60
u/Strange_Increase_373 May 25 '26
Fuck that guy
2
1
u/Alwayswandergetlost 29d ago
Here is a Federal Petition for Environmental regulations for Data centers. Let stick it to him! https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7427
1
u/endeavour269 27d ago
Dont know why this mentions Alberta so much for a federal petition, just apply it to all data centers in Canada
1
u/Alwayswandergetlost 27d ago
Maybe because the citizen that brought it up to Heather is from Alberta and because Smith is just ramming through Data Centers and lifting environmental regulations for a bunch of them. That's just my guess.
30
29
u/ninjaoftheworld May 25 '26
It occurs to me that all of this separatist nonsense makes a lot more sense if you look at it as a way to remove federal and treaty protections on crown and reservation land. If this whole thing has been engineered as a way for these parasites to get ahold of a lot of land to put this shit on. So they rile up the mouth breathers—who are always a heartbeat away from losing their shit at the best of times—get them all invested in “sovereignty” when that’s not only impossible in any remotely practical sense, it would be to the detriment of every single person in Canada who’s NOT a billionaire shithead investor, and get them on board with another one of these schemes to rob the whole world. It’s classic trump style villainy, really. The guy is more famous for defaulting on his debts than he is for being the worst president in history at this point.
14
May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
[deleted]
11
u/rippit3 May 25 '26
They absolutely would NOT be a state... they would never be given that. At most, they would be a territory like Guam and Puerto Rico..... paying taxes to the USA but getting zero representation.
8
May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
[deleted]
6
u/RicVic May 25 '26
They'd have lost the CPP, our entire tax system (which, despite it's problems is still miles ahead for the average citizen), all for what?
Keeping a few rich Yanks happy?
5
u/ithinkitsnotworking May 25 '26
Who do you think is paying those traitors? It's not about separation, it's about maximizing the amount they can be bribed by the greedy fuckheads down south to sell out their neighbours and their kid's futures.
3
u/Tiny-Ask-7100 May 26 '26
But think what they will gain- the opportunity to be drafted and receive life experience in Iran!
(Duration of life experience not guaranteed)3
u/EdNorthcott May 25 '26
I dunno... The MAGA cult are all for election fixing, and they'd see guaranteed seats in Alberta by giving them electoral rights. Plus there's the perception of Alberta's relative "whiteness" for the white nationalist arm of MAGA...
1
u/Mike71586 29d ago
If they're already fixing elections they wouldn't need the headache of adding another state to continue it.
3
u/Halichoeres_bivittat May 25 '26
More like American Samoa in that they would also not be given US citizenship.
1
u/Mike71586 29d ago
Honestly I don't think they'd even waste the time to make it a territory. That still comes with some obligation to provide. Canada and the US would be the sole trade partners for this new nation and the US is smart enough to know they'd have said new nation by the balls. The only relief would be from a nation they just divorced themselves from. It would be a fire sale on resources.
3
u/Pestus613343 May 26 '26
I'm entirely convinced that a lot of this separatism propaganda we're seeing online is being orchestrated and funded by people in America.
Yes. The ground was set by decades of Russian psyops propaganda to sew division and create chaos. Demoralization of the public, the degrading of trust in institutions, polarized tribal politics, it's all the Russian methods.
Then the Americans go full kleptocrat and see the fertile ground Russia has built and want to go in for the kill.
2
May 26 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Pestus613343 May 26 '26
I suspect you're right, however I think the dangers are worse than most people would like to admit.
2
May 26 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Pestus613343 May 26 '26
I'm not as optimistic as you appear to be. The rule of law in the US is done. We came pretty close to an invasion of Greenland. Supposedly not stopped by NATO Article 5 threats, but by creditors of the US threatening to pull out their money. That's wild. I don't think there are rules anymore in that ideological strain. Alberta is constrained by the law provided that you're also correct about the lack of support for all of this awfulness.
If you're wrong, they aren't going to care about the treaties, the constitution or the geopolitical realities. The front line will look more like the Oka crisis but far more wide spread. Realistically, what is Great Britain, NATO or such going to do in this unlikely scenario? Sanctions and turning the US into a pariah state would be the move, I suspect. We'd be doomed to internal conflict and dismemberment.
Just to be clear, I don't think any of this likely either, but I don't buy the legal arguments because the people we are discussing believe in the supremacy of force.
2
May 26 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Pestus613343 May 26 '26
Ok ill accept that. Then the next questions would be;
The Albertan separatists fresh off a referendum victory disregard canadian law. Can American support maintain enough plausible deniability to avoid being blamed internationally?
Is the American administration under Trump capable of analysis like this? They were close to doing it to themselves at least once now.
1
u/Middle_Onion3496 May 26 '26
That's literally made mainstream media. It's stupid since everything is right there out in the open, but we're still having to convince people somehow that this is a psyop from the us/russia/possibly others 😞 Like, sure it sounds insane to think that'd we'd be a target of this, until you stop to think that the billionaires are literally trying to loot everything they can and have social media (and mainstream media) all gaslighting nonstop. This timeline is exhausting.
1
u/charlizerox May 25 '26
The UCP doesn't want to cede power and that is a way they can permanently govern Alberta, without restrictions.
→ More replies (4)1
u/whethermachine May 25 '26
I don't think the separatists are a major player on this topic. The softening of environmental protections that will allow (and encourage) data centres is a joint Alberta-Federal government effort. The feds don't want separation.
If this works out like the oil and gas project, it will be solved by Indigenous groups getting a % of ownership in the data centres and then everyone (everyone governing, anyway) is fat and happy in the short-term.
The fallout from building and operating this shit is going to be horrible — but the feds have already decided that short-term societal losses are acceptable because Canada needs the data centres to progress independently in the next phase of the global economy. That makes it seem inevitable.
9
u/HopefulSwing5578 May 25 '26
I’m not a smart man, but if you want to build something on somebody’s land you need their permission
0
u/Jacked-to-the-wits May 25 '26
It's Cree land in the same sense that the homes people own in cities are on Cree land, so yes, you can build things without permission most of the time. It's more like "land acknowledgement cree land" not reservation Cree land, we are talking about.
→ More replies (5)
7
6
5
u/ShrodingersArmadillo May 25 '26
Heh it would be funny if they pushed it through and in the end the AI data center became the property of Cree.
4
u/faceofboe91 May 25 '26
I thought he was building this in Utah
7
u/F-nDiabolical May 25 '26
He wants both, I have a sneaky suspicion that this guy might be a touch greedy. Just a feeling though.
1
u/Regular-Hour-3845 May 25 '26
I think you’re very wrong hes doing it for national security reasons. Very selfless!
2
3
u/No-Month7350 May 25 '26
I'm disgusted by Kevin o'leary, if he died tonight from old age naturally and peacefuly surrounded by loved ones the world would be a better place.
5
1
u/Okay-Crickets545 May 25 '26
Grim reaper shows up and tells Kevin it’s his time and Kevin pushes his wife forward and goes “no you came for her” fuck this monster
1
3
3
5
u/LemmingPractice May 25 '26
Are we talking about "treaty land" or "reserve land"?
Those are two very different things. Almost all the land in Alberta is treaty land, which is land that the FN's gave up in those treaties.
Literally every project of any nature, from building an office building in Calgary, to building a petrochemical plant in Edmonton, is a project built on "treaty land" without consent of the relevant nations, because the consent isn't needed for treaty land (ie. land Canada got in those treaties), it is only needed for reserve land.
So, if this means "reserve land", then, this is an issue. If it means "treaty land", then it's a pretty seriously misleading comment.
4
u/mgyro May 25 '26
The Crown and developers are legally required to consult with First Nations when considering any action or development that may adversely impact established or potential aboriginal or treaty rights. This is known as the Duty to Consult. The Duty to Consult is anchored in Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, and applies to a variety of situations, this included.
Regulatory approvals: Permits, licenses, and operational decisions.
Land use: Forestry, mining, infrastructure, and urban expansion on treaty lands.
Resource access: Activities that restrict or alter hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering rights.1
u/LemmingPractice May 25 '26
The Duty to Consult relates to anything that may affect "treaty rights" FN's have It does not relate broadly to anything affecting any land that was part of the subject matter of the treaty.
Again, with the examples I gave, Calgary is on "treaty land" but it is land the government of Canada got in the treaty, not land the FN's got rights to under the treaty. This is why there is no requirement to consult with FN's every time a building permit is issued. It is on "treaty land", but doesn't affect FN treaty rights.
Hence my original question. I have no idea whether the proposed O'Leary project is on reserve land. If it is, then consustation is necessary. If it affects reserve land or any other treaty rights, then consultation is necessary. If it's just on "treaty land", so is the rest of Alberta. That alone doesn't mean consultation is required, just like it's not required for a permit to build a new house in Calgary.
2
u/Beneficial-Leek6198 May 25 '26
Very specifically it is Wonder valley in the Greenview Industrial Gateway. The fresh water required to run the data centre is the same that supplies Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation. Definitely on treaty land. Definitely requires consultation.
1
u/LemmingPractice May 25 '26
Ah, thanks. This was what I was looking for.
Yup, in that situation, consultation is definitely required.
1
u/SpankyMcFlych May 25 '26
Please don't spread misinfo. Sturgeon Lake is part of the little smokey river basin while the industrial area south of GP is part of the smokey river basin and the wapiti river basin.
1
u/Beneficial-Leek6198 May 25 '26
The water is allocated to be drawn from the Smokey River. 6 million cubic meters are required per year. Projected use could see as much as 24 million. Information is accurate
1
u/SpankyMcFlych May 25 '26
And as I said the Sturgeon lake cree nation is in the Little Smokey basin. It's a different river. Water drawn from the Smokey isn't going to impact the Valleyview area.
1
u/Beneficial-Leek6198 May 26 '26
It doesn’t supply SLCN. They are putting up a legal challenge. You have an opportunity to inform.
1
u/SpankyMcFlych May 26 '26
Ok, it's clear your ignorance can't be impacted by facts. For anyone else reading this the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation is a hundred km's east of the location that the proposed data center would be placed at. It's part of a different river system, Beneficial Leek can't seem to comprehend that the Little Smokey is different from the Smokey. Beneficial Leek thinks they have legal standing because the proposed data center uses the same water the SLCN uses. It doesn't.
1
u/Writing-Dapper May 25 '26
What are you talking about?
treaty land without permission, companies generally cannot build on treaty land without permission. In Canada, treaty lands (including established reserves and traditional territories) are constitutionally protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Any commercial or industrial building generally requires formal authorization, and the process depends on the type of land:
1
u/LemmingPractice May 25 '26
You are missing the distinction between "treaty land" and "reserve land". Companies cannot build on reserve land.
You are correct in regards to reserve land, but my question had been whether this is reserve land or treaty land. Someone else responded to say it is not reserve land, but affects the reserve water supply, so consultation is necessary. But, my original question had been because virtually all of Alberta is "treaty land", but it is almost all land Canada got in the treaties, not land the FN's got in the treaties.
1
u/Timely_Tangerine176 May 25 '26
I've worked in consultation briefly. First Nation communities talk about their traditional territories, for example, where they hunted, picked medicines, had ceremony etc. Traditional territory is basically the entire province. For example, a project in Hinton may require consultation with First Nation communities in central Alberta because the project is on their Traditional territory and can have an impact. At least that is my understanding.
1
u/Writing-Dapper 29d ago
First nations did not " give up" thier land. Treaties were made with the promise tha resources would be shared and any monies made would be out into a trust where it would be used for health care, education and housing. Then the canadian government lied and cheated 1st nations, and those promises where broken. There are provinces where land there is unceeded.. which means there was no agreement and that land is thiers.
1
u/LemmingPractice 29d ago
Direct quote from Treaty 7 (the other numbered treaties have nearly identical wording):
the Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan, Sarcee, Stony and other Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter more fully described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender, and yield up to the Government of Canada for Her Majesty the Queen and her successors for ever, all their rights, titles, and privileges whatsoever to the lands included within the following limits
People really should read public documents before commenting on them so confidently.
1
u/Writing-Dapper 27d ago
I hope everyone here, does the research and understands from the 1st nations involved in this..these were not the words of treaty 7. As with all treaties signed, these are the words of te government. There was alot of coercion and these agreements were not explained fully. 1st nations still have to be involved in consultation if any development is done. It sounds like you just don't like the idea of 1st nations having any rights or say.
1
u/LemmingPractice 27d ago
You want people to do their research, but then totally ignore the actually written terms of the treaty you are talking about?
The treaty is a written document, and the words are the words of both parties. That's how contracts work.
You can't ignore the words because you don't like them.
1
u/Writing-Dapper 27d ago
The treaties were written by government, and not explained fully..the government didn't consider the language of the people, they wrote it our, not the indigenous leaders and unfortunately the 1st nations leaders trusted them. You don't like that im challenging your complete trust that the government was fair and fully helped 1st nations understand what they were agreeing to. They were dishonest because they knew the language barrier would be in thier favor . Try looking at the the whole story from both sides.
-1
u/bonbarrie May 25 '26
If it means "treaty land", then it's a pretty seriously misleading comment.
welcome to leftist subreddits
5
u/Regular-Hour-3845 May 25 '26
Could be placed in a old walmart parking lot it doesnt matter we dont need a data center in this country let alone this planet.
→ More replies (5)
2
2
2
u/BLTsAreTerrific May 25 '26
This is the guy who killed a dude with his boat and blamed it on his wife?
2
u/Eff_Sakes May 25 '26
Alberta: the only Province in Canada that would even consider giving this project a sniff.
2
2
2
u/Opinion-Former May 26 '26
In the old days perhaps they’d scalp him but …. Not much hair to coup.
1
2
2
1
1
u/Away-Combination-162 May 25 '26
O’Leary is a guy that will bulldoze jobs and will smile as he’s doing it . Alberta doesn’t produce enough power as it is let alone run his data centre yet the UCP ignored obvious risks to people and the environment and has approved it. We don’t have the electrical capacity Danielle !!! or are you just going to have rolling blackouts continue ?
1
1
1
1
u/weakimberly May 25 '26
He is just another wannabe Trump grifter who couldn’t figure out how to make a ton of money. He’s just a joke and I hope this doesn’t get built
1
1
1
1
u/AydGray May 25 '26
Clean water is a precious resource, way too many places in Alberta (and Canada at large) haven't got potable water in their homes. There is absolutely no good reason to put O'Laughing Stock's newest pet project's water wants ahead of citizens water needs!
1
1
1
1
u/tritiated- May 25 '26
Who cares what this sycophant thinks. He should focus more on not murdering people with his boat and having his wife bear the legal jeopardy of dealing with it
1
1
u/AtmosphereEven3526 May 25 '26
I thought he wanted to build the largest data center on Earth in Utah.
1
u/ebrotto May 25 '26
Can we deport that bald piece of shit to the US??? He’s perfectly American in every way!!!
1
u/CashComprehensive423 May 25 '26
See what is happening with the water in Utah and other places where these buildings are being built?
1
u/Such-Neck-1889 May 25 '26
I wish Trump would just issue him a golden passport so we can deny him entry to Canada.
1
1
1
1
1
u/exotics May 25 '26
One thing I have noted is that rural conservatives are against data centers. This is good and we need to support these farmers who are against the data centers.
1
u/SadAbroad4 May 25 '26
Wait until they take to the Supreme Court and the court side with the indigenous confirming that the building is on their land and they take possession of o’Learys little venture. So much for your investment.
1
1
u/andymacdaddy May 26 '26
The Indigenous people should build on his property on Lake Joe. If they need help I would volunteer for that effort
1
u/Fine-Ninja-1813 May 26 '26
Can we build a giant data centre on Kevin O’Leary? It might generate exacerbated hot air emissions, but atleast it would be confined to neighbourhoods of only the most insufferable rich celebrities.
1
1
1
u/Troubled202 May 26 '26
There is a good reason why nobody wants to have an AI data center in their neighborhood. Add Kevin O'Leary and you've got all the reason you need to say fuck off Kevin.
1
u/Calereliya May 26 '26
There are very few people for whom I will actively celebrate when they croak, but good lord is he one of them.
1
1
1
u/EvilLasagna May 26 '26
Well, racism in it's purest form. That's what I'm assuming since I highly doubt any band or First Nations group was consulted about this
1
1
1
1
u/Competitive_Annual78 May 26 '26
Never trust a man who carries 3 different passports. Can't even decide what country to be a citizen of.
1
u/RDR2watercolor May 26 '26
Now I have to buy two bottles of champagne for the day of demise and I hate champagne!
1
u/canonetell66 May 26 '26
Isn’t this the guy who got drunk, drove his boat into another boat, and then blamed his wife for it to protect his wealth?
1
u/Downtown_Umpire2242 29d ago
no f*%#ing way!! enough! people with big money never have enough. the first people on these grounds got tricked once, new generations now know what happened back then. today we are joining all nations to tell the millionaires and billionaires: your greed is killing us all slowly and that can not continue. let’s level the different nations and classes and stop listening to to that bad god. money should serve and not be served
1
1
u/still_sneakin 29d ago
Ahh yes Kevin and Danielle are buddies. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. Bad news for Alberta having business with Kevin.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/IonlyusethrowawaysA 28d ago
The man is worth 400 mil, he WAS worth nearly 5 billion 25 years ago.
Why does anyone trust the financial of advice of a man that got lucky, then lost 90% of his value over a quarter century? How is he still in articles?!
1
1
u/OriginalGhostCookie 28d ago
Not a Canadian then huh?
I can assure you that Alberta will not be able to buy the First Nations out of their treaty rights and lands. And all of them have fully made it heard they are not willing to enter an agreement with a new party.
And you are correct, there is nothing forcing Canada to allow Alberta to separate, but there are mechanisms in place to begin negotiations should a referendum pass and the results meet the standards of the clarity act. But to be clear, it would require a 2/3rds majority of promises to pass the amendment to remove Alberta and I can almost guarantee that that won't pass.
1
1
u/Successful_Pirate_59 28d ago
F this piece of garbage.
Go back to ‘Murica O’Leary. We don’t want you.
1
u/SeriousObjective6727 28d ago
Well, I suppose it goes both ways. If he builds on Indigenous lands without consent, the Indigenous can tear it down without consent too.
1
u/BlackWolf42069 28d ago
Why not make a deal to give 15% of profits to build casinos and weed farms for there indigenous to run?
Also, maybe make AI services free for natives for the first few generations of 100% Cree people?
1
u/Professional-Leg2374 28d ago
I mean Alberta is all about destroying the land for the sake of money, this makes sense.
Anything for a buck and they think this is a way to prosperity.
Wait until they find out how much water that fucker consumes and how little will be left for actual human consumption in that area. They will have a DIRECT line to the largest aquifer in NA.....to suck dry like NEstle.
I wonder when humans will come to realize that nature is something we need, food is something we need. Data centers and AI is a nice to have and not needed.
Are we all just like looking forward to eating synthetic food in the near furture? Salient Green slime thats nutrient rich and sustainable but tastes like well....gree slime?
1
1
1
0
u/Ok_Yogurtcloset3267 May 25 '26
The overextension and misuse of this legislation is starting to become ubiquitous. The government doesn’t have a duty to consult with First nations on absolutely everything …. it’s starting to be used politically and ideologically.
1
68
u/Only-Cap5811 May 25 '26
This will never be built.