Are you open to seperation?

[RNG]

Yeah, Saudi Arabia has plenty of wealth too despite being a quasi-medieval theocracy and command economy.

People like to attack QC for relying on transfers from AB but I think it's one province that has actually taken real efforts to promote more knowledge-based industry and innovation, ranging from aerospace to science to even stuff like the video game industry and, of course, culture more generally.

Sure, fed by Fed contracts that should have gone to Manitoba or Alberta or BC or Ontario but the Feds still always try to bribe Quebec for reasons I don't understand.

[Smallc]

Sure, fed by Fed contracts that should have gone to Manitoba or Alberta or BC or Ontario but the Feds still always try to bribe Quebec for reasons I don't understand.

Right...because that's happened so much recently.

[RNG]

Right...because that's happened so much recently.

Really short memory.

[Sandy MacNab]

It's going to be absolutely hilarious when Alberta runs out of oil and Ontario and Quebec will have to start subsidizing Alberta.

Absolutely hilarious.

Don't hurt yourself.

By the time Alberta runs out of oil, we'll be prospering doing something else; always ahead of the curve. This is the "can do" province. Alberta - and its western partners - have had the best and brightest come from all across Canada and the world at large. We've just started on a magnificent future.

[Bonam]

Peoples should not be forced against their will to remain members of states or federations of which they wish no part. If the people of a given region overwhelmingly want to separate from a larger state/federation, they should be free to do so. There is really no reason to stand in their way, save a sense of nationalism/imperialism on the part of the nation from which they would be separating.

[RNG]

Peoples should not be forced against their will to remain members of states or federations of which they wish no part. If the people of a given region overwhelmingly want to separate from a larger state/federation, they should be free to do so. There is really no reason to stand in their way, save a sense of nationalism/imperialism on the part of the nation from which they would be separating.

Right on. A free Alberta and we can now kick out Quebec. What a great world.

[dre]

We never complained about money, we got off our butts and went to work and earned it.

Hold on... you were born on top a gigantic oil reserve. You have geographic wealth. It doesnt mean you necessarily work harder than anyone else, you just happened to be born on a gigantic mountain of cash.

[dre]

Peoples should not be forced against their will to remain members of states or federations of which they wish no part. If the people of a given region overwhelmingly want to separate from a larger state/federation, they should be free to do so. There is really no reason to stand in their way, save a sense of nationalism/imperialism on the part of the nation from which they would be separating.

The problem is thats not how separation would go down. The separatist movement has claimed sovereignty over all of quebec, but that includes large regions where the majority have no interest in losing their Canadian citizenship or joining the new Country of quebec.

French Canadians separatists are only an "overwhelming majority" in relatively small area in Quebec. Separation based on your terms would be almost impossible.

[jbg]

Peoples should not be forced against their will to remain members of states or federations of which they wish no part. If the people of a given region overwhelmingly want to separate from a larger state/federation, they should be free to do so. There is really no reason to stand in their way, save a sense of nationalism/imperialism on the part of the nation from which they would be separating.

The problem is thats not how separation would go down. The separatist movement has claimed sovereignty over all of quebec, but that includes large regions where the majority have no interest in losing their Canadian citizenship or joining the new Country of quebec.

French Canadians separatists are only an "overwhelming majority" in relatively small area in Quebec. Separation based on your terms would be almost impossible.

I am constrained to agree with "dre" (put in quotes to make clear not a typo) here. When a nation forms as a pioneer area, no one has any idea where resources lie, particularly if not yet valuable. I doubt in 1905 that anyone knew that AB and SK were sitting on top of oil.

In our country, when Texas joined the Union around 1846, it was to rescue it from a deeply impoverished and indebted brief and unhappy history as an independent Republic. It would be most inequitable for the U.S. to pay off Texas' debts and then, when oil was struck in the early 1900's, let Texas decide that being a Republic was better after all.

In the case of Quebec, the separatists have not ever discussed their economic viability as an independent nation, just as no one has focused on "Palestine's" lack of viability. The putative leaders of an "independent" country should have to focus on the effect of cutting the apron strings.

Edited June 10, 2011 by jbg

[Shwa]

Okay, you shot Mike down. Now, where does your argument leave us?

It would appear that the consequence of your argument is that since your side is in the majority then 20% of Canadians, rural or whatever, should just shut up, bend over and take it without complaining!

Man, if you ran a club you'd have the entire membership quitting within 6 months! Members don't meekly obey according to their percentage of the group's makeup. If it's bad and no fun for THEM then they will want to leave!

Where is it written that patriotism involves being a martyr to an indifferent and mostly ignorant majority?

And your assumption is that 80% - or a majority thereof - are incapable of understanding rural issues and making decision based upon the needs of the 20% that live in those rural areas and creating legislation to reflect those collective values. You are immediately assuming that the other 20% "should just shut up, bend over and take it without complaining!"

WTF is wrong with you?

[g_bambino]

Peoples should not be forced against their will to remain members of states or federations of which they wish no part. If the people of a given region overwhelmingly want to separate from a larger state/federation, they should be free to do so. There is really no reason to stand in their way, save a sense of nationalism/imperialism on the part of the nation from which they would be separating.

States, however, should not be allowed to break contracts at their whim and solely on their terms, either. Confederation is a partnership of eleven jurisdictions, eleven crowns, and the constitution is the contract agreed upon by each party as the terms under which they'd all live together. If Quebec wishes to separate, it must do so in a manner that is fair to not only its own citizens, but the other provinces and the federal realm, as well. That means that a Quebec government insisting on separation will have to put a clear plan and a clear question to the voters of the province and, should a majority agree, then that same government will have to negotiate the details of separation with the rest of Confederation, which may well mean Quebec having to pay off whatever its share of the Canadian national debt is at the time, having to give up the idea of keeping infrastructure like the St. Lawrence Seaway (or having to pay for it if they keep it), and/or having to face the reality that First Nations' land, with the resources on and in it, that lies within Quebec is actually under the sovereignty of the Canadian Crown, not the Quebec republic, and its up to the First Nations themselves to decide who they want to be in treaty with.

Forcing people to remain part of a federation is costly and ugly and therefore generally undesirable. That fact, however, doesn't translate into it being okay for people who don't want to remain part of a federation to remove themselves from that union only as they see fit, i.e. entirely to their own benefit and at the expense of the country they're departing.

[tense]

Edited June 10, 2011 by g_bambino

[Shwa]

States, however, should not be allowed to break contracts at their whim and solely on their terms, either. Confederation is a partnership of eleven jurisdictions, eleven crowns, and the constitution is the contract agreed upon by each party as the terms under which they'd all live together. If Quebec wishes to separate, it must do so in a manner that is fair to not only its own citizens, but the other provinces and the federal realm, as well. That means that a Quebec government insisting on separation will have to put a clear plan and a clear question to the voters of the province and, should a majority agree, then that same government will have to negotiate the details of separation with the rest of Confederation, which may well mean Quebec having to pay off whatever its share of the Canadian national debt is at the time, having to give up the idea of keeping infrastructure like the St. Lawrence Seaway (or having to pay for it if they keep it), and/or having to face the reality that First Nations' land, with the resources on and in it, that lies within Quebec is actually under the sovereignty of the Canadian Crown, not the Quebec republic, and its up to the First Nations themselves to decide who they want to be in treaty with.

Forcing people to remain part of a federation is costly and ugly and therefore generally undesirable. That fact, however, doesn't translate into it being okay for people who don't want to remain part of a federation removing themselves from that union only as they see fit, i.e. entirely to their own benefit and at the expense of the country they're departing.

This is it exactly and clearly, there are no ifs, ands or buts about it.

The only problem I see is that First Nations also have an obligation toward the contracts - treaties - they have signed up to this point and cannot simply and unilaterally decide to void them.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The only problem I see is that First Nations also have an obligation toward the contracts - treaties - they have signed up to this point and cannot simply and unilaterally decide to void them.

Why not? The Indian Act (1876) permitted the provinces to do just that...abrogate treaties, and it is not a difficult task to demonstrate that they have continued to do so.

[jbg]

Forcing people to remain part of a federation is costly and ugly and therefore generally undesirable. That fact, however, doesn't translate into it being okay for people who don't want to remain part of a federation to remove themselves from that union only as they see fit, i.e. entirely to their own benefit and at the expense of the country they're departing.[tense]

Last I checked, Quebec's FN's and English-speakers, as well as allophone immigrants are Canadians too. The tyranny of the majority, a 50% + 1 that some Francophones may be able to scare up should not be able to trammel the rights of others to be Canadians.

[Shwa]

Why not? The Indian Act (1876) permitted the provinces to do just that...abrogate treaties, and it is not a difficult task to demonstrate that they have continued to do so.

Citation please. Thanks!

[bush_cheney2004]

Citation please. Thanks!

Stalling won't make the fact go away....

Canada

Aboriginal title has existed in Canada since the Privy Council, in St. Catherines Milling v. The Queen (1888), characterized it as a personal usufruct at the pleasure of the Queen.St. Catherines Milling v. The Queen (1888) 14 App. Cas. 46. This case did not involve indigenous parties, but rather was a lumber dispute between the provincial government of Ontario and the federal government of Canada. St. Catherines was decided in the wake of the Indian Act (1876), which laid out an assimilationist policy towards the aboriginal peoples in Canada (First Nations, Inuit, and Métis),

allowed provinces to abrogate treaties (until 1951)

, and made it a federal crime to prosecute First Nation claims in court, raise money, or organize to pursue such claims.66 WashLRev 643

http://aboriginal-title.co.tv/

[Dave_ON]

We never were, are not and never will be superior to anyone. I never have, do or will suggest anything of the kind. Albertans are just regular folks, no better or worse than the rest of the citizens of Canada.

Let me be very clear to all on this forum. The province of Alberta is not and does not whine. There are many of us that have, we simply must support out fellow citizens even if our politicians don/t. We will stand up and bark from time to time, as we please as our right to do so allows us.

I ask one thing from folks. Research the NEP. Find out what it did, how it was done and what happened in terms of social fallout from that political policy coined at the hands of the feds. If that doe not convince you we were abused by federal hands, check out how the Liberal government of the day dealt with our Premier of the day Bible Bill Aberhart. The province really hasn't had a fair shake if the truth was widely known. So it boils down to trust, not something the average Albertan has for the average politician of whatever stripe.

I am pro democracy. I favour direct democracy. I am against anything that I believe screws me over.

Well now that's a little more reasonable. I may live in Ontario now, but I don't consider myself to be a dyed in the wool Ontarian. I have strong Maritime roots, and still consider that my home, even though I haven't lived there for over a decade. There are different values out there and a different pace and outlook on life.

Alberta was hurt by the NEP sure, but they are not the only region in Canada to suffer at the hands of the feds. Ontario and Quebec have a long history of funneling money to the center. Many westerners speak of funneling money east, well that's true, but the train stops at the Quebec boarder for the most part.

Anyone who has studied Canadian history knows the wealth of the Maritimes was in Coal, Fish, Lumber, Shipbuilding, and the numerous year round ice free ports! The latter is particularly large bone of contention for most Maritimers. As you feel about Ontario, most Maritimers feel about Quebec.

The Feds funnel millions and millions of dollars every year to have ice breakers keep the St. Lawrence sea-way ice free, when instead they could use the year round ice free ports in the Bay of Fundy! Because Quebec has a larger population that's where the Fed's focused funds to develop ports in that area rather than maintaining the fully functional and far cheaper to operate year round ports that already existed. This is but one example, and there are numerous more, but as mentioned given the amount of coast line in the Maritimes this one certainly stings the most.

Maritimers are just as hard working as any Albertan, in fact many of them have moved from their homes to go and work in Alberta. Many of my uncles, cousins etc. are there even now. This is one of the many challenges the Maritimes faces, declining industries combined with declining population due to emigration is only exacerbating the issue. Much of the wealth of the Maritimes is spent, coal isn't what it used to be, the Fisheries are in trouble for a myriad of reasons, and Forestry is so efficient now it doesn't require nearly as many men to harvest and process the lumber as it did even a decade ago.

I see the same potential hard times perhaps befalling Alberta, which at present if we're being honest has a one trick pony of an economy. It's not about just a willingness to work hard that generates wealth; you have to have something valuable to work hard at. Economies shift and commodities are only valuable so long as someone else wants them. Coal is a prime example of this. The Martimes contributed a great deal to get Ontario and Quebec to where they are today, and they have precious little to show for it now. Sadly the number one export from the Maritimes presently is human resources.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Dave_ON

[Dave_ON]

Peoples should not be forced against their will to remain members of states or federations of which they wish no part. If the people of a given region overwhelmingly want to separate from a larger state/federation, they should be free to do so. There is really no reason to stand in their way, save a sense of nationalism/imperialism on the part of the nation from which they would be separating.

I agree with you on a provincial level, but getting back to the OP's point I don't know that it's even technically possible for say Northern Ontario, to separate from South Western Ontario. Forgetting for a second that most of the wealth of Ontario, comes from SW Ontario, a province is not a federation. Therefore, there is technically nothing to secede from. Ontario, is as it is, I suppose it's conceivable that we could revert back to the early Ontario boarder, before a large portion of the NW territories was added to the province. I don't think reverting to territory status would be particularly advantageous for Norther Ontario though. Of course this is all extremely hypothetical, the OP is probably the only person in all of Ontario that's part of the Northern Ontario separation movement

[jbg]

The Feds funnel millions and millions of dollars every year to have ice breakers keep the St. Lawrence sea-way ice free, when instead they could use the year round ice free ports in the Bay of Fundy! Because Quebec has a larger population that's where the Fed's focused funds to develop ports in that area rather than maintaining the fully functional and far cheaper to operate year round ports that already existed. This is but one example, and there are numerous more, but as mentioned given the amount of coast line in the Maritimes this one certainly stings the most.

I generally agree with your post. However, to be fair, the St. Lawrence Seaway is a joint U.S.-Canadian project, designed to benefit Great Lakes shipping and interests. It has more to do with the interests of the U.S. and Canadian interiors that ship through the Seaway than with Quebec.

[Dave_ON]

I generally agree with your post. However, to be fair, the St. Lawrence Seaway is a joint U.S.-Canadian project, designed to benefit Great Lakes shipping and interests. It has more to do with the interests of the U.S. and Canadian interiors that ship through the Seaway than with Quebec.

I wasn't actually unaware that it was a joint US Canadian project, thanks for the clarification. Though I would be interested to see the cost difference in maintaining the sea way vs. shipping to an ice free port via rail infrastructure. I suppose I'm not convinced the decision to build and maintain the seaway is the most cost effective method. Perhaps I'm seeing political expediency where none exists and it is in fact a geographic convenience.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Dave_ON

[guyser]

I think the only victim is you, of your own device and of your own delusions.

Read one reply and it nailed it.This one.

mikedavid your familiarity with anything beyond your own feet, let alone 'rural life' is questionable.

[g_bambino]

Last I checked, Quebec's FN's and English-speakers, as well as allophone immigrants are Canadians too. The tyranny of the majority, a 50% + 1 that some Francophones may be able to scare up should not be able to trammel the rights of others to be Canadians.

Yes, that's another factor that would have to be taken into consideration (though, the Clarity Act indicates that the 50 percent plus one issue has already been dealt with). It just emphasises my point that separation from a federation isn't as simple as Bonham was making it out to be.

[Wild Bill]

Hold on... you were born on top a gigantic oil reserve. You have geographic wealth. It doesnt mean you necessarily work harder than anyone else, you just happened to be born on a gigantic mountain of cash.

You're nitpicking only the factors that support your argument, dre!

There was indeed a gigantic oil reserve but there was a HUGE cost involved to get it producing money! It was NOT like Saudi Arabia, where it almost flowed out of the ground already in barrels for shipping! The Saudi's were blessed with a resource that cost them almost pennies per barrel to produce.

There was a LOT of work before Alberta saw the money! Nobody came up to them while they were sitting on their collective asses and just handed it to them.

You're echoing the socialist fable that every rich man was just lucky and did nothing to earn his wealth.

[Dave_ON]

There was a LOT of work before Alberta saw the money! Nobody came up to them while they were sitting on their collective asses and just handed it to them.

You're echoing the socialist fable that every rich man was just lucky and did nothing to earn his wealth.

Hard work isn't enough Bill and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. If you don't have anything of great value to work hard at it won't do you any good. Wealth is a combination of hard work and in Alberta's case geographical luck. When Alberta was formed Oil was unknown and not valuable. The people in Alberta in 1905 were no less hard working, then those of today.

Secondly, Alberta did not develop their resources in a vacuum. It was developed with the assistance and manpower of other provinces. Alberta had neither the population nor the resources to develop this on their own. Non-Albertans moved there to help develop the industry, I think it's all a little to easy for them to pat themselves on the back for a job well done. That's not the reality of the western narrative.

The NEP was a terrible idea and hurt the west a great deal for the benefit of Ontario and Quebec. Ontarians forget/don't acknowledge that. By the same token, the West couldn't develop these resources on their own, but they now are reaping the benefits of them and it's easy for them to lose perspective on who contributed to the development. So Central Canada feels entitled to a piece of the pie because they helped them get where they are, forgetting that it was the hard work and resources of other provinces that helped Ontario get to where they are today. Alberta feels they were screwed over by central Canada, which they were, which upsets them to the point that they forget, that just maybe they do owe TROC gratitude at the very least for their assistance in developing the industry.

Fact of the matter is there is hyperbole of the situation on both sides of the argument which has caused self perpetuating and long standing resentment. The issue is deeper than Oil and the NEP, it's truly about power. Ontario, has a strong and diverse economy, and the highest population in the country, as such they wield a great deal of power. Alberta has a stronger, if much less diverse economy but they still are number 4 in the country population wise. They lack the political clout to wield the power Ontario does in spite of their superior wealth. I would surmise this irks them a great deal

.

[jbg]

Yes, that's another factor that would have to be taken into consideration (though, the Clarity Act indicates that the 50 percent plus one issue has already been dealt with). It just emphasises my point that separation from a federation isn't as simple as Bonham was making it out to be.

I'm not sure about this but doesn't some part of the Charter or BNA place some obstacles in the way of a part of a province seceding from that province or joining another province?