Thought Experiment

[takeanumber]

RoC should be used to define the rest of the country outside of Alberta.

The political culture of Alberta truly is that different.

I think the social culture is quite unique as well, unlike anything you'd find in Sask., BC, or even the 905.

[August1991]

The political culture of Alberta truly is that different.

The simple fact that we are communicating intelligibly (usually) on this forum is evidence that we share some points in common. I believe that we have participants from all the western provinces (BC, Alta, Sask and Man) as well as Ontario. Is there anyone from posting from the Maritimes?

We can discuss political and economic issues using cultural references we all know and understand. We would detect quickly if a poster was an American. IOW, we speak the same "language".

There is a place called "Canada" that functions in English and has every right to exist. I sometimes fear that the Liberal Party has so skewed things that what I just wrote is no longer obvious.

IOW, there are two Canadas and Quebec is not a province like the others. That too should be obvious.

[idealisttotheend]

I guess you have a point August that le reste du Canada is superior to le Canada anglais. I didn't know the history. And FTR, I don't contend that Quebec is one province out of ten but that it does have a special place amongst a complex regional/situational/cultural model. I think we were les duex nations perhaps even as late as Diefenbaker or St. Laurent but recently it's gotten much more complicated.

The point is pertinent to your topic though. You assume (and I would bet the anti-Canada side of your french forum does also) that Alberta would face 27 million other people with a similiar culture and characteristics. The assumed collarary is that the situation for Quebec is this way now when that is not the case. For the analogy to work, Alberta would simply be one 'english' culture among many diverse 'french' cultures (say even something as simple as the Metis in Manitoba versus the Quebcois in the townships). If the US was France then they wouldn't even really be able to talk to the French Canadians since the language is so different. Kimmy's point is a good one that Albertans would probably learn French but that would not imply compromise not assimilation, (the whole damn world is learning English at present).

What Alberta would do? It could do what is it doing now. For example why did you use it in your example and not PEI or Saskatchewan? I bet that it is because Alberta (or rather a section of Albertans) are developing or trying to develop a minority culture very similair actually to the seperatist sentiment in QUebec. As such they are becoming the minority strongest 'culture' in the 'ROC' and get the most attention. A sector of 'homegrown' and 'severely normal' largely rural people are creating a culture based on different economic and political values in a almost one party sub-state that does not encourage dissent including through the press and does encourage conformity. Remind you of anyone?

More likely what Alberta would do depends on the Albertan. I expect the real question in your french forum is how the Albertan 'culture' differs from the Quebecois. While this culture is developing it doesn't really encompass even a large minority of the population yetl. It makes a lot of noise and has the government (or elements thereof) to speak for it along with the Byfield-Levant crowd and their generous big buisness backers but Alberta is still really a diverse place. Insofar as you can generalize those generalizations will break down to rural/urban, northern/southern, Edmonton/Calgary, ethnic/non-ethnic etc. etc. Will it be different in ten, twenty years, possibly but for now there really isn't one 'Alberta' over-culture.

[idealisttotheend]

Ah I see I have disagreed with TN on whether or not there is a culture in Alberta. I agree that there is a strong political culture but don't think that translates into a 'ethnic' culture of shared history/purpose/myth quite yet but some are hard at work at creating one.

[takeanumber]

Language is just one factor in determining culture.

And in spite of what some Quebeckers contend, it's not the only factor.

[August1991]

For the analogy to work, Alberta would simply be one 'english' culture among many diverse 'french' cultures (say even something as simple as the Metis in Manitoba versus the Quebcois in the townships).

Informed people in Quebec understand your idea but it's practically lost on them.

If the US was France then they wouldn't even really be able to talk to the French Canadians since the language is so different.

I just chose France to make the idea more dramatic. In fact, the difference between Quebec French and France French is very much like the difference between Texan English and British English. (The same is true for Mexican Spanish and Spain Spanish, incidentally. Populism and familiarity vs. Henry Higgins.)

For example why did you use it in your example and not PEI or Saskatchewan?

This site is hosted in Lethbridge. There seem to be alot of Albertans here. Pick your own province if you prefer.

Kimmy made the point that Albertans would be pragmatic and try to learn French. That's what most Quebecers want to do. At the same time, it's not so easy to do. I've often used the example of Holland or Sweden where about 75% of the population speaks English well - while writing and speaking Dutch/Swedish fluently. (The example has one big flaw for a federalist. Those countries are sovereign.)

Kimmy also made the point, very valid, that an English Albertan Klein who speaks bad French would win a majority of votes outside of Alberta! (That's what Chretien did in effect.)

On the French forum, one point made is that some Albertans would argue in favour of accomodation with the French provinces and other Albertans would argue with going it alone. That seems a reasonable conjecture.

[playfullfellow]

I tend to agree with TN here on a culture in Alberta. It may not be so much obvious as the French culture of Quebec. The culture could much more be related to the working style and the strong agricultural background in many of our lives. Call it a redneck type of culture if you like. You also have to remember that Quebec or any province east of Manitoba has been around much longer than Alberta so we have some catching up to do. We all have to remember that each province has it's strong and weak points. Be it from our language or major cultural influence, we are all unique in our own way.

[The Terrible Sweal]

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.

But the Federal government doesn't have to do anything. Everything you describe there is a condition which prevails pursuant to the constitution (including all constitutional-level elements). Within that framework, everything you say is correct. WITHIN the framework. A provincial legislature purporting to put itself outside the framework would no longer constitute a constitutionally legitimate entity.

[August1991]

You might want to read this Wikipedia entry about secession.

The BNA Act made no reference to a province leaving Confederation. Indeed, the BNA Act was mute on amendments to itself. Since in fact it was an Act of the UK Parliament, it required technically only a new law in London.

Trudeau changed this in 1982 by getting Thatcher to pass an Act of the UK parliament. In effect, the BNA Act (now the Constitution Act of 1982) would be amended by the federal government and/or the provincial governments according to differenet formulae depending on the amendment.

The 1998 Supreme Court secession reference in effect said that for Quebec to secede legally, it would require an amendment to the Constitution Act. In this case, the applicable formula would require assent of all ten provinces and the federal government in agreement.

I frankly feel that this whole issue is academic. The US Declaration of Independence was a political document, not a legal document as such. A Quebec Declaration of Independence would be the same. If such ever existed, we would all be moving into new territory where I hope cool heads would prevail.

The Soviet Union was dissolved in December 1991. God knows if it was done "legally". It was done quite peacefully however.

[maplesyrup]

It all boils down to the partition aspect, and whether the people who don't get their way will accept the results. And it is not like we do not have some recent violent past - the FLQ, the bombs, the maiming of that Canadian Armed Forces demolition expert, the kidnapping and murder of Laporte and the kidnapping of Cross, and the War Measures Act of course. Chances for serious violence are quite high I'm afraid.

[maplesyrup]

I don't know if people realize it but the partitionists actually want the separatists to win a referendum, and that way the federales will be forced to act and to possibly actually have to send in troops if need be to protect those Canadian citizens living in Quebec who want to remain Canadian. Partitionists believe only this way will this nonsense be put to rest.

[August1991]

If one tries to view this from the perspective of a historian writing in the year 2100 (for example), it is hard not to see the past 25 years or so of Canadian history as laying the framework for what can only be some kind of confrontation.

Our recent history ressembles so much the lead up to such conflagrations as the US civil war (recall all the various "compromises" from about 1830) or World War I (the Franco-Prussian War and the posturing from 1900). I don't think there will be a violent confrontation but clearly something is afoot.

Like in life itself, some events in history just happen and other events have clear antecedents. They seem inexorable.

[kimmy]

But the Federal government doesn't have to do anything.  Everything you describe there is a condition which prevails pursuant to the constitution (including all constitutional-level elements).  Within that framework, everything you say is correct.  WITHIN the framework. A provincial legislature purporting to put itself outside the framework would no longer constitute a constitutionally legitimate entity.

So according to your logic, Alberta couldn't unilaterally declare independence. But the Supreme Court has already said that no province can unilaterally secede (as shown in the reference August provided.) Your logic might (?) apply in the case of a province "putting itself outside the constitutional framework" but doesn't do anything to address secession from *within* a constitutional framework (for example, by following the process spelled out in the Clarity Act.)

Your argument might address why Alberta (like any other province) couldn't "legally" secede unilaterally, but doesn't address why Alberta (like any other province) couldn't secede by consitutional means.

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

But the Federal government doesn't have to do anything.  Everything you describe there is a condition which prevails pursuant to the constitution (including all constitutional-level elements).  Within that framework, everything you say is correct.  WITHIN the framework. A provincial legislature purporting to put itself outside the framework would no longer constitute a constitutionally legitimate entity.

So according to your logic, Alberta couldn't unilaterally declare independence. But the Supreme Court has already said that no province can unilaterally secede (as shown in the reference August provided.) Your logic might (?) apply in the case of a province "putting itself outside the constitutional framework" but doesn't do anything to address secession from *within* a constitutional framework (for example, by following the process spelled out in the Clarity Act.)

Yes, the Supreme Court did say that a province cannot unilaterally secede, in part because of the constitutional conditions I have outlined.

Your understanding of the Clarity Act is a bit incorrect. The Clarity Act puts into statutory form recognition of some aspects of the SCC decision. All it does is specify the conditions on which the federal government can be called on to acknowledge a request to negotiate separation. It does not provide a roadmap to separation. And it doesn't specify what conditions or requirements may apply or be sought in such negotiations, or what happens if negotiations fail.

Accordingly, the Clarity Act doesn't change the constitutional facts I have provided you with. Furthermore, if it did, it would probably be unconstitutional and thus invalid.

Your argument might address why Alberta (like any other province) couldn't "legally" secede unilaterally, but doesn't address why Alberta (like any other province) couldn't secede by consitutional means.

The SCC found that there are not constitutional means to secession, for Quebec. They said only that if the clear will of Quebeckers was to depart from Canada, the federal government would have an obligation to negotiate about it. The decision did not apply directly to the other provinces except (perhaps) by analogy.

[August1991]

The SCC found that there are not constitutional means to secession, for Quebec. They said only that if the clear will of Quebeckers was to depart from Canada, the federal government would have an obligation to negotiate about it.

I'd agree.

But there is a constitutional means now to secede. It would require an amendment to the constitution removing that province from the confederation. Such an amendment would require the assent of all ten provinces and the federal government.

Prior to 1982, such an amendment would have required only an act of the UK parliament.

The Clarity Act puts into statutory form recognition of some aspects of the SCC decision. All it does is specify the conditions on which the federal government can be called on to acknowledge a request to negotiate separation.

I'd agree too.

In fact though, Trudeau passed federal referendum legislation shortly after the Quebec National Assembly did in 1979. Trudeau's 1979 legislation had the same effect as the Clarity Act.

Trudeau clearly meant to hold a federal referendum if the PQ had won the 1980 provincial referendum. His federal referendum would have asked a direct question such as "Do you want Quebec to be an independent country?"

The Clarity Act makes more explicit what Trudeau did earlier.

IOW, we are just witnessing different strategems of threats in a complicated game. This stuff has been analyzed to death in Quebec.

I realize that you are discussing this in the context of Alberta, not Quebec. The BNA Act treated different provinces diufferently and that's another question: Would secession of Quebec be different from the secession of Alberta?

[kimmy]

The SCC found that there are not constitutional means to secession, for Quebec.  They said only that if the clear will of Quebeckers was to depart from Canada, the federal government would have an obligation to negotiate about it.  The decision did not apply directly to the other provinces except (perhaps) by analogy.

The preable of the Clarity Act (fifth or sixth WHEREAS...) certainly makes it clear that the federal government believes a constitutional amendment could effect the lawful secession of a province. I don't think there's any arguing the point.

Your only leg to stand on here seems to be that since the Supreme Court ruling is specific to Quebec, the federal government wouldn't have to negotiate with a province other than Quebec who voted to pursue separation. If the Alberta legislature got a clear mandate to pursue secession but the federal government refused to negotiate, the matter would likely wind up in court, and I don't think you could say for sure what the result would be.

Earlier in the thread you spoke with complete certainty on the impossibility of Alberta seceding. You compared this thought-experiment to "yeah, but if they were all robots..." But nothing you've provided supports this sort of certainty. The feds own legislation indicates that secession could be accomplished through a constitutional amendment. And given the Supreme Court's ruling, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the same argument could be made for other provinces-- that the government *can't* ignore a clear referendum result. So it kind of goes from "yeah, but if they were all robots..." to, "yeah, they they could separate with a constitutional amendment but if the federal government refuses to negotiate, they might not have any recourse, pending the outcome of a Supreme Court ruling." If you see what I'm getting at.

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

Would secession of Quebec be different from the secession of Alberta?

Technically in the eyes of jurists yes, however in the real world, none.

I shudder to think what would happen to French if Quebec ever did secede. The separatists are pushing the envelope too much now!

[maplesyrup]

And Trudeau was right. Canadians as a whole will decide before we ever give up one inch of territory whether it be Alberta, Quebec or PEI, apart from the global warming impact, that is.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... I realize that you are discussing this in the context of Alberta, not Quebec. The BNA Act treated different provinces diufferently and that's another question: Would secession of Quebec be different from the secession of Alberta?

Yes. Quebec was a self-governing territory comprising an identifiable ethnic group before and since it has joined Canada whereas Alberta was not.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The preable of the Clarity Act (fifth or sixth WHEREAS...) certainly makes it clear that the federal government believes a constitutional amendment could effect the lawful secession of a province. I don't think there's any arguing the point.

No one is arguing that point so far as I know.

Your only leg to stand on here seems to be that since the Supreme Court ruling is specific to Quebec, the federal government wouldn't have to negotiate with a province other than Quebec who voted to pursue separation. 

No, that is not my only leg to stand on. Even if the SCC decision was specifically about Alberta, it would not amount to a constitutional requirement for the government of Canada to accede to a secession, as I pointed out at some length.

If the Alberta legislature got a clear mandate to pursue secession but the federal government refused to negotiate, the matter would likely wind up in court, and I don't think you could say for sure what the result would be.

The government may be required to negotiate, it is not required to accede.

Earlier in the thread you spoke with complete certainty on the impossibility of Alberta seceding. You compared this thought-experiment to "yeah, but if they were all robots..."  But nothing you've provided supports this sort of certainty.

Okay, there is a way Alberta could secede ... with the assent of the government of Canada and the other provinces through a constitutional amendment. I thought that went without saying.

The feds own legislation indicates that secession could be accomplished through a constitutional amendment.  And given the Supreme Court's ruling, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the same argument could be made for other provinces-- that the government *can't* ignore a clear referendum result.

You're mixing things up. Look:

1) OF COURSE a Constitutional amendment can allow separation, but a province cannot obtain one without the consent of the federal government.

2) The SCC said there's no way within the existing constition (i.e. without an amendment) but that with a clear mandate Canada must acknowledge and negotiate with a province seeking secession

3) the Clarity Act specifies what conditions the government considers a clear mandate for it to be bound to enter negotiations. If it wishes not to negotiate on that basis, the Federal government could simply rescind the Clarity Act.

[kimmy]

The preable of the Clarity Act (fifth or sixth WHEREAS...) certainly makes it clear that the federal government believes a constitutional amendment could effect the lawful secession of a province. I don't think there's any arguing the point.

No one is arguing that point so far as I know.

Your earlier comments that it was impossible for Alberta to leave confederation were unclear on this point.

No, that is not my only leg to stand on.  Even if the SCC decision was specifically about Alberta, it would not amount to a constitutional requirement for the government of Canada to accede to a secession, as I pointed out at some length.

(...)

The government may be required to negotiate, it is not required to accede. 

(...)

Okay, there is a way Alberta could secede ... with the assent of the government of Canada and the other provinces through a constitutional amendment.  I thought that went without saying. 

(...)

You're mixing things up.  Look:

1)  OF COURSE a Constitutional amendment can allow separation, but a province cannot obtain one without the consent of the federal government.

Ultimately your entire argument just boils down to the fact that a constitutional amendment is extremely difficult.

The same logic can certainly be applied to any province attempting to pursue separation, including Quebec.

Imagine how much time and money could have been saved if, in response to Quebec sovereigntists, Stephane Dion had just gone in and said "Go ahead, have a referendum. Vote yes, for all I care. The negotiations process is so difficult that you'll never succeed anyway."

Who'd have though National Unity would be so easy to ensure?

2)  The SCC said there's no way within the existing constition (i.e. without an amendment) but that with a clear mandate Canada must acknowledge and negotiate with a province seeking secession

3)  the Clarity Act specifies what conditions the government considers a clear mandate for it to be bound to enter negotiations.  If it wishes not to negotiate on that basis, the Federal government could simply rescind the Clarity Act.

Repealing the Clarity Act doesn't overturn the Supreme Court ruling that a government can't ignore a clearly expressed mandate by Quebec. Repealing the Clarity Act would just mean the federal government has to enter negotiations on other, perhaps less favorable terms.

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

The preable of the Clarity Act (fifth or sixth WHEREAS...) certainly makes it clear that the federal government believes a constitutional amendment could effect the lawful secession of a province. I don't think there's any arguing the point.

No one is arguing that point so far as I know.

Your earlier comments that it was impossible for Alberta to leave confederation were unclear on this point.

Sorry it was unclear. To be precise, I mean there is no legal means for Alberta to secede absent the consent of Canada (which ought not to be forthcoming).

Ultimately your entire argument just boils down to the fact that a constitutional amendment is extremely difficult.

The same logic can certainly be applied to any province attempting to pursue separation, including Quebec.

No, again, you're missing the point. Alberta and Saskatchewan are in a different category than Ontario Quebec, NS, and NB. Those four are also in a different category from PEI, BC, and Nfld. And arguably Manitoba is in a category of its own. Each category's status is different as it pertains to any extra-constitutional existence. In the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan they have none.

Repealing the Clarity Act doesn't overturn the Supreme Court ruling that a government can't ignore a clearly expressed mandate by Quebec.  Repealing the Clarity Act would just mean the federal government has to enter negotiations on other, perhaps less favorable terms.

You're half correct. Repealing the Clarity Act doesn't mean the government wouldn't have to entertain negotiations. It wouldn't affect the terms at all.

[August1991]

Each category's status is different as it pertains to any extra-constitutional existence.

How?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Ontario, NS, NB, and Quebec:

Pre-constitutionally: existing self-governing entities, compacted through free democratic choice, together all at once to create Dominion of Canada.

[Further, internationally: Quebecois would certainly qualify as an identifiable people entitled to self-determination rights, properly exercised.]

PEI, BC, Nfld.:

Pre-constitutionally: existing self-governing entities joining as such into the Dominion of Canada individually.

[internationally, Nfld. might have a shot at identifiable people status, but I don't think it would be a sure thing.]

Manitoba could be more or less like PEI, BC, Nfld. except it's pre-existing self- governing status is somewhat different. Metis could argue for identifiable self-determination too.

Alberta, Saskatchewan:

Pre-constitutionally: territory property of the Crown in Right of Canada.

[kimmy]

No, again, you're missing the point.  Alberta and Saskatchewan are in a different category than Ontario Quebec, NS, and NB.  Those four are also in a different category from PEI, BC, and Nfld.  And arguably Manitoba is in a category of its own.  Each category's status is different as it pertains to any extra-constitutional existence.  In the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan they have none.

Seems like a pointless distinction, purely academic.

It looks like any province could secede with a constitutional amendment. And it looks like no province can secede with out one. So for any practical purpose, that leaves ... just 1 category.

You're half correct.  Repealing the Clarity Act doesn't mean the government wouldn't have to entertain negotiations.  It wouldn't affect the terms at all.

I read the Clarity Act to be the federal government saying "Well, ok, if we *have* to negotiate, then we're going to make sure that natives and veterans and visible minorities disabled gay Canadians and Elijah Harper's mom and everybody else we can think of are going to be part of procedings, just to make the process as difficult as possible." Without the Clarity Act, it might just be a matter of getting 7 provinces with a majority of the population to agree.

-kimmy