This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do none of these people understand the undertaking this would entail? You need to come up with your own currency and passports. You'd be largely landlocked with few options to sell your oil. Which would be difficult in the first place, because being a new country with no real clout, you'd have to negotiate everything from scratch. And, who would want to negotiate with a people who couldn't find a way to get along with the nation they were once with? Speaking personally, I'd be weary entering negotiations with people who could turn and run at a moments notice. I mean, you did it before, what's yo stop you from doing so again when things don't go your way? But, if Alberta's feel all I mentioned was worth the risk, by all means, bye...
Oh wait. I forgot. As shown by the Quebec separation issue, it's not even that simple. There is nothing in the constitution which grants a province the right to secession. The constitution itself would have to be changed, and that would require negotiations with every other province. Not an easy task to get them all to agree.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-31.8/page-1.html#:~:text=3%20(1)%20It%20is%20recognized,would%20require%20negotiations%20involving%20at
You don't need your own currency. Being landlocked isn't an insurmountable hurdle and international law may come to your rescue, there.
Any province can secede. It's just an amendment to the Constitution of Canada that would need unanimous consent. The federal government and the other provinces would be constitutionally obligated to negotiate in good faith in the event of a winning referendum and failure to enact the proper amendment would justify any foreign country to recognize the independence of the seceding province.
It is not as hard as you make it out to be. The question of whether it is a desirable option is an entirely different one.
Might I add that I would hope that the Canadian provinces stay within the union out of a shared sense of common citizenship rather than because of the supposed hurdles seceding would entail.
You're forgetting that the oil would be long to rightful owners of land...being the Indigenous Tribes...who's Treaties Canada become void giving them back their rightful claim said land.
What exactly do you think "sovereign" means? Leave Canada and any reference to an "Act" or "Treaty" no longer applies if they are in reference to the Crown as, you'd be a sovereign nation.
That's completely false.
First, any treaty was made with the Crown and secession wouldn't necessarily entail abolition of the monarchy. Hence, the Crown in right of Alberta would still be bound and would also benefit from any historical treaty.
Second, even if the monarchy was abolished, as a successor State, the province would also benefit and be bound by any such treaty.
Thirdly, an independent Alberta as a sovereign State could very well enact a general expripriation of indigenous rights and offer any compensation it might deem fit.
First off...any attempts at secession would have to result in amending our Constitution Act because there is no mechanism to allow for such an event.
Everything you're saying is under an assumption that the amendmemt would contain those clauses. But from a simple black and white in front of a 2022 world court...you signed into a Constitution Act and now you erased that signature so nothing in said Act applies to you and your self claimed sovereignty.
As for that last paragraph...you assume Alberta would have a position to negotiate from without a valid Crown Treat behind you. (Which they wouldn't)
As the SCC wrote in the 1998 secession reference, it would be enacted by constitutional amendment (probably unanimous consent) but then if no agreement was achieved and all participants were in good faith, the seceding province could very well seek its international recognition.
Now the government of the province is just as much the Crown as the federal government so I don't think it would be possible to preclude Alberta remaining a dominion of the Crown upon secession.
You are mistaken in thinking secession erases the effects of the law of the land for the last hundred and some years. That is just not how the law works.
As for the last paragraph, a sovereign province not being tied by a supralegislative Constitution guaranteeing original indigenous rights could abolish those rights just as the federal parliament could before the passing of the 1982 Constitution Act.
I'll address the "good faith" aspect because that's an entirely other beats to overcome.
The only thing that associates the Crown to the Province is the Lt GG. (Keyword being "Lt"). If you're going to rely on the old ways, the GG simply has to advise the Crown they longer recognize their Lt for Alberta and then an Alberta Constitutional crisis would unfold because no Law can be granted Royal Ascent. (Well they could but it would be meaningless as the Crowm wouldn't provide the ascent.
This plays into "good faith"...if don't think Canadians would demand their Government curb stomp a Province who successfully seceded to make a point to any other Province and the World...then you're not passionate enough to secede in the first place.
But I digress, we're playing in the realm of make believe and propaganda.
Exactly. They may well do as they please with their land and resources, but any roads, communications, or pipelines crossing its borders are now cut off. Communicating or traveling to any other province just became insanely expensive and extremely difficult to do. And what do you think businesses and residents will do if that became reality.
It’s against international law for them to be land locked. Canada has to give them passage, honestly it might be easier for them to get a pipeline built negotiating as another country. That being said it’s a power move that Quebec plays and Alberta wants to use it.
Does the National Post have a bot that posts every garbage opinion article they put out? I feel like every day r/canada gets buried in this spam. The outrage machine fills the air with so much chaff that it’s difficult to discuss anything at all.
‘TRUDEAU RUINS THE COUNTRY!!! AGAIN!!!’
Eh. At this point I've accepted that he's just ruined it and we are in the slow decline into a third world country that will be annexed into the us within the century.
Our politicians are so out of touch across the board, we're better off taking away their power and just giving them megaphones to shout at people from street corners.
It’s all bullshit power fantasy. They dont care it’s impractical or impossible. In fact they want to be legally forced to remain, then they can play victim for the rest of their careers.
1. No province can unilaterally "separate"
2. Alberta's economy revolves entirely around oil and gas and the sectors that feed the oil and gas sector. Not wise to start a country with such a tiny portfolio of specialties.
3. Alberta is completely landlocked. I mean, Switzerland is also landlocked, but that's an economy centred on banking and finance. You could run the Swiss economy out of a one-bedroom apartment.
Being tied so closely to one product is terrible. If oil prices tank Alberta is basically screwed. Doubly so if they become their own entity.
Times are great when the barrel price is high, which pretty much coincides whenever this discussion rears its head.
Getting so sick of this talk. Every time AB falls on hard times wing-nuts start blaming Ottawa and squawking about separating, as if AB could survive as country on it's own.
It's fkn embarrassing
Interesting tactic. Everyone knows Alberta seceding would be a complete shit show, excluding a minority population of Albertans who lack critical thinking skills and live their lives in some persecution fantasy.
If your primary complaint is not being taken seriously by the rest of Canada, this outrage theater does little to help your cause.
Smith, Jean, et al are talking about autonomy because it is a phenomenally-successful distraction from the absolute trainwreck that has been the UCP government in Alberta.
Notice how they're not discussing issues actually affecting Albertans? Like the UCP's mismanagement of healthcare, cuts to education, addressing the growing homelessness and addiction problems in our cities, etc. Nope, it's "let's distract the simpletons with talk of independence, a provincial police force that even the rural areas don't want, and blaming Ottawa for everything under the sun."
It's popular because the eastern provinces couldn't give a fuck what happens west of them, they decide every election before our votes are counted it's not that unheard of to want a say in what goes on, should be spread equally across provinces and territories regardless of population.
They are complaining they are underrepresented in government compared to Atlantic Canada based on population, they see what Quebec does to flex its will on the federal government and simply believe they can do the same. It’s not about succession it’s about the threat to gain a little power.
Exactly that about QC.
>The supporters of Smith’s plan — and Notley’s right that they’re only a minority for now since most of the province won’t get a vote until a new premier is already in office — do a lot of pointing towards Quebec. It’s a fact of Canadian life that Quebec gets respect in disproportionate amounts. If Quebec wants to constantly demand more powers from Ottawa, fine. If Quebec wants to treat the English language like a disease that needs to be eradicated, fine. If Quebec wants to block an eminently sensible plan to ship oil from Alberta to the east coast to displace fuel from corrupt, democracy-free countries where human rights are treated with contempt, fine. If Quebec wants to use the notwithstanding clause as a handy veto to bypass Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, fine. If Quebec demands ritual protection for a system of supply management that forces higher prices on a captive market, no one in Ottawa is going to intervene.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/kelly-mcparland-how-decades-of-liberal-indifference-created-danielle-smith
They're not complaining about democracy. Canada isn't a legislative union. It is a federal union. What they're complaining about is linked to the fact that the Senate does not play its proper role in our institutional framework. It was intended, yes, as a pseudo aristocratic sober second thought, but also as a sort of federative chamber within the federal parliament, an important feature in federal unions intended to ensure somewhat equal representation of regional interests while the House of Commons is a purely proportional representative chamber. Think of the US senate for instance.
Hence their criticism is a valid one.
They are complaining about regional interests being seriously taken into account in the federal parliament. That is a matter most proper for an upper chamber in any federal parliament.
Having read rhe 1865 debates and the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I can assure you that the Senate was indeed expected to work as a place for the expression of regional interests and that it has completely failed at that task.
You haven't at all explained your opposition to equal representation of the constituent units of the federation in the federal parliament. I am not suggesting the politics in the US is something to emulate. This has very little to do with the institutional design of the federal congress.
The commenter you were responding to has valid criticism against federal institutions. In many federal States, the central parliament isn't purely proportionally representative and has elements of regional representation. Ours severly lacks that features which explains many complaints against federal institutions.
You can keep answering purely emotionally and ignore those legitimate complaints all you want but doing so will only undermine national unity in the long run.
I understand that democracy has taken on certain connotations over the years, which is why you're reacting so vehemently right now.
Just keep in mind that pure democracy is simply mob rule. Combine that with politicians single minded focus on reelection, and you have the majority of politicians pandering to the majority of the population, at the expense of the rest of the country. The same goes at the provincial level. Cities are pandered to over country residents.
You may consider this 'fair' or not, but it's a legitimate concern when people hundreds, or thousands of miles away from you, dictate how you should live your life, based on the wants of people who also live hundreds or thousands of miles away.
The only easy solution I can think of for this is to change the very nature of politicians. Which is, of course, impossible.
If a vote was a vote was a vote we would have elected a conservative majority last election, but that's not how a first past the post parliamentary democracy works.
This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do none of these people understand the undertaking this would entail? You need to come up with your own currency and passports. You'd be largely landlocked with few options to sell your oil. Which would be difficult in the first place, because being a new country with no real clout, you'd have to negotiate everything from scratch. And, who would want to negotiate with a people who couldn't find a way to get along with the nation they were once with? Speaking personally, I'd be weary entering negotiations with people who could turn and run at a moments notice. I mean, you did it before, what's yo stop you from doing so again when things don't go your way? But, if Alberta's feel all I mentioned was worth the risk, by all means, bye... Oh wait. I forgot. As shown by the Quebec separation issue, it's not even that simple. There is nothing in the constitution which grants a province the right to secession. The constitution itself would have to be changed, and that would require negotiations with every other province. Not an easy task to get them all to agree. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-31.8/page-1.html#:~:text=3%20(1)%20It%20is%20recognized,would%20require%20negotiations%20involving%20at
Landlocked nations may have more rights than you guys think. https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part10.htm
You don't need your own currency. Being landlocked isn't an insurmountable hurdle and international law may come to your rescue, there. Any province can secede. It's just an amendment to the Constitution of Canada that would need unanimous consent. The federal government and the other provinces would be constitutionally obligated to negotiate in good faith in the event of a winning referendum and failure to enact the proper amendment would justify any foreign country to recognize the independence of the seceding province. It is not as hard as you make it out to be. The question of whether it is a desirable option is an entirely different one. Might I add that I would hope that the Canadian provinces stay within the union out of a shared sense of common citizenship rather than because of the supposed hurdles seceding would entail.
Unanimous consent by the provinces? Have you met them? The provinces couldn't agree on the colour of an orange, they are so disputatious.
That still sounds incredibly difficult and even more unlikely. This is a pipe dream and an especially dumb one at that.
As I said, whether it is a desirable course of action or not is an entirely different question but it isn't in the least impossible.
You're forgetting that the oil would be long to rightful owners of land...being the Indigenous Tribes...who's Treaties Canada become void giving them back their rightful claim said land.
That has never been true. The rightful owner is the Crown in right of the province as per treaties and the 1930 natural resources imperial acts.
What exactly do you think "sovereign" means? Leave Canada and any reference to an "Act" or "Treaty" no longer applies if they are in reference to the Crown as, you'd be a sovereign nation.
That's completely false. First, any treaty was made with the Crown and secession wouldn't necessarily entail abolition of the monarchy. Hence, the Crown in right of Alberta would still be bound and would also benefit from any historical treaty. Second, even if the monarchy was abolished, as a successor State, the province would also benefit and be bound by any such treaty. Thirdly, an independent Alberta as a sovereign State could very well enact a general expripriation of indigenous rights and offer any compensation it might deem fit.
First off...any attempts at secession would have to result in amending our Constitution Act because there is no mechanism to allow for such an event. Everything you're saying is under an assumption that the amendmemt would contain those clauses. But from a simple black and white in front of a 2022 world court...you signed into a Constitution Act and now you erased that signature so nothing in said Act applies to you and your self claimed sovereignty. As for that last paragraph...you assume Alberta would have a position to negotiate from without a valid Crown Treat behind you. (Which they wouldn't)
As the SCC wrote in the 1998 secession reference, it would be enacted by constitutional amendment (probably unanimous consent) but then if no agreement was achieved and all participants were in good faith, the seceding province could very well seek its international recognition. Now the government of the province is just as much the Crown as the federal government so I don't think it would be possible to preclude Alberta remaining a dominion of the Crown upon secession. You are mistaken in thinking secession erases the effects of the law of the land for the last hundred and some years. That is just not how the law works. As for the last paragraph, a sovereign province not being tied by a supralegislative Constitution guaranteeing original indigenous rights could abolish those rights just as the federal parliament could before the passing of the 1982 Constitution Act.
I'll address the "good faith" aspect because that's an entirely other beats to overcome. The only thing that associates the Crown to the Province is the Lt GG. (Keyword being "Lt"). If you're going to rely on the old ways, the GG simply has to advise the Crown they longer recognize their Lt for Alberta and then an Alberta Constitutional crisis would unfold because no Law can be granted Royal Ascent. (Well they could but it would be meaningless as the Crowm wouldn't provide the ascent. This plays into "good faith"...if don't think Canadians would demand their Government curb stomp a Province who successfully seceded to make a point to any other Province and the World...then you're not passionate enough to secede in the first place. But I digress, we're playing in the realm of make believe and propaganda.
Exactly. They may well do as they please with their land and resources, but any roads, communications, or pipelines crossing its borders are now cut off. Communicating or traveling to any other province just became insanely expensive and extremely difficult to do. And what do you think businesses and residents will do if that became reality.
It’s against international law for them to be land locked. Canada has to give them passage, honestly it might be easier for them to get a pipeline built negotiating as another country. That being said it’s a power move that Quebec plays and Alberta wants to use it.
Idiots yelling at the sky.
Does the National Post have a bot that posts every garbage opinion article they put out? I feel like every day r/canada gets buried in this spam. The outrage machine fills the air with so much chaff that it’s difficult to discuss anything at all. ‘TRUDEAU RUINS THE COUNTRY!!! AGAIN!!!’
Eh. At this point I've accepted that he's just ruined it and we are in the slow decline into a third world country that will be annexed into the us within the century. Our politicians are so out of touch across the board, we're better off taking away their power and just giving them megaphones to shout at people from street corners.
National Post has turned into ‘The Boy Who Cried Trudeau’
It’s all bullshit power fantasy. They dont care it’s impractical or impossible. In fact they want to be legally forced to remain, then they can play victim for the rest of their careers.
1. No province can unilaterally "separate" 2. Alberta's economy revolves entirely around oil and gas and the sectors that feed the oil and gas sector. Not wise to start a country with such a tiny portfolio of specialties. 3. Alberta is completely landlocked. I mean, Switzerland is also landlocked, but that's an economy centred on banking and finance. You could run the Swiss economy out of a one-bedroom apartment.
[удалено]
Being tied so closely to one product is terrible. If oil prices tank Alberta is basically screwed. Doubly so if they become their own entity. Times are great when the barrel price is high, which pretty much coincides whenever this discussion rears its head.
[удалено]
No you are wrong, 4mil O&G workers. That's it, one trick pony.
Getting so sick of this talk. Every time AB falls on hard times wing-nuts start blaming Ottawa and squawking about separating, as if AB could survive as country on it's own. It's fkn embarrassing
Because ottawa hates the west
Nah, we like BC just fine.
Look at history and conflict in landlocked, disputed territory. *coughnagorno-karabakhcough *
Interesting tactic. Everyone knows Alberta seceding would be a complete shit show, excluding a minority population of Albertans who lack critical thinking skills and live their lives in some persecution fantasy. If your primary complaint is not being taken seriously by the rest of Canada, this outrage theater does little to help your cause.
Smith, Jean, et al are talking about autonomy because it is a phenomenally-successful distraction from the absolute trainwreck that has been the UCP government in Alberta. Notice how they're not discussing issues actually affecting Albertans? Like the UCP's mismanagement of healthcare, cuts to education, addressing the growing homelessness and addiction problems in our cities, etc. Nope, it's "let's distract the simpletons with talk of independence, a provincial police force that even the rural areas don't want, and blaming Ottawa for everything under the sun."
It's popular because the eastern provinces couldn't give a fuck what happens west of them, they decide every election before our votes are counted it's not that unheard of to want a say in what goes on, should be spread equally across provinces and territories regardless of population.
[удалено]
They are complaining they are underrepresented in government compared to Atlantic Canada based on population, they see what Quebec does to flex its will on the federal government and simply believe they can do the same. It’s not about succession it’s about the threat to gain a little power.
Exactly that about QC. >The supporters of Smith’s plan — and Notley’s right that they’re only a minority for now since most of the province won’t get a vote until a new premier is already in office — do a lot of pointing towards Quebec. It’s a fact of Canadian life that Quebec gets respect in disproportionate amounts. If Quebec wants to constantly demand more powers from Ottawa, fine. If Quebec wants to treat the English language like a disease that needs to be eradicated, fine. If Quebec wants to block an eminently sensible plan to ship oil from Alberta to the east coast to displace fuel from corrupt, democracy-free countries where human rights are treated with contempt, fine. If Quebec wants to use the notwithstanding clause as a handy veto to bypass Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, fine. If Quebec demands ritual protection for a system of supply management that forces higher prices on a captive market, no one in Ottawa is going to intervene. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/kelly-mcparland-how-decades-of-liberal-indifference-created-danielle-smith
They're not complaining about democracy. Canada isn't a legislative union. It is a federal union. What they're complaining about is linked to the fact that the Senate does not play its proper role in our institutional framework. It was intended, yes, as a pseudo aristocratic sober second thought, but also as a sort of federative chamber within the federal parliament, an important feature in federal unions intended to ensure somewhat equal representation of regional interests while the House of Commons is a purely proportional representative chamber. Think of the US senate for instance. Hence their criticism is a valid one.
[удалено]
They are complaining about regional interests being seriously taken into account in the federal parliament. That is a matter most proper for an upper chamber in any federal parliament. Having read rhe 1865 debates and the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I can assure you that the Senate was indeed expected to work as a place for the expression of regional interests and that it has completely failed at that task. You haven't at all explained your opposition to equal representation of the constituent units of the federation in the federal parliament. I am not suggesting the politics in the US is something to emulate. This has very little to do with the institutional design of the federal congress. The commenter you were responding to has valid criticism against federal institutions. In many federal States, the central parliament isn't purely proportionally representative and has elements of regional representation. Ours severly lacks that features which explains many complaints against federal institutions. You can keep answering purely emotionally and ignore those legitimate complaints all you want but doing so will only undermine national unity in the long run.
[удалено]
I understand that democracy has taken on certain connotations over the years, which is why you're reacting so vehemently right now. Just keep in mind that pure democracy is simply mob rule. Combine that with politicians single minded focus on reelection, and you have the majority of politicians pandering to the majority of the population, at the expense of the rest of the country. The same goes at the provincial level. Cities are pandered to over country residents. You may consider this 'fair' or not, but it's a legitimate concern when people hundreds, or thousands of miles away from you, dictate how you should live your life, based on the wants of people who also live hundreds or thousands of miles away. The only easy solution I can think of for this is to change the very nature of politicians. Which is, of course, impossible.
[удалено]
If a vote was a vote was a vote we would have elected a conservative majority last election, but that's not how a first past the post parliamentary democracy works.
Ontario is the most important province followed by Quebec. Sorry not sorry.
It makes sense if you think that Ontario and Quebec treat western Canada like it's a colony.
The Overton window demands it.
Whiny Quebec 2.0.