Provincial Seperation

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Freedom to choose. That is the basis of democracy, the right to self determination and the willingness to accept the majority opinion. You can have your say only if you allow others to have their say as well. Fair and equal treatment is the name of the game.

Albertans will decide what is best for them within the limits defined in the constitution. The Statute of Westminister 1931 granted independence from British rule, not our own constitution. The government of Canada has made it possible for a province to seperate from the nation by means of the clarity act.

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-31.8/228755.html

NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

House of Commons to consider question

1. (1) The House of Commons shall, within thirty days after the government of a province tables in its legislative assembly or otherwise officially releases the question that it intends to submit to its voters in a referendum relating to the proposed secession of the province from Canada, consider the question and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether the question is clear.

Extension of time

(2) Where the thirty days referred to in subsection (1) occur, in whole or in part, during a general election of members to serve in the House of Commons, the thirty days shall be extended by an additional forty days.

Considerations

(3) In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall consider whether the question would result in a clear expression of the will of the population of a province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada and become an independent state.

Where no clear expression of will

(4) For the purpose of subsection (3), a clear expression of the will of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada could not result from

(a) a referendum question that merely focuses on a mandate to negotiate without soliciting a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada; or

( a referendum question that envisages other possibilities in addition to the secession of the province from Canada, such as economic or political arrangements with Canada, that obscure a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada.

Other views to be considered

(5) In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political parties represented in the legislative assembly of the province whose government is proposing the referendum on secession, any formal statements or resolutions by the government or legislative assembly of any province or territory of Canada, any formal statements or resolutions by the Senate, any formal statements or resolutions by the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, especially those in the province whose government is proposing the referendum on secession, and any other views it considers to be relevant.

No negotiations if question not clear

(6) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada if the House of Commons determines, pursuant to this section, that a referendum question is not clear and, for that reason, would not result in a clear expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada.

House of Commons to consider whether there is a clear will to secede

2. (1) Where the government of a province, following a referendum relating to the secession of the province from Canada, seeks to enter into negotiations on the terms on which that province might cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall, except where it has determined pursuant to section 1 that a referendum question is not clear, consider and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether, in the circumstances, there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada.

Factors for House of Commons to take into account

(2) In considering whether there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account

(a) the size of the majority of valid votes cast in favour of the secessionist option;

( the percentage of eligible voters voting in the referendum; and

© any other matters or circumstances it considers to be relevant.

Other views to be considered

(3) In considering whether there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political parties represented in the legislative assembly of the province whose government proposed the referendum on secession, any formal statements or resolutions by the government or legislative assembly of any province or territory of Canada, any formal statements or resolutions by the Senate, any formal statements or resolutions by the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, especially those in the province whose government proposed the referendum on secession, and any other views it considers to be relevant.

No negotiations unless will clear

(4) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada unless the House of Commons determines, pursuant to this section, that there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada.

Constitutional amendments

3. (1) It is recognized that there is no right under the Constitution of Canada to effect the secession of a province from Canada unilaterally and that, therefore, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada would be required for any province to secede from Canada, which in turn would require negotiations involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada.

Limitation

(2) No Minister of the Crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to effect the secession of a province from Canada unless the Government of Canada has addressed, in its negotiations, the terms of secession that are relevant in the circumstances, including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.

There is a process in place, a mechanism which the Canadian government will be required to utilize in order to deal with a province that wishes to seperate.

So Figleaf, it seems that we do have a right according to your precious federasl government.

[geoffrey]

Canada would lose their best chance of keeping the Stanley Cup here with the departure of the Flames.

[Black Dog]

Canada would lose their best chance of keeping the Stanley Cup here with the departure of the Flames.

Hmmm...

People make the assumption that Calgary is Toronto sans culture and with the addition of cowboy hats and Dodge 3500's in the downtown core. It's not, the culture difference is considerably more than that.

Your comment above confirms it. Calgary is Toronto west. Different hats, same self-delusion.

I'm still waiting for you to shed some light on that distinct Alberta culture, btw.

[Figleaf]

The government of Canada has made it possible for a province to seperate from the nation by means of the clarity act.

First, the Clarity Act says no such thing.

Second, it's impossible. No act of Parliament alone can amend the constitution in that way. ...

3. (1) It is recognized that there is no right under the Constitution of Canada to effect the secession of a province from Canada unilaterally and that, therefore, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada would be required for any province to secede from Canada, which in turn would require negotiations involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada.

There is a process in place, a mechanism which the Canadian government will be required to utilize in order to deal with a province that wishes to seperate.

That's true, but the requirements don't say that the fed gov. has to actually to let the province go.

[Charles Anthony]

That's true, but the requirements don't say that the fed gov. has to actually to let the province go.

Do you see Canadians going to civil-war to defend one bureaucracy over an other???

[Figleaf]

That's true, but the requirements don't say that the fed gov. has to actually to let the province go.

Do you see Canadians going to civil-war to defend one bureaucracy over an other???

This whole line of discussion is in the realm of speculation. Of course in reality I don't expect any provincial authority to attempt an illegal uprising against Canada. It would be folly.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Figleaf are you hard of thinking? The feds have outlined a process that they are legally committed to following in the case of a province with desire to seperate. They have even gone to the trouble of defining time lines for consideration of the proposal.

But feel free to believe what you want Figleaf. In Alberta people are free to make their own decisions as well, and trust me we will choose independance in our own time. It is inevitable because of opinions just like yours. There is a large number of Albertans frusterated with confederation. A Liberal government with a carbon tax would speed up the process somewhat but a Harper government not acting on its promises would help too. Either way, unless Canadians want to create an elected Senate, reform the equalization formulas, and stabilize their debt loads then Albertans are walking a different political path with them and are sure to have a colision at some point.

[Wilber]

That's true, but the requirements don't say that the fed gov. has to actually to let the province go.

Do you see Canadians going to civil-war to defend one bureaucracy over an other???

I doubt the people of the US foresaw nearly a million casualties before they embarked on their civil war. My guess is that in Canada's case, any violence would start within the seceding province between those in favour of secession and those against, particularly if there is not an overwhelming majority in favour. A civil war within a province could have the effect of sucking in some of its neighbours.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

WE won't be going to war, fear not. Nobody is that stupid. In fact I think that we are all smart enough to advocate individual freedom and respect. Alberta will leave before 2015 with a majority of Albertans supporting the effort.

[geoffrey]

Too much money here, no motive to fight. No one would want their Benz scratched.

[Figleaf]

Figleaf are you hard of thinking? The feds have outlined a process that they are legally committed to following in the case of a province with desire to seperate. They have even gone to the trouble of defining time lines for consideration of the proposal.

Read the act and quote me the section that:

A- says the constitutional amendment formula is changed or over-ruled; or

B- says the fed. gov. must conclude an agreement with a seceding province.

In Alberta people are free to make their own decisions as well, and trust me we will choose independance in our own time.

I don't see how.

It is inevitable because of opinions just like yours.

I don't see why.

There is a large number of Albertans frusterated with confederation.

Mystifying. Canada created Alberta, so you'd think a little more gratitude would prevail.

A Liberal government with a carbon tax would speed up the process somewhat but a Harper government not acting on its promises would help too.

Are you saying the Harper gov. is stimulating Alberta separatism?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Read the act and quote me the section that:

A- says the constitutional amendment formula is changed or over-ruled; or

B- says the fed. gov. must conclude an agreement with a seceding province.

I never said that the constitutional ammendment formula had changed or was over-ruled. Nor did I even suggest that the feds must actually conclude an agreement. Once again for your learning curve, I said a process was outlined that the government was obligated to follow.

In Alberta people are free to make their own decisions as well, and trust me we will choose independance in our own time.

I don't see how.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Have you tried walking and chewing gum?

It is inevitable because of opinions just like yours.

I don't see why.

You don't seem to understand what you are saying then......

There is a large number of Albertans frusterated with confederation.

Mystifying. Canada created Alberta, so you'd think a little more gratitude would prevail.

No I wouldn't think that at all, but obviously you would.

A Liberal government with a carbon tax would speed up the process somewhat but a Harper government not acting on its promises would help too.

Are you saying the Harper gov. is stimulating Alberta separatism?

Income trusts, the gun registry, same sex marriage, the track record is being recorded. Or is breaking election promises okay Fig? What would you base your continued support on? Perhaps you like being lied to, we don't out here in the West. It kinda cuts into the credibility of the effort don't you think. Its a little obvious that Harper is doing whatever he thinks he can get away with just to position himself for a majority, maybe not to you though.

[watching&waiting]

The fastest route to seperation for any province would be :

1 the unfair or unrecogmized representation by the federal government.

2 The shifting of the core beliefs and family values away from federal government.

3 The loading of the burden of debt upon the people of one province over another.

To me we have seen some of these already play out, but we are still here as a country. If many have their own way that will not be for very long. It seems that Canada just has too many large provinces that can not represent all the people in their areas, at the same time. It would seem to me that in order for things to be better served, we will need to split each province, with the exception of PEI, Nova Scotia, and Newbrunswick, into four seperate provinces. This way it will be easier for the governments to be more representative of the people that make up their territories.

[Wilber]

It would seem to me that in order for things to be better served, we will need to split each province, with the exception of PEI, Nova Scotia, and Newbrunswick, into four seperate provinces. This way it will be easier for the governments to be more representative of the people that make up their territories

How would you split them?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, and the west? Okay I will go along with that, no problem! I will even take on the territories that the rest of Canada will not allow to become provinces.

Get a grip folks, it ain't gonna happen. I can see Quebec with enough balls to go it alone, like my province of Alberta, but I don't see Ontario liking the idea, or the Maritimes for that matter.

[Wilber]

The Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, and the west? Okay I will go along with that, no problem! I will even take on the territories that the rest of Canada will not allow to become provinces.

Get a grip folks, it ain't gonna happen. I can see Quebec with enough balls to go it alone, like my province of Alberta, but I don't see Ontario liking the idea, or the Maritimes for that matter.

I think he said each existing province should be split into four, meaning your Alberta would now be split into four smaller provinces.

Clarification?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think you are right! He does say each province to be split into four parts, that ought to be interesting. I can't wait to see his response.

[geoffrey]

I think you are right! He does say each province to be split into four parts, that ought to be interesting. I can't wait to see his response.

That would create a disfunctional Alberta. The oil companies in Calgary, their operations in Northern Province and the mountains in Rockyland. I'd have to cross a border to go skiing, hiking... biking??!? I don't think so.

Cancel that thought at once.

The real reason is that Canadians fear the power of Albertan hockey teams, being the two best in the league. Can't have so much power in once province... especially when it's better than Ontario.

[Figleaf]

Read the act and quote me the section that:

A- says the constitutional amendment formula is changed or over-ruled; or

B- says the fed. gov. must conclude an agreement with a seceding province.

I never said that the constitutional ammendment formula had changed or was over-ruled. Nor did I even suggest that the feds must actually conclude an agreement. Once again for your learning curve, I said a process was outlined that the government was obligated to follow.

I apologize. I had naively assumed you were trying to make a point.

Are you saying the Harper gov. is stimulating Alberta separatism?

Income trusts, the gun registry, same sex marriage, the track record is being recorded. Or is breaking election promises okay Fig? What would you base your continued support on? Perhaps you like being lied to, we don't out here in the West. It kinda cuts into the credibility of the effort don't you think. Its a little obvious that Harper is doing whatever he thinks he can get away with just to position himself for a majority, maybe not to you though.

[Figleaf]

It seems that Canada just has too many large provinces that can not represent all the people in their areas, at the same time. It would seem to me that in order for things to be better served, we will need to split each province, with the exception of PEI, Nova Scotia, and Newbrunswick, into four seperate provinces. This way it will be easier for the governments to be more representative of the people that make up their territories.

Hear, hear!!!

[Wilber]

It seems that Canada just has too many large provinces that can not represent all the people in their areas, at the same time. It would seem to me that in order for things to be better served, we will need to split each province, with the exception of PEI, Nova Scotia, and Newbrunswick, into four seperate provinces. This way it will be easier for the governments to be more representative of the people that make up their territories.

Hear, hear!!!

Ok, how would you split them?

[geoffrey]

Hear, hear!!!

Ok, how would you split them?

Or how about... why would you split them? That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

[Wilber]

Hear, hear!!!

Ok, how would you split them?

Or how about... why would you split them? That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Splitting them would make provinces weaker and the Federal government stronger which of course is even less representative of regions. Makes sense if you love big government I guess.

[Figleaf]

I'd split BC into three: the Islands including Vancouver Island, the Mainland, and the Greater Vancouver Area and it's immediate hinterland.

I'd split Alberta into two, North and South.

I'd split Ontario into North, Southwest, Center-East, and Greater Toronto.

I'd split Quebec into Greater Montreal, Lower Canada, and Nord.

[Wilber]

I'd split BC into three: the Islands including Vancouver Island, the Mainland, and the Greater Vancouver Area and it's immediate hinterland.

I'd split Alberta into two, North and South.

I'd split Ontario into North, Southwest, Center-East, and Greater Toronto.

I'd split Quebec into Greater Montreal, Lower Canada, and Nord.

Good luck. What kind of status would they have? Would we have six more provincial governments to bicker with Ottawa?