The discourse of Alberta separation has hit its tribalistic and yelling-past-each-other phase; hopefully there’s an end to it, one day. Surprisingly, it isn’t just on social media where bad-faith statements and appeals to emotion usually are. Federal and provincial leaders are speaking as if they were making facebook posts and tweets and amplifying the worst takes on the whole thing. It’s by design, in my opinion, and there is a risk with them obfuscating a very serious conversation that has so many good points that ought to be the focus of our discussion. There are so many important points to be made for both staying and leaving, and none of that can be heard in such a tumultuous fray.

I believe one thing that is occurring, and it’s very worth resisting, is politicians and public leaders, in bad faith, defining who a separatist-leaning Albertan is, creating a strawman and then ‘othering’ anyone who would even consider that notion. It’s right from the Covid and managerialist’s playbook and it silences what would be good faith discourse without their meddling.  

A surprising narrative that’s emerged is that the separatist movement is a foreign-funded operation, and that a separatist-leaning person is merely a duped low-information Albertan that can have their emotions hijacked into making a terrible decision for the province to benefit these foreign actors. But to have Alberta separation be some clandestine operation means that the history of this sentiment has always had some nefarious benefactors (and have been playing the long game since 1905). No, the feeling I get is that while economic grievances get the headlines, they’re also instructive as to why that belief has existed for decades. I also don’t believe it’s some bad legislation or an extended stay of a mercurial Liberal federal party that was the straw that broke the buffalo’s back. Separation, then, is a presented solution to some long-simmering feelings that things here are not getting better. That some beliefs about our way of life, deeply held, are systematically being deconstructed. Is an Albertan culture one of those things erasing in front of our eyes?  And if so, for separation to be the right choice, it must be because it’s a matter of a culture’s survival, and that it must then be defined for it to be saved.

So, what is an Albertan?

Culture can be the remnants of a people who went through the survival stage of taming the wilderness, building a society, learning and refining a way of life that goes beyond survival, and then thriving. Think about those who first worked the land in Alberta. They had to endure those first few brutal winters, with enough food grown or caught to last through it. No help from the state, so a high-trust culture had to form because everyone else had to survive along with you. It’s no surprise that communitarianism was and is strong here.

After that hard work was done to not just live through winter but thrive with abundance, the other notable aspect of Albertan culture is its balancing of this focus on the commons and the greater good with the compact of social and economic mobility based on the fundamentals of work ethic and dogged determinism. Entrepreneurial risk-taking with the social safety net for others who respected the effort and that the source was those creating wealth, not the government.    

That belief, and the ties that bind a person to a shared set of values can be such a force. Actively punishing that, as we can see with a lot of recent federal policies, can be an incredible destructive force.

What the debate could do is begin the discussion about a telos (or inherent purpose) of a nation. What is the telos of Alberta? Is the goal to create something new or is it to preserve what was built? What was the telos of Canada? Is what it is now forever altered and one that Alberta cannot continue to partake in?

Potentially, the telos of a new nation of Alberta is a course correction back to that positive force, if we are truly built on those values. Feeling aggrieved because we are taxed too much and aren’t getting as much money as we could is not what this whole debate should be predicated upon. It is merely part of an economic value alongside all other values Albertans can believe themselves to hold. If most of us can agree to a shared set of values, and the current and future telos of Canada is and will be incompatible, then yes, we do have to go our own way; it’s an existential imperative.

But if instead this is a disagreement and a bad economic decade or two, then separation would be a short sighted mistake. Because then what Alberta is, is a telos of Canada distilled through our history of western expansion, a productivity borne of abundance in natural resources, a sustainable value of stewardship of the land, survival of the winters and a productivity that showed ambition and gumption had individual and collective rewards in our corner of the Dominion of Canada. We will always be a part of that greater narrative.

Small town, rural Alberta is a great place to be to see what still exists and what might be lost when it comes to a people’s set of values and their effects on social cohesion. You can compare what life was like ‘back then’ and see what’s changed, and if any encroachments (or influences) are any better. It’s also nice without all the billboards and corporate simulacrum of culture that’s been sold back to the urban population.   

 Awhile ago, the Shopping Cart Theory was introduced to me, and I found it incredibly useful. Objectively, a cart’s usefulness ends as soon as the car is loaded up. The impetus to return the cart, compared to discarding it right there, shows a concern for the commons and a marker of self-governance. It’s also a visual phenomenon of both valuing the next shopper’s ease at getting their groceries, as well as bringing order to somewhere you have no other reward in doing so but by valuing it yourself. An orderly parking lot is a sign of a shared social value and a quick reminder you are among others that share something. Now, consider the opposite, and the carts all higgledy-piggledy and strewn about in parking spaces.

Surprisingly, it becomes more difficult to return a cart when a parking lot is in disarray, simply because it demarcates that individual decision and if it rewards them. The commons is no longer a shared concern, and something is lost. If we are no longer self-governing stewards of the commons, we won’t notice the guy with mobility problems or the harried mom with three kids who could use a hand returning their carts. We’ll instead see the mess and that exacerbates the demise of one of our society’s easy to follow injunctive norms. What then?

I’ve devoted (probably) way too much time on such a silly thing, but I did so because in thinking of grocery stores, we could potentially apply it to any number of values we believe we have as a people. We could think of it as a common good; we could be happy it’s gone, and we could see if separation is a way of preserving or rejecting it, informing our choice in the matter.

One such example: 60% of the landmass of Alberta is provincial crown land (10% federal) and the current ethos is to make some of that workable land and a profitable partnership between private and public. Leasing agreements for grazing, oil and gas as well as recreation are all part of this shared space. After separation, should this all become available for private ownership, or do we value it as is? Do families get an opportunity to purchase, or will it instead be open to the greatest source of capital, meaning giant corporations and private equity firms, outbidding and then owning to do as they see fit? If everywhere is now for sale, then parcelling out those working lands to the detriment of family-owned farmland can be just as ruinous as the Net-Zero hokum. Economic values will come up against cultural ones, and some tough declarations of what wins out needs to be made. Do we consider 60% of the land to be the commons?

I think it’s worth talking about values and doing our best to predict the best possible outcome based on staying in Canada, accepting the status quo while advocating for change and being optimistic in seeing those changes in our unified nation; or separating and choosing the best form of government structure to suit those values. I don’t think Alberta is looking for special perks (a la Quebec) but instead are just looking for a way to no longer be punished for what it is.

Albertans can be proud that with their prosperity they have done much good to improve the commons. Taking away that prosperity also takes away that ability to maintain the commons and it would be good for all to remember that.

I hope those conversations can occur; might I suggest one at an affordable grocery store with a well-sorted parking lot? Whichever direction we take to get those things back, well, that’s the thing.

On Sunday, I walked into a hair salon in Langdon, Alberta to put my signature onto the petition that, if successful, will lead to the referendum asking this: Do you agree that the province of Alberta should cease to be part of Canada to become an independent state?

The lineup was just a couple ahead of us, and another couple was talking with the owner/operator and it sounded like they stuck around for a visit after they signed. The dog came to sniff me, and it didn’t growl to signify a threat compared to what I imagine quite a few fellow Albertans would consider the act to be as my information was taken and I signed.

It was all rather simple in the process of it all. I wouldn’t say the thought process that led me me signing was, though. While the total number of signors to the petition that began on January 2nd won’t actually be released or known until May 2, I’m also aware that I’d be in minority of the reasoning for doing so.

I want Albertans to participate in the direct democratic process of voting for a referendum on this important issue- that’s all I want this to represent. And now that I put my John Hancock on such a wish, I’ll spend the rest of the year until voting day to decide whether to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

Across the province there are tables set up with volunteers that will let Albertans sign up for the petition and I expect to see more as volunteers work through the process of becoming a canvasser (makes sense for the validation of the petition’s numbers and chain-of-custody) and ensuring distance will no longer be a major hurdle for those interested. There’s also the combination of town hall events with advocates of the separation movement, and operators are standing by! Queues stretching blocks is likely evidence of early-adopter inertia or wanting to participate in the spectacle side of things. As someone who doesn’t know how he’ll vote, I’m glad I didn’t have to freeze my butt off queuing for a couple of hours. I suppose I’ll get that chance if October (the month it’s reckoned a successful referendum will be held) is unusually chilly.

This isn’t a petition to take flippantly; it is much more important than you clicking a link to change.org and offering your support to help save the barrel-chested macaws on a peninsula off of Costa Rica. I know once all these signatures are tabulated it will be a pre-vote barometer of the independence movement and thus be spun into the narratives that suit its advocates and detractors alike.

The citizen led petition needs 10% of 2023’s elections total votes cast, reckoned to be 177 732 total signatures. Of course the actual goal of the movement is to submit the petition with multitudes more and I think that’s entirely possible. Seeing as the actual vote on the referendum will need more than 50%, it had better for any wind to stay in its sails.

The more important question, to me, is 50% of what? Will it be 50% of the 60.5% of eligible voters that participated in 2023’s provincial election? Heaven forfend it be closer to municipal participation! If it isn’t 85% or above, independent or not, something is forever lost to us as Albertans and Canadians. That apathy is catastrophic.

If that 85 per cent plus do get to the voting booth, what will their vote be? Will they cast with emotion, zealotry, bad faith or grievances- or thoughtful pragmatism? It will take a recognition of something so important it cannot be reflected on if you woke up on the wrong side of the bed that morning. And that the majority of votes cast were made of those aware of Albertan and Canada’s history, while predicting Alberta’s and Canada’s future without the Wild Rose. Your vote will change the world, so be serious! The reason for seeking independence wasn’t created in a vacuum; there are serious problems going on that necessitated this. And if they are intractable problems with Canada as a confederation there luckily is an opportunity for the people to speak to it, to find its solution in a breakup letter of epic proportions.

Conversely, it can’t be a bunch of grumps that cynically use a groundswell of discontent who found the big red button and are threatening to hit it at any opportunity they feel personally aggrieved. This ought to be thoughtful than Quebec in 1987. Meech Lake was not d’accord and it can’t be cynically used for concessions for a better deal in confederation.

Beware of the pitches: the independent state of Alberta cannot and will never be a Utopia once unburdened of the shackles of federal Liberal party rapaciousness of the vassal-state of Alberta and anyone trying to sell the movement that way is a huckster. However, it also can’t be about denying that the federal government’s top-down approach to governance that seriously crosses the line into provincial jurisdictions, the runaway train that is our nation’s annual deficits and growing debt, net zero hooey and the low-trust society we’ve eroded into are not just concerns to some ‘fringe’ citizens and has huge ramifications to our collective future.

There are major problems and there is a solution to it. I do not know what it is, but any good solution eventually requires Herculean efforts, clarity of purpose and unity (as best as we can get with that) to all pull together and do the work that’s needed. But it all starts with knowledge. The internet is full of info, social media is always available to fill one’s need for outrage and scapegoats (please don’t vote solely on social media ‘information’) and the newspapers of those interested in wanting to be the source of essays like this and your responses. Major decisions need information, and with people who’ve communicated beforehand, thought of the greater good, and cast their vote in good-faith. Any discussion being had up to October will represent the fact that a lot of people are taking this decision seriously, and they must. And Small Town Square is one of those venues; think of it as a place to make your pitches, for and against.

Voting yes or no becomes secondary to the intent of the people showing up and discussing this, as whatever the case may be there will be problems to be solved (those don’t go away in a vote), and we’ll all be more willing to work together in whatever system will be there after the result. Each vote will represent the work and thought that went into whichever box you tick, and it will be a closer reflection that whatever government (an independent one or a sovereign Alberta within a unified Canada) is a reflection of its people and that we are more connected with purpose than if this decision was never offered to us.

Hi everyone, I'm going to be delivering the fourth edition of Small Town Square today and tomorrow. To give those old "paperboy" vibes I was considering tossing the papers in the way of active sprinklers and onto roofs, but I do hope I'm finding good spots for delivery if I'm leaving it by your door.

I'll share some more photos of Bassano Grad and the Small Town Smoke Down in another post, but I sure enjoyed both events. If you were able to make them, I'm sure you did too.

As noted in the paper, I had the idea of running two essays- one on the side of Modern Monetary Theory and one opposed. In the paper was the one that didn't see in a great light, and here I linking the one in the pro-camp. Have a gander!

What is modern monetary theory? An economist explains how it could help Canada

What is modern monetary theory? An economist explains how it could help Canada

A heterodox school of economic thought known as modern monetary theory has significant implications for how Canadians understand public debt and deficit spending.

The ConversationMohsen Javdani

As always, thank you for your support. I know you are sharing the news, that, well, there's a newspaper in town and I thank you for that. Keep 'er going! 😄

Mike Maguire, paperboy

Hello to you all! The second edition of Small Town Square is out and I've been delivering to subscribers. Next step is hopefully having it for sale at a few places around town. I've been learning a lot, and where there has been the most bit of bother is for those that have looked at the website on their phones. The most prominent button says subscribe, but unfortunately that doesn't get you to subscribing to the paper version, but to this online newsletter! That is because I am using a content-management tool that assumes online is the way to go, because it's 2025!

If you would like to subscribe to the paper, please visit smalltownsquare.com/subscribe or click here

If you would like to get a hold of me please email mike@smalltownsquare.com or call me at 403-641-3077

Apologies for the confusion! Thank you to everyone that has subscribed so far, I really appreciate the support!

I'm always interested in more things happening around town, so please let me know if you know something.

If anyone wants a conversation and a cuppa, I'll be at the Crown and Crow, May 6th at 2pm for the first Town Square Tuesday.

Cheers, Mike

Hi everyone, I get to finally say I sent it to the printers and I've got 500 of 'em. Please get in touch if you'd like a copy or two or a dozen. I am in Lethbridge until Wednesday night but there are some here at the house.

Thanks everyone, knowing there was an appetite for the printed paper was a driving force. I really appreciate it!

Mike

Just a note. There is a button on the top right to subscribe to this online version of Small Town Square, and that will get you the newsletter emailed. If you want a paper subscription (which I hope you do!) Then the click on "Subscribe (for paper sub)" or right here

Marlene died peacefully February 6^th with her children beside her at home. Born in Victoria to Chuck and Frieda Syrett, her and her older sister Lorna were raised there and in Burnaby. She made her way to Alberta in 1974 whereupon she would meet Brian Maguire, marry (1975) and have both Kelly (1976) and Michael (1981), residing in Bassano for most of her life. Unofficially the boss of the RCMP detachment, she kept things in order and the Mounties in line there until retirement in 2011.

Involved in numerous community organizations, volunteer and school events, she gained friends everywhere she went with her positive attitude, her wicked sense of humour and zest for life. She was hardworking, fiercely independent and loved her children with every ounce of her being. She had many artistic talents, from decorating her home to putting together the best outfit from Value Village. Her expertise with gold spraypaint remains unparalleled!

In 2021, a move to Strathmore added to her coteries of friends and where she resided until her passing.

Wine, golf, travelling (especially to her well-appointed holiday trailer in Yuma, AZ) and entertaining provided countless memories for her and her friends, which will surely be recounted at a celebration of her life, occurring on April 5^th. Doors open at 2pm with a small program beginning at 3pm.

Donations in her memory can be sent in support of the Bassano & District Health Foundation (and choosing Long Term Care, Palliative Care or Greatest Need) where our grandpa, Boppee, received such great care. Mom also suggested the Salvation Army.

A sensibly priced glass of red wine can be raised in her honour, at anytime.

You’ll be missed, mumsy.