How bad does it have to get before Albertans decide separation is the best option?

[CBintheNorth]

So with every news outlet reporting the same thing, that Canadians all over the country are fleeing to Alberta, wouldn't it be prudent for Pierre to look at electoral seats?
If they're leaving BC, the maritimes, and Ontario, take some seats from them and give them to alberta.
That would help the conservatives get voted in regularly, instead of only when the left has us on the brink of bankruptcy.

[Moe]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

The Federal Peovincial relationship sucks. Alberta has been feeding the socialist provinces like Ontario, Quebec, BC and the maritimes for way too long at the same time some of them has blocked our oil and gas from market, which sale helps supply those transfer payments. Hydro uses Canadian water… Quebec should be paying us a royalty.

That all said…

Segregation as in becoming a separate company is impossible. First Nations won’t go and they won’t give up their rights to whatever. Alberta shouldn’t take on that social cost either. It will eventually crush the economy down the road.

We would also be landlocked. US would jack up our costs for everything.

We would be SOL on National Parks… they’d go to Canada.

Transportation of goods and border protects would be very expensive.

Likely we would remove the need for bilingualism which would cost money to switch.

We would need a much higher level public service to cover everything… more expensive in theory.

The conversation should instead center around getting the appropriate number of seats in parliament based upon our increasing population.

We should demand all autonomy that Quebec has and simply say we want equal treatment.

Arguing for an impossibility is a waste of energy. Arguing for doable change makes sense.

Bingo!
Plus we would have to start up some type of trade agreements with the rest of Canada and the U.S. with little leverage. They would bend us over a barrel.
And how do you get out oil to tidewater? B.C. would make life difficult there etc.
And a lot of people who identify as Canadian first would flee and drive down house prices etc.
Trust me, separation is the best way to turn Alberta into a have not state.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Moe

Bingo!
Plus we would have to start up some type of trade agreements with the rest of Canada and the U.S. with little leverage. They would bend us over a barrel.
And how do you get out oil to tidewater? B.C. would make life difficult there etc.
And a lot of people who identify as Canadian first would flee and drive down house prices etc.
Trust me, separation is the best way to turn Alberta into a have not state.

Another term or two under Trudeau, and all provinces will be have not provinces. Canada would be bankrupt, and we could all enjoy the result together. Of course Ottawa will rewrite the equalization equation so that we still subsidize Quebec and eastern Canada, even though we will be bankrupt as well, but that is the Canadian way. Unless the conservatives win a majority in the next federal election, it really doesn't matter what Alberta does, Alberta will be doomed.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Moe

Bingo!
Plus we would have to start up some type of trade agreements with the rest of Canada and the U.S. with little leverage. They would bend us over a barrel.
And how do you get out oil to tidewater? B.C. would make life difficult there etc.
And a lot of people who identify as Canadian first would flee and drive down house prices etc.
Trust me, separation is the best way to turn Alberta into a have not state.

Alberta would control the railways running through it. Don't want to play nice, BC? Vancouver would be dead in the water in short order with the port being all but useless without trade lines in the form of rail being negotiated. Pipelines can be built heading south in short order since we wouldn't need to worry about Toronto and Quebec. While not an easy task, separation would be doable, and Alberta could be one of the richest COUNTRIES in the world.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Moe

Bingo!
Plus we would have to start up some type of trade agreements with the rest of Canada and the U.S. with little leverage. They would bend us over a barrel.
And how do you get out oil to tidewater? B.C. would make life difficult there etc.
And a lot of people who identify as Canadian first would flee and drive down house prices etc.
Trust me, separation is the best way to turn Alberta into a have not state.

You forget major ports in Vancouver and Rupert would become far more difficult to transport goods to and from without an agreement with Alberta. Eastern Canada would be able to function but still experience negative impacts. B.C. on the other hand would be a mess basically cut off from most access routes to the rest of the country. You would likely see negotiations that are far more open with Alberta separating from Canada than we do presently

Of course some people would leave bringing down housing cost. The question is to what level and that can’t really be predicted. But with present housing crisis do to high housing costs this may not be a bad thing to. In the long run if Alberta could function as a country the decreased cost may attract people too

The fact is separation would involve negative impacts that would need to be overcome. Of course not everyone would be involved. It would be full of unknowns that everyone can only speculate without negotiating terms on a large number of the

It could go horribly wrong or it could go horribly right depending on a large numbers of factors. In the end I don’t see it happening because too many fear risk and the unknown

[Stinky Buffalo]

The biggest concern that I would have is that an independent Alberta would be ripe for the picking by well-armed resource-hungry interests who are better-equipped to take it over than we are to defend it.

But like what was said before - we have imported too much leftist ideology, especially in our urban centers. We can't even get a decisive split on the APP discussion, so I doubt that we would have enough sway to initiate separation in the first place.

Like my old boss used to say:
"The difference between givers and takers is that givers have limits, while takers have none."

[Sporty]

Originally Posted by 6.5 shooter

I disagree I think the USA would scoop us up in a heart beat! Pipe lines from Alberta, Alaska to the gulf states. Several ocean ports if Manitoba and northern BC join in and MOST importantly FRESH water for sates like California etc.

At best Alberta would be another Puerto Rico, shortchanged in federation. We're having droughts of our own, imagine sending the fresh water that we need to supply the US? Easier for folks who want to be a US state to just move to the US.

Originally Posted by Stinky Buffalo

The biggest concern that I would have is that an independent Alberta would be ripe for the picking by well-armed resource-hungry interests who are better-equipped to take it over than we are to defend it.

We already have that risk, if the US wanted to take over our resources, Canada would roll over.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Stinky Buffalo

The biggest concern that I would have is that an independent Alberta would be ripe for the picking by well-armed resource-hungry interests who are better-equipped to take it over than we are to defend it.

But like what was said before - we have imported too much leftist ideology, especially in our urban centers. We can't even get a decisive split on the APP discussion, so I doubt that we would have enough sway to initiate separation in the first place.

Like my old boss used to say:
"The difference between givers and takers is that givers have limits, while takers have none."

I don’t think invasion risk would increase do to location. The US would likely use hard bargaining for resources instead of invasion to keep a decent representation on the world stage. Canada wouldn’t because the possible reaction from the US because of a war being too close to their borders. I doubt other countries would want to take a risk deploying military through Canadian or US borders to reach Alberta do to a possibility of triggering conflict with the US or Canada

The biggest risks would really be financial and that all depends on the results of negotiations that no one could presently predict

But yeah it is not happening anyway

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Chaos

Alberta would control the railways running through it. Don't want to play nice, BC? Vancouver would be dead in the water in short order with the port being all but useless without trade lines in the form of rail being negotiated. Pipelines can be built heading south in short order since we wouldn't need to worry about Toronto and Quebec. While not an easy task, separation would be doable, and Alberta could be one of the richest COUNTRIES in the world.

I believe the railroads are federally owned lands so the province doesn’t own nor control the land. Likely due to the federal government building them. So while it could be a point of contention, there is no reason the Feds won’t say they own them. If anything they can say the trains can’t stop on foreign lands and therefore our rail service could stop.

As it is not clear cut…it become more mud in the negotiations and NOT in our favour.

We would weaken our power in North America from moderate to begging.

As for pipes south… Trump would happily bend us over for a big US win deal as we would have no other options.

Biden in turn would ban any new Canadian pipelines. Maybe even shut some down and we would be even worse off.

Investment due to many uncertainties would plummet.

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

You forget major ports in Vancouver and Rupert would become far more difficult to transport goods to and from without an agreement with Alberta. Eastern Canada would be able to function but still experience negative impacts. B.C. on the other hand would be a mess basically cut off from most access routes to the rest of the country. You would likely see negotiations that are far more open with Alberta separating from Canada than we do presently

Of course some people would leave bringing down housing cost. The question is to what level and that can’t really be predicted. But with present housing crisis do to high housing costs this may not be a bad thing to. In the long run if Alberta could function as a country the decreased cost may attract people too

The fact is separation would involve negative impacts that would need to be overcome. Of course not everyone would be involved. It would be full of unknowns that everyone can only speculate without negotiating terms on a large number of the

It could go horribly wrong or it could go horribly right depending on a large numbers of factors. In the end I don’t see it happening because too many fear risk and the unknown

Trucking will be harder but rail likely would continue as the railroads are not controlled nor owned by Alberta. They are federal jurisdiction.

[Sooner]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

So with every news outlet reporting the same thing, that Canadians all over the country are fleeing to Alberta, wouldn't it be prudent for Pierre to look at electoral seats?
If they're leaving BC, the maritimes, and Ontario, take some seats from them and give them to alberta.
That would help the conservatives get voted in regularly, instead of only when the left has us on the brink of bankruptcy.

I always hoped Harper would reform the number of seats the west gets when he had his majority. Fingers crossed this is something PP is thinking about should he get a majority. How can the east coast have that many seats and nowhere near the population some of the western provinces have.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I believe the railroads are federally owned lands so the province doesn’t own nor control the land. Likely due to the federal government building them. So while it could be a point of contention, there is no reason the Feds won’t say they own them. If anything they can say the trains can’t stop on foreign lands and therefore our rail service could stop.

As it is not clear cut…it become more mud in the negotiations and NOT in our favour.

We would weaken our power in North America from moderate to begging.

As for pipes south… Trump would happily bend us over for a big US win deal as we would have no other options.

Biden in turn would ban any new Canadian pipelines. Maybe even shut some down and we would be even worse off.

Investment due to many uncertainties would plummet.



Trucking will be harder but rail likely would continue as the railroads are not controlled nor owned by Alberta. They are federal jurisdiction.

Even if the railroads were exempt that deal was with Canada not the country of Buffalo. Even if they kept control the very first Alberta road they crossed they could be stopped at. Then Canada is gonna send the RCMP into a sovereign nation to stop a blockade??? No. There will be lots of leverage.

Also, the US is currently bending us over a barrel, its called WCS. That doesn’t change. Vancouver depends on our oil and they would lose any thin leverage they had in negotiations about 2 days after the pipe is shut off.

Foreign investment would skyrocket as a nation free of all the problems of Canada it would become a nation to be invested in. Not like Canada where every foreign dollar of investment has been fleeing for years.

I can name many great reasons to separate from Canada. Can you name any good reasons why we should stay? I mean besides”Canada is the greatest nation” BS, apathy, or Eastern leech convenience.

[Fradaburidi]

According to my MP, Alberta will get an extra 3 seats/ridings before the next election. As the population grows/changes so does the ridings. I guess this is up to the Elections Canada and not the government.

[jstubbs]

Originally Posted by Fradaburidi

According to my MP, Alberta will get an extra 3 seats/ridings before the next election. As the population grows/changes so does the ridings. I guess this is up to the Elections Canada and not the government.

Yes it is, separation of Elections Canada from legislating government is required for reasons of gerrymandering.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I believe the railroads are federally owned lands so the province doesn’t own nor control the land. Likely due to the federal government building them. So while it could be a point of contention, there is no reason the Feds won’t say they own them. If anything they can say the trains can’t stop on foreign lands and therefore our rail service could stop.

As it is not clear cut…it become more mud in the negotiations and NOT in our favour.

We would weaken our power in North America from moderate to begging.

As for pipes south… Trump would happily bend us over for a big US win deal as we would have no other options.

Biden in turn would ban any new Canadian pipelines. Maybe even shut some down and we would be even worse off.

Investment due to many uncertainties would plummet.



Trucking will be harder but rail likely would continue as the railroads are not controlled nor owned by Alberta. They are federal jurisdiction.

If Alberta was no longer part of Canada federal jurisdiction goes out the window hence negotiations would dictate everything. I would bet that transportation of goods would be the first thing being discussed before separation was finalized

Regardless the main point is in a fairytale land where separation took place there would be factors that could have negative effects for B.C., Alberta, and the rest of Canada so I am pretty sure all parties would be negotiating to limit the effects. It wouldn’t just be one sided

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by Sporty

We already have that risk, if the US wanted to take over our resources, Canada would roll over.

It's not the USA that I'm most concerned about...

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

I doubt other countries would want to take a risk deploying military through Canadian or US borders to reach Alberta do to a possibility of triggering conflict with the US or Canada

Maybe yes, maybe no. For instance, with the current administration's connections with China, I'm not sure that there would be enough momentum or willingness to step in.

But I'm just painting a worst-case scenario here... I trust no one.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by Stinky Buffalo

It's not the USA that I'm most concerned about...



Maybe yes, maybe no. For instance, with the current administration's connections with China, I'm not sure that there would be enough momentum or willingness to step in.

But I'm just painting a worst-case scenario here... I trust no one.

The US would invade Alberta or protect Alberta long before they allowed the Chinese to control Alberta.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

The US would invade Alberta or protect Alberta long before they allowed the Chinese to control Alberta.

That is an absolute. The USA would never allow China to build military bases next to them.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Stinky Buffalo

It's not the USA that I'm most concerned about...



Maybe yes, maybe no. For instance, with the current administration's connections with China, I'm not sure that there would be enough momentum or willingness to step in.

But I'm just painting a worst-case scenario here... I trust no one.

The US wouldn’t allow china that close to their borders do to security risk to the US.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

Even if the railroads were exempt that deal was with Canada not the country of Buffalo. Even if they kept control the very first Alberta road they crossed they could be stopped at. Then Canada is gonna send the RCMP into a sovereign nation to stop a blockade??? No. There will be lots of leverage.

Also, the US is currently bending us over a barrel, its called WCS. That doesn’t change. Vancouver depends on our oil and they would lose any thin leverage they had in negotiations about 2 days after the pipe is shut off.

Foreign investment would skyrocket as a nation free of all the problems of Canada it would become a nation to be invested in. Not like Canada where every foreign dollar of investment has been fleeing for years.

I can name many great reasons to separate from Canada. Can you name any good reasons why we should stay? I mean besides”Canada is the greatest nation” BS, apathy, or Eastern leech convenience.

So you’re saying for negotiations we would threaten the other side that we would block their railroads or else.



That’s not how negotiations work.

More like Alberta better not impede federal owns railroads or else.

You realize when land locked you either have a transparent and fair relationship as a confrontational one will implode on Alberta.

Still… no one has mentioned how they will take all of the Province, excluding National Parks, First Nations and railroads and be able to make it work given FN will retain their rights to harvest and access traditional lands etc. Free access for Canadians to visit their National Parks will apply. Clearly it would be hard to limit movement given the borders… especially going east.

People need to be reasonable and see that while saying separation, that the big win would be to change the transfer payments within Confederation.

Should have serious penalty clauses such as failure to approve pipelines in a timely manner means a reduction. Request to curtail production or global warming taxes or laws etc that harms our economy means a reduction to offset the short and long term costs to our economy.

Lots of simpler and more easily justified changes including spreading political power between provinces instead of control by 2.

[KGB]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

The US wouldn’t allow china that close to their borders do to security risk to the US.

Well well well…. So you are saying that the sovereign country can’t decide who to friend and what to build on their territory? Because the USA doesn’t approve it? So what’s the difference then between Russia/ukraine and Canada/China/ USA Situation? Asking for a friend….

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by KGB

Well well well…. So you are saying that the sovereign country can’t decide who to friend and what to build on their territory? Because the USA doesn’t approve it? So what’s the difference then between Russia/ukraine and Canada/China/ USA Situation? Asking for a friend….

The post I quoted was about China invading not peacefully building

But yeah I bet the US would flip even if China was peacefully building on Alberta soil.

We both know the politics around wars are screwed up and the general public likely is getting half truths at best. Let’s not go down that screwed up rabbit hole

My basic view is with all theses wars is they are political tantrums where citizens in all countries involved suffer as pawns

[Strait Shooter]

Couple of points, the Feds. don't own the railroad tracks, the vast majority are owned by CP and CN with a right of easement 100 ft. on either side of the track for expansion. The Feds. may own the land but the railroads were built by CN and CP through a partial land swap agreement that has been in place for over 100 years. Ever wonder why there's a beautiful CP hotel in the heart of Banff and every CDN. major city? They didn't have to buy the property, they were given first dibs on the choice sites.

71% of oil and gas revenue is exported out of the province already, foreign entities may not be inspired to take on more trouble to increase that return.

The Trans-Mtn. pipeline is scheduled to triple the flow of crude oil to the W. coast for export shortly, taking the flow from 300k bpd to around 890k bpd. The Feds. currently own that pipeline, what u think will happen if AB. takes a hostile attitude to negotiations when their end goal is to drastically reduce oil sands production?

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Strait Shooter

Couple of points, the Feds. don't own the railroad tracks, the vast majority are owned by CP and CN with a right of easement 100 ft. on either side of the track for expansion. The Feds. may own the land but the railroads were built by CN and CP through a partial land swap agreement that has been in place for over 100 years. Ever wonder why there's a beautiful CP hotel in the heart of Banff and every CDN. major city? They didn't have to buy the property, they were given first dibs on the choice sites.

71% of oil and gas revenue is exported out of the province already, foreign entities may not be inspired to take on more trouble to increase that return.

The Trans-Mtn. pipeline is scheduled to triple the flow of crude oil to the W. coast for export shortly, taking the flow from 300k bpd to around 890k bpd. The Feds. currently own that pipeline, what u think will happen if AB. takes a hostile attitude to negotiations when their end goal is to drastically reduce oil sands production?

Still not a single outdoors related contribution

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Strait Shooter

Couple of points, the Feds. don't own the railroad tracks, the vast majority are owned by CP and CN with a right of easement 100 ft. on either side of the track for expansion.

Railways also had the mineral rights for a wide swath on either side of rail line. That is why Pan Canadian (owned by CP) was so succesful

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

So you’re saying for negotiations we would threaten the other side that we would block their railroads or else.



That’s not how negotiations work.

More like Alberta better not impede federal owns railroads or else.

You realize when land locked you either have a transparent and fair relationship as a confrontational one will implode on Alberta.

Still… no one has mentioned how they will take all of the Province, excluding National Parks, First Nations and railroads and be able to make it work given FN will retain their rights to harvest and access traditional lands etc. Free access for Canadians to visit their National Parks will apply. Clearly it would be hard to limit movement given the borders… especially going east.

People need to be reasonable and see that while saying separation, that the big win would be to change the transfer payments within Confederation.

Should have serious penalty clauses such as failure to approve pipelines in a timely manner means a reduction. Request to curtail production or global warming taxes or laws etc that harms our economy means a reduction to offset the short and long term costs to our economy.

Lots of simpler and more easily justified changes including spreading political power between provinces instead of control by 2.

It is absolutely how negotiations work. Land locked or not the CP will have to report to Ab customs and pay import fees as required. If Canada chooses to atrong arm Ab we have the same ability to strong-arm back.

Canada controls national parks but they don’t own the lands. National parks don’t leave tge province. Once again you would blockade them into oblivion.

Reserves can negotiate treaties with Ab or remain Canadian citizens. It will be Canada’s responsibility to airlift their citizens out of the blockaded reserves that stay within Canada.

As I said before people can pick apart easily resolved issues but nobody can tell me a good reason to remain in Canada.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by Strait Shooter

Couple of points, the Feds. don't own the railroad tracks, the vast majority are owned by CP and CN with a right of easement 100 ft. on either side of the track for expansion. The Feds. may own the land but the railroads were built by CN and CP through a partial land swap agreement that has been in place for over 100 years. Ever wonder why there's a beautiful CP hotel in the heart of Banff and every CDN. major city? They didn't have to buy the property, they were given first dibs on the choice sites.

71% of oil and gas revenue is exported out of the province already, foreign entities may not be inspired to take on more trouble to increase that return.

The Trans-Mtn. pipeline is scheduled to triple the flow of crude oil to the W. coast for export shortly, taking the flow from 300k bpd to around 890k bpd. The Feds. currently own that pipeline, what u think will happen if AB. takes a hostile attitude to negotiations when their end goal is to drastically reduce oil sands production?

A good portion of lower BC depend on the transmountain. We would turn it off long before the feds wanted to try and shut down flow. It will hurt BC not Ab 300k barrels a day Ab can absorb. It isn’t going to cripple us. Vancouver on the other hand will be lord of the flies inside a week or two.

[Grizzly Adams1]

Quebec is rattling it's chain again. Justin is getting it from all sides, this time it's immigration

https://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...ent-by-june-30

[W921]

All you Alberta can't do it crowd answer me this. If Indian reserves can do all this then why can't Alberta?
Basically what we want for Alberta they already have.
Honestly the more I think about this the more I think first nations or whatever they call themselves and Quebec have the right idea. If Alberta had the same rights and freedoms as them but moved to a more Albertan grassroots get rid of beurocrats ,regulations and laws free market economy I believe our young people would have a real future.
Just a side note but in BC they brought out a stupid law that all big rigs have to be governed at 105 kmph and not only that but they are checking trucks and you have to prove you are not capable of going faster or they charge you. In other words you have to prove you are innocent or you get fined and them guys out there just rolled over without a wimper. This country and people in it are really going to heck in as hand basket and I'm all for any firewalls to protect Alberta from them.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

It is absolutely how negotiations work. Land locked or not the CP will have to report to Ab customs and pay import fees as required. If Canada chooses to atrong arm Ab we have the same ability to strong-arm back.

Canada controls national parks but they don’t own the lands. National parks don’t leave tge province. Once again you would blockade them into oblivion.

Reserves can negotiate treaties with Ab or remain Canadian citizens. It will be Canada’s responsibility to airlift their citizens out of the blockaded reserves that stay within Canada.

As I said before people can pick apart easily resolved issues but nobody can tell me a good reason to remain in Canada.

It’s fiction to think we have the leverage in a separation.

Canada does own the national parks. The land IS NOT owned by Alberta.

A. Ownership
The Government of Canada is the owner of the property by virtue of the British North America Act (1867). In 1998, the Parks Canada Agency Act established the Parks Canada Agency to operate and manage Canada’s national historic sites and national parks, under the direction of a Chief Executive Officer reporting to the Parliament of Canada through a Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.

Your expectation is that Alberta can stomp their feet and whine and blockage to get their way doesn’t fly. International agreements for access will be obeyed and not flip flopped on… because in the reciprocal Alberta would be royally hooped.

If we waste our time chasing a true separation it will be time wasted. If we seek expanded power like and even better than Quebec including better financial obligations… it would be a huge win. Tack on better representation in Parliament… best case scenario.

There is no way in heck that we can be better off over all as a separate isolated and land locked nation that is butting heads as you want to do.

Never happen and no… there would be no air lifting FN out of reserves. You are in a dream land.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by W921

All you Alberta can't do it crowd answer me this. If Indian reserves can do all this then why can't Alberta?
Basically what we want for Alberta they already have.
Honestly the more I think about this the more I think first nations or whatever they call themselves and Quebec have the right idea. If Alberta had the same rights and freedoms as them but moved to a more Albertan grassroots get rid of beurocrats ,regulations and laws free market economy I believe our young people would have a real future.
Just a side note but in BC they brought out a stupid law that all big rigs have to be governed at 105 kmph and not only that but they are checking trucks and you have to prove you are not capable of going faster or they charge you. In other words you have to prove you are innocent or you get fined and them guys out there just rolled over without a wimper. This country and people in it are really going to heck in as hand basket and I'm all for any firewalls to protect Alberta from them.

In what way are FN in Alberta separate countries? Please list.

What do FN have in Alberta that we don’t have as far as rights that aren’t part of a treaty? A binding contractual agreement?