So with every news outlet reporting the same thing, that Canadians all over the country are fleeing to Alberta, wouldn't it be prudent for Pierre to look at electoral seats?
If they're leaving BC, the maritimes, and Ontario, take some seats from them and give them to alberta. That would help the conservatives get voted in regularly, instead of only when the left has us on the brink of bankruptcy. |
Quote:
Plus we would have to start up some type of trade agreements with the rest of Canada and the U.S. with little leverage. They would bend us over a barrel. And how do you get out oil to tidewater? B.C. would make life difficult there etc. And a lot of people who identify as Canadian first would flee and drive down house prices etc. Trust me, separation is the best way to turn Alberta into a have not state. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Of course some people would leave bringing down housing cost. The question is to what level and that can’t really be predicted. But with present housing crisis do to high housing costs this may not be a bad thing to. In the long run if Alberta could function as a country the decreased cost may attract people too The fact is separation would involve negative impacts that would need to be overcome. Of course not everyone would be involved. It would be full of unknowns that everyone can only speculate without negotiating terms on a large number of the It could go horribly wrong or it could go horribly right depending on a large numbers of factors. In the end I don’t see it happening because too many fear risk and the unknown |
The biggest concern that I would have is that an independent Alberta would be ripe for the picking by well-armed resource-hungry interests who are better-equipped to take it over than we are to defend it.
But like what was said before - we have imported too much leftist ideology, especially in our urban centers. We can't even get a decisive split on the APP discussion, so I doubt that we would have enough sway to initiate separation in the first place. Like my old boss used to say: "The difference between givers and takers is that givers have limits, while takers have none." |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
The biggest risks would really be financial and that all depends on the results of negotiations that no one could presently predict But yeah it is not happening anyway |
Quote:
As it is not clear cut…it become more mud in the negotiations and NOT in our favour. We would weaken our power in North America from moderate to begging. As for pipes south… Trump would happily bend us over for a big US win deal as we would have no other options. Biden in turn would ban any new Canadian pipelines. Maybe even shut some down and we would be even worse off. Investment due to many uncertainties would plummet. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Also, the US is currently bending us over a barrel, its called WCS. That doesn’t change. Vancouver depends on our oil and they would lose any thin leverage they had in negotiations about 2 days after the pipe is shut off. Foreign investment would skyrocket as a nation free of all the problems of Canada it would become a nation to be invested in. Not like Canada where every foreign dollar of investment has been fleeing for years. I can name many great reasons to separate from Canada. Can you name any good reasons why we should stay? I mean besides”Canada is the greatest nation” BS, apathy, or Eastern leech convenience. |
According to my MP, Alberta will get an extra 3 seats/ridings before the next election. As the population grows/changes so does the ridings. I guess this is up to the Elections Canada and not the government.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Regardless the main point is in a fairytale land where separation took place there would be factors that could have negative effects for B.C., Alberta, and the rest of Canada so I am pretty sure all parties would be negotiating to limit the effects. It wouldn’t just be one sided |
Quote:
Quote:
But I'm just painting a worst-case scenario here... I trust no one. :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That’s not how negotiations work. More like Alberta better not impede federal owns railroads or else. You realize when land locked you either have a transparent and fair relationship as a confrontational one will implode on Alberta. Still… no one has mentioned how they will take all of the Province, excluding National Parks, First Nations and railroads and be able to make it work given FN will retain their rights to harvest and access traditional lands etc. Free access for Canadians to visit their National Parks will apply. Clearly it would be hard to limit movement given the borders… especially going east. People need to be reasonable and see that while saying separation, that the big win would be to change the transfer payments within Confederation. Should have serious penalty clauses such as failure to approve pipelines in a timely manner means a reduction. Request to curtail production or global warming taxes or laws etc that harms our economy means a reduction to offset the short and long term costs to our economy. Lots of simpler and more easily justified changes including spreading political power between provinces instead of control by 2. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But yeah I bet the US would flip even if China was peacefully building on Alberta soil. We both know the politics around wars are screwed up and the general public likely is getting half truths at best. Let’s not go down that screwed up rabbit hole :thinking-006: My basic view is with all theses wars is they are political tantrums where citizens in all countries involved suffer as pawns |
Couple of points, the Feds. don't own the railroad tracks, the vast majority are owned by CP and CN with a right of easement 100 ft. on either side of the track for expansion. The Feds. may own the land but the railroads were built by CN and CP through a partial land swap agreement that has been in place for over 100 years. Ever wonder why there's a beautiful CP hotel in the heart of Banff and every CDN. major city? They didn't have to buy the property, they were given first dibs on the choice sites.
71% of oil and gas revenue is exported out of the province already, foreign entities may not be inspired to take on more trouble to increase that return. The Trans-Mtn. pipeline is scheduled to triple the flow of crude oil to the W. coast for export shortly, taking the flow from 300k bpd to around 890k bpd. The Feds. currently own that pipeline, what u think will happen if AB. takes a hostile attitude to negotiations when their end goal is to drastically reduce oil sands production? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Canada controls national parks but they don’t own the lands. National parks don’t leave tge province. Once again you would blockade them into oblivion. Reserves can negotiate treaties with Ab or remain Canadian citizens. It will be Canada’s responsibility to airlift their citizens out of the blockaded reserves that stay within Canada. As I said before people can pick apart easily resolved issues but nobody can tell me a good reason to remain in Canada. |
Quote:
|
Quebec is rattling it's chain again. Justin is getting it from all sides, this time it's immigration
https://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...ent-by-june-30 |
All you Alberta can't do it crowd answer me this. If Indian reserves can do all this then why can't Alberta?
Basically what we want for Alberta they already have. Honestly the more I think about this the more I think first nations or whatever they call themselves and Quebec have the right idea. If Alberta had the same rights and freedoms as them but moved to a more Albertan grassroots get rid of beurocrats ,regulations and laws free market economy I believe our young people would have a real future. Just a side note but in BC they brought out a stupid law that all big rigs have to be governed at 105 kmph and not only that but they are checking trucks and you have to prove you are not capable of going faster or they charge you. In other words you have to prove you are innocent or you get fined and them guys out there just rolled over without a wimper. This country and people in it are really going to heck in as hand basket and I'm all for any firewalls to protect Alberta from them. |
Quote:
Canada does own the national parks. The land IS NOT owned by Alberta. A. Ownership The Government of Canada is the owner of the property by virtue of the British North America Act (1867). In 1998, the Parks Canada Agency Act established the Parks Canada Agency to operate and manage Canada’s national historic sites and national parks, under the direction of a Chief Executive Officer reporting to the Parliament of Canada through a Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Your expectation is that Alberta can stomp their feet and whine and blockage to get their way doesn’t fly. International agreements for access will be obeyed and not flip flopped on… because in the reciprocal Alberta would be royally hooped. If we waste our time chasing a true separation it will be time wasted. If we seek expanded power like and even better than Quebec including better financial obligations… it would be a huge win. Tack on better representation in Parliament… best case scenario. There is no way in heck that we can be better off over all as a separate isolated and land locked nation that is butting heads as you want to do. Never happen and no… there would be no air lifting FN out of reserves. You are in a dream land. |
Quote:
What do FN have in Alberta that we don’t have as far as rights that aren’t part of a treaty? A binding contractual agreement? |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.