WCC REDUX

WESTERN SEPARATISTS

Alberta to defy Canada power rules in face-off with Trudeau

Robert Tuttle, Bloomberg News

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith invoked a measure to defy federal regulations that aim for a net zero electrical grid by 2035, setting up a confrontation between the Canadian province and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government.

The resolution proposed under the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act orders provincial government agencies to not enforce or aid in enforcing Canada’s clean electricity regulations, arguing that power generation is the jurisdiction of the provinces under the constitution, not the federal government’s. 

The move is likely to set up a major court battle and standoff between Trudeau and Smith, a conservative premier who has vowed to thwart federal regulations that would undermine the province’s energy sector.

Smith’s government said in a statement that Alberta, which relies on natural gas for the bulk of its power generation, is able to achieve a net-zero power grid by 2050 but the 2035 target would be “unaffordable, unreliable and unconstitutional” and puts people at risk of “freezing in the dark” when temperatures drop as low as minus-23F. 

The federal rules are flexible enough to be “realistic and accommodate Alberta’s needs,” Steven Guilbeault, Trudeau’s environment minister, said in a statement. “We have been collaborating in good faith on clean electricity investments and regulations as part of our Canada-Alberta working group, which we created at the request of Alberta with the express intent to work through these issues collaboratively. The government of Alberta has never brought up a constitutional veto at the negotiating table.

Smith has railed against the federal clean power rules for months, even launching a multimillion-dollar ad campaign against the measures. But Wednesday’s move marks the first time she has invoked her signature sovereignty law, which her government argues allows her province to override federal laws or regulations, but which has yet to be tested in court.

The step comes a month after the Supreme Court of Canada largely struck down a separate federal law on the review major resource and infrastructure projects, legislation that was opposed by Canada’s oil industry. 

The province doesn’t have time to wait years for the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the clean electricity regulations and must act now, Smith said at a news conference on Monday.  

The federal clean electricity regulations are discouraging private investors from submitting applications for needed natural gas power plants in Alberta, Smith’s government said in its release. While the resolution to defy the feds wouldn’t apply to private individuals or corporations, the legislation instructs the province to study the feasibility of setting up a provincially owned corporation that could bring on and maintain “more reliable and affordable electricity” at a later date, regardless of federal net-zero government’s rules.

Saskatchewan starts tribunal to review

Ottawa's clean electricity regulations

Jeremy Simes, The Canadian Press

Bronwyn Eyre was announced as Saskatchewan’s minister of justice and attorney general at a press conference  at Government House in Regina THE CANADIAN PRESS/Michael Bell

The Saskatchewan government is using its autonomy legislation for the first time to review the federal government's proposed clean-electricity regulations.

Justice Minister Bronwyn Eyre told reporters Tuesday she's implementing the Saskatchewan First Act to establish a tribunal to study the economic effects of the rules.

The regulations would require provinces to work toward an emissions-free electricity grid by 2035, which Eyre said is creating investor uncertainty. 

"(The regulations) are about emission reduction, but what does it mean? How will it impact our companies in anticipation of these policies? Not exploring as much, not doing as much? Absolutely," Eyre said. 

"We need to get a nuanced, detailed sense of what these policies mean for the economy of Saskatchewan and the people of Saskatchewan."

The act, passed in the spring, is meant to reassert Saskatchewan having jurisdiction over natural resources and electricity generation. It also allows Saskatchewan to set up a tribunal. 

Eyre said the tribunal's members are to submit a report outlining costs of the federal regulations.  

She said they are to work over the next few months, speaking with researchers and those in industry to help inform their report.

The minister said there are no plans to speak with environmental groups, as the tribunal is to only focus on economic costs. 

Its members also have the power to compel witnesses to speak with them.

Michael Milani, a Regina lawyer who will chair the tribunal, said it's unlikely members would use that power.

He added he will ask Ottawa to make a submission.

"If the goal is to obtain the best and most complete information possible, I would think, as chair, we'd want that from all places and all quarters," Milani said. 

"It may well be that the federal government will provide us with additional information and details so that the report will be the most complete and accurate that we're able to create."

A spokesperson for the office of federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault did not immediately provide a comment on whether Ottawa will participate in the tribunal. 

Both Saskatchewan and Alberta have long been at odds with Ottawa over the regulations.

On Monday, Alberta used its sovereignty act for the first time, tabling a motion to empower provincial officials and regulators to not co-operate with the clean-electricity rules.

Alberta and Saskatchewan say Ottawa's 2035 timeline is not doable and would cause higher electricity bills and reliability issues. Instead, they are targeting 2050 for emissions-free electricity. 

Guilbeault has disputed claims the regulations would impose unfair costs and reliability problems, saying Ottawa plans to cover up to half of the cost through tax credits, low-cost financing and other funds. 

His office said Ottawa has spent $40 billion to help provinces build emissions-free electricity infrastructure, which supports jobs while reducing emissions. 

Earlier this month, Dustin Duncan, the minister responsible for Saskatchewan's electricity utility, said the regulations would cost the province $40 billion. 

Saskatchewan finance officials have also estimated a slew of federal environmental policies — the price on carbon, clean fuel regulations, emissions caps and methane initiatives — would cost the province $111 billion by 2035. 

Eyre said even though officials have already outlined these costs, the tribunal is needed to "look at all angles."

"There are a lot of trickle-down impacts from these federal policies that have not been economically canvassed or plumbed or completely analyzed or quantified."

She added the tribunal's report could also be used as evidence in court, should the province file an injunction application in the future.

The province is to spend $150,000 this year on the tribunal, Eyre said. It would then cost $250,000 per year.

The tribunal's members have been appointed for three years and are expected to undertake additional studies after they review the regulations. 

The tribunal also includes former Saskatchewan finance minister Janice MacKinnon, former SaskEnergy CEO Kenneth From, agriculture researcher Stuart Smyth and oilsands worker Estella Peterson.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 28, 2023.

Alberta NDP says premier's rejection of federal authority lays separation groundwork

Yesterday 5:00 p.m.

EDMONTON — Alberta’s NDP Opposition leader says Premier Danielle Smith's comments rejecting the legitimacy of the federal government betray her unspoken plan to lay the groundwork for eventual separation.


Alberta NDP says premier's rejection of federal authority lays separation groundwork© Provided by The Canadian Press

Rachel Notley cited Smith’s comments to the house just before members passed her sovereignty bill earlier Thursday, in which Smith rejected the federal government’s overarching authority.

“It's not like Ottawa is a national government,'' Smith told the house at 12:30 a.m. Thursday.

UH YES IT IS

"The way our country works is that we are a federation of sovereign, independent jurisdictions.  WRONG THIS IS THE AMERICAN STATES CONFEDERACY IDEOLOGY

ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN WERE GRANTED PROVINCIAL POWERS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

They are one of those signatories to the Constitution and the rest of us, as signatories to the Constitution, have a right to exercise our sovereign powers in our own areas of jurisdiction.”

Notley, speaking to reporters, said, “At 12:30 last night when she thought nobody was listening, the veil was lifted and Danielle Smith’s interest in genuinely pursuing initial steps toward separation were revealed.

“(They) demonstrate that her view is actually that which is aligned with these fringe separatist wannabes like folks who drafted the Free Alberta Strategy.

“Those comments are utterly chaos-inducing.”

Free Alberta Strategy was a 2021 policy paper drafted in part by Smith’s current top adviser Rob Anderson.

The authors of the paper argue that federal laws, policies and overreach are mortally wounding Alberta's development.

They urge a two-track strategy to assert greater autonomy for Alberta within Confederation, while simultaneously laying the policy and administrative groundwork to transition Alberta to separation and sovereignty should negotiations fail. 

AND OF COURSE WITH MANY AMERICANS IN SOUTHERN ALBERTA WE KNOW WHERE A SEPERATE ALBERTA WILL GO

The strategy was the genesis for Smith’s controversial sovereignty bill that stipulates the Alberta legislature, rather than the courts, can pass judgment on what is constitutional when it comes to provincial jurisdiction.

The bill also grants cabinet the power to direct municipalities, city police forces, health regions and schools to resist implementing federal laws.

During question period, Smith rejected accusations the bill is a separatist Trojan Horse, noting its intent is contained in the title.

“The name of the bill is Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act,” said Smith.

“The (act) has nothing to do with leaving the country. It has everything to do with resetting the relationship (with the federal government).”

Related video: Alberta passes Sovereignty Act, strips out sweeping powers for cabinet (cbc.ca)

Duration 3:54 View on Watch

Political scientist Jared Wesley said it appears constitutional chaos and baiting the federal government are the actual aims.

“When you start to deny the legitimacy of the federal government, that is part of the worrying trend that ties all of this to the convoy movement and the separatists,” said Wesley, with the University of Alberta.

“Albertans need to know those comments are inappropriate and misleading at best and sparking a national unity crisis at worst. Sooner or later, someone’s going to believe her.”

Wesley added that there is a sentiment among a small group of people in Alberta, including the premier, who "are just tired of losing and don’t want to play the game anymore," he said.

“The sad thing is that that game is democracy and the rule book is the Constitution, and they’re just ignoring all of it now."

Political scientist Duane Bratt said Smith was not describing Canadian federalism.

“She is confusing the European Union with Canada,” said Bratt, with Mount Royal University in Calgary. “Canada is not made up of sovereign provinces. We share sovereignty between orders of government.”

Political scientist Lori William, also with Mount Royal University, said the comment “betrays a profound lack of understanding of Canada, of federalism, of what powers belong to the federal and provincial governments.”

During question period, Smith waved away Opposition demands that she refer the bill to Alberta’s Court of Appeal to determine if it is onside with the Constitution.

Smith told the house that Justice Minister Tyler Shandro, a lawyer, wrote the bill and that the government received independent advice from constitutional lawyers to ensure it was not offside.

“The constitutionality of this bill is not in question,” Smith said.

The bill was introduced by Smith a week ago as centrepiece legislation to pursue a more confrontational approach with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government on a range of issues deemed to be overreach in provincial areas of responsibility.

It was a short, brutish ride for the bill.

Smith’s government, due to a public outcry, had to bring in an amendment just days after introducing the bill to reverse a provision that gave it ongoing emergency-type powers to unilaterally rewrite laws while bypassing the legislature.

Alberta’s First Nations chiefs have condemned the bill as trampling their treaty rights and Smith’s Indigenous relations minister has said more consultation should have been done.

Smith told the house she met with Indigenous leaders just hours earlier to discuss concerns and shared goals. She rejected the assertion the bill doesn’t respect treaty rights.

“There is no impact on treaty and First Nations’ rights. That’s the truth,” she said.

Law professor Martin Olszynski said the bill remains problematic because it must be clear the courts have the final say on interpreting the Constitution in order to stabilize the checks and balances of a democratic system.

He said Smith’s bill threatens that, perhaps putting judges in the awkward position of having to decide whether they are the ones to make those decisions.

“Can that judge exercise their judicial function without being affected by that very politicized context?” said Olszynski, with the University of Calgary.

“It essentially politicizes the judicial process.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 8, 2022.

Dean Bennett, The Canadian Press

FIRST READING: Is Alberta the new Quebec?

Tristin Hopper - NATIONAL POST

Danielle Smith celebrates at the BMO Centre in Calgary following the UCP leadership vote on Thursday, October 6, 2022.© Provided by National Post

The joke has been made quite often in recent weeks that Alberta and Quebec politics appear to have switched places.

Quebec – whose politics were once a decades-long struggle between sovereigntists and federalists – has now transitioned seamlessly into voting for an all-powerful, centre-right monolith.

And Alberta – which spent 44 straight years under the rule of the monolithic Progressive Conservatives – now has the most sovereigntist premier in its history.

On Monday, Quebec delivered an absolutely crushing re-election victory to Coalition Avenir Quebec, the big tent conservative-for-Quebec party headed by disaffected former separatist Francois Legault. The election also utterly demolished the Parti Quebecois, the province’s tradition standard-bearer for sovereigntist sentiment; they only got three seats.

Four days later, a leadership vote by the Alberta United Conservative Party confirmed Danielle Smith as the province’s premier-designate. The one-time leader of Alberta’s upstart Wildrose Party, Smith’s political comeback was due in part to her promise to champion an Alberta Sovereignty Act that would empower the province to govern itself “as a nation within a nation.”

But the wild rose and the fleur-de-lys aren’t so much trading places as they’re becoming mirror images of one another. Both Legault and Smith now share a common mission of aggressively seizing as much power as possible from Ottawa, but without all the red tape of literally trying to separate.

The Alberta Sovereignty Act was modelled to mimic Quebec’s unique level of control over its own affairs, something that Smith said specifically in an August National Post op-ed. “It would essentially give Alberta the same power within confederation that Quebec has,” she wrote.

Among other things, Quebec has control over its immigration, including the power to select the criteria and rate at which immigrants move to the province. Quebec also collects its own income taxes, rather than having the Canada Revenue Agency do it by proxy.

Quebec is also the most enthusiastic user of the Notwithstanding Clause, the section of the Constitution that allows provincial governments to ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This has been used most recently by the Legault government to head off Constitutional challenges against Bill 21, which bans religious garb for anyone in the civil service, and Bill 96, which polices mandatory use of French in the private sector.

Legault’s Coalition Avenir Quebec was founded in 2011 with the stated mission of pursuing unapologetic Quebec nationalism without advocating for outright separation. The pitch has resonated, and the explosive CAQ victory this week was due in part to the fact that so many former separatists have flocked to the CAQ banner.

In 2021, the CAQ even passed a bill proposing to unilaterally change the Canadian constitution to mention “la nation québécoise” and to state that said nation had only one official language.

And for Smith – and the United Conservative Party faction who voted for her – it’s this view of nationalism that has proved most attractive.

“Quebec has asserted it is a nation within a nation … Under my leadership, Alberta will too,” Smith wrote in August.

Despite any emerging political similarities between the two, Quebec and Alberta continue to harbour a raging mutual dislike, usually over the issue of money.

In a Leger poll from just last month, Albertans were found to lead the pack among Canadians who harboured the most resentment towards Quebec.

In 2019, Quebecers were asked by the Angus Reid Institute to rank the provinces that they deemed to be most “unfriendly.” Alberta was the clear winner, with 81 per cent classifying it as an enemy.

This sometimes manifests itself in a very public airing of grievances between the two provinces. In 2018, Legault declared his opposition to Alberta’s “dirty energy,” sparking backlash from then Premier Rachel Notley.

“(Legault) needs to understand that not only is our product not dirty, but that it actually funds the schools, the hospitals and potentially even some of the hydro-electricity infrastructure in Quebec,” said Notley at the time.

Three years later, a clear majority of Albertans voted “yes” in a referendum calling for the abolition of Canada’s equalization program – a program that disproportionately functions to transfer wealth from Alberta to Quebec. (NOT JUST QUEBEC)

THIS IS BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA, VERY LOW VOTER TURN OUT ON THE VOTE, EDMONTON OVERWHELMING MAJORITY VOTED NO, 

SOUTHERN ALBERTA HISTORICALLY AMERICANIZED POPULATION 

VOTED YES.

SOUND LIKE ALBERTA SEPARATISTS 

Poll: Many red-state Trump voters say they'd be 'better off' if their state seceded from U.S.

Andrew Romano

·West Coast Correspondent

Fri, July 15, 2022 

Red-state Donald Trump voters are now more likely to say they’d be personally “better off” (33%) than “worse off” (29%) if their state seceded from the U.S. and “became an independent country,” according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.

It’s a striking rejection of national unity that dramatizes the growing culture war between Democratic- and Republican-controlled states on core issues such as guns, abortion and democracy itself. And an even larger share of red-state Trump voters say their state as a whole would be better off (35%) rather than worse off (30%) if it left the U.S.

Former President Donald Trump at a "Save America" rally in support of Republican candidates on July 9 in Anchorage, Alaska. (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)

The survey of 1,672 U.S. adults, which was conducted from July 8 to 11, comes as a series of hard-line conservative decisions by the Supreme Court — coupled with continued gridlock on Capitol Hill — have shifted America’s center of political gravity back to the states, where the parties in power are increasingly filling the federal void with far-reaching reforms of their own.

The further apart they push their states — on voting rights, on misinformation, on post-Roe regulations, on gun-safety measures — the more the country morphs into what one political analyst has described as “a federated republic of two nations: Blue Nation and Red Nation.”

“[This] is a defining characteristic of 21st-century America,” the Atlantic’s Ron Brownstein recently argued. “The result through the 2020s could be a dramatic erosion of common national rights and a widening gulf — a ‘great divergence’ — between the liberties of Americans in blue states and those in red states.”

Regardless of where they live, most Americans are hardly ready to dissolve the union (even though, in a previous Yahoo News/YouGov poll, a majority of Republicans [52%] did predict that “there will be a civil war in the United States in [their] lifetime”).

Overall, just 17% of Americans actually want their state to “leave the U.S. and become an independent country,” a number that is remarkably consistent across party lines. Only slightly more (19%) favor the U.S. eventually becoming “two countries — one consisting of ‘blue states’ run by Democrats and one consisting of ‘red states’ run by Republicans.”

But dig a little deeper and it becomes clear that this level of consensus is, in part, an illusion.

For the purposes of the survey, Yahoo News defined red states as those with consistent Republican control on the state level in recent years, and blue states as those with consistent Democratic control. Divided states were excluded.

Yet despite obvious and expected differences in party composition, neither red nor blue states consist of anywhere near monolithically Republican or Democratic populations. In fact, across all Yahoo News/YouGov polls conducted so far this year, more than a third of red-state respondents (34%) identify as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents; likewise, more than a quarter of blue-state respondents (26%) identify as Republicans or Republican leaners.

In other words, there are a lot of blue-state and red-state residents who have more in common with their political brethren elsewhere than with their governors or state legislatures.

To truly gauge the gap between red states and blue states, then, it helps to set aside these mostly powerless political minorities and focus instead on the dominant voters who are actually steering state leaders to the left or the right.

Among red-state Trump voters, 92% trust their state government more than the federal government to do “what’s best.” Almost as many (86%) say the federal government is “not working well”; a full two-thirds (67%) insist it’s not working well “at all.”

In contrast, nearly 8 in 10 red-state Trump voters (79%) say their state government is working well, with huge majorities approving of how state leaders are handling guns (78%), democracy (73%), COVID-19 (71%), race (69%), the economy (68%), crime (65%) and abortion (63%).

Trump supporters at a rally in Commerce, Ga., on March 26. (Megan Varner/Getty Images)

As a result, red-state Trump voters are alone in saying that it’s more important for “individual states to make their own laws with minimal interference from the federal government” (56%) than it is for “the federal government to protect people’s constitutional rights when violated by state laws” (33%).

And red-state Trump voters divide roughly down the middle on the question of whether things would be better (37%) or worse (40%) if the country as a whole actually split into a Blue Nation and a Red Nation. No other cohort views disunion so favorably.

Blue-state Joe Biden voters, for instance, are only slightly more inclined (27%) than Americans as a whole (21%) to say things would be better if America broke in two. Just 14% want their own state to secede, versus 29% of red-state Trump voters. And only slightly more blue-state Biden voters (21%) think they themselves would be better off in such a scenario; a full 47% say they’d be worse off.

Given that Democrats generally trust Washington, D.C., more than Republicans do — and currently control it — this may not come as a surprise. But much like red-state Trump voters, blue-state Biden voters also prefer their state government to the federal government by sizable margins.

In fact, blue-state Biden voters (75%) are actually more likely than red-state Trump voters (65%) to say America as a whole would be better off if it “did things more like [their] state.” They’re also more likely to say their state government is working well (84%) — and nearly as likely to say they trust their state government (80%) over the federal government (20%) to do “what’s best.”

Frustrated by the 60-vote threshold to defeat a filibuster, most Biden voters everywhere (53%) say the U.S. Senate has “too much power”; more than three-quarters (76%) say the same of the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court. Nearly half of Biden voters (48%) say they’ve “considered moving to a different country because of politics.” And nearly 6 in 10 blue-state Trump voters say they’ve considered moving to another state for the same reason.

In short, America’s “great divergence” isn’t a one-sided phenomenon. It’s happening in both red America and blue America.

Why? The new Yahoo News/YouGov poll hints at two reasons. The first is pervasive — and not particularly partisan — disillusionment with America as a whole.

Exactly two years ago, a clear plurality of Americans (46%) told Yahoo News and YouGov that the nation’s “best days are still to come”; at the time, just 25% believed the United States’ best days were “behind us.”

Now those numbers are reversed, with 37% saying our best days are behind us and just 31% saying they’re still to come. Similarly, just 19% of Americans predicted two years ago that “their children” would be worse off than they are; today, a full 46% believe the “next generation” will be worse off than their own. That’s a stunning change.

Overall, two-thirds of Americans (65%) say the federal government is not working well. Just 23% say the opposite.

Abortion rights activists march to the White House on July 9 to denounce the Supreme Court decision to end federal abortion rights protections. (Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

It’s no wonder, then, that blue- and red-state residents who agree with the party in power there are retreating into their respective geographic corners. It’s no wonder, either, that they increasingly see each other as cautionary tales — the second factor that seems to be supercharging the “great divergence.”

When asked to compare red states with blue states on a host of issues, red-state Trump voters say by wide margins that blue states have more gun deaths (68%) and discrimination (56%) while red states have more economic growth (75%) and education (55%).

Blue-state Biden voters, in contrast, say it is red states that suffer more gun deaths (62%) and discrimination (75%) — and blue states that enjoy more economic growth (65%) and education (77%).

Obviously, both sides can’t be right. (According to Brownstein, blue-state Biden voters are closer to the mark; other analysts might disagree.) But that isn’t stopping either side from thinking the worst of the other.

_____________

The Yahoo News survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,672 U.S. adults interviewed online from July 8 to 11, 2022. This sample was weighted according to gender, age, race and education based on the American Community Survey, conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, as well as 2020 presidential vote (or nonvote) and voter registration status. Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 2.6%.

FIREWALL ALBERTA

What the spectre of Alberta separatism means for Canada

In October, members of Alberta’s governing United Conservative Party (UCP) will elect a new leader who will then become Alberta’s next premier.

Lisa Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Calgary, University of Calgary \and Jared Wesley, Professor, Political Science, University of Alberta - 

© THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

Edmonton demonstrators gather to protest against COVID-19 measures and support the 'freedom convoy' in February 2022. Research suggests Alberta separatist sentiments have as much to do with antipathy about the federal government and Justin Trudeau as actually leaving Confederation.

A defining issue in this leadership race is Alberta’s place in Canadian Confederation, with several contenders openly discussing “sovereignty,” “autonomy” and even “independence.”

Are Albertans really so keen to sever ties with the rest of Canada? Should Canadians pay much attention to the separatist movement in Alberta? To answer these questions, we looked at data from the recent Viewpoint Alberta survey.

© Author provided

An infographic that shows the key findings of the Viewpoint Alberta survey.

Separatism and the economy

Support for separation remains a minority view in the province, with one in five believing Alberta “should separate from Canada and form an independent country.”

This is a small base from which to build a province-wide following. Yet separatists make up one-third of UCP voters — a sizeable constituency for would-be leaders to court.


© THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntoshBrian Jean is among those vying to replace outgoing Premier Jason Kenney. His campaign slogan is ‘Autonomy for Albertans.’

What motivates these Albertans to take such a drastic position?

Unlike sovereigntists in Québec motivated by a desire to protect their culture, we find Alberta separatists are preoccupied with fiscal and economic issues.

According to our research, Alberta’s separatist movement is also grounded more in party politics than it is in nationalism.

Separatists place themselves further to the right than other Albertans. They are more likely to support conservative political parties both federally and provincially. And they strongly dislike the federal government and Justin Trudeau.
How committed are Alberta separatists?

In our analysis, we found two clues that suggest support for separatism is less a heartfelt desire to form a new country and more a tactical expression of grievances.

The first is that most Albertans – including the separatists themselves – think separation is unlikely. Barely one in 10 separatists think Alberta independence is “very likely” or “will happen.”

The second clue is that the majority of the separatists (62 per cent) retain a sense of attachment to Canada. Separatists are simply angrier and more pessimistic about the country’s future.



Related video: 'Free Alberta Strategy' seeks to declare Alberta a sovereign jurisdiction

They haven’t turned their backs entirely on Canada; they feel it’s headed in the wrong direction and in need of radical reform. 

THEY WANT IT TO BE AMERICAN, REPUBLICAN AMERICA

© THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntoshPremier Jason Kenney serves pancakes at his last Stampede breakfast in Calgary on July 11. Kenney’s resignation set the stage for a United Conservative Party leadership race and several contenders are already discussing Alberta sovereignty.
Pessimism and mistrust

Most separatists’ worldviews are grounded in a sense of status loss and mistrust for institutions that has fuelled populist movements elsewhere in the world.


They are more likely to feel like they are falling behind others in society, and they have very little confidence in governments and elites. These suspicions drew most separatists into supporting the so-called freedom convoy that occupied Ottawa for weeks in February 2022.

Read more: What the truck? The 'freedom convoy' protesters are heading back to Ottawa

Separatists stood out in their belief that the most recent federal election was unfair. This may be because their favoured party lost despite winning more votes, or a belief in conspiracy theories spread by right-wing news outlets.

Whatever the reason, this low level of trust — combined with a deep sense of pessimism about the future — has sparked movements like Brexit and Trumpism in other parts of the world.

Separatism in Alberta

While support for separation is a minority view in Alberta, it’s not a fringe position. An overwhelming majority of separatists support the UCP provincially and make up a substantial part of its base of support.

EXCEPT THEY HAVE BEEN IN POWER IN ALBERTA FOR 44 YEARS AS THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVES, AND AS RIGHT WING BIBLE BELT SOCIAL CREDIT FOR 75 YEARS BEFORE THAT 


Danielle Smith, Wildrose leader in this 2014 photo, is now a leadership contender to replace Jason Kenney.

Such a large voting bloc is enticing to leadership contenders. Veiled promises to restore Alberta’s “sovereignty” or secure greater “autonomy” can help sell party memberships. They may even lead to victory in the UCP race, creating pressure for the winner to deliver on promises that are politically and constitutionally impossible.

But our research tells us that flirting with separatism is likely to fall flat — if not backfire entirely — during a provincial election.

The broader Alberta electorate is federalist. The majority do not support measures that would further divide the province from Canada.

Eighty per cent of Albertans reject separation, and solid majorities also oppose abandoning the Canada Pension Plan, the RCMP and federal income tax collection. Most opposed the “freedom convoy” and what it stood for, and the majority have confidence in most political institutions.

Candidates running for the UCP leadership have a choice. They can pay lip service to populist and sovereigntist positions to gain internal party support. Or they can resist that temptation with an eye to winning the next provincial election, preserving national unity and strengthening democratic institutions in the process.

Implications for Canada

Canadians outside Alberta should keep a careful eye on this dynamic. Even though they lack the profile of Québec sovereigntists, Alberta separatists are positioned to exert significant political influence on intergovernmental relations in the years to come.

How much influence depends on the commitments made by the eventual winner of the UCP leadership race, and the response from the rest of Canada to their push for a fairer deal in Confederation.

If the next premier is unable to deliver on their promises by securing meaningful concessions from the rest of Canada, separatists would be further alienated from the democratic process. Their disappointment might lead to further civil unrest like what we saw from the “freedom convoy,” adding fuel to the politics of resentment.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:
Protests in Ottawa are a recurring disaster, affecting neighbourhoods and residents
Alberta budget means Albertans are trapped on a relentless fiscal rollercoaster ride

Jared Wesley receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Kule Institute for Advanced Study, and the Killam Trust.

Lisa Young does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

SEE 

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2019/06/i-am-reposting-this-due-to-fact-old.html

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for FIREWALL ALBERTA 

THE PHANTASM OF ALBERTA SEPARATISM RAISES ITS UGLY HEAD WITH UCP 

VIEW FROM THE CDN UKE LEFT
Why did Russia invade Ukraine? 

FAQs about the conflict that has shocked the world

Jars Balan, Director, Canadian Institute for Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta 

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has put the world on edge. The military move by Russian President Vladimir Putin has left many people looking for information on how and why the conflict started. Here are answers to some key questions.

Why did Russia invade Ukraine?

Putin nurses a deep sense of grievance over the loss of Russia’s power and influence since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. Ukraine was formerly part of the Soviet Union but declared its independence in 1991.

Having a prosperous, modern, independent and democratic European state bordering Russia was perceived as posing a threat to Russia’s autocratic regime. If Ukrainians succeeded in fully reforming their country along lines of other western democracies, it would set a bad precedent for former Soviet countries and serve as an example for Russians who want a more democratic country.

Putin also perceives that western democracies are in a weak and particularly vulnerable state — thanks in part due to Russian efforts to create discord and sow divisions in Europe and North America abroad — making this an opportune time to launch a major military adventure.

Is this a war?

Absolutely, both in the traditional and modern sense. It involves a military assault with air, sea and land forces being deployed in combination with sophisticated cyber attacks and relentless propaganda disseminated by conventional as well as social media.

Read more: Russia is using an onslaught of cyber attacks to undermine Ukraine's defence capabilities

The invasion of Ukraine is just an expansion and escalation of the earlier hybrid war.

It is a war that actually began after Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity, also known as Euromaidan, in 2013-14. That’s when widespread protests by citizens who wanted a closer relationship with Europe led to the ouster of then-president Viktor Yanukovych, who had asked Russia for help to put down the protests.

Russia responded by illegally annexing Crimea, a section of Ukraine that touches the Russian border on the Black Sea. Russia also supplied military personnel, mercenaries and other resources in support of a small but militant minority of pro-Russian separatists in the largely Russian-speaking cities of Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine’s east. More than 14,000 Ukrainians have died since 2014 in fighting in the Donbas.
Is the invasion tied to Russia’s annexation of Crimea?

Crimea was the only part of Ukraine to have a slight majority of Russians at the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, 55 per cent of the peninsula’s population voted for Ukraine’s independence.

Putin mistakenly believed that by successfully annexing Crimea by stealth and orchestrating an armed uprising in the Donbas, he would shake Ukrainian unity and prompt the southern and eastern provinces of the country to break away from the Kyiv government and seek to join the Russian Federation as a new territory to be known as Novorossiya, or “New Russia.”

That failed to happen, so the current invasion is an attempt to achieve a similar end using force on a massive scale.

Is this a renewal of the Cold War?

The term “Cold War” refers to a period after the Second World War when the Soviet Union and Western democracies were aligned against each other in what was essentially an ideological battle between capitalism and communism.

At the height of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union — the two great military powers in the world — engaged in a titanic ideological struggle by means of subversion, propaganda campaigns and proxy wars in the developing world.

Putin and his inner circle are very much products of the Cold War and consider the breakup of the Soviet Union and its Communist Party dictatorship a humiliation. In that sense, the current conflict is a renewal or even a continuation of the Cold War because its goal is to restore Russia as America’s greatest military rival.

Putin is seeking to turn back the clock to a time when the Soviet Union and the West had defined and relatively stable “spheres of influence” in Europe. During that time, there was a military balance achieved through parity in nuclear arsenals. This was also known as the “mutually assured destruction” policy, which suggested that neither the United States or the Soviet Union would go to war because the ensuing nuclear battle would be devastating for both countries and the rest of the world.
How ‘Russian’ is Ukraine?

According to the last full census taken in 2001, 17.3 per cent of the citizens of independent Ukraine identified themselves as ethnic Russians. This was a decline of almost five percentage points from 1989, reflecting in part an out-migration of Russians after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

There was also a change of identification among Ukrainians who had claimed to be ethnically Russian in the late Soviet period when it was socially and economically advantageous to do so, but reverted to their Ukrainian identity when Ukraine became independent.

Since 2001, the numerical influence of ethnic Russians in Ukraine diminished even further, as a result of the annexation of Crimea and the creation of the two separatist “republics” in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. Significantly, even in the Donbas, where ethnic Russians form a substantial minority, they do not outnumber ethnic Ukrainians.

Somewhat confusing the situation is the fact that most Ukrainians are able to speak or easily understand both Russian and Ukrainian. For many Ukrainians, especially in the south and eastern regions of the country, Russian is the first language.

Russian is widely used throughout large parts of Ukraine and it is not unusual for people to easily and even unconsciously move back and forth between languages. Nor is it unusual that many Russian speakers are fervent Ukrainian patriots, just as significant numbers of ethnic Russians are fiercely loyal citizens of Ukraine.

Russians and Russian speakers are not persecuted or discriminated against in Ukraine, even as the Ukrainian state — and increasingly Ukrainian citizens themselves — work to encourage fluency and the use of Ukrainian in daily life after centuries of linguistic and cultural Russification.

Finally, a large number of Ukrainians have ties to Russians and Russia, through mixed marriages, work, professional relations and longstanding friendships.

Sadly, many of these relations have been strained in recent years due to the Putin government’s hostility towards Ukraine and the Russian media’s relentless and baseless attacks on Ukrainians. The situation has resulted in contacts being terminated for political reasons as a result of changing attitudes towards Russia as a whole.

The vast majority of Ukrainians until recently had a positive image of Russia, but a growing number now have a critical or skeptical attitude to Russia. The current conflict is certain to make things worse.

Why does Putin say Ukraine isn’t a real country?

In a televised speech days before the invasion, Putin suggested that “modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia.”

Putin has inherited much of his world view from the Russian-chauvinist and Russocentric traditions of the former imperial and Soviet Russian regimes. His Ukrainophobic attitudes can be attributed in part to his being steeped in deeply rooted feelings of both Russian superiority and resentment towards Ukrainians who have consistently asserted their distinct identity.

Russia has for four centuries tried to fully subjugate Ukrainian lands and to subdue the Ukrainian nation by means of laws and policies designed to undermine and suppress the Ukrainian language and culture, while at the same time privileging Russians in Ukraine.

Russia has often resorted to using brutal force to prevent Ukraine from pursuing greater autonomy as well as outright independence, using invasions, ruthlessly crushing rebellions, exiling hundreds of thousands to Siberia and the Far North, starving millions in a genocidal famine, and simultaneously imprisoning and executing legions of gifted artists, intellectuals, spiritual leaders and political activists, who dared to challenge Russian dominance over the country.

As various attempts by Ukrainians to establish an independent state were thwarted by Russia and by other foreign oppressors, Putin has repeatedly sought to disparage Ukraine’s successful declaration of independence in 1991 and is determined to put an end to it.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:

Fake viral footage is spreading alongside the real horror in Ukraine. Here are 5 ways to spot it

Targeting Putin’s inner circle and keeping Europe on board: Why Biden’s sanctions may actually work to make Russia pay for invading Ukraine

Jars Balan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Canada invokes Emergencies Act for the first time in 50 years, to quell trucker protests

The busiest US-Canada border crossing reopened last Sunday
Web Desk Updated: February 15, 2022 

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau holds a press conference in Ottawa, Ontario, on Friday, Feb. 26, 2021, to provide an update on the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine rollout in Canada |Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press via AP

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time in 50 years, to quell the trucker protests in the country against coronavirus mandates. Earlier, the police had arrested 11 people with a "cache of firearms" blocking a border crossing with the United States. As news agency AFP reported, Trudeau said the military would not be deployed at this stage, but authorities would be granted more powers to arrest protesters and seize their trucks in order to clear blockades, as well as ban funding of the protests.

Thousands of protesters railing against vaccine mandates and other COVID-19 restrictions descended on the capital Ottawa last month, deliberately blocking traffic around Parliament Hill.

Trudeau said one must be “very, very cautious” about deploying troops on Canadian soil, adding there has been no such request to the federal government. He said any formal requests for assistance from the City of Ottawa or Ontario will be considered. Organisers had raised millions for the cross-country “freedom truck convoy” against vaccine mandates and other restrictions.

It has attracted support from former US President Donald Trump. Ottawa's mayor, meanwhile, is calling on several opposition Conservative lawmakers to apologize for praising the protesters and posing with them. A photo posted by one of the lawmakers shows them some giving the thumbs-up—in front of one of the protest trucks, which have been barricading roads and honking horns in the city almost non-stop.

The busiest US-Canada border crossing reopened last Sunday after protests against COVID-19 restrictions closed it for almost a week, the owner announced. The bridge's owner, Detroit International Bridge Co., said in a statement that the Ambassador Bridge is now fully open allowing the free flow of commerce between the Canada and US economies once again.

Police in Windsor, Ontario, said earlier that more than two dozen people were peacefully arrested, seven vehicles were towed and five were seized near the bridge that links the city and numerous Canadian automotive plants with Detroit.

Canada in crisis: Why Justin Trudeau has invoked the Emergencies Act to end trucker protests

A confrontation between a ‘freedom convoy’ protester yelling ‘freedom’ and a person opposed to the occupation. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

February 14, 2022 

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has invoked the Emergencies Act in an effort to quell the protests by truckers and other groups opposed to measures aimed at preventing the spread of COVID-19. The federal government has never before acted to implement this once-obscure piece of disaster and emergency legislation.

Trudeau has suggested the additional tools the Emergencies Act provides for will allow the federal government to manage situations as they emerge, take extraordinary actions that are time-limited, have specific geographic bounds and deploy a measured use of out-of-the-ordinary expansive governmental powers.

“This is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting people’s jobs and restoring confidence in our institutions,” Trudeau said in a national address Monday.

Canada is still in the midst of the COVID-19 global pandemic emergency. At the time of Trudeau’s announcement, 35,470 Canadians had died of COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responds to reporters’ questions after invoking the Emergencies Act in response to the so-called freedom convoy’s ongoing occupation of Ottawa.

Never been invoked

The Emergencies Act of 1988 is part of the Revised Statues of Canada. Such legislation is reserved for use under the most extreme emergencies or existential threats. In more than 30 years, no Canadian government has determined that any disaster — natural or man-made — has created such a grave threat to the nation.

The act’s legislation names examples of emergencies that may rise to the level of top concern. Public welfare emergencies are what most people would consider as disasters, including natural phenomena and man-made catastrophes. Public order emergencies consist of various threats from civil disorder — the current occupation of Ottawa being an example. In addition, aspects of international emergencies and warfare can be addressed within the context of the Emergencies Act.

The legislation means that additional extraordinary government powers can be applied to manage an extreme emergency. These include additional layers of security for specific locations and critical infrastructure, people can be compelled to render essential services with compensation and the RCMP — Canada’s national police force — can be used to enforce municipal laws.

In the case of the current protests in Ottawa and other parts of the country, an additional new and significant aspect affects the financial support mechanisms for the ‘freedom convoy’ occupation. The methods and instruments of such financial support will now come under closer security in accordance with a broadening of Canada’s anti-terrorism financing rules.

War Measures Act

The shadow of history is important here as Trudeau stresses he is not using the invocation of the Emergencies Act to call the Canadian military onto the streets to confront citizens.

It’s an essential point for him to make: in 1970, Trudeau’s father, Pierre, invoked the War Measures Act in one of the most controversial decisions of his 15-year tenure as prime minister. The older Trudeau brought the military into the streets during the October Crisis after a series of terrorist attacks perpetrated by the separatist group known as the Front de libération du Québec.

Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau announces the War Measures Act in response to the 1970 October Crisis, when members of the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) kidnapped Québec’s Deputy Premier Pierre Laporte.

The War Measures Act dates back to 1914. It was intended to give the Canadian government extra powers during times of war, invasion and insurrection. Due to real and perceived injustices related to use of the act, it was repealed in the 1980s. One of those injustices was that the War Measures Act facilitated the internment of nearly 22,000 Japanese Canadians living in British Columbia during the Second World War.

Read more: Coronavirus: Racism and the long-term impacts of emergency measures in Canada

When the Emergencies Act succeeded the War Measures Act in 1988, it introduced changes regarding how the federal government can use extraordinary powers in times of crisis. Those changes include forcing cabinet to seek Parliament’s approval for new emergency laws, and requiring any emergency actions to take place in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter is the most recognized part of Canada’s Constitution. It guarantees the rights of individuals by enshrining those rights, and puts certain limits on them.

Trudeau stressed that by using the Emergencies Act, the government was “not suspending fundamental rights or overriding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are not limiting people’s freedom of speech. We are not limiting freedom of peaceful assembly. We are not preventing people from exercising their right to protest legally. We are reinforcing the principles, values and institutions that keep all Canadians free.”

In the coming days, Parliament will begin an unprecedented process of legislatively enacting emergency powers. It is not guaranteed that Parliament will concur with all of the provisions of the implementation of the Emergencies Act as tabled by the Trudeau administration.

A confrontation between a ‘freedom convoy’ protester yelling ‘freedom’ and a person opposed to the occupation. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

All disasters are political

The historic invocation of the Emergencies Act — due to the actions of a small group of people — begs the question: what comes next?

First, we will see numerous parliamentary procedures in Ottawa starting immediately with the specific details of what the implementation of the Emergencies Act will actually mean.

Second — perhaps more importantly to those in Ottawa and elsewhere whose lives are being negatively impacted by the continued disruptions — the act will swiftly allow for action to bring the immediate crisis to an end.

There will be changes in how people will be allowed to gather. There will also be designations of new zones with enhanced security protocols at locations with critical infrastructure, government operations, border crossings and airports.

Additional services will be provided to spots under occupation, such as downtown Ottawa. Specifically, services such as heavy towing could be brought to bear on the situation in ways not available before.

Third, the invocation of the Emergencies Act sends out the symbolic message that Canada is treating the current anti-mandate blockages and occupations with the utmost seriousness. As Ottawa approaches the third week of the occupation, this action should have taken place much earlier.

In the end, all disasters are political. There will be an examination of why it took so long to invoke the Emergencies Act. But in the meantime, Canada is telegraphing to the world that public order will be maintained — and the government can take action to quell this crisis of social origin.

Author

Jack L. Rozdilsky
Associate Professor of Disaster and Emergency Management, York University, Canada
Disclosure statement
Jack L. Rozdilsky is a Professor at York University who receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research as a co-investigator on a project supported under operating grant Canadian 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Rapid Research Funding.

Sean Hannity says if Canadian truckers are arrested he “can’t guarantee that at that point people won’t defend themselves”

DEAR SEAN THERE IS NO 2ND AMENDMENT IN CANADA

WRITTEN BY MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
PUBLISHED 02/14/22 

EZRA LEVANT (GUEST): There is no revolution in the streets of Canada. You see for yourself, it's a festival environment. There's no violence. It's happy -- moms and dads and kids. Trudeau is claiming they're dangerous, claiming they're terrorists so he can seize bank accounts. The most scary thing announced today by the finance minister, who was on the World Economic Forum board, is that banks will be directed to seize your accounts without due process and you can't even sue them. They're indemnified. He is going after his political opponents to seize their resources Venezuela style.

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): I've got to tell you, I never thought I'd see it in Canada, but I see that the truckers are winning. I think these five provinces, it's a significant win. And if -- I mean, if he wasn't going to this extreme, the truckers have been peaceful. If this turns into something else because he's sending people in there directly to confront them, I can't guarantee that at that point people won't defend themselves. Is Trudeau that stupid? He looks -- he doesn't seem that bright to me.

‘We Will Hold the Line’: Freedom Convoy Organizers Say They’re Not Deterred by Emergencies Act

Limin Zhou and Omid Ghoreishi

Feb 14, 2022
From The Epoch Times

THE MEDIA ARM OF THE RIGHT WING PRO TRUMP FALUN GONG CULT


OTTAWA—Freedom Convoy organizers say they will continue to protest on Parliament Hill despite the federal government’s declaration of a state of emergency.

“We are not afraid. In fact, every time the government decides to further suspend our civil liberties, our resolve strengthens and the importance of our mission becomes clearer,” organizer Tamara Lich said on Feb. 14 in anticipation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoking the Emergencies Act over the protests demanding an end to COVID-19 mandates.

“We will remain peaceful, but planted on Parliament Hill until the mandates are decisively ended. We recognize that there is a democratic process within which change occurs. We have never stepped outside of that process, nor do we intend to.”

Trudeau is the first prime minister to use the Emergencies Act. The act replaces the War Measures Act, which was last used by Trudeau’s father, then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau, in 1970 during the October Crisis when Quebec separatists kidnapped and killed Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte.


The act gives the state additional powers to deal with the protests and blockades, such as providing legal tools to cut funding to protesters, as well as freezing the corporate accounts of companies whose trucks are used in any blockades and removing their insurance.

The province of Ontario and the city of Ottawa have also declared states of emergency over the protests.

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (C) comments on the on-going truckers mandate protest during a press conference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada, on Feb. 14, 2022. (Dave Chan/AFP via Getty Images)

The protests were initiated by truck drivers opposed to COVID-19 vaccination mandates for cross-border travel. As convoys of truckers made their to Ottawa, many supporters joined the movement, which turned into a large-scale protest against all COVID-19 mandates and restrictions. Many protesters who converged into Ottawa on Jan. 29 say they intend to stay in the capital until COVID-19 mandates are lifted.

Separately, protest convoys set up blockades at border crossings in Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, and British Columbia. The blockade at the Ambassador Bridge connecting Windsor to Detroit, which accounts for hundreds of millions of dollars in trade between Canada and the United States, was cleared over the weekend.

“The Emergencies Act will be used to strengthen and support law enforcement agencies at all levels across the country. This is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting people’s jobs, and restoring confidence in our institutions,” Trudeau said.

“The police will be given more tools to restore order in places where public assemblies can constitute illegal and dangerous activities such as blockades and occupations as seen in Ottawa, Ambassador Bridge, and elsewhere.”

Lich said Canadians “should be surprised” that such “an extreme measure” is being used against peaceful protesters.

“We have countless vulnerable people in our crowd, including children, the elderly, and the disabled, who cannot be met with force by a genuine liberal democracy. The right to peaceful protest is sacrosanct to our nation. If that principle is abandoned, the government will reveal itself as a true tyranny and it will lose all of

Children participate in the Freedom Convoy protest against COVID-19 mandates and restrictions in Ottawa on Feb. 9, 2022. (Jonathan Ren/The Epoch Times)

its credibility,” she said.

Lich said she realizes some people are opposed to the protests, but noted that a democratic society “will always have non-trivial disagreements and righteous dissidents.”

“There are many reasons for us opposing the mandates,” she said. “Some of us have been mistreated by our government, including many of our indigenous communities, who have personally experienced medical malpractice. Some of us simply want bodily autonomy and oppose the mandates on principled grounds. No matter our reasons and opinions, it is how the government responds to its citizens that determines the fate of the country.”

Addressing the prime minister, Lich said, “No matter what you do, we will hold the line.”

“There are no threats that will frighten us.”

Brian Peckford, former premier of Newfoundland who is acting as a spokesperson for the Freedom Convoy, said this is “a very, very strange moment in our history.”

“This is again government overreach. We don’t do these kinds of things in Canada. We engage in dialogue,” Peckford said.

“It’s my understanding that the government of Canada has not reached out once to the truckers since they have arrived in this capital city. I find that very hard to understand, because how can you justify going to a measure like an emergency, measures where a lot of powers can be imposed upon the citizens, when you have not even yourself taken any action to engage.”

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for FALUN GONG 

Inside The Nerve Center That Keeps The Ottawa Trucker Protests Running

What do they eat, where do they go to the bathroom, how did they get functioning saunas, and other questions answered.

Paul McLeodBuzzFeed News Reporter

Posted on February 14, 2022, 

David Kawai for BuzzFeed News

Inside one of the organizing tents at the so-called Freedom Convoy.

OTTAWA — When Ottawa police let hundreds of protest vehicles drive into the downtown core of the nation's capital they did so under the seemingly reasonable assumption that there was no way the demonstrators could stick around in the streets of a city where temperatures regularly dip below 0 degrees Fahrenheit.

The police were wrong. Backed by donations of cash and supplies, the anti-vaccine mandate protesters have created an off-book supply chain to keep hundreds or thousands of people clothed and fed indefinitely.

They do this with the help of a separate site — a parking lot full of vehicles and tents — that serves as a sort of supply depot and logistics center. Staged next to a baseball park on Coventry Road, a few miles east of downtown, it is essentially sanctioned by the city. Police have abandoned hopes of removing protesters for now and are adopting a strategy of containing and keeping watch.

That is not to say that police have left it entirely alone. Earlier this month, dozens of armed officers executed a nighttime raid on the site, seizing a cache of fuel.

While the vibe downtown feels akin to a Canada Day festival, the Coventry Road site has more of a quasi-military feel. Journalists are, generally, not welcome. There have been no reports of violence, but intense-looking guys staring down reporters sends the message.

“I got the distinct impression that it would be way, way better for me to be somewhere else. I left,” Matt Gurney wrote in the Line

One of the first things photographer David Kawai and I saw on Saturday afternoon when we arrived at the site was a white van with “FREDOM” taped on the side. It wasn’t a typo. The owner of the van said he just ran out of tape.

David Kawai for BuzzFeed News

Scenes from third weekend of the so-called “Freedom Convoy” in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on Saturday, Feb. 12, 2022.

When I approached the registration tent — there is a registration tent — a man who lived nearby said his 16-year-old son wanted to come and volunteer. “He’s a strong boy, he can lift stuff for you,” the man said. “The only thing is, he can’t drive.”

I identified myself as a reporter with BuzzFeed News. This kicked off a tense and confused few minutes where several people surrounded me, saying they needed to determine if I was good media or bad media. One woman demanded I prove I was who I said I was. It wasn’t clear who was actually making the final call, but eventually one man stood up for us. We were allowed to enter.

The first tent we went into felt like an administrative area, complete with tables, chairs, supplies, and whiteboards listing names and numbers of key contacts. Another whiteboard listed French and English directions ranging from handling fuel to dealing with police (“Stay calm/Restez calme,” “Right to remain silent/Vous avez le droit de garder le silence.”) Signs with slogans like “Natural immunity is God’s science” sat in the corner.

David Kawai for BuzzFeed News

Scenes from third weekend of the so-called “Freedom Convoy” in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on Saturday, Feb. 12, 2022.

After a bit more haggling over access, we were allowed to enter the main tent. It felt like entering a small supermarket. Tables overflowed with supplies. Fresh produce, canned goods, soap, winter clothing, you name it, it was on offer. Dozens of people were buzzing about. Some were working, some were sitting and enjoying a meal.

“This is just a place for people to come and warm up, eat,” said Carlo, an organizer from Montreal who didn't want to give his last name. “It’s very heartwarming. It’s shocking, actually, to see the amount of support that we get.”

Carlo said all of the supplies were donated. Volunteers transport them downtown as needed, or protesters can come out to Coventry Road for a meal.

Taped to the exit of the main tent is a photo of a young girl holding a sign saying “The truckers are coming to save us.” One of our guides paused to point it out, saying, “This Is What We Do It All For

The operation feels both surprisingly organized and ad hoc. At a couple points, a man walked up to us to ask what we were doing and who authorized us to be there. My answer didn’t seem particularly convincing. I said I had been told to call a man named David, who after some discussion gave me permission over the phone to walk around. But no one seemed to know what the proper protocol for handling media was, if one even existed, and no one kicked us out. The longer we hung around, the more the organizers warmed up to us.

Carlo took us to an unexpected feature of the camp: two fully functional saunas. He said a guy came and dropped them off out of the blue, telling organizers to use them as long as they want and to give him a call when they’re done with them. Same story for the mobile bathroom unit.

David Kawai for BuzzFeed News

A sauna that was donated for use at the so-called Freedom Convoy

“Companies are just pouring in and installing stuff for us, whether it’s mobile bathrooms, kitchen equipment, tents. Everything you see here was donated,” he said.

There was no visible sign of police. Carlo said it’s clear the police don’t want the camp there and they’ve come a couple times — most notably during the fuel raid — but for the most part have left the camp alone.The people there are, understandably, proud of how much support they’ve received. Through these donations, they’ve created a supply chain that has kept the downtown protests going strong for over two weeks now

“We’re here for as long as it takes,” Carlo said. “We came here already equipped — and with the support we’ve been getting, I think we’re more than equipped right now to be here for the long term.”

The Coventry Road supply center is not, however, the movement’s headquarters, and protesters spend most of their time downtown. Top organizers are also elsewhere so that, according to one volunteer, police can’t move in and round them up.

David Kawai for BuzzFeed News

Scenes from third weekend of the so-called “Freedom Convoy” in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on Saturday, Feb. 12, 2022.

The supply chain manifests in soup kitchens and hot dog stands on street corners downtown, with volunteers doling out free food and drinks to anyone who wants some. The size of the demonstrations notably spike on weekends, when people drive in from hours away to take part. During the week, people sleep in their cars and trucks.

David Kawai for BuzzFeed News

Scenes from third weekend of the so-called “Freedom Convoy” in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on Saturday, Feb. 12, 2022.

One question multiple people have asked is: Where do they go to the bathroom?

There are some lines of porta-potties set up throughout the downtown core, but not nearly enough. I asked Greg, a protester who has been living out of a van on Kent Street for over two weeks, where he relieves himself. He said a lot of the local restaurants, cafés, and hotels have let protesters come in and use their bathrooms.

This is a bit of a sore spot for residents. Last month, one Ottawa resident compiled a crowdsourced, unverified list of businesses “supporting” the convoy, which spread around Instagram and Twitter. People and businesses strenuously denied the list was accurate. Convoy supporters picked up on the witch hunt vibe of the list and spread it as evidence of the intolerance from the left

David Kawai for BuzzFeed News

Scenes from third weekend of the so-called “Freedom Convoy” in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on Saturday, Feb. 12, 2022.

My impression from talking to bar and restaurant workers is that they are having a very trying few weeks. Some definitely are letting protesters use their bathrooms, but not as some sign of tacit support for the cause. I’ve heard that businesses don’t want to anger the protesters and become a target for retaliation. There’s also just a humanitarian element; most Canadians aren’t going to feel good about saying no to someone who badly needs to go to the bathroom.

As for showers, Greg said many residents in the Ottawa area have extended offers for protesters to come to their homes and wash up.

David Kawai for BuzzFeed News

Scenes from third weekend of the so-called “Freedom Convoy” in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on Saturday, Feb. 12, 2022. Photographer: David Kawai/Bloomberg

Then there’s the issue of the millions of dollars’ worth of donations. Organizers initially raised around $10 million through GoFundMe before the company shut the page down and returned the donations. The crowdfunding campaign then moved to the Christian website GiveSendGo and raised around $9 million more. The provincial government successfully petitioned the Superior Court of Ontario to freeze those funds. What happens to the money will be an issue for the court to decide.

GoFundMe did pass on about $1 million to protest organizers before the campaign was shut down. It’s not clear where that money has gone.

MORE ON THIS

• Justin Trudeau Declared A State Of Emergency Over Canada's Trucker ProtestsPaul McLeod · 4 hours ago
• “Something Popped Yesterday”: Ottawa Residents Are Pushing Back Against The Anti-Mandate Protesters Controlling Their DowntownPaul McLeod · Feb. 13, 2022
• The Ottawa Truckers Have Shown How To Occupy A City. Now Their Movement Is Expanding Worldwide.Paul McLeod · Feb. 13, 2022