Quebec separatists shot themselves in the foot and Alberta wants to emulate them. I was transferred to Alberta from Quebec during a large HQ move after the 1995 referendum. They announced their move to media 3 days after the referendum and did not inform employees first. That is how hush hush it was. So for all those Albertan’s who say they have a right to a referendum on separation, I say an election is more suitable as the separatist UCP party can put forward their campaign including their separatism referendum plans. No hiding their agenda. Be open like the Quebec separatist party was. Everyone knew who they were voting for and knew their agenda when they cast their ballot during that election. This did not occur in Alberta. Those in the UCP running for office intentionally disguised their separatist agenda and the seoaratist party membership and referendum plans. The election was based on fraud and misrepresentation. There is zero mandate for a referendum on separation as they were elected under false pretences. An election must be called.
That question (and others) need to be asked and you can bet the oil sands companies are thinking about them. A new pipeline will need oil and increasing oil production will require workers. Many of these will come from outside Alberta or Canada. Yet, Alberta is holding a referendum on the level of services to be provided to those who are not permanent residents. A series of political decisions are killing the very political agreement that is meant to move things forward and the companies won't take the risk.
Alberta needs to be prepared to become AlbertaRico, a territory of the USA that has limited influence. The USA wants the oil, not the people. More decisions affecting Alberta's future will be made in Washington than are currently made in Ottawa and a greater share of resource revenues will go to Washington than currently goes to Ottawa. Congratulations - you won!
I tend to agree with this take on direction. Separatists including Smith have been negotiating with the US to join them. Given that most of the O&G extractors are US companies, absorption by the US likely has strong appeal. Of course life is always more complex than planned ...
Not mentioned also is the $500B “line of credit” from Americans. It’s not free people. Also there’s the issue of Alberta’s portion of the federal debt that will need to be paid out. The separatists have heavily pushed the notion that we will have no taxes. Really? With only O&G to pay for such trivialities as infrastructure for example, not sure that’s gonna be covered. Oh, and, in a year of record O&G profitability, UCP managed to run a $9B deficit. This is not looking so doable. NDP needs to start getting some realities out to Albertans.
If Alberta were to separate from Canada, its current borders would not automatically remain the same since no province can secede unilaterally, separation would trigger intense, multi-party negotiations where Alberta's territorial boundaries would likely be heavily contested, subject to modification, and possibly carved up. That is a possible 'stick' that is worth mentioning prior to the vote.
You are right and the point is under-named in the public conversation. Alberta's borders are not a constitutional given in a separation scenario. They are a negotiated outcome. The Supreme Court's 1998 Reference re Secession of Quebec and the federal Clarity Act of 2000 establish that secession requires good-faith negotiation and the terms — including the borders — are on the table.
The deeper layer you are pointing at is the treaty question. Treaties 6, 7, and 8 cover most of what is currently Alberta. The treaty partner is the Crown in right of Canada, not the province. If the province leaves the federation, the treaty obligations remain with the federal Crown. Which means the lands subject to the treaties do not automatically travel with the separating province. The Indigenous nations have their own sovereignty claims and their own constitutional standing. They would be at the negotiating table on their own terms.
The Albertans pushing the petition have not, in the main, absorbed this. The vote is being sold as a sovereign decision by a unified provincial population. The constitutional reality is more complicated. Your stick belongs on the table before the vote, not after.
That’s the issue with arrogance and ignorance combined. The devil is in the details and details are not their strong suit. Bluster does not pay the bills.
Quebec separatists shot themselves in the foot and Alberta wants to emulate them. I was transferred to Alberta from Quebec during a large HQ move after the 1995 referendum. They announced their move to media 3 days after the referendum and did not inform employees first. That is how hush hush it was. So for all those Albertan’s who say they have a right to a referendum on separation, I say an election is more suitable as the separatist UCP party can put forward their campaign including their separatism referendum plans. No hiding their agenda. Be open like the Quebec separatist party was. Everyone knew who they were voting for and knew their agenda when they cast their ballot during that election. This did not occur in Alberta. Those in the UCP running for office intentionally disguised their separatist agenda and the seoaratist party membership and referendum plans. The election was based on fraud and misrepresentation. There is zero mandate for a referendum on separation as they were elected under false pretences. An election must be called.
That question (and others) need to be asked and you can bet the oil sands companies are thinking about them. A new pipeline will need oil and increasing oil production will require workers. Many of these will come from outside Alberta or Canada. Yet, Alberta is holding a referendum on the level of services to be provided to those who are not permanent residents. A series of political decisions are killing the very political agreement that is meant to move things forward and the companies won't take the risk.
Alberta needs to be prepared to become AlbertaRico, a territory of the USA that has limited influence. The USA wants the oil, not the people. More decisions affecting Alberta's future will be made in Washington than are currently made in Ottawa and a greater share of resource revenues will go to Washington than currently goes to Ottawa. Congratulations - you won!
I tend to agree with this take on direction. Separatists including Smith have been negotiating with the US to join them. Given that most of the O&G extractors are US companies, absorption by the US likely has strong appeal. Of course life is always more complex than planned ...
Not mentioned also is the $500B “line of credit” from Americans. It’s not free people. Also there’s the issue of Alberta’s portion of the federal debt that will need to be paid out. The separatists have heavily pushed the notion that we will have no taxes. Really? With only O&G to pay for such trivialities as infrastructure for example, not sure that’s gonna be covered. Oh, and, in a year of record O&G profitability, UCP managed to run a $9B deficit. This is not looking so doable. NDP needs to start getting some realities out to Albertans.
If Alberta were to separate from Canada, its current borders would not automatically remain the same since no province can secede unilaterally, separation would trigger intense, multi-party negotiations where Alberta's territorial boundaries would likely be heavily contested, subject to modification, and possibly carved up. That is a possible 'stick' that is worth mentioning prior to the vote.
Friend,
You are right and the point is under-named in the public conversation. Alberta's borders are not a constitutional given in a separation scenario. They are a negotiated outcome. The Supreme Court's 1998 Reference re Secession of Quebec and the federal Clarity Act of 2000 establish that secession requires good-faith negotiation and the terms — including the borders — are on the table.
The deeper layer you are pointing at is the treaty question. Treaties 6, 7, and 8 cover most of what is currently Alberta. The treaty partner is the Crown in right of Canada, not the province. If the province leaves the federation, the treaty obligations remain with the federal Crown. Which means the lands subject to the treaties do not automatically travel with the separating province. The Indigenous nations have their own sovereignty claims and their own constitutional standing. They would be at the negotiating table on their own terms.
The Albertans pushing the petition have not, in the main, absorbed this. The vote is being sold as a sovereign decision by a unified provincial population. The constitutional reality is more complicated. Your stick belongs on the table before the vote, not after.
The publication will keep filing.
Glen
That’s the issue with arrogance and ignorance combined. The devil is in the details and details are not their strong suit. Bluster does not pay the bills.
The separatists are heavily invested with American money...
Yet...
They want a pipeline to sell the oil to Asia?
And America is ok with selling Alberta oil to someone other than them?
Why are they entertaining a pipeline proposal and saying duck Cabada at the same time.
I will follow up with that in the next day the logic is sound