• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Western Alienation - Split from General Election 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Alberta could join the US as a territory like Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands each with their own governor and legilarure.
 
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
 
Chris Pook said:
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.
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?
 
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.
 
I was right the first time.

This conversation isn't worth the aggravation.

TTFE

 
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.
 
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).
 
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"?
 

Attachments

  • 20RichestEconomiesPerCapita2017.png
    20RichestEconomiesPerCapita2017.png
    305.9 KB · Views: 102
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
>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".
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top