|
|
 |
 |
"Secession is treasonous."
Secession is not treasonous. The Clarity Act specifies a legal means by
which a province may separate from Canada. This legal framework for
separation is what this website advocates. |
|
"Alberta's independence movement is
the same as Quebec seeking 'sovereignty association.' "
First, nobody, including the PQ, knows what
"sovereignty association"
is. Alberta, in contrast should become an independent country.
Quebec gains
financially from staying in Confederation. Alberta loses by being in
Confederation. The corollary of these facts is that while it is
possible to buy Quebec off (observe Quebec that Quebec was once a net
contributor to Confederation), it is not possible to do so with
Alberta. Note also that a significant base of federal power comes from
Quebec. None of it comes from Alberta.
Quebec loses
financially by declaring independence. Hence, the introduction of the
terminology of "sovereignty association," which has all the benefits of
staying within Canada, but none of the responsibilities. Alberta wins
financially by declaring her independence. Instead of Ottawa funneling
off $8 billion dollars per year (and this is without past crimes such
as the NEP, or future crimes such as Kyoto, being imposed), Alberta
would easily be able to finance areas that were previously under the
responsibility of the federal government out of this yearly
theft.
|
|
|
"Alberta's
population is too small to be a country."
Alberta has roughly 3 million people. Singapore has 4.3 million people,
and is a successful country. It seceded from Malaysia (22.2 million
population, similar to what Canada's would be after Alberta secedes).
Singapore's per capita GDP is $26,500 USD, while Malaysia's is $10,300
USD. Obviously, Singapore becoming independent from the Malaysian union
was not a bad decision. There are many other examples of very
successful countries with smaller populations than Alberta. Bermuda has
roughly 60,000 people - less populous than Red Deer, with one of the
world's highest standard of living. Luxembourg has less than 450,000
people, with a higher standard of living than Canada as well. The main
difference is these countries do not have Alberta's natural resources.
|
|
|
"Alberta
will not be part of Canadian treaties, such as the FTA and the NAFTA."
While this statement in itself may be true, the effect of this in
practice will be negligible. 64.1% of Alberta's exports to the US were
from mineral fuel. Alberta does not export many goods that are wont to
be protected by US labor leaders or business groups. On the contrary,
Alberta's energy is a crucial input to the American economy. Also, the
US is currently in the process in seeking to replace energy imports
from the Middle East with more reliable sources. In fact, an Alberta
not constrained by the consequences of Kyoto will be a much more
reliable supplier of energy than Alberta constrained by a Treaty
imposed by Ottawa.
Further, one
observes how Mexico was made party to the NAFTA soon after the FTA
agreement was signed. It is quite reasonable to expect that a newly
independent country would be given opportunity to join the NAFTA. But
even if not, consider the consequences. 2/3 of Alberta's exports to the
US are energy. With shortages of energy in the US (particularly the
Western US) and alternative suppliers in the politically antagonistic
Middle East, restricting Alberta's energy exports is unlikely. With
imports, not only does Alberta get the choice to reduce import tariffs
on American products, but on other the products of other nations as
well. There is no Albertan auto industry whose lobbyists need to be
accomodated. Japanese autos could be purchased without the high tariffs
that Albertans currently face.
Looking closer at
trade, how does staying in Canada help Alberta? It was the Premier of
Alberta who managed to visit the White House to discuss energy issues,
while Federal Government officials stayed behind in Ottawa because
their dogmatic anti-Americanism wasn't welcome in Washington.
Further, the issue
of Mad Cow affecting Alberta's ranchers hasn't been dealt with
effectively by Canada. As mentioned in the current issues section of
FreeAlberta.com, the response of Ottawa was to deal with SARS and
ignore Mad Cow disease. Indeed, while Alberta did not cancel business
with Ontario, Ontario talked of banning Alberta beef.
|
|
|
"Alberta
will not be protected under current Canadian security arrangements such
as NORAD or NATO."
Alberta, essentially is protected, because they are surrounded by
Canada and the US. If someone were to attack Alberta, they would have
to do so thru Canada or the US. By doing so, the attacking nation would
incur the wrath of NATO, while being protected under NORAD's umbrella.
Due to Alberta's location, it makes sense (from an American
perspective) to include Alberta in NORAD. One advantage independence
immediately provides is that the US will no longer have a neighbor that
is conveniently antagonistic towards the US, one that blames the
victims for the Sept. 11 attack, one that doesn't harbor terrorists and
prefers to support Iraq. Rather than choosing a foreign policy that
needlessly irritates the US, Alberta could choose one that actually
supports her allies in such obvious cases. This is much more important
for the long term security of Alberta than the current path Canada is
taking.
|
|
|
"Alberta
would not be allowed to use the Canadian dollar."
This point fails to ask several questions. First, what should Alberta's
monetary policy be? If Alberta decides upon subletting its monetary
policy to the Bank of Canada, could it use the Canadian dollar as its
currency? If Alberta decides upon its own monetary policy, could it use
the Canadian dollar as its currency, or as an index to fix her currency
to? In either case, the question is yes. In the post WWII era, the
Soviets held vast quantities of US dollars outside the US banking
system. It evolved into the Eurodollar market, which is common today.
The U.S., at the height of the Cold War, was unable to prevent the
Soviets from using U.S. dollars. Internationally, we observe countries
such as Singapore or Bermuda, which use the U.S. dollar as their
currency or as a currency to fix to.
An independent
Alberta would have the choice of which currency to use. Why consider
using the Canadian dollar, when the U.S. dollar could be used? The U.S.
dollar has been a superior store of value over the past 35 years.
Alberta could consider using the Swiss Franc, which has been a superior
store of value over that time as well. Or Alberta could consider other
options, such as competing currencies or a currency backed by an index
of commodities (as suggested by Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek), or even
consider a gold standard. The real issue isn't whether Alberta would
not be allowed to use the Canadian dollar, but whether Alberta would
choose to use the Canadian dollar.
|
|
"Albertans are religious
fundamentalists."
This is a complete fallacy. 44% of Albertans will
not go to church this year, the second highest rate in Canada after
B.C.. Canada's Bible Belt is in Atlantic Canada, only because of a
large drop-off in church attendance in Quebec. |
|
"Albertans are ignorant rednecks. "
Aside from the ironic bigotry in this statement,
it is untrue. 48.1% of Albertans had some sort of post-secondary
education, which is higher than Ontario or Quebec, and tied with B.C.. |
|
"An independent Albertan will be
landlocked."
While this statement is true, it is made to convey that Alberta will be
subject to deleterious economic effects from not having ocean or sea
ports.
Alberta is landlocked today. Geography is what it is. We don't have
ports. Should we be worried about not having access to Vancouver's
ports? Why would Canada needlessly try to incur the wrath of an
independent Alberta, who would disallow convenient access to B.C.? B.C.
would be geographically separated from Canada if Alberta secedes. And
as Canada could circumvent Alberta by circumnavigating through the U.S.
in that circumstance, that is an option available to Alberta. Access to
Ontario's ports is not an issue.
A similar argument is that Alberta's pipelines would be cut off once
they would reach the Canadian border. This would be more
important as most of Alberta's trade is with the U.S. and
some of Alberta's trade does come from pipelines that pass through
Canada. Why would Canada follow such idiotic policy? Are they really
willing to incur the wrath of the U.S., where most of the natural gas
and oil will be going? Are they really willing to cut themselves off
from Alberta's energy? The answer to both questions, of course, is no.
Alberta will benefit from being landlocked and does benefit from being
landlocked. First, we don't have any rats, which would be an
impossibility if we have a port. Second, we would not have to finance a
navy, since we have no coast line to defend.
There are many successful countries, like Switzerland or Luxembourg,
that are landlocked. They have no disputes with their neighbors and
their trade is not interrupted. There are many unsuccessful countries,
like Bangladesh, that aren't landlocked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
