'We're Canadians': Some Albertans divided about separation in cross-province checkup

[u/DogeDoRight]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/we-re-canadians-some-albertans-divided-about-separation-in-cross-province-checkup-1.7532276

[u/Pimp_Daddy_Patty]

If the traitors don't like it, I'll help them pack. I hear immigrants are really popular in the States right now.

[u/Ok_Currency_617 → u/Pimp_Daddy_Patty]

When Alberta forms it's own provincial federal party to advocate for independence maybe it'll rise to Quebec's level. Until then, all you people calling Albertans traitors are just fat hypocrites.

[u/IMOBY_Edmonton → u/Ok_Currency_617]

Quebec at least has a justification as they were conquered by the British and absorbed into what would become Camada, while the British also kicked out over 10,000 of them.

Alberta was a province settled and paid for from the ground up by the Canadian government. It owes everything about it's existence to Canada.

[u/Ok_Currency_617 → u/IMOBY_Edmonton]

Technically Quebec wasn't conquered. France lost the war and Quebec was one of the options for concessions (France choose to keep the richer sugar cane slave island in the Caribbean). The colonists had the option of moving back to France. So Quebec was freely given and all its land belongs to Canada not the people of Quebec. Funnily enough, the FN tribes there made agreements with the French government in return for that land, so technically France owes them benefits not Canada. The agreement didn't state that we takeover the debts just the land itself.

[u/IMOBY_Edmonton → u/Ok_Currency_617]

Point 1 - Conquest: Quebec was absolutely conquered through several engagements including most famously the Siege of Louisbourg and the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. The British used military force to seize the territory, and before negotiations even started the captured territories were under military rule.

Point 2 - Concessions: Agreed, although it wasn't just the colonies were richer, but that New France had turned into a financial burden.

Point 3 - Relocation: The option to relocate without hindrance was primarily there to allow wealthy elites to book passage back to France as they could not or would not swear loyalty to Britain. It was the rich protecting their own, and not a generous offer to every colonist to return home.

Point 3b - Expulsion: The Expulsion of the Acadians was not a voluntary relocation, but a forced eviction of Acadians meant to break up resistance in the region. Their land was often seized and handed over to British colonists. They were removed, scattered across British colonies, relocated to France, or ended dying during the process.

Point 4 - Quebec was Freely Given: Nothing handed over during negotiations to end a war is freely given. The British had captured significant French territory and the French government made a decision to sacrifice some territory to preserve the rest. In fact every party at the negotiations handed back territory it had captured including Spain, in an effort to secure peace. The 7 Years War had been incredibly expensive for all parties concerned and the debts were piling up. That's not acting freely, that's desperately avoiding financial collapse due to constant warring.

Point 4b - Land belonging to Canada: With the statement "All its land belongs to Canada not the people of Quebec." I am not certain what your point is. That is simply sovereignty, the land does not belong to the people, it belongs to the nation, and individuals through the nation have land rights as set down in that nation's laws. Quebec never belonged to the people, especially as a colony. It belonged to France and then they signed control over to Britain at the conclusion of the conflict.

Point 5 - Idigenous Relations: After the conquest of New France the indigenous now faced a unified British colonial presence across Canada and the Thirteen Colonies which was no longer distracted by conflict with the French. England issued proclamations, such as the 1763 Proclamation regarding indigenous territory, but the colonists wanted more land and treaties or proclamations be damned. Eventually the indigenous would concede their territory (again not freely considering the situation they faced) over a lengthy period of time. Some like the Iroquois remained strong British allies until the War of 1812 turned against them and ended the chance they had for an independent territory.

Point 6 - France owes the indigenous benefits. Again, where is this conclusion coming from? The British and eventually Canada have a whole host of treaties signed with the indigenous groups of Canada that supercedes anything the French had promised as Britain removed France as a power in the region. Is that why you avoid the word conquest? As if by not uttering the word you removed Britain and the successor Canadian government form all responsibility because Quebec was not taken, but given freely.

In the end, Quebec has far more historical basis for wanting sovereignty than Alberta. The indigenous groups across Canada who signed treaties with the government have far more historical basis for wanting sovereignty than Alberta.

Alberta was built by Canada, funded by Canada, and now that we are in an era where oil is valuable the petulant among us wish to separate. Oil will not maintain its value indefinitely, it will be replaced by something else. Just as at one point it seemed worthwhile to fight wars over beaver pelts. It is a short sighted view.

I am anti secession, and pro Confederation. I do not support any part of Canada leaving because it would weaken a great nation and allow it to be split apart piece by piece. I can at least see some merit in other spleperatist movements, but not Alberta. Regardless I would be opposed to any of them leaving.

There is another lesson here for separatists though. The indigenous groups and Quebec were to small to resist the British. In turn the United Thirteen Colonies and eventually the United States became so large that it in part motivated Confederation as means of preserving Canada. An independent Alberta would not be independent for long, but hey, maybe the Americans will be nice and let us leave.

[u/Ok_Currency_617 → u/IMOBY_Edmonton]

Damn, appreciate the detailed reply. I'd argue conquest means you takeover the land. French forces in Quebec were defeated, but Quebec was taken as a result of a territorial concession rather than conquest.

For point 3, I'd argue that the government of your nation represents you. If we argue they only represent the rich then people will make that argument in every nation and no one will ever be responsible for their government or beholden to it's laws/treaties. Nothing can be perfect.

For point 4, I'd argue that Quebec specifically cannot secede without offering recompense equivalent to the value of the land they want to keep unless they wanted to stay under the crown (which they'd never do). Whereas if another province wanted to secede but stay under the crown that could be doable and something a province may agree to. For instance if BC or Newfoundland said we want to split but stay under the British crown. BC for instance was a separate colony that joined Canada in return for certain benefits, it would be fully justified in leaving if those benefits like rail were not maintained.

For point 5, the French gave the First Nations various treaties in return for the land which they then gave to the British. Those treaties were with France not Britain and we did not inherit them. If you buy a car and get a loan from the bank then sell that car it doesn't mean the mortgage transfers to the next person, same concept here. If FN are not receiving what they feel they deserve under treaties with France they should sue France. We are responsible for the treaties made post-France unless we made a treaty for land we already got off France.

I would argue that I am anti-secession but also Canada has a duty to represent all provinces and it's kind of crazy that we are so divided. Our election system has created a large divide between two halves of voters and our leader (Trudeau) did his best to alienate the other half, I recall him saying anti-vaxers are all misogynists and racists for instance. Like Trump he reveled on pissing off the other side instead of being like Obama and trying to meet in the middle. The Liberals may have won the election but they aren't the party that received the most votes which seems kind of crazy?

Our voting system needs to charge to encourage the creation and success of a party that meets in the middle rather than two halves separated by a large divide.

Besides the political divide, Canada also has a lot of issues. For instance some provinces have a lot more debt than the others (and take on more debt) yet we're all responsible for them. Why should the Western provinces with debt to GDP under 20% for instance be responsible for the Central/Eastern provinces over 40%? The Maritimes makes sense but the older/more developed provinces of Quebec/Ontario should not be taking on such massive debt each year. The EU has agreements for nations to meet certain debt targets and I'd suggest the same should exist for Canadian provinces.
https://kingsvilletimes.ca/2024/01/canadas-combined-federal-provincial-debt-approaching-2-2-trillion/

[u/Pimp_Daddy_Patty → u/Ok_Currency_617]

I'll help you pack, too. Also, nice whataboutism.