Topic: Okay any albertans here? Question on your nationall loyalties.
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
OKay the topic of albertan indpendance has risen in a conversation im having so I'ld like it if some of you speak up why you would not want to break away from Canada.
IP: Logged |
posted
If the Canadian provinces were to join the US as states, would it improve the world or make it worse?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
probly make you better if it wernet for the tens of thousands of geurillas who would oppose such an obiously unpatriot and treasonous action.
IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't aware anyone outside of Quebec had anything resembling a serious independence movement,
How are the Provinces arranged though? Are they in the same position that American States are in? Why do they even want to be independent?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no serious independence movement in Alberta. Certainly there are small groups of people who believe Alberta would be better off as its own country, but nowhere near enough that a referendum would produce a 51% majority, let alone the kind of numbers that would be necessary to satisfy the clarity act.
As for Quebec, well I'm no expert, but I think their desire for independence has a lot more to do with Francophone pride than anything else.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quebec came damned close in their last referendum.
Cultural differences I think are the main reason for Quebec, most of my family that's still there supports independence.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a second generation Albertan. I don't have an opinion on this, just thought I'd let you know. Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I believe independance in quebec is a big no no and I fully support the right of the government to send in the tanks if need be.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I believe independance in quebec is a big no no and I fully support the right of the government to send in the tanks if need be.
Does Canada have tanks? Don't you mean 'a half dozen surly looking Mounties holding hockey sticks rather menacingly', because that's kinda' what I pictured.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Canadians can make some pretty mean iceballs. If it really came to blows up there, iceballs really hurt.
Posts: 144 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: We have Leopard II's.
Less than 70, and Quebec is home to one of Canada's two F/A 18 Superhornet bases, has a mechanized armor brigade, and several other military units.
If it came to blows, I don't really like your chances of invading.
You seem to think that the military that is based in Quebec would support the separation. I don't think that would be the case.
Also, from what I understand, the entire Native population in Quebec pretty much opposes separation and would immediately stake land claims on much of the province if they were to vote for separation. I don't know how that would all play out but I do think they would have a pretty big fight on their hands (though it probably would not end up as a military confrontation).
I am an Albertan and I would strongly oppose independence from Canada.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Alberta is smack in the middle of Canada. It would be weird to have it be a different country and have Canada on three sides of it. Also, techincally they wouldn't be able to say "eh" any more, since that's totally just a Canadian thing.
Posts: 464 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: We have Leopard II's.
Less than 70, and Quebec is home to one of Canada's two F/A 18 Superhornet bases, has a mechanized armor brigade, and several other military units.
If it came to blows, I don't really like your chances of invading.
You seem to think that the military that is based in Quebec would support the separation. I don't think that would be the case.
Also, from what I understand, the entire Native population in Quebec pretty much opposes separation and would immediately stake land claims on much of the province if they were to vote for separation. I don't know how that would all play out but I do think they would have a pretty big fight on their hands (though it probably would not end up as a military confrontation).
I am an Albertan and I would strongly oppose independence from Canada.
I don't necessarily think that the military forces in Quebec would automatically support a measure of independence, but then, I don't even think it would come to that. If they really voted for more independence from the Canadian government, I really don't see Canada charging in there with tanks and occupying them.
Besides, most people in Canada who support the referendums don't want TOTAL separation from Canada. They do want to make their own laws, and think they are politically and culturally disctinct, much in the same way that American independence proponents didn't view themselves as British, but they agree with shared a shared military, shared economy to a degree. They want what many called "sovereignty-association," which is still in principle discussed today. They want to make their own laws, and they want it constitutionally recognized that they are a separate and distinct society from the rest of Canada. They agree with shared economic and military association with Canada.
Anyway, if they REALLY wanted to, your little smattering of tanks wouldn't last very long during an occupation, if Iraq is any example of how determined civilians can take out very powerful and well armored machines, and the Leopard doesn't match up to an Abrams. I still don't think it'd ever come close to being necessary to do that, but I don't think it would work if you tried. Your military is far too small to occupy what would be a new nation of seven million, even in a population where gun ownership is tiny.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
55 is good too. Alberta, Ontario, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Cuba. Then we're back to a nice round number.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ...They want what many called "sovereignty-association," which is still in principle discussed today. They want to make their own laws, and they want it constitutionally recognized that they are a separate and distinct society from the rest of Canada. They agree with shared economic and military association with Canada.
Oh, I know. I oppose this even more than outright separation. Basically they want all of the benefits of being part of Canada but they want to be special as well. That's not cool with me.
I also don't think it would ever come to a military operation to force them to stay as part of Canada but I do think that there are a lot of people within Quebec (including the Native Canadians) who would be fighting to stay a part of Canada.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The benefits aren't one way. You really think Canada could sustain their military as is without the money that comes from Quebec? They'd still have Quebecois serve in the Canadian military, and they'd still pay their fair share, so how is that a benefit without contribution?
Canada suffers more than Quebec does I think, they could probably feasibly survive with either no, or a much, much smaller military, as someone would almost have to come through Canada to get to them, the only people they'd need to fend off would be the rest of Canada. Canada would have to heavily cut their military without Quebec monetary contributions.
I think they'd be happiest if Canada became a sort of Canadian Union, the same way the EU is organized (and that's partially the framework used by the "Separatists"). There's shared military contributions, shared lawmaking but still independence. Not sure how I feel about that, but then it isn't my country. I only care insofar as I have a lot of family still in Quebec, and my mother's side of the family is entirely from there, but it's not like they're really suffering as being a part of Canada, and as they've gotten French into the national mainstream, and their culture is in a well protected bubble, I don't see it going away (it's survived hundreds of years under English rule).
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: We have Leopard II's.
Less than 70, and Quebec is home to one of Canada's two F/A 18 Superhornet bases, has a mechanized armor brigade, and several other military units.
If it came to blows, I don't really like your chances of invading.
You seem to think that the military that is based in Quebec would support the separation. I don't think that would be the case.
Also, from what I understand, the entire Native population in Quebec pretty much opposes separation and would immediately stake land claims on much of the province if they were to vote for separation. I don't know how that would all play out but I do think they would have a pretty big fight on their hands (though it probably would not end up as a military confrontation).
I am an Albertan and I would strongly oppose independence from Canada.
I don't necessarily think that the military forces in Quebec would automatically support a measure of independence, but then, I don't even think it would come to that. If they really voted for more independence from the Canadian government, I really don't see Canada charging in there with tanks and occupying them.
Besides, most people in Canada who support the referendums don't want TOTAL separation from Canada. They do want to make their own laws, and think they are politically and culturally disctinct, much in the same way that American independence proponents didn't view themselves as British, but they agree with shared a shared military, shared economy to a degree. They want what many called "sovereignty-association," which is still in principle discussed today. They want to make their own laws, and they want it constitutionally recognized that they are a separate and distinct society from the rest of Canada. They agree with shared economic and military association with Canada.
Anyway, if they REALLY wanted to, your little smattering of tanks wouldn't last very long during an occupation, if Iraq is any example of how determined civilians can take out very powerful and well armored machines, and the Leopard doesn't match up to an Abrams. I still don't think it'd ever come close to being necessary to do that, but I don't think it would work if you tried. Your military is far too small to occupy what would be a new nation of seven million, even in a population where gun ownership is tiny.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The benefits aren't one way. You really think Canada could sustain their military as is without the money that comes from Quebec?
Quebec is actually the biggest equalization recipient by far, though it isn't the biggest on a per capita basis. Of the $11 billion in equalization payments distributed by the federal government this year, $5.5 billion is going to Quebec. This contributes in a large part to Albertan feelings of alienation; since Alberta has no debt, and massive surpluses, they're essentially subsidizing Quebec.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alberta has large oil revenues, and only three million people, that's a bit of a no brainer. 2/3rds of them are in the Calgary and Edmonton metro areas. If Alberta didn't have the world's largest supply of oil, I doubt it'd be quite that lopsided. Besides, Quebec contributes billions of dollars to the national treasury, they're paying themselves, rather than Alberta subsidizing them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I don't get the France thing either, and the Federated States of Micronesia aren't exactly around the corner. Besides, we'd take American Samoa and Guam before them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if we are going to take Alberta and Ontaria, why not BC and Saskatewan? Then we really ought to anex the Yukon just to make the country contiguous with Alaska. Once that's complete, we should start thinking about the eastern provinces of Russia since they'd be practically in our backyard already.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was joking. Ha-ha. You see, Ontario is probably the least likely provence to leave the dominion and Cubans aren't exactly found of the U.S. (with some fairly good reasons.) I though the inclusion of France and Micronesia was a fairly good reductio ad absurdem. Not that it needed a reduction to the absurd.
I thought the post I replied to might have been a joke, but only Lyrhawn knows for sure.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Kamchatka peninsula is essential to holding North America once you've conquered it, though, and Siberia has tons of resources we could use. We'll have to take Mexico too though, to narrow our southern border into a chokepoint.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Alberta has large oil revenues, and only three million people, that's a bit of a no brainer.
Well, tell that to the Albertans. The last time this came to a head, their take on it was "Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark." That gem, courtesy of Ralph Klein -- then mayor of Calgary, who went on to be Premier of Alberta for just about 14 years (1992-2006) -- became a popular bumper sticker.
On the other hand, Quebec is projected to receive CDN$16.7 billion in federal transfers in 2006-07, of CDN$62 billion in total federal-provincial transfers. That's 27%, whereas Quebec comprises 23% of Canada's population. In contrast, Alberta is projected to receive CDN$5.1 billion, 8.2% of the total, while comprising 10.3% of Canada's population.
Is that fair? Arguably, yes, since Alberta is perennially rich and Quebec is perennially poor -- but I'm not talking about whether Albertan feelings of alienation are justified. As a Nova Scotian by birth and Ontarian by place of residence, I'm one of those "Eastern bastards" who Ralph Klein would have gladly allowed to freeze in the dark. I'm just pointing out that Quebec's perpetual status as a "have-not" province in the equalization formula and incessant demands for special treatment by the federal government (for example, see the recent re-opening of the "is Quebec a nation?" issue during the Liberal leadership campaign) are part of the reason why some Albertans feel alienated.
I'm also suggesting that Canada could indeed sustain our military as-is without Quebec, all other things being equal -- that is to say, the military installations and troops that are not in Quebec could be maintained. However, since I think the "departure" of Quebec would lead to the dissolution of Canada, I think the question is academic.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
The Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, not so much. The others, yes I was kidding.
twinky -
Doesn't Quebec also provide like a fourth of the Canadian GDP?
Don't worry about freezing in the dark, it's actually more expensive to send Albertan oil to the east of Canada than it is for them to just sell it to America, which means Eastern Canada imports a lot of it's oil from elsewhere. Besides, Quebec hydroelectric dams provide a massive amount of the energy in the east. You're one of the few (if not the only) Western first world nations that EXPORTS energy. Though I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that your nation is MASSIVE and full of tons of natural resources while being relatively way underpopulated.
Alberta is going to be in trouble in a century when oil is no longer king and they don't have much of an economy, around which time I'm betting they'll be singing a different tune. They'll still have lumber, and some other stuff, but they won't be anywhere near the diversity of the Ontarioan or Quebec economies, which will hum along just fine.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Doesn't Quebec also provide like a fourth of the Canadian GDP?
Close to that, in 1981. In 2001, it was about a fifth. Looking at 2005 figures, it seems it just barely nudged below 20%.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Don't worry about freezing in the dark, it's actually more expensive to send Albertan oil to the east of Canada than it is for them to just sell it to America, which means Eastern Canada imports a lot of it's oil from elsewhere. Besides, Quebec hydroelectric dams provide a massive amount of the energy in the east. You're one of the few (if not the only) Western first world nations that EXPORTS energy. Though I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that your nation is MASSIVE and full of tons of natural resources while being relatively way underpopulated.
I know. I've worked in the oil industry on the east coast; I have some work experience in other areas of the Canadian petrochemical industry as well. Arguably, it's my field, though I'm currently in a client business (synthetic rubber) rather than, say, crude refining. I also dug pretty deeply into production and distribution figures for the entire North American crude and refined products markets back in 2003, as part of a job one work term.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Alberta is going to be in trouble in a century when oil is no longer king and they don't have much of an economy, around which time I'm betting they'll be singing a different tune. They'll still have lumber, and some other stuff, but they won't be anywhere near the diversity of the Ontarioan or Quebec economies, which will hum along just fine.
Alberta's got uranium as well, and with no debt they're in a better position to handle it than any other provinces would be. Also, a good chunk of Ontario's economy is tied up in the automotive sector, and it's very difficult to predict where that will be in 100 years.
In any case, I'm not so willing to make such sweeping predictions about what life will be like in the 22nd century. Still, I agree with the thrust of your point, which is to say that Ontario and Quebec have more diverse economies than Alberta.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
At the current level of oil prices, it's become ecnomically feasible for renewables to compete, and that's really at the vanguard of their arrival, they haven't gotten prices down to where I really think they'll be in even twenty years, let alone a hundred. Tidal energy, wave energy, solar, etc, it's all here NOW, and more on the way. Prices for oil are only going to go up, and the further up they go, the more billions that get spent on renewables, the costs drop, energy from their production rises, etc etc.
Quebec stands to make a lot of money from it, they have a burdgeoning renewable energy industry. And I think Ontario does as well. Cars aren't going anywhere, they're changing. Renewable energy is what is going to make a hydrogen economy work, and it's going to be domestically supplied.
I think the price of oil is going to skyrocket in the next fifty years, then flatline. The hope of oil is in China (maybe not even they, they're trying to go green ahead of time), India, and the third world. If they don't get into an oil consumer economy, there's no one to really sell oil too, especially if that plasmylosis thing takes off in the US (might have the wrong word there, the process that takes pretty much EVERYTHING we have that's waste and turns it into oil and water).
I think it's a justified guess, to say that anyone heavily reliant on oil isn't going to be riding high in a hundred years. It took us a hundred years to get to where we are, it'll take another hundred to get to the next step.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm unconvinced by the hydrogen economy argument, and I've heard it before. My fourth year design project in engineering school was actually a fuel cell control system, and our supervising professor was an ardent "hydrogen economist." Looking at the scope of the petrochemical refining and distribution infrastructure on this continent alone, the cost of replacing that with hydrogen production and distribution on a comparable scale is absolutely staggering. If it's cost-effective, it'll happen, but oil would have to well and truly tank. I don't think oil will tank unless we come up with a cheap method for producing materials comparable to plastics in terms of variety of applications.
It's also worth noting that hydrogen is a "renewable" resource only if you produce it through electrolysis. At this point, electrolysis is still an energy loser from an efficiency standpoint. A lot of hydrogen, however, is produced by methane reformation -- that is, it comes from natural gas.
I don't currently see hydrogen as a panacea, though I recognize it may have potential as part of the energy solution depending on what happens down the line.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky, what'd you think of Dion winning the Liberal leadership? It was the outcome I was vaguely hoping for (Ignatieff too long out of the country / too inexperienced, Rae too much Ontario baggage, Kennedy not speaking French), but I didn't follow all that closely.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never really considered Dion. I'm not sure why -- possibly I just forgot to look at him because there was no media focus on him at all. From the little I did know about him, I thought the sentiment that it was time for a Liberal leader from somewhere other than Quebec might rule him out.
I liked Rae, but having lived in Ontario for most of the last seven years I still see a lot of anti-Rae sentiment, and I think that would have really hurt him. (I don't think the anti-Rae sentiment is justified, but that's beside the point.)
I wasn't quite sure what to make of Ignatieff. I think the Liberals weren't quite sure either.
I really liked Kennedy. Actually, what makes me interested in Dion is the fact that Kennedy supported him after the first couple of ballots. Kennedy's the sort of guy who could draw me toward the Liberals and away from the NDP (and maybe Greens).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
