AHC: Canadian Alaska

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
Maybe I'm crazy but you could see Yukon merged with Alaska. Provincial status? I don't see it happening until maybe now. The economics do not make sense, secondly Ottawa would not want to give up control over that many resources. The North has been "opening up" since the 70's and neither have been provinced. The beginning stages, sure, NWT has been split.

Secondly, Alberta never wanted a partner in oil production. They always wanted to be The producer. They fought the National Energy board not just because they had to sell to the rest of Canada at a lower rate but because it encouraged petro-exploration in other parts of the country, ie Altantic off-shore which had been discovered to have bigger deposits and better quality. A direct threat to Albertas domination of the Canadian market.

To me, if Alaska was Canadian, there would have still been two territories.

Alaska would have had enough people for provincial statues in 1905, especially with the Yukon attached. It would have at least achieved it by 1950 at the latest.

A second oil producer is ALWAYS a benefit in parliament, Alberta would never scuttle another province's resource ambitions because that might actually inhibit their own. Why would Alberta scuttle Alaska's oil, when they're probably owned by the same producers? They never did it with oil exploration in the Northwest Territory. I have no idea where you got the idea that the NEP was fought over oil rights offshore in other jurisdictions, it was almost exclusively due to selling it to eastern Canada at a loss. Alberta lost hundreds of billions of dollars of GDP over it, and eastern oil wouldn't have affected them virtually at all.
 
Agreed, but Alaska still has useful ports (i.e. Anchorage) on the great circle route between China and Japan and the West Coast of North America, so I think that maybe half as many people as OTL is a reasonable estimate for how British/Canadian Alaska might turn out.

Half as many as OTL sounds right, I'd picture it with similar demographics and economics to OTL's Yukon territory, but perhaps gaining Provincial status sooner because of an oil boom? Hell maybe the gold rush pushes it close to Provincial status sooner.

I'm just curious, but why is this the consensus? How would Canada have administered Alaska differently that it would have attracted fewer settlers than in OTL?
 
I'm just curious, but why is this the consensus? How would Canada have administered Alaska differently that it would have attracted fewer settlers than in OTL?

Canada generally did a poor job with northern administration, so it stands to reason that Canada would have mismanaged Alaska too. It's better than the current Arctic territories so it's bound to be better than the current lands, but less productive than OTL.
 
A second oil producer is ALWAYS a benefit in parliament, Alberta would never scuttle another province's resource ambitions because that might actually inhibit their own. Why would Alberta scuttle Alaska's oil, when they're probably owned by the same producers? They never did it with oil exploration in the Northwest Territory. I have no idea where you got the idea that the NEP was fought over oil rights offshore in other jurisdictions, it was almost exclusively due to selling it to eastern Canada at a loss. Alberta lost hundreds of billions of dollars of GDP over it, and eastern oil wouldn't have affected them virtually at all.

I agree, in Canadas case a second major oil producer is very important, that does little for the coffers of Alberta.

The exploration up North was completely under Ottawas control. As well the loudest backlash was the selling of below market, as well as the double taxing.

As to the point of Alberta, it is hard to quantify, and cite my father who was heavily involved with first Albertas wells, then was a point man when companies were subsidized to do exploratory drilling. As soon as the subsidies ran up the drilling did too, until the recent decade while oil was hot. Many in the industry saw it as an exercise in futility. Until they were making finds of Texas Sweet under Lake Ainsley in Cape Breton, and off the Scotian shelf. The deposits off the coast here rival Saudi Arabia, it would do Alberta Oilsand production no favours to have a the much market ready product elsewheres in the country.

My old man left the oil industry because when he was out west all he heard from "Albertans" was how Maritimers and Newfs were stealing the jobs. Then when it seemed there would be work in his field back home, they were finding it out here, then the subsidies ended because Alberta "won" the battle with Ottawa, and the NEP was history come 85, and he still had to be out west incase things picked back up.

I dont mean to sound anti western-canada, which I am not, but while the NEP might have been well intentioned and maybe poorly timed, it was the right thing to do. Newfoundland wouldnt have had the hibernia platforms had it not been for it for starters.
 
I agree, in Canadas case a second major oil producer is very important, that does little for the coffers of Alberta.

The exploration up North was completely under Ottawas control. As well the loudest backlash was the selling of below market, as well as the double taxing.

As to the point of Alberta, it is hard to quantify, and cite my father who was heavily involved with first Albertas wells, then was a point man when companies were subsidized to do exploratory drilling. As soon as the subsidies ran up the drilling did too, until the recent decade while oil was hot. Many in the industry saw it as an exercise in futility. Until they were making finds of Texas Sweet under Lake Ainsley in Cape Breton, and off the Scotian shelf. The deposits off the coast here rival Saudi Arabia, it would do Alberta Oilsand production no favours to have a the much market ready product elsewheres in the country.

My old man left the oil industry because when he was out west all he heard from "Albertans" was how Maritimers and Newfs were stealing the jobs. Then when it seemed there would be work in his field back home, they were finding it out here, then the subsidies ended because Alberta "won" the battle with Ottawa, and the NEP was history come 85, and he still had to be out west incase things picked back up.

I dont mean to sound anti western-canada, which I am not, but while the NEP might have been well intentioned and maybe poorly timed, it was the right thing to do. Newfoundland wouldnt have had the hibernia platforms had it not been for it for starters.
You'd sound more anti-Albertan than anti-west Canadian
There is more out this way than just angry oil cowboys
 
You'd sound more anti-Albertan than anti-west Canadian
There is more out this way than just angry oil cowboys


Lol! Fair, I can see how I may be viewed in that manner.

I lived there as a wee'un, and have visited family there many times and have no problems with Alberta per se. My bone of contention is how it has the air of the Quebec of the west in that it is oil instead of language. We wouldnt have had the Notwithstanding clause in our constitution had it not been for Lougheeds heel digging just to spite Trudeaus efforts. I also find the memory of most (not all) Albertans to be short, when is comes to the history of the Canadian economy.
 
Lol! Fair, I can see how I may be viewed in that manner.

I lived there as a wee'un, and have visited family there many times and have no problems with Alberta per se. My bone of contention is how it has the air of the Quebec of the west in that it is oil instead of language. We wouldnt have had the Notwithstanding clause in our constitution had it not been for Lougheeds heel digging just to spite Trudeaus efforts. I also find the memory of most (not all) Albertans to be short, when is comes to the history of the Canadian economy.
Meh they arnt going anywhere without a coastline let them whine, it' what they do.
There are plenty of good people in Alberta but the prevailing political scene is one of whining and moaning.
Mind you in general you get a kind of whiney feel out here in general just because our economic contribution doesn't match our representation (it matches our population what a concept)
 
I'm just curious, but why is this the consensus? How would Canada have administered Alaska differently that it would have attracted fewer settlers than in OTL?

Canada generally did a poor job with northern administration, so it stands to reason that Canada would have mismanaged Alaska too. It's better than the current Arctic territories so it's bound to be better than the current lands, but less productive than OTL.

As the Gunslinger says, Ottawa has kind of mishandled our Northern resources forever (with that Ontario/Quebec focus its' always had). It's always been one that has focused more on exploiting more southerly resources, and the northern territories have been sort of an afterthought. Sure there's resources, but there has always been a very big cost analysis done on whether its feasible to exploit them in terms of required infrastructure investment and necessary capital or subsidies towards businesses. Until very recently I'd say Ottawa (and well, both East and West) have shown little interest in expanding the money train up north.
 
You'd sound more anti-Albertan than anti-west Canadian
There is more out this way than just angry oil cowboys
I think it's a fair insight, speaking as someone from Texas. Oil is big politics, more so the more of the economy it occupies.
 
My old man left the oil industry because when he was out west all he heard from "Albertans" was how Maritimers and Newfs were stealing the jobs. Then when it seemed there would be work in his field back home, they were finding it out here, then the subsidies ended because Alberta "won" the battle with Ottawa, and the NEP was history come 85, and he still had to be out west incase things picked back up..

I guess Alberta "won" in that the price of oil collapsed and the government ended the NEP because it longer needed it. Hibernia only got off the ground because of huge government investment, which wouldn't have been affected in the slightest by the NEP. It was always a risky play when the price of oil was low.

If the NEP wouldn't have been enacted, it wouldn't have mattered who was stealing jobs because there would have been an absurd labour shortage. Nearly every well ever drilled in the last forty years would have been profitable at the price point in the early 1980s and Alberta would have entered an unprecedented boom and sucked up labour from every portion of the country. It would have made the 2000s boom look like a hiccup.
Meh they arnt going anywhere without a coastline let them whine, it' what they do.
There are plenty of good people in Alberta but the prevailing political scene is one of whining and moaning.
Mind you in general you get a kind of whiney feel out here in general just because our economic contribution doesn't match our representation (it matches our population what a concept)
You'd whine too if the government pissed on your leg and told you it was rain every time you had a legitimate grievance.
 
Last edited:
I guess Alberta "won" in that the price of oil collapsed and the government ended the NEP because it longer needed it. Hibernia only got off the ground because of huge government investment, which wouldn't have been affected in the slightest by the NEP. It was always a risky play when the price of oil was low.

Hence the parenthese.

If the NEP wouldn't have been enacted, it wouldn't have mattered who was stealing jobs because there would have been an absurd labour shortage. Nearly every well ever drilled in the last forty years would have been profitable at the price point in the early 1980s and Alberta would have entered an unprecedented boom and sucked up labour from every portion of the country. It would have made the 2000s boom look like a hiccup.

The 80's was the beginning of the Tar Sands program in Alberta. In fact Lougheed dragged his feet on their development, because of his battle against the NEP. In order for the oilsands to be the level of profitable the oil companies are used to, oil needs to be at the price it was in the 2000's.

What makes me laugh (good natured), is that we are discussing a "National Policy" that enriched Central Canada, while leaving some of the other provinces holding the bag. I'll give you a hint, it happened a 100 years before the NEP, and created the economic conditions on the Right Coast.

Back to the discussion of Canadian Alaska, Alaska never had either the population or rooted economic development to be a province. Come the turn of the 21st C. perhaps. I feel the panhandle debate would go in BCs favour, which would mean less usable coastline for an Arctic port. Also would Ottawa want it to be a province that quick? Its population is only now a little over 750k, GDP $45m. It's current economy revolves around three parts, either oil/gas, government and then everything else.

What I also question is when would the Alaska highway be built?
 
The 80's was the beginning of the Tar Sands program in Alberta. In fact Lougheed dragged his feet on their development, because of his battle against the NEP. In order for the oilsands to be the level of profitable the oil companies are used to, oil needs to be at the price it was in the 2000's.

What makes me laugh (good natured), is that we are discussing a "National Policy" that enriched Central Canada, while leaving some of the other provinces holding the bag. I'll give you a hint, it happened a 100 years before the NEP, and created the economic conditions on the Right Coast.

Back to the discussion of Canadian Alaska, Alaska never had either the population or rooted economic development to be a province. Come the turn of the 21st C. perhaps. I feel the panhandle debate would go in BCs favour, which would mean less usable coastline for an Arctic port. Also would Ottawa want it to be a province that quick? Its population is only now a little over 750k, GDP $45m. It's current economy revolves around three parts, either oil/gas, government and then everything else.

What I also question is when would the Alaska highway be built?
Alaska totally would have had enough people for provincial status. it had 60,000+ people in 1905 the same as PEI in 1850. And it would have more if we added the Yukon. Alberta only had 73000 in 1901.

Oil was at the prices of 2000s in the first half of the 1980s, if there hadn't been an NEP there would have been big investment in the oil sands from both the government and private industry. Lougheed was probably right in curbing investment though, there's no point wasting Alberta cash if it just goes straight to the federal coffers.
 
I'm not arguing the logic of Lougheed, the guy was a very smart, and capable leader.

But why would Ottawa want to make it a province? Alaska would have been bought as property, not a political entity asking to join another. As well you cannot use PEI as the standard of what can make a province, because PEI was a political entity joining another. By that use of measurement why isn't Cape Breton a Province, or Vancouver Island? Alberta had double that population in 1905 when it was Provinced. As well, was growing 60% by the decade for the next 30 years. Secondly Alaska wasn't seen as a major grain growing area, it was a remote, frozen, near lawless land with gold. The RCMP would have done their job, and Sam Steele would still have been bad ass. But it wasn't seeing the growth Alberta was, and the southern pan handle would most likely have gone to BC, at that point in time they were the demanding Province of the era, I mean they are why we have the CPR. It's sort of a rotating hat.

What if in the 80's during the NEP, Ottawa starts to develop Alaska, Inuit communities get a serious boost economically, more exposure, and a province come 89-91? Would that bring the creation of Nunavut on sooner? Or stall it because of the bar Alaska set?
 
Last edited:
You're putting a ton of hindsight onto an Alaska that had just seen one of the world's biggest gold rushes and would have had high hopes for future settlement. Small scale agriculture could have been set up in the river valleys and hunting, mining and timber ventures were established in OTL. It could have gotten the same deal Alberta and Saskatchewan had where the federal government still controls the crown land and natural resources and Alaska becomes a quasi-province (until 1931 when it's overturned). The Alaskans pay for the administration through generous federal stipends and the federal government reaps huge benefits. It's a solid deal for the feds and the Alaskans might be bribed into it like the prairies were.
 
Alaska was a US territory until 1959, I don't see why people are assuming it would gain provincial status at the same time as Alberta half a century earlier. :/

Chances are (knowing Canada) that Alaska remains a territory, but could eventually become Canada's 11th province, much like Yukon and the NWT are aspiring to become.
 
But with Alaska's gold rush, it's key location on maritime and aerial transport routes, it's oil resources, and to some degree it's agricultural potential (minimal as it is, it's more than Yukon or other OTL Canadian territories) make Alaska likely to have far more population than OTL's Canadian territories.

I think the ideal "Province of Alaska" borders would be to take the northern half of British Columbia and all of Yukon west of the Continental Divide (this means the Peace River Country would go to *Alberta and much of OTL Yukon to the Northwest Territories) and add it to Russian Alaska. This would give you a very large yet geographically sensible territory, with the population mostly clustered along the coast.
 
Dude - No aerial transport in 1905. Alaska actually has few good ports. Anchorage is entirely a man made port (and did not exist either as a port or a city prior to 1914). You've got Homer, and to a lesser extent Whitter and Seward for south central, but you're dealing with 20+ foot tides in the area.

There's a couple good natural ports in the Aleutians and on the Alaska peninsula, but those areas are geographically isolated. The Southeast is the only real area for the Canadians to be interested in, and due to the mountain ranges that effectively separate the coast strip from the rest of the land, there's little need for transportation routes there. Check the great circle routes from Vancouver, Seattle and, to a lesser extent, any other west coast port.

To get the Canadians/British Empire to take control, you have to get something going on to interest them. The Nome gold rush 50 years early might do the trick, coupled with the Klondike rush at the same time. Maybe even earlier, simultaneously with the California gold rush. The California rush takes the Americans and the Klondike/Nome rush takes the Canadian/British Empire miners. Then, prior to the Crimean war, you have the British Empire purchasing the whole area. Maybe due to a member of the house of Lords who has a personal interest in the area or something. You could try even earlier, and have Russia selling Alaska to the UK as part of the alliance during the Napoleanic wars.

Belushi TD
 
Top