Going to Calgary to watch the Fildebrandt/Bratt debate on Alberta Independence live was a good choice to make. It did not disappoint. Both men were professional in their demeanor, maintained a fairly polite discourse, and Donna Kennedy-Glans was a perfect choice for moderator. The recording is online for all to watch now.
Each debater had a one-liner that stuck with me. Mr Fildebrandt declared that Alberta was the child that had to drop out of school to support the rest of the family. While the analogy is not quite right, the sentiment is certainly accurate. Mr Bratt’s comment that “neither of us would want to get in the boxing ring with Justin Trudeau” got a lot of laughs; probably not for the reasons he may have been thinking.
At one point, Mr Bratt brought up immigration. He said Alberta separation would not go over well with immigrants who came to Canada, not Alberta. Even going so far as to mention skin color, insinuating all separatists are white and born here. A number of immigrants stood up in protest to his comments, including white ones.
When discussing money, a comment from Mr Fildebrant was that Albertans should not have to feel bad for doing well, and I agree. Going on to say, “Why shouldn’t we be able to buy a new boat every year? This is Alberta!” came off as a bit smug. More than that, it completely misses the fact that a lot of Albertans are not doing well financially. Mostly because of decisions made in Ottawa. It was a missed moment to make a much stronger point on the financial health and state of Albertans.
Mr Bratt continually referred to historical achievements that should make Canadians proud. He also mentioned several times that we should be fine with sharing our bounty with the rest of Canada. Mr Fildebrant pointed out that the Canada Mr Bratt described does not exist anymore. Furthermore, we should not be forced to support a country that does not support us.
Hoping to hear something, anything, that would provide a reason to ‘stay’, the ‘separatists’ not only left empty handed, Mr Bratt’s response was ‘I don’t have to give a reason’. Then the usual excuses followed. It will be too hard, too expensive, and our place in Confederation is just our lot in life so get over it. What Mr Bratt does not understand is that too hard and expensive are not deterrents. They are simply challenges to overcome. Essentially, Mr Bratt insulted us with a one-two punch. First, by saying he does not have to give us a reason to stay, then by insinuating we are not up to the challenge of leaving.
While the back and forth between the debaters carried on, standing at the back of the room provided a perfect vantage point to ‘people watch’. About two-thirds were on the ‘leave’ side and ‘one-third’ on the remain. That surprised me. Where were Mr Bratt’s supporters? And about a third of the way through, three of them walked out.
Speaking of walking out, at the back of the room was a man with a bigger camera on a tripod whom, we later learned, was with CTV. Half way through the event, he also packed up and left.
Watching the crowd as a whole, it was hard not to notice two guys in particular. Their claps for Mr Bratt were consistent and filled with enthusiasm. Then something happened. Every so often, they would look at one another and then clap in response to something Mr Fildebrandt said. Were they seeing another side that they hadn’t considered before? Maybe. Then a few others in the room began doing the same.
Bratt’s argument for staying was that Canada was great (past tense) and we need to honor that by keeping the country together, no matter what.
As the Prime Minister said himself earlier this year, hope isn’t a plan and nostalgia isn’t a strategy.
Fildebrandts summary for leaving was the great Canada of the past does not exist anymore and we do not need to go down with the ship.
I agree.
Onward and upward.
