A wicked and humourless friend suggested over yesterday's cappuccino that Alberta separatists should be sent to Habitat for Humanity projects on reserves. When pressed, he thought that Québec nationalists would benefit by working in immigrant daycare centres.
Any thoughts that Alberta and Saskatchewan may not have the right to secede since they were carved out of Canadian territory when they became provinces in 1905? One can argue that all of Atlantic Canada, Ontario, Quebec and BC came in of their own accord. I am on the fence about Manitoba.
Most of Northern Ontario north of Lake Nippigon Nirth Bay. as well as most of Northern Quebec were carved out of tbe same purchase, it was all former Hudson's Bay Company land that Canada bought in 1870.
This caused repeated chagin to Quebec Separatists as the title to Crown Land was conditional on a treaty being signed with the Indigenous Peoples, mostky the Cree, which Quebec never signed. Quebrc only begrudgingly signed the James Bay Agreement in the 1970's to solve the issue.
Any thoughts that Alberta and Saskatchewan may not have the right to secede since they were carved out of Canadian territory when they became provinces in 1905? One can argue that all of Atlantic Canada, Ontario, Quebec and BC came in of their own accord. I am on the fence about Manitoba.
Does the constitution distinguish between the legal rights of provinces that were "carved out" versus those that "came in of their own accord"? I'm guessing not.
The only provinces that weren't expanded by Parliament or created after Confederation are the Atlantic Provinces and British Columbia.
Then again the Constitution says absolutely nothing about separation and I still mainrain that the Suprene Court was making the whole ruling up out of whole cloth,
Paragraph 3 reads after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name (of Canada). and in Paragraph 5 Canada shall be divided into Four Provinces, named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. It would seem that the two eastern provinces entering and the two created by the Act have equal status. PEI and BC entered later as colonies, Manitoba was created by Order in Council, Newfoundland as a colony, and the two western provinces were created from three territories by the federal parliament.
Those who claim that Alberta and Saskatchewan entered into Confederation don't have a leg to stand on. The degree to which any separating entity receives a transfer of First Nations land automatically will likely be a matter of negotiation, and this is where FN assent will be politically if not constitutionally critical.
However, let's see if they get a vote out of it. In the meanwhile I can wonder what happened to conservatism in Canada that it adopts a republican stance....
Not to mention that the Governnent of Canada negotiated and paid for the treaties to secure all that Crown Land in the first place. Add in the money to secure the HBC claim, Alberta owes athe Feds a great deal of money as a divorce settlement,
Based on wikipedia, personal experience, and basic common sense, I'd wager that this is the first time in decades that Edmonton Riverbend or a predecessor riding has had a non-conservative MP. Not having lived in Edmonton for a long time, I'm wondering how the voters there will react to this floor-crossing.
Comments
A wicked and humourless friend suggested over yesterday's cappuccino that Alberta separatists should be sent to Habitat for Humanity projects on reserves. When pressed, he thought that Québec nationalists would benefit by working in immigrant daycare centres.
This caused repeated chagin to Quebec Separatists as the title to Crown Land was conditional on a treaty being signed with the Indigenous Peoples, mostky the Cree, which Quebec never signed. Quebrc only begrudgingly signed the James Bay Agreement in the 1970's to solve the issue.
Does the constitution distinguish between the legal rights of provinces that were "carved out" versus those that "came in of their own accord"? I'm guessing not.
Then again the Constitution says absolutely nothing about separation and I still mainrain that the Suprene Court was making the whole ruling up out of whole cloth,
Those who claim that Alberta and Saskatchewan entered into Confederation don't have a leg to stand on. The degree to which any separating entity receives a transfer of First Nations land automatically will likely be a matter of negotiation, and this is where FN assent will be politically if not constitutionally critical.
However, let's see if they get a vote out of it. In the meanwhile I can wonder what happened to conservatism in Canada that it adopts a republican stance....
https://canlii.ca/t/1fqr3
(though I think this may be the decision that SPK is criticizing upthread)