# Western Alienation - Split from General Election 2019



## VinceW (22 Oct 2019)

Canada is dead I’m only voting for independence parties now


----------



## mariomike (22 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Mariomike does this mean you're going to be arguing that Scheer should have won the election?





> 2019 Canadian federal election
> 
> In the popular vote, polls show both parties virtually tied at about 32%.
> https://www.macleans.ca/politics/2019-canadian-federal-election-live-updates-and-analysis-on-the-vote/






			
				VinceW said:
			
		

> Canada is dead I’m only voting for independence parties now



Is it as tragic as that? I have an EU passport. But, I love Canada and can't imagine ever leaving for anything more than a vacation.


----------



## VinceW (22 Oct 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Is it as tragic as that? I have an EU passport. But, I love Canada and can't imagine ever leaving for anything more than a vacation.


Doesn’t bother me in the least never liked anything East of Manitoba anyways looking forward to the birth of the Republic of Western Canada as many of us now will
Canada is over it was some fun when it worked out for us
The Trudeau’s are country killers


----------



## mariomike (22 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> never liked anything East of Manitoba



That's too bad. I enjoy travelling Canada and like every part of it.


----------



## Altair (22 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Canada is dead I’m only voting for independence parties now


I always like how Albertan separatists think BC leaves with them, the same BC that is fighting tooth and nail to prevent any Alberta pipeline.

Or the North, which reliably votes left.

The more accurate western republic is a landlocked Alberta and Saskatchewan dealing with a very hostile Canada and a USA that doesn't want any more energy competition.

 :2c:


----------



## VinceW (22 Oct 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> I always like how Albertan separatists think BC leaves with them, the same BC that is fighting tooth and nail to prevent any Alberta pipeline.
> 
> Or the North, which reliably votes left.
> 
> ...



Everyone will come around eventually it’s in their best interests once Western Canadians start to become independent 
The US government considers our oil sands as their strategic reserve they want us to be productive we’re not going to listen to anyone telling us we can’t which is a term used by cowards who won’t even try


----------



## AbdullahD (22 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Everyone will come around eventually it’s in their best interests once Western Canadians start to become independent
> The US government considers our oil sands as their strategic reserve they want us to be productive we’re not going to listen to anyone telling us we can’t which is a term used by cowards who won’t even try



Fracturing Canada is in no ones best interest imo. BC has no serious interest in joining the flatlands in seperation, even in the flatlands, from what I've seen support for it is well short of 50%.

Seperate from Canada, just to become even more of an American stooge? Why not just join the Americas? It makes far more sense then creating a third country. Oh and the cowards are in the flatlands then, because they are not trying.

I think seperation is a pipedream of dreamers afraid to face reality. Instead of working to address issues we face as a nation, they want to run away like "cowards".

Abdullah


----------



## Altair (22 Oct 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Fracturing Canada is in no ones best interest imo. BC has no serious interest in joining the flatlands in seperation, even in the flatlands, from what I've seen support for it is well short of 50%.
> 
> Seperate from Canada, just to become even more of an American stooge? Why not just join the Americas? It makes far more sense then creating a third country. Oh and the cowards are in the flatlands then, because they are not trying.
> 
> ...


Yes,  the biggest gripe Alberta has is access to tidewater,  and leaving Canada only compounds that issue. BC has zero interest in separating,  and trying to get a pipeline through what would be another country, one with a axe to grind. 

Quebec could always make a play at seperation because they had access to the ocean. 

Alberta would be completely at the mercy of the USA and Canada.


----------



## Remius (22 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Doesn’t bother me in the least never liked anything East of Manitoba anyways looking forward to the birth of the Republic of Western Canada as many of us now will
> Canada is over it was some fun when it worked out for us
> The Trudeau’s are country killers



Meh.  This is on par with the California independance movement.  Or all the Americans that were going to move north when Trump won.  Based on anger and resentful that democracy didn’t go their way.  Not very realistic.  Look, at Quebec that tried and ran itself into the ground to do it. 50 years later and they are still around.  In 50 years oil extraction might not even be an issue anymore.

How about holding the Team accountable and maybe get their act together to actually get a chance at winning.  So far they aren’t doing it and worse, they seem unwilling to.


----------



## VinceW (22 Oct 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Fracturing Canada is in no ones best interest imo. BC has no serious interest in joining the flatlands in seperation, even in the flatlands, from what I've seen support for it is well short of 50%.
> 
> Seperate from Canada, just to become even more of an American stooge? Why not just join the Americas? It makes far more sense then creating a third country. Oh and the cowards are in the flatlands then, because they are not trying.
> 
> ...



We tried and tried already the Reform party was created to bring Western values on the East and we were rejected they made fun of us and belittled us Harper made it for awhile but now any sign of the Conservatives that is influenced by the West is again rejected by the East we’ve done all we can do it’s time to move forward the West East political difference isn’t going to break ever.
Western populism is now for independence and we’ll succeed.


----------



## Altair (22 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> We tried and tried already the Reform party was created to bring Western values on the East and we were rejected they made fun of us and belittled us Harper made it for awhile but now any sign of the Conservatives that is influenced by the West is again rejected by the East we’ve done all we can do it’s time to move forward the West East political difference isn’t going to break ever.
> Western populism is now for independence and we’ll succeed.


Just want to understand something. 

Alberta,  and for the sake of argument,  Saskatchewan,  fully in the country, with representation in parliament, is having trouble getting energy projects passed,  will somehow have more success trying to get energy projects passed in what is left of Canada with zero representation from Alberta and Saskathewan and more beholding to the less oil friendly provinces in ontario, quebec,  and ultimately BC?


----------



## VinceW (22 Oct 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> Just want to understand something.
> 
> Alberta,  and for the sake of argument,  Saskatchewan,  fully in the country, with representation in parliament, is having trouble getting energy projects passed,  will somehow have more success trying to get energy projects passed in what is left of Canada with zero representation from Alberta and Saskathewan and more beholding to the less oil friendly provinces in ontario, quebec,  and ultimately BC?



We can sign a deal with the States and ship it down to Texas we’re already doing that now we have a better chance for long term growth and success that way then the future we face now.


----------



## Altair (22 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> We can sign a deal with the States and ship it down to Texas we’re already doing that we have a better chance for long term success that way then the future we face now.


Keystone is running into issues as well,  so I can't imagine that going any better. 

Just saying,  as a Quebecer,  I've heard all the reasons for not going it alone,  how it would be economic suicide,  and I must say,  comparing the two,  Quebec had a much stronger case for seperation. 

Quebec has a seperate identity. Alberta doesn't. 

Quebec has a seperate language. Alberta doesn't. 

Quebec has access to other markets seperate from the country it would seperate from. Alberta would need to join NAFTA or else it doesnt either. 

Quebec has a political parties and leaders pushing for the goal of seperation. Alberta doesn't. 

 And I want to make clear,  Quebec has a weak claim for seperation. They would suffer greatly if they did it. Alberta,  moreso.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Oct 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> Keystone is running into issues as well,  so I can't imagine that going any better.
> 
> Just saying,  as a Quebecer,  I've heard all the reasons for not going it alone,  how it would be economic suicide,  and I must say,  comparing the two,  Quebec had a much stronger case for seperation.
> 
> ...



I happen to think Québec would be just fine if they separated but that the rest of Canada would not do so well.  In fact, I think the rest would eventually be absorbed by the United States.


----------



## VinceW (22 Oct 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> Keystone is running into issues as well,  so I can't imagine that going any better.
> 
> Just saying,  as a Quebecer,  I've heard all the reasons for not going it alone,  how it would be economic suicide,  and I must say,  comparing the two,  Quebec had a much stronger case for seperation.
> 
> ...



We’re rednecks that’s our identity.
We’re soon see where this takes us.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> We’re rednecks that’s our identity.
> We’re soon see where this takes us.



Alberta would also make out just fine.  Plenty of landlocked countries do ok, Switzerland to name but one particular success. 

If Alberta were to separate, they would more than likely get in bed with the Americans.  You would see the Oil industry go in to overdrive then. Saskatchewan probably wouldn't be far off either.  The Americans would control all the Oil and wouldn't have to deal with a pesky Government in Ottawa.  

If Alberta separated though, Canada as a Nation would be finished.  It would probably be something of a domino effect and I would predict most places would throw their hat in with someone down South.


----------



## Altair (22 Oct 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Alberta would also make out just fine.  Plenty of landlocked countries do ok, Switzerland to name but one particular success.
> 
> If Alberta were to separate, they would more than likely get in bed with the Americans.  You would see the Oil industry go in to overdrive then. Saskatchewan probably wouldn't be far off either.  The Americans would control all the Oil and wouldn't have to deal with a pesky Government in Ottawa.
> 
> If Alberta separated though, Canada as a Nation would be finished.  It would probably be something of a domino effect and I would predict most places would throw their hat in with someone down South.


I'm of the opinion that western nations have learned the lessons from the Spanish and the Catalans.


----------



## AbdullahD (22 Oct 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> If Alberta separated though, Canada as a Nation would be finished.  It would probably be something of a domino effect and I would predict most places would throw their hat in with someone down South.



This is why I will fight seperation tooth and nail until the bitter end.

Not that I hate America, in fact I am very pro-USA. But because we as a nation, have our own identity that deserves to be preserved and protected.

I am extremely biased, maybe even ignorantly so against anyone trying to fracture our great nation.

One leaves, we may all end up falling apart. It is a short sighted game plan.

Abdullah


----------



## mariomike (22 Oct 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> This is why I will fight seperation tooth and nail until the bitter end.



How easy it to do? From what I understand, it's near impossible to get out of a province. Let alone a country,

City-state provinces in Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver  
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/124115.125
6 pages.


----------



## Altair (22 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> We’re rednecks that’s our identity.
> We’re soon see where this takes us.


Fair enough. 

I,  for one,  will take it seriously once there is a political party based on seperation, and it wins power. 

Till then,  just noise.


----------



## stellarpanther (22 Oct 2019)

A couple points are coming to mind.

While the Americans would love our resources, I'm not sure they want to expand to include parts of Canada.  I also don't think the majority of people in those provinces would want to become American.

My other point is that Scheer is just plain negative and filled with hate when he talks.  I'm listening to Jason Kenney speak right now and Lisa Raitt earlier and they both sound like leaders when they talk.  Even Scheers concession speech was negative.  If the CPC ever want to have a chance they need to replace him fast.


----------



## CBH99 (22 Oct 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> This is why I will fight seperation tooth and nail until the bitter end.
> 
> Not that I hate America, in fact I am very pro-USA. But because we as a nation, have our own identity that deserves to be preserved and protected.
> 
> ...





Agreed entirely.

All the "separation" talk is is just short sighted nonsense fueled by an immediate dislike of a problem.  That's it.  


As MarioMike said somewhere above, he's travelled the country and enjoyed all of it.  And I have to agree with him.  I love that I can go to the quiet cities of Comox & such out west, and see Canadian flags & meet people who are proudly Canadian.  I also love that I can go as far as the opposite coast allows, and see the same thing.

We truly do live in a wonderful country, where as PPCLIGuy stated, is boring and predictable.  And that's part of what makes it great, and truly is part of our identity whether we like it or not.  There are so many countries out there that would LOVE to have the same ridiculously petty problems we have.  (On that note, I would love to see leaders in future elections start to be asked about something different than the same old things, again & again.)


I've lived in Alberta most of my life, and I'm biased towards the "west is best" attitude simply because this is where I'm from.  I'm not, however, so passionately disliking of Ottawa that I think Alberta separating is even remotely a good idea.  Not just for Alberta and whatever provinces join, but for the country as a whole.  (It's that kind of dumb nonsense that almost tore the country apart when Quebec tried it.  A nation within a nation?  Ugh...)

And I don't think Alberta would actually do very well on it's own.  Oil & gas isn't going to make a huge comeback anytime soon, not in the way that fuelled our economy before anyway.  And while we aren't short of morons with giant pickup trucks driving around with their country music & going to Wal-Mart in their sweatpants, I'm not sure our labour force is all that impressive outside of friendly, hard working immigrants that tend to be the bread & butter of our everyday workforce.  

Until Alberta finds a way to adapt the oil industry to help it become competitive & robust again, and diversify our economy outside of 2 main industries, even an intellectual discussion on the merits/cons of separating isn't really possible.  And that's ignoring the FACT that most people here are proudly Canadian, even if we - like the rest of the country - aren't very impressed with our current leader.      


2 quick after thoughts...

1.  It's easy to focus on the petty things, while ignoring all of the wonderful things this country represents not just for us lucky enough to live here, but for those in other parts of the world too.  Yes, we have a turd as a leader right now - but so do many other countries.  

2.  I'm going to attach a link to a video by Jocko Willink, former SEAL.  While this video is about America, many of the same things can be said for Canada also.  Helps put things in perspective, I find.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ2wcnVlDjw


----------



## VinceW (22 Oct 2019)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Agreed entirely.
> 
> All the "separation" talk is is just short sighted nonsense fueled by an immediate dislike of a problem.  That's it.
> 
> ...


 
The country was eventually going to break up one day nows the time for us,the rest of this country won’t ever respect the West especially Alberta and when we really need them the most right now they made it clear last night what we mean to them.
Our main problem with selling our oil is the governments blockade of any future pipelines from being built it’s driving away any new investments and the only thing to do now is to get organized and vote for independence parties we don’t need to get involved anymore into the BS climate change fanaticism cult.
If we want to have a prosperous future we have to get Toronto and Quebec out of our affairs completely


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> If we want to have a prosperous future we have to get Toronto and Quebec out of our affairs completely



_Facta, non verba_


----------



## mariomike (22 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> We’re soon see where this takes us.



Good luck with that, Vince.

Metro looked into getting out of Ontario. For the GTA to secede from Ontario to create a new province would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada. The constitutional amendment would require resolutions from the House of Commons of Canada and the Senate of Canada, and resolutions from the legislative bodies of 7 of the provinces representing at least 50% of the population.

If it's that tough getting out of a province, I imagine it will be harder getting out of the country.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Oct 2019)

Western alienation hasn't the passion of Quebec separatism.  There will be the usual whining, but nothing of substance.

But, if hardball is played, AB and SK just need access to export markets and they already have a border with the US.  More pipeline capacity would help.

However, BC needs AB oil.  A week into an embargo, as the tanks of gas in the cars run dry, whatever party holds the government benches in the BC legislature would feel the heat to deal.  And most politicians can't muster the will to hold out against a garbage strike.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Oct 2019)

>If it's that tough getting out of a province, I imagine it will be harder getting out of the country.

Getting out of a province and into the country as a new province or otherwise privileged region might require permission all around, but is different from walking out the door.  Ultimately, if a region wants out badly enough, all it has to do is prepare to weather the economic turmoil and dare the government of Canada to be willing to kill people to preserve a broken marriage, or back off.

I would do everything lawful to prevent Canada from going to war to retain people who want out.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Oct 2019)

[quote author=Brad Sallows] dare the government of Canada to be willing to kill people to preserve a broken marriage, or back off.[/QUOTE] 

Would that be the same government that wants to treat lawfun gun owners, many of whom I imagine are military and police, like criminals?

And is afraid of soldiers in the streets, with guns?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Oct 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Good luck with that, Vince.
> 
> Metro looked into getting out of Ontario. For the GTA to secede from Ontario to create a new province would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada. The constitutional amendment would require resolutions from the House of Commons of Canada and the Senate of Canada, and resolutions from the legislative bodies of 7 of the provinces representing at least 50% of the population.
> 
> If it's that tough getting out of a province, I imagine it will be harder getting out of the country.



Are you prepared to kill people if the provincial / municipal Govt. say they are independent? ?    If not, all that kife you posted is mute...


----------



## mariomike (22 Oct 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Are you prepared to kill people if the provincial / municipal Govt. say they are independent? ?



Am I prepared to kill people?

I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Oct 2019)

Everybody needs to take a chill pill. 

I am an Albertan who lives in BC. Everyday, I am exposed to loudmouths and "experts" who are certain Alberta will end planet Earth. They are wrong and intolerant.

I will no more tolerate loudmouths and "experts" from Alberta expounding on separation. Most of us in uniform have first hand experience with how fast things can go south in a country when toleration and trust breakdown. Do any of you actually want the possibility of a civil war? Think very, very carefully on that.

Everyone: stop listening to politicians and experts who have messages of division. Stop posting or forwarding memes on facebook (or whatever). It does no one any good. Speak well of each other across Canada and take the moral high road!


----------



## VinceW (23 Oct 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Everybody needs to take a chill pill.
> 
> I am an Albertan who lives in BC. Everyday, I am exposed to loudmouths and "experts" who are certain Alberta will end planet Earth. They are wrong and intolerant.
> 
> ...



Remain quiet keep it to yourself and accept your fate no matter how bad it is ain’t going to happen here there are limits that don’t get crossed and PM <edit> went well past them and he keeps on going.
You underestimate Albertans ability to handle this in a civil manner.

Milnet.ca staff: _Edit to remove pejorative term contrary to site guidelines._


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Remain quiet keep it to yourself and accept your fate no matter how bad it is ain’t going to happen here there are limits that don’t get crossed and PM <edit> went well past them and he keeps on going.
> You underestimate Albertans ability to handle this in a civil manner.



Vince, I will remain calm. I understand how badly Alberta and Saskatchewan are hurting- I have lived in both places and love them dearly. I am not the enemy.

That said, it would not at all shock me if Chinese or Russian bot farms were not now working overtime, fanning the flames. Don't fall into that trap. Don't be manipulated and instead, stand up for a Canada that works for all Canadians.

Milnet.ca staff: _Edit to remove pejorative term contrary to site guidelines._


----------



## VinceW (23 Oct 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Vince, I will remain calm. I understand how badly Alberta and Saskatchewan are hurting- I have lived in both places and love them dearly. I am not the enemy.
> 
> That said, it would not at all shock me if Chinese or Russian bot farms were not now working overtime, fanning the flames. Don't fall into that trap. Don't be manipulated and instead, stand up for a Canada that works for all Canadians.



We’re doing what’s right for us now the country has failed and is too corrupt to try and save again.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Oct 2019)

‘When fortune empties her chamber pot on your head, smile and say We are going to have a summer shower.’

John A. Macdonald


----------



## AbdullahD (23 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> We’re doing what’s right for us now the country has failed and is too corrupt to try and save again.



Yeah.. that worked well in Syria, Iraq, Etc.

First. World. Problems. 

Actually I am sorry, I am getting childishly angry over your drumming of the seperation drum. 

I will stop and try to collect my dignity. Again sorry, but I love my country...

Abdullah


----------



## xmen007 (23 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Canada is dead I’m only voting for independence parties now



TBH, I disagree as I completely love Canada and enjoy spending great time there. Coming back to voting, I do agree for voting the best political party.


----------



## Remius (23 Oct 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Yeah.. that worked well in Syria, Iraq, Etc.
> 
> First. World. Problems.
> 
> ...



I learned a long time ago that reasoning with seperatists is useless.  They don't think with their brains . They think with their emotions.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> I learned a long time ago that reasoning with seperatists is useless.  They don't think with their brains . They think with their emotions.


That's a preeeeeety broad brush you're wielding there.

Throwing the attached into the mix (source) for discussion.


----------



## Remius (23 Oct 2019)

So a few articles from back in the spring about this topic.  This is months before the election result. 

One from Jay Hill trying to promote western separatism. 

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-independence-if-necessary-but-not-necessarily-independence

One from the national post as a rebuttal. 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-advice-on-western-separatism-dont-take-it-more-seriously-than-it-takes-itself


----------



## upandatom (23 Oct 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> I always like how Albertan separatists think BC leaves with them, the same BC that is fighting tooth and nail to prevent any Alberta pipeline.
> 
> Or the North, which reliably votes left.
> 
> ...



Does the UN not require landlocked countries to have access to tidal waters? Well those that at least are part of the UN? As ancient and stubborn as it is? Besides, they would just run the pipe straight south and sell direct to US, or purchase a pipeline there. Remember the US wants to make money, and have an economy, not hand out freebies to everyone on the planet.


----------



## upandatom (23 Oct 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> Keystone is running into issues as well,  so I can't imagine that going any better.
> 
> Just saying,  as a Quebecer,  I've heard all the reasons for not going it alone,  how it would be economic suicide,  and I must say,  comparing the two,  Quebec had a much stronger case for seperation.
> 
> ...



I have to disagree on that claim. Quebec has such a weak claim because it relies upon the handout from federal government. We will be on oil for the long term foreseeable future. Quebecs logging and Maple Syrup export, wont be able to support the social programs in itself. 

Alberta could prove to be fruitful going its own way- It may have a rough start, but once things are ironed out, you can bet your ass they would go back into the green again without handing money over for equalization payments.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Oct 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Am I prepared to kill people?
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about.



You quote all kinds of legal hoops they'd have to jump through. .....I'm giving you a bottom line scenario.


----------



## Altair (23 Oct 2019)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Does the UN not require landlocked countries to have access to tidal waters? Well those that at least are part of the UN? As ancient and stubborn as it is? Besides, they would just run the pipe straight south and sell direct to US, or purchase a pipeline there. Remember the US wants to make money, and have an economy, not hand out freebies to everyone on the planet.


If the US wanted to make money so badly,  keystone would be up and running by now. Remember,  Canada isn't holding up the keystone XL pipeline, the USA is.  And all it takes is one democrat like Obama to shut it down again,  especially since the USA has become energy independent and really doesn't need Alberta oil for anything. 

As for the rights to the sea,  sure,  the UN has that. But so does Canada. Canadian goods are to be allowed to pass provincial borders without restrictions. Canadian provinces ignore that all the time. So I have no doubt they would ignore the UN as well, given just how effective the UN is.


----------



## mariomike (23 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> We’re doing what’s right for us now the country has failed and is too corrupt to try and save again.



I hear you, Vince. 

I've always sensed a friendly East versus West rivalry in hockey and football.

My sister lives in Cold Lake and loves it.

I also read this,



> EDMONTON -- The NDP has retained its seat in Edmonton Strathcona, making it the only non-Conservative seat in Alberta.
> https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/ndp-retains-edmonton-strathcona-only-non-conservative-riding-in-alberta-1.4649094



Do you get any sense of Urban versus Rural "team rivalry"?

Edit to add,



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's not East / West; it's urban vs everything else.
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/j_mcelroy/status/1186806312241250304
> ...






			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You quote all kinds of legal hoops they'd have to jump through.



No. 

Those are the legal hoops a municipality would have to jump through to become a province.

It has been covered in detail in our six-page "City-state provinces in Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver" discussion. 

My thought was, if it is that difficult for a municipality to exit a province, how difficult would it be for a province to exit Canada? 

Perhaps we will soon find out.


----------



## Altair (23 Oct 2019)

upandatom said:
			
		

> I have to disagree on that claim. Quebec has such a weak claim because it relies upon the handout from federal government.


 To an extent. Quebec does receice equalization but at one of the lowest per capita ratios in Canada. PEI,  NFLD receive much more per capita. And quebec has more industries than logging and maple syrup. Far more diversified than the Alberta econony actually. Not to badmouth Alberta,  but the reason they are in the world of hurt they are in is largly because global oil prices are half what they were at their peak. Lack of pipeline is compounding the issue,  but its hard to escape that fundamental fact that oil prices have dropped off from their 100 dollar a barrel high to the mid 50s now. And with US becoming a energy exporter from a energy importer,  that is only going to add to the global glut





> We will be on oil for the long term foreseeable future. Quebecs logging and Maple Syrup export, wont be able to support the social programs in itself.


 Quebecs,  and any future Alberta would simply take their federal portion of taxes(doubling taxes to make up for the portion no longer going to ottawa)  to pay for their programs. But both would be screwed once dumped with their portion of the federal debt. I think albertas portion would be around 70 billion. And with the higher interest rate to pay it(Alberta being a far riskier jurisdiction to lend to as a independent country) simply playing the interests on it will be brutal. And if Alberta simply skips out on the bill,  being sanctioned to high heaven will not be pleasant either. 





> Alberta could prove to be fruitful going its own way- It may have a rough start, but once things are ironed out, you can bet your *** they would go back into the green again without handing money over for equalization payments.


Any future for Alberta requires access to the sea,  whether in Canada or out if it. 

With the USA being a unreliable partner(keystone XL,  Democrats,  protectionism) and Canada not about to do Alberta any favors,  being landlocked with even more hurdles to face getting oil to markets(No NAFTA,  no WTO) Alberta will not have a good go. Not at all. 

Again,  Quebec has access to the sea,  that's a huge plus. While locked out of the Canadian and American markets,  Quebec could desperately look overseas for some respite. Alberta only has two options,  Canada and the USA and if they don't pan out Alberta is screwed.


----------



## McG (23 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> The Trudeau’s are country killers.


There is a pair of western premiers dabbling in populism and not helping the situation.

Anyway, the election results are not a sign that the rest of Canada is turning its back on the Prairies.  The election results are a symptom of the gross distortion of reward that first past the post voting can give to the biggest minority in any given riding.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Oct 2019)

No more Wainwright?


----------



## Altair (23 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> No more Wainwright?


That is one plus to all of this.


----------



## VinceW (23 Oct 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> To an extent. Quebec does receice equalization but at one of the lowest per capita ratios in Canada. PEI,  NFLD receive much more per capita. And quebec has more industries than logging and maple syrup. Far more diversified than the Alberta econony actually. Not to badmouth Alberta,  but the reason they are in the world of hurt they are in is largly because global oil prices are half what they were at their peak. Lack of pipeline is compounding the issue,  but its hard to escape that fundamental fact that oil prices have dropped off from their 100 dollar a barrel high to the mid 50s now. And with US becoming a energy exporter from a energy importer,  that is only going to add to the global glut Quebecs,  and any future Alberta would simply take their federal portion of taxes(doubling taxes to make up for the portion no longer going to ottawa)  to pay for their programs. But both would be screwed once dumped with their portion of the federal debt. I think albertas portion would be around 70 billion. And with the higher interest rate to pay it(Alberta being a far riskier jurisdiction to lend to as a independent country) simply playing the interests on it will be brutal. And if Alberta simply skips out on the bill,  being sanctioned to high heaven will not be pleasant either. Any future for Alberta requires access to the sea,  whether in Canada or out if it.
> 
> With the USA being a unreliable partner(keystone XL,  Democrats,  protectionism) and Canada not about to do Alberta any favors,  being landlocked with even more hurdles to face getting oil to markets(No NAFTA,  no WTO) Alberta will not have a good go. Not at all.
> 
> Again,  Quebec has access to the sea,  that's a huge plus. While locked out of the Canadian and American markets,  Quebec could desperately look overseas for some respite. Alberta only has two options,  Canada and the USA and if they don't pan out Alberta is screwed.



We’d still be in this situation with a far left coalition taking matters in our hands is the only way to go now.


----------



## FSTO (23 Oct 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Do you get any sense of Urban versus Rural "team rivalry"?



I firmly straddle this divide. I've likely lived in medium sized cities for the majority of my life (Halifax, Victoria, Regina, and Ottawa now) but I'm still acutely connected to my rural/farming roots.

The one big thing that exacerbates the rural/urban divide is lack of knowledge of each other. Although there are few if any rural people who have never entered a city (2nd line medical care for instance), the big take away I hear is that "cities are great to visit but how can they live like that?" Meanwhile the amount of urban Canadians who have never left their city (except to fly out for a vacation or to go to another city) likely numbers in the millions. When I'm at work or in social settings in the city I can likely count on my hand the number of people who have actually seen the prairies (except for Army and RCAF pers of course), or driven off the TCH, or know a farmer or resource worker. Their knowledge of rural Canada is abysmally low or is full of clichés. Rural Canadians in depth knowledge of our urban reality is not that great either and they have their own clichés of urbanists but they cannot help (unless they completely cut off from media) to have a smattering of exposure to urban issues. Neither side is really trying hard to understand the "other".
As for me, when I'm in the city I try to explain the rural world to city people and when I'm out at the farm I try to explain why city people support the Liberals, question the way farmers produce their food, and seemingly look down upon on the Prairies (mainly due to ignorance, not malice)

I really don't see this divide getting any better to be honest.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> We’d still be in this situation with a far left coalition taking matters in our hands is the only way to go now.



Alberta has repeatedly mismanaged its own finances for a generation (at least).  Heritage Fund - Good.  Not paying into it, overpaying for services because the good times would never end - Bad.

Not claiming any virtue east of Lloydminster - but Alberta has been the author of parts of its own misfortune.


----------



## FSTO (23 Oct 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Alberta has repeatedly mismanaged its own finances for a generation (at least).  Heritage Fund - Good.  Not paying into it, overpaying for services because the good times would never end - Bad.
> 
> Not claiming any virtue east of Lloydminster - but Alberta has been the author of parts of its own misfortune.



I think a 5% GST in the province would help a lot.


----------



## Altair (23 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> We’d still be in this situation with a far left coalition taking matters in our hands is the only way to go now.


Okay. Again, I'll look at the polls come 2022 and see how the federalist parties in Alberta do (UCP-NDP) compared to the separatist parties.

Again, from a Quebec perspective, prepare for a lot of struggles. 

Building a new party from scratch.

Winning a election.

Having all of federation against you.

Getting support for separation.

Winning a referendum. (Takes 2-3 tries, ask Quebec and Scotland)

Negotiating a clean break (Hello Brexit)

Then on day one, face all the problems you faced before separation, only exacerbated.

Best of luck.


----------



## Altair (23 Oct 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I think a 5% GST in the province would help a lot.


5 percent GST in Alberta would raise about 8 billion dollars in revenue. 

The Alberta provincial deficit is 7 billion.

Alberta could be running a budget surplus right now but they are crying poor due to their own dogmatic opposition to a sales tax.

That's not a equalization problem, that's a fiscal mismanagement problem.


----------



## upandatom (23 Oct 2019)

MCG said:
			
		

> There is a pair of western premiers dabbling in populism and not helping the situation.
> 
> Anyway, the election results are not a sign that the rest of Canada is turning its back on the Prairies.  The election results are a symptom of the gross distortion of reward that first past the post voting can give to the biggest minority in any given riding.



It is their right though, they are responsible to their province. They have to fight for their constituents.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Oct 2019)

Does Alberta provide money for other provinces? Equalization or whatever its called?


----------



## Altair (23 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Does Alberta provide money for other provinces? Equalization or whatever its called?


yes, although that's not how it works.

Every province pays into Equalization, not every province receives money back.

And a part of the equalization formula counts fiscal capacity, which is where Alberta not having the sales tax really hurts them.

Quebec, for example tends to max out fiscal capacity, being one of the highest taxed jurisdictions. Alberta tends to be one of the lower taxed jurisdictions. So the formula looks at Quebec and recognizes that they don't have much more room to raise revenue to pay for services, while Alberta has access to somewhere in the region of 8 billion dollars a year that they aren't accessing even though they could.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Oct 2019)

Thanks for explaining that Altair.


----------



## Altair (23 Oct 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks for explaining that Altair.


Equalization is also really poor at dealing with rapid falls in specific industries, in this case the energy industry. Equalization is suppose to be tied to services, maintaining a equal standard of services across Canada. Not to top up provincial finances or save industries from collapse.

So Quebec has a lower average wage, lower per capita income than places like Alberta. Alberta, for all the pain its going through, still has some of the highest average incomes in Canada, and as such can still pay to maintain some of the best health care services in Canada. Alberta isn't going to be in line for equalization payments until its services fall below the national average, which can take quite a while. It can happen, especially if the energy slump continues and there is less and less money to invest in the things like health care, but that can take quite a while from industry crash to services drop.


----------



## Baz (23 Oct 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> Every province pays into Equalization, not every province receives money back.



One small addendum.   Transfer payments, including equalization, are not paid by provinces, they are part of the federal budget.  The federal revenue comes from taxes (income and excise), UI premiums, and other (crown corps, foreign exchange, etc).  UI is managed to provide a net equality between revenues and expenditures in the long term.

The conversation would be helped if people understood that the have provinces (Alberta, Ontario, etc) do not directly given money to the have notes (Quebec, Nova Scotia, etc).

It would also help if people understood all provinces receive transfer payments in the form of the Health Transfer and Social Transfer.  This is to ensure a common standard of care across the country.


----------



## Altair (23 Oct 2019)

Baz said:
			
		

> One small addendum.   Transfer payments, including equalization, are not paid by provinces, they are part of the federal budget.  The federal revenue comes from taxes (income and excise), UI premiums, and other (crown corps, foreign exchange, etc).  UI is managed to provide a net equality between revenues and expenditures in the long term.
> 
> The conversation would be helped if people understood that the have provinces (Alberta, Ontario, etc) do not directly given money to the have notes (Quebec, Nova Scotia, etc).
> 
> It would also help if people understood all provinces receive transfer payments in the form of the Health Transfer and Social Transfer.  This is to ensure a common standard of care across the country.


Correct. I should have said that every resident of every province pays into equalization, and the provinces where they live may or may not get back as much as their residents on a whole put in.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Oct 2019)

Fair enuff.

Alberta is not a "Have Province".  Albertans are "Have Citizens".

Thanks for clarifying that.

National unemployment rate 5.5%
Albertan unemployment rate 6.6%

I feel much better now.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Oct 2019)

Alberta could join the US as a territory like Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands each with their own governor and legilarure.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Oct 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Alberta could join the US as a territory like Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands each with their own governor and legilarure.



Or leverage the HST Fund more heavily to get through the 'rainy days' ahead:

"The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund 2019-20 First Quarter Update was released on August 27, 2019.

Over the first 3 months of the 2019-20 fiscal year, the Heritage Fund earned a 1.4 % return and $480 million in net income.

As of June 30, 2019, the fund’s assets were worth $18.1 billion on a fair value basis.

Over the past 5 years, the Heritage Fund earned an 8.7% average annual rate of return. Over the past 10 years, the average annual return was 10.1%.

Since 1976, the Fund has contributed more than $43.7 billion to fund Albertans’ priorities like health care and education."

https://www.alberta.ca/heritage-savings-trust-fund.aspx


----------



## Altair (23 Oct 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Fair enuff.
> 
> Alberta is not a "Have Province".  Albertans are "Have Citizens".
> 
> ...


You pretty much covered it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/economy-income-calgary-edmonton-2016-employment-1.4574667

After all the pain, layoffs, capital flight, bankruptcies, lack of access to international markets, still have a median after-tax income was $70,200.

Canadian median was $57,000.

Quebec was 49,500.

So while the unemployment is a little higher, the average income is much much higher. It more than cancels it out, at least according to the formula. At a human level, individual level, yes it's heartbreaking that so many people are unemployed and hurting, but the formula says yeah, but you're still rich. And your services are still top notch.

What is needed is a more robust fiscal response to industries under duress. I don't know what that would look like though. Better EI? Liberals tried that. Propping up struggling industries? After the betrayal of the Auto industry in southern Ontario, I wouldn't recommend it. Tossing money at the province with the struggling industry? That can of worms is best not opened, because where does it end? Fishing in the Atlantic, aerospace in Quebec, auto industry in Ontario, how much do you send, for how long, and to what end?

So I get the anger in Alberta, and equalization is easy, low hanging fruit, but it's not that easy. And if not equalization, then what?


----------



## Altair (23 Oct 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Alberta could join the US as a territory like Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands each with their own governor and legilarure.


Sure. And we can open the door to places like Massachusetts, New York and California to join Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Oct 2019)

I was right the first time.

This conversation isn't worth the aggravation.

TTFE


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Oct 2019)

This is an interesting piece.  A look into the future

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-rise-of-the-republic-of-the-northwest/

The rise of the Republic of the Northwest
David J. Bercuson and Barry Cooper imagine a future where western territories have split from Canada to escape the bureaucratic despotism of Ottawa 
by David J. Bercuson and Barry Cooper
Mar 12, 2019 

David J. Bercuson and Barry Cooper are professors of history and political science respectively at the University of Calgary. Several years ago they wrote Deconfederation: Canada without Quebec.
The date is March 2039, 20 years from now. The Republic of the Northwest is celebrating its 17th anniversary as an independent state. Today it consists of territories that once belonged to Northern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, parts of British Columbia and the Canadian Arctic north of 60. The republic had its beginnings when the premier of Alberta, in March 2020, called a provincial referendum on amending section 36 (2) of the Constitution Act (1982) dealing with equalization payments, and resolving a range of other Alberta-Canada disagreements ranging from provincial policing to taxation.
Alberta’s position was based on the unsuccessful “firewall” proposals of 20 years earlier. Negotiations failed and Alberta called a second referendum held in March 2021, as the government had promised to do. This time, along with Saskatchewan, we voted to leave Canada. A clear majority (84 per cent) of both former provinces on a clear question (‘Do you wish independence from Canada?’) voted to leave.
The government of Manitoba did the same a few weeks later, voting 78 per cent to join its western neighbours. Under the terms of the 1988 Quebec Secession Reference, Canada was required to negotiate.
READ MORE: Rachel Notley fought like hell for Alberta, but the province isn’t about to thank her
But with whom?
There was considerable discussion over the name of the new body politic and how it would be organized. Many favoured the name invoked by Premier Haultain in 1905: that the Canadian territories divided into Alberta and Saskatchewan should form a single province called Buffalo. The leaders of a new “Buffalo Movement” organized a constitutional convention for the summer of 2021 in Saskatoon and invited governments of Manitoba, Yukon, Nunavut and the old NWT, now called Assiniboia, along with representatives of the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities and several British Columbia municipalities to attend as well. But the buffalo were gone: the delegates decided to call their country the Republic of the Northwest.

The interim president and chief negotiator was a law professor and former Attorney General of Saskatchewan, Alex Isbister. A Metis, he was born in Cumberland House, attended St. John’s College at the University of Manitoba where he won a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford before attending Harvard Law. His vice-president and deputy was the former premier of Nunavut, Rachel Kenney.
The Republic was proclaimed in the fall of 2021 and negotiations with Canada were opened in Washington in November of that year. Despite the new name, the objective of the convention and of the republic was traditional: the Northwest would determine its own political and economic destiny using its wealth in natural resources to build a prosperous nation based on free trade, common-sense resource policies, its own taxation regime, guaranteed political rights for all, cooperation with Indigenous peoples, and a robust defence policy.
Ever mindful of Machiavelli’s insight that good laws require good arms, President Isbister gained the immediate support of Governor Malmstrom of Montana, a distant relative and Harvard classmate, who, along with the governors of the other northern tier states, made some 20,000 national guardsmen available if needed. In the event, negotiations with Canada proceeded briskly and peacefully.
Today, we have our own security forces and justice system built on a common North American democratic liberal tradition, a 40-member senate, patterned after that of the United States and a lower house elected on the basis of representation by population. All former Canadian assets are now held by the republic following the successful conclusion of the Treaty of Washington between the Northwest and Canada signed on July 1, 2022.
The first act of the new republic was to pass the Accession Ordinance, patterned after the Americans’ Northwest Ordinance of 1789. This was the most contentious part of the Treaty of Washington, but it enabled the Republic of the Northwest to absorb municipalities in Ontario and British Columbia willing to join the new nation. The former Canadian territories in the far north were even more eager to escape the bureaucratic despotism of Ottawa.
The immediate benefits were obvious. Indeed, gaining them was a major part of the failed negotiations of 2020. How long ago that all seems now!
First there was an end to the corrupting equalization payments. More symbolic, but tied to equalization, came an end to the absurdities of official bilingualism. With the accession of northern British Columbia, the Northern Gateway oil pipeline to Prince Rupert was built in less than two years. The huge new container port, built at the same time, has cut transit times from Chicago to the Western Pacific by three days as compared to shipping through Vancouver or Seattle.
The natural gas pipeline and LNG terminal at Kitimat was completed six months after Northern Gateway reached Rupert. Both developments brought enormous benefits to Indigenous persons living in the area, just as President Isbister had anticipated. With the accession of Northern Ontario a new resource outlet through Churchill was built to take advantage of the Northwest Passage, which was declared to transit international waters. Canada did not object.
Relations with Southern Ontario, as the Laurentian Canadian province is now called, remain cordial. Toronto remains a useful financial centre, but no one thinks of Ottawa at all. With respect to provinces further east, matters are more formal than friendly—with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, which historically has sent many of its sons and daughters to the Northwest. In return, the Republic has supported Newfoundland and Labrador in renegotiating hydro revenues with Quebec.
The real problem remains the rest of B.C. The Kootenays, the Cariboo and the Okanagan voted to join the republic, but the Lower Mainland, now in the grip of Green Party fanatics, has become a source of instability to all the territories west of Laurentian Canada. Discussions in the Senate in Saskatoon contemplated increasing sanctions, limiting the transit of the CPR across our country, and further reductions in shipments of refined petroleum products to Vancouver. There has even been talk of mounting an expeditionary force to bring order to these people.
One thing is beyond dispute: in 20 years, the citizens of the Republic of the Northwest have grown more prosperous, freer, and more patriotic than their parents and grandparents ever dared to dream.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (23 Oct 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Alberta could join the US as a territory like Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands each with their own governor and legilarure.



Why the f*** would anyone want to do such a stupid deal?

If the US wants a Canadian province, then they would have to accept it as a full state with the same representation in Congress as any of the other states.  Also they would have to accept that a former Canadian province would bring with it certain other "legal" requirements such as a different perspective on First Nations from your "Indians" as well as official language rights for Francophones (it's not just Quebec that have provincial legislation or legal precedents about language rights).


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> National unemployment rate 5.5%
> Albertan unemployment rate 6.6%





			
				Altair said:
			
		

> ... After all the pain, layoffs, capital flight, bankruptcies, lack of access to international markets, (AB) still have a median after-tax income was $70,200 (in 2016).
> 
> Canadian median was $57,000.
> 
> Quebec was 49,500 ...


And therein lies part of the problem -- picking & choosing only stats that show the best case.

Stand alone, the unemployment rate shows, "life sucks here."

According to the attached chart being shared by Alberta Proud on social media, though, AB's doing _better_ than the Canadian average (which can be used as evidence of either 1)  they can stand alone, or 2)  they don't really need equalization).  

So, which is it?

Is the truth somewhere in the middle?  Or made up of both of these bits PLUS a whole lot of other things that don't make these discussions "Twitterable"?


----------



## CountDC (23 Oct 2019)

I don't think the US would have to accept anything.  Those points would be open for negotiation as part of the Province joining the US.   Legal precedents on language rights in one country (Canada) might not hold any water in another (US) especially during negotiations to join them. Remember it is Alberta wanting to join the US not the US wanting a Canadian Province.  They would have the upper hand and use it fully to get the deal they want so a territory same as Puerto Rico, etc is not an unreasonable outcome.  

Anyone thinking of going this route might want to really look closely at it though, negotiating with a weaker hand generally does not turn out for the best.

Comparing 3 year old information on income with current employment rates is probably not the most accurate.  Be interesting to see what the current information is.


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Oct 2019)

The US would never want a Canadian province.  I have been saying since I was in HS and the textbooks were full of BS about Canada becoming the 51st state.  And the reason is very very simple the GOP would never want two or four more senators.  And being from a former Canadian province now a state there is a good chance those new senators would Dems. (even if from Alberta)  So it would never happen!  

There is a better chance of some type of association or commonwealth status. The most important thing would be for the Americans no unrest over the border and oil and trade to keep moving.  

Also it would matter who was in the White House.  A Dem would push Ottawa and the west to stay together.  A DT type would like to see a freer west with bigger trade opportunities.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2019)

CountDC said:
			
		

> ... Comparing 3 year old information on income with current employment rates is probably not the most accurate.  Be interesting to see what the current information is.


Another good point.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (23 Oct 2019)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I don't think the US would have to accept anything.  Those points would be open for negotiation as part of the Province joining the US.   Legal precedents on language rights in one country (Canada) might not hold any water in another (US) especially during negotiations to join them. Remember it is Alberta wanting to join the US not the US wanting a Canadian Province.  They would have the upper hand and use it fully to get the deal they want so a territory same as Puerto Rico, etc is not an unreasonable outcome.



Language and treaty rights are not something that a province can give away in a negotiation.  The rights don't belong to the province but to individuals.  It would be incumbent on the province to protect such and, if this idiotic notion was ever to reach fruition, would most assuredly be included in whatever agreement the Crown (i.e. the Canadian Government) reached with the province as part of any exit package.  

Remember, Alberta was formed by Canada from the Northwest Territory.  When it (and Saskatchewan) became a province it was not the same as the original four provinces, or the later previously separate British colonies/dominion (e.g. BC, Nfld) that came into the confederation with their own assets (i.e., land and mineral rights).  For those other provinces there would be no disagreement that if they left they would take with it the assets that they had when they joined the confederation.  For those provinces which were created out of the NWT, the crown lands and mineral rights were not given to them when they were formed, but were retained by the federal government.  It was not until 1930 (25 years later) that mineral rights were transferred to Alberta to be administered by them so that ". . . the Province may be in the same position as the original Provinces of Confederation . . . ".  While the language of the federal/provincial agreement included in the Alberta Natural Resources Act  S.C. 1930, c. 3 does provide for the transfer of Crown (Canadian) lands and mineral rights to the province, it would not surprise me if a good shyster would try to make the case that such transfer was implicitly based on Alberta being part of Canada and if it was no longer part of Canada then such lands and mineral rights should revert to Canada.  At the very least it would muddy the waters in any attempt to leave the confederation.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (23 Oct 2019)

For any province to secede from Canada it would have to conform to The Clarity Act. And, yes, the Act was originally focused on Quebec, but it would likely be applied to any other province that complemented leaving Canada.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Oct 2019)

>At the very least it would muddy the waters in any attempt to leave the confederation. 

>For any province to secede from Canada it would have to conform to The Clarity Act.

Don't confuse "negotiated exit" with "exit".  Either is possible depending on the mood of the people and their will to govern themselves.  Ultimately, self-determination is as simple as saying "this is ours; if you think you have rights here, try and exercise them".


----------



## VinceW (23 Oct 2019)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> For any province to secede from Canada it would have to conform to The Clarity Act. And, yes, the Act was originally focused on Quebec, but it would likely be applied to any other province that complemented leaving Canada.



50% plus 1 will be enough if they have a problem with that then if the right party is in power in the US they can recognize our independence which could lead to them putting pressure on Ottawa to let us leave.


----------



## mariomike (23 Oct 2019)

For reference to the discussion,



> National Post
> 
> Why Alberta separatism is the dumbest political movement in Canada today
> https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/why-alberta-separatism-is-the-dumbest-political-movement-in-canada-today


----------



## brihard (23 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> 50% plus 1 will be enough if they have a problem with that then if the right party is in power in the US they can recognize our independence which could lead to them putting pressure on Ottawa to let us leave.



The suggested serving size is four crayons, not the whole box.


----------



## VinceW (23 Oct 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The suggested serving size is four crayons, not the whole box.



Sounds like you have experience it won’t be the first time the US has recognized separation movements most recently Kosovo.
They’ll help what they consider their strategic reserves to be productive


----------



## brihard (23 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Sounds like you have experience it won’t be the first time the US has recognized separation movements most recently Kosovo.
> They’ll help what they consider their strategic reserves to be productive



I was in the infantry. I have considerable experience hearing poorly informed fantasy borne of equal parts boredom and political/legal naïveté. I remember dudes turning their shoulder flags upside down in Kandahar during the 2008 election because of some misguided notions of how screwed Canada was. It was silly then, and the same stuff is silly now. Our country will continue to oscillate in an imperfect political balance. We will continue to me not perfect but still one of the best options. We will endure.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Sounds like you have experience it won’t be the first time the US has recognized separation movements most recently Kosovo.


Maybe, but the Kurds in Iraq & Syria'll have something interesting stories to share about American "support", even under "the right party in power."


----------



## VinceW (23 Oct 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I was in the infantry. I have considerable experience hearing poorly informed fantasy borne of equal parts boredom and political/legal naïveté. I remember dudes turning their shoulder flags upside down in Kandahar during the 2008 election because of some misguided notions of how screwed Canada was. It was silly then, and the same stuff is silly now. Our country will continue to oscillate in an imperfect political balance. We will continue to me not perfect but still one of the best options. We will endure.



Everything changed because of the election we’re very persistent to get what we want.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Oct 2019)

Alberta has voted 60%+ Conservative federally for 40+years.

Opportunists (on all sides) are exploiting this to their own advantage.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Oct 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I was in the infantry. I have considerable experience hearing poorly informed fantasy borne of equal parts boredom and political/legal naïveté. I remember dudes turning their shoulder flags upside down in Kandahar during the 2008 election because of some misguided notions of how screwed Canada was. It was silly then, and the same stuff is silly now. Our country will continue to oscillate in an imperfect political balance. We will continue to me not perfect but still one of the best options. We will endure.



Oh the Infantry, the only place in the world where you can listen to someone pontificate over the supposed virtues of Aristotle one minute and then listen to that same individual slam back a box of crayons and talk about their itchy crotch the next  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Oct 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Oh the Infantry, the only place in the world where you can listen to someone pontificate over the supposed virtues of Aristotle one minute and then listen to that same individual slam back a box of crayons and talk about their itchy crotch the next  ;D



.... followed by a kick in the guts from the Section Commander because ‘you talk at stand to and we all die’ , or something equally melodramatic


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Oct 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Oh the Infantry, the only place in the world where you can listen to someone pontificate over the supposed virtues of Aristotle one minute and then listen to that same individual slam back a box of crayons and talk about their itchy crotch the next  ;D



Personally I liked the red and orange crayons 🖍. 

I never talked about Aristotle though.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Oct 2019)

You're more of a David Hume guy, am I right?


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Oct 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Are you prepared to kill people if the provincial / municipal Govt. say they are independent?


Whoa, whoa -- I think this kind of question is as hypothetical at this point as asking , "Are you prepared to kill RCMP or CF troops if Ottawa says you can't be independent in the way you want?" (given that's the mirror "all in" position).


			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Everybody needs to take a chill pill ... Everyone: stop listening to politicians and experts who have messages of division ... Speak well of each other across Canada and take the moral high road!


 :goodpost:


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Oct 2019)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> For any province to secede from Canada it would have to conform to The Clarity Act. And, yes, the Act was originally focused on Quebec, but it would likely be applied to any other province that complemented leaving Canada.


And with a bit more on that ...


> ... Dwight Newman is a University of Saskatchewan professor who is an expert on constitutional law.
> 
> He said the federal government has a piece of legislation in place that provides a mechanism and a set of rules that provides for a province to leave confederation.
> 
> ...


... and a bit from Alberta's Premier on the issue (screen capture attached).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Oct 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Personally I liked the red and orange crayons 🖍.
> 
> I never talked about Aristotle though.



I liked the green ones best.  No need for green crayons when the only Mission Task Verb you know is DESTROY and using green/neutral coloured symbols is an automatic DS Fail for any trace order  :arid rifleman: :arid rifleman:


----------



## CountDC (24 Oct 2019)

not that I think it will ever happen but if it did who is really going to enforce all these agreements on a separated and perhaps self governing part of the US?  All these language rights, clarity act, native agreements, etc, etc, etc would only apply if someone is willing to enforce them.  The new free Alberta Government could write their own legislation stating they are English only, not associated with Canada in anyway and there are no native rights - you are either an Albertan like everyone else or you can leave.  Would Canada then go to war to enforce their rules against a US backed government?  I doubt that would happen either.  The toothless UN?  I think their biggest issue would be the native rights as they are the only ones that might stand up and actually fight it while the Canadian Government would stomp their feet, pout and cry to the UN that little brother wasn't playing by their rules.


----------



## Baz (24 Oct 2019)

Canada wouldn't have anything to do with it. The affected groups would fight it in the Alberta and US court system.  Not a lawyer, but I'd imagine it could end up in the Supreme Court Of The United States.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Oct 2019)

CountDC said:
			
		

> not that I think it will ever happen but if it did who is really going to enforce all these agreements on a separated and perhaps self governing part of the US?  All these language rights, clarity act, native agreements, etc, etc, etc would only apply if someone is willing to enforce them.  The new free Alberta Government could write their own legislation stating they are English only, not associated with Canada in anyway and there are no native rights - you are either an Albertan like everyone else or you can leave.  Would Canada then go to war to enforce their rules against a US backed government?  I doubt that would happen either.  The toothless UN?  I think their biggest issue would be the native rights as they are the only ones that might stand up and actually fight it while the Canadian Government would stomp their feet, pout and cry to the UN that little brother wasn't playing by their rules.



And if the First Nations people involved object and decide to start an insurgency- then what?

Invite the US Army in to suppress it? Because that worked out so awesome in Iraq, Afahanistan and Syria?

This is what I mean- it is easy to be a keyboard warrior (not implying, at all, that you are one of those. I have just seen a lot of it the past few days.) and call for "Western Separation". Until you run up against the cold, hard realities of the situation that you are risking a very real civil war where very real people die.

I am not in any way defending the absolutely ham-fisted, incompetent and utterly destructive manner in which the Trudeau Liberals have governed for the last 4 years. However, at least this week they seem somewhat chastened by the whole affair. Perhaps Western political leaders could act like statesmen and work to get a solution. Most people outside of about 4 ridings in BC seem unhappy with how the Liberals have mishandled pipelines, too. I think a deal can be reached and the extremists on both ends of the political specturm can be cut out of the picture.


----------



## CountDC (24 Oct 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And if the First Nations people involved object and decide to start an insurgency- then what?
> 
> Invite the US Army in to suppress it? Because that worked out so awesome in Iraq, Afahanistan and Syria?



That is why I think this would be their biggest issue.  How they handle it I would have no idea, I hope they would negotiate rather than fighting but wouldn't be surprised either way.  I suspect that it would be a situation resolved with enough money thrown in.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Oct 2019)

I would guess I'm a bit older than most of you, but the subject of Western separation is not a new phenomenon. During the "Reign" of "Pierre the First" (and we would have hoped the last) Pierre went out of his way to alienate the west. 
My grandfather (A WW1 Vet) was a western separatist according to my father.

I'm not, but a better deal has to be sought for.


----------



## FSTO (24 Oct 2019)

Manitoba Premier on Wexit.

https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/good-relationships-aren-t-built-on-threats-to-leave-pallister-on-wexit-1.4650937

All this wexit talk is what it is "talk". Let the blow hards blow off steam and if that is the premiers of AB and SK they'll eventually calm down.

But Pallister also has to realize (and I think he'll be getting the message loud and clear from his Westman MLA's) that a large part of his province is also being hurt by the lack of action on pipelines and agriculture exports.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Oct 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And if the First Nations people involved object and decide to start an insurgency- then what?


More on that from 2013 here (PDF - think tank paper _"Canada and the First Nations: Cooperation or Conflict?"_ by Douglas Bland), and in a novel by the same author here (review of said novel).  All I'll say here is that they both make interesting reads for anyone with any military experience, especially the bits about "what has to be happening that increase the odds of insurgency, and what can be done to deal with/mitigate those factors and reduce the odds?".


			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> ... I hope they would negotiate rather than fighting but wouldn't be surprised either way.  I suspect that it would be a situation resolved *with enough money thrown in*.


Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe, but it only takes a _few_ folks supporting the cause _outside_ the province to make the negotiations and payouts more ... complicated.


			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> ... *a better deal has to be sought for.*


There's a concept I think a LOT of people on both sides could get behind in spite of the louder, further ends of the spectrum @ both ends taking up bandwidth.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Oct 2019)

And a couple of recent bits to add to the discussion ...


> ... In recent years, a lot has been made of the distrust between police and the communities they serve in major urban centres. But it’s hard to see a more glaring disconnect than the one that exists between the RCMP and the people of Southern Alberta. It’s an already rocky relationship that has only been exacerbated by the rural crime epidemic that arose out of Alberta’s recession. With many experts expecting another recession on the horizon, and a federal government in place that has no interest in stronger prison sentences for violent or repeat offenders, it’s hard to see how things are going to improve any time soon.
> 
> In fact, with the Trudeau Liberals considering vast new gun control measures, it’s very easy to see how overzealous policing in Southern Alberta could escalate tensions further.
> 
> If Albertans are serious about proceeding with Firewall options***, perhaps it would be best to start with the creation of an Alberta police force. It might just provide the relationship reset that is critically needed between Southern Albertans and the police who risk so much to serve them.


More on that one here.


> ... If Premier Jason Kenney wants to stem the tide of Alberta separation, he’s going to have to act quickly. Here are three things he could do right away:
> 
> First, Alberta should announce we will hold an immediate referendum on equalization rather than wait until the 2021 municipal elections. If Quebec has no interest in supporting Alberta’s aspirations to grow our economy, they can also do without an equalization program that relies on federal over-taxation of Alberta to fund it.
> 
> ...


More on that from the former leader of the Wildrose Party here (published before the federal election).

*** - This refers to options offered in an open letter to then-Premier Ralph Klein in 2001 (attached).  Note:  the first listed signatory of the letter is Stephen Harper in one of his previous lives as President of the National Citizens' Coalition.


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Oct 2019)

This from Colby Cash in the National Post:

... But what would probably be most useful to him strategically is for Western voters to start sending non-electoral signals that their paramount loyalty to Canada really has been compromised. Sure, go ahead and print bumper stickers, but they won’t get it done. Separatism from Canada may not be practical for Greater Alberta any more than leaving the Union is for black citizens in the United States: does this stop black Americans or other American minorities from resisting the ruling power?

They do it by subverting and challenging symbols of national unity: the flag, the anthem, holidays and public statuary, even the military if it comes to that. When it comes to “Wexit” I am not even so much scornful of the practicalities as I am skeptical of the underlying mentality: until I see an Alberta hockey crowd boo “O Canada” I think we will go on pleading futilely for more “conversation” in the national agora ...

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/colby-cosh-the-first-step-western-brethren-is-to-wexit-in-your-heart


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Oct 2019)

>All this wexit talk is what it is "talk". 

+++.  It manifests differently, but it manifests everywhere and often among the disappointed people after elections.  Talk of regional separation is one variant; the more commonly expressed one is "If XXX, I'm going to emigrate to YYY" (self-separation).


----------



## mariomike (24 Oct 2019)

Saw #rednexit trending. 

Some post election gentle good humour, "The year is 2025. Alberta has successfully separated from Canada: 'Next year we start building a wall. Canada is paying for it!"


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Oct 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Saw #rednexit trending.
> 
> Some post election gentle good humour, "The year is 2025. Alberta has successfully separated from Canada: 'Next year we start building a wall. Canada is paying for it!"



That’s funny! Canadian irregular migrants sneaking over the Red River into Praireland, with the NWMP carrying their luggage for them.


----------



## Underway (24 Oct 2019)

This is so ridiculous.  The richest province in Canada by household income (even in a recession Albertans have more money than any other province by a long amount) and a very low unemployment rate is going to leave and become a landlocked petro state? Please someone name a rich landlocked petro state not beholden to a neighbouring power.  Does that even begin to solve the perceived problems of the province? But let's have a hissy fit because we didn't get our way for the last four years (even though the previous 10 was all about Alberta in power) and probably won't for the next 2.

Now I'm off to another thread to complain about Quebec...


----------



## Furniture (25 Oct 2019)

Underway said:
			
		

> This is so ridiculous.  The richest province in Canada by household income (even in a recession Albertans have more money than any other province by a long amount) and a very low unemployment rate is going to leave and become a landlocked petro state? Please someone name a rich landlocked petro state not beholden to a neighbouring power.  Does that even begin to solve the perceived problems of the province? But let's have a hissy fit because we didn't get our way for the last four years (even though the previous 10 was all about Alberta in power) and probably won't for the next 2.
> 
> Now I'm off to another thread to complain about Quebec...



1) "the west"'s oil will sell, either within Canada or to the USA and beyond.

2) Canada can embrace the sale and use of "the west"'s oil, or it can bet on Alberta thinking only BC or  Quebec can export it's oil. 

Option two leads to nasty western separation politics, regional politics that will make Quebec "nationalism" seem like a quaint memory. 

In simple terms, by the time Quebec decided it was done with Canada it was no longer an actual player in the world of manufacturing. On the opposite end of the spectrum Alberta/Saskatchewan are sitting on some of the worlds richest oil deposits...


----------



## Eaglelord17 (25 Oct 2019)

Just remember the US Civil War was started over basically the same thing. Feeling alienated from the political process and having economic decisions forced upon them whether they liked it or not.

Not saying it will go that route, but there is some legitimacy to the complaints. For example the East Coast has 32 seats vs 34 for Alberta, despite having a population basically half the size. Quebec has roughly double the population but more than double the seats. You can easily argue the Canadian seat break down is Gerrymandering at its finest.

If you vote in Alberta they are basically saying your vote is worthless than other parts of the country.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Oct 2019)

Actually, Eagleford, in Canada, right now, Quebec is pretty well benchmark: Both the number of seats it has in the Commons and in the Senate are within + or - 1% of the actual population. If that was followed for all other provinces, it would be balanced.

But I agree that it is a legitimate grievance of the Western provinces that, where the Atlantic provinces are way, way over represented (especially the Town of P.E.I.,   ), they on the other hand are quite under-represented because the numbers where never really adjusted to account for the population expansion that started in the 1970's.

This said, I believe that some of the current anger is actually stoked by oil lobby of those provinces to try and create pressure on the rest of the country. I don't think it will help. The current problems are not related to lack of transport as much as they are related to the price of oil and how it is viewed in the USA as dirty oil (regardless of reality - which, as we all know doesn't count). If we doubled the transport capacity  (which BTW has steadily been going up for the last 40 years and has never been as high as it is right now), no more development of the oil fields would occur at the current price: it wouldn't cover the cost.

On the other hand, I note that Alberta just brought down an "austerity' budget that has an increased deficit with more than $2b increase, while stubbornly remaining the only place in Canada that refuses to introduce one of the best economic stabilizing type of tax: a consumption tax (wether you call it Provincial sales or Harmonized, etc.). Similarly, regardless of the voices in the desert of the last 50 years that told Albertan to diversify their economy using the oil revenue, it's only been very recently that this process has actually started, and at a slow pace at that.

Some of the 'West's" problems are self inflicted - they don't all come out of the grievances - some valid, some not, that they have against the "East".


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> 1) "the west"'s oil will sell, either within Canada or to the USA and beyond.
> 
> 2) Canada can embrace the sale and use of "the west"'s oil, or it can bet on Alberta thinking only BC or  Quebec can export it's oil.
> 
> ...


Albertans don't understand that the very same arguments used against Quebec seperation apply to them as well. 

Their share of the national debt. 

Being on the outside of NAFTA. 

Not being a part of the UN and WTO. 

Having to work around the clarity act. 

Not piggybacking off of Canadas interest rate. 

Having their own currency or using the Canadian dollar with no say in monetary policy. (Even worst because Alberta would be a petro state and Canada very much not) 

Taking their share of the national debt. 

Having to create around 200 government agencies. 

Having to create a military. 

Tarriffs with Canada. 

Then added challenges. 

Access to the ocean. Sure,  they can get it because the UN says so,  but access could just be rail. Or truck. No country needs to approve a pipeline running through their territory. Look at the USA and Keystone XL

Being completely landlocked. 

Oil not trading anywhere need its records highs. (50 dollars a barrel? Most petro states aren't doing so hot,  and they have access to the sea) 

The USA being energy independent. This is huge. If Alberta oil was in such high demand in the states,  they wouldn't be buying it at such a steep discount. Looking back at the US civil war for some reference,  the south though they could go it alone because everyone needed cotton. Turns out europe did just fine because they had alternatives. 

And just like Quebec Seperatists, Alberta Seperatists have the same answer to all of these challenges. We'll be fine,  everything will work out. 

Its a very impressive level of delusion to not have any realistic answers to these challenges and have blind faith that everything will be fine.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Oct 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> This said, I believe that some of the current anger is actually stoked by oil lobby of those provinces to try and create pressure on the rest of the country.



Nailed it. 

Alberta and Saskatchewan are our 'populist provinces', hence it's easier to get the majority of people to agree on single issues like energy. Especially if you have lots of money (oil companies) and skin in the game.....

'Alberta is, in other words, populist, in the textbook meaning of the term—its politics is rooted in a kind of weird and wild bottom-up people-powered energy that brooks no arrogance from an ­established political class. This ­habit is far older, and is far more ingrained, than one government or even one generation’s worth of conservative governments. There is one common trait that yokes the founding of the province to politics to this day, and it’s not a commitment to low taxes or small government—it’s grievance. A sense that this province has been dealt a winning hand by nature but a raw one by Confederation.'

https://thewalrus.ca/the-great-myth-of-alberta-conservatism/


----------



## Underway (25 Oct 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> 1) "the west"'s oil will sell, either within Canada or to the USA and beyond.
> 
> 2) Canada can embrace the sale and use of "the west"'s oil, or it can bet on Alberta thinking only BC or  Quebec can export it's oil.
> 
> ...



Alberta isn't going anywhere and the only way Quebec nationalism will be a quaint memory is if there is massive violence. But Albertans have to much money to risk violence ruining the whole thing. This current situation is way less crazy than the Trudeau Snr's hobbling of Alberta's economy.  That was real pain and unemployment, and Alberta had much less political power to fight back with.

Like the separation movement in Quebec, Alberta's is embedded in emotion and tribalism and not in anything resembling logic. Oil prices go back up and suddenly everything is good again.  It's the US fracking revolution that is to blame for Alberta's woes currently, not a lack of pipeline capacity. It's completely overturned the politics and prices of oil (ie: Saudi Arabia... ).

Current problems on oil sales and market access will not be solved by separation.  They will be amplified.  The US will still take their oil at a discount (probably a greater one because Alberta will be over a barrel) and BC will be able to easily block a pipeline. They need the sea. If the US oil economy finishes its transition to fully fracked oil products it won't matter either way.  Only places outside of NA will want Alberta's oil as the US oil industry _will no longer be able to process it_. This is because they will have spent the money to fully convert manufacturing of all of the oil based products to the super cheap fracking byproducts as feed stock.  This is why Keystone is so critical as it has the effect of ensure heavier crude will be in the mix for years to come. 

Alberta's other major exports will can/will be blocked/trapped as well (wheat and beef).  The US will happily block out their exports from their own markets for domestic political reasons once they are outside of the free trade agreement.  Canada has little or no incentive to help them out get their product to market and can replace their oil with foreign (see US) natural gas easily.  This falls right into the US environmental lobby's (read US oil interests lobby's) plans to freeze out Alberta oil.  Quebec at least has access to the sea and could make a go of it.  Alberta is in a tight spot.

Alberta's only option to avoid disaster should they separate is to join the US.  This solves all of their problems.  Access to the US oil pipeline network is now an internal US problem and will go through easily.  Alberta beef, wheat and oil will be sold at US dollars the currency they would use.  All their resources would become US ones with the attendant pork barreling and support for US economic interests included. Alberta would keep all their "state money" though would have to convert away from provincial resource ownership to private land ownership of resources as per US property rights.  But those transfer payments would stop.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Oct 2019)

I agree that demand/price for Alberta oil is largely set outside of Canada. But.

Why then, if Alberta oil is going to die a natural death anyway, does a federal government go to the trouble enacting a Tanker ban on the North BC coast that only really impacts the export of Alberta oil? Is that just not unnecessarily vexatious? If there is no demand for that oil on the world market, who would bother to build a pipeline and export terminal? If the federal government was so concerned about the dangers of tankers carrying oil, would not a tanker ban in both the Bay of Fundy and the St Lawrence River also make even more ecological sense? I wonder, then, why those bans were never proposed or enacted?

How is it that both Quebec and BC can basically get away with violating the Constitution by opposing pipelines that then impede to flow of goods across Canada?

I agree that Alberta could have a much better job of managing its economy and money over the past two decades. However, it doesn't take much detective work to see the federal Liberals making short sighted and glib policy decisions to curry favour with voters outside Alberta and Saskatchewan. If oil is dying as an industry like everyone seems willing to predict, why does the Federal government risk the blowback by choking off pipeline access east/west?

I think Alberta separation is a dumb idea for all the reasons posted above. That doesn't mean it still isn't a problem made worse by meddlesome polticians and pundits from outside Alberta.


----------



## McG (25 Oct 2019)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Just remember the US Civil War was started over basically the same thing. Feeling alienated from the political process and having economic decisions forced upon them whether they liked it or not.
> 
> Not saying it will go that route, but there is some legitimacy to the complaints. For example the East Coast has 32 seats vs 34 for Alberta, despite having a population basically half the size. Quebec has roughly double the population but more than double the seats. You can easily argue the Canadian seat break down is Gerrymandering at its finest.
> 
> If you vote in Alberta they are basically saying your vote is worth less than other parts of the country.


So you are saying that electoral reform is the path to making Alberta happy?


----------



## QV (25 Oct 2019)

To all those saying "Alberta didn't diversify so frig them, it's their own fault", isn't this one country?  Alberta is the O&G energy sector for a diverse Canadian economy, and that O&G represents only about 25% of Alberta's GDP today.  Do we, as a country, want to collapse that industry and be more energy dependent on foreign countries?           

Shutting down pipes going East and West is the self inflicted wound on this country, perpetrated for political reasons.  The environmental claims for shutting down the pipes are not in good faith when raw sewage and tankers from the Middle East are populating the St Lawrence, and there are no equivalent tanker bans in the East.  Shipping coal and buying oil from countries with poor environmental standards while shunning clean Canadian energy from Alberta is hypocrisy.  The unequal representation in parliament aggravates this situation and allows it to continue. Confederation will be challenged if one person's vote in one region continues to be worth more than one person's vote in another.


----------



## mariomike (25 Oct 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> Confederation will be challenged if one person's vote in one region continues to be worth more than one person's vote in another.



Regarding that,



> Oct. 13, 2019
> 
> One person, one vote? In Canada, it’s not even close
> https://www.thestar.com/politics/2019/10/13/one-person-one-vote-in-canada-its-not-even-close.html


----------



## Remius (25 Oct 2019)

QV, the problem as has been mentioned is all the world market and not specifically Canada.  Don't get me wrong as I think a pipeline would help soften the world market effects but f a province hedges its bet on one thing and that things goes bad then there is an issue.  *Also, you do realise that the St Lawrence is a shared water way with the US right?*  that is the real reason.   Good luck with getting that ban in place there.  It also is not all sunshine and lollypops.  The whole area is infested with invasive species and pollution.  So maybe BC isn't interested in the same issues artound their environmentally sensitive areas.  

Alberta was doing fine when oil prices were good, pipeline or no pipeline.  Look at the fisheries industry on the East Coast.  Remember when cod stocks were depleted? provinces on the coast had to start looking at other ways of doing business.  Same with coal in Cape Breton.  

Boom or bust industries throughout time suffer when times are bad.  Many Gold rush towns don't exists anymore, cola mining stops when you run out of coal or no one wants to buy it.  The fur industry was booming until it didn't.  Etc etc. 

Conservatives were in power for ten years.  Election cycles happen and sometimes your team does not win.  That's democracy.  Saying you are going to pick up your toys and leave is akin to tantrum when you don't get what you want.  

Electoral reform or a change in how we select our representatives or senators may be required.  I've always favoured a two tiered system of FPTP and PR.  Keep our legislative format the same but have a more robust executive that could be represented by popular vote for oversight.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I agree that demand/price for Alberta oil is largely set outside of Canada. But.
> 
> Why then, if Alberta oil is going to die a natural death anyway, does a federal government go to the trouble enacting a Tanker ban on the North BC coast that only really impacts the export of Alberta oil?


 I'm not sure people understand what the tanker ban is. Oil will continue to be shipped via BC, just not tankers that carry more than 12500 Metric tons of oil. This being to mitigate any potential spill. Environmentalist and first nations have been pushing for this to protect the BC coast.





> Is that just not unnecessarily vexatious?


 Depends on what you think  unnecessarily vexatious is. If its anything that goes against Alberta, then yes. IF it's a compromise solution to very real issues, the energy industry development and protecting the environment, then no.





> If there is no demand for that oil on the world market, who would bother to build a pipeline and export terminal?


There is a demand, just not in North America. Alberta being landlocked makes this a very bad thing





> If the federal government was so concerned about the dangers of tankers carrying oil, would not a tanker ban in both the Bay of Fundy and the St Lawrence River also make even more ecological sense? I wonder, then, why those bans were never proposed or enacted?


 From what I can tell, there hasn't been a push on the east coast for this. There also isn't nearly as much tanker traffic on the east coast. With the north America energy scene being taken over by US fracking, a lot more of albertas oil is going to be leaving from BC.

Looking closer at the Irving refinery that energy east would have been pumping oil to.They do about 320,000 barrels a day with their facility just not set up to do much more than 100K of heavier crude. Would take huge investment to change the math very much. Even if they did that...320K more barrels going for something closer to market rate isn't changing much there for Alberta. 





> How is it that both Quebec and BC can basically get away with violating the Constitution by opposing pipelines that then impede to flow of goods across Canada?


That part of the constitution has always been very weak. Every province sets up barriers to each others goods. From oil, to dairy, to alcohol, everything has a provincial board that balks at allowing other provinces to enter. There is a reason why many people say it's easier to trade with the USA due to Nafta than with other provinces. 





> I agree that Alberta could have a much better job of managing its economy and money over the past two decades. However, it doesn't take much detective work to see the federal Liberals making short sighted and glib policy decisions to curry favour with voters outside Alberta and Saskatchewan. If oil is dying as an industry like everyone seems willing to predict, why does the Federal government risk the blowback by choking off pipeline access east/west?


 It's about where oil is dying. Alberta oil, the heavy, labour and cost extensive to extract oil that it is largely being phased out of North America. And a lot of refineries aren't even built to process it. So Alberta is facing a lot of issues, a lot of it out of the hands of Alberta and Canada. Again, oil is trading at 50 dollars today. That's 50-70 dollars less than at its peak. The reason for that is, again, the glut of oil on the global markets. America moving from oil importer to oil exporter has been a huge game changer, and Alberta and Canada can do very little to change that. People want someone to blame, and the federal government is a easy target, but most of the issues facing Alberta aren't originating in Ottawa





> I think Alberta separation is a dumb idea for all the reasons posted above. That doesn't mean it still isn't a problem made worse by meddlesome polticians and pundits from outside Alberta.


 It's the perfect storm for Alberta. The same time America has a oil revolution, Saudis counter by flooding the market with cheap oil just as climate scientists are coming out with the effects of climate change which results in people wanting to reduce emissions while Alberta is one of Canadas highest emission jurisdictions. Toss in the supreme court and first nations wanting a say about what projects go through their traditional land and what they get out of it, Alberta is facing challenges on all fronts. But to leave Canada does nothing to solve ANY of them. Sure, they can get rid of the carbon tax. But they still need to face 98 percent of everything else facing them, all with the added challenges of a Canada that doesn't owe them anything.

The balance between the climate/environment and the energy sector was always going to be a hard one to juggle, because doing anything for one means working against the other. Alberta should count its lucky stars that Canadians didn't vote on mass for a party like the green party, because that would be the instant death of the energy sector, not just managing the decline.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2019)

That said, not everything is gloom and doom.

I'm no expert, but I do keep my eye on the experts. (Little bit of money in the markets)

Oil companies aren't bullish on their market going forward, look at the exit of a couple of the foreign players from the sands over the last few years (Shell sold most of their holding and lease rights to CNRL, Total cancelled a big project, Conoco is out, Marathon is out). Heading to the exits started well before the troubles with transmountain, and quite a bit of it pre dated the Trudeau years.

 A number of oil companies (specifically Shell) are in the process of pivoting to renewables. That's not a Canadian issue, that's an international oil market issue. The key is to be ahead of the curve and not fighting against the flow.

The greens, the liberals, the ndp aren't wrong, oil is not the way of the future. Too much supply, the margins are too small, and the big players can produce it for much cheaper than Alberta can. But the big energy companies are moving towards renewables. Alberta needs to as well. And they have a well educated, young, entrepreneurial workforce, and if there is any place in Canada that can handle what is a transitional shift it's Alberta. It's not, it cannot happen overnight, which is why pipelines are needed now, but the shift needs to happen, because the signs are there that the oil industry is going to be facing ever more challenges going forward, not less.


----------



## VinceW (25 Oct 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> That said, not everything is gloom and doom.
> 
> I'm no expert, but I do keep my eye on the experts. (Little bit of money in the markets)
> 
> ...



World oil consumption is not going away for at least a century and now that he’s virtue signalling that he’s now a climate justice warrior to his loony base and fans worldwide by slowly shutting down our oil industry particularly our oil sands by 2050 while Canada and the world will continue to use oil we’re expected to be the noble ones by not selling our oil but the rest of the world will still use well past 2050.
We’re going to keep selling our oil until consumer demand is gone and not anytime sooner we’re not going to give the East a warm and fuzzy feeling so that they can feel that they’re making a difference while hypocrites continue to buy and use oil based products themselves well past 2050


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> World oil consumption is not going away for at least a century


You're right. Oil will continue to be consumed for the next century. What may change are the players. Saudi oil makes a profit at 10 dollars a barrel. US fracking, at 30. Canada breaks even at 50. And that comes with a caveat. The oil Canada extracts is a heavy crude, harder to refine, and not every refinery can handle it. A lot of the oil Canada is selling to the USA now is sold at a massive discount just to make it worth it for the refinery. So if global oil doesn't rise to the 70-80 dollar range, the Alberta energy industry isn't going to be hugely profitable. And what can Canada, or even a independent Alberta do against the USA and OPEC?





> and now that he’s virtue signalling that he’s now a climate justice warrior to his loony base


 A majority of Canadians believe climate change is a very important issue, and 65 percent of Canadians voted for a party that advocates anything from a price on carbon to completely shutting down oil extraction today. That loony base is the majority of Canadians





> by slowly shutting down our oil industry particularly our oil sands by 2050 while Canada and the world will continue to use oil we’re expected to be the noble ones by not selling our oil but the rest of the world will still use well past 2050.


 The market doesn't lie. There is a reason why oil companies are investing heavily in renewables and things like hydrogen extraction. The Canadian energy sector, pipelines or not, is not hugely profitable. There is too much oil in the global markets. Transmountain isn't being built to make the oil sands more profitable. Its being built to help them break even. The oil sands are selling oil at a loss in a lot of cases. Selling Canadian oil at market prices only means Canadian oil sells at 45-55 dollars a barrel, the break even point. So Canada, Alberta has two choices. Chase the past, or embrace the future. Chasing the past means crisscrossing the country with pipelines, heavily subsidizing the oil industry, trying to keep the oil industry propped up for the coming decades. Embracing the future means looking past oil. Not today, but someday. Alberta isn't going to be able to sell oil forever, same way the south couldn't sell cotton forever, same way the atlantic provinces couldn't sell cod forever, same way Quebec couldn't sell asbestos forever. I, personally, am of the belief Canada is doing a good job of balancing both right now.





> We’re going to keep selling our oil until consumer demand is gone and not anytime sooner we’re not going to give the East a warm and fuzzy feeling so that they can feel that they’re making a difference while hypocrites continue to buy and use oil based products themselves well past 2050


To summarize, until Alberta can change the fundamental economic realities, the market will take care of Alberta.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2019)

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/harper-catches-a-break-when-g7-discussion-on-climate-change-reduced-to-half-an-hour-isil-discussed-instead





> But the leaders at the summit did take the time to draft a communique pledging to end all carbon emissions by 2100 and to hit lowered targets by 2050. And Harper’s response staked out unexpected territory for a country with huge fossil fuel reserves, stating that Canada’s energy producers must be ready to transform their industries with new technologies
> 
> It is “not just 2050 or the end of the century, but 2030, the kind of targets we are talking about will require a transformation in our energy sector,” the prime minister said.
> 
> “We should not fool ourselves. Nobody is going to start to shut down their industries or turn off the lights. We have to find a way to lower carbon emitting energy.”


So it's not just PM Trudeau saying it, PM Harper said the same as well.


----------



## VinceW (25 Oct 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> You're right. Oil will continue to be consumed for the next century. What may change are the players. Saudi oil makes a profit at 10 dollars a barrel. US fracking, at 30. Canada breaks even at 50. And that comes with a caveat. The oil Canada extracts is a heavy crude, harder to refine, and not every refinery can handle it. A lot of the oil Canada is selling to the USA now is sold at a massive discount just to make it worth it for the refinery. So if global oil doesn't rise to the 70-80 dollar range, the Alberta energy industry isn't going to be hugely profitable. And what can Canada, or even a independent Alberta do against the USA and OPEC? A majority of Canadians believe climate change is a very important issue, and 65 percent of Canadians voted for a party that advocates anything from a price on carbon to completely shutting down oil extraction today. That loony base is the majority of Canadians The market doesn't lie. There is a reason why oil companies are investing heavily in renewables and things like hydrogen extraction. The Canadian energy sector, pipelines or not, is not hugely profitable. There is too much oil in the global markets. Transmountain isn't being built to make the oil sands more profitable. Its being built to help them break even. The oil sands are selling oil at a loss in a lot of cases. Selling Canadian oil at market prices only means Canadian oil sells at 45-55 dollars a barrel, the break even point. So Canada, Alberta has two choices. Chase the past, or embrace the future. Chasing the past means crisscrossing the country with pipelines, heavily subsidizing the oil industry, trying to keep the oil industry propped up for the coming decades. Embracing the future means looking past oil. Not today, but someday. Alberta isn't going to be able to sell oil forever, same way the south couldn't sell cotton forever, same way the atlantic provinces couldn't sell cod forever, same way Quebec couldn't sell asbestos forever. I, personally, am of the belief Canada is doing a good job of balancing both right now.To summarize, until Alberta can change the fundamental economic realities, the market will take care of Alberta.



We’re not going to eliminate a large part our economy for a bunch of hypocrites who won’t even live by the standards that they won’t even support themselves.
If our oil still wasn’t in demand he wouldn’t be blocking us from building new pipelines we’ll take our chances with the world market investors will help decide if it’ll sell and not by the manmade decisions from the far left loonies in Quebec or Toronto who could care less if we live or die just to feel good about themselves at our expense.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> We’re not going to eliminate a large part our economy for a bunch of hypocrites who won’t even live by the standards that they won’t even support themselves.
> If our oil still wasn’t in demand he wouldn’t be blocking us from building new pipelines we’ll take our chances with the world market investors will help decide if it’ll sell and not by the manmade decisions from the far left in Quebec or Toronto who could care less if we live or die.


True. You're not going to eliminate a large part of your economy. 

I will be interested in seeing how profitable the oil sands are once TMX and KXL are up and running. I'm going off of the assumption that the price of oil will remain somewhat static for the foreseeable future as the knife fight between OPEC and the USA continues until someone caves or a new normal is found. Again, with the price of oil extraction in Canada being what it is and the break even point being around 50 dollars per barrel, if the lack of pipelines is being used as a scapegoat or if there is fundamentally a bigger issue at play here.


----------



## Remius (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> We’re not going to eliminate a large part our economy for a bunch of hypocrites who won’t even live by the standards that they won’t even support themselves.
> If our oil still wasn’t in demand he wouldn’t be blocking us from building new pipelines we’ll take our chances with the world market investors will help decide if it’ll sell and not by the manmade decisions from the far left loonies in Quebec or Toronto who could care less if we live or die just to make themselves feel good about themselves.



Nobody said that.  Did you read what Altair wrote?  Or anything else in the last posts? 

Jason Kenney isn't on board with the separation thing so until you can find a party or leader that is willing to start that fight the issue is coffee shop talk.  And by the time it does happen it will likely not be in our lifetime.


----------



## VinceW (25 Oct 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Nobody said that.  Did you read what Altair wrote?  Or anything else in the last posts?
> 
> Jason Kenney isn't on board with the separation thing so until you can find a party or leader that is willing to start that fight the issue is coffee shop talk.  And by the time it does happen it will likely not be in our lifetime.


If Kenney won’t support independence we’ll put people in who will we’ve done it before for other leaders that don’t do their jobs right.
The West went from voting federally for the PC’s to the Reform party because the former wouldn’t represent the West to the best of their abilities.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> If Kenney won’t support independence we’ll put people in who will we’ve done it before for other leaders that don’t do their jobs right.


Are you going to boo O'Canada at a hockey game?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Oct 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And if the First Nations people involved object and decide to start an insurgency- then what?
> 
> Invite the US Army in to suppress it? Because that worked out so awesome in Iraq, Afahanistan and Syria?
> 
> ...



I think you would find that our FN's are far to dependent on government support to successfully fight a real insurgency, There will be some successful individuals, but the vast majority will not pick up arms and if the others are forced out of the communities they spend most of their times just surviving. In fact the FN's would be a great choice for a successful adaption of the Biggs plan used in the Malay Emergency. Also like the Malay Emergency a independent West could offer a modern alternative to the Indian Act, similar to how the British convinced the Sultans to offer land to the Chinese squatters.


----------



## VinceW (25 Oct 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> Are you going to boo O'Canada at a hockey game?



I’ll remain seated.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> I’ll remain seated.


You going to spit at Canadian forces members? 

(I've had that happen in Quebec)


----------



## VinceW (25 Oct 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> You going to spit at Canadian forces members?
> 
> (I've had that happen in Quebec)



Anyone who tries to prevent me from exercising my right to decide whether I want to be independent I’ll do a lot more then that.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Anyone who tries to prevent me from exercising my right to decide whether I want to be independent I’ll do a lot more then that.


Still some catching up to do to Quebec seperatists then. 

Your hatred of Canada isn't deep seated enough yet.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Oct 2019)

Fluctuations in oil markets aside...

Auto industry in crisis - bailouts.

SNC-Lavalin in crisis - a "managed" outcome.

Ongoing weak opportunities in Atlantic Canada - ACOA, favourable EI rules.

What noteworthy initiatives has the federal government comparably undertaken to assist a major industry in AB, companies in AB, a temporarily weak economy in AB...?

The LPC needs many seats in QC to win; it panders to QC.  What is good for the party is divisive for the country.  The LPC doesn't need seats in AB; to the extent that any decision will be received differently by AB and ON/QC, the win goes to ON/QC.  What is good for the party is divisive for the country.

Long-term, divisive politics and poor fiscal management I'd rank as the greatest threats.


----------



## Remius (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> If Kenney won’t support independence we’ll put people in who will we’ve done it before for other leaders that don’t do their jobs right.
> The West went from voting federally for the PC’s to the Reform party because the former wouldn’t represent the West to the best of their abilities.




Ok, so in 4 years maybe you'll have a separatist party and a leader to challenge Kenney.  Not impossible, Quebec did it, but then again they had a charismatic leader to do it.  It would be improbable that they would win and in fact you would likely fracture the right enough to allow another party in like the NDP. So maybe in 8 years and that party would have to campaign on separation and the promise of a referendum.  Keep in mind that not everyone in Alberta is a separatist and support might be thin.  Quebec has flip flopped between separatist and federalist parties for 50 years now.  and they are still here. 

Everything I read from those supporting separation try to include Manitoba, Sak and BC in order to be successful.  None of which is likely to be any easier.

It's fun to talk about and I'm sure there are local LARPing militias saying they are ready when the call happens but it's still coffee shop talk.   

It would be better if you approached it from a new way of doing things like electoral reform or dropping trade barriers between provinces.  Separation though isn't going to get any real traction. 

I believe Western resentment is real, a bit misplaced and a bit justified.  But yes, another Trudeau won,  We'll be doing this again in two years some stay calm and vote when the time comes.


----------



## Remius (25 Oct 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Fluctuations in oil markets aside...
> 
> Auto industry in crisis - bailouts.
> 
> ...



They spent 4.5 billion dollars buying the pipeline.  And 1.6 billion as an aid package.  Not saying that is right or wrong or enough just what they have done.


----------



## Remius (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Anyone who tries to prevent me from exercising my right to decide whether I want to be independent I’ll do a lot more then that.



So violence?  Like blowing up mailboxes, or kidnapping and murdering a cabinet minister?  Quebec extremists tried that and it didn't exactly help win support.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Fluctuations in oil markets aside...
> 
> Auto industry in crisis - bailouts.


Lessons learned





> SNC-Lavalin in crisis - a "managed" outcome.


Tried cheap political fix, blown up in face





> Ongoing weak opportunities in Atlantic Canada - ACOA, favourable EI rules.


But no propping up of a fishing industries





> What noteworthy initiatives has the federal government comparably undertaken to assist a major industry in AB, companies in AB, a temporarily weak economy in AB...?


 Changes to EI rules, exemptions from Carbon taxes for many companies





> The LPC needs many seats in QC to win; it panders to QC.


What party doesn't?





> What is good for the party is divisive for the country.  The LPC doesn't need seats in AB


Part LPC problem, part Alberta problem. While the LPC ignores Alberta, so to does the CPC take it for granted. With Alberta being safe a safe CPC province, they don't pander to it. Why bother? They are voting CPC no matter what. What Alberta has done is make themselves politically expendable





> ; to the extent that any decision will be received differently by AB and ON/QC, the win goes to ON/QC.  What is good for the party is divisive for the country.


 Every party panders to Ontario and Quebec.





> Long-term, divisive politics and poor fiscal management I'd rank as the greatest threats.


True.


----------



## VinceW (25 Oct 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> They spent 4.5 billion dollars buying the pipeline.  And 1.6 billion as an aid package.  Not saying that is right or wrong or enough just what they have done.



All that needed to be done was to punish the BC government for not abiding by the constitution whenever Provinces have not fulfilled their agreements that they’ve agreed to the Feds have withheld funding from them until they comply with what they’re supposed to do and instead of the feds doing that he took the opportunity to play politics with the situation that’s why he bought the pipeline so he could maintain political control with Albertas rights and play us and BC against each other for political gain.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ... Ongoing weak opportunities in Atlantic Canada - *ACOA* ...


The Atlantic isn't the only region that has this kind of economic development assistance - with $251,610,000 in the kitty for 2019-20, compared to ACOA's $291,260,195 for the same time frame.

Argue the difference?  Of course.  Say one has one thing the others don't have in this case, though?  Nope.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Long-term, divisive politics and poor fiscal management I'd rank as the greatest threats.


Yup.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> All that needed to be done was to punish the BC government for not abiding by the constitution whenever Provinces have not fulfilled their agreements that they’ve agreed to the Feds have withheld funding from them until they comply with what they’re supposed to do and instead of the feds doing that he took the opportunity to play politics with the situation that’s why he bought the pipeline so he could maintain political control with Albertas rights and play us and BC against each other for political gain.


I would laugh if BC seperated to prevent a pipeline that helps alberta if the feds forced a pipeline down BCs throat like that.


----------



## VinceW (25 Oct 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> I would laugh if BC seperated to prevent a pipeline that helps alberta if the feds forced a pipeline down BCs throat like that.


Most BCers are in favour of the pipeline the current government is looking to be wiped out next election a lot in part because of their opposition to the pipeline.


----------



## Remius (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> All that needed to be done was to punish the BC government for not abiding by the constitution whenever Provinces have not fulfilled their agreements that they’ve agreed to the Feds have withheld funding from them until they comply with what they’re supposed to do and instead of the feds doing that he took the opportunity to play politics with the situation that’s why he bought the pipeline so he could maintain political control with Albertas rights and play us and BC against each other for political gain.



Would that not have led to BC alienation and possible separation?  As far as I can tell there are court issues and the Feds are still trying to get it approved.  Trudeau has been attacked from BQ and Greens and NDP over trying to get the pipeline approved.    

What did BC not abide by, or agreement did they violate? 

BC is doing fine on its own to hold up the process.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Most BCers are in favour of the pipeline the current government is looking to be wiped out next election a lot in part because of their opposition to the pipeline.


There is a difference between being in support  of something and having something forced upon you. 

No province wants the feds showing up "punishing" them to get something done. 

I doubt the courts would agree with that being informed consent either.


----------



## Remius (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Most BCers are in favour of the pipeline the current government is looking to be wiped out next election a lot in part because of their opposition to the pipeline.



Where are you getting your numbers from?  

17 of 42 seats went to the CPC.  That is assuming every CPC supporter there is pro pipeline. So less than half the ridings. 

The CPC got 34% of the popular vote.  Not amazing but that means the LPC, NDP and Greens (and JWR) got 66%.  If you think that those parties are anti pipeline then MOST BCers would tend to not want a pipeline no?  

Also look how the ridings along the coast went where the greatest impact will be.  Not one blue one. 

This is all assuming that everyone there had pipelines on there minds when they voted.


----------



## VinceW (25 Oct 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Would that not have led to BC alienation and possible separation?  As far as I can tell there are court issues and the Feds are still trying to get it approved.  Trudeau has been attacked from BQ and Greens and NDP over trying to get the pipeline approved.
> 
> What did BC not abide by, or agreement did they violate?
> 
> BC is doing fine on its own to hold up the process.



Moving energy throughout the country is a federal right the last time BC didn’t obey constitutional rights of the Feds they were punished financially because they tried shutting down the Nanoose torpedo range.
Since most BCers want the pipeline it’s the environmental loonies that make the most noise about it there’s not much worry about them seperating just for that reason.


----------



## VinceW (25 Oct 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Where are you getting your numbers from?
> 
> 17 of 42 seats went to the CPC.  That is assuming every CPC supporter there is pro pipeline. So less than half the ridings.
> 
> ...



There’s around 54% for the pipeline they’re also doing a terrible job dealing with the economy as is usual with socialist governments.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> If Kenney won’t support independence we’ll put people in who will we’ve done it before for other leaders that don’t do their jobs right.
> The West went from voting federally for the PC’s to the Reform party because the former wouldn’t represent the West to the best of their abilities.



Whatever...


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2019)

Well,  this has been amusing.  :brickwall:


----------



## VinceW (25 Oct 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Whatever...



Albertans will vote for the Bloc before letting her party back in again.


----------



## Remius (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Moving energy throughout the country is a federal right the last time BC didn’t obey constitutional rights of the Feds they were punished financially because they tried shutting down the Nanoose torpedo range.
> Since most BCers want the pipeline it’s the environmental loonies that make the most noise about it there’s not much worry about them seperating just for that reason.




Is it?  Legit question.  Also the court cases are still being heard over this so it isn't over, but it is taking time.  There is a reason BC and indigenous groups are challenging the Feds on the pipeline as they don't seem to think so in this case.  I don't think energy is the issue, just the way it is being transported.   

So imposing a carbon tax is a federal right?  Because last I heard Alberta wasn't going to play ball.  So it is ok to have that forced on them? 

Vince, I'm trying to understand your logic, not trying to bait you or anything.  But this seems to be an emotional response from you as opposed to a rational one.


----------



## Remius (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Albertans will vote for the Bloc before letting her party back in again.



???

Not sure what that response was to but that isn't how our electoral system works.  Unless the bloc had candidates in Alberta...which pretty much impossible.


----------



## VinceW (25 Oct 2019)

Altair said:
			
		

> There is a difference between being in support  of something and having something forced upon you.
> 
> No province wants the feds showing up "punishing" them to get something done.
> 
> I doubt the courts would agree with that being informed consent either.



If there was a government who’s members weren’t determined to stop the pipeline not much of this would be happening.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> Albertans will vote for the Bloc before letting her party back in again.



Just don’t forget your own self-inflicted damage when you’re busy railing against Ontario and Quebec.


----------



## Altair (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> If there was a government who’s members weren’t determined to stop the pipeline not much of this would be happening.


I have a buddy who used to work up in fort mac. Made his money before the crash,  back east now. 

Told me the liberals should let TMX die. I asked him why,  and he said the NDP and Greens would eat him alive over buying it,  and not a single Albertan would give him a ounce of credit,  so politically it would make more sense. 

He was right.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Oct 2019)

>Where are you getting your numbers from?  

With respect to BC, I assumed he meant provincially.  But that's difficult to gauge: polling results are likely to be inflected during periods of high fuel prices.


----------



## Baz (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> ...environmental loonies that make the most noise...



You've used that term, loonies, twice now.  Exactly who are you referring to?  I consider myself a moderate environmentalist, understand the real science and believe we have to do something, but also know we have to make measured steps to avoid social and economic turmoil, and have taken small steps like driving a hybrid.  Am I a loonie?

Understanding the history of the human species, I'm more concerned about the state of mind of someone who is threatening people with violence for some perceived threat to their independence, and who can't seem to make or understand a coherent logical argument.


----------



## VinceW (25 Oct 2019)

Baz said:
			
		

> You've used that term, loonies, twice now.  Exactly who are you referring to?  I consider myself a moderate environmentalist, understand the real science and believe we have to do something, but also know we have to make measured steps to avoid social and economic turmoil, and have taken small steps like driving a hybrid.  Am I a loonie?
> 
> Understanding the history of the human species, I'm more concerned about the state of mind of someone who is threatening people with violence for some perceived threat to their independence, and who can't seem to make or understand a coherent logical argument.



People who commit a criminal act against me deserve a throat punch and or something else.

Climate scientists have been as capable to predict what the climate will do in the future as much as a late night psychic can there’s no proof yet that CO2 raises temperatures the earth warms up first then CO2 rises it doesn’t work the other way around they still don’t know but the climate scientists have been politicalized to the point where if someone like other scientists don’t agree with the CO2 warming narrative they’re dismissed as being anti science or they support big oil.
The most fanatical climate justice warriors are also using the climate change scare to get support for socialist economic policies the far Left loons make up all those parties and movements.


----------



## Baz (25 Oct 2019)

I've spent most of my adult life "standing on guard" for this Country so when people attack it I also take it seriously.

Oh gee, internet memes... that's what I'll believe over talking to actual statistical meteorologists at Environment Canada who have spent their entire professional life getting good at what they do.  And they are politicised simply because people don't understand it and/or don't agree with them.

But I got it, I'm loonie... this conversation is useless ... I'm out.


----------



## garb811 (25 Oct 2019)

VinceW said:
			
		

> People who commit a criminal act against me deserve a throat punch and or something else.
> 
> Climate scientists have been as capable to predict what the climate will do in the future as much as a late night psychic can there’s no proof yet that CO2 raises temperatures the earth warms up first then CO2 rises it doesn’t work the other way around they still don’t know but the climate scientists have been politicalized to the point where if someone like other scientists don’t agree with the CO2 warming narrative they’re dismissed as being anti science or they support big oil.
> The most fanatical climate justice warriors are also using the climate change scare to get support for socialist economic policies the far Left loons make up all those parties and movements.



As the site owner has stated::


> I am certain some folks will have issue with this, and see it as stifling discussion, or silencing/preferring one side. I can assure you it is neither of those, but it is an attempt to further clean up the reputation of the site and raise the bar for discussion. Yes, this is a fairly heavy-handed action, but with the increasingly worrisome tone of discussion here, we believe it is appropriate in order to get things back on track.
> 
> There are plenty of other sites where the most inventive personal attack wins the argument.


Advocating violence as a means to solve a Canadian political problem will not be tolerated. Offering it to another member, even by insinuation, will earn an immediate ban.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Oct 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> As the site owner has stated::Advocating violence as a means to solve a Canadian political problem will not be tolerated. Offering it to another member, even by insinuation, will earn an immediate ban.
> 
> *Milnet.ca Staff*



Thanks for that. You have saved my eyes from rolling out of my head.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Oct 2019)

Meanwhile, a good reminder that 'Wexit' doesn't stop at the Rockies:

'Wexit' talk doesn't stop at Alberta's border with Conservative surge in B.C.

While much has been made of the Conservative Party's sweep of Saskatchewan and most of Alberta in Monday's night election, the blue wave didn't stop at the Rockies.

Instead, it continued into British Columbia's Interior and northeast, parts of the province where support for Conservative candidates ranged from 45.1 per cent in Kootenay-Columbia in the south to a full 69.9 per cent in Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies in the north.

Although it's normal for Conservatives to win in these regions, the party also picked up tens of thousands of new votes along the B.C.-Alberta border compared to its performance in 2015.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/british-columbia-conservatives-wexit-1.5335966?cmp=newsletter-news-digests-canada-and-world-evening


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Oct 2019)

“ Instead, it continued into British Columbia's Interior and northeast, parts of the province where support for Conservative candidates ranged from 45.1 per cent in Kootenay-Columbia in the south to a full 69.9 per cent in Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies in the north.”

This is real here in central B.C.  The CPC candidate here won by a healthy lead and he barely campaigned. 
It’s a little worrying because the discussions are not about how to make Canada whole again. There is such a disconnect between here and Vancouver/Victoria, it’s all about planning for a  new entity that is not under the thumb of those cities. There is also a very vile opinion of Ottawa, Toronto and Quebec that is made worse with a shockingly sharp and outright projection of hatred for JT.  We are still new to BC, but it’s certainly obvious that something very serious is afoot and we just hope it calms down.


----------



## mariomike (28 Oct 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> There is such a disconnect between here and Vancouver/Victoria, it’s all about planning for a  new entity that is not under the thumb of those cities. There is also a very vile opinion of Ottawa, Toronto and Quebec



Sounds like the much discussed urban versus rural divide. 

Ottawa is where the political power is. 

The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area ( GTHA ) supersedes the province of Ontario as the second largest region by population. Second only to the province of Quebec. 

I'll repost this for anyone concerned with their voting power ( or lack of ) compared to other Canadians,



> Oct. 13, 2019
> 
> One person, one vote? In Canada, it’s not even close
> https://www.thestar.com/politics/2019/10/13/one-person-one-vote-in-canada-its-not-even-close.html
> Some votes are going to be substantially more powerful than others, especially those cast in the most remote rural ridings. And if you live in a city — especially one growing as rapidly as Greater Toronto — your vote is more likely to register as less than equal.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Oct 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> “ Instead, it continued into British Columbia's Interior and northeast, parts of the province where support for Conservative candidates ranged from 45.1 per cent in Kootenay-Columbia in the south to a full 69.9 per cent in Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies in the north.”
> 
> This is real here in central B.C.  The CPC candidate here won by a healthy lead and he barely campaigned.
> It’s a little worrying because the discussions are not about how to make Canada whole again. There is such a disconnect between here and Vancouver/Victoria, it’s all about planning for a  new entity that is not under the thumb of those cities. There is also a very vile opinion of Ottawa, Toronto and Quebec that is made worse with a shockingly sharp and outright projection of hatred for JT.  We are still new to BC, but it’s certainly obvious that something very serious is afoot and we just hope it calms down.



Outside of Greater Vancouver and Vancouver Island, there are almost no 'Provincial Conservative' (i.e. BC Liberal Party) MLAs either.

Double word score!


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 Oct 2019)

I did not know that! The two around here* are BC Liberals ( so Conservatives?) and both took near on 50% of the vote in 2017. 

* Okanagan and Monashee, North Okanagan.


----------



## RangerRay (30 Oct 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Outside of Greater Vancouver and Vancouver Island, there are almost no 'Provincial Conservative' (i.e. BC Liberal Party) MLAs either.
> 
> Double word score!



Me thinks you meant “Outside the Interior...” 😉


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Oct 2019)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Me thinks you meant “Outside the Interior...” 😉



Ummm... yes, of course!


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2019)

A tidbit from the new cabinet being sworn in today ...


> ... Jim Carr, who was diagnosed with a form of blood cancer after the Oct. 21 vote, was named as Trudeau’s new representative to the Prairies. The Winnipeg South Centre MP previously served as the international trade minister and likely would have been named to cabinet if not for his health issues ...


A bit more ...


> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau carved out a new role in his government today designed to ensure voices on the Prairies are heard in Ottawa.
> 
> Former cabinet minister Jim Carr, who represents a Winnipeg riding, has been named as Trudeau’s “special representative” for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
> 
> ...


More @ links


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Nov 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Outside of Greater Vancouver and Vancouver Island, there are almost no 'Provincial Conservative' (i.e. BC Liberal Party) MLAs either.
> 
> Double word score!



while I worked on the CPC campaign here in North Van, I had serious doubts about the candidate winning, I was right, with a 70% voter turnout the Lib candidate won easily. Saxton has to much baggage from the Harper era and failed to act with the concerns of the people within his riding, notably the Kits base fiasco which likely cost them both seats on the Northshore.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Nov 2019)

This hour has 22 minutes take on the matter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHkHGDLBYw0


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Nov 2019)

Meanwhile, 'Western Alienation' meets the realities of a national/global energy supply and demand challenge:

"The Canadian oil and gas industry will need more pipeline capacity than what is currently under development to meet even its most modest growth projections, but attitudes toward new pipelines are shifting and the energy industry needs to reposition itself to keep pace."

https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/tmx-keystone-xl-pipelines-not-enough-for-canadian-oil-as-critics-push-back-in-name-of-climate-change


----------



## dapaterson (22 Nov 2019)

In the "Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark" department, Ontario and Quebec are facing critical shortages of propane due to the CN rail strike.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/teamsters-cdn-strike-1.5369359

If only there were some other system to move gases and liquids across the country, you know, like a pipeline...


----------



## AbdullahD (22 Nov 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the "Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark" department, Ontario and Quebec are facing critical shortages of propane due to the CN rail strike.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/teamsters-cdn-strike-1.5369359
> 
> If only there were some other system to move gases and liquids across the country, you know, like a pipeline...



It is not due to the strike, it is due to CN's decision to only run intermodal trains during the strike. There is far more then enough managers to service the propane needs of quebec, but the intermodal trains make more money.

I can break the numbers down if needed, MOW managers, trainmasters and many other managers are all qualified conductors or engineman. Right now in smithers they can send a train every 4 hrs with local managers. A train could easily be 200 cars, we also deal with propane up here and only take one propane train a day (if that).

It is my opinion and the opinion of the tcrc that CN is not servicing Quebec and the farmers  in order to skew the optics and make the striking employees look bad.

Abdullah

Disclaimer I am a TCRC Conductor for CN and I  am on strike.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (22 Nov 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the "Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark" department, Ontario and Quebec are facing critical shortages of propane due to the CN rail strike.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/teamsters-cdn-strike-1.5369359
> 
> If only there were some other system to move gases and liquids across the country, *you know, like a pipeline...*



You know, like the Enbridge pipeline . . .

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/energy-sources-distribution/refining-sector-canada/propane-market-review-final-report/15927#midstreamtranspo


> Midstream Transportation of Propane
> 
> 3.17    The two most common means for transporting propane long distances from storage facilities or producers to downstream distributors are pipeline and rail.  Transporting long distances via truck is often uneconomic.Footnote 21  .
> 
> ...



And what does the Alberta Energy Regulator say about propane.
https://www.aer.ca/providing-information/data-and-reports/statistical-reports/propane-supply-demand


> The continued focus by industry on producing natural gas in liquids-rich  areas has resulted in an oversupply of propane in the Alberta market. This was compounded in 2014 when Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.’s Cochin pipeline, which previously exported Alberta propane to markets such as the U.S. Midwest, was reversed, leaving Alberta with limited market access. However, rail has been used to maintain access to traditional markets and beyond.
> 
> As a result of the oversupply and subsequent low prices, producers are opting to leave propane as part of a natural gas liquid (NGL) mix for removal from Alberta. Mixes containing propane and butane are referred to as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which is used primarily as fuel for heating and cooking appliances and for vehicles. These mixes can be transported through pipelines to other markets. For example, NGL mixes are transported through Enbridge Inc.’s Line 5, which is connected to the Enbridge Mainline pipeline system originating in Edmonton, Alberta, and terminating in Sarnia, Ontario. Upon delivery, propane is fractionated out of the mixes for commercial use.



Not only does the "raw" product have to be transported across the country, it has to be processed before it can be distributed to customers and the processing for that (which seemingly has the capacity to accommodate all Eastern Canada's requirement) is in Sarnia.


----------



## mariomike (22 Nov 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> I am a TCRC Conductor for CN and I  am on strike.



I love the CNR and VIA Rail. Good luck, Abdullah.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Nov 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I love the CNR and VIA Rail. Good luck, Abdullah.



Ditto. I've had a teeny, tiny look into that part of our supply chain and it's definitely a tough row to hoe.


----------

