News:
SMF - Just Installed!
- Welcome to THeBlueCashew.
Posted by Shen Li
- June 10, 2025, 10:18:07 PMI am curious what support there is for independence vs some new arrangement vs status quo. My guess is that status quo would win because of Redmonton. Some new federal arrangement would be the least popular option.
That's just my opinion. Besides, I don't live in Canada anymore and I'm just a Chink.
That's just my opinion. Besides, I don't live in Canada anymore and I'm just a Chink.
Posted by .
- June 10, 2025, 09:33:36 PMQuote from: DKG on June 10, 2025, 10:29:38 AMI thought you were referring to Alberta's share of the national debt if they leave Canada.My mistake, I batted that one out thinking I was talking to Herman, he's started quite a few threads regarding this of late.
First of all, I do not live in either prairie province. I am a sympathetic Central Canadian.
Re: the debt - a less than charitable prick (ie: me) would weigh that against the blood money those two provinces that already probbed up Quebec with, perhaps pointing out that forbidding development of key parts (like pipelines) ought be levied against national debt. Yeah, Ottawa would cry foul and the correct response should be "haha, fuck off you cunt".
But that's not going to happen now, eh?
Quote from: DKG on June 10, 2025, 10:29:38 AMI want both provinces to stay in Canada, but the status quo is unacceptable. Alberta held a referendum on changing equalization that passed with something like sixty two percent of the vote. The Trudeau government ignored the results.In other words "ignoring the public's will". Just like Trudeau did. This is no different; a large whack of the population want out, their "representatives" are instead looking to boilerplate on more regulations to the already existing red tape that doesn't work and the citizenry want out from beneath, Something they can point to and say "we fixed everything" when really all they did was kick the can further down the road in the name of representing the interests of someone other than the public they are supposed to be doing the will of.
I like Premiers Smith and Moe's third way option that protects provincial jurisdiction and creates provincial alternatives to the RCMP, CPP, CRA </snip>
And should Canada's ruling elites find themselves find themselves as popular as a wet fart in a spacesuit because of it, then no matter. They can simply install someone new at the last minute who will promise to deliver what the last guy failed to and we can watch it all fall apart in the first month a-la Carney.
It rather seems like the skepticism I maintain is well founded, eh? This is the exact same kind of bullshit that played out in the UK's bid for economic and legislative autonomy, resulting in an "independence" where Europe is still shoveling "refugees" in by the boatload to loot and to burn, to rape and to pillage. All at the Britisher's expense and may the cops kick your door in and fuck you up if you complain about it.
It is futile to the point of insanity to even hope for a different outcome without tacit and tangible support from someone to get the job done. Which you are telling me SK and AB do not enjoy in the state and which I seriously doubt exists in the public. Oh they say they want independence, some may even believe it in their widdle heartie-poos, but few (if any) have the stomach for the fight and are instead pinning their hopes on champions who are looking to weasel their way out of it.
Quote from: DKG on June 10, 2025, 10:29:38 AMSo, it is most likely status quo or independence. And neither premier supports independence. The ball is in Carney's court. His actions will decide if independence referendums receive the magical fifty percent plus one. I have no faith in any Liberal to do anything in the national interest.Nor I in any Canadian, it's why I got the fuck out of the country five years ago. Carney finds himself on a good wicket, one where he can negotiate directly with two premiers who according to you are both receptive and willing to defuse the independence movement. Newsflash matey; Canada as a nation is failing, Alberta and Saskatchewan are the parachutes that are expected to slow the inevitable Fail. They can and will continue to be exploited to this end for as long as the fight keeps getting palmed off to people that shuffle up to the table of public sentiment and say "ooooo, look at this shiney we've got".
Much better that AB and SK cut all ties with Ottawa forthwith and let it careen off the cliff than to be dragged down along with it. All the while wailing "we're with you Unkie Trump, saaaaave us" as you're all chasing the lie of a better future from an establishment that has consistently failed to provide for generation after generation.
But hey, what do I know, right? The average Albertan might just be masochistic enough that they enjoy the status quo. Gives them something to moan about while they're being sodomized like prison bitches. It's certainly in the rest of Canada's interest that things continue the way they are.
Posted by DKG
- June 10, 2025, 10:29:38 AMQuoteYou are missing my point; the oversized (and ongoing) contributions are the obligations I am referring to. Alberta's premier can best show her commitment to building Alberta's sovereign wealth by terminating said contributions, something that is only assured through independence or (don't laugh) through the generosity of Ottawa's consideration.I thought you were referring to Alberta's share of the national debt if they leave Canada.
First of all, I do not live in either prairie province. I am a sympathetic Central Canadian. The two prairie provinces contribute so much to confederation and Ottawa continues to bite the hand that feeds them.
I want both provinces to stay in Canada, but the status quo is unacceptable. Alberta held a referendum on changing equalization that passed with something like sixty two percent of the vote. The Trudeau government ignored the results.
I like Premiers Smith and Moe's third way option that protects provincial jurisdiction and creates provincial alternatives to the RCMP, CPP, CRA, immigration like Quebec has. But, I expect the Carney government will stand in the way of that.
So, it is most likely status quo or independence. And neither premier supports independence. The ball is in Carney's court. His actions will decide if independence referendums receive the magical fifty percent plus one. I have no faith in any Liberal to do anything in the national interest.
Posted by .
- June 10, 2025, 05:33:36 AMQuote from: DKG on June 09, 2025, 10:28:50 AMIt's not Alberta's obligations to Canada that are unlikely to be met in the unlikely event that they get a fifty percent plus one yes vote in a referendum. It is Canada's obligations to the oversized contribution that province has made to Canada.You are missing my point; the oversized (and ongoing) contributions are the obligations I am referring to. Alberta's premier can best show her commitment to building Alberta's sovereign wealth by terminating said contributions, something that is only assured through independence or (don't laugh) through the generosity of Ottawa's consideration.
The latter I'm sure you will agree is a pipe dream. That leaves us with the former. The longer Alberta remains yoked to those equalization payments, the longer they will put a drain on any attempt to build sovereign wealth. Ergo, any dragging of the feet or capitulation on the path to independence is working counter to efforts to build said sovereign wealth, every bit as surely as the termination of infrastructure development works to get your product out of the ground and into the international market.
I am getting the impression of feet being dragged on this issue. The premier of Alberta is at liberty to prove me wrong and I sincerely hope she does, but flowery Words and assurances of her past record will not do it. Expedited results will. Alberta and your province of Saskatchewan need concrete and tangible movement towards their independence, not a bunch of press releases of "we're gunna do this thing".
With all respect my friend, defending their character to me or anyone else on this forum achieves nothing. I certainly cannot magic away the drain on your province's coffers any more than I can wave my dick at Shen-Li's stock portfolio and have it suddenly be expressed in US dollars. You can however continue to provide incentive to your premier to get things done to that end and get all the louder and more raucous about it at the first hint of them putting a foot wrong. Which I strongly urge you do, even should it mean marshalling convoys of disgruntled voters to converge on parliament and make your voices heard if need be.
Everyone has their price, your elected representatives are no exception. Leave them as little wriggle room to be bought as you can.
She has done a lot to protect her province from the economic warfare of the federal Liberals. So has Scott Moe of Saskatchewan.
[/quote]
Posted by DKG
- June 09, 2025, 10:28:50 AMQuote from: . on June 09, 2025, 08:31:03 AMThen let's see her prove that with Alberta's exit from its obligations to Canada. Forgive my cynicism, I'm too used to political figures making all the right noises and doing buttfuck nothing to back it up with concrete action. Sovereign wealth is a hard enough thing to build when you aren't afforded the free and unfettered ability to create the wealth you know you might realise and any progress that you do make gets taxed by equalization payments.It's not Alberta's obligations to Canada that are unlikely to be met in the unlikely event that they get a fifty percent plus one yes vote in a referendum. It is Canada's obligations to the oversized contribution that province has made to Canada.
There's limited options that can address that and they all start with independence from Canada.
She has done a lot to protect her province from the economic warfare of the federal Liberals. So has Scott Moe of Saskatchewan.
Posted by .
- June 09, 2025, 08:31:03 AMQuote from: DKG on June 08, 2025, 10:18:50 AMI read the premier of Alberta recognizes that too which is why she wants to build the province's sovereign wealth fund while the sun shines.Then let's see her prove that with Alberta's exit from its obligations to Canada. Forgive my cynicism, I'm too used to political figures making all the right noises and doing buttfuck nothing to back it up with concrete action. Sovereign wealth is a hard enough thing to build when you aren't afforded the free and unfettered ability to create the wealth you know you might realise and any progress that you do make gets taxed by equalization payments.
There's limited options that can address that and they all start with independence from Canada.
Posted by DKG
- June 08, 2025, 10:18:50 AMQuote from: . on June 08, 2025, 03:22:23 AMAnd before you tell me, yes I am aware that a sideways drilling operation would be horrendously ineffective. Just as I am sure that you are aware that the window of opportunity to exploit this resource for the benefit of Albertans is necessarily subject to its own use-by date. After all, nothing lasts forever, not even a promise from the Orange One.I read the premier of Alberta recognizes that too which is why she wants to build the province's sovereign wealth fund while the sun shines.
Make us both happy Herman. Get Alberta out of Canada while the getting is good.
Posted by .
- June 08, 2025, 03:22:23 AMAnd before you tell me, yes I am aware that a sideways drilling operation would be horrendously ineffective. Just as I am sure that you are aware that the window of opportunity to exploit this resource for the benefit of Albertans is necessarily subject to its own use-by date. After all, nothing lasts forever, not even a promise from the Orange One.
Make us both happy Herman. Get Alberta out of Canada while the getting is good.
Make us both happy Herman. Get Alberta out of Canada while the getting is good.
Posted by .
- June 08, 2025, 03:13:16 AMBetter get a wriggle on then my friend, or this could be you!
Posted by Herman
- June 07, 2025, 07:19:49 PMThese numbers are in US$.
Posted by Herman
- June 04, 2025, 10:37:36 PM
Alberta has a proposal for Conman Carney . The upside for Canada is Alberta unlocking $14 trillion in oil wealth that will benefit millions of Canadians for generations.
All Alberta needs is:
✅Guaranteed corridor and port access to tidewater off the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic coasts for the international export of Alberta resources.
✅Approval of an oil pipeline to the BC Northwest coast.
✅Overhauling the No More Pipelines law Bill C-69 to respect provincial jurisdiction and reduce red tape for pipeline and other resource infrastructure.
✅ Scrapping unconstitutional, industry-killing regulations like the oil and gas emissions cap and Net Zero power regulations.
✅Repealing the Tanker Ban to enable exports from the Port of Prince Rupert.
✅Returning the regulation of industrial emissions to the provinces.
✅Working with Pathways and Alberta to reach a final investment decision on the project so that Canadian oil can be marketed as the cleanest on the planet for decades.
Posted by Herman
- June 02, 2025, 06:29:27 PM
Posted by Herman
- May 25, 2025, 06:00:05 PM𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐍𝐨 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐕𝐞𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐥𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐦 — 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐎𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐰𝐚, 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐬, 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬, 𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫-𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬
There's a lot of noise about who could "veto" a referendum in Alberta. Here's the truth, plain and simple:
𝐍𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐯𝐞𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐦 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚.
That includes, but not limited to:
- The 𝐟𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 (𝐎𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐰𝐚)
- First Nations 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬
- 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬
- 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫-𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐬
- 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬
- 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬
𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞'𝐬 𝐖𝐡𝐲:
𝟏. 𝐀𝐥𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐦𝐬
The Canadian Constitution allows provinces to hold referendums on matters under their jurisdiction. Alberta doesn't need anyone's permission to ask its citizens a question through a democratic vote.
𝟐. 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬
Most provincial referendums are 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠. They don't create laws — they simply reflect the will of the people. And 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐯𝐞𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧.
𝟑. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐯𝐞𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭
No government, organization, or protest movement has the authority to legally cancel or overrule the outcome of a provincial vote. There's 𝐧𝐨 𝐦𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦 in Canadian law that gives anyone a "veto" over the will of a province's people.
𝟒. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬
In the 1998 Reference re Secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that if a province holds a referendum with a clear question and a clear majority, then both the federal and provincial governments have a duty to negotiate. It did not say that anyone could veto the result.
𝟓. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞 — 𝐧𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐯𝐞𝐭𝐨
First Nations, religious groups, and protest movements 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤, 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝.. Their participation in democratic dialogue is essential. But 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠. The same goes for anyone organizing or attending counter-protests: you have the right to oppose — not the right to override.
There's a lot of noise about who could "veto" a referendum in Alberta. Here's the truth, plain and simple:
𝐍𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐯𝐞𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐦 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚.
That includes, but not limited to:
- The 𝐟𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 (𝐎𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐰𝐚)
- First Nations 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬
- 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬
- 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫-𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐬
- 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬
- 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬
𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞'𝐬 𝐖𝐡𝐲:
𝟏. 𝐀𝐥𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐦𝐬
The Canadian Constitution allows provinces to hold referendums on matters under their jurisdiction. Alberta doesn't need anyone's permission to ask its citizens a question through a democratic vote.
𝟐. 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬
Most provincial referendums are 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠. They don't create laws — they simply reflect the will of the people. And 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐯𝐞𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧.
𝟑. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐯𝐞𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭
No government, organization, or protest movement has the authority to legally cancel or overrule the outcome of a provincial vote. There's 𝐧𝐨 𝐦𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦 in Canadian law that gives anyone a "veto" over the will of a province's people.
𝟒. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬
In the 1998 Reference re Secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that if a province holds a referendum with a clear question and a clear majority, then both the federal and provincial governments have a duty to negotiate. It did not say that anyone could veto the result.
𝟓. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞 — 𝐧𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐯𝐞𝐭𝐨
First Nations, religious groups, and protest movements 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤, 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝.. Their participation in democratic dialogue is essential. But 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠. The same goes for anyone organizing or attending counter-protests: you have the right to oppose — not the right to override.
Posted by Herman
- May 25, 2025, 05:50:57 PM
Posted by Brent
- May 25, 2025, 12:21:35 PMSupport for separation at least in Alberta keeps rising.
From A Leger survey.
"To what extent would you support or oppose the province of Alberta becoming a country independent of Canada?" 47% were in favour compared to 48% opposed, with those in support higher than in many previous polls.
Second, while 62% of Canadians nationally are opposed to Alberta separating compared to 26% in favour, 55% said they "understand why Alberta might want to become an independent country" compared to 37% who said they didn't understand.
The survey of 1,537 Canadian adults taken from May 16-18 found more people in every province, among both men and women and in every age group, saying they understood why Alberta might want to become an independent country, than those who said they didn't understand.
These numbers refute the erroneous perception that support for separation is a view held by only a small minority in Alberta and that Canadians are unsympathetic to what's driving it.
It also indicates that mocking Alberta Premier Danielle Smith for introducing a bill lowering the bar for citizens seeking to trigger province-wide referendums on issues such as separation, won't make the controversy disappear.
From A Leger survey.
"To what extent would you support or oppose the province of Alberta becoming a country independent of Canada?" 47% were in favour compared to 48% opposed, with those in support higher than in many previous polls.
Second, while 62% of Canadians nationally are opposed to Alberta separating compared to 26% in favour, 55% said they "understand why Alberta might want to become an independent country" compared to 37% who said they didn't understand.
The survey of 1,537 Canadian adults taken from May 16-18 found more people in every province, among both men and women and in every age group, saying they understood why Alberta might want to become an independent country, than those who said they didn't understand.
These numbers refute the erroneous perception that support for separation is a view held by only a small minority in Alberta and that Canadians are unsympathetic to what's driving it.
It also indicates that mocking Alberta Premier Danielle Smith for introducing a bill lowering the bar for citizens seeking to trigger province-wide referendums on issues such as separation, won't make the controversy disappear.