Results 1 to 92 of 92

Thread: Alberta leaving Confederation - laudable or laughable - post 2019 Election conversation

  1. #1

    Default Alberta leaving Confederation - laudable or laughable - post 2019 Election conversation

    {admin edit] I moved the separation conversation here, and I will see if I can split out some more recent discussions from the catch all thread. {/end edit}

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Kenney brought up separation in front of the senate today...hearing that shocked me. I would have stuck to the facts presented...and I didn't hear the comment personally so I am going by second hand reports a during a meeting I had with the GoA this morning. Personally, I would be disappointed at a threat to separate...
    [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
    I agree.

    Kenney went straight to the nuclear option in Ottawa, suggesting separation which is totally impractical. If Alberta separates, then what? Will that suddenly make Cold Lake an ocean deep water port? Will we see tanker traffic on the North Saskatchewan River? Will BC all of a sudden allow a pipeline ?

    Last time a guy named Levesque went to Ottawa and hammered his fists about separation, he lost every battle with a guy named Trudeau...

    Think about it.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post

    Kenney brought up separation in front of the senate today...hearing that shocked me. I would have stuck to the facts presented...and I didn't hear the comment personally so I am going by second hand reports a during a meeting I had with the GoA this morning. Personally, I would be disappointed at a threat to separate...

    The other theme underlying this will be the equalization program. Shot 1...energy/resource management and inter-provincial jurisdiction. Second shot...equalization depending on how the energy conversation resolves...

    I didn't spend a lot of time on this, but from one article in the Globe, it seems he alluded to separation, rather than directly mentioning it. Nevertheless, he is called out on it by a few Libs.

    My sense so far is he is following a carrot and stick strategy. He is literally putting all options on the table, but follows with more measured negotiations in practice. We will see how effective this strategy is. In meeting Trudeau, the brief comment was looking for common grounds, which is sensible.

    I wonder whether they talked at all about external, shared problem of China, as following canola we now have a Red Deer pork plant getting in the line of Chinese fire: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...orts-1.5121095

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Just a simple opinion based on game theory...no political allegiance or endorsement implied...


    I realize how polarized our politics has become (well, across the world really). It is sad to see the need to say things like that just to be careful. I note KC also repeatedly mentions he voted UCP. Really, a civic dialog should not need any disclaimer. But we are where we are ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Kenney brought up separation in front of the senate today...hearing that shocked me. I would have stuck to the facts presented...and I didn't hear the comment personally so I am going by second hand reports a during a meeting I had with the GoA this morning. Personally, I would be disappointed at a threat to separate...
    [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
    I agree.

    Kenney went straight to the nuclear option in Ottawa, suggesting separation which is totally impractical. If Alberta separates, then what? Will that suddenly make Cold Lake an ocean deep water port? Will we see tanker traffic on the North Saskatchewan River? Will BC all of a sudden allow a pipeline ?

    Last time a guy named Levesque went to Ottawa and hammered his fists about separation, he lost every battle with a guy named Trudeau...

    Think about it.
    You can't fight geography - the province of Alberta is landlocked with BC to the west, if Alberta separated it still would be landlocked with BC to the west.

  4. #4

    Default Jack Mintz: Why Alberta’s discontent with Canada is harder to quell than Quebec’s

    ^the bargaining power would be completely different. No pipelines? Sure, no railway trains cross Alberta then, and no planes fly over it. BC would be completely cut off from the rest of Canada (other than a painful northern route through the wilderness). Not to mention the massive federal tax shortfall now that Alberta's federal taxes can't be reallocated to Quebec.

    Conflicts of claim are more difficult because they involve disputes over “sharing the wealth” (as opposed to building wealth together). These arise when a smaller, richer region is called on to transfer wealth to larger, poorer regions within a federation. The obvious example is the way that Alberta and other resource-rich parts of the West have been made to subsidize the rest of Canada through equalization, tax and numerous other net contributions to the federal system.
    Because of the difference in populations, it takes significant transfers from the smaller, richer provinces in order to have a material per capita impact on the more populated poorer regions. Meanwhile the larger, poorer regions (in Canada’s case, Quebec in particular) can control through their political voting power the size of the transfers they wish to extract from the smaller, richer region. In these arrangements, conflict arises when the smaller, richer region feels as if the benefits from being part of a federation are outweighed by the cost of serving as a largely powerless cash cow.

    ...

    Unfortunately Canada, notably, lacks formal institutions that provide small regions like Alberta with proper federal representation, such as an elected and powerful Senate, as exists in the U.S. and Australia. But several actions taken by both federal and provincial governments could still help avoid a looming constitutional crisis arising from conflict of claim. Much of the accommodation will need to occur using federal-provincial co-ordination mechanisms.


    https://business.financialpost.com/o...l-than-quebecs
    Last edited by downtownone; 03-05-2019 at 04:28 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downtownone View Post
    ^the bargaining power would be completely different. No pipelines? Sure, no railway trains cross Alberta then, and no planes fly over it. BC would be completely cut off from the rest of Canada (other than a painful northern route through the wilderness). Not to mention the massive federal tax shortfall now that Alberta's federal taxes can't be reallocated to Quebec.
    There are other railway lines in North America in close proximity to the lower mainland of BC where most of the people, so it wouldn't suffer much. Maybe Prince Rupert would suffer, but then so would Edmonton and Calgary from the loss of east/west rail traffic, so that would be kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    The Federal Conservatives might be sad to see Alberta's 25 or so reliably Conservative voting seats leave, the Federal Liberals might not mind that part so much. People and places that think they are so indispensable are often in for a rude shock after they carry out their threats.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downtownone View Post
    ^Alberta would do fine - without those equalization transfers from taxpayers in Alberta to payouts to Quebec, a fund much larger than Norways would have been built up. Easily enough money for a few hundred F35's to protect the borders. Or could join the US (a merger with Montana would be easiest) and at least get two elected senators.

    Why on earth would anyone want to separate from Canada to only end up joining the US?

  7. #7

    Default

    Anyone who thinks a landlocked Alberta separating from Canada is a good thing obviously hasnt thought about the logistics of it all. You think getting a pipeline to tidewaters with out the confederation would happen? Please

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downtownone View Post
    ^Alberta would do fine - without those equalization transfers from taxpayers in Alberta to payouts to Quebec, a fund much larger than Norways would have been built up. Easily enough money for a few hundred F35's to protect the borders. Or could join the US (a merger with Montana would be easiest) and at least get two elected senators.
    Last time I checked, Norway was not landlocked. HUGE difference

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  9. #9

  10. #10
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,082
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Anyone who thinks a landlocked Alberta separating from Canada is a good thing obviously hasnt thought about the logistics of it all. You think getting a pipeline to tidewaters with out the confederation would happen? Please

    While your overall statement is correct...let me edit...


    You think getting a pipeline to tidewaters, without the joining of other provinces or portions thereof with a coastline, would happen?


    Separation dies because either BC (or the northern part) would have to join...or the NWT and Yukon... If any or all of that fell into line...then confederation is FUBARed


    Canada is too sparsely populated. Our problem in Alberta is that we are sparsely populated when compared to the blocks called the Lower Mainland and the Golden Horseshoe.


    End of line.

    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  11. #11

    Default

    If Alberta leaves confederation, Saskatchewan might consider joining as well as Manitoba which has a port, it wouldn't be hard to convince NWT to join either. Think about is as equalization payments spread over a smaller demographic making everyone within more wealthy.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  12. #12

    Default

    Montana might even consider joining...
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  13. #13

    Default

    What is the legal path to separation though? I can’t recall a successful secession recently the mess of Brexit comes to mind. Spain has had separation issue with no clear way to achieve it. Before that former Yugoslavia comes to mind, separation through war and genocide... what are our options realistically ( I am not asking is it good or bad, just to know the mechanism)

  14. #14

    Default

    Last time a state tried leaving the US led to something called the US Civil War.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snail View Post
    What is the legal path to separation though? I can’t recall a successful secession recently the mess of Brexit comes to mind. Spain has had separation issue with no clear way to achieve it. Before that former Yugoslavia comes to mind, separation through war and genocide... what are our options realistically ( I am not asking is it good or bad, just to know the mechanism)
    Quebec has already paved the way, it would just take a fifty percent plus one referendum. Joining the Us would probably be even easier than independence - this article discusses it a bit:

    http://www.poletical.com/alberta-join-montana.php

    if Trudeau wins the next federal election I think this talk will heat up even more.

  16. #16
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downtownone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snail View Post
    What is the legal path to separation though? I can’t recall a successful secession recently the mess of Brexit comes to mind. Spain has had separation issue with no clear way to achieve it. Before that former Yugoslavia comes to mind, separation through war and genocide... what are our options realistically ( I am not asking is it good or bad, just to know the mechanism)
    Quebec has already paved the way, it would just take a fifty percent plus one referendum. Joining the Us would probably be even easier than independence - this article discusses it a bit:

    http://www.poletical.com/alberta-join-montana.php

    if Trudeau wins the next federal election I think this talk will heat up even more.
    Any Democratic politician in the US who supported admitting Alberta, while still denying statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, would kiss the black and hispanic vote goodbye forever. And if you know anything about US politics right now, that's not something the Democrats are in any position to do.

  17. #17
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,688

    Default

    From the article:

    "Negotiations could happen between Alberta and Montana exclusively, thus avoiding (to some degree) the international awkwardness of involving Canada/U.S. relations."

    So, the federal government in the USA has no say over whether or not a huge chunk of land gets added to the country?

  18. #18
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,688

    Default

    Also from the article...

    'We’d also have to negotiate with Indian reserves. A simple…”Are you coming with us and living as free adults or are you staying with the crown and continuing with the status quo?” would suffice.'

    Guy apparently thinks that negotiations are conducted via the mouthing of cliche libertarian slogans.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    From the article:

    "Negotiations could happen between Alberta and Montana exclusively, thus avoiding (to some degree) the international awkwardness of involving Canada/U.S. relations."

    So, the federal government in the USA has no say over whether or not a huge chunk of land gets added to the country?
    Given the energy and mineral reserves it would be very surprising if the US Federal government was not supportive. The US would immediately become the largest oil and gas producer in the world, with the third largest reserves. It would basically gain another Texas.

  20. #20
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,082
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    @overoceans

    ...You forgot Guam. Everyone forgets Guam.

    Alberta wouldn't get in over these, they would just do everyone at once. Other dominos would fall...

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Last time a state tried leaving the US led to something called the US Civil War.
    ...and the last time Canada got its independence, it came with a pen and paper...our "revolutions" in upper and lower Canada...especially upper Canada...were more of a bar fight.

    Quote Originally Posted by downtownone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snail View Post
    What is the legal path to separation though? I can’t recall a successful secession recently the mess of Brexit comes to mind. Spain has had separation issue with no clear way to achieve it. Before that former Yugoslavia comes to mind, separation through war and genocide... what are our options realistically ( I am not asking is it good or bad, just to know the mechanism)
    Quebec has already paved the way, it would just take a fifty percent plus one referendum. Joining the Us would probably be even easier than independence - this article discusses it a bit:

    http://www.poletical.com/alberta-join-montana.php

    if Trudeau wins the next federal election I think this talk will heat up even more.
    @downtowne....you forget that Chrétien and others did not take the validity of the 50+1 position. Jean wanted 66% (2/3rds). That would have more validity, so I don't think PQ set the stage. If anything, it muddied any waters...

    ...joining Montana is laughable. As laughable as the thread on Montana joining Alberta that a group of supporters threw out and the CBC lapped up like the shrill they are.

    @Snail...it would be very Brexit-like from what I recall. The referendum would only start a process...and that process would be messy. I don't think it would result in outright war, and I really think that when presented with the realities of separation, it dies. Look at the last shot in PQ...they pulled out all the stops and rigged the vote like hell, and they STILL lost. Parizeau then shoved his racist, bigoted foot in his mouth, and the "dream" died.

    Like I said earlier, we need more population to get a "better" deal in confederation. Plus, this is why, and again only in my opinion by watching the game, the lawsuits on the carbon levy, equalization, and others will come fast and furious. All provinces are looking for some level of US Statehood like autonomy.

    ...if confederation fails, it isn't because one province separates...it is because a block want out, it destabilizes the nation, and it falls under its own weight. Even though Canada would probably do this with the pen rather than the sword, the legal, monetary, and economic carnage may as well be a loaded .50 cal.
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  21. #21

    Default

    ^Polls show over half of Albertans are open to this - when they realize the various benefits (far lower taxes, stronger currency, fairer representation), it would be silly not to keep the option open, if nothing else, to do what Kenney is trying, to get a fairer deal in confederation.

  22. #22
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    @overoceans

    ...You forgot Guam. Everyone forgets Guam.

    Alberta wouldn't get in over these, they would just do everyone at once. Other dominos would fall...
    So, basically, as soon as the Democrats and Republicans can agree on giving statehood to every current US territory that wants it, that's when Kenney jumps forward and says "Us too!"

  23. #23
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downtownone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    From the article:

    "Negotiations could happen between Alberta and Montana exclusively, thus avoiding (to some degree) the international awkwardness of involving Canada/U.S. relations."

    So, the federal government in the USA has no say over whether or not a huge chunk of land gets added to the country?
    Given the energy and mineral reserves it would be very surprising if the US Federal government was not supportive. The US would immediately become the largest oil and gas producer in the world, with the third largest reserves. It would basically gain another Texas.
    So, we are admitting, then, that the US federal government has to agree to this? In contrast to the writer, who thinks it would be "awkward" to negotiate with the feds, so just join Montana and the feds will have no choice but to go along with it.

  24. #24

    Default

    At least if Alberta separates with Montana, that would give us a deep water ocean port...

    Wait a minute...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  25. #25
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,082
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downtownone View Post
    ^Polls show over half of Albertans are open to this - when they realize the various benefits (far lower taxes, stronger currency, fairer representation), it would be silly not to keep the option open, if nothing else, to do what Kenney is trying, to get a fairer deal in confederation.

    Albertans are "open" to this, but I remember the WCC days, where there was a block of 4 provinces allegedly on this bandwagon. You had the west coast, and at lease Hudson's Bay to the east.

    ...it died.

    Saying it is one thing. Doing it is quite another.
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  26. #26

    Default

    Since Kenney is the one that brought it up I think he should put his money where his mouth is. Add the question to the ballot when he does his equalization referendum. If he's going to allude to separation, he should at least be totally upfront and honest about it. Ask the question of all Albertans and let everyone see if he's speaking for the province or just himself.

  27. #27

    Default

    I didn't know that the election was a vote on separation. Was that on the UCP platform? Does Kenney even have a mandate to discuss Confederation?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  28. #28
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Since Kenney is the one that brought it up I think he should put his money where his mouth is. Add the question to the ballot when he does his equalization referendum. If he's going to allude to separation, he should at least be totally upfront and honest about it. Ask the question of all Albertans and let everyone see if he's speaking for the province or just himself.
    After you get outside of Edmonton and talk with people, you would see there is currently a strong support for Alberta separating from Canada.

    How would this work? I dont know. I do believe though that the US would allow Alberta to become a state before places like Puerto Rico, DC, or Guam. The economic reasons simply speak for themselves, the energy reserves, universities, mining and forestry.

    IF this did happen, getting pipelines to tide water would be a lot easier to accomplish as well due to not crossing a international border. Just go south and then west to the refineries in Washington and to their ports. Ironically the smear campaign against the Alberta oil-sands might die if this ever did happen.

  29. #29
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,649

    Default

    More importantly though how would it work? Exchange currency 1:1? Do we keep the public healthcare we are all used to or adopt American style healthcare? Do we have to switch all our road signs to the imperial system? What about the RCMP, do we offer all those stationed in Alberta to join the Alberta State Police? How would this work with Canadian banks doing business in Alberta?

    If Alberta did separate would it eventually lead to the downfall of Canada? Would other provinces follow suit?

  30. #30

    Default

    Is there some kind of constraint right now in getting a pipeline over the southern border?

  31. #31

    Default

    Things that need to be part of any such separation talk is the who, what and why of the people promoting the idea. Their background, culture, socio-economic interests, etc

    Separation and becoming a stand alone country is one thing that requires a significant change in one’s orientation. A mental break with long-standing loyalties of many Albertans towards Canada. Others may never have had such loyalties.

    Desiring a union with the US reflects a whole additional set of motivations.


    Opinion: Kenney sowed Albertans’ anger; will he reap the whirlwind? | Edmonton Journal

    “Alberta has a long and sordid history of going after various groups, what former premier Ralph Klein never failed to term “special interests,” among them (besides environmentalists), social activists, unionists, and academics. Defining the enemies without — e.g., Quebec, B.C., or Ottawa — is often matched with efforts to seek out the enemies within. Primed with dollops of conspiracy-laced Kool-Aid, Kenney’s supporters drank even more deeply on election night of the anger served up by Kenney.”

    https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...-the-whirlwind
    Last edited by KC; 04-05-2019 at 04:58 PM.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Desiring a union with the US reflects a whole additional set of motivations.
    Did the Americans hack the Alberta election. NDP demands Robert Mueller to investigate. LOL
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  33. #33
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    other than switzerland and possibly austria and the czech republic, there's not many on that list to aspire to i'm afraid. and other than canada i'm not aware of any other country that isn't landlocked that denies a large segment of its area or of its industry access to tidewater.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  34. #34

    Default

    Missed that Albexit referendum...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    other than switzerland and possibly austria and the czech republic, there's not many on that list to aspire to i'm afraid. and other than canada i'm not aware of any other country that isn't landlocked that denies a large segment of its area or of its industry access to tidewater.
    Denies? Funny, I thought that there was already a pipeline to the coast. Silly me.

    So Alberta should get to simply declare where they want to run a pipeline and all the other provinces should simply agree? And if they attempt to disagree in any way, shape or form, then Alberta is being denied?

    Restricts perhaps? Controls maybe? Regulates defiantly. Funny how the mainstream media never mentions that the Liberals have decided to tear up the pipelines to the coast.


    Last edited by kkozoriz; 04-05-2019 at 05:12 PM.

  36. #36

    Default

    I am happy to see the discussion here. When people start thinking through the actual implementation of such a move, they will have a more realistic idea. What happened with Brexit was people got excited about the “idea”, politicians delivered rosy views (I recall something like 350 million Pound per week will be returned to national health system, NHS) to grab the votes etc, and they landed in the mess. I personally don’t think the idea of secession won’t move much further of this state of debate, but you never know...

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    other than switzerland and possibly austria and the czech republic, there's not many on that list to aspire to i'm afraid. and other than canada i'm not aware of any other country that isn't landlocked that denies a large segment of its area or of its industry access to tidewater.
    Denies? Funny, I thought that there was already a pipeline to the coast. Silly me.

    So Alberta should get to simply declare where they want to run a pipeline and all the other provinces should simply agree? And if they attempt to disagree in any way, shape or form, then Alberta is being denied?

    Restricts perhaps? Controls maybe? Regulates defiantly. Funny how the mainstream media never mentions that the Liberals have decided to tear up the pipelines to the coast.


    Good points from both of you.

    I’ve long meant to start a thread to discuss what exactly a new pipeline would do. The average person talks as though it would change everything yet its impact would be on those contracting supply, those previously cutting prices and or production and on government receipts.

    To the extent that a new pipeline would have capacity in excess of current capacity (a certainty), a future development constraint is removed.
    Last edited by KC; 04-05-2019 at 05:36 PM.

  38. #38
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    other than switzerland and possibly austria and the czech republic, there's not many on that list to aspire to i'm afraid. and other than canada i'm not aware of any other country that isn't landlocked that denies a large segment of its area or of its industry access to tidewater.
    Denies? Funny, I thought that there was already a pipeline to the coast. Silly me.

    So Alberta should get to simply declare where they want to run a pipeline and all the other provinces should simply agree? And if they attempt to disagree in any way, shape or form, then Alberta is being denied?

    Restricts perhaps? Controls maybe? Regulates defiantly. Funny how the mainstream media never mentions that the Liberals have decided to tear up the pipelines to the coast.


    other than the small amount of product that is exported through trans-mountain, isn't every one of those pipelines accessing tidewater used to import oil transported by tanker from other countries?

    and last time i read it bill c-48 was a tanker ban specifically written to deny access, not regulate it.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  39. #39

    Default

    Yes, in one area, the north coast of BC. Alberta had a chance for Energy East as part of the NEP but that was rejected wholesale. Alberta has long ago decided that we'd rather export the vast majority of our product to one customer, the US. And that worked out great until they started getting more product domestically.

    And the Gulf Coast is also tidewater. Alberta was perfectly happy having all it's eggs in one basket, at least until the US upped it's own egg production. Now, it's down to Alberta demanding the right to say "Jump!" and the rest of the country is simply supposed to reply "How high?".

  40. #40
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,463

    Default

    ^

    must be tough trying to prove you're right all the time, even when acknowledging that you're wrong.

    as for "just in one area" comprising most of the west coast, is there some magic way to get to the east coast without going through quebec that you are aware of that is unknown to the rest of us?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  41. #41

    Default

    Yup, it's called the St Lawrence Seaway. A federal responsibility that Quebec cannot stop. Or, alternatively, Churchill Manitoba and out Hudson Bay.

    It's funny, we've got water on three sides of us.

  42. #42

    Default

    We can always dredge the North Saskatchewan Seaway for tanker traffic...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  43. #43

    Default

    Video of Jason Kenney's meeting with John Horgan


  44. #44
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,463

    Default

    ^

    cute...

    stupid but cute in a slightly demented but fitting and typical manner.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  45. #45
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Yup, it's called the St Lawrence Seaway. A federal responsibility that Quebec cannot stop. Or, alternatively, Churchill Manitoba and out Hudson Bay.

    It's funny, we've got water on three sides of us.
    that's hilarious...

    burrard inlet is a federal responsibility as well. you don't think quebec would use bc's playbook ten times over and that ottawa wouldn't play along? don't forget we're talking alberta oil and not montreal sewage here.

    as for churchill, maybe you could could get the saudi's to sell it to you? it shouldn't be that competitive to them as it's only a shallow water port and it's typically only open a little more than three months a year.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  46. #46
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,688

    Default

    [QUOTE=GranaryMan;930384]
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post

    How would this work? I dont know. I do believe though that the US would allow Alberta to become a state before places like Puerto Rico, DC, or Guam. The economic reasons simply speak for themselves, the energy reserves, universities, mining and forestry.
    [The above quote is by Granary Man]

    It's not a question of economics, it's a question of politics. These decisions aren't made by philosopher-kings sitting around deciding the best course of action for the economy, they're made by politicians who have to win election every few years. And NOTHING would **** off black and hispanic voters like saying "Okay, we're gonna let this lilywhite place called Alberta, which most of you have never even heard of, join the Union, but your friends and relatives in DC and Puerto Rico will still have to stick with colony status." The Democrats, at least at the national level, sure as hell aren't gonna say that(Hillary lost in 2016 partly because she couldn't pull in the same black votes that Obama did), and even Republicans in close districts wouldn't want to forego the small number of minority votes that they do get, over an issue of relatively minor strategic concern to the USA.

  47. #47
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,649

    Default

    ^i think you underestimate the “strategic concern” that Alberta would be for the US.
    I’m pretty sure Alberta would get statehood quickly. Puerto Rico is nearly Bankrupt. DC (assuming District of Columbia) is their government center. Guam, well, it’s a tiny island closer to China than Hawaii is.

    When your country is 13 trillion in debt, economics sometimes comes before politics. And securing one of the largest oil reserves on earth without utilizing their military is just good politics.

  48. #48
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by downtownone View Post
    ^Polls show over half of Albertans are open to this - when they realize the various benefits (far lower taxes, stronger currency, fairer representation), it would be silly not to keep the option open, if nothing else, to do what Kenney is trying, to get a fairer deal in confederation.

    Albertans are "open" to this, but I remember the WCC days, where there was a block of 4 provinces allegedly on this bandwagon. You had the west coast, and at lease Hudson's Bay to the east.

    ...it died.

    Saying it is one thing. Doing it is quite another.
    The high point of the WCC was the Olds-Didsbury byelection in 1982, when they elected an MLA who subsequently lost his seat in the general election a few months later. They never won any other seats, which is quite telling, given the degree of outrage against the federal government at the time.

    The WCC candidate in my constituency for the '82 election was a local shopkeeper who bore a general resemblance to Walter Matthau, and who for his newspaper profile, wore clothes befitting the coach from Bad News Bears. I'm not much of a suit-and-tie man myself, but this guy apparently saw nothing wrong with taking an official photograph wearing the same clothes you'd clean your bathtub in. He didn't smile, either, which just made the whole thing all the more hilariously grim.
    Last edited by overoceans; 05-05-2019 at 09:59 AM.

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Yup, it's called the St Lawrence Seaway. A federal responsibility that Quebec cannot stop. Or, alternatively, Churchill Manitoba and out Hudson Bay.

    It's funny, we've got water on three sides of us.
    that's hilarious...

    burrard inlet is a federal responsibility as well. you don't think quebec would use bc's playbook ten times over and that ottawa wouldn't play along? don't forget we're talking alberta oil and not montreal sewage here.

    as for churchill, maybe you could could get the saudi's to sell it to you? it shouldn't be that competitive to them as it's only a shallow water port and it's typically only open a little more than three months a year.
    Check the map. You asked about Quebec. You can get to the St, Lawrence Seaway without going through Quebec. You cannot get to Burrard Inlet without going through BC.

    As for Churchill.


    As of 2008, the port had four deep-sea berths capable of handling Panamax-size vessels for the loading and unloading of grain, bulk commodities, general cargo, and tanker vessels.


    ---

    Canada is the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, and the Port of Churchill has an oil-handling system. The port's owner has proposed a $2 million upgrade to this system, which would give additional competitive advantage to Canada's oil export industry.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Churchill
    Also, the Saudis have nothing to do with the Port of Churchill. The port and related rail line were sold by the government to OMNITrax which is American owned. OMNITrax sold it last year.

    Port of Churchill sold, rail repairs to commence immediately, says Ottawa

    Federal government officials said Aug. 31 that a consortium known as the Arctic Gateway Group Limited Partnership has purchased the railway from OmniTRAX Inc. The deal also includes the Hudson Bay Port Company and the Churchill Marine Tank Farm. | Port of Churchill photo
    Ottawa has confirmed that repair work will begin immediately on the Hudson Bay rail line in northern Manitoba.


    Federal government officials said Aug. 31 that a consortium known as the Arctic Gateway Group Limited Partnership has purchased the railway from OmniTRAX Inc.


    The deal also includes the Hudson Bay Port Company and the Churchill Marine Tank Farm.



    https://www.producer.com/2018/09/por...y-says-ottawa/
    Sure, it can't accommodate Supertankers but it's still capable of operating tankers of significant size. And it does have a limited season but that's a limitation, not an outright impossibility.

    You might be thinking of the Wheat Board, which used the port and which was sold to the Saudis by the Harper government for pennies on the dollar.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 05-05-2019 at 01:51 AM.

  50. #50
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,463

    Default

    ^

    you are right. you can get to the seaway without going through quebec. but you can't use it without going through quebec. and i'm pretty sure they would fight that tooth and nail provincially and municipally (trois rivieres, montreal, quebec city etc.).

    you are right. i had transposed the port ownership with the grain operations ownership. broe would still probably be happy to sell.

    you are wrong - a port that is closed nine months of the year is more than a limitation.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    ^i think you underestimate the “strategic concern” that Alberta would be for the US.
    I’m pretty sure Alberta would get statehood quickly. Puerto Rico is nearly Bankrupt. DC (assuming District of Columbia) is their government center. Guam, well, it’s a tiny island closer to China than Hawaii is.

    When your country is 13 trillion in debt, economics sometimes comes before politics. And securing one of the largest oil reserves on earth without utilizing their military is just good politics.
    They have access to our oil already. They also have massive reserves already including huge untapped reserves that just need new technology to access. We just aren’t that special anymore.

    Read up on the Utah oil sands, the extent of the newer shale oil discoveries, etc.
    Last edited by KC; 05-05-2019 at 08:57 AM.

  52. #52
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    ^i think you underestimate the “strategic concern” that Alberta would be for the US.
    I’m pretty sure Alberta would get statehood quickly. Puerto Rico is nearly Bankrupt. DC (assuming District of Columbia) is their government center. Guam, well, it’s a tiny island closer to China than Hawaii is.

    When your country is 13 trillion in debt, economics sometimes comes before politics. And securing one of the largest oil reserves on earth without utilizing their military is just good politics.
    They have access to our oil already. They also have massive reserves already including huge untapped reserves that just need new technology to access. We just aren’t that special anymore.

    Read up on the Utah oil sands, the extent of the newer shale oil discoveries, etc.
    Plus, if annexing Alberta was of such singular importance to the USA's economic survival, you'd expect it to be already under discussion in the USA itself. Whereas as far as I can tell, the only place it's being talked about by serious politicians is in Alberta.

  53. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^

    you are right. you can get to the seaway without going through quebec. but you can't use it without going through quebec. and i'm pretty sure they would fight that tooth and nail provincially and municipally (trois rivieres, montreal, quebec city etc.).

    you are right. i had transposed the port ownership with the grain operations ownership. broe would still probably be happy to sell.

    you are wrong - a port that is closed nine months of the year is more than a limitation.
    Funny, Alberta farmers shipped wheat out of Churchill for decades. I guess they didn't know that what thy were doing wasn't worthwhile. Also, with climate change, ice is going to be less of a problem going forward.

  54. #54
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,463

    Default

    ^

    it's not funny, it's just different.

    wheat is only harvested once a year, not every day all year long.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  55. #55
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    ^i think you underestimate the “strategic concern” that Alberta would be for the US.
    I’m pretty sure Alberta would get statehood quickly. Puerto Rico is nearly Bankrupt. DC (assuming District of Columbia) is their government center. Guam, well, it’s a tiny island closer to China than Hawaii is.

    When your country is 13 trillion in debt, economics sometimes comes before politics. And securing one of the largest oil reserves on earth without utilizing their military is just good politics.
    They have access to our oil already. They also have massive reserves already including huge untapped reserves that just need new technology to access. We just aren’t that special anymore.

    Read up on the Utah oil sands, the extent of the newer shale oil discoveries, etc.
    I give up. You’re right, I’m wrong. The USA would definitely want to give statehood to two near bankrupt territories of theirs before Alberta with proven oil reserves. Also, of course the USA would pass the opportunity up if it presented itself because they have oilsands in Utah that they will need to spend billions to tap whereas the oilsands of Alberta already have the infrastructure in place.

    You’re right, I’m wrong...IF Alberta left confederation, no one would want us.

  56. #56
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,082
    Blog Entries
    1
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  57. #57
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post

    Plus, if annexing Alberta was of such singular importance to the USA's economic survival, you'd expect it to be already under discussion in the USA itself. Whereas as far as I can tell, the only place it's being talked about by serious politicians is in Alberta.
    I don’t believe anyone has suggested the USA is even talking about annexing Alberta. Or granting us statehood if we left confederation. I believe this thread was about where it was plausible that Alberta could leave confederation and if they did then what.

    I will have to find it, but I’m pretty sure there was a document leaked (i think wiki leaks) about how the United States would need to capture the oilfields of Alberta and the hydro dams of eastern canada for energy independence in the event of a major conflict. Not sure if that was a war on a global scale or just a regional skirmish.

  58. #58
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,463

    Default

    even if the us isn't covetous of our oil, we still have something they don't have enough of that could drive some very attractive deals even without pursuing statehood. it's spelled w-a-t-e-r.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  59. #59
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,082
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...people just don't realize how much the US covets our water...

    There may still be the plans to divert the McKenzie south...that was one plan brought up during the 1973 Spokane EXPO.
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  60. #60

    Default

    Time to start demanding the feds approve water export pipelines.

  61. #61
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,082
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    (...)

    I will have to find it, but I’m pretty sure there was a document leaked (i think wiki leaks) about how the United States would need to capture the oilfields of Alberta and the hydro dams of eastern canada for energy independence in the event of a major conflict. Not sure if that was a war on a global scale or just a regional skirmish.
    ...that's been around for awhile, and was a part of the larger need for NORAD, etc. This was only if it fell into "unfriendly" hands.

    This is what Quebeckers didn't grasp. Sure, the US may not want them...but they sure want the electricity. PQ would find themselves being squeezed out economically as no one would put up with their demands. The population knows this, it is just the flat out separatists that use this as an excuse to get a better deal...remember the term "sovereignty association..."?

    No one is saying no one would want Alberta...and truthfully it would probably be forced (economically and politically) to become a US state vice an independent country as we're just to damn small.
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  62. #62
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    (...)

    I will have to find it, but I’m pretty sure there was a document leaked (i think wiki leaks) about how the United States would need to capture the oilfields of Alberta and the hydro dams of eastern canada for energy independence in the event of a major conflict. Not sure if that was a war on a global scale or just a regional skirmish.
    ...that's been around for awhile, and was a part of the larger need for NORAD, etc. This was only if it fell into "unfriendly" hands.

    This is what Quebeckers didn't grasp. Sure, the US may not want them...but they sure want the electricity. PQ would find themselves being squeezed out economically as no one would put up with their demands. The population knows this, it is just the flat out separatists that use this as an excuse to get a better deal...remember the term "sovereignty association..."?

    No one is saying no one would want Alberta...and truthfully it would probably be forced (economically and politically) to become a US state vice an independent country as we're just to damn small.
    As long as they would convert our money 1:1 its all good in my opinion. That and leaving us on the metric system.


    But let’s be honest, even if Alberta did succeed in leaving confederation, it would likely be close to a decade before everything was finalized and we were absorbed by the US.

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    (...)

    I will have to find it, but I’m pretty sure there was a document leaked (i think wiki leaks) about how the United States would need to capture the oilfields of Alberta and the hydro dams of eastern canada for energy independence in the event of a major conflict. Not sure if that was a war on a global scale or just a regional skirmish.
    ...that's been around for awhile, and was a part of the larger need for NORAD, etc. This was only if it fell into "unfriendly" hands.

    This is what Quebeckers didn't grasp. Sure, the US may not want them...but they sure want the electricity. PQ would find themselves being squeezed out economically as no one would put up with their demands. The population knows this, it is just the flat out separatists that use this as an excuse to get a better deal...remember the term "sovereignty association..."?

    No one is saying no one would want Alberta...and truthfully it would probably be forced (economically and politically) to become a US state vice an independent country as we're just to damn small.
    As long as they would convert our money 1:1 its all good in my opinion. That and leaving us on the metric system.


    But let’s be honest, even if Alberta did succeed in leaving confederation, it would likely be close to a decade before everything was finalized and we were absorbed by the US.
    I don't think there's even legal recourse to separate.

    Confederation, with all its warts, is preferable to any and all alternatives. I was here long enough ago and naive enough to remember championing the WCC. It actually was a thing. But we can retain our character (Olds-Didsbury FTW) without surrendering our ambitions.

    I would love to have Canada's federal policy shaped in an Albertan way but I'd rather be dragged along than swept away.

    Canada needs Alberta.

  64. #64
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,082
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    There is a recourse to separate...and yes, I too remember the WCC...

    ...but to shape the Feds to a more Western...or Albertan way, again, we need more people. We are ignored because we are easy to ignore under the current framework.

    Federally, the Conservatives have no need to campaign here, and neither do the Liberals nor the NDP. We are as basic of a shoe-in as one can define shoe-in. We just don't have enough shoes.

    Now, if the tides were to change and we actually mattered in an election, or votes would actually leave the Conservative world en masse for another party, we'd sure see some temporary notice...until that is we aligned to the governing party which would hold the votes in the Golden Horseshoe or the Lower Mainland and then we'd be ignored again.

    Our #1 issue is population. Simple as that. We are flyover country...oil has been our only differentiator. We can have others, but that would mean some who are so comfortable shovelling resources our of the ground would have to extend their vision. Trust me, it is a tough thing for people here to do...
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  65. #65

    Default

    Serious Question:

    Can we separate from Calgary?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    (...)

    I will have to find it, but I’m pretty sure there was a document leaked (i think wiki leaks) about how the United States would need to capture the oilfields of Alberta and the hydro dams of eastern canada for energy independence in the event of a major conflict. Not sure if that was a war on a global scale or just a regional skirmish.
    ...that's been around for awhile, and was a part of the larger need for NORAD, etc. This was only if it fell into "unfriendly" hands.

    This is what Quebeckers didn't grasp. Sure, the US may not want them...but they sure want the electricity. PQ would find themselves being squeezed out economically as no one would put up with their demands. The population knows this, it is just the flat out separatists that use this as an excuse to get a better deal...remember the term "sovereignty association..."?

    No one is saying no one would want Alberta...and truthfully it would probably be forced (economically and politically) to become a US state vice an independent country as we're just to damn small.
    As long as they would convert our money 1:1 its all good in my opinion. That and leaving us on the metric system.


    But let’s be honest, even if Alberta did succeed in leaving confederation, it would likely be close to a decade before everything was finalized and we were absorbed by the US.
    Gee, all that talk of separatism sure did wonders for the Quebec economy didn't it? All those head offices moved from Montreal to Toronto and then a lot of other things. Calgary do you really want to go down this path?

  67. #67
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    ^^ Yes.

    Perhaps Edmonton stays in Canada. Rural and Calgary don't necessarily have to.

    On a side-note, this is all dumb conjecture. AB will always stay part of Canada. It's only a scant few that want separation.
    The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
    It's heaven and hell!

  68. #68
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    ^^ Yes.

    Perhaps Edmonton stays in Canada. Rural and Calgary don't necessarily have to.

    On a side-note, this is all dumb conjecture. AB will always stay part of Canada. It's only a scant few that want separation.
    it might all be dumb conjecture - at least at this point - but the reasons there is so much dumb conjecture and why it is so widespread are all too real.

    and the longer those reasons are ignored - or dismissed because they only lead to dumb conjecture - simply makes it more likely that that dumb conjecture will become more than that.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  69. #69

    Default

    The US used to own a sliver of what is now Saskatchewan and Alberta, as part of the Lousiana Purchase, which was (eventually) defined to include (among others) "the Missouri River, its tributaries and watersheds." The northernmost watershed is the Milk River Watershed, which runs across the bottom of Alberta and Saskatchewan south of Fort McLeod. In 1888 the land was swapped for an equivalent parcel in what is now Winnipeg.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_River,_Alberta
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  70. #70

    Default

    I can sure see it happening. Just look at the amazing number of votes that the Alberta Independence Party got in the election. They crushed all the other parties.

  71. #71
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    The US used to own a sliver of what is now Saskatchewan and Alberta, as part of the Lousiana Purchase, which was (eventually) defined to include (among others) "the Missouri River, its tributaries and watersheds." The northernmost watershed is the Milk River Watershed, which runs across the bottom of Alberta and Saskatchewan south of Fort McLeod. In 1888 the land was swapped for an equivalent parcel in what is now Winnipeg.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_River,_Alberta

    That swap doesn't make sense. The swap should include part of what is now Canadian and part of what is now America. Your swap is all Canadian.
    The Americans gained land south of the 49th from the Milk River to the Manitoba-Ontario border. (Plus the Americans got that surveyor's description box in Lake of the Woods at some time)

  72. #72
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I can sure see it happening. Just look at the amazing number of votes that the Alberta Independence Party got in the election. They crushed all the other parties.
    No worries KKK, if we separate we will allow you to go back to Nova Scotia

  73. #73

    Default

    ^^Oops, mesed that up. Not Winnipeg. Canada trade land they had that was south of the 49th parallel.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  74. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    The US used to own a sliver of what is now Saskatchewan and Alberta, as part of the Lousiana Purchase, which was (eventually) defined to include (among others) "the Missouri River, its tributaries and watersheds." The northernmost watershed is the Milk River Watershed, which runs across the bottom of Alberta and Saskatchewan south of Fort McLeod. In 1888 the land was swapped for an equivalent parcel in what is now Winnipeg.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_River,_Alberta
    I have an old map somewhere that shows our southern border being around Northern California.


    More here:
    Canadian Geographic: Historical Maps
    http://web.ncf.ca/ex591/CG/1825.html
    Last edited by KC; 06-05-2019 at 04:24 PM.

  75. #75

    Default

    Rupert's Land included the entire drainage basin to Hudson's Bay including parts of Montana, the Dakotas and Minnesota.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert's_Land
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  76. #76
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,873

    Default

    I remember learning of the 54-40 or fight on the west coast. Maybe that was Oregon territory that ended up being 49-40 then divided into Washington and Oregon

  77. #77
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,873

    Default

    Milk River AB flies eight flags that it has been under over the years. The town's motto, "Under Eight Flags", refers to the area having been under the flags of seven governments as well as the Hudson's Bay Company. Including the Hudson's Bay Company's flag (1818–1869), the eight flags are France (1682–1762), the Spanish Empire (1762–1800), the French Republic (1800–1803)(Louisiana Territory), the United States (1803–1818 ), the British Empire (1869–1945), the Canadian Red Ensign (1945–1965), and the current Canadian Maple Leaf (1965–present).
    Last edited by Drumbones; 06-05-2019 at 05:37 PM.

  78. #78
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,082
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    it might all be dumb conjecture - at least at this point - but the reasons there is so much dumb conjecture and why it is so widespread are all too real.

    and the longer those reasons are ignored - or dismissed because they only lead to dumb conjecture - simply makes it more likely that that dumb conjecture will become more than that.
    quoted for emphasis
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  79. #79
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,873

    Default

    You can only take so much then retaliation begins.

  80. #80

    Default

    And do what? Roll up the Province, put it in duffle bag a hop a plane and unroll it somewhere else?



    Hopefully as a new island in the Caribbean. Lots of space for a new island south of Cuba.


    I think everyone would not mind the lack of snow...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  81. #81
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,873

    Default

    Plus lots of tidewater. lol

  82. #82

    Default

    So, what demands should Alberta make to Ottawa and the provinces in order to stay? End of transfer payments? No provincial role in pipelines? End to official bilingualism? End to the metric system? No federal environmental oversight of O&G? Any other things that Albertans love to ***** about?

    What's on the "Give us this or we walk" list?

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    So, what demands should Alberta make to Ottawa and the provinces in order to stay? End of transfer payments? No provincial role in pipelines? End to official bilingualism? End to the metric system? No federal environmental oversight of O&G? Any other things that Albertans love to ***** about?

    What's on the "Give us this or we walk" list?
    Well, from your own post, it seems that we may have our own unique culture in Alberta. So there may be reason to demand asymmetrical rights. (Like minority protection and indigenous rights.)


    THE CASE FOR ASYMMETRY IN CANADIAN FEDERALISM
    Jennifer Smith
    Department of Political Science Dalhousie University

    “WHAT WARRANTS RESORT TO ASYMMETRY?

    As stated above, the rationale of asymmetry is rooted in the validity of treating unequals unequally. ...”

    https://www.queensu.ca/iigr/sites/we.../Smith2005.pdf
    Last edited by KC; 07-05-2019 at 07:35 AM.

  84. #84
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,649

    Default

    ^thats a two way street.

    If we treat them equally and the decide not to reciprocate, why should we continue to treat them as though they are equals?

    ie. Pipelines through unceded native land in BC. We have given them Canadian currency, banking, RCMP, healthcare, education, etc.....yet they fight a pipeline through their land that will help to continue to pay for those things for generations to come. Why continue to offer those services if they will not give us an opportunity to prove we can transport hydrocarbons in a safe and responsible manner?

  85. #85
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,082
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    An interesting opinion piece from Maclean's

    I just put a snippet from their conclusion...

    We could refocus the Canada Service Corps, which facilitates youth volunteerism by encouraging out-of-province service, or by paying a stipend to those who do it. Tax credits could be granted for attending out-of-province schools or to subsidize interprovincial labour mobility. Perhaps we could formalize the first ministers’ meeting, and give it a mandate to encourage pan-provincial connections, as opposed to its current focus on championing regional causes. If we were especially ambitious, we could imagine a true nation-building project like an ambitious space program.

    If we don’t accept that this is a problem, if we don’t try to build stronger people-to-people connections, the various regions in this nation of strangers will continue to go off in their own direction, defending their own interests, promoting their own causes, until they are all so far apart there is no coming back together.
    President and CEO - Edmonton Airshow. Soon to rebrand to something global.

  86. #86
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    An interesting opinion piece from Maclean's

    I just put a snippet from their conclusion...

    We could refocus the Canada Service Corps, which facilitates youth volunteerism by encouraging out-of-province service, or by paying a stipend to those who do it. Tax credits could be granted for attending out-of-province schools or to subsidize interprovincial labour mobility. Perhaps we could formalize the first ministers’ meeting, and give it a mandate to encourage pan-provincial connections, as opposed to its current focus on championing regional causes. If we were especially ambitious, we could imagine a true nation-building project like an ambitious space program.

    If we don’t accept that this is a problem, if we don’t try to build stronger people-to-people connections, the various regions in this nation of strangers will continue to go off in their own direction, defending their own interests, promoting their own causes, until they are all so far apart there is no coming back together.
    I know it's pretty out there and not politically palatable, but I've always thought that mandatory military service has many benefits. One year mandatory between the ages of 17 and 23. Flexible so that they can work it around school (ie after high school, or after trades school or univ). Maybe there's also the option of doing 4 summers during university. Very basic military training. Also teach them outdoor skills, camping, driving trucks, driving with trailers, flying, boating rules, cooking, communications, first aid, etc. Focus on civic service, disaster response. Locations around the country and require that they go to different areas of the country. Paid room and board, plus a little extra. No mobile phones except on days off. Allow them to pick services of interest to them. Specialties for those that excel and have the desire. Allow options for them to transfer to regular forces a the end of their period.

    No exclusions except for the most very serious medical conditions (bed ridden/hospital).

    I think there's many benefits of getting these teenagers exposed to critical skills. Along with pulling them off their mobile phones, giving them physical activity and a little hardship. There'd be no fear of seeing a teenager on the roads driving a big vehicle. And confidence knowing that everyone on the water knows the rules. Having them exposed to and working with a variety of different cultures and provinces would build understanding and respect across provincial lines.

    I have 3 (young) kids and would not hesitate to promote this.

  87. #87

    Default

    All I could do is laugh at that suggestion. Not sure if you see the uproar over woman and the abortion laws and being in control of their body now you want to take it a step further and force everyone to join the military for 1 year??

    I dont mind the idea but I could see the uproar from everyone that would come with such a suggestion.

  88. #88
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    All I could do is laugh at that suggestion. Not sure if you see the uproar over woman and the abortion laws and being in control of their body now you want to take it a step further and force everyone to join the military for 1 year??

    I dont mind the idea but I could see the uproar from everyone that would come with such a suggestion.
    israel, norway and sweden - among others - would probably disagree that there would be an uproar over the suggestion. all have compulsory conscription for females and well as males.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  89. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    All I could do is laugh at that suggestion. Not sure if you see the uproar over woman and the abortion laws and being in control of their body now you want to take it a step further and force everyone to join the military for 1 year??

    I dont mind the idea but I could see the uproar from everyone that would come with such a suggestion.
    israel, norway and sweden - among others - would probably disagree that there would be an uproar over the suggestion. all have compulsory conscription for females and well as males.
    So does North Korea.

  90. #90
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    All I could do is laugh at that suggestion. Not sure if you see the uproar over woman and the abortion laws and being in control of their body now you want to take it a step further and force everyone to join the military for 1 year??

    I dont mind the idea but I could see the uproar from everyone that would come with such a suggestion.
    israel, norway and sweden - among others - would probably disagree that there would be an uproar over the suggestion. all have compulsory conscription for females and well as males.
    So does North Korea.
    so?

    is there a gender uproar as a result?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  91. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    All I could do is laugh at that suggestion. Not sure if you see the uproar over woman and the abortion laws and being in control of their body now you want to take it a step further and force everyone to join the military for 1 year??

    I dont mind the idea but I could see the uproar from everyone that would come with such a suggestion.
    israel, norway and sweden - among others - would probably disagree that there would be an uproar over the suggestion. all have compulsory conscription for females and well as males.
    Being told you have to do something wont sit well with young kids these days. Go live here, do this, do that... no more cell phone. Yeah there would be outrage.

    The idea isnt a bad one. There is a lot our kids need to learn but the vast majority of parents/kids would not go with this type of idea.

  92. #92

    Default

    Heck, let's borrow all sorts of things from North Korea while we're at it. Death penalty without trial, based on a word from "dear leader".

    So?

    Back to the topic, I don't see how Kenney making separation official government policy in an address to the senate is helping people across the country talk to each other. I seem to recall that the general feeling here when Quebec started talking the same was as fairly evenly split between, "No, don't go", "OK, bye" and "Get the hell out now".

    Quebec showed that they were willing to put their money where their mouth was with the referendum. Is Kenney? Let's put it to a vote. Put it on the ballot along with his meaningless equalization vote. Otherwise he's just using to work up his base.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •