Thought Experiment

[August1991]

Imagine that Alberta is still Alberta BUT... the United States is a country of French people run by a President named Chirac or d'Estaing etc.

In addition, imagine that the rest of Canada is also French speaking. Bouchard is the guy in BC, someone named Parizeau in Manitoba, Levesque in Ontario and so on. Canada has French people with their funny flags and weird habits and speaking style everywhere.

Now, Alberta with its English speaking Klein is still the same straight shooting English Alberta you've always known. The question is, would Alberta be a separate country? Or would Alberta go along with all these local province French guys?

Wrap your mind around this theoretical case (try to imagine a big France to the south with people who eat cheese and so on) and wonder what Klein or Lougheed would do. (If you're not Albertan, try Harris or McGuinty or Campbell or whoever.)

[bTW, this is an ongoing thread on my French forum.]

[Stoker]

Wrap your mind around this theoretical case (try to imagine a big France to the south with people who eat cheese and so on) and wonder what Klein or Lougheed would do. (If you're not Albertan, try Harris or McGuinty or Campbell or whoever.)

I'm sure they would being doing the exact same thing that Quebec is doing

[Stoker]

Let me add to that, I wouldn't fault Alberta anymore then I fault Quebec for wanting to be indenpendent, if thats what they want.

The other side of the coin, If they wanted to stay within this French speaking nation, I'd tell them to accept the fact that they can't be "more special" then any of the other provinces........

[August1991]

I'm sure they would being doing the exact same thing that Quebec is doing

The point is that Quebec has twice held a referendum on the question, and both times voters rejected "mandates to negotiate..." In effect, Quebec is doing nothing.

The question is whether Albertans (for example) would be more decisive than Quebecers seem to be.

[Stoker]

The question is whether Albertans (for example) would be more decisive than Quebecers seem to be.

I would like to think so..........there is already talk of Alberta leaving.........I can't see how this feeling wouldn't be compounded into a greater desire to leave.

[caesar]

What difference would it make they would still be screaming dscrimination and wanting to separate just like they are now

If under those circumstances; Alberta decided to separate they would be very foolish. They have no port and therefore no route except through Canada to persue trade.

[Goldie]

Alberta would leave without question. This would play right into the non-cheese eaters hands as Mark Steyn clearly states.

[takeanumber]

Canada would have no choice but to trade through Alberta. (A lot of Sask wheat goes through the Pacific port. A lot of oil goes through Alberta pipelines into Sask. and into Ontario, etc.)

The split would more than likely be amicable.

Alberta has close ties with the Western United States. The relationship would be amicable. (There's a Western Trade Corridor, in case you didn't now about it.)

I think an Albertan Dominion, or an Albertan Republic, would be quite sucessful during the oil boom years.

I don't think that an Albertan Dominion would fare so well during the oil bust years.

Alberta could do actually do it.

But on balance, I don't think they'd be better off.

[caesar]

We were talking this imaginary French surround but anyhow; Alberta might do it for a while. It would NOT be that amicable. BC would probably suffer the most being cut off so we would do our best to get even. Saskatchewan could easily ship east.

[kimmy]

I think Albertans tend to be pragmatists. Historically, it's the reason any of us are here, other than the aboriginals. Whether it's people who settled here 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, or during the last oil boom or the current oil boom, the common thread is that people came here for opportunity.

I think that given the thought experiment, and given Albertan's opportunism, I think we'd all be pretty fluent in that "other" language, purely for our own self-interest. But would we leave the country? Again I think it depends on opportunism. I think Takeanumber is dead on in assessing Alberta's viability as an independant nation. So it would be an option. A good option? That depends. If we weren't bound to Canada through any sense of common language or history, I think we'd be more inclined to chance it on our own.

-kimmy

[playfullfellow]

Uh huh, I see caesar still hates Alberta, hates the US and uttering intolerances. If you haven't noticed, most Albertans don't really whine, they can be po'd for a while, then they get back on with life and look towards tomorrow. In this sort of situation, Alberta would probably do what ever it takes to survive. This would be keeping an amiable relationship with the rest of Canada and the US. Yeah, they would probably seperate but not cut off BC like caesar would imply. What would be the point, we consider ourselves above playing childish games. When was the last time or ever you were to Alberta caesar because you fundamentally do not understand Alberta at all? You label anyone who does not like a situation you agree with a whinner but yet if we do not agree with you, then we are illterate.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Imagine that Alberta is still Alberta BUT...[the rest of North America speak French]... Alberta ... is still the same straight shooting English Alberta you've always known. The question is, would Alberta be a separate country? Or would Alberta go along with all these local province French guys?

I don't understand the question, August. I can't see why changing the language makes any difference to the constitutional reality. Alberta can't separate from Canada, so your question is moot.

[August1991]

Imagine that most people in Canada were French speaking and the English speakers were a minority concentrated in Alberta. So, Alberta is the same as you know it now (Klein is premier) but the rest of Canada is very different. People across the border in Saskatchewan in BC and elsewhere in Canada speak French, drive like maniacs and have big churches (pick any other stereotypical behaviour as well).

The question is: would Alberta be a separate country or would it stay "connected" to these surrounding French provinces?

-----

I think the real question here is whether English-speaking Canadians, if the shoe were on the other foot, would be as indecisive as Quebecers are about independance. The implication is that Quebecers lack the gumption to do something that les Anglais would have done ages ago, given similar circumstances.

Incidentally, I liked Kimmy's comment:

I think that given the thought experiment, and given Albertan's opportunism, I think we'd all be pretty fluent in that "other" language, purely for our own self-interest.

That's a good starting point but can you imagine how badly Klein would mangle French? He would be uncomfortable outside of Alberta.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Imagine that most people in Canada were French speaking and the English speakers were a minority concentrated in Alberta.  So, Alberta is the same as you know it now (Klein is premier) but the rest of Canada is very different.  People across the border in Saskatchewan in BC and elsewhere in Canada speak French, drive like maniacs and have big churches (pick any other stereotypical behaviour as well).

The question is: would Alberta be a separate country or would it stay "connected" to these surrounding French provinces?

-----

I think the real question here is whether English-speaking Canadians, if the shoe were on the other foot, would be as indecisive as Quebecers are about independance.  The implication is that Quebecers lack the gumption to do something that les Anglais would have done ages ago, given similar circumstances.

I don't see how changing the languages change the basic constitutional facts.

If you mean: would people in the territory called 'Alberta' try to become a separate country if they were surrounded by French speakers? then it's to me it's still impossible to conceive of 'Alberta' being the same 'Alberta' as we have today, so such conjecture would be purely fanciful ... in the realm of "Yeah, but if they were all robots..."

[kimmy]

I don't understand the question, August. I can't see why changing the language makes any difference to the constitutional reality. Alberta can't separate from Canada, so your question is moot.

Please elaborate?

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

I don't understand the question, August.  I can't see why changing the language makes any difference to the constitutional reality.  Alberta can't separate from Canada, so your question is moot.

Please elaborate?

-kimmy

The territory presently called Alberta is presently governed as 'the province of Alberta' by virtue of the constitution of Canada. In the absence of that status the territory currently comprising Alberta would simply revert to it's status as territory of the Crown in right of Canada.

[August1991]

would people in the territory called 'Alberta' try to become a separate country if they were surrounded by French speakers? then it's to me it's still impossible to conceive of 'Alberta' being the same 'Alberta' as we have today, so such conjecture would be purely fanciful...

I suppose Alberta would be a different place but then again, people would still be people and Alberta's a big place. The question is how do you think the ordinary Albertans you know would respond to such a situation?

Why do you find this conjecture fanciful?

[kimmy]

I think the real question here is whether English-speaking Canadians, if the shoe were on the other foot, would be as indecisive as Quebecers are about independance.  The implication is that Quebecers lack the gumption to do something that les Anglais would have done ages ago, given similar circumstances.

I don't really think the Quebecois are indecisive... I'm sure that most sovereigntists are decisive, and I'm sure the federalists are too. But the numbers are so close that the issue can't be settled.

That's a good starting point but can you imagine how badly Klein would mangle French? He would be uncomfortable outside of Alberta.

...sounds remarkably like a recent Prime Minister.

-kimmy

[August1991]

But the numbers are so close that the issue can't be settled.

Precisely the point and particularly frustratring for the separatists.

...sounds remarkably like a recent Prime Minister.

I had exactly the same thought!

[kimmy]

The territory presently called Alberta is presently governed as 'the province of Alberta' by virtue of the constitution of Canada.  In the absence of that status the territory currently comprising Alberta would simply revert to it's status as territory of the Crown in right of Canada.

Can you point me towards anything specific to support your position?

I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see anything to that effect in the Constitution Act of 1871 (which details the creation of new provinces), the Alberta Act of 1905 (which creates Alberta, according to the 1871 act), or the Constitution Act of 1930 (which grants Alberta, BC, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan status equal to the other provinces.) In fact, 1871 seems to suggest the opposite: once the government creates a province, that province's legislature is an authority and Canada cannot operate upon that province without the consent of the provincial legislature. The legislature seems to exist in its own right; I see nothing to indicate it would be uncreated by anything the federal government could do. As I read it, the federal government "let the genie out of the bottle" by creating provincial legislatures in the western provinces. If I've missed something, or if you have specific argument with what I've said, I'd be very interested... perhaps in another thread so as to not disrupt August's thread.

-kimmy

[Big Blue Machine]

I hope Alberta doesn't seperate. I want for my kids to go anywhere in Canada, without going to a border crossing

[maplesyrup]

This is a good topic.

One comment I find intersting from some Quebeckers is that they prefer the US to the ROC. However, more often than not, when you explore where they have been in the ROC, they haven't. It is often just the sovereignist dogmatic response.

Why couldn't the ROC do a trade with the US:

Alberta and Quebec for Hawaii and Alaska.

[Big Blue Machine]

Whats ROC?

[idealisttotheend]

ROC = Rest of Canada (all of Canada outside of Quebec) seen to represent the English speaking majority.

BTW it doesn't really exist it's a myth created by Quebec but don't tell the seperatists that because they always get upset as their claim to victimhood is taken away from them.

[August1991]

BTW it doesn't really exist it's a myth created by Quebec but don't tell the seperatists that because they always get upset as their claim to victimhood is taken away from them.

I'd disagree with that.

Quebecers used to (and still do) use the term le Canada anglais to designate the other nine provinces.

English-Canadians criticized them for using the term since 1) many people in the other provinces were not English and 2) this somehow implied Canada was a duality/bi-national country when in fact Canada had people from many countries/nations and Quebec after all was just one province of nine....

So, someone came up with the term "rest of Canada" which is now used even in French as ROC, RdC or le reste du Canada. This term at least imples that Quebec is still part of Canada (which it is in fact).

I'm well aware of the fact that ROC is not a single place. But is "English-speaking Canada" better? "Anglophone majority provinces"? Maudits Anglais?