Why Alberta hates the Liberals/Trudeau

[CPCFTW]

Hey Jim, I know you from HFBoards... I used to post there but got banned for hating the canucks too much. The Canucks global mod is a typical canucks fanboy and couldn't handle so much reality from one poster. Welcome to this board. Glad to have another sane conservative mind around.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Glad to have another sane conservative mind around.

Implying that the majority of conservative minds aren't. Nice!

[Shwa]

The Natural Resources Transfer Agreement gave crown lands to the province. It says that the province must return crown lands to the federal government where required for land claim settlements, but it also specifies that such transfer occur with the agreement of the provincial government. So that seems clear enough.

Legal citation please. Show me the provincial veto to Land Claims agreements with First Nations.

So you'd nationalize the energy industry by using taxes to attempt to drive out private industry and using a crown corporation to buy vacated assets? That was tried once already and regardless, wouldn't end the province as a legal entity or even remove the provinces' royalty rights.

Legal citation please - in other words, show the law that governs the policies. Taxation is one way of nationalizing oil and gas, but I am sure there are many others like regulation, tariff, pipeline fees, etc. The point being is that it can be done if and when required.

Here, check this out: National Energy Board

[noahbody]

This set the precedent for the NEP, which undisputedly (correct me if I'm wrong) benefited the East at the expense of Alberta.

It was at the expense of the people of Alberta. Thousands lost their jobs and homes. The bankruptcy rate in Alberta rose 150%.

[Dave_ON]

I just want to point out NS, PEI and to a less extent NB took the fish out of the Ocean to finance the building of Railroads, and grain elevators which made it possible to settle the West in the first place. For all the whining Westerns do about paying their "fair share" they still owe a heck of a lost to the east. Although I am not one to play West against East we can not forget the huge debate that is always forgotten by those who live outside what are now poor provinces that were once the engine that ran this great nation of ours.

I wouldn't say a lesser extent NB for fishing. You also forgot to mention the timber from NB as well as the coal from both NS and NB that helped the push west and the ship building industry which allowed for international trade.

I think that the Maritimes are a cautionary tale for the West, but for the grace of God so go you. Coal and lumber were big money back in the day and the maritimes had a wealth of it. Things change, ships aren't built of wood and coal isn't burned like it used to be.

[Molly]

I wouldn't say a lesser extent NB for fishing. You also forgot to mention the timber from NB as well as the coal from both NS and NB that helped the push west and the ship building industry which allowed for international trade.

I think that the Maritimes are a cautionary tale for the West, but for the grace of God so go you. Coal and lumber were big money back in the day and the maritimes had a wealth of it. Things change, ships aren't built of wood and coal isn't burned like it used to be.

Dave.... I'm beginning to believe that a february trip between Winnipeg and Sudbury, in an overloaded U-haul truck should be a mandatory experience for anyone wanting to discuss Canadian east/west relations.

While income from maritime coal, timber and ports (and fish) no doubt paid some portion of the $25 million invested in a rail link to Britich Columbia, believe me when I say that Western coal, timber and ports are much more accessible to the west than those same resources from the Maritimes.

It strikes me more and more that this needs to be pointed out:

If you begin driving from Halifax, in two long days behind the wheel, you can leave the maritimes, pass through Benz' version of 'French Canada' and cross the vast majority of that area that refers to itself as 'Central Canada' finding yourself at or near the centre of the universe, the GTA.

From there, if you continue driving for 3 more long days through a whole lot of rocks and bush and swamps and random moose, where you are so far out in the middle of nowhere that you can't raise anything at all on your car radio for hours at a time... after those three additional days, you'll pop out the other side of the shield near Winnipeg, and you'll be at the east/west middle of Canada, finally having arrived at the lead edge of 'western Canada'.

Seriously, spend a minute soaking up the implications of those proportions.

[ninjandrew]

Seriously, spend a minute soaking up the implications of those proportions.

And the wisdom of transporting a schwack load of timber that whole distance, through a schwack load of forest.

[Tilter]

I just want to point out NS, PEI and to a less extent NB took the fish out of the Ocean to finance the building of Railroads, and grain elevators which made it possible to settle the West in the first place. For all the whining Westerns do about paying their "fair share" they still owe a heck of a lost to the east. Although I am not one to play West against East we can not forget the huge debate that is always forgotten by those who live outside what are now poor provinces that were once the engine that ran this great nation of ours.

You can't be faulted for the error in your post, no one bothered to compile the history of the Canada that extends about 2,000 kilometers west from the western Ontario border.

One can't help but be sorry for the investors who financed the development of the railroads there.

All those fish invested in such a poor project that only gave them a grant of $25,000,000. Poor ionvestment --- Oh, I forgot to mention the land grants. In Manitoba an area the size of England and in Sask Alta, a mere TWENTY FIVE MILLION ACRES Oh-- those poor people. A mere pittance compared to all the free fish they used to pay for the building the RRs,a few stations and a few elevators.

They were very hard done by.

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/canadian-west/052920/05292073_e.html

http://www.albertasource.ca/petroleum/featured_article/cpr_land_grants.html

[Dave_ON]

Dave.... I'm beginning to believe that a february trip between Winnipeg and Sudbury, in an overloaded U-haul truck should be a mandatory experience for anyone wanting to discuss Canadian east/west relations.

While income from maritime coal, timber and ports (and fish) no doubt paid some portion of the $25 million invested in a rail link to Britich Columbia, believe me when I say that Western coal, timber and ports are much more accessible to the west than those same resources from the Maritimes.

I don't underestimate the contributions of the west to getting to where they are today. However, the west, especially Alberta it seems is far far to quick to undersell the vast contributions of those maritimers that came, built, worked on the structure that allowed the west to be settled, this includes Ontario and even Benz version of French Canada .

Keep in mind from NB's perspective, everything that isn't PEI, NS or NFLD is "the west"

Maritimers are not money sucking lazy b@$tards. They're hard working people that contributed greatly to what this country is today. Time, shifting economies and resource management all had an impact on their present day economy. This to me is a cautionary tale to the economic power house of Alberta, you never know how even the smallest shift will affect you, ships aren't built of timber any more, the fisheries are affected by the Portuguese and other European countries, as well as poor management on our side. Coal, is no longer a greatly sought after resource. Someday oil will go the way of coal, could be 30 years could be 230 years, but the fact remains, wealthy today, does not mean wealthy in perpetuity. People should not be so quick to judge or dismiss other regions contributions.

[kimmy]

Legal citation please. Show me the provincial veto to Land Claims agreements with First Nations.

sure.

10. All lands included in Indian reserves within the Province, including those selected and surveyed but not yet confirmed, as well as those confirmed, shall continue to be vested in the Crown and administered by the Government of Canada for the purposes of Canada, and the Province will from time to time, upon the request of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, set aside, out of the unoccupied Crown lands hereby transferred to its administration, such further areas as the said Superintendent General may, in agreement with the appropriate Minister of the Province, select as necessary to enable Canada to fulfil its obligations under the treaties with the Indians of the Province, and such areas shall thereafter be administered by Canada in the same way in all respects as if they had never passed to the Province under the provisions hereof.

Alberta Natural Resources Act

Identical agreements with Manitoba and Saskatchewan were enacted simultaneously, giving the 3 prairie provinces powers that the other provinces had from day 1.

The idea that the federal government could annihilate a province by just declaring the whole province to be Indian land is highly unlikely. Recall that Confederation was the union of colonies that were highly protective of their rights and privileges and somewhat mistrustful that a federal government would protect their interests. Keeping that in mind, it seems highly unlikely that these colonies would give this new federal government a means of ending their existence. And since the prairie provinces have obtained rights and powers identical to the other provinces, there's no reason to think that the federal government could end a prairie province in this manner either.

The notion that the federal government could unilaterally end a province by giving it to the Indians (or by any other means, for that matter) seems like an extraordinary claim, and the onus is on the person making extraordinary claims to provide support for his claims. So get crackin'.

Legal citation please - in other words, show the law that governs the policies. Taxation is one way of nationalizing oil and gas, but I am sure there are many others like regulation, tariff, pipeline fees, etc. The point being is that it can be done if and when required.

Here, check this out: National Energy Board

As I already pointed out, we already know how the federal government would go about attempting to nationalize the oil industry and to limit the provinces' power over natural resources, because it was already attempted. These were stated objectives of the National Energy Program, and the NEP reflects the legal ability of the federal government to impose itself in natural resources. Some of the things Trudeau and Masse attempted were upheld as legal, other elements of the NEP were struck down as unconstitutional. There's no doubt that there are means that the federal government could use, but there is also no doubt that they can't circumvent the provinces' own constitutional rights.

In reality, the federal government actually has less power to intervene in the resource industry than it did at the time of the NEP, because the terms of our various free trade agreements limit the ability of our government to impose punitive taxes on foreign owned corporations or tariffs on energy exports.

And, what's more, even if the federal government *could*, they couldn't. Start messing with the energy security of our friends to the south, and the consequences could be catastrophic. Not to mention the economic and political backlash. Ditto to the idea that you could just wipe Alberta off the map by declaring the whole province to be an Indian Reservation. Even if it were possible... well, tell 3 million people that they're now trespassing on Indian lands and will have to leave... I suspect it would probably go down as one of the worst ideas in Canadian history. It would be interesting to see how it turned out.

-k

[Benz]

I don't underestimate the contributions of the west to getting to where they are today. However, the west, especially Alberta it seems is far far to quick to undersell the vast contributions of those maritimers that came, built, worked on the structure that allowed the west to be settled, this includes Ontario and even Benz version of French Canada .

I agree. The maritimes contributed alot to this country and it is normal they get a return on the investment. I also want to point out that the oil industry is rising the value of our dollars too high, which is not necessary a good thing for other industries.

Keep in mind from NB's perspective, everything that isn't PEI, NS or NFLD is "the west"

It is common for the 4 regions. For Québec, everything else is just "english". For the west, from Ontario upto NFLD is the "east". For Ontario, all the rest is the surrounding of its belly button.

Maritimers are not money sucking lazy b@$tards. They're hard working people that contributed greatly to what this country is today. Time, shifting economies and resource management all had an impact on their present day economy. This to me is a cautionary tale to the economic power house of Alberta, you never know how even the smallest shift will affect you, ships aren't built of timber any more, the fisheries are affected by the Portuguese and other European countries, as well as poor management on our side. Coal, is no longer a greatly sought after resource. Someday oil will go the way of coal, could be 30 years could be 230 years, but the fact remains, wealthy today, does not mean wealthy in perpetuity. People should not be so quick to judge or dismiss other regions contributions.

Indeed.

[Hydraboss]

These Albertan crybabies have a very short memory,don't they?

They were Saskatchewan for most of their dust bowl existence,surviving on the good charity of the other "have" provinces.And now,when times are a little tougher in thos other provinces,the real virtue and character of SOME Albertans COMES shining through....

Nothing but selfish crybabies living in a culture of insular offense...

Geez Jack...what took you so long? You didn't show so I had to start without you here.

Try not to be late next time.

[Shwa]

sure.

10. All lands included in Indian reserves within the Province, including those selected and surveyed but not yet confirmed, as well as those confirmed, shall continue to be vested in the Crown and administered by the Government of Canada for the purposes of Canada, and the Province will from time to time, upon the request of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, set aside, out of the unoccupied Crown lands hereby transferred to its administration, such further areas as the said Superintendent General may, in agreement with the appropriate Minister of the Province, select as necessary to enable Canada to fulfil its obligations under the treaties with the Indians of the Province, and such areas shall thereafter be administered by Canada in the same way in all respects as if they had never passed to the Province under the provisions hereof.

The citation above refers to an adminstration obligation on behalf of the province, not legal title. Note the use of the word 'may.' This is why the Government of Canada has oversight on practically every inch of land in the nation.

Alberta Natural Resources Act

Identical agreements with Manitoba and Saskatchewan were enacted simultaneously, giving the 3 prairie provinces powers that the other provinces had from day 1.

Acts based upon administrative privledge, not legal title. There is a difference. Bank tellers can't help themselves from the bank vault for example. Even if they make a firm policy that says they can.

The notion that the federal government could unilaterally end a province by giving it to the Indians (or by any other means, for that matter) seems like an extraordinary claim, and the onus is on the person making extraordinary claims to provide support for his claims. So get crackin'.

The claim is the Government of Canada can divide provinces and territories up, all nice and legal like. Furthermore, they can rescind administrative privledge over province and territory at their leisure and do administer it themselves. So any talk of Alberta secession must pass through this device first. So it is less likely that Alberta could, in any shape or form, separate because the Government of Canada has the upper hand at all times. That is not an extraordinary claim, but a legal one. The proof is in your citation.

But if you believe otherwise, get crackin' on your proof.

As I already pointed out, we already know how the federal government would go about attempting to nationalize the oil industry and to limit the provinces' power over natural resources, because it was already attempted. These were stated objectives of the National Energy Program, and the NEP reflects the legal ability of the federal government to impose itself in natural resources. Some of the things Trudeau and Masse attempted were upheld as legal, other elements of the NEP were struck down as unconstitutional. There's no doubt that there are means that the federal government could use, but there is also no doubt that they can't circumvent the provinces' own constitutional rights.

What element of the NEP was struck down as unconstitutional?

In reality, the federal government actually has less power to intervene in the resource industry than it did at the time of the NEP, because the terms of our various free trade agreements limit the ability of our government to impose punitive taxes on foreign owned corporations or tariffs on energy exports.

But, as we have seen, free trade agreements can and do change and are ulitmately here to serve the nation. Not the other way around. The 'less power' is a choice by political expediency, not a withdrawal of permanent, inalienable rights to any part of the country. In other words, the Government allows it.

And, what's more, even if the federal government *could*, they couldn't. Start messing with the energy security of our friends to the south, and the consequences could be catastrophic.

This presupposes that a partitioning of Alberta is a threat to "...the energy security of our friends to the south..." where there is no basis for such a presupposition. It's an empty tactic invoking some special bond that Alberta enjoys with the US.

Not to mention the economic and political backlash.

Where, in Alberta? They can vote for the Bloc Alberta all they want. No problem in the rest of the country.

Ditto to the idea that you could just wipe Alberta off the map by declaring the whole province to be an Indian Reservation.

Who said anything about an "Indian Reservation?" Is Nunavut an "Indian Reservation?"

Even if it were possible... well, tell 3 million people that they're now trespassing on Indian lands and will have to leave...

Why would they be considered tresspassers and have to leave? Are you trying to invoke the threat of the majority again? Or are you unable to imagine solutions outside of the most scariest scenarios?

I suspect it would probably go down as one of the worst ideas in Canadian history. It would be interesting to see how it turned out.

Perhaps, but legally possible which is why cries of Albertan separation, scary invocations of "our friends to the south" and some sort of 3 million strong mass revolt are as empty as as the best arguments from the best separatistes in Quebec.

And look where that has gotten them.

[bloodyminded]

Has it never dawned on you that the colonies wanted to join Confederation? They were small, poor, didn't have many defences, were far from available reinforcements, and the US had its Manifest Destiny. The decision was mutually beneficial.

[sp]

Well, yes. Good lord. "You plundered our resources." As if these were sovereign, native peoples suppressed by the Eastern Imperial behemoth.

[kimmy]

Who said anything about an "Indian Reservation?" Is Nunavut an "Indian Reservation?"

Who said anything about an Indian Reservation? You did. Your own proposition was that the federal government could simply unmake a province by awarding it in its entirety to the natives in a land claim settlement. In short, turn it into an Indian Reservation. A premise that you've failed to support with anything other than your own speculation, I notice.

Nunavut is a territory. If you're proposing that the federal government could unilaterally turn a province into a territory, feel free to find some citations to support that premise as well.

Feel free to provide citations for any of your fanciful ideas on how a province might be unmade, or for your interesting interpretation of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement. All of this appears to be based on your own legal opinion, and I've got a hunch you got your degree in constitutional law from the same school where you got your PhD in neutrino physics.

You think it's fearmongering to suggest that there would be serious consequences to nationalizing the oil industry in Canada, whether through expropriation or seizure or simply through driving private industry out through taxation? Or to scrapping portions of free trade agreements pertaining to energy? I doubt you're that naive, and I'm certain no Prime Minister will ever be that naive.

Information about the National Energy Program and the court rulings that resulted from it is not difficult to find. Try Google for starters.

-k

[BornAlbertan]

It is threads like this that makes me think we are just a country of whiners, assholes and people who think everything is owed to them because "we helped you out a hundred years ago".

A. when is a "debt" ever paid off

B. when in a "family" does a real loving member of it HOLD IT OVER THE HEAD of others for the rest of their life

C. when in a "family" is it fair for one set of rules apply to some members and not others

[Smallc]

A. when is a "debt" ever paid off

Being a country has nothing to do with that. Your post does in fact prove your premise though.

B. when in a "family" does a real loving member of it HOLD IT OVER THE HEAD of others for the rest of their life

What are you talking about, exactly? Does everyone in this country hold everything over your head? Do you think that? Are you that paranoid?

C. when in a "family" is it fair for one set of rules apply to some members and not others

Show me where that happens. Anything that one province gets in this country is available to all others.

[Shwa]

Who said anything about an Indian Reservation? You did. Your own proposition was that the federal government could simply unmake a province by awarding it in its entirety to the natives in a land claim settlement. In short, turn it into an Indian Reservation

.

You assume that any land claim settlement would result in a "reservation," which is the first error on your part since you can't see past a very limited view of what is possible with self-determination with the Aboriginal peoples under Constitutional Law. The second error is that in Canada, we call them "reserves" not "reservations."

A premise that you've failed to support with anything other than your own speculation, I notice.

Nope, I gave Treaty 8 as an example. Here is their website and there is a page on that has documents pertaining to important Aboriginal legal cases and an introduction to Aboriginal Law. Take your time to get up to speed.

You may also wish to be familiar with Part II, Section 35 of the Constitution as well. Note that section (3) says "For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired."

Nunavut is a territory. If you're proposing that the federal government could unilaterally turn a province into a territory, feel free to find some citations to support that premise as well.

The limted viewpoint again. I am proposing that the Government of Canada can re-arrange and re-organize adminstrative responsibilities for it's various regions and that includes using their Treaty and Land Claims obligations as part of the process. Whatever such newly formed adminstrative regions are called is mere terminology, not effect.

Feel free to provide citations for any of your fanciful ideas on how a province might be unmade, or for your interesting interpretation of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement. All of this appears to be based on your own legal opinion, and I've got a hunch you got your degree in constitutional law from the same school where you got your PhD in neutrino physics.

See all of the above, it isn't my legal opinion, but codified in Canadian law. You mistake administrative privledge as title, such as to say that a bank teller could help themselves to the coin in the vault.

You think it's fearmongering to suggest that there would be serious consequences to nationalizing the oil industry in Canada, whether through expropriation or seizure or simply through driving private industry out through taxation? Or to scrapping portions of free trade agreements pertaining to energy? I doubt you're that naive, and I'm certain no Prime Minister will ever be that naive.

I think it is fearmongering to suggest that there would be anything more than diplomatic chatter over Canada's attempt to assert it's sovereignty over it's natural resources no matter what form it takes. Invoking the wrath of "our friends from the south" as some sort of hedge against any action taken towards Albertan secession is worthy of a chuckle.

Information about the National Energy Program and the court rulings that resulted from it is not difficult to find. Try Google for starters.

You might want to do the same and get up to speed. Note that the Government of Canada holds the cards and the oversight on everything to do with oil and gas in Alberta. The province can administer it, but only within the context of Canadian law and federal policy. There are no 'inherent rights' for the province over it's natural resources; they are given the "rights" to administer the natural resources through the Constitution.

Even Trudeau knew that.

[kimmy]

See all of the above, it isn't my legal opinion, but codified in Canadian law. You mistake administrative privledge as title, such as to say that a bank teller could help themselves to the coin in the vault.

You keep mentioning this, but the fact of the matter is that the land is the province's, not the federal governments. Bambino would probably point out that technically the land is the Queen's. But the title says "Her Majesty The Queen In Right of Alberta".

Crown lands in Alberta which are held "In Right Of Canada" are limited to Indian Reservations, national parks, and (I believe) Canadian Forces bases.

If provincial crown lands are to be transfered to the federal government for purposes of a land claims settlement, it's done with the agreement of the province, as pointed out in the earlier piece of law I cited.

So the whole premise of "we could just give it all to the indians!" becomes moot anyway.

I think it is fearmongering to suggest that there would be anything more than diplomatic chatter over Canada's attempt to assert it's sovereignty over it's natural resources no matter what form it takes. Invoking the wrath of "our friends from the south" as some sort of hedge against any action taken towards Albertan secession is worthy of a chuckle.

I'm not invoking it as a hedge against fighting secession. I'm pointing out that your notion of nationalizing the oil industry (through whichever means it might be accomplished) would result in a great deal more than "diplomatic chatter".

Even Trudeau knew that.

They knew they could impose a great many taxes, but they also knew they couldn't get around the provinces' rights. It's not a coincidence that the NEP put such an emphasis on exploring for oil in the Territories and offshore.

-k

[Shwa]

You keep mentioning this, but the fact of the matter is that the land is the province's, not the federal governments. Bambino would probably point out that technically the land is the Queen's. But the title says "Her Majesty The Queen In Right of Alberta".

Provincial Crown Land is held in tenure, which is an administrative function and does not denote title. All land in Canada is subject to Aboriginal claims of title by way of treaties with the Government in Canada. Don't mix up administrative access as equalling title.

Crown lands in Alberta which are held "In Right Of Canada" are limited to Indian Reservations, national parks, and (I believe) Canadian Forces bases.

Your use of the word "held" strengthens my point. Being 'held' means that the Governmt of Canada directly administers those lands by way of federal responsibilities denoted in the Constitution.

If provincial crown lands are to be transfered to the federal government for purposes of a land claims settlement, it's done with the agreement of the province, as pointed out in the earlier piece of law I cited.

Sure, so let's revisit the Alberta Natural Resources Act, specifically Section 10:

INDIAN RESERVES

10. All lands included in Indian reserves within the Province, including those selected and surveyed but not yet confirmed, as well as those confirmed, shall continue to be vested in the Crown and administered by the Government of Canada for the purposes of Canada, and the Province will from time to time, upon the request of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, set aside, out of the unoccupied Crown lands hereby transferred to its administration, such further areas as the said Superintendent General may, in agreement with the appropriate Minister of the Province, select as necessary to enable Canada to fulfil its obligations under the treaties with the Indians of the Province, and such areas shall thereafter be administered by Canada in the same way in all respects as if they had never passed to the Province under the provisions hereof.

Alberta is obligated to transfer lands back to federal administration. An 'agreement' with the Province is a mere formality. They can be told to relinquish the administrative rights over those areas because they do not have title to it.

So the whole premise of "we could just give it all to the indians!" becomes moot anyway.

See all of the above. All land in Alberta is subject to Aboriginal title per the Constitution of Canada and that administrative process can be used to dismantle the province, piece by piece. You see the government of Alberta enjoys administrative privledge by way of the Alberta Natural Resources Act, which is an Act of the Parliament of Canada, not the Legislature of Alberta. Whatever is written in that Act can be simply amended by Parliament and will be legally binding.

I'm not invoking it as a hedge against fighting secession. I'm pointing out that your notion of nationalizing the oil industry (through whichever means it might be accomplished) would result in a great deal more than "diplomatic chatter".

They knew they could impose a great many taxes, but they also knew they couldn't get around the provinces' rights. It's not a coincidence that the NEP put such an emphasis on exploring for oil in the Territories and offshore.

Whatever. The point is that it can be done as a countermeasure to any threat of Albertan secession. I doubt the ROC would have a problem amending the Alberta Natural Resources Act to ensure Albertan compliance towards it's federal obligations. In short, Alberta is - and always will be - held by the short and curlies by the Government of Canada. Just like Quebec.

[kimmy]

Provincial Crown Land is held in tenure, which is an administrative function and does not denote title. All land in Canada is subject to Aboriginal claims of title by way of treaties with the Government in Canada. Don't mix up administrative access as equalling title.

Alberta's ownership of provincial crown lands is as certain as federal ownership of crown land in the territories. That's all that's needed to dismiss the sort of "it's all Canada's, we're just letting you use it" and "it's ours and we'll take it back if you don't watch out" talk that sometimes surfaces in this type of discussion.

Your use of the word "held" strengthens my point. Being 'held' means that the Governmt of Canada directly administers those lands by way of federal responsibilities denoted in the Constitution.

And those "held" by the federal government are a fairly small portion of the province (although Wood Buffalo National Park itself is larger than some provinces).

Alberta is obligated to transfer lands back to federal administration. An 'agreement' with the Province is a mere formality. They can be told to relinquish the administrative rights over those areas because they do not have title to it.

I see nothing that says the federal government can unilaterally decide to give provincially-owned lands to the indians. I suspect that provincial governments are involved in land claim settlements for this very reason. While looking for information about the National Resources Transfer Acts of 1930, I saw some aboriginal web pages that took great offense to these acts; I doubt that they'd be that bitter if provincial cooperation was a mere formality.

You see the government of Alberta enjoys administrative privledge by way of the Alberta Natural Resources Act, which is an Act of the Parliament of Canada, not the Legislature of Alberta. Whatever is written in that Act can be simply amended by Parliament and will be legally binding.

It's a part of the constitution, and can't be undone on a whim.

Whatever. The point is that it can be done as a countermeasure to any threat of Albertan secession. I doubt the ROC would have a problem amending the Alberta Natural Resources Act to ensure Albertan compliance towards it's federal obligations. In short, Alberta is - and always will be - held by the short and curlies by the Government of Canada. Just like Quebec.

The federal government doesn't have such arbitrary powers to unmake a province as you'd have us believe, regardless of how noble the motivation might be.

As far as a province actually attempting to secede, the country certainly does have a would-be separatist province by the short-and-curlies.

Secession would almost certainly require a constitutional agreement, and would not be easily obtained even if everybody was cooperative. And the cost in terms of surrendering federal assets, settling outstanding claims, and assuming a portion of national liabilities alone would make the cost of secession too high to consider.

And there's no threat of Alberta separatism to be countered anyway. It's the pipe-dream of a tiny but loud minority. The last time there was any significant interest in the idea was when the Liberals were returned to power in 2004 and many angry Albertans concluded that Ontarions would rather be governed by a criminal-led party than a western-led party. Even that anger didn't translate into significant support for separatism, just cynicism toward federal politics. And that irritant has long since vanished anyway.

-k

[Shwa]

Alberta's ownership of provincial crown lands is as certain as federal ownership of crown land in the territories. That's all that's needed to dismiss the sort of "it's all Canada's, we're just letting you use it" and "it's ours and we'll take it back if you don't watch out" talk that sometimes surfaces in this type of discussion.

Again, you confuse title with administrative privledge and seem unable or unwilling to grasp the difference. I can understand you would be unwilling, since it basically dismantles your argument. The Alberta Natural Resources Act proves my point, otherwise, why is such an Act necessary in the first place?

And those "held" by the federal government are a fairly small portion of the province (although Wood Buffalo National Park itself is larger than some provinces).

Quite right, and Alberta holds the rest, in a trust, based on administrative privledge. Nothing more.

I see nothing that says the federal government can unilaterally decide to give provincially-owned lands to the indians. I suspect that provincial governments are involved in land claim settlements for this very reason. While looking for information about the National Resources Transfer Acts of 1930, I saw some aboriginal web pages that took great offense to these acts; I doubt that they'd be that bitter if provincial cooperation was a mere formality.

Read the Act carefully. Either you are not reading it carefully enough or you have a problem understanding the language. Here is an example (emphasis is mine):

...and the Province will from time to time, upon the request of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, set aside, out of the unoccupied Crown lands hereby transferred to its administration

The point is that Alberta will `unilaterally` give the land back to the Government of Canada to settle land claims. The approval of the Albertan Legislature is a formality since their claim over the land is an administrative privlidge arising from an Act of the Canadian Parliament. They have no title to the land and no inhernet rights to it.

It's a part of the constitution, and can't be undone on a whim.

It's an Act of the Canadian Parliament that can be amended by Parliament at their leisure. Parliament amends Acts all the time.

The federal government doesn't have such arbitrary powers to unmake a province as you'd have us believe, regardless of how noble the motivation might be.

No, but the Government of Canada, through Parliament, has the effective power to do so. You see provinces on the same footing as the Government of Canada and that is a very naive point of view that is often espoused by the delusional separatistes. A part does not usurp the whole and it never will. Heck, Alberta doesn't even have a provincial police force.

As far as a province actually attempting to secede, the country certainly does have a would-be separatist province by the short-and-curlies.

Secession would almost certainly require a constitutional agreement, and would not be easily obtained even if everybody was cooperative. And the cost in terms of surrendering federal assets, settling outstanding claims, and assuming a portion of national liabilities alone would make the cost of secession too high to consider.

And there's no threat of Alberta separatism to be countered anyway. It's the pipe-dream of a tiny but loud minority. The last time there was any significant interest in the idea was when the Liberals were returned to power in 2004 and many angry Albertans concluded that Ontarions would rather be governed by a criminal-led party than a western-led party. Even that anger didn't translate into significant support for separatism, just cynicism toward federal politics. And that irritant has long since vanished anyway.

Of course, and this is all true. But it is important that those irritating Albertan separatists understand the rules. That is why when Jack replies, "Go back and pump our oil" it is so damned hilarious. Because in Ontario, we really don't care. Along with Quebec, we can set the price of Albertan oil if we really wanted to.

[Remiel]

The point is that Alberta will `unilaterally` give the land back to the Government of Canada to settle land claims. The approval of the Albertan Legislature is a formality since their claim over the land is an administrative privlidge arising from an Act of the Canadian Parliament. They have no title to the land and no inhernet rights to it.

I suppose that next, in a brilliant turn of events, you will prove that Alberta is " unoccupied " ? You should pay more attention to you own quotes...

[kimmy]

Again, you confuse title with administrative privledge and seem unable or unwilling to grasp the difference. I can understand you would be unwilling, since it basically dismantles your argument. The Alberta Natural Resources Act proves my point, otherwise, why is such an Act necessary in the first place?

Because the prairie provinces had not been granted those rights upon entry into confederation.

Quite right, and Alberta holds the rest, in a trust, based on administrative privledge. Nothing more.

The Government of Canada has no more right to lands held by "Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Alberta" than it has to lands held by "Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Australia."

Read the Act carefully. Either you are not reading it carefully enough or you have a problem understanding the language. Here is an example (emphasis is mine):

This appears to be based upon your own "legal scholarship", meaning sheer speculation.

If you were to back up your point by citing instances of federal government unilaterally seizing provincial crown lands for purposes of land claims settlements, that would be more convincing.

The point is that Alberta will `unilaterally` give the land back to the Government of Canada to settle land claims. The approval of the Albertan Legislature is a formality since their claim over the land is an administrative privlidge arising from an Act of the Canadian Parliament. They have no title to the land and no inhernet rights to it.

The title is held by the queen in trust of the province, and the rights are granted by the constitution.

It's an Act of the Canadian Parliament that can be amended by Parliament at their leisure. Parliament amends Acts all the time.

It's a portion of the Constitution Act of 1930. Parliament can't do jack shit about it.

(If it were otherwise, Trudeau would have done it 35 years ago.)

No, but the Government of Canada, through Parliament, has the effective power to do so. You see provinces on the same footing as the Government of Canada and that is a very naive point of view that is often espoused by the delusional separatistes. A part does not usurp the whole and it never will. Heck, Alberta doesn't even have a provincial police force.

A provincial police force? So what? That it doesn't is a matter of choice.

The provinces are not on the same footing as the federal government, but have unavoidable legal rights and powers that the federal government has no choice but respect.

Of course, and this is all true. But it is important that those irritating Albertan separatists understand the rules. That is why when Jack replies, "Go back and pump our oil" it is so damned hilarious. Because in Ontario, we really don't care. Along with Quebec, we can set the price of Albertan oil if we really wanted to.

Unless you want to rip up our international trade agreements, you can pay the going rate.

That be kind of like blowing off your head to spite your face, it seems to me.

-k

[Tilter]

Being a country has nothing to do with that. Your post does in fact prove your premise though.

What are you talking about, exactly? Does everyone in this country hold everything over your head? Do you think that? Are you that paranoid?

Show me where that happens. Anything that one province gets in this country is available to all others.

Quebec--- any good paying contract (say like the maintainance of all aircraf & military equipment, lots of "balance" of payments & lots of asskissing from Ottawa.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Tilter