How close is Canada to another NEP? If so, how soon til Alberta splits?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Ok, then I'm an Albertan today. Cool.



The apple don't fall far from the tree. Your father was a carpetbagger and you've chosen the same path.

How am I choosing the same path when I was born and raised in Calgary and plan to live there in the near future?

Hmm interesting. The shortest route south crosses the Saskatchewan border before it goes to the US. Can you say tolls? I thought so.

To ship westward would have to go through us, so can you say tolls again? Yes, I thought so. Why shouldn't we be able to milk the profits out of Alberta

Because you are not the only coastal town. As of right now a very small fraction of Albertan oil goes to the coast in BC for shipping. If the amount we ship ramps up, we'll need new pipelines anyway. If we're doing this anyway, and BC is being stubborn about it, it's trivial to do it through Washington state instead. Don't get too full of yourselves, you're not the only people with access to the pacific.

So which port am I talking about here Asher? There's only really one.

I've no ****ing idea, but it doesn't matter. You brought it up, I don't give a ****. I do know that a very small minority of Alberta oil flows to BC for shipment to China via tanker.

Without tolls, yes it would be unusable by Alberta, and believe me we would charge tolls. I was curious if you knew which port I was talking about. Obviously you don't because you haven't mentioned it.

WTF is your obsession with naming a ****ing port? It doesn't matter. I could google it in a second but I really honestly couldn't care less. If you think BC could charge high tolls for using the port, you're very mistaken. There's existing infrastructure for shipping massive amounts of Oil south, and new pipelines would have to be built anyway if we were to ramp up overseas exports. In which case, I'm sure BC would be competing with Washington and other coastal US states for the opportunity.

So what port is this Asher? How can you possibly know the value of the ports when you don't even know where they are or what they are called?

Again with the obsession about the name!

Look up Alberta's oil export stats, Ben. VERY small amounts of it are exported to BC. That's why there's only a small pipeline. The bigass pipelines flow south.

I'm also aware of Saskatchewan's population problems.

It is booming, so apparently you are not.

Per capita? That means that our total economy is much, much larger then Saskatchewans. Union between BC and Alberta would be between two economies of roughly equal size.

Alberta GDP: $235.593 billion
BC GDP: $179.701 billion

Factor in Alberta's China-like GDP growth of 5-6%/year, and to say these are economies of the same size is ridiculous.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Alberta should just merge with us. Legally you have no right to separation at all. We'd pay Canada for you and the deal would be done.

You are desperate to merge with Alberta because you want a sugar daddy. Alberta's purpose in leaving would be to stop funding welfare cases, of which BC tends to be.

Couple in the fact that BC is full of hippies, and why would the Alberta government (conservative for decades) want to dilute their power like that?

There's only 7 provinces that can legally separate, BC, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and PEI. All the prairie provinces are the legal creations of the federal government.

This is factually incorrect.

All provinces under the Clarity Act of 2000 are allowed to secede.

http://www.freealberta.com/secession.html

[BeBMan]

Secession? Is Canada a failed state?

[snoopy369]

If Alberta seceded, can you imagine the tarriffs they'd be subjected to by the rest of Canada?

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think it's a very much more complex issue than you state, Asher (and also more complex than the easterners would state, of course). The question must boil down to, to what extent does the Nation own the natural resources, as opposed to the province; and I don't mean in the constitution, but ... I don't want to say 'morally', exactly, but in terms of what is right for everyone.

That question is quite easily answered....legally the provinces own their resources 100%. There's no wiggle room here. What is "right" doesn't mean **** all when it's what everyone agreed to.

Why, for example, does Alberta as a province have a right to benefit from the oil under it, as opposed to Canada?

Because that was one way to promote development in Alberta. Now that the development has been done, you can't pull the rug out and say "PSYCHE!" and change your mind. This is not how constitutions, laws, and contracts work.

[Ben Kenobi]

Technically, we can't take the Peace River region with us.

We ceded it back to the Federal government after confederation, and they gave it back to us in 1930. The rest though, would be ours.

http://www.calverley.ca/Part08-Agriculture/8-27.html

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
If Alberta seceded, can you imagine the tarriffs they'd be subjected to by the rest of Canada?

I have a hard time believing the tariffs would pass the ~$6B/yr Alberta already pays the rest of Canada.

Alberta doesn't necessarily need resources from the rest of Canada. But Canada needs Alberta's resources.

Now I'm not saying Alberta should secede, I think we're fine right now. But if the federal government decides to screw Alberta and reneg on their agreements, well, that's another problem. And if the federal government nationalizes Alberta's resources, then the question of tariffs by Canada becomes just a drop in the bucket in terms of lost resources.

[Asher]

Originally posted by BeBro
Secession? Is Canada a failed state?

Yes.

[Ben Kenobi]

That question is quite easily answered....legally the provinces own their resources 100%. There's no wiggle room here. What is "right" doesn't mean **** all when it's what everyone agreed to.

The whole reason Alberta has the borders that it does, is because of the Federal government, and the creation of the province in 1905.

I'm sorry Asher, Alberta has no right to legally secede, they have no legal existence apart from Canada, that is not legally defined by Canada.

Because that was one way to promote development in Alberta. Now that the development has been done, you can't pull the rug out and say "PSYCHE!" and change your mind. This is not how constitutions, laws, and contracts work.

Sure, that's exactly what will happen Asher. You have to be willing to pay the federal government for the huge swathe of territory in order to secede. Quebec is different, at least in the small territory that they had prior to confederation. They would have to do a two step process, the first being ask to be released from confederation, and the second, would be to leave Canada altogether.

If they wanted the northern territory, they would have to purchase it from Canada.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The whole reason Alberta has the borders that it does, is because of the Federal government, and the creation of the province in 1905.

I'm sorry Asher, Alberta has no right to legally secede, they have no legal existence apart from Canada, that is not legally defined by Canada.



Sure, that's exactly what will happen Asher. You have to be willing to pay the federal government for the huge swathe of territory in order to secede. Quebec is different, at least in the small territory that they had prior to confederation. They would have to do a two step process, the first being ask to be released from confederation, and the second, would be to leave Canada altogether.

If they wanted the northern territory, they would have to purchase it from Canada.

You are completely and 100% full of ****. Click the damn link and google "The Clarity Act" of 2000 further and learn a thing or two.

Additionally, the 1930 National Resources Transfer Acts corrected the omission of the Alberta Act of 1905 by giving Alberta full and complete control of all "crown lands and national resources". Alberta already "owns" this land, as of 1930, and doesn't need to "buy" it from anyone.

[Wezil]

Catching up on the thread...

Originally posted by Asher

That's the fear, especially as Ontario enters a recession while Alberta is still booming. Since the majority of Canada is in central Canada, I don't think it to be outrageous for them to overstep boundaries again and stake a claim in provincial resources.

You seemed to think that was far fetched when I brought it up in a thread a few months ago.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are desperate to merge with Alberta because you want a sugar daddy. Alberta's purpose in leaving would be to stop funding welfare cases, of which BC tends to be.

Asher, I live in the area that used to be called Caledonia, and until 1866 was divided apart from the rest of BC. Legally, we were merged then into BC and then into Confederation, minus the swap in the Peace Block.

I don't see why we couldn't chose to leave BC and take the northern half of the province with us.

The reason we would want a merger with Alberta is because frankly we are closer to Alberta then we are to the government on Vancouver Island.

This is factually incorrect.

All provinces under the Clarity Act of 2000 are allowed to secede.

http://www.freealberta.com/secession.html

That may be what Chretien says, but your entire eastern and northern border are defined by Canada. What is to stop Canada from defining your border down to the 49th parallel west of the Rockies?

Even Northern BC has more rights to separation, because we existed as a British colony prior to confederation.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are completely and 100% full of ****. Click the damn link and google "The Clarity Act" of 2000 further and learn a thing or two.

Additionally, the 1930 National Resources Transfer Acts corrected the omission of the Alberta Act of 1905 by giving Alberta full and complete control of all "crown lands and national resources". Alberta already "owns" this land, as of 1930, and doesn't need to "buy" it from anyone.

In the context of being a part of Canada. Alberta doesn't own any of their territory any more then BC owns the Peace region.

Section 3 of the Clarity Act confirms this:

Since the secession of a province would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, such an amendment would require negotiations with at least the governments of all provinces and the federal government. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed that negotiations on secession must involve those parties and be governed by the principles of federalism, democracy, the rule of law and the protection of minorities.

Alberta has no right of unilateral secession. With Alberta, they would have to negotiate the rights of the borders and purchase the entirety of their land from the Federal government, before they would allow you to secede, assuming the majority of Canada also approved.

BC on the other hand the Federal government has never had legal authority over most of the province due to our legal existence prior to confederation.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Asher, I live in the area that used to be called Caledonia, and until 1866 was divided apart from the rest of BC. Legally, we were merged then into BC and then into Confederation, minus the swap in the Peace Block.

I don't see why we couldn't chose to leave BC and take the northern half of the province with us.

The reason we would want a merger with Alberta is because frankly we are closer to Alberta then we are to the government on Vancouver Island.





That may be what Chretien says, but your entire eastern and northern border are defined by Canada. What is to stop Canada from defining your border down to the 49th parallel west of the Rockies?

Even Northern BC has more rights to separation, because we existed as a British colony prior to confederation.

Ben, I don't know how else to tell you this but you are completely 100% wrong.

Alberta can legally separate. All provinces can. They also don't need to buy the land or any other bat**** crazy things you are saying.

http://www.cwf.ca/V2/cnt/oped_gibbins_082106.php

Oil fuels Alberta separatists

The Toronto Star
Mon 21 Aug 2006

By Dr. Roger Gibbins

It should never have come to this. Tomorrow Albertans will go to the polls to vote on leaving Canada, and any doubt as to the outcome was removed last month when the British Columbia legislature resolved to hold a similar referendum within six months. It is likely that Saskatchewan will soon follow suit.

The legal technicalities are straightforward. Back in the late 1990s, when the Quebec sovereignty movement was still alive and well, the Supreme Court and later Parliament through the Clarity Act recognized that the government of Canada had an obligation to enter into negotiations if there was "a clear expression of the will of the population of a province on whether the province should cease to be a part of Canada and become an independent state." Those negotiations could begin as early as next week.

Back in the 1990s, no one imagined that this option would be exercised by a province other than Quebec. The critical question, therefore, is: How did we get to this sorry state of affairs? What went so wrong along the way?

Although there has always been a small smattering of separatist support in Alberta, usually a very small smattering, the origins of our current mess date back to 2006 when oil prices first passed $70 a barrel. The Alberta government, having paid off its provincial debt, was then generating larger surpluses than the federal government.

At the same time, the Ontario economy was beginning to falter in the face of both intensifying international competition and weakening American markets. A rising Canadian dollar, driven upward by robust international markets for western Canadian natural resources, squeezed the vise even tighter on the traditional manufacturing sector.

For a while the growing regional divide was masked. On average, the Canadian economy was doing well, and regional disparities within the context of more general national prosperity attracted less attention. Unemployment rates were at record lows, and Canadians across the country were enjoying growing real estate wealth.

It was also assumed by most Canadians that the regional disparities being generated by Alberta's energy wealth, and for that matter by the general wealth of the resource-based western Canadian economy, would largely disappear once resource markets returned to normal levels.

The western boom was seen as a temporary blip, a one-off windfall analogous to a lottery win. As then-Alberta premier Ralph Klein noted when asked about high energy prices, "what goes up must come down" - which indeed had been the historical experience of Alberta's volatile boom and bust economy.

Thus Canadians waited patiently, or in some cases impatiently, for energy prices to return to normal, and for the natural order of things to reassert itself. Over time, however, it began to sink in that the new normal was $70 oil, and then $80, and then $90.

The good old days of cheap energy, and with them the older model of the Canadian economy, were gone, along with hot airline meals.

Now, of course, the Canadian economy was not alone in being hit by higher energy prices, and indeed, in some ways, was better off than most given that Canada was a net exporter of oil, natural gas, uranium and hydroelectric power. The problem and the political crisis came from the unequal regional distribution of those resources.

Slowly it became clear that the accumulation of wealth in Alberta, and to a lesser degree across the West, was the new reality.

At the same time, the Ontario economy continued to be squeezed by competitors from China and India, by American protectionism in the face of the same competition, and by weakening American markets as the U.S. grappled unsuccessfully with growing debt, a deteriorating balance of payments, and international obligations that could not be shed.

In response, the western provinces were scrambling to find ways by which regional wealth could be used to positive national effect. The Alberta government, for example, generously endowed the Canadian Scholarship Fund to the point where it dwarfed the Rhodes and Woodrow Wilson funds, and where it was attracting the best and the brightest international students to universities across the country.

Similar endowments for medical research, wellness programs, clean coal and sustainable energy research were pushing Canada to the forefront of the international research community. Canada, led by the western provinces, was shedding its historical underperformance in the commercialization of university research.

Furthermore, the western provinces collaborated to strengthen transportation linkages between Canada and the booming Asia Pacific economies, with positive effects that rippled across the country from sea to sea to sea.

And, in Alberta, the onslaught of prosperity gave residents both the opportunity and the luxury to manage the impact of energy developments on an increasingly stressed provincial land base.

The pace of development was brought within the carrying capacity of the physical environment, and the province's vast energy endowment was not being exploited at the expense of its natural capital.

These steps, however, could moderate but not bridge the growing regional divide in the national economy. As oil prices crept past $100 a barrel, and then past $110, and then $120, the divide became even deeper. Every escalation brought more wealth to the West, and more cost-pressure to central Canadian firms.

As energy prices continued their inexorable climb, the regional imbalance grew in step, and all this took place against the backdrop of a troubled American economy.

There was no question that the regional concentration of energy wealth was a source of strain for the federation as Ontario and Quebec faced significant out-migration of people and head offices, and immigration became more difficult to attract. Not surprisingly, therefore, a political reaction was inevitable.

Although the western-led national government argued gamely that what was good for the Alberta economy was also good for the Canadian economy, the political battle was lost to a coalition of opposition parties running under the banner "Canadian resources for Canadians."

The equalization formula, funded as it was by federal taxpayers - the great bulk of whom lived outside Alberta and even outside the West - provided little counterweight for the public wealth that was piling up in Alberta.

The province's Heritage Savings and Trust Fund, now worth well over $150 billion, made Alberta an easy target.

Shortly before the pivotal election, renewed military conflict in the Middle East, nuclear weapons testing by Iran, and an outbreak of civil war in the Russian Caucases drove oil prices close to $200 a barrel.

Despite a surge of migration into the West, the majority of the national electorate still lived in Ontario and Quebec, and swept into power a new government determined to arrest and even turn back the energy-led tide of prosperity in Western Canada. Many in the West, particularly those with relatives, friends and business colleagues living in other parts of Canada, had some sympathy for "Canadian resources for Canadians." Western Canadians, after all, were enjoying a great deal of prosperity and thus the change in the national government alone was not enough to push them over the national unity edge.

Unfortunately, things did not go well politically.

The new federal government, led by Ontario's first prime minister in more than 50 years, introduced a draconian series of tax measures to channel energy wealth into the national treasury.

The need to address global warming was used as the rationale for sweeping carbon taxes, but the regional redistribution of wealth was the real driver. Constitutional niceties were put aside as the federal government's responsibility for peace, order and good government was expanded to include the responsibility to reduce regional disparities. Energy resources, it turned out, although not hydro resources, were now in the national interest and under the jurisdictional umbrella of the federal government.

Even then, Albertans were not pushed to the breaking point.

The straw that finally broke the province's back was the environmental disaster unleashed by federal management of Alberta's resource endowment.

The province was quite literally out of sight and out of mind, and as the price of oil approached $200 a barrel, the focus of the national government shifted to more and more production.

The collapse of an increasingly fragile environment and the destruction of iconic landscapes were seen as an unfortunate but unavoidable price to pay as the rest of the country used petrodollars as a shield to protect provincial economies from ever- intensifying international competition.

In short, Alberta became the Canadian cash cow, the bulwark against the economic effects of international competition and weak American markets.

Energy revenues were used to prop up an increasingly unproductive manufacturing economy, with petrodollars becoming the new tariff wall. In the near term, Canadians were therefore able to avoid the painful economic adjustments that other countries had to endure in the face of high energy prices, but in the long term the national economy was further weakened.

It turned out, of course, that while the concentration of energy wealth in one province had dramatic effects, the distribution of that wealth across a much larger national population had correspondingly more limited effects.

The expectations held by supporters of "Canadian resources for Canadians" could only be met if energy production was pushed higher and higher, and pushed beyond the carrying capacity of the Alberta environment.

Environmental protection comes first and foremost from those who can taste, see, touch and breathe environmental degradation, and not from distant bureaucrats or voters.

This meant that as control of Alberta's resource endowment shifted from provincial to national hands, concerns about environmental damage weakened.

The standards of environmental stewardship and intergenerational equity that had come to shape the provincial policy architecture were abandoned by a national government intent on maximizing energy revenues.

The result was the emergence of a new and powerful political coalition in Alberta determined to lead the province out of Canada.

Environmentalists locked arms with energy producers in defence of the province; ideologically moderate urbanities joined forces with ranchers and farmers as both the urban and rural environments became even more stressed.

"Canadian resources for Canadians" came to be seen as environmental degradation for Alberta, and thus the fight was joined to save both the provincial economy and environment.

And now, in 2020, where do we stand as Albertans prepare to go to the polls, and to strike out on their own?

The nation's energy wealth has been dispersed and dissipated without strategic impact; there is no legacy except for unsustainable regional transfers and social programming.

Canada is trailing rather than leading the technological race to wean the global economy from its dependence on hydrocarbons. Alberta's population has shrunk as people fled a growing ecological disaster. And, ironically, the rest of the Canadian economy, buffered by energy revenues, is now even less able to compete globally.

The Alberta Camelot that began to emerge in 2006 has come and gone. It was the Canadian curse that the Camelot created by high energy prices was located "in the regions," that it came to be seen as a national threat rather than a national asset.

What, then, could we have done differently?

We could have recognized that regional swings in the national economy are inevitable, and should be accommodated rather than resisted by public policies.

We could have accelerated the transition to new energy sources instead of shielding Canadian industries and consumers from high energy prices.

We could have built on the wisdom of "think globally, act locally" and recognized that the delicate balance between economic growth and environmental protection is better struck provincially rather than nationally.

We could have built protections for regional interests and aspirations into the institutional architecture of the national government

We could have done a lot, and instead we stand on the verge of losing so much. It should never have come to this.

Under The Clarity Act, all provinces have the right to negotiate with the Government of Canada to secede peacefully.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


In the context of being a part of Canada. Alberta doesn't own any of their territory any more then BC owns the Peace region.

Section 3 of the Clarity Act confirms this:



Alberta has no right of unilateral secession. With Alberta, they would have to negotiate the rights of the borders and purchase the entirety of their land from the Federal government, before they would allow you to secede, assuming the majority of Canada also approved.

BC on the other hand the Federal government has never had legal authority over most of the province due to our legal existence prior to confederation.

Can you SERIOUSLY not read?

ALL PROVINCES HAVE A RIGHT TO LEGAL SECESSION. THAT INCLUDES ALBERTA.

The Clarity act dictates it must be done peacefully by negotiating with the rest of Canada. I never once used the word unilateral.

Alberta already owns the right to ALL OF ITS LAND and ALL OF ITS RESOURCES. They don't need to PURCHASE it. What do you not understand about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Transfer_Acts

The Natural Resources Transfer Acts were passed by the Parliament of Canada in 1930 in order to give the Prairie provinces (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta) jurisdiction over their crown lands and natural resources, a right they were not given when they entered Confederation. The passage of these Acts rendered the Dominion Lands Act obsolete, since these same lands were no longer under federal jurisdiction.