Explain to me all this Quebec thing.

[Asher]

I was under the impression that the energy resources in Alberta were under Provincial control rather than federal. Is that not the case?

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Asher
I was under the impression that the energy resources in Alberta were under Provincial control rather than federal. Is that not the case?

They are and they aren't. When you say Provincial control, I suspect you mean under the control of the Albertan people by virtue of their control of the Albertan legislature. And while that is practically the case, formally from a property law perspective, provincial land belongs to the Queen. She is literally the legal owner. She is just constrained by our constitution such that she can't do anything with it unless she is told to by the appropriate legislative body. But she owns it.

Kinda complicates secession, doesn't it? Because while a Provincial government can tell the Queen what to do with the land, it can't take the land away from her. Only a constitutional amendment can do that. And that takes 7 provinces with more than 50% of the population. So unilateral secession just isn't going to happen. Which is why I analogized it to a divorce.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Echinda
They are and they aren't. When you say Provincial control, I suspect you mean under the control of the Albertan people by virtue of their control of the Albertan legislature. And while that is practically the case, formally from a property law perspective, provincial land belongs to the Queen. She is literally the legal owner. She is just constrained by our constitution such that she can't do anything with it unless she is told to by the appropriate legislative body. But she owns it.

Isn't this only the case for crown land?
The main oilfields in Alberta are in land owned by large companies (much of them American). Does the Queen still own that land?

[KrazyHorse]

The Queen exercises ultimate sovereignty over it, yes.

[Asher]

Remind me again why we still have this system?

[- Groucho -]

KH is right. Everyone in Canada derives their personal rights to property ultimately from either a grant of rights by the Queen or aboriginal title. Whichever it is, personal rights to property are always subordinate to the sovereign's rights (except in the case of aboriginal rights, where the Supreme Court has completely mucked things up).

[KrazyHorse]

Asher

So? Her sovereignty is limited. She cannot exercise certain powers. The "Queen in Parliament", however, has total legislative power over all lands in its demesne. Ownership means being able to do what you want with something, and complete legislative sovereignty implies complete ownership. Just because they don't choose to exercise it doesn't mean anything.

[Asher]

I'm going to make a new thread about this Constitutional Monarchy thing.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Echinda
NYE: You're right about the provinces owning the land - but that wasn't what I was getting at. My point is that individual Albertans don't own the land, it belongs to all Canadians. Albertans just happen to live there, just like we all could if we chose (though that would be a bit cramped). If Albertans decided they want to leave, I'm sure we could work something out, but it would be just like a division of assets on a divorce. Albertans would have to get compensated for their share of Ontario's uranium, for example, and the rest of us would have to get compensated for our share of Alberta's oil.

Of course, same goes for Quebec - despite their best efforts to convince everyone otherwise.

As a point of fact, the land and resources belong to the people who live in the province. That's why the oil, forest, mining royalties, etc are paid to the provinces. Not the federal government. Yes, you are free to make the move and join us in the land of oz. Then you'll own some oil too.

As far as seperation goes, that's not how national divorces work. When the people who inhabit a region decide to go it on their own, they take their land and everything over and under it with them. To insist otherwise would of necessity lead to unending quibbling and conflict, probably armed.

I sincerely hope that the government of Canada does not try to pull such a stunt with the government of Quebec should they decide to leave. Fact is if the government of Quebec had a legitimate mandate on the question they could simply declare independence. They would be recognized immediately by some significant nations. If Canada wanted to say, no no no, we've got this here rule book we have to follow, Quebec could tell them where to stuff it. If the Government of Canada wanted to enforce those rules, they could call up the army. Then many people in Quebec would grab their guns. Then... Not exactly where I would like to see things wind up.

Fact is when a people say goodbye, were gone. The other party has a choice to oppose by force of arms or not. That simple.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by notyoueither


As a point of fact, the land and resources belong to the people who live in the province. That's why the oil, forest, mining royalties, etc are paid to the provinces. Not the federal government. Yes, you are free to make the move and join us in
the land of oz. Then you'll own some oil too.

As far as seperation goes, that's not how national divorces work. When the people who inhabit a region decide to go it on their own, they take their land and everything over and under it with them. To insist otherwise would of necessity lead to unending quibbling and conflict, probably armed.

I sincerely hope that the government of Canada does not try to pull such a stunt with the government of Quebec should they decide to leave. Fact is if the government of Quebec had a legitimate mandate on the question they could simply declare independence. They would be recognized immediately by some significant nations. If Canada wanted to say, no no no, we've got this here rule book we have to follow, Quebec could tell them where to stuff it. If the Government of Canada wanted to enforce those rules, they could call up the army. Then many people in Quebec would grab their guns. Then... Not exactly where I would like to see things wind up.

Fact is when a people say goodbye, were gone. The other party has a choice to oppose by force of arms or not. That simple.

hmm, aparently I just added you to my buddy list

if only I knew what that was

anyway's

I am anti-succession (unless it is to join the US), the state belongs to the whole nation, not jsut itself (At least in the US)

Jon Miller

[notyoueither]

Yes, but when a state or states decide they are gone, they no longer recognize that constitution. It's akin to possession is nine-tenths of the law.

If the rest of the nation decides to oppose the seccession by force of arms you get a civil war.

Very unlikely in Canada, unless some wing-nuts got control of the government of a province and tried to declare independence without a clear mandate from the people of that province. In that case, the rest of Canada would very likely fight over it.

[Asher]

Isn't it written into the Canadian constitution that if >75% of the population of a province votes to leave, by law, the government has to allow it peacefully?

[notyoueither]

No. One of the problems with the Quebec problem is that seccession is not defined.

[Edit] It almost never is in any constitution [/Edit]

[- Groucho -]

As a point of fact, the land and resources belong to the people who live in the province. That's why the oil, forest, mining royalties, etc are paid to the provinces. Not the federal government. Yes, you are free to make the move and join us in the land of oz. Then you'll own some oil too.

As a point of fact, that money is paid to the provinces because the British North America Act says that provinces get to collect those revenues on behalf of the sovereign. It isn't because of some sort of "divine right of the people who live there".

When the people who inhabit a region decide to go it on their own, they take their land and everything over and under it with them. To insist otherwise would of necessity lead to unending quibbling and conflict, probably armed.

I think you have that backwards. To pretend that people have the right to breakup a country unilaterally is what leads to unending quibbling and conflict. Does "Quebec" ring a bell? No? How about "the Balkans"?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Echinda
I think you have that backwards. To pretend that people have the right to breakup a country unilaterally is what leads to unending quibbling and conflict. Does "Quebec" ring a bell? No? How about "the Balkans"?

You may be correct about the resource question. I don't think so, but I can offer nothing further in arguement because I am not an expert on the subject.

But, you do bring up an interesting point. Yes, the Balkans. That is an excellent example of what happens when a central power (the serbs) try to thwart the desires for independence in regions by force of arms. It's rather an extreme example actually. But things do tend to get very messy in civil wars. I don't think Canada will choose to go down that road except in extreme circumstances.

Of course people have the right to unilaterally succeed. The right to self determination and all that. The central government can always oppose them. What else are you gonna do? The people of Quebec say, were gone. They stop paying taxes to Canada. The RCMP are invited to leave. The PQ muster their own army. What do you do if 65% of Quebecers voted for it?