[cough]PetroCanada[cough]
The CanaDoper Café (2012 edition of The great, ongoing Canadian current events and politics thread.)
Natural resources belong to the provinces: Constitution, s. 92A.
Section 92A was inserted into the Constitution in 1982–it did not exist before that. So if oil was given to Alberta as a result of section 92A, then mining and forestry were given to Ontario, forestry to BC, hydroelectric generating capability to Quebec and so on.
Crown land can be either federal or provincial. No province usurps Crown land; the land already is Crown land–it belongs to the Queen in right of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Alberta, and so on; just as federal Crown lands belong to the Queen in right of Canada. Crown lands can transfer between the federal government and a province much as in any real estate transaction; but it is a sale, not a seizure, as your use of the word “usurps” implies.
So, since vast tracts of northern Alberta belong to Alberta (i.e., are provincial Crown land), and have belonged to Alberta since Alberta joined Confederation in 1905, the lands in question never belonged to the federal government. Perhaps before, but if that is the case, then the closest that the federal government ever came to giving them away occurred in 1905, when Alberta was formed. Because oil wasn’t discovered in Alberta until 1914 (at Turner Valley, near Calgary, cite), it logically follows that in 1905, nobody knew that Alberta had any oil at all, much less as much as it does.
A somewhat contradictory post.
Canada purchased the land that Alberta sits on in 1869. It was a territory owned by the Canadian confederation. Bought for 27 million dollars. Alberta didn’t join confederation like the first four provinces. Canada just dropped Albertan’s provincial status into their laps. I guess it was hard to see anything worthy about Alberta back then.
So, are you suggesting that Alberta doesn’t deserve the same status as the first four provinces?
Do overs aren’t allowed. Try that and you won’t have to worry about Alberta being a province any longer.
Uzi people are going to think you had never read a Dutchman post before.
BC’s stance is similar, somewhat, to Quebec’s initial position in not allowing the transmission of hydro power from Churchill Falls to cross it’s borders. At least not until it had arrived at a nice little deal, so it isn’t completely unprecedented.
My question for Spoons, Muffin and other lawyers is about the ability of the federal government to use expropriation to facilitate right of way for the pipeline. And if they can, how does their role with respect to First Nations complicate it if they do?
Hey, man. I can’t keep track of all the players. I’m an INTP.
I’m just here for the mental exercise and to argue a position until I have it clear enough in my mind to see which side I fall on. And that side sometimes may not be the one I’ve been arguing for. Trolling? No, not my intent. Asking questions that I think need to be asked? Yes.
I’m starting to get that.
Here’s the timeline for natural resources in Canada:
1867: Confederation of Canada; the four original provinces are given control over all natural resources and Crown lands in each province (Constitution Act, 1867, s. 109).
1870: Canada pays the Hudson Bay Company £ 300,000 for the transfer of Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory (i.e. - the territory to the north and west of Rupert’s Land). See: Rupert’s Land and North-Western Territory Order
1870: Parliament of Canada creates the Province of Manitoba, the fifth Province, and the North-West Territories, a federal territory. The federal government retains control over the natural resources in the NWT, since it is a federal territory, but also in the Province of Manitoba. Unlike the four original provinces, s. 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867 does not apply in Manitoba. See: Manitoba Act, 1870, s. 30.
1871 - British Columbia joins Confederation. As part of the Terms of Union, British Columbia surrenders the Peace River Block to the federal government as part of the terms for the building of the CPR.
1905 - Alberta and Saskatchewan created by the federal Parliament. As in Manitoba, the federal government retained control of the natural resources in the two new provinces; s. 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867 does not apply. See: Saskatchewan Act, s. 21; Alberta Act, s. 21.
1930 - Natural Resources Acts transfer the natural resources from the federal government to the four western provinces; transfer is constitutionally entrenched by the Constitution Act, 1930, effectively extending s. 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to the four western provinces.
1982 - Section 92A added to the Constitution Act, 1867, granting further powers to the provinces in respect of natural resources.
Northern Piper, thank you. It seems I should seriously consider that LL.M. in legal history. 
You’re asking about what our American friends would call “eminent domain.” Generally speaking, the rules in the US and Canada are similar: what the federal government wants in terms of land, the federal government gets.
But (and it is a big but), the federal government cannot simply seize. Well, technically, it can; but practically speaking, it never does. It negotiates with the current owners for a fair price; usually, fair market price. Once the deal is done and the agreed-upon price is paid, the feds can move in and do as they please.
I will admit that I do not know how this works with First Nations. But I do know that when it comes to non-First Nations land, the feds have the resources to get their way. After negotiations with the current owner, of course.
Getting to the substance of Flying Dutchman’s post, the federal decision to retain the resources created what we would now call asymmetrical federalism, where the provinces had unequal powers and the four western provinces were at a marked disadvantage to the other provinces.
At Confederation, the original provinces were assigned two different revenue sources under their own control: direct taxes and licence revenue (Constitution Act, 1867, and the natural resources. At the time, it was acknowledged that the scope of provincial taxation power was not enough to run the provincial governments; the revenue from natural resources was considered to be key to ensuring the provinces had adequate revenues to carry out their mandates. (There were also transfer payments from the federal government, but those were not under direct provincial control, and so are a different issue).
When the federal government set up the three Prairie provinces, it acknowledged that the lack of control over natural resources would undercut the ability of the three governments to carry out their functions, and so in each of the Acts it provided for an additional federal subsidy to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in lieu of natural resource revenue. Again, however, this subsidy was under the exclusive control of the federal government. It got to set the amount, and the three Prairie provinces had to make do with whatever the feds gave them.
This arrangement created an ongoing source of tension between the three Prairie provinces and the federal government. It was one of the major sources of western alienation, the sense that they were junior partners in Confederation, operating under limits that the other provinces did not have to face. The other provinces all had control over their resources; they hadn’t been required to surrender them to the feds as a condition of entering Confederation.
Finally, in 1930, the federal government accepted that equality in Canada’s Confederation required that the three Prairie provinces and B.C. should have exactly the same control over their resources, and the revenues from them, as the other provinces. The transfer of the natural resources eliminated a major source of western alienation and grievance. (Just in time for the Great Depression and the Dustbowl, which essentially eliminated world demand for commodities, but that’s just an accident of history.
Thankyou Northern Piper for the timeline.
Obviously I missed a little constitutional history. Rather than turn over resources to the western provinces, it would have been more fair to rescind s. 109 altogether. However, I admit that would have been almost politically impossible.
I don’t think the issue is one of provincial control over a province’s oil (it’s Alberta’s oil, not BC’s oil or the fed’s oil). It is an issue of federal control over inter-provincial works, as per s.10 of the Constitution.
Section 92 (10) gives jurisdiction to the provinces over works within their own boundaries, with the exception that s. 92 (10) (a) gives the feds jurisdiction over works that extend beyond a provincs, and s. 92 (10) (c) gives the feds jurisdiction over works that lie entirely within a province but are for the advantage of more than just that province.
A few years ago, the Province of Alberta argued that the extensive natural gas pipeline network in Alberta that began under Alberta jurisdiction should continue under Alberta jurisdiction rather than be transferred to federal jurisdiction, notwithstanding that some of the gas continued on down the pipe outside of Alberta. Their argument did a Hindenburg.
The one thing that really bothered me about expropriation from 1L property class–well, EVERYTHING about expropriation bothers me–(and maybe you can tell me if this is the same federally), is that if say, Ontario decides to expropriate my land, “fair market value” as defined by the statute has nothing to do with what the government is going to use my land for.
So, say I’m the last hold out for an open pit coal mine, or they want a new high speed rail line to roll over my home. The fact that these works are worth billions upon billions of dollars to the province, and will be extremely expensive to circumvent should I not agree to sell, they don’t factor that into “fair market value.” At least not as codified in the statute. And that’s bullshit, because then it’s no longer what the market price is. Any land you expropriate to build an oil pipeline should be commensurate to how much money you stand to gain from the oil, IMHO.
Not everything about expropriation bothers me - sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few (see also: Calgary ring road).
I suspect you’d say the exact same thing about any PQ leader, up to and including René Lévesque. I’m no big fan of Marois, but other than being PQ leader (and therefore a sovereigntist, which obviously will attract your ire) I have no idea what she’s done that’s so objectionable to you. As for the fact that she doesn’t speak very good English, I’m reminded of the discussion from a few months ago, where we basically reached a consensus that nobody should care if the Supreme Court justices, the auditor general, and heck, maybe the official languages commissioner didn’t speak any French, because they’ve got staff for that and anyway if we want good, competent people, we can’t expect them to waste their time learning languages. Well, Marois’s got staff for that. Similarly:
Can’t really expect anglophones to see this campaign as anything else than “good federalists vs. eeeevil separatists”, but for now the issues I’ve heard discussed included healthcare, culture, economy (including resource extraction), education, and especially corruption (and with Jacques Duchesneau being a candidate for the CAQ, this might very well be the theme of the campaign). So no, the national question isn’t going to be the major theme here. Plus, anybody in Quebec can tell you that the Liberals are centre-right, the PQ is centre-left, and Québec solidaire is strong left. The CAQ is a bit harder to place, what with them trying to establish their image as non-ideological and attracting candidates who don’t have a definite position on the left vs. right spectrum, but most people would still call them centre-right to right. And anyway, why do we need to have parties attached to those labels?
It is possible that in a dispute between two Canadian provinces, one of them being Quebec, the Quebec government’s position might actually be based on sound regard for what’s good for Quebecers’, and not on a desire to “hose” the rest of Canada? Huh, guess not.
Happy Simcoe Day, everyone!
I understand that not everyone calls it Simcoe Day. I would like to take a brief moment to outline why I would like to see it renamed across the country.
John Graves Simcoe was instrumental in the elimination of the institution of slavery. Upper Canada, under his Governorship, implemented the Act Against Slavery, which made Upper Canada the first British colony to abolish slavery. (Technically, it eliminated new slaves rather than emancipating people who were then enslaved; that was the compromise that was forced upon Simcoe at the time.)
From the historic plaque commemorating Chloe Cooley -
I like to think that Slavery was an institution that would have been eliminated eventually, but I am proud of the part that Canada played in hastening its demise, and I honour the memory of John Graves Simcoe for his forward-thinking courage!
You’d suspect wrong and have cast all sorts of biased assumptions on me. If someone luke Bouchard or Duceppe were leading the PQ but not banging the sovereignty wardrum every 30 minutes I would seriously consider voting for that party because of my disgust with the PLQ and my - so far - lack of attraction to other parties. I am federalist, but also very much pro- Quebec and feel that Marois would rather cripple us all for the future in oeder to guarantee that she could order a subway sandwich in French today. She is petty and short sighted and a hypocrite and harms us more than she helps.
I do not hold the opinion you just assigned to me with regards to judges or…anything really. Knee jerk to defend Quebec all you like, but do not lie about my own opinions. I am not just some “anglophone” who holds whatever twusted, simplified, ridiculous view you have just painted me with.
Sure it’s possible. So Alberta does the same thing - all’s fair, eh? (Except apparently we have some very odd Canadians who seem to think that Alberta shouldn’t own the rights to its own resources like the real Canadian provinces.)