The Decibel - Campaign Call: Western separatism amid a moment of Canadian unity

Episode Date: April 11, 2025

We’re halfway through the election period and it’s time for Campaign Call, The Decibel’s weekly election panel making sense of the major issues. This week, the embers of western separatism were stoked by an opinion piece by Preston Manning published in The Globe, arguing that national unity is on the ballot. We explore the threats of regionalism amidst the surge of pro-Canadian sentiment across the country. Plus, we’ll look into how the major parties are making their pitch to win over a crucial voting demographic – seniors.Feature writer Shannon Proudfoot, Alberta politics reporter Carrie Tait, columnist Konrad Yakabuski based in Montreal and Meera Raman, retirement and financial planning reporter, discuss the big stories with host Menaka Raman-Wilms.Questions? Comments? Ideas? E-mail us at [e-mail]

Welcome to Campaign Call, where Globe journalists make sense of the major issues in the federal election. This week, we're talking about regionalism, separatism, and national unity. The campaign is happening at a time when a lot of Canadians are rallying around the flag in response to threats from US President Donald Trump. But a recent opinion piece published in The Globe seems to have struck a nerve. Former reform leader Preston Manning argued that, quote, a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession, a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it, end quote.

That's forced political leaders to respond. We need to unite the country. We need to bring all Canadians together in a spirit of common ground. I think such dramatic comments are unhelpful at a time when Canadians are coming together. And that is the sense in the West as well. I would note the Leader of the Opposition encouraged greater unity.

This is the time when we need to come together as a country. And others, like Alberta Premier Daniel Smith, have made demands. Where do you stand on this? Do you want Alberta to leave Canada? Well, I want Canada to work. I want Canada to be able to meet its potential. I want for us to be able to build economic corridors. I want us to be able to develop all of our resources from oil and gas all the way through

to critical minerals and beyond. But I also want Canada to work for Alberta. And it hasn't for the last 10 years. So today, we're looking at the issue of regionalism from the perspective of Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec. Here's today's panel. My name is Kerry Tate. I'm a reporter with the Globe and Mail's Calgary Bureau.

My name is Conrad Yakubusky. I'm an op-ed, a columnist at Globe and Mail based in Montreal. I'm Shannon Proudfoot. I'm a feature writer and columnist in the Globe's Ottawa Bureau, and I cover federal politics. And then later, we'll hear from Mira Raman, the Globe's retirement and financial planning reporter. She'll join me and Shannon to talk about promises that the campaigns are making for seniors

and how they could also affect other generations. I'm Maynika Ramen-Welms and this is The Decibel from The Globe and Mail. Shannon, Kerry, Conrad, thank you all so much for being here. Thanks for having us. Hi, thanks for having me. Thanks for having us. So we're talking on Thursday afternoon around 430. And in the last week, there's been a lot of conversations around Western separation.

Of course, regional tensions are nothing new in Canada. But I guess I wonder what makes this moment different. Carrie, I'd like to start with you. You're in Alberta. Tell us what's the view from there. Well, when we talk about separatism, of course, we think of Quebec, not this idea of Alberta packing up and, you know, busting out of here and perhaps taking Saskatchewan with it. But in this election, what we're seeing sort of bubble in Alberta, particularly, is

a feeling of if the Liberals win, that's it. They need to do something dramatic. And right now that's turning to this talk of separatism or quasi-separatism. Danielle Pletka Konrad, if I can ask you, you know, you're in Montreal, so I wonder how do Quebecers and especially, I guess, Quebec separatists, how are they viewing this Western separatism? Konrad Weiss In short, they're loving it. Anything that fuels grievance and regional tension within the country is seen as a good thing from the perspective of separatists. I think what is really unique about this campaign is that the level of grievance in Quebec is

at a historic low. I mean, I've never seen this in my life. I've been covering federal elections in Quebec for more than 30 years. That explains why the Bloc Québécois is having such a hard time getting traction in this election because its traditional go-tos for exploiting regional grievance has to do with cultural issues, has to do with language, has to do with, in recent years, immigration. I mean, they went on this week about trying to get Mark Carney to agree to giving Quebec more say in the appointment of federal judges.

And these are normally hot button issues in Quebec that stir up anti-federalist sentiment, anti-Ottawa sentiment. And they're just going nowhere in this election. And I suspect part of it is that Quebecers actually like Mark Carney, which is really interesting in that his French is not that good, but they cut him a lot of slack on it. Whereas they traditionally do not do that for leaders who come from outside of the province.

And Quebecers obviously do have a tendency to jump on a bandwagon. We saw it in the Orange Wave in 2011, and that was basically a case where people left the Bloc Québécois for the NDP, which was less of a surprising switch than the number that seemed to be leaving the Bloc in this election for the Liberals, because the Liberals and the bloc are really two opposing forces in Quebec when it comes to their views of federalism. Can you tell me a little bit more about this allowance for Merc Carney in Quebec, Conrad, because it seems like, yeah, he's not really dropping in the polls, even though despite, as you say, his French is not that great.

He's had a number of blunders. What exactly is going on? Well, you can say that maybe it has to do with his demeanor. Becker's tend to like a reassuring leader. You know, that's something the bloc can't offer because the bloc will never be in power. It'll be a continuous opposition force. So, I mean, it's speculative. I mean, most people do agree that this is a time for

unity on the issue of fighting Trump's tariffs and they're willing to put aside their provincial identity for the time being. And believe me, it will only be for the time being. Shannon, let's talk more about this idea of this national unity that we've been talking about already throughout this election. This is, of course, kind of being united against the threats from Trump. Both the liberals and the conservatives have slogans that kind of hint at that idea of unity.

So how does this talk of separatism fit alongside that? Well, it's certainly a countervailing force. I keep thinking of the unity idea, I guess the other side of it, in terms of pragmatism. We keep hearing Mark Carney talk about himself as a pragmatist. And I detect a pragmatic streak, at least in the reaction of Quebec to Carney. I mean, Conrad would know this firsthand, but we've heard anecdotal reports of Canadian flags blanketing Montreal in a way they don't normally. This kind of waving off of the language weakness. Someone on a TV panel I was on last week said, you need to be able to speak good enough French

to be understood and bad enough for people to feel sorry for you, and that he's like right in that sweet spot. But we just haven't seen the typical reaction to that as being table stakes. Like, look, if you want to be the prime minister, you have to be functionally bilingual. There's this feeling of waving that off.

And I think that is where the bigger sense of unity in the face of this greater threat of Trump as an existential threat to the Canadian economy. A month or so ago, it was to the existence of Canada itself. He's now dropped the 51st state crap and it's just the economic stuff. But it seems like it's this umbrella that for other areas of the country, other than Alberta, there's

clearly something different going on there under Danielle Smith. These other areas of the country, it's kind of been like, okay, let's all gather under this umbrella and like hope it shelters us from the storm because there's nothing we individually as citizens or as provinces can do to withstand this. And it's going to be bad for all of us. So there seems to be this very kind of pragmatic expedient streak, like, like Canadians have somehow decided like that's the guy, that's the adult in the room who can run this show. Heather Hiches-Phii Yeah, well first, this idea of Trump being the existential threat to the Canadian economy from Danielle Smith's perspective and from the

perspective of plenty of Albertans, even those who aren't ready to, you know, trade in their passports, it's Ottawa that's the existential threat to Alberta's economy. That's what fuels attention in Alberta. And then it's just depends where you sit on that spectrum, whether you're just kind of mad about it, or if you're let's go get a bunch of signatures and get a referendum on this idea of, well, we're not sure yet, separation, a further sovereignty idea. I wonder, Kari, could I ask you a question? Uh-oh. Because I'm curious, as you know, a certified Laurentian elitist out here in Ontario.

But this is a genuine question. That feeling that Ottawa is the existential threat, is your understanding that that is more vibes, like a disrespect? I don't mean that in a, like I'm not minimizing that at all. Is that more the way Ottawa has talked about oil and gas and Alberta and a feeling of kind of alienation or is that more mechanical, like the actual development of resources or is it those two hand and glove? Like, can you help me understand sort of where the energy there is located? I think it's both.

Yeah. And it can be both depending on how much, how you want to view it. You know, some people are just comfortable with it being vibes and just not liking Ottawa and saying, well, they're out to get us, you know, and then some are willing to do more homework and pinpoint the legislation and say, this is why XYZ. So I think it's a matter of effort and where you sit on that spectrum of how you feel about it. That's interesting. But there does seem to be this record of 10 years of liberal policy that, real or perceived, does seem to be antithetical to the development of Alberta's chief resource. And I mean, Bill C-69, which

Carney has said he will not repeal, is the source of huge grievance. This is the bill that would, it's been dubbed the No More Pipelines bill, yeah. Right, the Impact Assessment Act. And even though Carney has talked about streamlining And even though Carney has talked about streamlining the review process and the approvals process, I think the gap between what Pierre Poiliev says he will do and what Mark Carney says he will do with respect to development of Alberta's resources, I think Albertans tend to believe Poiliev is more sincere when he says it's going to speed up the development of those resources. And I think this is a big difference between separatist sentiment in Alberta and separatist

sentiment in Quebec and why Quebec separatists really see Alberta separatism as kind of illegitimate in the sense that it's fueled more by economic grievance than more of a cultural affirmation. That's a really interesting point, yeah. I think a lot of Albertans would argue that their economic grievances are their cultural grievances, that their economy is the basis of a lot of the culture. I was wondering that, yeah. And it's in the language that, not the French and English, that type of language, but it's in the words that they choose to describe themselves. This phrase, the Alberta entrepreneurial spirit,

is still like a phrase that politicians lean on and turn to. And I think while Alberta doesn't have this cultural idea of this distinct society type that was part of Quebec separation in the 90s, it's a different take on what defines culture. Kari, do we know how big the separatist movement is in Alberta? Like, is it a large part of the province? It's tricky. I mean, there are polls that put it right now,

something like 30% of Albertans would vote in favor of separation or separatism, which is absolutely a lot. And that's sort of like with this asterisk of like, if the liberals win, you know, if the conservatives win, forget it, everyone will forget about those polls. It'll be good times in Alberta until a hypothetical Prime Minister Poliev cannot deliver on what Alberta has been drooling over and has been expecting from a potential conservative government. And I think that in that event, there will be similar pushback to the conservatives, not with the same urgency and outrage that we will see from some corners, not all in Alberta

should the Liberals win. But there's also a counterbalance to that. There are plenty of Albertans who feel very much the same way as Canadians across the country with this renewed patriotism in the face of Trump and his tariffs. And I think you will see that as like a counterweight to any potential separatism in Alberta as well. I wonder too about a slightly, I guess, different species of federal government. I think it's fair to say Justin Trudeau's Liberal government tended to lecture on every decision they made. And from my perspective, at least here in Ottawa, resource development versus climate change and climate action became a sort of culture war in Canada in a way that

is probably massively unhelpful to both sides of that equation. You don't have to see them in opposition, but just both ends of that. And so I can imagine that over the last 10 years, Alberta was constantly feeling sort of disapproval and scolding and like a not given inch attitude from Ottawa. You could very reasonably point out they bought you a pipeline that was super expensive. They can't hate you that much, but that there was this constant kind of tone to it. So far, Mark Carney, like I wouldn't make any pronouncements on his actual like decision making on resource development, but he has looked so brass tacks to me. He has been sort of jettisoning all these kind of culture war issues that Justin Trudeau owned. And so I wonder if there will be any kind of like letting

out the air in that tension balloon. I understand there will be enormous disappointment and frustration, especially because of how fast the political winds have shifted in Alberta. But I just wonder if there will be any difference in a different liberal government in Ottawa and how Alberta might feel they are, you know, acted towards in that context. Perhaps, but the flip side of that coin of like who's doing the lecturing and the culture war is that Alberta has been doing its fair share of that as well. Yeah, fair point.

I wrote about it last weekend. My inbox was super interesting all weekend. I bet. And maybe that, maybe everyone changes altogether and we all like grow as a nation, but I would not completely hold my breath on that. I think it just shifts a bit. So that's, I mean, we haven't really talked much about Danielle Smith's role in all of this. I keep looking for like a visual image for a person who, because I also think this fits Pierre Poliev in a different way.

For a politician who is simultaneously, they're recognizing a mood in the public, like they're validating how people feel. But it's also like when you're trying to start a bonfire and you have those tiny little embers and you're blowing on them to try to make them burst into flames. Like that is a thing that politicians do sometimes. To my eye, Danielle Smith has been doing both of those things, validating that feeling and trying to make sure it's got some life in it because it's obviously politically advantageous for her.

You know, it underlines that she's going to bat for her province, that she has her people's backs. It sets up an oppositional relationship with Ottawa in which she can play the good cop, they're the bad cop. So I think it would be a mistake to ignore sort of the like intra-Canadian politicking around some of this. I mean, Shannon makes a good point. I mean, it is politically advantageous for Danielle Smith to lay out the Alberta grievance, almost to the sense that you almost wonder where if she wouldn't prefer a Mark Carney government because of her own political future. Anyone who has followed Mark Carney's career and read his books knows that his current campaign is a complete rejection of everything he has previously stood for

in terms of his views on climate and his views on climate policy as any views on the development of fossil fuels. If Mark Carney can win seats in Alberta, that can go a long way to addressing some of the claims of the West not being in. So before we wrap this part of the panel, let's continue on with this thread a little bit here, because it ultimately seems like one of the fundamental struggles we have here is balancing these regional tensions, right? So how can we do a better job of this?

I don't think that there is a magic solution, because I think Conrad and Shannon both nailed it, that Mark Carney is politically advantageous for Danielle Smith. She is an exceptional politician and she is exceptional at campaigning and campaigning against things, campaigning against Justin Trudeau, campaigning against Mark Carney, and if Poliev wins I expect her eventually to campaign against him in a much more gentle fashion, but that's her natural habitat. Yeah I think Carrie makes a good point. I mean

regionalism is innate to this country and there will always be forces within every region for whom it is advantageous to stoke regionalism. So asking for a new era of unity to be anything other than ephemeral is probably asking too much because that's not the way Canada has ever worked. And to a certain extent, part of that tension between the different levels of governments and regions is what leads us eventually to work things out and not break up the country. All right, we're going to have to leave it there. Kerry, Conrad, thank you so much for joining us.

Thanks for having me. Thanks very much. After the break, reporter Mira Raman joins me and Shannon to talk about the promises the parties are making for seniors, and what it means for other generations. Okay, so for the second half of our episode today we're talking about policy, and we're starting out by talking to Mira Vraman. Mira, great to have you here. Yeah, I'm happy to be here.

And I should say, of course, no relation. We just both happen to be Ramans. You, of course, cover issues around retirement for the globe. And today we're going to talk about some specific policy proposals that the major parties have unveiled for seniors. But before we even get into the details, Mira, let's talk about why we're talking about this. Like, why is it important for voters,

beyond just seniors, to understand retirement policies? Yes, okay, so there's a couple of points that I want to bring up here, but I think the most important point is that seniors are a formidable force at the voting box. In the 2021 federal election, the biggest voter turnout was from Canadians age 65 to 74. From that age group, 75% of them turned out to vote.

That is a crazy amount. Compare that to 53% for Canadians age 25 to 34. So they're gonna be very important in this election. I could understand why younger Canadians would look at retirement policies and say, okay, how does this affect me? Why should I care? But at the end of the day, this demographic touches every generation in Canada. One in four Canadians are caregivers today. And over all of our lifetimes, half of us will be caregivers at some point. So older generations in Canada

have to do with every generation. Also, a lot of younger Canadians are banking on inheritance from seniors, from their parents and grandparents. So government policies that affect the financials of older seniors trickle down to younger Canadians as well. Yeah. Okay. So those are a couple of good points of why, you know, younger people should pay attention to this as well. Let's dig into the details now. This week, Mark Carney, liberal

leader, made an announcement regarding seniors. Can you break this down for us, Mira? What did he promise? Yeah, so the liberals made two promises specifically for seniors, and both of these promises are temporary one-year promises to offer relief for this age group. So the first promise has something to do with a thing called a Registered Retirement Income Fund, otherwise known as a RIF. So currently when Canadians turn 71, they have to convert their RSPs into a RIF. And when they convert that at age 71, they also have to withdraw a minimum amount each year from that RIF. So what Carney is promising is that he is going to drop the amount that people have to withdraw each year by 25%.

Okay, so essentially allowing them to save more money then instead of having to withdraw it. Exactly. It will offer more money to be able to grow in their savings plans because money can still grow tax-free in these plans until you withdraw it. And this is something that the federal government has implemented before. They implemented this during 2008, during the global financial crisis. And in 2020, during COVID, they were temporary relief at those times, too.

OK. And I believe the liberals have also pledged something else involving the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS. Right. So what are they said about that? Yes. So the GIS is a non-taxable payment that is generally offered to low-income seniors. So you have to be under a certain threshold to qualify for the GIS, and you have to also be receiving something called OAS, old-age security. So what the liberals have promised is that they are going to increase the GIS supplement by 5%. Okay.

All right. So that gives us a sense of what the liberals are promising, kind of those two different things there. What about the conservatives? So unlike the liberals, which their two promises are for one year, the conservative promises don't seem to have this sort of time limit on them. So they have a couple of promises and they are mostly helping working seniors,

which is a growing demographic in Canada. First off, we are mentioning RIFs. What I said prior to this is that once a Canadian turns 71, they have to convert to a RIF and start withdrawing. So what the conservatives are saying is that they're actually going to increase that age to 73. So that's offering two more years that Canadians have to grow their savings before they have

to start withdrawing from that money. Okay. So similarly, they'll be able to save more but done in a slightly different way than the liberals. Exactly. Yes. And then another promise that the conservatives have made is letting seniors who are working, letting them

earn a higher amount that is tax-free. So right now in Canada, there's a certain threshold that any Canadian can earn that's tax-free. It's just over $15,000. So if you make under that amount, that's tax-free. For seniors, you can actually earn an additional about $9,000 on top of that, that you can earn tax-free. So what the conservatives want to do is bump that up about another $10,000. So they can earn up to $34,000 tax-free. And you mentioned that a lot of these policies are geared

towards working seniors. I imagine, though, some of these changes, like the first one you mentioned about the savings going from the RRSP to the RIF, that must help people that have a little bit more money too, right? Exactly. Experts I talked to about that said that making the age higher is especially helpful for wealthier seniors who do not need to draw down on their income in those savings plans because they

have other income. But there are a lot of Canadians who need that money to just be able to cover their immediate expenses. Okay. All right. So we've gone through the liberals and the conservatives' promises here. Has the NDP made any announcements? So the NDP made a brief promise in one of the press releases saying that they want to lift all seniors out of poverty by raising the GIS. Now there was no details in that so we don't know what that would actually look like but the election campaign is still going on so we may get more details on that. And GIS of course we mentioned this earlier this is the guaranteed income supplement which

was also part of one of the earlier policies we talked about. Yes. Mira what are the drawbacks of implementing these policies? Like what is the drawback for the government to let seniors you know hang on to more of their savings for longer? So RSPs are tax deferred. That's how they work. All of the money that is growing in your RSP, you don't have to pay taxes on that, meaning the government doesn't have to collect tax on the money until it's withdrawn. So in the conservatives case, if that age is raised from 71 to 73, people can defer paying taxes longer

and that delays government revenue. Similar to the liberal policy, if there's less money being drawn down from the rift, that's less money that they can tax. I guess the other side of this though is if governments promise more to seniors, what is the ripple effect? Like, does it mean cutting back on other programs that you know maybe could help younger generations?

You know I couldn't say that for sure. This would be a delay, a decrease in government revenue to not be able to tax it. But what they are addressing is that Canadians are living longer and working longer. So long term being able to have Canadians more flexible with their income in retirement can help the economy longer term. Okay, so our panelist, Shannon Proudfoot, she's been listening in. So Shannon, let's bring you back into the conversation here

and talk about some of the politics at play. So what is the strategy going on? Like, why are we seeing so many promises for seniors in this election? Mira mentioned they're a big voting block. Is that part of it? I think that's most of it, or a lot of it, if we're going to be really crass and opportunistic

and think like a political party that is maybe being crass and opportunistic. They vote in huge numbers. And I think the general contour is that demographic groups by age vote less and less as they get younger. And by age vote less and less as they get younger. And so there is less and less incentive if you're going to be, again, really crass about it to sort of target policies to them. There's a ton of clout. If your group is known to

go out and three quarters of you are going to show up at the ballot box, no one is going to ignore your concerns. But there is, I think, a really interesting, relatively recent history of age contours in federal politics here. And there's been some wild flips. In 2015, a big part of what propelled Justin Trudeau's liberal government at the time to a massive majority was young voters. It was a huge coalition of voters who came out and voted for the first time and then propelled him to a majority and then like went away and didn't come back. And then more recently, a big part of Pierre Poliev's massive thumping leads over the last couple of years in the polls have been due to young voters and particularly young men. He has had a huge appeal in that group. Young

men is actually where Mark Carney has made some of the biggest gains in the last few weeks and months. So along with everything else in this election, it seems like the age contours of things are sort of flipping on their heads and moving around quite a lot. Yeah. So this is interesting. It's strategic, of course, to target seniors, but it does sound like, you know, younger people can be an important voting block too. And I wonder, couldn't some of these ideas actually help younger generations as well? Like that one example of the conservative pledge is around increasing how much money a working senior can bring home before being taxed.

I mean, why not make that same pledge, but, you know, for people under 30 or something, who could also use that help? Yeah, so we have seen other efforts over the last few years and now in this current campaign to make things more fair for younger Canadians. And I think that's only logical because if we think of sort of before Trump became this very live issue that kind of blocked out everything else, the really, really big things we were talking about as being problems in Canada were general affordability, things like groceries and gas, and that sort of affects everyone across the board.

And the really big thing was housing supply and cost, whether you were renting or buying. And that typically, at least in the public kind of discourse, gets talked about a lot as a younger person's issue. I mean, it's one of Pierre Poliev's sort of core parts of his stump speech for the last couple of years has been this notion of the 35 year old living in their parents' basement because they can't get a house, how long you have to save up for a down payment. That's also kind of an interestingly multi-generational issue because you can imagine obviously if you're a 30 year old or 25 year old or 40 year old, wherever you are in that sort of

younger group looking at the housing market as sort of some crazy fairy tale impossibility, that affects you very directly. But if you're a baby boomer parent or a grandparent, you care whether your kids can get set up in their lives. So we have seen repeated efforts, or at least repeated gestures towards improving things like housing affordability. The problem with that as a policy area is it's like trying to turn around the Titanic. It is a massive issue that takes many, many years, I will point out very relevantly, many cycles of government to improve. And

so something like a policy change to retirement savings can be executed more or less with the stroke of a pen and becomes real. Something like increasing housing stock and then therefore eventually improving the affordability of housing is a huge deal. It is a really big thing to be able to actually execute. So we're seeing lots of promises about it, but there's lots of room to debate how effective those things will be and also how quickly you would see, you know, kind of the rabbit's body work its way through the snake so that there's any sort of effect on the other end. S1 0530 Mm hmm. Mira, I just want to get your thoughts on here before we end too, like this idea of

housing affordability and multi-generational fairness here. Yeah, what are your thoughts on that? Yeah, I love what Shannon was saying about how you can have more tangible policy changes for older groups right now, what they're experiencing, than what younger demographics are experiencing. One example that just came to mind in 2022, the government was able to permanently increase the OAS amount that is received by Canadians 75 and older by 10%. They were able to do that and it's a very clear thing that they can do that will directly affect older Canadians. When it comes to younger Canadians who are asking questions like how am I going to afford a home?

Now that's where it gets a little bit more complicated. We're going to have to leave it there. Mira, Shannon, thank you so much for being here. Thank you. Thanks. That's it for today. I'm Maynika Ramon-Wilms. Our associate producer is Azra Souter. Our intern is Olivia Grandy.

Our producers are Madeline White, Michal Stein, and Ali Graham. Our associate producer is Azra Souter. Our intern is Olivia Grandy. Our producers are Madeline White, Michal Stein, and Ali Graham. David Crosby edits the show. Adrian Chung is our senior producer, and Matt Frainer is our managing editor. Thanks so much for listening, and I'll talk to you next week.