Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[TheIronMaiden]

Separating without a standing military or currency is dogs barking at cars.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Separating without a standing military or currency is dogs barking at cars.

Separating with the assumptions other provinces or parts of other provinces will leave with you is insane.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by StickMan

I seriously don't think Canada does anything for Alberta but hold us back. Alberta has always been just a piggy bank.

And if you are a landlocked country, you have to be allowed access to tide water, it is a UN rule, it actually makes it easier for Alberta to get to the sea.

"The UN international law concerning access to the sea, as outlined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), grants land-locked states the right of access to and from the sea."

Oh yes you'll have right of access, but it's going to cost you big, right of access doesn't mean free you numpty, you want to pump oil to Kitimat well that's going to cost you per barrel, maybe a dollar or so, maybe we'll be nice and it'll only be 50 cents a barrel, you want to drive a truck to Ontario, well there a haulage fee and I'm guessing we insist on Canadian drivers and trucks only, cant have Johnny foreigners driving on our roads

[TheIronMaiden]

Cries for separation are pathetic given that the Federal government could easily maintain sovereignty over all lands included in Treaty 8.

The treaty itself is very comprehensive and direct in its language with respect to the Canadian government taking possession of the land. Provincial jurisdiction is secondary. For more of its administrative history than not Athabasca ( in the historic meaning of the word) has been the priority of the colonial government much longer than anything south of the north sask.

Secondly, because the settler population in northern Alberta is so sparse and suppression of dissent would be easy. Not to mention there is no standing or modern military with any legitimate source of funding ( though russia/china/ india wouldn't mind financing a war with some caveats for rights to access).

I have a hard time believing that any argument through law or force would work.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by StickMan

I seriously don't think Canada does anything for Alberta but hold us back. Alberta has always been just a piggy bank.

And if you are a landlocked country, you have to be allowed access to tide water, it is a UN rule, it actually makes it easier for Alberta to get to the sea.

"The UN international law concerning access to the sea, as outlined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), grants land-locked states the right of access to and from the sea."

Shut up

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Cries for separation are pathetic given that the Federal government could easily maintain sovereignty over all lands included in Treaty 8.

The treaty itself is very comprehensive and direct in its language with respect to the Canadian government taking possession of the land. Provincial jurisdiction is secondary. For more of its administrative history than not Athabasca ( in the historic meaning of the word) has been the priority of the colonial government much longer than anything south of the north sask.

Secondly, because the settler population in northern Alberta is so sparse and suppression of dissent would be easy. Not to mention there is no standing or modern military with any legitimate source of funding ( though russia/china/ india wouldn't mind financing a war with some caveats for rights to access).

I have a hard time believing that any argument through law or force would work.

Are the treaties with the Crown or with Canada? My understanding is the treaties were with the Queen of Great Britain and her representatives. So could Alberta maintain itself as a commonwealth state and uphold the treaties as the Queens designated government in Alberta. So step one would be to become a commonwealth state.

It wouldn’t work with joining the US but by that point it would be “Alberta” courts interpreting treaties and not Canadian courts

Made and concluded this twenty-second day of September, in the year of Our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by Her Commissioners, the Honorable David Laird, Lieutenant-Governor and Indian Superintendent of the North-West Territories, and James Farquharson MacLeod, C.M.G., Commissioner of the North-West Mounted Police, of the one part, and the Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan, Sarcee, Stony and other Indians, inhabitants of the Territory north of the United States Boundary Line, east of the central range of the Rocky Mountains, and south and west of Treaties numbers six and four, by their Head Chiefs and Minor Chiefs or Councillors, chosen as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part.

…….

And whereas the said Commissioners have proceeded to negotiate a Treaty with the said Indians; and the same has been finally agreed upon and concluded as follows, that is to say : the Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan, Sarcee, Stony and other Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter more fully described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender, and yield up to the Government of Canada for Her Majesty the Queen and her successors for ever, all their rights, titles, and privileges whatsoever to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say:

So the Queen owns the land and gets to decide what to do with it. But is Canada the required intermediary? Or since the Queen can do what she likes with the land can she exclude Canada unilaterally? I would argue she can as the treaty gives land to the Queen for the Queen agreeing to provide certain rights.

I also don’t know what I am talking about.

[MrButtons]

Also lets not forget the brain-drain that could potentially happen if Alberta votes to leave. Even my gf's quite conservative dad responded to the question of "what would you do if Alberta separated or joined the US" with "I'd leave Alberta"

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MrButtons

Also lets not forget the brain-drain that could potentially happen if Alberta votes to leave. Even my gf's quite conservative dad responded to the question of "what would you do if Alberta separated or joined the US" with "I'd leave Alberta"

It'd be the biggest buyers market in Alberta history. Housing affordability would go through the roof.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are the treaties with the Crown or with Canada? My understanding is the treaties were with the Queen of Great Britain and her representatives. So could Alberta maintain itself as a commonwealth state and uphold the treaties as the Queens designated government in Alberta. So step one would be to become a commonwealth state.

It wouldn’t work with joining the US but by that point it would be “Alberta” courts interpreting treaties and not Canadian courts



So the Queen owns the land and gets to decide what to do with it. But is Canada the required intermediary? Or since the Queen can do what she likes with the land can she exclude Canada unilaterally? I would argue she can as the treaty gives land to the Queen for the Queen agreeing to provide certain rights.

I also don’t know what I am talking about.

I've got bad news for you.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by MrButtons

Also lets not forget the brain-drain that could potentially happen if Alberta votes to leave. Even my gf's quite conservative dad responded to the question of "what would you do if Alberta separated or joined the US" with "I'd leave Alberta"

Can you imagine MDs? They'd be being asked to stay in a potentially gutted health care system. Same for teachers and the dept. of education.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are the treaties with the Crown or with Canada? My understanding is the treaties were with the Queen of Great Britain and her representatives. So could Alberta maintain itself as a commonwealth state and uphold the treaties as the Queens designated government in Alberta. So step one would be to become a commonwealth state.

It wouldn’t work with joining the US but by that point it would be “Alberta” courts interpreting treaties and not Canadian courts

Treaty 8 is signed between Queen Victoria and First Nations, Metis Script is also an agreement with the Monarchy. That said, the federal government now administers it.

That said, the treaty is pretty clear that the land is meant for the Dominion of Canada.

AND WHEREAS, the said Commissioners have proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the Cree, Beaver, Chipewyan and other Indians, inhabiting the district hereinafter defined and described, and the same has been agreed upon and concluded by the respective bands at the dates mentioned hereunder, the said Indians DO HEREBY CEDE, RELEASE, SURRENDER AND YIELD UP to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits...

https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/.../1581293624572


My point rests more upon the idea of sovereignty, and how it is expressed and upheld. Canada, both as a colony and as a state has expressed its sovereignty in the region since 1788, though there were clear limits to their ability to uphold Canadian law until after the 1930s.

That said, I am not a treaty lawyer, and it would be unprecedented, and therefore difficult to speak with any clarity.

[GioforPM]

Every agreement with the government is with the Crown. Now, they go on to say what part of the country the Crown is representing. In that case, it was the federal government. It certainly wasn't the non-existent province.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by StickMan

I seriously don't think Canada does anything for Alberta but hold us back. Alberta has always been just a piggy bank.

And if you are a landlocked country, you have to be allowed access to tide water, it is a UN rule, it actually makes it easier for Alberta to get to the sea.

"The UN international law concerning access to the sea, as outlined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), grants land-locked states the right of access to and from the sea."

How's that working out for Bolivia StickMan?

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled against Bolivia in its dispute with neighbouring Chile over access to the Pacific Ocean - a feud dating back to the late 19th Century.

Landlocked Bolivia lost access to the sea in 1884 after a war with Chile and has tried to regain it ever since.

The court said Chile was not obliged to negotiate granting Bolivia access.

The ruling, which comes after five years of deliberations, is final and binding.

Despite the final nature of the ruling, Bolivian President Evo Morales said "Bolivia will never give up".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45708671

[TorqueDog]

Stop treating him like a serious poster; he isn't.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Stop treating him like a serious poster; he isn't.

Almost time for a new signature?

[TorqueDog]

Aww, but I just got this one!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Aww, but I just got this one!

Look...I have a plethora of funny quotes you can grab at any time!

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Torture

How's that working out for Bolivia StickMan?



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45708671

The next time I say let’s go to some place like Bolivia let’s go to some place like Bolivia!

[Paulie Walnuts]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/artic...ection-ballot/

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/artic...ection-ballot/

That is a nightmare for poll workers.