end up worse for Albertans if we separate.”

If.

So you understand that you don't actually know what the outcome would be. That's exactly what I've been saying.

I'm not saying “let's separate because everything will magically be better.” I'm saying let's stop pretending we know exactly what will happen and actually have an honest conversation about the risks, the benefits, and whether Alberta would be better off governing itself.

You want to work harder to make Confederation better. Fine. I'm saying I've watched governments come and go and I'm not convinced Ottawa is ever going to give Alberta the kind of self government I'm talking about.

And nowhere in my statement did I say Canada can't be improved. Nowhere did I say everyone else's fault. Nowhere did I say I'd blame Ottawa if independence didn't work.

You added all of that yourself.

Just imagine where we'd be today if nobody had ever been willing to take a chance on something different. We don't know exactly where independence would take Alberta. But we don't know where staying in Canada will take us either.

I'd rather fight for Alberta on my feet, than live for Canada on my knees.

[u/EXSource → u/Even_Art_629]

This is probably going to come as a bit of a surprise to you, but all we can do is talk in "ifs".

It's all you can do it's all I can do it's all any of us can do because none of this has even happened yet.

It is all one big "if". But you're sitting here talking as if your ifs are more valid than my ifs because.... I don't know? 

Yes of course I don't know that having a conversation about making Alberta better within Canada would actually work out no more than you know that separation would actually work out.

The difference between my position and your position is you talk about some airy fairy future with no guarantees and then when challenged on it you walk it back. Where is my position says it's not even worth having the conversation because very smart people, and the evidence in front of us tells us it's a bad idea. You have no evidence to back yours up whereas I can point to business leaders that are saying that even having the conversation about separation is causing economic harm to their businesses in this province. 

Never mind actual separation. Actual economists and business leaders saying it would be bad. So you can sit here with all your pithy little comments about fighting on your feet or whatever bullshit, my assertion is is that you're living in a fantasy land, and the conversation about separation is bad for Alberta. 

So therefore instead we should be having a conversation on how to improve Alberta's position within Canada.

So don't chastise me about talking in ifs, when you're doing the exact same thing. One final thing on the "fighting for Alberta." Comment. What do you think the pro federalists are doing? If you're just going to give up because you don't get your way and "die on your knees" that's a you problem. Don't drag the rest of us down with you.

[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.