Steve_

Why leaving Canada makes sense for Alberta, and U.S. would likely welcome a new state | National Post

I seriously doubt that would ever happen and if it did it would be the whole of western Canada joining the U.S. More likely imo, Canada could split into two different countries. That solves the problems he mentions of Alberta becoming independent.

FlyingDutchman6666

Three different countries. Don't forget Quebec

Ben W Bell

US energy independent by 2016, no more importing oil. Oh if I didn't already have a pain in my side that would have created one from laughing.

Pizzawheel

Would the Quebec bill be split evenly between Old Easte Canada and Nu West Canada?

ExKiwilass

I don't want to be saddled with Alberta, thanks, or the US. I'd much rather BC went out on our own

Former Lancastrian

You will be when that earthquake hits

Steve_

Realistically, I think it's more a case of North America becoming a bit more EU-ish. It will never be like the EU because the US would be too dominant if we all used the same currency, I just think there will be ever closer integration.

Oakvillian

I don't. I also think the article is a piece of dreadful drivel. And very badly headlined: it ought to be "Jen Gerson softballs gentle questions to US 'futurologist' and regurgitates his responses about Alberta's secession."

Ziehan has some interesting views. Some of them are quite sensible (he was really quite prescient a couple of years ago on Russia's intentions on its western borders, for example). But this notion is not one of his highlights.

Steve_

Well it's already happening and has been for a long time, e.g. NAFTA and the current "Beyond the Border Initiative". Not to mention about a zillion other agreements, e.g. the EI agreement, social security agreement, vehicle specifications agreement, licence plate agreement, time zone standardization etc. ad naseum.

There will just be ever closer integration because it's mutually beneficial but I can't see sovereignty changing.

Oakvillian

Two of the abiding principles of the EU are the free movement of goods, and the free movement of people. NAFTA only applies to goods manufactured within the region (unlike the EU, where goods imported into one country can be re-exported into another with no additional taxation: why else do so many mail-order companies set up shop in low-tax EU members like Luxembourg?); and there is absolutely not any sort of free movement of people (otherwise every Mexican would have the right to live and work in the US - that is not really very likely). So no, although there are some joint initiatives at the Federal level, I really don't think the NAFTA relationship or agreements on vehicle specifications and so on amount to any significant EU-ization if the two fundamental bits are missing.

Even in that case, the article is still puerile. The notion that one province would get fed up with carrying the burden of the rest of Canada on its back and stomp off in a huff to join the big kids' party down the hall is a bit ridiculous. The moreso, of course, now that Alberta has a bit of a revenue challenge of its own.

Steve_

There is actually, if your occupation is on the NAFTA list you can live and work in the other two countries. eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

Also, intracompany transfers are simpler under NAFTA and business visitors are permitted to do more.

Which is not a small thing, I didn't suggest it was at the level of EU integration, I said it would become more EU-ish. "Happening" and "happened" are different tenses. And also, the EU never managed to agree on the services directive but the US and Canada at least have had integration between their electrical grids back east for many years.

I dare say the US-Canada tax treaty is among the most comprehensive between any two countries in the world, EU member states included. An IRS employee can look up any Canadian tax record or vice versa provided they have a reason as stated in the treaty, I doubt HMRC can look up French tax records as easily.

Michael

Although it will never happen, I think he makes a good point when he said "British Columbia has been hostile to Alberta’s efforts to diversity oil exports and the Atlantic is more than 2,000 miles away." From my perspective, Canadian provinces seem more like semi-autonomous states each looking out for itself more than concern of Canada as a whole.

The difference between the US and Canada seem significant. If Alberta was part of the US, Keystone XL would have likely been approved and built many years ago since what would be good for Alberta would be good for the US. To illustrate this, just look at how fast the pipeline from Pohue Bay was approved and built.

Another point he makes is the flow of tax revenues from Alberta to the Canadian government. For Alaska, the opposite actually occurred even though the state received so much oil revenue that it eliminated the state income tax and paid every person in Alaska a share of the oil tax revenues. Even with that occurring, the federal government was sending Alaska $5 for every $1 it received in tax revenue from Alaska. Another example is California which is normally very environmentally concerned has allowed fracking looking for that major find even though California is very prone to earthquakes. If the major find is found and can be extracted, it will be extracted and brought to market. It is all based on benefits verses risk.

Some may say that when the Pohue Bay pipeline was built, it was a different time than now but I don't think that the American psyche has changed that much since then. There are more environmental concerns but in the end if the benefits to the US or a state outweighs the environmental concerns, Americans will usually do it. Probably the only reason that the Keystone XL has not been approved is that the benefits are very small for the US and the environmental risk is large. If Alberta was part of the US, then the benefits to both Alberta and the US would be very large in comparison to the environmental risks and therefore approval is nearly guaranteed.

scrubbedexpat091

Quite true. It can very much be a us vs them when it comes to things up here. BC government is also really not interested in Alberta's oil coming through with very little benefit to BC. The risk really isn't worth the benefit to BC if BC even would benefit from it.

Michael

With $20 billion more tax revenue going to the Canadian government than Alberta receives, you would think the Canadian government could send some of that revenue to BC to give them more of a benefit/risk analysis for building that pipeline.

If the pipeline is built, that $20 billion may possibly turn into $25-$30 billion. If that happens, it is probably a win for Alberta, the Canadian government, and BC. Besides the additional revenue that each would get, more jobs should be created throughout Canada as more Alberta workers are hired and the money is spent throughout Canada.

JonboyE

Quite.