GIESBRECHT: Western independence... a few rubes wearing cowboy hats?

Point and counterpointIn this piece, retired Manitoba judge Brian Giesbrecht presents his case for the inevitability of Western independence. For the other side of the argument as seen from Manitoba, the reader is directed to retired Manitoba professor Hymie Rubenstein. Both articles were published at 14:30MT on Tuesday 6th May.RUBENSTEIN: Western independence? Alberta, kwitcherbitchin' .I read a comment on social media recently. It was by some wag dismissing the Western independence movement as “a few cranky rubes in cowboy hats”.Is that what our new prime minister thinks about the growing movement for Western independence?It’s too soon to tell. But I recently listened to an interview with someone who is almost a clone of Mark Carney, and that interview might give us a clue.The man is Michael Ignatieff. Remember him? He became Liberal leader in 2009 after Stephane Dion resigned. Like Carney, he was an intellectual and outsider who had been brought in to save the party, and get it back into power. Also like Carney he had left Canada years before, and had become a citizen in his adopted countries..Carney and Ignatieff are both what former prime minister Stephen Harper called 'Anywheres' — that is, they were wealthy, educated members of the establishment and could afford to live anywhere they pleased, at any given time. "Somewheres,” on the other hand are what most of us are — connected to where we live, and not able to fly around on jets, and buy villas wherever we alight.Ignatieff and Carney both believe in the same things, like Big Government, globalism, high taxes, and “net zero.” They both despise Donald Trump and all of his policies.Anyway, politics didn’t work out for Ignatieff. He lost badly to Harper in 2011, and retired from politics.But the fact that he is no longer political made his interview very useful. Quite simply, he didn’t have to trot out the usual talking points that politicians always feel they have to, and he spoke candidly. He described in detail how and why the election campaign had unfolded the way it did. And he also went into considerable detail about the challenges facing Canada at this fraught time..But to me the remarkable thing about the lengthy interview is that Ignatieff said not one word about the very real and growing problem of Western alienation. It was as if it was a topic that didn’t even need to be discussed. That is, it was just more of the same — as in, “the West always gripes, so what of it?”.And that seems to be a common attitude of Ontario and Quebec pundits. They are prepared to endlessly discuss Quebec separatist sentiment, but are dismissive of the increasing calls for a referendum on Western independence now being heard in both Alberta and Saskatchewan. Quebec journalists will write volumes on why King Charles should not come to Canada to give the throne speech, but not even notice the anger boiling over in the West.The attitude at CBC is just a slightly more polished version of the “rubes in cowboy hats” comment. They mock the active discussion of Western independence, saying “It is all the rage,” in the West.And one commentator simply dismisses it, saying, “Western separatism is bunk.”Others say it is just “sour grapes”, or Alberta having a temper tantrum because the West’s choice didn’t win.Even more thoughtful discussions on the subject, such as this Hub essay, miss the mark..The East doesn’t get it. The fact is that this last election was not just like any other Liberal win. This one comes after ten years of a virtual attack by Ottawa on Alberta. And this one feels very much like Quebec and Ontario ganging up on the West — using their larger population to keep the West captive. It feels more like a mugging than democracy in action.Sometimes it takes an observer from outside of our borders to take an objective look at the problem. Professor James Kerr-Lindsay is an astute observer of nations in trouble. He sees the problem when one half of a country sees things differently than does the other half. Divorce is sometimes the only solution.And this clear-headed Canadian thinker — Lorne Gunter — knows that the problem will only grow if Quebec and Ontario pretend it isn’t there..Cory Morgan uses the example of Norway and Sweden separating by mutual agreement after a peaceful referendum. As one country there had been great tension there, but after separation, relations are good. The Norwegians and Swedes simply saw things differently.I mentioned the example of Czechoslovakia separating peacefully into two countries, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. They were also two peoples who also simply saw things differently.And some of us saw this coming years ago. Here’s an old newspaper column of mine that I titled “Montana North”.David Krayden is another thoughtful writer who has been on top of this growing problem for years. He also refers to Albertans and Montanans. The truth is that most Albertans have far more in common with Montana residents than they do with someone from Toronto or Montreal. It is also true that trade in this country has always flowed north and south, and not east and west. The Canadian West and American West are not that different..So, it is very clear from the difference between what Eastern and Western pundits are writing, that Eastern Canada doesn’t understand that the West is at a tipping point. This is not just a case of sore losers. The country is fracturing.As Cory Morgan explains, unless there is a clear change in direction, Western independence is only a matter of time. Although polls still don’t show a majority favouring independence, those poll numbers would quickly rise if — for instance — Carney brings in the home equity tax the Liberals have been threatening, or if Carney’s new environment minister proves to be the zealot his predecessor was.So, is separation inevitable, or is it possible for Canada to stay together?.Here is Premier Danielle Smith’s list of demands. Central to that list is that Alberta has the right to produce and market its immense oil and gas reserves. But is it likely that the new Carney government will meet even that one demand? So far, the signs are not good. Carney has recently repeated his lifelong commitment to the same extreme climate change views routinely voiced by Quebec politicians, such as, “We don’t want Alberta’s dirty oil”.Or more recently, Bloc Québécois leader Yves Blanchet’s pronouncement that, “There is no future for oil and gas”.Quebec is firmly stuck in the same place much of the Western world was a decade or so ago, where crowds followed Greta Thunberg down the street chanting that fossil fuels must be left in the ground.She said in 2021, “The uncomfortable fact is if we are to live up to our Paris agreement promises we have to end fossil fuel subsidies, end new exploration, completely divest from fossil fuels and keep the carbon in the ground,” said Thunberg. But even former followers in Europe are acknowledging that fossil fuels will be here for a long time to come. The attempt to rid Europe of fossil fuels has only led to deindustrialization, higher energy costs, and falling living standards.Greta is yesterday’s news. .But Quebec hasn’t got that memo. They are stuck in place in a world where fossil fuels are evil, and should even be banned.And Carney seems to be stuck in that same “climate emergency” rut. In fact, he professes to be a great fan of Saint Greta.So, will Canada be any different under Carney than it was under Justin Trudeau? Both are climate apostles. They built their careers by climbing on the climate change bus.Justin Trudeau treated fossil fuels in much the same way that most politicians treat deadly, illegal drugs. And he treated Alberta basically as a recidivist drug pusher, with climate zealot Steven Guilbeault acting like a “drug czar” and making things as difficult as possible for Alberta to get fossil fuels out of the ground and market them efficiently. And now after ten years of Trudeau and his Liberals doing that, and denying Alberta the pipelines it needs, the question is whether Mark Carney — and the same Liberals who brought us to this low point — can save us.Will Carney show flexibility and accept even the basic items of Smith’s list? Or will he dismiss Western alienation as the gripes of a few rubes in cowboy hats?For those of us hoping that this country is not slowly disintegrating, the signs are not promising. As mentioned, Carney recently affirmed his commitment to the same 'climate change' narrative that Trudeau subscribed to. And he promised to give a fossil fuel-hating Quebec a veto over the construction of any proposed pipelines that would cross Quebec. So, there’s that, too.But hope springs eternal. Us rubes in cowboy hats have no choice but to wait and see what Carney will do.Brian Giesbrecht is a retired judge and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

GIESBRECHT: Western independence... a few rubes wearing cowboy hats?

Related Stories